Imagined Truths and Real Politics: The Problem with Perceived Identities.

Many questions of philosophical as well political importance have emerged on to the intellectual surface due to the recent developments in the country. The Maoist General Strike, the dramatic opposition to it, the end of the strike and the loud ‘end note’ by the Maoist Supremo have made the first week of May of high consequences for the nation, more so for the intelligentsia.

When I link the spontaneous show of solidarity by the people against the strike with other contemporary events in the world, I remember the recent events in Thailand, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines and Kyrgyzstan. Reporting on the Thai protests, P S Suryanarayana (Frontline 8-21may) concludes, “the non-ideological notion of people power is coming back in vogue.” He says further that the idea of ‘people power’ is not of any uniform standard as people have come together spontaneously for different causes at all these places. None the less, an idea emerging in some significant pockets across East Asia is quite unmistakable: that the traditional centers of power must be accountable to the people at large.

Was the protest against the strike by Maoists a state sponsored ante or was it an exhibit of ‘People Power’ in consonance with the recent events in other parts of the world? There can be no denial that some elements of other political parties surely have tried to take advantage of the sudden uprising by people, but negating the whole event as one political gambit by opponents is not only a mistake for the Maoists, it is also unfortunate for the people of the nation. However, the Maoist leadership knows the truth and hence the questions to be raised from the incident are not about the origins and intentions of the display of People Power but about the kind of politics that is being resorted to for individual gains of the parties.

Three things are noteworthy in the address by Prachanda to the ‘people’s gathering’ at the khula manch. First, the arrogance in the tone and the words. Second, the approach in explaining the reasons for calling off the strike. Third, the intentions of playing politics of identity. These three things have different connotations and implications in the politics of the country. They also have a differing magnitude of immediate as well as long term effect.

The arrogance expressed by him towards the intelligentsia, professionals and journalists was perceived by the cadres of Maoists as a go ahead for the violence against the well to do Kathmandu based ‘clean people’; which manifested into the attacks on journalists the very next day. Such encroachment attempt on the press freedom, whether well directed by the hierarchy or spontaneous incitement due to an irresponsible address by the leader, is a dangerous development. After all, the press in general is the only means through which the sentiment of the people can be truly and timely expressed in a democracy. I say timely because the elections, the other powerful means, can work only once in a long interval of time (generally four to five years in most of the democracies). That too, once exercised, very few systems have the procedure for retracting the decisions before the next elections, even if the majority of the people intend to do so.

The social networking websites in the internet, like Facebook, are as active as the real world ‘Roads’ in all aspects of lives. They are vibrant with people sharing their ideas, protesting and protesting the protests. However, if one tries to navigate through the pages of the ‘Web-proletariats’ in facebook, it is not hard to feel the arrogance in their demeanor. One such link in facebook got a very severe criticism for a Pro-Maoist and devoted appreciation of the address by Prachanda. It said, “Schizophrenics do not accept the truth of the real world and get entangled in the illusions created by their diseased mind away from the society. The Maoists should get rid of the political schizophrenia. The truth understood by everyone is that people can never be defeated. They will never accept dictatorship and authoritarianism.” The reaction of the web proletariat comrade was like this, “Whoever you are, do you have the guts to come out and say such things in open?”

The Maoists still want to thrive on the politics of ideological fundamentalism and extremism. It is clear from the ‘piece of mind’ of the leadership that the notion of class struggle still remains central to their ideology. They still want to believe that there exists a class struggle, one side represented by the people of the villages who came to Kathmandu in tens of thousands and the other side being represented by the people of the cities. This is an effort to play the politics of delusion. Who were the people who came out on the road for peace? Professionals, poors, students, businessmen? Trying to make a class distinction between those ‘People’ and the ones who came from the villages is an attempt to make a mockery of history. The students who come to study in Kathmandu come from various villages all over the country, the same places from where the ‘other class’ of people came from. Who according to the Maoists, came to ask for their rights and the justification of the historical injustices. In our times, when the very country of Mao has already adopted more than twenty years ago that ‘some should be allowed to get rich first’ and ‘getting rich is glorious’, the Maoists are trying to create a divide based on class struggle of the poor and the rich.

Such perceived notions of dissimilar singular identity are atavistically harmful for the society. Such notion is not limited to the class only. It further tries to permeate into the belief system of caste, tribes, ethnicities and nationalities. What such perceptions of singular identity tend to ignore is that an individual has multiple identities and hence concentric centers of loyalties with varying degrees of preferences and priorities. Hence, a villager is not only a villager but also a farmer (who has to sow maize in time!), a religious Hindu, a Gurung, a male and a democrat at the same time with varying degrees of involvement.

We know, and our politicians know very well, that the conceptions of identity influence our thoughts and actions in many different ways. Thus conflicting claims of disparate identities involving different groups are advocated and proliferated to create political and social causes. It is and has always been the duty of the intelligentsia to de-plume such notions and clear the mist. As Jean-Paul Sarte has said in Portrait of the Anti-Semite, “The Jew is a man whom other people look upon as a Jew. …it is the anti-semite who makes the jew.”