A suspected Maoist was recently killed in a gunfight with security forces in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, a region long plagued by insurgent violence. This incident underscores an uncomfortable truth, that while the Maoist threat has been significantly contained over the past few decades, the battle is far from over. The struggle continues in the rugged terrains of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, as well as in the ideological forums where enough “intellectuals” can be found legitimising the “struggle”. Therefore, the complexity of the Maoist insurgency in India is not merely a security issue but also a profound ideological and socio-economic challenge.
I recently had the opportunity to delve into this issue firsthand as a delegate to the 13th Young Thinkers Meet, organised by the India Foundation in Bastar, Chhattisgarh. The event brought together scholars, policymakers, and security experts to discuss pressing issues facing the country, with a particular focus on the Maoist insurgency.
Among the various seminars, panel discussions, and dialogues, one experience stood out—the visit to a CRPF camp situated deep within the Bastar forests. The camp’s location, nestled in one of India’s most challenging terrains, epitomised the daily reality of the security forces combating this insurgency. The visit offered a sobering glimpse into the multifaceted security challenge posed by the Maoist movement, both to the forces tasked with maintaining order and to the civilian population living under the shadow of violence.
The camp visit was also an opportunity to meet the members of the surrender squad—former Maoists who had chosen to abandon the insurgency at great personal risk. These individuals, now serving in the security forces, shared harrowing accounts of their past lives. Once inducted into the Maoist ranks, often through coercion or abduction, they were isolated from their families, indoctrinated into the movement’s ideology, and compelled to participate in violent acts against the state. Their stories highlighted the brutal realities of the Maoist insurgency—an existence marked by fear, isolation, and the constant threat of death.
To understand the contemporary Maoist threat, it is essential to trace the origins of the Naxalite movement, from which it derives. The movement began in 1967 in the village of Naxalbari, West Bengal, as a peasant uprising against landowners, inspired by Mao Zedong’s principles of agrarian revolt. What initially appeared to be a localised struggle for land rights and social justice quickly spread across various parts of India, evolving into an armed insurgency aimed at overthrowing the Indian state. The Naxalite movement, grounded in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, sought to replicate the Chinese revolutionary model in India. However, the movement has always been marked by an ideological vacuum. Despite decades of struggle, its leaders have failed to articulate a coherent blueprint for the society they aim to create post-revolution.
This lack of clarity is not a trivial matter. It is precisely this ideological ambiguity that renders the Maoist movement not only a threat to India’s sovereignty but also inherently aimless, impractical, and ultimately destructive for those involved. Throughout history, every armed struggle against a “bourgeois” state, whether in Russia, China, or elsewhere, has led not to the utopia promised by its leaders, but to chaos, repression, and the rise of dictatorial regimes. Mao Zedong’s China is the most prominent example, where the revolution culminated in widespread famine, mass purges, and a totalitarian regime that bore little resemblance to the egalitarian society that was initially promised. The Indian Maoist movement, drawing ideological inspiration from this failed experiment, is unlikely to produce different results.
India does not need, nor can it afford, such an experiment. Our democratic institutions, while far from perfect, offer a framework for peaceful change and progress. There are countless ways to address the socio-economic grievances that fuel insurgencies within the existing democratic structure. Resorting to violence, rejecting the state, and seeking to destroy the existing social order are not only unnecessary but also counterproductive. The romanticisation of the Maoist insurgency by certain sections of academia and the media only serves to perpetuate the conflict. These so-called social activists and intellectuals, by expressing solidarity with the Maoists, become complicit in the violence and suffering that the movement inflicts, upon the very communities it claims to represent.
The Maoist insurgency is sustained not only by its ideological appeal but also by a complex economic network that includes extortion, the illegal trade of natural resources, and the exploitation of local populations. In the regions under Maoist control, the cultivation of tendupatta—a type of leaf used in the production of beedis (traditional Indian cigarettes)—is heavily taxed by the insurgents, generating significant revenue for their operations. Intimidation and violence are the primary tools used by the Maoists to extract money from civilians, further impoverishing already marginalised communities. This financial nexus is crucial to the survival of the insurgency, and breaking it is essential to any strategy aimed at defeating the movement.
The Maoists also actively oppose development projects in the areas they control, sabotaging infrastructure, schools, and healthcare facilities. Their goal is to keep these regions underdeveloped and the local population dependent on their “protection”. This resistance to development is a strategic choice, designed to maintain their influence over the population and prevent the state from gaining a foothold in these areas. However, this strategy comes at a great cost to the people living in Maoist-controlled regions, who are deprived of the benefits of economic growth and social development.
The fight against the Maoists, therefore, is not just a military struggle but also an ideological and economic one. It requires a comprehensive approach that includes continued military pressure, breaking the financial nexus that sustains the movement, and accelerating development in the affected areas. It also requires countering the ideological narrative that sustains the Maoist movement by promoting the benefits of democracy and the rule of law.
Significant progress has been made in curbing the Maoist insurgency over the past few decades. The number of districts affected by Naxalite violence has decreased substantially, and the movement’s leadership has been weakened. However, the struggle is far from over.
As India continues to grapple with the remnants of the Maoist insurgency, it is crucial to recognise the external forces that have historically sought to exploit this internal conflict. China, being the ideological breeding ground of the Maoist thought, has not shied away from sowing discord within the Indian society. By indirectly supporting Maoist elements and nurturing anti-state sentiments, China aims to weaken India’s social fabric and undermine its sovereignty. This is a strategic manoeuvre designed to destabilise a regional competitor and prevent India from achieving its full potential on the global stage. The threat, therefore, is not merely an internal one; it is amplified by the geopolitical ambitions of a neighbouring power that has consistently opposed India’s rise.
While Communist parties operating within the democratic framework of India are an accepted part of the political landscape, it is imperative that a clear line is drawn when it comes to national security. Being soft on China, particularly on sensitive issues that impact India’s sovereignty and security, is not just a political misstep—it is a betrayal of the nation’s interests. India’s democracy, with all its complexities, allows for diverse ideologies to coexist and thrive. However, there can be no compromise when it comes to defending the integrity of the nation. The Maoist insurgency, fueled by both internal factors and external interference, must be decisively confronted, not just on the battlefield but in the realm of ideas as well.
The writer takes special interest in history, culture and geopolitics. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment