From sukla.sen at gmail.com Thu Aug 12 22:17:49 2010 From: sukla.sen at gmail.com (Sukla Sen) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:17:49 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [Arkitect India] State of the Nation Survey on Naxalism: Findings of an Opinion Poll in Most Affected 36 Districts Message-ID: I/III. *State of the Nation Survey on Naxalism* The bi-annual State of the Nation Survey (SONS) to explore opinions on and the impact of naxalism on people residing in affected areas, was conducted from the 24th – 29th July 2010. The study was carried out in collaboration with CNN-IBN and The Week. The sample was drawn from 36 naxal affected districts in the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. The findings of the survey will be revealed through the week ending 15th August on CNN-IBN, IBN7 & IBN-Lokmat and in the special edition of The Week that hits stands on 13th August. The comprehensive one hour show on all findings will be telecast at 9.00 pm on the 13th of August. There will also be a repeat telecast of the programme on the 14th and 15th of August. Out of those polled 32 per cent agreed lack of development is the reason for the Naxal surge in the red corridor. While 13 per cent felt social inequality and a sense of helplessness was responsible. The majority, i.e 55 per cent had no opinion on the issue. The findings also suggested that 10 per cent said they were Naxal sympathizers, while 37 per cent said they had mild sympathy and 23 per cent of the people said that they were hostile and 30 per cent expressed mild hostility. The poll showed that 26 per cent felt that Naxalites were underprivileged and poor, whereas seven per cent had a negative description for Naxalites. But, a majority of the respondents, i.e 49 per cent had no opinion. When specifically asked if they felt they were ‘Adivasis’ 25 per cent felt that Naxalites were Adivasis and 19 per cent felt that they were non- Adivasis from outside areas, while 51 per cent had no opinion. In current conflict people stand with Government 49% Naxals 5% Neither 34% Other response 12% How should the government handle this issue? All Amongst Sympathizers With High Media Exposure Coercive measures 19% 11% 26% Negotiation with Naxal 11% 16% 14% Development and infrastructure in the area 33% 59% 41% No Opinion 37% 14% 19% Both Government and Naxals should cease hostilities without any conditions All Amongst Sympathizers Agree 56% 77% Disagree 12% 21% No Opinion 32% 2% My vote has Naxal Affected districts All India 09-10 Effect 60% 60% No Effect 22% 17% No opinion 18% 23% Our Political system should be � Retained 17% Reformed 76% Destroyed 6% No Opinion 1% [Source: < http://insaf.net/mailman/private/foil-l_insaf.net/2010-August/033422.html>.] II. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/people-in-naxalhit-areas-prefer-govt-poll/128447-37-64.html?from=tn State of the Nation: Govt preferred over Naxals Rupashree Nanda , CNN-IBN Posted on *Aug 09, 2010 at 08:36* | Updated *Aug 09, 2010 at 13:32* * * * New Delhi: Residents of India's worst Naxal-affected states want development and if forced 10 times the number of people will prefer Government over Naxalites. These are the stunning findings of the first-ever opinion poll of people living in India's Naxal-infested areas. The extensive opinion poll conducted in seven of India's worst Naxal affected states has thrown up some myth-shattering findings. Commissioned by CNN-IBN and The Week the findings establish that people living in the states believe lack of development was triggering Naxalism and pushing it will help solve the problem. Conducted by CSDS he poll finds over 60 per cent have faith in democracy and despite controversies and civil rights allegations, will prefer the Government over Naxalites. The Naxalites may have challenged the authority of the state, they may be trying to wage armed war in the name of the rights of the poor but the poll results are an eye-opener. Almost 49 per cent of the people say they will choose the Government while just five per cent say that they are with the Naxals; 34 per cent say they are neither with the Government nor with the Naxalites. The Big Naxal Poll Forced choice favours the GovernmentIn current conflict people stand with Government49%Naxals 5% Neither34%Other response12% Preference for development over coercion or negotiationHow should the government handle this issue?AllAmongst SympathizersWith High Media ExposureCoercive measures19%11%26%Negotiation with Naxal11%16%14%Development and infrastructure in the area33%59%41%No Opinion37%14%19% Support for unconditional ceasefireBoth Government and Naxals should cease hostilities without any conditionsAllAmongst SympathizersAgree56%77% Disagree12%21%No Opinion32%2% Faith in Democratic processMy vote hasNaxal Affected districtsAll India 09-10Effect60%60%No Effect22%17%No opinion18%23% Reform wins over Status quo or revolutionOur Political system should be� Retained17%Reformed76%Destroyed6%No Opinion1% The survey was conducted by CNN-IBN and The Week in association with CSDS While the Government and the Naxalites are locked in what seems to be an endless war an overwhelming 56 per cent of people say they favour an unconditional ceasefire while just 12 per cent say no to an unconditional ceasefire. The CNN-IBN-& The WEEK poll asked the most controversial questions: what is the way to handle the Naxal challenge? The findings from the ground were unequivocal with 33 per cent of people saying the state should push development while only 19 per cent feel that coercive methods should be used and 11 per cent feel that negotiation between the state and the Naxalites is the way out. While some activists may disagree people in the war zone are not ready to give up democracy yet. In fact 60 per cent of the people in the Naxal-affected districts say they have faith in democracy while 22 per cent of those polled say that democracy is not effective. However, there was deep cynicism with the political system. An overwhelming 76 per cent of the people say that the political system needs to be reformed while just six per cent feel it deserves to be destroyed. The findings are solid and simple and the majority is with the Government, wants an unconditional ceasefire, favours development to counter the Naxal challenge, has faith in the democracy, but also wants the political system to be reformed. III. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/developmentdeficit-main-reason-for-naxalism-poll/128592-37-64.html?from=tn Development-deficit key cause of Naxalism: SOTN CNN-IBN Posted on Aug 11, 2010 at 07:50 | Updated Aug 11, 2010 at 11:00 New Delhi: The CNNIBN-The Week State Of The Nation poll has found that development-deficit is the main reason for rise in Naxalism in the red corridor. The CNNIBN-The Week opinion poll conducted among people living in the worst Naxal-affected areas suggested that a majority of the people are reluctant to speak up on the reasons even though amongst those who had an opinion. The exclusive findings of the survey show that development-deficit is the main reason for rise in Naxalism. But there's still no sympathy for the Naxals . The other factors like absence of justice, lack of development etc have also triggered Naxalism in the belt. Out of those polled, 32 per cent agreed lack of development is the reason behind the Naxal surge in the red corridor. While 13 per cent felt social inequality and a sense of helplessness was responsible, the majority, i.e 55 per cent had no opinion on the issue. Despite a high number of people with no opinion on the cause behind Naxalism - a majority of the respondents said they did not have sympathy for the people's war - the findings also suggested that 10 per cent said they were sympathisers. Thirty-seven per cent, however, said they had mild sympathy, 23 per cent said they were hostile while another 30 per cent expressed mild hostility. The poll also indicated that most people living in Naxal-affected districts believe the footsoldiers of Naxal activities were mostly the poor and 'Adivasis'. The poll showed that 26 per cent felt that Naxalites were underprivileged and poor, whereas seven per cent had a negative description for Naxalites. But, a majority of the respondents, i.e., 49 per cent, had no opinion. When specifically asked if they felt they were 'Adivasis', 25 per cent felt that Naxalites were Adivasis and 19 per cent felt that they were non- Adivasis from outside areas. 51 per cent had no opinion on the origin of Naxals . But the one uniform takeaway from The CNNIBN-The Week State Of The Nation poll was the unusually large numbers of people who did not wish to give an opinion when asked; possibly indicating towards a prevailing atmosphere of fear. * * * -- Peace Is Doable -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 2Sadanand at GMail.Com Fri Aug 13 08:23:49 2010 From: 2Sadanand at GMail.Com (SADANAND PATWARDHAN) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:23:49 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [Arkitect India] Political Power and Maoists' politics of violence- An Analysis, Suhas Palshikar. Message-ID: <005601cb3a92$c4a64ba0$4df2e2e0$@com> An article authored by Suhas Palshikar was published in Marathi magazine Sadhana. It was translated into English (Political Power and Maoists' politics of violence- An Analysis.) by Daniel Mazgaonkar and posted on another forum. I am sharing that article below alongside my own understanding of the situation. Unfortunately in the background of violence in central India where Indian State and Maoists are face to face, any narratives that bring the true picture of what is happening on the ground in the concerned states get immediately branded as pro-Maoists. Maoist violence is reprehensible, but that doesn't make State violence that operates in total disregard of the Constitution & law any less condemnable. That the Maoists don't recognise the legitimacy of the state or constitution is known, but the Indian State that derives