This blog contains material I wrote and posted on between the years 2005 and 2011 only. It does not contain any new material. For newer writing, please check my main blog (Bill the Butcher).

Sunday, 25 November 2012

How To Fight Maoism

Respected Prime Minister
In view of your extremely perspicacious declaration of the Maoists as"the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country", I have been thinking of how to go about countering them.
I shall call them “Maoists” in this letter to you, and, unlike most commentators, not Naxalites, – and I shall explain in a moment why I do this. 
Now, Mr Prime Minister, I’m sure you understand that we should make full use of this Maoist rebellion to further our long term goals – both as a party and as a nation.
So, let me advance my considered opinions as to the best way to go about doing this.
The struggle against the Maoist rebellion has the potential for bothdirect and indirect benefits.
First, Mr Prime Minister, we must understand that the Maoists are not the problem – though for public consumption we should, of course, keep reiterating this. The most pressing problem is the mainstream Left, which is bent upon confounding your desire to push the country to the right and forge an alliance, unofficially and then officially, with theUnited States of America.
Therefore, Mr Prime Minster, we must begin with a media offensive intended to deliberately confuse the Left with the Maoists. Since the term Naxalite is popularly understood to be restricted to armed communist rebels, we must forthwith junk this and switch to Maoist, which is a more general term. Maoist itself is a halfway house; it has its uses, which I shall talk of soon, but in itself it’s only a stepping stone to calling the rebels Communists. Once they are all popularly referred to as Communists it will be extremely easy to deliberately confuse them with the mainstream left and ban or otherwise debar the latter from politics. You can well imagine how the forced exit of the Left from electoral politics will free your party’s hands to carry out a right wing economic policy, which, as we all know is of course the best solution for the nation. (Can you imagine the enormous benefits we could receive as an American vassal state, I mean ally – including a permanent majority for your party so long as it proved itself the most allied of all the political parties allowed to function? The Americans would allow no other party to win or rule! Just look at the Philippines if you wish confirmation.)
Of course, Mr Prime Minister, during the period when these people are referred to as Maoists, we should not forget to drive home the fact that Maoism derives its name from Mao Zedong, who was, of course, Chinese. Since our American friends are positioning themselves for a future conflict with China, we should accordingly keep trumpeting the Chinese war of 1962 as a “betrayal” (and keep the actual facts suppressed, if necessary by quietly banning such books as Neville Maxwell’s India’s China War), and keep mentioning Maoist links to China (even if no such link is ever found). This will help to mould Indian public opinion against China and pave the way for a formal alliance, starting with the Unclear, I mean Nuclear, Deal so devoutly wished for by you, sir.  
Also, reiterating links between the Chinese and India’s mainstream Communist political parties – already a staple of the right wing media – will make it easier to ban the latter.
Secondly, Mr Prime Minister, we can then see the absolute necessity of propaganda designed to make the Maoist rebellion look like the greatest threat ever faced by the nation. Just repeating your line will not help, we must keep driving it home, exaggerating incidents, bribing the media if necessary to keep the public eye fixed firmly on it in between the necessary distraction of cricket matches, so that the public, most especially the Middle Class (and it would be a grave error to underestimate the stupidity of the Middle Class, Mr Prime Minister) comes to believe that the Maoists are about to surround and capture the cities where the Middle Class lives. Then they will be ready to approve any and all means to eliminate this (imaginary, needless to say – as you well know, the Maoist rebels are restricted to a few pockets in some states only) threat. 
And as to how eliminating the Maoist threat will help indirectly, Mr Prime Minister, to know that we must see how to eliminate the threat first.
The Maoist movement, as you well know, is based primarily in the forests. Therefore, in order to destroy the rebels, it would be a good idea to destroy the forests. No forests, no problem! It would not be difficult – and the rewards, as I shall explain, would be out of all proportion to the effort involved.
You know, Mr Prime Minister, that up to a fifth of the country’s land is occupied by these useless tracts of jungle, and when they are cleared and opened up, all that land can be sold to the private sector for exploitation. Indeed, the very act of clearing would yield immense amounts of wood and would provide, albeit temporary, employment to many workers. Then the private sector could use this land for minerals, contract farming, or industry. One can in fact see where this helps in politics as well – the private sector can be given land without forcing peasants off theirs. Useless as the peasants are, they can create political embarrassment by committing suicide or making a lot of noise when thrown off their land at gunpoint.
Of course, all forests will need to be wiped out – if we were to restrict ourselves only to the tracts occupied by the Maoists, we would only be able to clear a small portion of the forest, not nearly enough to make it economically viable.
As an ancillary, we must of course paint the ecology lobby as anti-development Luddites – the media will co-operate in the effort without prompting – and make the point that a developing country cannot afford ecology. Most of the Middle Class is already primed to accept this view. Incidentally, wiping out the forests will deny poachers and bandits space to operate, so adverse publicity from their activities would be reduced.
Also, along with destroying the forests, we must destroy the forest communities. These people are the backbone of Maoism. It might make a lot of adverse publicity if we kill them directly, so we should allow them to die of neglect. This is not difficult, we just have to follow our current policies through to their logical conclusion. Don’t worry, Mr Prime Minister, these people do not have enough votes to make any difference. Besides, since they have nothing and are given nothing, these people are an important factor in degrading our position on the national development index. Kill them off, and our ranking will inevitably improve dramatically, something you can take credit for.
Then, of course, all one has to do is paint all of one’s domestic opponents as Maoists and lock them up. Just possessing any literature citing or quoting Mao should be made a crime. Even a passing reference to Mao, or possessing an encyclopaedia mentioning him, should be made illegal. This has the great advantage that virtually anyone can be locked up anytime at the government’s discretion.
Of course, Mr Prime Minister, as an essential part of the anti-Maoist struggle, our police and paramilitary forces should be allowed to kill whom they want. It will keep them happy and – by putting the fear of the state in every heart – further strengthen your party’s rule.
And, last but not the least, Mr Prime Minister – Maoism stands for egalitarianism. Your party, on the other hand, stands for monarchy. The destruction of Maoism and its vilification will allow you to project monarchy, its polar opposite, in the best possible light.
Therefore, Mr Prime Minister, I hope you can appreciate that this is literally the opportunity of a lifetime. It almost certainly, if missed, will not come again.
Most helpfully and cordially, I remain
                                                                       Rabi D  Rai Twinger  
                                                                       (Security Consultant)

No comments:

Post a Comment