Maoism is an Ideological Problem  not a law and order issue

Maoism is an ideological problem. It is a problem concerning the resolution of historical developments. It is a problem related to the structure of administrative systems. It concerns human relations, social evolution, caste, class, gender, and national developments. It is not a problem of guns. It is not a matter of “whoever holds the stick owns the buffalo.” It is a land issue. It is a question of resources management and distribution. 

It is a political issue – a problem of governance policies

This is a political issue. It must be resolved politically and ideologically. The feasibility of the goals they have raised must be examined. This cannot be eliminated through armed suppression by Amit Shah, Narendra Modi, or the Government of India. Ideological understanding must change. It must be transformed.

Socialism in a Multi-Party System

Dr B. R. Ambedkar studied extensively and incorporated as much as possible into the Constitution. Representation of social groups, reservations, governance based on majority approval, and the pursuit of socialism within a multi-party system were constitutionally structured. This is not the socialism described by communists. It is socialism as practiced in Buddhism. It is socialism similar to what French socialists advocated, where public and private sectors function like two wheels of a cart. The Indian Constitution is committed to this.

The Constitution contains Buddhism, Ambedkarism, Gandhism, Nehruism, federalism, and the concept of a Union that keeps states together as a nation. It contains the humanism declared by the United Nations in its human rights charter.

An “ism” means a doctrine. It represents understanding and methods of practice across various fields. Gandhism, Ambedkarism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Humanism, Buddhism, Sanatanism, Hinduism, Hegelianism, Leninism, Stalinism — each has its own distinct features. Maoism is one among them.

The Need to Examine Constitutions

India has a Constitution. China, Russia, America, and Britain also have their own constitutions. The constitutions of China, Russia, India, America, and Britain must be studied. They were shaped by their historical developments, cultures, wars, kingdoms, natural environments, and social relations. They must be subjected to comparative study.

Even after decades, communists, Naxalites, and Maoists have not done this. How many of them have deeply and analytically studied constitutions? Most of them are advocates of a one-party system. Therefore, socialists within a multi-party framework must examine their differences and study constitutions.

In State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin said that once they come to power, they would train the same officials and run the administration. Those who truly understand this — will they engage in violent revolution? Or will they prioritize education, employment, and growth in their present fields? Lenin redefined the working class by stating that those who adopt the working-class perspective themselves become the working class.

In India, for the first time in human history, the principle of one man , one vote, one value has come into practice. In earlier times, war strategies justified killing and dying for kingdoms. In democracy, defeat does not mean death. One can try again and win. Politics based on killing and dying belongs to monarchies. Maoists remain in that stage.

If they do not recognize one man one value one vote and equal dignity for each individual, do they see people as human beings? Or as instruments for their ideology? Maoists viewed tribal and forest regions as protective shields. If they viewed them as partners in comprehensive social development, like Shankar Guha Niyogi did, there would be no need for armed struggle.

Each Nation Has Its Own Distinctiveness

Mao Zedong, based on China’s conditions and experiences, added certain elements to Marxism. That came to be known as Maoism. What is Maoism? What programs, understanding, solutions, and goals does it propose?  first of all  these are be understood. Can those goals be achieved through other means? That must be also examined.

From the experiences of the French Revolution, Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. During that time, Jyotirao Phule established schools to spread education. In 1857, India’s First War of Independence took place. Governance shifted from the East India Company to the British Crown. Though colonial, constitutional administration began. Reforms such as banning child marriage and sati were introduced. Railways and roads were built. Tea and tobacco cultivation were promoted. Modern education systems were introduced.

The Light of the French Revolution to the World

The French Revolution spread the slogans of liberty, equality, fraternity, and socialism. French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon advocated socialism within a mixed economy and multi-party system. Marx and Engels opposed this, advocating a one-party system under working-class leadership. The Paris Commune lasted only 62 days before being crushed. Then Marx and Engels concluded that the working class must build its own army.

French Socialism is Different – Marxist Socialism is Different

French socialism and Marxist socialism differed, leading to two camps. Marxists came to be known as communists. With Vladimir Lenin, Leninism emerged. In China, through prolonged armed struggle and the Long March, Mao Zedong came to power. Those who seek to replicate that model in India are called Maoists.

India and China have similarities and differences. Political reforms such as the 1919 reforms, the 1935 Act, and the Constituent Assembly in 1946 shaped India. Independence came in 1947, and the Constitution was implemented from January 26, 1950. 

The System ground zero,  That Did Not Change

Though British rule ended, village-level power structures — landlords and jagirdars — remained. Land reforms were attempted but resisted. B. R. Ambedkar proposed nationalizing land and distributing dividends, but it was not accepted.

After independence Administration changed at central, state, and district levels. Even former rulers had to come to power through elections. Though district administration changed, village-level feudal land structures and systems like land lord, Jamindar  jageerdar,patwari and police patel were not abolished. If plans had been implemented at district and village levels, changes would have accelerated. That did not happen.

People want representation those from their region, caste, and class in power. People want development and participation in authority.They do not desire permanent rule by any one party. Coming to power is a party’s problem, not the people’s problem.

Marxism, Maoism should  adopt  multi party french system as well as Indian buddhist  socialism.  Ignoring voting rights means not recognizing people as decision-makers.

China and India have both similarities and differences. In India, some form of constitutional development had been continuing since 1919, with events like the Simon Commission and gradual participation of Indians in administration. By 1935 itself, the basic structure of constitutional governance had taken shape. After the developments of the Second World War, if Hitler had not been defeated and if Subhas Chandra Bose had remained alive with the Azad Hind Fauj he built, history might have taken a different course. The deaths of both changed the direction of world history.

In 1946, as promised, the British government formed the Constituent Assembly of India. In August 1947, they transferred power and left, telling Indians to rule themselves. From January 26, 1950, the new Constitution came into force.

In China, unlike India, there was no long process of social, political, and administrative reforms from 1857 or 1883 onwards. In India, there were gradual reforms, representation of locals in administration, and even reservations for Brahmins, Muslims, and oppressed classes. From 1921 onwards, provincial governments, chief ministers, and cabinets functioned in different provinces and residencies. Indians became part of governance. This gradual transformation did not happen in China.

After the British left, they withdrew from the central government. The 565 princely states were integrated, and based on the recommendations of the Fazl Ali Commission, 14 states were formed. However, due to centuries of different rulers, natural differences, caste discrimination, and regional inequalities, many agitations and movements continued across the country after 1950. The root causes of these movements include:

Administrative systems changed at the central, state, and district levels. But at the village level, old systems continued. Lands remained in the hands of zamindars, jagirdars, and big landlords. Systems like patwari, police patel, and mali patel were not fully abolished.

If planning had been implemented with the district and village as basic units, changes might have been faster, like at the center and state levels. That did not happen.

As early as 1916, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar suggested nationalizing land, giving compensation for one or two generations, and distributing land to those who actually cultivate it. Though this idea was raised in the Constituent Assembly, it was not accepted because many leaders of the national movement came from landlord backgrounds.

Trying to come to power without contesting elections is no different from the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni or Muhammad Ghori. Those who do not contest elections are not true political leaders. Real leaders are those who contest elections, whether they win or lose. For those who work among the people, election expenses are not a big issue.

Changing awareness is important. Nothing can be achieved by dying or by killing. People must change. Maoists must also change. In parliamentary politics, like Kanshi Ram, Jayaprakash Narayan, Gandhi, or even the RSS, one must work strategically and influence the system. If this work had been done from the 1970s, all parties would have been filled with conscious and selfless leaders.

Instead, the new energy of youth was diverted away from power and sent into forests, indirectly helping selfish forces come to power. People who struggled for political power were kept away from it. Young blood was pushed into armed struggle at a time when locals should have grown politically. In Telangana, during the period of Visalandhra, leaders like Puchalapalli Sundarayya, later Kondapalli Seetharamaiah, the People’s War Group, and Maoists played their part in this process.

If the youth who symbolized new consciousness had participated in elections, they could have won easily, just as in the 1969 Jai Telangana movement under Marri Chenna Reddy, in 1977 when the Janata Party won, and later when the TRS party won. Instead of becoming MLAs, MPs, ministers, chief ministers, central ministers, Zilla Parishad chairpersons, mandal presidents, sarpanches, officials, and administrators, many youth became victims of encounters and repression.

The main reason for this situation was the belief that armed struggle alone is the path to power and that a one-party system is necessary. Communists themselves have split many times over decades. The idea of one-party dictatorship must change. Instead, by making seat-sharing agreements, contesting elections, and winning—even without forming a government—they can bring down governments or support alternative ones. As Kanshi Ram suggested, they can play a key role in politics and become kingmakers.

If awareness changes, even tired fighters can come into power. They can implement their programs according to their strength through the government. For this, they must forget religious hatred and move forward on the path of development with inclusive electoral strategies. If they field not only their own party members but also others and help them win, they can grow into a new force like the BJP