Lalgarh lessons
Co-existence with the Maoists is not an option
Most people would agree that the correct response to the Maoist challenge in West Bengal’s Lalgarh was to crush the rebels and to re-establish the government’s authority in the area, a task which has been done after an unconscionable delay of several months. Whatever the reasons for the disaffection of the local population, the government cannot afford to cede its authority. Undoing governance failures, which must lie at the root of the problem of alienation, takes months and years, but an obvious precondition for that to happen is that government officials must have access to the area. This first task having been established, what is the government’s duty? The truth is that governance rarely improves, and the issues that led to alienation are not addressed. The result is that there are mini-Lalgarhs erupting in many states, in the heartland as well as in parts of the north-east.
Interestingly, anecdotal evidence suggests that, in large swathes of the country, it is not a question of choosing between the government and the Maoists; often enough, the local administration has learnt to co-exist with the Maoists, and the ordinary citizen realises he has to deal with both. Manipuri insurgents, for instance, routinely collect a toll from every truck that rolls into the state. Mizo activists have vigilante groups that focus on making sure of government service delivery. The clinching argument must be that if a sixth of the country is said to be affected by Maoist activity, but voting took place in all 543 Lok Sabha constituencies, the Indian state and the Maoists must have learnt to live and let live. In Lalgarh itself, the CPI(M) has alleged that leading political parties have been in cahoots with the Maoists. It would seem then that it is only when the Maoists disturb this equilibrium and decide to challenge the state overtly that the headlines reach New Delhi, and tough police action follows.
But this is a dangerous halfway house. Insurgencies that become settled facts of life often descend into systems for organised extortion, as in Manipur. Politicians and administrations find uses for them, in ways that create networks of mutual benefit that then come in the way of rooting out the cancer. The spotlight therefore has to be on how state intervention negatively affects the poor, and on adopting a development model which is win-win. The unfortunate history of recent years is that governments have taken over people’s land at throwaway prices and then handed them over to industrial groups, while the relief and rehabilitation promises made to those who have lost their land have been honoured only in the breach. For a start, this issue needs to be addressed urgently.