Its been quite an eventful 24 hours for Home Minister P Chidambaram since Monday, 17th May. After the Naxal attack in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, Home Minister was busy obliging news channels of his choice by giving them interviews. A damage control exercise by him, already under fire over the handling of the Naxal menace. Dantewada proving to be a thorn for him as Naxalites struck again this Monday for the second time in a just over a month with a deadly strike rate. Over 75 CRPF personnel lost their lives on 6th April, this time almost 25 civilians and 15 tribal Special Police Officers were killed when a civilian bus was blown by Naxals.
But things were not so bad for Chidambaram till a few months ago when Operation Greenhunt was launched in November 2009. It was on 14th April this year that an unexpected criticism of his aggressive approach towards Naxals shook him and the political establishment. The word of caution came from none other than Senior Congress Leader and two time Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Digvijay Singh.
Diggi Raja as Digvijay Singh is fondly called, lashed out against an all out use of force in dealing with Naxals. He even called himself a victim of Chidambaram’s 'intellectual arrogance'. He was referring to Home Minister’s attitude to sensitive issues like the Batla House encounter in Delhi and Naxalism. There was confusion within the Congress party's ranks. No one had expected a leader of Diggi Raja's stature to take on the Home Minister publicly, especially when Parliament was in session and the UPA pushed in a corner over many other sensitive issues. The party treaded cautiously terming it as a personal comment by Digvijay Singh and left it to the higher ups to deal with the dynamics.
It’s not as if this was the first time Digvijay Singh was saying this. He has been for a more politically mature and peaceful way of dealing with the Naxal issue since 1998. He was also instrumental in successfully negotiating peace with the Naxals of Andhra Pradesh while YSR was still alive. But it was the timing that took everyone by surprise. The former CM was away in Houston attending to his ailing wife, but his mind was on Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. And he somehow had to get it out of his system.
Digvijay Singh may have not earned brownie points both from the party and his party colleague P Chidambaram, but what he managed to do was to shift the focus. From Home Minister’s thrust on aggression and Naxalism being just a law and order situation, to that of a problem with a social angle also. He spoke about the 73rd Amendment in our Constitution, PESA (The Panchayati Extension to Scheduled Areas). This Act makes special provision for Panchayats to function in such a way that they can both protect and promote tribal interests according to the spirit of the scheduled areas as enshrined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, PESA is yet to become a reality as most states have legislations to counter the actual devolution of power in scheduled areas.
Chidambaram got all support from his party and the PM after Digvijay Singh’s criticism, but the Home Minister didn’t miss the underlining theme of the Congress party. And it was evident as early as 23rd April, just nine days after Digvijay Singh’s famous article was published. Here is what Chidambaram said at a meeting of Consultative Committee of Home Affairs on 23rd April.
“The Govt will continue to follow its two pronged approach of development and calibrated police action to deal with the Naxal problem. The debate on what should take place first- development or police action- is misplaced. The decision will vary from situation to situation and from State to State and no fixed prescription is possible. In some areas, it may be possible to undertake some developmental activities, to be followed immediately by steps to strengthen security. In other areas, it may be necessary to first launch police action to regain control of the territory, followed by vigorous developmental activities.”
Some members in the Consultative Committee seemed to echo what others had dared not tell Chidambaram before Digvijay Singh. That it would be difficult to deal with Naxals without involving locals and local police. A suggestion even coming that an all party Parliamentary delegation should visit Naxal affected areas to win trust and goodwill of the people. The need for good coordination between central paramilitary forces and local police was also pointed out. It’s not as if it needed an expert to point out the basics of how to deal with Naxalism, it was all there. All it needed was a strong voice to articulate it and Digvijay Singh did just that. He of -course found a friend in Mani Shankar Aiyar who agreed a thousand percent with him.
The story gets more interesting just a day after Chidambaram’s two pronged strategy. Here is the translation of what PM, Manmohan Singh said to senior bureaucrats from across the country on Panchayati Raj Divas (24th April) in New Delhi. “We have to give special attention to remote and extreme backward areas of the country. This includes a lot of tribal areas and Panchayati Raj agencies need to work effectively to bring our schemes to them. This will help us a lot in dealing with the Naxal problem.”
So the UPA had already shifted gear in its approach to the Naxal problem just ten days after the difference of opinion became public. And that explains why Digvijay Singh was asked to meet Chidambaram in his North Block office to mend fences with each other on 7th May. Singh had earlier regretted his public attack on the Home Minister and his policy of dealing with Naxals on 29th April while he was busy with party work in Lucknow.
But it took Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s letter to party mouthpiece Congress Sandesh that finally put an end to the debate within the party. "While we must address acts of terror decisively, we have to address the root causes of Naxalism. The rise of Naxalism is a reflection of the need for our development initiatives to reach the grassroots, especially in our backward tribal districts.”
After having braved criticism within his own party, Chidambaram has been quick to adapt his policy on dealing with Naxalism. This Monday night saw him talking of ‘limited mandate’. Tuesday morning, he makes an offer of talks to Naxals again during a TV interview. BJP was quick to term him an ‘injured martyr’. But by the evening, he had sufficiently recovered. The ‘limited mandate’ meant Centre only plays a supporting role to States in law and order situations. States have ‘unlimited mandate’ and the ball was squarely put in Chhattisgarh CM Raman Singh’s court.
