Maoism and Paradigm of Development

Maoism and Paradigm of Development

The May 27 2013 attack by the Maoist on the Congress ‘parivartan rally’ and elimination of top ranking Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh has brought the problem of Maoist extremism once again to the centre stage.  There are more condemnations of Naxalites and their attacks than before.  Some of the leaders who were not so vehement in condemning them have come out against them.  Jayaram Ramesh has even called them terrorists.  Kuldeep Nayar has also joined the queue with Jayaram in calling them terrorists. Persons like M. N. Buch would even like to take a gun and shoot Nandini Sunder and Prof. Hargopal whom he accuses of defending Maoist.  His anger is also directed to media which gives such people opportunity to speak on the TN channels.

Among the civil society members there is substantial amount of sympathy for the Maoists.  Some consider the Maoist as well meaning people who are committed and are sacrificing their lives for the cause of the Adivasies.

The Adivasies have very serious issues related to development.  The state has not given adequate attention to the development of Adivasies.   Great amount of natural resources of our country like coal, copper, iron ore and other minerals are located in the areas where Adivasies are living.  In spite of forest rights of the Adivasies they are far more vulnerable as they do not have patta land registered on individual’s name.   There is wide spread displacement of Adivasies taking place and the state governments and the central government are inviting corporate foreign companies to mine minerals located in the habitat of the Adivasies.  Maoists champion the cause of the Adivasies and mobilize them.  This makes the Adivasies to support the Maoists. They feel as if the Maoists are their saviours.

It is high time that we evaluate dispassionately the Maoists movement and the questions posed by their movement.  We should not make wrong diagnosis of the ills we suffer from the menace of Maoism.

1.       We hold that the Maoists do not believe in democracy.  This is something on which we cannot fault them.  The kind of democracy that exists in our country can be questionable.  Even the main stream politicians in India are questioning the democracy of India.  Half of the Indian population does not have faith in the Indian democracy.  The number of people who participate in the minimum democratic ritual of voting once in five years is less than fifty percent.  The political parties go about buying votes. The Aam Aadmi Party has been constantly repeating that the democracy in India is of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians. 

In many respect the Maoists are no different from our politicians and fifty percent of our citizens.  While most of our civil society members are not concerned about the issue of democracy the Naxalites would like to ensure a genuine economic democracy for the most excluded people.

Immediately after the attack of the Maoists Rahul Gandhi said the Maoists do not believe in a democracy.  To this the Maoists have asked him a question, “Does your ‘democracy’ only applicable (sic) to the mass murders like Mahendra Karma and ruling class agents like Nand Kumar Patel? Whether the poor Adivasies of Bastar, the elderly, children and the women come under the umbrella of your ‘democracy’ or not?” (Outlook, June10, 2013)

2.    The Naxalites do not believe in the Parliamentary process.  This is true.  So do the opposition parties!  They have demonstrated their disbelief in the parliamentary process by making sure that the Parliament does not function. Instead of Parliament debates they air out their views and condemnation in the studios of TV channels. Only the process of transferring regular salaries and the allowances to the parliamentarians functions well.

3.    The Maoists do not believe in Judiciary.  According to them the basis of justice is fraught with injustice. It is important for all to rethink on our judicial process.  The vast number of citizens and even the politicians question the judicial process.  There are so many corrupt judges which have brought down the sanctity of the judiciary.  Arun Jaitly believes that the judge who has been made the chair person of National Human Right Commission has been given this post as a reward for passing judgements favouring the Congress Party.  Appointment of judges is often questioned and people have expressed desire to change the procedure of appointment of judges.  When there is an involvement of mortal human beings fraught with weakness and vested interests playing its role, the judiciary cannot be sacrosanct.  Is it not a fetish which we have been promoting about judges and the judiciary process?

FIGHT AGAINST MAOISM:

Some hold that if we want to contain Maoism then the state should take up the task of development in the tribal areas.  These areas are highly underdeveloped and backward where schools, water, electricity, roads are absent.    If there are employment opportunities provided for the youth then they will not fall victim to the Maoists’ recruitment.  While undertaking development process we should hold dialogues with the Naxalites.

The main stream political and administrative class completely rule out development in the tribal areas as a strategy to contain Maoism.  There are many in the higher ranks of civil servants and police department who believe that the way to solve the menace of Maoist is to corner them under the state power, bring them to their knees and make them surrender.  Former Chhattisgarh DGP Vishwaranjan believes in all out war against the Maoists.  He believes that “the state should pile on constant pressure on the Maoists and batter them in to submission.  Keep them on the run till they get tired, till they have a rethink on their core ideology that seems to over throw the Indian state through violent means.  Development is something that can be carried out in a scenario of peace, not war.” 

  

Vishwaranjan and people like should wake up to the reality of thousands of innocent people who have been put in jail, tortured and shot out of suspicion of they being terrorists or Maoists.  Several young people have spent years in jail and finally let out as there were no evidence against them.  How many are killed under the pretext of encounter? The state kills innocent civilians.  The Maoists kill people from the security forces and the political bigwigs. When the Maoists killed Mahendra Karma it was specifically due to his institution of anti-Naxal militia called ‘Salwa Judum’.  Everyone knows that Salwa Judum had become a byword for terror for Adivasies. The Adivasies are between the devil and the deep sea.  But that Devil happens to be the state security forces.  If one goes by the experience of Binyak Sen one realises how sensitive the state machinery is.  As a doctor he was working for Adivasies, instead of taking a lucrative career elsewhere.  But he was suspected to be supporting Maoists.  If one fights for the rights of the Adivasies which are guaranteed by the constitution one gets branded as pro Maoists and may face charges of sedition.  In 2006 the congress government brought out Forest Rights Act by virtue of which the Adivasies get right of ownership of land in the forest either individually or community ownership.   It has become difficult to work for Adivasies, especially in the Naxal infested areas.

E.A.S. Sarma who was one of the legal petitioners in the Supreme Court to push for a ban on Salwa Judum is concerned about not letting a short term approach to problem solving lead to a long term problem, making it worse than the original one.  He states, “If the government moves away from development to treat this strictly as a law and order problem, it is not going to be a solution.  It will only worsen the problem; as the experience so far has shown.” Further Sarma states, “The government should know that any area where there is a governance deficit and where the local communities’ views are not respected becomes a space for people’s alienation and extreme tendencies.” (Outlook).  This is seen in the Kashmir valley.  We should be aware that governance does not mean presence of security forces.

WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT NEEDED?

When people talk about developmental approach to solve the problem of Maoism they understand development in terms of building roads, infrastructure, water and electricity supply, giving employment to the tribal youth etc.  But some claim that the Maoist obstruct development efforts.  They are against development of the tribal area.  Some even go to the extent of stating that the backwardness of the Adivasies’ area serves the interests of the Maoists.

Some time I feel these people speak in the air.  It exhibits their paradigm rather than what Maoist would say about development.

The development that the Maoists conceive is not developing roads, supplying water and electricity. They have a problem with the path of development that our present state follows.  Like all left thinking people the Maoist oppose the Neo-Liberal economic policies of the government.  Whether it is in tribal areas or on the mainland our state is sponsoring the interests of the big capital, corporate and foreign capital.  Our government has handed over the wealth of the nation to the capitalists.  Capitalists are considered as saviours of mankind.  They will bring industrialisation, growth in the economy, generate employment for the people.  Capitalists believe that the wealth of the nation, be it land, minerals, forests, rivers or water all this, is their birth right.  The rest of the people should vacate this space and go away.  The capitalists will create jobs for them.  The capitalist want to own the earth and turn the citizens as labourers who will have to depend on the employment created by them.

When forest lands, minerals, rivers and water become a property of foreign capital and corporate whatever roads, infrastructure, employment provided will not mean any development for Adivasies.  At best the construction of roads will open the forests for all to come to cheat, exploit and rape Adivasies.  When the rights of the Adivasies to land, rivers, water and the resources on their land are not recognized and granted these superficial developments will only amount to eyewash and vote bank politics.

The Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) share everything with the Maoists on the need for Socialist paradigm of development.  The difference between the Maoists and the CPI/CPM is that the latter do not believe in armed revolution and mindless violence.  CPI & CPM do not hold that India is semi-feudal and semi-colonial state.  They strategically participate in the parliamentary democracy.  CPI holds that socialism could be brought about through parliamentary democracy. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.       A.  The Maoism is not a law and order problem.  Maoists or Naxalites are not some anti social elements fuelling social unrest and trying to create chaos in the society.

2.       B. It is not a problem of development.  The lack of development in the tribal areas is a serious concern.  For that matter lack of development in the slum areas is also a problem.  There is similar lack of development in many non tribal rural areas.  Whatever people are clamouring for in the name of development, such as roads, education, water, electricity, employment will not solve the problem of Maoism.  If the state kills the Maoists then from the ashes of these Maoists will raise a force that will challenge the state again.

3.       C. Irrespective of which party comes to power Indian state will not bring about development that will answer the long term interests of the poor, working class, Adivasies, dalits and even women.  The state will take care of the short term interests of these people.  And these short-term interests are: employment, food security, rural housing, water, electricity, subsidies etc.   In contrast, the state will take care of the long term interests of the capitalist class.  Their interests are land acquisition, control on the natural and mineral resources of the country, wage freeze, tax reduction, urban infrastructure like express high ways, airports, special economic zones, power generation, nuclear energy etc.  The state will give food to the poor to shut their mouths and turn them into labour force to be exploited by the capitalists.  The world will be owned by the capitalists and the rest will be daily wage labourers.  The state understands development in terms of growth and wait for the trickledown effect.  But the capitalist economy is not porous.  The profit of the capitalists will never get transformed into welfare funds.  The poor are citizens of our nation; they toil to create wealth of the nation and they do not need to live on welfare funds.  They have every right on the wealth of the nation as much as the capitalists have.

4.       D. The Maoists are saddled with an outdated socio-economic analysis of India.  Maoists characterize India as semi-feudal and semi-colonial state.  This is in line with how Mao characterized China and perhaps India before 1930ies.  This characterization is not valid today.  India has moved ahead from what it was before independence.  There is no trace of semi feudalism or semi colonialism in Indian economic system.  The Maoists have to wake up to this reality.  Given the level of democracy that prevails in our society there is no place for arm revolution.  By continuing their orthodox outdated analysis and politics they are doing disservice to the cause of revolution and to the people in whose name they carry out their armed struggle.

5.   E. The left parties like the CPI and CPM will be in agreement with Maoists with regard to what kind of paradigm should be followed in the development process.  Just as Maoism wants to over throw capitalism the Left parties also want to over throw capitalism.  For better acceptability let us use the term transform or revolutionise the state.  The left parties believe that the Parliamentary process would work to bring about this revolution.  But the Maoists do not believe in this path.  They believe only through armed revolution they can over throw capitalism and establish a rule of the peasants and the workers.

6.      F.  The dialogue with the Maoists should be initiated by the left parties.  At the beginning all these left parties and the Maoists were together in one party.  Their differences have brought about a spit among them. It is the left parties and the Maoists who should dialogue together to come to an agreement on the path of revolution.  This will strengthen the left forces and the cause of revolution.   The state cannot dialogue with the Maoists.  It is like two persons speaking totally different languages want to communicate to each other. 

M.N. Buch does not need to shoot Nandini Sunder and Prof. Hargopal.  They and many like them do not support Maoists or Naxalites either their analysis of the Indian State or in their belief in armed revolution.  All of them condemn the brutal killing and violence by the Naxalites.  What is needed is a rethinking on the path of development that our governments are following.