New Delhi, May 11: In the Independent India, armed struggle has a history of nearly 60 years. Beginning with the peasant armed uprising in Naxalbari on May 25, 1967, and followed by the formation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) on April 22, 1969, these dates marked a significant chapter in the history of armed revolutionary movements in the country.
This movement went through many turns, splits, and internal conflicts, moving from blood-soaked plains into forest regions. In recent times, two major streams of armed struggle merged, leading to the formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on September 21, 2004. The armed forces under their leadership were reorganized into the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA).
With this, various revolutionary groups and organizations dedicated to armed struggle merged into this party, opening a new chapter in India’s revolutionary history. Observing these developments, the central government in 2005 declared “Left-Wing Extremism” as the single biggest internal security threat to the country.
Since then, there has been an ongoing armed confrontation between revolutionary forces and the central and state governments, each trying to establish dominance in conflict regions. Forest areas have witnessed continuous bloodshed as a result.
Over the past two decades, revolutionary forces have gradually weakened in these regions, while the government, backed by security forces, has strengthened its control. Revolutionary organizations have distanced themselves from the people, whereas government institutions have successfully re-established their presence among them.
It would be incorrect to assume that this success came only through military operations. The government also introduced various political, social, and cultural schemes to attract people. This approach was described as a dual strategy: “suppression and development.”
In summary, over the last 25 years, revolutionary forces have weakened while the state has grown stronger. This process has cost thousands of crores of rupees and, more importantly, thousands of lives — including security personnel, Maoists, and civilians. These are invaluable human lives.
In this context, as part of long-term plans initiated since 2009, the central government launched an unprecedented military strategy from 2024 with a timeline of two years and three months. Several supporting measures were also implemented.
On the other hand, Maoists failed to recognize their weaknesses. Despite being confined to limited forest areas and a very small population—primarily tribal communities—they continued to believe they could establish alternative political power structures. They introduced “Janatana Sarkars” (people’s governments), failing to realize the tightening encirclement around them, which ultimately led them toward self-destruction.
Heavy losses in recent operations have severely affected the morale of revolutionary forces. Anxiety has increased among tribal populations, especially in Dandakaranya. While some civilians initially lost their lives in police actions, later there were no significant civilian casualties reported.
The death of Maoist General Secretary Nambala Keshava Rao in an encounter, along with his security personnel, marked a turning point in the history of the movement.
Even before his death, discussions about peace talks had emerged. However, the central government and states like Chhattisgarh consistently maintained that no talks would be held unless Maoists laid down arms.
Joint operations involving central and state forces intensified, causing heavy losses to Maoists. This created a situation where surrender became almost unavoidable. Maoist leaders themselves hinted at this reality in their media interactions.
As conditions became unfavourable, the stage was set for a temporary suspension of armed struggle. The Union Home Minister, state Chief Ministers, and senior police officials repeatedly invited Maoists to surrender, offering them a way out of the encirclement.
This led to a split within Maoists:
One group supported suspension of armed struggle
Another opposed it, labelling the former as traitors
Ironically, even the PLGA chief who initially condemned surrender eventually chose the same path. Large-scale surrenders continued until March 31.
On March 30, for perhaps the first time in parliamentary history, a special session was held on the Maoist movement, with intense debates between ruling and opposition members. The Home Minister stated that the government was very close to achieving its goal, with only a small number of armed Maoists remaining. Efforts to negotiate their surrender were ongoing.
After the announcement of suspension, security forces prioritized surrenders. Even when Maoists were located, attempts were first made to secure their surrender; only when those failed were armed encounters carried out.
After March 31, several states were declared Maoist-free. However, in Jharkhand, surrenders did not take place, and top leadership was killed in encounters. Despite appeals from senior imprisoned leaders urging timely decisions, the remaining cadres did not respond.
An 88-year-old former Politburo member, Jagdish Master, alias Bhupesh Ji, gave a media interview disconnected from reality, reflecting instability. With security forces now concentrated in Jharkhand, intense search operations and encounters are ongoing, suggesting an imminent conclusion there as well.
Given these developments, it appears that armed Maoist cadres may no longer remain in forest regions. Even if a few remain, survival seems unlikely. As declared by the government, the six-decade-long armed struggle appears to be nearing its end.
Those who have renounced armed struggle are now indicating that they will work within the framework of the Indian Constitution through legal means among the broader population. This marks a historic transition.
The government is now focusing on identifying so-called “urban Maoist” networks. This is a sensitive issue. If dissenting voices raising public concerns are labelled as urban Maoists and suppressed, the situation could worsen. There is already a growing environment of such tendencies across the country.
There is no immediate danger in dealing with such individuals more liberally. Most of them are active only on social media and are unlikely to abandon their livelihoods for revolutionary activities.
More importantly, the government must ensure that the conditions faced by tribal populations in the 1980s do not recur. At a time when calls for unity among various left-wing parties are emerging, it is crucial for governments to sincerely address public issues.
Otherwise, people’s movements may re-emerge in new forms — and who will lead them will be determined by time.
(The author is a former member of Central Committee of the Communist Party of India - Maoist).
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor