Book on Latin American guerrilla movements

  

The book “Latin American guerrilla movements: origins, evolution and outcomes” is the latest, published in December 2019, on this fascinating subject. It gives a comprehensive overview of the guerrilla movements with regional and sub-regional (Central America, Andean and Southern Cone) perspectives besides case studies on individual countries in the region. It brings out the Zeitgeist, the ideas, beliefs and sentiments which motivated and inspired the young guerrilla fighters.

The book has been edited by Dirk Kruijt, Eduardo Rey Tristán and Alberto Martín Álvarez who have impeccable research expertise on the guerrilla movements in Latin America. Local experts in the individual countries have given authentic account with their first-hand knowledge and face to face interaction with some of the guerrilla leaders. The nineteen scholars who have contributed the articles, have maintained objectivity and neutrality, avoiding the partisan passion which is still polarising some parts of the region. 

Of course, rebellions and revolutions have been the leitmotifs of Latin American politics throughout its history. First, it was the indigenous who resisted the Spanish conquistadores. Then the Creoles fought for independence from Spain and Portugal. After independence, the leftist guerrilla movements aspired to overthrow dictatorships and even democratically elected governments in order to establish Utopias of socialist nature. The guerrilla movements proliferated from the sixties to the nineties.

Sources of Inspiration

There were four principal sources of inspiration for the revolutionaries: Dependency Theory, Liberation Theology, Che Guevara and the triumph of the Cuban revolution. Besides these regional sources, local and national martyrs as well as external sources from outside the region had also influenced the guerrilla groups. 

The Dependency Theory awakened, opened the minds and instigated the university students and professors to rise against exploitation and imperialism. Some poets and writers added fuel to the revolutionary fire. Marti (Cuban poet Jose Marti who fought for the independence of Cuba) was invoked more than Marx in the revolutionary discourses.

The Liberation Theology of the clergy gave a new radical interpretation of the Bible and justified recourse to arms to fight social injustice and exploitation.  The Latin American Episcopal conference in 1968 in Medellin (Colombia) endorsed Liberation Theology. Although the Vatican was against it, the Latin American priests at lower levels working in poverty stricken areas embraced  Liberation Theology as a legitimate way for the poor to seek social justice . Camilo Torres, the Colombian priest who joined the ELN guerrilla movement and died in combat in 1966 said, “ If Jesus were alive today, he would have been a guerrillero”. The Nicaraguan priests, the Cardenal brothers (Ernesto and Fernando), recruited young catholics to the Sandinista struggle.

The universities, churches and Bible reading groups became the breeding grounds of revolution and principal centres of recruitment.  

Che Guevara stood out distinctly as the icon for the young revolutionaries of the region. His ascetic devotion to the ideal, selfless sacrifice and martyrdom had romanticised the revolutionary fight against injustice and imperialism. Che had fought wars going beyond his country and continent. This had inspired a number of other Latin Americans who joined voluntarily and enthusiastically in the wars outside their own countries. 

Cuba

The victory of the small group of Cuban guerrillas against overwhelming odds and in defiance of the mighty US intoxicated the imagination of the Latin American youth. Mythologies and legends were built around the heroes and nobility of the cause. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara proved that it was possible for guerrillas to militarily defeat a regular army  and bring about a socialist revolution overcoming the opposition of the capitalist imperialism of US.  

Cuba gave support to guerrilla groups in 14 countries out of the total of 19 in Latin America. They gave arms, training, advice and logistic support. It was the Cubans who brokered unification of the many guerrilla factions into one solid country structure in Nicaragua (1979), El Salvador (1982) and Guatemala (1982) and helped them at the crucial time.

The exceptions which did not get Cuban support were the Colombian FARC, Peru’s Sendero Luminoso and the Mexican insurgent groups. Cuba had, of course, supported ELN and M19 of Colombia. Cuba did not support the Mexican guerrillas as a mark of respect to the Mexican governments which always had a soft corner and sympathy for the Castro government.

While everyone knows the failure of the US- sponsored notorious Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, one should note that there have been a number of failures of Cuban supported guerrilla invasions into Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Hundreds of young fighters lost their lives in these adventures. There were six attempts of incursion by guerrilla groups into Dominican Republic between 1947 and 1973. But all of them were crushed by the Dominican government.

It is amazing that despite its own severe shortage of resources and the constant struggle for survival against the unrelenting threat and sanctions from US, the Cubans had gone out of their way to inspire and support revolutionary groups in other Latin American countries and even in Africa. 

Others 

The communist theories of the various schools (Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist) and the success of the Soviet, Chinese, Algerian and Vietnamese revolutions also had their share of influence in Latin America. Some of the Latin American guerrillas went for training to Russia, China, Vietnam, Algeria, Lebanon and North Korea.

Evolution

Some countries saw a brief guerrilla activity for a few years while others had experienced long periods in different phases. The first wave ‘of rural guerrilla foquismo’ was from Castro’s campaign starting in 1956 till the death of Guevara in 1967. The second was of urban guerrilla warfare in the Southern cone countries. The third was the wave of political-military organisations from early 1970s onwards in Central America and Andean countries. Even before these phases, in December 1947, under the auspices of progressive Guatemalan president Juan José Arévalo, exiles from the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Costa Rica signed the Pacto del Caribe, which pledged to overthrow the dictators ruling those and other Caribbean nations. 

The guerrilla fighters believed that political, economic and social transformation would only be possible through the use of political violence rather than via the ballot box. They included students, intellectuals, professors, school teachers, priests, peasants, militant communist party cadres, trade union activists and a few army officers too. Most of them were young, idealistic and with the noblest intentions for a better society. They had sacrificed their personal lives, careers and families for a larger cause. 

The revolutionary movements proliferated with different ideologies, dogmas, inspirations and circumstances . Many of the original groups split and splintered due to schisms, doctrinal differences, personality clashes between leaders, external support and local situation.  The groups chose names and acronyms starting with E (Exercito - army), F (Frente or Fuerza) and M (Movimiento) and numbers for historic dates and in the name of martyrs like Marti, Sandino and Che Guevara.

Here are some examples:

ELN, EPL,EPLUA, EPS, ERP, EGTK and EIM

FA, FACS,FAL, FALN, FAP, FAR, FARC, FARN, FAPU, FAU,FDCR, FDR, FECCAS, FIR, FGEI, FLN, FMLN, FPL, FPMR, FRAP, FRIP, FSLN and FULNA 

MAS, MIR, MIRE, MLL, MLN, MLN-T, MMLM, MNR, MOE, MPP, MPD, MRO, MRP, MRTA, MRO and MRTA, 

MI26M, MR13, OPR-33, M19, M26J, LC23S and 1J4

Colombia faced the longest guerrilla war for 70 years (still going on a smaller scale) followed by Guatemala with 36 years and El Salvador for 20 years.  Cuba had the shortest guerrilla war of just two years. Colombia suffered the largest number of killings, followed by Guatemala and Peru. Mexico had around forty armed groups in different points of time. Colombia had about 30 guerrilla groups. 

There were a number of similarities and commonalities in the evolution and operation of the revolutionary movements which had similar world view, ideological framework, shared reportoire and methodology of action. But there are four cases which do not fit the common pattern and stand out distinct. These four had no Cuban inspiration or support. These are the Colombian FARC, Mexican Zapatista insurgency in 1994, and the two Peruvian guerrilla movements in the 1980s and 1990s Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and Tupac Amaros (MRTA). FARC, the largest guerrilla group of the region, rose from the period of “La Violencia” following the assassination of Leftist presidential candidate Jorge Gaitan in 1948.  The Sendero Luminoso group was unique with their leader Abimael Guzman having built a personality cult around him as the “fourth sword of Communism”, after Marx, Lenin and Mao. 

The revolutionaries from the southern cone had joined together and formed Junta Coordinadora Revolucionaria (JCR) with the guerilla movements from Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Bolivia. The JCR made a public appearance with a press conference in February 1974 after the failed attack on the Argentine army barracks at Azul. They had plans to expand to the whole region and even reach out to the rest of the world. The Cubans kept away from this group seeing it as a rival for regional influence. The JCR faded out by 1978.

   

The mainstream communist parties in some of the countries refused to support the armed revolutionaries since USSR pursued peaceful coexistence with the governments of the region. 

  

Sierra Maestra was a symbol of the Cuban revolution which started in the mountainous jungles of Cuba and worked through villages before reaching the cities and capital. But there were no such mountains and jungles in Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina and so the manuals had to be changed in the southern cone countries for urban guerrilla warfare. Guevara’s campaign to use the Bolivian jungle as the transit point for starting guerrilla wars in Argentina and Peru ended up as a disaster with his death in 1967. 

  

outcome

The main objective of all the revolutionary movements was to take over power and bring about social justice and utopia. The only cases where they succeeded were Cuba and Nicaragua. The special circumstances of the two countries facilitated the success. The decadent, corrupt and discredited dictatorships in both these countries had lost the support of their own people. Even the US had abandoned them at the crucial time towards the end. These had caused the collapse of the regimes unable to stand up against the determined and popular revolutionary movements which had built up support in both the urban as well as rural areas.

But unfortunately the revolutions in these two countries have outlived their glory and are crying out for democratic liberation now. The Cuban people are tired and exhausted by the meaningless revolutionary rhetoric while they struggle every day with shortages, queues, poor infrastructure and suppression of freedom. 

The Sandinistas, who came to power in 1979 after shedding more blood than the Cubans, set an excellent example by embracing democracy. They held free and fair elections in 1984 and came back to power. Their government survived despite the brutal Contra war unleashed on them by the CIA. Besides killings, the Contras pursued scorched earth policies destroying the economy, farms and factories. The Sandinista government had to spend over fifty percent of their precious resources on the war for survival. The Sandinistas left power peacefully and gracefully after losing the elections in 1989. They sat out in the opposition for 17 long years and then came back to power through the ballot in 2006 and 2011. Daniel Ortega won a third term in the 2016 elections, by constituitional maneuvers to bypass the two-term limit and amidst accusations of rigging of the elections. Ortega and his wife Rosario Murillo, who is the Vice President, are now running the country like a  family franchise. There have been protests against their corrupt and authoritarian regime.

Thousands of the young guerrillas were killed, tortured and forced into exile by the brutal counter insurgency forces of states and paramilitary units with support from the anti-communist campaign of US. The indigenous communities of Guatemala and El Salvador had suffered disprotionately large number of massacres by right wing death squads besides the armed forces. Hundreds of thousands were forcibly uprooted from their villages and displaced on the ground that they had given refuge and support to guerilleiros. At the same time the revolutionaries had also caused death and destruction in the pursuit of their cause. Some of them had resorted to kidnappings, extortion, hijackings and bank robberies besides bombings and attacks on security forces and government buildings.

After the end of dictatorships and restoration of democracies in the region in the eighties, some of the guerrilla groups have reinvented themselves as political parties and some fighters have become  political leaders. The Pink Tide of the region in the first decade of the new century helped in the insertion of  the ex-guerillas into power through the ballot. In El Salvador, the FMLN guerilla group became a legal political party and came to power in 2009 and returned in 2014. In Colombia, FARC became a political party, although it had done poorly in the 2018 polls.

Jose Mujica the Uruguayan guerrilla fighter, who spent 14 years in jail, became President in 2010. He did not show any symptoms of rancor or thirst for revenge. He was pragmatic, progressive and balanced in his policies. Even as President, he lived an austere and simple life refusing the ostentations of the office. Dilma Rouseff, a guerrilla leader who survived the tortures of military dictatorship, became President of Brazil. But unfortunately she committed a series of political errors and got impeached by the corrupt and crooked congressmen on a trivial excuse. President Sanchez Ceren was the first guerrilla leader to become president of El Salvador in 2014. Before the peace agreement, he was Commandante Leonel González, his pseudonym. Some guerrilleiros became vice presidents (Alvaro Garcia in Bolivia under Evo Morales), ministers (Ali Rodrigues oil minister under President Chavez, Nilda Gare defence minister of Argentina under president Cristina Kirchner Fernandez), mayors (Gustavo Petro in Bogota), legislators and governors in the new democratic era of the region since the 1980s. 

The Colombian ELN (National Liberation Army) is the only large (about 2000) guerrilla group active in Latin America now. They held peace talks in 2014 and 2017 but without result. Now they are keen for negotiations but the government has rejected talks till the guerillas stop their violence. The group had declared a temporary ceasefire in April this year due to the corona virus emergency. Some of their top leaders were killed by military bombing in the second week of May. In response, the group has announced resumption of attacks against the government.

One thing missing in the book is the role played by literature. Poems and writings had provided food for the revolutionary souls. Roque Dalton, the famous militant poet of El Salvador became a member of the People’s revolutionary Army (ERP). Tragically, he was murdered by his own comrades because of internal dispute in 1975. His poems were banned by the dictatorship till 1992. Since 2013, El Salvador has honoured him by declaring his birth day on 14 May as “National Poetry Day”.

Another missing thing is the role of US in the counter insurgency operations. I guess this will need a separate and even longer book.

I recommend the book to Indian scholars and students of Latin America. It would also be useful to compare with the Indian insurgent groups such as the Naxalites who are still active and control significant territories in the tribal areas. 

For Indian readers, the book is available only in kindle. Hard cover and  paperback editions will have to wait till the end of the corona virus restrictions.

 

Costa Rica adds the spirit of peace and pura vida to OECD with its membership

Costa Rica is set to join OECD in the next few days, after signing of the accession agreement. It is the fourth country from Latin America to join OECD, after Mexico, Colombia and Chile. But it is much different from them as well as the rest of OECD members.

The materially rich OECD club should feel truly honoured to have as its member Costa Rica which is morally richer than all the other members of the group. The small country of five million people have nobler achievements and loftier vision than any of the 37 OECD countries with a combined population of 1.3 billion. 

Costa Rica has made history in the world by having abolished its armed forces in 1948. It is a civilisational advance. The country proclaims proudly that they spend their money on education and healthcare instead of arms. Oscar Arias, the former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner said ¨ Our children walk with books under their arms rather than guns on their shoulders. We are an unarmed people, whose children have never seen a fighter or a tank or a warship. We are a people without arms and we are fighting to continue to be a people without hunger ". 

Arias said, “My country is a country of teachers and peace. We discuss our successes and failures in complete freedom. We believe in dialogue, in agreement, in reaching a consensus, in convincing our opponents, not defeating them. We prefer raising the fallen to crushing them, because we believe that no one possesses the absolute truth. Education in my country has been compulsory and free for 118 years”. 

While Costa has spent zero dollars in arms, the leading OECD member USA has spent over six trillion dollars in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone since 2000, killing over 800,000 of which 300,000 were civilians and displacing over 21 million people. 

It is creditable that Costa Rica has remained as a beacon of peace, right in the middle of the Central American region which has suffered so many conflicts and civil war till the nineties and is even now continuing to face very high rates of crime and violence. 

Costa Rica is not a passive country of peace. It had mediated and helped to end theCentral American civil war with a peace agreement in 1987. President Oscar Arias got Nobel prize for this. 

The little Costa Rica stood up to the mighty USA and refused them permission to use its territory for the Contra wars in the eighties. The other Central American countries who were bullied into collusion by US are paying the price even now. President Arias had rebuked the Sandinistas for their lack of democracy and resisted US attempts to alter the contents of the peace plan that was signed in 1987.

Costa Rica has established a full-fledged University for Peace since 1980 to train young people for world peace. Every year there are a few Indian students who join this University. The university gave a honorary doctorate to Vice President Venkaiah Naidu during his visit there in March 2019. 

In 1869, the country became one of the first in the world to make education both free and obligatory, funded by the state’s share of the great coffee wealth. The literacy rate of Costa Rica is one of the highest in Latin America. Today, the country has become like a kind of silicon valley with many IT and tech companies making and exporting high tech products and services.

Costa Rica has remained as a beacon of solid and vibrant democratic stability and maturity in Latin America in the last seven decades. This was not easy given the fact that the country is geographically sandwiched between dictatorships in the South and North for many years. The notorious dictatorships of Somoza in Nicaragua and Noriega in Panama were supported and sustained by US for long periods. 

There no far-right or far-left extremist parties in the country. No Costa Rican Trump or Bolsonaro to infect with the political virus of hatred and polarization. There is political consensus across political parties of the left and the right on the major long term vision for the country.

Costa Rica is a leader in sustainable development, clean energy and ecotourism. It was one of the first in the world which combined its ministries of energy and the environment back in the 1970s. The country generates an impressive 99 per cent of its energy from renewable sources. For several years now, Costa Rica has run entirely on renewable energy for an average of about 300 days per year. The country’s biggest source of energy is hydroelectricity (78%) followed by wind power (10.29%)  geothermal energy ( 10.23%), solar (0.84%) and biomass. In 1997, The government introduced a carbon tax on emissions. The funds generated from this tax is being used to pay indigenous communities to protect their surrounding forests. The country has reversed deforestation with its proactive policies. Thanks to this, the forest cover is twice as much it was three decades ago.

The Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado signed a decree in February 2019 to fully decarbonize by the year 2050. "Decarbonisation is the great task of our generation and Costa Rica must be one of the first countries in the world to accomplish it, if not the first”. He has set a goal of  zero-emission public transportation system by 2035.  This is not the personal agenda of the President Alvarado. This policy was pursued by his predecessor and there is a consensus among all the political parties of the country and continuity of policies by successive governments.

Costa Rica, where Latin America’s first COVID-19 case was reported on 6 March, is one of the most successful nations in the fight against the coronavirus. Its infection and death rates are lower than that of New Zealand. As of 21 May, the number of infections is 903 with 10 deaths in comparison to New Zealand’s 1503 cases and 21 deaths.  The success was due to swift response and excellent health care system. The Health Minister announced, “Those who present COVID-19 symptoms will be guaranteed medical attention and the State will assume the costs of treatment for those patients without the means to pay for it”. Costa Rica has universal healthcare, on which it spends a higher proportion (9.1% of GDP) of gross domestic product (GDP) than the OECD average of 9%.

Of course, Costa Rica has its own share of challenges like poverty, inequality, corruption and growing crime. But the scale of these are much very lower than in the rest of Latin America.  The Costa Ricans are happy people. The World’s Database of Happiness has ranked Costa Rica as being the number #1 Happiest Nation on the planet among 148 other countries.

Their spirit of happiness comes alive in the way they respond when you ask them como esta? (How are you?). They do not respond with the normal ‘ bien’ (well). They say cheerfully “Pura Vida”. Literally it means pure life. But what the Costa Ricans mean is ¨full of life¨.

Let us hope that the peaceful and Pura Vida spirit of Costa Rica will inspire OECD whose members can learn much from Costa Rica. It is time for OECD to go beyond economic statistics and policies and take into account values and spirit of life.

Pura Vida......

Tagore-Ocampo relationship - complicated

After reading my blog post on the film “Thinking of Him”, some people have sought more details on the Tagore-Ocampo relationship. The Curious want to know if there was a carnal part to the platonic love.

Hmm…I will give an Argentine answer.. It is Complicated…

The most frequently used word in Argentine vocabulary is “Complicado” (complicated)

You ask an Argentine about his country, politics, economy, debt, marriage, love, weather or the world. 

Complicado Che.. is how they start their response and explanation. Che is an endearing way of saying ‘friend’ in Argentina.

  

Here is the first complication:

The heroine drew a Line..The hero did not cross it. But he was tempted.. he tried ..yes ..just a touch.. without crossing. 

This is what Ocampo says in her autobiography “One afternoon, as I came into his room while he was writing, I leaned towards the page which was on the table. Without lifting his head towards me he stretched his arm, and in the same way as one gets hold of a fruit on a branch, he placed his hand on one of my breasts. I felt a kind of shudder of withdrawal like a horse whom his master strokes when he is not expecting it. The animal cried at once within me. Another person who lives inside me warned the animal, ‘ be calm.. fool’ It is just a gesture of pagan tenderness. The hand left the branch after that almost incorporeal caress. But he never did it again. Every day he kissed me on the forehead or the cheek and took one of my arms, saying “such cool arms”.

This was the farthest the 63 year old Tagore went physical..The young (34 year old) Ocampo's graceful and discrete but firm and cold non-response stopped him at this point.

Ocampo described her emotion for Tagore as a great “love tenderness” (amour de tendresse). A love into which nothing entered except the spiritual.

Tagore has, of course, talked about his love in longing and poetic but subtle and suggestive ways in his notes and letters to her as well as poems. 

More complications:

Tagore’s secretary Leonard Elmhirst (who accompanied Tagore in the South America tour) went beyond Tagore in exploration. He tried to kiss Ocampo when they were in the car. She slapped him and banged the car door so hard that the sound shook the whole city. Thereafter he apologized. She accepted it and did not make any fuss afterwards

In her autobiography, Ocampo says that Elmhirst was infatuated by her. She had also felt a bit of attraction to the 31 year old. That’s why she kept up contact with him for many years and had visited him in England. She even dedicated her book on Tagore to Elmhirst, calling him as ‘ a friend, friend of Tagore and friend of India’.

Ocampo had confessed to Elmhirst the story of her unhappy marriage in 1912 and how her husband treated her like a “conquered land”. She found a secret lover five months after her wedding. It was Julian Martinez, one of her cousins. Since divorce was not permitted and she did not want to upset her family, she continued to live in the same house with her husband but in separate bedrooms. In 1922, she moved out and lived separately on her own in an apartment.  Neither Elmhirst nor Tagore knew about her secret lover. If they had known, those accidents might not have happened.

Tagore mistook Ocampo’s excessive devotion for something more. At the time of Tagore’s visit, Ocampo was in a state of transition after the break up with her husband and the strains of keeping the secrecy of her love affairs with her cousin. The society had thrown cold water on her aspiration to become a woman writer. At the same time she did not want to upset her family by open rebellion. She wanted to bring Tagore to stay in the large mansion of her parents but they refused. At this time of mental turmoil, she looked up to Tagore as a Guru from the East who might illuminate her spirit and reveal a new path for her. This is what made her to show extraordinary and explicit expression of her excessive ardour to Tagore. 

But  the old widower poet mistook Ocampo’s devotion as inviting signals. He thought, “he had received ‘a woman’s love’, the kind of love he had been hoping for a long time to ‘deserve’ the love that alleviates a man’s inner loneliness and is like a’ supply of water’ in his journey across a desert.” This was reflected in his poem “ Shesh Basanth” (the last spring) which he wrote on 21 November during his stay as the guest of Ocampo

While walking on my solitary way

I met you at the dusk of nightfall

I was about to ask you take my hand

When I gazed at your face and was afraid.

For I saw there the glow of the fire that lay asleep

In the deep of your heart’s dark silence

The old man did not fail to notice the tension of attraction between Ocampo and Elmhirst. How did he deal with it? He teased Elmhirst saying that he should marry her and bring her to Shantiniketan. He said this with his knowledge that Elmhirst was already engaged and soon to be married (actually in April 1925) to Dorothy, an American heiress. He told Ocampo that Elmhirst was in love with her. Mischief  in the mind of the mystic poet?

For Ocampo, the explorations by Tagore and Elmhirst did not come as a shock. She was used to such advances. Since she was living as a single, separated and independent young and beautiful woman with rich inheritance, many men were tempted. A Spanish poet Ortega y Gasset, older than her, tried to seduce her couple of years earlier but she rebuffed him decisively. But she liked him as a poet and kept in literary contact with him. Later, she had many affairs with older and younger men. One thing was clear. She did not want to live with the label of someone’s wife or lover. She took her destiny in her own hands. She did not let others to mess with her life beyond a line she drew. Perhaps this is the main reason she declined the repeated invitation of Tagore to her to visit Shantiniketan. She did not imagine herself to be like the western ladies Nivedita and Mirabehn who had dedicated their lives to serve Vivekananda and Gandhi in India. Ocampo wrote, ‘I cannot envy them because I know that my Dharma would not have made their path as mine.

Of course, before and after Ocampo, many foreign and Indian women were attracted to Tagore and he was also interested in them. But it seems that Ocampo remained as the main muse for Tagore in the seventeen years from 1925 to his death in 1941.  Besides dedicating the Purabi poems to her, Tagore is said to have written many other poems and stories as well as done paintings alluding to Ocampo. 

Ocampo is credited with uncovering Tagore’s painting talents. It was she who saw his doodlings in Buenos Aires and encouraged him to do painting more seriously. She organized the first exihibition of Tagore’s paintings in May 1930 in Paris at the Galerie Pigalle by spending her own money, organizing a party and using her contacts. Encouraged by the Parisian reception, he started painting and holding more exihibitions thereafter. 

For those curious to delve deeper, there is plenty of information in Ketaki Kushari Dyson’s book “ In your blossoming flower garden”, my main source. She has done detailed analysis of words, actions and circumstances of the Tagore-Ocampo encounter and has written objectively. 

For my Argentine amigos, the Tagore- Ocampo relationship is like Tango dance.. in which the man and woman touch each other’s bodies 'creating sparks' but 'without getting burnt'. 

“Thinking of him” – Argentine film on Tagore-Ocampo relationship

“Latin American ladies have a special way of showing their affection”, says Tagore. The lady is Victoria Ocampo, his Argentine admirer, who gifted an arm chair to take to India from Buenos Aires. But there was one problem. The chair was too big to go into Tagore’s cabin in the ship. But the strong willed Victoria would not give up. She told the captain of the ship to remove the door of the cabin from the hinges and enlarge the entrance to enable the chair to go into the cabin. It was Ocampo who arranged a special two bed room cabin for Tagore free of cost through her contact.  This was what impressed Tagore to make that comment. Tagore used to sit on that chair for about two months during November-December 1924 when he stayed in Buenos Aires as the guest of Ocampo. That chair is still preserved in Shantiniketan. 

In his last years, Tagore used to relax in that chair and even wrote a poem about it in April 1941, just before his death in the same year.

Yet again, if I can, will l look for that seat

On the top of which rests, a caress from overseas

I knew not her language

Yet her eyes told me all

Keeping alive forever

A message of pathos

When she got news of Tagore’s death, Ocampo sent a telegram to Tagore’s son which said simply 'Thinking of him' (pensando en el). That’s how the name of this Argentine movie came about. 

Pablo Cesar, the Argentine director and producer of this fascinating movie, has recreated the Tagore-Ocampo encounters based on the real life story. Tagore had to stop in Buenos Aires on 6 November for medical rest while he was on his way to Peru to attend the centenary celebrations of independence. Victoria came to know about it and offered to take care of him. She sold her jewellery to rent a beautiful mansion in San Isidro, a suburb of Buenos Aires, and put up Tagore there. From his balcony he had the view of the wide sea-like Plata river and a large garden with tall trees and flower plants. Tagore left Buenos Aires on 3 January 1925 after fully recovering from his illness. 

The 63-year old Tagore was rejuvenated by the charming young (age 34) Ocampo who took care of him during his 58 day stay. She looked after him with utmost devotion and had set his imagination on fire. She got a spiritual awakening and literary inspiration from the great Indian philosopher poet. The platonic love of Tagore was reciprocated by the spiritual love of Ocampo.

