The ?Uncivil Activism? of Maoists

In a true Constitutional Democracy, the definition and consequences of the unlawful activity are the same, and there cannot be double standards about the same. In Maharashtra, two different set of police teams arrested members associated with two different ideological groups. As per the Rule of Law, both of them, if found guilty in the Court, should face the consequences, irrespective of their ideological positions. Not very surprisingly, the reactions to both these arrests are not just different but exposing the faces of many hypocrites.

When the Maharashtra ATS arrested some activists allegedly associated with Sanatan Sanstha, the immediate ranting of ‘Hindu Right Wing’ was started by a section of media, intellectuals and political activists. Whether Sanatan Sanstha believes in the real Hindu Dharma or not is a matter of contention, so is the issue of banning the controversial organisation. It should take place in a democracy. But when the same set of people immediately ganged up to defend the activists, lawyers and intellectuals propagating and practising the already banned outfit, Communist Party of India (Maoist), then it is nothing but the intellectual fraud and hypocrisy. The real question is about the ecosystem that we have inherited since independence that not just defends the people and organisations waging war against Bharat and intending to overthrow the Constitution through the violent revolution in the name of civil rights.

Mao Tse Tung, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, who is inspiring the Maoists of Bharat, has proposed the three Phased Theory of Revolutionary War: 1. Organisation, consolidation and preservation of base areas; 2. Progressive expansion by terror and attacks on isolated enemy units to obtain arms, supplies and political support and 3. Decision or destruction of the enemy in battle. With these principles, Mao crushed the idea of ‘dissent and democracy’in every sense, brutally killed many people in China, tried to annihilate the ancient civilisation and established the one-party rule. The Maoist intellectuals who are under scanner have openly accepted their commitment to these principles and consistently providing intellectual and legal cover to the revolutionary activities on the ground. Whether they are also involved in abetting Maoism through being links for the arms supply and inciting violence are the only issues to be tested in the court of law.

We should not forget that none of the peasants or tribals fighting on the ground know anything about Mao or Marx. Their issues are different and should be addressed at the societal and Governmental levels. But right from the early days of Telangana Movement, via Naxalbari movement in Bengal to present phase of terrorist activities in Bastar, the so-called intellectual hegemons, residing in the urban centres and enjoying all facilities of the State, have used the sentiments of farmers and tribals for furthering the Maoist ideology. Their parallel governments are proved to be more anti-democratic and violent. The over-ground intellectuals are the backbone of this extortionist, exploitative and anti-Bharat industry called ‘revolution’.

Though Congress under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi is conveniently changing the position on the Maoist outfits, the CPI (Maoist) as an organisation was banned during the Congress-led UPA-Government in June 2009, after the dreadful attack on the contingent of Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh. It is also on record that Dr Manmohan Singh had identified ‘Left Wing Extremism’ as the biggest internal security threat for Bharat, while the then Home Minister had openly stated that the Intellectual support stands in the way of tackling Maoists. Earlier also many of them were arrested on various grounds, but their ‘intelligent and tacit’ activities could be proved as unlawful in the Court. Now the Narendra Modi led NDA Government has dared to nail these intellectual supporters and real trigger holders of the Maoist ideology. Instead of getting carried away by the fraudulent rant of ‘action against the civil-rights activists’, who do not believe in democracy and the civil-rights provided by our Constitution, we must stand by this action as per the law.