The successful Andhra Pradesh model of neutralising the Maoist challenge is much talked about and other states affected by Left Wing Extremism strive to counter Naxals with this model as a benchmark. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) [CPI (Maoist)] retreated from undivided Andhra Pradesh in 2004.

The State Government recently announced its intention of resuming bauxite mining in the tribal belt of Vishakhapatnam, a Schedule V area. The region has a past history of tribal dis-satisfaction over mining and the likely move of the Government has the potential of giving traction to mobilisation of tribals by the Maoists. In the past, not only social activists, environmentalists and bleeding heart-liberals but also security analysts, have raised concerns about displacements-induced challenges. The rebels, in the given circumstances, are likely to regain their lost foothold as they begin leveraging local discontent for their ulterior motives.

In wake of dwindling strength in other areas, the Maoists desperately aspire for fresh hunting grounds. North Andhra Pradesh offers them a two-fold advantage, namely their familiarity with the region, being part of their erstwhile ‘liberated zone’, and contiguity of the area to the Odisha border astride the districts of Koraput and Malkangiri, where the rebels have a noticeable presence.

The CPI(Maoist) top leaders have reportedly been touring villages on the Andhra-Odisha border area to give a boost to the anti-bauxite agitation. Meetings with tribal leaders are reportedly being organised in interior areas and the response is said to be good. The north Andhra Pradesh tribal belt could see violence in the future if the Government goes ahead with bauxite mining.[i]Given the situation, Maoists are bound to move in to utilise the plank that they are comfortable with, i.e. of tribal cause, to stop mining.

Earlier, on 06 October, three local leaders (from Telugu Desham Party) went into the area to discuss issues related to bauxite mining. The Maoists took them hostage, to use them as bargaining chip, towards the tribal cause.

Mining efforts on part of the Government in the region has a troubled past, in the background of dissent and resistance by the tribal inhabitants. Andhra Pradesh has for long wished to exploit its bauxite deposits, the raw material for aluminium. According to the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC) Ltd, these are distributed across East Godavari and Visakhapatnam districts, adjoining Odisha. These areas have remained vulnerable to underdevelopment and threat of Maoist resurgence.

Corporate interests and business came into play in 2005, when undivided Andhra Pradesh Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Jindal South West Holding Ltd, to establish an aluminium refinery and smelter, and for APMDC to supply bauxite. Following a pattern made infamous by Vedanta (and OdishaGovernment) Andhra Pradesh Government presumed that bauxite mining clearances would quickly follow, since the proposal of extraction was not by any private company but by a Governmentagency, APMDC.[ii]

The MoU was reinforced in 2007 to leave the onus of challenging work such as citizens’ consent, environmental and forest clearances to the State Government agency. In 2007, Y S Rajashekar Reddy’s Government also signed a MoU with the Government of United Arab Emirates, to set up an alumina refinery plant and an aluminum smelter. In 2008, AnRakAluminum Ltd, a Hyderabad-based subsidiary of an Emirati financial arm, signed a MoU with APMDC for the state-owned miner to supply bauxite.[iii]

Tribals, environmentalists and civil society organizations have been resisting the mining plans since then. Within the Central Government, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was in favour of mining, while the Union Tribal Affairs Ministry opposed the same. MoEF’s high-level committee (HLC) set up to study the socio-economic and ecological impacts of the proposed bauxite mining, submitted its report in May 2012, favoring mining after carrying out an aerial survey of the area. It is to be noted that the ground survey could not be carried out owing to mass protests that the tribals organised to welcome the HLC.

The Union Tribal Affairs minister Kishore Chandra Deo wrote to the Andhra Pradesh Governor in March 2012, requesting him to invoke the governor’s special powers and cancel the MoUs. He had repeatedly pointed out that the entire belt of Schedule V areas in Visakhapatnam district had become a hotbed of Maoists’ activities because of the proposed mining plans. He also pointed out that the mining projects violated the Constitutional rights of the tribal communities living in Schedule V areas and the State and Central laws ensure protection of their land and livelihood. The proposed plans also violated landmark rulings of the Supreme Court, which was against mining in such areas without consent of the affected population.[iv]

The Union Ministry of Mines returned 13 mining proposals to the state Government for further consideration, mainly in wake of resistance and representations complaining involvement of non-tribal private individuals and companies in the mining leases granted to APMDC.[v] The buckstopped at the Governor’s office, which as per the Constitution has special powers to take measures to safeguard interests of people in schedule V areas. The Governor referred the matter to the state Government and nothing came out of that.

There have occurred several flip-flops in such cases to include the Vedanta case pertaining to bauxite mining in Niyamgiri. Government efforts became a no-go after intense opposition from local population duly supported by others, including judiciary. In the past, outcomes seldom have been to the Government’s desire; however, in the process of making enduring efforts to pursue clearances, the local population starts seeing themselves to be on the other side of the State and gets disillusioned. The ensuing friction increases and reconciliation becomes difficult as trust deficit increases. The Maoists’ narrativein such circumstances appeals to the affected population. Also, it has to be admitted though, in all fairness, that their narrative aims at empowering people, though by unconstitutional means.

The State needs to introspect to enable itself to find a way out. The State, in case it has a compelling narrative (of development) should make it known to the people. Engaging the local community to gain their confidence in order to address the grassroots will be a long haul and expecting any kind of quick-fix solution on part of the Government will be ambitious and unrealistic.

Unless the people are convinced, by not only getting to know the Government narrative but also experiencing and living it, affairs cannot be expected to move favorably for the Government. The pace of development needs to be controlled so that the affected population does not lose orientation, gets swayed by its feet and falls prey to the anti-state narrative. It is also indispensable for the Government to appreciate that in case it is not able to convince the affected population, it should magnanimously step out to abandon the (people-unfriendly) project.

As far as the Relief and Rehabilitation (R&R) aspect of the displaced populace is concerned, ideally the planning process must entail a realistic assessment of human and social costs to determine the cost-benefit relation of a project; conspicuous by its absence in the present case. Planning should not imply manipulating figures to prove that the project is socio-economically viable; rather it should aim at avoiding misery.[vi]

Once the planning process of the projects is over,rehabilitation packages must simultaneously be worked out. However, in our case, the lacuna is a direct consequence of the absence of a national legislation clarifying finer aspects of R&R. Currently, it is not legally binding on the Government or the respective project authorities to integrate R&R with the project plan. In addition, there are many grey areas concerning the manner in which R&R is carried out or otherwise; flagging all of them is beyond the scope of this article.

The Government will have to provide a credible alternative by rising above the surface of symptom and address the underlying causesaccounting for people’s resistance. Maoists have always occupied the void created by the Government, to exploit tribal support towards their (Maoists’) ulterior motives. The successful Andhra model appears to remain an unfinished agenda; the model that was not only about policing but also engaged with community to address their grievance in a genuine manner. Resurgence of Maoist movement to connect the erstwhile Naxal stronghold in Andhra Pradesh to their existing strong zones in Odisha and Chhattisgarh awaits to come by, in which event the Government will not be able to absolve itself from the burden of proof.