War within India - Naxals

[asingh]

Bumping this.

Another attack at the Dantewada area. A bus was ambushed using a mine+IDE. Approximate 47 were slaughtered. This time round 32 civilians were part of the melee. What next. This group has no respect for our constitution or the people.

 

[blr_p]

Tho Raman does not say it I wonder if there is a connection to what happened in Orissa recently. Greyhounds were active there ans scored a few wins.

4. There is a danger that in retaliation for the air strikes the Maoists would step up their attacks on civilians and, if they are successful, it would further damage the credibility of the security forces in the eyes of the public. The immediate step required is the strengthening of protective security measures in the Chattisgarh State in general and in the Dantewada area in particular. The State's determination and ability to protect the civilians has to be demonstrated first before we embark on extreme measures such as air strikes. We should avoid over-reaction in panic and rhetoric which distorts our response.

Source

8. The Maoists should have known that their attempt to kill the SPOs by blowing a rural public transport bus could result in the deaths of a large number of civilians, who had nothing to do with the police. The fact that despite this they undertook this attack shows that the Maoists, in their strategy, have reached a stage where they are indifferent to the impact of their actions on the general public. They are prepared to face the risk of temporary spells of public aversion in order to achieve their objective of demoralising and discrediting the police. Will this be an isolated attack involving mass civilian fatalities, or is it going to become a trend?

This is what I was talking about on the first page. Will the naxals move from insurgent to terrorist ?

I think not as they depend on the ppl for support and want to show the state is weak in this regard.

 

[asingh]

^^
Well this group 'had' warned that there would be more Dantewadas if the activities against Maoists continue. I think they are on the thin line between terrorists and insurgents. They have collaboration of the local services. One article I read, states that the sabotage device was embedded within the road. This would have required help from local contractors and civil servicemen. The article is still hitting at the state for insufficient security -- rightly so. But I feel we should roll-back a few steps, and think. What should this group be classified as. That is still disputed within India. Once that is fixed upon, they then can be tackled accordingly. But it is high time. Not sure why this internal security threat is being ignored. This group is more than "pheasants should have equal rights".

 

[kippu]

just wipe them out ...whoever screams human rights ...put them in jail too

 

[blr_p]

But I feel we should roll-back a few steps, and think. What should this group be classified as.

Insurgents

That is still disputed within India.

Only by some clueless or attention seeking blowhards. No disputes amongst the ppl responsible for dealing with this issue.

Once that is fixed upon, they then can be tackled accordingly. But it is high time.

They will be tackled accordingly but its early days still and will take a few years to do, all provided the political will to continue remains. If so then there will be more Dantewada's. This is a sign that the state is acting. If it all goes quiet for a long time then we know the state is taking it easy.

So long as it stays in Dantewada and does not spread elsewhere then things are not deteriorating.

Not sure why this internal security threat is being ignored.

That quote was made by MMS in 2006, so this gives you an idea of the rate at which things are progressing statewise.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

Insurgents, revolutionary (extremist), Mujahideen, Jehadi etc are all just fancy words to describe people who are basically terrorists. Its all just a matter of perspective. What ever the motives of these insurgents, they are way past reason and are hurting the govt and people and seriously need to be put down. There is absolutely no need for the govt to tolerate this.

Even the great Baghat Singh who is called a great revolutionary and freedom fighter was still a terrorist by definition at the end of the day and the govt of the day treated him as such. We call him a revolutionary and freedom fighter simply because the people agreed with his ideals. For that matter even people like Kasab who carry out terror activities in our country have their own so called 'noble' reasons for it.

Whatever the reasons they have for carrying out this violence, the govt should quickly take notice and crush such groups. Resolution of problems can only happen before they escalate things to this stage or only after they have been crushed.

 

[blr_p]

Insurgents, revolutionary (extremist), Mujahideen, Jehadi etc are all just fancy words to describe people who are basically terrorists. Its all just a matter of perspective.

