No qualms: Karma says the governments should act coherently against Naxals

'If we can wipe out Naxalism from Bastar, the red corridor is finished'

I have lost two brothers to it and have escaped attacks several times. Whenever I go to Dantewada, especially on padyatras to spread the message of the Salva Judum, there is the risk. My family and sons still live in my native village. Recently, on March 2, I was going on a motorcycle yatra with 150 others to Jagargunda, a village on the border with Andhra Pradesh. One of the motorcycles ahead of me triggered a pressure bomb. It could have been me.

Aren't you afraid?

This is not the sort of bogus fight that politicians are used to. In this fight, we will have to be prepared for anything. I am not new to this. I have been fighting the Naxals since 1989 when we started a jan jagran abhiyan among villagers and the Naxalites left, but soon they returned. I worked again on it when I was an independent member of the Eleventh Lok Sabha.

So what has this experience of working on the issue of Naxalism taught you?

The single greatest lesson I have learnt is never to compromise with the Naxals.

Does that mean you are against peace talks with them?

The Naxals aren't even offering to talk.

But if they do?

They just can't give up the gun. If they do, then perhaps we can talk.

Shouldn't the government initiate peace talks with them?

These are the people who are against the Constitution and the democratic system as a whole. We, on the other hand, are part of this democratic system and it is our responsibility to save it from the Naxalites. You must understand that they are terrorists.

What do you think of the way Maoists have joined democracy in Nepal?

That's what they will have to ultimately do in India.

But Naxalites say that Indian democracy has been a farce because developmental benefits haven't reached the people.

Okay, so let us throw the ball in their court: what have the Naxals done for the people? Have they empowered common people in any way? Has the standard of living in villages controlled by them improved? Why don't you understand that the Naxals want 'revolution', they want to change the system, and the tribals are the best fodder. But we who are fighting against the Naxals are also tribals. We have the same blood in us.

There are several kinds of terrorism. There is communal terrorism and local terrorism, but Naxalism is political terrorism of an international nature. Whatever be the form of terrorism, it isolates people geographically or communally. What the Naxals want amounts to secessionism. Democracy, on the other hand, is nobody's property, certainly, not mine. I haven't picked it up from Plato.

So what is the status of Naxalism in Chhattisgarh now according to you?

There is a big dent in it after a people's movement against it in the most-affected district of Dantewada. But Dantewada is still the centre of Naxal activity, not just in Chhattisgarh but in the entire country. This is where the root is. This is where I suspect the central leadership of he Communist Party of India (Maoist) resides. If we can wipe out Naxalism from Dantewada, we will have wiped it out from the rest of the country. And there is only one thing that can defeat Naxalism. It is called Salva Judum. For the first time has such a people's movement taking place. The Naxalites earlier called themselves 'People's War Group'. But what they are doing now is war against the people! Their very astitva (being) is being challenged.

Is it true that you are the initiator of Salva Judum?

I only gave it this name after I saw it come up on its own. Seeing a village rebel against Naxalites gave me the inspiration to lead them. They needed a political voice, which is what I gave them. I gave them leadership.

But some say that the Salva Judum was your creation with police help.

That is mere propaganda. After a month-and-a-half of the movement, the state government made the wise decision to support it.Given how alarming the problem of Naxalism is, why should the state not support it?

But if it is really a spontaneous movement against Naxalite oppression, why has it appeared only in Dantewada and not the rest of south Chhattisgarh and indeed the red corridor?

Just because others haven't risen up doesn't mean Dantewada's tribals are fools. It is not Dantewada's fault if others don't have the courage to stand up against Naxalism.

So why don't you take the Salva Judum movement to other areas?

Wherever we go, people stand up and join us. We have made a beginning with Dantewada. Until we don't become a Naxalism-free state, we will not stop. If there are places where there is local leadership willing to stand up against the Naxals, we are ready to support it.

But isn't it unfair for the state to arm tribals and pit them against Naxalites? It is widely alleged that many are forced to join the Salva Judum and relocate to camps.

