Firdous Syed
“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.
