Weapons seized from Maoists during a counter-Naxal operation. Photo: Narayanpur Police/Facebook

This statement represents an unprecedented development in the history of the Maoist movement, signifying a shift in their strategy.

Previously, on April 2 this year, a press statement was released in Abhay’s name which included a specific proposal for peace negotiations. While it did not indicate a willingness to surrender arms, the Maoists seemed open to engaging in peace talks.

Subsequently, on April 22, Rupesh, the spokesperson for the North-West Subzonal Committee of the Maoist Party, participated in a video interview with a YouTube channel named ’Bastar Talkies’. During this interview, he called upon the government to announce a ceasefire, allowing them to engage in discussions with senior leaders and arrive at a definitive decision.

A series of statements

On May 10, Abhay made another statement indicating a readiness to engage in discussions with the government on surrendering arms and reintegrating with mainstream society. That statement also underscored the necessity for peace negotiations and called upon the Union government to take this initiative.

It is significant to note that in this statement, Maoists employed terms of respect when referring to the prime minister and home minister. The Maoists, who perceive governments as instruments of the oppressive classes, typically use much harsher language when talking about those in power. This choice of language has prompted many to question the authenticity of the statement.

Now, the most recent statement attributed to Abhay has taken many by surprise. It not only proclaimed a “temporary renunciation of armed struggle”, but also explicitly stated, “We have decided to give up arms.”

This is the first time in the history of the Naxalite movement [1] – which has persisted across the nation for 60 years – that such a statement has been made.

Strikingly, this statement features a photograph of Abhay. This too is unprecedented – it is extremely unusual for an underground Maoist leader to openly publicise his image. In another first, the statement also provides his email address and Facebook ID. Initially, many people questioned the legitimacy of this statement – but after an audio clip surfaced, it became evident that Abhay had made the statement himself.

The statement also references Maoist Party general secretary Nambala Keshavrao (Basavaraju), who was reportedly killed in an alleged confrontation with security forces in the Gundekot forests of Abujhmad [2] in May, and advocates for the continuation of the unfinished peace talks proposal he left behind.

There are several elements of this statement that require thorough understanding. However, let us first attempt to understand Abhay and his significance within the Maoist movement.

Who is Abhay?

According to the police and individuals closely monitoring the Maoist movement, Abhay’s real name is Mallojula Venugopal. He is said to be 69 years old. He was born into a Brahmin family in Peddapalli, Telangana [3].

Venugopal, who has been operating underground for roughly 45-50 years since the late 1970s, had an elder brother named Mallojula Koteshwar Rao, also known as ’Kishenji’, who was killed in an alleged encounter in West Bengal in 2011. Both siblings were key members of the Maoist Party’s Central Committee and Politburo for a long period.

Venugopal is regarded as a key strategist in both organisational and ideological matters. Within the party, he is referred to as ’Bhupati’ and ’Sonu’. Following the killing of party spokesperson Cherkuri Rajkumar (Azad) in 2010, Venugopal assumed the role of party spokesperson and has been releasing press statements under the alias ’Abhay’ ever since.

Initially, Venugopal founded the Maoist movement in the Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra and subsequently rose to become the leader of Dandakaranya [4]. He has been a member of the Central Committee for the last 28 years.

In December 2024, Sonu alias Abhay’s wife, Tarakka, along with some of her associates, surrendered to Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis. Photo: Gadchiroli Police/Facebook

In December 2024, Venugopal’s wife Vimala Sidam, also known as Tarakka, surrendered to the Maharashtra Police along with several associates. She stated that her deteriorating health and the increasing attacks by the armed forces compelled her to forsake the path of struggle.

On September 13, Venugopal’s sister-in-law Potula Padmavati, known as Sujatha, who is the wife of Koteswar Rao, also surrendered in Hyderabad at the age of 62. She was a member of the Central Committee.

Dalit leader appointed general secretary of the party; Adivasi commander designated secretary of Dandakaranya

On May 21, an ’encounter’ in Abujhmad resulted in the deaths of 28 cadres, including Maoist Party general secretary Nambala Keshavrao. This incident sparked speculation that Venugopal might ascend to the role of general secretary due to his seniority. However, in the second week of September, reports surfaced indicating that Tippiri Tirupati, also known as Devji, had been appointed as the new general secretary.

