1. In recent weeks one has seen statements by the Government of India and leaders
of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) saying they are in favor of dialogue and
talks but each side seems to lack seriousness. There has also been an element of
drama or more precisely, theatre, with Kishenji and P. Chidambaram exchanging
statements through the media. Our first question is whether Kishenji’s statements
can be treated as authoritative pronouncements of the CPI (Maoist) central
leadership in pursuance of a national strategy? Or are these tactical
announcements by him keeping only the specifics of the Bengal situation in mind.
Azad: It is true our Party leadership has been issuing statements from time to time
in response to the government’s dubious offer of talks. But to generalize that there
is lack of seriousness on both sides does not correspond to reality. To an observer,
exchanging statements through the media does sound a bit theatrical. And it is
precisely such theatrical and sensational things the media relishes while more
serious things are swept aside. Now the stark fact is lack of seriousness has been
the hallmark of the government, particularly of the Union Home Minister P.
Chidambaram. It is Mr. Chidambaram who has been enacting a drama in the past
four months, particularly ever since his amusing 72-hour-abjure-violence diktat to
the CPI (Maoist) in the course of his interview with Tehelka Magazine some time
last November. As regards Kishenji’s statements, they should be seen with a
positive attitude, not with cynicism. Though our central committee has not
discussed our specific strategy with regard to talks with the government at the
current juncture, as a Polit Bureau member, comrade Kishenji had taken initiative
and made a concrete proposal for a ceasefire. Whether comrade Kishenji’s
statements are the official pronouncements of our Central Committee is not the
point of debate here. What is important is the attitude of the government to such
an offer in the first place. Our central committee has no objection to his proposal
for a ceasefire. But as far as the issue of talks is concerned, our Party will pursue
the guidelines given by our Unity Congress-9th Congress held in early 2007.
2. Both the Government and the Maoists are also laying down preconditions.
Chidambaram says the Maoists should “abjure violence and say they are
prepared for talks… I would like no ifs, no buts and no conditions”. Now ‘to
abjure’ can mean to renounce or forswear violence, or even to avoid violence, i.e.
a ceasefire. What is your understanding of Mr. Chidambaram’s formulation?
What do you think is the implication of what he wants the Maoists to accept?
Azad: It is a very pertinent question as no one knows exactly what Mr.
Chidambaram wants to convey by his oft-repeated, yet incomprehensible, abjure-
violence statement. Hence I can understand your confusion in interpreting Mr.
Chidambaram’s “abjure violence” statement. It is not just you alone but the entire
media is left in a state of confusion. His own Party leaders are a confused lot.
Some interpret Mr. Chidambaram’s statement to mean that Maoists should lay
down arms. Some say it means unilateral renunciation of violence by Maoists. Yet
others say what this could mean is a cessation of hostilities by both sides without
any conditions attached.
It is indeed very difficult to understand what Mr. Chidambaram wants to convey.
This seems to be a characteristic trait of Mr. Chidambaram whether it be his
pronouncements on Telangana, which are mildly described by the media as "flip-
flop" behaviour and interpreted by both pro and anti-Telanganites according to
their own convenience; or on Operation Green Hunt which he describes as a
“myth invented by the media” even as the entire political and police
establishment, and the entire media, give out graphic descriptions of the huge
mobilization of the security forces, and the successes achieved by Operation
Green Hunt; or on MOUs signed by various MNCs and Indian Corporate houses
with the governments of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and
others.
The Home Minister himself had displayed his split personality, not knowing what
exactly he wants when he says Maoists should “abjure violence.” To a layman
what this proposal obviously implies is that the state too would automatically put
a stop to its inhuman atrocities on the adivasis, Maoist revolutionaries and their
sympathizers. But not so to our Home Minister!
When you ask us what our understanding of Mr. Chidambaram’s formulation is,
our answer is: we are very clear that the real intent behind his rhetoric is not a
ceasefire between the government and the Maoists, like that with the NSCN, but
an absurd demand for a unilateral renunciation of violence by the Maoists.
Anyone with a bit of common sense would understand the unreasonableness of
the Home Minister’s demand.
It is not that our so-called political analysts and others who appear on TV
channels or write articles in the print media lack this common sense. It is their
vested interests that come in the way of questioning the Home Minister in a
straightforward manner. Can they not put a simple question why the government
cannot stop its brutalities on the people, adhere strictly to the Indian Constitution
by putting an end to the police culture of fake encounters, abductions, rapes,
tortures, destruction of property, foisting of false cases and such indescribable
atrocities on the people and the Maoists? Chidambaram is cosy in studios and
press conferences before English-speaking TV anchors and correspondents but
can never answer the questions put by illiterate adivasis. That is the secret behind
his skipping the Jan Sunwaayi in Dantewada last December. For, drama and real
life are entirely different.
The implication of what Mr. Chidambaram wants the Maoists to accept is crystal-
clear. He wants the Maoists to surrender. Or else [the state’s] para-military
juggernaut would crush the people and the Maoists under its wheels. It is total
surrender, pure and simple. While repeating that he never wanted the Maoists to
lay down arms – as if he had generously given a big concession – he comes up
with an even more atrocious proposal: Maoists should abjure violence while his
lawless forces continue their rampage creating more Gachampallis, Gompads,
Singanamadugus, Palachelimas, Dogpadus, Palods, Tetemadugus, Takilodus,
Ongaras, and so on. Not a word does he utter even as scores of inhuman atrocities
by his forces are brought to light by magazines like Tehelka, Outlook, a host of
websites, and, to an extent, some papers like yours. What is it if not sheer
hypocrisy on the part of the Home Minister to ask Maoists to abjure violence
while his paramilitary forces indulge in crimes every day, every hour, in gross
violation of the very Constitution by which he swears?
3. The Maoists also have their preconditions for talks. In his recent interview to Jan
Myrdal and Gautam Navlakha, Ganapathy made the following formulation on the
issue of talks: “To put concisely the main demands that the party has placed in
front of the government [of India] for any kind of talks are 1. All-out war has to
be withdrawn; 2. For any kind of democratic work, the ban on the Party and
Mass Organizations have to be lifted; 3. Illegal detention and torture of comrades
had to be stopped and they be immediately released. If these demands are met,
then the same leaders who are released from jails would lead and represent the
Party in the talks.”
My question is whether these are realistic preconditions. For example, the “all
out war” can be suspended first before it is “withdrawn,” i.e. a ceasefire, so why
insist on its withdrawal at the outset? Are you asking for a ceasefire or something
more than that?
Secondly, you want the ban on the Party and its mass organizations lifted and
prisoners released. Usually in negotiations of this kind around the world between
governments and insurgent groups, the lifting of a ban is one of the objects of
talks rather than a precondition and the release of political prisoners an
intermediate step. Is the Maoist party not putting the cart before the horse,
making demands that the government may be unlikely to accept as a starting
point, rather than positing the same as one of the end points of the proposed
dialogue?
Azad: I concur with the logic of your arguments. It is logically a valid argument
that such demands could be resolved in the course of actual talks and not as a
precondition for talks. But you must also understand the spirit of what comrade
Ganapathi has said in his interview given to Mr. Jan Myrdal and Gautam
Navlakha. Some clarification is required here. I will try to clarify what comrade
Ganapathi has said.
Firstly what he meant when he said the government should withdraw its all-out
war is nothing but a suspension of its war, or in other words, mutual ceasefire. Let
there be no confusion in this regard. What Chidambaram wants is unilateral
ceasefire by Maoists while the state continues its brutal campaign of terror. On the
contrary, what the CPI (Maoist) wants is a cessation of hostilities by both sides
simultaneously. This is the meaning of the first point. A ceasefire by both sides
cannot be called a precondition. It is but an expression of the willingness on the
part of both sides engaged in war to create a conducive atmosphere for going to
the next step of talks.
Secondly, if peaceful legal work has to be done by Maoists as desired by several
organizations and members of civil society, then lifting of ban becomes a pre-
requisite. Without lifting the ban on the party and mass organizations how can we
organize legal struggles, meetings etc in our name? If we do so, will these not be
dubbed as illegal as they are led by a banned Party? According to us, the ban itself
is an authoritarian, undemocratic, and fascist act. Hence the demand for the lifting
of the ban is a legitimate demand, and, if fulfilled, will go a long way in
promoting open democratic forms of struggles and creating a conducive
atmosphere for a dialogue.
Thirdly, what comrade Ganapathi had asked for is that the government should
adhere to the Indian Constitution and put an end to the illegal murders in the name
of encounters, tortures and arrests. We must include the term ’murders’ which is
missing in the third point. There is nothing wrong or unreasonable in asking the
government to stick to its own constitution. As regards the release of political
prisoners this could be an intermediate step as far as the nature of the demand is
concerned. However, to hold talks it is necessary for the government to release
some leaders. Or else, there would be none to talk to since the entire Party is
illegal. We cannot bring any of our leaders overground for the purpose of talks.
4. Would the Maoists be prepared to establish their bona fides on the question of
talks by announcing a unilateral ceasefire or, perhaps the non-initiation of
combat operations (􏰀ICO) after a particular date so as to facilitate the process of
dialogue?
Azad: It is quite strange to see intellectuals like you asking the Maoists to declare
a unilateral ceasefire when the heavily armed Indian state is carrying out its brutal
armed offensive and counter-revolutionary war. How would unilateral
announcement of ceasefire or NICO after a particular date establish the bona-fides
of our Party on the question of talks? What purpose would such an act serve? It is
incomprehensible to me why we are asked to “display this generosity” towards an
enemy who has the least concern for the welfare of the people and derives
vicarious pleasure in cold-blooded murders, rapes, abductions, tortures and every
kind of atrocity one could ever imagine. And how would this "generous Gandhian
act" on our part facilitate the process of dialogue with the megalomaniacs in the
Home Ministry who do not spare even non-violent Gandhian social activists
working in Dantewada and other places?
5. What do the Maoists hope to achieve with talks? Are you only looking to buy time
and regroup yourselves – which is what the government said the CPI (Maoist) did
during the aborted dialogue in Andhra Pradesh? Or is it part of a more general
re-evaluation of the political strategy of the party, one which may see it emerge as
an overground political formation, engaged in open, legal activities and
struggles, and perhaps even entering the electoral fray directly or indirectly at
various levels in the kind of ‘multiparty competition’ that Prachanda says is
necessary for the communist movement? When you say you want the government
to lift its ban on the party, are you also undertaking not to indulge in methods of
struggle (eg. armed struggle) which led to the imposition of the ban in the first
place? There are other Maoist and revolutionary communist parties across India
that is mobilizing workers and peasants through mass politics. They have not
been banned. Why does the CPI (Maoist) not believe those are legitimate forms of
struggle? In Kashmir, the Hurriyat conference stands for the self-determination of
J&K and seeks to mobilize people for this but the Indian state, which may use
violence and repression and excessive force against people who peacefully
protest, has not banned the Hurriyat. Does this not indicate that there is some
space in the system for the Maoists to press their demands through peaceful
political means?
Azad: Your question, or rather, a whole set of questions, requires a detailed
answer. I am afraid it will take much space but I will try to be as brief as possible.
Before I proceed, let me clarify at the very outset that the proposal of talks is
neither a ploy to buy time or regroup ourselves, nor is it a part of the general re-
evaluation of the political strategy of the party that could lead to its coming
overground, entering the electoral fray, and multi-party competition as in Nepal.
Our CC had already dealt in detail with the question of multi-party competition in
our Open Letter to the UCPN (M) and various articles and interviews by our Party
leaders. So I will not go into it again here.
Now let me take up each of the points that you had raised.
First, you asked me what we want to achieve with talks. My one sentence answer
is: we want to achieve whatever is possible for the betterment of people’s lives
without compromising on our political programme of new democratic revolution
and strategy of protracted people’s war. People have a right to enjoy whatever is
guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, however nominal and limited these
provisions are. And the government is duty-bound to implement the provisions of
the Constitution. We hope the talks would raise the overall consciousness of the
oppressed people about their fundamental rights and rally them to fight for their
rights. Talks will also expose government’s hypocrisy, duplicity, and its
6
authoritarian and extra-constitutional rule that violates whatever is guaranteed by
the Constitution. So talks would help in exposing the government’s callous
attitude to the people and may help in bringing about reforms, however limited
they may be.
Another important reason is: talks will give some respite to the people who are
oppressed and suppressed under the fascist jack-boots of the Indian state and
state-sponsored terrorist organizations like the Salwa Judum, Maa Danteswari
Swabhiman Manch, Sendra, Nagarik Suraksha Samiti, Shanti Sena, Harmad
Bahini, and so on. Those who sit in studios and insulated rooms, and make their
expert analyses about how Maoists want to buy time or utilize the respite to
regroup themselves, can never understand the ABC of revolution or the ground
situation. This is actually not an argument at all. If the Maoists try to utilize the
situation, so would the police and the government. Wouldn’t they? They created
an extensive network of police informers during the six-month period of ceasefire
in Andhra Pradesh in 2004. The intelligence hawks attended every open meeting
and activity of the Maoists, took videos of people, and could easily target them
after the clamp-down. Maoists had definitely increased their recruitment but so
did the enemy. It doesn’t need much of a common sense to understand that both
sides will utilize a situation of ceasefire to strengthen their respective sides. Then
could this be called an argument at all? These cynics, or, I would rather call them,
war-hungry hawks, itch for a brutal suppression of the Maoists and the people
they directly lead, even if it means genocide. They do not care if in the process
thousands of police and paramilitary personnel too perish for they are nothing but
cannon-fodder in the eyes of these gentlemen.
