Divine Mandate and Deadly Force: BJP’s Militarised Campaign Against Maoists in Chhattisgarh

Since taking office in Chhattisgarh in December 2023, the BJP government has woven cultural symbolism into its anti-Maoist campaign. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has repeatedly invoked Maa Danteshwari, the revered deity of Naxal-infested Dantewada’s ancient temple—historically associated with tantric rituals and once a site for human sacrifices—as a rallying force.

At the Bastar Olympics closing ceremony on December 15, 2024, Shah declared: “With Maa Danteshwari’s blessings, we will eradicate Maoism from Bastar and Chhattisgarh. By March 2026, not a single drop of blood will be shed in Naxalism’s name on this sacred land.” On April 5, Shah performed puja-archana of Maa Danteshwari at the historic temple.

Shah’s repeated invocation of Maa Danteshwari frames the government’s hardline “bullet over due process” approach with divine legitimacy, but it raises troubling questions, according to human rights watchers. Like Bollywood’s simplistic portrayals of the Maoist insurgency in the dense forests of central and eastern India, this narrative reduces the complex people’s movement to a tale of villainy, disregarding the dispossession of Adivasi communities and the corporate exploitation of rich natural resources.

This rhetoric risks normalising systemic inequities while rallying support for a militarised solution to the insurgency under the National Policy and Action Plan to address Left Wing Extremism (LWE) approved by the Narendra Modi government in 2015.

Recent months have witnessed two major anti-Maoist operations that reflect the government’s intensified approach. Operation Black Forest (April 21-May 11) saw Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Chhattisgarh Police target Kurragutta Hills along the Chhattisgarh-Telangana border, eliminating 31 Maoists, including members of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army, the armed wing of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), which operates primarily in the “Red Corridor” regions. The operation dismantled training and arms units of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee (DSZC), a regional party unit which oversees Maoist operations across Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Telangana.

Also Read | ‘Paramilitary forces dance after killing Adivasis’: Soni Sori 

The Abujhmarh clash on May 21 proved even more significant. In Chhattisgarh’s Abujhmad forest, security forces killed 26 Maoists, including CPI(Maoist) General Secretary Nambala Keshava Rao alias Basavaraju, dealing a major blow to the insurgent leadership. Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the killing as a “remarkable success” while Home Minister Amit Shah said Basavaraju was the “backbone” of the Naxal movement. A fortnight later, security forces gunned down Gautam alias Sudhakar, a member of the CPI(Maoist) Central Committee, in Chhattisgarh’s Bijapur district on June 5.

Cautionary path

Security experts caution against premature triumphalism. They warn that despite inflicting heavy losses on Maoists in recent operations, security forces may still find it difficult to end the insurgency by the official deadline. During both encounters in Abujhmarh and Kurragutta Hills, which involved overwhelming use of security personnel on the ground supported by drones and helicopters, the media was barred from reporting from ground zero—a departure from previous operations.

The persistence of Maoist influence became evident soon after these operations. In Sukma district, while villages like Badesatti were declared Maoist-free on April 15 and Kerlapenda on June 3, an improvised explosive device exploded on June 9, killing an Additional Superintendent of Police and injuring two officers. The attack occurred when police visited a site where Naxalites had burnt down a private earthmover. Earlier, 30 to 40 suspected Naxalites looted a truck carrying approximately 1.5 tonnes of explosives in Odisha’s adjoining Sundergarh district. Security agencies suspect the theft may be part of a Maoist plan to retaliate for the killings of top leaders.

This audacious operation indicates the group’s continued ability to orchestrate large-scale attacks, even in areas outside their traditional strongholds, signalling that the Maoist threat, though diminished, remains a challenge for India’s security apparatus. The movement’s resilience despite significant setbacks recalls the 1970s, when key Maoist leaders were killed yet the movement persisted—decades later, Naxalism remains a challenge.

The movement’s historical role in empowering marginalised communities by instilling self-confidence among Dalits and tribal people, fiercely opposing caste-based exploitation, and championing land redistribution for the poor continues to sustain the Maoists’ influence. Their advocacy for the disenfranchised still resonates, despite intensified counterinsurgency efforts and the death of CPI(Maoist) leader Nambala Keshava Rao. This influence will persist until systemic injustices remain unaddressed, according to observers.

Rao had assumed leadership of the CPI(Maoist) from former General Secretary Mupalla Laxman Rao (Ganapathy) in 2017, though the transition was only formally announced by the Maoist organisation in 2018. Ganapathy’s current status remains unconfirmed—security forces suspect he died due to illness or a gun encounter, but the CPI(Maoist) has never officially announced his death, leaving his fate strategically ambiguous.

