The Red Menace

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Jun 2011 15:44

Gerard wrote:Arundhati Roy: 'They are trying to keep me destabilised. Anybody who says anything is in danger'

Ok she earned her salary for giving the interview. Look petiable, claim whatever any person does not like about India and get paid through NGO's for it, Typical DIE- living of fat.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 08 Jun 2011 15:48

Central politbureau of CPI-maoist is what I could make of it.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Jun 2011 15:13

Violence which is never condenmed by the NDTV types while even a threat of violence from Ramdev is condmed.

Maoist attack police camp, four cops killed

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Jun 2011 14:46

10 Chhattisgarh cops killed in Maoist attack

Congress, the main opposition party in Chhattisgarh, launched a scathing attack on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government for "continuous killing of policemen and intelligence breakdown of police department".

Why are these guys Politicising the Issue?

RSoami · Post by **RSoami** » 10 Jun 2011 16:05

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 51842.html

Officers killed in landmine blast.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 10 Jun 2011 17:35

C'garh continues to display perhaps the worst record against Naxalism...But the issue isnt about the continued lack of capacity building of the state police, but everything else - Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, NDTV, Mamta Bannerjee.....

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Jun 2011 18:18

somnath wrote:C'garh continues to display perhaps the worst record against Naxalism...But the issue isnt about the continued lack of capacity building of the state police, but everything else - Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, NDTV, Mamta Bannerjee.....

Why dont you Liberal Western Democracies which also provide the Support.

Offcourse The Victim of Rape is responsible for the Rape and not the Rapist. Notice there is no outrage against Naxal supporters for this act.

By your Logic, the most Number of Terror Victims have been between 2004-2007 WHen UPA Government is in Power. 7/7 26/11 and 1993 Blasts all happened under Congress Governments. Worst ULFA terror Acts happenned when Congress has been in Power. Lots of Terror activities have happened when allies of the Congress have been in Power.

Naxals Survived and thrived when Congress in AP was in power and took 30 years to bring them under control although still not completly wiped out. Would it be too much to ask if Raman Singh is given anther 5 years to bring control in Large areas of the state, especially given the Terrain . Further, the more sucesses Security forces have against Maoists there will be a 1-2 year period where attacks will get desperate before they move out of the area.

Anther moot point is many of Maoists Leaders in Chattisgarh have a base in Congress Ruled AP(with lot of sympathy in Telugu Media- Hyderabad Based and NGO). It is just people like me with a different Ideology dont blame AP Govt for Naxalism which has spread to other states.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Jun 2011 18:19

Anther Point to notice ever since Binayak Sen and his associate have been out of bail Naxal coordination and attacks have increased. Hmmm

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 10 Jun 2011 18:45

Aditya_V wrote: Naxals Survived and thrived when Congress in AP was in power and took 30 years to bring them under control although still not completly wiped out. Would it be too much to ask if Raman Singh is given anther 5 years to bring control in Large areas of the state, especially given the Terrain . Further, the more sucesses Security forces have against Maoists there will be a 1-2 year period where attacks will get desperate before they move out of the area.

Anther moot point is many of Maoists Leaders in Chattisgarh have a base in Congress Ruled AP(with lot of sympathy in Telugu Media- Hyderabad Based and NGO). It is just people like me with a different Ideology dont blame AP Govt for Naxalism which has spread to other states.

Naxals thrive in AP only and only under congress rule. When in TDP rule, they bind their langotas and run away

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Jun 2011 11:28

Maoists enforce bandh, attack railway station and police station in Bihar

Anther Brave act against the Super Rich Elite exploiters who are Binayak Sen does not Oppose.

Couple of QUotes from the article

Heavily armed Maoist cadre attacked the police station early today but alert policemen fired 150 rounds to chase them away," he said adding that no casualty was reported in the exchange of fire between the securitymen and Maoists.

According to a report from Jehanabad, over 25 ultras stormed Nadaul railway station on Patna-Gaya section of East Central Railway, held the railway employees including a station master captive for some time and torched the booking counter, files and control panel.

How are Maoists different from dacoits, thier Supporters are just support Dacoity then.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 16 Jun 2011 12:21

Aditya_V wrote:Offcourse The Victim of Rape is responsible for the Rape and not the Rapist. Notice there is no outrage against Naxal supporters for this act

The state cannot "cry" victimhood in the fight against terror...It is the state's responsibility to fight the battle, and repeated, consistent poor showing needs to be criticqued..

Aditya_V wrote:By your Logic, the most Number of Terror Victims have been between 2004-2007 WHen UPA Government is in Power. 7/7 26/11 and 1993 Blasts all happened under Congress Governments

I wasnt doing any INC-BJP comparison, but get your data correct..

Fatalities due to terror crimes (net of terrorist fatalities) peaked in 2000...the UPA regime on a macro level has a pretty good track record - since 2004 the numbers have been contained at pretty low levels..

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... lities.htm

Its both counter-productive and counter-factual to be redcing fight against terror on partisan party lines..People need to be take to task for their failures, INC, BJP or anyone else..And if they are seeking refuge under red herring excuses, they need to be taken to taslk for that as well..

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Jun 2011 03:07

It is most interesting actually to see such astute analysis of "naxal" violence, that looks at "state" efficiency in tackling violence as the only parameter to be explored and chewed on. The "violence" is given by summary data of "deaths". Deaths or fatalities occur when the two sides come into direct contact in conflict - initiated by one or both parties.

So just reflecting on fatalities data, suppresses and confounds different significant factors together

(1) lesser "deaths" could be happening because one or both parties were taking less initiatives in coming into conflict, while higher number of deaths could be occurring because one or both parties had decided to increase their initiatives towards conflict. [This implies that it is entirely possible, that naxals could be increasing their attacks preferentially based on regions or states or political profiling, while certain state regimes could have taken steps on the ground to reduce initiatives to violently exterminate the naxals]

(2) One or both parties had fully coerced the other side into not taking initiatives towards conflict, and hence reduced fatalities. On the other hand incomplete resolution of this contest to coerce and influence could be reflected in continuing high casualties [this does not rule out that a lower incidence of fatalities could actually reflect Naxal influence or coercive success on that particular state machinery]

(3) One or both parties find it beneficial not to go into violent conflict, because they already obtain what they want without such confrontation. [This can mean that where the Naxals are happy in control or extraction of power/money while at "peace" they may not increase initiatives towards violent confrontation. Same goes for state regimes which may obtain desirable political outcomes while in "peace" as not willing to go for violent "confrontation".]

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Jun 2011 09:00

I have taken randomly three states, actually not so random - my state, Somnath & Brihaspati's state & the worst affected state -Chattisgarh

Actually this is the link to be looked at
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... snaxal.htm

Notice West Bengal,
2002-7
2003- only 1
2004<20
2005<20
2006<20
2007<20
2008~20
2009, come election time and a chance for congress to dent the CPM, the violence increases magically to 129.

Now Andhra Pradesh except for the spike in 2005-06 because of a fallout with YSR, it follows the trend of
violence by naxal in non-congress regime > violence by naxal in congress (change in power in 2004)

Chattisgarh, change in power 2003
2002-55
2003-74 (change of power)
2004-83
2005-165 MAGIC
2006-388

I think the above sample should make clear the **facts**.

It is amply clear that naxal violence is a spigot turned on by someone. It opens only and only when congress is not ruling or when congress interests and capabilities can overturn an opposite regime.

Ofcourse the spigot of naxal violence opens by magic

precisely at those times.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Jun 2011 09:33

^^^The issue with taking "random" examples is that the "randomness" of the sampling is tailored to the conclusion!

Surprising in this analysis is the exclusion of Bihar...Isnt it trifle inconvenient to the hypothesis that Bihar saw a dramatic fall in violence since Nitish Kumar came on? And continued throughout his first tenor and into his second?

Isnt it even more surprising that SATP (and Ajai Sahni) acknowledges the most successful CI initiative against naxals to be the AP Police? An it is under the INC regime that high ranking chaps like Azad and Koban Ghandi were neutralised?

In WB, there have been persistent allegations about Mamata Bannerjee's links with the Naxals...Might have been true to a peripheral extent as well...But then, inconveniently, the "face" of the naxals there, Chatradhar Mahato fought against Trinamool in the Assembly elections, and lost his deposit!

Again, all this does not preclude all sorts of side deals struck at ground levels between the undergorund and overground parties...But to simply ascribe the state govt's failure to an elaborate CT hatched by one party is a copout...

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Jun 2011 10:12

1) Bihar - not ruled by congress/ not going to be ruled by congress in the medium term and no completely entrenched regime.

2) Jharkand - govts have fallen and risen too swiftly for trying to make correlation.

3) Greyhounds/Andhra Pradesh -
They got developed during 90s when TDP ruled and congress was too destabilized for the most part and in the centre PVNR. By the way, Vyas an IPS who established greyhounds, was killed and what happened in the trial?? Well the govt(congress once again) allowed them to go scot free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purulia_arms_drop_case
What happened during purulia is too well known to repeat.
http://naxalwatch.blogspot.com/2008/11/ ... itted.html

anybody in hyderabad will testify this, hindu-muslim riots occur only during congress regime because of its faction struggles. Thee then congress chief minister in 1989 publicly accused YSR (later day congress chief minister) of engineering riots for destabilizing him. There were almost no riots during TDP's rule from 1994-04. Then magically the riots started. Why the other day, congress Cut to present day
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Communal- ... 25273.aspx
and who was it, it was YSR's son, Jagan who later raised a full scale rebellion.

and what I have done in my previous post is to simply try to see a pattern in which rise in naxal violence matches changes in government. That it precisely matches congress, well the data shows that. Every body is allowed to speculate as long as the data supports their theory.

Of course tomorrow if one can find data for more previous years, I can extrapolate the theory about whether it also requires a congress central govt. But as of now, insufficient data for the extrapolation of central congress govt necissity, mind you the evidence is clear on the part,

that there is a definite corelation between the rise in naxal violence and non-congress rule/when convenient to congress.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Jun 2011 10:19

ravi_ku wrote:) Bihar - not ruled by congress/ not going to be ruled by congress in the medium term and no completely entrenched regime

Pre 2005, it was led by Laloo, INC ally whose support they critically depended on (and to preserve whom made the President get up @ 3 in the morning in Russia!)...Violence dropped when Laloo left!

ravi_ku wrote:anybody in hyderabad will testify this, hindu-muslim riots occur only during congress regime because of its faction struggles. Thee then congress chief minister in 1989 publicly accused YSR (later day congress chief minister) of engineering riots for destabilizing him. There were almost no riots during TDP's rule from 1994-04. Then magically the riots started

This is possible...So what you are saying is that one "strongman" uses fair and foul means to get his way, including (maybe) colluding with naxals...In fact seems that the said person undercuts his own party! How then does that extrapolate to a generic axiom that one party uses naxal violence to get even at its rivals?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Jun 2011 10:31

somnath wrote:
ravi_ku wrote:) Bihar - not ruled by congress/ not going to be ruled by congress in the medium term and no completely entrenched regime
Pre 2005, it was led by Laloo, INC ally whose support they critically depended on (and to preserve whom made the President get up @ 3 in the morning in Russia!)...Violence dropped when Laloo left!

At the end of the day, he is still NOT congress and the violence/lack of it doesnt increase congress's interests in the state.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 17 Jun 2011 10:35

ravi_ku wrote:t the end of the day, he is still NOT congress and the violence/lack of it doesnt increase congress's interests in the state

By that logic, neither is Mamta in WB!

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Jun 2011 10:37

somnath wrote:
ravi_ku wrote:anybody in hyderabad will testify this, hindu-muslim riots occur only during congress regime because of its faction struggles. Thee then congress chief minister in 1989 publicly accused YSR (later day congress chief minister) of engineering riots for destabilizing him. There were almost no riots during TDP's rule from 1994-04. Then magically the riots started
This is possible...So what you are saying is that one "strongman" uses fair and foul means to get his way, including (maybe) colluding with naxals...In fact seems that the said person undercuts his own party! How then does that extrapolate to a generic axiom that one party uses naxal violence to get even at its rivals?

Just showing that congress doesnt shy away from violence to destabilize its own govts!!

What is the worth of an opposite party govt to shy away from violence, this time might be naxal??

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Jun 2011 10:41

somnath wrote:
ravi_ku wrote:t the end of the day, he is still NOT congress and the violence/lack of it doesnt increase congress's interests in the state
By that logic, neither is Mamta in WB!

dont the calculations of congress interests differ in those states??

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Jun 2011 11:31

Somnath wrote

Fatalities due to terror crimes (net of terrorist fatalities) peaked in 2000...the UPA regime on a macro level has a pretty good track record - since 2004 the numbers have been contained at pretty low levels..
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... lities.htm

Its both counter-productive and counter-factual to be redcing fight against terror on partisan party lines..People need to be take to task for their failures, INC, BJP or anyone else..And if they are seeking refuge under red herring excuses, they need to be taken to taslk for that as well..

Boss it you who started the INC-BJP debate by attacking Raman Singh as incompitent whenever a Maoist attack takes place.

Regarding the Causualties , In 2000 and 2001 there was a spike especially in J&K because of Paki tactics which were nipped by Better eqiupment, Border fences in 2002 onwards.

But for the rest of country 2006 to 2008 was a terrible period with IM, HUJI running riot. Yes all of that has come down after 26/11 but the prepatrators have still not been punished and unlike Chattisgarh where People Like Sanyal, Piyush Guha have caught but now set free( with support from Western Liberal Democracies)

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Jun 2011 12:26

Maoists abduct 100 tribals in Dantewada

ANybody knows anything about the fate of these Tribals?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 17 Jun 2011 16:09

The tragedy of khaki and mimicry of conscience

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 18 Jun 2011 03:35

Does anyone have a list of the central Politbureau members and members of the Central Committee aka CMC? I am losing track of these aliases and new members who have come in to replace the captured assholes. How can new members come in when the body has nt met since 2007?

Saw four new names, never heard or seen before by me, all captured in the last 2-3 months:
Jagdish Yadav aka Jagdish Master aka Akhileshji aka Prabhatji
Varanasi Subramanyam
Pulendu Mukherjee
Vijay Kumar Arya

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 20 Jun 2011 06:23

Intelligence sources said the Maoists virtually control the whole of the southern Bastar area in Chhattisgarh and the Malkangiri district in the Orissa-Chhattisgarh border area. While the “entire Saranda forest area” in Jharkhand is under their control, the rebels have overrun huge swathes in Palamau and East Singbhum districts in the last two years. There is cause for concern in Orissa where Mayurbhanj district is deep in Naxalite territory. Over the past two years, Nuapada, Bolangir and Bhargadh areas have been sucked into the “liberated” zone, government sources said.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110620/j ... 135588.jsp

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 30 Jun 2011 19:25

If folks here are not already aware of this. The naxalites CPI(ML) have an on-line edition of their magazine as well.
Red Star:English
Red Star:Shudh Hindi

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Jun 2011 21:08

^ A gem from that Red Star magazine

He was an artist genuinely and deeply committed to the composite, multi-religious values of Indian civilisation. But, the “Hindu” fundamentalists and chauvinists s u c c e s s f u l l y c a r r i e d o u t a v i c i o u s campaign of harassment against him citing his artistic d e p i c t i o n o f Hi n d u d e i t i e s . ( R S S c h i e f Mo h a n Bhagwat’s “advise” that the “artists and writers should learn to speak with a full understanding of the community in which one’s expressions are received” was the words of Fascism.)

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 01 Jul 2011 22:08

It’s just a matter of time before the rebels’ top leadership is “captured or eliminated” and the rest pushed back into Abujhmaad, the guerrillas’ forested bastion in south Chhattisgarh, Pillai said. He conceded that Abujhmaad was “liberated” and totally under Maoist control, but argued that this area too would eventually be taken over by government forces.
...
For all that, the Maoists have carved out a corridor connecting various “liberated” or “guerrilla” zones, allowing them a continuous passage from Khammam in Andhra to Jharkhand via south Chhattisgarh’s Bijapur district and the Orissa-Chhattisgarh border. Sources have said the rebels have taken over several areas in Orissa’s Nuapada and Bolangir.
...
Five of the 12 politburo members of the CPI (Maoist) are in jail, and so are several of its central committee members. Reports suggest that the Maoists have pushed back their target of establishing “people’s rule” from 2050 to 2080.

http://telegraphindia.com/1110701/jsp/n ... 183822.jsp

One reason Pillai predicts defeat for the Maoists is the composition of their top leadership, dominated by upper caste men from Andhra Pradesh. “There are no tribal leaders yet. Kishan, (general secretary) Ganapathy... they are all Andhra leaders,” Pillai said.

