Dr. Chaturanan Ojha1
1Assit. Prof. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University
Gorakahpur UP
Abstract
The
Naxalite Movement remains one of the most significant revolutionary episodes in
post-independence Indian history. Emerging in 1967 from Naxalbari village in
West Bengal, it aimed to liberate the rural poor from centuries of feudal
exploitation through armed struggle. However, despite its early radical appeal
and ideological clarity, the movement gradually disintegrated due to
ideological rigidity, organizational fragmentation, and its alienation from the
grassroots.
This
paper analyzes the historical evolution of the Naxalite Movement, its
ideological foundations, leadership dynamics, sociological implications, and
the state’s counter-responses. It further explores why the movement failed to
sustain itself and what lessons contemporary India can learn from its rise and
decline.
Keywords: Naxalbari, Maoism, Class Struggle, Peasant Revolt,
People’s War Group, Bastar, Green Hunt, Revolutionary Politics
सारांश -नक्सल आंदोलन भारतीय राजनीतिक इतिहास का एक महत्वपूर्ण
अध्याय रहा है, जिसने 1960 के दशक के उत्तरार्ध में गरीब किसानों और भूमिहीन
मजदूरों की आवाज़ बनने का प्रयास किया। किंतु यह आंदोलन धीरे-धीरे अपनी विचारधारा,
संगठन और नेतृत्वगत
कमज़ोरियों के कारण बिखर गया। प्रस्तुत शोध-पत्र में नक्सल आंदोलन की ऐतिहासिक
पृष्ठभूमि, वैचारिक संघर्ष,
नेतृत्व की
त्रुटियाँ, सरकारी दमन नीति तथा पूँजीवादी व्यवस्था के अंतर्संबंधों
का समाजशास्त्रीय विश्लेषण किया गया है। साथ ही यह अध्ययन इस बात पर भी प्रकाश
डालता है कि किस प्रकार यह आंदोलन भूमिगत सशस्त्र संघर्ष से होकर एक सीमित भूगोल
और सीमित जनसमर्थन तक सिमट गया।
मुख्य शब्द: नक्सलबाड़ी, माओवादी,
वर्ग संघर्ष,
सशस्त्र क्रांति,
समाज परिवर्तन,
अबूझमाड़,
वैचारिक द्वंद्व
1.
Introduction
The
Naxalite Movement was not an isolated rebellion but the culmination of a
long-standing socio-economic crisis in rural India. It emerged in an
environment marked by deep class divisions, failed land reforms, and continued
exploitation of peasants and tribals even after independence.
On
15 August 1947, India achieved political freedom, yet economic inequality
persisted. A vast number of landless peasants and sharecroppers remained
marginalized under feudal and semi-feudal systems. Against this backdrop, a
radical group within the Communist Party of India (Marxist) — inspired by Mao
Zedong’s revolutionary doctrine — called for an armed agrarian revolution.
The
slogan “China’s Chairman is our Chairman” symbolized not only ideological
alignment with Maoism but also the rejection of India’s democratic
institutions. Yet, the Indian state, with its constitution, parliament, and
established administrative structure, was not akin to pre-revolutionary China.
This fundamental misreading of historical and social context laid the seeds of
the movement’s eventual failure.
2.
Genesis and Ideological Foundation
The
ideological foundation of the Naxalite Movement can be traced to earlier
peasant struggles — particularly the Tebhaga Movement (1946–47) in Bengal and
the Telangana Rebellion (1946–51) in Hyderabad. These movements had already
demonstrated the potential for agrarian resistance but were eventually
integrated into the mainstream political process.
In
contrast, the Naxalbari uprising of 1967, led by Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal,
and Jangal Santhal, rejected participation in parliamentary democracy
altogether. The movement’s central doctrine, articulated through Mazumdar’s
“Eight Documents,” called for “annihilation of class enemies” and complete
overthrow of the Indian state through violent revolution.
The
Naxalite leadership believed that only armed peasants could bring true
liberation to rural India. However, the socio-economic diversity of Indian
villages, coupled with the presence of caste hierarchies and regional
variations, made a unified peasant revolution nearly impossible.
3.
Ideological Rigidity and Leadership Crisis
One
of the principal reasons for the Naxalite movement’s fragmentation was its
ideological dogmatism. Leaders like Charu Mazumdar attempted to replicate the
Chinese model of revolution without considering India’s unique democratic
structure.
The
movement’s leadership was largely composed of urban, educated, middle-class
youth, who were emotionally committed but disconnected from rural realities.
After the deaths or arrests of top leaders like Mazumdar, Sushital Ray
Chowdhury, and Kanu Sanyal, the movement splintered into multiple factions —
CPI (ML) Liberation, People’s War Group, Party Unity, and others.
Instead
of evolving with time, these factions engaged in internal purges and
ideological disputes, further alienating the very masses they sought to
mobilize. By the mid-1970s, the movement had lost its early momentum.
4.
Militarization and the Rise of Maoism
The
1980s witnessed the institutionalization of militancy. Kondapalli
Seetharamaiah, a former schoolteacher from Andhra Pradesh, established the
People’s War Group (PWG) on April 22, 1980. His goal was to transform the
revolutionary zeal of the earlier phase into an organized guerrilla warfare
movement.
Seetharamaiah’s
faction expanded operations into Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha,
Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli region, and parts of Chhattisgarh. These regions,
characterized by tribal poverty and limited state presence, became fertile
grounds for Maoist influence.
However,
militarization marked a shift from ideological struggle to armed confrontation.
The emphasis moved from mobilizing peasants to attacking the state
apparatus—police, paramilitary forces, and political representatives. As a
result, the movement lost its moral legitimacy and public sympathy.
5.
State Response and Operation Green Hunt
The
Indian government’s response evolved from sporadic police actions in the 1970s
to a large-scale coordinated counterinsurgency campaign by the late 2000s. The
most notable among these was Operation Green Hunt (2009), a multi-state
offensive targeting Maoist strongholds across Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha,
and Maharashtra.
While
the operation weakened Maoist networks and reclaimed some territories, it also
drew criticism for human rights violations and civilian displacement. The
central question remained: was the government addressing the root causes —
poverty, land alienation, and state neglect — or merely suppressing symptoms
through militarization?
Political
analysts such as Kanak Tiwari in his book Red Revolution vs. Green Hunt
argued that the conflict in Bastar was not merely about ideology but also about
control over natural resources and tribal lands. He questioned why the
government deployed greater force in Bastar than in Kashmir, suggesting a nexus
between corporate interests and state policy.
6.
The Bastar and Abujhmad Paradigm
Post
the formation of Chhattisgarh (2000), the Bastar region became the epicenter of
Maoist activity. Its dense forests, rugged terrain, and lack of infrastructure
provided a natural shield for insurgents. The Abujhmad region, meaning “the
unknown land,” remains one of the least administratively penetrated areas in
India.
For
the Maoists, Abujhmad symbolized the last bastion of resistance. For the state,
it represented a challenge to sovereignty. The frequent ambushes, landmine
explosions, and attacks on political convoys—such as the 2013 Sukma attack that
killed 25 people including senior Congress leaders—exemplify this ongoing
confrontation.
However,
by 2025, the movement’s strength had significantly declined. The death of top
CPI (Maoist) leader Nambala Keshav Rao (Basavaraju) in a 2025 encounter
signaled the near-collapse of the movement’s central command. The Chhattisgarh
government now claims that Abujhmad will be fully cleared of insurgents by
March 2026.
7.
Cultural Reflections and Literary Representations
The
Naxalite movement has deeply influenced Indian art, cinema, and literature.
Films like Sagina Mahato (1970), directed by Tapan Sinha and starring
Dilip Kumar and Saira Banu, depicted the romanticized heroism of a
working-class rebel.
Similarly,
Mahasweta Devi’s novel Mother of 1084 (1974) portrayed the anguish of
middle-class youth disillusioned by social injustice and drawn into
revolutionary violence. These cultural artifacts underscore a key contradiction
— the movement was often led by the elite, not the oppressed, and thus carried
within it an inherent paradox.
8.
Sociological and Political Analysis
Sociologically,
the Naxalite movement can be analyzed on three levels:
- Economic
Dimension: It was a
reaction to persistent agrarian inequality and exploitative land
relations.
- Cultural
Dimension: It
symbolized resistance and the assertion of dignity among marginalized
communities.
- Political
Dimension: It rejected
parliamentary democracy as a bourgeois institution, yet failed to
construct an alternative participatory model.
While
the movement exposed the failure of the state to ensure equitable development,
its reliance on violence eroded its legitimacy. The use of children and
untrained youth in armed squads (“Bal Dasta”) and the incorporation of petty
criminals further discredited the cause.
Over time, local populations in affected areas began to see Maoists less as liberators and more as disruptors, as their actions hampered education, healthcare, and infrastructure development.
9.
Comparative Insights: China and Nepal
In
China, Mao’s revolution succeeded because it was rooted in decades of mass
mobilization and a collapsing feudal order. In contrast, India had already
established democratic institutions and a functioning electoral system.
Nepal’s
Maoist insurgency (1996–2006), on the other hand, successfully transitioned
from armed struggle to mainstream politics, culminating in the abolition of the
monarchy and the creation of a republican government. Indian Maoists, however,
remained rigidly opposed to political negotiation, ensuring their isolation.
Thus,
the Naxalite failure lies not in the ideal of equality it espoused but in its
inability to adapt revolutionary ideology to democratic realities.
10.
Lessons and Conclusion
The
Naxalite Movement stands as both a tragedy and a lesson in modern India’s
democratic evolution. It reveals how structural inequality and state neglect
can breed insurgency, but also how ideological extremism can destroy legitimate
social causes.
The
movement collapsed because:
- Its
leadership was disconnected from grassroots realities.
- It failed to
evolve beyond the rhetoric of violence.
- Factionalism
and dogmatism replaced pragmatic strategy.
- The state
responded with repression instead of reform.
As
India Yet, the Naxalite legacy endures as a reminder that social justice cannot
be postponed indefinitely. Economic reforms, land redistribution, and tribal
empowerment remain crucial to sustaining peace in India’s hinterlands.
progresses in the 21st century, the lesson is clear: revolutionary ideals must evolve into democratic transformation. The voice of dissent must be heard, not silenced. True victory lies not in crushing rebellion but in addressing the injustice that gives birth to it.
References
- Dasgupta, B.
(1975). The Naxalite Movement. Oxford University Press.
- Shukla, S.
(2025). “Why the Naxalite Movement Collapsed.” Commentary Article.
- Tiwari, K.
(2014). Red Revolution vs. Green Hunt. Raipur: Chetna Publications.
- Devi, M.
(1974). Mother of 1084. Kolkata: Setu Prakashan.
- Sinha, T.
(Director). (1970). Sagina Mahato [Film].
- Bhattacharya,
D. (2020). CPI (ML) Liberation and Indian Left Politics. New Delhi.
- Guha, R.
(2007). India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest
Democracy. HarperCollins.
.jpg)
Posts
0 Comments