crtlve, repression and terror in ind~ politics · crtlve, repression and terror in ind~ politics...

CRTlVE, REPRESSION AND TERROR IN I N D ~ POLITICS

Structure

32.0 Objectives

32.1 Introduction

32.1.1 The ~ean in~s 'o f politics

32.1.2 Transition in Indian Politics

32.2 Crime and Politics

32.3 What is Repression?

32.4 Tenor: A Contested Category

32.5 Let Us Sum Up

32.6 Some Usekl Books

32.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

32.0 OBJECTIVES

Crime, repression and terror have become commonly used adjectives to describe Indian politics. Each of these aspects, however, has specific meanings within the fiameyork of democratic theory. They are o h seen as perversions in democracy, and manifestations of a rupture in the democratic processes. AAer going through this unit, you will be able to understand:

How crime, repression and terror form significant contexts of Indian politics; and

The manner in which they determine the content of Indian politics.

3 2.1 INTRODUCTION

32.1.1 The Meanings of Politics

Before one can begin talking about crime, repression and terror ifi Indian politics, it perhaps makes sense to talk first about the meaning of 'politics'. It is only after having understood the meaning'of politics, that we can understand how crime, repression and terror, 'corrupt' or 'pervert' politics, and change its meaning altogether. Generally speaking, the expression politics refers to a distinctive space as well the activities and relationships which characterise the space. ~ h u s in our common usage of the term we tend to differentiate the 'political' h m other spheres of human activity which form the private concerns of individuals and groups, viz., social, cultural, economic, etc. Politics has generally been understood in three broad ways:

a) Politics is seen as associated with governmental activities. This understanding of politics can perhaps be illustrated with the help of the notion of politics as it existed in classical Greece. Politics in Greek usage pertained to participation in decision-making and the, exercise of authority. In the nineteen sixties, David Easton conceptualised politics as the 'authoritative allocation of values'. For others like Bernard Crick, politics refers not so much to authoritative decision-making, but the processes by which decisions could be reached amiably.

Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

Contcrt of Indian State b) Politics is also understood as referring to the public domain, a space which is distinguished fiom the private and personal. This domain, unlike the private space, is concerned with activities whereby norms and rules which govern the entire society are determined and applied through the use of covert andlor overt coercive power.

c) There is yet another understanding of politics which seeks to change radically the above understandings of politics. According to this understanding, politics refers not merely to decision-making but pertains to the manner in which power, wealth and resources. are distributed in society. Politics is also not seen as confined to the public domain, but as something which permeates all institutions and unfolds at every level of social existence. We may mention here, that the feminists were the most persuasive in this redefinition of politics, emphasising that the private sphere including the family was also permeated with power structures. Therefore this definition also includes in its scope, struggles by people and movements of resistance which aim at altering the manner in which resources are distributed in society, in order to make society more egalitarian.

32.1.2 Transitions in Indian Politics

From politics of trust to politics of suspicion, the two decades immediately following independence have been characterised by Rajni Kothari as 'decades of trust'. Politics in these decades was determined by a sense of trust between people marked by a mutual concern h d understanding about what constituted the 'common good'. Politics was seen as an 'ethical space' where conflicts were resolved amiably and honourably. The seventies, however, marked according to Rajni Kothari, an 'obituary' of the politics of trust of the preceding decades. The 'ethical space' of politics was vitiated by violence, crime, corruption and repression, marking what Kothari calls the 'the virtual elimiiation of politics':

What we confront today is not the crisis of politics but its virtual elimination. The last decade has marked the beginning of the Indian State that has not only deprived society of a basic consensus, but which has eschewed any scope of dialogue $om it. The violence, the fear, the repression, the rhetoric of deceit and d&ublespeak, are symptoms not of crises, but of the end of politics. (Rajni Kothari, Politics and the People: In search of a Humane India, Ajanta Prakashan, Deihi, 1989, p.439. emphasis added)

Indian politics was no longer the democratic space where, through dialogue and interaction, the aspirations and needs of the people could be affirmed and resolved. The 'end of politics' is seen as the period in which the relationship of dialogue among people as well as the people and the state, is ruptured by crime, repression and terror as the means of conflict resolption. Crime, repression and terror make themselves manifest in several forms. In the sections that follow we shall examine crime, repression' and terror respectively, as they appear as characteristics of, and provide the;contexts, in which politics in India unfolds.

