Introduction
The
Indian communist and revolutionary movements are an inseparable part of the
World communist and revolutionary movements. They are influenced by the
victories as well as setbacks in the world communist and revolutionary
movements. Not only had they had the benefit of guidance, advice, help and
solidarity from the leadership and for a of international communist movement,
but also, were constantly affected by various pernicious trends like
Trotskyism, Titoism and Krushchevism. The rise of Krushchvite modern
revisionism in the land of Lenin and Stalin has led to disastrous consequences.
While we were still to go a long way in overcoming these consequences, the
revisionist clique, led by Deng, gained an upper hand in the leadership of the
CPC and set China on the course of great reversal. These two developments came
as two major blows not only for the communist and revolutionary movements in
India, but also, to the communist and revolutionary movements all over the
world. We are to go a long way to overcome the negative impacts of these
setbacks of world significance.
Now, there exists neither a forum nor a widely accepted
leadership for the world communist movement. Yet, the Indian communist movement
continues to be a part of world communist movement. it is committed to the
objective of world proletarian revolution and to the task of fighting for the
complete emancipation of the oppressed nations and people from the yoke of
imperialism and social imperialism world over. It is committed to the task of
developing a unified and worldwide fight against hegemonism and war policies of
two super powers who had come up as the main oppressors and main exploiters and
the common enemies of the world people in the present world situation. It is
committed to the task of developing fraternity, co-operation, solidarity and
unity among the forces of the world fighting for socialism, democracy,
independence, liberation and peace.
In the present stage, the
Indian communist movement is faced with the task of completing the peoples
democratic revolution. The successful completion of this revolution itself will
be a great contribution to the advance and victory of world communist and
revolutionary movement. the Communist Revolutionaries in India would constantly
and earnestly strive to learn from the positive and negative experiences of the
world communist and revolutionary movements. They would explore and utilise
every opportunity for this purpose. They would strive to utilise these
experiences in the interest of advancing the communist and revolutionary
movements in India.
Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung
Thought is our guiding ideology. We, the Communist revolutionaries, would
constantly and diligently study various principles of it in close relation to
concrete practice and for the purpose of guiding the practice of Indian
revolution. We would always be prepared to humbly learn from mistakes, failures
and successes. We oppose and wage an uncompromising and relentless struggle
against all the alien ideologies that are intensifying their attacks against
Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s though in a naked as well as veiled form. We oppose all
the attempts-in whatever form they are made-to vulgarise Marxism and to reduce
it into a lifeless phraseology and into chanting certain stock principles out
of context. We would carry on a principled struggle against distortion of
Marxism from the right and left opportunist angles. We would carry on a
struggle against dangerous attempts being made by Trotskyism to make inroads
into or influence even the communist revolutionary movement either in the guise
of Marxism or nakedly. We would strive to overcome the divergencies that may
arise among the revolutionaries on the question of understanding, application,
practice and drawing lessons from the experiences through a principled and
patient discussions and debate. We would carry on these discussions in a way
and in the course that helps the cause and efforts to develop the revolutionary
movement. We would use Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought as our becon light to
successfully lead the Indian revolution and to perform our proletarian
internationalist tasks.
The Indian communist and
revolutionary movements have their own course of development. In its long
history, the Indian communist movement has gone through many a bitter and
complicate struggle within and against the enemy. It tasted achievements as
well as crises and failures. It is rich with experiences, both negative as well
as positive. It is a history that established highest and exemplary communist
consciousness, discipline and style of work in the life of the party
organization, movement and personal life. It is a history that gave the finest
qualities of proletarian consciousness, heroism and skill that are necessary to
successfully fight the weapons of counter-revolutionary violence, deception and
allurements used by the enemy. It taught us how to make supreme sacrifices for
the cause of party, revolution and people. These finest traditions and
qualities of the communist movement today. At the same time, we must note that
the reformist and revisionist lines that dominated the scene for a sufficiently
long time and the practice of left opportunism in its various forms in the last
two decades had established its own bad traditions and trends of indiscipline
and anarchism. They must be thoroughly and completely rejected and discarded
and a continuous struggle must be waged against their harmful influences.
An objective and dispassionate evaluation
of past communist and revolutionary movements in India is most essential to
advance the present movement. Negation of past is not only a serious in justice
to the history but also amounts to sowing poisonous weeds in the present
movement. all tendencies that attempt to paint the past as completely dark,
that under estimates and undermine the past and that claim to be starting on a
clean slate are objectively wrongs and totally harmful to the advance of the
present communist and revolutionary movements. We reject all these tendencies.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE POST-SECOND WORLD
WAR PERIOD
As well as know well, the fascist
powers were crushed to defeat by the socialist, patriotic, democratic and
peace-loving forces led by Com. Stalin and Russia. The imperialist powers which
‘ruled’ the world earlier found themselves seriously bruised and weakened at
the end of war. More significantly the socialist Russia emerged victorious,
more strong and popular. Hated fascist and reactionary ruling classes were
thrown out of power in a number of European countries. The socialist
revolutions advanced in leaps and bounds in many other countries. The wave of
national liberation and independence struggles swept the colonial countries.
And many colonies attained national independence.
Post-Second world war period has
thrown up the US imperialist to the top. They pursued the strategy of firmly
establishing their dominance on the colonial, semi-colonial and newly
independent countries by pushing aside the other weakened imperialist powers,
while at the same time doing everything to blockade and encircle the socialist
countries.
The other imperialist powers, both
vanquished powers of fascist block and the victorious powers like Britain and
France conceded the leading role to the US in the world affairs. At the same
time, they concentrated on recovering themselves economically.
On the other side, the socialist
countries pursued the strategy of extending all out support to the struggles
for national liberation and independence, for strengthening world peace and
against the dominance of imperialism in general and US imperialism in
particular. At the same time, they strived hard to consolidate and strengthen
socialist economies, defences and unity and mutual co-operation. They made every
effort to utilise the contradictions among the imperialist powers in the
interest of world peace and revolution.
The US imperialism played the role
of world gendarme in crushing the advancing revolutions. It stretched its
tentacles to every nook and corner of the earth. It used neo-colonial methods
of plunder; resorted to acts of interference, bullying, control and armed
aggression against weaker countries. It formed military alliance like NATO to
pursue its designs of world domination. It pledged to wipe out communism from
the face of the earth and went on piling up nuclear and conventional arms in an
unprecedented way and made all our preparations for a global war. Thus, the US
imperialism became the biggest exploiter and oppressor and the main common
enemy of the entire people of the world.
The end of the Second World War,
instead of mitigating the general crisis of capitalism, intensified all its
features at the end of war. The smashing of Fascism, the historic role played
by the Soviet Union led by Com. Stalin in it and the impending victory of Chinese
revolution under the leadership of Com. Mao and CPC provided a decisive impulse
which set in motion a movement for emancipation from colonial rule all over
South Asia and beyond into West Asia and Africa. The decline in power and
prestige of the imperialist states especially Britain and France, and rise of
Soviet Union as a powerful socialist states as well as an international force
to be reckoned with immensely strengthened the revolutionary potentialities of
the liberation movements in all colonies.
It was under such historical
international set-up in the immediate post-second world war period, India
witnessed a mounting revolutionary mass upsurge in the national independence
movement. The British colonial rulers were unnerved, and the Indian bourgeois
leadership was flabbergasted. Both reached a despicable compromise and turned
former rule to the latter with the understanding that the new Indian rulers
basically safeguard the economic interests of the British colonialists intact.
In the post-transfer of power
period, not only the British investments have been safeguard but also
investments of various other imperialists have been allowed to grow in India
with stupendous speed. Added to this, there has been increasing dependence of
the government on the foreign aid. Economic independence has become a mirage
even after 40 years of so-called independence. Thus, through an insulting
compromise between Indian big bourgeoisie and imperialists, the colonial and
semi-feudal India has been transformed into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal
country.
INDIAN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT STRUGGLE FOR
CORRECT LINE
Broadly speaking, the communist
movement in India was composed of reformist, centrist (akin to the present day
neo-revisionism) and revolutionary trends. For a brief period, the left
sectarian trend was in the leadership. The reformist orientation towards the
tasks of Indian revolution has been in the leadership for a major part of the
life. They understood and applied the guidance and advice provided by the
leadership of the international communist movement with their own revisionist
understanding. They fell prey to the deceptive progressive talk and
conservative, reactionary practice of Nehruvian politics and sought to guide
the party and people along the path of class collaboration.
However, there was a period, however
short it might be, wherein those who represented and fought for a correct
revolutionary path were in the All India leadership. In the history of class
struggles and the revolutionary movements led by the communists in India, the
Telangana Peasant Armed Struggle (1946-51) occupied the foremost place. It was
a peasant armed revolution which has begun against the feudal forces and the
Nizam’s oppressive rule and continued further extending itself against the
Indian ruling classes and their armed forces. It was a struggle that proved in
practice the revolutionary significance of the programme of agrarian revolution
for the Indian revolution and crucial place the land question occupies in it.
It was a struggle, learning from its own experiences as well as the Chinese
experiences and from the writings of Com. Mao that advanced along the path of
Peoples War. It was a struggle that has shown how disastrous the right and left
opportunist trends can be. It remains a historic truth that basing themselves
on the revolutionary experiences of these struggles the forces representing the
revolutionary trend proposed the path of people’s war as early as in 1949 as
the only correct revolutionary path that must be adopted for the completion of
Indian revolution. However, they could not carry the struggle for the
revolutionary path through to the end. Through their undemocratic and
diversionist methods, the revisionist leadership succeeded in outmanoeuvring
them. The struggle for correct path, programme and policies has thus, received
a severe blow.
REVERSAL IN SOVIET UNION ITS WORST
CONSEQUENCES
The usurpation of Soviet leadership
by the Krushchevite modern revisionists brought a severe setback for the world
communist and revolutionary movements. With their treacherous revisionist
theories, these modern revisionists had set the Soviet Union on the path of
capitalist restoration and succeeded in diverting a major part of the world
communist movement into the path of revisionism. They betrayed and sought to
divert the world proletariat, oppressed nations and people into the path of
surrender, compromise with imperialism and domestic reactionary ruling classes,
the forces of revolution and peace in the world found themselves disarmed.
Growing solidarity and unity between the two main streams of world
revolution-proletarian revolutions and national liberation struggles of
oppressed nations faced a severe setback.
Emboldened by the revisionist
changes in the Soviet Union, the Indian revisionists came out more nakedly with
their policy of class collaboration. Taking up the mantle of Krushchvite modern
revisionism, they preached the path of peaceful transition to socialism and
landed the Indian communist movement in the morass of parliament by tailing
behind the exploiting ruling classes. They lent their voices for the national
chauvinist tunes of ruling classes and supported the expansionist wars of
Indian rulers against Pakistan and China.
Yet, there were also factors of hope
in this period Communist Party of China, Albanian Party of Labour and other
Marxist-Leninist organizations and forces held high the Red flag of
Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism and struggle against imperialism.
The CPC stood in the forefront of international struggle of Marxist-Leninist
forces against modern revisionism. It waged a relentless struggle against the
revisionists and capitalist roaders in China and persisted in the socialist
path defying the imperialist blockade and back-stabbing from the Russian modern
revisionists. It declared imperialism means war and the world peace can be had,
not by begging or compromise, but by waging a determined and united struggle
against imperialism in general and the US imperialism in particular. It
extended all out support to the national liberation, national independence
movements and peoples revolutions. All these greatly helped the
Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary forces and people to withstand the setbacks
caused by the modern revisionists and march ahead in the path of
Marxism-Leninism and revolution.
All this also had its own profound
impact on the forces inside the CPI. The ideological and political struggle
against the revisionist leadership began to take a clear shape in the party.
However, the revisionist leadership used all the deceptive manoeuvring,
undemocratic and diversionist methods to curb and defeat the revolutionary
trend. The failures and weaknesses on the part of the forces representing the
revolutionary trend and the treacherous role played by the present day
neo-revisionists easened their game.
The soviet revisionist leaders
turned the dictatorship of the proletariat into a bourgeois dictatorship;
socialist economy into bureaucratic capitalism and placed the same under
bureaucratic control and management. They turned the centralised and planned
economy into a regimented economy oriented towards the needs of world
domination. They turned the economic, trade and political relations with other
countries into unequal, trade and political relations with other countries into
unequal relations and used them as means of ever increasing exploitation and
domination. They gradually turned the East European countries into a
subordinate and satellite position. They showed big brotherly attitude towards
communist parties of other countries. They made frenzied but futile attempts to
pressurise the Vietnamese people to abandon the course of struggle and accept
some sort of compromise proposed by the US and USSR. Along with US and Britain
they signed a ‘partial test ban treaty’ and attempted to pressurise other
countries to sign the same. The change of guard at Kremlin, as seen in the
ascendency of Brezhnev to power, marked a qualitative leap in the policies of
Soviet Union towards offensive drive for world hegemony. It resorted to armed
aggression and occupation of Czechoslovakia. This act made clear the social
imperialist nature of modern revisionism.
The Soviet social imperialists
inherited the cause of imperialists and hegemonists in history. They engaged
themselves in imperialist crimes under the golden signboard of “socialism” and
“internationalism”. Picking up the mantle of old tsars, they entertained wilder
ambitions than the former. They contended with US imperialism in an attempt to
set up their own social imperialist hegemony over the world. They loudly sang
of “peace” and “security” and “disarmament”, while in reality they stepped up
arms expansion and war preparations and push ahead the policies of aggression
and war. While trumpeting “internationalism” and “interest of socialist
community”, they in fact sought to turn some countries into their own colonies
and appendages. While shouting aloud about ‘aiding the national liberation
movements’, they actually sought to push neo-colonialism in a big way in Asia,
Africa and Latin America and control countries there politically, economically
and militarily. While boasting about “supporting the revolutions of the people
of various countries”, they played counter-revolutionary two-faced game of
colluding with the most reactionary forces in the world and betraying the
revolutionary cause of the people of different countries.
CHANGES IN THE WORLD BASIC CONTRADICTIONS
The emergence of Soviet Union as a
social imperialism power with wild ambitions for world domination brought some
important changes in the basic contradictions of the world. These
contradictions, as formulated by the CPC in 1969, stood like this:
-
Oppressed
nations Vs imperialism and social imperialism,
-
Bourgeoisie
in the capitalist and revisionist countries Vs working class;
-
Contradictions
between the imperialist countries and social imperialism; contradictions among
the imperialist countries;
-
Socialist
countries Vs imperialist and social imperialist countries.
Here,
the social imperialism stood in the ranks of enemies in relation to the
oppressed nations and people world over. The socialist camp disappeared and a
few socialist countries stood on the world scene. The contradiction between
oppressed nations on one side, and imperialism and social imperialism on the
other side continued to occupy crucial role in all the basic world
contradictions as the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America
continued to be the main source of plunder, the main object of contention for
the imperialist powers and the main revolutionary storm centres that can
inflict a death blow on the imperialism.
During
this period, the US imperialism continued to be a leading power among the
western imperialist powers. It was a super power on the downhill ever since its
defeat in 1953 at the hands of people’s revolutionary forces of Korea and
Chinese volunteers. The Soviet social imperialists stood with the vitality of a
new and upcoming imperialist power. It came on the world scene with many
political advantages and wild ambitions for world domination. The
contradictions among the imperialist countries were manifesting as
contradiction between the Soviet social imperialism and the US imperialism (who
were in the position and, infact, were contending for world domination); the
contradiction between the second-rate imperialist powers and US imperialism;
and the contradiction between the Soviet social imperialism and the rest of the
imperialist powers. The contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working
class was manifesting in various forms of working class struggles all over the
capitalist world.
Thus,
these developments reflected changes in the relative economic and political
positions, relative strengths and the political alignments of different
political forces at the world level.
The
socialist and Marxist-Leninist forces were, therefore, required to evaluate
these changes and work out the suitable international tasks which enable them
to mobilise and unite the maximum possible forces against the main common
enemy, to inflict a powerful blow against imperialism and advance the
revolution in individual countries as well as at international level.
CPC AND ITS VANGUARD ROLE IN THE WORLD
The CPC and China led by Com. Mao played
a tremendous revolutionary vanguard role during this period.
The CPC and the Chinese people led
by Com. Mao set a most inspiring record in building a self-reliant and
developing socialist economy. The CPC carried on all embracing struggle against
bourgeois ideology, revisionist theories and unleashed vigorous political and
mass movements against them. It was during this period, it carried on the
Socialist Education Movement and started the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution. It boldly moved the party ranks, working class, peasant masses,
students and youth in their millions into this revolution under the inspiring
slogan “Grasp the Revolution and Promote Production”. All this greatly helped
the Chinese proletariat to consolidate, defend this greatly helped the Chinese
proletariat to consolidate, defend and further strengthen the dictatorship of
the proletariat and foil the attempts of revisionists and the capitalist
roaders to put China on the path of reversal.
In its international struggle against
imperialism and to promote world revolution the CPC led by Com. Mao constantly
followed the Marxist-Leninist principle of differentiating the enemies,
singling out the main enemy for attack. It extended all out support to the
revolutionary movements and popular movements for peace.
The post-second world war period
brought US imperialism to the top as the first rate imperialist power with wild
ambitions and moves to establish its own domination over the entire world.
Quite naturally, the international communist movement and the CPC adopted the
line of singling out the US imperialism as the main enemy of the entire world
people and uniting all the forces that can be united under the leadership of
working class against them. In this context, the Soviet modern revisionists not
only sought to give a new lease of life for imperialists by betraying and
pouring cold water on the advancing revolutions, but also sought to strengthen
imperialism further by stretching their hand of collusion to the US imperialism
which has come to the fore as the main baston of imperialism and world reaction
and as the main enemy of the entire world people. As we all know, this
traitorous line of Soviet modern revisionist brought far reaching consequences
for the entire world revolution.
As early as in 1969, the CPC in its
Ninth Congress formulated that the Soviet Union and US are the two super powers
contending as well as colluding with each other and the contention is absolute
and protracted, where as collusion is relative and temporary. It adopted the
international line of singling out the two super powers as the main common
enemies of world people for attack; uniting all the forces that can be united
against them in the course of struggle and boldly extending all out support to
the people’s revolutions, national liberation and national independence
movements and the movements against war and for peace. This has been accepted
as the common international line of all the Marxist-Leninist organizations and
forces in the world.
China supported the revolutionary
movements and popular movements against colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism
all over the world. The political and moral support it extended to the Indian
revolutionary movement is well known. It sought to develop solidarity, fraternity
and unity among the Marxist-Leninist forces and organizations at world level in
the course of common struggle against revisionism, left opportunism and the
exchange of revolutionary experiences. It extended all possible support and
help to the countries of the third world in their struggle to shake off the
yoke of imperialism and to build up a self reliant and national economy. It
developed relations with a good number of countries on the basis of Five
Principles and made every effort to strengthen the anti-imperialist,
anti-hegemonic and anti-war forces and unity and common action among them in
various forms and through various fora. It supported every just demand, right
and struggle of the people of entire world.
DEVELOPING REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION IN
INDIA-BREAK FROM NEO REVISIONISM
During this period, the Indian
comprador bourgeois-landlord ruling classes faithfully served the interests of
imperialism, particularly the US imperialism. They turned India into a happy
hunting ground for the imperialist sharks to plunder at their will. They
resorted to war of aggression against China as part of US strategy to encircle
and isolate China. They waged a war against Pakistan betraying their
expansionists’ ambitions. In the context of these wars, the Indian rulers hiked
the ‘defence’ spending on an unprecedented scale and throwing the burden on the
backs of people. It was in this period (1966), the U imperialists forced upon
India the devaluation of rupee, in a most arbitrary manner. It was also the
time when the country was facing severe food crisis. The vast masses of Indian
people were the worst victims of an economic crisis.
The increased economic burdens and
the unbearable conditions of life evoked much anger and protest among various
sections of our people and brought them into streets. The year 1066 saw the
eruption of country-wise massive peoples movement for food grains. During this
period, the militant and class struggle-oriented cadre and sections of CPM made
serious and earnest efforts in various pockets of our country to move the
peasants, working class and middle classes into militant and organised
struggles with great success, these struggles, particularly the peasant
struggles, brought the basic issues like land distribution and the forms of struggle
to be adopted into sharp focus. In April 1967, the peasant movement organised
by the revolutionary sections of CPM in Naxalbari acquired a revolutionary
character. It brought the question of land seizure and state power to the fore,
thereby, marked a revolutionary turn in the Indian politics and people’s
movement.
In the 1967 general elections, the
Congress party was defeated in 11 states and it could retain power at the
centre only with a slender majority. This development accentuated the internal squabbles
and contradictions inside the Congress Party. It also led to more organised and
militant struggles of the people. The working class and employees agitated
against automation in industries and services. They adopted new forms of
struggle like gherao. In 1968, the central government employees waged a
historic struggle braving lathis and black laws.
All these developments pointed out
that there existed a fine and developing revolutionary situation. It was in
this background; the communist revolutionaries inside the CPM intensified their
ideological and political struggle against neo revisionism and broke themselves
away from CPI (M). They sought to unite themselves into a separate organization
(AICCCR) and lead the peasant masses in certain pockets in to still higher
forms of struggle. The peasant movements in Srikakulam, Mushahari, Debra and
Gopiballavpur surged forward.
These developments posed
qualitatively new problems to the Indian ruling classes. They sought to face
them with a combination of brutal methods of suppression; ‘soft’ methods of lulling
and the methods of diverting the people from the path of struggle. It was
during this period, that the Hindu religious chauvinist organizations like Shiv
Sena, regional chauvinist organizations like Lajit Sena (Assam) and the
agitations like separate Telangana were encouraged and organised by the
sections of ruling classes as a part of the sinister design to split the people
on the basis of religion, region and parochialism.
INTENSIFICATION OF CRISIS AND RULING
CLASS CONTRADICTIONS
Along with the accentuating economic
and growing peoples struggles, the contention between the two super powers for
domination over India had also intensified the political crisis in our country
and accentuated contradictions and power squabbles inside the Congress Party
and among the sections of Indian ruling classes. As a result, two distinct
groups emerged inside the Congress Party, one led by Indira Gandhi and other by
Nijalingappa. The elections of President of India has become on occasion for
showdown. Indira Gandhi gave call to vote against the official party candidate
in the name of ‘conscience’. She took a series of measures to portray herself
as ‘progressive’ and ‘socialistic’. Her government cancelled Privy purses, and
nationalised 14 commercial banks. She used populist slogans and measures as a
tactic not only to out manoeuvre its rival-the syndicate-in its power struggle
but also to lull and divert the people from the path of struggle and
revolution. She mounted political campaign against syndicate and tried to dub
it as reactionary. The CPI and CPM, true to their revisionist nature, swallowed
the bait of so-called struggle between progressive and reactionary sections of
Congress party and voted in favour of Indira led faction. With their support,
V.V.Giri got elected as President and as a consequence the Congress Party split
into two which came to be known as Congress- I and Congress-O.
Thanks to the politics of reformism
and revisionism, the method of dividing the parties and their sections
representing the class interests of Indian ruling classes as ‘progressive’ or
‘reactionary’-not on the basis of their deeds, but on the basis of their words
has come into vogue. Gandhi and Nehru, the foremost representatives of Indian
ruling classes, adopted slogans and methods that helped them to build up a
popular image among the people and to serve the class interests of comprador bourgeoisie-landlord
classes more effectively. Indira Gandhi, who stepped into the shoes of these
leaders, sought to fully benefit from these progressive grabs. The Soviet
social imperialism coming on the scene also came as a boon to this type of
leaders of exploiting ruling classes. In this context, the social imperialists
and their Indian agents, CPI, CPI(ML), actively worked to promote the section led
by Indira Gandhi and lent their support in fighting its rival section, the
syndicate. This resulted in lulling the people’s consciousness and creating
illusions among them, which was most urgently needed at that juncture to divert
the people from the path of struggle and revolution. Thus, Indira Gandhi proved
herself to be more ‘capable’ in protecting the interests of exploiting ruling
classes from the wrath of the people than its rival-syndicate and could
consolidate her position.
The inter-imperialist
contradictions, particularly, the contention between the two super powers for
domination over India had its own bearing on these developments. It appeared
that a division of forces representing Indian ruling classes was complete of
forces representing Indian ruling classes was complete into pro-US and
pro-Soviet forces. But the facts show that the development and polarised these
forces to some extent but a complete polarisation has not taken place. Both pro-US
and pro-Soviet forces were there in both factions of Congress Party. While the
Congress-I had leaning towards Russia, the syndicate factions had leanings
towards US imperialism.
During 1969-70, while placating the
people with populist measures and striving to divert them from the path of
struggle and revolution, the State let loose white terror on the peasant
revolutionary movements and the revolutionaries. Hundreds of revolutionaries
and peasant workers were shot dead and tortured to death. Several thousands
were thrown behind the bars on concocted charges. Several areas were put under
police rule in the name of ‘disturbed’ areas. Acting in conjunction with
landlords the police destroyed peoples properties, crops, seriously distributed
normal life and committed countless crimes against men and women. The communist
revolutionaries stood up with exceptional revolutionary zeal, commitment and
determination in the face of this brutal repression.
The intensified political and
economic crisis provided favourable situation for the revolutionaries to
organise themselves as well as vast masses of people. However, they could not
fully utilise the situation not only because they were a small force and in
their initial stage not only because they were a small forces and in their
initial stage of activity and organization, but also because of left
opportunism that raised its head even from the initial period and overwhelmed
the situation. The left opportunism did not allow the revolutionaries to put
their strengths and efforts together in a proper and effective way. They could
not go deep into the role of the populist slogans and diversionist methods used
by the ruling classes and also into the ways and means of effectively fighting
them in practice. The left opportunism and its practice brought the divisions
in the revolutionary camp and serious setbacks for the revolutionary movement.
The Congress regime led by Indira
Gandhi fully utilised the weaknesses and setbacks faced by the revolutionaries
and revolutionary movements. it sought to use its carrot and stick policy more
vigorously. In this, it had all the support from the revisionists and
neo-revisionists. In the early 1971, elections were held to Lok Sabha and the
Congress-I returned to power with overwhelming majority. The Congress led by
Indira Gandhi came to the fore as a dominant political force representing the
interests of Indian ruling classes.
TWO SUPER POWERS-FROM COLLUSION TO
CONTENTION
In the period 1969-75, the
contention between the two super powers for hegemony got further intensified.
The two super powers committed crimes against the people of world. On the other
side, the oppressed nations and people had shown more awakening, more unity and
fought against imperialism, colonialism and the hegemony of two super powers.
The contention of two super powers
extended to every corner of the earth. They contended for control over sea
routes marine resources and did not leave even the outer space. While
establishing an exclusive and unrestricted control over the countries of Third
World was their main aim, Europe remained the focal point of their contention.
Of the two super powers, the US
continued to be on the downhill. It faced many defeats in its wars of
aggression, and got itself widely exposed in the world. On the whole, it was in
a strategically defensive position trying to retain its spheres of influence.
The USSR was in a strategically
offensive position. It moved with an offensive global strategy. Already, it was
controlling the East Europe. It accelerated its plunder of natural resources of
the Third World. It scrambled for strategic bases in Africa and Middle East in
an attempt to encircle Europe from the flanks. It stood on the scene as an
imperialist super power with socialist garb. Using the prestige of being the
first socialist country as a spring board, it made every effort to influence
the national movements of Third world countries and turn them into its own
appendages.
The super powers piled up the most
destructive arms are part of their own ‘defences’ as well as in various
disguised forms. They fed the world people with all such deceptive talk as
‘detente’, relaxation of tensions’, ‘peace’ and ‘disarmament’. But, in
practice, they flared up endless tensions and wars and accentuated the arms
race to a feverish pitch.
The second rate imperialist powers
continued to exploit and oppress the Third World countries and yearned for more
share in the plunder. The super powers drive for world hegemony was subjecting
them to control, threats and ‘bullying in varying degrees. While Soviet
hegemonists maintained constant pressure by threat of invasion on these
countries, the US hegemonists used the plea of protecting them from Soviet
invasion to tighten their hold on them and the policies of the two super powers
remained a source of their ever growing contradictions with second rate
imperialist powers.
During this period, the US
imperialists continued their armed aggression against Vietnam. In April 1970,
the Cambodian government headed by Prince Sihanouk was overthrown by US-backed
coup led by Lon Nol. The Soviet hegemonists immediately recognised this
traitorous government. The progressive and patriotic government of Allende of
Chile was overthrown by a CIA financed coup in Oct.1973, in which Allende was
murdered. While the Zionist Israel resorted to another war of aggression
against Egypt, the super powers colluded to maintain a ‘no peace, no war’
situation in the Middle East. While US supplied arms to Israel, the Soviet
social imperialism supplied them with manpower by allowing the soviet Jews to
migrate to Israel. Moreover, in the context of war, it also refused to supply
most crucial spare parts for the weapons it supplied to Egypt and reschedule
Egyptian debt payments, thereby, betraying the Arab cause. The Soviet
hegemonists signed unequal military treaties with a number of Third world
countries including India. They suppressed workers rebellion in Poland. They
carried out subversive activities in Africa. Series of these acts had exposed
the ugly features and reactionary nature of Soviet social imperialism.
The CPC divided the world into three
ever since 1968. While opposing every imperialist act of control, interference,
bullying, and aggression, it singled out the two super powers as main targets
of international struggle. Com. Chou En-Lai’s Report to the Tenth Congress of
CPC (August 1973), the stands adopted by China on various issues in the United
Nations Organization since its entry into it (October 1971) and various
statements of Com. Mao during this period unequivocally made this clear.
In his historic May 20, 1970
Statement, Com. Mao pointed out, “The danger of a new world war still exists,
and the people of all countries must get prepared. But the revolution is the
main trend in the world today”. The course of world developments moved exactly
in the direction Com. Mao visualised.
By 1975, the people of Vietnam, Laos
and Cambodia had won final victory in their war against US aggression and for
national salvation. The struggle of Korean people for Independence and peaceful
reunification of their fatherland entered a new stage. The struggle of
Palestinian and other Arab people against Israeli aggression; The African
People’s struggle against colonialism, imperialism and racial oppression and the
Latin American peoples struggle for just rights over the marine resources
continued to forge ahead. The world situation moved more and more favourable
for the proletariat, oppressed nations and people and forces of peace. It
turned unfavourable for the imperialism in general and the two super powers in
particular. The forces of revolution and peace continued to grow in strength
and unity all over the world.
INDIAN EXPANSIONISM-DISMEMBERMENT OF
PAKISTAN
The Indian ruling classes gained a
temporary political stability through elections. How to assess this stability
has become a point of divergence among the communist revolutionaries. The
ruling classes continued to be chased by ever intensifying economic crisis. In
the face of ever increasing difficulties, discontentment’s was mounting among
the people. It was in this context, the Indian government brought NASA (early
1971) and ESMO into vogue. While flaring up anti-Pak national chauvinisms it
intensified repression against the communist revolutionaries. It sought to
shift the economic burden of crisis on to the peoples backs and, in fact,
unleashed an all-out economic war against them. The imposition of additional
taxes and introduction of Compulsory Deposit Scheme were only a part of this
onslaught.
In the latter half of 1970,
elections were held in Pakistan. The party led by Mujib-ur-Rahman won majority
of seats in the eastern part of Pakistan. The military rulers of Pakistan
headed by Yahya Khan, who were committed to maintain the pre-eminent position of
US in Pakistan, were not at all prepared to allow Mujib-ur-Rahman to take the
reigns of power in East Pakistan as he was known for his pro-Soviet stance.
They were also not prepared to allow Bhutto (whose party won majority in
Western Pakistan) to assume power because they were not sure about his ability
to handle the situation in the interests of US. Mujib-ur-Rahman was arrested
and implicated in “Agartala Conspiracy case”, while Bhutto was kept under house
arrest. These actions naturally led to protests and brought the democratic
forces and people into streets. The protest was more powerful in East Pakistan.
In this context, the Indian rulers
intervened into the affairs of Pakistan with three objectives: i) to realise
the expansionist ambitions of Indian ruling classes; ii) not to allow the
genuine democratic and revolutionary forces in East Pakistan to emerge as a decisive
force and lead the struggle in the interest of their own people; iii) to
utilise the whole development as a means to rouse national chauvinism among the
Indian people and divert them from their main problems. In this, the Indian
government had all blessings from Soviet hegemonists. It deliberately
encouraged the exodus of East Pakistani refugees into India to use the ‘refugee
problem’ as a pretext for its own interference. Indian government sent its own
armed forces into East Pakistan in the guise of ‘Mukti Bahini’ and set up a
‘regime of East Pakistan’ on Indian soil as a part of the preparation for its
all-out intervention. On August 9, 1971, India signed a military treaty with
the Soviet Union under the guise of ‘friendship and co-operation’. This marked
a qualitative leap in the relations of Indian ruling classes and Soviet social
imperialists. It formalised Soviet domination in the matters of India’s
military affairs and tied India to the Soviet global strategy for world
domination. It also served as a launching pad and protective umbrella for the
Indian armed forces to wage an all out naked armed aggression against Pakistan.
In a 14-day war, the Indian rulers were able to achieve dismemberment of East
Pakistan and created “Bangla Desh”.
The 1971 war brought laurels for
Indira Congress from the ruling classes, national chauvinist forces and
revisionists and neo revisionists. It forced the ‘rightist’ as well as
‘leftist’ forces alike to bow down politically and morally before Indira
Congress. The revisionists and neo revisionists extended their all out support
and co-operation to the expansionist moves and national chauvinist campaign of
the Indian ruling classes in the context of ‘Bangla Desh’ issue. For
revisionists, this act was only a continuation of their earlier policy. Here
the neo-revisionists shed all their earlier pretences of demareating themselves
from the policies and interests of the Indian ruling classes and nakedly embraced
their expansionist and national chauvinist policies.
However, India met with worldwide
condemnation for its acts of intervention and armed aggression. China stood
firm and principled in its opposition to Indian intervention in all its forms
in the affairs of Pakistan. It thoroughly and consistently exposed the role and
hegemonic designs of Soviet Union in the whole affair.
The communist revolutionaries
adopted a correct stand of opposing the interventionist, expansionist and
nakedly aggressive acts of Indian rulers against Pakistan. They correctly saw
the hegemonic designs of Soviet social imperialism behind these acts. They
correctly saw the unequal, anti-national and military nature of indo-Soviet treaty
and also its dangerous role in turning the Indian defence into a tool of Soviet
global strategy.
There also reflected some confusion
among the Indian revolutionaries. The slogans like “Sonar Bangla” were also
heard from some sections of Indian revolutionaries at that time. China’s
principled stand of opposing India’s intervention was understood by some
sections as supporting the fascist onslaught of Pakistani rulers against
genuine democratic and revolutionary forces in Pakistan. In reality, the stand
adopted by China at the time was not only in the interests of people,
democratic and revolutionary forces of Pakistan, but also in the interest of
Indian revolution and the struggle against hegemonism.
Immediately after conclusion of war,
Indira regime declared elections to state assemblies (March 1972) to
consolidate he political power by cashing in the gains of war. She raised the
slogans like “Garibi Hatao” in a high pitch and resorted to other populist
measures to attract poor and down-trodden masses of people. Raising the slogan
that the scheduled castes, tribes and backward classes must get their due share
in power, Indira Gandhi saw to it that substantial part of the seats in state
assemblies were allotted to them. These moves were aimed at firstly,
strengthening her own vote bank by creating illusions among the vast masses and
diverting them from the path of struggle and revolution; secondly distributing
the then existing power equations so that she can be free from potential
contender for leadership within Congress-I. The Indira Congress reaped fruits
in both ways from her tactical moves. It has won in all the State Assembly
elections.
AGAIN IN THE MIDST OF INTENSIFYING
CRISIS AND PEOPLE’S STRUGGLES
At the same time, the economic
crisis continued to intensify unabatedly. Proletarian crisis affected the
Indian economy. The costs of war; and the arms race that gained momentum after
signing Indo-Soviet Treaty and 1971 war drained the resources of our country.
Inflation, deficit financing, additional taxation and price rise had become
order of the day. On the one hand, the government brought yet another land
ceiling act in 1973 to lull the rural people and continued to use populist
measures; on the other hand, it took several ‘unpopular’ measures of throwing
the burden of crisis on the people and opened flood gates for imperialist
capital aid. Yet, the crisis continued to intensify.
It was in this background, various
sections of people increasingly took the course of organised, united and
militant struggles, the Loco running staff waged a significant all India
struggle in 1973 in the face of brutal repression. Working class struggles in
defence of their rights and against the mounting attacks on their incomes had
come up in several industrial centres. The students in Gujarat came into
streets. Their struggle, which started in protest against the increase in mess
charges, in no time, turned into a powerful peoples movement for the supply of
food-grains at reasonable rates that people can play. In Bihar, the agitation
against corruption at higher level assumed a militant character. In May 1974,
the railway workers went on an all India strike. Though this struggles met with
a grand betrayal from revisionists, it remains a most significant struggle in
the history of working class struggles in India. It is not only because of its
organised, militant and political nature, but also because of fine solidarity
it received from other sections of people in general and peasant masses in
particular in various pockets of our country and the lessons it provided for
the working class movement in India. In Maharashtra, a “Dalit Panther movement”
had come up as a just reaction against Hindu communalists of so-called upper
castes and police atrocities. In central Bombay, Dalits boycotted elections and
clashed with congress hoodlums and police. They raised the slogan that all
oppressed masses irrespective of their castes must close their ranks and
unitedly fight against injustice meted to them for generations together. The
poor and landless peasants came out in organised struggles in various pockets
for better wages, land and against landlord atrocities. These struggles, taken
as a whole, provided ever growing favourable conditions for unleashing more
organised class struggles, peoples movements and for the revival of
revolutionary activity and movement.
The political crisis got intensified
in the country. The ruling class parties in the opposition which were out
manoeuvred by Indira Gandhi in the context of 1969 Congress split and in the
later period were waiting for a chance. They worked out a political strategy
that helps to utilise the growing discontentment and anger among the people to
strengthen their own vote base among the people. While clearly demarcating
themselves from and being always conscious not to allow the strengthening of
genuinely democratic, class struggle-oriented and revolutionary struggles, they
sought to divert the students, youth and other middle classes to safe
channels-both in terms of forms of struggle and demands-and to establish their
own leadership over them. Their talk about ‘peaceful’ and Gandhian methods of
protest and their attempts to limit the protest to the demands like corruption
and to the general exposure of Indira regime were only the result of it. They
succeeded in their attempts by utilising the weaknesses of revolutionary and
democratic forces and vast resources and propaganda media at their disposal.
The whole protest movement came to be known as “JP Movement”. the ruling class
parties in the opposition had thrown up JP leadership to gain credibility for
their own leadership and to channelize and direct the whole movement in the
interests of their won quest for power. The Congress (O), JS, SSP, men of
erstwhile Swatantra party and some others came into one block as a prelude to
the formation of single party which came to be known as Janata party. These
parties also sought to utilise the legal battle (case against Indira Gandhi’s
election) to strengthen their own position in the power struggle.
Indira Gandhi moved with her own
political strategy. On one hand, she continued to use populist slogans and
measures to lull and rally people behind the Congress party. On the other hand,
she sought to suppress the struggling masses, democratic and revolutionary
forces with iron hand. She raised a hue and cry that the fascist and
reactionary forces are actively working to destabilise the country and to
reverse the ‘progressive’ and ‘socialist’ policies pursued by her regime. She
sought to further strengthen and assert her authoritarian hold over the party
and government. She armed herself with such fascist network as RAW whose job
was to keep a close watch on potential dissenters and opponents in various
parties and walks of life and execute suitable operations to silence them. She
intensified political campaign against the parties in the opposition pressing
all resources and part of the media at her disposal into service.
REVISIONISTS IN THEIR TREACHEROUS ROLE
In the context of these
developments, CPI worked actively and openly as the propaganda wing of Indira
Congress. It preached the people not to resort to course of struggle. It
betrayed the struggles wherever possible and worked overtime to mobilise people
in support of the so-called progressive and socialist policies of Indira
Gandhi. It took upon itself the job of organising so-called anti-fascist fora
as part of the move to strengthen the political leadership of Indira Gandhi.
Needless to say, this was nothing but an out and out bankrupt and class
collaborationist policy. On the other side, the CPM was favourably inclined
towards Indira congress. It took all the care not to hurt the interests of
Indira Congress, while, at the same time, trying to appear as an important
political force in the ranks opposed to Indira regime. Here lies the duplicity
and deceptive nature of its policy. True to its neo-revisionist nature and
commitment to safeguard the present system, it has done everything possible to
prevent and our cold water on the growing class struggles and peoples
movements.
The intensifying political struggle
among the parties of ruling classes also reflected the contention of two super
powers for domination over India. While Soviet Union put its weight behind
Indira Congress, the US put its weight behind the parties of the ruling classes
in opposition. The Soviet Union sought to further consolidate its position by
utilising the situation. It came out with proposals like Asian Security Treaty
aimed at roping other countries of Asia into its own sphere of influence. The
US was out to tilt the pro-soviet leaning in the policies of Indira regime.
Thus the contradictions and power struggle among the sections of Indian ruling
classes took a more sharp turn.
In Bangla Dehs, Mujib-ur-Rahman’s
regime was overthrown in a military coup backed by US. Mujib-ur-Rahman and his
family were butchered. This sent shivers for Indian rulers. The judgment of
Allahabad High Court declaring the election of Indira Gandhi null and void and
disqualifying her to stand for elections for six years came as a big blow. The
situation was fully ripe for the accentuation of crisis and revolt inside the
congress and for an all out political offensive by the parties in the
opposition. Fall of Indira regime appeared imminent and inescapable. This was
the context in which Indira Gandhi backed by her ‘coterie’ took all the powers
into her own hands and acting in a most authoritarian and conspiratorial way
declared Emergency. She pushed more than a lakh of political leaders and
activists behind bars and banned 26 political and other organizations
(including the organizations of communist revolutionaries) all over India. Thus
the dark rule of Emergency has set in.
HOW THE REVOLUTIONARIES ACTED?
Because of severe losses and
setbacks faced by the revolutionaries even by the end of 1970, the revolutionary
movements, as a whole, were in a low side. Splits and demoralisation and become
an order of the day.
Taking proper lessons from practice,
re-uniting our forces on the basis of these lessons, working out tasks taking
the concrete conditions and the changed situation of movement into
consideration and carrying on a patient and organised work among the people
with a long term perspective was the need of the hour. There was also need to
use dynamic and flexible tactics to utilise the crisis and contradictions among
the ruling classes in the interests of strengthening and expanding the
revolutionary activities and movement in the country.
However, the performance of
revolutionaries was not as it should have been. Some persisted in the left
opportunist and sectarian line in old and modified forms; some demarcated
themselves from the old left opportunist and sectarian line in some respects
but sought to carry out an admixture of left and right opportunist trends; the
forces adopting the revolutionary mass line continued to remain divided,
disconnected and were facing various difficulties in the course of practice in
the period 1970-75.
During this period, there reflected
left and right opportunist trends and the trend of revolutionary mass line in
adopting positions on various issues.
- Legal defence: The comrades persisting
in the left opportunist trend raised the slogan, ‘Boycott bourgeois
courts!’ This neither helped to effectively expose the laws and class
interest of the exploiting classes nor to defend the interests of
revolutionary movement.
The
comrades adopting the revolutionary mass line sought to utilise courts as
platforms to thoroughly expose the laws, constitution and class interests of
the exploiting classes and to defend and propagate revolutionary politics. As
the same time, they tried to utilise whatever the scope available for the
release of comrades.
Communist
revolutionaries of Andhra Pradesh led by Com. TN and DV adopted the line of defending
the path of revolution contained in the Immediate Programme and of exposing the
undemocratic anti-national and anti-people nature of Indian constitution, laws
and policies and rule of the present ruling classes. They used jails as schools
for political education and as centres for ideological and political work.
While seeking to utilise legal aspects to come out of imprisonment, they
prepared themselves to jump the law to throw themselves in the thick of
revolutionary activity among the people.
At
the same time, it must be admitted that some comrades could not own the
Immediate Programme which formed the basis for conspiracy case against the
communist revolutionaries, though they defended revolutionary politics in
general terms. Some others took the road of disassociating themselves from
revolutionary politics.
- Attitude towards
movements led by the parties of ruling classes: In 1968-69 and 1973
separatist movements were led (separate Telangana and separate Andhra) by
the disgruntled sections of ruling class parties of respective areas as
part of their wrangling over spoils of power. Unemployed and frustrated
youth took part in these movements. the government resorted to brutal
repression against the general mass of students and youth, while carrying
on dialogue and bargaining with the leadership.
The
left opportunist in Andhra Pradesh adopted an opportunist stand of identifying
themselves with these separatist movements and tailing behind the sections of
ruling classes who were leading these movements, of course, with such imaginary
and empty slogans like, “Peoples Raj in Telangana”.
The
Communist Revolutionaries clearly demarcated themselves from the separatist and
diversionist slogans. They exposed the objectives of the ruling class sections
in raising these slogans. They opposed the government’s policy of brutal
repression and put before the people their own solutions for the problems faced
by the people.
In
the context of Gujarat and Bihar movements, which reflected some democratic
demands and militancy upto a period but which eventually became part of JP
movement, different stands and approaches had reflected among the
revolutionaries. The left opportunist sections in AP raised such imaginary
slogans like, “turn the movements into guerrilla warfare”. Though these slogans
sounded revolutionary, they were devoid of class approach and remained as only
empty slogans.
The
CPI (ML) led by Com. SNS adopted the stand of totally identifying itself with
JP movement all in the name of fighting the central government. This stand
failed to demarcate from and expose the politics and interests of the sections
of ruling classes leading the movement. Thus it only turned out to be a tailist
and right opportunist stand.
The
Communist Revolutionaries in AP and elsewhere adopted a critical attitude
towards the movement. While adopting a positive attitude towards the democratic
demands concerning people, they exposed the attempts of the parties of ruling
classes in the opposition to limit the movement and to use the same as a tool
in the wrangling for spoils of power among the sections of ruling classes. They
consistently opposed the brutal repression resorted to by the governments
against the vast masses of people.
- Attitude towards civil
democratic rights movement: To start with the left opportunist ignored the
democratic rights movements. but, when they saw the revival and
developments of a powerful civil and democratic rights movement in AP as a
result of consistent efforts on the part of communist revolutionaries,
they came out with the slogans that civil and the democratic rights can be
won only through “armed struggle” and the fora of civil and democratic
rights must be confined to the propagation of politics of ‘armed
struggle’. At one time, doubts were also expressed about the possibility
and correctness of organising civil and democratic rights movement when
the revolutionaries were engaged in leading agrarian revolutionary
movement and “armed struggle” in some pockets; but, the sad thing is, when
the civil and democratic rights movement was about to take an organizational
form at state level, both these forces gone out of the way to take control
of the organization and in the course cased a split in the movement.
During
this period, different processes of unification were attempted. Besides the
trend of revolutionary mass line, there persisted various wrong trends among
the revolutionaries and a clear political and organizational polarisation has
not yet taken place.
The
leadership of Andhra Communist Revolutionaries prepared documents for an all
India organization while they were still in jails. The moment they come out of
jails, they went all out in their efforts towards unification and to revive and
intensify political, organizational and mass activities in various areas and
fronts. They had combined these tasks in a most effective way. i) They had
undertaken legal defence of comrades in the Parvathipuram Conspiracy case as a
serious political task. They combined this task with the programme of fund
collection for the defence of comrades in the conspiracy case and carried it
out as an extensive political campaign to mobilise solidarity and support for
Srikakulam girijan revolutionary movement and to create conditions favourable
for unity and revival of movement in the agency area. ii) Com. TN has
undertaken an extensive tour in Srikakulam agency area touching remotest
villages. It greatly helped to revive people’s morale, to restore party’s links
with the people and to create positive political atmosphere for the revival of
activities. They continued efforts in an organised and conserted way to build a
civil and democratic rights movement in the State. It complemented and provided
a favourable atmosphere for the revival of activities in the rural areas, iii)
concerted and organised efforts were made to revive and extend activities in
various spheres and areas. As a result of organised and consistent efforts on
the part of our comrades, our contact and work in Kondamodalu and in various
other rural pockets got revived and expanded. Work among youth, students,
workers and cultural fields yielded good results. The leadership earmarked
areas, decided suitable organizational structures and the responsibilities of
comrades in the light of strategic orientation for the development of
organization and movement. The leadership prepared the leading cadres
politically and in terms of consciousness to save themselves and work under the
conditions of repression. iv) The Party Organs (JANASAKTHI, PROLETARIAN PATH)
that they brought out played a significant role, not only in the revival of activities
and political and ideological education but also in unity efforts. v) They
carried on unity efforts will all seriousness. They resulted in the formation
of our as India organization-Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India
(Marxist-Leninist) in April 1975.
All
these steps and activities were undertaken simultaneously and were carried on
in co-ordination with one another. They had a profound cumulative effect on the
development of whole course of activity. They greatly helped our ranks to
overcome the initial demoralisation caused by 1971 split, and enhanced their
morale and convictions.
At
the same time, the revolutionaries, as a whole, were not at all in a position
to cope with the tasks before them.
Ever
intensifying economic and political crisis and the trend of more organised and
militant struggles among the various sections of people had opened up best of
the opportunities for the revolutionaries. But owing to their own weaknesses as
well as certain wrong trends, the revolutionaries could not effectively utilise
these opportunities.
Fruitful efforts
on the part of communist revolutionaries to build up revolutionary activities
in some pockets and to unify their own forces were, no doubt, viewed by the
Indian ruling classes as a sign of threat. They sought to put off this spark before
it grows into a prairie fire. The act of Indira Gandhi to ban the revolutionary
organizations in the context of Emergency was only a step of this type. Though
we were seeing the possibility of intensifying political crisis bringing more
repressive conditions sooner, we needed some more time to consolidate our
initial gains. In a way, the Emergency brought a sudden turn in the political
situation. Ourselves to the same. Our efforts to revive and extend our activities
which were moving in a proper direction; which were on the upswing and which
needed some more time to get themselves politically and organizationally
consolidated and advanced faced a serious obstacle and some diversion. It
costed us dearly. We had to adopt ourselves to the changed situation.
Emergency rule
went for 18 months. Indira regime, on one hand, sought to lull the people with
her much tom-tomed 20 point programme. On the other hand, she unleashed many
sided attacks on the revolutionaries, democratic forces and struggling masses
of people. Rigorous censorship was imposed on press, strikes were banned; Many
benefits and rights won by the workers through struggles were taken away; The
revisionists worked overtime to preach the workers about the need to produce
more and shun struggles; slums were bull-dozed in several cities, forced
sterilisation were carried on in several areas; atrocities on rural poor,
brutal killings in police lock-ups went on freely. The big bourgeoisie was
given a number of additional benefits and concessions in the name of promoting
production and exports; additional tax burdens were imposed on peasants. Talk
about ‘Presidential form of government’, limited dictatorship’ and ‘guided
democracy’ was indulged in as part of the move to prepare the mood and
conditions for a fascist type rule. Sanjay Gandhi was paraded as a prince
placing the entire state machinery and resources at his disposal. He
established his own record of crimes.
Even in these
worst conditions of dark rule, workers, peasants, students and other sections
of people waged many a struggles in defence of their rights.
Emergency posed
the question: how to evaluate the developments that resulted in emergency? What
changes it brought? How to work in the conditions of emergency? What should be
the priorities of tasks? Different evaluations and attitudes reflected among
the revolutionaries.
The need and
urgency for unification had increased as the conditions demanded a more united
effort on the part of revolutionaries.
The importance
of building agrarian revolutionary movement in no way lessened. At the same
time, scope for democratic rights movement widened.
While various
brutal acts of suppression in the period of emergency invited protest and
opposition from the conscious masses as well as democratic forces, the 20-Point
Programme of Indira regime played its own role in retaining illusions among the
people with no or backward consciousness. The revolutionary did not take
sufficient note of this factor and as a consequence they could not adopt
suitable tactics to effectively counter the ruling class tactics in this
respect.
LIFTING
OF EMERGENCY - CHANGES IN THE POLITICAL SITUATION
Indira Gandhi compelled to withdraw Emergency and declare
elections in Jan.1977. The pressure of democratic forces both in India and at
international level, and the pressure from US and other western imperialist
powers had a powerful impact on this decision. The moment emergency was lifted,
the parties jumped into election battle with their own politics alignments
adjustments and slogans. Congress (O), JS and SSP etc emerged themselves as a
single party called Janata party. This party entered into an electoral alliance
with CFD led to Jagjivan Ram who broke away from Indira Congress. While Indira
Congress promised a ‘stable’ government, the Janata-CFD alliance promised the
restoration of civil and democratic rights etc. While CPI linked its fate with
Indira Congress, CPM liked itself with the opposition front with a clear
objective to strengthen its own position; to keep itself in a better position
to influence the opposition front as well as the course of political
developments in the later period.
The election results brought Janata-CFD combine to power.
The Janata regime acted for 20 months (April 1977 to August 1979). This regime
being a conglomeration of various political parties with their own leanings
towards US as well as USSR, was an object of ever intensifying pushes and pulls
and internal squabbles. Though it cook not even a single step that hurt the
interests of Soviet hegemonists, its very political compositions as well as its
talk about ‘genuine and independent foreign policy’ were unpalatable and a
source of irritation for pro-Soviet forces-both inside and outside the Janata
regime. They rised the hue and cry against ‘communal forces’ as part of the
move to single out Jana Sangh and other pro-US forces for attack; to intensify
squabbles and crisis inside the Janata regime and finally pull it down.
Pro-Soviet forces inside the Janata regime and Indira congress, revisionists
and neo-revisionists co-ordinated their actions and finally succeeded in their
game. In this context, the pro-soviet forces and their lobbies once again
demonstrated their strength in the Indian politics.
Janata regime came on the scene to serve the same comprador
bourgeois-landlord class interests. Though in the changed political situation,
it had to allow some marginal opportunities for democratic and revolutionary
forces, its basic attitude towards them as well as the struggling masses of
people was no different from earlier Congress regime. Its call to
revolutionaries to “come back into the national main stream”, and its offer for
“dialogue” were only vehicles of political offensive against the
revolutionaries. Behind the high-sounding talk about civil liberties and
against emergency rule, it pushed through its anti-people and anti-national
policies.
The suppressed anger and protest among the people in
general and working class in particular had burst cut in the form of
spontaneous militant struggles in the immediate, post-emergency period. Janata
regime, like Congress regime, sought to suppress it brutally. Biladilla mine
workers struggle (April 1978) was an important instance of it. Here, the
workers resisted large scale retrenchment initiated by the government. Armed
police entered the houses of workers and sought to evict them by resorting to
several brutal acts. Police shot dead 26 workers. In June 1979, police went on
an agitation in Punjab and it spread to Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and other
states. In the same year, police in AP went agitation in defence of their
rights and demands. These struggles were only a pointer to people’s mood.
The lifting of emergency; the outcome of March 1977
elections and policies adopted by Janata regime towards the revolutionaries had
become points of discussion and divergence among the revolutionaries. While
some inhibitions towards the utilisation of marginal opportunities manifested
in the attitude of communist revolutionaries who adopted a basically correct
position on various questions, some revolutionaries fell prey to right
opportunist trend.
The fall of Janata regime was followed by the rule of
minority regime led by Charan Singh. It lasted for only a month. Elections were
declared for Lok Sabha and they were held at the end of 1980.
STRUGGLE
BETWEEN MARXIST-LENINIST AND REVISIONIST FORCES AND SECOND GREAT SETBACK
In the year 1976, CPC, Chinese people and the entire world
communist movement faced heavy loss of leadership. Com. Chou En Lai and Com.
Che Teh, Com. Mao’s long tested close comrades-in-arms who contributed
immensely to the Chinese and world proletarian revolutions and the
international struggle against modern revisionism have passed away. Again in
the same year on September 9, Com. Mao, the great Marxist-Leninist leader and
teacher of international communist movement had passed away.
The CPC faced a critical situation. On one side, the
revisionists and unrepentant capitalist roaders were out to utilise the situation
to their advantage. On the other side, the ultra left forces, who sought to
distort Com. Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line, the aims, direction and
course set by him for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, were out to
seize the leadership of the party and government. This later force, which came
to be known as “Gang of Four”, resorted to secret and conspiratorial methods
and sought to lead a mini-coup to realise their objective. However, the forces
upholding Com. Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line led by Com. Hua Kuo Feng
backed millions of party ranks and people successfully foiled these attempts
and saved China from great Chaos.
