In May 2006, the Planning Commission appointed an expert committee headed by D Bandopadhyay, a retired IAS officer instrumental in dealing with the Naxalites in West Bengal in the 1970s along with Prakash Singh, former DGP of Uttar Pradesh and an expert on Naxal issues, Ajit Doval, former director of Intelligence Bureau, BD Sharma, a retired bureaucrat and activist, Sukhdeo Thorat, UGC chairman and K Balagopal, a human rights lawyer as its members to study development issues and address the causes of 'Discontent, Unrest and Extremism.' The committee submitted its report in early June and which is now available on the Planning Commission's website.

The expert committee has done a commendable job in underscoring the social, political, economic and cultural discrimination faced by the SCs/STs across the country as a key factor in drawing large number of discontented people towards the Naxalites. The group compared 20 severely Naxalite-affected districts in five states -- Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa -- with 20 non-affected districts in the same states to establish a correlation between certain human development indicators and their link to social unrest. On the basis of this, it establishes lack of empowerment of local communities as the main reason for the spread of the Naxal movement. Choosing its words carefully, the report states that "We have two worlds of education, two worlds of health, two worlds of transport and two worlds of housing...''

The expert committee has delved deep into the new conflict zones of India, i.e. the mines and mineral rich areas, steel zones as well as the SEZs. The report holds the faulty system of land acquisition and a non-existent R&R Policy largely responsible for the support enjoyed by the Naxalites. "Even those who know very little about the Naxalite movement know that its central slogan has been 'land to the tiller' and that attempts to put the poor in possession of land have defined much of their activityâ?¦the notion of a SEZ, irrespective of whether it is established on multi-cropped land or not, is an assault on livelihood.'' On the other hand, the committee makes a forceful plea for a policy and legal framework to enable small and marginal farmers to lease-in land with secure rights while landless poor occupying government land should not be treated as encroachers.

For the first time in the history of the Naxal movement, a government appointed committee has put the blame on the state for the growth of the movement. Providing statistics of 125 districts from the Naxal-affected states, the committee finds out that the state bureaucracy has pitiably failed in delivering good governance in these areas. The committee has also severely criticized the states for their double standard in making Panchayats truly the units of local self governance. Findings of the report recommend rigorous training for the police force not only on humane tactics of controlling rural violence but also on the constitutional obligation of the state for the protection of fundamental rights. Coming down heavily on the civil war instrument of Salwa Judum, the committee has asked for its immediate suspension.

Making a departure from the usual government position, the expert committee concludes that development paradigm pursued since independence has aggravated the prevailing discontent among the marginalized sections of society. Citing democratic principles, the report also argues for the right to protest and discovers that unrest is often the only thing that actually puts pressure on the government to make things work and for the government to live up to its own promises. The report can be termed as an honest attempt to look in to the problem of Naxalism from a wider perspective. The government now can have a road map to approach Naxalism termed as the single largest security challenge facing the country.

While many find the report 'refreshing' for making a forceful plea to depart from a security-centric view of tackling Naxal violence, there is a danger of misinterpreting security measures in the context of the Naxal movement. Many believe in a law and order approach to tackle Naxalism while others consider Naxalism as the reflection of the prevalent injustice in the society. Naxalism is a security challenge and only an inclusive growth formula will minimize the legitimate dissent of the people. Naxalism is a case where we can not separate policing and development. A human police force with a proper agenda for development can ensure the success of any anti-Naxal policy. Dealing with Naxalism needs a holistic approach with development initiatives as an integral part of the security approach. Security here must be understood in its broader perspective which includes human development in its scope, because human security is an inseparable component of any human development formula, and vice versa.