Volume 5, No. 9, September 2004

A: Yes. Of course, there is a drastic change in government policy towards our Party and the ongoing people’s war at least for the present. The present Congress government in the state has stated that it regards the Naxalite movement from a socio- politico-economic standpoint rather than from the usual Law & Order approach. It had initiated some measures that reflect the changed approach. The reason for this sudden change in the ruling class policy is not difficult to understand if we analyse the situation in the state since the last three decades, especially during the fascist regime of Chandrababu Naidu’s TDP.

For over three decades, 35 years to be precise, the ruling classes in AP represented by the Congress and TDP, had pursued a consistent policy of suppressing the Naxalites with brute force. Over four thousand people had been killed during this period, three-quarters of them after the formation of the CPI(ML)[PW] in April 1980. But the Party and the revolutionary movement had continued to grow braving the massive repression and suppression campaigns of the successive governments. It had spread from a small area in Karimnagar and Adilabad districts in AP to about 15 states in the country. It had become clear that the movement cannot be suppressed by brute force alone. A section of the ruling classes had thus advocated a policy of Talks with the Naxalites for some time past with the objective of ensuring relative peace at times. It is also a part and parcel of the imperialist strategy of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) which stresses on a multi-pronged strategy towards revolutionary movements and national liberation wars—a strategy that includes cease-fire and Talks which are aimed at blunting the edge of armed struggle and corrupting the movement through concessions and reforms.

The most important reason for the perceptible change in policy of the new government is the pressure exerted by various sections of the people, the democratic organizations and intellectuals, and even the opposition parties since the past few years on the Chandrababu Naidu’s government. The people’s aspiration for peace and democracy and their desire for an end to the police raj was completely neglected by the Naidu government. The latter had even insulted the people by coming up with the agenda of suppression of the Naxalites during the recent elections. Naidu had called upon the people to give a referendum on his policy towards the Naxalites and as it turned out, the people gave a clear verdict on the anti-people policies of the TDP and rejected its stand on the Naxal issue. The hatred of the people towards the TDP’s fascist rule was so deep that 28 of the 34 ministers who had contested the elections, including several stalwarts, were defeated.

The opposition parties, understanding the mood and aspiration of the masses, came out with a host of promises such as: setting up a judicial enquiry into all the fake encounter killings during the nine-year-rule of the TDP; an end to all fake encounters, combing operations, arrests and harassment of people; and to initiate Talks by first creating a congenial atmosphere in the state as soon as they assume power. They had also promised to lift the ban on the CPI(ML)[PW].

It is against this backdrop that the Congress party that had come to power changed the earlier policy of outright suppression and initiated some measures for holding Talks with the Naxalites.

A: The April 2004 elections in AP is an example of the unarmed protest of the masses against the policies of imperialist globalization, liberalization and privatization; communal and pro-Hindutva policies of the BJP and the TDP; and the fascist white terror unleashed by the TDP government on the people at large. The elections provided an outlet for venting out the pent-up anger and hatred of the people against the elitist, lop-sided, pro-imperialist development model pursued by the TDP government headed by Chandrababu Naidu for nine long years. Though parliamentary elections do not change the nature of class rule or bring any basic change in the lives of the masses at large, though they only replace one set of bandits with another, they do reflect the mood of the masses at a particular point of time. In this sense, election 2004 can be seen as an indicator of the degree of disillusionment of the masses towards the so-called development model that is said to transform the country into an economic superpower and the state of AP into swarnandhra pradesh.

It is this factor that has served as the backdrop for the change in the policies of the YSR government in AP as reflected in its relative emphasis on rural development, peace Talks with the Naxalites and an accommodative attitude towards various deprived sections of the society. To understand the current peace talks in AP, it is essential to go deeper into the most crucial factor that had prompted the new rulers to wield the olive branch.

Chandrababu Naidu’s TDP had openly declared a war against the Naxalites ever since it had come to power in 1995. The vast tracts of the state had been turned into virtual concentration camps, all fundamental rights were suspended, the basic human right to life was denied, and the democratic space for the articulation of the people’s aspirations and their right to protest was snatched. During Naidu’s reign, at least 2000 people belonging to various revolutionary organizations were eliminated, three-quarters of whom belonged to the CPI(ML)[People’s War]. Several thousand people were arrested, tortured, and implicated in false cases; their property was destroyed. The state languished under a pall of fear. The police assumed the role of prosecutors, judges and executors. They acted as political leaders and de facto rulers. It is this imposition of a police state over civil society in AP that became a focal point in the elections this time. The call by Naidu to give a referendum on his government’s policies towards the Naxalites was overwhelmingly rejected and, on the contrary, the people gave a referendum against his misrule through the means immediately available to them.

