Democracy at all levels?

  Naxalism is an issue on which different people have diverse opinions. Most of the people, who are not directly impacted by Naxalism, see it as mutiny and insurgency. But looking at the ideological facet, one can comprehend that it isn’t just an armed revolution, but has deep and profound social elements. The Naxalbari upsurge was sparked by the unproductive land reforms, the class and caste strain and the widespread pitiable socio-economic conditions.  The government however perceives it as a law and order quandary. They moreover have tried to put an end to it by force and more violence and thus in the process have wretchedly failed to address the foundation of this movement. Thus the State has failed to devise a long term policy that would cure the movement from its very root.

  Looking from the perspective of the tribals, the root cause of Naxalism is the marginalisation of the poor tribals. Large tracts of land in the forests and agricultural lands of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa etc. are being taken over by the government and given to huge national and multinationals companies for setting up industries. Furthermore the States enforced appalling laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; Chhattisgarh Public Safety Act, 2006, etc. The latter punishes a person who aids in any unlawful organization or harbour any member of such organization. However it is merely not possible to distinguish between a villager and a Naxalite based on appearance. Thus a villager is considered to be a criminal for even unknowingly helping a Naxalite.

  Furthermore even thinking about committing unlawful act is made punishable under this law. Besides, the State has also been exercising the power of eminent domain, which means compulsory acquisition of land only for a public purpose. Sadly, what comes under public purpose is open to symposium. This leads to setting up of private industries within where the States exercises the eminent domain and then sells the land to the industrialists, in the process displacing the tribals who use the land as their livelihood. This visibly illustrates the “Indian Democracy” at all levels. Another draconian movement called Salwa Judum forced villagers to stay in camps build by the States so that they could be protected from the Naxalites. This led to a large number of refugees. The inevitability of the whole situation, the ‘right of choice’ that the tribals are denied, forces them to resort to arms.

  Over the years the Government has tried to formulate several policies to combat these issues. However the reason behind the failure of these policies is the difference in the model of development. The development model of the Naxal contradicts that of the state and the capitalist. While the State tries to provide good infrastructure to combat poverty in these regions, the Naxals however wants to retain the tribal areas as they are.  Thus the common peasants of these areas are caught between the State and the Naxals and also the Capitalists.

Obedience to a totally different level

Power is never everlasting, at the end of the day, victory often goes to those who stand for freedom and decorum than those who wish to control the lives of other fellow human beings.This is brilliantly portrayed by the two movies – ‘A few good men’, directed by ‘Rob Reiner’ and ‘Shaurya’ directed and written by ‘Samar khan’. Bothtry to answer what true code and honor stand for, and the exact meaning of valor.

One of the most important questions both the films ask is about “Obedience”, one of the most direct forms of social influence. What would a man with honor, do when he is asked to something against his conscience? Follow it or disobey the order?

  

He obeyed- In the movie, ‘A few good men’, two Marines, ‘Pfc. Louden Downey (James Marshall)’ and ‘Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson (Wolfgang Bodison)’were ordered to perform “code red” by‘Lt. Jonathan Kendrick (Kiefer Sutherland)’ on Santiago. They followed the orders and consequences, of course, were truly tragic for the innocent and defenseless victim. One is forced to ask questions like why, seemingly normal, law abiding citizens actually obeyed such directives. What leads to the tendency to obey, even when obedience results in potential harm to innocent human beings?

We can come to an understanding that such destructive obedience can stem from many factors. One could be the transfer of responsibility. “I was only carrying out orders” is the defense the marines offered after obeying harsh and stern commands. They believed that they were following orders and of course the notion is that ‘’a good soldier always obeys!’’

Another possibility is that the fast pace of events provided little time for reflection or logical thoughts to the Marines. The person in authority that is ‘Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholas)’ possessed visible badges and signs of high status. The odds are that, this perhaps served to remind marines of the social norm “obey the people in charge”. This is a dominant and prevailing norm, and when confronted with it, most people find it difficult to disobey. After all, no one wants to do the wrong thing, and obeying the commands of those who are in charge is the heart and soul of the institution.

He refused- In the movie, ‘Shaurya’, ‘CaptJaved Khan’ realized that there is always a choice even in the face of direct orders from his superiors. He realized that he was responsible for any harmed produced and, not the authority. One realizes that he had a clear idea that, beyond a point, total and blind submission to destructive commands is utterly inappropriate. He questioned whetherthose in the ranks of power are truly in the best position to judge what is appropriate and what is not; what motives lie behind their seemingly brutal commands- socially beneficial goals or selfish gains? And so instead of keeping quiet and watch his Superiors kill an innocent girl, he pulled the trigger and shot his Superior ‘Major Virendra Singh Rathode.’

