Comments on: Debate concerning the Lalgarh movement

By: Debate concerning the Lalgarh movement | Today's Hot

Debate concerning the Lalgarh movement | Today's Hot — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:54:26 +0000

[...] http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2009/10/24/debate-concerning-the-lalgarh-movement/ [...]

By: ‘The Dangers Are Great, the Possibilities Immense’: The Ongoing Political Struggle in India — Saroj Giri « Kalk??ma

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:07:52 +0000

[...] Sujato Bhadra, ‘Open Letter to the Maoists’, Radical Notes, 26 September [...]

By: Punjab Singh

Punjab Singh — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:45:43 +0000

Sujata Bhadra’s intentions are good. However, there are three main flaws in his argument. One, his conception of struggle for human rights limits this struggle to exerting ‘democratic’ pressure on the state to implement its laws. This view does not question the legitimacy of the laws of the state and the nature of the state which is the highest form of organised violence. No doubt democratic pressure on the state can put some limits on the use of violence by the state but this conception of human rights imprisons the boundaries of any action within the confines of the existing laws.
Second flaw is that it posits a sort of Chinese wall between violence and non-violence. In most movements for social and political change, there are complementarities and conflicts between violent and non-violent forms of struggle. Gandhian non-violence would not have the bargaining power it had vis a vis the British imperial power if there had not been a series of armed revolutionaries actions taking place in colonial India. This complementarity between non-violent and violent forms of actions may not exist in the consciousness of the participants but it exists as an objective reality. It is not suggested that there can not be conflict, in fact there is, between non-violent and violent forms of struggle but this conflict must be seen in the context of the existence of complementarity also between these two forms of conflict. In the Indian left, they have missed out the complementarity and have got fixated over conflict. All great movements in the world have constitutional and non-constitutional forms of struggle. The sophistication and the maturity of the movement is seen how it is able to strengthen complementarities and the immaturity is seen in how it blows up the conflicts. In that sense, the Indian left is beset with immaturity.

The third flaw in Sujata babu’s argument is that it has a paternalistic tone towards the poor and adivasis. That is these people might be angry with some actions of the Indian state but that political activists should guide these people not to resort to violence but some constitutional forms of protest. This paternalistic attitude does not have any scope for the self-activity of the people. In many cases, it is the pressure from below which guides the direction of politics rather than the ‘superior’ knowledge of some activists. Sujata babu is dismissive of the creativity, imagination and political skills of the oppressed people to devise their forms of struggle appropriate to their needs. To me, it seems that the Indian Maoists are responding to the pressure from below and this movement may not achieve the aims Maoists might have of capturing the Indian state but it has the potentialities of ushering socio-economic change in India which is not of incremental nature but is of far reaching importance. In that sense, the upsurge which is being called Maoist might have some aspects which seem unpleasant (which movement in the world does not have some such aspects) but taking a holistic view, it is movement of great potentialities and should be welcomed by anyone who wants to see a fairer world out of the present unjust political and economic system.

By: Radical Notes » The Ongoing Political Struggle in India

Radical Notes » The Ongoing Political Struggle in India — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:35:40 +0000

[...] Sujato Bhadra, ‘Open Letter to the Maoists’, Radical Notes, 26 September [...]

By: Debates on Lalgarh: Sujato Bhadra, Kishenji, Amit Bhattacharya « Lalgarh

Debates on Lalgarh: Sujato Bhadra, Kishenji, Amit Bhattacharya « Lalgarh — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:52:14 +0000

[...] Posted by indianvanguard2010 on October 28, 2009 These were published in the Bengali daily Dainik Statesman. The first came out on 26 September 2009, and the second and third came out in a single issue, that of 10 October 2009. Translated by the Radicalnotes team. [...]

By: Debates on Lalgarh: Sujato Bhadra, Kishenji, Amit Bhattacharya « Indian Vanguard

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:18:08 +0000

By: Dhiman

Dhiman — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:13:03 +0000

To me, the question is not just of violence or non-violence. History, perhaps, shows that all major changes have come through blood shedding of people. The main question is whether politics is dominating the process or is the use of violence an attempt to establish a political order? If later is the case, then it is a short-cut and deaths will be more and the sustennance of such changes (if achieved) will be short-lasting. Whereas if politics and ideological battle to win over people is the main course of action, then deaths will take place only in exceptional conditions and political dialogue will pave way for socio-cultural changes. Such a change will also probably be sustained more.

In Lalgarh, as everyone notes, it is the police excess which has caused the outburst and perhaps, Maoists and the common tribal people united because they had a common enemy (state and the CPIM party machinery) to defend themselves from. However, based on newspaper sources it is clear that the Maoists had caused many uncalled for violence and forcing CPIM followers to publicly cutting-off relationships with their party (under life threat, of course). These steps should be criticised as the peoples’ movement suffered because of these excesses and a critique of these excesses should not be compared with an apologist of state’s highhandedness.