Maoism in India

Reincarnation of Ultra-Left Wing Extremism in the Twenty-First Century

Bidyut Chakrabarty, Rajat Kumar Kujur

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781135236472
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The rise of Maoism as one of the organized political movement in India is the outcome of a historical situation. Both colonialism and the failure of the Indian state to implement land reforms more stringently in the aftermath of independence resulted in terrible sufferings of the marginalized, land- dependent, sections of society.

Through historical analysis, this book assesses the ideological articulation of the contemporary ultra-left movement in India, including Maoism which is expanding gradually in India. The author provides answers to the following issues: Is Maoism reflective of the growing disenchantment of the people in the affected areas with the state? Is it a comment on 'the distorted development planning' pursued by the Indian state? Is this an outcome of the processes of 'deepening of democracy' in India? Using Orissa as a case study, the book raises questions on India's development strategy. The author argues that Maoism provides critical inputs for an alternative paradigm for development, relevant for 'transitional societies' and that it is a still a powerful ideology for the poorer parts of the world although its ideological appeal has declined internationally.

1 Maoism, governance and the red corridor

Maoism in India is a context-driven and ideologically charged political campaign to address critical socio-economic issues. At one level, it is a political movement seeking to redress the genuine socio-economic grievances at the grass roots; at another, perhaps more significant level, Maoism represents a serious search for an alternative development paradigm, drawn on a persuasive critique of the Nehruvian state-directed development plans and programmes. Inspired by reinvented Marxism of Maoist variety, the Indian counterpart is a creative intervention in an ideological domain that seems to have lost its ‘appeal’ following the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and her satellite East European states. Based on the idea that organic complementaries between agriculture and industry, between town and country are critical to development, Maoism actually reiterates an old dictum that a deep bond between these two sectors of the economy is what holds the nation together.

Maoism is a powerful ideological statement on the processes of development in India. It is not therefore a strange coincidence that ‘ ultra-left extremism’ resurfaced in areas that are economically backward and thus politically most assertive in challenging the projects that seem to be critically linked with the processes of globalization. The India shining campaign appears to be a paradox and perhaps a campaign without substance in view of the growing consolidation of Maoism across the length and breadth of India. Given the fact that 13 out of 28 Indian states have already been affected, one simply cannot wish it away as a ripple that will disappear in no time. Furthermore, the fact that the Indian Home Ministry’s open acknowledgement that Maoists are a significant political force in as many as 170 (out of 604) districts in India also indicates the ideological viability of the movement at the grass roots. Drawing on the doctrinal support from Marxism-Leninism and the strategic inspiration from the political ideas of Mao Tse-tung, the ideology that contemporary Maoists seek to articulate is also a response to the failure of India’s developmental strategies. In this sense, despite its unique appeal immediately after independence, the Nehruvian scheme of the socialistic pattern of society was hardly an effective strategy for a uniform socio-economic development across the country. So, Maoism is also an outcome of ‘disillusionment’ with an ideology that was judiciously articulated by independent India’s political leadership as perhaps the most appropriate strategy for economic development. In other words, given the socio-economic roots, it can safely be argued that, besides its ideological appeal, Maoism is also a contextual response to ‘mal governance’ or ‘lack of governance’ in the affected areas. This chapter therefore seeks to dwell on those factors that provide a plausible explanation for the growing significance of the ‘red corridor’ or ‘red belt’ in contemporary India. Since ‘compact revolutionary zones’ or the red corridor, as characterized by the Home Ministry is an articulation of obvious mass discontent, one cannot dismiss Maoism as ‘an infantile disorder’. Instead, it has raised serious questions not only on India’s development strategies, but also on the state that seemed to have failed to gauge ‘the erosion of state’ at the grass roots due to its uncritical faith in the planning-driven economic model. One should not also lose sight of the contemporary context of globalization that, by linking the domestic capital with its global counterpart, theoretically substantiates the major Marxist formulation that the market-driven capitalism is borderless and hence is naturally expansive for its survival.

Three important questions

Maoism is the outcome of a historical situation in which people suffer due to reasons connected with India’s past and present. Colonialism had a role to play and the failure of the Indian state to implement land reforms most stringently in the aftermath of independence also resulted in terrible sufferings of the land-dependent marginalized sections of society. Hence, it is perhaps most appropriate to assess Maoism in India keeping in mind the historical perspective that is peculiar to a transitional society like India. The following questions are therefore relevant to understand the ideological articulation of the contemporary ultra-Left movement in India, including Maoism, which is expanding gradually for a variety of reasons:

1. Is Maoism reflective of the growing disenchantment of the people in the affected areas with the state?
2. Is this a comment on ‘the distorted development planning’, pursued by the Indian state?
3. Is this an outcome of the processes of ‘deepening of democracy’ in India?

There is no doubt that the rapid growth of Maoism is largely due to the economic neglect of a large section of those in the periphery. One cannot, however, rule out the growing democratization or deepening of democratic processes in which people are organically involved that also contributed significantly to the articulation of the ‘people’s voice’. In this sense, an intensive discussion of the political economy of development in post-colonial India will be perfectly in order.

With the onset of macroeconomic reforms in the 1990s, the state-led developmental plans seem to have lost their significance in a situation where the non-state actors grew in importance in redefining the state agenda.¹ India has adopted reforms in perhaps a very guarded manner. One probably cannot simply wish away the theoretical justification of state intervention in a transitional economy. Reasons are plenty. Socialist principles may not have been forgotten, but the importance of the state in the social sector cannot be minimized unless a meaningful alternative is mooted. This is reflected in the obvious distortions in India’s economy. On the basis of an empirical study of Andhra Pradesh and other supporting data, the author thus argues that ‘two economies – one affluent and the other predominantly agricultural economy – are emerging … and this division can be seen across the social and regional landscape of India’.² The technology-based export-oriented city-centred economy is flourishing in the new economic environment while the agricultural economy remains backward and those associated with this ‘have little expectation of a better future [and] remain preoccupied with the daily struggle to secure a livelihood’.³

It is true that economic liberalization is a significant influence and yet, the importance of the prevalent ‘ politico-institutional context’ cannot be undermined while conceptualizing the impact of economic reform in India. In a significant way, the institutional legacy of ‘a well-entrenched state’ affected the post-reform possibilities in India. As a commentator argues, ‘India’s bureaucratized regime – the license-quota-permit raj – has had major, unintended consequences on post-transition patterns: all [state] governments and central regimes continue to rely on state-led strategies of reform; there is no “Washington Consensus” or “ neo-liberal” route to reforms in India’^.4 There is no doubt that economic reforms brought about radical changes in India’s political economy. Yet, the old regulatory regime of the bygone era remained critical in the path and processes of liberalization in a very decisive way. What thus proliferates across India is ‘ state-guided routes to liberalization rather than market fundamentalism’.⁵

It is now plausible to argue that Maoism has its roots [sic] in a peculiar political economy of development which India preferred to pursue immediately after independence.

Political economy of India as a nation state

India’s post-colonial political economy is neither purely capitalist nor feudal but a peculiar mixture of the two. Hence the path of development that India adopted can never be conceptualized in a straightforward manner just like India’s evolution as a nation in the aftermath of decolonization in 1947. The preamble to the Constitution of India laid the foundation of the socialistic pattern of society in which the state remained the most critical player. Accordingly, the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) emphasize that the goal of the Indian polity is not unbridled laissez-faire but a welfare state where the state has a positive duty to ensure to its citizens social and economic justice with dignity of individual consistent with the unity and integrity of the nation. By making them fundamental in the governance and making the laws of the country and duty of the state to apply these principles, the founding fathers made it the responsibility of future governments to find a middle way between individual liberty and the public good, between preserving the property and privilege of the few and bestowing benefits on the many in order to liberate the powers of men equally for contributions to the common good.⁶ This led to, as a commentator rightly points out, ‘paradoxical socialism’ in India that approximated to what the Fabian socialists championed as socialism. Fabian socialism, it was further argued, was ‘an intellectual tool [that] facilitated, when required, a distancing of oneself from the revolutionary left while still maintaining a claim to socialism; and, possibly more importantly, justifying a socialism brought about by an elite who were great believers in science’^.7 Independence in 1947 provided the founding fathers with a chance to translate their ideological vision into concrete development programmes in which the role of state was hailed as a prime mover. The new institutional matrix that the state-led development programmes provided consisted of ‘a regulatory regime’ comprising (a) public sector expansion, (b) discretionary controls over markets and private economic activities and (c) stringent foreign exchange and import controls. The first two had their roots in the ideology of socialism while the last one had its roots in economic nationalism. Taken together, they articulated ‘activism of the newly established nation state’⁸ to guide the economic system ‘in a desired direction by means of intentionally planned and rationally coordinated state policies’.⁹

In this model of state-directed development, the most significant instrument was the Planning Commission that came into being in January 1950 despite serious opposition of the Gandhians within the Congress Working Committee. However, the cabinet resolution that finally led to the creation of the Commission underlined three major principles as special terms of reference in the preparation of the plans that largely defused opposition. These principles were: (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the country are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment^.10 Underlining the ideological commitment of the nation, the 1948 Industrial Policy Resolution therefore begins by stating that

[t]he nation has now set itself to establish a social order where justice and equality of opportunity shall be secured to all the people. For this purpose, careful planning and integrated efforts over the whole field of national activity are necessary; and the Government of India propose to establish a National Planning Commission to formulate programmes of development and to secure its execution (para 1).

Accordingly, the 1948 Industrial Policy Resolution insisted that the state should play a progressivelyUnderlining the ideological active role in the development of critical industries, such as (a) industries manufacturing arms and ammunition, production and control of atomic energy and the ownership and management of railway transport and (b) basic industries, namely iron, coal and steel, aircraft manufacture, shipbuilding and mineral oils. This resolution was reiterated in the 1955 Avadi session of the Congress by underlining that in view of the declared objective of being a socialist pattern of society, the state shall play a vital role in planning and development. The next landmark event confirming the intention of an activist state was the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 that was adopted after parliament had accepted in December 1954 a socialist pattern of society as the objective of social and economic policy and the Second Five Year Plan (also known as Mahalanobis Plan) articulated this ideological goal in formal terms. P.C. Mahalanobis, the architect of the plan, argued for state-controlled economic development for accelerating the tempo of growth under ‘the autarkic industrialization strategy’.¹¹ Hence, he insisted that basic and heavy industries should remain in the public sector for two reasons: (a) the private sector may not be able to raise adequate resourced for these very capital-intensive industries and even if it managed it would command a monopolistic control that was deemed detrimental to social welfare; and (b) by controlling allocation of output of basic and heavy industries according to social priorities, it was certain that the government would be able to channel private sector growth to fulfil its ideological goal. In seeking to achieve the objective of a socialist pattern of society, the Nehru-led government envisaged an expanded role of the public sector and the importance of planning in all-round development of the country.

Planning for development: a panacea or failure?

As an operational tool, planning seems formidable to structure the role of the state in accordance with its ideological underpinning. Therefore, not only is planning an instrument tuned to economic regeneration, it is inextricably tied to the regime’s political preferences as well. This is, however, not to conceptualize the relationship between planning and the ideological slant of the regime in a deterministic way, but to underline the complex interdependence which entails, at the same time, an interplay of various pulls and pressures in a rapidly changing social fabric. Planning is thus ‘an exercise of instrumental rationality … institutionalized … outside the normal processes of representative politics [and executed] through a developmental administration’^.12 Notwithstanding the critical significance of planning as a developmental aid in India, argues Aseema Sinha, ‘was and continues to be constrained by the pattern of mediation between the centre and regions’.¹³ Furthermore, a centralized planning also led to the expansion of regionalism in India presumably because of ‘haphazard and unequal’ development of constituent provinces. Regional differences and politico-economic conflicts arising out of a centrally engineered scheme remain critical in post-independent India’s political economy, besides the exogenous influences in the wake of globalization.

Historically, the Congress was persuaded by the arguments supporting planning for development. Contrary to Gandhi’s explicit opposition to ‘planned development’, the Congress party showed ample interest in socialistic means, including planning and heavy industrialization as ‘essential to make revolutionary changes in the present economic and social structure of society and to remove gross inequalities’ since 1929. Within two years, the 1931 Karachi Congress adopted a resolution insisting on state ownership of ‘key industries and services, mineral resources, railways, waterways, shipping and other means of public transport’. However, in 1934, the Congress Working Committee passed a resolution at Banaras stressing that ‘large and organized industries are in no need of the services of Congress organizations or of any Congress effort on their behalf’. Critical of the above, Jawaharlal Nehru rallied support to reformulate the resolution with a view to soliciting Congress backing for industr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Tables
• Preface and acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Maoism, governance and the red corridor
• 2 Genesis of Maoism in India
• 3 Maoism
• 4 Growth and consolidation of Maoism in Orissa
• 5 Maoism in Orissa
• 6 The Maoist organization and state response
• 7 Maoism
• Conclusion
• Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• Appendix 3
• Appendix 4
• Appendix 5
• Appendix 6
• Bibliography