Talk:Naxalite–Maoist insurgency

I do not understand the language here and elsewhere- if people are fighting against corruption and injustice and especially for land rights and decent wages why has the government never tried to address these and why is Wikipedia painting them as thugs? Either paint both sides as thugs and criminals or explain each side accurately. Fighting for one's land on one Wikipedia page is seen as just and yet the exact same fight here is painted as extremism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.22.34.191 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:RGW. Lorstaking (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karamchand98. Peer reviewers: Conner.hobson, Kumakaa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Affected" areas?
In the article on the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency the word "affected" is used about areas where naxalites are active. It is not objective language as it suggests that they are a sickness that the government is curing these areas from. The lack of background also paints a skewed picture as it seems like maoists have come out of nowhere and started killing people. Readers may not agree with the motivations but might want to hear them at least. --182.50.66.67 (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh...?
There is no reference to the Communist Party of Bangladesh, or Bangladesh for that matter, in this article aside from at top right. Please verify the claim, with a citation, that either of these are involved in the on-going conflict or they will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.185.203 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From 1974 to 1995, there were some incidents and insurgency in Bangladesh from Maoist sections but Govt. took initiatives to decrease their popularity and fund raising.Moreover, Communism never had the appeal in Bangladesh. Now-a-days,Maoism is only an ideology which is considered pretty unrealistic to Bangladeshi Culture and Economy. Shah-E-Zaman (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Longest Insurgency?
Isn't the armed movement by the FARC the longest insurgency at present ? Srijon (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Current event
I noticed this page had yet to be marked as a current event so i marked it...is that ok? Lovelylayla (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Death toll

 * 6,000 reported in 2000
 * The same number 10 years after!! As much as 1,100 dead in 2010 alone! Who are they kidding?-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Low-level conflict?
Low level is cited since 2006. With 1,000+ deaths in 2010 can we still regard it as low level?-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 14:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil war
I have added Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Asia to this article and its parent category. Also, I have removed the category labeling the insurgency terrorism. That is a misapplication. __meco (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

merge
i created a merge discussion at Talk:Naxalite. --Soman (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

MAP
The map is wrong, it has been altered to show Indian claims on Jammu and Kashmir. Kindly, revert it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.96.222 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable figures
The forces section which compares strength of both govt. and insurgents contained figure which can be termed 'bogus' at their best e.g. it showed naxal strength as 10000-20000 insurgents and "hundreds of thousands of supporters".Seriously,how on the earth can any one verify something like this which is based on a single newspaper line! Also if it is indeed appropriate to write 'num. of supporters' then shouldn't we write India's supporters as "Billions of supporters" ??? So I have fully explained the matter and now the warning any further unverified claims and poetic flights of fancies will be reverted without any explanation (if they are of same nature) and if they persist admins will be informed to ban the vandals.

Swift&amp;silent (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Toll
I've just deleted - for a second time - ".High civilian casualties were caused by attrition and attack on public transports by Naxalites. ". I'm sorry but this adds nothing to the very detailed listings of the various attacks earlier in the article, and "attrition" isn't a useful word here. Snori (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MkativerataCCI (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Khalistan Movement a belligerent?
Why is the khalistan movement listed as a belligerent on the government side? Historically this seems inaccurate because Naxalites were supporting the Sikh activists during Operation Bluestar. Does any one have a citation for this addition?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this information? I searched the Operation Bluestar page and was unable to find any reference to the search terms 'maoist', 'marxist', 'naxalite', etc. Seeing as the Khalistan movement wants independence and is a far-right movement, and the Naxalite movement is left-wing wants India as a whole to become a Maoist state and would instinctively be opposed to parts of India breaking off and declaring independence. The Naxalites were also prominent in the Punjab region in the 1970s, but were driven out by the rise of the Khalistan movement. Also note that I put a line between the government side and the Khalistan movement. This is to show that the two groups are enemies of one another but are fighting against the same rival movement in this instance.

Note the article on the Russian Civil War. In the Anti-Bolshevik forces it has a separation line between the Whites Cossacks with their foreign allies and the rival groups of the Green Armies, Black Army, Mongolia, independence movements and Left SRs, which were all competing against one another and frequently conflicting, but were temporarily united by their enmity for the Bolsheviks. Another example is the Iraq War article where insurgent groups and pro-Saddam Hussein forces have a seperation line between them to show that while they had mutual enmity for the USA and their allies, they themselves had conflict between them and very frequently fought between one another. --Jay942942 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a source that a quick google books search turned up. It describes how Naxalism and Sikh Nationalism worked well together. It also says that communists were prominent in the 60s and early 70s and that they were followed by, not driven out by Sikh Nationalism. It says also that ex-Naxalites joined the Khalistan movement. I couldn't find the scholarly article I was thinking of but this one is actually better.
 * --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Very high casualties ratio for the naxalites.
I have read some battle articles and the naxalites seems to be expert fighters in jungle warfare unless the information regarding Indian losses are exaggereted. Still, But how this could be? To lose over 75 men while inflicting 8 dead its a very bad ratio for Indian Paramilitary forces. Unless they were overwhelmed.--190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Naxalites have full situational awareness, while the Indian paramilitary forces are both poorly trained and rarely leave their bases. The statistics come from government sources so it's unlikely they would exaggerate their own losses.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indians are trying to capture naxalites, not kill 'em. The army has been trying to take 'em alive thanks to stupid Human Rights people who say that the army shouldn't kill them. But the article hasn't listed how many have been taken alive as of yet, about 36 in 2012 alone. Can someone add sourced info for the POWs? -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Naxalite–Maoist insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110607032703/http://www.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//news/2008/mar/31sc.htm to http://www.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//news/2008/mar/31sc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080103202527/http://www.ndtv.com:80/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070032266&ch=11/8/2007%209:10:00%20PM to http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070032266&ch=11/8/2007%209:10:00%20PM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Naxalite–Maoist insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226062509/http://www.thehindu.com:80/2008/12/16/stories/2008121659190500.htm to http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/16/stories/2008121659190500.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100520002216/http://www.ndtv.com:80/news/india/naxals-blow-up-bus-near-dantewada-33-killed-26123.php to http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/naxals-blow-up-bus-near-dantewada-33-killed-26123.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120101170735/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/others/mp-govt-claims-positive-change-naxal-hit-areas-893 to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/others/mp-govt-claims-positive-change-naxal-hit-areas-893

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Naxalite–Maoist insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140615151736/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hEgcaxywQ2PAWQMP8ajE_UmEnqwQ to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hEgcaxywQ2PAWQMP8ajE_UmEnqwQ
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120312085545/http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4445152&pgnew=false to http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4445152&pgnew=false

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Naxalite–Maoist insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/maoists-in-india-blow-up-pipelines-as-78-billion-in-resources-threatened.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908173208/http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=50833 to http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=50833
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908173208/http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=50833 to http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=50833
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.achrweb.org/ncm/ncm.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=%2F%2Fnews%2F2008%2Fmar%2F31sc.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070032266&ch=11%2F8%2F2007%209%3A10%3A00%20PM
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/Naxals-ambush-kill-26-CRPF-men-in-Chhattisgarh/Article1-564984.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/Landmine-blast-leaves-three-ITBP-jawans-dead-in-Chhattisgarh/Article1-610063.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Map outdated
Not only is it 6 years old, it predates Telangana creation. Sdrawkcab (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Support
It's only alleged of LTTE played any role in this, they were given weapons (allegedly) by the SL government in order to ride out the IPKF in the 90s. Also too many far-right non suspected organizations such as the Khalistan Movement put into the "support" section for Naxalites. Kommune12 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights Violations and Press Freedom in Affected Area
The follwoing sections was removed by user Prolix and it was stated that it needs to be discussed:

"The Indian government has been accused by international human rights groups as well as various other countries of suppressing the press and freedom of reporting through the arrest of journalists and the Indian Armed Forces and other security forces have been accused of mass evictions, torture, use of child soldiers, and extrajudicial murder in the pursuit of the conflict. (there were two other links that were included but somehow got cut off when I reposted the original here)

The description stated that these are unsubstantiated claims and also, "what countries". The countries referred to were the United States (where the State Department and Justice Department have both released numerous briefings on these subjects) and the UK government, I was compilling the links to add as a batch as I knew that these were going to be contested claims on a disputed topic. The United Nations Human Rights Council has reported on these issues. If necessary I can link 10 other articles and briefings from world wide human rights agencies and press freedom groups, international farmers rights groups, etc. The US State Department, UK government, and all these NGOs have had problems with bias, misinformation and the US and UK governments are not only complicit but active violators of human rights and have committed straight up war crimes (just highlight here that I understand that no source, especially governments and NGOs, are "neutral" per se). However, none of these have any connection to the non-state actors or local political movements one way or the other so this isn't a matter of static and propaganda. If you want to litigate this or that (this report is from 2006, that one if from 2017, this one is from an NGO, that one from a foreign government), like at what point is information, in a *war-zone*, acceptable and non-contestable (other than what the government press releases say, which are then regurgitated in the Indian press, similar to what happens in most countries who are engaged in internal or external conflicts)?

At what point do any claims in a war-zone become accepted? Some how a bunch of information from the state actor engaged in this war, the Indian governmet (and news orgs sympathetic to the government and who parrot the governments statements) are accepted as uncontested fact, yet worldwide prominent human rights organisations aren't enough to describe activities that don't shed a positive light on the IAF and the Indian Government? Especially as this war has seen numerous claims of silencing of journalists and the use of security forces to stop the reporting of information on the ground and to silence dissenting voices, who is seen fit to tell the story of what is happening here? What was Wikipedia's policy on covering the ongoing situation in Iraq in the early 2000's? Was the US State Department and pattriotic US news sources the only viable and confirmable sources to be used for sourcing information? What about the situation in Myanmar under the previous junta? These claims in the edit aren't random and presumably the US State Department and Amnesty International are not Naxalite front groups. Every source has its biases, but I just worry that the main source of information (Wikipedia) for most people who don't have much background or even awareness of this conflict are reading an article that treats this war as a contest between a good and proper state actor who conducts itself with complete propriety and all its claims are to be assumed to be unbiased truths, while anything that even mentions the idea that a state actor waging a decades long war might have human rights abuses as part of its war record is to be disregarded as "unsubstantiated"? Someone who has never heard of Chhatisgarh or the word "Naxalite" is going to read this article and come away with "rebels won't give up, Indian government does its best while never setting a foot out of place, everyone agrees".

Abdulrahimb (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the problem here isn't with the criticisms you intend to add but instead with the way you framed them. The very source you linked in this talk page comment of yours says that the Indian government should look into allegations of torture. All the other sources you cited in your edit also follow a similar pattern, with one being a mere press release. These are statements/recommendations, not accusations by either Amnesty of HRW.
 * You clearly understand that Amnesty and HRW have both had a very chequered and disreputable history and they are no doubt biased in some manner. The sentence you added into the article not only amalgamated the two dubious and widely criticized sources but also categorized them into 'international human rights groups' without providing any further evidence of widespread criticism by said groups or any other such organizations.
 * Moreover, what Amnesty or HRW believe to be innocent 'Human rights defenders' and 'peace activists' may not be seen as such by other sources. Therefore, when adding such content it becomes important to make it abundantly clear that it is Amnesty or HRW that believes so instead of vague statements that point to some sort of tacit consensus.
 * None of this is to say that these accusations should not be included, they should, but their inclusion is subject to better sourcing and NPOV sentence framing.  Pro lix 💬 11:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, what Amnesty or HRW believe to be innocent 'Human rights defenders' and 'peace activists' may not be seen as such by other sources. Therefore, when adding such content it becomes important to make it abundantly clear that it is Amnesty or HRW that believes so instead of vague statements that point to some sort of tacit consensus.
 * None of this is to say that these accusations should not be included, they should, but their inclusion is subject to better sourcing and NPOV sentence framing.  Pro lix 💬 11:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None of this is to say that these accusations should not be included, they should, but their inclusion is subject to better sourcing and NPOV sentence framing.  Pro lix 💬 11:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

caste militias in infobox
Salwa Judum was a government sponsored group, but why are the caste militias in the same section as the government in the infobox? That seems to imply that the caste militias were supporting the government. I gave the sources a cursory look but couldn't verify it and as far as I'm aware, that is not true. Should it be removed? TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 12:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Clean up of outdated article with multiple issues
I am a long timer IP with no registered account. Over the years, I have worked on numerous articles. I arrived on this article, by chance, to add details of roads and other infra being developed in this area (as "state response" to the insurgency). I noticed this article had several issues, which I have fixed:


 * 1) Added the official name Left Wing Extremism (LWE)
 * 2) Fixed the outdated lede, e.g. moved some text to history or outline and update with latest status and stats.
 * 3) Haphazardly grown article with randomly-organically added sections, co-located the related text and sections under the common headings and themes.
 * 4) Expanded some sections e.g. state response and infra development, etc.
 * 5) "Outline" section is duplication of the separate existing "Outline" article on this topic. Move the text from this article to the "outline" text. The "Naxalite–Maoist insurgency" is high level article and it should only contain, summary only and not duplicate the detailed text.
 * 6) Fix unsourced POV statement e.g. replace with sourced text and/or remove unsourced POV.
 * 7) Added a "See also" section
 * 8) Fixed "Further reading and viewing section" e.g. split it into "Further reading" and "External links" sections and remove outdated links.

Note: I have also updated the outdated Red corridor article. Please review the edits and feel free to apply your incremental edits as there is ample scope for the further enhancements. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Further reading section cannot be edited by new users due to false positive filtering of emoticons
I tried to make some edits to the Further reading section but one of Wikipedia's filters is blocking any edits to this section. It falsely reported an emoticon in my edits. I have reported the false positive to the maintainers. The changes that I was trying to make were: - Tidy up the link to Walking with the comrades by adding the author and year - Add a reference to Nightmarch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medsavan (talk • contribs) 06:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split to "Naxalism"
I propose that there should be a separate article on Naxalism (or perhaps Naxalites), describing the ideology of the movement rather than the conflict involving it. This was previously a separate article, but there was a consensus to merge in 2010. I would like to revisit this discussion because I think the Naxal ideology is a distinct topic that is notable enough to warrant a separate article.

The current article largely details the conflict, but I think the sections "Causes" and "Sustainment of Naxal movement" could be spun off into the new article as they describe the groups behind the movement. The new article would have room for expansion to describe the specific military and political groups involved, which are listed at List of Naxalite and Maoist groups in India but without much detail. I can also find sources on topics such as Naxalite literature, which would be too tangential for an article about the conflict. —  Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧   (talk &#124; contribs) 19:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Just do it. Yue 🌙 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a notable ideology central to a notable event. Ecco2kstan (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)