While Adivasi Maoist leader and guerrilla strategist Madvi Hidma may have died as an individual, his death is provoking many questions.
Published Nov 25, 2025 | 11:00 AM ⚊ Updated Nov 25, 2025 | 11:00 AM
Madvi Hidma.
Synopsis: Madvi Hidma — Central Committee member of the Maoist Party — along with his companion Madakam Raje and four other comrades died in an encounter on 18 November. While Adivasi Maoist leader and guerrilla strategist Madvi Hidma may have died as an individual, his death is provoking many questions.
Police announced that Madvi Hidma — Central Committee member of the Maoist Party — along with his companion Madakam Raje and four other comrades, died in an encounter that took place on Tuesday, 18 November, in the forests near Gujju Mamidi Valasa, in Maredumilli mandal of Alluri Sitarama Raju district in Andhra Pradesh.
The deaths have sparked discussions about Hidma’s activities throughout his years in the movement. Some even commented that, with Hidma’s end, the Maoist movement itself has ended. However, certain social phenomena do not have an end. What appears to have ended in one form only begins again in another. An end raises several questions and opens the path to new beginnings.
Likewise, while Adivasi Maoist leader and guerrilla strategist Madvi Hidma may have died as an individual, his death is provoking many questions.
The first question: Was it really an encounter?
Society already has a clear understanding that 90 out of 100 “encounter” narratives told since 1969, in the days of united Andhra Pradesh, were blatant lies.
Police have turned the linguistic meaning of “encounter” — an accidental meeting — upside down and fixed the meaning as “catching and killing intentionally.” Police themselves now say, “We will do an encounter.” In some instances, even the victims ask that “criminals” be encountered — showing how the word has taken on a new meaning.
In the context of news that some Maoists were hiding in other places for health reasons or to escape from the anti-Maoist elimination campaign that began on 1 January 2024 and has continued in Chhattisgarh, large-scale arrests of Maoists took place in several towns in Andhra Pradesh, including Vijayawada.
Strong suspicions now exist that, as part of those arrests, Hidma and the others were caught and then shot dead in two separate incidents.
Chhattisgarh police officials had earlier said: “Even if Hidma surrenders, we will not spare him — we will kill him.” Union and state home ministers and police officials issued warnings explicitly naming Hidma.
For two decades, the police built up a terrifying image of Hidma. They circulated stories claiming that many violent incidents were carried out directly by Hidma’s own hands.
To reduce events that occur within a party waging a protracted people’s war — based on collective decisions made in the belief that armed struggle is necessary for systemic transformation — into the actions of one individual, and to single him out, serves only one purpose: to create justification in advance for killing him at any time in the future – an assassination foretold!
Therefore, the likelihood that Hidma’s death was an intentional killing is greater than that it was a genuine encounter.
The second question: Does the government have the authority to intentionally kill citizens?
If the government follows the Constitution—and especially if it respects Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, then it does not have that authority.
Article 21 states that the State has no right to take a human life except according to “procedure established by law,” and that every citizen has the right to live. Governments have been violating this article with impunity for decades.
“Procedure established by law” means conducting a trial with incontrovertible evidence and imposing punishment beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, there is no evidence, no trial, and countless reasonable doubts. Yet the punishment — an irreversible death sentence — has been pronounced and carried out by the same authority.
The third question: Why this attack on Hidma in particular and on Adivasis as a whole?
The attack on Hidma — the Adivasi youngster from the remote village of Puvarti in Sukma district of Chhattisgarh — is part of the broader attacks carried out against Adivasis for decades.
Whether one agrees with his politics and actions or not, all citizens of India must reflect on certain matters at this moment.
As part of a plan to hand over the immense mineral resources in the Adivasi regions of Dandakaranya to corporate companies, the rulers intend to terrorise Adivasis and evict them from their traditional homelands.
To eliminate the Maoists who stood by the Adivasis, to drive out or subjugate the Adivasis, and then to hand over the minerals in the forests and hills to corporates — this strategy has been continuing for two to three decades.
This is a programme of handing over the country’s resources to the rich and powerful of this and other countries, depriving the people of the country and future generations of those resources.
Since Hidma stood as an obstacle to that programme, and the aspiration of “jal-jungle-zameen” and the revolutionary movement stood as obstacles, the powers sought to eliminate them.
Even as Operation Kagar’s massacre continues, in February and May of this year, thousands of acres of land were handed over to corporate companies such as Arcelor Mittal, Rungta Steel and Lloyd. Therefore, this is not merely an Adivasi issue or a Maoist issue — it is an issue for the people of this country, an issue concerning the country’s future.
The fourth question: Did the government’s propaganda succeed or fail in Hidma’s case?
Even though governments tried to portray Hidma as extremely dangerous, the wave of protest after his killing — and the presence of thousands of people at his funeral in Puvarti despite severe repression and restrictions — shows the place he occupied in the hearts of Adivasis and of genuine lovers of this country.
Among the Adivasis, he held an indelible place as one of the leaders who actively resisted and halted the cruelty of the Salwa Judum campaign, during which Adivasi hamlets were burnt and rampant killings and rapes took place.
Since he rose from among them and became a leader of the revolutionary movement, spoke almost all Adivasi languages fluently and became their tongue and voice, he commanded immense respect. This was expressed in the funeral and in the people’s response.
The fifth question: Does the movement end with Hidma’s end?
Madvi Hidma — who led the Adivasis vibrantly until 18 November — has now joined the historic list of hundreds of Adivasi martyrs.
It is an inspiring, energising list that includes Kanu, Sidhu, Veeranaryan Singh, Birsa Munda, Tilak Manjhi, Ramji Gond, Gundadhur, and Komaram Bheem.
Neither they nor their inspiration can ever die. For three centuries, Adivasis have been fighting — first against British colonialists, exploiters and landlords from the plains, and later against governments that, in the name of “development,” seized their jal-jungle-zameen and displaced them.
So long as exploitation and oppression exist, that current of struggle will not end.
(Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
