Disarmed by the Naxals

Let us first appreciate the meaning of this new coinage, human security. In a departure from the traditional view, it seeks to shift the focus of security from the state to the individual. Human rights and human security are thus “mutually reinforcing” but distinct concepts. There are broadly seven components of human security: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community and political security.

We are concerned here with the aspect of personal security, which is threatened by the proliferation of small arms such as AK-47 rifles. The abuse of light weapons is not only by state agents but also by armed individuals and groups. It is in fact estimated that there are more guns in the hands of private persons around the world than there are in the hands of state security forces. Private individuals are said to account for about 55 per cent of the global stockpile of firearms, a minimum of 305 million guns. Not surprisingly, there is a general pattern of high rates of gun ownership leading to increases in the incidence of arms related violence.

It is against this backdrop that Human Security Now proffers this advice to all governments: “Disarming people and fighting crime through preventing the proliferation of weapons and illegal trade in resources and people has to be a priority.” Now look at how Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy have been treating Naxalites, who are arguably the largest abusers of small arms in India.

And don’t miss the irony of how Patil did two utterly irreconcilable things on the same day. Through an ordinance promulgated on September 21, the Home Ministry banned as terrorist organisations two of the deadliest Naxal outfits, People’s War Group (PWG) and Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). The ordinance imposes severe penalties on anybody found to have associated with, supported or funded the terrorist organisations. But at a meeting the same day in Hyderabad of Naxalite-affected states, Patil called upon other chief ministers to follow the example of Reddy, who had lifted an existing state ban on PWG and its front organisations.

Disregarding intelligence reports that killings by Naxalites have increased since last year, Patil commended Reddy’s approach of declaring a ceasefire and inviting Naxal leaders to talks. Patil fell into the trap of that old black-and-white proposition that left extremism was not a law and order problem but a socio-economic issue.

Patil’s encouragement emboldened Reddy to proceed with the talks even after PWG repudiated one of the ceasefire conditions: that the militants would not bear weapons when they come overground. It did not seem to matter a whit to Reddy that those unlicensed weapons also happened to violate the rule of law. What followed was pure anarchy. Under the benign gaze of the police, gun-toting Naxalites have held huge rallies and built memorials to their killed comrades in several places, including Hyderabad. PWG has put the ceasefire period to good use, from its point of view. It has been more effective than ever before in replenishing its ranks, treasury and arsenal.

All that the Reddy government said in its defence was that the question of weapons would be taken up in the talks with PWG. Thus, a pre-condition was allowed to become a subject of negotiations. And the issue was not whether the Naxalites should surrender weapons. It was just whether they would be polite enough not to flaunt weapons in public. Not surprisingly, in the three-day talks held last week, the delegation of ministers failed to extract even that small concession from PWG leaders. While the Reddy government continues to pretend that it is closer to ending the armed struggle of left extremists, PWG has announced a “merger” with its northern counterpart, MCC, and bids fair to declare an “acquisition” of a corridor of influence from Tamil Nadu to Nepal.