Public verses Personal : issues of ethics in our political life

Ethics and morality in public life: need for cultural revolution in India

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat



My last article evoked sharp reactions as some felt that personal matters should remain personal and we should discuss the professional issues of an individual and should not indulge in peeping into the personal affairs of people. I would like to reiterate that by talking about double standards in our life, I am not poking my nose in the personal affairs of individuals. In fact, in a country where privacy is an issue we all love to hate and all of us want to peep into the bed rooms of people, the article written by me had in no way any connotation to that. My only meaning was that the principals which we talk in public must be the same at home. It does not mean that we can not educate our children and can not send them to better schools. It does not mean that if our children work contrary to our beliefs then our ‘upbringing’ to them was wrong. The choice of individuals and freedom to dissent is an important point of modern democratic value system and not historical traditional culture values which we romanticize. It means that those supporting primitive values of traditional hierarchies, parents are responsible for their children. For them, our karmas are responsible for our present being. Hence, if we believe in that principal of Karma, then it is difficult for us to rationalize our argument. Hence, there is no issue whether our children go to foreign universities or not. It only means that when we send our wards to private schools and English medium schools then in our public opinion we can also feel that every one wants to do that and that learning English is the desire of our students. It means that all of us want best educational institutions whether by government or foreigners. It means that any foreign link up is not that bad in practice. It only means that we all know what is good and bad for us and our society and that society also knows who is doing good or bad for them. So let the people decide. We can not be guide to everything. We can only put issues in front of them and seek their support.

A friend wrote to me, ‘What will happen if our children go US and UK for study? Should we stop criticizing them? Actually, that is the dilemma of many as problem is not with their children going to UK and US. Problem is when you feel that every foreign connection is bad. Problem is when we demean all those who raise the issue at international level or national level. Problem is when we speak on behalf of communities and tell them not to speak to some one since he or she had ‘foreign links’. I do not know what those links are and can any one do anything against communities. Why we do not tell people to judge the people on the basis of their work and not on the basis of their birth, their linkages, their being civil society or this ism or that ism. How will our children go there when their parents spit venom in the ground against ‘foreign power’? Enjoying Europe and America means, you enjoy their democracy. You enjoy their freedom and the diversity and independence they provide to you. I am not here to go and mop every individual Marxist or Maoist who claims the US, UK civilization as imperialist one and then send their children to these countries. Better they can send their children to former Soviet countries, to Venezuela or Bolivia and learn a few things about ‘communist’ democracy in these countries.

Also, why do we send our children to Europe and America? Certainly, we all go there for better education and greater future prospectus. That means, somewhere we want them to earn better than others. Then why we cry so much against their societies. Of course, we can always speak against human rights violation there and their government interfering in the internal affair of other countries. But to condemn everything there and then trying to be part of it is dishonesty. If earning good and trying to get a good life is better for your child, how can that be bad for a tribal or Dalits? When you can negotiate with your enemies what is wrong if the local tribal try to negotiate with powerful at local level to get his things done. Who are we to tell them that everything is bad? So, those followers of ‘revolutionaries’ must first understand that for a healthy society we need healthy dissent and accept diverse view point.

We are not discussing here the personal lives of people. We know every individual has a right to life and live. I took the debate to a different level where Ambedkar started with cultural change. I say, we need Cultural Revolution. When I speak of it, it does not mean, we are deciding about every individual. In fact, we support rights of every individual to decide about her self.

In his response, Vikas Mogha mentioned about Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s marriage to Mrs Savita Ambedkar. I again said that it was their personal decision and we must respect that. Both of them are not alive here to answer our questions but I have heard utterly negative comments about Dr Savita Ambedkar. These comments do not do justice to the personality of Dr Ambedkar. We must leave it to him whether it was good or bad, it was not our concern. Lots of things were written against her but at the end of the day being a woman she had to face double the calumny.

We must target all those, national or international corporate or individuals and their bid to control our resources and destroy our water, forest and environment. But in that case it is the issue of environment which is more important and if that is hurt even by a domestic company then too we must speak loudly and vociferously. Our criticism must be based on facts and not on rhetoric. Long back, I wrote we all need international cooperation and linkages with people, individuals. In this era, can we live in isolation? So, when we talk about imperialism, it has different meaning. But our leaders will speak differently. On everything they will start international conspiracy. I want to know what kind of ‘international conspiracy’ has kept Mushahars, Kols, Balmikis, Mehtars, and other dalits and tribal communities subjugated for centuries. They all are victim of our Hindu civilization. Most of the conspiracy theorists rarely speak against the internal colonization. Yes, when we speak so loudly against the international imperialism then we must speak at the same length against internal imperialism. That is what we call Hindu Imperialism in India. But right from Marxists, to Maoists to Gandhians, none talked about it. Except for the fact that Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar etc talked about it but they are not our mainstream leaders. They are termed as leaders of ‘subalterns’.

Ambedkar realized the change in the life style when he went to US. There he could meet any one and could shake hand with all which was not possible in India. He realized the meaning of democracy and equality there while Gandhi was finding greatness in our village and primitive cultural value system.

When 74 policemen were killed in Chhatishgarh many sympathizers rejoiced. When the four policemen were abducted in Bihar, the sympathizers wanted Bihar government to release the leaders. Some said the other day that politics is difficult thing today and hence we need friends like Maoists to fight against caste and communal forces. So, you club together caste forces with the Hindutva gangs and rejoice your own failures. Did any one of them ever launch anti caste movement. If yes, then what was the result? And why was it stopped?

Now, see the background of the policemen killed in killed in ambush in Chhatishgarh. Most of them belonged to Dalits, tribal and backward communities, basically sons of our farmers and workers. Who were the people abducted in Bihar. Again the same communities including Muslims were targeted. So, what is the benefit of killing them? No, they are state agents, say our sympathizers. They are fighting on being paid by government and they are paid handsomely when they die, remarks some of them shamelessly.

And who are the sympathizers? Well, they too get much bigger salaries than the poor policemen fighting with the age old 303 rifles. Most of them can be an ideologue inside the campus of JNU, Delhi University or other universities. Some might be living in the accommodation provided by the government in posh central or New Delhi regions, condemning the state yet being part of it. Nothing happen. If a policemen revolt in Chhatishgarh against the operation green hunt, he would lose his job but our respected elderly intellectuals have both the tags at their whims and fancies. They can be intellectuals, revolutionaries and can cry against any one at free of cost. After all, the universities do not even ask them as how many days they were absent or what is the courses they finished. Universities have become political battle ground and safer locations for the revolutionaries. In handsome salaries you are everything. You do not need to go out. You will be invited. You are tagged as intellectual and if you are a public person, then you are a ‘leader’ also. And most importantly you can shout loudly that you do not get any funds. You are not saleable. You can shout you are not NGO. You do not get funds for your revolution. Yes, you get much more than an ordinary NGO gets in all. Yes, you do not get for revolution but your salaries are for your students and your teachings. That is where we have double standards. We misuse our offices and become the champions. It is the politics of powerful of those who have money and resources to control our social movements in the guise of being independent.

