BJP Staring at Massive Defeat

Even seasoned political commentators across the country with marked secular credentials have continued to maintain that the Bharatiya Janata Party has a decent chance of coming back to power again. Recent opinion polls suggest to them that Modi is ‘ahead’ even if slightly, that the BJP has shown better political acumen by forming alliances swiftly and firmly, that the electoral campaign of the opposition, especially the Congress, is in ‘disarray’ since the alliances recommended from television studios have not materialized, that Phulwama and Balakot have changed the ‘narrative’ in favour of BJP, and so on. I am setting aside the issue of whether these impressions are deliberately created to please the ruling power, or whether the spectre of 2014 continues to haunt nervous political thinking. The fact of the matter is that the ground reality is exactly the opposite.

No doubt BJP’s decisive electoral victory of 2014 was a rude shock to the democratic aspirations of the nation. However, the current issue is whether the BJP is anywhere near in either exceeding or repeating or even closely approaching its electoral success five years ago. Begin with the fact that even at its historical peak in 2014, BJP could muster just 31% of popular vote to ensure a majority of 282 in the Lok Sabha. Much of this came from UP (71), Bihar (22), Jharkand (12), MP (27), Rajasthan (25), Chattisgarh (10), Gujarat (26), Karnatak (17), Maharashtra (23) plus smaller states like Delhi (7), Haryana (7), Goa (2), HP (4) etc. The impressive vote-share in these states was bolstered by a very impressive conversion rate; the conversion rate in some of these states was nearly 100% with a vote share nearing 50%. It was a massive victory in a very carefully managed electoral territory in the north-central-west part of the country. Let us call this BJP’s Core Sector. BJP secured as many as 253 of its total tally of 282 seats from the Core Sector alone.

Even in 2014, BJP continued to have minimal or no presence in Orissa, Andhra, Telengana, Tamilnadu, Kerala, West Bengal and the north-east. Vast stretches of eastern and southern India ignored the Modi wave and the aggressive propaganda unleashed by the BJP-RSS-corporate conglomerate. As noted, BJP managed only 29 seats in the rest of 290 seats. Let us call this BJP’s Peripheral Sector. So, the ability of the BJP to return to power depends entirely on (a) if it can hold on to the vote-share and seats in the Core Sector, or (b) expand its base in the Peripheral Sector; or both.

Core Sector

BJP’s quantum of victory in the Core Sector, in terms of vote-share and conversion to seats, was so astonishing in 2014 that it is hard to expect that a similar share will be retained after five years of governance. As a matter of fact, BJP’s base in the Core Sector has mostly fallen apart in recent years.

In UP, as surveys from CSDS-Lokniti and others pointed out, even going by the vote-share of 2014, BJP would have garnered only about 30 seats if the SP and BSP votes just numerically combined, despite the Modi wave and the polarization engineered by the electoral machine of Amit Shah. There is no Modi wave now and Shah’s designs will not work anymore, as recent by-elections showed. This is largely because the SP and the BSP have formed a formidable alliance much ahead of the elections. Since it is a formal alliance already working in the ground, its effect is likely to be deeper than just arithmetic; it is now a hope for the people especially in view of the major failures of the Modi rule.

It is important to note that the broad picture in UP is not likely be affected by the presence or absence of Congress because Congress will not be able to detach the subaltern vote of the alliance where the alliance is strong, which is the case for the vast majority of the seats. In the few seats in which the alliance is not so strong and where RLD is not fighting, some Muslim vote may drift to Congress; but in these cases, much upper caste vote may also drift towards Congress enabling Congress to win. In sum, there is much justification in the claim of the alliance that BJP’s tally will be counted in one hand.

In Bihar, knowing the situation in UP, BJP hastened to form a humiliating alliance with Nitish Kumar’s JDU to try to retain the ground of 2014. Numerically, the combined vote-share of BJP-JDU in 2015 assembly elections was nearly 40%. The high number was largely the result of continuing Modi wave enabling 24% to BJP, and the transfer of votes to JDU due to the grand alliance with RJD and Congress. Both factors are now absent. So, even with the alliance, BJP’s own seat-share will fall sharply because (a) the NDA faces a formidable alliance of RJD, Congress and others that consists of most of the subaltern forces and a large section of the upper classes, (b) the Nitish regime is faced with massive anti-incumbency. In Bihar, the contest in most cases will be strictly one on one, in which anti-incumbency and the shady image of Nitish Kumar will play a large role.

Most significantly, in four of the major states in the Core Sector, BJP has actually lost power in Punjab, Chattisgarh, Rajasthan, MP and Karnataka; in each case, Congress formed the government (in alliance with JDS in Karnataka). It is a proven narrative that the party that wins a state election just prior to national elections, wins the latter as well. In these states then, BJP is staring at significant defeats. These elections were indeed a huge game-changer.

In Gujarata and Maharashtra in the Core sector, the last assembly elections showed that BJP has lost considerable ground in Gujarat; it must have lost even further ground by now due to a resurgent Congress with consolidation of Dalit and farmer votes around it accompanied by palpable anti-incumbency. In Maharashtra, BJP did form another humiliating alliance with Shiv Sena, but this alliance faces an equally strong and resurgent alliance between Congress and NCP. Also, there is severe anti-incumbency, especially due to massive farmer’s unrest. As noted, in a basically one on one contest, anti-incumbency will play a decisive role.

In this scenario, the upshot is that in the Core Sector, which was BJP’s real bastion in 2014, it will be surprising if BJP is able to retain even a third of the seats it won in 2014. In fact, with the possible but remote exception of Bihar and Jharkand, there is not a single state in the Core Sector by now where the BJP is likely to secure the majority of the seats.

Peripheral Sector

Since it was pretty obvious that the skewed performance of 2014 in the Core Sector cannot be repeated, BJP has been trying to expand in the peripheral sector with much money, organization effort and muscle power, including wide-scale communal propaganda in the north-east, West Bengal and Kerala. Nevertheless, the results are roughly as follows.

As the recent elections showed, it is obvious that BJP will come a cropper in Telengana which will be swept by TRS. In Andhra, BJP had lost its old ally in TDP; in any case, Andhra is a toss up between Jagan Reddy, TDP and Congress; BJP is nowhere in the scene. In Bengal, the last assembly and panchayat elections showed an almost absolute control of the electoral ground by Trinamool. After its surprising performance winning four seats in 2014, BJP did make a violent attempt to penetrate Bengal, but the BJP was outmanoeuvred by Trinamool in terms familiar to Amit Shah’s roving brigades. With a resurgent Congress, BJP has no chance in Bengal in actually winning seats, even if it may come second in four-cornered contest. The picture is roughly similar with Kerala. In Tamilnadu, BJP has formed its worst alliance with the AIADMK which is going to be routed due to massive anti-incumbency, especially with the robust DMK-Congress alliance opposing it. In Orissa, the scene is somewhat uncertain, but with a resurgent Congress, most contests are going to be triangular where the ruling BJD is likely to retain the upper hand.

Yes, BJP did make some inroads in the north-east, especially Assam and Tripura. But with the resurgent Congress putting its acts together in Assam and Manipur and the widespread resentment due to the sinister Citizenship Bill, it is to be seen how much of the electoral success will be sustained in the general election. In any case, in total the north-east has about twenty seats, and most of the BJP rank and file consists of erstwhile Congress defectors. It is anybody’s guess how much of this will stay with BJP in the dramatically changed scenario. The last time we heard about it, over fifty legislatures have shifted to Congress.

Fact and forecast

I have been mentioning repeatedly the recent upsurge of Congress. In fact, a significant survey by Lokniti-CSDS as early as in May 2018 already suggested that while there were big dents in Modi and BJP’s popularity, the curve for Congress and Rahul Gandhi were rising impressively. It is natural to presume that by now the downward curve for BJP and the upward curve for Congress are irreversible. The early resurgence of Congress—no doubt largely caused by people’s anger about demonetization, GST, farmer’s plight, massive unemployment, failed promises, siphoning off of billions by crooks, a highly problematic defence deal, and the like—was hugely bolstered by electoral victories in four major states. There's a well-known 'law' of progress during election times that once a force goes ahead just before elections, it keeps gathering momentum. That's certainly the case with Congress. It is also a 'law', as noted, that the party that has just won state elections sweeps general elections from that state as well. So, Congress is on upswing in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh with clear effect on adjacent states of UP, Bihar, Orissa, Andhra, Jharkhand.

Even as late as six months ago, a range of regional leaders—Chandrababu, Mayawati, Mamata, Sharad Pawar, Devegowda, even Kejriwal—were all jostling to stake a claim for the leader of the opposition; hence for the post of prime minister. With sound campaign strategy, resounding electoral wins, admirable visibility, adept political arm-twisting, clarity of message, and a breath of bravado, the Congress, guided by 10 Janpath, has set all the regional mud aside to project Rahul Gandhi as the undisputed leader of the opposition. There is no doubt that, once again, the 'dynasty' has proved itself to be the most potent opposition to the murderous Modi-regime. Apart from the absence of any Modi wave, the grim economic scenario, the all-round failure of governance, the resurgence of Congress with Rahul Gandhi as the undisputed leader makes the 2019 elections radically different from 2014.

Review of Reflections on Human Inquiry

Gauhati University Journal of Philosophy (GUJP) ISSN: 2456-3285, Volume: 3, Pages: 157-164,

© Department of Philosophy, G.U. 

Book Review

Reflections on Human Inquiry: Science, Philosophy and Common Life
Nilanjan Bhowmick (Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at University of Delhi (Delhi). Email: nilanjan.bhowmick72@gmail.com.)

We all wonder about the relations between science, philosophy and common life, but the topics present such a wide variety of unconnected thoughts that we despair to have any clear insights. Nirmalanghsu Mukherji’s compelling book, Reflections on Human Inquiry, brings forth the relations between science, philosophy and common life in ways that are scientifically well-informed, philosophically rich and seamlessly connected to each other. The book has twelve chapters, with the initial chapters (1 to 5) dealing with what is described as the Galilean style and skepticism thereof and the later chapters dealing with the various problems that philosophers deal with regarding the nature of knowledge, belief, consciousness. Then two chapters (11 and 12, respectively) offer reflections on the relation between literature and philosophy and what kind of education is right for our species. 

The book has many fundamental insights. To mention just a few: an intelligible space is made for skepticism, some light is thrown on the way the history of philosophy and science are intertwined, remarks are made on the nature and history of Indian philosophy which are surprising and suggestive and a distinction is drawn between the order of things which humans inquire into and the needs of humans. 

Mukherji argues for a position he calls “Reflective Pluralism” which arises out of the general tenor of his book. While the book makes many an important contribution, both in specific and general areas of inquiry, the view titled 

“Reflective Pluralism,” while understated in the book, is one of its most important contributions. I wil turn to it last. First, I wil consider the other aspects of the book. 

It should be kept in mind that no review can really do justice to the fullness and intricacy of each of the twelve essays that the book contains. Different readers with divergent philosophical leanings will pick different essays to be the best in the book. 

Even though the essays seem diverse, there is a clear unifying theme. Given the fact that humans engage in inquiry, what are the limits of such inquiry? And what does it mean to say that there are certain things that we cannot inquire about in the same manner that we inquire about in science? What place is there for philosophy beside science in the sense-making enterprise that humans engage in? 

Is there any place at all? 

One way of answering these questions is to follow the distinction Mukherji makes between things and needs, drawn in Chapter Six. There is a certain order of things out there in the world. Things are what are partially amenable to what may be described as the Galilean Style of inquiry. The Galilean way is to think of reality as obeying simplicity. Truth is not a mysterious connection between our thoughts and reality but a worked out connection between the theories we construct, keeping the notion of simplicity in mind, and the world out there. 

Unfortunately, while the Galilean style of thinking has made major advances (called “science”) there is much that remains in the dark, be it the behavior of a nematode, the consciousness a human being has, the knowledge humans seek, the beauty we perceive or the moral compulsions we feel. Some cases of things that fall out of scientific inquiry may be due to the sheer complexity of the issue involved. A nematode’s turning right or left or for that matter a peacock’s dance may fall into this domain. But Mukherji thinks that the case is quite different regarding standard concepts that philosophers deal with. 

Mukherji writes, 

Study of concepts like knowledge, belief, meaning, truth, consciousness, etc. are not studies of properties of things such as mental/brain states; these are concepts that humans need and, therefore, construct to carry on with their social and personal selves. If that is the case, then no development in science can overthrow these corners of philosophy. (95) Even if it is argued that eliminative materialism is correct or that there are no such things as beliefs, we will still need the concepts of consciousness and belief because they are needs and not things to be investigated. Mukherji does not mean to say that needs like consciousness or knowledge or belief cannot be investigated. 

They can be. Mukherji has a long discussion of how the point of the concept of knowledge is its attribution to others (Chapter Eight) and how there is a distinction between cognition and belief (Chapter Nine). These are informative discussions, but they do not adhere to the Galilean style of inquiry. They are not supposed to. Needs cannot be investigated in the same way things can be, and even in things, the Galilean style has its limits. In a sense we have two different limits to the Galilean style: one, where complexity in nature is encountered, and two, where we are not investigating things at all, but needs. 

The quote above might suggest that Mukherji’s stance is deflationary across the board. But I think that Mukherji would not much stress on the deflationary aspect of it. Deflationism would be a wrong way of analyzing his claim. It is like a category mistake of sorts. Needs are anything but deflationary. They are vitally important. They are not ways of life, as Mukherji stresses. I would hazard to say that these needs make ways of living possible, though they may have little to do with the content of the way we live, that is, the actual culture we adopt. We at least need to attribute beliefs to each other to be tolerant about different beliefs. 

