DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

THE NAXAL MOVEMENT : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

POLITICAL SCIENCE

MS.T.Y. NIRMALA DEVI

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Whenever we get on with a job,we need support in many ways quite often ,we get the support we
require when I sat down to complete this project ,I was not sure if i could have managed to complete
even twenty five percent of what i have done now .The truth is-it wouldnt have been, but for the
priceless support I have recieved during the course of project work So it is my privilege to mention
them and thank them for their help.

I would like to express my gratitude to MS.T.Y. NIRMALA DEVI mam,the head of political science
department for [Link] course in DAMODARAM SNAJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
for going through my project several times she was present everytime to help me out and she solved
patiently all my doubts and queries.

A special thanks to my family for just being there for me and letting me know that I could count on
them every single time. they gave me the will to get on with this project.

2|Page
 POLITICAL SCIENCE ABSTRACT

TITLE OF PROJECT: THE NAXAL MOVEMENT :A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

METHOD OF RESEARCH: ANALYTICAL

INTRODUCTION:

Naxal or Naxalite is a member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The term Naxal derives
from the name of the village Naxalbari in West Bengal, where the movement had its origin. Naxalites
are considered far-left radical communists, supportive of Maoist political sentiment and ideology.
Their origin can be traced to the split in 1967 of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), leading to
the formation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist). Initially the movement had its
centre in West Bengal. In later years, it spread into less developed areas of rural southern and eastern
India, such as Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana through the activities of
underground groups like the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
Naxalism signifies a particular kind of militant and violent armed struggle by the peasants and tribals
who accept Marxist-Leninist ideology. Inspite of Naxalism being termed as the biggest problem in
Adivasi areas, the social problems are actually much wider in the form of unemployment, poverty and
an untold number of socio-economic injustices Naxalites are powerful and effective in some areas in
India because of the unresolved contradictions and issues in our society. They have proved effective
because they have an ideology that inspires youth apart from having an organisational structure and
armed groups. Proper enforcement of land ceiling laws, utilisation of the funds provided to the
government to the maximum could be the solution to this problem. The central reason for the
advancement of Naxalism is the vast exploitation of the poor and the scheduled castes. People, who
have been displaced, should be given proper rehabilitation along with police protection. Security, as
well as development, has to run hand in hand.

3|Page
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5

2. THEORETICAL INTEPRETATION OF VIOLENCE–––––––––––––––––––––––––––7

3. CLASSICAL THEORIES OF VIOLENCE –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8

4. REVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF VIOLENCE––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––9

5. THE MODERN THEMES OF VIOLENCE––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 11

[Link] NON-VIOLENT FACTOR–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 13

7. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF ORGANISATIONAL POLITICS–––––––––––––––––15

[Link] THEORY OF POLITICS :AN OVERVIEW––––––––––––––––15

9. TRADITIONAL SCHOOL OF ORGANISATIONAL POLITICS–––––––––––––––––17

10. INSTITUTIONALISATION AND GOAL DISPLACEMENT MODE _____________17

11. MASS SOCIETY THEORY________________________________________________19

12. ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE : THE ASPECT OF MODERNISATION AND TECHNOLOGY_19

13. CONSTRUCTING A FRAMEWORK–––––––––––––––––––––––––– 20

[Link] MOVEMENT AND ITS CONFLICT DYNAMICS––––––––––––21

15. FORMATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA(MAOIST)––––––––––––––––25

4|Page
 Introduction

Indian politics is marked by violence. This is evident by incidences of its different kinds. Apart from
violence accompanying the Partition in I 94 7, India subsequently witnessed violent revolts of workers,
peasants, religious, caste and communal groups. Social Movements like the struggle for Telangana in the
early 1970s, the Assam Movement of the 1980s, attacks on deprived groups and sectarian mobilizations
have been accompanied by violence. The atrocities against women have necessitated legislation. Violence
has also been used in the political process, party politics and electoral process. Naxal Movement 1 is one
case of violence that is both part and apart from political process and party politics. It influences political
process, especially the electoral process, though it offers a strategy of negation of the same political process
in its avowed methods, since its inception in 1968. From a Rebellion to a socio-political movement to a
problem involving the country's internal security; the Naxal Movement has indeed come a long way. This
Maoist journey has been the most unusual one as it traveledfrom an unknown village of Naxalbari in West
Bengal, to reach 509 Police stations comprising of 7000 villages in II states, namely Andhra Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal,
Tamilnadu, _Karnataka and [Link] level of violence is significant in the affected districts of Andhra
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Maharashtra and Orissa. Recently there were reports that the
Naxals are fast targeting some regions in Uttaranchal and Haryana. As per 2006 data today forty percent of
the country's geographical area and thirty five percent of the country's total population is affected by the
problem of Naxal violence. This is no simple mathematics, as it implies that the problem of Naxalism is
more acute than the problems in Kashmir, and the [Link], as a technique, of Naxal Movement
was right there from the beginning courtesy Charu Majumdar's Annihilation Doctrine However,
indiscriminate use of violence and counter violence in the name of development has some how made the
Naxal Movement a more complex phenomenon. It has taken the conflict dynamics to a different level, which
offers all together different plateau of analysis, which is quite different from that of the Spring Thunder.
5Approximately 6,000 people have been killed as a direct result of the conflict in last twenty years, with an
estimated 3,000 to 4,000 deaths occurring in the last decade. 6It's not only the number of deaths but also the
loss of country's physical territory that is some thing more worrisome. We have discussed the theories of
violence and there from we can derive the conclusion that all the leading exponents viewed 'armed struggle'
5|Page
as a means to an end. None of them ever claimed violence as an end in itself. However, the new generation
of Naxal leadership has been repeatedly saying that "armed struggle" is non-negotiable final justification' of
extreme Left violence also demands attention here. "The violence that we indulge in," declares Muppala
Lakshmana Rao alias 'Ganapathy', the present head of the CPI (Maoist), "is only as a counter to the mindless
violence perpetrated day in and day out by the state's mercenary forces." Another party document of the
erstwhile CPI (ML) People's War declares that, "Every Marxist Leninist party must propagate revolutionary
violence which may favour itself in various forms of struggle; one of which may be annihilation of class
enemies." However, to believe that the indiscriminate use of violence will advance the cause of revolution is
like believing that we can obtain miraculous cure by plunging a scalpel into any part of the body. Killing of
innocent civilians, hijacking trains, kidnapping government officials, raiding jails and freeing criminals,
sitting over the mines and mineral deposits of the country and not allowing any type of development work to
start; what kind of revolution the Naxals are trying to bring by resmting to these means of violence?

What are the reasons that have kept this movement alive for a period of about four decades? Despite of all
the tall claims made by successive governments people in the Naxal infested regions continue to lead a
miserable life. The metamorphic growth of violence and the inability of the State to come out with a well
thought strategy have entirely paralyzed the rural administration in the Naxal-infested regions. The ill
represented national government, non-responsive state governments, failed institutions of Local Self
Government and the establishment of Naxal Janata Sarkar particularly in the Naxal infested regions have led
to the formation of a vicious nexus between bureaucrats, politicians, contractors and Naxals, not to assist the
downtrodden but to make Naxalism a lucrative business. On the other hand through out all these decades
Naxal Movement has never been able to prepare a development formula for the people for whom it claims of
waging a war. Also there is little hope if the Naxal rank and file would ever come closer to the level where
policies are made, or programmes are implemented. Recently Dr. Manmohan Singh, the then Indian Prime
Minister said, "It would not be exaggeration to say that the problem of Naxalism is the single biggest
internal security challenge ever faced by our country." While speaking in the Chief Ministers Conference of
the Naxal affected states Dr. Singh expressed concern over the changing character of the Naxalism into
militarization with "superior army style organization, better trained cadres, and attacks on large . targets
through large scale frontal assaults, better coordination and possible external links." He cautioned about the
changing character of Naxal movement including the organizational change which, "needs to be recognized
and all responses on our side must be guided by this new reality," he said. Of course Naxal organizations
have undergone a lot of change and transformation and this is one way of explaining the growth of the Naxal
Movement in the country. What is Naxalism? There are a number of works that have attempted to look at
Naxalism from different perspectives. Academicians, police officers, bureaucrats, researchers, journalists,
and experts on security have significantly contributed in analyzing the problem. As far as the books are
concerned most of the books on the Naxal Movement are published before1980, yet we found them quite

6|Page
useful for our purpose as they helped us understand the basic characteristicsof the movement. Undoubtedly
the Naxal Movement is a dynamic phenomenon and the most important feature of the movement is that even
after so many decades of its existence and even after so many changes in its organizational goals and
strategies, there is still an element of continuity of the past

THEORETICAL INTEPRETATION OF VIOLENCE

Violence, as a theme in social science research is regarded as one of the most elusive and difficult one. With
two World Wars and several revolutions and counter-revolutions, the twentieth century has witnessed far
more than its share of violence. Ever since 1990 more than 3 million people have died consequent of armed
conflict. Almost all of these deaths are directly attributed to conflict that have happened in developing
countries. Not to withstand the immediate human loss, violent conflict disrupts the whole socio-political and
economic equations and can roll back human development gains built up over generations. Violent conflict
disrupts food systems, contributes to hunger and malnutrition, undermines progress in health and education
and moreover results in creating a vacuum in governance. Social scientists are still to find a proper definition
and humanity is yet to establish the socio-political assessment as well as moral evaluation of violence,
despite the fact that the humanity as a whole has become the target of violence. It is not only the meaning
and type of violence, but also the issue of origin of violence, which is much more debated. Undoubtedly
violence is an extremely complex phenomenon, which involves major ambiguity between the destruction
and the creation of new social order. Regrettably research on violence in social science does not have the
same pace as compared to other contemporary themes of research. Thus, Hannah Ardent observes, "No one
concerned

with history and politics can remain unaware of the enormous role violence has always played in human
affairs; and it is at first glance rather surprising that violence has so seldom been singled out for special
consideration. This shows to what extent violence and its arbitrary nature were taken for granted and
therefore neglected; no one questions or examines what is obvious to all. Whoever looked for some kind of
sense in the records of the past was almost bound to look upon . violence as a marginal phenomenon.
Despite its metamorphic growth of violent conflicts, armed rebellions and terrorism, the world leaders may
self congratulate themselves for avoiding a third world war. At the same time no one can undermine the fact
that mini wars, new wars and low intensity conflicts are indeed stalking the various parts of the globe. The
anti-imperialist uprisings, resistance against the imposition of influence zones, guerilla activities for
secession, civil wars, left as well as right wing extremism especially in the Third World countries, are but
7|Page
different manifestations of violence. Moreover, the growth of intra-societal violence has become a global
phenomenon. Violence and use of violence is not new for mankind, but with the growth of civilization, the
vehemence and pervasive persistence of violence have added new features to it. Horrifying, but true today
violence rages within nations, sub-cultures, cities and homes. It disturbs relationships, questions values,
challenges systems, brings fluidity in every institution, and carries blood to the doorstep. The impact is
sogreat that a scientific appraisal of the phenomenon cannot be delayed any further. Given the complex
nature of violence and violent conflicts, the scope of evolving a general framework is negligible and
fallacious. Violence as a theme of social science research has a limited but important scope. It is limited, as
it does not offer a general explanation. It is important because it provides valuable guidance on where to
look when analyzing individual conflicts for signs of potential escalation and when seeking opportunities for
preventing violent escalation. The concept of violence has attracted a number of sociologists and political
thinkers to provide a philosophical basis for it. Social Scientists are engaged in understanding violence as a
subject of study because it seems to infect all the modern institutions of nation state. Revolutionary Violence
has for long remained the dominant theme in the contemporary research on violence theory. Marked growth
in Left Wing Extremism in different parts of world has necessitated a fresh thinking about the way in which
ideological frameworks lend themselves to deployment in providing an explanation to violence. The theories
and the theorists discussed below would cover their views on violence only and not their entire philosophy.
Naxal Movement or the Left Wing Extremism in India, so far has been defended and criticized for its
uncompromising faith on violent techniques. Politics of Naxalism, has always surprised others with violent
incidents, when others would have started considering it as a matter of past

The inclusion of review of different theories of violence into the scope of the present study, has one primary
objective, that it would serve as a guide to understand the linkage between violence and Naxalite politics.
Understanding of Naxal movement will depend a lot on our understanding of violence and use of violence

CLASSICAL THEORIES OF VIOLENCE

Georges Sorel's 'Reflection on Violence' (1908) is widely recognized as the first authoritative statement on
violence and it remains a controversial text even today. Georges Sorel addresses the factors underlying
revolutionary movements and examines the role of violence and force. He further explores sources of
political power, the weapons of revolutions, and the recruitment and motivation of potential revolutionaries.
In other words Reflection on Violence unashamedly advocates the use of violence as a means of putting an
end to the corrupt politics of bourgeois democracy and of bringing down capitalism. Modern . political
analysts have looked at Sorel's philosophical explanation as both dangerous and fascinating. However all of
them have treated it with enduring importance and interest. In this work Sorel conceptualizes, 'proletarian
violence' and he finds it a necessary, fine and heroic deed. He writes, "Proletarian violence. carried on as
8|Page
pure and simple manifestation of the sentiment of class war, appears thus a very heroic thing, it is at the
service of the immemorial interests of the civilization; it is not perhaps the most appropriate method of
obtaining immediate material advantages, but it may save the world from barbarism."To him the strike not
only keeps the

revolutionary spirit alive, but it serves to awaken the middle class to their own class sentiments. Sorel
though regards proletarian violence as educative and emancipatory, has also a word of caution for the
working class. In his own words, "not only violence be used with discretion but the workmen's demands also
must not exceed certain limits". Sorel advocates revolutionary violence as a means to both power and the
creation of a new mythic order. Conceptualization of Myth is one of the most controversial parts in Sorrel's
work. To him myth is 'the activity, the sentiments and the ideas of the masses as they prepare themselves to
enter on a decisive struggle'. Throughout the book he portrays general strike as a myth because it provides
an 'intuitive' understanding and 'picture' of the essence of socialism. Sorrel observes that the Jacobians were
violent and bloody, yet they managed to create a mythology for the French Revolution. Direct action,
mythmaking and ruthless bloodshed were the means Sorel recommended for revolution. He discusses the
use of violence and force by revolutionary movements and the state, examines the violence of economic and
political strikes, and constructs an ethics of violence.

REVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF VIOLENCE

If the above-mentioned theorists are credited with the 'glorification of violence', it is Marx, .. Lenin and Mao
Ze-Dong (Mao Tse-Tung), and not to withstand, Che Guevara who constructed theories of revolutionary
violence. Karl Marx, though never been a propagator of violence, is been widely regarded as the source of
inspiration for many groups believing in armed insurrection. It is indeed a thought provoking exercise to
examine the place of violence in Marx's theory of revolution. Marx believed that social revolution was
inevitable and also equally inevitable was the violent nature of revolution. Both Marx and Engels maintained
that the inevitability of the revolution and its violent nature was determined by the very structure of the
bourgeois system. Marx

perceived of violence as a means with the working class to liberate itself by the fruits of production, by
sweat and toil in the factory floor. He emphasized that the bourgeois political institutions were there with the
only objective of not to allow the working class from acquiring power and changing the system in the
required manner. This has left to the working class with n.? other option but to resort to violence. Making
clear his views on revolution and violence, Marx writes, "The proletarians cannot become the masters of the
productive forces of society, cannot raise themselves up, without the whole super incumbent strata of
official society being sprung into the air. The struggle rages within the bourgeois society as a veiled civil

9|Page
war up to a point and then breaks out in to open revolution culminating ultimately, in the violent overthrow
of the bourgeois." Marx regards the capitalist system (state) as an instrument of violence, for which the
proletarian struggle definitely would have to take a violent turn. Proletarian violence, as observed by Marx,
is creative, moralizing and educative and hence it is an inevitable aspect of revolution. Through out Marx's
analysis on revolution showed that a violent change was the inevitable end of the historical developments.
Of course, Marx and Engels were not against the use revolutionary violence in political practice, but they
were no preachers of mindless violence. Rather they prescribed the means of violence only when the normal
means were not effective. Formulating the rules for the revolution, Engels wrote, "Insurrection is an art quite
as much as

war or any other; arid subject to certain rules of proceedings, which, when neglected will produce the ruin of
the party neglecting them. These rules are logical deductions from the nature of the parties and the
circumstances one has to deal with in such a case ...... Never play with insurrections unless you are fully
prepared to face the consequences of your play. Insurrection is a calculus with very indefinite magnitudes,
the value of which may change every day; the forces opposed to you have all the advantages of organization,
discipline and habitual authority; unless you. bring strong odds against them, you are defeated and ruined."
There have been considerable debates among social scientists with regard to the status of violence In Marx's
philosophy. Scholars worldwide are widely polarized on the subject. While some find violence an
inseparable part of Marx's philosophy, there are others who believe that for Marx the use of violence was
situational. There is also another group of scholars who maintain that in between 1844 and 1870, there was a
marked ·.change with regard to Marx's view on violence. However Marx in all fairness can never be termed
a preacher of violence. He viewed the use of violent or peaceful methods essentially as a matter of strategy
and tactics to achieve the goal of a socialist revolution.

