Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Who Started the Korean War on June 25th 1950 ?

Alert: US Attack on North Korea is Imminent says George Friedman of Stratfor - Geopolitical Futures

Democracy and Class Struggle says this interview by George Friedman of Stratfor should alarm us - it is quite possible on Trump's return to the United States that some pre-emptive attack on North Korea is carried out - the real and rational have ceased to exist in the White House - we hope South Korea can stop this disasterous course by a timely intervention - someone needs to act to prevent a catastrophe occurring on the Korean Peninsula putting at risk 70 million Korean Lives North and South.

China and Russia should wake up as this attack is planned to bring US troops to Chinese and Russian Far Eastern Border.

South Korea, Russia and China need to meet urgently to prevent US Attack on North Korea.

China and Russia with North  Korea should activate all Defense Systems on High Alert


The Wider Impact of the Manchester Attack

Democracy and Class Struggle Celebrating 50 Years since Naxalbari May 25th 1967

Maoists are the Real Communists by Jaison Cooper

Celebrating 50 Years since Naxalbari by Harsh Thakor

Part 1

                                                   Part 2

                                                   Part 3


Album: Rafi's Revenge

Brothers and sisters of the soul unite
We are one indivisible and strong
They may try to break us but they dare not under estimate us
They know our memories are long
A mass of sleeping villages
That's how they're pitching it
At least that's what they try to pretend
But check out our history
So rich and revolutionary
A prophecy that we will rise again
That we will rise again...

Again and again until the land is ours
Again and again until we have taken the power
Again and again until the land is ours
Again and again until we have taken the power

Deep in the forest
High up in the mountains
To the future we will take an oath
Like springing tigers we encircle the cities
Our home is the undergrowth
Because I am just a naxalite warrior
Fighting for survival and equality
Police man beating up me, my brother and my father
My mother crying can't believe this reality
And we will rise again
And we will rise again...

Again and again until the land is ours
Again and again until we have taken the power
Again and again until the land is ours
Again and again until we have taken the power

Jump into the future dub zone

Roots rockers

And we have taken the power
And the land is ours
And we have taken the power
And the land is ours
And we have taken the power
And the land is ours
And we have taken the power
And the land is ours
It's ours

Because I am just a naxalite warrior
Fighting for survival and equality
Police man beating up me, my brother and my father
My mother crying can't believe this reality

Iron like a Lion from Zion
This one going all the youth, man and woman
Orginal Master D upon the microphone stand
Cater for no skeptical man- me no give a damn

'Cos me a naxalite warrior

Celebrating 50 Years since Naxalbari : Part 3 by Harsh Thakor


Translation for  foreign readers

‘Zamindar’ means landlord

‘Kachery ‘is a landlord’s house

‘Gherao’ mean surround


Before 1987 leading the Mazdoor Kisan Sangram Samiti the C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity morally deferred armed struggle to build revolutionary mass peasant resistance. 

The PU group only launched mass resistance struggle till 1987 but built an outstanding peasant movement through the M.K.S.S.It was an important chapter in India's history of revolutionary movement.

In my view the organization gave some telling examples of mass line  struggle in areas of Jehanabad and Palamau.

Arguably it’s greatest achievement was resurrecting the Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti which was banned in 1986 to from the Mazdor Kisan Mukti Manch and finally the Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Parsihad.

In the view of Arjun Prasad Singh, a former leader of the M.K.S.S.movement before 1987 not a single armed squad action was launched and only collective resistance with people’s armed weapon was s launched.

A base was created for the later armed movements by meticulous resistance.aginst landlord armies.Armed squads only protected the mass organization against police or landlord attacks.. 

The struggle created by the Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti.created  abase for armed developments .Significant differences from the approach of the Maoist  Communist Centre who never operated their peasant organization openly.

The PU group also attraced more intellectuals than the MCC or PW groups and had more openly functioning peasant struggles.In late 1980’s to 90’s it also  created youth organizations like Bharat Naujwan Sabha as well as the student organization Democratic students Union.

They highlighted the open aspect of the work of the PU in Bihar particularly though go to village campaigns ,protest agisnt Hindu Comunal fasism and repression on democratic rights,abuses in hospitals or schools etc.

In West Bengal the Revolutionary Students Association played the same role.

It played a major role in combating and isolating the Ranvir Sena from 1996-98. In fact after 1998 when merging with the PWG the mass movement it led declined with sole emphasis on military actions.

The 1997 ,'30 years of Naxalbari commemoration' booklet gave great praise to the M.K.S.S.for spreading the peasant movement from Jehenabad to other districts in Bihar like wildfire and for exhibiting strong tendencies of massline.

It praised the Party Unity section for building genuine armed revolutionary striking power fluttering the red flag in vast areas of land and combating the menace of combating the senas of the landlords and Upper castes. 

Red Defense squads intervened to protect the peasant resistance struggles . I personally heard accounts from speakers of the Lok Sangram Morcha in an anti-repression campaign in 1990 and visited Patna in 2001.

Even when starting armed struggle in the main and directing it towards the state from late 1980’s to 1990’s the PU had the broadest open mass peasant movements and organizations amongst groups practicing armed struggle..

 In the view of researcher Bela Bhatia who worked with the Lok Sangram Morcha (front of the Party Unity group) from 1993-96, the C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity did the best work within the revolutionary camp in Bihar as it built mass movements and did not place one -sided emphasis on guerrilla armed squad actions carried out by defence squads .

It played a major role in combating and isolating the Ranvir Sena from 1996-98. In fact after 1998 when merging with the PWG the mass movement it led declined with sole emphasis on military actions.The 1997 ,'30 years of Naxalbari commemoration' booklet gave great praise to the M.K.S.S.for spreading the peasant movement from Jehenabad to other districts in Bihar like wildfire and for exhibiting strong tendencies of massline.

It praised the Party Unity section for building genuine armed revolutionary striking power fluttering the red flag in vast areas of land and combating the menace of combating the senas of the landlords and Upper castes. Red Defense squads intervened to protect the peasant resistance struggles . I personally heard accounts from speakers of the Lok Sangram Morcha in an anti-repression campaign in 1990 and visited Patna in 2001

The primary weakness of the C.P.I/(M.L.) Party Unity was it’s insufficient development of the red defense armed squads

Below I have excerpted and compiled notes from Professor Amit Bhattacharya's book 'Storming the Gates of Heaven'. from part on Struggle in Bihar,pages 112-118.

The political and tactical line that the PU adopted and reflected both continuity and also departure from the old C.P.I.(M.L.) line.

First,the old line was inspired by the desire to develop armed agrarian struggle ,but it preached the line of 'annihilation of class enemies.'by secret squads as a solution to all problems.Such a policy was opposed to massline ,mass movements and mass organizations.

That line was negated ,dialecticallly,as they sttae, in the sense taht annihilatin as a line was rejected,but anihilation as a form of struggle,selective annihilation of class enemies strictly in the interest of the development of class struggle and in accordance with requirements of a situatio remained.

Second in view of the existence of private caste-based armies of the landlords,like Bhumi Sena,the Kunwar Sena , Brahmarshiu Sena and many others under different names,the neccesity of getting armed was felt by everybody.One could never preach politic sor even live without posessing arms both for self-defence and counter-attack.

These armed squads were not particularly meant for annihilation of class enemies,unlike what was seen during the 1st phase.Even in the interest of carrying on partial struggles or struggles for immediate neds did people have to posess arms Third, it was also realized that in the struggles for socio-economic issues ,mass movement wa simportant.

However,in view of the huge quantity of arms posesed ,legally and otherwise,by the evil gentry and the atrocities perpetarted by armed gangs of landlords,the masses had to be convinced of the party's military strength,

In many parts of Bihar armed-counter revolutionary forces faced armed revolutionary forces and the battle had to be bloody and brutal.

That precisely was the reason why armed squads were formed at the initiative of the PU to protect and develop mass struggles.

Without this assurance ,the MKSS would not have been able to penetrate in the Gaya-Patna border region.Only because of the armed presence of revolutionary forces that mass organization scan be formed and mass movements could be launched.

The struggle launched by M.K.S.S.on socio-economic issues in the eraly eighties acheived notable results.The landless peasnts forced the landlords to pay the stipulated minumum wage which was more than double than the amount paid earlier.

In Bihar the work was concentrated in the Ptna-Gaya region particularly in the Jehenabad sub-division.of Gaya and Palamau district.The PU commenced work in the plains of the district bordering Aurangabad.There was hardly any scope to combine legal and ilegal form sof struggle,and so armed propagand aunits were developed at the initial stahe.

One of the martys of the Palamau struggle was Krishna Singh who was assaulted by an armed gang belonging to a village in Husainabad on 17 June 1984.

Comrade Krishna Singh sowed the seds for revolutionary struggle.The scarifice of Krishn aSingh played a major role in rousing the masesThe mass upsurge spread like wildfire demanding the arrest of the murderer and eventually the assasins were brought to the book.

Within the next 6 months,the mass struggles on the issues of fair wages for agricultural labourers,for abolition of various bondages and aginst feudal opression in general,rapidly spread to about thirty vilages in Hussainabad.The main area of the struggle was Japla.

To deal with the armed attacks by the landlords by the landlords army,armed squads were formed by the party with whaterver arms available

In 1985 ,the movement expanded covering Hussainabad, Mohamad ganj, Bisrampur, and some parts of Chtrapur.It alos spread to adjacent villages of the Nabinagar block of Aurangabad district.

 Main features of the struggle were a series of mass meetings agitating for more wages and in some regions,for land,crops and aginst usury.In forest area of Bisrampur and Mohandaganj,a militant mass movement took place againts the landlords and their musclemen who extorted 'rangdari ' tax from the poor who collected dry firewood.

Political struggles were also waged .On 24th March 1986 a large number of political activists assembled before Chhatrapur police station and snatched their leader Jagdeo Sharma from the police van despite police firing that caused their death.Large numbers of women participated.

A huge contingent opf women encircled the Hyderanagar police station protesting aginst arest of leaders of the mass organization.The police were so fightened at the militancy of the peole that they publicly apologized.

On April 19th ,1986 a massacre took place in Arwal where 23 peasants were killed. 40,000 people armed with weapons participated in rally towrads the legislative asembly. A few days later the M.K.SS.wsas banned The P,U extended to the Panki bloc where thee were countles sincidents of rifle snatching. by the peole and arming of suqads.

Earlier in 1985 the peasants under the M.K.S.S. leadership carried on social boycot of the landlords,seized crops waged strikes formed people's panchayats ,and fought the local bullies.In the 19990's,the movement took on an anti-state character .when landlords formed private armies with backing of the state.

In 1989 in Delhi  C.P.I. (M.L.) Party Unity formed mass front, Lok Sangram Morcha-a joint front of  7 organizations was formed in Bihar ,which led a convention in Delhi in 1989.It was attended by sections of a huge stream of revolutionary groups from Liberation, Communist League of India, Chandra Pulla Reddy Resistance group, New Democracy group etc.Played a great role in organizing against state repression.

The Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Parishad played a significant role in Bihar in the 1999 All India campaign by the erstwhile All India Peoples Resistance Forum against state repression in Andhra Pradesh,Dandkaranya and Bihar. 

It also staged a state level rally in Patna in March 1999.It is remarkable as though it was officials banned as the M.K SS it revived to function under the most repressive conditions as the M.K.S.P.

Red salutes in memory of Krishna Singh on 30th death anniversary!

Social activist and rsearch worker Bela Bhatia interviewed activists of the Mazdoor Kisan angram Samiti (M.K S S.).Below I am quoting an excerpt from her interview.

Feudalism will have to be rooted out steadily, otherwise it will uproot you.

It lies like a shadow to every person and until it  is rooted out revolution cannot be achieved.Before the organization came we did not have knowledge. The organization gave us education regarding the present system and he need to overthrow it.

India is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal Country. There is foreign capital also in our country. We have to end this foreign capital an utilize the capital of our own country.

The downtrodden people have to rise above the system.Each individual should get education. 

We got books to read about Marx,Lenin and Mao From these we learnt that Mao was a revolutionary and so were Lenin and Mao Tse Tung.We read a little about all the 3.We have not read a lot but understood that what Marx and Lenin wanted to say was that this rotten system should be destroyed, the exploitation of one human being by another should end, human kin should be liberated from this. This is what the leaders have to say.

Below I am publishing some testimonies of leading members of the M.K.S.S on revolutionary violence.

Without arms we feel that we shall not be able to fight. With arms we feel confident ,we will have the power. We fell that we will be able to settle he fight. If we do not have the armed power ,then how will we counter the Landlords anger. 

Can his anger be countered by wagging our finger at him?

Without armed power it is impossible to ensure peoples protection. If we do not have arms then no one will take our committee seriously. Each will do according to his will. They will think ,What can they do to us. When this power is their, they will fear.

They know that if thy do not obey us the we have the power to destroy them.There will be lot of problems. 

We may even be killed During this period ,many have been matyred .

Seeds are sown I he field in hope that they will grow. S

imilarly, with a dream of Socialism we are walking.

The possession of arms helped resolve some conflicts without actual resort to violence In Nyona village a wage issue was resolved peacefully because of the armed capacity of the organisation. 

A villager stated Because we have arms ,the zamindars have shrunk with fear. Also gangs of bandits and dacoits ,who used to lot peoles houses ,have been vanquished. Because of the atrocities ,the people used to feel very insecure. This has come to an end.

I am quoting another passage fro Bela Bhatias interview. A senior member of the M.K S S stated: In 1979 there was an atmosphere of terror in the villages due to the feudal forces and criminal gangs.

Even though he labourers had heard about us they we too scared to call us. 

However we were able to establish contact with few members of he J.P Movement, and asked him to arrange a meeting with few labourers introducing us as individuals who belonged to a party of the poor.

On the agreed day we met at midnight In the fields. Instead of meeting a small group we met about 50 men.

They were armed with lathis ,bhals and gadasas.The terrorized villagers explained that they would have taken the activists to the village but it was too risky. 

The Maliks had warned them that they would be severely punished if they brought the Naxalites to the village..We activists, emphasized the issues of ,wages, land and basic democratic rights, but explained that it could only be done by our own strength. The People understood this stating, 

We have understood .You are Naxalites,you talk about strength.

People now started coming in large numbers.

At first they were hesitant to speak out. Finally one of them spoke out,

We will now be coming to the  meeting, expecting each time to get arms.
If you are demanding confrontation and armed revolution,should you not provide us with arms.Thus ,I actual fact, they were demanding arms.

Such incidents show the mass approach of the M.K S.S

Below I am submitting a struggle report from a very old issue of the jounal ‘The Comrade’ (No 3 March-1989) from a Northern region of Bihar, in Khagaria district. Originally from 1981 it was led by the  erstwhile C.PI. (M.L.) Party Unity (then called ‘Unity ‘group) which launched the Mazdoor Kisan Sangram Samiti (worker-peasant organization)in 1979 which was banned in 1986, but resurrected as the Mazdoor Kisan Mukti Manch.

 From late 1988 however the leadership of the struggle in this area was taken over by the Centre for Communist Revolutionaries of India.(C.C.R.I.-formed in 1988 ) Although again from around 1992 the Party Unity group re-captured the leadership of the struggle and organization from the C.C.R.I. 

However  even when C.C.R.I started it’s work in Northern Bihar morally  the line of the C.P.I(M.L.) Party Unity(later merged with   the C.P.I.(M.L.)-Peoples war group in 1998)was practiced. 

This report displays the importance of mass revolutionary resistance struggles which have to combine with armed activities of village red self defense corpses.I consider this struggle report although old still of important significance with regards to mass line in Communist revolutionary movement

.It gives a most analytical account of, the various methods and stages of building revolutionary peasant struggle and organization   in light of the revolutionary ideology of Marxism- Leninism -Maoism.To me it is one of the most outstanding examples of implementing revolutionary massline in peasant struggle.

We also commemorate 20 years since land seizure programmes took place in Bihar in 1993..

An important role was also played by the red defense squads.

 Struggle report

About  842 families inhabited  Biharpada with the total population being 5302. Combining it with several small villages of adjoining Chotagaon a panchayat was constituted and the total population becomes 9000. It constituted 51% farm labourers;9 % poor peasants possessing about 14 bighas of land and 7 kathas of land:21% middle peasants possessing about 184 bighas of land:about 8% in –service people possessing about 37 bighas of land:4 % business persons  and other occupants possessing about 2 bighas of land.The surplus land possessed by landlors is 619 bighas Land possessed illegally by rich peasants is about 7 bighas,and thatby middle peasanst 6 bighas.

The masses were subjugated to various types of oppression like: molestation of women-folk :not paying due wages; ruthless usury; usurping land meant for pastures and pathways, devouring most of government aids; availing the fictitious loans for boring,damaging crops of poor etc. Administrative authorities always took the side of the feudal when injustice was protested against.

The main cause of mass frustration was low wages, inciting of communal riots; usurpation of pastures by feudal and land meant for pathways;restrictions on cutting grass,plucking of vegeatables and use of pastures;inciting of quarrels among the poor ,entangling people in false legal cases, molestation of the women folk etc.
The masses adopted many forms of protest like mass propaganda assembly, procession gherao, demonstration, crop seizure, wall-poster,hand-bill distributions, crop-dage,exposure of superstitions,progation of scientific views Against the armed feudal attacks when no other method is left-the masses added the method of armed self-defence.

The mass struggle was carried out by the worker- peasant organization under the leadership of the party.The main underlying probem is the disparity of land distribution. Whatever the disparity landholding ,there was time in the past when this land belonged to the ancestors of the poor. 
The land got ransferred from the ancestors of the poor through deception or it was forcibly ploughed. After rendering them landless the sons and daughters of the same peasants were harnessed for labour from birth.The feudal grew wealthier and wealthier and kept permanent share-croppers.

In these circumstances the sharecroppers united to forcibly fight against the landlord tyrant Vikram Singh and Pratap Singh.

In November 1988 the share-croppers sowed the crop and in December the feudal sold the land out of fear.The local feudals then destroyed the crop with the help of illegal rifles and goondas,and re-sowed their crop.

At the end of December ,the activists of the peasant organization roammed door to door in 3 villages explaining the masses about the injustice meted out. Handbills were distributed.The feudals retaliated by putting the false charge of ‘naxalite’ on the group and approached the police,collector and several ministers.Criminal goondas were posted in several villages at the old ‘kachery ‘of the zamindars.
The goondas threatened the people and warned them that they would face dire consequences if they entered the villages.

On February 13th,the masses retaliated and captured the kachery of the feudal,beating up the goondas ,and capturing their arms.Panic was now  created in the group of the feudal whose limitations were exposed.
8 peasants were implicated after feudal beat 7 people by attack in the night.The women resisted this and the next morning 50 women gheraoed the police inspector responsible for the night –raid.

All the respondents were sent to jail. The government set up police camps in the fields of landlords for protecting the crops.

On 1st March the masses like a surging torrent went to the fields and harvested the crop.The police prevented them but only with great resistance from the people.On 15th March hundreds of men and women went to harvest the crop and the police arraived.A major battle took place .one policeman was hurt .The masses returned after harvesting the crops.5 acres of crops were harvested.

 On March 18th, the police tried to arrest the people by raiding their houses in the night.6 innocent peasants were arrested.ome of the crops ripened under the protection of police camps;while the zamindars seized the crops with the aid of guns.

 On March 20th the angry masses gheraoed the collector protesting against the false arrest of 6 peasants and submitted  a memorandum.The collector sympathized with the masses but never really acted.

 The struggle had it’s birth right from 1981.The struggle was launched against tyrant Vikram Singh. A decision was taken to capture the entire land but the arrest of leading comrades postponed the struggle. In October 1985,the crop was sown after capturing the land.

Vikram Singh retaliated with his lackeys but was thwarted by the resistance of the people.The leading activists of the organization displayed great moral courage.
In January 1986,the masses seized the entire crop. The masses numbering hundreds twice captured the kachery of the landlord and captured his entire crop and property.

For selfish interests a section of the feudals supported the struggling people. They played the role of middlemen but the masses detected their ploy and boycotted the compromise.

Later the administrative officials along with the feudal tried to break the unity of the masses.They propogated that the victories of the struggle would only benefit the Harijans,as the government would only distribute land to them.The main local leadership exposed this conspiracy in a meeting explaining that only a collective onslaught of protracted nature would gain victory.In October 1986 the crops were again sownwhile from February to March 1987 ,the struggle started on the question of crop seizure.The masses seized several acres of crop.A police camp was laid at the kachery of the zamindar for protecting the crop.The police prevented the masses from harvesting the crop and promised them the crop at the time of ripening.The masses naively believed him.

 Later,when the crop was ready to be harvested,the landlord aided by the police cut and carried of the harvest.When the peole heard this they lost faith in the adminstartion.

In October 1987 the fields were again sown while in February-March 1988,the people captured the entire harvest. On several occasions the armed might of the masses overcame the police who were patrolled at the Kachery of the landlord.

In the course of the struggle the authorities promised the masses that the land would be distributed. However they failed to live up to their promise. All the orders agreed to were still on paper inspite of a list submitted to 210 people giving details of the claim sof the people to land.Inspite of the people gheraoing Yamuna Rama,minister of Bihar,the peole’s demands were not met.

Some months later after seizing the entire crop, the women were one day going to harvest for wages when the police force and goondas attacked them.13 women and one peasant were arrested. In response, hundreds of people gheraoed the S.D.O. as the collector was absent,and submitted a memorandum The following day all were arrested.

It is important to understand why a section of feudals came to the side of the struggling peasants. Before the struggle was initiated the feudal were split into 2 groups . Both groups wished to have the land of this landlord transferred to their name and wanted their dominant position. One section, which superficially supported the struggle, lacked the might of the lathi. 

The other, enemy section possessed the lathi.Thus the weaker feudal tried to infiltrate the organization to use it for their own ends. Although they marginally helped the organization to some extent, the enemy camp of feudals got this section entangled in litigation cases.

When the enemy feel they are unable to tackle the might of the people in a confrontation they entrap them in litigation cases and finish their strength in that process.

In March, 1988 there were 2 instances when nothing would stop the people from capturing the harvest and that the zamindar was defeated. A vanguard section of women met and resolved that for for 3-4 months it may not be necessary for them to attend  the fields. As many of them are share-croppers they could capture the crop and divide it among them-selves. They had deployed their optimum effort in this struggle. The party leadership explained the need for a collective fight. The next day the people went to harvest in small numbers. Then the police attacked them, and the people understood the message of the party and learned from their mistake. Finally,all the people united to capture the harvest and they succeeded.

The main features of the struggle was that it gained support from other classes, democratic individuals etc and benefited from the leadership of the party. Throughout  the struggle the movement consistently trod on the path of mass –line. Legal and Illegal methods were appropriately combined. Effective support was also received from the armed volunteers of the village self-defense corpse.

The lesson that has been learnt most is that if the masses do not get the leadership to match the strength of the movement, their consciousness and demands –or, if the leadership lags behind –then people blame such a leadership  and restore faith in parliamentary parties. It is evident that because of enemy terror ,or because of weaknesses in propaganda ,or lagging consciousness or because demands are not properly formulated, the people retreat in a struggle.

