Would anybody say that to import these failed stratediminishing. That says something. People have no choice but to align themselves on the side of whoever they think is less worse.
But to equate a resistance movement fighting against enormous injustice with the government which enforces that injustice is absurd.
The government has slammed the door in the face of every attempt at non-violent resistance.
When people take to arms, there is going to be all kinds of violence — revolutionary, lumpen and outright criminal. The government responsible for the monstrous situations it creates. "Naxals', 'Maoists", 'outsiders': these are terms being very loosely used these days. 'Outsiders' is a generic accusation used in the early stages of repression by governments who have begun to believe their own publicity and can't imagine that their own people have risen up against them.
That's the stage the CPM is at now in Bengal, though some would say repression in Bengal is not new, it has only moved into higher gear...
About Naxals and Maoists
• well... India is about to become a police state in which everybody who disagrees with what's going on risks being called a terrorist.
Islamic terrorists have to be Islamic - so that's not good enough to cover most of us. They need a bigger catchment area. So leaving the definition loose, undefined, is effective strategy, because the time is not far off when we'll all be called Maoists or Naxalites, terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Militant briefs: lawyers take to the streets to challenge Musharaff