Understanding Indian Insurgencies

[Dayuhan]

I'm curious about these things, since our friendly neighborhood rebels are also Maoists working in a democracy, an environment in which theoretically they shouldn't thrive.

So some questions, just to compare...

There are foreign influences, influence of the NGOs to include foreign funded NGOs, too many security agencies under different ministries and since it is taken as a law and order issue, the States come into play as law and order is a State subject.

Hence, their is no unified approach.

What would you say the foreign influences are? From what sources? Purely influence, or direct assistance?

How does the NGO influence work? Actively encouraging rebellion, or more indirect?

I noticed this item in the cited article:

The foot soldiers who had joined the Maoist movement in the later years had little interest in furthering the people's war, but joined for the pecuniary benefits the movement was offering.

Would you agree with that? If so, it makes me curious about where the movement gets its money. Pecuniary benefits for a force of 40k+ runs to a fair bit of the ol' pecunia.

Are the Maoists strongest in tribal areas? In particular, are they strongest in tribal areas where administrative and government posts are predominantly controlled by non-tribals?

[Ray]

I'm curious about these things, since our friendly neighborhood rebels are also Maoists working in a democracy, an environment in which theoretically they shouldn't thrive.

So some questions, just to compare...



What would you say the foreign influences are? From what sources? Purely influence, or direct assistance?

How does the NGO influence work? Actively encouraging rebellion, or more indirect?

I noticed this item in the cited article:



Would you agree with that? If so, it makes me curious about where the movement gets its money. Pecuniary benefits for a force of 40k+ runs to a fair bit of the ol' pecunia.

Are the Maoists strongest in tribal areas? In particular, are they strongest in tribal areas where administrative and government posts are predominantly controlled by non-tribals?

The media has indicated that Foreign NGOs do encourage militancy. The Church has a great influence upon the tribal and the people of the NE.

I have it from a Governor of one of the NE States of how elections and life is swayed by the Church in that State and in the NE. In fact, he used to request the Church to assist if there was any knotty problem to solve.

China has been given proof of their involvement.

How things happen indirectly to influence and even assist is given very lucidly in the book Ugly American. I was a high school student when the book came out and one could see the same happening in India and I felt very sad for the US, which was giving India a lot of aid, but Russia was on the ball! And both were doing their best to influence the Govt and the people.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,

I'm curious about these things, since our friendly neighborhood rebels are also Maoists working in a democracy, an environment in which theoretically they shouldn't thrive

.

This returns us to the overarching U.S. philosophical assumption that establishing a democracy and free market are the decisive actions for defeating (many interpretations) an insurgency. I'm not sure how many times this will have to be disproven before we have our aha moment that is not a universal law.

The levels of corruption in both India and the Philippines largely make their democracies irrelevant to vast portions of the population to begin with (I realize I'm arguing against myself, but I'm trying to be fair).

For external support the Maoists throughout S. Asia are interconnected to some degree, and of course the adage that an enemy of my enemy if my friend applies, so it isn't unreasonable to believe the Maoists in India are receiving some support from state actors hostile to India.

In the Philippines the NPA at its current level of activity can probably sustain itself through various criminal activities and taxes.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/wo..._r=2&ref=world

India Asks Pakistan to Investigate Root of Panic

“We want people to know that the bulk of this was done from Pakistan,” Home Secretary R. K. Singh told reporters in New Delhi on Saturday night. He added, “A total of 76 Web sites were identified where morphed images were uploaded, and the bulk of these were uploaded in Pakistan.”

Then, authorities say, misleading cellphone text messages and other social media messages began circulating on Wednesday with warnings that Muslims would attack northeastern students and migrants. Tens of thousands of people hurriedly boarded overcrowded trains to the northeast as leaders pleaded for calm.

This article is interesting on several levels for what it portends. State and non-state actors have the ability to exploit a tense situation by distributing disinformation over the internet and social media. The new part is the speed and momentum these tactics facilitate compared to print, radio, and whisper campaigns which all require some degree of direct access.

