We as a people need to look for political solutions instead of treating Naxalism as a menace
N. Manu Chakravarthy
Writer and rationalist thinker, Bengaluru
When we discuss Naxalism, one question instantly springs to mind. Should it be considered a social problem or a problem of law and order? To this my answer is very clear. Until we are unambiguous about the terms ‘law and order’, we cannot come to a proper and sensible conclusion. If we use the term ‘law and order’ it certainly carries a kind of self-definition. These words expose the location and position of the people who use the words ‘law and order’. So we may ask very fundamental questions, who is talking of law and order? This is actually the language of the court, the police, administrators, and to a certain extent, the middle class. In our society, more often, these terms are propelled by certain privileged group of people to safeguard their interests. When you keep raising such fundamental questions, you come to realise that terms like ‘law and order’ indicate a certain kind of hierarchy. Do we really exist in a situation where we can hope to convert the term ‘law and order’ into ‘justice and equality’? The moment we failed to translate the meaning of ‘law and order’ into ‘social equality and justice’ we also lost the moral right to pass the diktat, saying Naxalism is mere a problem of law and order.
To my knowledge, Naxalism is the colossal failure of constitutional execution, our political system and, more importantly, of the judiciary and the middle class. The rise of Naxalism should be seen as result of the of ineptitude of our system and its inability to fulfil the constitutional needs of our common, downtrodden people. Naxalism is often wrongly described as a ‘menace’. But I would like to characterise it as an anguished expression of people who have been completely betrayed by the common law of the land. They bank upon armed struggle more out of desperation and frustration. In other words, they are forcibly made to resort to violence by constant refutation of the basic rights which are supposed to be given by our Constitution. But I never believe or argue that Naxalism is inevitable to fight out the inequalities brewing in our society. What I am trying to say is that as a system we are creating social conditions in which such forms of extremism become unavoidable for certain groups of our society. We are literally compelling our own people to take to guns to express their dissent.
What else do we need to illustrate the failure of the conscience of our society and country? When a citizen is compelled to take up arms in order to express his disenchantment with the system, isn’t it the indifference of middle class that should be held responsible, at least partially, for such a turn of events? As this innate apathy continues, we will only end up prolonging the crisis.
Then, another question arises. Can anyone derive any real benefit from such acts of anger? Will this serve the purpose of those people who contemplate a state of ‘Utopian’ social equality? My answer is, again, NEVER. You can’t construct the society, no matter what Utopia that would be, on the premises of blood and death. Such extreme steps may only help to build up one more bloody state. The history of the human civilisation has already proved that one cycle of violence leads to another cycle of violence. Though we can’t deny the fact that Naxalism is created and reinforced by the inhumanness of the ruling state, we must also accept that we can’t expect anything productive out of it. The coldhearted and callous regime succeeds only in creating one more blood-mongering autocracy. What kinds of states have all the revolutions of the world delivered?
So unless we can eliminate the violence of the state, Naxalism will continue to exist and unleash other kinds of tyranny. And if you think responding to a ‘ruthless’ regime with its own coin can do anything worthy for the people or society, then you will end up nowhere for sure. The middle class appears to be cut off from the bitter reality. They are busy decrying Naxalism instead of trying to understand what really causes people to declare war on their own nation. Have these desperate men and women ever been given a chance to speak their minds? Or as a society, have we ever attempted to understand their plight? Are we really serious about political alternatives? Instead of seeking genuine solutions, we are lost in an ‘us versus them’ battle that has no end. Needless to say, the middle class is in complete consonance with the ruling class which protects the former’s interests to serve its own ends. Instead of pursuing political alternatives that could give the ‘forsaken’ sections of our country reason to trek back into the mainstream, we are stuck in useless polemics. You can dismiss the Naxalism as a cancer or a scourge. But how can you neglect the infected social conditions which create such festering tumours?
N. Manu Chakravarthy
Writer and rationalist thinker, Bengaluru
When we discuss Naxalism, one question instantly springs to mind. Should it be considered a social problem or a problem of law and order? To this my answer is very clear. Until we are unambiguous about the terms ‘law and order’, we cannot come to a proper and sensible conclusion. If we use the term ‘law and order’ it certainly carries a kind of self-definition. These words expose the location and position of the people who use the words ‘law and order’. So we may ask very fundamental questions, who is talking of law and order? This is actually the language of the court, the police, administrators, and to a certain extent, the middle class. In our society, more often, these terms are propelled by certain privileged group of people to safeguard their interests. When you keep raising such fundamental questions, you come to realise that terms like ‘law and order’ indicate a certain kind of hierarchy. Do we really exist in a situation where we can hope to convert the term ‘law and order’ into ‘justice and equality’? The moment we failed to translate the meaning of ‘law and order’ into ‘social equality and justice’ we also lost the moral right to pass the diktat, saying Naxalism is mere a problem of law and order.
To my knowledge, Naxalism is the colossal failure of constitutional execution, our political system and, more importantly, of the judiciary and the middle class. The rise of Naxalism should be seen as result of the of ineptitude of our system and its inability to fulfil the constitutional needs of our common, downtrodden people. Naxalism is often wrongly described as a ‘menace’. But I would like to characterise it as an anguished expression of people who have been completely betrayed by the common law of the land. They bank upon armed struggle more out of desperation and frustration. In other words, they are forcibly made to resort to violence by constant refutation of the basic rights which are supposed to be given by our Constitution. But I never believe or argue that Naxalism is inevitable to fight out the inequalities brewing in our society. What I am trying to say is that as a system we are creating social conditions in which such forms of extremism become unavoidable for certain groups of our society. We are literally compelling our own people to take to guns to express their dissent.
What else do we need to illustrate the failure of the conscience of our society and country? When a citizen is compelled to take up arms in order to express his disenchantment with the system, isn’t it the indifference of middle class that should be held responsible, at least partially, for such a turn of events? As this innate apathy continues, we will only end up prolonging the crisis.
Then, another question arises. Can anyone derive any real benefit from such acts of anger? Will this serve the purpose of those people who contemplate a state of ‘Utopian’ social equality? My answer is, again, NEVER. You can’t construct the society, no matter what Utopia that would be, on the premises of blood and death. Such extreme steps may only help to build up one more bloody state. The history of the human civilisation has already proved that one cycle of violence leads to another cycle of violence. Though we can’t deny the fact that Naxalism is created and reinforced by the inhumanness of the ruling state, we must also accept that we can’t expect anything productive out of it. The coldhearted and callous regime succeeds only in creating one more blood-mongering autocracy. What kinds of states have all the revolutions of the world delivered?
So unless we can eliminate the violence of the state, Naxalism will continue to exist and unleash other kinds of tyranny. And if you think responding to a ‘ruthless’ regime with its own coin can do anything worthy for the people or society, then you will end up nowhere for sure. The middle class appears to be cut off from the bitter reality. They are busy decrying Naxalism instead of trying to understand what really causes people to declare war on their own nation. Have these desperate men and women ever been given a chance to speak their minds? Or as a society, have we ever attempted to understand their plight? Are we really serious about political alternatives? Instead of seeking genuine solutions, we are lost in an ‘us versus them’ battle that has no end. Needless to say, the middle class is in complete consonance with the ruling class which protects the former’s interests to serve its own ends. Instead of pursuing political alternatives that could give the ‘forsaken’ sections of our country reason to trek back into the mainstream, we are stuck in useless polemics. You can dismiss the Naxalism as a cancer or a scourge. But how can you neglect the infected social conditions which create such festering tumours?
Read these article :-
Outlook Magazine money editor quits
Don't trust the Indian Media!
No comments:
Post a Comment