So let me make it crystal-clear: the proposal of talks is meant neither to buy time
nor to regroup ourselves but to give some respite for the people at large who are
living under constant state terror and immense suffering. How many of our
countrymen know that three lakh adivasis were driven away from their homes,
that half the adivasi population in our country is already living under conditions
of chronic famine and even the rest of the population is now pushed into famine
condition? And why? Because of the insatiable greed of the corporate sharks that
is fuelling Chidambram-Raman Singh’s war in Chhattisgarh, Chidambaram-
Naveen Patnaik’s war in Orissa, Chidambaram-Buddhadeb’s war in West Bengal,
Chidambaram-Shibu Soren’s war in Jharkhand, and so on. Whoever has the
minimum concern for the well-being of the masses, no matter what his/her
ideology is, would naturally think of how to save them from being decimated. But
those who have nothing but sheer contempt for the poor and helpless people and
only think of how to maximize the profits of a tiny parasitic class, put forth weird
and cynical arguments deliberately to confuse the people. They depict the Maoists
as terrorists, create a fear psychosis in the middle and upper classes that the
Maoists would soon come to your cities and disturb your supposedly secure lives;
that they would seize power by the middle of this century, and what not. By such
hysteria whipped up by the rulers through the various means at their disposal, they
justify the brutal war on the people and make the massive displacement, mayhem,
massacres, rapes and atrocities appear like collateral damage in the larger noble
objective of achieving peace, progress and prosperity for all.
Question of re-evaluation of political strategy of CPI (Maoist), demand for
lifting of ban, and the issue of legitimacy of open, legal forms of struggle
There are a lot of questions related to the above and I feel this needs some
detailed explanation keeping in mind several misconceptions doing the rounds.
Firstly you are wrong in assuming that it is the forms of struggle (armed struggle)
pursued by the CPI (Maoist) that had "led to the imposition of the ban in the first
place." On the contrary, it is the other way round. It is the imposition of the ban
that had led the Party and mass organisations to take up arms in the first place.
People are easily misled to believe that it is the violence of the Maoists that had
compelled the government to impose the ban. This is a classic example of how a
white lie can be dressed up and presented as the truth by endless repetition. If you
have even a cursory glance at the history of the revolutionary movement in our
country you will find that the forms of struggle adopted by the Maoist
revolutionaries from time to time basically corresponded to the forms of
suppression pursued by the rulers.
A stark example of the transformation of a peaceful mass movement into a violent
armed struggle is right in front of our eyes. Lalgarh’s peaceful mass movement
with simple demands for an apology from the police officials and an end to brutal
police repression had transformed into a revolutionary armed struggle due to the
brutal suppression campaign unleashed by the state and state-sponsored terrorists
like the Harmad Bahini. So was the case of the movement in Kashmir and various
states of North East. Even in Naxalbari in 1967, the first shots were fired on
unarmed women and children by the police. The people retaliated in their own
manner and the party took birth and evolved a correct political line for the Indian
revolution. In Srikakulam, Koranna, and Manganna were the first martyrs and
these murders transformed the movement into an armed struggle. Even during the
first great armed mass uprising of Telangana during the late 1940s, the spark was
first lit when the cruel feudal lords murdered Doddi Komaraiah.
If you take the case of the transformation of the movement led by the erstwhile
CPI (ML)[PW] or MCCI or the present CPI (Maoist), you will find the same
pattern. The revolutionaries go to the oppressed, make them conscious of their
inherent strength and the reasons for their misery, make them aware of their
fundamental rights, organize and unite them, mobilise them into peaceful forms of
protest and struggle. Then the state enters with its baton in defence of the class of
big landlords, contractors, industrialists, land mafia and other powerful forces that
control the state and economy. Everywhere, the peaceful struggles are crushed
brutally, entire areas are declared disturbed, fake encounters, abductions,
disappearances, rapes, burning down villages, and untold atrocities become the
order of the day.
The Indian Constitution is consigned to the dustbin by the rulers and is not even
worth the paper it is written on. At that point of time any revolutionary party has
to quickly switch to non-peaceful and armed forms of struggle if it is really
serious about transforming the lives of the people and the oppressive conditions in
the country. The alternative is to surrender the revolutionary aims, make
adjustments with the system and sail with other parliamentary parties albeit with
some revolutionary rhetoric for a while. This, however, will not work for long as
people cannot distinguish between the bourgeois-feudal parties and the ML party
that had turned into a new parliamentary party. When people are fighting a do-or-
die battle you cannot turn your tail but will have to provide them with new
appropriate forms of struggle and forms of organization. And this is what our
Party had done right from the days of Jagtyal Jaitra Yatra.
What shook the rulers at that time and compelled them to declare Jagtyala and
Sircilla tauks in Karimnagar district of North Telangana as disturbed areas in
1978 was not the armed struggle of the Maoists (which had suffered a complete
setback after the setback in Naxalbari, Srikakulam and elsewhere by 1972 itself)
but the powerful anti-feudal militant mass struggle that upset the hitherto
established feudal order in the countryside. And one of the main forms of struggle
at that time was social boycott of the feudal lords and their henchmen, which
witnessed the unity of over 95 per cent of the people in most villages. Social
boycott had disturbed the peace and tranquility of the feudal barons who
functioned like a state within a state. From then on, undeclared ban has been in
vogue in parts of North Telangana until 1985 when it encompassed the entire
state. CRPF was deployed for the first time to suppress the peaceful mass
struggles that broke out against liquor. I remember how the mainstream media
like the Indian Express published stories of policemen selling arrack at the police
stations and forcing people to consume liquor in order to foil the anti-liquor
agitation of the revolutionaries.
We find the same story in the urban areas too. The Singareni colliery workers
organised themselves into a trade union called Singareni Workers’ Federation
(SIKASA) in 1981 but it was unofficially banned within three years. An
undeclared ban was imposed on the students and youth organisations, women’s
organizations, workers’ organizations, cultural organizations and every form of
peaceful, democratic protest was brutally suppressed. One must see the
development of armed struggle in the background of the strangulation of even the
limited democratic space available in the present semi-colonial semi-feudal set
up, and the brutal suppression of the movement by unleashing the lethal
instruments of the state.
To cut a long story short, it is not the forms of struggle and forms of organization
adopted by a party that had led to imposition of ban but the very ban (whether
declared or undeclared) on every type of open, legal activity including peaceful
public meetings that had compelled the revolutionaries to adopt non-peaceful and
armed forms of struggle and underground forms of organization. Our Party
appeals to all independent observers and unbiased media personnel to look at this
phenomenon historically and analyse this with an open mind. You will realize that
what I have said is hundred per cent correct. We are prepared to enter into a
debate with anyone on the course of development of the revolutionary movement
led by our Party in our country and how, why, and when, armed form of struggle
had to be adopted by the party.
