Events & Issues
New Delhi, 23 August 2010
Countering Maoism
FACE HARSH REALITY
By Ashok Kapur IAS (Retd)
Reality must be faced, howsoever harsh. Large swathes of the
countryside, especially in the less developed States have slipped away from the
control of the Government. These are now in the iron grip of extremists aka Naxalites,
Maoists or terrorists. That it has happened right under the nose of the State
highlights the serious nature of the challenge, not only before the Government
but before civil society itself.
Undeniably, these elements are merciless in their methods of
bringing about a “revolution” by attempting to “overthrow” a democratic Government.
But the fact must be conceded that, looking to the scale and the spread of the
insurgency, the leaders of these extremist groups have somehow managed to band
together sections of the local populace. Media reports indicate that a majority
of these extremists are tribals, arguably the most marginalized group in the
country.
The experience of Governments worldwide shows that such
groups are generally led by a few hard-core leaders who then band together
sections of the disaffected populace. The majority are those who feel they are
somehow exploited first by the civil society and then by their gang leaders.
The ideological motivation of band leaders may be strong and unshakeable but
the same may or may not hold true for a majority. It may have been strong for
the majority in those insurgencies where the State was patently exploitative
and repressive, like the Latin American dictatorships of the last century.
In a democratic State like ours, the leaders of the
extremists may be hardened ideologues but the same may not hold true for the
majority of the followers. They are often sucked into the bands either out of
coercion or for the lure of easy money. To paint all of them with the same
ideological brush may be a simplistic explanation which will hinder an
effective solution to the admittedly difficult problem. A strategy has to be
worked out that will wean away the majority from the insurgent group and bring
it back into the mainstream, simultaneously isolating the hardcore leadership.
It would be relevant to note that a similar situation arose
in the North-east during the seventies. Sections of the populace rose in
virtual revolt against the established authority, demanding “independence” from
the Indian Union. The Government’s initial response was the usual stereotype, treat
it as a law and order problem, rush paramilitary forces to the troubled region
to stamp out the “insurgency”. Several hundred people on both sides were
killed. But there was no let-up in violence.
A policy of “bullet for bullet” simply did not work. It
never does. Eventually, better sense prevailed and the Government changed the
strategy and adopted a carrot and stick approach. The Union Government opened a
dialogue with the various insurgent groups and they were eventually brought
back into the political mainstream. Many of the former rebels contested
elections and won. They became ministers and other Constitutional
functionaries. It was a majestic triumph of the democratic process, yesterday’s
rebel as today’s elected leader.
India’s experience with largely homegrown
insurgency is no different from such movements in Latin America, Asia and Africa in the last century. There is no example in the
world where an internal rebellion has either been ‘crushed’ or contained by the
armed might of the omnipotent modern State, save the example of Sri Lanka at a
shocking human cost that savaged thousands of its own populace.
In this context, the recent statement of Union Home Minister
Chidambaram to go for massive recruitment of police personnel, both IPS and State
police is significant. It needs to be borne in mind that the IPS is an all-India
service recruited and trained by the Government of India. It will have to work
within the overall framework of the Criminal Code of the nation. Under law, the
police are required to function under the overall supervision of the civilian
magistracy even after the separation of the executive from the judiciary. But
the Home Minister’s announcement is silent on this critical aspect.
The second part of the reported statement similarly
envisages a substantial augmentation of police forces of the affected States.
It is similarly not known if the States have been advised to augment their
ranks of civilian magistrates correspondingly. This needs to be done alongside.
The projected increase in the overall police strength is enormous. The police
force must be made accountable to the supervisory magistracy, even though it
may be fighting an insurgency.
The police force out of necessity will have to be
heavily-armed, to fight well-armed Maoist cadres. The enemy is faceless and
invisible, relying on classical guerrilla tactics. Universal experience
suggests that such campaigns are long-drawn and painstaking. These can render
wearisome the best armed forces in the world, let alone an often poorly-led and
insufficiently-trained police force. Prolonged exposure to tough working
environment away from home and family tends to make a force trigger-happy. The
civilian populace often gets trapped in the cross-fire.
An unaccountable force, without any check tends to become a
monster that may defy control. It is a creeping malady that is already gnawing
at the vitals of the body politic and leading the nation into a brutal police
state. Recent events involving police officers at the highest level-IPS
officers in Gujarat and Haryana would shame
even a banana republic. It cannot be said that the two States are even remotely
affected by any extremist activity. The police state is truly taking shape. Its
stark contours are all too visible. After all, there are none so blind as those
who would not see.
The corresponding augmentation of the civilian magistracy
will serve a twin purpose. It will strengthen the Administration at the cutting
edge level, particularly in the States affected by extremism. There is no
example in the world where insurgency has been contained by the armed might of
the modern State, howsoever formidable. It has invariably been a mix of carrot
and stick policy. Our own experience has been similar, whether in the
North-east or the continuing turmoil in J&K.
Votaries of the iron fist approach have only to refer to the
First Police Commission report written largely by the police and for the
police. It has come out with a shocking revelation that an inexperienced Chief
Minister of a Northern State issued a carte blanche to the State police to
“eliminate dacoity”, no questions asked. It was to prove lethal. Admittedly,
thousands were eliminated by an “obedient” police force. Admittedly again, it only aggravated the
problem. The kith and kin of the hundreds of innocents eliminated took up arms
against the Government of the day.
In sum, it has been rightly said that a police force may be
able to eliminate Maoists, but it can never eliminate Maoism.---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|