Abductions by Maoists

The Collector of Chhattisgarh’s Sukma district Alex Pal Menon has become the latest victim of the CPI-Maoists’ abduction tactics, which have increased of late. This comes in the wake of twin-hostage crisis in the neighbouring state of Odisha. On 14 March 2012, Paulo Bosusco, a 51-year old Italian tour operator was kidnapped by the Odisha State Organising Committee (OSOC) of the CPI-Maoists led by Sabyasachi Panda from the Daringbadi area of tribal-dominated Kandhamal district along with an Italian tourist, Claudio Colangelo, while they were trekking. While Colangelo was freed on 25 March as a “goodwill gesture”, Bosusco continued to remain in Maoist captivity. Meanwhile, on 24 March, Andhra Odisha Border Special Zonal Committee (AOBSZC) of the Maoists led by Ramakrishna kidnapped Jhina Hikaka, a 37-year old tribal leader and a first time member of the state legislative assembly from the Laxmipur constituency, in Koraput district of Odisha. Interestingly, this is for the first time that two separate groups of Maoists have resorted to simultaneous, though uncoordinated, kidnappings, that too from a single state. Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha remain as the top three states of India with maximum number of abductions by Maoists. Overall, between 2005 and March 2012, 925 incidents of abductions by the Indian Maoists have been recorded.

Maoists have found hostage-taking of high-profile people the best bet, especially to free their colleagues. Earlier they used to indulge in jail breaks. But, with the increase in security measures, jail-breaking has been found difficult, risky and uncertain. This apart, such tactics are capable of motivating cadres, especially when the chips are down. Although the OSOC placed 13-point charter of demands  to release Bosusco, they relented as soon as Subashree Panda, wife of Sabyasachi Panda, was released. The kidnappers of Hikaka were more direct; they placed just one demand: release of 30 prisoners. They insisted that the release had to be in the form of instant swap of prisoners. The list of 30 prisoners includes 15 members of Naxal-backed Chasi Mulia Adivasi Sangha (CMAS) and a Naxal leader Chenda Bhusanam alias Ghasi, who is accused in the killing of at least 55 security personnel and carrying Rs 10 lakh reward on his head. They also want the state government to drop all charges against the prisoners.

When the Odisha Police Association and Odisha Constable, Havildar and Sepoy Manasangh threatened to boycott counter-insurgency operations if hardcore Maoists like Bhusanam were released, the government finally agreed to “facilitate” release of 23 prisoners. “Facilitate” here meant that Maoist groups had to move bail pleas for release of jailed rebels instead of seeking their immediate release and physical presence for executing the prisoner-hostage swap. The Maoists later climbed down to leave Ghasi from the list, but stuck to 29 and gave a deadline of 18 April. In the bargain, the government has moved its numbers to 25 including 17 members of CMAS, but has stuck to its earlier position of “release only through bail”. However, as the 18 April deadline ended and as the Maoists refused to extend the deadline any further, the government of Odisha agreed to drop charges against 13 (eight CMAS members and five Maoists). Rejecting the offer, the AOBSZC has conveyed its decision to “try” MLA Hikaka at a “Praja Court” (“People’s Court”).

It has become very difficult for the government to negotiate with the kidnappers of MLA Hikaka because of AOBSZC’s refusal to engage any mediators. The communication has thus far been through the media. But, in the case of Italian hostage taking the presence of mediators acceptable to both parties – Dandpani Mohany, convenor of Jan Adhikar Manch and BD Sharma, former IAS officer and tribal rights activist – made the job of negotiation easier for the government and in bringing down the trust deficit. The government’s negotiating team, consisting of Odisha Home Secretary UN Behera, Panchayati Raj Secretary PK Jena and Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Welfare Secretary SK Sarangi, though not specialised on hostage negotiations, handled those subjects that fell under the charter of demands placed by OSOC.

Of the two groups, OSOC seems more concerned about the local public opinion. Hence, it did not lay hands on any local official or leader who is more popular. The OSOC in fact slammed kidnapping of Hikaka, who remains popular among the people of his constituency. OSOC leader Panda remarked, “We condemn the Maoist violence in the Andhra Pradesh-Orissa border region. There was no reason to abduct the MLA when the talks between the Naxals and the government were going on in a cordial manner.” The groups operating from Andhra Pradesh, like for instance AOBSZC, seem more hardline and do not bother much about public opinion in Odisha. So they target high-profile people from border districts of Odisha as they did in the case of Vineel Krishna, the then district magistrate of Malkangiri district, last year.

Recurring kidnappings by Maoists have exposed lack of clear cut policy on handling hostage situations. The Home Ministry indeed brought out some kind of guidelines on the subject in 2006 that suggest no negotiations in a hostage situation. Barring negotiations, as has been witnessed in several cases, is not the solution. Negotiations, in fact, help the state to buy more time with the abductors to gather intelligence for a security operation, to understand them better and even to tire them out. As back up to negotiations, hard power and a strong political will are required. A clear message should be sent that the forces will come after the released Maoists, and the state should not be taken lightly. At the same time, the state should make sure that potential targets of Maoists are provided adequate security. It is better safe than sorry.

Dr N Manoharan is a Senior Fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), New Delhi

Views expressed are personal