That you still do not grasp the distinction between the two is a good symptom of how grey this whole issue is. This is not a question of perspective but defintion so call it what it actually is

I agree that they are extremists in the sense they attack the state, they actively choose the bullet instead of the ballot. But the other differences dictate the response which a failure to understand will not lead to a successful conclusion. If the state goes in hard & fast it will alientate the local ppl and hand the naxals a victory. A more nuanced approach is required. One that will make the distinction between good guy & bad guy easier for the locals to see. Their perceptions will determine who eventually wins if there is to be one at all.

What ever the motives of these insurgents, they are way past reason and are hurting the govt and people and seriously need to be put down. There is absolutely no need for the govt to tolerate this.

Agreed, but i'd go further and say the state hasn't merely tolerated it but actually ignored it and done so for a few decades now. It relinqusihed its role to the naxals without much of a fight. There is no quick fix here, just long hard slog over many years. What worries me is politicans have very short concentration spans, just upto the next election.

If those MoU's had not been signed chances are we'd still not be hearing any of this at all. There would still be no 'internal security threat'.

Even the great Baghat Singh who is called a great revolutionary and freedom fighter was still a terrorist by definition at the end of the day and the govt of the day treated him as such. We call him a revolutionary and freedom fighter simply because the people agreed with his ideals.

Bhagat Singh was a freedom fighter, the naxals can claim no such accolade.

For that matter even people like Kasab who carry out terror activities in our country have their own so called 'noble' reasons for it.

He's a terrorist plain & simple. Does not distinguish between state & its ppl. All the same for him.

Whatever the reasons they have for carrying out this violence, the govt should quickly take notice and crush such groups. Resolution of problems can only happen before they escalate things to this stage or only after they have been crushed.

This bit is perspective, this violence is happening because the state is acting. I see the earlier Dantewada incident and this recent one as colateral damage in this conflict. In an ideal world they would not have happened but there is a learning curve here. Both of these incidents show the state is not yet ready in some areas to successfully defend itself.

 

[broadway]

Insurgents, revolutionary (extremist), Mujahideen, Jehadi etc are all just fancy words to describe people who are basically terrorists.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

That you still do not grasp the distinction between the two is a good symptom of how grey this whole issue is. This is not a question of perspective but defintion so call it what it actually is

There reason for that is that I don't want to make a distinction among them based on perspective and would rather stay neutral and go by the definition

noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

3. (formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.

4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

Terrorist | Define Terrorist at Dictionary.com

Each think they are fighting for a noble cause based on their own perspective of things. But their means is the same. i.e violence and terror. In fact even the use of violence to fight terror can be termed as another form of terrorism.

I agree that they are extremists in the sense they attack the state, they actively choose the bullet instead of the ballot. But the other differences dictate the response which a failure to understand will not lead to a successful conclusion. If the state goes in hard & fast it will alientate the local ppl and hand the naxals a victory. A more nuanced approach is required. One that will make the distinction between good guy & bad guy easier for the locals to see. Their perceptions will determine who eventually wins if there is to be one at all.

Agreed, but i'd go further and say the state hasn't merely tolerated it but actually ignored it and done so for a few decades now. It relinqusihed its role to the naxals without much of a fight. There is no quick fix here, just long hard slog over many years. What worries me is politicans have very short concentration spans, just upto the next election.

If those MoU's had not been signed chances are we'd still not be hearing any of this at all. There would still be no 'internal security threat'.

I agree in part to what you say and that this whole situation was caused by neglect, but letting the situation go on like this further isn't good either. Its important to resolve whatever valid issues they have, but its even more important stop the current situation by what ever means necessary. If non-violent means don't work, then use violent means. Its important to show that the govt is in control. Otherwise the Naxals have already won.

Bhagat Singh was a freedom fighter, the naxals can claim no such accolade.

He's a terrorist plain & simple. Does not distinguish between state & its ppl. All the same for him.

