Quote The figure of 25 % of India's territory being under Maoist insurgency is a figure advanced by the Indian security establishment and is probably a slight exaggeration. Unquote
It's not "a slight exaggeration"; it's a grand statistical fraud committed by the apologists of the government of India and the righwing political forces advocating hawkish response just not to Maoist insurgency but all democratic resistance in order to justify such advocacy and make it politically saleable. A section of the radicals also for their own reasons add to this paranoia. Quote Chaired by Debu Bandopadhyay, a former rural development secretary, the Expert Group on Development Issues to Deal with Causes of Discontent, Unrest and Extremism said in its report that after the insurgency in Naxalbari was crushed by force in the late 1960s, it has spread from one police station, one district and one state to 560 police stations, 160 districts and 14 states ... Unquote [Source: 'Waging Peace In Redland; Justice, development are bullets that will work against Maoists' by Neelabh Mishra at <http://travel.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261407>.] Two sly tricks are resorted to. One, (Maoist) "affected" is conflated with "controlled". Two, even if a corner of a district is affected, the whole district is counted in. India has some 600 and a couple of districts. Out of which, about 160 are affected/controlled. So, one out every four (in fact, even more) is under the control of the Maoists insurgents alone - that's how the claim goes (This is without considering that there are also other varieties of insurgents, in the north-east and J&K.) So the situation looks utterly grim. Never mind that our day-to-day experiences do not reflect any such grimness. Now look at the corresponding number of police stations: 560 out of some 12,600. So, less than one out of twenty. ***From more than one out of four to less than one out of twenty.*** If we can get hold of the corresponding figure in terms of villages, the picture will, for sure, further shift. Also to be remembered that none of the metros, cities or even towns are affected. There is a dire need to counter and expose this manufactured paranoia with evidently malicious and menacing intent. Not to mindlessly go with the flow. And play in the hands of the hawks. Sukla On 9/7/09, sandy singh <[email protected]> wrote: > A Letter to The Economist > by Arundhati Roy > > [Arundhati Roy, born on 24 November 1961, is an Indian writer and > activist. She won the Booker Prize in 1997 for her novel The God of > Small Things] > > 25 August 2009 > > > To the Editor > The Economist > > Dear Sir, > > This is with regard to the review of my book _Listening to > Grasshoppers_ that appeared in _The Economist_. If this letter is > long, ironically it is because the factual errors in the review are so > many. In an attempt to highlight my "flawed reporting and incorrect > analysis" the reviewer makes some extraordinary errors and leaps of > logic: > > 1. "Ms Roy cites a massacre of perhaps 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat in > 2002, in which the state's Hindu-nationalist government was allegedly > complicit. Almost no senior official or Hinduist agitator has been > prosecuted over the atrocity. And Narendra Modi, Gujarat's chief > minister then and now, is currently vying to take over the leadership > of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, and one day India. Many > of the country's industrialists would approve of that; even Ratan > Tata, the gentlemanly head of the vast Tata Group which prides itself > on its ethical dealings, has praised Mr Modi's business-friendly > policies. Nothing annoys Ms Roy more." > > Mr Tata did not merely praise Modi's business policies, he endorsed > him warmly and publicly as a future candidate for prime minister. In > India the said Mr Modi is still being investigated for his role in the > 2002 pogrom. In his successful election campaigns after the pogrom, > Modi brazenly cultivated communal hatred. He is a member of the RSS > (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh), an organization that is proud of its > fascist origins and counts both Hitler and Mussolini as its heroes. In > addition to the massacres about 150,000 Muslims were driven from their > homes during the carnage. Even today, under Mr Modi's administration, > most continue to live in ghettos, socially and economically boycotted > in a brutal system of communal apartheid, while the killers continue > to live as free, respectable citizens. Incidentally, after considering > the available information, the US government has denied Mr Modi a > visa. A handicap, wouldn't you say, for a potential prime minister? > Incidentally, for more on the Tata's "ethical dealings" you could > google "Kalinganagar" or "Singur". > > 2. ". . . she is not always a reliable witness. Her claim that in > Kashmir last summer protesters were as likely to call for union with > Pakistan as freedom from India is probably wrong; most seemed to want > to be shot of both countries." > > I have never made such a claim. Nobody with an even passing > acquaintance with Kashmir would (or should) say something so > ridiculous. Given the intensity and violence of the fratricidal wars > that Kashmiris have fought, and the thousands that have lost their > lives over the Pakistan vs Freedom issue, and given that Kashmiri > leadership is still unresolved about the question, it's extraordinary > that the reviewer can so casually and so glibly claim to know what the > majority of