ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Revolutionary Armed Struggle in India

This comment on the ever-present tussle between the Indian Naxal movement and the Indian state, as also the role of the Maoist leadership, is a response to Sumanta Banerjee's "Hanoi (1965-68), Gaza (2014): Continuity and Divergence over Half a Century" (EPW, 6 September 2014).

The Indian state is in a hurry to ruthlessly and violently suppress the Maoist armed groups because the big business industrial houses of India, and powerful transnational corporations of the West are feeling impatient. Their big industrial projects are held up because of resistance organised by Marxist groups, especially in resource-rich forest areas inhabited by poor tribals.

The state’s response to armed struggle or suspected violent social movements, whether during colonial rule or in independent India has been consistently ruthless. P Sundarayya had written about how the Nehru government had deployed military personnel to crush the Telangana peasant struggle launched by the Communist Party of India. This pattern of the state’s response continues till today when dealing with the challenge or threat posed by Maoists. While the state response is clear, the responses of the Maoist leadership deserve an analysis.

To read the full text Login

Get instant access

New 3 Month Subscription
to Digital Archives at

₹826for India

$50for overseas users

Comments

(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top