32.2 CRIME AND POLITICS

The relationship between crime and politics can be appropriately illustrated Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

I Perhaps the best and most authoritative delineation of this relationship, its I

I roots and implications, has come from Rajni Kothari. Writing in the middle I of 1984 about the rise of the 'terrorist state', Rajni Kothari gives particular I attention to the 'criminalisation' of the Indian state. Kothari sees this

criminalisation as having unfolded in the process of the transformation of Indian politics fiom an 'organic' and vibrant entity, i.e., something wholesome and alive, into a mere 'mechanical', 'electoral system'. The logic of electoral

I politics determined by quantity or numbers, set forth a number of issues

r and brought into use a number of practices which were merely rhetorical and aimed at gains in electoral politics, e.g., caste and communal politics.

/ This transformation of an organic polity into an electoral system which deteriorated into a game of numbers and empty rhetorics, was accompanied I by an even more frightening development viz., the permeation of Indian state and politics by criminal elements. The criminalisation of politics was made manifest in a combination of two processes witnessed at this time: (i) the use of gangsterism as a substitute for party organisation and (ii) complete permeation of the State by money power. Both these processes were reflective of the means used to stay in power and simultaneously, the use of political power to serve selfish ends rather than public good. (See Rajni Kothari, 'The State, the People, the Intellectuals and 1984: Rise of the Terrorist State' in Politics and the People, Vol.11, 1989)

The emergent inhstructure of politics in the seventies and eighties was a , reflection of this degeneration of Indian pglitics. Politics no longer comprised

of individuals sensitive to the needs and aspirations of people at the grassroots and local levels, but of musclemen and local mafias who were supported and maintained by a new high-growth sector of the Indian economy, 'the combination of liquor kings, smugglers and fast-buck politicians'. The gangsters were needed to capture booths and smugglers to provide election finances. Over the passage of time, they increasingly mediated the play of power itself. It may be pointed out that in July 1993 the Government of India set up a committee headed by the then Home Secretary, N.N.Vohra, to take stock of all available information about the activities of crime Syndicate1 Mafia organisations which had developed links with and were being protected by government hnctionaries (Vohra Committee Report, Ministry of Home

1 Affairs, New Delhi, 1993, p.1). The Committee submitted its report in October 1993. It took note of the fact that among other agencies, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) too, had reported the existence to crime syndicates all over India, and their nexus with the police, bureaucracy and politicians. The Committee felt that the existing criminal justice system was inadequate to deal with the activities of the Mafia, the provisions of law being especially weak in regard to economic offenses. (Vohra Report, p.2)

The Election Commission too has pointed out the existence of a large number of Members of Legislative Assemblies (henceforth MLAs) having criminal records, and the need of weeding out criminal elements fiom politics. During the 1998 Lok Sabha elections, an eminent panel consisting of Justice Kuldip Singh, Madhav Godbole, C. Subramaniurn and Swami Agnivesh, identified as many as 72 Lok Sabha candidates facing serious criminal cases. It may be said that the majority of criminals enter the electoral fray through the medium of National and State parties, including the two large& all-India parties. Another alarming fact is that the bulk of the criminal candidates fell in the categories of accused of serious crimes. Thev include Dersons alreadv

Crime, Repression and Terror in Indian Politics


Context of Indian State charge-sheeted by a judicial court or by an investigating agency and those with long crime hiistory (Outlook, 23 February 1998, 10-1 1).

