It is already two years since Com. Kanu Sanyal had departed leaving behind his people and his comrades. The passing away of Com. Kanu Sanyal was a great shock to revolutionary, patriotic and democratic forces in our country and had thrown them into deep sorrow.
Every one knows that Com. Kanuda was prominent among the builders of Naxalbari Movement. He was recognized in India as well as in other countries as the most popular and capable as the General Secretary of CPI (ML) in building a correct revolutionary party in terms of strategy and tactics, party organization, mass movement and mass agitational movement. He used to roar like a lion when he was exposing the policies of enemies and the exploiting ruling classes. The inspiration and enthusiasm he infused in the people and cadre to go into practice knew no bounds. He plunged himself into the midst of people to move them into practical activity even in the last phase of his life. His simple life, his ideological commitment made him stand as the revolutionary and leader of the highest order.
Since 1971, he had been repeatedly saying “when we see Naxalbari Peasant Struggle as the morning star for the masses of Indian people, it does not mean that one can engage in the acts of annihilation of class enemies by secret methods. The Naxalbari was a struggle which had, once again, provided the consciousness of struggle to the vast masses of Indian people against the feudal landlord-comprador capitalist classes”.
Com. Kanu Sanyal had repeatedly stressed upon the point that the Naxalbari movement was not only an ideological and political break from revisionism and neo revisionism, but also a movement which had pointed out how to organize the people into all forms of struggle.
He strongly opposed the attempts to define the Naxalbari peasants struggle as the first armed resistance struggle in India. He hailed the Telangana peasant armed resistance as a historic one. Com. Kanu Sanyal also explained that it was not the first time that the left adventurism and sectarian line such as the annihilation of class enemies had raised their heads in India in 1968-69 with Com. Charu Mazumdar as the leader. He pointed out that we cannot wipe out the “impact of the disastrous and erroneous policies” pursued in 1948-49 under the leadership of Com. B.T. Ranadive.
Com. Kanu Sanyal said that the ruling-classes are spending sleepless nights at the out break of the principal contradiction which the Naxalbari movement brought to the forefront. He was spitting fire at the attempts of the ruling classes to vulgarize the understanding about the Naxalbari struggle by depicting the communist revolutionaries as terrorists and individual assassinationist gangs and by calling them as Naxalbarists and Naxalites.
This is not happening only now. The exploiting classes and the ruling classes were doing the same whenever the people were coming under the influence of revolutionary path and resorting to militant forms of struggle.
The revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru, Sukh Dev and Chandra Sekhar Azad had abandoned terrorism at the early phase of their experience. But the imperialist regime persisted in branding and hunting them as terrorists. Bhagat Singh had clearly and emphatically advocated that the revolution is not possible without making the masses of workers and peasants conscious and moving them into struggle. He put forward before the Indian people not only the task of emancipating the country from British imperialism but also the task of emancipating the workers, peasants and other oppressed masses from the domestic exploiting classes to achieve socialism. This was the reason why he had become an eyesore even to the Indian comprador and feudal classes. The slogans raised by him on that day from gallows make them shiver with fear even today. The Hindu communalists as well as the exploiters among the followers of Sikh religion and today’s ruling class sections are trying hard to tarnish the real objectives of those revolutionaries and turning them as gods to be worshipped. While the Hindu communalists are trying to use their names for their own purposes, the exploiters among the followers of Sikh religion are trying to confine Bhagat Singh to Sikh community. Attributing religion to Bhagat Singh who, in fact, had declared himself as a rationalist and atheist is only a conspiracy of the exploiting ruling classes. Com. Kanu Sanyal had breathed his last on the same day when the imperialist exploiting ruling classes had sent Bhagat Singh to gallows. Comrade Kanuda had the firm conviction that the masses of Indian people would surely emancipate themselves from the exploitation and oppression and achieve socialism.
Com. Kanu Sanyal emphatically said that we must not accept anyone calling the communist revolutionaries following the path of Naxalbari peasant struggle as terrorists, extremists or annihilationist. He wished the comrades to realize that Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought and never accept terrorism and annihilation. Terrorism is a petty bourgeois revolutionary trend; Naraodnism-Narodniks in the Russian revolution who adopted terrorism and anarchism only created hurdles in the path of revolutionary movement. We must understand that the exploiting classes are indulging in a conspiracy when they created the word ‘‘Naxalite’’ and imparted a wrong meaning to it only to use it to malign the communist revolutionaries. This is not the Naxalbari path. Moreover, it is a mass revolutionary path. So, we must call ourselves as communist revolutionaries.
Com. Kanu Sanyal did not accept the left sectarian trends even during the process of Naxalbari taking to a higher form. The left sectarian deviations had kept us away from the militant mass unions. As a consequence, the working class had gone under the influence of revisionist and reactionary leaderships. In practice, the mass organizations were liquidated. This had pushed our mass base into the fold of reactionary forces.
True Communist Revolutionary
Though the then CPI (ML) was formed on April 27, it was decided by the then Central Committee to change the date to April 22 as it coincides with Comrade Lenin’s birthday. Com. Kanu Sanyal several times explained at length on the questions like why he read out the written declaration of formation of the party at Calcutta Maidan; why he was silent in the party meetings on the wrong policies of the party and why he was silent during the process of formation of the party knowing well the subjective and sectarian arguments of Com. CM even though he opposed them in the past. Com. Kanu Sanyal vividly explained these matters during the bi-lateral talks when we were in the Unity Initiative.
Com. Krishna Bhakta Sharma, who went to China travelling alone on foot crossing the border and carrying a letter from Com. CM, vividly gave his account of hardships faced by him during the journey. In a tone of mixed emotions of joy and sorrow, he explained how Com. CM encouraged him to take up that adventurous journey and how he could finally handover Com. CM’s letter to leaders of CPC.
Since 1965 Com. CM had been propagating the necessity of armed struggle as against the parliamentary path of CPI (M) and at the same time, he encouraged the sectarian trend and assassination of individuals in the name of secret annihilation of the enemy. Knowing this very well, why Com. Kanu Sanyal followed Com. CM? On this criticism, Com. Kanu Sanyal gave his self-critical explanation.
The sectarian policies of Com. CM were defeated in the Darjeeling district committee. Later when Com. CM got relations at all India level, he built the party according to his outlook. These policies are against Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought and Com. Kanu Sanyal had no part in it, yet he has not rejected his responsibility. I quote here in detail from the self-critical note of Com. Kanu Sanyal which explained this :
“The line of annihilation of class enemies secretly and conspiratorially were enunciated by Com. CM and so he is mainly and wholly responsible and for this he cannot be absolved. His line was defeated during Naxalbari struggle but KS also failed to carry on the struggle against this line in a sustained way. Then he was under the influence of anti-Marxist ideas about the leader and the follower. Com. KS opposed Com. CM on many political junctures, but in the wider panorama KS took a most non-Marxist and anti-Marxist stand during the formation of CPI (ML) visa-vis the role of Com. CM. Although CM’s line failed and was defeated in Naxalbari struggles in 1967; but when KS found most of the comrades of other states were supporting Com. CM and the line of annihilation was already in application in wider panorama KS took the position of “Let me wait and see” at this stage. This showed that KS had actually shunned Marxism and yielded to empiricism and practised worst form of liberalism. KS’s silence in 1969 during the formation of the party as well as his silence during the party Congress in 1970 were taken as mute support of CM’s line. So, KS is equally responsible for the anti-Marxist line practiced by the CPI (ML). So, KS cannot absolve himself from the wrong line. KS comes of a petty bourgeois class under the influence of feudal practice and his introvert nature of being non-assertive in political matters in that period helped Com. CM in propagating his anarchist and terrorist line. Why these things happened? KS thinks that his non-Marxist approach was due to various factors—like frequently going to jail and coming out from 1959 to 1969, long UG life, 100 days hunger strike in jail and above all confusion about long standing comrades and frequent changes and separation in comradely camps. All these things together led to the development of some sort of proneness to liberalist approach. Another problem was that KS as district cadre had less confidence on himself and felt that he would not be able to gather much support behind him and for his introvert nature he allowed himself to think ‘let it go’. This is pure and simple bourgeois approach relying on empiricism. KS owns up his responsibility but it must not be forgotten that Com. CM was the propounder of this line since 1965 and he could not avoid primary responsibility for anarchist and terrorist line. It should be remembered that terrorism is also armed struggle basing on Bourgeois philosophy that heroes are the makers of history. Marxist philosophy teaches us-people and people alone are the makers of history. After such vast and painful experience KS stands by Marxism.” [Page 42 & 43, The History of the CPI(ML), The Guide May, 2006.]
Let us Learn from Kanuda
Com. Kanu Sanyal placed the hard and painful facts before the communist revolutionaries. As a real communist, he did not exclude himself from the historic error of the revolutionary movement. But he was not the architect of those errors. His mistake was that he kept mum after knowing that those were wrong policies. His class background, the impact of tradition of feudal system, and his introvert nature, he modestly accepted before the revolutionary ranks, as the causes that harmed the movement. We have to learn from that method of self-criticism. It could be said that there is no previous example of self-criticism with such genunity at individual level in the communist revolutionary movement. We have to emulate this.
The efforts of Com. Kanu Sanyal in opposing left sectarian line and to bring the ranks out of it were negated through bourgeois logic that was against dialectics. This is still continuing.
As there were no official documents on the Naxalbari peasant struggle during 1967-69, some had concluded that they could not take into consideration Com. Kanu Sanyal’s account.
There is another argument, “All these developments should be concretely analysed in the background of concrete conditions of that period. A self-critical approach also needed rather than putting the blame on any individual leader for all the mistakes. For example, as the first general secretary of the CPI (ML), Com. CM is more responsible for these deviations. But to put the whole blame for all deviations and the setbacks on him alone shall be a subjective evaluation.”
The above two opinions will not be helpful to evaluate history. The first one is rejecting the experiences of a comrade who played important role in building Naxalbari movement and talks about appropriate documents. This is not only illogical but also sows seeds of distrust and disbelief. Are documents not there? Yes, there are. The 8-documents of Com. CM are there. The Terai Report is there. The comrades who took active part in the movement are there. If we can analyse basing on these, it was clear that there was struggle between two lines in Naxalbari and one of them—the mass was proved correct when put to practice. When we were to advance after reviewing this experience, the state came down heavily with repression. And it is a surprising development that the left sectarian line which failed in Naxalbari, gained at all India level. So this argument still continues to exist in almirahs.
The CPI (ML) at its birth had characterised the nature of existing system and mentioned the importance of agrarian issue. Except this positive aspect, the left sectarian and conspiratorial annihilation programme that were pursued before its birth were implemented as accepted policies after its birth. Along with this, many formulations were against Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought. One positive aspect was there for only the name sake. And this positive aspect was not implemented according to the definition but practised without relevance to the reality. According to this argument, it is not accepting the criticism of Com. Kanu Sanyal and others as they were putting whole blame on Charu Mazumdar. They want us to console ourselves that the impact of national and international situation led to these mistakes.
In his self-critical report Com. Kanu Sanyal never put the whole blame on one person. On the contrary he wants us to understand that the subjective thinking of Com. CM also led to his sectarian line. Here the problem never came in the form of making individuals responsible and punishing them. All the decisions taken by the Central Committee of the then CPI (ML) regarding the formation of All India Party and on building of Indian Revolutionary movement were left sectarian and terrorist in nature. Is the petty bourgeois nature became an obstacle to accept this even today? Are these comrades, who consider the attempts to correct political deviation that occurred when one was part of the leadership and examining the roots of those deviations as serious crimes, still sticking to the petty bourgeois nature?
Com. Kanu Sanyal in his self-criticism clearly stated that Com. CM was mainly responsible for the mistakes and yet he is not shirking his responsibility. Here, the evaluation is not done targeting an individual. Com. TN quoted the writing of Karl Marx in his book “India Mortgaged” which is as follows :
Therefore temporary setbacks should be used by the revolutionaries to study deeply every aspect of the movement and come to certain broad conclusions, to gain valuable experiences to broaden and intensify the struggle. Let the counter revolutionaries and the ruling class shout temporary jubilation from every available house-top! But the revolutionaries know it to be only short lived. He who laughs last laughs best. That was why Marx Engels remarked in relation to the restoration of monarchy between 1640 and 1680 in England and between 1729 and 1830 in France: “And was their triumph (the triumph of middle classes : After ever nearer than at the very moment when resorted monarchy though itself more firmly settled than ever”? the bourgeoisie-landlord government after un-heard-of terror not even experienced in the period of direct rule of the British, has temporarily felt jubilant at a fake victory over the people, and is thinking if being, ‘‘itself more firmly settled than ever’’. In this ‘‘short interval of rest’’, it is the duty of the revolutionaries to historically and self-critically analyse these five years of the glorious period of convulsions. As Marx said, ‘‘the enquiry into, and exposition, of the causes, both of the revolutionary convulsion and its suppression, are beside of paramount importance from the historical point of view.’’ (Karl Marx, ‘‘Selected Works’’ Lawrence and Wishart Ltd. Volume II June 11, 1943, page 41).
In the method of criticism and self-criticism, considering criticism as a crime and forestalling discussion on points of criticism challenging the critic-are the methods that vitiates the atmosphere and diverts the discussion. These methods will not help to those committees and individuals who have to correct their mistakes. Besides, it makes them remain in those mistakes. This will not help the development of revolutionary movement.
It will be beneficial for the revolutionary movement if we were to evaluate the history of CPI (ML) in 1969-72 period on the lines shown by Marx & Engels. It is not difficult to find truth basing on the strategy and tactics declared by the majority of revolutionary groups, if we do not indulge in questioning the bonafides of the comrades. As we have dedicated ourselves to the emancipation of Indian people, we have to take up the weapon of criticism and self-criticism as a part of it and do the evaluation on that level. Com. Kanu Sanyal showed us that way. We have to advance it by emulating him.
