Ajay K. Mehra is Associate Professor in Political Science at the University of Delhi and Director (Honorary) of the Centre for Public Affairs, a non-profit network of public intellectuals. Recently he edited Emerging Trends in Indian Politics - The 15th General Election (Routledge 2010).
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called repeatedly Left Wing Extremism as the single gravest internal security threat. Is he right and how do you assess the current stage of the conflict?
It is indeed a very serious security threat; there is no doubt about that. Whether it is the gravest threat or not is not the issue. The issue is, when we say, that one-third of the districts and about 20 of the 28 states of India are affected, it is a huge problem.
Of course, the government of India has been on a flip-flop-mode, on this issue. Because when it was pointed out about five years back that 150 or 160 districts were affected, the Government of India made a change in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Home Affairs from around 2002-03 by giving a count of the affected police stations to show that the challenge was not as grave as it was presented earlier. The argument was that when districts were used as indicators, it implied that the entire district was equally affected, whereas only a few police stations could really be affected. According to the government journalists, analysts, social scientists have exaggerated the issue by saying that so many districts were affected. This off course was an attempt to play the issue down.
And suddenly when the Government of India decided that they would have to confront the issue, then they take an about turn and say that 220, or whatever, districts were affected.
In my opinion politically there is a lack of will to confront the issue. It also shows that they are trying to confront the issue the way they want to, rather than from the perspective of Rule of law. So there has been a certain degree of political inconsistency in handling this issue
In some parts of the country the Naxalites were able to build up the so called liberated zones. What are the main features of these zones and how are they established?
Well it’s difficult to precisely indicate the modus operandi of how these zones are run. But what basically has happened is that the state government were neglecting and not reaching out to the citizens inhabiting these heavily forested areas. These are also resource-rich areas, in terms of forest produce and minerals such as coal, iron ore, mica, bauxite and so on.
So actually these are good hideouts where the Naxalites can move about freely. These issues also need to be related to the persistent deficiencies in the police departments of the affected states. There is lack of man power, equipments and necessary training and orientation to take on the Maoists. The Police stations are understaffed, hence they do not want to go to the affected areas. That also how the Naxalites have been able to consolidate their area of influence.
The police, who are in any case understaffed, under equipped and under trained completely give up. And the rest of the administration gives up as well because these people have greater fire power than the local police. So this is the process how their hideouts are consolidated and gradually become their liberated zones. And, then they spread to the nearby areas.
They have their own tax codes, what is basically extortion by force. So they run their own parallel administration and their own government. I have no first hand experience from the respective areas, but the reports emanating from these areas indicate that in certain cases they have their own administrative system, school, and health care system.
How does the institutional organization of the CPI (Maoist) look like and which particular role does the leadership play?
It is not in the public domain; even the website does not indicate it. There are certain sections of the civil society, which are sympathetic to them, because they believe that the Maoists are working in the interest of the downtrodden to save them from exploitation and brutalities of an oppressive Indian state.
So if you read in some books or texts how the organization looks like. You don’t think that this information is profound?
I don’t know. It all depends on the kind of sources these people have used. But I must say that I do not have definite information. We organized a conference in which we wanted to have a presentation from a member, not of CPI (Maoist), but one of their associated sister organization that was not working underground. But I could not speak to their media representatives or workers. They never committed that they would come. They didn’t say yes nor did they say no, but they didn’t attend. So to answer your question, I must say that they are not open. They are very secretive and choose very carefully who they meet.
In fact, I read in the Newspapers recently that a senior police officer from Chhattisgarh named a number of people who should have close linkages to the Maoists. And they have also included names of eminent persons from the civil society; prominent names who have been dealing with human rights issue: Nandini Sundar, Medha Patkar, Himanshu Kumar and Arundhati Roy. I have respect for these people and would not link them to the Maoists. That they have access to them is very clear. I am not too sure if they have the kinds of linkages where they are party to their activities. But from my perspective, these people have raised the human rights issues in a one-sided manner. There are also human rights violations committed by the Maoists, which deserve condemnation in no uncertain terms. I personally favour picking up the human rights issues in their larger context. It has to be looked upon holistically.
In your opinion, how should the state act in order to solve the problem of the Naxalite armed struggle? Do you have some suggestions?
Well, I have written on this issue in my various publications. The common belief is that the issue of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionary politics to transform the social order in India popped up in1967. In fact, it started in the 1940’s; it was organized in the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. And In my opinion, even though everyone who uses the word Naxalite knows that it comes from Naxalbari, I doubt that they are completely aware of the Telangana part. Substantive literature clearly reveals that there are linkages from Telangana to Naxalbari. I pointed out in my writings that land is among the main issues. Land can be regarded as a resource, like all the other natural resources, to which local and indigenous people have rights. That right has to be respected and this right has to be formalized. That’s the crux of the whole issue. Take Telangana: The Telangana issue, apart from other things, like Stalin’s personal
intervention and the forceful response of the state, the movement was tamed by land reforms. It got weakened in between because of the intervening Bhoodan movement which was a very significant movement started in 1951 and lead by Mahatma Gandhi’s disciple Acharya Vinoba Bhave. He started the Bhoodan movement in the Telangana region. When he went there to find out what the problem was, he learnt that land was a major issue. And so he asked the rich peasants to give, donate land. ‘Dan’ means alms/gift/donation, ‘bhoo’ means land. And in fact, several landlords distributed land and gave it to the poor. This is how the Bhoodan movement had started, which had weakened the communist movement in Telangana.
Similarly in Naxalbari, it all started with land as well. And eventually a movement among the frustrated local farmers and tribals was organized by addressing the prevailing injustice and unequal land distribution. And it got also weakened after the coalition government, of which the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was a part, started introducing land reforms. And there is a statement by Charu Mazumdar, who was one of the three kingpins of that movement, that land is the key. If the demands of landless farmers are met with land allotment, the basic rationale for a violent revolutionary movement vanishes.
Surprisingly the government has still not done enough; substantively enough to ensure that people adhere to constitutional politics rather than their revolutionary ways. So, that answers the question: the government and the political parties have not reached out to these dispossessed and marginalized people sufficiently to meet their basic requirements.
But the government receives so many suggestions, recently through the report of Planning Commission in 2008. Why do you think the government implements these proposals so hesitantly or inefficiently?
Well, it is hesitant because it is inefficient. Let’s not go beyond this, because basically the government machinery at the ground level is inefficient and corrupt. The other issue is that over the years also a nexus between the mainstream politics and this so called revolutionary politics has evolved. Although the revolutionary movement has claimed to remain pure, it also has developed vested interests. The leaders as well as various sections of the CPI (Maoist) have developed a vested interest in the mainstream politics. In certain areas they are able to manipulate the mainstream politicians. It is a messy and complex process.
If you want to read more about this issue:
The Statesman: Special Article.
India’s Experiment with Revolution.
Interview conducted by Lennart Bendfeldt, Intern, Heinrich Böll Foundation- India Office.