Bharat Rakshak

I have read the judgement and I didnt like it.
1) It was an elitist judgement. The most important and the main point which was hammered by the judges for the violation of SPOs was that they were illiterate or studied upto class 5 and thus were susceptible to rage and revenge. They completely forget that the even if the tribals were not literate by "modern" rote learning standards, they were also human and so have logical and cognitive abilities and literacy never was/is the sole criterion for it. It is based SOLELY on this point, they have established SPOs to be against constitution.
2) They have given a pretty interesting judgement. They ordered the govt of Chattisgarh to stop recruiting SPOs and also ordered the Government of India to stop such recruitments but all this stop orders ONLY and ONLY against the maoist scums. So the same orders do not apply to GoI against say the kashmiri terrorists or ULFA or even Chattisgarh govt against LeT/ISI. Why are the maoists so special to the judges, God only knows.
3) They simply said f*ck off to any kind of practicality. Against a requirement of 70 divisions, that the Chattisgarh govt had only 10 and the GoI supplied 30, so having 30 divisions short is simply brushed with a single line stating that such practical matters cannot matter when the high popes of principles are involved.
4) They simply have no idea of how a war or insurgency goes on. Their one of the prime motivation was, SPOs form a target as "police informers" to the maoists.
Duh!! what was VDC all about in Kashmir??

ravi_ku wrote:They ordered the govt of Chattisgarh to stop recruiting SPOs and also ordered the Government of India to stop such recruitments but all this stop orders ONLY and ONLY against the maoist scums. So the same orders do not apply to GoI against say the kashmiri terrorists or ULFA or even Chattisgarh govt against LeT/ISI. Why are the maoists so special to the judges, God only knows.

Its not about Maoists, its about the way SJ has been utilised, as a frontline combat unit for CI..In all other places, including Kashmir (now), VDCs are just that, for "defence"...VDCs dont have the mandate run CI ops..The SJ experiment, is widely documented to have degenerated into precisely that..Leading to all sorts of issues...A uniformed force is supposed to have a certain amount of education, training and discipline - a VDC setup with rudimentary weapons training does not...Ergo, it cannot be a frontline CI force...There wouldnt have been much of a case if these SJ units were only VDCs...Not sure whre SC has said that SJ cannot be used "only" against Maoists, but is kosher against LeT...

ravi_ku wrote:Against a requirement of 70 divisions, that the Chattisgarh govt had only 10 and the GoI supplied 30, so having 30 divisions short is simply brushed with a single line stating that such practical matters cannot matter when the high popes of principles are involved

Not at all..It is simply saying that the state govt needs to pull its socks up, and not attempt to fight an important war on the cheap! Th fact that C'garh comes out worse in any of the "preparedness" reports done by SATP speaks for itself..

Regarding the leftist or rightist judgements, some choice nuggets from the judgement.

Setagainst the backdrop of resource rich darkness of theAfrican tropical forests, the brutal ivory trade sought to beexpanded by the imperialist-capitalist expansionary policyof European powers, Joseph Conrad describes the grisly,and the macabre states of mind and justificationsadvanced by men, who secure and wield force withoutreason, sans humanity, and any sense of balance.

Describing maoism

Theproblem rests in the amoral political economy that theState endorses, and the resultant revolutionary politics that it necessarily spawns.

That violent agitator politics, and armed rebellion in manypockets of India have intimate linkages to socio-economiccircumstances, endemic inequalities, and a corrupt socialand state order that preys on such inequalities has beenwell recognized.

After citing a completely leftist paradigm, they decide that the violence raged for around 10 years means that it is true No other paradigm is needed to be explored or even taken into view.

The fact that the cycles of violence andcounter-violence have now lasted nearly a decade oughtto lead a reasonable person to conclude that theprognosis given by the expert committee of the PlanningCommission to be correct.

Ring the bells, they have decided on the root cause of maoism and it was spawned only because of 1990 liberalization.
That it was existing from 1960s, fool you have not read the true red book.

The root cause of the problem, and hence its solution, lies elsewhere. The culture of unrestrained selfishness andgreed spawned by modern neo-liberal economic ideology,and the false promises of ever increasing spirals of consumption leading to economic growth that will lifteveryone, under-gird this socially, politically andeconomically unsustainable set of circumstances in vasttracts of India in general, and Chattisgarh in particular.

somnath wrote:

ravi_ku wrote:They ordered the govt of Chattisgarh to stop recruiting SPOs and also ordered the Government of India to stop such recruitments but all this stop orders ONLY and ONLY against the maoist scums. So the same orders do not apply to GoI against say the kashmiri terrorists or ULFA or even Chattisgarh govt against LeT/ISI. Why are the maoists so special to the judges, God only knows.

