GS Notes

20. Security Notes 01

14 min read

Elaborate Notes

Syllabus of Security (GS Paper 3)

The UPSC syllabus for internal security is designed to test a candidate’s understanding of the multifaceted challenges confronting India’s internal stability. A comprehensive analysis of each component is essential:

  • Linkages between Development and Spread of Extremism: This component examines the causal relationship between socio-economic conditions and the rise of extremist ideologies. It posits that a lack of inclusive development, displacement, land alienation, denial of justice, and administrative apathy often create a fertile ground for extremist groups to gain recruits and popular support. Naxalism is a classic case study, where historical injustices and developmental deficits in tribal and rural areas fueled the movement.
  • Role of External State and Non-state Actors: This involves analyzing how foreign governments (state actors) and entities like terrorist organizations, intelligence agencies, or diaspora groups (non-state actors) destabilize India’s internal security. This can range from funding and arming insurgent groups to orchestrating terror attacks and running disinformation campaigns. For instance, Pakistan’s state and non-state actors have historically played a role in fueling insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab.
  • Challenges to Internal Security through Communication Networks: This section focuses on the dual-use nature of modern communication technologies. While vital for development, networks like the internet, social media, and encrypted messaging apps are exploited by extremist groups for radicalization, recruitment, planning attacks, and propaganda. The rise of “lone wolf” attacks inspired by online content is a significant challenge.
  • Basics of Cyber Security; Money Laundering and its Prevention: This involves understanding the threats in the digital domain, such as hacking, cyber espionage, and attacks on critical infrastructure. It also covers the methods used to legitimize illicit funds (money laundering), which is the financial lifeblood of terrorism and organized crime. Knowledge of preventive frameworks like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, and agencies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is crucial.
  • Security Challenges and their Management in Border Areas: India’s long and diverse borders present unique challenges, including infiltration, smuggling (of arms, narcotics, and counterfeit currency), and human trafficking. This topic requires an understanding of border management strategies, the role of border guarding forces like the BSF and ITBP, and the challenges of managing porous or disputed borders.
  • Linkages of Organized Crime with Terrorism: This explores the symbiotic relationship between criminal syndicates and terrorist groups. Organized crime networks often provide terrorists with funds (through activities like extortion, smuggling), logistical support (fake documents, weapons), and safe passage, creating a dangerous crime-terror nexus. The 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, orchestrated by Dawood Ibrahim’s crime syndicate, are a prime example.
  • Various Security Forces and Agencies and their Mandate: This requires factual knowledge about the structure, roles, and responsibilities of India’s security architecture. This includes central armed police forces (CRPF, BSF, CISF), intelligence agencies (IB, R&AW), and investigative bodies (NIA, CBI), and understanding their specific mandates and jurisdictions.

Naxalism

Origins and Ideological Foundations

Naxalism is a left-wing extremist ideology and movement in India, which derives its name from the Naxalbari village in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal. The Naxalbari Uprising of 1967 is considered the genesis of this movement.

  • The Naxalbari Uprising (1967): The immediate catalyst for the uprising was a local land dispute. Tribal peasants, who had been tilling land under a system of informal tenancy, sought a judicial order to affirm their cultivation rights. The local landlords (jotedars), in collusion with the administration, resisted this claim. The situation escalated in May 1967 when a tribal peasant named Bimal Kissan was attacked by the landlord’s men. In response, tribal groups retaliated. On May 25, 1967, a police contingent sent to arrest peasant leaders was ambushed, and an inspector was killed. The police retaliated by opening fire on a subsequent demonstration, killing several women and children. This incident acted as a spark, igniting a widespread armed peasant uprising.
  • Key Leaders and Political Context: The movement was ideologically steered by radical leaders within the Communist Party of India (Marxist) - CPI(M), notably Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal, and Jangal Santhal. They were deeply dissatisfied with the CPI(M)‘s participation in parliamentary politics, which they viewed as a betrayal of the revolutionary path. They advocated for an armed struggle, or a ‘protracted people’s war’, to overthrow the Indian state, which they characterized as a semi-feudal, semi-colonial entity run by a comprador bourgeoisie.
  • Marxist Ideology as the Bedrock: The ideological underpinnings of Naxalism are rooted in Marxism, a socio-political theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
    • Reaction to Industrial Revolution: Marxism emerged as a critique of the harsh socio-economic conditions created by the Industrial Revolution in 19th-century Europe. It highlighted the exploitation of the industrial working class (the proletariat) by the factory owners (the bourgeoisie).
    • Historical Materialism: This is the core philosophical framework of Marxism. As elaborated in works like The German Ideology (1846), Marx argued that material conditions—specifically, the economic mode of production—form the ‘base’ of society. This base determines the ‘superstructure’, which includes politics, law, culture, and ideology. Therefore, to understand history and social change, one must analyze the evolution of economic systems. Every social phenomenon is ultimately rooted in material causes.
    • Forces and Relations of Production: Marx analyzed the mode of production through two concepts:
      1. Forces of Production: These include everything needed for production: labor power, tools and technology (instruments of labor), and raw materials (objects of labor).
      2. Relations of Production: These are the social structures and relationships people enter into to produce goods, primarily defined by property ownership. This creates social classes (e.g., masters and slaves, lords and serfs, bourgeoisie and proletariat). For a society to be stable, the forces and relations of production must be in harmony. However, as technology (forces) evolves, it comes into conflict with the existing ownership structure (relations), leading to social revolution and the transition to a new mode of production.
    • Class Struggle and the State: Marx and Engels famously stated in The Communist Manifesto (1848), “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” With the advent of surplus production, society divided into classes with conflicting interests. The dominant class, which owns the means of production, creates a State—with its army, police, and laws—as an instrument to protect its property and suppress the subordinate classes.
    • Capitalist Contradictions and Revolution: Under capitalism, the primary classes are the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (workers who sell their labor). To maximize profit, the bourgeoisie systematically exploits the proletariat. Marx predicted this would lead to:
      • Pauperization: The progressive impoverishment of the working class.
      • Homogenization: Workers’ skills become interchangeable, and their conditions become uniformly poor.
      • Polarization: Society divides sharply into a small, wealthy bourgeoisie and a vast, impoverished proletariat. This process would transform the proletariat from a ‘class in itself’ (an objective economic category) to a ‘class for itself’ (a politically conscious class aware of its exploitation and revolutionary mission). This consciousness would fuel a revolution to overthrow capitalism, abolish private property, and dismantle the state, ultimately leading to a classless, stateless communist society.

Impact of Communist Ideology on India

  • Formation of CPI (1925): Inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (1917), communist groups began to emerge in India. The Communist Party of India (CPI) was formally established in Kanpur in 1925, having been initially founded by M.N. Roy and others in Tashkent in 1920.
  • Shifting Alliances: The CPI’s allegiance to the Soviet Union led to controversial policy shifts. When Nazi Germany invaded the USSR in 1941, the CPI re-characterized World War II from an ‘Imperialist War’ to a ‘People’s War’ and began supporting the British war effort, thus alienating itself from the mainstream nationalist movement. Consequently, they opposed the Quit India Movement of 1942.
  • Post-Independence Dilemma and Split: After 1945, a major ideological debate emerged within the CPI. The faction led by P.C. Joshi advocated for participating in parliamentary democracy, while the radical faction under B.T. Ranadive called for an immediate armed revolution. The Ranadive line prevailed initially, leading to failed uprisings like the Telangana struggle, but by 1951, the party reverted to the parliamentary path.
  • Formation of CPI(M) (1964): The Sino-Indian War of 1962 deepened the fissures within the CPI. One faction was pro-Soviet and viewed China as the aggressor, while another was pro-China. The government cracked down on the pro-China leaders. This, combined with growing ideological differences over the party’s approach towards the ruling Congress party, led to a formal split in 1964, with the more radical, pro-China faction forming the Communist Party of India (Marxist) - CPI(M).
  • The Naxalbari Moment: Despite its radical origins, the CPI(M) also participated in electoral politics and even formed a government in West Bengal. This disillusioned hardliners like Charu Mazumdar, who believed the party leadership had abandoned the revolutionary cause. The agrarian unrest in Naxalbari in 1967 provided them the perfect opportunity to put their ideology of armed struggle into practice, leading to the birth of the Naxalite movement.

Causes Behind Naxalbari Movement

  • Economic Backwardness and Tribal Unrest:
    • Land Alienation: The tribal population in the Naxalbari region, primarily Santhals, Oraons, and Mundas, practiced traditional and often unscientific methods of cultivation, such as Jhum (slash-and-burn) cultivation. Post-independence land reforms, such as the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, were intended to redistribute land. However, these laws had critical loopholes. For instance, large tracts were exempted from the land ceiling under the pretext of being tea estates.
    • Failure of Land Reforms: Landlords (jotedars) expertly circumvented the laws through benami transactions (registering excess land in the names of relatives or fictitious persons). Furthermore, they began to forcibly evict tribal sharecroppers and peasants from lands they had cultivated for generations, including Bakshish Khet (lands gifted for services rendered). This systematic dispossession created immense resentment and desperation.
  • Radical Mobilization: Extremist cadres of the CPI(M) capitalized on this widespread discontent. They organized the aggrieved peasants into Krishak Samitis (Peasant Committees). These committees began by identifying benami lands and organizing peaceful demonstrations. However, the state’s response was repressive. The police firing on demonstrators in May 1967 radicalized the movement, transforming it from a peaceful agitation for land rights into a violent armed struggle aimed at seizing land and overthrowing the established order.

Program and Progress of the Naxalites

  • The ‘Chinese Path’ (Maoism): The Naxalbari uprising received vocal support from the Communist Party of China. The Chinese state media, including the Peking Review, hailed the movement as “Spring Thunder over India.” This external validation had a profound ideological impact, leading Naxalite leaders to adopt the Maoist model of revolution, which differed from the classic urban-centric Soviet model. The key tenets of this ‘Chinese Path’ were:
    1. Rural-Based Revolution: The revolution’s main theatre would be the countryside, not the cities, as India’s peasantry constituted the vast majority of the population.
    2. Protracted People’s War: The strategy involved a prolonged armed struggle originating from the countryside, gradually encircling and finally capturing the urban centers of power.
    3. Establishment of ‘Liberated Zones’: The first step was to establish revolutionary base areas in the countryside. In these zones, the authority of the state would be completely dismantled and replaced by the Naxalites’ own parallel government. These bases would serve as strategic rear areas for training, recruitment, and launching attacks.
  • Modus Operandi:
    • Targeting ‘Class Enemies’: From these liberated zones, Naxalites launched ‘annihilation campaigns’ targeting their perceived class enemies: landlords, moneylenders, police officials, and their informers.
    • ‘Jan Adalats’ (People’s Courts): Within their areas of control, Naxalites established parallel judicial systems called Jan Adalats. Here, ‘class enemies’ were subjected to summary trials and often handed brutal punishments, including public executions. While initially seen by some as a form of swift justice, the extreme brutality and lack of due process eventually alienated a significant portion of the rural population and became a primary reason for the movement’s loss of popular support and subsequent decline.

Prelims Pointers

  • Naxalbari Uprising Year: 1967.
  • Naxalbari Location: A village in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal.
  • Key Leaders: Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal, Jangal Santhal.
  • Political Party Origin: The leaders belonged to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) - CPI(M).
  • Core Ideology: Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.
  • Foundational Marxist Concepts:
    • Historical Materialism: The idea that material/economic conditions shape society.
    • Forces of Production: Labor, raw materials, tools.
    • Relations of Production: Social relationships based on property ownership.
    • Bourgeoisie: The capitalist class that owns the means of production.
    • Proletariat: The industrial working class.
  • Communist Party of India (CPI) Formation: 1925 in Kanpur, India.
  • Communist Party of India (Marxist) CPI(M) Formation: 1964, after a split from the CPI.
  • Maoist Strategy: Known as the ‘Chinese Path’ or ‘Protracted People’s War’—a rural-based revolution to encircle cities.
  • Foreign Endorsement: The Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, ‘Peking Review’, described the Naxalbari movement as ‘Spring Thunder’.
  • Local Cause: Land disputes, failure of land reforms, and eviction of tribal peasants.
  • Relevant Act: West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
  • Key Terms:
    • Jhum Cultivation: Shifting or slash-and-burn agriculture.
    • Benami Transactions: A method used by landlords to evade land ceiling laws.
    • Krishak Samitis: Peasant organizations formed by communist cadres.
    • Jan Adalats: ‘People’s Courts’ established by Naxalites.

Mains Insights

Linkages between Development and Spread of Extremism (GS-3)

  1. Development Deficit as a Root Cause: The Naxalbari movement is a textbook example of this linkage. The failure of the post-colonial state to ensure equitable development and implement land reforms created a ‘governance vacuum’. This vacuum was filled by extremist ideologies that offered a radical, albeit violent, solution to deep-seated grievances like land alienation, poverty, and exploitation.
  2. Policy Failure vs. Implementation Failure: The cause of the Naxalbari uprising was not a complete absence of policy (e.g., the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act existed), but a colossal failure in its implementation. Loopholes in the law, collusion between landlords and local administration (jotedar-babu nexus), and the state’s inability to protect the rights of its most vulnerable citizens (tribals) directly fueled the conflict.
  3. Resource Curse and Tribal Alienation: Many Naxal-affected areas are rich in mineral resources. The model of development pursued by the state often involves the displacement of tribal communities for mining and industrial projects without adequate compensation or rehabilitation. This perception of development as a tool of exploitation for outside interests makes the local population receptive to anti-state narratives.

Role of Ideology vs. Local Grievances (GS-1)

  • A Symbiotic Relationship: There is a historiographical debate on whether Naxalism was primarily an ideologically driven movement or a spontaneous peasant uprising. The most balanced perspective is that it was both.
    • Grievances as Fuel: The objective conditions of exploitation and injustice provided the fuel and the mass base for the movement. Without the real-world problems of landlessness and poverty, the abstract ideology of Maoism would have found little resonance.
    • Ideology as a Vehicle: The Marxist-Maoist ideology provided a framework to understand this exploitation (class struggle), a clear enemy (the state and its agents), a methodology (armed struggle), and an ultimate goal (a classless society). It transformed localized, sporadic protests into a structured, pan-Indian revolutionary movement.

State Response and its Consequences (GS-3)

  • The Escalation Trap: The initial state response at Naxalbari was purely coercive (police firing). This use of force against what was, at that point, a largely peasant demonstration had the effect of validating the extremist argument that the state is an instrument of oppression and that violence is the only language it understands. This pushed the movement further down the path of armed struggle, creating a vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence.
  • Law and Order vs. Socio-Economic Approach: The Naxalite challenge highlights the perennial dilemma for the state: whether to treat the problem purely as a law and order issue or to address the underlying socio-economic causes. A purely security-centric approach can alienate the local population, while a purely development-focused approach may be ineffective in the face of an armed, ideologically committed adversary. A successful strategy requires a calibrated, two-pronged approach, as reflected in India’s current policy which combines security operations with development initiatives.

Historiographical Perspectives

  1. Subaltern Perspective: Historians like Ranajit Guha, from the Subaltern Studies school, would interpret the Naxalbari uprising as an autonomous expression of peasant consciousness against centuries of oppression. In this view, the peasants are not mere pawns of an elite ideology but active agents of their own history.
  2. State-Centric/Nationalist Perspective: This viewpoint sees Naxalism as a grave threat to national security and the integrity of the Indian state. It emphasizes the movement’s use of violence, its anti-democratic character, and its ideological links to a foreign power (China), framing it primarily as an anti-national insurgency.
  3. Socio-Economic Perspective: Scholars like Sumanta Banerjee (In the Wake of Naxalbari, 1980) provide a more nuanced analysis, linking the movement’s rise and fall to the specificities of India’s agrarian political economy. They argue that Naxalism emerged from the failure of the Indian state to complete the “bourgeois-democratic revolution,” particularly in the realm of land reform. The movement’s turn to extreme violence (annihilation line) is also analyzed as a strategic error that led to its isolation from the masses it claimed to represent.

Graph View