Opinion The insurgent’s mind

What’s the problem? Stated simply,some geographical regions and communities have been bypassed by the growth process. It isn’t that government committees have not examined similar issues earlier. The TF mentions three: report of the home ministry’s policy planning division in the late 1960s,the Manmohan Singh committee on rural unrest in Bihar and Andhra in the mid-1980s,and a committee of senior officials (chaired by V.C. Pandey) in the late 1980s. For the moment,though different figures float around,the TF estimates the Naxalites to be active in 125 districts in 12 states. Beyond general points about marginalisation of SCs/STs/ women,the TF makes two points. First,there has been abdication by government on physical and social infrastructure (health and education mentioned by Ghandy) and law and order. “Of all the things that are known about the Naxalites,their people’s courts are perhaps the most notorious. While the abuses that have been reported about them are not all false,taking that to be the whole story would not be quite correct. The fact is that such informal,rough and ready forums of dispute resolution did in a way respond to the felt need.” The criminal justice system (and the civil one too) doesn’t deliver. Consequently,there is the post-1970s Bollywood route of taking the law into one’s own hands,or resorting to alternative channels like mafia and now,Naxalites. Minimum wages are yet another instance of abdication,mentioned both by the TF and Ghandy.

Second,while abdication is indirect,there is direct harassment of the poor through usurping their land and forest rights. Though statistical analysis done by the TF is not methodologically robust,it shows correlation between Naxalite movements and 10 factors: high share of SC/ST population; low literacy; high infant mortality; low urbanisation; high forest cover; high share of agricultural labour; low per capita food-grain production; low road network penetration; low financial inclusion; and high share of rural households without assets. This is a development cum governance deficit. Later in the interview,Ghandy ducked the question about armed aspects of Naxalism. “I can’t tell you much about that. I don’t deal with that and don’t even know their members. You are talking about development.” TF couldn’t agree more,at least on that part. This is about non-development. “This has appeared in the public perception as a simplistic law-and-order face-off between the official coercive machinery and this more radical extremist political formation. The social consequence results,then,in undermining instruments of social and economic amelioration as well as processes of democratic exchange to resolve persisting issues. This is the crux of the problem.”

In a meeting of chief ministers on internal security in 2006,the PM said,“My approach to the Naxalite problem is that we need a blend of firm,but sophisticated,handling of Naxalite violence with sensitive handling of the developmental aspects. It is in the most neglected areas of the country that Left wing extremism thrives today. These are also the main recruiting grounds for Naxalite outfits. While Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand,Bihar,Orissa and Andhra Pradesh are in the forefront of Naxal-related activities today,many other states remain vulnerable. Chief ministers must personally take in hand what deliverables are possible even while preparing to meet Naxalite violence through effective law and order measures. The real key in fighting Naxalite violence is ‘good’ intelligence. This would involve effective integration of strategic and tactical intelligence,properly leavened with ground-level information available at the level of the police station.”

This was a security approach,but the development approach was mentioned. In a similar meeting in 2009,the PM said,“Left wing extremism has been in vogue for four decades now,but the danger is that over time the nature of the movement has substantially altered. From an ideologically driven movement it has been transformed into one in which the military ethos has become predominant… Quite a few states in the country are affected by left wing extremism,notably Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand,Orissa,Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. As the movement spreads,and becomes more energised and active,we must ponder deeply on how best to effectively deal with it.” Rather oddly,the emphasis on development has disappeared.

A French economist recently asked me,“What has changed between UPA-I and UPA-II? When I came during UPA-I,everyone was talking about Pakistan and external security. Now,everyone is talking about Naxalite violence and internal security.” The ministry of home affairs did indeed create a Naxal Management Division in October 2006,but the number of incidents hasn’t increased dramatically. The ministry’s Annual Report for 2008-09 tells us there were such incidents in 371 police stations in 95 districts and 13 states in 2007. In 2008,there were such incidents in 400 police stations in 87 districts in 13 states. In 2008,Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand,Bihar and Orissa accounted for 86.39 per cent of violent incidents. In fairness,the home ministry does mention the development aspect. “The government has been following a holistic approach to deal with Naxalite activities,aimed at giving attention in the areas of security,development,administration and public perception management.” But that doesn’t really seem to be the thrust,witness the ad campaign released by home ministry. One reason might be development is perceived to have pay-offs only in the medium-term. However,the TF mentions several development quick-fixes for the short-term too.

The writer is a Delhi-based economist express@expressindia.com