India: The upcoming million mutinees

New Delhi policymakers do not need to go far to see that there is something wrong with their development model. While one part of the capital city witnesses a booming economy, there is a systematic assault on the city's poor. A pumped-up judiciary and insensitive executive together demolish 'illegal' slums; the working class is deprived of livelihood, dignity and social security, because labour laws in the unorganised sector are not enforced by the administration. If this is the pattern in New Delhi, where government planners at least have a need to make a show of working for equity, the injustice rampant in rural, semi-rural and urban India alike can only be imagined.

The inequity, economic distress and discrimination across the teeming metropolises and large swathes of rural India breed alienation, anger and violence. For long, this was dismissed by security and neoliberal hawks as too 'romantic' a vision of dissent. But this is the essence of the conclusion of a report released in late April by an expert group appointed by the Planning Commission of the Indian government, tasked with looking into the causes of discontent, unrest and extremism in the country. Perhaps for the first time, an official document pointedly states that the development model pursued since Independence has actually aggravated the restlessness among marginalised sections of India.

The report's conclusion is not new. What is striking is that the commission was composed of former intelligence officials and police chiefs, bureaucrats who have served in Naxalite areas, a human-rights activist, academics who have studied left extremism for decades, and citizens who have direct experience of negotiating with such groups. That people from such diverse professional backgrounds – who have often been at loggerheads in the past – could reach a consensus on the roots of rural violence is itself extraordinary.

Their consensus is that India is in deep trouble. The continuing discrimination against Dalits and Adivasis, the absence of any credit mechanism, and the weakening commitment to land reform, addressing displacement and a coherent forest policy – all have contributed to discontent. In turn, this is easily harnessed by politically extreme movements such as Naxalism. In particular, the report focuses on ten reasons for the growth of Naxalism, amongst them poverty, low literacy, high infant mortality, and low foodgrain production.

The expert group is scathing in its indictment of the government's economic policies. Sample what it says about one of the government's pet schemes, the special economic zone (SEZ): "Land is a source of livelihood for the farmer and also for other rural inhabitants. The notion of Special Economic Zone, irrespective of whether it is established in multi-cropped land or not, is an assault on a major livelihood resource." The report goes on to point out that if landlessness is a primary source of discontent among the rural poor, unemployment and insecurity of livelihood are the origins of anger among the youth in both rural and urban areas.

Accounting for reality
If a paradigm shift is required, it is in the mindset, policy and actions of the state. The government has to recognise that Naxalism is a political movement, with a strong base among the landless, poor peasantry and Adivasis. Viewing it solely as an internal security threat is foolish even from the strategic point of view, because it does little to stem the rising Naxalite tide. The government has not been committed to talks at either the state or central level; the 2004 experience in Andhra Pradesh shows that it was the authorities that engineered encounter killings and shifted goalposts, rather than engaging in the supposed 'first-ever direct talks'. The government's insistence that Naxalites disarm before heading to the negotiating table is not only naïve, but also inconsistent with its own talks policy regarding other groups, such as the Naga rebels.

Interestingly, the harshest words of the Planning Commission report are reserved for the brutal Salwa Judum, a militia formed by the Chhattisgarh state government to curb Naxalism in the state. "It delegitimises politics, dehumanises people, degenerates those engaged in their security, and above all represents the abdication of the state itself," states the expert group. "It should be undone immediately."   The issue clearly is whether the netas and babus in New Delhi and the militancy-affected states will pay heed. Unfortunately, the trends point in the opposite direction. The release of the report coincided with two separate events, which together constitute a pattern. Reportedly, the government is now thinking of starting up vigilante groups modelled after the Salwa Judum to combat militancy in Manipur. If there is one lesson from the Chhattisgarh experience, it is that with such groups the conflict will only escalate, and people will die needlessly.

The report's launch also occurred at the same time as Binayak Sen, a doctor and civil-rights activist branded (on flimsy charges) as a Naxalite by the Chhattisgarh state, completed a year in jail. Though Sen's case has received considerable attention, it is not an isolated incident. The situation surrounding jailed journalist Praful Jha, in Raipur, is another instance of the state crushing all dissent, and harassing those it considers as troublemakers. Sections of the media and rights groups, in India and outside, have stood up to fight against this fundamental violation of human rights. But the authorities remain unmoved.

The Naxalites themselves, of course, have a lot to answer for. Their mode of resistance has only triggered a spiral of violence and counter-violence, where the innocents in whose name they claim to fight are crushed. The report shows that, contrary to the Naxalites' claims that they are successfully fighting against government corruption and inefficient bureaucracy, administration in Naxalite-controlled areas is in shambles, and that the effect on official corruption is slight. Dissent, naturally, is also not tolerated in those areas. For many extremists, the movement is little more than a money-making exercise, run through extortion.   In the end, it is the government that has the most to account for. The Planning Commission report provides an opportunity for the Indian government to embark on a corrective course vis-à-vis its economic and security policy. Otherwise, it will have to prepare for a million more mutinies.