Launching the Bolshevik revolution Lenin too formulated the main rules of an armed uprising. An ardent
follower of Marx, Lenin believed that violence is inevitable to bring about revolutionary consciousness and
revolution. Elaborating and further enriching the theory and tactics of proletariat revolution originally
discovered by Marx and Engels, Lenin maintained that it is the epoch of wars; inter imperialist, national
revolutionary and civil wars, which will inevitably lead to the replacement of capitalism by socialism.
Making his stance clear he writes, "Socialists cannot without ceasing to be socialists, be opposed to all war.
Because, he who accepts the struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars." Lenin believed civil war; guerilla
warfare and other methods of warfare are natural and inevitable with the class struggle.

The life and work of Mao assumes a great deal of importance as far as the present study is concerned. Mao's
success lies with the fact that he not only combined Marxism-Leninism, but also made a comprehensive
study of Chinese society and formulated appropriate tactics for Chinese revolution. Mao put the peasantry at
the forefront of his revolutionary formula and made 'land reforms' as the central issue on which the capture

10 | P a g e
of state power was premised. ·. Mao laid great emphasis on guerrilla warfare and maintained that the
revolution would proceed as a national war of liberation, which would begin along in the countryside and
culminate in the capture of cities. It is on the basis of his understanding of the Chinese society and

evils of imperialism; he designed the course of Chinese Revolution with the concept of armed struggle,
protracted war, guerilla warfare and self reliance. Mao, makes sure not to miss a point when he writes in the
context of Chinese revolution that, "it is wrong to belittle armed struggle, the revolutionary war, guerilla war
and army work." He moves on to write that, "Without armed struggle neither the proletariat, nor the people,
nor the Communist Party would have any standing at all in China and it would be impossible for the
revolution to triumph. In these years the eighteen years since the founding of the Party the development,
consolidation and bolshevization of our Party have proceeded in the midst of revolutionary wars; without
armed struggle the Communist Party would assuredly not be what it is today. Comrades throughout the
Party must never forget this experience for which we have paid in blood."For him the 'just goal' i.e. the
establishment of people's government was important and with this in mind he formulated all his strategies
and tactics, which could help him, win the war. In his own words, "our war is sacred and just, it is
progressive and its aim is peace. The aim is peace not just in one country but throughout the world, not just
temporary, but perpetual peace." To him armed struggle was a means to attend humanly life, which was
under the clutches of imperialism. Throughout he maintained that war was not an act of adventurism but a
necessity. "We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished
through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."

THE MODERN THEMES ON VIOLENCE

Other than the above-mentioned classical theories of violence and revolutionary theories of violence, there
are quite a number of modern theorists who have made significant contribution in the field of Violence
research. 'Violence' gets altogether a different treatment with the 'Relative Deprivation Approach', which
focuses on the psychological mechanism that leads to violence. The basic assumption of this approach is that
political violence constitutes an inseparable part of the human experience and is not simply a passing social
event. In this approach, political violence results from the social frustration that occurs in the wake of
relative deprivation. The approach is itself based directly on theory and evidence from clinical psychology
that links frustration to aggression in individual behavior. Ted Robert Gurr provides the main characteristics
of this approach. Formulating his theory in 'Why Men Rebel' ( 1970), he writes, violence is likely to develop
in a society where there is a wide spread relative deprivation, defined as, "a perceived discrepancy between
men's value expectations and their value capabilities". fiIe continues, "Value expectations are goods and
conditions of life to which people believe they are rightfully entitled", and "value capabilities are the goods
and conditions they are capable of attaining or maintaining." Gurr argues that an increase in the level of
11 | P a g e
expectation without an increase in the level of capability results with relative deprivation, which is
manifested by violence in the society. According to Gurr, violence derives from high level of discontent. In
particular, at the individual level, aggressive reactions follow frustration. Relative deprivation spreads with
all structural conditions that increase the levels of expectation without increasing the capabilities. The
political expression of such frustration is influenced by other societal conditions, such as cultural acceptance
of aggression as a political means, past success of political violence, the degree of legitimation of the state
as well as its capacity for repression. In his Why Men Rebel, Gurr also lays down condition for political
violence. It . is the inconsistency between outcomes and expectations and/or the prevalence of outcomes that
are regarded as unjust that constitutes Relative Deprivation. Low levels of income (i.e. absolute deprivation)
alone are an insufficient condition for creating violence. Rather violence occurs when the individual feels
deprived because income fails to match expectations and/or is regarded by the individual as being so low as
to constitute an injustice. Thus, according to Gurr just as frustration produces aggressive behavior on the
part of an individual, so does relative deprivation predict collective violence by social groups. To him
political violence consists of "collective attacks within political community against a political regime." In
no uncertain terms Gurr makes it clear that resource scarcity and demand enhances the likelihood of violent
outbursts. An additional factor ' affecting the prospect of violent confrontation is the length of time that
feelings of rage within the group were repressed. In his own words, "the longer the rage was contained, the
greater its chances of eruption. Similarly, as feelings of deprivation are increasingly widespread, the
probability of manifestations of violence increases. Furthermore Gurr moves on to identify a range of
societal factors that might produce feelings of relative deprivation, and thereby predict the occurrence and
intensity of political rebellion across nations. These factors include short-term changes the national
economy, inflation rates, and GNP growth rates, as well as long-term economic and social deprivation.
These indicators were positively related to Gurr's measure of turmoil, which is the combination of
demonstrations, strikes, riots and other forms of political protest. Other then Gurr, James Davies is another
theorist who is credited with the development of Relative deprivation approach. In Davies's view, political
violence results from an intolerable gap between what people want and what they get: the difference
between expectations and [Link] it should also be pointed out that relative deprivation
theories do not only refer to economic .. deprivation. Crucially, there are a number of political scientists who
have written on relative deprivation locating it at the political level. Among them Vilfredo Pareto
conceptualizes a sort of political relative deprivation based on the insufficient co-optation of competing
members of the non-elite, ultimately causing the decline of status quo elites. Gaetano Mosca and Emile
Durkheim also tackled the problem of relative deprivation situated at the political level. Samue Huntington
locates violent political action and revolution at the level of the political sphere; and maintains that within a
context of rapid socio-economic modernization, people are mobilized and induced to enter the political
arena, and if their demands are not properly channelized, aggressive modes of behaviour maybe taken.
Johatl Galtung's lame would always be associated with the studies in violence for he developed two new
12 | P a g e
concepts, i.e., 'structural violence' and 'cultural violence'. Galtung developed the concept of ‘structural
violence' to explain all those kinds of violence which result from systemic structures and are reflected in the
various forms of anonymous mass impoverishment and the death of huge number of people worldwide due
to the basic inequality of opportunity. In the theory of "structural violence", social conditions that result in
massive social discrimination and injustice are a form of violence. Structural violence, as according to
Galtung, is always present when there is no direct perpetrator but a permanent state of violence. Thus, he
conceives violence inherent with the social structures of society or system. Explaining his concept as
structural violence, Galtung writes, "Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that
their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realization." Violence thus is
understood as the gap between potential and actual, between real and possible, between what is and what
could have been at a particular level of social development. This gap is caused because of uneven
distribution of resources and unequal power conditions. Galtung's concept includes poverty, alienation,
oppression, and social injustice as the conditions of structural violence. The broad n9tion of structural
violence states that the very "refusal of the gratification of desires whenever gratification is possible should
be considered a form of violence.

