Political Conflict in India: From Naxalism to the Punjab Insurgency

India’s post-independence history is not simply a story of nationhood and progress – it is also deeply marked by armed conflict, political alienation, and the violent consequences of unresolved grievances. From the dense forests of Chhattisgarh to the farmlands of Punjab and the hill districts of Nagaland, three major insurgencies have shaped the country’s internal security landscape and forced repeated confrontations with questions of land rights, ethnic identity, and regional autonomy. Understanding these conflicts – Naxalism, the Punjab insurgency, and the Naga conflict – is essential to grasping how political violence emerges when democratic institutions fail to accommodate the needs of marginalized communities.

Left-wing insurgency: the roots and spread of Naxalism 🔗

Naxalism takes its name from Naxalbari, a small village in Darjeeling district, West Bengal, where a peasant uprising erupted in 1967. Led by Charu Majumdar, Kanu Sanyal, and Jangal Santhal, the revolt was initially a demand for land redistribution – landless farmers forcibly taking back fields from feudal landlords. Inspired by Mao Zedong’s theory of protracted people’s war, Majumdar articulated the movement’s ideology through his “Historic Eight Documents,” which called for an immediate armed revolution and the rejection of parliamentary democracy. The movement was hailed as “Spring Thunder” by China, a signal of its international ideological resonance.

Socioeconomic roots of the movement 🔗

Academic research on Naxalism consistently points to a cluster of structural failures that made the insurgency possible: widespread landlessness, the displacement of tribal communities due to mining and development projects, extreme poverty, governance deficits, and the systematic exclusion of Dalits and Adivasis from political participation. These were not abstract grievances. In the regions that became known as the Red Corridor – stretching across Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and parts of Bihar and Andhra Pradesh – basic infrastructure like roads, schools, and healthcare remained absent for decades after independence. The insurgency resurfaced in the 1990s when economic liberalization led the government to open forested tribal lands to private mining corporations, once again displacing communities with no legal recourse.

Spread, consolidation, and counterinsurgency 🔗

After Majumdar’s death in police custody in 1972, the movement splintered into dozens of factions. The modern consolidation of Naxalism came in 2004, when two major groups – the People’s War Group (PWG) and the Maoist Communist Centre of India (MCCI) – merged to form the Communist Party of India (Maoist), or CPI (Maoist). This merger intensified violence significantly. By 2006, then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared Naxalism the single biggest internal security challenge the country had ever faced. The Indian government responded with Operation Green Hunt in 2009, deploying around 50,000 paramilitary troops across affected states. The operations were effective at degrading Naxal capacity but were also criticized for human rights violations against tribal populations caught in the crossfire.

Recent decline 🔗

The trajectory of Naxalism over the past decade reflects a meaningful shift. Data from India’s Ministry of Home Affairs shows that the number of affected districts dropped from 126 in 2013 to 38 in 2024, with a 53% reduction in violent incidents and a 70% decrease in casualties between 2014 and 2024. As of early 2025, active Naxalite fighters number only around 500-600, a steep fall from peak strength. The government’s SAMADHAN strategy – combining security operations, development investment, and surrender-rehabilitation programs – has played a significant role. Roads, schools, mobile towers, and bank branches have been built in formerly inaccessible areas. Still, analysts warn that as long as land dispossession, poverty, and governance failures persist in tribal areas, the ideological conditions for insurgency remain intact.

The Punjab insurgency: Khalistan and the politics of Sikh identity 🔗

The Punjab insurgency of the 1980s and early 1990s was one of the most violent internal conflicts in India’s post-independence history. The decade-long armed separatist campaign claimed over 20,000 lives – militants, security forces, and civilians – and left deep scars on Sikh political identity, Indian federalism, and the relationship between the state and religious minorities.

