Open Forum
New Delhi, 9 July 2010
Dealing With Maoist
Challenge
NOT BY FORCE &
DEVELOPMENT ALONE
By Balraj Puri
(Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs)
“Army Headquarters
have drawn up a plan to keep about 50,000 soldiers in readiness to help
civilian authorities deal with the growing Naxal threat,” reported a newspaper
on 18 June. Initially, the Army and the Air Chiefs were opposed to any
intervention despite the massacre of 76 security forces in Dantewada,
Chhattisgarh. But the game and thinking changed when 148 innocent people were
slaughter by Maoists in the Jnaneshwari Express in West
Bengal’s Midnapur district.
After meeting the Union Home Minister Chidambaram on 28 May, the Army
and Air Chiefs finalised their action plan “to meet any emergency in
anti-Naxalite operation beyond the present training, surveillance and
logistical support”.
Originally, the emphasis of anti-Maoist operations was on
strengthening security forces—adequate training, particularly in jungle warfare
of the CRPF jawans, to equip them with better weapons, improve their knowledge
about local terrain and better intelligence. Particularly, as Maoists influence
has expanded in 220 tribal districts from Andhra to Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra,
Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal
constituting as the Prime Minister said, “the greatest security threat”. They
have established contacts with ULFA and other insurgents in North-East.
Importantly, the rapid expansion of the area and influence
of the Maoists is due to the increasing alienation of the tribals. Thus, more
than use of technology and arms in the war against the Maoists, the State has to
enjoy popular support.
In her essay “Working with the Comrades” Arundati Roy,
described the large scale devastation and displacement caused by multinationals
companies on land leased for mining and other projects. She averred, “How a Government
that professed its inability to resettle even a fraction of the 50 million
people displaced by what it called development was able to identify 1,40,000
hectares of prime land to give to industrialists for more than 300 special
economic zones.”
These include mineral projects with high quality iron ore in Chhattisgarh and
Jharkhand, $4 trillion worth bauxite in Orissa and 28 others in various parts
of the tribal belt called the Maoists’ corridor. Add to this, power plants, steel
and cement factories, dams, highways and infrastructure projects. Leading the
displaced tribals’ desperately asserting, “jaan
denge per zameen nahin denge.”
Specially, as the three tribal-dominated States account for
70% of India’s
coal reserves, 80% of high grade iron ore and almost 100% of its chromate
reserves. Of the 50 mineral producing districts almost half are tribal. Taking
note of this, the Prime Minister stated recently, “We cannot overlook the fact
that many areas in which extremism flourishes are under-developed and tribals
have not shared the benefits of development”. His advice: fight Naxals with
development.
The Ramchandran report, too has recommended the Government
refrain from signing more MoUs with corporates for ventures in the tribal
areas. It impressed that the Centre and States respect tribal rights and desist
from rampant industrialization.
According to a Planning Commission task force report which covers 33 Maoist-hit
districts the expenditure for rural development, road connectivity and health
is a measly 30-40% of the allocated funds in these districts. Adding, “Not a
single claim of the tribals over land has been entertained under the Forest Rights
Act in Dantewada and the entire district had just three doctors.”
However, the tribal woes don’t end there. Drawing a
distinction between development and exploitation, former Bastar SC/ST
Commissioner B D Sharma, in an open letter to the President wrote, “To call the
tribals poor, hurts the simple people to the core as they are super-sensitive
about their “honour”. They are deprived and disinherited in their own domain….have
no place for their community and its customs and tradition, its unwritten laws
of their village Republics.”
Sharma insisted the Government accept that the resources belong to the tribals.
This is underscored by the Constitution’s Fifth Schedule which reads: Resources
in Tribal areas belong to the tribals. The 1995 Bhuria Commission also recommended
that for industries in tribal areas, 50% of the ownership remain with the
community, 20% with the landowner and only 30% with the investor.
Alongside, is the question of tribal identity, their ethnicity, culture and way
of life. Importantly, development at the cost of cultural and ethnic identity
becomes counter- productive. It is no substitute for the joy tribals get in
their music, dances and fairs which needs to be preserved from the threat of
films and other modern entertainment. In fact, the process of modernisation
should incorporate tribal culture and thus help in preserving them.
Already a fierce debate is going on between orthodox Marxists, mainly belonging
to Andhra’s People’s War Group which pioneered the Maoist movement (now
declining) and the more pragmatic cadres in Central and East
India on class vs.
caste/ethnicity. The lesson of West Bengal is
particularly relevant in this context.
Recall, the Left Front, led by late CPM leader Jyoti Basu, came to power and
maintained its popular base for over three decades on the basis of its
progressive programme on radical land reform and appeal of Bengali nationalism
and identity vis-à-vis authority of
Indian nationalism. Notwithstanding, being a Bhadralok Bengali front.
However, gradually, the momentum of radical land reforms
started declining and the lower castes, Dalits, Muslims, tribals and other
non-Bengalis began started asserting themselves. The regimented system, where
local bodies were instruments in the hands of the State Government controlled
by CPM cadres rather than instruments of local self- Government, blocked
avenues of dissent.
At the same time on cannot ignore the fact that Maoist activities were not only
confined to brutal violence. At some places they had not only undertaken relief
and welfare work but also opened dispensaries and schools where none existed.
In Bankura, for instance, they are running a school.
In addition, the role of interlocutors should not be dismissed. Not to reach an
agreement between the Government and the Maoists but to understand them. The extremists are willing to talk with Trimamool
MP Kabir Suman, Arundati Roy, and Sharma. Ramachandran, who enquired into the
security aspect of the Dantewada tragedy, has welcomed the role of civil rights
activists in dealing with the Maoists.
Recently the Gandhi Peace Foundation, Sarvodya Mandal and Harijan Sevak Samaj
leaders led a 540 km cycle yatra
through Jhargram, Binpur, Lalgarh, Devda, Panskura, Barkhpur in West Bengal. The Chancellor of Gandhi Vidya Peath Gujarat
Narayan Desai along-with other Gandhian leaders, academicians, social
activists, journalists and advocates held a Peace March in Bastar.
In sum, it is not a question of being pro or anti-Maoists.
It is an issue of understanding all the aspects of the Maoist phenomenon, the
threat it entails and all possible means of dealing with it.
Let us explore the possibility of accommodating Maoists as a
radical Party. Given that, India
is the first country in the world where a Communist Party opted for the Parliamentary
form of governance and came to power through election in West
Bengal and Kerala. The door should be kept open to accommodate the
CPI (Maoist) as another Communist Party, like the CPI, CPM and CPI (M-L). Albeit taking all precautions that it does not
threaten the basis of Indian democracy. ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|