Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2011 > From Tirupati to Pashupati: Some Reflections on the Maoist Issue

Mainstream, VOL L, No 1, December 24, 2011 (Annual 2011)

From Tirupati to Pashupati: Some Reflections on the Maoist Issue

Tuesday 27 December 2011




I am not just privileged but also truly humbled to be part of this prestigious lecture series launched a half-century and six years ago by none other than C. Rajagopalachari. Many distinguished personalities have preceded me and this makes me feel all the more honoured to be here this evening.

To say anything about such an indomitable colossus as Sardar Patel, one of our Founding Fathers, would be gratuitous. Often referred to as the “Iron Man” and as the “Bismarck of India”, he was part of the triumvirate which dominated the Indian National Congress and indeed the Indian political landscape for almost three decades. Using this imagery of the trinity, one of his well-known biographers, B. Krishna, wrote: “Gandhi represented Brahma—the creator and inspirer. Nehru reflected Vishnu’s soft, gentle looks, a nobility of character and humanism that transcended barriers of caste and creed. And Patel proved, like Siva, the destroyer and unifier—the builder and consolidator of Modern India.” And in keeping with the modern-day Brahma’s predilections, the destruction was peaceful. During his visit to India in 1955, Nikita Khrushchev is reported to have expressed his amazement at the Sardar’s accomplishments by remarking: “You Indians are an amazing people. How on earth did you manage to liquidate princely rule without liquidating the princes?”

On the Sardar’s death on December 15, 1950, Nehru made an emotional statement in Parliament and described his departed comrade-in-arms as “the builder and consolidator of the new India, a great captain of our forces in the struggle for who gave us sound advice in times of troubles as well as in moments of victory, a friend and colleague on whom one could invariably rely,, a tower of strength which revived wavering hearts when we were in trouble”. The Cabinet resolution of December 16, 1950, drafted by Nehru himself, spoke of his “magnificent talents and abounding energy, his matchless courage, inflexible sense of discipline and genius for organisation”.

Sardar Patel’s contributions go beyond being the cartographer of immediate post-Inde-pendence India. He had a profound impact on our Constitution as well as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas in the Constituent Assembly. Granville Austin, in his classic history of the making of the Indian Constitution, writes: “Nehru and Patel were the focus of power in the (Constituent) Assembly....The blend in the Constitution of idealistic provisions and articles of a practical, administrative and technical nature is perhaps the best evidence of the joint influence of these two men.” None other than Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar himself acknowledged this influence in his famous speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949 when he said: “It is because of the discipline of the Congress Party that the Drafting Committee was able to pilot the Constitution in the Assembly with the sure knowledge as to the fate of each article and each amendment. The Congress Party is, therefore, entitled to all the credit for the smooth sailing of the Draft Constitution in the Assembly.”

Today, India is the largest milk producer in the world and has seen a White Revolution captured memorably in Shyam Benegal’s Manthan. Not many know that it was on entirely on Sardar Patel’s bidding that the Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union was set up in 1946 under the chairmanship of his lieutenant, Tribhuvandas Patel. This was then to spawn the Amul cooperative movement under Dr. V. Kurien’s leadership in Anand.


THE topic of my lecture is “From Tirupati to Pashupati: Some Reflections on the Maoist1 Issue”. The title comes from the popular image in the media that a “liberated” Red corridor is sought to be created extending from Andhra Pradesh to Nepal and cutting across the very heart of India. This has been described by the Prime Minister to be India’s most serious internal security challenge and by the Home Minister to be even graver than the problem of terrorism. Armed communist insurgency is something that the nascent Indian nation-state of which Sardar Patel was the Home Minister confronted in Telangana even as the Constituent Assembly was debating the architecture of our republican democracy founded on adult suffrage and positive discrimination in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The modern-day Maoists see themselves as legatees of this uprising,2 which Sardar Patel dealt with firmly but sensitively.

The phenomenon of Naxal violence has been studied by official committees from time to time. I recall that in the early 1980s, the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, sent a team, headed by the then Member-Secretary of the Planning Commission, to conduct field-level studies of Naxal-affected areas in Bihar and Andhra Pradesh and recommend solutions both for the Centre and the States to adopt. The author of this report is, incidentally, now our Prime Minister. The recommendations were many but the main point made was that urgent and long-festering socio-economic concerns of the weaker sections of society must be addressed meaningfully if the influence of the Naxal groups is to be countered effectively.