people of Kashmir want. My essay on Kashmir is actually > titled "Azadi", which in Urdu means "Freedom". Perhaps the reviewer is > unfamiliar with the language? > > 3. "More typically, she appears to gather her facts from newspapers > (her articles strike the reader rather as 'lounge notes'), before > selectively arranging and then exaggerating them to suit her own ends. > For example, about 25% of India's territory is alleged to be affected > by a Maoist insurgency, but that does not make it, as Ms Roy writes, > 'out of government control'." > > If the reviewer had cared to read the book instead of ransacking it, > he/she would have come across a sentence that clarifies that several > of the essays are "responses to the responses" about certain events. > Given that much of my book is a critique of the disturbing role that a > section of the corporate media has played in these events, is it > surprising that media reports are frequently referred to? Most of the > time this is in order to expose them for being false and motivated. To > conclude from this that my "facts are gathered from newspapers" and > that the articles are "lounge notes" is laughable. > > The figure of 25 % of India's territory being under Maoist insurgency > is a figure advanced by the Indian security establishment and is > probably a slight exaggeration. However, it is a fact that vast > swathes of India's territory are out of government control. It is for > this reason that the Government has announced that in October, after > the rains, there will be a military operation in states like > Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand in which ground troops will be > backed up with helicopter gunships and satellite mapping. A brigade > headquarters is being established in Raipur (Chhattisgarh), and 26,000 > paramilitary troops (the same Rashtriya Rifles who are deployed in > Kashmir, and similar to the Assam Rifles deployed in Assam, Manipur > and Nagaland) are being raised for this war. This is in addition the > thousands of security personnel who are already deployed in these > areas. Perhaps the reviewer has never visited Dantewara , seen the > burned, empty villages, or crossed the Indravati into the territory > that is called "Pakistan", where police and security forces do not > venture? Perhaps he/she hasn't heard of Abujmaad? > > 4. "Beyond India, her grasp of her subject-matter gets looser. If Ms > Roy believes, as she writes, that a good portion of Africa's > 'contemporary horrors' are caused by America's 'new colonial > interests', she would do well to pay a visit to the continent." > > My book is about India, not Africa, but yes, there is a paragraph > about Africa. Here's the sentence the reviewer refers to: "The battle > to control Africa's mineral wealth rages on -- scratch the surface of > contemporary horrors in Africa, in Rwanda, the Congo, Nigeria, pick > your country and chances are that you will be able to trace the story > back to the old colonial interests of Europe and the new colonial > interests of the United States." My mistake here is that I didn't > mention the new colonial interests of countries like China and India > as well. Does your reviewer not know about the legacy of Shell Oil in > Nigeria? Or the politics that surrounds the mining of a mineral called > coltan? Or of how Belgium's colonial regime structured the barriers of > hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda with their racist > profiling and social engineering? As for the recommendation that I pay > a visit to the continent . . . it's a grand idea, but how does one > visit an entire continent? I have visited parts of it. Plenty of > times. But the reviewer should know that it is possible to know things > about places even if you haven't been to them, like historians know > things about history without traveling back in time. > > 5. "For a more measured analysis, Ms Roy should perhaps turn to the > finance ministry's recently published Economic Survey. There she would > read that, 'High growth is critical to generate the revenues needed > for meeting our social welfare objectives.' Ms Roy should take note." > > Am I really being waved back into my seat with the finance ministry's > Economic Survey? I thought everybody knew that the cut back on public > spending (social welfare objectives) is almost in direct proportion to > the growth rate? It's often a pre-requisite when loans from the World > Bank, the ADB and the IMF are negotiated. Isn't that what structural > adjustment is all about? Or is this the old Trickle Down theory being > re-cycled? I've always wondered about this. Sometimes they say the > Free Market provides a level playing field -- but then when > questioned, they ask us to wait for Trickle Down. But things only > Trickle Down slopes don't they? Anyway, there is a school of thought > which believes that people actually do have rights. The right, for > instance, to resist the Government taking away their land and their > livelihoods, often at gunpoint, and then ordering them to wait for the > leftovers (if the gentlemen leave any) to trickle down after the > feast. > > Regardless of our obvious ideological differences I hope you agree > that errors and innuendo of this nature undermine the real debate. > > With best wishes, > > Arundhati Roy > 2A Kautilya Marg > New Delhi 110021 > > _______________________________________________ > Foil-l mailing list > [email protected] > http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/foil-l_insaf.net > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
