However, this self-reliance has one advantage. The Maoists cannot be blamed for being foreign stooges as were the Naxalites for their slogan: China's chairman is our chairman. It is possible that the indigenous nature of the movement is the reason why so many of the left-liberals have come out in their support, including a few in the Congress. This would not have been possible if the Maoists were linked to outside forces. Although the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister, Raman Singh, suspects that they have connections with the Lashkar-e-Toiba, he has admitted that he doesn't have any proof.

It is possible, though, that as and when the Maoists come under increasing pressure from the security forces, they will become susceptible to offers of help from outfits like the Lashkar. If that happens, their left-liberal supporters may become more restrained. What is noteworthy about their support, however, is that they do not formally belong to any left-leaning party. Neither the CPI nor the CPI(M) supports the Maoists. Nor do the parties to their left like the SUC or the CPI(M-L).

All those who do support the Maoists by saying that their battle is the battle of the poor, whether it is Arundhati Roy or Mahashweta Devi or Binayak Sen, are virtual free-lancers without any formal political attachment. Interestingly, it is the groups in the Congress including Digvijay Singh or Mani Shankar Aiyar, who are the only active politicians who have voiced muted support for the Maoist cause while ritually condemning their violence.

The Congress, of course, has been forced to nuance its position on Maoism after Digvijay Singh's criticism of P.Chidambaram in his Economic Times article. It now says, especially after Sonia Gandhi's intervention on behalf of the votaries of the “root cause” argument, that the party will deal with the threat simultaneously with accelerated developmental efforts. In reality, however, the chances are that there will be greater emphasis on police operations than on building schools and providing clean drinking water.

One reason is that the government is more adept at the first task than the second. It is also possible that Chidambaram's hard line and harder talk - Nitish Kumar has asked him to talk less - compelled the Congress to bring out the dissenters to soften the anti-Maoist drive. There is an element of political gamesmanship also since the Manmohan Singh-Chidambaram-Montek Singh Ahluwalia trio is not the favourite the old socialist brigade in the Congress.

At the same time, the party is aware that these “neo-liberals” have the support of the vocal middle class and that any suggestion that the government is softening its stance on the Maoists will make this class go wholesale over to the BJP. Besides, people like Digvijay Singh cannot be too critical because it was his neglect of development in Madhya Pradesh, where he was chief minister for 10 long years, which paved the way for the Maoists to establish their bases. Since Madhya Pradesh included Chhattisgarh at the time, Digvijay Singh's failure is obvious.

The “socialists” also know that one major success in the anti-Maoist operation will discredit them. As the arrest of some of the ring leaders of the massacre of 76 policemen in Dantewada shows, it may not be long before the security forces gain the upper hand. Their failures so far have been the result of inadequate preparation and inability to assess the nature of the threat. Much of these loopholes have apparently been plugged. Notwithstanding Pranab Mukherjee's criticism of Chidambaram's “limited mandate” comment, there is also greater clarity now about the party's and the government's line.

The government must also be secretly pleased that despite the BJP's castigation of UPA-2, the party has been consistent in its support for Chidambaram. Such a non-partisan approach is quite unusual in Indian politics, where cynicism is the norm. The reason for this solidarity is the greater stake which the BJP has developed in the system following its stint in power at the centre and in seven states at the moment.

Unfortunately, the left-liberal supporters of the Maoists haven't shown the same sense of responsibility. They are not only quite oblivious of the destructive potential of the Maoist game plan, but also to the tyranny of the one-party state which they proclaim as their ideal. In effect, they still believe in the yeh azadi jhooti hai slogan which the ultra-leftists chanted immediately after independence. (IPA Service)