I have been grappling with the issue popularly known as Naxalism or Left Wing Extremism or as today’s lecture has been christened, ' 21st century Maoism in India', for at least the last four years. I would like to pose today seven questions and provide some tentative answers.
The first obvious question is what is the nature of the Maoist challenge ? Clearly, the Maoist challenge is an ideological challenge to Parliamentary Democracy and the political system as it has evolved in the country during the last 63 years. In different places and at different times, ideology is found to be at a discount, giving way to a levy-based challenge. But primarily it is an ideological challenge. Secondly, they hope to accomplish their objectives through violence and terror. Guerrilla warfare is their preferred operation and today it is predominantly, overwhelmingly a rural uprising, spread across 82 districts in nine states, affecting 500 to 600 Gram Panchayats.
Remarkably, the movement was confined to six districts of Andhra Pradesh some 40 years ago. Clearly, the movement has grown during these 40 years and casts a shadow in central India. Remarkably, all the leaders of the movement are from Andhra Pradesh while the foot soldiers are almost all tribals. Even more remarkably, around 40 per cent of them are women. In my ministry is an officer, former District Magistrate of Malkangiri, who had been kidnapped by a 12 year old boy and a 14 year old girl. This significant demography of the movement deserves attention and more study. But the obvious question is why have the tribals taken to the Maoists in such large numbers ? I attribute it to the four Ds: Tribal Displacement, Deprivation, Discontent and Tribal Disconnect are responsible for their alienation.
Tribal discontent has grown because of the continued political neglect of the tribals. Let us face it. No political party in the country can afford to ignore the Dalits and the OBCs because in around 300 Lok Sabha constituencies, they call the shots. Similarly, no party can neglect the Muslims, who can influence the outcome in some 200 Lok Sabha constituencies. In contrast, tribals dominate fewer than 50 Lok Sabha constituencies and hence their concerns have not received the attention they deserved.
It is a legitimate question to ask why political parties have neglected tribal issues in the coalition era, when every seat counts. But that is possibly because unlike the Dalits or the Scheduled Castes, no tribe has a pan-Indian presence or, for that matter, leaders whose voice is heard outside their own constituencies. It is also worth noting that tribes in the North-Eastern part of the country have benefitted a lot more from the government’s affirmative actions and welfare schemes than the tribes in central India. Central Indian tribes have suffered enormously because of mining. For some reason, mining in not just India but in other countries also, is carried out in the poorer, backward regions and leaves the local populace impoverished while fattening the outsiders.
That tribals have been treated shabbily is not in doubt. It stares us in the face. It is known that their mineral-rich land was acquired at a pittance while many of them were deprived of even the meagre compensation offered. Relief and rehabilitation measures promised to them remained on paper. As many as 10 to 15 million tribals have been displaced by dams and mining projects. Many of them have suffered from multiple displacements. And they have been exploited not only by private companies but also state-owned entities. The Bailadila iron-ore mines in Chhattisgarh is an example. That is where we mine some of the finest iron-ores and export them to countries like China and Korea while the tribes which inhabited the land have been left impoverished.
Another important reason for discontent is the rapacious forest administration. Armed forest guards treat tribals, who go into the forests to collect forest produce for their daily needs, like criminals. Thousands of tribals continue to languish in jails for allegedly violating provisions of the colonial Forest Act. The government, finally, in 2006 enacted the Forest Rights Act. But the forest department continues to oppose its implementation and the bamboo trade, for example, has been transferred to the Gram Sabha of only one village panchayat in Gadchiroli in Maharashtra.
The PESA in 1996 called for consultation with the Gram Sabha if scheduled areas are to be acquired for development projects. But nobody wants consultation and industry bodies have been critical of the provision. A case is now pending before the Supreme Court. In the new Land Acquisition Act, which is likely to be discussed in Parliament next month, it has been laid down that there will be no acquisition of land in Scheduled areas but as a last resort. And even then, the land would have to be acquired with the consent of the Gram Sabha.
I do not know what will happen in Parliament but I do believe that past injustices need to be reconciled. We have to open a window to acknowledge such injustices and there has to be some restitution. I do not know how many of you are aware of the Nagari land movement in Ranchi. The government acquired some land there half a century ago and did nothing for all these years. Half a century later, there are attempts to evict tribals so that a Law School and an IIM can come up there. When tribals demand compensation at the present market rate, I believe they are raising a valid question.
It is tragic that Maoists had to wake us up to the concerns of tribes. Issues raised by the Maoists are serious and we need to respond to them politically, not just militarily, and begin by treating tribals as people first.
(Based on the Union Minister of Rural Development’s public lecture this week on '21st century Maoism in India' at the Nehru Museum & Library, New Delhi )
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
No!! Begin by getting your hair cut and taking a bath!!
A sincerely written and very thoughtful article, my respect for Jairam Ramesh jumped up 2 notches after reading this. At heart of the Naxalite discontent is the fact that India did away with the right to property as a fundamental right without much discussion or debate. India (or states to be specific since this is a state subject under the constitution) has made little to no effort to document historical rights on community lands such as forests, or properly record/computerize land record for individual holdings etc. At the time, we threw away such an important fundamental right, we probably thought it's repudiation would hurt the rich. As it happens, the rich have it fine by and large, the wave of privatizations in the 1970s not-withstanding. It is the poor who suffer - their lands and rights are arbitarily siezed at throwaway prices by a thuggish state, in cahoots with a deeply corrupt capitalistic class. Leading to people already on the margin of existence to starvation levels. Even the Tatas are not immune from this greed - witness Singur. Additionally, society has all sorts of violence and anarchy over disputes. The movie Pan Singh Tomar brings the dynamic of land disputes and their impact on people/society to light in technicolor.
There are tribals and tribals.Nagas are also tribals but they would like to be called only as Baptist Christians.Likewise,Mizos are also tribals but they want to be Called as Catholic Christians and not as tribals.It is only the Hindu tribals who are being identified as tribals.but,the tragedy is all their leaders going by the nomencleture of Maoists or Naxals are Christians,fully funded by missionaries.The same thing happened in Nepal.The so called Maoists are all Christians still carrying their Hindus.It is this type of Maoists who killed Swami Lakshmananda Saraswati in Kandhmal,but they would not touch the super rich Christian organisations fully operating in Odisha,AP,Jarkhand etc.People like Jairam Ramesh are text book type intellectuals with zero knowledge of ground realities.
Happy to hear one of our ministers talking thoughtfully and sincerely. I hope (and seriously doubt) that our PM listens to Mr. Ramesh.
All the best Mr. Ramesh.
Good analysis. Essentially you are confirming that including your own party we don't really have "leadership", i.e., leading people to a better place by becoming better. What passes for as leaders are just busy playing the zero sum game of winning elections by arranging numbers (i.e., vote banks) - if you don't fit the numbers need, you don't matter and might as well not exist.
Hope is that the "million mutinies" will continue but somehow the practice of democracy, as flawed as it might appear today, will get us to a better place and make us a better people.
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