They attacked at dawn, descending on a police patrol in the remote Sukma District of Chattisgarh, a state in central India. Emerging from the forest, they rained bullets on the unsuspecting policemen sent to capture them. After killing 14 members of the Central Reserve Police Force, they discreetly disappeared into the dense forest rife with sympathetic tribal villagers, offering the local police little hope at successfully pursuing them. This strike by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on December 1 was simply the most recent battle in a drawn-out war marked by violence and governmental failure.
Who are these mysterious fighters India’s ex-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh once labelled the nation’s “gravest internal security threat”? The Indian Maoists, also known as the Naxalites, are a left-wing insurgent group fighting for control over large swaths of land in eastern and central India. Inspired by Mao’s teachings, they allegedly fight for the peasant revolution and the rights of exploited farmers in indigenous “Adivasi” tribes. The movement sprang up from a 1967 uprising in Naxalbari, a small village in West Bengal, as a response to increasing cruelty from the local landlords and neglect from the regional government. Following the murder of a young farmer, the tribal people retaliated, attacking the landlords and policemen alike and forcibly attempting to redistribute the land. This local rebellion soon grew into a nation-wide movement synonymous with the rights of the oppressed.
The Naxalite ideology is based on the views of Mao, but has shifted to become more representative of Indian social dynamics. The Maoists see India as an archaic, semi-feudal society that continuously oppresses poor and rural communities. Instead, they offer a communist alternative that involves redistributing land, eliminating corruption and — most importantly — outlawing the exploitive mining industry in the region. For years, mining corporations have been destroying agricultural land and forcing the “Adivasi” tribes out of their own property, with virtually no socioeconomic benefits trickling down to the peasants. The Maoists see themselves as modern-day “Robin Hoods,” forcefully redistributing wealth from rich corporations to poor tribes.
The Naxalite ideology has appealed to many tribal villagers and peasants, who provide safe haven and basic resources to the Maoist cadres. They have also won over the local female population (reports show that 60 percent of Maoist cadres are women) with their egalitarian beliefs and stance against sexual violence. Most surprisingly, the Naxalites have received considerable support from university students in urban areas like Kolkata and Delhi; many students from prestigious institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru, Jadavpur and Presidency Universities are attracted to their purported idealism and travel to disputed regions to fight for their cause. This multifaceted backing has ensured that, though the Naxalites have been hunted to the point of extermination several times, they have always re-emerged stronger, more organized and more determined. Since 2000, they have grown more powerful than ever before, with control over a “Red Corridor” extending through 10 states across central and northeast India. They oversee these regions, levying taxes and maintaining an unofficial judicial system in the form of people’s courts. This regional power allows them to oversee the local villages and spread their own ideology, while also undermining the authority of the elected government. Current estimates suggest that there are over 11,500 Maoist regular fighters and 38,000 militia members working to bring India under Maoist control.
However, their idealistic philosophy has been distorted in the face of continual Maoist violence across India. The Indian government has never shied away from calling the Naxalites terrorists, and recently this idea has been echoed throughout India. After a Maoist attack in the turbulent region of Dantewada resulted in the deaths of 76 police officers, critics have begun to speak out about their intimidation tactics and use of violence. Though the Maoists claim to fight in self-defense, this particular attack was cold-blooded and violently efficient — the Maoists lured the police force into the dense jungle and caught them by surprise with mines and gunfire. Despite the Maoists’ claims that they fight for civilians and against corrupt institutions, their attacks have not been limited to police officers and the military. Increasingly, the Maoists’ attacks have targeted civilians. It is believed that they were responsible for derailing 13 train coaches in 2010, leading to 68 deaths. More recently, they massacred seven members of a polling party returning from casting their ballots in this year’s elections; though the Naxalite command offered a public apology for what they deemed a “mistake,” the event led to widespread condemnation across India. These underhanded tactics have become the norm rather than the exception for the Naxalites, undermining their utopian ideals.
Not only do the Maoists use violence to take control of land, but they also rule by intimidation and fear. They maintain that they would be a viable, egalitarian alternative to the corrupt local governments, but their management has not offered concrete benefits to the local villagers. They are accused of recruiting child soldiers, extorting money and using the threat of violence to entrench themselves in villages. They also block off roads and transportation to these remote areas, denying the villagers development aid. By recruiting the tribal farmers as fighters, they are reducing the agricultural productivity of the region and perpetuating a cycle of violence that ends in deaths. However just their aims may be, their methods are often, for the most part, questionable and deadly.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.” By this definition, the Maoists are undoubtedly terrorists, but the reality is much more nuanced. Notwithstanding the woeful plight of the Adivasi tribes that have been forced off their own land, the Maoists also claim that they are simply defending themselves from state-sponsored terrorism. This claim is certainly legitimate, as the Indian government has repeatedly attempted to subjugate Maoist regions. Their “Special Police Officers” (SPOs) are notorious for their barbaric treatment of Naxalites and innocent “Adivasi” civilians, with numerous accounts of rape and pillaging. The Salwa Judum, an organization whose name literally translates to “peace hunt,” is particularly brutal. The group was allegedly formed by tribal people weary of Maoist extortion, but has since morphed into an anti-Maoist insurgency supported by the state. Though the Supreme Court declared the SPOs unconstitutional, as they were responsible for granting policing powers to untrained youth, the movement has re-materialized and is still a point of contention for many Maoist supporters. Thus, while the Maoists are responsible for instituting a rule of terror along their “Red Corridor,” the Indian government is just as implicated in these crimes.
Both the Congress and BJP-led central governments, which have generally promoted very different social policies, have had similar stances on the Naxalites. They have promised to expunge the Maoists from the Indian jungles and make the affected regions secure and governable once more. In 2010, former Home Minister P. Chidambaram declared that he would nullify the Naxal threat within three years. The government has made little or no headway since this proclamation, yet current Home Minister Rajnath Singh has recently announced that he too will eliminate the Maoists in three years. His plan is virtually identical to Chidamabram’s: He plans to flood the area with military troops to ensure that the law is followed. However, both leaders have failed to account for the complete absence of local government and infrastructure — the local tribes have valid, legitimate complaints and need to be heard, not silenced. As long as the central government ignores their needs, they will continue to help and invigorate the Naxalites.
These events seem to suggest that a better approach would be to develop the region — theoretically, this would undercut the source of the Maoist appeal and reduce their local support base. When Chidambaram was in power, he attempted to achieve this, complementing police action with local development. But this failed to make a significant difference in the region because the primary issues were structural and deep-rooted. Their effort to curry favour with the locals was also undermined by governmental hypocrisy: Despite promoting the construction of schools and wells, the government also funded the SPOs who destroyed local infrastructure. Even more frustratingly, the bureaucracy and corruption within the local government impeded many of these development projects, making the “Adivasi” tribes feel increasingly neglected. This is exacerbated by discreet militarization of the region at the expense of judicial legitimacy; though many villagers have deposed against SPOs several times, they have not been granted justice or national attention. While development is integral to restoring order in the region, it needs to be implemented on a larger scale for it to have any effect.
At a glance, it is very easy to dispel the Robin Hood aura surrounding the Maoists. They are, without a doubt, an aggressive terrorist organization that uses violence to gain and maintain control. But it is also hard to escape the validity of their complaints. The Indian government has long neglected and oppressed the “Adivasi” tribes, and are now paying the price for their mistakes. The stance of the current Modi government is crucial: Their policies in the next few years will determine whether the Naxalites grow to become a national force or remain deep in the jungles, re-emerging at the first sign of oppression.
This piece is part of BPR’s special feature on terrorism. You can explore the special feature here.