Sacrificing the commons

By Kuldeep Ratnoo
01 Jul 2010

Despite knowing well that violence will never help the poor tribals, many civil society activists continue to defend Maoist brutalities. Can they remain indifferent to the cries of those who lose their loved ones in a futile battle? At the same time, the government and the industry can not be allowed to marginalise and exploit the poor tribals.

Indians love to talk, extol, criticise and give extreme opinions on all and sundry issues. Their opinions could vary from astute to obtuse, and solemn to hilarious, depending less on their intellectual abilities and more on the relevance of the issue with their beliefs and self-interests. But very rarely one encounters the frivolity and gibberish that have clouded the debate and discourse on the marginalisation and exploitation of poor tribals in some states of India and the violent actions of Maoists on the pretext of avenging the alleged oppression by the industry and the government.

On one end of the spectrum are leftists of varied hues and views, whereas the market worshippers occupy the other end in this verbal warfare. Though miniscule in number, these fringe elements on both sides have access to powerful platforms to distract the public and shout down the reasonable queries. The voiceless citizen suffers silently the verbal junk dispensed liberally by these communist and capitalist extremists. Sadly, in their madness to defend their exploitative ideologies, they have no qualms in overtly espousing violence as a means of ensuring justice. Whether they call their actions 'green hunt' or 'red revolution', the casualty is always a commoner, either an innocent tribal or a poor jawan of police forces. The real perpetrators remain ensconced firmly in their safe heavens giving orders to the security forces or sponsoring lengthy essays to portray Maoist brutalities as noble actions.

As the battle in the heart of India gets bloodier, some pertinent questions deserve answers. As people's power is frequently being hijacked by money power, we need to know the role of a government in a democracy. Ignoring the advice of Mahatma Gandhi to keep the poorest of the poor in mind while making policies, our recent governments have begun to shower all resources at disposal on the richest and the mightiest. Revenues are important but should a government be worried about esnuring profits of corporates just because they pay large amount of taxes (or pay huge bribes to people who run and influence the government)? It is critical to ask who owns the natural resources of a country: people or government? Can we allow few politicians and officials to transfer ownership of the vast natural resources of the country to companies without consulting the people whose livelihoods are destroyed and lives get threatened by such myopic decisions? Development is needed but can we do a long term cost and benefit analysis of development projects in view of their effects on environment and people? Are revenues and investments more essential than health, safety and welfare of people? These and many other questions continue to be brushed aside by the beneficiaries of exploitative system, and therein lies the problem.
This is not the first time that citizens have to bear the cost of development programmes initiated by the rulers. However, miseries of people have multiplied in recent times because shedding all inhibitions the democratically elected governments have refused to acknowledge people’s concerns. If the affected people do not get justice from the government despite pleading and crying for years, what options they are left with? Do our democratic structures provide any hope to increasing number of displaced and deprived? From Dantewada to Delhi, the poorest of the poor bear the brunt of growth obsessed policy makers. But neither judiciary, nor press comes to their rescue except paying occasional lip service.

For Maoists and their sympathizers, continued exploitation of poor, mainly tribals, become good excuse to sanctify their violent struggle to capture political power. Instead of enquiring deeper, most left leaning intellectuals either rationalise or half-heartedly condemn Maoist violence. The reason for their hesitation is obvious. Almost all of them believe or try to make others believe that Maoists are deprived, marginalised and exploited tribals fighting against the greedy capitalists. The general impression is that land grab, displacement and spurt in mining activities have given rise to Maoism. There can not be anything far from the facts.
Many leftist revolutionaries who wanted India to accept communism as its policy of governance, began to criticise democracy and mobilise peasants in some areas of Andhra Pradesh within years of India gaining freedom from the British rule. Highly educated, globally connected upper caste Maoists have been preparing for armed revolution since 1950s. Even during Pandit Nehru's time, these radicals tried several times to instigate landless farmers against exploitative landlords in some parts of the country. After attack by China in 1962, Maoism began to take roots in few areas of West Bengal, not far from China. Though the violent Naxal movement was crushed ruthlessly by the then West Bengal government, the ideology and methods of Maoist militants fascinated few educated people and some splinter naxalite groups came into existence with covert financial, intellectual and logistic support from anti-India forces. These militant groups were committed to Maoism and had organised eight national Congresses by 1970.

The Maoists' violent struggle to overthrow democratic government and 'liberate the people from the clutches of imperialism, feudalism and the big comprador bourgeoisie' continued for decades, mainly in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar. These Maoists entered into forests of Chhattisgarh only when they were on the verge of elimination by Special Forces of Andhra Pradesh. No wonder, none of the top Maoist leaders is a tribal. All of them are high caste militants from Andhra Pradesh. They needed dense forests and poorly developed regions to regroup. Obviously, the Maoists, who have pushed thousands of poor tribals into death trap, deeply love their own lives. The forests of Dandkaranya provided them safety and shelter and the exploitative contractors working there shared their 'profits'. On one hand, the Maoists instigated the poor tribals, ignored and exploited for decades, against the corrupt officials and contractors; on the other they made deals with the same 'exploiters' to ensure their safety, security and smooth working. Soon, they began to collect 'security money' from the big corporates having business interests in forest areas and expanded their influence over a much larger region.

Though the Maoists claim to have established a system of governance beneficial to tribals in areas under their control, the facts speak otherwise. In the last few years of Maoist rule in the Bastar region, the condition of tribals has only worsened on almost all socio-economic indicators including education, health, income, safety etc. Obviously, Maoists are least interested in welfare, progress or empowerment of tribals. Poor adivasis are nothing but sacrificial lambs for their larger objective to grab power at Delhi. Unfortunately, the government and the greedy capitalists make their task easier by implementing policies that further marginalise the poor and downtrodden and make his life miserable.

First pushing people to the brink by implementing exploitative policies and then projecting certain individuals and groups as their only saviours is a silly strategy detrimental to the society and nation. Whether Kashmir, North East, Punjab or Chhattisgarh, playing with fire has only resulted in the country paying a heavy price but myopic, corrupt and self-obsessed politicians refuse to learn any lessons. Making political capital out of poverty, fear and insecurity remains their core strategy.
Human lives, whether of poor tribals or of obedient policemen, can not be allowed to be sacrificed by either ruthless Maoists or insensitive governments. The nation can not remain mute spectator to sacrifice of fellow citizens for evil intentions of vested interests. Enough blood has already been wasted in fruitless revolutions around the world and the Maoists know well theirs would not succeed either. Sooner or later, security forces of mighty India will crush their struggle. The only losers will be poor tribals and jawans forced to fight each other. The tragedy is that many civil society activists fail to see the futility of Maoist violence. Do they feel helpless or like politicians they too have begun to make capital out of poverty and violence?

Centre has ignored tribals, says former Commissioner of SCs & STs

By Gaurav Sharma

As blasts and attacks by Maoists are on the rise leading to anticipation of widespread operations by the government security forces, concerned citizens have begun to press for initiation of dialogue between the government and the anti-democracy radicals. Among many such voices, a prominent one is of Dr B D Sharma, Former Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who feels that tribals suffer the most in the ongoing violence.

Talking to media in New Delhi's Press Club, a day after 41 para-military jawans and civilians were killed in a landmine blast triggered by Maoists in Chhattisgarh, Dr Sharma said that Centre can not shy away from its responsibility of ensuring welfare and protection of tribal people and therefore, it must make sincere efforts for dialogue with the Maoists.

Dr Sharma, who has long been working for the welfare of tribals, accused Union Government of abdicating its Constitutional responsibility by allowing the situation to degenerate from that of stray revolts in 1960s to 'warlike situation' at the moment.

Alleging that Centre is not committed to the cause of tribals, he said, "The Home Ministry always projects a position as if it is not in a principal position to guide the states in tackling the problems of tribals. How can this be? The executive power of a state extends to the Scheduled Areas subject to the provision of the Fifth schedule of Indian Constitution".

