Congress’ doublespeak on Maoist terror isn’t confusion, it’s policy
by Praveen Swami Jun 4, 2013
Supporters of the Congress party hold placards and shouted anti-Chhattisgarh government slogans during a protest against a recent Maoist attack on their party workers. Reuters
ALSO SEE
In 2008, a small group of investigators emerged from Chhattisgarh, appalled by the evil war India was engaged in. More than 640 villages, they reported, had been “burnt to the ground and emptied with the force of the gun and the blessings of the state”. Mahendra Karma’s death-squads had forced 350,000 adivasis into refugee camps, “their womenfolk raped, their daughters killed, and their youth maimed”. The slaughter had been “scripted by Tata Steel and Essar Steel” to gain control of giant iron-ore fields, “the biggest grab of tribal lands after Columbus”.
The author of this fine Maoist hyperbole was the government of India, in a report circulated at about the same time prime minister Manmohan Singh was telling police “left-wing extremism is perhaps the gravest internal security threat we face”.
Puzzled? Don’t be.
Ever since the 25 May massacre of Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh, the same memes have been playing themselves out yet again. India’s rural development minister, Jairam Ramesh,calls Maoists terrorists. Kishore Chandra Deo, tribal affairs minister, rejects force, saying the Maoists have a genuine political cause. Earlier, Digvijaya Singh and Mani Shankar Iyer took on P Chidambaram.
For the Congress, this doublespeak isn’t confusion: it is time-tested policy, the policy of the safer, saner course.
File photo of the Chhattisgarh attack on Congress convoy. PTI
India’s Maoists have long enjoyed a curious relationship with the political order they wish to overthrow. In 1985, People’s Union for Democratic Rights volunteers went to investigatethe killing of a Maoist by police. “Manku Ram Sodhi, the Congress (I) MP from Bastar opined that the Naxalites were doing the work of Government”, the report records. Another leader said the “Naxalite scare is being created to justify deployment of armed forces to protect the vested interests”. Even the superintendent of police told the PUDR the Naxalites “were doing the right thing”.
Making nice with the Maoists has long made perfect sense for everyone: it gave police a reason not to enforce the law, administrators an excuse not to work, and politicians potential allies.
Allies?
Ever since the late 1960s, Maoists adroitly interjected themselves in varied political struggles. In 1976, Nagabhushan Patnaik famously led 250 adivasis in a raid on a landlord’s house in Parvatipuram, seizing hoarded grain and destroying loan records. It wasn’t the first time Andhra Pradesh landless had risen up—but the theatrical violence, followed by a succession of savage killings, captured the imagination of many young radicals.
Maoists piggy-backed on industrial disputes in Andhra Pradesh; dalit resistance to upper-caste militia in central Bihar; adivasi struggles against forest guards and exploitative contractors in Bastar. They rarely intruded on the interests of mainstream politicians, though, and the kindness was mostly returned.
In 1983, for example, millionaire film star-turned-Andhra Pradesh chief minister NT Rama Rao described the Maoists as “true patriots who have been misunderstood by the ruling classes”. That tradition continues. Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar has lauded the Maoists “ideological motivation at the higher level”. Mamata Banerjee demanded an end to offensive operations against them.
This is the safer, saner course.
Economic interests placed strains on this happy live-and-let-kill relationship. Listening to economists and corporate interests who were telling him that India needed the resources under adivasi land, the prime minister began pushing an aggressive anti-Maoist line around 2007. P Chidambaram joined in, after taking charge of the home ministry in 2008. Their campaign worried the Congress’ top leadership, though. Congress leaders had persuaded themselves that their legitimacy was founded on their reach among the rural poor. Rahul Gandhi went on to deliver his famous—if vapid—‘Two Indias’ speech in the company of a man alleged to have Maoist links. (On alleged Maoist links of the person who was present with Rahul Gandhi, see the report appended from Times of India).
The Congress leadership found allies among New Delhi’s élite liberals—a class of people whose ideological radicalism co-exists with privilege; people who live in upmarket homes, send their kids to private schools, enjoy single malt and cigars but would never, ever dream of cleaning their own toilets.
From around the time the counter-Maoist offensive began, voices sympathetic to Maoists began to regularly feature in official documents. The Planning Commission issued a report asserting that the Maoists “provide protection to the weak”. It conceded “that the level of violence they use tends to be on the high side”—“severe corporal punishment, including capital punishment”. Yet, it attacked security force operations, saying they were causing “alienation of common people”.
Like all good propaganda, these attacks had a solid foundation of truth: Salwa Judum’s cadre engaged in savage brutalities; innocents were killed, sometimes deliberately, by police. From the historian Ram Guha—who litigated against Salwa Judum in the Supreme Court—we know they didn’t, however, have a monopoly on barbarism. There isn’t, moreover, even one credible document which bears out the claim that 640 villages were “burnt to the ground”. Essar might or might not have been paying Salwa Judum—but it was also making payoffs to the Maoists.
Indeed, Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh told Firstpost that the report his Ministry put out in 2008 — before he took office — was “mouthing Maoist propaganda”. That just begs the question, though, of why it was put out in the first place.
Liberal apologetics for Maoists, however, goes on. There’s a fascinating statement issued by Delhi university scholars condemning the massacre, but calling on “the state and central governments to exercise great restraint in their response”. There’s no call for the Maoists, though, to do anything—not even to hand over the killers for trial, for example. It’s language Kishore Chand Deo would agree with.
For their part, the Maoists want the government to “withdraw all kinds of paramilitary forces from Dandakaranya; to give up the conspiracy of deploying the Army in the name of training; to put an end to the interference of Air Force; to release all the revolutionary activists”. In return, they offer death to “pet dogs of the exploiter classes”.
The Congress—and the UPA government—seem to be the only ones who don’t know what they want. They want a safer, saner course, but aren’t sure what it is.
There’s one single question the government needs to answer: is there a way forward other than killing? In 1996, Andhra Pradesh high court judges M Rao and S Nayak addressedthe case of Appa Rao, an alleged Maoist operative responsible for the assassination of Deputy Inspector General of Police KS Vyas. Police action, the judges argued, would achieve nothing; there had to be “a saner and a safer course” The judges advocated a “peace commission, with a representative character inspiring confidence in all sections of the society”. “This, we believe”, they concluded, “can bring about immediate cessation of police encounters and violence”.
Enthusiasts often applaud the judgment. They tend to ignore the fact that the story didn’t end with those rousing words.
Terrorism charges against Appa Rao were dropped by the High Court. He was eventually acquitted at trial, after witnesses—among them, now Director-General of Police Dinesh Singh, who was out jogging with Vyas the day of the attack—failed to identify him as the killer. In 2003, Appa Rao was alleged to have been the principal organiser of the 2003 attempt to assassinate Chandrababu Naidu. He went on to become a key Maoist commander; the state government offered a reward of Rs 1 million for information leading to his arrest.
Then, in 2010, the Andhra Pradesh police ended Appa Rao’s life deep inside the Nettikonda forests. The government rejected peace committees; it chose to kill. Yet, there’s one inescapable truth: from a peak of 508 killed in the conflict in 1998, violence in Andhra Pradesh has fallen to almost zero. Hundreds of people are alive—civilians, police, political Maoists—who wouldn’t otherwise be.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/congress-doublespeak-on-maoist-terror-isnt-confusion-its-policy-838797.html
Lado Sikoka controversy deepens
Sandeep Mishra, TNN Aug 28, 2010, 11.48pm IST
Lanjigarh/Bhubaneswar: As the controversy surrounding the questionable presence of anti-Vedanta activist Lado Sikoka in the August 26 tribal rally addressed by Rahul Gandhi turns deeper, various loose ends in the versions being put forth by meeting organizers, police and civil rights activists fighting for primitive Dongria Kondh youths are coming to the fore. The moot point now is: Who is telling the truth?
Incidentally, Lado was detained by Rayagada police earlier this month for his alleged Maoist links.
Going by Sikoka, police had "forcibly abducted" him while he was on his way to attend a meeting in New Delhi because he was opposing Vedanta and tortured him for four days (August 9-12), branding him a Maoist. "I told the cops that I had nothing to do with the Maoists. I am only fighting to save Niyamgiri and am ready to die for it. Police threatened to kill me if I refused to admit that I was a Maoist. When I refused to cave under their pressure, they dropped me off at Kalyansinghpur on August 12 and I walked 10 km to reach home," he said.
Police, however, rubbished his allegations and maintained that his detention had nothing to do with the anti-Vedanta stir. "We had detained him because we had information on Sikoka locally arranging food and organising meetings for the militants," SP (Rayagada) Anup Krishna told TOI. "After questioning, we let him off on August 10 evening. Police have not tortured him at all," he asserted.
SP (Kalahandi) Sudha Singh also contended that cops had not tortured Sikoka (38). "We recorded his statement (after he addressed the rally at Jagannathpur here on August 26) and sent him for medical examination to check the veracity of his allegation of police torture. Doctors said that there was no signs of torture on his body," Singh said.
Police sources said at least two criminal cases (one registered in 2009 and another in 2010 at Lanjigarh PS in Kalahandi) are pending against Sikoka. But no police officer is ready to answer as to why he was arrested earlier or even on August 26 when he openly blamed police of branding him a Maoist and torturing him.
Kalahandi MP Bhatka Charan Das, who was calling the shots at the Auguse 26 rally, supports Sikoka's version. "He has been closely associated with me in Green Kalahandi (a body fighting to prevent mining at Niyamgiri Hills) for the past five years. If Sikoka is a rebel, then I am a Maoist leader. Police have failed in fighting the extremists, so they are harassing innocent tribals," Das said. Eyebrows, however, were raised at the meeting when Das thanked the Rayagada SP for releasing Sikoko. If police tortured Sikoka, then why thank the police?
Police sources said Sikoka had dubious antecedents and before taking to activism, he was behind bars for sometime in connection with a murder case. Das, however, maintained: "I have no idea of his background."
Also, why did the Congress have to showcase him at a meeting organized by the Orissa Pradesh Youth Congress (OPYC)? "The meeting was primarily meant for tribals. So, he being a leading anti-Vedanta leader fighting for the cause of the tribal, was given an opportunity to speak at the rally," defended OPYC president Pradip Majhi. Was police in the know that Sikoka would address the congregation where Rahul, an SPG-protectee, was coming? leaders say they had informed the police, but cops, requesting anonymity, claimed that they had no inkling into the possibility of Sikoka turning up at the meeting.
Lok Shakti Abhijan leader Prafulla Samantara has his take: "Police is desperately trying to establish links between the Dongria Kondh tribal movement and Maoists to facilitate repressive measures that will clear all opposition from the tribe to the Vedanta mining project.
Last month, two platoons of paramilitary forces had carried out a combing operation in Lado's village Lakhpadar. "But why, even two weeks after the illegal detention and torture, were the activists yet to take legal recourse to punish those responsible? he asked and added: "We are planning to move the National Human Rights Commission. We will also discuss with Sikoka about filing a case against the culprits," he added.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-28/bhubaneswar/28308750_1_rayagada-police-maoist-links-maoist-leader
Attack aftermath: Raman Singh’s image takes a hit as Maoist fear looms large
By Parivesh Mishra
Raipur: The deadly Maoist attack on a Congress motorcade on 25 May has driven politicians in Chhattisgarh into a shell. A week after the incident, the BJP is still on the defensive, unsure of itself and unusually quiet, and the Congress has not still not come over the utter confusion. A sense of fear is palpable among the political leaders and many at the local level, particularly in the Bastar region, are either lying low, virtually invisible, or have shifted temporarily to safer locations.
After the Maoist attack, Chief Minister Raman Singh has abruptly dumped his state-wide Vikas Yatra—the BJP roadshow highlighting the government’s achievements—and returned to the state capital. There is no talk yet of the fate of his incomplete yatra. This has come as a dampener for the party workers, particularly in villages and mofussil towns.
The image of the chief minister has taken a beating after this incident. All the way till the attacks it was Raman Singh alone who smiled from the hoardings, waved from the rooftops, and greeted with folded hands on the front pages of the newspapers every morning. The roads were flooded on one side with the government Vikas Yatra flags bearing his photograph and the party flags on the other. Raman Singh alone was projected as the man solely responsible for everything that had happened or was happening in the state.
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh. PTI
The Naxal attack shattered his carefully cultivated image of the able administrator. The campaign on which such a lot had come to depend looked absurd in the backdrop of the total lack of grip on the basics of administering law and order. It came as a deadly blow to his claims made earlier in the meetings of having successfully eliminated the Naxalite problem in some parts of the state and contained in the other. What later stood glaringly exposed was the absence of the government from a large part of the state’s map.
That far from being contained the problem has been steadily spreading to hitherto unaffected districts and areas also was known to the police and people living in such districts. Now the lists of fresh “encounters” and “sightings” became the hot topics of public discussion. Sensing the public mood, the newspapers started carrying stories which were earlier not published as perhaps the Vikas Yatra ads had been eating up too much of space.
As the initial shock gave way to a feeling of anger, the issue of governance—or the lack of it—came increasingly under the microscope of public opinion. Here Raman Singh the chief minister was found undefendable. And the party was made to calculate the price of merging two identities—that of a tough, no-nonsense leader like Narendra Modi and a silent achiever—into one.
The leadership issue is at the centre of the Congress confusion too. With Nand Kumar Patel, the leader it had groomed to lead the party, gone, there seems to be no quick replacement around.
Today it settled for Charan Das Mahant as the working president of the Pradesh Congress Committee. However, that does not mean an end to the leadership problem for the party.
The moment the news of Patel leaving the scene surfaced on television screens, Ajit Jogi grabbed the leadership role and reached the Raj Bhawan with a hundred or so of his supporters and made the demand of the dissolution of Raman Singh’s government and imposition of President’s rule.
This line was in opposition to what Manmohan Singh, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi and others were deliberating at that time in Delhi. This sent confusing signals to the party workers across the state and opened the floodgates of similar demands and created an awkward situation for the party. By the next day the PM and the Congress president arrived and stated the party’s official stand of cooperation and help from the Centre to the state government in its fight against the Maoists. But the party failed to make the irrepressible Jogi fall in line.
Jogi has, perhaps inadvertently, provided the opening to the beleaguered BJP to divert the needle of suspicion from itself to Jogi and through him to his party. Jogi had returned in a helicopter after attending the Sukma public meeting leaving the others to carry on in the motorcade which was attacked some distance away. Another Congressman almost accused by the BJP to be a party to the “conspiracy” is Kawasi Lakhma – the MLA who was let off by the Maoists. In the camp politics of the Congress Lakhma is considered close to Jogi.
Meanwhile, the Congress has decided to show signs of defiance and is planning to re-start its Parivartan Yatra from the site of the ambush where it had come to an abrupt halt on 25 May. The yatra would be renamed either Shraddhanjali Yatra or Sadbhavna Yatra.