Why Maoism is a failed idea in a rising Bharat

Once a potent force, the Maoists are now a relic of an obsolete ideology, unable to adapt to a confident and rapidly modernising India.

Bharat is undergoing a period of rapid economic expansion, rising global stature, unprecedented infrastructure development, and a parallel decline in the influence once wielded by Naxalites, Maoists, and Left-Wing Extremists (LWE). Their ecosystem, long entrenched in academia, intelligentsia, and media, is swiftly unravelling. Beyond the growth story, several factors have rendered Marxism-Leninism-Maoism irrelevant in present-day Bharat.

Broadly, three factors explain the collapse of Left-Wing Extremism: personality cults that breed splits, inconsistent approaches, and a lack of a coherent narrative capable of uniting society toward a larger cause. By contrast, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in tandem with a socio-cultural resurgence under the banner of ‘United Hindu, United Bharat’, has scored consistently across these fronts. Since the article’s focus is Left-Wing Extremism, it is worth examining the reasons for the waning of its influence in detail.

Personality Cult

Right from the beginning of the Naxalite (now known as Maoist) activities in Naxalbari in West Bengal in 1967, this so-called ‘movement’ has been afflicted by the cult of personality.

The two central figures recognised as founders of the ‘Naxalbari movement’ – pro-China Charu Mazumdar and Kanu Sanyal (both are no more) – differed in their approaches to their idea of ‘revolution.’ While hardliner Charu Mazumdar advocated the policy of ‘annihilation’ of enemies, Kanu Sanyal was in favour of building an organisation of people first and then going for ‘protracted war.’

Mazumdar had no hesitation in giving the slogan ‘China’s Chairman is our Chairman,’ and Sanyal met Mao Zedong but wanted an ‘Indian adaptation of Mao’s tactics of revolution.’ This led to both parting ways gradually. In fact, the Naxalites treaded the path of violence to such an extent that they later stripped Kanu Sanyal of the identity as among the two founders of ‘Naxalbari movement,’ replacing him with Kanhai Chatterjee. Sanyal, in his last years before committing suicide out of frustration, is said to have described the present-day Maoists as ‘anarchist caricatures of Mao’s teachings.’

In the history of 58 years since ‘Naxalbari’, these anti-Bharat Left Wing Extremists have suffered because of such personality differences. Often, it led to people like S. N. Singh, C. Pulla Reddy, KondapalliSitaramaiah and others formed their own versions of the mix of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in different parts of Bharat. Personal ambitions of leading the charge, having superiority complex about own ideological thinking, and difference in approaches to expanding the work led to multiple splits. This led to spreading thin of the Left- Wing Extremist forces. In fact, there was a time, described in Maoist literature as ‘Dark Period,’ when some factions killed the foot-soldiers of rival factions. Not long ago, in Jharkhand, Tritiya Prastuti Committee earned notoriety for killing CPI (Maoist) cadres. So, even after major splinter groups including Maoist Communist Centre (active in northern parts of country) and People’s War (active in southern part), there are several groups that have not come together due to personality cults and differences over ideological approaches to ‘revolution.’

Inconsistent Approach

When there are differences of opinion over approach to achieving an objective, inconsistencies are bound to creep in. In the case of the Left-Wing Extremists, they increasingly resorted to violence as the only operative tactic, drawing governmental wrath. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they now face historic defeats across the country, including in Abujhmad, their once impregnable stronghold.

One can quote several examples, but two should suffice to drive home the point. The first is their approach to the caste and class question. While the extremists in Bharat projected themselves as the champions of the ‘classless society,’ they ended up in championing the cause of ‘caste identity.’ Anuradha Ghandy is credited as having brought in consciousness about the caste realities in the Naxalite/Maoist thinking. One of the articles in the book ‘Scripting the Change’ that commemorates Ghandy provides an elaborate account of this. However, this left many of the urban ideologues of the Naxalites confused. For, most of them had romanticised the idea of ‘casteless and classless’ society, but they were forced to toe the line of ‘caste identity.’

Efforts like ‘JatiAntachiChalwal’ (movement to end castes) in Maharashtra deepened caste divides rather than uniting classes. Even if this approach worked in Marathwada region of Maharashtra, it failed in other parts. In fact, this consolidation of smaller groups alienated larger ones from the Left-Wing Extremists.

Second, the leadership’s hypocrisy alienated foot-soldiers. The top-ranking leaders’ sons and daughters studied in bigger and better colleges in big cities, but the foot-soldiers (who were mostly misguided tribals) were made to suffer because of policies like abortion of pregnancy, discouraging marriages and having families. These foot-soldiers were also forced to kill their acquaintances in their native villages as the leaders branded them as ‘police informants’ or ‘enemies of the revolution.’

This led to widespread disillusionment among them and desertions soared. Many surrendered to the police, many abandoned the ‘party’ while some rebelled and got killed. The Maoists then turned to urban youth.

Initially, through propaganda and skewed narratives, the Maoists’ urban designs succeeded in recruiting some youngsters from cities like Delhi and Pune. However, as time passed by, these youngsters realised that they had fallen prey to a failed idea. Over the past few years, many of them have surrendered as well while turning informants that led to the decimation of several Maoist leaders.

The biggest frustration for these youngsters who joined Maoist ranks was an utter lack of any coherent narrative. Their so-called ‘ideology’ failed to convince them. The Maoists and their urban supporters still continue to peddle a false narrative that Bharat suffers ‘jobless growth’ despite rising consumption, car ownership, mobile usage, expanding air travel and improved access to loans.

The clearest instance of the Maoists’ lack of any coherent idea of their ‘revolution’ is that while they lend strength to the political Opposition in present-day Bharat, they have not been able to present better alternatives to the existing Constitutional and democratic model of governance. Often, the Maoists and their urban sympathisers try to sow seeds of dissent in the public mind, but taste failure each time as they have no viable alternative to offer. They do not contest elections, but speak of a ‘new democracy.’ They do not profess the high ideals enshrined in the ‘BharatiyaSamvidhan’, but accuse the ruling democratic parties of trying to change the Constitution. They claim to be working to unite the workers and peasants, but do not support industrialisation or agriculture policies that can offer employment and a better standard of living to workers and peasants.

Obviously, this presents the Left-Wing Extremists as a group hell-bent upon using violence to overthrow the Constitutionally established and democratically elected government in Bharat. In effect, this also projects them as a destructive force not interested in any constructive contribution to nation-building.

In an era when Bharatiyas are prouder and more confident of their identity, the Maoists seek to fragment them into smaller identity groups. Today, the Maoists are a spent force: an anarchist farce that clings to foreign ideologies rather than Bharatiya values.

The moment belongs to Bharat’s ethos. The rest, like the Left-Wing Extremists, can be consigned to the dustbin of history.

(The author is a lawyer who writes under the above nom de plume. Views personal)