Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the government has set the target of Naxalism -free India by March 2026. Statistics suggest that in the last decade, there has been a drastic decline in the area of Naxalite violence and Maoists. Along with security operations, development schemes like road, health, education and employment have weakened the roots of Naxalism. In such a decisive time, the opposition coalition Indi (INDI), former Supreme Court Judge for the post of Vice President, B.C. Sudarshan Reddy has been nominated. His name is associated with the 2011 decision in which he declared the Salwa Judum initiative of the Government of Chhattisgarh unconstitutional. At that time this decision was considered a setback for the anti -Naxal campaign.
Here this decision of the opposition naturally raises some questions. For example, does this step give a message weakening anti-Naxal commitment? Does it unknowingly give validity to Urban Naxal Natural Naxalite? And is it an indication that the opposition is not showing the expected perseverance on the issue of national security?
Also read this: Former Judge Sudarshan Reddy will be the opposition candidate, CP Radhakrishnan in the Vice Presidential election
If seen, the debate is no longer there only who would become the Vice President. The real question is whether people holding constitutional posts should be expected to expect a weak trend towards national security? The Vice Presidential election is not a constitutional process. It has also become a symbol of the broader discourse in which India has to decide whether its highest institutions will give priority to the security-centered approach or not?
It is true that in democracy every political party has the freedom to choose its candidate, but at a time when the country stands at a decisive turn, then the symbolic significance of the individuals chosen for constitutional posts increases even more. Therefore, the question is natural whether this decision of the opposition will not send a wrong message. Does the selected candidate of the opposition not send the message that when the government is fighting the last battle against Naxalism at the ground level, the opposition has expressed unknown sympathy for the forces by putting a person in front, which the country has repeatedly rejected.
Let us tell you once again that Salwa Judum was the initiative of the Chhattisgarh government in which tribal youth were being fought with Naxalites by standing with security forces. But this was allegations of human rights abuses in a planned manner and eventually rejected it by the Supreme Court.
Let us remind you that the matter was related to the petition of social activist Nandini Sundar, who had to face allegations of proximity to Maoist groups from time to time. Even an FIR was lodged against him in a murder case in Bastar, although he was later withdrawn. This background made the court decision more controversial.
If you look at the circumstances of that era, then in 2011, Naxalite violence was in its peak. In such a situation, the ban on Salwa Judum was considered a setback for India’s anti -Naxal fight. According to critics, the step weakened the strategy of the security forces and the state government and the Maoists appeared to be indirect support.
Today the situation has changed completely. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, the country is moving fast towards overthrowing Naxalism and the floor is now at a distance. Apart from this, the Naxalite network is constantly being broken by connecting development schemes like road, education, health and employment with safety campaigns. If seen, there is a Modi government on one side, which is working on the policy of “root up” Naxalism. On the other hand, the opposition has chosen a person whose judicial background has been seen as weakening anti -Naxal efforts.
However, if seen, the basic implications of this entire episode are that the selection of the highest constitutional positions of India is not limited to individuals only, but it also indicates which ideology and which national resolve the country stands with.