The demand for Khalistan and its historical context 🔗

The seeds of the conflict were planted well before the first shots were fired. The 1947 partition of India had already divided the Punjab region, leaving many Sikhs with a sense of territorial and political loss. Post-independence, Sikh political leaders articulated their demands through the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1973, which called for greater state autonomy, protection of Sikh religious rights, and fairer distribution of river waters. The central government dismissed the resolution as secessionist, though its authors framed it as a demand for constitutionally-grounded regional autonomy. The movement radicalized under the charismatic preacher Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, who transformed religious mobilization into a platform for confrontation with the Indian state.

Operation Blue Star and the spiral of violence 🔗

The insurgency reached a turning point in June 1984 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered Operation Blue Star – a military assault to flush out militants sheltering in the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar, the holiest site in Sikhism. The operation resulted in significant civilian casualties, the desecration of the sacred complex, and the death of Bhindranwale. Within months, Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards. The anti-Sikh violence that followed her assassination – in which more than 2,700 Sikhs were killed, with strong evidence of political complicity in the killings – transformed the insurgency. Many young Sikhs who might otherwise have remained peaceful took up arms. Diaspora communities in Canada, the UK, and the US began channeling significant financial support to militant groups, internationalizing the conflict.

Government response and the decline of militancy 🔗

The Indian government’s counter-insurgency approach evolved considerably over the course of the conflict. The appointment of KPS Gill as Punjab Police chief proved decisive. Gill’s strategy combined professionalized policing, aggressive intelligence gathering, and targeted operations against militant leadership. Operation Rakshak II in 1991 deployed roughly 250,000 troops to secure the state’s borders and crush remaining insurgents. The end of hostilities was formally declared in March 1993. The strategy, however, was heavily condemned by human rights organizations for extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and staged encounters. Human Rights Watch documented widespread abuses by security forces throughout the period. By the mid-1990s, the insurgency had collapsed under a combination of police pressure, internal factional divisions, the militants’ loss of public support due to criminal violence, and the re-engagement of Sikh political parties with democratic processes. Today, no active insurgency exists in Punjab, though Khalistan sentiment survives among sections of the diaspora and periodically resurfaces as a diplomatic irritant, most recently in tensions between India and Canada over the killing of Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023.

The Naga conflict: sovereignty, identity, and the long road to peace 🔗

The Naga conflict is the oldest active insurgency in South Asia – and arguably the most complex. It began almost immediately after Indian independence, rooted in a distinct Naga assertion of nationhood that predated the formation of the Indian republic itself.

The demand for Greater Nagalim 🔗

The Nagas are not a single tribe but a collection of ethnic communities spread across the present-day state of Nagaland and adjacent areas of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and Myanmar. The assertion of Naga nationalism intensified during British rule, when colonial cartography created administrative boundaries that cut across Naga-inhabited territory. After India’s independence, the Naga National Council (NNC) under Angami Zapu Phizo declared Naga independence and launched an armed insurgency. The core demand – Greater Nagalim – envisions a unified homeland covering all Naga-inhabited areas, a territory of roughly 1,20,000 square kilometers compared to Nagaland state’s actual 16,527 square kilometers. This territorial vision has alarmed the governments of Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh, all of whom have flatly rejected any redrawing of their boundaries.

The role of NSCN factions 🔗

The 1975 Shillong Accord between the Indian government and the NNC failed to hold, as several senior leaders refused to accept it. In 1980, Isak Chishi Swu and Thuingaleng Muivah formed the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), which later split in 1988 into the NSCN (Isak-Muivah) and the NSCN (Khaplang) factions. The NSCN-IM became the dominant armed group and the principal interlocutor in peace talks with the Indian government. As of today, there are multiple ceasefire agreements in place with various Naga factions, including NSCN-NK, NSCN-Reformation, NSCN-K-Khango, and the NSCN-K Niki group – all breakaway factions that emerged from the original split.

Peace efforts and the ongoing impasse 🔗

A landmark ceasefire was signed with the NSCN-IM in 1997, followed by over 80 rounds of negotiations across multiple countries. In August 2015, a Framework Agreement was signed under Prime Minister Narendra Modi – hailed as “historic” at the time – setting the stage for a final settlement. However, the talks have since stalled over two non-negotiable demands from the NSCN-IM: a separate Naga flag and a separate Naga constitution, which the group argues are essential markers of the sovereignty recognized in the 2015 agreement. The Indian government has rejected both, insisting any solution must remain within the scope of the Indian Constitution. A cross-section of Naga civil society – from church elders to youth leaders – has described the talks as lacking transparency on both sides, with fears that if negotiations collapse, the region could return to pre-ceasefire levels of violence. In late 2024, NSCN-IM leader Muivah threatened to resume armed resistance and called for third-party intervention if the Indian government continued to resist the group’s sovereignty claims. As of 2025, the process remains deeply stalled, with no immediate breakthrough in sight.

Implications for Indian society and governance 🔗

Together, these three conflicts illuminate recurring patterns in how political violence emerges and evolves in India. In each case, the initial grievances were rooted in structural realities – landlessness and caste exploitation in the case of Naxalism, religious discrimination and federal neglect in Punjab, and ethno-territorial marginalization in Nagaland. In each case, the state’s early responses were predominantly security-focused, often compounding alienation rather than resolving it. And in each case, the conflicts carried serious human rights consequences – for civilians caught between insurgents and security forces, and for those directly targeted by both sides.

Regional politics and democratic legitimacy 🔗

These conflicts have profoundly reshaped regional political landscapes. The Punjab insurgency gave rise to a more assertive Sikh political identity and reinforced the importance of inclusive federalism. The Naga conflict has made the governance of India’s northeast a perpetual diplomatic and constitutional challenge, with the question of tribal self-determination pushing against the limits of the Indian constitutional framework. Naxalism has forced a sustained national conversation about the relationship between economic development and social justice – and about who is left out when markets grow without redistributive policy.

The challenge of balancing security and rights 🔗

A consistent finding across all three insurgencies is that security-only approaches produce tactical wins but not lasting peace. The decline of Naxalism accelerated when development investment accompanied military operations. The Punjab insurgency ended partly because democratic politics offered Sikh communities a pathway back into governance. The Naga conflict remains unresolved precisely because the political imagination on both sides has not yet found a framework that can honor Naga aspirations without violating India’s constitutional integrity. The lesson – repeated across decades and geographies – is that durable peace requires addressing the political and economic conditions that make insurgency possible, not merely suppressing its armed manifestations.

What do you think? When governments respond to insurgencies with security crackdowns that are later found to involve systematic human rights violations, how should historical accountability be handled without destabilizing fragile peace? And when ethnic or regional communities demand forms of sovereignty that fall outside an existing constitutional framework, what mechanisms can democracies use to genuinely accommodate those aspirations?

References

1. https://cassr.net/jassr/index.php/jassr/article/view/107
2. https://www.efsas.org/publications/study-papers/an-introduction-to-naxalism-in-india/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite%E2%80%93Maoist_insurgency
4. https://www.nextias.com/ca/current-affairs/18-12-2024/naxalism-2
5. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/naxalism-in-india/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Punjab,_India
7. https://polsci.institute/india-political-process/khalistan-movement-insurgency-punjab/
8. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-sikh-independence-movement-at-the-heart-of-india-canada-tensions
9. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Apr/08/2003685552/-1/-1/0/20250407_SIKHPUNJAB_1984-93_FINAL.PDF
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement
11. https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/polity-1/naga-peace-talks
12. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/naga-ceasefire-agreements-extended
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naga_Peace_Accord
14. https://theprint.in/india/naga-society-wants-peace-talks-to-reach-logical-end-lollipop-assurances-by-govt-dividing-nagas/2385901/
15. https://www.sentinelassam.com/more-news/editorial/breaking-down-barriers-in-the-naga-peace-process