Can There Be Any Hope?

Editorial, April 24, 2010 vol xlv no 17 Economic & Political Weekly

What will it take for the State to correct its failings and for the Maoists to shed their militarised character?

All of India knows that even as many Indians have benefited from the rapid economic growth of the past quarter century, millions have also been marginalised by the so-called transformation.

This division has given a new edge in marketised India to the long-standing fracture between the “Two Indias”. There is now the thriving India–mainly urban, skilled and entrepreneurial, with close links to the globalised world–which acts as if the other India does not exist. This other India – mainly rural but also the under¬belly of the cities – has been left behind because it has neither as¬sets nor skills. The poor also have to cope with a collapse in public services. The trend now is for the thriving India to “secede” socially, economically and even politically from the rest of India. But it still has to deal with the other India because it needs its labour and needs its land, water, forests and all manner of natural resources that belong to the marginalised in order to fuel its growth and beautify its cities. This new division of Indian society is emblematic of the weaknesses of Indian democracy.

Much is often made of the vibrancy of Indian democracy, the deep stakes that the people of India have come to develop in it and the fact that an ever-increasing number of Indians – across castes, classes and gender – participate in the formal electoral process. All this is indeed true, but at the same time it is apparent from everyday life that many of the institutions of democracy have failed. The procedural aspects of democracy – such as accountabili¬ty, transparency and governance – are largely non-functional. Working through the democratic process, citizens have obtained a number of rights but it is a daily struggle to exercise even a measure of these rights. Six decades after the constitution of the Republic it is not enough to point to the spaces that exist within a malfunc¬tioning institution as evidence that it offers hope and opportuni¬ties to all. The institutions of democracy are widely and perhaps rightly seen as having been captured by the rich and the power¬ful. And the next fear must be that the gradual spread of the can¬cer of Hindutva communalism through many public institutions and the organs of the State will eventually complete the hollow¬ing out of Indian democracy.

The Communist Party of India (Maoist) is neither the first nor the only one to organise the marginalised against the forces of exclusion. But the Maoists have certainly jolted the “9% growth” mood of self-congratulation in the corridors of power. For close to half a century and through various cycles of activity, many groups of Naxalites have been working with some of the poorest of the poor for justice, dignity and rights that are supposed to be guaranteed under the Constitution. The impact of the Naxalite movement has varied, depending on the nature of the group and the area it works in. In parts of northern Andhra Pradesh and in the Dandakaranya region of central India, decades of persistent organisation by various strands of the Naxalite movement have resulted in a few gains in the form of payment of minimum wages, an end to extreme forms of oppression by local landlords and agents of the State and, most important, a sense of self-respect. The irony is not sufficiently recognised that it has taken a political party committed to the scrapping of the Constitution to effectively deliver on a measure of basic rights.

Today the Maoist movement is equated with the struggle of the adivasis in Dandakaranya. The adivasis undoubtedly make up the most marginalised group in India. They have always been at the mercy of one particular organ of the Indian state, the forest department, which has stubbornly sought to deny them their tra¬ditional rights to land and forest resources. The Naxalite groups that preceded the CPI(Maoist) chose Dandakaranya three decades ago to set their “guerrilla zones” as part of their long-term strategy to capture state power through an armed struggle. From all reports, the Maoists have gained the support and trust of a sub¬stantial proportion of the adivasi population in certain tracts of Dandakaranya by fighting the corruption of the forest depart¬ment and oppression by local contractors. This, as is well known, has even found mention in the 2008 report of the expert group constituted by the Planning Commission.

The CPI(Maoist) has grown in strength in mineral-rich Dandakaranya. So given its strategy of wresting an ever-expanding area from the state administration, it was inevitable that the State would eventually respond with brutal force. The ugly face of the Indian state has been on display since 2005 in Chhattisgarh when, with the blessings of the state government (and the silent approval of New Delhi), the Salwa Judum set citizen upon citizen. While the strength of the Maoists in the region does come in the way of the mining plans of Indian and foreign com panies, it is a simplistic view and fits in with a binary understanding of the masses railed against the Indian state to see the State’s response in terms of clearing the way for mining operations.

With its strategy of using paramilitary forces to “recover areas” from Maoist control, Operation Green Hunt – a deeply offensive term that reveals what the central government wishes to do with and what it thinks of some citizens – can only cause a bigger trag¬edy than the Salwa Judum. Some features of a civil war are al¬ready with us – indiscriminate arrests, fake encounters, and im¬prisonment of minors (by the State) and execution of “informers” (by the Maoists). The foot soldiers of the Central Reserve Police Force are set against the adivasi recruits to the People’s Libera¬tion Guerrilla Army of the CPI(Maoist). The 75 jawans killed at Chintalnar-Tarmetla village in Dantewada district of Chhattis¬garh earlier this month may well be followed by another terrible killing, this time by government forces. The “body count” of one side will be compared with the “body count” of the other.

There will be assassinations and attacks by the Maoists (“to enthuse [the cadre] with daring counter-offensives” as one CPI(Maoist) statement described it last year). The State, on its part, makes the frightening promise to “study all options” and it has for all practical purposes suspended civil liberties in the areas of Maoist in¬fluence. Maoism has also become useful for the State to brand and suppress as extremist any movement that dares to confront the powers-that-be. (It is at the same time important to stress that the Maoist movement itself is not as widespread as the CPI (Maoist) or the State would have us believe, each for its own reasons.) The other side of this phenomenon is that it has not been uncommon for the Maoists themselves to take over an independent movement. Militarised Identity The CPI (Maoist) claims that it has been forced to take up the gun because over the past four decades central and state governments have violently suppressed the Naxalite movement whenever it has been able to organise the poor. Suppression by the State is a fact but this is an erroneous explanation, for the gun is central to the Maoist politics of waging an armed struggle to overthrow the State. The constant use of violence to protect and expand influence has inevitably begun to define of the character of the party. The result is that the CPI (Maoist) now has more of a militarised identity than a political one. Naturally, the violence of the Maoists increasingly mimics the violence of the State. Even if there can be no symmetry between the two, the consequences of the CPI(Maoist)’s militarised form of functioning are many. It is horrify¬ing that the CPI (Maoist) now has little qualms in even justifying murderous retribution in its fight against the State (see unedited interview of Azad, CPI (Maoist) spokesperson, with The Hindu). This is unacceptable coming from a political formation that claims to want to build a new and just society.

The party hands out its brand of justice by, for instance, assassi¬nating Laxmanananda Saraswati of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Kandhamal district of Orissa in August 2008, but it does not foresee, or worse, may not care, that the retribution by the Hindutva groups would be savage and will permanently scar the lives of thousands of minority citizens. As K Balagopal perceptively observed in this journal in 2006, the Maoists have acquired considerable military expertise but their political development has stagnated.

The institution of summary courts that deliver summary justice, the shadowy and autocratic manner in which the Maoists function, their intolerance of dissent and the use of “levies” on traders and contractors (i e, extortion) to mobilise finance, and the attempts to influence and take over sympathetic organisations are many other aspects of their functioning that should make any one worry about the movement. The CPI (Maoist) also has an instrumental view of the adivasis. Thus, the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act which is meant to give the adivasis greater control over their resources (but has not been implement¬ed by state governments) never figures in the Maoist campaign, for if it was implemented the adivasis would end up with more control over their lives. Indian Democracy in the Dock Ultimately, what is at test in the conflict is not the politics and violence of the CPI (Maoist) but the very institution of Indian democracy. For wherever the CPI (Maoist) has built up some in¬fluence it has done so because the fault lines in Indian democracy have made people in some of the most deprived regions of the country deeply resentful of the State. It is the organs of the State that are now in the dock for their cumulative failure to respect and guarantee the rights of all Indians. The Indian state is so enam¬oured of its (perceived) status as an economic and political power on the international stage that it does not see what is happening on its periphery. The adivasi anger is only one of many, albeit small, fires burning in the country. (It is somewhat strange that even as Hindutva continues bit by bit to undo the basic tenets of the Constitution, it is the CPI(Maoist) which is seen as posing the “biggest ever internal security challenge” to the State.)

Which way then for the CPI (Maoist) versus the State conflict? In the immediate term, the open conflict has to end. It goes without saying that even after the tragedy of Chintalnar-Tarmetla, the central and state governments have to demonstrate a measure of sagacity and foresight to halt all paramilitary offensives and dis¬band the Salwa Judum. The most marginalised of Indian society at the very least have a right not to be in a theatre conflict.

