'Conflicting Voices'

From the leader of opposition's speech in Rajya Sabha

The incident, at Dantewada, is, actually, a culmination of the process which has been going on for the last several years. We are all one with the government in condemning this brutal attack on our security forces in which 75 of our security personnel have died and a large part of our weaponry has been seized by them. 

Chhattisgarh, as a state, is one of those states in this country, which, for the last several years, has been seized of the Maoist problem. When the government in Chhattisgarh showed determination to fight the Maoists, initially, they were alone and, in their approach, were being criticised by many, including my friends in the Treasury Benches. Regrettably, the first five years of the UPA government, in the avatar of UPA-I, were, in fact, wasted, while not realizing as to what the seriousness and the enormity of this problem was. Every time, we discussed this issue, we got an uninspiring reply from the government that it is only social and economic development which will take place, which will eventually resolve the problem, not realizing that besides the social and economic development of these areas, there has to be even an ideological battle against the Maoists.

Additionally, the militarisation of the Maoist movement in this country will also have to be responded adequately with a security action. Five years of UPA-I saw Maoists across the country gaining strength, and, today, unless I stand corrected by the home minister, there are, at least, 220 districts in this country, which have a Maoist presence; in 90 of them, they have an effective Maoist presence.

A situation of this kind is, particularly, alarming because when we look across the country we find that the first five years were wasted not even knowing or realizing what the problem was or how the problem was to be dealt with. Though there was some sign of hope in the last one year when the home minister, at least, gave indications of realizing the extent of the problem and suggesting, though a very difficult, but a possible solution.

What has happened in the last few days is disgusting. Look at the conduct of the entire opposition on this entire issue. We could have all got up and said, "We want the home minister of this country to resign". The entire opposition of this country, even one man, is not willing to speak in that language for the reason that we don't want a reason for the Maoists to smile and for the Maoists to rejoice their victory. Therefore, even though there was a monumental lapse on the part of a section of the security forces -- and I quite concede that battles like this will be won many a time and lost many a time, but these are battles which are to go on -- the curse of Maoism has to be eradicated and this is a battle that this country can't afford to lose. The entire opposition was speaking in one voice for this country. We were constrained by the issues within our own organizations as to the extent of which we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the government and fight against Maoism. 

The home minister, in fact, became a victim of his own idiom. He had used a particular phrase against the Chief Minister of West Bengal. When I read the response of the Chief Minister of West Bengal after this incident, I saw that from BJP to the CPM everybody was speaking the same language on the Maoist issue. We didn't want to respond by snide remarks against the government or the home minister. Suddenly what we find today is that the country wants to speak in one language, the opposition wants to stand with this government and the home minister has made a very encouraging statement when he says, "to counter the menace of naxalism, we need a strong head, a strong heart and an enormous staying power". We agree with the home minister. But what we don't need is a government which tries to pull down its own home minister; what we don't need is a divided government; what we don't need is half the Maoists in the Treasury Benches who try and pull down the government by saying that the fight against Maoism must be diluted and that is what seems to be going on in the last few days.

Compare the statement which my party spokesman and my colleague in the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Rudy, made with the response that the hon. Chief Minister of West Bengal made. After being at the receiving end of a snide remark, he showed statesmanship. The BJP showed the statesmanship when the country was under the attack of Maoists. What is the ruling party and the home minister's own party doing? You [Digvijay Singh] are a senior leader of the party writing a signed article and I quote from that article two lines and I deal with the content of that article. He says, 

"I have known P. Chidambaram since 1985 when we were both elected to Parliament. He is extremely intelligent, articulate, committed and a sincere politician, but extremely rigid once he makes up his mind. I have been a victim of his intellectual arrogance many times. But we are still friends. He is treating it purely as a law and order problem without taking into consideration the issue of the Tribals". 

Then he goes on to further attack him. In the last paragraph he says, 

"We should be paying more attention to the issues of livelihood and governance rather than converting the serene and calm environment of Bastar into a battle field. Ultimately, when the bullet is fired from the Naxal's gun or the policeman's, the victim is an ordinary Indian citizen".

If a satyagraha before the Maoists could resolve this issue, we will all join this great author and office bearer of the Congress party. If development activity was possible when 75 policemen were being slaughtered when they entered that area; if it is possible to enter that area and start building roads, start setting up industries, start building hospitals and nothing will happen to them, if somebody was to narrate such a fairy tale to us, it may sound very impressive, but then that someone is not living in the real world. Not to be undone, we now have one of the ministerial colleagues of the hon. home minister, a ministerial colleague from West Bengal [Mamata Banerjee], who says, I am quoting the statement of last evening, 

"There is not a single Maoist in Lalgarh or to be precise in West Bengal. The CPI (M) cadres are unleashing a rein of terror in the garb of Maoists. The operation of the combined forces is indirectly helping the CPI (M) there. We were always against the joint venture operation of West Bengal. We demand that the operation be stooped immediately. Only innocents are being subjected to torture". 

Here is the statement which we are expected to take seriously. And that statement of the home minister says, probably rightly, that the states will have to fight the terror of Maoism. The Centre will stand behind them, will supply them the weaponry, will supply them the security forces, will conduct joint operations because we collectively have the strength to do that. I consciously used the words that there are Maoists who indulge in violence and there are those who do not indulge in violence but these are half- Maoists when they speak this language. You don't see a single Maoist in Lalgarh, you don't see a single Maoist elsewhere and you say that the Joint Operation, which the government of India and the states have launched -- I hereby defy the collective responsibility principle -- should be called off! Not satisfied with this, the next part of the statement is -- I think such a minister should be called to the Bar of this House and asked to explain the statement which defies all federal principles --

"Ms. Banerjee also demanded the arrest of the Chief Minister, Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, for misusing his powers under the Constitution and for engaging in the undemocratic and unconstitutional activity". 

So we are to fight Maoism, we are to fight that violence by saying that political parties have shown a great amount of maturity and statesmanship by saying we stand with the government in this entire operation and your own ministerial colleague, your own party colleague says: 

"Which is this direction you are taking the country into! There is not a single Maoist. The home minister is day-dreaming. There is no Maoist in Lalgarh and there is no Maoist elsewhere. It is cadres of other political parties on whom operation is being done". 

Is this the manner in which this menace of Maoism is going to be fought? You certainly need a strong head and a strong heart, but you also need a strong government, you also need a strong party and what is fatal to this operation is the fact that you don't have the support of that party or that government in carrying on this operation and if you are isolated in this, which the effort seems to be, then certainly you can lose this battle even before the battle has actually begun. We now have one other distinguished colleague who today has been sworn in as member of this House, Shri Mani Shankar Aiyer. He says, 

"Digvijay is not hundred per cent right, he is not even one thousand per cent right, he is one lakh per cent right".

It is not one; it is not two; it is not some isolated statement. The pattern at the national level is that the whole country is saying, the whole opposition is saying, "Let us strike this menace of Maoism." And it is obvious that there is nothing ingenuous which has been said in the statement. This will have to be fought. Militarised movement of the Maoist will have to be fought as a law and order problem. For a long-term solution, you will need social and economic development of the region. And, seeing the spread of these Maoist activities, you will have to fight them ideologically. But now, we are being told, "Forget this larger consensus on this issue, this great threat to India, should the battle against this now be abandoned and the approach which has been adopted is, completely, wrong."  This is, paradoxically, the situation we are confronted with. The nation and the opposition want to fight the Maoists. The home minister, at least, says that he wants to fight the Maoists. And, you have completely conflicting voices coming from the government and the ruling party. I, now, look back to the last 10 days. In the middle of a battle, does somebody have to say, "I accept responsibility and I am willing to go"? Generals don't walk out of a battle. They don't give an enemy the reason to rejoice. This is the condition of the ruling party... 

I read, at times, in newspapers and I listen to statements on television channels, that in operations of this kind, security forces may even need air support, air support not for attacking anyone but air support for the purposes of surveillance and for the purposes of adding to the strength of the security forces. Even before statements have appeared, from the parallel department of the government you find statements coming out saying that it shall not be provided. It appears that the home minister, in his approach, is under gherao from his own party, under gherao from his own colleagues in the government. At some stage, while he decides the future course of action, he will have to choose whether his commitment to the cause of eradicating Maoist violence in this country, his loyalty to the country, will prevail or his discipline towards his party, where he succumbs to the pressure and says, let a crippled battle against the Maoists go on. It is a Hobson's choice which he will have to make. If that is the kind of approach, then my advice and suggestion to my good friend, the home minister, is:

"You are responsible for this country's security. The home minister is responsible for this country's internal security. This was a set back. But after a set back, home ministers do not behave like injured martyrs. Circumstances within the party can compel you to take that position, but your commitment to the country should not allow you to adopt that position". 

Therefore, this battle, as I said, is a battle which India cannot afford to lose, and, therefore, this battle must be led and we in the opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with this government in order to fight Maoism, provided the government is willing to do so.

What is this problem all about? Let us look at the enormity of this problem and let us be very clear that these are not some ideologically misled people who have a grievance and, therefore, they are trying to voice it. This country, after Independence, started from a position where, probably, we had one of the largest number of people living below the poverty line. That figure has been, gradually, coming down. We have been trying to grow. Is this only about economic disparity and poverty? If it is only about economic disparity and poverty, and then, if every citizen who considers himself a `havenot' goes and picks up a gun, we can stop  thinking about the idea of India, we can stop in terms of thinking about keeping this country together, we can stop thinking in terms of saving our parliamentary democracy. 

Let us be very clear: this is a political movement led by ideologically hard individuals, committed individuals, who want to overthrow India's parliamentary democracy by the use of violence. This is, in fact, the Maoist movement. Now, when they want to do so, they want to do so with a particular strategy and that strategy appears to be, which you have seen decades ago, and that emanated in other countries of the world, that for this purpose they must have one group that is an ideologically trained group that would go about indoctrinating people, set up a guerrilla army, involve people who would go and work in some areas which are deprived areas, mislead the people, get them into this and, then, establish a political system with the help of violence in which there is no ballot, in which there is no free economy, in which there is no economic development. They may have a few thousands of these ideologically trained people who, through the use of violence would, then, say, the whole country should be under an ideological dictatorship of this kind. It is their ultimate goal to establish this and from the literature I read, 2060 seems to be the deadline by which they would establish this kind of a regime in this country.

Go in for the developmental approach. They built up a wall; they built up secluded areas of dominance. They created islands of their influence. Your armed forces and security forces will not be able to enter there. And, of course, some groups will go there, and start building roads, setting up industries, setting up schools and hospitals and suddenly everything will become all right. Is it conceivably possible that this will happen? What is their approach? The approach and I read a lot of their literature, is this: I was reading on how they get their money. In these areas, which are their secluded islands, which are under their control, areas of their domination, most of these 220 districts, particularly those 90 districts under their strong control, every employee who earns a salary has to give them a tax; every shopkeeper has to give them a tax; every farmer has to give them a tax; every contractor has to give them a tax. If you go to areas like Jharkhand or northern areas of Bihar on the border, it is opium and poppy cultivation which is their source of revenue, and you end up collecting Rs.1,500 crores every year. 

On the strength of this money, you start hiring cadres; it is no longer ideological. You find young unemployed youths, some of whom are frustrated for lack of opportunities. The report seems to be indicating that at Rs.3,000 a month, you keep one or two such youths, arm them and put them in the villages. What their approach is, how do they get these arms? Unquestionably, some of the arms are coming from across the border. They have been buying arms. Some crude arms are manufactured by them. But, bulk of their arms are not coming from across the border or manufactured by them. They work on their own Maoist slogan, 'the enemy's armoury is our armoury', and the enemy being the security forces. So, every time a police station is looted, a security force is looted, for instance, these security personnel were attacked, and the home minister said that 75 weapons were taken away, and these are taken away on each occasion. In each such attack, they snatch away the arms and take them away. The government's armoury becomes their armoury. 

Earlier it was class enemies. Now, it is none of their class enemies, it is only informers. So, anybody who is to be killed or intimidated is the informer. That is the approach you follow. You start encircling the cities. I read some of their recent literature. That is an area where we are weak. Mr. home minister, if this goes unchecked, and if you follow the advice of any of your three colleagues, who have turned counter-insurgency consultants in the last three days, the consequence will be the next step where the cities will be encircled, and, probably, two to three years from today you will have to put some 50 or 100 districts of this country under Army's administration, without the civil administration. This is not how battles of this kind are going to be fought. 

Therefore, how do we fight this battle? Certainly, everybody is entitled to livelihood. I may be very critical of some schemes of the government. There are some schemes on which there is a larger national consensus, they have been continuing government to government. After all, our economy is growing by nine per cent. We want it to trickle down. You collect revenue from those who can afford to give it; you use it for poverty alleviation schemes. Please check up, even the money under these schemes reaches some of these secluded areas; the government's money which is meant for the poor is extorted and taken out and used in order to perpetuate the Maoist movement. Your party colleagues, Mr Home Minister, are seriously mistaken. Maoism is not a poverty eradication scheme. It is a democracy elimination scheme. And, those misconceived advisers who tell you to stop halfway and give up this battle and turn to a situation where you only keep trying and failing and not being able to achieve the required figures of development, then, probably, you will never be able to do so.

These will become secluded areas and slowly their areas of influence will keep expanding. Who are these people? I think, this country is also entitled to know who these people are. As I have said, you have one category which is ideologically well trained. They are willing to go to any extent. There is a second category which is trained in a military battle, which is the militarisation of the Maoist movement. There is a third category which is the poor and innocent, that is, the rural people who come under their influence who are used by them in order to shield their operations, because security forces understandingly being humane, the governments being humane, are unwilling to take the poor people on who are put by the Maoists as a shield in front of them. I thought, I would only end with the fourth category. The fourth category is this new breed of human rights activists. 

