Left-Wing Extremism

The gap between the last post and this one is nothing short of worrying for me, given the impressive speed at which I had clocked the first couple of articles on this blog. However, this is hardly my fault, the imputation of guilt lies with the attention mongering ex-girlfriend who seems incapable of taking the cue from my many intimations and the brouhaha over the Boson-Higgs particle muddling my capacity to think. However, there is a far more pertinent reason for the delay. I had made up my mind that the next post would be on an issue very close to my heart: that of left-wing extremism, and it was the attack in Bijapur, Chhattisgarh last week that firmed up my mind, and given the nebulous nature of the aforementioned police operation, I thought it would be prudent to wait till things cleared up a little; as they eventually did, with even the Union Home Minster having to retract his initial response to the operation.
The incident in question relates to a joint police operation of the Central Reserve Police Force and the state police forces on the intervening night of the 28th and 29th of June in Sarkeiguda, Bijapur district, in which the CRPF claims to have neutralized twenty purported 'maoists'. The entire operation including the intent remains clouded in mystery, with an array of conflicting versions proffered by the Chhattisgarah Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Congress Party. After receiving intelligence that senior 'maoist' leaders planned to hold a meeting in Basaguda on the night of the 28th, the security forces formed three different teams with the intention of converging on Basaguda from three different directions, the strategy being to deny the 'maoists' an avenue for escape. But en route to Basaguda, one of the teams came under attack at Kotteguda Panchayat in Sarkeiguda, about five kilometers from Basaguda. In the subsequent retaliation, twenty 'maoists' were killed by the security forces. This remains the official stand of the MHA and the Chhattisgarh government. However, within hours of the operation emerged several reports that among those who had been killed the majority were civilians and even a few school students and women had been gunned down.
Three days later, the Chhattisgarh Congress, which sits in the Opposition in the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, sent a delegation of eleven members to Sarkeiguda. Led by the Union Minister of State for Agriculture Charandas Mahant, the delegation toured Kotteguda and interacted with the villagers in the Basaguda area. In the press conference that followed, they dared to flagrantly contradict the position of the Union Home Minister who had earlier praised the forces for their courage and skill. The delegation dubbed the incident a 'completely fake encounter' and the victims 'innocent adivasis'. It went on to suggest that the Union Home Minister was mistaken and that he had been misinformed. It is likely that the comments were driven by a sense of expediency and are exaggerated, but at the nub of these claims there lies an element of truth. The government response was that if there were indeed civilians, who fired at the CRPF and how are the bullet wounds of half a dozen soldiers explained? As if to make things worse, a couple of days later the Union Minister for Tribal Affairs Kishore Chandra Deo adopted the version of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Congress Committee and went a step further to say that he had received concrete reports from sources other than the PCC that of the twenty persons gunned down, half were teenagers and a child who sustained injuries was just four years old. “If those killed were ‘extremists’,” Mr. Deo asked, “then why were most of them unarmed? No arms were recovered from them. The first principle of counter-insurgency is that you don’t shoot unarmed people.” The CRPF then ordered an internal inquiry into the encounter and yesterday, on the 5th of July, the Union Home Minister 'apologized' for the death of all civilians in the encounter. This admission of guilt belies the initial claim that all those present were cadres of the Communist Party of India(Maoist) and that there were indeed more than a few civilians who had been shot in cold-blood. The CRPF on its part said in a statement that seven of the deceased had been identified by the Bijapur district police as maoists, and insisting the encounter wasn't a mistake. The incident is profoundly symptomatic of the deep chasm that exists within the government in respect to our approach to left-wing extremism, but at a far more portentous trajectory, it is also symbolic of the Indian state's incoherent policy towards combating naxalism.
(Since I do not have the stamina to write more than three paragraphs in one sitting, this shall be followed up by a second concluding piece tomorrow. Also, pardon the loquacity.)

Cartoon Politics

I don't like repeating my articles or publishing them retrospectively, but you have to indulge me this one time, and I would never bother unless I was convinced that the issue deserves far greater attention than it is currently being accorded in the national media-which it does, especially if you compare it with the initial outrage the issue had raised.
So the Thorat committee formed by the H.R.D. Ministry to look into certain 'objectionable' political cartoons in N.C.E.R.T. social science textbooks for class IX to XII has already submitted its report within forty-five days of its formation, which is an aberration in a polity where the setting-up of committees by the Union Government are almost always formed with a single-minded purpose: to serve as dilatory measures. In all likelihood, the H.R.D. Ministry will order the implementation of the report, which not only affirms the Ministry's stance on the seminal issue of concern(which I elaborate on further) but also further seeks the deletion of as many as twenty-two other cartoons from the N.C.E.R.T. Social Science textbooks for the Central Board of Secondary Education; in particular, the cartoons in the political science textbooks for Class XI and XII have been singled out for chastisement  This, ladies and gentlemen, is nothing short of preposterous. The cartoons that have so been construed as profane are purely vehicles of inclusive and constructive pedagogy, and there is not a scintilla in any of them that could possibly cause affront to any community in this beautifully diverse country. The only silver lining is that Mr. MS Pandian, a member of the committee formed under the chairmanship of SK Thorat(the President of the Indian Council of Social Science Research Institute) cared to add a note of dissension to the final copy of the report. However, despite my best efforts I have not been able to ascertain which twenty-two cartoons have further been removed, otherwise I would have given a rebuttal in defence of each of the cartoons in question. However, I had written a very impassioned(by admission) piece on the unsavoury incident which originally thrust the contentious issue into the limelight, and which can justifiably be called the casus belli for the formation of the aforementioned committee. The issue relates to a cartoon in the eleventh grade political science book in a chapter on the drafting of the constitution of India-a book that the writer happened to study for a year.
What follows is an essay from the 12th of May, 2012:

