IS VIOLENCE THE VIABLE OPTION?
‘Naxal violence’ is no more an unheard word as media, both print and electronic, busy echoing it day in and day out. The conflict between the Naxalites and the Indian state is entering into a deplorable phase as both the sides are heavily armed, ready to fight – in some places already fighting – a civil war. It is against this backdrop I intend to reflect whether violence is the only way for either party.
Violence and the Tribal Belts of India
A careful study of Naxal violence –‘Naxal menace’ as our prime minister calls it – makes us sharply aware of the unheard injustices meted out to the tribals of India. Violence does not emerge all of a sudden. It is nourished by historical memories of injustice and denial of freedom. If justice is giving a person his or her due, injustice is to be defined as ‘thingifying’ of people, stripping off their dignity as persons. Illogical, insincere and short sighted attempts to define development in terms of economic gains alone led not only the British but also successive Indian governments since independence to ‘thingify’ or dehumanize the tribals who form 10.03% of Indian population (as in the 2001 Census, Integral Liberation,2010). Obviously the thingification of the tribals for the sake of the majority – by way of mining their hills, setting up SEZs and wild life sanctuaries, building huge dams, etc – has led them to adopt an aggressive and violent ideology with the hope of winning back their dignity and uniqueness. Their violent reaction is met with state violence today.
Unfortunately, the ideology that offered hope to the tribals in restoring their dignity is operating under the guise of revolution, engaged in an organized armed struggle against the Indian state to replace it with the rule of the proletariat – the classless society, in Marxian language.
The Three Approaches of the Indian State towards the Tribals
Since independence, the Indian state has had three approaches towards the tribals. A brief look at these approaches will help understand the mind of the government regarding the tribals and their problems.
1) Isolation: in the beginning of 1950s many leaders within the government opted for an approach that intended to leave the tribals in their world of hills, fearing that any external communion might destroy their cultural richness.
2) Assimilation: in the late 1950s the approach of the government towards the tribals underwent a drastic shift. Many opined that the culture of tribals was barbaric and dangerous. Hence they had to be assimilated into the mainstream of the society. Developmental projects were drawn up for the tribal belts, resulting in a sharp reaction on the part of tribal leaders, later Naxals.
3) Integration: this is rather a recent approach, with the emphasis on respecting the socio-cultural ethos of the tribals; at the same time it intends to reach out to the tribals in terms of welfare. This approach readily acknowledges that independence has not brought freedom and liberty to all the people of the land. Hence, it believes that it is necessary and important at this juncture to implement the rights and privileges enshrined in the Constitution of the country – articles 15, 16, 19, 44, 244(2), 275(1), 332, 335 and 342 (G.S. Narwani, Tribal Law in India, 81ff). It is a laudable approach that social activists at large and the government in some way are busy promoting these days. How far the schemes of this approach are implemented and how well the Naxal-hit tribal belts or Naxalites themselves respond to it is a point of discussion.
Thinkers before Marx, such as Hegel, had argued that changing people’s consciousness would alter the social, political and economic conditions. But Marx argued that material conditions determine all other conditions of life. Hence, to transform the society material conditions have to be altered. Taking this insight from Marx, Naxalism – obviously an offshoot of Marxism in India, as it was mentioned in the first paper – is keen on controlling the means of production. The land owners, industrialists, politicians, security personnel and those who oppose them are the modern bourgeois who have to be done away with.
Legitimate means, such as non-violent protests, serve only to maintain the status quo. When the poor are pushed to the walls and their resources are grabbed what other option do they have but to take violence as self-defense? The Indian state, as Naxals argue, is incapable of independent action. The Political System is owned and controlled by millionaires and billionaires for whose tune the policy-makers dance. Armed struggle is the only way to success. The Naxal revolution is a long-drawn-out struggle which will not only overthrow the existing system of governance but also replace it with a new social order. For this, they believe that the use of guns is inevitable and necessary.
Violence is not the Way Out
Indian democracy faces acute dilemmas when confronting acts violence by its own people. The use of violence by both the State and the reactionaries of the State cannot be the final solution; for violence can only increase hate and intolerance. In the present scenario, war undeniably has an attraction which peace does not. “Operation Green Hunt” (deployment of the paramilitary forces, state police and in some places the local people themselves – Salwa Judum in Chattishgharh meaning Peace March), to drive away the Naxals for economic gains by and large, launched by the Indian State and the “Liberation War”, of the Naxals to take hold of the Indian State by 2050, will only leave the tribal regions in complete chaos, destroying their rich socio-cultural ethos. Any democratic nation has to promote the well-being of every section of people. It has recourse to use of force when an extreme need arises which cannot be solved through dialogue.
