Chennai Illai, Madras: Tales from the City

A chapter titled, '"Madras Manade" -- How Chennai remained with Tamil Nadu" by A.R. Venkatachalapathy in a volume edited by him titled, "Chennai Not Madras: Perspectives on the City"

Chennai is now well-entrenched as the capital of the modern state of Tamil Nadu. Not only is it the administrative headquarters but it has also evolved over a century and a half since at least the mid-19th century as the social, political, and cultural capital of the Tamil country. Despite its cosmopolitan nature and a significant minority population, no Tamil could possibly imagine that Chennai could be anything but Tamil. But for some years in the mid-20th century the pre-eminent place of Madras as the Tamil capital came to be challenged by Telugu politicians. "Madras Manade" ("Madras is Ours") captures this controversy in an alliterative Telugu slogan.

Though Telugu speakers, at about 15 per cent of the population compared to about 70 per cent of Tamil speakers, constituted a clear minority in the city of Madras, for a variety of historical reasons they had high visibility. Proximity to Telugu regions, the dominance of the Telugu elite in the early history of Madras, their prominence in early nationalist politics where some of them founded organizations such as the Madras Native Association, and their preponderance in trade and business gave, at least to some, an illusion of Madras as a Telugu city. This was further accentuated by the disproportionate power Telugu speakers wielded in an electoral world where enfranchisement was based on property holding and direct taxation. With the gradual rise of Indian nationalist politics, at the threshold of its mass phase, legitimate demands were voiced for a separate province of Andhra for Telugu speakers. It is said that such demands were articulated as early as 1913. The Andhra Maha Sabha was a major voice in the articulation. By 1920, with its Nagpur session, the Indian National Congress had reorganized itself on linguistic lines and the newly-formed Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee demanded that the city of Madras come under its jurisdiction. Similar claims were made on Madras when a separate Andhra University was formed in 1926. Though such demands were articulated through the subsequent two decades, the issue came to a head only as Indian independence became imminent. The Telugu demand for Madras unfortunately got tied to the formation of a separate Andhra state and consequently became a running sore for over half a decade.

In June 1948 the Constituent Assembly of India appointed a commission headed by S.K.Dar, with Panna Lal and Jagat Narayan Lal as members, to examine the formation of the new provinces of Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala, and Maharashtra. Interestingly no mention was made of Tamil Nadu as it was erroneously assumed that the Madras Presidency was representative of Tamils. In the event the Dar commission recommended reorganization not on "linguistic consideration but rather upon administrative convenience." This was a view that was close to Jawaharlal Nehru's heart despite the many assurances the Congress had made over the years, and especially during the 1937 elections, on linguistic reorganization of provinces.

The Congress in turn, in its Jaipur session (December 1948), appointed a Linguistic Provinces Committee with Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitarammaya (hence commonly known as the JVP Committee after their initials). The committee, which presented its report in April 1949, more or less accepted the Dar Commission's views by recommending the postponement of linguistic reorganization by a few years. But Andhra was an exception. "In some ways," the JVP Committee observed, "the demand for an Andhra Province has a larger measure of consent behind it than other similar demands," and added ominously, "Yet there is a controversy about certain areas as well as about the city of Madras." While the JVP Committee argued that Greater Bombay should not be part of any linguistic province, it placed Madras on a different footing despite its apparent analogous nature:

to a large extent what we have said about Bombay city applies to Madras. At the same time there is a difference in that it is a clear Tamil majority area. It seems impossible to restrict the aspirations of the majority to the confines of the city and as far as we can see its isolated existence would be a perpetual source of conflict between Andhra and Tamilnad.

Therefore the decision of the Congress leadership was clear and unequivocal right from the beginning: "On the whole, therefore, we feel if an Andhra Province is to be formed its protagonists will have to abandon their claim to the city of Madras." But there precisely lay the problem. Inextricably linked with the demand for Madras, the declaration of Andhra province came to be delayed by a few more years. Further, it also occasioned unnecessary and tragic loss of lives and property and caused teething problems for the fledgling nation state.

Pressure began to mount as is clearly recounted in the voluminous Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru. By September 1949 Nehru had received at least three deputations: one an Andhra deputation led by P. Ramamurti, another of the Tamil members of the Constituent Assembly, and a third of the Andhra Maha Sabha. Meeting these delegations only further convinced Nehru of his position articulated in the JVP Committee. In November the Congress Working Committee, following the JVP Committee's views, recommended to the Government of India that an Andhra state be formed but without Madras city.

As Nehru wrote shortly later to P.S. Kumarasami Raja, the Chief Minister of Madras Presidency, "it now appears that the way to the formation of the Andhra Province is not as easy or clear as we had thought it was." An eight-member Partition Committee had been formed in November 1949 and the Madras Cabinet had approved its report in January 1950, "based on a large measure of agreement." But this was mired in controversy, with T. Prakasam ("one leading member from Andhra" in the words of Nehru) signing a note of dissent that the apparatus of the new province should reside in Madras city until a new capital was ready, clearly a ploy to subvert the federal decision not to grant Madras to Andhra.

In the ensuing months the movement for Andhra hotted up. In the coastal districts and Rayalaseema, support was welling up for a separate Andhra province. Apart from numerous public meetings, one Swami Sitaram even undertook a fast portending perhaps the subsequent fast of Potti Sriramulu which ended tragically. Given Nehru's view that "Personally I am opposed to bringing in fasting as a method of finding a solution for political problems" and his categorical statement in Parliament that "Government will ... submit to facts and not fasts," the fast was broken only with the intervention of Vinoba Bhave. During the course of this fast it all once again boiled down to one issue: while the protesters demanded a separate Andhra state and the government was more than eager to grant it, the doubtful claim over Madras was what stalled the issue. In Parliament on September 14, 1951 the government said as much when N.G. Ranga, the prominent Andhra Congressman, made an intervention in the debate.

As the agitation for a separate Andhra got protracted, the fault lines within the Andhra Congress began to be more visible. It became obvious that the interests of Rayalaseema and the coastal districts of Andhra were not in tandem. (Here it should be mentioned that, even after the so-called police action in Hyderabad which ensured its integration in the Indian union, its amalgamation with the Telugu state of Andhra was scarcely discussed.) Given their close proximity and other material interests in the city of Madras, Rayalaseema and Nellore could not envisage an Andhra province without it. Further, their people were also apprehensive about due representation to them in the new province and therefore demanded a proportionate share in the new legislature and other government offices. This amounted to putting a spoke in the Andhra wheel. The elite of the coastal districts of Andhra had a far larger stake in the creation of a separate state than in a faraway city. As Nehru observed in a letter to Swami Sitaram on September 29, 1951, "On the Andhra side, there appear to be varying opinions. Some people say that they were prepared to give up the city of Madras wholly; others are not prepared to do so; yet others ... want to reserve consideration of this to a later stage." To this may be added the view that Madras city should become a Chief Commissioner's province, effectively under the control of the Central government.

If this was the political division within the Andhra government, the situation in Tamil Nadu was even more complex. While the Congress was deeply faction-ridden, and the other dominant force, the Dravidian movement (both the Dravida Kazhagam under Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam under C.N. Annadurai), with their commitment to a Dravidian homeland consisting of the whole of southern India, did not divert adequate energy to the issue. The Communists on the other hand, emerging afresh from underground after being weakened by toeing the misconceived B.T. Ranadive line, reflecting the ground strength of their movement, preferred to be led by the Andhra section of the Communist Party. Ultimately it was left to the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam, headed by Ma. Po. Sivagnanam, a pressure group within the Congress, to counteract the Andhra demand. Apart from organizing meetings and conferences, the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam intervened effectively in the Madras Corporation by passing resolutions that thwarted Andhra designs on Chennai. (A particularly tactical move was the defeat of a motion brought forward in the corporation expressing sympathy for the death of Potti Sriramulu in December 1952, which was a moral blow to the Telugu demand.) An important all-party public meeting of Tamil leaders was organized in March 1953 by the Tamil Arasu Kazhagam where Periyar E.V.R., M. Bhaktavatsalam, S.S. Karaiyalar, Meenambal Sivaraj, and others spoke. In subsequent meetings widely respected Tamil cultural figures with no overt political connections also participated.

In this context, with the question of Madras and the interests of Rayalaseema acting as brakes, the struggle for a separate Andhra state went from strength to strength. The situation drove both the state and Central governments to exasperation. Once Nehru was even forced to write to P.S. Kumarasami Raja, "A reference in the Hindu says that your government is apparently waiting for us to do something about the Andhra province or for us to ask you about it. I do not quite know what is meant." By early 1952, Nehru was blaming T. Prakasam and his supporters alone for the stalemate in forming the Andhra province. In a press conference in New Delhi Nehru asserted, referring to Prakasam's dissent note to the partition committee's report where he had insisted that Madras city be the interim capital of the new Andhra province: "As a matter of fact, if Mr Prakasam had accepted that award three years ago, probably there would be an Andhra province now."

By this time however the first general elections of January 1952 had added more variables. The Congress failed to win a majority in the Madras Presidency, weakening the hand of K. Kamaraj, its leader, and paving the way for Rajaji to form a Congress government through a prescient form of horse-trading. On the other hand, T. Prakasam had himself lost his deposit in the North Madras constituency, exposing the weakness of his demand. He headed the United Front, a motley alliance dominated by the Communists, which opposed the Congress. Despite Rajaji's well-advertised view that the demand for linguistic provinces was a "tribal demand", he nevertheless supported the formation of an Andhra province but without conceding the city of Madras. (It was widely believed that Rajaji's support for the immediate creation of Andhra province would give him a reprieve from the relentless attack of the Communists whose legislators mostly came from Andhra.)

Various Andhra leaders such as Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and V.V. Giri put pressure on the Central government. Even the philosopher Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was not to be left out in this regard. All this only drove Nehru to exasperation. Nehru refused their demand for the appointment of a commission without general agreement: "Even reference to an arbitration means consent of parties." He also ruled out plebiscite, as it would not throw up a clear result. By July 1952 Nehru made it ever more clear that "there has been so much argument on this subject that no one can say anything new or worthwhile."

This, however, was to change with one as-yet-unknown Congressman's fast. In a letter to Rajaji, Nehru had observed that "some kind of fast is going on for the Andhra province .... I am totally unmoved by this and I propose to ignore it completely." But it was not to be. Potti Sriramulu epitomized the demand for Andhra. Actively egged on by T. Prakasam and Bulusu Sambamurthy, he began his fast at the latter's hime on October 19. 1952. Within days Nehru had to sit up and listen: "I do not know how long we can just go on postponing it. If we are clear that sometime or other we shall have to face it, it does little good to go on postponing this and waiting for a more favourable opportunity. The probability is that conditions will deteriorate."

T. Prakasam kept on the pressure by convening an all-Party convention in Madras on December 7, 1952, and dissolved it after calling for immediate formation of Andhra with Madras as capital. It was left to T. Nagi Reddy, the Communist leader, to reconvene the meeting and pass a resolution that left the question of Madras to a plebiscite.

Nehru hoped to seize this psychological moment to the advantage of the nation-state. He feared that otherwise there would be complete frustration. He even suggested the appointment of a one-man commission which was turned down by Rajaji as he feared that it would only help "to keep alive the claims which we wish to be abandoned."

The death of Potti Sriramulu on December 15, 1952 after 57 days of fasting led to violence in Andhra, especially in Nellore, and the looting of Vijayawada railway station. Genuine fears arose about the safety of Tamils in the Telugu districts. Despite Nehru's bold statement in Parliament that "we must not mix up various things because a riotous mob did something", the Government of India appointed in December 1952 a committee under K.N. Wanchoo.

Wanchoo's report, submitted in early February 1952, unequivocally favoured the creation of an Andhra state but equally clearly recommended that Madras should not be included. However he indicated that until a new capital was built the Andhra government could be temporarily (for about five years) lodged in Madras. Understandably Nehru was inclined to accept this recommendation but Rajaji stoutly opposed it on the grounds that the troubles would spread to other Tamil areas where a sizeable Andhra population lived. He even went to the extent of threatening to resign from the chief-ministership. This finally convinced Nehru and he agreed that this move would only result in "unseemly agitation, acrimonious controversies, and administrative conflicts" and would adversely affect the friendly atmosphere.

By 1952 the question of Andhra was pretty much settled, if ever it was in question. Despite the seeming controversy, the Andhra demand for Madras was a rather sectarian one raised by a group of Andhra leaders from the Rayalaseema region. What gave some impetus and nationwide visibility to the agitation was that it was linked to a very popular, genuine, and longstanding demand for a separate Telugu-speaking province of Andhra. But in fact the demand for Madras unnecessarily delayed the formation of this province. The relative quiet with which Tamil Nadu responded to the Telugu demand for Madras was rooted in the certainty that it was most obviously a Tamil city conceded by one and all.

The bitterness between Andhra and Tamil Nadu festered for some years after, with the controversy over the northern borders becoming the subject of further agitation and necessitating yet another commission. That however is a separate story.

SOURCES:
1) Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Volumes 10-22, Nehru Memorial Fund, New Delhi, 1990-97.
2) Ma. Po. Sivagnanam, Puthiya Tamilagam Padaitha Varalaru, Poonkodi Pathippagam, Chennai, 1986.
3) T. Vasundhara and S. Gopalakrishnan, Sub-Nationalism: A Case Study of Modern India, New Era, Madras, 1996.

Blast from the Past: Accession of Princely States

Here is the account of Durga Das in his book, "India: From Curzon to Nehru and after"

The integration of the Princely states with the rest of India was not planned in advance. Patel told me it was more the result of fortuitous circumstances which were helped by the wave of nationalism in which the Princes were caught up. To this, however, may be added the prestige and authority of Patel himself. The merger of the smaller States began in Orissa by accident and the process spread from there to other areas.

Narrating the story of the first merger, Patel told me that the idea had originated with Hare Krushna Mahatab, who formed in 1938 the State Praja Mandal, an organization of the people living in the States of Orissa. This Orissa Congress leader proposed that the small States be merged with the provinces under British administration, and the States Peoples Conference appointed a committee with Mahatab as its chairman to study the proposal in relation to Orissa. The committee recommended that the States be brought under the provincial Government as reforms in them, while they maintained their separateness, would have no value. Mahatab took up this matter with Cripps when he came to India in 1942. The Political Department agreed that this was the only feasible solution of the problem but did nothing about it. When India became independent, the British departed leaving the States as they were. Mahatab convinced Gandhi and Patel of the soundness of his scheme, and he suggested to Patel in November 1947 that he should set the process in motion in Orissa.

V.P. Menon, on the contrary, proposed to Patel that a system of joint control, leaving some administrative powers in the hands of the Princes, should be evolved. Mahatab objected, saying this would only cause confusion and insisted that complete merger was the only solution. Patel agreed, and when the two leaders met in Cuttack and Bhubaneshwar the entire memorandum relating to the merger of States was redrafted with the help of the Chief Secretary of the provincial Government and, what is more, reprinted overnight.

The next day, when the rulers of Orissa conferred with Patel and Mahatab, they referred to the earlier memorandum of association which had been sent to them. Patel and Mahatab disowned knowledge of it. Patel then told the rulers: "If you do not accept our proposal, I do not take responsibility for law and order in your State. You take care of yourself." As the Praja Mandal leaders were ready to overthrow the Princes and effect merger by force, the rulers accepted the new scheme. Thus the first merger of States went through without a single incident in Orissa, to be followed in Chattisgarh, where the States were merged with the Central Provinces.

The Congress leaders were prepared to consider eighteen States viable and permit them to continue as autonomous units under the Instrument of Accession. These included Alwar and Bharatpur, but Gandhi's assassination set in motion the second wave of integration. The pistol which fired the fatal shot was alleged to have belonged to the Maharaja of Alwar's collection of firearms, and volunteers belonging to the R.S.S. were said to have been trained in the use of arms in the State. Dr. N.B. Khare was then the Chief Minister of Alwar and the suspicion that the ruler had a hand in the shooting grew stronger because Khare was known to bear Gandhi a grudge for getting him ousted from the chief ministership of the Central Provinces.

K.B. Lall, Special Administrator for Alwar, meanwhile, sent to the Home Ministry a report on the basis of available evidence which allowed that the rulers of Alwar and Bharatpur were implicated in a plot to topple the Government. Patel decided that the two Princes should be tried by their peers and five of the leading rulers were summoned to Delhi.

As soon as the Princes arrived, they anxiously sought the reason for the call. They were told that the summons was in connection with Gandhi's assassination. This disclosure caused them much alarm. They were taken to Mountbatten, who told them to their great relief that they were personally not suspected of complicity. They had been called to judge the role of Alwar and Bharatpur. The evidence collected was placed before them and they readily agreed that the two Princes should be punished by depriving them of their powers. Matsya Union thus came to be formed and states considered viable were merged for the first time. Then followed other mergers.

