4 min readApr 8, 2026 06:34 AM IST
First published on: Apr 8, 2026 at 06:25 AM IST
The recent discussion in the Lok Sabha on Left-Wing Extremism was both serious and necessary. For decades, the Indian state has grappled with insurgencies that challenged its authority through violence. Yet the very seriousness of that debate throws into sharp relief a deeper, more uncomfortable question: Can a constitutional democracy afford to be selective in its moral and political anxieties about violence? If our commitment is genuinely to the Constitution, then the answer must be an unequivocal no. To treat violence differently depending on whether it is directed against the state or carried out in the name of the majority is to abandon the very neutrality that the Constitution demands.
Max Weber defined the state as the entity that claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. However, this monopoly is not absolute; it is conditioned by legality and accountability. When non-state actors, whether insurgents or vigilante groups, resort to violence, they undermine this monopoly. But while insurgent violence openly contests the authority of the state, vigilante violence often operates in a grey zone, implicitly drawing legitimacy from majoritarian sentiment or political patronage. This ambiguity makes it, in many ways, more insidious. When individuals or groups take it upon themselves to enforce their version of justice, whether in the name of religion, culture, or nationalism, they signal a breakdown of institutional trust.
India’s constitutional vision sought precisely to guard against such breakdowns. The idea of constitutional morality, invoked by B R Ambedkar, was meant to ensure that the spirit of the Constitution would prevail over the impulses of the moment. Crucially, it demanded that the state remain even-handed in its response to threats, refusing to privilege one form of violence over another. It is here that the current asymmetry in public discourse becomes troubling, as Left-Wing Extremism is rightly condemned for its use of armed struggle and its rejection of democratic processes. Yet, the rising instances of Right-Wing Extremism manifested in vigilantism, hate crimes, and the normalisation of coercive majoritarianism often do not receive the same sustained institutional attention. This is a question of constitutional fidelity.
Contemporary developments underscore the urgency of this concern. Across multiple regions, there have been recurring instances in which individuals are targeted on the basis of identity, mobs assume quasi-sovereign authority as arbiters of justice, and public discourse increasingly normalises exclusionary and hostile idioms. We have seen upright police personnel, judges, and even good Samaritans being punished for standing up for the rule of law. These developments cannot be dismissed as isolated aberrations. Rather, they must be situated within a broader transformation of the normative and discursive environment. When elected officials deploy violent metaphors, such rhetoric lowers the threshold of legitimacy for coercion and signals tacit sanction for extra-legal forms of violence.
It is in this very context that the Union Home Minister’s sweeping and reckless conflation of recognised parliamentary parties with Maoist and Naxalite extremist outfits must be called out. These are parties that have participated in free and fair elections for decades, held constitutional offices, and governed states in full accordance with the law of the land. A minister of his seniority and stature is expected to know, and even duty-bound to uphold, the fundamental distinction between lawful political opposition and armed insurgency. To deliberately blur that line is intellectual dishonesty and a dangerous subversion of constitutional norms that lends an air of official sanction to the very politics of demonisation that corrodes democratic life.
As a fresh start, there must be a candid recognition that extremism is not a singular phenomenon. It manifests in multiple forms, each shaped by its own dynamics, yet united by a common thread: The willingness to deploy violence in pursuit of political or ideological ends. Any meaningful response, therefore, must be equally multidimensional, addressing not only insurgencies but also the social, economic, and political conditions that allow other forms of extremism to take root and endure. Equally important is the need for consistency in institutional response. The question before Parliament extends beyond the procedural matter of convening another debate. It is, at its core, a question of normative reaffirmation: Whether there exists a genuine commitment to confront all manifestations of extremism with equal clarity, consistency, and resolve.
The writer is a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Rashtriya Janata Dal
Contemporary developments underscore the urgency of this concern. Across multiple regions, there have been recurring instances in which individuals are targeted on the basis of identity, mobs assume quasi-sovereign authority as arbiters of justice, and public discourse increasingly normalises exclusionary and hostile idioms. 
Share