Tolerance would be part of the actual culture we adopt, whereas attribution of belief would be a need that we have. 

Before I move on to the uses he puts some of his analysis of knowledge and belief to, we need to ask whether it is actually true that beliefs, knowledge, meaning and consciousness are needs and not things. 

I think Mukherji’s case for belief and knowledge as needs are quite compelling. He maintains that a proper analysis of knowledge – say, at least Justified True Belief – is not a report of a mental state that any person is in but is more a condition of our attribution of knowledge to others. This attribution does not report someone else’s mental state either. Those who know are not in a different mental state from those who do not know. Mukherji’s view is quite similar to Edward Craig’s ( Knowledge and the State of Nature) view, though clearly developed independently. Craig takes attributions of knowledge to fulfill a need, which is to flag reliable or good sources of information. Humans living in a community need to distinguish between those who are better at certain things than others. We need to figure out whom to trust and whom not to on certain issues. One way to do so is to attribute knowledge to others. An interesting off-shoot of Mukherji’s intricate discussion of this matter is the way he applies it to why Indian philosophy seemed to have nothing to do with science and why science remained at best in a nascent state in India. The reason, according to Mukherji, lies in the fact that science requires and depends on the notion of attribution of knowledge but Indian philosophy took the Vedas – the fountainhead of whatever is true – as authorless, apauruṣeya. It was not a body of knowledge meant for a complex network of attributions and withdrawal of attributions to humans. Indian philosophy also lacked the JTB analysis of knowledge for the same reason. 

Such an analysis is meant to apply to attributions of knowledge. One may well contest the historical claim made. Surely, one may wonder, other factors could have been at play. Surely, the notion of knowledge in some way or other must have been there in the various communities in India. It is after all a need, and not just a spiritual one but a practical one. But Mukherji’s reply might be that the all important concept was not really a concept of knowledge at all, but something very different, more like a strong belief in the truth of the Vedas. This inhibited the growth of science. As a historical claim, it is a remarkable one, and should be considered for further discussion, both amongst philosophers and historians. 

Since we have just touched on Indian philosophy, there is another view of Indian philosophy that Mukherji argues for which is unusually interesting. It is well known that Indian philosophy declined or rather was not practiced with the same fervor since the 18th century or so. The Indian intelligentsia took a great interest in western philosophical ideas. This is so even today with analytic philosophy taught and read across the nation at fairly technical levels. It is also well known that the Oxford philosopher Michael Dummett held the view that Indian philosophy was blanketed by the onward march of western culture spread through military conquest (14-15). There is something very obvious about Dummett’s view. But Mukherji suggests that the view is mistaken. He quite correctly points out that “in the last century Western philosophy found no lasting foothold anywhere else in the non-Western world other than India” (88; italics original). 

Other places had colonialism and its educational off-shoots, but India seemed to pick up on philosophy like no other place. This requires explanation. 

Historical explanations involve many causal factors. Mukherji mentions quite a few, but two reasons stand out in his analysis. One, the Indian intelligentsia was quite liberal by nature. Because of the philosophical tradition of debate between various schools of philosophy and a tolerant co-existence of many schools, the intelligentsia was open to new ideas. They were not automatically intolerant by nature. Secondly, the themes in western philosophy were not alien to the Indian tradition. Indian philosophy already contained much analysis of language and perception and monism and pluralism were as much aspects of Indian metaphysics as of western metaphysics. Since, the concerns of both philosophical traditions were very similar, the Indian intelligentsia did not feel that it was studying some alien system. They were studying something that was a continuation of their own tradition. 

In itself, this is a startling thesis. But it does explain, at an intellectual level, the interest of some of the brightest intellectuals in India in philosophers like Russell or Kant. On a personal note, I have never seen students in India complain that they are studying something “western” when they study Kant or Husserl. 

They enjoy it as a legitimate part of human inquiry. Students in India study philosophy as if it is “borderless”, to use a phrase introduced by Arindam Chakrabarti. Mukherji clearly has got something right in his analysis. One has to assume, in his analysis, that liberality of thought, heterodoxy of opinion, is a critical feature of Indian culture. It is not easy to remember that we have been liberal. It requires some study of history and being just plain intelligent and sensitive. But once remembered, Mukherji’s views do fall into a natural place. 

Indian philosophy was not blanketed, but came alive in a new guise in the study of western philosophy. The view sounds controversial, but I think it should be open to further criticism and debate, instead of being blanketed by those who practice Indian philosophy and who may blindly think that Dummett was right. Jonardon Ganeri uses the wonderful phrase “conceptual biodiversity” (341-2) to show what a philosophy without borders should mean. Mukherji’s idea is that India, with its heterodox culture, has been the home of conceptual biodiversity for long and the popularity of western philosophy in India is a simple example of such conceptual biodiversity that we are so used to. 

Now, let’s go back to the view of consciousness. Remember, that the claim is that we need the notion of consciousness but consciousness is not a thing or a property of anything. I do not disagree with the idea that we need to see others as conscious agents, responsible for their actions. But I do think that while it is true that there is a gap that one always feels between any physicalist analysis and the actual feel of consciousness, calling it a need does not remove the gap. It appears that consciousness is a part of the order of things, and a part of the order of needs, and an analysis in the order of things is required to account for its existence, however hard the task might appear. There is both a need for a description of consciousness and a need for its ascription. Mukherji does have a long and excellent discussion of the hybrid nature of such concepts as meaning and belief and knowledge. By hybrid, he means that they are ascriptive by nature but are also taken as descriptive. But the problem with description, so far as consciousness is concerned, is that description is couched in third personal terms and our experience of consciousness at first hand, phenomenal consciousness, is always first personal. Science seems to be up against the problem that it has no vocabulary to handle such first personal experiences. Mukherji’s claim is that such a vocabulary is not needed. The need for the concept of consciousness, according to Mukherji, is “essentially normative, with no demand for descriptive truth” (114). 

We need to recognize each other as persons and establish an ethical order. But one must still explain why we feel such a powerful demand for descriptive truth, while not denying in any way the pull of the normative in any way. 

I will turn now to two topics: one, skepticism and the other, reflective pluralism. Mukherji has a much richer and more traditional notion of skepticism in mind than most modern philosophers do. When he speaks of skepticism, he is not thinking of brains in vats and the dreaming argument. He is thinking of the key character of philosophy as a dissenting voice amongst the dominant systems that claim some aspect of truth. This is a refreshing concept of skepticism, one that all of us can recognize and value, though we tend to forget that philosophy is aligned strongly with such a conception. Mukherji, in Chapter Five, “The Skeptic and the Cognitivist”, maintains that as science breaks away from philosophy, at any particular period of time, the skeptic steps in between the philosophical theory and the scientific theory and suggests that the ambitions of science are too high and they need to be lowered to the right level. Such a view is quite interesting, as usually we think of philosophy as giving way to science but no place for continuing skepticism is usually thought of. But Mukherji’s idea is that that is too simple a view of what is actually happening. Portions of philosophy do branch off into science, but the skeptic cautions the scientist about the reach of science. A good example may be Noam Chomsky himself who thinks that linguistics is a science, but cautions about the reach of the subject, pointing out that there may be no semantics beyond syntax. He plays the role of both the scientist and the philosophical skeptic. What is interesting about Mukherji’s view is the strong conclusion he draws from such an interplay between skepticism and science: “The labels philosophy and science, therefore, are not of durable interest; what is of interest is the role of the sceptic in restricting the scope of the new science at a level lower than its original expectations” (73). 

The activity of figuring out how far the Galilean style stretches in accounting for phenomena that fall under inquiry is the activity that interests us. 

Here, the skeptical mind has a greater role to play, both in positing limits to science but also in making it possible to do science within its narrow domain of applicability. As an example, one that Mukherji mentions, is the development of linguistic theory within the domain of syntax, and the problems with its extension to semantics. Exciting research in syntax has not been accompanied with equal excitement in semantics. There is an explanatory weight syntax carried that semantics did not. Meaning may just be a normative need we have, not answering to descriptive demands, to borrow Mukherji’s words. Mukherji’s remarks about the relations between science and philosophy are not without examples from history. One I can think of is that of George Berkeley arguing for a better explanation of mathematical terms like “inifinitesimal” without which much of physics cannot be understood. Berkeley was skeptical of explanations offered, and despaired of an intelligible interpretation. Thus, he was engaging in a skeptical inquiry into the nature of mathematical terms employed in mathematics and physics. Descartes, of course, was skeptical about the mechanical philosophy of his day accounting for the mind. And his skepticism remains to this day, shorn of substance dualism. However, more such examples are needed to make the claim that Mukherji makes historically accurate. It need not be a historical claim entirely, actually. It can also be taken as a normative claim about how the relation between philosophy and science should be thought of than how they actually have played out over the centuries. 

I had mentioned the distinction between cognition and belief above. We cognize whether our house has a door or not. We have a belief about whether God exists or not or whether electrons exist or not. Small beliefs are not really beliefs, because, as Mukherji argues, to ascribe a belief to someone we also need the idea of a disbeliever. Beliefs are open to debate and challenge, not so for what we cognize. We may cavil about the correctness of this distinction, but Mukherji uses it to make space for skepticism. The skeptic does not have to bother about what we cognize (so we can say goodbye to brains in the vat or the dreaming argument). 

But skepticism has got a role to play in the beliefs we have. It is quite possible to be skeptical about all beliefs. This contention of Mukherji sounds reasonable enough and indeed, I think, of the many contributions the book makes, this is a significant one. For, Mukherji wants to highlight skepticism and its role in philosophy and science but he also needs to make intelligible space for it. That is precisely what he has done by securing cognition (where error is rare) and letting beliefs float more freely, thereby making skeptics enter the arena of belief without being ridiculed. It is a pleasing way in which different thoughts he has expressed in various articles join hands together. 

Finally, reflective pluralism. What can this mean? Even though the whole book is an argument for reflective pluralism, a separate essay on it was desirable. I take the term to mean the following. The Galilean style of inquiry marches on, trying to account for phenomena. But it faces major hurdles, as the skeptic keeps pointing out, however inarticulately. The domains of inquiry that do not fall under the Galilean style are not, just for that reason, to be relegated outside the purview of reason. They too can be investigated, but the style of investigation changes. 

When we investigate reflective needs we adopt a different style of enquiry. We need to make space for such enquiry and not bow to the arrogance of science and think that science is everything and the rest is just stamp collection. Science accounts for very little of all that there is around us. The skeptic does not cease to inquire about the rest, but proceeds to inquire using different strategies. The adoption of such different approaches to different domains of inquiry may be described as reflective pluralism. Thus, if human existence and human psychology are to be best understood through literature, then so be it. Mukherji devotes Chapter Eleven, “Literature and Common Life”, one of the best essays of the book, to such issues. 

In a sense, reflective pluralism also implies a certain tolerance for different aspects of inquiry. It breaks away from the hegemony of science. It makes us realize that there are other ways to not just enquire but also live. For the current ways of life we have adopted are not particularly conducive to long term survival or even short term survival, if climate change predictions are anything to go by. 

Mukherji reflects in the last essay of the book, “Education for the Species”, on the need to learn from the way tribals live in consonance with their environment. We need to understand and appreciate that they know things we do not. But we cannot do that unless we adopt the position of reflective pluralism. 

Reflective pluralism is a strike against hegemony, period. If the Indian tradition of thought was liberal and tolerant, then reflective pluralism is a renewed attempt to capture such a tradition again, in a much richer manner, but also a more urgent manner. More needs to be said about it, though, and I hope more is said about it soon, not just by Mukherji but by other philosophers too. The book is well worth reading, but more importantly, it needs to be discussed widely, and for a long time to come.



______________________

Nirmalanghsu Mukherji 

Reflections on Human Inquiry: Science, Philosophy, and Common Life Springer, 2017. Total pages: 203. ISBN:978-981-10-5363-4 (Hardback).

Works Cited

Craig, Edward. Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Oxford UP

1990.

Dummett, Michael. “Matilal’s Mission: A Memorial Address.” Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences: Journal of the Inter-University Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, 1996, pp. 13-17.

Ganeri, Jonardon. Attention, Not Self. Oxford UP 2017.

Lessons From the Peace March

[Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary started on 2nd October 2018. On that day, a historic peace march started from the old Gandhi Ashram in Chatti, a little village located in the remote forested area at the border of three states Chattisgarh, Telengana and Andhra. 

This is also the principal habitat of the indigenous Gond and Muria people. The region has been the site of a prolonged conflict between the Indian state and armed Maoists for nearly four decades. The conflict resulted in nearly 20,000 killings, tens of thousands of innocent civilians in prison, almost perennial famine, forests laced with explosive devices, hundreds of thousands homeless. Needless to say, most of the victims are tribals. For the history and review of the conflict, see my book Maiosts in India: Tribals under Siege. 

After much consultation and preparations, some courageous tribal leaders from different regions have organised a peace march from Chatti to Jagdalpur through the heart of maoist territory, covering nearly 200 kilometers through dense forests filled with thousands of maoist and state militias armed with sophisticated weapons. 

The march started on 2nd October and is scheduled to reach its destination on 12th October. For a day by day account of the march, accompanied by pictures and videos, see my Facebook page. Now that the march has crossed the halfway mark after a week, I will write short reviews of the march everyday to lend a fuller perspective to this historic event. Please support the march and donate here.] 

The Background

As the daring, innovative Shanti Padayatra completes a week of gruelling march through a dangerously beautiful territory, it is time to assess its historical significance. I will keep doing this in short spells until the march reaches its destination, and the so-called Bastar dialogue takes place in Jagdalpur on 13 October.

This has been a march by adivasis themselves, accompanied by a few, very few, well-meaning non-adivasi activists. And the Maoists have condemned the effort. Even before the march started, they ordered the local adivasis to boycott the yatra; they also targeted the principal organiser Shubhranshu Choudhary as a corporate agent etc. No doubt, the Maoist diktat has reduced interaction between the local population and the yatris, but the yatra continued effectively in defiance of the diktat. Recall that the Maoists have always ordered boycott of the electoral process, threatening people with physical harm if they disobeyed. These orders prove conclusively that Maoists are threatened by any democratic action by the adivasis.

After some initial support 30 years ago, Maoists have controlled the habitat and the economic life of the adivasis directly with guns so that only their fatwahs are the rule. If the Maoists enjoyed popular, voluntary support, there would have been no need to do so. Contrary to armchair, elite maoist propagandists such as Gautam Navlakha, Arundhati Roy, Varavar Rao, Sumanta Bannerji, Nandini Sundar etc.—who view the Maoist movement as a genuine uprising of people—Maoists have degenerated into an anti-democratic mafia, as fully documented in my book.

For the first time in recent history, the march of the adivasis has directly challenged the hegemony of the Maoists. The fact that adivasis of different regions can unite and organise a bold peace march on the highway basically means that the adivasis have regained part of their habitat simply by demanding peace. That is the power of non-violence. No wonder neither the Maoists nor their ‘revolutionary’ elite sympathisers are pleased with it. 

Lessons

As the wonderful Shanti Padayatra reaches its destination today (12 October 2018), it is time to draw lessons from this unique event. I wanted to give a day by day analysis of the political aspects of the yatra for coming to terms with maoist insurgency in east-central India. Since I could not find the time in the last few days, I have just jotted down some of what I think to be the real lessons of the yatra. I hope the organisers will find some way of discussing them to plan for the future.

1. The ground situation has changed drastically from 2004 and 2010. Maoists are now significantly less in number, cornered in progressively smaller areas, recruitment and securing of arms rapidly falling. They are beginning to lose the conflict and will be mostly eliminated in 5 years. In these circumstances, the proportion of rebel killings always increases vis-a-vis killing of govt. forces. Militias and guerrillas killed are and will be mostly adivasis.

2. The state clearly knows the situation. Hence, (a) they will not sit down for any talks unless Maoists put down arms and surrender, (b) they will not discuss any post-conflict policies unless Maoists surrender, (c) the state will want the armed conflict to continue at progressively lower levels because not only is the conflict big business, they want to totally close any further possibility of mobilisation, (d) the state also wants to continue because it gives them propaganda advantage in terms of 'urban naxals' etc. (e) There is also the issue of revenge by CRPF and police commanders.

3. Maoists are also aware both about their falling resources and options before the state. They know very well that once they give up arms, they will be left with no option at all. Hence they declare they will fight to the last adivasi.

4. In this context, any policy discussion, demands for new statutes, laws, demarcations etc. are totally meaningless. These can only be empty intellectual exercises suited to the elite intelligentsia, but have no value for the adivasis. Similarly, all models from Rajiv-Longowal, Colombia (FARC), Nepal, IRA etc. are equally meaningless. None of these models apply because Maoists cover very little ground after 40 years of armed struggle. The state is not going to listen because Maoists are encircled.

5. Since the state and the Maoists are not open to peace, the only victims are the adivasis, both inside and outside Maoist forces. In that sense, the adivasis and really grounded civil society activists like Manish Kunjam and the Gandhians at the Chatti Ashram are the only forces capable of enforcing peace. To repeat, issues of policy, justice, etc. can be deferred until killing of adivasis stops. Saving adivasis lives IS the absolute priority.

6. Amidst all this negativity, the only positive aspect is that since maoists consist of adivasis operating in adivasi habitat, adivasis have demographic superiority. The task is to turn this advantage to real active expression independently of Maoist leadership and the state.

7. This is what the padayatra has achieved in impressive scale and duration. In a very strong sense, adivasis have reclaimed their voice and their habitat.

8. It is imperative therefore that instead of engaging in intellectual bickering about 'models' etc., the peace process already accomplished should be expanded. There ought to be many more marches in the coming dry season across Dandakaranya from every nook and corner. These could be shorter marches of 20-50 kilometers, on foot, on cycle, covering every village. There should be attempts to form village level peace committees that will co-ordinate with nearby villages to construct a variety of peace programs. Once adivasis get the courage and the organisational energy to fill their land with the mantra of peace, it will (i) certainly discourage young people from joining maoists, and (b)  encourage people inside to come out and join the mainstream. From Shanti Padayatra to Shanti Andolan.

9. Throughout, with whatever civil society support is available, there ought to be pressure on security forces to protect adivasi peace-moves, and keep track of every returning male and female for proper rehabilitation. Needless to say, ONLY adivasi leaders and non-adivasi activists in the ground, as mentioned, can play this role effectively. We from the outside can keep the process alive by spreading the news, raising money, etc. BUT THE BASIC PROCESS MUST BE DESIGNED, LED AND IMPLEMENTED BY ADIVASIS THEMSELVES. Both the Maoists and state forces will be compelled to listen to them, as borne out already with just one peace march.

10. I am sure once the process grows significantly, Maoists, who must already be watching with concern, will begin to see both the danger and the promise: the danger of losing the war and the promise of continuing the resistance peacefully overground. Once the rug of adivasis is pulled from below their armed feet, they will be compelled to find new ground without arms.

We can then take care of the rogue state together.

A Letter to a friend

Dear xxx,

Cannot agree with you more on your observation that ‘this sort of thing happens to the poor every day (muslims, dalits, foresters, slumdwellers), but as soon as the middle class gets oppressed and gets into the resistance it is all over the newspapers, so one can’t miss it.’ You didn’t explicitly mention it, but I know you are talking about the five people arrested two days ago on the charge of ‘maoist affiliations’: Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Navlakha, Vernon Gonsalves, Varavar Rao, Arun Ferreira.

However, let me qualify your statement by saying that it’s not just any ‘middle class’ that generates such outrage in the left-liberal circles; it needs to be a certain pretty well-defined section of elite intellectuals with a radical history of sorts. Let me explain with some case studies.

Please note that among these 5, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, and Arun Ferreira are old activists who have been to prison several times on similar charges in every regime. The activist circle knows about this history; the rest of the left, not to mention high profile liberals, never cared. Now they are very prominent in the media because they are in the company of Sudha and Gautam. I guess you have at least heard of all of them.

Among these two, Gautam is a very well-known wealthy writer deeply associated with the elite Delhi community of advocates like Shanti Bhusan and his team, and top writers and publishers, Arundhati Roy, Penguin, etc. He has a long editorial association with EPW, and is active with PUDR writing excellent reports on state oppression. As far as I know, otherwise, notions of ‘people’s representative’, ‘working for the poor and the marginalised’—freely used for him currently—do not apply. He is just a very well connected, elite, journalist based in Delhi who writes radical stuff. There are dozens of such non-elite journalists across the country covering the miseries of the poor on a daily basis, no one cares about them. I know quite a few personally, have mentioned them in my book on Maoists.

Sudha Bharadwaj is an exception in this lot and needs a separate para. As you know, she is the daughter of Krishna Bharadwaj who was a star student of Sraffa, top economist, JNU professor, EPW editor etc. Sudha gave up her US citizenship and returned to India, got mathematics degree from IIT Kanpur, got involved with labour movement, shifted to Chattisgarh to work for Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha founded by the legendary Shankar Guha Neogi, and the rest is history. Her life, along with a very few others like Binayak Sen, Medha Patkar and Bela Bhatia, are contemporary legends in the annals of resistance. She is the one who has truly worked with and for the real poor and marginalised, and is internationally known for it. My point is there are hundreds of dedicated middle-class activists working for the poor in remote, forgotten corners of this wretched country. But they don’t have the pedigree that Sudha has. Those hapless activists, I have known dozens of them in my life (even in Delhi) just work in miserable conditions, hopping from one tiny forum to another, and disappear without noise. It’s this pedigree and elite connection of Gautam and Sudha that generated the outrage this time.

Just to give you a brief idea of the ‘privileged justice’, if you allow, note that within a few hours of police conducting search operations for Gautam and Sudha, big time advocates intervened throughout the night to stall their remand and transfer to Pune. Within a few hours, the Supreme Court was alerted by the following battery of advocates, the who’s who:

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
Ms. Vrinda Grover, Adv.
Ms. Ratna Appnender, Adv.
Mr. Prasanna S., Adv.
Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Cheryl D’Souza, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG
Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
Mr. R. Balasubrmanian, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv.
Mr. Anil Grover, AAG
Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Visen, Adv.

In less than 24 hours, Supreme Court took up the petition from Romila Thapar, Prabhat Patnaik, Devaki Jain, Satish Deshpande etc. with a 3-judge bench chaired by the CJI. Very swiftly the police action was stayed and the activists were placed under home arrest till September 5. The nice bonus is that Arun, Vernon, and Varavara too returned home, this time.

As you saw, the TV and mainstream media is full of prominent stories on this with Hindu devoting headlines and nearly full pages. The situation is so heightened that even characters like Ramchandra Guha and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who were praising Modi as the greatest leader since Nehru and predicting BJP rule for 25-30 years, have started giving fiery interviews and published blistering attacks on the mockery of the constitution, democratic norms, and dissent, to pave the way for corporate loot, etc.

In contrast, nobody raised a finger when 7 other activists including Rona Wilson, Dr. Shoma Sen, and others—each of whom have a long history of silent but wonderful work on human and democratic rights, especially the rights of political prisoners—were arrested, swiftly charged and imprisoned in June this year. They are still there, although as a trickle-down effect, people have now appealed for their bail in the Supreme Court.

More disturbingly, Dr. Sai Baba, a very well known ‘maoist’ activist was totally illegally arrested three years ago, swiftly convicted under UAPA, and awarded life. Sai Baba is 90% disabled and crawls on his hands and knees. Despite shrill campaign from some of us, the left-liberal, JNU-type fraternity never cared. Public meetings, street demos never saw more than a dozen hapless activists. I wrote on his condition at length at the time of his arrest, and repeated many times since. You can check on this site.

His devastated family and some committed activists have regularly circulated updates on his medical condition. Many attempts have been made to garner elite attention. To no avail so far. Sai Baba is rapidly sinking to death.

Isn’t there a topic called ‘moral luck’?

Case of Bidyut Chakravarty

Over two years ago, I posted a fairly long piece in Facebook to protest the vicious character assassination of Prof. Bidyut Chakravarty, the eminent professor of political science in Delhi University. I had to engage in considerable research including perusal of legal documents to prepare the piece. In response, some of the Delhi left-liberal academic mafia, whose deeds were thoroughly exposed in the piece, abused me in the filthiest language, accusing me of defending a sexual harasser to remain close to power. Needless to say, a range of these people blocked/unfriended me in Facebook.

It was a pleasant surprise to see that the piece I had forgotten about was in fact fully cited in a blog at that time. I am reproducing the piece below for posterity.

Left mafia at work Again

Nirmalangshu Mukherji

about 2 years ago

A familiar array of left-liberal intellectuals of Delhi has ganged-up against Professor Bidyut Chakravarty of Delhi University. Professor Chakravarty is a very senior political scientist with an outstanding academic record. Very very few academicians in the country, especially in the discipline of political science, can match his amazing publication record and vast international recognition. To date he has over two dozen books to his credit, all published by very prestigious publications (OUP, Routledge, Sage, etc.) mostly from abroad. I leave it to the reader to judge how his colleagues might have reacted to his eminence in the narrow-minded academia of Delhi.

To cut a long story short, a case of sexual harassment was initiated against Prof. Chakravarty and the matter was placed before the Apex Committee formed under Visakha guidelines vide Act XV-D of Delhi University. I will not comment on the constitution and the proceedings of the said committee on this case except to note that it is quite possible that the members of the committee—mostly fellow women academicians themselves—might have been politically connected to the opponents of Prof. Chakravarty in his faculty.

The said committee placed its findings before Delhi University and the report was deliberated in the Executive Council on 8.10.2007. The Apex committee itself recommended fairly mild strictures against Prof. Chakravarty: 1. A letter of warning should be issued to him. 2. He should be asked to step down from the Directorship of Gandhi Bhawan. 3. He should be debarred from all administrative posts and supervisory duties in the University for a period of three years. EC accepted these recommendations and acted accordingly. There was no recommendation for suspension, removal, demotion, and the like. Note that the operative period of these strictures ended on 7.10.2010.

Despite the mild nature of the strictures, Prof. Chakravarty challenged every aspect of the EC order. In the High Court, he (a) questioned ACT XV-D suggesting it violates various articles of constitution, (b) sought quashing of the strictures, (c) challenged the procedure of the Apex committee in not allowing him to cross-question the accuser, (d) sought quashing of appointment of another HOD in his place.

The accuser had also filed an FIR charging Prof. Chakravarty with abusive verbal behaviour and molestation, same as the charges before the Apex Committee. Prof. Chakravarty also appealed to High Court for quashing the FIR. [This aspect of the case is consistently suppressed by the mafia]

Apparently, FOUR things happened.

(1) In its judgment of 29 May 2009, the division bench of Sikri and Jain ordered as follows: (i) They upheld the validity of XV-D (naturally); (ii) Refused to interfere with the appointment of new HOD; (iii) They found very serious infirmities in the procedure of the Apex Committee in denying justice and fair trial to Prof. Chakravarty including item (c) above. AS SUCH THE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE EC RESOLUTION OF 2007 AND ABSOLVED PROF. CHAKRAVARTY OF ALL CHARGES.

(2) The bench of Justice Dhingra at High Court on 5 October 2010 considered the police report following the FIR and observed: “In view of the fact that there was no evidence that the alleged incident had taken place or the petitioner had threatened the complainant or molested her as alleged, rather the sequence of events shows that the scolding had taken place on the employees on their no being present during working hours, I consider that no proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner keeping in view the charge-sheet filed by the police which was more in the nature of a closure report. I, therefore, allow this petition.’’ THUS, TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT SEPARATELY ABSOLBED PROF. CHAKRAVARTY OF ALL CHARGES, BOTH ON GROUNDS OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE.

(3) However, since Delhi University failed to take remedial measure following court judgments, Prof. Chakravarty appealed to High Court seeking contempt of Court. On May 7, 2010, The Hindu, reported on the court order as follows: 

“The Delhi High Court has let off Delhi University Vice-Chancellor Deepak Pental lightly in a contempt of court case after the University informed the Court that it had inadvertently informed Professor Bidyut Chakrabarty of the Political Department that it was still keeping alive two memorandums whereby he was held guilty of sexual harassment and barred from holding any administrative post for three years on that basis. A Division Bench of the High Court had in May last year quashed the two memorandums on a petition filed by Prof. Chakrabarty challenging them. Prof. Chakrabarty had received information about the University still putting reliance on the two memorandums despite their being quashed by the Court in reply to an application filed by him under the Right to Information Act. Following the receipt of the information, Prof. Chakrabarty filed a contempt petition against Prof. Pental. The University had earlier informed the petitioner in reply to the contempt petition that once the two memorandums had been quashed no further action against him would be taken. Counsel for the University further informed the Court that the person who replied to the RTI query had not seen the judgment. Following the admission of the faux pas by the University, the Court disposed of the petition saying no further order was required to be passed. While disposing of the petition, Justice G. S. Sistani said the University, as promised to the Court, shall within a week take steps to inform the Department concerned about the two memorandums being set aside.

(4) Since the issue of cross-examination of accuser in sexual harrassment cases under Visakha was a knotty issue, it reached the Supreme Court following direction sought by Prof. Chakravarty. The Supreme Court deliberated ONLY on the matter, in complete ignorance of the judgments of the High Court. In its order of 7 May, 2010, SC gave relief to Prof. Chakravarty by appointing a court commissioner to cross-examine the accuser on behalf of Prof. Chakravarty. Having passed merely the procedural order, the Supreme Court closed the matter at its end.

To emphasize, SC was not seized with HC judgments and had not set the HC judgments aside. Nor had the HC re-initiated the procedure to start a fresh inquiry on the case. As noted, the HC had in fact closed the case after obtaining assurance from Delhi University that no further action will be taken against Prof. Chakravarty.

Nonetheless, on receiving procedural clarification from SC, the University proceeded with the inquiry once again in clear violation of THREE HC orders since it never sought directions from the Supreme Court in view of the orders of the High Court. As it so happened (probably due to internal pressure from influential opponents of Prof. Chakravarty in the university), the Apex Committee went through the process again without any sanction from High Court and once again placed its findings before EC in 2012. Notice that the operative period of the EC resolution 114 of 2007 had already expired way back in 2010. Even then the EC proceeded to adopt resolution 235 of 21.3.2012 reaffirming resolution 114 in complete violation of High Court orders and without any fresh sanction from Supreme Court.

Prof. Chakravarty reportedly was outside the country during the period 2010-12 on a prestigious academic appointment. His response to the new inquiry was never sought, nor was he given a copy of the resolution to proceed against it if he so desired. Also, except for adopting a vitiated, mala fide resolution after the fact, the university did nothing since the operative period had long lapsed. Obviously, unless otherwise explained, the entire operation was conducted viciously in the absence Prof. Chakravarty to create a piece of paper against him despite assurances before the court not to take any action against him.

Now, an influential group of left-liberal academicians, who masquerade as defenders of tolerance and plural voices, are flaunting this filthy piece of paper to defame Prof. Chakravarty in the name of citizens of India just because Prof. Chakravarty’s name has appeared as one of the possible candidates for Vice-Chancellorship of Delhi University.

Nirmalangshu Mukherji Kavita Krishnan, Naveen Gaur, Ayesha Kidwai, Abha Dev Habib, Vijay Singh, Ali Javed, Mohan Rao, Poonam Kaushik, Sundeep Dougal, Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Kamal Chenoy, Purushottam Agrawal

A Revolutionary scholar inches towards death in custody

[Dr. G. N. Sai Baba, a teacher of English literature in a college in Delhi University, is currently in prison after he was sentenced to life-imprisonment by a lower court on charges of waging war against the country by helping maoist rebels. Sai Baba is a paraplegic with 90% physical disability. Recently he wrote a letter to his wife stating that he doesn't hope to survive till the end of winter; the state has refused his medical care. In this grim context, I am posting below an article on Sai Baba published earlier in 2015 soon after Sai Baba was arrested. The article may be useful for people who are not familiar with the contours of the case.]

The Arrest of G. N. Sai Baba: Insane, inhuman

Nirmalangshu Mukherji

Former Professor of Philosophy, Delhi University

G. N. Sai Baba, an Assistant Professor of English in Ramlal Anand College of Delhi University was arrested by Maharashtra Police in opaque circumstances in May 2014. For the past year, there has been a small but sustained protest against Sai Baba’s arrest. Most recently, a day-long fast was held by some activists and university teachers in front of the Art’s Faculty in Delhi University. Despite impressive campaign in the social media by a group of dedicated individuals, just a few dozen well-known protestors showed up for the fast. The event was barely reported in the mainstream. In staying away from the event, the wider left-liberal fraternity in Delhi, and the rest of the country, has once again failed a vital democratic cause.

Sai Baba is one of those rare individuals in the current Indian academia—otherwise marked by its unconcealed opportunism and abject surrender to the establishment—who is at once a serious scholar, a dedicated and widely-popular teacher, and a death-defying political activist.

Sai Baba believes that Indian society must undergo an armed proletarian revolution along Maoist lines to usher in a new democratic republic as a step toward a classless egalitarian society. He has strengthened his beliefs with a deep study of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and has advocated them in a variety of public forums.

From his student days, Sai had been an active member of revolutionary student politics in his home state of Andhra. While most of those students have since deserted revolutionary politics, Sai Baba not only continued with it, he actually expanded his zone of activities several folds to cover the rest of the country in terms of writings, lectures, tours, meetings and organization of a range of revolutionary mass forums such as the earlier All India People’s Revolutionary Front (AIPRF) and, in recent years, Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF). He is one of the well-known faces in revolutionary politics in the country; in fact, by now he is internationally known by his writings, organizations and lectures abroad.

Incidentally, I largely disagree with the Maoist politics, especially the horrendous ways in which it has been implemented by the CPI (Maoist) in Chattisgarh and elsewhere. I have written about it extensively (Maoists in India: Tribals under siege, Amaryllis, 2013. So, my great admiration and sense of solidarity with Sai has little to do with his political views, except that I have deep respect for the moral courage, personal sacrifice, and compassion that underlie such otherwise mistaken beliefs.

There is one more fact about Sai Baba. He is totally paralytic from his waist downwards due to childhood polio. According to medical estimate, his paraplegia affects 90% of his body. Before he could procure a wheel-chair for himself—to be followed later on by a motorized auto—he basically moved around crawling on his hands, dragging the rest of his massive torso along. If he is required in a room upstairs without a lift, he needs to be physically carried in arms by his friends (I had the friendly privilege of doing so on some occasions). Years of dragging his body around even for basic daily functions has left a severe toll on his heart and lungs and continues to damage his spinal system. No wonder, he survives with heavy specialised medication that takes its own toll.

With this level of disability, Sai Baba had been able to maintain the scholarly and revolutionary life sketched above with sheer determination bolstered by his belief that one day it’s going to be a better world for all people.

I recall an incident over a decade ago during a demonstration in Jantar Mantar against the US attack on Iraq. Some of us were appalled by the sight that two radical forums—AIPRF and CPI (ML-Liberation)—were holding separate demonstrations on the same issue on two sides of the same street. I located Sai Baba in a wheelchair engrossed in some pamphlets and memorandums. I went over to him and protested about the glaring sectarianism. I knew that I was stepping into historical hostilities between different naxalite groups. To my surprise, he listened carefully with a very friendly smile on his face. At first, he tried to raise some hackneyed ideological issues. When we briskly brushed them aside, he wheeled around and away to meet Dipankar Bhattacharya, the leader of the other group. That is Sai. Soon, the two groups joined forces and we had a very meaningful joint rally. This mixture of steely political determination with a disarming demeanour makes Sai one of the most effective organizers in mass politics.

Just to remind, he is in constant physical pain, very much like another brave person constantly in pain, Irom Sharmila Chanu.

What does it mean for the Indian state to arrest this person under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and incarcerate him in the solitary anda-cell of the Nagpur jail meant for hardened criminals? According to the notorious anti-terrorism cell of the Maharashtra police, Sai has been found to be in touch with some leaders of CPI (Maoist); it is totally unclear what the alleged connections are. I return to the absurdity of this charge in a moment.

For now, even assuming some contact between Sai and some Maoists, according to the Supreme Court of India, it is no crime at all if (a) a person is merely acquainted with some persons of a banned organisation, and (b) a person is sympathetic in mind to the cause espoused by a banned organisation. These injunctions directly follow from the principles of free speech and association.

The Supreme Court has also held that (c) it is no crime if someone is found to be a member of a banned organisation if the person cannot be linked to the unlawful activities of the organisation. The police has not provided even a glimpse of an evidence that Sai was involved in any unlawful activity of the Maoists. In any case, the apparently baseless charges need to be examined by a court of law.

Pending legal examination, not only principles of natural justice but also various sections of the Indian Penal Code require that an invalid, physically challenged accused must be granted bail immediately when other things are equal. The police has no evidence that other things are not equal in Sai Baba’s case. Thus, Sai Baba’s severe physical restrictions fully qualify him for the relief granted in law.

Sai Baba has always cooperated with the police in their investigations conducted in detail before his arrest in dubious circumstances; he has continued his cooperation since his arrest including furnishing passwords for his computer and moblie phones. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the police to keep him in jail under the excuse of investigations.

His physical handicap is such that it is impossible for him to flee or to affect the course of justice in any manner. In fact, his medical condition has deteriorated rapidly in prison during the past year due to lack of proper medical care and facilities. By any measure, his continued imprisonment is an inhuman act and is in violation of law.

Most importantly, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Sai Baba, despite his life-long attachment to Maoist politics, will ever get in touch with maoist activists on the ground. This is because both Sai Baba and the maoists are rational people. I took some pain to detail Sai Baba’s politics and life to highlight his extreme public visibility. When this fact is combined with his acute physical disability affecting his movement, he is probably the last person the Maoists would want to be in touch with. And, as a veteran activist himself, Sai Baba would know that as well. Let me explain.

Anyone with little a greymatter understands that the maoist armed struggle in the hills and forests of east-central India is a serious life and death affair. For reasons of security and survival, the entire complex operation has to maintain utmost secrecy to prevent the police from penetrating the organization. These include the identity of the personnel, the complex network of hideouts, source of money and arms, network of maoist intelligence, their courier system, operational codes, and the like. An armed struggle, in which hundreds of cadres die each year from police bullets, cholera, or snake bites, is no picnic. As such, no active maoist will reveal her political identity except before the most trusted.

G. N. Saibaba, as noted, happens to a very visible political activist with ‘Maoist’ written on his words and actions in bold letters. He is perhaps the most well-known maoist face in the country. Naturally, branches of Indian police will be after him wherever he goes to keep track of whom he meets, corresponds with, etc. This is done not so much to gather evidence for an allegedly criminal case, but to maintain a surveillance of possible recruits in the future. The actions of the police are mostly either political or criminal; they are seldom meant to serve the cause of justice in these ‘anti-terrorist’ cases. There must be a substantial file by now in police quarters detailing Sai Baba’s rather colourful political life.

Maoists know this, so does Sai Baba. So, the two will avoid any possible physical contact. It is impossible to believe that Sai Baba, so sympathetic to the cause of revolution, will actually maintain contact information with the maoists on his mobile and computer to endanger the very movement. It is even more improbable that the veteran activist will actually meet someone and send the person on some errand with the maoists. It is said that Swami Agnivesh, not exactly a veteran activist in the style of Sai Baba, once made this fatal mistake that led to the killing of the maoist leader Azad. Sai Baba of course knows dozens of less prominent cases of the same variety.

Sai Baba is the last person to initiate action that has any chance to expose a link in the maoist network even if we assume that Sai Baba is politically connected with the maoists. The so-called charges against Sai Baba must, therefore, be viewed as entirely political in character without any legal basis.

Sai Baba must be released on bail at once.