India's Maoists take their war to a new level

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 22, 2006
809
0
0
43
#1
India's Maoists take their war to a new level
By Sudha Ramachandran

India's Maoist rebels, known as Naxalites, have scored a series of successes in recent weeks in their insurgency, underscoring their growing ambitions and changing strategy, and stoking fears of attacks on high-profile and urban targets in coming months.

Last Thursday, they attacked a police post in the central state of Chhattisgarh, killing 55 people. A fortnight earlier they assassinated member of Parliament (MP) Sunil Mahato in neighboring Jharkhand state.

Last week's attack, described as among the deadliest in decades of Maoist insurgency, was carried out by some 350 heavily armed Maoists. It took place in Rani Bodli police outpost, in Chhattisgarh's Dantewada region, some 525 kilometers from the state capital, Raipur. The rebels surrounded the police post and lobbed grenades and gasoline bombs before setting the camp ablaze.

They blocked roads to the village by felling trees to prevent police reinforcements from reaching the heavily outnumbered police at Rani Bodli. Of the 55 killed in the attack, 16 were members of the Chhattisgarh Armed Police. The rest were Special Police officers - tribals who were part of the government-sponsored civil militia, the Salwa Judum.

The assassination of Mahato and the attack on the Rani Bodli police outpost signal a sharp escalation in the Maoist insurgency. In the past, high-ranking victims of the Maoists included legislators and ministers, but these were at the local and state levels. Mahato was the first sitting federal MP to fall victim to the Maoists.

Again, while police outposts have been routinely targeted by the Maoists, the attack at the outpost at Rani Bodli was noteworthy for the number of victims it claimed. The death toll at Rani Bodli is by far the largest among recent Maoist attacks.

The frequency of such spectacular attacks has grown over the past two years. In November 2005, more than 1,000 Maoists participated in an attack on Jehanabad jail in Bihar and freed about 350 of their jailed comrades. Last March, they hijacked a train in Jharkhand that was carrying some 300 passengers. In June, at least 400 Maoists participated in an attack on a camp of the Central Reserve Police Force in Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

The scale and frequency of attacks are one concern. Another is the vast area across which Maoists wield influence. In the early 1990s, the number of districts affected by varying degrees of Maoist violence stood at just 15 in four states. This figure rose to 55 districts in nine states by the end of 2003 and shot up to 156 districts in 13 states in 2004. Today, at least 170 of a total of 602 districts in the country are said to be under Maoist influence.

The Maoists have been able to strike with considerable energy because of the unification of the two main groups. The Maoist Communist Center and the People's War Group merged in September 2004 to form the Communist Party of India (Maoists). From operating as scattered localized cells, they have been able to operate as a stronger and unified force along a vast swath of territory often described as the "red corridor" running from Nepal down to Andhra Pradesh state.

Experts warn that the recent attacks signal a widening and intensification in Maoist violence in the country. According to Bibhu Prasad Routray, research fellow at the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, "Mahato's killing could just be the starting point for the escalation of the Maoist 'people's war' throughout the country."

Maoist documents and statements provide pointers to their growing ambitions and changing strategy. In 2004, Maoists, who had hitherto focused their operations in rural India, spoke of a new strategy to target urban centers. Their Urban Perspective Document lay down guidelines for working in towns and cities and for mobilizing support among students and urban unemployed. They identified two belts as targets for urban mobilization: Bhilai-Ranchi-Dhanbad-Kolkata and Mumbai-Pune-Surat-Ahmedabad.

More pointers to their growing ambitions were provided in statements issued at their "Unity Congress" this year. "The Unity Congress ... resolved to advance the people's war throughout the country, further strengthen the people's army, deepen the mass base of the party, and wage a broad-based militant mass movement against the neo-liberal policies of globalization, liberalization [and] privatization pursued by the reactionary ruling classes under the dictates of imperialism," said a statement issued at the meeting last month.

"No more hit and run," Muppala Lakshman Rao (also known as Ganapathi), who was re-elected general secretary of the organization, is reported to have said at the meeting. "Now the time has come to spread in the towns and identify specific targets, hit them precisely and with impunity."

Attacks in urban centers and on high-profile targets can be expected in the coming months.

An important trigger and target of Maoist attacks over the past year has been civilians who are part of the Salwa Judum - the Chhattisgarh government's initiative to arm villagers to fight Maoists on behalf of the state. Salwa Judum was initially thought to be a voluntary initiative of villagers in Maoist areas, who were fed up with the Maoist violence and wanted to fight the rebels themselves. It was touted by the government as a peace movement.

However, soon it became apparent that while some people in these villages might indeed be weary of violence, Salwa Judum was in fact government-sponsored and a civil militia, and tribals were being forced to join it. While a part of Salwa Judum's work involved political work, ie, propaganda against the Maoists, it also had an armed wing, which was seen as the tribal face of the police fighting the Maoists.

Soon, Maoists started targeting members of the Salwa Judum. Camps in which Salwa Judum members lived or buses in which they traveled were targeted by the Maoists. Hundreds of Salwa Judum members have been killed in the 18 months since it was formed.

The counterinsurgency strategy of the Chhattisgarh government, with Salwa Judum at its core, has unleashed civil strife in the state. Tribals have gotten caught in the crossfire between Maoists and the state. In the past, the Maoists targeted forest officials and police. Now it is tribals seen to be members of Salwa Judum who have become targets of Maoist ire. The 39 Special Police officers who were killed in last week's attack on the Rani Bodli police outpost were part of the Salwa Judum.

Entire villages have been emptied as tribal communities flee from the burnings, lootings and killings. The civil war in Chhattisgarh has driven more than 50,000 people out of their homes and into camps. Government authorities claim that the tribals are seeking refuge in the camps; tribals tell a different story. They maintain that they are forced into the camps.

The land on which the tribals live is rich in minerals and other resources. Human-rights activists say companies backed by the government that are keen to extract the area's mineral wealth want the tribals to leave the land. Salwa Judum has become a convenient way to drive the tribals out of their land and into camps.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#2
Thanks for the article. The Naxalites seem to be much more revolutionary, or have a better revolutionary understanding, then the so-called Maoists in Nepal, who have been very disappointing the last several months (laying down arms and working with the ruling elite). I believe the Naxalites have been highly critical of the Nepal Maoists.
 
Jul 22, 2006
809
0
0
43
#3
I think that’s a pretty harsh assessment of the Nepali Maoist movement. They have fairly strong ties to the Maoist movements in India(both are members of Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia, Nepali Maoist leaders were said to be hiding in India much of the time during the nepali civilwar); a big reason why India supported the Nepali king’s moves against the Maoists.
Their current position is one that his been employed by various revolutionary movements in the past to varying successes.
They could be consolidating forces within the country while the government is subdued. They can use this opportunity to show people either their strength in the country side translates to power in the republic or that the power structure is so ingrained in the old way that their attempts at embracing “democracy” were blocked by the old guard. Thus gaining them further support among the people. At which time they could put that strength in the countryside that had been consolidated into play, now with even more support from those disillusioned by the failures of the gov.
Time will tell.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#4
They already had the support from the people. Why did they not further the revolution when the masses were ready (mass protests/riots across the country)? They had the numbers, they had the King surrounded, there was little, if anything, the army could have done. It was the perfect opportunity to completely overthrow the King and the monarchy and move forward with a true Workers Revolution, but they didn't. They negotiated. They turned over some of their arms and joined an interim coalition government.

This sums it up pretty nicely:

"In fact, the Maoists in Nepal are simply the latest in a long line of nationalist guerrilla movements, which in the 1990s abandoned their anti-imperialist rhetoric and, under the auspices of the major powers, cut a deal to enter mainstream capitalist politics. Prachanda is now joining hands with the very parties that over the past decade helped prosecute the war against his guerrilla army. source

"In an interview last month with the British-based Telegraph, Prachanda offered a guarantee to international investors that their capital would be safe in Nepal. “We are not fighting for socialism,” he bluntly stated. “We are just fighting against feudalism. We are fighting for the capitalistic mode of production. We are trying to give more profits to capitalists and industrialists.”" (same source)

Related reading:
Nepalese Maoists agree to abandon armed struggle and join government
New Nepalese government seeks to defuse mass protest movement

Regarding the Naxalites, if you'd like, I can search for the article that talks about them criticizing the Maoists in Nepal for joining the government...
 
