The following article is the personal view of Harsh Thakor and not the view of Democracy and Class Struggle and is published for discussion
Salutes to both Tarimela Nagi Reddy and Charu Mazumdar on their martyrdom and death anniversary on July 28th,today
May their names be written in letters of gold.Both were truly great communist leaders and made a great contribution to Indian Revolution.
Today revolutionaries celebrate the martyrdom day of comrades Charu Mazumdar and Tarimela Nagi Reddy.
Sadly certain streams that uphold T.Nagi Reddy do not uphold Charu Mazumdar and the main organization ,the C.P.I.(Maoist) upholding Charu Mazumdar does not recognize T.N as a true revolutionary. In fact we must also remember Comrade Devullapali Venkateswara Rao.
Today we recognize the contribution of such comrades as immortal who asserted that we are a semi-feudal,semi-colonial country and demarcated from revisionism.
I was pleased that a Punjabi Communist revolutionary journal Surkh Rekha ,on martyrdom anniversary posted photos of CM and T.N.
This reflects the correct approach.It is fascinating that before the merger of the 2 organizations into the Communist Party-Re-organization centre of India (Marxist Leninist) the Central Team never accepted Nagi Reddy as a true revolutionary while the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India did not uphold Charu Mazumdar.
When merging both parties agreed that each played an important role and that only when the final party conference of the re-organized Communist party is held can the verdict be decided on the corrrectness of the formation of the C.P.I.(M.L.) in 1969.
In earlier documents of 1978.82 and 89 the Central Team group virtually rejected any constituent that did not have it's roots in the legacy of the 1969 . C.P.I.(M.L.)
Their work together in Punjab facilitaed their merger.The earlier jounals of Unity Centre of Comunist Revolutionaries of India of later even Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India unanimuously did not recognize the Charu Mazumdar led C.P.I.(M.L).
The Central Team insisted that the 8th central Commitee of the C.P.I.(M.L.) should be reestablished which existed till 1972,while all other centres were revisionist.
One important historical development of the C.P.I.(Maoist) was it's recognition of C.P.I.(M.L.) and M.C.C.and Kanhai Chaterjee.(The M.C.C did not recognize the 1969 C.P.I-M.L.).These unities depict the importance of unity in sphere of practice rather than just past history or theoretical exchange.
Even the C.P.I.(Maoist) should uphold the contribution of T.Nagi Reddy and apply his teachings or lessons on the mass line.
Both leaders made mistakes but we need to make a synthesis of their positive and negative points.
Appropriately they are commemorated together. in a meeting to be held in Tanjore,Tamil Nadu.Earlier erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war group or erstwhile U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) never commemorated both leaders.Peoples war group villified Nagi Reddy while U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) termed C.M.as a terrorist.
May their names be written in letters of gold.Both were truly great communist leaders and made a great contribution to Indian Revolution.
Today revolutionaries celebrate the martyrdom day of comrades Charu Mazumdar and Tarimela Nagi Reddy.
Sadly certain streams that uphold T.Nagi Reddy do not uphold Charu Mazumdar and the main organization ,the C.P.I.(Maoist) upholding Charu Mazumdar does not recognize T.N as a true revolutionary. In fact we must also remember Comrade Devullapali Venkateswara Rao.
Today we recognize the contribution of such comrades as immortal who asserted that we are a semi-feudal,semi-colonial country and demarcated from revisionism.
I was pleased that a Punjabi Communist revolutionary journal Surkh Rekha ,on martyrdom anniversary posted photos of CM and T.N.
This reflects the correct approach.It is fascinating that before the merger of the 2 organizations into the Communist Party-Re-organization centre of India (Marxist Leninist) the Central Team never accepted Nagi Reddy as a true revolutionary while the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India did not uphold Charu Mazumdar.
When merging both parties agreed that each played an important role and that only when the final party conference of the re-organized Communist party is held can the verdict be decided on the corrrectness of the formation of the C.P.I.(M.L.) in 1969.
In earlier documents of 1978.82 and 89 the Central Team group virtually rejected any constituent that did not have it's roots in the legacy of the 1969 . C.P.I.(M.L.)
Their work together in Punjab facilitaed their merger.The earlier jounals of Unity Centre of Comunist Revolutionaries of India of later even Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India unanimuously did not recognize the Charu Mazumdar led C.P.I.(M.L).
The Central Team insisted that the 8th central Commitee of the C.P.I.(M.L.) should be reestablished which existed till 1972,while all other centres were revisionist.
One important historical development of the C.P.I.(Maoist) was it's recognition of C.P.I.(M.L.) and M.C.C.and Kanhai Chaterjee.(The M.C.C did not recognize the 1969 C.P.I-M.L.).These unities depict the importance of unity in sphere of practice rather than just past history or theoretical exchange.
Even the C.P.I.(Maoist) should uphold the contribution of T.Nagi Reddy and apply his teachings or lessons on the mass line.
Both leaders made mistakes but we need to make a synthesis of their positive and negative points.
Appropriately they are commemorated together. in a meeting to be held in Tanjore,Tamil Nadu.Earlier erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war group or erstwhile U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) never commemorated both leaders.Peoples war group villified Nagi Reddy while U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) termed C.M.as a terrorist.
TALK BETWEEN SOUREN BOSE AND CHOU EN LAI
In memory of Charu Mazumdars martyrdom on July 28th I am posting an abridged version of a historic talk in 1970 between Souren Bose and Premier Zhou En Lai.
It is one of the best examples of proletarian internationalist help.and proves that the C.P.C.did not play a big -brother role over communist parties of other countries.
It contains the suggestions of C.P.C.leader Chou En Lai.
On October 29th,1970 premier Zhou gave his views on the C.P.I.(M.L.) of Charu Mazumdar to Com.Bose.
This is an invaluable work on mass line re-printed by Red Flag publications.
Notable,is the premier's view of Lin Biao's military theory and how it is alienated from political line..I recommend all readers to obtain this leaflet.
1.The Chinese party grew and developed by fighting alien trends-both left adventurism and right deviation.
2.The Chinese Revolution became successful with 3 magic weapons a.the Party b.People's army c.the United Front.
3.To call a chairman of one party as the chairman of another party is wrong,and,it will would the national sentiment of the working class of a country.
4.Your idea of united front is wrong stating that it will come into being only after the formation of base areas.,The United front comes into being at every stage of struggle,again again it breaks down.
The worker-peasant unity is it's main basis.The characterisation of the entire bourgeoisie as comprador is wrong.Some exploiter sections have to be united.
5.It is wrong to reject open trade Union,open mass organizations and mass movements and to solely uphold secret assasination.Formally we misunderstood what you meant as 'anihilation.'We used to think that the idea is taken from Charmain's war of annihialtion'.But from 1970 issue of liberation we came to understand that this assasination meant secret assassination.
6.You have wrongly and mechanically applied Chairman Lin Biao's theory of peoples war. It was only a military affair having no relation to political and organizational questions.During the anti-Japan war resistance we had an army of 10 lakhs ,at that time some army comrades raised the slogan that positional and mobile warfare were the only means to mobilise people.
7.The formulation that a revolutionary dose not make his hand red with the blood of class enemies then he is not a communist.
With this yard stick a Communist party would not remain a communist party.
8.No emphasis on agrarian revolution and slogan in connection with seizure of State power.No agrarian programme and state power is counter-posed to land problem.
9.Without mass struggle and mass organization the peasant's armed struggle cannot be sustained.The CPC supported Naxalbari struggle not merely as a struggle of seizure of state power.
Red article in 'Spring Thunder' published in China to support Naxalbari.
10.The authority and prestige of a leader cannot be created but has to be developed.
11.The general orientation of C.P.I.(M.L.) is correct but it's policy is wrong.
Quoting Kanu Sanyal,Souren Bose,Kolla Venkaiah ,Nagbushan Patnaik,Chowdhary Tejeswara Rao and D.Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik on November 4th,1972."
To our great disappointment Charu Majumdar our general secretary did not accept any of the criticisms,nor the Central Committee.
He refused to circulate the criticism amongst party members.Comrade CM was principal;ly responsible for the deviations and all members of the central Commitee cannot shirk responsibility.
