Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America

James Ptas

December 1997

By the early 1980s the more perceptive sectors of the neoliberal ruling classes realized that their policies were polarizing the society and provoking large-scale social discontent. Neoliberal politicians began to finance and promote a parallel strategy “from below,” the promotion of “grassroots” organization with an “anti-statist” ideology to intervene among potentially conflictory classes, to create a “social cushion.” These organizations were financially dependent on neoliberal sources and were directly involved in competing with socio-political movements for the allegiance of local leaders and activist communities. By the 1990s these organizations, described as “nongovernmental,” numbered in the thousands and were receiving close to four billion dollars world-wide.

Neoliberalism and the NGOs

The confusion concerning the political character of the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) stems from their earlier history in the 1970s during the days of the dictatorships. In this period they were active in providing humanitarian support to the victims of the military dictatorship and denouncing human rights violations. The NGOs supported “soup kitchens” which allowed victimized families to survive the first wave of shock treatments administered by the neoliberal dictatorships. This period created a favorable image of NGOs even among the left. They were considered part of the “progressive camp.”

Even then, however, the limits of the NGOs were evident. While they attacked the human rights violations of local dictatorships, they rarely denounced the U.S. and European patrons who financed and advised them. Nor was there a serious effort to link the neoliberal economic policies and human rights violations to the new turn in the imperialist system. Obviously the external sources of funding limited the sphere of criticism and human rights action.

As opposition to neoliberalism grew in the early 1980s, the U.S. and European governments and the World Bank increased their funding of NGOs. There is a direct relation between the growth of social movements challenging the neoliberal model and the effort to subvert them by creating alternative forms of social action through the NGOs. The basic point of convergence between the NGOs and the World Bank was their common opposition to “statism.” On the surface the NGOs criticized the state from a “left” perspective defending civil society, while the right did so in the name of the market. In reality, however, the World Bank, the neoliberal regimes, and western foundations co-opted and encouraged the NGOs to undermine the national welfare state by providing social services to compensate the victims of the multinational corporations (MNCs). In other words, as the neoliberal regimes at the top devastated communities by inundating the country with cheap imports, extracting external debt payment, abolishing labor legislation, and creating a growing mass of low-paid and unemployed workers, the NGOs were funded to provide “self-help” projects, “popular education,” and job training, to temporarily absorb small groups of poor, to co-opt local leaders, and to undermine anti-system struggles.

The NGOs became the “community face” of neoliberalism, intimately related to those at the top and complementing their destructive work with local projects. In effect the neoliberals organized a “pincer” operation or dual strategy. Unfortunately many on the left focused only on “neoliberalism” from above and the outside (International Monetary Fund, World Bank) and not on neoliberalism from below (NGOs, micro-enterprises). A major reason for this oversight was the conversion of many ex-Marxists to the NGO formula and practice. Anti-Statism was the ideological transit ticket from class politics to “community development,” from Marxism to the NGOs.

Typically, NGO ideologues counterpose “state” power to “local” power. State power is, they argue, distant from its citizens, autonomous, and arbitrary, and it tends to develop interests different from and opposed to those of its citizens, while local power is necessarily closer and more responsive to the people. But apart from historical cases where the reverse has also been true, this leaves out the essential relation between state and local power—the simple truth that state power wielded by a dominant, exploiting class will undermine progressive local initiatives, while that same power in the hands of progressive forces can reinforce such initiatives.

The counterposition of state and local power has been used to justify the role of NGOs as brokers between local organizations, neoliberal foreign donors (World Bank, Europe, or the United States) and the local free market regimes. But the effect is to strengthen neoliberal regimes by severing the link between local struggles and organizations and national/international political movements. The emphasis on “local activity” serves the neoliberal regimes since it allows its foreign and domestic backers to dominate macro-socio-economic policy and to channel most of the state’s resources toward subsidies for export capitalists and financial institutions.

So while the neoliberals were transferring lucrative state properties to the private rich, the NGOs were not part of the trade union resistance. On the contrary they were active in local private projects, promoting the private enterprise discourse (self-help) in the local communities by focusing on micro-enterprises. The NGOs built ideological bridges between the small scale capitalists and the monopolies benefitting from privatization—all in the name of “anti-statism” and the building of civil societies. While the rich accumulated vast financial empires from the privatization, the NGO middle class professionals got small sums to finance offices, transportation, and small-scale economic activity.

The important political point is that the NGOs depoliticized sectors of the population, undermined their commitment to public employees, and co-opted potential leaders in small projects. NGOs abstain from public school teacher struggles, as the neoliberal regimes attack public education and public educators. Rarely if ever do NGOs support the strikes and protests against low wages and budget cuts. Since their educational funding comes from the neoliberal governments, they avoid solidarity with public educators in struggle. In practice, “non-governmental” translates into anti-public-spending activities, freeing the bulk of funds for neoliberals to subsidize export capitalists while small sums trickle from the government to NGOs.

In reality non-governmental organizations are not non-governmental. They receive funds from overseas governments or work as private subcontractors of local governments. Frequently they openly collaborate with governmental agencies at home or overseas. This “subcontracting” undermines professionals with fixed contracts, replacing them with contingent professionals. The NGOs cannot provide the long-term comprehensive programs that the welfare state can furnish. Instead they provide limited services to narrow groups of communities. More importantly, their programs are not accountable to the local people but to overseas donors. In that sense NGOs undermine democracy by taking social programs out of the hands of the local people and their elected officials to create dependence on non-elected, overseas officials and their locally anointed officials.

NGOs shift people’s attention and struggles away from the national budget and toward self-exploitation to secure local social services. This allows the neoliberals to cut social budgets and transfer state funds to subsidize bad debts of private banks, and provide loans to exporters. Self exploitation (self-help) means that, in addition to paying taxes to the state and not getting anything in return, working people have to work extra hours with marginal resources, and expend scarce energies to obtain services that the bourgeoisie continues to receive from the state. More fundamentally, the NGO ideology of “private voluntaristic activity” undermines the sense of the “public”: the idea that the government has an obligation to look after its citizens and provide them with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that the political responsibility of the state is essential for the well-being of citizens. Against this notion of public responsibility, the NGOs foster the neoliberal idea of private responsibility for social problems and the importance of private resources to solve these problems. In effect they impose a double burden on the poor who continue to pay taxes to finance the neoliberal state to serve the rich, but are left with private self-exploitation to take care of their own needs.

NGOs and Socio-political Movements

NGOs emphasize projects, not movements; they “mobilize” people to produce at the margins but not to struggle to control the basic means of production and wealth; they focus on technical financial assistance of projects, not on structural conditions that shape the everyday lives of people. The NGOs co-opt the language of the left: “popular power,” “empowerment,” “gender equality,” “sustainable development,” “bottom-up leadership.” The problem is that this language is linked to a framework of collaboration with donors and government agencies that subordinate practical activity to non-confrontational politics. The local nature of NGO activity means that “empowerment” never goes beyond influencing small areas of social life, with limited resources, and within the conditions permitted by the neoliberal state and macro-economy.

The NGOs and their post-Marxist professional staff directly compete with the socio-political movements for influence among the poor, women, and the racially excluded. Their ideology and practice diverts attention from the sources and solutions of poverty (looking downward and inward instead of upward and outward). To speak of micro-enterprises, instead of the elimination of exploitation by the overseas banks, as the solution, is based on the notion that the problem is one of individual initiative rather than the transference of income overseas. The NGO’s aid affects small sectors of the population, setting up competition between communities for scarce resources, generating insidious distinctions and inter- and intra-community rivalries, thus undermining class solidarity. The same is true among the professionals: each sets up its NGO to solicit overseas funds. They compete by presenting proposals more congenial to the overseas donors, while claiming to speak for their followers.

The net effect is a proliferation of NGOs that fragment poor communities into sectoral and sub-sectoral groupings unable to see the larger social picture that afflicts them and even less able to unite in struggle against the system. Recent experience also demonstrates that foreign donors finance projects during “crises”—political and social challenges to the status quo. Once the movements have ebbed they shift funding to NGO-style “collaboration,” fitting the NGO projects into the neoliberal agenda. Economic development compatible with the “free market” rather than social organization for social change becomes the dominant item on the funding agenda.

The structure and nature of NGOs, with their “apolitical” posture and their focus on self-help, depoliticizes and demobilizes the poor. They reinforce the electoral processes encouraged by the neoliberal parties and mass media. Political education about the nature of imperialism, and the class basis of neoliberalism, the class struggle between exporters and temporary workers, are avoided. Instead the NGOs discuss “the excluded,” the “powerless,” “extreme poverty,” “gender or racial discrimination,” without moving beyond the superficial symptom to the social system that produces these conditions. Incorporating the poor into the neoliberal economy through purely “private voluntary action,” the NGOs create a political world where the appearance of solidarity and social action cloaks a conservative conformity with the international and national structure of power.

It is no coincidence that as NGOs have become dominant in certain regions, independent class political action has declined, and neoliberalism goes uncontested. The bottom line is that the growth of NGOs coincides with increased funding under neoliberalism and the deepening of poverty everywhere. Despite the claims of many local successes, the overall power of neoliberalism stands unchallenged and the NGOs increasingly search for niches in the interstices of power.

The problem of formulating alternatives has been hindered in another way too. Many of the former leaders of guerrilla and social movements, trade union and popular women’s organizations have been co-opted by the NGOs. Some have undoubtedly been attracted by the hope—or the illusion—that this might give them access to levers of power which would allow them to do some good. But in any case, the offer is tempting: higher pay (occasionally in hard currency), prestige and recognition by overseas donors, overseas conferences and networks, office staff, and relative security from repression. In contrast, the socio-political movements offer few material benefits but greater respect and independence and, more importantly, the freedom to challenge the political and economic system. The NGOs and their overseas banking supporters (Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank) publish newsletters featuring success stories of micro-enterprises and other self-help projects—without mentioning the high rates of failure as popular consumption declines, low-priced imports flood the market, and interest rates spiral, as in Mexico today.

Even the “successes” affect only a small fraction of the total poor and succeed only to the degree that others cannot enter the same market. The propaganda value of individual micro-enterprise success, however, is important in fostering the illusion that neoliberalism is a popular phenomenon. The frequent violent mass outbursts that take place in regions of micro-enterprise promotion suggests that the ideology is not hegemonic and the NGOs have not yet displaced independent class movements.

Finally NGOs foster a new type of cultural and economic colonialism and dependency. Projects are designed, or at least approved, based on the “guidelines” and priorities of the imperial centers and their institutions. They are administered and “sold” to communities. Evaluations are done by and for the imperial institutions. Shifts of funding priorities or bad evaluations result in the dumping of groups, communities, farms, and co-operatives. Everything and everybody is increasingly disciplined to comply with the donors and project evaluators’ demands. The new viceroys supervise and ensure conformity with the goals, values, and ideologies of the donor as well as the proper use of funds. Where “successes” occur they are heavily dependent on continued outside support, without which they could collapse.

In many ways the hierarchical structures and the forms of transmission of “aid” and “training” resemble nineteenth-century charity, and the promoters are not very different from Christian missionaries. The NGOs emphasize “self-help” in attacking “paternalism and dependence” on the state. In this competition among NGOs to capture the victims of neoliberals, they receive important subsidies from their counterparts in Europe and the United States. The self-help ideology emphasizes the replacement of public employees by volunteers, and upwardly mobile professionals contracted on a temporary basis. The basic philosophy of the NGO intellectuals is to transform “solidarity” into collaboration and subordination to the macro-economy of neoliberalism, by focusing attention away from state resources of the wealthy classes toward self-exploitation of the poor.

But, while the mass of NGOs are increasingly instruments of neoliberalism, there is a small minority which attempt to develop an alternative strategy that is supportive of anti-imperialist and class politics. None of them receive funds from the World Bank, European, or U.S. governmental agencies. They support efforts to link local power to struggles for state power. They link local projects to national socio-political movements: occupying large landed estates, defending public property and national ownership against multinationals. They provide political solidarity to social movements involved in struggles to expropriate land. They support women’s struggles linked to class perspectives. They recognize the importance of politics in defining local and immediate struggles. They believe that local organizations should fight at the national level and that national leaders must be accountable to local activists.

Some Examples

Let us examine some examples of the role of NGOs and their relation to neoliberalism and imperialism in specific countries:

Bolivia

In 1985 the Bolivian government launched its New Economic Policy (NEP) by decree: freezing wages for four months while inflation raged at a 15,000 percent annual rate. The NEP annulled all price controls and reduced or ended food and fuel subsidies. It also laid the basis for the privatization of most state enterprises and the firing of public-sector employees. Massive cutbacks in health and education programs eliminated most public services. These structural adjustment policies (SAP) were designed and dictated by the World Bank and the IMF and approved by the U.S. and European governments and banks. The number of poverty stricken Bolivians grew geometrically. Prolonged general strikes and violent confrontations followed. In response the World Bank, European, and U.S. governments provided massive aid to fund a “poverty alleviation program.” Most of the money was directed to a Bolivian government agency, the Emergency Social Fund (ESF), which channeled funds to the NGOs to implement its program. The funds were not insignificant: in 1990 foreign aid totalled $738 million.

The number of NGOs in Bolivia grew rapidly in response to international funding: prior to 1980 there were 100 NGOs; by 1992 there were 530 and growing. Almost all the NGOs are directed toward addressing social problems created by the World Bank and the Bolivian government’s free market policies, which the dismantled state institutions no longer can deal with. Of the tens of millions allocated to the NGOs, only 15 to 20 percent reached the poor. The rest was siphoned off to pay administrative costs and professional salaries. The Bolivian NGOs functioned as appendages of the state and served to consolidate its power. The absolute levels of poverty stayed the same and the long-term structural causes—the neoliberal policies—were cushioned by the NGOs. While not solving the poverty problem, the NGO-administered poverty programs strengthened the regime and weakened opposition to the SAP. The NGOs, with their big budgets, exploited vulnerable groups and were able to convince some leaders of the opposition that they could benefit from working with the government. According to one observer, commenting on the NGO role in the “poverty program”: “If this (NGO programs) did not create direct support, it at least reduced potential opposition to the government and its program.”

When the public school teachers of La Paz went on strike to protest $50-a-month wages and crowded classrooms, the NGOs ignored it; when cholera and yellow fever epidemics raged in the countryside, the NGO self-help programs were helpless where a comprehensive public health program would have been successful in preventing them. The NGOs did absorb many of Bolivia’s former leftist intellectuals and turned them into apologists for the neoliberal system. Their seminars about “civil society” and “globalization” obscured the fact that the worst exploiters (the private mine owners, new rich agro-exporters, and high paid consultants) were members of “civil society” and that the SAP was an imperial design to open the country’s mineral resources to unregulated pillage.

Chile

In Chile under the Pinochet dictatorship in 1973-1989, the NGOs played an important role denouncing human rights violations, preparing studies critical of the neoliberal model and sustaining soup kitchens and other poverty programs. Their numbers multiplied with the advent of the massive popular struggles between 1982 and 1986 that threatened to overthrow the dictatorship. To the extent that they expressed an ideology, it was oriented toward “democracy” and “development with equity.” Of the close to two hundred NGOs, fewer than five provided a clear critical analysis and exposition of the links between U.S. imperialism and the dictatorship, the ties between World Bank funded free market policies and the 47 percent level of poverty.

In July of 1986 there was a successful general strike—a guerrilla group almost succeeded in killing Pinochet—and the United States sent a representative (Gelbard) to broker an electoral transition between the more conservative sectors of the opposition and Pinochet. An electoral calendar was established, a plebiscite was organized, and the electoral parties re-emerged. An alliance between Christian Democrats and Socialists was forged and eventually won the plebiscite, ending Pinochet’s rule (but not his command of the armed forces and secret police); this alliance subsequently won the presidency.

The social movements which played a vital role in ending the dictatorships were marginalized. The NGOs turned from supporting the movements to collaborating with the government. The Socialist and Christian Democratic NGO professionals became government ministers. From critics of Pinochet’s free market policies they became its celebrants. Former President of CIEPLAN (a major research institute) Alejandro Foxley publicly promised to continue managing the macro-economic indicators in the same fashion as Pinochet’s minister. The NGOs were instructed by their foreign donors to end their support for independent grassroots movements and to collaborate with the new civilian neoliberal regime. Sur Profesionales, one of the best known research NGOs, carried out research on the “propensity for violence” in the shantytowns—information that was useful to the police and the new regime in repressing independent social movements. Two of its chief researchers (specialty: social movements) became government ministers administering economic policies that created the most lopsided income inequalities in recent Chilean history.

The NGOs’ external links and the professional ambitions of its leaders played a major role in undermining the burgeoning popular movement. Most of its leaders became government functionaries who co-opted local leaders, while undermining rank-and-file style community assemblies. Interviews with women active in the shantytown Lo Hermida revealed the shift in the post-electoral period. “The NGOs told us that because democracy has arrived there is no need to continue the (soup-kitchen) programs. You don’t need us.” Increasingly the NGOs conditioned their activities on supporting the “democratic” free market regime. The NGO functionaries continued to use their participatory rhetoric to hustle votes for their parties in the government and to secure government contracts.

One striking impact of the NGOs in Chile was its relationship to the “women’s movement.” What started as a promising activist group in the mid-1980s was gradually taken over by NGOs who published expensive newsletters from well-furnished offices. The “leaders” who lived in fashionable neighborhoods represented a shrinking number of women. During the Latin American Feminist Conference in Chile in 1997, a militant group of rank-and-file Chilean feminist (“the autonomists”) provided a radical critique of the NGO feminists as sellouts to government subsidies.

Brazil

The most dynamic social movement in Brazil is the Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST). With over five thousand organizers and several hundred thousand sympathizers and activists, it has been directly involved in hundreds of land occupations over the past few years. At a conference organized in May 1996, by the MST, at which I spoke, the role of NGOs was one of the subjects of debate. A representative from a Dutch NGO appeared on the scene and insisted on participating. When he was told the meeting was closed, he told them that he had a “proposal” for funding ($300 thousand) community development, and insisted on entering. In no uncertain terms the MST leaders told him that they were not for sale and that anyway, they, the MST, design their own “projects” according to their own needs and don’t need NGO tutors.

Later the women’s caucus of the MST discussed a recent meeting with rural-based feminist NGOs. The MST women pushed for a class struggle perspective, combining direct action (land occupations) and the struggle for agrarian reform with gender equality. The NGO professionals insisted that the MST women break with their organizations and support a minimalist program of strictly feminist reforms. The end result was a tactical agreement opposing domestic violence, registering women as heads of families, and encouraging gender equality. The MST women, mostly daughters of landless peasants, perceived the NGO professionals as divisive careerists, not willing to challenge the political and economic elite that oppressed all peasants. Despite their criticisms of their male comrades, they clearly felt greater affinity with the movement than with the class-collaborationist “feminist” NGOs.

In our discussion, the MST distinguished between NGOs that contribute to the movement (money, resources, etc.) to finance class struggle, and NGOs that are essentially missionary outfits that fragment and isolate peasants, as is the case with many pentecostal and USAID and World Bank sponsored NGO projects.

El Salvador

Throughout Latin America peasant militants have voiced serious criticisms of the role and politics of the vast majority of NGOs, particularly about the patronizing and domineering attitude that they display behind their ingratiating rhetoric of “popular empowerment” and participation. I encountered this directly during a recent visit to El Salvador, where I was giving a seminar for the Alianza Democratica Campesino (the ADC, or Democratic Peasant Alliance) which represents 26 peasant and landless workers’ organizations.

Part of our collaboration involved the joint development of a project to fund a peasant-directed research and training center. Together with the leaders of the ADC we visited a private Canadian agency, CRC SOGEMA, which was subcontracted by CIDA, the Canadian government’s foreign assistance agency. They administered a $25 million (Canadian) aid packet for El Salvador. Before our visit, one of the ADC leaders had held an informal discussion with one of the Salvadoran associates of CRC SOGEMA. He explained the proposal and its importance for stimulating peasant-based participatory research. The CRC SOGEMA representative proceeded to draw a figure of a person on a piece of paper. He pointed to the head. “That,” he said, “is the NGOs: they think, write, and prepare programs.” He then pointed to the hands and feet, “that’s the peasants: they provide data and implement the projects.”

This revealing episode was the background to our formal meeting with the head of CRC SOGEMA. The director told us that the money was already earmarked for a Salvadoran NGO: FUNDE (Fundacion Nacional para el Desarrollo, the National Foundation for Development), a consulting firm of upwardly mobile professionals. She encouraged the peasant leaders to co-operate and to become involved because, she said, it would be “empowering.” In the course of our conversation, it emerged that the Salvadoran associate of CRC SOGEMA who had expressed that outrageous view of the relation between NGOs (the head) and peasants (the hands and feet) was a “link” between FUNDE and SOGEMA. The ADC leaders responded that, while FUNDE was technically competent, their “courses” and research did not meet the needs of the peasants and that they had a very paternalistic attitude toward the peasants. When the Canadian director asked for an example, the ADC leaders related the incident of the “political drawing” and the role to which it relegated peasants.

This was, said the director of SOGEMA, a “very unfortunate incident,” but they were nonetheless committed to working with the FUNDE. If the ADC wished to have an impact they would best attend FUNDE meetings. The ADC leaders pointed out that the project’s design and goals were elaborated by middle class professionals, while peasants were invited to collaborate by providing data and attending their “seminars.” In a fit of annoyance, the director called the meeting to an end. The peasant leaders were furious. “Why were we led to believe that they (the Canadian agency) were interested in peasant participation, democracy, and all the other crap, when they are already plugged into the NGOs, who don’t represent a single peasant? That study will never be read by any peasant, nor will it be at all relevant to our struggle for land. It will be about “modernization” and how to swindle the peasants out of their land and turn them into commercial farms or tourist areas.”

The managers of NGOs have become skilled in designing projects. They transmit the new rhetoric of “identity” and “globalism” into the popular movements. Their activities and texts promote international cooperation, self-help, micro-enterprises, and forge ideological bonds with the neoliberals while forcing people into economic dependency on external donors. After a decade of NGO activity these professionals have “depoliticized” and de-radicalized whole areas of social life: women, neighborhoods, and youth organizations. In Peru and Chile, where the NGO’s have become firmly established, the radical social movements have declined.

Local struggles over immediate issues are the food and substance that nurture emerging movements. NGOs certainly emphasize the “local,” but the crucial question is what direction local actions will take: whether they will raise the larger issues of the social system and link up with other local forces to confront the state and its imperial backers, or whether they will turn inward, while looking to foreign donors and fragmenting into a series of competing supplicants for external subsidies. The ideology of NGOs encourages the latter.

NGO intellectuals frequently write about “co-operation” but without dwelling on the price and conditions for securing the co-operation of neoliberal regimes and overseas funding agencies. In their role as mediators and brokers, hustling funds overseas and matching the funds to projects acceptable to donors and local recipients, the “foundation entrepreneurs” are engaged in a new type of politics similar to the “labor contractors” (enganchadores) of the not too distant past: herding together women to be “trained”; setting up micro-firms subcontracted to larger producers or exporters employing cheap labor. The new politics of the NGOs is essentially the politics of compradores: they produce no national products; instead, they link foreign funders with local labor (self-help micro-enterprises) to facilitate the continuation of the neoliberal regime. The managers of NGOs are fundamentally political actors whose projects and training workshops do not make any significant economic impact in raising workers’ and peasants’ incomes. But their activities do make an impact in diverting people from the class struggle into forms of collaboration with their oppressors.

To justify this approach, NGO ideologies will often invoke “pragmatism” or “realism,” citing the decline of the revolutionary left, the triumph of capitalism in the East, the “crisis of Marxism,” the loss of alternatives, the strength of the United States, the coups and repression by the military. This “possibilism” is used to convince the left to work within the niches of the free market imposed by the World Bank and structural adjustment, and to confine politics to the electoral parameters imposed by the military.

The pessimistic “possibilism” of the NGO ideologues is necessarily one-sided. They focus on neoliberal electoral victories and not on the post-electoral mass protests and general strikes that mobilize large numbers of people in extra-parliamentary activity. They look at the demise of communism in the late eighties and not to the revival of radical social movements in the mid-nineties. They describe the constraints of the military on electoral politicians without looking at the challenges to the military by the Zapatista guerrillas, the urban rebellions in Caracas, the general strikes in Bolivia. In a word, the possibilists overlook the dynamics of struggles that begin at the sectoral or local level within the electoral parameters of the military, and then are propelled upward and beyond those limits by the failures of the possibilists to satisfy the elementary demands and needs of the people.

The pragmatism of the NGOs is matched by the extremism of the neoliberals. The 1990’s has witnessed a radicalization of neoliberal policies, designed to forestall crisis by handing over even more lucrative investment and speculative opportunities to overseas banks and multinationals: petroleum in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela; lower wages and less social security payments; greater tax exemption; and the elimination of all protective labor legislation. Contemporary Latin American class structure is more rigid and the state more directly tied to the ruling classes than ever. The irony is that the neoliberals are creating a polarized class structure much closer to the Marxist paradigm of society than to the NGO vision.

This is why Marxism offers a real alternative to NGOism. And in Latin America, there do exist Marxist intellectuals who write and speak for the social movements in struggle, committed to sharing the same political consequences. They are “organic” intellectuals who are basically part of the movement—the resource people providing analysis and education for class struggle, in contrast to the “post-Marxist” NGO intellectuals, who are embedded in the world of institutions, academic seminars, foreign foundations, international conferences and bureaucratic reports. These Marxist intellectuals recognize the centrality of local struggles, but they also acknowledge that the success of those struggles depends to a large extent on the outcome of the conflict between classes over state power at the national level.

What they offer is not the hierarchical “solidarity” of foreign aid and collaboration with neoliberalism, but class solidarity, and within the class, the solidarity of oppressed groups (women and people of color) against their foreign and domestic exploiters. The major focus is not on the donations that divide classes and pacify small groups for a limited time, but on the common action by members of the same class, sharing their common economic, predicament struggling for collective improvement.

The strength of the critical Marxist intellectuals resides in the fact that their ideas are in tune with changing social realities. The growing polarization of classes and the increasingly violent confrontations are apparent. So while the Marxists are numerically weak in the institutional sense, they are strategically strong as they begin to connect with a new generation of revolutionary militants, from the Zapatistas in Mexico to the MST in Brazil.

MARXISM, MARIATEGUI AND THE WOMEN MOVEMENT

MARXISM, MARIATEGUI AND THE WOMEN MOVEMENT

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru
1975

 

Red Banner
Publications

 

---

 

I. THE WOMAN QUESTION AND MARXISM

The woman question is an important question for the popular struggle and its importance is greater today because actions are intensifying which tend to mobilize women; a necessary and fruitful mobilization from the working class viewpoint and in the service of the masses of the people, but which promoted by and for the benefit of the exploiting classes, acts as an element which divides and fetters the people’s struggle.

In this new period of politicization of the masses of women in which we now evolve, with its base in a greater economic participation by women in the country, it is indispensable to pay serious attention to the woman question as regards study and research, political incorporation and consistent organizing work. A task which demands keeping in mind Mariátegui’s thesis which teaches that: “WOMEN, LIKE MEN, ARE REACTIONARIES, CENTRISTS OR REVOLUTIONARIES, THEY CANNOT THEREFORE ALL FIGHT THE SAME BATTLE SIDE BY SIDE. IN TODAY’S HUMAN PANORAMA CLASS DIFFERENTIATES THE INDIVIDUAL MORE THAN SEX.” That way, from the beginning, the need to understand the woman question scientifically doubtlessly demands that we start from the Marxist concept of the working class

1. The theory of women as “deficient feminine nature”

Through the centuries the exploiting classes have sustained and imposed the pseudo-theory of the “deficient feminine nature,” that has served to justify the oppression which up to now women experience in societies in which exploitation continues to prevail. That way, the Jewish men’s prayer: “Blessed be God, our Lord and Lord of all the worlds, for not having made me a woman” and conformity by the Jewish women who pray “Blessed be the Lord who has created me according to his will,” clearly express the contempt the ancient world had for the woman’s condition. These ideas also predominated in Greek slave society; the famous Pythagoras said “There is a good principle which has created order, light and man and there is a bad principle which has created chaos, darkness and woman;” and even the great philosopher Aristotle pronounced: “the female is female by virtue of certain qualitative fault,” and “the character of women suffers from a natural defect.”

These proposals passed on to the final period of Roman slave society and to the Middle Ages, the contempt for woman intensifying in Christian thinkers by imputing her with being the source of sin and the waiting room of hell. Tertulian claimed “Woman you are the door of the devil. You have persuaded him whom the devil did not dare to attack frontally. By your fault the son of God had to die; you should always go dressed in mourning and rags”; and Augustine of Hipona “The woman is a beast who is neither firm nor stable.” While these condemned, others passed sentence on feminine inferiority and obedience; thus Paul of Tarsus, the apostle, preached “Man was not taken from woman but woman from man;” and “Just as the church is subject to Christ, let woman be submitted in all things to her husband.” And hundreds of years later, in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas followed with similar preaching: “Man is the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of man” and “It is a fact that woman is destined to live under the authority of man and that she has no authority by herself.”

The understanding of the feminine condition did not progress much with the development of capitalism, since while Candorcet pointed out its social root when he said: “It has been said that women … lack a sense of justice, and that they obeyed their feelings rather than their conscience … that difference has been caused by education and social existence, not by nature,” and the great materialist Diderot wrote: “I feel sorry for you women” and “in all customs the cruelty of civil laws joined the cruelty of nature against women. They have been treated as imbeciles”; Rousseau, advanced ideologist of the French Revolution insisted: “All education of women must be relative to that of men …. Woman is made to yield to man and endure his injustices.” This bourgeois position is carried on to the age of imperialism, becoming more reactionary as time goes on; which, joined to Christian positions, and reiterating old theses sanctioned through John 23: “God and nature have given women various chores which perfect and complement the chores entrusted to men.”

That way we see how throughout time the exploiting classes have preached the “deficient feminine nature.” Sustaining themselves in idealist concepts they have reiterated the existence of a “feminine nature” independent of social conditions, which is part of the anti-scientific “human nature” thesis; but this so-called “feminine nature,” eternal and invariable essence, is also called “deficient” to show that the condition of women and their oppression and patronage is the result of their “natural inferiority compared to man.” With this pseudo-theory it is intended to maintain and “justify” the submission of women.

Finally, it is convenient to point out that even an outstanding materialist thinker like Democritus had prejudices with respect to women (“A woman familiar with logic: a fearful thing”; “Woman is much more prone than the male to think evil”). And that the defense of women is based in metaphysical or religious arguments (Eve means life and Adam means land; created after man, woman was finished better than him). Even the bourgeoisie, when it was a revolutionary class, only conceived of women in reference to men, not as independent beings.

2. The development of capitalism and the women’s movement.

The development of capitalism will incorporate women into labor, providing the basis and conditions for her to develop; that way, with their incorporation into the productive process, women will have the chance of more directly joining the class struggle and combative action. Capitalism carried out the bourgeois revolutions and in this forge, the feminine masses, especially working women, advanced.

The French Revolution: the most advanced one of those led by the bourgeoisie, was a great nourishment for feminist action. Women got mobilized together with the masses, and participating in the civic clubs, they developed revolutionary actions. In these struggles they organized a “Society of Revolutionary and Republican women,” and through Olimpia de Gouges, in 1789 they demanded a “Declaration of the Rights of Woman” and created newspapers like “The Impatient” to demand improvements in their condition. In the development of the revolutionary process women won the suppression of the rights of the first born male and the abolition of the masculine privileges, and they also obtained equal rights of succession with males and achieved divorce. Their militant participation rendered some fruits.

But once the great revolutionary push was halted, women were denied access to the political clubs, their politicization was suppressed and they saw themselves blamed and urged to return to the home, they were told: “Since when have women been allowed to renounce their sex and become men? Nature has told woman: be a woman. Your chores are to tend to infants, the details of the home and the diverse challenges of motherhood.” Even more, with bourgeois reorganization initiated by Napoleon, with the Civil Code, a married woman returned to be subject to patronage, falling under her husband’s domain in her person and goods; she is denied the questioning of paternity. Married women, like prostitutes, lose their civil rights, and they are denied divorce and the right to transfer their properties.

In the French Revolution we can already see clearly how the advance of women and their setbacks are linked to the advances and setbacks of the people and the revolution. This is an important lesson: The identity of interests of the feminist movement and the people’s struggle, how the former is part of the latter.

Also this bourgeois revolution shows how the ideas about women follow a process similar to the political process; once the revolutionary upsurge was fought and halted, reactionary ideas re-emerged about women. Bonald maintained: “Man is to woman as woman is to child”; Comte, considered the “father of sociology,” proposed that femininity is a sort of continued infancy and that this biological infancy is expressed as intellectual weakness; Balzac wrote: “The destiny of women and their only glory is to make the hearts of men beat. The woman is a property acquired by contract, a mobile personal property, because the possession is worth a title; in all, speaking properly, woman is but an annex to man.” All this reactionary ideology is synthesized in the following words by Napoleon: “Nature wanted for women to be our slaves …. They are our property …; woman is but a machine to produce children”; a character for whom feminine life should be oriented by “Kitchen, Church, Children,” a slogan endorsed by Hitler in this century.

The French Revolution raised its three principles of liberty, equality and fraternity and promised justice and to meet the demands of the people. Very soon it showed its limits and that its principled declarations were but formal declarations, at the same time its class interests were counterpoised to those of the masses; misery, hunger and injustice kept on prevailing, except under new forms. Against such an order of things the utopians launched themselves with a sharp and demolishing criticism although, due to historic conditions, they could not reach the root of the evil. Utopian socialists also condemned the condition of women under capitalism. Fourier, representing this position, pointed out: “The change of an historical age can always be determined by the progress of women .. the degree of emancipation of woman constitutes the natural path for general emancipation.”

Confronted with this great assertion it’s worth counterpoising the thought of the anarchist Proudhon about women, and keep in mind his ideas when there are attempts today to propagate anarchism to the four winds, presenting them as examples of revolutionary vision and consequence. Proudhon maintained that woman was inferior to man physically, intellectually and morally, and that represented together numerically, women have a value of 8/27 the value of man. So for this hero a woman represents less than a third of the value of a man; which is but an expression of the petty-bourgeois thought of its author, a root common to all anarchists.

Throughout the 19th century, with their increasing incorporation into the productive process, women continued to develop their struggle for their own demands joining the workers’ unions and revolutionary movements of the proletariat. An example of this participation was Luisa Michel, a fighter at the Paris Commune of 1871. But the feminist movement in general oriented itself towards suffragism, to the struggle to get the right to vote for women , in pursuit of the false idea that in getting the vote and parliamentary positions their rights would be respected; that way feminist actions were channeled towards parliamentary cretinism. However it is good to remember that the vote was not achieved for free but that during the last century and the start of this century women fought openly and determinedly to get it. The struggle for the feminine vote and its achievement show once more that, while this indeed was a conquest, it is not the means allowing a genuine transformation of the condition of women.

The 20th century implies a greater development of the feminist economic action, women workers increase massively, as well as women employees, to whom are added strong contingents of professionals; women enter into all fields of activity. In this process world wars have great importance because they incorporated millions of women into the economy to substitute for the men mobilized to the front. All this pushed the mobilization, organization and politicization of women; and starting from the 1950s the feminist struggle starts again with greater force, amplified in the 1960s with great perspectives for the future.

In conclusion, through the economic incorporation of women, capitalism set the basis for their economic autonomy; but capitalism by itself is not capable of giving formal legal equality to women; in no way can it emancipate them; this has been proven throughout the history of the bourgeoisie, a class which even in its most advanced revolution, the French Revolution of the 18th century, could not go further than a merely formal declaration of rights. Further on, the later development of the bourgeois revolutionary processes and the 20th century show not only that the bourgeoisie is incapable emancipating the masses of women, but with the development of imperialism the bourgeois concept as regards the feminine condition becomes more reactionary as time goes on and in fact confirms the social, economic, political and ideological oppression of women, even if it disguises and paints it in myriad ways.

3. Marxism and the emancipation of women.

Marxism, the ideology of the working class, conceives the human being as a set of social relations that change as a function of the social process. Thus, Marxism is absolutely opposed to the thesis of “human nature” as an eternal, immutable reality outside the frame of social conditions; this thesis belongs to idealism and reaction. The Marxist position also implies the overcoming of mechanical materialism (of the old materialists, before Marx and Engels) who were incapable of understanding the historical social character of the human being as a transformer of reality, so irrationally it had to rely on metaphysical or spiritual conditions, such as the case of Feuerbach.

Just as Marxism considers the human being as a concrete reality historically generated by society, it does not accept either the thesis of “feminine nature,” which is but a complement of the so-called “human nature” and therefore a reiteration that woman has an eternal and unchanging nature; aggravated, as we saw, because what idealism and reaction understand by “feminine nature” is a “deficient and inferior nature” compared to man.

For Marxism, women, as much as men, are but a set of social relations, historically adapted and changing as a function of the changes of society in its development process. Woman then is a social product, and her transformation demands the transformation of society.

When Marxism focuses on the woman question, therefore, it does so from a materialist and dialectical viewpoint, from a scientific conception which indeed allows a complete understanding. In the study, research and understanding of women and their condition, Marxism treats the woman question with respect to property, family and State, since throughout history the condition and historical place of women is intimately linked to those three factors.

An extraordinary example of concrete analysis of the woman question, from this viewpoint, is seen in Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, by F. Engels, who, pointing to the substitution of mother right by father right as the start of the submission of women, wrote:

“Thus, the riches, as they went on increasing, on one hand provided man with a more important position than woman in the family, and on the other planted in him the idea of taking advantage of this importance to modify the established order of inheritance for the benefit of his children …. That revolution–one of the most profound humanity has known–had no need to touch even one of the living members of the gens. All its members could go on being what they had been up to then. It merely sufficed to say that in the future the descendants of the male line would remain in the gens, but those of the female line would leave it, going to the gens of their father. That way maternal affiliation and inheritance by mother right were abolished, replaced by masculine affiliation and inheritance by father right. We know nothing of how this revolution took place in the cultured peoples, since it took place in prehistoric times …. The overthrowing of mother right was THE GREAT HISTORIC DEFEAT OF THE FEMALE SEX THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. Man also grabbed the reigns of the house; woman saw herself degraded, turned into a servant, into the slave of man’s lasciviousness, in a mere instrument of reproduction.” (Our emphasis.)

This paragraph by Engels sets the fundamental thesis of Marxism about the woman question: the condition of women is sustained in property relations, in the form of ownership exercised over the means of production and in the productive relations arising from them. This thesis of Marxism is extremely important because it establishes that the oppression attached to the female condition has as its roots the formation, appearance and development of the right to ownership over the means of production, and therefore that its emancipation is linked to the destruction of said right. It is indispensable, in order to have a Marxist understanding of the woman question, to start from this great thesis, and more than ever today when supposed revolutionaries and even self-proclaimed Marxists pretend to have feminine oppression arising not from the formation and appearance of private property but from the simple division of labor as a function of sex which had attributed less important chores to women than those of men, reducing her to the sphere of the home. This proposal, despite all the propaganda and efforts to present it as revolutionary, is but the substitution for the Marxist position on the emancipation of women, with bourgeois proposals which in essence are but variations of the supposed immutable “feminine nature.”

Developing this materialist dialectical starting point, Engels teaches how on this basis the monogamous family was instituted, about which he says: “It was the first form of family not based on natural but on economic conditions, and concretely on the triumph of private property over spontaneously originated, common primitive property.” And: “Therefore, monogamy in no way appears in history as a reconciliation between man and woman, and even less as a higher form of marriage. Quite the contrary, it enters the scene under the form of the enslavement of one sex by the other, as the proclamation of a war between the sexes, up to then unknown in prehistory.” (Origin …. Our emphasis.)

After establishing that private property sustains the monogamous family form, which sanctions the oppression of women, Engels establishes the correspondence of the three fundamental forms of marriage with the three great stages of human evolution: savagery and marriage by groups; barbarism and pairing marriage; civilization and monogamy, “with its complements, adultery and prostitution.” That way the Marxist classics developed the thesis about the historically variable social condition of woman and her place in society; pointing out how the feminine condition is intimately linked with private property, the family and the State, which is the apparatus that legalizes such relations and imposes and sustains them by force.

This scientific proposition systematized by Engels is a product of the Marxist analysis of the condition of women throughout history, and the most elementary study fully corroborates the accuracy and actuality of these proposals, which are the foundation and starting point of the working class for the understanding of the woman question. Let’s make an historical recount allowing us to illustrate what Engels and the classics set forth.

In the primitive community, with a natural division of labor based on age and sex, men and women developed their lives on a spontaneous equality and participation of women in the social group decisions; later on women were surrounded with respect and consideration, a deferential and even privileged treatment. Once riches began to grow, which heightened the position of men in the family, pushing forward the substitution of father right for mother right, women began to move to the background and their position deteriorated; echoes of this reach the times of the great Greek tragic Aeschillus, who in his work Eumenida, wrote “It is not mother who engenders that which is called her son; she is only the nurse of the embryo deposited in her womb. Who engenders is the father. The woman receives the seed as a foreign depository, and she preserves it if so pleases the gods.”

Thus, in Greek slave society the condition of women is that of submission, social inferiority and object of contempt. Of them it is said: “The slave absolutely lacks of the freedom to deliberate; woman has it but in a weak and inefficient manner” (Aristotle); “The best woman is that of whom men speak the least” (Pericles); and the answer by the husband who investigates public affairs “it’s not your thing. Shut up lest I hit you… Keep on weaving” (Aristophanes, Lysistrata) What reality is entailed by these words? Women in Greece were kept as perpetual minor; under the power of their tutor, whether the father, the husband, the husband’s heir or the State, their lives passed under constant tutelage. They were provided a marriage dowry so they had something on which to live and did not go hungry, and in some cases they were authorized to divorce; for the rest, they were reduced to misogynism in the home and in society under the control of specialized authorities. Women could inherit when there was no direct male heir, in which case she had to marry the oldest relative within the paternal gens; that way she would not inherit directly but was merely a transferor of inheritance; all to preserve the family property.

The condition of women in Rome, also a slave society, allows a better understanding of it as derived from property, the family and the State. After the reign of Tarquinius and once patriarchal right was set up, private property and therefore the family (gens), became the basis of society: women will remain subject to patrimony and the family. She was excluded from every “virile job,” and in public affairs she was “a civil minor”; she is not directly denied inheritance, but is subject to tutelage. On this point said Gaius, the Roman jurist: “Tutelage was established in the interest of the tutors themselves, so the woman of whom they are supposed heirs cannot wrest their willed inheritance from them, nor impoverish it by alienation or debts.” The patrimonial root of the tutelage imposed upon women was therefore clearly exposed and established.

After the Twelve Tables, the fact that women belonged to the paternal gens and to the conjugal gens (also strictly for reasons of safeguarding property) generated conflicts which were the basis for the advancement of the Roman “legal emancipation.” The “sine manu” marriage appears: her goods remain dependent on her tutors and her husband only acquires rights over her person, and at that shared with the “pater familias,” who retains an absolute authority over his daughter. And the domestic tribunal appears, to resolve discrepancies which may arise between father and husband; that way the woman can appeal to her father for disagreements with her husband, and vice versa: “it no longer is the matter of the individual.”

On this economic basis (her participation in the inheritance even if tutored), and the conflict between the rights of the paternal and conjugal gens for the woman and her goods, a major participation of Roman women in their society develops, despite the legal restrictions: the “atrium” is set up, the center of the house, which governs work by the slaves, conducts education of the children and influences them until a rather advanced age. She shares the works and problems of her spouse and is considered co-proprietor of his goods. She attends parties and on the street she is given preferential crossing, even by consuls and magistrates. The weight of Roman women in their society is reflected by the figure of Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi.

With Roman social development, the State displaces the contention among the gens and assumes the disputes about women, divorce, adultery, etc., which went to be heard in public tribunals, abolishing the domestic tribunal. Later on, under imperial rule, tutelage on women will be abolished, answering to social and economic demands. Women get a fixed dowry (individual patrimony) which does not return to the agnates (parental relatives) nor belongs to the husband; that way she is given an economic base for her independence and development. By the end of the Republic mothers had been given recognized rights over their children, receiving custody of them due to the father’s misconduct or his being placed under tutelage.

Under emperor Marcus Aurelius, in the year 178, a great step is taken in the process of property and family: children are declared heir to their mother in preference to agnates; that way the family is based on a link of consanguinity and the mother emerges as equal to the father before the children, the children also are recognized as children of the wife and, derived from the above, the daughter inherits just as her male siblings.

But while the State “emancipates” women from the family, it submits them to its tutelage and restricts their acts. And simultaneously to the social rise of women, an anti-feminist campaign was initiated in Rome invoking their inferiority and invoking their “imbecility and fragility of the sex” to legally reduce them.

In Rome then, socially women had it better than in Greece and acquired respect and even great influence in social life, as shown by the words of Cato: “Everywhere men govern women, and we, who govern all men, are governed by our women.” Roman history has outstanding exalted women, from the Sabines, through Lucretia and Virginia to Cornelia. Criticisms of women, not as women but as contemporaries, developed by the end of the First and Second centuries of our era; in this way Juvenal reproaches them: lasciviousness, gluttony, to dedicate themselves to manly occupations and their passion for hunting and sports.

Roman society recognized some rights of women, especially the right to property, but did not open to them civil activities and much less public affairs, activities which they developed “illegally” and in a restricted way; for that reason Roman matrons (“having lost their ancient virtues”) tended to seek other fields in which to employ their energies.

In the decline of slavery and the development of feudalism, to consider the feminine situation one must keep in mind the influence of Christianity and the Germanic contribution. Christianity contributed quite a bit to the oppression of women; among the fathers of the church there is a definite demeaning of women, whom they consider inferior, servants of men and sources of evil. To what has been said let’s add the condemnation by St. John Chrisostomus, a saint of the Catholic Church: “No savage beast is as damaging as woman.” Under this influence the advances reached under Roman legislation are at first mitigated and later on denied.

Germanic societies based on war gave women a secondary situation due to their smaller physical strength; however they were respected and had rights which made them an associate of their spouse. Let’s remember that on this subject Tacitus wrote: “in peace and in war she shares his luck; she lives with him and dies with him.”

Christianity and Germanicism influenced the condition of women under feudalism. Women were in a situation of absolute dependence with respect to the father and husband; by the times of king Clovis “the mundium weighs over her during all her life.” Women developed their lives completely submitted to the feudal lord, although protected by the laws “as property of man and mother of children”; her value increases with fertility, being worth triple the value of a free man, a value she loses when she can no longer bear offspring: woman is a reproductive womb.

As happened in Rome, also under feudalism we see an evolution in the condition of women, in function of the curbing of feudal powers and the increase of royal powers: the mundium is transferred from the lords to the king; the mundium becomes a burden for the tutor, yet the submission by tutelage is kept.

At the convulsive times when feudalism was formed the condition of women was uncertain; since the rights to sovereignty and property, public and private, were not well specified, the condition of women was changing and heightened or lowered according to social contingencies.

First they were denied private rights, because women had no public rights. Until the 11th century force and arms impose order and sustain property directly: to jurists, a fiefdom “is a land possessed with charge of military service” and women could not have feudal right since they could not defend it with arms nor render military service. When fiefdoms turn into patrimonies and are inheritable (according to Germanic norms women could also inherit), feminine succession is admitted; but this does not improve their condition: woman is just an instrument through whom dominion is transferred, as in Greece.

Feudal property is not familial as in Rome, but of the sovereign, of the lord, and women too belong to the lord; it is him who chooses her husband. As it was written, “an heiress is a land and a castle: suitors contended to dispute that prize, and often the young woman is only 12 years old, or younger, when her father or lord gives her as prize to any baron.” The woman needs a lord who “protects” her and her rights; thus a Duchess of Burgundy proclaimed to the king: “My husband has just died, but what good is mourning …? Find me a husband who is powerful, because I much need him to defend my lands.” In this form her spouse had great marital power over the woman, whom he treated without consideration, mistreating her, beating her, etc. and whose only obligation was to “punish her reasonably,” the same some codes required today to correct children.

The prevailing warlike conception made the medieval knight pay more attention to his horses than to his wife, and the lords preached: “damned be the knight that seeks advice from a woman when he should participate in a tourney”. While women were commanded: “get into your apartments, painted and gilded; sit in the shade, drink, eat, weave, tint the silk, but bother not of our affairs. Our affairs are to fight with sword and steel. Silence!” That is how the medieval world of the lords demeaned and cast their women away.

The 13th century saw the development of a movement of literary women, which traveling from south to north increased their prestige; the same one which was linked to chivalry, love and the intense Marianism of that era. It did not modify it deeply, as S. de Beauvoir said in The Second Sex, a book in which abundant information about the history of women is found; useful data, of course, aside from the existentialist concepts of its author, since it is not ideas which fundamentally change the condition of women, but the economic basis sustaining it. When the fiefdom goes from a right based on military service to an economic obligation, we see an improvement in the condition of women, since they are perfectly capable of fulfilling a monetary obligation; that way the seignorial right to marry his vassals is suppressed and women’s tutelage is extinguished.

In this way, whether single or widowed, women have the same rights as men; in possessing a fiefdom she governs it and fulfills its administrative duties and even commands its defense, participating in battles. But feudal society, like all those based on exploitation, requires the submission of women in marriage, and marital power survives: “the husband is the tutor of the wife,” is preached; or as Beauvoir said: “As soon as marriage was consummated, the goods of one and the other are common by virtue of the marriage,” justifying marital tutelage.

In feudal society, as in others ruled by exploiters, slavery or capitalism, what has been described about the condition of women has governed and governs; but we must highlight that only in the condition of poor women can we see a different and softer condition in the face of marital power; the root of this situation must be seen in the economic participation by women of the popular classes and in the absence of great riches.

The development of capitalism takes feudalism to its decomposition, a situation which impresses its marks on the condition of women, as we have seen already. It suffices to emphasize that in the beginning and development of the burgs, women took part in the election of deputies to the General States; which shows feminine political participation, as well as the existence of rights over family goods, since the husband could not alienate real properties without the consent of the wife. However, absolutist legislation will soon fetter these norms to fight off the diffusion of the bad bourgeois example.

This historical exposition exemplifies the thesis by Engels and the classics on the social roots of the condition of women and its relationship to property, family and State, it helps us to understand its certainty and see its actuality more clearly. All this carries us to a conclusion, the need to firmly adhere to the working class positions and apply them to understand the woman question, participate in its solution, and reject, constantly and decisively, the distortions of Marxist theses on the subject and the so-called superior developments which are but attempts to substitute bourgeois ideas for proletarian concepts on this front, to disorient the women’s movement on the march.

Having exposed the social condition of women and the historical outline of its development linked to property, family and State, what remains is to treat the question of the emancipation of women from a Marxist viewpoint.

Marxism fundamentally holds that the development of machinery incorporates women, as well as children, into the productive process, thereby multiplying the number of hands to be exploited, destroying the working class family, physically degenerating women and materially and morally sinking them into the miseries of exploitation.

Analyzing women and children at work Karl Marx wrote: “In so far as machinery dispenses with muscular power, it becomes a means of employing laborers of slight muscular strength, and those whose bodily development is incomplete, but whose limbs are all the more supple. The labor of women and children was, therefore, the first cry of the capitalist application of machinery. That mighty substitute for labour and labourers was forthwith changed into a means for increasing the number of wage-labourers by enrolling, under the direct sway of capital, every member of the woman’s family, without distinction of age or sex. Compulsory work for the capitalist usurped the place, not only of the children’s play, but also of free labour at home within moderate limits for the support of the family.”

“The value of labour-power was determined, not only by labour-time necessary to maintain the individual adult laborer, but also by that necessary to maintain his family . Machinery, by throwing every member of that family on to the labour-market, spreads the values of the man’s labour-power over his whole family. It thus depreciates his labour-power…” Thus we see, that machinery, while augmenting the human material that forms the principal object of capital’s exploiting power, at the same time raises the degree of exploitation.”

“By opening the factory doors to women and children, making them flock in great numbers to the combined ranks of the working class, machinery finally breaks down the resistance of the male worker to this, despite the despotism of capital within manufacturing.” (Capital, Volume I, pp. 394-395. Economic Culture Fund, 1966. Emphasis in original.)

Continuing his masterful analysis, Marx himself describes to us how capitalism uses even the virtues and obligations of women for its advantage: “Mr. E., manufacturer, told me how in his textile mills he employed exclusively women, preferably married ones, and above all those who had at home a family living from or depending on her salary, since these were much more active and zealous than single women; besides, the need to procure sustenance to their families forced them to work harder. In this way, the virtues characterizing women are turned against them: all the purity and sweetness of their character are turned into instruments of torture and slavery.” (Note 57 of above quoted volume and edition of Capital, p. 331.)

But just as by incorporating women into production capitalism increased exploitation, simultaneously with this process it provides the material basis for women to struggle and demand their rights, and it’s a starting point for the struggle for their emancipation; since as Engels taught in Origin…: “The freeing of women demands as a first condition the reincorporation of the entire female sex into social industry, which in turn requires that the individual family no longer be society’s economic unite” (our emphasis). And evidently capitalism, with its own future interests, set the basis for the future emancipation of women, as well as creating the class that will destroy it as it develops: the proletariat.

On the other hand, their economic participation and the development of the class struggle pushes forward the POLITICIZATION OF WOMEN. We already highlighted how the French Revolution pushed forward the political and organizational development of women and how, by uniting them, mobilizing them and forcing them to fight, it set the basis for the feminist movement; we also saw how feminist demands were reached through the rise of revolution, and how their rights were abolished and their conquests swept away when the revolutionary process was fettered and thrown back. However, with all the positive aspects that the incorporation of women into the French Revolution had, the resulting politicization of women was but elementary, restricted and very small compared to the major advance represented by the politicization of women by the working classes. What does this politicization imply? When capitalism massively incorporates women into the economic process, it wrest them away from inside of the home, to attract them mostly to factory exploitation, making industrial workers out of them; that way women are forged and developed as an integral part of the most advanced and latest class in history; women initiate their radical process of politicization through their incorporation into the workers’ union struggle (the great change implied by this is observed concretely in our country by the transformation seen in women workers, peasants and teachers of Peru, amidst the union struggle). A woman arrives at more advanced forms of organization, which goes on building her up and shaping her ideologically for the proletarian concepts, and finally she arrives at superior forms of struggle and political organization by incorporating herself, through her best representatives, into the ranks of the Party of the working class, to serve the people in all forms and fronts of struggle organized and led by the working class through its political vanguard. This politicization process which only the proletariat is capable of producing and the new type of women fighters it generates has materialized in the many glorious women fighters whose names are recorded in history: Luisa Michel, N. Krupskaya, Rosa Luxemburg, Liu Ju-lan and others whose memory the people and the proletariat keep.

For Marxism yesterday like today the politicization of women is the key issue in her emancipation, and the classics dedicated special attention to it. Marx taught: “Anyone who knows something of history knows that the great social changes are impossible without the feminist ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the weak sex.” (Letter to Kugelmann, 1888.) And to Lenin the participation of women was more much urgent and important to the revolution:

“The experience of all the liberation movements confirms that the success of the revolution depends on the degree in which women participate.” (Our emphasis.)

Thus the development of the class struggle and its ever greater sharpening, within the specific social conditions of the revolutionary struggle under conditions of imperialism, sets forth and demands more decisively the politicization of women; that is why Lenin himself, in the middle of World War I and foreseeing future battles for the working class which required preparedness, called to fight for: “17. Abolition of any and all limitations without exception to the political rights of women in comparison to men. Explaining to the masses the special urgency of this transformation at moments in which the war and scarcity disquiet the masses of people and awaken interest in and attention to politics particularly among women.” And he proposed, “it is necessary that we fully develop systematic work among these feminine masses. We must educate those women we have managed to wrest away from passivity, we must recruit them and arm them for the struggle, not just the proletarian women who work in the factories or toil in the home, but also the peasant women, the women in the various layers of the petty-bourgeoisie. They too are victims of capitalism.” With those words Lenin demanded the politicization of women, the struggle for demanding their political rights, the need to explain to the masses the urgency of politically incorporating women, the need of working together with them, to educate them, organize them and prepare them for all forms of struggle; finally, he emphasized orienting themselves towards working women; but without forgetting the importance of peasant women and remembering the various classes or layers of women being exploited, since all of them could and should be mobilized for the people’s struggle.

From the above we see how the politicization of women was proposed by Marxism from its beginnings, considering women’s struggles as being in solidarity with the struggles of the working class; that is why last century Bebel said that “woman and the worker have in common their condition as oppressed,” and why the Socialist Congress of 1879 proclaimed the equality of the sexes and the need to struggle for it, reiterating the solidarity of the revolutionary feminist women and the working class struggle. Or as China proclaims today, following Mao Tse-tung’s thesis: “The emancipation of women is an integral part of the liberation of the proletariat.” (Peking Review, No. 10, 1972.)

This brings us to consider HOW CAN THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN BE ACHIEVED? Investigating capitalist society and societies in general where exploitation and oppression prevail, Engels verified that misery, inequality and submission exist among men, and emphasizing the woman question he pointed out, “The state of affairs with respect to the equality of men and women is no better than their legal inequality, which we have inherited from prior social conditions, is not the cause but the effect of the economic oppression of women.” And he continued “Women cannot be emancipated unless they assume a large socially measurable role in production and are only tied insignificantly by domestic work. And this has only been possible with modern industry, which not only admits feminine labor in a large scale but fatally demands it.”

This assertion by Engels, taken out of context and unrelated to similar ones from Origin… helps some people, pseudo-Marxists and distorters of Marxism, stretching his ideas, to claim that the mere participation of women in the economic process is sufficient for their emancipation. Engels proposed that the incorporation of women into production was a condition, that it is a base upon which women act in favor of their emancipation, and that this demands to socially end domestic work which absorbs and annihilates women, which to Engels implies destroying private ownership of the means of production and developing large-scale production based on the social ownership of the productive means. We repeat that it is good to be very clear about this thesis by Engels, because today some attempt to hide themselves in this classic to distort the Marxist position on the woman question and preach, for the sake of the exploiting classes, on the plain and simple participation of women in the economic process, hiding the root of women’s oppression which is private ownership and sidestepping large-scale social production based on destroying private property of the means of production.

Foreseeing this distortion, as in other cases, the classics analyzed the problem of whether the incorporation of women to the productive process, which capitalism began, was capable of making men and women truly equal. The concise and powerful answer was given once more by Mao Tse-tung in the 1950s: “TRUE EQUALITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED IN THE PROCESS OF THE SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY.”

Lenin researched the situation of women in bourgeois society and compared it with how it was under the dictatorship of the proletariat; an analysis which led him to establish: “From remote times, the representatives of all the movements of liberation in western Europe, not for decades, but during centuries, proposed the abolition of these antiquated laws and demanded the legal equality of women and men, but no democratic European State, not even the most advanced republics, have managed to achieve this, because wherever capitalism exists, wherever private ownership of the factories is maintained, wherever the power of capital is maintained, men go on enjoying privileges.”

“From the first months of its existence, Soviet power, as the power of workers, realized the most decisive and radical legislative change with respect to women. In the Soviet Republic no stone was left unturned which kept women in a position of dependence. I am referring precisely to those laws which used the dependent situation of women in a special way, making her victim of the inequality of rights and often even of humiliations, that is to say laws on divorce, on natural children and on the right of women to sue the father in court to support the child.” (Tasks of the Women Workers in the Soviet Republic.)

From this comparative analysis the conclusion is taken that only the revolution which places the working class in power in alliance with the peasantry is capable of sanctioning the true judicial legal equality between men and women, and even further, of enforcing it. However, as Lenin himself taught, this true legal equality initiated by the revolution is but the beginning of a protracted struggle for the full and complete equality in life of men and women: “However, the more we rid ourselves of the burden of old bourgeois laws and institutions, the more clearly we see that we have barely cleared the terrain for construction, yet construction itself has not begun.”

“The woman continues to be a slave of the home, despite all the liberating laws, because she is overburdened, oppressed, stupefied, humiliated by the menial domestic tasks, which make her a cook and a nurse, which waste her activity in an absurdly unproductive, menial, irritating, stupefying and tedious labor. The phrase emancipation of women will only begin for real in the country at the time the mass struggle begins (led by the proletariat already owning the power of the State) against this petty home economy, or more precisely, when their mass transformation begins in a large-scale socialist economy.” (A Great Initiative; emphasis in original.)

Thus Lenin and Mao Tse-tung answered the anticipated opportunist distortions and pseudo-developments of Marxism which today attempts to distort the theses of Engels and confuse the working class position on the woman question.

Marxism conceives the struggle for the emancipation of women as a protracted but victorious struggle: “This is a protracted struggle, which requires a radical transformation of the social technique and of customs. But this struggle will end with the full victory of communism.” (Lenin, On the Occasion of International Working Women’s Day.)

The above, in essence, shows there is an identity of struggle between the revolutionary feminist movement and the working class struggle for the construction of a new society; and, besides, it helps to understand the sense of Lenin’s words calling women workers to develop the institutions and means which the revolution placed at their disposal: “We say that the emancipation of workers must be the work of the workers themselves and likewise THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN WORKERS MUST BE THE WORK OF WOMEN WORKERS THEMSELVES.” (The Tasks ….)

These are the central theses of Marxism on the emancipation, politicization and the condition of women; positions which we prefer to transcribe for the most by quotations from the classics, because these positions are not sufficiently known, and besides that because they were masterfully and concisely expressed by the authors themselves, which relieves us from the task of pretending to give them new editing, more so after seeing their full and complete actuality. On the other hand, the distortions of the Marxist positions attempted today on the woman question also demand the dissemination of the words of the classics themselves.

Finally, it is indispensable, even if only in passing, to make note that Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao Tse-tung set forth the thesis of the emancipation of women and not that of women’s liberation, as can be appreciated from the cited quotations. On this particular, it suffices to say that the analysis of the condition of woman through history shows her as subject to tutelage and in a situation of submission with respect to the male, which makes woman a being who, while belonging to the same class as her husband or the man she has a relationship with, finds herself in a situation of inferiority with respect to him, an inferiority which the laws bless, sanctify and impose. Consistent with this situation of undervaluing throughout history we see the need to demand her rights to achieve a formal equality with man under capitalism, and how only the revolutionary struggle under the leadership of the proletariat is capable of setting up and fulfilling a genuine legal equality of men and women, though, as we saw, plentiful equality in life, as Lenin said, will develop as large-scale socialist production develops. These simple observations show the certainty of the thesis on women’s emancipation conceived as part of the liberation of the proletariat. While the thesis of women’s liberation historically surfaces as a bourgeois thesis, hidden at the bottom of which is the counterpoising of men and women due to sex and camouflaging the root of the oppression of women; today we see how women’s liberation is exposed more each day as bourgeois feminism, which aims at dividing the people’s movement by separating the feminine masses from it and seeking mainly to oppose the development of the women’s movement under the leadership and guide of the working class.

II. MARIATEGUI AND THE WOMAN QUESTION

50 years ago Mariátegui, with his sharp historical foresight, perceived the importance of the woman question in the country and its perspective (“The first feminist quivers are latent in Peru …”); he devoted two of his works to this question, Woman and Politics and Feminist Demands, besides many other contributions found in his writings. It is indispensable to go back ourselves to this source, because in it we will find the position of the Peruvian working class with respect to the Woman question; even more, because this problem is a little known and researched aspect of Mariátegui’s work.

José Carlos Mariátegui taught us: “In our times life in society cannot be studied without investigating and analyzing its causes: the organization of the family, the condition of the woman;” and researching the nascent Peruvian feminist movement he said: “Men who are sensible to the great emotions of our times cannot and should not feel themselves out of place or indifferent to this movement. The woman question is part of the human question.”

So let’s keep in mind that from the beginning of its political emergence the working class of this country paid attention to the situation of women, establishing through its great representative their position with respect to women, as well as offering fighting support to feminist struggles, as shown by the solidarity of textile workers and drivers with the women workers of A. Field Co. in 1926.

What was the feminist development which attracted such accurate attention? The condition of women in the country suffered a noticeable change especially in this century and more specifically after the two world wars. While the condition of peasant women changed more slowly, that of her sisters turned workers and professionals experienced more rapid and profound changes. Evidently the presence of women in our society has been conquering positions ever more widely.

Last century the action and literary work of Clorinda Matto de Turner, Mercedes Cabello de Carbonera and Margarita Praxedes Muñoz, highlighted the feminine presence over a background of millions of peasants, workers and other women who, while anonymous, were subject to harsh social repression of feudal roots. The Peruvian woman of the 19th Century had minimal access to education, and when she was allowed to attend secondary education, the educational norms followed would establish for her a watered down curriculum comparable to the last primary grade for males plus some of the secondary school courses these would follow. The abandonment of feminine schooling is clearly shown by the fact that, while there were private institutions which tended or prepared students to enter the university, it was not until 1928 that the National Women’s School of Lima opened its doors in Lima; up to then there was no such school of its kind in the capital city. It’s good to notice how by the end of last century some women educators worried about the education of women, proposing its renewal: it demands overcoming the erroneous concept of “educating them only for marriage, which leads one to think such is their only purpose in life,” that their education must not be in the hands of nuns, who having abandoned the world are not in a position of forming good women, and that we need to end the misconception that the single or married woman who works outside the home degenerates socially; at the same time they demand and create new educational centers. Teresa Gonzalez de Fanning was outstanding in this aspect.

Similarly college education was closed to them, their presence at the University is not noticed until the 1890s, and it wasn’t until 1908 that women were authorized to enter and seek a degree at the University and exercise the professions. The demeaning of women and their social outcasting is thus clearly seen in education. However with the 20th century transformations, women see an increase in their possibilities to pursue studies and work as professionals, most of them finding work as teachers. Only after World War II is a diversification of women’s careers seen. University graduates, whom early in the century could be counted with the fingers of the hand, almost reach the current 30% of college graduates of the country.

But what really would imply a profound, radical and far reaching change is the incorporation of women into factory production. The proletarianization of the Peruvian woman began this century hand in hand with the introduction of machinery and the development of bureaucratic capitalism. We see in our environment with its specific conditions, the situation described by Marx and which we quoted above, with the productive incorporation of women as workers, the process of proletarian politicization opens up to the feminine masses of Peru. The participation of women in worker’s unions begins, women join the struggle for salaries, the eight hour workday and working conditions; they participate in people’s struggles together with other workers in actions against the high cost of living and price increases, which develops their ideological understanding, and finally the women of the country amidst revolutionary combat, become political militants of the working class.

The process of the political development of the Peruvian woman, parallel to their incorporation into labor, provided significant gains to the country’s class struggle in the first third of this century, among which milestones we must highlight the struggle for the eight hour workday by agricultural workers at Huaral, Barranca, Pativilca and Huacho, in which five female workers offered their lives in 1916, sealing with their blood their adherence to their class. Just as we highlight their participation in momentous actions against rising prices and the high cost of living in May of 1919, actions in which women workers organized a Women’s Committee so as to channel their supportive actions and agreed “To make a call to all women, without distinction of classes, to cooperate with their action to the defense of the rights of Peruvian women”; in this great struggle women faced police forces at their meeting on the 25th, during which, after overcoming the bloody police repression, they proclaimed the following conclusions:

“The women of Lima, surrounding towns and peasants met in great public meeting on Sunday 25 May 1919 at Neptune Park, having considered:”That it is not possible to further tolerate the situation of misery to which the high cost of subsistence goods and residential rents and all of life’s necessities have reduced the people; that Peruvian women, as well as women in all civilized countries, have understood their mission to intervene in the resolution of the economic and social problems affecting them;

Have agreed:

1. To make as their own the conclusions of the people’s meeting at the Alameda de los Descalzos on May 4th.

2. In case those conclusions are not accepted, to declare a general women’s strike in all branches of industry, leaving the date to the discretion of the Men’s Committee for Diminishing the Cost of Subsistence” (Martinez de la Torre, Notes for the Marxist Interpretation of the Social History of Peru, Volume I, Lima 1947. Our emphasis.)

Another chapter in this history of women’s struggle was waged by Socorro Rojo against the persecution, repression, imprisonment and blood politics unleashed by the dictatorship of Sanchez Cerror defending the rights and liberties of the people, especially the proletariat.

In the struggles referred to, besides the politicization of women, or more strictly, as index of a correct perspective, it must be highlighted that in them the feminine masses waged their actions intimately united to the people’s interests, which are their own, and in direct unity with and support for the struggles of the working class, which is their class.

In synthesis, the road traveled by Peruvian women in this century and the final part of last century is marked by their widespread incorporation into production and under bureaucratic capitalism pushed forward by North American imperialism and by their increased access to education, especially at the university. These are the bases on which the first feminist impetuses of the country will hatch, a phenomenon which Mariátegui described as follows: “Feminism has not made its appearance in Peru artificially or arbitrarily. It has appeared as result of the new forms of intellectual and manual labor of women. The women with true feminist affiliations are those women who work, the women who study. The feminist idea prospers among women in intellectual jobs and in manual jobs: professors, university students, workers. It finds a propitious environment for its development in the university classrooms, which attract more Peruvian women every day; and in the workers’ unions, where factory women enroll and organize with the same rights and the same duties as the men. Besides this, we have the feminism of dilettantes, a little pedantic and a little mundane. For feminists of this kind, feminism is a mere literary exercise, merely a fashionable sport.” (Feminist Demands; our emphasis.)

It is on this basis that Mariátegui elaborated the position of the Peruvian proletariat on the woman question, by establishing the general line to follow on this matter for whomever wants to develop from a Marxist viewpoint. Let’s see the basic problems from this position:

1. The Situation of Women.

The starting point of the study of the woman question from the viewpoint of the Peruvian proletariat, demands to keep in mind that Mariátegui represents in the country the application of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism to the material conditions of a backwards and oppressed country, an application which leads him to scientifically present the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character of our society, in the midst of which a national-democratic revolution has developed since 1928 through a long and sinuous process whose higher stage is still pending. This is the substance and guidance of Mariátegui’s thought; and starting from these considerations we must treat all the problems and policies he established, among them what is relevant to the woman question.

Thus Mariátegui starts from the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character of Peruvian society to judge the situation of women. This in itself rejects from the outset the obsolete theory of “feminine nature,” conceiving of women in a situation or condition derived from the structure of society in which they function and emphasizing the dynamic, changing character of women’s situation, he points out the transforming role work has on the condition of women with respect to social status and ideas about them. The following paragraph expresses this and other points well:

“But if bourgeois democracy has not realized feminism, it has involuntarily created the conditions and moral and material premises for its realization. It has valued women as a productive element, as an economic factor, by making more intensive and extensive use of their work each day. Work radically changes the mind and the spirit of women. Women acquire, by virtue of their work a new concept of themselves. In ancient times society destined women to marriage and idleness or menial work. Today it fates them, above all, to work. This fact has changed and elevated the position of women in life.” So it remains clear, for the Peruvian proletariat, that it is society which imparts women their condition and not some mischievous nature; that the feminine condition is a changing one and that it is work which is imparting a great leap in the position and concept of women. This is the Mariáteguist starting point, at the same time it charges against the biological determinist reduction of women to simple reproducers, and goes against the rose colored myths which treacherously help to maintain their oppression: “the defense of the poetry of the home in reality is a defense of the serfdom of women. Far from ennobling and dignifying the role of women, it diminishes and reduces it. The woman is more than a mother and a female, just as man is more than a male.” (The last two paragraphs belong to Feminist Demands, our emphasis.)

Developing the thesis of the social root of the feminine condition, Mariátegui sets out the difference between Latin and Saxon women, establishing the causal connection between feudal background and temperament and differences in each woman: “The Latin woman lives more prudently, with less passion. She does not have that urge for truth. Especially the Spanish woman is very cautious and practical. Waldo Frank, precisely, defined her with admirable accuracy: “The Spanish woman–he wrote–is a pragmatist in love. She considers love as a means of creating children for heaven. Nowhere in Europe is there a less sensual, less amorous woman. As a girl she is pretty; fresh hope colors her cheeks and enlarges her black eyes. To her, marriage is the highest state to which she can aspire. Once married, this innate coquettishness of spring disappears like a season in her: in a moment she turns judicious, fat and maternal.” (Signs and Works, Waldo Frank’s Rahab.)

What was said about the Spanish woman naturally extends to Latin American women and among them those in this country, and it shows that the feminine mentality generated by the ancient and present feudal background is still not overcome. But besides this, analyzing the relations between imperialism and the oppressed countries of America, Mariátegui highlights the alienating mentality which Yankee domination impresses on feminine mentality: “The limeña [native of Lima–Trans.] bourgeoisie fraternizes with the Yankee capitalists, and even with their lower employees, at the Country Club, at tennis and on the streets. The Yankee can marry, without any inconvenience of race or religion, the creole señorita, and she feels no scruples of nationality or culture by preferring marriage with an individual of the invading race. And neither does the middle class girl feel any scruples in this respect. The huachafita who is able to trap a Yankee employed by the Grace Corporation or the Foundation does it with the satisfaction of having elevated her social condition.” (Imperialist Viewpoint.)

Thus typifying the feminine condition in our society as serfdom of women, the semi-feudal and semi-colonial background which is its root is established, discarding all interpretation sustained by the supposed “deficient feminine nature.”

On this basis Mariátegui goes on to the material analysis of Peruvian women belonging to the different classes; he masterfully depicts working women: “if the masses of youth are so cruelly exploited, proletarian women suffer equal or worse exploitation. Up to very recently the proletarian woman had her labor limited to domestic activities at home. With advancing industrialization, she enters the competition in the factory, shop, enterprise, etc. … Thus we see her in textile factories, cracker factories, laundries, container and cardboard box factories, soaps, etc., where she performs the same work as the male worker, from operating the machinery, to the most menial job, always earning 40% to 60% less than the male. At the same time that women train themselves to do industrial jobs, they penetrate also into the activities of the office, commercial houses, etc., always competing with men and to the great benefit of the industrial enterprises, which get a noticeable reduction in salaries and immediate increase in profits. In agriculture and mining we find proletarian women in frank competition with men, and wherever we may look we find large numbers of exploited women, rendering their services in all sorts of activities …. In the process of our social struggles, the proletariat has had to set forth specific demands for their defense. Textile unions, which up to now have shown the greatest interest in this question, though not exclusively so, have gone on strike more than once with the object of forcing compliance with regulations which, specified by law, the capitalists simply refuse to implement; we have some capitalists (such as the “friend” of the worker Mr. Tizon y Bueno) who have not hesitated to consider as an “offense” the fact that a woman worker was pregnant, for which “offense” she has been terminated so as to avoid complying with what the law stipulates. At the cracker factory, the exploitation of women is vile.” (Manifesto of the General Confederation of Peruvian Workers [CGTP] to the working class of the country. The Woman Question; a document edited under Mariátegui’s leadership.)

Is this a valid description? Yes; in essence the workers’ situation remains the same: the widest exploitation in ever more branches of industry, which in some of them is truly horrifying; the use of female labor so as to lower salaries, based on their salaries being lower than those paid to men; non-fulfillment of laws protecting women and hidden anti-worker positions by the false “friend” of the proletariat. Also very current is the need to support the achievements of the women workers.

Similarly Mariátegui goes on to review the condition of indigenous peasant women, of whom he says that together with their children they are obligated “to render gratuitous services to the proprietors and their families, as well as to authorities”; their miserable condition and social placement has a root: latifundia and serfdom.

As regards the petty-bourgeoisie, besides pointing out the tribulations of the women of this class, the analysis of primary school teachers helps Mariátegui to establish how the social mean, the nearness to the people and their dedication to full time teaching modifies their attitude and spirits opening them up so in within can be shown “easily the ideals of the forgers of a new social State,” since: “None of their interests has anything in common with the capitalist regime. Her life, her poverty, her work, fuses her to the proletarian masses.” He proposes addressing them since “in their ranks the vanguard will recruit more and better elements.”

2. Historical background of the feminist struggle.

As we saw, for Mariátegui industrialization incorporates woman into work and through this it transforms her condition and her spirit. He points out, like the classics, the double situation implied: “When woman advances on the road of her emancipation over a bourgeois democratic terrain, in exchange this fact provides the capitalist with cheap labor and at the same time a serious competitor to the male worker.” (Above cited Manifesto.) On the other hand, pointing out that the French Revolution included some elements of the feminist movement, he vindicates the figure of Babeuf, leader of the egalitarians, whom he considers “an asserter of feminist demands” and of whom he quotes the following lucid words: “do not impose silence on this sex which does not deserve to be disdained …. If you do not count on women for anything in your republic, you will make lovers of monarchy out of them” and “this sex that the tyranny of men has always wanted to annul, this sex which has never been useless in the revolutions.”

And balancing the contribution made by the French Revolution to the emancipation of women he said in Women and Politics:

“The French Revolution, however, inaugurated a regime of political equality for men, not for women. The Rights of Man could have been called rather, the Rights of Males. With the bourgeoisie women ended up much more alienated from politics than with the aristocracy. Bourgeois democracy was an exclusively male democracy. Its development had to end up, however, intensely favorable to the emancipation of women. Capitalist civilization provided women with the means of increasing their capacity and improving their position in life.”

Therefore, what the bourgeois class does for women was set accurately: while it is capable of providing conditions for her development, it is incapable of emancipating her. Mariátegui knew this very well: how despite this limitation capitalism, as it develops, opens up for women the doors to various activities, including politics, very especially so in the 20th century, so much that it becomes a symbol of this. Developing this statement, Mariátegui himself vindicates many notable women and points out and demonstrates the contributions many women have made to poetry, to the novel, to the arts in general to the struggle and politics. Thus he teaches us how to judge women of the various classes and celebrities, pointing out their merits and shortcomings and showing what is principal in each individual case and, what is more important, highlighting their contributions to women’s advancement.

3. Feminist Movement.

A central point and greatly important today is the Mariáteguist proposal on the general problems of women, with his theses on the feminist movement, on which subject three parts are noteworthy: feminism; politicization of women and organization.

With respect to FEMINISM, Mariátegui held that it emerges “neither artificially nor arbitrarily” among us but it corresponds with the incorporation of women into manual and intellectual work; in this viewpoint he highlights mainly that feminism thrives among women who work outside the home, and points out that the proper environments for the development of the feminist movement are the university classrooms and the labor unions. He then sets forth the directive of orienting ourselves towards those fronts so as to push forward the mobilization of women. Although it must be decided that such orientation in no way implies discounting peasant women; since we must remember that Mariátegui considered the peasant women as the most important class in our process, no doubt peasant women too are a front of mobilization and even more, the main source which the entire feminist movement as well as the proletariat want to reach.

In Feminist Demands Mariátegui proposes the essence of the feminist movement: “No one should be surprised if all women do not get together in a single feminist movement. Feminism has, necessarily, several colors, various tendencies. In feminism three fundamental tendencies can be distinguished, three substantive colors; bourgeois feminism, petty-bourgeois feminism and proletarian feminism. Each one of these feminisms formulates its own demands in a different way. The bourgeois woman unites feminism with the interests of the conservative class. The proletarian woman unifies her feminism with the faith of the revolutionary multitudes in the society of the future. The class struggle–an historical fact and not merely a theoretical assertion–is reflected on the feminist stage. Women, like men, are reactionaries, centrists or revolutionaries. They cannot, consequently, all fight the same battle side by side. In the current human panorama, class differentiates individuals more than sex.”

This is the essence of our woman question, the class character of the entire feminist movement. And we must keep this very much in mind, today more than ever, since once more the organization of women is pushed forward; many groups arise, which in general are silent or hide the class character sustaining them, that is, the class which they serve, and preach a unification of women to demand their rights in opposition to men, as if to serve all women united, without distinction of class, for a supposed social transformation “humanist, Christian and in solidarity” social transformation, going through a few intermediate modalities of unclear or confused class positions. Substantially the problem is to ascertain the class root entailed by each women’s group, organism, front or movement, to delimit positions and establish whom they serve, which class they serve, and if they are truly or are not on the side of the people.

These questions take us to a crucial problem: according to whose principles, which class criteria and orientation are we to build a feminist movement serving the people? Here Mariátegui’s position is brilliant and concise “Feminism, as a pure idea, is essentially revolutionary.” And to him, revolutionary essentially meant proletarian; that way the entire people’s feminist movement which truly wants to serve the people and the revolution, has to be a feminist movement adhered to the proletariat, and today in our country adherence to the proletariat means adherence to the thinking of Mariátegui.

With respect to the POLITICIZATION OF WOMEN. The Marxist classics have always attached great importance to this point, since without it, it is impossible to develop the mobilization and organization of women, and without these women we cannot fight side by side with the proletariat for their own emancipation. Following his great example, the Peruvian working class like Mariátegui has pointed out the importance of the politicization of women, and highlighted that its deficiency or lack thereof serves reaction.

“Women, for the most part, due to their little or no political education, are not a renovating force in contemporary struggles but a reactionary force.” (Figures and Aspects of Life in the World.)

This is sufficiently clear, what we must ask ourselves is this: What does this politicization mean? For the founder of the Communist Party it meant the determined and militant incorporation of women into the class struggle, their mobilization together with the people’s interests, their integration into the organizations, individually learning themselves the ideology of the working class, and all this is part of, assessed by and under the leadership of the proletariat. In synthesis, to incorporate women into politics, into class struggle, under the leadership of the working class.

With respect to the ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN. Marxism teaches that in order to face their enemies and struggle for their class interests the proletariat has no other recourse than to organize itself; this principle is applied to the people, who are strong only if organized and therefore also to women, who can only fight successfully when they are organized.

As a “convicted and confessed Marxist” Mariátegui applied these principles creatively. He paid very special attention to organizing the women workers, as is seen in the proposals in the Manifesto of the CGTP referred to above:

“All this accumulation of ‘calamities’ weighing on the exploited woman cannot be resolved except by immediate organization. In the same way that unions have to build their youth cadres, they must create their women’s sections, where our future women militants will be educated.”

Mariátegui showed the same concern when under his guidance the statute of the mentioned Confederation was getting ready to form a Permanent Women’s Commission at the Executive Committee level. Unfortunately, these orientations have not been correctly put into practice; it has remained a purely bureaucratic union position, called “feminine affairs” or some similar name, when it exits at all, without organically accommodating the women’s sections of the unions, thus it remains as a pending task.

Later on, in March 1930, the Communist Party approved the following motion:

“First. Creating a Provisional Secretariat to organize socialist youth, under immediate control of the Party.

Second. Creating a Provisional Secretariat to organize the working women, under the leadership and control of the Party.

Third. Both secretariats will struggle for the immediate organization of youth of both sexes, for their political and ideological education, as a preparatory stage for their admission to the Party” (Martinez de la Torre, op. cit., Vol. II; our emphasis.)

Here Mariátegui’s thesis is materialized by the need to pay attention to the women’s organizations, even at the most advanced political levels; and his position is expressed that the organization of women is, ultimately, the question of organizing them under the leadership and control of the working class and the Party. Such proposals lead us to ask ourselves, about each women’s group, organism, front or movement: For which class, how and for what are women organized? And keep in mind that these points can only be satisfactorily resolved, that is, for the class and the people, by adhering ourselves to the working class positions.

These three questions: feminism, politicization of women and organization of women, and the theses which Mariátegui established must be studied and applied consistently, since only that way can an authentic popular feminist movement be developed.

4. The emancipation of women.

In this point too, like in the classics, Mariátegui also holds that under capitalism and industrialization “women make advances on the road to their emancipation.” However under this system she does not even reach full legal equality. For that reason a consistent feminist movement seeks to go further, and on this road it necessarily has to join the struggle of the proletariat. This understanding led the great proletarian thinker of our country to state: “The feminist movement appears solidly identified with the revolutionary movement;” and that although born of liberalism, only with the revolution could feminism be fulfilled:

“Born of a liberal womb, feminism has not yet been able to operate in the capitalist process. It is only now, when the historic path of democracy reaches its end, that woman acquires the political and legal rights of the male. And it was the Russian revolution which explicitly and categorically conferred on women the equality and the liberty which for more than a century, from Babeuf and the egalitarians of the French Revolution, she had in vain clamored for.” (Feminist Demands)

And so it is that in parallel with the construction of a new society the new woman will be emerging who will be “substantially different from the one formed by the now declining civilization”. These new women will be forged in the revolutionary crucible and will place the old type of woman deformed by the old exploitative system in the back room of history, a system which now sinks for the genuine dignifying of women.

“In the same measure as the socialist system replaces the individualist system, feminine luxuriousness and elegance will decay… Humanity will lose some luxurious mammals; but will gain instead many women. The clothing of the women of the future will be less ostentatious and expensive; but the condition of this new woman will be dignified. And the axis of feminine life will progress from the individual to the social … A woman, in sum, will be less expensive but will be worth more.” (Women and Politics.)

Besides these basic ideas Mariátegui takes care of other problems intimately linked to women in particular: divorce, marriage, love, etc.; he treats them with fine irony and takes sharply critical positions on them. However, as a good Marxist he does not center his attention on them until taking them as the principal issue. To do so is to forget the principal struggle and fundamental goal, while spreading confusion and disorienting the revolutionary struggle.

Up to this point we have presented and exposition of the central theses of Mariátegui’s thought on the women question, in which we have used plentiful quotations for the same reasons we had when dealing with the Marxist positions on the subject.

III. DEVELOPING THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT FOLLOWING MARIATEGUI

1. Current Relevance of Mariátegui.

A conclusion is obvious from what has been said: the theses Mariátegui held on the woman question resulted from the consistent application of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society like ours. On this, generally, there is no disagreement and even when there is no open adherence, at least by silence an acceptance of such conclusions is shown. However the question is not whether Mariátegui’s thought was a correct application of Marxism to the country , the central issue is: how relevant is his thought to the present? This is a subject on which, while expressing an apparent recognition of Mariátegui and so as not to attack his immense and still growing prestige, some question its current relevance by mentioning that more than 40 years have elapsed and raising, erroneously and treacherously, the need to take into account “the creative development of Marxism in order to surpass it.”

Analyzing this point leads us to review, if only in passing, some of the positions that have been sustained in this country on the woman question. Thus, the notable and contentious thinker don Manuel Gonzales Prada handled this question in his 1904 work “Slaves of the Church,” a work now included in Hours of Struggle. There, while expressing important concepts such as: “We can’t know the people well until we have studied the social and legal condition of women,” “the moral elevation of man is measured by the concept he has on women: for the ignorant and brutal man, the woman is just a female; for the thinker and cultured man, she is a brain and a heart,” “Just as we carry the family name of our father, we carry the moral making of our mother…” ” The motive force, the great propellant of societies, does not function noisily at the plaza nor at the revolutionary circle; it works in the home,” which help to center our attention on the importance of the woman; on the other hand, he expresses ideas such as “The emancipation of woman, like the freedom of the slave, is not due to Christianity but to Philosophy.” “In Protestant nations feminine ascension is taking place so assuredly that complete emancipation is already foreseen,” “Slaves and serfs owe their personal dignity to the efforts of noble and delicate persons, the Catholic woman will only get emancipated by the energetic action of men” and “in the battle of ideas no ally is more powerful than love.”

Thus we see that the contribution of Gonzales Prada to the emancipation of women overall positive. He pointed out and denounce the oppression of women, the important role they fulfill and the necessity to resolve the problem and set forth the emancipation of women. Although for him the root of the problem is Catholicism which prevails in women, he believes that it is possible to reach emancipation under capitalism and he centers the problem in the individual; yet his ideas overall represent, a positive contribution, in this and other topics, in studying the problems of women in the country.

And these ideas turn out to be more outstanding when we see nearly 30 years later Jorge Basadre proposing: “Gregorio Marañon demanded that the essential role of women is love,” while the essential role of men is work… That is why little boys prefer to play with soldiers, symbol of struggle, of effort, an urge to supremacy; while little girls prefer to play with dolls, precociously motherly… By virtue of a command of nature, the charm of the Creole woman, even when not a mestiza, is different from women of other latitudes by a proper flavor like a fruit or vegetable… While, on the other hand the highest superiority of men is in their minds and since the American mind is still determinedly influenced by Europe, the American glory is lost or lessened … A notoriously beautiful women in America can, on the other hand, raise interest anywhere.” (Peru: Problems and Possibilities, Chapter XI. Here the position is so clearly reactionary that comments are unnecessary.)

If in Basadre the ruling classes speak to us of “feminine nature” whose essence is love, they also in 1940 express themselves through Carlos Miro Quesada Laos as follows:

“The role of woman in modern life is manifold. These are no longer the times–forever gone–when work was forbidden to her. Quite the contrary. Today woman works in diverse activities… Because she has shown she can act as efficiently as man… She, therefore, has the duty to study, to prepare herself for the future. And if in these chores women share the duties with men, in others they are, and will always be, better than men. And what happens is that woman contributes to life many things which are innate to her. She has the hands of mother and nurse… That is femininity which, thanks to God, they will never lose, despite the 20th century, of wars and revolutionary theories. The word “consolation” evokes women … After making man, the Creator… put her at his side to be his mate, to give stimulus and sweeten his life… First she must obey her parents, then her teacher, later on her husband and always duty.” (Three Conferences, Lima 1941.)

With Basadre the exploiting classes postponed the work of women; with Miro Quesada, having new requirements, they exalt and demand the work of women. But deep down both are based on “feminine nature.” But not only in this field do these ideas appear; incorrect positions are also found in writings and magazines which claim to be revolutionary and even Marxist; we read in them concepts like the following: Speaking of the “sense of life,” that they participate in “social change,” will enable, we understand it’s meant women, “to undo their existential problem, since the sense of life would then reside in the profit each individual is able to offer her/his neighbors by way of will and effort.” Considering the subject “Women and Society” after attempting to outline Engels’ thesis on the development of the family the following is said: “we are possessed of the myth of the inferiority of women. And from that arises the need of liberating women… her liberation can only occur when the socio-economic structure changes with the development of a new society.” Thus liberation is highlighted but not its social background, which is kept ambiguous and imprecise, ending up centered on how to regulate “the relationship between sexes in answer to the new ideology. If the women is equal or must be equal to man, the bases of such relationship would be:

a) To liberate the women from religious alienation…,

b) To exercise the right to choose her mate without obeying prejudices about masculine initiative…

c) Not to understand women’s liberation as a synonym for free love… and (fortunately!)

d) The woman being equal to man, she must not remain separate from politics by alleging her feminine condition… love, as a starting point for a social change, should be the stimulus for youth (men and women) to struggle to build an egalitarian world without oppression or injustice.”

And in publishing the story, “The Tomb of the Unemployed,” a Christmas story which handily spreads the “generosity of women” and the “selfishness of men,” a treacherous version of “feminine nature”: “Later on the two ghosts became silent, each with its own thoughts. The woman in her past; the man in his future. The woman on what must be done; the man on what needs to be done for him. One with generosity and one with selfishness, always nailed to their foreheads, always wrestling in the depths of their consciences.” (Magazine Mujer number 1 and 2; while having no dates they were printed in the 1960’s). Evidently the ideas contained in Mujer, despite their apparent Marxist and revolutionary posturing, neatly reveal a bourgeois background, in no way do they express a proletarian position on the woman question.

What does this summary show us? The hard, cold truth that the question is by no means the time frame when the positions are presented, nor is the problem “to take into account the creative developments of Marxism,” but what is central is the class position on which a proposal is based. We have seen a position prior to Mariátegui, that of Gonzalez Prada, which despite preceding Mariátegui by some 30 years entails many positive elements; as well as a position contemporaneous with Mariátegui, that of Basadre, which is openly reactionary; finally two later positions, 30 years after Mariátegui, that of Miro Quesada, which renovates some criteria but is still reactionary, and that of the magazine Mujer, under Marxist colors, which definitely adheres to bourgeois positions despite it being presented to us as revolutionary and in the service of women’s emancipation.

What is the conclusion? As we said, the question is the class character on which a position is based, in this case the position on the woman question. With Mariátegui, the greatest exponent of our working class, the proletarian position on the woman question is established. He set the basis of the proletarian political line on this question and his positions are completely current, on this topic as well as on others dealing with the revolutionary politics of the proletariat in our country. Therefore, developing a people’s feminist movement demands, today more than ever, a firm and consistent adherence to the thought of Mariátegui, starting from an acceptance of its current relevance.

2. Retaking Mariátegui’s Road

The struggle of Peruvian women and of proletarian women has a long tradition, sealed with their blood, for over 50 years. Similarly, feminist organizations are long standing; nevertheless, the process of organizing Peruvian women began to expand in the 1960’s, forecasting a brilliant perspective, though a long and twisting one.

At present we have a multitude of organizations of varying extension and levels, and what is more important, sprouting old seeds, we already see signs pointing to a genuine people’s feminist movement. Today we have a National Council of Women with fifty years of existence, nurtured by the decrepit and obsolete theory of “feminine nature”, a “Women’s Rights Movement” upholding a feminism aimed at liberation from dependence on men; a gamut of organizations being formed which support the current regime for the benefit of its corporativist process, under the orientation and control of Sinamos and under its concept of “participation of women,” part of their “fully participatory democracy,” which obscures that the root of women’s oppression is private property and the subjugation of women that began with it; which, twisting our history and using a lowly and “vulgar materialism” propagandizes that “in 1968 the revolutionary process began that seeks the authentic liberation of women with political equality and active participation,” concluding: “We are the ones who must create the various forms of women’s organizations,” saturated with the sly and underhanded bourgeois feminism. And a National People’s Union of Peruvian Women, a right opportunist organization which staged, as usual, a collaborationist apparatus totally devoted to the service of the regime.

This increase and organizational strengthening of the masses of women demands a serious investigation of the woman question and a class analysis of the organizations that exist or are being formed, so the camps can define themselves in order to establish, as in other fields, the two lines on the woman question: The counterrevolutionary line commanded by imperialism and the middle bourgeois, and the revolutionary line whose command and center is the proletariat. That will help the organizational development of the people’s feminist movement, which of necessity requires its construction to be unleashed amidst the two-line struggle, the expression of the class struggle and of the similar and conflicting interests of the contending classes. And of course it must not be forgotten that within each line there are variations and differences in operation according to the classes grouped around each line. From there the problem consists of establishing the two contrary lines and, within each one the variations and nuances of the line; establishing which position is in command of each line, and, depending on the class each represents, gives each of the lines in struggle a revolutionary or counterrevolutionary character.

All that’s been exposed takes us therefore to the necessity of “retaking Mariátegui’s road on the woman question,” in order to serve the formation and development of a PEOPLE’S FEMINIST MOVEMENT conceived as a movement generated by the proletariat among the masses of women, with the following characteristics:

1. Adherence to the thought of Mariátegui;

2. Class conscious organization of the masses;

3. Subject to democratic centralism.

The construction of such a MOVEMENT sets forth for us two problems:

1. Ideological-political construction, which necessarily implies providing it with Principles and Programme;

2. Organic construction, which we can serve by forming cores or groups of activists for carrying the Principles and Program to the masses of women–workers, peasants, professionals, university and secondary school students, etc.–They would work toward the politicization of women, mobilizing them through their struggles and organizing them to adhere to the political struggle, in harmony with the orientation and politics of the proletariat.

To conclude this contribution to the study and understanding of the woman question, it is pertinent to transcribe a Declaration of Principles and Programme which for some time has been circulating in our midst, documents which, while emphasizing their character as ongoing projects, can serve as a useful basis for discussion of the ideological-political construction of the ongoing PEOPLE’S FEMINIST MOVEMENT.

 

 

April, 1975

PCP-CENTRAL COMMITTEE

 

Splinter cells and the Chaos Theory

By Kunal Majumder

Renegade Maoist groups wreak havoc in Jharkhand, often with the tacit support of the state police

Different aims TPC cadres undergo training at a camp in Chandwa Valley Photos: Rajesh Kumar Sen

ON 16 JANUARY, when seven mutilated bodies were found near the Tazna river in Khunti district of Jharkhand, the media was quick to call it another Maoist attack. Families of the victims had no clue about the killers. No FIRwas filed. None of the criminal gangs or Maoist outfits operating in the area claimed responsibility. The police continued to push the “Maoist did it” theory. However, they failed to answer a simple question: Since when did the Maoists start beheading and mutilating their victims? What they didn’t tell the public is that just days before this incident, these seven villagers were declared as police informers by the renegade Maoist group People’s Liberation Front of India (PLFI).

Stone cold Policemen inspect one of the seven mutilated bodies found near the Tazna river

ast year on 7 April, after the murder of Reliance Power general manager Manoj Ojha by a Maoist renegade group in Chatra district, Jharkhand IG RK Malik made an unusually candid admission. He accepted that the Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC), a renegade group believed to be responsible for Ojha’s death, was once an ally of the state police. Malik went on to add that the group was no longer under police control after turning criminal. And that the police has been instructed to take action against TPC operatives.

 

 

 

Malik seemed to be admitting what human rights activists and politicians in Jharkhand had long suspected but rarely spoken about: The police had been directly and indirectly supporting renegade groups to target Maoists. These groups, formed mainly with help of expelled CPI(Maoist) cadres, were initially funded and promoted by the police but later turned into Frankenstein’s monsters that the police was struggling hard to control.

Jharkhand has become a breeding ground for more than half-a-dozen such groups that have nothing to do with Maoist ideology but have created a parallel structure on the lines of the rebel outfit. “They have even started using Maoist nomenclatures like area commander, etc. But the real fight is only for the levy,” says Malik.

The spilt in the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) — known as the Communist Party of India (Maoist) after unification with the People’s War Group in 2004 — began after the creation of Jharkhand. First, central committee member Bharatji was demoted for embezzling party funds and sexually exploiting a female cadre. He left the outfit and formed the MCC(M). In 2005, Murariji created TPC on caste lines, allegedly with help of the state police. Before unification, the MCC leadership was dominated by the Yadav community. The TPC, made up of Ganjus (a lower caste community), openly declared that its main target was the Maoists, not the police. Thus began the cat-and-mouse game.

While the TPC continues to dominate the three key districts of Chatra, Palamu and Latehar, the greater challenge for the Maoists, and perhaps the police, come from the PLFI. The outfit, headed by Dinesh Gop, continues to be strong in at least seven districts, many near capital Ranchi. IG Malik admits that the police has no strategy or plans to target the splinter groups who are often tagged Naxals by the local media. “We don’t have specific operations targeting them, but whenever any of their members are caught, we take action against them,” says the top cop.

Going by police records, hardly any major action has been taken against TPC or PLFI members. “Even though the police has booked nearly 3,500 people since the creation of Jharkhand under various Acts and charged them for being Maoists, the state government has not even notified Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the state, leave alone including these renegade groups under the Act,” says Shashi Shekhar Pathak, state general secretary of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). The notification of UAPA would require the state government to mention the names of the banned outfits. Pathak feels the reason it is not doing so is primarily to safeguard the splinter groups.

Instead, a battle for dominance is being played out in at least 10 districts with daily news of murder and extortion. Maoists are attacking cadres of the renegade groups, killing SPOs and suspected informers. In turn, TPC and PLFI cadres are killing suspected Maoists, in some cases ‘arresting’ and handing them over to police.

TPC and PLFI cadres are killing suspected Maoists, in some cases ‘arresting’ and handing them over to the police

Last March, when MGNREGA activist Niyamat Ansari was brutally beaten to death by Maoists in Latehar, shockwaves spread among social activists. “Though our methods are different, our goal is the same. We work for the welfare of the people. I don’t know why they want to target us,” remarked activist Bhukan Singh, who was attacked by the rebels along with Ansari. Initially he was under police custody but later preferred to ‘apologise’ to the Maoists and return to his village.

Ansari and Singh had exposed the nexus between the Maoists and local contractors, to avenge which Ansari was killed. When activists Jean Dreze and Aruna Roy protested against the killing of Ansari, they too were threatened. They were asked to appear before a Jan Adalat. The bonhomie between the Maoists and activists had snapped. But why did the Maoists take such a deadly step? The answer lies somewhere else.

“Under attack from the splinter groups, there is growing insecurity within the Maoist party in Jharkhand,” says a senior activist considered close to the state Maoist leadership. He explains why such an act of indiscipline by local commander Sudarshan was tolerated and later endorsed by the party. “The party had no choice. It is already facing attacks in Latehar from security forces and renegade groups. If they had not endorsed Ansari’s killings, Sudarshan would have simply left the party like many others and floated another group,” he says.

LATEHAR, ALONG with Palamu and Chatra, have become the main battleground for clashes between the TPC, CPI(Maoist) and other splinter groups. Three months before Ojha’s murder, the TPC and another renegade group, the Jharkhand Prastuti Committee (JPC), clashed over the control of a village fair in Chatra. The result: Four people dead. Held on the day of Makar Sankranti, the Balbal fair had been controlled by the TPC for the past three years. The JPC wanted to take charge.

In 2010, eight Maoists were reportedly killed in a clash between Maoists and the TPC in Banwar village. “Two bodies lay at the spot for more than 24 hours. There was no sign of any police,” recalls villager Sunil Manjhi. The police accepts that it is unable to prevent such clashes. “Most of the clashes happen in forest areas. Once we have left after our operation, it is difficult to control,” says Malik.

Many activists point towards the nexus that is building up between the renegade groups and mining and power companies. The state government has signed 104 MOUs with various industrial houses. In Latehar, Kolkata-based Abhijeet Power is building a 1,080 MW thermal power plant. Two years ago, when the project began, there was a lot of opposition from villagers. Senior journalist Faisal Anurag remembers the widespread protests from the locals against the plant. “And then within days, to our surprise, everything settled down,” he recalls. Though Anurag refuses to speculate, activists working on the ground reveal that TPC entered into an understanding with the company. “In exchange for money, TPC ensured the village panchayat gave its nod for the plant,” says an activist.

(A leaked 2007-09 Intelligence Bureau report showed details of the money corporates working in the state paid to the Maoists and other groups. Interestingly, areas like Latehar and Chatra have a lower extortion levy primarily because the Maoists are weaker in these areas. They are controlled by the splinter groups.)

The police, however, refuse to accept this theory. “If this were true, why are the TPC cadres harassing the company again?” asks a senior police officer. Just a few days ago, the TPC is said to have occupied 50 acres of Abhijeet Power by installing red flags. Two years after the plant was set up, it now accuses the company of cheating villagers in the land purchase deal. Another tactic to extract money?

ON THE road from Ranchi to Khunti falls Rania, called the ‘killing fields’ by Gladson Dungdung, a human rights activist, who is on a monitoring sub-committee of the Planning Commission. “Every other day, someone either gets killed by the Maoists or the PLFI or the police in this place. The situation is so bad, you don’t know whom to support and whom to oppose,” says Dungdung.

On 8 May 2011, Jharkhand Party member Joseph Khundulana, 30, was killed in Bandu Dumku village in Rania. The villagers recall how nearly 50 PLFI cadres descended on the village that day. “They asked for Joseph, took him away and strangled him to death,” says a villager.

A few days before the murder, CPI(Maoist) cadres killed Choka Das, a local businessman. He was travelling in a bus from Ranchi to Rania when the Maoists attacked. Later, area commander Prasadji accepted responsibility and accused Das of being a police informer.

In another incident in Gumla district, Maoists killed Gurudev Ukao along with five others at his wedding reception on 15 May 2011. The Maoists were looking for PLFI sub-zonal commander Mangal Naresiya. PUCL’s Pathak says the situation is even worse than in other states. “At least there you have a frontal fight between the police and the Maoists. But in Jharkhand, it’s a free-for-all,” he says.

Murders are not just about area dominance. Like in Ansari’s case, a lot of them are motivated by personal grudges. A few kilometres from Rania starts Khunti district. On 19 April 2011, in Bhandra village, Balaram Singh and Sukra Pahan, both in their early 20s, had gone to the evening haat near the river when half-a-dozen PLFI cadres abducted them. Within an hour, both were shot dead. Singh’s mother still doesn’t know why he was killed. The police says the killing could be related to land issues as Singh was working as a real estate agent after being released from prison in a murder-related case.

While the government maintains a record of deaths due to anti-Naxal operations in the state (65 civilians, 41 Naxals and 17 policemen in January-June 2011), there is no record of the people killed by the renegade groups. By the police’s own admission, it doesn’t target the renegade groups in its special operations. Asked about police supporting the renegade groups, IG Malik says, “The question should be put to the Maoists. Why are so many people leaving them? If their ideology was so strong, why would so many renegade groups come up?”

So is the police playing one group against another? Malik is frank enough to admit that the police doesn’t have control over the hinterlands. “So there is no question of playing one group against another,” he says. Even as the police refuse to accept its role, there is a growing clamour against the way it is handling the issue.

On 4 December 2011, former Assembly Speaker and Chatra MP Inder Singh Namdhari narrowly escaped a Maoist attack. “Previously there were only Maoists. Now we have a number of criminal groups,” says Namdhari. “The police has to understand that one evil can’t be undone by another. It will only create chaos.”

Kunal Majumder is a Senior Correspondent with Tehelka.
kunal@tehelka.com

Nupi Lal sowed the seeds of a new political revolution in Manipur: MCP

 

Imphal, December 10 2011: Acknowledging that the Nupi Lal, which was fought entirely by the women folks of Manipur on December 12, 1939 against the King for exporting rice outside the state thereby creating a manmade famine in the state, as sowing the seeds of a new political revolution in the state, the Maoist Communist Party, Manipur has further appealed to all to take the path and continue to fight against the Indian “colonial rule” .

The Maoist Communist Party, Manipur in a press statement released by its Secretary Publicity and Propaganda, Nonglen Meitei said that December 12 is observed as Nupi Lal every year recalling the courage and the spirit shown by the Manipuri women folks who were agitating against the Imperialistic policy of the King.

Later Hijam Irawat joined the agitation and the issue became a state issue.

The king arrested Hijam Irawat and put him into prison on January 9, 1940.Later on a Communist form of movement began to take roots in the state and gradually a new political revolution came into existence.

The pres release further said that, even today many of our courageous women are out in the forefront fighting against injustice meted out to its people.

Although the 2nd Nupi Lal has come to an end, the women of the state are still into the 3rd Nupi Lal, fighting against the security forces, under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, and it is certain that they will be victorious in the end.

Many of the people of the state has been suffering a lot under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, which gives special power to the security forces.

The press release further pays tribute to the courageous women of Manipur then and now on the occasion of the 2nd Nupi Lal commemoration day.

ഇരകള്‍ക്കൊരു കലാപത്തിന്റെ മാനിഫെസ്റ്റോ

ഇരകള്‍ക്കൊരു കലാപത്തിന്റെ മാനിഫെസ്റ്റോ
ബി എസ് ബാബൂരാജ്‌

1999 ല്‍ യൂഗോസ്ലാവിയയില്‍ നടന്ന നാറ്റോ ആക്രമണങ്ങളുടെ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തില്‍ അന്നത്തെ ചെക്ക് പ്രസിഡന്റ് വാസ്ലേവ് ഹാവല്‍ ന്യൂയോര്‍ക്ക് ടൈംസിലെ ഒരു ലേഖനത്തില്‍ എഴുതി. ”മനുഷ്യാവകാശം രാഷ്ട്രങ്ങളുടെ പരമാധികാരത്തിനേക്കാള്‍ വലുതാണ്. യു.എന്‍. അനുമതിയില്ലാതെ  യുഗോസ്ലാവിയക്കു മുകളില്‍ നടത്തിയ  ബോംബിങ്ങ്  നിരുത്തരവാദപരമോ അന്താരാഷ്ട്ര നിയമങ്ങളുടെ ലംഘനമോ ആയിരുന്നില്ല. മറിച്ച് ഒരു പരമാധികാര രാഷ്ട്രത്തിന്റെ  ബാധ്യതയായ പൗരന്മാരുടെ അവകാശങ്ങള്‍ സംരക്ഷിക്കാനായിരുന്നു ആ ആക്രമണം.” അറിയപ്പെടുന്ന എഴുത്തുകാരനും നാടകകാരനും കൂടിയായ ഹാവെലിന്റെ അഭിപ്രായത്തില്‍ നാറ്റോ സൈന്യം പരമാധികാരിയായ  ദൈവത്തിന്റെ കൈകളിലെ  ഉപകരണമെന്ന നിലയിലാണ് അന്താരാഷ്ട്ര നിയമങ്ങള്‍ ലംഘിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ദൈവത്തിന്റെ നിയമങ്ങള്‍ നടപ്പാക്കിയത്. ”കാരണം രാഷ്ട്രം മനുഷ്യന്റെ സൃഷ്ടിയാണെങ്കില്‍ മനുഷ്യന്‍ ദൈവത്തിന്റെ സൃഷ്ടിയാണ്.”  അദ്ദേഹം തുടരുന്നു: മനുഷ്യന്റെ അഭിമാനവും അവകാശവും സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യവും അദ്യശ്യലോകത്തിന്റെ നിയമങ്ങളാലാണ് ഭരിക്കപ്പെടുന്നത്.
അങ്ങനെ അദ്ദേഹം രാജ്യസുരക്ഷയെയും പരമാധികാരത്തെയും മാത്രമല്ല ദൈവവിധിയെയും സൃഷ്ടികര്‍മത്തെയും കൂടി  മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തിന്റെ പരിധിയിലേക്ക് കൊണ്ടുവന്നു. ഈ കാഴ്ച പിന്നീട് ലോകത്താകമാനമുള്ള ദേശരാഷ്ട്രങ്ങളിലെ അപരങ്ങളുടെയും ഇരകളുടെയും  ദൈനംദിന ജീവിതത്തില്‍ നിഴല്‍ പോലെ പിന്‍തുടര്‍ന്നു. കഴിഞ്ഞ കാലത്തു നടന്ന രണ്ടു ലോകമഹായുദ്ധങ്ങള്‍ സമ്മാനിച്ച ദുരന്താനുഭവങ്ങള്‍ രാഷ്ട്രത്തേക്കാള്‍ പ്രധാനം മനുഷ്യനാണെന്ന് പ്രഖ്യാപിക്കുന്ന ലോകമനുഷ്യാവകാശ പ്രഖ്യാപനത്തിനു വഴിയൊരുക്കിയെന്നും അദ്ദേഹം അതേ ലേഖനത്തില്‍ തുടര്‍ന്നെഴുതുന്നു.
ഹാവലിന്റെ ചിന്തകളെ ലംഘിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ഈ നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലെ ഏറ്റവും അപകടകാരിയായ ചിന്തകനെന്ന് പടിഞ്ഞാറന്‍  ലോകം വിശേഷിപ്പിക്കുന്ന സാല്‍വോജ് സിസ്സെക്ക് ഒരിക്കല്‍ ചോദിച്ചു: ബോംബിങ്ങിനു ഇരയായത് എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് യൂഗോസ്ലാവിയ ആയത്? എന്തുകൊണ്ട്  അത് ടര്‍ക്കിയായില്ല? എന്തുകൊണ്ട് റഷ്യയായില്ല? മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള ചിന്തകള്‍ക്കും ധാരണകള്‍ക്കും വന്നു ചേര്‍ന്നിട്ടുള്ള രൂപപരിണാമത്തിന്റെ ഒരു ഉദാഹരണമായിരുന്നു ഹാവലിന്റെ ലേഖനം. ഇനി വരാന്‍ പോകുന്ന കാലത്ത് രാഷ്ട്രം തന്നെ അപ്രത്യക്ഷമാവുകയും ഒരു വൈകാരികമായ വ്യവസ്ഥ എന്നതിലുപരി ഒരു സാംസ്്കാരിക വ്യവസ്ഥയായി തീരുമെന്നും പിന്നീട് ഹാവല്‍  പ്രവചിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. സ്റ്റേറ്റിന്റെ വ്യക്തിക്കു മുകളിലുള്ള അധികാരപ്രയോഗത്തിന്റെ വിമര്‍ശനമായി ഉയര്‍ന്നു വന്ന മനുഷ്യാവകാശ സങ്കല്പങ്ങല്‍ രാജ്യാന്തര രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിന്റെ തന്ത്രപ്രധാന നീക്കങ്ങളുടെ ന്യായീകരണമായി രൂപം പ്രാപിക്കുന്നുവെന്നതാണ് ഈ ചര്‍ച്ചകളുടെ പ്രധാന അപകടം. പിന്നീട് അഫ്ഘാനിസ്ഥാനിലും ഇറാക്കിലും ഇതേ ന്യായീകരണങ്ങളുടെ ബലത്തില്‍ സാമ്രാജ്യത്വ സൈന്യങ്ങള്‍ ഇരച്ചുകയറുകയും രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ നിയന്ത്രണം പിടിച്ചെടുക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. യൂഗോസ്ലാവിയയില്‍ മനുഷ്യാവകാശം സംരക്ഷിക്കാനായി ഇറങ്ങിപ്പുറപ്പെട്ട നാറ്റോസൈന്യം രാജ്യത്ത്  സൈനികരെ വിന്യസിപ്പിച്ച് ജനങ്ങളുടെ സുരക്ഷ ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുകയായിരുന്നില്ല മറിച്ച് എയര്‍ബോംബിങ്ങിലൂടെ ജനങ്ങളെ കൊലപ്പെടുത്തുകയായിരുന്നുവെന്ന് ഐ. സി. എച്ച്. ആര്‍. പി. എന്ന സന്നദ്ധസംഘടന പിന്നീട് കണ്ടെത്തുകയുണ്ടായി. ശരിയാണ് അവര്‍ കോളറ വന്നാണ് മരിച്ചത്, പക്ഷെ കോളറ വന്നു മരിച്ചവരുടെ കഴുത്തില്‍ ഒരു വെടിയുണ്ടയുമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു എന്നു പറയുന്ന മാര്‍ക്കേസിയന്‍ കഥാപാത്രത്തെ അത് ഓര്‍മിപ്പിച്ചു. മനുഷ്യാവകാശപ്രശ്‌നങ്ങള്‍ വിലയിരുത്തുന്നതിലെ വിരോധാഭാസങ്ങള്‍ ചികഞ്ഞെടുക്കുന്നതിനും അത് ഇരകളെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള പൊതുസമൂഹത്തിന്റെ കാഴ്ചയെ എങ്ങനെ വികലമാക്കുന്നുവെന്നും വിശദമാക്കുന്നതിന് യൂഗോസ്ലാവിന്‍ ആക്രമണത്തിലെ മനുഷ്യാവകാശപരമായ ന്യായീകരണത്തെ കുറിച്ചും അതിനെ എതിര്‍ത്തിരുന്ന ഇടതുപക്ഷ ലോജിക്കിനെ കുറിച്ചും  സിസ്സെക്ക് പിന്നീട് തന്റെ പല ലേഖനങ്ങളിലും വിശദമായി പ്രതിപാദിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. അദ്ദേഹം എഴുതി: യൂഗോസ്ലാവിയയില്‍, നമ്മുടെ സമാധാനപ്രിയരായ ബുദ്ധജീവികള്‍ കരുതുന്നതുപോലെ, രണ്ടു വംശീയ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ സൗഹാര്‍ദ്ദത്തോടെ കഴിയുന്നതില്‍ പരാജയപ്പെടുകയായിരുന്നില്ല. ബോസ്‌നിയയും സെര്‍ബിയയും തമ്മിലുള്ളത് രണ്ടു വംശീയ ശക്തികള്‍ തമ്മിലുള്ള പോരാട്ടവുമായിരുന്നില്ല, മറിച്ച് രണ്ടു രാഷ്ട്രീയ സങ്കല്പങ്ങള്‍ക്കിടയിലുള്ള സംഘര്‍ഷമായിരുന്നു. നാറ്റോ ബോംബിങ്ങിനെ എതിര്‍ത്തവരും അനുകൂലിച്ചവരും സെര്‍ബിയക്കും ബോസ്‌നിയക്കുമെതിരെയുള്ള പ്രശ്‌നത്തെ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നതില്‍ പരാജയപ്പെട്ടു. ഇത്തരം നിലപാടുകള്‍ എങ്ങനെ ‘ഇരവല്‍ക്കരണ രാഷ്ട്രീയ’ത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമാകുന്നുവെന്നും അദ്ദേഹം കാര്യകാരണസഹിതം തെളിയിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. അന്താരാഷ്ട്രബന്ധങ്ങളുടെ ഘടനക്കുള്ളില്‍ സാധുവാകുന്ന ഈ വിശദീകരണങ്ങള്‍ രാജ്യങ്ങളുടെ ആഭ്യന്തരവ്യവഹാരങ്ങളിലും രാഷ്ട്രവും അതിന്റെ ജനങ്ങളും തമ്മിലുള്ള ബന്ധത്തിലും അതിന്റെ പരിധിക്കുള്ളില്‍ നിന്നു കൊണ്ട് സാധുവാണ്.

