DC Debate: How to deal with the Maoists who have taken refuge in the state's forests

Needed: A push & pull approach

Kerala Police had for long believed that one day the Maoists would target Kerala’s tribal population. The Nilambur incident has confirmed this. The threat is both real and serious; and containing it is imperative, whether we like it or not. If experience elsewhere is any guide, the task will be neither easy nor comfortable. We may hope that bread and butter will solve the issue; but sadly blood and bullets are more likely, if we dilly dally. In many respects, we are lucky. Thanks to enlightened public policy stretching back several decades, the Maoist agenda has not, till now, attracted any segment of Kerala population. The best that the optimistic Maoist hopes for is to win some support from among the tribal population, which has not benefitted much from the all round development of Kerala in the last thirty years. Foreign migration, private industry and business employment – and the trickledown effect thereof- have raised the standard of living of large sections of Kerala population.

But the tribes have been left out of this almost totally. Relatively speaking, the gulf between the tribes and other groups is wider today than it was fifty years ago. The Maoists hope to convert this difference into an angry divide, which in turn will trigger an armed struggle for equity and justice spearheaded by the Maoists. To operationalise their strategy, the Maoists use guerrilla tactics. They have decades of experience elsewhere in India. They have considerable strength and can easily mobilise a few hundreds of trained cadres. They concentrate on liberating forested areas and defending such areas through guerrilla tactics; and then use the local tribal population as shields. Their language and discourse may sound political; but their operations are militaristic and merciless. We will lose heavily in time, men and morale, if we do not learn from the experience of other states. To many in Kerala, the camp at Nilambur may seem like a beginning; but to the Maoist it is a continuation of the struggle started decades back.

Maoism of the Nilambur variety is not Keralite in origin. It is national in character and is to be seen and fought as such. For the Maoist, India is one continuum; he will be happy to operate from Kerala, if Kerala forests seem to him a safe haven. If we do not protect our forests from Maoist incursion and search and comb every cent of it with reasonable frequency, all the cadres who are finding the going tough in different states will gravitate to the interstate tri-junction from Coorg to Agali. If even 100 such persons come together in these forests, split it into five or six groups for their operations, dislodging them would prove to be a herculean task. The tribal population residing within the forests in these areas would be trapped by them and used as a bulwark. Other police forces elsewhere have already paid a heavy price in life and limbs whenever they wanted to operate in the so-called liberated zones.

So the immediate need is to ensure heavy police and forest guard presence in the interior forests to foil any plans of the Maoists to establish bases and supplies therein. Withdrawing from the forests to avoid bloodshed or personal danger to staff would only stimulate and encourage Maoist incursion. This, in turn, would lead to much more serious and intense bloodshed later on. If any cadres are still hiding, the priority should be to ferret them out. Of course, the law and lawful procedure must be upheld in all police operations and no illegal acts should be done by an organised police force. But if the law itself permits and obligates the use of force, reluctance to do so may lead to anarchy and unnecessary shedding of innocent blood.

While the combing operations are in full sway, the state organs must also befriend the tribal populations and ensure that their long standing needs of nutrition, health, land, education etc are addressed and solved in a democratic manner with special alacrity. Moreover forest and police departments should strive together to empower and embolden tribal communities in the forests. Besides these, special employment opportunities must be exclusively opened up for hundreds of educated tribal youth who are unemployed now. Such a two pronged strategy would be best, both in national interest and in minimizing bloodshed. In short, the strategy must be: push the Maoists out of our forests; but pull the tribes up to a higher standard of life.

Jacob Punnoose is former state police chief

Encounter is rights violation

The violation of constitutional provisions and fundamental democratic rights by the police and security agencies involved in counter-insurgency operations in the country has been one of the major issues raised by human rights organisations in the country. 'Encounter killing' has been one of the major forms of violence used by the security agencies to circumvent legal process. Apart from political opponents, even ordinary criminals become victims of such highhanded behaviour of the law enforcement agencies in the country. Though several instances of such violations have been brought to the attention of the authorities concerned, including Supreme Court and National Human Rights Commission, the security agencies and the governmental authorities have consistently opted for the denial mode.

The encounter killing of two Maoist activists at Nilambur forest has once again brought to focus the undemocratic nature of the law enforcement by the security agencies. From the beginning, there has been suspicion about the police version of the incident. There were too many contradictions and missing links in the official narrative. The contradictions in the police version about the incident are too familiar a story. Initially, DGP Loknath Behera said that three people were killed in the encounter. But, later it was revised to two persons. The police also revealed the identity of the two to the media soon after the encounter. How could the police forces identify the persons, allegedly evading the police for nearly 20 years, so quickly? Another doubt, of course, is regarding the lack of injury to the police personnel. The Maoists, allegedly carrying automatic weapons, not using them is another reason to doubt the veracity of the police version. The script of the official version fits very well with the similar incidents reported from other parts of the country.

The human rights organisations are fighting against the lawlessness of the security agencies in the form of excess use of force in the name of fighting terrorism and political violence. For long, human rights activists have been stating that encounter is violating the fundamental right to live, protected by article 21 of the Constitution of India. Long legal battles have been fought against the uncivilised, illegal and brutal act of force before various courts. If somebody has been killed, the normal procedure in the country is to register a crime under section 302 of the IPC for murder. If police kill someone in the course of maintenance of law and order they would claim that it was in self-defence.

What is the procedure to ascertain the truth of the claim? Unfortunately, there was no procedure to ascertain the truth. The police have been evading prosecution procedure enjoying this legal vacuum. It is in this situation the human rights organisations are fighting for a lawful procedure for inquiry and investigation in encounter killing by registering an FIR under section 302 of the IPC. An appeal arising from a writ petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties before Bombay High Court pertaining to encounter killings by police was considered by the Supreme Court of India. In 2014, the Supreme Court passed a final judgment prescribing 16-point guidelines to be followed in the case of an encounter killing, whether it was genuine or fake. Although the guidelines fall short of the long-term demands of the rights activists, it made a progressive step in the fight against the use of power in an arbitrary manner by the police.

Coming to Nilambur encounter, the government agreed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court only after it came under severe pressure from human rights activists and a cross section of political leaders. Though the government officials referred to the Supreme Court guideline, still there is much discrepancies and violations in following the guidelines. For human rights activities, the encounter killing at Nilambur, as all other encounter killing, is not a Maoist issue alone. It is a basic issue concerning the democratic functioning of the authorities concerned. A cardinal principle of guiding the modern human and civil rights movement is that a legally constituted agency should not be instrumental for the violation of the individual rights and freedom of expression guaranteed to the citizens in the Constitution. If such violations are condoned it would be akin to giving an open invitation for an authoritarian political regime. If the number of encounter killings and other forms of rights violations by the security forces is taken as an indication we are already passing through an authoritarian political culture.

Thushar Nirmal Saradhy is the general secretary, Janakeeya Manushyavakasa Prasthanam