Wherever and whenever the system fails, a parallel system arises. Call it Maoism, Factionism or something else; fact of the matter is that socio-economic deprivation is at the root cause of the emergence of many such movements.
The Central government was not keen on formation of Telangana as they felt that a separate Telangana would become a hotbed of Naxalism. So, when KCR started the Telangana agitation, he was smart enough to realize that the concerns of the Center needed to be addressed apart from getting the Maoists to stay silent. He therefore said that the new state of Telangana would implement the 'Maoist agenda' and the comrades rejoiced.
Forced to flee to Chhattisgarh by the police in the YSR administration, the Maoists felt that KCR was speaking their language although bereft of violence: making a Dalit the first CM of Telangana, free KG to PG education etc. 16 months of the TRS regime has left the Maoists completely disillusioned and they have now come back to the forests of Adilabad, Karimnagar etc to fight for the cause of farmers, unemployed youth, tribals displaced by mining activities and other victims of official apathy.
Perhaps the following fact mentioned by social activist Venugopal in his recent book 'Understanding Maoists' best underscores the disenchantment with the KCR regime: As many as 36 highly educated young men and women went underground to join the Maoist movement in the last two month alone. Reforming society through violence has never been part of the Indian ethos. But when the system fails, where is the outlet for their frustration? Are these young lives to be lost to an orgy of violence that creates more problems than it solves?
And the same scenario seems to be playing out in AP as well. Permission for bauxite mining in the agency area, forcible acquisition of land for real-estate purposes in the name of a new capital, etc. All these moves and decisions taken unilaterally have the potential of stoking the flames of Maoism.