Author: K P S Gill
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: October 24, 2004
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=57588
How can you have a policy in one
state that has no universal appeal, especially in non-Congress-ruled states?
The Government's line just gives a fillip to violence, will demoralise
the police
By agreeing to negotiate with Naxalite
groups, the Government has only emboldened those who choose the path of
violence to meet their political ends. In my view, any state, community,
or a group of people who succumb to violence are abdicating their basic
commitment to a civilised society.
Talks with Naxalite groups in Andhra
Pradesh-who have spread to 155 districts which is almost 25 per cent of
the country-will have an adverse effect on the economy, particularly in
contiguous areas like Jharkhand, Maharashtra and other states.
In Andhra Pradesh itself, the information
technology success and all the development remained focused around Hyderabad
while Naxalism spread to all other districts. It is clear now that the
ruling party used these groups to win the election.
As a result of which a ''peace process''
has started that allows Naxalite groups to brandish their weapons in the
open. They have not given up the path of armed struggle, continuing their
politics through an antidiluvean ideology.
Never has a state returned to peace
through negotiations with violent groups. Only when violence is put down
firmly and strongly, is there any chance for peace. The prime example being
that of Punjab and before that in Mizoram.
Negotiations with Naxalite groups
is a totally retrograde step. It has come in the wake of a meeting by the
Home Ministry which had no agenda and no line of action on what needs to
be done or what policy has to be followed.
In any case, the policy of negotiations
is particular to Andhra Pradesh. But how can such a policy be followed
which has no universal appeal, particularly to states that do not have
Congress governments? You cannot have one meeting and say this is the official
policy on dealing with Naxalite groups.
This kind of official line will
only give fillip to violence. After all, Left-wing extremism is a national
security problem, not merely a law-and- order issue for Andhra Pradesh.
Further, what message does this
send out to the rest of the world? On the one hand, we want foreign direct
investment to flow into the country and are encouraging multinational companies
to come here while at the same time, we let these groups roam openly with
weapons.
Basic law and order is part of the
infrastructure needed for investment and economic growth. What's the use
of a road where people and vehicles cannot move freely? How are business
and industry going to grow when there are parts of the country you cannot
travel because of fear of being attacked?
We are always proclaiming before
the rest of the world that India is the world's largest democracy. A democracy
believes in universal adult franchise. Naxalite groups are totally against
this. For them, a true state is one where there is the dictatorship of
the proletariat. So where is the ideological basis for entering into negotiations?
Moreover, have negotiations ever
succeeded? Assam was an, otherwise, peaceful state till we signed the AASU
pact. This gave rise to a chain of violence, different armed groups have
come up, there are regular attacks by them while the guilty are still in
power.
It's a strange paradox that while
there is this move to negotiate with Naxalite groups in Andhra Pradesh,
we are providing every assistance to Nepal to fight the Maoists. And instead
of laying down arms before the police, these Naxalite groups have come
out openly in support of Maoists in Nepal.
All this has only demoralised police
officers who have been genuinely concerned with establishing law and order.
Whenever there are such moves to negotiate, those officers who are apologists
for these violent groups and their acts come to fore. This will happen
again. Good officers will come back, but only when there is urgency to
restore law and order.
Gill is a member of the National
Police Advisory Board and the founding president of the Institute of Conflict
Management in New Delhi. He headed anti- militancy operations in Punjab
as DGP until 1995.
