Differences over army role in anti-Maoist ops

New Delhi: Sharp differences have cropped up between the home and defence ministries over the use of the army in anti-Maoist operations. While the former is keen to involve the army in a direct role, the defence ministry is firm on not playing a role.

"The army is the last resort in internal security measures and the government does not intend to use it against Maoist activities," defence minister AK Antony said in Thiruvananthapuram on Monday. This is in sharp contrast to the position of home minister P Chidambaram, who last week told commanders that the army should get involved.

Antony's statement reflects the firm stand taken by army commanders last week during internal consultations on their possible role in the operations. They recommended that the army should not be looked at as an option. To share army expertise, the commanders recommended the setting up of a national anti-Naxal operations training centre under army supervision, and the appointment of military advisors for affected states.

The commanders pointed out that the home ministry had raised 120 paramilitary battalions for counter-insurgency operations, and they must be deployed in full before looking at the army's role.

But Chidambaram believes that the military will have to be deployed for quick results. Home ministry officials have been talking informally about the possibility of withdrawing some Rashtriya Rifles (RR) battalions from Kashmir for operations against Maoists. 

Though a paramilitary force, RR is fully manned by army personnel. The defence ministry's reluctance is also clear by the nature of permission given to the air force: fire at the rebels but in self-defence.

 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_differences-over-army-role-in-anti-maoist-ops_1306443