A larger mandate

How many more deaths will it take? The massacre of 76 security personnel in Dantewada on April 6 should have strengthened the resolve of a tenuous alliance of Central and state anti-Naxal forces. Yet that didnt happen to the degree it should have. Within the ruling Congress party itself,Mani Shankar Aiyar and Digvijay Singh sharply criticised Home Minister P. Chidambarams approach to anti-Naxal operations. The crucial restoration of the states presence through armed conflict so as to ensure that development initiatives can take root,was caricatured as Big Brothers rage against its own people. Meanwhile,violence on the ground continued unabated. On May 8,six CRPF jawans were killed and 10 injured in Bijapur district in Chhattisgarh. And on Monday evening,Maoists blew up a privately-owned and operated bus in Dantewada. The casualties: at least 24 civilians,along with 11 young locals who assist security forces in anti-Naxal operations.

The latest massacre gives the lie to any pretensions that Maoists play by some set of rules. The target was a private bus; the majority of those murdered: civilians. The killings also add urgency to the home ministers request for a wider mandate from the Cabinet Committee on Security. The phrase has been widely interpreted to be the use of airpower. But that isnt the point: the use of aerial backup should ideally be a tactical question,to be decided by commanders on the ground. Instead,it has degenerated into a farcical debate on an abstract principle. A wider mandate,in its true sense,is also about the Congress party throwing its full weight behind the Centres anti-Naxal operations. As it is,getting various state governments and their police forces on the same page requires constant cajoling. For the central spider in the web to spin contradictory stories,imperils the entire effort.

As massacre follows horrifying massacre,the perception that

this Union government is weak on national security will inevitably

begin to grow. And perceptions matter. The Indian people will punish a government that they see as lackadaisical about their security. They always have. Attempts to undercut the home minister,whether motivated by internal wrangling or political expediency,weakens Central forces,eases pressure on states,and emboldens the Maoists and are bad politics. It remains to be seen how many more such incidents it will take to force the government and party to finally speak in one,loud voice. If UPA-II condemns itself to being seen as soft on internal security and soft on defence issues,soft on China,and soft on Congress allies the chances of a UPA-III will precipitously decrease.