The Union government launched ‘Operation Kagaar’ on April 21, 2025, with the stated aim of eliminating “left-wing extremism”. In a major development, top Communist Party of India (Maoist) (CPI (Maoist)) commander Madvi Hidma was killed by security forces on November 18, 2025. The intensification of operations has come at a significant human cost, with hundreds of Adivasi individuals reportedly killed in Chhattisgarh in the past year alone.Against this backdrop, The Wire spoke to Mallujola Venugopal Rao, also known as Sonu Dada or Comrade Bhupati, who surrendered in October 2025 along with 60 other cadres. The interview was conducted online following his surrender.Rao hails from Peddapalli in Telangana. Born into a Brahmin family, his late father, Mallojhala Venkataiah, was a freedom fighter. He was one of three brothers, two of whom were influenced by Naxalbari’s revolutionary politics and went on to work and fight in the movement full time for decades, eventually serving as Central Committee members. His brother, Mallojhala Koteswara Rao, was killed in police firing in West Bengal in 2011.Once among the most influential leaders of the movement, his decision to lay down arms raises important questions. Edited excerpts from the interview follow.You surrendered in October 2025 amid reports of a party split. Why did you surrender, and what is the way forward?Joining the Maoist Party was a long process rooted in my family’s political background. My father was a freedom fighter and my mother held progressive ideals. My younger brother was a key figure in forming the Radical Students Union (RSU).Social conditions shaped me. Our region was extremely backward, dominated by feudal landlords who denied basic dignity to the poor. Youth from lower castes were denied dignity; even on their wedding night, a newly married bride was forced to spend the first night at the landlord’s house, a tradition that continued into the 1980s. Growing up in this environment, with a political atmosphere at home and cruel, outdated social atrocities around us, the revolutionary movement attracted youth across Telangana. Growing up amidst such atrocities, the revolutionary movement naturally attracted me. When a young person understands the political and social environment, it shapes their sense of duty. That is how it happened for me.Since when has the party been reconsidering the armed struggle?My life in the forest remains unforgettable. I became intertwined with the lives of Adivasis who were treated cruelly by the forest department. They had no land rights, food, healthcare or education. Serving them felt like a great responsibility.The Adivasis were the true owners of the forest, yet lived as the most deprived. Our party believed they must have rights over natural resources and that power must go to the oppressed. The Adivasis protected our party more than their own lives, making sacrifices that are forever etched in history. We explained to them their exploitation and suffering. Like how the British misled Indians by claiming “India is a rich nation, but Indians are poor”, the Adivasis were the true owners of the forests, yet they lived as the most deprived. Our party believed that they must have rights over the forests and natural resources. It is believed that power must go to the oppressed classes in this country. Hence, it began its work in those regions.Working among such people, not for a short time but for the longest period of my life, gave me immense satisfaction. Also read: Workers’ Protest Turns Violent in Noida, Adityanath First Invokes ‘Naxalism’ Angle, Then Hikes Minimum WagesCritics say you are now choosing a “reformist” path. How would you answer those who question this sudden change of heart after 50 years?I never planned to stop the struggle. However, certain “pen revolutionaries” are harming the movement by ignoring current socio-political changes. We failed to update our ideology. After our general secretary, Comrade Basavaraju, died while advancing a withdrawal of armed struggle, those of us ideologically aligned with him were compelled to take the “pause” decision.The social conditions of the 1980s no longer exist. India’s economic systems have changed immensely over the last 25 years. We failed to adapt our strategy. Blindly waging armed struggle led to repeated setbacks and loss of morale. Continuing became irrational. Without such reflection, blindly waging armed struggle leads only to repeated setbacks and losing one’s existence. On top of this, we committed several strategic mistakes. Coming out of them became almost impossible. In a situation where losses increased and morale decreased, continuing armed struggle unquestioningly became irrational. That is how the “pause” became inevitable – not because of any sudden reason, but because the movement had stopped growing and our practice no longer matched Maoism itself. We can strongly say that people who couldn’t grasp this did not understand the actual Maoism.What happens to the people who relied on you to defend their lives and land?Neither my fallen brother nor I ever thought of giving up. But when strategic mistakes became clear, I sought to correct them as a Politburo member. In 2020, I presented a detailed analysis to the Central Committee (CC), which they rejected.By January 2024, the state launched unprecedented military repression. I remained a loyal member, but by the time the CC reconsidered my views, the situation was critical. Our general secretary took a decision for tactical retreat but didn’t announce it publicly, leading to organisational damage and his death. Consequently, my supporters and I collectively decided to pause the armed struggle.You say the situation has changed – how? You have faced criticism around this decision.Only those who understand changing conditions can make appropriate decisions. Our movement failed to advance in any state. Even in Dandakaranya, it began to decline by 2020. Preserving remaining forces became the priority.Remaining forces who did not adapt are reacting emotionally. Those calling me a traitor haven’t read my 22-page document or the Politburo circulars. They claim the movement is stronger than ever – statements fit for speeches, not reality. I took this decision with a heavy heart. If they had [read the document], I would have appreciated their criticism. Being a responsible senior leader I always corrected my mistakes in a spirit of self-criticism.The revolutionary movement in India is in severe crisis. The possibilities for rectifying it have diminished. My lifetime revolution taught me to carry my responsibilities with honesty and morals. I had no right to risk others’ lives. If I had done this out of fear for my own life, I would have done it long ago.What is the trajectory of the party now?I have left the underground life, but I will not simply return home. I want to live among the people. That is the need of the hour. As long as I am with the people, they are my family.You said armed struggle alienated you from the masses. What caused this?I discussed these issues with all accessible CC and SZC members, providing my 22-page document. The disconnect stems from political and military mistakes that weakened our mass base. By violating principles stated by Lenin, we lost consolidated mass support. Without a strong political party, revolutionary leadership cannot be sustained.What drove you into the struggle, and what compelled you to leave?The core reason for joining was the fight for the oppressed. The reason for leaving was the realisation that our organizational mistakes were terminal. As Lenin said, “Without a revolutionary party, there can be no revolution.”What will happen to the movement after your departure?I learned of Comrade Hidma’s death through the media. His death is another example of the dangers encountered when a movement lacks proper preparation and resources. He was a close comrade for 20 years, yet our party failed to help him grow into a leadership position or nurture young cadres for emerging needs.Critics claim your surrender was motivated by promises of rehabilitation or positions at large corporations. How do you respond?These are vile, baseless accusations. In a class struggle, both sides use every opportunity to defeat the other. The ruling classes are using our setbacks wisely to eliminate our forces. Instead of understanding this, some waste time blaming us and emphasising state oppression.As Sun Tzu said: “Know the enemy, know yourself, and you will win a hundred battles.” Revolutionaries must review shortcomings and adapt to changing circumstances. Suspending armed struggle was a necessity, not a betrayal. Those incapable of leading a movement resort to cheap tactics and defamation to divert attention from the real issues. This problem is not unique to India; long-term people’s war strategies have failed in most countries recently because parties haven’t reassessed their tactics.What were the major blunders of the movement?There were three main mistakes. First: We failed to build a secret/underground party structure, relying solely on the armed forces to function as the party. Second: We failed to understand the Indian state. We acted subjectively, attempting to seize state power region-by-region in a manner unsuitable to our country’s conditions. Third: We neglected open, legal struggles.We wrote about these needs in our documents but failed to implement them. The weakening began early. One of the founding leaders, Kondapalli Seetharamaiah, decided organisational and military tasks should be handled simultaneously. As we grew, we failed to separate them or put the army under clear party leadership. We gave the warrior a sword but no shield, leading to defeat.What are your thoughts on comrades who disagree with you?Discussion and criticism are essential for a revolutionary party. In March 2025, two CC members initiated peace talks but lacked a clear stance on the government’s conditions. Our CC had previously decided against talks because the government demanded we lay down arms.I believe I have been clearer about our stance. While some still criticise us, history will determine the correct path. Most comrades have accepted the reality of our crisis.Did you take up a corporate offer?I am only learning of this through you. Since coming out, we have been under police protection and have no connection to the outside world beyond two daily newspapers. We have not met corporate representatives or succumbed to job temptations.How do you define the space for negotiating with the state today?We opposed the Indian state and the Constitution, and we still do not believe its nature has changed. However, we had to change our methods.Do you now believe you can operate within the constitution?We became so distant from the majority of the Indian people that we could not reach them through armed struggle. To reconnect and organise, we had to embrace the constitutional framework. Boastful statements about revolution will only continue to harm the movement.What changed, materially, to lead to this move?Indian society has changed. It was once semi-colonial and semi-feudal, where the contradiction between landlords and the masses was principal. However, the CPI (Maoist) recently assessed that the Indian comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie has attained a dominant position. Our 2021 Political Organisational Report (POR) acknowledged that we had not studied these social changes for a long time. The shifts in production relations meant we needed to deploy our forces differently, but we were unable to do so.You have found space for the oppressed within existing democratic structures?Space for fighting must be created. Legal struggles are permitted only until they threaten bourgeoisie interests. However, if people fight militantly, governments are often forced to accept demands.The nature of the state hasn’t changed, but objective conditions have. We identified a new landlord class and a change in the role of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Differences arose among us regarding the principal contradiction following these changes.Since the nature of the state hasn’t changed, its institutions still serve the interests of the ruling class. Our decision is not a change in that belief, but a difference in how the masses should be organised to fight for their interests in the current environment.How do you respond to those who say this contradicts your ideological foundations?I appeal to critics to read my 22-page internal document and our six-page public release. Examine the documents on the ‘Indian Production System’ and the ‘Comprador Bureaucratic Bourgeoisie’. We explained the circumstances clearly.Branding us as traitors or coverts is a mistake. We took this decision because armed struggle could no longer be carried forward. Those who call it “betrayal” reveal an undemocratic attitude and a belief that weapons are more important than politics. They are sacrificing politics for the sake of weapons. We have temporarily relinquished weapons to follow a changed political policy. I appeal to those still in the forest: learn from 50 years of experience and come out among the people so you do not suffer further losses. We aren’t obstructing them; we are requesting they correct their course.Also read: As Naxalism Fades, Adivasi Futures Still Stand on Precarious GroundIs this shift a strategic retreat or an ideological revision?We took this decision very sincerely, aspiring for public interest. We took this decision aspiring for the advancement of the Indian revolutionary movement. It is a decision taken to overcome the mistakes we have made. This is an inevitable decision. Nothing more than that.Will operating within the constitutional framework limit the radical ambitions you once articulated?The progress of a revolutionary movement involves many twists and turns. Learning from mistakes, sometimes taking a roundabout path as needed to advance the revolutionary movement, and even taking two steps back to move forward are all part of the process. Only those who understand these things can lead the revolutionary movement forward in accordance with changing circumstances. If someone thinks this is some kind of compromise with the system, it means they have implicitly admitted that they do not understand politics at all.What would you say to those who view this change as capitulation rather than evolution?They are issuing judgments based on speculation, saying that something happened a long time ago, and now we will do the same. It has become common practice to ridicule us by repeatedly making irrelevant comparisons to the path followed by those who withdrew from the Telangana armed struggle that took place in our country between 1946 and 1951. They unequivocally declared that the electoral path was their path. Those who criticise us without confidence in themselves, without faith in the politics of others, and without even observing the practice, are proving themselves to be dogmatists and those who fear change.Nishtha Sood is a researcher and journalist with a degree in Politics and International Relations from SOAS, University of London, has been working with Dr Abdul Wahid Shaikh and documenting cases of custodial torture and human rights abuses in India since 2017.