Presentation at the Hyderabad Seminar,9-10 August 20241

India’s Constitutional Democracy and Violence against Adivasis

— Dr. SarojGiri

AnextendedwarofexterminationofadivasisisgoingoninIndia.Whereresistancebyadivasis(calledBhumkaal)isatitssharpest,mostpolitical,challengingthesovereignwritoftheIndiandeepstateand worldimperialism— it is in this faultline that the extermination intensifies, slippingintowhatlooks like genocidal intent. Remember how the International Criminal Court made a big deal about “intent”— Israel’sgenocide inGaza versusthe“intent”at genocide.Inthecase we areconsidering, the “intent” is surely there, even though the scale of military mobilisation might be limited by the givenconditions.IsraeliweaponryisbeingactivelyusedincentralIndia, showing clearconnections with world imperialism.

This intent is clear from the targeted aerial bombings conducted in Bastar. It is also clear from the following operations, military operations:Operation Green Hunt,Operation Samadhan Prahar,Operation Kagar. TheseOperations arecarried out against the adivasi resistanceagainst big capital in Bastar, GadchiroliandadjoiningareasintheDandakaranyaforests.The attack ontheresistanceisan attack onadivasilifeitself.

Unlike most other “failing democracies”, India is supposed to uphold the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution: with vigilant Courts, robust Parliament, civil society and media. Fundamental rights are a key component of the basic structure doctrine. The Chief Justice of India,

DY Chandrachud, recently called the doctrine a North Star “which guides and gives a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path ahead is convoluted.” This doctrine is supposed to keep the basic principles of constitutional democracy in place, making sure we do not diverge from them.

However,itseemslikeanimpossibletasktorecognisetheobviouspointthatOperationKagarviolates the fundamental rights of adivasis; it violates the separation of powers since the government of the day does not put up this policy for deliberation in Parliament, nor does the Constitutional Courts intervene to decide on its constitutionality; and, above all, it violates the basic principle that a state cannot wage war against its own citizens.

The intellectualclass’srefusaltorecognisethe severityofthe exterminationprocess ismindboggling. Through a kind of erasure if not straightforward denial, the “democratic idea of India” thereby continues miraculously unblemished in the face of these abominations!

We want to ask: is Operation Kagar and the extermination of adivasis life consistent with the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution?

2.

Just in the recent electionsto the Parliament, the main plank of some of the biggest political parties was “Save Democracy, Save Constitution”!

These two slogans have occupied our headspace of late. They are regarded as the touchstone of progressivepoliticsinthecountry,partoftheliberalpundit’sincessantcalltodefendthedemocratic idea of India. We hear it said that the RSS, the BJP, violate the constitution and democracy. For example, when it is said that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was unconstitutional, an assault on democracy. Or that Hindutva is against the very spirit of the Constitution.

¹ “AllIndiaSeminaronAdivasiRights,CorporateDestruction,SolidarityMovements”,SolidarityForumforAdivasi Rights Struggle, Hyderabad.

Butwe do notforsome reasonhear itsaid,surely notinthe same breath,thatOperation Kagar or OperationGreenHuntisagainsttheconstitution,againstdemocracy.ThatOperationSamadharPraharis unconstitutional.

Attheveryleast,theurgencyofconnecting opposition toOperation GreenHunt withthenecessityto Save Democracy and the Constitution is lacking. Indeed, the idea of India itself was not considered tobeinperileventhoughOperationGreenHuntalongwiththevigilanteSalwaJudumunleasheda genocidal violence in adivasi areas during 2009-14

Whenconfronted with the extra-constitutional violence of Operation Green Hunt, maybewe think of conductingafact-findinginvestigation.Fakeencountersandfact-findingalmostrhymeinourheads, theoneisfollowedbythelatter—theyarelikethebuildingblocksofthecivillibertiesmovementon theground.ButIhaveoftenfeltthat“fact-finding”assumesthatsomethinghashappened“there”for which the facts of the case must first be collected and highlighted in order to “make our case”. No problem with that.

However,thissuffersfromwhat canbecalledtheempiricismof “case-to-case”basis. Itisasthough without the “facts” we cannot make a case about the necessary relation between the “normal” functioning of democracy and constitution, and extra-legal violence so frequently deployed by the state. Each time we must “prove the case”, we cannot come to any conclusion or theoretical insight forus tobeabletoact withanyforce tochange the situation. What isgoingon? Whyshouldthis be so?

Theproblemseemstobethisagain:FightingHindutvaisaboutsavingthesoulofIndia’sdemocracy. OpposingOperationKagarisaboutthrowingextralightonwhatisalwaystakentobeanunblemished and eternally beautiful soul of India’s democracy!

3.

NowI am notarguing that,welllet us upholdthe Constitution anddemocracy such thatwe can stop Operation Kagar. No. What I am saying is that the operation of the constitutional democracy has it initsDNAthingslikeOperationKagar.Thatitispreciselyconstitutionaldemocracywhichinternally generates“exceptions”ofextra-legalviolence.Theextra-judicialkillingsorlawsliketheUAPAmight notevenbeextra-judicial or extra-legal.Itcould be intra-judicial,intra-legal.Letusclarify.

Ramachandra Guha has openly suggested that the democratic idea of India might find it necessarytouseextra-legalviolencetosuppresstherevolutionary movement.[Anyrevolutionary political space outside ofthe caged terrainof constitutional democracy isdismissed, nay demonised as,“the cult of thegun”!]ThisamountstosayingthatOperationKagarmightbepartofthenecessaryparaphernalia ofthe Constitutionanddemocracy, ifnottheirtruespirit.Itislike the story ofthe300 Spartanswho valuelibertyanddemocracybutmustnowgotowartodefeatthePersians—astoryrepeatedbythe votaries of Western democracy.

So the extra-judicial turns out to be part of the internal or inner logic of constitutional democracy. Extra-judicial in theory, but intra-judicial in practice. De jure extra-judicial, de facto intra-judicial.

4.

Save Democracy, Save Constitution, one might argue, can be understood as part of a politics of United Front. The INDIA Alliance of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections is an example. I do not want to dismiss the strategy of United Front right away — not at all. But we must ask: Can we then deploy the strategy of United Front in order to fight Operation Kagar, if not to find a pathway towards the intensification of the revolutionary movement?

Iam surethecivillibertiesmovementmusthavenotedtheabsurditiesandpossibilitiesofsuchaunited front when P. Chidambaram recently tweeted in support of G. N. Saibaba’s bail and release. Following from it, I had earlier asked why the Congress’s Bharat Jodo Yatra avoided going into Bastar

and connecting with the people’s struggle in places like Silger, Bechapal, Modonar, Sarkeguda and Gompad. Would that not have strengthened the united front Alliance against the oppressive Modi government? A journalist named Mandeep Punia had in fact posed this question to Rahul Gandhi. We are still waiting for real answers.

This iswhathappenswhen the field ofpolitics isconstituted around the post-2014 divisionbetween liberals and authoritarians,such thatthe liberals tend to come closer tocertain progressive and even revolutionary tendencies. Liberals led by the Congress after 2014 showed this shift when Rahul Gandhi visited Hyderabad Central University to join the protests against Rohith Vemula’s institutionalmurder.Manythinkofitasa left-wardshift ofthe Congress.On theotherside, theBJP tries to paint the Congress and sections of the Opposition as “urban Naxals” — a trend started by Arun Jaitley, who was of course part of the Lutyens elite. All of this does mean that the anti-BJP Opposition tends to naturally shift towards the left — but one must not take this shift seriously or rather one must view it tactically, dialectically.

However, from our perspective the liberal versus authoritarian framework also means that the contradictionbetweenthesetwocampsishighlightedwhileoverlookingtheirunity.Thatistheunity of the political class with respect to the core interests of capital and the state. That is why again OperationKagarnever getsopposed by eventhe anti-authoritarian oppositioninParliament. That is why the Bharat Jodo Yatraavoided the places of people’s resistance in Bastar.

We also have smaller regional versions of united front. For example, when in 2010-11, Mahasweta DeviandMamataBanerjispokethesamelanguageofPorivorton.Therevolutionarymovementthen mustfigureoutwhichwaytogo —orrefusetochoosebetweenwhatmighteffectivelybenon-choices thrown by the slippery-slope contingencies of mainstream politics. For it seemsfairly clear that it is the highest dharma of Constitution and Democracy is to crush the revolutionary movement.