It is clear from the above that any government that assumes power cannot outrightly reject the aspirations of the masses at least in the immediate context. The very assumption of power by the Congress owes much to the election promises it had made, along with its allies, to begin peace talks with the Naxalites, to treat the Naxalite issue as a socio-poitico-economic one rather than a law and order issue, to do away with fake encounters and to restore the democratic rights of the people, and their assurance that all fake encounters during the nine-year-rule of the TDP will be referred to a judicial commission and the guilty officials punished. Though consciously underplayed by the mainstream media, this factor has no doubt played an important role in the defeat of the TDP-BJP alliance.

A: The Congress government is clearly in a fix.

On the one hand, it has to meet the people’s expectations and fulfill the promises it had made during the election campaign, while on the other, it has to ensure that the Naxalites do not grow strong by using the relaxation in the police offensive. It is like riding on the tiger’s back: dare to climb down and the tiger will devour you. How long this situation will prevail is difficult to predict. The entrenched police officials, of course, are quite reluctant to change the policies towards the Naxalites.

The stakes involved are too high to be dispensed with easily. A congenial atmosphere would mean restrictions on their entry into the Naxal areas; a virtual end to their age-old practice of extortion from the people in the name of links with Naxals, from traders, contractors and others; ceasing the operations of the private armed gangs of former Naxalites involved in real estate deals and encroachments; a sharp reduction in the complaints to the police filed by the rural people involved in disputes; an end to promotions to police officers involved in killing leaders through fake encounters and through covert agents; and so on. The police bullies, who ruled the state of Andhra Pradesh as their fiefdom during the nine-year-old reign of Chandrababu Naidu, were a much-pampered lot, answerable to none other than the biggest bully heading the state—the darling of the World Bank and the imperialists, Naidu.

Just as a Bush, with a mind-boggling array of weapons of mass destruction at his disposal, can think nothing else other than relying on his armoury of steel and metal to break the mettle of all those who defy his imperialist diktat, so does the fascist mind-set of these police bosses give room for any other solution.

Literally every police official had minted money in the name of suppression of the "Naxal menace" and it is hardly surprising that this section of the police brass would vow not to see the "horrifying" scene of Naxals holding Talks with the government and bringing about a temporary truce.

In fact, the government had dillydallied for over a month before declaring a cease-fire. It was only due to the mounting pressure from the various democratic organizations and the insistence of the CPI(ML)[PW] and other Naxalite organizations that it had ultimately come down on June 16th and announced "cessation of armed hostilities" for three months.

A: It is, of course, not an easy task to run with the hare and hunt with the hound. To achieve this the new government had worked out a plan: Prepare a mask that is acceptable to the people at large, a democratic mask that very few would dare to contest and thus create a situation where the PW leadership would be forced to come to the negotiating table on government’s terms.

And the government was able to win over the democratic intellectuals of the Concerned Citizens Committee (CCC). Ever since the YSR government came to power the CCC was taken into confidence and is pushed into the foreground to place the government’s viewpoint with the democrat’s soothing touch. The conditions of cease-fire which many would have opposed had the government spelt them out directly, have acquired some legitimacy and respectability coming out from the mouths of intellectuals who have some reputation and credibility in the society so far. The Naxalites should be confined to the forest or only come unarmed to the villages for carrying out their propaganda; they should not recruit cadres or increase their fire-power; they should not strengthen themselves in whatever manner by using the relaxation in state repression; they should not summon government bureaucrats in front of the people and question them; they should not even harass the police informants, not to speak of killing them, no matter how many informers the police may create during the period of cease-fire. The authors of these conditions may be an Aravinda Rao or a Purnachandar Rao but they gain some respectability through the endorsement given by the democrats of the CCC. The enthusiastic support exhibited by these intellectuals has given great relief to the new government as it now can make its conditions seem reasonable.

Emboldened by the moral support by the new apologists of the government’s policy towards the Naxal issue, the police had stepped up their campaign against the Naxalites. "7000 new recruits in the fold of the PW", claims a police report in a Telugu daily. "Large-scale extortions by PW cadre", claims another report. "Naxals go on arms collection spree", runs another news item. Police continue to feed such stories to the media in a subtle manner. The motive behind these stories is clear: tighten the noose around the PW and bring back the Golden Era of Chandrababu. The overall direction of the government is to disentangle itself from the present situation in a way that does not discredit it altogether in the eyes of the people. Hence it is building up its case towards this end.

A: There is a narrow-minded thinking in certain quarters that Talks between the Naxalites and the government would only strengthen the former, that they will utilize any relaxation in the repression to increase their fire-power, cadre strength, money power; that they would be better placed at the end of the day when the Talks break off, as they are bound to be, at some point of time—an inevitable consequence given the conflicting class interests of the two contending parties. Hence, they argue, the government should only give a few concessions to the People’s War party, "sufficient" to bring it to the negotiating table, so as not to give them any opportunity to take "undue advantage" of the situation.

This police logic only wants the entire drama to be completed at the earliest so as to step up their offensive through fake encounters and tortures, trampling upon human rights and civil liberties, and keeping the vast masses in a perpetual state of fear and insecurity through untold brutalities. The police brains can never think of anything else than use of brute force to stifle people’s resistance and dissent.

Thus the Congress-TRS government is now following a policy of Double Speak. While maintaining it is committed to carry out its election promises and its stand that Naxal issue is a socio-economic one, it has been trying to adopt a law & order approach in actual practice. Its argument that armed cadre of PW should not conduct their propaganda in the villages, that they should not take up recruitment, should not harass informers, and so on, would only mean that the PW should consciously weaken itself, place itself at the mercy of the armed gangs maintained by the police or, in other words, not undertake any political propaganda. It is amusing to see the Congress rulers dance to the tune of the police officials. Would a revolutionary party stop recruitment and desist from any attempt to strengthen itself just to please the government and to obtain some relaxation in state repression? How can such a police approach to the problem help build mutual confidence and ensure peace?

A: Any attempt to equate the violence of the ruling classes to perpetuate their exploitation with that of the oppressed masses in defence of their rights means playing into the hands of the exploiters and supporting the status quo. Anyone who aspires to reduce the level of violence in the society must appreciate and uphold the right of the oppressed masses to defend themselves from the relentless attacks by the ruling classes on their right to life, right to livelihood and the right to dignified and honourable existence in society. No amount of sermonising on ending all violence in an abstract manner will be of any help unless the qualitative difference between the violence of the ruling classes and the legitimate response of the oppressed masses led by the revolutionary party is understood. It is only by keeping the former type of violence on leash that the level of violence as a whole can be reduced. As long as the inbuilt, institutionalised violence in the society and the violence unleashed by the State continue unchecked it will be met with just and legitimate revolutionary violence of the masses. Hence it is the task of the various democratic organizations and intellectuals to bring pressure on the government to stop all forms of violence on the revolutionary movement and various sections of the people who are waging struggles on their demands.

The factional violence organized by the ruling class parties, the underlying institutionalized violence that is inbuilt in our semi-feudal society under the stranglehold of imperialism—the caste violence with its most abominable evil of untouchability and inhuman caste discrimination; the most degrading treatment and humiliation of women and the indescribable violence perpetrated on them by the patriarchal society; the massacres, pogroms and attacks against the Muslim, Sikh and Christian religious minorities by the fascist Hindutva gangs; the endemic ethnic violence instigated by sections of ruling classes and the imperialists; the violence of the big landowners, the rural bad gentry, unscrupulous contractors and moneylenders, and the brutal State violence expressed through fake encounters, tortures, arrests etc; and various forms of ruling class violence should be distinguished from the just and legitimate violence of the oppressed people and the revolutionary violence of the CPI(ML)[PW].

A: We do not have illusions that something drastic would emerge out of the Talks or that any of the basic problems of the people would be resolved.

We are going for Talks to ensure a relatively democratic atmosphere in the state even if it be for a short while. Our aim is three-fold: one, to provide a democratic space for the oppressed people so that they can enjoy their democratic right to agitate on their basic issues and to build a democratic movement; two, to reduce the level of violence in society by avoiding civilian targets that had become a norm for the police state; and three, to focus on various people’s issues and also attempt for a democratic resolution of some of the issues through discussions.

A: Our immediate aim is to capture state power through armed struggle by waging a people’s war based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Our ultimate aim is to establish Communism. This aim is non-negotiable. The Talks have nothing to do with this aim of ours. Hence the question of withdrawal of armed struggle does not arise.

But at the same time we are for ensuring peace as long as the ruling classes do not undertake violent suppression of the democratic and revolutionary movement. We do not believe in violence per se. Our violence is a legitimate response to the violence unleashed by the ruling classes who do not permit the militant democratic-revolutionary struggles of the oppressed people. We had declared that we will suspend our armed activities so long as the state suspends its armed suppression of the revolutionary movement. This includes state violence and state-sponsored violence of the vigilante gangs. Cessation of armed hostilities is declared by the two sides for a period of three months.

A: It all depends on the attitude of the government. If the government does not obstruct democratic activity then why should we resort to armed actions?

If everything goes well and the government does not create hurdles in the way of the democratic movements waged by the people and our Party that is at the head of the people’s movements, if it does not resort to repressive policies and sincerely sticks to the conditions of cease-fire, we do not mind extending the period of cease-fire in the interest of the people. But our experience shows that the ruling classes do not tolerate the political mobilization of the masses in a militant way. We also make it clear that people will not confine themselves to legal methods of struggle. They will defy the unjust laws and restrictions and will take up all forms of struggle to achieve their aims. For instance, if there is a ban on holding a meeting or a demonstration, the people will defy it. If there is a ban on strike, the workers will defy it. The people will confiscate the land of the landlords, forest lands, inaam lands, banjar lands, and so on braving the police threats. If there is use of brute force by the state the people will be forced to fight back by using all means at their disposal. Our Party will be with the people and lead their struggles. To sum up, we will not be the first to violate the terms and conditions of cease-fire. But if the government violates them we will have to fight back by intensifying the people’s war.

<Top>