Revolutionaries never mince words. There is no need to. We believe that
ultimately people have to take up armed struggle to seize power. But this does not
mean we take up armed struggle at the cost of all other forms of struggle and
thereby invite the state to unleash its brute force on the people. On the contrary, it
is only when all other forms of struggle fail to achieve the objective, when these
are crushed under the iron heels of the state that we resort to non-peaceful and
armed forms of struggle. It is very important to understand this as it has become a
common practice for some so-called political analysts and representatives of the
ruling classes to charge the Maoists as responsible for all the violence since their
very ideology talks of armed struggle. Hence, they conclude, there is no use of
talks with the Maoists. These simpletons resort to the method of simple
reductionism: Maoists believe in violence and armed struggle to overthrow the
state; hence they indulge in endless violence; there is no use of talking to people
whose very ideology is rooted in violence; and hence there is no other way than to
crush the Maoists with all the means at the disposal of the state. Such goes their
argument. I will deal with this later on.
I didn’t quite understand what you meant when you said referring to other open
Maoist and revolutionary communist parties across India that are mobilizing
workers and peasants through mass politics: "Why does the CPI (Maoist) not
believe those are legitimate forms of struggle?", you ask. Who has said we do not
believe these are legitimate forms of struggle? We consider all forms of struggle
as legitimate, right from social boycott as we had practiced in Jagtyala, hunger-
strikes as our comrades in various prisons are frequently taking up besides other
places, and various militant demonstrations. Armed struggle is also a form of
struggle and assumes importance depending on the tactical moves by the enemy.
While all forms of struggle are legitimate in our eyes, some so-called
revolutionaries, veterans of yesteryears, surprisingly exclude armed struggle from
the forms of struggle and lay one-sided emphasis on peaceful forms of struggle.
They can well join the Gandhian organisations and fight for some reforms instead
of calling themselves as part of the ML stream or as Maoists aiming for the
revolutionary transformation of society. For some of them, ML ideology or label
is only a fashion. They do not wish to bring about the revolutionary
transformation of the society and state but only a few cosmetic reforms.
The question of imposing or not imposing a ban on a certain party or organization
depends on several factors. It would be too simplistic to conclude that just
because a Party believes in armed struggle and indulges in acts of violence it is
being banned while those who pursue open, legal forms of struggle are allowed to
function freely. During the Emergency, as we all know, both the revolutionary
Left as well as the reactionary Right parties were banned. Even at the height of
sectarian violence indulged in by the Hindu fascist gangs, they are allowed a field
day. They carry arms, display them openly, threaten the religious minorities with
genocide, indulge in violence against the Muslims and Christians, and yet are
deemed as legitimate organizations since they are part of the ruling classes and
their integral culture of violence.
The acts of destruction in the violence that was organized in a planned manner [in
Andhra Pradesh] by a faction of the Congress in one day far surpassed the so-
called violent acts carried out by Maoists in an entire year! Yet our Union Home
Ministry issues advertisements against Maoist violence while keeping mum about
the mayhem and arson by his own Congress party hooligans. Thus the question of
how you look at violence is coloured with a class bias. The violence by the ruling
class parties is considered legitimate while those by the oppressed masses and
their organizations are dangerous and a threat to the security of the rulers. This
has been true right from the time of Charvakas.
6. If the government believes the Maoists “misused” the Andhra talks, your party
believes the dialogue there was abused by the authorities to identify and then
target your leaders. How, then, do you hope to deal with the risks of once again
entering into a dialogue with the Indian state?
Azad: The talks we held with the Congress regime in AP provided us with
important lessons. And these lessons would guide us in any future talks with the
governments of the exploiting classes. It would be too simplistic to conclude that
the police could identify and target the leaders by utilizing the talks interregnum.
They used it to some extent just as we used it to take our politics widely among
the people in the State and outside. The setback we had suffered in most parts of
AP is not a fall-out of talks but due to several inherent weaknesses of our Party in
AP and our failure to adopt appropriate tactics to confront enemy’s tactics. This is
an entirely different subject and can be dealt at some other time.
What is of relevance here is that the talks in AP have given us a rich experience
and important lessons. If at all a situation for talks arises once again—which we
do not foresee in the near future given the inexorable compulsions on the
government from the corporate sharks for total control of the mineral-rich
region—we can instruct our leadership in various prisons to take the
responsibility. Our General Secretary had explained this in the course of his
interview with Mr. Jan Myrdal and Mr. Gautam Navlakha. The mistakes
committed in AP during talks with the government will not be repeated.
7. There is a contradiction between the recent offer for talks made by Kishenji and
the spate of violence and killing by the Maoists which has followed that. The
Home Ministry has compiled a list of such incidents and circulated it to the media
(see Annex). 􏰀o doubt there has been no letup in the government offensive during
this period and you could produce your own counter-list but many of these attacks
by the Maoists do not appear to be ‘defensive’ but ‘offensive’. Can the offer of
talks go hand in hand with the intensification of offensive Maoist military
activities?
Azad: This is not as complicated as it is made out to be. The crux of the matter is:
no ceasefire has been declared either by the Maoists or by the government. The
Maoists had made an offer of talks which was immediately dismissed by the
government as a joke and spurned by Chidambaram himself who wants nothing
short of total surrender, whatever be the language he uses. When the government
is not serious about a ceasefire and dialogue, and is placing a condition that
Maoists should abjure violence without spelling out whether it will reciprocate
with a simultaneous declaration of ceasefire, then what is the use of grumbling
about acts of violence by Maoists? The acts of violence by both sides will cease
from the day a ceasefire is declared.
Now I am not going into the innumerable atrocities by the police forces and the
paramilitary gangs sent by [the state]. There has been a wide coverage in
magazines like Tehelka, Outlook and our own Maoist Information Bulletins. The
statements and fact-finding committee reports by various organizations and
Gandhians like Himanshu Kumar clearly show how savage the state has become.
Equally atrocious is the list compiled by the Union Home Ministry regarding the
violent acts by Maoists to justify its rejection of the Maoist offer. The annexure
appended to your questionnaire speaks volumes about the duplicity and lies
spread by the war-mongering hawks in the Home Ministry as part of their psy-
war. This is meant to lend an element of legitimacy to their rejection of the
ceasefire offer by Maoists and also to their war waged for nipping in the bud the
alternative organs of people’s power, the alternative development models, and for
grabbing the resources in the mineral-rich region for the benefit of the class of
tiny parasitic corporate elite they represent. I will not go into all the incidents
listed therein.
The very first “heinous act of violence” cited by the Union Home Ministry in its
annexure circulated to the media to manufacture consent for its dirty war, goes
like this: "In West Bengal (February 22, 2010) –attack on a State Police-CRPF
Joint patrol party in PS Lalgarh, district West Midnapore. In the ensuing gun
battle Lalmoham Tudu, President of the Police-e-Sangharsh Birodhi Janaganer
Committee (PSBJC) was killed."
The above incident was said to have taken place within three hours of the offer of
a 72-day ceasefire made by comrade Kishenji. Chidambaram himself had gone on
record repeating several times this fabricated “heinous act” in a desperate bid to
justify his rejection of the Maoist offer. Earlier too, Chidambaram had
deliberately hurled an accusation against the CPI (Maoist) of massacring villagers
in Khagaria district.
Coming to the so-called attack by Maoists on the joint patrol party, it is a hundred
per cent lie. There was no such attack at all. Ask anyone in Narcha village or
Kanatapahari. Every villager, and not just the family members of Sri Tudu, will
tell you how a hundred-odd CRPF men lay in waiting at his house on the night of
22nd , how they caught the three, and carried out the cold-blooded murder. That
there had been no firing by the Maoists was corroborated even by the CRPF men
guarding the camp.
Initially, the SP of Paschim Mednipur asserted that Mr. Tudu died when the
CRPF men “bravely” retaliated an attack by the Maoist guerrillas on the fortress-
like CRPF camp in Kantapahari. Later, realizing the hollowness of his own story
and fearing that it would evaporate like dew drops with the first rays of the sun,
they changed the version by [saying] that Tudu and other two were killed when a
Maoist guerrilla squad attacked the CRPF’s raiding party. This lie is being
propagated consciously, with a clearly worked out strategy of justifying the
gruesome offensive by our own brand of George Bushes and Donald Rumsfelds.
Tehelka Magazine, Star Ananda and other media sources have graphically
exposed this lie.
As for your question regarding offensive and defensive actions, I wish to clarify
to every well-meaning person who desires a reduction of violence on the part of
the Maoists that there is nothing like defensive and offensive actions once the war
has commenced. However, our revolutionary counter-violence is overall
defensive in nature for a considerable period of time. This does not mean we will
retaliate only when we are fired at and keep silent the rest of the time when the
police, paramilitary and the vigilante gangs unleash terror and engage in all-round
preparations for carrying out genocide. To make this clear, let us suppose the men
sent by Chidambaram are combing an area. When we come to know of it, we will
carry out an offensive, annihilate as many forces as possible in the given
circumstances, and seize arms and ammunition. We will also take prisoners of
war where that is possible. This will be part of our overall defensive strategy
although it is a tactical counter-offensive.
In the war zone, if you do not take the initiative, the enemy will seize the
initiative. Likewise, we may have to attack ordnance depots, trucks carrying
explosives, guards at installations such as NMDC, RPF personnel, and even
outposts and stations far beyond our areas to seize arms, as in Nayagarh, for
instance. To fight a well-equipped superior enemy force that has no dearth of
arms supplies and logistical support, what other option do we have but to equip
ourselves with the arms seized from the enemy?
Some of these men are killed when they offer resistance. We feel sorry for their
lives but there is no other way. Chidambaram may yell that innocent CISF jawans
were targeted even though they were in no way related to the state’s offensive
against Maoists. But that is how things would be in a war zone. The war would
get dirtier and dirtier, engulf new areas and affect hitherto unaffected regions and
sections of society. But this is precisely what [the ruling] coterie want. We will
also destroy the informer network built by the enemy, his supplies, bunkers,
communication network and infrastructure. We have to confiscate money from
the banks and other sources for funding the revolution. There is no use of yelling
about the indiscriminate destruction by Maoists. We have to paralyse the
administration, immobilize the enemy troops, cut off his supplies and perhaps
even target the policemen engaged in removing the dead bodies of the enemy.
There was a hue and cry when our guerrillas placed mines under the dead bodies.
But why such a hue and cry? Where are the rules in this war? Who has defined
the rules? If there were rules, then why are the peace-chanting pigeons in the
Home Ministry completely silent about the beasts in police uniform who had
chopped off the breasts of 70-year-old Dude Muye before killing her, murdered in
cold blood over 120 adivasis since August 2009 in Dantewada, Bijapur, Kanker
and Narayanpur, and yet roam freely and continue their atrocities without
hindrance? Chidambaram, Pillai, Raman Singh and their like should first define
the rules of engagement and then, and only then, they have a right to speak of
violations of the rules. I am sure they would never dare to discipline their own
forces while preaching meaningless sermons about Maoist “atrocities.”
We appeal to all peace-loving, democratic-minded organizations and individuals
to ponder over this question, pressurize the government to adhere to the Geneva
Convention, punish those who are creating Gompads, Gachampallis,
Singanamadugus, Palachelimas, Tetemadugus, Takilodus, Dogpadus, Palods, and
several other massacres. If it is to be a war, then let it be but the state should
clearly state whether it would abide by its own Constitution and the International
Conventions on the conduct of war.
8. The Maoists are engaging in armed struggle but have not hesitated in use
violence against non-combatants. The beheading of a policeman, Francis
Induvar, while in Maoist captivity, shocked the country and was a blatant
violation of civilized norms and of international humanitarian law, which the
Maoists, like the Government, are obliged to adhere to. If civil society condemns
the security forces for killing civilians in places like Gompad village in
Chhattisgarh and elsewhere and demands that justice be done and the guilty
punished, it has an equal right to condemn the Maoists whenever they commit
such crimes. There have been some reports that the Maoist leadership has
apologized for the killing of Induvar but what steps have you taken to punish
those who were involved? What steps have you taken to ensure such crimes are
not committed by your cadres? If your answer is that the state has also not
punished those among its ranks who have committed crimes, are you then
admitting that the political culture and moral universe the Maoists represent is
the same as that of the state which you decry as illegitimate?
Azad: I had already covered part of your question in my answer to your earlier
question. Our attempt will always be to target the enemy who is engaged in war
against us. Non-combatants are generally avoided. But what about the intelligence
officials and police informers who collect information about the movements of
Maoists and cause immense damage to the movement? It is true most of them do
not carry arms openly or are unarmed. What to do with them? If we just leave
them they would continue to cause damage to the Party and movement. If we
punish them there is a furore from the media and civil society. Caught between
the devil and the deep sea! Our general practice is to conduct a trial in a people’s
court wherever that is possible and proceed in accordance with the decision of the
people. Where it is not possible to hold the people’s court due to the intensity of
repression we conduct investigation, take the opinion of the people and give
appropriate punishment.
I agree there is no place for cruelty while giving out punishments. I had clarified
this in one of my earlier interviews while referring to the case of Francis Induvar.
But it is made into a big issue by the media when a thousand beheadings had
taken place in the past five years by the police-paramilitary and Salwa Judum
goons. You are saying the beheading of Francis Induvar was a blatant violation of
civilized norms and of international humanitarian law which both sides in the war
are obliged to adhere to. Do you really think the government is adhering to the
law? And has the media ventured to ask Chidambaram why [the state] hasn’t been
following the international law or at least the Indian Constitution when dealing
with the people in the war zone or citizens elsewhere? Just ten days ago, two of
our Party leaders—comrades Shakhamuri Appa Rao and Kondal Reddy—were
abducted from Chennai and Pune respectively by the APSIB and the Central
Intelligence officials and were murdered in cold blood. What cruel tortures these
comrades were subjected to by the lawless goons of the Indian state no one will
ever know. I can give a thousand such examples of killings of our comrades in
cold blood while in police captivity in the past five years. Why is the media silent
about these murders but becomes hysteric when one Police Inspector is beheaded?
