Trouble is many of the people in the effected regions sympathize with the rebels, as pointed out by the article and my post on the topic. Most of the violence occurring is between Maoists and police or other government representatives.

There's also the problem of the Salwa Judum – a state-sponsored militia that many locals fear as much as, if not more than, the rebels they are supposed to help combat.

I would venture to say that it's not a pragmatic insurgency vs. farming or mining calculation that's drawn some to insurgency but more a political decision – "I don't agree with how the government's treated us, so I'll fight (or at least not turn in those who are fighting)."

It's a very complicated situation to say the least.

Miners and farmers are not necessarily giving up their trades to fight – mining has continued despite the violence as the article points out. The number of Maoist fighters is actually fairly small, most local supporters seem to be giving tacit support rather than directly taking up arms with the rebels.

For the Maoists it is purely ideological – they want a communist state. For the tribals and natives who support them though you're right that it's not just political ideology – they are motivated by years of economic, legal, and political marginalization by the Indian government. So they are politically motivated in the sense that they are not supporting the rebels for money or immediate gain necessarily but because they no longer trust the Indian government to give them what they want/need (better representation, more control of their land, development, etc.).

The first comment mentioned the involvement of miners and farmers in the Maoist movement. I saw no mention of miners becoming involved in violence in the article. However, it seemed quite clear that local farmers are becoming economically disenfranchised as a direct result mining operations degrading arable lands, and are directly contributing to the violence.

"It is better to die here fighting on our own land than merely survive on someone else's," Phul Kumari Devi told us when we visited her dusty mining village of Agarbi Basti in June. "If the Maoists come here, then we would ask their help to resist."

While I would agree that greater local control over resources is essential to eliminating the political motivation for violence or at least the motivation for locals to tacitly support Maoist violence. It seems unlikely that simple political maneuvers could fully solve the problem. The issue has become more than a political sentiment.

According to the author, “Coal mining and armed rebellion have long gone hand in hand in what is now Jharkhand, both dating back to the mid-1890s, when the British began extracting coal from the area and Birsa Munda, today a local folk hero, launched a tribal revolt to regain local control of resources”. However, now after years of mismanagement environmental degradation has become a key issue. There are many economically or politically disenfranchised regions across India. However, I believe it is the environmental issue here which makes the problem unique. Even if locals were to suddenly gain control over the mines, and corruption was eliminated, the depleted soils, coal fires, and air pollution would still exist. Separate from land control, environmental reform must occur to fully address the issue in this region.