Bhagat singh was a freedom fighter from our perspective, he was a terrorist from the then govt's perspective. Bhagat singh was fighting for freedom and for revenge as well. He thought he was fighting for a noble cause. A guy like Kasab too thought he was fighting for his religion which he thought was a noble cause. Naxals too think they are fighting against the atrocities committed by the Zamindars and they too think its a noble cause. As I said, its just a matter of perspective. Everyone thinks they are fighting for a noble cause and terror and violence is justified.

This bit is perspective, this violence is happening because the state is acting. I see the earlier Dantewada incident and this recent one as colateral damage in this conflict. In an ideal world they would not have happened but there is a learning curve here. Both of these incidents show the state is not yet ready in some areas to successfully defend itself.

I do agree that this is a clear lesson that we in no position to defend from localized internal threats, leave alone external ones. The quicker the govt take this seriously and acts, the better.

 

[sunny27]

i read this and felt disgusted.
We cannot give up our weapons: Naxal leader to Chidambaram - India - The Times of India
the home minister here and i can quote from the above article stated," home minister P Chidambaram on Tuesday made a fresh offer today to hold talks if they "suspend" violence even for just 72 hours but the Left-wing extremists rejected it. "
atleast have the guts to stand upto a murdering terrorist leader.what kind of people do we have ruling our nation?

 

[asingh]

It is quite crystal, the state is not ready / equipped / or has any desire to tackle this group. It clearly shows the tail wagging the dog here. Many say, that it is because of the state activities (increase of security in the region) is leading to more violence. Well, it is because the Maoists are "saying" this. As they have spread propaganda to the masses so are they in a similar manner spreading it to the media, and within the ears of the distant commoner. I quite rightly agree with Lord Nemesis, immediate control has to be put in place, to show who has the controlling stick. As of now...sad but true the state definitely does not. Once this myth [or actual reality] is shattered it should weaken the offensive of the Maoists. This resolve comes to place, then the most critical question, which we discussed on previous pages of the discussion. HOW...?

The state does not want to deploy the army. Reason being, they do not want a similar situation as Kashmir. Not saying, that the army should not be deployed there (another agenda), but India comes on the world radar. Army deployment on a land mass size of the critical red corridor is almost equivalent to civil war. Politics come to play here -- with people on both side of the fence, seeing the bigger picture, or bigger slice of the pie. But do you all not get this feeling "we are being too nice to the Maoists"..? I personally feel that. Just read the article posted by Sunny, it seems like Chidambaram is the Maoist. and Rammanna the minister is ordering him around. Gosh, see the arrogance. SPOs were using humans as shields, so they were expendable casualties.....of what..? Statements like this bring the bile to my throat. It clearly shows the ideology of this group. Come high hell, we will crush all that is in our way. Be it national state, or civilians. They have justification for all they do, which we listen to.

How would a country like Israel, or USA have dealt with this --- hypothetical, if a group of this size would have surfaced..?

 

[blr_p]

There reason for that is that I don't want to make a distinction among them based on perspective and would rather stay neutral and go by the definition

Ok here is the difference in a nutshell -- support from the ppl.

Terrorists usually have very little support so they target anyone. They do not lose anything by attacking anyone. You tackle the terrorist by taking out his masters. Done.

The insurgent has more support of the ppl, tho this support is not enough to win elections so they choose the bullet instead. But that support is there nonetheless and crucial to their survival. If they go against the ppl they lose and thats why they target the state most of the time. So the solution here is to turn the ppl against them.

If you tackle insurgents like terrorists they dissapear (for a while) but the ppl's grievances still remain dormant and can erupt anytime in the future when some charismatic character shows up to exploit it.

So you just have a cosmetic victory in this case. A temporary one that is only waiting to blow up again. Now if thats the goal then fine. But there is better than this. Why only treat the symptom but ignore the cause ? Because such areas will always be in between peace & chaos. And there is no development in this situation at all and it just goes on forever.

The Andhras are actually at this point, they've yet to introduce any reforms so the grievances are still there lying to be exploited. All they've done is pushed the problem next door.

Each think they are fighting for a noble cause based on their own perspective of things. But their means is the same. i.e violence and terror. In fact even the use of violence to fight terror can be termed as another form of terrorism.

See above. The defintion you provided works if one wants to put forward their point of view, i'm least concerned in how these ppl view themselves because its a lie, my position in the definition is rather in the manner you deal with them. What should the govt do to address this situation ?

but letting the situation go on like this further isn't good either. Its important to resolve whatever valid issues they have, but its even more important stop the current situation by what ever means necessary. If non-violent means don't work, then use violent means. Its important to show that the govt is in control. Otherwise the Naxals have already won.

Oh i have no probs with violence being used here at all provided it serves a purpose and is effective.

I've posted KPS Gill's take on this earlier. Now Gill as a man is prolly more respected by non-Punjabi's than his own ppl because we did not have to suffer the consequences of his actions. He did clean Punjab out tho in the end. The younger ones that did not witness anything will also think more favourably.

Tho at times he must have seemed worse than the seperatists themselves. This is what i mean by grey, you basically have to trust the state to get on with its job in the hope that peace & normalcy will return sometime in the not too distant future.

Punjab was under the special powers act from '83 -'89. That makes the state all powerful, they can do whatever to anyone on the slightest suspicion and there is no recourse to any justice whatsoever. To live though this period would require an incredible faith in the person charged with sorting out this mess. Tackling terrorism is a cakewalk in comparison to a dirty insugency. This is why i've objected to the term terrorist when its used to refer ot the naxals because it comes across as not serious about dealing with the situation. In some ways it could be said Punjab paid too much of a price but thats depends on how much one values normalcy.

I only posted about Punjab to highlight the insurgency aspect of it. I'm aware the naxals are not seperatists but the MO is similar here.

Was Punjab a quick fix too and likely to blow up again in the future ?

Anyway I think you are from AP and also live in Punjab so it would be interesting to hear your take on both places

Bhagat singh was a freedom fighter from our perspective, he was a terrorist from the then govt's perspective. Bhagat singh was fighting for freedom and for revenge as well. He thought he was fighting for a noble cause. A guy like Kasab too thought he was fighting for his religion which he thought was a noble cause. Naxals too think they are fighting against the atrocities committed by the Zamindars and they too think its a noble cause. As I said, its just a matter of perspective. Everyone thinks they are fighting for a noble cause and terror and violence is justified.

OK, so what is your solution to deal with the naxals then ?

atleast have the guts to stand upto a murdering terrorist leader.what kind of people do we have ruling our nation?

What is the value of winning a war withought firing a sngle shot ?

PC's being cagey there so the Naxals don't turn what he says for their own purposes. In any case they are not interested in dealing because they have the upper hand.

This poses another question -- should we ever cut a deal with them in the future ? or insist on an unconditional surrender.

 

[sunny27]

in this case the perfect thing to do would be to show who's boss -- roll in some tanks and have helicopter gunships just conduct some low level sorties - don't fire a shot--intimidate them.

this naxal government standoff looks similar to the LTTE srilankan government stand offf - i know i can't compare these situations directly but it is somewhat similar.

 

[blr_p]

How would a country like Israel, or USA have dealt with this --- hypothetical, if a group of this size would have surfaced..?

Difficult to answer this one, the US had a civil war and won. Our much smaller example is Punjab. How are the US dealing with Afghanistan ? Many ideas there to mix with our already extensive experience in this area.

The Israeli's are in a detente situation, no peace or war, they've not resolved anything really. The Pals are not interested in peace unless its on their terms. Theirs is a much harder problem than ours because the land is so limited.

 

[asingh]

This poses another question -- should we ever cut a deal with them in the future ? or insist on an unconditional surrender.

Though unconditional surrender would be the holy-grail, it would have to be small deals. As of now Rammanan cares jack-sh$$. See him shrugging his shoulders at Chidambaram. Media is having a blast. Center is twiddling their thumbs (in their pockets). Blame put on the state and dead SPOs. Lame.

in this case the perfect thing to do would be to show who's boss -- roll in some tanks and have helicopter gunships just conduct some low level sorties - don't fire a shot--intimidate them.

this naxal government standoff looks similar to the LTTE srilankan government stand offf - i know i can't compare these situations directly but it is somewhat similar.

The situation has reached such a point: any move which even smells like counter insurgency to the Maoists results in a Dantewada. They rule the roost. As soon as they see military deployment, the Maoists will go hyper active. The attack has to be surgical and classified from day one. Keep the rabid media out of it, specially the political inclined ones. Show of muscle will equal shedding of blood.

Blr_p, regarding Israel I meant, are they not much strict for conditions like this. Specially national security threats. They are famous for hunting down terrorists groups. With all their covert and Mossad groups. Their executive action is quicker..?

 

[sunny27]

^^^^^you mean like Eric Bana from Munich?
you are watching too many movies.
nothing in India is covert! everything here is all show and no go!

 

[kippu]

nowhere else but in india that they would have let such a group thrive ... rest of country do have .. like indonesia and african countries , but they go out with full ruthlessness , someone has to take the stick and beat them , they really cannot sweep this issue for next government ,.... it should have been nipped in bud in 2005 and 06 when they were getting stronger
and you cannot compare afghanistan with this ... that would be a different country issue ,
sadness and madness

 

[asingh]

^^^^^you mean like Eric Bana from Munich?

you are watching too many movies.

nothing in India is covert! everything here is all show and no go!

Sunny, it is not a movie scenario or fantasy I am trying to suggest. For example when the Taj incident happened at Mumbai, Israeli personnel had arrived at the site for assistance, cause Jews were inside. Its the level of execution and proactive approach I meant.

 

[blr_p]

Though unconditional surrender would be the holy-grail, it would have to be small deals.

That's what Shibu Soren has done in Jharkhand. This is not the idea i had in mind. Because its saying there is good naxal and bad naxal. Tamils & Andhras did not cut any deals. If other states follow their example then naxals will find one day there are no more places left to hide. By cutting deals the core problems are never addressed and only the symptoms are being treated. The cheap solution that entails less loss of life & capital.

nowhere else but in india that they would have let such a group thrive

Actually nowhere else but in the concerned states where the problem is particularly acute is it allowed to happen. That's where you should be levelling the blame. There is no political will in these states to tackle the problem or it is insufficent.

I don't blame the centre, they have made the right sounds about this whole issue over the past few years and if the individual states do not act or put up barriers then what more can be done. Why was Gill's contract not renewed by the Chattisgarh govt back in 2007 ? Had they done so i doubt we would reading about Dantewada today. Chattisgarh would be much closer to putting a lid on the problem. Instead we are left with this blame game, state blaming centre, and vice-versa.

The only conclusion i'm left with is the leaders of these states depend on the naxals if they want to continue winning elections. That's your problem right there. I've said over & over again that the naxals are not the legititmate representatives of the ppl, if they cannot stand for elections and instead resort to insurgency. Cutting deals with thugs like these is actually legitimising them.

Blr_p, regarding Israel I meant, are they not much strict for conditions like this. Specially national security threats. They are famous for hunting down terrorists groups. With all their covert and Mossad groups. Their executive action is quicker..?

Until Gujral put an end to it in the 90s, thats exactly how we operated in the 80s & earlier wrt to the Paks.

nothing in India is covert! everything here is all show and no go!

Hmm, i think we tend to be more like the Brits than the Americans when it comes to this sort of thing. Want to know what we've been upto, watch what the HR grps are complaining about. You will get no official mention on anything covert whatsoever much later, after the fact.

I read recently that the files on the '71 Bangla war were destroyed so the official details in certain cases will never ever come out. I bet the same will apply to Punjab, Kasmir & the NE. Nothing sensitive (at the time) will ever be declassfied regarding these areas because it will no longer exist.

For example when the Taj incident happened at Mumbai, Israeli personnel had arrived at the site for assistance, cause Jews were inside. Its the level of execution and proactive approach I meant.

How many planes were sent to Amman to evacuate Indians that were stranded there after Iraq invaded Kuwait ? That changed my mind about how we view our citizens abroad.