FTN: Govt vs human rights on fighting Naxals

Point your mobile to: http://m.ibnlive.com

Naxals on Tuesday brutally beheaded Jharkhand Police Inspector Francis Induwar. But Leftist intellectuals and activists say the government is targeting them.

However, Home Minister P Chidambaram said human rights groups need to speak more strongly against the Naxals. The Central Government has embarked on a major offensive – Operation Green Hunt – to root out the Naxal menace.

But human rights activists say the Government’s anti-Naxal campaign is anti-democratic and the freedom to criticise Government action is shrinking. They say Operation Green Hunt is not just about wiping out Naxalism, it is also about killing freedom of speech.

With Naxalism proving to be India's biggest internal security challenge, CNN-IBN's Face The Nation debated: Should human rights groups condemn Naxalism more strongly?

On the panel to discuss the issue were columnist Swapan Dasgupta; author of Red Sun: Travels in Naxalite Country Sudeep Chakravarti and human rights activist Gautam Navlakha.

Initial results of the SMS poll showed that 94 per cent favoured a stronger criticism of Naxals activities by human rights groups while only six per cent disagreed.

Human rights groups biased?

It is often said that human rights group do not speak out strongly when brutal attacks by the Naxals are committed.

Strongly disagreeing Gautam Navlakha said, "As far as war crimes committed during the course of a war is concerned, we are not neutral, we condemn it. Media and newspapers don’t pick up press statements issued by us regularly condemning the Maoists’ actions unequivocally."

But Navlakha alleged that the Government was overlooking the killings being carried out by security forces in the name of fighting Naxals.

"At the same time we demand from the Government that greater crimes committed by the states should also not be ignored. In just last 21 days, 51 tribals have been killed by the security forces and just two days back 16 tribals had been killed. Why should we unilaterally condemn the Maoists? Why should we not condemn the Indian states, which has declared war against the poorest of the poor? The point I am trying to make is that if there is a war, we want both the state and the Naxals to abide by Geneva Protocol and other covenants. Civilians cannot be targeted. Any person taken into custody cannot be killed or maltreated and we demand that from the Government of India. Since 2005 in Andhra Pradesh alone 375 have died in custody. Why should we ignore that? Why does Mr Chidambaram ignore that?" he asked.

Swapan Dasgupta intervened and rubbished Navlakha’s statements. He said that by trying to compare the Naxals and the state government at par, Navlakha was making a fundamental mistake.

Navlakha argued that the greater responsibility lied with the state and felt that the government was acting irresponsibly.

He said, "The Maoists are expanding because they are gaining in popular support as they work and live with the tribals."

Naxals' expanding support

"The Maoists have not expanded their support. They have expanded their control over particular areas because of the pusillanimity of the Indian state and inability of previous administrations to tackle this menace seriously and only now a concerted effort is being made to tackle this situation because it’s not the roots of violence but the manifestation is what we have to fight," Dasgupta said.

There are two ways of approaching the situation. One is to look at the root cause and other is looking at the manifestation. Which is the more long-term solution?

Sudeep Chakravarti tried to reason saying that throughout the Naxal movement from the 1960s until now there had never been any attempt by the Government to address long-term issues.

But it has also been argued that when the Government tries to do development work, the Naxalites stop it.

Dasgupta justified the statement and claimed that the Naxals had destroyed every single borewell and school building in Dantewada.

Navlakha disagreed with Dasgupta and said that the demands of the adivasis (tribals) was that their lands should not be taken away and their jungles should not be stolen.

PAGE_BREAK

Experts say if the idea is to overthrow the state, then the Naxals can also shun violence and do it through a democratic process.

"I believe in the right of the people to overthrow the state and therefore make a legitimate democratic demand," said Navlakha.

Dasgupta countered Navlakha’s statement saying, "By supporting the Maoists, you destroy democracy."

If the freedom to defend Naxalism is an important democratic freedom, what is the responsibility of the intellectuals and human rights organisations in this situation?

Navlakha said, "The Government has no right to kill anybody who is taken into custody. They must fight ethically and if there are revolutionary movements, they better fight otherwise, they will be finished. We demand from the state to abjure violence in the first place."

"You proscribe them (Naxals), you banned them from political activities, you don’t allow them to organise and mobilise people because of fears of them gaining popular support and then you ask why don’t they take a democratic course? What democratic means have you left for them?" questioned Navlakha.

Dasgupta said that by supporting Maoists like Kobad Ghandy, Navlakha was supporting a banned organisation like the al-Qaeda.

However, Navlakha said that one could get away by saying anything against the Maoists but nobody felt the need to clarify and verify their actions.

He said that human rights activists unequivocally condemn the crimes that the Maoists have committed including the present one, but he argued that while larger crimes had been committed by the state, so then why should fingers be pointed only at the Naxals.

Is Naxalism romanticised?

Dasgupta gave an example citing an incident in the mid 1960s when the CPI(ML) was formed. He said that an intriguing debate whether the knife or the gun was a better method of elimination of a class enemy had surfaced, which expressed hatred and asked the panel whether romanticising such an issue was sensible.

"It’s not the middle class who are out of romance joining the Maoist movement, it’s the poorest who are joining in largest numbers. That is the distinctive difference and significance of the current Naxal movement. It is not an insurgency, it’s a heartland rebellion," said Navlakha.

Chakravarti partly agreed with Navlakha saying that the Naxal movement wasn’t a romanticising exercise anymore. However, he felt that the manifestation of the Naxals were rather extreme.

Naxals have been accused of attacking symbols of development, not participating in the democratic process, declaring war against the Government of India and not allowing the Government to function in a particular area. So the Government is left with very few options than to take over the territory by force.

Chakravarti said, "When the Government realised that the Naxals had actually taken their space, it reacted in an aggressive manner. It has now become a vicious circle."

At this point Navlakha intervened and asked, "What land are we talking about? Why is it that they are talking about clearing the land of Bastar, Jharkhand, Orissa? Are these not the places where people are fighting against land grabs and lands being taken for mining? If the Government cannot deliver it peacefully, people will fight back."

However, Dasgupta vehemently argued that the Naxals were completely on the wrong when they blow up means of transport and communication in these areas and that it was due to their own doing that they have to face the Government wrath.

He said, "Insurgency should not be diverted by the talk of free speech."

Navlakha argued it was the sovereignty of the people. He concluded the debate by saying, "The state cannot arrogate for itself something that belongs to the people under the Indian Constitution."

Final results of the SMS poll: Should human rights groups condemn Naxalism more strongly?

Yes: 94 per cent

No: 6 per cent

Click to play video