Hyderabad: The banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) has publicly condemned the surrender of its top leaders, declaring them “traitors to the revolution” and calling on party cadres to mete out punishment in accordance with what it terms “revolutionary justice.” The central committee’s denunciation comes after senior leaders, including Mallojula Venugopal Rao alias Sonu and Takkallapalli Vasudeva Rao alias Rupesh, surrendered to state authorities earlier this month.

In a four-page statement dated October 16 and released to the media on Sunday, Abhay, the CPI (Maoist) central committee spokesperson, labelled the surrender of Sonu, along with Dandakaranya special zonal committee member Deepa and 60 other cadres to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on October 14 at Gadchiroli, as a counter-revolutionary act. The statement described it as a betrayal of the party, weakening the ongoing revolutionary movement.

Prior to the surrender of Rupesh alias Satish and over 200 Maoist cadres before the Chhattisgarh police in Jagdalpur on Friday, the statement also addressed these developments, referring to the surrendered leaders as splitters and counter-revolutionaries. Abhay alleged that Rupesh had maintained ongoing contact with senior police officials and the state home minister for an extended period, framing it as evidence of collusion with the authorities.

The spokesperson criticised Sonu and Satish for handing over party weapons to the “enemy” despite instructions from the central committee that all weapons should remain within the party. “To give the enemy the very weapons won through the sacrifices of countless comrades means enabling them to kill revolutionaries. This is an unpardonable counter-revolutionary act,” the statement said. Consequently, the central committee announced that Sonu, Satish, and their followers were expelled from the party.

Calling for punitive action, Abhay urged the revolutionary masses and cadres to punish those who betrayed the party in accordance with revolutionary justice. At the same time, the statement admitted that the party had failed to anticipate and address the risks of ideological and political deviation within its ranks, and resolved to draw lessons from the episode.

Tracing the trajectory of Sonu’s alleged political failings, the statement cited the setbacks faced by the Dandakaranya revolutionary movement since 2011 and the broader challenges to the all-India revolutionary movement by 2018. According to the central committee, Sonu’s “political weaknesses” became evident during this period. A December 2020 central committee meeting had reportedly rejected a document submitted by Sonu that contained criticisms of Dandakaranya’s revolutionary practice, which were deemed “baseless and subjective.”

Abhay claimed that in subsequent central committee and polit bureau meetings, Sonu’s views were consistently criticised and efforts made to correct his ideological and political errors. “After the martyrdom of our Party’s General Secretary Comrade Basavaraj in the Kagar encounter of May 2025, Sonu’s long-standing ideological, political, and moral weaknesses intensified and led him to kneel before the enemy,” the spokesperson alleged.

The statement accused Sonu of prioritising personal comfort and safety over revolutionary commitment. “His craving for comfort and his fear of loss led to cowardice. Instead of acknowledging this truth, he hid behind false ideological justifications. To conceal his fear and weakness, he accused the party’s political and military line of being wrong and claimed that because of this wrong line, the Indian revolutionary movement has suffered defeat,” it said.

According to the central committee, Sonu argued that handing over weapons and temporarily suspending armed struggle was the only alternative—a position the party deemed a betrayal. “If Sonu truly believed in his writings, he should have debated his views within the Central Committee and Polit Bureau and worked to correct the movement’s mistakes. But instead, he violated democratic centralism, ignored organisational discipline, and surrendered to the enemy,” Abhay said.

While acknowledging that the surrender of Sonu and his 61 followers represents a temporary setback, the party framed it as a challenge that can be overcome. “Revolutions may suffer defeats, but they rise again. Surrenders can never inspire the people; they only create despair,” the statement said.

The central committee also appealed to party and PLGA (People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army) members who may have been influenced by Sonu’s arguments to recognise their mistake and return to the revolutionary fold. The statement underlined the party’s continued resolve to maintain discipline, ideological commitment, and armed struggle, portraying the surrenders as an aberration that will not derail the broader movement.