Clean players in a dirty game

Did Alex Paul Menon take his cue from Ernesto Che Guevara and The Motorcycle Diaries? Was the collector of Chhattisgarh’s Sukma district trying to emulate the Argentine Marxist revolutionary, the ubiquitous symbol of rebellion, when he visited tribal villages on his motorbike? The speculations go on. Sitting in New Delhi, it is hard to say.
The truth may well be far less romantic. Everyone who reads Guevara is not necessarily imbued with revolutionary fervour. Mr Menon could be just another ordinary man trying to do his job under difficult circumstances. Alas! Last week, he was divested of his ordinariness. Today, he is a headline.
The 32-year-old collector of Chhattisgarh’s newly-carved Sukma district was abducted by Maoists while attending a meeting of tribal farmers in a remote village, some 500 km from state capital Raipur. His two bodyguards who tried to intervene were shot dead. The hostage takers have reportedly demanded that eight of their jailed associates be released and that the government freeze Operation Green Hunt against them.
As I write, Mr Menon is still in Maoist captivity. Medicines and mediators are on their way. The officer suffers from asthma.
The country is praying for his safety and well-being. No one knows how and when this terrifying drama will end. But side by side, another equally disturbing story is unfolding. The latest abduction has made “development” a dirty word. Some see any mention of it in the context of Maoist-affected areas as a diversionary tactic, from the state’s stated intent to crack down on Maoists. Discussing the need for development in areas which have seen little of it means getting sucked into the furiously polarising debate about how to deal with Maoists — it’s seen as an either or choice. Mr Menon’s abduction comes hot on the heels of another Maoist attack on a convoy carrying the Bijapur district collector, which left two BJP leaders and a driver dead.
Many security experts and retired Army officers are convinced that the immediate priority should be to strike at the Maoists in their dens and clear the area. Development — building of institutions and infrastructure — can come later, they say. Others have a different view. They believe that development and dialogue must go hand in hand with law and order moves. But anyone articulating such a position publicly runs the risk of being branded a bleeding heart liberal, unwilling to face the reality of the Maoist insurgency.
The two camps are unlikely to forge a consensus anytime soon.
But the questions don’t disappear even if they are edged out of television studio discussions.
What options are there before a bright young officer who finds himself in one of the many Left-wing extremism-affected districts in the country? Should he stick to the safety and comfort of his office or should he venture out into the field? Should he avoid all risks till Maoists are ejected? How does one begin to usher in development in places without motorable roads, with villages without electricity, with scattered habitations, with hardly any public services without setting foot on the territory or monitoring the activities that are started to redress the gap?
Ravella Vineel Krishna, the former district collector of Malkangiri, Orissa, who was kidnapped by Maoists in February last year, says there is no standard operating protocol for district collectors posted in Naxal-affected areas. Mr Krishna, now working as private secretary to Union minister Jairam Ramesh, told this writer that Maoist targeting of civilian administrators is a relatively recent phenomenon. “Previously, Maoists targeted the police, the security forces. They left the civilian administrators alone. I was, perhaps, the first collector to be kidnapped by the Maoists. Now things are changing. One has to be very careful.”
That raises the obvious question: Why are the Maoists changing their strategy? Those who have worked in Maoist-affected areas say that this is happening because after decades of indifference and neglect, the government has taken some steps to bring development to areas which had never experienced it. Money is being pumped in. Flagship schemes are being announced. Under the Delhi-sponsored Integrated Action Programme for Maoist-affected areas, villages in the Naxal-affected districts are getting good quality roads, Anganwadi centres, schools, health centres and drinking water. So far, more than 60,000
projects have been undertaken in 378,058 habitations.
If implemented well, these will certainly improve the lot of the people in these areas. Daunting challenges remain on the ground; the implementation is slow and often imperfect. Nevertheless, Maoists are perturbed. “They see development as a threat. If an area develops, people will be less disaffected, and less likely to support them,” says Mr Krishna.
What should the state’s response be? Cat fights break out on this question. Whatever one’s view on the issue, all the available evidence points to the need for district administrators and other public officials working in these troubled areas to be extra-cautious.
Which brings one back to the basic question. If  being cautious means not stepping out of the office, what will happen to the development schemes being launched with such fanfare? Vineel Krishna and Alex Menon have come under fire for stepping out without enough security. Does the government have adequately armed security personnel to provide protective cover to all the administrators in the red corridor? Can it demine the vast swathes of land? If not, should we not start discussing what can be done to better equip the administrators to do their job? This is not just about one or two or three young district collectors. There are dozens more, facing similar risks. We need to support them to deliver development to those who have been starved of it. And that is not a dirty deed. 

The writer focuses on development issues in India and emerging economies.
She can be reached at patralekha.chatterjee@gmail.com