National Elections 2009: India�s fragile Internal Security Exposed

The 2009 national elections could well be a watershed in the Maoists’ continuous defiance of the State, marked by unprecedented use of armed force in a bid to subvert the constitutionally ordained democratic process. The Maoists, through their violent ways have robbed the election process of its sanctity and legitimacy during the conduct of the ‘first phase’, and made a determined bid to sabotage the ‘second phase’. The State and its people are the targets, and terror is their tool.

The former Chief Election Commissioner Mr N. Gopalaswami’s stated logic behind holding elections under a single phase in the ‘Red Corridor’ – from the Uttar Pradesh-Bihar border with Nepal in the north, through West Bengal, Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu – i.e. areas under Maoist influence is thus understandable and ostensibly correct. This decision was based on the need for massive deployment of security forces and the lead time required for them to carry out ‘area stabilisation’. Importantly, this decision, by a constitutional functionary, whose office is the key to the electoral processes determining our democracy, also betrays the serious threat to peace and stability posed by the Maoists in the very heart of India.

The Election Commission’s decision to organise the national elections in phases was based on the inputs provided by the Home Ministry, Without doubt, there is complete awareness about the level of threat posed by the Maoists, but is deliberately though it is often downplayed or ignored by the authorities entrusted with maintaining security. In fact, the number of phases in which elections are conducted is indicative of the degree of internal stability that obtains in the country. Never before have so many security personnel come under such vicious and violent attacks during elections. The fact that the security forces have had to lay down their lives in increasing numbers for a legitimate democratic process exposes the much touted great Indian democratic culture and the country’s fragile internal security, essentially engendered by weak governance over the years.

The electoral exercise has been completed in the Maoist controlled areas, but is it an end in itself? The whole exercise has been a travesty of democracy on many counts. First, is a week’s time enough to ensure ‘area stabilisation’, wherein people could vote without fear of retribution by the Maoists? It is anyone’s conjecture the number of voters who must have been dissuaded from exercising their franchise in fear of retribution by the Maoists. If they have had the audacity to strike at the security forces, imagine the intimidation and atrocities carried out in Maoist-dominated areas? Secondly, candidates in some 40 parliamentary constituencies in the ‘red corridor’ could not venture into remoter parts of their constituencies due to the Maoist threat, and that includes a former foreign minister and finance minister Mr Yashwant Sinha. Was this electoral exercise, therefore, a triumph of democracy in the real sense? Thirdly, what about the security of the people, who defied the Maoists and exercised their franchise after the security forces had been withdrawn? Fourthly, can it be ruled out that some candidates were in cohort with the Maoists, in order to scare away voters in the areas where their appeal was weak? In one instance, a candidate and his workers were kidnapped and their vehicle was burnt – allegedly by the Maoists. The candidate was soon released, something which the Maoists are not known for.

The temporary imposition of the writ of the State during elections, therefore does not necessarily translate into the writ of fair democracy, if the very people having a stake in the process are not secure.  Come elections, the government of the day seems to be always aware of the deteriorating law and order situation, especially in areas such as the ‘Red Corridor’. Ironically, after the elections, the government either downplays the threat or procrastinates endlessly till the next battle at hustings. Further, the post-election scenario is also characterised by a huge disconnect between the terror-affected people and decision-makers, mostly at the Centre and Centre-funded think-tanks. These armchair theorists would never be seen undertaking developmental work in the Maoist controlled areas. Even if they were to try, would they be ever permitted by the Maoists, who are against all development since their declared intention is to destroy the present framework before they can impose their own totalitarian state.

In this regard, the example of a village ‘Sabdo’ in Bihar is revealing. A young couple had transformed it into a model village by facilitating education for all children and brought about changes in the pattern of agriculture by involving the local people in creating irrigational facilities, as a result of which the agricultural produce and consequently the income of the farmers trebled. Their social and developmental crusade had to a very great extent broken the caste barriers existing in the village. Their contribution was hailed by the media. But the Maoists felt that their constituency was being weaned away by the development activities, and they eventually put the couple to death. The main tool of the Maoists is therefore not “peoples’ power”, but the “power of the gun”. They have declared a war against the State and the State therefore must respond. It cannot abdicate its responsibility of providing the safety and security to its law abiding citizens. If vote cannot buy personal security, then democracy is a hoax and elections the biggest farce. 

The scale and audacity of the recent attacks by the Maoists on the para-military forces, as also in the past in the ‘red-corridor’, reinforces the truism that the level of left-wing extremism has assumed the proportions of a planned and well-coordinated war against India. The enhancement in levels and sophistry of arms of the Maoists and their expertise in using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are indicative of support and abetment by external and internal inimical powers. While all other insurgencies in India have been region-specific, the Maoist insurgency runs right through the heart of the country. The para-military forces are not only harassed and overused, but their varied roles, deployment pattern, training and manpower profile is not suited to deal with the level of violence as posed by the Maoists. The crying need is to raise a Corps size ‘Homeland Security Force’ under the Indian Army. Three Homeland Security Divisions deployed at the Maoist bastions or nodes could bring the situation under control and the menace can be defeated in a respectable timeframe. ‘Area stabilisation’ does not mean what Mr Gopalaswami has implied. It is a much longer process, and requires concerted intelligence and operational thrust. This Homeland Security Force will therefore be an asset and a deterrent against all internal existing and subversive forces. In turn, it will also contribute to ‘state-building’ without which there can be no ‘nation-building’.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies)