Why mainstream discourse needs dissent

WHILE recently addressing a sporting event called 'Bastar Olympics' in Chhattisgarh's Jagdalpur, Home Minister Amit Shah warned the 'Maoists'/Naxalites of severe consequences if they refused to surrender, give up arms and join the 'mainstream'.

With his characteristic discourse of power, he reminded us that the State, with its security forces, is determined to eradicate the 'Maoists' from the country by March 31, 2026. After all, one should not forget, as he asserted with a sense of pride, that only in the last one year, 287 Naxalites had been killed, 992 arrested and 836 surrendered. If Naxalism ended in Bastar, as Shah promised with his mantra of 'development', it would attract more tourists than Kashmir due to its natural beauty.

Well, let it be clear — I do not approve of the strategy of political violence, even if it aims at eradicating social and economic inequality and creating a just and egalitarian society.

The reason is that it is infectious, and we are likely to be trapped in the vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence. Moreover, the roots of militarised authoritarianism, as many episodes of 'revolution' in the name of Stalinism or Maoism have demonstrated, lie in a political culture that romanticises violence.

Yet, I have no hesitation in problematising the Home Minister's orientation to the entire issue — his ways of handling the Naxalites. In fact, as alert and awakened citizens, you and I ought to trace yet another kind of violence — no less dangerous than what the 'Maoists' are alleged to be indulging in — Amit Shah's discourse of power seeks to hide.

In fact, the 'mainstream' Shah is glorifying tales of greed, exploitation and violence.

Think of, for instance, the social cost of the Rs 7,465-crore coalmine project in Raigarh district of Chhattisgarh. This Adani Group project will affect 14 villages; it is likely to cause water and food contamination, loss of soil fertility and disruption of local ecosystems.

Yet, the environmental clearance has been granted, despite studies highlighting serious concerns about the project's impact on the socioeconomic and health conditions of villagers.

In fact, it will cause a severe harm to traditional livelihoods, especially among the SC and ST women, who previously relied on forest resources for crafts like bamboo baskets and leaf plates.

But then, this 'mainstream' culture privileges crony capitalism, and its 'development' discourse causes severe violence to the mental, cultural and economic fabric of the downtrodden.

Open your eyes and see the same violence in Jharkhand's Godda district. For the Adani Group's 1,600-MW power plant, it seems normal to justify police brutality and forceful acquisition of around 551 hectares of land, spread across 10 villages in two blocks of Godda district in the Santhal Pargana region.

And it is the same story of violence that we see in the lease of forestland in Odisha to Vedanta and the Adani Group for bauxite mining. Is it, therefore, surprising that — as the insightful report, 'Homeless in Your Own Homeland' by the late Stan Swamy, reveals — during the past 50 years, approximately 20 million people have been displaced in India due to mines, dams, industries, wildlife sanctuaries and field-firing ranges?

Yes, this is what the 'mainstream' discourse of 'development' does to the poor and the marginalised. Apart from the violence of 'development', this 'mainstream' politics causes yet another form of violence: the violence against the religious minorities or the violence sanctified in the name of 'bulldozer justice'.

Indeed, while Shah wants to transform Bastar into a tourism hub, he safely forgets that the violence implicit in the alliance of the neoliberal market fundamentalism and majoritarian nationalism has already caused a lot of unrest in our society.

And unless the state engages in an act of collective healing, what Shah loathes as 'Naxalism' might not end so easily, despite the recurrence of 'encounter deaths' in Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand.

In fact, we need creative and nonviolent dissenters to debunk what Shah regards as the 'mainstream', and fight for a humane, ecologically sensitive and egalitarian society.

Yes, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of the most known dissenters who could acquire the courage to resist the 'satanic force' implicit in the colonial discourse of power and lead a mass movement for decolonising the nation.

In our times, Medha Patkar is a remarkably sensitive dissenter who could see the discontents of what is glorified as 'development', and raise the concerns of those who were uprooted and displaced. But then, what is tragic is that the ruling establishment is so fond of 'deshbhakts' or conformists that every act of dissent is seen as a conspiracy against the nation.

Not surprisingly, it tends to regard almost everybody who critiques the mind-boggling inequality — don't forget that the top one per cent in India holds more than 40 per cent wealth — the 'billionaire raj' has created as a conspirator.

Or, for that matter, anybody who raises his/her voice against the violence implicit in the Hindutva-induced hyper-nationalism is often castigated as an 'urban Naxal' or a 'Maoist'. Is it the reason why sedition charges are levelled so easily against dissenters, and the notorious UAPA can be used to keep young students, climate activists, journalists and social workers in the dark cells of Indian prisons for years?

If this is the 'mainstream', it ought to be resisted. And, as I would argue, this art of resistance can be sharpened only if we remain committed to three fundamental principles: (a) adherence to ahimsa or non-violence; (b) imagination of India as a civilisation that promotes diversities and cultural, linguistic, religious pluralism; and (c) unconditional commitment to social and economic equity and ecologically sustainable development.