The Hitavada Research  

 

 

WHILE several Congress leaders are voicing their opposition to the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, they appear to have forgotten that an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court during the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) rule in 2013 had categorically mentioned that the Left Wing Extremism (LWE)- affected States ‘required to initiate legal action against Maoist fronts in towns and cities’. Congress party leaders and various organisations have often questioned the use of the term ‘Urban Naxals’ or ‘Urban Maoists’. But, the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court by a Director with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in November 2013 stated that the Central Government ‘recognised the different dimensions of the Maoist insurgency’, and had referred to Maoist ideologues and supporters operating from towns and cities. Also, it had mentioned about the CPI (Maoist) designs to form a ‘rainbow coalition’ of various insurgent groups in India.

 

Interestingly, in 2013, even in Maharashtra, the Congress NCP alliance was in power. However, it added, initiating legal proceedings against them often resulted in ‘ negative publicity for the enforcement agencies due to the effectiveness of the propaganda machinery of the CPI (Maoist)’. After flagging this challenge, the affidavit added, “The LWE-affected States are also required to initiate legal action against the Maoist front organizations in towns and cities, who are the main source of recruitment of underground cadres and also disseminate the unconstitutional and violent Maoist ideology to vulnerable sections of the population.” This suggestion was made as the Central Government found that the maintenance of law and order lied primarily in the domain of the State Governments concerned and any Central legislation or a separate authority to deal with LWE might ‘impingeupon thedelicate federal structure’.

 

The contents of the‘counter affidavit’ filed on behalf of the Central Governmentin theWrit Petition (C) No 738 of 2013 in the matter of Kishore Samrite (petitioner) vs Union of India & Others (respondents), are explosive to say the least.Daljit Singh Chawdhary, who was thenposted asDirector,Union Ministry of Home Affairs, had stated in no uncertain terms that CPI (Maoist) professed ‘a violent ideological line to over throw the democratically elected parliamentary form of Government in India through a combination of armed insurrection, mass mobilisation of certain sections of the society, and tactical partnerships with other insurgent groups operating in different parts of the country’. While mentioning so, the said affidavit listed three-pronged strategy of the Maoists,citing the documents of the proscribed organisation.

 

The first strategy is to launch a ‘protracted people’s war’ against the Indian State by its armed formation known as People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army by capturing countryside and gradually encircling the urban centres.The second strategy of the red terroristsis to mobilise targeted sections of thepopulation‘especially the urban population’ through ‘mass organisations’ or ‘front organisations’ mostly operating under the ‘garb of human rights NGOs’. These front organisations ‘are organically linked to the CPI (Maoist) structure but maintain separate identities to avoid legal liability’, it had stated. Importantly, the affidavit revealed that these ‘mass’ or ‘front’organisations were generally manned by‘ideologues, who included academicians and activists’. “Such organisations ostensibly pursue human rights-related issues and are also adept at using the legal processes of the Indian State to undermine and emasculate enforcement action by the Security Forces and also attempt to malign the state institutions through propaganda and disinformation to further the cause of their revolution,” read theaffidavit.

 

The third strategy of the Moists listed in the affidavit was ‘to form a rainbow coalition of various insurgent groups in India so as to launch a ‘united front’ attack against the existing state machinery’. Sources told ‘The Hitavada’ on the condition of anonymity that irrespective of the political party in power, the stated position of the Government has been the same when it came to dealing with the LWE or Naxalite or Maoist menace. The contents and intent of the affidavit filed uring the UPA-era were innational interest and nobody spoke against it.Now, suddenly, there is much noise from some leaders of the constituents of the erstwhile UPA as well as certain ‘civil society’ organisations,against the Maharashtra SpecialPublicSecurityBill that aims at curbing the ‘Urban Naxals’. This is strange, said a source.

 

 

THE UPA-era affidavit reflected that the Government of the day (2013) found ideologues and supporters of Maoists operating from urban areas ‘more dangerous’ than the proscribed organisation’s armed cadres. “The ideologues and supporters of the CPI (Maoist) party in cities and towns have undertaken a concerned and systematic propaganda against the State to project the State in a poor light and also malign it through disinformation. In fact, it is these ideologues who have kept the Maoist movement alive and are in many ways more dangerous than the cadres of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army,” stated the affidavit. Maoists working to form a ‘rainbow coalition’ of various insurgent groups in India Front organisations ‘organically linked’ to the CPI (Maoist) structure but maintain separate identities ‘to avoid legal liability’, stated the affidavit Govt has zero tolerance towards TERROR: Shah SRE norms for enactment of law by States to tackle Naxal activities THOUGH some quarters are questioning the need for a separate legislation in Maharashtra to deal with the Naxalite/Maoist menace, the norms of Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme of the Central Government include a provision asking the States to enact a legislation to tackle Naxal activities. The guidelines of SRE scheme have had this provision for years now, including during the UPA era. Under the head ‘criteria for inclusion of States under the SRE scheme’, the guidelines specifically ‘ 

 

 

THOUGH some quarters are questioning the need for a separate legislation in Maharashtra to deal with the Naxalite/Maoist menace, the norms of Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme of the Central Government include a provision asking the States to enact a legislation to tackle Naxal activities. The guidelines of SRE scheme have had this provision for years now, including during the UPAera. Under the head ‘criteria for inclusion of States under the SRE scheme’, the guidelines specifically mention existence of, and activities by,one or more of the organisations declaredun lawful associations/terrorist organizations either under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or any other Actin theState, as a defining criteria for reimbursement of SRE to LWE-affected States. And, another specific provision is, “ ;Enactment of legislation by a State to tackle activities of Naxal extremists or similar organizations.” In fact, these provisions were cited in reply to various questions in the Parliament during the UPA as well as the present NDA era.The criteria have been the same all through. Despite this, some are creating a propaganda against the law and questioning its need.