Photo: SN Saluja THE SKYLINE was a dark, uncomfortable grey as I stood at the window of my office in Delhi’s Connaught Place area, watching plumes of thick smoke spiralling skywards. Word had spread that Indira Gandhi had been shot dead by her Sikh bodyguards and a motley crowd of angry protestors had started burning taxis. The phones rang incessantly, each call bringing news of an unfolding carnage. One such call was from my father, an Indian Air Force officer. He had left his office in Lutyen’s Delhi, the political heart of the Capital, at about 7 pm as he did daily, but that day — 31 October, 1984 — the proud uniformed officer cowered in fear. He had tried making his way home on his Vespa scooter but by then, mobs had already started searching for anyone in a turban. My father had discarded his turban and worn a helmet to reach home, an act that left a deep wound in his psyche. Another relative hid inside a water tank overnight, after being chased by a mob in South Extension, a posh Delhi locality. The tank water that November night was cold, but he trembled in sheer fright as he described how he ran for dear life. But the next three days were about death. Every morning, I turned the key of a huge padlock — my family secure within the precincts of the house — and went about my job as a young reporter. I have lost count of the number of times my taxi was stopped by blood-lusting lumpens. They were looking for Sikhs everywhere, anywhere. Under the seat, inside the boot. Several times, they ordered the driver to open the petrol tank and thrusting a rubber pipe in, simply sucked petrol out, preparing for the next kill. The streets of India’s political capital were littered with burning vehicles, burning houses, burning gurdwaras, burning men. Death was in naked display; turbaned Sikhs easy prey. For three days and nights bonfires raged as the mobs freely slaughtered. Helpless women and children sat around burnt corpses and wailed in Mongolpuri, in Palam, in Bhogal. Faceless colonies now etched in aff idavit after meaningless affidavit.
My father had discarded his turban and worn a helmet to reach home, an act that left a deep wound in his psyche
Police vehicles drove past hapless women in Mongol puri. We waved desperately for them to stop. Help us, help us, the women pleaded, looking in turns at us and the passing vehicle. Why were the cops not stopping? The women pointed us to a nallah, a drain running through Mongolpuri and adjacent Sultanpuri where burnt bodies had been dumped. ‘Stop, stop,’ the women and I screamed in unison when another police car drove by. It slowed for a moment as one of its occupants said, “Hamari duty khatam ho chukki hai.” They were past their duty hour. So what if mobs were still on the rampage. So what if these widows knew the names of their husbands’ killers? So what if a young innocent, barely in her 20s, was holding her dead four-year-old son to her chest? Everyone in Mongolpuri revealed the truth as they saw it — Sajjan Kumar, the Congress MP, had freely distributed kerosene bottles and hundred rupee notes, Sajjan Kumar’s men moved around with voters lists in their hands, Sajjan Kumar’s men first beat the men with iron rods, then forced them to cut their hair and then burnt them alive. Revisiting 1984 is a painful memory; the denial of justice a second stab in the hearts of wretched survivors. 1984 is still about the dead and the living. WRITER’S EMAIL shammy@tehelka.com
The past will not forget Congress candidate Jagdish Tytler had to step down due to party pressure Photo: Shailendra Pandey SOMETIMES, WORDS can haunt even decades later and become a powerful leitmotif. Rajiv Gandhi’s infamous words — when a big tree falls, the earth shakes — during the brutal massacre of Sikhs in 1984 is one such sentence. It has peppered discussions and debates for 25 long years and it is this chillingly cold analogy that still records a high nine on the emotional Richter scale, so powerful is its recall.
This time, the earth shook again, but under the Congress’ feet. One boot thrown at the Home Minister P Chidambaram by a journalist was enough to uncork the lava and focus attention straight and square on the anti-Sikh riots once again. But this time, if the earth shook it was because of the timing of the shoe-throwing incident. It came in the midst of the general election, a crucial election in which the Congress-led UPA is fighting to reclaim power.
It has been an election issue even earlier. Both Sonia Gandhi and her son, Rahul Gandhi, have in the past made a political point of apologizing to the Sikh community in Amritsar’s Golden Temple, the most-revered gurudwara. The shoe was a mere reminder that Carnage 1984 still has the potency to trigger an election flashpoint.
As soon as the shoe was thrown, various Congress leaders were besieged with frantic phone calls from Punjab and its state unit in Delhi. Every single one of the 13 Lok Sabha seats in Punjab is linked to the Sikh vote bank and nobody in the Congress high command could afford to alienate a community that comprises 59.9 percent of the state’s population. No one could afford to overlook the negative impact of fielding Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, the two most prominent and maligned faces of 1984 from the Capital city of Delhi where Sikhs were slaughtered in the worst massacre. Sikh votes add up to 25 percent of the total votes in Delhi’s seven Lok Sabha segments.
Till the day the journalist flung his shoe, it was all about winnability, not accountability; about victory in the public arena, not justice in the courtroom. Till then, the Congress was looking at the Sikh vote bank differently — Tytler had won the Delhi Sadar seat four consecutive times, beaten Vijay Goel, the formidable BJP candidate in 2004 by 16,000 votes and, in any case, the Sikh votes total a mere 1.20 percent, the least in Delhi. In the case of Sajjan Kumar too, the Sikh votes comprise only two percent and his victory margin was much larger — he had won the outer Delhi seat by an overwhelming two lakh votes, defeating former BJP chief minister, Sahib Singh Verma.
Nov 1984
MARWAH COMMISSION
Set up to inquire into the role of the police in the carnage. Was abruptly told by the Central government to stop the probe. Records were selectively passed on to next commission
May 1985
MISRA COMMISSION
Set up to probe if the violence was organised. Its August 1986 report recommended the formation of three new committees: Ahooja, Kapur-Mittal, and Jain-Banerjee
Nov 1985
DHILLON COMMITTEE
Set up to recommend rehabilitation for victims. Asked that insurance claims of attacked business establishments be paid, but government rejected all such claims
Feb 1987
KAPUR-MITTAL COMMITTEE
Enquired, again, into the role of the police. 72 policemen were identified for conivance or gross negligence, 30 recommended for dismissal. No one was punished
Feb 1987
JAIN-BANERJEE COMMITTEE
Looked at cases against Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, and recommended cases be registered against both. Later, Delhi HC quashed the very appointment of the committee
Feb 1987
AHOOJA COMMITTEE
Set up by Misra Commission to ascertain the number of people killed in the massacre in Delhi. In August 1987, Ahooja’s report put the figure at 2,733 Sikhs
Mar 1990
POTTI-ROSHA COMMITTEE
Appointed as a successor to the Jain-Banerjee committee. Potti-Rosha also recommended registration of cases against Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler
Dec 1990
JAIN-AGGARWAL
COMMITTEE Appointed as a successor to Potti- Rosha, and also recommended cases against HKL Bhagat, Tytler and Kumar. No cases registered, and probe stopped in 1993
Dec 1993
NARULA COMMITTEE
In its report in January 1994, it was the third committtee in nine years to repeat the recommendation to register cases against Bhagat, Tytler and Sajjan Kumar
May 2000
NANAVATI COMMISSION
One-man commission appointed by the BJPled government. Found “credible evidence” against Tytler and Kumar. The CBI is now trying to give a clean chit
The shoe sent the carefully crafted calculations out of the window. As Sikhs protested across Delhi and Punjab, the case against Tytler took center stage once again. If Tytler was forced to call a press conference in which he announced his withdrawal from the electoral fray, it was not because he wanted to save his party the embarrassment, as he put it, but because he’d had a midnight knock. Senior Congress leader, Oscar Fernandes, sources reveal, made a nocturnal call in which the message was delivered clear and straight — if he did not make the announcement himself, the party would be forced to make it and that would be even more embarrassing. But it would be unwise for anyone to think that the embarrassment was Tytler’s alone. Victims of 1984 A young Sikh is rushed to the hospital by his relatives in Tilak Nagar Photo: Vijay Saluja
When a big tree falls, the earth shakes. IF TYTLER and Sajjan were summarily axed as potential candidates it was because of the potent recall factor. The CBI’s leak that Tytler had been given a clean chit ignited the spark for the nth time in 25 years. The ghost of 1984 was back and the voice of the victims could be heard once again. The most damning testimony is that of Surinder Singh, who was the Head Granthi of Gurdwara Pul Bangash near Delhi’s Azad Market. This is what he saw and this is what he has testified to on sworn affidavits: “On 1st November 1984 in the morning at 9am a big mob which was carrying sticks, iron rods and kerosene oil attacked the Gurdwara. The crowd was being led by our area Member Parliament of Congress (I) Jagdish Tytler. He incited the crowd to set the Gurdwara on fire and to kill the Sikhs. In the crowd some people were having in their hands the flags of Congress party and they were raising slogans such as, ‘The revenge of blood will be taken by blood, the Sikhs are traitors, kill them, burn them’. Five to six policemen were also with the crowd. On incitement by Jagdish Tytler, they attacked the gurdwara and set it on fire. Thakur Singh, who was a retired inspector of Delhi Police and an employee of the gurdwara Managing Committee, was killed by the crowd. Badal Singh, who was the Sewadar of the gurdwara, was burnt alive by putting a burning tyre around his neck. This whole incident was helplessly witnessed by me from the upper floor of the gurdwara. The gurdwara was on fire, but the fire did not reach the upper floor.”
As soon as the shoe was thrown, Congress leaders were besieged with frantic phone calls from its Punjab unit. All 13 Lok Sabha seats in the state are linked to the Sikh vote bank
In the face of such a powerful testimony, why then is Tytler on the verge of a clean chit? The Congress politician refuses to answer any questions, refuses to be drawn into a discussion on his role or the clean chit. A TEHELKA reporter tried over three consecutive days to get his side of the story, but all he would say is this: “You have published lies about me. I will not answer your questions.” Opportunity Rioters looting shops in 1984 in Azad market, Delhi Photo: S N Sinha The ‘lies’ — or conversely the uncomfortable truth — that Tytler is referring to is a detailed, month-long investigation undertaken by TEHELKA in 2005. Over one month, we uncovered lie from truth, sifted fact from fiction. Slowly but surely, we blew the lid off the machiavellian attempt through which Tytler, Sajjan Kumar and HKL Bhagat had gone about the task of subverting and derailing justice. THE TRUTH often lies buried in small details and it is often hard to find. The investigation is worth recounting, worth retelling. This is what we found. The dead cannot strike a deal but the living did. They were coerced and threatened by a network of middlemen who struck dubious deals to win over witnesses, subvert the truth and derail justice. Investigations reveal that in almost all cases, deals were struck to win over witnesses. In Bhagat’s case, Rs 25 lakh was offered to a witness. In Tytler’s case, a week after changing his statement, the prime witness went abroad for a year, and the second witness is still in the US. There were threats to their lives as well and a prominent Sikh leader was involved in pressurising the witness to say Tytler didn’t lead the mob. Further sensational disclosures were made that a prime witness, who turned hostile against Sajjan Kumar was taken to the Congress leader’s residence. But this story is primarily about Tytler and his effect on the political Richter scale. It is important to return to Surinder Singh, the main eyewitness who testified to Tytler’s role. Surinder, like the other victims, was not immune to pressure from the middlemen and their masters. Commission after commission gave birth to sub-committee after sub-committee but it was during the hearings of the Nanavati Commission that both Surinder and Tytler stood rattled.
Tytler withdrew from the electoral fray not because he wanted to save the party embarrassment, but because he’d had a midnight knock from a senior Congress leader
When Nanavati Commission summoned Jagdish Tytler on Surinder’s affidavit, the Head Granthi appeared like he had been ‘managed’. Tytler drew the Commission’s attention to another affidavit by Surinder, this one dated August 5, 2002, which amounted to a retraction of Singh’s earlier position — he said he did not even know what was in the earlier affidavit because he could not read or write English. He also said he had not seen Tytler leading the mob that attacked Gurdwara Pul Bangash. This affidavit was filed on October 22, 2002 and it came to light a year later when Tytler was served a notice to appear before the Commission. The Congress leader’s knowledge of such an affidavit astonished the Commission as Surinder Singh had named Tytler in his testimony on January 17, 2002. Tytler had been trying to work on Surinder Singh. In his testimony to the Nanavati Commission, Surinder Singh did state that he was contacted by Jagdish Tytler on November 10, 1984 and asked to sign two sheets of paper. He declined to sign. But subsequent efforts by Tytler to ‘win over’ Singh appear to have succeeded.
The dead cannot strike a deal so the living did. They were coerced and threatened by a network of middlemen who struck dubious deals to win over witnesses and subvert the truth
About Surinder Singh’s changed affidavit, Justice Nanavati stated, “What appears from all this is that the subsequent affidavit was probably obtained by persuasion or under pressure. If this witness had really not seen Jagdish Tytler in the mob, or if he was not approached by Tytler, then he would not have come before the Commission to give evidence or would have told the Commission that the attack did not take place in that manner. For speaking the truth, it was not necessary for him to wait till 5-8-2002 and file an additional affidavit.”
So when Nanavati finally submitted his report in 2005 and found what he called “credible evidence” against Tytler, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was forced to ask him to quit the Cabinet. In an emotional speech, the prime minister said, “I have no hesitation in apologising, not only to the Sikh community but to the nation because (the riots) negated the concept of nationhood. I bow my head in shame for what happened… but there are ebbs and tides in a nation’s history.” Admitting that the past cannot be undone, he urged: “But we have the willpower to write a better future and ensure such incidents are not repeated.” Embattled Victims of the anti-Sikh riots protest outside Delhi’s Karkardooma court Photo: Vijay Pandey Strong words from an emotional Sikh Prime Minister acted as balm then, but what happened subsequently was a shame. The premier investigative agency, after a gap of two years, approached Delhi’s lower court with a closure report, but the court ordered that the case against Tytler be reinvestigated. The CBI was forced to go back to Surinder Singh, who then gave a fresh affidavit saying, “In case I die, then Jagdish Tytler will be responsible for the same. Jagdish Tytler had put great pressure on me and had obtained my signatures on blank papers… threatened me that in case I speak against him in future, then me along with my family will be finished.” This damning disclosure was obtained by the CBI on February 12, 2008. The CBI, in fact, would not have tracked down Surinder if it were not for the courts. The agency had approached the court asking for the case to be closed since it had not been able to find another witness in the Tytler case. Jasbir Singh, in an affidavit to the Nanavati Commission, had stated that he saw Tytler inciting a group of people near Kingsway Camp in Delhi to kill Sikhs on the night of November 3, 1984. Jasbir has been in the US for the last six years and the CBI said the case should be closed because Jasbir’s whereabouts were “untraceable”. In what can only be called mud on the face of the investigating agency, the media was able to get Jasbir to give his testimonial on live television even as the premier agency claimed that they were not able to contact him. Tytler now maintains that Jasbir is a criminal, saying, “He is not coming back to India because he knows there is an arrest warrant out for him.”
