:: Opinion

Naxal violence is a cry to be heard

Arjun Sengupta

Sept.21 : On september 15, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sounded the most serious warning about Naxal violence, calling it one of the "gravest internal security problems" the country faces. "I would like to say frankly that we have not achieved as much success as we would have liked in containing this menace. It is a matter of concern that despite our efforts, the level of violence in the affected states continues to rise", he said.

It is important to understand why this is so and in what sense Naxalite violence is different from other violent outbursts.

Although it has always expressed itself as a breach of law and order with violence, murder, extortion and acts of heinous crimes, it may not be prudent to think of every protest movement of the disaffected people as a simple issue of law and order violation, and calling for its brutal suppression.

This form of extremism, indeed, goes beyond law and order, fanning some deep-seated grievance. We must try to resolve those problems first, as otherwise the violence will remain insurmountable.

I am not referring only to the problems of poverty which have been prevalent in our country for many years and in many forms. Poverty only provides a fertile ground for Naxalite grievances to grow. For the pursuit of a movement of reasonable intensity for a reasonable period of time, the nature of the grievances must be penetrating enough to upset the status quo. For example, when certain events affect the social equilibrium and add insult to injury, the situation often becomes explosive and outbursts of violence may become uncontrollable. It is not just poverty and deprivation that germinate Naxalite violence. It’s when social exclusion or a sense of injustice get added to poverty that people take to violence as the last resort of protest.

Dr Singh is right to point out that in our country Naxalite violence of this kind is very likely to come up again and again. The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) has established that 77 per cent of our population lives on less than Rs 20 per day, while less than five per cent of our population leads an ostentatious life of luxury. This naturally infuriates people who suffer or lag behind. But that may not be sufficient for them to take up arms in protest. It is only when these poor people also suffer the worst social discrimination, such as 88 per cent of our dalits and 84 per cent of our Muslims living in abject poverty, that the protests turn violent.

Years of reforms have brought a high rate of growth for our country, but they have left behind an overwhelming population in the shadow of deprivation and destitution, suffering the worst forms of indignities. People who are sitting ducks and can turn to violent protest whenever an opportunity arises.

Dr Singh has rightly described this violence as "Leftist extremism". In the history of our Leftist movement there has always been a group which believed in taking up arms instead of playing the game of democratic politics and trying to win over the majority to their line of thinking. In fact, Leninism itself was considered at the beginning as inspiring a minority of the underprivileged group who could organise themselves into a violent revolutionary force. Bolsheviks did not even have a majority in the working class. After the 1917 Revolution, Lenin himself changed his position. During the Second International, he talked about forming a United Front of social groups fighting for their emancipation. But that position was not accepted by many other Communist leaders, including M.N. Roy from India, who believed in the revolutionary force of a well organised and well armed minority group.

This position was later taken up more seriously in China. The Communists came to power on an upsurge of the masses but some of their leaders, like Lin Biao, argued for a small band of militants to carry forward the revolution. There are many theories about the formation of these revolutionary groups, the conditions of their success and the logic of their armed insurrection. The armed group of revolutionaries are supposed to disrupt the state’s law and order mechanism, attack the police and the Army at their points of vulnerability and then retreat back in their hinterland of popular support to avoid confrontation. These groups are supposed to take up issues which have a great demonstration effect and then find shelter in thick forests or among the rural masses. India has provided a very fertile ground for this kind of hit-and-run extremism — attack, withdraw and regroup to attack again.

To this has been added the current turbulent international situation when practically any amount of arms of any degree of sophistication are available in plenty, either procured by the militants themselves or given by powers interested in disintegrating the country. Naxalite violence today has become more affordable than before and, therefore, a more dangerous threat to our country’s integrity.

To the classical areas of deprivation and discrimination in India, a new element has been added in the recent past which has assumed an unmanageable dimension. This is the "land grab movement" in the name of development, industrialisation and market-based economic activities. Millions of common people, small and marginal farmers and advasis and dalits are ousted from their habitations. Rich landlords and their agents are aided and abated by the government’s police force without much attempt to rehabilitate those who are being thrown out, not to speak of any attempt to negotiate with them the terms of land transfers.

Grabbing land in the name of development, and not just in the tribal areas, has been going on in India for quite some time. But over the last few years there is a new consciousness among those who are being evicted. If they get together and fight, they can resist land takeover even in the most distant tribal areas where modernity is yet to reach. A message has gone around that if they stand together and fight, which may occasionally mean killing their adversaries, they can protect their land and livelihood.

The only way the Naxalite problem can be resolved is by genuine negotiations and trying to provide answers to their age-old problems. But before you even start these negotiations, you have to generate confidence among these vulnerable people that they are equal partners in the negotiations, that you are not out to grab their land and property, and that you will respect their human rights.

Dr Arjun Sengupta is a Member of Parliament and former economic adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi