Well the Maoists had "agreed to" mediation by a religious leader, but only on their own - the government had not proposed him as mediator. So the government had said they don't need a mediator and the Maoists need to talk directly so that option went out of the windows.
As for legitimate cause, the people of the Eastern states certainly do have a legitimate cause for complaint. And the cause is that the mineral and hydroelectric resource pieces of land are being used for / given away to corporates for mining or industrial development; and in the process the inhabitants of those lands are being displaced and/or their natural environments are being damaged. There is nothing illegal about such decisions per se (the Right to Property is not a fundamental right), but there are valid questions of ethical correctness and procedural justice. Furthermore, one state government (I think it was Jharkhand) wrote the central government for relaxation in forest use laws for the "development of the state"! And the inefficiency and corruption in paying out compensation to affected people is no small factor in compounding the problem.
However, that being said, The Maoists have absolutely no moral leg to stand on in this whole affair. Their dealings with the tribals, whom they routinely exploit, and the government, are completely based on deceit and violence. It is of course difficult to describe "The Maoists" as whole in such fashion given that their cadres often come from the tribals, but aggressive use of force against the Maoists has to be used as an indispensable part of the strategy in dealing with the problem of discontent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-18 01:37 pm (UTC)As for legitimate cause, the people of the Eastern states certainly do have a legitimate cause for complaint. And the cause is that the mineral and hydroelectric resource pieces of land are being used for / given away to corporates for mining or industrial development; and in the process the inhabitants of those lands are being displaced and/or their natural environments are being damaged. There is nothing illegal about such decisions per se (the Right to Property is not a fundamental right), but there are valid questions of ethical correctness and procedural justice. Furthermore, one state government (I think it was Jharkhand) wrote the central government for relaxation in forest use laws for the "development of the state"! And the inefficiency and corruption in paying out compensation to affected people is no small factor in compounding the problem.
However, that being said, The Maoists have absolutely no moral leg to stand on in this whole affair. Their dealings with the tribals, whom they routinely exploit, and the government, are completely based on deceit and violence. It is of course difficult to describe "The Maoists" as whole in such fashion given that their cadres often come from the tribals, but aggressive use of force against the Maoists has to be used as an indispensable part of the strategy in dealing with the problem of discontent.