Who is Victoria Ocampo? Not many Indians know about her. Ocampo was also a writer and patron of letters, later. Besides contributing to Argentine literature, She went beyond her country and built bridges with the cultural and literary world of Latin America, Europe and US. She became the first woman to be admitted to the Argentine Academy of Letters in 1977. This was a special satisfaction to this Queen of Letters, who had suffered discouragement from writing by the patriarchical society when she was a young woman. Victoria founded, funded, published and edited a literary magazine ¨Sur¨ which had poems, stories, essays and social commentary of authors from around the world. 

She was a fierce feminist, ahead of her times. She quit her unhappy marriage early on and lived independently for the rest of her life. She had many lovers, affairs and friends. She travelled around the world and moved in the artistic, literary and social circles of Europe especially in France.

Ocampo had read Gitanjali in 1914 and said ¨it fell like a celestial dew on my anguishing twenty four year old heart¨. She described Tagore´s poetry as ¨magical mysticism¨. She felt powerful echoes in Tagore´s personal loving God, radiating happiness and serenity, unlike the demanding and vengeful God imposed on her in childhood. She was very excited when Tagore reached Buenos Aires on 6 November 1924. In her own words, it was one of the great events of her life. She wrote in the Argentine daily La Nacion on 9 November an article “The joy of reading Rabindranath Tagore”. She was overawed by his intellect and serenity and felt shy like a child before him. She listened to him mostly and did not dare to express herself as she would have liked to do. Later she wrote an essay " Tagore on the banks of the river Plata" and a book "Tagore en las barrancas de San Isidro"(Tagore on the ravines of San Isidro). Ocampo introduced Tagore to her social and literary circles in the city and got his articles published in Argentine newspapers. 

Ocampo was the muse of Tagore’s Purabi poems in which he called her as Vijaya (for Victoria) and dedicated the poems to her. In one of the poems, he says,

Exotic blossom

I whispered again in your ear

What is your language dear

You smiled and shook your head

And the leaves murmured instead

He wrote 26 poems during his stay in Buenos Aires.

After his return to India, Tagore had exchanged a number of letters with Ocampo till 1940. Tagore calls her endearingly as my Bhalobhasha (love in Bengali). She always addresses him as ‘Dear Gurudev’ and signs as “your Vijaya”. 

When Tagore saw Victoria for the first time, he says to himself, “ When I my old words die out in the tongue, new melodies burst out from the heart.” When they were together in the house, Victoria says to herself, “ I am so close to you and yet utterly unhappy to know that you cannot be near me”. He wrote “ Joy, I felt near you; suffering, because you ignored my nearness”

Tagore wrote to Ocampo, "you were the only one who came to know me so closely when I was old and young at the same time"; "When we were together we mostlly played with words and tried to laugh away our best opportunities”. Tagore confessed to her about his immense burden of loneliness as a celebrity and talked about the woman's love he deserved. 

Ocampo poured out her heart, “why did you go away so soon? I miss you”; " The days have become endless since you went away"; “I am afraid you will never know how much I love you. Remember Gurudev, you have left here someone who is trying to find expression for her love for you”;

The personal meeting also turned out to be a continental encounter. Tagore wrote,' For me the spirit of Latin America will ever dwell incarnated in your person'. She responded, 'you are and will always be India to me'

The movie has two alternating parts; one, the black and white scenes of Tagore and Ocampo;  the other in colour, a modern story of Felix an Argentine school teacher who visits Shantiniketan to understand Tagore’s method of teaching. While the Tagore-Victoria scenes have come out authentically and beautifully, the other story is not as gripping and interesting. Eleonara Wexler, the Argentine actress has portrayed Ocampo admirably giving the typical look of an Argentine woman who avoided  explicit expression of emotions in the early twentieth century. Victor Banerjee has interpreted Tagore with Bengali sensitivity.

For those interested in knowing more about the Tagore-Ocampo relationship, there is a book “In your blossoming flower garden”, by Ketaki Kushari Dyson based on her extensive research on the subject. The Sahitya Academy of India has published this book.

This is the second film on India for Pablo Cesar. He had earlier directed an Indo- Argentine joint production film " Unicorn- the garden of fruits" released in 1996. Pablo Cesar is an unusual film director among his Argentine counterparts. Argentina has produced the most number of creative films in Latin America. Many of them are introspective with strong psychoanalysis narration of Argentine characters. But Cesar likes external exploration of ancient cultures and rare traditions especially in the east. Since 1990, he has directed and coproduced 13 films with local themes in Angola, Tunisia, Cape Verde, Mali, Benin, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Namibia and Morocco. 

“Thinking of Him” was premiered in the Goa Film Festival in December 2017 and released in Argentina in August 2018. The official release to the Indian public is planned for August 2020. 

Brazilians are dying, Bolsonaro says, ‘So What?’

Last week Brazil’s corona virus cases crossed 100,000 with more than 7000 deaths. The numbers are accelerating and the tragedy is mounting. How did president Bolsonaro react to this? With a joke. Yes, seriously, with a joke.  He said “My name is Messiah, but I cannot work miracles”. 

His response to the numbers, “So what? What do you want me to do?”. Pure contempt and supreme indifference. Zero responsibility and leadership.

Twenty top officials of his government including his Spokesman and National Security Minister. So what? Bolsonaro announced a barbecue for 30 friends in the presidential palace on Saturday 8 May. He joked that he might extend the invitation to thousands more. But when there was a huge outcry, he cancelled the barbecue saying that it was a fake news by media with a blatant lie. Then he went on a spin on his jetski in the Brasilia lake and joined a boat barbecue with his friends. Hundreds of his hired followers did a barbecue in the lawn in front of the Presidential palace.

In most countries, Presidents and Prime Ministers have visited hospitals and comforted victims, bereaved families and healthcare staff. What about President Bolsonaro? He goes to a shooting range. He grins in front of a bullet-riddled target saying “ Pretty good. Eh?”.

Brazil faces shortage of ventilators, masks and other essential items to fight the covid19. This does not concern Bolsonaro. He is only worried about shortage of guns in the country. He loves guns and the gun lobbies including the notorious National Rifle Association (NRA) of US love him. So when the governors are scrambling to get ventilators, Bolsonaro wants to see more guns in the country by loosening the gun control laws. On 17 April, he shut down a military project which sought to use Blockchain technology to track guns for better control of circulation of firearms in the country. The Public Prosecutor’s office has opened investigations on the constituitionality of this action.

In other countries, Presidents are meeting scientists and doctors seeking their advice to deal with the virus. Whom does Bolsonaro meet? On 4 May, Bolsonaro received at the Presidential palace ex-Lt Colonel Sebastian Curio Rodrigues de Moura, who was a notorious assassin and torturer of leftists during the military dictatorship. Bolsonaro had once said, “ the problem with the dictatorship was that it did not kill enough leftists”. He does not have any weakness such as empathy or sensitivity. He had mocked the tortures suffered by Dilma Rouseff and praised the army officer who did the torturing.

Mass graves are being dug in Manaus to bury the soaring number of dead. Many of them are indigenous people. The mayor of Manaus city was in tears while describing the catastrophic situation. They have acute shortage of coffins besides medicines and equipments. Unable to get the attention of Bolsonaro, the indigenous leaders have requested for help from WHO and even from Greta Thunberg. Millions of poor living in favelas (slums) in Rio and Sao Paulo without adequate water and sanitation facilities are desperately struggling against the virus outbreak. Even the drug trafficking gangs have started helping the slum residents who are mostly Afro Brazilians. Has President Bolsonaro done or atleast said something. Nada. Nothing.  The racist Bolsonaro is perhaps hoping that the corona virus kills as many blacks and native Indians.

People around the world pay attention to the Covid-19 guidelines of the World Health Organisation. Not Bolsonaro. He not only ignores WHO advice but attacks WHO with a preposterous allegation that the organization is promoting masturbation and homosexuality among young children.

Bolsonaro is the perfect ally helping the corona virus to spread and cause more deaths. He does this job effectively and consistently. He fights against the governors and health officials who are fighting against Covid 19. He has been fiercely obstructing their work with his statements and actions. He fired his health minister who was doing an excellent job. 

Bolsonaro downplays the corona virus calling it as “simple cold” and a “fantasy” and “hysteria” promoted by the media to weaken his government. Such talk clearly misleads and confuses the general population. He criticizes the lockdown imposed by state and municipal authorities. He calls the social distancing measures imposed by governors and mayors as ‘crime’. In late March, Bolsonaro launched #BrazilCannotStop campaign encouraging Brazilians to get back to work and normal life. Fortunately, a Federal Judge rescued the country by banning this dangerous Presidential campaign.

Bolsonaro fights fiercely against social distancing and quarantine. He goes around shaking hands and taking selfies with his supporters, mobilized in rallies and marches by his sons and allies. He calls for resumption of football games arguing that players are less likely to die from Covid-19 because of their physical fitness. He said very seriously that “Brazilians could swim in excrement and still emerge unscathed”. Gutter language is his style. 

In a major speech on 24 March, Bolsonaro claimed that Brazil was not particularly vulnerable to the virus. Unlike feeble Italy, with its “ large number of elderly people” contemporary Brazil, he argued,” has everything, yes, everything to be a great nation” He then touted his own ‘athlete’s history’. 

According to studies made by University of Sao Paulo, the country may already have the most corona virus cases in the world. The number of cases could be as high as 1.6 million, more than that of US. But the testing in Brazil is minimal due to lack of federal government support and coordination and the negative attitude of President Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro attacks the media day in and day out. He barks at journalists using the language of street thugs when they ask questions. Taking the cue from him, his supporters physically attack journalists in the rallies in which he is present. In December last year he told a journalist, “you have a terribly gay face”. He told another reporter to “ ask your mother about your father”. There is no limit to his vulgarity and crudeness.

At the same time he and his sons are spreading fake news and false information using the social media. These became unacceptable even for Facebook and Twitter which had removed some of their postings. The prosecutors are investigating the illegal fake news campaigns of Bolsonaro sons.

Bolsonaro attacks the Congress and the Judiciary during his media interactions and speeches to his followers. He incites his followers who shout anti-democratic slogans and call for return to military dictatorship  as was there in 1964-85. Such an open call for military dictatorship in a protest in the presence of President Bolsonaro in front of the army headquarters had alerted the Attorney General who is examining the incident and its implications. The Defence Ministry had issued a statement on 4 May saying that the armed forces are dedicated to their constituitional mission and democracy.

What is the priority of President Bolsonaro? Family First. Yes, protecting and promoting family interests. Earlier this month, he fired the Federal Police chief and appointed a family friend to that post to prevent the ongoing criminal investigations against his sons and allies for murder, money laundering and illegal social media disinformation campaigns. But his Justice Minister Sergio Moro revolted and resigned after publicly accusing Bolsonaro of criminal obstruction of justice. The Supreme court intervened and voided Bolsonaro’s appointment. Retreating, he has now proposed another family friend. The Supreme Court has authorised federal police and prosecutors to start  investigations on the basis of Moro’s charges against Bolsonaro. The Association of members of the Federal Police has sent a letter to President Bolsonaro to “ keep (the constituitionally required) distance” and not interfere in the day to day work of the Chief of the Federal Police to maintain objectivity and public confidence. 

Last year, Bolsonaro wanted to make his son as ambassador to US with the argument that ‘his son and Trump’s son are friends’. But fortunately, he was prevented by the public outcry against this blatant nepotism. 

Besides breaking the country internally with his polarizing hate speeches, Bolsonaro and his clan continue to burn the external bridges with the world. He had insulted personally the wife of the French President. He has made disparaging remarks against Alberto Fernandez, President of Argentina, the most important partner in the neighbourhood. He had provoked China by visiting Taiwan during his campaign. Last month, Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo (who is a kind of super foreign minister) antagonized China with a tweet criticizing lack of democracy and transparency in China and its faulty handling of the virus. The Chinese embassy counterattacked him with unprecedented undiplomatic language, saying that he had contracted a “mental virus” while in the United States. It went on, “Sadly, you are a person without any international vision or common sense. We suggest you don’t rush to become the U.S. spokesman in Brazil”. Some state governors and exporters apologized to the ambassador of China, the largest destination of Brazil’s exports and the largest trade partner. Some state governors were seeking Chinese assistance for supply of masks, protective gear, ventilators.

Bolsonaro’s ministers are competing with each other to impress the boss with their own incendiary writings and statements. Foreign Minister Araujo wrote an intellectual article articulating his new theory that the “pandemic could be a global project to transform the world into a concentration camp and impose communism via the Comunavirus”. 

 Education Minister Weintraub had issued a tweet using sarcastic Chinese accent saying  that the corona virus would serve the interests of China. The Chinese ambassador called him as a racist. The Supreme Court has ordered an investigation into the Minister’s action.

In the last sixteen months, the Bolsonaro administration has managed to spoil the good image assiduously built over the years by the professional Brazilian diplomats. He has shocked the world with his bigotry on global environmental concerns. Brazil stands today totally isolated in Latin America in contrast to the leadership role it enjoyed during President Lula’s time. Brazil voted against a UN General Assembly resolution of 20 April which sought international cooperation to ensure global access to medicines and vaccines to deal with Covid19, cosponsored by 179 countries. This is ironical given the fact that Brazil had lead the fight of the developing world for access to affordable HIV/AIDS medicines successfully even going to the brave extent of breaking some international patents. Recently Brazil had voted against a resolution on Palestine, as a sign of solidarity with US. This has surprised and alienated the members of the developing world even more.

The only bridge Bolsonaro has built is a wrong bridge…with President Trump, his role model. But this is a temporary and unsustainable one. He wanted total alignment of Brazil’s foreign policy with that of Trump. But the Itamaraty (foreign office) and the military have restrained the president. He wanted to shift the embassy to Jerusalem. Again, the decision was not allowed to be implemented.

Most people voted for Bolsonaro in 2018, outraged against the corruption scandals involving the Workers Party and other mainstream political parties and leaders. It was an anti-incumbency vote. Bolsonaro benefitted from the giant anti-status quo wave. Many of those who voted for him regret their decision now. The victims and families of covid19 are horrified by his inhuman approach. Some people had hoped that power and prestige as president might make him moderate and pragmatic. They are disillusioned to see that he has become worse and even more dangerous by inciting anti-democratic attacks from the Presidential palace. Many of whom voted for him, are now banging pots and pans yelling “Bolsonaro out” whenever Bolsonaro comes on the TV.  They are afraid that the longer Bolsonaro continues as president, there will be more deaths and damage to the country. 

While Bolsonaro preaches against social distancing, sensible and respected politicians, businessmen, civil society leaders and professionals keep a long distance from him considering him as more toxic than the corona virus. He does not have the support of any significant political party. He has moved from one fringe party to another eight times so far. During his Presidential campaign he was member of the Social Liberal Party. He left this party in November 2019 over dispute on control of campaign funds. Thereafter he formed his own party called as the Alliance for Brazil with himself as president and his son as vice president. But it does not have any recognizable leaders except for his family and friends.

The Congress has already received at least two dozen impeachment petitions. The Congress had impeached President Dilma Rouseff in 2016 for a simple budget manipulation. This is nothing in comparison to Bolsonaro who has in his hand the blood of thousands who have died due to his commissions and omissions. However, the lobbies of Bullets, Beef and Bible (evangelicals) in the Congress are supporting him in order to make use of him to advance their own partisan agenda. Some other legislators are willing to support him on the calculation that this is the best time to bargain for favours from him in return for support. 

Rodrigo Maia, the president of the Lower House of the Congress tweeted,”The whole world is united in the fight against the corona virus. In Brazil, we have to fight against the corona virus and the virus of authoritarianism”. Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso has cautioned that Bolsonaro’s authoritarian impulses could lead to a military dictatorship. This is dangerous for the young Brazilian democracy which was restored from military dictatorship in 1985.

The number of infections has crossed 190,000 and deaths over 13000 as on 14 May. Clearly, the Bolsonaro virus has become a greater threat for Brazil than the Corona virus. 

An edited version of this appeared in The Week Magazine on 14 May
https://www.theweek.in/theweek/more/2020/05/14/far-right-far-wrong.html