After the killing of 18 civilians in Korseguda, Bijapur, the SP there reportedly told a journalist, “It is difficult to differentiate between Naxals and villagers. They all have voter ID cards and ration cards. On regular days, they take part in farming activities and, at other times, they help the Naxals. In effect, they are also Naxals.” The CRPF, the Chhattisgarh chief minister and senior ministers at the Centre also went on to talk of “human shields” and tried to obfuscate the killing of unarmed children attending a meeting in their own village by bringing in the Maoist recruitment of child soldiers. This, of course, needs to be condemned but there is a more pressing issue that needs to be discussed here.
For what is shocking in the Korseguda case is not only the massacre itself but the cover-up that followed—the refusal to observe the basic laws of war despite evidence that many of those killed were minors, all of them unarmed. Judicial inquiries ordered by the Chhattisgarh government are designed as eyewashes—the few that have been ordered so far, in response to public protests, have been pending for years. As for revising the standard operating procedures for the CRPF and police, the fruits are already before us. In response to the killing of a constable in Orchha on August 1, the police ransacked all the shops in the village.
As armed conflict spreads to more parts of the country and the frontlines are drawn through homes and fields, it is imperative that the security forces and politicians are trained in basic humanitarian law. Noting the growing problem of ‘farmers by day turning fighters by night’ on the one hand, as well as the increasing use of state-sponsored vigilantism on the other (whereby civilians are brought in to fight the government’s war), the Red Cross has come out with a useful advisory on when a civilian is entitled to protection under the Geneva conventions, especially Common Article 3 to which India is a signatory (see http://www.icrc.org/eng/ resources/documents/feature/2009/direct-participation-ihl-feature-020609.htm). All those who are not members of the state armed forces or the organised armed groups are entitled to protection “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”. And only those persons will be considered members of an organised armed group who have “continuous combat functions”. Providing information or supplies to Maoists, or attending village meetings with Maoists present, does not in any sense constitute direct participation in hostilities or justify killing unarmed villagers.
But the level of impunity is such in this country that we will go on, with the state becoming ever more lawless with its use of drones and Israeli-style decapitation policies where leaders are targeted, and the Maoists resorting to desperate measures like kidnapping. In the meantime, citizens are reduced to ciphers, with even their status as such questioned. Is there a way out and is there any hope that the political class will seek it? Currently, the scenario for peace talks appears bleak but it is the only possible and lasting solution and one that civil society must struggle for.
The security establishment is against talks on the grounds that it will provide time for Maoists to regroup. They argue that talks are only possible if the Maoists give up arms. At the same time, however, no politician can afford to be seen as closed to peace talks. Hence, the cover-up of the Azad killing as an ‘encounter’, since shooting the messenger would directly implicate the home ministry. For the government, nothing hinges on peace talks—it has endless money and time so it can continue with its repressive holding operations, as the experience of Kashmir and the Northeast has shown us. Some amount of ‘development’ will also give a veneer of concern and legitimacy, and the government is hoping the expansion of jobs in the paramilitary and reserve battalions—the only sphere where public employment is expanding—will buy it support among the youth. And finally, since all political parties are united on the militarist approach, there is no political pressure to act, and no one to challenge the government to “abjure” its own violence.
Even though rights activists say they want peace, in fact, many of them are ambivalent. One view is that since non-violent activism has been unable to prevent mass arrests or mining in other areas of the country, why stop the Maoists from continuing their fight? The parcelling out of north Chhattisgarh and now, potentially, Saranda in Jharkhand, to mining companies reinforces the notion that the Maoists are the only bulwark against the wholescale decimation of adivasis for corporate loot. After the killings of Kishenji and Azad, potential mediators are worried about being implicated in endangering the lives of Maoist leaders. The long-drawn ennui of the Naga peace talks—where people’s aspirations are being coopted or ground into internecine conflict—also does little to inspire faith in talks as a political tool. In the absence of a strong movement for justice, there is a sad tendency among activists to get diverted in personalised campaigns for the release of certain individuals while thousands of others languish in jail on false charges, and to play to the radical gallery from the comfort of their urban spaces.
Contrary to all three positions, there is a need for peace in and of itself. After such prolonged conflict, people need breathing space, and so does the government in order to assess where its policies have been going. For the last seven years, villagers across central India—especially (but not only) in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa—have lived in fear of sudden attacks by the police and combing operations, and thousands have been jailed. The government has been hoping that the more difficult life gets for them, the less they will support the Maoists, but the experience of the Salwa Judum shows that this has boomeranged into having just the opposite effect. While people need respite, they also need justice. Urban India, on the other hand, is fed with almost daily news of Maoist attacks on police, informers and infrastructure. The government is hoping that in this kind of situation any attack on civil liberties and activists will be seen as justified, but as the Maruti incident shows us, urban India is also waiting to explode.
The current policy of killing Maoist leaders is likely to lead to an increasing number of fake Maoist groups, some of which are already IB-supported. While long-term conflict may suit the police and paramilitary forces who gain in unaccounted-for, security-related expenditure, it means disaster for everyone else. The proliferation of underground groups in the Northeast and their extortion demands are clearly before us. In the absence of experienced leaders, it is also harder to keep control of the cadre.
Above all, the country must have a democratic space to reimagine its future—precisely what the Concerned Citizens Committee was struggling to achieve in the run-up to peace talks in Andhra in ’04. Many claimed those talks were a failure, but on the contrary they showed what determined citizens can and should do. Because for peace to last, it must be a just peace—it cannot be a peace on the government’s terms alone or the Maoist terms alone (such as election boycotts). It must be a peace that takes into account people’s need for basic rights, control over their own resources, and the need for democracy at both the village level and up the political chain to Delhi.
In the interim, many steps can be taken. Like an all-party team that visits ‘Maoist areas’ and talks to ordinary people and not just CMs and DGPs, and a semi-permanent group of interlocutors to have sustained discussions on peace talks, as against the knee-jerk use of mediators in times of hostage crises. Second, a just peace would recognise the violence inflicted on people, and rest upon both a political and material apology by the government. Maybe central India can serve as a model for a truth and reconciliation commission, followed by a judicial commission to grant amnesty to all those arrested on political charges. And third, there are all kinds of potential political/administrative steps that could be taken—such as the creation of adivasi-dominated states like Gondwana (Dandakaranya), Bhilistan, a redrawn Jharkhand, greater cultural and economic autonomy to these states, including the right of local communities to decide how their land should be used and whether and on what terms they want to lease it to private firms. We have two years left till 2014—we can either waste it and sink further into civil war or rise above ourselves, forge a new future.
(Nandini Sundar teaches sociology at Delhi University.)
Nandini Sundar’s piece (The People Need to Breathe, Aug 27) was cold and awful, equating as it did the Indian State with ultra-fanatic Maoists.
Good grief! I just read Nandini Sundar’s column on Maoists (The People Need To Breathe, Aug 27). She is now engaged in conflict resolution! Just look at this sentence: “There is a sad tendency among activists to get diverted in personalised campaigns...while thousands of others languish in jail on false charges.” Sundar really has some nerve!
Good grief! Nandini Sundar is now engaged in conflict resolution! This sentence is particularly choice: "there is a sad tendency among activists to get diverted in personalised campaigns for the release of certain individuals while thousands of others languish in jail on false charges, and to play to the radical gallery from the comfort of their urban spaces." Sundar really has some nerve!
[[For what is shocking in the Korseguda case is not only the massacre itself but the cover-up that followed—the refusal to observe the basic laws of war despite evidence that many of those killed were minors, all of them unarmed.]]
Do the Maoists observe "basic laws of war" (what does it mean by the way? Does war really have rules?)? If no, why expect security forces to follow it? And isn't it true that it is difficult to mark out the Maoists from the tribals? Do Maoists always wear uniforms and carry ID cards to distinguish themselves from civilians? Do they not use civilians as shields?
If there are no clear answers to the above questions, how is it possible for the security forces to only kill Maoists and spare civilians?
Idiots like the author would rather see the Indian govt abdicate control of its territory to the Maoists so they can have a free run, running a parallel govt and terrorizing the tribals even more than they already are.
Awful. cold article, which ideologically and morally equates the Indian state with the ultra-violent fanatic Maoists. If the Naxals have a programme, let them present it peacefully and democratically. There is no place for a Khmer Rouge in India.
Nandini Sundar >> And third, there are all kinds of potential political/administrative steps that could be taken—such as the creation of adivasi-dominated states like Gondwana (Dandakaranya), Bhilistan, a redrawn Jharkhand, greater cultural and economic autonomy to these states
Why is it that only some states should have greater autonomy? If there is a case for autonomy, every state in India needs it and not just some states
And why should states be created on communal lines? Bhils as a community live across several districts in more than one state. Are you suggesting mass movement into one region and mass ethnic cleansing along lines of what Jinnah did in 1940s ?This is nothing but another poisonous suggestion. Every indian state (except a couple or so) are amalgam of multitude of castes, tribes and communities and to advocate statehood on basis of specific caste or tribe is nothing but a neo communal agenda. The real intention of the like of Nalini Sundar are not to work for advancement or empowerment of the tribals, but they want to create chaos and new partition (along lines created in 1940s). And by giving coverage to such dangerous and poisonous ideas, Outlook is only proving its regressive agenda. SHAME ON YOU.
Another vain attempt to justify Maoist Terror. It is not the country's democracy to reimagine a different future. It is these outsider Maoist sympathisers who need to tell us the real case for an alternative to economic development , social development (schools, hospitals et al) for the tribals. And they wont, since the Arundathi Roy Crowd strategy is always to Curse the Darkness and not to find a candle to light.
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