The Naxalites - A People's War

I wish to shed light upon one of the least known yet arguably most significant revolutionary struggles in the world today: the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in India. The Naxalites are Indian Maoists who are engaged in an ongoing people's war against the Indian government, and they represent, without a doubt, the single greatest revolutionary movement of the present day. Although comprised of various communist groups, contemporary Naxalites share an ideology rooted in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, borrowing from all three theories to formulate a praxis appropriate for conditions in India. The individuals who constitute the movement are sundry, stemming from different class backgrounds (primarily peasant), castes (mostly lower), religions, and ethnic groups. Their explicitly stated aim is the overthrow of the Indian government and the transformation of capitalist society toward socialism. If they should succeed in seizing power, the ramifications for global capitalism would be far-reaching, sealing off a major source of surplus value—a country with over one billion people, abundant natural resources, and an important "emerging" market—from Western capital. The odds are certainly stacked against them, but their successes have prompted India's prime minister to identify them as the country's most serious national security threat.[1]

History and Context

The Naxalites bear a tradition of resistance that can be traced to colonial India, to the uprisings of oppressed peoples and exploited peasants. To better understand their movement, it is critical to examine the history of conditions in India, particularly in the countryside. British rule effaced the indigenous way of life, intensified the caste system, and left the Indian subcontinent impoverished. In the wake of Indian independence in 1947, the mostly poor and illiterate peasants continued to face exploitation from two chief sources: landlords and moneylenders. The landlords, as everywhere, owned most of the valuable land, and this class derived its income from the ground rent imposed upon the peasants. The moneylenders, as everywhere, profited from usury. Their combined exploitation of the peasants has perpetuated extreme rural inequality to the present day, and in recent decades, the Indian government and transnational corporations have entered the game.

Despite periodic land reforms, designed to redistribute land in the peasantry's favor, inequality has persisted for a variety of reasons, including perverse tenure laws, heavy grain appropriations, microcredit, rampant government corruption, the sale of land to multinational corporations, the Green Revolution, and forced evictions. The general distribution of land amongst households has varied little since independence, and today, approximately 60% of the population holds 5% of the land while 10% controls 50%.[2] With the introduction of neoliberal economic reforms in 1991, rural poverty was aggravated, resulting in spiraling debt bondage and a spate of farmers' suicides now recognized as an agricultural crisis. Conservative figures report that over 256,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1995.[3] Another striking aspect of India's land policy is that tens of millions of people, many of them Adivasi (those considered aboriginal peoples), have been displaced without recourse due to construction projects (hydroelectric dams, nuclear plants, etc.) and access to natural resources by government and foreign corporations, causing untold harm.[4]

One more highly exploited and oppressed category of people in the countryside is the indigenous population (the aforementioned Adivasi), consisting of tribal peoples that mostly practice subsistence farming. Traditionally, they were not only compelled to toil beneath the landlords and usurers, but they were the victims of encroaching capitalism, which disrupted their ways of life in the process of robbing the country of its natural wealth. The Naxalites would come to draw heavily upon these tribal and peasant groups for membership and support, as well as from India's lesser castes.

So much for the situation in the countryside. What of the urban centers? In a word, they are vast slums, cesspools of poverty interspersed with pockets of extravagance. A small, albeit growing, stratum of industrial and professional workers forms the nucleus of the working class, while an informal proletariat of semi-employed laborers occupies the periphery. Capitalists, arguably the only beneficiaries of India's economic advancement, range from the struggling petit-bourgeois, largely bolstered by the state, to mammoth transnationals, seeking to tap into India's emerging economy (i.e., the exploitation of its resources and people). Foreign investors, including multinational corporations, have impacted the economy in numerous ways, none of which can be construed as blessings for the Indian people. An example would be the noxious dependence upon such investment for growth, a reversal of which invariably induces economic calamity. This downtrodden history, whose legacy bears witness to the present day, is the milieu in which the struggle for the oppressed was born.

Political Origins

Communism gained traction in India in the 1920s and 30s, in large part a response to British subjugation, although Marxism was introduced much earlier. The Communist Party of India (CPI) was formed in 1921, but it was naturally banned from its inception. The CPI altered its platform frequently, depending upon foreign and domestic conditions. At various points, it advocated armed struggle and total opposition to the British empire, and at others, it would moderate its tone, as when Britain allied with the Soviet Union during the war. It also endured numerous internal disputes ranging from its relationship with the Chinese communists to its orientation toward the national bourgeoisie. The party was legalized in 1942, but it organized a peasant uprising shortly thereafter in the feudal Indian state of Hyderabad, in the Telangana region. The peasants, outraged by their miserable lot, ousted the landlords, redistributed land, cancelled all debts, instituted a minimum wage, and formed militia units. Unfortunately, the Indian army brutally crushed the insurrection after a handful of years. However, this marked the first time Mao's theories were adapted to India.[5]

Subsequent the Telangana rebellion, the CPI resolved to pursue a parliamentary route. It acquired seats in parliament and postponed any consideration of revolution until some distant day when it seemed feasible. The main party of India at the time, the Indian National Congress, a representative of the capitalist class, developed strategic and trade relations with the Soviet Union, which caused a divide in the CPI over radicalism. One side supported the Congress party while the other demanded that the class struggle carry on without regard for Soviet interests. The rift was deepened after the Sino-Soviet split (1960) and the Chinese-Indian war (1962). Many CPI communists were arrested without trial for pro-Chinese sentiments, and a left faction formed within the party, which eventually split to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist). This would be the first serious break in the Indian communist movement, and many more would follow.[6]

The Naxalbari

In 1967, a radical faction within the CPI (M), headed by the charismatic Charu Mazumdar, supported a peasant uprising in the village of Naxalbari in West Bengal. Both the CPI and CPI (M) were mobilizing peasants in the area since 1959,[7] and it culminated in Naxalbari, a bloodbath for peasants and landlords alike, as the former lacked sophisticated weapons and the latter was mercilessly expunged. This presented a problem for the CPI (M), since it was part of a coalition government in West Bengal called the United Front. On the one hand, some of its own cadres were fanning the flames of rebellion; on the other, it was now in a position where its vested interest in preserving law and order (since it had a stake in the state) conflicted with its radical base.

The Naxalbari uprising was poorly equipped and organized, and it was thus violently suppressed in less than two months, many of its leaders martyred or arrested, but it would serve as a legend that future revolutionaries embraced. The event also inspired revolts across a wide section of India. One prominent example is Srikakulam, where communists, spearheading a wave of tribals and peasants, gained near total control of most of the region, although they were eventually defeated in 1970 due to an overwhelming display of force by the government, numerous rebels and their leaders killed. In addition, the Communist Party of China extolled the Naxal upsurge.

One year in the wake of the movement in Naxalbari, Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal, another foremost leader of the Naxal insurrection, and comrades from many parts of India convened to found the All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR). The AICCCR renounced participation in parliamentary elections and declared its fidelity to revolutionary armed struggle according to Mao's protracted people's war strategy. Out of this organization emerged a new party, splitting from the CPI (M), named the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist). Unlike the CPI and CPI (M), the CPI (ML) viewed India's situation as ripe for revolution. Charu was elected general secretary of the CPI (ML), and the promotion of insurgent activity was made the party's overriding priority.

The Naxalite movement began to draw the support of students and intellectuals, and under the auspices of the CPI (ML), thousands of violent incidents occurred throughout India. With widespread popularity, the CPI (ML) organized a division called the People's Liberation Army (clearly after the Chinese), which served as the armed vanguard of the oppressed. However, there were a number of outstanding problems: the party's emphasis on armed struggle neglected the formation of a mass base (an affiliated group, led by T. Nagi Reddy, was expelled for criticizing this oversight), it focused on local uprisings that were easily dispatched instead of coordinated guerrilla tactics, and Charu was highly sectarian, to the point where he would deem traitor anybody who strayed from doctrinal devotion to Mao. Tension within the party predictably grew.

This state of affairs lasted until the early 1970s, when the government initiated a severe crackdown on the movement. Thousands of cadres were either killed or arrested, and the leadership was imprisoned. Charu Mazumdar was captured and died in police custody. The problems of internal unity and this external pressure splintered the party. The devastated CPI (ML) fragmented into innumerable smaller bodies, divided over countless issues, some sects seeking a return to parliamentary options, and in the years to come, violent confrontations would sometimes occur between communist formations. Although many groups would continue to fight under the banner of Naxalism over the next few decades, they suffered major setbacks and the movement receded into the background of national importance.[8]

Resurgence

In spite of such massive defeats, the Naxalites did not disappear and managed to attain some meaningful reforms for peasants, Adivasi, and the underprivileged. By the 1990s, they had developed more effective guerrilla tactics, and they enhanced their arsenal with modern weaponry. The movement would soon experience a reawakening, and three organizations played a crucial role in charting this course.

The first was the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People's War Group (PWG). Though it followed Charu Mazumdar's line, it also recognized the importance of mass mobilization and established aboveground organizations. The second was the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Party Unity. (It seems that the naming convention of communist organizations in India follows this rule: make it as confusing as possible for those studying their history.) Party Unity also upheld the legacy of Mazumdar while building a mass foundation. Both of these parties were obviously offshoots of the original CPI (ML), and they shared a strong support base amongst peasants and tribals. In 1998, the two parties merged, retaining the name People's War Group. The third group was the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), which formed solid alliances with the Dalits, India's untouchables.

All three parties abstained from elections and shared a commitment to protracted people's war. Combined, their influence extended across most of eastern India, with stable networks and a popular column spanning peasants, Adivasi, and Dalits. It was natural that they form a union by which to sustain a common struggle, and that is precisely what transpired in 2004, when the PWG and MCC united to create the Communist Party of India (Maoist). This new organization allowed the Naxalites to raise the level of their struggle to actual guerrilla warfare.

Contemporary Struggle


Naxalite activity has surged in the past decade, and the CPI (Maoist) now accounts for 95% of all Naxal groups. India's Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) attributes 90% of all "left-wing extremist" incidents to the party. The colored region on the map demarcates the area affected by the Naxalite insurgency, and it is known as the Red Corridor due to the government's inability to dislodge the insurgents. In many of the "severely affected" districts, the Naxals wield total control. They now number anywhere from 10,000-20,000 armed cadres with tens of thousands of regular members (these are merely approximations; the aggregate could easily be much higher), depending upon which sources one is to believe. According to the MHA, the area with a visible Naxalite presence encompassed 223 (of 603) districts across 20 states in 2009.[9][10][11]

More recent figures indicate a marked reduction in activity, down to 83 districts,[12] but it warrants mentioning that this number was produced as part of the Security Related Expenditure Scheme, intended to channel money to regions deemed most seriously impacted by the insurgency, and as such can be interpreted as a cost-benefit analysis on the part of the Indian government regarding where funding should be prioritized rather than a true reflection of the Maoists' territorial expanse. The government also initiated Operation Green Hunt in recent years, described as an "all-out offensive" by the state's military and paramilitary forces, which would naturally give the guerrillas reason to act defensively. Indeed, the Naxals are presently engaged in the first stage of the people's war: the strategic defensive, when the focus is upon preserving existing forces and attracting more members to the cause.

The setbacks of the past couple years are relatively insignificant compared to the long and bitter history of Naxalism. They will almost surely recover and initialize bigger operations. Their reputation has grown immensely, and they are slowly infiltrating urban areas, engaging the working class.[13] Remarkably, women play a huge part in the movement, not merely in support roles but as combatants.[14] One reason is that poor, disadvantaged Indians, the majority of whom are women (though they are no more underprivileged than men of the same social status, mind you), find opportunities in the Naxalite struggle that they would otherwise be denied, which might seem liberating to destitute young women. Another likely factor is that when the state's army or militarized police retaliates or attempts to extricate the Naxals from sympathetic settlements, they tend to eradicate entire villages, killing the men outright and raping the women. The female survivors usually have nothing left, so they join the revolutionaries.

Conclusion

Naxalism presently occupies a central position in the endeavor toward international socialism. It is a revolutionary armed struggle whose success would entail widespread and lasting repercussions. A momentous victory would reverberate around the world, greatly undermining a necrotic global capitalism that is irrevocably married to the cheap production and rapid turnover of value. It is a steep uphill battle, but it will continue to obtain momentum. Decades of struggle have demonstrated the resilience and tenacity of our Indian comrades and betrayed the weakness of India's ruling classes. They deserve our recognition, and all comrades should set aside their sectarian inclinations in support of this historical movement.

1. "Naxalism biggest threat to internal security: Manmohan". The Hindu. 2010.
2. Distribution of Ownership Holdings of Land, India (NSSO 2003-04).
3. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). As many as 45 kill themselves a day.
4. Development Induced Displacement
5. Kujur, Rajat 2008: Naxal Movement in India: A Profile – IPCS Research Paper; New Delhi.
6. Bendfeldt. Naxalism: The Maoist Challenge to the Indian State. HBF. 2010.
7. Mehra, Ajay K. India's Experiment with Revolution. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics. 2008.
8. Bendfeldt, 2010.
9. Marwah, Ved. 2009. India in Turmoil; New Delhi.
10. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA); 2010: Annual Report 2009 – 2010.
11. India's Maoists: The Party Shall be Over
12. Districts Covered Under SRE Scheme
13. Naxalism in urban areas worries Centre
14. Women cadres take bigger roles in Maoist groups

Excelent article, can't rep you enough comrade.