Nazariya magazine, which identifies with Marxism–Leninism–Maoism, has continued publication despite facing significant legal and administrative pressure. The magazine and several individuals associated with it have reported being subjected to investigation and questioning by law enforcement agencies. According to available reports, nine activists linked to the publication were detained by authorities in July, reportedly without formal warrants. The magazine states that some of its members were compelled to go underground, resulting in organisational difficulties and delays in publication.
Despite these circumstances, Nazariya recently released issues 5 and 6, produced by only a portion of the editorial team due to constraints. The publication maintains that its objective is to contribute to political discourse and serve movements that draw on Marxist–Leninist–Maoist ideology. It argues that the state views ideological critique as a challenge and therefore targets publications, students, intellectuals and activists associated with these ideas.
Nazariya also discusses what it characterises as a decline in the revolutionary movement due to both internal divisions and external pressures. It argues that global economic conditions have enabled increased foreign capital investment in India, and that government policies are aligned with this economic model. The magazine views counter-insurgency actions and restrictions on publishing as part of a broader effort to suppress political dissent.
In its most recent issue, Nazariya published an open letter to the CPI (Maoist), urging it not to compromise on its ideological positions and criticising what it describes as revisionist or opportunistic trends that weaken the movement. According to the magazine, internal disagreements and organisational difficulties pose substantial challenges.
However, while acknowledging the determination shown by Nazariya in continuing publication, I believe there are areas where the journal could strengthen ideological clarity and historical analysis. In my assessment, the magazine uncritically concludes that Janatana Sarkars represent fully established revolutionary base areas, although there remain unresolved questions regarding the extent of mass participation and autonomy in governance structures, as well as the scale and effectiveness of agrarian movements.
I also feel that Nazariya’s treatment of leaders such as Tarimela Nagi Reddy, D.V. Rao and Harbhajan Sohi is overly dismissive. These figures made significant contributions to debates around mass line and played important roles in mass-based struggles in regions such as Andhra Pradesh and Punjab. Their organisational efforts, including those within the Communist Party Reorganisation Centre of India (Marxist–Leninist) and other groupings, deserve more comprehensive analysis. The journal could also more seriously engage with critiques of Maoist strategy in areas such as Lalgarh and the organisational losses suffered after 2007, rather than referring to them only briefly.
Nazariya firmly upholds the position that India is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society and supports the strategy of protracted people’s war. While I respect its stance, I believe there is value in encouraging broader debate on how Indian conditions differ from the historical context of other revolutions, and how revolutionary strategy might need to respond to evolving realities.
In my view, Nazariya performs an important role by providing a platform for discussion around ideological questions and political developments, especially at a time when dissenting publications face increasing restrictions. At the same time, it would benefit from wider engagement with diverse perspectives within the Left, deeper historical reflection, and critical evaluation of practice.
*Freelance journalist
Comments