Trinamul-Maoist Nexus Endangers National Security

THROUGH these columns, we had been repeatedly exposing the diabolic nexus between the Trinamul Congress and the Maoists in West Bengal. If any reconfirmation was ever necessary, it has now come in a resounding manner through voluntary declarations by leaders of both the Trinamul and the Maoists that have appeared in the media.

Trinamul Congress MP from the Jadavpur Lok Sabha constituency, Shri Kabir Suman, has recently launched his autobiographical narrative named `Nishner nam Taposhi Malik’ (the name of the flag is Taposhi Malik). The book, significantly, has been dedicated to Kishenji, the Polit Bureau member of CPI(Maoist) operating in West Bengal. In the book, Mr Suman has given an eye witness account of a meeting held in Trinamul Congress headquarters in Kolkata attended by two individuals – Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chattopadhyaya – who are at present in judicial custody booked under certain provisions of the UAPA for their links with the Maoists. The concerned meeting, Shri Suman informs, was also attended by Ms Mamata Banerjee and Shri Sougata Roy who are currently ministers of the UPA government. The meeting discussed the possibilities of intervention in Nandigram in which implicitly the Maoists would also be involved.

The Maoists have earlier given detailed accounts of their involvement in Nandigram with the Trinamul Congress through public statements which have never been contradicted. The media reported on January 8, 2009 the following: “To wipe out CPI(M) from West Bengal, we must work together with all parties of the ruling class like, Trinamool Congress, Congress, BJP etc. The CPI(Maoist) document, titled `Some important problems and its solutions’ was circulated to the members after the incidents of Shalboni and Lalgarh. We must get all ruling parties associated as long they desire to be. We call CPI(M) as a Social Fascist organisation. Relations with Trinamool Congress and railway minister Mamata Banerjee must be strengthened.”

Such reports appeared periodically in various sections of the media all through the year. More exposures came in 2010. The Bengali daily, Aaj Kal, reported under the heading “Maoist leader detained from TMC leaders car” on November 10, 2010, the following: “Maoist leader Kanchan Deb Singh was arrested from Trinamool block president Nepal Singh’s car in Shalbani. Police stopped the car for checking and recognised Kanchan inside the car. Nepal Singh as well as Kanchan was taken to the police station though the block president was released within no time. Kanchan was associated with the PSBJC arms training in 2008. He was charged with various landmine blasts, looting of police van etc.”

The Delhi edition of The Hindustan Times has reported on January 5, 2011 a media statement : “purportedly signed by CPI(Maoist) West Bengal state committee member Vikram said: `We want our movement-oriented alliance with Mamata Banerjee to flourish…”. Further: “The declaration said both Maoists and TMC were silent on their alliance because of political compulsions, but they are coming out in the open as there is nothing more to hide. `We fought together during the struggles in Singur, Nandigram….”

It is now, clearly, beyond doubt that the Trinamul Congress had provided and continues to provide both the political cover and all assistance for the Maoists to penetrate into West Bengal in order to be used to mount terror attacks against the CPI(M) cadre and the common people aiming at extracting electoral benefit in the forthcoming elections.

We had drawn attention earlier to an irreconcilable contradiction within the UPA. On the one hand, the prime minister describes the Maoists as “posing the single gravest threat to India’s internal security”. On the other, in the union cabinet led by this very prime minister, there are members of the Trinamul Congress who are collaborating with the Maoists in order to achieve electoral gains at the expense of jeopardising India’s internal security.

Can this be allowed? Can such crass political opportunism (to retain a majority for the government) that endangers our country’s unity and integrity be permissible? Further, can such diabolic and cynical politics, for the sake of electoral gains that destroys democracy, peace and development so crucially required for creating better livelihood conditions for our people be tolerated?

Such politics, for the sake of not only Bengal and its people but for the sake of India and its people, needs to be defeated if the struggle for building a better India has to be carried forward.

 

PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY,

Editorial

January 5, 2011

‘Can You Combat Maoist Menace, When A UPA Ally Patronises Them?’:SITARAM YECHURY

The following are the excerpts from the speech made by Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) leader in parliament on April 15, 2010 while intervening on home minister's statement on Dantewada massacre.

At the end of the statement that the home minister has made on the Dantewada massacre, he said that let us wait for the inquiry committee report to come and then we can take stock of what actually happened in this particular incident in Dantewada.

We agree with that; we shall wait for that. But the point that I would like to highlight right now is that the Dantewada incident is not an incident in isolation. This is happening as a part of a policy, as a part of developments and activities that have intensified since the UPA-II government has come. Since the general elections in 2009, according to the figures of the home ministry itself, 993 lives have been lost due to Maoist violence, of which 340 are security personnel.

Only yesterday (April 14), in West Bengal, two more of my Party's cadre were hacked to death by the Maoists, taking the total to 176 in the months since May last year. This is something which only demonstrates very, very eloquently, but chillingly, with murderous assaults and attacks that the Maoist menace is mounting. Now, taking this as a general figure, looking at it in a general way, we entirely agree with the fact that this is not an issue or menace which can be tackled by apportioning blame. If you look at the states that are involved, apart from the central government, you have West Bengal, Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Bihar, all these states where this current problem is persisting are states that are run by governments led by different political parties. So, unless we have a unified approach on how to tackle this issue, we cannot succeed and that is something we must actually keep in mind and not be bothered about where the buck stops. The buck stops with India. The buck stops with the government and the buck stops with all of us here in the parliament. Are we going to break up the parliamentary democracy that we have built up so laboriously? Are we going to change it for the better for the people or not? That is where the buck should stop. Let us not pursue these bucks and let us actually try in right earnest to come down to how do we try and solve this problem.

The point that was made by the leader of the opposition, a point that I have been making and we from the Left have been making in this House for the last nine months or so, is that there is a fundamental contradiction that is feeding the growth of such Maoist violence in our country and that contradiction lies within the central government and the union cabinet of ministers itself. I have repeatedly stated that on three occasions, the prime minister has drawn the attention of the country stating, 'Maoist violence represents the gravest threat to India's internal security.' Now, having said this, how can you have members in the cabinet, the same union cabinet, who not only say things to the contrary but actually act to the opposite? How can you have union cabinet ministers -- it has been read out by the leader of the opposition and I do not wish to read out those statements again -- demanding the arrest of the elected chief minister of a state under our constitution? The chairman would have to assure us; we are the council of states. If this is the way in which members of the union cabinet deal with elected chief ministers of the states and ask for their resignation openly in the media, can the government keep quiet? Is the government not answerable to the country? How is it that on the one hand, the prime minister, the leader of the cabinet, says that this is the gravest threat to India's internal security and on the other, you have members who not only say that it is not the gravest threat but also that there are no Maoists operating in Bengal at all. They say there are no Maoists operating in Bengal at all and ask for the withdrawal of the central forces. How can you co-exist with these contradictions? If you are co-existing with these contradictions, I am sorry to say that it is the height of political opportunism. Just for numbers in the Lok Sabha, if you are going to allow the country's internal security to be compromised, then this government is doing a very big disservice to the country, just for the sake of its survival. Governments may come and governments may go. But, what is of concern is the nation; what is of concern is the country; what is of concern is this institution called parliament and parliamentary democracy. Don't play with it. Don't, for the sake of your political survival, allow such forces to feed and provide sustenance for this Maoist violence to spread. And that is my point. Why is it that 30 years after this movement came into existence, the Maoist violence has reared its head in Bengal again.

That is the point this country must understand. You have the re-entry of Maoists into Bengal behind political flags and banners of legitimate political parties operating within parliamentary democracy. Maoists are being used in order to serve petty electoral purposes and petty electoral ambitions in a particular state. Can we allow such indiscriminate use, such despicable use of methods in order to somehow wrest power in a particular state?