‘The riots negated the concept of nationhood,’ said the PM in an emotional speech. Strong words from a Sikh PM acted as balm then, but what happened subsequently was a shame
But it’s not for Tytler to pronounce a verdict on the witnesses who have testified against him. He already seems to know more than he should. For instance, he has openly been saying that Surinder’s father and brother came to see him and told him that Surinder was lying. The important question here is — why is Tytler, in this case an accused, hobnobbing with the relatives of an important witness who has submitted an affidavit against him? The Congress may, with one eye on the vote bank, have eased some of the pressure, but 1984 is about accountability, not winnability. The orphans of politics lie in wait. With inputs from Tusha Mittal WRITER’S EMAIL shammy@tehelka.com
Photo: Vijay Pandey MOST TAKE a shot at politics for the power it will afford them. There are only a few who willingly opt for it even though they can more than afford to stay out of it. The young, 39-year-old, Naveen Jindal, who is now contesting for a second time to reclaim the constituency of Kurukshetra in Haryana, is one such industrialist. With a turnover of Rs 10,000 crore, the steel baron can spend the rest of his life in the lap of luxury. But the barely three-hour journey between Delhi, where Jindal Steel is headquartered, and the by-lanes and dirt tracks of Kurukshetra, where he is now campaigning, is a journey he has thought long and hard about. On the campaign trail, he has interesting anecdotes to narrate and this is one of them: as a child, I once asked my father (OP Jindal, a Congress minister in Haryana who died in a helicopter crash in 2005) what the power of an MLA and MP was and he replied, “nothing”. So why then has Naveen, the youngest of three brothers, chosen to fill his father’s shoes? Even at 39 and at the end of a five-year-tenure as a Member of Parliament, he questions his own role as an MP, “What are my executive powers? Nothing. We are truly a bureaucracy. People can approach me but not the officers.’’ So like so many other young MPs who are seldom recognised even by their own parties, why is Naveen, touring six to ten villages in a day, getting off his Land Cruiser to pay condolences to unknown villagers who seldom touch his life? A part of the answer is available through the speeches he makes at different village stops. “My father always told me that we are blessed. We are what we are because of all of you. Aap ka ashirwad hi hamari takat hai (Your blessings are our power) and we want to make your lives better.” There are other reasons that keep him committed to the political pact he has made with himself. He explains it thus, “There was a way shown in Rang De Basanti but that is not the right way. For me, politics is a means by which I can do a lot for my country. I want to be instrumental in changing government policies and you can change the system only by being part of the system.” As a first-time candidate from Kurukshetra in 2004, he won by a huge margin of 1.62 lakh votes and had the particular satisfaction of defeating Abhay Chautala, the son of former Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala. Naveen has tried in the subsequent five years to develop a constituency whose fate is decided by 13 lakh voters. Unlike most MPs, he has figures that can be flaunted — he has set up 688 eye camps where, apart from OPD facilities, 24,461 people have been operated. Medical vans have travelled through over 6,000 sites (his constituency comprises 1,100 villages) and he has also set up gyms and sewing centers, apart from constructing over 50,000 toilets for families living below the poverty line, who even in the 21st century were defecating in the open until then. THE MAIN charge that his opponents throw at him is interesting. It is a charge that won’t come the way of too many MPs, but is flung at this young baron, probably because of his personal wealth. He spends too much money on his constituency worry his opponents: Naveen makes capital use of that worry. “An MP gets Rs 2 crore per year for their constituency and, yes, I spend two plus an additional Rs 10 crore. So, what’s their problem? I’m only spending it on my people,’’ is a ready answer at all his village rallies.
‘The way shown in Rang De Basanti is not the right way. You can change the system only from within, by being a part of it,’ says Jindal
He must have been surprised, therefore, to find a shoe come his way by a drunk and disgruntled former employee, especially since his aim this time is to take his victory margin well beyond the two-lakh mark. But that’s not the only thing this MP is obsessing about. He sees himself as an agent of social change and though, self-admittedly, he has no executive powers within Kurukshetra, he uses the floor of the Lok Sabha to focus on the changes he wishes to bring. Naveen has the record of having asked the most questions among the ten MPs that Haryana sends to Parliament and they have been on varied issues — from health delivery systems in rural areas to the bidding process for the import of wheat to violence against minorities and the ill effects of carbonated soft drinks. GenNext is restless for change and Naveen Jindal has an agenda for the next five years. It is to do with a Food Security Act that works towards zero hunger. It also has to do with schemes that can ‘reduce our population’ and tackle corruption. The journeys between his air-conditioned office in Delhi and the dirt tracks of Kurukshetra are shaping his agenda.
Pakistan appears to be imploding. Bomb attacks are taking place at alarming regularity and the Taliban has now threatened two attacks a week. Are you worried that Pakistan is now at war with itself?
All these problems are the creation of Mr Pervez Musharraf. Dictatorship is an excellent breeding ground for radicalism and terrorism. So frankly, the last eight years of dictatorial rule of Mr Pervez Musharraf is primarily responsible for the present state of affairs. He singlehandedly compromised the sovereignty of Pakistan. A one-man show is always counterproductive for the country. A one-man show really creates havoc, no matter where it is anywhere in the world. So terrorism is a direct benefit, I would say, of Mr Musharraf’s dictatorial rule. It is a huge problem now. We recognise it and we have to deal with it. But we have to deal with it sensibly.
So what is the sensible approach?
No single party can really deal with it single-handedly. You have got to deal with it in a unified manner. No party, whether in government or outside the government, can deal with this problem single-handedly. You blame Musharraf and his policies. You are clearly referring to the line he had to take after 9/11. Is it easy for Pakistan to resist US pressure? Would you have been able to do that if you were the Prime Minister when America launched its war against terror? In the first place, if I were the Prime Minister at that point of time I would have had an elected parliament and the matter would have been referred to the Parliament. And the Parliament should have taken that decision and not one man. Mr Musharraf actually gave everything away on one telephone call. He simply handed over our sovereignty in just one single telephone call. And that call was not from the president of the US but Mr Colin Powell. So that is how the dictators function. He was always talking about being a super commando and look what he did in response to one telephone call. He surrendered everything. Do you fear a larger Talibanisation of Pakistan?
I don’t think so and I think we have to implement some dialogue also because force alone is not the answer. It has to be a multi-pronged policy. We have to carry out a comprehensive development of those areas [NWFP]. We have to have a comprehensive development plan. And at the same time, you’ve got to also remove the sense of deprivation of the local people. You’ve got to bring that local area at par with the rest of the country. So unless you address these key issues you really can’t deal with the issue of terrorism. And then, of course, engage in some kind of dialogue because Mr Obama’s policy also recognises the importance of dialogue with the moderate Taliban. So is it a good idea to enter into a dialogue with Baitullah Mehsud? Well, I think we have got to engage with all those who believe in moderation. The new US President, Barack Obama has evolved a new plan to bring development and peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan. How do you view this plan?
He has talked about a multi-pronged strategy. He has also talked about adopting a regional approach. And he has also talked about dialogue with moderate elements in the Taliban ranks. So all these things are quite relevant. But what we don’t agree with the US on are the drone attacks, which are not helping at all. The drone attacks must stop immediately. They are proving to be counterproductive. So they are actually adding to the ranks of the militant groups, would you say?
They are challenging our sovereignty and at the same time they are counterproductive and not helping anybody. They are also hurting the sentiments of Pakistan.
Musharraf surrendered Pakistan’s sovereignty with one telephone call. That call was not from the US president but from Colin Powell
The view in the official circles in America is that you are a social conservative, implying therefore that they prefer Asif Ali Zardari to you. Do you think it is a fair assessment?
I think this is sheer propaganda which was unleashed by Mr Musharraf for political purposes. I am of course a democrat of a forward-looking party, a progressive party. We believe in democratic principles, in democratic institutions. I believe in the rule of law and this is what we have been struggling for over the last eight years and we are very happy that we have made progress and got the judiciary reinstated. Coming back to terrorism, would you have signed a peace pact with the Taliban in Swat? I don’t want to make any comments because the NWFP has a provincial government and they don’t like anybody to make any comments, I would rather stay quiet. Given the regularity of the suicide attacks, would you say that Pakistan has reached a tipping point? We are not deterred by such actions and cannot afford to be. We have the will to fight them out. We have the will and the determination. So as long as the determination is alive, we will succeed. It has been a little more than a year since the elections. How would you assess the government’s performance at the Centre?
We are still fighting on vital issues. And you know that Mr Zardari played games with us. We signed three different agreements but none was fulfilled. And then the government of Punjab was dismissed. And at the same time the Supreme Court gave out the ruling that disqualified me and Mr Shahbaz Sharif. So at that time I felt very strongly that rather than fighting terrorism, we are fighting democracy in this country. This is what has really kept us behind. We had a plan to strengthen democracy in the country and we could have made progress in the last one year, which we have not.
Drone attacks by the US are hurting the sentiments of Pakistan. They are Counterproductive and must be stopped
After you succeeded in restoring the judiciary, you have once again offered to co-operate with the Zardari government. Is he reciprocating your offer? And do you trust him after all that has happened?
There is no personal animosity. There is no personal vengeance. And there is no personal score to be settled with each other. And now you see, the first and the foremost thing is to re-establish democratic institutions. And if we do that, I think we will serve the cause of democracy. It is very important to strengthen democracy. And for that we have the charter of democracy which I signed with Benazir Bhutto three years back. It was also a part of the PPP’s election manifesto. By fighting and succeeding in restoring the judiciary, I have achieved one major target. Now my aim is to put the country back on a democratic path. So keeping all the personal things aside, we have decided to support the Zardari government, provided they follow the charter of democracy.
Leave us alone Supporters of the Jamaat protesting the drone attacks by the US Photo: Reuters What is the next item on your agenda? Reducing the powers of the President to sack elected Prime Ministers?
That is one item in the charter of democracy. There are other things like how judges can be appointed. Judges must be appointed through Parliament. And then of course you’ve got to strike a balance between the powers of the President and the Prime Minister. We have a parliamentary democracy in Pakistan, like you have in India where the Prime Minister runs the show. So we also want our Prime Minister to run the show as the chief executive of the country. And not like Mr Musharraf who had usurped all the powers of the Prime Minister and the Parliament and vested them in the office of the President. So we want to give those powers back to the Parliament and the Prime Minister. If the PPP government is willing to do that, we shall be very happy. Pakistan claims to have shut down the Lashkar-e-Toiba but there have been attacks in Kashmir for which they have taken open credit. Do you think the ISI is really serious about tackling the terror threat after what you saw in Mumbai? I express deep sorrow for what happened in Mumbai. And all those people who have been found guilty are non-state actors, frankly. And one can say without any fear of contradiction that the ISI was never involved in Mumbai. The ISI cannot afford to get involved in these practices. And also, I think the perpetrators of the morbid killings are all non-state actors. After Ajmal Kasab’s arrest, all Lashkar offices and even the schools run by them have been taken over by the government. So the government has taken really hard action against LeT. If you were the Prime Minister and Pakistan had been hit, like India was hit in Mumbai, what would your response have been? Would it have been similar to the US, which attacked Afghanistan after 9/11? If I were the Prime Minister, I would have seen how concerned India was and what India’s involvement was. I would find out if India was responsible or non-state actors in India were actually trying to subvert relations between the two countries. And if I would have come to the conclusion that there are non-state actors operating within India, then I would have sat down with India. I would have chalked out a strategy, a policy to jointly defeat all such elements who are busy trying to sabotage relations between Pakistan and India. It is their agenda to not allow two countries to come closer. And therefore it is not in our interest that we play into the hands of those whose agenda it is to keep the two countries away from each other. So I think we have got to now deal with these things very intelligently, to defeat their nefarious plans, to show better cooperation with each other. We should show solidarity and conduct a joint interrogation and a joint investigation into the Mumbai killings. That will inspire more confidence in each other. This is what the need of the hour is. Rather than allegations and counter-allegations, we should be extending more cooperation. But unfortunately, that’s not happening. If I were the PM of Pakistan today, I would have sent a team right away to India, to sit with its Indian counterparts and agree on a joint interrogation. And then do things in a transparent manner. But the feeling in India is that Pakistan’s response has been inadequate because it took them a month to even admit that Kasab is a Pakistani citizen. That is what I am talking about. There is a trust deficit. This trust deficit needs to be addressed and it is the first thing we should be doing. WRITER’S EMAIL shammy@tehelka.com
Illustration: Sudeep Chaudhuri HE IS often described as a guerilla fighter par excellence. His arsenal is lethal, for like most war lords, it consists not just of disciplined Kalashnikovwielding cadres but motivated suicide bombers, willing to swiftly turn their bodies into human missiles. He is known more for his ‘profession’ — jehad — and less for what he did as he was growing up in the tough terrain of Waziristan in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP). His brand of jehad has catapulted him to power and infamy and Baitullah Mehsud — a household name beyond the borders of Pakistan — is being called the new Osama. Barely in his mid-30s, Mehsud’s meteoric rise — embellished with attack after deadly attack at alarming regularity – has been internationally acknowledged. He found his way in Timemagazine’s list of 100 most influential leaders and revolutionaries. Newsweek magazine has described him as being “more dangerous than Osama bin Laden’’ and only late last month, the US Department of State announced a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to the location, arrest, and/or conviction of Baitullah Mehsud, the senior leader of Tehreek-e- Taliban (Taliban Movement of Pakistan). A press release issued by the US Bureau of Public Affairs says, “Mehsud is regarded as a key al Qaeda facilitator in the tribal areas of South Waziristan in Pakistan. Pakistani authorities believe that the January 2007 suicide attack against the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was staged by militants loyal to Mehsud. Press reports also have linked Mehsud to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the deaths of other innocent civilians. In addition, Mehsud has stated his intention to attack the United States. He has conducted cross-border attacks against US forces in Afghanistan, and poses a clear threat to American persons and interests in the region.” Five million dollars is no small amount and Mehsud is no small man. Often described as ‘Pakistan’s Osama’, Mehsud’s reward money is the exact same as was announced for the al Qaeda chief who has been on the run since 9/11, 2001. Matchboxes being sold in NWFP’s capital city of Peshawar carry a picture of Osama, the world’s most wanted fugitive, with text in Urdu announcing that the US government promises to pay up to five million dollars for information leading to Osama’s whereabouts. So who is Mehsud and why is he being likened to the man who displayed the power of changing New York’s skyline, when pilots allegedly trained by him reduced the stately Twin Towers to rubble? Personal details about Mehsud are still very sketchy. The little that is known is that he was briefly a gym instructor, that he is diabetic and that he shuns publicity — probably the reason why only one photograph is in circulation. Lots, however, is documented about his militant activities. Inspired by the one-eyed Mullah Omar (also on the run since 9/11), Mehsud, in fact, started his career in jehad after the US’ global war against terror when President George Bush called his counterpart, President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and infamously said — you are either with us or against us. MUSHARRAF WAS quick in reversing his policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan and the Taliban and while he took a sharp U-turn — fighting the very Taliban that Pakistan had helped train — he lost popularity and support amongst his own people, as was evidenced in the elections last year. The vote was clearly more a referendum against Musharraf and his pro-US stance, a sentiment that overtook the sympathy factor for Benazir Bhutto, assassinated only months before the February 2008 election. Mehsud, in fact, earned his spurs at this precise time when the hatred for America took deep root in Waziristan, an agency in Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The tribal areas are the geo-strategic gateway to Afghanistan, and South Waziristan, from where Mehsud hails, has been an important supply route for the militants since the 1980s, when they crossed over to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Mehsud’s support base can be explained through the fact that the Mehsud tribe comprises up to 70 percent of the population in South and North Waziristan. Tribe loyalty is a strong factor that has propelled the new Osama, but Baitullah Mehsud’s brand of jehad has several other ingredients that have been slowly but steadily brewed to fatal perfection. Former ISI chief Hamid Gul, who is often referred to as the ‘father of the Taliban’, when asked about Mehsud said, “He was a non-entity till 9/11 but now appears to be a world-class commando with tribal warlike abilities. He is a Pashtun and revenge is core to the Pashtun honour code. He is fighting the US forces in Afghanistan on the basis of revenge motivation. Pashtuns don’t take kindly to invaders.”
Americawill give $5 million for Mehsud, regarded as a key al Qaeda facilitator
NOT KNOWN to have had any formal education, Mehsud, according to Pakistani journalists, has only studied in a madarsa, where he was inspired by the Taliban ideology. The Taliban’s interpretation of Islam is one of the ingredients in that fatal brew and Mehsud, in his interviews — he only speaks Pashto — has often said, “Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Quran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the World.” But all Talibs are steeped in similar interpretations and if Mehsud has risen from the ranks to now demand attention in the minds of Barack Obama’s key aides, it is because he has also displayed political and strategic skills (see accompanying piece by Prem Shankar Jha.) Apart from being a local who was brought up in the rocky terrain which he knows backwards, he, as Lt Gen (Retd) Talat Masood, a Pakistan-based strategic analyst put it, “has leadership qualities. The American presence has triggered a strong nationalistic impulse and Mehsud has become the popular face of resistance. The real problem is that the drone attacks have had a serious psychological fallout amongst Pakistanis.”
Mehsud earned his spurs at the precise time when hatred for the US took deep root
Baitullah Mehsud has crafted this sentiment to his advantage and is now the one man who is not just spearheading the fight against the US and the NATO allies but has emerged as the single-most serious threat to Pakistan itself. The man, who has often boasted and made dramatic declarations like — if the US has air power, we have fidayeen (suicide bombers) — has only last week declared his new intent: Pakistan will witness two attacks every week. That he has a committed cadre and enoughfidayeen has been displayed time and again. The recent dramatic early morning attack on the police academy in Lahore that left 20 dead and close to a 100 injured forced Pakistan’s Interior Advisor, Rehman Malik to make a startling revelation on national television, saying, Mehsud is recruiting suicide bombers and paying them Rs 5 to 15 lakh each. Hurting the state Security forces stand guard outside a paramilitary camp hit by a suicide bomber Photos: AP The man who started his jehad journey by trying to enforce Shariah and then quickly moved on to dispatch men from Waziristan into Afghanistan to take on the US-led coalition and their global war against the al Qaeda, now heads the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan . If, in South Asia, the hyphen has shifted from India-Pakistan to Afghanistan-Pakistan, it is something Mehsud and his estimated 18,000-strong army can take credit for. Ironically, the Pakistani Taliban was formally set up only in December 2007, barely a year and a half ago.
‘480 times in the Quran, Allah told Muslims to wage jihad,’ Mehsud often says in Pashto
But even before the Tehreek-e- Taliban was born, Baitullah was the chief negotiator and signatory to many peace pacts that the Army nudged the provincial NWFP government to sign. In February 2005, for instance, Baitullah signed a deal with the federal government. Wanted for providing home and hearth to al Qaeda operatives in Waziristan, Mehsud signed a pact with the government pledging that he would neither shelter the al Qaeda nor launch operations against the Pakistani army. His role as chief negotiator immediately propelled him as the leader in the troublesome tribal belt. As Hamid Gul puts it, “Mehsud gained in stature, for the tribals started seeing him as somebody who was an entity at par with the government.” But like in Swat, where the Asif Ali Zardari dispensation has just signed a tenuous peace pact which is already showing signs of falling apart, Baitullah’s promise was soon broken by him. In fact, his peace pacts have always been tactical pauses, used to consolidate his own well-oiled jehadi machine.
After Lal Masjid was stormed, Mehsud held 250 Pakistani soldiers as his hostages
Baitullah’s rise is intrinsically linked to Musharraf’s open support of the US. If the storming of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad was the tipping point wherein Musharraf stood isolated amongst his own people, it was also the point when Baituallah shifted some of his focus away from Afghanistan and trained his guns squarely in the direction of the Pakistani state. Lal Masjid was stormed in June 2007 and within two months, Baitullah, in brazen defiance, had 250 Pakistani soldiers as his hostages in South Waziristan. In what was easily his most humiliating moment, President Pervez Musharraf found himself negotiating a release strategy that ended on Baitullah’s terms. Musharraf was forced to release as many as 25 militants in exchange for his own troops. The 25 who walked out of state captivity were, according to Musharraf’s own admission, trained suicide bombers. Baitullah’s appointment as the chief of the Pakistani Taliban in December 2007, at a consultative council, was by then a mere formality. Baitullah used the gathering to reiterate his agenda: throw out coalition forces from Afghanistan. One eye trained on Pakistan, he also demanded the release of all prisoners including the Lal Masjid maulvi. Crucially, he also demanded that the Army withdraw its troops from Swat Valley, once better known as Pakistan’s Switzerland.
A UN report blames Mehsud for 80 percent of the bombings in Afghanistan
AS THE formal head of Tehreek-e-Taliban, Baitullah is not just a worry for Pakistan as it slowly descends into anarchy. He can also be described as the biggest international migraine, to borrow former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright’s words. A United Nations report released in 2007 blamed Mehsud for almost 80 percent of suicide bombings in Afghanistan. Stories of how he orders death by stoning or death by flogging, of how music, television and photography are banned and how he gives a 24-hour-notice to government informers by sending them a needle and thread so they can make arrangements for their kafan are legendary; but pale in comparison to how lethal a global jehadi he has honed and chiselled himself into. Mehsud’s man A gunman being dragged after the attack at Lahore’s police academy The most alarming thing for Pakistan itself is the bare fact that there is a lot of sympathy for him within the Pakistani Army. Gul ascribes this to the fact that Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic grouping, but this also translates not just into support for the Pakistani Taliban but into reluctance on the part of the forces to fight their own people. After the failed peace accord of 2005, Mehsud and his 17000-strong brigade succeeded in virtually pushing the Army out of South Waziristan. Says Ahmed Rashid, wellknown author of a book on the Taliban and a strategic expert, “Retired ISI officers are helping the Pakistani Taliban and they have become more Lashkar than the Lashkar.’’ Even the current ISI chief has, in informal briefings with journalists, described Mehsud as a “patriotic Pakistani”. That Mehsud’s Taliban is a potent fighting force that threatens Pakistan is evident. What adds to its fire power is the fact that the civilian government — the Zardari-led PPP government is now a year old — is not up to the task of tackling terror. “Several governments have engaged Mehsud in talks but it has not worked, and the State has to assert itself but the problem is that we have very poor leadership,’’ says Talat Masood, adding, “Military rule incapacitated institutions and now the jehadis are incapacitating the State. International policy makers are not being very helpful either by leaning too heavily on Pakistan for the global war against terror.”
THE US’S war, which is now on top of Obama’s agenda, is clearly fanning the extremist fire in Pakistan. Says former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in an exclusive interview to TEHELKA, “The drone attacks must stop immediately”. If there is consensus in Pakistan, it is on the issue of how Pakistan’s support to the US is now leading to the country itself imploding. “Pakistan has never appeared so vulnerable,’’ says Masood, and many will concur. In fighting America’s war, Pakistan finds itself at war with itself. Hamid Gul’s recipe for cure sounds simple. “We have to change our pro-US policies,’’ he says, and that definitely is Pakistan’s mood. It was that mood that threw Musharraf out of power. The more crucial question is — can Zardari or any civilian Prime Minister, or dictator for that matter, even survive such a drastic policy change? The State cannot implement the policy even though it knows what it is. The prevarication, or the plain unwillingness, or perhaps the inability of going against the world’s superpower is what keeps Baitullah Mehsud in business. He is not short on determination. Or indoctrination. Or suicide bombers.
Up in smoke Tribal women Sanni salvages a fraction of her harvest after the Judum set it on fire Photo: Shailendra Pandey Who do you hold responsible for the Salwa Judum?
The people find the government fully responsible for it. This is class war. There are the rich, and there are the poor. With the rich robbing the poor, the poor had begun to organise against their exploitation. This scared the government and it launched this brutal movement so it could continue to loot. Continue to loot?
This is the government of the capitalists and middlemen. They are looting national resources and have raised Salwa Judum for that purpose. A few Salwa Judum men, who were earlier Naxals, told me that they were sick of your violence because you forced them to kill others.
That’s not true. They have crossed over because the police took to killing Naxals or Naxal supporters, and that scared them. Are you in touch with your former comrades who are now with Salwa Judum?
We are in contact with those ex-Naxals who have quit the Salwa Judum camps and gone back to their villages. The government says the villagers have sought police protection because you kill innocent villagers.
We have been here 35 years. The villagers always lived in their homes, celebrating festivals, praying to their gods. They had no fear of us. They moved to the Salwa Judum camps only after the government began burning their villages and brutalising them. The government says it wants to bring education, healthcare, roads and electricity to Bastar but the Naxals don’t want development.
The people want hospitals and schools but not roads, which don’t bring development. The roads are built for the police to access our villages and tyrannise us. The government, too, wants to bring schools and healthcare. Where is the conflict?
We don’t trust this government. Our goal is to establish the rule of our party on the basis of the Maoist-Marxist-Leninist ideology. We are fighting for that. Do you have any demands from the government?
No. The people want their own governments to take power: in the villages, districts and the state. The schools will be ours, as will be the hospitals. What will be the key features of a Maoist-Marxist-Leninist nation, should you achieve one? Apart from the hospitals and schools, we will create a panchayati raj-based judicial system. People took to the guns in Kashmir and Punjab but were brutally put down. What makes you think you can defeat the state? We will properly organise the poor among India’s 1.1 billion people, build good politics among them, and be successful one day. Mahatma Gandhi showed the way of nonviolence. Mao showed the way of the gun. Do you think Gandhi’s way has failed India?
We only believe in the Maoist-Marxist- Leninist way of life. How will the cities be under your party’s rule?
Factories will be there. People will get their full wages. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said India faces its gravest danger from Naxalism.
Manmohan Singh rules India. [Chief Minister] Raman Singh rules Chhattisgarh. We challenge their authority and are on course to overthrow them and establish our rule. That’s why they think we are their biggest threat. Do you see industry, too, as your enemy? This government has contracted with foreign countries such as the US, Russia and Japan to sell off India’s national resources. It is a puppet in their hands. What do you think of the US? It is in great financial danger now, as is India. Were the Chhattisgarh Government to agree to wind up Salwa Judum and invite you for talks, how would you respond?
We have shed blood in this fight. We won’t betray our slain comrades by talking to this or any other government. WRITER’S EMAIL ajit@tehelka.com
New era Ram Madhav says new RSS chief Bhagwat will herald more openness Photo: Vijay Pandey In his first public speech after he was named the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat said the RSS should evolve along modern lines. What does that mean?
Bhagwatji always says everything is changeable in the RSS except our core belief in the Hindutva ideology: that Hindustan is a Hindu rashtra [nation]. Contrary to what people think, we are not fixated on anything — not even on our uniform; even that will change whenever our cadres want. But our core ideology cannot change. What are the key challenges before the RSS?
One of the challenges is that we are identified too closely with one political party, whereas the appeal of Hindutva cuts across all political parties. We took a major decision in 2005 — the Chitrakoot resolution — to completely abstain from electoral politics. Earlier, during elections, the RSS cadres would run parallel campaigns, such as the Jan Jagrans. Now, we want to promote the Hindu social agenda without being seen as an appendage of any political party. Our challenge is to maintain this fine balance between pursuing the Hindu agenda and keeping a distance from dayto- day politics. Bhagwat is said to support LK Advani but not BJP President Rajnath Singh.
This campaign that he is Advani’s man does not hold water. He is everybody’s man. He is the man of the organisation and the ideology that it represents. The general impression always was that the RSS leads and the BJP follows. But now it is said that Bhagwat is a supporter of Advani’s.
As I said, this is a spin given by a section of the media. In fact, he was on the dais when Advaniji’s book was released last year, and there he had said clearly that he didn’t know Advaniji well enough until he became the Sarkaryavah [General Secretary] in 2000. Why doesn’t the RSS help the BJP sort issues, such as the one between Rajnath Singh and Arun Jaitley?
The BJP should have an internal mechanism to sort issues between two senior leaders. Why should the Sangh step in? The Sangh refused to intervene in the trouble between these two. Not a word about it was spoken during the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, though senior BJP leaders were present there. What are the other challenges that the RSS faces?
We face an image problem. There is a huge gap between our image and reality, accentuated by incidents like [last year’s Christian killings in] Kandhamal in Orissa and the 2002 [anti-Muslim] violence in Gujarat. To some extent, these incidents have created an image for the organisation that does not bode well. We know the reality is different. A large section of the Hindu society that has seen us directly understands the reality. But the wrong image persists in some sections. Under Bhagwatji’s guidance, we know we would be able to address this issue. What do you mean that the RSS has an image problem?
After the post-Godhra violence, there was propaganda the world over that the RSS is anti-Muslim and a violent organisation. The whole case was presented wrongly by a section of the media as if Hindus were butchering Christians and Muslims, which is not the reality. The ground situation is totally different, both in Gujarat as well as in Kandhamal. A report telecast on a reputed English TV channel had sound-bites from some people accusing the RSS and the Hindu groups of the violence against Christians. Later, I saw a documentary by a filmmaker in Kolkata in which the same people were speaking against the Christians! Last week, a story on [Gujarat Chief Minister] Narendra Modi in The Atlantic magazine of the US devoted one full paragraph to abusing us. How do you propose to resolve this?
The image and the reality are 180 degrees apart. We have thought of making a major documentary on this question of our image and the reality. See, many things that are said about the RSS are not true. For example, it is said that only Brahmins can hold positions in the RSS. But half our pracharaks are not even from the so-called forward castes. People say this just because the RSS head may be from a so-called forward caste. What is Bhagwat’s approach to this problem?
He is a great pragmatic leader. Today, if I can discuss with you so many things, that is because of the new visionary leadership. He believes we should be open and communicate with society. Earlier, we spoke only to our cadres. Now we plan to meet opinion-makers to put forward our points of view. What kind of opinion-makers?
A huge spectrum: academicians, eminent citizens such as a doctor who could be a member of the Rotary or Lion’s club… Within the RSS, too, we have challenges. Three years ago, we had 50,000 shakhas [branches]. In 2007-08, we got busy with celebrating the birth centenary of the second RSS chief, Guru Golwalkarji. Our shakhas were cut down to 44,000. We now aim to take it back to 50,000. We plan to focus in a big way on reviving and protecting tribal culture. The Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram runs regular centres in 14,000 of the country’s 30,000 tribal villages. We go through education, healthcare and literacy campaigns. A prominent saint from Karnataka is undertaking a Gau Gram Sanrakshan Yatra [Cow-Village Protection March], which will touch at least 300,000 villages. The Yatra will collect 10 crore signatures to ask the government to revive the rural economy. The protection of our cattle wealth, rural industry and agriculture has to be the focus of any development. What about groups like the Sri Ram Sene and their attacks on the women visiting pubs in Mangalore?
The Congress leaders spoke more than us against the women going to the pubs. What did [Rajasthan Chief Minister] Ashok Gehlot say about the pub culture? When a TV journalist was killed in New Delhi last year, didn’t [Delhi Chief Minister] Sheila Dixit ask what she was doing alone at 3 am, the time she was killed? Groups like Sri Ram Sene have no connection with the RSS. We don’t support vandalism. But we have views on many social issues. For example, we don’t approve of Valentine’s Day celebrations. You say the RSS realises that the appeal of Hindutva cuts across political parties. The Communists must be out of the question, but which other political parties have RSS members?
We have our members in several political parties, including the Congress. We interact with them regularly. But this does not mean that we oppose the BJP. The BJP is closest to us in terms of ideology. Someone is 10 feet away from us; someone else is 1 km away — that’s the difference. Bhagwat is said to have been hands-on as General Secretary. How different will he be in his new role?
