In his Independence Day address from the Red Fort, Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi said armed Naxalism had been decisively weakened but warned of what he called “dimagi Naxals” — people with a Maoist mindset who, he said, remained alert to opportunities of creating violence and disorder and, therefore, needed to be identified and isolated.

The concern underlying his remarks deserves serious attention. Even when an armed movement loses territory and cadres, the networks and ideas that sustained violence in the first place do not necessarily disappear with the gun. India has paid a heavy price in the Maoist conflict to become complacent. The State has both the right and the duty to ensure that such insurgency does not quietly re-emerge.

That duty carries an equally important democratic obligation: The State must be precise about whom it is targeting, for what conduct, and on what evidence.

Insurgencies are rarely sustained by armed cadres alone. Violent organisations may rely on recruitment, finance, shelter, communications, propaganda, logistics, and people who facilitate them. Those who finance violence, recruit for it, harbour cadres, assist operations, or conspire to commit offences cannot claim immunity where evidence establishes criminal conduct. The law must take its course — firmly.

Also Read | ‘Proud to be a dimaagi naxal’: Opposition leaders after PM Modi's ‘isolate them’ remarks

The difficulty begins when conduct........

© hindustantimes