Maoist killed, two CRPF personnel injured in Jharkhand

A Maoist was killed and four men, including two CRPF personnel, were injured in a fierce gunbattle between security forces and Naxalites at Bandu village in West Singhbhum district today. “The encounter broke out when the Maoists opened fire on a CRPF team. In the return fire, a Maoist was shot dead, and two Maoists were wounded,” West Singhbhum Superintendent of Police, Akhilesh Jha, told reporters here. Two CRPF personnel were also injured, with one suffering bullet wounds in his hand and another in his foot, he said, adding they have been admitted to a hospital in Chakradharpur. The CRPF personnel were patrolling near Bandua when the Maoists started firing at them.

(http://www.ptinews.com/news/622285_Maoist-killed–two-CRPF-personnel-injured-in-Jharkhand  23/04/10, Press trust of India)

PM shows the way

It is not a mutually exclusive choice between use of force and development when it comes to combating Maoists — so said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, rather, the strategy must have both prongs. This might appear a truism, so apparent as to merit no specific mention. But coming as it does in the midst of a raging debate in the polity on the right way to take on the challenge of Maoist insurgency, this unambiguous assertion by Dr Singh has tremendous significance. It gives clarity as to the political direction of the government on tackling the country’s biggest internal security threat.

Further, it constitutes a clear sighted intervention in a debate within the top echelons of the ruling party, which, shorn of certain personal references that did serve to draw much-needed public attention but equally lacked grace, is about alternative policy choices. And, at an operational level, the PM’s observation calls for some policy innovation to carry out this mandate to proceed on both fronts, policing and development. While it has been easy to caricature the strategy followed by the home ministry under Mr P Chidambaram as the GI Joe way, the ministry has an accompanying agenda of development for the areas freed from the Maoists, as home secretary Gopal K Pillai told this paper (ET, Apr 19).

However, what the home ministry can mobilise best is the policing part of the job. The rest is up essentially to state governments, whose job it is to deliver functional governance, generate investment and trigger growth. The Union home ministry cannot ordain a surge of kinetic energy in habitually supine state administrations. That is something that only the political leadership can tackle. However, the home minister is not just any functionary of the ministry; he is one of the senior-most political leaders of the ruling party of the country. Has he summoned that authority to mobilise at least his own party, if not the citizenry in general, to implement some key centrally-funded schemes with mass participation to ensure efficacy, create political agency and marginalise the votaries of insurgency? Clearly not. The PM spoke to civil servants, but his message is to his party leadership as well.

(http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/editorial/PM-shows-the-way/articleshow/5846752.cms  23/04/10, Economic Times)

‘Broiler murga’ CRPF soft targets for Naxals

The incidents of firing by Maoists at three CRPF camps, two police stations and a Salwah Judum camp in Dantewada two days ago is nothing but the ‘mental disintegration’ tactics used by Australian cricket team against opponents. It was Steve Waugh’s side which used to incite and irritate rivals to lure them into a trap before crushing them. After killing 76 jawans, the Naxals are playing mind games with the security forces, especially the CRPF, with their hit-and-run tactics. Again, like the Aussies, the Naxals targeted the ‘captain’ — former director general of police for BSF EN Rammohan who has been appointed by Union home minister P Chidambaram to carry out a probe. The team was fired at as they were heading to the ambush site on Tuesday.

The Maoists consider the CRPF as a soft target. Their personnel have been deployed in large numbers in Naxal-hit states. As the Tarmetola tragedy proved, the Naxals are clearly enjoying the upper hand against the CRPF. Security personnel informed TOI that the Naxals term CRPF as ‘‘broiler murga (hen)” in Chhattisgarh. “Like the hens, CRPF patrol in big clusters. Attacking such a big group and finishing them off is easy for the Maoists,” a Chhattisgarh police said. “More often than not, the coordination is poor between state police and paramilitary forces at the ground level. There are ego clashes and other complexities dampening the spirit and there is none to bridge the gap,” he added. Before bring the opponents down on their knees, the Aussies would poke at their confidence. After Tuesday’s firing, the CRPF at Dantewada has been pushed on the backfoot. After the Tarmetola incident, there is also widespread discontentment in the rank and file of the CRPF.

