Call for talks after former Maoist leader surrenders, rights group warn of repercussions

By A Representative 

Mallojula Venugopal Rao, also known as Sonu, a former Central Committee member of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), surrendered before Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in Gadchiroli last month along with 61 others. The surrender, which included the laying down of arms, has drawn varied responses from political and civil society groups.

The Forum Against Corporatization and Militarization (FACAM), a coalition of student, labor and rights organizations, issued a statement expressing strong opposition to the development. The forum described the surrender as a setback to ongoing movements led by Adivasi communities in Central India over land, forest and livelihood rights, commonly articulated as struggles for jal-jangal-jameen. The group argued that the surrender weakens resistance to mining projects and other industrial activities proposed in regions such as Surjagarh in Gadchiroli, where tribal communities have opposed mining for more than a decade.

Gadchiroli has been a region affected by Maoist insurgency and state counterinsurgency operations for several years. According to activists associated with FACAM, projects like mining contracts issued to private companies have faced local resistance, including demonstrations and confrontations between security forces and those opposing industrial activity in the area.

In its statement, FACAM linked the surrender of Venugopal and others to broader international patterns, citing examples from countries including Mexico, Peru and the United States where indigenous resistance movements have been influenced by state pressure and counterinsurgency policies. The forum argued that encouraging surrenders rather than pursuing negotiated political solutions can destabilize movements representing marginalized communities.

FACAM also raised concerns over the alleged role of former Maoist functionaries who have joined corporate entities or state-supported security networks, and questioned the implications of such developments for the rights of Adivasi communities. The statement further referred to rulings such as the 2011 Supreme Court judgment that disallowed the use of surrendered insurgents in paramilitary roles, asserting that the practice continues.

The forum’s release additionally called attention to international humanitarian law principles relating to non-international armed conflicts, referencing global examples of peace negotiations and temporary ceasefire arrangements. FACAM reiterated its position that dialogue between the government and the CPI (Maoist), with mutually agreed preconditions, remains the only sustainable path to ending violence.

The Maharashtra government and central agencies have maintained that surrender and rehabilitation policies are aimed at reintegrating former insurgents into mainstream society and reducing violence in affected regions. Officials have described the surrender of senior leaders as a significant step toward restoring peace and implementing development initiatives, though government responses to the latest criticism were not immediately available.

FACAM concluded its statement by urging greater public support for peaceful negotiation mechanisms and called on democratic groups to advocate for dialogue rather than militarized approaches.