Corruption in Orissa: Insightful input from Mr. Arun Kumar Upadhyay

If patriotism could be found in form of a man, that man may be anybody in India; but certainly is the one known as Arun Kumar Upadhyay. A brilliant officer of Indian Police Service, he has been enriching Indian culture with his scriptural interpretations and input on socio-philosophical evolution of Indian society; and is a perfect example of how best a conscious citizen could stay active after retiring from government service, specifically in matters of public interest.

He has responded to a posting in these pages on October 3 with input emanating from personal experiences as a top level Police Officer. From the comment section we prefer to bring the same to our main page in view of its insightful relevance to misrule that has afflicted Orissa in the present regime.

He has named certain senior most police officers for the first time in a deeply disturbing scenario of maladministration. Lest that escape attention in the minor area of comments, we confront the concerned officers with the same here with status of a focused independent post.

The officers/persons named by Mr. Upadhyay should respond to it with their explanations, if any.

It is a fit case also for the CBI to take cognizance of, as without finding out the whole gamut of what has created the climate of corruption that it is investigating into, it cannot reach a credible conclusion.

Here is what Mr. Upadhyay has said:

Most clever and complicated methods were designed to loot money without any record or responsibility. Many officers suspected of honesty were kept for long without work. But a parallel fake record was created to give them charge of accounts. Many other officers were given multiple charges, sometimes up to 15 posts-just for making money. For example, I was kept without work at State Police Academy from 2004 to 2011 under orders of Chief Minister taken on a note-sheet which was to be thrown away to avoid any future enquiry. But Office Order No.426/SPA dt.26.8.2003, O/O No.250 dt.22.6.04 of State Police Academy showed that I was in charge of all accounts. To use this scheme, Joint Secretary of Union Home Ministry Sri D S Mishra was brought to my room by sri B N Jha,DIG (Modernization) on 23-7-2005 to take my approval on purchase of 1100 automatic rifles costing Rs 18 crore for which CM had put proposal on 30-6-2004 in State Assembly. The note from Home Secretary Sri Santosh Kumar and speech of CM – both were just removed from Assembly records after details were published in Sambad dated 4 July 2004. I protested that I cannot be consulted without showing me a single official paper or purchase scheme since 2 years. A Proceeding was started by Santosh Kumar on proposal of Prakash Mishra on refusal to sign blind paper. The proceeding records also included a secret order of B B Mishra and Santosh Kumar in file to prevent me from any official work. So called 1100 automatic rifles came on 8-2-2008 at OMP store in Cuttack and all were sent to PTS Nayagarh having only 300 trainee constables – not of armed police. That file also should have come to me – but S Radhika and DGP Gopal Nanda – possibly my fake signature was taken or I was shown consulted. Only 10 rifles were sufficient for them. Within a week Sabyasachi Panda was called to loot on 14-2-2008 and next morning Gopal Nanda visited with Sampad Moahapatra, known for his link with Sabyasachi Panda. After 3 days, 100 old rifles were shown recovered. It was obvious that Sabyasachi Panda was used to loot fake purchase of 18 crores. So he had to kidnap DM Malkangiri and MLA Umerkot to get 50% Share. It is still secret, from which govt fund ransom money had been paid. If I sign purchase proposal, I would be arrested for fake purchase by Santosh Kumar, B B Mishra, Gopal Nanda etc under full knowledge of assembly and govt. If I refuse, result will be proceeding and remaining without duty for very long and without any pension on retirement. Even the next purchases as compensation in 15 and 18 crores never reached any battalion as per Spl AG Audit of March, 2011-Para 1.6.2 Scheme for modernization of Police Force – Though addressing LWE activities effectively was one of the key objectives of the State police in recent times, key performance indicators for measuring the operational efficiency of the police force was neither prescribed nor even attempted in the AAPs. Absence of key performance indicators as well as Perspective Plan made all purchases ad hoc and intuitive rather than scientific. Sophisticated weapons worth 14.80 crore were retained at the central arms store at Cuttack without issuing it to the field units, despite large scale shortages of such weapons up to 61 per cent in eight test checked districts, on the ground that trained manpower was not available. Ref-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120443912/CAG-Audit-of-Land-Acquisition-for-Projects-in-Odisha-2011

 

