Alongside the Maoists, activists also expressed concern for the safety of Adivasis in the Karreguttalu region, who may get caught in the potential crossfire between the Maoists and the heavy build-up of Indian forces.
Published Apr 30, 2025 | 7:58 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 30, 2025 | 7:58 PM
Representative image.
Synopsis: After the Maoists extended an olive branch, pressure is mounting on the Centre from civil society groups and opposition parties to end the ongoing military offensive in Chhattisgarh – Operation Kagar – aimed at eliminating armed insurgents entrenched in the jungles of Karreguttalu, bordering Telangana. Amid growing concern for the safety of both Maoists and Adivasis in the region, now encircled by a substantial Indian military presence, Karnataka’s recent success in resolving its own Naxalite issues through peaceful means is being touted as a potential template.
Activists are hopeful that Operation Kagar, the Union government’s military offensive aimed at eliminating Maoists entrenched in the jungles of Chhattisgarh’s Karreguttalu region near the Telangana border, might soon draw to a close.
The operation has been ongoing for several days, with an unspecified number of Maoists believed to have been killed, and at least one Central Reserve Police Force jawan reportedly sustaining injuries in the fighting.
Pressure on the Centre to initiate peace talks has intensified following a call from Maoist Northwest Sub-Zonal Bureau leader Rupesh on 25 April for an immediate end to Operation Kagar and a willingness to engage in dialogue.
The Peace Committee – a group of left-wing intellectuals and activists – met Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy on Sunday, 27 April, urging him to use his office to persuade the Centre to halt the operation, emphasising the Maoists’ readiness for talks.
Alongside the Maoists, activists also expressed concern for the safety of Adivasis in the Karreguttalu region, who may get caught in the potential crossfire between the Maoists and the heavy build-up of Indian forces.
Revanth Reddy assured the Committee that Telangana Police would adhere to the law and avoid unprovoked firing within the state.
Bharat Rashtra Samithi supremo and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao echoed the committee’s call, terming the operation a “massacre” and stressing that it was inappropriate in a democracy to ignore an offer of peace talks.
Professor G Haragopal, a prominent member of the Peace Committee, expressed optimism.
“The Maoists have made it clear they are ready for a dialogue. In a democracy, that is the right approach. We hope they will listen if public opinion builds against the crackdown on Maoists,” he told South First.
“There seems to be a rethinking at the Centre as public opinion is building in favour of talks over the ongoing crackdown.”
Following his meeting with the Committee, on Monday, Chief Minister Revanth Reddy sought the advice of former Home Minister K Jana Reddy, who had led talks with Maoists in 2004 under the Y S Rajasekhar Reddy-led Congress government.
“This is an issue between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) at the Centre and the Maoists. It is Narendra Modi and Amit Shah who have to take a call. I gave my suggestions to the Chief Minister when he visited me,” Jana Reddy told South First.
He also expressed his willingness to lead a government delegation for peace talks if requested.
“When I am asked, I will take a call. At the moment, my role is advisory. In 2004, when the Maoist movement was at its peak in Andhra Pradesh, holding talks itself was a great achievement. I was tenacious in putting forth the state government’s view that they should lay down their arms.”
That same day, Revanth Reddy, in an informal interaction with the media, said that the issue required national-level discussion and that he would raise it with the Congress leadership to formulate a national policy.
Already, the Congress has advocated for the Centre to invite Maoists for talks, though the Union government remains committed to its goal of making India “Naxal-free” by 2026.
The offer of peace came against the backdrop of Karnataka’s recent success in resolving its Naxalite issue.
Unlike Telangana or Chhattisgarh, Karnataka’s Naxal problem was less severe, and the state achieved a “Naxal-free” status through civil society efforts and a strategic surrender policy, rather than direct government-led talks.
After the Congress assumed power in Karnataka, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah introduced the “Come to Mainstream” policy, ensuring that Naxalites could return to democratic struggles.
Civil society groups, notably the Citizens’ Initiative for Peace (CIP), facilitated surrenders, starting with former Naxalites Noor Sridhar and Sirimane Nagaraj in Chikmagalur.
The government offered attractive surrender packages, including cash incentives of up to ₹7.5 lakh based on each Naxalite’s stature.
The surrender of six Naxalites on 8 January at Siddaramaiah’s official resident in Bengaluru led Karnataka to declare itself free of armed Naxalite struggle.
This success, has been hailed as a template that could be used in other states. But Jana Reddy warned against drawing comparisons between states.
“In Karnataka, the problem was not as severe as here. The government did not hold talks directly; civil society groups did. But in other states like Chhattisgarh, it is severe and it has to be handled at a different plane,” he added.
The 2004 peace talks between the Maoists and Andhra Pradesh were largely unsuccessful.
Initiated months after the Congress came to power, defeating the Chandrababu Naidu government, the talks aimed to address the long-standing Naxalite issue but collapsed due to fundamental disagreements, particularly over the issue of arms.
The government, led by Home Minister Jana Reddy, insisted that Maoists renounce arms – a condition it deemed non-negotiable.
The Maoists, represented by leaders like Ramakrishna, refused to surrender weapons, arguing that possession of firearms defined their identity.
“We will hold the arms, but not fire them,” he had stated. The government, citing the illegality of possessing arms, rejected this proposal.
Other points of contention included the Maoists’ demand for a formal ceasefire agreement to ensure mutual cessation of hostilities.
The government maintained that the three-month ceasefire announced on 16 June 2004 was sufficient.
It also required Maoist leaders to refrain from displaying arms during the ceasefire while visiting villages – a condition the Maoists found restrictive, as it limited both their influence and security.
Mutual distrust further derailed the talks, with Maoists accusing the government of continuing anti-Naxal operations, including combing, and resorting to alleged encounters.
The government, meanwhile, suspected that Maoists used the ceasefire period to mobilise support, recruit fresh cadres in rural areas, and that police, even as talks were in progress, were sent to identify hideouts, which were later targeted.
After the talks ended inconclusively, police escorted the Maoist team, led by Ramakrishna, to the jungles near Srisailam, where they disappeared.
The government resumed anti-Naxalite operations in full force. It felt the Maoists’ refusal to surrender arms indicated an intention to retain the option of armed struggle – which was unacceptable.
One positive outcome of the talks was the constitution of the Koneru Ranga Rao Land Committee in 2004 to assess land distribution programmes. By 2013, the government claimed to have distributed 78 lakh acres to poor farmers and restored two lakh acres of illegally transferred Dalit lands.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
