SOROOR AHMED points out the differences between the strategies as well as effects of Naxalites and Maoists, and criticises the government’s failure to chalk out a plan to counter their expanding influence.
Of all the insurgencies the one launched by the ultra Communists of India is certainly the oldest – as old as independent India. Yet it continues to pose the biggest challenge to the country even today.
In 1948, that is only months after India got freedom, the Communist Party of India (CPI) tried to stage an uprising in Telangana region of present Andhra Pradesh. The party was banned for a few months and the rebellion crushed. Later it finally gave up violence and adopted a democratic approach. In 1957 the CPI came to power in Kerala. It was for the first time in the world that a Communist government came to power with the help of ballots. But those still believing in bullets were to regroup later; that was after the Chinese invasion of India in 1962. Now along with Marxism and Leninism a new concept, that is of Maoism, started emerging in India. Ironically Chairman Mao was the leader of China, then an enemy nation of our country.
The Communist Party of India got split over the Chinese invasion on this country and in 1964 the Communist Party of India (Marxist) came into existence. It held the Indian government responsible for the 1962 war with China. This party is a major partner in the ruling Left Front in West Bengal now.
However, there was no dearth of Communists who refused to toe the official line of taking part in the elections. They were the staunch believers of the Chairman Mao’s philosophy that “Power flows from the barrel of the gun.” They formed the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist). In late 1960s and early 1970s they took West Bengal by storm. Since they first revolted in Naxalbari, a sub-division in Darjeeling district, they acquired the name of Naxalites.
The Naxalites and their sympathisers were brutally crushed. However, around 1966 a different extreme Left group formed the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in West Bengal. This group kept a low profile in the earlier years but shot into prominence in Bihar in mid-1980s when they killed 54 Rajputs in Dalelchak-Bhagaura village of Aurangabad district.
Similarly another bloody struggle was started by the Peoples War Group (PWG) in Telangana. A few years ago the MCC and PWG merged to float the Communist Party of India (Maoist). And it is this outfit which is posing a big challenge to India, and that too in its heartland.
It is ironical that the ideology of a nation which fought with India has gained so strong an acceptance in India. What is even more ironical is that when the Chinese themselves, to a great extent, are discarding Mao, there are tens of thousands – if not millions – in India who are prepared to die for the view of the man who died in 1976 and whose view has been discarded.
‘RED’ INDIANS OF TODAY AND THE PAST
The ‘Red’ Indians of the 21st century are certainly different from their counterparts of a generation or two ago. While college and university graduates, intellectuals, peasants, journalists, writers, etc. formed a chunk of support base of Naxalites in late 1960s and early 1970s, the Maoists of today literally call shots in the tribal forest areas and Dalit pockets of India.
The strategy adopted to fight the post-1991 Capitalist India is certainly different from the one followed against the pre-1991 Socialist India. Therefore, the security forces, very much used to rural and urban hit-and-run attacks, have to now get acclimatised to guerrilla style jungle warfare, which involves heavy casualties. The Maoists have mastered the art of attacking in huge numbers and have triggered hundreds of landmine blasts in the last couple of decades leading to the death of thousands of security personnel. The latter in retaliation resort to repression against the jungle people – many of them innocent – as they are normally unable to take on the real Maoists.
NEW MAOISTS STRATEGY
The classic Maoist concept of “Let villages encircle the towns”, that is, first gain strength in the rural areas then overpower the cities and towns, has been replaced by the new idea of consolidation in forest areas. Slogans of land reforms and opposition to the exploitation of landless labourers seem somewhat outdated though they still form the basic concept of the Maoist ideology, which otherwise believes in total revolution. Today the Maoists have somewhat shifted their attention from feudal elements to the capitalists and their agents. They claim that they are championing the cause of the exploited and displaced people of the jungles, who should be the real beneficiaries of the forest land, wealth and water. That is why they took part in the struggle against giving land to Tata in West Bengal. For them the cause of industrious mass of the forests is more important than the industrialisation.
Another difference between Naxalism of the past and Maoism of today is that while the former lost within a few years to the superior fire power of Socialist India, which at least had some human face to show, the Maoists today are not deterred even by the threat of the use of air force by the Capitalist India. In the last two decades of liberalised India their strength continued to grow. True, they do resort to ruthless and barbaric practices in dealing with the police, their informers and the deserters. But they still enjoy mass support in several interior pockets of the country. Unlike the Naxals of the past, the Maoists of today are bold enough to hijack an entire train, carryout attacks on jails and ammunition depots. They run parallel government in large parts of the country. And the local people believe that the crime rate in the area under their control is less than outside their purview. In that way it is an endorsement of their kangaroo courts, which are otherwise condemned for cruelty.
Though the Maoist strategy and policy is wrong yet there is no denying the fact that they are expanding their base. Thus it seems that somewhere something is grievously wrong for which not only the government of the day but the whole capitalist and feudal class and the political system are also responsible. Both the two major political parties, the Congress and the BJP, speak the same language on most political and economic issues and the regional parties lack character and vision. The Maoists are the one who provide an alternative voice though it sometimes goes unheard because of the din of landmine blasts triggered by them.
Till now the activities of the Maoists – both positive and negative – were getting little coverage. Even the killing of 55 cops in one such attack in Chhattisgarh and loot of 2,000 rifles in Orissa failed to make big headlines in national dailies and on TV channels. There were hardly any follow-up stories. Even their abortive attempt on the life of the then Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan and West Bengal chief minister, Buddhadev Bhattacharya in West Midnapore in November 2008 failed to make big news in national press. This is simply because their attacks were confined to the deep interiors of the country and they did not have high profile effects in Delhi or Mumbai.
After the parliamentary election of April-May 2009 and the siege of Lalgarh the government has woken up to the threat of the Maoists. What is more interesting is that Maoism is gaining media attention at the time when China without Mao is creating problems for the country on the border.
The problem with our policy-makers is that they have little or no strategy to take on the apparently amorphous Maoist fighting force.
Some people in politics talk of ceasefire with them, while the hardliners within the government are in favour of seizing the fire power of the Maoists and destroying them with sheer force. This notwithstanding the fact that they have control over 200 of over 600-odd districts in the country.
Till now we have been focusing our entire attention on the terror groups coming from across the western border. In contrast we do not know how to fight the open rebellion against the system by the real indigenous people of the country, who are not taking inspiration from the Father of the Nation, but from the revolutionary leader of our northern neighbour.