I read today about arrest of Maoist/Naxalite (I will use the terms interchangeably) Prashant Bose. Few days back, Milind Teltumbade died in encounter with police in Gadchiroli.
I admire Naxalites. It takes courage to take up on mighty state, especially when your life on such path is not going to be a cozy one. Whether we agree with path of Naxalites or not, whether we subscribe to ideology on left or right, we must ask - why would one participate in the armed struggle against the national state as mighty as India? The lifelong participation in armed struggle cannot be without a driving force. Influence in youth can drive one towards such path, but then disillusion can set in quickly.
It is easy to criticize or even condemn 'violence'. The kind of life I am living and I am likely to live, I am unlikely to experience a systematic violence due to religion, class, or caste/tribe. I am also unlikely to get exploited or uprooted due to these factors. But is the life of a tribal in jungles of Jharkhand similar to mine in this regard? Is the life a scheduled caste person in some village in India same to mine in this regard?
Or I can ask this question other way round. Suppose someone dear to me is killed or harmed beyond repair by someone, will I not want or desire to use violence to correct the wrong? I may not use it after all, as tamed by game of incentives I will end up choosing self-preservation. But will not there be a moment when all I will seek is the violent retribution?
We should desire to have a politics that does not require hidden use of violence. (I am assuming the explicit use of violence within Indian politics is never on the table.) But that stage, realistically, is at least some decades away. Violence is integral to Indian politics. The question is of degree of association. Some will like to have a primary, causal association to violence while others will pick and choose violence to condemn or to ignore.
Does that mean I am a Naxal supporter or sympathizer? For me, the answer is NO!. I want the state to do to them what it can do with constitutional use of force. I want state to be 'fair', to be magnanimous towards them. Naxalites have served a critical purpose, they have brought the exploitation issue to the fore. If only to subvert Naxalites, state had to act on the developmental needs of Naxal affected region. State must recognize the lacuna, the problem that led to the violent eruptions.
State needs to tell them -'Yes. There was a problem and we had not solved it when when we should have. We neglected our fellow Indians. Some of us were part of group which exploited these not so modern, not so integrated Indians and it was a grave error for a nation aspiring to be a great one. But now we have seen it, we will not let it be. We will change it. You give up the weapons, accept the constitutional road and consequences and let us all see the light at the end of the road. '
This is what I wish. But what I think will happen is quite pessimistic. The pincer strategy of the state - nabbing the supporters of Naxalites (labelled as 'urban Naxal') and thus malnourishing them and use of force against Naxalites for eliminating them and the ever downward seeping market and lure of consumption driven satiation, both will lead to end of Naxalite movement due to lack of new participation, provided the injustices in Naxal regions do not aggravate. But if corporate need and individual greed gives rise to further exploitative process - unfair land deals, contract laborers and displacement - then violence can escalate further, delaying the end.
The state's force is mighty, BJP has a critical social mass behind it and this critical mass likes the iron hand and I assume Maoist will face declining participation - but all these factors will become less effective if injustices that caused the whole problem will not be addressed. Surest way to address the Naxalite problem is to address the underlying puzzle of developmental inequalities.