Its not about Maoists, its about the way SJ has been utilised, as a frontline combat unit for CI..In all other places, including Kashmir (now), VDCs are just that, for "defence"...VDCs dont have the mandate run CI ops..The SJ experiment, is widely documented to have degenerated into precisely that..Leading to all sorts of issues...A uniformed force is supposed to have a certain amount of education, training and discipline - a VDC setup with rudimentary weapons training does not...Ergo, it cannot be a frontline CI force...There wouldnt have been much of a case if these SJ units were only VDCs...Not sure whre SC has said that SJ cannot be used "only" against Maoists, but is kosher against LeT...

Werent the VDCs targeted initially in Kashmir?? So why one rule for VDCs and the other for SPOs. Infact the Kargil invasion was detected because of a very very similar set up between the army and illiterate sheepherders, who were "informers."

Read the judgement, then. In particular, read what the court has ordered.

.
We order that:
(i)The State of Chattisgarh immediately cease anddesist from using SPOs in any manner or formin any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist/Naxalite activities in theState of Chattisgarh;
(ii)The Union of India to cease and desist,forthwith, from using any of its funds insupporting, directly or indirectly the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in anyform of counter-insurgency activities against Maoist/Naxalite groups

somnath wrote:

ravi_ku wrote:Against a requirement of 70 divisions, that the Chattisgarh govt had only 10 and the GoI supplied 30, so having 30 divisions short is simply brushed with a single line stating that such practical matters cannot matter when the high popes of principles are involved

Not at all..It is simply saying that the state govt needs to pull its socks up, and not attempt to fight an important war on the cheap! Th fact that C'garh comes out worse in any of the "preparedness" reports done by SATP speaks for itself..

The order would have then involved at least a suggestion that if the state govt is not able to support that many, the central govt should. Nope, nothing of that sort from these people, Infact they within 1 single small para touch this issue, brush this aside and never comment on it all the while taking the "high road".

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

When the whole judgement reeks of that spin, why is it imperative to counter the truth??

ravi_ku wrote:Regarding the leftist or rightist judgements, some choice nuggets from the judgement.

Setagainst the backdrop of resource rich darkness of theAfrican tropical forests, the brutal ivory trade sought to beexpanded by the imperialist-capitalist expansionary policyof European powers, Joseph Conrad describes the grisly,and the macabre states of mind and justificationsadvanced by men, who secure and wield force withoutreason, sans humanity, and any sense of balance.

Describing maoism

Theproblem rests in the amoral political economy that theState endorses, and the resultant revolutionary politics that it necessarily spawns.

That violent agitator politics, and armed rebellion in manypockets of India have intimate linkages to socio-economiccircumstances, endemic inequalities, and a corrupt socialand state order that preys on such inequalities has beenwell recognized.

After citing a completely leftist paradigm, they decide that the violence raged for around 10 years means that it is true No other paradigm is needed to be explored or even taken into view.

The fact that the cycles of violence andcounter-violence have now lasted nearly a decade oughtto lead a reasonable person to conclude that theprognosis given by the expert committee of the PlanningCommission to be correct.

Ring the bells, they have decided on the root cause of maoism and it was spawned only because of 1990 liberalization.
That it was existing from 1960s, fool you have not read the true red book.

The root cause of the problem, and hence its solution, lies elsewhere. The culture of unrestrained selfishness andgreed spawned by modern neo-liberal economic ideology,and the false promises of ever increasing spirals of consumption leading to economic growth that will lifteveryone, under-gird this socially, politically andeconomically unsustainable set of circumstances in vasttracts of India in general, and Chattisgarh in particular.

Wow....good quotes, Ravi ji.

The Supreme Court seems to have been infiltrated by a bunch of outright Marxists. This is bad news for India.

ravi_ku wrote:Werent the VDCs targeted initially in Kashmir?? So why one rule for VDCs and the other for SPOs. Infact the Kargil invasion was detected because of a very very similar set up between the army and illiterate sheepherders, who were "informers."

The Shpherds that gave info on Kargil were not VDCs, they were just shepherds who reported suspicious ativities as conscientious citizens...

Specifically on VDCs and J&K - they have never been used for CI duties, outside of the standard template of VDCS, ie, Village Defence...There was SOG, made up of ex-militants, which was for a time operated independently of the police, gained quite a bit of fame (and infamy), but was absorbed in the local police some years back...Ergo, there is a vast difference between VDCs operated elsewhere and SJ..

ravi_ku wrote:The order would have then involved at least a suggestion that if the state govt is not able to support that many, the central govt should. Nope, nothing of that sort from these people, Infact they within 1 single small para touch this issue, brush this aside and never comment on it all the while taking the "high road".

Fair enough, given that they ventured to make so many comments on the economy et al - not linked to the judgement that were giving, this should have said something similar..Or at least asked the state govt to pull up its socks....