Moreover, the renowned commander Hidma has been assigned the position of secretary of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee. Although the Maoist Party has not officially verified this information, a journalist from Chhattisgarh has confirmed it to The Wire.

If the reports about Devji and Hidma’s promotions are accurate, this could have various implications.

Devji, from a Dalit [5] background, was born in the town of Korutla in Telangana, while Hidma, an Adivasi [6], was born in the village of Puvarti in South Bastar [7]. In the nearly 57-year history of the Maoist movement, which originated in Naxalbari village during the late 1960s under the leadership of Charu Majumdar and Kanhai Chatterjee, this marks the first occasion on which a Dalit has attained the highest rank within the party.

Similarly, throughout the 45 years of the ongoing struggle in Dandakaranya since 1980, it is unprecedented for a local Adivasi to assume leadership of the Dandakaranya Committee.

If this information is accurate, it would mean that Devji has been appointed as general secretary whilst circumventing Venugopal and other senior members of the Central Committee. Likewise, within the Dandakaranya Committee, military commander Hidma has been promoted to a higher rank, also bypassing several senior figures.

This development implies that the Maoist Party has prioritised the military front. It may also suggest that the Maoists are planning to counter the government’s commitment to eliminate the movement by March 31 the following year through military strategies.

One possible interpretation of this situation is that the Maoists aim to address criticisms regarding the lack of representation of Dalits and Adivasis in top positions within the party.

One week, two statements, two distinct tones

A recent statement released by the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist) commemorating the party’s 21^st anniversary, read alongside Abhay’s latest remarks, prompts numerous questions.

In fact, it suggests the possibility that the party has split into two factions.

The anniversary statement asserts, “Should the central government cease Operation Kagar [8] and forbid the establishment of armed forces camps in the revolutionary zone, our party remains open to peace negotiations in the broader interest of the populace.”

In stark contrast, Abhay’s statement presents an entirely different viewpoint.

One statement indicates a willingness to engage in peace talks under specific conditions, whereas the essence of Abhay’s statement conveys a readiness to surrender arms unconditionally, provided the government grants them a one-month extension.

Furthermore, another self-critical report attributed to Sonu is gaining traction on social media. This report, composed in Telugu, has not been verified, but it seems to extend the themes of Abhay’s statement. Both Abhay and Sonu are names associated with Venugopal. Regardless of the original author of that report, it provides answers to some questions whilst simultaneously raising many more.

The shroud of uncertainty continues to linger

Following Abhay’s recent statement, several questions persist: does the proposal for a “temporary ceasefire” and the call to “surrender arms” that he has presented as the party spokesperson have the approval of the newly appointed general secretary (assuming he has been elected)?

If the new general secretary is yet to be elected, why is this not clarified in Abhay’s statement, which he makes on behalf of the party in the absence of the general secretary? When he says that only a handful of senior members concur with his proposal, does this imply a lack of consensus or widespread agreement within the party?

Does Hidma, the most prominent commander in the Dandakaranya region, which the Maoists assert is their largest stronghold, and who may now be the secretary of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee, support this proposal? Besides the statement released under spokesperson Abhay’s name, is the self-critical report issued by Politburo member Sonu a collective party document or an individual report?

Why is Venugopal compelled to make personal statements, which contradicts his principle of making joint decisions based on majority consensus? Has he become estranged within the party or the Central Committee? Alternatively, could this indicate that the party is already split into two factions, with Venugopal potentially representing one of the Maoist groups?

Whether the government will respond favourably to this proposal, irrespective of which Maoist faction it originates from, remains uncertain. If the Maoists intend to renounce violence and reintegrate into mainstream society, the obligation to embrace this proposal and facilitate its implementation will lie not only with the government but also with civil society. This situation remains ambiguous.

Furthermore, if the Maoists do surrender, what will they do next? Abhay’s statement indicated, “We will advocate for public issues in collaboration with all political parties and organisations, to the best of our ability, concerning public matters.”

This raises the question: which political parties are they alluding to? Are they referring to leftist parties, or to other parties they have labelled as bourgeois? Or do they aspire to transform their existing party into a legally recognised political entity?

Another question arises: will the issues of Adivasi displacement, water, forest and land rights, the encroachment of corporate entities into forested areas, and the breaches of the PESA Act [9] and other environmental laws continue to be their primary concerns?

These questions will remain unanswered until a statement is released by Devji or Hidma.

Santoshi Markam