“Rebel with a cause”

"Rebel with a cause” is an appealing phenomenon. Sixty-six years ago I enrolled at University to obtain a master’s degree in philosophy, by submitting a thesis, the subject of which was "The right to revolt.” In theory I am all for it. Decades later, I fear it.

Kobad Ghandy, writing from Tihar Jail ("Rebel with a cause,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 7, 2010) complains that "the Government trains its guns on them,” referring to the Maoists in India.

There are here, puzzles within puzzles. The first puzzle is the biggest and the most fearsome. If the rebel’s aim is to overthrow the functioning government and he resorts to violence, mayhem and beheadings in order to achieve it, does reason, can reason, stand by and say amen? The second puzzle is, if the established government does not eliminate grinding poverty, corruption, exploitation, misery and hunger, does not alleviate illness, inequality, homelessness, needless affliction and death, does reason, can reason stand up and say amen (to the overthrow of the established government)?

"The old order changeth, yielding place to new.” This appears, on the face of it, to be an attractive answer to one’s puzzlement. But here arises a third puzzle, intellectually more devastating. Should the new order be destructive of reason itself, should it be bereft of values, should it, while eliminating grin­ding poverty, corruption, exploitation and hunger, while alleviating inequality, illness, home­less­ness, affliction and death, also destroy human dignity, human freedom, human aspirations, human feelings. Does reason, can reason exist?

If, in the new order, manhood, compassion, diversity, gentleness, affection, be all pulverized so that we become contented pigs in clean pigsties, happy Diogenes in comfortable tubs, well-fed robots, does reason, can reason stand for the possibility of such a new order, or must reason strike down the untested ideology of an un-ensured heaven on earth, and "train its guns” in the ideological direction?

I await the answer, from — where else? — Tihar jail.

FEROZA H. SEERVAI

fseervai@gmail.com

Kobad Ghandy replies from Tihar Jail:

I thank you for permitting me to respond to Feroza Seervai’s letter. Such debates are rarely allowed in the mainline media, and for this Parsiana is to be commended.

I would like to take up her last point first — that communists "destroy human dignity, human freedom, human aspirations… and compassion, diversity, gentleness, affection…” It is true that most of the communist movements worldwide (and in India) degenerated in this way, but that is not ideally what one would hope for. What drew me to Marxism when I was in London, in the late 1960s, was precisely the human essence of the ideology. It is also the most valuable aspect I treasure in my wife, Anuradha, who died two years back. I enclose an article on her on this occasion for your perusal. It reflects the importance I attach to the question of value systems and not just the issue of poverty (see "A comrade and companion,” page 35).

In fact it is the present system, built on selfishness, greed and petty egos that results in the terrible alienation man faces from his fellow beings. This has only worsened in the last decade. That most communist movements/individuals have degenerated in the same way is, no doubt, a point to ponder over, yet the search for the ideal human being continues. I felt Anuradha came close to that.

Kobad Ghandy: searchng for the ideals

Puzzles number one and two are interlinked so I will take them together. One does not condone some of the violent actions by the Maoists. But the media plays on these while ignoring much of the real work done as reflected in Arundhati Roy’s article in Outlook (March 29, 2010). Yet, this society is inherently terribly violent, particularly in rural Bihar, UP, etc where caste feuds result in daily killings, rape of women, et al. Besides, in these past 12 years, two lakh farmers have committed suicide due to debt and impoverishment (as I write this the Press has reported another nine suicides in Vidarbha — the suicide capital of India). And as Harsh Mander writes: "One in every two Indian children is unable to access enough food for the body and brain to develop to their full potential. There is little more desperate and shaming for a parent than to be unable to feed one’s child (The Hindu, March 28, 2010).” And Mander was a top IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officer who left his job to run NGOs (nongovernmental organizations). Violence is all over, in varied forms.

Any action that gives pain to another through violence, starvation, illness (curable), etc is horrifying, particularly for those who suffer it. In Iraq we see over one million killed in the fight for oil. In the Congo another million were killed in the fight for its mineral wealth. Tomorrow we may witness nuclear devastation, if the economic crisis deepens — which it is bound to. What then is the answer to all this suffering? It disturbs one’s conscience to see such acute pain inflicted by this system worldwide. Silence means consent. If Seervai is not happy with communism, we need a viable alternative to rid the society of its deep-rooted and widespread ills.

I have read with interest Kobad Ghandy’s letter ("Rebel with a cause,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 7, 2010). I am aware of what has happened in the world and in India over the years; of the excruciating poverty that has prevailed, and the inability of the powers that be to improve conditions. Is it possible for the Maoists to do any better?

In India we have had three communist ruled states in the past — Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal. How far were they able to improve conditions? When the CPM (Communist Party Marxist) was elected in West Bengal in the 1970s, a lot of good work was done in the initial period. Tenants were provided recorded rights to land. A minimum wage was implemented for agricultural labor, as well as for the industrial sector. Laws were passed for improvements in the urban and rural areas, and everyone was sure that the state would soon become an ideal one. What was forgotten was that the same bureaucracy was implementing the laws as in the earlier regimes and, as time went by, everything went back to square one.

Once, on a visit to Kerala, I was on a sea cruise along with a number of holidaying government officers. I asked them how improvements were being implemented in Kerala. Their reply was that when the communists were in power one set of officers work and when the Congress is in power another set of officers work! Of course, sadly, in Tripura whether it is the communist or non-communist regime, conditions continue to remain bad.

The Maoists have been in power in Nepal for over a year now, but one rarely reads of any improvements having been carried out. Nepal is a small country. Is it possible for the Maoists to implement and improve conditions in India, as claimed by Ghandy?

FRENY K. WADIA

Poona