The Contrast

In between the country’s most tragic air accident in a decade at the Mangalore airport in the early hours of May 22 and the former Haryana DGP, S.P.S. Rathore, being sent to jail following his sentence to one-and-a-half years behind bars on May 25 (20 years after he had molested 14-year-old Ruchika Girhotra forcing her to commit suicide when he dodged the judicial system by misusing his office and intimidatory tactics) came the Prime Minister’s first fully-publicised press conference since 2006 (this was also his first as the executive head of UPA II) on May 24. It was a 75-minute exercise and the PM answered a wide range of questions, from the serious to the mundane, but in all frankness it must be pointed out that it was a lacklustre performance and, as The Times of India aptly concluded, the “answers didn’t break fresh ground or reveal an imaginative mind”. For those among the band of journalists present at the Vigyan Bhavan that morning who had the privilege of listening to former PMs—notably Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi—at similar press conferences, it was doubtless disappointing to find the head of government coming out with listless, insipid replies except on a few rare occasions. For most part he didn’t say anything innovative, extraordinary or new and the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha had every reason to state (as he did) that if the PM had nothing worthwhile to convey Dr Manmohan Singh should not have held the press conference in the first place.

On induction of Rahul Gandhi into the Cabinet the PM was more than just forthcoming. He said he was ready to take him in and opined that Rahul was “very well qualified to hold a Cabinet post” but the Congress General Secretary himself had turned down the offer on the ground that for the present he had devoted his energies towards strengthening the party organisation. But on the issue of Rahul taking over the reins of government he gave a slightly different answer: “Let me say I sometimes feel that younger people should take over. As and when the Congress party makes that judgment, I will be happy to make place for anybody chosen by the party.”

As anticipated, quite a few of the queries related to the Maoist problem in the Central Indian tribal heartland, and the answers were on expected lines, with the PM reiterating that it posed the “most serious internal security challenge”. However, when a questioner proposed imposition of “restrictions” on human rights groups indirectly backing the Maoists, he dismissed the suggestion, saying: “India is a democratic country. In a democracy everyone has the right to place his/her position. So long as they don’t subscribe to violence no restrictions should be imposed on them.”

His style of handling questions and the manner of answering them left much to be desired. But even on substance, the contrast between Dr Manmohan Singh’s pronouncements on the Maoist problem and those of former DG, BSF and erstwhile IG, CRPF E.N. Rammohan, who was entrusted with the task of probing the killing of 76 CRPF men by the Maoist guerillas in Dantewada last month, came out in sharp relief. On the lines of what he has reportedly written in his report on the investigation into that killing, Rammohan had much to say in concrete terms on the subject to a TV channel, thereby bringing out the depth of his understanding of the Naxalite or Maoist problem.

I don’t think the answer to the (Maoist—S.C.) problem is in a military solution. The basic problem here is that the adivasis are the people who have been pushed into the forests. Two issues are there. One is land, the other is forest produce. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh, the upper castes do not let the lower castes take any land. The Land Ceiling Legislation was passed in the fifties but it’s yet to be enforced in Andhra Pradesh and many other States in India. The only States to have enforced it are Kashmir and Kerala. In Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah did it because most of the landlords were Hindus and the serfs were Muslims. In Kerala, the land holdings are not very large because there is very little flat land available. But by and large the owners were upper caste. After a legislation was passed in 1957 in the State, stating that after 12 years, the ownership of the land passes to the tenant farmer, at one shot all the upper castes lost their land. There is no cause there now for insurgency. So, when the Naxals tried to spread to Kerala, they did not succeed.

…My point is, what is the problem in enforcing the Land Ceiling Legislation? And what is the justice that somebody should have 1000 acres and 15,000 acres and somebody should have nothing? That’s very wrong. All human beings are born equal. I don’t want to live in a Communist Government, but then, they were the only people who held the hands of these poor people. Can you blame them if they continue to hold their hands? That is the main issue.

The problem concerning forest produce is a little different. The tribals collect forest produce, small things like honey, tamarind, etc., and bring it to the market where the bania sits. And what does that fellow do? He gives the tribal Rs 100 and himself makes Rs 1000. That poor fellow cannot read and write. So he enslaves him for life. He keeps on collecting produce, selling it at a profit. The tribal does not even get a pittance for his labour.

…You should learn to make cooperatives with these adivasis. At a lecture I gave once, someone said to me, what are you talking about, these fellows are putting IEDs against the CRPF. I said, ask the CRPF to enforce the Land Ceiling Legislation. Ask the CRPF to sit there and see that the fellow gets his worth for the goods and then he will not put IEDs anywhere. You are forcing him to put IEDs.

Does the PM share Rammohan’s views on the issue? One could get no clue from his answers at the press conference. But then he couldn’t have possibly taken a position at variance with that adopted by the Congress President, could he? Sonia Gandhi has spelt out her stand in her latest article in the matter in Congress Sandesh wherein she gives due stress to the root cause behind the Maoist upsurge in the tribal belt. Incidentally, that has also been explained in depth by Rammohan (whose detailed exposition reminds one of Jawaharlal Nehru’s comprehensive analysis of problems besetting the country on the very day we observe the 46th death anniversary of our first PM).

Nonetheless, the contrast between the two pronouncements cannot be glossed over under any pretext.

May 27 S.C.