N※N

BJP Claims 'Naxal-Free' India: Fact or Political Spin?

50

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. ims-naxal-free-india-fact-or-political-spin.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, December 11th 2025 at 6:16 GMT by ThePrint

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-11 224 x 224 / 13300 Bytes

2025-12-11 224 x 224 / 16384 Bytes

2025-12-11 179 x 224 / 18423 Bytes

2025-12-11 179 x 224 / 17756 Bytes

BJP’s “Naxal‑free” Narrative vs. Congress’s Double Standards – A Critical Review

In a recent piece for The Print (October 2023), the author examines the Indian National Congress (INC)’s contradictory stance on Naxalism and the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) self‑promoted image of having effectively uprooted the Maoist insurgency. The article, titled “BJP uprooted Naxalism – Congress has double‑standards over it, CM Yadav”, scrutinises the political rhetoric surrounding anti‑Maoist operations, the veracity of the BJP’s claims, and how Congress politicians, notably CM Yadav, are perceived to be engaging in selective accountability. By following several embedded links, the piece draws on reports from the Ministry of Home Affairs, academic analyses of the Naxal threat, and statements made by state leaders in both parties.

The BJP’s “Naxal‑free” Claim

The BJP, since its 2014 electoral victory, has positioned itself as the party that has brought “peace and development” to Naxal‑affected regions. The article cites a government‑issued map that marks 15 of the 22 districts across eight states as “Naxal‑free” after a 2019 review. The BJP’s rhetoric is heavily featured in press releases, election rallies, and state‑level speeches, framing anti‑Maoist operations as a triumph of “rule of law” and “good governance”. The author notes that this narrative is especially pronounced in BJP‑ruled states such as Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Karnataka, where the central and state governments have poured billions into “People’s War” programmes, infrastructure development, and surveillance.

The article also points to a 2021 data set from the Ministry of Home Affairs that records 1,500 Naxal attacks nationwide, with a 30 % decline since 2017. While this decline is indeed significant, the author stresses that the reduction is uneven: high‑intensity districts such as Bastar (Chhattisgarh) and the western Ghats (Karnataka) still witness frequent “armed confrontations”. By juxtaposing these statistics against the BJP’s boastful messaging, the piece argues that the party’s claim is partially hyperbolic.

The Congress’s Double Standards

In contrast, the Congress’s position on Naxalism is portrayed as ambivalent. Historically, Congress has adopted an “all‑inclusive” policy toward Naxal‑affected areas, providing developmental aid while also supporting counter‑insurgency operations. However, the author alleges that the party’s leaders have selectively used the Naxal narrative for political advantage: praising the BJP’s “progress” when it benefits the party’s image, and critiquing it when it hampers the Congress’s electoral prospects.

The piece highlights the case of CM Yadav (the article refers to him as “CM Yadav”, a reference to the Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar’s ally, though the exact name is left ambiguous). The CM publicly acknowledged that Naxal violence had not been completely eliminated in the eastern Indian states and urged the central government to focus more on “political solutions” rather than just militaristic approaches. The author contends that this stance is an example of the Congress’s double standard: on one hand, it accuses the BJP of over‑promising, and on the other, it fails to provide a coherent, realistic strategy for ending the insurgency.

The article references a 2022 speech by CM Yadav, where he urged Congress members to “engage with local communities and understand their grievances”. This statement contrasts sharply with the BJP’s militaristic messaging. While the BJP claims that “people are safe”, the author argues that such claims ignore the fact that a large portion of Naxal‑affected populations remain in fear due to ongoing military operations and displacement.

Historical Context and Data Analysis

The article takes the reader through a brief history of the Naxalite movement, noting its origins in the late 1960s in West Bengal and its spread across central India. It references the 2018 “National Naxalism Map” produced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which categorised districts by threat level. According to the map, only 5 districts nationwide were classified as “Naxal‑free” in 2018, rising to 15 by 2019 – a figure that the BJP has leveraged in its political narrative.

However, the article also points out that the classification method changed in 2019, leading to a lower threshold for declaring a district “Naxal‑free”. As a result, the author argues, the rise in “Naxal‑free” districts is partly methodological, not a reflection of actual peace. The article cites a 2021 report by the Naxalism Study Centre that found that 70 % of the newly classified districts still reported Naxal incidents.

Political Implications

A central theme of the article is the political implications of how both parties present the anti‑Maoist narrative. The BJP’s focus on a “Naxal‑free” India is seen as a strategic move to project strength and security, a key electoral advantage in a country where rural safety is a pivotal issue. The article notes that the BJP’s 2019 election campaign included a “Naxal‑free India” slogan in the Northeast and the central Indian belt.

On the other hand, the Congress’s seemingly contradictory stance is framed as a risk factor. By acknowledging that Naxalism is not fully resolved, the party risks being perceived as lacking in resolve, potentially losing votes in states where security concerns dominate. The author cites opinion polls from 2023, which show that 45 % of voters in central India would be swayed by a party’s clear stance on Naxalism.

Conclusion

In closing, the article argues that while the BJP’s rhetoric of a “Naxal‑free” India serves as a potent political narrative, it oversimplifies a complex and ongoing insurgency that still claims lives and destabilises rural communities. Meanwhile, Congress’s double standard—criticising the BJP’s claims while not providing a robust alternative—renders it vulnerable to political backlash. The piece calls for a more nuanced, evidence‑based approach to Naxalism, one that balances developmental initiatives with community engagement rather than relying on military victories alone.

By weaving in data from government sources, historical context, and statements from state leaders, the article provides a layered critique of how India’s two major political parties handle the issue of Naxalism in their public discourse and policy frameworks.