Are urban Naxals really threatening peace in Maharashtra?

With the Special Public Security Bill, the Maharashtra government plans to take over the power to label people as ‘urban Naxals’. The Bill, which has neither been discussed nor passed by the state Assembly, is ostensibly designed to deal with the menace of ‘urban Naxals’, and has been introduced just three months before the next Assembly election due in October.

Has there been a spurt in Naxal activities in the state? Not that anyone knows of. Has there been a spate of arrests in the cities of people aiding and abetting Naxals? If so, the evidence is certainly not in the public domain. It has, therefore, triggered intense speculation for its timing. While some observers believe the Bill is just intended to intimidate opponents through the police, others have pointed out that the state government may decide to activate the Bill through an ordinance before the election is announced, giving even more draconian powers to the police.

The state government claims the Bill seeks to stop the expansion of an ‘urban Naxal’ network in the cities, where sympathisers of left-wing extremists allegedly provide shelter and sustenance to extremists. The Bill targets the alleged sympathisers and supporters and allows the police to break into homes, search for incriminating books and literature, besides evidence of links with extremists.

The police will then have the power to seize both moveable and immoveable property of such people. It will not require any warrant or approval of a court of law but will receive approval from the district magistrate. It will be the police which will decide which books and literature are ‘lawful’ and which are not. What is more, police will have the power to evict such people from their own property.

If women and children are residing in the premises, police will be required to give them ‘reasonable time’ to vacate the premises, leaving the time vague and the discretion to the police.

Lawyers and activists alike have pointed out that vague and generalised definitions in the poorly drafted Bill allow for arbitrary interpretations. With no clarity on what would constitute “a danger, menace to public order, peace and tranquility”, left for the police to decide, activist and lawyer Teesta Setalvad sarcastically commented that cooking on the street could also be held as a dangerous act.

While the Bill provides for an advisory board to supervise the police action, any ‘sitting or retired judge or anyone who qualifies to be a judge’ can be appointed to the board. This would allow the police to decide in favour of pro-police and mean public prosecutors and place them in the board.

Colin Gonsalves, writing in the Indian Express, recalls his talks across the country on the law and comments, “If I encourage disobedience by peaceful means, of authorities promoting illegalities such as tree cutting and environmental degradation, or if I innocently participate in a meeting of social workers protesting against torture by the police and fake encounters, I am immediately liable to be arrested and kept in jail for three years. It is no excuse for me to say that I did not know the identity of some of the organisers who, according to the police, had dubious links with certain organisations.

"I will be caught nevertheless under Section 8 even if I am not a member of any unlawful organisation… The Bill is crudely drafted to crush freedom of speech and expression. It is meant to make impossible vigorous non-violent struggle against oppression. All the provisions of the Bill are already contained in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the National Security Act and the Public Safety Acts." 

Why, then, is the new Bill required? Pune Police went round the country, arresting people from Mumbai, New Delhi, Nagpur and Ranchi in the Bhima-Koregaon case in 2018, for allegedly helping left-wing extremists. The police did not require any new law to arrest professors of English like G.N. Saibaba, priests like Stan Swamy, lawyers like Sudha Bhardwaj, Surendra Gadling, activists like Gautam Navlakha, and writers like Anand Teltumbde for being ‘urban naxals’.

Their trial is yet to start and bail was repeatedly denied to them, though the police has failed to come up with any evidence that they had indulged in any subversive activity against the state, leave alone participate in any conspiracy to assassinate the prime minister, as was the original complaint.

Maharashtra CPM secretary Uday Sarkar believes this is part of the Shiv Sena government’s preparations to intimidate the opposition before the election. Umbrella organisation National Alliance of People’s Movements has protested the provision which empowers the government to declare any organisation undesirable and illegal. The motivation clearly is not to control crime but to silence those who raise their voice against exploitation, repression and injustice by the government, it added.