I don’t usually raise my voice on social issues of concern, not because I don’t have a view but simply because I believe there are people of much greater experience and calibre in the most consecrated of institutions in our democracy to discuss them: those sitting in Parliament. But I couldn’t allow myself to not speak up this time, simply because it is the outrageous behaviour of these very people that has caused a deep sense of anguish in me, and it is these actions I seek to excoriate. I believe it would amount to gross dereliction, as a student and as someone who is directly affected by the events, to not express my sense of indignation at the completely mindless act of protest by our parliamentarians on Friday, forcing parliament to be adjourned over an issue which is predicated on the most ridiculous of arguments, and I find it shocking that not one sane M.P. had the temerity to stand up against the despicable and uneducated behaviour of certain members.

The protest in parliament relates to a cartoon in the eleventh grade N.C.E.R.T. Political Science book on the slow and calibrated process that was the drafting of our constitution. The cartoon shows Dr. Ambedkar mounted on a snail (in trademark western attire), which is marked clearly in bold as the ‘CONSTITUTION’, holding the reins to the snail in one hand while carrying a crop in the other; an ostensible metaphor for his constant endeavour of completing the constitution on time.  Seen behind him is Pandit Nehru, also carrying a crop in his hand while the people of India look on. This is followed by a caption which talks of the “snail’s pace” at which the constitution was made.  The sole objective of the cartoon was to convey the difficulties that Babasaheb Ambedkar faced in his duty as chairman of the Drafting Committee; bringing together diverse shades of opinion that existed at the time; and giving expression to the ideals, aspirations and identities of every section in our incredibly dissimilar and diverse country. This is the obvious meaning of the cartoon and this was the meaning we interpreted while studying the book last year, and is the meaning all sound-minded students of our country have interpreted for the past six years, as is re-enforced by the fact that not one incident of antagonism on this cartoon has been reported since its introduction in 2006; but the good men sitting in parliament thought otherwise, and since they believe they have the absolute right to disrupt parliament whenever they want, they ensured that parliament was adjourned twice on the same day and that no serious business could be conducted. The obvious semantics of the cartoon would be apparent to any reasonable-minded student of political science, but unfortunately the MPs instead chose to interpret this as a belittlement of the great man that was Babasaheb Ambedkar, with reference to the fact that he was seated on a snail and being ‘whipped’ to work by Pandit Nehru.  It is ludicrous for one to accept their view that the cartoon is a symbol of dominance of one community over another, or even that it disparages Dr. Ambedkar’s role in drafting the constitution; or is derogatory to the community he belonged to.

The cartoon was made in 1949 by the celebrated cartoonist K. Shankara Pillai and it was adopted by the C.B.S.E for a greater contextual understanding of the text and it is the various cartoons in the book that provide respite from the monotony of the overly factual text, a view which I share with most of my class-mates.  Not once, as some of the parliamentarians fallaciously claim, has Dr. Ambedkar been as much as mildly criticized in the text in his role as the architect of our constitution. The chapter only talks about the formation of the constituent assembly, the challenges that came with writing a constitution, the various ideals and objectives behind it,  the affirmative role played by a few prominent leaders of the freedom struggle in it, and also a brief mention of why the drafting was such a laborious  and tardy process. It does not contain a letter which denigrates Babasheb’s great contribution or undermines his stature or the community he belongs to. It is at this point that I would like to quote the only sensible thing our H.R.D. minister said in Parliament, that Babasaheb’s contribution in the making of the constitution does not belong to any one community, but to the nation as a whole.

I feel ashamed that such intolerant and nescient individuals have been elected to parliament by the people of India; and I also feel insulted that my class-mates and I were considered as having the same divisive tendencies that some of the MP’s showcased on Friday. I am sure that if Dr. Ambedkar was alive to this day, he would take umbrage at the way certain MPs are behaving in the name of protecting his legacy.

The incident is also symptomatic of the growing intolerance in our country towards matters of academic interest, which certain elements consider as profane; as is evident in the issue of A.K. Ramanujan’s purportedly tendentious essay on the Ramayana being removed from the History course at Delhi University and this ongoing issue over the Ambedkar cartoon. What is also disheartening about this situation is that members chose to raise the issue during the budget session of parliament, and at a time when there are a number of vital legislations that need to be discussed and passed in this critical phase of our country’s history.

I am only seventeen years old, but I have a firm conviction that our society must measure each article of academic interest in terms of its effects on rational and thinking individuals, not on hyper-sensitive individuals who worship expediency.