So what have I been occupied with during my last 41 posts?

I created a Wordle today for my blog posts
to see the word games my mind's been playing until now.

Who dares wins

First, we let deprivation kill them; then when they understood what was really happening and tried to snatch away what was their moral- and, to mention in passing, constitutional- right to choose a decent life, we let the state kill them.

Winning at games

We are witnessing weird games being played in Lalgarh. The state, propped up by a silent 'us', with its frustrated and raging forces is engaged in a combat game against the Maoists, anti-bourgeoisie radicals who are standing up with all their might for the indigenous tribals. These people remain peripheral to our imagination even after six decades of 'free democracy'. Now that these rebels have goaded the beast within the state into action, it is only a matter of 'who dares, wins'- as we know what has happened to innumerable social movements that dared to challenge the very logic of democracy in this country.

Basic premiss of the state

We have reacted to the news of the clashes in Lalgarh in the media with a general acceptance of their 'genuine grievances' but rejection of their violent means. But do we really care? Or, could we have cared had it not been for this 'violence'? We have always remained cold to ideas that call for an upheaval and instead settle down for tokens of 'change'. When some men and women on the 'lunatic fringe' try to bring the much-needed revolutionary changes, we prefer being silent and accepting the statist doctrine of right and wrong. And what is that doctrine based upon? Might is right.

Will the dharma yuddha pay off?

And will this dharma yuddha by the Maoists make the original inhabitants of this land a better lot? I don't have an answer to that but I fear that their grievances will become a collateral damage of the on-going repression of their movement. As has been the case before.