With the abduction episode closed after the Collector made a safe return to his residence, many controversies are coming in to trouble the Naveen Patnaik government in Orissa. When union Home Minister P Chidambaram reportedly expressed his dissatisfaction over what the government did to release its IAS officer, leaders of opposition parties in the State condemned Orissa government’s actions terming it a bad precedent that may have far reaching consequences not only in Orissa but also in the neighbouring states already troubled by the Maoist movement.
Getting the IAS Officer – one of India’s powered civil servants – back from the Maoist camp might have been seen as a victory by the government, mediators and, more particularly, the most powerful bureaucracy in the state, but the series of events since the abduction till the final release left in their trail many questions to be answered.
The first and foremost among all is why the government maintained to be at the receiving end throughout the talk process between the mediators and the government? Earlier, there have been a few such cases like abduction of a Police ASI in Keonjhar, many grass root level political leaders and villagers in Sundergarh, Koraput and Malkangiri districts. But in no earlier case government was so submissive, so surrendering as in the case of R Vineel Krishna and the Junior Engineer Pabitra Mohan Majhi. However, in the cases of Police Officer Umesh Marandi and, also, in the recent case of Pabitra Mohan Majhi, the state government played with the tribal card against the Maoists. But the abduction of the collector became a thorn in the throat for the government and it had to accept almost all the terms dictated by the Maoists for the safe release of the IAS officer. What pressurised the government for this? Was it the growing strength of Maoists displayed through abduction of the head of district administration or the strong lobby of Bureaucrats who virtually enjoys the status of medieval nobility in India?
The later seems to be more logical for the Naveen Patnaik government because it is run by the bureaucrats than the elected representatives and the council of Ministers. Here again, People’s representatives and political leadership – two essential components of a democracy – were not taken into confidence. For a negotiation between the government and the Maoists who should represent the democratically elected government? Should it be the elected representatives and leaders from the public or the bureaucrats? Why representatives or leaders who have a better knowledge of people’s issues and the realities of the place in discussions were not included? It reminds of the statement made by veteran CPI leader Prof. Abani Baral who once said, ‘Bureaucracy has overpowered people and their representatives in Orissa during the rule of Naveen Patnaik’ which is completely against the spirit and the basic objectives of democracy.
The other important thing about the negotiation is that it went completely one sided with the Maoists dictating terms through the mediators and the Government of Orissa just accepting the most. While the Maoists demanded release of five persons put in different jails on charges of being involved in Maoist activities and also demanded to stop anti-Maoist operations, the government from its side didn’t pursue the demand of ‘No Violence’ by the Maoists. All fourteen demands were accepted by the Officers representing the government just to get their fraternity colleague freed by the abductors. During the process of mediation the government was exposed to be too weak against the bureaucratic lobby. In the end, the mediation set such a precedent that it would encourage the rebels to resort to the formula to get their demands fulfilled. Even the possibility of such abduction in future not only by the Maoists but even by mafias and hardcore criminals can’t be ruled out.
On the other hand, the demands made by the abductor Maoist rebels proved themselves to be the real welfare thinkers for the tribal and downtrodden communities and exposed the state and its elected government to be a no welfare body. Out of the fourteen demands almost all the demands, except a few like releasing cadres and sympathisers confined in different jails and to stop anti-Maoist operations, were for the welfare of the tribal communities and the other downtrodden communities living in remote forest villages and in the places of heavy mining and industrial activities. For example, the Maoists demanded extension of irrigation facilities to remote villages of Koraput and Rayagada districts. Paying compensation to the farmers living in areas cut-off by Balimela Reservoir and providing justice to the tribal people displaced by NALCO Project in Damanjodi are in the list of the demands made by the Maoists. All these demands placed by the Maoists are in fact the duties of the government that never desired to accomplish before they are dictated as terms against release of the abducted IAS officer.
In order to uphold the rights of tribal communities over the forest and forest land in the mineral rich zones, the Maoists demanded cancellation of mining lease and MoU with multinationals to which the state showed its inability without consent of the union government. But the government now promised to implement PESA, Forest Rights Act, Forest Conservation Act and Environment Protection Act in their true terms and spirit. Does this mean that the government has not yet implemented these acts even though these laws are there since long to protect the rights of tribal communities and other forest dwellers?
The issues raised by the Maoists in form of demands against release of the Collector and raised by the mediators during their discussion with the Orissa’s Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik are truly some issues that should have been addressed by the government much before. In fact, they are the duties of the government. The acceptance of the demands, sympathetically or under compulsion, by the Officers involved in the mediation and the Chief Minister’s positive response to the issues raised by the mediators suggest that the government grossly failed in protecting the genuine rights of the tribal and downtrodden communities. Is this what ultimately necessitated abduction of a high rank officer like the District Collector?
Now that the abduction episode is over, the impacts of the mediation and Orissa government’s stand throughout the process would become more a worry in future than the relief at the moment. The mediation that went completely one sided would now become an obvious reason for people to doubt, or underestimate, the power and potential of the State in maintaining law and order situation and ensuring safety to the ordinary man in the places of hostility. So the primary challenge before the State now is to win the confidence of people in the elected government and the administration. For this, the failures of the State in resolving the issues of common people must be looked at seriously and issue of people living at the grass root level be addressed sympathetically. Even though the challenge is enormous before the government at this time, there is hardly any other way to keep people away from looking at alternate options or join revolutionaries to protect their rights. The challenge is that the State must prove itself to be a welfare State than just a governing body.
While nobody else predicted the date with such pin-point accuracy, there was no dearth of people – and certainly not journalists – who sincerely believed in, bought or peddled the ‘deal’ theory. Even paan shop gossip centred around the theory that the Naveen Patnaik government, through the seemingly omnipresent and omnipotent ‘Uncle’, had entered into a deal with the Ramakrishna faction of the Maoists to take attention away from the Dal scam, which was getting too hot to handle for the government when the abduction happened.
In journalist circles, there was animated talk of a more mundane ‘deal’ – one involving payment of huge amounts of cash to the Maoists to stage the drama. Even a figure – Rs. 8 crore – was bandied about freely.
Proponents of the ‘deal’ theory raised a number of eminently pertinent questions. Why did the Collector venture into territory which is widely known as the Maoists’ den? Why was Swami Agnivesh cold shouldered by the state government though he was the first to offer his services as a mediator – especially considering the fact that he had played a key role as a mediator in securing the release of five abducted policemen in neighbouring Chhatisgarh just a few weeks before the hostage crisis in Orissa? Why did the Chhatisgarh government not pass on definite intelligence it apparently had a day before the abduction that the Maoists were planning to do precisely such a thing? Or, if it did, why was it not heeded by the Orissa government?
There were some impertinent – and in some cases, mischievous – questions as well. Why was Vineel Krishna chosen to be the target? The implication was that the state government wanted to bask in the reflected glory of the Malkangiri Collector, who clearly has earned the admiration of the people of Malkangiri in general and the so-called ‘cut off’ area, in particular. One commentator even went to the extent of suggesting that he was ‘chums’ with the annas and was very much a dramatis personae in the hostage drama. To prove his point, he pointed to the unfettered access allegedly given to Vineel Krishna during his period of captivity to communicate with his family and even get essential items like clothes and shaving kit delivered to him in the jungles.
A leading Oriya daily ran a front page story asking for ‘stringent’ action against the Collector for his utterly ‘irresponsible’ and ‘foolish’ act in venturing into an area where the proverbial angles ‘fear to trade.’ It did not stop at that and went on to demand that officers who organized processions in support of the popular Malkangiri Collector should lose their salary for the nine days when “all work came to a standstill”.
Another commentator wondered why Pabitra Majhi was chosen ahead of the other junior engineer accompanying the Collector to be abducted? The suggestion was it was a carefully crafted strategy to use the ‘tribal card’, particularly in view of the fact that he was released a day before the Collector. Another asked: why was the helicopter carrying interlocutors Prof. Hargopal and Dandapani Mohanty ‘deliberately’ delayed till late in the afternoon? The unspoken suggestion: to ensure that they would not be able to reach Malkangiri in time to secure the release of the Collector. [No answers are available to the important question as to what material difference would it have made if Vineel Krishna had been handed over to the interlocutors and not to some local journalists because there is no way one can ask questions to those who have made a career out of raising questions without bothering to provide – or even suggest – possible answers! ]
The one question which has been the most puzzling for me personally is: when exactly did the government get the first information that the Collector had been released (or was being released)? Journalists who were present when the Collector was released say he was set free at about 4 pm. In that case, what does one make of the announcement by the third interlocutor (the other two having already left for Koraput) Prof. R Someswara Rao at 6.30 pm that Krishna “will be released by tomorrow”? Does that mean the government did not know, at least till two and a half hours after the release, that the Collector had already been released? If that is the case, then it is worrying. When the government of the day comes to know about the denouement of such a serious crisis that had paralysed the administration for nine days from the media, it is a clear signal that it is no more in control of things. If, as is more likely, it did know when the Collector would be released even while pretending that it didn’t and delayed the announcement sufficiently for the Assembly to adjourn, it’s even more worrying. For it means that the Naveen government has nothing but utter contempt for the people of the state, for the media and above all for the august house called the Orissa Assembly.
Despite being very much in the thick of things in my capacity as a journalist – and despite the time since the release of Vineel Krishna to reflect on things at leisure - I am still not sure what to make of the ‘deal’ theory. Now, it appears so eminently plausible. Now, it sounds so utterly incredible and far-fetched.
Governments, especially the ones centred around a single personality like the Naveen Patnaik government, have always been more than willing participants in deal-making. BJD’s deal-making skills were on full and vulgar display in the run up to the last Assembly elections in May 2009 and there is no reason why it would shy away from a deal with the Maoists to secure the release of one of the finest officers the state has – or, as the cynics suggest, to divert attention from the dal scam. But did the Maoists really play ball with the very government they are engaged in a fierce, no-holds-barred and bloody battle with? After all, as many as 20 Maoists were killed in the state by security personnel in January alone (although how many of them were really Maoists remains a matter of acrimonious debate).
But in the cynical times that we live in, nothing seems improbable. The new rules of the game provide ample opportunity to sleep and play footsie with the enemy. It is possible to do business with each other even while killing each other. [On second thoughts, it is an old – nay ancient – game, at least as old as the Mahabharat. Didn’t the Kauravas and Pandavas meet after sunset like friends after the day’s battle?] Some incurable romantics may imbue the Maoists with a halo – of an ideology-driven class war, blood and sacrifice. But the unpalatable truth is; they have left Mao far behind. [Why, even China has left the man who led the Revolution far behind!]
In large swathes of Maoist controlled areas in India, lower and middle level cadres have become a law unto themselves. They kill people at will; run extortion syndicates targeting corporates, mining lords and other rich people; charge hefty protection money from companies, government officials and even educational institutions (Remember the seizure of Rs. 12 lakh meant for the Maoists seized from two senior staff of a leading engineering college in Rayagada a couple of years back?]. In some places, they have now started, like corrupt government officials, demanding a cut even in welfare schemes meant for the poor and children. In the backdrop of all this, entering into a secret pact with the state government is not really as preposterous an idea as it initially appears, especially considering that the Maoists have held all the aces in this case since day one. They have got what they wanted (the release of key Maoist leaders); they have brought the state government to its knees and sent out the right signals by showing their concern for the tribals. [May be – just may be – they have also laughed all the way to the bank, (although the ‘deal’ has been allegedly transacted in hard cash)!]
The issue, however, is not whether a ‘deal’ had actually been struck by the government and the Maoists, but the number of people willing to believe this seemingly absurd theory. We are indeed living in cynical times.
Posted by: |