These developments in Indian politics have resulted in both a narrowing of its social base and a loss of autonomy owing to the infusion of criminality and gangstelism inbo the realm of politics. These developments were directly responsible for the transformation of the state into an instrument of internal repression. Symptomatic of this is the brutalisation of the police and the paramilitary forces, which shall be discussed in the sections on repression and terror. Apart from the abuse of power, and the use of force in a way that violates the rights of people, another manifestation of crime in politics is what may be termed as governmentill corruption. Governmental corruption pertains to the misappropriation and misdirection of public resources. Conuption in a political context most typically suggests the misuse of political office for material advantage. Bribery is perhaps the activity most closely associated with political corruption, and is in effect an improper inducement to influence the performance of a public act in a manner that it favours specific individuals rather than the people in general. In the past fifteen years, the concepts of 'scams' and 'scandals' have also become an integral part of Indian politics. From the 'Bofors' scam in the nineteen eighties through 'Hawala' to the 'Fodder' scam, the amount of money misappropriated in these scams has increased manifold. The 'Tehalka' scandal which exposed the manner in which decisions are made and deals struck in politics, gave audio-visual evidence about activities which perhaps many already believed to be true. Such scandals, however, invariably become part of the contest for one-upmanship between the government and the opposition parties. The foundational principles of politic_s, ethics, morality, and transparency, are unfortunately, seldamrestored.

,

Apart from crimes of corruption, economic and electoral malpractice, it may also be pointed out that Indian politics is characterised by a growing insensitivity towards the basic needs of the people. In a country where a large number of people have to struggle daily to survive, the carelessness of the politicians and bureaucrats towards the basic needs of people, viz., food, shelter, self-determination and life, violates universally defined human rights pertaining to food, shelter, self-determination, and life. The starvation deaths in Kashipur district of Orissa in the July-August, 2001, is a recent example of negligence and the resultant misery for large numbers of people.

1

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers. ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the end

of the unit. --

1) What do you mean by politics in the "decades of trust"?

2) What do you mean by criminalisation of politics? 6 ................................................................................................................ Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

32.3 WHAT IS REPRESSION? '

I

The dictionary meanings of 'repress' are 'to restrain', 'to keep under', 'to put down', etc. The terms repression and repressive are more often than not, associated with political regimes and governments, as a description of their character and functioning. Like 'criminalisation', repression too, denotes a disruption in democratic relationships in the domain of politics. It also

b 1 indicates the degeneration of politics as an ethical space where democratic

1 participation takes place. We have mentioned in the earlier section that Rajni Kothari characterised the decade of the seventies as the beginning of the period of the demise or elimination of politics, owing to a growkg criminalisation of politics. In a similar vein, A.R. Desai spoke of the same period as characterised by a growing 'assault' on the democratic rights of the people by the law and order machinery of the state. This period, points out Desai, was characterised by an 'assertion' of the large masses of the 'economically exploited' classes, and the socially, politically and culturally oppressed sections, of their elementary aspirations and demands for basic rights. If we recall here the third definition of politics, i.e., as a means to distribute resources, we may see the struggles by the large masses of the oppressed and excluded people, as trying to effect change in the manner in which resources were being distributed in society. They were, in other words, trying to transform the inegalitarian political-institutional and social-cultural structures through which 'authoritative allocation of values' were being made. The struggles made themselves manifest in various forms viz., Constitutional Court battles, processions, strikes, dharnas, satyagrahas, and militant actions. The response of the state was frequently to silence these voices of protest through various measures both legal and extra-legal. These struggles by the people to radically change the structures of power and decision making were seen by successive governments as 'anti-social' and a threat to law and order in society. They took recourse to a wide range of 'legal' and 'administrative' measures to restore 'law and order', curb 'anti-social' elements, and halt the processes of change in the existing structures of authority. There are a,nu.ber of articles and reports which chronicle the violation of the righp of various marginalised sections, including the dalits, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the working class, women, religious minorities, etc. They also list the various measures - legal (including the preventive detention laws, disturbed areas iaws etc.), and extra-legal (disappearances, encounter deaths etc.) - through which aspirations for change were dealt with by subsequent regimes.

It may be noted here that the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India assure basic rights to the people irrespective of the conditions of their birth, e.g., caste, class, race, religion, gender, etc. It is significant, however, that the coficerns for political stability in the minds of the Constitution makers, provoked them to include in the Constitution conditions under which these basic rights could be withdrawn. Thus the Constitution of India (article 22) itself provides for preventive detention or detention without trial even in times of peace. It also contains Emergency provisions (Articles 352-360) which provide for the suspension of the fundamental rights of the people when the security of India or any part of it is threatened due to war, external - . - -. - - - - -

Crime, Reprassion and Terror in Indian Politics


Context of Indian State suspended rights would, under such conditions, also be suspended. Throughout the history of independent India, several laws have been passed by various governments which have suspended the normal procedures of law to detain people without trial. For several years, notably the Emergency (1975-77) and before that during India's wars with China and Pakistan, the whole of the country was put under Emergency, facilitating the suspension of the normal procedures of law and people's basic rights. The entire north-eastern region of India has been under extra-ordinary laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 for several years giving wide ranging powers to the c e d forces to put down movements by some sections of people belonging to the region. A series of Acts, from the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, through the Maintenance of Intemal Security ~ c t , 1971, the various Public Safety Acts which were enacted by different states governments from time to time, the National Security Act, 1980, to the most contentious and repressive Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, were used against various movements. Thus political opposition, political groups ideologically at variance with the government of the day, and, popular struggles asserting their rights to cultural identity and self determination were brought under the purview of these Acts. The promulgation of The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001 in the month of November, has again emphasised the fact that such extraordinary laws have perhaps become an integral part of governance in India. The existence of such extraordinary laws is indicative of the failure of democratic politics and the absence of democratic dialogue in society.

32.4 TERROR: AXONTESTED CATEGORY

The word 'terror' along with other fi-equently used expressions like terrorise and terrorism derive from the Latin verbs 'terrere', which means 'to tremble or to cause to tremble, and deter, to frighten fi-om'. While these meanings refer to outcomes, or effects, the word terror also denotes actions which have the capacity of causing dread, or alternatively, persons, objects or force, inspiring dread. In a general sense the term 'terror' would signify a set of conditions, constituted of persons, acts, objects, effects etc., which produce a psychc state of great fear or dread. (Paul Wilkinson, Political Terrorism, Macmillan, 1974.)

While the term 'terror' can be more or less accurately defined, the concept of terrorism is less precise. Contested meanings have been attached to the concept drawing from its history, its modem contexts, and the perspective or vantage point from which one looks at it. In its historical origins the term has been associated with terror by governments, notably by the French revolutionary government against its opponents, and by the Bolsheviks in Russia after 1917. In its contemporary usage, however, the frames of reference seem to have shifted to cover acts of terror by the opponents of governments and include bombings, assassinations, hostage taking and plane hijackings. Also by the 1970s terms like international terrorism and state terrorism gained widespread currency. While the former referred to acts of terror by political groups outside the country in which they were primarily active, the latter referred to (alleged) encouragement and support by states of such acts of terrorism. In its current usage, three diverse meanings of terror and terrorism co-exist: (a) Acts of terror which occur ;n er\n+l;fit 4rlrlnn o;h~nf;r\nc ~ x r ; t h ; n nnGnnal h n ~ ~ n A a r i m e o ~nrnrn~ma l lcpr ta r i an


and ethnic violence in ethnically mixed or plural societies e.g., the conflicts Crime, Repression and Terror in Indian Politics

between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon, between Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Catholics and Protestants in p or them Ireland etc. (b) Very often, however, most acts of terror are seen as carried out by the state itself. While Nazism and Stalinism are often cited as relevant examples, there are and have existed repressive regimes in this century (e.g. Pinochet's Chile). It is argued that terror and coercion often play important roles in maintaining state domination and power. (c) Acts of terror which form a part of the larger agenda of radical social and political change or national independence. In these cases it is argued the 'rejection' of 'terrorist' tactics has no bearing on questions of 'legitimacy' of the larger goals of the struggle (see Fred Halliday, 'Terrorism', in Joel Krieger ed. The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, New York, 1993, 902-904).

