Latest news with #Maoism
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
New Maharashtra Law Criminalises Expression, Expands State Power
Published : Jul 28, 2025 15:35 IST - 6 MINS READ The Maharashtra government has introduced a new law to deal with what it calls 'urban Maoists'. What is striking—and somewhat ironic—is that the same political party and government that insist so loudly on promoting Hindi, that are committed to the 'Hindi-fication' and 'nationalisation' of everything, have not been able to find a Hindi equivalent for the word 'urban' in the absurd term 'urban Maoist'. Perhaps 'shahari' or 'nagariya' do not carry the same ominous weight. The phrase 'urban Maoist' has a certain spectral ring to it: it signals danger, an enemy within. Such language serves a very specific purpose: it helps the BJP to frighten and confuse its voters. Alongside 'urban Maoist', we also hear the term 'urban Naxal'. But who exactly is a Naxal? Who is a Maoist? These terms are rarely, if ever, defined. They are categories designed for vagueness—elastic enough to fit anyone who dares dissent. Just a few days ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of speaking the language of 'urban Naxals', claiming that those who declare war on the Indian state cannot possibly understand the Constitution. If the leader of India's principal opposition party can be branded an 'urban Naxal', then anyone can. This category is so ill-defined that it gives the state the power to arrest or punish anyone simply by invoking the label. Also Read | Can courts protect free speech while designing its boundaries? Maoism bogeyman According to the Maharashtra government, Maoism is such a grave threat that existing laws are no longer sufficient to combat it. Even draconian laws such as the UAPA and the MCOCA are, it seems, inadequate. A reading of the new law's draft reveals that it punishes not just actions, but intentions too. And who will discern these 'Maoist intentions'? That is left to the will of the police. It will be enough for a police officer to say that they have smelt 'Maoist intent' in a person's words. Under this law, not only actual acts but even suggestive expressions can be considered 'unlawful activity'. A cartoon, or a painting, or a poem, or a story, let alone slogans or speeches, can be deemed subversive. All it takes is for the police to claim that these forms of expression may disrupt public order, spread hatred against the state, incite disobedience of governmental institutions, or instil fear among the public. The scope is vast enough that nearly any film, article, or artwork could be declared an 'urban Naxal' act. For instance, Shyam Benegal's Ankur or Satyajit Ray's Hirak Rajar Deshe could easily be labelled Maoist. Anything that the BJP government dislikes can now be designated as 'urban Naxalism' or 'urban Maoism'. And this is not hypothetical. Artists from the Kabir Kala Manch have spent years behind bars after their songs were deemed acts of 'urban Naxalism'. A few days ago, the Uttarakhand government filed a case against Garhwali folk singer Pawan Semwal for a song that asks the government: 'How much more of our mountains will you consume? You've turned them into dens of gambling, liquor, unemployment, and corruption.' Before him, singer Neha Singh Rathore faced sedition charges, while satirical video creator Madri Kakoti (famous on social media as 'Dr Medusa') was booked under sedition and other charges in April. This new law drives another nail into the coffin of Indian democracy by criminalising expression itself. Its goal is clear: to silence all dissenting voices within society. It is, in effect, a conspiracy to dismantle civil society altogether. Activists like Medha Patkar have repeatedly been branded anti-national. Opposition to big dams is framed as opposition to development, and then as opposition to the state itself. By this logic, Medha Patkar or Vandana Shiva can be called 'urban Naxals'. We have heard BJP leaders claiming that human rights is an alien concept and that those advocating it are, in fact, misleading people from the true path of duty towards the nation. Attack on free speech But what exactly counts as 'anti-state'? Is it permissible to criticise the Prime Minister? We used to believe that India was different or better than many countries because it allowed space for criticism of power. That belief rested on the active presence of civil society and the assurance that its voice would be heard. Yet, over the past 11 years, we have seen repeated assaults on members of civil society. In his first year in office, the Prime Minister warned the higher judiciary against being influenced by 'five-star activists'. Then, in 2021, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval declared that fourth-generation warfare would be conducted within the country, with civil society the frontier of the war. Wars, Doval said, have ceased to become an effective instrument for achieving political or military objectives. 'But it is civil society that can be subverted, suborned, divided, manipulated to hurt the interests of a nation. You are there to see that they stand fully protected.' For Doval, civil society is the enemy that has to be policed and disciplined. What Doval wanted was to remove the protection that civil society enjoyed. And that is exactly what the Maharashtra government's new law seeks to do. If one understands this context, the Maharashtra government's intent becomes crystal clear. Protecting democracy Democracy is not sustained by elections and political parties alone. True democracy lives in the belief that even a solitary citizen has the right to critique power. It is the grass-roots organisations working in the areas of land rights, water shortages, or factory pollution that keep democracy alive—not political parties and elections alone. For instance, movements against, say, a Coca-Cola plant that sucks water out of the ground, or against an increase in anti-Muslim violence, have been led not by major political outfits but by small civil society groups. The agitation in Niyamgiri Hills that led to the halt on bauxite mining was led by civil society organisations. The BJP government would like to neutralise all such organisations. What is truly alarming is that this ordinance was passed effortlessly in the Legislative Assembly. The Congress and its allies did not even mount an opposition. Only a single MLA, from the CPI(M), raised a voice against it. The opposition parties did try to correct the mistake in the Legislative Council later, where they staged a walkout. Also Read | Are India's liberal think tanks in trouble? The opposition's silence in the Maharashtra Assembly reveals a larger delusion that all political parties are part of—that democracy can be saved simply by participating in elections. The BJP, meanwhile, wants democracy to be reduced to just that—elections. And how fair even those elections are, we can judge from the recent actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar. Again, if not for civil society organisations, concerned individuals, and media houses, the dangers of the special intensive revision (SIR) done by the ECI in Bihar would not have become public knowledge. For elections to be meaningful, democratic consciousness must survive in society. The people should have the confidence and assurance that they can express themselves freely and fearlessly. Maharashtra's new law seeks to extinguish this democratic consciousness. Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University and writes literary and cultural criticism.
Wall Street Journal
3 days ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Antisemitism Moves Into the Political Mainstream
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born writer intimately familiar with Islamist and anti-Israel extremism, recently warned that a global 'purge of the Jews' is under way. It's an ideological insurgency with a clear goal: 'Erase not just Israel 'from the river to the sea,' but the Jewish people from the moral map,' Ms. Ali wrote in a recent essay. Her words ring true in this new world, where politicians refuse to denounce a 'global intifada,' kosher restaurants become targets and lunatics shoot Jews on the street. The purge includes the vilification of Israel and the blacklisting of Jews and Israelis in various professions by the unlikely pairing of militant Islamism and a revived Maoism. Together, their political credo of 'resistance' and 'liberation' declares that Jews are the oppressors and must be driven out of polite society. It's happening in many areas of public life. Several prominent international authors won't permit their books to be translated into Hebrew or published in Israel. Many Israeli authors have a hard time finding publishers outside Israel. Israeli scholars and their writings are no longer welcome at certain professional conferences and journals. The exclusion also extends to Israelis participating in sports events, musical programs, art exhibitions and pride parades. Israeli and Jewish-owned restaurants have been protested, boycotted and vandalized in Philadelphia, Miami, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Houston, Los Angeles and as far as Athens and Melbourne, Australia. One New York restaurant owner, trying to make sense of why his establishment was vandalized, said, 'It's not about Zionism or not Zionism. It's kosher food.'
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Govt. for radical change in education sector: Deputy CM Bhatti
Fundamental rights in a democratic society — freedom of expression and debate — which have been missing in Osmania University for a decade, were restored with Congress coming to power in December 2023, Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka said on Saturday. The government's doors were opened to all viewpoints and people's fear to express their opinion vanished, he said, recalling his interactions with women, students and diverse groups in his Adilabad-Khammam People's March. For Mr. Vikramarka, universities should encourage ideological diversity — from Marxism to Maoism to Gandhianism — as that's what constitutes a true university, he said, and asserted that coercion, pressure or suppression are not part of the State government's policy. 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' he quoted French writer and philosopher Voltaire, to supplement his idea. According to Mr. Vikramarka, who was speaking at the annual day celebrations of University College of Arts & Social Sciences, Osmania University here, the government's focus is on bringing about radical changes in the education sector. He said that the journey began with the appointments of Vice Chancellors, faculty recruitment, hike in diet charges and cosmetic charges in State residential schools, the common diet menu scheme recommended by top doctors and nutritionists, and allocation of ₹500 crore for Koti Women's College, now renamed as Veeranari Chakali Ilamma University. The next thing in the pipeline is building skills. Constructing Telangana's first skill university in 'Future City', 100 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) being transformed as Advanced Technology Centres, and Young India Residential Schools in every constituency with an outlay of ₹200 crore each. He maintained that real development in the State is possible only through education, and especially English medium education to withstand global competition. Findings from the comprehensive socio-economic, political, educational and caste survey conducted in the State, he said, also showed that education is more crucial for development than land, which is a foundational resource for development. Mr. Vikramarka was all praise for the legacy of Osmania University which produced former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, and many bureaucrats, scientists and politicians for Telangana and beyond. Accepting Vice Chancellor Kumar Molugaram and Principal C. Kaseem's request for an open auditorium in the university, he promised recommending it to Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy. He also assured that more job notifications would be released soon.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
4 Maoists killed in encounter in Bijapur, arms recovered: Chhattisgarh police
Raipur: Four alleged Maoists were killed in an encounter with security forces in the dense forests of Chhattisgarh's Bijapur district on Saturday, police said. Police said the operation is still in progress. (Representational image) Officials said that arms and ammunition have been recovered and the encounter is still in progress. Bijapur superintendent of police (SP), Jitendra Yadav, said police have recovered four bodies and their identities are yet to be ascertained. The exchange of fire began in the evening after security personnel launched a search operation based on intelligence inputs about Maoist presence in the south-western region of the district. 'Intermittent firing between the two sides has continued since then,' said Yadav. Security forces have recovered a cache of arms and ammunition from the encounter site, including INSAS and SLR rifles, other weapons, explosive materials, and items of daily use, the SP added. Officials said sensitive details such as the exact location of the encounter and the number of personnel involved have been withheld for now to ensure the safety of forces engaged in the operation. A detailed report will be released once the operation concludes, he added. Maoists have suffered continued setbacks across the region since 2024. In that year alone, 217 Maoists were killed in various encounters. With Saturday's operation, the total number of Maoist casualties has risen to approximately 464 till date in 2025. Union home minister Amit Shah had earlier said that Maoism would be completely eradicated from Chhattisgarh next year, and that the central and state governments were working in full coordination to end the decades-old insurgency through both security action and development.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Suhas Palshikar writes: Left Wing Extremism is a smokescreen. Maharashtra's new law could criminalise dissent
What you require is a dictionary, the Supreme Court is reported to have told the SIT in the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case recently. Very soon, the courts may have to say, what you need is a set of Political Science books. The need to read Political Science literature may be necessitated by the mention of Left Wing Extremism (LWE) in a bill passed by the Maharashtra legislature in the name of protecting public security. Indeed, there is a separate section under the Ministry of Home Affairs that deals with LWE but one is not sure that there is a clear legal definition of LWE. The MHA portal says that LWE refers to organisations that are banned and listed as an appendix to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. But that hardly satisfies the test of what conceptually constitutes LWE. Broad innuendos making the rounds in the public domain refer to Maoism. In operational terms, the provisions refer to the use of violence for the overthrow of the state. But since the Maharashtra government now intends to incriminate Left Wing ideology, the onus is on the government to specify what it means by it. In the absence of clarity, anyone can be accused of subscribing to Left Wing ideology, and then the police will be running from one library to another for material on what constitutes Left Wing ideas. The current dispensation in Maharashtra and nationally is allergic to the idea of the 'Left'. Therefore, it will do well to come forward and define for legal purposes which ideas are construed as Left and are hence liable to be proscribed. Maoist violence in many parts of the country has invited a reaction of repulsion even among those who may have a leftward leaning. That repulsion is tactically utilised intellectually and cinematically by some who employ the term 'urban Naxal'. Even the Maharashtra Chief Minister has repeatedly referred to urban Maoism. What is overlooked is the distinction between those who actively mobilise Maoist violence against the state, those who sympathise with such organisations and those who do not endorse such violence but subscribe to the idea that the stranglehold of capital over state authority needs to be removed. The other problem with the Maharashtra law is that it incriminates a number of activities that are already proscribed by various laws and thus there is a vicious duplication of legal instruments giving the executive and the police unseemly discretionary powers on whether to book someone under this law, under UAPA or a more routine law penalising crime and violence. We regularly witness instances of how executive discretion results in overenthusiasm and even partisan vendetta. The new law will be an additional instrument to harass civil society. Given that it precludes the bail provision and recourse to lower courts, one can only imagine its likely draconian effects. Perhaps the most worrisome provisions in this law pertain to freedom of speech and expression. True, we routinely get a dose of pontification from the judiciary that freedom — and freedom of expression, in particular — is not absolute. It is nobody's case that in the Indian context, this freedom is absolute or without constraints. But the central question that law-makers and the judiciary must answer is not whether freedom of expression is or should be absolute. The question is whether restraints on freedom of expression can be random and arbitrary. Scholars of the Indian Constitution have argued that writing down the restrictions on the freedom of expression produces a concrete limiting effect on the executive and legislature. The written restrictions guarantee that governments or state authorities will not have unlimited powers to curb the freedom of expression. Also, the constitutional scheme of things requires the test of reasonableness. Restrictions have to be reasonable. Courts are therefore not to tell a citizen what she should reasonably express but to examine if the enforced limitations are reasonable. In the backdrop of the judiciary's abdication of this sacrosanct duty, the provisions in Maharashtra's bill could be dangerous and ill-intended. Under this new law, 'unlawful' activities are defined as activities 'by act or words… or by sign or by visible representation'. In other words, freedom of expression, besides actual acts, is intended to be criminalised. As a member of the legislature publicly stated after the passage of the bill, holding seminars (purportedly on objectionable matters, in that lawmaker's view) will be punished by the new law. Therein exists a dual danger. One, any dog-whistling can easily activate the police machinery, and there is no mechanism to first examine such random complaints emanating from ideological or political rivals before action is taken; the Advisory Board comes into the picture only after action is taken by the police. Two, any intellectual activity can easily be brought under the purview of unlawful activity. What constitutes incitement to violence will always be a ticklish issue legally, morally and politically. For the sake of argument, let us admit that 'incitement' may be legitimately criminalised. In that case, incitement against minorities — indulged in even by some members of the state government — should also be criminalised. But since such perpetrators are not Left Wing, this law would turn a blind eye towards that incitement. As the new law says, any acts through words that 'constitute danger to peace and tranquility', 'acts of generating fear and apprehension in the public', 'preaching disobedience of law and its institutions' are construed as unlawful. A plain reading of these phrases should alert any citizen. Because, while the law mentions LWE, these political acts are the common language of democratic mobilisation and as such practically any social worker can be booked for extending a verbal criticism of authorities and appealing to citizens to protest. Any stringent criticism can be construed as endangering tranquility. Thus, the language of 'urban Naxal' is a smokescreen. The tameness and intellectual laziness of the Opposition in Maharashtra is such that it is content with limiting the powers under this law to LWE. In its abject muteness, the Opposition in Maharashtra has shown that it is following in the footsteps of the loyal Opposition in Gujarat. Following legislation in Chhattisgarh, Odisha etc, this law raises wider issues beyond being Left or non-Left. It is about the idea of the state and protests: Whether the state can be critiqued in a democracy and whether a self-proclaimed democratic state should be criminalising protest, dissent and difference of opinion. The writer, based in Pune, taught Political Science