The Maharajas of Alwar and Bharatpur might not have been stripped of their powers and Matsya Union created but for the allegations that they had taken part in the massacre and forcible eviction from their lands of Meos, Muslim peasants. This greatly angered Nehru and he was not willing to show sympathy to the two rulers. In fact, Patel told me that had Nehru not reacted angrily, Mountbatten might not have been as helpful as he was in depriving the Princes of their powers and in effecting the changes.

That, however, was not the end of the story. Later the rulers in the Matsya Union planned a secret meeting to consider joint action to regain their powers. As soon as Lall received the news, he rang up the Maharaja of Dholpur, at whose headquarters the meeting was to be held, and said he would like to join him in a hunt for big game. The Prince invited him over at once and Lall reached Dholpur on the day fixed for the secret meeting. His presence acted as a damper to the princely plotters and rung the curtain on further conspiracy. Incidentally, Congress leaders of the area complained to Delhi that Lall was too fond of the company of the former rulers, with whom he ate and drank frequently. They did not realise, however, that by approaching the Princes at the social level Lall had not only got them to do the things the Government wanted but scotched a major plot.

The Sardar also used the proverbial carrot to persuade the rulers of the larger States to sign instruments transferring their powers to the Union Government. He offered them the prospect of becoming a Raj Pramukh, an office similar to that of Governor and the move worked. Rulers like Jamnagar and Patiala, for instance, saw in this an opportunity to become leaders among the Princes and to extend their authority over larger territories than their own hereditary princedoms, The rulers saw from the fate of Alwar and Bharatpur that the new Government would intervene effectively when law and order were threatened and would encourage the growth of democracy. At the same time, they realised that their best bet for retaining personal status, palaces and privy purses lay in giving up their powers as rulers.

The albatross called big-games hosting -- Part I

We will have a series of intermittent posts on areas of personal interest rather than with any strategic scope, a foray into sports, identity and consciousness issues.

Over the last thirty years, India has successfully hosted/co-hosted many big-game events including the 1982 Asian Games, the Cricket World Cup (1987, 1996, 2011), the Hockey World Cup (1982, 2010), the 2003 Afro-Asian Games (now defunct), and the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Besides, India has made unsuccessful bids to host the 2006 and the 2014 Asian Games, and a pre-bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics which melted away in the lead-up to the conduct of the Commonwealth Games. With the passage of time on these two events, and the hoopla of corruption, tardiness, cost overruns, etc., dying an almost natural death witnessed by the lack of attention to this matter from mainstream media, it becomes pertinent to analyze the pros and cons of big-games hosting minus the emotional and jingoistic cries of hosting a big event. Specifically, if mistakes have been made in the conduct of the Commonwealth Games 2010, it would be worthwhile analyzing rationally the lessons to be learned so that such mistakes never happen again, hopefully.

Such a rational assessment typically boils down to the following questions:
1) Did we gain significantly with the successful conduct of Delhi 2010? If so, how much monetarily or on what scales of judgment?
2) Or, did we lose considerably? If so, how much precisely or on what scales?
While simple, the above questions lack a clear-cut answer and one is forced to resort to guesstimates, fuse information from multiple sources to develop a big picture, and more importantly, draw parallels from other big-games events over the last twenty-to-thirty years. Such insights are even more critical as the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) seems hell-bent on pursuing a bid for the Summer Olympics at some stage and it is a case of when, and not if, notwithstanding the negative limelite surrounding the conduct of the Commonwealth Games.

Why is there a need to host big-games?: The Hazards Center Report on big-games hosting (Linky) cites the following main reasons:
1) Economically speaking, big-games are believed to generate and redistribute billions of dollars worldwide. It is hoped that years before the event, millions would be pumped into the economy for new infrastructure such as sports facilities (world-class stadia and Games village), transportation (bridges, railways, airports, flyovers), telecommunications, and across the whole ecosystem of a part of a city that especially needs vital sprucing up as a part of the growth process (e.g., South Delhi in the 1982 Asian Games, certain suburbs of Sydney and Manchester with the 2000 Olympic Games and 2002 Commonwealth Games, respectively). The events are usually associated with urban renewal programs that precede the event and help upgrade the image of the host city through exclusive development of certain select parts.
2) All this pumping of cash into a small geographical footprint creates a huge number of jobs, even if temporarily, thereby freeing the politicians of electoral and democratic responsibilities in return for acts of Games populism. These jobs could range from restaurant businesses, hotels and accommodation services, construction businesses, hospitality, organizational and legal services, etc., all leading to a growth of the city's tax base.
3) While ticket sales and current tourism potential are no match for the cost accrued in conducting the Games, there is a hope that thousands of visitors including athletes, officials, journalists, television staff, and sport fans are expected, of whom some might be expected to extend their stay well beyond the duration of the event, and spend well above the average level of per-capita consumption. But the bigger picture is that if the city gives a good account of its hosting capacity and hospitality, businesses and tourists will be attracted in the future not to mention positive credential to host many other events which in turn leads to a circle of economic activity.
4) In addition massive advertising revenues are expected to be churned out from companies desiring to get their products or services out to a large consumer audience world-wide. The events give the city a wide international exposure it could usually only dream about. Even while the Commonwealth games only involve 70 of the world’s 200 nations, these 70 nations comprise 30% of the world’s population. The Cricket World Cup covers an ever lesser area, but provides immense opportunities for product placement among a rabid fan-following.
5) Needless to say, soft power and image rebuilding flows from the barrel of the propaganda machinery. Much of big-games hosting in the late 20-th century has been one of showcasing the host city's potentials, civic pride for the citizenry and beyond, harking back on the legacies that define the current and a lead-up to the future trajectories. Another side consequence is the home-turf advantage for sportsmen and women which has a positive correlation with better performances on the field, thus furthering the propaganda machinery.

Downsides to hosting the Games (aka) The real picture: Modulo all the human rights violations of people evicted from Games villages and environmental concerns of uber-green-niks on the polluting aspects of big-games and even growth for that matter, the essential downside boils down to financial aspects. A detailed economic cost-benefit analysis is widely controversial with multiple studies conducted in the past on these matters. While the bidders for big-games continue to insist on real as well as perceived benefits and display a huge exhibit list to back up their claims, the economists take a dim view of these presentations. The broad consensus from the economical angle summarized by the following report (Linky) is that:

In the short term, critics say, the CWG was a financial disaster. According to the Hazards Centre (Linky), every such event is. Says its report: "The Hazards Centre had examined the performance of the Olympics and found that, beginning from Mexico in 1968, virtually every city that had hosted such an event had plunged into debt for the next 25-30 years. The Games never pay for themselves; it is public money that falls into the hands of private businessmen." Developers, real estate agents, construction companies, and people at the high end of the tourism, advertising, marketing, and hospitality industries rake in profits, adds the report."

A more careful study of this question is left to the Hazards Centre report from which these two pictures have been sussed out.



All that said, India presents an exception to every rule in the bucket by its very existence, sustenance and evolution. Broad-brushing studies done across the world and marrying them to the Indian context make no sense because of this one reason. So we will have to take a short break and come back "soon" to revisit: The tragedy of big-games hosting (aka) The Indian experience -- Part II

Northeast update (December 12, 2011)

1) GNLA and Champion Sangma: Linky

Champion R Sangma, a top leader of Indian separatist Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA), has been arrested in Bangladesh, an Indian newspaper reported yesterday. The Hindustan Times quoted a Meghalaya top police officer as saying, "We are confirmed by the central intelligence agencies that Champion has been arrested from Mymensingh district (Bangladesh) by Rab commandos." The rebel leader would be handed over to India soon, said the officer, asking not to be named. Rapid Action Battalion (Rab), however, denied the arrest. “We did not make the arrest of Indian separatist named Champion R Sangma from Mymensingh,” Rab intelligence wing chief Lt Col Ziaul Ahsan told The Daily Star yesterday.

Here is this tidbit of information: linky

Intelligence officials here said that Champion was arrested yesterday night from a house of a tribal Bangladesh politician in Mymensingh district by the RAB commandos. In fact, in July this year, there were reports that Bangladesh authorities had launched a massive manhunt to nab him.

Conrad Sangma say-eth: Linky

Meanwhile, Sangma cautioned the government of being too enthusiastic about Champion’s arrest if at all it was true. “He (Champion) was always away from Garo Hills, according to intelligence reports. Most of the other cadres worked without his guidance, so his arrests would not make so much of an impact on the GNLA,” he added.

