Naxalism In India : The term Naxal comes from the village Naxalbari in West Bengal where the Naxalbari uprising of 1967 occurred.
The Naxal movement also presents the greatest overall concern to India in the future, as it highlights various underlying weaknesses of India’s governance, political institutions and socio-economic structure. Naxalism is the biggest problem that India is facing today because it affects several areas including the economy, security and foreign affairs, its citizens and rule of law. Because of the multi-dimensional aspect of the Naxal problem, a three-pronged approach should be taken in dealing with the threat. It calls for a balance between military forces, social and economic development, as well as dialogue between all parties.
The Indian Maoist movement, popularly known as the Naxal movement, arose from the broader communist movement in India. The words Naxal/Naxalism/Naxalite owe their origin to the Naxalbari village of the Darjeeling district in the state of West Bengal, from where the peasant insurgency led by the Maoists began in 1967. The Naxal uprising was led by Charu Majumdar (chief ideologue), Kanu Sanyal (peasant leader) and Jungel Santhal (tribal leader).
Chinese media described the Naxal movement as a ‘spring thunder’ which quickly spread to other parts of the country and caught the imagination of the nation. The movement nevertheless subsided after the death of Charu Majumdar and the arrests of Kanu Sanyal and Jungel Santhal in 1972. However, the movement was revived in the 1980’s by the Peoples’ War Group (PWG) in Andhra and the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in Bihar. The Naxalites are currently considered to be the most radical groups among the Indian communists.
The success of the Maoist movement is deeply rooted in the weakness of some parts of the Indian state to fulfil its ideally functions and responsibilities. Although India, in comparison to other former colonised states, was able to develop a powerful apparatus of state, state control remains in large parts precarious in terms of its conception. State administration is especially in those areas sparsely developed which are most affected by Naxalite violence.
This fact is reflected inter alia by small state budgets, low bureaucratic efficiency as well as prevailing corruption. There are even some remote areas where state domination is almost completely absent. In these regions that are characterised by weak governance, traditional types of rule were able to persist. Social elites like high castes, landlords and loan sharks dominate the rural population and benefit from their exploitation. State-aided rural development programmes in these areas have often not reached the bottom of the society and instead contributed to the persistence of landlordism.
In 2013, the government identified 26 districts in the country as highly Naxal-affected with 80% violence in the last three years being reported from there. The districts are spread over seven Maoist-hit states – Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal. There was some debate in India on number of districts or the area in the country that is affected by Naxalism.
These numbers have been varying from 60 to 200 plus depending on the intensity of violence. At the same time allotment of special funds for development and security by the Planning Commission as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs had led to declaration of even less affected districts as under Naxal control by states, 83 such districts in the country had been identified, mainly in the seven most affected states as mentioned.
