Silent Majority

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Pakistani.

Then they came for the women, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Feminist.

Then they came for the Adivasis, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Naxalite.

Then they came for the Dalits, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not an Ambedkarite.

Then they came for the rationalists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the farmers, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Gandhian.

Then they came for the beef-eaters, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Sickular.

Then they came for the historians, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not an Intellectual.

Then they came for the filmmakers, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a starving Artist.

They are coming after the working class, dividing us up, every single day –
And I know I will not speak out still –
Because I am not really a revolutionary.

– Saswat Pattanayak, Peoples’ Poet, 2015

(My reflection above is inspired by the famous poem by Martin Niemoeller who was an outspoken critic of the Nazis. The idea is to convey that one Hitler or one Modi is not responsible for the mayhems in any society. They are accomplished with the tacit support of the otherwise decent people who choose to remain silent while oppressive policies continue against “other” groups to which they immediately do not identify with. In Indian context, too many of us have remained silent throughout as state machinery and hindu nationalists have continued to target various marginalized groups. And it will not be far when those of us who have been thus far spared of the wrath have to also pay the price for maintaining stoic silence. Revolutionaries do not remain silent at atrocities – they have always spoken up and chosen sides and vocally articulated their position. And the circumstances to produce revolutionaries are not ordained by divine orders. They are for us to realize. Each of us has the ability to speak up, to protest. Let us not wait for an opportune time guided by just our own interests.)

Advertisements

Revolution 2.0: Victory of the Hashtaggers

 

By Saswat Pattanayak

 (Written for Kindle Magazine)

 

Possibly the greatest myth about the world we inhabit today, is that things are just getting worse everywhere. Apparently, the claim goes, things were all flourishing until a couple of decades ago. People used to be all nicely employed, they owned their own houses, had finest of healthcare, made tons of savings, expressed themselves freely without fear, and were generally happy-go-lucky. And that, things are just plain ugly today, with uncertainties looming large, with privacies encroached upon, people falling prey to corporate propaganda, and intellectual vacuum looming large.

Alas, even the worst myths have some credibility. So let’s start from there – yes, things used to be great for some folks, back in the days. In those good old days. In those abjectly feudal, and overtly colonial eras. Since there was slavery, the plantation owners had it good. Since there were princely states, the royals had it good. Since there were colonial empires, the colonialists had it good. Since there was Apartheid, the racists had it good. In fact, the myth has so much credence that the ruling class of every epoch believed they all had it so good. Quite naturally then “You’ve never had it so good!” became the US Democratic Party campaign slogan in 1952 and was swiftly adapted by the UK Conservative Party five years later. The myth of goodness apparently existed until the advent of the 60’s, if not until the end of the 70’s.

What in the world suddenly changed?

Here’s the shocker: nothing perhaps has changed. Maybe the world is still the same. Whether things were nice and dandy back then depends on who we seek that answer from. Usually, a white privileged male in the US, an upper-caste landlord in India, a French right-wing supremacist in Algeria, among numerous other categories may find things getting worse over the period of time. Whereas a black Afrocentric radical, a feminist of color, a gay man, a disabled woman, a Dalit activist – may in fact claim that either things have remained just the same, or they in fact, have improved. People who were being lynched in the public because of the color of their skin or women who were treated as no more than dishwashers are not the one to complain about the gradual turns of events. They may rightfully complain about the viciously slow growth, but they are in no rush to turn back the clock and tune into the halcyon days. As Louis CK points out rather profoundly regarding white privilege: “I’m not saying that white people are better. I’m saying that being white is clearly better, who could even argue? If it was an option I would re-up ever year. Oh yeah I’ll take white again absolutely, I’ve been enjoying that, I’ll stick with white, thank you. Here’s how great it is to be white, I could get in a time machine and go to any time and it would be fuckin’ awesome when I get there. That is exclusively a white privilege. Black people can’t fuck with time machines. A black guy in a time machine is like hey anything before 1980 no thank you, I don’t want to go.”

History of the world can be written through the lens of the
ruling class, or it can be narrated from the perspectives of the oppressed.
From the lens of the latter then, the world could indeed be making progresses.
It is making progress when we witness women demanding wages for house work, it
is making progress when men join protests against rape culture, it is making
progress when outcastes reject the dominant paradigm, it is making progress
when the racial minorities establish academic departments in hitherto elite universities.
And these progresses do not happen merely incidentally, they do not happen
because of sudden change of hearts; instead they do, because of concerted
efforts and revolutionary movements of the working class – a vital credit which
the ruling class deliberately refuses to concede, lest such experiments become
too commonplace to be suppressed.

Even greater in significance than the myth are the means.
How exactly do the historically oppressed manage to make progresses? After all,
they traditionally lack not just power, but also access; they start out
disadvantaged, with entry behavior knowledge, skills, and abilities
compromised. The dominant understanding of emancipation is that the ruling
structure empowers the oppressed through greater facilitation of resources. The
truth is way unsavory: the historically oppressed invariably always turn
ungrateful towards their ruling masters. They take time to gain the knowledge
to challenge the status quo, make efforts to acquire skills to equip themselves
to face eventualities, and finally work in solidarity to dismantle the
oppressive structures, at times gradually, and at other times suddenly. What
usually seems spontaneous in revolutionary framework is invariably always a
result of prolonged preparations and wait for the opportune moment.

Among the means to challenge and dismantle structures, the
most pivotal one comprises education. Historically, slaves and landless
peasants used to be educated by their masters with the sole purpose of becoming
more efficient servants, and yet some of those ingrates after having their
consciousness raised about their oppressed conditions through the newly
acquired knowledge, then used to utilize that very transformation as a tool
against their own masters. This is an inevitable process pertaining to
historical stages of development. The greed of the ruling class, the tactic of
the oppressed class, and the revolution as the synthesis.

Media of all kinds are only extensions of that irresistible
weapon of education, that ineluctable tool of emancipation.

The historically oppressed have always tried to seize the
media and to make them work in their mission to overthrow the systems of
oppressions. At times, they have succeeded. And at other times they have been
defeated. This was true for print media, it was true for electronic media, and
it is true for digital/online media.

The ruling class interpretation however has been starkly
different. Obsessed as it remains with keeping the oppressed duly invisible,
and focused as it remains with its own profit charts, the ruling class
interpretations are concerned only with the conversation its own team members
have with each other. As a result, both liberal and conservative publications
entirely leave out narratives that have direct impacts on the racially
oppressed, for instance. The need for black underground press in the US rose
specifically to challenge the prevailing discourses between educated whites who
shaped media agenda while entirely ignoring existing racial tensions as a structural
given, not as a symptomatic aberration. Most of the researches conducted at
elite schools focus therefore, on media monopolies and the gory sketches of
their battles to redraw the maps of territorial conquests. They remain
oblivious to the underground rebellions by innumerable insurgents, at times
deliberately oblivious because they are convinced that the noisemakers are not
aspiring for a takeover. And more often than not, they are right. A political
analysis will draw the parallel between the nature of the colonizers and the
nature of the colonized. Whereas the colonizers worry about expanding their
territories, the revolting masses only are interested in their own
emancipation.

And so is the case of media. Huge majority of the world
possibly has no interest to become media moguls. Rupert Murdoch is neither
their competition, nor their enemy. The anti-poor, racist, casteist policies
furthered by their oppressive governments are their concerns. Reclaiming a
country’s past (sic) glory is not something they remain bothered about,
especially since that system never worked for them anyway. Besides, the
majority rightfully demands for a life with basic needs fulfilled, and not
everyone thinks that unlimited greed is a good thing. And so they are interested
in subverting the dominant paradigms without needing to reinforce those very
undesirabilities themselves. From radical comic strips to basement mixtapes,
from underground hip-hop to homemade newspapers – the creative subversion of
media over the time has been aimed at being emancipatory without being
necessarily competitive. The producers of these media have been jailed by the
authorities, harassed by the communities, and ostracized by the advertisers.
But the quest to challenge the dominant media narratives has never ceased
anywhere in the world at any point of history.

And so it is with the Internet and online media.

Started as a militarist project, aided by money from the
capitalist regime, Internet has been subject to sustained appropriations by
hackers, hobbyists and housewives. In the times of big corporate media engaged
in mergers and acquisitions, Internet has enabled plethora of independent
bloggers, many remaining anonymous, and most continuing to update their
platforms without necessarily fear of authorities or expectations of profits.
They are aware of their state of being othered, marginalized and oppressed. And
they are in no hurry to make compromises, while steadfastly remaining glued to
making revolts. Many of them are even found micro-blogging on Facebook and
Twitter, making alliances with strangers all around the world, generating
consensus with hashtags, and creating alternative universities in the virtual
world where conventional, institutionalized truths are massacred and unfounded
claims are doubly, nay, innumerably checked for veracity. Internet has provided
for Afrocentric literatures that could never be found in public libraries or
dominant media’s breaking news, it has allowed for interviews with those
freedom fighters to be shared and archived, who would never get an invitation
from any of the four estates of democracy. 

There are challenges to Internet of course; enormous ones.
Just as there were challenges to all previous and contemporary forms of media.
But there are opportunities too on Internet; enormous ones. For one, it
provides access to those who can access it, which is far greater an empowerment
compared to, let’s say, writing a letter to the editor of a print newspaper,
while waiting for it to be published uncensored. Secondly, the social media
bring people together, virtually if so desired, and for real, if so. It allows
for more people to get informed about and to participate in a protest rally, an
Occupy demonstration, an awareness march against sexism. All one needs to do is
post an event, provide a backgrounder, interact with the audience to answer any
question, make changes to the plans real time, cover the event for those who
could not attend, and archive it for future references. Not to discount the
difficulties or even impossibilities of such networking at the face of enormous
digital divide that has rendered majority of people without access to Internet,
to begin with. But to underline the fact that Internet, when enabled, emerges
greater as an accessible form of media than any other. The need therefore is to
democratize it and to make it universally accessible, to make it truly
participatory.  

For the teeming millions, the question is often not about
ownership. The question is about participation. The joy lies not in
monopolizing. It lies in distributing. Maybe it is how most of us have simply
been raised – amidst the sheer joys in, or necessities of sharing. And
therefore it becomes our second nature to simply enjoy the very fact that we
are able to share new information with each other, through blogging, through
micro-blogging, through file-sharing. Maybe that something which appears to be
unproductive by the ruling class is something we just tend to be doing over and
over again. In an otherwise individualistic, secretive world reveling in
distrust, suspicion and increasing abandonment of neighbors, maybe the virtual
media is what boldly caters to our needs. Who knows if it is good, bad or ugly.
For sure, at least for now, the authorities think it is threatening them. This
coming together of people who disregard their carefully assigned social
locations and organize themselves for a common cause that transcends boundaries
set by the ruling class. Maybe that is what is a constant irritant to the
historically oppressive ones, and for that reason alone, it must continue as a
revolutionary tactic.

No wonder, Obama’s NSA is after these people, these global
ungrateful netizens. In the most recent development, Verizon which at first
denied, and later admitted of having turned over the call records of millions
of American citizens to the NSA has, only this September, testified in the
court that it wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing
to shell out for better access. Verizon has made it clear that the company
would block online content from those companies or individuals who do not pay
its tolls – obviously undermining Net Neutrality principle. Concerned by the
NSA and its corporate partners such as Verizon, Brazil has become the first
country to propose rejecting America’s web authority. President Dilma Rousseff
has recently ordered a series of measures to ensure Brazilian online
independence and security to defy NSA interceptions. The way Brazil wants to do
this is by compelling Facebook, Google and other US companies to store all data
related to its citizens locally on Brazilian servers and by pushing for new
international rules on privacy and security through the UN General Assembly.
Its potential effectiveness, or even viability, is yet to be evaluated, but it
is certainly something that may encourage other countries to follow suit. This
suspicion also underlines the refusal on part of international community to be
convinced by Obama’s assurances regarding user privacies. The bigger concern of
course is if the anti-Americanism itself may then give way to invincible
national repressions. Will it be any more ethically sustainable on part of
other countries, to filter contents or to keep a watch over their respective
netizens domestically? 

Answers to that already exist within the US, where many a
domestic horror stories remain untold until after a case reaches a court of
appeals. The most invisible ones are related to Internet freedom, precisely
because any expose of that would discredit the country’s long standing, albeit
hypocritical, claims on free speech, while equating it with let’s just say,
China. Or, for that matter, with India. When two girls landed in trouble over
commenting on Facebook about Bal Thackeray, it made world headline last year.
And yet the US has been persecuting its own citizens for much lesser Facebook
activisms that go unnoticed. In 2009, six employees at the Hampton Sheriff’s
office in Virginia lost their jobs after registering their ‘likes’ on the
Facebook page of the person who contested their boss in an election. Two of
those employees, Deputy Daniel Carter and Robert McCoy, filed a lawsuit
claiming they were fired by Sheriff B.J. Roberts specifically for liking a
Facebook profile for Roberts’ opponent, Jim Adams and as many as four years
later, only last month, a court of appeals decided that liking something on
Facebook was the “Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s
front yard” and hence it would be considered protected speech.       

While the cat-and-mouse game persists, losing sight over the
pattern would be a travesty. Harassment of the audience based on their media
consumption, or arrests of producers based on their media activism is not a new
trend. Neither is encroachment on individual privacy rights as is being largely
claimed following Snowden’s grand revelations. The entire saga of FBI is
nothing, if not one state sponsored and violence-laden surveillance program.
The Red Scare, the infamous Smith Act, McCarthyism, the war on Black Panthers
are all among numerous systematic assaults on privacy rights in the US. 

 

  Normal
  0
 
 
 
 
  false
  false
  false
 
  EN-US
  JA
  X-NONE
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;}

The truth is there never were any golden days of freedom and
equality for the world in the past, as is being felt nostalgic about these
days. Unless, we value the life of, or demand for freedom by the most oppressed
as being inherently lesser – since there have been substantial outcries against
oppression at every stage of history, most of them not just regarded as such
only because the history textbooks follow ruling class ethos. Only when we take
the starting point of analysis as one where the status quo is considered to
have remained virtually the same, if not emerged better, we can recognize that
more people – even purely quantitatively speaking – are able to join global
resistance against capitalism and express themselves today, than ever before.
And this political opportunity has opened itself up, because as the bearded old
men have hinted at, the Internet may indeed be what the capitalism has produced
to further its own gains, and yet, it may eventually become its own
grave-digger. As more desperate measures are taken to control Internet and as
even more resistance surfaces to free it – through the radical voices of the
hitherto underrepresented – the fall of ruling elites and the victory of
hashtaggers will become equally inevitable.

Confuse

Let’s confuse character with color

Freedom with multiparty elections

Socially just education with degrees 

Class society triumphs with progress

Religious upbringing with well being

Social networking with activisms

Facebook, Twitter with revolutions

Tax evasions with desirable charities

Charities with poverty eliminations

 

Let’s confuse TV channels with news 

Security Council with peaceniks

Gaddafi and Castro with terrorists

Capitalism with prosperity, progress

Occupy activists with social parasites

Polanski, DSK, Paterno with virtues

Feminist demands with hooliganism

Oscar, Pulitzer, Nobel with greatness

Queen of England with hardworking Highness

American plutocracy with vibrant democracy

And working class with abject helplessness!

 

– Saswat Pattanayak, Peoples’ Poet

Of Occupy Wall Street :: Democracy, Free Press, Police State & the American Liberty Myths

“We own half the world, oh say can you see
And the name for our profits is ‘Democracy’
So, like it or not, you will have to be free
‘Cause we’re the Cops of the World, boys
We’re the Cops of the World…”
– Comrade Phil Ochs (1940-1976)

“State Police Keeps Press Away; Arrests and Assaults Peaceful People”

This is the Democracy that brings the likes of Bush and Obama to power. The Democracy that lets Democrats and Republicans contend with each other to run the American imperialism. The Democracy which exemplifies itself as the freedom forum to force its way into rest of the world. The Democracy that thrives on individual liberty, and free press!

And, when the rest of the world opposes the mammoth contradictions and brutalities of what the Democracy comprises, the Democracy then teaches the world a lesson. Across the world, the lesson comes in the form of lingering unforgiving wars where the Democracy annihilates the humanity that disregards its proclaimed superiority.

And, nearer home, the Democracy manifests in its nakedness, in its actual being, in the status of a Police State.

American Democracy does not even have to preach its virtues. In fact, it does not need a propaganda press. It simply does away with the press. American Democracy is not answerable to anyone, except those who own it: the wealthy class and their puppets, the lawmaking agencies, executives and representatives. They do not need the lobbyists at Washington. They are the lobbyists of capitalism themselves. A monstrosity that sustains itself. A system that perpetuates injustice as though it were normal, and necessary.

When NYPD forcefully evicted all the peaceful dissenters at the Liberty Square earlier tonight, and dumped one of the the largest collections of progressive books and literature literally into trash cans, it was a true reflection of what the civilized Democracy looked like. Not only were the people who claimed to be the majority brutally teargassed, handcuffed and unjustly arrested, but even the media/press which are supposed to represent the voices of the American society were disallowed from covering the ways the events unfolded in the middle of the night. Even the airways were blocked, lest the “free press” sends a helicopter to cover the brutalities that might give the much sacrosanct and vulnerable Democracy a bad name!

Really, what is this thing called Democracy? A system where the police decides to grant credentials to the press, a system where the media are owned by a bunch of millionaires to air their collective capitalistic interests, and a system where the reporters are forbidden from covering one of the most significant news events in recent times?

What happened today was worse than any other event of state brutality ever recorded in modern history. A right to peacefully dissent is not an exclusive form of American liberty grant. It is a fundamental human right everywhere in the world. It is so fundamental that every revolution and every mass movement has depended on its actualization.

Any government, by virtue of being one, is merely a temporary entity that is duly allowed to be there at the first place by the majority of people in a given society. May it be Hitler’s Germany, or FDR’s America, or Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, or Nehru’s India, a government is always in place with the support of the majority of people. Political scientists can call a government a form of dictatorship, communism, a monarchy or a democracy. The fact remains, without at least the implicit support of the majority, no government can stay in place. People implicitly, or overtly lend support to any regime for it to continue.

And therefore, it is the people who also inevitably change the governments and replace the systems.

Each time the people protest and make the changes, the events are duly recorded and the governments take notice of the oppositions. In the ongoing war, the people’s wills are always taken note of. No matter how politically polished or uneducated they may appear to be. When the Berlin Wall collapsed, one could dispute the collective intelligence of those that rejoiced. When the fascist minded folks walked the grounds to exhibit their deep-seated racism in Nazi Germany, one could virulently attack the sanity of the people. When George Bush was reelected to power in America, one could ceaselessly apologize on behalf of the electorates. But the reality is in each successful implementation of a political framework, it is the majority people, whose will has always prevailed sooner or later. And it is no wonder then, that this will has always been recorded in the pages of contemporary world history.

Except when the Democracy is questioned.

In the Wall Street area, where the Occupy Movement first started, when the police swiftly, hideously and murderously took over the Square amidst the darkness of a long night, American Democracy did not feel alarmed. American Democracy was not allowed to be recorded by the media to be the brutal, dysfunctional and oppressive construct it actually was. And the world’s earliest Democracy, the most vigorously tested Democracy, the world’s most successful Democracy did exactly what it was supposed to. It was not the Obama government or the Bush government that failed the people’s aspirations. It is the majority of people’s will to sustain an inherently failed system of Democracy – a system where money buys the votes – that failed the peoples’ aspirations.

Occupy Wall Street had major flaws no doubt, but it would have failed its purpose had it not enlightened the people about the failed system of Democracy that it was fighting within.

Fortunately, when the movement was overpowered by the Democracy, it veritably succeeded in its mission.

In its failure to succeed, the mass movement gains its success. Such is the nature of the Democracy.

Either we accept this contradiction, or we must redefine the word Democracy.

(Saswat Pattanayak, 2011)

They Did Not Kill Just Gaddafi…

They could not annihilate Africa. So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not devastate a collective aspiration for freedom from imperialism. So they killed Gadhafi.

They could not forever shatter the promises of internationalism, socialism, Arab nationalism, and third world liberation. So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not resolve the capitalistic contradictions in their home states, the Wall Street occupiers and the occupiers in London and Madrid, and in Paris. So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not address the sheer crisis of masculinity their elected presidents and prime ministers struggled with, while their democratically elected leaders raped their interns and approved inmates being assaulted in their prison systems. So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not justify their political assassinations of numerous heads of states who defied their atrocities, from Patrice Lumumba to Dr. Mohammad Najibullah, or of their murdering former allies that disagreed with them later from Saddam Hussain and Osama bin Laden to Anwar al-Awlaki – among hundreds of thousands others, without any due course of justice or legal recourses. So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not have possibly stood trial at defending their heinous acts of official terrorism, while they kept bombing civilians, destroying villages in faraway lands that have never conspired attacks on western countries, and they could not possibly allow to be held responsible for the innumerable cases of human rights violations they have perpetuated. So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not glorify any longer their Nobel Peace Prize winning Presidents and heads of states who lobby for their own places in world history as peaceniks and who declare they have invented internet and rewrite history textbooks to showcase their conquests as necessities and attacks as patriotism, and ask their Christian Gods to bless their free lands where millions exist without healthcare and homes, and since they are not likely to acknowledge there is a war going on right in their own homelands between the classes of haves and the have-nots. So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not provide any answers as to why they must invade and attack civilians of other sovereign countries and try to replicate their versions of corporate money driven phony electoral systems in other nations, not excluding in recent times, El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986), Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d’Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Haiti (2010) and Libya (2011). So they killed Gaddafi.

They could not provide any excuses any longer. Because they do not have any. No moral reasons and no justifiable grounds. So they just went ahead and thought they killed Gaddafi.

In reality, they did not kill just a man named Gaddafi. They killed the world leader who had relentlessly strived to unify Africa and to bring people of the colonized world together to raise their consciousness about the history of Eurocentrism and the living legacies of Colonialism. They killed humanity’s faith on humanity’s ability to engage in intelligent dialogues over targeted murders.

They killed the hope that the world somehow still pinned on the concept of western models of democracy and civilizations. Of the high moral horses they rode talking about human rights and due processes of law. They killed the trust of their own children and grandchildren and of every subsequent generations of human beings who would have otherwise reposed upon the collective wisdom and propaganda of their brutal ancestors masquerading as decent god-fearing folks. And they killed any remaining possibility that when the NATO gang members talk about peace, they could remotely mean peace.

They did not kill just Gaddafi. They killed their own conscience or whatever was left of it, several times over. And they will probably next kill Ahmadinejad and Mandela and Chavez and anyone who agreed with Gadhafi and disagreed with the NATO rogue nations.

This is the most insensitive, most undemocratic, the most brutal western world that ever left its mark on the planet. They are the royals, the guards and the lions at the same time. The Columbus of our times. The plunderers of our age. The Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama of our times. The James Bonds of our times. They have the license to kill any of us ‘bad guys’ out there. And not just Gaddafi.

It’s just that, they came for Gaddafi first. And we are not saying anything… because they have not yet come after us…

(Saswat Pattanayak, 2011)