Freedom Struggle, Violence And State
By Firdous Syed
24 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org"Freedom struggles" all over the world are facing a
typical predicament today, a Catch-22 situation put
forth by the fact that a monolithic modern state which
understands the language of violence only, is, at the
same time, helped by a violent campaign to obliterate
the legitimacy of a "freedom struggle". Even though
violence was once believed to be the "tool of
oppressed", but the experience proves that this "tool
of oppressed" too in ultimate analysis works in favour
of the oppressor rather than for cause of the
oppressed. Outrageous it seems, but reality remains
that a violent resistance which motivates a
protagonist to stake his/her life in anticipation of a
"change" to propel the "freedom movement" towards its
logical conclusion, at the end of the day, is,
unwittingly made to turn its knife upon itself.The modern state apparatus has invariably insulated
itself from any moral culpability to a legitimate
dissension of the people whose life it controls by
sheer weight of its state paraphernalia. The state
enjoys today the luxury to decide between the moral or
ethical responsibility and the state interest. A
genuine demand for right of 'self-determination' for
the controlling state may pose a challenge to the
state wherein it will have to decide between 'moral or
ethical responsibility' and the 'state interest'. What
is morally and ethically right may not always be
compatible with the state interest.It's a known fact that state always acts at the whims
of its 'interest' rather at the calling of morality
and ethics. Then the assertion for self-determination
of a people is also weighed in the realms of a debate
between 'settled order or chaos' on one hand and
'practicality and attainability' of such demand on the
other rather than on the principled stance of a
struggle. International opinion has a marked slant
favouring order over chaos, positions and notions of
justness of a struggle notwithstanding. In such a
scenario, conflict becomes inevitable between state's
standpoint for an orderly society against ethically
upright but potentially a chaotic situation. In
today's geo-political environment wherein dice is
heavily loaded in favour of the modern state, a debate
between order and potential chaos automatically tilts
the balance in favour of the state.The idea of 'just wars' is not new to the
international discourse. In the international legal
framework, armed resistance based upon the principle
of right of self-determination of the occupied people
is a legitimate act of self-defence to protect the
inhalation of the weak by the dominating power. This
international legal position in favour of an armed
struggle becomes raison d'eter for a freedom movement
if it commits itself to the violent means of
agitation.In case of a violent conflict, three T's and one M -
Territorial control, Technology/ tools, Trained
manpower and Material recourses of a state are pitted
against the three M's and one T - Movement, Masses,
Moral high ground and Territorial claim of the freedom
struggle. A classic armed freedom struggle may consist
of a working doctrine, organisation, which shall
include cadre, trained or otherwise, and tools and
equipment. Even though the non-state actors (or
freedom fighters) in an armed conflict too have access
to the arms and the trained cadre, however, the
superimposed state structures are far superior to the
non-state formations.A contest between occupying state and the occupied
people has always been a fight between Goliath and
David. A rag-tag indigenous people's assertion
primarily based upon the will of the people, and may
be even their just principles, is no match to the
State fully armed head to toe with vast materiel
resources at its beck and call. Now in such a
situation what could tilt the balance in favour of a
freedom struggle is a long-drawn and sustained effort
without losing its ethical appeal. Peoples' assertion
can never match or undo the mechanics of the state and
its reach; but it can prevail only if it possesses and
is able to maintain its moral authority all through
the period of the freedom struggle.
Owing to the heavy presence of state paraphernalia,
any armed struggle in an occupied territory has, for
its survival, to be underground. This enhances the
dependence of the armed groups on the goodwill of the
people. Otherwise also, the main support base of any
freedom struggle is its peoples' voluntary
contribution. The continued people support base turns
out to be a critical factor for the survival of an
underground armed struggle. What is crucial may
eventually become vulnerable for exploitation also. An
armed resistance in no way can match the resources of
a state; it's real resource is its popular support
base. But this can also prove to be the weakest link
in the chain that can easily be exploited by all
encompassing modern state machinery to demolish the
credibility of the struggle.Sovereignty of the state has become so sacrosanct
that it has clearly gained precedence over the just
and willful aspirations of the oppressed. This rigid
and inflexible trenched view largely hampers the state
hierarchy to recognise the nature of dissent. What is
not comprehensible can not be respected and what is
not respected can never be conceded! When state
interest becomes paramount, it gets transformed into a
virtue, a value-system of its own. In the pursuit of
so-called state interest, un-conventional,
extra-constitutional, indiscriminate use of force and
even counter-terrorism are all available instruments
in the arsenal of the state that are put to use to
defeat and crush the rebellion that may pose any
threat to the perceived sovereignty of the state.Howsoever structured, disciplined and ideologically
sound the movement is, it will innately be anarchic in
nature if it aims to change the established order; and
state no matter how much riddled with chaos and
disorder, is fundamentally tuned in towards
organisation. A modern state has the benefit of
homogenous interest and uni-focal plan of action,
something that armed struggles (movement) cannot claim
to possess. On the contrary, an armed resistance
(movement) always consists of various groups of people
with not so identical interests and common
methodologies. Very few armed resistances can claim
complete homogeneity.Even within a resistance the aspirations and
motivations of people involved may differ. A rightist
conservative orientation, a nationalist persuasion, or
middle of the two, the so-called moderate approach -
all these are likely to jostle with each other to
occupy the "ideological space", consequently leading
to a pre-mature power-struggle. This power-struggle is
a first chink in the armour with manifold
repercussions: it hurts the sentiment of the people
supporting the movement; it dents the morale of the
foot-solider, and gives an opening to the state for
distortion and to spread further confusion.Confusion in the ranks is the mother of the defeat. A
time-lag always serves the state owing to its abundant
recourses in comparison to the scarcity of the same
among the rebel groups. A protracted battle brings in
fatigue factor within the rebel ranks and the people
supporting them. A tired and doubtful mind then begins
to wonder whether the "all powerful state" can be
pressurised enough to concede! Thus sets in an
un-ending cycle of anarchy, leading to desertions,
violent clashes within rebel ranks, and splits and
further splits.The basis for fragmentation are inbuilt within, but
pace is infused and result controlled by the
dominating state. In the process an inefficient
command structure, less than committed leadership, and
ideological contradictions of the armed groups come to
the fore. This also ruptures the myth of infallible
nature of the armed struggle, which ultimately
destroys its credibility and for all practical
purposes, separates the people from the freedom
struggle.The innocence of a "rights movement" is its chastity.
Wittingly or unwittingly, if anyhow the innocence of
armed struggle is compromised by blurring the
distinction between "resistance" and "terrorism",
freedom struggle loses its moral appeal. When
character is lost every thing is lost. The loss of
moral appeal is same as losing the sense of purpose
and direction. In desperation, armed groups behave in
a fashion that almost pushes them to be labelled as
"terrorist" groups.The state, at this juncture, also manipulates
violence. In some cases it indulges in or engineers
violence to put the blame for it on the armed
struggle, which already in rush of desperation to
revive its impact, is categorised as a "terrorist"
movement. It is always difficult to destroy a peoples'
uprising, but once a dog gets a bad name, it becomes
easy to kill it!A slide from benign to malignant, from armed struggle
to senseless violence, will always prod a thinking
mind: where and how things went wrong? For a
passionate longing, the cherished cause can never be
erroneous. The failure has something to do with the
mechanics and the leadership of the struggle.
Nevertheless, if the leadership and methodology is
pitted against the 'desired goal' it becomes obvious
that the armed struggle has got on to a course from
where it will prove less and less productive and more
and more a liability; a contradiction as lethal as
wrecking the very essence of hope for any good and for
a change for the better.Longing undelivered is a lingering pain. It needs a
release mechanism, an operative system by which a deep
desire takes the shape of reality. A dream is realized
only when abstract takes a concrete shape. A
revolution needs a pattern, a methodology of action.
It could come in the form of an armed struggle, but it
is like a double-edged sword that kills the enemy but
hurts the beholder also. And in confrontation with the
present state apparatus devoid of any ethical
standards, the underground armed resistance is sure
panacea for intrigue and manipulation.If the hopes are not to be given away, the
non-violent assertion is the only way out. But
ironically gestation period for a non-violent movement
is pretty long and takes its own time to create an
impact, that too provided only if the ideology is near
perfect, organisation disciplined and effort not only
passionate but sustained over a period of time as
well. But in present circumstance, the trade-off
between the armed struggle and non-violent resistance
cannot be a matter of debate. But the question is how
to create a non-violent assertion that is able to
catch the imagination of the masses, inculcate within
the freedom struggle moral and ethical values, and
simultaneously earn the respect of the adversary? It
will be naïve to think that non-violent action will
not ruffle the feathers of the mighty and dominating.
Any assertion that aims to challenge and change the
established order will for sure invite reprisals and
create friction. But a non-violent freedom movement
due to its inbuilt strengths and moral systems is less
susceptible to intrigue, and least harmful not only to
its supporters but even for the people against it.Revolution is always means to an end; it can never be
an end in itself. Task is not to incur a change only
for the sake of change, but to trigger the real
awakening of the self and society without losing its
mores. Political empowerment is of very less
consequence if it is not preceded with a social
change. Any revolution shall be a failed one, if the
oppressed of today turns out to be the oppressor of
tomorrow.(The writer can can be mailed at [email protected])
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top
