Tags:
Journalism of Courage
If politics is the art of the possible, then the dialogue between the elected government of Andhra Pradesh and the revolutionary groups banned as terrorist organisation should be able to produce recognisable results. It is also obvious that both the UPA government as well as the state government knew about the merger of the two main extremist groups — the People’s War Group and the Maoist Communist Centre of India — more than three weeks ago. The announcement of the merger on the eve of the dialogue, therefore, could have profound implications which are by no means clear at this stage. In effect the Hyderabad government is negotiating with a single united group called the Communist Party of India (Maoist). In spite of claims to the contrary, how far the merger adds to the strength of the Maoists is still too early to judge since this would depend a great deal on the dialogue.
But the process itself sets a new precedent of sorts with the government negotiating with a banned terrorist outfit with all its attendant ramifications. If the dialogue process does lead to tangible progress towards resolution of the terrorist problems in the state, the deviation from the legal position may well be worth it. One can only hope that the Maoists recognise the importance of this opportunity and choose the path to reconciliation. Otherwise the contradictions would only get deeper. Mao continues to be deeply revered in his homeland, but Maoism has undergone profound changes. Even socialism with Chinese characteristics has given way to a more capitalist-oriented political approach. More important, China realised that revolutionary violence may have had a role in an earlier era but its time has passed.
The Maoist leaders of China had recognised that if the country had to change in a way that people benefitted, then changes to the old ideology was needed even if some symbols remained. This holds a key lesson for our Maoists. The core of the demands raised by them, centred as they are around land reforms, should not only not be difficult to accept, but in all fairness should actually have been instituted long ago as part of the core values of social justice enshrined in the Constitution. The mechanics of managing such change would no doubt create some differences of opinion since it would cut into many vested interests. But the question remains: are the Maoists ready to embrace the democratic principle and practice and reject violence? The announcement of the Maoists that while the two guerrilla “armies” of the two groups would merge, armed struggle and revolutionary war would continue naturally raises doubts about the commitment of their leaders to alter their political practice.