Jul 22, 2006
809
0
0
43
#5
” source”

Sorry, but I don’t find their criticism of the Nepali Maoists valid or justified. Hypocritical, yes. Pansyish, certainly.

They made a promise to remove the king and it looks like that is what is going to happen.

They had support from the rural populace in many parts of the country, yes, Maoists usually do. But despite strikes and protests much of the urban populace (majority of the country) was supporting other political movements, i.e. the ones organizing the protests in the cities and the ones the Maoists are now allied with. Rather than see those people in an alliance with the king, the Maoists allied with them and are removing the king.

"In an interview last month with the British-based Telegraph, Prachanda offered a guarantee to international investors that their capital would be safe in Nepal. “We are not fighting for socialism,” he bluntly stated. “We are just fighting against feudalism. We are fighting for the capitalistic mode of production. We are trying to give more profits to capitalists and industrialists.”"

Sounds like Fidel Castro circa 1959. We know how that turned out.

” (same source)”

Would have made the same criticism of Fidel in 1959, in fact they probably did. They are revolutionary haters.

They and you could be right though, I won’t argue that possibility. I just think there has to be some logical reasoning behind their choice.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#6
Deadpool said:
” source”

Sorry, but I don’t find their criticism of the Nepali Maoists valid or justified. Hypocritical, yes. Pansyish, certainly.
I think it's valid. They stopped short of a revolution. They had an opportunity to completely overthrow the monarchy and they didn't. They laid down some of their arms* (what kind of revolutionary group would turn their weapons over to the enemy?!?). Why throw such an opportunity away and start from scratch by working with the government and promising general elections, with most of the power back in the hands (or at least shared with) of the capitalist class?

*Granted, they haven't turned over all of their arms and probably aren't planning to.

They made a promise to remove the king and it looks like that is what is going to happen.
We will have to see how things turn out, but regardless, why didn't they completely overthrow the king and the monarchy when they had the perfect opportunity? That to me only indicates a lack of revolutionary understanding and/or poor leadership.

They had support from the rural populace in many parts of the country, yes, Maoists usually do. But despite strikes and protests much of the urban populace (majority of the country) was supporting other political movements, i.e. the ones organizing the protests in the cities and the ones the Maoists are now allied with. Rather than see those people in an alliance with the king, the Maoists allied with them and are removing the king.
Again, they passed an opportunity to overthrow him. Why go through the process of working within the government to overthrow him when they could have already done it, 6 months ago or so?

"In an interview last month with the British-based Telegraph, Prachanda offered a guarantee to international investors that their capital would be safe in Nepal. “We are not fighting for socialism,” he bluntly stated. “We are just fighting against feudalism. We are fighting for the capitalistic mode of production. We are trying to give more profits to capitalists and industrialists.”"

Sounds like Fidel Castro circa 1959. We know how that turned out.
..

” (same source)”

Would have made the same criticism of Fidel in 1959, in fact they probably did. They are revolutionary haters.
Their analysis of Cuba is flawed imo, and I disagree with much of what they say about Hugo Chavez as well, but to say they're "revolutionary haters" is a bit retarted. All revolutions need to be analyzed and the mistakes made need to be pointed out and criticized in order to learn from them.

They and you could be right though, I won’t argue that possibility. I just think there has to be some logical reasoning behind their choice.
There could be, and I hope there is, but there have been so many examples in the past where revolutionary groups have misread the masses and settled for less than revolution and this seems to be leading in that direction. These Maoists have been fighting for over 10 years and they reached the highest point last year only when the people really demanded change, by protesting/rioting, etc. They had undergone a rapid process of politicization and radicalization (much do to the Maoists of course). The majority of the working class had the will to go to the end (they often times chanted for the Death of the King, clashed with police, risked their lives, etc.) and of course supported the Maoists to lead them to change. But they didn't, they fell a bit short.