We call on all party members and sympathisers to make a firm critique of the C.C. and plead them to owe responsibility for the gross errors.
The path of the movement deviated from the path of the glorious Naxalbari uprising."
In addition Premier Zhuo explained how dangerous it was to organize red guards in schools and in big cities. as the C.P.I.(M.L.) did and was critical that the party Congress was held in a big city.
Personally I feel the 6 Indian leaders were theoretically correct but practically too harsh on Charu Mazumdar who needed more time to rectify his errors.
In the mist of a major upheaval and chaos Charu could not correct his errors so quickly.
Remember later even erstwhile groups like C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War felt that Charu Mazumdar tried to correct his mistakes at the end.
It is one of the best examples of proletarian internationalist help.and proves that the C.P.C.did not play a big -brother role over communist parties of other countries.
It contains the suggestions of C.P.C.leader Chou En Lai.
On October 29th,1970 premier Zhou gave his views on the C.P.I.(M.L.) of Charu Mazumdar to Com.Bose.
This is an invaluable work on mass line re-printed by Red Flag publications.
Notable,is the premier's view of Lin Biao's military theory and how it is alienated from political line..I recommend all readers to obtain this leaflet.
1.The Chinese party grew and developed by fighting alien trends-both left adventurism and right deviation.
2.The Chinese Revolution became successful with 3 magic weapons a.the Party b.People's army c.the United Front.
3.To call a chairman of one party as the chairman of another party is wrong,and,it will would the national sentiment of the working class of a country.
4.Your idea of united front is wrong stating that it will come into being only after the formation of base areas.,The United front comes into being at every stage of struggle,again again it breaks down.
The worker-peasant unity is it's main basis.The characterisation of the entire bourgeoisie as comprador is wrong.Some exploiter sections have to be united.
5.It is wrong to reject open trade Union,open mass organizations and mass movements and to solely uphold secret assasination.Formally we misunderstood what you meant as 'anihilation.'We used to think that the idea is taken from Charmain's war of annihialtion'.But from 1970 issue of liberation we came to understand that this assasination meant secret assassination.
6.You have wrongly and mechanically applied Chairman Lin Biao's theory of peoples war. It was only a military affair having no relation to political and organizational questions.During the anti-Japan war resistance we had an army of 10 lakhs ,at that time some army comrades raised the slogan that positional and mobile warfare were the only means to mobilise people.
7.The formulation that a revolutionary dose not make his hand red with the blood of class enemies then he is not a communist.
With this yard stick a Communist party would not remain a communist party.
8.No emphasis on agrarian revolution and slogan in connection with seizure of State power.No agrarian programme and state power is counter-posed to land problem.
9.Without mass struggle and mass organization the peasant's armed struggle cannot be sustained.The CPC supported Naxalbari struggle not merely as a struggle of seizure of state power.
Red article in 'Spring Thunder' published in China to support Naxalbari.
10.The authority and prestige of a leader cannot be created but has to be developed.
11.The general orientation of C.P.I.(M.L.) is correct but it's policy is wrong.
Quoting Kanu Sanyal,Souren Bose,Kolla Venkaiah ,Nagbushan Patnaik,Chowdhary Tejeswara Rao and D.Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik on November 4th,1972."
To our great disappointment Charu Majumdar our general secretary did not accept any of the criticisms,nor the Central Committee.
He refused to circulate the criticism amongst party members.Comrade CM was principal;ly responsible for the deviations and all members of the central Commitee cannot shirk responsibility.
We call on all party members and sympathisers to make a firm critique of the C.C. and plead them to owe responsibility for the gross errors.
The path of the movement deviated from the path of the glorious Naxalbari uprising."
In addition Premier Zhuo explained how dangerous it was to organize red guards in schools and in big cities. as the C.P.I.(M.L.) did and was critical that the party Congress was held in a big city.
Personally I feel the 6 Indian leaders were theoretically correct but practically too harsh on Charu Mazumdar who needed more time to rectify his errors.
In the mist of a major upheaval and chaos Charu could not correct his errors so quickly.
Remember later even erstwhile groups like C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War felt that Charu Mazumdar tried to correct his mistakes at the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment