Sunday Reading

New Delhi, 25 February 2010

Countering Maoists

STATESMANSHIP MAY HELP

By Dr P K Vasudeva

The Maoist/Naxalite menace appears to be a far more serious and complex threat to the country’s democracy than from extremist religious groups. The Maoist movement has got mixed up with some genuine grievances of the tribals, whose cause appeals to a lot of well-meaning people, especially those who are living in shabby and neglected conditions.

Unlike the past, the Maoist/Naxalite movements are now much more integrated, spanning the interconnected forest areas running from the borders of Nepal all the way to Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The radical groups have got control of sophisticated arms procured from our adversaries (neighbouring countries) and are involved in murders, of rival political party members, local government officials and policemen (all considered enemies of the people), looting of banks, commercial establishments and destruction of public property disastrous for the democracy.

They are of the opinion that the tribals have not had their share of the benefits of development. Most of them do not have any legal rights to the land they have been cultivating or living on for centuries. They do not have access to schools, medical services, fair price shops or even safe drinking water. Many still live on gathered forest produce and firewood.

Their deprivation gets magnified when the Government leases out rich mineral resources in the tribal areas to big industrialists. Some fear that industrialisation on these lands and forests (even with reasonable compensation) will deprive the tribals their customary way of life, making them slaves of an industrial society. Their culture and living styles are curbed and to some extent destroyed by the intruders in their society.

One major problem is that the most radical elements may not allow the local administration to enter and pursue the development projects in these areas as any such activity would weaken their case against the present system. Here, the local administration, with the mediation of some NGOs and social activists, will have to strike a deal with the less militant leaders that they will allow government officials to carry out development works without fear in a time-bound manner.

The representatives of the tribals should be part of the local committees who will oversee that the projects are implemented speedily and effectively.  The threat of an impending all-out armed offensive against the Maoists may also induce some of the leaders to change track.

A path of armed struggle against the State will mean deaths of thousands of innocent people, as it would be extremely difficult to isolate the innocent from the perpetrators of violence. Thus there would be largescale human rights’ violations, as feared by activists.

However, if the majority of Maoist leaders give up the armed struggle and participate in the development process as responsible leaders of a mass movement in a democratic system, then they may get the satisfaction for having played a historic role in helping the poor. They should remember that even after many decades of Maoism, China has rejected the Maoist path. Additionally, the intellectuals who are sympathetic to the tribal cause, but do not support using the adivasis as canon fodder for the Maoist armed struggle, should impress upon the Maoists to let the development initiatives take place at a fast speed.

The political parties who are being soft on, or ambivalent to, the Maoists should realise that hardcore Maoists do not believe in democracy (however pro-poor or welfare-oriented it may be) and would eventually try to overthrow them by violent means. Marriage of short-term convenience would be a disaster in the long run. The current plight of the Pakistani state, which relied on encouraging militants for short-term gains, is a living example.

Joan Robinson, the noted “Marxist” British economist (who was even sympathetic to Maoist Cultural Revolution at one stage), said: “There is one thing worse than being exploited by capitalists — that is not being exploited at all.”

Intellectuals are the first to come under fire from the political or governing class whenever it finds itself in a critical predicament and desperately needs scapegoats. This inevitably gets him into trouble from both sides of an issue or an argument. Whatever stand he espouses after objectively weighing the pros and cons, he is invariably accused by each side for favouring the other. Such was the lot of intellectuals in Britain and the US during India's freedom struggle, the Vietnam War, the fight for civil rights for the blacks or the invasion of Iraq.

Intellectuals are invariably seen as spoilers, gadflies, thorns in the flesh, and even sympathisers of agitationists, when they stand up for human rights and tolerance of dissent. Hardly has there has been a political or governing dispensation which has taken them as holding a mirror to itself.

It is not surprising in this background to find Union Home Minister, P Chidambaram, bristling at any suggestion by those who care for the nation as much as he does for adopting an empathetic approach to Maoism without blackballing it as an attempt to overthrow the Government. Those spearheading it may well have given this impression, but the Government needs to ask itself why Maoism has been able to expand its support base in so many States in such a short time.

Anyone who lives and moves in villages and among people will find that all state instruments are becoming the armaments of the rich and powerful to deny the legitimate aspirations of the downtrodden. You try as an aam aadmi to get a land right or drinking water supply and see how brutally you are humiliated, harassed, hounded and robbed.

The situation today is further compounded by the want of trust in the Government or representative institutions. Even the judiciary has shaken the people's faith. In olden days, all this would have resulted in a French or a Russian revolution accompanied by a horrendous bloodbath. The manifestation of Maoism is perhaps India's own version of a revolution advancing from district to district.

It cannot be countered by shooting Maoists at sight. The Government should spare no efforts to provide a just, fair, sensitive, effective, honest governance, deal sternly and summarily with the corrupt and the venal, rid legislatures and cabinets of scoundrels and criminals and force officials to behave with humility and in a spirit of service.

As Chidambaram himself used to say, Maoists/Naxalites are not enemies but our own people. Although their methods are abhorrent, they have at least turned the spotlight on the untold hardships and excruciating sufferings of the poor and the vulnerable. Clearly, the Government should not stand on prestige but respond to the Maoist offer of talks by displaying sagacity and statesmanship.--INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)