Following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day address from the Red Fort – where he noted that physical Naxalism has been dismantled but warned against the continuing threat of ideological Naxalism- a political discussion ensued over the term “Dimagi Naxals”.
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju issued a detailed clarification on X, emphasizing that the term was not aimed at Opposition leaders, but specifically referred to three distinct ideological categories posing threats to national integration.
In his address, PM Modi highlighted the government’s operational successes in containing armed Naxalism across forested belts, while cautioning against ideological networks operating in urban and institutional spaces:
“Naxalism and Maoism destroyed the dreams of lakhs of youth… Today I am happy to announce that Naxalism does not have even the strength to breathe. But its ideological version remains an active threat. People with a Maoist mindset must be identified and isolated.”
— Prime Minister Narendra Modi
Kiren Rijiju’s Three-Point Definition
To address political debate around the phrase, Kiren Rijiju provided a three-point breakdown defining what constitutes a “Dimagi Naxal”:
-
Rejection of the Constitution: Those who provide intellectual cover to Maoists while actively working to undermine constitutional frameworks.
-
Support for Separatism & Article 370: Those who align with separatist agendas in Jammu & Kashmir and demand the revival of special constitutional status under Article 370.
- Advertisement - -
Severing the Siliguri Corridor: Those who advocate for severing the narrow “Chicken’s Neck” corridor in West Bengal that connects Northeast India to the mainland. Rijiju shared a video clip of jailed activist Sharjeel Imam discussing this concept as an illustration.
Political ResponsesÂ
The remarks drew contrasting views across the political spectrum:
Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram wrote on X that he was “proud to be a dimagi Naxal,” while party MP Renuka Chowdhury argued that such terms were used to label dissenting intellectuals and critics.
Kiren Rijiju termed Chidambaram’s response “unfortunate,” clarifying that the government distinguishes between constructive democratic opposition and ideological positions that challenge territorial integrity or constitutional unity.