More recently, three years ago the Planning Commission published the report of its 17-member expert group on development challenges in extremist-affected areas. And what a group this was. It had all the people you would want for such an exercise, people who have spent a life-time thinking, speaking, writing and working on this subject—people like Debu Bandyopadhyay, S.R. Sankaran K. Balagopal, B.D. Sharma, K.B. Saxena, Ram Dayal Munda, Dileep Singh Bhuria and Sukhadeo Thorat, to name just eight of them. As was only to be expected, the report of this group was extraordinarily detailed. It gave the historical, political, social and economic context to the issue, reviewed the government efforts to deal with the problem and recommended a number of key policy and programme measures and changes to vastly and visibly reduce, if not totally eradicate, the effects of Left-wing extremism in different States. Running into 95 pages, this report may lack the lyrical beauty and sheer poetry, misleading though it may be, of Arundhati Roy’s now famous 33-page essay in Outlook magazine3 but for sheer comprehensiveness and depth of analysis and for showing a practical way ahead it has no peers.

Please permit me to inject a personal note here. As a student of India’s political dynamics I have always had an intellectual interest in this subject, but over the last seven years, my involvement has grown and has become increasingly more direct. First, since 2004, when I became a Member of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh, I have used my MPLADS funds mostly in Adilabad, Warangal and Khammam—three Naxal-affected districts—to strengthen women’s self-help group organisations and reduce the trust deficit between tribal communities and the civil administration. Second, between June 2009 and July 2011, as the Minister in charge of Environment and Forests, it fell on me to bring about changes in forest policy and administration since this has been identified as a key factor in dealing with the issue of Naxal violence. Third, since July 2011, as the Minister in charge of Rural Development covering key programmes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), watershed management, drinking water supply, housing, social assistance and modernisation of land records, an opportunity has been afforded to me to address the development deficit in the Naxal-affected areas that the 17-member Planning Commission expert group so tellingly identified.


BEFORE I go any further on the development route, I wish to pause and reflect on something that the Union Home Minister has so forcefully said on more than one occasion, quite in contrast to his predecessor who described the Naxals as “our wayward and misguided younger brothers” (and I should add increasingly sisters) who have to be gently persuaded and cajoled to give up the cult of violence and wanton killings. Both in Parliament and outside, the present Home Minister has said that on the basis of material gathered from captured Left-wing extremist groups, it is unequivocally clear that their objective is the violent overthrow of the Indian state and that their basic ideology is a complete rejection of parliamentary democracy as enshrined in our Constitution. Knowing the Home Minister as I do, I can attest to the fact that he believes very much in the “developmentalist” approach, the strategy and approach advocated, for instance, by the expert committee of the Planning Commission to which I referred earlier. But he does raise a fundamental point that should not be brushed aside summarily. Of course, the Indian state has confronted many groups in the past that reject its very basis and rationale. And in many cases, these very groups that have fought the might of the Indian state for years have finally come around and become a peaceful part of our polity. I might recall here that in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, Kameshwar Baitha, a top Naxal leader, contested and won on a Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) ticket from Palamau in Jharkhand. Some weeks back in Kolkata the Union Home Minister reiterated that the Centre is ready for unconditional talks with Maoists and all that it is demanding is that they stop violence without necessarily giving up their ideology, surrendering their arms or even disbanding their militias and armies. I cannot think of a fairer offer than this.

It is my good fortune to have two outstanding IAS officers working with me now, both have had the misfortune of being abducted by the Naxals. One was kidnapped in 1987 in Rampachodavaram in East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh along with S.R. Sankaran and kept captive for four days. The other was held hostage for nine days in the Malkangiri district of Orissa. Both the officers are very strong advocates of the S.R. Sankaran approach of development and sensitive governance in tribal areas. But in my continuing conversations with them, two things have emerged. One, the Naxals are exploiting the tribals, and two, the tribals themselves want peace, not war. The Naxals are using the tribal areas and issues for their tactical purposes. The terrain and the forests suit them for guerrilla warfare. They have spread their terror and ensured that the developmental activities are obstructed. The tribal cause, which the Naxals espouse, is only a mask to further their own agenda. The Malkangiri incident is a clear message from the tribals of the region that they want development and not Naxal terror.

What is clear is that we need a two-track approach—one that deals with the leadership of the Naxals, who wish to overthrow the Indian state, and the other, which focuses on the concerns of the people they pretend/claim to serve. There is clearly a need to recognise the tribal populations as victims—first of state apathy and discrimination and then of the Naxal agenda. My firm belief is that a complete revamp of the administration and governance in the tribal areas, especially in central and eastern India, is the pressing need of the hour. Andhra Pradesh has attempted to do this through its ITDA (Integrated Tribal Development Agency) model but much more needs to be done. We must also come to grips with the sad reality that affirmative action programmes like reservations have had a very marginal impact on the welfare of the central and eastern Indian tribal communities.


THE Union Government has identified 60 districts in seven States that are affected by Left-wing extremism. Of these, 15 are in Orissa, 14 in Jharkhand, 10 in Chattisgarh, eight in Madhya Pradesh, seven in Bihar, two each in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, and one each in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. Eighteen more districts are being considered for inclusion. States have said that the “block” and not the district should be the basic unit for identification and I quite agree with this demand. There are a few districts, for instance, Guntur in Andhra Pradesh and Raipur in Chhattisgarh, which are not part of this 60 but where certain blocks are badly affected. I am hopeful that when we get into the Twelfth Five Year Plan from April 2012, we would have made this change from the district to the block.

When you look at these 60 districts on a map of India, five characteristics stand out. I should, however, mention straightaway that the seven districts of Bihar are an exception to these generalisations. Bihar has its own dynamics embedded in caste and land-related structures.

First, an overwhelming majority of these districts have substantial population of tribal communities.

Second, an overwhelming majority of these districts have significant area under good quality forest cover.

Third, a large number of these districts are rich in minerals like coal, bauxite and iron ore.

Fourth, in a number of States, these districts are remote from the seat of power and have large administrative units.

Fifth, a large number of districts are located in tri-junction areas of different States.

Let me make a couple of observations based on personal experience on each of these characteristics.

On the size of administrative units, recently on a visit to Chhattisgarh I discovered that the size of some blocks (like Conta in Dantewada district and Orchha in Narayanpur district and Orgi in Surguja district) was equivalent to the size of some districts in some other States and indeed equivalent to the size of some other States themselves. Given poor connectivity and infrastructure to begin with, this is a huge handicap to contend with by administrators. Rationalisation of administrative units is entirely within the domain and powers of State governments. The Chhattisgarh Government has very recently decided to create five more districts in the Naxal-affected regions of the State and this is a good step.

On the tri-junction nature of these districts, Debu Bandyopadhyay, one of the key adminis-trators responsible for land reforms in West Bengal in the seventies and early eighties, has an interesting story to tell. When I mentioned this dimension to him recently in Kolkata he recalled that this was very much part of Hare Krishna Konar’s considerations while working out the strategy in the early 1960s before the CPM came to power in West Bengal. I was told that Konarbabu focussed on three specific areas as epicentres for class struggles—Naxalbari, Junglemahal and Hasnabad—all three of which are in tri-junction areas. Today the key tri-junction areas are Chhattisgarh-Maharashtra-Andhra Pradesh, Orissa-Chhattisgarh-Andhra Pradesh, Orissa-Jharkhand-Chhattisgarh, Orissa-West Bengal-Jharkhand. The challenge is to quickly improve infrastructure—roads and bridges more specifically—that enables basic developmental activities to be carried out. My own view is that there is no alternative to the Central Government stepping in for financing and executing these tri-junction infrastructure works. It is not happening at the speed at which it is required.

Realising the need for smaller units accompanied by a broader pan-State approach to dealing with the administrative aspect is an important first step to deal with the problem. But the real challenge is how do you transform the administration in the tribal areas so as not only to give people a sense of participation and involvement but, more fundamentally, to preserve and protect their dignity”? How do you prevent or address their continued victimisation, first by the state and now by the Naxals? Empowering the tribals, who are essentially victims, by giving access to basics, by giving them what is theirs by right and by securing their livelihoods is, to my mind, an absolute undiluted must.4 Here, issues related to land ownership and land alienation must receive over-riding priority.

On the minerals issue, the Union Cabinet has very recently approved the repeal of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and its replacement by a new law. This new law will establish a District Mineral Foundation in each of the mineral-rich districts into which will flow every year an amount equal the royalty paid (for minerals other than coal) and equal to 26 per cent of net profits as far as coal is concerned. This works out to something like Rs 10,000 crores annually at present rates to be distributed across the mineral-rich districts which could each get close to Rs 180-200 crores per year. These additional resources are to be used for local infrastructure development and for the welfare of the communities impacted by mining activities. The new law also provides for the approval of local communities before mining concessions are granted and when mine closure plans are implemented.

On the forests dimension of the Naxal-affected districts, I took five major initiatives when I was at the MoE&F. First, State Government-executed physical and social infrastructure works requiring less than five hectares each of forest land to be exempted from the approval processes of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 as also the need for compensatory afforestation. Second, amendments were approved to Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 that not only raise the monetary limits to which offences could be compounded but also ensure that local forest officials can lodge cases only after the written consent of the gram sabha. Third, a beginning was made in Menda-Lekha village of Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra to transfer control of the transit pass book for bamboo—the most important NTFP (non-timber forest produce)—from the Forest Department to the gram sabha5. Fourth, an expert review of the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 was initiated along with the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and specific reform measures identified including a sharper focus on the recognition and granting of community, as opposed to just indi-vidual rights. Fifth, the idea of a Central minimum support price (MSP) for 12 major items of NTFP, coupled with the removal of all purchase monopolies, was taken up with the Planning Commission and Finance Ministry. These initiatives must be taken forward. More than anything else, I firmly believe that a completely transformed forest administration lies at the very core of an effective anti-Naxal strategy.

Regarding the tribal nature of the Naxal-affected districts, much has been said about the pivotal role that the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (known popularly as PESA, 1996) can play in fulfilling the aspirations of people in a manner by which they are fully involved and empowered. However, even after fifteen years, the Act has yet to be translated into reality primarily because of the reluctance of the States and also because of the reluctance of the Centre to invoke its provisions to take on a more direct and active (and activist) role in the Schedule V areas. There continues to be considerable divergence of opinion on whether “consultations” with the gram sabha, as envisaged in the legislation, is adequate or whether there should, in fact, be “prior informed consent” before the start of development projects. Furthermore, I am convinced that implementing PESA in an environment where the local administration is dominated by disinterested and always-ready-to-leave non-tribal personnel will just not have any positive impacts. The technical and organisational capacity of the panchayati raj institutions has to be built up urgently.

One important administrative innovation introduced by the Central Government in these 60 districts is to give untied funds to a troika comprising the Collector/District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the District Forest Officer. In 2010-11, a sum of Rs 25 crores was released to each district and in 2011-12 another Rs 30 crores will be released. The idea is that the triumvirate representing the face of the Indian state as it were would be in a position to identify critical developmental works that could be taken up and completed quickly so that the people begin to see the government in a completely new light. These works cover ashram schools, anganwadi centres, drinking water schemes and roads. This has spurred unprecedented development activity in these districts and it is interesting to note that none of the works taken up so far has been the target of Naxal attacks. This initiative should continue on an expanded scale but the challenge will be to give a role to elected representatives and local elected institutions in the selection and execution of works without, of course, losing its essence—which is flexibility and speed of execution.


IN my current ministerial assignment, I consider the PMGSY to be the single-most important rural development intervention that can significantly transform the ground-level situation in the LWE-affected districts. This is not to minimise the importance of other programmes but the PMGSY stands apart. The first target of the Naxals is roads; that is why PMGSY works are severely lagging in the LWE-affected districts. Some innovations have been made to maximise the involvement of local contractors, for instance. But there have been frequent instances of these contractors being killed. Some degree of security cover by para-military agencies like the CRPF will be essential to expedite the PMGSY works. But we have a long way to go.