Nearly five decades ago, Subrata Dutt—better known by his nom de guerre Jauhar—embodied an earlier generation of Naxalite leadership. Born in Kolkata and raised in Delhi, Jauhar answered Charu Majumdar’s call to abandon civilian life for armed revolution. Entrusted with leading the Bengal-Bihar Frontier Regional Committee of the CPI-ML, Jauhar rose swiftly in the ranks. Following Majumdar’s death in police custody in 1972, the movement faced existential threats as security forces intensified crackdowns. Despite the repression, Jauhar expanded operations across Bengal and Chhotanagpur. He was named General Secretary in 1974, only to be killed in a police encounter in Bihar’s Bhojpur district 16 months later. Since then, the movement has morphed in name, leadership, and geography, yet violence has remained its defining trait.

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh termed the Maoist insurgency as India’s greatest internal security threat. In 2009, the Maoists were reportedly active in as many as 223 districts across 20 States. Now, Amit Shah has declared that the number of LWE-affected districts has been reduced to six. According to police, the dead bodies of 186 Maoist cadres have been recovered in the Bastar Range this year alone.

Counterinsurgency operations

As the Indian state’s counterinsurgency operations against Maoist rebels take an increasingly violent turn, critics argue that security forces are prioritising “extrajudicial killings” over arrests, deploying overwhelming military might against an entrenched guerrilla movement. According to local journalists in Chhattisgarh, who have been observing the conflict closely for years, the recruitment of former Naxalites into the District Reserve Force (DRF), the anti-Naxal unit of the state police, has enhanced the police’s fighting capability, but it has deeply divided the Adivasi community. The Maoists admitted in a press release issued on May 25 that some of the surrendered Naxalites played an important role in the killing of Basavaraju. “In the last six months, some members from Maad (Abujhmar) area got weakened and surrendered before the police. They became traitors,” the statement said.

The withholding of Maoist insurgents’ bodies after recent Chhattisgarh encounters has sparked human rights concerns. Delays in releasing bodies, often decomposed and likely maggot-infested, deny families dignified closure. While Chhattisgarh police soon after one such mass cremation that included figures like Nambala Keshava Rao claimed in a statement that they had no “clear legal claimants”, activists rebutted that the state allegedly conceals potential extrajudicial killings or torture, undermining transparency and accountability in anti-Maoist operations.

Relatives of at least five deceased Maoist insurgents from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana waited days in Narayanpur district, bringing three ambulances with deep-freeze containers to transport the bodies. “A deceased’s body belongs to their family after death. The Chhattisgarh police’s actions are deeply wrong and unacceptable,” said Nambala Ramprasad, slain top Maoist Rao’s younger brother, to reporters at a local police station. The funeral processions of some recently killed Maoist leaders have seen huge participation, especially in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

The Karregutta Hills operation was launched even as the CPI(Maoist) had unilaterally declared a ceasefire (except in self-defence) and expressed willingness for peace talks. Their first appeal came on March 28, yet the operation was launched on April 21, despite ongoing overtures for dialogue since January 2024. Paramilitary forces cordoned off the entire Karregutta Hills region for three weeks, citing difficult terrain to justify the prolonged action, according to a statement issued by the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR).

The statement noted “contradictory and inconsistent” official communication surrounding the operation. “On the morning of May 10, Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Singh Deo announced that 22 Maoists had been killed. But by evening, Home Minister Vijay Sharma—also the Deputy Chief Minister—categorically denied both the existence of “Operation Sankalp” and the figure of 22 bodies recovered. This direct contradiction between the two topmost leaders of the government of Chhattisgarh revealed a lack of coordination at best, and delegitimisation at worst, but the utter callousness regarding the killing by paramilitary forces was unmistakable.”

In a joint statement, activists Kavita Srivastava, Kranti Chaitanya, and M.F. Gopinath, speaking on behalf of the Coordination Committee for Peace, further alleged that a parallel operation by the Greyhounds at the Chhattisgarh–Telangana border—where three Greyhound personnel were killed—was being underplayed. Meanwhile, the reported number of Maoists killed in Karregutta Hills had risen from 22 to 31, with many suspected to be civilians caught in the crossfire. “These reports reflect a disturbing mix of indiscipline and disregard for the lives of those caught in the operation. Even the number of injured security personnel was concealed until the May 11 press conference, where it was only vaguely disclosed that 18 jawans were wounded. Further inquiries into the nature of their injuries were brushed aside under the pretext of ‘security reasons’,” the statement said.

The official reportage of Maoist encounters in Chhattisgarh focuses solely on body counts, rarely mentioning injuries, captures, or surrenders. This absence raises concerns among critics: are all insurgents being killed outright, even when wounded or disarmed? Home Minister Amit Shah’s “shoot between the eyes” remark hints at a policy of maximum force over restraint. Human rights advocates point out that the reliance on local police units, pressure for results, and kill-based incentives risk ethical violations and potential war crimes. Without transparency or adherence to law, they said, such operations deepen Adivasi alienation and erode democratic accountability.

