They don’t make global headlines. They rarely trend on social media. But the insurgencies simmering inside India aren’t gone. They’ve just been pushed to the edge of the nation’s mental map.
The Myth of Internal Peace
When the Indian government speaks of national security, it often talks like a surgeon who has already closed the wound. The Naxalite movement, it claims, is in its “last stage.” Kashmir, they insist, is now peaceful after the abrogation of Article 370. The Northeast? Integrated, developing, and voting. On the surface, it’s a tidy narrative of triumph: insurgencies contained, militants killed, normalcy restored.
But scratch beneath the surface, and you’ll find embers. Some are still glowing. Some are quietly flaring back to life.
As of 2025, India is grappling with at least four major ongoing insurgencies, each shaped by distinct historical, ethnic, and political roots:
- Kashmir (Jammu & Kashmir)
- The Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (Central and Eastern India)
- Manipur and Nagaland (Northeast India)
- Punjab separatist undercurrents (Sporadic, but resurgent)
There are other localized tensions—tribal discontent in Jharkhand, anti-dam agitations in Assam, and armed ethnic groups in Arunachal—but these four remain the most structurally entrenched.
Kashmir: Post-370, Pre-Peace
The 2019 move to revoke Jammu & Kashmir’s special status was portrayed as a geopolitical masterstroke. Article 370 was scrapped, the region was split into union territories, and Delhi tightened its grip. Investment summits were held. Celebrities visited. Tourists returned.
And yet, militancy has not disappeared. It has adapted.
Post-370, attacks have shifted from headline-grabbing encounters to more targeted killings—often of migrant workers, minorities, and local policemen. Militants are younger, more localized, and often not formally affiliated with Pakistan-based groups. The counter-insurgency machine is running hard—raids, arrests, encounter killings—but the political process is frozen. No elections, no dialogue, no roadmap.
A former Indian intelligence officer recently said off-record: “We’ve amputated the symptom, not treated the disease.” Harsh? Maybe. But not untrue.
Red Corridor: The Illusion of a Dying Movement
At its peak, the Naxalite insurgency—a far-left Maoist rebellion—spread across 200 districts, from Andhra Pradesh to Bihar. It claimed to fight for tribal rights and land reform. The Indian state called it the “biggest internal security threat.”
Fast-forward to 2025: the government boasts that violence is down by 70%, and that only 25 districts are now affected. Yes, many top commanders have been killed or surrendered. Infrastructure has improved. Special Forces have grown savvier.
But here’s what doesn’t get mentioned: the root grievances haven’t gone away.
Mining displacements. Forest exploitation. Police brutality. Fake surrenders. Tribal alienation. The “guns versus development” binary never addressed the deeper issue—distrust of the state in regions where the state often shows up only as a uniform or a bulldozer.
In Bastar, Chhattisgarh, locals still refer to both the police and the Maoists as “outsiders with guns.” That’s the real legacy of decades of insurgency: a civic vacuum.
The Northeast: Bandaged, Not Healed
To Delhi’s credit, it has signed multiple ceasefires and peace deals over the decades with insurgent groups in Nagaland, Assam, and Mizoram. The 2020 Bodo Accord. The framework agreement with the NSCN-IM. Suspension of operations with dozens of armed groups.
But the peace is precarious.
In Manipur, ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities in 2023 killed over 200 people. Armed militias still operate with impunity. Internet shutdowns and military deployments have become routine tools of governance. In Nagaland, the final Naga peace accord—promised since 2015—is still elusive due to disputes over a separate flag and constitution.
The region feels managed, not reconciled. There is development. But also militarization. There is dialogue. But also deep fatigue.
Punjab: Ghosts of 1984 Whisper Again
No, Punjab is not in a state of insurgency. But something is stirring.
The Khalistan movement, decimated after Operation Blue Star and years of bloodshed in the 80s and 90s, has found a digital afterlife. Social media platforms, diaspora activism (especially in Canada and the UK), and police overreach have revived separatist discourse.
The rise of figures like Amritpal Singh—briefly hailed as the new Bhindranwale—shows how quickly things can spiral when grievance meets spectacle.
While the government was quick to arrest him, the heavy-handed response—suspending internet across Punjab, arresting hundreds—suggests paranoia more than confidence. A secure state doesn’t need to switch off its network to maintain control.
What Has the Centre Done—And What Hasn’t It Done?
The Indian government has primarily employed four strategies:
- Security-first approach – Deploying paramilitary forces, using AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act), and expanding surveillance.
- Surrender and rehabilitation policies – Offering financial aid, jobs, and housing for former militants.
- Development as counter-insurgency – Building roads, schools, telecom towers, and promising investment.
- Co-opting local leadership – Creating alliances with local actors, often rewarding compliant politicians.
These are textbook methods. And they have worked—to a point. Violence is indeed down. Many insurgencies are fractured and disorganized. The Indian state is undeniably stronger than it was 20 years ago.
But here’s what remains missing:
- Political reconciliation: Peace isn’t the absence of gunfire. It’s the presence of dialogue. And Delhi’s refusal to engage democratically in Kashmir or finalize terms in Nagaland shows a fear of political complexity.
- Institutional trust-building: Justice for human rights violations, accountability for fake encounters, and local autonomy could go a long way. They haven’t.
- Empathy in governance: The language of victory—“we’ve crushed them,” “they’re finished”—may look good on TV, but it poisons the long game. Humiliation breeds resentment.
Final Thought: Is Peace Just the Silence of Guns?
India isn’t the same country it was in 1990. It’s wealthier, more powerful, more connected. But peace isn’t just about GDP growth or optic stability. It’s about legitimacy.
When the state rules only through force or fear, the insurgency may die—but the insurgent idea lingers.
And sometimes, it only takes a spark. A land grab. A killing. A flag burned. And the fire returns.
So yes, the wars have quieted. But they haven’t ended. Not really