RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research and Analysis Wing, or R&AW. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and Military Perspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also Associate Editor, Indian Defence Review.

 More than anything else, the 2009 Elections will be remembered for the subversion of the democratic process by the Maoists by the unprecedented use of armed force.

Through their violent ways, The Maoists have robbed the election process of its sanctity and legitimacy. The State and its people are the targets, and terror is their tool.

The former Chief Election Commissioner Mr Gopalaswami's stated logic behind holding elections in one phase in the 'Red Corridor, ' i.e. areas under Maoist influence, is understandable and ostensibly correct. His argument is precisely predicated on the need for massive deployment of security forces and the lead time required for them to carryout 'area stabilization'.

Importantly, this decision, by a constitutional functionary whose office is the key to the electoral processes determining our democracy, betrays the level of threat posed by the Maoists in the very heart of India. The Election Commission's decision was based on the inputs provided by the Home Ministry. Without doubt, there is complete awareness about the level of threat posed by the Maoists, but this is deliberately downplayed or ignored by the powers entrusted with the security of the citizens.

In fact, the number of phases in which general elections are conducted is indicative of the degree of internal stability that obtains in the country. Never before have so many security personnel come under such vicious and violent attacks during elections. That the security forces have to lay down their lives in increasing numbers for a legitimate democratic process exposes the much touted great Indian democratic culture and the country's fragile internal security, essentially engendered by weak governance over the years.

Yes, the electoral exercise has been carried out in the Maoist controlled areas, but is it an end in itself? The whole exercise has been a travesty of democracy on many counts. First, is a week's time enough to ensure 'area stabilization', wherein people could vote without fear of retribution by the Maoists?

No, by no professional or imaginable yardsticks.

It is therefore anyone's conjecture, how many voters must have been dissuaded from exercising their franchise. If the Maoists had the audacity to strike at the camps of the security forces, imagine the amount of intimidation and atrocities they would have perpetrated on hapless people in the Maoists-influence areas.

Second, many candidates %u2013 including our former foreign minister and finance minister Mr Yashwant Sinha --in some 40 parliamentary constituencies in the 'red corridor' could not venture into the remote areas due to the Maoists threat. Was this electoral exercise, therefore, a triumph of democracy in the real sense?

Third, what about the security of the people who defied the Maoists and exercised their franchise after the security forces had been withdrawn?

Fourth, can it be ruled out that the some candidates did not have the truck with the Maoists to scare away voters in the areas where their appeal was weak? In one instance, a candidate and his workers were kidnapped and their vehicle was burnt allegedly by the Maoists. The candidate was soon released, something which the Maoists are not known for.

This could well be a case of a unholy liaison between the so-called Maoists and some politicians to subvert the electoral process by terrorizing the voters. In certain areas, the Maoists are not averse to taking 'protection money' from candidates.

The temporary imposition of the writ of the state during elections, therefore does not necessarily translate into the writ of fair democracy, if the very people having stakes in the process are not secure. The electoral exercise in the Maoist areas exposes gross inadequacies, callousness, and duplicity of the State with regard to the security of its citizens.

For the State, 'sovereignty' should not only be the prerogative to control its territory and population, but also as the responsibility of physical security and well-being of its people. In that, the State is increasingly failing to create conditions conducive for democracy to evolve and thrive. The lack of security and political order not only hampers growth and prosperity, but makes human life uncivilized.

Come elections, the security threat perception becomes crystal clear to our government and other institutions, as evidenced by the level and pattern of deployment of security forces in various parts of the country. Ironically, after the elections, the government of the day either downplays the threat or procrastinates endlessly the requisite response, allowing the situation to deteriorate manifold.

Further, the post election scenario is also characterized by a huge disconnect between the terror-affected people, decision-makers and arm chair socio-economic theorists on matters of security. The socio-economic theorists never take-up the challenge of undertaking developmental work in the Maoists controlled areas. Even if they were to try, they would never be permitted by the Maoists, who are against all development since their declared intention is to destroy the entire framework before they can impose their own framework of a totalitarian state.

In this regard, the example of a village 'Sabdo' in Bihar is revealing. A young couple had transformed it into a model village by facilitating education for all children and brought about changes in the pattern of agriculture by involving the local people in creating irrigational facilities, as a result of which the agricultural produce and consequently the income of the farmers trebled. Their social and developmental crusade had to a very great extent broken the cast barriers existing in the village. Their contribution was hailed by the media.

But the Maoists, who felt that their constituency was being weaned away by the development activities, eventually murdered the couple. The main tool of the Maoists is therefore not %u201Cpeoples' power%u201D, but the %u201Cpower of the gun%u201D. They have declared a war against the State and the State therefore must respond. It cannot abdicate its responsibility of providing the safety and security to its law abiding citizens. If the vote cannot buy personal security, then democracy is a hoax and elections the biggest farce.

The scale and audacity of the recent attacks by the Maoists on the paramilitary forces, as also in the past in the 'red-corridor', reinforces the truism that the level of left-wing extremism has assumed the proportions of a planned and well-coordinated war against India. The enhancement in levels and sophistry of arms of the Maoists and their expertise in using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are indicative of support and abetment by external and internal inimical powers.

While all other insurgencies in India have been geographic specific, the Maoist insurgency runs right through the heart of the country. The para-military forces are not only harassed and overused, but their varied roles, deployment pattern, training and manpower profile is not suited to deal with the level of violence as posed by the Maoists.

There is thus a crying need to raise a Corps size 'Homeland Security Force' under the Indian Army. Three Homeland Security Divisions deployed at the Maoist bastions or nodes could bring the situation under control and the menace can be defeated in a respectable timeframe.

'Area stabilization' does not mean what Mr Gopalaswami has implied. It is a much longer process, and requires concerted intelligence and operational thrust. This Homeland Security Force will therefore be an asset and a deterrent against all internal existing and subversive forces. In turn, it will also contribute to 'state-building' without which there can be no 'nation-building'.

Article courtesy Indian Defence Review

SEARCH