Next article is just a reminder that old ideological foes still exist and they have their own networks that are regional and sometimes global.

http://kasamaproject.org/2011/03/27/...asian-maoists/

In spite of challenges, the opportunities are bright. In fact, bigger the challenge brighter is the opportunity. In order to transform this potential into reality the communist revolutionaries have to
•engage in serious ideological and political struggle to defeat the wrong trends in the communist movement, principally revisionism;
• develop strong ideological and political unity and common resolve among themselves;
• build up regional mechanism for cooperation to fight imperialism, Indian expansionist hegemony and advance revolution;
• establish the inevitability and invincibility of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism among the broad masses;
• unite the entire national and democratic movements and just struggles broadly to the extent they can go together to fight the principal enemy.
• unite with Maoist and all fighting forces throughout the world.

Seize power where it is possible, develop ongoing people’s wars to higher levels, prepare and initiate people’s war where parties exist and build up parties where they don’t – this should be the working orientation of Maoist revolutionaries.

It is a declared fact that CCOMPOSA has been formed to unite the Maoist revolutionaries of South Asia and fight Indian expansionist hegemony and imperialism in the region. Apart from accomplishing its responsibility in this region, CCOMPOSA, as a part and parcel of the international communist movement, must discharge its internationalist duties to further the cause of world proletarian revolution.

[Dayuhan]

The media has indicated that Foreign NGOs do encourage militancy.

How credible are the media reports? What foreign NGOs are involved, and what are they allegedly doing to encourage militancy?

Here we have a number of (predominantly local) NGOs that are essentially extensions and above-ground fronts for the armed movements. Foreign NGOs and local counterparts are involved, but often in a different way. At times they encourage resistance to government in ways that actually compete with the armed movements, offering peaceful political means toward similar goals, predominantly the goal of helping indigenous populations resist intrusion by extractive industry and outside settlers. I'd be interested in hearing if a similar dynamic plays out there. When NGOs help organize (for example) rallies or protests against perceived "development aggression", that's often seen, at least by some, as encouraging militancy. In practice, at least here, it plays out rather differently on the ground: if people see peaceful means of protecting themselves they are sometimes less interested in resorting to violence (unless of course the peaceful means are suppressed), and peaceful resistance can be an important safety valve, releasing tension before it reaches the point of violence. It's most effective, of course, when it works. If government ignores or steps on peaceful resistance, violent movements will take advantage.

The Church has a great influence upon the tribal and the people of the NE.

Which church(es), and how is that influence typically used?

China has been given proof of their involvement.

What's the nature and extent of that involvement?

How things happen indirectly to influence and even assist is given very lucidly in the book Ugly American. I was a high school student when the book came out and one could see the same happening in India and I felt very sad for the US, which was giving India a lot of aid, but Russia was on the ball! And both were doing their best to influence the Govt and the people.

Certainly foreign parties try to influence these situations, but they don't always succeed. That influence is often overstated, especially by governments that would rather blame an insurgency on foreign subversion than address their own governance issues.

I'm still curious about the allegation in the article cited earlier that many of the fighters are in it for the money. Is that true? If so, where's the money coming from?

This returns us to the overarching U.S. philosophical assumption that establishing a democracy and free market are the decisive actions for defeating (many interpretations) an insurgency. I'm not sure how many times this will have to be disproven before we have our aha moment that is not a universal law.

I certainly wouldn't say that's a universal law, but I would point out that the NPA have been significantly eroded since the fall of Marcos. The symbiotic relationship between dictator and rebel is often under-appreciated.

The levels of corruption in both India and the Philippines largely make their democracies irrelevant to vast portions of the population to begin with (I realize I'm arguing against myself, but I'm trying to be fair).

In the Philippines I'd say the issue is less "corruption" in the broad sense than the persistence of what amounts to dictatorship in regional enclaves where dynastic autocrats still hold absolute sway and operate as a law unto themselves, with no effective central control. I imagine the influences in India are different.

For external support the Maoists throughout S. Asia are interconnected to some degree, and of course the adage that an enemy of my enemy if my friend applies, so it isn't unreasonable to believe the Maoists in India are receiving some support from state actors hostile to India.

Again the question to me is not whether such support exists, but what is the extent and nature of that support.

In the Philippines the NPA at its current level of activity can probably sustain itself through various criminal activities and taxes.

It can and it does. The removal of external funding (mainly from Europe) has affected the internal dynamics of the organization, though. With regional units effectively raising their own funds, central control is diminished and the movement has become increasingly regionalized. If that continues, we could see a point at which it becomes less "the NPA" than a cluster of loosely allied regional armed movements.

