JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020

POLITICS, POWER AND DEMOCRACY:

ANALYSING MAOIST MOVEMENT IN INDIA
Manish Kumar
Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email: kr001manish@gmail.com , manish.kumar10@sharda.ac.in

Received: 14 April 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 August 2020

ABSTRACT: This article depicts the role of Naxalites in deepening the democratic processes in India and
bringing people’s issues to the fore in the development discourse. The thrust of the paper is to highlight the
Maoist challenge to Indian democracy and the state, it would be pertinent to analyse certain features hailing
from colonialism to develop a perspective on the challenge. The basic aim is to examine the contemporary
claims of achieving a post-political vision of a human society where contestations of all kinds cease to exist.
The relevance of political dialogue in a functioning democracy calls for prioritising the debates on the issue of
the basic rights of its people.
KEYWORDS: Democracy, Exclusion, Hegemony, Maoists, Politics, Power, State

I. INTRODUCTION
The dynamic social process and the struggles led by the Maoists ** underscore the fact that
mere theoretical exposition of democracy and democratic rights may not go far unless they are translated into
actual practice. The main argument, therefore, in this paper is to delineate the role of Naxalites in deepening the
democratic processes in India and bringing people’s issues to the fore in the development discourse. The
contextualisation of state and democracy in India is crucial to understanding the emergence of radical politics in
the late 1960s. Though the thrust of the paper is to highlight the Maoist challenge to Indian democracy and the
state, it would be pertinent to analyse certain features hailing from colonialism to develop a perspective on the
challenge. The contemporary state is not very different from its predecessor as the political aspect of the people’s
rights has not been prioritised in development agendas of the state. The new language of democracy as developed
by the contemporary state in India has depoliticised the basic rights of ownership over productive resources and
instead privileges policies and programmes emanating from the neo-liberal agenda. Therefore, there is an urgent
need to unmask the politics of good governance to understand the conditions depriving large sections of society
of their rights. I argue for the need of a political dialogue that redefines ‘rights’ in the context of people’s rights
as asserted through struggles and movements. It is in this context that one could develop a critical understanding
of the Maoist movement.
I would like to widen the discussion to include some broader issues concerning ideas of politics, power, and
democracy. In this context, I have substantially drawn from Chantal Mouffe’s idea of the political to understand
the Maoist movement in its entirety. The basic aim is to examine the contemporary claims of achieving a post-
political vision of human society where contestations of all kinds cease to exist. The emphasis is on universal
standards of judging human aspirations that form the core components of the cosmopolitan future for bringing

7000
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020

peace, prosperity, and human rights worldwide (Mouffe 2005:1)

Such a claim is based on the very idea of negation of the political. On a closer scrutiny, we find the present neo-
liberal ideology setting the standard of judging democracy and its violation. However, the very ideology
appears to undermine the process of democracy. Ironically, the idea of liberal democracy historically presents a
paradox. The latter can be located in two distinct traditions, of which the liberal aspect is related with the defense
of human rights and individual liberty while the democratic aspect is connected with equality, identity between
governing and governed and popular sovereignty. However, ‘there is no necessary relation between these two
distinct traditions but only a contingent historical articulation’ (Mouffe 2000: 3). The historical trajectory of
liberalism is, thus, different from the democratic goals. It has moulded democracy and used it as an instrument
to suit its political-economic needs. The articulation of constitutionally guaranteed rights to insulate
beneficiaries of liberalism from the reach of the majority, the practice of elitist parliamentary representative
system to weaken the hold of popular sovereignty, and finally, sharing the fruits of capitalism and the gains of
colonialism with the masses to ensure them a stake in the capitalist economy are some of the historically
evolved features of liberalism (Parekh 1993: 164). We find several such instances of this exclusionary aspect
of liberal ideology. One of the prominent thinkers of this ideology Friedrich Hayek ardently supported
individualistic aspects of liberalism when he said, ‘democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for
safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom’ (Mouffe 2000: 3). It implies that democracy is useful as
long as it serves the interests of liberalism, and it should be discarded if it undermines the liberal institutions.
Clearly a paradoxical relation exists between liberalism and democracy as the former is heavily tilted toward
libertarianism whereas the latter towards equality and popular sovereignty.
The relation between the two processes either allows the political to function or constrains it. I intend defining
the meaning of the political and politics, and then locating the Maoist movement in this context. In making a
distinction between the political and politics, I have drawn from Chantal Mouffe to understand the possibility of
conflict and its changing nature. There are two ways of defining the political. Some theorists like Hannah
Arendt ‘envisage the political as a space of freedom and public deliberation, while others see it as a space of
power, conflict and antagonism’ (Mouffe 2005:9). Chantal Mouffe defines the political in the latter sense that
forms the core of her argument in explaining pluralist radical democracy. To her, antagonism is an inherent part
of any human relations constituting the vital aspect of politics. However, the antagonistic nature of politics may
acquire many forms and result into different types of social relations. On the other hand, politics encompasses
practices, discourses and institutions that create a certain kind of order ensuring human coexistence in a
situation potentially conflictual because they are affected by the dimensions of the political. Mouffe expresses
that ‘it is only when we acknowledge the dimension of ‘the political’ and understand that ‘politics’ consists in
domesticating hostility and in trying to defuse the potential antagonism that exists in human relations, that we
can pose what I take to be the central question for democratic politics’ (Mouffe 2005: 101). This understanding
of the political is distinct from the rationalists as they desire to find consensus based on rationality by
eliminating the political and without creating any exclusion. Contrary to it, politics engages in constant
endeavour of creating unity in a context of conflict and diversity. This context is the conscious creation of the
distinction between us and them. The success of democratic politics does not lie in erasing this distinction but to
articulate it in ways to make possible the existence of plurality of positions and ideas (ibid: 101).
An alternative understanding of democracy to the prevalent ideas of liberal and deliberative democracy largely

7001
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020

depends on a deeper understanding of antagonism, power, and hegemony. It is these elements that create the
realm where the idea of the political can operate not to strike a consensus but to activate the underlying
antagonisms to question the dominant positions. This is the role presumably being played by the Maoist to
highlight the conflictual political dimension of the Indian state. It is significant, in this context, to mention that
‘social objectivity is constituted through acts of power’ (ibid: 99). The idea of the political plays a crucial role in
ultimately constituting social objectivity entailing exclusion that governs its constitution. The convergence
between objectivity and power leads to the hegemony of ideologies, systems or political projects. In fact, power
is not an external factor in constituting hegemony but an internal constituting factor in creating such a status for
the existing perspectives and political order. Since the hegemonic political order is the creation of dynamic
political process with specific patterns of power relation, this structure remains vulnerable and fragile (ibid:
100). Keeping the above perspective in mind one can infer that the creation of hegemonic social order depends
on the displacement of traditional relation between democracy and power. The deliberative approach to
democracy asserts that ‘the more democratic a society is, the less power would be constitutive of social
relations. But if we accept that relations of power are constitutive of the social, then the main question for
democratic politics is not how to eliminate power but how to constitute forms of power, more compatible with
democratic values’ (ibid: 100).
The elimination of conflict and exclusion from the social life is not only difficult but almost impossible. This is
how the idea of the political is constituted in dealing with both democracy and social issues. However, the
antagonistic aspect of the political can be transformed into the aspect of ‘adversary’. Antagonism and agonism
are two different forms of it. The former is struggle between enemies while the latter is struggle between
adversaries. It is significant to note that the aim of democratic politics is to transform antagonism into agonism
(ibid: 104). Unlike the competition among political elites for power in the liberal democratic framework, the
main plank of agonistic struggle is the very configuration of power relations around which a given society is
structured. It is a struggle between contending hegemonic pluralist projects that refuse to be reconciled
rationally. ‘The antagonistic dimension is always present; it is a real confrontation but one which is played out
under conditions regulated by a set of democratic procedures accepted by the adversaries’ (Mouffe 2005: 21).
Thus, a clash of democratic political positions serves the purpose of democracy. Hence, any refusal to
acknowledge confrontation and insistence on consensus may lead to unexpected consequences. This
necessitates a conclusion that a democratic society thrives on the plurality of values, the ‘disenchantment of the
world’ as diagnosed by Max Weber and the inescapable conflict that it entails (Mouffe 2000: 103).
The application of the above framework to the Maoist challenge seems to be relevant. The idea of the ‘political’
is being promoted by the Maoists in the era of globalisation. But there are other political forces passively
resisting the hegemony of globalisation as well. However, the Indian state has succeeded in ignoring such
protests and sought to deny democracy its vital aspect of the political. In this context, the role of Maoists needs
to be assessed: how far and to what extent they have succeeded in preventing the state from imposing neo-
liberal agendas on society and creating a de-politicised social realm. The Maoists are the only force in India
articulating the antagonistic aspect of the political in confronting the state. The state has realised the
significance of issues posed by the Maoists and vowed to meet their challenge. Simultaneously, the state has
realised the need to back up its coercive strategy with ameliorative measures. This may serve the long-term
interests of democracy. It is a

7002
 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL REVIEWS
ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020

never-ending process where the political defines and redefines configurations of social power. Since both the
contending parties tend to concede, the possibility of conversion of antagonistic relations into adversarial
relations may emerge. Both consider dialogue as necessary from their own political vantage point. If the state
sheds its coercive response, the Maoists may also give up their violence. The people’s long neglected demands
may as a consequence be conceded and the Maoist politics may seem less attractive. Though the paradoxical
relation between the two manifests itself in their antagonistic relation, their shifting political positions may raise
democracy to a level where simultaneous processes of contestation and concession may continue. However, at
this juncture it remains a contingent possibility as both the state and the Maoists are unrelenting.

It is, therefore, significant to constantly evolve a new political language of dialogue and deliberations. The
political dialogue has an intrinsic value in a democracy. Indeed, democracy is nothing but negotiative abundance.
In fact, the importance of continuous dialogue lies in the fact that it not only widens the common ground of
agreement but also makes the contending parties aware of their untenable positions. This process, if unhindered,
may lead to a better understanding of each other. The relevance of political dialogue in a functioning democracy
calls for prioritising the debates on the issue of basic rights of its people. The underlying causes of socio-
economic deprivation and consequently the denial of rights to certain sections of society should be the focus of
the dialogues. Institutional democracy and its processes should strengthen and build the political culture of
engaging in dialogues to ensure the underprivileged and alienated are politically empowered.
Thus, the idea of the political enables us to understand the Maoist challenge. It also helps us evolve new
insights into the functioning of Indian democracy.

Note: **I have used both Naxalite and Maoist interchangeably throughout the article.

II. REFERENCES

[ 1] Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox; London: Verso Publisher; 2000.

[ 2] Mouffe, Chantal. On the Political; London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2005.

[ 3] Parekh, Bhikhu; ‘The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy’, David Held; Prospectus for
Democracy; Cambridge, UK: P. 156-175. Polity Press, 1993.

[ 4] Claude Lefort, Democracy and Political Theory (1991). David Held, Democracy and the Global Order
(2013).

7003