http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8659501.stm
Relating to Lourdes’ post on the Resource War (I was also going to post the “Fire in the Hole” article from Foreign Policy), BBC reports on the lives of those affected by the Maoist insurgency.
The benefits of India’s economic liberalization have yet to reach the state of Jharkand in India’s eastern interior, home to some of India’s poorest indigenous populations, yet extensive mining activity in the region (including the neighboring state of Chhattisgarh) has attracted Maoists searching for a source of revenue. Over the past 10 years, a reincarnation of India’s Maoist movement has developed, an extreme leftist guerilla group that has been utilizing impoverished civilians’ disenfranchisement as a platform for their insurgency- intended to close the gap between the country’s rich and poor. During this time, 10,000 people have been killed (800 in 2010 alone) and 150,000 more have been displaced by the fighting. In 2006, the richest iron mine in India was raided by Maoists and their supporters- leading to a series of either attacks on mines or “negotiations”: kickbacks in return for protection. The Indian government has deployed 100,000 troops in defense of this rebel movement, but according to a Maoist leader: “This violence has been imposed by the state on the people of India”, and did not originate from the Maoists. The insurgents seek to overthrow the government to make way for a “new democratic revolution.”
The question now is what can India’s government do to end this guerilla war? With the government’s own troops garnering local and national support, the Maoists are heroes only to an impoverished population seeking political and economic equality. Can the vast differences between such opposing strata be reconciled in a country where globalization and economic liberalization keep moving the upper class toward further wealth and advancement while those at the bottom are continually being pushed further into poverty?
The questions your post on the Maoist insurgency raises are of grave concern. It is true that globalization and liberalization tends to result in greater inequality. What has protected other countries such as the U.S. from this is the rapid increase in productivity that has raised incomes for everyone. This might also explain India's position on negotiations on Climate change (Doha round) where it rejected any attempts by developed countries to restrict its growth to impact climate change. Unless India and other developing countries are allowed to experience the rapid growth that liberalization and globalization bring there is not much hope of addressing the economic deprivation of a large proportion of its citizens. On the other hand,Indian political institutions do need to do a better job in re-distributing the wealth of its people more equitably. There is positive change that I see happening over the last two decades but more needs to be done.
ReplyDelete