The CPC held its Eleventh Party Congress in August 1977. The
Congress is significant because i) it held high the great banner of Mao’s
Thought and proletarian internationalism. It upheld the struggle against modern
revisionism and pledged to carry this struggle forward; ii) it upheld the path
of socialism pursued by the CPC and also the struggle against revisionist and
capitalist restorationist theories, politics and attempts; iii) it upheld the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and rejected the trends and practices
represented by the ‘Gang of Four’ as ultra-left and as running counter to the
aims and line set by Com. Mao for the said revolution; iv) it upheld Com. Mao’s
revolutionary line in foreign affairs and pledged to firmly carry it forward.
It expressed its firm resolve to “support the communist parties of all
countries but not revisionism”; “the revolutionary struggles of the communist
parties of all countries” and enhance its unity with the “socialist countries
and with the proletariat and oppressed people and nations throughout the
world”. It also expressed its firm resolve to enhance its unity with the
“countries of the Third World, unite with the all countries subjected to
aggression, subversion, interference, control and bullying by imperialism and
social imperialism and form the broadest united front against the hegemonism of
the two super powers, the US and USSR”. It upholds all the formulations
concerning the Three World’s differentiation. These formulations were the
products of almost two-decade long practice and the evaluations of changes in
the development of basic contradictions in the contemporary world, the division
and realignment of different political forces and the political and economic
status of each country in the international context, and the scientific
conclusions arrived at as a consequence regarding the contemporary strategic
situation in the world.
But the situation was not that safe and smooth in the
CPC. The forces representing revisionism and capitalist road in the leadership
gradually intensified their activities. They utilised the grave mistakes
committed by the ultra-left forces and wide-spread opposition and resentment
they invited from the party ranks and people to their advantage and mounted
attacks on the Party leadership which was upholding Com. Mao’s proletarian
revolutionary line in true spirit of the term. They sought to influence the
line and policies and reopen the issues in the name of ‘seeking truth from
facts’, ‘rectifying the left mistakes’ ‘re-evaluating the history’ and
‘emancipating the mind’ etc. In the struggle that went on between the
Marxist-Leninist forces and revisionist forces, the latter succeeded in gaining
upper hand in the leadership of the CPC. The decisions of the Third Plenary
session of the Eleventh CC of CPC (December 1978) only reflected this development.
It was here fundamental changes have been made in the line and policies of CPC
towards a reversal. The revisionist leadership had consolidated and further
strengthened its position in the party and government in the subsequent period
and set China on the path of capitalist restoration in an all out manner.
The reversal in China has brought the second greatest
setback for the world communist and revolutionary movements before they were
yet to fully overcome the earlier setback. The forces moving along the
revolutionary path in their own countries and the forces fighting against the
acts of interference, control, bullying and armed aggression by the super
powers lost a consistent, most dependable and powerful support and a vanguard
force. The revisionist leaderships in various countries whose policies were
increasingly facing crisis got a lease of life, at least temporarily.
Confusions, new controversies and an erosion of confidence manifested among the
Marxist-Leninist parties, organizations and forces in various countries.
Problems of building socialism, causes of reversals had become topics for
debate once again among the Marxist-Leninist forces in the world. This time,
the Marxist-Leninist forces had to discuss these questions and find answers in
the absence of an international forum or a party in power with enough
experience and authority to debate the questions as we had in CPC led by Com.
Mao in the period of Great Debate (1956-64). This had placed the
Marxist-Leninist forces in a difficult position. The enemies of communism and
socialism did not hide their joy at the reversal and did not lose the occasion
to once again preach us about the futility of socialist and communist path. We
must show enough maturity, steadfastness and responsible attitude if we have to
overcome the reversals and foil the momentary joys and day dreams of the
enemies of socialism and communism.
SUPER
POWER CONTENTION FOR WORLD HEGEMONY - SOVIET UNION ON ITS OFFENSIVE DRIVE
During this period, the Third World countries were
objects of aggression plunder and control by the two super powers. In their
scramble for spheres of influence the super powers set up military bases in a
number of third world countries. They indulged in acts of subversion and
infiltration and violated the sovereignty of many small and medium-sized countries
in an attempt to rob them of their resources and establish their own hegemony
over them. But, where there is oppression there is resistance. The acts of
aggression by the two super powers and their contention for world hegemony have
roused strong opposition from the people of Asia, Africa and Latin American
countries. It made them to realise the need to unite and resist the two
overlords. This struggle by the people in the third world countries-an important
sign of the excellent world situation-is a blow against the wild ambitions of
two super powers to carve up the world between themselves; it also provides a
powerful support to the revolutionary struggles of the people of all lands,
turning the international situation more and more favourable to the people.
Soviet Union sent several thousands of its own as well as
the mercenary troops of Cuba and East Germany into the African countries as
part of the move to expand its spheres of influence under cover of helping the
concerned people in their struggle for national independence. It continued to
station its troops in Mangolia, on borders with China, East Europe and other
countries. It tied various countries of Asia and Middle East with unequal
military treaties. It came to control the defences and military policies of
several countries. It played power politics by poking its nose into the
problems of other countries. By indulging in act of subversion, domination and
betrayals, it invited much resentment, opposition, expulsion and cancellation
of military treaties in several countries. The two super powers turned the
non-aligned and other international fora into arenas for their intense
contention and intrigues for domination.
In December 1978, the Vietnam, backed by the Soviet
hegemonists marched its troops into Kampuchea and forcibly occupied it. Quite
naturally, this naked aggression evoked worldwide condemnation and a powerful
people have armed resistance from the revolutionary and patriotic forces of
Kampuchea led by the Khmer Rouge. In decade long heroic resistance war for
national salvation fought against the Soviet backed Vietnamese aggressors, the
Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea for National Salvation comprising
three forces (One led by Khmer Rouge the principal forces, second one led by
prince Sihanouk and the third led by Son Sonn) scored significant victories,
politically as well as in the battle field. The government formed by them
continue to enjoy recognition and support from several countries. Again, in
December 1979, the Soviet hegemonists marched their own troops into Afghanistan
and installed a puppet regime there. The national and patriotic forces of
Afghanistan rose in revolt and intensified their struggle against Soviet invasion.
This naked act of Soviet Aggression evoked worldwide condemnation. These two
acts of aggression took the offensive drive of the Soviet social imperialism to
highest level and exposed hegemonic and aggressive features more nakedly.
The Indian revolutionaries promptly condemned these acts
of aggression and hegemonism. They extended their solidarity and support to the
struggling masses of Kampuchean and Afghan people. True to its subservient
nature, the short-lived Charan Singh’s regime supported the aggressors. This
act has once again shown the strength of Soviet influence on Indian politics.
The policies adopted by CPC in Dec.1978 came as a source
of serious concern for the Indian revolutionaries. Different positions were
adopted by them. i) some who were under the influence of tirade unleashed by
the Albanian Party of Labour against the CPV adopted the sectarian position
that China’s policies underwent basic change ever since Com. Mao’s death. ii)
Some comrades sought to support the new policies of CPC leadership without
making any critical study. iii) Others like us came to the conclusion that the
Third Plenary Session of Eleventh of CC of CPC (Dec. 1978) marked a fundamental
change in the policies of CPC leadership towards revisionism and capitalist
restoration.
TREACHEROUS
POLICIES OF INDIRA REGIME
Indira Congress came back to power in the 1980 elections.
In this context, it fully utilised the divisions and failures of opposition
parties and also the illusions her own populist measures and slogans had
created among the people. It also utilised the services-overtly or
covertly-provided by the revisionists and neo revisionists who were out to
‘sacrifice’ anything to ensure a regime in the centre with a clear leaning
towards Soviet Union.
During 1981-84, Indira regime continued her tilt towards
Soviet hegemonism while reassuring the US through various actions that its
economic interests in India will be taken better care of. It signed a most
humiliating, enslaving and harmful agreement to acquire a loan of Rs.5000 crore
from IMF. It opened flood-gates for the imperialist capital.
The two super powers continued their contention for
domination over India and in this region. The US sought to strengthen its
position in India while retaining its dominant position in Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh and Nepal. The Soviet Union sought to further consolidate its
dominant position in the spheres of political, military and foreign affairs. It
sought to expand its hold into private sector while retaining its strong
position in state sector. It sought to utilise problems between Pakistan and
India; its own military presence in Afghanistan and also the problems inside
Pakistan to influence Pakistan. It sought to utilise India to influence the
course of developments in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
Indira Gandhi continued to use and further improve the
treacherous policy of divide and rule and combine the same with the populist
slogans, diversionist tactic and brutal methods of suppression. Flaring up
communalism in general and Hindu communalism in particular and keeping up war
hysteria continued to be the important components of its diversionist tactics.
We know the treacherous role played by Indira regime and
the Congress (I) in Assam. While refusing to resolve the problem which was its
own creation, it shed much blood, resorted to massacres and incited fratricidal
wars in Assam. It enacted a drama of holding elections against the will of
people, at the point of gun and under the thumb of fascist repression as part
of the move to impose its oppressive rule on the people under the cover of
“democracy”. As part of its dirty gamble for power with the Akali Dal in
Punjab, the Indira Congress and its regime at the centre indulged in many
nefarious games. Indira regime refused to accept the democratic demands of the
people. It flared up Hindu communal and anti Sikh chauvinism; nurtured and used
the Sikh communal terrorism as part of its despicable game to divide the people
along communal lines; to strengthen its own vote bank vis-a-vis Akali dal and
to create a pretext to arm itself with all the fascist powers and brutally
suppress the revolutionary, democratic and national forces and the movements of
basic classes. Akali dal, a ruling class party contending for power of communalism
and Communal terrorism. In an attempt to wash off its dirty hands in nurturing
the Sikh communal terrorism, the Indira regime resorted to a massive military
operation, called as “Blue-Star Operation” in Punjab. It marched June 4, 1984)
its troops into Golden Temple, shot down several Sikh people. In the so-called
Combing Operations that fallowed, the armed forces raided several villages and
subjected the people to killings, tortures, harassments and several forms of
unspeakable indignities and brutalities. It killed several innocent people in
fake encounters attaching the grand names like ‘hard-core Khalistanists’ and
Pakistani agents’ to them. The State as well as various political circles
carried on an intensive campaign against Sikh people as anti-Indian and
pro-Pakistan. All these acts not only inflicted serious human and material
losses for Sikh people, but also seriously wounded their feelings-both human
and religious and developed in them a deep feeling of alienation and hatred for
the centre and its repressive wings. They seriously disturbed the harmonious
relations between Hindu and Sikh people. The centre turned the entire state
into an important experimenting ground for all fascist repressive laws and
deeds.
Indira regime continued the policy intervention into the
affairs of Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. While claiming to be observing the
policy of non-intervention into the affairs of other countries, it guided the
activities of a Tamil militant organizations in India and used them to unleash
a ‘guerrilla War’ in Sri Lanka. It flared up national chauvinism all over India
and Tamil Chauvinism against Sri Lanka as part of its sinister designs to
divert the attention of Indian people from their problems and to create a
favourable political atmosphere for its more blatant interventionist and expansionist
moves in Sri Lanka. All the crocodile tears shed by the Indian ruling classes
and the Indira regime for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka were only dictated by
their own expansionist interests rather than their concern for the sufferings
of Tamil people.
In the international sphere, the two super powers
intensified their contention and acts of hegemonism while, at the same time,
colluding where ever their common interests were at stake and whenever they
could strike a deal among themselves. In June 1982, Israeli Zionists waged all
out military attacks against the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people had
to wage a back to wall battle incurring heavy losses in the course. Here, while
one super power was fully behind the Israeli aggressors, the other super power
sought to benefit from the difficulties of Palestinian and Arab people. Soviet Union
shot down a South Korean Aeroplane that entered into its skies. US waged a war
of aggression against Grenada in October, 1983. Again it resorted to air and
raids against Libya in a blatant attempt to bully and force Libya into
submission. The Soviet Union continued its war of aggression against
Afghanistan, while extending all the help and support to the Vietnamese armed
aggression against Kampuchea. In Angola, while the Soviet Union mainly relied
on MPLA and Cuban forces to realise its hegemonic interests, the US relied on
UNITA and used South Africa to realise its hegemonic interests in Angola as
well as to throttle Namibia’s independence. Iran and Iraq continued to wage a
most destructive war among themselves. The two super powers actively competed
to utilise this war in their own interests. Africa, Latin America and Asia
continued to be an arena for all conspiracies, acts of interference, bullying
and contention for super power domination.
The two Super Powers built up a huge empire of arms and
emerged themselves as the biggest merchants of death with strength of most
destructive weapons which can destroy world several times. Europe continued to
be the focal point in their contention for world domination. Moves of US
imperialism to deploy nuclear missiles (Pershing-2s) in Britain, West Germany
and other countries of Western Europe and the Soviet deployment of SS-20s in
East Europe kicked up much tension and opposition among the European people.
West European countries, particularly, the imperialist
powers, on one hand continued to join hands with US against Soviet moves to
expand its sphere of influence and on the other hand competed for their
separate imperialist interests and for a ‘reasonable’ share in the plunder.
These countries pursued their own policies and worked for their own separate
interests, while at the same time, striving to emerge themselves into a more
powerful and united economic and political force in the form of European
Community. Though Japan continued to be tied to US with a military, treaty, it
came to the fore as a powerful economic factor on the world scene with all
aspirations and attempts to demand a share commensurate to its economic
strength in the plunder of oppressed nations of third world countries.
The phenomenal growth of hegemonic activities all over
the world; war orientation of economy; the increasing competition from the rest
of the imperialist powers and the ever intensifying opposition and resistance
from the world people in general and the people of third world countries in
particular pushed the world capitalist economy in general and the economies of
Soviet Union and US in particular into ever deepening crisis. More the
imperialist powers sought to throw the burdens of crisis on the people, more
opposition and resistance they encountered in the world.
OVER
TO THE POLICY OF PEACE OFFENSIVE
The Soviet Union found, in practice, that its predatory
drive into Afghanistan was not that smooth going. It looked like a bull that
stepped its feet into a deep quagmire. It experienced armed resistance from
people much powerful and much determined that it imagined. Its act of armed
aggression and occupation invited much opposition all over the world. Same is
the case with the Soviet-instigated Vietnamese armed aggression and occupation
of Kampuchea. The Soviet and Vietnamese aggressors found themselves in a most
precarious situation. They can neither withdraw which amounts to accepting the
defeat, nor impose a surrenderist agreement on the struggling masses of
concerned countries. While the people’s armed resistance played a decisive role
in pushing them into such a predicament, the contradictions and clash of
interests between the two super powers as well as among the imperialist powers
too played its own role. While continuing the wars of aggression, Soviet
hegemonists began despicable attempts to strike a deal with the US. Here, the
Soviet Union is guided by the objective of liquidating or greatly weakening the
genuine national and revolutionary forces and realising their hegemonic
interests by conceding a share for the US. However, even this attempt proved
too difficult in view of the presence of powerful fighting forces of people backed
by the wide support and solidarity of world people.
The Soviet Union under the leadership of Andropov moved
towards intensifying its ‘peace offensive’ in the form of coming out with more
preaching’s about peace and proposals for talks and agreements on arms
limitation. This offensive came in the wake of growing popular movement for
peace and against war in the world in general and against the US moves to setup
nuclear missile bases in Western Europe in particular. This was a part of the
attempt to divert the attention of world people from its own acts of aggression
and war preparations and to influence the growing popular movement for peace
and against war in the interests of its own hegemonism.
Gorbachev assumed the leadership in Soviet Union in 1985.
He is a leader thrown up by the present concrete internal and international
conditions and the needs of Soviet social imperialists. He set himself on the
mission step up attacks against the path of socialism, Communism and
revolution. He came on the scene to remove all the obstacles in the path of
open and all out capitalist international conditions for it and to create more
favourable economic and political conditions internally and internationally to
realise its own designs for world hegemonism. Thus, the peace offensive
Gorbachev seeks to head in a more vigorous and all out manner which brought
some acts of compromise, agreements and collusion between the two super powers,
is in fact, a stepping stone for more intensified and fierce contention between
them for world hegemony.
The US imperialists took note of this development in
Soviet Union. It found common cause with Gorbachev’s crusade against the path
of socialism, Communism and revolution. It decided to make full use of changes
in Soviet policies to gain time to overcome its own economic crisis; to spread
its own economic and political influence in Soviet Union and East European
Countries and to create better conditions for its own drive for world hegemony.
Both super powers welcomed the reversal in China. Both
are out to utilise and direct the course of further developments in China in
their own interests.
The world people in general and the people of third world
countries in particular are carrying on their struggle in the face of several
setbacks, roadblocks and difficulties against the plunder, oppression injustice
and the acts of hegemonism and for world peace. They continued their struggles
for a better and secure life and for fundamental changes in the social
conditions.
DEVELOPMENTS
IN INDIA
During 1981-84, in the worst conditions of life and ever
increasing attacks on their rights, the working class, peasants, students,
women and other sections of people came out in more and more organised
struggles in our country. One and half year long historic struggle waged by the
Bombay Textile Workers stands as a significant struggle in the history of our
working class movement. it was a struggle which came in the wake of growing
attention of reactionary and traitorous TU leadership and the growing urge
among the masses of working class for a genuine and struggle oriented
leadership. It provided valuable experiences in conducting the struggles; in
mobilising the support and solidarity for them and in fighting the deceptive
methods and tactics used by the big business and the State to suppress the
struggles.
Though the revolutionary movement in India continued to
be passing through a low tide, the efforts made by the communist
revolutionaries to build up the agrarian revolutionary movement, students movement
and to focus the demands of democratic nature bore some impressive fruits in
some pockets.
The peasants came out in organised agitations in some
pockets of the country for remunerative prices for the agricultural products.
The people in Andhra, Orissa, Bihar, UP, Maharashtra and Assam who were
seriously hit by the floods fought for immediate and permanent relief and
rehabilitation measures. The rural poor came out in protest against atrocities.
There were general protest movement against the anti-people and repressive
policies of the governments in various parts.
On Oct 31, 1984 Indira Gandhi was assassinated. The
Congress (I), joining hands with Hindu Communal Chauvinist forces like RSS and
bringing into action all the goonda and anti-social forces at its command, lost
no time to unleash a fascist war against the Sikh people in Delhi and other 39
big cities. The Hindu Communal Chauvinist predators resorted to massacres and
took the lives of thousands of Sikh people. They indulged in all sorts of barbaric
acts against the Sikh women. They destroyed houses and all means of livelihood.
As the facts unquestionably proved that all these acts were only a part of
heinous Congress conspiracy to sow deep antagonisms and divisions among the
people along communal lives; to flare up anti-Sikh Hindu Communal Chauvinism
all over India and reap political dividends from them. The way Rajiv Gandhi,
aided by his coterie, foisted himself as prime minister using the dead body
still lying there and the gory acts enacted by the Congress goondas and
Communal Chauvinists to pressurise the opponents in his own party into
submission. The Congress (I) won Lok Sabha elections held at the end of 1984
using the anti-Sikh Hindu Communal and national chauvinist fever deliberately
inflamed in the context of Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
We dealt in sufficient detail the course of national and
international developments in the period between 1984-88 in the POLITICAL
REPORT (“National and International Situation and our Tasks”) adopted by our
conference. Hence, here we do not go into details of this period.
CRUCIAL
QUESTIONS BEFORE US
Our experiences teach us that the international and
national situation and changes in them would have a profound influence on the
revolutions in the individual countries. They bring twists and twins and affect
the momentum of ebbs and flows in a revolution. As we have seen above, the
political situation in the world as well as in our own country has gone through
many twists and twins and significant developments ever since we adopted the
revolutionary politics in 1967. These developments brought opportunities as
well as setbacks and difficulties for our revolution. The way we evaluated and
applied these developments to the practice of revolutionary line has affected
our ability in utilising the situation and directing the course of their
development in favour of our revolution. In the context of our review, we must
address ourselves to certain questions of crucial importance and seek answers
for them.
They are, namely;
We adopted revolutionary politics in an objectively
favourable national and international situation. How far we utilised this
situation to emerge ourselves as a formidable revolutionary force backed by a
powerful and consistent people revolutionary movement?
The exploiting Indian ruling classes faced one crisis
after another both economic and political. These crises were unending and
sometimes had an intensified form. How far we utilised the opportunities thrown
up by these crises to further accentuate those crisis and to strengthen and
advance the forces of revolution?
We adopted Marx ism Leninism Mao Tse Tung Though as our
ideology and People’s War as our Path of Peoples, Democratic Revolution. How
far we succeeded in correctly applying and practicing them? What trends
manifested in the course? How they affected our advance? What struggle has
taken place between the correct and wrong trends and with what results?
The Indian revolution had international support,
solidarity and advice. What attitude we adopted towards them? Ho we utilised
them to lead our revolution?
The international communist movement faced second serious
setback. How we assessed this development? How we sought to overcome the
problems posed by this development?
Our country has undergone certain political changes. How
we evaluated and responded to these changes?
Our revolutionary movement, as a whole faced severe
setback in a short span of time. It moved from a ‘high tide’ to ‘low tide’.
What were the causes for this? What efforts we made to again bring a high tide
in the movement and activity?
Revolutionaries are divided from the beginning. The
phenomenon of splits cannot be said to have come to an end. What are the causes
for this? What are the trends, problems and response we encountered in the
course of our efforts towards unification?
Our organization faced splits and various problems in the
course of building revolutionary movement. What were the trends and practices
responsible for them? How we fought them? What were our weaknesses,
difficulties, successes and failures in this course?
20 years of our work and revolutionary movements had
provided us valuable experiences-both negative and positive. Drawing proper lessons
and going into practice on the basis of them is most essential to overcome our
present difficulties and weaknesses and to advance the revolutionary movement.
Here is our “political, organizational and movement
review (1967-88)”. In this, we made an earnest attempt to take lessons from our
practice. We took the help of relevant material, the information gathered from
comrades and our own direct knowledge and experience to review the developments
in a critical and self critical manner and draw some specific as well as
general lessons and conclusions. We wish that the comrades would go through the
review seriously and offer their opinions on it in a frank way.
We are confident that a frank, systematic and
dispassionate discussion on the questions of History will greatly help to
develop a common and unified understanding on various important questions
concerning the Indian revolution. Our success in this common endeavour will go
a long way in further strengthening unity among the communist revolutionaries all
over India. Our review is a definite and serious move towards this end.
Indian Revolutionary
Movement Some Lessons
1967-71
Struggle against Revisionism-
Treacherous Role of Neo Revisionists
The formation of
CPI (M) in 1964 was the culmination of bitter and prolonged struggle between
the forces led by the present-day neo revisionists as well as those who had, in
the later period, broke away from the neo revisionists. It was the time when
the great international ideological debate between the Marxist Leninist forced
led by CPC and the revisionist forces led by the CPSU on the crucial questions
of Marxism Leninism and the line and direction of the international communist
movement had taken an intensified form and was exerting its profound influence
on the communist movement in India.
The over whelming
majority of the ranks who rallied with the CPI (M) were opposed to the Soviet
modern revisionism and were with the CPC on the questions of international
communist movement. They were fed up with the revisionist and class
collaborationist politics and practices of the party leadership and were
yearning for a decisive break from revisionism.
The questions
like the character, stage and perspective of Indian revolution, the orientation
of class struggles and people’s movements and the attitude towards the ruling
classes and their policies and also towards China were points of serious debate
in the un-divided Communist Party of India. The question of India’s China war
(1962) was a point of serious controversy and division in the un-divided
communist party. The revisionists led by Dange took a clear national chauvinist
position on the question. They joined the Indian ruling classes in calling
China as “aggressor” and in going all out in rousing national chauvinism in the
name of national defence. The revisionists saw the eve of India’s war with
China as a most opportune time to strengthen their own hold in the
organization. In close co-ordination or connivance with the revisionists, the
Nehru regime singled out the sections of the leading cadre of CPI who were
refusing to fall in line with anti-China and national chauvinist line of Dange
revisionists for its repression. Several thousand all over India were detained
without trial under PD act. Here it must be admitted that those who led the
struggle against Dange revisionists were constrained either by their own
ideological and political positions or by their own weaknesses to take the
struggle to its logical culmination.
The forces who
led the struggle against Dange revisionists were mainly composed of three types
of forces: ONE, those who were basically one with the revisionists in their
political and ideological understandings, but came into clash with the Dange
revisionists for various reasons. TWO, those who were critical of certain
nakedly revisionist and class collaborationist policies and practices of Dange
revisionists. They were for a break from the Dange revisionists
organizationally but were not for a decisive break from revisionism
politically, ideologically and in practice. Similarly, they were critical of
certain formulations of CPSU, but were not prepared to reject the Soviet modern
revisionism as a whole and to face all the consequences of it. THREE, there
were those who were for a decisive and complete break from
revisionism-internally and internationally. They were one with the CPC on all
the basic questions of controversy in the international communist movement.
They were for taking a revolutionary path. However, they could not see the
treacherous and neo revisionist game of the CPI-M leadership. They could not
initiate the debate on the questions of Programme, Path and international
communist movement. Had it been done, it could have helped to provide a clear
guidance to the party ranks, even if, in the given conditions, the
revolutionary line was not adopted as the official line of the newly emerged
party-CPI-M. It could have served as a dependable basis to continue the
struggle against the neo revisionist leadership in various fronts in the latter
period.
The clinching of
ideological position on the international communist movement was evaded. Here,
the clarifications given by the CPI-M leadership in the Note, “Our views on EMS
Nambuthiripad’s Critique of Draft Programme”, authored by Basavapunnaiah
(October 3, 1964) are relevant. Explaining that the Programme was drafted on
the basis of the conclusions and assessments of 1957 Moscow Declaration and
1960 Moscow Statement; Mr.Basavapunnaiah asserted in the Note that, in this
respect, the question of either separating or departing from the international
ideological and political positions does not arise at all. At the same time, he
admitted that it was true that a position was not taken on the questions of
controversy in the international communist movement. Explaining the reasons for
it, he said:
“.....there also exist
differences on several questions relating to both national and international
subjects. But the agreement and unity on the issues directly related to the
revolutionary movement in our country is far greater than in the case of
assessment and appreciation of the present international controversies and the
conflicts. Why not we, as practical minded people, show the wisdom of
separating these two types of discussions for a time instead of getting enmeshed
in debating everything national and international-and run the risk of losing
ourselves in it rather than coming out of it successfully”. (Page. II)
Here, the neo
revisionist leadership of the CPI-M was facing two problems at the time. i) it
had some criticisms against the Soviet modern revisionism. Yet, it was not for
rejecting it as a whole and to take a clear Marxist Leninist position on the
international ideological questions. At the same time, it was afraid that any
attempt on its part to press its own neo revisionist positions on the party
prematurely, may prove counter-productive. ii) various sections of neo
revisionist leadership had problems to be stored out among themselves. The
above quoted part was essentially an appeal to the section of the neo
revisionist leadership which was ‘unwisely’ proposing for an immediate
clinching of the international ideological questions to show enough “political
maturity”, “practical mind” and “wisdom” in matters like this. In this appeal,
the leadership promised the other section to steer ship of neo revisionism safely
out of the “risk of losing” themselves in the midst of turbulent waters!
In these
conditions, the two sections of neo revisionists entered into a tacit
understanding among themselves to the effect that the newly emerging
organization should not be allowed to adopt a clear stand of opposing the
Soviet modern revisionism, it was not possible for them then and there to adopt
the position of accepting the Soviet modern revisionism. The leadership took all
the care to see that the struggle against revisionism was not extended to the
point of clinching the crucial questions of the Path of Indian revolution and
the international communist movement. The clinching of international
ideological position was thus evaded.
In an interview
to Sri A. Raghavan, a BLITZ Correspondent, on August 15, 1968, Com. TN has
frankly and honestly put the situation quite objectively before the people. He
said:
“There had been
sharp differences in the undivided communist movement about the perspective of
the revolution in India. In the international movement, from 1960, there has
been the Soviet line and the Chinese line.
When the CPI
split in 1964, most of us who formed the new party though that its leadership
would follow Chinese formulation. We were manoeuvred by the leadership into
believing that unlike Dange and his followers, the communist Marxists would
tread the revolutionary road-and not the beaten track of parliamentarism.
To a question,
“You are all veterans. How came that you are hustled”? Com. TN replied:
“One reason was
that we got diverted by the so called Dange letters. The leadership played upon
the emotions the letters raised. In the process, the ideological differences
that brought about the split went overbroad. They were not properly debated so
much so that there was no clarity among the ranks. The dismal result is that
today, though the CPI (M) leadership talks vociferously about revolution,
objectively it is sinking deeper into sterile parliamentarism than even the
CPI”.
The CPI (M)
leadership used the entire demagogy to paint a revolutionary colouring for its
revisionist line. They managed to avoid the formal discussions in the
Conference on the Path of Indian revolution and also the international
questions. As the same time, they could not escape various questions,
criticisms and proposals in various forums-committees and conferences etc, at
various levels. they sought to convince and satisfy the ranks as well as the
sections of leadership with the assurances that they should have no doubt
whatsoever that the path of CPI (M) would be nothing but the path of armed
struggle and agrarian revolution.
A careful study
of the Programme adopted by the 1964 Seventh Congress of the CPI (M) and the
elaboration and implementation of it by the leadership would clearly reveal
that the foundation of CPI (M) was nothing but neo revisionist. The fact must
be admitted here that the leadership used all the revolutionary demagogy,
assurances and diversionist tactics to get the seal of approval for its neo
revisionist line from the party ranks. It fully capitalised the respect and
confidence held by the party ranks in them. All this played a decisive role in
rallying the forces with them.
Thus, a decisive
break from revisionism and a clear polarisation of forces into revisionist and
revolutionary war temporarily averted.
Those in the
leadership who were having a clear neo revisionist orientation were conscious
in their all actions from the beginning. They moved with a clear assessment that
a discussion of all the questions in an organised and democratic manner and in
a free atmosphere involving the entire ranks would lead to the rejection of the
neo revisionist line and to the adoption of a revolutionary line. This was the
reason why they made every possible attempt to avoid such a discussion. Here,
we must note that the dominant section of the leadership appeared to be
rejecting the revisionist views proposed by EMS in a more naked form at the
time on the questions of Programme, Path and ideological questions. This also
contributed to mislead the party ranks and to the spread of illusions among
them in the leadership. The move of neo revisionist leadership to avoid the
discussions was aimed at gaining time and necessary strength to orientate the
organization towards their own neo revisionist line and practice and also to
sort out the remaining problems among the various sections of neo revisionist
leadership themselves. All the high sounding talk about the revolutionary path
indulged in by them was not only an act of deception, but also was an
indication of the strength of the influence of revolutionary trend among the
party ranks.
The bitter
experience we had from the CPI (M) leadership stands as a warning to us. The
left and revolutionary demagogy can serve as a safe cover for the revisionist
politics and practices.
In the context of
CPI (M)’s formation, we faced a peculiar situation. The overwhelming majority
of the ranks rallied it provided a most favourable basis for adopting a
revolutionary line. But, the major part of the leadership was revisionist or
neo revisionist in its orientation. It was a most unfavourable factor. It was
this factor that determined the fate of CPI (M) at that time. The diversionist
methods introduced by them into the struggle against revisionism were aimed at
setting the new organization in a wrong direction. Not only that. These methods
provided favourable conditions for various sorts of careerist, revisionist and
opportunist forces, whose opposition to Dange revisionism was not based on
principle, to flood into the CPI (M) and capture leading positions in it.
The major part of
the CPI (M) leadership was having the neo revisionist views-whether clearly or
unclearly. But they did not come out with their views in a frank and organised
manner and give the party ranks the opportunity to freely decide their own
attitudes towards the question on the basis of this discussion. They resorted
to manoeuvres, diversionist tactics and the method of pushing their views by
the back door. All this only reflected their own political bankruptcy and
dishonesty. It is no exaggeration here to say that the CPI leadership was more
‘honest’ in proposing their revisionist views.
The party ranks
as well as the sections of the leadership who were for a revolutionary line
needed more experience to take the course of overcoming the setback they faced
in their journey towards a correct line.
Continued Struggle against Neo-Revisionism
The developments
in the CPI (M) during 1964-67 were marked by three characteristic features:
1.
The
CPI (M) leadership had revealed, or rather was compelled to reveal its own neo
revisionist face more nakedly. It proved the ‘capacity’ to turn itself even
into a counter revolutionary force when the armed force sent by the regime led
by the CPI (M) as part of the moves to suppress the peasant movement brutally
gunned down 18 peasants masses in Naxalbari.
2.
With
the formation of the (CPIM) its ranks and leading cadre felt themselves freed
from the shackles of revisionism. Their enthusiasm and fighting and sacrificing
qualities received a new impetus. The country-wide arrests resorted to the
Central Government neither demoralised nor frightened them. Instead their
inherent vast potentialities got themselves fully unfolded and released. They
had shown exemplary initiative, vigour, sense of responsibility and leadership
qualities. They went among the workers, rural poor, students and various
sections of exploited masses and moved them into militant action. They built up
a powerful civil liberties movement particularly in AP. In several areas, the
people led by the Communists came into clash with the landlords, factory owners
and the state’s repressive machinery.
The party cadre
faced numerous problems, especially, where they made a serious and concerted
effort to build up a consistent and organised agrarian movement against the
exploitation and oppression of the landlords. Everywhere, the landlords, their
hired-goondas and the state’s repressive machinery-either separately or in combination-came
upon the movements heavily. They used several methods to physically or
economically destroy or wipe out the militant forces. The intensity of the
attacks varied in accordance with the sweep and width of the struggles of
peasant masses. Srikakulam and Naxalbari were the significant struggles that faced
the worst onslaughts. In this course, various questions came before the party
cadre. How to defend the movement and its gains in the face of
ever-intensifying and multi faced onslaughts from the enemy? How to advance the
movement? Should the movement be taken to a higher level, the level of
resolving the basic problems; like the seizure and land distribution? These
were important among the questions faced by them.
The moment the
party cadre made an earnest attempt to find solutions to these problems in
practice, and the moment they posed these problems to the leadership, much more
serious and, in fact, the real problem came to the fore. The definite “limits”
up to which they can go in their militancy in the line of CPI (M) has gradually
become clear for the vast masses of party ranks and leading cadre. They
gradually came to realise that the CPI (M) was based on neo revisionist
foundations, and the leadership has gone through the process of further
degeneration in the subsequent period. It was this situation that stood as the
real stumbling block in the way of advancing the movements to their logical
culmination.
3.
Even
after the formation of the CPI (M), the differences and internal struggle
continued in one form of other and got themselves intensified.
Various
statements and speeches made by EMS during 1964-65 faced serious criticisms
from the party ranks as well as the sections of leadership inside and outside
the jails.
In a statement on
Nov.2 1965, Namboodiripad declared, “....when the Pakitsani rulers decided to
send infiltrators into Kashmir, our party should have no hesitation to come out
in support of government measures to throw out these infiltrators”. He also
made it clear: “.....Our party is aware that the Pakistani rulers are
threatening the integrity of that part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir which
has been in India’s possession for the last eighteen years. This demands of our
party that it helps the government in the defence measures it is taking to
resist any Pakistani attack”.
These statements
sought to conceal the expansionist nature of the Indian ruling classes and to
flare up national chauvinism.
“Reply from
Prison” written by Five Polit Bureau Members (Jan 27, 1965) from Viyyur
(Kerala) Central Jail to the then Union Home Minister, G.L.Nanda’s so called
White Paper (Jan 1, 1965) met with wide protest and criticism.
In the said
reply, the PBMs vehemently refuted Nanda’s ‘charge’ that the 1964 Calcutta
Congress of the CPI (M) “laid stress on the necessity of pursuing the
non-peaceful path to socialism and characterised any talk of peaceful path in
this country as nothing but self-deception and deception of others. “They
extensively quoted from Calcutta Congress Programme to prove the ‘charge’ as “a
more brazen-faced lie”. They also pleaded that “a similar formulations is found
in the draft programme of the Dangeite National Council and their Bombay
Congress did not charge the formulation in any way”. Referring to Nanda’s
“charge” that the “Congress proceeded to amend the Constitution adopted at the
Amritsar Congress in 1958 in which the possibilities of peaceful transformation
to socialism had been emphasised”, the PBMs took much plains to clarify that
such a “preamble.....” which defined the aims and objects and the means for
achieving them” was inserted in the 1958 Constitution because, then the Party
had no Programme. But, since “now the Party had adopted a full-fledged and
detailed Programme”, “the need for the stop gap arrangement by way of a
Preamble to the Constitution disappeared and hence it was deleted from the
Constitution”. Hence, the PBMs pleaded, there was neither truth nor any meaning
in the “charge” that this change indicated a change from a peaceful path to a
revolutionary path.
Referring to
Nanda’s “charge” that the CPI (M) leaders have no faith in the parliamentary
institutions, the PBMs quoted from the Programme which said, “India’s
parliamentary system embodies an advance for the people” and that “it affords
them certain opportunities to defend their interests and helps them to carry
forward their struggle for peace, democracy and social progress”. Drawing
attention of the warning contained in the Programme, which said that “the
threat to the parliamentary system and democracy comes from the exploiting
classes” themselves, they re-affirmed their commitment contained in the
Programme, which said, “It is of utmost importance that democratic institutions
are defended in the interests of the people against such threats”.
In refutation of
Nanda’s “charge” that the party “has been engaged in preparing for armed
struggle”, the PBMs quoted the entire para 112 from the programme, focusing on
a part there of, which said, “the Party will utilise all the opportunities that
present themselves of bringing into existence of governments pledged to carry
out a modest programme of giving immediate relief to the people. The formation
of such governments will give great fillip to the revolutionary movement of the
working people and thus help the process of building the democratic front”.
They further said. “In the pursuance of the understanding and line that the
Party gave the slogan of defeating the Congress party in the coming Kerala
Elections and forming an alternative government of left parties” and
questioned, “In the face of this can anyone believe that our Party is preparing
for armed struggle?”
Similarly, they
tried their level best to convince the Indian rulers that they remain firmly
committed to the ‘national interests’ both in understanding and practice.
These replies
were not only in the nature of submitting explanations to satisfy the enemy,
but also brought out real understandings of the CPI (M) leadership on the
questions of Programme and Path and exposed the fraud played by it against the
party ranks. Quite naturally, these replies triggered off a serious debate
among the sections of leadership. More so, in AP. Major Part of the leadership
in AP disapproved the clarifications given by the PBMs in the above replies.
The letter
written by PS from Moscow met with serious criticism from comrades in AP and
other states as it proposed a clear pro-soviet stand on the questions of
international communist movement.
In 1966,
immediately after its release from jails, the APPC leadership demanded the
immediate organizations of internal debate on international ideological
questions.
AP comrades used
the state level political classes held in various centres to give a
Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary orientation on the questions of international
communist movement as well as Indian revolution.
The problems
faced by the people’s movement in Nalgonda Khammam and Warangal etc,
because of growing attacks from the
landlords, goondas and the police were raised for discussion in the APPC. The
communist revolutionaries pointed out the need to organise people’s resistance.
They pressed for a serious discussion on the ways and means of defending the
gains of Srikakulam girijan movement and advancing it to higher level. They
brought the question of armed resistance on to the agenda for discussion.
The APPC totally
rejected the document, “New Situation and Party’s Tasks” adopted by the CC in
April 1967. This document formulated: “In the present stage, the entire fate of
our party is dependent upon how successfully we run these ministries (UF
regimes in Kerala and WB) and how our Party performs itself in them”.
(Translated from Telugu). It also promised bright prospects for a “peaceful
revolution’ through Coalition governments and laid an ideological basis for
pro-soviet stand on the questions of international communist movement.
During this
period, the internal struggle continued in various states in one form or the
other and in varying degree.
In Bengal,
several groups had sprung up in the course of struggle against revisionism in
1962. These groups continued their existence in one form or other even after
the formation of CPI(M). This was a special phenomenon in Bengal. The forces
that represented the revolutionary trend had been criticising the leadership on
certain questions of Programme and Path. The comrades in Siliguri and some
other areas in the Darjeeling district had been organising the peasants and tea
plantations workers in accordance with their own understanding. The comrades
representing the revolutionary trend utilised the CPIM’s Paper. ‘Desh Hithaishi”,
“Marx-Engels Institute” and some other forums to propagate their views. They
distributed leaflets criticising the leadership and advocating the road of
militant struggles as they understood them. Some comrades organised themselves
into “Committee to Fight Against Revisionism” placed their criticisms against
the leadership and their views-which were basically in line with an orientation
towards revolutionary mass line-on the road of revolution in some what a
systematic form before the party ranks. The leadership of CPIM, on the one
hand, was promising internal discussion on the differing views and, on the
other hand, was doing everything to curb the views and activities of differing
forces, to brand them as left adventurists and to unleash a tirade against
them. Com.Sushital Roy Choudhary, who was a State Committee member at the time,
was also differing with the CPIM leadership and resisting the moves of the
leadership against the differing forces. At one stage, he presented his views
in the form of a Note for discussion in the SC. In this course, the CPIM
leadership resorted to disciplinary moves against the differing forces. At one
stage, he presented his views in the form of a Note for discussion in the SC.
In this course, the CPIM leadership resorted to disciplinary moves against the
differing forces. The forces representing the revolutionary trend came to the
conclusion that no useful purpose will be served by remaining in the party.
Hence they broke away from it. On the whole, it can be summed up that various
activities carried on by the forces representing the revolutionary trend in
West Bengal lacked a centralised form. Every one-whether in the form of a group
or as individuals-circulated their own views. These activities to a great
extent, secret or were in the nature of rebellion and lacked the approach of
involving the widest possible masses of party ranks in the internal struggle
and debate in an organised way. it was only in the course of time, they moved
in the direction of co-ordinating their activities and struggle. There
reflected the left opportunist as well as the revolutionary mass line trend
among them. The struggle acquired a sound basis to the extent and wherever it
was linked with the efforts of building the movements with a revolutionary
perspective. However, the whole struggle would have proved much more effective
and fruitful had it been carried on in a centralised form and had the forces
representing the trend of revolutionary mass line played a leading role in it.
The CC of CPIM adopted
three documents in August 1967. They were: i) Draft on ideological questions.
This was a document that used sharpest possible language against the Soviet
revisionists, but, in essence, adopted the position of saving the Soviet modern
revisionism from the decisive blow. Ii) ‘Party’s Programme, Policy-Some
Fundamental Questions (Divergent Views between Our Party and the CPC.)” This
document was meant to refute the views expressed by the CPC on various
questions concerning Indian revolution and also the criticisms made by it on
the views and practices of CPIM leadership. This document was also an indirect
attack against the communist revolutionaries in India who were critical of the
views and practices of CPIM leadership on the questions of Programme and Path
iii) “Left Deviation”. This document was aimed against the communist
revolutionaries in West Bengal who were waging a struggle against the CPIM
leadership.
The communist
revolutionaries in AP, who were already in the midst of struggle against the
neo revisionist leadership, had made up their mind too firmly and in an
organised way fight against the many-faced attack unleashed by the above
mentioned documents. Consequently they decided to i) see that the widest masses
of the party ranks were involved in the internal debate on the ideological
questions and the forces are mobilised in a big way against the neo revisionist
positions; ii) initiate the debate as extensively as possible on the questions concerning
the Programme, Path and Policies and mobilise the widest forces of the party
ranks in favour of revolutionary path.
The CPIM
leadership expected this kind of development. They took all the care to reduce
the internal debate into a nominal affair, and tried to limit the debate only
to ideological questions. They imposed certain restrictions on the debate.
However, the
communist revolutionaries of AP did not oblige. To say in the words of CPIM
leadership themselves:
“.......the CC
while releasing the ideological draft....has specifically stated, the CC wants
to make it clear that the Programme of the Party and its tactical line
enunciated in various resolutions are not open to discussions”. However, some
comrades.....thought it necessary to force the discussion.....They sought to
justify their stand on the ground that the Statement in the CC’s ideological
draft, ‘what does it mean we assert that the conclusion arrived at and
incorporated in our Party Programme, the Resolution on Tasks, the Political and
Organizational Report and other resolutions of the Seventh Congress constitute
the bed-rock of the Party’s ideological unity’? Gave them the right to differ
with it and to discuss as to why they differed with it”.
(“Ideological
Debate summed up”. P: 1-2) June 1968.
In AP, the State
Committee has rejected the CC’s ideological draft by a majority vote. It
demanded permission to present its own alternative document for discussion.
Utilising certain advantageous conditions in the organization, the communist
revolutionaries organised the ideological debate in a systematic way and
involved the widest party ranks in it. The State Plenum adopted a detailed
Resolution with overwhelming majority (Out of 231 delegates, while 158 voted in
favour of this Resolution. 52 voted against it. The remaining 8 stood ‘neutral’
rejecting the ideological positions of the CC and criticising its basic
positions on the questions of Programme, Path and Policies. The communist
revolutionaries also participated in the Central Plenum. Comrades TN and CP
effectively represented the stand points of communist revolutionaries in the
Central Plenum. Besides ideological issues, they also discussed various issues,
like, the character of Indian society, the path of Indian revolution, the
nature and role of UF regimes and the national question. The CPI (M) leadership
could get the seal of approval for its positions in the Central Plenum. But the
fact remains that it has to resort to several undemocratic and manipulative
methods to ensure for itself a safe walk over in the Central Plenum.
We know it well
that the CPI(M) leadership evaded the ideological debate in 1964 because it
found the situation quite unfavourable. At the same time, various documents
reflecting different view-points on the ideological questions were in
circulation even by the time of the 1964 Calcutta Congress. The PBMs began
their criticisms against certain views of CPC from the marrow of 1964 Congress.
In June 1966, they presented a Note to the CC on the ideological questions. But,
finding the situation unfavourable in the CC, they themselves proposed, the
deferring of the discussion on it. At the same time, they saw to it that a
resolution was adopted by the CC in June 1966 which directed the state
committees to publish only “the authoritative pronouncements of fraternal
parties” and that too with a note that the “Party is not committed to any of
them”. It is obvious that all this was only a part of the attempt to check the
spread of the influence of Chinese positions among the party ranks. The
document, “New Situation and Party’s Tasks” (April 1967) laid the basis for neo
revisionist international ideological positions. With the August 1967
documents, the leadership officially and clearly adopted neo revisionist
positions. As the CC itself admitted in its resolution, “An Examination of the
Basic Caused of Left Defections in Special Reference to Andhra” (October,
1968), “all this had to be done in face of considerable resistance from a
section of our leadership.....” Thus it, is clear that the neo-revisionist
leadership adopted a circuitous and deceptive course to gradually turn the
situation in its favour. It refused to circulate com DV’s document as an
alternative draft. It leaked out the decisions of some state Plenums that went
in its favour to influence the Plenums in other states. It nominated delegates
for the Central Plenum without holding Plenums in some states under one pretext
or the other. All these methods only exposed the ideological weaknesses of neo
revisionist leadership. They also indicated the extent of adverse atmosphere
they faced in the organization.
By the time the
internal debate on ideological questions was started, the communist
revolutionaries in AP were clear that the neo revisionist leadership only
deserved to be rejected as a whole. The communist revolutionaries had no
illusions what so ever that the discussions would be conducted in a
dispassionate and democratic manner. However, they had decided to fully utilise
the internal debate to educate and rally the wisest masses of party ranks
towards their positions. They decided to take the ideological struggle to all
India level to whatever extent possible. This approach has given the expected
results. It helped to thoroughly expose the understandings and practices of neo
revisionist leadership on the questions of ideology. Programme, Path and
Organization and to help the party ranks to have a deeper understanding of the
issue and to decide their attitudes on the basis of clear understanding. This
course of internal struggle also helped to rally greatest number of party
ranks, sympathisers and the areas of movement towards revolutionary politics.
The neo revisionist leadership had, but to admit that it faced the “serious
dislocation and disruption” in AP. It also had to admit that “.....life and
developments during the subsequent period, particularly the left-sectarian
revolt and the large-scale defections in Andhra, showed that the Central
Committee’s assessment of the inner-party ideological and political situation
suffered from a sort of complacency, and the CC was underestimating the danger
of the left opportunist trend of thinking which had come to grip considerable
sections of the cadre at different levels of our party”. (“Why the Ultra ‘Left’
Deviation”, October, 1968) To be more objective, it was neither “complacency”,
nor “underestimation” of the so called left opportunist danger but the strength
of revolutionary politics among the party ranks and the proper approach adopted
by the communist revolutionary leadership towards the ideological and political
struggle that brought “large-scale defections” in AP.
The communist
revolutionaries in AP organised themselves into a secret organization by Marc
1968. They took steps to organise similar committees down below. These
committees took upon themselves the task of conducting the struggle against
neo-revisionism; organisationally consolidating the force that rallied with the
revolutionary politics and guiding the people’s movement and other activities
in the light of the revolutionary path. The communist revolutionaries broke
themselves away formally and completely from the CPI (M) within two months
after the Burdwan Central Plenum.
The CPC extended
its fraternal help to the struggle against revisionism and neo revisionism in
India. In the period of struggle against Dange revisionism, “on Nehru
Philosophy”, “More on Nehru Philosophy”, “Mirror of revisionism” and some other
writings had come. In the period of struggle against neo revisionism
particularly, since the release of the document, “New Situation and Party’s
Tasks”, the CPC has been criticising the neo-revisionists and has been
supporting the peasants’ movements in India. All this greatly inspired the
party ranks inside the CPI (M) and greatly helped the struggle against neo
revisionism to gain more strength and momentum.
The neo
revisionist leadership proved to be more dubious than the revisionists in
advocating the path of class collaboration and parliamentarism. It resorted to
all sorts of manipulative, deceptive and wrong methods to perpetuate its
leadership. It proved itself utterly incorrigible and, therefore, worth only to
be rejected lock, stock and barrel. The break of revolutionaries from the CPI
(M) was totally unavoidable, correct and in the interests of upholding the
revolutionary principles of Marxism Leninism, in the interests of continuing
the revolutionary traditions of Indian communist movement and in the interests
of advancing the cause of revolution today.
The internal
struggle against neo revisionism at the all India level lacked co-ordination
and centralised leadership. All of them were one on the international
ideological questions. They were one on many basic questions concerning the
Indian revolution. Yet, the divergences were manifesting their concrete
understandings. Everyone carried on the ideological and political struggle in
accordance with their own understandings approaches and conditions. Not only
there were those who carried on the struggle in an organised and systematic
manner and with a view to involve the widest masses of the party ranks in the
struggle, but also those who carried on the struggle in the nature of revolts
and in a factional way where ever possible. Not only the orientation of
revolutionary mass line, but also the left opportunist orientation towards the
path and reflected in the course of this struggle in various states. Obviously,
the results were also not one and the same. It is doubtless to say that we
could have gained more results if the struggle was carried on under a
centralised leadership and in a proper direction and course at the all India
level. Our break from the neo revisionists could, definitely, have taken place
in a qualitatively more favourable condition.
Formation of AICCCR:
Seeds of Left Opportunism and Disruption
On
November 13, 1967, some comrades who adopted the revolutionary line had
organised themselves into an “All India Co-ordination Committee of Communist
Revolutionaries of CPI (M)” Inside the CPI (M). The declarations adopted by
them, in this context, set four tasks for the Committee: i) to develop and
co-ordinate militant and revolutionary struggles at all levels, specially,
peasant struggles of Naxalbari type under the leadership of working class; ii)
to develop militant, revolutionary struggles of the working class and other
toiling masses, to combat economism and to orientate these struggles towards
the agrarian revolution; iii) To wage an ideological struggle against
revisionism and neo revisionism and to popularise the Thought of comrade Mao
Tse Tung, which is Marxism-Leninism of the present era, and to unite on this
basis all revolutionary elements within and outside the Party; iv) to undertake
preparations of a revolutionary programme and tactical line based on concrete
analysis of the Indian situation in the light of comrade Mao Tse Tung’s
Thought”.
On May 14, 1968, ie., six months after the above
declaration, the AICCCR has come out
with a Second Declaration. Instead of reviewing its efforts in carrying out the
tasks set by the First Declaration, it chose to come out with criticisms against
those revolutionaries who had not yet formally broken from the CPI (M). It said
that “opportunist alone-and not Marxist, Leninists-can remain inside the
Party”, and “those who-instead of severing all connections with them, still
think that there is yet some scope left for inner-party struggles, are creating
illusions a new amongst the antirevisionist fighters and are creating obstacles
to their unity”. Pointing out that the existence of separate groups “harmful to
the cause of Indian revolution”, it called upon “all the revolutionaries who
were still maintaining separate identity, to disband their groups and join the
AICCCR”. By way of explaining this Declaration further, the June LIBERATION admitted
that there are “sharp difference among these groups on various political
issues”; “those differences are not confined a few groups alone”, “there are
several comrades who had come forward to take part in revolutionary politics
even though they do not belong to any of these groups. These comrades too have their
own differences. We can never neglect them”. Similarly, while making it clear
that the “AICCCR is not a party and it is not proper either of the AICCCR or
for any group to impose its decisions and views on others”, it declared that
“for the same reason, no principle was formulated for the purpose of unity with
the rest of the groups” and “the co-ordination committee is only an
organisation that takes initiatives. Everyone will have equal rights in it.
(Translated from Telugu version).
As compared to the Second Declaration, the above noted
clarification by the Liberation appear to be somewhat objective in its
assessment of the situation in the revolutionary camp and conscious about the
nature and limitations of the AICCCR. It is clear that the Second Declaration
had unilaterally and arbitrarily raised the status of AICCCR almost to the
level of an all India Party and created an unequal relationship between the
AICCCR and other organizations by placing the former above every other group
and by passing an order on the others to disband themselves and join in the
AICCCR. It has show an authoritarian and disruptive attitude in its attempt to
call all those who were still in the process of breaking out from the CPI (M)
as “opportunists”. Even the Liberation which clarified this Declaration was not
free from the left opportunist trend. It sought to clarify that the
“revolutionaries” does not mean those who parrot the revolutionary phraseology;
it called for an uncompromising ideological struggle against the revisionists
of all hues and declared that a revolutionary party emerges and develops only
from out of the revolutionary class struggles. These statements by themselves
need not be that objectionable. But, the experience proved that they carried
most harmful consequences with them in practice.
Any leadership, which is really serious and earnest about
the task of uniting the revolutionaries and revolutionary movements and about
building a revolutionary party based on Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought
would have at that time, undertaken the task of organising discussions among
the revolutionaries at the all India level on all the questions concerning
ideology, Programme, Path and Organisational principles in an organised,
principled and dispassionate manner. It would have given priority and enough
significance to this task.
Then, all the revolutionaries were one in accepting
Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought as their guiding ideology; the People’s Democratic
Revolution as the present stage of Indian revolution; the Peoples’ war as the
path of our revolution. They were one in rejecting the Soviet modern
revisionism and in upholding the General Line of the International Communist
Movement proposed by the CPC. This fundamental unity provided a minimum necessary
basis to unitedly take up the tasks of concrete study of concrete conditions of
India and concrete application of the path of Peoples War and to go into
practice. The revolutionary experiences of China, Vietnam, Kampuchea and other
countries and fraternal help were within our reach. Comrades like, DV and TN
with rich experiences of past revolutionary movements, more importantly, that
of Telangana Peasant armed struggle and with a prolonged party life; the
comrades, who had built up the revolutionary peasants movements like, the
Naxalbari and Srikakulam, in the recent period and at least a few hundreds of
comrades, who were fully dedicated to the cause of revolution and engaged
themselves in the work of building the working class, peasant and student movements
etc were present among the revolutionaries at the time. The rich and invaluable
wealth of experiences that these comrades brought with them would have greatly
helped to draw useful lessons on the basis of revolutionary practice and to
formulate the revolutionary path in a concrete form. It was quite normal and
not something unusual that there existed differences among the revolutionaries
on the questions concerning concrete understanding, application and practice. A
solution to these problems could have been found had the leadership made an
earnest effort to organise the discussions among the revolutionaries to pool up
their experiences with enough modesty to learn from each other, determination to
resolve the differences in a principled way and giving highest place to the
objective of achieving unification among the revolutionaries and revolutionary
movements. But the leadership of the AICCCR proved itself unfit to these tasks.
Not only that. Its attitudes and practices only helped to develop and perpetuate
divisions and antagonisms among the revolutionaries, rather than removing them.
From the beginning, the AICCCR leadership has shown the
trend of left opportunism politically, and sectarianism and splittism,
organisationally. In reality, the wrong organisational methods resorted to by
them were the product of and were aimed at serving the left opportunist trend
advocated by them, politically. They had made up their mind, even from the
initial period, to draw a line of demarcation between themselves and the
communist revolutionaries and to brand all those who were differing with them
as some sort of revisionists.
The Communist revolutionaries who were firm in the
convictions in the revolutionary mass line never approved the left opportunist
trend and the splittist and sectarian organisational methods. At the same time,
they did not adopt a negative attitude towards the AICCCR leadership. They
adopted an attitude helpful to bring all the revolutionaries into a single
organisation. They tolerated several impermissible and even humiliating acts on
the part of AICCCR leadership and the forces encouraged by them, because they
gave top priority to the objective of retaining unity among the revolutionaries
and revolutionary movements. they hoped that the dark clouds of disunity get
themselves cleared once the revolutionaries come into a single forum and make
an earnest efforts to develop an unified understanding on the basic questions
of Indian revolution.
But, the experience that the communist revolutionaries of
AP had from the AICCCR leadership was too bitter and painful. It provides the
best example for the sectarian, splittist and dishonest methods adopted by this
leadership in the organisational sphere.
The APCCCR comrades joined the AICCCR in November, 1968,
ie, four months after their formal break from the CPI (M). But, by the time
they adopted a formal decision to join it, much bad blood has flown into their
relations with the AICCCR.
Much before the Burdwan Central Plenum (April, 1968), the
representatives of APCCCR met the AICCCR comrades and explained to them the
course of struggle and break being taken by them. The AICCCR comrades
appreciated the same.
AP comrades met the AICCCR representatives twice and had
discussions with them in the context of Burdwan Plenum. They gave Com. DV’s
alternative document on ideological questions, the document of AP State Plenum
and the Notes of their speeches in the Burdwan Plenum to the AICCCR comrades
and requested them to see that they are published in the Liberation. They
agreed to it.
The Communist revolutionaries in AP formally broke away
from the CPI (M) in June 1968. They immediately held a state level convention
and formally declared the formation of APCCCR with Com. TN as its Convenor.
Liberation published the “Second Declaration” of AICCCR in June 1968. As we
have already mentioned, it called all those who did not yet formally break away
from the CPI (M) as “opportunist” and concluded that those who “think that
there is yet some scope left for inner-party struggles, are creating illusions
a new amongst the anti-revisionist fighters and are creating obstacles to their
unity”. The Liberation published only Com. DV’s alternative document with a
note a criticism. A report published by the Liberation alleged that the AP
communist revolutionaries were not prepared to break themselves away from the
neo revisionists. It also concluded that all their attempts to bring out as
many, comrades as possible from the CPI (M) were nothing but a wasteful
exercise since most of those who still remained in the CPI (M) were nothing but
an opportunist lot. The Note added to Com. DV’s document-criticised that the i)
document is not clear about Soviet social imperialism; ii) it creates illusions
in the peaceful transition; iii) it did not criticise the Madurai document and
iv) AP communist revolutionaries are hesitating to severe their relations from
the neo revisionists. Here, it must be noted that the AICCCR leadership
resorted to this kind of criticism without publishing other documents of AP
comrades which were in the form of criticising the neo revisionist politics and
practices, both in the national and international spheres. This kind of
slanderous, baseless and open allegations coming from the AICCCR leadership
caused mush astonishment and anguish to the communist revolutionaries. They
could not simply understand the purpose and reasonableness in passing this kind
of unilateral and arbitrary judgments against them.
The APCCCR comrades met the AICCCR representatives in
July-August ’68. By that time, some had formed a “Naxalbari Struggle Solidarity
Committee” in AP and were carrying on a slanderous campaign against the APCCCR
leadership. The Committee had the blessings and all the patronage from the
leadership of AICCCR itself. The AICCCR representative himself has attended the
meeting of this committee to guide its campaign and activities. Ever since,
those belonging to this committee had intensified their campaign. They propagated
that the APCCCR leaders are revisionists, opposed to Mao Tse Tung’s thought and
armed struggle and are differing with the AICCCR leadership. In the course of
their discussions, the APCCCR comrades had pointed out to the AICCCR leadership
that all this was undesirable and wrong. Yet, the Committee did not stop its
campaign and activities. The AICCCR leadership did not try to stop them either.
On the contrary, the AICCCR comrades established direct relations with the
Srikakulam comrades behind the back of APCCCR leadership. They had sown
suspicious, prejudices, opposition and revolt in them against the APCCCR
leadership. The October, 1968 decision of the Srikakulam (4:3) DC to directly
affiliate itself to AICCCR was only a consequence of it.
The APCCCR leadership was fully critical of these
attitudes and practices of the AICCCR leadership. Yet, they decided to join the
AICCCR while making their views and criticisms clear to the AICCCR leadership.
But, the slanderous campaign, factional and disruptive activities
against the APCCCR leadership continued with no let up.
What do all these developments point out?
The methods resorted by the AICCCR leadership were
totally immoral and deceptive. On the one hand, this leadership appeared to be
extending all the warmth and comradeship in its discussions and correspondence
with the APCCCR leadership. It appeared to be very much anxious about the
affiliation of APCCCR. On the other hand, it unleashed a slanderous campaign
and despicable attack against the APCCCR leadership. It has conveniently
forgotten the fact that it represented only a section of revolutionaries. It
has thrown its responsibilities as the co-ordination committee to winds. It has
resorted to slanderous characterisation against others as opportunist,
revisionists and counter-revolutionaries. Unilaterally and arbitrarily, it took
upon itself all the rights and authorities to pass verdicts and decide the fate
of other groups. While carrying on talks with the APCCCR leadership, it
established relations with a section of that organization by conspiratorial means
and, basing on it, to organised revolt against the leadership.
The AICCCR leadership made a futile attempt to justify
these activities under the cover of fighting wrong and revisionist politics and
advancing the cause of revolutionary politics. This claim was too amusing. This
was only an attractive garb for its own wrong methods. The proper course could
have been that the AICCCR leadership should have initiated discussions on the
questions of ideology, Programme, Path and Organizational principles in a fair
and frank manner, with the APCCCR. This would have helped it to arrive at a
clear and objective assessment about the points of agreement and disagreement.
If it fell the need for more comprehensive discussion and struggle on the
points of disagreement it could have evolved a proper method and course for the
same and made an earnest effort to achieve unity. Instead, the AICCCR
leadership has drawn its own subjective and unilateral conclusions, and
resorted to factional and disruptive moves-all in the name of struggle against
revisionism and opportunism. This can be anything else, but not the struggle.
Here, in resorting to these moves, the AICCCR leadership only betrayed its own
utter ideological, political and organisational bankruptcy. Its basis was not
at all correct politics, but the politics of left opportunism. The experience
show that all its sectarian, conspiratorial and disruptive methods were only
part of its conscious attempts to get rid of the forces who stood or who
appeared to stand as the potential road-blocs in the way of its wrong politics.
From the beginning, the APCCCR comrades were critical of
and had been opposing the left opportunist politics, sectarian, splittist and
disruptive organizational methods of the AICCCR leadership. Yet, they never
thought of organising the communist revolutionaries separately. Because, they
were genuinely for a single and unified organization all over India. They
strongly felt that the revolutionaries must earnestly strive to resolve their
differences through a principled, organised and dispassionate discussions and
evolves a proper basis for unity. They earnestly believed that there was no
other way. They themselves made an earnest attempt to pose certain issues for
discussion. They plainly and frankly pointed out to the AICCCR leadership that
the talk of unity and practice of slanderous campaign, and organising revolts
cannot go together and this will only harm the interests of achieving unity
among the revolutionaries and revolutionary movements.
But, the AICCCR leadership adopted a negative and big
brotherly attitude towards the very proposal for discussion on the issues. They
acted as if their own views were final and unquestionable. When certain
irrefutable facts were plated before them and when they asked point blank why
they resorted to such impermissible methods, they neither denied them, nor came
forward to self-critically examine themselves. There can be no irresponsible
attitude than this.
The AICCCR leadership had all the initiative in its hands
to unite the revolutionaries and revolutionary movements on a correct basis.
But, it utterly failed-nay, it refused to utilise this initiative for this
purpose. From the beginning, the left opportunist forces were denying democracy
to the differing forces, even inside the AICCCR. They had been subjecting these
forces to various pressures and harassments. They fully utilised the position
of leadership, and the prestige of Naxalbari movement to pressurise and
influence the views and practices of other revolutionaries towards left
opportunism and rally them behind it. The left opportunists also utilise them
to keep the communist revolutionaries, who adopted or who were leaning towards
the revolutionary mass line, at a distance and to discredit and isolate them
from among the revolutionaries.
Within three months after and affiliation of APCCCR to
the AICCCR, the AICCCR leadership enacted its final act. It adopted a sudden,
unilateral and arbitrary decision disaffiliating the APCCCR from the AICCCR.
The text of resolution reads as under:
“AICCCR is of the opinion that there are basic difference
between AICCCR and the Andhra Co-ordination Committee. AICCCR therefore decides
to part with ACC and to treat them as friends and comrades outside AICCCR.
These differences relate first and foremost to the
question of loyalty to the CPC.
The second question relates to the attitude to the
Srikakulam struggle. AICCCR holds that instead of owning and glorifying it, the
AC simply accords it at most Luke warm support. The politics behind this
attitude is basically different from the politics of AICCCR.
The third question is the question of Boycott of
Elections. With AICCCR it is a basic question of revolutionary strategy for a
whole period but the AC still persists in taking it as a matter of tactics.
Moreover, Comrade Nagi Reddy’s failure to comply with AICCCR’s resolution by
not resigning from the Andhra State Assembly within the specified time that is,
within two months from the end of Oct 1968, arises out of this basic
difference.
.....AICCCR and the AC cannot and should not continue in
the same co-ordination. AICCCR should henceforth treat the AC as friends and
comrades outside the co-ordination and should try to maintain non-antagonistic
relations with them.
A new ASCCCR has been recently formed by comrades
representing most of the districts of Andhra”. (Feb.7,
1969)
We discuss the so-called political differences referred
to above along with some other difference that manifested between the AICCCR
and APCCCR leaderships at another place. We limit here to say that, by their
so-called criticism, the AICCCR leadership only made an attempt to brand the
APCCCR leadership as anti-CPC, anti-armed struggle and as having illusions in
elections under the present system. This was nothing but a futile attempt.
The very act of forming another Co-ordination Committee
(“ASCCCR”) even before APCCCR’s disaffiliation was an enough proof for the kind
of conspiratorial and disruptive activities that the AICCCR leadership has been
indulging in.
The Feb.6-7, 1969 meeting of AICCCR was convened to
discuss the agenda item, “Peoples’ Movements in various States and our Tasks”.
But, this item was pushed aside and the AICCCR leaders abruptly brought the
question of their ‘differences’ with the APCCCR on to the agenda for
discussion. It was a lightening attack, indeed. Because, never before the
AICCCR leadership thought it necessary to initiate a discussion with the APCCCR
on the points of divergence. Yet, the APCCCR representatives tried to patiently
and in a detailed way give clarifications on the criticisms made against them.
They proposed that the AICCCR leaders should sit with the APPC and discuss the
issues in a comprehensive way. They made it clear that it will be harmful to
the unity as well as revolutionary movement to attempt to draw unilateral
conclusions and to resort to extreme move such as disaffiliation. The AICCCR
leaders paid a deaf ear to it. They placed a Resolution in the hands of APCCCR
comrades disaffiliating the APCCCR from the AICCCR.
It is a fact and there was no secret in it that there
were divergences between the AICCCR and APCCCR even from the beginning. They
remained even at the time of APCCCR’s affiliation. APCCCR comrades took
initiatives to discuss the issues. AICCCR comrades knew this fact fully well.
Then, what was the method to discuss these divergencies? What was the method to
resolve them? How a leadership, which has taken upon itself the task of uniting
the revolutionaries, can perform its task if it draws unilateral and subjective
conclusions that the details in its possession, its own assessments and views
alone are correct, final and unquestionable and resorts to arbitrary moves in
its own way? Was it not crossing its own limits political as well as organizational-for
the AICCCR leadership to act as though its own views were final? Where from
they got this authority?
At that time, all the revolutionaries were recognising
and respecting CPC as the leader of world communist movement. All of them were
recognising Mao Tse Tung thought as the Marxism Leninism of the present era.
They welcomed the fraternal solidarity extended by CPC to their struggle
against neo revisionism and to the Indian revolutionary movement. At the same
time, the communist revolutionaries were quite cleared and they were expected
to be so that the responsibility lies with them to provide concrete leadership
to the Indian revolution in practice. They were clear in their understanding that
they must diligently study Mao Tse Tung thought, the experiences of Chinese
revolution, the experiences of CPC’s struggle against revisionism and left
opportunism in China and apply them to the concrete practice of Indian
revolution. But, the left opportunist leadership of AICCCR considered that
their job will be complete with the chanting of quotations from Mao, with their
support to the stands adopted by CPC, with their repeated assertion that the
path being pursued by them is nothing but Chinese path and with their
proclamation from house tops that they unreservedly uphold and are guided by
Mao Tse Tung thought and CPC. In the course, they introduced their own left
opportunism and tried to parade the same as Mao Tse Tung thought. They had even
gone to the extent of branding all those who disagreed with them as opposed to
Mao Tse Tung thought, opposed to and not being “loyal” to the CPC. They had
passed verdict that the failure of APCCCR to support the attacks carried on by
some revolutionaries-with no relation to the level and interests of
revolutionary movement-on Tellicherry and Phulpally Police Station (Kerala)
even after Peking Radio’s support to the same only betrayed its lack of
“loyalty” to CPC. Here, the left opportunists made deliberate attempt to tag
“anti- CPC” label to the APCCCR leadership and reap the dividends from it. But,
here they had miserably failed to realise that their very act of seeing or
presenting the relations of Indian communist revolutionaries with CPC-not as a
fraternal relationship-but as a question of “loyalty” was totally un-Marxism
and only exposed their own utter political weakness and bankruptcy.
Why did the AICCCR behave this way with the APCCCR?
The left opportunist leadership was very much afraid of
the followers of revolutionary mass line. Their reluctance to discuss various
questions with the communist revolutionaries in a democratic way only exposed
their own ideological and political bankruptcy. All the methods like,
distorting the views of others, spreading prejudices and slanders against the
communist revolutionaries, organising revolts and rival committees used by them
only exposed their utter intolerance and authoritarian attitude towards
differing views.
The APCCCR leadership stood as the principal and consistent
force in advocating the revolutionary mass line. This was the reason why they
invited main attack from the left opportunists. Likewise, the left opportunists
made Com.TN as their special target for their insidious, slanderous and
reckless attacks not only because, Com.TN was one of the first rank leaders of
APCCCR and firmly and clearly opposed left opportunism, but also because, he
was a leader with wide popularity and recognition among the revolutionary
ranks, people and other forces in the country. The left opportunists thought it
necessary to dismantle the leadership of this kind to ensure un-questionability
for their own left opportunist leadership over the Indian revolutionaries.
It is clear that the left opportunist leadership of
AICCCR resorted to various wrong methods to subjugate, or silence or get rid of
the differing forces instead of entering into a discussion and struggle with
them in a principled and democratic way.
We faced a peculiar situation. The AICCCR leadership
which was expected to help the revolutionaries all over India to take a process
of break from CPI (M) suitable to their own conditions, itself has chosen to
hastily and impatiently brand the communist revolutionaries-who were taking
such a process-as opportunists and as those having illusions in the neo
revisionists. The AICCCR leadership, which was expected to bring all the
revolutionaries into a single forum, itself has resorted to sectarian;
splittist and disruptive methods. it itself has sown the seeds of disunity,
splits and antagonisms among the revolutionaries. The AICCCR leadership, which
was expected to organise discussions on basic and controversial questions
concerning the Indian revolution in a healthy atmosphere and in the light of
Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung thought and the revolutionary experiences and to
strive to unite the revolutionaries all over India has itself indulged in every
attempt to arbitrarily impose the left opportunist trend represented by a
section of revolutionaries to pass judgements against others and to decide
their fate in a most arbitrary, authoritarian and irresponsible way.
Formation of AICCCR was a historical necessity. It was
the Bengal comrades who had taken the initiative and necessary steps for the
same. Its formation has greatly inspired the revolutionary ranks. It helped to
widely popularise revolutionary politics, revolutionary movements, Mao Tse Tung
thought and the stands of CPC. It also helped the revolutionary ranks in their
struggle against neo revisionism and in their efforts to build the
revolutionary movements.
But, the AICCCR leadership-to be more precise, the left
opportunist leadership-tried from the beginning to make the AICCCR as the
platform for the left opportunists alone. They exhibited careerist trend. They
utterly failed to act in a helpful necessary and responsible way to fruitfully
perform the historical tasks before the AICCCR. The whole process of
unification and the development of revolutionary movements tested its serious
adverse consequences.
There was a strong urge among the revolutionaries inside
and outside the AICCCR for the unification of all the revolutionaries into a
single organization. This went against the wish of left opportunists who wanted
to keep the forces representing the trend of revolutionary mass line outside
the AICCCR and the party to be formed in future. In the face of this situation,
they adopted the method of combining the talk and few nominal and half-hearted
moves of unity with the acts of slanderous campaign factionalism and disruption
to realise their aim.
As we have said earlier, the ideological and political
struggle carried on by the revolutionaries in the context of their break from
the CPI (M) has been uneven-both in its extent and depth. This was the result
of different conditions in which it was carried on and, more importantly, the
result of different approaches adopted towards this struggle. The left
opportunists dismissed the attempts made by the communist revolutionaries to
fully exhaust the scope for inner-party struggle as nothing but opportunism.
The attitude has weakened the struggle as a whole. It has sown the seeds of
disunity and splits among the revolutionaries. It easened the attempt of neo
revisionists to mislead and retain the party ranks with them.
The emergence of left opportunism in the leadership of
AICCCR had a negative impact, not only on those who had broken away from the
CPI(M), but were looking for a revolutionary path. this trend neither helped
them to have a clear understanding about the revolutionary path, nor to develop
their confidence in the leadership of the revolutionaries. The neo revisionist
leadership has fully capitalised this situation.
At the time of break, there were two types of
comrades-whatever may be their level and number-in the CPI (M) in addition to
those who had broken away from it. I) those who disagreed with the path of
People’s War, but were for a revolutionary path. These comrades were
considering the 1951 Tactical Line as the revolutionary path applicable to
Indian situation path. ii) those who were having leaning towards the People’s
War path, but had no confidence in the leadership of revolutionaries. Various
questions and doubts, like, why most of the old leadership remained with the
CPI(M)? Is it not a fact that the revolutionaries contain only a few comrades
of all India stature and experience with them? Can the revolutionaries provide
a mature and responsible leadership? Where do the left opportunist trends that
were already raising their heads among the revolutionaries lead them to? Kept
the forces of this kind in a state of indecisiveness and restrained them from
break. The neo revisionist leadership was aware of this situation. It adopted
the methods to suit this situation. I) it took out the 1951 Tactical Line from
the shelves and has done everything to impress upon the party ranks that it is
committed to a revolutionary path. it released the documents on Party’s Tasks
in the Peasants Front, Working Class Front and in the sphere of Organization to
create the illusions that is was seriously set on the task of building the organization,
peasant and working class movements along a revolutionary line. It used the
sections of leadership and the cadre at various levels, who were for the 1951
Tactical Line and who were having illusions that it can be carried out by
remaining themselves in the CPI (M), as a Trozen Horse to oppose the Path of
People’s War and as a means to influence the genuine sections of party cadre,
wherever it was failing to influence. Ii) it played upon the might of the
state, weaknesses of Party, peoples movement, democratic forces and the
difficulties to be encountered in the course of building the revolutionary
movement in an attempt to frighten away the party ranks and people from the
revolutionary path. iii) it has pointed out the left opportunist trends that
were manifesting in a section of revolutionaries and has blown it up out of
proportions and made every effort to portray that the whole lot of
revolutionaries were nothing but a small group of totally inexperience,
adventurous and impetuous petty bourgeois elements. The attitudes and
activities of left opportunists stood in the way of effectively countering
these deceptive and misleading attempt f neo revisionist leadership.
The attitude and methods adopted by the left opportunist
leadership of the AICCCR towards the differing forces, especially, towards
those who were advocating the revolutionary mass line only led to disastrous
consequences. The harm done by them was not only of immediate nature, but also
of long term nature. They planted most dangerous practices among the
revolutionaries. Roots for many wrong trends that are eating away the vitals of
revolutionary movements and organizations in various forms even today can be
seen in this period.
Naxalbari Peasant revolutionary movement is of great political
significance. This was a struggle that has most effectively and on the basis of
practice exposed the neo revisionist path. Once again, it brought the Path of
People’s War on to the agenda. It helped the revolutionary ranks to take a
decisive break from neo revisionism and to take up the revolutionary path. This
was a people’s revolutionary movement developed to a highest level adopting
various forms of struggle. However, it remains a most painful fact, which
cannot be wiped out from the pages of history that the forces-which caused an
immense harm to this revolutionary movement because of their own left
opportunist trends-again used this movement to justify their left opportunist
trends and divert certain peasant revolutionary movements, including the Srikakulam
peasant revolutionary movement into the road of left opportunism. The left
opportunist leadership misused these movements to rally revolutionary ranks to
its side. Youth, who were new to the communist movement, weak in their
ideological and political foundations and who had little experience of work
among the people, but full of frustration and romanticism provided a fertile
ground for the spread of left opportunist trend.
During this period, the communist revolutionaries adopted
an uncompromising attitude against the left opportunism. However they could not
place all their views before the revolutionaries. They could not enter into a
debate at all India level with the AICCCR leadership. AICCCR leadership closed
the doors for such a debate. It has done everything possible to prevent the
same.
Those who adopted the revolutionary mass line or who were
leaning towards it were not a small force at the time. However, it must be
admitted that all of them were not equally clear, consistent and firm in their
understanding and convictions of revolutionary mass line. They included those
i) who were clear and firm in their convictions in the revolutionary mass line.
They were for a principled and uncompromising struggle against the left
opportunism; ii) who were not sufficiently clear, consistent and firm in the
convictions in the revolutionary mass line. They were adopting a vacillating,
soft, inconsistent and evading attitude towards the struggle against left
opportunism; iii) who were having leaning and attractions towards left
opportunism. They were underplaying the danger of left opportunism and were
adopting a weakening and discouraging attitude towards the struggle against
left opportunism.
These forces and trends appeared even in the APCCCR which
stood in the fore front in the struggle against left opportunism. A trend, ‘let
us not buy problems for ourselves’ has manifested in some of them. They were
trying to pacify the left opportunist by satisfying them in one way or the
other. There was a time, wherein the communist revolutionaries were taking much
pains to prove their genuineness when the left opportunists were stretching
their so called criticisms to the point of raising the question: ‘Are you
really a revolutionary?’ During this time the leadership could not own and
defend some of the correct views expressed by Com. TN. This was really a sorry
state. It must be admitted that the impact of poisonous campaign carried on
deliberately and in an offensive way by left opportunists spread to one extent
or other even among the ranks of communist revolutionaries. Vacillators and the
forces who were showing leanings or attractions towards left opportunist trend
put all their energies into play to weaken and prevent a principled struggle
against left opportunism.
It was in these complex and difficult conditions the
communist revolutionaries had to carry on their struggle against left
opportunist trend.
There are instances which show that those who lacked firm
convictions in the revolutionary mass line; those who were leaning towards left
opportunism; those who were boasting that ‘if we are allowed, in no time, we
will see the end of left opportunism’, on one fine morning, prostrated
themselves in one form or other before left opportunism. Those who could withstand
severe tests alone stood by the revolutionary mass line to the end.
Struggle against Left Opportunism
IN
THE EARLY PERIOD
As we have pointed out earlier, the struggle has been
going on against the left opportunism-both, within and without the AICCCR since
its inception. Several groups either did not join the AICCCR altogether, or
left the same on their own at one time or the other or were “thrown out” (the
words used by Charu Mazumdar himself) because they differed with the left
opportunist politics, or wrong organisational practices or both of the
leadership. This struggle has been an uncoordinated one and developed in
accordance with the concrete understandings, approaches and experiences of the
concerned groups and individuals.
The struggle carried on during this period, by the
communist revolutionaries led by Com. TN and DV had three main features: i)
They adopted the stand of principled and consistent opposition against left
opportunism; ii) There were forces among them who were vacillating and leaning
towards left opportunist trend; iii) The struggle during this period mainly
took the form of clarifying and defending the positions and practices of the
communist revolutionaries and expressing their points of difference with the
left opportunists. Communists revolutionaries adopted this form, firstly
because, they were not for open debate on the questions of controversy, and
secondly because, the left opportunist trend has not yet fully revealed its
features and the communist revolutionaries were for availing the internal
forums to present their views and criticisms on various questions. It must also
be admitted trend-among them had their own influence on the tone and form of
struggle adopted by the communist revolutionaries. The interests of unity and
revolutionary movement also restrained them from openly and sharply reacting
against the open tirade let loose by the left opportunist leadership against
the communist revolutionaries.
The issues upon which differences reflected between the
APCCCR and AICCCR leadership, mainly, were
1.
As
we have discussed earlier, the APCCCR and AICCCR leaderships differed in their
approaches towards the struggle and process of break from the CPI (M).
Left opportunist
leadership viewed the struggle against neo revisionism as something that
concerned to only a few leaders or, at best, to most advanced elements in the
CPI (M). They left that the job will be over with they own revolt and with a
call to others to follow the suit. In their view, the comrades, who failed to
break themselves away from the CPI (M) along with them or who fail to comply
with their call forth with were worthless and only an opportunist lot. Any
attempt to continue the efforts to rally them was nothing but an opportunist
and futile exercise.
On the other
hand, the communist revolutionaries viewed the struggle as a matter that
concerned to all the party ranks, who were yearning for and who could be won
over towards the revolutionary path. it was their view that the leadership must
involve the party ranks as widely as possible in the internal struggle, utilise
every opportunity for it and help them to take positions out of their free will
and with clarify on the issues and preparedness to face the consequences. They
had no illusion whatsoever that whole or major part of the CPI (M) ranks can be
won over towards revolutionary politics. But they were clear that a proper
attitude towards the struggle against the neo revisionist politics would create
more favourable atmosphere for revolutionary politics and help the best of the
forces to rally with us in good strength.
Experience show
that all those who rallied with the revolutionaries initially did not continue
in the field in the subsequent period. All did not involve in the revolutionary
activity in the level and in the way we expected of them. It would be a sheer
utopian thinking to expect the same also. Accepting revolutionary politics will
only be a first step in the long and tortuous march of revolution. Admitting
that a part of the forces were not at all prepared even from the beginning to
orientate themselves towards revolutionary practice, we must go deep into the
question how we assessed the forces who rallied with us? What step we had taken
to involve these forces in the activity suitable to their level of
consciousness, commitment and capabilities which could have raised them to a
higher level? How the left opportunist trend and practice, which advocated that
there can be neo revolutionary activity other than armed struggle, affected
their involvement? We, the communist revolutionaries, must also admit the fact
that lack of proper attitude or lack of proper steps, on our part, to utilise
the forces in accordance with their own level of consciousness, commitment and
capabilities with a long-term perspective and in the overall interests of our
revolutionary movement also badly affected the involvement and development of
these forces. We must realise that the adoption or non-adoption of suitable
forms of organization, struggle and activity that the given level and the long
term interests of the revolutionary movement will have a profound impact on the
forces who come towards revolutionary politics. A proper attitude towards the
question is necessary not only to advance the revolutionary movement but also to
utilise, steel and develop the revolutionary forces in a best way.
2.
APCCCR
differed with the left opportunist leadership of AICCCR on the concept and
practice of agrarian revolution and armed struggle.
In their talk,
the left opportunists accepted agrarian revolution as the axis of people’s
democratic revolution. But, when it came to practice, they diluted and negated
its essence and main content. They started with a very abstract and vague
understanding about the armed struggle. They had shown romantic and petty
bourgeois tendencies, when they talked about armed struggle with no relation to
the level of people’s consciousness organisation and participation in it. With
their advocacy of line of annihilation of class enemies, they had developed
their concept of armed struggle into a full-fledged left opportunism. They had
shown utter lack of strategic perspective, when they advocated armed struggle
of their own concept anywhere and everywhere with no concern for the conditions
necessary to sustain the same for a prolonged period and to realise the
strategic objective of liberated base areas.
