The Maoist and the undelivered missive. Azad’s death is no man’s peace

Tehelka

TUSHA MITTAL

SOCIAL ACTIVIST Swami Agnivesh sits in his room at 7 Jantar Mantar, perplexed, battling a strange sense of guilt. For the past few months, he has been mediating a backroom dialogue between the Government of India and the CPI(Maoist). Since May 2010, Agnivesh had facilitated the exchange of two letters between the warring parties. On June 26, he dispatched a third letter to top Maoist leader Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad. “The peace process was at a critical juncture. A very positive response was expected,”

Agnivesh told TEHELKA. “I was to receive a date from which talks could begin.” Much to his horror, what he received instead was news that Azad — the receipent of his letter — had been killed in the forests of Andhra Pradesh. “It is possible that Azad let his guard down because of my last letter,” Agnivesh said. “It is a great loss for all of us, including the government. Azad was a key person and most favourably disposed to the peace process. We must ensure that his death does not derail the possibility of peace.”

But the Home Ministry has a different view. “I don’t think this is a setback to the peace process. We had not received any positive response from CPIMaoist,” Home Secretary GK Pillai told TEHELKA.

For every conversation that leaps us forward, there are strings that pull us back. The rhetoric of Maoists killing 27 CRPF men two days before Azad’s death is one such shackle. Reading that attack as an indication that the Maoists were not serious about peace would be misleading. The on-going backroom dialogue was aimed at deciding a date from which a mutual cessation of violence would begin. Until such a date was arrived at, it was understood the violence would continue from both sides. And it did. In the weeks leading up to Azad’s death — five maoists were killed in Lalgarh, several maoist sympathisers were arrested, and adiviasi women continued to be raped by the forces. The Maoists too continued to kill.

The reason why Azad’s death must be seen outside this cycle of violence is because Azad was a key and unlikely salesman of truce, carrying Swami Agnivesh — and by default P Chidam - baram’s message to comrades in Dandakaranya. “Azad was building consensus for a ceasefire within the party. He had our full mandate. Now the government has shown it was never interested in talks,” Usendi, Maoist spokesperson of the Dandakaranya Special Zone Committee, told TEHELKA.

While the first two letters have been made public, the third letter remains confidential. Sources have told TEHELKA of its contents — and it indicates how close both parties were to the possibility of dialogue. That is what makes Azad’s death significant, almost poignant. For the hundreds of adivasis and soldiers trapped in this war, it means a bleaker, bloodier future. Already the Maoists have vowed revenge when they could have been inching toward peace

“This is a fascist State dreaming that peace will come back by liquidating people,” says G Haragopal, one of the mediators in the 2004 Andhra talks. “Such reactions show an insecure and unconfident State.” Azad’s killing in a gunbattle with the police in the remote forests of Andhra Pradesh, was hailed as one of the biggest catches since the goverment launched a joint-offensive against the Maoists in 2009. Azad was No 3 in the Maoist ranks, a politburo member, Central Committee spokesperson, and a close aide to Maoist chief Ganapathi.

The son of a hotel owner, Azad, 55, belonged to an upper caste family from Krishna district in Andhra Pradesh. An engineering student in Warangal, Azad earned two MTech degrees and helped found the Revolutionary Students Union. Jailed during the Emergency, he went underground shortly after.

ON JULY 2, Adilabad Superintendent of Police P. Promod Kumar claimed the police received intelligence inputs about a group of 25 to 30 Maoists moving around in the Adilabad forest area, near the Maharashtra border. A police team encountered the rebels in the hilly terrain near Sarkepally village. “Our team cautioned them to surrender, but they came under fire, forcing them to retaliate,” he said. According to the police, the encounter began around 11:30 pm on July 1 and lasted till 2 am on July 2. Later they recovered two bodies — Azad and an unidentified man.

Several details have emerged since, that counter the police version of events. Villagers in Sarkepally have said they did not hear gunshots on the night of July 1. The CPI (Maoist) has also released statements alleging the encounter was fake. “Azad was picked up from Nagpur. He had no reason to be in Adilabad. Azad was to meet our man at a cinema hall in the city on July 1. Our man waited but he never showed up,” Usendi said.

A brewing controversy surrounding the second body further strengthens the theory of a fake encounter. After photos of the bodies appreared in Andhra newspapers, a family from Uttarakhand claimed the second man wasn’t a Maoist but a freelance journalist called Hem Chandra Pandey. Hailing from Dewaltal town of Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand, Pandey had been based in Delhi since 2007. “My husband left Delhi on June 30. He had gone to Nagpur for an assignment and was expected back on July 2,” said his wife Babita Pandey. Pandey’s family claims he wrote for Hindi newspapers like Nai Dunia, Rastriya Sahara, Dainik Jagran. Editors of all these papers have denied this, but TEHELKA has clippings of his work published under the name Hemant Pandey.

Since early 2010, he had been working for an inhouse corporate magazine called Chetna, at Delhi Assam Railways Corporation Limited. Pandey’s colleagues at DARCL describe him as a quiet, helpful man who attended office regularly. Significantly, his colleagues say they saw Pandey last on July 1 — the same day the police claim he was killed in Adilabad. “He attended office for the first half on July 1 and then asked for leave,” office-in charge Abhishek Ranjan said. Another colleague who sits near Pandey said he saw him until lunch. TEHELKA has also learned that Pandey’s supervisor has a text message sent on July 1 saying he would be in for half the day.
However, Pandey’s family continues to believe he left Delhi on June 30 by train. Any proof that Pandey was in office on July 1 is crucial because it could blow holes in the police version. It would be extremely unlikely for someone to be waging guerilla warfare in the Andhra Pradesh jungles by night, if they were in Delhi until 2 pm the same day.

TO UNDERSTAND the significance of what happened on the night of July 1, one has rewind to Agnivesh, to understand why he feels that sense of guilt.

On May 6-8, Agnivesh and several other activists marched through Raipur and Dantewada asking for an end to violence. On May 11, Chidambaram wrote to Agnivesh to clarify the government’s position. The key to talks lay in a specific date from the Maoists. “On the specified date (say, June 1), we would expect that the CPI(Maoist) will stop all violent activities,” Chidambaram wrote. “We would closely observe whether the CPI(Maoist) will maintain the position of “no violence” for 72 hours. It goes without saying that, during the said period of 72 hours, the security forces will not conduct any operations against the CPI(Maoist). It is our hope that talks will begin during [that] period.”

The letter was significant because it was the first time the government had shown its willingness for a mutual halt of violence, meeting a key demand of the Maoists. In a signed response dated May 31, Azad also indicated his party’s willingness for talks. “Our Party desires peace sincerely in the interests of the lakhs of adivasis who are being cruelly crushed,” he said. He mocked Chidambaram’s 72-hour figure as a joke. “If the government is serious it should speak in terms of mutual ceasefire, for a longer period of time, and spell out the government’s stand on fulfilling the minimum requisites like release of leaders and lifting the ban on the CPI (Maoist).” Azad also asked the government to “stop its efforts to escalate the war, including the measure of calling back all the paramilitary forces deployed in war zones.”

Agnivesh relayed the letter to Chidambaram. On the basis of his discussion with the home minister, Agnivesh wrote a third letter to Azad on June 26 clarifying questions raised by the Maoists. The third letter clarified that Chidambaram’s insistence on 72 hours did not mean that ceasefire would only last for three days. Rather, Chidambaram wanted a specific date from which 72 hours of “mutual cessation of hostilities” would begin. During that period, he would invite the Maoists for talks and initiate a mutual ceasefire agreement.

Agnivesh’s third letter asked the Maoists for the most operative part of the process — a date from which the 72 hours of no violence would commence. Had Azad reached his destination, perhaps that date of peace would be on its way to New Delhi.

Prachanda speaks against Operation Green Hunt

Hindustan Times

Nepali Maoists have come out in support of their Indian comrades and declared their opposition to the security operations against them. Speaking over telephone, Nepali Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, told Hindustan Times:

“This is the first time we are publicly saying that we oppose state repression the so-called Operation Greenhunt in India. The problems of the day can be solved only through dialogue and negotiations, not through the use of force.”

Indian Maoists are ideologically the same as their Nepali counterparts, he said, adding: “Politically we are the same, although we have differences on certain issues.”

Admitting that the Nepali Maoists had a “relationship” with the CPI(Maoist) when the former was underground, he said the ties ended when his party decided to come out “in the open and contest elections”.

Prachanda denied that the 11-member Nepali Maoist team that left for China on Thursday had any deeper implication. “This is not a political visit. It is a visit to study ‘historical and cultural’ ties between Nepal and China. We desire good relations with both India and China.”

But the timing of Prachanda’s statement has raised eyebrows. “His declaration of support is related to internal political developments in Nepal,” former RAW official B. Raman said

India: The Poverty of the Intellectual mind and the Enlightened mind of the Adivasi - the last article from Azad

This is a rejoinder the slain CPI (Maoist) spokesperson had penned in response to B.G. Verghese’s article in Outlook

Chemkuri Azad Rajkumar

Reading B.G. Verghese’s article Daylight at the Thousand-Star Hotel in Outlook (May 3), one is stunned by the abysmal poverty of thought and colonial mindset of this renowned intellectual. How is it that the illiterate, seemingly uncivilised, backward, half-naked adivasi thinks, analyses and acts a lot better than an established, well-read, highly qualified intellectual like Verghese?
The history of freedom in our country presents innumerable such contrasts: of the highly educated white man, with his vast, in-depth knowledge of the world and the natural and social sciences, glorifying the British raj as a regime with a civilising mission; and the half-naked, illiterate Indian who craved for freedom and independence. To justify the oppression of their subjects in the colonies, the “educated” colonial intellectuals invented phrases such as “white man’s burden”, “civilising mission” et al. The freedom fighter, however, was not impressed by the ‘development’ the British colonialists brought to India through their railways, roads, communication networks, plantations, mines etc.

Verghese is a typical example of the self-proclaimed civilisers of modern-day India, akin to the white ‘civilisers’ of yesteryear, who would have been the pride of a Rudyard Kipling. He reveals this colonial mindset by vehemently arguing in favour of the civilising mission of the corporate sharks and the Indian State to transform the poor, backward adivasis from savages into civilised people through a ‘development’ that destroys people’s economy, social life, culture and all human values. Ironically, ignoramuses like him imagine that adivasis are the casualties of non-development.

The corporate vultures and their police servants have said, through Verghese, what they think of a dialogue with the Maoists. Citing from my interview in The Hindu, Verghese gives his own interpretation to my proposal for talks. He derides my statement that “talks will give some respite to the people who are oppressed and suppressed under the jackboots of the Indian State...” and interprets this as “respite for the oppressed (cadres)”. Such is the wishful imagination, cynicism, trivialisation and vulgarisation of a life-and-death question confronting millions of hapless people!

Verghese also thinks that lifting the ban on our party, release of jailed leaders for the purpose of participating in talks, and respite for the oppressed are unreasonable preconditions. Would anyone, except Verghese and other war-hungry hawks, imagine that the Maoists had placed respite as a precondition? We had only explained why we think a ceasefire is necessary to give respite to the oppressed and suppressed people in the war-torn zones.

In any war, there can be several periods of peace depending on many factors such as natural calamities which affect a significant chunk of the population and need relative peace for reconstruction and assistance to the victims; war of aggression by another country which calls for the united resistance of one and all; war fatigue among the people and even the belligerents; chronic famine conditions for a sizeable proportion of the people arising basically out of prolonged periods of war; the needs of either side for a respite for various reasons, and so on. However, it is only when both sides in the war feel the need for peace that a mutual ceasefire and a situation for initiating a dialogue will arise.

Verghese does not speak like an impartial observer but betrays his conscious motive of tarnishing the Maoists with his ideologically bankrupt rhetoric. His inherent bias is clear from several of his remarks, such as his accusation that the Maoists pose like “Robin Hoods but rule by fear and authoritarian command over cowed camp-followers”. He further says: “Many comrades have broken rank in disgust over the Maoists’ brutality and hubris.” Can he cite any authentic source for his accusation, leaving out the disinformation campaign unleashed by the reactionary rulers and their police-intelligence wings? How many comrades have broken rank in disgust over our “brutality and hubris”? We challenge him to furnish a list.

For a common man who sees nothing but a culture of fear and authoritarianism everywhere, in virtually every party led by one or two authoritarian individuals whether it be Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, L.K. Advani, M. Karunanidhi, Y.S.R. Reddy, Chandrababu Naidu, Jyoti Basu and so on, it is difficult to imagine genuine democracy and mutual trust that is the hallmark of a proletarian party like ours. Maoists have never considered themselves Robin Hoods and have even undertaken deep reviews of how the cult of the individual is part of the bourgeois culture, and how the people are the real heroes. Besides a strong ideological-political unity, the Maoists are marked by their conscious effort to promote collective functioning right from the central committee to the mass organisation committees, which is one reason why every attempt to split the party has failed right from the time of K.G. Sathya Murthy and Kondapalli Seetharamayya in erstwhile PW or Bharath and Badal in erstwhile MCCI.

One is also dumbstruck to hear Verghese chide Arundhati Roy saying: “Why scoff at a cancer hospital built near Raipur by Vedanta, the aluminium corporate, or the proposed Vedanta University in coastal Orissa? Are these by definition all wicked enterprises?” He then goes on to repeat Ms Roy’s observations on the pathetic health conditions and lack of any healthcare in Dandakaranya and asks: “So where do we begin? By burning down the Vedanta hospital?”Should one think it is because of his innocence or because of his false consciousness derived from the non-stop propaganda by the corporate sharks that Verghese poses such a foolish question? Vedanta might appear as a benevolent enterprise to Verghese, but life has taught the adivasis what it stands for. Even as Verghese comes forth as an apologist for the worst perpetrators of crimes against humanity, we find organisations like the Church of England, and several shareholders in Vedanta exhibiting better rationale by withdrawing their shares from Vedanta. Even the colonialists seem more humane and rational than the slavish intellectuals in their former colonies! Moreover, even the Supreme Court of India and the environment ministry have raised objections to the proposed Vedanta University and mining venture. Only a Chidambaram, who served as a member of its board of directors until 2004, and Verghese, with his “compassionate” colonial mindset of “civilising” the backward people, can stand up in support of vultures like Vedanta, Tata, POSCO, Jindal....

Verghese’s colonial mindset is at its best when he says: “Yes, there will be land acquisition and displacement—that is the story of civilisation; but there will also be resettlement, compensation and training for new vocations.” The adivasis and poor peasants in our country can never imagine how people like Verghese can distort history so shamelessly. Ask the 60 million people who have been displaced by the land acquisition of the “civilisers”. How and why such barbarism is called the story of civilisation, only Verghese knows best. To convince the sceptics, he further says: “Admittedly, this (resettlement, compensation) has not always been done wisely or well. But times are changing. New legal frameworks, better norms, closer monitoring, improved R&R and livelihood packages have continuously been put in place.”

Verghese here comes out as an incarnation of the typical Indian bureaucrat, like a G.K. Pillai. All intellectual pretence is shed here and he reveals himself as a loyal servant of the Indian comprador sharks. So why is all this hullabaloo about land acquisition and displacement being raked up by people like Arundhati Roy and others?

Verghese states his imagined virtues of the corporates without a sense of shame: “There is much virtue in translating Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship in a new and evolving idiom of csr to which corporates, the state and courts have variously given expression. The new deals being worked out by the POSCOs, Vedantas, Tatas, Mittals and others are greatly in advance of what was on offer even five years ago.” What Verghese is trying to say is let the corporates enjoy the mineral wealth and loot the country at will as long as they throw some crumbs as charity or ‘social responsibility’ to the poor, helpless, wretched beings who are thrown out of their homes and lands. Why doesn’t Verghese visit Balitutha, Dhinkia and Nuagaon in Jagatsinghpur district of Orissa and convince the anti-POSCO agitators to understand the new paradise that is being built for them by his corporate bosses? Or visit Baligotha, Chandia and Baragadia in Kalinganagar to make the “backward” adivasis protesting against the Tata Steel project see reason? After centuries of rapacious plunder by capitalist gangs that has led to the monopoly control of the world’s resources by a handful of corporations, Verghese can actually call for a trusteeship by corporates!

Another interesting instance where Verghese distorts facts is in the growth in tribal populations. In order to disprove Arundhati Roy’s apprehension about the probable genocide of tribals due to the war waged by the Indian State, Verghese asserts that “the tribal population of India was 19.1 million in 1951, rose to 84.3 mn according to the 2001 census and is estimated to be just short of 100 mn (8.1 per cent of the population) today.” Had he exerted a little effort, he would have known that the seemingly huge growth in the population figures of scheduled tribes in India is not because of an increase in the population of the tribes but due to the inclusion of several hitherto non-tribals in the ST category.

Verghese’s attitude towards the occupation of schools by the security forces is also criminally casual. He says: “Yes, schools in Naxal-affected areas are often occupied by security forces, not to prevent education but because schooling and other developmental activities, such as they are, have come to a halt.” Even worse, he accuses the Maoists of opposing schools and of being interested only in “agitprop centres to indoctrinate the young”. This reveals the extent of indoctrination this intellectual mind has been subjected to by the omnipotent imperialist media and the servile education system he is a product of. He goes on to say, “Development and connectivity threaten them. Hence they destroy roads, culverts, bridges. Hence the wanton attacks on railway and highway projects that would, if completed, connect and open up remote, backward areas. If education, health services, roads, irrigation, markets and communications are provided and poverty rolled back, the Maoists would be out of business.”Throughout his article, Verghese acts as an apologist for the reactionary deeds of the rulers; and at times his language is indistinguishable from that of Chidambaram. For instance, Chidambaram too said at JNU recently: “Maoists want to ensure the tribals were inaccessible and incommunicado (from mainstream) by blowing up buildings, railway tracks and targeting developmental projects. Are they trying to create an archaeological museum in the tribal areas by keeping the tribals away from development?”

While one can understand Chidambaram, as a loyal representative of the corporate sharks, uttering such trash, it’s really amusing to see intellectuals like Verghese imagining such things and drawing fantastic and subjective conclusions. On several occasions, we have clarified these questions. We have explained why we are targeting roads, bridges etc. Let alone opposing, our party has even led people’s struggles demanding the setting up of schools, appointment of teachers, health services, markets, irrigation and so on. In fact, seeing the utter apathy of the rulers, we ourselves have set up schools, dug wells and tanks to develop irrigation and increase productivity and yields of crops, organised cooperatives, trained local doctors, built roads and bridges deep inside the forest.

Why would Maoists be threatened by development and connectivity? If Verghese and his brand of intellectuals think that concrete roads are the barometer of development, they are living in a fool’s paradise. He falls prey to the ruling class scheme of development that displaces the adivasis and destroys their lives, lands and cultures. He says roads and railways open up remote backward areas. For whom? For the people or for a handful of mining and industrial companies, forest contractors and police tormentors who make adivasi lives a veritable hell?

Even more amusing is Verghese’s allegation that the Maoists are working only among the adivasis and that they will be “out of business” once the adivasi areas become developed. He does not even know the programme of the Maoists, which is to mobilise the vast majority of the suffering people throughout the country. Can the Maoists seize power and establish the “totalitarian state” Verghese is talking of without organising the non-adivasi majority living in the advanced regions of the country?

Verghese refers to the Salwa Judum as a savage blot but concludes that “strategic hamleting” was confined to one district and prevented from being extended to any other district, even in Chhattisgarh. But who prevented it and how, he prefers to be silent on. It has been the heroic resistance, armed and unarmed, by the adivasi masses led by the Maoists since the end of 2005 that has upset the devious plans of the reactionary rulers to uproot the entire adivasi population. He doesn’t say that Salwa Judum was defeated and prevented from creating havoc in newer areas because the Maoists and the adivasi masses had dealt a death blow to this state-sponsored terrorist gang by carrying out daring militant offensives such as in Ranibodili and Errabore; that the rulers had never given up their fond wish to drive the entire adivasi population into strategic hamlets; and that Salwa Judum Part II unleashed by the Sonia-Manmohan-Chidambaram gang is precisely to achieve that unfinished goal.

Lastly, Herr Verghese fondly hopes: “The Maoists will fade away, democratic India and the Constitution will prevail, despite the time it takes and the pain involved.” If the Maoists fade away by the superiority of your development model, then why are the advocates of your development keen on brutally suppressing the Maoists and the adivasis they are leading? In which part of India is the Constitution prevailing, Mr Verghese? In Dantewada, Bijapur, Kanker, Narayanpur, Rajnandgaon? In Jharkhand, Orissa? In Lalgarh, Jangalmahal? In the Kashmir Valley? Manipur? Where was your Constitution hiding for 25 long years after thousand of Sikhs where massacred? When thousands of Muslims were decimated? When lakhs of peasants are compelled to commit suicides? When thousands of people are murdered by state-sponsored Salwa Judum gangs? When adivasi women are gangraped? When people are simply abducted by uniformed goons? Your Constitution is a piece of paper that does not even have the value of a toilet paper for the vast majority of the Indian people.

Finally, this comment by Verghese—“People’s Tribunals keep mouthing yesterday’s tired slogans.... They do not see tomorrow; maybe they fear it”—applies more to people like him. He keeps mouthing yesterday’s outdated, monotonous slogans like “end of history”, “there-is-no-alternative”, “demise of Communism”, “totalitarian state”, and so on. He does not see tomorrow. He even fears it. The spectre of Communism sends shivers down his spine

Maoists want peace: Swami Agnivesh

Social Activist Swami Agnivesh, the interlocutor appointed by Home Minister P Chidambaram for talks with the CPI (Maoist), is at a loss. He has not been able to sleep ever since Maoist leader Azad’s death.

Azad’s letter to Swamiji was replete with optimism and promise towards ending violence. But before that could happen, Azad was killed by the Andhra police in an alleged ‘encounter’. Swamiji is unable to shrug off some accountability as he feels responsible, being the one to have played the pivotal role in trying to bring the Maoists to the talk table.

Disappointed at the Home Minister’s rejection of his demand of conducting a probe into Azad’s killing, but not utterly hopeless about the progress of the talks, Swami Agnivesh in an exclusive interview with Smita Mishra of Zeenews.com speaks about how the talks had reached a positive ground, what happened to Azad and what prospects lie ahead in bringing peace to the Naxal ravaged land.

What is your opinion regarding the killing of Maoist leader Azad?

Since I am part of the peace talks, I will not give an opinion. But there is no denying the fact that the death of Azad occurred under very mysterious circumstances. Most people and Maoists say that he was murdered after being captured by the Andhra police. The police staged a fake encounter to cover up their act.

When I met Chidambaram recently, I told him that the death of Azad has filled people with doubt regarding the real intensions of the government. Killing of a man who was ready for peace has tarnished the government’s image. Hence he should conduct an enquiry into the killing of Azad. But the reply that I got was very unexpected and disappointing. He straightaway told me to ask Andhra government about it, as it is their responsibility.

What kind of discussions were you having with Azad? As per the discussions what were the views of the Maoists about the peace talks?

I got Chidambaram’s letter on 11the May. I sent them the letter and their first response came to me on 31st May. It was a two and a half page letter in which they had expressed their willingness for talks and had clearly mentioned that they do not want any violence.

They wanted removal of ban from them and also wanted to participate in the democratic process. They sounded very positive and hopeful in the letter.

When I discussed the contents of the letter with the Home Minister, he said that the Naxals have not given any dates…and I assured him that I would get one from them soon. But before the talks could move any further, this unfortunate incident happened.

The Maoists want to participate in democratic process…does that mean they want to fight elections?

No…no. They basically want to join the main stream and lead normal lives. They desire the redressal of their grievances in a constitutional way. They want their rights and issues to be addressed peacefully and lawfully.

Did the Maoists ever regret the loss of human lives in their attacks, be it civilian or military?

Yes, they have. They kept repeating in their letter that they do not want to kill. Besides this, whenever they have indulged in mindless killing, they have realized it. Kishenji had profusely apologized after Jnaneshwari train mishap, saying that it was not they who did it, demanding suitable compensation for the victims. In fact another leader Godsa Usendi had even written a long letter of the government regretting the loss of lives in one similar act of violence in Chhattishgarh.

They have said this several times that they do not want to kill innocent people and they do not even want to kill the police personnel, unless they hunt for them or carry search operations in their area.

But I do not support the Maoists in this. I consider it absolutely wrong and condemnable. You cannot bring about revolution at gunpoint.

What are the exact demands of the Maoists from the Government?

First of all, they want ceasefire from both the sides. The Home Minister has agreed to this demand but has asked them to give a prior notice of 8-10 days.

In fact the Home Minister has never asked them to give up arms. But his demand for this notice period is quite fair as it will take time to communicate this to the state and regional police.

They have expressed desire for peaceful solution of issues like human rights violation of the adivasis (tribals), restoration of their land rights etc.

Do you think the government actually has any plan vis-a-vis the Maoist problem?

Very apt question, very rightly asked…because even I am in deep contemplation regarding this. Sometimes I do feel inclined to doubt the government’s intensions. The talks were progressing smoothly, the Maoists were also coming around. And then Azad was killed and now after hearing Chidambaram’s reply on having a probe into his killing, I am actually confused. I feel morally responsible to some extent.

Do you support evicting Maoists from their strongholds, so that development can reach there?

What is the need to evict them for developing their land? They never are against development of any sort. After all what do they demand? A rightful ownership of their own lands and its assets! Why should development be done at the cost of the poor. For how long will the government be doing this? And what actually happens to these evicted people, do you really know? The Bhakhra Dam was constructed in 1907 and people still have not been given proper compensation. Their children and grand children are still fighting cases.

Where did the displaced people of Tehri and Narmada go? What happened in Bhilai, Rourkela and Bokaro, are you aware? Development should not be done at the cost of the locals. It should be for the locals.

Won’t it be fair to use armed forces against an armed rebellion?

Common people may hold this opinion, but not if you know the problem in its depth. It is true that violence angers people and they want that the Maoists should be crushed with an iron hand. But I am a follower of Gandhiji and believe that peace is the only lasting and true solution. You can crush someone with violence, but you cannot crush his seething discontent. So why not find an answer to the root of the problem.

Besides, police is for arresting and not killing. They could have killed Kasab. But why was he caught and is now being tried?

What according to you is the solution to the Naxal problem?

The only solution is peace and development. It is my sincere appeal to the Maoists and the government not to back out from the journey of peace that we had just begun. We have already lost many lives and there is no point in losing more.

After Azad what is the status of talks with Maoists?

No doubt the death of Azad has marred the entire peace process. But the picture is still not completely gloomy. After Azad, we had sent feelers and the Maoists are not averse to holding peace talks even now. The 45-hours bandh called by them was more or less peaceful except a few sporadic instances of violence. This is enough to indicate that they can still be brought around if only the government makes sincere and honest efforts.

It is not an encounter at all!! It is a cold blooded murder by AP Police!!

ICAWPI

COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MAOIST)

CENTRAL COMMITTEE

North Regional Bureau

Press statement

3rd July, 2010

It is not an encounter at all!! It is a cold blooded murder by AP Police!!

Red Salutes to Martyrs com. Azad (Cherukuri Rajkumar) and com. Hem Pandey (Jitender)!!

Let us avenge the killings of the beloved comrades by the khaki clad fascist gangs of AP government!!

Azad was arrested at Nagpur on July 1st along with com. Hem Pandey

On June 1st, the notorious Andhra Pradesh Special Branch Police for its abductions and cold blooded murders, have arrested com. Azad, Polite Bureau member and Spokesperson of CPI (Maoist), and com. Hem Pandey, a zonal committee level comrade in Nagpur city around 11′o clock when they went to meet a comrade who was supposed to receive them from Dandakarnaya zone. Com. Azad reached Nagpur around 10 am on the fateful day along with com. Hem Pandey, after travelling from long distance. With specific information, the lawless goons of AP SIB abducted them, perhaps flown them in a helicopter, to Adilabad jungles near Maharashtra border and killed them point block and in cold blood.

We pay our red homage to our beloved comrades and vow to take vengeance of these killers.

Life of com. Azad

Comrade Azad is one of the senior most party leaders of CPI (Maoist). He was born in Krishna district of AP, in a well to do family. He did his school education in Sainik School, at Korukonda of the present Vizianagaram District. Com. Surapuneni Janardhan, a legendary comrade of the student movement brought com. Raj Kumar into RSU in 1974. A brilliant student at the Regional Engineering College, which became famous as Radical Engineering College in those days, he finished his Mtech in Chemical Engineering and moved to Vishakhapatnam as per the Party direction. He was the second president of AP Radical Students Union till 1984. He was the catalyst behind many all Andhra wide student agitations and peoples movements in that period. He became the district committee member of vizag unit of the CPI (ML) (PW). He moved length and breadth of India, to organize the Seminar on Nationality question held in Madras (now Chennai) in 1981. He was shifted to Karnataka in 1982 and com. Azad was one of the founder members of the Karnataka Party and worked as the secretary of the Karnataka State Committee. He was taken into CC, after the Central Plenum in 1990. He was the elected member of CC in the All India conference in 1995 and since then he served in CC and PB. He continued in those posts after the formation of CPI Maoist too in 2004. He has been the spokes person of the CC since then.

Known for his simple life and hard work; voracious reading and brilliant analyses of situations, crystal clear articulation and sharp logic, and fine organizational skills, he contributed widely to the revolutionary movement in many spheres. He wrote profusely to the People’s March, Peoples war (theoretical organ of the CPI (Maoist), and to the Maoist Information Bulletin. He wrote a fine critique of the intellectuals of AP, who got disillusioned and lost faith in revolutionary movement after the 1990 events of collapse of soviet imperialism and its satellite regimes.

In his death, the Indian revolutionary movement lost an exemplary comrade and a shining star, who served the movement more than three and half decades.

Just before his last journey, he received questions for interview from a well known magazine. He replied that he was in the journey and would send the answers as early as possible.

It is not Sukhdev, but com. Hem Pandey of Uttarakhand who was killed by APSIB

Com. Hem Pandey, 30, hailed from a nearby village of Pithoragarh town of Uttarakhand State. He did his MA history in Nainital University and got himself registered in PhD. While he was in college, he was active member of AISA, and slowly realizing he pseudo revolutionary character of AISA politics, he moved to the radical groups, later in 2001 he joined the then CPI (ML) (PW). He organized peasantry in the mountainous villages in Almora district, taking up umpteen numbers of issues of peasantry, including the problems arose out of Binsar Sanctuary. Soft-spoken, bespectacled, lean and energetic Com. Hem won the love of people of that region. He was moved into more important works in 2005. He had done his new assignments with patience and endurance. His appetite for learning new things, reading more and more, and zeal for penning his ideas are things for the emulation for all the revolutionaries. He has written various articles to newsmagazines under various pen names. We request the civil rights organisations to demand the A P police to send the body of com. Hem Pandey to his bereaved mother who is in Haldwani, Uttarakhand state, who is his sole surviving parent.

APSIB- the Indian avatar of Mossad

The Andhra Pradesh Special Intelligence Bureau, which has been partially trained partially by the Mossad, has acquired the notoriety of its master trainer-Mossad, in India. It has been moving across the state borders, and conducting abductions and cold blooded murders with impunity. This is all happening with clear blessings of Manmohan- Sonia and Chidambaram. This fascist gang has established its tentacles all over India, resorting the killings of revolutionaries, scoffing at the recent AP high court judgement that all encounters are to be first booked as murders under IPC 302, Ultimaely these killers will be taken to task by the revolutionary masses.

Will Chidambaram expect CPI (Maoist) to sit for talks with his blood on his hands of com. Azad and com. Hem Pandey?

CPI (Maoist) never contested or raised any hue and cry in the case of real encounters. The AP Police is resorting to globbeian lies, not believed even by gullible. CPI (Maoist) stood for truth and accountability to the people, and always stated facts. There is no such programme of Azad going to Sarkepally forest of Adilabad. Azad was going to discuss with our comrades, inter alia, the concrete proposals of well meaning people like Swamy Agnivesh about particular dates for the mutual cease fire. He was a carrying the confidential letter of Swamy Agnivesh written to Azad dated- 26th June 2010. Will Chidambaram expect CPI (Maoist) to sit for talks with his blood on his hands of com. Azad and com. Hem Pandey? He calls repeatedly to us to abjure violence? Killing the unarmed comrades by AP Police with your blessings – is it not like devils chanting scriptures?

White lies by AP Police

When there is no movement and organization in Adilabad, what is the necessity of Azad going to Adilabad? That the police found AK47 is again white lie. He alighted from a train around 10 am along with com. Hem Pandey in Nagpur Station, and was caught by the APSIB unarmed. Is the government following its own constitution of article 21? Is the government following kernel of the Geneva Convention that “defenceless persons” should not be harmed? Is it not utter hypocrisy and hoax that on one hand the government is placing the prevention of torture bill and the police every minute resorting to the torture of the detained? It is a concocted story of encounter repeated ad nauseum, by the AP Police, churned out to the media umpteen times. The right life, guaranteed under the constitution is mocked and the right to be produced within 24 hours of the arrest is metamorphasized into killing within 24hours of arrest, so that there is no scope for any redressal by their near and dear.

We appeal to the civil rights organizations, democrats, patriots to raise to raise to the occasion thoroughly investigate this fake encounter as an example of extra judicial killing that are happening in scores in this country and bring out the truth before the people.

Ajay,

Spokes Person,

CPI (Maoist)

'Villagers heard no gunshots at night'

The Times Of India

SARKEPALLI (ADILABAD): The encounter site amid tall bamboo plants and covered with boulders and stones at Sarkepalli village in Jogapur forests in Wankhidi mandal hardly resembled a place where an alleged exchange of fire took place for three hours in the late hours of Thursday. Curiously enough, none in the surrounding villages heard any gunshots being fired in the still of the night.

“We did not hear any sound of firing between 10 pm and 2 am,” a villager said. Though the district police chief claimed there were 20-25 persons on each side exchanging fire, not a single policeman was injured. Local people said SIB personnel entered the village around 8 pm. Raising doubts, surrendered woman naxal Kavitakka said a top leader like Azad is always surrounded by a security ring of 60-70 Maoist cadre.

Insiders allege Azad was picked up from Nagpur on Thursday morning and later taken to an undisclosed destination where he was interrogated.

“Initially, he was to be taken to Karimnagar. But because of heavy rain, SIB sleuths changed plans and moved towards Adilabad Jogapur forests,” sources said. The travel time from Nagpur to Jogapur village is around 5 hours, it is learnt.

“Azad was bumped off in cold blood. He was unarmed,” Katta Ramachandra Reddy alias Gudsa Usendi, spokesman of Dandakaranya SZC, said. He said the Maoist party would regroup soon.

“The void cannot be filled easily. Though it is a huge loss for us, Union home minister P Chidamabaram cannot destroy us with these fake encounters,” he said on phone. He said they lost contact with Azad around 10.30 am on Thursday. Azad was to meet a courier in Nagpur and then head towards Dandakaranya when he was allegedly picked up by SIB sleuths.

‘Slain Maoist leader Azad was picked up by sleuths in Nagpur

Jul 3, 2010, 04.40am, The Times of India

HYDERABAD/ADILABAD: Maoists spokesperson Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad, who was killed in an alleged encounter, was reportedly picked up by SIB sleuths at Sitabardhi locality in Nagpur on Thursday around 11 am when he came to meet a courier. “Azad was supposed to go with the courier to Dandakaranya region where he was to take classes for the cadre from Friday,’’ Katta Ramachandra Reddy alias Gudsa Usendi, Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee official spokesman said.

However, the district police in Adilabad differ. “Acting on a tip-off that a group of 20-25 Maoists were heading to Adilabad from Maharashtra, we sent a police team for search operations in Wankhidi area. They came across the reds around 10.30 pm on Thursday,’’ Adilabad SP P Pramod Kumar said.

The rebels fired at the police party, which retaliated. The exchange of fire continued till 2 am. “It was early in the morning we recovered two bodies. A surrendered Maoist Sakkubai identified one of the two killed as Azad,’’ Kagaznagar DSP Sashidhar said.

Meanwhile, the AP High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by Maoist sympathizer and Virasam leader Varavara Rao who demanded Azad’s body be brought to Hyderabad and a postmortem done at Osmania hospital. Alleging that Azad was killed in a fake encounter, Varavara Rao said: “After tracking Azad in Nagpur, the police took him to the forests in Adilabad and killed him.’’

Azad was allegedly involved in the killing of Congress MLA Narsi Reddy in Narayanpet in Mahbubnagar on Aug 15, 2005, which led to re-imposition of the ban on the Maoists in AP.

CPI (Maoist) PB Member Azad Killed in fake encounter

This account from the bourgeois newspaper The Hindu contains the government account , but indicates that some key aspects of the account are contested

ADILABAD/HYDERABAD, July 2, 2010

S. Harpal SIngh

K. Srinivas Reddy

The Andhra Pradesh police on Friday said it had shot dead top naxalite Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad, along with an unidentified cohort, in an exchange of fire in Adilabad district, close to the State’s border with Maharashtra.

The death of Azad, a member and spokesman of the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) and a member of the Polit Bureau, has dealt a big blow to the Maoist movement in India. He was an ideologue who had specialised in field-craft as well.

Even as some sources questioned the encounter theory, the police said the gunfight lasted more than three hours. An AK-47 assault rifle, a pistol and two kitbags were found at the scene.

The alleged encounter took place on a 500-metre-high hillock 3 km from the nearest motorable road. With the monsoon having set in, the forest had become lush green, and the tribals had started farming operations. Some of them were tilling the land, but none would speak to The Hindu about the encounter.

Azad, around 58 years old, hailed from Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh. He went underground in 1979. He was arrested in 1975 and 1978 and jumped bail. He carried a reward of Rs. 12 lakh on his head.

He had apparently been tasked with reviving the Maoist movement in Andhra Pradesh. He was a member of the Urban Sub-Committee (USCO) and was in charge of the South Western Regional Bureau (SWRB) of Maoists, which coordinates the movement in Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Police sources familiar with the Maoists’ pattern of activity said Friday’s encounter deaths could lead to reprisal attacks in Maoist strongholds in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal. They, however, said the death of Azad had broken the aura of invincibility that the Maoists were seeking to create by means of their recent brutal strikes against the security forces.

Adilabad Superintendent of Police P. Promod Kumar told journalists that the police had launched combing operations following intelligence inputs that a team of Maoists had moved into the forests from Maharashtra. One of the police teams encountered a group of 25 to 30 rebels in the hilly terrain near Sarkepally, a village 15 km from the border with Maharashtra.

“Our team… cautioned them to surrender, but it came under fire, forcing it to retaliate,” the officer said.

ULPA against Political Struggle: Kerala Government’s new weapon for repression.

janakeeya manushyavakasa prasthanam

‘ULPA against Political Struggle:

Kerala Government’s new weapon for repression.

‘Porattam’ State President Advocate P.J. Manuel, ‘Viplava Stree vadi Prasthanam’ Convenor V.C. Jenny and 8 other political activists belonging to Porattam are in jail for the last one month. They were arrested on 23.5.2010 after their symbolic seizure of ‘Reliance Retails Pvt. Ltd.’ functioning in Central Warehousing Corporation Godown in Kuriachira, Trissur. What prompted Porattam in conducting the Symbolic Seizure was the government policy of leasing out public Godowns to monopolies like Reliance which inevitably leads to the price hike of necessaries.

Police arrested them and a criminal case was registered against them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 506(ii) r/w 149 I.P.C. Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 (P.D.P.P.) and under Sections 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (ULPA).

Because of the incorporation of Section 10 and 13 of ULPA courts denied bail to the ‘Porattam’ activists. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 is one of the notorious enactment, used by the Central Government as well as by various State Governments to crush the people’s movements and detain activists all over India. World famous human rights activist Dr. Binayak Sen was booked under this Act and he had to remain in Jail for 2 years. In Kerala Peoples March Editor P.Govindankutty was booked under this Act . After the 26/11 Mumbai incident Central Government amended this Act and incorporated relevant provisions of POTA.

Section 10 of ULPA provides for penalty for being a member of an unlawful association. To attract this section the association in which the accused is member must be declared as an unlawful association. The procedure for declaring an association as unlawful is stated in Section 3 of ULPA. ‘Porattam’ is not declared as an unlawful association according to the law so far.

Section 13 provides punishment for unlawful activity. ‘What is an unlawful activity’ is defined in Section 2(o) of ULPA. According to Section 2(o) an activity to become unlawful it must be intended to cause Cession and Secession, or it must challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India or it must cause disaffection towards India. According to the state the allegation against the Porattam activists is that they attacked Reliance godown and broken computer, telephone Cabin glasses, etc. Even if the police version is admitted no offence under Section 13 will lie against the Porattam activists as there struggle is against government policy causing price hike.

A symbolic strike against the Reliance disturbed the so-called Left Government led by CPI(M) very much. Due to the anxiety to book Porattam activists under the ULPA and put them behind the bars, the state even ignored relevant provisions of the Act itself.

This may be the 1^st time in our state that ULPA is used against a political struggle. This is a clear violation of human rights and abuse ofState power. It is a well calculated move from the state to shut up the dissenting voices. This new era of ‘Terrorism’ has given the state the advantage of putting the dissenting, criticizing voices under the constant suspicion. We are hearing the ministers making irresponsible statements that terrorists are behind the people’s struggle emerging in Kerala nowadays. Booking Porattam activists under ULPA points towards a dangerous future in which all the tongues speaking for the people will be cut down and the dissenting voices will be repressed.

We appeal to the progressive organizations and human rights groups to raise voice against this injustice !!!

Following is the comment of famous criminal Lawyer K.S.Madhusoodanan on this matter.

Naked Human Rights Violation

Adv. K.S.Madhusoodanan

The crime registered against Adv.P.J.Manual and 9 others alleging offence under s.3(1) of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act (PDPP) and section 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (ULPA) are atrocious and naked violation of all human rights. As a matter of fact they were arrested while holding procession against rocketing price hike arise out of destroying the public distribution system.

The core question is how Relience Retails limited running at the Central WareHousing Corporation Godown, Kuriachira can be treated as public property under the P.D.P.P Act and an unlawful activity under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act?

S.3 of PDPP Act will attract only the property alleged to be destroyed is owned or in possession of either the central government or the state government

To come under s.10 of the ULPA , the assailants should be members of unlawful association . Porattam is not an unlawful association.

To come within the purview of s.13 of ULPA one should commit unlawful activity defined in s.2 (o) thereof , which deals eulogize secession or cession , disturb the sovereignty and integrity of India etc. Commiting mischief at reliance retail shop within no way characterised as distrubtion of sovereignty and integrity of India as reliance cannot equated as India..

The Trophies Of Operation Green Hunt

(Security personnel with the body of a suspected female Maoist after the June 16 encounter in the Ranjha forests near Lalgarh)

OutLook Magazine India.

The author of this article Nandini Sundar is also the author of Subalterns and Sovereigns: An Anthropological History of Bastar 1854-2006.

If the security forces can treat dead women like hunting trophies, not only trussing their bodies to poles, but taking pride in displaying their kill, is it surprising that their behaviour towards the living is so atrocious?

"After every deadly attack by the Maoists, ‘civil society actors’ are summoned by TV channels to condemn the incident, substituting moral indignation for news analysis. And yet, the same media is strangely silent on police or paramilitary atrocities against civilians."

On June 9, The Hindu published stories of rapes in and around Chintalnar in Dantewada by special police officers (SPOs) of the Chhattisgarh government. To my knowledge, no one’s asked P. Chidambaram, Raman Singh or the Chhattisgarh DGP to condemn these incidents or even asked what they are going to do about it. These are people in positions of power, who are elected or paid to uphold the Constitution, and the ‘buck stops with them’, not with ordinary citizens.

If channels can run all-day programmes on justice for Ruchika Girhotra, why not for the adivasi girls who were raped and assaulted in and around Chintalnar between May 26-28? Is it because they are not middle class and their plight will not raise TRP ratings? Or because they are considered ‘collateral damage’ in the war between “India” and the “Maoists”—who, not being part of “India”, are presumably from outer space—that TV commentators advocate?

While rape is often described as a weapon of war, it is not uniformly practised, and indeed nothing distinguishes the two parties in a guerrilla war more than their attitude to rape. In her careful analysis of sexual violence during civil war, the political scientist Elizabeth Woods points out that while it was common in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, sexual assault was less frequent in El Salvador, Sri Lanka and Peru. In the latter cases, the vast majority of rapes were committed by the government or paramilitaries, this also being a primary reason why women were motivated to join the insurgents. The rebel armies—who carried out other violent acts, including the killing of civilians—almost never committed sexual violence, including against female combatants in their own ranks. In Mizoram, women recalling the regrouping and search operations of the 1960s described only rapes by Indian soldiers and none by the Mizo National Front. One said to me, “It is as if the vai(outsider) army was hungry for women.” Today, despite government claims that the Maoists sexually exploit young women, the distinction between insurgent and counter-insurgent is clear for the women of Dantewada. They are safe from one army (the PLGA) but not from the other (the Indian paramilitary and SPOs/police). And in any war to win hearts and minds (‘WHAM’), surely this is not an unimportant distinction.

After the 76 CRPF men were killed at Chintalnar, many in the media pointed to the complete lack of intelligence on the ambush. What kind of intelligence do they expect from villages from where young girls are picked up and kept as sexual slaves in Salwa Judum camps? In July ’08, I recorded two testimonies from the village of Mukram, right next to the site of the attack. These, along with several others, were submitted to the nhrc, which was investigating the situation on behalf of the Supreme Court, and to the National Commission for Women, but till date, nothing has come out of it. But this is how the testimony of Kawasi Lakhmi (all names of victims changed) went:

“I was four months pregnant and was visiting my parents’ house in June 2007 when Salwa Judum leaders and SPOs attacked my village. It was about 9 or 10 pm and I was sleeping when they surrounded my house. They beat up my parents and dragged me to the main road. From there, along with Hidme and Madvi Unga, a 20-year-old boy, I was taken to Jagargunda camp. There I was kept for a week and raped every night by different SPOs. I do not recognise the others, but I recognised Bhima aka Ramesh of Jonnaguda village and Somdu of Kunder village.

“We (the two girls) were kept locked up in one house and Unga was kept separately. We were given only a little food and not allowed out at all, except to relieve ourselves. My clothes fell apart in tatters and my jewellery was taken away. After a week, I was given a small cloth to cover myself. Unga was badly beaten and was ill for a long time. Hidme and I were also ill and could not work for two months. The Chintalnar police took money from our families for having saved us.”

The benevolent police of Chintalnar had told the girls’ families that they had sent a wireless message to Jagargunda camp and the girls were safe. In return for this, they had extracted Rs 1,500 from each family. The same SPOs appear in other testimonies, such as this one from Kottaguda:

“Around April ’07, Salwa Judum, SPOs, police officers and CRPF men came to our village. I was on my way to fill water while Kosi was at home at this time. The Judum and security forces caught us, called us Naxalites and forcibly took us to Jagargunda camp. There they kept us in a room where SPOs raped us several times during the next few weeks. We can recognise them and know some of them by name also because they are from nearby villages, like Bhima of Jonnaguda village, Somdu of Kunder village, Dasru of Millampalli, Nanda of Lakhapal village and Muka of Nagram village.”

Another common pattern that emerges is of gangrapes by SPOs on combing operations. For the young girls, who have so little to begin with, the loss of jewellery and clothes is an important part of the narrative. And yet their resilience in the face of horror is remarkable. A 17-year-old I met in Arlampalli village recounted:

“On July 29, ’07, I was breaking tora in the courtyard of my house when four SPOs came. I ran inside but they dragged me out and took me about one km away. There they tied my hands and feet and blindfolded me and all four gangraped me. They tore all my clothes and broke my jewellery. After that, I managed to escape on the pretext of drinking water and hid in a grain bin in someone’s house. I recognise three of the SPOs—Rajesh from Polampalli, Kiche Soma of Korrapad and Linga from Palamadgu. Even after this incident they came to my house and threatened me. I was too scared to report to the police and, anyway, what would have been the point? I was even too scared to go to the market for fear of being caught and raped again. After being beaten and raped, my body was badly swollen. I was also bitten by a snake while running away that day, but could not go to a doctor. I was treated with local medicine.”

Nothing brings out the hollowness of the government’s claim on WHAM more than its stand on sexual violence. Rapes cannot be justified as actions done in the line of duty. Unlike an encounter, there is no question of who fired first. Even if rogue police or armymen commit rapes, a concerned government can take steps to identify and punish the guilty. And yet, the record on this is abysmal, from Kashmir to Manipur to Chhattisgarh. In practice what emerges is that, rather than WHAM, the Indian government is following a ‘cost-benefit approach’ aimed at making the costs—including starvation, murder, torture and rape—far higher than any benefit the public might gain from supporting the guerrillas or remaining neutral.

In Dantewada, the police have bent over backwards to defend the SPOs and Salwa Judum leaders accused of rape. Take the case of Markami Budri, originally from Bhandarpadar village. In March ’09, she wrote to the Dantewada SP complaining that she had been raped by SPOs in Konta thana, who picked her up when she was on her way to a relative’s house. Among those she accused was one Soyam Mooka, Salwa Judum leader in Konta. Since the SP refused to file an fir, she and five other girls were helped by a local NGO to file a case in the lower court. Her first deposition was on June 16, a hearing which the police clearly had knowledge of. In the meantime, we had already filed her complaint with the Supreme Court. In a letter to the SC dated June 17—a day after her court deposition— the SP Dantewada wrote that “the police enquired about her”, and “nobody knows as to where she has gone away”. Further, the people he had enquired from, Salwa Judum leaders Boddu Raja, Soyam Mooka and Dinesh (the very people accused by her), claimed the charges were fabricated to malign them. On October 30, the Konta magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Soyam Mooka and the other accused. On December 10, the police declared they were all absconding. But less than a month later, on January 6, 2010, Soyam Mooka was seen under police protection leading a demonstration of the Ma Danteshwari Swabhimaan Manch (a new name for the Salwa Judum) against Medha Patkar and others in Dantewada town.

Once rapes become routine, what any responsible commander should be worried about is not so much the brutality of the other side, but the degeneration of his own. The victims will be not just the adivasi women of Dantewada or Lalgarh, but women from all the areas where the jawans come from. What do we want—an India at war with its women?

India Bans Documentary on Nepali Maoists

The Hindu, July 1

Censor board rejects film on Nepali Maoists

Citing the recent Maoist violence in some parts of the country, the censor board has refused to certify a documentary film which it feels justifies the ideology of the Maoist movement in Nepal.

“It does not have a single word about the Indian Maoist movement. I could have juxtaposed it, but I specifically did not do it,” says Anand Swaroop Verma, the frustrated producer of the film ‘Flames of the Snow: Revolution in Nepal’. “It is a chronological history of the Nepali people’s struggle against autocratic regimes.”

Central Board of Film Certification chairperson Sharmila Tagore says “India does defy definition,” indicating that something which justifies the Nepali movement may also reflect on its Indian counterparts. “Are there similarities in the ‘-ism’? Can parallels be drawn,” she asks. “I do feel that there sometimes has to be some restriction in view of peace, of law and order — the bigger picture.” She will personally view the film when the Reviewing Committee considers Mr. Verma’s appeal next week.

The board communicated its refusal to certify the film for public screening on June 14, after a four-month period during which consultations were held with the Ministry of External Affairs, a former Ambassador to Nepal who gave his objections in writing, and experts on Maoists and Nepal.

“In the opinion of the Examining Committee, any justification or romanticisation of the ideology of extremism or of violence, coercion, intimidation in achieving its objectives would not be in the public interest, particularly keeping in view the recent Maoist violence in some parts of the country,” said the board’s letter, which also quoted the Cinematograph Act’s provision that a film must not be “against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order …”

Given the sensitivity of the issue and the current Maoist violence, the Examining Committee may have erred on the side of caution. “There is no intention to muzzle anyone,” says Ms. Tagore. “The problem may have been that it wasn’t a balanced film. It may have been entirely pro-Maoist.”

Mr. Verma admits that while he has been writing about Nepal for the past 30 years, he is also a known Communist who has written extensively on Indian Maoists, though he is “critical of them on some issues.” However, he reiterates that his film simply tracks the history of Nepali people’s movements from the 1770s, including the peasant movement which produced the “first martyr” Lakhan Thapa, the Praja Parishad and Nepali Congress movements, and finally the Maoist armed struggle and the toppling of the monarchy, ending with the proclamation of the republic in 2008.

“It is not possible to make any film on Nepal’s history or politics without mentioning Maoists,” he says, adding the Maoists are a legitimate movement, with the largest number of seats in the Assembly. “India has even welcomed a Nepali Maoist Prime Minister,” he points out.

Mr. Verma has appealed the decision to the Revising Committee, and if the film is rejected again, he will take his case to the appellate tribunal and courts.