Maha’s public security bill deserves close scrutiny
Maharashtra’s Public Security Bill, 2024, per officials, is meant to “plug gaps” in anti-terror law UAPA. The bill is required for, purportedly, a “growing urban naxal menace”, with all offences cognisable and non-bailable. It’s curious a govt at the fag end of its term should table such a consequential bill, with election campaigning weeks away. There are three key issues to deliberate. First, what is govt’s definition of “urban naxalism”? Second, if it can be defined, how is it measured? These should have been sorted out before the bill was designed? Third, leftwing extremism, India-wide, by GOI’s data, is largely contained.
‘Urban naxal’ phenom | The umbrella term has been applied to activists, academics, politicians. In the 2018 CM-chief secretary spat in Delhi, BJP veterans called AAP/Kejriwal “urban naxals”. Opponents of Gujarat’s Sardar Sarovar project were “urban naxals”. From academics to protesters, the “urban naxal” tag has sent people into gruelling prison terms on vague accusations. The term became a ditty in the Elgar Parishad case when Pune police arrested activists, all of whom had earned the “urban Naxal” moniker. In 2021, adivasi rights campaigner Stan Swamy died in custody, also regarded part of the “urban Naxal group”.
Near wiped out | What’s puzzling about the bill’s raison d’etre is that naxalism pan-India is on its last legs per GOI. Govt has repeatedly stated that over the last five years, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Telangana, Andhra, MP and Maharashtra had been freed from Maoist influence. That only pockets in Chhattisgarh remained as outliers. In Parliament answers in 2023, GOI said naxal incidents had reduced from 1,533 (2004) to 531 (2022), deaths from 566 to 69. Decadal comparison (May 2005-Apr 2014 to May 2014-Apr 2023) showed incidents reduced by 52%, and deaths by 69%. GOI told Parliament “districts reporting violence reduced from 96 (2010) to 45 (2022).”
For Maharashtra govt, though, urban naxalism is “growing”. How it came to that conclusion, only the govt can answer.
This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
END OF ARTICLE
