The Dantewada massacre has been logically followed by a host of tele-debates involving politicians from the ruling and opposition fronts, people anointed human rights activists and veteran journalists, who have chronicled the movement. The only positive, if it may be labeled that, born out of these shows has been the glib handshakes between the two organs of the elected legislature. The concordant condemnation of the butchering and the bawling for the backing down of the backers - a dirge played on the plaintively strung emotions - were consummate and devoid, even, of convulsions to consider the counter measures. Former members of the armed forces, mourning for their cohorts, mandated a stern backlash involving invocation of the military. Sympathizers, stripped of stolidity, proceeded to justify the macabre murders. There were, of course, the occasional quips of lack of progress being the cause countered by the lust for power theory.
Arundathi Roy, branded a sophisticated face of Naxalism, delineated the dramatic event in her interview to a news channel. Her cogent contention that many of the gun-wielders had taken to the battle field in order not to yield was poignant. Her narrative adding to the already substantial pronouncement. Her account of despondency decorating the uniforms of the forces in the tribal territories as they purportedly persecute to pin down their authority and of the exodus of forest dwellers from democracy into the Naxal fold ranks the rulers amongst the culpable; dereliction their damnable doing. Growing into adulthood imbibing the tales of atrocities rather than the individual privileges provided by the Constitution, the dervish dreamer would obviously be chosen over the devil of death and dearth, thus, bolstering the numbers. Given the situation, her aphorism that violence is not the solution is unquestionable.
Suggesting a remedy, she urges the Government to abstain from violence, make public the memoranda signed with enterprises to allow mining in the tribal belt and declare a moratorium on mining in the area to create conducive climes for dialogues with the Naxals. The recommendations, at the outset, seem inviable. The Naxals are a politico-military coalition having a Common Minimum Programme currently focused on their survival. Faced with an offensive threatening their very existence, and consequently that of their elixir, the fractious groups adhering to deviant ideas have been forced to unite and put up a defensive front. A pause in the Government's armed initiative may well lead to a realignment of factions as per their cherished beliefs and the groups satisfied with the Governmental concessions may favour a dialogue. The attendant concern is the reported presence under the Naxal banner of groups of ideologues devoted to supplanting the Constitutional authority. These cadres, it is argued, are impervious to being allured into abandoning their struggle, regardless of their adversary's best intentions, and, as such, may circumvent those inclined to negotiate, triggering the eventuality of war.
Arundathi Roy, branded a sophisticated face of Naxalism, delineated the dramatic event in her interview to a news channel. Her cogent contention that many of the gun-wielders had taken to the battle field in order not to yield was poignant. Her narrative adding to the already substantial pronouncement. Her account of despondency decorating the uniforms of the forces in the tribal territories as they purportedly persecute to pin down their authority and of the exodus of forest dwellers from democracy into the Naxal fold ranks the rulers amongst the culpable; dereliction their damnable doing. Growing into adulthood imbibing the tales of atrocities rather than the individual privileges provided by the Constitution, the dervish dreamer would obviously be chosen over the devil of death and dearth, thus, bolstering the numbers. Given the situation, her aphorism that violence is not the solution is unquestionable.
Suggesting a remedy, she urges the Government to abstain from violence, make public the memoranda signed with enterprises to allow mining in the tribal belt and declare a moratorium on mining in the area to create conducive climes for dialogues with the Naxals. The recommendations, at the outset, seem inviable. The Naxals are a politico-military coalition having a Common Minimum Programme currently focused on their survival. Faced with an offensive threatening their very existence, and consequently that of their elixir, the fractious groups adhering to deviant ideas have been forced to unite and put up a defensive front. A pause in the Government's armed initiative may well lead to a realignment of factions as per their cherished beliefs and the groups satisfied with the Governmental concessions may favour a dialogue. The attendant concern is the reported presence under the Naxal banner of groups of ideologues devoted to supplanting the Constitutional authority. These cadres, it is argued, are impervious to being allured into abandoning their struggle, regardless of their adversary's best intentions, and, as such, may circumvent those inclined to negotiate, triggering the eventuality of war.
Comments