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Broiler-murga-CRPF-soft-targets-for-Naxals/articleshow/5846754.cms  23/04/10, The Times of India)

PC to meet Naxal-hit states’ CMs

In a move aimed at expanding political support for the government’s anti-Naxal strategy, Home Minister P. Chidambaram has convened a meeting of MPs representing the 34 worst affected Naxal districts. This is the first time that the government has recognised the political representatives of Naxal-affected districts as stakeholders, who could play a role in the government’s strategy. A home ministry official said the meeting has been tentatively fixed for April 30. The decision to treat the MPs as stakeholders comes days after Chidambaram told MPs about the inability of the states to utilise additional funds earmarked for districts that have lagged behind. The Centre monitors the expenditure at different levels, from the Planning Commission secretary Sudha Pillai to the special task force headed by Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar.

The 34 districts include 10 in Jharkhand and seven including Dantewada in Chhattisgarh. Taking a position diametrically opposite to that of his former party BJP, K.N. Govindacharya said on Thursday that anti-poor policies of the state were responsible for the Naxal problem. “Naxalism is not a problem in itself but is a reaction to an insensitive and non-performing state,” he said. “Important persons seated in power like the Chhattisgarh chief minister, Home minister P. Chidambaram and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are culprits responsible for the killings of nearly 76 CRPF men in Dantewada region. This act of ambush is no terrorism. It’s to be understood that nearly 1,000 locals implemented the ambush of which most of them were poor citizens of the locality.”

(http://www.hindustantimes.com/special-news-report/rssfeed/PC-to-meet-Naxal-hit-states-CMs/Article1-534703.aspx  23/04/10, Hindustan Times)

IED defused near school building

A major tragedy was today averted when a powerful IED, detected by a patrolling police party near a higher secondary school in Anantnag district of south Kashmir, was defused, officials said. The IED, weighing five kgs, was planted near the boundary wall of Government Higher Secondary School at Shangus, 70 kms from here, they said. The device was later defused by the bomb disposal squad.

(http://www.ptinews.com/news/620895_IED-defused-near-school-building  22/04/10, Press Trust of India)

India, Pakistan leaders should meet to resolve Kashmir issue: Mufti

Peoples Democratic Party patron and former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed is hopeful that the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan will hold meet during the upcoming South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit and has urged them to resume bilateral talks to resolve the Kashmir issue. “We hope that in the upcoming South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit, once again after New York both the leaders will get an opportunity to meet. We, on the behalf of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, request them to discuss the Kashmir issue in a substantive manner,” said Mufti Mohammad Sayeed on Thursday in a press conference.

The SAARC summit is scheduled to be held on April 28-29 in Bhutan. India suspended talks with Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks in November 26, 2008 and senior diplomats held their first official dialogue in February, although no breakthrough emerged. The PDP leader Sayeed also said that peace could not exist in Kashmir without dialogue between India and Pakistan. “Till the time the Kashmir issue is not resolved with Pakistan, then lasting peace is not possible here,” he said.

(http://news.oneindia.in/2010/04/22/indiapakistan-leaders-should-meet-to-resolve-kashmiris.html  22/04/10, One India News)

US names six markets in Delhi in new terror advisory

The US embassy and High Commissions of the UK, Canada and Australia have issued advisories to their citizens warning them of possible terrorist attacks at places frequented by foreigners in Delhi. The US, UK and Australian advisories mentioned Chandni Chowk, Connaught Place, Greater Kailash, Karol Bagh, Mehrauli and Sarojini Nagar as “especially attractive targets for terrorist groups”. The Canadian advisory urged its citizens to “exercise a high degree of caution in market areas of Delhi frequented by foreigners, specifically in the Chandni Chowk area in Old Delhi”. The US, UK and Canada advisories were updated yesterday; the Australian advisory was “reviewed and reissued” today. The British, Canadian and Australian advisories said overall level of security advice for India had not been raised from the “high level of caution”.

Ministry of Home Affairs spokesperson Onkar Kedia said, “We are aware of the advisory. We have alerted the Delhi Police. All necessary steps are being taken.” The police declined to comment on the advisories, but said “elaborate arrangements” had been made to secure the Capital. “We have made elaborate arrangements to handle any kinds of terror activities. We are constantly on vigil and have no comments to make on such advisories,” said Rajan Bhagat, Delhi Police spokesperson. Sources in the Home Ministry said the US intelligence liaison had passed on intelligence to their Indian counterparts on April 20, saying the Lashkar-e-Toiba would target Chandni Chowk. The intelligence, which did not specify the time or method of the terror attack, was based on intercepts of communication between jehadis in Pakistan.

Two months ago, the Americans had passed on intelligence that the Al Qaeda might target Gujarat, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, following which the state governments had been alerted at the highest levels, the sources said. The US advisory — an update on an April 16 advisory, specifying potential targets — said: “There are increased indications that terrorists are planning attacks in New Delhi… Markets, such as those located in Chandni Chowk, Connaught Place, Greater Kailash, Karol Bagh, Mehrauli and Sarojini Nagar can be especially attractive targets for terrorist groups.”

The UK and Australian advisories were nearly identical. Officers in police stations in the vicinity of the named targets confirmed security had been beefed up. An officer at the Sarojini Nagar police station said, “We have 25 CCTV cameras in the market and efforts are on to ensure people enter and exit through the installed metal detectors. Routine checks are being conducted by the Bomb Disposal Squad and shop owners are being sensitized about a possible strike. A Red Cross team is standing by in case of an attack.” Officers at Lajpat Nagar police station said vigilance has been increased at the market, and ground patrolling has been stepped up. Additional Deputy Commissioner of police (South-East) Sanjay Jain said, “There is always an extra constant vigil in busy market areas like Lajpat Nagar and Nehru Place.”

(http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-names-six-markets-in-delhi-in-new-terror-advisory/610277/1  23/04/10, Indian Express)

Gallows for Lajpat Nagar bombers

Three members of the Jammu and Kashmir Front — Mirza Nissar Hussain, Mohammad Naushad and Mohammad Ali Bhatt — found guilty in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast of 1996, have been sentenced to death. Giving his verdict, district and sessions judge S P Garg termed the bomb blast as a “well planned operation” and a crime against society and added that the convicted deserved no leniency. “The apparent motive of the convicts was to inflict maximum casualties. It was not mere a desperate act of a small group of persons…convicts took an active part in series of steps taken to pursue the object of the conspiracy.” Thirteen persons were killed and 39 injured in the blast that took place on the evening of May 2, 1996, in the busy central market area of Lajpat Nagar.

Awarding life imprisonment to another convict and jail terms of seven years and 50 months, respectively, to two other convicts, the court said: “The gravity of the crime conceived by the convicts with potential for causing enormous casualties as well as disrupting normal life of the people is something which cannot be described in words.” The court handed down life imprisonment to Javed Ahmed Khan, the fourth convict held guilty for murder. A fine of Rs.35,000 was also imposed on him. Separatists in Srinagar called for a strike and protests after hearing the verdict. Mirza Nissar Hussain and Mohammad Ali Bhatt are from the state.

Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umer Farooq termed the verdict as “revenge” and called for a Kashmir wide strike on Friday. It also called for peaceful protests after the Friday prayers. Syed Ali Shah Geelani and many other separatists said they would chalk out the course of action on Friday. Terming the verdict as “most unfortunate”, PDP president Mehbooba Mufti said, “Kashmir is an unresolved political problem and such tragedies flow out of the inability of India and Pakistan to resolve this six decade old tragedy.” She said that Lajpat Nagar case is not the first in the long story of bloodshed associated with Kashmir problem but looking at this problem purely on technical and legal level would only add to the ‘trouble’.

(http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Gallows-for-Lajpat-Nagar-bombers/articleshow/5846525.cms  23/04/10, Economic Times)

Peace, Not Partition

While it is imperative for India’s well-being that we seek a peaceful resolution of our long-standing conflict with Pakistan without resort to war, it is equally important that we do not make peace with the ideology that created Pakistan through India’s bloody partition in 1947. That would mean accepting the perverse notion that Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist peacefully within the same nation and society. Pakistan can afford to hold tight to that destructive ideology because it allowed a near-total ethnic cleansing of Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities at the time of partition. But Mahatma Gandhi and his colleagues had the good sense to avoid making India a mirror image of Pakistani state and society.

The core issue for Pakistan is Kashmir. But the core issue for India is not just terrorism but protecting our pluralist democracy. Kashmir is not mere territory to be kept under Indian jurisdiction at all costs. But we cannot accept the Pakistani agenda because that would mean accepting the logic of partition: that within the territory of each arbitrarily carved out nation state, every ethnic majority of its region is entitled to subjugate, eliminate or push out a minority. That will push us to the inexorable logic of a nation state where tragedy after tragedy of ethnic cleansing, murderous riots and political chaos overtakes its democratic and secular character.

As long as the subcontinent’s Hindus and Muslims believed they were two religious-cultural communities living and sharing a common soil, they could easily work out decent norms for co-living on the basis of other common layers of identity such as language, village and culture. But once the corrosive power of ethnic nationalism invaded us from Europe in the late-19th and early-20th century, religious differences began to be dragged into the realm of politics for mobilising communal monoliths. Once a group begins to subjugate its multi-layered identities in favour of one single voracious identity, especially if that identity is acquired politically and asserted as a nationality primarily in opposition to some other group, rather than used for self expression and internal cultural bonding, it becomes a sure recipe for civil strife and inter-group enmity.

Muslim politics in the subcontinent moved through distinct phases in the 20th century. It started with Sir Syed Ahmed describing Hindus and Muslims as the “two eyes of Bharat Mata”. Thereafter, it moved on to dealing with power imbalances within the framework of sibling relationships with Hindus described as elder brothers who needed to take the extra step to accommodate the aspirations of their younger Muslims brothers. It required the genius of Iqbal and Jinnah to convince themselves and their followers that “the two eyes of Bharat Mata” were actually two irreconcilable nationalities.

Iqbal, the leading brain behind the idea of Pakistan, had in his early years composed many a beautiful verse in praise of the composite culture of Hindustan. His famous poem, ‘Sare jahan se achchha Hindustan hamara’ evokes a sentimental image of Hindus and Muslims singing joyously together in the same gulistan (garden). However, he rejected Indian nationalism after returning from Europe in 1908 and became obsessed with forging Muslim solidarity as a distinct ‘nationality’. His demand for Pakistan was based on the head-counting majoritarian principle imbibed from Europe.

Jinnah succeeded in convincing a section of Muslims that they were a monolithic community incapable of peaceful coexistence with Hindus. Consequently, millions were uprooted from their homes and the land they considered their own. The logic of majoritarianism identifying a group by certain objective characteristics, and then claiming the right to drive them out or subjugate them as a hated minority is inherently arbitrary and divisive.

The Pakistani claim to Kashmir rests on the assumption that Muslim-majority J&K should become part of Pakistan. Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment has a deep vested interest in keeping the Kashmir issue on permanent boil to destroy India’s pluralist democracy. Jihadi rhetoric and the politics that goes with it allow them to keep their people in a permanent state of frenzy, overshadowing important issues related to internal politics and government accountability, thus allowing Pakistan’s army an excessively prominent role in the political, administrative, cultural and even religious life of the country. If Pakistanis see Hindus and Muslims live peacefully in India, they are bound to question the need for partition.

