Naxalism: Tribals - guinea pigs in an insane ideological laboratory

It’s time to bury that tired, overused thesis linking the growth of Naxalism to development grievances in the tribal areas. It’s a hallow premise that has been peddled by the Left leaning intellectuals for far too long to all of us. Hallow, not because it is bereft of substance or truth—there’s no denying poverty and deprivation in tribal areas—but because they have turned it, by design or default or through sheer intellectual laziness, into an instrument of exploitation of tribals by some who are accountable to none. There’s no plausible reason why a deprived tribal must turn to AK-47s to fight for his rights - we somehow have been forced to buy the explanation that the degree of deprivation is proportional to the degree of violence among tribals. It is difficult to comprehend why he must be defended vigorously when he goes on to kill people. It is not clear what exactly does a poor man in forests have to do with the thoughts of Stalin or Mao. And finally, the questions: are the sections of the civil society vociferous in their support of the Naxals helping tribals by putting them in a situation of conflict with the government? Do tribals and Naxals mean the same?[caption id=“attachment_133802” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Onlookers stand beside the wreckage of a security patrol vehicle that was damaged in a landmine blast in Bihar on 23 October 2010. Five policemen were killed and one injured when Maoist rebels blew up a security patrol. Krishna Murari Kishan/Reuters”] [/caption] Clearly, something beguiling in the whole narrative. The civil society groups and bleeding heart Naxal sympathisers would have us believe that lack of development, an oppressive lower bureaucracy and rampant exploitation of forests for minerals by private players are driving tribals to extreme action. The government at the Centre and states, of course, are the prime culprits with their alleged skewed policy priorities and general apathy towards forest dwellers. But Naxals have been around for decades so have been the civil society groups engaged with tribals. What stopped the latter from playing a proactive role and bridging the gap between the government and the tribals? Where were they when the gun culture was spreading across what they now call the Red Zone? Innocent tribals were being killed by Naxals all this while and kangaroo courts were meting out barbaric justice by cutting off body parts of suspected enemies in villages in deep forests. They were blasting off railway tracks, killing civilians too. Naxals have killed more people than terrorists in India. As many as 333 persons were killed in Naxal violence in the first seven months of this year. Last year, they killed 534. Most of those killed were civilians and lower rung police officials. Their sympathisers won’t find anything amiss in that. After all, they are soldiers of ideology. Maoists are the “biggest violators of human rights”, said Union Home Minister P Chidambaram recently. It is easy to scoff at him or at Raman Singh, the chief minister of Chhattisgarh, or at Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of West Bengal. They belong to the government or the establishment, if you please. But is it possible for the governments to intervene and establish order and development without taking control of the tribal areas first? Naxals don’t believe in development of tribals. They believe in power. That is the truth. Development or the lack of it is a carefully thought out slogan to attract sympathy from the wider society. Unfortunately, most fall for it. Had they and the civil society working in close proximity to them been serious, the country would not still be discussing tribal alienation today. Both have enough resources and committed members to change lives. The Naxals won’t allow contractors to execute development projects in the forest areas. Why is that? It’s time the governments redrew their strategy. Half measures do not help. There cannot be a country within a country in the form of the Red Zone, neither can a set of ideology-driven people be allowed to have unfettered control over tribals. They must liberate the liberated zone, by whatever means. Naxal sympathisers can wait. The civil society must get out of its intellectual comfort zone too. It helps the tribals better if the government is involved in their welfare; they can play a catalytic role in the process. And yes, they must stop using the words Naxals and tribals interchangeably. All tribals are not prone to murderous acts. There must be progress on the issue of Naxals and tribals. The impasse should not be allowed to continue. It’s bleeding the country.