RSS - Posts
Debate: Is there a military solution to Naxalism?
Posted by Aditya Kuvalekar on April 12, 2010
Time for some serious stuff at the Backbenchers’ Blog now. This is the first of the fortnightly/monthly (depending on the reader response) debate series that we plan to have. I would like to thank both the panelists Rushin Shah and Ashokankur Dutta for being a part of this debate.
The topic is Is there a military solution to Naxalism?
View: Rushin Shah argues that military action is the solution to Naxalism.
Counter-view: Ashokankur Dutta argues that military action is not the solution.
Needless to say, we would really love to hear what you think about the issue. Here are a few simple rules that we expect the readers to stick to -
1) Comments regarding both posts or anything general should be posted here.
2) Personal attacks and insults against the authors or anyone else will NOT be tolerated. Any comments resorting to such insults will be deleted without any warning.
Depending on the reader response and feedback, the panelists might write a rebuttal post in the next week.
Also, in case you’re one of those lazy readers like me, who don’t want to comment but have gone through the posts and have an opinion on the issue, then please vote here -
Varun said
Left and right must unite. This is the time, it has been due long. Let them exculpate the office bearers. Forge a pseudo saffron red brigade do a coup, set a new constitution and a new India. If not now, when?
kinjal said
Kudos to the blog owners for hosting such an engrossing debate. Both authors have articulated their opinions well, and very impressively have managed to back themselves very well with facts as well as reasons. I would lean slightly towards ashokankur’s article though, since he has dealt more carefully with the specifics of the troubled region instead of devolving into a capitalism-vs-communism debate that one could keep at ad nauseum. The trouble with propping Punjab and Sri Lanka as examples is manifold : there are counterexamples, like the Northeast. The area in question is vast, the grievances on ground more genuine, and acts of urban terrorism that cynically target civilians have been avoided.
Charudatta Galande said
Kinjal, just a quick point about your statement saying that innocent civilians have not been targeted.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100411/jsp/bengal/story_12327481.jsp
kinjal said
Charu notice my phrasing carefully, “acts of urban terrorism that cynically target civilians”. The kind of political terrorism you are talking about is indulged in very much by the mainstream “democratic” political parties as well. CPM and Trinamool cadres regularly mete out such treatment to villagers and each other in WB. The Hindutva parties do this virulently in states where they are active. Salwa Judum and Maoists do this to each other and suspected sympathizers of the antagonist, in Chhattisgarh. Are we suggesting a military solution for all this?!
Amit Deshwal said
I am happy that even after having seen both sides of the coin, I agree with Ashokankur Dutta.
The question is not whether both are ‘the’ solutions to the existing problem or not. It is what the preferred solution is.
Yes of course military action is a solution. But do we want that? Irom Sharmila is fighting for NE people, sitting on hunger strike for over 9 years and 5 months now. What has government done? There are innumerable families which have lost their farms, homes and got displaced. Do they give a damn to whether we have a democracy or communism? Even I do not. All they wanted was a little care from the State, which was never delivered (forget about timely delivery).
But yes I agree the State has now screwed up so badly that resorting to military action might be an easy way out. So be it :) I mean thousands in India die of riots, epidemics, climatic casualties. A few thousand tribal can be killed for saving the honor of the State and solving the problem quickly. Thousands of women form the Maoists women wing. These women have formed this wing to protest against the atrocities (rape, murder… quite evident from AFSPA actions in NE) committed by Indian military forces. Well let’s use military force and just annihilate them all.
Or wait is there a little possibility that we can go around it. Do we want to go around it? Can we try (and with try I mean give our heart and soul to it) and solve the issues peacefully. It would require time, dedication. Let the government intervene, and start gaining faith of the tribal, by apologizing, by starting to make over and slowly win their trust. They want to live, and live peacefully and not die.
saee said
I must congratulate the Back-Bencher’s group for this idea. The idea of putting two calm, balanced and well-thought perspectives is indeed commendable. In concept, I somewhat agree with both sides. The origin, death and reincarnation of the Maoist ideology in India is definitely a reflection of weakening of democracy.
