The CPI (Maoist) had achieved success in the beginning of this century in having its writ run in vast stretches of tribal areas. It is undeniable that such control is now a thing of the past.
Published Sep 26, 2025 | 3:45 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 26, 2025 | 3:50 PM
The raging internal debate in the CPI (Maoist) — whether to continue the armed struggle or not — became public when Abhay issued a statement supporting talks. (iStock)
Synopsis: The banned CPI (Maoist) is at a crossroads. The relentless offensive by the Indian security forces has resulted in severe casualties, even as voices — strong and clear — have been heard from within the organisation to end the ‘failed’ armed struggle, and join mainstream politics. The latest to raise such a demand was Mallojula Venugopal, spokesperson and Central Committee member. Which road the CPI (Maoist), shorn of its past glory, will take now is the question.
Is the outlawed CPI (Maoist) facing the biggest crisis in over five decades?
The answer is “yes” if one goes by the heavy loss of human resources, particularly senior leaders, in a series of “encounters” and the internal debate on whether it should give up the armed struggle and move into mainstream political activity.
What triggered the discussion on the state of affairs was a statement issued recently, in the name of its official spokesman and Central Committee member, Mallojula Venugopal — known as Abhay. The statement said the organisation was prepared to lay down arms and participate in talks.
The statement was initially described as “fake,” but once it turned out to be genuine, the Maoist group came out with a clarification: it was Abhay’s personal view and does not necessarily reflect the party’s stance.
But the key question is, what led to this crisis?
Over the past two years, the CPI (Maoist) lost as many as eight Central Committee (CC) members, including its head, Namballa Keshava Rao, alias Basavaraju, in multiple encounters, including the biggest at Karregutta along the Telangana-Chhattisgarh border a few months ago. The party now has only 5-6 surviving CC members. Abhay is one among them.
Months before his death in an encounter, Keshava Rao also reportedly veered round to the view that laying down arms — albeit temporarily — could be considered, given the heavy casualties and continuing raids by central forces on perceived Naxalite strongholds. However, he changed his position later, considering that “offence is the best form of defence” in the given situation. Soon, the armed forces succeeded in eliminating him in a gunfight in May.
The raging internal debate became public when Abhay issued the statement about 10 days ago. With many suspecting its veracity, he soon came out with an audio message reiterating the view that it was time to give up armed struggle.
Almost simultaneously, he issued a six-page letter explaining his position. He wrote that the party, which built the movement in 150 districts over 16 states in the early part of this century, failed to sustain it.
“Failure to learn from mistakes committed over the years has led to weakening of the movement and restricted its presence to a few districts now. Why should we make innocent people suffer because of our mistakes? How long will we latch on to an ideology (armed struggle) that has clearly failed?” was the essence of his letter.
Apologising to the “people” who suffered for supporting the Maoist movement, he appealed to them to continue fighting the corporates — aided and abetted by the State — as they turn up with plans to plunder the forest resources, and denying tribals and others their rightful share.
It was at this juncture that the party released a statement asking him to surrender his weapon and decide his course of action. The organisation also affirmed faith in its long-held belief that a “protracted armed struggle” was the only way forward. The statement coincided with the news of the “encounter” of two CC members, Kosa and Vikalp.
Was it a “covert operation” that led to this encounter? No one has an answer!
What is not clear is whether any other CC member shares the view of Abhay, or if he is alone in straying from the path laid down decades ago.
Interestingly, Abhay’s wife, Tara, surrendered to the Maharashtra government sometime ago. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had then announced that it was only a matter of time before Abhay, too, gave up. The Maoist group is currently active only in parts of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and the Gadchiroli belt of Maharashtra.
Abhay is the brother of Mallojula Koteswara Rao, a top-ranking Maoist leader, who was killed by security forces some years ago. In 2018 itself, the party general secretary, Muppala Lakshmana Rao, alias Ganapathy, withdrew from active work on health grounds.
Watchers of the Maoist movement agree that the recent developments have thrown the party into a crisis and a state of confusion. Though the Maoist group had suffered from an internal crisis in the past, the current one appears to be far more challenging.
In the 1980s, when the No. 2 in the organisation, KG Satyamurthy, walked out questioning the party line on various issues, state units in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, too, sided with him. However, the state units soon returned to the party fold.
The next crisis came in 1993-94 when its No. 1, Kondapalli Sitaramaiah, popularly known as KS, left the party. However, it had a limited impact as KS had grown old by then, and not many leaders walked out with him.
However, the present challenges, primarily the relentless offensive by state forces that have been combing every inch of the areas perceived as “strongholds” of Naxalites and weaning away their supporters through every possible method, are turning out to be difficult to counter. Hundreds of villages, which were a “haven” for Maoists some years ago, have almost turned into a “No-Go” zone as the party decided against making ordinary tribespeople “victims” of encounters because of their activity.
The CPI (Maoist) had achieved success in the beginning of this century in having its writ run in vast stretches of tribal dominated areas. It is undeniable that such control is now a thing of the past. What would it do while confronted with stark facts: weakening, or stagnation of the movement, failure to achieve the desired end, and the massive loss of “brains”?
Meanwhile, can it repudiate the old by giving up the theory of “armed struggle” and instead participate in mainstream politics is a question that is bound to generate considerable debate in the future. What kind of impact it would have on the front organisations of the party is another matter.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
