From Naxalbari to near-endgame: Tracing the rise and fall of Naxalism in India

From a 1967 peasant revolt to a pan-India insurgency, and now a shrinking footprint, here's a look at how Naxalism rose, spread and declined over time

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday (March 30) declared India “Naxal-free”, stating that the CPI (Maoist)’s central leadership structure has been “almost completely dismantled”. Official assessments indicate that the CPI (Maoist)’s central leadership has been significantly degraded, with its politburo and command structure largely dismantled, Shah told Parliament.

 

This claim by the Union Home Minister is rooted in the measurable contraction of the Naxal movement. Areas which were once considered core insurgency zones, particularly in Bastar, have seen security expansion, surrenders and administrative re-entry in recent years. To understand this claim, it would be useful to look at the historical trajectory of the movement.

 

 

How did the Naxal movement begin in 1967?

 

The movement began in May 1967 in Naxalbari, a small village in northern West Bengal. What started as a localised peasant uprising against landlords quickly took on ideological shape under leaders such as Charu Majumdar and Kanu Sanyal.

 

The framework was explicitly Maoist. The idea was not reform but revolution — an armed struggle led by peasants to overthrow the state. By 1969, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) had been formed, formalising this ideological break from mainstream parliamentary communism.

 

The early phase combined rural insurgency with urban radicalisation. Students and intellectuals joined the movement, and targeted violence, including assassinations of landlords and state representatives, became a tactic.

 

Why did Naxalism expand into tribal regions?

 

The movement expanded in regions where the state was either absent or seen as extractive.

 

The original causes of the movement were linked to land inequality and feudalism, especially in eastern India. Over time, the geography of the movement shifted to tribal areas characterised by forest dependence, mining activity and limited governance. In these regions, issues such as land alienation, displacement and lack of access to justice have been cited as factors behind the expansion of the armed movement.

 

As a result, the insurgency’s core shifted into what came to be called the “Red Corridor” — a stretch of forested districts across central and eastern India.

 

How far did the insurgency spread at its peak?

 

After an initial crackdown in the early 1970s, the movement fragmented. It resurfaced in a more durable form from the late 1980s, driven by groups such as the People’s War Group and the Maoist Communist Centre.

 

The merger of these factions in 2004 to form the Communist Party of India (Maoist) marked a turning point. It created a unified command structure and set the stage for the most intense phase of the insurgency.

 

By the late 2000s, Naxalism had reached its widest footprint. Government data and independent estimates indicate that the influence of the movement spread across roughly 180 districts, with some assessments placing its presence in over 200 districts at various points. The core states included Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and parts of West Bengal.

 

The Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its 2013–14 report on the Union Home Ministry’s demands for grants, described Left-Wing Extremism as “the single biggest threat to India’s internal security” and a challenge to the democratic fabric of the country.

 

What kind of violence did the Naxal–state conflict see?

 

The insurgency was characterised by prolonged low-intensity conflict, with occasional high-casualty attacks.

 

In the period between 2000 and 2020, over 10,000 people, including civilians, security forces and insurgents, were killed in Naxal-related incidents, according to government statistics. The year 2010 was the bloodiest, with over 1,000 deaths.

 

Some incidents defined both the government response and the insurgency. The Dantewada ambush in April 2010, in which 76 CRPF personnel were killed, highlighted the capabilities of the Maoists and the gaps in state response. Repeated IED attacks, ambushes on patrol units and the use of parallel “jan adalats” (people’s courts) were central to how Maoists maintained control in their strongholds.

 

When did the intensity of the Naxal movement begin to decline?

 

A shift in the intensity of the movement became visible after 2010. The response evolved from reactive policing to a coordinated, multi-layered strategy.

 

Security operations intensified and became more intelligence-led. The Centre and states increased coordination, particularly across state borders where Maoists had earlier exploited gaps.

 

In 2015, the government rolled out a National Policy and Action Plan that combined security measures with development initiatives. Roads, telecom connectivity and banking access were expanded in remote districts. Administrative presence followed security deployment.

 

Leadership attrition also played a role. Several senior Maoist leaders were killed or arrested over the past decade, weakening the movement’s organisational structure. At the same time, surrender policies were scaled up, drawing cadres away from the movement.

 

Where does the Naxal movement stand today?

 

The contraction is visible in both geography and intensity. From roughly 180 affected districts at its peak, the number fell to around 90 by the mid-2010s, and further to about 25 districts by 2021, according to official data. Recent assessments suggest that active violence is now concentrated in a limited number of districts, largely in parts of Chhattisgarh and adjoining areas.

 

Fatalities have also declined significantly, with annual deaths — which crossed 1,000 in 2010 — dropping to double digits in recent years in several states.

 

States such as Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, once major theatres of conflict, have largely exited the map, while others, including Odisha and Maharashtra, have seen substantial reductions.

 

What explains the decline of the Naxal movement?

 

The decline is attributed to a combination of factors. Persistent security pressure restricted movement and affected supply chains. Infrastructure development reduced isolation in remote areas. Welfare measures, including food and cash transfer programmes, expanded the state’s presence.

 

At the same time, internal challenges within the Maoist movement, including ageing leadership and recruitment constraints, affected its ability to sustain itself.

 

These factors are associated with a reduction in both the frequency of attacks and territorial control, which had been central to the Maoist strategy.

 

What do official data and assessments indicate about Naxalism today?

 

The government’s position is that the insurgency has been effectively dismantled, with official data indicating a significant weakening of the CPI (Maoist)’s organisational structure and operational capacity.

 

Naxalism evolved from a localised revolt in 1967 into a multi-state insurgency that, at its peak, spanned a large number of districts across India. In recent years, official data shows a significant reduction in both its geographical spread and intensity compared to its peak years.