its legitimacy form the Constitution should brazenly disregard it and trample the legit rights of it poor and long deprived citizens is greatly worrisome. These concerns are taken forward through this email. Please do share your views. _____________________________________________________________ Dear All, Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar have done a great job in creating the content for CBSE curriculum which if used as intended would help nurture generations that have better understanding of Society's dynamics. Thank you Shri Daniel for sharing this article by Palshikar that was published in Sadhana. A few points though need to be made in this connection. [ It does not appear to be true that the Maoists uprising began only after the long time failures of the Indian State apparatus to ameliorate the problems of poor/tribals. ] Nobody to my knowledge has argued that Maoist uprising began to ameliorate problems of the tribals. Nature abhors vacuum, and so does power. Vast swathes of Dandakaranya had little interest for the State in any significant sense till the desperation of the Global Capital for ceaseless growth turned its covetous eye on the mineral riches buried underneath there. Apparently, the demand for formation of smaller states like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh more than a decade ago got active support from Industry, because it would considerably ease the job of "managing" the truncated administrations and the new set of "hungry politicians" who would take charge. Earlier, minor functionaries of the state preyed on the minor produce of the jungles, and also on those who collected it. Maoists seek power & believe it only flows through the barrel of the gun. When they lost out the battle in Andhra to a superior force, the power vacuum in tribal lands sucked them, which though they were visiting in the past now became their most important if not only base. Therefore, earlier neglect & later rapaciousness of the state undoubtedly gave them much needed oxygen of a place with power vacuum to survive and grow. Secondly, they did manage successfully to an extent to articulate & shape tribal grievances. [ ..But, there is immense need to discuss the views and arguments of those who begin 'walking with comrades' and skillfully argue in an eye-blinding manner but rather in a naive manner and with somewhat misconception. For, these misconceived arguments get the underground Maoists their intellectual support. Even then, questions still remain with regard to violence, which are rather complicated in nature. One, while perpetrating violence, it is assumed that they have the ultimate truth in their possession. Secondly, they are the best and the true transporters of this truth. Thirdly, that this violence is for the benefit of, and for the public good. How many of Maoists' sympathisers are willing to accept these three claims? And to what degree? ] These three are good questions. But again I do not believe anybody is supporting the Maoist violence except the Maoists themselves. For Maoists, violence has been not only the first but the only choice for overthrowing State and taking over power. But in the name of countering Maoists, the violent means adopted by the Indian State have started uncannily resembling the ones used by those whom it fights. Moreover, why did the Chhattisgarh government either hounded out or made life difficult of people like Manish Kunjam of CPI, Himanshu Kumar of Vanvasi Chetana Ashram, and others, who were working within the bounds of the constitution and were peacefully opposing the wrong doings of both Maoists & government forces/ administration. Two delegations of eminent people, one early this year in January and the second in May/June were stopped in their tracks through state sponsored equivalents of Fascists Brown shirts from going to Dantewada for fact finding and peace restoration. Unfortunately, the distinction between Legit Force (within the confines of constitution) of the State and the Ill-legit force of the Maoists has become disquietingly blurred. The tribals & poor for whose welfare both claim to be fighting would prefer to be without interference from either. Secondly, violence alone makes the news & shakes up the somnolent classes in the cities. Violence alone seems to force the government to take notice. The legit & peaceful struggles that were conducted in the past and have been going on now to secure the rights of the poor starting from Bhopal Gas Slaughter, to NBA's Sardar Sarovar (Gujarat), to Posco and Niamgiri (Orissa), to Mahua (Gujarat), to Jaitapur (Maharashtra), SEZs all over, and countless others in between were more often than not met with brutal force and ugly face of state violence. No one will deny that the success of such struggles in India & elsewhere is extremely crucial for our common shared destiny. If Maoist violence rudely awakens the government to the fact that continued neglect & violent abuse of the people may drive them to arms (quite independent of Maoists) in sheer desperation as a means to resist when everything else has failed, and that too not due to ideological fixation, then it would have still served a larger purpose despite its obvious shortcomings. The Maoist violence may unwittingly help the peaceful and legal mass movements to succeed now by forcing governments to recognize the need for addressing the issues raised by them before things get out hand. One sees some early signs of this already happening with Posco agitation, which to my knowledge is where Maoists have played no part save except indirectly as aforementioned. [ In this context, the Maoists could be compared with the "terrorists". Because of (acts of) terrorism, all over the world, the concept of "securitized State" is being spread and accepted ] Well, it is true that legitimacy to "securitization" was sought through so called "war on terror", but to say war on terror happened, and some other states picked up the signals from US administration, would be like putting the cart before the horse. American Enterprise Institute and other Neo Con think tanks had prepared plans to invade Iraq much before 9/11 with an aim to have cheap oil from resource rich Middle East for US corporates and deny it to other States if such need arises, but were just waiting for a right opportunity (disaster) that would help sell it to US citizens (Only CRISIS, actual or perceived, produces real CHANGE - Milton Friedman. One has to only keep "RIGHT" ideas ready so that they will come handy when crisis happens). There is an excellent book 'The Shock doctrine : Rise of Disaster Capitalism' by Naomi Klein that traces the history of MF's economic doctrine of FREE (WHEELING) MARKETS forced violently on from Salvador Allende' Chile to Argentina and other Latin American nations thrown in between, and then bringing it right up to the shenanigans of Global Capital in Sri Lanka after Tsunami and Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. It nails the lie that States have become militarized quite unwillingly to defend their citizens in response to terrorism. The truth is other way round. People around the world are responding under great duress & in utter despair through whatever means they can muster to these acts of terror from mighty strong State. This is my reading of the situation. If there is anything amiss, please share your views. Warm regards, Sadanand __________________________________________________ From: bharat-chintan at googlegroups.com [mailto:bharat-chintan at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Mazgaonkar Political Power and Maoists' politics of violence- An Analysis. By: Suhas Palshikar. Suhas Palshikar, Professor, Dept. of Politics and Public Admn., University of Pune, Pune 411 007 India Tel and fax: (O)+91 20 25690815, (R): + 91 20 25636995 If we wish to recount the history of 60 years of Indian state, we shall have to account for many failures. Because of this, we would find many discontented groups/sections in the country. As is found in other societies, we also find here a strange unfolding of events. There is always an urgent need of decisions being taken in favour of the sections of society which are on the periphery and even outside of it. But this is always, invariably put off just because they are on the periphery, compared to those who are well organised or can claim to command some resources. This is precisely what has been taking place in India for the last sixty years. The experience is that those areas which are either on the geographical periphery, such as north-eastern parts and those adivasi, landless people who are placed on the periphery from the point of view of capitalistic society not only do not get any central focus of attention, but do never receive even a cursory attention from the establishment. The result is lack of confidence among them for the democratic polity as also lack of acceptance of the power of the state. While we are trying to understand the reasons of long-time existence of the armed struggle in the vast areas of our country, it is necessary that we keep the above-mentioned back-ground situation in mind. For the last six decades, we have not been successful in the development of adiwasi area and its people. Nor have we been able to accord them the minimum dignity of being the citizens of the Indian State. And this fact of the situation is accepted by state administrators, police officials as well as political leaders. We can recount many reasons for this failure. But dive deep inside and you come across two factors that are fundamentally responsible for this. One, the view taken by the so-called Hindus belonging to the main stream. Second, the capitalistic process of using the vast populace as tools and refusing them the basic human dignity. We must remember that the Indian State has failed to come out of these two tongs and tackle the question of development of the adiwasi dominated areas of our country. Even after keeping in mind the failures of the State, we