Part 1
Was the young Bhim, made to sit away from everyone on a jute bag at the classroom door, while the teacher and other students looked at him with hatred and contempt, an 'Intellectual Naxal'?
Were the people who spat on Savitribai Phule, abused her, and threw dung and mud at her — a woman who stood like a firm mountain against a whole society that believed educating a 'backward' woman was a 'grave sin' and 'unrighteous', who ignored scripture to educate girls, and who was supported lifelong by Jyotiba Phule — 'Intellectual Naxals'?
When drinking water came only from wells, were those who threw dead cats, dogs, or kerosene into the wells of Dalit localities to 'discipline' them for having the courage to question high-handedness 'Intellectual Naxals'?
Was Birsa Munda, the pioneer of the bow-and-arrow movement to reclaim stolen tribal lands, an 'Intellectual Naxal'?
In reality, the phrase 'Intellectual Naxal' was never in any dictionary and is not there today. This term was invented on the 80th Independence Day of free India. It would have been better if the Prime Minister, being a Master's degree holder in 'Political Science', had explained to the people of India the 60-year history of Naxalism before using this word. Throwing words around carelessly, without deep thought, can spread chaos.
'Intellectual Naxal' means 'a person devoted to Naxalite ideology'. The term 'Naxalism' itself was coined in 1967. Who those people were, and why they were called 'Naxals', is a very long history.
Part 2: Who Raised the Voice for Workers' Rights During British Rule?
During British rule, 85% of India's population depended on agriculture for survival. 'Landlords' owned the land, while those who tilled it were 'workers', who were not recognized as farmers in government records. Classified as 'Shudras' in caste sociology, these Dalit-Adivasi-OBC communities made up three-fourths of India's population. After backbreaking labor, workers barely got enough to fill their stomachs. The British had little interest in changing this, as they were concerned only with collecting revenue.
In the 1860s, four prominent figures raised the issue of the exploitation of workers and sharecroppers:
- Harish Chandra Mukherjee: Editor of the newspaper Hindoo Patriot.
- Dinabandhu Mitra: Author of the Bengali play Nil Darpan (published in Dhaka in 1860), depicting the hellish lives of indigo cultivation workers.
- Dadabhai Naoroji: A staunch nationalist and MP in the British Parliament, who raised concerns about how British revenue policies were ruining rural farmers.
- Mahamanav Jyotiba Phule: Author of Shetkarayacha Asud (The Whipcord of the Farmer), exposing the inhumane exploitation of workers by landlords.
The landowner was not the 'father of the earth'; the true 'father of the earth' was the worker or sharecropper who grew grain through labor, yet lived in miserable conditions. In exchange for farming rented land, they had to yield half the crop to the landlord, on top of taxes and frequent famines.
Part 3: Gandhi, Sardar, Nehru's Congress, and Workers, Sharecroppers, and Bonded Laborers
When Gandhi returned from South Africa in 1915, the ground for the independence movement was already prepared. The largest section of India needing freedom — freedom from exploitation — was the working class. Big landlords had little interest in this; they were mainly interested in inheriting power from the British.
Naturally, an army of fighters was needed for freedom, and that army came from the working class. Workers needed assurance from Gandhi, Sardar, and Nehru — not merely as Congressmen, but as freedom fighters — about what freedom would offer them. At that time, much like in political parties today, prominent leaders in the Congress were landlords, and workers did not trust them. Another party fighting effectively for workers was the Communists, whose demand was clear: abolition of the Zamindari system, and land to the tiller.
For Gandhi, Sardar, Nehru, and the Congress, uniting workers and landlords was an even bigger challenge than fighting the British. Out of this dilemma emerged three major movements:
- Champaran Satyagraha (1917): Revolt against British coercion that forced Bihar's farmers to cultivate indigo for profit.
- Kheda Satyagraha (1918): A movement demanding revenue waivers for farmers during crop failure.
- Bardoli Satyagraha: A movement, a decade later, against a massive hike in land revenue.
The latter two took place in Gujarat, led by Sardar Patel — whose world's tallest statue was built by the BJP government as part of its political strategy. Shall we label Sardar Patel an 'Intellectual Naxal'?
Part 4: Communists and Workers
Meanwhile, struggles between landlords and sharecroppers continued and grew violent. Gandhi's noble concept of 'Trusteeship' — that landlords would act as custodians of workers' interests — could not convince workers who had been burned for centuries. The Communist strategy was clear: awaken workers to fight systemic exploitation. The workers resonated with the Communist message, making this shift a major concern for the Congress between 1930 and 1945.
Communism was not an ideology native to India. Karl Marx's writings inspired working-class movements globally with the slogan 'Workers of the world, unite!' India and neighboring China were no exceptions, as the gap between rich and poor existed everywhere. Shall we call Gandhi an 'Intellectual Naxal' for fighting for Indian dignity in South Africa and against British oppression?
In this environment, the Kisan Sabha was born. Swami Sahajanand Saraswati established a local Kisan Sabha in Bihar to organize workers against landlord attacks. This led to the formation of the All India Kisan Sabha at the Lucknow Congress session under his leadership, joined by leaders such as N.G. Ranga, Jayaprakash Narayan, and Acharya Narendra Deva.
However, this effort faced challenges. Princely states were unwilling to yield to workers' interests, and a long-term conflict with them was unviable during the freedom struggle. Consequently, Swami Sahajanand had to adopt a stance asking workers not to support Gandhi's Quit India movement.
 |
| Martin Macwan |
Two major movements from this period deserve note:
- Tebhaga Movement: A Communist-led movement in Bengal where farmers demanded to give only one-third of the harvest to landlords instead of half. Farmers implemented this directly, taking two-thirds of the produce home from the fields without waiting for the courts. Spreading across 19 districts of North Bengal, it turned violent.
- Telangana Movement: Under the Nizam's rule, henchmen called 'Deshmukhs' and 'Jagirdars' forced unpaid labor known as 'Vetti'. Workers had no right to wages under this system. Heavy taxation during World War II forced many poor people into debt, causing them to lose their small landholdings. With dialogue impossible, arms were taken up.
How shall we describe poor people picking up arms for survival against the Nizam's forced labor? Forced labor was not limited to the Nizam's territory; I witnessed it firsthand in the villages of Bhal in the 1980s.
Gandhi, Sardar, and Nehru promised land reforms and redistribution after independence to maintain unity. When India became independent in 1947, workers gathered around radios in public places expecting the abolition of the Zamindari system, but no immediate announcement was made.
In 1950, the Zamindari Abolition Act was passed, but it was inadequate, as it was not a uniform central law. It began in Uttar Pradesh under Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, and was later adopted by Bihar and other states. Enacting a law is one thing; implementing it is another.
Part 6: Bhoodan, Conscience, and the Law
In 1951, Vinoba Bhave launched the Bhoodan (Land Gift) movement, appealing to landlords to voluntarily give land to workers. The poor received small land fragments, mostly barren land where nothing had grown for years. It is said that the luxurious bungalows standing in Ahmedabad's Navrangpura area today were built on land received under Bhoodan.
The fundamental ideological disagreement between Dr. Ambedkar and Gandhi lay here. Gandhi and his followers believed social change comes through a change of heart and conscience. Dr. Ambedkar believed a nation cannot run on conscience alone; it requires law and the Constitution.
Dr. Ambedkar was right: the RSS, whose followers include the Prime Minister, cannot explain why Dalits are barred from temple entry despite having been Hindus for 3,000 years and worshipping the same deities. Fraternity is a prerequisite for nation-building.
Part 7: Land Reforms — Who Got Land, Who Didn't, and Why?
After independence, laws such as tenancy reform ('Land to the Tiller') and land ceiling acts were passed. These had a key limitation: implementation was swift in Communist-governed states like West Bengal, Tripura, and Kerala, but weak where Congress leadership was controlled by landlords.
The law was implemented successfully in Gujarat's Saurashtra region under Chief Minister Ucchhrangrai Dhebar, but the beneficiaries were mainly Kanbi farmers, who received 3,750,000 acres of land. Dalits and Adivasis were legally entitled to an equal share, but received less than a third of it, mostly only on paper. After eight years of struggle, the organization Navsarjan helped secure 6,000 acres of land across 251 villages in Surendranagar district. The BJP in Gujarat could not do this work, yet Navsarjan's activities were branded 'anti-national'.
Part 8: Roots of Naxalism and Contemporary Data
Post-independence disappointment grew from the gap between laws and their implementation, leading to violent outbursts. Seventeen or eighteen years after independence, a workers' movement for rights began in Naxalbari village, Darjeeling district, West Bengal. A police officer was killed during worker violence, and police firing left workers dead.
The movement spread to Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and other tribal-majority states, where life depended on land that had been taken away. Starting in Naxalbari, it became known as the 'Naxalite' movement, which continues 60 years later. It stems from legal failures and from the failure of development benefits to reach marginalized populations. In Bihar, landlords formed private armies like the Ranvir Sena to maintain power. Governments talk about Naxalism but ignore both legal failures and the Ranvir Sena, which slaughtered many Dalits.
Gujarat is considered a development model. I once visited labor areas in Ahmedabad to observe migrant workers from Rajasthan. Workers there do not rent rooms; they rent a 'bed' for eight hours to sleep, working the remaining sixteen hours. Politicians holding 'Tiranga Yatras' should march through the labor settlements surrounding Ahmedabad rather than through decorated buildings. One should see the living conditions of migrant workers behind the Nano plant on the outskirts of Sanand.
Today, in 2026, the question arises: why is there so much anger born of deprivation? Is there inequality in India today? Inequality is the biggest cause of revolt.
India is the world's most populous nation, holding 2.4% of the world's land and 17.8% of its population.
- Wealth inequality: The richest 1% own 40% of India's national wealth. The next 9% own 25%; the top 10% together own 65% of total wealth. The bottom 50% own just 15%, while the middle 40% hold 20%.
- Land ownership: The wealthiest 10% own 44% of the land; 44% of the population owns 56% of it; and 46% own no land at all. Punjab has the highest landless population, at 73%.
- Education: No Indian university ranks among the top 100 globally. Children share the poor condition of rural primary schools on social media. Thirty-four percent of the world's illiterate population lives in India. Boys average 10 years of schooling, compared to under 8 years for girls.
- Healthcare: The WHO recommends 1 doctor per 1,000 people; India has 1 per 10,000. Among neighboring countries: China has 3.2 doctors per 1,000; Pakistan has 1 per 1,300; Sri Lanka has 1 per 671; Nepal has 1 per 1,700; and Bangladesh has 1 per 1,500–2,000.
- Media and democracy: The difference between a democracy and a monarchy is that in a democracy, people can speak publicly and exercise their rights. India ranks 157th in world press freedom.
The Prime Minister holds the highest executive office. How much time should the PM of the world's most populous nation spend listening to the people? A look at the number of press conferences held by Indian Prime Ministers during their tenures:
- Manmohan Singh: 114–144
- Jawaharlal Nehru: 75–90
- Rajiv Gandhi: 62
- Lal Bahadur Shastri: 38–56
- Atal Bihari Vajpayee: 35–55
- Indira Gandhi: 42
- P.V. Narasimha Rao: 40
- Morarji Desai: 14
Current Prime Minister: 0
Part 9: The Importance of Dissent in Democracy, and the Final Question
Dissent is an essential element of democracy. Psychology identifies three factors behind dissent:
- A deep moral perception of injustice.
- Understanding that collective protest increases strength.
- A collective identity that emerges from joining fellow protesters.
- Protest is both a science and a weapon for protecting rights. Youth protest more, because they have less to lose and feel the direct impact of injustice on their careers, having seen that education does not guarantee employment.
If every protester is deemed a Naxalite, who is a nationalist in this country? Only those who flatter and nod along?
During British rule, Usha Mehta operated an underground radio station. When caught, she refused British offers of pardon in exchange for naming revolutionaries. Mithuben Petit led the picketing of liquor shops to educate women. Women such as Champaben Mehta, Sumitraben Thakore, Ranjanben Dalal, and Perinben Mistry ran underground pamphleteering operations. In 1971, 300 women of Bhuj rebuilt an airstrip destroyed in war within 72 hours. Shall we confer the title of 'Intellectual Naxals' on them?
The human brain thinks — that is why we are alive. If the brain stops thinking, as the Prime Minister seems to wish, the result is unconsciousness, coma, or brain death. Are conscious, thinking citizens 'Intellectual Naxals', or have India's rulers become a genus of bankrupt brains?
I leave it to readers to work out why the BJP and the RSS are not mentioned in this history. The movements at Jantar Mantar broke the Prime Minister's golden yet false dreamland, leading to the coining of 'Intellectual Naxal' to vilify protesting youth. What could be more foolish than refusing to read the writing on the wall? I must ask myself: has my own brain gone bankrupt?
---
*Human rights defender; founder, Navsarjan Trust and Dalit Shakti Kendra, Gujarat
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor