Naxals are Indian citizens. Ruthless force is not the way to solve the problem

Image for representation by Wasif Khan | ThePrint

When the Home Minister of India recently said that the security forces should adopt a ruthless approach in dealing with the terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir, I agreed with him one hundred per cent. However, I have serious reservations about the government using the same approach with Naxals.

Why? In the former case, you are dealing with a group of foreign terrorists who have crossed the international border to disintegrate our country, create subversion and perpetrate acts of violence in the state. The security forces should therefore have the licence and the liberty to deal with them as sternly as possible.

In the latter case, you are dealing with a group of your own people, mostly tribals, who for one reason or the other, right or wrong, joined the Naxal movement. Their grievances may have been real or imaginary, but there was definitely some grudge against the Indian State. Maybe it had deprived them of their land, thrown them out of their forest, given what was their habitat to business magnates for setting up industries, was erasing their way of life, their culture, their language, or any other reason. It is true that the movement assumed a Maoist character in due course—the party started calling itself the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in 2004—but it is also a fact that the average party worker knew nothing about Marxism-Leninism. For him, it was simply a fight against a state that he perceived to be unfair, unjust and unsympathetic to him.

When a group of your own people rebel, take up arms, attack the security forces and indulge in acts of vandalism, there is no option but to use force against them. But it is more important to analyse and understand why they became so desperate. An extract from Government of India’s Ministry of Rural Development Report of 2006 mentions that “in the process of alienating land from the tribals, it seems as if private individuals, derelict revenue officers including Deputy Commissioners, unscrupulous lawyers, ignorant civil courts have all joined hands, as it were, to deprive the tribal communities of their land.” As a consequence, the report said, the tribal people were feeling “totally exhausted, impoverished and traumatised”. An Expert Group of the Planning Commission that studied Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas, of which the author and the present NSA were members, recorded in 2008 that “development which is insensitive to the needs of these communities has invariably caused displacement and reduced them to a sub-human existence” and that in the case of tribes, “it has ended up in destroying their social organisation, cultural identity and resource base and generated multiple conflicts”.

In other words, those who joined the Naxalite movement did not do so for fun; circumstances created by the government left them with perhaps no other option. Have we addressed these problems? Perhaps yes, but very partially. Only the other day, on 3 February, the Supreme Court restrained central and state governments from doing anything that would lead to further reduction of forest area in the country. The Court found that as a result of amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1.97 lakh sq km of land had been excluded from the forest area.

Time for a ceasefire

Having travelled extensively in the Naxal-affected areas and interacted with a large number of tribals, I am convinced that they could be brought into the mainstream. All it requires is good political initiative at an opportune time. That time has come.

The Naxals are on the backfoot; they know they are fighting a losing battle. The Government of India could magnanimously announce a unilateral ceasefire, suspend all operations for a period of, say, three months and call upon the Naxals to come overground and surrender with weapons, promising them rehabilitation. Those against whom there are criminal cases may be dealt with on merits with some consideration. Any such move could bring around a thousand Naxals overground, if not more.

The Indian State, however, is going hammer and tongs against the Naxals. In the latest encounter, which took place on 9 February in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh, at least 31 Maoists (including 11 women) and two security personnel were killed. It is estimated that more than 280 Maoists have been killed in the Bastar region since 2024. This year alone, the toll has risen to 81 in just about six weeks. Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, has praised the security forces for the successful operations and reiterated that Naxalism will be eradicated from the country by 31 March 2026.

I find it difficult to celebrate these killings because I am convinced that a more nuanced approach would have brought a good percentage of the Naxal fighters overground. Who are we killing? They are our own sons and daughters. Their only crime was that they took up arms in sheer frustration against a state which had given them a raw deal, deprived them of their land and livelihood.

Offer an olive branch

Force is an essential component of any state. It has to be used whenever there is a rebellion, insurgency, terrorist incident or aggression. However, we have to remember that the quantum of force to be used and the duration for which it should be used would depend on a whole range of variable factors. Factors include whether the people against whom it is used are your own citizens or if they are sponsored by a hostile country, whether they are violent or non-violent, do they have a grievance which remains unaddressed, and whether a stage has been reached where their backbone has been broken and they could be brought to the negotiating table.

In the case of Naxals, anyone can see that the state is holding the upper hand and that the Naxals are in retreat. In such a situation, there are two options before us. One is that we withdraw the stick and offer the carrot, and the other is that we go on hunting them and exterminate them to the last man. The former approach would be humane, and it may produce quicker results of a lasting nature. The latter approach would be ruthless, where the state may feel victorious but it would definitely leave behind a legacy of bitterness, which may erupt again in a violent form on any issue.

It has been rightly said that “peace hath her victories no less renowned than war”. The Government of India would be well advised to re-calibrate its strategy on the Naxal front.

Don’t put a deadline on it

One last point. In crime detection and in dealing with insurgency or separatist movements, one should never prescribe a time frame to solve the problem.

In such situations, the security forces—especially their commanders, to please their masters—are inclined to transgress the limits of law and commit excesses. There may be false encounters and innocent killings. It would be best if the security forces were merely asked to go full throttle, given all the resources and equipment they need, and the matter left at that.

In the past, home ministers P Chidambaram and Rajnath Singh indicated specific years by which the Naxal problem would be finally resolved. Subsequent events proved them wrong.

We all would like to see the end of the Naxal problem, which has haunted the Indian State now for more than five decades. There has been much bloodletting. However, we need to be firm yet humane. Our effort should be to bring the misguided people back into the national mainstream by winning over their hearts and minds.

The writer, a retired Police Chief, is author of ‘The Naxalite Movement in India’. Views are personal.

(Edited by Theres Sudeep)