1. Origins and Philosophical Foundations

The Naxalite movement traces its roots to the Naxalbari Uprising of 1967 in Naxalbari village, Darjeeling district, West Bengal. This uprising was led by Charu Majumdar and Kanu Sanyal with the slogan “Land, livelihood, and liberation.” The primary objective was the redistribution of land to agricultural workers and marginalized communities.

The movement’s philosophy revolved around the concept of “Land to the tiller,” emphasizing an agrarian revolution to achieve socio-economic equity. It sought to dismantle feudal structures and initiate a “New Democratic Revolution.” A significant trigger for the movement was the arming of tribal communities to challenge exploitative landlords (Jotedars) and oppressive socio-economic systems.

2. Inspiration and Historical Context

Globally, the movement drew inspiration from Mao Zedong’s Chinese Communist Revolution (1949), which prioritized guerrilla warfare and peasant mobilization. Additionally, Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution (1917), which successfully overthrew a feudal monarchy, provided ideological grounding.

Within India, historical precedents included the Telangana Struggle (1946-1951), a Communist-led armed peasant revolt against the Nizam’s oppressive regime in Hyderabad. The formation of the Communist Party of India (CPI) in 1920 by M.N. Roy, and its later split into CPI and CPM over ideological differences between Soviet and Chinese communism, also played a role in shaping the movement. Socio-economic factors such as persistent land ownership inequality, exploitation of peasants, and inadequate agrarian reforms further fueled the rebellion.

3. Goals and Strategies

The primary objectives of the movement were to overthrow feudal and imperial systems and establish a people-centric socio-economic order. This involved redistributing land to landless peasants and eliminating bonded labor practices.

To achieve these goals, the movement focused on mobilizing the rural peasantry as the core revolutionary force. It adopted guerrilla warfare tactics, with the strategy of surrounding cities from rural bases. Local grassroots leadership was encouraged to ensure sustained revolutionary action.

The movement witnessed revolutionary splits, as disenchanted members of CPI and CPM formed Marxist-Leninist groups, incorporating Maoist guerrilla principles.

The Naxalbari Uprising (1967)

1. Initial Actions

On March 3, 1967, peasants occupied a Jotedar’s crop field in Naxalbari, raising red flags as a sign of rebellion. The immediate cause was the exploitation under the Aadhaar system and inspiration from the Tebhaga movement. Charu Majumdar played a crucial role in providing ideological clarity through his influential writings.

2. Expansion of the Movement

By the spring of 1967, the uprising spread over 274 square miles, with 60 villages engaging in land occupations. Peasant committees were formed to reclaim lands and confront landlord oppression. Symbolic actions such as the destruction of land deeds and redistribution of crops reinforced the revolution’s goals.

3. Clash and Response

Between May 23-25, 1967, violent clashes erupted between peasants and police. A significant incident was the Prasad Jote Massacre on May 25, when police fired on protesting peasants, killing nine people, including women and children. In response, Charu Majumdar declared this as the beginning of a “peasant liberation war,” marking the formal rise of Naxalism.

National Impact and Response

1. Spread Across India

The Naxalbari movement inspired similar uprisings in Srikakulam (Andhra Pradesh), Mushahari (Bihar), and Lakhimpur-Kheri (Uttar Pradesh). Students, youth, and intellectuals formed solidarity committees to support the movement, bolstered by revolutionary literature and cultural activities.

2. Formation of CPI (ML)

Various revolutionary leaders coalesced under the All India Communist Revolutionaries Coordination Committee, leading to the formal establishment of the CPI (Marxist-Leninist) on April 22, 1969, with Charu Majumdar as General Secretary. The party emphasized guerrilla warfare, collectivized land ownership, and socialist governance.

3. Cultural and Political Legacy

Strategically, the movement sought to achieve state power as a revolutionary goal. The martyrdom of activists strengthened the movement’s appeal, symbolizing sacrifice. The movement continues to represent marginalized voices, fostering a legacy of resistance and socio-economic justice.

Socio-Economic Background

1. Concentration of Land Ownership

Land ownership was highly skewed, with a few landlords controlling vast tracts while most peasants remained landless or owned minimal land. These landlords exercised unchecked dominance, perpetuating exploitation in villages.

2. Exploitation and Social Practices

Customary exploitation practices obligated villagers to provide free labor and gifts to landlords during festivals and social events. Additionally, landlords monopolized resources, manipulated land records, and engaged in illegal timber trading with official complicity.

3. Judicial and Caste-Based Oppression

Landlords acted as village adjudicators in kangaroo courts, often charging fees and abusing their positions. They also exploited caste barriers and untouchability to sustain their dominance over lower-caste communities.

Tribal Peasant Struggles: Srikakulam Case Study

1. Root Causes

Tribals were dispossessed of their lands by moneylenders and landlords, often reduced to bonded labor (Kambarys). Economic disparities and denial of basic rights led to armed tribal uprisings.

2. Objectives

The movement aimed to redistribute wastelands to tribals, punish exploitative landlords and moneylenders, establish self-governing tribal zones, and elect tribal representatives for governance.

3. Milestone Meetings

The Mondemkhal Meeting (1969) saw tribal farmers aligning with Naxalbari’s goals to intensify their struggles. The Guthikonda Bilam Meeting (1969) led to the formation of the Andhra Pradesh State Committee of CPI (ML), advancing regional revolutionary coordination.

Social Boycotts as a Tool in the Naxalite Movement

Introduction of Social Boycotts

Initially used by landlords to ostracize challenging families, the Naxalite movement reversed this tactic to undermine landlord control and promote democratic practices. The strategy empowered marginalized communities while isolating oppressive landlords and their allies.

Impact on Landlords

Social boycotts led to the erosion of landlord authority, with collective defiance challenging their historical dominance. A key incident was the Chinnampalli Incident (September 15, 1978), where landlord Jagan Mohan Rao and his son-in-law opened fire on boycotting farmers, demonstrating violent resistance to these boycotts.

Violence and Community Response

1. Examples of Oppression

The Kodurupaka Village Incident highlighted the violence activists faced, including the rape of a women’s liberation leader by local goons. Landlord atrocities such as illegal land grabs and sexual violence spurred communities to organize for self-defense.

2. Community Justice

Village meetings became platforms for collective decision-making and justice, as the police often failed to act against landlords. Self-organized trials and punishments served as both resistance and deterrence.

3. Escalation

The resistance led to heightened confrontations, with landlords attempting to suppress movements through violence, which only further galvanized the peasantry.

Q. What were the main causes of the Naxalbari uprising in 1967, and what immediate effects did it have on Indian society?