Editorial: Liberate Maoists from inequalities
Despite the declining trajectory of the revolutionary movement, the possibility of dissenting voices rising again cannot be ruled out if inequalities persist
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ proud assertion of reclaiming a part of the “liberated zone” in the Gadchiroli forest, adjacent to Chhattisgarh, from Maoist control is, at best, amusing. This declaration came after he took a two-kilometre bus ride to inaugurate a bus service on the Wangeturi-Aheri route, deep in the Maoist heartland. Aheri is located at the foothills of Abuz Maad in the Bastar forest belt, a region proclaimed by Maoists as a liberated zone where they operate the much-publicised ‘Janatana Sarkar’. The fact that it took so many years to establish a basic bus service to benefit over 10,000 tribals across 20 villages reflects the failure of democratically elected governments. It also underscores how Maoists have exploited the adverse impacts of lopsided development in independent India. Ironically, this “liberation” of the tribal belt coincides with Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s announcement of March 31, 2026, as the deadline to end the Maoist problem. The influence of the CPI (Maoist) is undeniably waning across India. Whether in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand or Maharashtra, their operational areas have shrunk drastically. The latest annual report by the Ministry of Home Affairs identifies the CPI (Maoist) as the most potent Left-Wing Extremist (LWE) outfit. Yet, the report also highlights a significant decline in LWE violence — a reduction of nearly 48%. While the Maoists are attempting to expand into newer areas, these efforts have largely failed as society increasingly rejects the need for an alternative ideology to counter the democratic setup.
Gone are the days when sections of society, including the intelligentsia, supported the Red Politics and believed that a protracted armed struggle was a panacea for the flaws of the parliamentary democratic system. This rejection of Red Politics stems from several factors, but the crux lies in the CPI (Maoist)’s unwavering belief in the necessity of violence to achieve their vision of a New Democratic Revolution. While the Maoist doctrine of welfare aligns, in principle, with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution, their violent methods stand firmly opposed by Indian society today. However, the issues of lopsided development and persistent inequalities in wealth distribution continue to plague the nation. Despite the declining trajectory of the revolutionary movement, the possibility of dissenting voices rising again cannot be ruled out if these inequalities persist. The critical question is whether such dissent will adopt a violent path or manifest as democratic opposition. History offers numerous examples of popular uprisings, including the one in neighbouring Bangladesh that arose when democratic systems failed to deliver. In conclusion, while the waning influence of Maoists is a testament to the resilience of democratic values, the onus lies on the political leadership to address the root causes of dissent. Without equitable development and effective governance, the spectre of unrest may never be fully laid to rest.
