I am not a Maoist sympathiser, but you do not kill a messenger even if he’s from the enemy side (Death by Inches..., Sep 6). Azad had come to talk peace. If we kill the Maoists who want peace, we will be left only with their killing machine. We need to understand that the Maoists are our own people—who have taken up arms against landlords and multinationals on behalf of the poor—not Pakistanis or Arabs.
Amit, Srinagar
Even in death, Azad’s shown how skewed the State is.
Varun Garde, Bangalore
I disagree with Azad’s ideology but he, like anybody else in India, had a right to an opinion, even if it was different from my own. I also believe that no group, Maoist, terrorist or otherwise, has a right to impose violence on another. However, I can differentiate between a group that unleashes violence against innocent people and one that fights the State for the cause of the people. That is the main difference between a terrorist and a rebel, between a Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed and a Chemkuri Azad. As much as I’d have liked to see Azad being brought to justice, it is galling when the State itself should have demonstrated such blatant contempt of a citizen’s constitutional rights, especially the most moral of them all, the right to life. When we give our government the leeway to commit such inhuman acts and impinge with impunity on our basic rights, how do we then stand up to the likes of Azad on moral grounds and denounce their methods?
Swapna Rao, Washington DC
Irrespective of country and time, the State has always been wary of its citizens, especially when they ask too many questions. I also believe that the government wants to keep this gravest threat alive, as it allows interested parties to siphon out public money in the form of allowances and grants that are being allocated to the affected areas. It’s business as usual.
Prithwijit Majumdar, Bangalore
The sudden and violent death of Maoist ideologue Azad, especially when he was talking peace, is shocking. P. Chidambaram apparently gave Swami Agnivesh a cold shoulder when he went to meet him to demand a probe into Azad’s killing by the AP police. The media must expose the Congress’s double game forthwith. On the one hand, its leaders in the upa establishment are unwilling for a judicial probe into the ‘encounter’; on the other, they are patting Mamata’s back for sympathising with the deceased Maoist. Did the home minister, caught up in his Op Green Hunt, have the peace-minded Azad—who was well-regarded even beyond Maoist circles—‘taken out’ lest he lose his case for a ruthless attack on the Maoists, who he and the media in cahoots with the capitalist class have lustily portrayed as India’s enemies? And yes, Arundhati was right when she said “what Islamic terrorism is to the bjp, Maoist terrorism is to the upa”. Both blood-thirsty parties think everything is fair in the war with their enemies.
Viswanath V., Kurnool, AP
Bullet for a bullet is the best policy for those who do not obey the law but, when cornered, suddenly discover democracy and human rights.
Gopinath, Bangalore
This man waged war on the Indian State, why are we wasting media space on him? This is nothing but cheap politics!
Rakesh Krishnan, Kigali, Rwanda
Sohrabuddin and Azad are criminals and deserve no mercy or inquiry. There is so much hue and cry over the rights of these criminals, what about the rights of the policemen who do a thankless job of policing the nation against all odds? A media trial on every encounter would only demoralise the forces and they will become wary of taking action against any criminal. And an inchoate force will lead to lawlessness and anarchy; a situation the Maoists would love.
Sudharshan, Chennai
These are the very people who don’t bat an eyelid before killing innocents in the name of ‘ideology’; now they whine when they are at the receiving end. Violators of human rights deserve no rights.
G. Natrajan, Hyderabad
I have no sympathy for a terrorist. Period.
Ravi Jain, Hyderabad
Those who live by the gun die by the gun. Azad chose this path and his belated attempt to negotiate for peace cannot absolve him of a lifetime of misdeeds.
Prakash Kumar, New Delhi
I lost all hope for this country after reading some of the comments made to justify the execution of an innocent human being by India’s corrupt police.
Babu, Bangladesh
We should not make accusations based on half-known truths, but do whatever we can to ascertain facts. Otherwise, it will only demoralise our already weakened police force.
Vinay Gowda, Mangalore
So what if Azad was killed in cold blood? Don’t these Maoists kill innocents in cold blood, citing government negligence to justify their acts?
S. Devi, on e-mail
It is really shocking that Outlook should bat for Azad who was a lifelong Maoist leader. All Maoists are anti-national and their goal is to overthrow democratic government. Azad was no different.
Lakshminarasimhan, Chennai
Looking at some of the online responses to this article, it appears that we as a people have lost what made India and Indians different—the ability to really live and let live—and even find reasons to pardon even the worst offenders. In fact, today we are becoming like those who offend us.
Atul Chandra, Mumbai
Murder is not new to the state. Since it took place in the jungles, the State even put up a pretence of filing an fir.
Sundararajan, Chennai
Given the notoriety of the suspect, it is hard to believe that this would have happened without the knowledge of the pmo or the home ministry.
Amit Joshi, Pune
Fake encounters are not the answer to solving a law and order problem. If the State is engaging in this kind of behaviour, what are they trying to enforce? The rule of law?
Puneet, San Francisco
The killing of the poor or tribals goes unreported most often. The government justifies their killing of them by pinning the label of Naxals on them. The death of Azad needs thorough investigation.
Deepak, on e-mail
