Tweet
A video clip circulated by the District Rural Development Agency here shows Collector R. Vineel Krishna walking into a hut at Siliguma village and flipping a switch. The hut lights up with the tube's fluorescent glow, cementing Mr. Krishna's reputation as an officer focused on development.
A day after he was freed by the Communist Party of India (Maoist), Mr. Krishna struck similar themes of roads, access and tribal development at a press conference here.
Judging from the questions raised by the media, Mr. Krishna appears to have become a test-case for the hypothesis that under-development is the cause of, and development the cure for, the Maoist insurgency.
Mr. Krishna and junior engineer Pabitra Mahji were abducted by armed Maoists on February 16, a few hours after bringing electricity to Siliguma. The incident occurred near Janta Pai village, one of 389 villages “cut off” from the rest of the district by the reservoir of the Balimela hydropower project.
The coverage of Mr. Krishna's abduction and subsequent release has focused on his efforts to make Malkangiri's cut-off areas more accessible for development works.
Refusing to be drawn into a discussion on the implications of the number of Adivasis who came out in his support, Mr. Krishna said: “They [Maoists] have done what they have to do and the people of those areas have told what they want to tell.”
Later, he surmised that he was “just a rallying point for a larger message…ask the people what the message is.”
Asked to respond to the irony that the cut-off areas were rendered remote and inaccessible by a development project (in the form of the Balimela dam), Mr. Krishna said: “There has been a debate for some time on large projects versus small dams. Now it is recognised that rehabilitation issues must get priority.
“One of the main issues is the Gurpriya bridge. Unless there is a bridge…if there is a drinking water problem, how will the rig go there?” He was referring to the proposed bridge to link the cut-off areas to the mainland. Since it was proposed in the 1980s, the foundation stone of the Gurpriya project was laid twice, but the bridge is yet to be built.
Responding to a question that the bridge was not seen as just a development issue, but as an effort to get into Maoist territory, Mr. Krishna said development efforts were focused on areas that were accessible and inaccessible areas were usually under-developed.
On the day Mr. Krishna was released, the Maoists organised a four-hour-long meeting with the villagers of the cut-off areas. Mr. Krishna said the villagers' questions focused on the administrative neglect of the area.
The Maoists had, in a letter written in Telugu and sent to the press soon after Mr. Krishna's abduction, indicated that Mr. Krishna had not been abducted because of his individual attributes, but because he was a symbol of the oppressive nature of the Indian state.
A day after he was freed by the Communist Party of India (Maoist), Mr. Krishna struck similar themes of roads, access and tribal development at a press conference here.
Judging from the questions raised by the media, Mr. Krishna appears to have become a test-case for the hypothesis that under-development is the cause of, and development the cure for, the Maoist insurgency.
Mr. Krishna and junior engineer Pabitra Mahji were abducted by armed Maoists on February 16, a few hours after bringing electricity to Siliguma. The incident occurred near Janta Pai village, one of 389 villages “cut off” from the rest of the district by the reservoir of the Balimela hydropower project.
The coverage of Mr. Krishna's abduction and subsequent release has focused on his efforts to make Malkangiri's cut-off areas more accessible for development works.
Refusing to be drawn into a discussion on the implications of the number of Adivasis who came out in his support, Mr. Krishna said: “They [Maoists] have done what they have to do and the people of those areas have told what they want to tell.”
Later, he surmised that he was “just a rallying point for a larger message…ask the people what the message is.”
Asked to respond to the irony that the cut-off areas were rendered remote and inaccessible by a development project (in the form of the Balimela dam), Mr. Krishna said: “There has been a debate for some time on large projects versus small dams. Now it is recognised that rehabilitation issues must get priority.
“One of the main issues is the Gurpriya bridge. Unless there is a bridge…if there is a drinking water problem, how will the rig go there?” He was referring to the proposed bridge to link the cut-off areas to the mainland. Since it was proposed in the 1980s, the foundation stone of the Gurpriya project was laid twice, but the bridge is yet to be built.
Responding to a question that the bridge was not seen as just a development issue, but as an effort to get into Maoist territory, Mr. Krishna said development efforts were focused on areas that were accessible and inaccessible areas were usually under-developed.
On the day Mr. Krishna was released, the Maoists organised a four-hour-long meeting with the villagers of the cut-off areas. Mr. Krishna said the villagers' questions focused on the administrative neglect of the area.
The Maoists had, in a letter written in Telugu and sent to the press soon after Mr. Krishna's abduction, indicated that Mr. Krishna had not been abducted because of his individual attributes, but because he was a symbol of the oppressive nature of the Indian state.