November 13, 2025

The outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist) has publicly denounced two of its senior cadres — identified as Sonu and Satish — accusing them of “political degeneration,” collaboration with state authorities and of “betraying the revolution” by surrendering to government forces in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh.

A Central Committee statement dated November 5, issued by the party, singled out Sonu — described as a Central Committee member — and Satish, a member of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee, saying both had “deceived and surrendered in a planned manner” to the Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh governments. The statement asserted that Sonu had been in contact with Maharashtra officials for months prior to his surrender and alleged that Satish had consulted local political figures and police officers in Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh.

The CPI (Maoist) accused the two of using their leadership positions to “divert cadres and spread confusion,” and criticised their stated rationale for giving up arms. According to the party release, Sonu and Satish argued publicly that the decades-old strategy of protracted “people’s war” had become obsolete and advocated a shift toward “open political activity” and “mass participation.” The Central Committee rejected those claims as “distortions,” stressing that the late general secretary Namballa Kesavarao (alias Basavaraj) never endorsed laying down arms or initiating peace talks. The statement cited Basavaraj’s reported view that “the party must shed arms only when it ceases to exist,” and accused the two leaders of twisting his words to rationalise defection.

The party insisted that changing circumstances required tactical adjustments rather than capitulation, warning members against what it described as the “danger” of abandoning armed struggle. The statement invoked international examples — including setbacks for movements that withdrew from armed struggle — to argue against shifting to purely peaceful political engagement.

Local police and security officials say the Maoist message is part of an internal effort to stem a recent wave of surrenders by senior cadres. Bastar range Inspector General of Police Sunderraj P said the Maoist statement evidences “growing frustration, ideological confusion and internal rifts” within the organisation. “By attempting to brand rehabilitated senior cadres as traitors, the outfit has exposed deep mistrust and disintegration in its ranks,” Sunderraj told reporters.

Sunderraj and other security officials point to a pattern of senior leaders surrendering in recent months, arguing that many have chosen to give up violence after concluding that the insurgency’s tactics have failed and that continued militancy offers diminishing returns. “Senior Maoist leaders, including central and zonal committee members, have surrendered after realising the futility of violence and the hollowness of the so‑called people’s war,” he said, adding that Bastar is now seeing “peace, development and increasing public participation in governance,” while the Maoists remain trapped in an outdated ideology.

State authorities reiterated that the option of surrender and rehabilitation remains open. Sunderraj urged cadres to return to the mainstream, promising opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration while cautioning that those who refuse to surrender “must be prepared to face the consequences.”

Analysts say the CPI (Maoist)’s sharp public repudiation of Sonu and Satish is aimed at preserving organisational discipline and deterring further defections. At the same time, the very act of issuing a denunciation — and the tone it adopts — may reflect deeper strains: a leadership grappling with operational setbacks, intelligence pressure, and the loss of experienced functionaries.

The controversy highlights the dual battle the Maoists face: sustaining an armed insurgency in the face of intensified security operations and counter-insurgency successes, and maintaining ideological cohesion amid internal debates over strategy and survival. The coming weeks are likely to show whether the party’s attempt at damage control will halt the tide of surrenders or whether more leaders will seek state rehabilitation.