One of the biggest difficulties
the Indian ruling class has faced in recent years is the Maoist insurrection in
the Central and Eastern parts of the Indian subcontinent. Since 2004 and with a
legacy that goes back to 1968, the Maoist insurrection has built a substantial
base among the tribal populations and the historically dispossessed “untouchable”
castes in the forests of Central/Eastern India. The Maoist insurrection
continues to be part of the overall resistance to systemic inequality while
also signaling a radical departure from the reformist discourse which argues
for working within the system to enable change, a facet of their political
outlook that sharply differs particularly with the mainstream Indian Left. Since
its inception as a rebellion in Naxalbari in the Darjeeling district of West
Bengal, a revolt which was brutally crushed by the State in conjunction with
the mainstream Communist Party of India
(CPI), the Maoists have focused on armed struggle in the countryside while also
organizing in predominantly tribal communities of Eastern and Central India.
Additionally, there has been a move to build solidarity with super-exploited
workers in the urban centers, many of whom are tribals themselves who have been
forced off their lands in search of work in the metropoles, only to become part
of the slums in the inner cities.
The success of the
Maoists in the rural areas has forced the hand of the state, which in 2009
initiated “Operation Green Hunt” in a frustrated attempt to crush the
insurgency. The para-military violence of the state has only deepened the
insurgency, which not only wages war against the Indian state, but also against
the multinational corporations that have played a significant role in the
neoliberal model adapted in India since the 1990’s. Here it is important to
point out that what preceded the most recent military campaign to root out the
Maoists, what the former Prime Minister labeled “the greatest threat to India’s
security,” was the signing of hundreds of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s)
with multinational mining corporations in 2005. Hence, this was an economic
decision rather than one based on a security threat, which was initiated after
a terror campaign conducted by the ultra-nationalist group Salwa Judum (purification hunt in the Gondi language) against
resilient Tribals who refused to give up their lands for multinational
development. The vicious campaign conducted by the fascist Salwa Judum only deepened the internal resistance to the state and
resulted in the subsequent formation of grassroots organizations backed by the
Maoists insurgency.
The ruling class is backing Modi because he seems the most
willing to use an even stronger hand against such insurgent movements, a
development that no doubt pleases the corporations that hope to continue to
reap the profits off of land resources in the areas currently under Maoist
control. With the crisis in capital spiraling out of control, it is clear that
the ruling class needs to turn to fascism as well as to figures like Modi to
wield a stronger hand in the struggle between the capital and the globally
dispossessed.
Although both the political Right and
the institutional Left in India criticize the Maoists for the overt use of
militant violence, the insurgency brings up many questions for those of us
working for revolutionary change across the globe. The mainstream “communist”
parties in India, who ran numerous candidates in the recent elections, channel
most of their hope in creating alliances among varying leftists tendencies as
well as with the dominant parties themselves, a move that can only result in
reformist politics, thus leaving the system of capital in place. How can the
Maoist insurrection, which focuses its efforts on improving the conditions of
the super-exploited subaltern classes and the dispossessed tribal populations
in the struggle against capitalist globalization, be situated in the context of
the massive uprisings that have taken place across the globe in response to the
neoliberal privatization of “the commons?” Mostly, the Maoists have been left
out of the discourse of the global insurgency as a result of their being
relegated to the margins of sectarian violence and the refusal to participate
in the electoral process, a stigma which automatically deems such forms of
resistance as fanatical and extremist.
Added to this is the character of insurgency
to which the Maoists have dedicated themselves as a revolutionary organization,
with the focus on armed resistance rather than occupation of public domain.
Would the latter work in the forests of central India against a massive
para-military force backed by the state and the multinationals? The answer is
clearly one related to strategy rather than morality. With the overwhelming
regression of Occupy and other movements that are based on solely on the
concept of collective seizure and re-absorption of “the commons,” and the slow
but steady rise of “neo” fascist regimes backed by strong allies of the
capitalist ruling class, the Maoist insurgency forces those of us dedicated to
the end of neoliberal hegemony to rethink radical strategizing in the continuing
struggle for social and economic justice. Thus, the Maoists’ struggle should be
taken as a symbol of continuing resistance as we build stronger ties both
internally and to the international working class in the building of a revolutionary
future, the beginning of which is now.
John Maerhofer is an
educator and activist, currently living in Rhode Island. His book, Rethinking the Vanguard, was published
by Cambridge Scholars Publishing in 2009.
|