മനുഷ്യാവകാശവും ഇരകളും

മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള ധാരണകള്‍ ആ വാക്കു സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്ന അത്രയും ലളിതമല്ല. സമൂഹത്തിലെ പോരാടുന്ന വിവിധ ശക്തികളും അവയ്ക്കിടയിലെ ബന്ധങ്ങളുടെ സ്വഭാവവും എല്ലാം ഈ ധാരണകളെ രൂപപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതില്‍ പങ്കുവഹിക്കുന്നു. എന്നും വികസിച്ചുവരുന്ന ഒരു ആശയമായി കരുതപ്പെടുന്ന  മനുഷ്യാവകാശം അതിന്റെ  ഇരകളെക്കുറിച്ച് കൃത്യമായ ചില സങ്കല്പങ്ങളും സൂചനകളും നല്‍കുന്നുണ്ട്. സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ പൊതുമനസ്സാക്ഷിക്കുള്ളില്‍ പിറവിയെടുക്കുകയും നിലനില്‍ക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്ന ഈ സങ്കല്പങ്ങള്‍ വിശദമായ പരിശോധന അര്‍ഹിക്കുന്നു. കാരണം മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തെ നിരപേക്ഷവും ലളിതവുമായി വീക്ഷിക്കേണ്ടതും അത്തരത്തില്‍ പ്രചരിപ്പിക്കേണ്ടതും അധികാരത്തിന്റെ ആവശ്യമാണ്.

ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മനുഷ്യാവകാശ പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തിന്റെ മുന്‍നിരക്കാരനായ കണ്ണബീരാന്‍  അടിയന്തരാവസ്ഥകാലത്തെ തന്റെ ചില അനുഭവങ്ങള്‍ അനുസ്മരിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. അക്കാലത്ത് ആന്ധ്രയില്‍  വ്യാജഏറ്റുമുട്ടലില്‍ പോലീസ് ചില നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളെ  കൊലചെയ്തിരുന്നു. അദ്ദേഹം അതിനെതിരെ  കോടതിയെ സമീപിച്ചു. കേസ് ആവശ്യത്തിനായി കോടതിയില്‍ ചെന്ന ഒരു ദിവസം  ബാര്‍ അസോസിയേഷനിലേക്ക് കയറിയപ്പോള്‍ നാലു യുവ അഭിഭാഷകര്‍ അദ്ദേഹത്തോടു ചോദിച്ചു: ” മി. കണ്ണബീരാന്‍ ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഭരണഘടനയില്‍ വിശ്വസിക്കാത്ത ഈ നകസലൈറ്റുകള്‍ക്ക് ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഭരണഘടനക്കു കീഴില്‍ എന്തിനാണ് സംരക്ഷണം നല്‍കുന്നത്.” മറ്റൊരിക്കല്‍ അദിലാബാദിലെ കമ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ് വിപ്ലവകാരികളായിരുന്ന കിസ്ത ഗൗഡയ്ക്കും ഭൂമയ്യയ്്ക്കും കോടതി വധശിക്ഷ വിധിച്ചപ്പോള്‍ അതിനെതിരെയും അദ്ദേഹം  ഹൈക്കോടതിയെ സമീപിച്ചിരുന്നു. വാദത്തിനിടയില്‍ ഒരു ജൂനിയര്‍ ജഡ്ജും ഇത്തരമൊരു ചോദ്യം അദ്ദേഹത്തോട്  ചോദിച്ചു. ഇത്തരമൊരു കേസ് കോടതിയുടെ മുന്നില്‍ വരുമ്പോള്‍ നമ്മുടെ മുല്യങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അനുസരിച്ചാണ് അല്ലാതെ അവരുടെ മൂല്യങ്ങള്‍ക്കനിസരിച്ചല്ല വിധിക്കേണ്ടതെന്നായിരുന്നു അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ മറുപടി.

ഇരകള്‍ നിയതമായ രാഷ്ട്രീയവിശ്വാസങ്ങളോ കര്‍തൃത്വമോ ഉള്ളവരല്ലെങ്കില്‍ മാത്രമാണ് അവര്‍ സഹതാപവും നീതിയും ലഭിക്കാന്‍ യോഗ്യരാകുന്നുള്ളൂ എന്ന ചിന്തയില്‍നിന്നാണ്  ഈ ചോദ്യങ്ങള്‍ രൂപപ്പെടുന്നത്. ഒരു സമൂഹത്തില്‍ അപരമായി കരുതപ്പെടുന്നവരുടെ കാര്യത്തിലാണെങ്കില്‍ ഈ പ്രക്രിയ ഏറെ അപകടകരമാണ്.  അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തലുകളും ദുരന്തങ്ങളും സൗമ്യമായി ഏറ്റുവാങ്ങുന്നിടത്തോളം അവരുടെ ദുരന്തങ്ങള്‍ കണക്കിലെടുക്കപ്പെടുകയും ആഘോഷിക്കപ്പെടുക പോലും ചെയ്യും. അവര്‍ പത്രങ്ങളുടെ മുന്‍പേജുകളില്‍ വിഷയമാവുകയും ചെയ്യും. ഒരു പോലെ വര്‍ഗ്ഗീയ ആക്രമണങ്ങള്‍ക്കു ഇരയാക്കപ്പെടുമ്പോള്‍ തന്നെ ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികളും  മുസ്ലീംങ്ങളും വ്യത്യസ്ത രീതിയില്‍ അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്നത് അതുകൊണ്ടാണ്.  പ്രതിരോധത്തിന്റെ മുഖത്തോടെ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികള്‍ അവതരിപ്പിക്കപ്പെടാത്തിടത്തോളം മെച്ചപ്പെട്ട ഒരു ഇരയുടെ പദവി അവര്‍ക്ക് ലഭ്യമായി. എന്നാല്‍  അവര്‍ തങ്ങളുടെ ഈ റോള്‍ ഇനിയും തുടരാന്‍ വിസമ്മതിക്കുകയോ തിരിച്ചടിക്കൊരുങ്ങുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്നതോടെ ഇരയെ അപകടകാരിയായിയായി കണക്കാക്കും. അതോടെ അവര്‍ ഭീകരരോ തീവ്രവാദിയോ മതമൗലികവാദിയോ ആയി വിലയിരുത്തപ്പെടുകയായി.  മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളും മുസ്ലീങ്ങളും ഭീകരന്മാരുടെ ലിസ്റ്റിലേക്ക് കയറിക്കൂടാനിടയായ സാഹചര്യം ഇതാണ്.

ഒറീസ്സയില്‍ ഹൈന്ദവശക്തികള്‍ ജീവനോടെ ചുട്ടെരിച്ച ആസ്‌ത്രേലിയന്‍ മിഷിനറിയായിരുന്ന ഗ്രഹാം സ്റ്റെയിനും കുട്ടികളും നമ്മുടെ രാഷ്ട്രത്തിന്റെ മുഴുവന്‍ വികാരവും പിടിച്ചടക്കി.
പ്രതിരോധത്തിന്റെ ഒരു സൂചനപോലുമില്ലാത്ത ആ കുടുംബത്തോട് ഇന്ത്യന്‍ മനസ്സാക്ഷി അലിവോടെ ചേര്‍ന്നു നിന്നു. തന്റെ കുടുംബത്തിന്റെ ഒന്നാം നിലയില്‍ നിന്നുകൊണ്ട് ഹിന്ദുത്വ കലാപകാരികളില്‍ നിന്ന് തന്നെ രക്ഷിക്കണമെന്ന് കൈകൂപ്പി അപേക്ഷിച്ച കുത്ത്ബുദ്ദീന്‍ അന്‍സാരിയുടെ ചിത്രം ഗുജറാത്ത് കലാപത്തിന്റെ മുഖമായി മാറിയതിന്റെ ഒരു പശ്ചാത്തലം ആ സമയം ഇരക്കുണ്ടായിരുന്ന നിരാശ്രയ പദവിയായിരുന്നു. പ്രതിരോധങ്ങളെ കുറിക്കുന്ന ചിത്രങ്ങളുടെ അഭാവം കൊണ്ടാണ് ഇന്ത്യയിലെ കലാപ ചിത്രീകരണങ്ങള്‍ പലപ്പോഴും ശ്രദ്ധേയമാവാറുള്ളത്. എന്നാല്‍ കാശ്മീരിന്റെ കാര്യം ഇതില്‍ നിന്നും വ്യത്യസ്തമാണ്. പ്രതിരോധങ്ങളെക്കൊണ്ട് കാശ്മീര്‍ എന്നും പ്രതിനിധാനം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടത്. അവര്‍ക്ക് ശവശരീരങ്ങള്‍ കരഞ്ഞുതീര്‍ക്കാനുള്ളതായിരുന്നില്ല പോരാട്ടങ്ങള്‍ക്കുള്ള ആയുധം കൂടിയായിരുന്നു. കാശ്മീരിലെ ഇര ഗുജറാത്തിന്റെ ഇരയില്‍നിന്നും വ്യത്യസ്തമായിരുന്നത് അങ്ങനെക്കൂടിയാണ്.

 

പ്രതിരോധങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചും മവോയിസ്റ്റുകളെക്കുറിച്ചും എഴുതുന്ന കേരളത്തിലെ സാമ്പ്രദായിക മനുഷ്യാവകാശ ലോജിക്കിന്റെ ധൈഷണിക രൂപമായ സാറാ ജോസഫ്, സിവിക്ക് ചന്ദ്രന്‍ കൂട്ടുകെട്ട് കഴിഞ്ഞകാലങ്ങളില്‍ കേരളത്തില്‍ അഴിച്ചുവിട്ട പ്രചാരണങ്ങള്‍ ഈ വാദത്തെ പിന്‍പറ്റിക്കൊണ്ടുള്ളതായിരുന്നു. മാവോയിസ്റ്റു സേനയിലെ 40 ശതമാനത്തിലധികം പേര്‍ സ്ത്രീകളാണെന്ന കണക്കുകള്‍ പുറത്തുവന്നപ്പോള്‍ സാറാ ജോസഫ് എഴുതി. സ്ത്രീകള്‍ ആയുധമെടുക്കുന്നത് അശ്ലീലമാണ്. ഇന്ത്യയുടെ പ്രതിരോധസേനയിലെ സ്ത്രീകള്‍ ആയൂധമെടുക്കുന്നതിനെ വിട്ടുകളഞ്ഞു കൊണ്ടാണ് അവരിതു പറഞ്ഞതെന്ന് വ്യക്തമാണ്. അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തപ്പെടുന്ന ഇരകള്‍ ഇരകളായി കണക്കാക്കപ്പെടുന്നതിനുള്ള യോഗ്യത ആയുധമെടുക്കുന്നതോടെ  നഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്നു എന്നുതന്നെയാണ് അത് സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്.

ഇന്ത്യയുടെ വടക്കുകിഴക്കന്‍ സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളില്‍ ദേശീയതക്കു വേണ്ടി പോരാട്ടം നടത്തിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നവരെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള ഇക്കൂട്ടരുടെ അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളും ഇതിനനുസരണമാണ്. ദേശീയതകളുടെ സ്വയം നിര്‍ണ്ണയാവകാശങ്ങള്‍ക്കു വേണ്ടി പോരാടുന്ന ഈ പ്രദേശങ്ങളിലെ ജനതയുടെ രാഷ്ട്രീയ പ്രശ്‌നങ്ങളെ കുറിച്ച് സംസാരിക്കാതെ മുഴുവന്‍ പ്രശ്‌നവും പ്രത്യേക സൈനിക അധികാര നിയമത്തിലേക്ക് ഒതുക്കുകയായിരുന്നു അവര്‍. ഇരകളുടെ എല്ലാ ലക്ഷണങ്ങളും വ്യത്തിയായി അനുസരിക്കുന്ന ഇറോം ശര്‍മിള മാത്രം ഇവരുടെ പരിഗണനകളില്‍ വരുന്നത് നാം നേരത്തെ വിശകലനം ചെയ്ത ഇരകളുടെ രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായാണ്. മണിപ്പൂരിലെയും മറ്റു സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിലേയും ദേശീയപ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങള്‍ അവരുടെ കാഴ്ചയ്ക്കു പുറത്തേക്കു പോകുന്നതും അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ.

തിരിച്ചടികളുടെ ഈ കാലത്ത് ഇരകളുടെ വാര്‍പ്പുമാതൃകക്കുള്ളില്‍ സ്വയം അടിഞ്ഞു കൂടാന്‍ തയ്യാറാവാത്തതിനെ തുടര്‍ന്നാണ് ലോകത്താകമാനം മുസ്ലീം വിഭാഗം പിശാചുവല്ക്കരിക്കപ്പെട്ടത്. ഇത്തരത്തില്‍ വാര്‍പ്പുമാതൃകയെ നിഷേധിക്കുന്നവരെ സന്മാര്‍ഗ്ഗ ചിന്തയുടെ പരിധിക്കുള്ളില്‍ വെച്ചാണ് ഇടതു-വലതു കക്ഷികള്‍ രാഷ്ട്രീയഭേദമന്യേ വിലയിരുത്തുക. തിരിച്ചുള്ള ഓരോ ആക്രമണങ്ങളും ഇരകളുടെ പ്രതിനിധീകരിക്കപ്പെടാനുള്ള അവകാശത്തെ സ്വാഭാവികമായും ഇല്ലാതാക്കും. അവരുടെ സ്വത്വം പോലും നഷ്ടപ്പെടുകയോ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെടുകയോ ചെയ്‌തേക്കും. അവര്‍ മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തിന്റെ സംരക്ഷിതവ്യത്തത്തില്‍ നിന്നും എന്നന്നേക്കുമായി പുറത്തേക്കു തള്ളി മാറ്റപ്പെടുകയും ചെയ്യും.

പ്രതിസന്ധിഘട്ടങ്ങളില്‍ ഇരകളുടെ നിയമപരത അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ സാധുത അവര്‍ തന്നെ തെളിയിക്കേണ്ടിയിരിക്കുന്നുവെന്നതാണ് ഈ സ്‌ക്കീമിന്റെ ഏറ്റവും വലിയ പ്രശ്‌നം. ദലിത് സംഘടനയായ ഡി.എച്ച്.ആര്‍.എംന്റെ അനുഭവം ഇത്തരമൊന്നാണ്. ഒരു കൊലപാതക കുറ്റത്തില്‍ പ്രതി ചേര്‍ക്കപ്പെട്ടതിനെ തുടര്‍ന്ന് അതൊരു തീവ്രവാദ  സംഘടനയാണെന്നും അവര്‍ക്ക് മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളുമായി ബന്ധമുണ്ടെന്നും ഒരു ‘ആരാപണം’ പൊതുസമൂഹത്തില്‍ ആ സമയത്ത് പ്രചരിപ്പിക്കപ്പെടുകയുണ്ടായി. പോലീസ് വളര്‍ത്തിയെടുത്ത കഥ മാധ്യമങ്ങളും ആവും വിധം പൊലിപ്പിച്ചെടുത്തു. ആരോപണത്തിന്റെ മൂര്‍ദ്ധന്യഘട്ടത്തില്‍ ആ സംഘടനയുടെ നേതാവായ ശെല്‍വരാജ് തങ്ങള്‍ക്കു മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളുമായി  ബന്ധമില്ലെന്ന് പ്രസ്താവന ഇറക്കി. കൂട്ടത്തില്‍ മറ്റൊന്നു കൂടി അദ്ദേഹം ചെയ്തു. നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളെ പിടികൂടുകയാണെങ്കില്‍ അവരെ ഭരണകൂടത്തിനു മുന്നില്‍ തങ്ങള്‍ ഹാജരാക്കുമെന്നും പറഞ്ഞുകൊണ്ട്  അദ്ദേഹം തങ്ങളുടെ മാന്യനായ ഇരയെന്ന സ്ഥാനത്തിനു വേണ്ടി വൃഥാ മത്സരിച്ചു. ആ പ്രസ്താവനയും അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ രക്ഷക്കെത്തിയില്ലെന്നാണ് പില്‍ക്കാല സംഭവങ്ങള്‍ തെളിയിച്ചത്. ഇക്കഴിഞ്ഞ സെപ്റ്റംബറില്‍ പോലും ഡി.എച്.ആര്‍.എം പ്രവര്‍ത്തകരെ അറസ്റ്റു ചെയ്തിരുന്നു. ആ വാര്‍ത്ത പുറത്തുവിട്ടുകൊണ്ടുള്ള ഹിന്ദു റിപോര്‍ട്ടു ഏറെ ശ്രദ്ധേയമായിരുന്നു. (ടലുലോയലൃ 11, 2011 ങമറമ്ീീൃ ലേിലെ മളലേൃ ുീഹശശേരമഹ േെമിറീളള )

ഡി.എച്ച്.ആര്‍.എം ‘സായുധസംഘ’ത്തില്‍പ്പെട്ട രണ്ടുപേരെ അറസ്റ്റു ചെയ്‌തെന്നായിരുന്നു പോലീസിനെ ഉദ്ധരിച്ചുകൊണ്ടുള്ള വാര്‍ത്ത. സംഘടനയുടെ മിലിറ്ററി ആക്റ്റിവിറ്റിയെക്കുറിച്ചും ഒരു നാട്ടുകാരനെ ഉദ്ധരിച്ചുകൊണ്ടുള്ള സൂചനയുണ്ട്. ആയുധങ്ങളുമായി രണ്ടുപേര്‍ പിടിയില്‍ എന്നോ മറ്റോ എഴുതായായിരുന്ന വാര്‍ത്തയില്‍ സായുധസംഘം എന്ന സൂചന ശ്രദ്ധേയമാണല്ലോ. പ്രത്യേകിച്ചും രണ്ടുവിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ക്കിടയില്‍ സംഘര്‍ഷമുണ്ടാകുന്ന സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍. ആ വാര്‍ത്തയിലൊരിടത്തും ആരാണ് അപ്പുറത്തു നില്‍ക്കുന്നതെന്നതിനു ചില വ്യക്തികളുടെ പേരല്ലാതെ ഒരു സൂചനയുമില്ല. അവര്‍ സംഘടനയോ മതമോ ഒന്നുമില്ലാത്ത അമൂര്‍ത്തരായ മനുഷ്യരാണ്. ആ അദൃശ്യരായ മനുഷ്യര്‍ക്കു വേണ്ടി സംസാരിക്കുന്നതാകട്ടെ സ്ഥലത്തെ പഞ്ചായത്തു പ്രസിഡന്റും. അതേ സമയം ഡി.എച്ച്.ആര്‍.എംനു വേണ്ടി അവരുടെ നേതാവിനു സംസാരിക്കാന്‍ പത്രം അവസരം നല്‍കുന്നുണ്ട്.
മുത്തങ്ങ സമരകാലത്ത് ആദിവാസികള്‍ക്കെതിരെ നടന്ന അക്രമണങ്ങളെ ഈ അവസരത്തില്‍ കൂട്ടിവായിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്. ആദിവാസികള്‍ക്കെതിരെ  അക്രമം നടത്തിയവരെ നാട്ടുകാരെന്നു മാധ്യമങ്ങള്‍ വിളിച്ചതിനെ കുറിച്ച് അക്കാലത്ത് ഏറെ ചര്‍ച്ചകള്‍ നടന്നിരുന്നു. ആ സമയത്ത് അവര്‍ നാട്ടുകാര്‍ക്ക് സംസാരിക്കാന്‍ അവസരം നല്‍കുകയുണ്ടായി. അത്തരമൊരു അവസരം ആദിവാസികള്‍ക്ക്  നിഷേധിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. ആ അര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ ഇത്തവണ ഹിന്ദുവിന്റേത് പുരോഗമനപരമോ ന്യായമായതോ ആയ ഒരു നടപടിയായിരുന്നുവെന്ന് ഒറ്റ നോട്ടത്തില്‍ തോന്നാമെങ്കിലും അന്നു എന്താണോ നാട്ടുകാരെന്നു വിളിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ അവര്‍ പറയാന്‍ ശ്രമിച്ചത് അതേ കാര്യമാണ് ഇത്തവണയും അവര്‍ നേടിയതെന്നതാണ് രസകരം. മുത്തങ്ങ സമരത്തില്‍ നാട്ടുകാര്‍ക്ക് മാത്രം സംസാരിക്കാന്‍ അവസരം നല്‍കുന്നതിലൂടെ ആദിവാസികളെ പൊതുസമൂഹത്തിന്റെ  എതിര്‍പക്ഷത്തേക്കു തള്ളിനീക്കിയെങ്കില്‍ ഇത്തവണ ദലിതര്‍ക്കും മറുപക്ഷത്തെ ഒന്നാകെ പ്രതിനിധാനം ചെയ്യുന്നതിനു(വ്യത്യസ്ത രാഷ്ട്രീയകക്ഷികള്‍ക്കു പകരം)പഞ്ചായത്തു പ്രതിനിധികള്‍ക്കും അവസരം നല്‍കിയതിലൂടെ അതേ കാര്യം വീണ്ടും നേടിയെടുത്തു. ഒരു പക്ഷേ പഴയതിനേക്കാള്‍ ശക്തമായി.  അതേ സമയം ദലിതര്‍ക്ക്  സംസാരിക്കാന്‍ അവസരം നല്‍കിയില്ലെന്ന ആരോപണത്തില്‍ നിന്നും ഭംഗിയായി ഒഴിഞ്ഞുമാറുകയും ചെയ്തു.

നിഷ്‌ക്കളങ്കരായ ഇര

നാം നേരത്തെ ചര്‍ച്ചചെയ്ത ക്ലാസിക്ക് അര്‍ത്ഥത്തിലുള്ള ഇരയുടെ പദവിയിലേക്ക് ഒരു വിഭാഗത്തെ അവരോധിക്കുന്നതോടെ അവരുടെ കര്‍തൃത്വ പദവിയാണ് ഏറ്റവുമാദ്യം ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെടുന്നത്. മജ്ജയും മാംസവും ആവശ്യത്തിനു ബുദ്ധിശക്തിയുമുള്ള മനുഷ്യരാവാന്‍ പിന്നീടവര്‍ക്ക് സാധ്യമല്ല. പിന്നെ അവര്‍ വെറും കുട്ടികളാണ്. നമ്മുടെ സമൂഹത്തില്‍ രൂപം കൊള്ളുന്ന നിരവധി ചര്‍ച്ചകളില്‍ ഈ ലോജിക്ക് പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കാറുണ്ട്. മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തിന്റെ കാര്യത്തിലല്ലെങ്കിലും ഇടതുപക്ഷം തങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്നും വിട്ടുപോകുകയും ഇടതുപ്രത്യയശാസ്ത്രത്തില്‍ ഉറച്ചുനില്‍ക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നവരെ കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യുമ്പോള്‍ ഈ ലോജിക്കാണ് പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നത്. ഇടതുവിമതര്‍ കോണ്‍ഗ്രസ്സ് ചട്ടുകങ്ങളാണെന്ന് അവര്‍ നിരന്തരം ആവര്‍ത്തിക്കും. ദലിത് പ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങള്‍ ഉയര്‍ന്നുവരുമ്പോഴും ആദിവാസി വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ സംഘടിക്കുമ്പോഴും ഇതേ കാര്യം തന്നെ അവര്‍ ആവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നത് കാണാം. കോണ്‍ഗ്രസിനെ പോലെത്തന്നെ ഒരു രാഷ്ട്രീയ പ്രതിയോഗിയുടെ കര്‍തൃത്വപദവി ഇക്കുട്ടര്‍ക്ക് നല്‍കാന്‍ അവര്‍ക്കാകുന്നില്ല.
മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തിന്റെ കാര്യത്തിലും ഇതേ ലോജിക്കുതന്നെയാണ് പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുകന്നത്. സിവിക്കിന്റെ മാവോയിസ്റ്റു പ്രശ്‌നത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള ലേഖനത്തില്‍ ഇതിന്റെ പ്രതിഫലനങ്ങള്‍ കാണാം. മാവോവാദി ഢ െഎം.ഒ.യു. വാദിഎന്ന രസകരമായ ലേബലില്‍ അദ്ദേഹം തന്റെ വാദഗതികള്‍ നിരത്തുന്നു. ചത്തിസ്ഗഡിലും ജാര്‍ക്കണ്ഡിലും പോരാട്ടങ്ങളില്‍ ഏര്‍പ്പെട്ടുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ക്കും കോര്‍പ്പറേറ്റുകള്‍ക്കുമിടയില്‍ ആദിവാസി ജനത അകപ്പെട്ടുപോയിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന മട്ടിലുള്ള ഒരു സാന്റ്‌വിച്ച്  തിയറിയാണ് അദ്ദേഹം ഉയര്‍ത്തുന്നത്. പോരാട്ടത്തിലേര്‍പ്പെട്ടു കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകള്‍ക്കും സര്‍ക്കാരിനും കര്‍തൃത്വപദവി നല്‍കാന്‍ അവര്‍ തയ്യാറാണെങ്കിലും അക്കാര്യം ആദിവാസികള്‍ക്കുണ്ടെന്ന് കരുതാന്‍ അവര്‍ക്കാകുന്നില്ല. സ്വന്തമായി ചിന്തിക്കാനോ പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കാനോ കഴിയാത്ത നിഷ്‌ക്കളങ്കരായ ‘ഇര’കളാണ് അവരെ സംബന്ധിച്ചെടുത്തോളം ആദിവാസികള്‍. മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളുടെ താല്പര്യപ്രകാരം അങ്ങോട്ടുമിങ്ങോട്ടും വലിച്ചിഴക്കാവുന്ന ഒരു കൂട്ടംമാത്രമാണ് അവര്‍ക്ക് ആദിവാസികള്‍. മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകള്‍ രൂപം കൊള്ളുന്നതിനു മുന്‍പ് അവരുടെ മുന്‍തലമുറക്കാരായ നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളും കമ്യൂണിസ്റ്റുകളും രംഗത്തെത്തുത്തതിനു മുന്‍പ് സായുധകലാപത്തിലൂടെ ബ്രീട്ടീഷ് പട്ടാളവുമായി കൊമ്പുകോര്‍ത്ത ആദിവാസികളുടെ പോരാട്ടചരിത്രത്തെ വിസ്മൃതിയില്‍ തള്ളിക്കൊണ്ടല്ലാതെ ഇത്തരമൊരു വിലയിരുത്തല്‍ സാധ്യമല്ല. ഈ വിലയിരുത്തല്‍ നടത്തുന്ന നഗരബുദ്ധിജീവി വര്‍ഗം സ്വന്തം അസ്തിത്വം സ്ഥാപിച്ചെടുക്കുന്നതിനും എത്രയോ മുന്‍പ് ആദിവാസികള്‍ ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഉപഭൂഖണ്ഡത്തില്‍ തങ്ങളുടെ കര്‍തൃത്വം അവകാശം പറഞ്ഞ് നേടിയെടുത്തിരുന്നുവെന്ന് അവര്‍ മറന്നു പോകുന്നു. മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളുമായി കൂട്ടുചേരുന്ന ആദിവാസികള്‍ക്കും സ്വന്തം അജണ്ടകളുണ്ടെന്നും അവര്‍ മറന്നു പോകുന്നു.

ഈ നിഷ്‌ക്കളങ്കരായ ഇരകള്‍ അധികാരത്തെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് സംരക്ഷിക്കപ്പെടേണ്ടവരും പൊട്ടാതെ സൂക്ഷിക്കപ്പെടേണ്ടവരുമാണ്. ഒരു ഇര തന്റെ പദവിയില്‍  അവരോധിക്കപ്പെടുന്നതോടെ  അവര്‍ക്ക് അവരുടെ പൗരത്വം കൂടി നഷ്ടമാകും. ഇരയുടെ പദവി ഒരു തരം വികലാംഗത്വമാണ് അവര്‍ക്ക് നല്‍കുക. അവര്‍ ഭരിക്കപ്പെടേണ്ടവനാണ്. മാവോയിസ്റ്റ് പ്രശ്‌നം എവിടെയൊക്കെ രൂക്ഷമാകുന്നുവോ അവിടെയൊക്കെ ആദിവാസികള്‍  ഒരു തരം  ‘സംരക്ഷിത വലയ’ത്തിനുള്ളിലാവും. അട്ടപ്പാടിയില്‍ പല ആദിവാസി ഊരുകളിലും പോലീസും പട്ടാളവും സ്ഥിരം ഔട്ട്‌പോസ്റ്റുകള്‍ സ്ഥാപിച്ചതിനെക്കുറിച്ച് ഈ കഴിഞ്ഞ ദിവസം മാധ്യമങ്ങള്‍ റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട് ചെയ്തിരുന്നു. അവരുടെ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യവും പൗരാവകാശവും സ്വകാര്യതയും എല്ലാം അതോടെ കൈമോശം വരികയാണ്. എല്ലാം ആദിവാസികളെ രക്ഷിക്കാനും അവരുടെ മനസ് നേടിയെടുക്കാനുമാണെന്നും മാത്രം!

ബോംബെ ആക്രമണം  

ഇത് പക്ഷെ ആദിവാസികള്‍ക്കു മാത്രം ബാധകമായ ഒന്നല്ല. ഓരോ സമയത്തും ഭരണകൂടവും അതിന്റെ ഗുണഭോക്താക്കളും ഇരകളുടെ ഒരു നിരതന്നെ ഉല്പാദിപ്പിച്ചെടുക്കുന്നു. ബോംബെ ആക്രമണം ഇത്തരത്തില്‍ ഉപയോഗിക്കപ്പെട്ട ഒന്നായിരുന്നു. ബോംബെ ആക്രമണശേഷം ഇന്ത്യ ഏതു സമയത്തും ഒരു ഭീകരാക്രമണത്തിന്റെ നിഴലിലാണെന്നു തെളിയിക്കാന്‍ ബി.ജെ.പിയും ആര്‍.എസ്.എസ്സും ആദ്യം മുതലേ ശ്രമിച്ചുപോന്നു. ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ജനത ഇരയായി തീര്‍ന്നിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന് അവര്‍ നിരന്തരം പ്രചരിപ്പിച്ചു. അങ്ങനെ കരുതാത്തവര്‍ ഇന്ത്യയുടെ എതിരാളികളായും അവര്‍ വിലയിരുത്തി. ആര്‍.എസ്സ.്എസ്സിന്റെ ഒരു പോസ്റ്റര്‍ ഇങ്ങനെയാണ് തുടങ്ങുന്നത്. അവര്‍ വരുന്നു. കടലിലൂടെ അതിര്‍ത്തി കടന്ന്. ഈ പ്രചരണത്തെത്തുടര്‍ന്ന് സായുധസംഘങ്ങളും പോലീസ് സേനകളും രാജ്യത്താകമാനം സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ വിന്യസിപ്പിച്ചു. പിന്നീട് രാജ്യം മുഴുവന്‍ അവര്‍ക്ക് ‘അതിര്‍ത്തി’യാവുന്നതാണ് നാം കണ്ടത്. രാജ്യം എവിടെയാണ് തുടങ്ങുന്നത് എവിടെയാണ് അവസാനിക്കുന്നത് എന്നൊന്നും വിലയിരുത്താനാവാത്ത അവസ്ഥ. രാജ്യത്തിനകത്തും അതിര്‍ത്തികള്‍ രൂപം കൊള്ളുമ്പോള്‍ അതിനു സമാന്തരമായി വിദേശികളും രൂപം കൊള്ളാതെ വയ്യ. സ്വാഭാവികമെന്നോണം രാജ്യത്തെ ‘അപര’ ജനവിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ വിദേശികളാവുമെന്നു തന്നെയാണ് അതിന്റെ അടിയന്തിര ഫലം. ഒരു രാജ്യവുമായും അതിര്‍ത്തി പങ്കിടാത്ത കേരളത്തില്‍ മാത്രം  ഇന്ന് നാലോളം അതിര്‍ത്തി രക്ഷാസേനയുടെ താവളങ്ങള്‍ പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്! എല്ലാം ഈ അടുത്തകാലത്തു മാത്രം സ്ഥാപിക്കപ്പെട്ടവ.
നമ്മുടെ വ്യവഹാരങ്ങളില്‍ രാജ്യസുരക്ഷ ഒരു രൂപകമായി സ്ഥാനം പിടിക്കുന്നത് ഈ സന്ദര്‍ഭത്തിലാണ്. രാജ്യസുരക്ഷ എന്നത് നമ്മുടെ വിശകലനങ്ങളുടേയും ബോധ്യങ്ങളുടേയും മര്‍മ്മസ്ഥാനത്തെത്തിയിരിക്കുന്നു. സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ മുഴുവന്‍ പ്രവര്‍ത്തിയുടെയും വിശകലന മാതൃകയോ മാനദണ്ഡമോ ആയി, ഒരു പ്രിസമായി ‘സുരക്ഷ’ മാറിക്കഴിഞ്ഞു. കുറച്ചുകാലം മുന്‍പ് സ്‌റ്റെബിലൈസര്‍ വില്‍ക്കുന്ന ഒരു കമ്പനി പുറത്തുവിട്ട പരസ്യം ഏറെ ശ്രദ്ധേയമയിരുന്നു. അത്യാധുനിക ആയുധങ്ങളുമായി മണല്‍ ചാക്കുകള്‍ക്കു പുറകിലായി യുദ്ധസന്നദ്ധരായി നില്‍ക്കുന്ന പട്ടാളക്കാര്‍ എല്‍.സി.ഡി ടി.വി ക്കു കാവല്‍ നില്‍ക്കുന്നു. നിങ്ങളുടെ എല്‍.സി.ഡി.യുടെ സംരക്ഷണം ഇനി മുതല്‍ സുരക്ഷാഭടന്‍മാരുടെ  ചുമതലയിലാണെന്നു പരസ്യം നമ്മെ അറിയിക്കുന്നു. തോക്കെടുത്ത് ഇലക്ട്രിക്ക് സിഗ്‌നലുകള്‍ക്കെതിരെ പോരാടുന്ന സൈനികരെയായിരുന്നു ഇതേ കമ്പനിയുടെ ടി.വി. പരസ്യത്തില്‍ ചിത്രീകരിച്ചിരുന്നത്. മലബാര്‍ ഗോള്‍ഡിന്റെ പരസ്യത്തിലാകട്ടെ മാലിന്യമുക്തിയെ രാഷ്ട്രത്തിന്റെ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യവുമായി കണ്ണിചേര്‍ത്തിരിക്കുന്നു. സുരക്ഷ നമ്മുടെ ചിന്തകളില്‍ ഒരു ഒബ്‌സഷനായി മാറിയിരിക്കയാണ്.

ഇതോടെ വ്യത്യസ്തതകള്‍ സംശയത്തോടെ വീക്ഷിക്കപ്പെടുകയാണ്. അത് രാഷ്ട്രവിരുദ്ധം പോലുമാണ്. വ്യത്യസ്തത എന്നാല്‍ ജാതി, മതം, ദേശീയത, പ്രാദേശികത, ഗോത്രം, ഭാഷ, രാഷ്ട്രീയം എന്നിങ്ങനെ എന്തുമാകാം. 2010 നവംബര്‍ 14 ന് ഹിന്ദുവില്‍ മുന്‍ സി.ബി.ഐ ഡയറക്ടറായിരുന്ന ആര്‍.കെ. രാഘവന്റെ ഒരു ലേഖനം പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചിരുന്നു. ഒബാമയുടെ ഇന്ത്യാ സന്ദര്‍ശനത്തിന്റെ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തില്‍ ഭീകരതക്കെതിരെയുള്ള യുദ്ധത്തെ ക്കുറിച്ച് ആലോചിക്കുന്ന ലേഖനം, ഒബാമയുടെ ഇന്ത്യാ സന്ദര്‍ശനസമയത്ത് ഡര്‍ഹിയിലെയും മുംബൈയിലെയും പോലീസ്‌സേന വഹിച്ച സ്തുത്യര്‍ഹമായ സേവനത്തെ വാഴ്ത്തുന്നു.  ഒപ്പം ഇത്തരം സന്ദര്‍ശനസമയങ്ങളില്‍ സംഭവിക്കാവുന്ന ചില അപകടകരമായ സാധ്യതകളെക്കുറിച്ച് ആശങ്കപ്പെടുകയാണ്.  ഡല്‍ഹിയിലെയും മുംബൈയിലെയും പോലീസ് സേനകള്‍ സജാതീയ(ഹോമോജീനിയസ്)മല്ലെന്നും അവയില്‍ രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ വ്യത്യസ്ത പ്രദേശങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്നുള്ള ഒരു ലക്ഷത്തോളം പേര്‍ ഇപ്പോള്‍ ജോലിചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടെന്നതിനാല്‍ അപകടസാധ്യത (അവരിലാരെങ്കിലും ആക്രമണത്തിന് മുതിരുന്നതിനുള്ള സാധ്യത ) ഏറുമെന്നും അദ്ദേഹം ഭരണകൂടത്തെ ഓര്‍മ്മപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു. ചുരുക്കത്തില്‍ ഹൊമോജിനിറ്റിയാണ് സുരക്ഷിതത്വം ഉറപ്പുനല്‍കുന്നതിനായുള്ള, പ്രത്യേകിച്ചും രാജ്യസുരക്ഷിതത്വത്തിന്റെ ഉറപ്പിനായുള്ള ഉപാധികളില്‍ സുപ്രധാനം.

മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തെ രാഷ്ട്രീയവല്‍ക്കരിക്കുക

അന്താരാഷ്ട്രരംഗത്തെ തന്ത്രപ്രധാന നീക്കങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് ന്യായീകരണം കണ്ടെത്താന്‍  മാത്രമല്ല രാജ്യത്തിനകത്തെ പലതിനെയും ന്യായീകരിക്കാനും  വ്യാഖ്യാനിക്കാനും മനുഷ്യാവകാശമെന്ന ആശയത്തെ ഉപയോഗപ്പെടുത്തുന്നുണ്ട് എന്നു വിശദികരിക്കാനാണ് ഇത്രയും പറഞ്ഞത്.
മനുഷ്യാവകാശമെന്ന പദം അപ്പാടെ അപകടമാണെന്നോ ഉപേക്ഷിക്കപ്പെടേണ്ടതുണ്ടെന്നോ എന്നുമല്ല അതിനര്‍ത്ഥം. മറിച്ച് കേവല മനുഷ്യസ്‌നേഹത്തിന്റെയോ സദാചാരത്തിന്റെയോ സീമകള്‍ക്കകത്ത് മനുഷ്യാവകാശ സങ്കല്പങ്ങള്‍ക്ക്  യാതൊരു അര്‍ത്ഥവുമില്ല. പലപ്പോഴും അത് വിരുദ്ധഫലങ്ങള്‍ ഉല്പാദിപ്പിക്കുകപോലും ചെയ്യും. ഒരു സവര്‍ണ്ണന്റെയും ഉന്നതകുലജാതന്റെയും ചിഹ്നങ്ങളോടെയുള്ള മനുഷ്യാവകാശത്തിന് ഒരിക്കലും ഒരു സമൂഹത്തെ ജനാധിപത്യത്തിലേക്കു നയിക്കാനാകില്ല. ഉന്നതനായ മനുഷ്യന് തന്റെ ഉദാരത പ്രകടിപ്പക്കാനുള്ള അവസരമായും മനുഷ്യാവകാശം മാറിക്കുടാ. അതിന്  മനുഷ്യാവകാശമെന്ന ധാരണയെത്തന്നെ രാഷ്ട്രീയവല്‍ക്കരിക്കേണ്ടിയിരിക്കുന്നു, ചരിത്രവല്‍ക്കരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യേണ്ടിയിരിക്കുന്നു.

download link

നക്‌സലിസം എന്ന ‘മൂലധനം’

Courtesy Thejas Fortnightly

”നമ്മള്‍ സ്വപ്‌നങ്ങളെങ്കിലും കണ്ടിരുന്നു. ഇന്ന് സ്വപ്‌നം കാണുന്നുണ്ടോ?”  പി.കെ.നാണു (മാതൃഭൂമി വാര്‍ഷികപ്പതിപ്പ് 2011 നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് ഭൂതകാലത്തിന്റെ ഭാരം)

”എഴുപതുകളില്‍ ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്കു സ്വപ്‌നമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അതൊരുക്കലും നെഗറ്റീവ് ചിന്താഗതിയുണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകള്‍ക്കു സ്വപ്‌നമില്ല.” കെ. വേണു. (കലാകൗമുദി 2010 ജൂണ്‍13)

നക്‌സലിസം എന്ന ‘മൂലധനം’

2004 ലെ നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ സമാധാന ചര്‍ച്ചക്കു മുന്‍പായിരുന്നു വെങ്കിടേശ്വരുലുവിനെ ഞാന്‍ കണ്ടത്.   സി.പി.ഐ.എം.എല്‍ ജനശക്തിയുടെ പ്രവര്‍ത്തകനായ അദ്ദേഹം മത്സ്യത്തൊഴിലാളി ഗ്രാമത്തില്‍ നിന്നും വരുന്ന ഒരു യുവ എഞ്ചിനീയറാണ്. സെക്കന്തരാബാദ് റെയില്‍വേസ്‌റ്റേഷനില്‍ ഞാനും എന്റെ സുഹൃത്തും വണ്ടിയിറങ്ങിയതുമുതല്‍ വെങ്കിടേശ്വരുലു ഞങ്ങളോടൊപ്പമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അദ്ദേഹം ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്കു ഭക്ഷണം വാങ്ങിത്തന്നു. താമസത്തിനു ഒരു മുറിയും എടുത്തുതന്നു.

സെക്കന്തരാബാദില്‍നിന്നും 8 മണിക്കൂറിലധികം യാത്രയുള്ള ഒരു ക്ഷേത്രനഗരത്തില്‍ നടക്കുന്ന പൊതുയോഗത്തില്‍ പങ്കെടുക്കാനാണ് ഞാനും സുഹൃത്തും ആന്ധ്രയിലെത്തിയത്. സ്ഥലപ്പേര്് അന്നും എന്റെ നാവിനു വഴങ്ങിയില്ല, ഇന്നും അതെ.  ഏതോ ഒരു പരിപാടിയുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട കൂറ്റന്‍ റാലിയും പൊതുയോഗവുമാണ് നടക്കുന്നത്. വിപ്ലവകവി വരവരറാവു, ഡല്‍ഹി യൂണിവേഴ്‌സിറ്റിയിലെ പ്രേംപതി അങ്ങനെ അറിയപ്പെടുന്നവരും അല്ലാത്തവരും ആയ നിരവധി പേര്‍ പങ്കെടുക്കുന്നു.
യോഗം നടക്കുന്ന പ്രദേശത്തിന്റെ പ്രത്യേകത കൊണ്ടാണെന്നു തോന്നുന്നു, സ്ഥലം ആദ്യം മുതലേ പോലീസ് നിയന്ത്രണത്തിലായിരുന്നു. ജനശക്തിയുടെ ആന്ധ്ര സംസ്ഥാന സെക്രട്ടറിയായിരുന്ന രാജണ്ണയുടെ ഹോംടൗണ്‍ കൂടിയായിരുന്നു ആ പ്രദേശം. അതുകൊണ്ടായിരിക്കണം  അവിടെ ഒരു പരിപാടി വിജയിക്കരുതെന്ന് പോലീസിനു നിര്‍ബന്ധമുണ്ടായിരുന്നുവെന്നു തോന്നുന്നു.
ആന്ധ്രയുടെ രാഷ്്ട്രീയത്തില്‍ ഏറെ പ്രത്യേകതയുള്ള ആളാണ് രാജണ്ണ. ചെരുപ്പുകുത്തികളായ ചമാര്‍ വിഭാഗത്തില്‍ നിന്നും സ്വന്തം പ്രയത്‌നം കൊണ്ടു ഇലക്ട്രിക്കല്‍ എഞ്ചിനീയറായി വളര്‍ന്ന  രാജണ്ണ ഒരു കോണ്‍ഗ്രസുകാരനായാണ് ജീവിതം തുടങ്ങിയത്. അതിനിടയില്‍ ഹൈദ്രാബാദിലെ അറിയപ്പെടുന്ന നെഗോഷ്യേറ്ററായി രാജണ്ണ മാറി. ഇക്കാലത്ത് അദ്ദേഹം എ.കെ.ആന്റണിയുടെ ക്ഷണപ്രകാരം യൂത്ത് കോണ്‍ഗ്രസിന്റെ നേതാവെന്ന നിലയില്‍ കോഴിക്കോട്ട് മാനാഞ്ചിറയിലും പ്രസംഗിക്കാനെത്തിയിരുന്നു. 70 കളില്‍  അദ്ദേഹം നക്‌സല്‍ പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി. നൂറുകണക്കിനു വണ്ടികളില്‍ അനുയായികളുമായി  എം.എല്‍ പാര്‍ട്ടികളിലെത്തിയ  രാജണ്ണയുടെ രാഷ്ട്രീയപ്രവേശത്തിന്റെ നാടകീയത  നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് പാര്‍ലെന്‍സിന്റെ ഭാഗമാണ്.
യോഗം തടസ്സപ്പെടുത്തണമെന്നു തീരുമാനിച്ചിരുന്നതു പോലെയായിരുന്നു പോലീസിന്റെ പ്രവൃത്തി. അകലെ നിന്നും യോഗത്തിനെത്തിയിരുന്ന ആളുകള്‍ താമസിച്ചിരുന്ന ലോഡ്ജ് പോലീസ് രാത്രിയില്‍ റെയ്ഡ് ചെയ്തു. ആ സമയം ഞങ്ങള്‍ വെങ്കിടേശ്വരലുമൊത്ത്  സെക്കന്തരാബാദില്‍ നിന്നും യോഗസ്ഥലത്തിലേക്കുള്ള യാത്രയിലായിരുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് ആ റെയ്ഡില്‍ നിന്നും ഞങ്ങള്‍ രക്ഷപ്പെട്ടു. പുലര്‍ച്ചെ ഞങ്ങള്‍ യോഗസ്ഥലത്തെത്തിയപ്പോള്‍ പോലീസ് സ്‌റ്റേഷനിലേക്കുള്ള വലിയ ഒരു മാര്‍ച്ച് ആരംഭിച്ചിരിക്കയാണ്. അറസ്റ്റു ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടവരെ മോചിപ്പിക്കാനാവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു നടക്കുന്ന മാര്‍ച്ച് നയിച്ചിരുന്നക് 85 കവിഞ്ഞ തികഞ്ഞ പോരാളിയായ ശ്രീനിവാസറാവുവായിരുന്നു.  അദ്ദേഹം പോലീസ് സൂപ്രണ്ടായി ചര്‍ച്ച ചെയ്യുകയും പ്രവര്‍ത്തരെ മോചിപ്പിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. യോഗം സമാധാനപൂര്‍വ്വം നടന്നു.
പിന്നീട് 2004 മധ്യത്തിലാണ് പത്രങ്ങളിലൂടെ  വെങ്കിടേശ്വരലുവിനെക്കുറിച്ച്  വീണ്ടും കേള്‍ക്കുന്നത്. അക്കാലത്ത് നടന്ന സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ -നക്‌സല്‍ സമാധാനചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍  ജനശക്തിയെ നയിച്ചിരുന്നത് വെങ്കിടേശ്വരലുവാണ്. റിയാസ്ഖാന്‍ എന്ന പേരിലാണ് അദ്ദേഹം പീപ്പിള്‍സ് വാറിന്റെ രാമകൃഷ്ണയുമൊത്ത് ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ പങ്കെടുത്തത്. ചര്‍ച്ചയുടെ ചുരുങ്ങിയ  ഹണിമൂണ്‍ കാലത്തിനൊടുവില്‍ വെങ്കിടേശ്വരുലുവിനെ പോലീസ് ചതിയില്‍പ്പെടുത്തി ആന്ധ്രയിലെവിടെയോ വെച്ച് കൊലപ്പെടുത്തി. ജീവിച്ചിരുന്നുവെങ്കില്‍ ഇപ്പോള്‍ 40 വയസ്സാകുമായിരുന്ന വെങ്കിടേശ്വരലു അങ്ങനെ ആസാദിനു മുന്‍പ് സമാധാന ചര്‍ച്ചക്കുവേണ്ടി ജീവന്‍ വെടിഞ്ഞ ആദ്യ ആളായി. 2008ലോ മറ്റോ രാജണ്ണയേയും പോലീസ് അറസ്റ്റു ചെയ്തു.

ഇപ്പോള്‍ 90 കഴിഞ്ഞിരിക്കാനിടയുള്ള ശ്രീനിവാസറാവു 50 കളില്‍  ഡി.വി.റാവുവിനും സി.പി.റെഡിക്കും ഒപ്പം തെലുങ്കാനാ സമരത്തില്‍ പങ്കെടുത്തയാളാണ്. 50 ലെ ആന്ധ്രാ തീസീസിനെത്തുടര്‍ന്ന് വികസിച്ചുവന്ന തെലുങ്കാനാ സമരകാലത്ത് വിമോചിപ്പിക്കപ്പെട്ട പ്രദേശങ്ങളില്‍ പോരാട്ടവുമായി ജീവിക്കുകയായിരുന്നു ആ വൃദ്ധന്‍. രാജണ്ണയാകട്ടെ 70 കളില്‍ നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തിലേക്ക് ആകര്‍ഷിക്കപ്പെട്ട ആളാണ്. 90 കള്‍ക്കാദ്യം നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമാവുകയായിരുന്നു വെങ്കിടേശ്വരുലു. സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യസമരകാലത്തേ ആരംഭിച്ച ഒരു പോരാട്ടത്തിന്റെ  ആദ്യകാല കണ്ണിയായിരുന്നു ശ്രീനിവാസറാവുവെങ്കില്‍ അടിയന്തിരാവസ്ഥയ്ക്കു ശേഷമാണ്  വെങ്കിടേശ്വരുലു പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമാകുന്നത്.

ലേഖനത്തിന്റെ തുടക്കത്തില്‍ കെ. വേണു സൂചിപ്പിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന 70 കളെന്ന പ്രയോഗത്തിനു   ഇന്ത്യയുടെ ചരിത്രത്തില്‍ വലിയ സാധുതയൊന്നുമില്ല എന്നു സൂചിപ്പിക്കാനാണ് ഈ അനുഭവകഥ വിവരിച്ചത്. വേണുവിനെപ്പോലുള്ളവരുടെ  വ്യവഹാരമണ്ഡലമായിരുന്ന കേരളത്തില്‍പ്പോലും പോരാട്ടങ്ങളുടെ പൊതുഭൂമികയില്‍ ഇത്തരമൊരു വിടവ്  ദൃശ്യമല്ല.  ബീഹാര്‍, മഹാരാഷ്ട്ര, ആന്ധ്ര, ജാര്‍ഖണ്ഡ് തുടങ്ങിയ പ്രദേശങ്ങളില്‍ ഇത്തരം പ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങള്‍ ഒരു തുടര്‍ച്ചയിലാണ് നിലനില്‍ക്കുന്നത്. അവയെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള വ്യവഹാരങ്ങളിലും വിശകലനങ്ങളിലും ഈ തുടര്‍ച്ചയുടെ അടയാളങ്ങല്‍ കാണാം. മുകളില്‍ വിവരിച്ച മൂന്നു വ്യത്യസ്ത തലമുറയിലെ നേതാക്കളും വെങ്കിടേശ്വരലുവായാലും രാജണ്ണയായാലും ശ്രീനിവാസറാവുവായാലും  ഈ തുടര്‍ച്ചയുടെ സാക്ഷ്യങ്ങളാണ്.
എന്നാല്‍ കേരളത്തിലും ഒരു പരിധിവരെ ബംഗാളിലും 70 കള്‍ വ്യത്യസ്തമായ ചില അടയാളങ്ങളോടെയാണ് പൊതുമണ്ഡലത്തില്‍ വ്യവഹരിക്കപ്പെടുന്നത്. 70കള്‍ക്കുശേഷം ചരിത്രത്തില്‍ രാഷ്ട്രീയമായ ഒരു വിടവ് നിലനില്‍ക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് അത് സങ്കല്പിക്കുന്നു. മാധ്യമങ്ങള്‍ മാത്രമല്ല, ഇത്തരം പ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങളുടെ ഭാഗമായിരുന്നവരും  ഇത്തരമൊരു  ഇമേജറിയെ നിരന്തരം ഉല്പാദിപ്പിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. അടിയന്തരാവസ്ഥയെക്കുറിച്ചും  നക്‌സല്‍ പ്രസ്ഥാനത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുമുള്ള ഓരോ ചര്‍ച്ചയും ഈ ഇമേജറിക്കു അടിവരയിടുന്നു.

ഇവരൊക്കെ നിരന്തരം അവകാശപ്പെടുന്ന പോലെ ഇത്തരമൊരു ‘രാഷ്ട്രീയമായ ശൂന്യത’ യഥാര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ ഉണ്ടെങ്കിലും ഇല്ലെങ്കിലും കേരളീയ സാസ്‌ക്കാരിക രംഗത്ത് ഈ സങ്കല്പം നിഷേധാത്മകമായ ചില ഫലങ്ങള്‍ ഉല്പാദിപ്പിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഇപ്രകാരം സങ്കല്പ്പിക്കപ്പെടുന്ന ഈ വിടവ്,  മാതൃഭൂമിയുടെ ഭാഷയില്‍ ഓ, ആ ഭൂതകാലം, ഭാരം നമ്മുടെ രാഷ്ട്രീയ വ്യവഹാരങ്ങളില്‍ എന്തു അടയാളമാണുണ്ടാക്കുന്നത് എന്നു പരിശോധിക്കേണ്ടത് അത്യാവശ്യമാണ്. കാരണം അവരുടെ ആ ‘ഭാര’ങ്ങള്‍ നമ്മുടെ രാഷ്ട്രീയ ജാഗ്രതയുടെ ലോലമായ ആവരണങ്ങളില്‍ ആഴത്തിലുള്ള മുറിവുണ്ടാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്.

നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് ആഖ്യാനങ്ങള്‍

നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട് രണ്ടുതരം ആഖ്യാനങ്ങളാണ് പൊതുവില്‍ രൂപപ്പെട്ടുവന്നിട്ടുളളത്. ഒന്ന് നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് ഭൂതകാലത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള പത്രപ്രവര്‍ത്തകരുടെയും എഴുത്തുകാരുടെയും മുന്‍കൈയില്‍ രൂപം കൊണ്ട ആഖ്യാനങ്ങള്‍. രണ്ട് നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ തന്നെ, പ്രത്യേകിച്ചും എക്‌സ്-നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ ശ്രദ്ധാപൂര്‍വ്വം രൂപം കൊടുത്ത  ആഖ്യാനങ്ങള്‍.

നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ തങ്ങളെത്തന്നെ ആഖ്യാനം ചെയ്യാനുള്ള ശ്രമങ്ങളില്‍ അവസാനത്തേതായിരുന്നു മാതൃഭൂമിയുടെ വാര്‍ഷികപ്പതിപ്പില്‍ മുന്‍കാല നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളായ സോമശേഖരന്‍, പി.കെ.നാണു, കെ.വേണു, കെ.ടി.കുഞ്ഞിക്കണ്ണന്‍, സിവിക്ചന്ദ്രന്‍ എന്നിവരുമായി ടി.പി.രാജീവന്‍ മോഡറേറ്ററായി നടത്തിയ ചര്‍ച്ച. ഓ, ആ ഭൂതകാലം, നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് ഭൂതകാലത്തിന്റെ ഭാരം എന്നൊക്കെ വ്യത്യസ്ത പേരുകള്‍ കൊടുത്ത ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ നിലവില്‍ ഇതേ രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായിരിക്കുന്ന ഒരാളെപ്പോലും പങ്കെടുപ്പിക്കാതിരിക്കാന്‍ ചര്‍ച്ച സംഘടിപ്പിച്ചവര്‍ ശ്രദ്ധിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ചര്‍ച്ചയില്‍ മാധ്യമങ്ങളുടെ വേട്ടയാടല്‍ മുതല്‍ നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിന്റെ ഉള്ളടക്കങ്ങളും വ്യക്തിപരമായ അനുഭവങ്ങളും വരെ വിഷയമാകുന്നു. സ്വപ്‌നം കാണുന്നതിന്നുള്ള പാറ്റന്റ് ആരേയും ഏല്‍പ്പിച്ചിട്ടല്ലെന്നു 2009 ഫെബ്രുവരിയില്‍ സോമശേഖരനുമായി ഇതേ പോലെ മറ്റൊരു ഇന്റര്‍വ്യുവില്‍(അതും മാതൃഭൂമിയില്‍ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചത്) പറഞ്ഞ പി.കെ.നാണു തന്നെ 2011 ലെത്തുമ്പോഴാണ് ”നമ്മള്‍ സ്വപ്‌നങ്ങളെങ്കിലും കണ്ടിരുന്നു. ഇന്ന് സ്വപ്‌നം കാണുന്നുണ്ടോ? ” എന്ന് സംശയിക്കുന്നത്. വേണുവും ഇതേ കാര്യം കലാകൗമുദിക്കു കൊടുത്ത ഇന്റര്‍വ്യൂവില്‍ ആവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. പക്ഷെ വേണു നാണുവിനെപ്പോലെ ആയിരുന്നില്ല, ഏറെ സ്‌പെസിഫിക്കായിരുന്നു. ‘മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകള്‍ക്കു സ്വപ്‌നമില്ല. ‘ എന്നദ്ദേഹം ഉറപ്പിച്ചു പറഞ്ഞു.

ടി.പി.രാജീവന്‍ പറയുന്നതിനനുസരിച്ച് വിലകൂടിയ വണ്ടികളില്‍ കയറാന്‍ ആഗ്രഹമുണ്ടായിട്ടും കയറാതിരിക്കുന്ന ഞരമ്പുരോഗികളായ ഒരു പറ്റം മണ്ടന്മാരായ അനുയായികളെ  ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചാണു വേണുവൊക്കെ പാര്‍ട്ടിവിടുന്നത്. രാജീവന്‍ പറയുന്നു: ”കെ. വേണുവിനോ സിവിക്കിനോ സോമശേഖരനോ കുഞ്ഞിക്കണ്ണനോ പിന്നീട് നിലപാട് തിരുത്ത്ാന്‍ പ്രയാസമുണ്ടായില്ല കാരണം നിങ്ങള്‍ അതിന്റെ ബൗദ്ധിക നേതൃത്വത്തിലുണ്ടായിരുന്നവരാണ്. അദ്ദേഹം തുടരുന്നു:’വെയിലത്തു നടന്നു പോകുമ്പോള്‍ ഒരു ലിഫ്റ്റ് കിട്ടാന്‍ ആഗ്രഹമുണ്ടാകും. പക്ഷേ അകത്തിരിക്കുന്നവന്‍ ഒരു മുതലാളിയാണ്. അതുകൊണ്ടാണവര്‍ കയറാത്തത്. ” ഇങ്ങനെ നക്‌സലിസം ഭാരമാകുന്നവരെക്കുറിച്ച് ടി. പി. രാജീവന്‍ ആത്മാര്‍ത്ഥമായും  സഹതാപിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്.

70കള്‍ക്കുശേഷമുള്ള ‘രാഷ്ട്രീയവിടവ്’

കേരളത്തില്‍ നടക്കുന്ന പതിവു നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് ചര്‍ച്ചയുടെ ഒരു പരിച്ഛേദമാണ് മുകളില്‍ സൂചിപ്പിച്ച ഈ ചര്‍ച്ചയും. നക്‌സലിസത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള ചര്‍ച്ചകളില്‍ ഇടപെടുന്ന എല്ലാവരെയുംപോലെ മുന്‍കാല രാഷ്ട്രീയപ്രവര്‍ത്തകരായ ഇവരും 70കള്‍ക്കുശേഷം നിലനില്‍ക്കുന്ന ഒരു രാഷ്ട്രീയ വിടവിനെ സങ്കല്പിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. ഏറെ അകലെയുള്ള ഒരു ഭൂതകാലത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് പറയുന്നതു പോലെയാണ് അവര്‍ സംസാരിക്കുന്നത്.  ‘അന്ന് ഞാന്‍ അദ്ദേഹവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെടുന്നുണ്ട്’ ‘ഞങ്ങള്‍ അങ്ങോട്ടു പോകുന്നുണ്ട്’  എന്ന മട്ടിലുള്ള ചരിത്രപരമായ പ്രസ്താവനകളാണു അവരുടേത്. തങ്ങള്‍ നിര്‍മ്മിച്ച ചരിത്രത്തിലേക്കു ചരിത്രകാരന്മാരെപ്പോലെ അവര്‍ നോക്കുകയാണ്. നിഷ്‌ക്കളങ്കമായ ഒരു നോട്ടമാണെങ്കിലും തങ്ങള്‍ക്കു ശേഷം ‘നിലച്ചുപോയ ചരിത്ര’ത്തിന്റെ മറുകരയില്‍ നിന്നാണ് അവര്‍ സംസാരിക്കുന്നത്. ഒരേ സമയം ചരിത്രകാരനായും ചരിത്രനിര്‍മ്മാതാക്കളായും അവര്‍ സ്വയം സങ്കല്പിക്കുന്നു.
അവരെ സംബന്ധിച്ചിടത്തോളം തങ്ങള്‍ അവസാനിപ്പിച്ചപ്പോള്‍ അവസാനിക്കേണ്ടതും തങ്ങള്‍ക്കു ബോദ്ധ്യപ്പെട്ടാല്‍ ബോദ്ധ്യപ്പെടേണ്ടതുമായ ലോകമാണിത്. അതല്ലാതെ  ഇവിടെ മറ്റൊരു സാധ്യതയും നിലനില്‍ക്കുന്നില്ല.  അങ്ങനെ ബോധ്യപ്പെടാത്തവരെക്കുറിച്ച്  സിവിക്ക് ചന്ദ്രന്‍ തന്റെ ഒരു മാതൃഭൂമി ലേഖനത്തില്‍ തുറന്നെഴുതി. ഇപ്പോഴുള്ള നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് പ്രവര്‍ത്തകര്‍ മണ്ടന്മാര്ാണ്. തങ്ങളുടെ കാലത്ത് പ്രവര്‍ത്തിച്ചിരുന്നവര്‍ക്ക് ചുരുങ്ങിയ പക്ഷം ബുദ്ധിയെങ്കിലും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ദൈര്‍ഘ്യമേറിയ തന്റെ ലേഖനത്തില്‍  ബുദ്ധിയില്ലാത്ത മനുഷ്യര്‍ക്ക് ചില ഉദാഹരണങ്ങള്‍ അദ്ദേഹം ചൂണ്ടിക്കാണിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു.

സൂക്ഷമമായി പരിശോധിച്ചാല്‍ എക്‌സ് നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ തങ്ങളുടെ ചര്‍ച്ചകളില്‍ എപ്പോഴും രണ്ടു കാര്യങ്ങളാണ് പരാമര്‍ശിക്കുന്നത് എന്നു കാണാം.  ബുദ്ധി, സ്വപ്‌നം തുടങ്ങിയവയെക്കുറിച്ചാണ് അവര്‍ ഏറെ സംസാരിക്കുന്നത്.  തങ്ങളുടെ സുവര്‍ണ്ണകാലത്തെ പുകഴ്ത്താന്‍ അവര്‍ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന ഈ പ്രമേയങ്ങളാണ് അവരെ പില്‍ക്കാല നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളില്‍ നിന്നും വ്യത്യസ്തരാക്കുന്നതെന്ന് അവര്‍ വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു. വിചിത്രമെന്നു പറയട്ടെ തങ്ങളുടെ ഭൂതകാലത്തെ ഉയര്‍ത്തിപ്പിടിക്കുന്നതിനു വേണ്ടി മാത്രം ഉന്നയിക്കുന്ന  ഈ പ്രമേയങ്ങള്‍ നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളെ മാത്രല്ല  തരംതിരിക്കുന്നത്  തങ്ങളുടെ ‘സുവര്‍ണ്ണഭൂതകാല’ ത്തിനുശേഷം രൂപം കൊണ്ട നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളും അല്ലാത്തതുമായ എല്ലാ പ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങളെയും കാഴ്ചപ്പാടുകളെയും  അതു തരംതിരിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. കാഴ്ചയില്‍നിന്ന് മറയ്ക്കുന്നുമുണ്ട്.  അതുതന്നെയാണ് ഈ കാഴ്ചയുടെ പ്രതിലോമപരതയും.

ചരിത്രത്തിന്റെ ഗതിയെ എക്‌സ് നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ ഏകതാനതയോടെ നോക്കിക്കാണുകയാണ്. അവര്‍ അവകാശപ്പെടുന്നതുപോലെ 70 കള്‍ക്കു ശേഷമുള്ള ദശകം നിര്‍ജ്ജീവമായ ഒരു കാലമായിരുന്നില്ല. എന്നു മാത്രമല്ല, അവ പോരാട്ടങ്ങളുടെ ദശകമായിരുന്നുവെന്നതാണ് യാഥാര്‍ത്ഥ്യം. നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളുടെ നേതൃത്വത്തില്‍ മാത്രമല്ല, മറ്റനേകം പ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങളുടെ നേതൃത്വത്തിലും  രാജ്യത്താകമാനം പോരാട്ടങ്ങള്‍ രൂപംകൊണ്ടു. 90കളില്‍ രാജ്യം പിന്നോക്കക്കാരുടെയും ആദിവാസിജനതയുടെയും അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തപ്പെടുന്ന മതന്യൂനപക്ഷങ്ങളുടെയും ദേശീയതയുടെയും പോരാട്ടങ്ങളുടെ കാര്യത്തില്‍ മുന്നിലായിരുന്നു. 2000ത്തിനു ശേഷം  പോരാട്ടങ്ങള്‍ ഒഴിയുകയല്ല വളരുക തന്നെയായിരുന്നു. കേരളത്തിന്റെ കാര്യത്തിലും സ്ഥിതി വ്യത്യസ്തമായിരുന്നില്ല. പക്ഷെ ചരിത്രത്തെ ഏതെങ്കിലുമൊന്നിന്റെ  ചരിത്രം മാത്രമായി കാണുന്ന എക്‌സ് നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളുടെ രേഖീയമായ ദര്‍ശനത്തിനു മുന്നില്‍ മറ്റു ധാരകള്‍ നിഷ്പ്രഭമായി. ചരിത്രത്തെ രേഖീയമായി വിലയിരുത്തുന്നതില്‍ അവര്‍ സൈദ്ധാന്തികമായി എതിരായിരുന്നുവെന്നതായിരുന്നു അതിലെ മറ്റൊരു രസകരമായ കാര്യം.

റിവേഴ്‌സ് സോഷ്യലിസം

അതേ സമയം 70കള്‍ക്കുശേഷമുള്ള ഇക്കൂട്ടരുടെ  പിന്‍വാങ്ങലിനു ശേഷമുള്ള രാഷ്ട്രീയ സമരങ്ങളെ, അതു വിപ്ലവപ്രസ്ഥാനമായാലും അല്ലെങ്കിലും, അവമതിക്കുകയോ അവഗണിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്നതില്‍ മറ്റുചില കാരണങ്ങള്‍ കൂടിയുണ്ട്. 80കള്‍ക്കും 90കള്‍ക്കും ശേഷം രൂപമെടുത്ത ഭരണകൂടനയങ്ങളും അതു രാജ്യത്തെ മധ്യവര്‍ഗത്തിനും പെറ്റിബൂര്‍ഷ്വാസിയിലും ഉണ്ടാക്കിയ സ്വാധീനങ്ങളുമാണ് അവയില്‍ പ്രധാനം.  അതോടെ മികവ്, നീതി, ന്യായം, വികസനം എന്നിവയൊക്കെ പുതിയൊരു കാഴ്ചപ്പാടിലൂടെ കാണാന്‍ തുടങ്ങി. ഒരാള്‍ അയാളുടെ മകനോ മകള്‍ക്കോ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസം നല്‍കണമെങ്കില്‍ അയാള്‍തന്നെ കാശുമുടക്കണമെന്ന ലോജിക്കില്‍ എന്തെങ്കിലും പ്രശനമുള്ളതായി ഇപ്പോള്‍ ആരും കരുതുന്നില്ല. ഒരാളുടെ ആരോഗ്യം അയാളുടെ ബാധ്യതയാണെന്നതും  അതുപോലെത്തന്നെ. സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തിനും അവകാശങ്ങള്‍ക്കും പുതിയ ഒരു കാഴ്ച രൂപം കൊള്ളുകയാണ്. പണമുള്ളവരില്‍ നിന്നു നികുതി പിരിച്ച് പാവപ്പെട്ടവരുടെ കാര്യം നടത്തുന്നത് അനീതിയാണെന്ന പുതിയ നീതിവ്യവസ്ഥയ്ക്കാണത് രൂപം കൊടുത്തത്. ക്രോസ് സബ്‌സിഡി അങ്ങിനെയാണ് ആ മൂല്യവ്യവസ്ഥയ്ക്കുള്ളില്‍ വലിയ പിടിച്ചുപറിയാവുന്നത്. ഒരു തരം റിവേഴ്‌സ് സോഷ്യലിസമാണ് അതു വഴി രൂപം കൊള്ളുന്നത്. ഒരാള്‍ സോഷ്യലിസത്തിലോ തുല്യതയിലോ വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നത് പോലെത്തന്നെയാണ്  മറ്റൊരാള്‍ റിവേഴ്‌സ് സോഷ്യലിസത്തില്‍ വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നതും. ഈ നീതി വ്യവസ്ഥയിലേക്കായിരുന്നു പഴയ നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ പൊതുവില്‍ കണ്ണിചേര്‍ക്കപ്പെട്ടത്.

മുകളില്‍ വിവരിച്ച ഈ റിവേഴ്‌സ് സോഷ്യലിസ്റ്റ്  വ്യവസ്ഥയുടെ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തില്‍ അതിനെതിരെ ഉയര്‍ന്നുവരുന്ന എതിര്‍പ്പുകളും രോഷങ്ങളും അവര്‍ക്ക് വെ്ച്ചുപൊറുപ്പിക്കാവുന്നതോ അംഗീകരിക്കാവുന്നതോ ആയിരുന്നില്ല. അത്തരം സമരങ്ങള്‍ രാജ്യത്തെ ദുര്‍ബലപ്പെടുത്തുമെന്നവര്‍ കരുതി. ജനാധിപത്യത്തിനെതിരായിരിക്കുമെന്നും അവര്‍ കണ്ടെത്തി. തന്റെ ശക്തമായ പേനകൊണ്ട് കമ്യൂണിസ്റ്റുകാരെയും ന്യൂനപക്ഷരാഷ്ട്രീയക്കാരെയും ആക്ഷേപിക്കുന്ന വേണു ഒരിക്കലും വലതുപക്ഷരാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിന്റെ  സാമൂഹിക സാമ്പത്തിക പ്രശ്‌നങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ച് എഴുതുകയുണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല. അങ്ങനെ അവര്‍ രാഷ്ട്രീയമായും സൈദ്ധാന്തികമായും ആ മൂല്യവ്യവസ്ഥയുടെ ഭാഗമായി.

മാവോയിസവും നക്‌സലിസവും

മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളെക്കുറിച്ച് പത്രപ്രവര്‍ത്തകനായ രാഹുല്‍ പണ്ഡിത എഴുതിയ ഹല്ലോ ബസ്തര്‍ എന്ന പുസ്തകത്തിന്റെ ആമുഖത്തില്‍ അദ്ദേഹം താന്‍ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന പ്രയോഗങ്ങളെ വിശദീകരിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. നക്‌സലിസം എന്നും മാവോയിസം എന്നും ഉള്ള വാക്കുകള്‍ താന്‍ ഇടകലര്‍ത്തി ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കിലും ഇന്നത്തെ നക്‌സലിസം നക്‌സലിസത്തേക്കാള്‍ കൂടുതല്‍ മാവോയിസമാണെന്ന് അദ്ദേഹം എഴുതുന്നു. സത്യത്തില്‍ കേരളത്തിലെയും പൊതുവില്‍ ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ത്തന്നെയുള്ള പഴയ നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളെ പ്രതിസന്ധിയിലാക്കിയ ഒരു പദപ്രയോഗമായിരുന്നു ഇത്. 70കള്‍ക്കു ശേഷം ഒന്നുമില്ലെന്നു പറയുകയും മേനിനടിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്ന എക്‌സ് ലൈറ്റുകളെ സംബന്ധിച്ചിടത്തോളം പൊട്ടിയും തകര്‍ന്നും ഒരു നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് പാര്‍ട്ടി /പാര്‍ട്ടികള്‍ നിലനില്‍ക്കേണ്ടത് അവരുടെ ആവശ്യമായിരുന്നു.  മാധ്യമങ്ങളും അവര്‍തന്നെയും രൂപം കൊടുത്ത സുവര്‍ണ്ണകാലത്തെക്കുറിച്ചുള്ള മിത്തിനെ ആവശ്യമായ ന്യായീകരണം നല്‍കുമെന്നതുകൊണ്ടു തന്നെയായിരുന്നു അത്. ആ ന്യായീകരണത്തിനു വേണ്ടി അവര്‍ രണ്ടു തന്ത്രങ്ങളാണ് പയറ്റിയത്. ഒന്ന്, അവര്‍ അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തപ്പെട്ടവരുടെ ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നുണ്ടാകുന്ന രണോത്സുകമായ  എല്ലാ പ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങളെയും അവമതിച്ചു. അങ്ങനെയല്ലാത്ത സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ അതിനെ അവഗണിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് നിഷ്പ്രഭമാക്കി. ഒരു തരം വലതുപക്ഷവല്‍ക്കരണത്തിലൂടെ  മാധ്യമങ്ങളിലും പൊതുമണ്ഡലത്തിലും  അവര്‍ അതിനോടകം നേടിയെടുത്തിരുന്ന സ്വാധീനം അവരെ അതിനു സഹായിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു.

പക്ഷെ അതിനിടയിലാണ് 2000ത്തോടെ മാവോയിസം എന്ന പദം മുഖ്യധാരയുടെ പദകോശത്തിലേക്ക് കടന്നു വരുന്നത്. ആദ്യം മാധ്യമസൃഷ്ടിയായും പിന്നീട് നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ തന്നെ സ്വയം അംഗീകരിച്ചും കടന്നുവന്ന നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് എന്ന പദത്തിനു 2000ത്തോടെ ഒരു രൂപപരിണാമം സംഭവിക്കുകയാണ്. എം.സി.സി യെ പോലുള്ള ചില സംഘടനകള്‍ മുന്‍ കാലത്തുതന്നെ ഇത്തരം പദങ്ങള്‍ മറ്റൊരര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ ഉപയോഗിച്ചിരുന്നുവെങ്കിലും നേപ്പാളിലെ മാവോയിസ്റ്റ് നീക്കങ്ങളുടെ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തിലും ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ത്തന്നെ സി.പി.ഐ. എം.എല്‍. പി.ഡബിയു. സി. പി.ഐ. മാവോയിസ്റ്റ് എന്ന പേരു സ്വീകരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നതോടെയാണ് ഈ പദം ഇന്ത്യന്‍ മാധ്യമങ്ങളില്‍ ഒരു ഐഡന്റിറ്റിയാവുന്നത്. (സാര്‍വ്വദേശീയ കമ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ് പാര്‍ട്ടിയായ റവല്യൂഷനറി ഇന്റര്‍നാഷണല്‍ മൂവ്‌മെന്റിന്റെ (ഞകങ) മുന്‍കൈയില്‍ രൂപംകൊണ്ട ചര്‍ച്ചകളും നിലപാടുകളുമാണ് ഇത്തരമൊരു രാഷ്ട്രീയ നിലപാടുകളിലേക്ക് മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളെ കൊണ്ടുചെന്നെത്തിക്കുന്നത്.) ഇതോടെ നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് എന്ന പദത്തിനും അപ്പുറത്ത് മാവോയിസ്റ്റ് എന്ന പദത്തിനു ചില പ്രത്യേകതകളോ സൂചനകളോ ഉള്ളതായി പൊതുമണ്ഡലം വിലയിരുത്താനാരംഭിച്ചു. വിചിത്രമെന്നു പറയട്ടെ കേരളത്തിലെയോ ബംഗാളിലേയോ എക്‌സ് നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ മുന്‍കൂട്ടി  സങ്കല്പിച്ചിരുന്ന ആ രാഷ്ട്രീയ വിടവ്, ഒരു രാഷ്ട്രീയ വിച്ഛേദം യഥാര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ പ്രത്യക്ഷപ്പെടുന്നത് 2004 നുശേഷമായിരുന്നു. അതു സംഭവിപ്പിച്ചപ്പോഴാകട്ടെ അവര്‍ ആ യാഥാര്‍ത്ഥ്യത്തെ നിഷേധിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു.

നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് എന്ന പദത്തിനു പകരം രാഷ്ട്രീയ മാധ്യമ രംഗത്ത് മാവോയിസം സ്ഥാനം പിടിച്ചതോടെ പഴയ കാല നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ തങ്ങളെ സ്വയം മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളെന്നു വിളിക്കാനാരംഭിച്ചിരുന്നു. രസകരമെന്നു പറയട്ടെ നക്‌സലിസം ഭാരമായി നടിച്ചിരുന്ന വേണു അനേകം തവണ തങ്ങളെ മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളെന്നു സ്വയം വിശേഷിപ്പിക്കുന്നത് ഈ എഴുതുന്ന ആള്‍ നേരിട്ടു കേട്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്. കൊടുങ്ങല്ലൂരില്‍ മുഹമ്മദാലി അനുസ്മരണ സമ്മേളനത്തില്‍ സംസാരിക്കവെ വേണു പലതവണ തന്റെ ചരിത്രത്തെ മാവോയിസ്റ്റു ചരിത്രമെന്ന് പുനര്‍നാമകരണം ചെയ്യുകയുണ്ടായി. അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ സുഹൃത്ത് ടി.എന്‍. ജോയി ആ പ്രഭാഷണങ്ങള്‍  ഫേസ്ബുക്കില്‍ പോസ്റ്റുചെയ്യുകയും ചെയ്തിരുന്നു. അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ മറ്റൊരു സുഹൃത്ത് കവി സച്ചിദാനന്ദന്‍ ഇത് പലതവണ പല ലേഖനങ്ങളിലും ആവര്‍ത്തിച്ചിരുന്നു. തേജസ്സിന്റെ ആഴ്ചവട്ടത്തില്‍ സച്ചിദാനന്ദന്‍ കൊടുത്ത ഇന്റര്‍വ്യൂയിലും അവസാനമായി ഇത് ആവര്‍ത്തിക്കുകയുണ്ടായി.

എഴുപതുകളില്‍ ഒരു  വലിയ വിടവു സങ്കല്പിച്ചിരുന്ന മുന്‍കാല നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകള്‍ എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് പൊടുന്നനെ മാവോയിസമെന്ന പദം ഉപയോഗിച്ച് തങ്ങളെത്തന്നെ നിര്‍വ്വചിക്കാനാരംഭിച്ചത്? അതും യഥാര്‍ത്ഥത്തില്‍ ഇത്തരമൊരു വിടവ് അതിന്റെ ശരിയായ രൂപത്തില്‍ പുറത്തുവന്ന സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍.

സംഘര്‍ഷഭരിത്മായ തങ്ങളുടെ ഭൂതകാലത്തിനു ശേഷം നിഷ്‌ക്രിയതയിലേക്കു ആണ്ടുപോവുകയോ വലതുപക്ഷത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമാകുകയോ ചെയ്ത പഴയ കാല പ്രവര്‍ത്തകരെ സംബന്ധിച്ചെടുത്തോളം എന്നും അഭിമാനിക്കാവുന്ന  ത്യാഗനിര്‍ഭരമായ ചരിത്രമായിരുന്നു ’70 കള്‍’. നിരന്തരം തള്ളിപ്പറഞ്ഞുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ അത് അവര്‍ എക്കാലവും സമൂഹത്തെ ഒ#ാര്‍മ്മിപ്പിച്ചു. ആ തള്ളിപ്പറയല്‍ തന്നെ അവരുടെ നിലനില്‍പ്പിന്റെ ഭാഗമായിരുന്നു. സോമശേഖരനും നാണുവുമൊന്നിച്ചു 2009 ലെ നേരത്തെ സൂചിപ്പിച്ച ഇന്റര്‍വ്യൂവില്‍ നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് ചരിത്രം ഒ#ാരോരുത്തരും എങ്ങനെ തങ്ങളുടെ ആവശ്യങ്ങള്‍ക്കും താല്പര്യങ്ങള്‍ക്കും വേണ്ടി ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നുവെന്നും അതിന്റെ പൈതൃകം അവകാശപ്പെടുന്നുവെന്നും സൂചിപ്പിട്ടുണ്ട്. മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളെന്ന പുതിയ ഒരു പദപ്രയോഗം നിലവില്‍വന്നപ്പോള്‍  തങ്ങള്‍ തന്നെ സങ്കല്പിച്ച ചരിത്രപരമായ വിടവുകള്‍ ഒരു  അസ്ഥിത്വപ്രശ്‌നമായാണ് അവര്‍ക്ക് മുന്നിലേക്ക് കയറിവന്നത്. നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് എന്ന പദം മാവോയിസ്റ്റ് എന്ന പദത്തിനു വഴി മാറുന്നതോടെ  എക്‌സ് നക്‌സലൈറ്റ് എന്ന പദത്തിനും അര്‍ത്ഥം നഷ്ടപ്പെടുകയാണ്.  ചരിത്രത്തില്‍ നിന്നുതന്നെയുള്ള നിഷ്‌ക്കാസനമായിട്ടാണ് ഇവരില്‍ പലര്‍ക്കും അത് അനുഭവപ്പെട്ടത്. ഈ നിഷ്‌ക്കാസനത്തെ അവര്‍ നേരിട്ടതാകട്ടെ തങ്ങളുടെ തന്നെ ചരിത്രത്തെ പുനര്‍നാമകരണം ചെയ്തുകൊണ്ടും. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെയാണ് അവര്‍ തങ്ങളെ നക്‌സലൈറ്റുകളെന്നതിലുപരി മാവോയിസ്റ്റുകളെന്നു സ്വയം നിര്‍വ്വചിച്ചത്. ചുരുക്കത്തില്‍ നക്‌സലിസം അവര്‍ക്ക് ഒരു ഭാരമായിരുന്നില്ല, ഒരു മൂലധനം തന്നെയായിരുന്നു. തങ്ങളുടെ തുടര്‍ ജീവിതത്തില്‍ ആവശ്യാനുസരണം ഉപയോഗിക്കുകയും മേനിനടിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നതിനു അവരെ പ്രാപ്തരാക്കുന്ന രാഷ്ട്രീയ മൂലധനം.

Download Link (Malayalam)

NAXALITE ENNA mooladhanam

Social Opposition in the Age of Internet: Desktop “Militants” and Public Intellectuals

 

By James Petras

Introduction

The relation of information technology (IT) and more specifically the internet, to politics is a central issue facing contemporary social movements. Like many previous scientific advances the IT innovations have a dual purpose: on the one hand, it has accelerated the global flow of capital, especially financial capital and facilitated imperialist ‘globalization’. On the other hand the internet has served to provide alternative critical sources of analysis as well as easy communication to mobilize popular movements.

The IT industry has created a new class of billionaires, from Silicon Valley in California to Bangalore, India. They have played a central role in the expansion of economic colonialism via their monopoly control in diverse spheres of information flows and entertainment.

To paraphrase Marx “the internet has become the opium of the people”. Young and old, employed and unemployed alike spend hours passively gazing at spectacles, pornography, video games, online consumerism and even “news” in isolation from other citizens, fellow workers and employees.

In many cases the “overflow” of “news” on the internet has saturated the internet, absorbing time and energy and diverting the ‘watchers’ from reflection and action. Just as too little and biased news by the mass media distorts popular consciousness, too many internet messages can immobilize citizen action.

The internet, deliberately or not,has “privatized” political life. Many otherwise potential activists have come to believe that circulating manifestos to other individuals is a political act, forgetting that only public action, including confrontations with their adversaries in public spaces, in city centers and in the countryside, is the basis of political transformations.

IT and Financial Capital

Let us remember that the original impetus for the growth of “IT” came from the demands of big financial institutions, investment banks and speculative traders who sought to move billions of dollars and euros with the touch of a finger from one country to another, from one enterprise to another, from one commodity to another.