The definition of what constitutes 'terror' in the context of Indian politics, comes-largely from government's legal formulations of what constitute 'terrorist' and 'disruptive' activities. These legal definitions, contained in laws like Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, and most recently, The Prevention of Terrorism Act, (POTA) 2001, have come in the context of various struggles for self-determination, often of a violent nature, in various parts of India, primarily Punjab in the eighties and Kashmir in the nineties. Generally, terrorism has been understood as a method, consisting of symbolic acts of vidence, intended to have an effect much wider in magnitude than the actualact. The 'terrorist' method has been used by quite a few groups in India including groups espousing a revolutionary ideology of change, such as the 'naxalite groups' in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar. Groups fighting for political autonomy or self-determination like the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), the Mizo National Front (MNF), the Jarnmu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), the Khalistani Commando Force (KCF) in Punjab and, the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen etc in Jammu and Kashmir, have also used terrorism as a method. OAen groups struggling for self-determination have sought legitimacy for their 'terrorist' activities in religious ideologies e.g., groups like the Harkat-ul-Ansa. in Jarnmu and Kashrnir and the Bhindranwale Tiger Force in Punjab.

Legal definitions of terrorism have been modified h m time to time and these definitions have invariably cited concerns about the 'security environment' of India. The Law Commission's recommendations in April 2000, for bringing in a new Bill, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, noted the absence of a 'comprehensive anti-terrorism law7 to fill in the vacuum which had &sen after the expiry of TADA. It cited the security concerns arising from 'terrorist violence' in Jammu and Kashmir and the North-East, and the continuing vulnerability of Punjab to sqch violence. The proposed Bill did not become an Act. In the context of a worldwide condemnation of terrorist violence aAer the 11 September, 2001 bombing of the World Trade Centre towers in New York City, and the Pentagon in Washington D.C., the government has been able to bring in first an Ordinance to deal with terrorism, viz., The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001, (POTO) and then a law Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

Often, however, what the government sees as measures to counter terrorism, are seen by civil liberties groups as extraordinary, violative of democratic . . . C .. . . . . 1.. ., . *


Context of lndian State The civil liberties and democratic rights groups in India have pointed out that some of the activities called Terrorism by laws like TADA and POT0 is actually political militancy. K. Balagopal, for example; differentiates between political militancy which is a method of terror used by groups for a political purpose (autonomy, seIfdeteminations, changing feudal and capitalist structures of domination etc.) fiom what he calls plain terror of goondas, gun-toting landlords, mafias, etc. He ernphasises that even if one does not-like political militancy, and rejects any kind of militancy, it may nonetheless, be noted that governments ace quick to arm themselves with extzaordinary laws against political militancy. The t m r of goonda gangs, mafias, and gun-toting landlords, which long predates the Khalistani Commando Force, the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, the ULFA, and the People's War, was never called terrorism, nor were especially harsh laws ever contemplated for tackling it. Balagopal makes an important point that the different treatment of political militancy by governments is 'not so much because'it is militancy' but 'because it is politics, and that too, polit;:s of a different kind'. It is also important to nbte that the so called te l'cjrist groups have a politics which is not guided by 'just terror'. Often, their politics, 'right or wrong', has a wide social base, which means that a substantial number of people support it and its armed activity. This support makes it very difficult to deal with them by methods or means which look at them as mere law and order Goblem to be curbed by harsh laws. -


Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers. ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the ene

of the unit.

1) What do the Articles 22 and 352-360 of the Constitution stand for'?

2) What do the terms International terrorism and State terrorism mean?

................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

3) What are the Civil liberty Right groups?

32.5 LETUS SUMUP

SU he notion of politics signifies a domain and activities denoting the formal . . . . . - . . . . . . . . a ,- . * . , , . .


