Naxalites, Terrorists and Patriots

When it comes to the issue of naxalism, the mainstream media somehow cannot resist the temptation of describing reality through labels. It makes their job easy, as simplistic explanations are convenient. It has been reported, for example, that the Home Secretary of Government of India was asked after a recent meeting in Bhubaneswar on whether he would describe ‘naxalites’ as ‘terrorists’. When he declined to do so, it became news for the media. This article proposes to look at the common clichés created by the mainstream media with reference to the naxalite issue. We shall then see some of the images that are prevalent among the left intellectual circles. In the first part of this article, we assume that Constitution of India has some significance and that all Government Institutions are meant to work for achieving the Directive Principles of State Policy while upholding the fundamental rights.

The first cliché to be examined is ‘naxalite problem’. The media keeps talking about the problem all the time. Is it a problem? For whom is it a problem? Are there some people who think, rightly or wrongly, that it is a solution to their problems? Well, perhaps it is a problem to the police personnel involved in anti-naxal operations. It is a problem to the corrupt contractors or landed gentry who may have to shell out more money than they like. It is no doubt a problem to those who want the unjust social structure to remain as it is. But, is it a problem to the ‘Nation’ as a whole? Those who want to think about the Nation as a whole some times tend to forget how votes are polled in this democracy. You have electoral parties, driven by money and muscle power, without any sincere ideology, who can have seat adjustments with any other party that is seen to be winning. You have political parties based on personality cult, obtained by invoking real or imaginary memories and claiming legacy of charismatic personalities of the past like MGR, NTR, Indira Gandhi or Biju Patnaik. The most classic case is that of Chandrababu Naidu, who backstabbed NTR when he was at the fag end of life, but nevertheless claims to continue the legacy after NTR is no more. A slightly less ridiculous case is that of Naveen Patanik, who was not allowed anywhere near the scene when Biju Patnaik was alive and who is now said to be the torch bearer of the so-called Biju legacy. You have political parties which need to keep collecting funds for being able to contest the next time. If a political party that contests elections, asks a corporate house or the liquor mafia for donations to the party, it is not called ‘extortion’. The scope for an honest independent candidate to get elected without the support of one or the other electoral political parties, even at the Gram Panchayat level, is extremely limited. As against this, an ML group raising party funds is said to be indulging in ‘extortion’.

The second point that needs to be seen is the media image that the naxalites are like an armed band of dacoits, who indulge in senseless violence. The media tends to report and highlight only when there is some act of violence perpetrated by the naxalites or some armed action of the State on them. The point often missed with reference to naxalites is that they comprise of a group of political parties. They propagate their political views and they do not believe in parliamentary democracy of the type that we have in India. Surely there may be distortions and not everybody in these parties may have a theoretical understanding of Maoism or the practical commitment to some ideology. They do take resort to armed force at times, but it is not logical to think that they have sustained for so many decades only by sheer force, without any popular support. There is a naïve notion that they are violent, as if all the electoral political parties consist of saints. Violence is the hallmark of modern mainstream political life. What the mainstream parties are afraid of is not violence per se, but the ideology of social change that would influence the minds of the people politically by the presence and growth of the ML parties. It is not the gun that is fearsome to the people interested in perpetuating power; it is the politics behind that gun, which really causes fear. Therefore, we need to look at things happening on the ground. One needs to scrutinise the political work that is happening in the villages and small towns. Are the notions, value systems and political ideology of the people in the naxalite areas undergoing any changes? Is there a shift in the manner in which the people are responding to the issues of equity and production relations?

The third point that needs to be examined is the notion that after collapse of Soviet Union and changes in economic polices of China, communism has lost its relevance globally and that the strength of naxalism as a popular movement in India is on the decline. This view holds that globalisation is good for the millions of Indians, as new employment opportunities are within their access. Certainly, the opportunities for a small section of IT and other professionals have increased. But considering the massive extent of poverty and present literacy levels, such number of people who could gain from globalisation is still a small fraction of the total population. There is no doubt that some urban Indians having surplus income are now having many more opportunities to spend than a decade ago. But, the point to be examined is the proportion of such people in the whole population. It is true that right now we have one super power controlling the globe. But there is no evidence to think that all other ideologies have failed and that free market ideology has emerged victorious as the sole ideology for the whole world. A look at the statistics shows that the economic disparities throughout the world are increasing. More than a billion people entered the 21^st Century without the ability to read or write. About 30,000 children die every day due to conditions attributable to poverty. The slice of the cake taken by 1% of the world’s richest is the same as that handed over to poorest 57%. 12% of the world’s population uses 85% of its water. ¹ Thus it is clear that what was claimed to be communism, with its record of human rights violations, has ended. But it has not established that the free market model is the remedy.

The fourth point to be examined is the notion that independent India has made spectacular strides in reducing poverty and therefore, that the extreme left wing parties are opposed to ‘development’, merely for perpetuating their ideological hold. No doubt some progress has been made in certain aspects like access to drinking water, construction of physical school buildings etc. But a lot remains to be done in making the development process participatory and empowering. Rather than attempting an evaluation of the entire gamut of developmental programmes cutting across different sectors, we may see three broad elements. As access to land has been one of the most important aspects of production relations, we can examine the achievements in land reforms. It is important to note that the talk of land reforms started in India in the 1930’s, since Congress Party came to power in majority of provinces. Mahatma Gandhi, in an interview with Louis Fischer in 1942 had said that land held by the zamindars would be forcibly distributed among the landless, once India became independent. When the reporter asked, ‘will any compensation be given to the landlords?, Gandhi replied, ‘No question. The landlords may cooperate by fleeing from the villages!’ ² In comparison to these intentions, the five decades of land reforms witnessed ³13 amendments to the Constitution, 277 progressive laws and innumerable court cases. The governments spent about Rs 600 crore from the state exchequer to the erstwhile landlords and made redistribution of only 1.5 % total agricultural land, as against 43% achieved in China, 33 % achieved in Japan, 32% in Korea and 37% in Republic of Taiwan⁴. Despite distribution of agricultural land to about 18.5 lakh landless families over the years, the percentage of landless households among SCs has increased from 12.62% in 1981 to 13.34 % in 1991⁵. It is to be seen that tenancy has been pushed under the carpet in several states, with the result that the tenant or sharecropper is required to put in all the costs for agriculture, without assured credit support and without security of tenure. About 1.5 crore tenants and share croppers are tilling the soil season after season, with no recorded rights.⁶ Similarly, a huge gap exists between delivery of paper documents to ceiling surplus land allottees and their physical occupation of the land. It is increasingly recognised that in India’s land reforms measures, there was no effort to enhance the holding capacity of the poor on land. The poor had no means to develop the land by bringing in necessary inputs. Land was understood more as an independent means of production, rather than it being intricately linked to other markets and social institutions like caste.⁷ By and large, land reforms have succeeded in doing away with very large land holdings and bringing some benefits to some of the other backward castes. Though some progress has taken place by abolition of intermediaries, the benefits have not percolated to the poor, primarily because of the legal framework within which land reforms operated. As PS Appu has put it, “It was a policy of inchoate policy, imperfect legislation and inefficient implementation”

Let us now have a look at the implementation of poverty reduction programmes. In terms of the amount spent, no doubt India’s poverty reduction efforts are unparalleled, with the Ministry of Rural Development having a budget outlay over 28,000 crore rupees. Adding to this 25% contribution from the State Governments, the money available for poverty reduction is no doubt substantial. Broadly the moneys are spent on wage employment programmes, self-employment programmes with bank support and some area development programmes like watershed management. The wage employment programmes are supposed to be linked with creation of assets. They are now by law guaranteed under NREGA. However, in practice the common features of these wage employment programmes are (a) Choice, location, usefulness and maintenance of the assets being generally improper or inadequate. Gram Sabhas are mostly non-functional. (b) People did not get job cards in several districts and those who got the cards did not know that second application for actual job is required. (c) Quality of execution generally poor, due to the fact that the contractor is pushed down the carpet and it is pretended that he does not exit, rather than deciding the contractor in a transparent and accountable manner, with clearly defined profit margins and maintenance responsibilities (d) The technical estimates preparation is shrouded in mystery and the elected Gram Panchayats or intermediate panchayat members are yet to be exposed to a demystified manner of executing civil works (e) High incidence of corruption, among officials as well as elected representatives (f) Lack of transparency in posting key officials like Block Development Officers to particular locations and their stability of tenure (g) Very little emphasis on availability and quality of personnel required for quality execution of programmes. Government of India spends substantive amounts on the programme but very small but critical components like payment of remuneration for key additional personnel have to be handled by the State Governments. Regarding the self-employment programmes, the merger of six schemes and renaming them as SGSY has ensured downward credit flow into these programmes. Aspects by which groups of the poor can play a more assertive role in the market through skill development, training, change of product mix and design, ability to meet delivery schedules, quality control, packaging etc have all taken a back seat. Regarding watershed development programmes, the participatory aspects are being stressed in training programmes. But in actual practice, the element of participation seems to be lacking, as witnessed by collapse of the programmes after the project period is over. Apart from the basic limitation that these programmes primarily help those who have land, the implementation is also witnessed by the failure of the user groups, self-help-groups to take up so-called watershed-plus activities. The limitations of land reforms and poverty reduction programmes indicate that the success in reducing poverty has not been all that spectacular. It is also to be noted that the extreme left groups have by and large not opposed the implementation of these programmes, though definitely they have not been enthusiastic to participate in them. Perhaps one reason could be that the poverty reduction programmes are seen to be helping the middlemen and other influential persons more than they help the poor.

Another common label that is bandied about is ‘naxalite sympathiser’. We need to note that the State generally has a tendency to think, “whoever is not with us is against us”. Reality is much more complicated than what mere labels can describe. There are many alternative economic and political ideologies and theories. Whoever criticises the dominant development model does not automatically become a naxalite or a Maoist. The people described as naxalite sympathiser are over ground and have definite occupations and sources of livelihood. They participate in ralleys, strikes and meetings. They may be looking at the issues in a similar manner as the naxalites do. They may be influencing public opinion and hence are an important power group in the society. But when we see try to see the ability of such groups or individuals in influencing the policies or positions of the naxalites, the evidence is seriously wanting. Therefore one needs to realise that branding somebody as a naxalite sympathiser is the easiest thing for the state to do. The state finds it convenient to blame them for a local situation, rather than looking at the other side of the problem, like displacement of people due to so-called development projects, shrinking common resources and poverty enhancement measures being adopted by the State.