5.

Here is then my proposition: the dominant discourses seek to place Operation Green Hunt and Operation Kagaroutsidethepaleofpolitics.Asthoughthesearepartofa“natural”responsetoacertainkindof stimuli. As though no one is taking a decision here. The political class and the ruling party acts as though they have not seen or heard anything.

Have we heard a debate in Parliament on Operation Kagar or earlier on Operation Greenhunt? There are such firebrand Members of Parliament now. None of the political parties, be it the ruling or Opposition parties, be they communal or secular, ever call for a debate on this issue. Unless when specificallypressuredbycivilsocietyactivists,thepoliticalclassanditsleadersneverwanttoaddress this issue. It is very much like the elephant in the room.

EvenifitisinsupportofOperationKagar, letthemsayit, letthemtakea position.Letthemediadebate it,coverit.Letthecommentatorsacknowledgethatitexists.TheaerialbombingsinBastarshouldbe a matter of debate in Parliament. Even the state government of Chhattisgarh during the chief ministership of Bhupesh Baghel seem to deny that they were in the loop about these bombings, therebymakingitappearthatitwascarriedoutbyreallysecretivefunctionariesoftheHomeMinistry or PMO at the highest echelons.

Itiscowardly onthe partofthe Indian democratic establishmentand the opposition forcesto letthe exterminationofadivasishappenonthesly.Inavoidingapoliticaldebate,theyareacceptingthatthey are politically bankrupt and are ruling by dint of force. They cannot face scrutiny and deliberation. And if indeed the deep state must carry out such secretive operations outside the pale of politics, outsideofallconstitutionalnorms,purelyforthepreservationof thepoliticalsystemasa wholeand hence towards which all the mainstream political players must stand in unison — then we want to hearthatsaid,utteredorarticulated.Otherwise,wewillbeforcedtothinkofOperationKagarnotasan exception to the rule of law and the constitution, but rather their essential kernel, their hidden underside forbidden to public view and scrutiny.

ItiseasierfortheDhruvRatheestolampoonAmbaniweddingsthantoaskquestionsaboutOperation Kagar — even though the accumulated capital of Ambani or Adani is enabled in the first place by Operation Kagar and OperationGreen Hunt.

Not that it is a puzzle, something we cannot understand as to why this is the case. Far from it. Just keep in mind what was revealed by the Electoral Bond expose just before the Lok Sabha elections. Companies like Vedanta, instrumental in the destruction of adivasi lives, had given money to Opposition parties. While the Opposition attacked Adani’s nexus with the Modi government, Vedanta was spared any such attack.

Huge amounts of surplus capital accumulated through genocidal violence against the adivasis is ploughed into funding the electoral campaigns of political parties. The blood money sustains the everyday life of India’s constitutional democracy. We are reminded of what Karl Marx once said about the truth of the “very Eden of the innate rights of man”. “It is”, he said, “the exclusive realm of Freedom, Equality, Property, and Bentham.” Yes, Property! The lesson is that the Fundamental RightsofthebasicdoctrineoftheConstitutionisinseparablefromtheruleofcapital,fromOperation Kagar.

Theupshot isthefollowing.InnotallowingOperation Kagar tobepartofpoliticaldeliberation,a particularmessageisbeingconveyed.ThisiswhatmakesOperationKagaran“Operation”—thatitis a necessary and undebatable aspect of Indian democracy. The revolutionary movement’s call for “election boycott” must be understood in this light.

6.

For clarity let us consider the term extra-judicial which is a key term deployed by the civil liberties movement.

We all knowthe significanceofthe term.Firstoff,weimmediatelyrecognisethatthetermopens up spaceforcivillibertiesmovement.Thismovementisdeartoalotofus.Andyetwemustunpackthis conjugation and raise some questions.

Wemustalsoask:whenhastheconstitutioneverworkedwithouttheextra-judicial?Wecannotforget for example that right at the time of the founding of the Republic, the “Father of the Nation” was shotandkilled.Alongsideit,wecannotforgetthattherepressivemightofthestatewasdeployedinTelangana, evenas theConstitutionwas being written.The democraticideaofIndiaisthereforealwaysconstitutedin the moment of the sovereign exceptional violence, such that the extra-judicial is also intra-judicial. Lawisalways constitutedbynon-law, something which Walter Benjaminpointedout already inthe 1920s in Germany, as fascism was gathering steam.

As we noted, however, the term extra-judicial opens up the space for civil liberties activism. The challenge then is: how does one uphold the notion of intra-judicial and yet retain the space of civil liberties intervention based on the notion of the extra-judicial. Or rather it is better to put this way: howdoesoneretainthe notionoftheextra-judicialand yetworkwithinthehorizonofrevolutionary politics?

In the case of the legal struggle around the Bhima Koregaon arrests, I had occasion to reflect onpreciselythislastpointinthepagesofMonthlyReviewmagazine.Thelegalstruggletoseekbailmight look very limited, but we have to ask if there is a way in which a “limited struggle” can still work within the horizon of a larger politics of social transformation.

7.

Arundhati Roy’s term, “the bio-diversity of resistance”, comes to mind. However the space of this bio-diversitymustnotseenasaflatone,inadditiveterms,whereyoukeeponaddingnewoneswithout qualitativeshiftsandruptures.Wemustseethespaceofthisbio-diversityasinternallydifferentiated, uneven and undergoing constant churning. One or only a few elements might be more dominant thanthe rest, at any givenpoint intime. This meansthat there mightbe times when the possibilities

opened upby revolutionary movementmightstrengthenwhatlookslike very limitedlegalstruggles orsectionalstruggles.Weknowhowgramsabhashaveworkedfarmoreeffectivelywhentheyeven minimally partakeof the fires of the revolutionary struggle. It isperfectlyfine togiveprecedence to the revolutionary movement over other movements.

Inareaswithoutanyadjacentrevolutionarymovement,thegramsabhashaveoftenbeenatotalsham, asthebalanceofpoliticalforcesareinfavourofbigcapitalandthepolicestate.WhattheConstitution mandates itself might work better in the light of energies that might emanate from real “non- constitutional”struggles onthe ground.OrforthatmatterhowtheBharatJodoYatracould havebeen catapulted to anew heightifithad dared tostop by at SilgerorSarkeguda,or Gompad orBechapal. Bio-diversity of resistance and the horizontality it assumes then must be seen as criss-crossing with singularity and a salubrious verticality.

Lenin’ssingular contribution,ifyou recall,hasbeentoseetheworkingclassasinternallydifferentiated

—suchaperspectiveallowsustothinkintermsofrevolutionarystrategyandtacticsbasedonsocial class and social consciousness. It also allows us to break with populist notions of the People, Democracy, Civil Society and so on. It allows us to think dialectically by focusing on internal contradictions. One divides into Two.

Such would be the terrain wherein we must try to work out the relationship between civil liberties activism and the revolutionary movement.

We would then in effect be able to confront the iron law of constitutional democracies that seek to outlawtheclassstruggle,pushitoutsidethepaleofpolitics.Thisbasicgesturecreateswhatlooksan acceptable space for the use of exceptional violence, extra-legal violence by the state in such a way that routine Parliamentary democracy continues as though nothing has happened. Thus the new Parliament in India refuses to discuss Operation Kagar and the ongoing extermination of adivasis. Wherethenevenleft-wingactivistshavetoplayalongasnowtheyenduppresentingtheintra-judicial, that which is actually internal to the functioning of democracy and rule of law, as merely an aberration, an exception, as “extra-judicial”.

No wonder, then, what seem to be progressive slogans of Save Democracy and Save Constitution then does notcontain within itthe call to end Operation Samadhan Prahar. Asthings stand today, it is easier to give calls to protect democracy and constitution but not so easy to give calls to stop the war against the adivasis.

Weneedtoreversethistendency.

OperationKagarandearlier,Operation SamadhanPraharandOperationGreenHunt havecometowintacit acceptance of all political parties in the Parliament of India. This is absolutely unacceptable and we must today pass a resolution against it, so that our message goes loud and clear.

Otherwise,wemustbepreparedtofacetherealityofanotherBhumkal,thetimeoftheearth(bhum), the timeofGundadhur,thetime oftheadivasi.