"It is unconstitutional if the government thinks that the problem of tribals is the matter of state and it can only assist the state governments", Dr Sharma added. He emphasized that government was largely unconcerned with the simmering discontent among tribals since the adoption of Indian Constitution.

Taking a swipe at Centre's perception that tribals are poor and they need development, Dr Sharma said, "Let it be known that tribal is not poor. He is deprived and disinherited in his own domain. The have had unbroken history of broken promises".

Highlighting the loopholes and inefficiency in Forest Rights Act, Dr Sharma said, "No step has been taken to implement this act which makes a tribal the owner of minor forest produce."

Dr Sharma, who was named by Maoist as one of the possible mediators between them and the Government of India, said that current situation is witnessing a virtual collapse of the regime for the tribal people.

He was of the opinion that tribal areas have been excluded from the general administration which is oppressive and discriminatory in nature. "Tribals are being exploited and suppressed by uses and abuses of land acquisition and public order", he remarked.

Dr Sharma also informed the media people that recently he had sent a letter to the President of India to request her to intervene immediately and earnestly to restore peace in the tribal region. In the letter, he has appealed to the President to persuade the central government to publicly state its special responsibility towards the tribals.

Maoists aim to capture Delhi: Raman Singh

By Gaurav Sharma

Speaking at a seminar in New Delhi on Maoist threat, Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh said the development of Chattisgarh could not be stalled by the violence and destructive activities of Maoists who are the gravest threat to the internal security of India.

Addressing the seminar organised by the Forum for Integrated National Security (FINS) in New Delhi, he denied that operation Green Hunt was being run for clearing land so that multinational companies could do their business in Bastar region of Chhattisgarh.

He said, “There is not even a single multinational company working in the region. We have not allowed any private trading of minerals in the state. Only government agencies like National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation (CMDC) and SAIL are involved in mineral exploration and mining in the state”.

Urging all political parties to come above party politics in tackling the Maoist menace, Mr Singh expressed grave concern over the surge of violence in the country.

“There should not be any confusion over tackling Maoists as their sole objective is to seize power at the centre. Today Chhattisgarh is facing the problem, tomorrow whole country will have to stand up against the Maoists” said Mr Singh.

Launching a broadside against the human rights activists, Mr Singh said these activists shed their tears only when naxals are killed whereas their sympathy vanishes when civilians and soldiers are butchered by Maoists.

Questioning the rationale of extending moral support to Maoists, he said these activists who talk about human rights “come flying to Chhattisgarh, stay at five-stars, and protest with a candle and fly back to metros”.

Prakash Singh, Former Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, also spoke on the occasion. He said that India needs to have multi-pronged and integrated approach to root out the Maoist problem.

He suggested that Center review its decision of deploying Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the naxal-infested areas as its soldiers are not aware of guerrilla warfare.

Commenting on Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s statement that he has ‘limited mandate’ to fight Maoists, former DGP said aerial support differs from aerial attack as the former will help only in intelligence not in the strikes.

Peace is theoretically justified but the government must take stern actions against the anti-government rebels, he said.

Non-alignment with violence

By S. G. Vombatkere
06 Apr 2010

As war between Maoists and government forces intensify, it is not a crime to underscore the futility of violent methods to agitate and to curb agitations.

Between the violent paths chosen by the State and the Maoists,
there lies a non-violent option
In a charge sheet against Kobad Gandhi produced by the Delhi Police in the Tees Hazari Courts, New Delhi, on 18 February 2010, besides naming few individuals, some organizations like People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) are named. It is quite strange that governments treat members of PUCL and PUDR as members, collaborators or sympathisers of Maoist, Naxalite or other militant groups.

This possibility needs to be examined in terms of whether it is possible for a socially responsible position to exist, which supports neither the militancy of certain groups of people, nor the government response to militancy with the use of police and military fire-power.

It cannot be ignored that a high-power committee set up in 2006 by the Planning Commission of India, ascribed growing Naxalism to people's discontent and failure of governance, and showed a direct relationship between extremism and poverty. It also recommended that "public purpose" for land acquisition should be limited to national security and public welfare. Clearly, that opinion and recommendation have found a place in the capacious waste bins of government, because the RR Bill and the LA Amendment Bill do not reflect those concerns.

It is well known that the lands and forests occupied peacefully by tribal people are rich in minerals and that MNCs have an eye on exploiting that mineral wealth. At the same time, that exploitation, willy-nilly combined with exploitation of the occupant tribal people through their forced displacement, adds to the nation's GDP, and puts India on a 'growth path' to become a "regional superpower". Forceful displacement and exploitation is nothing but economic violence being wrought upon hapless tribal people.

It is pertinent to note that while there are no official figures, Dr. Walter Fernandes, a noted scholar, gives some idea of the magnitude of displacement. He indicates that between 1947 and 2004, about 60 million people were displaced forcibly and 40% of them are people of the Scheduled Tribes. Compared to 50 million Africans displaced over 200 years by slave-trading Europeans, 60 million Indians displaced in 59 years and that too within and by an independent, democratic nation in the name of development, is shameful beyond description.

Violence begets violence. When governments wreak economic violence upon people by displacing them for industrial projects causing loss of land and livelihood, they cannot resist or respond with economic force since they have none. They protest, agitate, demonstrate and physically resist the occupation of their land by the industry. These protests do turn violent when their point of view is not properly considered or even heard. Whether the protesters or the police started the physical violence, the first cause is economic violence by government that has led to the situation.

The perpetrators of economic violence are primarily corporate interests which have enormous and proximate influence in the highest levels of governments. These interests ensure that they receive official go-ahead for their projects which, in almost all cases, involve the acquisition of land for a "public purpose", land on which poor and marginalized people subsist. These project-affected families (PAFs) have little or no means to argue or represent their case in the corridors of a geographically distant and corporate-favouring government. It is commonly observed that elected representatives, whether or not they are from the ruling party in government, rarely if ever take up the cause of PAFs. In recent times PAFs have been frequently led by some educated members of their group or by intellectuals motivated by notions of social justice or human rights.

However, the involvement of intellectuals is not only for PAFs, but extends to social or physical violence by "upper castes" against dalits, atrocities against women, attacks on religious communities, child-exploitation, etc., under the rubric of human rights or civil liberties. There are organizations that have been formed to uphold and protect the constitutional rights and privileges of all sections of people, especially human rights and civil liberties. These organizations have been formed under the constitutionally granted right of freedom of speech and expression and freedom to form association under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) respectively, and they function under the constitutionally prescribed fundamental duties under Article 51A(e) to promote harmony and Article 51A(i) to abjure violence.


Gandhiji preached and practiced non-violence and is recognized internationally as its apostle. He demonstrated ahimsa by example in his personal life, with the conviction and courage of truth (satya), often through satyagraha. He did not restrict his idea of ahimsa to the physical plane but generalized it to other spheres including the economic and political. In today's India there are people who, though they may not be followers of Gandhiji's doctrine of ahimsa, believe that violence is wrong and counter-productive. And they speak against all forms of violence - social, economic, environmental, political, physical - since ultimately it is the weak who are the victims.

It is unfortunate that governments do not understand the oft-repeated position of human rights and other social activists, that standing against violence does not mean sympathy with or support for militant groups, that there is a third position which is equidistant from both sides of the conflict, and that the position of "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" is deeply flawed in the common law and social senses.

Equally unfortunate, speaking against violence and in favour of peaceful negotiations is interpreted by government as opinions of misguided peaceniks at best, or as overt or clandestine collaboration with militants. Today, governments are openly adopting policies of up-scaling police and military fire-power based on intelligence using the latest hi-tech from the military-industrial complexes of the world.

In matters such as the militancy and terrorism that are presently rife, many people fear that governments' policy that militancy (caused by decades-long neglect and misgovernance) should be crushed by the use of police and military firepower, will make presently bad situations worse. Such people take the so-called third position, standing apart from the "if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us" position, and in favour of peace and harmony.

Naturally, the third position is all about finding solutions of the problems within constitutional framework and with non-violent and peaceful negotiations. But as casualties from both sides rise in the ongoing operations, voices for peace will get obscured under the cacophony of gun battles.