This trend was started many years ago in Bengal where developing a civil society outside the CPM’s domain was difficult. To demonize the civil society you needed some ‘intellectuals’ who can cry ‘international’ ‘conspiracy’ as if NGOs are that powerful which can dislodge the CPM. After all, a government will be dislodged by the political parties only. Soon, this ‘progressive’ terminology started every where when the Dalits and other marginalized sections of society also started building up their organizations. ‘You get funds from abroad’, they would charge them. Yes, they do not get billions of dollars for building up a University or High way. One need to see their conditions in which a social activist survive life long yet when those living in glass houses throw stones at him it pains. This has become fashionable now. Rather than speaking to a person about his work, his perceptions and his actions, we are more interested in what he or she is earning and where from.

In India, you can speak against the state and be a star as nothing will happen as bigger than the state we have a brahmanical domination in each walk of our life from Gandhian brand to Maoism to socialism that speaking against state is easier. The extra powerful element of the state is Brahmanism and it is safe with the Swamis and Sanyasis of our time. None of them is ready to wage a war against the brahmanical system. Yes, all of them want to join hand to curtail the ‘caste’ forces. So, Naxal will help them curtail the rise of caste forces. Perhaps that is the reason why our ‘nationalists’ upper caste lead social movements have so much concern for their brothers in the forest. So what is common between RSS and Naxals. It is the caste assertion of the down trodden that hurt both of them and their supporters.

They say that Naxals are revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh who got nothing. How do you club them with Bhagat Singh whose vision for a casteless society has rarely got the attentions of these so-called revolutionaries? Do they know that Bhagat Singh never believed in such criminal violence which our friends are indulging? Even in the Lahore bomb case in which he got death sentence, Bhagat Singh and his friends could have killed an entire leadership but that was never their intention. I am sure; Bhagat Singh today would have fought a bigger battle against both the Indian imperialism as well as global imperialism. And most importantly, Bhagat Singh had the guts to challenge the religious practice at home. So he believed that to fight against orthodoxy and conservatism one has to be clean in his personal self and then fight. Legendary M.N.Roy analyzed in his book ‘Our Task in India’ about the inability of Indians to bring revolution. He said that since the proletariats in India are unable to liberate ourselves from reactionary social outlook and somewhere we are influenced by ‘religion, spiritualism and Gandhism’.

By calling for a cultural revolution, one is not seeking any religious morality to curtail individual freedom but strengthen that. In fact, we want India to change for better and that change is not possible with out a cultural change which can replace the tainted Brahmanical value system that never consider human being as equal and which believe in two many facets of life, thus destroying the lives of millions through cultural subjugation and deep rooted caste and gender prejudices.

Initiate Political Process in the Tribal Hinterland

Who is afraid of civil society ?

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

‘Now, I would like to talk a little about the welfare of the elite, who profess to be concerned about the welfare of the people, who do little but blare it out from the rooftops. The rich build temples, mosques and churches, give donations to charities, and for this, are portrayed as great humanitarians. First they render people homeless and create orphans and then they open orphanage for them. In the name of development, they deprive people of their means of living, throw them out in the streets, force the women into prostitution, then they set up NGOs and campaign for Self Employment and brothel reform Centers. Not much money needs to be spent on this, even a tiny percentage of the millions and billions earned through the rampant loot of forest resources and minerals are sufficient to set up the propaganda machinery. They try to cover up the crimes of constructing the Tehri Dam (Which completely submerged the historic town of Tehri and forty villages, partially submerged 72 villages and affected 100,000 people) and the Narmada project ( which affected tribal areas of three states-Gujarat, Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh), by running a few NGOs and buying space in newspapers and that too at no more cost than expenses incurred on some product publicity.’

(Statement of Maoist Guerrilla Narang quoted dutifully by Satanam in his book ‘ Jangalnama’ published by Penguin India- page 121).

The above statement is not new to those who know the working pattern of political or semi political activists claiming to be sole champion of revolutions in India. Frankly speaking the revolutionaries are highly intolerant to any other view point and since they are not really capable to listen to dissenting voices, the result is in political violence. It happens because people feel they are being victimized. A victim mind is always creates extreme reactions and that is what happening in the forest zone. It is not that the articulations are wrong but in the articulations the issue of how to attain is more important. Emotions are created and amidst chant of rhetoric of a new wonder world, people come and join you. It is equally important that for a poor ideology is not important than survival and when he sees the apparatus of state working virtually against him, the discrimination of being a tribal or feeling of contempt towards him, the hatred grows and rhetoric further fires the passion for sacrifice.

As I write this comes the news of horrible train tragedy in Jhargram, West Bengal in which over 140 innocent people have been killed because of a derailment of Gyaneswhari Express. The Central government has given it to CBI to investigate while the West Bengal government has openly blamed PCPA, Lalgarh, for doing this. The government says civil society and human rights activists are not condemning it and all the time they put ifs and buts. May be they are unable to articulate it in the TV channels or Newspapers articles because of paucity of space and time. And there are so many voices in civil society and not all of them can speak in one voice. How can it be possible when the political parties can not speak in the same voice? Yes, after the recent attacks on trains and buses where innocent human beings are killed, one need to ask the questions to those who claim to speak for the ‘people’ as who has given them right to snatch the life of others. If the state is killing the innocent as they charge, then why they kill innocent. At the end it is the innocent who are being killed. And such killing needs to be condemned unequivocally and unambiguously. Those who do not have words for such killings should be prepared to receive the same news for themselves and their relatives and friends. Thinking about that is painful but then why we keep quiet on such heinous attack and justify it with other things.

Home Minister, P.Chidambarm is suave and articulate. He is the favorite of our English speaking media who think he provide answer to every problem of India particularly that emanate from the forests. They are absolutely sure that Chidambaram would resolve the current crisis and India will grow fast. Why is this that Chidambaram is getting huge support from the English speaking media but unable to garner support from different political parties including his party’s own senior leaders like Digvijay Singh and Ajit Jogi both of them have been important leaders from both Madhya Pradesh and Chhatishgarh.

Actually, the home ministry has little time to evaluate the way police actions are alienating the people. Chidambaram and his ministry seems to be too conscious of criticism in Delhi but not bothered about the sentiments in the tribal hinterlands where a sense of insecurity has gripped in the minds of the people. The pen pushers in Delhi who recommend army, air force and all other forces to flush out ‘Maoist terrorist’ do not know the terrain of the region. Most of the senior police officials have on record spoken against air support including Air Chief and Chief of our armed forces.

The biggest criticism of the government is coming through people like Arundhati Roy who does not need to have an NGO or an organization to air her view. She is famous enough to write and her writings are well marketed by the same corporate who she decries. Similarly, Varvara Rao is an ideologue based in Hyderabad who has been persistently claiming that every actions that ‘revolutionaries’ are taking is a retaliation against police atrocities. There are so many lawyers and academics who have been writing and speaking. Mr BD.Sharma wrote to the President of India about the marginalization of tribal. It is well known fact that Sharma was the first commissioner for Schedule caste and Schedule Tribe and his reports in the commission are path breaking. Justice Rajender Sachar is a former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. This apart there are many academics from Delhi-University, JNU, Jamia Milia and other Universities who do not support government’s initiatives in Chhatisgarh. There are many former bureaucrats who do not agree with the government’s strategies. Then there are Gandhians who are well connected with state apparatus and do not subscribe to Chidambaram and his theories. And all these people do not need an NGO to stand. They are much bigger than NGOs and even some time so called civil society. Then there are organizations like PUCL and PUDR which have their own positions on this unambiguously. They can shout as they do not receive any funds from the government or abroad. That gives them power to shout. Organisations like Asian Human Rights Commission have clearly condemned Maoist Violence while Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have track record of condemning not only state violence but also non state actors.

Then there are thousands of smaller organizations being run by people at the grassroots. Most of them are involved in their ‘projected work’. Some work on health, while some on NREGS and a number of them create Self Help Groups. There are Dalit organizations working on particular issues while a numerous organizations working on Land and acquisition issue. The fight of Narmada Bachao Andolan is going on for years and the government must explain to us as how much it respected a completely democratic movement. There is a struggle going on against Posco at Kalinganagar ? It is not being run by the Maoists yet the tribal are being killed and humiliated in their own land. Does the home ministry not realize that people will rebel if they are left with no option except fighting?

Therefore a smart politician like Chidambaram should not have made nuisance remark about the civil society but the fact is that home ministries mandarins are behaving in worst possible way to control the criticism of their failures to tackle the Maoist menace in the country. That the Moists have virtually caught the fancy of tribal is a feeling in the Ministry because the government of India has its dirty track record of suppressing all the people’s movement through their intimidation as well as vicious media propaganda. In fact, in the name of independent media, we have corporate interest groups sitting in the chat rooms and speaking their own interests.

It is the nationalism quintessentially upper caste nationalism that is being played through the news rooms. And the cost is those who disagree with them and do not look like them. The consensus is created through media and some of the warriors find their way in these chat rooms to show that we ‘care’ for the opposite view point, though the likes of Arnab Goswami never even allow them to speak.

Is home ministry so naïve not to understand the criticism? Why is afraid of criticism? Why it is targeting the civil society organizations? Let us examine these questions?

The fact is that the Maoists or for the matter any close door ideological perception never like openness. With open ness they fear that people would get new ideas and may shift their ideological perception. West Bengal under CPM suffered this as any body who would not speak the language of the Marxists would be spied. Gujarat suffered it under the BJP’s Hindutva experiment as any fresh air is considered dangerous. Any ideological dissimilarity is a threat. This is happening in many other parts of South Asia whether it is Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan under Taliban. The Maoist will never want any civil society organization to work in their area. Those who pretend to work there can only do on the mercy of the Maoists and can not have their own freedom of expression because dissent is not allowed in the Maoist brand of democracy. NGOs for them and for many others are imperialist conspiracy to befool the people and defuse their resistance.

In the beginning the Congress party was afraid of them during the emergency when Indira Gandhi actually prohibited us to even express our ideas. So, newspapers just crawled when they were asked to bend, a phrase often used by politicians victimized during the emergency. Democratic opposition to Indira Gandhi grew up in entire country and finally mighty family had to bite dust resulting in the formation of the first non congress government at the center. Unfortunately, it had the same structure and therefore the internal contradictions helped congress come back to power again.

In the post 1980s, India’s issues took different turn. For the first time polity was facing a big challenge. In Punjab and Assam, there was a real challenge to mainstream polity in India. It was not just mainstream politics but to the very fabric of the constitution of India. Earlier we had thought it is just Kashmir and Nagaland which were seeking extra constitutional mandate but now the other states also started questioning.

The reasons were lots. The powerful center which could dismiss the states at their own. The governor’s became the stooge of the home ministry and the non congress governments were being targeted. To finish the Akalis in Punjab, the congress promoted Bhindarwale while to strengthen its base it promoted demographic changes in both Assam and Tripura. While the seculars may not like this but the fact is that the tribal in Tripura today are minority in their own state. How can a community of a state be called a minority?

Today, Shekhar Gupta in the Indian Express calls for the might of Indian state against Maoist Indian terrorist but forget that his own former boss in the Express campaigned to save two alleged killers of Indira Gandhi in the name of human rights. Shourie wrote extensively on Punjab violence and the role of Indian state there. We all know which side of the fence is Arun Shourie today.

It is also true that we can not really compare the private armies and their justification of picking up guns. State has a right to protect its citizens and since its forces are legitimate and accountable they need to follow the rules of the law and procedures. Ofcourse, Maoists are deliberating provoking so that it becomes a fight between them and the state and all the other actors are eliminated in between. The government and political parties must understand it. The issues raised by them are valid and need to be addressed. These issues have been raised by civil society for long and the government only looked it in utter contempt. Even the Courts orders are not being followed; environmental norms are not being followed. So, when you close all democratic process the end product is romanticism of guns and violence. The Maoists also know that the Indian state is a might state and their vision of overthrowing it is a sheer stupidity. But the state of India has given them shelter under tribal pain and agony.

We all know that if the state does not heal the wounds the situation will never change. The wounds in Punab were healed through a political process and hence Punjab is going better. Same thing happened in the north east. We invite Muviah to Nagaland and talk to him. We discuss with Laldenga in Mizoram and later he became chief minister. We are initiating political process in Kashmir. Unfortunately, there seems to be no political process in Chhatisgarh, because the political class thinks that they are ‘elected’ ‘democratically’and have got a political mandate to do anything. Yes, the bureaucrats who have least regard for our political class along with these same corporate who have no respect for rule of law, are preaching us the virtues of this democracy. Kanwal Sibbal, a former Ambassador of India in US, condemned the NGOs for taking money from abroad and selling country’s interest. I am surprised at the stupidity of these remarks of those whose children always study abroad and whose life can not be complete without visiting abroad. Prime Minister and his colleagues have studied abroad. Some of them worked for the world Bank. A large number of our IAS officers are getting huge offers in UN. A number of our subsidized IIAtians and Medical Students are getting lucrative offers abroad. Big companies are getting investment. Newspapers are publishing articles from magazines. TV channels are doing everything to show foreign films, view points and what not.. Then what is this particular about foreign. We never said, Manmohan Singh has lost his ‘Indian ness’ because he studied abroad or the planning commission is not Indian since it is inviting foreign experts.

I am amazed how can this thought come in our mind. If we are open society, we must not be afraid of criticism. If Kanwal Sibbol and others could not be purchased so are others also hence a criticism has to be countered ideologically and not who you are and what is your support base. Ofcouse, all those who speak democratically follow the rule of the law.

If this democratic mandate is used as a bogey to install the corrupt mining companies then the Home Minister will have to think more. The questions are simple. Where are the tribal MPs, their leaders, their Panchayat leaders. Why are we silent on this issue? The government is saying that let the Maoist stop of the violence and it is ready to speak. I go one step forward. Let the government declare its intent clear. I again say, will it stay all the mining deals in the tribal areas. Can it stop immediately all the MOUs in these regions which are responsible for the possible displacement of millions of tribal. Not all tribal are Maoists. Those who do not have land, second time meal, do not have the luxury of ideology. If the tribal today are supporting the Maoist, it is the fear of losing their land. They know once the forest department and other government official comes back to them, they will lose all the land redistributed by the Maoists. Let the government declare that all the tribal who own land and are tilling land will not lose it. All the tribal and other forest dwellers who have land on papers will get it immediately. All the mining companies will be packed from the tribal region. Are we ready to say this? The consensus that the government is talking about is in Delhi and not in tribal land. The land where this battle is being fought need to be reassured Mr Chidambaram. They need to be reassured that they will not lose their land and their access to forest. By making the civil society the number one enemy, you are actually changing the track. In the fight against armed struggles, it is the democratic voices which need to be strengthened in these regions. Unfortunately, the political parties are playing dirty politics and media protecting corporate interest and therefore the best people to be blamed for the whole process is civil society. Let the ruling party puts its house in order and send its leader to all the Zones. Why should the poor CRPF Jawans go to the unknown terrain, a politician must know the terrain... let them ready to sacrifice their life so that people get assured that their leaders cares and have not sold their interest to crony corporate for throw away prices. The failure of the government and political parties should not be put on the civil society.

No society can flourish under the dictatorship of ideologues and those who fancy themselves to be the sole champion of serving the poor. The Maoists, it seems, believe in finality of their document which can not be changed. Mao for them has become a tool like the religious thugs who believe the finality of their religious books and are highly intolerant to the dissenting voice. It is this flexibility and capacity to listen to the dissenting voices which was envisioned in our constitution by Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar, will make us stronger nation. Democracy means justice to the lowest and poorest and not justice in the name of the corporate. People will always pick up guns where the democratic process failed. Democratic processes have failed in Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Andhra West Bengal and North East. In most of the states, the political parties, the governments have openly and in most brazen way, sided with corporate interests forcing the people to jumps in the ideological framework of those who provide instant justice. The answer to them is initiations of political process in decision making. Political process mean not just becoming political parties and play politics but involving people in their issues and getting solution from them and of course, putting a complete moratorium in further mining in those areas. If this democratic process does not help the poorest of the poor as emphasized by Dr Ambedkar in his Constituent Assembly address, then the same people will blow up the structure of democracy we so laboriously built. It is time the government introspect its strategy and ensure that the political parties take up issues, visit those areas, meet people and initiate a debate on it.

The Tribal Question

The fall out of Dantewada: Need tribal voices for their rights to counter corporate propagandist nationalism?

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat



Home Minister P.Chidambaram has offered to resign after the Dantewada massacre. He saluted the CRPF for their work, the poor cousins of BSF and armed forces. A CRPF recruit start living with tents and end up there only. That the war should always be avoided as it never resolve anything. It hurt the poorest of the poor and it is more masculine in nature. You see both the side of this patriarchical social order, the war create a new set of orphaned children who would never be able to live the same life after their fathers are killed. A whole lot of family is destroyed. In this scenario you only see grieving wives, mothers and daughters. They look completely helpless because our social system remain the same. It is easier to blame state for everything as you become revolutionary for the same but difficult to fight against our own notorious social order which create not only Maoists but all the feudal elements of society which Ambedkar defined as ‘graded inequality’. That most of these CRPF Jawans hails from poor peasantry communities, who serve our nation. They are the first generation of their families to serve in the forces and goes on to follow the order given to them by their command officers.

Hence the news of the killings of 76 Jawans of CRPF in an ambush by the Maoists in Dantewada district of Chhatishgarh naturally angered the entire nation. What is more shocking is the propaganda war unleashed by the media as how can they kill our Jawans without understanding the fact that in the war zones such situation will happen as suggested by Swarnjeet Singh, former DGP police of Andhra Pradesh who is claimed to be successfully curtailed the Naxal violence in his state. Yet, what hurt most is the grim faced anchors in the TV studios of Delhi start preaching the nation about possible action plan. In the olden days, we used to hear the national broadcast from the prime minister or chief ministers on such occasions whenever a crisis confronted the nation by addressing directly to the people on such issues and informing them about government’s policies and programmes. Mrs Indira Gandhi addressed the nation on All India Radio, prior to sending armed forces in Golden Temple in June 1984 while VP Singh spoke to the nation on Lal Krishna Advani’s arrest 1990 while Narsimha Rao promised the nation to rebuild the Babari Masjid after its demolition on December 6th, 1992.

But all that is history. With the mushrooming of hundreds of news channels, nationalism sales apart from sex, scandals, religion, cricket and corporate. Now, the PM does not speak on such incidents. Instead we hear an Arnab Goswami with his poked face and fascist statements about the situation. He says, ‘Today, this country has to decide, which side they are. Whether they are on the side of Indian state or with the Maoists? ‘These Maoists are terrorists, no less than Talibans. They kill people, extort money and have killed our brave Jawans’, he virtually shouted. With the right wing expert sitting on the table, Arnab and every other of his ilk is inviting a few ‘sympathizers’ for their chat show to hound them. The problem is with these so called sympathizers also who have virtually run out of ideas and romanticize an idea which can never be supported in the democratic system. Long ago, I wrote about Nepal that even the worst form of democracy is better than the most efficient autocratic regimes. Secondly when they know that Arnab and company will not allow them to make their point, why should they join in the debates. We all look for our own truth and information. So none of us are going to receive our information from Arnab and thankfully very few would watch him beyond Delhi and other metro- politan cities.

Let us first deal with the issue of Maoist violence and media portrayal. There is no justification of violence but frankly speaking Arnab, there is no justification in deviating the real issue of strategic failure of the CRPF as Mr Swarnjeet Singh, former DGP police Andhra Pradesh said. In the war zones, you can not think that the casualties would be only on the one side. It is bound to happen both the ways. Even Chhatishgarh DGP Mr Vishwa Ranjan pointed that out. We need to see why this desperation by our TV chatters. Do they want to ethnically cleanse the tribal regions so that our companies go there and grab their land? We all know that the Maoists, however stronger they are, can not win a battle against the state as mighty as India. They are actually ruining generation of tribal in this false exercise. India is simply not Nepal or Venezuela and a revolution can not emerge from just Dante Wada. Arundhati Roy often support tribal’s right to pick up guns to defend their sovereignty, making tribal and Maoists as easily interchangeable terms which is unacceptable. More over, we should also ask the question as do the Maoist fight war against this land grab or they want to fight against Indian state which they call as a fake democracy. What kind of democratic structure do they want to give us? We too are saying that our democracy need changes and it is becoming corporatized on American pattern. We do want proportionate representation for Muslims, for dalits, for tribal. We want their representation and not representation in their name which most of these revolutionaries and their ideologues seems to be doing. In 1975 Jaya Prakash Narain had appealed to forces to not to obey the order of the government. That was a democratic call.
In the historic Lahore Convention, Havildar Chandra Singh Garhwali refused to fire on the Congress workers terming them as fighting for the freedom of the nation. But why the Maoists consider the poor police men and tribal working in the government jobs ( pity, how many tribal are there in our governance structure) as state agents.

