Indian Revolutionary Movement Some Lessons and Experiences

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.