Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party national convenor, said he is proud to be a “dimagi Naxal” on Monday [1].
The exchange highlights a deepening ideological rift between the Aam Aadmi Party and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. By reclaiming a term used as a criticism, Kejriwal is attempting to reposition the narrative of dissent as an act of patriotism.
Kejriwal made the remarks in New Delhi [1]. He was responding to an earlier comment from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had described the former chief minister as a “dimagi Naxal” [2].
“I am proud to be a 'dimagi Naxal' and a true patriot,” Kejriwal said [1]. He said, “Yes, I am a brainwashed Naxal” [2].
The phrase “dimagi Naxal” translates to “intellectual Naxal” or “mental Naxal,” referring to the Naxalite insurgency that has affected parts of India for decades. While the term is typically used by the government to suggest that individuals have been ideologically corrupted by far-left extremism, Kejriwal used the platform to turn the criticism into a badge of honor [2].
Kejriwal is not the only political figure to adopt the phrasing. P. Chidambaram, a former union minister, also posted on X that he was proud to be a dimagi naxal [3].
The clash follows a period of intense political friction in the capital. The use of such terminology reflects a broader trend in Indian political discourse where labels associated with internal security threats are used to characterize political opponents [2].
Kejriwal's response on Aug. 17, 2026 [1], signals a strategy of defiance rather than denial. By accepting the label, he seeks to neutralize the sting of the Prime Minister's rhetoric, and appeal to supporters who view the current administration's criticisms as politically motivated.
“"I am proud to be a 'dimagi Naxal' and a true patriot."”
The adoption of the 'dimagi Naxal' label by opposition leaders represents a tactical shift in political communication. By embracing a term intended to marginalize them as extremists, Kejriwal and his allies are attempting to frame the government's rhetoric as an attack on intellectual dissent. This move seeks to bridge the gap between mainstream political opposition and more radical ideological critiques of the state.