The CPI (Maoist) has, of course, been very keen on “talks” for that will lift the siege it is now under. Agreement on the modali¬ties of such discussions between the CPI (Maoist) and the State is not essential for both sides to first end the war-like situation. Yes, the past experience (notably in Andhra Pradesh in 2004) with “peace talks” has not been a happy one for either the State or the Maoists. But the people of Andhra Pradesh did enjoy a respite from state and Maoist violence for at least a few months and so too will the people of Dandakaranya. In the medium term the State must lift its ban on the CPI (Maoist) and give it the freedom to openly work among the people; the big question though will be the possession of arms.

Beyond the immediate and the medium term, we need a different kind of Indian state and a different kind of CPI (Maoist). Can we imagine both the State and the CPI (Maoist) respecting and af¬firming the basic rights of citizens? Can we imagine institutions of the State responding to the needs of all groups of citizens and ful¬filling the lofty promises of the Constitution? Can we imagine a CPI (Maoist) that also effects a fundamental transformation and sheds its militarised identity?

On such hopes must rest our imagination.

Maoists in West Bengal: Crass Terror, Political Degeneration

By Debasish Chakraborty

The Maoist assault in three western districts in West Bengal –West Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia- started years before the Lalgarh incidents crystallized, even much before the events in Nandigram .

From 2001, Maoists (the Peoples’ War and MCC, from 2004 their joint Party) started a concerted attack on organized Left forces in Bengal. Violence escalated after the landmine blast in Chief Minister’s convoy in Shalboni, in November, 2008. Till September, 2009, more than 100 CPI (M) leaders and activists were killed by the Maoists in these districts, hundreds others have been forced to leave their living places at gunpoint. It is true that the Maoists have been able to create a terror regime in large parts of the “Jangal mahal” or the forest areas of these districts.

What is the politics, the game plan and strategy behind this assault? While Maoist activities in West Bengal are part of their all-India programme, there are some state specific realities.

Firstly, CPI (M) has strong bases and areas of political influence in the above mentioned three districts. The base has not developed on ‘one fine morning’; it was achieved through long and arduous struggle on the question of land and livelihood. It is CPI (M) which carried out steadfast struggle to break the old exploitative structure in these areas. The panchayats after 1977 worked massively in poor and backward areas of these districts, particularly for the uplift of the tribals. Significant changes took place in last three decades in the economic life of hundreds of thousands of people in those areas. That does not mean, however, that there was no underdevelopment, a question we would address shortly. CPI (M), naturally, has a strong political presence in most of these areas. The armed attack was the only available option for other political forces to break that base. Maoists were encouraged and abetted by anti-CPI (M) forces to achieve the goal which they themselves could not carry out on their own. The details of political geography are important here. Despite a large are of influence, there were certain pockets in these districts, particularly in Lalgarh, Binpur blocks in West Midnapore, where CPI (M) has been relatively weak. Factions of Jharkhand Party were in control of panchayats, even won assembly seats with support from Congress or TMC. Maoists chose those particular areas as their primary base and the Jharkhandi leaders were quick to surrender. In fact, it was Jharkhandis at first, then TMC activists who played the role of facilitator for the Maoists.

In spite of development, many tribal-population dense areas in these districts continue to remain backward. Left Front government on its own initiated a Human Development Report in 2004 in which many villages in these areas were identified as backward. Interestingly, many of these villages, including villages in Belpahari, Kantapahari and much publicized Amlasol were run by Jharkhand Party led panchayats. They lagged far behind others in implementing developmental projects. For last six to seven years, it is the Maoists who aggressively opposed any efforts of development. They have destroyed bridges, chased away road construction workers, and blasted government buildings, including even panchayat offices. They killed doctors and nurses by triggering mine blasts. And, from November last year, their font-organization “Peoples’ Committee” has dug roads, destroyed bridges, and blocked all kinds of administrative activities.

