Author: Manoj Mitta
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: October 21, 2004
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=57344
Human Security Now. Heard of this
somewhat provocative expression? Yes, it is reminiscent of a rock concert
tour organised by Amnesty International in the eighties called "Human Rights
Now!" But no, it is not some kind of an alarmist counter-blast from security
junkies, to justify encroachment on human rights in this age of international
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Rather, it is a report that
is being debated in human rights circles around the world for its seminal
ideas.
The report published last year was
co-authored by no less a humanist than our own Nobel laureate Amartya Sen,
who is known in the field of economics for his espousal of "growth with
equity". The Congress governments at the Centre and in Andhra Pradesh would
do well to look up Human Security Now to realise the folly of letting Naxal
militants walk around openly with their arms.
Let us first appreciate the meaning
of this new coinage, human security. In a departure from the traditional
view, it seeks to shift the focus of security from the state to the individual.
Human rights and human security are thus "mutually reinforcing" but distinct
concepts. There are broadly seven components of human security: economic,
food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security.
We are concerned here with the aspect
of personal security, which is threatened by the proliferation of small
arms such as AK-47 rifles. The abuse of light weapons is not only by state
agents but also by armed individuals and groups. It is in fact estimated
that there are more guns in the hands of private persons around the world
than there are in the hands of state security forces. Private individuals
are said to account for about 55 per cent of the global stockpile of firearms,
a minimum of 305 million guns. Not surprisingly, there is a general pattern
of high rates of gun ownership leading to increases in the incidence of
arms related violence.
It is against this backdrop that
Human Security Now proffers this advice to all governments: "Disarming
people and fighting crime through preventing the proliferation of weapons
and illegal trade in resources and people has to be a priority." Now look
at how Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister
Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy have been treating Naxalites, who are arguably the
largest abusers of small arms in India.
And don't miss the irony of how
Patil did two utterly irreconcilable things on the same day. Through an
ordinance promulgated on September 21, the Home Ministry banned as terrorist
organisations two of the deadliest Naxal outfits, People's War Group (PWG)
and Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). The ordinance imposes severe penalties
on anybody found to have associated with, supported or funded the terrorist
organisations. But at a meeting the same day in Hyderabad of Naxalite-affected
states, Patil called upon other chief ministers to follow the example of
Reddy, who had lifted an existing state ban on PWG and its front organisations.
Disregarding intelligence reports
that killings by Naxalites have increased since last year, Patil commended
Reddy's approach of declaring a ceasefire and inviting Naxal leaders to
talks. Patil fell into the trap of that old black-and-white proposition
that left extremism was not a law and order problem but a socio- economic
issue.
Patil's encouragement emboldened
Reddy to proceed with the talks even after PWG repudiated one of the ceasefire
conditions: that the militants would not bear weapons when they come overground.
It did not seem to matter a whit to Reddy that those unlicensed weapons
also happened to violate the rule of law. What followed was pure anarchy.
Under the benign gaze of the police, gun-toting Naxalites have held huge
rallies and built memorials to their killed comrades in several places,
including Hyderabad. PWG has put the ceasefire period to good use, from
its point of view. It has been more effective than ever before in replenishing
its ranks, treasury and arsenal.
All that the Reddy government said
in its defence was that the question of weapons would be taken up in the
talks with PWG. Thus, a pre-condition was allowed to become a subject of
negotiations. And the issue was not whether the Naxalites should surrender
weapons. It was just whether they would be polite enough not to flaunt
weapons in public. Not surprisingly, in the three-day talks held last week,
the delegation of ministers failed to extract even that small concession
from PWG leaders. While the Reddy government continues to pretend that
it is closer to ending the armed struggle of left extremists, PWG has announced
a "merger" with its northern counterpart, MCC, and bids fair to declare
an "acquisition" of a corridor of influence from Tamil Nadu to Nepal.
