“We’re With The Report Filed By The State. People Can Say Anything.”

Union home secretary G.K. Pillai has been in the hot seat for some time now. In this interview to Chandrani Banerjee, he answers questions surrounding the killing of Maoist ideologue Azad. Was he killed in an encounter as the police claim or was Azad killed at point-blank range in a well-planned execution?

Swami Agnivesh, among others, claims that the Andhra Pradesh police killed Azad, who was carrying a message of peace from the Centre to the Maoist leadership...

I don’t think so. Azad’s 10-page message before his death shows that he was not carrying any message of peace. He was raving again about the old Maoist ideology of arms revolution. See, in a parliamentary democracy, we don’t stand   for an armed revolution. What are the issues? There are developmental issues, tribal issues, but they are to be discussed. There are legal solutions, political solutions. There are issues of implementation. Nobody is saying the government is perfect. In fact, in many remote areas, governance is weak. Let’s have concrete suggestions from the Maoists. Instead of saying that the government should withdraw and Maoists should launch an armed revolution, they should come up with solutions.

There are a lot of revelations in Azad’s post-mortem report that raise questions about the manner of his death. Forensic experts says he had been shot at point-blank range...

See, as far as Azad is concerned, people have filed cases in Andhra Pradesh. The post-mortem report and the fir...everything is part of the court documents. Let the court take a view on it. If the court says there should be a judicial probe or an independent inquiry, the ministry will do it.

Is the Union home ministry at this stage not planning to initiate an independent inquiry?

The Andhra Pradesh police have put out a version. The post-mortem report and the fir are before the court. The court is examining them, and if they find anything contrary, they will order an inquiry. We are with the report filed by the state on the issue. If the court finds it all dissatisfying, then there will be an independent or magisterial inquiry as per the court directive. The home ministry will not initiate a separate inquiry.

There seem to be discrepancies in the fir filed by the Andhra police. While Maoist sympathiser Varavara Rao claims Azad was picked up from Nagpur, the police version is different.

People can claim anything. They should come up with proof.

With Azad’s killing, the peace talks with the Maoists have come to a halt. How does the government plan to break the ice now?

Azad’s death will have no impact and the request of the government is the same—abjure violence. We are not even asking them to give up arms. Keep your arms, but abjure violence and whatever the issues, bring them up for negotiation.

Won’t they feel insecure coming to the negotiating table after what happened to Azad?

They have a huge support base overground. Let Varavara Rao or anyone come and meet us with a charter of demands. We can have talks at a neutral place. We can have an agreement with the government that they will be given safe passage. And that if the talks break down, they will not be arrested.

Do you think that there is a need to change the government strategy in tackling Maoism?

Well, we have a mandate to deal with the problem. But its implementation involves different ministries as well as the Planning Commission. The home ministry alone is not responsible, but we are keeping at it. I have no doubt that we need to improve governance. That is the main reason behind all these problems. In many places, the governance is weak and in some places, it is even exploitative. So, the best officers, not the worst, should be posted in these areas. These kind of changes will bring about a change and the government is working towards it.