When the term ‘Urban Naxals’ first came into use, it specifically referred to Leftist militants who had infiltrated urban areas under the guise of factory workers or other unassuming roles.
These individuals would quietly offer logistical support to Naxalite cadres operating in neighbouring states, keeping a low profile to avoid detection. Their role was strategic, not combative, and they functioned behind the scenes, often providing shelter or medical care to key figures.
They were expected to remain in hiding until a future attack was organised. However, the term was linked with the urbane intellectuals who opposed the ideas of the right wing particularly the ones who are ruling this country for the past a decade.
However, putting aside the negative implications of terms like ‘urban Naxals’ and ‘terrorists,’ both the BJP and Congress need to re-evaluate their strategies in light of the 2024 election results, as well as the forthcoming elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand.
In recent years, the term has taken on a more controversial role, particularly as it has been co-opted by political figures like Home Minister Amit Shah of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
By labelling political rivals, especially from the Congress Party, members of the civil society, and intellectuals who have been their critic as Urban Naxals, the BJP has effectively turned the term into a tool for delegitimizing opposition.
This branding strategy, while useful in rallying support from certain voter bases, carries significant risks. At the same time, the attack has also led to the gap between the urban and rural population, which the BJP has cunningly used to attract the uneducated and less educated crowd towards them.
In retaliation, Congress leaders, like its President Mallikarjun Kharge, have taken to labelling BJP leaders as terrorists. However, unlike Urban Naxals, the term terrorist carries a legal definition in India. For example, the Supreme Court used this definition to reverse death sentences for those involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Despite this, the political usage of such terms remains problematic and dangerous.
The BJP’s aversion to civil society can be traced back to the ideological stance of its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Totalitarian by nature, the RSS aims to dominate all aspects of social and cultural life in India, whether it’s in rural areas, among tribal communities, women, students, or local organisations, leaving no room for competition.
Another key factor in the BJP’s hostility towards civil society is the personality of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Naturally authoritarian, Modi seeks to control all aspects of governance.
During his tenure as Gujarat’s chief minister, he took a hard line against civil society groups and even viewed the Gujarat branch of the RSS as a threat to his authority. After becoming prime minister, Modi’s relations with the RSS improved, as the organisation has accepted a subordinate role under his leadership.
The use of terms like urban Naxals and terrorist is not only inflammatory but also legally tenuous. While the police and paramilitary forces can act on these labels, they risk inflating the perceived threat of militancy in India.
Worse still, such rhetoric could lead to widespread abuses of power, such as extrajudicial killings and encounters, without sufficient oversight or accountability. Then there are some consequences of this mislabeling.
If the BJP-ruled states begin using these terms to target political rivals, non-BJP states could do the same, labelling BJP cadres as terrorists. This tit-for-tat rhetoric is a dangerous road that could destabilise the political landscape and erode public trust in governmental institutions.
The increased use of urban Naxals and terrorists in political discourse is emblematic of a larger problem facing Indian democracy: the erosion of responsible, fact-based debate in favour of sensationalism.
If this trend continues, the country risks a significant escalation in political violence and social unrest. As it stands, both the BJP and Congress need to refocus their efforts on meaningful, constructive dialogues rather than resorting to inflammatory language.
The deeper concern lies in the broader implications for Indian politics. If political parties, especially ruling ones, use such labels to win elections or suppress dissent, the democratic fabric of the country will fray. The public, especially younger voters, are already disillusioned by divisive rhetoric.
The BJP and Congress need to adapt and evolve, or risk alienating the electorate further. And then you sense the resurgence of younger voters, which was witnessed with the return of Rahul Gandhi as a viable political figure. It demonstrates that Indian voters, especially the youth, are searching for new narratives.
In 2014, these same young voters had formed the core of the BJP’s support base, but today, they are increasingly aligning with the Congress. Gandhi’s resilience has resonated with this demographic, who are tired of negative campaigning and are seeking solutions-oriented leadership.
Hindutva, once a cornerstone of BJP’s political strategy, no longer carries the same weight. The recent Lok Sabha elections in Uttar Pradesh, once a BJP stronghold, reflect a growing dissatisfaction among voters.
Anti-Congress sentiment, while still present, is also fading, with younger generations more interested in progressive policies than in age-old ideological battles. History shows that slogans like India Shining and Achche Din have short shelf lives.
Voters, especially in a country as large and diverse as India, are quick to change allegiances when promises aren’t met. In the 1990s, the BJP learned this lesson the hard way after losing its momentum post-1996. Similarly, the Congress, after being written off multiple times, has always found ways to reinvent itself.
For the BJP, continuing to lean on Modi’s personality and Hindutva rhetoric may not suffice in future elections. The Congress, buoyed by Rahul Gandhi’s resurgence, is better positioned to capitalise on the shifting political winds, but it must also avoid falling into the trap of divisive language.
Both parties need to focus on policies that address the real issues facing the electorate — jobs, education, healthcare, and equality, rather than resorting to inflammatory labels.
Thus, both the BJP and Congress must recognize the dangers of misusing terms like urban Naxals and terrorists. While they may serve short-term political goals, they have long-term implications for Indian democracy and governance.
Only by reframing their political strategies and focusing on the real needs of the electorate can these parties hope to regain the trust and support of the Indian people.
[The writer, Mohd Ziyauallah Khan, is a freelance content writer based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media.]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language To Read in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic.