Articles

The Prime Minister has consistently called Left Wing Extremism (LWE) as India’s greatest internal security threat. The threat assessment however, differs sharply from response realities. For over a decade, the Indian nation state has seriously underestimated the Maoist threat and under-resourced the battle against this grave menace. In the Shivraj Patil era, a concerted attempt was made to assert that such a threat simply did not exist.

Lt Gen JFR Jacob (retired) PVSM

The Naxal Insurgency started in the tiny thatched hut village of Naxalbari in 1967 by Charu Mazumdar and Kanu Sanyal. By 1969, it had spread all over West Bengal. The main cause was economic, rampant poverty. The insurgency had, by 1969, spread to the urban areas as well as the mofussil; to the universities, colleges and schools. They had taken over Jadavpur University. Their HQ was in Presidency College. They were active in the factories and were trying to take over the Trade Unions. The situation was indeed grim and the Police and Para-military were unable to cope.

Though, as always, valuable time of parliament was lost in disruptions and political bickering, the just concluded Budget Session had one significant outcome – the emergence of a consensus across the political divide on the need for firm measures to tackle the threat that Maoists are posing to democracy and the rule of law.

Six years back, when on November 4, 2004, the Prime Minister proclaimed Left Wing Extremism as the biggest threat confronting the nation that had to be dealt at ‘war footing’, it had a ring of resolve of a freshly elected government to take the bull by its horns. However, when he repeats the same now, it carries an air of helpless lamentation. The efforts at war footing notwithstanding, during the last six years, the area under Naxal influence has nearly doubled extending to nearly 203 districts in fourteen states.

Naxal attack

Just because you are a hammer, every problem is not a nail. Left extremist problem is serious but use of Army is no solution. We first need to understand the nature and ingredients of the problem. Naxalism is a variant of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) in which civil society is the critical element of war. This war is to protect the civil society and at the same time fought in the battle ground of civil society.

In November 2004 when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that Left Wing extremism constituted “an even greater threat to India than militancy in Jammu & Kashmir and the North East”, the country took it seriously. They expected that the government would respond with appropriate urgency. Three years down the line, it is clear that that hasn’t happened and the situation has actually worsened.

The country’s internal security environment, which suffered steady deterioration during UPA’s earlier five-year rule, continues to remain a cause of serious concern. Now that the government is no more fettered by pulls and pressures of coalition partners, which its apologists claimed prevented it from decisive actions in the past, it is regrettable that the situation is showing no signs of abatement.

THEY HAVE VULNERABILITIES THAT CAN BE EFFECTIVELY EXPLOITED

WHEN the government proclaims Left Wing Extremism as the most serious security threat faced by the country, the obvious question that arises is: What exactly determines the seriousness of a security threat in comparable terms? It is determined by the viciousness of the enemy’s intentions and its capability of causing damage and destruction to achieve its objectives. In this context, intentions include political and ideological objectives that can undermine the established politicoconstitutional order.

Does Left Extremism really pose a threat to India’s security or is it something that media has hyped for want of better stories? After all, they don’t stand for secession, do not question India’s territorial integrity and apparently are not working as proxies of powers hostile to India. They, at best, want a regime-change, albeit through violence, which many others would also vote for. Or is it merely the problem of hunger and poverty that needs a soft approach.