Perhaps, it is easier to bring in change by using a gun rather than with a pen. What else can be the reason for a Sociology professor to be at the centre of a killing that happened more than a thousand kilometres from the university she works with? At least that was what I understood from the incident of Nandini Sundar, working as a professor with Delhi University, being charged for the murder of a tribal (how I hate this term, but have to use it often) in faraway village in Bustar region of Chattisgarh.
One Shamnath Baghel, resident of Nama village, Sukma district was killed by Maoists in his residence. I wonder, how killings by Maoists are always have a prefix “allegedly” while other killings are confirmed even before FIR is filed. Victim’s wife complained that her husband was threatened by Maoists for complaining against Professor Nandini (I really don’t understand why liberals refer Nandini Sundar as Prof Sundar, rather than her first name Nandini. Maybe liberals are in fact anti-feminists).
Apparently Nandini Sundar visited the area under a cover name Richa Keshav earlier. Co-accused in the case are Vineet Tiwari, who belongs to Joshi Adhikar Sansthan (or Joshi Research Institute) of Delhi, Archana Prasad, a JNU Professor (why I feel nothing bad cannot happen in this country without some connection to JNU) and Sanjay Parate, State Secretary of CPI(M), Chattisgarh unit. In the month of May, it was reported that villagers of Nama, Kumakoleng, Soutnar have complained against Archana Prasad and Nandini Sundar.
Villagers complained that these academics were encouraging them to support Maoists.
Well, after their visit, this ‘fact finding team’ prepared a report that was published by Sabrangindia.in. Of course, Sabrang is an NGO owned by Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand. And we are not discussing about the financial irregularities committed by this couple. It may be purely a coincidence that the report on the atrocities committed in Chattisgarh were found by the fact finding team that was supported by Teesta and her husband. And it is only a fact that Professor Nandini is the wife of eminent journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, former editor of ‘The Hindu’, who now runs ‘Thewire’.
[Unlike Sabrang, who claim to oppose transformation of ‘secular democratic India’ into ‘Hindu Rashtra’, thewire was founded on the premise of ‘editorially and financially independent journalism’. I liked the way Siddharth put it. Really a good premise to reckon.]
Nandini Sundar was the petitioner who got Supreme Court to declare Salva Judum as wrong practice. Well, the court had followed the constitution and stopped it. But, the same constitution gives me the right to question something or anything – the same way it empowered Nandini Sundar. Yes?
I would like to know why Nandini and her team visited Bastar region only. Let me make it clear that I do not support killings, even by the Salva Judum. Why not any of these so called ‘fact finding teams’ didn’t West Bengal when it was ruled for three decades by the Marxists killing thousands of people. Do they believe there were no killings under Marxist rule? Or was it mentioned in the constitution that states under rule of Marxists can only indulge in killing their own people, for then it is labelled ‘Action by the Proletariat’ against the oppressors? Only in this case oppressors were poor people, perhaps another coincidence!
If these academics do really believe in democracy, why they support Maoists, who are the worst kind of hypocrites. Are the current generation Maoists did really inherit the core values of the first generation Naxalites? Then, it was a fight for equality, with an ideology (whether it was correct or not is a different question), fought with full conviction.
Many group leaders of first generation Naxalites were highly educated. They were the men of logic, who swayed into the fold of communism to establish – the Utopia! Of course, by then the atrocities of Lenin, Stalin and Mao already dominated world news, in spite of the iron curtain. It took only a decade for the true Naxalites to realise the futility of their efforts. In the garb of Communism, Socialism, Marxism and finally Naxalism – all they could see was the primitive animal instinct of ‘exploitation’. All Naxals did was to kill people ‘who were not poor’. And after eliminating them, Naxals occupied their place and started exploiting the same poor. In the process some of the poor were induced into the ranks of Naxals. The system so degenerated that they stalled any type of development in the regions controlled by them, by unleashing – Terror!
Of course, Nandini Sundar may simply rubbish the charges saying that the police is targeting them for fear of exposing atrocities on the tribals. Well, Nandini and her colleagues have the right to expose the atrocities of police. Then, why they were not opposing the atrocities by Naxalites? All associations for civil liberties have been reduced to become only supporters of Naxalites, who are now called Maoists. And all in the name of democracy!
If they really believe in democracy, was it not the right step for the Maoists to contest elections and do implement whatever they preach?
Yes, even Arvind Kejriwal did it. Within the gambit of electoral democracy, Arvind fought and won elections. Whether he would be successful in implementing whatever he promised would be judged by his electorate. If Professor Nandini’s sympathies lie with those who stay out of the democratic sphere, is she not equal to those who sympathise with Dawood Ibrahim and his ilk?
All the recorded history of socialist, communist regimes proves a single point. That these are the worst kind of regimes for humans to suffer from. Then, was she and her colleagues are correct when they exhort poor and already exploited villagers to support Maoists? And in what way Maoists do help the poor? By preventing construction of roads, schools and hospitals? If she could go to the Supreme Court and get the Salva Judum stopped, she could very well contribute to the development of the poor in a better way, by organising her Maoist followers to work constructively.
Then, why they choose the other path? It is not that they are not intelligent enough to comprehend this reality. Am I wrong if I suggest any other motives for them to support the extremist ideology? Maybe she could visit these forests and take photographs of these people and go to Denmark and lecture on ‘Police Atrocities’ ignoring the fact that the police were there in the first place as a reaction to the Maoist menace. So, is it wrong to question her and her colleagues about sponsors of her tours and lectures?
And is it wrong for a man affected by the Maoist menace to work against them? Does he not enjoy the ‘right to live’, the basic one that she preaches everywhere? Is it correct for her followers i.e., Maoists to kill a person just because he opposed them? And if his wife claims he was killed because he complained against Nandini Sundar, how can Nandini – being an accused rubbish the complaint? Is it not the constitutional duty of the police to investigate the matter and till the time courts clear her, she remains an ‘Accused’.
If China does move villagers, for the greater benefit of the population it is for the proletariat. If India does the same, it is oppression!
It is time to stop this nonsensical hypocrisy by the ignorant academicians. If the degrees of these academicians are useful to get funds from foreign nationals only to subvert indigenous history and present, it explains a lot why many adults are still living in universities living off the taxpayer’s money – doing research on alienated topics for the present India.
The life of Shamnath Baghel, a tribal from Bastar is also equal to the life of any other individual and their freedom. Nandini Sundar madam may take note that the present Indian society is not a ‘proletariat’ controlled one wherein those who oppose their doctrine can be killed at will.
Let professor Nandini show one real example of successful Maoist regime wherein human rights did exist, before preaching tribals to support them. The selective outrage by the liberals only exposed them. They may note that the literacy rate in India has increased now. It is a bit difficult to fool people now.
References:
