Against ‘excessive violence’, top Maoist, wife surrender | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 30, 2017-Thursday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Against ‘excessive violence’, top Maoist, wife surrender

india Updated: Jan 09, 2014 01:05 IST
Rajesh Ahuja

In an ideological setback for Maoists, Gudsa Usendi, their spokesman in Dandakaranya zone which consists of border areas of Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, has surrendered before the Andhra Pradesh police along with his wife Raji.

Usendi had taken responsibility for the ambush of the convoy of top Congress leaders in Bastar district of Chhattisgarh in May last year that resulted in the killing of Mahendra Karma, VC Shukla and state party chief Nand Kumar Patel.

“Surrender of a top Maoist leader is more demoralising for their cadre in comparison of any death during any anti-Naxal operation. On top of that Gudsa Usendi has surrendered due to his ideological differences with top Maoist leadership over excessive use of violence,” said a Union home ministry official requesting anonymity.

Security officials involved in anti-Maoist operations say Gudsa Usendi is the nom de guerre of Gumudavelli Venkatakrishna Prasad who originally hails from Kadivendi village of Warangal district in Andhra Pradesh. Gudsa Usendi was a 17-year-old tribal youth allegedly killed by security forces during an anti- Maoist operation in 2000 in Chhattisgarh.

To keep his memory alive, the spokespersons of Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee (DKSZC) have been taking his name since then. Prasad was appointed the DKSZC almost five years back.

“Prasad carried a reward of around R20 lakh after his surrender he is most likely to keep that besides getting other benefits under the Naxal surrender policy. The Andhra Pradesh police chief will conduct a press conference on Thursday to shed light on the future course of action after his surrender,” said the official.

Prasad was one of the top leaders in the second layer of Maoists. Though he claimed to have order the hit on Congress leaders but he internally he was being sidelined as he opposed excessive violence on the orders of the top leadership.