THE NON VIOLENT FACTOR

This theoretical exploration of violence would remain incomplete without a reference to Mahatma Gandhi,
the greatest apostle of nonviolence. Gandhi's concept of non-violence was far wider than mere abstention
from physical injury. It embraced avoidance of injury to others in any form. However, he was no utopian
theorist of nonviolence. He did not disapprove the use of violence in certain extreme Theoretical
Interpretation .. conditions. Gandhi differentiates between non-violence and cowardice and prefers violence
to cowardice if that was the choice before him. He writes, "I would rather have India resort to arms in order
to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim of her
own dishonour." It is in the context of lacking capacity of non-violent self-defense; Gandhi found
justification for using violent means. He regarded vengeance superior to helpless submission. Ii1 other
words, Gandhi also permitted the use of violence, though in a limited sense, for the protection of ones
honour, justice, freedom and disunity. "He knew that his ideal of a completely nonviolent society was
unrealizable and that violence was necessary, unavoidable or understandable, when used in the pursuit of
such values as individual and social life, justice, the assertion of human dignity and the development of
courage or when provoked by unbearable oppression." Gandhi's view point on violence has a characteristic
feature, rather than running away from violence, or becoming paralyzed by its brutalities, or claiming a
pacifist sensibility, he entered into the battlefield of violence in the capacity of a healer, bearing truth on the
stretcher of non-violence. He made immense contribution for creating a dialectical, dialogic, and

13 | P a g e
hermeneutic awareness of non-violence. The advocates of violence seldom if ever speak to the votaries of
nonviolence, and one of the many reasons why Gandhi held non-violence to besuperior to violence is that its
proponents extend an invitation to those who swear by violence to enter into a dialogue. The advocates of
non-violence are always in a conversation with the adherents ofviolence. This relationship brought Gandhi
to an awareness of the fact that some forms of non-violence are tantamount to violence, that avoidance of
violence is not necessarily a form of non-violent action, and that there may be occasions when the practice
of violence is the only way of honouring the spirit of non-violence. From Sorel to Gandhi, all the above-
mentioned theorists have perceived the use of violence in different context. None of them has prescribed the
indiscriminate use of violence. Some of them supported the cause of violence in different contexts, i.e.,
protection of justice, freedom, self-respect, and equality, where as others tried to come out with an
explanation for violent conflicts. The existing socio-economic and political conditions of their society
played a great role in designing the thought process of the above-mentioned theorists. To sum up violence
has been analyzed from the perspectives of structural and psychological states, which take the inquiry into
different though complimentary lines of investigation. In particular peasant revolt is considered to be the
product of structural causation. The above theoretical synthesis reveals that there is no single cause of a
violent conflict. Also there is no single precondition for sustainable peace. Different factors vary in
importance, and reinforce or neutralize each other. Thus situational analysis including different indicators
and their inter-relationship holds the key in the understanding of a violent phenomenon. However, as stated
earlier violence research is very sensitive and there is no scope for generalization. Very often it comes with
so much of emotions that there is always a danger of getting biased. The theoretical conclusions derived
from the above-mentioned exercise do have their limitations, but they are important~ because they direct our
attention towards several key issues of socio-political and economic importance. It is imperative to note here
that there appears to be two unique characteristics of Naxalism which are independent of the above
'structural theorization'. Naxal Movement, over the years has displayed a character, which can be termed as
the 'fetish of violence'. Since 1967 violence has remained the central character of the Movement with
slogans like 'Power comes from the barrel of the gun', 'area wise seizure of power', 'rural areas surrounding
the cities', 'struggle not for land and for corps but for political power'. However all these slogans along with
the violent modus operandi of Naxal Movement, in all these years have not been able to change the
condition of rural poor of this country. In the context of Naxal Movement it has been observed that the
desire for quick revolution has pushed the Naxal leadership from the conceived programme of armed
struggle in the rural areas to individual killings, even up to the cities. But the Naxal leadership never accepts
this as a failure instead there has been a steady growth in the violent activities of the Naxal groups in all
these years. Secondly, it appears that in recent years the Naxal Movement has acquired a 'mercenmy
character' and this change has been underlined by a number of scholars. When we are discussing the Naxal
Movement today, let us be clear in our minds that the questions of peasant mobilization and land rights,
which were raised during its origin, remain unanswered till today. Surprisingly, the Naxal leadership has
14 | P a g e
noanswer to this crucial question. Historically speaking Naxal movement started as a reaction by the
landless peasants, but through out all these years the Naxal struggle has revolved around the question of
tribal rights. When it comes to tribal rights there are two important aspects, viz. forest and forest rights. By
raising the issue of forest and forest rights for the tribals the Naxal Movement underlines a significant shift
in its conflict dynamics, which drives it close to the role of mercenary. Naxal Movement is a complex
problem and it must be noted that the structural causes of violence as discussed above by different theorists
again require a more concrete and historically specific examination. We intend to do the same with out
experiments on the Naxalite phenomenon in the context of Indian politics.

THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF ORGANISATIONAL POLITICS

As far as this study of Naxal Movement is concerned focus on the Politics of Organizations, especially inter-
organizational and intraorganizational conflict aspect is of utmost importance. As the genesis, growth, split
and current phase of Naxalism, very much falls under the purview of organizational politics. Naxal
Movement manifests itself through different organizations that are subject to a range of internal and external
pressures that affect their viability, their internal structure, and their ultimate success in attaining goals.
Following is a theoretical synthesis, which would trace different paradigms of organization study, and would
further explain the pattern of the growth, decay and change in the organizations.

ORGANISATIONAL THEORY OF POLITICS; AN OVERVIEW

Historically socio-political movements whether extremist, revolutionary or peaceful, operate through

organizations. Such movements have also this unique feature of being identified with loosely structured
collective conflict. As observed by Oberschall, "hundreds of groups and organizations-many of them short-
lived, spatially scattered, and lacking direct communication, a single organization and a common leadership
episodically take part many different kinds of local collective action." Of course the importance of a
movement lies with its underlying causes, but the success and failure of a movement are significantly
affected by a variety of roles played by these organizations. Scientifically speaking social movements are
collections of individuals and groups striving for some kind of change, i.e. social, political, economic or
individual. The importance of the organization within a movement can be gathered from its assigned
functions which include "inducing participants to offer their services; defining organizational aims;
managing and coordinating contributions; collecting resources from their environment; selecting, training
and replacing members." Through out the course of a movement several changes are bound to occur and
these changes do have their impact on the functioning of movement organizations. Similarly dynamics of
inter organizational and intra organizational conflicts too have their impact on the course of a movement. As
the organization in a movement relates to politics of goals achievement or denial, and it has a societal

15 | P a g e
context that may have specific characteristics given the locale in question, the study of organizational
politics assumes a great deal of importance in the analysis of any movement. The movement organizations
are mostly characterized as loosely structured, decentralized and prone to political challenges and counter
cultural practices. Plurality of organizations is one important feature in social movements, especially in the
revolutionary and extremist movements. "Organizations differ, sometimes to a very high degree, in their
response to dilemmas such as whether focusing on the mobilization of the people or other types of resources,
adopting some kind of formal hierarchy or a totally informal structure, targeting their efforts at opponents or
also providing services and life opportunities to their own constituents." Over the decades a number of
political theorists and sociologists have focused their study on organizational studies and social movement
analysis. History of mankind has been mostly shaped up by different movements, i.e. social movements,
political movements, reform movements, protest movements, revolutionary movements, secessionist
movements, freedom movements, anti-colonial movements and there are many. In the success and failure of
all these movements, different organizations played different roles in different times. On the other hand
these movements have been subject to further theoretical exploration by many social scientists and in the
process the concept of 'movement organization' has rather become ambiguous. The concept has been used in
so many ways and contexts that it seems it has lost its precise meaning. But this is not to suggest that the
concept has no meaning, in fact the concept of movement organization has proved to be the most dynamic in
.the study of any form of movement. Following are two important definitions, which are worth mentioning
here as it suits best to our interest McCarthy and Zald define Social Movement Organization (SMO) as "a
complex, or formal organization, which identifies its goals with the preference of a social movement or
counter-movement and attempts to implement these goals." On the other hand John Lofland defines
Movement Organization- (MO) as, "an association of persons making idealistic and moralistic claims about
how human personal and group life ought be organized that, at the time of their claims making, are marginal
to or excluded from mainstream society." For our purpose of analysis we have examined below a number of
theories dealing with Organizations in general and Movement Organizations in particular. However, we will
not be specifically looking at the conceptual clarity of Movement Organizations, rather we will focus on
different dynamics of organizational politics which affects the Over all functioning of a movement
organization. Change is a tempting theme in the analysis of organization theory and right from its inception
in 1967-68, the Naxal Movement has undergone quite a number of organizational changes. There are a
number of factors i.e. environmental, institutional and organizational, which affect the changes in a
movement organization. The following exercise is an attempt to develop a model where different variables
of organizational politics i.e. inter and intra organizational conflict can be tested within the framework of
Naxal movement. The following discussion on the theory of Organizational Politics has a primary aim of
studying the process of transformation of movement organizations. There are a number of theorists who
have studied the phenomena of social··movements and social change to analyze the goal displacement
process, which ultimately affects the course of a movement
16 | P a g e
 TRADITIONAL SCHOOL OF ORGANISATIONAL POLITICS