From the
beginning, the communist revolutionaries based themselves on the revolutionary
mass line. Basing themselves on the experiences of Telangana peasant armed
struggle, and the peasant movements in the recent past, they consistently and
emphatically pointed out the revolutionary significance of agrarian revolution
and the land question as the essence and main content of it. Their concept of
armed struggle was one of peoples armed struggle. They never visualised an
armed struggle with no relation to vast masses of people and their
consciousness and organised participation. They never visualised the
development of armed struggle, in the context of Indian revolution, with no
relation to agrarian revolutionary movement.
The APCCCR, in
its September 1968 circular, “Lay Foundations for a struggle-oriented Peoples
Movement” called upon the party ranks to treat the abolition of landlordism and
distribution of land to the tillers as the “central slogan of our agrarian
movement”. it said, “We must propagate this slogan in the context of every
struggle on partial demands. We must expand the partial struggles and gradually
advance them towards the distribution of banjars and tenant lands under the
occupation of landlords and the lands of the landlords. At no stage we should
forget that the question of land is a key problem”. Underlining the
significance of agrarian revolutionary movement, Com. TN, in an interview to Swedish
journalists in early 1969 said, “The oppression by the landowners is growing,
but so is the peoples resistance continues to grow. But when there is no
organization, it explodes and dies out. Our duty is to see this mobilisation of
anti-landlord fight gets organised in such a will culminate in armed struggle.
Without armed struggle, it cannot survive. Without armed struggle, a revolution
cannot succeed”. The APCCCR leadership guided its ranks in the light of revolutionary
mass line and strategic perspective.
All the other
controversies that cropped up between APCCCR and the left opportunists in the
context of guiding the Srikakulam girijan movement were either secondary or
fabricated ones. The main point of difference was: what should be our
perspective towards the whole course of development of armed struggle. Here,
while the APCCCR leadership tried to guide the girijan revolutionary movement
in the light of revolutionary mass line and in the perspective of peoples armed
struggle, the left opportunist leadership tried to divert the Srikakulam
comrades into their opportunist path, which negated the role of people and
agrarian revolution in armed struggle, and which paid no thought to the
interests of sustaining and advancing the armed struggle to achieve the
strategic goal of base areas.
In the context of
their joining the AICCCR, the APCCCR comrades made it clear that their
understanding of armed struggle is based on the experiences of Telangana
peasant armed struggle. Here they were only indicating that they differed with
the concept of armed struggle advocated and practices by the AICCCR leadership.
APCCCR leadership
questioned the understanding of AICCCR’s claim that the area of Srikakulam
movement has almost become a liberated base area. drawing attention to the political,
economic and military conditions necessary for an area to become a liberated
base area, they pointed out that we have to go a long way to realise this
objective. They also pointed out that Srikakulam area, as it stood then, was
too small, encircled by well-knit transport and communication system and lacked
other factors necessary for the development of liberated base areas. As the
same time, they pointed out that this pocket of Srikakulam movement has vast,
contiguous and potential areas and development of armed struggle in these areas
with a strategic planning will go a long way in creating the necessary
conditions to develop the whole area into a liberated base area in future. But,
the left opportunist leadership of AICCCR just listened to these views and
moved in their own way.
3.
APCCCR
leadership advocated the need to adopt various necessary forms of struggle and
organization and the need to combine the other forms of struggle with the
higher form of struggle, i.e., armed struggle when it comes into being. This is
basic Marxist Leninist principle to be observed in organising and leading
peoples struggles. but, the left opportunists pooh-poohed this view. They tried
to dismiss any talk about the forms of struggles other than the armed struggle
as economism and as another variety of revisionism. They started with
contradictory positions on the question and moved towards negating all other
forms of struggle, except the armed struggle of their own concept. They sought
to draw subjective and negative lessons from the peoples movement, including
the Naxalbari peasant revolutionary movement to justify their wrong position.
4.
The
question of elections has been an important point of difference between the
APCCCR and the left opportunist leadership of the AICCCR. Using this issue and
distorting APCCCR’s views, the left opportunists raised much dust and carried
on much mud-slinging campaign against the APCCCR in general and Com.TN in
particular.
The Resolution passed by the
AICCCR on May 14, 1968 declared: “Following the completion of the Chinese
Revolution there is a tide of national liberation movement in various Leninism
in the present era of rapid collapse of imperialism and rapid progress of
socialism-has made its appearance. As a result, bourgeois parliamentary
institutions having already become historically obsolete, are now obstacles to
the progress-of revolution in general, and in particular, to the progress of
revolution in semi-feudal and semicolonial countries like India; for a country
like India are not bourgeois but feudal”. So, it raised the slogan “Down with
Elections” and called upon the revolutionaries and revolutionary masses to
raise the slogan: “Boycott this Election”.
The left opportunist viewed the question of elections as
the strategic issue and advocated a general boycott for the entire stage of
People’s Democratic Revolution. They equated elections with parliamentary path
and waged attacks against all those who talked about elections as revisionists.
APCCCR basically differed with the left opportunist on
the question.
The stand and attitude adopted by them during this period
can be briefly summed up as under:
i)
APCCCR
leadership was one and consistent in their view that the Elections is a question
of tactics and one of several legal forms of struggle. They clearly rejected
the slogan of general boycott and made their position clear to the AICCCR
leadership at the time of their affiliation to AICCCR.
ii)
APCCCR
leadership was divided within itself on the question of concrete application
and practice of their stand on Elections. In his interview to BLITZ
Correspondent, A. Raghavan on August 16, 1968, Com. TN clarified that the
revolutionaries take part in the elections and Legislatives bodies “to expose
their fraudulent character and to convince the masses that revolutionary way is
the only way to solve their problems”. Talking to Swedish Journalists in early
1969, ie., immediately after his resignation to State Assembly, Com. TN said,
“We can go in for armed struggle in a really large area and still sit in
Parliament in other areas where no armed struggle is going on..... “On the
other hand, Com. DV and some other comrades held the view that the
parliamentary institutions can almost be ignored in our country since they are
not based on proper foundations. These comrades too held the view that the
Election is a question of tactics and a form of struggle. Yet, they were bent
towards a stand which was bordering on the stand-point of general boycott.
Their stand was more a product of apprehensions of falling prey to
parliamentary illusions than a theoretical and political position.
iii)
Com.
TN resigned to State Assembly in March 1969. However, it had nothing to do with
the stand of general boycott or was a bowing down to the so-called pressures
and the decision of AICCCR, as it was made out to be by some sections.
In his interview
to Swedish Journalists and in his reply to a question, “what will your greatest
difficulties be”?, Com. TN said, “The difficulties are of course our own
mistakes during the last sixteen years, which have naturally led to a condition
of disorganization. To be frank, we are not organised in the way we ought to be
if we are to function in a revolutionary way. We have created illusions among
the people about parliamentary action, organised the communist party’s
revolutionary machinery in a very parliamentary way. The old discipline has
been lost; The old unselfish tendency has gone to waste; the old hard work has
disappeared. Everything that a revolutionary needs has been lost. We must
re-build. This will be our greatest difficulty”. In another context in the same
interview, Com.TN said, “.....if we had been carrying on the working class
struggle in its revolutionary way during these sixteen years, we could probably
have also used parliament, even if an agrarian revolution is going on in some
places. India is a gigantic sub-continent. It has many different and
organisational and revolutionary requirements”. “.....Trying to organise both
is meaningless. As for the future, we must wait and see how things develop, how
successful our organization’s work is and how the co-ordination of all these
struggle goes. Then we must consider very clearly the various tactical
possibilities open to us”.
Com. TN and other
comrades of APCCCR acted with a clear assessment of the organisational
situation and with a clear perspective about the priorities of work at the
time. They were of the view that it was not the time for the leadership to
split their limited energies, but to concentrate them, to a maximum extent, on
orientating the thinking and work of the entire organisation towards building a
really revolutionary movement and organization. Com. TN’s resignation will have
to be seen only in this light. It was used to effectively focus the attention
of vast masses of people towards revolutionary path and to give a powerful
thrust towards the intensification of revolutionary activities,
The April 1969
State Convention APCCCR discussed the question of Election in some length. It
reiterated the basic and of communist revolutionaries and quoted a part of the
General Line of the International Communist Movement, CPC, which said: “The
proletarian party and the revolutionary people must learn to master all forms
of struggle, including armed struggle”.
DURING
1969-71
The period 1969-71 was important, in the sense:
i)
It
was during this period the left opportunist trend had developed itself into a
full-fledged line and was put into practice with all its disastrous consequence
for the revolutionary movement. It was also during this period the CPI(ML), has
come into existence and faced serious internal problems and divisions.
ii)
The
section of AICCCR and CPI(ML), which was bent towards the revolutionary mass
line and, yet, co-operated with the left opportunist leadership in its unholy
war against the communist revolutionaries, came to more clearly see the harmful
nature of the line and organizational methods advocated by the left opportunist
leadership. They made up their mind to put up a determined internal struggle.
Consequently, they faced the wrath of the left opportunist leadership.
iii) The
Communist revolutionaries intensified their struggle against the left
opportunist politics openly and in an organised form. They persisted in their
activities in the light of revolutionary mass line and took certain steps to
unite the communist revolutionaries on the basis of this line. However, they
too met with setbacks in their efforts as a result of repression as well as
disruption caused by the left deviation that raised its head in a section of
their own leadership.
The left
opportunists, led by Com. CM, made a fervent attempt to introduce a negative
attitude towards the past communist movement and leadership. They almost
equated communist movement with revisionism and neo revisionism and denounced
the whole leadership of the past as nothing but “lackies” and “agents of
imperialism and feudalism”.
Com. CM declared
(July, 1969) that “guerrilla warfare is the only tactic for carrying on peasant
revolutionary struggle”, “neither mass movement, nor mass organisation is
indispensable for waging guerrilla warfare”, “mass organisation and mass
movement increase the tendency for open and economist movement, and expose the
revolutionary workers before the enemy which makes it easier for the enemy to
launch attacks;” “open mass movements and mass organisations are obstacles in
the way of development and expansion of guerrilla warfare”. (Dec’1969) All
these preachings were made as part of the attempt to justify and push through
the left opportunist and un-Marxism stand-point of rejecting various forms of
struggle and organization, other than the form of armed struggle of their own
concept. Com. CM conceded that the Trade Unions are workers organizations to
fight defensive battles. Yet, he declared (March, 1970) that “.....today it is
not possible for them (working class) to defend themselves with the Trade Union
organization. Hence, it is not our task either to organise Trade Unions, or to
bring them under our control, or to bother ourselves about Trade Union
elections. Our task is to build secret Party organization among workers”. The
left opportunist leadership took the steps to withdraw its ranks from the trade
unions and other mass organisations. Thus the task of building the working
class movement was abandoned and millions of workers were left to their own
fate and to the mercy of revisionist and reactionary leaderships. Com. CM
advised the students to abandon studies and to go to the villages to propagate Mao’s
Though and people’s war path among the poor and landless peasants. He asked
them to organise themselves into small “red guard squads” in cities and called
them as future detachments of people’s army. He encouraged and commended the
acts of burning and destruction of laboratories and school buildings and
demolition of statues carried on by the students and youth in Calcutta in the
name of “cultural revolution” and under the slogan of “Indian revolution is a
part of Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”. Com. CM said: “What they are
doing is without the shadow of doubt, just and proper; for no revolutionary
education system and culture can be created in India without destroying the
colonial educational system and without demolishing the images raised by the
comprador bourgeoisie”.
The task of
organising students and youth in cities on the basis of their own issues as
well as on the political issues was abandoned. It brought in immense loss, not
only to the immediate, but also to the long term interests of our revolution.
Com. CM drew
subjective and negative lessons from the Naxalbari peasant revolutionary
movement. He said that “if the Naxalbari peasant struggle has any lesson for
us, it is that militant struggles must be carried on not for land, crops etc.,
but for the seizure of state power”. Here, the left opportunist leadership
sought to under play and negate the revolutionary significance of the struggle
for the seizure and distribution of land-the main content of agrarian
revolution. It sought to delink, create a non-existing contradiction between the
two and to counter pose the agrarian revolution to the struggle for the seizure
of state power. These conclusions not only negated the most valuable positive
lessons provided by the Naxalbari, Srikakulam and other peasant revolutionary
movements, but also led the revolutionary ranks in various parts of the country
to look down and abandon altogether the most crucial task of building agrarian
revolutionary movement. as a result of these conclusions, the peasant
revolutionary movements in Naxalbari, Srikakulam and some other places that had
reached a higher level, but faced a setback, could not be sustained and taken
to still higher level.
The left
opportunist leadership exhibited an utter confusion and lack of understanding
on the question of principle contradiction in the present phase of our
revolution. While the political resolution of CPI (ML) adopted in April 1969
formulated the principal contradictions as “between feudalism and masses of our
peasantry”, the programme adopted by its congress in May 1970 formulated it as
one “between the landlords and peasantry ie., between feudalism and broad
masses of people”. This confusion and lack of understanding has its own
negative impact on the attitude of CPI (ML) ranks towards the task of building
agrarian revolutionary movement.
Com. CM invented
and pushed into practice a most disastrous, suicidal and un-Marxism line,
called, “battle of annihilation of class enemies”. He said: “Annihilation of
class enemy is the higher form of class struggle, while the act of annihilation
of class enemies through guerrilla action is the primary stage of guerrilla
struggle”. (Jan ‘1970) Here, the whole concept of class struggle and guerrilla
warfare had been vulgarised. The talk about “class struggle” proved to be
empty, because, what were proposed here was not people adopting “annihilation”
a higher form of struggle after going through the course of various lower forms
of struggle and after acquiring the requisite level of consciousness and
preparedness. It is clear that the left opportunist leadership, on the one
hand, had prohibited various other forms of struggle and organization and, on
the other hand, proposed the “line of annihilation of class enemy”-which has
nothing to do with the class struggle-as a ‘higher form of class struggle”.
This line of annihilation of class enemy, in practice, was nothing but a
conspiratorial and adventuristic act of handful of conscious or enthusiastic
youth and has nothing to do with the forms of struggle, role of people and the
interests of revolutionary movement. Drawing the so-called lessons from the
peasant revolutionary movements, Com.CM declared, in Dec, 1969, that the
“guerrilla warfare can be started by liquidating the feudal classes in the
countryside”, “once the guerrilla fighters deviate from the campaign of
annihilation of class enemies, politics loses its prominence among them
resulting even in moral degeneration of the guerrilla units”. Forcefully
advocating the line of annihilation, the “Political-Organizational Report” of
CPI (ML) adopted by its May 1970 Party Congress assured that “this battle of
annihilation can solve all the problems facing us and lead the struggle to a
higher stage, create conditions for the emergence of a new type of man”.
Introducing this reports in the Party Congress, Com. CM declared that “We
refuse to unite with those who are opposed to the battle of annihilation of
class enemy”. He preached to the party ranks that “Guerrilla war can be waged
through the battle of annihilation in every village in India” and directed
them: “So, start as many points of armed struggle as possible. Don’t try to
concentrate. Expand anywhere and everywhere. This is one principle to be
followed. The other principle is: Carry on the battle of annihilation of the
class enemy. “He did not stop here, but went on to warn with all the vehemence
and authority: “So, comrades, anyone who opposes the battle of annihilation
cannot remain with us. We will not allow him to remain inside our Party”. In
his frantic efforts to advocate the line of annihilation, Com CM gone to the
extent of calling those who opposed the said line as the “enemies of the
people” (May 1970 Party Congress).
Thus, the
acceptance or rejecting of the line of annihilation was made the principle
yardstick to judge whether one was a revolutionary or revisionist. This line
was made and, in fact, has become One Point-Programme and line for the ranks of
CPI (ML) for a considerable period. Like the well disciplined soldiers, the CPI
(ML) ranks had gone all out in implementing this line. In the course, they
defied all hardships, had shown remarkable heroism and made supreme sacrifices.
As the line of
annihilation was bringing disastrous results, in practice, leading to loss and
isolation of party ranks from people, Com. CM sought to provide more improvised
technics and conspiratorial methods (“A Few Words on Guerrilla Action”) called
upon the party ranks to continue the acts of annihilation in a more determined
and conceited way. The definition of class enemy was made so wide and elastic
that, under it, every one picked up by the middle of 1970, the annihilation of
policemen, spies, bureaucrats, traders and petty mill owners etc., had become
the main form of struggle in Calcutta. In the middle of 1971, under the direct
guidance of Com. CM, Calcutta District Committee of CPI (ML) decided “to take
revenge of the murder of the heroic comrades in Andhra, and West Bengal by
annihilating the police, CRP, black marketers and capitalists”. In early 1971,
the slogan that “those who would seek votes (for elections to West Bengal
Legislative Assembly) and those who would cast their votes would be
annihilated” was raised in some areas of Bengal.
The principle,
“don’t concentrate. Expand anywhere and everywhere” set by Com. CM to wage
‘armed struggle’ in the form of annihilation of class enemies had more deeper
ideological foundations. As early as in Dec 1969, Com. CM declared that
“guerrilla warfare can be started where ever there are peasants”. It is obvious
that this statement betrayed lack of strategic orientation towards guerrilla
warfare. Here, Com. CM ignored a most crucial factor that the task of
leadership will not be over with the starting of armed struggle, but extends to
guiding this struggle in such a way that it sustains for a long time, expands
to ever new areas even in the face of onslaughts from the enemy and becomes so
powerful that it makes our strategic objective of establishing liberated base
areas a reality. This demands from the leadership the adoption of a
revolutionary mass line, strategic perspective and centralised planning for the
development of revolutionary movement and armed struggle. But, this is exactly
what was lacking in the understanding and practice of left opportunist
leadership. In late 1970, Com. CM said that the theory of uneven development of
revolutionary conditions is not applicable in the present-day conditions of
India. In his article, “Call of November Revolution, March Forward by Crushing
Centrism”, Com. CM formulated that “Power will be captured in the villages
first and when in that struggle the peoples’ army has encircled cities, power
will be captured in cities. But in this era of victory of the world revolution
and fast and complete collapse of imperialism, to apply this war strategy in
the specific conditions of India, the land of 500 millions, it should be borne
in mind that the cities do not remain idle when the peoples’ war has begun in
the villages, in peoples’ war village and city are one and undivided”. (Nov 7.
1970) It is obvious that this theory struck at the very basis of the
understanding of the path of peoples’ war and introduced the idea of waging the
‘armed struggle’ both in villages and cities almost simultaneously. In
practice, this theory had disastrous consequences for the revolutionary movement.
Following this theory, the party cadre were asked to intensify the acts of
annihilation of class enemies in cities.
Com. CM also
advanced the theory of quick victory. In Feb, 1970, he expressed the belief
that “within 1975 itself, the crores of people of India will compose the epic
of liberation”. In the May 1970 Party Congress, he once again assured that
“seventies will surely be the decade of liberation”. Exaggerating the objective
situation, confusing the revolutionary situation with the revolutionary
movement; glassing over the weaknesses and difficulties in the way of
revolution, presenting an exaggerated picture of victories and the strengths of
revolutionary movements and underplaying the strength of the enemies of our
revolution had been an important method for the left opportunities leadership
to convince the revolutionary ranks about the possibility, nay, inevitability
of achieving a quick and easy victory of Indian revolution.
As we have noted
earlier, the left opportunist leadership has been resorting to sectarian and
splittist organisational methods even from the beginning. The differing forces
inside and outside the AICCCR tasted the bitter fruits of these methods. This
leadership has needlessly turned its relations with various revolutionary
groups antagonistic.
At the time of
its formation in April 1969, the CPI (ML) adopted a Resolution on Party
Organization. Politically, it adopted the left opportunist trend. Yet, it also
provided an understanding regarding the questions like, party building, methods
of leadership, democratic centralism and criticism and self-criticism.
Underlining the need of iron discipline, the Resolution said that “the first condition
to establish iron discipline in the Party is by creating an atmosphere of democracy
and establishing democracy under central guidance. Only by constantly giving
correct line of guidance, only by constantly getting familiar with the lower
bodies and with the life of the masses, only by taking firm and well-considered
decisions and only by promptly transmitting those decisions to the lower
bodies, getting them thoroughly discussed and helping the lower bodies in
finding out methods of implementing them can the democracy under central guidance
be developed and the authority of the leadership established”. Dealing with the
wrong conceptions and alien trends, it said, “....the building up of the Party
means, on the one hand, to declare a relentless war against the bureaucratic
methods of leadership still prevalent among us at various levels and on the
other, to expose and annihilate the alien, idealistic, anarchic and
autonomistic concepts being preached by these groups”.
But, for Com. CM
and his loyal followers the understandings provided in the above resolution
were of no value. In fact they made mockery of the principles of democratic
centralism method of criticism and self-criticism and the system of committee
functioning. They made frenzied attempts to impose individual and bureaucratic
authority of CM over the entire organisation.
February 1970
Liberation wrote: “Our task today is to establish firmly the authority of the
leadership of Com. Charu Mazumdar at all levels of the Party and revolution”.
It remains a fact that at the time of raising this slogan, the revolutionaries
were still in a preliminary stage in applying Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung
Thought and the Path of Peoples war to the concrete conditions of Indian
revolution. The revolutionaries were still divided into different organisations.
Though the CPI (ML) was calling itself a Party, it was still representing only
section of the revolutionaries. Leaving aside the fact that then was no
question of other revolutionary organizations accepting the authority of CM, it
was also a fact that there was opposition even within the CPI (ML) to the way
and kind of authority that CM was seeking to impose on the organization. Not
only that. By the time of raising the slogan of authority. Com. CM has come to
the fore as the chief advocate of the left opportunity trend and sectarian and
splittist organizational practices. The revolutionary ranks, who came under the
influence of these trends, were already putting the peasant movements and other
activities on the rails of left adventurism. The movements as well as the
organizations of revolutionaries also tasted the disastrous consequences of
these trends in practice. It was really amusing and meaningless to attempt to
impose the so-called revolutionary authority of CM, in the conditions when the
trends advocated by him were increasingly proving disastrous in practice. In
fact, the need of the hour, at the time, was to put up a collective and
concerted effort to unite the revolutionaries on the basis of correct line, to
build up the peasant revolutionary movements in as many areas as possible in the
light of strategic perspective and to evolve through the practice of proper
organizational principles and methods of leadership-a team of leadership that
was effective, that could work on the basis of collectivism and that could draw
acceptance and respect from the vast masses of revolutionary ranks and people.
The slogan of establishing the so called authority of CM raised by some
sections went against the interests of realising these objectives.
It must be noted
that the above slogan was raised in the context of growing opposition to and
failure of left opportunist trend and organizational methods advocated by
Com.CM. this was also a part of the move to dismantle the system of committee
functioning, to silence the opposition and to further intensify the individual
and bureaucratic methods of leadership so that the left opportunist line can be
pushed into practice more vigorously on the revolutionary ranks and with no
opposition. This move, not only revealed the irresponsible attitude on the part
of those who raised the slogan, but also the failure of the left opportunist
trend and leadership.
STRUGGLE
WITHIN THE CPI (ML)
Left opportunist leadership gave the name “centrism” to
the trend of revolutionary mass line represented by AP Communist Revolutionaries.
In his address to May 1973 Party Congress of CPI (ML), Com CM declared that,
“we have fought against it and thrown the Nagi Reddy’s out of our
organization.” Not only that. He also said in the same Party Congress, “Now the
centrist attack is coming from inside the Party.....” “.....anyone who opposes
this battle of annihilation cannot remain with us. We will not allow him to
remain inside our party”.
It must be noted that almost all in the team of leadership
of AICCCR and CPI (ML) accepted CM’s leadership. Yet, there were also forces
among them who were having reservations, and differing views. They temporarily
fell prey to diversionist and misleading tactics and methods used by the left
opportunist leadership. However, the course of practice helped them to
gradually see more the disastrous nature of left opportunist trend and
sectarian and bureaucratic organizational practices and to take the course of
struggle in an organised way.
Some comrades of CPI (ML) from Howrah sent their
criticisms on the political resolution of CPI (ML) (April 1969) in June 1969.
In this criticism, besides other things, they questioned the in objective and
exaggerated assessment of people’s consciousness made by the political resolution.
They maintained that the principal contradiction is between feudalism and
Indian people. They warned against the possibility of ‘roving guerrilla bands’
and opposed the views that opposed the mass organizations and mass movement.
these comrades were later expelled from the CPI (ML).
In November 1970 ie., within six months after the CPI
(ML)’s Party Congress, Com. Sushital Roy Choudhary put a document into
circulation (with a call to party ranks: “Resist the Ultra-Adventurist trend
raising its head in our Party”), namely, “Problems and crises of Indian
Revolution”. This document occupies a significant place in the struggle against
left opportunism inside the CPI (ML).
The main points of criticism were:
1.
The
concepts and practices of forming guerrilla squads in a completely secret and
conspiratorial manner and waging guerrilla war with no conscious role and
participation of people and interpreting “annihilation” as meaning only the
elimination of class enemies were theoretically wrong and harmful to the
development of peasant armed struggle and base areas.
2.
Abandoning
economic and political struggles was wrong. Guerrilla warfare is basically a
higher form of class struggle. Class struggle is a sum total of economic and
political struggles. We cannot make the peasants conscious of the politics of
seizure of state power without mobilising the broad mass of peasants into these
struggles combined with ceaseless propagation of Mao Tse Tung Thought.
3.
Abandoning
the task of organising the people into economic and political struggles in
urban areas was wrong. All the talk about unleashing the so-called campaigns of
annihilation in cities and calling upon the students to destroy educational
institutions, labs, libraries, statues in the name of Cultural Revolution was
wrong.
4.
The
theory of quick victory of Indian revolution was wrong. Calling US aggression
against Cambodia as the beginning of Third World War was wrong.
5.
People
must be provided with necessary confidence in victory. They must also be told
about the twists and turns in our road. But the CPI (ML) leadership resorted to
many exaggerations and circulated inflated reports about the activities.
6.
Policy
of creating red terror in cities and thus tempering comrades is nothing but
extreme adventurism. The talk about the era of exclusive self-sacrifice is only
an empty slogan. The object of war is specifically “to preserve one self and
destroy the enemy”. There can be no exclusive era of self-sacrifice or an era
of exclusive self-preservation.
7.
To
say that “party is the party for action” is nothing but reducing the party into
terrorist party.
8.
With
increasing left trend in politics, its predominance also became pronounced in
organisational matters. Com.CM was placed above the party committee. Many of
the important policies were published as CM’s exhortations. CM’s authority as
the sole interpreter of party line and Mao’s Thought was sought to be imposed
on the party ranks. Some proclaimed that “this is CM’s party. Only those who
would obey him unconditionally will remain inside the party”. It was nothing
but commandism that accompanied left deviation. Any dissatisfaction or
criticism of party policy was labelled as “revisionism” or “centrism”. Bihar
SC’s criticism was dismissed as “vile”. This was an indication of impatience
inherent in “left” deviation.
It is obvious that
the above criticisms reflected an orientation of revolutionary mass line and
respect towards proper methods of organization and leadership.
In September
1970, the Bihar State Committee of CPI (ML) advanced its criticism through its
document, “problems of the Indian revolution and neo-Trotskyite diversions”.
This document, besides other things, opposed CM’s thesis that the rich
peasants, all capitalists and traders are enemies and deserved to be
annihilated. It disagreed with the pronouncements that the PLA would march
throughout West Bengal by 1970-71, that the third world war has begun that
comrades should forget all ideas of self-preservation and destroy all enemies
and that what the students in Calcutta were doing (destroying statues, school
buildings and labs etc) was a cultural revolution. Similarly, it opposed the
theory of quick victory. Later, comrades of UP, Punjab and a section of West
Bengal joined them. The comrades of Bihar-Bengal border region, who initially
stood by CM, came out with an inner-party document in which they
self-critically reviewed party activities and admitted their own failures.
Here, we
mentioned some factors concerning the struggle against the left opportunism
inside the CPI (ML). We admit that we cannot claim to have given a complete
picture of the struggle here as we lack enough information and material in this
regard. Our main attempt here is to underline the fact that the left
opportunism faced opposition not only from outside but also from its own ranks
and sections of leadership and this struggle is part of the whole struggle for
a correct like and leadership. We will be glad to know more facts so that a
comprehensive picture can be provided to the revolutionary ranks and people.
STRUGGLE
WAGED BY ANDHRA COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARIES
AP Communist Revolutionaries stood in the forefront in
the struggle against left opportunism. This was a principled and politically
significant struggle.
“Problems of Srikakulam Girijan Movement” a document
adopted by the State Plenum of AP Communist Revolutionaries in April 1969,
dealt the problems and differences manifested between the state leadership and
a section of Srikakulam District Committee. The main points of political
differences were:
- Comrades
of DC held the view that since the armed struggle is a struggle for
liberation, it can be started and carried on without any relation to the
questions like land. The state leadership held the view that for peasants,
liberation means liberation from feudalism and imperialism. We must lead
the peasant up struggles with the perspective of developing them into
struggles for the seizure of power. These struggles must begin, develop,
get themselves strengthened and expand on the basis of the programme of
agrarian revolution. Where the landlord exploitation is not naked or
severe or almost nil, we must strive to organise people into struggles
against various forms of exploitation and oppression by the government and
imperialists. On all occasions, the seizure of political power will be the
main question. Hence the question will not depend on the intensity of
exploitation alone. We would utilise the struggle against exploitation
only as a means-to the extent it will be useful-to reach the struggle for
the seizure of state power at the earliest. At the same time, it must be
realised that peoples participation gets weakened if we abandon the
programme of agrarian revolution and negate the gains of agrarian
revolutionary movement and there is every danger that the armed struggle
faces a defeat. Any liberation struggle that has no relation to the
question of land, in practice, will be abstract for the rural masses.
- Comrades
of DC were of the view that the people need not be on the move, need not
take part in the armed struggle. The state leadership rejected this view
and was of firm view that the people must be on the move and it is
possible to more there if we have a proper mass line approach and there
can be no armed struggle without the conscious and organised participation
and role of people in it.
- Comrades
of DC argued that all techniques of war can be learnt in the battle-field
and no training, whatsoever is necessary in guerrilla war. The state
leadership held the view that the people develop the art of and techniques
of war in the course of battle with the enemy. Yet, a minimum knowledge
and training are necessary and useful to avoid needless losses and fight
the enemy effectively.
- Comrades
of DC held the view that armed struggle is enough to overthrow the enemy.
The state leadership held that the united front is one of the three
principal weapons for the victory of revolution, and the negation or lack
of correct concept and practice of UF will lead to the weakening of
people’s revolutionary forces and to the defeat of revolution.
In response to
the criticism of “Immediate Programme” published in Oct 1969 ‘Liberation’, the
AP Communist Revolutionaries wrote a reply in Nov ’69. In their criticism,
(Politics of Nagi Reddy) the left opportunist pooh-poohed the earnest attempt
made by the AP Communist Revolutionaries to categories various areas in AP in
the light of people’s war path and the strategic objective of the base areas
and to correctly work out the programme of agrarian revolution. They
pooh-poohed the stand of giving principal place in the overall planning of work
to the forest and mountainous regions as nothing but a “jungle theory”. In
their reply (“Problems of Peoples War”) the communist revolutionaries explained
and asserted their understanding of base areas, agrarian revolution and its
relation to armed struggle, on the need to adopt and co-ordinate various
necessary forms of struggle with the armed struggle; on the work in cities and
their attitude towards the ruling class-inspired separatist and diversionist
movements, like separate Telangana.
In an interview
on Sept 20, 1970, Com. TN explained three main points of differences with the
CPI (ML) leadership:
- Question
of tactics in relation to peoples war. Armed struggle starts only as a
resistance to landlord goondas and government repression. this resistance
will be in the form of peoples resistance. Out of this resistance alone,
resistance squads are to be formed. But, the CPI (ML) does not bother
about this aspect of people’s participation as a form of resistance to
landlord goondas and police repression. formation of squads even in areas
where there is no people movement at all is their methodology, which
isolates the squads from the masses.
- People’s
war starts only as a form of resistance, not as a form of offensive. But
the method of CPI (ML) has no relation to the peoples demands and peoples
struggles. Without any such relation, they go in for offensive actions
against any and every landlord even in places where there is no mass
movement of any type.
- Question
of other forms of struggle. Even though, armed struggle is a basic and
most important struggle, it is not the only form of struggle in all
places. We will have to adopt various forms of struggle according to the
conditions prevailing in particular places. We would use even the lowest
form of struggle. Eventually, all these various forms of struggle should
be conducted in such a manner as to develop better organisation and
consciousness of the people towards the people’s direct participation on
the question of land and other issues leading to resistance against the
landlords and government repression. But the CPI (ML) does not believe in
any form of struggle other than armed struggle in all areas, irrespective
of the strength of the party or the people. This type of actions do not
help build up a mass movement even in an area where such actions take
place. Such actions are against the fundamental principles enunciated by
Mao in relation to peasant armed struggle.
People are their
own liberations under the leadership of communist party. That means they
themselves must form part and parcel of the squads. But, the manner in which
this is being implemented by the CPI (ML) makes the people feel that liberators
are someone else and not themselves. They look to someone for liberation. In
consequence, instead of taking actions on the basis of their own unity and
organisational strength, they will look to others to do this job for them and
save them from the exploitation of landlords.
“Left
Opportunist Trend among the Indian Revolutionaries” is a comprehensive
criticism made by AP Communist Revolutionaries, by the end of Sept.1970. It
made a thorough-going Marxist-Leninist analysis of the left opportunist trend
in the light of the revolutionary movements past and present.
This document
dealt with the questions, in the main:
- Question
of principal contradiction in the present phase of our revolution. It
critically analysed how various formulations made by the CPI (ML)
(Political Resolution and Draft Programme) were wrong and, in effect,
sought to undermine, weaken and negate agrarian revolution. At several
places, it correctly asserted the principal contradiction as between
feudalism and broad masses of people and effectively focused upon the
urgency and revolutionary significance of agrarian revolution as an effective
means to tackle and resolve this contradiction in the interests of people,
and revolution. However, fact must be admitted that at some places an
imprecision also crept into the formulation when it said that the
principal contradiction is between the broad masses and landlords and big
bourgeois classes.
- It
said: There is a revolutionary situation in India. However, there is
unevenness in the development of economic and political situation and
revolutionary movement. it criticised the left opportunists, who equated
and confused the revolutionary situation with revolutionary movement and
asserted that there is no need for organising people into various forms of
struggles on the plea that there exists an excellent revolutionary
situation in India.
- It
rejected the attitude of left opportunists who equated and confused
economism with economic struggles. It asserted that fight against
economism does not mean just pointing it out. It must be fought concretely
and in practice. What is important is the perspective that guides our
practice. We must organise people into struggles on economic and political
issues combined with the propagation of revolutionary politics and with a
perspective of developing these struggles into higher level. It rejected
the view that reduced the question posed and saw a contradiction between
the question of land and armed struggle. It said that land distribution
occupies a central place in the programme of agrarian revolution. Armed
struggle is the main form of struggle to carry this agrarian revolution.
Thus, agrarian revolution and armed struggle are interrelated, strengthen
each other and lead the people to victory. It concluded that all the
arguments of CPI (ML) leadership were the result of their aversion to
mobilise people into revolutionary movement and refusal to make the people
to consciously realise the need of armed struggle with the help of their
practice.
- It
drew attention to the specific features and conditions of Indian revolution,
in comparison, with the pre-liberation China. It pointed out that in order
to overcome certain disadvantages and successfully lead the Indian
Revolution in the concrete conditions attaining the India today, we must
have a clear and concrete understanding of the course of development of
revolutionary movement and armed struggle in our country. It also pointed
out that the revolutionary peasant must occupy the central place and forms
the basis of all revolutionary movements. All other movements must be
complementary to the agrarian revolutionary movement. it criticised that
the talk like, “guerrilla warfare is the only tactic to carry the peasant
struggle” portrayed a lack of minimum understanding about tactics and
forms of struggle.
Dealing with the
forms of struggle in the light of Mao’s thought the experiences of Chinese
revolution, the Telangana peasant armed struggle and the revolutionary
movements in the recent past, the document pointed out that while the armed
struggle is higher form of struggle, other forms are secondary. In view of
uneven development of people’s consciousness, not only we adopt the higher form
of struggle ie; armed struggle, but also other necessary forms of struggle in
accordance with the level of people’s consciousness and organisation and
co-ordinate them with the higher form of struggle.
It critically
analysed various formulations in defence of line of annihilation and rejected
it as a line opposed to Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought and as a negation of
revolutionary experiences of Chinese revolution, Telangana peasant armed
struggle and the revolutionary movements in the recent past, as a line that
goes against the interests of our revolution today. It said: Armed struggle
that is based on agrarian revolutionary movement alone will be victorious. For
this, building of revolutionary mass organisations and the implementation of
the programme of the agrarian revolution are necessary. Peoples armed struggle
and the programme of annihilation of class enemies is not one and the same.
People adopt armed struggle as the main form of struggle to defeat the enemy’s
armed forces and to seize political power by overthrowing the present ruling
classes. At no stage of armed struggle-even in the earlier stage-the physical
liquidation of class enemies as a whole will be the programme of armed
struggle. Similarly, it is wrong to say that the people can be inspired into
revolutionary action through the acts of annihilation. Like economism, this
trend also ignores the task of building revolutionary movement.
It pointed out
that armed struggle, by its nature, is offensive. Yet, the fact remains that
the people’s revolutionary forces will be weak and on the defensive for a long
time in relation to enemy. The people will have to wage a protracted armed
struggle in self-defence, in defence of revolutionary gains, their guerrilla
zones and base areas. The slogan defence will be in the interests of rallying
politically backward sections of people with us and in mobilising widest
support and solidarity of democratic and national forces for our struggle. This
aspect was totally ignored by the left opportunist leadership.
It rejected the
talk that guerrilla warfare can be started anywhere and everywhere as a
negation of path of protracted peoples war. It rejected the talk of quick
victory. It discussed various other questions, like, the importance of the
agrarian revolutionary programme, relation between the party and revolutionary
mass movement, the meaning, significance and method of expanding the
revolutionary movement, question of base area the need of co-ordination between
struggle areas and other areas and between the areas of armed struggle and
cities.
- It
rejected the claim of left opportunists that it was in Naxalbari that the
thought of Mao has been applied for the first time in India as in
objective and unhistoric. It asserted that is was in the period of
Telangana peasant armed struggle that Mao’s Thought and the path of
peoples war concretely applied for the first time in India and the Andhra
Committee, as early as 1949 proposed peoples war path as the path of
Indian revolution.
- It
rejected the attitude of left opportunists towards the question of
national struggle. CM wrote as early as in September 1968 that we will
have to accept the right of national self-determination because; our
failure to do so will disrupt the class struggles. The communist should
not lead the national struggles, but can unite with them. Every national
struggle in its final stage (Mao said, “in its final analysis”) of victory
will transform itself into a class struggle. This document of communist
revolutionaries explained the correct understanding towards the national
struggles. It criticised the attitude adopted by the left opportunists
towards separate Telangana agitation (1968). It must be noted that this
was an agitation to split Andhra nation led by a section of ruling classes
as part of their power gamble. In the context of this agitation, the left
opportunists raised an opportunist slogan of “Peoples Raj in Telangana”
and tailed behind the section of ruling classes. They sought to attribute
a revolutionary character, to the separate Telangana agitation by
connecting it to Telangana peasant armed struggle (thereby discrediting
the historic peasant armed struggle).
- It
rejected the slogan, “China’s chairman is our chairman” as nothing to do
with the concept and practice of proletarian internationalism. It made it
clear that the left opportunists distorted and vulgarised Mao’s Thought on
many basic questions and reduced Mao’s Thought into a mere slogan. They
are parading their own left opportunist views and practices as Mao Tse
Tung Thought. It is unfair. The left opportunist must take the
responsibility for their own views and practice.
- It
analysed how the left opportunist leadership miserably failed in principle
tasks of providing the leadership to the revolutionary peoples movements
and uniting the revolutionaries, and how they led a major chunk of
revolutionaries along a left opportunist trend and disruptive path. it
made it clear that in the course of correctly guiding the revolutionary
movement and revolutionary organization in the various phases of their
development and as a result of successfully performing the tasks of
leadership towards Indian revolution. Hence, the question of accepting the
revolutionary authority of CM does not arise at all.
Left Opportunist trend in India and CPC
The
CPC leadership paid a great importance to the Indian revolution. It extended
its whole hearted fraternal political and moral support and solidarity to the
forces taking the revolutionary path in India. It gave an effective publicity
in its media to the struggle against neo revisionism and to the revolutionary
movements in our country. It expressed the hope that the Indian revolutionaries
get themselves united on the basis of Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought and
a correct application of the path of peoples war to the concrete conditions of
India.
But, the things did not move along a straight line. The
left opportunists usurped the all India leadership and moved in the direction
of uniting the forces on the basis of this line while doing everything to expel
the forces who leaned or who advocated the revolutionary mass line from the
camp of revolutionaries. This demanded a principled struggle on the part of
communist revolutionaries in most complicated and difficult conditions.
The difficulties got themselves multiplied with the role
played by the Chinas propaganda media for some period. In many cases, the media
lacked objectivity in its reporting on the activities of revolutionaries and
the peasant movements. It simply put on the air or print whatever was fed by
the left opportunist leadership. The sweep and vigour of these reports was such
that they gave the impression that the revolutionary movement and armed
struggle were advancing in waves with one victory after other and the final
victory wets not far off. Here, not only the movements were exaggerated, but
also the factor that the people’s revolutionary movements, on the whole, were in
their infancy and the need of the hour was to preserve, consolidate and
gradually expand the revolutionary movements and party organization was
ignored. The aspect of ‘defence’ was almost ignored and the ‘offensive, stance
was used. This went against the style of CPC and the teachings of Mao.
Formation of CPI (ML) was welcomed and this party was projected as the only
party representing the revolutionaries in India. The left opportunist
leadership sought to fully utilise all this to claim recognition by the CPC of
the correctness of its line and leadership and to play rough shed against the
other revolutionaries and organizations. The sections, who were bent towards
revolutionary mass line, were also influenced by it because of their great
regard for the CPC. Those among the communist revolutionaries, who were having
leanings and attractions towards the left opportunist trend, vacillated more.
Those, who were firm and consistent in their convictions in the revolutionary
mass line, were put to severe pressure and test. The left opportunist
leadership made every attempt to provoke them into bursting against the CPC so
that it becomes easy for it to brand the communist revolutionaries with
anti-CPC stance.
However the communist revolutionaries with firm and consistent
convictions in the revolutionary mass line had shown utmost political maturity
and restraint. They made up their mind to: I) not to speak anything against the
CPC and wait for an opportunity to get themselves clarified from the CPC
leadership about their attitude towards various trends among the Indian
revolutionaries. II) To put up a principled struggle against the left
opportunism on the basis of their own understanding of Marxism Leninism Mao Tse
Tung Though, the path of people’s war and their application to the concrete
conditions of Indian revolution and to take responsibility for their own views
and actions.
From a study of the political situation that obtained in
China at the time and the facts that came to light later, we can be clear that.
1.
China’s
propaganda media at the time was greatly influenced by the sections
representing the sectarian, left adventurist trend. This section used the media
not only to boost up the left opportunist forces and trend in India, but also
had its own influence on the thinking of left opportunist leadership here.
2.
The
top leadership of the CPC, guided by Com. Mao made every attempt to closely
study and understand various trends and practices reflecting among the Indian
revolutionaries, and to extend their fraternal advice to the Indian
revolutionaries to help them to adopt a correct line. It is evident from what
Com. Kong Sheng said to Souren Bose in Oct.1970. He said: I stressed on this
question when I met com. Bose in 1968. In the course of those discussions, I said
like this: if we engage ourselves in armed struggle in an isolated way without
the vast masses of people, the struggle of this kind cannot succeed. This armed
struggle cannot have the basis if we ignore the basic interests of the
peasantry and the agrarian struggle of the peasantry. Hence, that cannot
succeed’, I said that the people consciousness will always be developing from a
lowest level to higher level and we can prepare the masses of people for armed
struggle only when we start with the vital interests of people, ie., their
economic interest s and develop their level of consciousness. We cannot prepare
the people for armed struggle in a way of isolating ourselves from the people”
(from the Book, “Talk with Souren Bose of Zhou Enlai and Kang Sheng in 1970”)
In Oct, 1970,
Comrades Zhou Enlai and Kang Sheng had a detailed discussion with Souren Bose
who met them as the representative of CPI (ML), in their talk, the CPC
leadership made it clear that: I) there is no dominant or leading or parental
party in the present world. Every party is independent. It must apply Marxism
Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought to the concrete conditions of its own revolution
and must take responsibility for its own mistakes, failures and successes and
no copying or mechanical application of Mao’s teachings and Chinese experiences
will be proper. 2) From all counts, it was wrong it was wrong to say the
“China’s Chairman is our Chairman”. 3) It was wrong to say that the peasant
struggle is only for state power, but not for land. Both are inter-related and
inseparable. 4) It was wrong to say that the mass movements and mass organising
are obstacles in the way of guerrilla warfare. On the contrary, their absence
itself will be an obstacle in the way of organising and leading the guerrilla
warfare. 5) The line of annihilation was wrong and such acts proved disastrous
in the Chinese revolution. 6) Forming guerrilla squads secretly,
conspiratorially and in isolation from people was wrong. It only alienates the
party and the guerrilla squads from the people and leads them to defeat. 7)
Abandoning the anti-imperialist political movements in the cities was wrong.
Forming student Red Guards in cities was wrong. Abandoning TU work was wrong.
8) The CPI (ML) has no programme of agrarian revolution. This was a serious
weakness and failure. Without agrarian revolutionary movement based on the
programme of agrarian revolution and without linking it to the armed struggle,
the people cannot be prepared to armed struggle and the revolution cannot succeed.
9) It was wrong to say that UF will be formed after the seizure of power. The
concept and practice of UF must guide the work of revolutionaries all through
the course of development of revolutionary movement. 10) It was wrong to say
that only those who dipped their hands in the blood of the enemy are
communists. Such a party can be anything else but not a communist party. 11)
The CPI (ML) was correct in its general orientation, but its policies were
wrong and needed correction.
If the CPI (ML)
leadership had gone deep into the essence of opinions expressed by the CPC
leadership and made an honest self-critical examination of its own views and
practices, it would not have been difficult to realise that its entire
application and practice of Mao’s Thought and people’s war path was wrong and
left opportunistic and its correction meant a basic re-orientation towards
revolutionary mass line.
Here a few
factors are to be noted:
1.
The
internal struggle that started in the CPI (ML) against the left opportunist leadership
was a significant and welcome development. It reflected an earnest attempt to
learn from practice and to take the road of revolutionary mass line. An
organization of internal discussion in a democratic and dispassionate manner on
the basis of experience would have greatly helped the entire CPI (ML) to
correct its mistakes, even if it be at a late hour. But the left opportunist
leadership had shown utter adanancy and incorrigibility. They resorted to all
sorts of bureaucratic methods to suppress the differing views and forces.
2.
At
that time, the communist revolutionaries led by Com. TN and DV were a force, which
provided a correct alternative to the left opportunist line. Coming closer of
the forces inside and outside the CPI (ML) who were opposing the left
opportunism, the development of more unified understanding on the problems of
Indian revolution among themselves and carrying on a combined or atleast a
co-ordinated struggle against the left opportunism would have greatly
strengthened the forces of revolutionary mass line all over India and would
have had a great impact on the whole course of developments in the camp of
revolutionaries. But, the gap between the AP Communist revolutionaries and the
CPI (ML) forces, who were waging an internal struggle, was still persisting.
Besides the gap caused by the lack of physical contact and other factors, the
poison of prejudices spread against the communist revolutionaries was playing
its own negative role.
3.
The
criticisms and advice offered by the CPC leadership came as a concrete help to
the Indian revolutionaries. But, the most painful fact is that opportunist
leadership-which was claiming to be highly respecting the CPC leadership
(taking it to the level of ‘obedience’)-arbitrarily and silently pushed the criticisms
and advice of CPC under the carpet and persisted in its own line. Some of these
facts had seen the light very late and in a piece meal manner. It must be noted
that the concealing or suppression of these facts caused an immense harm to the
Indian revolution. A timely and systematic reporting and discussion of CPC’s
criticisms and advice would have greatly strengthened the struggle against the
left opportunism and the process of unification of communist revolutionaries
all over India on the basis of correct line. This opportunity was lost and more
road blocks came to be erected in the course in the path of unification of
revolutionaries and revolutionary movements.
Set back to the Struggle against Left Opportunism
After
the break from CPI (M), the APCCCR took steps to give a more organised form to
its activities. It paid special attention to the areas of strategic importance,
while guiding the activities in the plain areas. It sought to guide the
Srikakulam movement which was taking a serious turn. It sent cadre and
leadership to the forest areas of Khammam, Warangal, Karimnagar and East
Godavari districts-with a view to develop these vast strategic areas into the
areas of agrarian revolutionary movement and armed struggle. However, these
moves faced setbacks.
- A
section of Srikakulam DC went under the influence of left opportunist
leadership of AICCCR. This section started armed actions abandoning the
task of building agrarian revolutionary movement. This brought a first
division in the APCCCR and caused a serious setback to the revolutionary
movement which was in its initial stage. The left opportunist leadership
of AICCCR used the Srikakulam movement to discredit and isolate the APCCCR
leadership. In the then prevailing atmosphere in the revolutionary camp
and their own inherent weaknesses the APCCCR leadership found it an uphill
task and has to swim against the tide to withstand the onslaught of
left-opportunists and to carry on the activities along their own line.
- After
the disaffiliation from AICCCR, the APCCCR leadership moved ahead with
steps to consolidate their own forces; review the activities; more clearly
formulate their Programme and line and to take the struggle against left
opportunist trend as well as the activities to a still higher level. April
1969 state convention was a most significant step in this direction.
As the state
convention assessed, the people were coming into organised struggles on
economic demands in some pockets of Khammam, Warangal and Karimnagar areas
while in other major part of these areas, our activities were at the level of
carrying on propaganda on the issues. In the agency areas of East Godavari, our
comrades had done a good amount of work among the people in the light of proper
perspective of revolutionary mass line with initial results. Yet, on the whole,
we were to go a long way in developing a consistent and extensive agrarian
revolutionary movement in the agency areas. The state convention decided that
these activities should be carried forward in right earnest.
However, there
were negative developments. Going against the line and decisions adopted in the
context of State Convention, Com. CP led armed actions in Khammam area. Within
few days, these actions were extended to Warangal area also. These actions
reflected to left deviation from the revolutionary mass line and proved to be
harmful to the development of agrarian revolutionary movement in the whole
region. With Com. CP’s self-critical admission of the responsibility for the
mistakes, the rectification of mistake appeared possible. But it proved to be an
illusion in the later period.
The state
leadership faced arrests in Dec.1969. These arrests were followed by the arrest
of major part of leading cadre in various districts. This was a time when the
PC set itself on the tasks of : i)
Taking necessary steps to rectify the mistakes in the movement and
putting it on proper rails; ii) Finalising the drafts of Programme, Path and
Constitution and iii) intensifying unity efforts and ideological struggle at
all India level. The arrest of leadership hit a severe blow to these moves.
Utilising the
conditions created by the arrest of state leadership, Com. CP came to the fore
asserting his mistakes to be correct and theorising them. He sought to sow
prejudices, wage unreasonable attacks and mobilise the organisation against the
state leadership. He sought to draw lessons from the forest movement to suit
his line of thinking. When the state leadership from jail sent a sharp and
extensive criticism of the views and practices of the leadership outside, he
lost no time to lead an almost open revolt against the leadership instead of
taking the course of resolution of problems through principled and
dispassionate inner-party discussions. Thus a split was forced upon the organization.
The committee
outside led by Com. CP argued that the enemy will not keep quiet until the
people consciously realise the need of adopting the form of armed struggle.
‘Armed struggle for self defence’ can be started by the armed squads formed by
the party cadre when the police enter the scene without waiting for the people.
Similarly, it also formulated that the peasant masses will come forward to
seize the lands of the landlords only when they gain the confidence in the
military strength of the armed squads. It distorted the views and criticisms of
the state leadership. When the state leadership pointed about the need to have
an objective assessment of the political situation in the country and with
regard to the strengths and weakness of our forces in relation to those of the
enemy, the Committee outside concluded that it was nothing but an attempt to
overplay the strength of the enemy and to suggest that no armed struggle was
possible; when the state leadership discussed the question how the self defence
of cadre should be tackled and should not be confused with the form of self
defence adopted by the people, the Committee outside sought to conclude that it
amounted to suggest that no self defence of cadre can be taken up unless the
people are not prepared for it; when the state leadership pointed out that
there can be no armed struggle unless people adopt it consciously as a higher
form of struggle and suggested the need to take the course of concentrating on
the take of agrarian revolutionary movement, the Committee outside concluded
that it only amounted to giving a call ‘lay down the arms’ and abandon the path
of armed struggle. These are some of the important instances. It is needless
today that the Committee outside resorted to most cheap, short cut and unfair
method to pollute the atmosphere, rouse the emotions and rally the organization
against the leadership.
The emergence of
left deviation and consequent split in the APCCCR came at a time when the
struggle against left opportunism was intensifying-both inside and outside the
CPI (ML)-and when the situation was turning more and more favourable for the
unification of wider forces of communist revolutionaries at all India level. It
must be noted that this was a time when the left opportunist trend and its
practice faced a disastrous defeat and the revolutionaries faced severe losses
and divisions. This was also a period when the revolutionaries were seriously
trying to locate the cause for their failures and were anxious to unite their
own forces at all India level on the basis of the lessons drawn from
experiences. Had there been no split in the APCCCR and had the movement led by
them not suffered a left deviation, we could have had a developing
revolutionary movement. This movement could have, to an extent, filled the gap
created by the loss caused by the practice of left opportunist line. It could
have provided a minimum dependable strength and basis for the revolutionaries
to reorganise and reunite themselves and also move towards building a consistent
revolutionary movement in various parts of the country. With the loss of a
major part of the organisation and the struggle areas coupled with the other
difficulties (arrests) the leadership of the APCCCR was placed in a most
disadvantageous and weak position. The rise of left deviation within the APCCCR
which was known for its firm opposition to left opportunism came as another
severe setback to the struggle against the left opportunism at all India level.
It gave some moral and political strength to the forces that were still
clinging to the left opportunist line. It gave a new lease of life for this
‘line and, on the whole, weakened the struggle against left opportunism at all
India level.
By 1969, an
agrarian revolutionary movement has developed in a small pocket of Kondamodalu
agency area of East Godavari district (AP) under the leadership of APCCCR. The
comrades who organised and led the activities in this area moved the vast
masses of girijan people into an organised action along the revolutionary mass
line. Here, the comrades made a systematic study of conditions of people’s life
and the forms of exploitation and oppression. They made an extensive political
propaganda and campaign against the exploitation and atrocities of muthadars,
money lenders, forest officials, forest contractors, landlords and various
government officials. They moved the people into action from partial issues to
land issue in a revolutionary way. They organised the people in various
organizations like girijan sangham, mahila sangham, youth organization and bala
sangham, and led the people into various forms of struggle. The leadership
moved with a clear perspective of raising the level of consciousness and
organisation of people to a higher level in the course of leading them to
struggles on their problems and bringing out all their fighting and
revolutionary potentialities into fully play. Through their organised struggle,
the girijan masses made the age-old system of muthadari exploitation
ineffective; asserted their right to freely enjoy the forest produce; brought
hundreds of acres of Podu under farming defying all the prohibitions imposed by
the government; refused to pay exorbitant rates of interests to the money
lenders; demanded that the landlords who had illegally occupied the lands of girijans
(violating the 1917 Regulation) must vacate the lands. The girijans who were
working as farm servants in the fields of landlords went on strike demanding
increase in their monthly wage. The Collector was forced to come down and accept
the increase as demanded by the striking masses. Yet, the rising level of
people’s consciousness made them to refuse to continue themselves as farm
servants and to seek for a free and independent life. The urge for land has
grown many folds among the people. The leadership made an earnest effort to
give this urge a more conscious and organised direction. It was in this course
the demand for lands that were illegally occupied by the landlords gained
momentum and took the form of seizing crops and lands in some villages. The
leadership combined legal and illegal methods in a way to raise the
consciousness and organised strength of struggling masses of people. This
approach helped the people to overcome the illusions and provided a sound
political and moral justification for the struggles. at one stage, the masses
of girijan people had to confront the armed police as part of the move to
defend their lands. The organization of youth into a militant fighting force
provided the peoples movement necessary militancy. The impact of the movement
spread wide and stood as a best example for the correct perspective and
practice of revolutionary mass line. However the movement suffered a temporary
setback as a result of the arrest of the leadership at a time when it was
struggling to tackle the problems of its development and to go to a further
level.
Question of CPI (ML)’s Formation
The CPI (ML) was formed on
Aril 22, 1969. Com. Kanu Sanyal formally declared it in a public meeting held
in Calcutta on May 1, 1969. After a year, ie., in May 1970, the CPI (ML) held
its Party Congress. Here, the Programme and Political-Organisational Report
were adopted. A Central Committee with Com. CM as its Chairman was elected.
However, the differences within the CPI (ML) got themselves accentuated. The
understandings, practices and organizational methods of Com. CM had become the
main points of discussion. The leadership failed to organise discussion on the
points of difference in the light of experiences and in a principled and democratic
manner. The leadership resorted to the methods like discrediting, slandering,
isolating and getting rid of the differing forces. So the Party faced a split.
Later, the group led by Com. SNS, which has been criticising CM’s policies
asserted itself as the real and sole representative of CPI (ML). Those who were
differing with Com. SNS and upholding CM’s leadership tried to continue and
reorganise the CC of CPI (ML). Several groups or organizations claiming
themselves as CPI (ML), had come into existence in the last 15 years. Each of
these organizations contend among themselves on the question; who is the real
CPI (ML)? As the same time, they show unity and solidarity among themselves in
opposing these who question the way the CPI (ML) was formed and dispute the
claim of CPI(ML) as a Party. In the course of time, the questions like, was the
CPI (ML)’s formation in 1969 correct? Is CPI (ML) a Party?- had become
important points of review for various revolutionary groups. Even the communist
revolutionaries who were never a part of the CPI (ML) are being compelled to
state their position on these questions. Some groups even made the acceptance
of CPI (ML) as a party and its formation as a correct step as a condition for
unity. they had turned it into a political as well as sentimental issue. Some
are using this issue to retain the prejudices, doubts and negative attitudes
among the CPI (ML) ranks in one form or other and to one extent or other
against the communist revolutionaries. Thus the question acquired a political
significance. Here, we make our position clear.
- Here
the question is not whether there was a need for the formation of the
party in 1969 or not. There was a need and there were conditions for it.
There is no doubt about it. However, the point here is whether the
politics and organizational methods adopted by the leadership for it
helped the unification of all the genuine communist revolutionaries into a
single party on a correct basis or led to continue and further accentuate
divisions among them. All the factors show that the CPI (ML) came into
existence as a representative of a section of Indian revolutionaries. No
doubt, it contained some forces, who were leaning towards revolutionary
mass line and who were having some differences with the left opportunist
leadership. Yet, it was essentially a mouth-piece of left opportunist
politics. It remains a fact of history that a good number of communist
revolutionary organizations and individual revolutionaries either did not
join at all or disassociated themselves or were “thrown out” from the
AICCCR before the formation of CPI (ML).
- The
section of left opportunist leadership made systematic attempts to keep
the communist revolutionaries representing the revolutionary mass line to
a maximum extent, out of the CPI (ML). They resorted to various kinds of
undemocratic bureaucratic and splittist methods to realise this objective.
They moved swiftly to form CPI (ML) once they were satisfied that this
objective was largely realised. Thus, the very act of forming the party
carried in its comb the seeds of division and disruption. The attitude, in
this context, adopted by those who took upon the responsibility of uniting
the revolutionaries all over India caused an immense harm to the
development of party and revolutionary movement in our country.
- It
is indisputable that the formation of CPI (ML) was an event of great
inspiration for the ranks and leadership who joined it. Several hundred in
various pockets of the country laid down their lives holding high the banner
of CPI (ML) and in the course of carrying out the line provided by the
leadership. Several hundred left their studies, jobs, families and all
attractions of life and completely and whole heartedly dedicated
themselves to the cause of party, people and revolution. They defined
every hardship and tortures. They set best examples in integrating
themselves among the people, in propagating the politics they adopted and
in showing fighting qualities and revolutionary heroism. Some of them also
set best examples in carrying on the revolutionary mass work among the
people. With all our principled opposition to left opportunism, we highly
respect these finest qualities and sacrifices. These are the qualities
that every revolutionary, worth the name, must have, must imbibe and must
carry forward. Our respect to the CPI (ML) martyrs and the best
representatives of working class demand us to learn proper lessons from
their practice, correct the mistakes that led the Revolutionary ranks to
avoidable sacrifices losses and failures and to transform all these
sacrifices completely meaningful and fruitful by leading the Indian
revolution through to the end along a correct revolutionary path.
- The
comrades, who are insisting on the correctness of CPI (ML)’s formation,
are failing to critically analyse the political and organizational
background of its formation. We feel that these comrades are adopting this
attitude either because of their continued adherence to left opportunist
politics in one form or other and to one extent or other, or because of
their emotional attachment and loyalty to CPI (ML), in spite of taking the
road of revolutionary mass line. But we would like to point out to the
concerned comrades that this attitude will not be helpful either to
correct the past mistakes or to develop a single and unified party.
- With
the split of CPI (ML), each of the CPI (ML) organizations came to
represent only a section of CPI (ML) forces. Besides, there are various
organizations other than CPI (ML). There is unevenness in the relative
strength of all these organizations in terms of cadre as well as mass
base. Yet none of these organizations is in a position to claim to have
attained a reasonable stability-politically as well as
organizationally-through the practice of democratic centralism, principles
of inner party struggle and the method of criticism and self-criticism.
Though many of them are working on the basis of programme, path and
constitution, all are still undergoing permutation and combinations
acquitting new nomenclatures. Thus the objective of developing a unified and
single party of proletariat is yet to be realised. In this situation; we
earnestly fell that any act that retains prejudices, antagonisms or
unequal relationship is one form or other between the CPI (ML)
organizations and the Communist revolutionary organisations by insisting
on the acceptance of CPI (ML) as a party will not be in the interests of
this objective. Most important and urgent task before all the
revolutionaries today is to make an earnest and principled effort to
develop a correct and unified understanding among the various
revolutionary organizations, groups and individuals on all the basic
questions of Indian revolution, while at the same time, striving to
develop mutual help and co-ordination among the revolutionary movements
through the practice of united action in all possible forms. Today unity
talks and united actions are going on and fraternal relations are growing
between some of the CPI (ML) organisations and the communist revolutionary
organisations. This is a welcome development. We must all strive to take
this development to its logical culmination.
It is time for
us to show enough political maturity and concern for the unification of all the
revolutionaries, both the forces organised in various CPI (ML) as well as other
communist revolutionary organizations, into a single organization on the basis
of correct and unified understanding of revolutionary mass line. This is the
urge of the people, and most urgent need of our revolution. No emotional or
subjective feelings should come in our way in performing this responsibility.
Agrarian Revolutionary Movements and
Consequences of Left opportunist Trend
Naxalbari
peasant revolutionary movement was not a creation of Com. CM’s Thought as it
was made out to be. This movement has gone through a long course of development
to reach the level of 1967. In fact, the movement came as an effective
refutation of left opportunist trend that CM made a feverish attempt to impose
on it. It developed along a mass line and on the basis of anti-feudal programme.
The communist revolutionaries, who organised and led it, made every effort, to
the best of their ability, to bring out and unleash the revolutionary
initiative, organised and fighting potentialities of the peasantry by moving
them in thousands into revolutionary action. As the “Terai Report” of Com. Kanu
Sanyal noted, in the course of his movement, the peasantry adopted various
forms of struggle, built, strengthened and exercised the authority of their own
mass organization. They sought to implement 10 great tasks aimed at smashing
the political and economic hold of the jotedars basing on the strength of their
own revolutionary initiative, organization and fight. It provided valuable
experiences in the realm of building fighting solidarity, co-ordination and
unity between the working class and the peasantry and a practical way of
establishing the leadership of working class over the peasant revolutionary
movement in the conditions obtaining in the area. The movement faced the worst
repression. The West Bengal so-called left and Democratic Front government
arrested several hundreds of peasant activists and Party cadre and gunned down
18 best sons and daughters of peasantry in an attempt to suppress the advancing
peasant revolutionary movement. The movement faced a setback by the time the
communist revolutionaries and people in various parts of the country came to
know of it.
Why this movement-which came as a great inspiration and
hope for the oppressed and exploited masses of Indian people and as a shining
example of the practice of revolutionary politics-has faced a defeat?
Terai Report of Com. Kanu Sanyal came in Sept, 1968.
Again, came “More on Naxalbari” of Com. Kanu Sanyal in 1973. In between, CM, acting
as the sole authority on the Naxalbari peasant revolutionary movement, put into
circulation various left opportunist formulations in the name of drawing
“lessons” from this movement.
“More on Naxalbari” revealed that the AICCCR did not take
pains to discuss the “Terai Report” and draw conclusions from it. Experience
show that the left opportunists grabbed the movement even from the hands of
those who organised and led it, kept it as their sole preserve, threw whatever
the useful lessons the comrades who led it attempted to draw from their own
experience into dust bin and fed the revolutionary ranks and people with the
so-called lessons which were thoroughly subjective and left opportunistic.
Organisation of thorough-going discussion on the
experiences of Naxalbari peasant revolutionary movement among the
revolutionaries would have greatly contributed to develop a proper and unified
understanding of the problems and course of development of peasant
revolutionary movements and peoples armed struggle in our country. Doubtlessly,
“Terai Report” provided a necessary basis for such a discussion. It was the
left opportunist politics and careerist interests that stood in the way of
leadership in doing so.
“Terai Report” listed out four reasons in the main for
the defeat of this movement. namely, lack of strong party organization; failure
to rely whole-heartedly on the masses and to build a powerful mass base,
ignorance of military affairs and thinking on old lines and a formal attitude
towards the establishment of political power and the work of revolutionary and
reforms. It also drew contradictory conclusions. On the one side, it admitted
that “our failure in establishing the red political power and in carrying out
revolutionary land reforms blunted the edge of the class struggle both before
and after the struggle. The revolutionary peasants accomplished two tasks
through mass mobilisation. They are: formation of central and zonal
revolutionary peasant committees and distribution of land. Ad we turned exactly
these two things into a most formal affair. Our petty bourgeois day-dreaming
was at the root of it. We never seriously considered how deeply significant
were these two tasks”. At some places, the report sought to explain that the
Naxalbari peasant revolutionary movement was not for land alone and to underline
the significance of agrarian revolution. But, on the other side, it sought to
negate these positive lessons by asserting that “the struggle of the Terai
peasants is and armed struggle-not for land but for state power”.
“More on Naxalbari” tried to self-critically explain that
“The writer of the Terai Report has correctly described how the Naxalbari
peasant struggle for land surged forward and peasant revolutionary committee
established political power in the rural areas. Inspite of that, he failed to understand
the scientific conclusion that in the stage of agrarian, revolution struggle
for land and struggle for state power in the rural areas are intertwined. For
this reason he diverted himself to a mechanical and incorrect formulations by
trying to explain the real lessons of Naxalbari uprising in terms of erroneous,
anti-Marxist Leninist line of the ‘Eight Documents’. “More on Naxalbari” also
brought out the fact that CM was holding left opportunist views from the start.
He made feverish attempts to influence the movement and comrades, who were bent
towards the revolutionary mass line, towards his own views. He sought to
utilise the difficulties of other comrades and his own influence on them. The
very fact that he could influence the terai report the fact that he came to be
accepted as the respected leader, teacher and the revolutionary authority by
the leading comrades of Naxalbari, who were, according to “More on Naxalbari”,
differing with him from the beginning and could freely project himself as the
initiator, guide and leader of Naxalbari peasant revolutionary movement only
prove his ‘capabilities.
While correcting some of the lessons drawn in the
terai report, “More on Naxalbari” said that, excepting the contradictions and
splits among the ruling classes, countryside discontentment and a strong mass
base in Naxalbari, all the other conditions necessary for the existence of read
areas (as noted by Mao) were absent at the time of Naxalbari struggle. In
addition, there were illusions among the people in the newly formed UF
government. Though in Darjeeling district Calcutta and some other districts
cadre revolted against the neo revisionist leadership, the rank and file
members were not for a revolt, though they were having confusion against the
revisionist leadership. It also said that heavy losses, could have been
preserved and advanced, had there been no subjective tactical mistakes,
subjective preparations and had the leadership shown flexibility in policy
while remaining firm on principle.
This report, ie, “More on Naxalbari” was, no doubt, as
earnest attempt to go deep into the causes of failure of Naxalbari peasant
revolutionary movement. We would like to go into the question still further in
the light of overall situation and the interests of revolutionary at another
place.
Srikakulam girijan revolutionary movement too had a long
course of development. Beginning their work from 1959, the communists organised
a broad-based Girijan Sangham and mobilised the people into various forms of
struggle the basis of 10 demands (land, debt cancellation, right to enjoy
forest produce abolition of vetti etc). People won many of the demands. The
movement reached a new level by June 1967. People marched ahead occupying the
land under the illegal possession of landlords and also distributing their
cattle etc;. They prevented the landlords and shahukars from exporting the
grain and distributed it among themselves at cheaper rate. All this brought a
new momentum in the mass upsurge.
Frightened by the growing mass upsurge, the landlords and
their goondas waged a surprise attack on girijans on October 31, 1967. They
gunned down two girijan activists. Manganna and Koranna became the first
martyrs of the struggle. After a brief lull, the girijans again moved in a big
way as part of programme in memory of martyrs. They moved to seize crops from
the lands under the illegal possession of landlords and with the cancellation
of debt etc. People carrying their traditional weapons in the demonstration
have become a normal affair. They proceeded with revolutionary reforms and the
Girijana Sangham exercised its authority.
Special armed police camp was setup on Feb.20, 1968 in
the area. Heavy raids began on March 3. Police arrested several girijans,
molested some women and looted peoples belongings. In an armed clash between
the police and people, two more girijans died. In this context, an organised
resistance could not be put up by the people as they were not adequately
prepared to face the situation.
Under the guidance of State leadership, the DC has
decided certain steps on March 29. They were, mainly: i) Party cadre should
restore their relations with the people and move them into action to restore
their normal life and agricultural activity which were disrupted by the police
ii) Complete the necessary organisational, political and technical preparations
for armed struggle iii) Take all possible steps to extend the activity and
movement to the remaining agency areas in the district as well as to the agency
areas of Orissa. Here, it was seriously pointed out by the State leadership
that the movement at the time was confined to a small area. Both the Seethampeta
and Parvatipuram agency areas put together were small and surrounded by roads.
It becomes almost impossible for the guerrilla forces to sustain in the face of
heavy onslaught from the enemy.
However, a section of DC leadership was already being
influenced by the left opportunist leadership at the all India level. Tendencies
of casualness, disinterest, and non-compliance towards the State leadership’s
guidance had developed, leading to this section of leadership directly joining
the AICCCR. We have dealt what points of difference had manifested between this
section of the leadership and the state leadership. It is obvious that these
differences were the product of left opportunist trend at the all India level.
“Armed struggle” was started in Srikakulam by the section
of DC leadership under the direct guidance from the all India leadership of
AICCCR. Party cadre formed themselves into ‘guerrilla squads’ and started this
struggle. Starting with the agency areas, the ‘struggle’ was extended to plain
areas in the district. In no time, the actions carried on by the squads took
the form of annihilation of ‘class enemies’ and were made the main form. In the
course of time, these actions were extended to various pockets of the state
with no relation whatsoever to the level of mass movement in the name of either
‘diverting the enemy of Srikakulam’ or in the name of extending the areas of
armed struggle! In Srikakulam, initially, where there was mass movement
earlier, the people extended their moral support to the actions carried on
against the oppressive landlords. But, in the areas, where there was no or took
weak a movement, the people remained aloof and as mere spectators. It took no
time for the squads to turn themselves as ‘fish out of water’ with the
intensification of enemy’s attacks. The enemy fully utilised the road of
alienation that the CPI (ML) cadre and leadership themselves had chosen to
isolate and eliminate them. The acts of white terror and physical liquidation
were enacted by the enemy with all frenzy and counter-revolution strength at
their disposal. More than 200 became martyrs in Srikakulam alone. Comrades
Vempatapu Satyam, Adibhatla Kailasam, Panchadi Krishna Murthy, Panchadi
Niramala, Bhaskara Rao, Subba Rao Panigrahi, Chinna Babu and many best
proletarian revolutionary heroes and leaders and fine products of communist and
revolutionary movements and peasant activists ‘laid down their lives in the
case of people and revolution.
However, the revolutionary movement faced a serious
setback.
The comrades, who diverted the girijan revolutionary
movement into the path of left adventurism, had not taken pains to evaluate the
whole movement and draw proper lessons from it. Some of those, who took the
road of abandoning left opportunist trend and are trying to do some amount of
mass work, are still taking credit for having led ‘a glorious armed struggle’.
Some of those, who totally abandoned the left opportunist line and took up the
revolutionary mass line, too had shown the hesitance to make a thorough-going
self critical analysis of their past mistakes and admit the same before the
people. As a result, necessary lessons could not be taken to the people, in
general and the people of Srikakulam, in particular. This task was most
essential to take a complete break from the past mistakes and to develop the
necessary confidence among the people in the leadership and the future of revolution.
The girijan movement in Srikakulam has developed as a
militant anti-feudal struggle. With the politics of people war and the efforts
made by the communist revolutionaries, it acquired a revolutionary orientation.
The conditions were fast maturing for taking this movement to a higher level
ie, the level of people’s armed struggle. Yet, the movement had its own
weaknesses that need to be overcome. In terms of consciousness as well as
organisation, the people were yet to be fully prepared for armed struggle. The
area of the movement was small and need to be extending to the adjoining agency
areas so as to be able to wage a sustained armed struggle. In the given state
of the movement, while taking all the possible and necessary steps to defend
the gains of revolutionary movement, the leadership should have adopted such
tactics that would have given it enough scope to manoeuvre, gain as much time
as possible to extend the movement and activities into widest possible support
and solidarity for the agrarian revolutionary movement and armed struggle. It
should have combined legal and illegal forms of struggle and organization.
Left opportunist trend has overtaken the situation. It
did not allow the things to take their own proper course. The efforts made by
the communist revolutionary leadership in the state to guide the Srikakulam
movement along a revolutionary mass line and with the perspective of protracted
people’s war turned futile in the face of powerful wave of left opportunist
trend. This trend, in its essence, being a petty bourgeoisie revolutionism,
found a most fertile ground in the young and inexperienced cadre and leadership
with full of romanticism and enthusiasm for some radical, immediate and
apparently revolutionary action. Besides, the left opportunist leadership at
the all India level used such unhealthy methods as sowing prejudices,
suspicions, factionalism and organising coups to divert a section of district
party leadership into left opportunism. The pressure of left opportunist trend
was so powerful that, as we noted elsewhere, even a section of APCCCR
leadership was showing leanings and attractions towards left opportunist trend
and this has greatly weakened the hands of those in the leadership who were for
an uncompromising and determined struggle against the politics and practices of
left opportunist leadership. Thus in the given situation, it will be
in-objective and a sheer illusion to think that the section of district
leadership which fell prey to left opportunist trend could have been turned
back had the state leadership avoided certain failures on their part in guiding
the movement at that time. By this subjective lesson, the concerned men are
only according a justification to left opportunist diversion. The failures were
of secondary nature and were within the reach of correction. It was again the
left opportunist trend that obstructed the correction and again sought to
utilise the failures to slander against the state leadership. At the same time,
it must be admitted that the state leadership could not continue to put up the
struggle against the left opportunist trend in Srikakulam as the section of DC
(the secretary of the DC was the member of the state committee) that stood with
the state leadership got itself totally disheartened and was not prepared to
play its role in the struggle. This left the state leadership with no option
but to leave the area to the left opportunists so that they can be free to
practice their own line and learn from experience.
Debra- Gopiballabpur was also an important struggle
during this period which had shown the potentialities of developing itself into
a protracted peoples armed struggle. By 1969, this movement reached higher
level going through various forms of struggle. Thousands of peasants moved into
action to seize crops. But, the left opportunist leadership of CPI (ML)
denounced this crop seizure movement as blatant revisionism. Then the line of
annihilation was put into practice, abandoning the task of agrarian
revolutionary movement. 120 ‘class enemies’ were annihilated. Yet, the party
suffered serious reverse and got itself isolated from the people.
Later summing up the experiences of the practice of line
of annihilation of class enemies, the Bengal-Bihar-Orissa Border Regional
Committee admitted five serious mistakes: first, in spite of repeated
annihilations, the poor and landless peasants did not join the guerrilla
squads. Those who came initially left the squads and those who remained become
completely isolated from the people. Second, the poor and landless peasants
with families did not support the line for long. Third, contrary to the
leadership’s expectation, the panicking class enemies did not flee the area
and, in fact those who ran away came back in strength. Fourth, this line attracted
the student youths, the middle classes, robber bands and lumpen proletariat of
the area. Fifth, the line did not work in areas of intense feudal exploitation,
but struck roots where petty bourgeois ideas predominated (From “Naxalbari and after”,
Frontier Anthology, Vol. II, page: 113)
The experiences of the practice of left opportunist line
in various other areas of the country are basically the same.
Few Conclusions
Here are a few conclusions:
- The
revolutionaries adopted the revolutionary politics, objectively in a
favourable situation. There was a fine revolutionary situation, nationally
and internationally. However, subjectively, they were too weak and were to
go a long way in order to be able to cope with the tasks before them.
- There
was a general discontentment among the people. Yet, most of the struggles
were within the limits of law, not aimed at changing the present system,
though some struggles were taking militant and violent forms and were even
coming into clash with the states repressive forces. Overwhelming masses
of people were outside the influence and reach of revolutionary politics.
Major part of
the movements and mass organizations, built over decades by the communists,
were under the influence and leadership of revisionists and neo revisionists.
The
revolutionary movements and activities were limited to only a few pockets. They
were small, unconnected to each other and uneven in their level and depth. Even
the Naxalbari and Srikakulam movements were small in their extent and were
lacking certain conditions necessary to carry on a protracted armed struggle.
- Major
part of the rank and file and the leadership of the CPI (M) stayed back
with the neo revisionists. Expecting in few states, the revolutionaries
who came out from the CPI (M), were like factions and groups with varying
strengths and limited to certain pockets of various states.
The main
strength of revolutionaries was their ideology, politics; their qualities of
sacrifice; their genuine commitment and dedication to the cause of people and
revolution and the presence of forces among them who were advocating or leaning
towards revolutionary mass line and with the experience of leading
revolutionary movements-both in the past as well as recent period. Their
weakness was: they were a small and divided force. Various trends like
romanticism, doctrinarism, left and right opportunism were manifesting among
them. The revolutionaries in the struggle areas were not adequately experienced
and equipped ideologically, politically, organisationally and in terms of
military understanding to lead the agrarian revolutionary movement and armed
struggle.
A success in
rallying and uniting all the revolutionaries into a single organization and in
utilising the best of the available experiences of the revolutionary movements
of the past and present to evolve a correct line on the basis of concrete
application of Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought and the path of peoples
war to the concrete conditions of Indian revolution would have provided the
principal guarantee to gradually overcome the weaknesses and to build up a
strong party organization.
- The
strength of revolutionary movements and the revolutionaries as compared to
the strength of the enemy was too weak. This weakness could not have been
overcome miraculously by some heroic actions or even by some revolutionary
actions of people. The need of the hour was: i) to be on the defensive,
rather than going in for offensive actions. The revolutionaries should
have adopted the method of defending and enlarging the gains of
revolutionary peasant movement with the strength of initiative,
organization and mobilisation of the vast masses of people, while, at the
same time, taking all the care to avoid head on battles with the enemy. In
the given level of the movement and the balance of forces, preservation
rather than winning apparent and short-lived victories was most crucial.
Ii) the revolutionaries should have taken all the possible steps to
reorientate and reorganise the then existing peasant movements and activities,
wherever necessary, in the light of a centralised plan to develop the
areas of strategic movement and to extend the areas of activity and
movement as widely as possible so that armed struggle can be unleashed and
sustained for longest time even in the face of heavy onslaughts from the
enemy. What was most important was the sustenance and advance of the armed
struggle, but not just starting of it in one or two pockets. The
leadership would have paid enough attention to the need of creating the
necessary conditions through consistent and meticulous political,
organizational and mass work for sustained peoples armed struggle, rather
than hurrying up to somehow and some where start armed-struggle, prematurely,
as it has done in Srikakulam and other places, if it had a strategic
perspective towards the question of armed-struggle. Iii) Proper deployment
and utilisation of forces was most crucial to achieve maximum results. Iv)
There was every need to give proper attention to the task of building
working class, students and democratic movements, while giving priority to
the rural areas and the areas of strategic movement. with this agrarian
movements in the country side could have had necessary solidarity, help
and co-operation to sustain and advance themselves.
- The
enemy was using two principal weapons, namely, brutal repression and
concessions and reforms to prevent and suppress the revolutionary
movement. It sought to isolate the revolutionaries from people. It tried
to provoke the revolutionaries into reckless and impetuous actions so that
it will become easy for it to single out and attack the revolutionaries. A
firm adherence to the revolutionary mass line, and skilful use of suitable
tactics to expose the deceptive moves of the enemy, to utilise its weak
points in the interests of the movement, to avoid a head on collision and
to entrench themselves more deeply and widely among the people could have
greatly helped the revolutionaries in mustering their own strengths and in
effectively fighting the enemy.
- Left
opportunist trend and its practice played havoc on the revolutionary
movements and the attempts at building the revolutionary activities. It
spread like a wild-fire and affected considerable sections of
revolutionaries all over India. Overwhelmed by its dazzling light, even
some of those, with enough experience of mass movement and orientation
towards mass line, lost their bearings and were carried away by this
trend. While the enemy was doing everything possible to isolate the
revolutionaries from the people, the left opportunist leadership moved
with its line of ‘annihilation’, opposition to mass movements and mass
organisations and the negation of the task of agrarian revolutionary
movement. They turned the Party and so-called guerrilla activity into a
conspiratorial activity isolated from the people. The result was: The
revolutionaries faced heavy and irredeemable losses and got themselves
thoroughly isolated from the people. Where the revolutionary movements
were existing because of earlier work, they faced a severe setback, lost
their revolutionary gains and leadership. Where the work of building mass
movement was in its initial stage, it got itself thoroughly disrupted and
the people had to face the repression, many times higher than what their level
of consciousness could bear. General repression and alertness of the
enemy’s repressive apparatus were heightened. It has become more difficult
for the communist revolutionaries to carry on the mass work in their own
areas.
Loss inflicted
by the left opportunist trend is inestimable. Those who are still trying to
justify these losses with arguments, like, ‘so many number of class enemies
were annihilated, must know that, by this argument, they are denigrating their
own comrades and martyrs. They are only refusing to learn from bitter and
costly experiences.
On the whole,
the break from neo revisionism and adoption of revolutionary politics unfolded
best of the opportunities to re-orientate and re-organise Communist Movement in
India on the basis of revolutionary principles of Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung
Thought. It opened up best of the opportunities to give the peoples struggles
and movements a revolutionary orientation. The revolutionary peasant movements
like Naxalbari and Srikakulam that had come up in certain pockets of our
country and the victories won by the people in the course raised the people’s
confidence in their own struggles in the concerned areas and also created hopes
in the exploited and oppressed masses of people in other areas in the future of
their struggle. The trend of left opportunism raised its head even from the
beginning. It took a serious dimension and came to occupy a dominating position
in the course among the revolutionaries. The revolutionary movements and
revolutionaries suffered irredeemable losses and setbacks as a result of left
opportunist politics and associated organisational practices. The struggle by
the forces advocating or leaning towards revolutionary mass line against left
opportunism and the fraternal criticism and advice from the CPC leadership
offered fine opportunities to take the road of correcting the mistakes,
overcoming the setbacks and uniting the communist revolutionaries on the basis
of revolutionary mass line. However, these opportunities could not be fully
utilised as the forces opposed to left opportunism could not move unitedly or
in a co-ordinated way in their struggle and the Andhra Communist
revolutionaries, who were in the fore front of the struggle faced a severe
setback with a section of them falling prey to left deviation. Yet, the
struggle against left opportunism, efforts to build revolutionary movement and
to unite the communist revolutionaries at all India level continued of course
in the midst of more difficult and complex conditions.