Advertisements

Naxals in Judicial Wisdom

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

“The poor and the deprived people revolt” when “manifest injustices of all forms perpetrated against the weak”, the Supreme Court of India had observed in what is famous as “Salwa Judam” judgment. It had held, “People do not take up arms, in an organized fashion, against the might of the State, or against fellow human beings without rhyme or reason. Guided by an instinct for survival, and according to Thomas Hobbes, a fear of lawlessness that is encoded in our collective conscience, we seek an order. However, when that order comes with the price of dehumanization, of manifest injustices of all forms perpetrated against the weak, the poor and the deprived people revolt… … …”

But the very same fellows who have never condemned Nathuram Godse for having cold-bloodedly murdered Mahatma Gandhi, while demanding death for killers of so-called Swami and Saraswati Laxmananand, whose acts of religious revivalism had breached communal harmony in Kandhamal in such acrimonious velocity that a mayhem had to get rid of him at the cost of peace and tranquility in that beloved land of tribal magnanimity, have been condemning the “the poor and the deprived people” when they “revolt’, their leadership that the Naxals/Maoists constitute.

Laxmananand’s extinguishment forms the crux of a Judicial Enquiry headed presently by a former Judge of Orissa High Court, Justice Naidu. Yet, the Godse admirers and their allies in the pro-rich administration – always eager to perpetrate State-terrorism on progressive people – are one in condemning the opponents of caste-divide in Hindu society in general and Orissa’s icon of modern revolution Sabyasachi Panda in particular, for the homicidal death of the Hindu sectarian leader who was executing a mission of conversion of vulnerable people from other religions to Hindu, oblivious of how Indian Constitution was being denuded of its spirit thereby, even though the commission of enquiry is yet to find out who really was responsible for the death of Laxmananand.
It may so happen, if the Commission of Enquiry acts without any bias, Justice Naidu, who has wanted Sabysachi Panda to be produced before him for study of his role, if any, in the murder and its environment he is inquiring into, may held Laxmananand responsible for his own death.

But, the Godseites have been trying to obstruct the process of free thinking of Justice Naidu by shrouding the Judicial Commission with clouds of libretto that the Naxala/Maoists are criminals.

Had it been so, people would never have punished Manmohan Singh

There was a Prime Minister of India in Manmohan Singh whose Americanism was so shamelessly anti-Nasxals that the people of India have avenged their ruin by throwing his party to such filthy depth of the dustbin of electoral politics that the Congress, despite all its cries before its party-planted President, has been rightly found too stoutly rejected by the people to claim the post of the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, had described the left revolutionaries as “left viruses”. People have punished him and the Congress for this nasty conduct, though in their anxiety to get rid of the Congress they had become so rash that they are yet to extricate themselves from another set-up of supporters of FDI in India, which the middleclass opportunists and ultra-high-rich combine, has brought into power in a climate of conglomeration of rich media and religious revivalism. Lest the Supreme Judiciary, known for its free thinking so far, becomes a hurdle, the new set-up has already taken steps to make it easier for the pro-rich elements entering into the high benches. Yet, it looks pertinent to see what the Naxals are in the wisdom of the supreme Judiciary.

In the eyes of the Supreme Judiciary

In trying to locate the reasons of the growth of Naxal movement, wherein tribal youths are conspicuous by their participation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in ‘Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh’ (AIR 2011 SC 2839), have noted: “Many of these tribal youngsters, on account of the violence perpetrated against them, or their kith and kin and others in the society in which they live, have already been dehumanized. To have feelings of deep rage, and hatred, and to suffer from the same is a continuation of the condition of dehumanization. The role of a responsible society, and those who claim to be concerned of their welfare, which the State is expected to under our Constitution, ought to be one of creating circumstances in which they could come back or at least tread the path towards normalcy, and a mitigation of their rage, hurt, and desires for vengeance” (Para 52).

At Para 71 the Court further observed, “As we remarked earlier, the fight against Maoist/Naxalite violence cannot be conducted purely as a mere law and order problem to be confronted by whatever means the State can muster. The primordial problem lies deep within the socio-economic policies pursued by the State on a society that was already endemically, and horrifically, suffering from gross inequalities”.

In the eyes of the Father of Indian Constitution

“We must remove the contradiction (this gross inequality) at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up”, Dr. Ambedkar, father of the Constitution had warned while replying to the last debates on the draft Constitution (Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume 8, p.279).

The Supreme Court, in their observation quoted above had to so observe, as the gross inequality between the Indians divided in two parts – the meager numbers of the rich and the massive numbers of the poor – instead of being removed, has become more savagely severe.

