Who Are the Urban Naxals? How a Political Label Became a Weapon Against Dissent in India
Introduction
In a democracy, the government is expected to answer difficult questions
with facts, arguments and explanations. Yet, in contemporary Indian politics,
people who question those in power are sometimes confronted with labels that
cast suspicion on their patriotism. The expression Urban Naxal has become one
of the most prominent examples of this phenomenon.
The recent exchange between Union Minister Kiren Rijiju and veteran actor
Naseeruddin Shah has once again brought the expression into public discussion.
After Shah expressed support for students of Jamia Millia Islamia seeking the
restoration of their students’ union, Rijiju described him as a dangerous urban
Dimagi Naxal. Shah subsequently embraced the expression sarcastically, drawing
attention to the tendency to stigmatise people who criticise the establishment.
The issue deserves examination beyond the immediate political controversy.
Who popularised the expression? How did the arrests of activists in Pune in
2018 contribute to its prominence? What role did Prime Minister Narendra Modi
and other BJP leaders play in bringing it into mainstream political discourse?
And what does the use of this expression mean for constitutional democracy?
Who First Popularised Urban Naxal?
Tracing the expression requires distinguishing between its earliest use and
its subsequent popularisation.
In May 2017, filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri published an article in Swarajya
defining Urban Naxals as intellectuals, influencers and activists allegedly
working to advance Maoist objectives from within urban institutions. His book, Urban
Naxals: The Making of Buddha in a Traffic Jam, followed shortly afterwards.
A detailed report by Scroll.in, titled From Urban Naxal to Tukde Tukde Gang: How TV Media Trials
Enable the State and Right Wing to Stifle Dissent, published in
2018, examines how the expression gained political currency. The report traces
Agnihotri's role in defining and popularising the concept and explains how it
entered political and television debates.
Agnihotri himself claimed to have coined the term in 2018. However, claims
about its precise origin require caution because related expressions and
descriptions of alleged urban Maoist networks had appeared in political
discourse before then.
The important historical point is that Agnihotri played a significant role
in popularising the expression in its contemporary political meaning. It
subsequently became widely used by sections of the political right, television
commentators and social media users.
The Pune Arrests and the Bhima Koregaon Case
The expression acquired much greater national visibility in 2018 following
police action against activists in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence
in Maharashtra.
On January 1, 2018, violence occurred near Bhima Koregaon, where people had
gathered to commemorate the bicentenary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. The
police investigation subsequently focused on the Elgar Parishad event held in
Pune on December 31, 2017, and alleged links between certain activists and
banned Maoist organisations.
In June and August 2018, Pune police arrested several prominent
individuals, including lawyers, academics, poets and human rights activists.
Among those arrested were Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Shoma Sen, Mahesh
Raut, Rona Wilson, Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves and
Varavara Rao. Gautam Navlakha was also among those implicated in the
proceedings.
The police alleged that certain accused individuals had connections with
Maoist organisations and that the investigation uncovered evidence of a wider
conspiracy. Some allegations included an alleged plot to assassinate Prime
Minister Narendra Modi. The accused and their supporters disputed important
aspects of the allegations, and the legal proceedings have involved contested
evidence and questions about the investigation.
It is important to distinguish between an arrest, an allegation and a
judicial finding. Arrests do not establish guilt, and the accusations against
individual defendants must be assessed according to the evidence and applicable
law.
Nevertheless, these arrests brought the expression Urban Naxal into
national headlines. Sections of the media began using it to describe the
accused, while political commentators extended the expression to a wider range
of intellectuals and activists.
Scroll.in's contemporary report, Urban Maoists: A Bogey Is Being Raised to Criminalise
Political Dissent, examined concerns that the expression was being
used to associate political dissent with armed insurgency.
The controversy therefore moved beyond the criminal investigation itself.
It became a debate about whether the language of national security was being
used appropriately and whether the public discussion was distinguishing between
evidence of unlawful activity and peaceful criticism of the government.
What Role Did Narendra Modi Play?
The popularisation of Urban Naxal cannot be attributed to one person alone.
After the expression entered mainstream political discourse, senior BJP leaders
and other figures associated with the wider ideological movement began using it
in different contexts.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi subsequently employed the expression in
political speeches. In 2019, he referred to alleged Urban Naxals while
addressing students and warned against what he described as attempts to
influence young people for political purposes.
In February 2022, Modi used the expression in Parliament while criticising
the Congress, alleging that its thinking had been captured by Urban Naxals. In
September 2023, he again accused the Congress of being run by Urban Naxals.
These statements helped carry the expression beyond the original
controversy surrounding the Pune arrests. It became part of a wider political
vocabulary used to criticise opponents and question the ideological motivations
of individuals and organisations.
The historical record does not establish that Modi invented the phrase. It
does establish that he subsequently used it in prominent political settings,
contributing to its visibility in national debate.
For further context, see The Indian Express reports on the rise of Urban Naxals and the term's use in political
discourse and Modi's use of the expression against the Congress.
There is also an important institutional distinction. In a parliamentary
reply in March 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the phrase Urban
Naxals was not used by the ministry. The government nevertheless maintained
that its policy on Left Wing Extremism covered urban activities as well.
This distinction matters because a political expression does not
automatically become a defined category of criminal liability merely through
repeated use by political leaders.
Is Urban Naxal a Legal Category?
The expression Urban Naxal has no independent statutory definition that
makes a person criminally liable simply for being described by that label.
Indian law does address terrorism, unlawful associations, criminal
conspiracy and activities connected with banned organisations. Where credible
evidence indicates that someone has engaged in such conduct, the authorities
may investigate and prosecute the alleged offences in accordance with law.
However, criticism of government policy, peaceful protest, academic
discussion and political disagreement are not automatically equivalent to
supporting armed insurgency.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees citizens freedom of speech
and expression, subject to the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article
19(2). These constitutional protections are essential to democratic
accountability.
In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court
interpreted the former sedition provision in a manner connecting its
application to incitement to violence or public disorder. In Shreya Singhal
v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act and distinguished discussion and advocacy from
incitement.
These judgments do not provide immunity for unlawful conduct. They
demonstrate why restrictions on expression must be assessed according to law,
context and evidence rather than political labels.
As an advocate practising at the Supreme Court of India, I consider this
distinction fundamental to the rule of law. National security is a legitimate
concern, but allegations must be established through lawful procedures rather
than assumed from a person's political beliefs or professional identity.
The Naseeruddin Shah Controversy
The recent exchange involving Kiren Rijiju and Naseeruddin Shah illustrates
how the expression continues to shape political debate.
Shah's support for students demanding the restoration of their union at
Jamia Millia Islamia prompted Rijiju to describe him as a dangerous urban
Dimagi Naxal. The minister was entitled to disagree with the actor's position,
just as Shah was entitled to express his concerns.
The more important question is whether the students' demands have been
examined on their merits. What are the reasons for the delay in restoring
student elections? What does the university administration say? What steps can
ensure student representation while protecting academic activities and
maintaining order?
These are questions that deserve substantive answers.
Shah's reputation as an actor does not make his political views infallible.
Equally, disagreement with his views does not establish that he is associated
with unlawful activity. If his arguments are mistaken, they can be challenged
through evidence and reasoned debate.
The same principle applies to every citizen, irrespective of political
affiliation.
The Danger of Labelling Dissent
A democracy must distinguish between genuine threats to national security
and peaceful disagreement with the government. When the two are routinely
conflated in public discussion, the consequences extend beyond the individuals
directly targeted.
Journalists may become reluctant to investigate sensitive issues. Academics
may hesitate to question official narratives. Students may fear that political
participation will invite public vilification. Citizens may begin to believe
that patriotism requires unquestioning agreement with those in power.
None of this means that every protest is justified or every activist is
beyond scrutiny. Violence, intimidation and unlawful assistance to armed
organisations must be addressed through fair legal procedures. The same
standards should apply regardless of the accused person's ideology or political
connections.
The problem arises when a label substitutes for evidence and public debate
becomes a contest over who is sufficiently patriotic.
A government confident in its policies should be able to answer criticism
without questioning the loyalty of everyone who disagrees with it. Public
representatives have the right to defend their decisions, but they also have a
responsibility to preserve the distinction between political disagreement and
criminal accusation.
Conclusion
The history of Urban Naxal reveals how a phrase popularised in ideological
writing acquired wider political significance through media coverage, arrests
in the Bhima Koregaon case and subsequent use by prominent political leaders,
including Narendra Modi.
Vivek Agnihotri played a significant role in popularising the contemporary
expression. The Pune arrests in 2018 brought it into national prominence, while
later political speeches helped establish it as a recurring feature of public
debate.
These historical developments can be documented. Whether the label is
justified in any individual case, however, must be determined through evidence
and applicable law, not political assertion.
India belongs equally to citizens who support the government, those who
oppose it and those who question all political establishments. Their
constitutional rights do not depend on whether their opinions are convenient
for those in power.
A democracy must protect national security while preserving the right to
dissent. It must investigate genuine wrongdoing without treating criticism as
proof of disloyalty. That balance is not a concession to any political
ideology. It is a requirement of constitutional governance.
About the Author
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate practising at the Supreme Court of
India and a columnist writing on law, politics and society.
No comments:
Post a Comment