Having looked at one side of the picture, we need to see some disturbing aspects of the functioning of the left extremists too. Here we assume that the extreme left parties actually work for the poor, by organising them, by means of a long armed struggle. Of course, one understands the overall atmosphere due to police repression. But still, these issues become relevant. The first and foremost point is the unaccountable display of brutality and violence. If a policeman displays violence beyond the sanction of law, there is at least a theoretical solace, however remote it may be. But in case of arbitrary exercise of brutality by the extreme leftists, there is no remedy even in theory. However insincere it may be, there is some theory in the manner of the State implementing the law. For example, there is an elaborate framework on how a trial is conducted by independent judiciary, how the advocates defend an accused etc. But, it appears that there is no method in the manner in which the left wing extremists choose to trample the human rights of those they do not like. For example, the inhuman torture in which ‘police informers’ are maimed and killed needs to be taken into account. Most of the alleged police informers are from among the poor. That is understood, as a rich and influential person will never leave any evidence. However, the left wing parties often award extreme punishments on this charge. (It is not that I recognise any extra legitimacy in killing the rich. But, when precept is applied against its practice, the reality strikes hard.) Therefore, if a political party claims that they are working for the poor, it becomes all the more relevant to see how the poor are being harmed in the name of being police informers. Secondly, there is a big element of arbitrariness in the manner of dispensing justice in the so-called ‘people’s courts’, with the naïve notion that whoever approaches the naxalites first in a dispute must be right. Influential persons observing the game do learn how to continue their activities but keep the ultras informed so as to avoid problems of ‘people’s courts’. Thirdly, we might accept the need for financial donations to run a political party. But if the party gets money from illicit liquor traders, corrupt contractors and corrupt politicians/ officials, how can it ethically function as a party of the oppressed? If a party claims that they are against social or political oppression, would they not morally be a part of the oppression if they use the money or resources of the oppressor? Fourthly, it is an important question to see the extent of people’s participation in the decision making within the extreme left parties. Leadership of ‘vanguard’ in a revolution is known in theory. But vanguard without any role for people has no meaning. One needs to see critically in actual practice as to whether people genuinely participate in the affairs of such parties. Perhaps the oppressed people residing in the areas under the influence of Maoists have as little say in the party affairs as the farmers on the policies in a water users association! One does understand that overall repressive environment is not conducive to holding open meetings and involving ordinary public. But, the fact remains that without people’s active participation, any activity cannot be sustained in the name of people’s movement. Fifthly, despite all the courage, sacrifice and extreme hardships that he or she has chosen to undergo, the career of a left extremist is still a soft path. It would be a much more challenging and daunting task to address the oppressor directly in a straightforward manner, openly and in presence of the whole community, appeal for change, utilise and expand the space available for the underprivileged and to keep on working to mobilise the people for empowerment in an open and truthful manner. Pulling a trigger is a relatively simple affair, in comparison to years of patient work with the communities that would be required for bringing in social change, whether it is in addressing issues like demanding higher wage rates, or issues like child marriages, gender inequality or superstitions like witchcraft. It is also more useful to the oppressed in the long run to sharpen their own tools of studying, analysing and responding to a situation, rather than outsourcing the job of their thinking to an armed group. Sixthly, there is an oft-repeated statement that if unemployment problem continues and if the Government’s developmental efforts are insincere, it is bound to lead to growth in left extremism. It is to be borne in mind that left extremism is not necessarily the only outcome. It is possible for the problems to cause begging, petty crime, organised crime, prostitution, religious fundamentalism, terrorism, etc. Therefore, it would not be correct to equate that extreme left activity to be the only possible response to the failure of the State in providing a reasonably egalitarian society. Finally, some serious thinking needs to be done among the naxalite parties on their vision for a post-revolutionary society. How will it function? What is the method to do some good work in basic social development like China did in the initial decades, without the horrors like that of a famine which took more than a lakh lives and the news of which was completely hushed up? What should the role of entrepreneurship? Can markets be altogether abolished? Or, would it be wiser to see that markets are more truly competitive and the State is more participatory, transparent and accountable? What can be done right from now onwards to see that it does not resemble George Orwell’s ’Animal Farm’?

The need of the hour is to increase the political space available for the poor. This cannot be done through the barrel of the gun. This can only be done by enhancing opportunities of negotiating freely and frankly with all the people together in open and habitation level meetings, by inculcating the culture of genuine ‘Palli Sabhas’ or habitation level Gram Sabhas. The task is to ‘build bridges’ and forge alliances.

1 Anup Shah, http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

2 Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Harper Collins

3 Sukumar Das 2000, A critical evaluation of land reforms in India , ( Ed. B K Sinha and Pushpendra), Land Reforms in India: An unfinished agenda, Sage Publications: New Delhi

4 S R Sankaran, Introduction to Land Reforms edited by PS Appu

5 Thorat Sukhdev,2000,Programmes for empowerment and reducing inequality: Long way to go for untouchables, Journal of Rural Development, Vol 19 (4), pp 653-689

6 The rough figures of concealed tenancy can be seen in the Annual report of Department of Rural Development, Government of India, 1993-94 and 1994-95 at pp144 and 136.

7 Bhagwati J and Chakravarty, 1969, Contributions to Indian Economic Analysis: A Survey. American Economic Review, 9 (4)