The killing of 22 security personnel by Maoists in Bijapur district of Chhattisgarh serves as a grim reminder that left-wing insurgency continues to be one of the biggest internal security threats for the country.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
Initial reports suggest that security forces in Chhattisgarh had launched a massive operation on April 4, after there were intelligence reports about the presence of top Maoist commander Hidma along with 60-70 Maoists in and around Tekulugudam Hill in Bijapur. As the forces reached the top of the hill and were combing through the intended “target” (Tekulugudam Hill), they came under heavy fire. It was then the forces realised that they had walked into a trap. The initial assessment indicates that there were around 300 Maoists, which included men and women belonging to the local tribal militia.
In the past few years, Maoist violence seemed to have been on a downward spiral. The government has, in fact, had some major successes in the form of arrests and surrender of important Maoist leaders. The figures associated with the key indicators of violence like the number of incidents also support the contention that “insurgency is on the downward spiral”. However, some experts believed that it was too early to sound the last post and cautioned that this drop could be the result of a “tactical withdrawal” by the Maoists, something which they have done in the past as well. The attack should thus serve as a wake-up call to those who had begun to get complacent about the Maoist threat.
It appears that Maoists continue to hold on to their key strengths which include:
(i) a robust and efficient intelligence network;
(ii) the devolution of authority to local commanders;
(iii) an ability to quickly readjust their strategy;
(iv) extensive support from local tribes and the ability to organise them into a tribal militia for short-term tactical purposes and
(v) domination of the local landscape.
This brings us to the most important question about the nature of the Counterinsurgency (hereafter COIN) strategy, which governments both in the states and at the Centre are adopting or should adopt. Debates about the utility of different COIN models in the Indian scenario have continued since India began dealing with its first full-blown insurgency in Nagaland in the 1950s.
One school believes that given the Maoist insurgency posturing itself as a “people’s war”, the mandate is for a people-centric approach of “winning hearts and minds” that is built on the notions of competitive state-building to address economic and governance deficiencies.
The other school argues that an enemy-centric approach predicated on kinetic operations is best suited for the Maoist insurgency, where the fear of the population seceding from India is remote. The success of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh in curbing the Maoist problem is often attributed to this enemy-centric approach.
However, there is robust scholarly work available that shows that the Andhra government based its COIN strategy on a judicious mix of the enemy-centric and population-centric approaches. The successes achieved by the Greyhounds, Andhra’s elite special forces, could only be consolidated through the robust implementation of short-gestation-period developmental works in the Maoist-affected rural areas. Moreover, the erstwhile state is also the first state to have a comprehensive surrender-cum-rehabilitation policy.
After the 2014 guidelines of the central government were brought out, many states have crafted attractive surrender and rehabilitation policies. Odisha, for one, seems to have achieved fair success in its surrender policy but this was possible only after successful kinetic operations against Maoists. It is fair to say that a surrender and rehabilitation policy only works when there is sustained military pressure on the Maoists.
Another important question is whether the government should keep the option of talking to Maoists open. Debates about negotiating with insurgents and terrorists are often met with anger and, at times, disgust, at the possibility of sitting across a table from individuals who were responsible for some horrific violent acts.
The US government had to share a table with the Taliban, which played host to al Qaeda as the latter prepared to kill thousands of innocent Americans. The willingness to talk to rebel groups seems to incentivise insurgents and may demonstrate that violence pays.
Yet, time and again, governments face the distasteful reality of engaging with groups that have been involved in violent attacks against their forces and citizens. History is replete with examples that show the goal of ending terrorist violence or bringing an end to civil war invariably involves negotiating with the enemy, even the worst ones.
And Maoists may not fall under the “worst” category, as successive governments have labelled them as “misguided” youth. Even the present central government’s surrender policy guidelines are aimed at bringing these “misguided” youth into the mainstream.
In the last decade or so, insurgency-affected states have started to undertake serious efforts to defeat the Maoist insurgency. Most of these states have raised special forces on the lines of Greyhounds, and are being given rigorous training in “counter-guerrilla” tactics and jungle warfare.
A Maoist guerrilla can only be countered by a state guerrilla. The operating environment of these special forces has to demonstrate the employment of superior tactics to defeat the insurgents, something which at times seems lacking.
Besides, the Maoists have mastered the art of exploiting the grey zone areas. The jungles around the interstate borders have always been the preferred hiding spaces for the Maoists. Soon after decimating the top state Congress leadership in Darbha in Chhattisgarh in 2013, the assault group moved to the Chhattisgarh-Odisha border to avoid any kind of kinetic response from the Chhattisgarh police.
States must do more to synergise their efforts by launching coordinated operations, thereby denying Maoists any space for manoeuvrability. These efforts need to be supplemented by well-crafted development schemes. Proper implementation and timely disbursal of benefits add to the credibility of the government policies. It is also important to segregate the population from the insurgents both operationally and ideologically. The hawks and the doves need to be viewed and treated differently.
Indian counterinsurgency has to work with a dual objective of defeating the insurgents militarily and fully quell the insurgent impulses. This will need institutional overhauls. The conflict over the distribution of resources can be mended with economic development, but the bigger challenge would be to create a system where the tribal population feels that the government is representative, not repressive.
Opening negotiation channels and policies like surrender and rehabilitation can give such a representative sense to the rebels that the government cares for them if they (rebels) are willing to shun the violent path. Lastly, the asymmetry in the distribution of power cannot solely be ironed out by just economic policies, it is critically important to create a system where the distribution of power is not controlled by the traditional elite.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.