BJP leader Smriti Irani on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, sharply criticised the political opposition by claiming that during the tenure of those who now publicly brandish the Constitution, merely invoking it in Naxal-affected regions could get a person shot dead. Her remarks, posted on X, drew a pointed contrast between constitutional rhetoric and ground realities in left-wing extremism-hit districts.

Context

Irani's post, originally in Hindi, states: 'Sanvidhan dikhane walon ke samay mein, Naksal prabhavit ilakon mein Sanvidhan ka naam lene par goli maar dete the' — ('In the time of those who show the Constitution, people were shot for merely uttering the name of the Constitution in Naxal-affected areas.'). The statement is a direct political jab at opposition leaders who have made the Constitution a central symbol in recent electoral and parliamentary campaigns.

The remark places constitutional symbolism at the centre of a broader debate on governance and internal security — questioning whether those invoking the document in public life actually extended its protections to India's most marginalised and violence-hit communities.

Policy Backdrop

Left-wing extremism, driven primarily by CPI-Maoist cadres, has afflicted districts across Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha since the 1960s. At its peak, insurgent dominance in these 'red corridor' pockets effectively suppressed open assertion of constitutional rights — from freedom of expression to the right to vote — among local populations.

The UPA government launched Operation Green Hunt in 2009 as a coordinated security response to Maoist violence. Critics of that era argued that despite the operation, large swathes of forested districts remained under effective Maoist control, with residents unable to freely access state institutions or invoke legal protections without fear of reprisal.

Post-2014, the National Policy and Action Plan on Left-Wing Extremism emphasised area domination by security forces, surrender and rehabilitation programmes, and accelerated infrastructure connectivity — roads, mobile towers, bank branches — to extend state presence into previously inaccessible zones. Official data has recorded a sustained decline in Maoist-related violence and geographic spread over this period.

Stakeholders and Impact

Residents of Naxal-affected districts — among India's most economically deprived communities — remain the primary stakeholders in this debate. For decades, these populations were caught between Maoist intimidation and inadequate state reach, with constitutional guarantees existing largely on paper.

Security forces — including the Central Reserve Police Force and state police units — have borne the operational burden of restoring state authority in these regions. Their sacrifices have been a recurring reference point in political discussions on internal security. Irani's post implicitly invokes this history to challenge the credibility of opposition leaders on constitutional commitments.

What's Next

The political exchange around the Constitution and internal security is likely to intensify as Parliament's session approaches and opposition parties continue to use constitutional symbolism as a mobilising frame. Further developments in the National Policy and Action Plan on LWE, including funding allocations and operational updates from affected states, will shape whether the governance gap Irani references continues to narrow. Any fresh legislative or parliamentary debate on internal security funding could bring this fault line back into sharp focus.