Who provided oxygen to the Maoists all these years?

On November 18, security forces successfully neutralized the notorious Naxal (Maoist) commander Madvi Hidma, who was wanted with a bounty of one crore rupees, following a fierce firefight in a remote forested region. With Hidma’s elimination, it appears that the anti-Naxal operations have entered their final phase, bringing the Indian government closer to its goal of eradicating Maoist insurgency nationwide by March 2026, a target publicly announced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Undoubtedly, this marks another significant achievement for the Modi government, reflecting ongoing efforts in governance and development. However, a section of Indian society-particularly some factions within the Left- are in mourning following Hidma’s killing and the near total demise of Naxal movement.

Hidma is accused of killing over 150 people, including the one in Tadmetla in 2010, which left 76 CRPF personnel dead and the 2013 Jhiram Ghati (Darbha) attack, which wiped out the Congress leadership in Chhattisgarh. Apart from killing countless security personnel, Maoists, under the guise of pursuing a ‘revolution,’ have brutally murdered hundreds of innocent civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, often targeting villages and communities perceived as enemies.

This orgy of violence and death has persisted for nearly six decades. Couldn’t it have been stopped earlier? Why was such decisive action against Naxalism not possible sooner? The answer lies in the worldview of the Left, which has remained deeply rooted in the Indian establishment for decades and has provided both ideological and material support to this violent movement. In other words, a segment of the ruling elite has been complicit in this grim dance of death and destruction, with both overt and covert support all these years.

 Dr. Manmohan Singh, who served as India’s Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014, identified Naxalism- the extremist Maoist insurgency that began in West Bengal in 1967- as India’s most serious internal security threat. In June 2010, he underscored the urgent need for a comprehensive, iron-fisted policy to counter the escalating violence and growing influence of left-wing extremism.

However, the National Advisory Council (NAC)- a body created outside the constitutional framework and chaired by Sonia Gandhi- opposed any strong counter-insurgency operations, advocating instead for negotiation-led and development-centric approaches.

It is widely recognised that the Manmohan Singh government operated largely under the influence of the NAC, whose members predominantly held Left-leaning political views. Most NAC members argued that Naxalism, could not be suppressed through force but required comprehensive development programmes in the affected areas.

The irony, of course, was that the very development projects they advocated-such as the construction of rural roads, the establishment of schools and banks, and the implementation of essential infrastructure-were persistently sabotaged by the Naxals. These insurgents viewed such initiatives as a threat to their territorial control and ideology.

Naxal sympathisers- often referred to as “Urban Naxals” - repeatedly promote the narrative that Maoists are the true champions of Adivasis and the poor, claiming they resist alleged “oppression” on their behalf. The reality, however, is starkly different.

Owing to a combination of neglect rooted in British colonial policies and the subsequent failures of India’s early post-independence governments, Naxals forcibly seized control of many tribal and remote regions through the barrel of a gun, cutting them off from the national mainstream.

The Maoists vandalised government offices, schools, and public infrastructure; set fire to buildings; blew up roads and bridges to hinder movement; and extorted local communities through systematic violence and intimidation- inflicting widespread fear, insecurity, and suffering. The result was all economic activities came to a halt and preventing the growth and integration of these areas into broader economic systems.

Over the past eleven years, the Modi government has actively confronted Naxalism through a dual approach: implementing targeted developmental initiatives such as building roads, schools, and healthcare facilities, while simultaneously deploying security forces to dismantle insurgent networks and restore order, with a focus on improving infrastructure, education, health services, and safety.

The ideological foundation of the Naxals is rooted in Mao Zedong’s teachings, the Chinese communist leader whose tumultuous era was characterised by widespread atrocities against political dissenters, intellectuals, and perceived enemies of the state. During the Cultural Revolution alone, estimates suggest that approximately two million innocent individuals lost their lives due to purges, executions, and social upheavals orchestrated under his leadership.

Although China has moved away from many of Mao’s original economic doctrines, it now relies on a distorted form of state capitalism characterised by significant government control of key industries and resources. Despite these economic shifts, its political and ideological core remains largely unchanged, emphasising centralised authority and a sense of ideological continuity.

Harbouring deep-seated animosity towards India, China has historically used Maoist groups-including urban Naxal activists-as proxies to influence regional conflicts and undermine India’s stability.

 

What recently transpired in Delhi has attracted attention: air pollution remains an undeniably serious issue that demands an honest and open debate. During a demonstration at India Gate addressing this very concern, Left-wing activists shouted slogans such as “Madvi Hidma Amar Rahe,” which translates to “Long live Madvi Hidma,” and “Har Ghar se Charu Niklega,” meaning “A Charu Mazumdar will arise from every home.” When approached by authorities to calm the situation, they reportedly used pepper spray on the police officers, indicating a level of hostility and unrest.

The methods of Naxals bear grim resemblance to those of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. Just as Kim executes opponents publicly, these Left-wing extremists run kangaroo “people’s courts” where innocents-branded arbitrarily as police informers or class enemies are summarily executed. The charges are framed by the Naxals, and the verdict is delivered by them.

The brand of communist ideology pursued by Maoists, characterized by its violent tactics and anti-human principles rooted in revolutionary fervor, has consistently failed to establish a prosperous or rights-respecting society anywhere in the world over till date. Despite various attempts in countries such as Nepal, India, and Peru, the Maoist approach has led to ongoing conflict, human rights violations, and instability.

Democracy, with all its inherent imperfections, nonetheless remains the most balanced, humane, and effective system of governance known to humanity. It offers a framework that emphasises individual rights, rule of law, and civic participation, making it far superior to alternative models, including theocratic systems such as Sharia, which impose strict religious laws and often suppress personal

freedoms.

The truth is that Maoism’s greatest victims have been the very communities-Adivasis, indigenous tribal groups residing mainly in remote, forested regions-and the deprived, marginalised populations often living in poverty and lacking access to basic amenities.

Hopefully, change is on the horizon. Maoists and their urban supporters are now on the run, signalling a shift. After more than seventy years of independence, the benefits of development are finally beginning to reach the most vulnerable, empowering them to live as free citizens-without fear and in control of their own future.

The writer is an eminent columnist and the author of ‘Tryst with Ayodhya: Decolonisation of India’ and ‘Narrative ka Mayajaal’; views are personal