I remember the human rights movement in the country picked up during the freedom struggle; it picked up on the eve of the emergency, during the emergency and thereafter. In the last ten to fifteen years, I have seen, there is no liberal human rights movement left in this country. What is left is really an overground face of the underground movement. Most of the people who appear on our television channels before the media under the garb and name of human rights activism, are actually the overground face of the Maoist movement. They will all start with the favourite argument, 'Well, let me first tell you that I am opposed to violence. But, the Maoists have a point because there is a social espouse which is responsible. The state is indulging in violence. The policeman has a gun, so the Maoist is also entitled to have a gun.' For a policeman to have a gun is a part of his legitimate duties. For a state to have police or military is a part of its normal protective duties. If there is an insurgency, what does a citizen do except depend on the state for protection? But, for a private militia to go and say, 'We will carry our own military because the state also has a military', then if we are going to rationalize such arguments, we are moving towards an anarchic situation. That is an argument these destroyers of human rights, these gentlemen who are giving human rights a bad name, are now appearing to be giving.

I thought I would end with these four categories. But, then, within the democratic society, I have come across a category of people, whom I earlier described as half-Maoists. They certainly do not indulge in violence, there is no military approach. But, their one point approach is rationalize the Maoists' cause and somehow weaken the fight against Maoism. Therefore, it is because of this reason that these kind of newly emerged advisors on how to fight Maoism have to be really taken with a pinch of salt and their advice, perhaps, in larger national interest will have to be ignored.

I clarified earlier that the home minister has referred to two areas of approach on how the Maoism is to be fought with. You certainly need economic development, you need jobs, you need to end inequalities, and you need to end disparities. We have covered a huge distance as a society. We still have a long distance to cover. If we continue to grow like this, I think, the first right on the national resources will be of these backward areas. These can be areas under Maoists' influence. We must remember our national resolve that we have absolutely no battle against the poor people in those areas who are either quiet or joined them because of submission and who are otherwise inflicted with the curse of poverty. Our first national responsibility is to serve them. Our first share of national resources must go to them. But, then, that alone will not solve the problem. Our resources will not even reach them, our roads will not reach them, our schools and hospitals will not be built there unless this iron wall which the Maoists are building in these secluded areas is demolished. This has been built up by the militarised operations of the Maoists and this can only be demolished by a militarised operation of the state. Therefore, the state will also need security. To that an extent, it will have to be looked at merely because a political problem or a social problem also has a violent content, the law and order component does not disappear.

It will always remain a law and order problem along with the social problems which needs to be resolved. Then, since the last two categories I referred to, this new brand of over-ground faces of the underground movement, and this half a Maoist categories, which are increasing in numbers, it is important that we remember that besides social and economic activity, besides the security action, we also need to fight them ideologically. We have to go and tell the poor people that when they used the same tactics in China what eventually happened was that the course of the economic planning had to be changed, otherwise China would have remained backward. What happened in other economies of the world where this kind of violence was thrown up, after all, a large number of their colleagues, in many parts of the world, have come back to the political mainstream and said that they will use the democratic process. And we make them to come back in the democratic process. This entire effort seems to be aimed so that whenever you are under pressure, give an offer for talks, and offer for talks can put the government off guard, and offer for talks will give you time to regroup, and then, you can again strike back. Last time, when they gave an offer for talks and the government said that we will watch your conduct, during that period you had a series of attacks. This is the enormity of the problem. 

The government, the state governments, the home minister have an onerous task that these secluded islands have to be recaptured back. They have to be recaptured back so that the economic resource can go into them. Without recapturing them back, if you put the economic resource, nothing will reach there. You need a huge amount of coordination between the centre and the states. You do not need merely allegations flying at each other, you do not need to embarrass each other. And interpersonal relations need a huge amount of humility on both ends. The states may be ruled by different parties, the centre may be ruled by different parties. This is one issue on which these ideological barriers between democratic parties will have to fall. Therefore, we need to certainly coordinate this entire action. I think there is a special responsibility on the home minister to improve these interpersonal relations with the states with the Chief Ministers. Lastly, I am sure that the opposition will be forthcoming, all opposition Chief Ministers will be forthcoming, opposition parties will be forthcoming, but, I think, where we cannot help him is to improve the interpersonal relations within his own party. That seems to be at low ebb. 

In the middle of the battle we have never seen the person in front is being pulled down in this manner. I think, those who are doing it are neither performing a patriotic duty nor a service to the country. They must reconsider their stand. I repeat, what I told the home minister, that this battle cannot be fought half-heartedly, this battle cannot be fought by saying that, all right, if I do not succeed I will go out. We cannot afford to do that. You cannot behave like an injured soldier. This battle has to be won. The government has to be in the front and, therefore, the government must stand up. If the government is divided, then your own strong mind, strong heart and your ability to stay on do not help you because there are lot of people who are creeping down and who are pulling you down. Unless you can fight that situation and the Prime Minister comes here to clarify that such sort of a situation will not come, even with our support and the country's entire goodwill against this battle, I am not so sure what the present party in power can really do out of the battle of this kind.