Intellectuals mislead on the crackdown on Maoist sympathizers

Even before the police have completed their probe, salon socialists have announced their verdict.

Cambridge Dictionary describes the idiom ‘have your cake and eat it (too)’ as ‘to have or do two good things at the same time that are impossible to have or do at the same time.’ Evidently, this doesn’t apply to intellectuals. Their position is this: when Maharashtra cops raid the homes of prominent Maoist sympathizers in Pune, it is fascism; when cops in the same state act against the Hindu outfit Sanatan Sanstha, it is just deserts for the diabolical Rightists. Heads I win, tails you lose.

The raids on Tuesday were in connection with the violence between Dalits and the upper caste Peshwas at Koregaon-Bhima village near Pune after a function on December 31, 2017. “Near simultaneous searches were carried out at the residences of prominent Telugu poet Varavara Rao in Hyderabad, activists Vernon Gonzalves and Arun Farreira in Mumbai, trade union activist Sudha Bhardwaj in Faridabad, and civil liberties activist Gautam Navalakha in New Delhi, a senior police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity,” a PTI report said. “Subsequently, Rao, Bhardwaj and Farreira were arrested.”

Is action against Sanstha and Hindu activists also “a clear declaration of emergency”? Is it “absolutely chilling”?

Even before the police have completed their probe, salon socialists have announced their verdict. “Fascist fangs are now openly bared,” tweeted lawyer Prashant Bhushan. “It is a clear declaration of emergency. They are going after anyone who has spoken against the government on rights issues. They are against any dissent.” Then there is the well-known historian Ramachandra Guha who found the action “absolutely chilling.” He wanted the Supreme Court’s to check this “persecution and harassment” of independent voices. “Sudha Bharadwaj is as far from violence and illegality,” tweeted Guha.

And then, of course, there is the award-winning author Arundhati Roy. The arrests of Maoist sympathizers are “a dangerous sign of a government that fears it is losing its mandate and is falling into panic. That lawyers, poets, writers, Dalit rights activists and intellectuals are being arrested on ludicrous charges.”

At present, law-enforcement agencies are acting against Leftwing and Rightwing activists allegedly involved in criminal activities.

But, then, how does the fascist-fangs theory square with the action against Sanatan Sanstha? The officials of Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) last week had reportedly said that they might summon Sanstha chief Jayant Athawale in a terror conspiracy case investigation.

Further, India Today reported (August 26) that “the terror module that was busted by the Maharashtra Anti-terror Squad (ATS) and led to the arrests of five persons and one by the CBI was done so on a tip off by the Vikhroli Unit of ATS. Police officer Vishwas Rao, attached to the Vikhroli Unit, had been probing a possible terror module. The investigation started with a just a mobile number that led ATS officials to three persons and finally to Vaibhav Raut.” An active member of Govansh Raksha Samiti, Raut “was seen working for Sanatan Sanstha.”

It has been widely reported in the media that several members of Hindu organizations are under the scanner for their alleged involvement in various unlawful activities. Further, the Maharashtra government has favored a ban on Sanatan Sanstha. Why does a ‘fascist’ regime want to proscribe a ‘fascist’ group?

Is action against Sanstha and Hindu activists also “a clear declaration of emergency”? Is it “absolutely chilling”?

At present, law-enforcement agencies are acting against Leftwing and Rightwing activists allegedly involved in criminal activities. It is for courts to decide whether they are guilty or innocent. It is duplicitous and hypocritical on the part of intellectuals to pronounce the verdict before judges that one set of the accused are innocent and the other guilty.

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.