Two news items coming out of Kolkata last fortnight struck me. The first was the death of eminent theatre person Kumar Ray, alias Kumardaa, which is a big loss for the theatre community. I have personal memories about him and am condoling his death. The second news is different in a number of ways. The news says that the Indian Maoists have fielded the names of 3 eminent Indian writers as mediators for a dialogue with the Indian government. They are Arundhati Roy, Mahasweta Devi and Kabir Suman who, in addition to being a politician, is also a singer. Maoist politburo member Mullajola Koteshwar Rao revealed their intentions after a telephone conversation with the government.

This small piece of news speaks volumes. First, it revives Bengali political historicism. All three writers are Bengali; and naturally, the Maoists who requested them are Bengali as well, the inheritors of the Naxalite Movement that started in the late 1960s and was considered to have fizzled out once before they regrouped into a force again pressing the Indian government to make a series of announcements including measures like outlawing them and quelling their movement by force. That situation has not changed. Secondly, this piece of news attests to the power of creative writers and their role in societies that are perennially grappling with issues of modernisation and tackling the problems of the age-old feudal aristocracy that still leave a large number of people deprived of the advantages of civilisation and prosperity due to the prerogative of a small number of rich people and elite urban class.

The Maoists’ proposition opens up many areas of debate. First of all, as a literary writer I would read multiple meanings into this unique kind of reader response. A shifting and violently engaged political group entrenched in rural battles constitutes a readership here. The critical theorists have not clearly considered it yet as a subject of importance. The very fact that they have selected literary writers of great strength, two of which are women, to sit in negotiation with the government is immensely meaningful.

The Maoists appeared to have read two texts simultaneously: both the literary texts of these writers who have been writing for the common people, the underdogs, and the exploited and marginalised communities and  also history — their own, India’s and the world’s. The Indian history of a parliamentary democracy is a continuum, which has taken the country to new heights of development. The other is the Naxalites’ own history. Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the utopic texts that it had generated had influenced the Naxalite movement that had its small spill-over effect in Nepal also in the early 1970s.

By requesting literary writers to negotiate for them, the Maoists of Bengal have especially evoked a unique mode of historicism. First, they appear to have recognised that though the condition of the marginalised people has not changed, the methods of approaching the problem have changed. Weapons are important means of the battle, but literary writers too constitute a power to reckon with. Their power sometimes can be more effective than the barrel of a gun when their help is needed.

The other indicator of change in the Maoist movement is the emergence of a strong Maoist movement in Nepal that in 10 years, from 1996 to 2006, established itself as a force for change and the main cause of the state of the republic, ethno-political awareness and interestingly the politics of the polls itself. By harshly critiquing the Nepali Maoists for joining the multiparty oriented system on the one hand and soliciting the help of the champions of freedom and liberty on the other, the Indian Maoists are partly showing their sense of theoretical ambivalence and partly their changed perception of history. But the wrong reading of history is the share of others too.

First, if the Indian government itself reviews the Naxalite movement and sees the strong symbolism of the Indian Maoists request to appoint literary writers as brokers of peace as insignificant noise, that could be interpreted as missing an important opportunity to address the problem of the insurgency and creating greater distance from a peaceful solution to the problem. The psycho-historical dimension of the Naxalite gesture is very important. Corrupt governments and bureaucratic systems have long ignored the miserable conditions of the millions in this region. And that condition speaks louder today. 

Second, if the Nepali Maoists fail to realise their role in establishing peace, despite their achievements made in the direction of change, they will resort to the same wallow of power mongering politics architected by leaders vying for power and position on an intra-party basis and tinkering with and secretly manipulating the corrupt bureaucracy against which they claim to be fighting against. We cannot ignore either side of the debate — the Indian government, despite the strong anti-Indian rhetoric of the Nepali Maoists, could perhaps look at them as an important force who could be approached to open up new avenues of peace with their disgruntled cousins, the Maoists of India, whose leaders have openly joined the Nepali Maoists’ anti-Indian chorus in the context of its policy towards the small neighbour. This is an open question.

In Nepal, the political parties have often sought to use and exploit literary writers only to later criticise them. Blinded by the narrow partisan culture and selfish aims, Nepali political power holders and power makers have not realised how important is to respect the independence of writers. Unfortunately, the literary writers themselves are gradually losing their strong identities as writers by glibly carrying the flags of the political parties. After the recent restructuring of the academies — two are yet to be restructured — and the criteria created for the selection of the members, it has become alarmingly clear that the writers are soon going to create conditions that will make it difficult for any strong and independent writers to emerge. However, some good creative writers who will be symbols of unity and inspiration for the common people of the land will certainly emerge.

The present government and the leaders of the political parties are leading the country from a bad to a worse situation. Ironically, the politicians who once spent their entire energy to paint a negative picture of the Maoists in the world are now fighting for their own good image with the UN and the foreign media. New revelations about the alarming security structure, political dealings, impunity and failings of the corrupt bureaucratic and economic organisations indicate that the very culture and ethics of negotiations are already in a quandary.

Negotiations and dialogues transformed the politics of Nepal. But it is ironic, while we talk about the Indian Naxalites seeking the help of literary writers to negotiate with the government, that the Nepali political parties and a tottering government should forget the power of negotiation that brought the strong guerrillas from jungle politics to poll politics and a Constituent Assembly into existence, which has less than three months to fulfil the mandate given by the people to write the federal democratic constitution of the land.

Abhi Subedi

abhi@mail.com.np

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.