There are 25 districts out of the 60 LWE-affected districts where the expenditure levels are lower than the overall national average. And within these 25, there is a core of 10 districts where the expenditure levels are lower than the average for the LWE-districts themselves. These to me appear to be the districts where Naxal activity is most intense. These ten districts are Bijaipur, Narayanpur and Dantewada in Chhattisgarh, Gadchiroli in Maharashtra, Khammam in Andhra Pradesh, Lohardaga, Gumla, Latehar and Simdega in Jharkhand and Malkangiri in Orissa. It is here that we need the synergy between the security forces and implementing agencies on the ground in order to speed up connectivity without which nothing else worthwhile is really possible.

We have estimated that in order to complete all the PMGSY works covering habitations with a population of 250 to 500 in these 60 LWE-affected districts about Rs 15,000 crores will be needed. Another Rs 19,000 crores will be needed to complete road connectivity to habitations with population of less than 250. In addition, we will need additional funds to complete small and minor bridges (unlinked with the PMGSY roads per se) which have an importance of their own in these LWE-affected districts. I am optimistic that these resources will be forthcoming—the challenge really will be to ensure project completion in the next three-four years at most. We need a renewed sense of urgency and a “get-it-done” attitude. And we are battling huge odds. One small bridge—the one-kilometre Gurupriya bridge—that is crucial to fighting Naxalism in the Malkangiri district in Orissa has been talked about for almost three decades and it still remains to be constructed.

Along with PMGSY, I consider interventions to ensure the speedy settlement of land-related disputes to be high priority in the LWE-affected districts. In many places, the ability of the Naxal cadres to mete out “instant justice” has given them a foothold and acceptance amongst the people at large. Here I recall my personal experience some years back. When I first went to Adilabad in 2004, I met a feisty Gond lady called Mankubai whose land had been usurped by outsiders and she had been fighting her case with the government and judiciary for over two decades. I immediately mobilised some young lawyers who, working under the aegis of the State Government’s Society for the Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), were able to get Mankubai’s land restored to her. That experience is still fresh in my memory and that is why I am now proposing to support the establishment of paralegal assistance centres in all the LWE-affected districts. These centres would document all cases of land alienation and work for the restoration of lands to their rightful owners, mostly tribals.


THE might of the Indian state is in the Naxal-affected areas. Seventyone battalions of Central paramilitary forces, amounting to some 71,000 personnel, have been deployed. They have a vital role to play in backing the State Police and in developmental activities. The Collector of LWE-affected Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh told me recently how the presence and approach of the CRPF in the area had a considerable psychological impact enabling villagers to come out in large numbers to seek employment under the MGNREGA. But let us be clear, paramilitary and police action cannot and should not be the driving force. The driving force has necessarily to be development and addressing the daily concerns of the people, of people who have every reason to feel alienated. Massive reform of the police and the forest administration at the cutting edge is the need of the hour. A more humane policy of land acquisition with focus on effective rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) is the need of the hour. I think it was Walter Fernandes, the noted sociologist, who estimated that over 50 million people in central and eastern India have been displaced over the past five decades due to developmental projects. R&R for very large numbers of people has yet to be completed. Worse, there are large numbers of tribals who have been subjected to repeated displacements. It is not the Naxals who have created the ground conditions ripe for the acceptance of their ideology—it is the singular failure of successive governments both in States and the Centre, to protect the dignity and constitutional rights of the poor and disadvantaged that has created a fertile breeding ground for violence and given the Naxals space to speak the language of social welfare but in reality use that as a cloak to construct their guerrilla bases and recruit, most tragically, women and children in large numbers.


SO where do we go from here? Let us not underestimate the seriousness of the threat we are faced with. I, for one, do not believe that a “developmentalist” strategy alone, so eloquently advocated by the Planning Commission’s Expert Group, will do. I also do not believe that a strategy based on the primacy of paramilitary and police action will yield long-term results. The two must go hand-in-hand deriving strength from each other. We are combating not just a destructive ideology but are also confronted with the wages of our own insensitivity and neglect, especially insofar as the central Indian tribal population is concerned. Simply put, we need to rise above partisan political conside-rations and set aside old Centre-versus-State arguments and work concertedly to restore the people’s faith in the administration to be fair and just, to be prompt and caring, to be prepared to redress the injustices of the past, and to be both responsible and responsive in future. Only then will the tide of Naxalism be stemmed.


