State-Sponsored Violence
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
In the past decade, 85 per cent of Left Wing Extremists (LWE) strength in Chhattisgarh and 14 top CPI (Maoist) leaders have been eliminated, according to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, adding that a final blow is targeted by March 2026. The remarks were made at a review meeting of LWE, days after 31 Naxalites were eliminated in Chhattisgarh’s Abujhmad area on 5 October. In fact, the total number of Maoists killed this year climbed to 237 but actual figures may be much more.
Obviously, the government thought it justified to carry out such State-sponsored violence. But what appears strange is that it didn’t consider it necessary to delve into the reasons for the terrorism of the Maoists and efforts, if at all, by the government to understand their demands and take action to resolve at least some of them. This, in a country where the ruling party swears by the name of Mahatma Gandhi and has successfully made it possible to declare October 2 ‘International Day of Peace’. It is also not known whether the government thought it necessary to rehabilitate the families of those killed. Though the Home Minister spoke of central flagship schemes, these have had very little effect in remote and backward villages and changed the life of tribals.
Analysts attribute the fact that the powerful exploit people through forceful or violent means to gain more wealth and prosperity. The State uses force against those who rise in dissent and fight for the poor and the marginalised. Sociologists are dismayed at such trends accentuating and some attribute this to crony capitalism and materialistic tendencies pervading the social system in most parts of the world.
Violence is obviously the symbol of a democratic deficit, of unrepresentative and unresponsive democracies, of injustice, of the failure of the state to control dominant groups, and of the readiness of the state to use violence against its own people. The unhappy coexistence of democracy and violence cannot be wished away by neglecting either the context of violence i.e. democracy or ignoring the pervasiveness of violence – even State sponsored — in the Indian democratic scenario.
It is pertinent also to refer to lynching, which is a common form of violence that is manifest nowadays in the country. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that India is witnessing a sickening rise in hate crimes and violence. Half a dozen of such killings have taken place since the BJP was returned to power for a third term with cow vigilantes, as the death of a young student in Faridabad has shown, having a disproportionate hand in these crimes. India has had to face international censure for its failure to protect the lives of minorities in recent years. Even the existence of legal deterrents, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which has specific punitive provisions for mob lynching, has not made much of a difference and Muslims and Dalits have borne the brunt of such perverse justice.
Apart from lynching and hate crimes, rapes and murder are other forms of violence being increasingly witnessed among the poor and low castes. The perpetrators largely get away by bribing the law enforcing agencies as statistics reveal that seven out of 10 persons do not go to jail for recorded rapes. If the unrecorded rapes are considered – poor women in villages not having the courage to go to a police station – it is seen that a mere two per cent face conviction.
The crux of the matter is that the violent behaviour of the State machinery must change, and the genuine demands of the people sympathetically dealt with. But this is possible only if government policies are rooted to the grassroots, if the policy makers realise the sufferings of the adivasis and the extremely backward castes, if education and health are made available to the impoverished in backward areas and the likes. For this to happen, the areas such as the above should get priority over modernisation of airports, railway stations, induction of Vande Bharat trains etc., which benefit the rich and upper middle class.
Factors such as greed and jealousy which have permeated our society has contributed to violence and the political culture has failed to control the same. Putting one community against another perhaps benefits the political class, which ignores the nation’s culture and civilisation. India happens to be a signatory to the ‘Open Societies Statement’ which states: “…We are at a critical juncture facing threats to freedom and democracy from rising authoritarianism, electoral interference, corruption, economic coercion, manipulation of information, including disinformation, online harms and cyber attacks, politically motivated internet shutdowns, human rights’ violations and abuses, terrorism and violent extremism…In the midst of these threats we will work together to create an open and inclusive rules-based international order for the future that promotes universal human rights and equal opportunities for all.”
From a different perspective regarding the international scenario, Prof. Arnold Toynbee had observed: “If we do not abolish war, war is going to abolish us”. The warning of the esteemed physicist Albert Einstein is much more serious: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Peace is after all indivisible, there cannot be peace in one part of the world and war in another. Peace can be ensured in the world if a single government wields control over armaments. In fact, no sacrifice would be too big to achieve world peace – be its surrender of a part of the national sovereignty or renunciation of the use of force in settling international disputes.
In the same vein, Mahatma Gandhi dwelt on non-violence as he rejected the notion of a materialistic, unequal society where one section wields power and resources. He believed in an exploitation free society, which could only be possible where there is non-violence in life and society and human wants are restricted to some extent.
It is well known that both he and Martin Luther King showed that non-violence could be the basis for collective response to achieve social or political goals. Both also spoke extensively on the need to imbibe non-violence at an individual level, in thought and in action. There call for non-violent protests did unnerve the governments in those days. In fact, recent cases of non-violent protests by farmers or agitating junior doctors have had successes to some extent. The message being deal with the problem at hand, not ignore it for it shall trigger anger which in turn may spill over to violence. Governments must heed. — INFA