ROBERT K MERTON AND REFERENCE THEORY

Prior to the work of Robert K. Merton in the late 1940s, organizational studies , were not typically
acknowledged as a distinctive social phenomenon. The Reference Theory mainly developed by Robert K.
Merton on the basis of his analysis of functional sociology, is one significant work in the field of
organizational conflict as it describes how groups form, grow and dissolve and how normative and value
change take place through process of group formation and disintegration. One of the major hallmarks of
analyses of organizations produced by Merton was his focus on the dynamics of social change where he
maintained that 'change is likely to occur when the functional contributions of a given structural
arrangement are exceeded by dysfunctions associated with that arrangernent." This reasoning as developed
by Merton led him to an explicit concern with identifying both the dysfunctional and functional
consequences of given structural arrangements. Analyzing change in the context of organization Merton
clearly distinguishes deviant from nonconforming behavior and links nonconforming behavior to social
change. He writes, " the nonconformist aims to change the norms of the group, to supplement what he takes
to be morally illegimate norms and values with norms having an alternative moral basis." Merton
continues," ... the nonconformist ... can ... draw upon the latent store of moral indignation. In some
measures, his nonconformity appeals either to the moral values of an earlier day which have been lost to
view or to moral values of a time which will come to pass ... His nonconformity is not a private dereliction,
but a thrust towards new morality. In his analysis of group conflict and social movement, Merton maintains
that during the course of a movement the discontented group makes a claim on legitimacy of its goals,
programmes and actions in the name of ideals and values that has some legitimacy. In the process the
incumbents label them as deviant and in response the discontented group brands the established elites as
corrupt, illegitimate and unresponsive. This inter-organizational conflict results in considerable amount of
social mobilization, which ultimately affects the human, material, and ideological resources ofthe respective
organizations.

INSTITUTIONALISATION AND GOAL DISPLACEMENT MODEL

It assumes great importance as far as the study of the transformation of social movement organization is
concerned. "A Weberian approach focusing primarily on bureaucratization initially dominated in the
17 | P a g e
sociology of social movements as in other areas. Michel Is' 'Iron Law of Oligarchy', which states that in
order to survive as an organization a political party increasingly pays attention to adapting to its environment
rather than to its original goals of social change, was also held valid for social movements." An integration
of these two has been made possible in several studies of movement organizations, which has now come to
be known as the Institutionalization and Goal Displacement Model. This model follows quite an interesting
line of analysis, "as an MO attains an economic and social base in the society, as the original charismatic
leadership is replaced, a bureaucratic structure emerges and a general accommodation to the society occurs.
The participants in this structure have a stake in preserving the organization, regardless of its ability to attain
goals." In the process of preserving the organization three general changes occur within the organization,
viz. goal transformation, a shift to organizational maintenance, and oligarchisation; and these changes are
often fused. Understanding of these three concepts as stemmed from Michells' and Weber's analysis is very
much important as it points out at several crucial aspects of organizational politics. 'Goal transformation' is
the replacement of unattainable goals with diffuse goals, so that the organization can pursue a broader rang~
of targets. In a broader sense it refers to the accommodation of organization goals to. dominant societal
consensus. 'Shift to organizational maintenance' is explained as the maintenance of membership, funds and
other requirements of organizational existence. 'Oiigarchisation' is another change, which according to
Weber is, the concentration of power in the hands of the minority of organization members. On the other
hand, Michels explains this as a change from a situation of dispersed power to centralization and
[Link] or Organizational Analysis

A more general way of understanding this aspect of organizational politics is provided by Philip Selznick's
'Institutional or Organizational Analysis'. 22 In the study of organizational politics Selznick's approach is of
great importance as it analyzed organizations as congeries of groups brought together in complex systems
and nested in environments that support or challenge different organizational structures. His greatest
contribution in the field of movement organization study is the inclusion of the non-rational dimensions of
organizational behavior within the scope of organizational ~olitics. Selznick notes that "the most important
thing about organizations is that, though they are tools, each neverthelesshas a lr1e o r s own . He
acknowledges the rational view that organizations are designed to attain goals; at the same he also maintains
that the formal structures can never conquer the non-rational dimensions of the organizational behavior.
Furthermore he believes that neither the individuals act purely on the basis of their formal roles nor the
organizations act purely on the basis of formal structures. Selznick distinguishes between organization as
structural expression of rational ·. action and organization viewed as an adaptive organic system, affected by
social characteristics of participants as well as varied pressures imposed by environment. He maintains that
over the time organizations are transformed into institutions of varying degrees. Visualizing organizational
transformation in the course of a movement Selznick discusses a different form of goal displacement.
"Running an organization, as a specialized and essential activity generates problems which have tto

18 | P a g e
necessary (and often opposed) relationship to the professed or original goals of the organization. The day-to-
day behaviour of the group becomes centered around specific problems and approximate goals, which have
primarily an internal relevance. Then since these activities come to consume an increasing proportion of the
time and thoughts of the participants, they are - from the point of view of actual behaviour- substituted for
the professed goals."'24 In other words Selznick points out that the mechanism of the fixation of the internal
problems does have such an impact on the organization that it no longer serves it intended purpose.
Formulating grounds for organizational transformation Selznickspeaks of another concept, i.e. 'co-optation'.
By co-optation he means a process that absorbs new ··elements into the leadership or policy-determining
structure of an organization. The formal co-optation takes place when there is a ' lull between consent and
control and the cooptation is informal, when it results from pressure from a specific place of power. Taking
a functionalist position, Selznick's argues that organizations have some basic needs, the most fundamental of
which is the need for survival. Organizations must adapt to changing environment in order to survive which
requires changes in goals and ·. internal arrangement of organization. This approach of Selznick regards
organizational goals as problematic and as changing in response to both internal and external pressure.

Mass Society Theory

Contemporary sociologists frequently use the Mass Society Theory to explain the importance of
organizations in the growth of social movements. The leading exponent of this theory Kornahauser
characterizes mass society by the isolation of personal relations and the centralization of the national
relations, that is, the growth of centralized bureaucratic organizations at the expense of locally controlled
intermediate groups. 25 The strength of the mass society theory I ies with the fact that it tests two empirical
propositions to give authenticity to its hypothesis. First, it states that extremist movement will flourish in
societies with a low number and thin network of intermediate Group

where few people participate in voluntary, occupational, religious, civic and other associations. Second, it
states that, it is the alienated, uprooted, non-participants in intermediate groups, those with weakest
attachment to the class based organizations who will be the most susceptible to extremist appeals, who will
be the first to join the extremist movements, who will join in large numbers and become the activists.

Organizational Change: The Aspect of Modernization and Technology

In recent years many social scientists have pointed out towards a closer link between the process of
modernization and technological advancement. Economic progress is generally linked with a beneficial
consequence on the organizing capability of social movements. The logic behind such a conception on
organizational change is with the belief that with the economic growth, theamount of resources available for
the new organizations and movements will also ' mctease. "As the amount of discretionary resources of mass
and elite publics increase, the absolute and relative amount of resources available to the SMS . s t ) . , 30
19 | P a g e
($·octal Movement ec or tncreases. However, in our times modernization is generally understood in terms of
technological advancement and this has become an inseparable part of organizational transformation.
"Technological change has attracted most attention of late, as it has influenced the organizational structure
of social movements as well as their tactics."31Broadly speaking technological advancement in terms of
communication and mass media has really transformed the operational ways of movement organization.
They have changed their techniques of resource mobilization. "If the organizations were previously required
to be highly structured to get a message across, today a lightweight one may be adequate, provided it can
gain media attention."32 Internet has emerged as a major tool within the sphere of organizational politics.
MOs operate with their distinct websites, which provide information about their ideology, operations,
leadership, demand and a lot many things. The success or failure of any movement depend a lot in
generation of public opinion and with the ever increasing use of internet the organizations know that they
cannot afford to overlook this. It's common now that organizations use Internet to identify and publicize
conflict areas, and not only that Internet now has emergedas an important tool for membership and
recruitment. Even governments of sovereign nation states agree that Internet has really changed the pattern
of organizations. It's important here to mention that [Link] was an ' unofficial website of
CPI (Maoist) in India. This website created a new image for '• the Naxal Movement. Naxal Movement
which is predominantly a rural phenomenon through this website it reached among urban masses. The
Government of India finally took notice and 'on the charge of containing anti national materials ordered for
the closure of the website wef. from 151 h May 2006.' 33Technological advancement has also added new
dimensions on the modus operandi of the extremist or revolutionary organizations. Sophisticated arms and
ammunitions have made these organizations more deadly and violence prone. Guerrilla warfare now a day
assimilates all the techniques of the low intensity conflict and is closer to the unconventional warfare.
Advancement in communication technology has allowed these organizations to spread their network. For
example, nobody knows about the whereabouts of Dawood Ibrahim, yet all are familiar with the 'D-
Company'. This technological advancement has allowed many terrorist organizations to go global. No body
knows whereabouts of Osama Bin laden, but everyday we watch his violent ways of operating. Undoubtedly
the technological advancement and modernization have changed the general principles of organizational
functions and has emerged as one of the most crucial factors of organizational transformation.

Constructing a Framework

On the basis of the above mentioned theories it can be concluded that the starting point for the analysis of
any type of organizational change in relation to Social Movement studies involve three principal players.
The first group of' player includes those individuals, groups, and organizations that tend to control the
available power and resource equation in a given society. The second group includes those individuals,
groups, and organizations that challenge the first group and in the process pose question marks over the
fundamental structural-procedural features ()[the socio-political environment. The third group comprises of
20 | P a g e
units of governance that exercise field level power and exercise. These three are the principal players in the
scope of organizational politics and any change witnessed by the movement organization is mostly shaped
by the changing equation among these three players. However, it is a time-tested reality that the change or
transformation is a universal phenomenon and is transported by many carriers. It ' may result in the
[Link] of existing organizations or the creation of new or hybrid forms. It is advanced by
institutionalized processes as well as by the conflict dynamics. In the process settlements as well as more
clashes do occur sometime during the course of a movement but they, in turn, give rise to different struggles
among contending interests and logics. Although conflict is often perceived as something negative, the
abovediscussed theories show that in terms of social movements some conflict can actually improve
organizational effectiveness. Conflict is natural during the course of a movement as it arises because
differentiation which leads to the formation of subunits. The subunits have different perception over
organizational goals and goal achievement. It is this dynamics of organizational conflict, which hasemerged
as the focal point in the study of organizational politics as it shapes up the real course of a movement.
However as social movement or movement organization is a complex phenomenon, no general rule of
organizational transformation is possible. During the course of a movement some movement becomes more
institutionalized and transforms themselves in to political parties or pressure groups. Also there is a
possibility of some organizations becoming more radical and adopting more violent operational ways. The
utility of the above mentioned theories lies with the fact that they analyze social movement from
organizational point of view, which offers a useful insight into the understanding of growth and decay of
social movements, and the role- played by movement organizations. On the other hand, the above theoretical
exercise also highlights the impact of movement organization on the movement and vice versa. The genesis
of Naxal Movement in Orissa reflects the change, which the Naxalite organizations have undergone. It has a
considerable impact in determining the course of Naxal Politics in Orissa. The above theoretical analysis
provides us a basis on which the organizational transformation of Naxal Politics needs to be tested. From the
formation of CPI (ML) to the formation of .. Communist Party of India (Maoist), the Naxal Movement
essentially comes under the purview of organizational politics. The present work would examine the
changes through which the Naxal Organizations in Orissa had undergone and its impact on the larger course
of the movement. Since the organization relates to politics of goals achievement or denial, it has a societal
context that may have specific characteristics given the locale in question. It is therefore methodically
possible to look at the specific national, regional, sub-regional and local in termsof genesis, growth, activity
and future of the new phase of Naxalism in few districts of Orissa

Naxal Movement and its Conflict Dynamics

While its detractors reduce it to another form of terrorism, the Naxal grour,s never dropped their slogan of
'people's war for people's power'. War and Terrorism, both are the worst forms of human exploitation.
However, it's not our interest to take part in this debate, instead what we intend to do here is to examine the
21 | P a g e
problem of Naxalism within the scope of Conflict, i.e. Inter-Organizational Conflict and Intra-
Organizational Conflict. Naxal Movement manifests itself through several organizations and groups. Splits,
splinter groups, and mergers have so far remained the inseparable character ofNaxal brand of Politics. In
other words Naxal movement is highly fragmented. "They have about forty odd groups operating under
various labels in different parts of the country."' It needs to be mentioned that the Naxalite groups never
achieved total unanimity and fission has been always the dominant trend. What has been the impact of this
fragmented character of the movement? In order to understand the complex nature of the Naxal Movement it
is essential to understand its organizational aspect. As we saw in the previous chapter that Movement
Organization (MO) plays a dominant role in the failure and success of a movement. Contemporary writers
who have examined the Naxalbari Movement (1967-1969) are widely divided over the issue. While there are
the likes of Manaoranjan Mohanty who believe that "the pre organizational character of themovement was
responsible for keeping it alive. A well organized movement basedon a definite structure is more prone to
physical liquidation then a preorganizational report." 2 On the other hand there are others like Biplab
Dasgupta who blames ··it at the pre-organizational character of the movement, which was the primary cause
of its failure. However, the characteristic features of contemporary Naxal Movement are summarized by one
of its finest observer, Sumanta Banerjee. "One cannot deny that even after three decades of its tortuous and
self-divisive (and often self-destructive) odyssey, the movement that began in Naxalbari (known today as
'Naxalite') still remains a force to reckon with.3 Banerjee continues and moves into another reality of
Naxalism that "it evokes a variety of strong einotions ranging from adr:niration to denunciation, cutting
across the political lines of the established parties. The movement itself also, hard pressed by new challenges
and endemic splits, no longer inspires that buoyant optimism of the 1960-70 period. " 4 In the period of this
study that is between 1990-2005 the Naxal Movement witnessed considerable number of changes within
different groups, which are directly involved with the movement. Naxal movement has undergone severe
conflicts and innumerable splits over ideological and political positions before the regrouping attempt.
Similarly with every change of government at the national as well as state levels, the conflict dynamics also
undergoes several changes. All this and their impact on the politics ofNaxalism will find a place here.

