The Urban Naxal debate: To read or not to read?

With social media humming over the issue, a lot of people crossed swords. But beneath this gamesmanship, what’s alarming is the prospect of being victimised for choice of reading material

Ever since the Pune police cited presence of books on Naxalism and extreme Left ideology as a major reason for the arrest of five activists in the Bhima-Koregaon case late last month, I’ve been warned by family and friends that I must ‘clean up’ my library.

With society getting increasingly polarised, the danger lies in the sweep this definition has begun to acquire: what we read for instance, and the consequences thereof. (PHOTO FOR REPRESENTATION ONLY)

“You are just a knock on the door away from becoming an Urban Naxal’’, said the more apprehensive set gravely. “Join the club,’’ chirped those driven by bravado, several of whom posted photos of their bookshelves with seemingly provocative titles on social media.

On doing a recce of my collection, the bulk were obviously on sport. That’s my passion and primary vocational calling. My bedside companion nowadays is ‘The Art of Captaincy’ by former England cricket captain Mike Brearley. It’s a masterpiece on understanding the texture and tenor of cricket, its tactics, and managing individuals and team for optimal results, which I would strongly recommend to the currently despairing Virat Kohli.

But I’ve got plenty of other books too which I realised could potentially get me into trouble: not just with those seeking out Urban Naxals, but also Islamists, Leftists, Rightists, Feminists, anti-Feminists, Atheists, Believers, Agnostics, what have you!

With social media humming over the issue of Urban Naxals, a lot of people crossed swords while making their point one way or the other. But beneath this gamesmanship, what’s alarming in the extreme is the prospect of being victimised for choice of reading material.

The term ‘Urban Naxals’ has an interesting, contemporary twang to it and has become fodder for debates in drawing rooms, parties, colleges etc. So far so good, for healthy debate is the lifeline of democracy. But with society getting increasingly polarised, the danger lies in the sweep this definition has begun to acquire: what we read for instance, and the consequences thereof.

Mind you, the threat from Naxalism and other destructive menaces to social order cannot be undermined and must be combated with utmost seriousness. But violent uprising against the state has to be made distinct from dissent.

This is what the Supreme Court observed in the Bhima-Koregaon case, and was also the reason why research student Lois Sofia, who was arrested for raising slogans against the BJP while disembarking from a flight in Chennai, was given bail.

Merely shouting slogans doesn’t make somebody a Naxal or an enemy of the country. Anna Hazare did it for instance, as did Baba Ramdev and Arvind Kejriwal. Whatever the compunctions or convictions about their bona fides, to accuse them of being Naxals is a mighty stretch.

Civil rights activists who support the socially deprived and marginalised – directly or indirectly – include eminent people like Retired Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant and Retired High Court Judge B G Kolse Patil among others. It is outrageous to think they would do anything remiss where national interest is concerned.

Acts against state have to be established with solid evidence. The onus for this is on the law machinery, which can’t be used cavalierly. To be fair, this is not the first government to show a very thin skin against dissent. The previous dispensation was similarly inclined too.

Generally, those in authority dislike being challenged. But allowing space for a different point of view is of the crux in a democracy, whatever the ideological pursuit. To say that dissent panders to ‘liberals’ is nonsensically self-defeating. (As an aside, most who protest vehemently about the pitfalls of liberal education send their children and wards to liberal institutions. One can fill up this page with names of politicians, ideologues, business people, journos etc all who practice such hypocrisy with aplomb).

Which leads me back to my peeve this week: what’s really the problem with reading books, of whichever kind? If the purpose of education is to expand the mental horizon, understand the world better, constricting such activity limits growth, makes for a lesser person.

For instance, I may know the laws of cricket, all the bios of players, all match and tournament stats. But as CLR James put forward in this immortal axiom, “What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?’’