Neither development nor police action alone can solve the Jangalmahal problem. No one picks up a gun and joins the Maoists because of lack of access to education or healthcare. The reason is more deep-rooted. The time now is for all stakeholders to find a meeting point and agree on the road to peace, says Saibal Sen.
In Jangalmahal, only the gun speaks. Here, there is only one language: fear. The cycle of violence that has ripped apart the lives of forest dwellers and uprooted thousands in the last decade has defied a solution so far because anyone who speaks here is the one who has his finger on the trigger.
Dialogue the beginning of any kind of understanding is missing. The relentless bloodshed in WestMidnapore, Bankura and Purulia has devastated tribal life, robbed the tribals of their forest-based livelihood and alienated them further from the mainstream.
Some see this bloodletting as a manifestation of the chronic underdevelopment in the area, while others say it is a deliberate strategy of the Maoists to establish a red corridor across Jharkhand, Bengal and Orissa. The administration says the insurgency has derailed development while Left extremist sympathizers argue that lack of development led to rebellion.
The question now is how to find a meeting point? Governments have tried various tactics, including a hit-and-hold' strategy where forces keep the Maoists pinned down while development projects are taken up. But the government failed where it mattered the most it could never establish a connect with the Adivasis.
Panchayats are not being able to function in most areas of Jangalmahal. Even the Adivasi oligarchy has been paralysed because of the Maoist presence. What is the way out? Some emphasise on domination first, development later. Others want the government to rein in security forces for the time being, if not withdrawing them entirely, and engage the Maoists to talks.
While a talk with all the stakeholders in Jangalmahal is imperative, the Mamata Banerjee-led government should first create an atmosphere conducive to talks. Mere policing may provide "area domination" but it won't help win people's hearts critical for the government to find a lasting solution to stop the bloodshed in West Bengal's most impoverished areas.
Jangalmahal's woes stem from a wide variety of socio-economic problems, feel a cross-section of people TOI spoke to.
And neither development nor police action can directly redress the problem, they say. No one picks up a gun and joins the Maoists because of lack of access to education, healthcare, drinking water or good roads, they say. Millions in India have the same problems but they have not taken up arms against the state.
At the same time, it would be wrong to assume that paramilitary forces alone can give a long-term solution by crushing the Maoists. The problem needs to be tackled at a very local level.
Thespian Bibhas Chakraborty says it would be wrong to treat the issue as a "law and order" issue. It is a political problem, he argues. The previous government clubbed all voices of dissent as adversaries' and sought to repress them, he says. "The present government has shown the right inclination. I hope they can resolve the issue of joint forces and resume dialogue with all factions there. No one should be alienated, perhaps not even the Maoists," he says. Chakraborty also stresses on developmental strategies. "If the state government can ensure that the state and central schemes reach the poorest of the poor, it would achieve a lot."
Civil rights activist Sujato Bhadra, a member of the committee to review political prisoners, insists that withdrawal of joint forces is imperative before any dialogue. "I would even suggest that the government forms a commission to probe excesses by the joint forces," he says. Bhadra feels this had led to a repression of democratic rights. "An environment of mutual trust needs to be built," he says, adding that the release of political prisoners should be expedited. In 1977, when the Left Front government came to power, the release of political prisoners was completed by September 1978, he points out.
Sudipto Sen, assistant secretary of the Association for Protection of
Democratic Rights, also wants withdrawal of forces as a pre-condition to talks. "The living conditions should also be improved," he says.
The committee on political prisoners is working on a three-month mandate. It has indicated that it has a list of 84 political prisoners' and believes the real figure could be somewhere near 600. The committee has suggested that should any of these people appeal for the status of a political prisoner under 321 IPC, the government must not oppose their bail plea and this even includes people charged under UAPA.
Maoists have reciprocated by announcing their readiness to start a dialogue with state government if Mamata Banerjee creates an atmosphere conducive for talks. For long, Maoists and their mass organizations have been demanding the unconditional release of all political prisoners. Rebel leaders like Bikram and Bikash had earlier welcomed Mamata's decision to set up the review committee. CPI (Maoist) insiders hinted that release of political prisoners' (read Maoists in jails) will play a crucial role in the talks process.
Choton Das, general secretary of Bandi Mukhti Committee, feels a dialogue cannot happen with seeds of distrust. "People have to realise that the tribal agitation since 2008 was not about food or water, it was about democratic rights and a plea to stop violence in the name of joint forces operation."
Tamluk's Trinamool Congress MP Subhendu Adhikari, largely credited with Trinamool's electoral success in Jangalmahal, adopts a cautious approach, "There is indeed a need to probe police excesses. However, for release of political prisoners there is a need for a case-to-case review. There a large number of tribal youths languishing in jails on trumped-up charges. While they need to be released, the same yardstick cannot be applied to hardened criminals or CPM backed anti-socials. The chief minister has already formed a committee and I believe the government has shown the right intentions already."
At an all-party meeting recently held at Lalgarh police station, a resolution was reportedly adopted to retain the joint forces in Jangalmahal. SUCI state secretary Saumen Basu is upset that they were not invited to the meeting and has written to
Mamata: "As this resolution contradicts
your electoral promise, we are drawing your attention to it and hoping for your intervention."
CPM has always opposed Mamata's earlier position on removal of joint forces, calling it "strange" and completely at loggerheads with the Prime Minister's view that Maoists are the most serious threat to internal security.
There are varying even conflicting views on the Jangalmahal problem. But there are ways ahead. The mission now is to agree on which one to take. All the stakeholders have to come to a consensus on the road ahead and it must lead to peace. Whether development comes first, or the release of prisoners, a middle path must be found through negotiation.
It's the time to move on, not stand rooted to inflexible positions. It's the time to reach out and find a meeting point. This is TOI's message.
In Jangalmahal, only the gun speaks. Here, there is only one language: fear. The cycle of violence that has ripped apart the lives of forest dwellers and uprooted thousands in the last decade has defied a solution so far because anyone who speaks here is the one who has his finger on the trigger.
Dialogue the beginning of any kind of understanding is missing. The relentless bloodshed in WestMidnapore, Bankura and Purulia has devastated tribal life, robbed the tribals of their forest-based livelihood and alienated them further from the mainstream.
Some see this bloodletting as a manifestation of the chronic underdevelopment in the area, while others say it is a deliberate strategy of the Maoists to establish a red corridor across Jharkhand, Bengal and Orissa. The administration says the insurgency has derailed development while Left extremist sympathizers argue that lack of development led to rebellion.
The question now is how to find a meeting point? Governments have tried various tactics, including a hit-and-hold' strategy where forces keep the Maoists pinned down while development projects are taken up. But the government failed where it mattered the most it could never establish a connect with the Adivasis.
Panchayats are not being able to function in most areas of Jangalmahal. Even the Adivasi oligarchy has been paralysed because of the Maoist presence. What is the way out? Some emphasise on domination first, development later. Others want the government to rein in security forces for the time being, if not withdrawing them entirely, and engage the Maoists to talks.
While a talk with all the stakeholders in Jangalmahal is imperative, the Mamata Banerjee-led government should first create an atmosphere conducive to talks. Mere policing may provide "area domination" but it won't help win people's hearts critical for the government to find a lasting solution to stop the bloodshed in West Bengal's most impoverished areas.
Jangalmahal's woes stem from a wide variety of socio-economic problems, feel a cross-section of people TOI spoke to.
And neither development nor police action can directly redress the problem, they say. No one picks up a gun and joins the Maoists because of lack of access to education, healthcare, drinking water or good roads, they say. Millions in India have the same problems but they have not taken up arms against the state.
At the same time, it would be wrong to assume that paramilitary forces alone can give a long-term solution by crushing the Maoists. The problem needs to be tackled at a very local level.
Thespian Bibhas Chakraborty says it would be wrong to treat the issue as a "law and order" issue. It is a political problem, he argues. The previous government clubbed all voices of dissent as adversaries' and sought to repress them, he says. "The present government has shown the right inclination. I hope they can resolve the issue of joint forces and resume dialogue with all factions there. No one should be alienated, perhaps not even the Maoists," he says. Chakraborty also stresses on developmental strategies. "If the state government can ensure that the state and central schemes reach the poorest of the poor, it would achieve a lot."
Civil rights activist Sujato Bhadra, a member of the committee to review political prisoners, insists that withdrawal of joint forces is imperative before any dialogue. "I would even suggest that the government forms a commission to probe excesses by the joint forces," he says. Bhadra feels this had led to a repression of democratic rights. "An environment of mutual trust needs to be built," he says, adding that the release of political prisoners should be expedited. In 1977, when the Left Front government came to power, the release of political prisoners was completed by September 1978, he points out.
Sudipto Sen, assistant secretary of the Association for Protection of
Democratic Rights, also wants withdrawal of forces as a pre-condition to talks. "The living conditions should also be improved," he says.
The committee on political prisoners is working on a three-month mandate. It has indicated that it has a list of 84 political prisoners' and believes the real figure could be somewhere near 600. The committee has suggested that should any of these people appeal for the status of a political prisoner under 321 IPC, the government must not oppose their bail plea and this even includes people charged under UAPA.
Maoists have reciprocated by announcing their readiness to start a dialogue with state government if Mamata Banerjee creates an atmosphere conducive for talks. For long, Maoists and their mass organizations have been demanding the unconditional release of all political prisoners. Rebel leaders like Bikram and Bikash had earlier welcomed Mamata's decision to set up the review committee. CPI (Maoist) insiders hinted that release of political prisoners' (read Maoists in jails) will play a crucial role in the talks process.
Choton Das, general secretary of Bandi Mukhti Committee, feels a dialogue cannot happen with seeds of distrust. "People have to realise that the tribal agitation since 2008 was not about food or water, it was about democratic rights and a plea to stop violence in the name of joint forces operation."
Tamluk's Trinamool Congress MP Subhendu Adhikari, largely credited with Trinamool's electoral success in Jangalmahal, adopts a cautious approach, "There is indeed a need to probe police excesses. However, for release of political prisoners there is a need for a case-to-case review. There a large number of tribal youths languishing in jails on trumped-up charges. While they need to be released, the same yardstick cannot be applied to hardened criminals or CPM backed anti-socials. The chief minister has already formed a committee and I believe the government has shown the right intentions already."
At an all-party meeting recently held at Lalgarh police station, a resolution was reportedly adopted to retain the joint forces in Jangalmahal. SUCI state secretary Saumen Basu is upset that they were not invited to the meeting and has written to
Mamata: "As this resolution contradicts
your electoral promise, we are drawing your attention to it and hoping for your intervention."
CPM has always opposed Mamata's earlier position on removal of joint forces, calling it "strange" and completely at loggerheads with the Prime Minister's view that Maoists are the most serious threat to internal security.
There are varying even conflicting views on the Jangalmahal problem. But there are ways ahead. The mission now is to agree on which one to take. All the stakeholders have to come to a consensus on the road ahead and it must lead to peace. Whether development comes first, or the release of prisoners, a middle path must be found through negotiation.
It's the time to move on, not stand rooted to inflexible positions. It's the time to reach out and find a meeting point. This is TOI's message.
No comments:
Post a Comment