In case of success of the struggle people are all praise for the revolutionary leadership but in case of defeat throw curses on the organization leading the struggle.
Only in the course of struggle has the organization grown and people become more conscious of the exploitative enemy classes. In the course of struggle so much is gained on all sides by the people that witnessing these gains one gains an insight into the bright future ahead.The leadership of the party can only base the struggle on the poor and landless peasants .When in the road of the revolutionary movement ,different classes align themselves there is help from all sides. It is like the relation of bone and muscle.

Further peasant struggles(from journal ‘mukti marg’)commemorating 20 years since 1st land seizures.

In 1993 the first central land seizure movement was launched in Bihar by the Mazdoor Kisan Mukti Manch-the ressurected form of the Mazdoor Kisan Sangram Samiti.The red defense squads too made an important contribution.The major landlords were identified and targeted. The land seizure programme was innaugurated in July 1993 and on 8th July 1993 about 1000 people planted red flags owned by Sudama Singh,a notorious landlord.

A police camp had already been set up and they intervened after the first flags were planted by the peasants in the house of the landlord,threatening them with dire consequences of death.The red peoples defence intervened at this juncture and enabled the peasnts to complete planting the flags2 days later 1000 acres of Kameshawar Baccha were captured in the same village in another block.

Later a historic capture was made of landlord Budhinarayan Sah who owned 1799 acres and lived in Kharaundi village in Bhavantahapur.He used to tie rebellios peasants to huge anthills of red ants  and sprinkle gur on their bodies.From 1991 he people struggled against his tyranny and in 1992 ransacked the house of the landlordand seized his arms.Inspite of a police camp being set up on 25th May 1993 burnt down his palatial house and on 18th July planted flags on his land.From July 8th tp 2nd August 1993,7000 acres of land belonging to the most notorious of landlords of the Palmau -Garwah region was captured.

Similar land struggles took place in 1993 in Jehanabad, Gaya, Ptana, Khagaria, Begusura,Buxar,Rohtas,Bhabhua and Aurangabad districts.

This year we commemorate the 20th anniversay of the martyrdom of Suresh Yadav and 3 members of the red defense squad, Suddeshwar Paswan, Dharmendra Singh and Suryadeo Paswan in fake encounter by the Bihar armed police. 

It took place in context of of major land struggle for capturing 500 acres of land in Gulzarabigha village of Haspura block of Aurangabad district.

In 1993 the revolutionary peasant organization countered the issue of famines in major way,mainly in Palamau,Garwha and Lohardagg districts.

Firtsly pamphleting and postering was done to educate the masses.

Secondly, flood relief was organized 

Thirdly through demonstrations dharnas,public meetings pressure was placed on the administration to implement reforms.

Fourthly,the people were mobilised to seize the stock sof the landlords and hoarders Nearly 2000 mahua trees were seized, several hundred quintals of rice and wheat were seized in a programme which involved thousands of people. 

Notable struggles were those launched against Dharmender Baccha of sunlight Senain the massive fort-like Khalihan of the Ranka estate. 60 acres of land was also seized from Lallan Singh,one of the cruelest leaders of the Sunlight Sena.

The harvesting of his land was carried out during a prolonged battle between the police and the red defense squads of the people.

Student and youth movement led by PU group
or the first time a separate organizational structure was built for students. Several former Bharat Naujavan Sabha activists took up the responsibility of building D.S.U. The strategy of the Democratic Students Union(Bihar) was to organise students on their partial demands as well as connect their problems to the chief political issues of the day. The student movement had to be oriented towards the interests of the agrarian revolution. For achieving the task the Democratic Students Union took up the responsibility of organizing  Go to Village Campaigns . Democratic Students Union also planned to fight against imperialism. as well as democratic

In the colleges the D.S.U fought against malpractices in Arts colleges as well as engineering colleges. In these institutions unqualified teachers and principals were appointed. Funds were misappropriated by managements. In the Patna Arts College the Principal even stole paintings.D.S.U organised agitations agains this.D.S.U D.S.U declared a lockout in the college not allowing principals and teachers to enter the college.Waris Hadi was made principal in 1994 as he had political links with the governor of Bihar.He sold paintings and illegally appointed several people irrespective of merit. including a lecturer who faced a murder charge. After a protracted student struggle the principal was removed. The president of the then students union was rusticated from the university due to complete collapse of administrative structure in the college. The college was not de-affiliated from the

All India technical Services board which badly affected students.

The D.S.U organised agitations against indifference and politicking in Patna University.70students sat on a dharna for 5 daysand a poster exhibition was organised.Programmes were taken jointly with A.I.S.F,the S.F.I and the A.I.D.S.O. fighting for student s admissions.Dharnas were held against malpractices and corruption. Agitations were also launched against fee hikes. Such examples are in Daltonganj where the students had to clash with the C.P.R.F personnel.

In Patna engineering college the students launched a 6 day hunger strike demanding the opening of a college which had been opened earlier.D.S.U gave soli darity to this issue and burnt an effigy of the education minister.

In the Jharkand areas D.S.U led struggles for tribals in schools to be taught in their native languages.In these areas D.S.U launched agitations for tribal students who were denied the right to learn in their native languages. The D.S.U also fought for democratic rights issues.Very often D.S.U organise cycle rallies as a form of protest.The most significant agitations were against police firings in Madhubani and Darsinghsarai areas of Bihar.Here D.S.U joined hands with even the revisionist student organisations as well as the Chatra Sangharsh Yuva Vahini.This took place in 1995.

The D.S.U also protested against the death sentence imposed
on the 13 M.CC activists in 1992.Here the D.S.U joined hands with the Revolutionary Students League and the Progresive Students and Youth front.(The 2 other revolutionary student organisations) After the Laxmanpur-Bathe massacre carried out by the Ranbir Sena the D.S.U Along with the Bharat Naujavan Sangh organised protests throughout the state.In Daltonganj,Jehanabad,Gaya,Khagaria torchlight processions were launched.In conditions of severe repression protests were launched.D.S.U joined
several revolutionary organizations this issue.

In 1997 D.S.U protested against the killing of 6 Party Unity activists. In Patna they burned the effigy of the chief minister.D.S.U also held commemoration programmes of the Arwal massacre that took place in 1986.In 1996 a protest meeting was clamped upon by the police and revolutionary activists were arrested. Afer the killing of Comrade Chandrashekar ,a student of J.N.U IN Delhi D.S.U launched protest programmes along with other organisations.In Jehanabad with A.I.D.S.O protests were organised in the form of torchlight processions.

In 1999,D.S.U with the Bharat Naujavan Sabha took out a cycle rally from Daltangaunj to Patna protesting against the Shankar bigha massacre. Earlier in Daltonganj an effigy of the chief minister was burnt. In March 2000 D.SU led a protest with other revolutionary organisations protesting the murder of 11 revolutionaries in Kachnewan.An effigy of the Bihar administration was burnt at Patna junction.D.S.U.also participated in the march to Kachnewan as well as on a protest demonstration on April 6th.

From 1995 the D.S.U Organised Go to Village Campaigns.  These have been conducted on district as well as state levels. Their were 3 types of campaigns launched. The first was on specific political issues. The second type was a general political campaign and the third type was launching cultural programmes.The purpose of these programmes was to integrate the students and youth with the peasantry. In the first campaign in Gumrah district 6 D.S.U activists were arrested campaigning for Beedi Patta workers.The activists were organising the Beedi Patta workers against the merciless contractors who did not pay them their daily wages.

The next state-wide campaign took place in 1997 in Khagaria district which is a flood prone region.Here the D.SU formed flood relief distribution commitees and explained the peasants the political reasons for which the state could not give common people protection.The flood relief programmes of the government were found to be totally inadequate and the government gave a ready excuse that Nepal has let off water.Infact the real reason was that the landlords did not allow the construction of dams at sites which would have been appropriate because those sites were falling within their lands.Infact the dam mechanism in the state was create only with the purpose of preventing waterlogging and not for flood control. In addition the boatmen were not paid their wages for the relief work.