The inability of Pakistan-inspired secessionists to carry even a token minority of Kashmiri Pandits of the Valley, Buddhists of Ladakh, Dogras, Gujjars, Sikhs and other minorities of J&K, along with them, shows that the slogan of “azadi” is not proof of their democratic credentials. It is only a cover for the Pakistani agenda of forcing yet another partition on the basis of religion. This ideology leads a section of Hindus to believe that if Muslims cannot coexist peacefully with them in areas where Muslims are a majority, why should Hindus be forced to live with Muslims where Hindus are a majority? Why should there be plebiscite only in Kashmir? Why not all over India? But that would mean India becoming another Pakistan a fate we should avoid at all costs for it means destroying the core values of our culture and civilisation.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi.

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Peace-Not-Partition/articleshow/5844970.cms  23/04/10, The Times of India)

Heading For A Bloodbath

Both sides — the Maoists and the State — are waging a dirty war. Between ‘the violence of the oppressed’ and an often brutal state, a powerful intervention spelling out a practical basis for a durable ceasefire remains elusive.

Rohini Hensman

To people desperately trying to avert a bloodbath in the forest belt, the recent PUDR statement on the massacre of 76 CRPF jawans in Dantewada caused considerable consternation, and Sumanta Banerjee’s response to it even more so. According to the PUDR statement, ‘As a civil rights organization we neither condemn the killing of security force combatants nor that of the Maoists combatants, or for that matter any other combatants, when it occurs’.

Sumanta Banerjee objected to the equating of Maoist violence and state violence, saying that ‘these soldiers, by being cannon-fodders of the Indian state, however tragic it might be, suffered the fate that – I’m sorry to say – they deserved…To come back to the latest incident of the Maoist attack on the CRPF camp in Chhattisgarh…. if we accept it as a part of a civil war, such killings are inevitable (just as the CRPF killings of Maoists) in a violent system that has been institutionalized by the Indian state. The difference between the CRPF violence (involving ‘false encounters’, raping of tribal women, burning their homes, etc.) on the one hand, and the Maoist violence on the other (which means attacks on oppressive landlords and the police and para-military forces like the CRPF which come to the aid of the landlords) – has to be distinguished by civil society groups’

Both the statement and the response assume that a civil war is already in progress, and therefore the killing of combatants is not illegal. But given the Centre’s decision not to send in the Army and Air Force, thereby implicitly recognising the conflict as a law and order problem rather than a civil war, is this assumption correct? Shouldn’t democratic rights activists examine the impact of escalating the conflict on the local civilian population? After the attack, villages close to it emptied, as their inhabitants fled fearing reprisals. This could have been foreseen. Is provoking such ‘collateral damage’ justifiable? Moreover, the deaths of rank-and-file combatants, all of whom come from the poorer strata of society, are surely also of some concern to civil society groups? 

In its other statements, PUDR accepts that even in a civil war the combatants have to abide by the laws of war. Therefore it condemned the beheading of Francis Induwar and the massacre of civilians by Maoists in Jamui in February. By contrast, Banerjee assumes that all Maoist violence is justifiable as the violence of the oppressed. Yet it is not clear that state and Maoist violence are so different, apart from the larger scale of the former. There are, of course, many examples of state security forces carrying out encounter killings for every case like that of Induwar, and massacres of civilians by security forces (as in Gompad) are also routine. Even if it is true that a full-fledged war is going on, these are war crimes. So is the recruitment of children, which both sides are doing in Bastar. Transfer of population from their villages to camps (which state forces have carried out in parts of Chhattisgarh) is a war crime or crime against humanity, as is rape, which has been used widely by the security forces in many states. Both sides are waging a dirty war, if war is what it is. 

Who started it? According to the Maoists and their supporters, their violence is merely a response to state violence; according to Home Minister P.Chidambaram, it was the Maoists who first declared war on the state. But here, too, the situation is not as clearcut as either side would like to present it. Spokesmen of the Maoist leadership (and they are always men) use some degree of subterfuge in presenting their case. For example, in the recent interview given by Azad to The Hindu, he claimed that Lalgarh’s peaceful mass movement against police atrocities turned into a revolutionary armed struggle due to brutal suppression by the state. But this is a travesty of the truth. In fact, the non-violent uprising organised by the People’s Committee against Police Atrocities, a mass organisation including Maoists but not confined to them, was undermined when the Maoists started beating and killing tribals who failed to comply with their orders, and it was only when they sidelined the PCPA and announced that they had taken over the area that the state government, which had been kept at bay for seven months, moved in. Furthermore, in the very same interview Azad said that ‘we want to achieve whatever is possible for the betterment of people’s lives without compromising on our political programme of new democratic revolution and strategy of protracted people’s war’. This merely confirms, as other Maoists have affirmed, that protracted people’s war to capture state power and carry out a new democratic revolution has been the strategy from the beginning, when the Naxalites began their struggles. So it appears that they were the first to declare war. 

Yet this view is also too simple, because it conflates the leadership of the party and its tribal cadre. For the leaders, it is true, protracted war was the strategy all along, it was not a matter of self-defence. But for the bulk of the tribal cadre that joined it, taking up guns was a response to experiences of horrific state violence, and motivated by self-defence and/or revenge. There is a short-term overlap between their aim of fighting against state oppression and the leadership’s aim of overthrowing the state, but the longer-term goals diverge sharply. This comes out clearly in Santosh Rana’s account as well as the Tehelka interview with Gurucharan Kisku, alias Marshall, a former tribal Maoist area commander. Kisku described how

‘Instead of the existing gram samitis (village councils), the party started creating alternative committees within the village consisting of people who were either close to or members of the party. The party’s declared objective was that all activity — social, cultural and economic — would be controlled by these committees. However, the leadership is non-tribal, and does not understand what it means to be Adivasi. The Adivasi identity is based on our village life, language and customs. I felt that this way, our culture was being destroyed.’

He felt the whole strategy was wrong from the standpoint of Adivasis, but could not make his view prevail; indeed, ‘Whenever a tribal raises his voice against the Maoists, he is killed,’ he complained. It is very likely that the vast majority of tribal cadre, like Kisku, have no interest in capturing state power to carry out a new democratic revolution. From their point of view, it was the state that first declared war on them and pushed them into the ranks of the Maoists.  

The accounts by Rana and Kisku are valuable because they come from the perspective of insiders. They make it clear that there is no semblance of democracy in the areas controlled by the CPI (Maoist). All mass organisations are dominated by the party, with independent organisations and committees either being taken over or shut down. All dissent is crushed, if necessary by killing the dissenter. There is no freedom of association or expression, no room for alternative viewpoints or democratic debate, no means by which the leaders can be changed or replaced. This is the authoritarian vision that the party seeks to impose on its base areas in the tribal belt in the first instance, and then extend to the whole of India; the disconnect between precept and practice is even greater than that between the Indian Constitution and its persistent violation by the state. It is hard to see why anyone would choose this over India’s deeply flawed but vibrant democracy, with its multiple parties and innumerable non-party organisations, and differences of opinion at all levels (including within the cabinet) being aired in public. 

In terms of the party’s economic policy, this has been described in many pronouncements, including that of General Secretary Ganapathy in a recent interview. The party is committed to bringing about a New Democratic Revolution by a four-class bloc – workers, peasants, urban petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie – against comprador bureaucratic capitalism, feudalism and imperialism. These formulations are lifted from Mao’s essay ‘On New Democracy’, which was written in 1940, at a time when a large part of China was occupied by Japan and the Western powers were jockeying for spheres of influence (hence ‘semi-colonial’), capitalist industry was in its infancy and the working class minuscule, and pre-capitalist relations dominated the countryside (hence ‘semi-feudal’). It was basically a prescription for a bourgeois revolution to be carried out by the four-class bloc under the leadership of the Communist Party. Agrarian revolution was aimed at breaking the power of feudal landlords and creating conditions for the development of a rich peasantry, and all this was expected to result in a mixed economy. Mao made it clear this was not a proletarian-socialist revolution. The Chinese Revolution was that country’s equivalent of Indian independence, carried out under different circumstances and by different means. Today, the bourgeois revolutions in both China and India have been carried out, people in both countries are struggling for democratic rights, and India is arguably ahead, in that democracy is formally accepted as the principle of governance even if it is repeatedly violated. For China in the 1940s New Democracy was a revolutionary programme, but for India in 2010 it is reactionary: for example, the ‘national bourgeoisie’ with which the CPI (Maoist) is allied includes the most viciously exploitative, oppressive and environmentally destructive capitalists to be found anywhere in the world

This doctrine of New Democracy has few takers, certainly not enough to wage a protracted armed struggle. But the state governments in this region and their police, along with the central government and its paramilitaries, are guilty of acting as recruiting agents for the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army by their criminal neglect of the Adivasis in the forest belt resulting in appalling levels of poverty, malnutrition, sickness and premature death, by displacing and dispossessing these communities of even the meagre resources left to them, by responding to non-violent resistance with torture, rape and murder, and by branding non-violent tribal rights activists as ‘Maoists’ and jailing or killing them. (Binayak Sen is the most famous, but there are thousands of others, including some outside the forest belt in states like Gujarat and Goa.) It is true that the central government has passed progressive legislation – like the Forest Rights Act, NREGA and the Right to Information Act – but there has not been anything like sufficient effort to strengthen these laws and plug loopholes through which corruption can enter, nor to ensure their implementation.  

Although the bulk of resistance remains non-violent, it is not surprising that a small minority of tribals have joined the Maoist armed struggle in the belief that it will get them justice. But in doing so, they betray their own cause. Unarmed civilians have no way of enforcing democratic control over armed forces who claim to act in their interest, and all such armed forces therefore become oppressors. Did the CPI (Maoist) consult villagers in the vicinity before launching its attack on the CRPF in Dantewada? If the majority of villagers had objected, would it have desisted? If the majority had remained silent out of fear and only one or two had objected, what would have happened to them? Why does it sound absurd even to ask these questions? The unarmed communities in the forest belt of central India are trapped in the crossfire of a ‘class war’ over which they have no control. And these communities suffer most from every escalation of the violence. 

Unless there is a powerful intervention that spells out a practical basis for a durable ceasefire, we are almost certainly heading for a bloodbath. The most urgent requirement is that both government and the Maoists should declare a ceasefire which is unconditional on both sides, and then engage in negotiations aimed at arriving at a more permanent compromise. Demands like ‘Abjure violence’ or ‘Withdraw security forces from Maoist base areas’ should be subjects of the negotiations, not preconditions for them. Just as urgently, and regardless of whether or not there are talks between Maoists and the government, the Centre should hold talks with all the numerous independent mass organisations in the region. Their demands – ranging from ration cards, health care, education, electricity and employment under NREGA to halting displacement and dispossession, implementing Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act, disclosing the terms of the MoUs between state governments and various companies, and putting them on hold unless and until they obtain the consent of the local population – should be taken seriously, and immediate steps taken to implement them. There is no excuse for failing to do this, since these demands are all compatible with the legal and constitutional rights of adivasi communities.  

Rohini Hensman is a writer and researcher active in workers’ rights, women’s rights, anti-communal and anti-war movements

(http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265184  22/04/10, Outlook India)