[Ray]

The levels of corruption in both India and the Philippines largely make their democracies irrelevant to vast portions of the population to begin with

The fact that democracy is seriously taken in India is why we have not replicated Pakistan, as also ensured that the Nation has not folded up, notwithstanding the various faultlines that are there.

[Ray]

How credible are the media reports? What foreign NGOs are involved, and what are they allegedly doing to encourage militancy?

Which church(es), and how is that influence typically used?

What's the nature and extent of that involvement?

Certainly foreign parties try to influence these situations, but they don't always succeed. That influence is often overstated, especially by governments that would rather blame an insurgency on foreign subversion than address their own governance issues.

I'm still curious about the allegation in the article cited earlier that many of the fighters are in it for the money. Is that true? If so, where's the money coming from?

Here are some links:

Western nations fund NGOs operating in developing countries to influence policy and subvert institutions. India does not need foreign-funded NGOs.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnis...e-nations.html

Indian law on foreign funds to NGOs worries UN body
http://www.firstpost.com/india/india...dy-242888.html

Foreign funds help NGOs fuel unrest in India
http://dailypioneer.com/home/online-...-in-india.html

It maybe interesting to note that the areas where foreign funds are being used by the NGOs are the places where terrorism and Maoism is at its prime!

Then we have the infamous Binayak Sen's case, where the foreign 'intellectual' intervened with the Govt so that he could be released! He is a doctor who sympathised with the Marxists and was distributing Maoist and Communist pamphlets that advocated overthrowing of the Govt and Democracy and to set up a proletariat regime!

[Ray]

Bill Moore

The exodus of the NE people (who are Hindus, Christians, animists) from Mumbai and cities of the South, was triggered off by threats to their lives by SMSes and MMSes because the Bodos (tribal people of Bodoland) clashed with the Muslims, the large majority being illegals from Bangladesh who have settled down and some even have acquired Indian ID cards through dubious means.

In India, no one can settle down in tribal land. That land belongs to the tribal. The Muslims have slowly spread their wings into the tribal area and so that is the problem.

The anger of the Muslims was expressed first in Mumbai, where a Muslim NGO Raza Academy held a protest rally. Mumbai broke into flames!

I am only giving the links since the pictures and the video are disturbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlZ6u...layer_embedded

http://i.imgur.com/E4Ldr.jpg

http://www.esakal.com/esakal/2012081...085509_Org.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kX5Gl.jpg

https://p.twimg.com/A0BjaU0CcAAQ_r1.jpg:large

http://gallery.mid-day.com/plog-cont...e-mumbai11.jpg

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...74133450_n.jpg
(Destroying a memorial to the Fallen Soldiers)

http://static.ibnlive.in.com/ibnlive...an_protest.jpg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAF8g...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5io2w...layer_embedded

[Ray]

The Muslims were agitated because they were angered over the Bodos (tribal, who are Christians and animists) causing 'trouble' for the Muslims.

They were also enraged over SMSes and MMSes circulated to them on the riots as also of the riots in Burma where the Burmese pushed out the Rohigyas (Muslims of the Arakan). Bangladesh pushed these Muslim Rohingyas back!

They were angered that India had not done anything to Burma for what they had done to the Rohingya Muslims and they wanted action against the Bodos also.

It will be interesting to note that these MMSes were doctored.

Videos doctored in Pakistan sparked NE exodus: Government

In one instance, images of death and destruction caused by a cyclone have been morphed to be passed off as a case of atrocity on Muslims in Assam. In others, bodies of victims of an earthquake which occurred months ago was juxtaposed with photographs of Buddhist monks to project violence on Muslims in Myanmar by Buddhists.

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Vide...w/15550503.cms

[Ray]

The levels of corruption in both India and the Philippines largely make their democracies irrelevant to vast portions of the population to begin with

Bill,

If India did not have faith in Democracy, notwithstanding its faults, such type of activities including Kashmir, Maoists and communal bloodshed would have been solved in the manner in which Sri Lanka handled the LTTE or China handles all types of revolts by minorities and political deviants!

But then, India is a Democracy!

[Dayuhan]

Here are some links:

Some fairly chaotic stuff there, representing another thing the Philippines and India seem to have in common: poor journalism. There's little attempt to distinguish among government-supported NGOs, privately funded NGOs, and foreign funding for domestic NGOs, they're simply lumped together. There's little appreciation for the broad spectrum of NGOs, which ranges from quasi-official government-funded groups like NED to issue-driven groups with a distinctly adversarial relationship with their own governments. In particular this claim:

By far the most important tool of empire is Amnesty International.

would come as a surprise to the American fringe right, where Amnesty International is routinely castigated as a tool of the great Commie-Muislim anti-American conspiracy, owing to their regular criticism of authoritarian regimes allied with the US.

Mainstream groups like NED and Freedom House do inspire some anger, which is a good sign: if they weren't pissing anyone off they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Anyone familiar with either group, though, would know that neither they nor any similar group is likely to be funding Maoist rebels, or even antinuclear protests. What reason would the US Government have to oppose Indian development of nuclear power?

Of course there are many independently funded NGOs, particularly of the environmental and generic left persuasion, that would support opposition to nuclear power plants, dams, mines, etc. Most of these groups have an intensely adversarial relationship with the US government, which they see as a tool of the evil corporations and a primary enemy. The extent to which they would fund armed Maoist rebels is another question altogether. Some might, most wouldn't: even where leaders are sympathetic, they're well aware that their own donor base would not be.

It maybe interesting to note that the areas where foreign funds are being used by the NGOs are the places where terrorism and Maoism is at its prime!

NGOs typically prioritize the poorest and least developed areas, which are also those most susceptible to insurgency, so that's not necessarily evidence that NGOs are causing the insurgency. Is there any specific information on what NGOs are allegedly supporting actual armed rebellion (as opposed to demonstrations and other peaceful protests) and on the nature and extent of the alleged support?

[Ray]

What reason would the US Government have to oppose Indian development of nuclear power?

Locals Resume Anti-Nuclear Protest

A day after work resumed at a large nuclear power plant in India’s southern state of Tamil Nadu, anti-nuclear protestors are up in arms against the state government’s decision to begin work at the site....

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa gave a go-ahead to resume construction work at the Russia-backed project, ......

Ms. Jayalalithaa’s move comes after the Indian government alleged illicit foreign funding was behind the protests. According to reports, the government ordered cases to be registered against four non-governmental organizations for allegedly receiving illicit funding to encourage anti-nuclear protests in Tamil Nadu. A German national was also deported for his alleged involvement in the protests, though he denies any wrongdoing.

This is a topic Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has also weighed in on. In a magazine interview published in February, Mr. Singh alleged that “the atomic energy program has got into difficulties” because of the opposition of NGOs, “mostly I think based in the U.S.” In the same interview, Mr. Singh claimed that the “thinking segment” of India’s population supported nuclear power. He pointed at India’s need to increase its energy supply.
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2...clear-protest/

This is from the Wall Street Journal, India.

I wonder if American feel that the Wall Street Journal would qualify as chaotic or shoddy journalism.

Our PM is a very pro US person ('Mr Bush, India loves you' is his quote when he met Mr Bush). If he feels that way he felt over the issue, then one cannot dismiss his comments perfunctorily.

Most of the Indian editors are foreign educated (Oxford or Cambridge or Harvard or Princeton).

The reason why US is not comfortable over the nuclear plant is that it is Russian backed, while it was the US (Mr Bush actually) which got India clearance for international nuclear fuel supply and, it was understood that India would buy US nuclear plant. The Liability factor on the supplier is what is the hurdle with the US nuclear plants. India is very careful on that after the Union Carbide case which caused the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

2. Amnesty International is not a Mary Poppins inspite of the hype.

I endorse the American opinion of this organisation and add it is also pro terrorist. Human rights is one thing and bending backward to castigate the Govt alone and not the terrorists is another.

3. Funding organisations that superstitiously espouse the Maoist and terrorist cause is indeed a part of a destabilisation at work.

The Tablighi organisation is a charitable organisation, but the ulterior aim is something else.

Here is a link

FBI monitors Islamic group Tablighi Jamaat at Masjid Al-Falah Queens New York
http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/20...-investigator/

I am sure the Islamic countries would feel that this is unfair since the Talblighi works amongst the American poor and the deprived!

And is unnecessarily being taken to be an organisation that is radicalising people and turning them into terrorists.

You may also like to read this:

Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad's Stealthy Legions
http://www.meforum.org/686/tablighi-...ealthy-legions

[Ray]

Aid money and how it is used.

The British view

DfID Still Burning Our Money

But the fact remains that the big success stories in economic development have never come about as the result of western government aid programmes. They have come from poor countries themselves deciding to embrace the market and welcome in private investment.......

And boy, does this idea allow DfID to waste money. Because by switching its emphasis from drilling wells to promoting rights, it moves out of the realm of practicalities and into the realm of "communications" and"advocacy" - aka spin. And spin can take place anywhere, including right back here in blighty.

According to Fake Aid, a new report from the International Policy Network:
"increasing amounts of DfID funds are channelled through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to fund lobbying activities, marketing, and the promotion of political ideology, often within the UK.

DfID funds various well-known NGOs – including Oxfam, VSO, and ActionAid – for vague-sounding activities such as “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy”. The programme that funds these activities has spent over £600 million to date. Most of these grants are not provided by an open tendering system but are instead supplied to NGOs that have very close relationships with government. New applications are currently not allowed, so this elite band of NGOs has enjoyed sole access to the increasing funding."

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.in/2...our-money.html

Now, what could be vague-sounding activities such as “awareness”, “promotion”, and “advocacy”?

Are they really doing much to improve the lives of the impoverished, underfed millions or is it to create unrest?

Also, this aid is basically to improve commercial interest.

Working as one team at Post: Guidance for DFID, UKTI and FCO staff on HMG’s Commercial Diplomacy and Untied Aid Agenda
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/pub...-diplomacy.pdf

Actually, nothing wrong in that.

At least, the British Govt has clearly stated the reality upfront! The Govt deserves credit for being bold and forthright rather than being weasel mouthed as so many aid giving countries around the world!

Some other views:

If India doesn't want our aid, stop it now, Cameron told after country labels £280m-a-year donations as 'peanuts'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-offer-us.html

The politics and arrogance of British aid to India
Link

[Dayuhan]

This is from the Wall Street Journal, India.

I wonder if American feel that the Wall Street Journal would qualify as chaotic or shoddy journalism.

There's nothing in that article to suggest funding by the US Government. As I said, it's entirely possible that US NGOs are helping to fund antinuclear, environmental, and other movements in India. I'd be surprised if they weren't. That doen't mean the US Government is involved in any way. Most of these NGOs don't get government funding, and many have a quite adversarial relationship with the US government. The US Government can't stop them from sending money, unless they send it to someone designated as a terrorist organization.

Again, if you're looking at NGOs there has to be some distinction among Government-funded or approved foreign NGOs, foreign NGOs not funded by government, and local NGOs receiving assistance from foreign counterparts.

The reason why US is not comfortable over the nuclear plant is that it is Russian backed, while it was the US (Mr Bush actually) which got India clearance for international nuclear fuel supply and, it was understood that India would buy US nuclear plant. The Liability factor on the supplier is what is the hurdle with the US nuclear plants. India is very careful on that after the Union Carbide case which caused the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

How does supplier liability work out in the case of a Russian-built nuclear power plant? The Russian nuclear industry isn't noted for having a perfect safety record. In any event the idea that the US Government is funding anti-nuclear protests in India because a US company didn't get the contract seems pretty far out on the conspiracy-theory scale. What are the specific NGOs involved? Is there any evidence that they receive US Government funding?

2. Amnesty International is not a Mary Poppins inspite of the hype.

I endorse the American opinion of this organisation and add it is also pro terrorist. Human rights is one thing and bending backward to castigate the Govt alone and not the terrorists is another.

I certainly wouldn't say they are "a Mary Poppins", but they aren't tools of the US Government either; they've shown that enough times. Over the years they've come in for quite similar criticism from the US Government

3. Funding organisations that superstitiously espouse the Maoist and terrorist cause is indeed a part of a destabilisation at work.

Possibly so... but who's being funded, and who's doing the funding? The accusations published all seem awfully generic, with few organizations actually mentioned, and funding for, say, environmental, anti-nuclear, or similar groups isn't the same thing as funding Maoist rebels.

Governments always prefer to blame issues of insurgency and popular resistance movements of foreign subversion: that relieves them of responsibility for the consequences of their own governance decision. That's often a bit of an excuse, though. Foreign support may aggravate an insurgency, but it's not going to create one, not without a pretty high level of disaffection already in place.