At the end of the campaign the team held public meetings and dharma demanding an end to corruption and compensation for boatmen .

In 1998 the D,S.U with the Bharat Naujavan Sabha visited areas in Buxar ,Palamau Santhal Paraganas and Khagaria districts.In Buxar sustained wall-writing was carried out by activists protesting against the landlords not paying minumum wages to agricultural workers.They were paid wages between Rs.15 to 30.Landlords here possessed 5,000 acres of land and religious Maths owned hundreds of acres.districts.In Santhal Parganas the D.S.U fought for the implementation of a separate Jharkhand State.

In Palamau, a centre of the revolutionary peasant movement the D.S.U fought against the construction of a dam which submerged 14 villages.20 people had been killed in the flood the previous year and no compensation was awarded.In Khagaria activists again propagated the real reasons for adequate protection being given to people during floods. The wrong policies of the government were explained. This time  Bandh Sangharsh commitees were formed in villages which held several protest meetings againt corruption.

The last state-wide campaign took place in the Bhagalpur and Bankadistricts.Here the activists gave solidarity to peasant s struggles and propagated the politics of Naxalbari and agrarian revolution..

In May 2000 the D.S.U held its first state conference in Patna..Students came from all over the state the maximum number coming from Palamau and Jehanabad and Bhagalpur districts in the former 2 districts students faced severe repression on the way to the conference. In addition students came from Buxar,Gaya,Khagariadistricts etc.Before the State conference district conferences were held in Bhagalpur.Patna town and Palamau districts.Here district commitees were formed and the district activities were reviewed.

At the State conference Comrade Amitabh was elected the President and Vijay ,the secretay.A 6 member committee consisting of Amitabh,Sachin,Sumit,Pankaj,Vijay and Jaiprakash were elected. Resolutions were passed opposing privatization and communalization of education, opposing the repression on revolutionary movements and supporting the rights of nationalities to self-determination. 2 State-wide workshops were also carried out by the Democratic Students Union. The first one was held in 1999 to discuss organizational functioning, the building of unitspolititicisation methods and finance.

Here principally the appropriate forms of struggle were discussed. It was decided that educational institutions were neglected and a regular wall magazine should be brought out in addition to cultural programmes.It was also noted that regular commitees were not formed in several places In the 2nd workshop in February 2000 study classes were held on the history of the Communist movement in India, the State of Education, and dialectical materialism. Delegates attended from Gaya.Palamau ,Bhagalpur and Patna.

One of the most significant things that occurred was the merger of the Progressive Students and Youth Front with the D.S.U.The former organisation had a strong mass base in Bhagalpur district leading powerful agitations against fee-hikes and corruption in Bhagalpur University. This organisation also held a massive programme for Tilka Majhi s birthday to be observed in Bhagalpur university.

Several times the organisation organised gheraoes against the vice-chancellor for hostel demands. After merging into D.S.U the organisation launched a massive demonstration against the administration in Bhagalpur university house - arresting corrupt officials. The emergence of the Democratic Students Union has played a significant role in the revolutionary movement in Bihar. Innumerable sacrifices have been made by activists.

The martyrdom of comrades Anil Ojha and Chanchal were particularly significant.Anil Ojha was killed as a result of police torture after organising a student agitation against malpractices of the principal in Patna Arts College.Chanchal played a great role in organising D.S.U units in Jehanabad districts as well as building the Bharat Naujavan Sabha.Eventually he was killed by his own relatives.

In 1996 The Bharat Naujavan Sabha led a massive protest against malpractices and corruption of doctors in Daltonganj town of Palamau district. In Chainpur Bazar area Bharat Naujavan Sabha led a massive 500 people demonstration against inadequate facilities in government hospitals. The doctors hardly attended work. A memorandum was presented to the city administration against this. These organisations also participated in several campaigns against state and landlord Sena’s repression.(eg.The Laxmanpur-Bathe massacre carried out by the Ranbir Sena) Against the massacres of the Ranbir Sena in Laxmanpur Bathe and Shankar bigha torchlight processions and cycle rallies were carried out on protest by the Bharat Naujavan Sabha and the D.S.U.

Struggles against Communalsim(opposing thedestroying of the Babri Masjid)-Copiled from Mukti Marg May-June1993 issue

-After the destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6th 1992 by the Kar Sevaks the Bharat Naujavan Sabha launched a massive anti-communal campaign all through the State.In Daltonganj The youth front launched a cycle rally in protest.Bajrang Dal goondas tried to intimidate the activists but the youth carried out heroic self-defence and drove away the reactionaries.In Jehanabad the Mazdoor Kisan Mukti Manch carried out an anti -communal cycle rally covering a distance of 125 Km.covering more than 15 blocks from 1st February to 15th February..In Gaya the Bharat Naujavan Sabha launched cultural programmes against the communal holocaust.A similar programme took place carried out by the Bharat Naujavan Sabha and other progressive organisations in Bokaro.These programmes were significant in regard to the revolutionary democratic struggle against Communalism.

Struggles for Trade Union Rights

A memorandum was presented to the Bihar govt..On the trade Union Front, the Bihar Mines democratic Workers Union on 18th May staged a public meeting, in which Japla Cement factory workers and neighbouring mine workers participated. A demand was placed asking for the re-starting of the closed Japla Factory and the Balliya quarry.Electricity,water,cleanliness,was also demanded.The Japla Cement factory as closed and thousands of workers who had made immense sacrifices lost their jobs. From 29 th September 1985 to 14th August 1990 it was closed.4000 workers died out of hunger.Workers made sacrifices of great proportions to have kept the factory running, denying themselves the govt.compensation of RS.13 crore. Later all over Jehanabad,there was a mass campaign condemning the murder.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Ali Abunimah of The Electronic Intifada says Trump is only offering more U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinians and hostility towards Iran

Celebrating 50 Years since Naxalbari : Part 2 by Harsh Thakor

    These Articles reflect the personal opinions of Harsh Thakor

PART 1 Here :

Below I am reproducing parts from Gautam Navlakaha’s ‘In  a Heartland of Rebellion.’It accurately reveals the extent of revolutionary democracy the Maoists had built up and their practice of mass line.

Excerpts from Gautam Navlakha's experience(Sanhati)

What Do I Believe?

What is my overall impression? How do I read the Maoist movement in DK?

I am convinced that this war will be unlike any other war which Indian government has waged in the last 63 years. That this is one war which will test the resilience of the Indian state as it has never been done before.

Precisely because it is a war in which people are fighting in their own territory to save their land, forest, water, minerals, from being grabbed and they are convinced that they have an alternate vision, not just for themselves, the adivasis, but for Indian people as a whole.

 It is a different ball game altogether when a people feel that destiny beckons them to emancipate themselves in order that they can inspire fellow country men and women to rally around them and follow their example.

However, no movement in India has so much to its credit and yet so little written about it or so much abuse hurled at them. Far less than this gets talked about and celebrated. Those of us, who believe in liberty with equality , must rejoice at the remarkable strides Maoists have taken and in showing us how far the spirit of  serve the people  can take us.

They are not saints, certainly not sinners, but as mortals they have shown what an unflinching commitment to bring about social transformation actually means. Critics can find faults, magnify them, over-read them, rulers can try to  eliminate ,  cripple  and  choke , to use the words employed by the PM, to wipe them out, but it is not possible to deny that they are rooted among people, they survive because of this, and they are expanding politically because poor and deprived believe in them. 

Its not only Maoists reaching out to people but people are reaching out to them and inviting them to enter new areas, to assist them in their everyday struggles.

Therefore, I believe that whether they are dealt a setback or lose their base or bases here or there, this movement is not going to be obliterated. 

I think that if they are pushed from one area they will sprout elsewhere. This is the significance of their claim that they are thinking in terms of 50-60 years and not just here and now. 

They are here to stay. This represents a significant shift.

So, one should not belittle their achievement. 

All the more because while scholars and activists talk about alternative development models and paradigms, here are Maoists who have been practicing it for last thirty years among millions of Indians.

And not only are they developing agriculture, introducing social and economic reforms, debating social mores but are engaged in working out their own take on industrialization, mining ..Yes it is small step when you consider the vast canvas of India. But is there any other political formation which has come anywhere close to what they have achieved against this many odds?

Ironically, whatever document one was given to read or conversation we had was invariably punctuated with their admission of many a shortcoming or mistake or weakness. .

While I consider them honest admission I believe these are highly exaggerated. One of the things which stuck me was that unlike elsewhere where people tend to over blow their achievement here party was being modest about them. Constantly talking about the problems they face or what needed to be done.

For instance when I asked why is it that there is so little written material in shape of travelogue, reportage, party documentation etc on DK movement? There are few books available in Hindi, even these are translated from Telugu or Punjabi, and there is booklet brought out by the party on the development work in DK which is available in English and Hindi. But these are few and far in between. P Shankar s book  yeh jungle hamara hai  (This Forest Belongs to Us) needs updating since it was written in 1997 in Telugu and later translated into Hindi. Somehow the answer was that they never got round to doing this. Why? Did they not know that their detractors have used this knowledge deficit to malign them?

Yes, they did especially when in the initial period of Salwa Judum they were blamed for bringing white terror  upon themselves. They were accused of having stopped adivasis from plucking tendu leaf.

Whereas  the truth was that we were opposed to government announced price of less than Rs 50 for a bundle of 50 leaves when private contractors were offering nearly double the rates. That was the period when we realized that some intellectuals were levelling charges against us by believing whatever was told them in the Salwa Judum camps.

But why did they not publicize their achievement? Here they were practicing alternate  development  enriching adivasi society be it in terms of economic activities, health, education, development of their language (developing a new script) and preserving tribal culture ..Why did they not encourage more write ups on their experience and work in DK? I could not find satisfactory answer; I was met with shy smiles.

My own take is that for years DK was seen as an adjunct to the movement in AP. By the time it took roots and organs of people s power began to consolidate nearly two decades had passed. It was around the turn of this millennium that serious efforts were made to invite writers to come, visit and write. This picked up with the formation of CPI (Maoists) with significant presence in several states and setback experienced in AP.

The remarkable thing is that party in DK is strongly located among the poor adivasis and women. The advantage of entering an area which had been overlooked by the Indian State for decades, where political parties were marked by their absence, proved to provide the Maoists with a tremendous advantage.

This they seized and as a result the progress made, the utilization of resources and how far it went - against Indian State s record where 12 paise for every rupee allocated reaches the people, here nearly every penny serves the people - the frugality of life of party members in DK as well as the PLGA, the backbone of the movement, makes evident a fact that collective work and commitment to serve the people can make even limited resources go very far.

I did not probe whether they debated while utilizing resources the choice between equity and efficiency or how did they resolve it, but it was evident to naked eyes that emphasis was on reaching out to as many as possible with minimum of wastage. The way in which every scrap of paper was saved and used was an everyday reminder. 

Every scrap was used for scribbling a message, instruction or requirement. Life remains tough and Spartan. The problems the party faces are mounting: on the one hand offensive as well as encirclement by the State and on the other loss of human and material resources.

However, the point is that while they face problems they also exaggerate their weaknesses. If one reads, for instance, the party document on rectification being carried out by them it reveals that most examples they cite are probably drawn from outside DK and most likely AP. Let me illustrate:

a) In some areas, the lands occupied from landlords in the past are lying fallow due to government repression; when the landlords try to sell these lands, the rich peasants and middle peasants are purchasing them. On such occasions, instead of bringing pressure through the agricultural labourers and poor peasants, who occupied those lands, on those who purchased the lands and stopping the sales, the squads themselves have been thrashing the rich and middle peasants who purchased the lands.

b) In the struggle for the eradication of bad habits like liquor consumption, educating the people with a long term view is lacking; in the struggle to obstruct the manufacture of arrack, instead of rallying the people, especially the women, prominence is being given to squad actions only. Physical punishments are being imposed disregarding class basis.

c) When problems arise in man-woman relations, especially in matters relating to marriage, judgments are being given without taking into view, the social problems women face.

d) In various kinds of people s  Panchayats  instead of listening to the versions of both sides apart from gathering the needed information from others in the villages also, one sided judgments are being - delivered, under the effect of sectarianism.

e) When some among the people commit mistakes, when they oppose our mass organisations, or when they are suspected to be working as informers, punishments much beyond their wrongs are being imposed    

Now squads have given way to platoons, companies and now they are talking of battalions. In Bastar where land was distributed the ousted landlords have not been able to either sell or take possession of their lands expropriated from them and distributed to poor adivasis by JS. 

This is opposite to what happened in AP. 

In AP land which was distributed lay fallow and attempts were made to sell them off which was thwarted through squad action. Indeed during the peak of SJ these lands may have remained fallow, but by now Adivasi peasants have begun to return to cultivate the lands, and size of the land which remains fallow has shrunk. 

Also in Bastar, JS extends credit and seeds to poor peasants and loans to purchase pair of bullocks provided to poor peasants to encourage them to take to ploughing their fields rather than using shovels to plough the land. Besides, in DK s JS areas there are no arrack shops and only traditional liquor is brewed.

Therefore, mobilizing women against arrack shops, so effective in early phase of the movement in AP, is not needed here. Indeed incidence of drunkenness is far less. Punishment meted out is not in excess of mistake committed. In fact people are proud that ordinary crimes have reduced. 

Finally, an adivasi comrade said that in AP, unlike here in DK, party members had become little lazy. I said really. He said here in DK we do all the work ourselves; even carry our supplies and even when we fetch it from the haat everyone has to chip in to carry it. 

In AP people would use their mobile and place order and provisions would arrive either in tractor or jeep. He said they exposed themselves to informers and infiltration.

Below is a writing of Beranard d’Mello on the Che Gueveras of Telegu Society reviwing the book of ‘Understanding Maoists’ by Venugopal Rao.It reflects weaknesses of military line but to me is still wrong in calling it Che Guevarist.

He summarizes the weakness in the maoist militeay strategy in protecting itself from attacks.Here I give great relevance to the analysis of the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L.) line coming from T.Nagi Reddy-D.V.Rao..The basic documents reflect what is true ppw .

Today in many region ssubjective factors do not exist for armed struggle and the Maoist party has not reached the stage of base ares the Telengana armed struggle achieved.

Spiral of Violence

One could view the whole unfolding process of counter revolutionary and revolutionary violence thus: 

The Naxalites’ popular mobilisations precipitated a crisis of sorts for the rural gentry, and the state then came down on these mobilisations with a heavy hand, which led the CPI (ML) (PW) to enhance its military power, to which, the state, in turn readjusted its counterinsurgency tactics and, thereby, provoked a modification of the Party’s response. 

It was a sequence of moves and countermoves, with the two adversaries trying to anticipate each other’s actions well in advance.

As encounter killings and cases of “missing” went up, the Maoists responded with kidnaps of state officials and ruling Party politicians to get their missing comrades produced in court; as police camped in the villages, the guerrillas raided some of these camps; as the combing operations of the security forces were stepped up, landmines, remotely controlled by the guerrillas were used to instil the fear of death among the marauders; as more Greyhounds and fortified police stations came into existence, platoons and companies of the guerrillas with more sophisticated armaments were organised. The spiral proceeded upwards.

Now, the Maoist strategy of protracted people’s war (PPW) necessarily entails taking recourse to both violent (a tragic necessity) and non-violent means, the latter, in the form of the mass line.

Unfortunately, however, the Indian state was/has been largely successful in not allowing the non-violent means to unfold. 

Going by classical Maoist principles of revolutionary organisation, strategy and behaviour, armed struggle plays a crucial supporting role on the road to liberation.