Now I can’t help but think aloud “ Isn’t this what Digvijay Singh had said about who should be held responsible for the April 6 attack on CRPF in Dantewada ?”. But then a supremely confident Chidambaram had made the famous quote “The buck stops with me.” His offer to resign had been quickly struck down by Manmohan Singh. For once, Chidambaram must be admitting to himself. That he had to tow someone else’s line on one of his top agendas in UPA-II. And that is no mean feat by any standards.
But things were not so bad for Chidambaram till a few months ago when Operation Greenhunt was launched in November 2009. It was on 14th April this year that an unexpected criticism of his aggressive approach towards Naxals shook him and the political establishment. The word of caution came from none other than Senior Congress Leader and two time Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Digvijay Singh.
Diggi Raja as Digvijay Singh is fondly called, lashed out against an all out use of force in dealing with Naxals. He even called himself a victim of Chidambaram’s 'intellectual arrogance'. He was referring to Home Minister’s attitude to sensitive issues like the Batla House encounter in Delhi and Naxalism. There was confusion within the Congress party's ranks. No one had expected a leader of Diggi Raja's stature to take on the Home Minister publicly, especially when Parliament was in session and the UPA pushed in a corner over many other sensitive issues. The party treaded cautiously terming it as a personal comment by Digvijay Singh and left it to the higher ups to deal with the dynamics.
It’s not as if this was the first time Digvijay Singh was saying this. He has been for a more politically mature and peaceful way of dealing with the Naxal issue since 1998. He was also instrumental in successfully negotiating peace with the Naxals of Andhra Pradesh while YSR was still alive. But it was the timing that took everyone by surprise. The former CM was away in Houston attending to his ailing wife, but his mind was on Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. And he somehow had to get it out of his system.
Digvijay Singh may have not earned brownie points both from the party and his party colleague P Chidambaram, but what he managed to do was to shift the focus. From Home Minister’s thrust on aggression and Naxalism being just a law and order situation, to that of a problem with a social angle also. He spoke about the 73rd Amendment in our Constitution, PESA (The Panchayati Extension to Scheduled Areas). This Act makes special provision for Panchayats to function in such a way that they can both protect and promote tribal interests according to the spirit of the scheduled areas as enshrined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, PESA is yet to become a reality as most states have legislations to counter the actual devolution of power in scheduled areas.
Chidambaram got all support from his party and the PM after Digvijay Singh’s criticism, but the Home Minister didn’t miss the underlining theme of the Congress party. And it was evident as early as 23rd April, just nine days after Digvijay Singh’s famous article was published. Here is what Chidambaram said at a meeting of Consultative Committee of Home Affairs on 23rd April.
“The Govt will continue to follow its two pronged approach of development and calibrated police action to deal with the Naxal problem. The debate on what should take place first- development or police action- is misplaced. The decision will vary from situation to situation and from State to State and no fixed prescription is possible. In some areas, it may be possible to undertake some developmental activities, to be followed immediately by steps to strengthen security. In other areas, it may be necessary to first launch police action to regain control of the territory, followed by vigorous developmental activities.”
Some members in the Consultative Committee seemed to echo what others had dared not tell Chidambaram before Digvijay Singh. That it would be difficult to deal with Naxals without involving locals and local police. A suggestion even coming that an all party Parliamentary delegation should visit Naxal affected areas to win trust and goodwill of the people. The need for good coordination between central paramilitary forces and local police was also pointed out. It’s not as if it needed an expert to point out the basics of how to deal with Naxalism, it was all there. All it needed was a strong voice to articulate it and Digvijay Singh did just that. He of -course found a friend in Mani Shankar Aiyar who agreed a thousand percent with him.
The story gets more interesting just a day after Chidambaram’s two pronged strategy. Here is the translation of what PM, Manmohan Singh said to senior bureaucrats from across the country on Panchayati Raj Divas (24th April) in New Delhi. “We have to give special attention to remote and extreme backward areas of the country. This includes a lot of tribal areas and Panchayati Raj agencies need to work effectively to bring our schemes to them. This will help us a lot in dealing with the Naxal problem.”
So the UPA had already shifted gear in its approach to the Naxal problem just ten days after the difference of opinion became public. And that explains why Digvijay Singh was asked to meet Chidambaram in his North Block office to mend fences with each other on 7th May. Singh had earlier regretted his public attack on the Home Minister and his policy of dealing with Naxals on 29th April while he was busy with party work in Lucknow.
But it took Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s letter to party mouthpiece Congress Sandesh that finally put an end to the debate within the party. "While we must address acts of terror decisively, we have to address the root causes of Naxalism. The rise of Naxalism is a reflection of the need for our development initiatives to reach the grassroots, especially in our backward tribal districts.”
After having braved criticism within his own party, Chidambaram has been quick to adapt his policy on dealing with Naxalism. This Monday night saw him talking of ‘limited mandate’. Tuesday morning, he makes an offer of talks to Naxals again during a TV interview. BJP was quick to term him an ‘injured martyr’. But by the evening, he had sufficiently recovered. The ‘limited mandate’ meant Centre only plays a supporting role to States in law and order situations. States have ‘unlimited mandate’ and the ball was squarely put in Chhattisgarh CM Raman Singh’s court.
Now I can’t help but think aloud “ Isn’t this what Digvijay Singh had said about who should be held responsible for the April 6 attack on CRPF in Dantewada ?”. But then a supremely confident Chidambaram had made the famous quote “The buck stops with me.” His offer to resign had been quickly struck down by Manmohan Singh. For once, Chidambaram must be admitting to himself. That he had to tow someone else’s line on one of his top agendas in UPA-II. And that is no mean feat by any standards.
