State, insurgency, and adivasi question: Examining militarisation and resistance in India’s tribal regions

By Harsh Thakor 

In several regions of India, particularly in tribal-dominated areas such as Bastar, the state has deployed military and paramilitary forces in efforts to contain Maoist insurgency and facilitate infrastructure and resource-based development. This militarisation has led to concerns over human rights violations and displacement of indigenous communities. In response, local resistance has taken both non-violent and armed forms, with Maoist groups asserting they are defending tribal populations from state and corporate aggression.

Civil rights activists and organisations have raised alarms over the arrests of individuals who have pursued constitutional methods of protest. The use of stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has drawn criticism for potentially suppressing dissent and criminalising civil society engagement in conflict zones.

The state’s repeated calls for Maoists to lay down arms are presented as a step toward peace. However, critics argue that such demands do not address the conditions that gave rise to the insurgency. There are concerns that disarming local militias without concurrent demilitarisation of the state would leave communities vulnerable to displacement and exploitation, especially in resource-rich forest regions.

Scholars have differing interpretations of the situation in Bastar and other conflict-affected areas. Nandini Sundar, a sociologist who has extensively studied the region, contends that Adivasi communities are caught in a crossfire between state forces and Maoists. She maintains that the state often violates its own constitutional norms and that expecting only the Maoists to adhere to constitutional principles in such a context is unbalanced. Sundar argues that non-violent, democratic movements have been suppressed in these areas, making armed resistance more likely.

Apoorvanand, an academic and political commentator, offers a contrasting perspective. In his article “The False War in Bastar,” he questions the claim that the Maoists operate with deep support among the Adivasi population. He argues that the conflict is often portrayed in binary terms that obscure the complexities on the ground. According to him, the Maoist presence sometimes limits democratic space and silences alternative voices within the tribal population. He calls for a political resolution rooted in constitutional methods and inclusive dialogue.

The Maoists claim that their resistance is not merely militaristic but embedded in efforts to build alternative governance structures such as Revolutionary People’s Committees (RPCs). These bodies are said to be elected through Gram Sabhas and include mechanisms for accountability such as the right to recall representatives. Critics question the transparency and democratic nature of such parallel structures, noting the absence of external oversight or independent verification.

In regions like Niyamgiri, resistance to mining projects has combined both armed and peaceful strategies. While Maoists assert that their presence helped block mining by Vedanta, local grassroots movements, environmental groups, and legal interventions also played significant roles. Similar dynamics have been observed in Hasdeo and Lalgarh, where protest movements—violent and non-violent—have challenged state-backed industrial expansion.

Observers argue that while the Maoist movement has highlighted critical issues such as land rights, displacement, and environmental degradation, its reliance on armed struggle has alienated potential allies and restricted its appeal beyond tribal areas. Analysts also point to internal weaknesses, including limited mass political education, centralised decision-making, and insufficient engagement with broader civil society.

Critics note that while Maoist groups have developed militia structures, they have not consistently built mass movements capable of sustaining popular governance or achieving socio-economic transformation. Comparisons have been drawn to the Latin American theory of foquismo, where small guerrilla groups lead resistance in hopes of catalysing broader revolts—a model that faces limitations in the Indian context.

The issue of militarisation and conflict in Adivasi regions remains complex, involving state policies, insurgent strategies, and the aspirations of local communities. Any sustainable resolution will likely require not only cessation of violence but also substantive political engagement, protection of rights, and equitable development.

Public mobilization and State-Maoist Conflict in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

Meanwhile, in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, a series of public demonstrations have drawn attention to the ongoing conflict between state security forces and Maoist groups. These mobilizations have been organized by a range of civil society actors, including former student activists, political party members, rights organizations, and professional associations. Participants have called for a cessation of military operations, the withdrawal of paramilitary forces from tribal areas, and the initiation of dialogue between the government and Maoist representatives.

One of the key demands from protest organizers is for the government to match the Maoist party’s declared ceasefires with a reciprocal commitment, with the goal of creating a conducive environment for political resolution. Additional concerns raised include reported violence against tribal populations and the broader impact of security operations on local communities.

In Kurnool, a similar protest was held by a coalition of political parties and civil society groups under the banner of a peace committee. Speakers criticized the use of state force in tribal regions and linked ongoing military operations to broader patterns of displacement and resource extraction. According to some accounts presented during the demonstrations, recent security actions have resulted in the deaths of numerous individuals identified as Maoists, many of whom are said to be from tribal backgrounds. Protesters demanded the demilitarization of affected areas and the establishment of a peace framework through direct negotiations.

Parallel to these protests, state operations continue along the Telangana-Chhattisgarh border under what has been described as a large-scale counterinsurgency initiative. Security officials report that significant personnel and logistical resources have been deployed to target Maoist infrastructure. Dozens of encounters have reportedly taken place, resulting in the deaths of numerous individuals identified as Maoists and the destruction of hideouts and bunkers. These operations are framed by the state as necessary for law enforcement and the dismantling of armed insurgent networks.

The broader public response, including letters to government authorities, meetings, and digital media content, reflects an active segment of society voicing concerns about the human costs of continued conflict and advocating for a shift in strategy toward negotiation and de-escalation.

--

*Freelance journalist