I started by paying tribute to Sardar Patel’s enduring achievements. Let me end by recalling two other dimensions of his personality, which somehow have not received the attention they deserve. First, was his sense of fairness. He was tough and uncompromising but, at the same time, large-hearted. Nothing captures this better than his exchange with the Nawab of Bhopal who wrote to him in August 1947: “I do not disguise the fact that while the struggle was on, I used every means in my power to preserve the independence of my state. Now that I have conceded defeat, I hope you will find that I can be as staunch a friend as I have been an inveterate opponent.” Patel’s reply was quick: “I do not look upon the accession of your state as either a victory or defeat for you. It is only right and propriety that have triumphed at the end, and in that triumph you and I have played our respective roles. Second, was his devastating sense of humour. He comes across as a stern, serious, and single-minded individual, which he undoubtedly was. But he had a deadly wit as well, perhaps surpassed only by Sarojini Naidu in that remarkable generation of men and women. The distinguished diplomat, K.P.S. Menon, records in his autobiography a discussion that took place in 1950 on Goa in which Sardar Patel wanted quick action saying that it was just two hours work to liberate it from Portuguese rule but Nehru resisted the suggestion saying that it would create international complications. Menon reports that Sardar Patel remarked to a friend that Nehru was proving himself to be not merely the political heir of Mahatma Gandhi but a lineal descendant of Gautama Buddha! And those of you who think that only Nehru was his target, consider this gem from Krishna’s biography. Making fun of Gandhi’s preference for using baking soda in almost every drink, Sardar Patel would offer a solution to a difficult problem with the humourous remark—soda dalo na.

Thank you.

[Text of the author’s Sardar Patel Memorial Lecture, organised by Prasar Bharati, New Delhi, October 13, 2011]


1. Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, I use the terms Naxal, Maoist and Left-wing Extremist (LWE) interchangeably. Some academics use the term “Naxals”, while others use “Maoists”. The Government of India uses “Left-wing extremists“.
2. The top leadership of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) comprising its Polit-Bureu and the Central Committee is dominated by people from Andhra Pradesh.
3. March 29, 2010.
4. In this connection, it is useful to recall how the broadly similar Shining Path guerilla movement in Peru was ended. Hernando de Soto has argued that by granting titles to small coca farmers in the two main coca-growing areas, the Shining Path cadres were deprived of their safe haven, recruits and money.
5. The Indian Express of September 26, 2011 reported that the village earned Rs 1 crore revenue from bamboo sales through a transparent and independent tendering process, nearly 150 per cent more than what the Forest Department raised in a neighbouring village recently.

The author is the Union Minister for Rural Development.

First Edition

The Saffron Condition

Politics of Repression and Exclusion in Neoliberal India
By Subhash Gatade

Paperback; x+478; Pub. Date: September 2011; ISBN: 978-81-88789-75-7; Dimensions: 8.5 in x
5.5 in; Rs 500


Subhash Gatade focuses on the Right-wing thrust in Indian polity during the first decade of the 21st century. His writings show that the ultra-Right and Hindu nationalist political formations may have temporarily lost out in the race to retain governmental power at the Centre and may appear in disarray, but the agenda of the RSS-sponsored Hindutva project for the Hindu Rashtra is very much in the reckoning and enjoys widespread State complicity. The impact of neo-liberalism and majoritarianism and their consequences for democracy and human rights are meticulously documented. Above all, he shows what happens when dreams are deferred. No concerned citizen or student of contemporary India can afford to miss reading this book.

The essays in this book are organised in three sections:

1. Saffronisation and the Neoliberal State

2. Logic of Caste in New India

3. State and Human Rights

About the author

Subhash Gatade is a well-known journalist, Left-wing thinker and human rights activist. He edits Sandhan, a Hindi journal, and is author of Pahad Se Uncha Admi, a book on Dasrath Majhi for children, and Nathuram Godse’s Heirs: The Menace of Terrorism in India. )]

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.