Open Access Research Article
STATE, DEVELOPMENT, AND RESISTANCE: THE MAOIST CHALLENGE
Published Paper
Article Details
AUTHORED BY
- ABHINAV ANAND
Introduction
Left wing extremism or Maoism surfaced in
India in May 1967 when a handful of tea farm labourers in Naxalbari village of
Darjeeling revolted against their landlords and forcefully acquired their land
to redistribute among the landless tribal peasants. The protagonist of the
Naxalbari uprising Charu Majumdar laid the foundation of the movement in his
book Historic Eight Documents, he wrote about the concept of seizure of power
by armed peasants and workers which will eventually transform into a
nation-wide revolution and will overthrow the bourgeois democracy to establish
the real democracy of the people[1]
Maoism in contemporary India is identified as an internal safety threat,
often going with words like terrorism, insurgency, separatism, etc. The Indian
state aims to eliminate the Maoist challenge from all across the country
focusing primarily on the “Red Corridor” which spreads across states like
Jharkhand, Bihar, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra, etc., through various military and political manoeuvres. Maoism
found resonance amidst the marginalised sections across the country and the
movement soon witnessed brutal state repression and demonisation as terrorism
and insurgency. However, Maoist thought succeeded in spreading across the
nation from the 1970s and continues to exist till now but has witnessed
significant ideological and strategic setbacks.
This paper sheds light on the conditions
that propelled the growth of Maoism and why it appealed to particular sections
of society. It’ll further try to illuminate the readers by providing insights
from two of the most affected regions of Bihar and Bastar, analyzing how both
the regions despite having different problems, demography, and struggle are
immensely effected by armed struggles. It analyzes the approach of the state in
handling the Naxalite movement and its role in affecting the movement and its
trajectory. The paper concludes by understanding how Maoism as a
socio-political force shaped the general political discourse.
Dual
Experiments
This chapter delves into the armed movements
that followed in parts of Bihar and Bastar after Naxalbari and tries to
understand what conditions made it possible for armed resistance to arise and
determine the role of the state in response to such movements. This chapter
also highlights the role of the state and the lacuna in addressing the issues
of the people which created distrust and resentment among them.
The
Bihar Experience
Maoism was introduced to Bihar after the Naxalbari uprising, Mushari
block in Muzaffarpur district was the first area to witness the Naxalite
upsurge.[2] The reason why Naxalism made its way in Bihar was the Marxist analysis
of existing social conditions which asserted that that the agrarian society of
Bihar was ripe for revolution and thus there was a need for People’s Armies
across the state to organize the proletarian masses and to intensify class
struggle which will subsequently lead to a revolution.
To understand why the Naxalite movement was able to attract people and
then sustain itself as a political force in the state it is very important to
understand the prevailing class and caste relations in the state. Bihar in
modern India has always been a vital place for peasant mobilization and
political movements, from the origin of Gandhi’s Champaran Satyagraha, Swami
Shajanand’s movement against landlordism during the colonial period to being
the first state to abolish the Zamindari system by passing Bihar Abolition of
Zamindaris Act, 1948. However, it is ironic that even after abolishing the
Zamindari system and subsequent enactment of the Land Ceiling Act 1961, the
landlords were able to have possession over most of their land directly or
indirectly by exploiting various legal loopholes. The Zamindari system thus
continued to prevail in reality if not in the documents, this ensured the
continuance of practices like sharecropping and forced labor.[3] The Zamindars were predominantly of the Rajput and Bhumihar caste
and castes which today form the OBCs, while the labourers who carried out the
cultivation tasks were Dalits, those who came from most socially depressed
groups and were completely dependent on the fieldwork for their survival.[4] The condition of the field workers, labourers was miserable owing to
the continuous caste oppression, most of the labourers were mostly landless or
had marginal land holdings and used to live in the village outskirts. Apart
from caste discrimination, the labourers faced the issues like denial of
minimum wage, forced/bonded labour, and physical/sexual abuse by the landlords.
In most of the villages the labourers were given about half paseri of
coarse rice (1.75kg), with some lunch or breakfast sometimes. There was no
concept of minimum wage in monetary form which is to be on a daily basis.[5] There was also denial of accessibility to common property resources
like village ponds, and wells, which were the only sources of fresh water, and
were used for fetching drinking water, bathing cattle, washing clothes, etc.
Thus, caste discrimination along with class antagonism served as the
base for various discriminatory and oppressive practices which were essentially
feudal in nature. The accumulation of the given set of practices remained
blatantly unaddressed by the state, to the Dalits, Tribals the state looked
complicit in the facilitation of feudal norms. The government offices, the police,
and the resource centres were inaccessible to the labourers as the sheer
majority of the latter were illiterate and had no knowledge of the state
machinery. The police often allied with the landlord in cases of dispute
rendering justice a dream for many in cases of violence, and abuse perpetuated
by the upper caste-class people. The majority of people couldn’t see any
change, growth, or development in the existing socio-economic-political
conditions, the state apparatus was ostensibly a bluff to them. There was
immense dissatisfaction among the masses because of existing conditions and the
failure of state institutions to address them.
Maoism in Bihar witnessed rapid growth and mobilization because it
succeeded in addressing the lacuna regarding the socio-economic-political
conditions, there was severe criticism of state institutions and growing
resentment against the prevailing class-caste relations. They were successful
in convincing the oppressed masses that no democracy could exist without the elimination
of feudal remnants from the society. The upper caste-class landlords were
identified as the feudal elements that needed to be eliminated for the
establishment of people’s democracy, the state similarly was seen as a
custodian of landlordism.
In 1967, after the Naxalbari uprising the group that was leading the
idea of armed revolution led by the peasants, and workers of the country was
the AICCCPR which later formed the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)
but after the death of the leader of Naxalbari uprising Charu Majumdar the
party was divided into various splinters because of ideological and strategic
differences. In Bihar various Maoist parties were leading the labourers,
peasants, and workers in different areas, such as the Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist) Liberation in the Bhojpur region, Maoist Communist Centre in
the Muzaffarpur region, several other groups like Party Unity and Mazdoor Kisan
Sangram Samiti advocated the path of armed struggle to overthrow the existing
conditions.
What came next was a full-fledged struggle against the state in both
non-violent and violent forms. The struggle had its manifestations in the forms
of protests, torch marches, economic blockade, non-cooperation, gherao, chakka
jam, etc. simultaneously with ambushes, forced land grabbing from landlords
which were then distributed to the landless labourers, and skirmishes with the
local elite. The growth of armed conflicts between the landlords and the state
came with its repercussions, the region of central Bihar witnessed the upsurge
of counter-revolutionary groups which were formed by the landlords to save
their land, power, pride, and prestige. Private militias like Ranveer Sena,
Sunlight Sena, Ganga Sena, Savarna Liberation Front, Kunwar Sena, etc. were
formed to protect the feudal capital held by the upper-class landlords in the
region, the agenda was to eliminate Naxalism from the region. The conflict
between the Naxals and the state along with the private militias resulted in large-scale
violence from both sides, while the Naxals kept on capturing land, and
resources from the landlords simultaneously they faced violent attacks from the
police, paramilitary, and the feudal armies. The worst form of violence was the
attacks by the feudal armies like the Ranveer Sena, as the strategy used by
them was to burn the villages and slaughter whoever they saw during the night
hours, the greatest number of victims were women, children, and the elderly[6].
In the late 1990s, Bihar saw some of the most gruesome massacres in
independent India such as in villages like Laxmanpur Bathe, Ekwari,
Shankarbigha, Narayanpur, Senari etc. What makes it worse is the response of
the state and judiciary, in the Bathani Tola case the eyewitnesses were declared
unfit and unreliable, similarly in the Laxmanpur-Bathe case the trials began
after 11 years of the incident and in this case too, the witnesses who had
survived the massacre and had even sustained injuries were declared unreliable
by the court and the chief of Ranveer Sena was never produced in the court[7]. The police administration similarly was biased in favour of upper
caste landlords. The state government had designed a simple way out of these
situations to condemn the massacre and announce some relief packages that were
seldom delivered. Post 2000s Naxalism in
Bihar witnessed a decline because of various reasons including that the left
parties had lost ground in various parts of Bihar and political mobilisation of
the backward classes towards other mainstream political parties as an aftermath
of the report of Mandal Commission and the subsequent demand to organise the
Dalits and OBCs.
The
Bastar Experience
Bastar unlike Bihar had different problems and social structure,
predominantly a tribal society with an area as large as Kerala, and has a
history of rebellions and uprisings. Maoists have a considerable presence
across the Dandkaranya zone which comprises Narayanpur, Bhandra, Balaghat, and
Rajanandgaon. The Maoist movement in Bastar started in Bastar as a result of
the decision of the CPI(ML) to expand guerilla zones to different parts of the
country and to instigate revolutionary fervour in people across the country. In
order to execute the decision the party released a document called
“Perspectives for a Guerilla Zone” and sent six party members who had mostly
worked in feudal conditions in the Telangana region and were able to identify
the class enemy. Maoism gained momentum in the Bastar region on the pretext of
protecting the rights of Adivasis and indigenous people who have ownership over
the natural resources which the state often disputes. However, it was not easy
for the party to spread its ideology, the Jana Natya Mandali, the
cultural organisation of the party took charge of propagating the revolutionary
cause in people’s language by means of drama, songs, poetry, etc. It turned out
to be a successful way of educating the masses about how they’ve been exploited
all the while and to offer a medium that will apparently liberate them. The
Adivasis saw Maoism as a struggle which they might have disagreements with, but
the movement has helped them to gain control over their resources by
challenging the Indian state. The Adivasis of Bastar have always lived in a
lacuna where there appears no state as long as it is for the people and their
lives but there is a very harsh manifestation of state power and apparatus once
the rich natural resources come into the picture, the state has often
interfered regarding the ownership and usage of natural resources like forest,
timber, mines, land, etc. The Adivasi lives are totally dependent on the
existing natural resources as they derive their livelihood from these, like by
gathering food material, timber, fuel, animals, etc. Thus, when the state under
the name of development projects attempts to displace Adivasis it experiences
resistance by various means. This kind of violent resistance is not new in
Bastar or any tribal populated area for that matter, when your livelihood is
being taken away and no one comes to rescue then all you have is to fight till
you die, the same spirit is seen in the people of tribal communities. The
Maoists have mobilised people for various issues and have organised them under
various organisations, they started Janathana Sarkar, or People’s
Government to resolve local issues at the grassroots level with the help of
active participation people. The participation of women in the movement has
grown with time under the front Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sangathan as
it has provided women to escape the patriarchal households where they were subjected
to domestic violence, dowry, polygyny, and other social evils. The KAMS has
members estimated at about 1,00,000 making it the largest women's organisation
across the country in terms of participation.[8]
Social anthropologist Alpa Shah mentions that “the Maoists were far from
an Adivasi movement but consisted of leaders, cadres, and sympathizers from a
range of different castes and classes brought together in a political
organization around class struggle which reflected the transforming history of
recruitment.”[9] She also indicates that members of the party are also inducted because
of relations of intimacy that is through kinship, friends, neighbours, and
others who are already a part of the movement.
However, sociologist Nandini Sundar disagrees with Shah’s understanding
regarding the relations of intimacy being the guiding factor for people to join
the movement and says that though some people join the party by getting
influenced by family, friends, etc, the same is not true in light of the huge number
of members the party has and contends that such a participation is not merely
because of kinship but as a response to the brutal state offensive which they
face and to claim over their entitlements. As Azad, an ex-spokesperson of the
party wrote, “In a class society, where the ruling classes fiercely
crush the oppressed at every step, real humanity entails fierce hatred for the
oppressors. There can be no love without hate; there is no all-encompassing
love.”[10] Sundar asserts that it is important to examine
how the movement originates and sustains itself under harsh conditions.
