Dearest Kanu,
To begin with, I am deeply saddened by your recent bereavement, but what saddens me even more deeply is how little coverage your passing got in the media, which is really surprising given that the media is much less the Fourth Estate and much more a multi-headed money-hungry business behemoth scrounging for every last scrap of potential news to devour in a way that's louder and more in-your-face (well, in-my-face, given that you're, you know, dead).
Anyway, moving on, I feel it is my duty to inform you that this letter wasn't meant to be addressed to you at first. Since this is a very generic rant about how things are and how they should but cannot possibly be corrected, I had no idea who the ideal person to address this to would be. Luckily for me, you decided to kill yourself and I got myself the perfect recipient - being the armchair activist/coffee house ideologue that I like to call myself, even if I had zeroed in on that one living person, finding out his/her address would have been too much of a bother. It's already midway into the second paragraph so I should quit rambling and instead cut straight to the chase. Ever since I developed an interest in the India-Bharat dichotomy, I have always held the movement initiated by you and Charu in a positive light - well, at least back when it started, when it was about the peasants as well as the evil landlords getting their dues, by hook or by crook. Since then, there have been innumerous splits, you had mended your "unparliamentary" ways (in today's terms, you had sold out) and shunned the modern-day Naxals, who in turn had shunned you.
This is where I'd like to say something I've felt for a long time - the reason why communism in most of its forms has failed the world over is because man is too individualistic a creature to be successfully a part of a collectivist venture for long. Sooner or later, differences creep in - major ones, that end up dividing the comrades for good. Which is why there are so many brands of communism, so much so that while the parliamentary Leftists would term you Naxals as anarchists who are the antithesis of Marxists, you guys like to think you're the only ones who are true to the cause of the people (side-note - since Mao's beliefs applied to the China of back then, while Marshall said that every region has its own questions and therefore its own answers, wouldn't it be better if you guys become Titoists instead of Maoists?). That, and the lust for power - while almost all Leftist revolutions have started out with noble causes, once power had been usurped, comradeship gaya tel lene.
So while anyone who has anything resembling a heart will agree that communism is the way to go for the betterment of people (if nothing else it accords us the status of humans unlike capitalism in which we are merely human resources), the fact that everyone has his/her own brand of communism coupled with the fact that we humans lust for power and once we have it, let it go to our heads has meant that the theory has never been proven practically. Still, if I had to choose one over the other, I'll go for it since capitalism is skewed even on paper. Also, parliamentary communists are possibly the biggest hypocrites ever- which goes without saying, given the track record of the so-called "worker's men" whose sons and daughters are raking in the moolah, having created empires thanks to their daddies. So not cool.
Anyway, I have always found it intriguing how those who provide the most essential services to the society occupy the bottom rungs of the society, those who manage them but don't ever stoop down to actually do any real work are above them and those who employ and supervise these managers get to sit back, zip around in their imported sedans and/or SUVs with their Vaios and Blackberrys in tow, make huge profits and hand a minute share of their spoils down to their sub-ordinates. At about the same level are the stars of the show - the politicians, the sportstars (edit that: cricketers; other sportspersons are rarely stars and more often than not share the space at the bottom) and the entertainers. The first ones are supposed to run this country and look after the needs of its billion-odd citizens; the others earn all the money and the fame that there is for grabs while doing things that can hardly be described as essential for the survival of the aforementioned billion-odd citizens.
What can possibly be done to correct this? Nothing, I guess. This is how things are, have always been and will always be, all over the world, not just here in India. India. Ah, now here's a country that has one of the most complex polities imaginable. A country that was until 1947 merely a major part of a geographical region that was hastily clubbed together by its oppressors of over two centuries who were in a big hurry to pack up and leave. While it remains to be seen whether we end up going the Balkan way, from then till now this is our country and we (the, er, living?) are its citizens. Digressed, didn't I? What I was saying is that given the kind of set-up that we're a part of, everyone has a fixed role. Ours is not only to vote right but also to do all we can for the overall equalization of the people in terms of socio-economic standing and overall standard of living.
