Sudeep Chakravarti is a writer of non-fiction and fiction; an analyst of socio-political and security issues in South Asia; a columnist; and consultant to media, corporations and think-tanks. He is the author of “Red Sun – Travels in Naxalite Country” (Penguin, 2008 & 2009)
Since the last general elections the Naxal conflicts have aggravated and violence has increased. How do you assess the current conflict situation in the areas affected by the conflicts?
The rise in extreme Leftwing violence and clashes with security forces have nothing to do with general elections. It has to do with the cycle of violence at a given phase in time – which includes action, reaction, strategy and counter-strategy. The Maoists, interchangeably referred to as Naxals (not by themselves, but state agencies and media), are under some pressure. While they have spread into new areas in terms of operations, propaganda and recruitment, it is difficult for any organisation, particularly an underground one, to sustain this growth.
Equally, the Communist Party of India (Maoist), what I call the ruling rebel conglomerate and other extreme leftwing organisations are under pressure from police of various Indian states, central paramilitaries under the Ministry of Home Affairs, and various intelligence apparatus. Several senior and mid-level Maoist leaders have been arrested or killed in the past two years. Several of their urban networks have been penetrated and destroyed. With better coordination, police and paramilitary are also striking deeper into the Maoist-controlled areas particularly in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal. Greater engagement with Maoist forces will naturally bring greater casualties on both sides, but Maoists are under greater pressure than the forces at this point of time, so it is more important for them to show through big strikes that they still retain firepower and, as importantly, loyalty of cadres. Big strikes against ill-adjusted and careless Central Reserve Police Force troopers in Chhattisgarh since April 2010 have bolstered the Maoist position. This cycle will greatly intensify. But I feel strongly that Maoists are under more pressure than they have been in the past decade.
The Naxalites recurrently showed aspirations on enhancing their influence on the cities. How do you assess the Naxal situation
in the urban areas?
It’s a logical aspiration. The intellectual leadership to such movements traditionally comes from urban areas. India’s cities also contain, despite representing vast pools of relatively wealthy and aspiring citizens, vast pools of acute poverty and a ‘serving’ class of industrial workers, servants, and the utterly destitute—mostly migrants from devastated rural areas. These pools of negative energy are natural reservoirs for any extreme leftwing organisation. However, it will as yet be extremely difficult for Maoists and others like them to significantly leverage a movement in urban areas. Operationally, they are very weak in urban areas. They are also hampered by relatively better policing and intelligence operations by government. It is more difficult for rebels to hide and work in urban areas.
There is a possibility that, if they pushed completely to the wall in rural and forested areas, Maoists might target specific police and government figures (politicians, bureaucrats) perceived as being corrupt, who mainly live in urban areas. If at all this happens, I expect it will begin to happen within the next three years.
The Naxalites have always had a well educated leadership. Why are so many intellectuals attracted by the Naxalites?
It is a natural response for some educated people in a country which is deeply corrupted, as India is. (And as Nepal is, for example: why would Maoists there be able to move as they did in 1996 if not for great corruption and near-total lack of development?) India is rated every year as being amongst the most corrupt countries in the world. Our human development indicators are among the worst in the world. We have the greatest number of the truly poor people in the world. We don’t have adequate drinking water, sanitation or hygiene. In India, more infant children die of diarrhoea than of any other cause. Such continuing deprivation without any democratic solution can drive very bright people to adopting extreme ideologies for solution. It’s hardly surprising.
Central and state governments recurrently attempted to contain and restrict the reporting of the conflict. The most recent case is Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy who was threatened with persecution after her experiential report with Naxalites was published. Why do authorities react so rigidly?
Arundhati Roy is only the most recent high-profile example. And it has happened only after she has decided to write on Maoist-related issues as it is high profile. Many more people other than Arundhati Roy have been threatened. Many have been jailed. Some have been killed. Authorities react this way because they do not have answers, and also because they are arrogant and believe democracy applies only when they decide, and constitutional rights apply only when they decide. It is an absolute tragedy for India. In many case, authorities in India behave no better than those in China, the former Soviet Republics, and several brutal African, and Central and South American countries.
How do you assess the media coverage on the Naxal conflict? What role do the media play?
The media plays the role of informing the public of various issues. I believe the media in India is as polarised as urban society is with regard to Maoism. Some believe Maoist rebels have a point; and that, after all, they are Indian. They are not asking for a new country, only a better country. Others believe they are traitors and should be annihilated. Many of this school readily accept propaganda from government. This is proven, and very dangerous from the point of view of civil liberty, freedom, and human rights.
Many analysts of the Naxal issue agree that the socio-economic root causes must be addressed first in order to manage and solve the conflicts as also stated in the report of an expert group to the planning commission in 2008. Why do you think the government implements these proposals so hesitantly and inefficiently?
I am one of these analysts. The government is slow and knee-jerk with responses on three counts. One: it simply cannot see how it can lower corruption that India’s politics and business encourage, and survive. Two: it is a gigantic problem, and needs the resoluteness of several administrations cutting across parties. And three: law and order; development related issues and priorities; even economic activity; are devolved to states, not Delhi. It will need absolute belief and coordination of 28 separate state administrations as well as the government in power in Delhi to combat rebellion or revolt related to issues of governance, justice and development.
What role does the corporate sector play in the conflict areas?
To my mind, the corporate sector plays a very dubious role, one I would sometimes liken to the situation as portrayed in the movie, Blood Diamond. I can understand if conflict arises after a corporation has set up a mine or factory in a particular area. But what business does a corporation have to wilfully go into a conflict area even as the conflict is ongoing? Or, plan to go into an area – signing deals with various state governments, and so on – even as the conflict is ongoing? There are numerous examples of governments using the principle of Eminent Domain to procure land for “public good” and then sell it or allocate it to businesses. This is construed, in human rights terms, as being both highly questionable and illegal. I believe enough evidence exists, and I have some of it too, to believe that corporations, both Indian and transnational are directly and indirectly culpable of trying to end conflict by force, and even for allowing for collateral damage in the killing and dislocation of innocent populations; rather than urging the state to sort itself out. The time will come when Indian companies will begin to be sued in
class action cases by both people in India and those overseas. Indian corporations that have a global footprint will also suffer. Vedanta Plc is a good example. I believe more businesses will begin to suffer legally and financially as the world begins to learn that they operation in one way in India, and present a totally different face elsewhere in the world.
India is often described as an aspiring nation, in terms of economy and politics. To what extent does the Naxal issue threaten this development?
India is a greatly aspiring nation—and even an achieving one, in part. That is why I believe extreme leftwing movements have not already taken over the entire country. As long as you have great inequity and great corruption, a backlash, even a violent backlash, will threaten this goal that India professes. I believe the rebels mirror India’s failings as a nation. What other answer is there?
In your book and your columns you have described the Naxal conflict as a situation of the state being on war with its own people. How do you appraise the long term consequences on the Indian state and the socio-political fabric of the country?
I believe the effect can be catastrophic in the long term, unless the situation begins to be reversed immediately. It is not only the question of the state and the political system waging a war against its own people with weapons, but with the weapons of mass destruction such as negative delivery of justice, undemocratic behaviour, encouraging poverty, encouraging corruption, and encouraging gross human rights violations. To give an indication of an extreme case scenario, I wrote a position paper for Kesroli Group, a New Delhi-based think-tank, with two scenarios aimed at generating urgent solutions. One was related to leftwing extremism and related issues, which was partly reproduced in a magazine. The link can be found here: FORECAST: India’s Demographic Tsunami (10 July 2010)
Interview conducted by Lennart Bendfeldt, Intern, Heinrich Böll Foundation- India Office.