Mr CM is invited

The state governments of Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Manipur have initiated moves for a dialogue with militant and terrorist groups operating ...

The state governments of Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Manipur have initiated moves for a dialogue with militant and terrorist groups operating in their respective states. Unfortunately, in each case they seem to be operating from a position of weakness. In Assam, for instance, talks have been offered to Bodo militants after they carried out serial blasts killing innocents across the state. Those blasts were undoubtedly made possible by continued complacency of the government and its administration after the spectacular success of the Bhutan operations. The message to terrorists in this is ominous: carry out stunning strikes against government utilities and innocent people, and get the government to rush forth with a spate of concessions. Take the Andhra Pradesh government. It has gone to the extent of holding talks with an outlawed terrorist outfit which announces that the armed struggle will continue while talks go on, and even afterwards.

We should certainly seek all possible avenues of peaceful solutions to conflict situations. But it also must be recognised that our state governments are responsible for law and order besides ensuring efficient and responsive governance to the people that they claim to represent. In pursuit of the first objective, no dilution of these responsibilities can be countenanced. Sadly, a cycle can be discerned: mal-administration and poor governance, the rise of militant-terrorist groups, extortion and criminal acts and killings of innocents, and then talks to accommodate the demands of those who have been deeply and extensively engaged in criminal acts. These are attributes of not only a soft state, but also of an extremely unresponsive and inefficient state.

It is worth noting that the Congress is in power at the Centre as well as in Assam, Manipur and Andhra Pradesh. This should be sufficient reason to expect coherent and consistent policy with regard to militancy and the modalities of conducting a political dialogue with militants. For example, the Maoists are operating in more than one state and dialogue by one state should not lead to incentives for militants in other states to raise the threshold by plotting crime and killings in the expectation of greater rewards. A carrot and stick policy should be the prerogative of the government and not that of terrorists groups and criminals. The dialogue will have meaning only if it leads to a permanent end to criminal violence and terrorism. The chief ministers must understand that it is their responsibility to ensure peace in their states. If they continue to dither, they will lose any moral right to rule.