This is the loop that can close easily with the bumbling elephant that is India.

More: http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 110629.htm

Q to GK Pillai: We are getting only a hazy picture of the Centre's anti-Maoist policy. Why?

GK Pillai: That is because, as the home minister has said, people think that the Maoists are do-gooders. As if they are sort of NGOs with guns. As Arundhati Roy says, they are Gandhians with guns. That is, I think, a totally wrong conception. Look at their aim. They want the armed revolution to overthrow the Indian State. They indulge in extortion, they indulge in murders. Do you know, 70 percent of the people they kill are civilians and tribals? We look at police casualties but everyday they are killing innocent civilians who they think are working as police informers. Last year they have killed 780 innocent civilians.

It's a matter of time before the Maoists get exposed for what they are. Basically, the Maoists are a fascist gang of extortionists. Our Maoist policy has been, always, centrist. In the area where there is total lack of law and order, you have to take action. Where there is no security, no development could take place. The officers would not go to the area without security. It's absolutely critical that for basic development you need some security. Our problem is, we are short of manpower in managing security and even in the development sector. In the left-wing extremist area we have a shortage of three lakh policemen. If you don't have people, it's like the Wild West! The Maoist, today, has the gun and he rules the roost.

As we augment police forces, train them and move in certain areas, the Maoists don't like it. They feel as if their 'liberated' areas have gone back. That's where the real clashes are taking place. I have visited the Kankher area in Chhattisgarh
and talked to villagers. I have visited so-called liberated areas that have come back under the control of police forces. Those villagers are extremely happy that we have come and provided them with a basic level of security. Their only demand was, please don't go away! If you go away then the Maoists will kill us, they told me.

Q: Out of 631 districts of India how many districts are actually under Maoist control?

GK P: We normally say that 195 districts are affected. But, if you look at seriously affected districts, it's only 83. Rest of the insurgencies are in pockets, here and there. These 83 districts fall in Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Bihar and a little part of Andhra Pradesh.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 05 Jul 2011 13:49

Arming tribals to counter Maoists unconstitutional: Supreme Court

Asking the Chhattisgarh government and the Centre to desist from appointing the tribals as SPOs and arming them for countering the Naxals in any manner directly or indirectly, the court said the appointment of tribal
youths as SPOs is “unconstitutional“.

The bench said that the eligibility criteria including the educational qualification and training of the tribals to combat Maoists goes against the Constitution.

It said that creation of Koya Commandos and Salwa Judum was in violation of the Constitution.

Does anyone know what article of the constitution forbids the government to facilitate people to defend them against followers of Maoist creed who have declared that they are out to destroy that very constitution ?

This judgement sets a bad precedent that'll tie the hands of the goverments not just in Naxal affected areas but anywhere else where foreign sponsored armed hoodlums will harass loyal citizens of India.

During the last hearing of the issue on May 4, the State government had justified the appointment of SPOs saying they have excelled in performing police duties.

It had also asserted that in anti-Maoist operations SPOs are of immense help in their role as guides, translators, spotters and on certain occasions they have saved the lives of regular security personnel while preventing more than dozen Maoist attacks on relief camps.

However, the court was of the view that arming tribals would lead to a “dangerous” situation if they turned against the state.

Since when is SC making policy decisions that are prerogative of the executive ? It's not for judiciary to say what can be in future "dangerous" or "life saving" for the nation. AFAICT, there's no mention of exactly what principle of constitution has been violated by Salwa Judum etc ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Jul 2011 14:33

SC orders govt to disband use of SPO to fight Maoists in Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered Chattisgarh government and the Centre to disband use of ill educated, ill trained and ill equipped tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPO) to fight Maoist and Naxals.

Well then the Chattisgarh Government should recruit and train them and deploy them as normal Police forces. Truth is the State is fighting with a Hand tied behind its back while the Maoists have full protection of every available legal avenue while committing the worst crimes known to Humanity.

