From Global Causes to Local Realities: Terrorism in India with Reference to Kashmir and the Naxalite Movement

Abstract

This paper focuses specifically on terrorism in India, with particular reference to Kashmir insurgency and the Naxalite (Maoist) movement, examining the structural, political and socio-economic factors that contributed to the emergence of these insurgent groups. 

The study is further situated within two principal theoretical lenses identified by Jeff Goodwin: the traditional perspective, which conceptualizes terrorism as a “weapon of the weak”, and the radicalization perspective. In addition, the paper critically reviews the work of prominent scholars whose analysis highlights diverse motivational factors. 

Building on this framework, it also identifies and analyses the principal causes underlying the Kashmir insurgency, highlighting political marginalization, cross-border influence, identity-based grievances, the legacy of the unresolved 1947 Partition dispute, and the impact of Hindutva politics have shaped the trajectory of conflict in the region. 

Extending this analysis, the paper examines the Naxalite Movement (Maoist) movement, tracing its roots to socio-economic inequalities, agrarian exploitation and the persistent marginalization of tribal communities, alongside the ideological influence of contested claims regarding external (particularly Chinese) involvement.

However, in reference to the Kashmir insurgency and the Naxalite (Maoist) movement, Terrorism in India cannot be narrowly confined to religious extremism alone. Rather, it must be understood as the outcome of intersecting structural, ideological and political factors. India’s complex geopolitical location and its history entrenched conflicts have further vulnerabilities in the internal security framework. In light of these findings, it’s important for the enforcement of inclusive governance, credible institutions and sustained socio-economic development to address root causes that perpetuate conflict and instability instead of militarization. 

1. Introduction

What are the causes and consequences of terrorism in India with reference to the Kashmir insurgency and Naxalite movement today? India, like many other countries around the world, has suffered several terrorist attacks over the last two decades. In this research paper, I aim to explore some of the factors that contribute to the rise of terrorism, and to examine its consequences on domestic politics and foreign relations. 

Terrorism has emerged as one of the most persistent and complex challenges in contemporary states, particularly in developing democracies such as India. Several studies identify socio-economic disparities, political exclusion, regional imbalances and perceived injustice as certain factors contributing to the emergence of terrorism. In this model, terrorism is often conceptualized not merely as indiscriminate violence, but as a strategic instrument employed by non-state actors.

Two prominent theoretical perspectives can help in contextualizing the phenomenon. The traditional view portrays terrorism as the “weapon of the weak”, suggesting that downtrodden groups resort to asymmetric violence and in contrast, the radical perspective interprets terrorisms as part of a wider process of escalating political violence, where ideological mobilization, identity-based politics and structured inequalities over the time.

This study points out two major challenges that have continued to shape India’s territorial security landscape: the Kashmir conflict and the Naxalite (left wing extremist) movement. The Kashmir issue represents a multifaceted conflict rooted in historical disputes, regional aspirations and cross-border interactions. Motivations which link to terrorism in this region include separatist aspirations, the influence of global jihadist movement, ideological divergences, perceived political marginalization, etc.

Arising from the 1960s in Naxalbari village of West Bengal, the Naxalite movement reflects a different but also an important form of political violence. Emerging from a radical communist ideology, the movement initially mobilized marginalized rural populations around issues of land redistribution, class exploitation and state neglect

By examining these two cases, this paper seeks to address our central research question: What are the principal causes of terrorism in India? Through a critical analysis of structural conditions, ideological motivations and state responses, the study aims to contribute to an understanding of terrorism as a product of intersecting political, economic and identity-centric factors. This study examines these two cases and offers policy recommendations. 

2. Defining Terrorism

It is important first to define the concept of “terrorism” before addressing my main research question. Terrorism is a highly contested term, and there is no common argument among the scholars on how to define it. However, the purposes of this paper, is to define terrorism in line with Goodwin (2019): “any tactic or set of tactics used by any government, group, organization, or individual, in pursuit of a political goal (broadly defined), which is intended to kill or harm civilians or noncombatants (as opposed to soldiers or political leaders) so as to frighten, intimidate, demoralize, provoke, or pressure other civilians and/or political leaders.” In short, this definition prioritizes that terrorism is primarily about the harming of civilians in order to intimidate others for political ends.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW: CAUSES OF TERRORISM

The section reviews literature on the causes of terrorism, highlighting two major arguments: one links to individual factors like religious fundamentalism and psychological traits while other traces to political marginalization and socio-economic inequalities and ethnic divisions. 

