By Raja Jaikrishan
10 May, 2010
Heraldofindia.com
After prescribing the two-pronged cure of development and security for the Maoist upsurge Home Minster P. Chidambaram used his lawyer’s wit and flourish to answer questions of JNU students late Wednesday.
Dressed in blue shirt and khaki trousers, he sounded earnest in solving the problem leading to trouble in the country’s heart. If Naxals abjured violence,“ Give me 72 hours and I will tell you (Naxals) time and venue for talks”. “Be it security, development, government structure and MoUs on mining, everything can be discussed. I will ask the Prime Minister to suspend all MoUs related to mining till the talks go on”, he said.
While he was speaking at the function organized by the Congress student wing NSUI, a section of students protested outside the auditorium. He asked a plainclothes policewoman not to push Vibha, an Economics PhD scholar. He took her questions and invited her over tea for further discussion on Anil Aggarwal’s Vedanta.
Next day,the students and others concerned over the violence , felt cheated on learning about his ministry’s statement warning sympathizers of the Maoists /Naxalites of action under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The overnight bar on inquiry and dialogue into the causes underlying Maoist / Naxalite programmes shows the split between lawyer and minister in Mr Chidambaram.
Civil society groups and individuals have reacted sharply to the Home Ministry's statement.
Suhas Chakma, director , Asian Centre for Human Rights, said on the one hand the home minister takes support of the DMK and allies ,some of whom known supporters of the LTTE (a banned organization in India)and on the other he holds out threats to civil society .
Harsh Dobhal, editor , Combat Law, said: "How do you define sympathy (for Maoists)? The government in its own report says deprivation is the main cause of Naxalism. The civil society groups sympathize with the concerns of poor, they care for such people (as do the ultras). Basically, it is a witch-hunt by the government. In the name of fighting terror, the government can catch people and put them in jail and say that they are Maoists sympathizers."
Mahipal Singh, secretary , People's Union for Civil Liberties, said: Holding a political view and political ideology was no crime, even if it was the Maoist ideology. "If someone holds a gun and shoots people like the Maoists do that is a crime and the state can take action."
He also criticized the MHA's reference to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in taking punitive action against those collaborating with the Maoists. He said it was precisely for this reason that the PUCL was opposed to the draconian law. "Collaboration is a matter of interpretation. Collaboration as in helping the activities that are illegal, like supplying arms and ammunition and giving shelter to armed people, can be punishable but not sharing a meal or sheltering someone without being aware of that person's illegal activities."
PUDR activist Gautam Navlakha said: "Instead of exploring more sensible and imaginative policies to deal with the Maoists and the tribals who live in the same zones where huge mining deals have been signed, the government is taking recourse to authoritarian and dictatorial measures".
Delhi University Prof. G.N. Saibaba, said the MHA directive directly violated the right to freedom of expression.
Source:http://www.countercurrents.org/jaikrishan100510.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment