A+| A| A-
On the Legitimacy of the Indian State
Among the concerns of C P Bhambri’s response (“Revolutionary Armed Struggle in India,” EPW, 14 February 2015) to Sumanta Banerjee’s article titled “Hanoi (1965–68), Gaza (2014): Continuity and Divergence over Half a Century” (EPW, 6 September 2014) is to critique the Naxalite/Maoist (henceforth simply “Naxalites”) understanding of the legitimacy of the Indian state. From the tenor of his argument, it is abundantly clear that he regards the Indian state as deeply exploitative and repressive.
Among the concerns of C P Bhambri’s response (“Revolutionary Armed Struggle in India,” EPW, 14 February 2015) to Sumanta Banerjee’s article titled “Hanoi (1965–68), Gaza (2014): Continuity and Divergence over Half a Century” (EPW, 6 September 2014) is to critique the Naxalite/Maoist (henceforth simply “Naxalites”) understanding of the legitimacy of the Indian state. From the tenor of his argument, it is abundantly clear that he regards the Indian state as deeply exploitative and repressive. He indicts the class character of the state in several places, and ends by bemoaning the inability of the Left to forge a united front to “challenge … the forces of exploitation and oppression” (p 73).
Interpreting Legitimacy
Dear Reader,
Or
To gain instant access to this article (download).
(Readers in India)
(Readers outside India)
