The bill introduced in the state assembly raises the risk that democratic organisations that express social grievances through non-violent protests will be labelled as Maoist fronts.
There is no way to distinguish between social activists and covert Maoists.
Six years after gaining notoriety in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon massacre, Urban Naxals are once again seeking to terrorise residents with the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, which was introduced in the outgoing state assembly but failed to pass and there are fears it could be promulgated as an ordinance before the next government is formed later this year.
The public’s fear of urban Naxals stems from the Bill’s statement of objects and reasons, which states that Naxalism (or Maoism) is no longer confined to border areas but has gained presence in urban areas through its front organisations. According to the Bill, these organisations provide shelter and logistics to Naxal cadres, stoke social unrest, create public disorder and spread Maoist ideology.
A front organisation is defined as an organisation that has legal personality and operates openly, but whose covert mission is to further the policies of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). It is for the state to decide whether an organisation is a Maoist front and should be banned. Thus, there is always the possibility that those in power in the state may declare democratic organisations, which express social grievances through non-violent protests, as Maoist front organisations on the grounds of ideological partisanship.
The ambiguity involved in identifying front organisations creates a structure of suspicion; there is no way to distinguish between social activists and covert Maoists. The Hindu Right uses this structure to construct a persona of urban Naxalite villains, operating in cities with a middle-class guise, to carry out the Maoist agenda of destroying the Indian state and seizing power.
Hindutva uses state power and media control to create the myth of Urban Naxals. Typically, after arresting citizens, the government identifies them as Urban Naxals to the media, who then denigrate and demonize them. This was the ploy used in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case to try to create a wave of public backlash against 16 activists who were arrested on allegedly fabricated evidence. Six years on, even charges have yet to be filed against Bhima Koregaon accused of alleged Maoist links.
In fact, the Urban Naxal myth was created to make people suspicious of each other and to make them perceive social movements and protests as a grand Maoist plot to destabilize India. Urban Naxals are a weapon used by Hindutva not only to intimidate and silence ideological opponents but also to deprive them of popular support.
To understand the dangers of the Urban Naxal myth, see filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri’s Urban Naxal: The Birth of Buddha in a Traffic Jam. In the book, he says he started writing the script for The Birth of Buddha after he realised he needed to tell “the story of the invisible enemy, the most dangerous terrorist, the Urban Naxal”. Likening the invisible enemy to a snake under the bed, Agnihotri writes, “I shudder to imagine that anyone in my ecosystem – a writer, a lawyer, a journalist, a social worker, a policeman, a professor, a historian, a painter, a film director, anyone, anyone – could be an Urban Naxal.”
In other words, every educated person is a potential Maoist.
According to Agnihotri, the Naxalite strategy is to divide Indian society into two opposing groups. On one side, Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims and other “forgotten people” rallying under the red flag, challenge the bourgeoisie, the elites and the Brahmins. Their confrontation aims to destroy the Indian state and establish a Maoist state on its ruins. The Naxalites in the forests fight with guns. The Naxalites in the cities, Agnihotri argues, weaponize the minds of citizens, turning them into implacable enemies of the state.
In a 2018 interview with The Organiser, a newspaper of the National Unity Party, Agnihotri outlined the criteria for identifying Urban Naxals. “First of all, anyone who does not want to give space to Hindu civilisation has some kind of agenda. Who does not want to protect this great civilisation?” He believes that Urban Naxals are against Hindu civilisation because they want to destroy Hindu unity by creating a coalition between Dalits and Muslims.
Other characteristics of Urban Naxals are their tendency to engage in anti-development movements or show “unnecessary sympathy” for “enemies of India.” Agnihotri’s definition of anti-development is best illustrated by Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel’s 2022 speech, in which he called Medha Patkar, an activist who opposed the Sardar Sarowar Narmada Project, an Urban Naxal. Examples of those who show excessive sympathy for India’s enemies include lawyers who defend individuals accused of waging war against the state and press statements from organizations opposed to human rights violations by security forces.
Agnihotri’s definition of urban Naxals excludes from its ambit Hindutva adherents, supporters of the existing model of development and apolitical hordes. Through the construction of urban Naxals, Hindutva is trying to make this huge segment of Indians politically paranoid and use their unfounded fears to rally them behind the state, regardless of state actions and policies.
The author is a veteran journalist and author of ‘Bhima Koregaon: Challenging Caste’.
Please send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the newspaper.
