“Operation Green Hunt” — the Cultural War

BJP seeks ban on movie with Maoist theme

The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Orissa Wednesday sought a ban on an Oriya film with a Maoist theme and accused its producer and actors of gloryfying the Left-wing extremists’ ideology.
A delegation representing the state youth unit of the party met Governor M.C. Bhandare and submitted a memorandum demanding a ban on the release of ‘Swayamsidha’ in which two leaders of the state’s ruling Biju Janata Dal (BJD) would be seen in prominent roles.
‘At a time when the country is struggling to fight Maoism, how could a movie like this be allowed to be screened? We want a ban on the release of the film,’ Bibhuti Jena, president of the BJP’s state youth wing, told reporters.
However, the producer of the movie, Prabhat Ranjan Mallick, denied the charge and said ‘it (the movie) was an attempt to bring the so-called Naxals (Maoists) to the mainstream’.
Sidhant Mohapatra, a BJD member of the Lok Sabha, will be seen in the role of a Maoist leader in the film.
Mohapatra has acted in over 100 films, mostly in Oriya. ‘Swayamsidha’ would be his first release after entering the Lok Sabha last year.
Another BJD Lok Sabha member, Prasanna Patsani, will be seen in the movie in a special appearance.
‘Mohapatra doing a role in the movie has gone to the extent of justifying Maoism and has glorified them. He has endorsed their activities,’ Jena said.
The movie was shot in the dense forests of Koraput district, which is considered a Maoist hotbed.
Jena suspects that Maoists have helped the actors and the producer, a charge they denied.

The Killing of Azad

This article by Saroj Giri appeared on Sanhati.com

Azad as a political revolutionary provides us no liberal, left-liberal welfarist alibi to oppose his killing. So much so, it forces so many of us to quietly accept the inevitability of his getting killed – some might even privately say, well, the Maoists valorize martyrdom a bit too much, so can they really complain about Azad’s killing now?! Weren’t the Maoists, believers in violence, asking for it?!

I

If one has no illusions about state power and the reality of class interests, or the state’s willingness to hunt down its enemies, then the killing of Azad comes as no surprise. One can clearly see that if an ordinary adivasi, one among ‘the poorest of the poor’, is killed by the security forces, and more so if the killing is in a false encounter, then there is enough space for sympathy for someone who in the first place was forced to take up the gun due to his desperate situation of deprivation and need. But what if the Maoist is no poor adivasi but comes from a relatively well-off family and it was not deprivation but politics which drove him into revolutionary politics, into waging war against, or rather countering the war by, the ruling order and state? Isnt it then fine for the state to kill this revolutionary, a terrorist without mitigating circumstances?

If you are a poor adivasi who is killed, one can always say oh, he didn’t really mean to take up the gun, it was the other circumstances, his poverty and deprivation, which drove him into violence. But for someone like Azad – well, what ameliorating circumstances are you going to invoke? In the case of the ‘poor adivasi’, you can conveniently deny him agency in his being a Maoist and claim that the real agency, in its negative form, is of the government which in denying him certain rights pushed him to being a Maoist. So you can conveniently defend the poor adivasi ‘taking up the gun’ since you have in the first place deprived him of any real political will: you have denied the revolutionary in him, apart from illicitly reducing revolutionary politics to the gun. The argument then rebounds to holding the government responsible for abdicating its constitutional responsibilities in looking after the needs of the poor. The adivasi is denied specifically political grounds for being a Maoist, denied that he might have his understanding of say the class character of the Indian state or ruling order over and above the fulfillment of his basic needs and the fight for his ‘interests’. In this pathetic formulation, his/her being a Maoist follows from the state denying him certain rights, a by-product of the ill-thought policies of the state.

In denying the adivasi or the poorest of the poor the will to be a Maoist, it is not at all his being the Maoist (for that is treated as a by-product) which is being proscribed but it is revolutionary will as such, a will which cannot be referred back to circumstances that can be managed through government policies, through governmentality, which is being proscribed. Azad embodied such a revolutionary will: a will which cannot be precluded by any amount of tweaking, managing, rearranging of the precipitating circumstances through benign welfarist policies, development packages and rights. You cannot say, bring more of NREGA kind of policies, redistribute wealth here and there and that will do the trick – a check on the Maoists capitalizing on the discontent and poverty of the adivasi masses. For here the Maoist involved is not the poor adivasi in the first place! In fact even for the poor adivasi, such welfare policies or rights can very well merely fuel more expectations and further stokes the flames of radical change and a revolutionary will to that effect. It is such a will which the state and its goons wanted to kill.

In fact this will is most feared by the ruling classes since it does not just oppose their repression and violence but also shatters their democratic façade and forces out into the open the political articulation of class struggle, of the inequalities of wealth and power. The conditions of possibility for such an articulation are not however objective circumstances that can be managed and contained by the ruling order but involve a subjective revolutionary excess. Is it not precisely their excess, the far too impractical belief in the armed overthrow of the state, their being out-of-sync, which is what allows Maoists the understanding of the character of the present ruling order over and above the particular acts and policies of the government. And hence following from this, a revolutionary will, throwing oneself body and mind in the actualization of this will, in being part of the people’s war. Azad embodied this.

II

From denying the revolutionary in a ‘poor adivasi’ to killing a revolutionary like Azad – how much of a gap really exists? Is not the killing of Azad and the denial of any independent revolutiontary will to the ‘poor adivasi’ part of the same logic? Thus the message is absolutely clear: radical movements, political revolutionary struggle which cannot be one way or another reinscribed and absorbed into the dominant logic of the system cannot be tolerated. If excess is the revolution, if that which cannot be managed and contained within the dominant order is the revolution, then Azad had come to stand for that.

Fukuyama declaring the end of history was not just a reflective comment on the ‘objective’ state of the world but actually a declaration of intent based on the balance of forces which is overwhelmingly in favour of the dominant capitalist system. It involved the subjective intent of the dominant liberal-capitalist order saying, wishing, working towards, making sure that history actually ended. The thesis of the end of history is no mere reflection but an active element in defending the present balance of forces, thereby ensuring its own truth: it is part of the class struggle. The excessive, violent revolutionary will disturbs and rocks the ‘end of history’ and hence is liable to be proscribed and killed. But this killing must be done secretly so that it appears as though the end of history is just the state of the world today (it is just so, capitalism is here to stay) and is not something which is the product of a continuing class struggle, of actually an open and contingent balance of forces which today, in the present conjuncture, is strongly tilted against communists, against the working classes.

Thus Azad is killed but had to be necessarily killed secretly. The shadowy Andhra Pradesh Special Intelligence Branch, an arm of the state, carries out its encounter killings and the civil, democratically elected government and its ministers act as though they hardly even know about it. Thus Azad’s killing does not seem to have registered on any government minister or functionary – even in the context of possible negotiations and peace talks. This distribution of the secret and the open, of the undemocratic vigilante violence and the open governmental democratic initiative, of false encounters and real encounters – it is this macabre division of labour, this colossal hypocrisy of Indian democracy which Azad boldly confronted. It is the threat to his life from precisely such secret vigilante state bodies and his killing by them which enacted such a confrontation – his life did not just show or expose to us this interface, through critique or analysis (which presupposes a safe distance from the thing itself), but he simultaneously and directly confronted, suffered and died this hypocrisy and dark hole which is Indian democracy. The ruling order therefore deeply feared Azad – but it also fears him in his death and hence not a word on his killing from the government even though he was in the middle of dealing with the offer for negotiations by the Home Ministry.

III

The unmitigated excess, the so-called terror of the Maoists means that Azad the revolutionary, the ‘Gandhian with the gun’, cannot ‘unfortunately’ be humanely portrayed as the desperate, poorest of the poor taking up the gun only since his interests were not met, only since there was no other alternative to ensure a means of livelihood and two square meals a day. That he left us no alibi, none of these mitigating factors to attenuate his hardened revolutionary will – this is the beauty of Azad the revolutionary, a difficult, tense legacy. In other words, he is saying to us: that there is a fight, there is a struggle in front of us and we cannot beat about the bush by referring to antecedent circumstances or economic needs and interests. Thus Azad the revolutionary seems to be saying that even if you provide for the daily needs, even if you fulfil my interests, even if you provide me two square meals a day, yet I will bring you down since this order is unjust – and sorry to say, unjust even when it is fair. That the problem is not really that you are against my interests, the problem is that you only understand interests, that you play the game of interests. Any ‘higher’ and in that sense political revolutionary will is sought to be reduced to ‘interests’ (the real purpose of negotiations), or liable to be killed, eliminated.

Through the negotiations, through some or the other ruling class machination the state does imagine sometimes that it can turn the Maoists into another interest group, another group vying for power. But the state knows that such a possibility, for the Indian Maoists today, is still far-fetched, if at all possible. It is this thinking that it is perhaps not possible to co-opt the Maoists into another power group, that the Maoists perhaps mean what they say – armed overthrow of the state and belief in some form of communism – which drives the state to go for all out war to suppress this unmanageable, excessive will, this authentic terror.

Azad embodied a pure judgement on the ruling order, on the present dispensation, which did not derive from the acts of omission or commission, or from specific policies of the government, or from the contravention of the Constitutional obligations towards the poor and so on. It was not a negative judgement on the state and ruling order, but an infinite judgement – deriving from an understanding of the class character of the state and the constitutive logic of the present system. Azad entertained no mitigating circumstances for the ruling order, he did not for example point out specific wrongs this ruling order did to this or that group. The problem is infinite, so the solution cannot be partial but must be total. That is why a revolution was needed. Marx in his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right said that the proletariat is not fighting against specific wrongs since no ‘particular wrong’ is perpetuated against it: it is fighting against ‘wrong in general’. Hence the proletariat claims no particular rights but stands for a revolutionary abolition of the existing state of affairs.

IV

Azad as a political revolutionary provides us no liberal, left-liberal welfarist alibi to oppose his killing. So much so, it forces so many of us to quietly accept the inevitability of his getting killed – some might even privately say, well, the Maoists valorize martyrdom a bit too much, so let them face the music now! Weren’t the Maoists, believers in violence, asking for it?! Such thinking that if you indulge in violence then there will be counter-violence, killing of revolutionaries by the state, is fine so far as it goes. But then this means there is also another music we cannot not hear: we have to recognize that there is an open war in place. But then we deny or underplay this when we pull out the law books and the Constitution and argue that there is no war situation as such since we have all agreed to abide by the constitution and rule of law for the greater common good, for the interests of all and so on, as the story goes.

The problems arise, we are told, only due to the violation of our ‘social compact’, of the social contract, the violation of our laws and Constitution, the withdrawal of the state from its constitutional obligations to the poor – but doesn’t this line of thinking unwittingly suspend the struggle, proscribe the revolutionary will, by opening up the hypocritical hole, legitimizing the management of society and socio-economic contradictions through benign policies and rights. So human rights activists have opposed Azad’s killing by solidly arguing that the state has no right to take an individual’s life (Maoist or otherwise) through extra-judicial arbitrary killing. Does the state reply to this? No, it does not since doing that amounts to accepting that it has no societal legitimacy and is merely a party in an ongoing political struggle and war.

What we see is that the constitution and law are meant to adjudicate ‘conflict of interests’ in such a way that class conflict, deeper political struggle can be denied by reducing them to such conflict of interests – where they cannot be thus reduced, where the revolutionary will asserts itself nevertheless, things like extra-judicial killings take place. Judicial and extra-judicial killings work in tandem. And by the way, it is the same agencies, the same Special Intelligence Branch which arrests in ‘true encounters’ one time (as with Kobad Ghandy) and kills in false encounters another time. So one sees that judicial and extra-judicial are ways of suspending, containing the political struggle. Indeed there are strong reasons to believe that it is the same Home Ministry, apparently serious about negotiations with the Maoists, which gave the go-ahead to kill Azad.
So the injunction is clear, as it was clear in the Calcutta of the early 1970s. You cannot be a pure revolutionary. If you are a pure revolutionary, not in any way lending yourself to the liberal humanist appropriation of your cause, then you are liable to be killed. A Maoist, a Naxalite is a criminal, an enemy of society, whose killing is a foregone conclusion.

V

Granted that the killing of Azad was then totally expected and followed from the pattern and nature of power and class relations, what is most galling is the manner in which the state refuses to foreground the fact that yes he was an enemy and so we killed him. It has to act and pretend as though it never wanted to kill him, that he was killed by chance, in an encounter. One report quotes an official of the Andhra Pradesh Special Intelligence Branch: “We raided on a tip-off. About 25 Maoists were present there. The fire-fight started late at night and ended at 3 a.m. two persons were shot dead by police, while the rest escaped”. And further, “one of the dead has been identified as Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad, the CPI (Maoist) spokesperson. We did not know that he too was at the meeting,” he added. That is, there is no real struggle, that we were carrying out something like a routine search and kill operation and had no express intention of killing him.

The Maoists also kill – but everytime they kill, they say that so and so is for example a police informer and we are killing him. It foregrounds the problem, the struggle, it declares who are its enemies, who are its friends and does not pretend to work for all, regardless of questions of class and subjective position. But the so-called democratic state does not foreground the question of power, it does not want to accept that there is a struggle which is on and that it is just one party, a contender in this struggle but presents itself as above all particular interests and particular classes. The Maoist movement thorough the activities of someone like Azad forces the state to come out openly as to where it stands, whose interests it serves, thereby bringing out in the open what is otherwise a hidden class struggle, obfuscated by the state and its democratic representation. But the state constantly engages in this struggle and war even as it suppresses it from coming into view, even as it constantly promotes and reproduces the conditions for this war in newer ways. Thus it plunders the forests and fields, displaces people and so on, unrelentingly, and acts in the interests of the ruling classes and yet it wants to rule as though it upholds the interests of all the people. So it can never declare that so and so was an enemy and so had to be killed. The state has no enemies, the ruling classes in a constitutional democracy act, in fact must act as though they have no enemies. And in doing this they suppress the existence of real struggle, of class relations, of class struggle – “We the people of India…”, goes the preamble to the Constitution!

Thus it killed Azad but has no guts to claim it openly. It fears not the individual whom they killed but in this killing it knows that it is trying to suppress a larger fountain of struggle and rebellion.

The Economist (UK): British business magazine surveys rebellion in India

(This article, by a major British magazine which openly represents the interests of the capitalist and imperialist system, examines how their local Indian counterparts are handling the growing revolutionary opposition. Their assessment: Not so well. They give a few tips, but don't show a great deal of optimism with how things looks at present. The people are not saddened by such news)

The Economist

Maoist insurgents in India

More bloody and defiant

To overcome Naxalite rebels, India’s government needs to be more adept at both using force and spreading development

Jul 22nd 2010 DELHI

AS INDIA’S Maoist rebellion deepens and grows, so too do divisions in the government over how it should be confronted. Nearly 800 people have been killed in the insurgency so far this year, close to the total for the whole of 2009–a record year for bloodshed in this conflict. The lack of a unified government response suggests this grim trajectory will continue.

On July 17th Digvijay Singh, general secretary of the ruling Congress Party, used a television interview to defend criticisms he had made earlier in print, accusing the home minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, of mishandling the rebellion. He had written that it is wrong to treat the insurgency “purely as a law and order problem”; instead the government must “take into consideration the people living in the affected area who ultimately matter”.

This disagreement, between two senior government leaders, echoes a wider debate about how to battle the Naxalites, as the Maoists are also known because of their roots in a 1967 peasant uprising in the West Bengali village of Naxalbari. One view holds that the rebels are a military threat and the priority is to quash them by force. The other argues that the Naxalites feed on the grievances of impoverished tribal inhabitants in eastern and central India, and will only fade when development is brought to such areas.

The difference in emphasis matters, but in fact disagreement is much greater outside of the government than within it. A comprehensive response—which combines both security and development—is the best of all. Thus on July 14th, the government said that it is setting up a “unified command” structure to oversee state-level efforts to fight against the rebels, using the expertise of a former army general, and increased army logistical support and helicopters. But it also announced there would be more cash for development projects in Maoist-dominated areas.
The government has so far failed to combine the twin requirements of force and development to produce a successful strategy. “There’s still no consensual policy, no clarity,” says Ajay Sahni of the Institute for Conflict Management, a think-tank in Delhi, commenting on the government plan. The battle against the rebels is being fought by an overstretched, ineffectual police force that has allowed the Maoists to spread from an estimated 56 of India’s 626 districts in 2001 to more than 200 today. The growth of the rebels, who today number 10,000-20,000, with countless thousands of village militias, has been aided by the 2004 merger of the country’s two main communist groups. In addition, speedy economic growth in the eastern states, especially in the mining industry, has given the rebels new targets for raising funds by extorting cash.
Late last year the government sent in thousands of federal police in an offensive across the worst-affected states: Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal. No notable improvement in the campaign followed. Instead, in recent months, Maoist violence has escalated sharply. This month 27 police were slaughtered in Chhattisgarh. In May Maoists were blamed for derailing a passenger train, killing at least 145 people. After reports of Maoist threats to their lives this month, the personal security of two high-ranking ministers was increased. The threats followed the killing by security forces of a leading Naxalite, Cherkuri Rajkumar, also known as Azad, in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh on July 2nd.

Politicians are so alive to the Maoist threat that when a train crashed in West Bengal on July 19th, killing at least 63 people, the railway minister, Mamata Banerjee, was quick to finger the rebels as suspects. In fact, the driver apparently ignored stop signals and failed to apply his brakes.

Increasingly, the insurgency is hampering efforts to open up east India’s mineral-rich forests to business. In particular, the rebel fondness for attacking railways and roads has made it difficult for some companies to operate. Work on a $7 billion steel plant by JSW Steel, India’s third-largest steel producer, has been delayed in West Bengal, as have steel projects by Tata Steel and Essar in Chhattisgarh. In June India’s coal minister, Sriprakash Jaiswal, said the threat of Naxalite attacks was substantially curbing coal production. Land conflicts between big companies and local people have done much to boost the appeal of the Naxalites.

The popularity of the Naxalites might yet diminish if people in rebel areas got more basic amenities such as roads, water and schools. The southern state of Andhra Pradesh has had great success in weakening Maoism with a combination of better development and policing. The state’s anti-Naxalite police have been better trained, paid and armed than forces elsewhere. Recruiting more police from the local communities who are familiar with the often difficult jungle terrain of Maoist areas would also help, rather than importing men who do not even understand the language of those they are fighting against.

Elsewhere, however, such measures have been slow in coming. A year ago police launched a big campaign in Lalgarh, West Bengal, to recapture the area from Maoist rebels. Today the rebels are still present, perhaps in part because public investment that was promised has not come as quickly as many had expected. Amitava Rath, a local journalist, points out that the support for the rebels is strongest in those villages with the fewest amenities. “The rebels have started carrying out some development work as if they are already running a state within the state,” he says.

Cyber action against Vedanta plc - visit websites

Dear readers,
As you know Vedanta plc- the criminal mining company, which is going to have a catastrophic effect on the people and environment of Orissa, eastern India- is having their AGM in London on 28 July.

A cyber action against Vedanta plc has been launched from 2 websites.

This is an extremely easy and effective way of sending thousands of emails to:-

Jairam Ramesh (India's Minister of Environment & Forestry), India's Prime Minister and 10 other senior politicians,

To some major banks with investments in Vedanta.


To UK's government body DfID (Department for International Development). You can go to http://www.niyamgiri.net/ and send emails from there to Jairam Ramesh with cc's to the Indian Prime Minister and others.

If you send this, the next screen will ask you to contact the banks and DfID with a link to http://forests.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=india_mine


Or of course you can go direct to http://forests.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=india_mine


Please network this as widely as you can. Please invite any friends who may be interested to visit http://www.niyamgiri.net/ where, with a few clicks of the mouse, they can send emails to Indian decision makers and the financiers bankrolling this destruction.

An appeal to India's conscience

V.R. Krishna Iyer

The Hindu

The killing of Maoist leader Azad strangled the prospect of peaceful negotiations with the extremists.

The sovereign Republic of India stands for socialism, egalitarianism, trans-religious secularism and national unity based on the principles of fraternity. Our independence was meant to “wipe every tear from every eye” — as Jawaharlal Nehru declared in his tryst-with-destiny address. There was a pledge in the Preamble to the Constitution that justice, social, economic and political, would be ensured for every Indian.

But three score and three years later, we as a nation have much to answer for and account to generations of the past and the future. The expectations at Independence darkened into deprivation, and depravation into dread, hunger, homelessness, have-not status and finally despair. This gradual, slow-process economic destitution and social estrangement led to the people losing their faith in the instrumentalities of the Constitution, namely, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Inevitably, when the state failed the confidence of the people they took to the streets, to the jungle and to lawlessness. Terrorism was the next step, ubiquitously shaking up peace and the sense of safety and development. This is the genesis of Naxalism, Maoism and other forms of extremism. The government, instead of creating conditions to win back the confidence of the people, has resorted to guns and police weaponry.

Long ago, U.S. President Eisenhower warned: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies — in the final sense — a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

The consequence was inevitable: more people became desperate. The masses got alienated and bullets did not and could not generate a milieu or haven of tranquillity when government policy aggravated militancy and spread demoralisation. Many parts of India ceased to be safe or peaceful. Today the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the Maoists are able to fire upon the military. The state has virtually abandoned the peace process and resorted to short-cuts to law and order, hoping that soldiers are a more reliable force than processes of peace and justice, or civilian forces. Some move here and there to talk peace through dialogue and tranquillity, although some sensitive statesman have tried to transform social conditions.

Swami Agnivesh, a great Indian patriot who stands for a casteless society, religious amity and non-violent conditions of life, responded to the challenge of Indian tumult and confrontation, hoping to initiate a fruitful process of dialogue as a measure of Gandhian non-violence, as distinct from Godse's gun-politics. He struck a note that was the beginning of social justice, trying to initiate a dialogue with Azad alias Cherukuri Raj Kumar, a leader of the Maoists. Azad's response was positive and radiated a ray of hope.

But Azad was shot dead in Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh on July 1: it was the act of a government without a vision. It strangled the prospect of peaceful negotiations. What a gaffe and an egregious error, what a monstrous mistake! Agnivesh is bitter. So am I, and so are the thinking millions of Indians who do not want extremism but seek smiling moderation. We are all disappointed that the government's negative and noxious policy of handling such situations through military methods amounts to jettisoning the Buddha-Gandhi heritage. Is the Home Minister's dialogue strategy a travesty?

May I appeal to the President and the Prime Minister, the wise Sonia Gandhi, and leaders of all political parties with sense and sensibility, to express their exasperation over the killing of Azad? May I also appeal to the extremists to unconditionally come forward for talks? Do not lose your head. Maoists and others of their ilk should be convinced that the state means peaceful streets and homes, not bullets or the AK-47. India is yours as well. Build it sans violence. Let the masses and the classes rise for peace and human rights. Let us stand for the right to life in dignity and for egalite and economic justice, and not allow a mafia element in government where the rich, the rigid obscurantist and the obdurate become policy-makers, and the indigent underdogs are crushed.

Hope, not despair, should be the fundamental policy of great government. The grand green negotiated policy will win. It harvests contentment and contains extremism. The alternative is functional chaos, administrative anarchy and farewell to public welfare. The killers are culpable. A judicial enquiry is the nation's desideratum. I make this appeal not out of pusillanimity but out of patriotism.

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.