Talk:Naxalite

What Is "codex wire"?

The mentioning of this explosive seems to be restricted to indian newspapers reporting about naxalites. With refeneces to be found only when looking in the right place As such it seems to fail the google text of general findability. Is there possibly a more commonly used name for the explosive or is it something a bored journalist invented. Any Ideas?

Naxalite is a terrorist group

Who ever is editing should look at the recent news coming out of Naxalites infested regions. Stop the support of terrorism. Killing innocent people for some believes is plain terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabinet (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such group called Naxalite. Naxalite is the adjective.
--Thanks for the information. On the Wikipedia site article and in other references Naxalite is a group and can be categorized under collective noun.

Secondly, CPI maoists and naxals are not same. There's CPIM liberation, who are also naxals, but not they are not the ones covered in the newslinks you provided.
--Another technicality. They all come under the collective noun "Naxalite" and the articles is clear about that.

So please do not add rhetorics without knowing the history.
--Rhetorics, history? Along with history it is important to know about the present too. If you don't like the present then please feel free to cling to the history but don't force it on others.

Articles on Wikipedia are neither for support nor for oppose and certainly not for moral posturing.
--You like the article when it talks about all glory and history and if someone adds another perspective you call that opposing.

--Let the article say that, you seem to be happy at the idea of calling them the 'Heros'. Anyway this argument is stupid. If a group of terrorist are blowing up 14 school going kids then you are saying that for some those terrorist are heroes? Ask the parents and they will tell you who the hero is, well for that matter ask anyone or yourself. Is this scenario too extreme? yes it is, the point is that terrorist/hero is a stupid argument to begin with.

So if you keep adding newslinks about killing of cops, someone else can keep adding newslinks about developmental work done by the same group. That's google's job. Not Wikipedia's. If you can write Naxalite is a terrorist group, then it is doubtful how much NPOV can you contribute.
--you can add section for the development work they are doing when they are not killing women and children. BTW: what is Google's job? google is a search engine. You think you are contribution is ok as long as you are portraying them as saint.

Vinter-light (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Naxalites are not "A" group. There are multiple groups, which come under the banner of Naxalites. Some of them are classified as "terrorists" by the Govt. of India while others aren't. So, you can't term the Naxalites as a terrorist group, but surely can mention that the most prominent among them, the CPI (Maoist) is designated as a terrorist group by the GoI. And, of course, with proper citation. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Grossly non-NPOV

Grotesque. The most obvious purpose of this article as it currently exists is to give Wikipedia a bad name and ultimately to destroy it. This article right now is obscurantist trash written by furies in the throes of right-wing political warfare. If you want your perspective to inform this Wikipedia, then you'd better figure out how to work productively with Naxalites, socialists, journalists, scholars, and others, or else return to your proper theatre of conflict. Wikipedia is about supplying what information can be supplied given that there are almost always political disagreements about most things in the world. We all share venues such as Wikipedia not for hegemonic victory, but primarily for sharing information. This assumes that you write and edit not on behalf of a chosen community and to control outsiders, but rather within a large sphere of moral consideration that simultaneously includes all potential Wikipedia contributors and readers. The Wikipedia idea is an extension of democracy. There are other, more appropriate outlets on the internet for apoplectic, partisan, righteous rants and brutish sniping. Conservapedia, for example. Also, you can write blogs, some of which can earn you money, and I'm talking to you, armchair right-wing word-warriors. This Wiki article needs an editor whose primary commitment in this venue is to information useful to people across political interests, classes, and nationalities. Even when there is no compromise on an issue because interested contributors are literally at war, the Wiki entry can be split into labeled perspectives' accounts. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Blanche on the gross violation of NPOV in this article and several others that Mehrrunnissa has been reverting back to the version that she prefers. There has been one alleged instance of villagers claiming a maoist to engage in cannibal act. Let that be in the article. Does that make maoists cannibals? Let readers decide that, not an editor, who keeps pushing his/her own agenda. If today a rapist is found to belong to let's say hinduism, does that mean hindus are rapists? - Hope nobody would be offended by this statement, I am trying to make a point to show how illogical this sounds. Please stop the other manipulations also. The supposed unfaireness was directed towards an editor, not on wikipedia in general.

