Non-alignment with violence

By S. G. Vombatkere
06 Apr 2010

As war between Maoists and government forces intensify, it is not a crime to underscore the futility of violent methods to agitate and to curb agitations.

Between the violent paths chosen by the State and the Maoists,
there lies a non-violent option
In a charge sheet against Kobad Gandhi produced by the Delhi Police in the Tees Hazari Courts, New Delhi, on 18 February 2010, besides naming few individuals, some organizations like People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) are named. It is quite strange that governments treat members of PUCL and PUDR as members, collaborators or sympathisers of Maoist, Naxalite or other militant groups.

This possibility needs to be examined in terms of whether it is possible for a socially responsible position to exist, which supports neither the militancy of certain groups of people, nor the government response to militancy with the use of police and military fire-power.

It cannot be ignored that a high-power committee set up in 2006 by the Planning Commission of India, ascribed growing Naxalism to people's discontent and failure of governance, and showed a direct relationship between extremism and poverty. It also recommended that "public purpose" for land acquisition should be limited to national security and public welfare. Clearly, that opinion and recommendation have found a place in the capacious waste bins of government, because the RR Bill and the LA Amendment Bill do not reflect those concerns.

It is well known that the lands and forests occupied peacefully by tribal people are rich in minerals and that MNCs have an eye on exploiting that mineral wealth. At the same time, that exploitation, willy-nilly combined with exploitation of the occupant tribal people through their forced displacement, adds to the nation's GDP, and puts India on a 'growth path' to become a "regional superpower". Forceful displacement and exploitation is nothing but economic violence being wrought upon hapless tribal people.

It is pertinent to note that while there are no official figures, Dr. Walter Fernandes, a noted scholar, gives some idea of the magnitude of displacement. He indicates that between 1947 and 2004, about 60 million people were displaced forcibly and 40% of them are people of the Scheduled Tribes. Compared to 50 million Africans displaced over 200 years by slave-trading Europeans, 60 million Indians displaced in 59 years and that too within and by an independent, democratic nation in the name of development, is shameful beyond description.

Violence begets violence. When governments wreak economic violence upon people by displacing them for industrial projects causing loss of land and livelihood, they cannot resist or respond with economic force since they have none. They protest, agitate, demonstrate and physically resist the occupation of their land by the industry. These protests do turn violent when their point of view is not properly considered or even heard. Whether the protesters or the police started the physical violence, the first cause is economic violence by government that has led to the situation.

The perpetrators of economic violence are primarily corporate interests which have enormous and proximate influence in the highest levels of governments. These interests ensure that they receive official go-ahead for their projects which, in almost all cases, involve the acquisition of land for a "public purpose", land on which poor and marginalized people subsist. These project-affected families (PAFs) have little or no means to argue or represent their case in the corridors of a geographically distant and corporate-favouring government. It is commonly observed that elected representatives, whether or not they are from the ruling party in government, rarely if ever take up the cause of PAFs. In recent times PAFs have been frequently led by some educated members of their group or by intellectuals motivated by notions of social justice or human rights.

However, the involvement of intellectuals is not only for PAFs, but extends to social or physical violence by "upper castes" against dalits, atrocities against women, attacks on religious communities, child-exploitation, etc., under the rubric of human rights or civil liberties. There are organizations that have been formed to uphold and protect the constitutional rights and privileges of all sections of people, especially human rights and civil liberties. These organizations have been formed under the constitutionally granted right of freedom of speech and expression and freedom to form association under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) respectively, and they function under the constitutionally prescribed fundamental duties under Article 51A(e) to promote harmony and Article 51A(i) to abjure violence.


Gandhiji preached and practiced non-violence and is recognized internationally as its apostle. He demonstrated ahimsa by example in his personal life, with the conviction and courage of truth (satya), often through satyagraha. He did not restrict his idea of ahimsa to the physical plane but generalized it to other spheres including the economic and political. In today's India there are people who, though they may not be followers of Gandhiji's doctrine of ahimsa, believe that violence is wrong and counter-productive. And they speak against all forms of violence - social, economic, environmental, political, physical - since ultimately it is the weak who are the victims.

It is unfortunate that governments do not understand the oft-repeated position of human rights and other social activists, that standing against violence does not mean sympathy with or support for militant groups, that there is a third position which is equidistant from both sides of the conflict, and that the position of "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" is deeply flawed in the common law and social senses.

Equally unfortunate, speaking against violence and in favour of peaceful negotiations is interpreted by government as opinions of misguided peaceniks at best, or as overt or clandestine collaboration with militants. Today, governments are openly adopting policies of up-scaling police and military fire-power based on intelligence using the latest hi-tech from the military-industrial complexes of the world.

In matters such as the militancy and terrorism that are presently rife, many people fear that governments' policy that militancy (caused by decades-long neglect and misgovernance) should be crushed by the use of police and military firepower, will make presently bad situations worse. Such people take the so-called third position, standing apart from the "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" position, and in favour of peace and harmony.

Naturally, the third position is all about finding solutions of the problems within constitutional framework and with non-violent and peaceful negotiations. But as casualties from both sides rise in the ongoing operations, voices for peace will get obscured under the cacophony of gun battles.