But I also agree that at this stage there is no other solution to it than resorting to military action. Violence of passion cannot be quelled by non-violence of reason. In a movement that seems blinded by ideology to such a great extent, not all “comrades” holding guns actually know what responsibility they come with.
I think the Gandhian methods have been abused to such a great extent in these last 62 years that they have lost their efficacy. And to pull something non-violent together to counter this today, be it in the form of intense discussion, we need a leader a hundred times more powerful than Gandhi himself.
All such military actions carried out in the past (Opreration Blue Star, Black Thunder etc.) have been widely critisized yet there seems to be no other alternative when things get to this point. Even if it is the fault of the politicians in the first place.
The Western half of India typically suffers from the “side effects” of chronic unhealthy right wing politics like religious polarization. Similarly the rise of Maoism could also be the side effect of chronic unhealthy left wing politics.Once the situation is under control (which is possible in my view, only through military intervention) it is essential to repair the ailing democracy through less dirty politics and more public discussion.
Only a healthier democracy can solve this in the long run. It is by the virtue of democracy itself today that the press and even common people like us can engage in rational public discussions like these.
Thanks for these essays.
Cheers
Saee
sidj said
You seem to agree that the major problem lies with the Indian administrative system, and the only permanent solution is a repaired democracy that embraces ubiquitous growth. Yet, your solution is military action.
If your room gets dirty over months of lethargy to clean it, would you just burn it down and shift to a new room, or will you spend a weekend doing what you should have done more regularly?
Besides, in the former case, what’s the guarantee that you wouldn’t be faced with the same problem another 6 months down the line?
To roll out of the metaphor, we’ve already squashed a Maoist uprising once before and have failed to address the root causes. Somehow the skepticism of another blitzkrieg doesn’t seem all that misplaced to me.
saee said
Yes. I suggest a military solution because the “Maoists” are not the true representatives of the people that have been neglected.
They themselves do not believe in a democratic solution. Infact their objective is to overthrow the existing democracy. To me, this is a fanatic aim.
They have brought the neglect to light but it should be corrected by the government.
And “Maoists” have not been elected by people. How many tribals have been interviewed to find out if they are happy with them?
They are more or less “self proclaimed” saviors with weapons who aim to change the face of the social structure. Even the Taliban started somewhat on the same lines and in similar circumstances.
In the current situation, they are a hurdle to any development the government wants to do in that area.
Plus the “money” they have been putting into this operation comes from extortions which in turn increases criminal activity. Some of the Maoist affected states like Jharkhand were infamous for crime even before this movement started. So these “robin hoods” with AK47s are going to make it worse even for the people with average income soon. There have been many instances where innocent tribals have been killed, or brutally beheaded. And in some cases the Maoists have taken responsibility too.
Not everyone with a gun has a conscience. And this is why military is needed.
Nikhil Suri said
Wow! This one reply is crisper and clearer than both the original articles put together.
Thanks for that.
Cheers
Nikhil
sidj said
Hm. Interesting take.
Opinion appreciated.
saee said
Hey,
Thanks. I think people should read more of Amartya Sen’s essays to understand the bigger picture and how democracy works even if in a, lets say, topical circumstance it seems to have failed. He has not written anything ON this issue. But he has done a lot of work related to poverty, violence and effective of democracy. All of these are related to the current situation.
Also, he writes with concern, not passion. Since he is a scientist, his approach to human problems is rational and humane. All my “clarity” is actually from reading Sen’s essays over time. :)
sidj said
Any suggestions on essays to read?
Arindam said
Rushin sums it up succinctly by saying “If the other side declares war, then you’re at war, whether you like it or not.”
With precedents set in stone about the efficacy of military action, which if you ask me is pretty much a Hobson’s choice here, there can be no other logical course of action.
Blinded as they are by their twisted ideology, the Maoist violence is definitely not one of passion, but is acutely cold and calculated, what with the meticulous planning of their strikes, shrewd usage of the vast swathes of unknown terrain and most crucially their mysterious (??) supply chain in procuring arms and ammunition. More than the brute psychical force that the military manifests, it is their cerebral resources that we have to fall back on to fight what GreatBong calls India’s invisible civil war.
Nikhil Suri said
I oddly find myself agreeing with both these views, and yet not either of them completely.
When we talk of Naxalism as a “problem” what problem are we talking about? And “problem” to whom? The tribals? Or to us? Are we seeing the Naxalists as bunch of people who have a grievance and are trying to wrest power to attend to it, or as a power hungry group resorting to ‘might is right’ to snatch power from the hands of an admittedly incompetent Indian State Administrative machinery? More simplistically, do we see them as a political group or as an enemy fighting against us(you and me, the non-naxalist Indian). I see them as both – they’re a political group who’re fighting for something they believe in, but right now what they’re fighting is against what I believe in, so they’re my enemy.
As has been pointed out by both the authors the Naxals could not have achieved the success they have without having a ready audience to sell their version of government to. But I do not agree with the Naxalist’s version of it. And neither does the way our State has been conceptualized. And because they’re not willing to come to the table and talk about how we should solve our differences and organize our governing, it leaves us with only two choices – either accept their vision of it and hand over power to them, or fight them.
Once a group of people leaves you with only these options, it is imperative that one decides whether it is worthwhile to fight over this power they seek. And that is an ideological question, one that cannot be answered using empirical data about success or failure of military operations.
So is the Naxalist’s vision of an Indian government an acceptable one to us? Is it worth fighting against? By choosing force over a purely political strategy they have shown that they do not believe in the democratic political process. These men seek power through the barrel of a gun and will surely continue using the same once in power. The whole concept of a liberal State is that we individually give up our use of force to the state and resort to processes of the State for the solution of any grievance. These men do not subscribe to it. If you let this set of people come to power they will not let your or mine grievance against them be addressed in any civil manner .Today they’re using force against the State which does not agree with them, tomorrow they’ll use it on you and me if we do not toe their line. And that this will happen is the single clear lesson that comes out of all the communist experiments across the globe. Are we ready to live in such a system. I am not, and I want to Indian State to fight these men on my behalf.
But should a military solution be the only solution? My problem is with this entire bunch of people who are okay with using force to make claims on and resolve disputes of claims on resources (that’s what their ideology is about,isn’t it?). But of this group of people, only some are resorting to actually executing it. The rest are either passive, or only non-military supporters to the cause. These men need to be convinced of the democratic way of working out differences in order for the problem to be solved. These men need to given and taught to respect political rights and property rights. And this the gun cannot accomplish. This can only be achieved by demonstrating on ground how things can work without resorting to force. Additionally, if we don’t give these people we’re fighting an alternative to the Naxal vision, they’ll be forced to fight out of the lack of options alone.
But of the set of people who do not respect mine and your political rights and property rights and ready to use force to enforce their will over the people, I do not know of any way to convince them and hence am agreeable to suppress them by force, in order that I may be able to live with those group of people who do. Whether we can succeed in that, nobody can tell us for sure. But that is the only way out. And I personally do find that worthy enough of a fight.
But I’m ready to accept that it is a subjective valuation, that each of us individually will have to do – whether we value the dignity and decency that democratic political and property rights get us enough to be ready to fight for it(or support it through our vote and taxes). Whatever be the value you place on it, please remember that the alternative is an authoritarian regime.
sidj said
You have raised some important questions – about what kind of a problem Naxalism is, and to whom it is a problem. However, your analysis seems to be circular at times, and self-contradictory on other occasions.
I will quote a bunch of statements from your comment above, with replies of my own following them.
“…they’re not willing to come to the table and talk…”
“…by choosing force over a purely political strategy they have shown that they do not believe in the democratic political process.”
Well, isn’t it obvious that the Maoists and their tribal supporters do not believe in the Indian democratic machinery? It’s been over 60 years since Independence, and there has been practically no government presence in the tribal areas. Reiterating something we already know does not make it right. Even the Indian government accepts that the neglected populace of the country is justified in its grievances against the system. If there is absolutely no interest shown by the administration of the country, what other choice do people have but to rise up in revolt? It’s been over 60 years and no purely political strategy has worked. But look how effectively force has worked! The struggles of vast swathes of the backward population have entered mainstream media. The intelligentsia is talking about political and social reform. Injustices in the tribal areas have become debates in national political grounds. I doubt any such thing would have happened had the have-nots not risen up in revolt.
