State Torture

Few things reveal a nation better than what it censors. Human societies that allow the free expression of ideas do better than those that don’t allow new ideas. The evidence is all around for us to see and judge. The renaissance was the triumph of ideas over church power after a long struggle.

The ignorance and lethargy of the poor are the direct result of the whole economic, social and political domination. It is the failure of elites and policy makers that failed in creating inclusive growth.Hence, the violence emerge from the poor neighborhood or a specific region.

State can't arm people to fight insurgency, it will only lead to legalization of violence with state backing it. The order can't be maintained by violating spirit of law in the first place. Hence, they opt for torture technique to suppress the will of people.

The other strategy to deal with challenges to legitimacy of state is by promoting and reinforcing identity politics within a system of privileges where certain groups and individuals are favored over others. In a word: divide and rule. Best of all discrimination policies used by government !

In democracy, power goes to those who've got money or people. The weak and cynical power holder people are obsessed with their status in society. Abhu Gharib and Guantanmo are prime example of insanity and savagery of the people holding power.An enhanced interrogation techniques” probably have a flawed idea of whether this constitutes torture, because few have felt the pain these methods can cause.

Authoritarian regimes or Deep State are not known for creating space where alternative political leadership grows - for if they do so, they would cease to be authoritarian. The delusional and diseased symbiosis of a person with power.

In short term, the proclamation of reforms, positive changes and greater media freedom turned out to be nothing but empty promises. So there is no major change in the political, moral, psychological, social or economic position of the people. And the game goes on...

No economic system can over-ride the mandate to preserve our life and liberty.  Each country has to find is its own political cohesiveness to carry out very painful and ugly transitions. No country or state is exception of power tussle.There is always inevitable anger  in the people against such misuse of state power which can either spark like revolution or least possibility of reform from inside government.

The media also remain in the frenzy state. The very assumption behind security state is that civilians are expendable, that there is no need to build civilian institutions because they are permanently invaded and the whole world is their enemy. Yet, rarely are the political and economic system that sustain authoritarian groups in the position of power is questioned. That led only to revolution !

Culture of resistance

While illusions of reform is creating a ground for revolutionary environment, one needs to see the relation between establishment and the unprivileged ones. Everywhere in the world, people are not suffering from an excess of civil disobedience, infact suffering from an excess of civil obedience of few elites. The case of protest and violence are heavily related.  As Johann Hari mentioned about effects of protest in the UK that has far reaching effect and it is true for all over the world : -

"There is a cost to this chilling of protest. Every British citizen is the beneficiary of a long line of protesters stretching back through the centuries. Every woman reading this can vote and open her own bank account and choose her own husband and have a career because protesters demanded it. Every worker gets at least £5.93 an hour, and paid holidays, and paid sick leave, because protesters demanded it. Every pensioner gets enough to survive because protesters demand it. What what your life would be like if all those protesters through all those years had been frightened into inactivity? If you block the right to protest, you block the path to progress. You are left instead at the whim of an elite, whose priority is tax cuts for themselves, paid for with spending cuts for the poor."

In a recent address Akbar Ganji, a representative of the Green Movement in Iran, characterized history thus: “Human history has been interpreted in many ways. I read this history as a sustained course of struggle for liberty—the struggle of slaves, women, people of color, the poor, the disenfranchised, of religious minorities and dissidents of various sorts, to rid themselves of the tyranny they have endured.” In a history of the revolutions in Paris, there is a provocative phrase: “The time of the oppressed is by nature discontinuous” – apparently there is more truth in it than any statement made about victims of power

Often war/violence is assumed as the last resort of the problem, but the first approach that the establishment prefers. The authority of state lies in the allowance of violence given to the state by the people. When the state tend to use violence against its own people, it loses that sanction and trust of masses. The opposite violence born due to the protest catch society between two poles. History has shown us that US authorities have started to talk with Martin Luther King, Jr. because Dr. King’s alternative appear moderate by comparison across all the political spectrum, stretching from Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.
 
Violence is not some abstract or theoretical question to be puzzled through. It’s simply part of life and protest also. And that doesn’t mean you participate or don’t participate. It just means that you deal with it.  A decision to resort to violence is not something to be undertaken without great care—and stated in terms that were addressed to reasonable people. Great  leaders like Nehru and Mandela have felt the historic obligation to make a stand and to define it. That is why once an independence  or prime aim of revolution was achieved, most of the sensible leaders elope with the peaceful democratic movements. Arundhuti Roy recently quote an apt statement about nature of violence  : It would be immoral of me to preach violence unless I’m prepared to pick up arms myself. It is equally immoral for me to preach nonviolence when I’m not bearing the brunt of the attack.  

Identity and Intolerance

I was reading a review of Amartya Sen's book 'Identity and Violence'. According to the reviewer, the book argues for the reasonableness of the violence of identity. Quoting few paragraphs of review here will be necessary to form basis of mine essay.

"He (Sen) takes aim at what he calls the 'solitarist' approach to human identity, which sees human beings as members of exactly one group. In a related vein, Sen criticizes the solitarist approach to civilizations. Influential texts like Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order" take a drubbing for assuming monolithic Western and Eastern civilizations.

The originality of this critique is that it eschews trite appeals to the common humanity of those in savage conflict. Instead, Sen invokes the myriad identities within each individual. Because all of us contain multitudes, we can choose among our identities, emphasizing those we share with others rather than those we do not. Sen acknowledges, as he must, that such choices will be limited by external circumstances. Still, to concede that identity choices are constrained is a far cry from the claim that identity is destiny.

The strength of Sen's argument lies in its intuitive nature: "In our normal lives we see ourselves as members of a variety of groups." Its weakness lies in its failure to explain why, at critical junctures, we disown that knowledge."

I am puzzled by such intricate relation of identity, tolerance and violence while going through this piece only. Identity is the one of the basic cultural aspect that is inherited and believed by an individual in any society. Most of our identities can be communal, religious, regional, ethnic, national and even sectarian in the nature. Belonging to fanboy clubs or to the political party establish ours identity in the society.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as religions based on sacred books, all want the whole world in their own image – this is their identity, to which all alterities must – they so wish – yield. This monotheistic vision has led to the crusades, holocaust and many wars among the believers. Even in the today’s Europe, with its increasingly bland, homogenized culture, there is little room for those who want to march to the beat of a different drummer. Whether it’s Muslims who dress differently, or gypsies who want to live according to their traditional way of life, more people in the West are insisting that they don’t want to live with communities who do not conform.

While the eastern religions celebrate diversity, they have their own pitfalls. Despite of several years of co existence, there is an unwritten rule of not mingling through marriage of one religion or caste. The caste system by associating certain identities- upper caste denominations like with power and privilege while disempowering untouchables has in fact institutionalized violence on a daily basis in Indian society.

There are beliefs attached to the institutions that each one perceives regarding 'others' those who don't share their customs and perceptions. The idea of untouchability, the idea that woman is a temptress and inferior to man, and the idea that homosexuality is a mortal sin that is punishable by death, are not benign private beliefs. So is not the idea that apostates, blasphemers, and unbelievers can, and should be, exterminated. Even few victims of such nonsense beliefs became part of mainstream, fewer raise their concern. Most of them are done muted by institutional propaganda.

Basically, tolerance is not practising someone else’s rituals. It is taken as accepting someone else ritual should have same respect as yours. Tolerance is a tool to defuse violent religious conflict and reduce persecution of cultural, racial, ethnic, and sexual identities. Tolerate is not to affirm but to conditionally allow what is unwanted or deviant. Heavy with lofty norms and consolidating the dominance of the powerful, tolerance sustains the abjection of the tolerated in such societies . The core differences are never resolved even after passing of long time and co existence does not solve the problem.

Identities such as developed, developing and backward have played a key role in the shaping of economic and social policies in formation of modern world with all the negative consequences of such policies being brushed aside as a trade off for achieving prosperity or civilizing others. That is another aspect of the violence and exploitation done in the name of the cultural supremacy and development.

Book Reviewer ask us few questions about identities that are still unanswered in my mind : Is it because human cognition tends to trade in binaries? Is it because violence creates identity as much as identity creates violence? Is it because human beings fear the choices or solitude a more cosmopolitan outlook would force them to face?

State Violence

Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a privilege that must be earned before it can be enjoyed. It's a quote by a 19th century English cleric and writer, Charles Caleb Colton, which can be found in his 1820 publication "Lacon, or Many Things in Few Words, addressed to those who think".

When a state become involved in any cultural or physical warfare, the identities of people began to change in the public. New symbols have to be waved loud and pertaining to exhibitionism. There is always persecution of people with different opinion that party high command found is seen in every communist nation. Ethnically targeted state repression in Balkan countries where Slovak, Czech, Muslims, Serbs Croats and Roma people are targeting each other based on demographic strength. While the worse form comes in the military dictatorship where authority exploit the majority for their like in Burma and North Korea.

There is nothing to compare with the courage of ordinary people whose names are unknown and sacrifices pass un noticed. The courage that dares without recognition, without protection of media attention is a courage that humbles, inspires and re affirms our faith in humanity. They are the carriers of endurance and struggle against unjust system.

There is an intimate and indissoluble link between intellectual and political freedom. There will be no security for dissidents and their families as long as freedom of thought and freedom of political action are guaranteed by the law of the land. We want to have public policies with a view to promoting an open, secure political system based on confidence and credibility. Those believed in intellectual freedom and justice should be vanguard of democratic movement.

What about democratic Indian state in violence against minority ? Let us take the case of state of Gujarat . Majority of voters are Hindus and they have chosen Narendra Modi due to his efficient application of administrative policies and communal polarization of votes. Despite all his baggage and hate agenda, Narendra Modi may have been the first politician to demonstrate his voters how market works better than any corrupt subsidy system. But what is the choice of minority, either to die in hunger like BIMARU states or with communal hatred in the most prosperous state ?

Richard Holbrooke said with reference to the Yugoslavia of the 1990s: Suppose elections are free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists — that is the dilemma. Nationalism on the wave of such parties need to be resisted, for they promote daydreaming and they blur our idea of justice, equality and fraternity.

If bad people with the state power hurt someone I love, how far would I go to punish criminals back? I assume that I will go for non violent path through judicial courts initially. If I will have no option left, surely will take arms against repression. And thus will betray my own stand in the power of non violent means, this is mine personal dilemma.

The thousand-yard stare

I was watching the movie 'Full Metal Jacket' yesterday. The movie sparked the issue about violence in my mind. Why did authorising state take its stand more violently against dissidents than democratic states? The contents which authority is unaware, that is treated as treasonable due to fear of the losing power by unknown. There are attempts to de-legitimize and criminalize all dissent and opposition to its policies. Bounding of law to maintain order without even hearing voices of dissidents create havoc situation in the society.

Christopher Hitchens summarises dictatorship governance as : The true essence of a dictatorship is in fact not its regularity but its unpredictability and caprice; those who live under it must never be able to relax, must never be quite sure if they have followed the rules correctly or not. Thus, the ruled can always be found to be in the wrong. The ability to run such a "system" is among the greatest pleasures of arbitrary authority. The only thumb rule is: whatever is not compulsory is forbidden.

Fear, Paranoia, Suspicion and Desperation are common in the dictatorial state. State believes that it can control the citizens by blocking the information flow and shutting down counter state views. The outmoded bureaucracies of state put iron curtain on the people movements, migration and information flow. And, There comes a tipping point where ripple turns into a tidal wave, a wind into blizzard and a movement into a revolution.

Common people unaware of situation try to explain way crisis as conspiracy theories or playing the blame game on external factors, the relationship between solution and problem becomes a distant one. And by ignoring this, thus state and its citizens allows a crisis to fester. State of Pakistan is the prime example of this phenomenon.

There are two persons who inspired me for this discourse : Che Guevara [an Argentine Marxist revolutionary and major figure of the Cuban Revolution ] and Aung San Suu Kyi [a Burmese opposition politician and ex- General Secretary of the National League for Democracy]. They represent two opposite ways in the fight against tyranny of the authorizing state. I strictly stand on the fact that it is never easy to convince those who have acquired power forcibly of the wisdom of peaceful change. Aang San Su Kyi is doing non violently same in Burma and Che Guevera had opposed American interference in Latin American countries through violence.

In both of these struggles, injustice and anarchy are condoned by those who hold official responsibility for protecting the citizens from acts of violence. State tends to act as guardian of the citizens like the morality police, legislating on modes of behaviour they considers harmful to their citizens. When normal human urges are suppressed, they all too often express themselves in violent acts.

It is necessary to cultivate the habit of questioning arbitrary orders and to stand firm in the face of adversity. Political awareness can be blunted by the state but the natural instinct that led an individual to seek justice and freedom can't be suppressed. The root of discontent that is in protests of the young reflects general malaise of the society. State fails to recognise the reality of human behaviour, an instinct for freedom. Humans are not animals that are driven by hunger and mating behaviour only.

Here it also reflects that economic power is built on the ability to access information and resources asymmetrically. Economists have pointed out the link between the presence of huge energy reserves in a country and political instability and human rights abuse. The reason many suggest for this is that countries rich in energy reserves don't need the efforts of citizens to raise revenue, and consequently such states usually become (and can afford to be) undemocratic like Burma and Saudi Arabia . The price of economic development always comes through exploitation of many. Its not the justification of the act but basic flaw of top - down model of economic development.

I wanted to write about state and violence initially. But ended up at different shores in completion. I realized now that deeply held convictions are always on trial in the fight against arm repression. Today is ours independence day, 15th August. The political and economic changes had put India out of crisis, but there is a little intellectual tradition to support social change. Each youth generation should seek for new model or improvement in existing process for evolving, and today its mine responsibility.

PS: Read more about Authority: I don't walk Left and Irrational Faith -3.