& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Dialogue with Naxalites: Opportunity for overdue reform

All state governments should see in the Naxalite issue an opportunity to address long-neglected social agendas, correct festering injustices, and purge corrupt state functionaries. The UPA's Common Minimum Programme rightly recognises that the Naxalite issue is "not merely a law-and-order problem, but a far deeper socio-economic issue". The UPA must now relate to its own promises regarding health, drinking water, employment and food security by taking the Naxalites'demands on board. • ■

KRAFUL BIDWAI writes from New Delhi
THE Andhra Pradesh government must be commended for beginning a dialogue with the Naxalites. The first round of talks, lasting four days, saw underground leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist-People's War) come out of the forests, keep aside their firearms, and talk seriously to ministers and officials.
It’s after 15 years that guerrilla leaders like Akkiraju Haragopal (alias Ramakrishna), Sudhakar and G. Ravi, who carry rewards on their heads, emerged to address huge public rallies. They enhanced their bargaining power by announcing their group's merger with the Maoist Communist Centre.
That the talks took place in a constructive atmosphere is a tribute to their participants’ serious intent. This speaks highly of the mediators who arranged the dialogue, including former civil servant S.R. Sankaran and civil rights lawyer K.G. Kannabiran.
Even more noteworthy is the substance of what the PWG demanded at the talks - agrarian reform and a commission to identify surplus land for redistribution, which would include "mass organisation" representatives.
The Andhra government must respond to these demands concretely. The Naxalites claim - quite plausibly, given Andhra’s large-scale landlordism - that some 84 lakh acres exceed the permissible ceiling. This is 18 times higher than the official figure.
The PWG also alleges, again plausibly, that more than 40 institu-tions and individuals have encroached on 27,000 acres of prime land worth thousands of crores in and around Hyderabad.
An honest engagement with these issues will produce socially desirable results. That's why the talks deserve support.
Yet, sceptics have mounted a concerted campaign against the dialogue. They believe it will encourage "extremist violence” and undermine the state's credibility. BJP president LK. Advani has joined the critics’ ranks with an additional argument: the Naxalites pose a national-level "security threat"; an attempt by individual states to tackle it is "dangerous" to national security.
Mr Advani’s logic doesn't carry weight because Andhra's isn't an "isolated" approach. Other states too are planning to talk to the Naxalites. And there is a nationallevel coordination committee on the issue. Andhra, where the Naxalite problem is most severe, could set a worthy example.
However, are the critics right to argue that the government must not
talk to "violent groups" that haven’t given up arms or their armed-struggle ideology?
The argument has three components. First, such groups are a social menace because they are inherently, irredeemably anti-democratic. Second, the only way to deal with them is to crush them. As the controversial former Punjab police chief KPS Gill says: "Never has a state returned to peace through negotiations with violent groups..."
Third, Naxalite groups merely represent a law-and-order problem. Talks with them will demoralise the police and encourage violence.
All three arguments are blind to the history of die Naxalite move- ment and its roots in legitimate grievances of the rural poor and Adivasis. The movement - named after the mid-sixties’ armed revolt in village Naxalbari in West Bengal -was a response to the failure of governments to address the people's survival needs and redress intolerable injustices.
The Naxalites were born in a period of great turmoil and erosion of the Nehruvian paradigm. They believed that democracy has little to offer to the people who must take to
armed struggle. The Naxalites split from die CPI(M), but themselves soon split into countless fractions.
The movement has had many strands - from semi-parliamentary ones to the purely guerrilla-centred, to those fighting for forest-dwellers’ rights. Some have degenerated into extortion-based criminal groups. But most remain rooted among the people.
Indeed, Naxalism has spread to a quarter of all districts of India, covering 12 states. This growth isn't attributable to violence or intimidation. Rather, Naxalites genuinely represent people's unfulfilled aspirations and give them protection from their oppressors in the local power structure. Typically, this structure is extremely corrupt and serves predatory groups.
Naxalism thrives because tyranny persists and repulsive injustices prevail. Naxalite politics evokes popular response because it upholds land reforms, freedom from forced labour, minimum wages, fair prices for agricultural produce, employment guarantees and so on.
These aims are all unquestionably worthy. But the Naxalites have a problem with means. Some advo-
cate violent means. Yet, often, their methods are no worse than those of the state, including torturing and killing innocents, strengthening caste and class oppression, and sexually brutalising women.
Therefore, it’s profoundly wrong to treat Naxalism as a mere law-and-order problem, leave alone a "national security” Issue. Underlying Naxalism are social and economic problems. Naxalite politics is itself a distorted reflection of urges for change from below.
That's where Advani, Gill & Co. betray a crude thanedar mentality. Their dandaa approach to all problems created by unrelieved oppression and unaddressed injustices can only aggravate matters. It'll promote collusion between the state and forces of oppression.
It’s simply wrong to lump all ’’violent" groups together - what's in common between Al-Qaeda and People's War, or between the VHP-Bajrang Dal and CPI-(ML)? It's equally false to claim that they can never be brought to see reason or trust democracy.
History is replete with examples of reconciliation through negotiation, including much of the great decolonisation movement of the last century. Negotiation has resolved knotty disputes like Alsace-Lorraine, and very nearly, Ireland. Had South Africa's apartheid regime continued to treat the African National Congress as a law-and-order problem, the country would never have been liberated.
AU-W« government? shotilASfe m iiit- Jjn I ■ nppQiiQStyi to address long-neglected social agendas, correct festering injustices, and purge corrupt state func tionaries.
The UPA's Common Minimum Programme rightly recognises that the Naxalite issue is "not merely a law-and-order problem, but a far deeper socio-economic issue ”. The UPA must now relate to its own promises regarding health, drinking water, employment and food security by taking the Naxalites' demands on board.
That's the best way to cut off the oxygen of despair that feeds extremist politics - and to bring (he Naxalites to the path of democracy.
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.