Year: 2009

By PERVEZ HOODBHOY

Here ye, Counterpunch readers! The victory of Native Orientalists – the ones which the late Edward Said had warned us about – is nearly complete in Pakistan. It has been led by “the minions of Western embassies and Western-financed NGOs” and includes the likes of “Ahmad Rashid, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Najam Sethi, Khaled Ahmad, Irfan Hussain, Husain Haqqani, and P.J.Mir”. Thus declares Mohammad Shahid Alam, a professor of Pakistani origin who teaches at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachussetts. [CounterPunch, 2 Dec 2009]

I ought to be thrilled. Now that I am a certified foreign-funded agent/orientalist/NGO-operator who “manages US-Zionist interests”, a nice fat cheque must surely be in the mail. Thirty six years of teaching and social activism at a public university in Pakistan – where salaries are less than spectacular – means that additions to one’s bank balance are always welcome.

But what did I do to deserve this kindness? My sole interaction with the good professor was in mid-2008, when we shared the speaker’s podium at the International Islamic University in Islamabad. Sadly, it was not terribly pleasant.

But then these are not pleasant times. There is carnage in the streets. Blood flows down the gutters and body parts are strewn in bazaars and markets. Suicide bombers have also targeted mosques, funerals, and hospitals. The internet is filled with videos of Pakistan army soldiers being decapitated, pictures of separated heaps of limbs and heads of Shiites, and women writhing under the blows of heavy whips and chains.

The Taliban, mostly from the mountains of Waziristan and other tribal areas of Pakistan, are not particularly shy to broadcast such achievements. For example, their decapitation movies – culminating in heads being stuck upon poles and paraded around town – are watched for free by kids. On 15 February 2009, the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan announced a ban on all female education and, at last count, 362 schools have been blown up in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Curiously, these very people also happen to be the heroes of Professor Alam. This self-described “anti-imperialist” and “anti-Zionist” migrant to the heart of imperialism tends to become breathless in his celebration of the brave Taliban “resistance fighters”. At the meeting I mentioned above, he received ecstatic approbation from a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Khurshid Ahmad, who chaired the meeting. This praise is also apparent in what the professor writes:

“Yet, in one corner of Pakistan, resistance comes from the sons and daughters of the mountains, yet uncontaminated by western civilisation, firm in their faith, clear in their conviction, proud of their heritage, and ready to fight for their dignity…. They stood up against the Soviet marauders: and defeated them. Today, they are standing up again, now against the American marauders and their allies.”

Pakistan’s Mercenary Elites, by M. Shahid Alam, http://aslama.org/Pol/PolOctober92007.html

Unless the professor is physically infirm, may I suggest that he head for the mountains of Waziristan to help the Pakistani Taliban movement? Or give a helping hand to Al-Qaida, an organization also known for its benevolence? To be sure, he may miss the free lunches the American taxpayer provides to him, but surely there must be satisfaction to be had in strapping a madrassa lad with explosives aimed at a Pakistani bazaar – especially one frequented by unveiled women and brides-to-be.

Politeness aside, I do take serious personal offence on just one matter in his outbursts against the opponents of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. This is when the good professor invokes the name and authority of Edward Said, author of “Orientalism”, in condemning me and my colleagues in Pakistan.

Edward was my mentor and hero, the man who wrote a highly positive blurb displayed prominently on the backside of my book on Islam and science. He was also the closest friend of Eqbal Ahmad – my guru and dearest friend. With Eqbal, many were the pleasant evenings that we spent at Edward’s apartment on Riverside Drive, New York. When Eqbal died, Edward and I were both lost in grief. When Edward died in 2003, I defended him against a poisonous article published the next day in the Wall Street Journal by a notorious Islamophobe, Ibn Warraq.

So cut it out, professor! Edward Said does not belong to the jihadists and their declared supporters – like you. He and Eqbal loathed their primitivism and utter ruthlessness, as well as their desecration of Islam. Please do not press him into your service.

On the contrary, Edward belongs to those of us on the Left who have worked for the Palestinians and their right to the lands on which they once lived, who keep fighting for justice and democracy in Pakistan, and who fervently opposed America’s immoral invasion of Iraq in the streets of Islamabad and elsewhere. Edward was a supreme secular humanist who would have no truck with fanatics of any faith.

Counterpunch for more

By David Biello

Mt. Pinatubo volcano above paddy fields in the Philippines

COPENHAGEN—The controversy at this climate summit revolves around two simple issues: Who cuts? Who pays? Of course, climate change does not distinguish between a ton of carbon dioxide emitted from cutting down a peat forest in Indonesia versus a ton emitted as a result of burning coal in Germany. Therefore, a relatively new term is beginning to stir some controversy here in the Danish capital outside the direct negotations: geoengineering.

That’s in part because the “Conference of Parties” negotiations have taken so long. After 17 years, the basic issues remain to be addressed, and overall emissions have grown since 2000—the year enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty as the peak year of greenhouse gas emissions for the developed world (the U.S. signed this agreement). With little hope of reducing emissions in the near term—some scientists, such as geochemist Wally Broecker of Columbia University think we’ll be lucky to stop at concentrations of 550 parts per million in the atmosphere—more radical solutions are on offer: artificial, eternal volcanoes; using saltwater mist to increase cloud cover; even flotillas of mirrors in space.

“Geoengineering is plan B,” says oceanographer John Shepherd of the U.K’s Royal Society of plans to deliberately tinker with the planet’s climate. “It’s not to be adopted unless absolutely necessary.”

After all, “geoengineering is technically possible,” Shepherd adds. But “in most cases, it’s still on the backs of envelopes and there are very many things to be concerned about, like environmental impacts.”

It’s not just environmental impacts from filling the skies with sulfur dioxide to mimic the cooling impact of a massive volcanic eruption, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991, among other plans on offer. “This will have vast human rights implications, on self-determination, on the right to food,” says Diana Bronson, program manager at the ETC Group. “We’re talking about technologies that would modify the entire planet.”

And though building a sulfur dioxide smokestack to the stratosphere is an expensive proposition, there are simpler and cheaper ways to accomplish these ends, including dumping such particles from a helicopter. “It would take 10 Howitzers firing a shell a minute a year to get sulfates into the atmosphere,” says Jason Blackstock, an analyst at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. “Fifty to eighty countries in the world are capable of this.”

Already, Russian scientist Yuri Izrael has begun to experiment and the Chinese routinely seed clouds to produce rain or snow. The Indians and Germans have conducted scientific testing of dumping iron in the ocean to attempt to promote algae growth and thus carbon sequestration.

“We aren’t going back to the climate we had before,” says Jane Long, associate director for energy and environment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “We are going to be managing the environment, not just the climate but also hydrology, soils. We have to learn how to do that.”

Of course, there are geoengineering options that are not as dangerous, such as mechanical devices to suck CO2 out of the air. Physicist Klaus Lackner of Columbia University and others are working on such devices and believe they could be accomplished for $300 per metric ton of CO2 removed. And others advocate restoring organic carbon to the soil in the form of so-called biochar (charcoal), which could sequester as much as 900 megatonnes of carbon over the next several decades.

But still questions of governance remain. For example, who will determine the appropriate level for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Freezing Russians or sweltering island states? Who will control the global thermostat?

“Reducing emissions should remain the top priority for the foreseeable future,” Shepherd says, “but serious research is needed rather than enthusiasts working in their spare time.” Perhaps control of the world’s climate shouldn’t be trusted to basement tinkerers or scientists.

Scientific American for more

The image video of Miniatur Wunderland Hamburg, the largest model railway in the world and one of the most successful permanent exhibitions in Germany.

Submitted by Reader

That intelligent design should be taught as an alternative to evolution is not only very bad science, it’s unchristian too

The science classroom in schools is for the teaching of the science curriculum, not for the teaching of non-scientific ideas. Science should not be loaded with ideological excess baggage. Scientific theories are limited in their explanatory scope to the task in hand: to provide conceptual “maps” that render specific data-sets coherent. And this is how they should be taught.

Darwinian evolution is the best explanation that we have to explain the origins of all biological diversity, both past and present. There is currently no serious rival theory, although there is plenty of debate about the details.

Unfortunately evolution since Darwin has often been used in support of a wide range of social, political and religious agendas, many of them mutually exclusive, including capitalism, communism, eugenics, racism, theism, atheism, feminism and militarism. As George Bernard Shaw once remarked: Darwin “had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind”. It is therefore important that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory and not with any ‘ism attached.

Alastair Noble has recently suggested that “intelligent design” should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to evolution since it represents science rather than religion. Intelligent design is the idea that some biological entities (like the bacterial flagellum) are so complex that they could not have come into being by a gradual evolutionary process. They are therefore deemed to be “irreducibly complex” and so display “design”, thereby pointing to a “designer”.

Since intelligent design is a US export to the UK, it is salutary to study attempts to bring the teaching of intelligent design into the US school classroom. This led to the infamous Dover trial (2005) presided over by Judge Jones, a practicing Lutheran appointed by President Bush. After exhaustive investigation, the judge ruled that intelligent design could not be taught in the classroom because it was “not science” and failed to “meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations”.

I think Judge Jones was correct in his ruling. It is a simple matter of fact that intelligent design forms no part of contemporary science. Scientific ideas gain acceptance not through public vote but via the hard road of publishing peer-reviewed papers in science journals. Since intelligent design does not lead to testable ideas (how would you test the idea that the flagellum is “designed'”?), not surprisingly it has generated no fruitful research programme.

So teaching intelligent design in the science classroom as if it were considered within the scientific community as a rival theory to evolution would be misleading. A primary concern of Christians is to tell the truth about God’s creation. In fact Christians who are scientists see that as part of their worship. Of course we all know that scientific theories do not provide us with the “final story” – theories themselves develop as our understanding grows. But science education practiced with integrity will convey actual current science, not some private fad of the teacher.

There is another reason why Christians are against the teaching of intelligent design: because it promotes a non-Christian understanding of God as creator. In the Christian understanding, God is seen as the composer and conductor of the whole “music of life” in all its completeness. Intelligent design instead promotes a “designer-of-the-gaps” in which the “designer” is used to plug the current gaps in scientific knowledge, a “designer” that will inevitably fade away as the gaps close.

By all means discuss such religious and philosophical ideas in the RE or philosophy class. But let’s keep the science classroom for science.

Guardian for more

By Juan A. Ocasio Rivera, Nov 18 2009

The unsuspecting governor, smack in the middle of an important press conference, missed being hit by a projectile by mere inches. The projectile? Not a bullet, but an egg. An outraged citizen calling himself “the Common Guy” (el tipo común) interrupted the press conference by screaming in outrage at Puerto Rico’s governor, Luis Fortuño, and throwing a slider that landed on a sign highlighting a new development project the governor was announcing. As officers locked the man in a bear hug and carted him off, and as the press swarmed this Common Guy, it became clear that his public display of resistance was not only transcendental for its raw expression of pain and anger, but was also symbolic and representative of everyone’s frustration and open outrage at the turn of events on the island.

Puerto Rico is witnessing the kind of social, economic, and political upheaval not seen in decades. Declaring a fiscal emergency, the pro-statehood Fortuño administration recently passed a Fiscal Emergency Law, which, among other measures, implemented the layoff of over 20,000 government workers—nearly 10% of the total. In addition to huge cuts in budgets and services, the layoffs caused immediate shock and outrage due to its massive breadth and potential effects. Government officials contend that they inherited a bankrupt government from previous administrations along with a huge debt load. They are scrambling to prevent their credit ratings to be classified in the lowest of categories—the junk rating—and contend that the measures were necessary.

With an unemployment rate of around 16%, it is obvious that Puerto Rico confronts a serious economic crisis. According to U.S. Census Bureau 2008 figures, the island’s median household income stands at $18,610 (compared with $52,175 in the United States) and median family income stands at $21,639 ($63,211 in the U.S.). Per capita income is $10,064 ($27,466 in the U.S.), and 41.4% of families and 45.3% of individuals fall below the federal poverty level. In 2007, over 50% of families on the island received some form of public assistance. The figures alone provide a snapshot of the depth of the economic crisis. Although solutions are not lacking—several leading politicians and economists continue to offer alternative fiscal policies—citizens continue to express concern over their economic situation.

Coupled with a soaring crime rate—more than 750 murders this year alone—alarming suicide rates, increasing acts of domestic violence, and worrisome mental health needs on the island, emotions have reached a boiling point. Ordinary citizens have begun to express the belief that their government cannot control the social crisis.

Incidents of police abuse, including a recent incident in which university students were indiscriminately attacked with batons and tear gas, are being denounced at an increasing rate across the island. Squatter communities (also known as developers of rescued lands) have recently been targeted as lawbreakers by the conservative administration, and families without clear title to their properties are being forcibly evicted from their homes.

NACLA for more

4 December 2009

As global awareness grows around the Congo and the silence is finally being broken on the current and historic exploitation of black people in the heart of Africa, a myriad of Western-based ‘prescriptions’ are being proffered. Most of these prescriptions are devoid of social, political, economic and historical context and are marked by remarkable omissions.

The conflict mineral approach or efforts emanating from the United States and Europe are no exception to this symptomatic approach, which serves more to perpetuate the root causes of Congo’s challenges than to resolve them.

The conflict mineral approach has an obsessive focus on the FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda) and other rebel groups, while scant attention is paid to Uganda (which has an International Court of Justice ruling against it for looting and crimes against humanity in the Congo) and Rwanda (whose role in the perpetuation of the conflict and looting of Congo is well documented by UN reports and international arrest warrants for its top officials).

Rwanda is the main transit point for illicit minerals coming from the Congo irrespective of the rebel group (FDLR, CNDP or others) transporting the minerals. According to Dow Jones, Rwanda’s mining sector output grew 20 per cent in 2008 from the year earlier, due to increased export volumes of tungsten, cassiterite and coltan, the country’s three leading minerals with which Rwanda is not well endowed. In fact, should Rwanda continue to pilfer Congo’s minerals, its annual mineral export revenues are expected to reach US$200 million by 2010. Former assistant secretary of state for African affairs Herman Cohen says it best when he notes ‘having controlled the Kivu provinces for 12 years, Rwanda will not relinquish access to resources that constitute a significant percentage of its gross national product.’ As long as the West continues to give the Kagame regime carte blanche, the conflict and instability will endure.

According to Global Witness’s 2009 report, Faced With A Gun What Can you Do, Congolese government statistics and reports by the Group of Experts and NGOs, Rwanda is one of the main conduits for illicit minerals leaving the Congo. It is amazing that the conflict mineral approach shout loudly about making sure that the trade in minerals does not benefit armed groups, but the biggest armed beneficiary of Congo’s minerals is the Rwandan regime headed by Paul Kagame. Nonetheless, the conflict mineral approach is remarkably silent about Rwanda’s complicity in the fuelling of the conflict in the Congo and the fleecing of Congo’s riches.

Advocates of the conflict mineral approach would be far more credible if they had ever called for any kind of pressure whatsoever on mining companies that are directly involved in either fuelling the conflict or exploiting the Congolese people. The United Nations, the Congolese Parliament, the Carter Center, Southern Africa Resource Watch and several other NGOs have documented corporations that have pilfered Congo’s wealth and contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict. Some of these companies include but are not limited to: Traxys, OM Group, Blattner Elwyn Group, Freeport McMoran, Eagle Wings/Trinitech, Lundin, Kemet, Banro, AngloGold Ashanti, Anvil Mining, and First Quantum.

The conflict mineral approach, like the Blood Diamond campaign from which it draws its inspiration, is silent on the question of resource sovereignty, which has been a central question in the geo-strategic battle for Congo’s mineral wealth. It was over this question of resource sovereignty that the West assassinated Congo’s first democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba and stifled the democratic aspirations of the Congolese people for over three decades by installing and backing the dictator Joseph Mobutu. In addition, the United States also backed the 1996 and 1998 invasions of Congo by Rwanda and Uganda instead of supporting the non-violent, pro-democracy forces inside the Congo. Unfortunately – and to the chagrin of the Congolese people – some of the strongest advocates of the conflict mineral approach are former Clinton administration officials, who supported the invasions of Congo by Rwanda and Uganda. This may in part explains the militaristic underbelly of the conflict mineral approach, which has as its so-called second step a comprehensive counterinsurgency.

The focus on the east of Congo falls in line with the long-held obsession by some advocates in Washington who incessantly push for the balkanisation of the Congo. Their focus on ‘Eastern Congo’ is inadequate and does not fully take into account the nature and scope of the dynamics in the entire country. Political decisions in Kinshasa, the capital in the West, have a direct impact on the events that unfold in the East of Congo and are central to any durable solutions.

The central claim of the conflict mineral approach is to bring an end to the conflict; however, the conflict can plausibly be brought to an end much quicker through diplomatic and political means. The so-called blood mineral route is not the quickest way to end the conflict. We have already seen how quickly world pressure can work with the sidelining of rebel leader Laurent Nkunda and the demobiliation and/or rearranging of his CNDP rebel group in January 2009, as a result of global pressure placed on the CNDP’s sponsor, Paul Kagame of Rwanda. More pressure needs to be placed on leaders such as Kagame and Museveni who have been at the root of the conflict since 1996. The FDLR can readily be pressured as well, especially with most of their political leadership residing in the West. This, however, should be done within a political framework, which brings all the players to the table as opposed to the current militaristic, dichotomous, good guy/badguy approach where the West sees Kagame and Museveni as the ‘good guys’ and everyone else as bad. The picture is far more grey than black and white.

A robust political approach by the global community would entail the following prescriptions:

1. Join Sweden and Netherlands in pressuring Rwanda to be a partner for peace and a stabilising presence in the region. The United States and Great Britain in particular should apply more pressure on their allies Rwanda and Uganda to the point of withholding aid if necessary.

2. Hold to account companies and individuals through sanctions trafficking in minerals, whether with rebel groups or neighbouring countries, particularly Rwanda and Uganda. Canada has chimed in as well but has been deadly silent on the exploitative practices of its mining companies in the Congo. Canada must do more to hold its mining companies accountable as is called for in Bill C-300.

3. Encourage world leaders to be more engaged diplomatically and place a higher priority on what is the deadliest conflict in the world since the Second World War.

4. Reject the militarisation of the Great Lakes region represented by AFRICOM, which has already resulted in the suffering of civilian population: The strengthening of authoritarian figures such as Uganda’s Museveni (in power since 1986) and Rwanda’s Kagame (won the 2003 ‘elections’ with 95 percent of the vote); and the restriction of political space in their countries.

5. Demand of the Obama administration to be engaged differently from its current military-laden approach and to take the lead in pursuing an aggressive diplomatic path, with an emphasis on pursuing a regional political framework that can lead to lasting peace and stability.

To learn more about the current crisis in the Congo, visit www.friendsofthecongo.org and join the global movement in support of the people of the Congo. Kambale Musavuli is spokesperson and student coordinator for Friends of the Congo.

All Africa for more

Published on Saturday, December 5, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
by Robert Barkley Jr

Dear President Obama:

I have written you several open letters. Each one seems to be more critical of your efforts thus far. Consequently, at least to me, the evidence of your continued poor performance is more magnified with each passing decision and action on your part.

Where do I start?

You’ve had a chance to stand up to the terrorist Israeli state, but despite hints at doing so you have apparently resigned yourself to continued support for their immoral and illegal actions. Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir.

You had a chance to address the ills of Wall Street and the financial industry in general and Congressional complicity with them, but you shied away from the tough action that was necessary and even hired as advisors some of whom were at fault in the first place. Yes, the free-fall economy seems to have stabilized momentarily for those in the upper echelons of wealth, but not for the regular guys on Main Street. Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir.

You have had more than one chance to tell the Pentagon and its Congressional friends, along with the military warmongers we’ve created, that the people are going to take over again, as the Constitution directs. Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir – and in a big way.

You made lots of noise (some too kindly call it rhetoric) about the need to overhaul the nation’s health care and insurance debacle. But when it has come right down to it, you decidedly were absent – the term “missing in action” seems most fitting here. Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir.

You managed to get awarded a Nobel Prize for reasons I do not fully understand. Apparently is was for you gift of articulation, but certainly not for your gift of “walking the talk.” I had hoped it was providential in some way, but so far it seems like the opportunity it provided to inspire actions consistent with the award’s aura, have evaded you. A Peace Prize for escalating a war? Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir.

You apparently understood the malignant hold of large corporations on our nation’s and the globe’s economic system, but the campaign contributions you accepted and your behavior thus far indicates that you buy into this charade of “free market” thinking. It’s about time you grabbed these folks by the lapels instead of coddling them and even collaborating with them. Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir.

Your seem to lean toward acceptance of the overwhelming evidence of global warming, and you occasionally utter something about the need to address it, but then your actions, as of yet, indicate only a passing interest. Will you not try to save the planet? Will you not push our nation to sanity and responsibility? Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir.

Your grasp of enlightened educational improvement ideas also seems to have revealed a serious lapse in judgment. Charter schools, merit pay, standards and testing? These are arcane and perilous ventures sir. Each is flawed both psychologically and philosophically, not to mention financially. Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir.

In all of the above, and much much more, you’ve had a chance. There’s still time to get your head on straight, to match your walk with your talk, to surround yourself with new thinking, and to discard the failed theories and practices you inherited. There are over 300,000,000 of us out here sir. Limiting yourself to the same handful of “insiders” reveals that the change you had in mind was nowhere near what many of us envisioned and is needed. Sadly though, thus far you’ve pretty much blown it sir.

You sought this job with all your energy and commitment. What you inherited is quite frankly beside the point. Now it’s yours – and ours. We are ready to make sacrifices and change ways. Are you? Thus far you’ve pretty much blown it here sir. There’s still time.

Robert Barkley, Jr. is a counselor in Systemic Education Reform and retired Executive Director of the Ohio Education Association. He is the author of Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders and Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents. He resides in Worthington, Ohio where he studies and writes on education and politics.

Common Dreams for more

by Robert Weissman

Citigroup is among the world’s largest financial institutions. As of July, it is also one-third owned by the U.S. government. Without the various subsidies and guarantees — totaling hundreds of billions of dollars — made available to Citigroup, it is very likely the bank would be insolvent. Many believe that — even with the government supports — with an honest accounting, it would be insolvent today. In the case of the failure of Citigroup, it would be taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which has a long record of “resolving” failed banks — albeit not banks of the size and reach of Citi.

The existing government stake in Citi, and the lingering prospect that the government might have to up its control share still further, raise the questions: Should the government exercise its ownership powers? And if so, how?

In the government-managed bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler — which has made the government the majority shareholder in GM — the Obama administration has explicitly adopted the position that it will act only as a business investor would. It has advanced this principle with regard to other ownership positions acquired in major businesses amidst the financial crisis. In this framework, the government is either a passive investor, or interested only in the return to profitability of the companies in which it holds an ownership stake.

This approach has a political appeal, as it protects the administration from claims that it is leveraging its investment intervention to advance narrow political interests. It operates from the premise that the government should sell its stake as soon as possible, and that such investment is only appropriate in emergency situations. It aims to alleviate concerns of those with an ideological opposition to government involvement in the economy.

Yet the failure to exercise an ownership stake comes with significant costs. Although the ownership power only applies to individual firms — and not to an entire industry — it is far greater than regulatory authority. The government-as-owner does not need to establish prohibitions or set boundaries on permissible activity; nor does it need to incentivize desirable activity. The government-as-owner can simply instruct its firms to do and not do certain things.

The Colossus

MNM for more

By Amit Bhaduri & Romila Thapar

“Two eminent academics of India trace the place of Adivasis from ancient times to the present violent conflict involving the Adivasis, Maoists and the government and suggest dialog amongst the three parties as a way out of the present impasse.”

Those that have governed in tribal areas must share the responsibility for the negligence of the adivasis. The proposals for a multi-lateral dialogue should be set in that context.

There has been a flurry of concern as also vituperation over the activities of the Maoists in the forests that are mostly home to tribal society. There is a confrontation between the state and this society through the intervention of the Maoists. One pauses while reading the speeches of those in authority and thinks back to the past. The texts of the past represent the people of the forest, the forest-dwellers, largely as “the Other” – the rakshasas, and those who moved like an ink-black cloud through the forest with their bloodshot eyes, who ate and drank all the wrong things, had the wrong rules of sexuality and, as strange creatures, were far removed from ‘us.’

Kautilya in the Arthashastra condemns them as troublemakers and Ashoka threatens the atavikas, the forest-dwellers, without telling us why. The interest of various kingdoms in extending control over forests has an obvious explanation. The forests supplied elephants for the army, mineral wealth including iron, timber for building, and by clearing forests the acreage of cultivable land increased and the consequent agriculture brought in revenue. In later times, even when there were situations of dependence on forest people, the conventional attitude towards them was that they were outside the social pale and had to be kept at a distance.

So is this pattern essentially different from the present?

Naxal activity started in the 1960s and gained some support in the rural and later urban areas of West Bengal and subsequently Bihar and Andhra. It raised the ire of the state but did it make the state more sensitive to problems of the adivasis? It was treated as a law and order problem and put down although sporadic incidents kept occurring to remind ‘us’ that ‘their’ problems have remained. So this activity is not new but there is an increase in anger and with attacks from both sides. This makes it far more palpable even in our big cities, as yet far away from the ‘jungle areas.’

The government’s anxiety over Maoist activity has at this point increased and needs explanation. Violence on both sides has been stepped up. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) was banned. Now the Maoists are being threatened with Operation Green Hunt but at the same time are also being invited to cease their violence and negotiate. The Maoists have slowly cut a swathe through the sub-continent and the fear is that this may expand. Would this be sufficient reason for a “hunt” or could there be other factors changing the equations from 40 years ago?

The current violence on both sides is fierce enough but what happens if the state launches a semi-military offensive trying to snuff out the Maoists and the Maoists retaliate, as they are likely to? It would displace and kill many hundreds of our people, villagers and tribals living in areas of Maoist activity, including those who are not sympathetic to the Maoist ideology or objective. Any “hunt” would have to be on an enormous scale since groups claiming to be Maoists are now widespread in over 200 districts in the country in contiguous areas. Has this kind of hunt helped solve our problems elsewhere? Manipur, Assam, and Kashmir continue to remain areas of on-going civil strife.

Perhaps we should look at it less as an ‘us’ and ‘them’ situation and more as an ‘us’ and ‘us’ situation. At the end of the day, we are all involved as people who live in this country and what is more, as people who have to go on living in this country. Even those whose lives have not been remotely touched by what goes on in ‘tribal societies’ will find themselves ill at ease with expanding civil strife.

If we see it as an ‘us’ and ‘us’ situation, then the need for a dialogue with all the groups involved becomes the most immediate concern. The question is who should be talking to whom and about what. If the state has to start the dialogue — as the strongest party in the conversation — it should be conversing with several groups:

Insaf Bulletin for more
(Submitted by Feroz Mehdi)

A dance dialogue between kathak classical Indian dance and maasai dance . A unique combination of the two dances.
Culture in contemporary dance.