Bleeding India: Four Aggressors, Thousand Cuts, authored by Binay Kumar Singh and published by Garuda Prakashan, was recently unveiled in Delhi. Taking some incidents into account, like the activities of Popular Front of India (PFI), the issue of Rohingyas, Patthalgadi of Jharkhand and even blasts in Sri Lanka, Singh’s debut book analyses the four groups. Edited excerpts of an interview with Singh:
What made you reach the conclusion that these four ‘aggressors’ are hurting India?
In my research, I have found that while developing a joint venture for accomplishing a common goal, radical Islamist organisations like the Popular Front of India (PFI) have assumed leadership. The urban Naxals provide logistical support. The financial and programme supervision aspect is handled by the Christian missionaries.
Last, but not the least, there is a definite back-up team comprising a set of intellectuals, legal professionals, cultural groups and human rights organisations. Together, they form the Quadriga. This book is a simple pattern analysis between several incidents of the recent past which were able to get the national media limelight.
Don’t you think your book is targeting particular communities?
There are several Hindu elements that have tarnished the image of the country in the past.
As far as the religions are concerned, my book only prescribes to the fresh minds that proselytisation is against the idea of diversity and pluralism, and ultimately opposed to the idea of India.
The Hindu elements whom you are referring to are basically the victims of the conspiracy theory. Let me put it simply; if a debate on beef-eating starts the ‘Hindu elements’ will take a line of Gau Mata (Mother Cow), but the opposite narrative will end this debate at the ‘right to eat’.
This book quotes Dalit thinker VT Rajshekhar Shetty, where he suggests Bhindrawalan to appeal to his followers to start eating beef to defeat Brahmanism.
My book concludes that the debate of beef eating is not for the right to eat or not to eat, but it is a plot by the Quadriga.
Critics could argue that your book is an agenda-driven book, which conveys that those who don’t support the government are bleeding the nation?
Criticising the government on issues provides oxygen to democracy. The worst part of the present government is that it has a very weak opposition. The opposition must be issue-based, not agenda-driven. Bleeding India is not an opposition to the opposition; it is based on the issue of internal security, backed up with proper facts and references. Most of the references are quoted from media platforms that maintain a balanced stand on everything.
Did you visit any places or meet people to get into the depth of the incidents?
Visiting places like Udhwa Block in Rajmahal district of Jharkhand helped me understand that Kashmiri Pandits were not the only ones to be ethnically cleansed. Backward castes like Gangota, Chai-Mandal and Bind shared the same fate, but this went unnoticed. When I visited the eastern borders of India, I understood that the formation of Jihad-Corridor was very similar to the idea of Red-Corridor of the Naxals, and the same was experimented in the Kaliachak riots in West Bengal, just 30 km away at Pakur in Jharkhand.
What makes you qualified to make these observations?
I am a native of Jharkhand, the only state where PFI is banned. Actually, it was my report on PFI submitted to the Government of Jharkhand, three years ago, which played a crucial role in banning the organisation. Initially, the idea was to write a book on PFI, but, as my research progressed, I saw a pattern and finally, the Quadriga appeared. It is surprising that whenever we debate the issue of internal security, it is mostly confined to Kashmir or Naxalism. I wanted this discussion to be a pan-India debate.
What do you have to say about the ongoing farmers’ agitation?
The issue is between an institution called the Government of India and an Organisation of farmers. The solution to this conflict is a dialogue between the organisation and the institution. Let’s make an analysis; the issues raised from the protest were out of syllabus for a farmer agitation. For example, the protest to release the Urban Naxals, the anti-Hindu statements, solidarity with Muslim organisations and the pro-Khalistan statements were nowhere related to the issues of farmers. Again if we compare this farmers’ protest with Patthalgadi of Jharkhand and Chattishgarh, we can see a pattern.