Bullets or Dialogue? The Tough Choices in Tackling Insurgency

As Security Forces Battle Maoists in Chhattisgarh, Here’s a Quick Look at What Political Science Says

May 22, 2025

As security forces wage an all-out war against Maoist rebels in Chhattisgarh, citizens remain divided over how governments should handle insurgencies—whether to respond decisively with military force or first sit down for talks. The answer isn’t as straightforward as we’d like, because rebellions and insurgencies are almost always messy, complex affairs. But let’s unpack this clearly.

Governments dealing with rebellions tend to choose from two main tools: guns or dialogue. Sometimes they reach for weapons first, hoping to squash the insurgency quickly. Other times, they aim to sit down, negotiate and address underlying issues before they resort to force. Political science has studied both approaches extensively, and here’s what we know.

Let’s start with the military approach. It’s like a schoolyard fight where one child decides to respond with a punch because he thinks that’ll end things quickly. That’s the logic behind using military force—strike hard, show your strength and stop the problem fast. A government doing this is usually worried about losing control, and they believe quick, tough action will show who’s boss, ending the conflict swiftly.

But it’s just like a playground fight that might escalate into a full-blown brawl involving all the friends, heavy military action can escalate conflicts, too. Take Sri Lanka, for example: for almost three decades, the government under the Rajapaksas fought Tamil separatists with heavy military operations. Sure, they eventually defeated the insurgents in 2009, but the cost of their military “victory” was massive—thousands of civilian lives lost, human rights abuses and deep-seated resentments that linger to this day.

Why does this happen? Because violence often breeds resentment and fuels more rebellion. It’s a bit like trying to extinguish fire with petrol—it might look impressive initially, but it only makes things worse. Innocent people get caught in the crossfire, and anger grows. Soon, insurgents find it easier to recruit fresh fighters from communities hurt by government actions. Before long, you’re stuck in a vicious cycle of violence.

Now, on the flip side, there’s dialogue—the talking-it-out approach. It’s like calmly talking through a family argument instead of shouting at each other. Governments that choose dialogue try to get to the bottom of grievances, understanding that insurgents may have genuine political or economic frustrations. This is like realising your sibling isn’t just mad because you took their stuff, but because they felt ignored or misunderstood.

One of the clearest examples of this working out is Northern Ireland. For decades, violence raged between the British government and groups like the IRA. But eventually, they realised force alone wouldn’t solve anything. They started serious negotiations, leading to the historic Good Friday Agreement in 1998. It was tough, tedious work, but they got there by acknowledging legitimate grievances on both sides. The agreement wasn’t perfect, but it effectively ended decades of bloodshed.

Of course, dialogue isn’t foolproof. It’s like trying to reason with someone who’s not actually interested in solving the problem—they’re just stalling for time or looking for a tactical advantage. Negotiations can fail spectacularly if insurgents use talks to regroup or governments aren’t genuinely interested in addressing grievances. So, political scientists warn that dialogue needs genuine commitment and clear objectives from both sides to succeed.

Given these complexities, experts recommend a balanced approach—what they call the “dual-track” method. It’s like a carrot-and-stick scenario. Governments apply just enough military pressure to ensure insurgents can’t operate freely or threaten civilians, but at the same time, they keep sincere lines of negotiation open to tackle underlying issues.

A great real-life example here is Colombia and the FARC guerrillas, who were fighting to overthrow the government and demand land reform and social justice. For decades, the government tried crushing them with military might alone, but the guerrillas endured in remote jungles, far from easy reach. Eventually, Colombia shifted gears: they kept up military pressure, but also engaged in genuine dialogue. This combination ultimately led to a peace agreement in 2016, dramatically reducing violence and integrating many former rebels back into society.

The effectiveness of each option depends on who you’re dealing with. Insurgent groups differ significantly—some have clear political objectives and organised leadership, which makes negotiating easier. Others might be fragmented or ideologically driven, making peace talks tricky or even futile. It’s like negotiating with your responsible older sibling versus your rebellious teenager—different strategies are needed for each.

And let’s not forget, trust matters hugely. Governments seen as corrupt or oppressive usually struggle to convince insurgents they’re negotiating in good faith. It’s like your neighbour—who keeps stealing your Amazon packages—tries convincing you to solve a dispute diplomatically. You’d naturally be sceptical. Similarly, insurgents are unlikely to trust a government that’s historically ignored or oppressed them.

We should also bear in mind that when military operations are launched against rebel groups, it’s often the local civilian population that bears the brunt—caught between state forces and insurgents, facing displacement, harassment, or worse. Many live in areas rich in minerals or forests, and if they suspect that the government’s real motive is to secure these resources rather than protect them, trust breaks down fast. For any operation to be credible and sustainable, people on the ground need to believe that the state is acting in their interest—not just clearing the way for mining contracts, corporate projects or multi-purpose projects. Without that trust, even the best-planned military strategy risks backfiring.

So what’s the bottom line from political science? Pure military force rarely leads to lasting peace. And by peace, we don’t just mean the absence of gunfire—it means addressing the reasons people picked up arms in the first place, so they don’t feel the need to do it again. Pure dialogue, without safeguards, can also fail or get exploited. The smartest approach, according to global experience, usually involves carefully balancing force with sincere political dialogue.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.