Crime, Repression and Terror in Indian Politics

resources are distributed in society. In a democracy, politics is seen as a domain to which everybody, irrespective of hislher conditions of birth has equal access. It is seen as an activity which empowers people. The years immediately after independence in India, were full of hope and enthusiasm. Independence brought in the belief that h e liberty, equality and freedom, can be achieved in the process of self-governance. Politics was seen as an ethical space where deliberations could take place, and decisions made, which would be for the common good. Significant developments, especially since the nineteen seventies, greatly affected the way in which Indian politics unfolded. The eminent political scientist, Rajni Kothari has described these decades as marking the end of the politics of trust, and a virtual elimination of politics as an ethical space. The demise of the politics of trust and its degeneration fiom a space in which honourable dialogues took place, was due to violence, fear and repression. Politics was permeated by crime which was manifested by the growing use of gangsterism as a substitute for party organisation and the use of money power. Such developments narrowed the domain of politics by excluding people's parkipation and reduced its autonomy by making it dependent on money power and local goondas. In such a scenario where politics had a narrow social base, and the representatives of the people were dependent on mafia and money power for sustaining themselves, it was perhaps logical that the dissatisfaction of people, who felt excluded from the political process, should make idself manifest in the form of movements and struggles. The state in turn responded by taking recourse to measures whch were designed to repress or put down such movements and aspirations. In his wokks, A.R.Desai has brought together a set of articles which look at the manner in which the state has repressed or contained people's movements. Terror has become a significant context of Indian politics since the nineteen eighties in the context of the movements for self determination in Punjab, in the North-East and in Jamrnu and Kashmir. By and large terrorism has been understood as acts or threats of violence against ordinary, unarmed civilians, carried out in the pursuit of a political abjective. Often, the response of the state to these movements has been in terms of voicing 'security concerns' pertaining to the unity and integrity of India S e v d e x t n m m laws including Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, (TADA) and now Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2001, (POT&, have been brought by successive govenunents, to deal with threats from terrorism. Civil liberties groups, however, look at the manner -

in which extraordinary laws often violate the rights of ordinary people. Moreover, they see the response in terms of legal measures, a misdirected remedy for a problem which is political in n&e. They point out that often what is loosely labeled 'terrorism' is not always 'mindless violence'. Such movements often have strong socio-political roots and distinctive ideologies. They cannot, therefore, be addressed by extraordinary laws, since these are political questions and need to be addressed on that level rather than as law and order problems. he permeation of crime, repression and terror, in Indian politics has meant that politics in India lacks the fiarnework conducive for popular participation. In such a scenario it is desirable that people as the sovereign custodians of constitutional promises should be alert to their rights and duties and work towards restoring the norms of a democratic society and polity.


Context of Indian Stat9 32.6 SOME USEFUL BOOKS

Desai, A.R., Violation of Democratic Rights in India, Vol.1, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1986.

Repression and Resistance, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1986.

Kothari Rajni, Politics and the People: In Search of Humane India, Volume 11, Ajanta Publications, Delhi, 1989 (Chapter 22: 'The State, the People, the Intellectuals' and Chapter 26: ' 1984: Rise of the Terrorist State').

Singh, Randhir, 'Terrorism, State Terrorism and Democr ic Rights', in 4 Randhir Singh, Five Lectures in Marxist Mode, Ajanta, De hi, 1993.

32.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES

Check Your Progress Exercise I

1) Politics in the first two decades immediately following independence as it was marked by mutual trust between people.

2) Increasing role of crime in politics.


1) Article 22 provides for preventive detension or detension without tribal even in times of peace; Articles 352-36 provides for suspension of fimdamental rights during emergency.

2) The former refers to the'aacts of terror by political groups outside the countty where they are primarily active. The latter meanings support or encouragement by the state to acts of terrorism.

3) Groups which fight against the violation of the rights of the people.


crtlve, repression and terror in ind~ politics · crtlve, repression and terror in ind~ politics...

Documents