Answer:

Left-Wing Extremism (LWE), often referred to as Naxalism, remains one of India’s most pressing internal security challenges. Rooted in socio-economic disparities and the marginalisation of tribal communities, LWE has evolved over decades. While the Indian government has implemented several counter-insurgency and developmental policies, the conflict continues to simmer in remote areas, demanding a comprehensive and inclusive approach for resolution.

Effectiveness of Government Policies and Initiatives:

• Operation Green Hunt: Launched in 2009, this large-scale counter-insurgency operation significantly weakened Naxalite strongholds in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, resulting in the capture or elimination of several top leaders.
  For example: The number of Naxalite-affected districts reduced from 90 in 2010 to 45 in 2022, indicating the operation’s impact.
• SAMADHAN Strategy: Introduced in 2017, this multi-pronged approach focuses on Smart leadership, Aggressive strategy, and Holistic development to counter Left-Wing Extremism (LWE), addressing both security and development challenges to integrate Maoist-affected areas.
  For example: The violent incidents due to Naxalism have seen a 77% reduction since the launch of the strategy.
• Surrender and Rehabilitation Policy: The government’s rehabilitation policy encourages Maoists to surrender by offering financial incentives, vocational training, and integration into society.
  For example: Over 5000 Naxal cadres have surrendered since 2014, taking advantage of government schemes that ensure economic rehabilitation.
• Infrastructure Development in LWE Areas: Building roads, schools, and healthcare in Naxal-affected regions has been key to reducing insurgency by addressing grievances related to underdevelopment.
  For example: The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana built 35,000 km of roads in Maoist-affected regions, improving accessibility and reducing Maoist influence.
• Security Modernization Fund: The government has provided funds for states to modernise their police forces, equipping them with better technology and infrastructure to tackle LWE.
  For instance: Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand police forces have received modern weapons, enhancing their capability in countering Maoists.

Shortcomings of Government Policies:

• Human Rights Violations: Operations like Operation Prahar have been criticised for leading to repression of tribal communities and activists, alienating local populations and risking increased sympathy for Maoists.
  For example: Reports of excessive force by security personnel have led to civil society protests in Bastar, Chhattisgarh, undermining trust in the government.
• Insufficient Implementation of Development Projects: While infrastructure projects have been initiated, their implementation is often delayed or incomplete, leading to frustration in affected regions.
  For example: Road projects in remote parts of Jharkhand have stalled due to Naxal threats, failing to meet the local population’s needs.
• Neglect of Tribal Rights: The Forest Rights Act (FRA) is often poorly implemented, leading to the displacement of tribal communities fueling grievances, which Maoists exploit for recruitment.
  For example: Land displacement in Odisha for mining projects has caused unrest among tribals, driving them towards Naxal ideology.
• Lack of Coordination Between States and Centre: The response to LWE is often hindered by poor coordination between state and central agencies, leading to inefficiencies in tackling Maoist influence.
  For example: In states like Telangana and Maharashtra, disputes over jurisdiction have delayed crucial security measures.
• Over-reliance on Military Solutions: The government’s focus on military operations often overlooks socio-economic solutions, which are key to addressing the root causes of Naxalism, such as poverty and alienation of tribal communities.
  For instance: While security operations in Dantewada have weakened Naxal forces, poverty and underdevelopment persist.

Way Ahead:

• Improving Local Governance: Strengthening local governance by empowering Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) can ensure that developmental schemes reach the grassroots and that tribal voices are heard.
  For instance: Better implementation of the PESA Act can empower local communities in Naxalite-affected regions to participate in governance.
• Holistic Development Approach: The government should focus on education, healthcare, and skill development in remote areas to reduce the appeal of Maoist ideology.
  For instance: Expanding Aspirational Districts Programme to include all LWE areas can provide targeted development interventions.
• Sustained Dialogue with Tribals: Establishing sustained dialogue mechanisms with tribal communities and local leaders can address grievances before they are exploited by Maoists.
  For instance: The Vanbandhu Kalyan Yojana in Gujarat successfully reduced Naxal influence by addressing local issues.
• Balancing Security and Human Rights: Security operations must be balanced with a focus on human rights, ensuring that innocent civilians and activists are not targeted..
• Effective Implementation of Land Rights: Proper implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) is crucial to ensuring tribal land rights and reducing the influence of Naxal leaders.
  For instance: Effective FRA implementation in Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district has helped reduce tribal grievances and Maoist influence.

To fully eradicate Left-Wing Extremism, India must adopt a balanced approach that emphasises both development and security measures. By focusing on inclusive growth, respecting tribal rights, and ensuring local governance, the government can effectively tackle the root causes of Naxalism. A continued focus on dialogue, human rights, and development will pave the way for long-term peace and stability.

DOWNLOAD PDF