Please remember, Naxalbari is a village that exists in Bengal today. It existed in Bengal always and the uprising that took place in Naxalbari in 1967, from there the term 'Naxalites' has arisen. After that uprising there in 1967, there was a big debate within the Indian Communist movement. I need to refer to this because sometimes there have been references saying that we, CPI(M), are after all cousins of Maoists or, at one point of time, we had allegedly supported them and this only can come from those people who have not really understood our history. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) was divided in 1967 by a small group of people who had argued that Naxalbari uprising was the way for revolution and emancipation of India. We had disagreed with them. We had told them that it was only through the combination of parliamentary means and extra parliamentary means that we could achieve social transformation. But with an erroneous understanding that the Indian ruling classes are comprador in the sense that they do not have their own social base and all that is required is to arm the people. They armed the people and, therefore, by arming the people the slogan of People's War emerged. The slogan of People's War was 'Arm the people' so that they can capture power. It was all easy because the ruling classes do not have a social base. That was the wrong ideological understanding and that understanding had to be combated and that was combined with the policy of individual annihilation, individual annihilation of originally class enemies and now, as it is being pointed out, individual annihilation of all those who are opposed to them. It is the combination of this which is ideological and the ideological strain which we think is completely wrong both in terms of understanding Indian reality and in the methods employed to achieve a social transformation in our country and it is an ideological battle that we, CPI(M), have been in the forefront for the last forty years. We have lost thousands of our people in this ideological battle and it is because of this ideological battle that we succeeded in isolating them in West Bengal. So, today if we think of combating Maoism without an ideological battle, it can never succeed. The question of ideological battle rests on the basic fact that social transformation in India is necessary, but what are the means that you will apply and adopt for achieving such a social transformation and what is the concrete analysis of the concrete conditions that you are living in? This ideological battle is as important as re-establishing the writ of civic administration in these areas and re-establishing of the writ of civic administration is not negotiable. On that, there is no dispute among all of us. But it has to be combined with a political battle or political offensive against this, particularly the ideology which we think is undermining the foundations of modern India. That is why whenever such problems have occurred in West Bengal, in order to resolve these problems, we have repeatedly adopted the approach where an all-party meeting is called in these affected areas. Twenty-eight all-party meetings have been called since the last general elections to tackle this Maoists' violence in these areas, but not one of them was attended by the ally of the Congress Party who is now sitting in their cabinet. The reason for not attending is not to legitimise this process but to allow or use the Maoists in order to create terror in a particular area and use the terror to browbeat people into politically supporting them.

So, this is a tactic of terror. This is politics that is being operated through terror. And it is this politics of terror that needs to be fought today. I think what is required is a combination of measures required by law and order and ideological political struggle against the Maoists and Maoism itself. Unless this combination is adopted, I don't think we can actually succeed. Therefore, I would sincerely urge the government at the centre and I sincerely urge the prime minister, the leader of the house, to please come here and explain to us how he has members in his own cabinet who think completely opposite of what he has been telling the nation as far as Maoists’ violence is concerned and do not compromise the interest of our country for the sake of continuation of your government.

You may be happy, like once Winston Churchill famously remarked during the Second World War, "Let the Communists and Fascists kill each other and then we shall enter", and he delayed the second front. If that is the thinking of the Congress Party today, I am sorry, it will only lead to a sort of devastation that the world had seen during that time. If they think that let the Maoists and the Marxists fight each other out and let them deplete themselves, and then, they will enter in order to restore the peace in that region, then they will destroy the very basis and the foundations of the parliamentary democracy in our country. So, they have to be extremely clear. In this, what is required by the central government, as I mentioned earlier, in these five states that you are talking about right now with five different governments, but unless you take on board all the political parties and that requires a complete non-partisan approach and the central government co-ordinates these activities, you cannot really solve this problem.

Mr Deputy Chairman, you come from a state that was also infamous for having bandits like Veerappan. For two decades, you could not catch him because whenever Karnataka Police moved, he would move into Tamilnadu; whenever Tamilnadu moved, he would come back into Karnataka, or go into Kerala. And, in this way, between the three states, he managed for two decades. You require a co-ordinated approach between all these states if you want to solve this problem. And, that requires a strong political will. That requires a strong political will to be able to co- ordinate between all these state governments. That is required, and my appeal would be to all other political parties also who are running governments in the states that this is not something on the basis of which, we should calculate our electoral fortunes for the future. This is a threat that needs to be met squarely. Otherwise, you will have series of actions that will continuously undermine the foundations of a modern parliamentary democracy in India.

And, that is why, when Dr Keshava Rao, was talking about the method employed in Andhra Pradesh and he was talking about negotiations or talks as the way in which the problem was solved, please remember, the biggest thing that was undertaken by the Andhra government then was Operation Grey Hound. Therefore, it is a combination that will have to be done. In fact, we have to learn from our own states which have actually tackled extremism in a very successful way, and one of those states from which we have to learn is the tiny state in the North-East called Tripura. In Tripura, they have tackled it by a combination of a political approach, a political will using the law and order measures and addressing the most important issue of development. And, addressing that issue of development can only be with a combination of this that you could actually control the growth of these extremist activities. And, the development issue is the third arm of this tripod. You require a tripod approach, and in that tripod approach, one leg is the law and order; the second leg is the political will and the political battle; and the third leg is to address the developmental concerns. Look at the area where all these activities are taking place. This is one of the richest areas in terms of mineral resources in our country. You have, through the years, successively in the government, privatised mining. And, all of us know what havoc private mines have been playing in other parts of the country. But, here, privatisation of mining activities in the areas which are predominantly inhabited by tribal people has only added to the woes of the people there. The private mafias that come with the private mines and their activities, had only caused further miseries to the tribal population there who already could not have the benefits of development reach them. Therefore, what is required is to also look into the policies, re-look into the policies, and, at least, try and understand why we oppose the privatisation of these mines. You are creating situations of over-exploitation and extra burden being imposed on the people there. That is also adding to the backwardness of the people there apart from the traditional backwardness of the tribal areas. Therefore, what is required if you really, sincerely want to tackle this problem is a combination of this tripod. You will have to address all the three - law and order, a political will and a political battle against them, and address the developmental issues of the concerned population there. Unless this holistic approach is undertaken, we cannot really tackle this problem. The home minister, in his statement, said that there are two pillars of the policies that the central government has adopted. One is that of calibrated police action, and the other is that of development.

And, then, he goes on to say, the state governments, therefore, have a primary responsibility. I find it completely contradictory. Now, you are saying that the state governments have a primary responsibility. Yes; law and order is a state subject, and, the state governments have a primary responsibility. There is no doubt about it. But when a law and order problem spreads beyond the borders of a particular state and goes into the borders of other states, then, of course, the concerned state governments have that responsibility, but the task of the centre in coordinating these actions of the state governments becomes important.

I hope that instead of the central government standing ready and willing to assist the state governments, and, to coordinate the inter-state operations -- I am quoting it from the statement of the home minister -- this coordination of inter-state operations and willingness to assist the state governments, should come in right earnest. There is no political scoring of points. The home minister is not here; perhaps he has gone to the other House. It is very, very ironic that he said to the chief minister of West Bengal, "the buck stops with you", and, then, within 48 hours, he had to say to the country, "the buck stops with me", after the Dantewada incident took place. Today, you may try and score a political point saying that the buck stops with him. Tomorrow, the developments will tell you that the buck stops with you. Finally, as was said in the beginning, the buck stops with the country, buck stops with the nation, and the buck stops with the government, which, at the moment, is given the responsibility to run the country.

 

I would also want to just touch upon one point, which, in this ideological battle against these forces, we also have to understand. We have made one appeal to the naxalites since they started and formed their party in 1969. They started work in 1967; splintered into various groups; got regrouped, and, in 2004, they came together and formed this party, the Communist Party of India (Maoists), and, since then, there is this growth in violence. Since then, we have always been saying, if you have a difference of opinion, come forward and put that difference before the people; let the people decide whether we are right or you are right. That is the approach, which we will have to adopt even now; and, in that ideological battle, we have to say this very clearly.

Unfortunately, -- I wish; I don't believe in such things -- but if there is a grave and if there is a Mao, then he would be turning upside down in his grave because his name is being grossly misused by these forces, I mean, when they call themselves as Maoists. Poor Mao was the man who said, no communist can survive unless he mingles with the people like a fish takes to water. It was Mao, who said, let a hundred flower bloom, let a thousand thoughts contend, and, it is only then that you know what truth is. You have to seek the truth from the facts, and, that is what Mao taught us. They misused the name of Mao; anyway, that is their democratic right, and, we can take on them ideologically. But, we have to realise that in this battle, we will have to be united in taking on them, on the basis of this tripod understanding. Finally, I would like to recollect, with some degree of anguish, the warning that Dr Ambedkar gave to all of us and the country when he presented the final draft of the Indian constitution to the Constituent Assembly for consideration and adoption.

 

Yesterday (April 14) was his 120th birth anniversary. When he commended the Constituent Assembly to accept it, in his speech, he said, 'but this constitution that we so laboriously have constructed, and, this structure that we so laboriously want to build, is beset with contradictions." And, he defined the contradictions, I think, very, very well. I can't find a better way of defining it. It is that the constitution provides one man with one vote, and, one vote with one value. But our social conditions have not created one man with one value, and, as long as you have this contradiction that one man does not have one value, but you have one man having one vote, and, a vote having the same value.

So, unless you create a society where all men are equal, he warned that, and I quote, "What we have so labouriously built will be blown asunder by the very people who are suffering from this contradiction". And, if you really want to tackle the problem of extremism, the problem of anarchy, you will have to have a very serious re-look on the trajectory of this neo-liberal economic reforms that we are adopting because that is generating this sort of a situation where it is easy for an unemployed, insecured youth to take to arms and take to militancy because that is the only security life offers. Therefore, finally in conclusion, while waiting for the inquiry report on this specific Dantewada massacre, we will urge upon the government to immediately inform us what is their decision with the people within their union cabinet who are providing both protection and patronage to the Maoists. Unless you take a firm, decisive step in that direction, we cannot succeed in combating this menace.

Tackling the Maoist problem, confidently: Sitaram Yechury

The transcript of an interview with Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Sitaram Yechury done by Karan Thapar for the programme Devil's Advocate, on the West Bengal government's handling of the Maoist situation. Broadcast on Sunday, November 8, on CNN-IBN, it is being re-run on Monday.