The people of Dantewada want to fight. Hundreds have died at the hands of the Naxalites, but they still want to fight. They want to kill Naxalites. The state cannot fool lakhs of people. You go to Salva Judum camps and ask them. The people of Dantewada are not like the Kashmiri Pandits who left their homes when forced by the gun. We are fighters.

The Naxalites are known for violence against individuals and institutions that represent the state. Don't you think that the creation of Salva Judum camps has turned thousands of villagers into ready targets for the Naxals?

On the contrary, wherever there are Salva Judum camps, Naxal violence and oppression of villagers has come to an end.

Many allege that the budget for these camps has provided officials an unprecedented opportunity to bungle the funds. There are even allegations against you for corruption.

As you know the Naxals can succeed in killing me any day. Do you think a man who has given his life would care for money? As for officials, we are talking of a machinery where corruption is widespread, so I would not be surprised if there has been corruption. There should indeed be an enquiry.

What do you think have been the three biggest successes of the Salva Judum?

Firstly, the Naxalite network has been undermined. They used to work with tribal villagers, and the same villagers are now on our side. Secondly, 5,000 Naxalites have surrendered and become special police officers (SPO) with the Salva Judum.

Who decides who will be given SPO status and arms?

The government decides the terms, it's not my responsibility. But it is true that many who are associated with our peace movement have been made SPOs. Anyway, you didn't let me tell you the third and the most interesting achievement of Salva Judum, which is that politicians have started speaking against Naxalism. Earlier they were so afraid of Naxals that they didn't want to openly speak out against them. Only when the locals have dared that the political class has risen to the occasion.

In May 2006, you told Tehelka that Salva Judum would be able to finish the Naxals by June 2006. This is March 2007 and we have just witnessed the massacre of 68 Salva Judum and Chhattisgarh police officials in Dantewada.

We give such slogans to inspire our masses. But you will appreciate that the Salva Judum has spread to all of Dantewada by now.

Rights groups and fact-finding committees have found large-scale human rights violations and violence in the name of Salva Judum. You cannot write them off as Naxal sympathisers.

I don't care for so-called intellectuals who can't understand what a jan andolan is.

Has there been a single mistake committed by the Salva Judum? If you were to do it all again, is there anything you would you do it differently?

When such a jan andolan takes place there is always some upvad , some wrongs, but exceptions should not be presented as the rule.

KPS Gill said at the Tehelka summit last year that the Salva Judum was a Gandhian movement…

No doubt about that! It is a public movement for freedom just like the one Gandhi led.

But Gandhi's was a non-violent movement, and Salva Judum is about an eye for an eye…

Do you know how many people Gandhi's non-violence killed?

How many?

Twenty two thousand. They were killed by the British for following Gandhi's path.

The massacre in Ranibodli on March 15, isn't it proof that the Salva Judum campaign failed?

Not at all. This massacre was going to happen. It was decided in the ninth Congress of the CPI (Maoist). That's when I think they also decided to killed Sunil Mahatoji of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. The state and Central governments should take the Naxalite decisions and plans more seriously than they do. The Naxals do what they say.

Home Minister Shivraj Patil said in Parliament the other day that Naxal-related incidents in the country had dipped by 6.5 percent in 2006, but in Chattisgarh they increased by 57 percent. And 676 have died in 22 months and most of these were in Dantewada. You still think Salva Judum has not backfired?

Do the other states have a public movement against Naxalism? Obviously, Naxals are killing more in Dantewada because they are frustrated at tribals being wooed away from them.

So the escalating deaths are merely collateral damage?

Well when there is a problem in front of you will you bravely face it or turn away? If we have to fight Naxalism, we will have to pay a price. Kisi samasya ka samadhan haath par haath dharey rehne se thodi na hota hain. Usko root se nikalna padega, sangharsh karna padega. We Indians typically accept things as destiny, leaving it bhagwan bharosay. That's not how you fight a war. The Naxals want this war to prolong for another 20-25 years and that's why they are killing more people.

Controversial as it is, is Salva Judum the only way of fighting Naxalism?

Well, I had Salva Judum to offer. If any learned person in the country has other solutions to offer, he is most welcome to try them.

Isn't providing more security a simple solution?

Yes, as the Salva Judum spreads, there will be more need for security.

So at the moment the number of security forces is just fine?

It is less than adequate.

Can you please pose below the Gandhi portrait for the photographer?

(Stands up and poses.) You are making me stand in the line of Gandhi. (Chuckles.)

It is you who has Gandhi in his office.

You know there is a saying, maha-purushon ke pad-chinh dikhaeen nahi dete, kyon ki un par aaj tak koi chala hi nahin. (You can't see the footsteps of great men because nobody has walked on them.)

How do you react when Maoists enact a brutal massacre such as this?

It is only the symptom of what is happening on the ground. The issue is simple. Multinationals are making huge inroads with the help of corrupt governments and contractors. The Maoists' movement had stopped the mnc drain on the region's resources, but of late they have begun to exploit the area again. In addition, the government is repressing people in the name of Salva Judum, which is nothing but a State-sponsored war upon the people. The media has reported more than 50 policemen killed in the incident, but do you know 39 of them were Salva Judum activists whom the government has armed and given uniforms?

What is the option? You must ask this question to the State which is the main instrument of violence today. Those who stand up for the rights of the masses often have no recourse but to resist State violence; Maoists are indulging in counter-violence, that's all, they have to defend themselves.

Is there a possibility they could give up arms and begin talks?

Again, ask the State. If it ends Salva Judum and the people of the area are allowed to return home safe, there will be a reduction in violence. But if the State continues to oppress people, there will be retaliation.

How do you respond to a ceasefire proposal?

Let the government declare it, the revolutionary movement will take a decision. More than 60 people were killed in Nandigram by the State and nobody calls that violence. These were people trying to protect their land and the police just butchered them. There is no outcry about that kind of violence. Why? When the State is so violent, there will be violence in society.

Where do you see the movement heading? Is there a goal in sight?

This is a time for all revolutionary, democratic and nationality movements, like the ones in Kashmir and the Northeast to unite, and something will come out of this unity. We have very little expectations of the State and the comprador class that it represents.                                 Tehelka

Singur and Nandigram make you wonder — is the last stop of every revolution advanced capitalism?

You don't have to be a genius to read the signs. We have a growing middle class, reared on a diet of radical consumerism and aggressive greed. Unlike industrialising Western countries, which had colonies from which to plunder resources and generate slave labour to feed this process, we have to colonise ourselves, our own nether parts. We've begun to eat our own limbs. The greed that is being generated (and marketed as a value interchangeable with nationalism) can only be sated by grabbing land, water and resources from the vulnerable. What we're witnessing is the most successful secessionist struggle ever waged in independent India — the secession of the middle and upper classes from the rest of the country. It's a vertical secession, not a lateral one. They're fighting for the right to merge with the world's elite somewhere up there in the stratosphere. They've managed to commandeer the resources, the coal, the minerals, the bauxite, the water and electricity. Now they want the land to make more cars, more bombs, more mines — supertoys for the new supercitizens of the new superpower. So it's outright war, and people on both sides are choosing their weapons. The government and the corporations reach for structural adjustment, the World Bank, the ADB, FDI, friendly court orders, friendly policy makers, help from the 'friendly' corporate media and a police force that will ram all this down people's throats. Those who want to resist this process have, until now, reached for dharnas, hunger strikes, satyagraha, the courts and what they thought was friendly media. But now more and more are reaching for guns. Will the violence grow? If the 'growth rate' and the Sensex are going to be the only barometers the government uses to measure progress and the well-being of people, then of course it will. How do I read the signs? It isn't hard to read sky-writing. What it says up there, in big letters, is this: the shit has hit the fan, folks.

You once remarked that though you may not resort to violence yourself, you think it has become immoral to condemn it, given the circumstances in the country. Can you elaborate on this view?

I'd be a liability as a guerrilla! I doubt I used the word 'immoral' — morality is an elusive business, as changeable as the weather. What I feel is this: non-violent movements have knocked at the door of every democratic institution in this country for decades, and have been spurned and humiliated. Look at the Bhopal gas victims, the Narmada Bachao Andolan. The nba had a lot going for it — high-profile leadership, media coverage, more resources than any other mass movement. What went wrong? People are bound to want to rethink strategy. When Sonia Gandhi begins to promote satyagraha at the World Economic Forum in Davos, it's time for us to sit up and think. For example, is mass civil disobedience possible within the structure of a democratic nation state? Is it possible in the age of disinformation and corporate-controlled mass media? Are hunger strikes umbilically linked to celebrity politics? Would anybody care if the people of Nangla Machhi or Bhatti mines went on a hunger strike? Irom Sharmila has been on a hunger strike for six years. That should be a lesson to many of us. I've always felt that it's ironic that hunger strikes are used as a political weapon in a land where most people go hungry anyway. We are in a different time and place now. Up against a different, more complex adversary. We've entered the era of NGOs — or should I say the era of paltu shers — in which mass action can be a treacherous business. We have demonstrations which are funded, we have sponsored dharnas and social forums which make militant postures but never follow up on what they preach. We have all kinds of 'virtual' resistance. Meetings against SEZs sponsored by the biggest promoters of SEZs. Awards and grants for environmental activism and community action given by corporations responsible for devastating whole ecosystems. Vedanta, a company mining bauxite in the forests of Orissa, wants to start a university. The Tatas have two charitable trusts that directly and indirectly fund activists and mass movements across the country. Could that be why Singur has drawn so much less flak than Nandigram? Of course the Tatas and Birlas funded Gandhi too — maybe he was our first NGO. But now we have NGOs who make a lot of noise, write a lot of reports, but whom the sarkar is more than comfortable with. How do we make sense of all this? The place is crawling with professional diffusers of real political action. 'Virtual' resistance has become something of a liability.

Anyone listening? nobody Abhinandita D. Mathur

We are in the era of sponsored dharnas and NGOs the sarkar is comfortable with. The place is crawling with professional diffusers of real political action

In a climate like this, when people feel that they are being worn down, exhausted by these interminable 'democratic' processes, only to be eventually humiliated, what are they supposed to do? Of course it isn't as though the only options are binary — violence versus non-violence. There are political parties that believe in armed struggle but only as one part of their overall political strategy. Political workers in these struggles have been dealt with brutally, killed, beaten, imprisoned under false charges. People are fully aware that to take to arms is to call down upon yourself the myriad forms of the violence of the Indian State. The minute armed struggle becomes a strategy, your whole world shrinks and the colours fade to black and white. But when people decide to take that step because every other option has ended in despair, should we condemn them? Does anyone believe that if the people of Nandigram had held a dharna and sung songs, the West Bengal government would have backed down? We are living in times when to be ineffective is to support the status quo (which no doubt suits some of us). And being effective comes at a terrible price. I find it hard to condemn people who are prepared to pay that price.

You have been travelling a lot on the ground — can you give us a sense of the trouble spots you have been to? Can you outline a few of the combat lines in these places?

Huge question — what can I say? The military occupation of Kashmir, neo-fascism in Gujarat, civil war in Chhattisgarh, mncs raping Orissa, the submergence of hundreds of villages in the Narmada Valley, people living on the edge of absolute starvation, the devastation of forest land, the Bhopal victims living to see the West Bengal government re-wooing Union Carbide — now calling itself Dow Chemicals — in Nandigram. I haven't been recently to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, but we know about the almost hundred thousand farmers who have killed themselves. We know about the fake encounters and the terrible repression in Andhra Pradesh. Each of these places has its own particular history, economy, ecology. None is amenable to easy analysis. And yet there is connecting tissue, there are huge international cultural and economic pressures being brought to bear on them. How can I not mention the Hindutva project, spreading its poison sub-cutaneously, waiting to erupt once again? I'd say the biggest indictment of all is that we are still a country, a culture, a society which continues to nurture and practice the notion of untouchability. While our economists number-crunch and boast about the growth rate, a million people — human scavengers — earn their living carrying several kilos of other people's shit on their heads every day. And if they didn't carry shit on their heads they would starve to death. Some f***ing superpower this.

How does one view the recent State and police violence in Bengal?

No different from police and State violence anywhere else — including the issue of hypocrisy and doublespeak so perfected by all political parties including the mainstream Left. Are Communist bullets different from capitalist ones? Odd things are happening. It snowed in Saudi Arabia. Owls are out in broad daylight. The Chinese government tabled a bill sanctioning the right to private property. I don't know if all of this has to do with climate change. The Chinese Communists are turning out to be the biggest capitalists of the 21st century. Why should we expect our own parliamentary Left to be any different? Nandigram and Singur are clear signals. It makes you wonder — is the last stop of every revolution advanced capitalism? Think about it — the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Vietnam War, the anti-apartheid struggle, the supposedly Gandhian freedom struggle in India… what's the last station they all pull in at? Is this the end of imagination?

The might of the gun: The Maoists march during their Ninth Convention in Chhattisgarh AP Photo

These are times when to be ineffective is to support the status quo. And being effective comes at a terrible price

How can the rebels be the flip side of the State? Would anybody say that those who fought against apartheid — however brutal their methods — were the flip side of the State? What about those who fought the French in Algeria? Or those who fought the Nazis? Or those who fought colonial regimes? Or those who are fighting the US occupation of Iraq? Are they the flip side of the State? This facile new report-driven 'human rights' discourse, this meaningless condemnation game that we are all forced to play, makes politicians of us all and leaches the real politics out of everything. However pristine we would like to be, however hard we polish our halos, the tragedy is that we have run out of pristine choices. There is a civil war in Chhattisgarh sponsored, created by the Chhattisgarh government, which is publicly pursing the Bush doctrine: if you're not with us, you are with the terrorists. The lynchpin of this war, apart from the formal security forces, is the Salva Judum — a government-backed militia of ordinary people forced to take up arms, forced to become spos (special police officers). The Indian State has tried this in Kashmir, in Manipur, in Nagaland. Tens of thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands tortured, thousands have disappeared. Any banana republic would be proud of this record. Now the government wants to import these failed strategies into the heartland. Thousands of adivasis have been forcibly moved off their mineral-rich lands into police camps. Hundreds of villages have been forcibly evacuated. Those lands, rich in iron-ore, are being eyed by corporations like the Tatas and Essar. mous have been signed, but no one knows what they say. Land acquisition has begun. This kind of thing happened in countries like Colombia — one of the most devastated countries in the world. While everybody's eyes are fixed on the spiralling violence between government-backed militias and guerrilla squads, multinational corporations quietly make off with the mineral wealth. That's the little piece of theatre being scripted for us in Chhattisgarh.

Of course it's horrible that 55 policemen were killed. But they're as much the victims of government policy as anybody else. For the government and the corporations they're just cannon fodder — there's plenty more where they came from. Crocodile tears will be shed, prim TV anchors will hector us for a while and then more supplies of fodder will be arranged. For the Maoist guerrillas, the police and spos they killed were the armed personnel of the Indian State, the main, hands-on perpetrators of repression, torture, custodial killings, false encounters. They're not innocent civilians — if such a thing exists — by any stretch of imagination.

We were here: After the Jehanabad jailbreak AP Photo

But to equate a resistance movement fighting against enormous injustice with the government which enforces that injustice is absurd. The government has slammed the door in the face of every attempt at non-violent resistance. When people take to arms, there is going to be all kinds of violence — revolutionary, lumpen and outright criminal. The government is responsible for the monstrous situations it creates.

'Naxals', 'Maoists', 'outsiders': these are terms being very loosely used these days.

'Outsiders' is a generic accusation used in the early stages of repression by governments who have begun to believe their own publicity and can't imagine that their own people have risen up against them. That's the stage the CPM is at now in Bengal, though some would say repression in Bengal is not new, it has only moved into higher gear. In any case, what's an outsider? Who decides the borders? Are they village boundaries? Tehsil? Block? District? State? Is narrow regional and ethnic politics the new Communist mantra? About Naxals and Maoists — well… India is about to become a police state in which everybody who disagrees with what's going on risks being called a terrorist. Islamic terrorists have to be Islamic — so that's not good enough to cover most of us. They need a bigger catchment area. So leaving the definition loose, undefined, is effective strategy, because the time is not far off when we'll all be called Maoists or Naxalites, terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, and shut down by people who don't really know or care who Maoists or Naxalites are. In villages, of course, that has begun — thousands of people are being held in jails across the country, loosely charged with being terrorists trying to overthrow the state. Who are the real Naxalites and Maoists? I'm not an authority on the subject, but here's a very rudimentary potted history.

We are coming: A demonstration against the acquisition of land in Singur AP Photo

The government has slammed the door in the face of every attempt at non-violent resistance. The government is responsible for the situations it creates

The Indian State and media largely view the Maoists as an "internal security" threat. Is this the way to look at them?

I'm sure the Maoists would be flattered to be viewed in this way.

The Maoists want to bring down the State. Given the autocratic ideology they take their inspiration from, what alternative would they set up? Wouldn't their regime be an exploitative, autocratic, violent one as well? Isn't their action already exploitative of ordinary people? Do they really have the support of ordinary people?

I think it's important for us to acknowledge that both Mao and Stalin are dubious heroes with murderous pasts. Tens of millions of people were killed under their regimes. Apart from what happened in China and the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, with the support of the Chinese Communist Party (while the West looked discreetly away), wiped out two million people in Cambodia and brought millions of people to the brink of extinction from disease and starvation. Can we pretend that China's cultural revolution didn't happen? Or that millions of people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were not victims of labour camps, torture chambers, the network of spies and informers, the secret police. The history of these regimes is just as dark as the history of Western imperialism, except for the fact that they had a shorter life-span. We cannot condemn the occupation of Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir while we remain silent about Tibet and Chechnya. I would imagine that for the Maoists, the Naxalites, as well as the mainstream Left, being honest about the past is important to strengthen people's faith in the future. One hopes the past will not be repeated, but denying that it ever happened doesn't help inspire confidence… Nevertheless, the Maoists in Nepal have waged a brave and successful struggle against the monarchy. Right now, in India, the Maoists and the various Marxist-Leninist groups are leading the fight against immense injustice here. They are fighting not just the State, but feudal landlords and their armed militias. They are the only people who are making a dent. And I admire that. It may well be that when they come to power, they will, as you say, be brutal, unjust and autocratic, or even worse than the present government. Maybe, but I'm not prepared to assume that in advance. If they are, we'll have to fight them too. And most likely someone like myself will be the first person they'll string up from the nearest tree — but right now, it is important to acknowledge that they are bearing the brunt of being at the forefront of resistance. Many of us are in a position where we are beginning to align ourselves on the side of those who we know have no place for us in their religious or ideological imagination. It's true that everybody changes radically when they come to power — look at Mandela's anc. Corrupt, capitalist, bowing to the imf, driving the poor out of their homes — honouring Suharto, the killer of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian Communists, with South Africa's highest civilian award. Who would have thought it could happen? But does this mean South Africans should have backed away from the struggle against apartheid? Or that they should regret it now? Does it mean Algeria should have remained a French colony, that Kashmiris, Iraqis and Palestinians should accept military occupation? That people whose dignity is being assaulted should give up the fight because they can't find saints to lead them into battle?

Is there a communication breakdown in our society?