Sentinel adds: Linky

The C-in-C of the GNLA Sohan D Shira is learnt to have lost contact with Champion Sangma in the past 24 hours.

Here is some more drama: Linky

“Money has been sought for the release of the chief of GNLA, Champion R Sangma, who is believed to be in detention in Bangladesh”, a police source today claimed. This has been established in the course of the interrogation of GNLA aide Jackiush A Sangma, who was nabbed in an arms deal in the city recently and is now in police custody. Reportedly, on November 24, GNLA aide Jackiush A Sangma and an arms dealer from Dimapur, Nagaland Pungam Hangal along with four others landed in police net while trying to make an arms deal in Shillong. Cash amounting to Rs 11.49 lakh along with 400 live ammunitions were seized from their possession.

Police sources, on condition of anonymity, divulged that in the course of grilling Jakiush received a call on his cell phone from Bangladesh. Though he turned panicky in presence of the police interrogators, he was directed to take the call with the speaker phone. And they listened to the voice across the border which turned out to be that of the mistress of Champion, Simche from Rongara area, asking Jackiush to transfer money to Bangladesh immediately for Champion’s bail.

During the conversation Jackiush asked her about her whereabouts, but she just told him to transfer the money immediately and hung up. Jackuish has stated that Simche frequently visits Bangladesh and had returned a day before Champion’s arrest.

More mystery: Linky

Sources have informed that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is doing the paper work for extradition of Champion to India from Bangladesh. The entire process is expected to take about one week after the finalization of which, the Bangladesh is expected to hand over Champion to MHA. It may be recalled that Meghalaya Times has been the sole English daily to confirm arrest of Champion in Bangladesh. Later, even the GNLA C-in-C Sohan D Shira confirmed his arrest.

Remarkable if the following is true: Linky and repeated here Linky

Obsession with social networking can be a giveaway, more so if you are the chief of a rebel outfit. Facebook addiction is believed to have done former police officer turned rebel leader Champion Sangma in. Chairman of the Meghalaya-based Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA), Sangma is reportedly in Mymensingh Central Jail in Bangladesh, where he was arrested on November 24. There is no official confirmation of his incarceration. According to intelligence officials in Meghalaya, Sangma was almost always logged on to Facebook, updating his profile, writing on walls or tagging people. He had also posted his pictures, besides those of his cadre, from undisclosed locations.

“He was using the social networking site to upload everything, and it was a matter of time before his URL was found indicating the area from where he was operating,” a senior intelligence officer said. Indian officials subsequently tipped off their Bangladesh counterparts to help them zero in on Sangma, who formed the GNLA in 2009 after deserting the Meghalaya Police where he was a deputy superintendent. The intelligence officer said Sangma was produced in a court in Mymensingh town two days after his arrest and was sent to jail for being a ‘terrorist’. Sangma, surprisingly, did not try to conceal his identity as the GNLA chief. “The GNLA leader was apparently homesick and missed the people belonging to his (Garo) tribe. This could have led him to be in touch with friends through Facebook,” the officer said.

Odhikaar cites a July 7 report to say: Linky

Champion R Sangma, Chairman of Garo National Liberation Army, an organisation for self determination in Meghalaya in India, was arrested recently from Modhupur of Tangail district in Bangladesh. This was also reported in the media in Meghalaya and Assam. It was reported in some newspapers, including Garo Hills and Meghalaya News that the leader of the GNLA, Champion R Sangma has been detained in Bangladesh.

Here is some pontification: Linky

It may be mentioned here that in 2009 when ULFA Chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa had been arrested in Bangladesh and handed over to India, the Bangladeshi authorities then too had denied any information or arrest of ULFA Chief. Given the above fact, the denial of information on Champion is nothing surprising. However, this has given rise to two theories; one could be that Bangladesh will set him free once the demanded amount is paid. The second theory suggests that Champion’s case is being kept under tight veil due to his political connection, both in India and in Bangladesh.

We will know what BD gets in return from India for this barter in case Champion Sangma is indeed in their catch. Its a big catch though. Meanwhile, Linky

All eyes have turned on self-styled commander-in-chief of the Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA), Sohan D. Shira, following the reported arrest of the outfit’s chairman, Champion Sangma, in Bangladesh. Police, too, have stepped up the hunt for the rebel leader to neutralise the GNLA once and for all. It was Shira and Sangma who got together to form GNLA towards the end of 2009. Sources said Shira was the brain behind many attacks on police personnel and civilians besides the outfit’s kidnapping and extortion.
...
Prior to formation of the GNLA and after deserting the ANVC, Shira had planned to join another militant group — the Liberation of Achik Elite Force (LAEF) led by commander-in-chief Peter Marak, who was a former police commando. However, Marak was killed in an alleged fake encounter and subsequently, Sohan surrendered, before disappearing again and resurfacing as the GNLA commander- in-chief.

On and on the thinking process goes: Linky

The Centre is studying the pros and cons of banning the Garo National Liberation Army after the state government submitted a report to the Union home ministry in this regard. “We recently received the report from the Meghalaya government which suggests the need to ban the GNLA,” Shambhu Singh, joint secretary, ministry of home affairs, (Northeast) said over phone from Delhi. He said there was a process to be followed before declaring any organisation unlawful and ultimately it is upto the Union cabinet to decide. He added that the Centre would go by what the state government says. The official said the ban might only add to the outfit’s importance but he added that if the organisation’s activities continued to be violent, there was no other option than to ban the outfit.

ANVC-GNLA: Linky

The GNLA cadres are intimidating the ANVC members in Williamnagar on the order of their self-styled commander-in-chief Sohan D. Shira. The spokesman for the Achik National Volunteers Council, Torik Marak, alleged that Shira had issued orders to his GNLA men to attack the ANVC cadres at Williamnagar in East Garo Hills. “The ANVC cadres are also getting threat calls and if our cadres come under the attack from the GNLA, it will surely derail the peace process,” Marak said. The ANVC is under ceasefire since 2004 and its leaders wanted the government to take note of the frequent threats to the outfit’s cadres in Garo hills. The GNLA and the ANVC have been at loggerheads over supremacy in Garo hills.

Elsewhere, Linky

The Centre has asked the state government to firm up its mind on the demand of the Achik National Volunteers Council (ANVC), currently under ceasefire, to have a Garoland Autonomous Council (GAC) on the lines of the Bodoland Territorial Council. The recent signing of a settlement with the United Peoples Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) has also prompted the Centre to speed up finalising settlements with other militants groups in the Northeast. While ANVC spokesperson Torik Marak said as many as three reminders were sent to the state government by the Centre, a Union home ministry official said several reminders were sent to the Meghalaya government for its comments on the demand of the ANVC, which had entered into a tripartite agreement with both the Centre and the state in 2004.
...
The ANVC, formed in 1995, had launched an armed struggle to achieve the creation of a homeland exclusively for the Garos within the framework of the Constitution. The concept of “Garoland” christened by the ANVC extends to geographical areas of Goalpara and Kamrup districts of Assam which are pre-dominantly inhabited by the Garos, besides the three districts of Garo hills and the areas which are contiguous to Garo hills in West Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi districts of Meghalaya.
...
A state government official said the delay on the part of the government in deciding on demand of the ANVC was because of the apprehension that there would be clash of powers between the existing GHADC and the proposed GAC. Meghalaya chief minister Mukul Sangma last month said the state government wanted clarity on certain issues as demanded by the ANVC before submitting its views to the Centre.

2) Along this direction, more on the UPDS ceasefire and disbanding: Linky

The United Peoples Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) will formally lay down arms on December 14 and will be disbanded the next day. These dates were finalised by Dispur today and conveyed to Kabri Anglong deputy commissioner Rakesh Kumar through a letter from Raj Bhavan. Kumar then invited the UPDS leaders to his house for a discussion. The arms-surrender ceremony will take place at 11am on Wednesday on the Karbi Anglong Sports Association ground at Diphu. Next day, the outfit will be disbanded in another ceremony at the same venue. The UPDS had signed a peace accord with the Centre on November 25, laying the foundation for a political overhaul in the hill district, including the creation of a more potent Karbi Anglong Autonomous Territorial Council and a comprehensive administrative reorganisation.

UPDS calls for polls by state commission Linky

Dispur and United People’s Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) are on a collision course with the latter demanding that the forthcoming election to the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council be conducted by the State Election Commission, Assam, instead of the hill areas department. A joint delegation of the UPDS and the People’s Alliance for Peace Agreement — a conglomeration of several political parties and non-government organisations of Karbi Anglong district — called on Assam governor J.B. Patnaik today and submitted a memorandum stating their demands.

This is what the final wrangling was for: Linky

UPDS, a militant group from the Karbi Anglong district of Assam, has given up its demand of a separate state under Article 3 of Constitution or “state within the state of Assam under Article 244A because of the absence of a policy at the Centre”, a senior leader of the UPDS told this correspondent. The UPDS, however, has been able to extract more autonomy from Delhi and Dispur. This is balm for the UPA, disturbed as it is by the Telangana movement and other demands like that of Bodoland in Assam.

Following the settlement, the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC) will now be Karbi Anglong Autonomous Territorial Council (KAATC). The new council will have 44 elected and six nominated members and 62 departments with legislative, executive and direct financial powers, a UPDS leader said. The MoS will be signed by Home Ministry joint secretary Shambhu Singh in presence of UPDS chairman Longsodar Senar and general secretary Horensing Bey. There will be a 13-member political wing of the UPDS in addition to four members of its army in the Capital.

Despite absence of an understanding with the KLNLF, the UPDS has gone ahead with the interim accord. We are hoping that the reactions would be good, said a delegation member. The accord was finalised in 2009 and another discussion with the Centre took place on 23 December last year when the KLNLF was asked to accept the present conditions. The latter did not accept the negotiated settlement.

Meanwhile UPDS-KPLT nexus: Linky

A section of UPDS cadres was allegedly aiding Karbi People’s Liberation Tigers (KPLT) to carry out unlawful activities in Karbi Anglong district. Though the UPDS signed a peace accord with the Centre, security agencies claimed to have stumbled on evidence of a collusion between some UPDS cadres and the KPLT. “Though the UPDS is in ceasefire since 2002 and has also signed the peace accord on November 25, some of its cadres are colluding with the KPLT which is responsible for most of the recent violent attacks in Karbi Anglong,” an official source told The Telegraph today. He said interrogation of self-styled foreign secretary of KPLT Maniram Rongpi, who was a member of UPDS, had shed light on a secret understanding between a section of UPDS cadres and the Karbi outfit. The KPLT is a breakaway faction of the Karbi Longri National Liberation Front (KLNLF). It was formed on January 8, 2011 after the KLNLF entered into a ceasefire with the government last year.

3) The DHD(J) saga: Linky

The Nepal government has ordered an inquiry into how Niranjan Hojai, a militant leader of Assam, could acquire a citizenship certificate of the country. The commander-in-chief of the Dima Halam Daogah (Jewel) had procured a Nepali citizenship certificate from Sunsari district in the neighbouring country using fake name, Nirmal Rai, in 2007. An official source told The Telegraph that on the request of New Delhi, the Nepal government has asked the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal police to conduct an inquiry into how the citizenship certificate was procured. According to the source, the CIB has also been asked to investigate whether the certificate is genuine or forged. “If it is genuine, the CIB will investigate how a citizenship certificate was issued to an Indian citizen, who was also a most wanted fugitive, and will fix responsibilities on those who issued the document,” he said. “Even if it is forged, the investigating agency will try to find the source from where he got the fake certificate,” he added.

Both India and Nepal have taken this matter seriously since Hojai used this citizen certificate to get a Nepali passport in the name of Nirmal Rai in 2008 and travelled to countries like China, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and South Africa for procurement of arms. Based on that passport, the DHD-J leader was issued a Chinese visa with a validity of three months (December 8, 2008 to March 8, 2009). The investigators got the details of his foreign visits from the visa attachments on his passport.

Hojai, who had disguised himself as a businessman, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency from Nepal in July last year. The source said the CIB has also sought help from the banks in Nepal to trace the bank accounts linked to Hojai and his wife Sarita Giri Rai. Nepal police recently arrested Hojai’s wife Sarita, hailing from Sindhupalchowk district in Nepal, and seized $200,000 remitted to her account at New Baneshwor branch of Everest Bank from an account in a Citibank branch in Singapore, which allegedly belongs to Hojai. India has requested the Singapore government to investigate the Citibank account, which was allegedly used by Hojai for funding militant activities. Security agencies also claim that Hojai had also set up a private company in Singapore. The source said Hojai married Sarita — in her thirties — around two years ago, and the couple have a daughter. Nepal police had also charged Sarita with money laundering and terror financing. According to the source, Hojai had bought her a luxurious house at Jorpati in eastern Kathmandu and several high-end cars worth crores of rupees from illegally acquired proceeds and terror funds.

Meanwhile, Hojai detained for fracas, cuffs on aides Linky
4) Pro-talks ULFA faction: Linky

The pro-talks leader said although the group had a pre-condition of not taking part in the any anti-insurgency operations like Sulfa before declaring a ceasefire a few years back, it had to change its stand after the Paresh Barua-led group threatened to carry out attacks on them. The pro-talks leader said they had also provided information about the location of Ulfa camps in Myanmar and the general routes frequently used by the cadres to travel to these camps through Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. It has been a success story for the security forces engaged in counter-insurgency operations in Upper Assam in recent times with Ulfa failing to carry out any major strikes

5) Anti-infra groups and interests: Linky

Indigenous communities of Chandel district in Manipur and Sagaing division of Myanmar stood up for a common cause here today — to prevent formation of a reservoir the size of Delhi on the Chindwin river in Myanmar. The protest organised by Kuki tribals straddling the international border was small but the timing has caused consternation among strategists in Delhi. The protests come close on heels of the forced withdrawal of the Chinese from building a project in northern Myanmar — a loss of Rs 3 billion besides a loss of face for Beijing. The military government at Naypyitaw together with the government of India is building a hydroelectric dam near Tamanthi on the Chindwin in northwest Myanmar’s Sagaing division.

Slash dam heights: Expert panel - Decision at meeting in Delhi on Lohit hydroelectric projects Linky
Neighbors fight as Tuki allays Assam’s dam fears - Arunachal CM lists project benefits, refutes rumours about links with NSCN LInky
More neighbors fight as Khaleda plea over Tipaimukh project - BNP leader writes to Manmohan Singh Linky, however Delhi calms Dhaka on Tipaimukh Linky
Meghalaya rail connectivity hits influx wall Linky
6) UAPA and terrorist groups ban: Linky

The Centre is mulling withdrawal of the ban on two rebel outfits of Tripura — the All Tripura Tiger Force and National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) — in view of the decline in insurgent activities in the state. The withdrawal of the ban on some other insurgent outfits of the Northeast is also being considered. Disclosing this, sources here said the Centre had recently constituted a tribunal headed by sitting Delhi High Court judge Bipin Sanghi to go into the issue and make suggestions. The tribunal had subsequently sent questionnaires to state governments and security agencies seeking their views on the issue, a source said. A state government official here said, “We have not yet decided on the matter but discussions are on. Very soon we are going to file our replies to the tribunal.”

7) India-BD border fencing: Linky

The Centre today agreed to a suggestion made by the Meghalaya government to undertake single-row fencing along the Zero Line in those areas along the Indo-Bangla border where people are objecting to the 150-yard buffer. The agreement was reached at a meeting held at the secretariat here between Union home ministry and state government officials. According to an official who attended the meeting, the fencing would be undertaken in those areas where people were not happy with the decision to set up the fence 150 yards inside Zero Line. The decision was also taken to ensure that no further land was lost along the border.

And Erosion threatens border fence, something that happens with remarkable regularity: Linky

Abdul Salam Akon, a young man of the same village, said the erosion cut off the mainland as Kaljani moved like a serpent, falling into Bangladesh. As a result, the villagers of Gour Jhapusabari had to come to travel through Bangladesh to reach India. “If measures are not taken to divert the Kaljani to its main channel, then the area adjacent to Bangladesh might one day be claimed by that country,” Akon said. Villagers said since 2006, more than 400 bighas of fertile land of this revenue village were eroded and nearly 600 villagers displaced, who took shelter in nearby villages like Ramraikuti, Satrasal and Kherbari.

Land-swap deal triggers paranoia - Peasants want to sell off farms Linky

Fenced out in 1987 and paranoid after the Indo-Bangladesh land-swap deal, a group of farmers near the Dhubri border wants the government to buy their land before it is handed over to the neighbouring country. The hand-over is not imminent, since the area is neither disputed, nor under adverse possession of Bangladesh, but residents of Biskhowa in Golokgunj — 134km from Boroibari, where 571 bighas are to be handed over to Bangladesh if the land-swap deal is ratified by both Parliaments — are wary.

