New Delhi’s decision to ban its Maoist party after a standoff between insurgents and security forces in West Bengal state will not resolve the conflict, borne of administrative apathy and strong-arm tactics, Sudeshna Sarkar writes for ISN Security Watch.
By Sudeshna Sarkar for ISN Security Watch
One week ago, the Indian government banned its Maoist party, the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), after a growing confrontation between insurgents and security forces in its West Bengal state.
The move came after the rebels announced they had taken control of Lalgarh, a village some 170 kilometers from the state capital Kolkata, where they led a landmine attack on the convoy of the chief minister of the state and two federal ministers in November.
The Maoist insurgency in India received a boost in 2004 when three underground organizations advocating an armed struggle – the Communist Party of India-Marxist Leninist (CPI-ML), Maoist Communist Center and People’s War Group – merged to form the CPI (Maoist). With the ban, it now joins other proscribed terror organizations like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and Hijbul Mujahideen.
The November attack saw the red-faced administration and police begin a stringent operation against the villagers of Lalgarh, most of whom are tribespeople called adivasis.
“At least 11 people have died, and several others have been abducted, during a wave of political violence in Lalgarh in the last seven months,” Amnesty International noted in its appeal to the government to avoid unnecessary violence.
AI alleges that police are arbitrarily detaining members of the adivasis community and using excessive force.
“Allegations that police carried out atrocities against the adivasi community are at the heart of the protests [...]. The police response allegedly included arbitrary detention of seven persons, three of them schoolboys, for several days and excessive use of force on at least 50 persons including eight women. No inquiry was held so far into the alleged violations.”
Since 1977, West Bengal has been continuously ruled by the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM). Ironically, the Maoists it is now battling are its own offshoot.
In 1967, CPM hardliners broke away to lead a peasant uprising in Naxalbari in northern West Bengal, triggering the first Maoist insurrection, also known as the Naxal movement. Though the then Congress government ruthlessly suppressed it, it continued to smolder in three townships in West Bengal, including West Midnapore, where Lalgarh is located.
After the November attack and police retribution, Lalgarh villagers formed a local committee to oppose police atrocities. However, the protest was commandeered by the Maoists, resulting in a whirlpool of violence between the rebels, CPM cadres, police and the villagers.
Disenchantment breeds contempt
West Bengal’s human rights organizations blame the state government for the Lalgarh confrontation, especially its questionable land deals, prevailing corruption and unleashing of violence when opposed.
“Midnapur, Bankura and Purulia, three districts in West Bengal that have a majority adivasi population, have remained deprived of their rights since British rule in India,” says Kirity Roy, president of Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Manch, a human rights organization in West Bengal that is monitoring the situation in Lalgarh.
“The CPM had been winning elections in Lalgarh since 1997,” Roy told ISN Security Watch. “Even after ruling the state for 32 years, they failed to provide deliverance. The government has not provided them drinking water, education, shelter, healthcare, roads or even food, though these are rights guaranteed by the constitution. They live on leaves, shoots and roots, and there are frequent starvation deaths. After the violence and the ensuing limelight, the government has put up some langarkhanas (soup kitchens) as an eyewash measure without addressing the root causes.”
Even the Communist Party of India (CPI), a CPM government ally, admitted Sunday that the confrontation was due to state negligence. “An element of not undertaking the actual work they should have done, particularly in the areas inhabited by tribal people [did exist],” A B Bardhan, CPI general secretary, said during a television interview. “They neglected it. Yes. I will say so.” Read the rest of this entry »