In a first in India, 40,000 troops launch mammoth anti-Naxal operation

[Sergi]

CRPF planners are much more knowledgeable than you and me. This short burst attack gives maximum terrorist casualties and less collateral damage.
.

Here you may have missed this from article
The proposal was recently mooted during a meeting of police chiefs of all the Naxal violence hit states and the results of the four-day operations will be analysed threadbare and a decision to undertake such offensives in the future would be decided.

The planners have studied the terrain and maoists' operations for years just like the maoists have done. Advantage we have is our superior strength and weapons with coordinated attack.

advantage !!!! Hell No.

Pack of wolves attack is what they are following. Positioning and high intensity short period offensive.

that was what they were following and deemed not so effective. Thats why now surrounding and blocking exists is being though of.

Another objective is to move dispersed maoists to a small region.

You can also see it as Normandy landing.

to do that you need to block all exists. And 40000 isnt the figure that will let you do that sir.

Didnt we know what happened in Normandy !!! Even though they had advantage of surprise and numbers enough.

 

[janon]

Scale !!!!!
Sir ji thats what I am talking. Not enough. 40000 troops are not enough to scan the area of Dadchiroli in MH. Let along the other states. Enough pass for the Naxals to dodge the party

Maybe what is happening is that they already have intel on where naxals groups are, so they are not going to do a sweep of the entir area, but simply pumping in troops where they know naxals are present, to eliminate them. Cutting off the escape routes, and taking the fight to them.

I don't know what is going on, just speculating on a possibility.

 

[Lil Mathew]

Very bad move... 60% of naxal cadres are women and children.. Wide spread human rights violation may happen.. In my opinion this type of big operation is not suit against fellow indians (poor tribes) because it's not easy to control it.. The strategy already in progress (suppressing the movement by killing its leaders only) was gud.. Not understand what is the sudden motive for such a large strike.. May be the killings of congress leaders..

 

[Sergi]

we don't even know what they are planning and what the objectives are, its meaningless to speculate weather numbers are sufficient or not

Its may be a validation of concept.
I am not against it.
All I am trying to say is this idea is very old but good one. They disnt look at it till today.
And the field experience of CRPF itself would have been enough to start with bigger OP

This will actually give them more time to counter. And one simple thing they always do is hide the arms and behave like normal civilian still the force pass from the area.

Maybe what is happening is that they already have intel on where naxals groups are, so they are not going to do a sweep of the entir area, but simply pumping in troops where they know naxals are present, to eliminate them. Cutting off the escape routes, and taking the fight to them.

I don't know what is going on, just speculating on a possibility.

Yes they knew where is Naxal strong hold is from years.
Rest is something that hasn't happened yet. Lets see.

 

[PoKeMon]

While making a comment, please dont forget more than half of them are genuine victims and under the influence of some propaganda. They are our own people.

Yes we want naxals to be eradicated, I am afraid humanity will have to pay the price. I wish there could have been a better solution.

 

[janon]

While making a comment, please dont forget more than half of them are genuine victims and under the influence of some propaganda. They are our own people.

Yes we want naxals to be eradicated, I am afraid humanity will have to pay the price. I wish there could have been a better solution.

That statement applies to the foot soldiers of any terrorist group, doesn't it? You can say that about the talibanis, the al qaeda, the various militias in Africa, the mujahideens and lashkars, and people like ajmal kasab, that they were under the influence of propoganda. Why is it that these sympathetic comments appear only for naxals?

The fact is that once you pick up arms against the state, there is only one course for you.

 

[PoKeMon]

That statement applies to the foot soldiers of any terrorist group, doesn't it? You can say that about the talibanis, the al qaeda, the various militias in Africa, the mujahideens and lashkars, and people like ajmal kasab, that they were under the influence of propoganda. Why is it that these sympathetic comments appear only for naxals?

The fact is that once you pick up arms against the state, there is only one course for you.

When I talk about naxals, I talk about those segment of "us" who took on state because of some wrong doing of it. I dont give a damn about talibans, mujahideens whom I am not connected with nor do I endorse the bigoted religious point of view spread by them.

Saying that, I agree that only state is not culprit rather evil motives of some individuals and foreign powers are equally responsible but I dont disagree to the fact as well that our act has only complemented and supported their cause thus forcing more innocent to become naxals. My sympathies goes to them not to anyone else.

I feel bad thinking of such people die who once were not naxals and want to live life like me and like you.

If you got the right to kill them to save yourself, I, at least, can mourn to the loss of humanity.

 

[Srinivas]

When I talk about naxals, I talk about those segment of "us" who took on state because of some wrong doing of it. I dont give a damn about talibans, mujahideens whom I am not connected with nor do I endorse the bigoted religious point of view spread by them.

Saying that, I agree that only state is not culprit rather evil motives of some individuals and foreign powers are equally responsible but I dont disagree to the fact as well that our act has only complemented and supported their cause thus forcing more innocent to become naxals. My sympathies goes to them not to anyone else.

I feel bad thinking of such people die who once were not naxals and want to live life like me and like you.

If you got the right to kill them to save yourself, I, at least, can mourn to the loss of humanity.

This operation involves lot of things, it is not like killing people who ever they find in the Jungles. The main aim is to stop the armed insurgency and make Naxals as a part of out Democracy.

 

[janon]

When I talk about naxals, I talk about those segment of "us" who took on state because of some wrong doing of it. I dont give a damn about talibans, mujahideens whom I am not connected with nor do I endorse the bigoted religious point of view spread by them.

Saying that, I agree that only state is not culprit rather evil motives of some individuals and foreign powers are equally responsible but I dont disagree to the fact as well that our act has only complemented and supported their cause thus forcing more innocent to become naxals. My sympathies goes to them not to anyone else.

I feel bad thinking of such people die who once were not naxals and want to live life like me and like you.

If you got the right to kill them to save yourself, I, at least, can mourn to the loss of humanity.

You did not answer my question. Why is this sympathy extended only to naxals, and not to the foot soldiers of any other terrorist group? You say that you don't agree with the bigoted religious point of view of those groups - is that the difference? In that case, how about the ludicrous economic theories of maoists, which has been discarded in the place it originated, and has caused nothing but untold suffering for humanity? You think Mao's principles of govvernance and economics will help these people who "wanted to live like you and me"? The best way to improve the quality of lives of people is a democratic republic, and free enterprise - two things that the maoists are against fundamentally. Just as much as you don't like the bigoted religious views of the islamic terrorists, you should have no love for the kind of society and govt the maoists want to achieve.

Islamic terrorists like kasab too were poor young boys who wanted to live like good muslims, which they were taught means to kill infidels or indians or whatever. Poor youngsters who become maoists are also indoctrinated into believing maoist/communist bullcrap and taught to wield weapons against the state. For the very same reason that you have no sympathy for the kasabs of the world, you shouldn't have any for the maoists.

 

[PoKeMon]

This operation involves lot of things, it is not like killing people who ever they find in the Jungles. The main aim is to stop the armed insurgency and make Naxals as a part of out Democracy.

I wish your words comes true and we get them back among us, equal to us and happy.

You did not answer my question. Why is this sympathy extended only to naxals, and not to the foot soldiers of any other terrorist group? You say that you don't agree with the bigoted religious point of view of those groups - is that the difference? In that case, how about the ludicrous economic theories of maoists, which has been discarded in the place it originated, and has caused nothing but untold suffering for humanity? You think Mao's principles of govvernance and economics will help these people who "wanted to live like you and me"? The best way to improve the quality of lives of people is a democratic republic, and free enterprise - two things that the maoists are against fundamentally. Just as much as you don't like the bigoted religious views of the islamic terrorists, you should have no love for the kind of society and govt the maoists want to achieve.

Islamic terrorists like kasab too were poor young boys who wanted to live like good muslims, which they were taught means to kill infidels or indians or whatever. Poor youngsters who become maoists are also indoctrinated into believing maoist/communist bullcrap and taught to wield weapons against the state. For the very same reason that you have no sympathy for the kasabs of the world, you shouldn't have any for the maoists.

The difference is- I somewhat and to some extent endorse the cause of naxal and subscribe to that part of their theory which talks about inequality and suppression handed to them by state.
But, I dont endorse or believe in any religion based outrageous hatred which suggest jannat in killing infidels. These heavenly theories are above my humanly mind.

I think you should not expect any sympathies from me to a group which I dont subscribe to neither do I believe even an iota of their propagandas.

Yes, I have sympathies toward many of the naxals who are humiliated in search of their bread and butter not for 72 virgins.

 

[Srinivas]

I wish your words comes true and we get them back among us, equal to us and happy.

Most of the prominent Naxal Leaders are in Police custody and some leaders are still out there but not that significant. Once this operation is over then GOI will address the problems in those of tribal areas.

Money is never a problem now for India and development needs to be done at quicker pace, problem of exploitation of resources and tribals also needs to be addressed.

GOI has plans to address the Ideology of Naxalism.

 

[PoKeMon]

Most of the prominent Naxal Leaders are in Police custody and some leaders are still out there but not that significant. Once this operation is over then GOI will address the problems in those of tribal areas.

Money is never a problem now for India and development needs to be done at quicker pace, problem of exploitation of resources and tribals also needs to be addressed.

GOI has plans to address the Ideology of Naxalism.

I was merely taken aback by comments like "Kill them all". I know naxals are responsible for many cold blood barbaric acts, but then we are dealing with our own people and that too in large numbers.

If something can be done, it should be done before going for an iron fist.

 

[janon]

I wish your words comes true and we get them back among us, equal to us and happy.



The difference is- I somewhat and to some extent endorse the cause of naxal and subscribe to that part of their theory which talks about inequality and suppression handed to them by state.
But, I dont endorse or believe in any religion based outrageous hatred which suggest jannat in killing infidels. These heavenly theories are above my humanly mind.

I think you should not expect any sympathies from me to a group which I dont subscribe to neither do I believe even an iota of their propagandas.

Yes, I have sympathies toward many of the naxals who are humiliated in search of their bread and butter not for 72 virgins.

They are NOT fighting for breand and butter - that's the propoganda they want you to believe. The AK-47s and AK-56s they wield cost more than a year's supply of bread and butter. So do their RPGs and grenades. If they want bread and butter, do what the rest of us do - get a job and earn a living, which is a lot easier than doing an insurgency against the state.

Their fight, like that of any insurgent group, is for power. For them to rule others by force. That is what Maoist groups in China fought for, that is what bolsheviks fought for - to overthrow the current govt, and replace it with their own, with them ruling others. The excuse that they are fighting because of inequality is a farce. They may exploit poverty by making poor tribals join their force - and that is what any other terrorist group does. But that does not mean that they are looking to, or can end poverty or inequality.

Please tell me how taking arms against the state helps the poor. Is an insurgency a wealth creating activity? No, the 'poor' is and always has been an excuse for power hungry people to wage war against a legitimate govt.

The best way to reduce poverty is freedom - freedom to choose own govt, and freedom to pursue one's own economic activity. Freedom of choosing govt is possible only in a democracy, and feconomic freedom is only possible in a society that values free enterprise. Both are anathema to maoists.

They are fighting for power, with poor tribals as their cannon fodder. They are not fighting to end poverty - in which case they would have welcomed ecoomic activity and investment in that area, instead of working against that. Keeping the tribals poor works in their favour, so they can get a steady stream of foot soldiers. It is in their interest to ensure that those places remain undeveloped and the tribals remain poor. That makes it easy for them to rule those places, and be the boss.

 

[PoKeMon]

They are NOT fighting for breand and butter - that's the propoganda they want you to believe. The AK-47s and AK-56s they wield cost more than a year's supply of bread and butter. So do their RPGs and grenades. If they want bread and butter, do what the rest of us do - get a job and earn a living, which is a lot easier than doing an insurgency against the state.

