Sri Lankan style operations against the Maoists in central India have already begun. In fact, it isn’t clear if they ever stopped after 2005, when the Salwa Judum herded thousands of villagers into camps. The only difference now is that war has been openly declared, in contrast to the government’s fiction of a “people’s movement”. The talk of using airpower, even if in self-defence, is being accompanied by propaganda blitzes, such as a home ministry ad containing gruesome photos of people killed by the Maoists. Clearly meant to desensitise the public to the civilian carnage that could follow a paramilitary sweep, the ad’s violent tone was also calculated to strike fear and signal the government’s seriousness in acting against the Maoists. As if on cue to prove the government right, the Maoists committed their ghastly beheading of Francis Induwar, a police officer. Faced with two belligerent parties, what are ordinary citizens to do?
For one, intellectuals—despite that word being the latest swear word for the government and media—must try and provide history and context to the situation. The Union home minister is talking of a “clear and hold” operation, after which he hopes to introduce development in the region. What he does not explain is what prevented development for 62 years or what hinders it in areas where the Naxalites are not active. Spending enormous resources on waging war rather than battling hunger—especially in a drought year—shows the government’s perverse priorities.
When people are attacked and see no hope from the state, who else will they turn to but insurgents? If a rape victim complains to the SP asking for an FIR to be filed, and his only response is to actually ask the rapists for their explanation, what is she supposed to do? Such has been the practice in Chhattisgarh for the past five years. It is this which accounts for the massive growth (22 per cent by intelligence estimates) in recruitment by the Maoists since Salwa Judum began.
When it comes to telling off Pakistan, both the prime minister and home minister reject the autonomy of non-state actors, with the prime minister noting that “it was the duty of their (Pakistani) government to ensure that such acts were not perpetrated from their territory”. But in their own country, they support Salwa Judum vigilantism, despite findings by statutory bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights that the Salwa Judum and security forces have been responsible for widespread arson, rape, forced disappearances, suspect encounters and extra-judicial killings. The NHRC report on the Salwa Judum states that “villagers were even killed (no criminal cases were, however, either reported or registered). Though the State has taken action against spos in some cases... these...do not pertain to the violence let loose on innocent villagers during operations against Naxalites”.
Of course, the NHRC also lost a golden opportunity to ensure justice, and thereby peace, by allowing a biased police to whitewash the truth. To cite just one example of the NHRC’s investigation: the death of Vanjam Mangu of Kotrapal. Villagers told the NHRC that he was killed by the CRPF and Salwa Judum in 2005 after being brought to the village. FIR 15/05 says he was a Naxalite killed in a police encounter. The NHRC, on the other hand, “finds” on the basis of “police records” and “Salwa Judum camp residents” that he was killed by Naxalites because his relatives had accepted government compensation (which is available only to victims of Naxalites and not to victims of Salwa Judum). It did not go into the basic discrepancies and ask how, in police records, he could be both a Naxalite and a person killed by Naxalites, or question how selective compensation was influencing the truth.
In ‘Operation Green Hunt’, which took place in September 2005, despite the then DGP claiming (Hitavada, September 6, 2005) that 10 armed Maoists were killed in an encounter on September 2, FIRs registering it as a case of villagers from Hariyal Cherli being killed in police-Naxalite crossfire, and relatives saying they were all innocent villagers who were lined up and shot by the Naga battalion while fleeing a Salwa Judum attack, the NHRC has concluded that eight of them were killed by Naxalites.
The current ‘Operation Green Hunt’ is equally suspect. A fact-finding by PUCL, PUDR and the Vanvasi Chetna Ashram has found that at least seven innocent adivasis were killed from Gachanpalli and Palachelma villages on September 17. The encounter in which security personnel died took place elsewhere. Another round of eight civilian killings took place on October 1 in village Gondpad, in which several young boys were picked up from Mukudtong and other villages, and several houses were burnt. While journalists in Dantewada have always been a threatened lot, the West Bengal government has done even better by sending policemen posing as journalists to arrest Chhatradhar Mahato. Not only do such strategies put all journalists working in combat zones at risk, they ensure that it is the insurgents who pre-emptively shut off access to the media. Democracy cannot work without a free flow of independently verifiable information from all sides.
When the home minister says that the Maoists are “the gravest challenge to our way of life”, he must clarify which “way of life” he means—the right of ministers to live in five star hotels while 50 per cent of Indians are below the poverty line in terms of calorie intake, the right of companies to fraudulently and forcibly acquire land, the right of farmers to commit suicide? If “our” way of life depends on exploiting the resources that the adivasis of Chhattisgarh live on, taking their lives falls perfectly into place. For many years, the Naxalite movement was seen as a socio-economic problem. By ignoring this aspect of it completely, and instead repeatedly terming it the “greatest national security threat”, the government has only added to that security threat. This is precisely what political scientist Jef Huysmans calls the “performative function of security labelling”.
The language of counter-insurgency sees “success” when populations are controlled, regardless of the human cost. As insurgents get dehumanised as vermin (as in the phrase “Naxal-infested”), the civilians get reduced to statistics, enabling displacement and death to be seen as an administrative necessity, a simple case of “broken eggs”, as a senior government official recently put it, rather than a fundamental violation of citizens’ rights. Besides, since it is mostly just the ordinary CRPF jawan who dies, the government is happy to choose a military option rather than dialogue.
The Maoists follow the same dehumanising practices, when they see nothing morally wrong in killing the security forces. Their language reeks of blood-sacrifice, their own and others. Their intolerance towards other groups working in their area and their disregard for the consequences of their actions on ordinary citizens hardly makes them a model of alternative democracy.
If Sri Lanka is the current flavour of counter-insurgency, the government would also be wise to remember the US debacle in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if the Maoists have China as their model, they must equally think of Peru, where the violence imploded on the very people they were claiming to represent. Certain wars can never be won with force, but only with justice and reconciliation, dialogue not death.
(The author is a professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University.)
Nandini Sundar may not speak in as flowing a prose as Arundhati Roy (Why Everyone Speaks the Flowing Language of Blood), but she’s of her kind. No one in this democratic republic has the right to use arms for political ends. The State should never recognise unelected Maoists as lawful representatives of any section of society. What has happened to the hundreds of crores of rupees the Maoists have extorted? What social service have they undertaken? When the State finally tries to improve infrastructure, the Maoists are the first to destroy it. Like the missionaries, the Maoists too will have no hunting ground where there is no poverty. S. Kocherla, Visakhapatnam
One can debate endlessly as to who commits more atrocities: the Maoists, the Salwa Judum or the paramilitary forces. The fact is: in the course of violence, there is a very thin line dividing good and evil. Shiv Adiseshan, Chennai
Our Harvard-educated home minister is speaking in Bush language. He should revisit all the carnage Bush unleashed before following in his steps. B. Prabhu, Mangalore
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT