In his article "Robin Hood or Al Capone, Asking a Different Question About The Naxalite Conflict", William Ivey has argued that the "Shifts in natural resource productive benefits between social groups have created opportunities for Naxalites to emerge in these areas." Focusing his attention on two regions - Bhojpur and Telengana - he concludes, "Changes in distribution of natural resource benefits may have provided for enduring conflict." Are natural resources the only reason for the emergence of Naxalite conflict? It could be one of the reasons, but certainly not the only reason. It is doubtful whether it could be considered even as the primary reason.

If natural resources or lack of it is a major reason for the Naxalite conflict, then why is there is a Naxalite problem in Jharkhand, but not in Himachal Pradesh? Why in Bihar, and not in eastern Uttar Pradesh? Are natural resources an accurate parameter to measure growth of the Naxal problem in these regions? Either the state or Union government controls natural resources like mountains, forests, reservoirs, rivers, and mineral resources like coal, mica, bauxite, and copper. The state remains the arbiter and distributor, while the individuals or groups of individuals have little say in this matter. Individuals have exploited the state for their own benefits, but the problem lies with the failure of governance by the state, but not with individuals.

The reasons for the growth of Naxalite problem could be enumerated. The slow implementation of land reforms is the main reason for the growth of Naxalism. Landlords frequently moved the court to delay implementation of these reforms. They also connived with local politicians and bureaucrats, making the land reform process slow and cumbersome. Land reforms failed in the end.

The social structure of society in these areas could be cited as a second reason for emergence of the Naxalite problem. Invariably, wherever the Naxalite problem exists, there is a poor section of society, with no resources to meet their daily requirements. William Ivey is correct in not attributing the caste or tribal structure as a reason for the problem. The poor include various castes and not any particular caste or group of castes. However, their poverty and lack of ability to improve their lot due to financial constraints by accessing education, the government machinery or even legal remedies remains an important factor for their supporting the Naxalites.

Though poverty limits their reach, there has been a limited exposure to these ideas of the younger generation, making the situation dangerous. The local adage is that little knowledge is more dangerous embodies the problem in rural areas. The younger generation wants to have the facilities that are available in urban areas, which remains a distant dream given the infrastructural problems and the failure of governments to perform. Schooling is poor if not nonexistent, hence the rural youth fight a losing battle against their urban youth counterparts. This forces them to return to rural areas, still aspiring for urban facilities.

The failure of the government to reach out to these areas is another major factor that aids the growth of Naxalism in these areas. The governance is poor or worse, in certain places it is non-existent. Popular schemes take long to devise but longer to implement. Even while implementing, the benefit always reach those who are the 'haves' and not those who are in need. The failure in formulation and implementation of the right schemes at the right time, and targeting the right people is the major problem. Despite the rise of the Naxalite problem, the state failed to tackle it effectively by providing the needed economic and political measures. The state failed to perform its duties; in short, governance, or the lack of it, in these areas is a primary reason for growth of the Naxalite problem. Furthermore, political interference has also played a significant role in the implementation of governmental schemes. Leaders have always tried to delay the projects promoted by opponent parties.

On the contrary, the Naxalite groups have been collecting levies from the local population. They collect funds from individuals, groups, and even government officials as commissions for letting them function in areas that are under their control. This money is used by the Naxalite groups to buy arms and recruit new members, especially from the unemployed youth in rural areas. Since the Naxalites provide a monthly salary and uniform, they have become popular amongst the unemployed youths. Thus the growth of Naxalite movement is due to various factors; it is not merely a question of sharing natural resources, as William Ivey tends to suggest.