Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Some thoughts on the Naxal movement in India, I : Separating the tribal from the Naxal

Let's start with the obliteration of the mainstream prejudice that Naxals are a threat. Though in fact, this statement in itself is ambiguous- threat to what exactly? The present governmental system, the idea of India as a nation-State, or the socialist-liberal ideological setup? But for the moment, let's just leave aside any such considerations, and look  at the Naxal movement from a very neutral point, from the eyes of someone who has just begun its study and is therefore incapable of drawing conclusions with regard to its nature in the present state.
That being said, one of the most striking features of the Naxal movement is that the movement centres around the tribal community and their rights. Essentially the realisation of these rights under the Naxal movement is sought to be achieved largely via communist routes. A look at the history of the Naxal movement will tell us that it was organised and channelised mostly by political parties of the communist outlook, which, in all political correctness, appalled by the socio-economic, cultural(?) injustice prevalent in the society, hoped to bring a 'democratic regime' in India. Concentrating specifically on the tribal communities, which seemed especially piqued by the post-independence setup-the channelisation of these groups began, to achieve the India of dreams, so to say.

But whose dreams? There are actually two questions to ask here- First, was this the India everyone, specifically, the tribals here, were dreaming of? Second, did the tribal dream even have an India? I intend to focus here upon the latter and the more basic of these two questions. This question essentially entails asking what was/ has been the thing which tribals have been aspiring for? Thus, I'm implicitly but pertinently distinguishing the Naxal movement from the 'tribal  movement' (for the lack of other appropriate term.) But I also intend to find out where these two do find a common ground and converge.

The starting point of most recent tribal protest which is often also thought to be the beginning point of Naxal movement is 2 March 1967, when local landlords attacked a tribal youth as he was going to plough his land after obtaining a judicial order in the now famous Naxalbari village of WB. The attack led to retaliation by tribals which left 9 tribals and 1 police sub-inspector dead. It's to be noted here that the dispute was basically agrarian and/or feudal. An infight between tribals and landlords, where the former wanted control over land portions, while the latter didn't want to give it up. 
It is actually interesting to note that there's a long history of disputes of this nature in India, since atleast colonial times, when the diku-adivasi infighting and rivalry with regard to land is pretty evident. A tribal village functioned under the Mandali system (atleast in the Jungle Mahal area) whereby the Mandal head encouraged cultivation of waste lands under him- which were granted to the tribals. Gradually though, among other factors, with the increasing pressure of revenue collection by the British government (so much so that there was actually a commercial British Zamindari company in the area called the MZC or Midnapore Zamindari Company, which made its profits solely via revenue collection), the ancient rights of tribals increasingly started to be ignored. Mandal heads concentrated on profits- arbitrary taking away of land from tribals, and restriction upon gathering of forest produce became common. That's when tribal resistance to such instances began developing. (Refer Santal History from the Jungle Mahals). So essentially it was a fight for land, again. 

The 'problem' with tribal community was/is that they had little notion of the concept of State. They'd hardly experienced the full thrust of Mughal rule, and the craze of revenue collection in colonial times, to say the least, bewildered them. It escaped them how ancient tribal rights like those relating to forest produce collection and pasture lands could be regulated by State. For them these were communal rights- non-derogable rights possessed by them by mere virtue of being an adivasi. The notion of individual property which came with the State's claim of propriety over forests, pastures and other tribal lands, kinda escaped them. Thus the tribal resistance has always been fixated upon the restoration of these communal rights back to the tribal people. This, in tribal eyes, is justice for them.

Now let's contrast this with the Naxal movement, which, if one can put it this way, thinks in wider terms.First, it thinks in terms of 'wider justice' to the tribals.  Second, it thinks in terms of this 'wider justice' to tribals implying a better India. In fact, these two ideas are largely inter-related, and I won't say that the second is an implication of the first or vice-versa, i.e. there's no cause-effect relationship between them. 

The tribals, they are not thinking in terms of India and its development- they are just thinking of tribal communal rights. And tribal communal rights, for them, are not a means to the end of a better State. The achievement of these rights for them is the end itself. And in fact, tribal communal rights and India (as a State) and its interests come largely into conflict, for the very idea (root of existence) of State is based upon the idea of individual property: this means State is essentially seen as an individual with a right to own property. Further, the authority of the State as an individual is implied from its sovereignty. This means that if the existence of the State is threatened, almost every right (here 'right' as understood in the common sense of word, Right to freedom of speech, free movement, Life, etc.) is derogable by the State, as is proved by the exclusion clauses to the same effect of the various international conventions on human rights today. (eg. ICCPR, ICESCR, Geneva Conventions, etc.) (interestingly, this implies that the State as an individual has superior rights than other individuals.)

Now if communal property is directly opposed to notion of individual property, it brings it into direct conflict with the concept of State. An example of this may be cited in revenue collection. (upon which I hope to expound later.) So the State as an institution itself is likely to threatened by tribal movement.
The threat of the Naxal movement is different, and is concerned with a particular State set-up only. The Naxal movement is openly critical of the capitalist State and liberal values. In contrast the tribal movement is implicitly critical of the institution of State in itself. [..thus dubbing tribal movement as subaltern, and Naxal movement as elite, as per the understandings of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Dipesh Chakrabarty]

The difference between Naxal and tribal movement, thus being established, the next step becomes to find out, when the State says, 'we need to counter Naxalites and Maoist insurgency,' what is it really referring to? The Naxal movement, or the tribal movement? Or both? And if both- is it referring to both of them separately, as in on the separate grounds as clarified above, or do Naxal and tribal movement indeed have a common ground of convergence somewhere?


DISCLAIMER: When i use 'tribals' in this post (and in subsequent ones relating to this theme), I do not mean an actual person from the tribal community. I'm rather referring to a concept understood as the tribal. Same goes with 'Naxal'/'Naxalite', whereby I don't mean to refer to an actual person from the movement, but rather to the idea or concept. Actual persons, in my opinion, are never made of one single idea. So a real person might incorporate both tribal and Naxal notions together in himself.


Tweet This