From what I've read, Mr. Sanyal, you guys were disillusioned by the practicalities of the democratic form of governance and had lost faith in the parliamentary procedures. Rightly so. The fixed roles that I mentioned are such that the less fortunate ones need to rely upon the more fortunate ones - and this distinction wasn't decided overnight but through a social order that has persisted over the centuries, modified by the sensibilities of all the influx which got assimilated in this mostly synthetic fabric. So when people esp. the latter forget their roles, the common man is bound to feel cheated, as the case must've been in the late 60s/early 70s, which the films of Ray, Sen, etc. tell me was when half the bhadralok were sympathetic to the cause of the people. Of course, a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then - the govt. opened up the floodgates in the early 90s, the common man was tempted by the apples on offer in the garden of private enterprise and conveniently forgot their duties as citizens of a relatively young nation.
So much, then, for the people's war. As long as the all-powerful nexus keeps the common man on a leash, there is no way a mass awakening is going to happen. Till then, someone has to look after the marginalized segments of the society, esp. those who do not form a part of one of the many separatist movements at our various (highly porous) international borders. I am not a student of economics or commerce, and neither do those subjects interest me enough for me to study them on my own. For me, the Sensex is just a random number; the country's growth rates and GDP probably matter as much to me as Sachin Tendulkar's batting averages and no. of centuries - just for the record, they don't. All that matters to me is the condition of the people - and while liberalization has indeed improved the lives of many in the metros, and also resulted in vast improvements in the second-tier cities as well as many small towns, the betterment is, if one thinks about it, relative and not absolute. And then, there are parts that cannot possibly be described as urban - entire stretches between major railway stations on a trip between any pair of the metros - that are still awaiting those marginal improvements.
I always believed that you Reds can be entrusted with this responsibility, especially since the powers that be seem to be least interested in the upliftment let alone the development of these regions - regions that are spread all over the heartland. There have been positive results over the years. In a country whose judiciary is notorious for having decades worth of pending cases, the "people's courts" have been known to mete out speedy justice; civil servants and grassroots level politicians have been forced to release funds meant for development, albeit at gunpoint. And while half the people prominent on various forms of media refer to your ilk as terrorists (the other half comprising of the creative, intellectual types too busy romanticizing the whole thing), it must be noted that at any given point of time in history, those fighting for the majority against the tyranny of the ruling minority have inadvertently been referred to as terrorists by the rulers. It's just a matter of perspective - hell, those branded terrorists by the British are the same people we hail now as freedom fighters.
A democracy may not have any place for vigilante justice but when the democratic machinery fails, such extra-judicial methods can be condoned as long as the sole purpose is to oil the rusty parts and to put back in their right slots or eliminate those loose nuts and bolts that having fallen off are acting as hindrances. But the moment the liberators cease being Robin Hoods and start giving in to the lust for power, the moment their actions result in the lumpen elements becoming victims all over again. So, even though you haven't been associated with the current bunch for the longest time, the fact remains that they are fruits of a tree whose seeds you planted. And while I respect your original stance, with every passing action of your proteges, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me (and I am sure for hundreds of others like me) to support the movement, because there is no justification for the massacre of the innocents.
So maybe you can get these 3rd generation rebels to explain - exactly why did they behead Francis Induwar? Other than stealing weapons and ammunition, is there even one reason why they chose to massacre 76 - seventy-six - CRPF soldiers? Why have they been running amok and every now and then butchering not devious landlords or corrupt politicians and bureaucrats or some other influential figure who they know for a fact has committed atrocities but against whom they don't have any nailing evidence, but the same innocent tribals and villagers they claim to be working for the upliftment of?
A couple of months ago, an IAS officer in Gadhchiroli said that he agreed with all but one point on the agenda of the Naxals - that one being armed violence. I am sure that your proteges must've killed him and his family off as well. From the statement he made, he seemed to be one of the good ones. Now that I think about it, it isn't really surprising that your death hardly evoked any sympathy from the press. R. I. P. Kanu Sanyal. If you can, that is.
Yours hesitatingly,
To begin with, I am deeply saddened by your recent bereavement, but what saddens me even more deeply is how little coverage your passing got in the media, which is really surprising given that the media is much less the Fourth Estate and much more a multi-headed money-hungry business behemoth scrounging for every last scrap of potential news to devour in a way that's louder and more in-your-face (well, in-my-face, given that you're, you know, dead).
Anyway, moving on, I feel it is my duty to inform you that this letter wasn't meant to be addressed to you at first. Since this is a very generic rant about how things are and how they should but cannot possibly be corrected, I had no idea who the ideal person to address this to would be. Luckily for me, you decided to kill yourself and I got myself the perfect recipient - being the armchair activist/coffee house ideologue that I like to call myself, even if I had zeroed in on that one living person, finding out his/her address would have been too much of a bother. It's already midway into the second paragraph so I should quit rambling and instead cut straight to the chase. Ever since I developed an interest in the India-Bharat dichotomy, I have always held the movement initiated by you and Charu in a positive light - well, at least back when it started, when it was about the peasants as well as the evil landlords getting their dues, by hook or by crook. Since then, there have been innumerous splits, you had mended your "unparliamentary" ways (in today's terms, you had sold out) and shunned the modern-day Naxals, who in turn had shunned you.
This is where I'd like to say something I've felt for a long time - the reason why communism in most of its forms has failed the world over is because man is too individualistic a creature to be successfully a part of a collectivist venture for long. Sooner or later, differences creep in - major ones, that end up dividing the comrades for good. Which is why there are so many brands of communism, so much so that while the parliamentary Leftists would term you Naxals as anarchists who are the antithesis of Marxists, you guys like to think you're the only ones who are true to the cause of the people (side-note - since Mao's beliefs applied to the China of back then, while Marshall said that every region has its own questions and therefore its own answers, wouldn't it be better if you guys become Titoists instead of Maoists?). That, and the lust for power - while almost all Leftist revolutions have started out with noble causes, once power had been usurped, comradeship gaya tel lene.
So while anyone who has anything resembling a heart will agree that communism is the way to go for the betterment of people (if nothing else it accords us the status of humans unlike capitalism in which we are merely human resources), the fact that everyone has his/her own brand of communism coupled with the fact that we humans lust for power and once we have it, let it go to our heads has meant that the theory has never been proven practically. Still, if I had to choose one over the other, I'll go for it since capitalism is skewed even on paper. Also, parliamentary communists are possibly the biggest hypocrites ever- which goes without saying, given the track record of the so-called "worker's men" whose sons and daughters are raking in the moolah, having created empires thanks to their daddies. So not cool.
Anyway, I have always found it intriguing how those who provide the most essential services to the society occupy the bottom rungs of the society, those who manage them but don't ever stoop down to actually do any real work are above them and those who employ and supervise these managers get to sit back, zip around in their imported sedans and/or SUVs with their Vaios and Blackberrys in tow, make huge profits and hand a minute share of their spoils down to their sub-ordinates. At about the same level are the stars of the show - the politicians, the sportstars (edit that: cricketers; other sportspersons are rarely stars and more often than not share the space at the bottom) and the entertainers. The first ones are supposed to run this country and look after the needs of its billion-odd citizens; the others earn all the money and the fame that there is for grabs while doing things that can hardly be described as essential for the survival of the aforementioned billion-odd citizens.
What can possibly be done to correct this? Nothing, I guess. This is how things are, have always been and will always be, all over the world, not just here in India. India. Ah, now here's a country that has one of the most complex polities imaginable. A country that was until 1947 merely a major part of a geographical region that was hastily clubbed together by its oppressors of over two centuries who were in a big hurry to pack up and leave. While it remains to be seen whether we end up going the Balkan way, from then till now this is our country and we (the, er, living?) are its citizens. Digressed, didn't I? What I was saying is that given the kind of set-up that we're a part of, everyone has a fixed role. Ours is not only to vote right but also to do all we can for the overall equalization of the people in terms of socio-economic standing and overall standard of living.
From what I've read, Mr. Sanyal, you guys were disillusioned by the practicalities of the democratic form of governance and had lost faith in the parliamentary procedures. Rightly so. The fixed roles that I mentioned are such that the less fortunate ones need to rely upon the more fortunate ones - and this distinction wasn't decided overnight but through a social order that has persisted over the centuries, modified by the sensibilities of all the influx which got assimilated in this mostly synthetic fabric. So when people esp. the latter forget their roles, the common man is bound to feel cheated, as the case must've been in the late 60s/early 70s, which the films of Ray, Sen, etc. tell me was when half the bhadralok were sympathetic to the cause of the people. Of course, a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then - the govt. opened up the floodgates in the early 90s, the common man was tempted by the apples on offer in the garden of private enterprise and conveniently forgot their duties as citizens of a relatively young nation.
So much, then, for the people's war. As long as the all-powerful nexus keeps the common man on a leash, there is no way a mass awakening is going to happen. Till then, someone has to look after the marginalized segments of the society, esp. those who do not form a part of one of the many separatist movements at our various (highly porous) international borders. I am not a student of economics or commerce, and neither do those subjects interest me enough for me to study them on my own. For me, the Sensex is just a random number; the country's growth rates and GDP probably matter as much to me as Sachin Tendulkar's batting averages and no. of centuries - just for the record, they don't. All that matters to me is the condition of the people - and while liberalization has indeed improved the lives of many in the metros, and also resulted in vast improvements in the second-tier cities as well as many small towns, the betterment is, if one thinks about it, relative and not absolute. And then, there are parts that cannot possibly be described as urban - entire stretches between major railway stations on a trip between any pair of the metros - that are still awaiting those marginal improvements.
I always believed that you Reds can be entrusted with this responsibility, especially since the powers that be seem to be least interested in the upliftment let alone the development of these regions - regions that are spread all over the heartland. There have been positive results over the years. In a country whose judiciary is notorious for having decades worth of pending cases, the "people's courts" have been known to mete out speedy justice; civil servants and grassroots level politicians have been forced to release funds meant for development, albeit at gunpoint. And while half the people prominent on various forms of media refer to your ilk as terrorists (the other half comprising of the creative, intellectual types too busy romanticizing the whole thing), it must be noted that at any given point of time in history, those fighting for the majority against the tyranny of the ruling minority have inadvertently been referred to as terrorists by the rulers. It's just a matter of perspective - hell, those branded terrorists by the British are the same people we hail now as freedom fighters.
A democracy may not have any place for vigilante justice but when the democratic machinery fails, such extra-judicial methods can be condoned as long as the sole purpose is to oil the rusty parts and to put back in their right slots or eliminate those loose nuts and bolts that having fallen off are acting as hindrances. But the moment the liberators cease being Robin Hoods and start giving in to the lust for power, the moment their actions result in the lumpen elements becoming victims all over again. So, even though you haven't been associated with the current bunch for the longest time, the fact remains that they are fruits of a tree whose seeds you planted. And while I respect your original stance, with every passing action of your proteges, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me (and I am sure for hundreds of others like me) to support the movement, because there is no justification for the massacre of the innocents.
So maybe you can get these 3rd generation rebels to explain - exactly why did they behead Francis Induwar? Other than stealing weapons and ammunition, is there even one reason why they chose to massacre 76 - seventy-six - CRPF soldiers? Why have they been running amok and every now and then butchering not devious landlords or corrupt politicians and bureaucrats or some other influential figure who they know for a fact has committed atrocities but against whom they don't have any nailing evidence, but the same innocent tribals and villagers they claim to be working for the upliftment of?
A couple of months ago, an IAS officer in Gadhchiroli said that he agreed with all but one point on the agenda of the Naxals - that one being armed violence. I am sure that your proteges must've killed him and his family off as well. From the statement he made, he seemed to be one of the good ones. Now that I think about it, it isn't really surprising that your death hardly evoked any sympathy from the press. R. I. P. Kanu Sanyal. If you can, that is.
Yours hesitatingly,
I read about sanyal and also a bit about the whole naxal movement,also his last interview. also read some random scripts of charu muzumdar's speeches..not that I agree with charu's thoughts
ReplyDeletelike any revolution it began with a sane and beneficial purpose..but with time it got diluted like any revolution into a killing spree..
esp. agree with your following points
"But the moment the liberators cease being Robin Hoods and start giving in to the lust for power, the moment their actions result in the lumpen elements becoming victims all over again."
"because there is no justification for the massacre of the innocents."
so
if they take on the administration they can be called rebels but once they kill so many people..they are begging to be labeled terrorists...
for me India is Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic ...the key words here.. socialist and democratic ... so I still strongly believe they have to co-exist... and killing innocents is never justified as it is anyway hard to justify violence...
I think the naxals are never going to get public goodwill anymore.. worse I think they may well be start being attacked by armed forces(army/air-force,etc) who have been till now staying out of it..saying we cant attack out own country-men..
but who will be proud of such country-men..
what crimes did those CRPF guys did against the naxals, other than joining the force to send home money to their families??
naxalism is no more a revolution ... its terrorism...
funny its the poor that are affected ...
the rich/powerful are always safe...
poor villagers..for whom it all began
are not getting a better life are they?
questioned by cops for supporting naxals.
and
terrorized by naxals for helping cops.
revolution ? is it?
a verry sauve letter (if u ignore the tel lagane gaya and few othrs ;)) considering its topic of purpose!
ReplyDeletethe irony(i.e. pre and post) of modern revolutions has been vrry aptly described.
how ever i choose to disagree on the point
"Anyway, I have always found it intriguing how those who provide the most essential services to the society occupy the bottom rungs of the society, those who manage them but don't ever stoop down to actually do any real work are above them and those who employ and supervise these managers get to sit back, zip around in their imported sedans and/or SUVs with their Vaios and Blackberrys in tow, make huge profits and hand a minute share of their spoils down to their sub-ordinates"
then again to each his own as both of us will get our 5 yr terms to do wat we have to.
lets c which works out for the betterment of the country.
One of the best pieces I've read on the Naxalite insurgency, and (finally!) a well-thought out opinion on the issue. Too many voices out there are either demonising or romanticising the Naxalites. Yes, violence is unjustified, but no one seems to care about the reasons behind this violence.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to defeat the Naxalites is to make them obsolete. This is achieved by developing the 'Red Corridor' and giving it's inhabitants the basic dignity of life.
Fabulously written; though you did take awfully long to accept the grim reality.
ReplyDeleteI still feel that there is no Absolute v/s Relative debate when it comes to betterment of the "oppressed".
The paragraph "Anyway, I have always found it intriguing.." is fantastic.
Also the Robin Hood reference doesn't work for me, that is subjective to which side you're on.
The article did make me realize that Capitalism is flawed (obviously) but Communism isn't even an alternative. Not here, at least.
Ironically, it is YOU who's helped me understand that.
Capitalism v/s Communism is a never-ending debate. One of the reasons is both have several ideal assumptions, which do not work once a "human" factor comes into the picture
ReplyDeleteThere wont be a revolution anytime soon, not when people are too busy earning money to purchase goods, whose prices increase by the day, and they have to earn more to buy them again, since they are so addicted to them
India's story is very different from the rest of the world, mainly because of the population and diversity. Its very difficult for a single form of government to rule one and all, if the subjects are so varied
Fabulously written. You've done a great job highlighting both the sides of the Naxal movement. As said before, the debate between Communism/Capitalism, revolution/terrorism is an endless one. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. You have expressed yours, and you've expressed them brilliantly. :D
ReplyDeleteThat brings to my mind, the thought that our beloved bapu ,a.k.a. M.K. Gandhi was a real thinker, to have realized the potential implications of a armed protest, esp. so after the Chauri-Chaura incident. I feel sorry that many take him as a weak old man bound by his majboori.
ReplyDelete(Ablonde might be living in my neck of the woods)
ReplyDeleteonline store
…… , . – . – , _ , ……… http://www.1-1shops
……… ) ` – . .> ‘ `( …….free shipping
…….. / . . . .`\ . . \ ……..paypal accept
…….. |. . . . . |. . .| ……..
……… \ . . . ./ . ./ ……….
……….. `=)\ /.=` …Versace Colostomy bags $34
…………. `-;`.-’
…………… `)| ….Ed Hardy adult diapers $15
……………. || _.-’| .
…………. ,_|| \_ Hello Kitty colostomy bags $45
……. , ….. \|| .
……. |\ |\ ,. ||/ …Gucci bedpans $23
…. ,..\` | /|.,|Y\, ..
….. ‘-…’-._..\||/ …Fendi false teeth $15
……… >_.-`Y| ……………