[WSF-Discuss] Arundhati Roy and Her Sleepwalk in the "Red Corridor"

[Sukla Sen]

I/III.
http://www.sacw.net/article1382.html

<http://www.sacw.net/article1382.html> Pulp Fiction from the Red Corridor

A Response to Arundhati Roy’s ’Walking with the Comrades"

Monday 22 March 2010, by Jairus Banaji <http://www.sacw.net/auteur317.html>


*(The below comment first appeared on
kafila.org<http://kafila.org/2010/03/22/response-to-arundhati-roy-jairus-banaji/>
)*

Arundhati Roy’s essay *Walking with the
comrades<http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=kafilabackup.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.outlookindia.com%2Farticle.aspx%3F264738-0>
* is a powerful indictment of the Indian state and its brutality but its
political drawbacks are screamingly obvious. Arundhati clearly believes that
the Indian state is such a bastion of oppression and unrelieved brutality
that there is no alternative to violent struggle or ‘protracted war’. In
other words, democracy is a pure excrescence on a military apparatus that
forms the true backbone of the Indian state. It is simply its ‘benign
façade’. If all you had in India were forest communities and corporate
predators, tribals and paramilitary forces, the government and the Maoists,
her espousal of the Maoists might just cut ice. But where does the rest of
India fit in? What categories do we have for them? Or are we seriously
supposed to believe that the extraordinary tide of insurrection will wash
over the messy landscapes of urban India and over the millions of
disorganised workers in our countryside *without* the emergence of a
powerful social agency, a broad alliance of salaried and wage-earning
strata, that can contest the stranglehold of capitalism? Without
*mass*organisations,
battles for democracy, struggles for the radicalisation of culture, etc.,
etc.? Does any of this matter for her?

In Arundhati’s vision of politics the only agent of social change is a
military force. There are no economic classes, no civil society, no mass
organisations or conflicts which are not controlled by a party (or ‘the’
party). There is no history of the left that diverges from the romantic
hagiographies of Naxalbari and its legacies, and there is, bizarrely, not
even a passing reference to *capitalism* as the systemic source of the
conversion of *adivasis* into wage-labourers, of the degradation of their
forms of life and resources and of the dispossession of entire communities.
In Arundhati, the vision of the *Communist Manifesto* is reversed. There
Marx brings the Communists in not to *prevent* the expansion of capitalism
but to fight it from the standpoint of a more advanced mode of production,
one grounded in the ability of masses of workers to recover control of their
lives and shape the nature and meaning of production. The primitive
communism in terms of which she sees and applauds the programme of the CPI
(Maoist) recalls not this vision of the future but the debates around the
possibility of the Russian *mir* (the peasant commune) forming the basis for
a direct transition to communism. On that issue Marx was, as always,
profoundly internationalist, speculating that ‘if the Russian Revolution
becomes the signal for the proletarian revolution in the West, so that both
complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land [the *
mir*] may serve as the starting point for a communist development’. That
didn’t happen, the revolution in Russia remained isolated, it was subverted
internally by the grip of a leadership every bit as vanguardist as Kishenji,
and if we don’t learn from history, we cannot truly speak as the beacons of
hope that Arundhati sees the Maoists as. It is not hope but false promises
that will lie at the end of the revolutionary road, aside from the corpses
of thousands of ‘martyrs’ and many more thousands of nameless civilians who
of course had no control over ‘the’ party.

II.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=675680488&ref=ts

Debabrata Banerjee <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1542937380>

In 1980-'81, in the so-called PWG affected areas in AP [Srikakulam for one]
the state [both the centre and state govts.]was made to address some
immediate problems and demands of the area. It was not because of PWG
activities that the state was brought to the ground to see some reason,
negotiate and settle disputes, but because of agitation by tribals, who
didn't mind PWG presence as long as it served their political agitation.
Soon thereafter the PWG beat a hasty retreat because of their irrelevance.
Next year on, there was unrest around Chandrapur, Gadchiroli and
predominantly Gond region over common property resource and forest produce
rights issues and a flashpoint of that movement was police firing on an
unarmed adivasi demonstration in Adilabad and many were killed. The outcome
of that episode would be the growth of civil and democratic rights
organization, while the Forest Bill was put before the parliament.
Agitations snowballed into mass adivasi/tribal movements keeping focus on
human and democratic rights of adivasis and for bringing changes in the
proposed Forest Act. During the first half of 1980's popular adivasi
movements had peaked which split the Maoists. Most of them became involved
with popular, local level struggles but the faction believing in the slogan
of `armed struggle' found no place in tribal movements of the time. That was
when they retreated further towards Bastar areas.There they were hardly
received with open arms by the hill Murias and Marias, and consequently had
to survive on their own as a fringe group arousing suspicion. It was in
1990's, as the neo-liberal assault created dissatisfaction, de-politicizing
the cultural space resulting in generalized sense of despair and apathy that
the Maoists found grounds more conducive for making headway towards
Abujhmarh.

Arundhut Roy's brand of existential political reporting under the full glare
of mainstream media thriving in Delhi is self-deluding simply because it
disregards or is disdainful towards the political context as it has unfolded
over time in the forest regions. Over the years, from 1990's the situation
has deteriorated to a point when large numbers of adivasi people today face
the grim prospect of carrying on with daily life with the armed might of the
state breathing down their necks. It is ridiculous to fantasize in a `war
zone, or let one's imagination be drowned by the heady fragrance of Mahua
buds as life in forests comes under the most severe threat and shadows drown
the dreams. This was not always the case. It is a development for which the
Maoists are responsible way up to their neck.They have clearly preyed upon
the vulnerabilities of children and youth for making them serve a political
cause that is not just dubious, violent [justified by vengeance, not
justice] but even further away from the reality of tribal life than the
corridors of power in Delhi. The past of PWG is a history of defeats leading
to reaction and coming of counter-revolutionary forces unleashed by the
state. It has no semblance even to any notion of `revolution' except in the
heads of rigid followers of militarized politics, aka Maoists and the
politically dumbing prose so painfully churned out year after year by
Arundhuti Roy and Co.

III.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=318738120436

 Towards A New World: Via Maoist Insurgency?
Share<http://www.facebook.com/ajax/share_dialog.php?s=4&appid=2347471856&p[]=1387786704&p[]=318738120436>
 Monday, 26 October 2009 at 13:02

[The following is a short note to evoke informed discussions.]

*First thing first.*
*Nowhere in the world, till today, armed revolution has succeeded in any
"functioning democracy".* Whatever the inadequacies or grave problems with
such orders.
That's very important.
The only apparent exception that one could point at is the first "Socialist
Revolution" in Russia, back in 1917.
In February, Tsar was deposed and "democracy" established. In the following
October (November), the Revolution took place overrunning the "democratic"
order.
But then, one could very well argue, the October Revolution was in its
essence a sort of briefly interrupted continuation of the closely preceding
February Revolution. Under the conditions of tremendous flux - the WWI and
at the end the failed Kornilov Revolt, a counterrevolutionary armed
venture.
In any case, if at all, that's the only, repeat only, exception.

*Armed revolutions have, however, been more of a rule than exception in
colonised countries, countries under autocratic/dictatorial/monarchic/apartheid
rules.*
(That’s precisely why Indian Freedom Struggle occupies a special place in
modern human history.)

But even there, the legitimisation of "violence" and brutalities as the
method for conflict resolution and putting an end to an unjust, and quite
grossly at that, order did leave its stamp on the new order to emerge,
pretty often.
*Kampuchea is a much talked of rather recent illustration.*

*As regards the fate of Maoist insurgencies worldwide in the recent decades*,
we had three major hubs, other than India: Peru, Nepal, Philippines.

*In Peru*, the Shining Path, known for its brutalities, with its supreme
leader Guzman captured in 1992 and stood wiped out by 2000.
In Philippines, the insurgencies have very significantly declined.

*In Nepal*, after some initial spectacular success, Maoist insurgency faced
a sort of stalemate. At the same time, there was (unarmed) mass upsurge –
Jan Andolan II - in the valley, from where the Maoists had withdrawn quite
some time back, against the monarchical rule. King Gyanendra had to abdicate
under the massive impact of civil disobedience on April 24 2006. The Maoists
initially rejected it and publicly derided the Seven Party Alliance and the
civil society organisations for accepting that (ref.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4942378.stm). In three days’ time,
however, they reversed the stand (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
/south_asia/4949066.stm). Declared a unilateral truce and then forswore
insurgency to enter into an understanding with the Seven Party Alliance and
join the "democratic" mainstream.
For that the Indian Maoists have sharply derided them. So much so that the
Gen. Secy. of the CPI(Maoists), Ganapathy, has in a very recent interview
has issued a call to the Nepali Maoists to revolt against their party
leadership. Nothing less.
Quote
It is heartening to hear that a section of the leadership of the UCPN(M) has
begun to struggle against the revisionist positions taken by Comrade
Prachanda and others. Given the great revolutionary traditions of the
UCPN(M), we hope that the inner-party struggle will repudiate the right
opportunist line pursued by its leadership, give up revisionist stands and
practices, and apply minds creatively to the concrete conditions of Nepal.
Unquote
(See: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/revo
lution-in-india-interview-with-cpi-maoist-leader-ganapathi/.<http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/revolution-in-india-interview-with-cpi-maoist-leader-ganapathi/>
)

*In India, the Maoist insurgencies are restricted to the most backward
regions*: inhabited mostly by appallingly poor adivasis, typically in
mountainous and/or forested terrains.
In the eastern and central regions.
These insurgencies, thereby, have strong ethnic dimensions.
Nothing in the metros, cities and towns. Not even in most of the villages.

*In the recent years, particularly in Latin America, militant, but
essentially unarmed, mass mobilisations have brought about significant
shifts in regimes and their policies in a number of countries without
actually breaching the limits of "democracy".*
The processes are of course on. Not without ups and downs. Far from any
definitive closure.

*Even in India, myriad struggles are on, on myriad issues*. Ranging from
gender to caste, from land rights to ecology.
Struggles against the anti-people SEZ, fired up by the spectacular success
of the militant - but essentially unarmed - struggle of Nandigram have made
a very significant impact on state policies.
*A comparison between Nandigram and Lalgarh could be highly instructive.*
If Nandigram caused the SEZ juggernaut to significantly slow down its pace;
Lalgrah has gone to radically raise the pitch of clamour for the Operation
Green Hunt.

*As regards the path/goal*, we’ll also have to look into three parameters:
Feasibility of the path.
Desirability of the goal.
(Possible) Alternatives as regards path and goal..

*Feasibility*: No precedence of success, in “democracies”.

*Desirability*: Monstrous orders came up in the name of "Socialism". Killing
millions and sending innumerable people to the Gulags. The short-lived
Kampuchea is just the most remembered illustration.
During the Great Leap Forward (1958-61), in China, an estimated 30 million
people perished - extra deaths - unrecoginised and unmourned.
No one as much squeaked.
Years after, foreign demographers would decipher that.
Apologists are busy contesting the precise figure.
Forget about the deaths - however enormous the scale.
Just think of no one in China squeaked!
What a monstrous order!

*Alternatives*: We are to hunt for based on our experiences.
*The term, "Socialism for the Twenty-First Century", which at least
implicitly acknowledges the huge problems with the twentieth century
version, as it actually obtained, deserves wide and serious attention.*
It is no exclusive preserve of Michael Lebowitz or whoever.
Nor it should remain restricted to Latin America.
And various concerns – ecology, gender, race/caste, culture, nuclear
holocaust etc. have to be integrated with the goal and also the path ahead.
The looming ecological doom demands utmost attention.
And, of course, *the central dream as captured in the Communist Manifesto,
in socialism "free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all', has got to be the guiding principle.*
*No readymade, off-the-shelf available, model is out there to be emulated.
Have to be worked out as we struggle ahead.*


-- 
Peace Is Doable
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20100323/7bc0effd/attachment-0001.html>