When you insist that “these men need to be convinced of the democratic way of working out differences”, you are just going in circles. The fact that democracy didn’t work for them is the reason they are resorting to other means to get their voices heard. Besides, one can’t claim that Salwa Judum is any more democratic. Or for that matter, the media restrictions and curbing of other fundamental rights that the Chattisgarh government has imposed on reporters going into the Dantewada area.
The first and only democratic gesture that the government can probably show to the tribals and their maoist incranations is an agreement to unconditional peace talks.
To clarify my stance, I don’t agree with the violence and much of the ideology of the Maoists myself. But there really does not seem to be any other way out for these people than to revolt against the skewed growth, and inconsistent policies that have plagued them for over half a century. Besides, as the debaters pointed out, there has been no mindless killing of innocent civilians. In my opinion, politics, especially Indian poiltics, is like the process of bargaining. The fair price that is finally settled upon is somewhere in between the bid and the ask. It is probably going to have to be the same here. After decades of ignorance, the least the government can do is to offer peace talks.
Lastly, I would like to respond to another of your comments about the ‘disrespect that the Maoists have demonstrated towards your political and property rights’. Firstly, it was the Indian State that took over their property! The tribals have been living in the forest lands for centuries, and their livelihood is intimately linked to forest resources. They have been mostly oblivious to political developments around them, be it British colonialism or Indian independence. So when, one fine day, the government comes along and nationalizes their forests and takes away their livelihood with nothing in return, their animosity is understandable. From an objective point of view, it is us (and the governments we elect) that need to be taught to respect political rights and property rights.
Nikhil Suri said
“To clarify my stance, I don’t agree with the violence and much of the ideology of the Maoists myself. But there really does not seem to be any other way out for these people than to revolt against the skewed growth, and inconsistent policies that have plagued them for over half a century. ”
Well to rephrase what you’ve said – You don’t agree with their ideology or their methods, but find both justifiable? I agree that there has been a failure of administrative machinery, but I do find your ‘skewed growth’ comment unacceptable. First in your own words they were living in harmony with nature and it was wrong of the Indian State to go and intervene and at the same time you find the fact that they had been not been part of the growth process as a good enough reason to revolt?
As I mentioned earlier, are we even clear about what the problems are that the Naxals are trying to address in a better manner than the Indian state? I don’t think I have ever claimed that I don’t agree that these people have genuine grievances, but the moment they are ready to use military force as a solution, I am in favour of the State using force to strike back, and at the same time be willing to look at the grievance they have. That is because I want them to enjoy the same political and economic freedoms as I do, but it is not acceptable when they break the monopoly over force that I’ve accepted to let the State have(which infact we all have assented to in order that we may live in a “civil society” unafraid of forceful aggression of our neighbors over disputes).
Since you don’t seem to mind metaphors, the metaphor I support is of using the carrot and stick together to solve this problem.
sidj said
That’s correctly paraphrased and it is exactly what I mean. I understand and appreciate the root causes for this uprising, even the armed anarchist level it has reached. However, I do not believe that it is the ideal solution to the problem at hand. Further, if you wade beyond the perverseness, you might even identify the fact that I am in agreement with your carrot-and-stick solutions. Only, I am condemning the fact that it took 60 years and thousands of lives for the government to address something that was its responsibility to begin with.
I did say that the tribals have always lived in harmony within their ecosystems. But I never said that it was ‘wrong’ for the Indian government to interfere. What was wrong was the way they interfered (which includes skewed development) – against which the tribals have a right to revolt; with force if half a century of political democratic tools don’t work. If they are a part of the country, they have an equal right to the fruits of development as do you and I. And hence, I am in disagreement with the use of military force to completely obliterate the uprising without giving peaceful methods a fair and equal chance.
Nikhil Suri said
This is where we have a difference in our opinion to begin with – you see “unskewed development” as the right of the people, I don’t. By what objective measures can you define what is “skewed development” and what is not. Certain basics like energy, infrastructure etc can be perhaps be taken as the base and used to argue that places which have not got these are “deprived”. But where does one draw the line at which of these deprivations are enough to justify killing people who’re acting as functionaries of the state? The premise of a democratic process is that you draw this line at point zero – Never. And that is why it gives people the right to organise themselves politically and seek redressal. If you give in to the argument of “we were deprived hence the State owes us such and such, including the right to kill people to force the State into submitting to our demands”, then you’re going down a very slippery slope. This argument can very easily be extended to ask for all kinds of things by putting all kinds of pressures. Hence I’m not ready to cede to this argument, you are.
The State per se can never understand what the right way of “interference” in a society is. That is why it needs the support and active participation of the people living there to formulate it. In the absence of that, no matter what the State does can be proclaimed as not enough. That is why you can never cede to them the “right to revolt” because then this can be manipulated in whatever manner possible, to ask for whatever they please.
What fruits of development do they have a right to? I do not clearly understand what you’re referring to here.
Nikhil Suri said
Can you also please explain what is the reponsibility of the govt that you find it did not fulfill providing a rationale for armed uprising?
sidj said
This has turned into a bit of a personal attack, in which I have no interest.
You have an opinion contrary to mine, which I am open to understanding but am unable to. This could be either because you have not grounded it in sound enough logic, or maybe because I am inexorably biased against such unaccomodating stubborn ideas which has clouded my cognitive abilities.
It is my belief that a democratic country must offer all its citizens an equal opportunity of growth and development. This must include an egalitarian treatment in policy formulation. Development can never be uniform for everyone. But, the effort must be in that direction. The tribal people deserved equal attention from the government – for public infrastructure development, educational facitlities, health and sanitation etc. From this point of view, yes ‘unskewed development’ is a right. Where-do-you-draw-the-line arguments are extremely dangerous and almost undebatable.
From your point of view, none of this justifies killing people. Yet, it is happening. So the compulsion must have existed to resort to such extreme measures. No one likes killing people at such an organized level. Rather than performing a post mortem of the morality of their actions, shouldn’t we be focusing more on real causes and their solutions? We must understand that people are same all over the world. If you don’t like violence, neither do they.
You say we must not cede to ‘them’ the right to revolt. yet, the revolts are happening, regardless what you allow as legal.
Mr. Shah cited several historical arguments in his superb article. If we look at the socio-political environment preceding the French revolution for example, we can identify uncanny similarities with the present situation in India. Revolts against oppression have been abundant in history. Even at that time, the elite (like us) and the administration (government) were against ‘ceding’ to people the right to revolt. Would you like the right to revolt be taken away from you? Moreover, if it were, and if the situation demanded it, would you really not revolt?
This is anarchy. It is bound to be right from the pov of those revolting, and wrong from those who would reap the benefits from status quo. Debating on that is pointless.
Nikhil Suri said
Additionally,
I agree that they have a genuine grievance, and want a solution to it. But so did the Russian peasants in the first world war. They too undertook a revolution, not much unlike the one our own Naxals seek. And I see it as an attempt to replace the incompetent by a greater evil – one that I think will cause great harm to me personally, and the society at large.
Thus though ready to respect their grievances, I’m totally against their attack on the State in its current avataar. And so I’m in support of working on the both at the same time.
Anupam said
I am worried that this debate, like most informed debates, requires a second round. Mr. Shah, in my opinion, misses some very important points, probably he started the discussion. For example, military is simply not trained to fight guerrilla war in the thick of a jungle. A lot of money is spent on training military (unlike local police), and the outcome will be the same.
A simple solution is to train local people from the afflicted area for policing. The latest incident of 76 deaths of ill trained policemen from U.P. and Bihar has shown how far away we are from this goal. It will clearly require more funding – a fodder for bawaal, but a strong home minister can see this through.
Also, some problems are apparent in Mr. Dutta’s piece:
The government has denied again and again the existence of any such operation. This simple scratch looks like a splinter in the otherwise well cited article.
Unless Mr. Dutta is being poetic, we should stick to calling it a “riot”. Mr. Dutta repeats this mistake in next para talking about “Islamic and Hindu terrorism”. Let us not dilute the meaning. Also, abhorrent as it was, the riots were not “state-sponsored”, but I will let that go.
It is not about the “kills”. Development, of any kind, requires stability. Hindu and Muslim fight but they have no where else to go. Naxalites, on the other hand, are not limited to forests. They routinely destroy basic infrastructure – schools, roads, hospitals, villagers who are unwilling to participate etc. Who will go run a “state-sponsored” school which could be blown before it is completely built? Not me.
It is easy to white-wash over this difference by blaming “state” as a co-perpetrator. But one must not forget the reality that the so called “state” is not a with-holder of power. In most cases, it is actually the reverse – Naxalites carry AK-47 while untrained policemen (who come from poorest families, btw) carry old rifles.
In short – Gujrat riots: bad for Gujrat. Central India’s naxalites – bad for everybody.
I am personally not against unconditional talks. We should try it before it is too late. There is a mentality of imperialism in not using all peaceful options. But one must remember that the tribal way of life is unsustainable. It is going to change, if not today then may be in next 50 years – 100 years. It is much better if it happens under a democratic government than some authoritarian in future.
Vardhman said
The government needs to solve the problems of the poor and the tribals, who are joining the naxalite movement , if it wants to sustain peace in the long term.
But the naxalite movement has already gained a lot of momentum and I dont think that rapid development policies at this stage will do much good to kill the movement.As Ashokankur says , the naxalites will see this simply as a means to weaken the movement. They will resist it , kill more people. I completely agree with Rushin in that having tasted power , they wont concede it.
To solve the problem at hand , force is necessary .
Military action is the antibiotic to this disease , which should be supplemented with the multi-vitamins (Development policies for the tribals) . Cant think of a better analogy :\
Nikhil Suri said
I agree, that to solve the problem at hand force is necessary, but at the same time force only takes care of the assault on the Indian State. It does not take care of the grievance that these people have that led to formation of such a large movement.
Nikhil Suri said
Lest I be misunderstood, my understanding of the problem is that we require both Force as well as improvement of the administrative machinery.
Shivnandan Pingle said
It is disgracefull to see military solution as an option. Seeking military solution is highly urban and elite view to this problem.
There are about 30000 naxals/ maoists in India. They are taking on the might of Indian state. They know that they are going to lose this battle and will die.
What sort of desparation is driving them to fight this battle that they know they will lose?
Indian state has created this underclass by gross neglect of central-eastern India.
Naxals/ Maoists must be called for talks and Indian state should request them humbly to put down arms. Simulteneously the governement must divert HUGE resources in these areas. They want toilets (in Jharkhand 23% households have some sort of toilet), roads, bridges, electricity.
If military is used, it will be a start of civil war in Central India which will spread across all corners of the country.
Rahul Gupta said
Quite frankly none of us would have been discussing this issue had the Naxals gone the peaceful way, and not used force. Maybe they did so over the past 60 years with not great results, and probably that is what prompted them to take up arms. So though not right, their use of force has atleast help them gather attention to an issue they have been raising for quite sometime.
Now that it has helped gather attention, what next. As far as I know, the naxals are ready to talk. Chidambaram has been childish in his demand for them to give up arms before they talk. This was the same line he had adopted against holding dialogue with Pakistan for over an year after 26/11 – and finally had to give in to talks on Feb 25th 2010 this year. When I saw one of his interviews where Barkha Dutt asked him that what made him change his mind and hold talks – he had a pathetic answer which was like , “We have to move ahead someway”. I am surprised that why didnt this wisdom come to him an year earlier and will it take more attacks and time for such wisdom to come to him in case of the naxals.
The solution is quite simple. These are men and women who have been demanding certain things and the government should hold talks to hear them out and contemplate on which of those demands can be met. An armed retaliation will be justified if the talks get nowhere. It will be a shame for the state to not even have tried giving talks a chance.
As far as other points that have been raised by people in their comments – I don’t think that use of force to usurp power necessarily means that the same force will be used to govern if and when the said people gain power. Take the example of America – their independence movement was an armed struggle.
Also I might mention that I am not a great fan of the communist idealogy the naxals are promoting, but nevertheless the tribals face genuine problems and they should be heard. Not hearing them would cause more distress and more violence. Also an immediate military solution though could render the naxals powerless, it would cause further destruction in regions the state is supposed to develop.