After the fence cut off their farms in 1987, the farmers struggled to raise their crops, having to heed border gate timings. Produce dwindled, as did their profits, but they survived. Now, with the Indo-Bangla land-swap deal, they fear that someday another turn of events would snatch their land and sustenance and turn them into paupers.

Upgrading the border outposts: Linky

The BSF has started upgrading border outposts along the Indio-Bangla border converting the current makeshift bamboo and timber structures to concrete ones. In earlier phases of modernisation, the BSF had upgraded its arsenal to add more teeth to its anti-infiltration drive along the border.

8) HPC-D:

The 35-member team of Hmar People’s Convention (Democratic) headed jointly by David and Oliver Hmar today announced a unilateral ceasefire (in UB Photos picture above) in the “interest of peace”. David told reporters that the military wing of the outfit would cease all operations till the Centre and state government came forward for a political dialogue. A Dima Hasao police source said decision of the outfit to go for ceasefire was after constant pressure from security forces.

More on HPC-D: Linky

The Hmar People’s Convention (Democratic) announced early this week that its founder chairman Lalhmingthanga Sanate was removed from his post on September 29, for his overt proximity with a Kuki rebel outfit. Sanate lost his post following a feud in the group two months ago. But when Sanate, 47, was sacked, no reason was cited as to why the founder was ousted. The HPC (D) has announced in a press note that Sanate was removed as he signed a deed of agreement with a Kuki rebel group, the Kuki National Organisation, which apart from making inroads into Dima Hasao district, is also active in Mizoram and Manipur. Describing this agreement as an act of going against the group’s interests and aspirations, the press note declared that the HPC (D) leadership has ultimately termed it null and void.

9) Is Mizoram really calm? Linky

The most peaceful state in the Northeast, Mizoram, was allegedly used as a meeting point by Maoists and leaders of the Manipur-based militant outfit People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the PLA’s anti-national activities, discovered that a meeting was held between the outfit’s leaders and Maoists at Champhai in Mizoram on July 15, 2010. According to the agency, similar meetings between the outfit and Maoist leaders were also held in Calcutta, Guwahati and Rourkela.

An official source said the militants might have selected Mizoram because of its history of being a peaceful state for more than two decades. Insurgency in Mizoram had come to an end after the Mizoram Peace Accord was signed in 1986, and since then, the state has remained by and large peaceful. The NIA said a group of PLA leaders had also imparted arms training to Maoists at Saranda forest in Jharkhand from September 11 to November 20 last year. The PLA had allegedly trained Maoists in basic military tactics, guerrilla warfare, ambushing and wireless communication skills and a couple of more such training sessions were scheduled for next year. According to the investigating agency, the self-styled chief of PLA’s external affairs wing, N. Dilip Singh, who was arrested from Paharganj in Delhi on October 1, was one of the main trainers.

10) Continuing on the Jarbom Gamlin-Tako Dabi-Nabam Tuki spectacle: Linky

Arunachal Pradesh finally got its council of ministers this afternoon, 15 days after the newly-appointed chief minister Nabam Tuki succeeded Jarbom Gamlin. Tuki replaced Gamlin on November 1 after four months of sustained campaigning against the latter’s leadership and had camped in Delhi for over 12 days to get his 12-member team finalised.

The members of the Tuki cabinet, sworn-in by Arunachal governor Gen. (retd) J.J. Singh at the packed Raj Bhavan in Itanagar this afternoon, has four ministers from the Gamlin camp, an indication that the Congress high command just stopped short of giving the Tuki camp a free hand. They are Setong Sena, Pema Khandu, Atum Welly and Jarbom Gamlin’s brother Jarkar Gamlin, who makes his ministerial debut along with Kamlung Mossang and Tapang Taloh, the deputy speaker in the last government.

The high command has also ensured some sort of continuity as seven of the ministers — Welly, Sena, Khandu along with Chowna Mein, Tanga Byaling, Bosiram Siram and Tuki — had also featured in the Gamlin cabinet. Those who got the axe are Jarbom Gamlin, Kolikho Pul, Tako Dabi, Takar Marde — who was home minister — and Honchung Ngadang. They have been replaced by Rajesh Tacho, Mossang, Newlai Tingkhatra, Taloh — who belong to the Tuki camp — and Jarkar.

Congress insiders said though the high command did not go solely by the list submitted by Tuki, it was also not overbearing, as is evident from the reaction of the chief minister on the composition of his team. “We will work as Team Arunachal. The portfolios will be allocated very soon,” he told The Telegraph from Itanagar. The insiders also said Tuki had reservations over inclusion of Welly, who is a relative of Gamlin and was recently in the news over a controversy surrounding his son and daughter’s appointment as government employees. Arunachal Pradesh PCC general secretary T.C. Tok said it was a “good” team. “Everyone has to move together for all-round development of the state. All misunderstandings have been sorted out,” Tok said.

11) KLO: LInky

The Kuki Liberation Organisation, which operates in Dima Hasao district and has an armed wing, the Kuki Liberation Army, has declared a ceasefire. KLO president K. Thangkiew declared the unilateral ceasefire against police and security forces in Dima Hasao district in Haflong last night and said it was now up to Delhi and Dispur to accept it in “a full-fledged manner”.

Updating the Maoists' top layer profile and my biggest questions on maoism

Organization: The Central Committee is at the apex. It oversees both political and military maters, as well as publicity. The Central Military Commission (CMC) is responsible for all military related matters, such as logistics, training, devising battle tactics. To provide for specialized guidance on military affairs, a Sub Committee on Military Affairs (SCOMA) was formed in 1995 but was disbanded in favour of the CMC. Further, the Sub Committee on Political Education (SCOPE) was formed in 1996 and has been tasked with indoctrinating party cadres. The publishing bureau oversees propaganda and preparation, distribution of party literature and circulars. Regional Bureaus, Zonal/State Committees, District Committees, Squad Area Committees and Village People's Committees are connected with political work.

At the parallel level, there runs the military machine. Armed cadres are organized in the form of the People's Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA). The people's militia is at the bottom and is organized as Village Defence Squads. This constitutes the base force. Military platoons constitute the main striking force, while Local Guerrilla Squads and Special Guerrilla Squads form the secondary force.

At the end of the Unity Congress-9th Congress of the CPI(Maoist) in January-February 2007, there were 38 Central Committee (CC) members and 14 Politbureau members. Of these, around 21-22 CC members and 7 Politbureau members remain at large today. Fourteen of the CC members are residents of different villages in Andhra Pradesh, five hail from West Bengal, two from Jharkhand, and one each from Bihar and Karnataka.

A picture of the top guns: Linky

At-large Central Committee members:
1) Mupalla Laxman Rao alias Ganapathi -- General Secretary and Gen Sec of PWG
2) Prasanta Bose alias Kishanda -- second in command and Gen Sec of MCC, heads the outfit’s operations in Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar, West Bengal and Assam (Eastern Regional Bureau)
3) Nambala Keshav Rao alias V(B)asavraj alias Basab Raj alias Gangana -- chief of the armed wing (Military Commission in-charge)
4) Mallojula Venugopal Rao alias Vivek alias Sonu alias Abhay -- Kishenji's brother, secretary of its Central Regional Bureau of Dandkaranya, appointed official spokesperson in place of Azad on July 7, 2010. Likely to take over Azad’s job of supervising the Maoist publications Vanguard, People’s March and Kranti. Linky

5) Katakam Sudershan alias Anand alias Mohan alias Birenderji -- Vasavaraj's deputy -- As secretary of the outfit’s “central regional bureau”, he is also in charge of operations in the Dandakaranya forests, north Telangana and the Andhra-Orissa border — a belt where the rebels are perhaps most active. The brain behind the Dantewada massacre.
6) Malla Raji Reddi -- arrested in Kerala’s Angamally, 20 km from Kochi, in December 2007, recently obtained bail from a Kerala court and reportedly went underground. Linky, sharp military capability
7) Misir Besra alias Sunirmal -- member of Maoist Central Military Commission (CMC), was arrested in Jharkhand’s Giridih, 200 km north-east of Ranchi, in September 2007, escaped when taken out of court on June 23, 2009
8) Rajesh da alias Majoj

9) Tippiri Tirupati alias Devuji -- sharp military capability
10) Katta (Kadari) Ramachandra Reddy alias Kosa alias Gudsa Usendi -- Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee official spokesman
11) Jingnu Narasimha Reddy alias Jampanna -- sharp military capability
12) Akkiraju Haragopal alias Ramakrishna alias RK
13) Pulluri Prasada Rao alias Chandranna

14) Ramachandra Reddy Pratap Reddy alias Chalapathi
15) Modem Balakrishna
16) Gajanand Bhaskar alias Parush
17) Mohan alias Mahesh
18) Dev Kumar Singh alias Nishanth
19) Vivek Chenderi Yadav alias Payag
20) Kuppuswamy Devaraj alias Ramesh alias Balaji
21) Rayanna
22) Ranjith Bose alias Kanchan
23) Kadari Satyanarayana Reddy
24) Pratap

Politbureau members:
1) Mupalla Laxman Rao
2) Prashanta Bose
3) Nambala Keshava Rao
4) Mallojula Venugopal Rao
5) Katakam Sudarshan
6) Misir Besra
7) Malla Raji Reddy

Other prominent leaders:
1) Asim Mindal alias Aakash, secretary of the party’s West Midnapore state unit
2) Mansaram Hembram alias Bikash, the only tribal in Bengal’s Maoist leadership
3) Arnab Dam alias Bikram -- from Purulia
4) Ranjit Pal -- from Purulia

Reward:
Mupalla Laxman Rao (reward of INR 24 lakhs),
Nambala Keshav Rao (Rs 19 lakh),
Katakam Sudarshan (Rs 19 lakh),
Mallojula Venugopala Rao (Rs 19 lakh),
Prashanta Bose (Rs 7 lakh),
Malla Raji Reddy (Rs 7 lakh).

Big catches from the list eliminated in the (\approx) last two years:

a) Central Committee Members
Killed:
1) Wadkapur Chandramouli/Chandra Mohan alias Devanna (Dec 2006)
2) Sande Rajamouli alias Prasad (June 2007)
3) Patel Sudhakar Reddy -- Alias Suryam alias Vikas alias Srikanth -- killed May 24, 2009
4) Shakhamuri Appa Rao -- killed Mar 11, 2010 with Kondal Reddy
5) Cherukuri Rajakumar -- Alias Uday alias Azad alias Parimal alias Prasanth alias Madhu alias Gangadhar -- Vasavaraj's other deputy and spokesperson of CPI(M) -- killed in encounter July 2, 2010
6) Mallojula Koteshwar Rao -- Alias Kishenji alias Pradip alias Prahlad -- Eastern India "commander", killed in encounter November 25, 2011

Arrested:
7) Sheela Marandi (July 2006)
8) Amitabha Bagchi -- see below
9) Kobad Gandhy -- see below
10) Tusharkant Bhattacharya -- Alias Srikant, released from jail on Nov 19, 2009 due to lack of evidence, re-arrested Jan 8, 2010
11) Balraj -- Alias Arvind alias B. Prasad Singh, arrested Feb 8, 2010
12) Chintan -- Alias Banshidhar alias Chintan Da alias Banshidhar Singh, arrested Feb 8, 2010
13) Aditya Bora -- arrested in Sundergarh district of Orissa, February 13, 2011
14) Pulendu Sekhar Mukherji -- Alias Saheb alias Gagan alias Akash alias Jhantu alias Jhantu Mukherjee alias Joyda -- arrested from Barsoi village in Katihar district of Bihar April 29, 2011 Linky
15) Varanasi Subrahmanyam -- Alias Vimal alias Srikanth alias Sukant -- as above
16) Vijay Kumar Arya -- Alias Jaspalji alias Amar -- as above

Surrendered:
17) Lanka Venkata Papi Reddy alias Lachchanna

Old/unclassified: Shyam, Mahesh, Murali, Moti Lal Soren, Vishnu, Shobha, Pankaj

Politbureau Members Neutralized:
1) Sushil Roy (May 2005), arrested from Hooghly
2) Narayan Sanyal (Jan 2006)
3) Pramod Mishra (May 2008) arrested from Dhanbad: Alias Bibiji or Banbihariji alias Janardhanji alias Madanji -- arrested on May 11, 2008 Linky
4) Amitabha Bagchi (August 2009) arrested from Ranchi -- Alias Anil, founder of the erstwhile CPI(ML)-Party Unity -- arrested on Aug 19, 2009 (Former Politburo member and secretary of the central military commission of the outfit)
5) Kobad Gandhy (Sept 2009) arrested from Delhi -- Sept 22, 2009, obtained bail on June 16, 2010. Linky
6) Baccha Prasad Singh (Feb 2010) arrested from Kanpur -- Alias Arvind alias Bachha Prasad Singh
7) Cherukuri Rajakumar -- killed July 2, 2010 -- see above
8) Akhilesh Yadav (June 2011) arrested from Gaya -- Alias Jagdish Master alias Jagdish Yadav alias Bhupesh, Politbureau member arrested from Gurar area of Gaya district in Bihar on June 11, 2011
9) Mallojula Koteshwar Rao -- November 25, 2011 -- see above

Others:
1) Satyendra Kushwaha alias Naresh alias Dadan -- arrested Feb 25, 2009
2) Ashutosh Tudu -- arrested in Rourkela, Orissa, in March 2009
3) Tauhild Mula alias Kartik -- arrested Aug 19, 2009
4) Saswati Panda alias Subhashree alias Mili -- arrested Jan 15, 2010
5) Lalmohan Tudu -- killed Feb 23, 2010
6) Venkateshwar Reddy alias Telugu Deepak -- arrested Mar 2, 2010
7) Kondal Reddy alias Tech Ramanna --- killed Mar 11, 2010
8) Marshal Topno -- arrested Mar 16, 2010
9) Bapi Mahato -- arrested June 21, 2010

Caste/Biodata information:
1) Mupalla Laxman Rao -- Born in Beerpur village in Sarangapur mandal in Karimnagar district of AP. He worked as teacher in Karimnagar district and deserted his job for higher education in Warangal. There, he met Nalla Adi Reddy and Kondapalli Seetharamaiah and he joined the naxalite movement. He was one of the early members of Communist Party of India (ML) People's War and grew as General Secretary of the party that is now called as Communist Party of India (Maoist). He is married to Muppalla Vijaya, has two brothers and two sisters.
2) Mallojula Koteshwar Rao -- Born in a poor Brahmin family in Pedapalli in Karimnagar district, which eked out a living on priesthood in nearby temples. His father was a freedom fighter and vice-president of the state branch of the Congress Socialist Party. Kishenji completed school in 1969 and graduated from Adarsha College in Jammikunta. In 1973, after a BSc mathematics degree from Government Degree College, Peddapalli, he moved to Hyderabad to pursue law (LLB degree), but gave up after the first year. He married Maniakka, alias Sujatha, who is a member of the Dandakaranya special zonal committee in Chhattisgarh. She was earlier secretary of the South Bastar divisonal committee.
3) Prashanta Bose -- Comes from Jadavpur in West Bengal. Bose’s wife Sheela Marandi, another central committee member of CPI (Maoist) was arrested in 2006.
4) Nambala Keshav Rao -- Comes from a family of government officials in Srikakulam district. Rao's brothers are Vigilance and CMD level officers in Andhra Pradesh.
5) Mallojula Venugopala Rao -- Brother of Kishenji (one of three sons), Brahmin, A graduate and a resident of Peddapalli in Karimnagar district.
6) Malla Raji Reddy -- hails from Karimnagar district.
7) Katakam Sudarshan -- Born to the weaver community in Bellampally, Adilabad district, studied at a polytechnic in Warangal before joining the People’s War Group of Kondapalli Seetharamaiah in the 1980s. A few years ago he lost his life partner Sadhana, who was secretary of the Maoists’ Adilabad district unit in north Telangana. Linky
8) Kobad Gandhy -- Born into an affluent Parsi family that had a house famed for its antique furniture in Worli Sea Face in Mumbai, an ice-cream factory and a resort in Mahabaleswar. The young Ghandy went to public school and later to Elphinstone College in Mumbai. He married Anuradha who hailed from a Konkan family that owned a coffee plantation. Anuradha died in 2009 of cerebral malaria.
9) Misir Besra -- Hails from Jharkhand

Some questions for which I dont have a clear answer as yet:
1) Why has Karimnagar district produced 15 of the 38 central committee members of the maoists?
A take is provided at Linky

15 Central Committee Members are from Karimnagar district. Karimnagar, named after a Nizam’s son, is on the edge of the Dandakaranya forests in the Deccan plateau and is dotted with forests and hilly tracts that lead to Chhattisgarh, the bloodiest theatre of the rebels. Complementing the lay of the land was a man-made environment of exploitation that drove bonded farm labourers to rebellion in 1973. Several landlords died in the violence that accompanied the demand for more wages. Then a familiar cycle followed. The landlords, belonging to the upper-caste Velama, unleashed the police who cracked down with mindless brutality that was met with retaliations modelled on guerrilla tactics. The brutalities found expression in the film Dasi, where Jagityal, a town in Karimnagar, provides the backdrop.

During the days of the Emergency, the Congress government supported the landlords and tried to crush the peasant movement with military force. Nearly 600 activists were killed in the Dandakaranya jungles of Karimnagar and Warangal. But the seeds had been sown long before. In the early sixties, Maoist top gun Chandra Pulla Reddy led a group on a 20km march in the forests of Karimnagar and Warangal to motivate tribals and farm labourers. The symbolic protest received wide publicity. Kishan’s hometown Peddapalli was the nerve centre of the movement by bonded farm labourers. As the movement took root and the threat from Maoists spread, most landlords migrated to the district headquarters. The Naxalites were seen as liberators from police zulum at the behest of the feudal landlords, said social scientist N. Venugopal.

2) What is the strength of the Maoists now?
A take is provided at Linky

The CPI (Maoist) has around 20,000 firearms and nearly 10,000 cadres, enough to withstand a state-backed onslaught for six months, but it faces a problem of ammunition mismatch, a study by intelligence agencies has found. The estimate is the first of its kind on the Maoists done by central and state intellegince. Twelve states — Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu and Kerala — were included in the study. It said the rebels’ weapon stocks include AK-47s, AK-52s, .303 rifles, assault pistols, Israeli-make sniper rifles and light machine guns.

The gun-manpower ratio stands at 1:2 with the number of personnel in the rebel ranks estimated at 10,000. The study said the Maoists acquired weapons in four ways: i) By snatching them from police stations and dead security forces after blasts and ambushes, ii) Snatching from security guards of industries in Maoist-infested zones, iii) Manufacturing weapons such as pistols, country-made mines and explosives in collusion with local mafia and gangs, iv) Procuring foreign weapons, ammunition and explosives from militant and criminal groups operating within and outside India.

3) Is the Maoist menace defeatable?
My answer: The basic feeding attribute to the Maoist movement is the relative disparity in the growth of people. If the Government of India tries to address this problem, it allocates invaluable resources to equalize growth at the cost of self-entrenched prosperity dictated by the "law of the few." And further, such a redressal mechanism bows down to the superiority of the Maoist revolutionary logic that growth should perforce be equalized. On the other hand, if the Government of India ignores this disparity, the Maoist menace self-feeds itself. Alas, a balance needs to be achieved between these two extremes.

Such a balance should recognize the fact that the Government of India cannot kill the Maoist menace. Nor should it try to. The goal should focus on making the Maoist menace an irritant that is toleratable in a gross strategic calculation of territory controlled, peoples ruled and power emanated rather than to invest diminishing returns at trying to vanquish a beast that has more than just nine lives.

4) So where does the stable equilibrium in this pursuit of the balance lie? What measures could be taken toward this stable equilibrium?
i) Neutralizing the Politbureau and Central Committee Members, Zonal and Divisional Commanders of the outfit,
ii) de-legitimizing the overground workers and propagandists of the Party in various overt and covert forms,
iii) effective measures to de-corrupt administration at all levels,
iv) regulating PUCL via an act of law,
v) strengthening NHRC and other States' Human Rights Commissions in both mandate as well as in terms of administrative sanction to hear cases of abuse,
vi) strengthening the Fourth Estate by appointments of Central and States Ombudsman that are semi-independent of legislative oversights,
vii) law and order reform with a view to humanizing the attitudes and actions of Police forces in the Maoist belt (as well as the rest of India) by including continuing education courses to that effect,
viii) promotion of women's self-employment, rights' awareness and poverty alleviation schemes,
ix) providing a fair share of the resources divested from the Maoist belt to the local populations, and
x) overall uni-directional growth of the Indian economy and standards of living
are some of the points that have been suggested by different think-tanks and informed people.

5) Why are the AP-based maoists more violent than the WB-based maoists? Why do AP-based maoists dominate the military wing whereas the WB-based maoists dominate the policy, propaganda and ideology wings of the party? Why is the Spokesperson job reserved for AP-based maoists?

6) What is the share of women and tribals in the maoists movement? Are the women less violent than the men, are the Brahmins less violent than the tribals, and other stereotyping?
A take is provided at: Linky

7) The Communist dialectic and literature is rich enough that different attributions can be made to explain the maoist menace. Some claim that India is in the middle of an agrarian crisis, others claim it to be a class war, yet another set of people claim it to be a war between the revolutionaries (Proletariat) and the reactionaries (Bourgeois). So which of the three is it? Which part dominates the other two? What part does caste oppression play a role in feeding the maoist menace? What part does exploitation of forest and mining resources feed into this mess?

8) Why do the maoists have a dire need to use pen-names at random? Who are Abhay, Akash and Gudsa Usendi? Why was Mallojula Koteshwara Rao fond of the Kishen moniker?

9) Why are there more Sorens and Mahatos in the rank and file of the maoists than Xalcos or Mundas?

10) Why did MCCI and CPI(ML)-PW merge? Who were responsible for this merger?
What is the movement from PLGA to PLA supposed to mean?

11) What did the Purulia arms drop have to do with the maoists' increased fire-power?

The meaning of democracy...

From "A Comparative Study of the Indian Constitution" by Sirdar D. K. Sen (Linky):

The question therefore arises: what is the exact meaning of the term "democracy." Most American publicists as well as some English authors begin their discussions on this subject with an extract from the famous speech of President Lincoln at Gettysberg, in which the President described the American Republic as "the government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Does this description contain the essential elements of a democratic Constitution?

In the first place, it describes democracy as the government of the people, but it should be remembered that all Constitutions, whether democratic or otherwise, deal with the government of the people, because without the people, there could be no State, and, therefore, no Constitution. It would, therefore, be clear that this is not an essential feature of democracy.

The second element, according to President's definition, is "the government for the people." Here, again, it is necessary to point out that this is not a distinctive characteristic of democracy, because even under a system of benevolent despotism, the government is carried on for the people and in the interests of the people.

In the third place, the description speaks of "government by the people"; and here indeed lies one of the distinctive elements of democracy, for a democratic Constitution implies three essential attributes: a) the power of the State is vested in the people; b) the power is exercised by the people or their representatives; and c) the people being the ruler as well as the ruled, there is complete identity of interests.

According to Bryce, government by the people is government by the majority of the people, and this means that in a democratic State all citizens must have full political rights so that the vast majority of them constitute the electorate (cited, Modern Democracies, Vol. II, Chap. I). This definition does not appear to be satisfactory. Government by the people or by the majority of the people is perfectly compatible with an authoritarian regime where there exists only one political party. A democratic government is not, therefore, merely a government by the people or a majority of the people. It must have other essential qualities to distinguish it from other forms of government. In a totalitarian form of government certain characteristic elements are to be found. In the first place, all powers of the State are vested in one organ or institution; in other words, there is unity of State authority. Besides, it is the will of those in whom the totality of the powers of the State is vested which prevails against the will of those who do not enjoy or exercise any power. There is thus a legal distinction between those who command and those who obey. On the other hand, in a democratic form of government there is a clear division of power; in other words, there is a plurality of State organs. There is also the important principle of respect for and protection of the minority so that there is every chance of the minority becoming the majority; and this operates through the fundamental principles of equality and liberty. A government where these elements subsist has a democratic Constitution.

This brings us to the question of forms and institutions of democracy. There are two distinct and well-recognized types of democratic government. The first is known as direct democracy, i.e. where the power of the State is directly exercised by the entire body of citizens of the State. Such a type is, however, only practicable in a State with a small compact territory and a small homogenous population as was the case with city-States of ancient Greece and Rome and the village republics of India and China. The same type of government was to be found in some of the Cantons of Switzerland, and even today some of them retain the relics of the system, such as the referendum, popular initiative and plebiscite. The second form of democracy may be described as indirect, i.e. where the power of the State is exercised by the people not directly but through elected representatives. The suffrage under a democratic system has the following essential features: i) it must be universal, i.e. the electorate must be composed of all citizens without any distinction who fulfil certain specified qualifications; ii) the suffrage must be direct; iii) the suffrage must be equal; and iv) the suffrage must be secret. To these must also be added the indispensable condition that every citizen must have the right to stand for election provided he fulfils certain specified qualifications. It is this feature which differentiates democracy properly so-called from the authoritarian system under the Soviet Constitution where one party and one party alone has the monopoly of eligibility and, therefore, of political power.