The Refugee Problem: Need for a Coordinated Response
*Saumitra Mohan
From a population displacement perspective, South Asian region has a unique history. Here, people have been pushed beyond their borders as a result of war or they have left their country of origin on ethnic, racial, ideological or religious grounds. Subsequently, migrations have taken place for environmental or developmental reasons as well. The States of India and Pakistan witnessed massive refugee movements from the time of independence itself. After the 1947 partition, 7.5 million Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan crossed over to India and 7.2 million Muslim refugees from India crossed to Pakistan. It was the largest recorded refugee movement in history.
There was little international assistance in this massive humanitarian crisis. Later, in 1971, 10 million refugees crossed over to India during the war of independence of Bangladesh. In 1979, 3.5 million Afghans fleeing Soviet intervention in their country sought and received asylum in Pakistan of which 1.2 million are still said to be there in the refugee villages. Between 1970s-1990s, Bangladesh has been witness to the influx of over 300,000 Muslim refugees from Rakhine district in Myanmar, of whom nearly 30,000 refugees are still to be repatriated. Similarly, 90,000 Bhutanese of Nepali origin were expelled and a substantial number of them are still located in refugee camps in Jhapa district of Nepal. However, many of them have been recently resettled in third countries by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Sri Lanka has often been described as an 'Island of Refugees' due to external displacement of Tamils and internal displacements of Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslims. Though Sri Lanka is not known as an asylum country, it is well known as a refugee-producing country. Since 1983, Sri Lanka has produced hundreds of thousands of refugees apart from over 500,000 Sri Lankan Tamil 'jet refugees' to the Western world. Major portion of Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu were voluntarily repatriated, but still over 60,000 have remained behind due to the ongoing security crisis in North-East Sri Lanka.
Since 1960s, India has been hosting over 100,000 Tibetan refugees and some 50,000 Buddhist Chakma refugees from Chittagong hill tracts in Bangladesh, some of whom were repatriated recently. India also has permitted UNHCR to assist about 12,000 Afghan refugees on pure humanitarian grounds. Maldives is the only SAARC country, which neither produced nor hosted a significant refugee population.
Despite these past and existing refugee movements and deep rooted humanitarian traditions of asylum, none of the SAARC countries has acceded to the 1951 International Convention on Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, which has been ratified by 136 countries in the world. However, all the SAARC countries, except Bhutan and Nepal, have offices of the UNHCR - the UN agency responsible for the promotion of the Refugee Instruments and marshalling of international humanitarian assistance on behalf of the refugees.
The reasons advanced for the non-accession to the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol by SAARC countries are very similar in content. They argue that they have rich traditions of asylum comparable to international standards, sometimes even better than what is practiced by some of the signatory states to the International Refugee Instruments. Therefore, they would continue to deal with refugee issues on ad hoc bilateral policy basis, but welcome international humanitarian assistance based on burden-sharing (with the exception of India).
SAARC countries further argue that the persecution-based 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol is inadequate to comprehensively address the current refugee issues in the region, which are mostly the result of internal conflicts and not due to fear of persecution by the states per se. In support of their contention of inadequacy of the International Refugee Instruments, they cite the regional refugee instruments of Africa, the 1958 Organisation of African Unity Convention and the one for refugees in Latin America, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees which are more comprehensive in their definition of refugees.
Refugee situation in South Asia has become chronic and has affected both national security and inter-state relations due to the reluctance of states to discuss them on pure humanitarian basis. Since all refugees are technically considered illegal aliens, they have no institutional protection or the protection of the principle of the Rule of Law. In this context, a regional Convention or Declaration on refugees by the SAARC countries becomes timely and relevant. A regional agreement on fundamental questions such as the definition of a refugee, the granting of asylum and the exceptions thereto, the cardinal principle of non-refoulement, or the voluntary nature of eventual repatriation of refugees would reduce the room for friction between the state interlocutors. A SAARC Refugee Convention or Declaration would also mean a great step forward in developing a humanitarian regime in the region.
In the case of India, the Superior Courts have addressed certain humanitarian concerns of the refugees on the basis of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental and human rights. But no such developments have taken place in any other SAARC countries. The prevailing political and security preoccupations of each country determines the standards of treatment for the refugees. These standards may differ from time to time and from one country to another.
By developing a regional Convention or Declaration on refugees, the SAARC countries would not only be recognizing and refining the existing traditional humanitarian policies, but will also be developing a set of non-contentious principles, which will enhance the organisational solidarity and its commitment to human rights. Such a Convention or Declaration will not be a document borrowed from outside that is unsuitable for the specific needs of the refugee problem in the region, but a SAARC-developed piece of international law.
There are differing opinions on the advisability of having a regional or a national instrument but, there is definitely unanimity on the fact that there should be a specific legal instrument on refugees in the region to guide the governments in their policy towards refugees. Whether the South Asian governments would like to accede to the existing international refugee regime, or they would like to have a legislation of their own, is something that they need to take a decision about. However, there are certain issues that can be better dealt with within the multi-lateral regional framework.
It is high time the South Asian countries took a stand on the refugee regime issue, rather than dealing with the same through administrative measures. Hence, the South Asian countries should have a specific refugee legislation of their own. Since they have already been accepting and hosting refugees, by having a specialised legislation, they would only formalise and give a concrete shape to the existing practices. This legislation can be specially designed to factor the respective national interests, making it more in sync with the sub-continental reality than the international refugee regime that was drafted in a Cold War context and appears to be out of touch with the ground realities in South Asia.
By doing away with the element of discretion and putting in place an organised structure and infrastructure for dealing with refugees, the new system can be custom-made to regional and national interests. Such a system would make the regional reaction to refugee problem more consistent, coordinated and predictable. It would also help the countries of the region in meeting their international obligation required under the UN system. Drafting of a ‘Model National Law’ and ‘Draft Regional Declaration’ on refugees under the leadership of UNHCR are positive developments in this regard. It is hoped that by taking a positive decision to have a specialised legislation on refugees, the countries of South Asia would live up to their reputation of being a liberal host to the refugees on their shores.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Creating Newer States: How Desirable?
*Saumitra Mohan
Given the way demands for creation of newer states keep cropping up from time to time, it seems that the reconfiguration and reorganization of the Indian State could go on for ever. One felt that no such political demands centring around creation of a separate state would be put forward after the last such exercise was undertaken in the year 2000. The same resulted in the birth of three new states namely Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal.
The country has witnessed many such demands in recent times as also borne out by the fact that as many as ten such demands are now pending with the Central Home Ministry. These inter alia include demands for a separate Mithilanchal in Bihar, Saurashtra in Gujarat, Coorg in Karnataka, a Harit Pradesh in UP, Telangana in Andhra Pradesh, Gorkhaland in West Bengal, Bundelkhand comprising areas from UP and MP and a Bhojpur carved out of Eastern UP, Bihar and Chattisgarh.
The demands have been raised by disparate political organisations like Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) coming forward for a separate Telangana state and Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJMM) pitching for a separate Gorkhaland state. The demand for creation of Bundelkhand comprising districts like Banda, Chitrakoot, Jhansi, Lalitpur and Sagar of UP and MP has also been pending with the Home Ministry for quite some time.
The creation of a separate state of Saurashtra in Gujarat, one of the most prosperous states, is said to be pending with the Ministry for several years now. The Centre has also received representations for creation of a Harit Pradesh or a Kisan Pradesh consisting of several districts of western UP. The Central Home Ministry is also said to be in receipt of formal demands for creation of a Mithilanchal or a Mithila state comprising territories in Bihar, Greater Cooch Behar out of parts of West Bengal and Assam, Vidarbha in Maharashtra and a state for the Coorg region of Karnataka from different political and non-political organisations.
Before acceding to or even considering such demands, we should not forget as to how India broke into fragments after the decline and degeneration of the Mughal Empire. Many Ex-Governors of the Mughal principalities called ‘subahs’ declared their independence. And by the middle of the 18th century, there were congeries of ‘rajas’ and ‘nawabs’ who held sway over 600 principalities across the sub-continent. It was this India that Robert Clive defeated and subjugated after the historic battle of Plassey in 1757. This established British Raj in this country that lasted for about 200 years.
What was notable in all this was the fact that Robert Clive could emerge victorious with the help of a faction of army of Nawab Sirajudaullah. These ‘fifth columnists’, not bound by any feelings of nationality, did not deem it an act of treachery to let their Nawab down. This was again repeated 100 years later in 1857 when the English were able to stave off the challenge to their rule from Indian forces by using different factions of Indian forces through their notorious and reviled policy of ‘divide and rule’.
These forces, who supported the English, thought nothing of siding with an alien power as the feeling of Indian Nationhood or an overarching sovereign Indian State was conspicuous by its absence. There were Marathas, Sikhs, Muslims, Rajputs, Biharis and Jats, but there were no Indians. The famed ‘Aryavarta’ or ‘Hindustan’ was nothing but a geographical connotation. Today’s India actually emerged out of the womb of the British Raj. In fact, one of the unintended benefits of the Raj is said to be the integration of India which ultimately gave rise to the extant Indianness.
It was this feeling of Indianness which was responsible for catalyzing our freedom struggle, thereby paving way for the creation of a pan-Indian Nation. It is this Indianness that Jawaharlal Nehru discovered, Mahatma Gandhi nurtured, and Sardar Patel consolidated. We have only been fostering, cherishing and relishing the fruits of a free and sovereign Indian State that our forefathers bequeathed us.
Now, we need to ponder as to whether we can allow this hard-earned unity and nationhood to be dented or destroyed by new parochial demands for creation of smaller states based on ethnicity, culture or linguistic factors. There is also a considered view that creation of new states never means that no such demands would be made in future. In fact, their creation is actually said to be an encouragement to such fissiparous forces who make and pursue such demand if only to grind their own axe.
After the creation of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal, there are still newer demands to further divide these states e.g. the demand for Harit Pradesh in UP and that of a Mithilanchal in Bihar. Once Saurashtra is carved out of Gujarat, there is no guarantee that the Kutchis would not demand their own state. In fact, there is already such a move by the erstwhile Maharaja of Kutch. In Andhra Pradesh, the talk of Telangana has caused uneasiness in the Rayalseema region which wants its own separate state. Muslims in Hyderabad region also yearn for an Urdu state of their own. This is a never ending vortex into which the celebrated Indian Nation might get sucked for ever.
Some observers believe that many such demands are merely political in nature, being made as part of populist politics rather than being genuinely popular demands. Before becoming a reality, such a demand should not only be rooted in a genuine popular desire, but also needs the backing and recommendation of the local state government. No such recommendation has so far been made by any of the concerned state government, without which they remain mere wishful thinking.
However, many argue that some of the Indian states are still very large and need to be broken up into manageable units without being swayed by any consideration of petty politics. They also argue that there is indeed a case for a second State Reorganisation Commission to consider all such demands dispassionately with a view to better governance and faster development of the country as a whole. Without being judgemental about the advisability of newer states, one does feel that any such move for creation of a new state should be predicated on the practical considerations of geographic, administrative and economic viability rather than being rooted only in populist politics.
*Saumitra Mohan
Given the way demands for creation of newer states keep cropping up from time to time, it seems that the reconfiguration and reorganization of the Indian State could go on for ever. One felt that no such political demands centring around creation of a separate state would be put forward after the last such exercise was undertaken in the year 2000. The same resulted in the birth of three new states namely Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal.
The country has witnessed many such demands in recent times as also borne out by the fact that as many as ten such demands are now pending with the Central Home Ministry. These inter alia include demands for a separate Mithilanchal in Bihar, Saurashtra in Gujarat, Coorg in Karnataka, a Harit Pradesh in UP, Telangana in Andhra Pradesh, Gorkhaland in West Bengal, Bundelkhand comprising areas from UP and MP and a Bhojpur carved out of Eastern UP, Bihar and Chattisgarh.
The demands have been raised by disparate political organisations like Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) coming forward for a separate Telangana state and Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJMM) pitching for a separate Gorkhaland state. The demand for creation of Bundelkhand comprising districts like Banda, Chitrakoot, Jhansi, Lalitpur and Sagar of UP and MP has also been pending with the Home Ministry for quite some time.
The creation of a separate state of Saurashtra in Gujarat, one of the most prosperous states, is said to be pending with the Ministry for several years now. The Centre has also received representations for creation of a Harit Pradesh or a Kisan Pradesh consisting of several districts of western UP. The Central Home Ministry is also said to be in receipt of formal demands for creation of a Mithilanchal or a Mithila state comprising territories in Bihar, Greater Cooch Behar out of parts of West Bengal and Assam, Vidarbha in Maharashtra and a state for the Coorg region of Karnataka from different political and non-political organisations.
Before acceding to or even considering such demands, we should not forget as to how India broke into fragments after the decline and degeneration of the Mughal Empire. Many Ex-Governors of the Mughal principalities called ‘subahs’ declared their independence. And by the middle of the 18th century, there were congeries of ‘rajas’ and ‘nawabs’ who held sway over 600 principalities across the sub-continent. It was this India that Robert Clive defeated and subjugated after the historic battle of Plassey in 1757. This established British Raj in this country that lasted for about 200 years.
What was notable in all this was the fact that Robert Clive could emerge victorious with the help of a faction of army of Nawab Sirajudaullah. These ‘fifth columnists’, not bound by any feelings of nationality, did not deem it an act of treachery to let their Nawab down. This was again repeated 100 years later in 1857 when the English were able to stave off the challenge to their rule from Indian forces by using different factions of Indian forces through their notorious and reviled policy of ‘divide and rule’.
These forces, who supported the English, thought nothing of siding with an alien power as the feeling of Indian Nationhood or an overarching sovereign Indian State was conspicuous by its absence. There were Marathas, Sikhs, Muslims, Rajputs, Biharis and Jats, but there were no Indians. The famed ‘Aryavarta’ or ‘Hindustan’ was nothing but a geographical connotation. Today’s India actually emerged out of the womb of the British Raj. In fact, one of the unintended benefits of the Raj is said to be the integration of India which ultimately gave rise to the extant Indianness.
It was this feeling of Indianness which was responsible for catalyzing our freedom struggle, thereby paving way for the creation of a pan-Indian Nation. It is this Indianness that Jawaharlal Nehru discovered, Mahatma Gandhi nurtured, and Sardar Patel consolidated. We have only been fostering, cherishing and relishing the fruits of a free and sovereign Indian State that our forefathers bequeathed us.
Now, we need to ponder as to whether we can allow this hard-earned unity and nationhood to be dented or destroyed by new parochial demands for creation of smaller states based on ethnicity, culture or linguistic factors. There is also a considered view that creation of new states never means that no such demands would be made in future. In fact, their creation is actually said to be an encouragement to such fissiparous forces who make and pursue such demand if only to grind their own axe.
After the creation of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal, there are still newer demands to further divide these states e.g. the demand for Harit Pradesh in UP and that of a Mithilanchal in Bihar. Once Saurashtra is carved out of Gujarat, there is no guarantee that the Kutchis would not demand their own state. In fact, there is already such a move by the erstwhile Maharaja of Kutch. In Andhra Pradesh, the talk of Telangana has caused uneasiness in the Rayalseema region which wants its own separate state. Muslims in Hyderabad region also yearn for an Urdu state of their own. This is a never ending vortex into which the celebrated Indian Nation might get sucked for ever.
Some observers believe that many such demands are merely political in nature, being made as part of populist politics rather than being genuinely popular demands. Before becoming a reality, such a demand should not only be rooted in a genuine popular desire, but also needs the backing and recommendation of the local state government. No such recommendation has so far been made by any of the concerned state government, without which they remain mere wishful thinking.
However, many argue that some of the Indian states are still very large and need to be broken up into manageable units without being swayed by any consideration of petty politics. They also argue that there is indeed a case for a second State Reorganisation Commission to consider all such demands dispassionately with a view to better governance and faster development of the country as a whole. Without being judgemental about the advisability of newer states, one does feel that any such move for creation of a new state should be predicated on the practical considerations of geographic, administrative and economic viability rather than being rooted only in populist politics.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Belling the Naxal Cat
*Saumitra Mohan
After making a tactical retreat from Lalgarh in West Bengal following the state offensive, the Maoists were waiting for an opportunity to strike back to make their sinister presence felt. The recent outrage resulting in the killing of 36 policemen including an SP in Chattisgarh was an example of what the Naxals are capable of. This takes the casualty toll to 148 this year in that hapless state falling in the so-called Red Corridor. Indeed, the three almost simultaneous attacks were the deadliest of the extremist violence Chattisgarh has seen in recent times.
The Maoists seem to have struck with lot of precision and planning. The modality and dynamics of the strike are said to be somewhat reminiscent of the early seventies in West Bengal. The worst strike took place in Rajnandgaon, barely 70 km from the state capital of Raipur. This points to the audacity which informs the functioning of the Maoists these days. They appear intent on moving closer to the seat of authority from the forests and tribal areas. If some of the intelligence reports are to be believed, the Naxals are working hard to make forays into towns and cities through recruitment of more and more volunteers.
The slain SP, who was on the Naxal hit-list for quite sometime, is said to have been targeted for his deemed success in breaking the extremists’ urban network in Bhilai city in Madhya Pradesh. The way Naxals could pull off this strike with deadly effect points to the need for further sprucing up our intelligence and internal security apparatus.
Rightly, the Naxalism has been termed as the biggest threat to the national security by none other than the Prime Minister himself. The Union Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram has also bracketed Maoists with terrorists for the threat they pose to the internal security. Be it noted that CPI (Maoists) has been declared as a banned Organization by the Centre barely a few weeks ago.
While there still seem to be no consensus on banning the Naxals, the time definitely has come to take the Naxal threat more seriously than has been felt so far. The Union Home Minster Mr. P. Chidambaram rightly believes that the Naxal menace had so far been underestimated which allowed the Left-wing extremists to consolidate and spread their wings. He has promised that the battle against Maoists ultras would be joined in full earnest through sustained efforts and drive.
The ban and the branding of Maoists as terrorists should further convince the skeptics about their insidious design on the Indian Nation. We need to find out better ways of dealing with this internal adversary masquerading as Left Radicals. There is not only need for infrastructural upgradation in terms of better logistics, equipment and arms, there is also need for better and more scientific ways of gathering intelligence. Our police force needs to be better trained and better motivated to face the Naxal challenge. The training needs to be customized to make the force understand the various nuances of anti-insurgency operations. Besides, there is undoubtedly a need for better execution and better targeting of developmental schemes in the Naxal-infested areas to extirpate the grounds of frustration and alienation there as per the recommendation of an expert panel recently.
Even though many of the politicos and observers believe that the so-called ‘liberated’ or ‘compact revolutionary’ zones are nothing but media hype, we need to take the Maoist challenge in its true perspective. This, inter alia, requires a massive overhaul of planning and coordination, along with arming and training of specialized forces. The Naxal threat appears in sharper relief once we look at the latest statistics for this year. The sundry violent incidents involving Naxals exceed those involving terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir and North-East put together. While Naxal-affected states reported 915 incidents, Jammu and Kashmir and North-East witnessed 810 incidents till May this year. Of these, 624 took place in the North-East and 186 in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Government is learnt to have appointed Brigadier D S Dadwal as its military advisor to help out in operational matters. Plans are also being drawn up in close consultation with different state governments. Proper coordination among the affected state governments along with a unified command structure seems to be need of the hour. The Naxal expertise in executing ambushes and mine blasts point to the extent and amount of challenge Naxalism poses to our country.
Brigadier Dadwal, who was so far serving as Deputy GOC with the 11 Infantry Division, is supposed to coordinate among disparate police forces of different states. This is likely to help in tackling the Naxal threat better. He is expected to not only advise the security agencies on specialized training, but is also supposed to help out in operational and logistical coordination. The manner in which our policemen are being repeatedly targeted in ambushes makes it necessary to constantly assess and improve tactics and strategy. The counterforce to Naxals has to be speedier and unorthodox beyond the mundane operating systems.
The truth is that the Naxals are a confused lot, not knowing what they wish to do. They actually do not seem to have any ideological mooring or any vision for the alternative they proffer vis-à-vis the system they seem to be fighting. The Indian democracy gives every ideology ample opportunity to seek popular consent through the first-past-the-post system. But till the time the Naxals do not see reason, an efficient and effective counterforce seems to be the only alternative.
*Saumitra Mohan
After making a tactical retreat from Lalgarh in West Bengal following the state offensive, the Maoists were waiting for an opportunity to strike back to make their sinister presence felt. The recent outrage resulting in the killing of 36 policemen including an SP in Chattisgarh was an example of what the Naxals are capable of. This takes the casualty toll to 148 this year in that hapless state falling in the so-called Red Corridor. Indeed, the three almost simultaneous attacks were the deadliest of the extremist violence Chattisgarh has seen in recent times.
The Maoists seem to have struck with lot of precision and planning. The modality and dynamics of the strike are said to be somewhat reminiscent of the early seventies in West Bengal. The worst strike took place in Rajnandgaon, barely 70 km from the state capital of Raipur. This points to the audacity which informs the functioning of the Maoists these days. They appear intent on moving closer to the seat of authority from the forests and tribal areas. If some of the intelligence reports are to be believed, the Naxals are working hard to make forays into towns and cities through recruitment of more and more volunteers.
The slain SP, who was on the Naxal hit-list for quite sometime, is said to have been targeted for his deemed success in breaking the extremists’ urban network in Bhilai city in Madhya Pradesh. The way Naxals could pull off this strike with deadly effect points to the need for further sprucing up our intelligence and internal security apparatus.
Rightly, the Naxalism has been termed as the biggest threat to the national security by none other than the Prime Minister himself. The Union Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram has also bracketed Maoists with terrorists for the threat they pose to the internal security. Be it noted that CPI (Maoists) has been declared as a banned Organization by the Centre barely a few weeks ago.
While there still seem to be no consensus on banning the Naxals, the time definitely has come to take the Naxal threat more seriously than has been felt so far. The Union Home Minster Mr. P. Chidambaram rightly believes that the Naxal menace had so far been underestimated which allowed the Left-wing extremists to consolidate and spread their wings. He has promised that the battle against Maoists ultras would be joined in full earnest through sustained efforts and drive.
The ban and the branding of Maoists as terrorists should further convince the skeptics about their insidious design on the Indian Nation. We need to find out better ways of dealing with this internal adversary masquerading as Left Radicals. There is not only need for infrastructural upgradation in terms of better logistics, equipment and arms, there is also need for better and more scientific ways of gathering intelligence. Our police force needs to be better trained and better motivated to face the Naxal challenge. The training needs to be customized to make the force understand the various nuances of anti-insurgency operations. Besides, there is undoubtedly a need for better execution and better targeting of developmental schemes in the Naxal-infested areas to extirpate the grounds of frustration and alienation there as per the recommendation of an expert panel recently.
Even though many of the politicos and observers believe that the so-called ‘liberated’ or ‘compact revolutionary’ zones are nothing but media hype, we need to take the Maoist challenge in its true perspective. This, inter alia, requires a massive overhaul of planning and coordination, along with arming and training of specialized forces. The Naxal threat appears in sharper relief once we look at the latest statistics for this year. The sundry violent incidents involving Naxals exceed those involving terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir and North-East put together. While Naxal-affected states reported 915 incidents, Jammu and Kashmir and North-East witnessed 810 incidents till May this year. Of these, 624 took place in the North-East and 186 in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Government is learnt to have appointed Brigadier D S Dadwal as its military advisor to help out in operational matters. Plans are also being drawn up in close consultation with different state governments. Proper coordination among the affected state governments along with a unified command structure seems to be need of the hour. The Naxal expertise in executing ambushes and mine blasts point to the extent and amount of challenge Naxalism poses to our country.
Brigadier Dadwal, who was so far serving as Deputy GOC with the 11 Infantry Division, is supposed to coordinate among disparate police forces of different states. This is likely to help in tackling the Naxal threat better. He is expected to not only advise the security agencies on specialized training, but is also supposed to help out in operational and logistical coordination. The manner in which our policemen are being repeatedly targeted in ambushes makes it necessary to constantly assess and improve tactics and strategy. The counterforce to Naxals has to be speedier and unorthodox beyond the mundane operating systems.
The truth is that the Naxals are a confused lot, not knowing what they wish to do. They actually do not seem to have any ideological mooring or any vision for the alternative they proffer vis-à-vis the system they seem to be fighting. The Indian democracy gives every ideology ample opportunity to seek popular consent through the first-past-the-post system. But till the time the Naxals do not see reason, an efficient and effective counterforce seems to be the only alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
