Recently, security forces in Chhattisgarh have made significant gains, eliminating Maoist cadres and leaders

• A number of Maoists have surrendered, and some factions are seeking a ceasefire.
• However, the government insists on unconditional surrender, with the Home Minister issuing stern warnings to those still active.

Difference between Maoism and Communism

Government Narrative 

• Political Blaming: Prime Minister Narendra Modi blames the Congress era (post-1960s) for the rise of Maoism, dating back to Naxalbari.
• Urban Naxal: He also coined the term ‘Urban Naxal’, broadly labeling left-liberal thinkers who critique governance and highlight exploitation as enabling Maoist persistence.
• Origins: However, the roots of the movement are deeper and tied to longstanding structural inequalities, not party politics alone.
  

Historical Roots of the Maoist Movement

• Telangana Armed Revolt (1946): The origins trace back to a Communist-led armed uprising in Telangana against the Nizam’s rule, rooted in peasant exploitation by doras (landlords). 
  •  Post-independence, this resistance continued, complicated by existing feudal oppression.
• Bhoodan Movement (1951): Acharya Vinoba Bhave’s Bhoodan movement  advocating voluntary land redistribution which addressed the core grievance of landlessness. The movement reduced the popular support base of violent revolution and led to a gradual decline in the Telangana rebellion.
• Naxalbari Uprising (1967): Amid the Sino-Soviet ideological split, India’s eastern region saw the birth of modern Naxalism in Naxalbari, West Bengal.
• In 1967, peasants in Naxalbari, while resisting grain seizure, killed a policeman, sparking the Spring Thunder that launched a new phase of peasant revolt.
  • The conflict with ‘jotedars’ (rich peasants) gave the movement its class war dimension.
  • Though crushed by land reforms and state repression by 1975, the term ‘Naxalism’ became enduring.

Maoism In India

• Spread of Maoism: Over the decades, Maoism extended its influence to Srikakulam, Telangana, Dantewada and parts of West Bengal, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Bihar.
  • The movement travelled through these resource-rich, tribal-dominated areas, exploiting long-standing issues of neglect, displacement, and inequity.
• Leadership: Influential leaders included Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal, Kobad and Anuradha Gandhi.  More recently, Gummadiveli Renuka, a law graduate turned rebel
• Ideological Commitment: These leaders left urban comfort, established jungle bases, and mobilised cadres around a violent revolutionary ideology. 
  • However, their indiscriminate violence, fratricide, and civilian targeting undermined their moral and ideological legitimacy.
• Organisational Decline: Violent methods remain a hallmark of Maoist operations, including Fratricidal purges, brutal attacks on civilians Ambushes of security forces
  • Despite these, the consolidation of Maoist factions into the CPI(Maoist) in the early 2000s strengthened the movement temporarily.
  • However, over time, sustained counterinsurgency pressure has led to loss of top leaders and cadre, such as Azad, and weakening internal morale.
• Decline of Red Corridor: Maoists once aspired to establish a Pashupati (Nepal) to Tirupati (Andhra) red corridor, particularly in resource-rich tribal regions.
  • At its peak, Maoist violence affected nearly one-third of India’s districts, reflecting the socio-economic vulnerabilities of these regions.
  • The movement gained ground where tribal displacement, land alienation, and natural resource exploitation were rampant.
• Cause of Movement: Extreme poverty and exploitation in these areas created fertile ground for Maoist recruitment.
• Land Alienation: The 2008 Planning Commission Report titled Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas highlighted issues of land alienation, governance deficits, and exclusion and recommended large-scale development programmes matching the magnitude of the crisis.
  • Even the Supreme Court, in its 2007 Salwa Judum judgment, acknowledged “Poverty, particularly land-related issues, continue to fuel protest politics and armed rebellion.”

Steps taken by the Government to tackle Maoism in India

• Development Measures: The government initiated infrastructure-led development and welfare programmes. These initiatives aimed to win hearts and minds in Maoist-affected zones.
• Security Crackdown: Simultaneously, security operations intensified, leading to targeted killings of Maoist leaders, large-scale surrenders and reduced territorial influence of insurgents
  • Example: On March 30, reports confirmed the killing of 17 Maoists in Sukma, including 11 women.

Way Forward

• Development: Sustained development programmes in education, livelihood, and governance are crucial.
• Inclusion:  Tribals must feel included, empowered, and secure, so that violence ceases to be seen as a viable path.
• Negotiations: The government must consider initiating negotiations with Maoist leadership to encourage a political solution acknowledge the futility of violence and build trust and legitimacy in the eyes of affected communities

Conclusion

The Maoist movement has endured not because of ideology alone, but due to structural injustices. While security operations have weakened the movement, lasting peace demands a multi-pronged approach that includes economic justice, tribal empowerment, and constructive dialogue.

DOWNLOAD PDF