The Revolution - now and forever

Hey...Karthick dude - this is for you :)

Revolutionary guerrilla warfare has gradually become an accepted alternative to the more conventional forms of organized war craft, as can be interpreted from various guerrilla offensives cropping-up all over the world in general, and the Indian sub-continent in particular. Though the historical roots of subversive warfare lie in the unorganized, nationalistic offensives of less-developed and militarily inferior countries against the hegemony and exploitation of Imperialist nations, the tenets of guerrilla warfare, or ‘camouflaged war’ have also been used in retaliation to the cultural, ethnic and economic atrocities of modern-day repressive, neo-imperialist and neo-fascist regimes against unsuspecting, and ill-equipped peoples and communities.

While nationalist outfits such as the Hamas in the war-torn Gaza strip and the Hezbollah in Lebanon - which have risen in retaliation to the expansionist and exploitative ambitions of Israel in the Middle East, the Al Qaida and the Taliban with their roots in the Afghani offensive against Soviet imperialism – are examples of the former, outfits such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, the Naxals and the Telangana struggle in Eastern and Southern India, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) are but a few outfits crusading against the cultural and economic imperialism of repressive regimes.

Guided by the principles of Karl Marx and campaigning for the establishment of an equitable social setup using the force of subversive warfare to overthrow repression and exploitation – whether that of an invading aggressor or of an oppressive government, these outfits differ only on the basis of their motivations. However, experts and commentators are divided not only on the relevance of such grass-root struggles in this era of techno-based military strategy and armament, but also on whether or not to classify them as guerrilla forces. The purpose of this piece is to analyze these dichotomies from an informed point of view.

The relevance of guerrilla warfare was first questioned on the achievement of what is considered the epitome of modern military might – the nuclear bomb. This might was further amplified by the development of the thermo-nuclear H-bomb in 1954.

The United States of America was at the helm of a new world order inaugurated by various political and technological developments during the second world war and on account of its new-found diplomatic and military power adopted the policy and strategy of ‘massive retaliation’ as a deterrent to all kinds of aggression. The then-Vice President of the U.S, Richard Nixon announced: “We have adopted a new principle. Rather than let the Communist nibble us to death all over the world in little wars, we will rely in future on massive mobile retaliatory powers.” The implied threat of using advanced nuclear weaponry to thwart myriad bands of ill-equipped guerrilla warriors in terrain inimical to conventional warfare such as mountains, heavily-forested areas and urban centres was absurd. In his foreword to the writings of Mao Tse-Tung and Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare, Capt. B.H Liddell Hart compares it to “talk of using a sledgehammer to ward off a swarm of mosquitoes.”

Capt. Hart goes on to underline the fact that the use or even the threat of using the nuclear deterrent against the unconventional form of warfare practiced by guerrilla warriors actually increases the possibilities of limited war pursued by widespread local aggression and testifies to the fact that guerrilla warfare is not only relevant, but the only retaliatory response to such massive military force – making ‘camouflaged’ offensives the future of warfare.

According to Professor S. Irfan Habib, Historian and Research Analyst, “America’s proclamation was ridiculous. God only knows how and why they thought their tracking equipment and nuclear missiles capable of locating fluid bands of nomadic warriors acclimatized and fully-informed of the terrain of some of the most thickly-forested and naturally covered areas in the world. In addition to this, these guerilla fighters had also created subterranean networks of supply chains and communication, for instance in South Vietnam, as well as other routes which America, in my view had no capability of discovering whatsoever. What did they plan to do? Throw grotesquely expensive and powerful nuclear bombs and missiles in every cave and crevice they found in the countryside?”

In the words of Professor S S, Department of Political Science, Delhi University, “There should be no qualms about the fact that guerrilla warfare has indeed succeeded the conventional forms of war that characterized the conflicts of the pre-WW II era. Guerrilla warfare is the only kind of war that fits the conditions of the modern era well-suited as it is to take advantage of social discontent, racial ferment and nationalistic fervour – conditions that have shaped the contours of conflicts after WWII.”

Agrees Professor D G, Department of Sociology, Jawaharlal Nehru University, “In my view, the Naxalite movement in India is the biggest and most lucid example of the success of guerrilla warfare. In the four and a half decades since it has been operational, the movement has successfully carved out for itself a substantial part of the Indian mainland for itself. The debate centered on the morality of this struggle aside, it’s definitely a successful people’s movement and proves the mettle of guerrilla warfare.”

However, there are some who believe it is no match for the superior weaponry and techno-based manoeuvres that modern warfare entails. Believes Professor L K, Department of English, Delhi University, “Look at what has happened to the LTTE in Sri Lanka – they’ve almost been wiped out completely. And even the Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East are proving futile in the face of the carnage that the Israeli Defence Force is unleashing. Regardless of the plausibility and justness of the causes that these groups espouse, they are quite clearly succumbing to modern military techniques and weaponry.”

The other issue that experts and commentators are divided on – as has been mentioned before – is whether the motives and the causes that these groups espouse justify their classification as partly unorganized liberation groups practicing guerrilla warfare to achieve their ends.

In this regard, Professor Habib feels that it is fallacious to identify every unorganized anti-state outfit as a grass-roots organization modeled on the Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions just because their preferred means of retaliation happen to be those of guerrilla warfare, “I don’t agree with it. The Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions were struggles of emancipation from imperialist hegemony and economic exploitation. They were not ethnic or cultural movements in any way like the Naxalite movement in our country or the ethnic-lingual struggle in Sri Lanka. I think the only grass-root struggles that deserve to be recognized as being true to the spirit of these great revolutions are the Hamas and the Hezbollah’s actions in the Middle East – battling are they are against American hegemony and defending their inherent sense of nationalism in the process. I am not questioning the validity or the justness of the LTTE’s struggle for Eelam or the Naxalite movement. I’m just saying that it is erroneous to put them on the same plane as these great revolutions of the past.”

Professor G disagrees when he says, “What should form the core of this discussion is the fact of exploitation. I don’t agree with Professor Habib because these grass-root struggles should be seen as retaliation to exploitation – no matter whether it is nationalistic, cultural, lingual or ethnic. I think they are on these struggles are truly modeled and should be seen as being on the same plane as the great revolutions of the past.”

Professor S agrees with this view, “What are a handful of peasants and unarmed civilians supposed to do in the face of an armed and exploitative state that takes joy in sucking their blood to fill its own coffers? They pick-up the gun – just like the Bolsheviks, Mao’s followers and those who shared Fidel Castro’s dream of a Cuba free from the tyranny of Batista and his inhuman regime.”

As Capt. Hart argues, guerrilla warfare is a kind of war waged by the few but dependent on the support of many. Although in itself the most individual form of action, it can only operate effectively, and attain its end, when collectively backed by the sympathy of the masses. That is why it tends to be most effective if it blends an appeal to national resistance or desire for independence with an appeal to social and economic discontent, thus becoming revolutionary in a wider sense.

Grass-root struggles hence can be said to be justified as the last resort for the utterly exploited – whether politically, culturally, economically or socially – depending on the nature and severity of the exploitation and the discontent it entails among its victims. As long as there is exploitation - of whatever nature and degree - there will always be a struggle to destroy the source of that exploitation. Whether an expansionist aggressor, insidious economic discrimination or social degradation due to the hegemony of a biased government - the forms of exploitation and its agents may change, but exploitation will remain – in one form or another. It is as an answer to this that the revolution is – and shall forever be imminent.