Vinter-light (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

When naxalities and their online supporters start respecting basic human life and stop killing people and eating their flesh maybe then they can complain to wikipedia about supposed unfairness of the wikipage.

A cannibal act to strike terror

Bhubaneswar: In a bid to terrorise villagers last August, a Maoist killed a man suspecting him to be a police informer and ate his flesh in full view of the public in Malkangiri district of Orissa.

Superintendent of Police Satish Kumar Gajbhiye said the incident, which took place at Bandiguda, on August 14, 2007, came to light only on Sunday, during a community policing programme.

“The villagers told me that Bhagat, commander of the Paplur Dalam, killed Mukunda Madhi in public view and ate his flesh to terrorise others,” he told PTI on the phone.

Mukunda’s hapless family was among the onlookers, none of whom opened his mouth for fear of his life, Mr. Gajbhiye said. — PTI [1]

Your actions make your image, to most people naxalites are one of the most violent terror group active in the world today. --Mehrrunissa (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Much of this article is written by commie sympathisers. This article praises a terrorist organisation and also an embarrassment to humanity called communism.

Please complain to Wikipedia mods about the commies' attempt to infiltrate Wikipedia.

---

I removed a portion of text, since that text almost exclusively deals with the groups that merged into Communist Party of India (Maoist), and not the naxalite movement as a whole.

'Naxalites' in the broad sense of the word, are active in practically all states in India, except some minor states in North-East. The number nine referes to the military activity of erstwhile PWG.

Also, there was a quote to which no source was given.

As per the contacts with Peru, it is confirmed that groups such as MCC had contacts (they themselves claim that with pride). --Soman 10:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) the article is too thin. I failed to understand the stand of naxals. and How killing innocent will help in the cause ? ....sushilpawar

Naxalism is the ideology while naxalite is an adjective for parties or individuals professing that ideology. Won't it be better to title this article 'Naxalism' and have 'Naxalite' perhaps redirect to 'Naxalism'. Jyotirmoyb 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the article is grossly NPOV against the Naxal movement. Could we have some neutrality, and moreover a learned authority here?

I'll agree, this is a total farce. "since the mainstream Communist ideology had proved itself to be hypocritical and farcical in practice, as they stand to this day" for instance. Bias, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

The recent edits are grossly pov, and have an unencyclopediatic tone. Moreover the are factual fallacies at some points. Some examples:

• "Naxalite or Naxalism is an informal name given to violent communist groups". Not true. Today several of the Naxal factions have abandonned violence, but the term naxal stick with them.
• Try find a reliable source for the statement "in order to turn India into a totalitarian, communist regime."
• "Since their inception up until the death of the movement in Bengal, Naxals unleashed a reign of terror in Bengal, complete with killings of many thousands of innocent people, ordinary police constables, workers of other political parties and anybody they thought their 'class enemy' (which was virtually everyone except themselves)." is also highly problematic. Whilst I don't oppose expanding the article and include more detail on the development of the Naxal movement in Bengal, this is hardly npov.
• "Many groups combine both legal and illegal methods of work." is absent in this version, for reasons unknown to me.
• "Naxal ideology owes its origins to the abject penury and stems from the all pervasive poverty in the Indian hinterland.

- - The past few years has seen the insurgents spreading Naxal influence from 76 districts in nine states to 118 Districts in 12 States. The Communist Party of India (Maoists) was formed on September 21, 2004 through the merger of two prominent naxalite outfits - the People's War Group (PWG) and the Maoists Communists Center (MCC). - - The insurgency is fueled by the exploitation of the peasants and poor tribals by the landlords and the timber mafia, as well as neglect and corruption by governmental offices. The lack of socio-economic developments that have occurred in these regions from any governmental force is an issue that the Naxalites frequently exploit in their calls for violent, Mao inspired, revolution. Critics claim that it is in the Naxals' interest for these people to remain poor and exploited, because otherwise the Naxals would lose their static support base." is problematic, partly as the numbers relate only to sections of the Naxal movement and because the casual explanations are thin. One could say that rural poverty, etc., contribute to the buildup of the Naxal movement, but what actually is the driving cause should not be left to speculation.

• "It is quite common for various Naxal organisations to have 'sleepers' within the establishment in the guise of teachers, poets and leftist intellectuals. One of the objectives of these sleepers is to infiltrate the Indian media (print, electronic and web-based) and turn their opinion from within. Just like their more docile leftist/socialist counterparts, many such sleepers also infiltrate educational and academic instritutions." = McCarthyism
• "Roy's heavy-handed policing was the main reason the Naxal movement could be finished off so quickly." Again problems with causality. The Naxal movement also had many internal problems at the same time, what was the cause for its decay should not be up to speculation.
• "The ferocity of the police response prompted many Naxals to flee the battlefield. Apparently they were not quite ready for the revolution after all" is again completly unbased. Over 40 000 youths were imprisoned accused of being Naxals, thousands were killed. Still the core of the movement continued. The editors at wikipedia should not pass judgements on who is a real revolutionary and who isn't, especially not without facing those challenges themselves.
• "A number of them (the so called 'bright ones') fled India altogether and opted for a safe life in, ironically, Western Europe and the USA. There are no documented cases of Naxals migrating to communist countries." Why is this ironical. Would they have been allowed to migrate to the USSR? (considering their anti-USSR positions)
• "Siddhartha Roy later successfully repeated the same principles to demolish the terrorism in Punjab, with great contribution from K.P.S. Gill, the then Punjab police chief." is not an encyclopediatic sentence

--Soman 14:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

You are a commie Soman. I won't talk with you about NPOV. Do you even know the meaning of the word 'neutral'? If you did, you wouldn't try to whitewash the sins of your murderous friends. But then again, that's your job, to spread propaganda, lies on one hand and kill and pillage on the other. That's what your commie religion and your foreign prophets have brainwashed you to do.

---

Interesting... The above poster put up a threat of violence towards one of the contributers of wikipedia. This should be reported to the admins of wikipedia. Also I agree with Soman that this current article is not of NPOV. I learned very little about this group because of the lack of reliable sources and the because of the tone. Paracite 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Here we go again, here's another commie. Get a life. There are more productive things to do in life than killing other people in the name of barbaric commie religion.

---

All right, all fanatics, both far left and anti-left, tone it down please. It is obvious that this article is being ruined by fanatics from both sides of the argument. Please stay away from this article if you are trying to whitewash Naxalite terrorism, and please stay away from this article if you want to "kill commies" or whatever.Only moderate and well-researched edits should be there. The fact is that the Naxals are widely regarded as terrorists and their ideology is violent and oppressive. The fact also is that this is not the place to use that to spread anti-communist rhetoric. Can all parties just cool down here? Rumpelstiltskin223 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Well done Rumpel. Nice edits. Although you have left out some of my juiciest comments, I am happy with what you have done. You must realise though that if these commies try to infiltrate again, I will have to come back and do my job.

Avoid individual attacks on this talk page (Ironic, isn't it). Please do not make unsigned comments. Rumpelstiltskin has a point. If you do carry a strong point of view regarding the subject try to hold yourself back from changing the tone of the article, which currently is fairly npov. --Keynes.john.maynard 19:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

recent edit

the lankan site presents a 2nd-hand-quote. Moreover, these types of accusations are part of the psychological warfare in the subcontinent (...just like RAW is blamed for virtually anything in Pak/BD), and academia would be preferable to newspieces. As per Andhra, a separate chapter should be set up (likewise for Bihar, etc.). --Soman 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is paramount here. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. --Soman 12:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, your point is Original research ("psychological warfare??? That's getting a bit desperate comrade"). Rumpelstiltskin223 13:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So everythung said about India in Pak/BD press should be utilized without filter at wiki? Or should different standards apply for different sources? --Soman 13:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but with reservation. Let me explain here. India is a democracy. It has what communists fear the most, a free press, completely outside the control of the government. If you read Frontline, you will see nothing but attack after attack on the government, for instance. Pakistan is NOT a democracy. It alternated between Islamic Fundamentalist controlled theocracies and military dictatorships. It's press, by and large, is NOT free of government control. Nevertheless, some Pakistani sources like DAWN and Pakistan Tribune are good for wikipedia because they are relatively independent of their government right now. I saw an article sa couple of days back citing a Paktrib article alleging that RAW was secretly aiding Balochi rebels (hee) so that part IS "utilized w/out filter" as you said. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, some sorts of differentations needs to be made here. I'm not disqualifying usage of newsmedia as sources in general. However, accuracy factors needs to be taken into account. A general comment like 'there's a foreign hand in Assam insurgency' or 'ISI supports the Naxalites' from newsmedia is problematic along WP:V. In this case its not even a quote from RAW, its a citation of another publication which is supposed to have published that comment. Have any ISI agent actually been captured in India, supporting the Naxals? Are there any independent confirmations of these allegations? On subjects like this, it would be highly preferable to use academic sources. --Soman 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

