Pressuring the Indian government to hold peace negotiations with the Communist (Maoist) Party of India:
Immediately stop the "Kagar行动" and declare a ceasefire!
On April 3, 2025, The Hindu reported that the Central Committee of the Communist (Maoist) Party of India issued a statement calling for peace negotiations with the Indian state. As revolutionaries and democratic people of the masses, we must praise the Maoists for taking the initiative and calling for peace talks. This makes us realize that it is the “warlike” side that proposed peace negotiations, not the Indian state, which instead chose a scorched-earth policy during the “Kagar行动.” If the Indian state still has a shred of sincerity under the guise of democracy, it should explicitly declare that creating a favorable environment for peace negotiations and ensuring that the results serve the people’s interests is the primary responsibility of the Indian state based on its constitutional and legal authority. It is on this basis that the spokesperson of the Central Committee of the Communist (Maoist) Party of India, Comrade Abhay, put forward this proposal on behalf of the Central Committee. In this proposal, Comrade Abhay welcomed the roundtable meeting organized by the “Peace Negotiation Committee” in Hyderabad on March 24, themed “The Central Government and the Communist (Maoist) Party of India should declare an unconditional ceasefire and hold peace negotiations,” and pointed out: “We always prioritize the interests of the people and are ready for peace negotiations at any time. Therefore, we have proposed these suggestions to the central and state governments to create a conducive atmosphere for peace talks. If the central and state governments respond positively to these suggestions, we will immediately declare a ceasefire.”
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology originates from material conditions: find political solutions for Naxalism, not militarization!
The issue of peace cannot be separated from its dialectical relationship with India’s mode of production. India’s development model is an imperialist development model, centered on the “3D” — death, displacement, and destruction. In this development model, imperial capital injects resources into India through multinational corporations (MNCs) and foreign direct investments (FDIs), often with the help of comprador classes, to plunder resources and exploit cheap labor. This process of corporatization is often aided by feudal classes, which provide cheap land, guns, and thugs to protect these companies. The state actively plays a role through militarization policies and other means to maintain its relationship with imperialist masters. This indicates that imperialism, feudalism, and comprador bureaucratic capitalism are enemies of the people because resistance and unrest mainly stem from the material conditions of the masses. Even government officials admit that Naxalism is a phenomenon caused by unresolved socio-economic issues in society.
In 2006, the Planning Commission established an expert group led by D. Bandhopadhyay, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer who dealt with Naxalite issues in West Bengal in the 1970s. The committee also included Prakash Singh (former Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh), Ajit Doval (former Director of Intelligence Bureau), B.D. Sharma (retired official and activist), Sukdeo Tolarat (Chairman of the University Grants Commission), and K. Balagopal (human rights lawyer). The magazine Down To Earth reported in an article titled “The Operations of Naxalism” (Sakhuja & Misra, 2008): “Land dispossession, poverty among tribal and Dalit populations, and lack of access to basic forest resources are reasons for Naxalism, the planning commission pointed out. Its report, Development Challenges in Areas Affected by Extremism, criticizes the Salwa Judum movement in Chhattisgarh. The report also criticizes Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and policies like the 1996 Village Level Autonomous Institutions (Extension to Designated Areas) Act and the 1980 Forest (Protection) Act, highlighting their total failure.” The report essentially criticizes the government’s approach to development, stating: “Public purpose in land acquisition laws should be limited to national security and public welfare and should not be extended to land acquisition for companies, cooperatives, and registered societies.” It criticizes the amendments proposed in the 2007 Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, which need further revision to minimize displacement and protect the rights of those affected.
Bandhopadhyay adopts a relatively moderate stance toward Naxalism, acknowledging: “The emergence of Naxalism stems from planning deficiencies; ongoing alienation forces people to take up arms. It is time to see this issue not just as a law and order problem but as rooted in socio-economic issues.” In fact, if this committee still existed today, they would support peace negotiations with the Communist (Maoist) Party of India. “The expert group members believe that building trust and dialogue with the Naxalites is the way to resolve the issue. The idea of engaging in dialogue with these organizations must be accepted. Given that the government is prepared to dialogue with ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam) and Kashmiri militants, it is crucial to engage in dialogue with the Naxalites rather than further marginalize them and adopt police-centric strategies,” added Bandhopadhyay.
Even former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Maoism the biggest internal security threat to India, noting that this threat is closely related to India’s backwardness, exploitation, resource scarcity, and agricultural underdevelopment. He emphasized: “We must recognize that Naxalism is not just a law and order issue. In many regions, Naxalism is directly linked to backwardness. This is no coincidence; tribal areas are now the main battleground for left-wing extremism. Large tribal areas have become the base for left-wing extremists. Exploitation, artificially suppressed wages, unjust socio-political environments, lack of employment opportunities, resource scarcity, agricultural backwardness, geographical isolation, and land reform failures — all these factors have significantly contributed to the growth of the Naxal movement” (Singh, 2016). In 2018, The Times of India published an article where former Border Security Force officer and head Prakash Singh stated in an interview: “It is premature to say that Maoism is dead before socio-economic issues are addressed.” This clearly indicates that the ongoing influence of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology and the persistent existence of the Communist (Maoist) Party of India are not spontaneous phenomena disconnected from social material conditions but are deeply rooted in these conditions.
This is not a conflict between the Communist (Maoist) Party of India and the Indian state, but between the people and the Brahmanical Hindu fascist state
Given that the Maoist-led movement under the guidance of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist proletarian ideology originates from material conditions, we must critically examine the tendency to reduce this issue to a conflict between the Communist (Maoist) Party of India and the Indian state, and use correct terminology — this is an undeclared war launched by the Indian state against its own people and citizens. We must understand that simplifying the war launched by the Indian state against the people as a conflict between “Naxalites” and the Indian government is a flawed analysis based on subjective interpretations of the revolutionary essence and its connotations. Revolution and revolutionary actions do not come from a party emerging outside the masses but are a reflection of the revolutionary consciousness of the advanced sections of society. This simply means that a communist party exists only when the material conditions for its existence are met. As a party guided by Marxism (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism of the 21st century), aiming to liberate the masses, it can only originate from the masses and maintain itself by merging with them. Therefore, if a communist party lacks mass support or does not represent the interests of the masses, it is like a fish out of water. A party without mass participation cannot sustain itself or achieve its goals unless it follows the philosophy of “from the masses, to the masses.” These are the conditions for the existence of the Communist (Maoist) Party of India — it stems from the ideology, political, social, economic, and cultural needs of the masses, and it exists not for itself but to defend the enemies of the people on the path of the new democratic revolution.
In the “Kagar行动,” the state is carrying out genocide against the Adivasi people, so the party’s existence is crucial to ensure that the people can organize and effectively resist their enemies — the Indian state. Therefore, Abhay calls for stopping the “Kagar行动” and suspending corporatization and militarization policies. The Central Committee of the Communist (Maoist) Party of India states: “The central government led by the Indian People’s Party (BJP), guided by Hindu nationalist fascism, launched military attacks on our own people under the guise of ‘Kagar行动,’ destroying the life rights and fundamental provisions of the Constitution of tribal peoples. This brutal offensive aims to suppress the revolutionary movement of Adivasi people fighting for water, forest, and land rights, to pave the way for corporate interests to plunder natural resources, ultimately destroying the federal system and establishing a despotic unitary state. Over the past 15 months, more than 400 people, including many leaders and cadres of our party, commanders and members of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA), and ordinary Adivasi people, have been violently suppressed and killed by the state in various states (mainly Chhattisgarh). A third (1/3) of the ‘Kagar行动’ victims are Adivasi.”
The “Kagar行动” is clearly a scorched-earth policy implemented by the Indian state against the people, aiming to destroy revolutionary and democratic movements, both armed and unarmed. Under the guidance of imperialist ruling classes, the state is increasing militarization and promoting corporatization. Therefore, the undeclared war of the Bastar against the Communist (Maoist) Party of India is not just a war against the Maoists but also a genocidal plan rooted in expelling Adivasi people from their land, destroying their livelihoods and lives, and ensuring that any resistance against the national imperialist development model is eradicated. This is explicitly reflected in the “Kagar行动,” which continues the policies of Suraj Kond in 2022, when Amit Shah declared that the “Naxalism of pen and gun” must be eradicated.
Thus, the reason why Maoists and the Indian state need to hold peace negotiations is that the people are suffering. Civil society’s call for pressure on the Indian government to accept the conditions proposed by the Maoists has been met with a brave response. In their statement, they correctly point out that the Indian government should proactively initiate peace negotiations and create a conducive environment for talks. However, they also believe that the government should engage in peace talks with the Maoists because the Maoists seem to be weakening, which is a flawed political analysis. It must be remembered that the main driving force behind whether to initiate peace negotiations is concern for the people, not the strength of the opposition. This logic could lead to unintended consequences, viewing peace negotiations merely as a tactical move by the ruling class — implying that the ruling class needs to participate in peace negotiations because the movement arises from social material conditions causing people’s suffering, and these conditions have not changed regardless of the relative strength of the conflicting parties or their negotiating capacity.
Conditions for peace negotiations and responses of the Indian state
The Central Committee of the Communist (Maoist) Party of India has proposed the following conditions for peace negotiations. First, they demand the immediate cessation of the “Kagar行动” — that is, the military offensives against revolutionary and people’s democratic movements in Chhattisgarh, Gadchiroli (Maharashtra), Odisha, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Telangana. Second, they demand that no new military camps be established during the military offensive, and that the military forces deployed in the relevant areas remain in their existing camps during the ceasefire and peace negotiations. Third, no memoranda of understanding (MoUs) facilitating corporate plunder of natural resources should be signed in the relevant areas. Lastly, they demand the release of all political prisoners arrested for resisting the state’s plunder of natural resources and militarization, including revolutionaries and leaders of the constitutional democratic mass movement, and their participation in peace negotiations.
In response, Chhattisgarh Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma dismisses public sentiment, claiming the government is ready to dialogue with the Maoists and allow them to rejoin mainstream society after surrender, but cannot accept any conditions they propose. He added that the government will not establish any peace negotiation committee and reiterated that the Maoists can initiate dialogue through any channel they prefer. “The negotiations will be unconditional. We are still ready to negotiate; the central leadership is prepared, and respected Chief Minister Vishnu Deyao Sai is also ready. There are no issues with negotiations. But the government will not establish any committee. If they want to, they can do so themselves or through their preferred channels. We are all ready.” (The Hindu, 2025)
During his visit to Chhattisgarh, Union Home Minister Amit Shah claimed that no one would rejoice over the killing of a Naxalite, but this is a barefaced lie. Records show that paramilitary forces danced in celebration after killing Maoists, and local officials were encouraged to do so because they could claim bounties and reallocate resources. In April 2018, in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, after a major firefight where 20 Naxalites were killed, C-60 commandoes and Central Reserve Police Force personnel were seen dancing and celebrating to a popular Haryana song sung by Sapna Choudhary. Similarly, in November 2024, after eliminating 10 Naxalites in Sukma, Chhattisgarh, district reserve police (DRG) soldiers danced to local folk music on their return from the firefight. These cases starkly contrast with the statement of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who said, “No one will rejoice over the killing of Naxalites,” highlighting the huge gap between official stance and actual security forces’ reactions. In fact, in 2024 alone, over 14 million rupees in bounties were paid for the killing or surrender of Maoists in Chhattisgarh, but due to a lack of comprehensive public records, the actual total amount received by the state remains unclear. This clearly indicates that the policy against Maoists is very simple: kill on sight to collect bounties.
The political nature of guerrilla warfare requires certain prerequisites to create a conducive atmosphere for peace negotiations. The conditions proposed by the Communist (Maoist) Party are not because the party is losing cadres. All revolutionaries and their masses are well aware that in an unequal war (and war itself), joining or supporting guerrilla movements may risk permanent injury or death. In reality, the driving force behind calling for peace negotiations is the suffering of countless Adivasi people and ordinary civilians under the fascist repression of the “Kagar行动.” Therefore, the issue here is not whether Maoists suffer significant losses, but why the state insists on carrying out genocidal war against the people during the “Kagar行动.” This stems entirely from the economic interests of the ruling class. On March 26, 2025, as the state celebrated the kidnapping and killing of three Maoist leaders (including Renu Ka and Saraya) in Bastar, the government of Chhattisgarh signed a memorandum of understanding with NASSCOM, IESA, and TIE Bangalore, proposing an investment of 37 billion rupees. These proposals include semiconductor development, an area in which India hopes to compete with Taiwan as a proxy for U.S. imperialism, while advancing its expansionist agenda in the region.
This reckless signing of memoranda of understanding and the accompanying fascist genocidal plans to support corporate plunder are not new; they began with the 2009 “Salwa Judum” operation. Arunachal Roy pointed out: “Every mountain, every river, every forested land has a memorandum of understanding.” This reveals the essence of the Brahmanical Hindu fascist state’s rejection of the Maoist proposals — driven by comprador nature, aimed at pleasing its masters and paving the way for “development” projects in Chhattisgarh, regardless of the lives and rights of its own citizens. Moreover, despite the appearance of maintaining a democratic facade, we must remember the murders of comrades Azad and journalist Hem Pandey — they were first arrested, then tortured and interrogated, and ultimately killed; both were on their way to negotiate with the Indian state to promote peace dialogue between the Maoists and the Indian government.
Therefore, if the Communist (Maoist) Party of India acts cautiously and based on an objective analysis of the Brahmanical Hindu fascist state’s class nature and treacherous history, it is justified to demand that certain preconditions be met before starting peace negotiations. This is not only rooted in the country’s history but also in the state’s blatant disregard for its own citizens — those citizens suffering persecution under the state’s bloody repression under the pretext of “ending Naxalism.” If the Maoists succumb to the state’s demand for unconditional surrender before peace negotiations and are destroyed, the suffering masses will lose their most organized self-defense against the Indian state’s fascist aggression and will also lose any alternative paths of governance and development.
The Indian state must meet the conditions proposed by the Communist (Maoist) Party of India to initiate peace negotiations
As previously mentioned, it is justified for the Maoist-led movement, guided by Marxist-Leninist-Maoist proletarian ideology, to put forward conditions in peace negotiations due to an objective analysis of class relations and the history of betrayal by the Indian state. The history of betrayal by the Indian state is not hidden from public view; it has been widely discussed and even reported through mainstream news channels. In 2004, during peace negotiations with the People’s War of the Communist (Marxist-Leninist) Party of India, the government actively increased surveillance and launched the “Green Hunt” operation instead of engaging in dialogue. During the process of claiming to negotiate with the party, Indian authorities collected intelligence, which they used in fake gunfights to arrest and kill many leaders of the movement. In another incident, the Indian state arrested, tortured, and murdered Azad, a Politburo member of the Maoist party and peace mediator, as well as journalist Hem Pandey. In November 2011, the West Bengal government led by Mamata still arrested, tortured, and killed Comrade Kishanji despite initially showing willingness to dialogue with the Maoists.
Therefore, if the Indian government truly seeks peace, it must proactively create a favorable environment for peace. This environment should meet the ceasefire conditions proposed by the Maoists and suspend military operations like “Kagar行动.” If Brahmanical Hindu nationalist fascism continues to suppress the people, killing innocent Adivasi and unarmed fighters under the pretext of fighting Naxalites, peace will be impossible. As long as this imperialist development model and its policies of corporatization and militarization persist and are vehemently opposed by the Adivasi people, peace remains unattainable.There can be no peace. If the Indian state genuinely desires peace, it must demonstrate its sincerity by stopping the “Kagarl行动” (Kagarl Action), refraining from signing any new Memoranda of Understanding, suspending all military operations in the region, and releasing all political prisoners opposing the state’s resource plunder and exploitation policies.
Peace and Liberation Are Not Mutually Exclusive: Are Peace Negotiations a Long-term Solution?
A historical series of betrayals, along with issues related to India’s mode of production, present us with a fundamental question that supporters of peace negotiations must consider—can we assert that peace negotiations will bring about a lasting solution? In other words, can we ask ourselves: is the peace process itself the solution to the contradictions that lead the Indian Communist (Maoist) Party to adopt a “People’s War” strategy and tactics?
India has adopted an imperialist development model rooted in its semi-colonial, semi-feudal nature. This development model is based on the exploitation and oppression of the broad masses of people. When we say India is a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country, we mean that its mode of production is based on meeting the needs of the global imperialist system, further reinforced by maintaining feudal relations. When the British imperialists invaded India, our thriving indigenous handicrafts were destroyed, replaced by large-scale indigo cultivation to meet British imperial demands, severely hindering the economic development of indigenous Indian industries. This process obstructed India’s economic transition toward independence, self-sufficiency, and sustainable development, ensuring that capitalist relations could not develop—India’s productive forces were suppressed and served as cheap labor for British interests, with the development of productive relations being stifled, turning India into a colony of Britain. The transfer of power in 1947 did not fundamentally change the nature of India’s production; it merely gave the Indian ruling class (feudal landlords and comprador bureaucratic capitalists) the freedom to serve under different rulers. This shifted the form of rule from direct to indirect, with rulers transforming from one imperialist to multiple imperialists.
This indicates that India’s economy is controlled by the global imperialist system, which is in a state of crisis, with its collapse inevitable because capitalism’s overproduction has led it into difficulties. To continue generating profits for the next cycle of exploitation and oppression, it must intensify exploitation and oppression to plunder more resources and cheap labor, thereby earning superprofits. This is particularly evident in the example of Bastar, where the Indian state is waging war against its own citizens to serve imperialist interests.
Cases of indiscriminate shootings, killings, rapes, encounters, and subsequent “red tagging” of victims, such as the Adiwasis, are common tactics used by the Indian state in its war against the Indian people. The Adiwasis have fought for centuries to defend their rights to water, forests, and land (jal-jangal-zameen). Although the Indian constitution after independence grants the Adiwasis in “designated areas” the right to autonomy over their ancestral water, forests, and land, these rights are continually eroded by state machinery through legal and illegal means. To open all land for mining or industrial expansion for multinational corporations like Tata, Jindal Steel, and POSCO, land that should legally belong to the Adiwasis is forcibly opened to these plunderers of Indian wealth and resources. While these comprador agents and the Indian state amass wealth for imperialism, the Adiwasis and local communities face forced displacement and the threat of genocide. Innocent civilians and those protesting through constitutional means, as well as the Naxalite forces rising to resist the state’s violent attacks on their water, forests, land, dignity, and rights (jal-jangal-zameen-izzat), are all targeted.
These attacks are carried out by the state under the guise of “peacekeeping forces,” which only brutalize armed Maoists and have never targeted villagers. However, reports on “Green Hunt,” “Samadhan-Prahar,” and the recent “Kagarl行动” (Kagarl Action) show that ordinary people are the primary victims of violent actions, rapes, torture, and killings by security forces. Moreover, even when so-called Maoist insurgents are killed, firefights are often staged, with evidence of Maoists (whether accused or not) being captured, tortured, raped, and then shot. This blatantly violates international human rights conventions on the laws of war and the rights of non-combatants, as well as domestic laws—security forces have no right to cold-blooded murder, torture non-combatants, or torture accused Maoists, who, like any Indian citizen, are entitled to legal procedures and prisoners’ rights. The Indian state’s war against its own people is not for development but for brutal mass expulsions and genocide to facilitate corporate plunder.
In early 2024, the brutal “Kagarl行动” (“Final Mission”) was launched, bringing hellish disaster to the Adiwasis of Bastar. Under the continuous propaganda of “peace,” the state is implementing all this, ironically simultaneously issuing statements supporting peace with “Maoists” while launching operations aimed at eradicating “Maoists.” The "Kagarl"行动 not only aims to eliminate armed resistance in Bastar but also seeks to destroy all democratic and constitutional resistance, effectively turning into a war of genocide against the Adiwasis. All this clearly indicates that if peace negotiations lead to a resolution or even a ceasefire, such “peace” will be extremely fragile. Therefore, while we welcome the call for peace negotiations by the Indian Communist (Maoist) Party and strongly support this move, peace can never be equated with or substituted for liberation.
Peace may be a temporary state arising from struggle. It can exist between two opposing or even hostile forces when they are in stalemate. It may also be that one side is stronger than the other, and both need time and space to recover. Peace might also aim to provide relief to people under severe attack. It may be temporary, tactical, or a short ceasefire before the Indian state resumes war against the Indian people. The current peace we see between Israel and the resistance axis—once Israel regains strength, the ceasefire is broken. Within a night, hundreds of Palestinians (including 400 civilians!) are killed in Gaza—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vows, “This is just the beginning.” Therefore, we must never confuse ceasefire or peace with liberation. Liberation is a qualitative change in the mode of production (revolution). True peace can only be achieved when classes are abolished, social contradictions are resolved, and all roots of exploitation and oppression—private ownership—are abolished. Any previous promises of peace by the ruling class are merely brief respites from their atrocities, false promises.
To understand the deceitfulness of the peace promised by the Indian ruling class, one only needs to examine the betrayal by Nagaland and the Nagaland National Socialist Council (Isaac-Muivah faction, NSCN (IM)) during the so-called peace process. The 1997 ceasefire agreement between India and NSCN (IM) was portrayed as a historic breakthrough after decades of revolutionary struggle for self-determination. But from the outset, this ceasefire was not a goodwill gesture—it was a calculated move by the Indian state to dismantle the national liberation struggle and incorporate it into India’s expansionist parliamentary framework. The 2015 “Framework Agreement,” while verbally acknowledging the “unique history and status” of the Nagas, was actually used as a cover to disarm the revolutionary movement, weaken its forces, and mislead it. The core demands of the Naga struggle—shared sovereignty, an independent flag, and a constitution—were marginalized and hollowed out through delays, deception, and diversion.
This is not a case of failed negotiations but a textbook example of counterrevolution. The Indian government did not honor the spirit of the agreements but instead adopted counterinsurgency strategies: indefinite delays, splitting revolutionary forces, and internal sabotage. The state strategically engaged with hostile factions like NSCN (Khaplang) and NNPGs, bypassing the main revolutionary force NSCN (IM) through parallel agreements. This divide-and-conquer strategy has long been masterfully manipulated by imperialism and its agents, sowing chaos, distrust, and factionalism among the Nagas. The revolutionary unity forged through years of struggle has been systematically undermined by the state through supporting compliant factions and manipulating contradictions.
Subsequently, a process of militarized suppression disguised as peace ensued. Even during negotiations, the Indian state relied on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), maintaining impunity and occupation in Nagaland. Peace negotiations became a pretext for continued repression: surveillance intensified, Indian intelligence agencies used the ceasefire to deepen infiltration, and every Naga village became a target of surveillance and suspicion. Every activist was viewed as a potential “extremist.” This is not peace but a counterinsurgency operation cloaked in diplomatic language.
The war against the Nagas also took a more overtly terrorist form: targeted assassinations of leaders and thinkers committed to the principle of national liberation. For example, figures like S.S. Kaplan, who refused hollow peace agreements and resumed armed struggle, were isolated and besieged. Revolutionary thinkers like Michael Kabui died under suspicious circumstances, their causes shrouded in silence and speculation. Across Nagaland, Manipur, and Assam, dozens of mid-level commanders and cadres were eliminated in carefully staged “encounter” killings—effectively extrajudicial executions. These assassinations are not accidental but part of a systematic effort to destroy the organizational and ideological backbone of the movement.