India being the second largest practicing democratic nation needs to think before launching an attack on its own citizens. The democratic nature of governance also offers an opportunity for the Naxals to dialogue with the government without engaging in futile attacks on the nation. Since reign of peace is the ultimate end for both the State and the Naxalites, they need to realize that peace can never be dictated at gun point. When dialogue and negotiations are still within the reach Violence or the use of force is not the viable option.
The Possible Remedies
Having established that violence is not the solution, I shall attempt to recommend three possible remedies to address the problem of Naxalism and tribal violence.
1) Render Justice to the Victimized: the only way that people are able to fully come to terms with their pain, historical brokenness, memories of injustice and years of oppression is to deal with these from the deepest humane experience. Unless justice is rendered, dignified living is assured and the Oppressive System is buried, it will be impossible to bring peace. There must be an honest look at the wounds of the despised section of the Indian state. Hannah Arendt in Human Condition notes: “Forgiveness is a matter of working over, amending and overcoming attitudes and it is a process, not an event.” It needs to understand that the victims of history’s brutalities carry painful memories and heavy sense of grievance.
2) Sensitive Administration in the Tribal Areas: Identity and autonomy of the tribals depend on their attachment to their culture. Hence, respect for their culture is important. Land is considered to be heritage for tribals and therefore, the government policy of grabbing lands for development projects at the cost of indigenous people must be looked into. Sensitive administration would imply granting the necessary rights to self-govern themselves. Gandhian ideal of Gram Swaraj needs to be implemented. “True democracy cannot work by some persons sitting at the top. It has to work from below by the people of every village,” said Gandhi.
Our admistrative image has to change. We need to image of a more upright, considerate, even-handed and people-friendly administration. Only then will we have taken the first steps towards resolving the problem. Once the fertile ground of discontent ceases to exist other improvements will follow. Neither brute force nor appeasement is an answer.
3) Education, Basic Necessities and Special Preference for the Tribals: A participatory democracy is possible when basic necessities of all are met and education is within everyone’s reach. In meeting the need of the tribals special preference needs to be given. Rather, the enshrined privileges of the tribals must be implemented without delay.
4) Political Assertiveness: The presence of tribals is needed especially in politics so that their concerns are addressed. Political assertiveness of the tribals will ensure their rights and privileges of the Indian State.
Conclusion
Today there is a wide public outrage against the Naxals nationwide. The government is pumping in crores and crores of taxpayers’ money to fight Naxals. On the other hand activists and students proudly join hands with the Naxals. All this clearly elucidates the fact that bloodshed our own countrymen is impending. History will blame us for failing to avert mass murders in our soil, as the world blames the Sri Lankans today.
We have much to think and act. Deep down bad governance is the root cause of the tribal unrest and Naxalism. India is in need of honest citizens who can lead the country from war to peace and harmony.
Reference
Aind, Vincent. “Tribals as Victims of Violence,” Violence and its Victims: A Challenge to Philosophizing in the Indian Context. (ACPI Philosophy Series 11) Edited by Ivo Coelho Bangalore, Asian Trading Corporation, 2010. 290-307.
Chathanatti, John. “Violence and Beyond: A Search for an Alternative,” Social Action (July- September, 2010), 60: 273-285.
Dungdung, Gladson, “Adivasis Towards Violence,” Social Action (July-September, 2010), 60: 250- 262.
Govier, Trudy. Forgiveness and Revenge. London: Routledge, 2002.
Kothari, Rajni. “The Rise of People’s Movements,” Social Action (January-March, 1990) 40: 222- 230.
Mohanty, Manoranjan. Revolutionary Violence: A Study of the Maoist Movement in India. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1977.
Narwani, G.S. Tribal Law in India. New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2004.
Padel, Felix, “Mining and Movements: Causes of Tribal Militancy,” Social Action (July- September, 2010), 60: 223-231.
Pinto, Ambrose, “Labour, Globalization and the Manifesto: Relevance to India.” Relevance of Communist Manifesto. Eds., Ambrose Pinto and Somen Chakraborty. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute, 2000.
Roy,Arundhati. “Walking with the Comrades” accessed from http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/21/walking-with-the-comrades/ accessed on 10/11/2010.
Roy,Arundhati. “I still Back Naxals,” accessed from http://www.deccanherald.com/content/73159/i-still-back-naxals-struggle.html, accessed on 3.12.2010.
Sukai, Tarun Bikas, “Extremism and Tribal Society in India,” Social Action (July-September, 2010), 60: 264-271.
Xaxa, Virginius. “Tribal Intellectual Activists,” Satya Nilayam: Chennai Philosophy of Intercultual Philosophy (August, 2004), 6: 52-59.
Comments