Author: Ravi Shankar Prasad
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: August 1, 2011
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/security-must-be-supreme-in-chhattisgarh/825321/0
Recently, Maoists in Chhattisgarh attacked the state Congress president's
convoy. Four workers were killed, and he escaped by sheer providence. Between
2004 and 2010, in roughly 2, 300 Naxalite attacks in about 1, 070 villages,
nearly 550 police and paramilitary personnel, including senior officers, have
been killed. Activists from nearly all political parties, including neutral
intellectuals who opposed the Maoists, have been victimised. The Maoists'
repeated call to boycott elections has been repudiated by tribals and others,
who have fearlessly exercised their franchise.
While it is important to address the socio-economic
causes of the problem, will this alone lead to the eradication of Naxal violence,
given their clear strategy to overthrow parliamentary democracy and capture
power through brute violence? This context is important, because the Supreme
Court, in the recent judgment disbanding the SPOs (Special Police Officers)
appointed by the Chhattisgarh government to contain Naxalism, has proceeded
on premises that are open to serious debate, and have long-term security ramifications.
The judgment, it is very respectfully submitted,
has a very defined ideological view, from which legitimate inferences can
be drawn justifying Maoist ideology. Let me quote some of the far-reaching
analysis and conclusions in the judgment because it clearly notes that the
issues are being examined in the light of these premises. "The problem
rests in the amoral political economy that the state endorses and the resultant
revolutionary politics that it necessarily spawns." "The root cause
of the problem is the culture of unrestrained selfishness and greed spawned
by modern neo-liberal economic ideology and the false promises of ever increasing
spirals of consumption leading to economic growth that will lift every one."
"Tax breaks for the rich and guns for the youngsters amongst poor, so
that they keep fighting among themselves, seems to be the new mantra from
the mandarins of security and high economic policy of the state." "The
policy of privatisation has also meant that the state has incapacitated itself,
actually and ideologically, from devoting adequate financial resources in
building the capacity to control social unrests that have been unleashed."
Hard words indeed, wherein the judgment takes
as authoritative the analysis of some known leftist thinkers, who have a very
defined world-view, which they call "predatory growth". What is
surprising is that the judgment overlooks many earlier judgments of the Supreme
Court itself, that hold many of the new policy initiatives that the government
was forced to bring in view of the disastrous experience of controlled economy
constitutionally valid. This was based on the well-established constitutional
principle that the framing and execution of an economic policy, including
its modification, remains an executive function.
Further, in the entire judgment, there is
not even a whisper about the Maoists' well-articulated political goal to capture
political power through violent means and their refusal to recognise the very
identity of India. No one can dispute that the government has to address the
socio-economic problems of the poor, the tribals, and all those who are deprived.
It is, equally, the primary responsibility of the state to provide security
to its people and take action against those who, under the garb of espousing
these causes, ultimately aim to violently overthrow democratically elected
governments and capture power. There can be no doubt that the management of
security is an obligation that the Constitution vests in the executive.
The judgment has no word to offer on how the
tribals came to stay in the Salwa Judum camps. No one leaves his village voluntarily,
but the overpowering fear of Naxalite attacks forced them to take shelter.
The concept of SPOs is not very new. The concept of chowkidars and dafadars
has been familiar for centuries. Being locals, they have been of great help
in providing feedback for effective policing. Many of them, in sensitive areas,
were also given guns. In view of the continuing militancy in Jammu and Kashmir,
village protection forces have been formed, particularly near the Pakistan
border, and have helped fight terrorism with great success.
The justification offered in the judgment,
that because relief camps in the remote villages where the SPOs are recruited
are attacked by Naxalites, there is no need for their appointment because
they will become victims of violence, is truly surprising. The Naxalites are
attacking camps anyway. The other reason offered, that youngsters driven by
feelings of revenge, rage and hatred would be incapable of discharging their
responsibilities as SPOs, is equally strange. By that logic, every policeman
would be vengeful because the Maoists have killed so many security forces.
The larger question still remains relevant - what about the human rights of
the victims of Naxal violence? Do they have no voice? With due respect, it
is a clear case of judicial overreach. On issues of corruption and accountability
it may be justified, but not in the case of security issues.
- The writer is a BJP MP and senior advocate
in the Supreme Court
