Certain figures show up the widely varying perceptions between administrative authorities and the people. The Jesuit priest, Stan Swamy, who died in prison waiting for bail, is a striking example. A farmer from Tamil Nadu, engaged in teaching other farmers about sustainable practices and in cooperative watershed development, had wished to erect a pillar on his private land at his own cost in memory of the priest. He was an admirer of Stan Swamy’s work with tribal communities and considered the priest his mentor. The district authorities had forbidden the farmer to build the memorial pillar because Mr Swamy had supposedly associated with Maosists and Naxals. They also claimed that the village in which the farmer would put up the memorial was a hotbed of anti-social elements. The Madras High Court overturned the district authority’s order as improper. Besides, the charges against Mr Swamy had not been proved, hence they were null. Also, there could be no legal objection to a man building a monument on his own land unless it caused conflict or hurt to any community.

In the perception of the district authorities, the priest was marked as ‘anti-social,’ because the government had arrested him in the Bhima-Koregaon case for his alleged link with extremists. Yet it had been found by an American organisation that the so-called evidence had been planted in his computer; this was well-known. The district administration was taking into account only the charge against him and the fact that bail had been refused him at least three times by the lower court and once by the Bombay High Court. The simple legal fact that nothing had been proven against him was ignored. All this reveals the power of State-sponsored labelling; it is difficult to erase. The radical change that came with Independence turned rebels and so-called traitors into heroes. This is a dramatic example of divided perceptions. In Mr Swamy’s case, the opposition is perhaps not so dramatic, but it is a disturbing symptom of a cleavage between the government’s perception and the people’s.

It is telling that a farmer involved with positive agricultural change should see
Mr Swamy as his mentor. It implies his silent dismissal of the government’s charges against him and emphasises his admiration for the priest’s lifelong work for tribal rights. The farmer’s point of view underlines what is important to the people, what they remember about a dedicated person. In contrast, the farmer’s wish to erect a memorial linked him to ‘anti-socials’ in the district administration’s mind. This divide in perceptions is an index of the present distance between the government and the people which is caused by more than just authoritarianism and the tendency to intervene in private or personal spaces. It is more a coercive attitude in which all citizens must comply with the government’s perception of right and wrong. That
is why the government seeks repeatedly to suppress people’s movements
and dissension.