need to analyse the politics of the Maoists violence. The Rise of Naxalism: If we take notice of the order of historical events, what do we find? It does not appear to be true that the Maoists uprising began only after the long time failures of the Indian State apparatus to ameliorate the problems of poor/tribals. Just after attaining freedom, there have been efforts at the armed poeple's revolution. After the Mao-government came to power in China, a revolutionary section of people ( a group ) here, began feeling that its strategy and understanding of Mao is correct and therefore it should follow the same politics. (Here in India we recognize them as Naxalites, or Marxists-Leninists). This means that, the Indian revolutionary grooups and their thoughts arose in the Indian politics with the deeper, independent study of science of revolution along with the rise of Indian political thought and then they were decided in/applied to strategically, practically and philosophically to the Indian situation. I am relating this sequence for we should be clear that it is wrongly assumed that the Naxalism spread because the 'tribal people and their areas were not properly developed'. We have already pointed out above that the Indian State/ Administration has been unsuccessful in the proper development of landless labourers and the Adiwasis. Whenever the Maoist violence occurs, we connect it to this failure, we fail to take notice and discuss the many factors of the challenges that the Mao-ist or Naxalite philosophy poses before us and in fact, we inadvertantly begin to show a sort of sympathy towards them. There is a need to begin discussion and dialogue at this stage on the attitude, views, role of those groups who are influenced by the Maoists analysis of the Marxist thought. One more complication is that, we can express our differences with Maoists, who live and struggle in forest, as we do understand their stand very clearly. But, there is immense need to discuss the views and arguments of those who begin 'walking with comrades' and skillfully argue in an eye-blinding manner but rather in a naive manner and with somewhat misconception. For, these misconceived arguments get the underground Maoists their intellectual support. The present armed insurgency of Maoists is the third (third in the sequence/process) in the independent India. The uprising in Telangana was the first, Naxalbadi the second and the present one is the third during the last 30 years or so, after it had been decimated in the '70s. In this third stage of insurgency, all the action is mainly happening in the forests and in the Adiwasi belt. To put this in a different manner, we can say, that the Adiwasis are far better organised and much more strong than the landless farm labourers who rose againsts the exploitation then. At this stage we see that the armed revolutionaries are laced with modern weapons. But, at the second stage, that is, at the Naxalbadi stage the philosophical discussions took place more than what we see happening today. In that sense, we can explain this third stage as, one of advanced weaponary but blunted principles'. The preliminary question that arises in our mind is that for running such a long-standing organisation and for acquiring such type of arms, what are their sources of money/funding? Naturally, detailed discussions do not take place on such delicate topics. For, groups or organisations of liberal framework get support from capitalist, commercial class and overseas companies. The industrial labour unions and their organisations raise quite a good amount of funds from their own resources/members. But for armed rovolutionaries and among them the Maoists do not have these avenues at their disposal. If we assume this premise then the conundrum becomes more entangled/dark. Of course, as their system of work is based on secrecy, they would not share facts about this. And to expect them to do so, would be wrong. Even then, two questions remain. One, why there is no discussions about their acquiring weapons? Next, why do those who sympathise with Maoists do not bring such questions on the discussion table? Or, is it supposed to be a bourgeoisie trait to discuss such matters of raising funds (money and equipments)? Questions posed by Politics of Violence: The real issue with the Maoists is related to their action and what they are doing. It appears that they have accepted the two pronged strategy, which is, armed violence and spreading terror. Of these two, Marx was opposed to spreading terror. About violence his stand was a-moral. But among the Maoists, violence has become a central concept/focus/strategy. Of course, this formation/ideology has not been formed in recent times, but is quite old. Who is the target of this/their violence? In abstract sense, the Indian State is their target. In practice, all the instruments of the Indian State, such as, police, administrators, political workers/leaders etc. They all are their targets. It betrays extreme and despicable disrespect for human life, but let us keep this point aside for a moment. For, the Maoists will reply that they do not accept the moral definition of violence at all. Even then, questions still remain with regard to violence, which are rather complicated in nature. One, while perpetrating violence, it is assumed that they have the ultimate truth in their possession. Secondly, they are the best and the true transporters of this truth. Thirdly, that this violence is for the benefit of, and for the public good. How many of Maoists' sympathisers are willing to accept these three claims? And to what degree? Any violence, and for that matter, a planned, organised and armed violence reduces the scope of and possibility of mass participation. In that sense, it is anti-people. The masses have no role in it. It is adopted 'in behalf' of the masses, using them selectively, a small group of persons adopt it as a method for the common good. But it not only does compel them to go 'underground' but forces their hands to militarise whole of their politics. The fact that the leaders of such groups who despise the State apparatus are symbolically called "commanders" is in itself a vocal point/factor to be noted. As the bourgeois civil society keeps an 'army' of their own, so also the secret revolutionary group do hold an 'army'of their own. Naturally then, readyness, military training and war-strategy become all-important and the revolutionary principles/philosophy and politics are undermined/put on back burner. Brutalization of the State: What effect does this, Maoist (and of others) politics of violence have upon the 'bourgeois' politics being carried on by the established State? Consensus, shallow competition and space for people's action are the three factors which exist in the politics of liberal democratic framework. If it moves with its own speed, then, it stabilizes at the altitude of shallow competition. Hence, the framework is not jolted very much. But, the space for people's action (politics) remains intact. (Of course, there is nothing spectacular or eye-dazzling about it). But even that space in the liberal democratic framework is callously obliterated in the politics of Maoist (or of any other violent group). Maoists believe that they have Truth in their possession. They are even convinced that except 'that' full and complete Truth there is not an iota of truth outside it. No public good worth its name could be gained beyond their "Truth". Hence, they have utter indifference/utter despice for this kind of people's politics/space. Therefore, they do not even bother about effects of this attitude. But what happens on the ground zero/level, must be noted with a lot of care. Agreement/consensus becomes more underlined than shallow competition. For example, at this stage, most of the established political parties are ready and willing to give more and more powers and weapons to police and para military forces. In the last two/three years,the political games that were played to checkmate the Left front government in West Bengal, and by giving moral support to the Left government, had to adopt police actions in Lalgadh. In Chhattisgadh, the BJP government there militarized the civil society under the name/pretext of "Salwa Judum"! But the voices are becoming more and more feeble of those who want to oppose such actions, because the Maoists have weakened the avenues/possibilities of expressions of dissent and competition in the established democratic framework. In this context, the Maoists could be compared with the "terrorists". Because of (acts of) terrorism, all over the world, the concept of "securitized State" is being spread and accepted. In India, the Maoists are giving a helping hand to get it established. What is the meaning of a State, where are its responsibilities, which are the boundaries of its strength, all these questions are now being discussed in the framework of this "security" issue/concept. The State interventions that we should/could have opposed on the basis of human rights, all those interventions are now practically getting authorised sanctions. In Indian context, the Maoists are also responsible for this transformation. "The problem of Maoism is not only an law and order issue",-- such statements have become so oft-repeated, that they have now become meaningless. But armed preparedness of the Maoists and their methods contribute to the narrowing of their politics to only law and order issue. When in only one attack 75 Jawans of security force get killed, then the whole discussion very stealthily is bogged down and enters into the realm of "security" instead of revolving round policy and practicality. And instead of giving security to people, but under that same pretext, the State uses all its resources in surveillance activity. As a result of this, the complex relationship between democracy and the State gets ruptured. In liberal democracy people can insist upon following the proper procedure. Also, there is space for people to control the arbitrary use of State power which misuses it in a reckless manner. Along with this, the continuous discussion, dialogue on democracy keeps the State machinery focussed on the welfare of the people. Because of these two possibilities, the use of Police by State remains in check. Some times, this police apparatus has to face the public enquiry and the State is compelled to go beyond the scope of the police functions and talk of other things. State's military/para-military and police strength does not prove enough for proving its authority over the people. But Maoism contributes in indirectly reversing this process of liberal democracy and creates conditions in which the State is forced to act in a brutal and vicious manner. Then, violence and counter-violence becomes the sole aim of the State. Because of armed insurgency and organised violence, all the efforts of the civil rights groups prove null and void and gives the State opportunity to become anti-people, opposed to sharing of power at the grass root level, and anti-democratic. "Bogus" Democracy? The Maoists sympathisers argue that there is no true democracy in India, the Liberal democracy is the handmaiden of capitalism and India is under the influence of capitalist values. It is true that any State apparatus, would be influenced by the existing powerful class. In later part of the last century, one stream of thought within Marxism argued that State Power attains its own momentum and autonomy. Meaning thereby, that though it is not free or untouched/uninfluenced by the established dominating/powerful class-relationship, still it is not the mirrror reflection of those relationships too. And therefore state can and does become one of the tarrains of contestations. The State, in this way, could possibly become a battle-ground for such social-change confrontations. According to the above analysis, to just give up on the State and its various functions, or to say or try to assume that by destroying the State we shall achieve the good of the people is wrong. Especially, in the underdeveloped Indian situation and context, where so many social inequalities exists, to take such a stand means to fatally harm the cause/purpose/goal of our social transformation itself. Besides, the Indian State is not born only out of colonial and captalistic vested interests. It has the history and background of freedom struggles also. And therefore, it is forced into and obliged by its weight to transcend the capitalist vested interest. Under such circumstances, one may dream of such a Utopia of outright rejection of the State, but it would not be for the good of the masses. Now remains only one question/point, which we should/must consider. That the Indian Democracy is not the Democracy in the true sense of the term. And it is a valid point/question. It has been presented in a most attractive and emotive way. But it is devoid of any common-sense and also it betrays lack of political understanding. First of all, is "true" democracy functioning anywhere in the world today? And just because, it is not there, what kind of political wisdom is it to destroy even the limited functioning democracy? The fact is that democracy is an ever-developing idea/concept/ state. It is a continuous process. (of realizing Utopia). Once you walk up to the turning of the road, you perceive the next road ahead. ( It can be called, "AROHAN" ( You arrive at one peak, you see the higher one then!) Of course, all this depends upon the society/community/people who begin to take strides towards realizing democracy. Hence, it is important to remember that all the talk of realization of True Democracy is like Utopia. The supporters and sympathisers of Maoists try to trap the masses in this kind of idealism (Utopia)! Naturally, therefore, all the discussion centres around the limitations of the democracy and the use of police/use of force by the State. We do need to level criticism on these two. But at the same time, we must also NOT overlook the nature of Maoists politics and its resultant effects. (on people.) It has been the efforts of the Constitution and the Democracy (even when found wanting) to harness/rein the State Power which tends to slip towards brutality. But the Maoist politics strengthens the tendency of the State towards being brutal. Therefore, when the (such a brutal) State will try to supress the peoples' movements of the future, the Maoists will have to share the blame for having scripted some of the pages of that unfortunate moment by their actions. (Translated by Daniel Mazgaonkar.) Published in Marathi Sadhana Weekly, dated 15th May, 2010. Pune. Image removed by sender. -- You may charge me with murder -- Or want of sense (We are all of us weak at times): But the slightest approach to a false pretence Was never among my crimes. -- You may charge me with murder -- Or want of sense (We are all of us weak at times): But the slightest approach to a false pretence Was never among my crimes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: