We are certainly aware of who the Maoist backers are. And you may well be right about the need to pretend otherwise.
However, what intrigued me about the article I posted http://www.samachar.com/News-Analysis-M ... cfbid.html
was that it appeared, of all places, in The Hindu.
The Hindu, of course, is famously partisan towards the mainstream political left-of-centre. As long as the interests of various Maoist backers... mainstream Indian political left, foreign religious/governmental organizations, mainstream Indian Opportunist Rajya and Maoists themselves were more or less aligned and in sync, can you imagine the Hindu publicizing the vast extent of international support for India's Maoists? It would have been as likely as the Hindustan Times admitting to Sonia Gandhi's direct involvement in the 2G scam.
It seems, therefore, that something has now changed.
There are essentially four categories of power centres backing the Red Menace in India, and each wants to use it for their own purposes. These are:
1) Indian mainstream political left.
2) Indian Opportunist Rajya of the Kangrez variety, plus their allied satraps in various states.
3) International "Maoist" organizations, many of them in European countries.
4) Foreign governments and religious institutions operating through the above three categories plus other "NGOs".
When the current Red Menace was given its first major dose of sustained, driven support, during the NDA regime and for some time after... all these categories had goals that were more or less in sync with each other. All coordinated their efforts.
Today that may not be the case. Today, each of these centres is trying to control and use the Maoists for its own specific ends. Conflict will invariably build up (is already building?) between those diverse ends. As that happens, schisms will arise in the fabric of the Maoist support structure where bheda can be judiciously applied.
I think the Hindu article may signal the public emergence of one of these schisms. Recall if you will, how the mainstream Indian left got drubbed in WB, and the increasingly violent rifts between their cadres and the Maoists. More may be happening behind the scenes. People like Sabyasachi Panda may represent a phenomenon whereby the internationals, particularly of the religious variety, have achieved such deep and extensive penetration of the armed movement that the original doctrine has effectively been usurped and re-written; and hence, the original political masters have been marginalized. Maybe this has given them cause to complain publicly, through The Hindu, about the dangerous "internationalization of support for Indian Maoists" (as if they weren't aware of it, and welcoming of it, up to this point.)
More curiously, there are increased instances of direct interaction between foreign and Indian power centres, both of whom have used the Maoists to fulfill their purposes in the past. Whom did Hillary Clinton visit just recently, in an attempt to give her international prominence as a regional satrap within India? What had her relationship been to the Maoists before and after her electoral victory? Was it a coincidence that Clinton's visit happened just weeks after Narendra Modi appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, and urgently needed to be denied "legitimacy" as a national leader (by reiterating the refusal of a US visa?) Was it a coincidence that, the last time a Clinton singled out the CM of an Indian State to visit... that State soon became a focus of both increased Maoist activity and increased EJ influence at the level of State Government?
Much is afoot here. Ultimately my fear is that our brothers and sisters in the hinterland, wrapped up in lal jhanda, will become proxy foot-soldiers... bearing the brunt of a bloody, miserable conflict between the four categories of power centres that exploit them for diverse ends.
A related question for you B-ji: you estimated that 1/5 of the "45,000" Maoists reported to be active, are actually combat personnel. Could you further estimate how many of these are of the leadership cadre (and ideologically prostituting themselves to the power centres) vs. how many are salvageable.