There is little doubt the Central government needs to ensure adequate funding and training for paramilitary forces as well as coordination among states, but the real work on the ground has to be done by the states.
Vijayarama Rao
Former Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
State governments are best placed to gather intelligence and tackle law and order. The Centre is responsible for inter-state coordination and financial assistance
The Maoist threat has been there in different forms ever since 1946, though there was a gap of 15-16 years between the first and the second phases. In the first phase, the then Communist Party of India (CPI) converted the movement against the Nizam of Hyderabad into an agrarian uprising to capture power. Everything that Maoists do today, like attacking police stations, launching guerrilla warfare and having armed underground cadres, was also done in the past. Even after Hyderabad was liberated in 1948, the CPI struggle continued till 1952.
After a gap of 15 years, the Naxal movement started and this has now spread to many states. It has emerged due to many factors including failure of the system, widening gap between the rich and the poor, non-delivery of services by the state and growing distance between the political leadership and the people, particularly in rural areas.
While the state is responsible for the maintenance of law and order under the Constitution, state boundaries have become convenient areas for Maoists operations because of the different commands. In such a scenario, most of the subjects like service delivery and economic inequalities, and not just law and order, have to be addressed by the state.
At the preparatory stage, when the Maoists start building up contacts at the local level, only the state government can deal with the issue. Though the policy framework may rest with the Centre, it is the responsibility of the state to address the socio-economic aspects besides tackling law and order.
The preparatory stage involves identifying local problems and resolving them. At this stage, the first indication that people are unhappy comes in the form of some kind of demands from the local leaders or slogans written on walls, etc. The state should intervene at this stage and address the issues besides gathering intelligence through formal and informal channels. Taking care of everything that is happening at this stage is the job of local revenue officials, medical officers, police, forest officials, tribal welfare offices, sarpanch, etc.
After this stage, when the Maoists go underground and start procuring weapons, it is again the responsibility of the state to gather information and set matters right through local officials. When an offence takes place, the state has to follow the law and book a cases against the culprit, and also arrest and prosecute him. Similarly, the state has to address the socio-economic factors leading to such activity.
The Centre has two responsibilities — inter-state coordination and providing financial and other required assistance. The Centre should pave the way for inter-state coordination but not take total responsibility. It is incumbent on the Centre to take certain measures towards inter-state coordination. Unfortunately, this has not been done, though the Centre has been aware of the problem for quite some time.
Deploying the army for tackling the Naxalites is not the right thing to do. The army can’t function effectively unless all wings of the state administration are in its hands — this amounts to imposing President’s rule.
The Centre should come out with a workable coordinating machinery that would help the states in tackling the problem. This may take time, but it is necessary. Meanwhile, the states should prepare for such a mechanism as a part of an all-India strategy.
Moreover, it is dangerous for the army or CRPF to undertake combing operations in the forests without the involvement of the local police or a detailed plan. The local police alone can get the required information, know the terrain and assess the type of threats that are in store while conducting the operations. Ultimately, nothing is possible without people’s cooperation, which can be ensured only when the state government takes necessary initiatives.
As a senior police officer, he has been associated with AP’s anti-naxal strategy
As told to Prashanth Chintala
Manish Tewari
Official Spokesperson, All India Congress Committee
The role of the Centre is limited to helping the state in building capacities — if the state government is incapable of tackling the problem, it should step down
India has a defined constitutional structure which entrusts the responsibility of law and order to the state government. This is not the first time that the country is faced with an internal security challenge. In the past, the state has confronted and surmounted internal security threats in the north east and the north west.
Even with regard to Naxalites, in the Naxalbari movement in 1967, the government of West Bengal, aided by the central paramilitary forces and the Indian armed forces, carried out Operation Steeplechase in 1971 to isolate the Naxalites and neutralise their movement. The governments of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra have been able to successfully combat the Naxalites through elite anti-Naxal forces trained in jungle warfare. In the case of troubled areas like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and West Bengal, the state governments need to build capacity to fight the Naxalites.
It’s true that people in these areas have been suffering for nearly a decade. But then, it took 15 years to counter terrorism in Punjab. In Jammu and Kashmir, it has been two decades. In the valley, the situation was different when the Centre took charge. But since the elected government took over, it has been addressing the problem of militancy. So, there is no reason why states should abdicate responsibility.
It is a dangerous proposition to say that the Centre should substitute the state in countering a challenge to internal security. If the state is not capable of taking on the challenge, let there be fresh elections. If the Chhattisgarh chief minister says that the Centre should take up combat, then he should step down. If he is overawed by the situation, that is the solution. In fact, in the first three years after the formation of Chhattisgarh, i.e. between 2000 and 2003, the situation was under control. Ever since the BJP took over, the situation has deteriorated. Even in such a situation, where people are suffering and the state seems incapable, the use of Article 356 by the Centre is circumscribed by various judgments, like the Bommai judgment.
That an elected government is refusing to take responsibility is indeed a dangerous portent for democracy. The BJP has been doing a lot of loud talk on Naxalism and it should now walk the talk by getting the state to do its job. If it feels helpless, it should resign. Then there may be fresh elections.
We have been hearing such insensitive statements from the DGP of the state police about the armed forces which are helping the state. The DGP was a member of the central paramilitary forces and instead of sitting in judgement on the central forces, he needs to get his act together. I don’t think the lack of “development” is an issue in these areas. If it was, then why do the Naxalites blow up schools and other indicators of development? Their ideology is a violent one — it aims at overthrowing the state. Development is important to isolate the Naxalites from people. But hard power has to do its work before the soft power of development can have any impact. And if the state government is incapable of tackling the problem, it should step down. The procedures for President’s rule kick in when the Governor advises the Centre and it is then that various constitutional mechanisms come into play.
But eventually, the role of the Centre is limited to helping the state in building capacities. It can extend and implement the Panchayatraj Extended to Schedule area Act (PESA) as also the Forest Rights Act. And it can provide the highest level of funding to help ease the situation. But as things stand, unless a call is taken — and it is for the state government to take this call — the state has to deliver. The BJP has to decide whether its government can deliver or not and the rest will follow. But, as things stand right now, it is for the state to do the job.
