Post date: Aug 13, 2010 9:58:45 PM
Problems Tribals face
Everytime a big dam or a mine or an irrigation project needs to be built mostly tribals have to be displaced, they have to become refugee's, they are forced to live in inhuman concentration camps with a tin roof over their head.
The problem is the law. the law that outlaws people from living the way that they have been living for centuries. This is referring to the indian forest law which makes the state the custodian of the forests and by definition tribals become squatters on governement land, they become outlaws for simply living the way they have lived.
Its counter argument is that you could say the same thing about "सती प्रथा" People becoming outlaws for doing what they have been doing. but still burning women and living in forest is not the same crime
Problems Naxalites create
Derailing trains and killing "innocent soldiers" and killing policemen
looting police stations, exploding army trucks and destroying paramilitary forces.
How can we be sure that they are doing the Pro-People thing. How can we be sure that all this violence is not gonna lead us into a big mess instead of Emancipation
Why the argument that "India is taking a benevolent approach and that's why naxalites are still existing otherwise they would have been wiped out is incorrect" ?
Answer:- because Politicians milk them and are too powerless to do anything concrete. We are making strike after strike against them but even america wasn't able to defeat vietnam in a guerilla war. besides Which other government would sponsor Salwa Judum.
Look at the history of "naxalites". They were always there with different names, They were crushed and they sprung back up)
Telangana in 50's
West bengal, Bihar, Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh in 60's and 70's
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra in 80's to the present
Example of the Flip-Flop approach by P.Chidambaram towards Naxalites
17 may: He wants more mandate to bomb them
He basically wants to get the permission use Air support for operations against naxals. They are obviously not asking permission for Air recon but for more lethal uses. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/I-have-limited-mandate-to-tackle-Naxals-Chidambaram/articleshow/5942137.cms#ixzz0w2a9FrDz
19 may: He wants to talk to them:
Chidambaram makes fresh offer for talks with Naxals
4 april: He is confused
He says that "buck stops" at the chief minister's table with regard to the law and order issue.
He wants to talk to them "Naxals are cowards. Why are they hiding in forests? We have invited them for talks (but) after they abjure violence. If they really want development, if they really want to solve problems of the people, they are welcome to talk."
He also says that they have no place in our society .Agreeing that the villagers had reasons to be aggrieved due to lack of development, Chidambaram said, "I told them Naxals are killing you and will continue to kill you and they have no place in the society."
A Good Interview between PC and a reporter
I’m back to my question. Why leave it to the Maoists to describe an equitable and pro-people way of doing things? Mining practices is one of the biggest faultlines in our country today. What are your thoughts on the matter? You are someone who believes mining is intrinsic to development.
Yes, I do. In my mind, I am completely convinced that no country can develop unless it uses its natural and human resources. Mineral wealth is wealth that must be harvested and used for the people. And why not? Do you want the tribals to remain hunters and gatherers? Are we trying to preserve them in some sort of anthropological museum? Yes, we can allow the minerals to remain in the ground for another 10,000 years, but will that bring development to these people? We can respect the fact that they worship the Niyamgirhi hill, but will that put shoes on their feet or their children in school? Will that solve the fact that they are severely malnutritioned and have no access to health care? The debate about mining has gone on for centuries. It is nothing new.
History has very few examples to show that local communities have benefited from mining.
I can point to a dozen examples where the harvesting of mineral wealth has brought about development for the people who lived there. Neyveli in Tamil Nadu is one example. Ask the vaniyars -- who by the way are the poorest of the poor -- if Kamraj and the lignite mining there has improved their life or not. Jamshedpur is another example.
There are double the number of bad examples. Jamshedpur is a turn-of- the-century example. Since then, a lot has changed. Today, private companies, both Indian and international, are literally bleeding the land for private gain.
Yes, there are bad examples. These are issues that have to be discussed and we have to find a model where mineral wealth can be exploited without detriment to the environment and without affecting the livelihood of the people. We think – and let me say this with a certain amount of caution – we think we have a good land acquisition and rehabilitation policy. Now private companies have to access 70 percent of land directly and only then can the State intervene to take over the remaining 30 percent. If that requires improvement, we can again talk about it. (In fact, Mamata Banerji has already raised flags. She says the State should not acquire land for private companies under any circumstances. We are discussing that.) We also think we have a good compensation policy that assures jobs, houses, and resettlement. But if that requires improvement, we can talk about it. I think the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he is open to any suggestions to improve the system.