Union Tribal Affairs Minister Kishore Chandra Deo told a television channel that calling the Maoists ‘terrorists', did not really matter. What was important was that the authorities must effectively tackle the menace.
He said this when the television anchor asked him pointedly whether he agreed with his ministerial colleague Jairam Ramesh's remark, which came in the wake of the killing of senior Congress leaders of Chhattisgarh by the Red ultras, that the Maoists were indeed terrorists.
Mr Deo is wrong. The label is important because it determines the Government's (both at the Centre and in the States) course of action. The authorities will not deal with a pick-pocket in the same manner that they would with a dacoit. A drunkard with a record of creating nuisance in his colony will be handled differently from that of a rapist. A terrorist has to be tackled differently from that of an individual who in a fit of rage picks the gun and shoots his tormenter. If there has to be a national policy on combating the Maoists — and there should be one at the earliest — it will have to take into account what sort of criminals these ultras are.
But Mr Deo's reluctance to call a spade a spade is not surprising, because it derives its basis from the romanticised notion that the Maoist killers are a response to the repression of the tribals by the state over decades and that, if they are terrorists, so are the state agencies which have ‘terrorised' and exploited the marginalised sections of society. While it is true that Government agencies have been far from responsive to the needs of the tribal population, and that on occasions the police and the security agencies have indulged in indefensible excesses, the solution cannot be the subversion of democracy through the gun. In any case, the Maoists have travelled far from their earlier lofty ideals of waging a war against wrongdoing, which began with the Naxalbari movement in West Bengal in the late 60s. They are now at war with the country; in the process they have been targeting innocent citizens, security personnel, politicians and just about every institution that represents democratic India.
The romanticised version of Maoist violence has been a devious creation of the apologists of these brutal killers, and it has sought to be embedded in the conscience of the unsuspecting populace through the media and seminar circuits frequented by so-called human rights activists. These apologists have received booster shots off and on from mainstream politicians as well, many of whom reside within the Congress. But after the Maoists killed senior leaders of the party, these apologists have either gone silent or have abandoned their soft speech. Jairam Ramesh is an example of the latter and Digvijaya Singh represents the former category. There have been exceptions, though, with senior Cabinet Minister
P Chidambaram having long maintained that the Maoists are terrorists and the single biggest threat to the nation's internal security. But each time strident voices such as his emerged on the need to use the iron fist against the Maoists, the party's resident doves rushed to dilute the impact by striking a counter note. As a result of these contradictions, the Maoists thrive.
It does not matter to these apologists (there is no better word, and thus it needs frequent repetition) that the Maoists have been increasingly engaging in the very same exploitative activities which they have been accusing the state agencies of. They terrorise residents of the tribal regions into giving them logistical support and shelter. They coerce youngsters to join the violent movement. They sexually abuse female Maoists. They have no scruples in killing innocent people, let alone comrades who decide in their wisdom to abandon the movement and lead a less violent life. The Maoists had lost the moral high ground a long time ago — even assuming for argument's sake that they had one in the first place. Yet, their defenders are as enthusiastic in their support for these terrorists as before.
The constant refrain among the ‘moderates' is that the Government must talk to the Maoist leadership to end the violence. There are many problems with this suggestion. The first is: Whom does the state talk toIJ The Maoists are spread across several States and they have many leaders. A pact with one factional leader may not hold valid with the other. The second problem is: Talks can happen only when the Maoists cease violence. The Centre and State Governments have many times in the past expressed a desire to talk the issue out, but the Maoists have never committed to a truce. The third issue is: What exactly is there to talkIJ The Maoists want the democratic system to be dismantled, nothing less. That cannot be the basis of any meaningful discussion. They have not expressed a willingness to work alongside the state authorities to ensure that development reaches the doorsteps of the people.
So, the argument that the Maoists are fighting to secure a better life for the tribals is balderdash. These Red ultras have systematically sabotaged Government attempts to improve amenities for the people in tribal regions. They terrorise contractors who come to build roads, blow up panchayat buildings and block the construction of healthcare facilities and schools. The Maoists realise that, once development sets in, they will no longer have leverage with the local people. The more the population remains on the margins, the better it is for the ultras. It is foolish to believe that the tribals back the Maoists on their own volition. Many villagers have complained that they are caught in the crossfire between the state and the Maoists, and that they are victims of repression from both sides.
Where do we then go from hereIJ First, the political class must close ranks and stop sparring with one another on the issue. The Maoists are a threat to the Congress, to the BJP, to the other parties, to democracy and to the country. They must be considered a common enemy. It is disgraceful that the Congress and the BJP should be involved in a blame-game over the latest Chhattisgarh attack just when they should be huddled together to find a way out. All Chief Ministers and all political parties must come together to help formulate a national policy on countering the Maoists. Second, the Government must officially designate the Maoists as ‘terrorists’. Third, the Congress must categorically direct its in-house apologists for the Red ultras to stop their nonsensical utterances. Fourth, the Centre and the State Governments concerned must use all their might to ensure that development projects in tribal regions are not affected by Maoist threats. And fifth, if the Maoists do not see reason despite all the attempts to make them do so, the Centre and the State Governments must ruthlessly crush them. The price to be paid for an all-out offensive may be big, but the price of not acting tough is far bigger.