See the irony, most of the killings by the Maoists are rural poor or Jawans of police force. They join the forces for serving their families. Maoists and their sympathizers call them state agents. Hence the cycle of repression start. In the war zones all become become repressive and the biggest casualty in this is the voices of sanity and freedom. They are hounded by both the governments as well as Maoists do not want the other voices to come in between.

Unfortunately, those who pretend to be leading dissents or speaking for the Maoists too are well connected in the power structure and none dare to speak to them as how did they arrive at a Maoist camps. They have been using the media war to spread their own message to world over. But, I know if a local journalist in Chhattisgarh or Delhi, try to write any story on the Maoists, he or she would be hounded by the police and would face virtual arrest at the moment.

The problem here is that in the entire debate of illegal land grabbing, encroachment of forest by big companies, mining and threat to environment and ecology by state and non state actors have receded into the background as now it has taken an ugly turn between the Maoists and the government. Both of them seem to working on their own long term agendas. The Maoists and their sympathizers are living in their own dream world of a ‘people’s democracy which is even afraid of internet and Google surfing while the government wants to seize the land and distribute to the companies while Maoists are gaining because of government’s complete failure to understand tribal sentiments. How can you expect a tribal to respect our police when the very policemen is a ‘vardi walla gunda’ as remarked by a judge in Allahabad High court long back.

All is not well as there is systematic erosion of tribal rights in India. The Special Economic Zones, the mining companies, the big dams, the hugely built Ashrams, the cowsheds everything is being developed in India’s richest areas of Chhatishgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand which inhabit our poorest population. Is not it an irony that the reporters reporting from these places are adding extra masala to their embedded reporting as how difficult it is for the Jawans to fight the battle in the mosquito ridden area but then did they ever thought of how a tribal might be living in these areas for years. Did we care for them? Fundamentally, we feel that if the government can not improve their livelihood, it has no right to demolish their natural habitat.

But our desi nationalists who would like our jawans, who are sons of the soil, children of our peasants, kisans, die for their brand of nationalism by killing their own tribal people. It is an irony that our media which should have been more balanced in reporting and analyzing things become hysterical and start creating panics. Both the chief of Armed Forces General V.K.Singh and Air Chief Marshal Y.P.Naik have not shown interest in fighting an internal battle where the police forces are more than enough to tackle the situation arising out of the Naxal violence.

Now, the reports are coming in that there is little interaction between police and the local tribal community. How can there be an interaction if there is no governance. If the government servants did not venture into the villages and get their salary without working in the villages, then one can understand the relationship between the tribal and the government servants. How can a government servant who is suppose to help the rural poor treat them worst than their servant be expected to get information from the same people. The Maoists have won the imagination of a number of the tribals whether it is through their violence or whether providing instance justice to many of them, the fact is they have been getting local support. And it is therefore important to create environment where the tribal do not feel betrayed even when this is too late.

Unfortunately, the governments have only helped them as other dissenting voices who believe in democratic struggles are being produced as Maoists. There are movements against land acquisition all over the country. There are voices against illegal land grabbing, against displacement of the people particularly Dalits and tribal, for the forest rights and they are not Maoists yet all of them have been clubbed jointly as notorious human rights activism. Not just the government but mostly these irresponsible TV channels and newspapers have started making these arguments as if human rights have suddenly become the worst word. Yes, we claim our self to be the largest democracy only when this democracy enables the big companies to grab land and do whatever they wish to do. When the democracy gives space to the marginalized, then these non state actors try to bulldoze our voices through their TV channels and news rooms. Have we discussed the issues of tribal rights in our parliament? Why are our tribal leaders silent on all these issues? Where are they hiding? All those social justice wallahs who jump and stall parliament for their bills keep quiet on tribal issues. Have the Dalit, backwards, the minorities, have no voice on this national issue? Why this has become an issue between the upper caste leaders, parties and commentators.

Similarly, our intelligence agencies do not know the ideological stuff and hence every democratic protest for them become a Maoist strategy to gain ground which end up in goofing up the entire things. It is not just the fault of intelligence, when our media term every human rights defender as Maoists, then we can understand their quality of education and understanding of India. In the name of anti Maoist operation, the government should not annihilate an entire tribal population as well as all of us who are talking sanity and raising the issue of violence against forest and tribal.

The only way to curb this menace of violence is to respect democratic voices of dissent and not consider them as anti national. On an emergency measures, the government must declare moratorium on further acquisition of land in forest zones. The forest act must be implemented and land must be redistributed among tribal. The National Commission for Tribal must be reconstituted and given more authority so that it can play an active role in resolving some of the issues relating to tribal.

Hundred years of hierarchical based system was challenged by Dalits through democratic process. Ambedkar’s ideals brought a silent revolution in India, without any guns. Today, Dalits not only actively participate in democracy but also lead in many places. Of course, violence against them exists but then they have succeeded and produced leaders, writers and whole new breed of youngsters who look forward for a bright future challenging the Brahmanical hegemony which is crumbling. Similar situation lies with backward communities whose leadership is emerging despite all shortcomings. It is in this context, we need to look the issue of tribal as why their leadership has not emerged to speak for them. This is a crisis of tribal identity and their voices need to be heard.

Ironically, there is a commonality among those who claim to be working for tribal. It is the absence of tribal voices. You have seen commonality among Congress, BJP and CPM on the women’s reservation bill, all of them were together in saying that all women are same and that there is no issue of Dalit and Muslim women. That they are more than enough to represent them too. Now, you can add CPI Maoists too in the list as none of them have tribal voices at their top level and leadership to Bengal and Chhatishgarh being imported from Telengana region. All of them are claiming to represent tribal interest except for the tribal themselves. Where have the tribal leadership gone? Could this have been possible if the issue of dalits and backwards were concerned ? See how the backward castes and Dalits and Muslims are fighting against the combine onslaught of the brahmanical parties in this democratic structure for their right.

Many governments including that in Australia, New Zealand and Canada offered apology to indigenous people for their marginalization and isolation. That the modern development modules are displacing tribals and the natural resources for the benefit of a few who owned up big companies including big business houses and media companies. An elected government has every right to take control of the areas under its jurisdiction and react to the armed struggle. The only concern that all the civil rights activists feel is the victimization of innocent and the scuttling of the voices of social movements and dissent. In healthy democracy, political, cultural dissent is part of life and need to be respected with counter arguments and not by shunning their voices. Moreover, the government and Mr Chidambaram can well use media to launch their public relation offensive against the Naxals but it need more public relations of its image with tribal population and thankfully, none of them would be watching either Arnab Goswami or Barkha Dutt. Chidambaram would do well to communicate his message to tribal and send his officials to them and win their heart by their good will and a complete moratorium on the further acquisition of land would be a great gesture apart from some more efforts like returning of tribal land and providing new services to them would be the bigger counter offensive than a mere media exercise which simply talk of Maoists and completely ignore the tribal interest and virtually making the Maoists the sole voices of tribal which is unacceptable.

The Tribal Question

Sandwiched between the rhetoric of ideologies

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The last week of December passed at Periyar Thidal in Chennai. It some how stuck to me why the loud mouthed philosophers writing eulogy on Marxism and Maoism in the west, never ever thought of writing something on people like Periyar, Ambedkar and Phule. How have the Indian elite residing abroad forgotten these great icons? Was this conspicuous or an intelligent way of brahmanical crookedness when they speak of ideologies in today’s world.

When Christopher Jefferalot wrote ‘Silent revolution in India’, he understood the changes happening in Indian society. Of course, for the upper elite of Indian intellectuals masquerading as Marxists or Maoists, it was not more than the bourgeoisie game of an identity politics. The whole decade of 1990s was the biggest blow to brahmanical forces in India in the post independent India. The forces of Mandal defeated the forces of Kamandal in the political field but unfortunately there was no periyar, Phule, Ambedkar who could convert this political mobilization as a lethal force for social change which could have dismantled the brahmanical hegemony in India. This resulted in growth of numerous local contradictions which were rarely discussed as the fight was against ‘big enemy’. When you ignore local differences and feel that rather then discussing on them, it is better to keep them under the wrap, a political revolution is found to fail. And the who political change brought by Mandal is there but the leaders are not more then puppets of their brahmanical bosses or following up the same politics of hegemonies of their past masters. Despite their ascendency in power, BJP was mandalised and even the aristocratic Indian left parties had to realize that caste was an important issue in India. The whole decade was a debate on caste issues, the issue of Dalits and Bahujans.

Then came the age when the brahmanical forces started targeting this Dalit Bahujan alliance under a new guise. Now, the backward communities became the biggest villain. Particularly from Tamilnadu, this new thought promoted clandestinely by the Brahmins made Periyar the biggest anti Dalit in the region, undermining and ignoring his whole work against caste system and for women’s liberation. The situation in Uttar-Pradesh also turned like that and Bahujan was converted to Sarvjan for political purpose. One understands this dynamics of politics that the leaders of backward classes in the north remain foot soldiers of Hindutvas. No one can deny this fact today the emergence of shudra leaders in the Sangh Parivar. It will always happen when the secular places will become the den of caste Hindus to preach their ugly sarva-dharma concept, keeping aside the dirty game of caste politics and discrimination against the Dalits. The backwards and the Dalits found it nearly impossible in the party structures of the left and the center of the left and for their politics they will move some where else. The Hindutva protagonists’ used it best for their pusposes. Secularism is not just a few preaching by these elite which is far away from the people but participation in our national life by different nationalities which in India are reflected through caste identities.


At the Periyar Thidal, I found Periyar decrying Gods. How could this succeed in Tamilnadu. Despite all reservations and this article will not have enough space to discuss that, Periyar’s social movement in Tamilnadu worked. It broke the back bone of the cultural values propagated by Brahmins. Yes, the hatred against him grow and still exists as a Tamiln Brahmin today find more happiness living in Delhi then in Chennai. During my return, a university profession from Tamilnadu was proudly expressing her Brahmin lineage and condemning Periyar as an illiterate. ( Periyar was not even a matriculate). When I told her about Periyar’s social movement for women, she simply said that he married to a much younger woman then him. But what is the problem of two adults marrying to each other. It is a private matter and the woman who married should answer to that and no third party has any business to decide what is happiness for her, I told this woman.

The point here is that the Brahmins have never forgiven Periyar for his work of awareness in Tamilnadu. As a freethinker, I do not suffer from any particular ism and for me every great man is open to questions and might have made mistakes. We remember their good work and learn from their mistakes but condemning a man on his caste and looking upon him in utter contempt.

The work of Ambedkar and Periyar provided a new hope of life to all those who were victim of brahmanical hegemony. Not only they, Phule, Sahuji Maharaj, Ayothee Thass, and many other revolutionaries actually felt that dismantling the caste system was the precondition for an enlightened India. Ambedkar visualized it in terms of Prabudha Bharat. Almost all of these ideologues felt the biggest threat to India is through the hegemony of the brahmanical system and hence they worked to uproot it. It was not just political control over the Bahujans but also emotional blackmailing of the oppressed communities through ritualistic jokes in the name of puja-archana.

But social reform was never on the agenda of those who claim to speak on behalf of the Maoists. They can only speak about imperialism and that too of global order. It is shocking that all those who are speaking against the Maoists violence have been turned as ‘state agent’ while those claiming to represent the ‘movement’ champion the cause of the
‘Helpless’ tribal as if they did not fight their battles. Why we ignore historical battles in Jharkhand, Bastar and elsewhere.

Have the tribal become so helpless that they are unable to fight their battle? Is Maoism and tribal identity the same? It is made to believe like that. It is made to believe that it is a battle of social justice. Battle of social justice is much bigger an issue and can not be fought by becoming the messiah of the tribal and importing the upper caste leadership on them.

During the British war, the Hindus were quick to jump on Gandhian Khadi to look better and superior to others. M.N.Roy termed as a fascist tendency. He said that Indian fascism would be quintessentially a cultural onslaught. It may not be violent like what happened in Germany he wrote, but assimilation and annihilation of culture of the oppressed communities. Soon, from Gandhi-ism, the elite jump into the Sangh parivar nationalism. Then the more articulative of them shifted to Marxism who would discuss Vietnam and American hegemony world over but had no time to see what happened in Eastern European countries where freedom to express became an alien term. In the 1970s, it was the socialist leaning of the people which made them feel superior to others. They would talk about ‘taking’ care of the poor and felt that since they do not believe in caste hence caste does not exist. In the battle against emergency all these forces joined hand and gave a new legitimacy to Sangh parivar in the national politics.

In the eighties, civil society groups began to develop and a new agenda of developmental work was put on test. A number of big names ventured into it and therefore many big institutions developed. In the 1990s, the slogan of Kanshi Ram ‘ Jisaki ladai, uski aguwai’ ( the leadership should rest with those who are struggling..) rented in the air. Vote hamara raj tumhara nahee chalega nahee chalega.. our vote, your government will not work will not work). So, most of the deprived sections went their own way ignoring all these ideological calls. For them, the issue of their identity became more important. Most of them felt that they had been systematically denied history by these elite ‘movements’.

1990s was important for mandalisation process. But it was also important for undoing it by Narsimha Rao, in the form of Structual Adjustment programmes of the World Bank. Those frustrated with reservation policies of the government found it relieving to get into the ever growing private sector. The upper castes soon found their way into it. The elite again started glorifying the new term of globalization. The same time, we saw growth of Hindutva’s forces in the Center through their vicious anti Muslim propaganda. We saw massacre of the Muslims happening in Gujarat and nothing happened. Despite all noises at international and national level, no social movement could develop in Gujarat which could threaten the existing regime of hatred there. Narendra Modi grew stronger and stronger despite all efforts to nail him down constitutionally. The law remains meek to those in power.

As the privatization of the national resources continues, a new agenda was sought to be imposed on the country. It is the agenda of the loot of people’s property. It is interesting to see that in this loot, many of the powerful people and their communities are also involved yet no voices. Thousands of hectares of land has gone to local industrialists and no voices of concern. Yes, most of the land movement is visible in the form of anti SEZ protests. The rulers have succeeded in compartmentalizing the land movements. Those fighting for water, forest, land remain stagnant. There are very few who want to remind government of historic duty of redistribution of land. Government does not have land they say. One does not know why such nonsensical argument comes when the Ambanis, Tatas, Jindals, Posco, Vedanta etc have acquired huge track of land. Is redistribution of land not the issue because it belong to mostly Dalits? Is there a general antipathy in the social movements towards this as they fear that among the Dalits, the acceptance of upper caste leadership would be difficult? No, a number of those who are today claiming victim hood have been victimizing the Dalits for years. The ‘poor’ caste farmers were never with the Dalits and were in fact experts in exploiting them. It is this tragedy that the social movement remains isolated among their own communities and those who speak on rhetoric have their field day in emotionalizing the people without carrying it to a logical conclusion. Now, there are new shapes given to the movements. It is called ideology. That it is an ideological war. One does not know what ideology is for people whose resources are snatched away from them. For him the biggest issue is how to get it. So whether a Maoist come for him or a Christian priests or an RSS wallah, all those who can help him get land is a leader. Tribal isolation has become an important milestone for every one to propagate their ideologies at the cost of tribal interests.

It is no denying the fact that Adivasi land is under the target by the government and all should join hand in the battle against illegal land grabbing. They remained isolated for years. Romantics of this isolation say they do not need development. They appreciate their culture. They used to do same with Dalits and backward classes unless they found an Ambedkar and Periyar. None of them actually glorified the age old traditions. The biggest battle against the exploitation has to be demolition of the caste based structure and gender discrimination based in our society. The day brahmanical hegemony breaks, the Dalits, Adivassis, backward communities will question their own leaders who use them as a tool to get into power.

Today, through issues of Adivasi, the same debate is being converted into us verses them. George W Bush when attacked Iraq said you are either with us or with Saddam. In the past one year, the writings on tribal issues have turned like this. You have to be a Maoist sympathizer to look Adivasi friendly otherwise you are a government agent. See the irony of this, these writings are emerging from those who have their own fan following in the government, who gets great honorarium from the same capitalist media they decry, who work in the same universities in India and abroad which are funded by the government and these so-called capitalist governments. So the professors in a university who used to have a tag of being ‘ intellectual’ have now a new tag ‘ leader of the movement’ and their only work is to decry every one else who do not agree with them. And this trend is growing. Former IAS officers, doctors, engineers, lawyers, journalists, all becoming leaders of the movement taking the space of those who have been involved in it for years, who have spend their lives for the cause. The thin line between media activism and activism has disappeared. By one PIL people become movement leaders, by one public meeting or one writing you are turning people into movement leaders. Frustration will grow. My question is not to question all those who are working for people. My question is with those who refuse to accept diverse view points of a problem. It is a new kind of jingoism which is turning the entire debate on a ‘holier than thou’ attitude. The issue of the rights of the tribal and dalits is immense. None deny the issue of people right over their resources, but how the battle has to be fought and won is different. I can only wish if the tribal had their own Kanshi Ram who could have made them emerge as an independent entity and not look for messiahs. Dalits in India salute Kanshiram for this political contribution that he has made them an entity where they can stand at their own in this democratic polity. Tribal need political leaders who can stand at their own and fight their battle at their own and not look for imported messiahs. Once they have this, they will win the democratic battle and their own survival as their political class will not remain unaccountable as it seems today.

New Democracy in Nepal

Democratic Secular Republic of Nepal By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Cynics in India might feel offended as how the only ‘Hindu’ Rastra of the world has democratically sealed the fate of an over pampered as well as highly autocratic monarchy in the recently held elections. For them Hindu dharma epitomizes the democratic spirit in true sense, for that matter the reason of India’s being secular republic. Yes, the present elections in Nepal has thrown more challenges in front of the future leaders, for it is definitely a different world of agitational work and when you are in power and will have to see interest of various parties, communities as well as ethnicities. Nepal lost its tryst with democracy many times in the past as the political parties behaved in entirely undemocratic way as well as were thoroughly corrupted and used their proximity to the Royal palace to settle their scores with each other, giving the over sized king enough ammunition to intervene whenever and wherever he wished.

Therefore when the Maoists made a clean sweep in Nepal, it raised many eyebrows in India, not because the Indian establishment will be threatened with Maoists power but for sure, the fear is in Delhi is that a Maoist democratic government will undermine New Delhi’s controlling mechanism in Nepal. And the indication from Nepal have clearly reflected in that it is poised for an independent foreign policy and want to remain a younger brother of India and not as a colony of India. Nepalese have often resented this despite the fact that Nepal and India share common cultural values and have close relationship but then so are India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Do we not have relations and common culture of language and food habits? Don’t Muslims in India have family relations with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and Tamils in Tamilnadu with Sri Lankan people? Don’t the Pakistani Hindus have relations in India like the Bangladeshi Hindus? But this over emphasis on Indo Nepali friendship comes from Nepal’s Hindu background. This was used by the Monarchs in Nepal for their own benefits, strengthening their own positions and denying Nepal a truly democratic government. A rigid Hindu regime in Nepal not only denied people opportunity for social reform but in certain pockets Nepal follows outdated brahmanical values. That Brahmins and Kshatriyas remained too powerful in Nepal because of such crafty politics that Nepal’s governing castes played on various occasions. And while the change in Nepal is welcome yet it is the beginning of another order which will be democratic but the real transition of Nepal will only happen once the democracy reach the grassroots and the tribal and Dalit minorities in Nepal stand up against the corrupt social order which is patriarchical and feudal. One does not know how the so-called Maoists with red mark over their head will deal with this. Whether, their secularism will ever stop that the religious holidays in the government offices be reduced. Whether the form of rigid varnashram dharma that we witness in Nepal will end? Whether the Maoist government will have fair representative of various communities in Nepal or whether it will turn out another dose of brahmanical system that we have witnessed in India under secular garb.

Democracy is not just ‘secular’ government or government of ‘proletariat’. Unfortunately, both democracy and, communism rarely went together and we have seen various example. We might boast some of these great in Latin America and elsewhere where they ‘take on’ the ‘mighty’ George Bush. It is the double standard when we cry for the freedom of expression at one place and keep quiet in our own place. Clearly, it is the ideology which has become powerful than the people. People have to be slaughtered for ideology, a very similar exercise that the religious thugs did in the past world over where religion became a tool to slaughter the people. Comerade Prachanda and his company must not repeat the same. Democracy in Nepal should mean end of not only Monarchy but also hegemonies that exists in Nepal’s village. And for that Nepal can take a few lessons from India, for its constitution was drafted by a true republican called Ambedkar. The man who came from the formerly untouchable communities, championed the cause of freedom and dignity, decried the much romantic Indian village system. ‘Indian villages are den of corruption, nepotism and feudalism,’ he said. Castes live in Indian villages. Every caste is a village and Indian republic is failing in dismantling it. The 9% growth rate does not help if these caste republics in India are not destroyed. I am sure the Maoists know it well that Nepal’s villages are not heaven as the rigid caste system that pervades in Nepal lives in villages predominantly. And how will that end. It will not end with just upper caste leaders of the Nepali dalits. No doubt, we need ideologically committed people and I am sure Nepal’s Dalits and ethnic communities will throw some great leaders in future who will not participate in democracy just as a Dalit but as leaders of the society. Change makers of society, if I could say them. Some time construction of these identities creates further middlemen who sale communities interest for their own one and equate both as happened in the case of India. But democracy strengthened with the participation of people. It will learn from mistakes, as in India, the Dalit and other minorities are learning. It is a new phase where people would not question their own party and leaders because the ‘others’ have rarely helped them, so some time leadership which manipulate survive because of the absence of an alternative. But today, if we see growth of the politics and groups of the marginalized in India right from Panchayats to every political party, there is a lesson, that the communities will challenge every one, even the so-called own leaders. Ultimately, it is the people who have to be benefited. People can not remain happy to see one former milk seller riding helicopter or becoming chief minister. That is a great thing but you can not exploit that sentiments for next twenty years and that question would always come. Hence Prachanda’s ‘revolutionary’ leaders have brought many hopes to millions of the people in Nepal, but it need to be seen how revolutionaries are they. Whether they have guts to challenge the status quo in Nepal or not or they will be another instrument in maintaining the status quo ante in the social system, it will be the biggest questions for all of to observe.

As the future head of Nepal, Prachand’s demand to reevaluate the Indo-Nepalese treaty is welcome. Nepal is an independent country and its people have a right to decide about its relationship with India and any country in the similar way as India has a right to plan its strategic interest in Nepal but Indian establishment must not shy away in welcoming the change in Nepal. When Nepal become a republic, it will have to shed many burden of its past. The migration is growing phenomenon world over and Nepal is not new. The only thing is that Nepal’s politicians and monarchy did everything to kill the spirit of the Nepalese. Nepal is at the threshold of a new era when in democracy its citizens will take pride and in return democracy would provide equal opportunity to every one which theocratic Nepal never did to its untouchable population. If democracy remained caged to gimmickries and rhetoric’s of imperialism and capitalism, then contradictions in the Nepalese society would deepen. Every body wants freedom. We all enjoy it and aspire for it hence when Nepal enjoy political freedom, how can it deny social-cultural and economic freedom to a vast segment of Nepali population which are treated as unequal. Nepal’s future leaders will have to keep that in mind and resolve it. Often the ruling elite create an enemy to suppress the internal contradictions and one hope that the dispensation which take over Nepal would not do the same to retain its power and position by creating false enemies. They will have to deliver and now when they have the power with them, further pretence would not work. Anti Indian sentiments in Nepal are some time used for political purposes which ignore the vital factor of genuineness of the grievances that the Nepali people have towards India and its ruling establishment which never supported democratic movements any where despite people protest, popular uprisings, under the pretext of ‘internal’ problems of the country. It is also interesting that Prachanda has spoken against the recruitment of the Nepalese soldiers in Indian as well as British army but one does not know whether those who join the forces as a lucrative profession would take such a stand lightly. Nepalese as brave fighters are well known and as long as they get good salaries should not have that concern but Prachanda should focus more on agrarian reform, pending land reform, land entitlements to ethnic minorities, Dalits and also the pathetic conditions of the Nepalese migrants in India. That is an image which hurt Nepal a lot and it has reflected in the Nepalese middle class and intellectuals as they have to go through that image problem created by the Indian middle classes and media about Nepal due migrants laborers in various Indian cities. When the Indians tourists travel to Nepal, this image of immigrant Nepali workers again force them think of not just a big brother but big boss of Nepal and that baggage of past must go. Yes, India and Nepal will have to sit together and sort out their issues and strengthen their legacy.

These results of the elections in Nepal and its transformation to democracy, secular republic can be a lesson to India’s right wing elements who considered the Monarch of Nepal as the true symbol of Hindu pride. Nepalese do not take pride in an autocratic king which the political formations in the name of Hindus in India do. Modern nation need modern ideas and secular inclusive constitution which have no place for old fashioned monarch who consider himself as the sole representative of Vishnu. We need true representative of the people who can serve them and not enjoy on the fruits of the poor. Nepal must shun the values of an old kingdom which was religious based. It must ensure not only political representation to all sections of Nepali population and ethnicities but also special arrangements should be made to bring these people into the mainstream of the country, in the government jobs, in judiciary, in the police and army. Unless, each section is represented in government and power structure, Nepal transition to democracy and secularism would just proves hollow and people will rise against those in power. Once people taste freedom and democracy, it would be difficult for any regime to suppress their ideas and aspirations. One hope that the would be prime minister of Nepal and his government would understand that people of Nepal have huge expectations from them. They have decided to do away with a Monarchy which is a good step though it will be seen when they are able to do so and then they need to deliver to the people and dismantle the feudal and casteist structure prevailing in the Himalayan kingdom and first step in that direction would be to admit the problem that Nepal’s problem does not lie in economic issues only but deep rooted socio-cultural prejudices. Hence many observers might claim that Nepal has won a class war but it will always be superficial and hollow without the participation of Dalits and ethnic minorities in the power structure as well as in village republics that the new democracy will throw. One sincerely hope that democracy does not strengthen the old feudal structure where the marginalized, the Dalits, religious and ethnic minorities and women, just remain the vote banks and the elite become ‘revolutionaries’. Nepal’s tryst with democracy has just begun and one hope the present dispensation on whose soldier people have highest hope will not fail it.