In its efforts to suppress the Adivasi-supported Maoist movement, the
State employs well-known counter-insurgency tactics, reminiscent of those used
in Malaysia and Vietnam. These tactics involve creating ‘New Villages’ and
‘Strategic Hamlets,’ forcibly displacing people from their familiar
surroundings and social networks. By isolating them in unfamiliar locales, the
State aims to weaken their support for revolutionary causes. In essence, this
strategy can be likened to separating fish from the sea they once swam in.
Sundar draws a comparison between the historical
‘strategic hamletting’ in Vietnam and Malaysia and the brutal ‘mass burning and
grouping of villages’ in Bastar. The State introduced this strategy in
1990–1991 through a vigilante group called Jan Jagran Abhiyan (JJA). Despite
its seemingly noble name, the JJA engaged in reprehensible actions: coercing
people to turn against Maoists, killing suspected Maoist supporters among the
Adivasis, perpetrating sexual violence against women, and setting homes ablaze.
Notably, the JJA received support not only from the infamous Congress leader
Mahendra Karma but also from Hindu fundamentalist organizations and the
Communist Party of India (CPI). The State, both financially and otherwise,
actively facilitated the devastating impact on Adivasi lives. In 2005, the JJA underwent a name change, rebranding itself as
the Salwa Judum (meaning “Purification Hunt” in Gondi). The primary
objective of this group was to dismantle the Maoists’ base—the sanghams (local
organizations). Through coercion, they compelled adivasis to join the Salwa
Judum, resorting to violence against those who resisted. The Salwa Judum’s
reign of terror included looting adivasi homes, burning entire villages, and
perpetrating sexual violence against women. Unlike the JJA, which selectively
targeted houses, the Salwa Judum razed entire villages to the ground. To
bolster their campaign, the State deployed paramilitary and border security
forces, intensifying their assault on the Maoist movement. Fearing brutality,
many Adivasis fled to neighboring states like Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
Others found themselves confined to “relief” camps, which were essentially
concentration camps. Within these camps, brutal torture and inhumane conditions
became a grim reality. Tragically, the routine practice of raping women and
subjecting them to sexual slavery further exacerbated their suffering. Sundar
cites a fact-finding report where an Adivasi woman recounts the chilling words
spoken by the Salwa Judum and security forces after a gang rape: “You are a
Naxalite, and we have taught you a lesson today.”[11]
The government in order to combat the threats has started an Integrated
Action Plan worth Rs 2640 crore per annum across 88 districts to provide public
infrastructure and services in backward districts. But later it was found that
40% of IAP money was incurred on the construction of roads and only 8% and 3%
were spent on education and healthcare respectively. This is just one example
of how the state has blatantly disregarded every measure of social growth and
has continued to incur huge expenditures on police and para-military forces,
perpetuating state violence.
The relationship between the state and the Adivasis continues to be
marred by various conflicts and struggles the more and more influx of police
force, paramilitary forces, local militias, etc has only created fear,
resentment, and anger in the minds of people as they’ve engaged in various
human rights violations and have constantly interfered with the indigenous
people. There are innumerable cases of sexual violence by the police and
paramilitary forces whenever a raid or arrest is made, there have also been a
lot of cases of illegal detention of innocent people on the pretext of being
associated with Maoist activities, human rights activists, advocates,
journalists, and researchers have also faced constant threat and humiliation
from the security forces. There has been a perpetual disregard for
constitutional, democratic, fundamental, and civil rights along with constant
demonisation of any critical view which attempts to highlight the wrongs
committed by the state.[12]
State and Development
There are primarily to view with respect to
tackling the Naxalite problem and to figure out the way forward: (a) The
Security Centric approach (b) The Political approach. The former identifies
Naxalism as a security threat and terrorist force which is supposed to be dealt
with by ensuring security by means of deploying the Police, Paramilitary
forces, and local militia as a counterforce to fight the Naxals. It believes
that force is the only way to eliminate resistance and to create a way for
governance and development, this is based on the notion that resistance by
people is essentially a problem or a hindrance to the development that the
state aspires to do. This approach is critical of any other intervention like
peace talks, engagement of civil rights and human rights protection groups,
journalising and documentation of struggles, etc. as it is a digression from
the way of solution and will only demoralise the forces engaged in neutralizing
the Maoists[13].
In contrast to the security-centric approach, the political approach sees
the Naxalite struggle as another radical, armed resistance by the people who
are disillusioned by the state and its promises of development and growth and
have perpetually witnessed systemic and organized exploitation, discrimination,
and brutal violence[14]. This approach believes that instead of neutralising the masses involved
in resistance the underlying issues and demands should be addressed and should
be taken care of so that the faith of the people in a democracy can be restored
and peace can be ensured. This view instead of brutally repressing the masses
tries to engage in dialogue and other peaceful measures and accepts that the
state has failed to redeem its promises and has disregarded the rights of
people from indigenous communities and backward castes and classes. The
supporters of this view advocate for upholding of basic fundamental rights of
people involved in resistance and oppose the demonisation of the people as
terrorists, they also locate armed resistance as a medium of a radical form of
protest.
Among these two types of approaches, the Indian state has resorted to the
former, focusing predominantly on police, paramilitary, and local, feudal
militias to counter Naxals. The repression is visible in the form of huge
deployment of CoBRA and CRPF commandos along with state police and private
militias like Salwa Judum and Ranveer Sena often aided by the government. The
demarcation of Red Corridor and the launch of Operation Green Hunt,
operation Prahar, etc. show how the state has led a well-planned attack on the
Naxals and has tried its best to resist the movement and ensure conducive
conditions for the existence state and its machinery.
However, this approach has been severely criticised by civil society
groups and even mainstream political parties on the pretext that such a harsh
measure will only deepen the rift between the oppressed classes and the state
as it leads to indiscriminate violence which results in persecution and human
rights violation of innocent and poor who most of the times are even unable to
understand the conflict. The state has clearly disregarded the fact that
Naxalism is a political force that bases itself on certain issues which are the
results of continuous marginalisation and neglect for particular groups and
ignorance on the part of the state to address their demands. The negligence and
hostility shown by the state in dealing with the indigenous communities and
backward classes have emboldened the feeling among the masses that the state is
not meant for their growth and development but for the development of those who
already are well-resourced, privileged, and those who erstwhile formed the
ruling class and carry the same feudal and caste capital which manifests itself
today in form of political and economic capital which has allowed them to be at
the helm of state apparatus. In the understanding of Maoists, the Indian state
of a semi-colonial, semi-feudal state which ensures that the feudal-colonial
hierarchy is maintained so that the cycle of exploitation continues. Thus, a
more inclusive and pragmatic approach will be able to address the
socio-political issues to fill the lacuna of governmentality and ensure that
the depressed classes are well represented and aren’t discriminated against by
the state. A more humane outlook towards the communities involved in resistance
is required to mitigate the struggle and to establish a conducive environment
for inclusive development which is not based on a top-down approach but a more
democratic bottom-up approach that involves more people from disadvantaged
sections in policy-making.
The
imposition of mainstream capitalist accumulation-based notion of development
has led to various endeavors by the state and its machinery to facilitate the
growth of capitalists, for this the state has often engaged in forced evictions
of Adivasis from the regions which they’ve inhibited for a long time, land
acquisition in localities which are predominantly populated with scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes, and mass displacement of tribal communities has
ruined their livelihood, their cultural practices and has created immense
distrust by uprooting them from their land.
In 2006, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA) aimed to recognize the customary
rights of forest dwellers. These rights included access to common areas and the
ability to manage and sell forest produce. However, the implementation of the
FRA has faced significant challenges. These obstacles include limited community awareness, conflicting
laws, insufficient structural support, administrative hurdles, and government
deficits. Unfortunately, the forest bureaucracy has often misinterpreted the
FRA, viewing it as a means to legitimize encroachments. Notably, the focus has
been on recognizing individual claims while neglecting collective claims, such
as Community Forest
Resource Rights, as promised by the FRA.
Adding to the complexity, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change (MoEFCC) has
proposed new rules that could weaken the FRA. These rules would curtail the
authority of local governing bodies like gram sabhas, despite objections
raised by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs[15].
What can be done?
Promoting dialogue on the implications of emerging development paradigms,
exploring viable alternatives, and supporting the aspirations of Adivasi
communities to shape their future is of utmost importance in today’s context.
Creating spaces for intergenerational learning among young Adivasi
individuals is crucial. Here, community elders can assume the role of
“teachers,” sharing local wisdom and revitalizing the ethos of communal living.
To develop relevant curricula, it’s essential for traditional experts and
thought leaders to collaborate with scientists and academics from mainstream
institutions. The curriculum should be contextually grounded, focusing on
Adivasi-specific topics such as agriculture, architecture, agro-ecology, food
sovereignty, direct democracy, and the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension
to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act (FRA). This holistic
approach ensures that education aligns with the unique needs and aspirations of
Adivasi communities.
Creating sustainable livelihoods rooted in the principles of
agro-ecology, aligned with the non-accumulative ethos of Adivasi communities,
is essential.
To achieve this, we should democratize production and consumption. By
forming clusters of villages with shared ecological characteristics, we can
enhance local self-reliance. Within these clusters, tribal villages can engage
in mutual trade of goods and services. This approach reduces reliance on
external markets and government interventions, fostering a more resilient and community-driven
economy.
To tackle the impact of external cultural influences on dietary habits,
it is essential to reorient local food systems. These systems should prioritize
the production of safe, nutritious food, encourage dietary diversity, and promote
balanced diets. Additionally, reviving local health traditions and ensuring
health security play a crucial role.
Incorporating local health practices into modern medicine is vital.
Medical professionals should collaborate with healers, midwives, and traditional
birth attendants to gain insights into local practices. Developing a framework
to differentiate between ailments that require traditional healthcare and those
necessitating clinical intervention is essential.
Addressing malnutrition requires a deeper examination of the core issues
affecting Adivasi communities and other marginalized rural groups. Factors such
as poverty, indebtedness, food insecurity, and lack of control over productive
resources significantly impact nutritional outcomes. Rather than relying solely
on external consultations, communities themselves should take responsibility
for addressing these structural challenges and determining the best course of
action.
Conclusion
Maoism as a political force has successfully exposed the systemic bias
and prejudice shown by the Indian state in governing marginalised areas and has
emphasised that such bias and prejudice is not unintentional, occasional, or
random but a result of (a) prevailing social conditions like caste hierarchy
and feudalism which restrains social mobility of the depressed classes and
castes and ensures the sustenance of exploitative practices like forced labour,
untouchability and organised violence by feudal-upper caste individuals and
militia, (b) the post-independence Indian state has failed to redeem its
promises of ensuring every citizen a dignified life where he/she isn’t
discriminated and is treated equally before the law and has turned increasingly
capitalist in nature which has further instigated the violence against
marginalised communities and has deepen inequality between rich and poor. All
these factors cumulatively justified the Marxist analysis to consolidate the
oppressed masses and intensify the struggle led by the people. Maoism has
offered an alternative to the people by propagating the idea of a revolution
that will dismantle all kinds of hierarchy and will establish an equitable
society where the oppressed masses will no longer be oppressed and will have
collective control over their resources. It has helped people to voice their
demands by both peaceful and radical means.
However today the movement is diminishing at a fast pace because of
increased presence of state apparatus in the Maoist effected areas which has
helped the state to carry out several police and paramilitary operations to
counter the Naxals and with the decline the state aims to ensure development.
Apparently, the state has won the war but whether the people who are in the
centre of the discourse are satisfied with the development being offered to
them remains disputed.
Bibliography
I.
Charu
Majumdar, Historic Eight Documents, Foreign Languages Press 2020.
II.
Jitendra Narayan, Naxalism in Bihar: A
Historical perspective , The Indian Journal of Political Science, 2011.
III.
Rajesh k. Nayak, Naxalism, Private Caste
Based Militias and Rural Violence in Cetral Bihar, Proceedings of the
Indian History Congress, 2012.
IV.
Anand Chakravarti, Caste and Agrarian
Class: A View from Bihar, Economic and Political Weekly, 2001.
V.
Bela
Bhatia, Naxalite Movement in Central Bihar, Economic and Political
Weekly, 2005.
VI.
Kavita
Krishnan, Battle for Justice and Democracy: Laxamanpur-Bathe, Economic and
Political Weekly, 2013.
VII.
Arundhati Roy, Broken Republic: Three Essays,
Penguin Group 2011.
VIII.
Alpa
Shah, The Tensions over Liberal Citizenship in a Marxist Revolutionary
Situation: The Maoists in India, Critique of Anthropology, 2013.
IX.
Azad, Maoists in India: Writings and
Interviews, Foreign Languages Press 2018.
X.
Nandini Sundar, The Burning Forest.
India’s War in Bastar, Juggernaut Publication 2016.
XI.
Srishti
Chaurasia, Years of Oppresion in the Name of “Development:” A Tale of Ongoing
Human Rights Violations in Bastar, The Polis Project https://www.thepolisproject.com/read/years-of-oppression-in-the-name-of-development-a-tale-of-ongoing-human-rights-violations-in-bastar/.
XII.
Santosh Mehrotra, Countering Naxalism with
Development,Sage Publications 2014
XIII.
Debjeet
Sarangi, How Development Excludes Adivasis, The Wire https://thewire.in/rights/how-development-excludes-adivasis
[1] Charu Majumdar, Historic Eight
Documents, 13 (Foreign Languages Press 2020).
[2] Jitendra Narayan, Naxalism in
Bihar: A Historical perspective, 72, The Indian Journal of Political
Science, 1069 (2011).
[3] Rajesh k. Nayak, Naxalism,
Private Caste Based Militias and Rural Violence in Cetral Bihar, 73,
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 1303-1304 (2012).
[4] Anand Chakravarti, Caste and
Agrarian Class: A View from Bihar, 36, Economic and Political Weekly, 1452
(2001).
[5] Bela Bhatia, Naxalite Movement
in Central Bihar, 40, Economic and Political Weekly, 1542 (2005).
[6] Rajesh K. Nayak, Supra note
3, at 1307.
[7] Kavita Krishnan, Battle for
Justice and Democracy: Laxamanpur-Bathe, 45, Economic and Political Weekly,
10(2013).
[8] Arundhati Roy, Broken Republic:
Three Essays, (Penguin Group 2011).
[9] Alpa Shah, The Tensions over
Liberal Citizenship in a Marxist Revolutionary Situation: The Maoists in India,
Critique of Anthropology, 33 (1) (2013), p. 493.
[10] Azad, Maoists in India: Writings
and Interviews, 28 (Foreign Languages Press 2018).
[11] Nandini Sundar, The Burning
Forest. India’s War in Bastar, 124 (Juggernaut Publication 2016).
[12]
Srishti Chaurasia, YEARS OF OPPRESSION IN THE
NAME OF “DEVELOPMENT:” A TALE OF ONGOING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN BASTAR, The Polis Project, (March 14, 2024, 22:06), https://www.thepolisproject.com/read/years-of-oppression-in-the-name-of-development-a-tale-of-ongoing-human-rights-violations-in-bastar/
[13] Santosh Mehrotra, Countering
Naxalism with Development 71 (Sage Publications 2014)
[14] Ibid.
[15] Debjeet Sarangi, How Development
Excludes Adivasis, The Wire, (March 15, 2024, 22:34), https://thewire.in/rights/how-development-excludes-adivasis
Article Information
STATE, DEVELOPMENT, AND RESISTANCE: THE MAOIST CHALLENGE
Authors: ABHINAV ANAND
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/19
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.