Fighting the Naxals while following every judgement of SUpreme is nearly impossible.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Jul 2011 16:01

ManishH wrote:Arming tribals to counter Maoists unconstitutional: Supreme Court

Asking the Chhattisgarh government and the Centre to desist from appointing the tribals as SPOs and arming them for countering the Naxals in any manner directly or indirectly, the court said the appointment of tribal
youths as SPOs is “unconstitutional“.

The bench said that the eligibility criteria including the educational qualification and training of the tribals to combat Maoists goes against the Constitution.

It said that creation of Koya Commandos and Salwa Judum was in violation of the Constitution.
Does anyone know what article of the constitution forbids the government to facilitate people to defend them against followers of Maoist creed who have declared that they are out to destroy that very constitution ?

This judgement sets a bad precedent that'll tie the hands of the goverments not just in Naxal affected areas but anywhere else where foreign sponsored armed hoodlums will harass loyal citizens of India.

During the last hearing of the issue on May 4, the State government had justified the appointment of SPOs saying they have excelled in performing police duties.

It had also asserted that in anti-Maoist operations SPOs are of immense help in their role as guides, translators, spotters and on certain occasions they have saved the lives of regular security personnel while preventing more than dozen Maoist attacks on relief camps.

However, the court was of the view that arming tribals would lead to a “dangerous” situation if they turned against the state.
Since when is SC making policy decisions that are prerogative of the executive ? It's not for judiciary to say what can be in future "dangerous" or "life saving" for the nation. AFAICT, there's no mention of exactly what principle of constitution has been violated by Salwa Judum etc ?

Who was the judge?

We have plenty of commie sympathizers ensconced there comfortably.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 05 Jul 2011 19:23

^^

Err, sir, I would refrain from making sweeping statements like that about the honourable Justices of the Supreme court of India. They have considerable powers of contempt, you know. Plus, the above statement is not really true...

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 05 Jul 2011 19:24

There is nothing to stop the Chattisgarh govt from recruiting the SPO's as regular cops...

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 05 Jul 2011 20:13

The supreme court decision is fraught with risk on many counts.

1. There is a fine line between judicial activism to counter governmental apathy and constitutional overstepping. Our constitution depends on maintaining a fine balance of checks and balances. Therefore it is the context that determines the treading of fine line. The supreme court is taking decisions because the polity has failed. While that may be the case, such activism must be restrained. Of late, restraint is becoming a rarity even in the judiciary.
pon
2. The SC's decision is setting an important precedence. In fact, way before independence and in many instances since, the state for various reasons, chief among them the lack of policing density has developed a citizen force to form a first line of difference. In Punjab and in J&K for example, it is the VDC and SPOs that have played a decisive role in setting up anti insurgency intelligence network and security at a local level. While there is a case for proper use, moderation and oversight, this important mechanism should not be thrown out of the calculus to please the usual "activists". To do so would deprive an often strapped state apparatus a vital option in the fight against insurgents.

3. The decision also indicates a level of lack of understanding of the danger that these forces pose to the Indian state and nation as well as low appreciation of the opponent's capabilities. There is a very serious national security threat that is being brushed aside. The Maoists are not normal people. They are in the same category of every other known terrorist outfit out to destroy the republic and in a war, one side alone cannot be adhering to all rules when the other side is ruthless in its attacks.

4. It also indicates a certain level of intellectual arrogance, to term tribals as incapable of protecting themselves or conducting themselves in a civilized manner. In fact, they have been more civilized then the educated Maoists. They have never been a greater threat to India than the Maoists and they will never be.

The Supreme Court, like any other constitutional entity, is made up of people. The Honourable Judges can be swayed by populist discourse by a distorting media. They shouldn't but it is not easy to be immune to it. Generally speaking, the SC judges have not been succumbing to the shrill voice of populist discourse in the name of "secularism".

This decision is unfortunate for this will become a precedence and robs the government legitimate and effective options now in this case and in the future. It is the Republic of India that is the loser here. It is high time the political establishment get their act together and I am sure that will lead the SC to be on the right side of the fine line between activism.

It calls for the political parties to develop a bipartisan approach to get fight the red menace. Unfortunately, the Center, while promising all help and undertaking some structural responses to boost the ability of state governments, does not seem to get rid of the bad habit of politicking in this area.

