Post-2026: The ideological battle against Naxalism

One of India’s longest-standing internal security challenges-Naxalism — is set to be eliminated by March 2026. The Government of India’s resolve to meet this deadline is reflected in the scale of arrests and surrenders recorded in 2025. According to official data released by the Press Information Bureau, over 800 Naxal cadres were arrested in 2025, while nearly 2,000 surrendered and laid down arms, marking the highest ever attrition of cadres through arrests and surrenders in a single year of counter-insurgency operations.

These numbers underscore a decisive shift in momentum against the movement. Yet history offers a cautionary lesson: insurgencies rarely disappear with the silencing of guns alone. They resurface when the ideas that sustain them are left unchallenged. The real battle against Left Wing Extremism, therefore, will begin not with the last operation, but after the last ambush ends. The government’s success in 2025 was not the outcome of brute force alone. It was driven by a transformative counter-insurgency strategy that combined robust security measures with sustained developmental outreach. Coordinated operations across affected states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha and Maharashtra, improved intelligence-sharing, strengthened Centre-State coordination, the deployment of UAVs, and the modernisation of security forces collectively contributed to a sharp decline in Naxal-linked violence. Shrinking influence zones and large-scale surrenders reflected the erosion of the movement’s operational capacity as well as its local support base.

But it is historically well known that ideas travel faster than arms. Naxalism is not just a militant movement-it is also an ideological one. It is a political ideology that thrives on grievance and deprivation. It survives through narratives of people versus the state and the romanticisation of armed rebellion. Sendero Luminoso (Peru), where the Maoist group Shining Path was crushed in the 1990s after leader Abimael Guzmán was captured but re-emerged in remote jungle areas, and DHKP-C (Turkey), where the LWE group was heavily cracked down upon but re-emerged with urban terrorism and suicide attacks, are among many dangerous instances which showcase the resilience of ideology.

A new cadre of radicalised youth can undo years of security operation successes. The ideological ecosystem very rarely operates from the so-called “liberated zones”. Intellectual laundering turns armed extremism into academic theory. While armed cadres operate in forests and remote terrain, the ideological ecosystem that sustains Left Wing Extremism functions far beyond these spaces. This ecosystem is largely urban, semi-urban and intellectual in character. It reframes violence as resistance, delegitimises the authority of the state, and presents armed rebellion as a moral response to injustice rather than a political failure. Through selective storytelling, historical amnesia and emotive rhetoric, extremist violence is stripped of its brutality and rebranded as a struggle for rights. Civilian killings, extortion and coercion are either minimised or rationalised, while the state’s use of force-regardless of legal safeguards-is portrayed as inherently oppressive.

Over time, this narrative inversion creates moral ambiguity, where the distinction between democratic dissent and armed insurgency is deliberately blurred.

As India approaches the March 2026 milestone, the elimination of armed Naxalism will mark not an end, but a transition-from a security-led campaign to a governance-led consolidation. The Government of India’s strategy over the past decade has demonstrated a clear understanding that durable peace cannot be enforced at gunpoint alone. By coupling decisive security action with sustained development, welfare delivery and administrative penetration, the state has begun to dismantle not only the operational capacity of Left Wing Extremism, but also the social and psychological spaces in which it once thrived.

The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that liberated areas do not relapse into ideological vacuums. This requires deepening last-mile governance, strengthening local institutions and embedding the presence of the state as a facilitator of opportunity rather than a distant authority. Programmes like Niyad Nellanar, which focus on last-mile delivery and trust-building in former LWE areas, improved connectivity and digital access are not merely infrastructure projects-they are instruments of trust-building and democratic inclusion. When citizens experience justice, welfare and opportunity through everyday state action, the narrative of armed rebellion loses its moral and political appeal. India’s counter-LWE experience thus offers an important lesson: insurgency can be defeated when the state asserts both authority and empathy. Beyond 2026, the real victory will not be the absence of violence, but the presence of governance-responsive, visible and people-centric. In that sense, the government’s current approach does not merely aim to end Naxalism; it seeks to make its return structurally and ideologically untenable.

The writer is Research Fellow India Foundation; views are personal