In defence of self-defence

‘The army alone cannot fight the People’s War’

Maloy Krishna Dhar started life as a junior reporter for Amrita Bazaar Patrika in Calcutta and a part-time lecturer. He joined the Indian Police Service in 1964 and was permanently seconded to the Intelligence Bureau. During his long stint in the Bureau, Dhar saw action in almost all Northeastern States, Sikkim, Punjab and Kashmir. He also handled delicate internal political and several counterintelligence assignments.

After retiring in 1996 as joint director, he took to freelance journalism and writing books.

Titles credited to him are Open Secrets-India's Intelligence Unveiled, Fulcrum of Evil, ISI, CIA, al-Qaeda Nexus and Mission to Pakistan. Maloy is considered a top security analyst and a social scientist who tries to portray Indian society through his writings.

In this exclusive column for Sify.com, Dhar examines the pros and cons of India’s experiments with empowering people to arm and defend themselves.

Two contradictory news items had hit the headlines of mainstream dailies on May 4, 2008. A delegation of the Communist Party of India consisting A B Bardhan, Gurudas Dasgupta and D Raja had called on the PM on May 3 (The Hindu front page) to urge the leader of the coalition government headed by Congress to disband the Salwa Judum (Peace Mission) initiated by the BJP government of Chattisgarh.

The other item was about decision of the SPF government headed by Congress in Manipur to arm the people of certain areas of Thoubal district (affected by Meitei and Muslim terrorists) to fight back and restore peace to a cluster of villages around Heirok and Chajing.

The names, as I said (earlier) may sound Chinese or Thai. Don’t mind the lack of knowledge about Manipur. The decision was adopted in a Cabinet meeting on May 3, 2008.

It is better to quote for the sake of authenticity the news portal Sangei Express (Manipur-May 3, 2008), which is in no way considered an India-friendly portal:

“The SPF Government’s decision to arm public of Heirok and Chajing to defend them-selves from militants have evoked widespread appreciation…

“People of Heirok and Chajing had been demanding that State Government provide them guns after activists of different armed groups killed four persons some times back. Conceding to the people’s demand State authorities lobbied with the Central Government representatives and the latter reportedly approved the proposal for one year on trial basis which will include establishment of 500 posts of Special Police Officers (SPOs) out of which Heirok will have 300 SPOs…

“The arm provision would be closely monitored by the Union Home Ministry and if the outcome is positive the period is likely to be extended in phased manner. Close on the heels of the Cabinet decision to provide arms to the public of Heirok and Chajing, the Director General of Police Y Joykumar made a personal assessment of possible sites for opening up of five posts of the SPO in Heirok area today. The possible sites for the SPO posts include Ulaimang, Laimayum Welcome Gate and Salam Leirak within Heirok Part-II, Ngarouthel in Heirok Pt-III and Heituppokpi of Heirok Pt-I.”

The CPI, which is a partner in the government (4 MLAs), did not protest the Cabinet decision to arm the people, who are living under shadows of the Meitei and Muslim terrorists. Yet, the CPI is an honourable party and a partner of Congress in Delhi as well.

My intention is neither to support nor condemn the movement in Chhattisgarh. This is not the first time India has legally and openly experimented with armed volunteer forces, right from the North East to Punjab.

Way back in 1967-68 Manipur Naga and non-Naga Hills were infested with Naga, Mizo and other underground armies, the army and paramilitary forces were thickly mobilised. The idea of recruiting Naga and non-Naga youths, training them in medium and heavy weaponry use and posting them in fortified camps in highly disturbed areas was known as the ‘Village Volunteer Force.’

The funds came from Delhi and the Chief Commissioner and later the Lt Governor supervised the administration and some central government agencies used to direct the intelligence and armed operations. Within four years the districts of Ukhrul, Tamenglong and Mao-Maram were largely rid of the Naga Army activities. The 10th battalion Mizo Army commanded by Lalzika Sailo surrendered.

If you have any queries you may contact Rishang Keishing, Rajya Sabha member from Manipur. He is a surviving hero of the VVF movement. The nation should be proud of him, as well as the late K Envy and L Solomon, former ministers in the Manipur government. As for queries on Nagaland’s efforts at combating insurgents, the best sources are Hokise Sema and even S C Jamir, the two Naga leaders who helped the people fight the insurgents.

If you are not bored, look back at Mizoram, the grouping of its villages and the creation of Village Defence Forces. The army alone cannot fight the so-called ‘People’s War.’ Instead, it requires ‘Peoples Participation.’

By the same author: North East of what? | A guided tour of 'outer' India | All Maloy Dhar columns

‘At heart I am a Naxalite of the Classic School’

It would take more than a volume to discuss how the terrorists control the ‘masses’ and how the governments and people jointly win back the mass psychology. Suffice it to say that the government of Peru succeeded in fighting the Sandero Luminiso (Shining Path) movement (ultra-left) only by winning back the confidence of the people and by selectively arming the people against the “People’s War.”

I had the opportunity of handling insurgency/terrorism in Punjab as well. The SPO concept, variously described as the Salwa Judum, the VVF, or VDF, was also applied in Punjab. These volunteer corps had helped the regular police and paramilitary forces in accessing remote villages and eradicating the secessionist movement.

The unsung story of Punjab SPOs could be authenticated from the hero of Punjab Operations- K P S Gill. Do I sound pugnacious to the Human Rights Groups, the Left Parties, the Ultra-Left organisations and liberal elites?