Thus, the movie tries to prove that the power of authority figures to command obedience is certainly great, but it is not irresistible, and the brave Indian solider will always stand firm against allatrocities and shall ultimately triumph, despite the long odds against him.

‘CaptainRudraPratap Singh’ from ‘Shaurya’ and ‘Col. Nathan Jessup’ from ‘A few good men’ are both portrayed as aggressive and hostile individuals. By studying their characters, one can nail down the roots of their aggressive behavior. One of the obvious causes is, frustration and provocation. This aroused them to drive harm on other people, in case of ‘Col. Jessup’ it was the cold weather. Whereas ‘Cpt. R P Singh’ was provoked by ‘Jamil’ who was a servant in his household, raped the captain’s daughter and finally burnt the whole household, leading to the death of his daughter, wife and mother. His inability to find and punish Jamil led to an outrageously hostile attitude towards the entire Muslim clan.

Desensitization could also be a reason for the aggressive attitude of both the officers. Since they were exposed to a large amount of violence, the resorted to being less sensitive to violence and its consequences. Another reason could be the excessive form of self-love and an over inflated view of theirown accomplishments. Both of the officers are portrayed as narcissist and thus they may react sternly to small provocations because they believed that they are a force be reckoned with due to their high stature in the organization. This is one possibility, the alternate could be that they had nagging doubts about the accuracy of their inflated egos and so they reacted with extreme anger towards anyone who tried to undermine them. This is seen when ‘Santiago’ wrote a letter to the higher authority about an illegal cease fire, ‘Cpt Jessep’ ordered a code red to be performed on him since he felt that his authority was in question.

These two movies have a very disturbing effect as they seem to parallel many real life situations involving atrocities against innocent victims, like the massacre of millions of Jews by the Nazi and more recently the murders and disappearance of thousands of civilians in Kashmir. It questions our very view of the Indian Army and the Government agenda!

Gender violence overshadowed by national security

What is normalcy for Kashmiris?

Snow capped mountains or bared fences and boundaries,

Curfews and gun shots or silent perennial flowing rivers,

Disappearances and suppression or freedom from strife ,  

Angst and terror or hope and levity ,

Worthless metallic badges or helping hands of humanity?

   The situation in Kashmir is like chalk and cheese. What is reality for these people is completely opposite to what we have always taken for granted.

  The amount of gender violence in the Kashmir valley far exceeds than any other states in India.  Furthermost the cases of sexual violences are unreported to preserve the ‘Standards of Morality’ of the Indian Army. The most sadistic and brutal instance is the 1991 Kunan Poshpora case in which more than forty women were raped by the 4^th Rajputana Rifles. No one was spared between the age group of 12 to 80 years old. However the incident was labelled as a “massive hoax” by the inquiry committee setup by Government. This shows the loopholes in our judiciary system which overlooked the vast number of rape victims and all the classified witnesses of this inexorable case were dismissed and the verdict served justice to no one.

   In the name of the Army’s pretentious display of bravery, courage and ‘National Security’ they snatch the pride and dignity of the women in this state. The despair and agony of these women has been overlooked for over a decade just to retain the pride of the infamous Indian Army.

Another stark form of gender insecurity is the conditions of the ‘half women’. They are more often the unidentified faces of women sufferings in Kashmir. Not only they undergo extreme mental and social stigma to be born as beings who are not accepted in society readily but they also face everlasting economic hardships as well. They are often ineligible the government’s various support and pension schemes.  In many instances they are separated from their children who in return undergo extreme desolation and loneliness. 

  Furthermore the militarization of this zone places these half widows in a vulnerable position exposed to extreme form of sexual harassments and assaults. They require immediate actions and the culprit must be castigated in order for justice to prevail in this society. But the irony is that these cases of gender violence are neglected and never under the radar to prevent these heinous crimes to take place again. The plight of the women of the valley are deserted and not spoken off in many peace and security conventions in Kashmir.

   However the Kashmiri women do have skeletal support from local organisations mostly run by women who have faced similar situations but it is not adequate enough to look after so many cases without much Governmental backing. It is high time for the government who is barring itself the voice of the lakhs of disgruntled women in Kashmir. The Government must hammer for massive changes in the state as the toll of illicit crimes against women is creating an image of the state which runs totally contradictory to its factual demographic landscapes.