Maoist Insurgency as a Threat to Human Security: The Indian Experiences
Maoist Insurgency as a Threat to Human Security: The Indian Experiences
Ambikesh Kumar Tripathi*
Introduction
India is facing new and complex security challenges that are diverse from traditional
notion of security challenges. People living free from poverty, hunger and violence and full
security and dignity are still a distant-dream for Indian citizens. India is actually passing through
a tough and complex period. The rigid and hierarchical social structure, unfinished agenda of
land reforms, challenges of caste discrimination and communalism, problem of gender
development, slow pace of reforms, rise of terrorism and naxalism and other separation
movements etc. are some of major issues, posing challenges to India‟s internal security. These
challenges are the result of historical background, development models from several decades and
socio-political legacies of this country. Economic development through industrialization has
created disparity in the different stakeholders. Society is clearly divided in have and have-not.
Large section of population lives in abject poverty. After sixty-four years of independence, slums
still exist in the urban-India. Faulty access towards basic education, lack of healthcare facilities
and problem of housing and potable water poses grave challenges to human survival. Human
development should be pre-requisite of economic development. Bridging the burgeoning gap
between shining India and survivalist Bharat is a matter of political will. In the age of
globalization, politics and political institutions are even more central to human development.
When the political institutions function badly, poor and vulnerable people suffer most.
Maoist movement is, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, is the single biggest
threat for internal security. This conflict has been viewed within the traditional security discourse
and state has attempted to mange this through the ideological framework of national security. But
this conflict has some common indicators that point to set of reason that related to wider issues of
human rights violation and human insecurities. Thus, it is pertinent to look at this conflict
through a human security framework.
The Maoist movement has been able to make significant propaganda gains regarding the
social and economic equality for the poor or weaker sections of society by actively pursuing the
common issues of basic needs and expectations. However, Maoist has undoubtedly brought
about some significant changes in the highly-unequal social formation which are decisive for
human development, but it has at the same time violated all the basic principles of human rights.
Thus, while the Maoism is result of the lack of development, they too have been creating
obstacles in the way of development, particularly in the remote rural areas with their
predominance. The destruction of public properties and services were widespread. In doing so,
Maoist has generated tremendous problems to human security.
Human Security: as a New Framework for Explanation of Violence
All cultures and traditions have grappled the question of security, although they may
interpreted the concept in different way. The question of security of mankind raised with the very
beginning of human society. So security debate was and is core issue of politics, sociology,
political-philosophy and international studies.
In common usage, the word „security‟ denotes freedom from various risks. At its most
basic, security implies freedom from threats. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the security
as, „the condition of being protected from or not exposed to danger; safety.....Freedom from care,
anxiety or apprehension; a feeling of safety or freedom from or absence of danger.’
After the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the state has been regarded as a most powerful
actor in the international system. State has been the universal standard of political legitimacy
*
Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi
{ 23 }
'Shodh Drishti', Vol. 2, No. 7, October-December, 2011
ISSN : 0976-6650
with no higher authority to regulate their relations with each other. This has meant the security
has been seen as the primary obligation of state. So, the very beginning of security study had
focus on to secure the territory. It is state-centric approach of security, known as traditional
notion of security, where the greatest danger to a country is from military threats. The source of
this danger is another country which by threatening military action endangers the core values of
sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.
The end of the cold war has brought the concept of security under scrutiny from scholars
and practitioners. This traditional concept of security has been criticized for taking the
cognizance of well-being of state only rather than individuals. People centred security approach
emerges from the critique of the narrow and state centred concept of security and has been
theoretically conceptualized as human security.
Human security is an emerging paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities. Its
proponents challenge the traditional notion of national security by arguing that the proper
referent for security should be the individual rather than the state. Human security considers
poverty and inequality as the root causes of individual vulnerability. Human security holds that a
people-centered view of security is necessary for national, regional and global stability. The
concept emerged from a post-Cold War, multi-disciplinary understanding of security involving a
number of research fields, including development studies, international relations, strategic
studies, and human rights.
Human security, in general parlance denotes protecting individual‟s freedoms and
protecting people from threats and insecurities. The first major statement concerning human
security appeared in the 1994 Human Development Report, an annual report of the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The report argues, “The concept of security has far
too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of territory from external aggression, or as
protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of nuclear
holocaust.... forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in
their daily lives”.1 The report conceptualises human security as consisting of „freedom from fear‟
and „freedom from want‟. These two main aspects of human security are defined as „safety from
such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression‟, and „protection from sudden and hurtful
disruptions in the patterns of daily life-whether in homes, in jobs or in communities‟.2
The UNDP's 1994 Human Development Report's definition of human security argues
that the scope of global security should be expanded to include threats in seven areas: economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security and political security. The UNDP 1994 report originally argued that human security
requires attention to both „freedom from fear and freedom from want’. Human security approach
deals with to protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent
threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity and other forms of inequities.
This approach argues that limiting the focus to violence is a realistic and manageable approach
towards human security. Emergency assistance, conflict prevention and resolution, peacebuilding are the main concerns of this approach.
The concept of human security provides a framework for alternative understanding and
explanation of violence and conflicts.3 In a research paper entitled “Human Security under
Global Siege in Asia” Clarence J. Daias and Ali M. Qazilbash argued that the concept of human
security address issues such as conflict, violence and deprivation.4 Protecting people from violent
conflict is primary policy of human security discourse. The concept of human security
establishes a close relationship between the lack of individual‟s security in terms of their wellbeing and resulting conflict.
{ 24 }
Maoist Insurgency as a Threat to Human Security: The Indian Experiences
Chronology of Maoist Movement in India
Naxalite movement, a synonymous of Indian edition of Maoism, derives its name from
Naxalbari, a village of North Bengal, where tribes took up arms against the oppression of the
landlords. There has been two phase of Maoist insurgency in India. The first phase began in 1967
with split in Communist Party of India (Marxist). The theoretician and founder of movement,
Charu Majumdar, a veteran communist, with Kanu Sanyal, Jangal Santhal and others left CPI
(M) leader established the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) and advocated protracted
people‟s war to seize political power. The CPI (M-L) first organized several armed risings of
landless agricultural laborers. In the mid of 1970‟s, the CPI (ML) was the political face of the
Naxal movement in India and led the first phase of movement. “The Naxalite violence was at
peak from about the middle of 1970 to the middle of 1971. It is estimated that these were a total
of about 4,000 incidents in the country from middle of 1970 to the middle of 1971”. 5 The
Government became conscious about Naxalite movement and argued that it is only a law and
order problem. The Government of India organized joint operations by the paramilitary forces
and the police in Naxalite affected regions. The operation achieved the desired result; Charu
Majumdar was also arrested and a few days later he died. This was the declining phase of
Naxalite movement and it was crushed by the Indian state force. The CPI (ML) led peasant
movement for all practical purpose was over, by the 1972.
The second phase of the movement which continues to present day is marked as the
revival of Naxalite movement. The formation of People‟s War Group (PWG) in Andhra Pradesh
and Maoist Communist Center (MCC) in Bihar in the decades of 1980s brought new blood in the
movement. Since 1990s, Naxalite movement has emerged as most powerful peasant movement
in India. The People‟s War Group and the Maoist Communist Centre were the two principle
Naxal organizations that indulged in violent uprising gradually in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar.
The Naxalite movement got a tremendous enhancement when its two principle
organization, People‟s War Group and Maoist Communist Center of India, decide to merge on
March 21, 2004. The unified party was called the Communist Party of India (Maoist) - the largest
and most fatal Naxalite outfit in India with a then estimated strength of 9,500 underground armed
men and women cadre. „The merger…has given it the character of a Pan-India revolutionary
group‟.6 In 2008, CPI-ML (Naxalbari) and Kerala Unit of a group known as the CPI-ML
Janasakti merge with CPI (Maoist).7 However, a large number of groups still remain outside this
CPI (Maoist) in different parts of India and who are engaged in lethal violent uprising.
At time of starting it was just a reformist-agrarian and anti-imperialist movement. But
nowadays it becomes, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, a biggest threat for internal
security. Ideologically, the Naxalites are followers of Maoism, the basic tenets of which urge the
“oppressed classes” to launch a revolution against the “exploiting classes”. They have believed in
Mao‟s statement “the power flows from the barrel of gun”. Mao‟s Red Book is their bible and
guerrilla warfare is the strategy to achieve their objectives. “In the last 10 years or so, the Maoist
movement in India has arisen in the so called „Red Corridor’ [from West Bengal to Andhra
Pradesh] which occupies large swathes of hilly and forest lands and is inhabited in large part by
indigenous people”.8 The core of their activities takes place in this Red Corridor. It is known by
another name that- Compact Revolutionary Zone (CRZ). “According to them [Naxalites], they
have already been able to achieve 75 per cent of this plan. Even according to neutral observers,
about 60 per cent of this zone has been created, in the sense that they have a sizeable presence
there”.9 There are areas in compact revolutionary zone where they have captured full control over
administration and justice. Simply they have a parallel government.
How critical is the Maoist Threat?
Prof. Nandini Sundar has written, “It [Naxalite Movement] represented the revolutionary
stream of Indian Marxism, with the aim of capturing control of Indian state through armed
{ 25 }
'Shodh Drishti', Vol. 2, No. 7, October-December, 2011
ISSN : 0976-6650
struggle rather than parliamentary democracy”.10 The growing influence of Naxalism in most
part of the Eastern and North-Eastern India has poised a grave challenge for the administration as
one of the single largest internal crisis. Tens of thousands of people in states like Chhattisgarh,
Jharkhand, Bihar and parts of north-eastern states are constantly living under Naxalites threat and
the administration has so far failed to develop an effective strategy to counter the menace. Naxal
conflict has led to killing of 749 people in various Naxalites affected states of India in year 2006
alone.11 According to the report of Asian Centre for Human Rights, 285 civilians and 135
security personnel were killed in the Naxalite conflict during 2006. 200+ civilians out of 285
were killed in Chhattisgarh alone during 2006. According to the 2005-2006 Annual Report of
Union Ministry of Home Affairs, 892 people were killed in 2005 during Naxal conflicts.
Despite of killings, Naxalites are destructing the public properties and services like
schools, hospitals and railway tracks. “The Maoists are blasting railway tracks; setting railway
wagons and stations and public transport buses on fire; and destroying the telecom towers of
state-run and private telephone networks”.12
Naxalite violence during the years 2006-2010 (up to November 30, 2010)
Parameter
No. of incidents:
Civilians Killed :
No. of Security forces Killed :
No. of Naxalites killed :
2006
1509
521
157
274
2007
1565
460
236
141
2008
1591
660
231
199
2009
2258
799
317
217
2010
1995
937
277
161
Source : Ministry of Home Affairs Website, 05/12/2011
State-wise extent of Naxal violence during 2006 to 2010 (up to 30 November, 2010)
States
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Incidents Deaths Incidents Deaths Incidents Deaths Incidents Deaths Incidents Deaths
AndhraPradesh
183
47
138
45
92
46
66
18
87
21
Bihar
107
45
135
67
164
73
232
72
268
91
Chhattisgarh
715
388
582
369
620
242
529
290
552
323
Jharkhand
310
124
482
157
484
207
742
208
448
142
M.P.
23
17
32
06
35
26
01
07
01
Maharashtra
98
42
94
25
68
22
154
93
78
39
Orissa
44
09
67
17
103
101
266
67
194
73
U.P.
11
05
09
03
04
08
02
06
01
West Bengal
23
17
32
06
35
26
255
158
333
237
Other States
12
17
05
14
04
05
04
Total
1509
678
1565
696
1591
721
2258
908
1995
928
Source : Ministry of Home Affairs Website, 05/12/2011
Naxalites raise funds through extortion, taxes and the narcotics trade. “According to the
Narcotics Control Bureau in India, the Naxalites thrive on money earned through illicit
cultivation. Its 2007 report found out that of total quantity of marijuana seized in the country, a
disproportionately high percentage came from Naxalites controlled pockets in the states of
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh”.13
These kinds of activities are posing challenges not only to authority of the state but also
to peoples‟ daily lives in remote areas. Naxalites are responsible for violation of all basic
principles of human rights by forcibly displacing people, making them objects of armed conflict,
endangering their physical safety and security, recruiting children for armed conflict, sexual
exploitation of their female cadres and so on. By doing so, Maoist has generated tremendous
problems for actualization to the idea of human security. This situation has accelerated the
process of human deprivation. The Naxalites are responsible for the absence of freedom from
fear and freedom from want in various state of India. They are posing several threats to inclusive
development and human security.
{ 26 }
Maoist Insurgency as a Threat to Human Security: The Indian Experiences
Conclusion: Human Security Approach as an Antidote for Maoist Threat
The Maoist insurgency has emerged as the not only biggest challenge to the internal
security of the India but also a biggest threat to human security. The question arises- how has it
grown into such a serious threat? Most of the research says similar answer- economic disparities,
exploitation of deprived, feudal character of social system, lack of land distribution and caste
based hegemony are the reasons behind this violent uprising. So the state is even more central for
resolution of Maoist insurgency. “Human security cannot be separated from the operation of
states. States are critical to providing opportunities for people, creating and providing a stable
environment so that livelihoods can be pursued with confidence, and providing measures to
protect people when livelihoods contract. …. if any violent conflicts are entirely local, and that
most often there are important regional and global forces at work (such as arms trading, the
presence of private security forces, cross-border movements of people and goods, foreign
investors, and degrees of third party intervention), many states may be involved in the causes of
and solutions to violent conflict”.14 Human security approach can be useful antidote for Maoist
threat. The state has initiated a number of steps for modernization of defence system, but the
state should be ensured the effective rehabilitation of surrender Maoist. The State to expedite the
pace of development and to ensure that, development will be democratic. It means in the process
of development the local and indigenous people have proper share.
References :
1.
2.
3.
Human Development Report; by United Nations Development Programme, 1994, p. 22.
Ibid, p. 23.
See Patomaki, Heikki; Human Security: A Conceptual Analysis. A background paper for the Global
Cities Institute/Human Security Programme.
4. Dais, Clarence J. and Qazilbash, Ali M.; Human Security Under Global Siege in Asia. In Chenoy,
Anuradha M. (ed.) Putting People at the Center: Human Security Issues In Asia. Published by Asian
Regional Exchange for New Alternatives ltd. (ARENA) in association with The Book Review Literary
Trust, New Delhi, 2006, pp. 7-47.
5. Singh, Prakash; Naxalite Movement in India. Yojana, February 2007, Vol. 51, p. 24.
6. Ibid, p. 26
7. Ramana, P.V.; India’s Maoist Insurgency: Evolution, Current trends and Responses. In Kugelman,
Michael (ed.) India’s Contemporary Security Challenges. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for
Scholars, Washington, DC, Asia Program, 2011, p. 32. www.wilsoncenter.org.
8. Duara, Prasenjit; The Chinese Revolution and Insurgent Maoism in India: A Spatial Analysis.
Economic & Political Weekly, April 30, 2011, Vol. XLVI, No. 18, pp. 33-36.
9. Singh, K.P.; The Trajectory of the Movement. In Ramana, P.V. (ed.) The Naxal Challenge: Causes,
Linkages, and Policy Options. Pearson Longman Publication, Delhi, 2008, p. 16.
10. Sundear, Nandini; At War With Oneself: Constructing Naxalism as India’s Biggest Security Threat. In
Kugelman, Michael (ed.) India’s Contemporary Security Challenges. Woodrow Wilson International
Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC, Asia Program, 2011, p.46. www.wilsoncenter.org.
11. See Naxal Conflict in 2006. A report on Naxalism published by Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2007.
12. Ramana, P.V.; India’s Maoist Insurgency: Evolution, Current trends and Responses. In Kugelman,
Michael (ed.) India’s Contemporary Security Challenges. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for
Scholars, Washington, DC, Asia Program, 2011, p.37. www.wilsoncenter.org.
13. See Kumar, Arun; Money and Friends: Tracing the Naxalites’ linkages to crime and other armed
group. Pragati- The Indian National Interest Review, No. 31, Oct. 2009, p. 10.
14. Barnett, Jon and Adger, W. Neil; “Climate change, human security and violent conflict”. Political
Geography 26 (2007) 639-655. http://waterwiki.net/images/7/77/Climate_change,_human_security_
and_violent_conflict.pdf.
(Author would like to thanks to Mr. Prashant Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Hazara and Mr. Binaya Shanker,
Research Scholars, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi for their valuable support & discussion)
{ 27 }
Dr. Ambikesh Kumar Tripathi