verified, see [2],[3],clickety click-click. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to be joking if you want to use LaRouche as a source. Regarding The Hindu, it deals with LTTE, not ISI. I would not discard the theory that there is some cooperation (at least historically) with LTTE (note for example that positions on LTTE was a cause for split amongst Maoists in Nepal in mid-1980s), but would be far more cautious about comments on ISI involvement. --Soman 15:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point abt LaRouche. The Hindu is legit enough, thaa. As for ISI, does an allegation by BJP president count as Verifiable?[4]. We can state it as an allegation (since, admittedly, BJP is partisan here), like BJP president alleges that... and keep the edit on the grounds of notability. Rumpelstiltskin223 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be mentioned, but not in intro. --Soman 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not in intro. I'll make the changes now.Rumpelstiltskin223 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Something like 'International links'. I could add info om CCOMPOSA and impact in Nepal/Bangladesh. --Soman 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delimitation of the article

There is a need to make some delimitation of the article. This article ought to concern the general concept of Naxalism. Material only relevant to CPI(Maoist) should be placed in the concerned article, not here. In Indian newspaper there is often no separation made between these two concepts, which can create confusions. --Soman 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the same standard applied to other ideologies on wikipedia, why here?Besides, this article is as much about Naxalites (people) as Naxalism (ideology).Rumpelstiltskin223 13:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Often CPI(Maoist) are simply called 'the Naxalites' in newsmedia. This sometimes creates confusion, and it is important to clarify differentiation between Naxalism in general (which encompasses at least 25 or more groups in India today) and the CPI(Maoist). We should abstain from making generalized statements like Naxalites are present in X states, have many X attacks, etc., when we in fact only refer to CPI(Maoist) (which has a separate article). --Soman 14:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

are you sure that this is a matter of "confiusion"? they are all networked you know Rumpelstiltskin223 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New sections

This article needs some additional sections, like: 1) prehistory of the Naxalite movement, 2) Andhra insurgency, 3) Bihar-Jharkand insurgency, 4) Impact in Nepal/Bangladesh. --Soman 13:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I will do it soon. A Kaffir's work is never done *sigh. Rumpelstiltskin223 13:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can never please them

Rumpel you can try all you want, but you cannot please these commies until you are singing from their commie hymn sheets. Whitewash all their outrages, forget about the genocides they engineered, then only you are a good man. On this article, they will simply overwhelm you with questions and criticism. That's a common tactic in their propaganda machinery by the way, did you know that. They know that sooner or later you'll just get fed up and give up and then they can do what they want. Looks like I have to come back and start keeping these commies in check again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.112.9.67 (talk • contribs) 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yah I know. Nevertheless, we have to follow wikipeidia rules. Personal attacks, needless incivility, throwing insults around like "commie" etc. are not a good way to make an argument.One thing they are right about. We have to make sure that, when one refers to Naxals we are talking about Naxals only and not some other Maoist outfit mis-identified as Naxals. I think that that has been achieved now, but for the future... Also, one needs to do more research on how the Naxals were involved in the Morichjhanpi massacre, if at all. I think they were involved, though I do not remember. Also, while you (and I) dislike communists and communism to the depths of our hearts, I think that it is important to be neutral about it here (WP:NPOV). After all, even articles on bloodthirsty mass-murderers like Hitler, Idi Amin,Slobodan Milosevic and others are pretty neutral, right?Rumpelstiltskin223 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

CPI(M) appears to an ambiguous term

Since there are two groups that could apparently fit this abbreviation – CPI(Marxist) and CPI(Maoist) – some special consideration should be given to this to avoid any confusion about which faction is being referred to (not relegating the reader to infer from the context). __meco 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that Marxists are called Naxalite, only Maoists. Maoists are banned, Marxists are not, sadly. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ey cmon. You actually saying that "marxists SHOULD BE BANNED"? or this your idea of a joke? By the way, the CPI(Marxist) is the govt party of West Bengal for 30 years now, and arguably as democratic as any party you find in the world - I wouldnt like to compare it to the US Reps or Dems, with the heavy-handed ways THEY win elections. And politically - its a party that favours a free market economy and is what most in Europe would call a socdem party, to the left of the Bushite lil bro Blair only on foreign policy.

