Heart Of Insurgency

A book that exhaustively explores the nature of the rampant Maoist conflicts in India, through a holistic socio-political perspective

Aditi Bhaduri

Maoists And Other Armed Conflicts
By Anuradha M. Chenoy and Kamal A. Mitra Chenoy
Penguin
Pages: 328
Price:  Rs 350
In 2010 India was wracked by insurgencies and armed conflict in different pockets of the country. The Geneva Conventions describe armed conflicts as intra-state conflicts of non-international character. The rules for behavior to be adhered to during armed conflicts are also laid down in the convention's additional protocols.
While most of the secessionist movements — Kashmir, the Northeast — have their terrain in the bordering regions of the country, a large swathe of Central India was in the grip of the Maoists; popularly known as the 'Red Corridor'. (India however refuses to accept the term 'armed conflict', as its recent protest at a UN report terming Naxal issue under 'armed conflict' demonstrates).
Two decades ago India had dealt with the problem of insurgency in Mizoram and Punjab but since quelled and done with. What accounted for these conflicts, zones where almost 'one-sixth of India's citizens live'?
In Maoists And Other Armed Conflicts Anuradha M. Chenoy and Kamal Mitra M. Chenoy have tried to address this and other concerns. Why do these insurgencies happen? What are the factors that fuel armed conflict? What is their impact?  Drawing on a number of theories and models, they argue for revisiting the dominant realist paradigms which "inform mainstream theories of nationalism" in favour of democratising and broadening state security to include "gendered human security which must also privilege the subaltern sections of society", which would include a "democratisation of policy-making and the expansion and protection of human rights". The book comprehensively revisits the different conflicts that have wracked the Indian state and provides a comprehensive overview of each.
In the Northeast (Assam, Bodoland, Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland), as in Kashmir, insurgencies were founded on competing nationalisms, stemming from both real and perceived injustices. Located "in regions of backwardness, economic neglect, and regional underdevelopment", conflicts have broken out because "local institutions of the state have very low presence".  Thus, government schools and health facilities are grossly lacking, and "..a small political, security and bureaucratic elite is seen to have usurped the gains of development funds,…there is evident exploitation of natural resources, be they minerals or forest products, by the local elite which his linked to influential 'outsiders'…" Added to this are denial of rights and justice, issues of identity and human rights violations. All this leads to a sense of collective victimhood and narratives of oppression "identified with a community", which heightens identity consciousness and identity politics. Historical fissures and differences with other communities are constructed, especially with the dominant "mainstream community", leading to a demand for secession from the Indian union. These grievances and sense of victimhood are then exploited by those who spearhead these movements, through both violent and non-violent ways. Further, since all of these states are border states they receive ample help from states across the borders. This was just as true of Punjab, where peace, however, reigns today. These insurgencies could be successful - though few have been quelled, others continue - only because they are "embedded in the communities where they operate" and have local support in some degree or other, in some form or other. The insurgent groups recruit young cadres, and do not hesitate to persecute and oppress those, whose cause they are supposed to serve.
The Maoist insurgency is the only one which is not based on any sub-national ideology and there is no question of secession. The Maoists seek to overthrow the state, and usher in a new political system. But the form that their movement has taken is similar to those of the other insurgencies; only they do not operate in border states and there is as yet no evidence of material cross-border support for them. However, the Maoist insurgency also operates in places of extreme backwardness and under-development, but places rich in natural resources which are being exploited by local elite in synchronisation with the state. Drawing on their numerous visits to these conflict zones and interviews conducted with the populaces there, on media reports and reports by various governmental and non-governmental agencies, the authors outline that "people become insurgents/militants because of a complex combination of personal, contextual and socio-economic factors, where there is a breakdown of their social and symbolic order and a sense of alienation, and there is anger and the desire for retribution against perceived injustice."
How has the Indian state responded?
Unable to provide security to people living in these conflict zones, the state views insurgencies mostly through the prism of "national security" which is then sought to be  heightened by applying  draconian laws such as the AFSPA and PSA which instill fear, "intimidate and harm, rather than protect and provide security"and the use of military force. The practice of state agencies also to enter into underhand deals with insurgents, and its counter-insurgency recruits from amongst former militants has also unleashed a culture of ugly violence with impunity among the inhabitants of the conflict zones.
These are then followed by development activities and engaging the militant groups through talks. The book contends that "the legitimisation of national security laws and their judicial sanction are based on the dominant Indian nationalist ideology that is essentially homogenizing and exclusive." This is perhaps a verdict which cannot be uniformly applied to all the insurgent-wracked communities. India is a mosaic of various cultures (a thali of different delicacies, rather than a melting pot, as Shashi Tharoor had once suggested), and it is difficult to say which culture has the upper hand. On the other hand, there is no denying that, "demands for justice, negotiations, or civil society interventions are treated with bureaucratic disdain and left to the local police to handle at their level." Corruption, inefficiency, breakdown of governance, violence by both insurgents and the Indian state then characterise these zones.
Thus, the book's main argument is that the basis of peace building must be human security that is essentially based on the human rights approach and not merely packages and government handouts. It calls for "talks with the leadership of the armed struggles should be put on fast track, local militants demobilized, and institutions of governance and democracy restored."
Maoists And Other Armed Conflicts advocates a human security approach, but does not take any Manichean position; it does not romanticise the insurgencies, neither does it expunge any of the atrocities or mechanisms indulged in by either state or non-state actors. The chapter on civil society perhaps needed a more critical approach. Human rights groups and activists in India often tend to be politicised; they are also often donor-driven, which makes not just the state but also a large silent majority view them with skepticism.  A little more credit could also have been reserved for the Indian state in the way it has handled insurgencies in places like Punjab, Mizoram and Nagaland. Nevertheless, it is an excellent guide to understanding the conflicts that currently rage on in India, state and civil society responses, and how the local populaces in all of these zones are affected by a very gendered violence that grips them. Rich in data and written in a lucid, non-academic style, it is both engaging and compelling, and extremely timely.