Meanwhile, the Indian state uses bribery to undermine Naga revolutionary enthusiasm. Leaders involved in underground activities are absorbed into state institutions they once opposed. Through development programs, political appointments, and contractual patronage, comprador Indian state has cultivated a cadre of Naga elites loyal to the Indian ruling class rather than the people. These elites act as peace brokers for the oppressors, exchanging revolutionary ideals for comfortable positions and minor powers. Under the guise of development, corruption breeds, and the collective struggle for sovereignty is reduced to administrative negotiations over scraps of the economy.
At the same time, mass support is disintegrating and depoliticizing. Surveillance, arrests, and harassment of journalists, civil society members, and grassroots organizers aim to crush any grassroots efforts to rebuild revolutionary momentum. The message is clear: the Indian state will never allow resistance, even in the name of peace. Ceasefire is not a space to build a new future but a quarantine zone to suppress revolution.
The Nagaland peace process reveals the true nature of the state as a tool of class rule. In the hands of the ruling class, peace does not mean the disappearance of violence but the continuation of war in another form. The Indian state does not seek peace with the Nagas but aims to eliminate their revolutionary potential. It has turned ceasefire agreements into counterinsurgency strategies, using negotiations as weapons to divide, suppress, and ultimately dismantle the revolutionary movement. The Nagaland case is a stark warning: when peace is not linked to overthrowing class society, abolishing private property, and dismantling imperialist and feudal structures, it will always serve the oppressors, not the oppressed. All this makes it clear that peace can only be achieved through a transformation of the mode of production—when we establish a society free from imperialist, feudal, and comprador bureaucratic capitalist influence—a society where no class contradictions exist among different groups. Only under these conditions can true peace exist—when classes no longer exist.
The process of achieving this peace and liberation is long. Revolution is not a dinner that can be completed in a day but a patient and persistent struggle during social transformation. Therefore, under the brutal repression of the "Kagarl"行动, initiating peace negotiations and a ceasefire is an important step in this direction. In this process, the Indian state must bear primary responsibility, as it claims to be the representative of the people of the world’s largest democracy, wielding all authority granted by the constitution and laws, yet engaging in undeclared wars against its own citizens with violence and brutality.
Conclusion
The communists are always committed to fighting for a world of peace and justice for the people and ending the capitalist-imperialist system marked by war. When the imperialist system faces an economic crisis, it can no longer continue plundering semi-colonies and colonies in its old forms. To alleviate the crisis, it turns to militarization and war efforts. It supports fascism in semi-colonies and colonies, waging wars against their peoples to intensify exploitation of corporations. Regardless of the methods used by progressive, democratic, and revolutionary forces, they unite around the common goal of achieving a society without war, ensuring peace and justice for all. Therefore, our task is to demand an end to the war and militarization against the people in India and to promote peace. The mutual ceasefire and peace negotiations between Maoists and the Indian state are an important part of this effort and must be welcomed by all who love peace and oppose war.
Vallika Varshri, Master’s Student in Literature
References
“maoists offer conditional peace talks; willing to negotiate but will not accept conditions, say Chhattisgarh officials,” The Hindu, April 9, 2025,
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/maoists-offer-conditional-peace-talks-ready-for-talks-but-wont-accept-conditions-says-chhattisgarh/article69404416.ece.
Sakuja, Neha, and Savi Sumiya Mistra: “The Operation of Naxalism,” Down To Earth, May 31, 2008,
Naxalism works
Singh, Manmohan: “Prime Minister’s Speech at the Chief Ministers’ Conference on Naxalism,” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, April 13, 2006,
https://archivepmo.nic.in/drmanmohansingh/speech-details.php?nodeid=302
