But it if our basic yardstick is democracy, we notice some similar notes too. First, who is a non-elite? A large section of vanguard middle class is involved in emancipatory movements of various hues. Elitism sometimes becomes a highly relative term. Second, a certain righteous asceticism is one core impetus against forms of liberal hedonism in many radical movements across spectrum.Third, the symbolism & spectacle of violence (especially the motif of annihilation-’khatam’) is not lost upon us. Here liberalism is seen as soft and dialogic. Finally, the one guiding beacon of radical politics is an existentialist impulse, which often hovers around a quasi-spiritual domain.

I believe Maoism itself cannot be a blanket term. It changes its character across time—there are fundamental differences between seventies and the nineties Trotskyites and Maoists, for example. And also across space, as for instance, between Maoists in Nepal and in India, or for that matter in different areas in India there have been various shades and trends.

The point is that whether we can have a considered discussion on the nature of violence, and its usefulness in critical and constructive politics. That absolutely includes state violence.