Naxals Are Not Friends

Naxals have released the three of the four abducted policemen in Lakhisarai in Bihar. The news came as a major relief to the families of these policemen, who would be hailed as brave and may even be honoured for surviving a definite wrath of their abductors. However, it was no merit of theirs that they are free now. But definitely, apart from other things, the hostage crisis has absolved all of them of all the guilt and sin arising out of any act of corruption or dereliction of duties that they may (must) have done during their service in uniform. So, while the three-day crisis has provided a blanket of santity to the services of these policemen on one hand, it has, on the other, exposed the myth of Maoist Idealogy. It has also betrayed the dilemma of the elected governance and confusion prevailing in the government machinery over the strategy to deal with crimes related to or committed in the name of naxalism.

Before setting three of the hostages free, the Naxals killed one havildar, Lucas Tete. Apart from the family members of Tete, the killing may not be remembered by many. But his killing has exposed the myth of naxal ideology. The myth, that the naxals are fighting for poor and oppressed is not true for, Tete belonged to a poor tribal family. That they are fighting against a governance that is oppressive is not true for, they killed a defenceless poor tribal when they felt that the government forces were closing in and that the dead body of a tribal policeman would mount pressure on the government to go slow in the combing operations. That, naxals do not indulge in violence is not true for killing of an innocent bread earner who opted for civilised means to run his family is nothing else but violence. Can ever the naxals who killed Tete explain as to why did they choose the poor tribal man to convey their message to the government? Naxal patrons have launched a multi-pronged attack on the parliamentary democracy and terrorism is one of the strategy currently adopted by them.

One thing that I would like to make clear is, the maoists do not believe in documenting things that they don't want themselves to be remembered for, notwithstanding the fact that they don't shy from doing such things. This explains why even in this case, the so-called naxal spokesperson Avinash claimed that naxals do not indulge in violence. Their methodology was surprisingly prophesied in 1948-49 by George Orwell in a novel. Chinese school texts today are standing testimony to that. They don't teach about 1962 war and capture of Indian territories in Aksai Chin and also Tibet. So, no intellectuals should harbour any illusion that naxalism is for the uplift of downtrodden and the proletariat. Nothing of that sort seems to be in store for people even if naxals succeed in capturing political power in the country.

On the other hand, government is at best confused in dealing with naxal crimes. Government is right in saying that the people fighting for naxalism are our own people and they need to be treated with care. But can naxals be allowed to use arms against rest of the community and against those who are earning bread for their families? Ain't ordinary criminals our own people? Why do we adopt a different approach and have an entirely different mindset while dealing with them? Going by naxal ideology everyone who feels that he has been denied his due (either in historical perspective or in current situation) should took shelter under guns, and then every dissatisfied group should weild arms and wage war against 'an oppressive regime'. Anarchy would prevail. But, government lacks the vision of sifting through an ideology and a crime.

Government at all levels has failed to ensure that arms are not smuggled, illegal weapons are not manufactured and Lathiwala policemen are ubiquitous. No need to talk of development and employment schemes which have failed to include all families in the country. Government needs to be as agile and effective in implementing its schemes and the rule of law as the naxals are in their multi-pronged attack at the government in order to seize political power between 2030 and 2050.