As Naxal/Maoist movement has grown against this background, agents of imperialism in power have made rigorous laws like Act No 15 of 2002 that equates the Naxal/Maoists with terrorist and applies the Act to them with retrospective effect.

But, by enactment of this act, the Supreme Court verdict cited supra is not denuded of its wisdom and Dr. Ambedkar’s words of their wise relevance.

Human conscience cannot be suppressed by Laws of Intimidation, whosoever in power frames and enforces them.

Revolutionaries were there, who brought us freedom.

Revolutionaries are there who dare State-terror to bring us emancipation.

Revolutionaries will be there, on whom shall depend people’s liberation from the yokes of exploitation.

And, in true judicial wisdom, not the exploiters, but the ones suffering for saving the people from exploitation, shall always have the right place of importance.

Therefore, despite draconian Laws equating politico-economic revolutionaries with cross-border and communal terrorists, in Judicial wisdom, as per Justice K. S. Ahluwallia of Calcutta High Court. “Naxalism or Maoism is a political movement wedded to violence and the participants thereof are political offenders”, not criminals.

Interpretation of Laws in various Courts by various Judges may differ, but judicial wisdom uttered in cases of politico-economic relevance, such as the ‘Salwa Judam’ and ‘Political prisoners’ cases, cannot be viewed as anything but expressed wisdom in matter of social and politico-economic developmental perspective.

One is to decide how to read between the lines.

Sabyasachi Panda: crime under colonial definition is no crime per se

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Reacting on my posting of July 24, captioned ‘Mili Panda hopes situation shall not be created for creation of many Sabyasachis’, a very dear and close relation of mine, Sriman Hari Prasad Patnaik has postedhis views in social media Face Book. I quote the relevant portion: “………….every criminal’s kith and kin will always vouch for the criminal’s innocence and his/her pious and oh so clean way of life. That is a natural reaction. So I doubt whether we should take Mili Panda’s statement to be the gospel truth”.

Even as I appreciate these words, which, to me, are born out of Hari Prasad’s aversion to violence, I would like to say, revolutionaries like Sabyasachi Panda cannot be termed as criminals. There are many discussions going on, specifically by the elites, in the media, wherein Sabyasachi is being projected as a criminal. Certain activities attributed to him by the police connotes to crime as defined in the IPC that the British had promulgated to suppress Indian voices against exploitation. But there is reason to differ with what the IPC has defined as crime.

Be it appreciated that every crime is an outcome of a crime that generates a cause for the crime. As criminology holds it, no activity that looks like a crime is a crime, if criminal intention is not present.

So, every crime is not to be treated as one.

There is vast difference between crime that gives birth to consequential crime and crime that takes place consequent upon a crime.

Difference between crime and crime

Thus crime is not similar on all occasions. This dissimilarity makes crime viewed differently. And this difference is based on two different basic patterns: Generating Crime that gives birth to a consequential crime and Generated Crime, which is the product of a crime that generates situation for its perpetration. Therefore, crimes are of two distinctly different patterns.

Crime with criminal intention belongs to the first pattern and consequential crime belongs to the second pattern.

For example, when a trader hoards essential commodities, he does it with criminal intention to fetch more profit in the black market. So, hoarding is a crime of the first pattern.

Watching the plight of consumers, a conscious person intervenes and asks the hoarder to release the commodities, which is not heeded to by the hoarder, who continues increasing his personal wealth with massive profit from the black market with the state machinery in his pocket. Time comes, when the protester deems it proper to get the society rid of the hoarder in a way matching the armed protection given to him by his Patron State. Here his action, in terms of IPC, may be defined as a crime; but in reality, there is no criminal intention behind this crime. This crime is of the second pattern.

Violent action of a person affected by black market, against the hoarder may look like a crime under the colonial definition of crime,  but in reality, it is consequential to the crime perpetrated by the hoarder under protection of the State, which fellows of his like control.  Thus,  hoarding is the Generating Crime and consequential protests against hoarding, even if that causes bloodshed, are Generated Crime.

Sabyasachi Panda’s crime, if any, is Generated Crime, not Generating Crime. So, he is not a criminal.

Moreover his action, even if violent, is no crime with criminal intention against the society.

Had there been no State-terror, had the State not stood with the exploiters, I believe, highly gifted persons like Sabysachi Panda, entirely dedicated to the cause of the toiling masses, would never have chosen the violent path.

Kalinga Nagar Massacre

To understand the difference between Generating Crime and Generated Crime in a better way, conduct of Tata industry in Kalinga Nagar and revolt of tribal people of the locality vis-à-vis the bloody role the State played in support of Tata on January 2, 2006 may be of guiding help.

Look at any industry, the same scenario will speak aloud about how protesters against exploitation and destruction of their living environment are being branded as criminals by the police state, even though their actions are mere reactions to Generating Crime that the wealthy class perpetrates.

Shikara of Bhagabati Panigrahi

Crux of this phenomenon was most ably dealt with in the epoch making story ‘Shikara’ of Bhagabati Panigrahi , father of progressive literature in Orissa. I would like to transform an excerpt from this story to first person narration while roughly translating the same into English.

The hero of the story is Ghinua, an innocent forest dweller, who, tortured by a wealthy man namely Gobind Sardar, had beheaded him sans any qualms. He had narrated the reason of his action in his deposition in the court. And, the court had given him death sentence for the crime of murder. Till execution of the death sentence, he had not known the meaning of murder.

Please mark, what he had told the court, which, as I have already said, I am converting here into first person dialogue from Bhagabati’s narration for better understanding.

He had said to the Court, “I had to overcome a lot of difficulties in cutting off Gobind Sardar’s head. Many more persons were trying to kill him, but none of them had succeeded, as Gobind Sardar was always moving in a motor vehicle. He had accumulated wealth by looting everybody. He was personification of a great Satan. One cannot describe how many persons he had killed, how many persons he had ruined, how many women he had raped. He had taken away my landed properties in similar sinister manner. That evening he had even attempted to rape my wife. How dared he! He was fleeing in the motor vehicle on seeing me. He was trying to escape. I immobilized his vehicle by shooting my arrow to its tire. Then I chopped off his head and sped up to the Deputy Commissioner’s bungalow covering 30 miles through the dense forest in the night (with the full confidence that I will be rewarded sumptuously for having killed a man more dreaded than a tiger)”.

Photo copy of the paragraph from the printed story ‘Shikara’ is given below.

when Ghinua was held a criminal
Every reader of this epoch making story knows that, Ghinua had rushed to the Deputy Commissioner in hope of larger amount of reward than what he had received on previous occasions on killing Mahabala Bagha (Orissa’s tiger of massive strength) as to him, Gobinda Sardar was more savage than the tigers he had earlier killed. Instead of rewarding him for killing a man more sinister and menacing than a Mahabala Bagha, the British law had found him guilty of homicide and had given him death sentence for the crime.

Is there anybody in the world who really holds Ghinua a criminal? No, never.

He was totally innocent. His action was not a crime, but just a reaction to the unbearable crimes perpetrated by wealth accumulator and debauch – the real criminal, whom administration had never prosecuted – Gobinda Sardar.

Therefore, he is, and will remain forever the trendsetter of active action against exploitation and foul play of the criminals in power.

To sane minds, Ghinua is not a criminal, because what the law of the tyrant State defines as his crime, was nothing but a reaction to the heinous crimes the wealthy man Gobinda Sardar was in habit of perpetrating with the administrative machinery in his pocket.

Sabyasachi Panda and suchlike users of weapons against Gobinda Sardars of today are nothing but Ghinuas in modern forms, whose commitment to the cause of the helpless poor and voiceless toiling human beings has landed them in the labyrinth of the colonial law where the elite class is branding them as criminals.

Beyond the limits of this colonial Law and in the realm of romance of sacrifice and suffering for the poor, helpless, and voiceless brethren, they are the beacon lights that shall never fade.

So, what Ms. Mili Panda has told of her husband, cannot be in limine rejected. The colonial definition of crime needs be amended, as most of what gets projected as crime is no crime per se.

Mili Panda hopes situation shall not be created for creation of many Sabyasachis

It is wrong to say, with arrest of Sabyasachi Panda Maoism gets extinguished in Orissa, said Ms. Mili Panda, wife of the co-founder of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) Sabysachi Panda, presently facing police interrogation, having been remanded to police custody after his arrest on July 18.

Participating in a local TV channel interview, she said this evening that, her husband’s revolutionary sacrifices will not be allowed to be tarnished by cooked up allegations. His path is a radical political path adopted out of love and concern for the people, who are imperiled by misgovernance and governmental apathy. As far as she knows him, she has reason to believe that he is being implicated for offenses he has not committed, she said.

Refusing to be sidetracked over alleged recovery of gold from his possession, Ms. Panda termed the allegation irresponsible. It is sad that a man who lives only with a pair of dresses, and has knowingly endangered his own life in pursuing a dream for emancipation of the poor toiling masses, is being subjected to concocted innuendos. “Gold possession and Sabyasachi Panda are poles apart and as his wife, I vouch for that”, she said.

Ms. Panda is known for her eagerness to see her husband in mainstream politics. She expressed happiness over her husband’s arrest, because therewith prospects for him shunning acrimonious radicalism and joining the mainstream may open up.

His radicalism being born out of total compassion for the voiceless poor, the State should treat him with sympathy and regard a revolutionary deserves, as otherwise, the situation shall give birth to many Sabyasachis, she warned.

Sabyasachi’s arrest is no arrest of Maoism

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
Maoism is a political concept that wants elimination of socio-economic inequality and is considered aggressive voice against exploitation of the voiceless. There is a striking similarity between the Maoists  and the State in dealing with the enemies. The State uses weapons sans any qualms to save the land from geographical aggression in the process of which arrest and death may hit any of the soldiers; Maoists use weapons without qualms, as and when necessary, to save the people from economic exploitation in the process of which they dare the jails and death. Therefore, people, who never subscribe to violence, regard the Maoists as political sentinels. So, arrest or elimination of any of them would not lead to arrest of Maoism, exactly as patriotism never declines or dies when a soldier of India gets captured or killed by the enemy on the border.

Therefore, Sabyasachi Panda’s arrest has ignited massive mass attention.

The so-called mainstream media as a whole is busy in projecting his arrest as a great victory for the State, when religious bigots that support societal inequality have started asking the judiciary to exterminate him through capital punishment. The Chief Minister has put his praise for the Police over his arrest on records in the Assembly, and ruling party backbenchers have taken the opportunity to show how active are they, by hurling abusive innuendos at the leader of opposition whose response to the CM’s statement was that, instead of celebrating Sabyasachi’s arrest, the State Government should concentrate on irradiation of poverty, the issue that had given the arrested Maoist leader his mission and strength, though the way of violence that he had allegedly adopted was inappropriate in the eyes of law.

We congratulate the leader of opposition Hon’ble Narasingha Mishra for his wise words that only a conscience keeper of the people could have told the Assembly.

We recall how eminent persons from various streams, known better for their allegiance to  Gandhism, such as Smt. Annapurna Maharana (Cuttack), Smt. Sumitra Choudhury (Cuttack), Smt. Krushna Mohanty (Anugul),Sri Rabi Roy (Cuttack), Md. Baji (Nawarangpur), Sri Ratan Das (Gunupur), Sri Bhabani Charan Patnaik (Bhubaneswar), Dr. Bhagaban Prakask (New Delhi) and Prof. Radhamohan (Bhubaneswar), while appealing him in October 2012 to shun violence, had put on records their high appreciation for his exemplary fight to emancipate the wretchedly poor and Dalit people of the State.

By arresting him, the cause he stands for cannot be curbed. Maoism cannot be arrested.

As we have seen, it is the Maoists ,who, by their aggressive stance, make the capitalist governments provide funds for welfare of the poorest of the poor, as seen in allocation of special and dedicated funds for the Maoist dominated districts by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to whom the Maoists were “left viruses”.

Had there been no Sabyasachis, there would never have evolved welfare schemes like the NREGA. Let me quote a 2010 BBC report to show how these schemes are generated by Maoist activism. It had highlighted what an executive of the scheme had said in these words: “NREGA is the only way forward to take on the Maoists. This is nothing about winning hearts and minds. Its only about giving people work before the rebels come in and convince them that they are a better option than the state”.

Against this backdrop, Sabyasachian issue needs impassioned analysis and recognition as a political issue. His crimes, as alleged, deserve to be defined as political crimes.

True, the police have instituted many cases against him. But, Police cases do not make him a criminal.

Police in the eyes of the Supreme Court

According to the Supreme Court of India, vide Judgment delivered on July 2, 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014, “the Police has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence; it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public”.

There was not a single freedom fighter including Gandhiji, whom the Police had not projected as criminals and not prosecuted for violence and sedition. That “colonial image” of police, according to Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose of the Supreme Court of India, as quoted above, “has not” changed “despite six decades of independence”.
The media must take note of this.

And, Media …….

Instead of boasting of mainstream tag, the media should adhere to professional ethics, and media persons, instead of acting mindless orchestrators, should refuse to dance to the tune of the media-owning class in denigrating Sabyasachi and the patriotic public should refuse to be swayed away by the versions of administration, which the compradors mostly control; and leave the issue to impartial wisdom of the Judiciary only. And, the Judiciary should ensure that Sabyasachi is not mistreated by the police when in custody, as many apprehend.

India has already experienced

Rare are the persons who suffer for the cause of the victims of socio-economic exploitation and inequality. And for every society, way to emancipation is not paved only by non-violence, as India has already experienced in her struggle for freedom. Maoism shall not be stymied by arrest of Sabyasachi and suchlike; it can end only when the State ends socio-economiv inequality. Two steps are urgent in this regard. One, elimination of caste-supremacism ; and, two, imposition of ceiling on private wealth with retrospective effect to tally with the land ceiling, Indian farmers have been subjected to.

Sabyasachian Violence is the same as Gandhian Non-Violence in the Struggle for Emancipation

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

[Sabyasachi Panda projects himself and is projected by others as a Maoist. I will, in this article, deliberately discard the words – Maoist and Maoism; because use of the name of Mao in any emancipating movement of our people would be an affront to self-respect of India in view of the blatant breach of our trust and the bloody war he had subjected us to in 1962. When radicals amongst the Communists had emerged as Naxals, the right-wing media had deliberately coined the words Maoism for Naxalism, to create a situation for the people of India to look at them askance, because of the impact of the natural aversion to Mao, so that the radicals would stay far from being acceptable to majority of Indians in the psycho-political environment. Some radicals failed to grasp this mischief and misguidedly projected themselves as Maoists. The result is: their spread is stunted. I will, therefore, in this article, use the words ‘radical Communist’ in place of ‘Maoist’ and ‘radical Communism’ in place of ‘Maoism’ and mention Sabyasachi as a symbol of radicalism.]

A very odd prerequisite

In seeking a solution to social unrest as perceived by them, nine known persons of Orissa, not all Gandhians but projected as such, have appealed radical Communist leader Sabyasachi Panda to shun violence so that they can influence the State to fulfill whatever demands he has for the Dalits and exploited people.

When the signatories are: Smt. Annapurna Maharana (Cuttack), Smt. Sumitra Choudhury (Cuttack), Smt. Krushna Mohanty (Anugul),Sri Rabi Roy (Cuttack), Md. Baji (Nawarangpur), Sri Ratan Das (Gunupur), Sri Bhabani Charan Patnaik (Bhubaneswar), Dr. Bhagaban Prakask (New Delhi) and Prof. Radhamohan (Bhubaneswar), here is the crux of their statement in its original form:

Roughly translated into English it says: We shall raise strong demands before the government for fulfillment of whatever demands you have for the Dalits and the exploited, if you and your associates accept our request to shun violent ways.

If anything, this is naked hypocrisy; because, if these ladies and gentlemen feel that there is justification in Sabyasachi’s demands for the Dalits and exploited people, why are they waiting for him to surrender? Why do they make his surrender a prerequisite to their taking up the cause of the oppressed Dalits and the exploited wretched? Why are they shying at the reality that persons like them staying silent spectators to the oppression and exploitation perpetrated and perpetuated by the State and the State-pampered / protected profit-mongers, compradors, socio-economic offenders, and looters of natural resources, is responsible for persons like Sabyasachi taking up arms at the risk to their own lives? Their admitted reluctance to press the Government for stoppage of oppression and exploitation of the Dalits and the wretched people till Sabyasachi and his associates shun violence is certainly not indicative of their genuine concern.

I do not know Sabyasachi or any of his associates personally. But perceptibly, they are using violence against official violence as a method of elimination of fear from the oppressed poor as they want end of economic inequality / social exploitation / loss of living environment / loot of natural resources / enforced displacement at the behest of private profit-mongers / lack of administrative concern for their human rights. Judging them by the yardstick of Gandhian non-violence, as is evidenced in the appeal-statement of the above named nine signatories, is misjudging Gandhi himself.

Gandhi would have preferred the violent way

Had Gandhiji been alive today, he would have certainly preferred violence to what the so-called Gandhians have been projecting as non-violence.

Every age has its own meaning for terms used in politics in specific situations. What non-violence meant in Gandhian terminology, is exactly what violence is meaning in Sabysachian terminology.

There is no difference between Gandhian non-violence and Sabyasachian violence; because both the phenomena are felt in the impact thereof in evolution of fearlessness amongst the oppressed people against the power of oppression. So, condemning Sabyasachian violence in the present context of India is also the same as condemning Gandhian non-violence in the context of pre-independence India.

Gandhi on violence

In writing in Young India on 11 August 1920 on The Doctrine of the Sword, Gandhiji dwelt on justification of violence in compelling conditions. “I do believe that where there is only one choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence” (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol XVIII, p.132). “Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence”, he has said at the same time. “I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should be in a cowardly manner become and remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor” (Ibid). He has admitted with absolute honesty that whoever resorts to violent ways to save the countrymen from oppression is also a Mahatma (high-souled person). He has unambiguously noted, “The high-souled men, who are unable to suffer national humiliation any longer, will want to vent their wrath. They will take to violence” (Ibid).

Violence begets violence

Had the State not been acting violently against opponents to exploitation, people having succeeded in fetching political freedom under greater influence of non-violent method of Gandhiji, would not have thought of preferring violence to non-violence after so many decades of independence.

Significance

However it has its own significance.

Gandhiji had used non-violence to wipe out fear from the minds of the subjects of the British raj in their fight for political independence; and now the radical Communists are using violence to eliminate the accumulated fear from the minds of the people oppressed under the corporate raj in their fight for economic emancipation. Both the methods are the same in aim and similar in purpose and befitting to their respective age and condemnation of the radical Communists’ violence in Capitalist India is not different from condemnation of Gandhian non-violence in British India.

Independent India has been, sadly, siding with the capitalists and their monstrous exploitation. As long as the State uses violent methods to protect the exploiters, the victims of exploitation will naturally continue to react violently. Because, responding violently to violence is not unnatural.

The radical Communists and their method might just be contributing a philosophical support to people’s revolt against exploitation; but radical Communism is not by itself the sole definition of people’s disposition in meeting the State-led oppression and hence it is not the generator of violence that people adopt to retort the violence perpetrated by the State.

So, even if Sabyasachi switches over to Gandhian non-violence, as the appeal in question insists, it would not stop the people going violent against violent conduct of the State.

So what is the solution?

The solution

Solution lies not in converting any radical Communist to Gandhian non-violence, but in defeating plutocracy that has replaced democracy in India under cover of non-violence.

Plutocracy cannot be defeated by the so-called mainstream politics that endorses State-led violence but wants the victims thereof to stay non-violent.

Removal of plutocracy and restoration of democracy depends on class warfare and calls for people emerging fearless against the oppressive State in this war.

In this war, Sabyasachi appears to have stood so far with the poor and oppressed class that has declared “enough is enough”.

Whether or not he and/or the radical Communists in our land epitomize the ideal they vouch, is not known to me as yet. But what I know is that, these activists have made a tremendous contribution to evolution of fearlessness amongst the wretched and the exploited people against the oppressive system.

Any attempt to urge the radical Communists to renounce arms is clearly taking a position against the oppressed people who want to gnaw down the design of the rich, in their struggle for emancipation.

Case Against Mili Panda Rejected As Unproved

Shubhasree @ Mili Panda, wife of revolutionary Sabyasachi Panda, whom, despite nullification of cognizance against her in a court at Banpur by the High Court of Orissa, the State administration had denied fresh air and kept hostage under the guise of a cooked up case in Gunupur, has been release on Tuesday as the prosecution could not produce any evidence in support of its accusation.

Coming out of the jail, Ms. Panda has exposed the inhuman condition prevailing in the prisons. The government is not keeping them useable for human beings. If any funds for repair or maintenance might have ever come, it must have been misappropriated, she has remarked.

Proud wife of a revolutionary, she has no grief over her husband’s underground condition. “He is a very good man, addressed to well-being of people and protection of their interest from the clutches of the corporates and exploiters and has willingly adopted the path of suffering for the silent majority. I am proud of him”, she has said.

She informed that despite the court oder, she does not feel safe as the administration has obtained yet another warrant of arrest from another court to continue its repression, in order to force her husband surrender.

The Supreme Court of India, in an order on 23 March 2012, has served a notice on the State government seeking answer within eight weeks as to why should it not be asked to compensate her for illegal detention.