One hope that the SC judgement on this case, will make the politicians in Chattisgarh, BJP and in the Centre and Congress to react to the erosion to their space by the SC in a positive way. Bring about a bipartisan approach, deliver peace by getting rid of Maoists. Once that is done and development and governance improves, it will give less room for the SC to overs step that fine line. I am sure that SC would be glad to do that.

Until then, such judgments will happen. The fallout of this will be borne by not those sitting in Delhi or typing on BRF, but by the people in the areas where these terrorists infest. It is they who will pay with their blood and property for the high sounding democratic principles and points of view by elite in Delhi.

Just the usual ramble.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jul 2011 23:37

The question of ideological leanings or undercurrents in SC judges is a most pertinent one, and there are many examples. People can start studying V.K.Krishna Ayer' s comments in and out of court.

The SC judgment was expected. No wonder that VKKA was quoted here on the forum making two wonderful remarks in the same passage - that "people look up to the judges" who "are sublime" but "who are also corrupt" and which cannot be prevented. The SC has been consistently giving judgments that favour Maoists or Maoist sympathizers. Ex-SC judges appear to increasingly populate "people's liberty/civil liberties" type groups.

It is interesting to note that the judges - while commenting on "tribal arming" - reveal what they are most scared about, that "tribals would turn against the state". Have the lordships noted that notwithstanding their judgment and orders that seem similar to medieval thundering papal bulls, to the govs of state and centre, "tribals" had "already been armed" in the form of Maoist foot-soldiers? What were his lordships doing then? When such thundering judgments are powerless to prevent arming of selected ideologies, is not preventing arming the opposition to those already armed - an act of sedition against the state and the people?

But most crucially this is a question to ponder : have the lordships considered that by their judgment and assessment of the "tribals" [which is rather unfortunate - they should have been dubbed "people" only, and it is not expected of the SC "sublime" judges to show that subconsciously they too distinguish between "peoples" of India] can be interpreted as their basic distrust and negative assessment of the people of India as a whole? That they think arms in the hand of the population will make the population turn against the state? Are they not then acknowledging that the Indian state survives solely because it can keep the people defenseless physically against the state? That their judgment is the most strong acknowledgment that the state is anti-people?

I am just an ordinary, non-sublime Indian, whose logical sense wonders at the criteria now being used to populate "logical" sublime layers of our state that deliver such awareness of logic in their own statements.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 06 Jul 2011 00:06

The SC judgement regarding SPO's can be easily circumnavigated by the local police and para forces, make the tribals regular recruits instead of giving them SPO rank and keeping them outside mainstream law enforcement ambit or use them as CI's on regular payroll and protection but not related to forces in any direct way.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Jul 2011 00:13

Nihat wrote:The SC judgement regarding SPO's can be easily circumnavigated by the local police and para forces, make the tribals regular recruits instead of giving them SPO rank and keeping them outside mainstream law enforcement ambit or use them as CI's on regular payroll and protection but not related to forces in any direct way.

the SPO's for the most part are the villagers themselves protecting themselves. If 20 SPO's are from a village, one of them stands guard and the others go about their daily business/work. The rest of 20 SPO's are sort of "on call". The SPOs are not full time.

Remember 20-50 men are required to stop a raid in a village. For every village/settlement, you need that number. Can the state handle that many policemen, when today in many places there is police station for every 100 villages??

The idea is not to create a police force. It is to make sure that the villagers are able to defend themselves. So very very basic training and firearms are given. It is they protecting their homes. The pay is only a very small incentive of this, primarily to make sure that the firearms given are registered and if needed to take back them.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Jul 2011 06:21

It might be useful to get a copy of the judgement to see what the SC really said...In the meanwhile, this report has some key statements..
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/salwa ... c/813397/0

to immediately cease and desist from using SPOs in any manner or form in any activities directly or indirectly aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist/Naxalite activities

Both Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated, and will continue to be violated, by the appointment of tribal youth, with very little education, as SPOs engaged in counter-insurgency activities

It sort of gives some indication for the reasons for disquiet over Salwa Judum....Issue is that SJ has been converted from being a VDC to a primary CI force...This has never been done before (save for a short period in Kashmir - but J&K was always a "special case" in the national security paradigm)...VDCs have been setup in Punjab, Jammu, even Andhra for "village defence"...They were supposed to be forming a last tier of proximate defence to far-off villages, as well as source of intel for the regular forces...

In Chattisgarh, the Koya Commandos/SJ on the other hand seem to have been deployed as a primary CI force, with all its attendant complications...While policing capacities have continuously lagged, the C'garh govt seems to have wanted to win a CI battle on the cheap using SJ...The result has been disastrous - the state has the highest SF casualties to show for its efforts, while social tensions have gotten exacerbated...

Professional policemen as well as analysts have expressed reservations on the SJ approach - Ajai Sahni, Rahul Bhonsle, EN Rammohan and many others...Its time for the C'garh govt to take a fresh look at its CI approach and build a more credible framework.......

Raja Ram wrote:There is a fine line between judicial activism to counter governmental apathy and constitutional overstepping

Quite right..The judiciary has been stepping into executive domain all to frequently in the last 15-20 years...Recently, they suggested, and then dictated changes in food policy! But its symptomatic of the glaring gaps in governance of the executive, judiciary is only filling the vacuum...

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 06 Jul 2011 08:50

The Hon. SC judgement is on http://judis.nic.in/. I've copied the pdf to:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59409875

From my reading, it is apparent that the Hon SC is only objecting to appointing of SPOs without adequate training (on CrPC, counter-insurgency etc). It's not held it unlawful in principle, but only the current procedure of their recruitment.

If you read the judgement, the Hon. SC has shown concern for the rights and training of the SPOs. Nowhere is there any sympathy for Maovadis or PUCL type jholawalas.

So it's a typical case of DDM (NDTV etc) giving a leftist spin to the Hon SC judgement which is actually very very sensible!

That the Union of India has not seen it fit to evaluate the capacities
of such tribal youth in undertaking such responsibilities in
counter-insurgency activities against Maoists, the dangers that they
will confront, and their other service conditions, such as the
adequacy of their training, is clearly unconscionable

The judgement also expresses concern that SPOs may be targetted by Maovadis

This would obviously mean that SPOs would be amongst the first targets
of the Maoists/Naxalites, and not be merely occasional incidental
victims of violence or subject to Maoist/Naxalite attacks upon
accidental or chance discovery or infrequent discovery of their true
role

Raps the Union and State govt. for not providing adequate training ...

The training, that the State of Chattisgarh claims it is providing
those youngsters with, in order to be a part of the counter-insurgency
against one of the longest lasting insurgencies mounted internally,and
indeed may also be the bloodiest, is clearly insufficient

In fact, the current procedure of appointment of SPOs has been held unlawful on the grounds of Article 14 (equality before law). And according to Hon SC, it's the SPO's right to equality before law that's being violated by the current practice,

We simply fail to see how Article 14 is not violated in as
much as these SPOs are expected to perform all the duties of police
officers, be subject to all the liabilities and disciplinary codes, as
members of the regular police force, and in fact place their lives on
the line, plausibly even to a greater extent than the members of the
regular security forces, and yet be paid only an “honorarium”.

The current procedure of appointment of SPOs has also been held unlawful on the grounds of Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). And again, it is the rights of SPOs that are of concern here ...

The actions of the State, in appointing barely 10 (1985) 3 SCC 545 67
literate youngsters, as SPOs engaged in counter- insurgency
activities, of any kind, against the Maoists, who are incapable, on
account of low educational achievements, of learning all the skills,
knowledge and analytical tools to perform such a role, and thereby
endangering their lives, is necessarily a denigration of their dignity
as human beings.

If anything, this is an opportunity for GoI to setup a proper infrastructure to train and educate militias to counter any insurgency in any part of India. This has special bearing on J&K as well. And I think the Hon SC judgement is an opportunity as well as a wakeup call.

It's imperative to counter any leftist spin on the Hon SC judgement.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Jul 2011 09:01

^^+1...SC does not usually get into "value judgements" in its judgements...Its a question of law, not leftist-rightist propaganda..

the takeaway for the C'garh govt is to stop trying to fight an important battle on the cheap, and put its head down to work...