Their fight, like that of any insurgent group, is for power. For them to rule others by force. That is what Maoist groups in China fought for, that is what bolsheviks fought for - to overthrow the current govt, and replace it with their own, with them ruling others. The excuse that they are fighting because of inequality is a farce. They may exploit poverty by making poor tribals join their force - and that is what any other terrorist group does. But that does not mean that they are looking to, or can end poverty or inequality.

Please tell me how taking arms against the state helps the poor. Is an insurgency a wealth creating activity? No, the 'poor' is and always has been an excuse for power hungry people to wage war against a legitimate govt.

The best way to reduce poverty is freedom - freedom to choose own govt, and freedom to pursue one's own economic activity. Freedom of choosing govt is possible only in a democracy, and feconomic freedom is only possible in a society that values free enterprise. Both are anathema to maoists.

They are fighting for power, with poor tribals as their cannon fodder. They are not fighting to end poverty - in which case they would have welcomed ecoomic activity and investment in that area, instead of working against that. Keeping the tribals poor works in their favour, so they can get a steady stream of foot soldiers. It is in their interest to ensure that those places remain undeveloped and the tribals remain poor. That makes it easy for them to rule those places, and be the boss.

Very first 3 lines and I got you are getting all wrong. I am not talking about all naxals, did I?

Didn't I talk about those evil masters and powers who looks for some evil motives?

I am talking about a fraction which is unfortunately more than half of them who is not looking to rule India or looking for secession.

Secondly, I endorse your rest of the post which is meant for pragmatic minds not for those poor who hardly thinks on these lines.

As I have said earlier I am just taken aback by cold blood call like "Kill them all" by my fellow countrymen who ironically failed to see the value of those innocent souls whose lifes were undone by governments we chose. Now dont take it as I am calling them saints, fault lies with them as well, but unlike kasab, they are "us" and who else should look after their lives if not "us". And what the difference between we and foreigners if we can not forgive them and look after their welfare rather them removing them outright.

 

[janon]

Very first 3 lines and I got you are getting all wrong. I am not talking about all naxals, did I?

Didn't I talk about those evil masters and powers who looks for some evil motives?

I am talking about a fraction which is unfortunately more than half of them who is not looking to rule India or looking for secession.

Secondly, I endorse your rest of the post which is meant for pragmatic minds not for those poor who hardly thinks on these lines.

As I have said earlier I am just taken aback by cold blood call like "Kill them all" by my fellow countrymen who ironically failed to see the value of those innocent souls whose lifes were undone by governments we chose. Now dont take it as I am calling them saints, fault lies with them as well, but unlike kasab, they are "us" and who else should look after their lives if not "us". And what the difference between we and foreigners if we can not forgive them and look after their welfare rather them removing them outright.

When they said 'kill them all', I'm pretty sure they meant kill all the combatants, not kill all tribals or people living in those places.

As for Kasab not being one of us - we have had lots of homegrown terrorists as well. From kashmir to punjab to kerala. The Indian mujahideen fellows and Yasin Bhatkals are all one of ''us''. Do they deserve our sympathy? BTW, they do not all fight for 72 virgins either. Many of them fight because of propoganda they are fed, about Indian army killing or raping innocent muslims, revenge for the gujarat riots and so on. They too are vicctims of propoganda. But once they take arms against the state, they are enemies of the state, whether they come from among us, or from pakistan.

It is the same everywhere. People who pick up arms against the state will be put down with arms of the state. That is one of the founding reasons for the existence of a state, the legitimate right to use of force. In the US army for example, every cadet takes an oath of allegiance that explicitly states ''I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;''

Nobody makes a distinction about whether an army if a foreign one or homegrown one, when that army tries to destroy the state and overthrow the constitution and grab power. Nowhere. It is easy to say ''forgive the poor sods'' - but how does that work with AK wielding combatants who are fully motivated to kill? We could try that on surrendered cadres, and we have. But to the ones we meet in battle, there is only one treatment we can give - 'kill them all'. The phrase you took offense to, but is inevitable.