Without any brow-beating, I have to confess that I started my working life at Naxalbari alongside close friends like Charu Majumdar and Jangal Santhal. We often agreed and disagreed about the methodology of agrarian revolution in India (please read back-Telengana revolt, Tebhaga Andolan etc). Disagreements did not diminish our friendship. In fact, I benefited from the new socio-economic policies. At heart I am a Naxalite of the Classic School (Charu).

I do not totally disagree when friends like Dipankar Bhattacharya (Secretary General CPI-ML) shouts “disband Salwa Judum and other state-backed private militias” (ML-Update vol. 11, No. 15 dated April 8-14, 2008). He does have a case. He bases his argument on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment, which was passed on a PIL by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Aftab Alam, which said, “You (State government) cannot give arms to somebody (a civilian) and allow him to kill. You will be an abettor of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.” (Quoted from CPI-ML flyer).

If the Apex Court of the country takes such a view, the State has to sit up and has to re-examine the boundaries of “People’s War” and “People’s Defence.”

According to The Asian Council of Human Rights, “as on March 2006, a total of 45,958 Adivasi villagers from 644 villages in 6 blocks of Dantewada district were brought under the Salwa Judum programme. In many cases, the mobilisations have reportedly been forcible. Human rights have also been violated in various other ways, according to human rights organisations.”

This view was fortified by the report based on team study by People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Chhattisgarh, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Jharkhand, People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) Delhi, Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) West Bengal and Indian Association of People's Lawyers (IAPL).

The Left and seemingly progressive groups have consistently pleaded that private citizens should not be mobilised in Group Centres (camps) and they should not be armed with sophisticated weapons to kill the Left armed raiders and guerrillas. However, these groups do not spell out the role of the State in fighting the “People’s War.”

By the same author: Ignore the sycophants, Rahul Gandhi | South India and the enemies within

The ingredients of a ‘People’s War.’

Where does the State turn to?

Heaps of acts, manuals and administrative directions tell us that the State is entrusted by the Constitution to maintain order and restore the law. These provisions empower the State to use force. Application of force in vacuum of negative public support is termed as “state sponsored war or terrorism.” If organisations like PUCL, PUDR etc and my friend Dipankar Bhattacharya are to be believed, the attempt of Chhattisgarh government is an anti-people concept, which constitutes a serious violation of Human Rights.

I regretfully disagree.

A ‘People’s War’ is supported by history, as in the case of French Revolution, the American War of Independence, Lenin’s Bolshevik revolution and Mao’s People’s War.

People’s Wars end up in real warlike situations in which the rebels kill people for “Mass Control”, territorial expansion, establishment of authority and immobilisation of existing governing and political system. The State, whatever state it is in, is empowered to use force to recover the “Mass Control” mechanism.

In addition to the State, many individuals or groups of individuals have been empowered by the India Penal Code to exercise matching violence by equal proportion of use of force.

Killing a man for committing theft is murder. Taking up weapons voluntarily to defend the self, family and the community when they are mortally threatened and actually become victims of violence, is self-defence in the eye of the law. The crux of the problem is to briefly examine whether the Classical Naxal movement, which started in 1965-67, and the garlanding events of organised armed violence in different parts of the country in the name of Maoist Revolution constitute the ingredients of ‘People’s War.’

Any student of Indian political, economic and social history would say loudly that vast sections of the Indians are deprived and the quantum of deprivation, both urban and rural, is increasing by leaps and bounds. The social and economic disparity between globalised India and medieval India rotting in village, caste, class and community clusters appear too unbridgeable.

It is also to be examined if a revolution like the present Maoist strife is blessed by the “mass quantity of the people,” if they are ready to change the system through violence and if the State has conclusively failed.

By the same author: Who killed Benazir? | Big Brother and India’s internal security

‘Violent revolution cannot usher in system-change’

A close look would tell us that the Maoists are acting as angry ideologues, like their classic leader Charu, and have not been able to sell their ideology to the People and convince them that a time has come for violent system-change.

They are acquiring guns, terrorising the very deprived people whom they aim to serve and expanding very little of territorial hegemony. They are neither hegemons of ideas nor the sovereign of People’s mind. Their war cannot destroy the present State of India. They likely to end up in increasing the miseries of the People, impose serious burden on the pockets, whatever pockets are left, of the deprived people.

The same questions had arisen and were examined in Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Assam, Punjab and Kashmir. It was concluded that it not possible to usher in a violent revolution for a system-change.

The Indian society, the State and the Constitution, the Laws and overrunning systems are so resilient that they can accommodate almost any demanding situation to win over the “mass quantity of people.” Reality being what it is, with great reverence to the apex court and my friends in Classical and Neo-Peoples War, I beg to differ with them.

People have a right to defend themselves, either on their own or in conjunction with the State. It has been done in the past and will in vogue simply because the People enjoy both the rights: ‘People’s War’ and ‘People’s Defence.’ It is a matter of fine segmentation of time and situation when one of the forces overtakes the other.

Therefore, I would disagree with the hypocritical CPI, Human Rights Agencies and my friends in the Maoist movement.

However, when, how and with what strategy the people would use self-defence would be a cardinal point to consider. Having trodden most of the killing fields in India, I would recommend empowering the people by the State to defend themselves.

The only alternative for my Naxal friends is that they may consider, like the Nepal Maoists to abandon the guns and penetrate the system to change it with People's mass support. They should remember that they have no right, under present circumstances of the India State, to kill and the People have the right to defend themselves by whatsoever means possible.

All Maloy Dhar columns | 'My secret wish is to become a Naxal' | India, a gangland democracy