Karan Thapar: Is your government in West Bengal serious about tackling the Maoists?
SITARAM YECHURY: Very serious.
Karan Thapar: In which case, how do you account for the pusillanimous deal that you’ve done with Kishanjee to secure the release of Atindranath Dutta? Both The Indian Express and The Hindu report that your police forces were surrounding and closing in on the Maoists when inexplicably the government called them off. Your government, at a critical moment, threw in the towel?
YECHURY: No, that’s not the fact of the matter. In fact, the people whose release was obtained were actually, if you look at the photographs — which the same papers have published — were middle-aged, hapless tribal women, and not hardened Maoists, for which any deal has been done.
Karan Thapar: I’ll come to the people who were released in a moment, but first come back to my opening point. Two newspapers, which your government has not contradicted so far, have said that in fact your forces had surrounded the Maoists at a time, when suddenly and inexplicably, they were called off?
YECHURY: See, no government will contradict or affirm when operations of this nature are going on. The media can speculate.
Karan Thapar: But this is an embarrassing revelation.
YECHURY: It’s no revelation, it’s just speculation.
Karan Thapar: It’s not speculation. Top police officers confirm that they had surrounded the Maoist squad that had abducted Atindranath Dutta. Then they got a call from Kolkata to call off the operation.
YECHURY: Who? Who are those top police officers? The fact of the matter is that many a time in such operations we’ve seen such red herrings being put forward, and the media also, honestly, need to cooperate in dealing with such dangers.
Karan Thapar: The media also need to expose the government. When senior police officers are going out of their way to tell the press that the government was in a position to surround the Maoists before the Chief Minister called it off, that’s embarrassing.
YECHURY: Who’re these officers?
Karan Thapar: Officers don't give their names as they are worried about their jobs, but they’re revealing, like whistle-blowers, the truth.
YECHURY: No. Why is it that only these two newspapers have done it? In case there are other officers who’ve been going around and giving such information, then why other media [outlets] have not picked it up?
Karan Thapar: Okay. That's your ground: why haven’t more newspapers reported this, therefore I don’t believe it? It’s a dubious explanation but I will accept it and I won't argue with it.
YECHURY: It's not dubious at all.
Karan Thapar: For the simple reason that your government has not contradicted what the two newspapers have said, the police officers are not contradicting it, that’s why it stands?
YECHURY: There’s no need for contradiction. The logic is, you do not contradict such things when operations are on. That's precisely what we told…
Karan Thapar: Let’s go beyond the operations. Let’s move a step beyond. It's not just that you are perceived to have thrown in the towel, what is even worse is the message that you sent out to the Maoists. That every time they are under pressure all they have to do is kidnap a government official, the government will buckle and that will lead to a blaze of publicity.
YECHURY: That Chief Minister has said it very, very clearly, and he said that it was only in this particular case. This is not going to happen again.
Karan Thapar: But there’s no guarantee that it won't happen again. There was no need to for it to happen here, therefore it can happen again.
YECHURY: There was a need because these were hapless tribal women — taken, kidnapped virtually to be used as shields. This is what — we rescued them.
Karan Thapar: Let's come to that issue then. This is the second time you are raising this claim that this was done to secure the release of what you called hapless tribal women.
YECHURY: Of course, the same newspapers you pointed published photographs of them.
Karan Thapar: Let's come to those people then. These Maoists sympathisers, the Chief Minister says, it doesn't matter that they were released because the charges against them were minor misdemeanours, and secondly he says they would anyway have been granted bail in 15 days. Both those points are not true: they were actually charged with waging war against the state and attempted murder — a far more serious charge than he admits. And secondly, bail was no means likely. So the Chief Minister is misrepresenting the situation.
YECHURY: If that’s the case, you’ve to ask the State government, I don't know any such details.
Karan Thapar: So you’re backing off now.
YECHURY: No, I’m not backing off. I don't think that is an issue at all.
Karan Thapar: You made it the issue.
YECHURY: The issue is, these people were used as shields, they continue to be used as shields in order to procure whatever demands the Maoists want.
Karan Thapar: Can I, for the sake of the audience, clarify the issue? I’m going to quote FIR No. 137/2009 and FIR No. 78/2009 of September 3. These 22 Maoist sympathisers were accused with waging war against the Centre and the State and also attempt to murder. Secondly, and this is equally important, the public prosecutor, Chandicharan Mahapatra, had on two separate occasions refused bail. He said he was against bail and he said he has strong evidence and suddenly he then had to change his position because your government forced him to.
YECHURY: Why should the public prosecutor change positions?
Karan Thapar: Because they come under pressure from your government. The government wished to withdraw the case.
YECHURY: I’ve been charged with sedition, acting against the state, on a large number of incidents when I was in student politics. So this is not something unnatural and you know ‘attempt to murder,’ ‘acting against state,’ ‘dacoity’…
Karan Thapar: But these are not minor misdemeanours, as Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee said.
YECHURY: This is the nature and manner how the police works. For a student demonstration you charge me with dacoity?
Karan Thapar: This is not a student demonstration. These are people who are accused of waging war against the state.
YECHURY: I’m giving you that illustration only to prove the point that they are ways in which the Indian police acts under the Indian Penal Code.
Karan Thapar: In which case, please explain to me, why the defence lawyer, the one man whose interest is to act on behalf of these 22 Maoists, he said when the bail was granted: "Even I was surprised the district court granted them bail." The only reason it happened is because your government inexplicably and suddenly wished to withdraw charges.
YECHURY: Again you’re jumping to conclusions without any basis. If the defence lawyer makes that statement, from there to conclude that the government put pressure and therefore this was done, I think you’re letting your imagination take hold of you.
Karan Thapar: It's a fanciful defence you’ve put up. Let the audience hear it and judge for themselves whether what you’re saying is credible or less than credible.
YECHURY: Yes, please.
Karan Thapar: Meanwhile, the problem with the attitude of the Marxist government of Bengal to the Maoists goes much further back than what happened last month. West Midnapore police records show that since 2002 — that is seven years ago — over 170 people have been killed by Maoist death squads. Sixty-six per cent of those are in fact CPI(M) cadres, and yet not one Maoist operative has been shot dead and no one of significance has been captured. Your government has given them a free hand.
YECHURY: That’s not true at all. Please remember, if you want to talk about this relationship between the Marxists and the Maoists, it goes back not only to 2002 but it goes way back to 1967-1969.
Karan Thapar: That was the first Naxalbari…
YECHURY: Please, let the public also know, because this is a charge that is being hurled — and a very unfounded charge — about our fight against Maoists. We’re the ones who have lost the maximum number of people in the fight against the Maoists.
Karan Thapar: I’m not denying that. I’m saying you have done nothing about the recent recurrence.
YECHURY: Please remember that Naxalbari is a village in West Bengal from where this ultra-Left deviation took place, and for 30 years they could not come back to West Bengal only because of the fight we had put up, but…
Karan Thapar: But since 2002, when they have returned, you’ve not put up a fight. I’m asking you why you’ve been so pusillanimous since 2002.
YECHURY: I’m not pusillanimous at all. It’s because they’re imported into West Bengal by our political opponents — they were brought in by our political opponents in order to be used against us.
Karan Thapar: But why did you buckle?
YECHURY: Why? It was a political battle that they wanted to wage using the Maoists and they gave them shelter, they gave them patronage and they were brought in from across the border.
Karan Thapar: That’s why they came in. But I’m asking why you didn’t put up a fight to defeat them.
YECHURY: Then listen to this answer fully. All these incidents that are happening now — even now — are happening just along the border of either Orissa or Jharkhand.
Karan Thapar: So? Those are non-sequitors. The point is, they’re happening in West Bengal and you’re not taking action.
YECHURY: I’m sure you remember a person called Veerappan? For 20 years he ruled the jungles in the States of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Could you catch him?
Karan Thapar: So you are going to emulate the incompetence of the Karnataka government? That’s actually your explanation: you’re as incompetent as the Karnataka government.
YECHURY: No, please be rational. My explanation is, unless the forces of all the three States work together it’s not possible. That is how Veerappan was caught and this is what is required now.
Karan Thapar: Let me come back to the central point by looking at the situation as it has developed most recently since November when a mine attack on the convoy of the Chief Minister started the present troubles and the Maoists began to exploit the tribal protest. Instead of tackling the situation, your government stood by, did nothing, and allowed the crisis to develop.
YECHURY: Who told you?
Karan Thapar: I’ve got the facts. Should I quote the facts?
YECHURY: Who told you this? Since that time what has been happening? You’re deliberately missing the major point, that is: the political opponents to the Left Front are the ones patronising, bringing Maoists in and protecting them, and they’re sitting in the Central government. You’re not talking of that at all.
Karan Thapar: I’m not denying that there are political opponents who are patronising the Maoists and bringing them in. The point I am questioning, and you can't answer, is why aren't you tackling the Maoists?
YECHURY: We’re tackling the Maoists. Their main leader [Chhatradhar Mahato] is arrested.
Karan Thapar: He’s not a Maoist, he is of PCPA — there is a distinction. He said so himself.
YECHURY: Who told you? Why are you advocating for them?
Karan Thapar: Let's come back to the fact of how you handle the PCPA, which is clear proof of how pusillanimous you’ve been. In November…
YECHURY: Now you’ve come to the conclusion that there is clear proof.
Karan Thapar: Okay, let me give you the proof. In November, the PCPA demanded that police posts and police camps be shut down. You shut down 13 camps on November 27 and two camps on December 1. Both of those happened on deadlines set by the PCPA — they demanded and you gave in.
YECHURY: No, I am sorry. The operations that are being conducted jointly both by the Central and the State forces — if you want to discuss the details of those operations no State is ever going to give it to you.
Karan Thapar: It's interesting that you bring that up.
YECHURY: The answer is that operations are on, their chief person is arrested and these operations will continue. Don't you worry — you may wish that the Maoists will continue with their violence, but that’s not going to happen.
Karan Thapar: Let me tell you why the answer you gave is actually sleight of hand. You say joint operations are under way, but the truth is…
YECHURY: Why do you pre-judge? You ask a question but please don't pre-judge.
Karan Thapar: The truth is that when it became imperative that you had to act, instead of sending the police you sent in your party cadres. It was only in June this year, when Home Minister P. Chidambaram rang up and virtually bullied Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, that the police were sent in.
YECHURY: Who told you all this? This is absolute fabrication: that the Home Minister called the Chief Minister and only then the action took place. The Central forces were sent to West Bengal at the request of the Chief Minister.
Karan Thapar: In June, not earlier? You waited from November, when the trouble began, till June to request the police forces.
YECHURY: Again a fabrication. Since November onwards when these requests were made the forces, we were told, [were] actually engaged elsewhere and it took time for the Central government to re-marshal their forces and send them to [West] Bengal. That is the fact of the matter.
Karan Thapar: Even if for argument's sake I accept that answer, I want to point out to the audience what happened to the Cobra forces that were sent in. For four months, according to The Indian Express, they’ve been camping in Lalgarh and they’ve been barely used half a dozen times and do you know the reason why? Because your State government won't make intelligence available to them. Without intelligence they can't act.
YECHURY: Please talk to those commandants, if they will talk to you — and I hope they don't when operations are on.
Karan Thapar: They’re talking to the Indian Express. Tuesday’s Indian Express has a huge story on the subject and your government has not denied it.
YECHURY: No government in battle is going to accept or deny.
Karan Thapar: No government denies a story that it can't deny — that’s the problem.
YECHURY: They shouldn't. Because we don't want to keep giving hints, like the media very admirably told the terrorists in Mumbai, how the people were being landed from helicopters so that they could kill them. Thank you very much, no government is going to discuss these matters.
Karan Thapar: Let's come to a bigger, wider problem that’s crippling your government's ability to tackle the Maoists. You’ve deliberately over the years degraded your police force. Let me give you the facts. From a police-to-population ratio of a 102 to 1,00,000 it slumped to just 92 to 1,00,000 in the present year. In comparison to the national average, your figure is 27 per cent below the national average of 125. Your police force is being degraded steadily, that's why you can't tackle the Maoists?
YECHURY: No, first of all you ask the question, but don't pre-judge what the answer or conclusion is. If the number of police [personnel] in West Bengal may be less than the national average...
Karan Thapar: Much less than the national average, it’s 27 per cent less.
YECHURY: Precisely because we don't use the police against the people who’re demanding…
Karan Thapar: Then how’re you going to tackle the Maoists today?
YECHURY: Let me tell you how we’ll tackle it. We’ll tackle it with specialised forces and they’re in operation. They’ll tackle it.
Karan Thapar: Let me then come to that particular issue, I’m going to point out the crippling deficiencies in your so-called forces. You have a 28 per cent deficiency in your civil police, you have a 17 per cent deficiency in your armed police and an astonishing 35 per cent deficiency in the leadership of your armed police.
YECHURY: Deficiency from what?
Karan Thapar: I’ll tell you. This is the percentage by which you are below the required norm.
YECHURY: Mr. Thapar, what is the required norm for the country and how much below are we? That’s the issue for the country as a whole. The country is much below what’s required. The United Nations has recommended how many police force should be for how much population — we’re much, much below that as a country.
Karan Thapar: But can West Bengal afford to be much below the national figure?
YECHURY: Below what? 125 to 92? I must say this is part of the policy of the government, which we are proud of. We don't use police to go on lathi-charging, go on attacking popular movements. But you will have a specialised force. And don't be disappointed, this problem will be tackled.
Karan Thapar: So you say. But the CAG reports for 2002 to 2005 show that several times in those five years 90 per cent of the funds made available to the Government of West Bengal for police modernisation were returned unspent.
YECHURY: I don't know if you know how the CAG works.
Karan Thapar: Blame the CAG now?
YECHURY: No, there’s a procedure, please understand our country and how our government functions. There are preliminary questionnaires, they’re replied to and after the reply investigations take place, then the final report comes. Final reports have not come now.
Karan Thapar: You’ve given me several explanations. You said that in fact your government doesn’t use the police to lathi-charge; you have said the CAG’s reports have mischief in them.
YECHURY: No, don't mislead your viewers.
Karan Thapar: I’m not misleading the viewers.
YECHURY: I said there is a system at work and it takes place in many phases.
Karan Thapar: Let me put this to you, whether you blame the system or your attitude, how do you account for the fact that Kishanjee is able to give daily press conferences to newspapers and TV? He’s able to ring your allies A.B. Bardhan and Kshiti Goswami, and yet you are not able to capture him?
YECHURY: I don't know whom he is calling.
Karan Thapar: A.B. Bardhan and Goswami have admitted it.
YECHURY: Let them. But the point is…
Karan Thapar: That you can't capture him. That's the point. Why?
YECHURY: That's precisely why. Because of the manner of the technology today, and the alacrity of the media — they’ll go to Ferozshah Kotla to see the Shiv Sena dig up the pitch but they’ll not inform…
Karan Thapar: Then answer this. Manik Sarkar in Tripura, a far poorer State, was able to put down a much more virulent insurgency. Yet, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, with all the resources of West Bengal, is unable to tackle the Maoists. Doesn’t this show his government is incompetent?
YECHURY: No, let me tell you again, don't pre-judge. The Maoist crisis will be put down and you’ll be disappointed.
Karan Thapar: All right. I hope you're right. It was a pleasure talking to you.

The Hindu, November 9, 2009