A Prelude:

To understand the genesis of Naxal Movement one needs to locate it within the framework of the
Communist movement in India. To be more specific any study on the Naxal Movement cannot overlook the
importance of the rise and fall of Telangana Movement (1946-51 ). Because for Indian Communists,
Telangana would always remain the glorious chapter in the history of peasant struggles. In fact it was the
first serious effort by sections of the Communist Party leadership to learn from the experiences of the
Chinese revolution and to develop a ' comprehensive line for India's democratic revolution. On the other
hand the experience in Telangana also facilitated the growth of three distinct lines in the Indiar1 communist
movement. The line promoted by Ranadive and his followers rejected the significance of the Chinese
22 | P a g e
revolution, and advocated the simultaneous accomplishment of the democratic and the socialist revolutions
based on city-based wor:king-class insurrections. The group drew inspiration from Stalin and fiercely
attacked Mao as another Tito. The second line mainly professed and propagated by the Andhra Secretariat
drew heavily from the Chinese experiences and the teachings of Mao in building up the struggle of
Telangana. The Andhra leadership, successfully spearhead the movement against the Nizam; however, it
failed to tackle the complex question of meeting the challenge of the Government of India. The Nehru
government embarked on the road to parliamentary democracy, conditioning it with reforms like the
'abolition of Zamindari system'. All these objective conditions facilitated the dominance of a centrist line put
forward by Ajay Ghosh and Dange. This line characteristically pointed out the differencesetween Chinese
and Indian conditions and pushed the Party along the parliamentary road. In 1957 the communists succeeded
in forming a government irt Kerala, which however, was soon overthrown and following the India-China
war, the Party split into two during 1964, viz. Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India
(Marxist). While the CPI preached the theory of 'peaceful road to non-capitalist development', the CPI (M),
went ahead with the centrist line. Though there were serious .. differences on ideological and tactical lines
both the Parties went ahead with their parliamentary exercises and formed the United Front . ·government in
West Bengal. . In the backdrop of such organizational upheavals within the Indian Communist Movement,
one particular incident that took place in an unknown location involving some unknown people, hugely
transformed the history of Left Wing Extremism in India. In a remote village called Naxalbari in West
Bengal one tribal youth named Bimal Kissan, having obtained a judicial order, went to plough his land on 2
March 1967. The local landlords attacked him through their goons. Tribal people of the area retaliated and
started forcefully capturing back their lands. What followed was a rebellion, which left one police sub
inspector and nine tribals dead. This particular incident acquired a larger appeal in about two months on the
basis of open support it garnered from cross sections of communist revolutionaries belonging to the state
units of the CPI (M) in West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and
Jammu and Kashmir. Though the United Front Government of West Bengalheaded by CPI (M), with all
repressive measures, was able to contain the rebellion within 72 days, these units had a formal meeting in
November 1967. ·. As the outcome of the meeting one All India Coordination Committee of Communist
Revolutionaries (AICCCR) was formed in May 1968. 'Allegiance to the armed struggle and non-
participation in the elections' were the two cardinal principles that the AICCR adopted for its operations.
However, differences cropped up over how armed struggle should be advanced and this led to the exclusion
of a section of activists from Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, led respectively by T. Nagi Reddy and
Kanhai Chatterjee. On the issue of annihilation of class enemy the Kanhai Chatterjee group had serious
objections as they were of the view that the annihilation of the class enemy should only be taken up after
building up mass agitations. However majority in the AICCCR rejected this and the AICCCR went ahead
with the formation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) in May 1969. This led Chatterjee to
join the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). The CPI (M-L) held its first congress in 1970 in Kolkata and
23 | P a g e
Charu Mazumdar was formally elected its general secretary. Since then both the CPI (M-L) and the MCC
continued with their respective forms of armed struggle for the next couple of years. During this period
Chanr Majumdar, became the undisputed Naxalite guru and with the organizational skills of Kanu Sanyal
and Jaghal Santhal the movement spread different corners of the country. The country witnessed euphoria,
euphoria of a Maoist Revolution. However it was far short lived then expected. What was generally
perceived by the Indian as well as the Chinese Communist Revolutionaries as the final enactment of
revolution in reality proved to be no more than a dress rehearsal. As hundreds of CPI (ML) cadres lost their
life, and thousands were put behind the bar, the movement had to witness confusion, splits and
disintegration. Charu Majumdar's larger than life image had its negative impact also, for which after his
death in 1972 the Central Leadership of CPI (ML) virtually collapsed. The history of the Naxal Movement
post Charu Mazumdar is characterized by a number of splits brought about by personalized and narrow
perceptions about the Maoist revolutionary line and attempts at course correction by some of the major
groups. Even Kanu Sanyal, one of the founders of the movement, was not free from this trend. He gave up
the path of "dedicated armed struggle" by 1977 and accepted parliamentary practice as one form of
revolutionary activity. It was during 1974 that one influential group of CPI (ML) led by Jauhar .. (Subrata
Dutt), Nagbhushan Pattnaik and Vinod Mishra launched one of major initiative what they termed as 'course
correction'. This group renamed itself as CPI (M-L) Liberation in 1974, and in 1976, during the Emergency;
it adopted a new line that called for the continuation of armed guerilla struggles along with ' efforts to form a
broad anti-Congress democratic front, consisting even of nonc0mmtmist parties. The group also suggested
that pure military armed struggle should be limited and that there should be greater emphasis on mass
peasant struggles in an attempt to provide an Indianised version of Marxism-Leninism-maoism

However, during the next three years the movement suffered further splits with leaders, such as Kondapalli
Seetharamaiah (Andhra Pradesh) and N. Prasad (Bihar) dissociating themselves from the activities of the
party. This led to Prasad ' forming the CPI (M-L) (Unity Organization) and Seetharamaiah started the
People's War Group (PWG) in 1980. Seetharamaiah's line also sought to restrict "annihilation of class
enemies" but the PWG's emphasis was on building up mass organisations, not on developing a broad
democratic front. Since from then,"" the principal division in the Naxalite movement has been between the
two line of thought and action, as advanced by the CPI (ML) Liberation and the PWG. While Liberation
branded PWG a group of "left adventurists", the PWG castigated the Liberation group as one of the
"revisionists" imitating the CPI (M). On the other hand the growth of MCC as a major armed group in the
same areas created the scope of multifarious organizational conflicts among the Naxal groups. Liberation
took a theoretical stand of correcting the past mistakes of 'completely rejecting parliamentary politics'. On
the other h~nd PWG and MCC completely rejected the Parliamentary Democratic system of governance and
vowed to wage 'people's war for people's government'. In the process while the Liberation group registered
its first electoral victory in Bihar in 1989, more Naxalite factions such as the CPI (M-L) New Democracy,

24 | P a g e
the CPI (ML) S.R. Bhajjee Group and the CPI (M-L) Unity Initiative were formed in that State. Following
years witnessed some distinct phenomena in the history of the Naxal movement. First, the intra
organizational conflict and rivalry among different groups touched several high points resulting in the loss
of considerablenumber of cadres of rival groups. Secondly, despite the large-scale inner conflicts there was
always an exercise going at various levels attempting for the unity. Thirdly, 1990 onwards the affected state
registered a considerable growth in ·. violent incidents and at the same time a considerable change in policy
approach at the government level was also witnessed. If Naxal Movement is mostly characterized by
fragmented groups and innumerable splits; successive governments at the national and state level were never
been able to follow a uniform approach to deal with the problem of Naxalism. All these have had a marked
impact in the growth ofNaxal movement. The characteristic feature of the Naxal movement lies with its
disorganized state as it led to some inte._resting formulations that are quite uncommon in the study Of
movement organizations. The fragmented character of the movement gave rise to all possible trends and
groupings and thereby paving way for new avenues of organizational conflict. Due to its fragmented
character the movement witnessed many past leaders and cadres making a comeback as though from
oblivion. This aspect of Naxal organizational politics is very important to understand as it also enabled the
reemergence of a whole range of questions that were supposed to have been already resolved once and for
all. lt1 order to understand the current phase of Naxalism we need to understand different aspects of
organizational transformation that occurred within the Naxal Movement. Though the period of study taken
up for this work is from 1990 to 2005, yet for a comprehensive analysis we will examine the period starting
from 1980. Because the genesis and the current phase of the Naxal movement is a reflection of continuity
and change. To understand the continuityofNaxal movement over the decade one has to understand its
dynamics of change, similarly to understand the changing nature of Naxal Movement one has to understand
the factors responsible for its continuity. And this reestablishes the dynamic character of the movement

Formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist)

Naxal Movement in India entered into yet another phase of organizational transformation with the merger of
two of the principal armed organizations, viz. People's War (PW) and the Maoist Communist Centre of India
(MCC-1), which . resulted in the formation, of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). "The formation of
the unified Communist Party of India (Maoist) is a new milestone inthe history of the revolutionary
communist movement of India. A unified Maoist party based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a long
delayed and highly cherished need of the revolutionary minded and oppressed people of the country,
including all our ranks, and also all the Maoist forces of South Asia and internationally. Now, this long-
aspired desire and dream has been transformed into a reality."This statement given by the first Secretary of
CPI (Maoist) Ganapathy, assumes a great deal of importance as it reflects the organizational politics that
was going on all these years between these two organizations representing the Naxal movement. ' The
improvised aim of the CPI (Maoist) as announced on the occasion of its formation is to establish a compact
25 | P a g e
revolutionary zone stretching from Nepal to Bihar to Andhra Pradesh and beyond. While continuing their
goal of people's democracy the ultimate aim of the CPI (Maoist) is to seize power through protracted armed
struggle. According to the press statement issued on the event of announcing the merger, "The immediate
aim and programme of the Maoist party is to carry on and complete the already ongoing and advancing New
Democratic Revolution in India as a part of the world proletarian revolution by overthrowing ' the semi-
colonial, semi-feudal system under the neo-colonial form of indirect rule, exploitation and control. This
revolution will remain directed against imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism. This
revolution will be carried out and completed through armed agrarian revolutionary war, i.e. protracted
people's War with the armed seizure of power remaining as its central and principal task, encircling the cities
from the countryside and thereby finally capturing them. Hence the countryside as well as the PPW
(Protracted People's War) will remain as the 'center of gravity' of the party's work, while urban workwill be
complimentary to [Link] to the same press release, the CPIMaoists ""will still seek to unite all genuine
Maoist groups that remain outside this unified party."It is important to examine the significance of the
merger particularly when earlier attempts were not successful. In fact, the merger is largely being seen as a
result of the gradual convergence of views of these two groups on areas such as the role of the party,
approaches to revolution and adoption of strategies and tactics. In the formative years, Charu Mazumdar and
Kanhai Chatterjee represented two irreconcilably different lines and approaches to 'revolution'. At the time
of the formation of, the Communist Party oflndia (Marxist-Leninist) CPIML in 1969, the Dakshin Desh,
earlier form ofthe MCC, remained opposed to the process due to sharp differences with the CPI-ML over
issues such as formation of a communist party, existence of revolutionary mass struggle and preparedness of
the people to participate in it. The joint press statement released by the erstwhile General Secretaries of PW
and MCC (I) highlighted the essence of merger. "In the past history there were many splits within the M-L
movement. But splits are only one side of the coin; the brighter side was that there were continuous efforts
to unify the revolutionaries. The CPI (ML) (PU), though it had its origins in Bengal, it spread and
strengthened by unifying several revolutionary groups. The CPI (ML) (PW), though it originated in Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, it unified with revolutionaries in almost all the states where it was working. The
MCC too, had originated in Bengal, unified many revolutionaries groups in it in many Statesand became the
MCCI."31 This statement underlines the continuous process of organizational politics with in the broad
spectrum of Naxalite movement in the process which resulted with the organizational conflict. Looking
back, the need for a joint unified platform was felt by the leadership of both the Rarties as early as 1981.
"The PW and MCC began unity talks from their very first meeting in 1981. However, the reason for the
delay in the process was the lack of continuity of leadership. The arrest of Comrade Kondapally
Seetaramaiah (KS), the leader of the PW, and later the internal crisis of the PW and split in the Central
Committee (CC) delayed the unity process. for several years. In the early eighties, the MCC lost its two top
leaders Comrades Amulya Sen (AS) and Kanhai Chatterjee (KC), which had some negative impact,
resulting in further delay in the unity process."32 From the above discussion we can derive the following
26 | P a g e
conclusions. First, the history of Naxal Movement is the history of a continuous process of organizational
conflicts, splits, and mergers. Second, the Naxal Movement essentially represents simultaneous but not so
peaceful coexistence of many streams, and looking from this angle the movement does have a presence in all
parts of the country. Third, the growth of Naxal movement is closely linked with the ongoing process of
organizational conflict. Because the ultimate political objective behind all this organizational exercise as
according to the statements of various senior Naxalite leaders, is to build a leftist alternative and mobilize
people ' on issues such as increased 'imperialist intervention' and 'pro-imperialist policies'pursued by the
Union government in support of 'revolutionary war' based on Chinese leader Mao's theory of organized
peasant insurrection. Similarly, the history of Naxal movement right from its first phase of 1967
demonstrates that even if there has been a continuous evolution in terms of their understanding of Indian
situation, focus of the movement, character, fighting capabilities and financial resources of these groups,
.they have remained more or less consistent as far as their core ideology is concerned. Barring the Liberation
they all reject parliamentary system of governance and want to bring about a fundamental change in the
nature of the Indian State. For this they have adopted the strategy of protracted armed struggle, which entails
building up of bases in rural and remote areas and transforming them first into guerrilla zones and as
liberated zones, besides area-wise seizures and encircling citiesand finally seizing political power and
achieving nation-wise victory. Fourth, the history of Naxal Movement so far has been the history of conflicts
and splits; however, one cannot deny that it also represents the history of mergers. This implies that the
organizational conflict, which has remained an inseparable character of the movement, has really helped the
movement to grow in different areas. For example the organizational conflict between PU and MCC in one
hand and Liberation and PU in the other really made PWG to come closer to both PU and MCC. In the
process first PU merged with PWG to form PW and then MCC merged with PW to form CPI (Maoist).
There has been a marked increase in the violent incidents after the formation of CPI (Maoist). During 2003,
513 people were killed due to Naxal violence whereas in the year 2005 the death toll was 669. However, this
is not to suggest that the formation of CPI (Maoist) is the final stage ofthe Naxal Movement. As one official
Maoist document puts it, "Revolutions never proceed in a straight line. The history of all successful
revolutions shows this. The path is zig zag, there are ups and downs, there is victory and defeat repeated a
number of times ..... before final victory. Of course, there is no final victory until the stage of communism is
.reached." However, the abovementioned analysis makes one forceful plea that other than anything Naxal
Movement essentially is a political problem and it needs to be examined from the perspective of
organizational politics

27 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The experience of Indian Politics, in the post independent era shows that with its democratic-rational
institutions in place, it has created better chances for the realization of humanity, nonviolence and
peacefulness, but at the same time it has vastly increased the potential for violence. On the other hand, in the
social protest movements, attempts were made to politicize the concept of violence and push it towards
structural violence, thus allowing a wide range of social ills and problems to be labeled, discredited and set
upon. Naxal Movement is one such case of structural violence, which is mostly seen from the looking glass
of poverty, .. underdevelopment and absolute deprivation. However, it is also a fact that despite its
continuity within the spectrum of Indian Politics (though it claims that it does not believe in the institutions
of Parliamentary Democracy); Naxalism so far has not been able to come up with an alternative
development formula for the Indian nation-state. The recent operational ways of Naxal movement has left no
place for ideological commitment. Indiscriminate use of violence in the name of revolution cannot be a road
to development. The Naxals have been repeatedly saying that "armed struggle" is non-negotiable. This does
not make sense. "Armed struggle" may be the means to an end but it cannot be an end in itself. Naxal brand
of politics may have this distinction of highlighting evils of Indian socio-political framework but they have
also this dubious tendency of keeping these evils alive. For example the Naxal leadership keep on
highlighting the issues of poverty and underdevelopment, but it is also equally true that it's because of their
violent presence the state is simply unable to push its development agenda in the Naxal infested regions.
This is not to justify the failure of the State but this is to refute Naxal claim of politics for development.
They talk about lawlessness and with the high amount of violence they themselves are the greatest
facilitators of lawlessness in the Naxal-infested regions. Naxals are no champions of development but they
have a vested interest in keeping poverty alive because it enables them to expand their territory

BIBLIOGRAPHY

28 | P a g e
BOOKS:

[Link], Claude, Science, Development and Violence: The Revolt Against Modernity, Oxford [Link]
Press, Delhi, 1992

[Link], Sumanta, In The Wake of Naxalbari: A History of The Naxalites Movement in India,
Subarnarekha, Calcutta, 1980.

3. Dasgupta, Biplab, The Naxalite Movement, Allied Publishers, Calcutta, 1974

ARTICLES;

1. Banerjee, Sumanta, "Naxalbari: Between Past and Present", Economic and Political Weekly, June
01, 2002.
2. Birinder Pal Singh, "Violence: A Dominant term of Discourse", Studies in Humanities and Social
Sciences, Vol. II, No.1, 1995

1. Gurr, Ted Robert, A causal model of civil strife: A comparative analysis using new indices,
American Political Science Review (62), 1968

WEBSITES

1. www .[Link]
2. [Link].
3. www .[Link]
4. www .tkb.or_g

29 | P a g e