Next as a slight aside to the topic here, I find it sad that the term of ‘state sponsored Hindu terrorists’ was used in one of the articles. I am surprised that while everyone talks of the riots why does no one talk about the Godhra train carnage.
Every action has a reaction which may or may not be equal – and to see a reaction as independent from the action is rather juvenile. In the case of the naxals the neglect for decades has led to a reaction, and this reaction needs addressing now before it goes out of hand.
Nikhil Suri said
“Take the example of America – their independence movement was an armed struggle.”
What makes the Naxals different is in the ideology that they support which is nearer to the rule of might in China than “Life, liberty and Pursuit of Happiness”.
“Maybe they did so over the past 60 years with not great results, and probably that is what prompted them to take up arms” Are we doubting that peaceful protests can gather attention in the land of Gandhi?
“Chidambaram has been childish in his demand for them to give up arms before they talk.”
Chidambaram has been giving a very valid reason not to talk – the ceasefire has been used in the past by the Naxals as just a time gainer to regroup. The invitation to talks have been given in the past only to be used against the State. In that scenario you have to back military retaliation and give up on unconditional talks.
Harshit said
“As far as I know, the naxals are ready to talk. Chidambaram has been childish in his demand for them to give up arms before they talk. This was the same line he had adopted against holding dialogue with Pakistan for over an year after 26/11 ….will it take more attacks and time for such wisdom to come to him in case of the naxals.”
Pakistan is an independent, sovereign nation. Naxalism, on the other hand, is an internal Indian problem. Maoists/Naxals are Indian citizens. Why should the framework/strategy to solve an internal problem be necessarily the same as that for solving a problem between two nations?
I don’t see what is so childish about his demand vis-a-vis naxalites giving up violence. And what are we going to achieve via these unconditional talks anyway? Are we prepared to invite the maoists to form a joint government in the naxal affected states or even at the center (a la Nepal) superseding all the set democratic ideals/institutions that the nation is founded upon?
If not, are we hoping that after the talks the belligerant naxalites would somehow magically just give up their arms and join the democratic process in return for, say, some “development package” from the center for the “tribal forests”?
We should stop kidding ourselves and learn to distinguish between a day long ‘chakka-jam’ asking for better civic amenities and a virulent ideology driven insurgency masquerading as the former.
In any case, I don’t understand this implicit synonymity between ‘tribals’ and ‘naxals’ that scores of people over here seem to naturally assume.
Who made naxalites the messiah of the tribal people? Naxalism being a pro-tribal rights, pro-tribal development movement is just a farce. Genuine tribal grievances just provide them ready fodder and cadres to pursue their own agendas. Rather, the very existence of naxal movement depends on the continuation of economic deprivation of the tribals. Otherwise, why would naxalites always blow up schools, kidnap/kill government development workers? Considering that Naxalites have enough resources to buy weapons and train a whole army of comrades, what has their record been in development of the areas that they are in control of?
prasad chaphekar said
most things have been said.. I’ll just try and put them in point form
1. Maoists can give people guns, they cannot give them schools and hospitals I hope no one can contest this fact.
2. Personally I would surely take a violent path if injustice is being done against me and I am left with no other method of redressal. But I would take the first available chance to stop violence if I get it.
3. Chidambaram is perfectly right to ask them to abjure violence first. there is no point negotiating at a gunpoint.
4. In many violent movements worldwide, people pick up a gun for a motive and soon the gun becomes the motive. that’s the beginning of the end. the glaring example of LTTE is in front of our eyes. same is the case with maosists. Have any one of you noticed the huge rush for police recruitment in tribal areas?
http://naxalwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/heavy-rush-for-police-recruitment-in.html
5. personally, I would brutally torture Kobad Ghandy before killing him if I had my way, to make an example out of him. but even a bullet in the head would be pretty satisfying. men like Kishenji dont deserve to be put on trial..
Debate: Should the illegal immigration of Bangladeshis be stopped? « The Back-Benchers' Blog said
[...] Posts Sanskrit DictionaryDebate: Is there a military solution to Naxalism?View: Is there a military solution to Naxalism?The man who knew what it meant to knowCounter-view: [...]