What is the civil society doing when such cold-blooded murders are taking place
in police custody? Why single out a rare case of the beheading of one Induvar and
play it up whenever you need an excuse to bash the Maoists?
When our comrades hear of these cold-blooded murders committed by the APSIB
or other officials of the state, it is natural that their blood would boil and they will
not bat an eye-lid to hack any of the perpetrators of these inhuman crimes, say a
man from APSIB or Grey Hounds, to pieces if he fell into their hands. In the war
zone, the passions run with such intensity which one cannot even imagine in other
areas or under normal circumstances. Could someone who has seen women being
raped and murdered, children and old men being murdered after hacking them to
pieces in the killing fields of Dantewada and Bijapur, ever give a thought to your
so-called non-existent (I say non-existent as none of the combatants know what
these are nor would follow these conventions as the history of fake encounters by
the Indian state shows) international laws when the perpetrator of such crimes
happens to fall into their hands? The pent-up anger of the masses is so intense that
even the Party general secretary will perhaps fail to control the fury of the adivasi
masses when they lay their hands on their tormentors.
Maoists are not for crude and raw justice as some are trying to make it appear.
Maoist guerrillas are not thugs and mercenaries like the men who carry out their
brutal heinous acts in the name of democracy and the “rule of law.” Maoists have
great respect for human life. Democratic values and norms are an integral part of
socialist and communist ideology. Yet at the same time we think it is necessary to
destroy the few poisonous weeds to save the entire crop.
I once again request you and all others to think by imagining yourselves what
would you have done when your mothers, sisters and daughters are raped in front
of your eyes, your father, brother and sons are murdered after being hacked to
pieces. And worst of all, when there is no guardian of the “rule of law” to receive
your complaints and the complainant himself/herself is abducted. When we do not
understand the feelings of the affected people, it is better to imagine ourselves in
their place. This may help us in getting nearer to the truth.
9. The Supreme Court has asked the petitioners who filed a PIL against Salwa
Judum atrocities to draw up a rehabilitation plan for those displaced by the
violence perpetrated in Chhattisgarh by Salwa Judum, the regular security forces
and the Maoists. Is the CPI (Maoist) prepared to give an undertaking that it will
allow the rebuilding of schools and the establishment of basic government
services (primary health care, anganwadi, PDS etc.) as part of a court-backed
plan for the welfare of the tribals affected by the conflict? Will you agree not to
attack government employees and officials who enter to provide services to the
tribal masses?
Azad: Asking us to give an undertaking that we will allow the rebuilding of
schools and establishment of basic government services in the areas we control
and that we will not attack government employees and officials is quite bizarre, to
say the least. The welfare of the masses is the first priority for the Maoist
revolutionaries. You should request Mr. Chidambaram to allow you to visit the
areas in Dandakaranya, Jharkhand, Orissa, or the villages of Jangalmahal by
controlling his paramilitary forces, the SPOs, the Salwa Judum, Shanti Sena,
Nagarik Suraksha Samiti and Harmad from obstructing you. Then you will see
with your own eyes a hitherto hidden story of how the adivasis are prevented from
pursuing their normal activity by the state and state-sponsored terrorists.
You will find how the forces had occupied school buildings for six months to a
year, thereby preventing the children from pursuing their studies. You will find
how the adivasis are prevented from buying their daily necessities from the
weekly bazaars most of which were forcibly closed through threats and
intimidation by the so-called security forces. Who is blocking the development of
the adivasis, who is preventing them from carrying on their normal activity like
cultivating the fields, tending the animals, collecting minor forest produce,
picking tendu leaves, obtaining their daily necessities, and so on will become as
clear as day-light once you visit these remote villages. Hence the government, its
“security” forces, and vigilante gangs are hell-bent on preventing independent
observers and fact-finding teams from visiting these areas.
It is worthwhile to keep in mind that it is not the lack of development that has
become the problem in the rural areas, particularly adivasi-inhabited areas. On the
contrary, it is its imperialist-dictated anti-people development model that is
driving them to displacement and deprivation, death and destitution, and extreme
desperation. There need be hardly any doubt that the poor adivasis have been a
happier lot before the civilized [corporate] goons set their foot on their soil. The
development model pursued by [the rulers] displaced them and made them aliens
in their own land.
The so-called development that you are referring to is the development that India
had seen under the British colonialists. The talk of roads in remote areas is not for
the benefit of the people, who are without food and drinking water, but only for
the speedier movement of the raw materials from the hinterland to the cities, to
help the mining sharks to transport the mineral wealth and forest produce. And, of
course, for rushing in the state’s troops to quell any militant people’s struggle
against the rapacious plunder by the tiny parasitic class of blood-sucking leaches.
The entire world knows that a George Bush invaded Iraq for oil even as the media
in the US barked about Saddam’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Entire India knows that [the rulers] and the vultures they represent are itching to
lay their hands on the abundant reserves of iron ore, coal, tin, bauxite, dolomite,
limestone and other minerals of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and other States
where their Operation Green Hunt is launched.
Lastly, banding together Maoists with the state and vigilante gangs, and equating
their revolutionary counter-violence in defence of the rights of the people with the
counter-revolutionary violence of the state and vigilante gangs like the Salwa
Judum, is a despicable trick played by the rulers and those so-called democratic
forces to obfuscate the stark reality of the brutal violence of the state and state-
sponsored terrorists. I can say with full confidence that there was no
displacement, whatsoever, of innocent people due to the revolutionary counter-
violence by the Maoists. It is only a handful of anti-people exploiters, tribal heads
and landed gentry who had fled the villages in the course of the class struggle.
Many, however, had surrendered to the people, mended their behaviour, and
continue to live in the villages like others.
The Supreme Court should know that the displacement of the adivasis was done
in accordance with a pre-mediated plan to evacuate the villages and settle them in
Vietnam-type strategic hamlets. And this policy is being continued by the BJP
government in Chhattisgarh with full assistance from the Congress-led
government at the Centre. The Supreme Court, if at all it is serious about the
displacement of the adivasis, should direct the central and State governments to
immediately halt its brutal armed offensive on adivasi villages in the first place,
which is resulting in the massive exodus of the people estimated at around three
lakhs since the current brutal war began in the name of Operation Green Hunt.
10. Human rights groups have condemned the security forces and the Maoists for not
respecting the sanctity of schools. If the security forces take them over and
convert them into barracks, the Maoists have also been guilty of destroying
school buildings and infrastructure. Even in the absence of a ceasefire or
dialogue, don’t you think both sides need to come to an understanding that
schools and school children should not become targets of this war?
Azad: It has now become a fashionable thing for some human rights groups and
the media personnel to play the role of referees in a sports event. By criticizing
both sides equally they imagine they are being impartial or neutral in the war. If
someone says that both Indians and the British were responsible for the violence
in India during the two centuries of British rule would you accept it? Or that both
Iraqis and the American occupiers are responsible for the violence in Iraq? Any
freedom-loving person would unequivocally say it was the British colonialists that
caused the blood-shed in India and it is the American aggressors that are the cause
for the unending violence in Iraq.
By criticizing both the so-called security forces and the Maoists for not respecting
the sanctity of schools, these human rights groups imagine they are playing a
neutral and impartial role. But they do not even see the cause and effect chain of
events. They do not ask themselves the simple question: If the police and
paramilitary do not occupy schools, then where is the need for the Maoists to
destroy them? Do you know the fact that in many villages it was not the Maoist
squads but the people themselves who had demolished school buildings since they
did not wish to see the security forces create insecurity in their villages? How can
you ask the Maoists and the people to assure you that they will respect the
sanctity of schools occupied or likely to be occupied by their tormentors?
My request to media people like you is: please do not be misled by an act, by how
it happened, but go deeper into why it happened. Only then you will reach the
truth.
However, we also agree with your proposition that even in the absence of a
ceasefire or dialogue, both sides should come to an understanding that schools
and school children should not become targets of the war. We take this occasion
to convey to the GOI that it should immediately withdraw all its forces from
school buildings and stop recruiting school children as SPOs and as police
informers. If they withdraw their forces and assure they would not reoccupy
school buildings, then our Party will desist from targeting schools. And if the
government stops recruitment of school children as SPOs and police informers,
then the very basis for punishing these people disappears.
But the more important thing and the larger issue is: can schools function even if
the buildings are intact when the parents of the school children are murdered,
raped, abducted, tortured, and are forced to flee? What do you have to say of the
children of the three-lakh people who had fled the villages due to Operation
Green Hunt I and II? What use are the school buildings and the talk of sanctity of
schools when the villages themselves are deserted? A more rational proposal
would be to ensure that the inhabitants of the villages are resettled with the
assurance that the police and paramilitary would not continue their atrocities and
let them live in peace. This is the most important thing and should assume first
and foremost priority in the war theatres all over India, particularly
Dandakaranya.
11. Is the Maoist party and leadership under pressure because of recent top-level
arrests like that of Kobad Ghandy? Is there also a wider crisis of leadership with
fewer activists from the intelligentsia getting attracted to Maoists?
Azad: I did not understand what pressure you are referring to. Is it the pressure
for a ceasefire and talks? If so, then I would say you are completely off the mark.
One cannot overcome pressure through such tactics. Actually the Party and
leadership will grow rapidly in times of war. Several new leaders are emerging
out of the struggle. War is giving birth to new generals and commanders, which
we never anticipated in normal times. While it took several years to produce a
leader of calibre in relatively peaceful times, it is taking a fraction of that time in
the midst of the war situation.
Today we find even children acquiring high level of consciousness at an early
age. War is transforming the world outlook of the illiterate people, their
understanding about the class nature of the state and its various wings, and how
they have to get rid of the anti-people state and establish their own organs of
power. People have begun to understand from their own lives what comrade
Lenin had taught in his State and Revolution. This transformation has contributed
to the development of leadership at all levels. At the central level, I agree there is
some problem, though not very acute, after the losses in the past two years.
Overall, it is not true to say that there is a wider crisis of leadership due to drop in
recruitment from the intelligentsia. You will be surprised to know that contrary to
the assessment of various analysts and media personnel, the appeal of the Maoist
movement has actually grown stronger in the intelligentsia. And it is precisely this
fact which is rattling [the rulers] and [their] trumpeters in the media. The threats
and attacks on intellectuals have been increasing in tenor and there are growing
attempts at isolating the intellectuals who seem to sympathise with the Maoists.
The more the growth in popularity of the Maoists and their politics, the more is
the cacophony about the erosion of the mass base of Maoists, especially among
the intellectuals.
You must also look at it from another angle, instead of concluding that [a] lack of
intelligentsia has created a crisis of leadership. The mass base of the Maoists has
actually grown stronger, notwithstanding the attempts of the rulers to destroy it by
brute force. The more you try to crush it the more it bounces back. Our leadership
is drawn basically from the oppressed class of adivasis, dalits, agricultural
labourers and poor peasants. It is precisely because of this circumstance that our
movement has become invincible. Intellectuals are a good asset for the party but it
is the basic classes that are the life-blood of the Party. And we have plenty from
these sections.
12. In Ganapathi’s interview to Jan Myrdal anNavlakha he said: “I reiterate that at
present no one party or organization is capable enough to be a rallying center for
all revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic forces and people.
Hence, at present juncture our Party can play a significant role in rallying all
revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic forces and people.” This
suggests you see the Maoists as one part of a wider force of progressive, patriotic
people. Who else do you consider part of these forces? Which organizations or
parties do you regard as progressive and patriotic part of these forces? Does this
not include the CPI and CPI (M)? Why then have Maoists in Bengal been
involved in assassinating cadres of other communist parties like CPI (M)?
Azad: It is not only now, but all along we have been considering ourselves an
indivisible part of the broader force of other revolutionary, democratic and
patriotic sections of people. Firstly, we are one of the several revolutionary
detachments in the international detachment of the world proletariat and we see
ourselves as a part of the broad world-wide anti-imperialist front. Our mass
organizations are a part of the International League of People’s Struggles (ILPS)
and are in the forefront of the struggle against American imperialism.
Within India, our party took birth in the midst of the revolutionary upsurge of the
late 1960s, particularly with the glorious Naxalbari uprising, and hence we are an
indivisible part of all that is revolutionary in the Indian political stream. We are
also an heir to the great Telangana Armed Agrarian Uprising (1946-51), the
Tebhaga uprising of 1946, and all the revolutionary struggles led by the
Communist Party since its birth in 1921, notwithstanding the betrayals by its
central leadership at every critical turning point in the revolutionary political
history of our country.
Second, and the one more pertinent to your query, is the fact that the Communist
revolutionaries are politically (i.e., in terms of its programme), a part of the wider
democratic stream of all anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces in the country.
This is the essence of our programme of new democratic revolution (NDR),
which seeks to unite all those opposed to imperialism, feudalism, comprador
bureaucratic capitalism into one broad front to overthrow these enemies and
establish a government comprised of the four-class alliance of the working class,
peasantry, urban petty-bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie. Once you grasp
this political basis of our NDR it will not be difficult to understand why we are
trying to form numerous tactical united fronts as part of forming a strategic united
front in various States and at the all-India level.
To identify the organizations or parties that can be called progressive (usage of
the term ’democratic’ would be more appropriate) and patriotic, one has to see not
only whether they have any anti-imperialist, anti-feudal and anti-state or anti-
authoritarian aspect included in their political programmes, but also their actual
practice. We consider most of the ML revolutionary forces as part of this front.
We consider national liberation organizations like the NSCN, ULFA, PLA of
Manipur, and the JKLF in Kashmir as part of the wider democratic forces fighting
the Indian state. We consider the various non-parliamentary trade union
organizations, various progressive organizations belonging to the religious
minorities which are persecuted by state-backed Hindu fascist organizations;
various organizations of dalits and other oppressed castes, adivasis and women;
the non-parliamentary organizations that are fighting for demands like separate
Telangana, Gorkhaland, Vidarbha, Bundelkhand and so on; the organizations that
are waging struggles against SEZs, mining and other so-called development
projects leading to massive displacement of people; organizations fighting against
the Liberalisation-Privatisation-Globalisation (LPG) policies of the reactionary
rulers; those which boldly confront the growing authoritarianism and unbridled
state repression resulting in fake encounters, mass murders, and violation of all
fundamental rights of the people; and so on, as part of this broad-based non-
parliamentary democratic people’s front.
There are also a large number of intellectuals and other democratic individuals
who are concerned about the well-being of the people and the sovereignty of our
country at large. We consider all these as genuine patriotic forces that are deeply
concerned about the future of our country, about the well-being of the
overwhelming majority of the Indian people rather than that of a tiny parasitical
class that runs the country through the so-called mainstream parliamentary
parties.
I am obviously leaving out the names of the organizations and individuals who, in
our opinion could play a crucial role in the revolutionary transformation of our
country into a self-reliant, genuinely democratic society. Today we are passing
through a phase of Indian McCarthyism that brands every form of dissent and
anyone who questions the authoritarianism of the Indian state as Maoist in order
to legitimize its witch-hunting and brutal repression.
Today immense possibilities have unfolded for the rapid advance of the
revolutionary war in India and the task of the revolutionary Party lies in how
effectively and ably it can utilize the present situation, rally all those who have
become the victims of the anti-people, imperialist-dictated policies of the
comprador-feudal forces ruling our country, and forge a broad-based united front
of all these affected sections of our society and all revolutionary, democratic and
patriotic forces in the country. This task should be achieved by defeating the
brutal all-out countrywide coordinated war unleashed by the reactionary ruling
classes of our country with the aid and assistance of the imperialists, particularly
American imperialists.
If we fail in achieving broader unity of all these forces, the fall-out would be
disastrous for the Indian people at large since the aim of this cruel armed
onslaught is not only to suppress the Maoist movement, but also to suppress every
form of democratic dissent and struggle of the people against the authoritarian,
feudal and autocratic structure of the Indian state and socio-political system. As
put forth by our General Secretary, comrade Ganapathi, in the same interview
given recently: "This war is principally against Maoist movement but not limited
to this movement and aimed enough against all revolutionary, democratic,
progressive and patriotic movements and the movements of oppressed
communities of our society including oppressed nationalities. At this juncture, all
these forces have to think together how to face this mighty enemy and for this
how to unite to go ahead."
Now coming to your specific question regarding the CPI and CPI (M). Are they
not a part of the wider democratic and patriotic forces? I would say YES and NO.
As far as the rank and file cadre of these parties is concerned, there is still some
amount of sincerity and zeal among a section of them to work for the well-being
of the people. But the leadership has completely capitulated to the exploiting
ruling classes and pursues a reformist line that would only help sustain the status
quo albeit with a few cosmetic changes. Here too, we have to differentiate the CPI
from the CPI (M). We do not place both the CPI and the CPI (M) in the same
category. The CPI leadership has been critical of the policies of the CPI (M), has
consistently opposed counter-revolutionary vigilante gangs like Salwa Judum
propped up by the State and central governments, and is opposing the Operation
Green Hunt launched by the Centre.
One can witness the reactionary anti-people nature of the policies of the CPI (M),
especially in States where it is in power. Singur, Nandigram, Lalgarh, and a host
of other names have stripped the CPI (M) of its guise of anti-imperialism and anti-
neoliberalism. The CPI (M) is not even a thoroughgoing democratic force, let
alone being Communist. However, we are prepared to join forces with even these
revisionists if they come forth into non-parliamentary struggles on the basic issues
of the people, and to the extent they uphold democratic values.
It is wrong to say we are assassinating the cadres of the CPI (M). We are
confronting the armed onslaught by the storm-troopers like the Harmad Bahini
and other armed [men] maintained by their party leaders by putting up courageous
resistance. The struggle against the CPI (M) is part of the class struggle of the
people against exploitation and oppression. We challenge them to an open debate
on any issue. Despite their diplomatic and opportunistic stand that their fight with
the Maoists is mainly political, they are in the forefront in the war waged by the
Indian ruling classes against the Maoists. Unable to confront us ideologically and
politically, their leaders and spokespersons have unleashed a vicious campaign of
outright lies and slander against the Maoists.
We call upon the cadres of the CPI (M) and other so-called left parties to come
forward to unite with other forces to fight against the disastrous policies of the
central and State governments, to unite with others to oppose the brutal war
waged by the reactionary rulers guided by the US imperialists against the Maoist
movement and all forms of democratic dissent. We are prepared to unite with all
sincere and genuine forces in these parties who take the side of the broad masses
of people.
13. Why has the CPI (Maoist) decided to reach out through the columns of The
Hindu? To use a newspaper to clarify its views vis a vis the Government?
Azad: Among the daily newspapers, The Hindu has a reputation for giving out
serious news and less of sensational stuff that has become the genre of the media
these days. Our party leadership has given interviews to this paper earlier too,
such as my interview on the developments in Nepal, which was covered in two
parts. On a lighter vein, I think it will reach out to our direct Enemy No. 1 at the
present juncture, Mr. Chidambaram, too.
I think the media can play a role in carrying the views of a banned party to the
government and the people at large, particularly at a time when facts regarding
our Party are distorted, misinterpreted, and obfuscated in a meticulously planned
manner. And when there is no scope for a dialogue given the determination of the
rulers to carry out their pre-programmed war offensive that was worked out a year
ago, we think it appropriate to reach out to the people at large through the media
too.
Finally, I thank The Hindu for the thought-provoking and incisive questions it has
placed before our Party. We look forward to more of such interaction with the
media in future. On behalf of our Central Committee and our entire Party, I
welcome any questions related to our ideology, political programme, strategy,
tactics, and practice. I hope through regular and active interaction between
organizations like ours that are proscribed by the government and the media, an
opportunity is provided to the people to arrive at a correct judgment and seek truth
from facts. Or else, truth is certain to become a casualty in this world dominated
by corporate sharks that control virtually every source of information that is fed to
the people.