3.1 Individual-Level Explanations: Ideology and Psychology

To start with the first argument, older literature tends to emphasize that terrorists- were motivated by ideology, psychological predispositions, or religious fundamentalism (especially Islamic fundamentalism) (Pape 2003; Kramer 1990; Merari 1990; Post 1990). 

However, Pape (2003) argues that modern day terrorist attacks have not just limited to religious fundamentalists or to isolated men with certain psychological variations, but he gives the example of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), a group which recruited individuals who were Hindu Tamils but who were inclined towards Marxist ideology.

3.2 Structural and Political Explanations

The second type of argument focuses on some social grievances for example: political – and not religious, or individual psychological – motives of the terrorists. It has highlighted the motives i.e., to achieve specific political motives, change the policies in favour of them, to get financial backing (Crenshaw 2012; Abrahms 2008; Goodwin 2019). Crenshaw (2012) argues that violent acts are intentional political and strategic choices, rather than the inevitable result of social or psychological factors. In her view, terrorism functions as a “weapon of the weak,” used by actors who lack conventional means to influence government policy. Groups such as Euskadi ta Askatasuna (ETA) in Spain and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) in Northern Ireland have used violence to pursue ethnic and religious rights Abrahms (2008) similarly argues that terrorism is the last and only resort for some groups to achieve their political goals.

Although the act of suicide terrorism might be irrational on an individual level. Thomas Schelling (1996) may have called it “the rationality of irrationality” – that is, the individual dies but the group is able to strategically demonstrate to the audience that it is serious about its political goals (Pape 2003). Terrorist groups are more likely to use suicide terrorism when there is a possibility of changing public opinion in favour them (i.e., in democracies). In the words of Boix and Rosato (2001): “The target state of every modern suicide campaign has been a democracy. The United States, France, Israel, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Russia were all democracies when they were attacked by suicide terrorist campaigns, even though the last three became democracies more recently than the others.” Crenshaw (2012) similarly argues that terrorists do not just target communist regimes, but also target democracies.

Terrorism is closely linked to social and political conditions that create exclusions and injustice, which can be explained by some contextual examples on socio-political grievances. For example, when a minority group feels isolated in their own homeland, it forces them to retaliate or harm the civilians of their own nation or others. To make it clearer, we can take the example of attacks on Muslim community in India whether in Kashmir, Ayodhya or Godra Kand, which scorn the wounds of the neighbouring states which led to 26/11.  In short, historical rifts are also the causes which never cure the wounds of the nation. 

According to Edward Newman (2006) “These conditions-such as poverty, demographic factors, social inequality and exclusion, dispossession, and political grievances can be either permissive or direct.” This shows how terrorism is directly linked with environmental factors which degenerates the equality, rights and dignity of a human being. Ongoing social inequality and exclusion contribute to perception of injustice, while political grievances and dispossession weaken trust in state institutions. 

Furthermore, Terrorism is closely linked with the failures of human securities which can be understood as a consequence of insecurity and modernization where marginalized individuals resort to violence due to lack of opportunities and social breakdown for which O’Neill (2002) says, “human insecurity, broadly understood, provides the enabling conditions for terrorism to flourish”. As a result, insecurity of a human leads to its action which might harm the community. Also, terrorism is considered as the last resort to accomplish their needs and desires when peaceful methods don’t pay off. To understand with a few examples: Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen, Georgia, Pakistan. Somalia- which are the fundamental core of the operations conducted by the groups all over the world because of poverty.

In accordance with earlier explanations, this perspective offers a different account of the causes of terrorism. As per Martha Crenshaw (2012), she firstly makes a point on Modernization which creates a link between the individuals via easy transportations and communications.   Urbanization is one of the best tools which comes under modernization, as it increases the number of mobility and accessibility of targets and methods, which she termed as “urban guerilla warfare”, which was seen in Latin America in the 1960s.

This approach indicates that terrorism is not just driven by ideology or political grievances but is also shaped by structural transformations in society. Processes such as modernization and urbanization create environments that increase connectivity, mobility and the concentration of targets, thereby making terrorist strategies more feasible. 

