Opinion - News Analysis   

Mainstreaming naxalites and other extremists

V. Jayanth

There can be no condonation of violence in a democracy. What stands in the way of violent extremist movements taking to the path of persuasive advocacy of genuine causes and becoming the democratic representatives of the people they claim to take up arms for?

PRIME MINISTER Manmohan Singh's appeal, in Hyderabad, to naxalite groups to join mainstream politics and contest elections has come not a day too soon. It may be clichéd to say there is as much power in the ballot as in a bullet, but this is an important point for these groups to realise. Unfortunately, they have taken the wrong route to highlight issues that are real and affect the lives of an oppressed section of people. If they are sincere about raising those demands that they have voiced for years, there can be nothing wrong in asking them to become elected representatives of the people they claim to represent.

What has happened in Andhra Pradesh is tragic. Less than a year ago, there was an air of expectancy. A Congress Government assumed power with a mandate to talk to the naxalite groups and find a negotiated, peaceful solution to the problem of violence in the State. There was a general acceptance of the fact that the problems raised by the Maoist group were genuine and the Government was prepared to hear them out and act. The two sides set up a panel to "talk about talks" — a euphemism militant groups and governments have got used to prepare the ground for political negotiations on "substantive issues." As in comparable talks in other parts of the country and the world, the initiative did not get very far.

Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy must be commended for his bold, progressive initiative in initiating the peace talks. However, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) was not convinced about the genuineness of the exercise. Although the Government gave the naxalite leaders and cadres freedom of movement and let them organise public meetings, there was concern that most of the extremists were moving about with arms.

The naxalites for their part wanted an end to all police action. Similarly, despite the pressure, the Government did not insist on a laying down of arms, but put restraints on police `law and order' operations in vulnerable areas.

It did not take long for the talks to collapse and for the violence below the surface to resurface. The police resumed their intensive combing operations and the naxalites returned to their killing ways. At least 150 people have perished in this low-intensity conflict during the past year, many of them innocent citizens who happened to be at the scene of explosion or killing. A grisly instance was the recent Independence Day rampage in which a ruling party MLA and his family appeared to be the main target.

As a result of these developments, the Government has re-imposed a ban on the naxalite groups that was allowed to lapse last year. The police may be given a free hand to deal with the violence and take into custody not only known militants but also their sympathisers. A part of the problem are the police themselves. They have always been a key target of extremist attack. The naxalites have not even spared the local level government staff at the mandals. Whatever the intentions of the Government, it is the behaviour and functioning of the police force that can make or mar the peace process. When the Government is on a sticky wicket owing to the violence of the naxalite groups, the active police lobby will work on the political leadership to hit back and revive the cycle of violence. This is a factor any elected government must guard against.

There cannot be a more significant example of extremist intransigence than the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka. This terrorist organisation has managed to prevent any serious discussion of the substantive issues that sparked the ethnic violence in the island nation. Despite the serious provocations, the Chandrika Kumaratunga Government has managed to adhere to the ceasefire in force for three years now — notwithstanding the recent fiendish assassination of Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar. The Government is still willing to talk to the LTTE, which consciously tries to confine the talks to interim governance and development.

The major question then is the one the Prime Minister posed, by implication, in Hyderabad: why are the naxalite groups afraid of the democratic process? Is it because they are not sure of the people's confidence? Having got used to ruling with the gun, they are determined not to let that power and hegemonic hold weaken. In the case of the LTTE, it has always claimed to be the "sole representative of the Tamil people."

It has systematically eliminated leaders of other groups. As for the naxalites, they evidently fear that if they act on Dr. Singh's advice, they could end up as a small caucus of legislators who cannot make a decent fraction of the impression they are making now. But that is the only way forward in a democracy. That State legislators and parliamentarians have their own constituency development fund and a say in local projects may not be incentive enough. We need more Lalthanhawlas to renounce arms and join the democratic mainstream.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Maintaining the balance
Security for unorganised workers
The dodgy underbelly of India's war on terror
Mainstreaming naxalites and other extremists
In the land of Hammurabi
He wants to change Latin America's history
Reservation for women
Lahoti's remarks

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu