War within India - Naxals

[asingh]

Just read an article in today's morning Newpaper about the Naxal insurgency in Dantewada. They apparently ambushed a CRPF team, and tallied a count of 76 dead. Though the newspaper reported the count at 39. Here is a link. How should this condition be tackled by our government. This movement began in 1967, by Charu Majumdar in a village name Naxalbari. This link shows a better historical depiction. What must our government do, to peacefully control this group. It has backing by human right activists who proclaim that we are a democracy, and all have a right to free will and thought. But is this really free will and thought.? They operate extensively in the 'Red Corridor', which covers a large expanse of India, and tribals/villagers provide them logistical and intelligence support. Army deployment does not seem like a solution here. The operational expanse is just too large. Our government should ideally initiate talks (in a stricter manner)with this group, and zero out the violence they are dishing out. I personally feel this group has crossed over the line to terrorism than a group with a singular point of view and mission.

 

[blr_p]

Then you only treat the symptoms, declare 'mission accomplished' and ride away only for it to blow up again some time later ?

Address the causes not the symptoms and you eradicate it once & for all. But to do that requires big bucks. Are ppl ready to donate generously & create a pseudo welfare state for these ppl ?

The Andhras have already got it under control in their state with a combo of strong tactics+economic development. But if the development isn't sustainable it will revert back to the square one.

I personally feel this group has crossed over the line to terrorism than a group with a singular point of view and mission.

Wrong, so long as they attack agents of the state they are insurgents or guerillas looking to overthrow the state with violence. Their fight is with the state so far.

But once they turn their attention to random civilians it becomes terrorism. One off attacks don't count, it needs to be a sustained campaign of which we have plenty of other examples already.

 

[broadway]

"If the lie returns to the mouth of the powerful, our voice of fire will speak again..."
~~~EZLN

Maoists are not what the media portrays them to be.

From ramans article

What are the main objectives of the group?
Capture of political power through a rural insurgency of the rural poor in order to work for the uplift of the poor people. It is essentially a movement of the rural poor and the backward tribals. It has no popular support in the urban areas and from the industrial workers.

Are the Maoists more dangerous than Al Qaeda? Why?
Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation with a global political and religious agenda. The Maoists are an insurgent organisation with a purely Indian and social class agenda. Al Qaeda believes in indiscriminate killing of civilians. The Maoists believe in targeted killing of civilians. Apart from the security forces, the Maoists kill only those civilians whom they look upon as class enemies such as landlords and forest contractors. Al Qaeda has till now not posed a threat to India's internal security because it has practically no support in the Indian Muslim community. The Maoists pose a serious threat to India's internal security because they have considerable support from the rural poor in the tribal areas of Central India.

 

[Aces170]

What are the main objectives of the group?

Capture of political power through a rural insurgency of the rural poor in order to work for the uplift of the poor people. It is essentially a movement of the rural poor and the backward tribals. It has no popular support in the urban areas and from the industrial workers.

Doesnt democracy solve that problem, if you think an area is not governed correctly cant you put your own candidate for elections? Clearly the non-poor people are not a majority..

I feel those guys are stuck in a time-loop any development is seen as hostile by them.

Al-qaeda also consider them selves as liberators of Islam independence, so calling them terrorist and not the Maoist is wrong. Maoist is for practical purpose a rogue military organization, with massive local support.

The only solution I see is economic development too.

 

[broadway]

Organizations are named on the basis of there ideologies.

The naxals are called maoists because there ideologies are derived from mao zedong.

Khalistani's are called so because they want a separate state named "khalistan".

Al-qaeda and similar groups fight under the banner of islam and hence are called islamists.

Media has just recently started avoiding calling them "islamists" because of protests and have began using the word "terrorists" instead.

"Islamists" or "terrorists" - which would you prefer?

 

[ronnie_gogs]

More securitymen killed by Naxals than by J&K militants: Centre, states discuss today

They have killed more securitymen than J&K Millitants...

Centre cant do much in case of Naxal problem as they give the funds and send the security personal like CRPF and state government and police don't give them support...

They had to go into the jungle without maps.... wtf...

I say just let the army take care of them once and for all...

 

[asingh]

Yes, this group believes in the ideology to lessen the gap between the extreme stratum of society. Their cause is noble, but this is "no" way to ask for it. You may argue, that the people they are fighting for are so derelict by our government, that they have no one to stand up for them. Has this stand really made a difference. There have been clear cases where Naxalbadi's have launched insurgent activities against government development. They oppose the building of medical aid facilities, proper road...why..? Blr_p, I am sure, this is not a 'one-off' case by this group. I think this year they have notched a 1000+ death count. Also as per you, it is fine to attack "agents of the state". We are a democracy right, we need "agents of the state". This is a sustained campaign, since past 20 years.

 

[blr_p]

Al-qaeda also consider them selves as liberators of Islam independence, so calling them terrorist and not the Maoist is wrong.

Until the Maoists start bumping off civilians, they are not terrorists.

The Kashmir struggle if it were only limited to state agents is not terrorism either.

But that was only in the good old days, they've widened the net since. They crossed the line. This is now being commingled with the Maoists and is just incorrect.

Forget the aims, its always some sort of political reason, what matters more are the targets and thats what makes the defintion

Also as per you, it is fine to attack "agents of the state".

Haha, obvious strawman, show me where i said this

My quibble was over the definition and its application to the maoists. Does that mean what they are doing is ok, of course not !!!

We are a democracy right, we need "agents of the state". This is a sustained campaign, since past 20 years.

Agreed but understand what is causing the problem first.

 

[asingh]

^^
Well you had put this line:

Wrong, so long as they attack agents of the state they are insurgents or guerillas looking to overthrow the state with violence. Their fight is with the state so far.

in Reply to what I wrote:

I personally feel this group has crossed over the line to terrorism than a group with a singular point of view and mission.

And this way you wanted to point out, that they are "not" terrorists or should not be classified with this group. But I feel, that the actions/methods of theirs against the state categorize them as terrorist. The use of violence/threats to intimidate the government to submit to their policies. Clear anti-establishment ideology for sustainable amount of time. Organized warfare/insurgency.

Note:
Apologize if you felt I was on purpose inserting meaning to what you said, in the prior post. It was just my understanding, not to put words in your "post" or show you in bad light or context. Sorry.

Also, I do agree:

Agreed but understand what is causing the problem first.

There is a problem, and this group is trying to solve it. Is it really working/will it..? I did dabble on that in the seed post.

 

[blr_p]

But I feel, that the actions/methods of theirs against the state categorize them as terrorist. The use of violence/threats to intimidate the government to submit to their policies. Clear anti-establishment ideology for sustainable amount of time. Organized warfare/insurgency.

The reason I stuck to that defintion is because it dictates the response. If it is terrorism the response will be different to if its an insurgency.

You can appreciate using the wrong solution for the wrong problem is a waste of resources. To call it such means the state will come in heavy fire a few shots then run away and the politicans will say they solved the problem just in time for the next polls.

This sort of whitewash is what has been happening there since Naxalism started back in the late 60s. Then we did not have the resources to tackle it, the situation is different now.

Basically the state gave up and these ppl took over and the only way they could continue is with the local ppls support. The state did try to respond with half measures but the problem only got worse as the causes were never seriously addressed.

Will it be a case of deja-vu again or is this time different ?

I think the key lies in whether the Andhra solution can sustain itself. If so then it could become the model to tackle the problem in other states. But its not clear as yet whether this is true or not.

There is a problem, and this group is trying to solve it. Is it really working/will it..? I did dabble on that in the seed post.

you said...

"Our government should ideally initiate talks (in a stricter manner)with this group, and zero out the violence they are dishing out."

This is tricky as it accepting these ppl are in charge and then making some sort of peace deal. i don't think the Andhra's did this, they came in hard and then pushed lots of funds into infrastructure in the area. So that ppl had jobs and did not have to join the maoists.

It reasserts the states' authority in the area by force and at the same time draws away any recruits. But its expensive and we don't know yet whether it can sustain itself.

 

[sunny27]

provide the state forces with better equipment---bolt action lee enfields and sten sub machine guns are vintage equipment. how do these supposedly crack forces take so many casualties from such a woefully ill equipped bunch of naxals with indigenously made weapons--this simply shows us how poorly trained our so called elite crack anti naxal forces are.

in the 1980s in punjab the people feared the police more than the khalistani insurgents/terrorists. police brutality brought peace and stability--which is the ultimate goal. if carpet bombing is what is required to crush the naxals -so be it. damn the human rights groups--the naxals couldn't care less about the very human right groups that are out to protect them.

 

[psyph3r]

That was pretty shocking in the morning.

~74+ CRPF jawans in one day ?!!

But then they were apparently ambushed by 800-1000 naxalites.

What they shud do is get a drone, scan the forests and kill these people.

If they indeed do travel on foot in groups they should give off a good enough heat signature to locate their position.

Fcked up shit indeed.

 

[sunny27]

these anti naxal forces are ill trained and ill equipped.the state governments need to allocate more resources to modernize their security forces. the training imparted should be atleast equal to ones given to the armed forces. they could also use the army's jungle warfare school in mizoram to train.

 

[blr_p]

Troopers walked into death trap

What good are the latest weapons if basic sops are not followed ?

 

[asingh]

Then what should be the tactic/strategy to deal with this group. Even I am not in favor of the cowboy gung-ho approach. The expanse of their penetration is far to spread out. (220 districts -- almost 40% of India). Army deployment would literally mean civil war: Naxals+supporters vs. the State+Army. What do the Naxals want: upliftment of the the extreme financially lower masses, basic human amenities and facilities. Maoists play with fact (and lure people), that we will get you these basic rights. Should the government do the same. They do try, but why are the Maoists apposing that too. What agenda is there...? I feel this situation has reached a Mexican standoff. State cannot talk to them (insurgent group), they do not agree with the state, will not let prosperity come to the land. Now what....?

Yes, I am throwing out more questions, then providing solutions, but hope it helps to keep this discussion on. Blr_p, could you tell us a bit more -- on how Andra Pradesh has dealt with this, when the Red Corridor has engulfed this state quite extensively.

 

[blr_p]

Blr_p, could you tell us a bit more -- on how Andra Pradesh has dealt with this, when the Red Corridor has engulfed this state quite extensively.

Take a look at these articles to get a gist

The Andhra fightback
Tackling Maoism: Lessons from Andhra
Fighting The Maoists With Mantras

 

[broadway]

Insurgency is a hit-n-run ball game. The insurgents do not stay and fight a face to face battle. Instead they attack when you are unaware and disappear into the jungle. The veit cong defeated the mighty USA by engaging them with guerrilla warfare until america used up all it resources and quit the battlefield. The afghan militia have been doing the exact same thing in afghanistan and eventually the US will have to quit.

Telangana case; People support lost : The telangana naxals lost ground because they had started committing atrocities on the very same people they had been fighting for. They had started punishing alleged thieves and thugs by chopping off there arms and legs. This style of administration scared the people and slowly they lost support of the telangana people. The naxals could no longer be safe in the villages because people had become spies of the police which made encounters a success.

This is "gaddar". A very interesting and famous naxal from telangana.

Gaddar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[asingh]

Blr_p, thanks for those informative links. Was good insightful reading. From what I can summarize, a three-pronged approach should work. State starts to speak to the population of the affected area, and tell them the short comings of following the Naxal path. Investing gradually but constantly for development of the population. Forcing surrender or discrete elimination of the Zonal leaders.

By speaking to the people, the state can move to tell how the government and organized democracy can help them. A bit of propaganda would not be bad. Imagine reverse psychology on a large expanse of state. Investment by the state machinery would be mandate. This is the feature I am most scared about. A large portion of it will trickle to the so called benefactors pockets, leaving nothing for the intended. Third of course would be the most difficult. 60 years of intensive existence is hard to wipe out. But it should be offered -- some kind of lucrative surrender scheme, with state judiciary providing special support to 'these special cases'. Again these are ideas -- views I feel.

Broadway:

What a scary looking guy. Makes sense, people woke up to the atrocities being governed by the same who made golden promises. The state found the moment hot, and struck hammer on anvil. Hope more moments like this come, of course without any bloodshed.

 

[blr_p]

From what I can summarize, a three-pronged approach should work. State starts to speak to the population of the affected area, and tell them the short comings of following the Naxal path. Investing gradually but constantly for development of the population. Forcing surrender or discrete elimination of the Zonal leaders.

..as well as rehabilitate those that surrender. Make it more advantageous to surrender than to fight.

By speaking to the people, the state can move to tell how the government and organized democracy can help them. A bit of propaganda would not be bad. Imagine reverse psychology on a large expanse of state.

Yep

Investment by the state machinery would be mandate. This is the feature I am most scared about. A large portion of it will trickle to the so called benefactors pockets, leaving nothing for the intended.

yeah, this is generally the problem with aid in the country, very little reaches the intended because so many leeches take their cuts.

The only criteria for success so far is that there has been no relapse in Andhra. How long will this continue ? Not to knock the Andhras but all they have succeeded in doing is kicking them out of their state and kept them out where they can become someone-else's problem. Other states can do the same but there will come a time when the last remaining state will have to tackle them head on. This will happen unless they coordinate their efforts.

By investing in infrastructure are we creating a sustainable local economy or just welfare seekers who will revert back the moment funds slacken as they inevitably will. There are minerals in these areas that can be exploited but sharing the rewards is always a contentious issue. I heard a story where a bauxite mine was going to start on a hill that's considered sacred by the tribals, the tribals are not interested in the profits they just want the miners to leave that hill alone

Third of course would be the most difficult. 60 years of intensive existence is hard to wipe out. But it should be offered -- some kind of lucrative surrender scheme, with state judiciary providing special support to 'these special cases'. Again these are ideas -- views I feel.

This I think would be easier than the second which if in place takes care of it and the ppl surrendering would join politics saying they won attention from the state with their efforts.

As you can see this is all a pretty tall order and consequently the political will to tackle the problem at the local level is lacking. Its just so much easier to cut deals with the naxals come election time in exchange for no action. If this continues then the maoists are just going to get more greedy and the state is shirking from its responsibility.

 

[asingh]

Regarding Andhra, the infrastructural boost provided by the state was it not finite and sustainable in the long run. Hopefully the agencies should not take the route by imparting state funds for a quick Maoist purge. Agreed, as you mentioned, welfare would not work for futuristic foresight. Never. Might solve the current pain areas, but not the long run. Andhra, managed to push them out. But the persistence still exists. I am sure of that. The Maoists are probably operating in other zones now, and still 'contributing' to the over all menace to India. Do we have any central committee or implementation body to tackle this issue. Asking, since I am not too sure, or aware of any such. I have a feeling that Naxals are dealt in retrospect and with comparison to to other state level issues. The government does acknowledge them, but do they comprehend the level of damage being done.

I still feel the third point in the '3 pronged approach' would be the most difficult. It would mean to remove a thought from a large group of people, who for the former 60 years, have been dedicated with an iron will. This also has the risk of creating splinter groups. A certain, minority faction of the group feels else while, and spawns their think tank and modus operandi. But a start has to be made. Red is shedding to much red.