Internet technology was the motor force for the growth of globalization at the service of financial capital. In some ways IT played a major role in precipitating the two global financial crises of the past decade (2001-2002, 2008–2009). The bubble in IT stocks of 2001 was a result of the speculative promotion of overvalued “software firms” de-linked from the ‘real economy’. The global financial crash of 2008-2009 and its continuation today, was induced by the computerized packaging of financial swindles and underfunded real estate mortgages. The ‘virtues’ of the internet, its rapid relay of information in the context of speculator capitalism turned out to be a major contributing factor to the worse capitalist crises since the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

The Democratization of the Internet

The internet became accessible to the masses as a market for commercial enterprise and then spread to other social and political uses. Most importantly it became a means of informing the larger public of the exploitation and pillage of countries and people by multi-national banks. The internet exposed the lies which accompany US and EU imperialist wars in the Middle East and Sothern Asia.

The internet has become contested terrain, a new form of class struggle,engaging national liberation and pro-democracy movements. The major movements and leaders from the armed fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan to the pro-democracy activists in Egypt, to the student movements in Chile and including the poor peoples’ housing movement in Turkey, rely on the internet to inform the world of their struggles, programs, state repression and popular victories. The internet links peoples’ struggles across national boundaries – it is a key weapon in creating a new internationalism to counter capitalist globalization and imperial wars.

To paraphrase Lenin, we could argue that 21st century socialism can be summed up by the equation: “soviets plus internet = participatory socialism”.

The Internet and Class Politics

We should remember that computerized information techniques are not ‘neutral’ – their political impact depends on their users and overseers who determine who and what class interests they will serve. More generally the internet must be contextualized in terms of its insertion in public space.

Internet has served to mobilize thousands of workers in China and peasants in India against corporate exploiters and real estate developers. But computerized aerial warfare has become the NATO weapon of choice to bomb and destroy independent Libya.The US drones which send missiles that kill civilians in Pakistan, Yemen are directed by computer ‘intelligence’. The location of Colombian guerrillas and the deadly aerial bombings are computerized. In other words IT technology has dual uses: for popular liberation or imperial counter revolution.

Neoliberalism and Public Space

The discussion of “public space” has frequently assumed that “public” means greater state intervention on behalf of the welfare of the majority; greater regulation of capitalism and increased protection of the environment. In other words benign “public” actors are counter posed to exploitative private market forces.

In the context of the rise of neo-liberal ideology and policies, many progressive writers argue about the “decline of the public sphere”. This argument overlooks the fact that the “public sphere” has increased its role in society, economy and politics on behalf of capital, especially financial capital and foreign investors. The “public sphere”, specifically the state is much more intrusive in civil society as a repressive force, particularly as neo-liberal policies increase inequalities. Because of the intensification and deepening of the financial crises, the public sphere (the state) has undertaken a massive role in bailing out bankrupt banks.

Because of large scale fiscal deficits provoked by capitalist class tax evasion, colonial war spending and public subsidies to big business, the public sphere (state) imposes class based “austerity” program cutting social expenditures and prejudicing public employees, pensioners, and private wage and salaried employees.

The public sphere diminished its role in the productive sector of the economy. However, the military sector has grown with expansion of colonial and imperial wars.

The basic issue underlying any discussion of the public sphere and the social opposition is not its decline or growth but rather the class interests which define the role of the public sphere. Under neo-liberalism, the public sphere is directed by the use of public treasury to finance bank bailouts, militarism and expanded police state intervention. A public sphere directed by the “social opposition” (workers, farmers, professionals, employees) would enlarge the scope of public sphere activity with regard to health, education, pensions, environment and employment.

The concept of the “public sphere” has two opposing faces (Janus-like): one facing capital and the military; the other labor/social opposition. The role of the internet is also subject to this duality: on the one hand the internet facilitates large scale movements of capital and rapid imperial military interventions; on the other hand it provides rapid flow of information to mobilize the social opposition. The basic question is what kind of information is transmitted to what political actors and for what social interest?

The Internet and the Social Opposition: The Threat of State Repression

For the social opposition the internet is first and foremost a vital source of alternative critical information to educate and mobilize the “public” – especially among progressive opinion- leaders, professionals, trade unionists and peasant leaders, militants and activists. The internet is the alternative to the capitalist mass media and its propaganda, a source of news and information that relays manifestos and informs activists of sites for public action. Because of the internet’s progressive role as an instrument of the social opposition it is subject to surveillance by the repressive police-state apparatus. For example, in the USA over 800,000 functionaries are employed by the “Homeland Security” police agency to spy on billions of emails, faxes, telephone calls of millions of US citizens. How effective the policing of tons of information each day is another question. But the fact is that the internet is not a “free and secure source of information, debate and discussion. In fact as the internet becomes more effective in mobilizing the social movements in opposition to the imperial and colonial state, the greater is the likelihood of police-state intervention under the pretext “combating terrorism”.

The Internet and Contemporary Struggle: Is it Revolutionary?

It is important to recognize the importance of the internet in detonating certain social movements as well as relativizing its overall significance.

The internet has played a vital role in publicizing and mobilizing “spontaneous protests” like the ‘indignados’ (the indignant protestors) mostly unaffiliated unemployed youth in Spain and the protestors involved in the US “Occupy Wall Street”. In other instances, for example, the mass general strikes in Italy, Portugal, Greece and elsewhere the organized trade union confederations played a central role and the internet had a secondary impact.

In highly repressive countries like Egypt, Tunisia and China, the internet played a major role in publicizing public action and organizing mass protests. However, the internet has not led to any successful revolutions – it can inform, provide a forum for debate, and mobilize, but it cannot provide leadership and organization to sustain political action let alone a strategy for taking state power. The illusion that some internet gurus foster, that ‘computerized’ action replaces the need for a disciplined, political party, has been demonstrated to be false: the internet can facilitate movement but only an organized social opposition can provide the tactical and strategic direction which can sustain the movement against state repression and toward successful struggles.

In other words, the internet is not an “end in itself” – the self-congratulatory posture of internet ideologues in heralding a new “revolutionary” information age overlooks the fact that the NATO powers, Israel and their allies and clients now use the internet to plant viruses to disrupt economies, sabotage defense programs and promote ethno-religious uprisings. Israel sent damaging viruses to hinder Iran’s peaceful nuclear program; the US, France and Turkey incited client social opposition in Libya and Syria. In a word, the internet has become the new terrain of class and anti-imperialist struggle. The internet is a means not an end in itself. The internet is part of a public sphere whose purpose and results are determined by the larger class structure in which it is embedded.

Concluding Remarks: “Desktop Militants” and Public Intellectuals

The social opposition is defined by public action: the presence of collectivities in political meetings, individuals speaking at public meetings, activists marching in public squares, militant trade unionists confronting employers, poor people demanding sites for housing and public services from public authorities…

To address an active assembled public meeting, to formulate ideas, programs and propose programs and strategies through political action defines the role of the public intellectual. To sit at a desk in an office, in splendid isolation, sending out five manifestos per minute defines a “desktop militant”. It is a form pseudo-militancy that isolates the word from the deed. Desktop “militancy” is an act of verbal inaction, of inconsequential “activism”, a make-believe revolution of the mind. The exchange of internet communications becomes a political act when it engages in public social movements that challenge power. By necessity that involves risks for the public intellectual: of police assaults in public spaces and economic reprisals in the private sphere. The desktop “activists” risk nothing and accomplish little. The public intellectual links the private discontents of individuals to the social activism of the collectivity. The academic critic comes to a site of action, speaks and returns to their academic office. The public intellectual speaks and sustains a long-term political educational commitment with the social opposition in the public sphere via the internet and in face to face daily encounters.

Thought Police and the Unfree Radicals

From the grey zone of Naxal activism and State repression, Revati Laul reports on the curious case of Arun Ferreira

Not in a free state Ferreira has been langushing in jail for the past four years

WHEN THE inspector at the Nagpur Central Jail rapped his broken, wooden baton on the door of the visiting room, a file of relatives cleared the bench. Their time was up. On the far side of the room, the next lot of inmates appeared, including Arun Ferreira, whom TEHELKA was visiting.

Khakhi furyFerreira became a marked man after protesting the violence against DalitsPhoto: AP ALSO READ Bhagat Singh and Ambedkar are no longer national icons. You can be arrested for reading them Vigilante State Dial M For Maoists

Ferreira has been in jail for four years, charged in various Naxal-related crimes, from murder to planting bombs. And acquitted in all those cases. The court found not a shred of evidence against him. Then, on 27 September, he was freed. But the moment he set foot outside the jail gate, he was whisked away in a police jeep to Gondia district, three hours from Nagpur and re arrested in two more cases.

Events that Ferreira and his lawyers see as part of a pattern, an attempt to keep him in jail in one case after another, never mind what the actual charges are, whether or not they stick, or even whether they sound plausible.

In the visiting room, it was barely possible to tell the contours of his face from behind the double wire mesh and bars. Cut into small squares, Ferreira, the 38-yearold inmate, settled behind his side of the window, prepared for the interview. On the face of it, the story appeared similar to that of activists being picked up by the State and put away as Naxals and Maoists — such as Binayak Sen and Soni Sori, who was the subject of TEHELKA’s cover story last week (The Inconvenient Truth of Soni Sori by Shoma Chaudhury).

The overwhelming question at this point was fairly straightforward: Is Ferreira genuinely a victim or really a Naxal? What hit us straight away was that this was indeed the wrong question. Ferreira’s story was not an either/or case, but perplexingly, a bit of both. A truth that tumbled out as he answered his very first question.

“Would you call yourself a Naxal sympathiser?”

“Yes,” he said. “You could say that. I’m actually for all people’s movements. From Anna Hazare’s to tribal protests in Gadchiroli (in Maharashtra). And I can’t say, sitting here, what kind of protest will be most effective or necessary in what particular case. Should angry Kashmiris throw stones or not, for instance? I believe in the Constitution. But I also simultaneously believe in the rights of the people, and those who are oppressed, to protest, even with arms if need be.”

And suddenly, the questions around Ferreira and the perspective on the Naxal issue opened up a new dimension. That put this story in a new, grey zone.

Ferreira, by his own admission, is both a victim and a Naxal sympathiser. The black-and-white Naxal story now had some perplexing shades of grey. Does a radical like him have the right to State protection? Should he just be locked away forever because his beliefs include supporting those who choose armed resistance against the State?

There are no easy answers to the polemical debate. But Ferreira is in jail. So that is the obvious starting point in telling this story.

If Ferreira had been charged for sedition, for his political views, for rallying people against the State, it would be a clear case of armed resistance against the State, chargeable under various sections of the law, including the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. It would also, arguably, be easy enough to make those charges stick. That, however, is not what happened.

Despite being a Naxal sympathiser, Ferreira’s work on the ground, in his own reckoning and also of those in contact with him, was that he was not a Maoist with a gun. Not inciting people to violence. But working with Mumbai’s slum dwellers. And with youth groups in Mumbai and Nagpur, as part of an organisation called the Vidyarthi Pragati Sangathan. And also in organising protests against atrocities like the massacre of a Dalit family in Khairlanji in 2006.

But this is only Ferreira’s version of the story. If there was evidence of political activism that marked him out as part of “India’s greatest internal security threat”, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the Naxals, then surely the police would have been able to produce it?

The fact is that there was nothing to join the dots from Ferreira’s activism and political beliefs to sedition.

And so, on 8 May 2007, Ferreira was picked up from Nagpur for a clear-cut criminal case. Accused of being part of a conspiracy to plant bombs. From then on, seven other cases were stacked against him, all of which his lawyers claim were false. The cases were all ostensibly Naxal- related violence raging from attacking the police to murdering youth to burning a railway engine.

To understand why Ferreira and his lawyers say that the charges against him seem like part of a larger plan, it’s instructive to look at just two cases against him.

If there is evidence against Ferreira, why is the police shying away from producing it?

ON 23 January 2006, Naxalites fired at a police outpost in Bonde in Maharashtra at around 11 pm. Ferreira is accused of conspiracy in this case, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. But neither the complainant nor the witnesses name him. They describe “someone who is fair-complexioned ” as having been associated with the scene of the crime. In another case, where Naxals were caught with weapons on 6 January 2008. Ferreira, who was accused No. 10 in the case, was already holed up in the Nagpur jail, allegedly part of the conspiracy from inside his cell.

Which is why, in September 2011, the court, hearing the last of these cases, concluded that there was no evidence against him. Each one of the cases was thrown out.

During his four-year jail stint, Ferreira completed a post-graduate diploma in human rights by correspondence from the Indian Institute of Human Rights. The subject of his thesis, ‘Political Prisoners in India’, was bizarrely going to turn into the script of his life in the days ahead. He was writing about how the state government was picking up radical thinking activists and sometimes tribals who simply belonged to ‘Naxal-affected’ or controlled areas of Gadchiroli district, and repeatedly arresting them in different cases one after another. The police would pick them up, mark them out as Naxals and then set up a chain of cases in which they were implicated. Counting on the fact that by the time the cases would be heard and the victims acquitted, a few years would pass, and so they’d be in jail and away from the political activism for some time.

From his cell, Ferreira and fellow activist-inmate Vernon Gonzalves drafted a petition for a tribal couple from Gadchiroli who had 40 cases against them. As soon as the court acquitted the couple, new cases were slapped on them.

FERREIRA WROTE of how this pattern of re-arrests was actually illegal. “Without any justification, such re-arrests would be unjust, unfair and unreasonable and in contempt of the orders for release by the court.” And also his own deductive logic behind the pattern — “Violations under the garb of countering Maoism, which hitherto remained confined to the hinterland, has now reached cities like Delhi, Surat, Kolkata, etc. Given the Centre’s patronage, every state police department is eager to show the arrest of Naxal suspects by fabricating evidence, conjuring crimes of sedition and prolonging the incarceration by re-arrests. Such strategies will enable the states to join the anti-Naxal bandwagon, resulting in a free flow of funds and assistance.”

The strange twist to Ferreira’s thesis was this: exactly the same was about to happen to him.

The cases against Ferreira, leading to his immediate re-arrest, date back to February and March 2007. Why, ask his lawyers, didn’t the police come up with the chargesheets earlier?

“The idea seems to be — Let him rot in jail and when he’s out we will slap on a few more cases,” says lawyer Susan Abraham, who’s familiar with Ferreira’s predicament and is also fighting to free her husband, Gonzalves. “The judge acquits but it is the police that is imposing a life sentence.”

Journalist Gurbir Singh says he took the cases of Ferreira and other activists to Maharashtra Home Minister RR Patil, with questions about whether Ferreira was being targeted for his beliefs. “If you take the case of Arun Ferreira or the Dalit poet activist Sudhir Dawale (similarly arrested) who are supposed to be sympathetic to the Maoists, they never charge them with these crimes,” says Singh.

When TEHELKA confronted Patil, the minister pointed out that Ferreira’s acquittals only mean those cases didn’t stand up in court. “Just because people are let off in cases on technical grounds does not mean they are not Naxals or connected with Naxals,” he says. What was the proof that Ferreira had committed the crimes attributed to him, or even organised resistance? Patil went on the defensive. “I will go by what the court advocate says and then get back to you,” he retorted.

The heart of the matter is this. If Ferreira should be arrested for his ideas, then where does this process of measuring the danger quotient of an idea really stop? Are we allowing the State to turn itself into a Thought Police?

But attached to this is another equally uncomfortable question. If a Naxal ideologue can be held guilty of crimes against the State for his ideas, then so can a politician be accused for inciting a mob in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots or the 2002 Gujarat riots, or the tearing down of the Babri mosque in 1992 that later led to the 1993 Mumbai blasts and riots. And this trajectory of questions leads up to a larger question. What kind of democracy are we and what would we like to be? How much dissent is okay before it amounts to tearing away at the State? On the other hand, do we give the right to the State to put us away only for our ideas?

Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen knows Ferreira as a fellow activist and is someone whose husband is also in jail for similar reasons. She sketched out this ‘grey area’ more clearly. “There is no crime such as Maoism or Naxalism. The ideology is not a criminal offence. So what the State does is to book these people under certain criminal offences.”

Mahrukh Adenwala, a Mumbai-based lawyer who has been fighting a clutch of cases like Ferreira’s, says that in the purely legal sense, this is an open-and-shut case. Where the State is the oppressor and Ferreira its victim.

“The State is attacking a particular ideology. It is deciding which ideologies are acceptable to them and which are not and that I feel is incorrect,” she says. “An urban person going to an area, who’s intelligent enough to reach out and create public opinion against some of the State’s policies is something they are extremely scared of. Because people do start listening.”

The political ‘grey area’ doesn’t explain the vacant look on Ferreira’s father’s face as his wife tries to describe what it’s like to live in waiting. The couple, in their mid- 70s, in their simple, spartan flat in a bylane in Bandra, spoke of the day he was to be released. Of having cooked up a storm after four years, expecting their son to come back home, only to see the jail gates open and then suddenly ram shut, with a police jeep whisking away Ferreira again.

‘Grey area’ also doesn’t explain the fact that Ferreira’s wife has to let their fouryear- old son believe his father’s on work abroad and is saving to buy him a car. “We were on holiday when we heard about Ferreira’s arrest in 2007,” says his mother, her voice faltering. “I said, if my son has done all these things, then please God, take him away. But I knew he can’t. That’s not him.”

And then his family showed his letters from Nagpur Central Jail. Here’s one dated 25 June 2010:

Dear Mummy,

You seemed worried… I know things seem to be dragging endlessly but as you said, worrying isn’t going to change anything.

And another one dated 25 December 2008:

Enjoy yourselves this Christmas. Especially feast on the vindaloo and sorpotel. My mouth has already begun to water.

Given the Centre’s patronage, every state police is eager to show the arrest of Naxal suspects

BANDU MESRAM, a former inmate who made friends with Ferreira at the Nagpur Central Jail, has an equally grisly story to tell. Sitting in his one-room tenement in Nagpur, the tailor says the police picked him up on a Naxal-related charge purely in a case of mistaken identity. “But no matter how many times I told them, I am not Bhanu, I am Bandu Mesram, a tailor, they refused to listen. Then they produced a false witness, testifying that I’m in fact Bhanu, allegedly someone who supplied Naxals with an AK-47 rifle.” Then, bizarrely, the real Bhanu was found… but not arrested in this case! For that, Mesram continued to be in jail. His plea fell on deaf police ears, who he claims put him through extreme torture. Electrodes to his nipples while he was made to stand in water. Beaten with a whip made from the conveyor belt material — ‘falanga’ that leaves no marks — something Ferreira was also subject to and has written about. “Confess, confess, confess,” he was told. Now Mesram is back home, revisited by the nightmares of what he was put through in jail. And a wife that pleads with him to give up his activism.

Which brings us right back to the original question: Is this story about a victim or a Naxal? There are no easy answers. But a few things are amply clear. If Ferreira’s voice is blotted out or ignored, that could feed into the large machine of State repression. And allow the State to virtually become the Thought Police.

But what has to be taken on board alongside, is the added complexity — where Ferreira’s political views collide with that of the State. And inhabit a grey zone, in which Naxal activism operates. It’s perhaps in seeing the greys that it is possible to see the State as oppressive but also pushed to the wall in self-defence. And activists as the oppressed but also as people who can also have their share of doublespeak. Sometimes shifting conveniently from radical, anti-State anarchists, to citizens demanding their rights from the same State they have just torn apart.

Ferreira’s freedom may even have to do more with the greys of the political tapestry than the black-and-white legal space. His chances of staying out of jail may, if his version of events are to be believed, depend on it. Indeed, one-third of our country that’s grappling with one form of violence or another emanating from India’s “greatest internal security threat” is also looking in a larger sense, at what Ferreira is. For a way out of the mess. A good start could be to see the picture as not a stark, fissured land, but a more layered set of discomfitures on both sides.

For now, the representative of this ‘grey zone’ smiled as the inspector rapped his baton on the door. It was time. “Write a larger story, that’s not just about me,” Ferreira said and walked away. Leaving many unanswered questions on our plate. Having opened up a whole new way of looking at the vexing Naxal question.

Revati Laul is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.
revati@tehelka.com

Bodos look back in anger. 25 years later

With the Centre focussing on the ULFA peace initiative, the Bodo rebels take stock on the silver jubilee of their struggle. Ratnadip Choudhury reports

 

BORBORI CAMP, Baksa, Assam. It looks like the Raising Day celebrations of a paramilitary unit. Rebel commander B Sugreb, 35, dressed in combat gear, a shining 9 mm revolver tucked in his belt, stands in front of rows of cadres. The stern camp commander gives final instructions to his men in the hope that the parade and other events go off with military precision. Six years ago, before the ceasefire agreement entered into with the government, such camps were secret, part of underground activity.

Show of strength NDFB(P) chief Dhiren Boro (extreme left) Photo: UB Photos ALSO READ The Long Road To Northeast Peace ‘For Northeast peace, ULFA and NDFB must quit Garo Hills’ Want peace? travel the roads not taken

The call to arms came 25 years ago, on 2-3 October 1986, at the height of the agitation for a separate Bodo state. A group of 70 Bodo youths gathered in the remote Odla Khasibari village in Udalguri district. In the dark and dense jungle, after nightlong confabulations, committed Bodo youths decided to go underground and take up arms. The outfit was named Bodo Security Force (BdSF) and was led by Ranjan Daimary alias DR Nabla, who would go on to become India’s most wanted fugitive.

On 25 November 1994, the BdSF rechristened itself the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB).

The Bodo armed struggle has seen its course change abruptly more than once, like the mighty Brahmaputra running through Assam — from statehood to sovereignty and back to statehood again. There was a vertical split on 15 December 2008, when the NDFB held its general assembly meeting at the Serfanguri camp (in Kokrajhar district) and elected Dhiren Boro alias B Sungthagra as the new president of the ‘progressive’ faction, in place of the founder Daimary, who was then holed up in Bangladesh. At that time, the firebrand leader wasn’t ready to give up the call for sovereignty. He is now awaiting release from Guwahati Central Jail for the long-awaited peace talks.

Over the years, operating out of bases in Bhutan, NDFB(P) mastered the art of hitand- run warfare and the running of a parallel administration. But the Operation All Clear launched by the Royal Bhutan Army against Northeast rebels in 2003 broke the faction’s back. In May 2005, the outfit declared a ceasefire. The governmentappointed interlocutor, former Intelligence Bureau chief PC Haldar, held several rounds of informal talks with the NDFB(P). Yet formal talks are far on the horizon.

“The bureaucratic interlocutor can only put things in place,” says the unit’s publicity secretary S Sanjarang. “Delhi should take it further. There is clear double standard. The ULFA peace talks are rolling, but they are neglecting us, although we came forward long back.” Earlier this year, ULFA had agreed to a ceasefire and formal peace talks are expected to be held later this month. For some time now, other rebel outfits of Assam have been opposing what they see as special consideration extended to ULFA and demanding parity for all organisations currently bound by the ceasefire.

Apart from lack of political will, the neglect of Bodo aspirations can be attributed to the ethnic divide. “We have been oppressed by Dispur,” says Rajen Boro, an angry farmer hailing from Kalaigaon in Assam’s Udalguri district. “People in power are mostly Assamese, they crush the tribals. Thus if once again NDFB takes up arms, there will be support from the Bodo people.” Rajen is one of those who has lost his only son to this conflict. The patience of such people, who have had kin making the ultimate sacrifice, is fast running out.

Apart from lack of political will, the neglect of Bodo aspirations can be attributed to the ethnic divide in Assam

CAMP COMMANDER Sugreb also points out the perils of prolonged uncertainty. “Life over ground without action is very different from life underground,” he says. “Our boys are trained guerilla fighters. They also understand that a peaceful solution can be achieved but this delay is increasing frustration.” Exacerbating the situation are a few cases of alleged fake encounters of Bodo rebels, despite the ceasefire. “We will achieve Bodoland, be it in peace or war,” warns hardcore cadre Derek Basumatary. “Our cadres and colleagues have given their lives for Bodoland.”

NDFB(P) has about a thousand cadres, whereas the antitalks faction has only around 100 active boys. Ranjan Daimary still maintains bases in Khagracherri in Bangladesh and Taka in Burma, according to intelligence sources. Independent observers believe that the Centre should not equate NDFB with ULFA.

“NDFB is a homogenous group,” explains Rajeev Bhattacharyya, executive editor of Seven Sisters Post. “They have only Bodos. The cadres are far more disciplined. They still enjoy support in the rural belts of the Bodo heartland. So keeping NDFB waiting would mean trouble in the future. ULFA is different; it is an amalgamation of different communities of Assamese society. But ULFA’s support among the mainstream Assamese society has eroded.”

Earlier, in an interview to TEHELKA, Ranjan Daimary had clearly stated that he is looking at a possible solution to the conflict under the framework of the Indian Constitution. The powerful All Bodo Students’ Union (ABSU) has renewed its call for a separate state.

On 19 November 2010, 44 Bodo organisations came forward to form an umbrella body called the Bodo National Conference (BNC) to stop fratricidal killings and bring unity. The NDFB(P) has been spearheading democratic means like blockades, hunger strikes and demonstrations, urging the Centre and the Tarun Gogoi government to act fast on the Bodo peace process.

With these tactics, it seems the Bodos are moving towards unity. This is important as according to home ministry sources, the Centre will only start formal talks with NDFB when both factions unite. For that, Daimary will perhaps have to give up the call for Bodo sovereignty once and for all.

Close to dusk, the NDFB flag is gently brought down from the mast and NDFB(P) President Dhiren Boro alias B Sungthagra has the last word, “We declared ceasefire not because we were weak, but because we thought we should give peace a chance. We are now angry about the stepmotherly treatment meted out to us whereas ULFA is being favoured. So if the Centre does not respond soon, our boys can go back to the jungle. They still know how to fire.” Is the Union home minister listening?

Ratnadip Choudhury is a Principal Correspondent with Tehelka.
ratnadip@tehelka.com

At Last, Naga Rebels Talk In One Voice

Common ground Rebel leaders pose with the Naga flag after the peace talks

Underground groups agree to form a single government and work for a common future. But there are hurdles, says Avalok Langer

Seated in a green chair, a young Naga rebel explained his life’s calling in between sips of tea, “My grandfather and father were both Naga national workers. If needed, my son will also join the movement. But I do what I do so that a solution comes in my lifetime and my son will have a better life. The next generation should inherit the Nagaland of our dreams. That is why we fight.” In the uncertainty of conflict, hope is what fuels an army.

Held in the last week of August, the top-level meeting of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation brought together Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Swu of the NSCN(IM) // // ALSO READ Lord of the hills Dark sunrise in the East Nagas: The oldest of Manipur’s discontents

However, what was once a people’s movement in the early stages, the Naga political struggle has lost its way. Internal splits have created seven underground governments claiming legitimacy and collecting ‘tax’, internal conflicts have led to bloody fratricidal wars and the talks seemed to be going nowhere. Frustrated Nagas wanted change and now there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

\In what is being seen as a watershed moment, Naga underground groups have agreed to form a single government. Held in the last week of August, the top-level meeting of the Forum for Naga Reconciliation brought together Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Swu of the NSCN(IM), Gen Khole and Kitovi Zhimomi of the NSCN(KK) and Brig. Singnya and Zhopra Vero of the NNC/FGN.

“The groups have reconciled their differences and agreed to look towards a common future,” explains an observer. “They felt that multiple Naga governments collecting multiple taxes was adversely affecting the Naga people. The need of the hour was political unity, so they agreed to one government, one tax and one army for the Nagas.” For the time being, the collective government will be known as the Naga National Government (NNG).

The decision to form a single government with a single tax has given Nagas new hope, which was reflected in a recent weekly poll conducted by the Morung Express. Eighty-two percent voted in favour of the decision.

However, there is still a lot of work to be done. Though a high- level commission comprising members from each group will work towards the formation of the NNG, questions about integration and sovereignty remain. While many groups still stand by sovereignty, Muivah’s recent stand has been that “no country is sovereign in the real sense of the word. It is the age of inter-dependence”.

As for the integration of all Naga-dominated areas, the Centre has maintained that “all concerned states will be consulted”. Underground sources suggest that, “We will have to adopt a phase- wise solution and this is Phase 1.”

In a closed-door meeting, all leaders agreed that sovereignty and integration of all Nagas is their ultimate desire. That could be why the statement issue reads that any “interim arrangement will be outside the purview of the Indian Constitution” and not “solution”. Multiple sources suggest that the talks between the Centre and NSCN (IM) are working towards a “Constitution within a Constitution” as a possible solution. While a solution with the Centre is slated to come by 2011-end or early next year, there is a theory that the 2013 Assembly polls will not be held and the collective government, which is to be formed, will come to power.

Meanwhile, Myanmar-based leader SS Khaplang has withdrawn from the reconciliation process and boycotted the NNG. Senior NSCN(K) official Wangdin Naga says that he has told the Centre that, “a solution without Khaplang is only a comma, not a full stop. You need to involve Khaplang for a lasting solution”.

Though the decision to form a single government has revived hope, it remains to be seen if the groups can work out their differences. Nagas can rejoice in the historic step taken by their leaders and continue to hope that one day peace and normalcy will return to the Naga hills.

Avalok Langer is a Correspondent with Tehelka.
avalok@tehelka.com

 

http://tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws080911NORTHEAST.asp