Another reason for the Maoists choosing this area for operation is that it lies on the West Bengal- Jharkhand border. It is well known that the Maoists operate in hilly terrain, remote plateaus, and densely forested areas in all the states where they are somewhat active. It is not because that they are concerned about the tribal people, but it is part of their military strategy. They choose areas where so-called ‘guerrilla activities’ can be run in relatively easier way. Particularly in Jharkhand, the Maoists enjoy almost a free run. For quite some time now, the Jharkhand administration has shown very little seriousness in dealing with them. Moreover, there is virtually no influential political party in Jharkhand who would challenge the Maoists politically and ideologically. Maoists followed a hit and run policy in border areas. Whenever there was any security offensive, Maoists crossed the border in their safe haven in neighboring state.

Lack of development?

Of late, it has become fashionable to attribute underdevelopment as the exclusive reason and justification for Maoist mayhem in the Jangal mahal of West Bengal. Lack of development is definitely there, particularly in the backward areas. However, certain facts are relevant. As is well known, West Bengal has the best record of land reforms in the country. Up to 2008, 29, 83,640 landless persons have been given land rights and 10, 36,432 acres of land were distributed among them. In addition to that 15, 10,871persons have been recorded as share croppers. Among those who got land rights 5, 36,565 are tribals while 11, 05,306 are scheduled castes. Similarly, among recorded share croppers 1, 64,850 are tribals. This has not happened anywhere else in the country. West Bengal is the leading state in awarding the Forest Rights under newly enacted law, though much before it was enacted at the central level tribal people in West Bengal have been given wide ranging rights over forest areas. Similarly, there has been a phenomenal stride in spreading education in the western areas. Hundreds of self-help groups have been formed to generate income .But still, the laterite zone is a difficult area for agriculture and irrigation is a real problem. Left Front government has taken special initiatives with focus on ameliorating the backwardness of this area.

In spite of some remarkable advancement in some sectors, poverty still persists. The neo-liberal policies pursued in our country over the last two decades have further widened the divide between the rich and the poor. In a capitalist society, any development process must have some kind of inherent class content. But while fighting for a radical transformation of the socio-economic structure, the struggle and efforts for immediate developmental issues is an urgent requirement. Partial gains may be achieved if the specific conditions exist. The Left in West Bengal has been trying, with success and failures, exactly that within the limitations.

The Indian Maoists, however, reject any idea of development altogether and oppose the projects of development everywhere. They oppose the laying of rail tracks, construction of bridges and establishment of power projects. Blowing up schools by the Maoists has become a very commonplace in Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. In West Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia districts of West Bengal, the Maoists have established themselves to be the strongest hindrance to any sort of developmental works. Whose interest are they protecting?

To be honest, the entire interest of the Maoists is in military stratagem, not dictated by any compassion for the tribals and the poor. But, obviously, they can --- and they do --- make use of the intense poverty of the tribal population, though not for enhancing their consciousness. Instead, this poverty has been used for making the people surrender to their diktat.

Indian Maoists have a ready answer to the complex question of relationship between development or the lack of it and the forms of struggle. The so-called ‘guerrilla warfare’ and armed struggle, according to them, is the only option.

Writing more than a century ago on Marxist understanding on the forms of struggle in general and guerilla warfare in particular, Lenin wrote: “Let us begin from the beginning. What are the fundamental demands which every Marxist should make of an examination of the question of forms of struggle? In the first place, Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognizes the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not “concoct” them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise on the of their own experience themselves in course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an studied attitude towards the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, and as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defense and advance. Marxism, therefore, does not reject any particular form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only; recognising as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation, changes. In this respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass practice, and makes no claim, whatsoever, to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by “systematisers in the seclusion of their studies”

“In the second place”, Lenin continued, “Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of the forms of struggle. To treat this question apart from the concrete historical situation betrays a failure to understand the rudiments of dialectical materialism. At different stages of economic evolution, depending on differences in political, national-cultural, living and other conditions, different forms of struggle come to the fore and become the principal forms of struggle; and in connection with this, the secondary, auxiliary forms of struggle undergo change in their ·turn. To attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given movement at the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position.” (Lenin, Collected works, Volume 11, Pages 213-14).

However, in this age of AK-47, who listens to Lenin?

Who are ‘Class enemies?’

And let us have a look at Maoists’ ‘class enemies’. They have killed over 100 CPI (M) activists and supporters in the Junglemahal area of West Bengal. Out of them, at least 60 were either agricultural labourers or poor peasants. And the majority is tribals. Maoists always offer justifications for such brutal killings. The victims are described either as “agents of police” or “exploiters”. In their bulletins (like Peoples’ March or more recent Peoples Truth , often available in websites too) or in their regular briefings to Kolkata media, Maoists have explained that only “agents of state” or those who had dared to stand against them have been targeted. It would always be left undefined as to who or what would be branded as “agents of state”. Moreover, the sole judge of who was an ‘enemy of the people’ is the Maoists themselves; as if they have been conferred some kind of divine right to kill anyone they want.

Numerous examples of the Maoists’ mindless barbarism are evident. In an early such incident in Shalboni, Maoists went to kill Vagyadhar Mahato, a CPI (M) activist. When he was not found, his old mother Puntibala Mahato, their neighbor Ichamati Mahato and her four year old daughter Priyanka were killed. On 31st December, 2005, CPI (M) Purulia district secretariat member and former Zilla Parishad Chairman Rabindranath Kar and his wife Anandamoyee Kar were burnt to death in their house. In Shalboni, a teacher Anil Mahato was killed in the school premises itself in front of the students. It was repeated again when Karamchand Singh was killed in the classroom. More recently, Avijit Mahato, a college student, popular for his social activities, was killed while he was on his way to sit for an examination. Maoists killed three poor villagers after abducting them when they were working in a project under NREGA in Shalboni. Those who needed to work in NREGA turned out to be critical ‘class enemies’ of Maoists! A medical van has been ambushed in Shalboni, killing a doctor and two nurses. Interestingly, the medical team regularly visited in remote tribal villages.

Maoists have perfected the art of brutality. Most of the times, these poor unarmed people were dragged into the jungle and stabbed or shot to death. In a horrific case, in June, 2009, bodies of Salku Soren, Naru Samanta, and Prabir Mahato were left lying on the spot, only to decompose. Their family members were not given the right to even touch, let alone cremate them.

The Maoists in West Bengal has perverted their already gruesome line of “annihilation”. In 1972 itself, a section of Naxalite leaders, including Kanu Sanyal, Nagbhushan Pattanaik challenged the then prevailing line of “annihilation” and seriously condemned the method of clandestine individual killings. Communist Party of China, under the leadership of Mao Ze Dong, then supportive of the so-called “spring thunder”, expressed abhorrence for the degeneration of the idea of “Peoples’ War” in the hands of Indian Maoists. No lesson has been drawn from the experiences of the seventies, except the fact that the Maoists use highly sophisticated arms nowadays.

Relations with Trinamool Congress

But most important of all and what may be considered as the special political perspective of Maoists’ activities in West Bengal is their close affinity with the other anti-Left political forces, particularly Trinamool Congress, the main opposition force in the state. Their partnership expanded from western districts to other areas of the state, for example in Nandigram and Singur.

Apart from numerous reports of Maoists’ active participation in Nandigram and their armed attacks along with the TMC gangs, political and organizational documents of the Maoists have established the complicity. Maoists have, in fact, evolved a theoretical perspective for this complicity. In a document, published in December, 2008 and circulated among the Maoist rank and file, the Maoist leaders have emphasized the need of a “united front” with anti-CPI (M) “ruling class parties” and particularly with TMC. The document, titled “Some important problems in our work and their solutions”, Maoists have asserted that as CPI (M) is a “social fascist force”, it is important to organize “anti-fascist” front with other ruling class parties. Whosoever wants to join in such “fronts” are welcome. Without giving any scope of confusion the document has stated that Mamata Banerjee, the leader who was in the forefront of “struggle” in Singur should be supported and Maoist cadres should work closely with her. According to them, West Bengal is now is a “flaming field” and many united fronts are emerging. All such joint operations should be encouraged.

In another document evaluating the Nandigram episode, the Maoists have clearly stated that they were in forefront of armed activities, arms training to BUPC, the organization who spearheaded the agitation. BUPC was led by TMC and it existed even after the Chief Minister categorically announced that there would be no land acquisition in Nandigram in February, 2007. In the document the Maoists triumphantly claimed that though they were in leading position in armed aggression and killing of CPI (M) activists in Nandigram from the very beginning, the other parties accepted their leadership from July, 2008. They claimed that that it was an “achievement” that the other parties openly acknowledged Maoists’ role. Maoists have claimed that TMC leaders “fought the war” in close cooperation with them.

During the ongoing security operation in Lalgarh, top ranking Maoist leader M Koteswar Rao alias “Kishenji” has given long interviews to the electronic media. In fact, he was busy in explaining things from morning to midnight over mobile phone interviews. Kishenji has categorically stated that Maoists helped TMC in Nandigram in “ousting” CPI (M) and in reciprocation they want Mamata Banerjee’s help to stop central security forces from entering Lalgarh.

Kishenji, in a significant interview in Anandabazar Patrika on 4th Ocotober, 2009 has categorically stated that they wanted Mamata Banerjee to be the next Chief Minister of the state. According to fanciful analysis of Kishenji, though the TMC has same class character like Congress, Mamata Banerjee, by the sheer force of her personality can override the barrier and can initiate radical reforms!

TMC supremo and Railway Minister have reciprocated this unique gesture although it was she who had consistently demanded withdrawal of central paramilitary forces from West Midnapore after the joint operations started. It was she who organized rally in support of this demand. The central ministers from her party went in Lalgarh to oppose the operations of joint forces. Even now, Railway Minister is completely silent about the terror unleashed by the Maoists. She was speaking in a manner which legitimizes the brutality of the Maoists. This is in stark contradiction to the professed stand of the Prime Minister and the Home minster.

Ideological anarchism of the Maoists has led to such an outrageous level of political degeneration.

Peoples Committee or Maoist -TMC front?

From November, 2008, an agitation started in Lalgarh in West Midnapore, spearheaded by ‘Peoples’ Committee to resist police atrocities’. That it was timed just after the landmine blast in Chief Minister’s convoy was no co-incidence. Just as the state police moved in to search for the culprits, the Peoples’ Committee cropped up. That this organization is a front of Maoists and actively supported by TMC was clear to anyone residing in the area. The roads were dug and Maoists forced the villagers to block all movements. From then on, virtually a reign of terror was unleashed in the entire area. It was ploy to expand the bases of Maoists while the blockade continued. All government offices were virtually closed, schools ceased to function, villagers were forced to pay huge “levies’ to Maoists. CPI (M) activists and supporters were being killed and many of them were forced to declare that they would leave CPI (M). CPI (M) offices were burnt and looted. The state government exhibited great restrains considering the sensitive content of involvement a section of the tribals. The Chief Minister publicly stated for number of times that the Left Front government was trying to avoid bloodshed at any cost. However, the Maoists escalated the bloodshed and almost every day CPI (M) cadres and sympathizers were killed. This reign of terror was branded by the Maoists and a section of anti-Left media as “Adivasis Revolt”, even comparing it the Santhal rebellion of 1855. But there was no serious demand for the tribals; neither had it contained any spontaneous involvement of the tribal people as was depicted by the media.

The complicity of TMC was evident here too. The secretary of “Peoples Committee” Chatradhar Mahato was a known Trinamool Congress activist while the President of this outfit Sidhu Soren is a squad member of the Maoists. Sashadhar Mahato, the brother of Chatradhar, is a leading member of the Maoists and a declared absconder for many crimes. On 4th February, 2009, just before the elections were declared, Mamata Banerjee herself went to Lalgarh and shared the dais of public meeting with Chatradhar Mahato. She declared with grand fanfare that the so-called Lalgarh agitation is another “Santhal Rebellion”. While no CPI (M) activists were even allowed to enter his own village in Lalgarh , Mamata Banerjee was welcomed by the Maoists. The attack against CPI (M) intensified after that.

After the state government finally decided to take control of the situation in firm manner and Central Security Forces joined in, TMC opposed any intervention by security forces. Mamata Banerjee even went to the extent of calling this operation as “state sponsored terrorism”.

Chatradhar Mahato’s arrest and interrogation in this September have only revealed those very things which the people in Jangal Mahal, the forest areas of three western districts of West Bengal knew from very beginning. On the process, reports in the media about the ‘confessions’ of Mahato has created political ripples and contradictory reactions from a section of the intelligentsia.

What are the truths that have been exposed?

First, the ‘Peoples’ Committee against Police Atrocities’ was formed by the Maoists, primarily to cordon off an area out of the bounds for police and administration. Chatradhar Mahato revealed that top Maoist leaders of the area were present in the meeting where the Committee was formed. Gradually, the Committee followed the dictums of the Maoists and expanded its work from digging roads to attacking CPI (M) cadres and sympathizers. The Lalgarh agitation was not at all any spontaneous outburst of the tribals, as it was depicted in a section of the media; it was, rather, a well-planned disturbance to create a conducive atmosphere for the Maoists to consolidate their own base.

Secondly, the Committee acted as a convenient platform for the Maoists and Trinamool Congress to work together. In almost every village where a “branch” of the Committee was formed, both the active members of the Maoists and TMC worked in unison. In many places, the houses of local TMC leaders were used as meeting places and shelters for the Committee and the Maoists cadres. Chatradhar himself claimed that he used to maintain links with state level TMC leaders as frequently as he did with the Maoist leaders in West Midnapore.

Thirdly, according to Kolkata media, Chatradhar Mahato partially confessed about the huge amount of money collected as ‘donations’ and forced ‘levies’ during last ten months. It ran into crores. There was smooth flow of outside financial support also. Specific names of some the financing persons and organizations have also come into light.

Fourthly, the Committee and Chatradhar himself had regular contacts with a section of the anti-CPI (M) intelligentsia and even participated in number of secret meetings in Kolkata too. Though it was not so ‘secret’ to any observer, this revelation has apparently unnerved some of the intellectuals who, for some months now, have already been rewarded abundantly by the Railway Minister. These intellectuals have tried their best to claim that they had no inkling of Chatradhar’s Maoist links.

This theory of ‘delinking’ Peoples’ Committee and the Maoists is the escape route for TMC supremo and the Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee herself. The gruesome incident in Jharkhand has shattered the ‘delinking’ scheme. Maoists had offered to release the abducted inspector of the special branch of Jharkhand police Francis Induwar in exchange for Kobad Gandhi, Chatradhar Mahato and Chandrabhusan Yadav. The inspector was later killed in an atrocious manner.

Honeymoon with ruling class

One of the most important criteria for any serious movement for social transformation, particularly for the Marxists, is a concrete analysis of concrete situation for concrete application of political-ideological understanding. The left movement in the country and even in its most advanced outpost in West Bengal has many weaknesses and deficiencies. Despite that, CPI (M) is the leading contingent of anti-imperialism in India. The tirade against the party by the combined forces of ruling class parties, ruling elite, corporate media was clearly evident on the question of US-India civil nuclear agreement. CPI (M) and the parties of the organized Left have been consistently struggling against the neo-liberal economic policies from the very outset. It is hardly debated that the role of CPI (M) and the Left is crucially important in combating the communal forces. Every advancement of the Left is ferociously targeted by the ruling class and the corporate media, while every setback is cheered by them.

Maoists, by targeting CPI (M) and the Left in West Bengal have consciously sided with these very forces. It is no coincidence that they enjoy not only the enthusiastic company of the parties like TMC but also bonhomie with pathological anti-Left mainstream media in the state. Almost every killing by the Maoists in Jangal Mahal has been legitimized within hours, by some or other explanation by media. This is a unique feature, not seen elsewhere in the country.

In the seventies, a new term was popular in West Bengal: “Congxal”. It was denoted to identify Naxalite-turned-Congress hoodlums. Initially these elements launched attacks against CPI (M) activists, particularly in and around Kolkata, in the name of ‘revolution’. After the rigged assembly elections in 1972, a large section of these thugs became Youth Congress activists and a second phase of murderous assault against the Left started. It is well known that more than 1100 CPI (M) activists and supporters were killed and more than 20 thousand were forced to leave their homes during semi- fascist terror period of 1971-77. Infamous Siddhartha Shankar Ray regime in West Bengal adopted a two-pronged strategy: on the one hand, a section of the Naxalite activists were brutally killed by the police and Congress workers, one the other, another section was used as murder gangs against CPI(M).

History does not repeat itself, and many in the Naxalite stream are severe critics of Maoists too. However, history cannot be altogether forgotten either.

(Debasish Chakraborty is News Editor, Ganashakti. The author can be contacted at: news@ganashakti.co.in)
PULISHED in Economic & Political Weekly( EPW) NOVEMBER 14, 2009 vol xliv no 46