4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Theoretical framework explain terrorism through two perspectives- first is Traditional theory, finds terrorism as “the product of weakness and/or desperation of some rebel or state (a ‘weapon of the weak’)” when there is a lack of capacity in pressurizing their opponent by their non-violent or conventional acts. The second, The Radicalization Perspective, which believes that “not all radicals may be terrorists, but all terrorists are radicals”. Radicalization is understood as “a process leading towards increased use of political violence”. Both theories ultimately points to a common goal i.e. Political motives. (Jeff Goodwin, 2019). Together, these perspectives indicate that terrorism is not merely a tactical choice but also a political constructed strategy shaped by both opportunities. 

5. INDIAN TERRORISM LANDSCAPES

This section focuses on the insurgencies faced by India.  India is a secular and multicultural nation. Since 1947, conflicts with Pakistan have led to wars. The Kashmir dispute emerged after the 1947 Instrument of Accession, leading to prolonged conflict between India and Pakistan. But India is not just facing such insurgencies by Pakistan, internal insurgencies continue which harm the peace and harmony of the nation. Apart from Kashmir related issues there is another big issue, i.e. The Naxalite or Maoist movement began in 1969 in Naxalbari and spread across states.

5.1 On Kashmir Conflict

Historical Background

The Kashmir dispute emerged during the 1947 partition of British India. Princely states were permitted to join either country. Jammu and Kashmir, ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, had a Muslim-majority population but was governed by a Hindu ruler who initially attempted to remain independent. In October 1947, tribal fighters from Pakistan entered the region, prompting the Maharaja to seek military assistance from India, leading to the first war between India and Pakistan. This conflict was referred to the United Nations, which called for a ceasefire and proposed a plebiscite to allow Kashmir to determine their future. Unfortunately, the plebiscite was never conducted and the region was divided. In Curfewed Night, Basharat Peer presents this history as lived trauma. The memoir briefly outlines the unfulfilled promise of self-determination. Rather than analysing diplomatic negotiations, the book highlights how unresolved political conflict translated into militarization, curfews and insecurities in the Kashmir Valley. Having outlined the historical foundations of the dispute, the discussion now moves to the factors that have shaped the rise and continuity of militant violence in Kashmir. 

Drivers of the Kashmir insurgency

Many possible motives can be drawn for attacks in India, which is provided by K. Alan. Kronstadt (2008, pg. 6), according to some reports, radical Islamic sentiments play a crucial role, as radicals wanted a certain revenge for their Indian Muslim community in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh- 1992 and at Godra, Gujarat- 2002. And it is known that the radicals were inspired by Al-Queda’s brand of global jihadi ideology.  Some views indicate LeT has aimed for Kashmir’s separatism as their primary goal.  The Kashmir problem is related to the state’s claim by which state, which was very clearly demarcated since 1947. By military, Line of Control separated Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan which controlled Azad Kashmir. Secretary Rice has speculated that the goal of the attackers was “probably to stir up trouble between Pakistan and India.” 

Terrorism violence in India cannot be explained by a single ideology; it results from the interaction of religious radicalization, geopolitical rivalries and unresolved territorial disputes. The Kashmir conflict and India-Pakistan tensions provide a strategic environment where extremist groups try to internationalize the issue and escalation between the two states. Thus, terrorism also functions as a strategic tool to influence regional politics.

In line with Shivaji Khemnar (2018), there are ethno-nationalist terrorism, religious terrorism, left wing terrorism, Narco terrorism. Roots of massive terrorism in India, are various in ideology, poverty, regional imbalance, strong worship about religion. India suffers attacks from Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. 

Following this, Vani. K. Borooah (December 2008), provided some factual data of the attacks held in Kashmir. Over the period of 1998-2004, 784 terrorist incidents in India which resulted in 3008 deaths, and 61% of them and 55% of casualties occurred in Jammu and Kashmir alone. Apart from native-born terrorism, Kashmir conflict has attracted Al-Qaeda who have viewed this as a large part of Islamic strategy. A pamphlet titled “Why are we waging jihad” by Lashkar-e-Taiba includes the spread Islam in every corner of India. (Haleen 2004; Borooah 2008). Islamist groups were responsible for 126 attacks out of which 12 were suicidal attacks, out of which 6 were by Lashkar-e-Taiba, 2 were by Al-Mansurian (LeT) and 2 were by Jaish-e-Mohammad.

This is important statistical evidence which shows the concentration of terrorist incidents in J&K, the analysis largely focuses on quantitative data and military group involvement. Hence, the data highlights the scale and external linkages of terrorism. 

The Kashmir revolt is traced from the middle class and their frustration as it lacks employment opportunities (Sumit Ganguly; Prem Shankar Jha). Why do democratic political systems tend to experience higher incidents of terrorist attacks? 

It is explained in the lines “The growth of political assertiveness of minority communities in democratic states is virtually inevitable. As minorities acquire increased literacy and education, they will become more conscious of their political rights and will seek to assert them. Nondemocratic, poly-ethnic states can suppress minority demands for political participation through co-optation, coercion, or repression.” (Sumit Ganguly, 1996). 

Hence, this argument can be interpreted as rising awareness and mobilization especially among educated minorities– can create pressures that political institutions struggle to manage. However, this explanation may overemphasize political participation as a cause of terrorism, while underestimating other factors such as regional, external support to militant groups and state responses. Thus, democratic openness may create space for dissent, but it does not necessarily make democratic the only and primary cause for terrorism. 

Terrorism cannot be explained solely in terms of social and political factors; rather politics plays a crucial role in shaping and concealing issues that are deliberately prevented from being revealed. In Kashmir there are 3-way perspectival divisions: Hindus in Jammu, Buddhist in Ladakh and Muslims in Kashmir and it has created a paradigm that Kashmir is Muslim and is Anti-National. It gives a reflection of the Kashmiris struggle “against India’s brutalities”, where they were illegally detained, tortured, imprisoned and exploited. 

Under the governance of NDA, ideology of Hindutva was followed and spread in Kashmir without considering Muslims in Kashmir, which has resulted in the rise of attack frequency.

Hindutva-driven political strategies have indirectly increased tensions in Kashmir by making many Muslims feel excluded and unheard. Debates around Article 370 and 35A, along with efforts to fully integrate the region have added to this feeling of insecurity. At the same time, the growing support between Hindu nationalist groups and some Kashmiri Pandits has deepened divisions. These tensions and grievances are used by militant groups, which keep the cycle of conflict and violence going. (Mridu Rai, 2019)

Her focus is on political narratives, identity politics, and ideological agendas- particularly debates around Article 370 and 35A- which has shaped perspectives of marginalization in Kashmir. However, this argument primarily emphasizes the role of Bhartiya Janta Party and Hindutva politics. Nevertheless, political factors play a significant role, since politics shapes governance and national decisions-making which remains crucial in understanding terrorism and instability. 

The BJP’s Kashmir Policy: Continuity and Change from Vajpayee to Modi

While the Kashmir conflict is often explained through historical, social and security-related factors, political dynamics also constitute a significant dimension, as political parties frequently shape policies and narratives in alignment with their ideological orientations and strategic interests. 

In line with Mridu Rai (2019) there are 2 eras of the BJP government, which depicts the conditions in the Kashmir valley since the 1990s. According to the report, since 1990 Kashmir has experienced less governance in the conventional sense and more population control enforced through fear and violence. The passage further argues that the Indian state under the Modi government has intensified this security-oriented approach, framing it within the ideological vision of the Hindu Rashtra.

It presents a comparative analysis of the BJP under Atal Bihari Vajpayee and under Narendra Modi, particularly in relation to Kashmir and Pakistan. It suggests that Vajpayee’s tenure represented a relatively peaceful phase in India’s Kashmir policy. Vajpayee included this approach in the slogan “Insaaniyat, Jamhooriyat aur Kashmiriyat”, signalling a framework attached with humanity, democratic process and recognition of Kashmir identity.

In contrast, the Modi government has described as adopting a more assertive and militarised way toward Pakistan. Public celebration of “surgical strikes” and repeated warnings of retaliations show increased aggression. This external posture is said to be mirrored internally in Kashmir, where stronger security measures have been justified in the name of countering cross-border terrorism. 

 It argues that organisationally, the BJP has undergone significant transformation since 2014. While centralized under Vajpayee, but more monolithic under Modi’s leadership, with reduced space for internal dissent and increased subordination of regional leadership to central command. Since 2014, the author suggests, incidents of hostility and violence against such groups have been more visible. 

Cross-border Militancy in Jammu & Kashmir

Numerous attacks in Kashmir are observed, like Mumbai Train Blast (2006), Mumbai Attack 26/11(2008), Mumbai Bombing (2011), Pathankot Airbase Attack (2016), Uri Attack (2016), Pulwama Attack (2019), Bengaluru Attack (2023), Pahalgam Attack (2025). 

The most recent Pahalgam attack (22nd April 2025), which resulted in the death of 27 security personnel and injury to over 40 civilians (Adil, Sohail & Farid, 2025).  Pahalgam was a core of tourism along with the transit point for Annual Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage, which was then considered as the attack on for both its scale and its symbolism. By the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, Pakistan’s military group Lashkar-e-Taiba was accused of this insurgency. (Tanveer, 2025). This time India retaliated with fearlessness by its operation named “Operation Sindoor” on 7 May 2025.

The paragraph concludes with the call of, that Kashmir has been called by Arundhati Roy, a ‘real theatre of unspeakable violence and moral corrosion.’ (Muhammad Feyyaz 2019). Geopolitics plays a significant role with all events happening in and around the world. Geography is what stabilizes or destabilizes a nation’s security and development. Pakistan’s desire to cover Kashmir in its territory is not just in the interest of Islamic fundamentalism, instead, its geographical, hydrological and strategic factors. It is important for Pakistan to maintain a powerful position in Kashmir, essentially for water security and advantageous position against India.  

Repercussions of Armed insurgency

Since 1947, this prolonged conflict in Jammu and Kashmir has had wide- ranging impacts beyond security. It has led to environmental damage, economic decline (majorly tourism), has disrupted education and regular life, along with serious mental health issues as per Dr. Mushaq Margoob, Professor & Head, Post Graduate Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, Srinagar. Taken together, these have weakened the region’s social and economic stability. Overall, terrorism has deeply affected Kashmir’s development and the life-style of the people. 

5.2 THE NAXALITE (Maoist) MOVEMENT

Historical Background and Origins

After examining the conflict in Kashmir, it is equally important to turn to another major internal security challenge persisting in India–the Naxalite Movement. The Naxalite movement, also known as Maoist insurgency in India, originated in 1967 in the village of Naxalbari in West Bengal as a radical peasant uprising against those land inequalities and exploitative agrarian structures. Inspired by Maoist ideology and the principles of the armed revolution, the movement sought to challenge what is known as a semi-feudal and oppressive state system. The movement was ideologically influenced by revolutionary doctrine linked with Mao Zedong and political development in China during the 1960s. However, this was largely evolved as a domestically rooted response to socio-economic inequalities, tribal marginalization and governance deficit within India. Initially driven by demands for land redistribution and social justice for marginalized communities–which then gradually expanded into the central and eastern parts of Indian states, forming what is often referred to as the “Red Corridor”. Over the period of time, the movement evolved from localized agrarian resistance into an organized armed insurgency. Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence studies and Analysis (2010) states that the Naxalite movement was driven by radical Marxist- Leninist ideology which led to the formation of the CPI (M-L). Multiple internal challenges seen in: the Central-Eastern area (Red Corridor), North-East India by groups like NSCN & ULFA. (Aditya Dasgupta, Kishor Gawande and Devesh Kapoor; 2017)

Understanding the structural and immediate causes that helps in the emergence and persistence of this movement becomes essential to comprehend its relevance in India’s internal security landscapes. 

Structural and Socio-Economic Determinants

In 2008, Prime Minister-Manmohan Singh described Naxalism as “the greatest threat to our internal security”. The pace of the Naxalite movement suggests not merely state incapacity, but deeper structural contradiction within India’s developmental model, has been the driving force to such insurgent acts. While the Indian state pursued parliamentary democracy and economic modernization, large parts of rural and tribal populations remained excluded from land reforms, political representation, and access to justice. 

In line with European Foundation for South Asian Studies Publications: Naxalbari, the village that gave its name to the movement, was the site of the peasant revolt, started by communist leaders against owners of the state. The Naxalbari uprising was not a mere reason for agrarian anger but an ideological rupture within Indian communism. It marked a rejection of parliamentary gradualism and signalled the re-emergence of revolutionary violence as a legitimate political instrument among sections of the left. Members of Communist Party of India (Maoist), notably Charu Majumdar, Kanu Sanyal and Jangal Santhal who initiated this movement. Drawing inspiration from Maoist ideology, these leaders advocated a strategy of long armed struggle aimed at overthrowing the existing socio-economic order through agrarian revolution. The uprising reflected a vision articulated by the so-called “Siliguri Group”, which called for a militant path to political transformation. The formation of CPI in 1925 institutionalized communist ideology in India drawing inspiration from the global Marxist-Leninist movements and adapting them to the colonial Indian context. In its early years, the CPI was committed to a Marxist-inspired mass revolution but later faced internal and external pressures that reshaped its strategy. In 1951, after consultations with Stalin- who advised participation in democratic politics rather than armed revolt–the CPI reconsidered its revolutionary path. The ideological reshaping laid the groundwork for subsequent fractions within the left movement ultimately which contributed to the emergence of radical Maoist. Disillusionment with the CPI’s gradual and pro-soviet orientation- particularly its commitment to parliamentary democracy and perceived abandonment of revolutionary militancy–led to the break away at the Seventh Party Congress in Calcutta. The CPI-M thus emerged as a distinct political formation that rejected what it characterized as soviet “revisionism” and aimed to reaffirm a more orthodox and militant Marxist line, drawing ideological inspiration from the Chinese Communist model. 

Naxalite emerged as a radical response to deep rooted socio-economic inequalities. Its primary causes according to Sanjay Seth (1995), were as follows: The very first is, Structural Contradictions of Capitalist Development- Capitalist expansion generates contradictions between socialized productionand private appropriation leading to crises which intensify exploitation and weaken legitimacy, creating conditions for resistance.Second is seen as the Formation and Organization of the Proletariat- capitalist modernization concentrates workers in the factories and cities, fostering class solidarity and collective resistance and also creates a basis for revolutionary mobilization. Moving forward, Marxist Reorientation towards Peasant Agency in ‘Backward’ Societies- Marxist revolutionary theory shifts emphasis to peasant agency in backward societies, viewing peasant struggles against feudalism as a key driver for revolutionary change.Along with that Gap between Consciousness and Marxist Political Objectives- Peasant resistance, shaped by local and traditional identities, which differ from Marxist class ideology, creating a gap that leads to ideological tensions. In addition to the initial factors, Misrecognition of Peasant Subjectively by Communist Parties- where communist parties misread peasant consciousness, projecting revolutionary intent, leading to a strategic and ideological disconnect. And last but not the least, Instrumentalization of Peasant Struggles by Vanguard Parties- communist parties often used peasant struggles for their own goals, directing movements beyond peasants’ intent, leading to dissatisfaction.

While Sanjay Seth highlights contradictions between peasant consciousness and Marxist political objectives, the Naxalite movement demonstrates how ideology and lived experience interact dynamically rather than mechanically. Peasant resistance in India was not purely “false consciousness” nor fully revolutionary; rather, it evolved through local grievances–land alignment, state repression and caste hierarchies–that were gradually reframed within Maoist political language. Thus, the movement’s radicalization can be understood as a process of ideological translation.  

It follows that the persistence of Naxalite exposes the gap between India’s procedural democracy and substantive socio-economic justice, particularly in marginalized regions such as Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Governance failures, extractive development and weak reforms lead the insurgent appeal, framing it as internal security issues. The growth of Naxalism reflects deeper structural inequalities in India’s development model rather than only a security issue.              

Integrated approaches to mitigate Naxalite insurgency

Although the Naxalite insurgency has emerged from the multiple structural and socio-economic causes discussed above, the Indian government has also introduced several strategies to mitigate the movement. In line with Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (April, 2010) The Government of India, has adopted a two-pronged strategy, to address Naxalism, combining security measures and governance interventions.The government set up an Empowered Group of Ministers, a Coordination Centre, and a special task force to improve coordination. It focused on a Law-and-Order Approach through police modernization and long-term deployment of centre forces, with the centre bearing costs (around  ₹1,100 crore) to support states. Another approach the government adopted is Social Integration Approach, focusing on development through schemes like the Backward District initiative and BRGF, allocating funds to affected areas. It also implemented state-level support and infrastructure programs like PMGSY to improve living conditions and reduce Naxal influence. 

Sino- Maoist connections

After examining the internal causes and state responses to Naxalite insurgency, it also becomes important to assess whether external factors contribute to these insurgent activities. This analysis helps determine whether policy responses should extend beyond domestic measures to include broader strategic and foreign policy considerations. 

There are two principal stands of argument, one contends that China has no involvement with Naxalite or Maoist movement in India, while the other claims that China bears responsibility for supporting or facilitating these insurgencies.

First argument notes, Maoist groups’ linkages with militant, Northeast insurgent, and radical Islamist organizations for logistical support pose a significant internal security challenge to India, while multiple factors suggest Chinese involvement in sustaining Left-Wing Extremism (LWE). An analysis by the Vivekanand International Foundation quotes The Home Secretary, G.K.Pillai in November 2009, where he was confident with the supply chains of arms by China to Maoists in India, “Chinese are big smugglers and suppliers of small arms. I am sure that the Maoists also get them.”

The Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, acknowledged that Naxalites procure weapons through cross-border routes via Nepal, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, but expressed uncertainty regarding any direct assistance from Chinese state actors. Nevertheless, repeatedly Chinese made arms and communication equipment from Maoist cadres are often cited as indicative of possible linkages between Maoist groups and China. 

To line RSN Singh (2010), the Home Secretary has asserted that China is a major supplier of small arms and suggested that Maoist Groups may procure weapons of Chinese origin. In 2004, a significant supply of light and medium machine guns and ammunition were seized at Chittagong port in Bangladesh, reportedly sourced from China. Bangladesh intelligence officials further alleged that leaders of United Liberation Front of Asom and National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) visited Kunming to obtain arms, some of which were allegedly routed to Maoist groups operating in Nepal and India. 

Second, it argues that China has nothing to do with any insurgency, according to the statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (May 17, 2012) that India raised concerns with China regarding reported support for anti-India armed groups, prompting China to assure a policy of non-interference and deny such support. China has officially denied supporting anti-government forces and emphasized its policy of non-interference; the dialogue mechanism indicates that India remains cautious and will continue to monitor dimensions of internal threats.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, the study demonstrates that terrorism is a complex and evolving phenomenon that cannot be understood through a single framework. The discussion of various scholarly definitions, theoretical perspectives and the examination of cases such as Kashmir and Naxalite illustrate that terrorism emerges from the interaction of ideological, political, socio-economic, and historical factors, earlier, terrorism was often narrowly associated with religious extremism; however, contemporary conflicts increasingly reveal an overlap between terrorism and civil wars. This growing convergence has created distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence, consequently, the absence of a universally accepted and precise definition of terrorism continues to challenge the international community in formulating consistent responses.

From the Indian perspective, geography plays a dual role. While India’s geographical position has historically facilitated cultural exchange, economic interaction and strategic connectivity. It has also exposed the country to security vulnerabilities and cross-border tension. In addition to these historical and geographical factors, ideological influences have also shaped certain forms of insurgency in India. The influence of socialism and communalism, particularly in regions characterized by socio-economic disparities and governance gaps, has contributed to the emergence of structural grievances, including poverty, land alienation and the neglect of marginalized communities. 

The findings of this research suggest that addressing terrorism requires a multidimensional approach. While security measures remain important, long term solutions must also focus on ensuring inclusive development for all sections of society. Future research should therefore explore innovative perspectives that move beyond purely historical explanations and instead examine how structural reforms, effective governance and socio-economic justice can help mitigate the conditions that sustain violent movements. 

Although the complete eradication of terrorism may be unrealistic, meaningful progress can still be achieved through stronger international cooperation, stricter accountability for states that have terrorist networks, and institutional reforms. Finally, the persistence of terrorism highlights not only individual responsibility but also government failures. When the government is unable or unwilling to address citizens’ aspirations and grievances, extremist ideologies find space to grow. In this context, terrorism may be defined as “a strategic and radical practice aimed at influencing state policy through coercion or violence.” 

References

  The Oxford Handbook of Terrorism. (2019). United Kingdom: OUP Oxford.

  Golder, B., & Williams, G. (2004). What is “Terrorism”? Problems of Legal Definition (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 1351612). Social Science Research Network.

Pape, R. A. (2003). The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. American Political Science Review, 97(3), 343–361.

Chapter- THE LOGIC OF TERRORISM, Terrorist behaviour as a product of strategic choice by MARTHA CRENSHAW

Terrorism Studies: A Reader. (2012). United Kingdom: Routledge.

 Abrahms, M. (2008). What terrorists really want: Terrorist motives and counterterrorism strategy. International Security, 32(4), 78-105 

Kronstadt, K. A. (2008). Terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, and implications for US interests (No. CRSR40087).

 Khemnar, S. (2018). Causes and effects of terrorism in India: An overview. International Journal of Applied Information Systems, 12(15), 29-32.

 Panda, J., & Pankaj, E. (2025). Proxy Wars and Silent Partners: The Pahalgam Attack.

Gaibulloev, K., & Sandler, T. (2008). The impact of terrorism and conflicts on growth in Asia, 1970-2004 (No. 113). ADBI Discussion Paper.

  Ullah, A., Qingxiang, Y., Ali, Z., & Anees, M. (2018). Terrorism in India as a Determinant of Terrorism in Pakistan. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(1), 57-77.

  Saeed, K., Khan, N. A., Arif, I., ur Rehman, A., Rehman, M., & Maheen, N. (2025). FROM PAHALGAM TO CEASEFIRE: THE 2025 INDIA–PAKISTAN CONFLICT, ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS, AND DONALD TRUMP’S MEDIATION ROLE. Pakistan Journal of Social Science Review, 4(4), 1173-1204.

 Ganguly, Š. (1996). Explaining the Kashmir insurgency: political mobilization and institutional decay. International Security, 21(2), 76-107.

Mukherjee, S. (2018). Colonial origins of Maoist insurgency in India: Historical institutions and civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(10), 2232-2274.

Rai, M. (2019). Kashmiris in the Hindu Rashtra. Majoritarian state, 259-280.

 Seth, S. (1995). Interpreting revolutionary excess: The Naxalite movement in India, 1967–1971. Modern Asian Studies, 29(1), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00016123 

Singh, R. S. N. (2013). Is China waging a proxy war through the Maoists? Indian Defence Review, 28(2).

Peer, B. (2010). Curfewed night: A frontline memoir of life, love and war in Kashmir.

 https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/countering-terrorism

  https://www.efsas.org/publications/study-papers/economy-and-ecology/

 https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/prolonged-effects-terrorism

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sanjay-Seth/publication/249879533_Interpreting_Revolutionary_Excess_The_Naxalite_Movement_in_India_1967-71/links/5f7b476992851c14bcaf0ddb/Interpreting-Revolutionary-Excess-The-Naxalite-Movement-in-India-1967-71.pdf

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. (n.d.). Naxalite. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved [Date], from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Naxalite

Srikakulam peasant uprising. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved [Date], from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srikakulam_peasant_uprising

South Asia Citizens Web. (n.d.). The Naxalite movement: Background and developments. Retrieved [Date], from https://www.sacw.net/article1622.html

International Socialism Journal. (n.d.). The ironies of Indian Maoism. Retrieved [Date], from https://isj.org.uk/the-ironies-of-indian-maoism/

 Political Science Institute. (n.d.). Naxalbari uprising: Genesis of Naxalite movement in India. Retrieved [Date], from https://polsci.institute/india-democracy-development/naxalbari-uprising-genesis-naxalite-movement-india/

https://www.vifindia.org/article/2011/march/25/China-Naxalite-linkages-Gauging-its-dimensions

https://www.mea.gov.in/articles-in-indian-media.htm?dtl/19721/Q598+China+Aiding+Insurgency+in+North+Eastern+States

Source: MP-IDSA https://share.google/ZTQOuCwQstdTYhuLy

Source: EFSAS https://share.google/U55MzH7Zm8dnOYYlH

Source: Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) https://share.google/LpfQkGBjOJUAXfhgx

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. Mashail Malik, Assistant Professor, Harvard University for her invaluable guidance, intellectual support, and constant encouragement throughout this research. I also thank her for the insightful discussions and helpful feedback on the initial drafts of this manuscript.

I am grateful to the Department of Political Science at Banasthali Vidyapith for providing the necessary institutional resources to conduct this study.

On a personal note, I wish to thank my parents and friends for their unwavering moral support, patience, and encouragement during the course of this work. Their belief in my efforts was a constant source of motivation.

Finally, I thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which significantly contributed to improving the quality of this paper.

---