The critics also alleged that in many cases, security forces were staging encounters—extrajudicial killings masked as firefights, with planted weapons and false labels of militancy. India, bound by humanitarian and domestic laws, must treat hors de combat fighters humanely. They warn of a creeping erosion of due process, where security forces act as executioners, and the courts are bypassed entirely. “In these remote regions, a parallel justice system is taking root—one that risks hollowing out the rule of law in the world’s largest democracy. Each unexamined killing raises a pressing question: when does counterinsurgency become state-sanctioned murder?” said a Raipur-based lawyer and activist pleading anonymity.

The Campaign Against State Repression has questioned the government’s military approach—contrasting with negotiations in north-eastern insurgencies—while ignoring Naxalism’s socio-political roots, according to the D. Bandyopadhyay Committee and former Director General of Police of Chhattisgarh, Vishwaranjan, who had warned force alone won’t resolve the issue.

Encounter deaths

Similarly, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has condemned what it described as the extrajudicial killing of Nambala Keshava Rao and others, including Adivasis, in the Narayanpur encounter on May 21. The PUCL cited a pattern of over 430 deaths since January 2024 under Operation Kagaar and its offshoots, flouting Supreme Court and National Human Rights Commission guidelines mandating FIRs and magisterial inquiries for encounter deaths. “The Chhattisgarh police cremated the bodies against families’ wishes, defying Andhra Pradesh High Court orders and Supreme Court rulings in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, which extend dignity in death under Article 21,” a statement read, warning that such actions, potentially war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, undermine democracy and risk authoritarianism.

On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, while addressing a public interest litigation alleging that security forces killed 15 innocent Adivasis in Sukma, Chhattisgarh, in 2018, observed that ongoing peace efforts in the region could be disrupted by judicial intervention at this stage. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, briefly heard the case and postponed further proceedings to July 2025. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, argued that the petition, filed by a Telangana-based NGO, aimed to undermine the morale of security forces operating in Chhattisgarh.

Security experts deem the state’s goal of eliminating all Maoists unrealistic. Despite symbolic gestures and rhetorical posturing, the government and Maoist insurgents have not held meaningful peace talks due to deep ideological divides and mutual distrust. The government views Maoists as violent extremists, rejecting democracy, while Maoists demand radical changes like tribal autonomy and land redistribution, which the state deems non-negotiable. Additionally, the government’s intensified military operations and the Maoists’ insistence on preconditions—such as withdrawal of security forces—have further hindered prospects for dialogue.

“The moot question to ask is why is the state choosing to continue the operations when the Maoists have clearly indicated their readiness for a ceasefire and a political dialogue through a press release on March 28?” asked Bela Bhatia, a Bastar-based lawyer and researcher working on issues related to human rights abuses and state repression in conflict-torn areas. The CPI(Maoist) issued five press releases reiterating their willingness.

In an interview with Bastar Talkies, a local YouTube channel, senior Maoist leader Rupesh stated that only a ceasefire would enable their dispersed underground leadership to convene and discuss the future. Despite their circumstances, he said, instructed cadres to desist from armed activity except if caught in a trap when they needed to protect themselves. “This instruction can be read as a declaration of unilateral ceasefire. In my view, by continuing with the operations, the state is missing a historic opportunity to have a serious political dialogue with the CPI(Maoist). Resorting solely to military means is a shortcut. It may crush the movement for now, but would not have resolved the underlying discontent that led to citizens—most being from the poorest sections of society—choosing to join an armed rebellion against the Indian state,” she added.

Also Read | Chhattisgarh claims it is winning against Naxals. But the victory comes at the cost of tribal lives and rights

As the state invokes Maa Danteshwari to sanctify its campaign, observers warn against reducing a socio-political conflict to a simplistic battle of good versus evil. The British colonial era may have ended human sacrifice at Danteshwari Temple, but today, critics argue, the government risks sacrificing due process—and Adivasi lives—at the altar of militarised expediency to facilitate mining activities. Past governments, including Modi’s, have declared unilateral ceasefires against insurgents in several States including Jammu and Kashmir, showing the value of diplomacy over force. What prevents the application of this proven strategy to the Maoist conflict? The answer may determine whether India’s democracy can uphold the rule of law—even in its darkest forests.

“Ask this government—it is the Indian government itself that harps on evidence of Pakistani army officials and terrorists living together. If that is to be believed, then how did a ceasefire come into immediate effect merely at the request of a Pakistani DGMO (Director General of Military Operations)?” said Vikalp, a spokesperson of the DSZC, on May 25 following Operation Sindhoor.

“Despite appeals from civil society urging the government to initiate peace talks (with Maoists), it continues to ignore them and is instead pursuing a strategy aimed at killing thousands of Adivasis and revolutionaries,” he said, adding, “This doesn’t mean we want a war with Pakistan. But people must understand the deep collusion between the ruling class and powerful corporate monopolists—they create such an atmosphere whenever it serves their interests.”