Decline of Naxalism and India’s Internal Security

India’s struggle against Naxalism has seen progress in recent years. Once a widespread insurgency, the movement’s footprint has shrunk dramatically. This shift reflects a combination of improved governance, targeted security operations, and development initiatives. About the dynamics behind this decline offers insight into India’s broader challenge of maintaining internal peace and national cohesion.

of Naxalism in India

Naxalism, a Left Wing Extremist (LWE) movement, has long challenged India’s democratic fabric. It originated as an armed struggle claiming to represent marginalised communities. However, its violent methods have undermined development and public trust. Between 2014 and 2024, the number of districts affected by Naxalism dropped from 126 to 18, with severe impact limited to six districts. Civilian casualties due to LWE attacks have also fallen sharply, signalling a weakening insurgency.

Misconceptions About Causes

The common belief that poverty and underdevelopment alone drive Naxalism is flawed. Evidence shows that economic deprivation is a weak predictor of extremist violence. Many poor regions remain unaffected by insurgency. Instead, factors such as weak governance, historical neglect, and identity grievances play a stronger role. Naxalites often target infrastructure like schools and railways, which contradicts the idea that they aim to uplift the poor.

Role of Governance and State Presence

Strong and accountable governance is crucial to counter insurgency. Areas with visible state presence and responsive administration resist extremist influence. Law enforcement, political will, and local engagement reduce grievances that fuel violence. The Government of India’s approach includes coordination between Centre and states, enhancing intelligence sharing and deploying specialised forces to affected areas.

Development as a Counterinsurgency Tool

Infrastructure development and skill-building have become central to India’s strategy. Expanding roads, telecom networks, and educational institutions reconnect isolated regions. Programmes like Industrial Training Institutes and Eklavya Model Residential Schools provide local youth with alternatives to militancy. These efforts restore faith in the state and offer tangible benefits that weaken extremist appeal.

Impact and Continuing Challenges

The decline in Naxal violence reflects the success of multi-pronged strategies combining security and development. However, the root causes—governance deficits, local grievances, and administrative apathy—persist in some areas. Sustained efforts are needed to maintain momentum. The challenge lies not just in defeating insurgents militarily but in rebuilding trust and ensuring justice through transparent institutions.

Significance for India’s Future

A Naxal-free India is vital for the country’s economic and social progress. Internal peace supports national unity and strengthens India’s position globally. The fight against Naxalism puts stress on the importance of inclusive development and good governance. It marks that sustainable security arises from trust and opportunity rather than force alone.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the role of governance in countering internal security threats like Left Wing Extremism in India.
2. What are the socio-economic and political factors influencing insurgencies in India? Explain with examples.
3. Comment on the impact of infrastructure development on insurgency-affected regions and how it aids in restoring state legitimacy.
4. Explain the challenges of coordinating Centre-State relations in managing internal security and suggest measures to improve collaboration.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the role of governance in countering internal security threats like Left Wing Extremism in India.

1. Strong, accountable governance reduces grievances that fuel insurgency and builds public trust.
2. Visible state presence and responsive administration limit extremist influence in affected areas.
3. Law enforcement effectiveness and political will are key to maintaining law and order.
4. Governance deficits, historical neglect, and poor local administration create spaces for extremism.
5. Good governance ensures justice delivery, transparency, and inclusiveness, undermining extremist ideology.
6. Multi-agency coordination and intelligence sharing enhance governance’s role in counterinsurgency.

2. What are the socio-economic and political factors influencing insurgencies in India? Explain with examples.

1. Weak governance and administrative apathy exacerbate local grievances and alienation.
2. Identity-based grievances and historical neglect fuel political discontent (e.g., tribal marginalisation in Red Corridor).
3. Economic deprivation alone is insufficient to cause insurgency (poverty present in unaffected areas).
4. Political manipulation and lack of state legitimacy deepen conflict zones.
5. Examples – Naxalism thrives in areas with poor law enforcement despite similar poverty levels elsewhere.
6. Ideological motivations and perceived injustice often drive recruitment and violence.

3. Comment on the impact of infrastructure development on insurgency-affected regions and how it aids in restoring state legitimacy.

1. Improved roads, telecom, and connectivity integrate isolated areas with mainstream governance.
2. Infrastructure projects symbolize state presence, enhancing legitimacy and trust among locals.
3. Facilities like schools and skill centres provide alternatives to militancy and promote socio-economic upliftment.
4. Destruction of infrastructure by insurgents shows their awareness of its importance in development.
5. Reduced attacks on economic infrastructure indicate growing local support for peace and progress.
6. Infrastructure development helps break cycles of stagnation and unemployment that fuel insurgency.

4. Explain the challenges of coordinating Centre-State relations in managing internal security and suggest measures to improve collaboration.

1. Law and order is a state subject, creating jurisdictional complexities in counterinsurgency efforts.
2. Varied political priorities and capacities among states hinder unified response to insurgency.
3. Insurgency crosses administrative boundaries, requiring seamless intelligence and operational coordination.
4. Centre acts as facilitator by providing resources, intelligence, and deploying central forces.
5. Measures – Establish joint task forces, improve communication channels, and regular inter-governmental meetings.
6. Capacity building in states and sharing best practices enhance collaborative governance.