And, by the way, NOR are all maoist parties in India banned. Why are you writing this unlexical shit?

For the record, Im rather sceptical to the indian naxalites. But scepticism is one thing, writing an encyclopedia is something else. Im rather sceptical to the us Republican party too, like 70% on this side of the dam. However, I wouldnt dream of calling them fascists or saying that they should be forbidden. So do you relally think it is smart to write similar things about a peaceful, legal party in India like the CPI(Marxist), about which the worst thing that can be said is probably that it is rather boring? from Togrim, user of the Norwegian wikipedia, 2007-02-11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.140.40 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

---

Throughout Calcutta, schools were shut down. Naxalite students took over Jadavpur University and used the machine shop facilities to make pipe guns to fight the police. Their headquarters became Presidency College in Calcutta. They are also presumed to have assassinated the vice chancellor of Jadavpur University, Dr. Gopal Sen.[4]---which year was this?

CRZ ?

Shouldn't some more info about the Compact Revolutionary Zone be added ? It seems pretty important to me... Vikram boo! 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Language I don't understand

Toward the beginning of the article is "The insurrection started on May 25, 1967 in Naxalbari village when a tribal was attacked by local authorities over a land issue. The tribals attacked the opposing landlords and the violence escalated." I don't know what "a tribal was attacked" means. Should that be "a tribal gathering"? "A tribal council"? Then in the next sentence "the tribals" attacked some people. To this US citizen, "the tribals" looks like a grammatical error. Is this an Indian English idiom I'm simply not familiar with? In the USA we would never refer to "the tribals" because "tribal" is an adjective, not a noun. CarlFink 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Have changed to "tribal" to "peasant". Have also rephrased slightly and removed reference to "local authorities", which didn't seem supported by the source cited. --82.69.202.14 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with the use of "tendency" to denote, apparently, a faction or movement within the group. In "History":

A separate tendency from the beginning was the Maoist Communist Centre, … A third tendency is … That tendency broke with AICCCR at an early stage.

This usage will not be familiar to USA readers. Merriam-Webster has "tendency" defined as a "direction or approach" but nothing like this usage. ALloydFlanagan (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

remove the recent activities section

'Naxalites' are not a coherent movement, rather an umbrella term for various political factions. The current 'recent activities' chapter relates only to the CPI(Maoist), and material should be shifted there. --Soman 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not CPI(M). but CPI(ML)

I was around 10 yers at the helm of Naxal movement in Calcutta. Please note that the political wing of the naxalites were called CPI(ML) i.e. Communist party of India Marxist Leninist. They had received much support from China's Mao Tse Tung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.94.45 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What do they want

I came here with the question - What do they want? why the 100's of deaths? What exactly do these naxals want? a seperate state/ what do they think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.2.13 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Awful, just awful.

This article is in need of a complete overhaul, it is completely bias against the Maoist-Naxalites. We aim for impartiality here on wikipedia, somebody deal with this tripe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.116.105 (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If factual and accurate description of reign of terror of the maoist/naxalite is tripe then dont take the trouble to visit wikipedia. This is not the place for your personal views but with articles with neutral and accurate view. The present article is good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrrunissa (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise

Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Salwa Judum#Attempt_at_compromise. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Pasting huge blocks of text from other sources into the article is a copyright violation. I'll quote from Wikipedia:Non-free content:

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

That's why this section and this section aren't acceptable. Hopefully they won't be added back to the article again.Prezbo (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation of Maps

The Map of India has been manipulated to show parts of Pakistan and Chinese held Kashmir as Indian territory. As can be seen in the original map available on the picture's file page this was a propaganda driven excercise to inject a bias opinion on Kashmir issue in an article completely unrealted to it. I suggest the original map be restored immeditaly.

In addition the map has been altered in a way that makes the insurgency look less severe than it actually is e.g. the re-rendering of Hyderabad from a severely affected area into merely a targeted area. Someone is trying to play down the strength of the insurgency as well as throw a India oriented perspective on regional issues, rather than using international norms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenkazmi (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)