If there be no State terror there may be no terrorist

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

In reaction to a posting captioned ‘Sabyasachi Panda: crime under colonial definition is no crime per se’ published in these pages on July 26, a reader Arun Kumar Upadhyaya has hurled a comment with obnoxious and defamatory words. As these pages are not to spread nasty reactions in filthy languages, Upadhyaya’s comment is discarded.

For him and any reader of his ilk, it would be better to be warned that these pages are not designed to be used for the pleasure of the rightist rats or for capitalist snakes for spewing out venom of religious revivalism, fascism, fanaticism, atavism, caste/religion supremacism and any suchlike nuisance.

This site is dedicated to the voiceless people, not to violence. We want to reach the root of violence to explore how the society could be free of violence. We oppose violence that breeds violence and our endeavor to see how violence is not generated is caused by our concern for our present and future generations, which gets expression in these pages.

So, readers are welcome to react to any posting in these pages without violating their composure and strictly in a way that would be considered congenial to the working class, whose interest this site is addressed to.

To this site, terrorists are not the original cause of terror.

The word ‘terrorist’ evolved from the French word ‘terooriste’ used by king of France and his tyrant team against the leadership of the French Revolution. The said revolution was aimed at ending the autocratic rule of the king and to usher in democracy and equality. So, obviously, by origin and practice, ‘terrorist’ is a word that was and is being used against the revolutionaries by the very same fellows who violate the people’s right to live happily and use the State to terrorize the people.

Had there been no State terror, there may not be any terrorist.

8 comments » Write a comment

  1. A criminal and slave can only like another criminal. 700 persons killed by Sabyasachi Panda and their family members are not human beings according to anti-nationals. Can anybody dare to support any terrorist in any other country, even Britain which is their source of inspiration? -A K Upadhyay


    • Dear Sri Upadhyay,
      In a sense, you are also very right. Whatsoever life lost is a loss to our motherland. I don’t subscribe to extermination of human lives on any background. Yet I am sure, as long as the State acts a terrorist, tortured people shall never stay silent. We all know, now the State is more serving the exploiters that protecting the people from exploitation. I am searching for a poem I had instantly written in reaction to a police action that had mangled my sense as a man. Samadrusti had published it. As and when I retrieve the missing copy, I shall attach the same in reply to one of your comments. Personally I like your learned reaction. And, often I am one with you. Yet, my love for my society makes me act to the dictates of my conscience. My son Saswat Pattanayak, also a journalist, had once said,“No knowledge of substantial value can take place without painful realizations of how much we do not yet know of.” Even though he is my son, I have tremendous reliance on this quoted observation. Whatever you have written at times come from your deep sense of concern for the people; and I believe, I write because of the same concern. Not necessarily, we shall say the same thing or interpret a thing the same way. An old article in ORISSA MATTERS may interest you in this context. Here is the link: http://orissamatters.com/2009/07/20/martyrdom/
      Kind Regards,
      Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

  2. Your comments are abuse to the whole Oriya population who are working hard to feed themselves and are being killed regularly on various excuses. Being well fed on labours of working class you claim to be working class and extending cruel support to mass murderers.

    There must be some shame as a human being.-A K Upadhyay


  3. I am reminded of a basic law of Physics i.e. an Universal Law stating, ” To Every Action There is an Equal and Opposite Reaction ” . I wonder how CORRECTLY this orissamatters.com has come up with the most appropriate Caption for the present befitting timely article . Congratulations.

    And as for Mr. A K U, as grasped from the posting in question, suffice it to say that when obnoxious words are used by a commentator he/she must be in fidgets. A man grown up in the innocent mother’s lap aided by the dirty hands of his father will hardly know how opponents of social/financial exploitation suffer. No offence , Please. For any non-Ambani/Tata/Dalmia/Birla sons would understand what this article intends to say so emphatically.

    Hence, the concluding line of the Article is DOUBLY CORRECT , when the RESPONSIBLE people in position in the Govt must take NOTE.

  4. Offenses of MLA Narasingh Mishra, ex-DGP B B Mishra & S N Tiwari in praising Sabyasachi Panda acts on OTV ext and judicial officers giving undue privilege to Sabyasachi Panda not given in any other case for arrest of any minister or officer or innocent person wrongly arrested or of Subhas Chandra Pattanayak is given in THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT, 2002 as follows. DMK Leader Vaiko had been arrested for a simple lecture in favour of LTTE under this act-

    Section 3 (1) Whoever (b) ….voluntarily does an act aiding or promoting in any manner the objects of such association …commits a terrorist act. (2) Whoever commits a terrorist act, shall, (b) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever ….  advocates, abets, advises or incites …a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.


  5. “If there be no state terror, there may be no terrorist”—does state propagate terror? I humbly disagree. State does have punitive machinery like police and paramilitary forces, but these agencies are not there to create terror in the society. A state has a definite mandate. Every state has a legal/constitutional mandate; even the fascist state, imperialist state, capitalist state, minarchist to totalitarian state every state has its mandate. Any attack on the state establishment, and the state will retaliate with great vengeance. The attack may be very miniscule, as miniscule as “Gherao” of a block office or Thana or a road blockage. I don’t wish to say the mandate of the state is final or divine. A state may be wholly wrong in its mandate, the mandate may be against the principles of natural justice and in violation of all perceivable human rights (like a Fascist German state had policy of annihilation of Jews); but nevertheless it is a constitutional mandate of the state. The fundamental philosophy of the state dictates the mandate. If we say the very state mandate (to preserve its internal security) is to propagate terror, then there must be something wrong with the conception of the state. Contradiction will exist when people need the state but not it’s constitutional mandate. When people “get” the state for themselves, will they do away with the disciplinary forces and stop the contradiction and hence dialectical process for once and all? Has Mao done it? Has Stalin done so? Has Castro thought of doing that?
    As long as there is state, there will be force of the state; which somebody will call “terrorist force” whereas somebody else will call as “State’s response to internal security threat”. And as long as there exists a state, a Savyasachi will be arrested, a Savyasachi will be tortured, and a Savyasachi will be killed without any qualm.

    Does a state provide any mechanism to vent out the grievance of people without resorting to armed revolution? A Taliban state does not. A religious bigot like Abu Bakr Al- Baghdadi does not. But a democratic republic does provide and mind you the venting hole is not as small as one would like to think. There are ample opportunities, foremost being the election process and universal adult franchise.

    Still the moot question remains do we need a state. Is state a necessity? When the state will wither away? Even Frederick Engels would not have known that he had created the biggest contradiction in the study of political philosophy when he said, “state will wither away.”

    • Dear Sri Mahapatra,
      Thanks again for the attention given to the issue.

      To your question: does state propagates terror?, my answer is, the State is perpetrating terror. And, I emphasize, this terror must stop.

      As far as the issue of mandate is concerned, the State of India has only one mandate. That mandate has been issued by the martyrs, who have made their supreme sacrifices to free our motherland from the British grip. That mandate is the paramount mandate, which no other mandate can supersede. And, that is, Free India is to be free of exploitation and inequality.

      Any mandate that may mar our freedom fighters’ mandate to make India free of exploitation and inequality is to be treated as an affront to the paramount mandate our martyrs have woven in their dreams while sacrificing their lives in the British gallows for emancipation of the country. Their mandate must be strictly honored in free India for all time to come, come what may. Any deviation in the name of post-independence mandates is offense against the martyrs. And, any argument designed to diminish the supremacy of the martyrs’ mandate in guise of post-independence electoral mandate and under the cover of jargons like internal security cannot be accepted. Wordy acrobatics know no end. But end is required to exploitation and inequality.

      May I remind you of the warning Dr. Ambedkar had put on records of the Constituent Assembly when it was concluding the third reading on the draft Constitution. Conscious of the fact that the propertied persons having dominated the Constituent Assembly, ceiling on private wealth could not be provided for in the constitution, Dr. Ambedkar warned that unless the first Parliament to be created by the Constitution eliminates by law the concentration of wealth in hands of the rich, the victims of inequality would destroy the democracy if the same helps the rich to destroy the dreams of the real creators of free India – the martyrs. “On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradiction” he had said, Unless the first Parliament elected by the people through universal franchise frames and promulgates necessary Law to wipe out concentration of wealth in individual hands in order to undo the inequality that creates the contradiction, “those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up”, he had warned (Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.XI,p.979). His words are coming true, though the truth is that, as I have shown in my reply to your comment on the preceding article, the accumulators of wealth have broken the country, to quote again Justice Dalveer Bhandari of the Supreme Court of India in course of a hearing over a petition from the People’s Union for Civil Liberty on April 21, 2011, in to “two Indias” – one, the “Small India” of their own where they enjoy affluent life and the other, the “Large India” where the majority of Indian perish under abject poverty.

      So, the issue is the issue of halting the breakage of India, not the issue of peripheral mandates the State stands for. Every Indian who is proud of his patriotism, must mostly stand with the Sabysachis to save India from being blown up, as Dr. Ambedkar had apprehended.

      The non-violent way is the most welcome way if the government honors the martyrs’ mandate to foil the evil design of the rich and stands with the fighting masses to make India a land of ‘no exploitation and inequality’.

      If the Government fails to make law to end exploitation and inequality, like the martyrs had chosen the violent way to set their motherland free from the British and the kings, whosoever loves the motherland may reject the non-violent way, because non-violence is not the only way for emancipation. “A Savyasachi will be arrested, a Savyasachi will be tortured, and a Savyasachi will be killed without any qualm”. May be you are right in these words. But be sure, to save the motherland from the labyrinth of exploitation and inequality, there will never be any dearth of Sabysachis on this beloved soil.

      • Excellent reading::::::::::::::::::
        So may be, just may be, that we are possibly heading for a situational India of different Sizes; S, M, L, XL, XXXL, when there will be no convergence of the two extreme ideologies of the prevailing world order. Bad days ahead !!!

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.