Author: Prakash Nanda
Publication: Organiser
Date: October 25, 2009
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=314&page=2
Introduction: Wrong diagnosis will strengthen
Maoists
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seems to have
a soft corner for Maoists. Like the typical "human rights jhola-wallas",
he thundered at an election meeting in Maharashtra on October 11 that "Maoists
are not terrorists" and that he would be happy to talk to them. How will
the Prime Minister define terrorism, if they are not terrorists? As a good
doctor cannot treat a patient without the proper diagnosis of his disease,
how can he and his government deal with Maoists if he is not sure of their
crime?
The Prime Minister invariably cites the usual
factors of underdevelopment, corruption in bureaucracy, police atrocities
and exploitation of Vanvasis and poor people contributing to the growing influence
of Maoists. But that is one part of the story.
In imposing their so-called "bandh"
in Bihar and Jharkhand on October 12 and 13, the Maoists shot dead officials
of the public sector undertakings, set ablaze a railway station and took the
employees hostages there, blew up railway tracks and a portion of an inter-district
state highway, torched many trucks, blasted a tower of a private telecom and
destroyed some newly block offices. Few days earlier, they had beheaded, a
la Taliban style, police officials in Jharkhand and Maharashtra, whom they
had taken as hostages in order to force the government to release some of
their detained comrades.
All these are recent events. Also add the
little older incidents of seizing the town of Lalgarh in West Bengal, killings
of thousands of innocent Vanvasis in Chhattisgarh, hijacking a train with
300 passengers in Jharkhand, deliberately initiating the communal riots between
Hindus and Christians in Orissa by killing the social activist, Swami Laxmanananda
Saraswati, who had done exemplary work among Vanvasis in the state; and practising
many a caste riot in Bihar, riots that have taken the lives of thousands of
innocent civilians and destroyed public properties, including schools, worth
thousands of crores. No wonder, why for the last three years Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh had been saying that "the Naxalites/Maoists pose the gravest
threat to the internal security" of the country. The Home Minister P
Chidambaram is threatening strong actions against these forces, whom the governments
of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh openly brand
as terrorists of worst type. Even the armed forces of the country have sought
permission from the government to take appropriate counter-measures against
the Maoists if attacked in the areas of the latter's strong presence.
And yet, Prime Minister Singh seems to have
a soft corner for Maoists. Like the typical "human rights jhola-wallas",
he thundered at an election meeting in Maharashtra on October 11 that "Maoists
are not terrorists" and that he would be happy to talk to them. How will
the Prime Minister define terrorism, if they are not terrorists? As a good
doctor cannot treat a patient without the proper diagnosis of his disease,
how can he and his government deal with Maoists if he is not sure of their
crime?
For his benefits, let us see whether the universally
accepted definitions and understanding of terrorism apply to the Maoists or
not. While it is true that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom
fighter" has often haunted the debate on terrorism for decades, we propose
to cite those definitions accepted and used in the United Nations (UN), of
which India is a leading member:
UN Resolution language (1999): 1. "Strongly
condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable,
wherever and by whomsoever committed. 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended
or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group
of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance
unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked
to justify them." (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to Eliminate International
Terrorism).
UN Security Council Resolution 1566 refers
to terrorism as "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages,
with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in
a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel
a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing
any act".
On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism
as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians
or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling
a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing
any act".
The UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 titled
"Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December
9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism. It says: "Criminal
acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public,
a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any
circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked
to justify them."
Any honest and sincere readings of the above
resolutions in the world body, which India has never opposed, make it amply
clear that the Maoists are nothing but terrorists. In fact, to refresh the
memory of the Prime Minister, it may be recalled that while presiding over
a task force of nine Maoist-hit states on February 23, 2006, none other than
the then Special Secretary to the Union Home Ministry AK Mitra had asserted:
"Maoist problem is not a simple problem of law and order. This is a terrorist
(emphasis added) and inter-state problem."
The Prime Minister invariably cites the usual
factors of underdevelopment, corruption in bureaucracy, police atrocities
and exploitation of Vanvasis and poor people contributing to the growing influence
of Maoists. But that is one part of the story. He invariably forgets the other
part, which is that as is the case in Kashmir and many parts of the north-east,
people are supporting the so-called revolutionaries in the "Red Corridor"
in eastern/central India not out of love and reverence but because of terror
and fear. Maoists and their leaders are flourishing because money, important
for them to procure sophisticated weapons, is no longer any problem. Most
Maoist leaders have over the past two decades acquired large properties in
the urban areas with the money that flows to them through extortion, which,
according to one estimate, yields around Rs 3,000 crore annually. And those
exhorted are not only contractors, businessmen, doctors and engineers but
also poor labourers and farmers, who are forced to part with a substantial
portion of their earnings. They raise funds through extortion or by setting-up
parallel administrations to collect taxes in rural areas where local governments
and the Indian State appear absent. This is not all. Smuggling of contrabands
and wood as well as poppy cultivations also enrich their coffers.
And what is worse, the Maoists have strengthened
their links with the notorious terrorist groups outside the country, including
the LTTE and ISI. In a series of articles, the weekly Blitz of Bangladesh
has already exposed how arms are secretly distributed amongst the members
of small communist groups as well as some of the Islamist groups in Bangladesh
and how Nepalese Maoists are conspiring to re-begin notorious activities of
Naxalites in Indian West Bengal. According to the paper, "Several analysts
are seeing hidden cooperation between Al Qaeda and Nepalese Maoists, which
helped Maoists in attaining such landslide victory in Nepal. There is reportedly
a hidden agreement between the two in allowing Al Qaeda outfits in the South
Asian region [in Nepal] to operate without any legal obstacles. Now, after
the victory of Maoists, it is anticipated that activities of Al Qaeda and
other Islamists terror groups will greatly increase. It is also learnt from
several sources that, Al Qaeda is patronizing Maoist operatives in Nepal as
well as spread of extremist Islamism in the South Asian region under the garb
of Communism. International community needs to look into this extremely important
issue forthwith and fix appropriate strategies in combating rise and spread
of Maoism, Communism or Islamism, for the sake of regional and global security."
It may be recalled that Maoist groups in India
took the initiative in forming in 2001 Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties
and Organizations of South Asia, better known as CCOMPOSA, in some secret
locations in the jungle of central India. Its members are Naxalite or Maoist
outfits from Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. In August 2006, CCOMPOSA
held its fourth conference in Nepal. Obviously, with Maoists emerging as the
most important political force in Nepal (thanks to India under Manmohan Singh,
but it is a different story), their fraternal counterpart in India have become
more powerful. Recently, a truck loaded with more than 1000 kg of explosives
and a large number of detonators was apprehended on Bihar-Nepal border.
If all these acts do not make Maoists terrorists,
what else do, Mr Prime Minister? By all means, you talk to them, but for the
country's sake, first defeat them. The Maoists have waged a war against the
country. Talks now could at best lead a truce. But then truce is no substitute
for a lasting peace.
