“China’s Chairman is Our Chairman! China’s Path is Our Path!” — Naxalite slogan
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a surge of radical politics in India. This chapter examines the Naxalite movement, the Communist parties, and the broader ideological ferment that challenged both the Congress establishment and the democratic system itself.
Indian communism was divided. The CPI (Communist Party of India) was pro-Soviet and willing to work within parliamentary democracy. The CPI(M)—Marxist—split from CPI in 1964, more critical of Congress but still democratic. Then came the Naxalites, who rejected both parliamentary politics and the “revisionist” communist parties.
In May 1967, a peasant uprising erupted in Naxalbari, a remote corner of West Bengal. Led by Charu Majumdar and Kanu Sanyal, it advocated armed revolution—Maoist “people’s war” to overthrow the Indian state.
Peasants seized land from landlords. They killed a landlord. The police killed peasants. The uprising was suppressed within weeks, but it inspired a revolutionary movement across India—the Naxalites, named after the village where it began.
The Naxalite movement spread to cities, particularly Calcutta. Idealistic students from elite families joined the cause. They attacked “class enemies”—landlords, businessmen, police. The tactic of “annihilation of class enemies” meant targeted killings.
The state responded with equal violence. Naxalites were hunted down and killed—often in “encounters” that were actually extrajudicial executions. By 1972, the movement was crushed. Charu Majumdar died in police custody. Thousands of young people lost their lives or spent years in prison.
While Naxalites rejected elections, the CPI(M) won power in Kerala (1967) and West Bengal (1977). These governments attempted land reform and pro-poor policies within the democratic framework.
West Bengal’s land reform—registering sharecroppers and giving them security of tenure—was the most successful in India. It showed that meaningful reform was possible through democratic politics, contradicting the Naxalite thesis that only revolution could help the poor.
The late 1960s saw other forms of radical politics. Student movements challenged authority. Labor militancy increased. JP’s movement, though not communist, drew on radical energy. India’s youth were restless and impatient with incremental change.
“The revolutionary zeal of the late 1960s reflected genuine grievances—landlessness, unemployment, caste oppression. But the Naxalite remedy—armed revolution—was romantic fantasy that produced tragedy.” — Ramachandra Guha
The Naxalite movement was crushed by 1972, but it never completely disappeared. It revived in the 1980s and 1990s, concentrated in tribal areas of central India. Today, the “Red Corridor” stretching from Nepal to Andhra Pradesh remains affected by Maoist insurgency.
The Naxalites addressed real problems—landlessness, exploitation of tribals, state violence against the poor. Their analysis of grievances was often accurate, even when their solutions were catastrophic. The issues they raised remain unresolved.
Why did revolution fail in India? Unlike China or Vietnam, India had a functioning democracy that could absorb discontent. Land reform, however incomplete, provided some mobility. The diversity of Indian society made unified class warfare impossible.
The Naxalite failure vindicated India’s democratic path—not because Indian democracy was perfect, but because it was preferable to the alternatives. Reform, however slow, was possible without revolution’s bloodshed.