This blog is continuing to focus on Naxals and Maoists: and the news today is that they have called for a 48-hour strike in 5 states where they are strong: that is, West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. The strike is to protest against security forces storming Lalgarh in West Midnapore district of West Bengal.
And, from Lalgarh, here is an in-depth interview with the leader of the People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities.
As he points out, there has been no “political response” from our The State to the crisis: all that they have done is send the jackboots in.
And there is little that jackboots can accomplish:
The jackboots may have taken over Lalgarh but a police vehicle was immediately bombed in Jharkhand, while CRPF personnel were killed in Chattisgarh. Read a story of the overall picture here.
As I have been mulling over this “crisis of legitimacy” faced by our The State, it also occurred to me that two other pet theories of the establishment are being sorely tested in Lalgarh.
The first is the legitimacy of the Forest Department and all their work in “preserving the environment.” It seems the people in these forests have other ideas – which must be heard.
The second is of Chacha Manmohan’s baby, the NREGA “rural employment” bull. About a year ago I had commented on the Amartya Sen crony, Professor Jean Dreze, engaging in “activism” on behalf of the NREGA in Jharkhand, where his principal student-volunteer had been killed. I had said then that such “activism” was peculiar in that it directed the poor towards The State and its dole. The activism I engaged in when in Mangalore, on the other hand, always directed the poor towards The Market. The area where Jean Dreze was active is now Maoist-dominated. I wonder how the local people view the NREGA there. Or the government school. Do they want a dole? Do they want education? Or are they crying out for Justice?
As I considered these matters, it struck me that the real issue facing all Indians is this: Are we on the side of the poor tribals of Midnapore or are we on the side of our The State?
Who is the villain in this story?
In my book, this is not a normal law-and-order problem. It goes much, much deeper. It is about a breakdown of civilian administration. It is about a breakdown of the political process.
It concerns the poorest of the poor – our forest-dwellers.
They have armed themselves with “axes, spears, bows and arrows etc.” while the other side has big guns.
This blog is firmly opposed to all tyranny and all tyrants. It is on the side of the poor tribals. They must have Justice, Liberty and Property.
Tyranny must be ended.
Bharat Sarkaar Murdabad!
Recently found your blog; good going. What is your take on homestead principle / Geolibertarianism / Land value tax?
ReplyDeleteI am all for the homesteading principle. With two added caveats: first, that it shall be the duty of the local government to furnish the homesteader with a legally valid property title; and second, a motorable road right up to his property. All local taxes must be devoted towards these ends. This will see the spread of population, the development of the surrounds, and make land cheap - thereby benefiting the poorest. If we add a vibrant market for rentals, then we have solved the great big problem of housing. It is to solve this problem that our forebears gave our The State huge powers over land, including default ownership of all "unowned land": and look at the result. Homesteading in the only answer - like a sadhu planting his trishul on some mountain and building his temple there.
ReplyDeleteI am a recent convert to Geolibertarianism; just started on Henry George's 'Progress and Poverty'. Questions like - 'how long after un-use does a homestead land become free again?', 'is it right to treat land the same way as capital?', 'do you have the sole right for the natural resources apart from the produce from your land?', 'does homesteading apply to electro-magnetic spectrum, oceans?' have been troubling me.
ReplyDeleteHomesteading might not make land cheap, as the guy with most trishuls can claim most of the land as his. I agree that state ownership is not the solution; therefore wouldn't a Land Value Tax (Tax only on land and not the land-improvements or income) be a reasonable alternative? It would penalize land owners who are not using the land but only fencing it, and promote efficient land use, as there is no tax on production or improvements on the land.