New Delhi, May 19: Despite a fresh attack in Chhattisgarh, in which at least 35 people were killed, the government on Tuesday renewed its offer to hold talks with Naxalite groups if they suspended violence for at least 72 hours. Within hours, the Maoists rejected the offer but regretted the killing of civilians in Monday’s attack.
Home Minister P Chidambaram, in an interview said he was ready to make another offer to the Naxalites despite the fact that they had not responded seriously to the government’s previous offer. “Maoists should say we will suspend violence and actually suspend violence from any date they fix for 72 hours. Within 72 hours we will get the Chief Ministers’ support and we will respond,” he said. “We will fix the date, place and time for talks and let the Maoists come and talk on anything they wish to talk.”
But a Naxal leader rejected the offer saying the government must first call off its operations against Maoists. Speaking to the same TV channel, a voice claiming to be the Naxal area commander of Chhattisgarh, Ramanna, said: “There is heavy presence of security forces here and their atrocities are continuing every day. When villagers are fleeing, what is the purpose of talks.”
Later in the night, Ramanna, who reportedly masterminded the April 6 massacre of 76 security personnel near Tadmetla in Dantewada, told a local television news channel in Chhattisgarh: “We hit the bus near Sukma to target the security forces. Unfortunately, there were civilians in the bus. I regret killing of civilians. We will continue to target the security forces all over the country.”
BJP targets ‘half a battle’, Chidambaram clarifies
Home Minister P Chidambaram’s remarks that he has been given a “limited mandate” to take on the Maoists, on Tuesday became ammunition for the BJP to harp on the “differences” within the government and the Congress on the strategy to deal with the insurgents. Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley described the Home Minister an “injured martyr” and wanted the Prime Minister to step in and clarify the government’s position.
He said even Congress chief Sonia Gandhi was favouring a soft-line against Maoists. While the Opposition was backing the UPA government fully, “there are ideological differences and diverging views on the strategy to deal with the Maoists within the Congress and the government. The “UPA is in power but not in control”, he said, painting the Home Minister as an isolated voice demanding firm action against the insurgents.
“A limited mandate means the security apparatus is fighting the battle with one hand while the other is tied. A half battle against the Maoists cannot be successful,” he said. Questioning those who are favouring a development first approach to deal with the situation, he said “even for that, the civil administration has to be restored and one must be able to reach those areas controlled by Maoists”.
Chidambaram, on the other hand, clarified his “limited mandate” remark. He said what he meant was that the state government has the primary responsibility to tackle the Maoists and the Union Home Ministry has a limited mandate in that sense.
“As far as the mandate of the central government is concerned, I have explained that our mandate is to help the state government take on the challenge of the Naxalites by providing paramilitary forces, intelligence and technical assistance,” he said.
“It is the state government which has the primary responsibility to tackle the Naxals. From that sense, I said our mandate is a limited mandate. Well if you play upon words like limited mandate, I could turn around and say that the state government and the CMs have an unlimited mandate.”
He was upset with the “injured martyr” tag. “I believe he (Jaitley) said I looked like an injured martyr. I think it was an unfortunate choice of words…. The injured and the martyrs are both in Chhattisgarh, among the jawans and the SPOs who were injured and who died.”
Jaitley wanted the PM to clarify whether the government will wage half a battle against the Maoists or an all out offensive. “The meaningless debate of whether development or security offensive should get precedence is weakening the battle. Given the seriousness of the situation, it is time the PM put a stop to this debate,” he said.
—-Agencies