Language is power in politics. And "Dimagi Naxals" is a phrase designed to do work. On Independence Day, PM Modi used the term to describe intellectuals who, according to him, mislead people against the government. The Opposition response was immediate.
Kharge called it an attempt to criminalize questions. Jairam Ramesh said it was meant to intimidate. Akhilesh Yadav linked it to the broader attempt to silence those who speak for rights. CPI and CPI(M) called it a slur against thinking citizens. Maharashtra CM Fadnavis defended it.
His argument: gun-based Naxalism is over, but "brain-based" Naxalism is more dangerous because it works through narrative. Analytically, this is not new. Every government faces two kinds of opposition: street and study. Street opposition protests, marches, votes. Study opposition writes, researches, questions policy in media and academia. Labeling the second group as "Naxals" collapses that distinction. It moves criticism from the realm of policy to the realm of security.
Why use such a term now? Three reasons stand out.
First, framing. By calling critics "Naxals", the government shifts the debate from "is this policy right" to "whose side are you on". Second, consolidation. It rallies the base around a clear enemy: not just opposition parties, but an ecosystem. Third, deterrence. When intellectuals, journalists, or NGOs are named, others self-censor. The Opposition’s counter is also strategic. By quoting the Constitution and Congress-era rights laws like RTI and NREGA, they are saying: dissent is not sedition. It is constitutional duty. The risk for democracy is clear. A healthy contract needs both governance and grievance. If grievance is branded as treason, feedback loops break. Policies go unchallenged until they fail big. Fadnavis’s support adds a federal layer.
A BJP CM backing the PM’s language signals party-wide messaging. But it also gives the Opposition more material to argue that space for dissent is shrinking. Bottom line: "Dimagi Naxals" is less about Naxalism and more about narrative control. The analytical question for the next year is not whether the phrase will be used again. It is whether institutions — courts, media, universities — will treat criticism as data, or as threat.