Nothing changes with position in the RSS. His work will continue as before. The RSS is not personality-oriented. Rather, the leaders take decisions collectively through consultation. The outgoing RSS chief KR Sudarshan is 79 years old. Bhagwat is 58. Does being young have any significance?
Bhagwatji’s rapport with the entire cadres is much stronger as he has the advantage of age. He is a patient listener. Anyone can walk up to him and share his thoughts and ideas. He is very open-minded and transparent. The cadres at all levels feel comfortable talking to him. He answers his e-mails personally as much as possible. He has an excellent grounding in our ancient knowledge and wisdom, while he also has a scientific temper. In his speech after taking over last week he quoted from a magazine of the Ramakrishna Mission, which he regularly reads. Incidentally, Bhagwatji is also a regular reader of Reader’s Digest and extensively quotes from it in his speeches.
What’s your role in the Communist Party of India (Maoist)?
To fight the Salwa Judum and bring back the people they have displaced. To those who went to Salwa Judum camps, we say, “Come back to your villages, homes and fields. Raise your children here.” Why have the people gone to the Salwa Judum camps? [When the Salwa Judum began in 2005] the Naga battalion went from village to village, burning houses, raping women, slashing people’s throats. The people ran to the camps in fear. So why aren’t they coming back from the camps?
The Special Police Officers (SPOs) tell them, “If you go back to your villages, we’ll come and kill you.” You should know that the government and the media portray Naxals as bloodthirsty gun-wielding insurgents with no popular legitimacy.
That’s a wrong image. The people don’t have guns in their hands. The people are in abject poverty and in terrible distress. They have nothing to eat. They have no cattle for farming. Chhattisgarh Home Minister Nanki Ram Kanwar told TEHELKA that the government wants to bring development to Bastar, but the Naxals don’t allow government agencies in here.
Is that so? Then why haven’t they brought development to the villages and the towns along the roads? If they aren’t able to enter deep in the forests, no one is stopping them from bringing development to the accessible parts. What exactly is the fight between you and the government?
The people elected [local Congress leader] Mahendra Karma as an MLA. But he began terrorising them. He would be paid off by village sarpanchs [council chief] from development money. The people opposed this and cut off the money to him. In retaliation, he raised the Salwa Judum against us, filling it with young boys and giving them guns, which were used against the villagers. The government says the Naxals have killed more than four times policemen than the police have killed Naxals.
That’s false. In Bastar alone, more innocent people than policemen have been killed. When I spoke to Varavara Rao, seen as an overground Naxal ideologue, he justified killings, calling it revolutionary violence. Do you to agree?
If the government doesn’t understand [what we want], then we have no option but to take to the gun. The people are totally ready to bring the Revolution. Do you think you can defeat the Indian state with the gun? We will win, because millions are poor and they are ready [for the Revolution]. One can appreciate the need for a revolution to bring relief to the poor. But those who picked up the gun in Punjab, Kashmir and the northeast were brutally put down. How can you win against the state? If the people buckle under, then it would be the fault of the leadership and point to a lack of preparedness by the people. The Chhattisgarh Government says the state’s natural natural resources should be harnessed for India’s benefit. What do you say?
The government should first answer for the Bailadila hills. When it began mining the iron ore there, it had promised to employ the locals. Did that happen? No. The iron ore is shipped from Bailadila to Vishakhapatnam, from where it is sent to Japan. The locals go far and wide for livelihood. Because of that experience, people elsewhere refuse to part with their lands. A Jungle Warfare School has come up in Chhattisgarh where military officers are training SPOs to take you on. By contrast, you live in the forests and know little else. Do you fear they will finish you? After all the training, they’re still humans, right? The Naga battalion had similarly been trained. The people fought and defeated them. In the name of the people you kill policemen. Why?
The police are also poor; they are Adivasi boys and girls. But they take up the gun for the government and oppress the people. That’s why we kill them. Would you respond if the government calls you for talks?
We have seen in Andhra Pradesh that the government deceived us in the names of talks. It cannot be trusted. We won’t meet it. Why do you say that Salwa Judum was set up to protect the projects of the Tatas and Essar in Chhattisgarh?
How will the Tatas work here without police protection? If the government winds up Salwa Judum, would you stop police killings?
Whether or not we stop killing the police is for later. The government must first let the people in the Salwa Judum camps go back to their villages. We killed them because they terrorised people, destroyed crops, and stole Rs 1 lakh from villages. Dantewada SP Rahul Sharma says that the government will finish you off.
How does it matter what Rahul Sharma says? Can he come in here? Gandhi won freedom by nonviolence. Bhagat Singh picked up the gun.
Bhagat Singh chose the right path. He was a revolutionary from childhood and had a great fervour to fight on behalf of the people. It was because Gandhi refused to take a stand that Bhagat was hanged. The Taliban have picked up the gun. Pakistan’s is a religious strife. Our struggle is class conflict. If you have the people’s support, then why don’t you fight elections?
We don’t believe in elections. For so many years politicians have won elections. Did they bring any freedom to the people? But you aren’t those politicians. Once we sit on the chair, we will become like those politicians. But when the Revolution comes, you will have to sit on the chair, right?
But that will be the people’s government. Mao won in China with the gun. Will Indians really pick up the gun? They will. It might take years. But everyone will pick up the gun in India. Do you oppose schools and hospitals?
We are fine with schools. But the government builds a school block and uses it for the police. So the people don’t want schools. We want hospitals, too. And electricity?
We don’t need electricity. We’ve never had it. The wood in the forest is good enough. Development is seen as roads, electricity, jobs. How about you? But electricity is not free. And the people don’t have money to pay. Would you agree to an autonomous administrative unit? No, we won’t accept any such thing. Is Bastar a part of India?
Bastar has no connection with India. Do you want independence for Bastar? Not just Bastar. Slowly, all of India will become independent. Is India free or subjugated — ghulam? Ghulam.
Nowhere to go? Naxals leave after meeting TEHELKA. They insist their voilence will herald the Revolution Photo: Shailendra Pandey THEY SCREAMED and waved their guns as they set the granary on fire,” says Sanni, a tribal woman in south Chhattisgarh, standing by the burnt-out heap that was her harvest until two nights ago. “My son ran away and isn’t back.” He was lucky. The attackers took away two other villagers. No, says Sanni, the attackers weren’t Naxals, the Maoist rebels who have waged an armed rebellion for three decades. “They were from Salwa Judum,” she says. Ten weeks after the police and members of the Salwa Judum, a controversial police-backed militia, killed 19 people early January in the forests of the neighboring Dantewada district, NGOs have reported a spurt in such attacks at places in south Chhattisgarh. Sanni’s village is in Bijapur district, which was carved out of Dantewada last August. Her village is located 5km north of the Indravati, one of the three big rivers in the region. The two districts together have thickly forested plains and hills across an area in excess of 15,000 sq km. They are also the parts of India most heavily affected by the Naxals. This is decidedly ghost country. As we cross the river where it is thigh-deep to enter what is referred to on both sides as the ‘war zone’, village upon village appears abandoned. “For fear of the Salwa Judum,” explains one of our fixers. They are accompanying us to a meeting with a Naxal leader, Rengam, whose “jurisdiction”, as a leader of the underground Communist Party of India (Maoist), it is claimed, covers about 75 to 100 villages. The Naxal superstructure is said to resemble a batch of concentric circles: the innermost being the most powerful leadership, located in the remotest forests, forever on the move. The ‘zone’, ‘area’ and ‘range’ commanders people the middle: the levels of the classic pyramid management structure. These are reportedly the backbone: the hands-on, day-to-day direct leaders of the cadres, leading assaults and tracking the goings-on in the villages on their watch. The outermost circles comprise the ‘sympathisers’, who do not wear uniforms, freely interface with the “outside world” on the basis of their identity of the average villagers, but are the “eyes and ears”, the runners for the “brothers” inside. When police claim they have killed or arrested Naxals, it is believed they are mostly these outermost cadres. Of course, the Naxals claim that the police arrest or kill only the innocent people.
[box] Naxals Claim • Chhattisgarh police forced the tribals to join the Salwa Judum militia and take up arms • Salwa Judum burnt crops and homes, raped and killed women, forcing people to move to camps • Those who want to go back to their villages are threatened Government Says • Naxals burn villages and kill tribals but falsely accuse Salwa Judum of their crimes • Naxals oppose development, including schools and hospitals • The police have been tasked to finish off the Naxals
[/box] After walking three hours with the “sympathisers”, we were made to rest another two, and then handed over to a new group whose members, though not in uniform, wore shoes (the average tribal walks barefoot), carried a radio transistor, and held sharp, curved knives. Two of the five had guns under their arms. It was only at 6pm, 10 hours after we started walking, that we reached a village where a group of 20, led by Rengam, was waiting for us. As we later returned to our base station that night, walking back the 20km through the dark jungles, a fixer laughed, “Neither the Naxals nor the Salwa Judum would believe that you outsiders were boldly walking here this late.” Two days later, a day after Holi, we got word that another set of Naxals was waiting to meet us elsewhere in the Dantewada district. As this was an outlying area with a far greater chance of the police, the paramilitary and the Salwa Judum turning up, a much stricter “sanitising” procedure was employed before we could be face to face with Kunjam, another Naxal leader (See interview). Here, the mystery of the transistor was solved. As it was abruptly switched on and a Hindi film song pierced the stillness, the Naxal leader appeared in two minutes. It was a signal for him.
How do you read the ceasefire pact with the Taliban? It can be serious. We have had a spate of ceasefires, which have been very controversial. They have been opposed by a large section of the population because the ceasefires are only seen as a consolidation of the Taliban and their spread to other areas. On the other hand, other people are saying that it will bring peace and improve the justice system in the Swat valley. These may be short-term gains, but the longterm implications of this ceasefire are very very dangerous for the country. I think the fact that the state has been willing to change the legal system in Swat is a very bad precedent for the future. And something like that has not happened even in Afghanistan where the Taliban have controlled many provinces. But the state has never compromised with the Constitution and the legal system. So talking to the Taliban is one thing. It is necessary. But to talk to them and accede very hastily to accepting some of their demands regarding Sharia is a very serious risk. Would you see it as a surrender? Some strategic experts are talking in terms of the Zardari dispensation having surrendered to the Taliban. I wouldn’t say it is a surrender because it is still very much up in the air. Zardari hasn’t signed the agreement yet. He has to sign it in order for it to be enforced. And the agreement is still being negotiated both in Swat and Bajaur. But certainly, if it does go ahead and it holds for any length of time, it will be a serious infringement of the state’s authority. Does the word balkanisation come to mind when you think of the ground situation?
What we are seeing is a growing state of anarchy rather than balkanisation. I don’t think the Taliban are in a position to separate the country or the northern part of the country. But certainly they are in a position to increase anarchy and law and order problems, and there are criminal elements who have joined up with them. There are robberies, beheadings and kidnappings taking place under their name. Some of which they are doing, and some of which is being done by criminal gangs. It is a very complicated situation. Does it bother you that Pakistan and Afghanistan are now being mentioned together?
Well, I think it certainly bothers a lot of people, especially in the establishment. But I think it’s fair enough because neither country can deal with this issue alone. The fact is that there are Pakistani Taliban fighting in Afghanistan and there are Afghan Taliban fighting in Pakistan. I think it would very immature for us to be in a state of denial about that. The Afghans are not in denial about that but elements in Pakistan certainly are. Would you say that the Taliban has succeeded in imposing their ideology and political agenda through the barrel of a gun?
That’s absolutely true. Through terror, fear, beheadings and hangings carried out in Swat. I don’t believe that the majority of the Swatis want the Taliban. As we know, something like 350,000 out of a population of 1.5 million have fled Swat. The educated liberal Swatis, teachers, doctors, policemen, and civil administrators have all fled. Could you briefly describe life in the Swat valley in terms of the parallel judiciary, women in burqas, no music, no barber shops…
That is the situation. For example, the Taliban leader Maulvi Fazalullah has said that NGOs will not return to Swat. A lot of social, health, and education activity was being carried out by NGOs. It’s still uncertain whether girls will be allowed to go back to school and under what conditions. Will male teachers be allowed to teach them? The very fact that the state is having to negotiate these things is a huge sign of weakness. Who would you say is in control? Is it the Prime Minister? Is it the President?
As far as this deal is concerned, it seems everyone has been on board. The lead was taken by the ANP in Peshawar and I think the ANP has lost a lot of ground because of this deal. I don’t think the lead was taken by the army. The army has followed with the ANP initiative. And the PPP and the President have also come on board. But within all these parties, even within the ANP and the PPP, these deals remain very controversial. Was the army having a tough time handling the Taliban militarily, having played a role in its creation in the first place? The phenomenon now is that the Pakistani Taliban have their own agenda for Pakistan. Before, there was a situation where they were an appendage of the Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban fighting in Taliban. Over the last two to three years they have developed their own agenda for northern Pakistan. And that is what is most worrying. I certainly don’t think that the army is on board with that. The army is very much opposed to that, but it has limited capacity to deal with it now that the spread of the Pakistani Taliban has become so vast. They are literally 150km from Islamabad. Right?
Yes. And they are spreading south. And the danger is that they will use Swat as a base to spread south of the valley and then closer towards the capital. So deal or no deal, ceasefire or no ceasefire, the situation remains pretty serious and alarming.
It is serious and alarming. And it is worrying people in Punjab. There have been Taliban attacks in Punjab also. South Punjab is filled with some of these Punjabi groups, who ally with the Taliban. Karachi is filled with both neo- Taliban and Punjabi groups. Certainly there is a big danger of this spreading to other parts of the country very rapidly. Isn’t it ironic that the Zardari dispensation is on the verge of signing a pact with the Taliban, which includes Baitullah Mehsud, accused of masterminding Benazir Bhutto’s assassination?
Certainly. It’s very damaging to the prestige of the PPP Government, the ANP who opposed it and who have been facing death threats and attacks by Baitullah’s men. In fact, one MP of the ANP has been killed and the others ministers and MPs are being targeted. It’s difficult to imagine how we are going to be able to have a truce with such a person. So what were the compulsions for going ahead with the ceasefire if one were to specifically see it from the PPP’s point of view? I think there is an inherent weakness of the state at the moment. Both in political and military terms. I think the government and the army are exhausted by the heavy fighting that has taken place over the last six to nine months in Bajaur and Swat. At the moment, retaking Swat by the army is not an option because you would need perhaps as many as a hundred thousands troops to do that and the army can’t spare that at the moment. The PPP has only just completed a year in power and they are already on the verge of a pact with the Taliban?
Well, there has been a steady weakening of the state’s response to this threat over the past year. And I don’t think the government has been properly focused on that. It’s been more focused on the political rankling inside Punjab and the Centre and Nawaz Sharif and the lawyers movement and other things rather than focusing on the threat of extremism. So are you amazed a little by the US reaction to the ceasefire because they are not openly opposing it, saying the Sharia is part of Pakistan’s Constitution?
Well, I think the US has to work with the Pakistani Army. It doesn’t have a choice. I think they were surprised by what happened in Swat. I don’t think they were properly informed about it especially when Richard Holbrooke was visiting the region. But they still realise that they have to work with the army. To what extent should India worry? India needs to worry enormously about it because many of these groups who ally to the Taliban, have an agenda in India. The last thing you want to see is the Taliban actually reaching upto the Indian border. In which case India will be faced with having part of the Pakistan border under the control of the Taliban, which is not something India will like very much.
How do you read the ceasefire pact with the Taliban?
