:: Editorial

Sensible line on tackling Naxals

Oct.13 : In the backdrop of a spate of recent incidents of Naxalite violence in several states, and the extremists laying siege to the Lalgarh forest zone in the Midnapore-Purulia region of West Bengal, a weariness with Maoist ways in the country is only to be expected. Nevertheless, the premise that would inform government policy in dealing with the menace had appeared elusive. For the past two years or so, the Prime Minister had content himself with the proposition that the extremists who clothe themselves in revolutionary garb were India’s most serious internal security threat. The characterisation didn’t appear chiselled enough, leaving the impression in some quarters that the tribal poor — who seem to form a conspicuous recruitment pool for Naxalism at the present juncture — were being labelled the country’s enemy. On the political plane, such a view of Naxalism wouldn’t pass muster, although it is evident that at the level of leadership Naxalite groups have long ceased to be a core of idealists, and that many in that category appear to be indistinguishable from criminals ducking behind the smokescreen of a pro-people ideology. At his press conference in Mumbai on Sunday, Dr Manmohan Singh did well to bring balance to the government’s articulated understanding of the phenomenon of Naxalism. Dr Singh stuck to the formulation of Naxals being "the greatest internal security threat to our country". But he was also careful to observe: "The growth of Naxalism in central India obliges us to look at what causes this sense of alienation among certain sections of the community, especially the tribal community. It could be indicative of the deficiencies in the pace of development. We are looking at that aspect, but groups of individuals have no right to take law and order in their own hands. The designs of these groups are well known and we will take effective measures to counter them."

This is as clear as any government can get. The paradox of Naxalism — overt and cruel violence against innocent, often poor, individuals and government personnel and property being engaged in by desperately needy people — is to be understood through the development paradigm, not through the lens of law and order. At the same time, a duly constituted government of a democratic republic must not permit groups to take the law into their hands (whatever their motivation), and that the government must take effective steps to deal with such groups. A view such as this represents a fuller understanding of the Maoist challenge in a democratic setup, and is apt to draw wide support. Thus we have West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee confabulating with Union home minister P. Chidambaram on dealing with the troubles caused by the Naxalites. The Prime Minister has also taken a sensible view in rejecting the idea of the country’s armed forces being drawn into anti-Naxalite operations. A needless expectation had built up in some quarters that the Indian Air Force might be stepping into "non-offensive" engagements against Naxalites — that they could fire back if attacked, and help with logistics. Such a shortsighted approach does not factor in the wider implications of the country’s military being used to subdue its own people, especially when secession is not on the cards. The Centre, of course, must coordinate more precisely with state governments in dealing with the Naxalism phenomenon, while being open to the idea of a dialogue if the armed Maoists renounce violence.