The Naxalite Movement (1967-1972): A Critique from the perspective of Postcolonial Theory

Abstract

The Naxalite movement is an important part of the history of modern India in the post Independence era. There are many studies that have attempted to understand the movement from the Marxist or Nationalist theoretical perspectives. However, the Naxalite movement took place in postcolonial India as an aftermath of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial policies of the independent state. The postcolonial perspective and concepts can help in decoding the Naxalite ideology and analysing the Naxalite movement. The present work aims to address the following questions: How to appreciate the Naxalite Movement from the perspective of the Postcolonial theory? How to critique the Naxalite Movement from the perspective of the Postcolonial theory? This would be done by analysing the points of congruency and incongruency between the Naxalite Movement and the Postcolonial theory. The present study observed that there are great similarities between the Naxalite Movement and Postcolonial concepts of unequal power balance between the colonized/rural proletariat and the colonizer/State; resistance and opposition to Eurocentrism/Marxism and colonial modernity/ colonial education; emphasis on revolutionary violence and indigenous and cultural identity; mimicry; and hybridity. Also, the Naxalite movement is incongruent with the principles of the Postcolonial Theory like the Naxalites emphasized on classbased revolutionary violence, subscribed to the Western European principles prevalent in the Eurocentric and official mainstream Marxism, did not consider the specificities of the indigenous, cultural, local, socio-economic and political conditions of India, so the alternative project of radical transformation beyond the traditional and dominant Eurocentric Marxism could not be achieved. The hegemonic discourse of Eurocentric Marxism remained all-pervading, the epistemological power of colonial modernity remained dominant in the thoughts, writings and practices pertaining to the Naxalite movement, experiences of the communists of the People’s Republic of China were replicated, slogans like “China’s Path is our Path and China’s Chairman is our Chairman” were used which shows mimicry and dependence, swaraj in ideas was not achieved and lastly the Naxalites followed and depended on Sinocentrism.