But essentially, that still does not detract from the fundamental point, ie, SJ is an example of a ham-handed, badly executed (maybe the early conceptions were sound) CI strategy - the results of which have been clear in C'garh for quite a few years now...It hasnt solved any problem, which is getting worse every year, in terms of casualties to SF...And the real capacity buiilding required to fight insurgency has been missing...

somnath wrote:

ravi_ku wrote:The order would have then involved at least a suggestion that if the state govt is not able to support that many, the central govt should. Nope, nothing of that sort from these people, Infact they within 1 single small para touch this issue, brush this aside and never comment on it all the while taking the "high road".

Fair enough, given that they ventured to make so many comments on the economy et al - not linked to the judgement that were giving, this should have said something similar..Or at least asked the state govt to pull up its socks....

But essentially, that still does not detract from the fundamental point, ie, SJ is an example of a ham-handed, badly executed (maybe the early conceptions were sound) CI strategy - the results of which have been clear in C'garh for quite a few years now...It hasnt solved any problem, which is getting worse every year, in terms of casualties to SF...And the real capacity buiilding required to fight insurgency has been missing...

The fundamental point you are missing is, the judgement wasnt based on anything you are indicating. All the above inadequacies are your personal spins. The judges EXPLICITLY said that they didnt care whether Salwa Judum or SPOs was a success or a failure. Infact the Chattisgarh govt seems to have told that they have moved on from Salwa Judum to SPO structure and SJ exists today only as a skeleton.

The judgement was given only and only on these basis that and order of those is by emphasis in the judgement
i) SPOs were illiterate
ii) They were being targeted.
iii) SPOs were being given some police functions, i.e. mainly given arms and thus causing human rights to other people in the village because SPOs are illiterate and thus others cannot depend on them using firearms properly.

All the above are true for VDCs as well.

ravi_ku wrote:The judgement was given only and only on these basis that and order of those is by emphasis in the judgement
i) SPOs were illiterate
ii) They were being targeted.
iii) SPOs were being given some police functions, i.e. mainly given arms and thus causing human rights to other people in the village because SPOs are illiterate and thus others cannot depend on them using firearms properly.

Precisely..Which is why these attributes might be tolerable for a localised VDC, but not for a mainstream CI force...

somnath wrote:

ravi_ku wrote:The judgement was given only and only on these basis that and order of those is by emphasis in the judgement
i) SPOs were illiterate
ii) They were being targeted.
iii) SPOs were being given some police functions, i.e. mainly given arms and thus causing human rights to other people in the village because SPOs are illiterate and thus others cannot depend on them using firearms properly.

Precisely..Which is why these attributes might be tolerable for a localised VDC, but not for a mainstream CI force...

With respect to these 3 attributes and only these 3 attributes, VDC=SPO.

ravi_ku wrote:

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

When the whole judgement reeks of that spin, why is it imperative to counter the truth??

RaviJi,

The leftist media is giving a false spin to SC judgement saying SC has outlawed govt raising militas. This is apparent from watching NDTV programmes. I was pointing that this spin is misleading and we should read the judgement rather than it's leftist interpretation.

IMHO, the Hon SC hasn't held militias (VDC or SJ) unconstitutional. On the contrary, they want the GoI to do more for their training, emoluments and better arms. This SC judgement does not legally tie GoI's hands if GoI treats this as an opportunity to improve the training given to SPOs. That'll actually empower them to fight better against Naxals.

I do agree with you that the Hon SC judgement needlessly analyzes the root-cause of Naxalism which is a qualitative and opinionated one, not factual analysis. Instead, we expect the Hon SC to deliver justice strictly in the legal terms.

Why are we suddenly required to look for onlee the "essence" of the judgment - and ignore looking at also the nuggets of "capitailst-imperialist" penetration, or "spawning of revolutionary" politics created "necessarily" by amoral state-politics - that shows what ideological "bent" is working underneath? To cover up for the leftist agenda - now that official parliamentary left is on the backfoot, the onlee hope is the Maoist? Wherever they are - within the rashtra?

ravi_ku wrote:Regarding the leftist or rightist judgements, some choice nuggets from the judgement.

Setagainst the backdrop of resource rich darkness of theAfrican tropical forests, the brutal ivory trade sought to beexpanded by the imperialist-capitalist expansionary policyof European powers, Joseph Conrad describes the grisly,and the macabre states of mind and justificationsadvanced by men, who secure and wield force withoutreason, sans humanity, and any sense of balance.

I casually went through the judgement...A lot of these statements are made in specific context...For example, a lot of the extracts are from a particular Planning commission report, a govt document...A lot of the reference to "predatory capital" etc are w.r.t to "extractive industries"...The court is about 100% right on this - the entire mining policy framewok is a policy scam..It depresses production, encourages cronyism and spreads disaffection among locals - worst of all worlds..

While there is a certain left liberal tone, most of the essential points made, seen in context and read fully (rather than just picking out a statement or a line) are pretty unexceptionable...

Also, it is not corect to say that the SC judgement did not comment on the inadequacy of the state govt effort...

Modern counter-insurgency requiresuse of sophisticated analytical tools, analysis of data,surveillance etc. According to various reports, and indeedthe claims of the State itself, Maoists have been preparingthemselves on more scientific lines, and gained access tosophisticated weaponry. That the State of Chattisgarhclaims that these youngsters, with little or no formaleducation, are expected to learn the requisite range ofanalytical skills, legal concepts and other sophisticatedaspects of knowledge, within a span of two months, and thatsuch a training is sufficient for them to take part incounter-insurgency against the Maoists, is shocking.

somnath wrote:I casually went through the judgement...A lot of these statements are made in specific context...For example, a lot of the extracts are from a particular Planning commission report, a govt document...A lot of the reference to "predatory capital" etc are w.r.t to "extractive industries"...The court is about 100% right on this - the entire mining policy framewok is a policy scam..It depresses production, encourages cronyism and spreads disaffection among locals - worst of all worlds..

While there is a certain left liberal tone, most of the essential points made, seen in context and read fully (rather than just picking out a statement or a line) are pretty unexceptionable...

The issue is not in the least whether you agree with the court's 'left liberal' /Marxist viewpoint or not (clearly you do agree with it). It is that the court has no business at all to be making any comments that are in the political domain. In particular this statement is an example of extremely egregious overreach...

The root cause of the problem, and hence its solution, lies elsewhere. The culture of unrestrained selfishness andgreed spawned by modern neo-liberal economic ideology,and the false promises of ever increasing spirals of consumption leading to economic growth that will lifteveryone, under-gird this socially, politically andeconomically unsustainable set of circumstances in vasttracts of India in general, and Chattisgarh in particular.

If Prashant Bhushan has been called a nincompoop for making a similar statement, frankly I don't see why the judiciary should hide behind 'contempt of court' privilege for language that is clearly political, & not part of their domain. This statement is asinine, and to my mind when the basic premise is so completely wrong - it would be valid to question the basis of their reasoning and conclusion.

ManishH wrote: RaviJi,
...
I do agree with you that the Hon SC judgement needlessly analyzes the root-cause of Naxalism which is a qualitative and opinionated one, not factual analysis. Instead, we expect the Hon SC to deliver justice strictly in the legal terms.

I will say that the whole judgement flows from that "qualitative and opinionated" thoughts. With those thoughts as starting point and never ever trying to look at alternate view points, the end judgement was pre determined.

Well who am I to say anything to the honorable SCjs who have the power of contempt of court.
All I can say as the SC has "told and proved", the father of maoism is MMS. So where is my local red flag?? Jai Ho onleee.

Arjun wrote:It is that the court has no business at all to be making any comments that are in the political domain. In particular this statement is an example of extremely egregious overreach..

Not really..There are lots of cases where the over-reach is in the domain of policy - the directions on food policy recently for example..

In this case, the specific statement was made in the context of a Planning Commission report which the SC quotes extensively, as well as the well-documented pitfalls of "resrouce extraction" industries, along with the purported state policy of meeting "fire with fire" in the anti-Naxal effort..While the tenor, as I said might be left liberal, the fundamental precepts, ie, "resource extraction" activities need to be carefully handled to max gains for the society, and the fight against a naxal-type movement cannot be done by setting up vigilante groups - these would be said in a different semantic by free marketeers and professional security experts as well..

And finally, the judgement on SJ (along with the rationale) was in line with what many security analysts have been saying for long...

SomnathJi: I disagree with you on this point. The SC order hasn't held militias unlawful "in principle". Calling them "vigilante groups" is unfair and even a bit insulting (even the judgement makes that mistake). There's no reason for GoI to disband them based on this judgement. The govt. should treat this as an opportunity to absorb them as regulars. The Chattisgarh police has >10000 vacancies unfilled. Now it's a matter of putting in the finance and logistics to give these bravehearts dignity, power and responsibity of the uniform.

The Hon SC in it's own judgement is unsure of whether a wholescale disarming is even practical at this point ...

If force is used to collect such firearms back, without those youngsters being given a credible answer with respect to their questions regarding their safety, in terms of their lives, after their appointment ends, it is entirely
conceivable that those youngsters refuse to return them.Consequently, we would then have a large number of
armed youngsters, running scared for their lives, and in violation of the law. It is entirely conceivable that they
would then turn against the State, or at least defend themselves using those firearms, against the security
forces themselves; and for their livelihood, and subsistence, they could become roving groups of armed men endangering the society, and the people in those areas, as a third front.

The security analysts may have raised doubts about the procedure being used to deploy these SPOs currently and their training. But I don't think there's any doubt on the efficacy of the strategy of allowing loyal Indian citizens to defend themselves against foreign sponsored mercenaries called Naxalites.

ManishH wrote:The SC order hasn't held militias unlawful "in principle". Calling them "vigilante groups" is unfair and even a bit insulting (even the judgement makes that mistake). There's no reason for GoI to disband them based on this judgement. The govt. should treat this as an opportunity to absorb them as regulars. The Chattisgarh police has >10000 vacancies unfilled. Now it's a matter of putting in the finance and logistics to give these bravehearts dignity, power and responsibity of the uniform

Absolutely, the order was speciifically for SPO/SJ in C'garh...And yes, it is policing capacities that need to be beefed up, whcih is what the court also said - insurgency is too sophisiticated a challenge to be left to a rag tag vigilante group (yes, thats what SJ was morphed into)...

the C'garh govt has been massively derelict in its duties on security, trying to win a tough war on the cheap - hopefully this judgement will nudge it towards the right path...

ManishH wrote: But I don't think there's any doubt on the efficacy of the strategy of allowing loyal Indian citizens to defend themselves against foreign sponsored mercenaries called Naxalites

I said this before, ther eis a diference between home and hearth "defence" (VDC), and being a frontline CI unit...In C'garh, the SJ was doing the latter, with all its disastrous consequences..Which is what SC has asked to be stopped...

somnath,

what are your empirics on the assertion, "insurgency is too sophisiticated a challenge to be left to a rag tag vigilante group (yes, thats what SJ was morphed into)..."?

I would like to know how you reached that conclusion. i think it's a bit too presumptuous to make statements like that without actual proof.

In C'garh, the SJ was doing the latter, with all its disastrous consequences..

and what are these "disastrous consequences?" please to elaborate. what are the consequences that are so obviously "negative," in your opinion?

^^^There are multiple reports on the impact of SJ-style intervention in combating naxalism - Ajai Sahni, Rahul Bhonsle, and others - posted earlier...Please go through them..

Which of the contentions do you not agree with?

1. SJ is an ill-trained, ill-equipped force.
2. C'garh has seen the maximum SF losses of all affected states, and least "successes"...
3. C'garh's basic policing capacities have remained massively deficient, while SJ has been used as "gap filler"

somnath wrote:1. SJ is an ill-trained, ill-equipped force.

Can you clarify whether the SC verdict disallows the use of SJ or if it demands that SJ recruits need to be better trained and better equipped? If the latter, there might possibly be some logic to the verdict.

Arjun wrote:

somnath wrote:1. SJ is an ill-trained, ill-equipped force.

Can you clarify whether the SC verdict disallows the use of SJ or if it demands that SJ recruits need to be better trained and better equipped? If the latter, there might possibly be some logic to the verdict.

It expressly orders the cessation of using SJ/SPOs for CI ops....

At the same time, it lays down, in detail the rationale - read the "Analysis" section...It could have been written by a police officer! Asks the state govt to get serious about its responsibilities and augment policing capacities, rather than getting ill-equipped, uneducated, poorly-paid, temporaryly-employed tribal youth to fight a dangerous battle...

the entire focus is on the state govt's sins of ommission and commission on fighting the insurgency - quite unimpeachable...

.....rather than getting ill-equipped, uneducated, poorly-paid, temporaryly-employed tribal youth to fight a dangerous battle...

The honorable judges seem to have gotten their logic all mixed up. They are either-

1. Conceptually against the use of part-time resources in CI operations, OR
2. Against the standards of pay, equipment etc as provided by the Chattisgarh government.

If the reason was really (2), they should logically have spelt out the minimum pay, minimum level of equipment & training and in case it was really relevant, the minimum level of education they recommended the recruit to have - and directed the Chattisgarh government to continue SJ only on the basis of the new standards. In case spelling out the minimum standards is not in the judicial scope - they should have directed the executive to determine the minimum standards within a certain timeframe.

If the justices were against the use of part-time resources because these operations put the recruits in serious danger without really informing them about it, and therefore are in contravention of fundamental rights - that should have been the foundational basis of the verdict. But that does not seem to have been the case. Part-time employment is increasingly a norm in several industries - so it is rather unusual to be conceptually against part-time employment unless there is some contravention of human rights.

Arjun wrote:The honorable judges seem to have gotten their logic all mixed up. They are either-

Rather than the judges, the illogic hat seems to be somewhere else

The whole notion of fighting a dangerous insurgency with ill-equipped, ill-trained, ill-paid, temporary SPOs is more hare-brained than any judgement could possibly describe...It can only lead to dangerous unintended consequences, which is what has happened in C'garh..

Arjun wrote:Part-time employment is increasingly a norm in several industries - so it is rather unusual to be conceptually against part-time employment unless there is some contravention of human rights

Err, part-time data analysts = part-time policemen in a warzone?!

somnath wrote:

Arjun wrote:The honorable judges seem to have gotten their logic all mixed up. They are either-

Rather than the judges, the illogic hat seems to be somewhere else

The whole notion of fighting a dangerous insurgency with ill-equipped, ill-trained, ill-paid, temporary SPOs is more hare-brained than any judgement could possibly describe...It can only lead to dangerous unintended consequences, which is what has happened in C'garh..

Arjun wrote:Part-time employment is increasingly a norm in several industries - so it is rather unusual to be conceptually against part-time employment unless there is some contravention of human rights

Err, part-time data analysts = part-time policemen in a warzone?!

THe Government also does not have the option of 1) Leaving Tribals defence less against Maoists 2) waiting for Tribals to be educated until 10 Std while Maoists are blowing up thier School Buildings.

So its a Viscous cycle, Maoists dont allow tribals to be educated, Government cannot recurit Tribals as per SUpreme Court until they are educated until Std X.

So government basically in order to recruit Tribals in adequate numbers in the Police force has to take Tribal children outside Maoist areas(they then become unfamiliar with ground realities) adn then educate them upto STd X.

This is where we are paying for the past mistakes where ex Chief Ministers, Divay Singh and Ajit Jogi did not pay enough attention to educating Tribals in Bastar which today could have resulted in sizeable population of Educated Tribals before the Maoists began Blwoing up schools.

The Maoist Strategy of Blowing up Schools and Hospitals has less to do with the so called excuse that Police use them but with other benefits to them of the entire population being undeducated and easy prey for them.

It is impossible for the CHattisgarh Government to fight this war with hands literally tied behind its back with SUpreme Court Rulings stating Tribal recurits to be educated to Std X, Randomly produce people due to some case in SC by Maoists SYmpathysiers (losing 2 Polciemen in process as Maosits had set Ambush based on the SC verdict).

If this is a war then the rules have to be relaxed for 5-10 years until the situation is brought under control.

If its war then rules of engagement should be like J&K or war. No need of Frivilous Fake encounter cases by Maoist Sympathesiers of whom there is no shortage in Mutli Million Dollar MNC media companies.

The Maoists seem to have all the protection of various laws but need to follow none and are even protected from prosecuetion for crimes.

somnath wrote:The whole notion of fighting a dangerous insurgency with ill-equipped, ill-trained, ill-paid, temporary SPOs is more hare-brained than any judgement could possibly describe...It can only lead to dangerous unintended consequences, which is what has happened in C'garh..

Who says I am disagreeing with you? You are not following my logic. If fighting a dangerous insurgency with ill-equipped, ill-trained, ill-paid SPOs is the main issue - then the solution is not to ban SPOs but specify the minimum standards of training, pay and equipment.

Err, part-time data analysts = part-time policemen in a warzone?!

You are reiterating the point I had made...If the main reason for objecting to SPOs is because they are part-time policemen in a warzone then that should have been made the foundational basis of the verdict. To me it appears very strongly that the justices would have objected to part-time SPOs EVEN if the pay, equipment and training had been of the highest quality. So why even bring in all those red herrings - just base the judgement on the violation of fundamental values in using part-time policement in a warzone, where the recruits might not have grasped the dangers they are subjecting themselves to.

^^^Which is why I said - read the "Analysis" part of the judgement - which is where the rationale for the "Order" is explained...

ASPuar wrote:^^

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 ji

Too judgmental, the courts, I mean.

It cites the example of imperialist-capitalist Europe in Heart of Darkness before getting to the Chhattisgarh situation. Whatever the substantive point of the judgment, its rhetoric is increasingly familiar, the court’s one-note answer to all the bewildering problems that beset citizens. Recently, the Supreme Court resorted to the extraordinary measure of appointing a Special Investigation Team to find and repatriate black money — implying that the government on its own was unwilling or incapable of the task — and blamed the “neoliberal” drift for causing much of the trouble in our world. As it upheld the Allahabad High Court’s order cancelling land acquisition projects in Greater Noida, the court had earlier protested “the development of one section of society only”, conflated the very different situations of Noida and Nandigram, and again couched its observations in terms of ideological opposition to corporate rapacity and the state’s abdication.

The troubling thing about these judgments is not what they finally resolve, but their tendency to draw straight connections between diverse, highly specific cases about Salwa Judum, corruption in telecom licence allocation or imperfect solutions to the land acquisition problem, to a cloudy abstraction called neoliberalism. Whatever the content of the decisions, they are often framed by obiter dicta and analogies that imply that everything is reducible to influence-peddling and crony capitalism. These may or may not be recurrent features — but keeping the causes of the black money problem and the land acquisition issue analytically distinct would be more useful, even in order to fully understand how powerful interests actually operate.

Rather than a granular approach that restricts itself to interpreting cases in the light of particular laws and statutes, the courts have enlarged their self-image, as populist champion and scold. They view their role as a check on the inept executive — it is not judicial overreach as much as a corrective to the underreaching government. That is a part of the shape-shifting that protects individual rights in a democracy, with one institution stepping in to fill the space when another abdicates. But these clearly ideological strictures may be going too far.

The SC judgment goes in favour of "Maoists". Period. The Maoists cannot be tackled because SC hujurs have given fatwa that certain minimum "qualifications" must be attained to populate state policing forces, which however will not be possible to source from within "tribals" because teh Naxals will make sure that tribals never attain such qualifications.

If the state gov sources the forces from non-tribals that can be used by Maoists and Congress and the Left that "outsiders" are being used to "repress" tribals.

If the state gov can do neither, it becomes the gracious magnanimity of the Congress and its stooge cabinet to do the needful, by sending in central forces - oh-so-trained-and-successful-without-state-units-forces, which of course also helps the Congress and its bootlicking p-secs to score a political point.

So the SC's judgment essentially helps the Maoists, the parliamentary Left, and the Congress. No wonder we see thundering bootlicking applause for the judgment for its logicality - because the judgment shows complete failure of sense of logic. Is it not the height of ridiculousness to claim sense of logic in a judgement whose framers themselves fail to see the illogicality of their adding on "background" "overreach" material to the text to derive conclusions which are supposed to be based on "concrete" conditions and not those overreach sections?!! We have claims here, that the conclusions are based on "concrete" "rational" reasons - not really connected to the socio-economic theorization and pontification that is also the part of the "judgment". In that case the judgment then shows complete lack of rationality to fail to see the "connection".

The SC sees rational justifications for all violence by Maoists, has never a condemning word to say about them in their eminent tome, and in fact takes it upon itself to provide the same justifications that Maoist excuses formally give for civil-society propaganda, while finding none-whatsoever for the opponents of the Maoists! Given that they could spend so much time and effort to cut-and-paste Planning commission as it si being claimed, no such effort to represent the opposite viewpoint?

Hopefully, in some future time, we will have a legislature and a society to pressurize it to look into past instances of the rashtryia functionaries/institutions making statements, judgments, steps, administrative orders that have effectively gone in favour of anti-national forces. Laws should be made to investigate and prosecute all such personnel for potential treason, retroactively - if they are still alive at that date.

In the comity of CTs, this takes the cake..SC judgement asks the state govt to equip its CI force with qualified men - not enough qualified men available "among tribals" - SC favouring maoists! Well...

The biggest red herring in the whole proposition is that of lack of "qualified tribals" to do policing jobs...IA has a large contingent of tribals in its ranks, particularly in the Bihar Regiment...Have never heard IA complain about "lack of enough qualified tribals"!

It is highly illustrative of the basic wave of ideological bootlicking that is running riot in our rashtryia institutions [and of course all those bootlicking voices which take it upon themselves to justify whatever these institutions spell out] - that clear taking of ideological sides reflected in state bodies - like the Planning Commission or the judiciary - is deliberately ignored.

It is so brazenly dishonest and deceptive, to claim that a judgment has "overreached" in its ideological pontifications - but the judgment is sound because it is based on concrete and "rational" conditions! "overreach" means it has gone beyond its scope or relevance. So the ideological portion is not relevant for the "conclusion". If so what logical mind saw it fit to add up irrelevant material to the judgment? If the framers of the judgment saw it fit to add those ideological pontifications, surely they saw logical connection and relevance that their hagiographer is desperate to claim as "overreach"? Which one is out of his mind completely in his eagerness to justify and cover up the exposure of ideological hardcore affiliation shown up - the hagiographer or the framer?

It is being said, that the ideological portions are simply copied from Planning Commission. So the judiciary simply copy without understanding what they are copying - just for the fun of copying - like naughty schoolchildren? There are countless indictments of Maoists and Leftist subversion of economic or social welfare measures - the judiciary did not find the time or resources to look up alternative views? What does providing rationalization for "revolutionary" violence imply without a parallel condemnation of the form that violence takes up and the ultimate motivation behind such Maoist moves? If a political ideological - in fact uncannily "Marxian" by the terminology used - explanation is so important for the judgment, why not a single rationalization found for the opposite trends developing too in reaction to Maoism? The same theory used to justify Maoists would apply to their opponents too - isn't it? Why the thundering silence on that count?

What makes so-called "security experts", the Congress, the parliamentary Left, the so-called "civil-society", conclusions by sublime minds, crusading ideological bootlickers of the centre-left, and Maoists all agree on common condemnation of something on a certain issue - who otherwise rarely agree? Well they all have onlee one thing in common - their intense hatred of the "saffron". The SJ is intolerable all the more because they have been initiated by the common enemy - and must have been hurting each of them in some way - badly. Perhaps various combinations of ego, ideology, professional jealousy, political interests, and ideological affiliations.

Some more ideological fulminations based on non sequitor...

So SJ is being opposed because its "saffron"! Hmmm, the patron saint of SJ, the person who set this all up, is a certain Mahendra Karma - INC politician, in fact Leader of Opposition in the Assembly for 5 years...

I guess "congress-leftists" derive sado-masochistic pleasures in deriding their own!

Ah! why do eager defenders of the Congress-Left forget that ideology is not about the individual! It does not matter who started it - now that a "saffron" affiliated gov is supporting it, it must be bashed! My bad - perhaps they really cover up hatred of the indvidual in ideological fulminations - using Marxian terms like "imperialist-capitalists" "spawning revolutionary" violence!

WB govt always ready for talks: Mamata to Maoists

Kolkata, Jul 7 (PTI) A day after Union Home Minister P Chidamabaram''s comment that talks could be held with Maoists in West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee today gave a call to the ultras to lay down arms, saying her government was ''always ready'' for talks.

"The government will not act in a revengeful manner and is always ready for talks. Those willing to surrender will be offered rehabilitation and a special package," the chief minister told reporters.

Announcing a seven-point joint declaration with the Citizen''s Forum, a conglomerate of social and human rights organisations, she said "arms have to be surrendered by all in West Bengal, including Junglemahal and the state government will take steps to recover arms.

Stating that the government would ensure an environment free from terror and fear, she warned ''those creating fear'' against development work.

"The joint forces will be withdrawn from Junglemahal once it is free from arms and peace is restored," Banerjee said.

Yesterday, Chidamabaram had said that he had been told by the state DGP that the level of violence had come down to nearly zero and there were perhaps suggestions that some kind of talks could take place.

She said the allegations of atrocities by the people living in Junglemahal against the erstwhile Left Front government would be investigated.

Calling for democracy to prevail in Junglemahal, she said: "The government will take steps to ensure safety and security of life. The right of the jungle should remain with the people living there."

The government would make arrangements for food, housing, clothing, education and employment opportunities for the people in Junglemahal to restore their socio-economic, democratic and cultural status, Banerjee said.

Good analysis of the SC judgement on Salwa Judum..

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ar ... epage=true

Contrary to the State's assertions, the Court found that SPOs were playing a major combat role in counter-insurgency operations, and that their brief was not limited to non-combative assignments. The Court's findings paint a disturbing picture. Youngsters, with poor training, were being recruited by the State to engage in dangerous and deadly operations. They lacked both the legal and professional education necessary for their tasks. In about two dozen, hour-long periods of instruction, they were trained in all relevant criminal laws such as the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act. Another 12 hours were devoted to the Constitution and human rights. In fact, their education was so modest that the Court rejected the State's argument that the SPOs were being armed for self-defence on, inter alia, the ground that they did not even possess the necessary judgment to determine instances of self-defence.

In arguing its case, the State government put forth a desperate and churlish set of arguments. It sought to reduce its culpability by asserting that the youngsters appointed had voluntarily sought to engage in counter-insurgency operations, almost as if to suggest that it is consent which was at issue here. It further asserted that by providing such youngsters employment, the State was giving them livelihood and the promise of a better future. The Court was rightly aghast at such a suggestion, observing that it “cannot comprehend how involving ill-equipped, barely literate youngsters in counter-insurgency activities, wherein their lives are placed in danger, could be conceived under the rubric of livelihood.”

somnath wrote: In fact, their education was so modest that the Court rejected the State's argument that the SPOs were being armed for self-defence on, inter alia, the ground that they did not even possess the necessary judgment to determine instances of self-defence.

Hmmm, apparently these tribals possess the necessary judgement to be given the right to vote in a highly complex exercise of determining the pros and cons of various candidates - but they do not possess the elementary judgement of determining how best to defend themselves ??

Arjun wrote:

somnath wrote: In fact, their education was so modest that the Court rejected the State's argument that the SPOs were being armed for self-defence on, inter alia, the ground that they did not even possess the necessary judgment to determine instances of self-defence.

Hmmm, apparently these tribals possess the necessary judgement to be given the right to vote in a highly complex exercise of determining the pros and cons of various candidates - but they do not possess the elementary judgement of determining how best to defend themselves ??

Won't these ex Salwa judum fighters become new recruits for Maoists now???

^^^

Don't know about the recruits. But they will now surely become the targets of the love and affections being shown by the Maoists.

We all know what that means....... Don't we.

Idiots were those who accepted the position as SPOs.

Is there a way this judgement be challanged and if so where?

PS: If the SPOs have to disbanded in CG, as a result of this order, should the same logic also not be extendable to J&K, resulting in the disbanding of the SPOs in that state as well. Or is the situation so different that this logic will not be used.

Pratyush wrote:PS: If the SPOs have to disbanded in CG, as a result of this order, should the same logic also not be extendable to J&K, resulting in the disbanding of the SPOs in that state as well. Or is the situation so different that this logic will not be used

The latter...The SC judgement was on the premise of C'garh using SPOs as frontline combat units to fight insurgency...There are VDCs all over, including in J&K - they wont be afected, as nowhere do SPOs get used as combat troops...

Arjun wrote:but they do not possess the elementary judgement of determining how best to defend themselves

Its not self defence in the "generic" sense, SC was referring to self defence judgements that police/military forces need to exercise, when on specific mandates...There are specific training modules on when the police can open fire, what is a "sefl defence" situation and so on...