But it has been/is the strategy of the Indian state to reduce the movement to violence alone.

Indeed, I wish Venugopal had thrown some light on the series of so-called encounter killings after the “Koyyur encounter” of December 1999. In the absence of this, the severe setback suffered by the Party and the Maoist movement in AP remains unexplained. To fill this gap, I cite some recent instances of the killings of Telugu Maoist leaders:

Settiraju Papaiah (alias Somanna), a member of the Special Zonal Committee of north Telangana, was allegedly abducted by the APSIB in Bangalore on 29 June 2006, brutally tortured, killed on 1 July, and his body was thrown in the forests of Warangal.

Burra Chinnayya, alias Madhav, state secretary of the Party, and seven of his comrades were killed on 23 July 2006 when the Greyhounds and a special police force of a battalion size attacked the headquarters of the AP State Committee in the Nallamala forests.

The attackers had precise information; it is said that they even knew the exact tent in which Madhav was an occupant.
Raghaulu – member of the AP State Committee of the Party – who came from a poor peasant family and grew up as a cattle-herd boy – and eight of his comrades were killed on 8 November 2006 in a forest area in Cuddapah district.

Chandramouli, a Central Committee member of the Party and a member of its Central Military Commission, and his wife Karuna, a barefoot doctor, were cold-bloodedly murdered in the Eastern Ghats on the Andhra-Orissa border on 29 December 2006, when they were on their way to the Party Congress.

Patel Sudhakar Reddy (alias Suryam, Vikas), a Central Committee member, and his comrade, Venkatayya were picked up in Nasik (in Maharashtra) on 23 May 2007, airlifted to Warangal, brutally tortured, murdered the next day, and their bodies were thrown in the Lavvala forests there.

In an interview published in July 2007, the Party General Secretary Ganapathy admitted that in Andhra Pradesh, “the enemy has the upper-hand from the tactical point of view”.[7] The Party, of course, fought back, as was evident from the stunning attack on two platoons of the Greyhounds by a company of its People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army on 28 June 2008 in the Sileru River on the Andhra-Orissa border.

The Political and the Military

But practically an important section of the top leadership of the Party in AP was brutally eliminated, and how does one explain this severe setback suffered by the Party? 

It is our hypothesis that the AP State Intelligence Bureau seems to have penetrated/infiltrated into the Party’s political structure, and this has perhaps been more easily accomplished because of deficiency in the political education of cadres, otherwise how else the above-mentioned diabolical operations could have been masterminded.

The Party has suffered a severe setback in AP and in Jangalmahal, and in these the worst of times, there seems to be a tendency to subordinate the political to the military as if a mass revolutionary consciousness can be forged in the armed struggle itself.

Such a perspective is Guevarist, not Maoist, as we have explained earlier on in this essay, and it needs to be internally critiqued. 

The Party should not forget that its cadres are formed in political struggle, in ideological struggle (against revisionism), and yes, also in armed struggle; the latter should never be overestimated. It may be recalled that in the mass struggle phase of the movement in north Telangana, 1978-85, it was the winning of the solidarity of the people that was the cause of the relative success of that phase.

This was because the Party and its mass organisations involved the people in the process of revolution. Political mass participation in the revolution was emphasized. Today, the RSU is a shadow of its former self. Yet, if there’s any hope, this has to be placed in the younger generation. 

Recall the deep emotion in Mao’s words to Chinese students in Moscow (in late 1949 or early 1950):[8]

‘The world is yours, as well as ours. But in the last analysis, it is yours. You, young people, full of vigour and vitality, are in the bloom of life, like the sun at eight or nine in the morning. Our hope is placed in you.’

Frankly, the guerrilla warfare of the Maoists has assumed an erratic and ineffective character because of the absence of base areas,[9] this, even after 47 years have gone by since the launch of the movement in Naxalbari in 1967, heralding the unfolding of a strategy conceived in terms of the area-wise seizure of political power.

Some of the guerrilla zones – which the Maoists are striving to convert into Red Areas – have been converted back to White Areas by the paramilitary forces of the Indian state backed by the mainstream political parties, and this seems to suggest that, given the geographical and topographical features of these zones, as well as the “caste-in-class” and ethnicity-class structures of the resident populations there, the present strategy and tactics and political programme of the Maoists do not offer a definitive answer to the re-occupation of such territories by the state’s forces and their conversion back to White areas.[10] It must be remembered that it was Mao and the Chinese Communist Party’s creative adaptation of Marxism-Leninism (M-L) to the Chinese context that accounted for the success of the new democratic revolution over there.

The Maoists in India have fought really long and hard, and dedicatedly, based on their strategy of PPW, but now, it’s high time, in the light of their experience so far, they adapt M-L to the Indian context, and blaze a trail in Marxist theory and practice in India.

Defence of C.P.I.(Maoist in Lalgarh)-Briliant refutation of 2 journals who were critical class-analytical reply

Misconception 2: Aneek magazine and Shramjeevi both say that the Maoists are not democratic and have no sense of democracy. Aneek says they have alienated all the other political forces in the area (like the Majhi Marwha and Jharkhandi parties) and are not even tolerating the rank and file CPM, demanding they resign.

Santosh Rana in the Shramjeevi magazine raises the same question but goes even further saying two points: (i) Even if five people have a different view they must be allowed to speak otherwise it will lead to a different type of terror. And he equates this ‘terror’ with CPM-style terror. (ii) Upholding the existing Panchayat system and seeking to democratize it, saying that it should be controlled by the Gram Sansadand that the demand should be raised for more economic and administrative powers, like to forest revenue, stone and sand, along with control over the police. He maintains that the Maoists are for only one Party rule and will not tolerate any others. Some have gone even to the extent of equating the counter-violence of the masses and Maoists against the CPM armed goons and police informers with the terror of the CPM.

Answer 2: We are not here to condone any acts of behavior by the Maoists that maybe undemocratic/ sectarian in dealing with other non-Maoist and genuinely progressive forces, no matter what their limitations. These may invariably exist, though they should be avoided, in building up any united front activities. Yet, class struggle at the ground level is complex and not as linear as the intellectuals expect it to go. 

Yet, in the Maoist appeals to the intellectuals or even in the Open Letter to Santosh Rana the approach is definitely democratic and patient (not impetuous as it often can be). Even when it is clear that Santosh Rana was aligning with dangerous, counter-revolutionary forces the tone was explanatory and asking that he come out of his errors.

Having said this, let us take the issue of democracy as this word has been much vulgarized by not only the imperialists and their henchmen but also the NGOs who oppose communist party organizational norms in the name of democracy. So let us explain the issue. We shall first look at the term first from the political angle and then from the organizational angle.

First, to take the issue of democracy in the political sense. Here democratic forces mean all anti-imperialist, anti-feudal forces. So, any democratic front must include all such forces and not just those following the Party’s view-point. This is the ideal; but, at the ground reality the ideal rarely exists. What exists is, at the one end you get the revolutionary forces and at the other the reactionary forces, while in between there may be various shades of progressive forces, which have to be assessed, from time to time, on their attitude towards the ongoing anti-imperialist, anti-feudal class struggle. 

One allies with all those who overall play a positive attitude in the class struggle at any given time. But, as the class struggle intensifies, the line of demarcation becomes sharper between the real democrats and those vacillating; so, often at such times, many forces that were progressive in the earlier phase of the class struggle, desert the movement at a later phase; some may become neutral, others may even begin to oppose it.

Generally, as Mao said, one has to isolate and expose the die-hards and try and win over the rest to an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal front.

Now what are the forces that the Aneek and Shramjivi expect unity with? First, they call for unity with the BJMM, the traditional organization of adivasis in the area. These are led by the traditional leaders of the adivasis, who have been oppressors of their own people, and in this period of globalization have become stooges of the rulers.

Except for the fortnight or so in Nov.2008 when the movement against police atrocities began, they have stood in vehement opposition to the movement and as agents of the CPM (clear from the article in People’s Democracy, official organ of the CPM, dated Dec.14, 2008 by Prasant). 

This was also clear in their conscious role in hounding the Maoists, opposing the mass movement and acting as tools of the police/CPM, clearing the roadblocks put up by the masses.

Next, is the large number of Jharkhandi groups. It is not only important what they profess, but their attitude to the on-going class struggle must be assessed. 

In the open letter to Santosh Rana from CPI (Maoist) it was pointed out that some of those groups were acting together with the CPM’s vigilante forces. As far as the others are concerned they would be assessed by their attitude and role in the ongoing class struggle.

Now, let us turn to the other aspect, on the question of democracy in organizational matters. Serious class struggle necessitates not only democratic functioning but also a high level of discipline. The discipline should not be imposed but through self-realization. And real democracy can only be realized if it is democratic centralism where no matter what may be our personal view we are willing to accept the decision of the majority. NGOs are vehemently opposed to democratic centralism and compare it with some sort of fascist methods. Though leaders can often abuse the powers they have (whatever the structures), what the NGOs promote is anarchism below and unquestioned authority of the leader (normally the funder) whose decisions are final.

In fact in all other organizations, those who control the funds, controls the organization and all decision-making. Here too, normally there is a show of democracy, with everyone being allowed to present their views, but these are rarely considered by the final authority. So, also is the anarchism of Santosh Rana, when he says “Even if five people have a different view they must be allowed to speak otherwise it will lead to a different type of terror. And he equates this ‘terror’ with CPM-style terror.” Very true they must be allowed to speak, but how must these five acts — according to their own wishes, or that of the majority? This is not clear, but he goes to the extent of calling this, a form of terror. 

What in fact he is demanding is nothing but bourgeois individualism and anarchic functioning and any form of disciple is being equated with terror. 

What a communist opposes and despises is the vulgar and crude individualism promoted in this bourgeois society (which has been taken to extreme levels in this globalization period); what we promote is the development of the individuality of all comrades, which can best be realized in a cooperative atmosphere where comrades assist and help each other.

Aneek asks whether the Maoists can give a democratic character to the movement; and in the five questions to the Maoists at the end it says ‘the pressure tactics on all other political forces proves that the Maoists lack the sense of democracy”. 

The essence of democracy in the sphere of organization, would be here on how and to what extent we are able to mobilize the oppressed masses and raise them to levels of leadership. For the bulk of the masses deprived of all humanity and rights for decades the essence of democracy starts with their self-respect and the assertion of their rights — not cowed down by the dictates of any leader or authority (except that of the collective).

This assertion of the downtrodden, which is the essence of democracy, comes with their education, awareness, realization of their own abilities and rights, a comradely atmosphere in the mass organization and the Party, a democratic relationship between the rank-and-file and the leadership, etc, etc. Such will be the main aspect of democracy in the organizational sphere. Over and above this, one must be patient with those forces who have a positive approach to the ongoing class struggle, but have different views from that of the Maoists. But for Aneek to make the latter the central point of the very movement appears to be misguided.

Of course, Santosh Rana has come a long way from the revolutionary programme. In the Shramjeevi article he talks not about changing the system but seeking to improve its functioning. He puts in bold that ‘it should beremembered that none other than the elected bodies, based on universal franchise can take over the political authority”. So, here he talks of democratizing and strengthening the existing panchayat system. 

And he has presented many concrete proposals for this. Rana must realize that all organs of the state, no matter which, must necessarily serve the class interests of that state. With such a constitutionalist approach it is no wonder that Rana has come out with all fury against the Maoists whose agenda is not strengthening these organs of ruling class authority (the panchayats too get dominated by the semi-feudal type authority witnessed in society and that is further strengthened by their links to the government and their schemes/ contracts) but smashing it and replacing it with the power of the peasant committee slowly developing into the Revolutionary People’s Committees. Santosh Rana has to re-think where he stands vis-à-vis the revolutionary programme for genuine democratic change.

Misconception 3: The Maoists have hijacked a beautiful spontaneous mass movement and their role is destroying it and is counter productive.

Answer 3: The reality is that with the Maoist counter-offensive the mass movement has continued and grown. All the dooms-day forecasts of the intellectuals have proved wrong. This fact needs to be recognized by them and the reasons for their wrong assessments need to be analyzed. Of course in the face of massive state terror there may be ups and downs in a movement, but in this case we have seen growth despite the onslaught. Also the forms of struggle often have to change.

But here, the judicious mix of armed actions and mass mobilization (with traditional weapons) has been an excellent example on how to counter the worst forms of state terror. Though it may be true that the movement was a spontaneous outburst against state terror, the fact that the Maoists have been working in this region for over a decade cannot be ignored, and that they had no role to play in the uprising.

Aneek goes as negative as to state: Before the outset of this adivasi revolt there was no significant mass movement led by the Maoists, even after many years of work. Maoist Party had initially a peasant organization but after armed activities the peasant organization died. 

This pitting the armed activities against mass organizational activities has become a traditional method of opposing the intensification of the class struggle. The reality is that any peacefully struggle, even a small trade union struggle, is faced with onslaught of goons of the malik and then the police. Anyone who has worked among the masses knows this. Due to the inability to face this violence of the state and non-state forces, we find, of late, all mass mobilization even of the legal trade union type, failing and the masses going into passivity.

It is only when the masses and their leadership are equipped to crush the goons (may be of the factory owner, the semi-feudal landed elements, the government or any party) and then the police, that the class struggle can sustain and victories be achieved. It is only then that the masses will get confidence in their organized strength. So, to counter pose the two is not only absurd it displays a deep ignorance of the ground reality of our country, expecting some democratic rights, like say in Europe.

Particularly, since the past decade, it has been very clear the state is not tolerating any mass mobilization, let alone those led by the Maoists — except those that are consciously manipulated to let off people’s anger. Can Aneek and others who also talk in the same vein, give even one recent example of a peaceful mass mobilization which was effective and gave the desired results? And with each passing day, with the deepening of the crisis, such peaceful forms of struggle are going to get more and more irrelevant.

Whether it is the displacement issue, the attacks on labour, the issues of the peasantry, the land struggles of the landless and poor peasants, the issues for water, the issue of wages, the issue of permanency, the issues against caste oppression and dalit lynching, etc, etc — except for maybe some exception, where have there been any successful peaceful agitation on any of these burning issues of the masses!!! Why has the offense of capital not been beaten back?

The so-called democratic space is tolerated so long as the movements are no threat — like, standard processions at Jantar Mantar, rallies to parliament (within limits), etc, etc. Such struggles may be necessary but, more important, is the ability to intensify the class struggle to beat back the offensive on the masses. It must have practical results not just be nominal or ceremonial. Such mass mobilization is only useful if it is a process of gaining strength which will culminate in more affective battles — not if they are repeated in a routine way year-in-and year-out.

This reality is obvious to any who are sensitive to the plight of the poor and oppressed and do not have their visions blinkered by revisionist (supposedly Marxist) theory. In its desperation to draw a dichotomy between the mass movement and the Maoist Party, Aneek seeks to turn even the reality on its head by ignoring the impact of the Maoists would have had through hard and consistent work in the area for over a decade, in the face of the worst repression by the armed gangs of the CPM and the police.

 To deny this reality on the imagined basis that the Maoists had no success, till now, is naïve, as it is by only painstaking work on a step-by-step basis that quantitative growth lead to a qualitative leap in the movement. After all, one does not get a tree to bloom and yield fruits overnight after planting the seed. The initial sapling needs much care only then it will grow into a sturdy tree. Lalgarh, no doubt, seems to be developing into a sturdy tree as its roots appear deeply imbedded in the hearts of the masses.

Weaknesses of the C.P.I.(Maoist)

Below is an excerpt from intellectual  Tilak Gupta.

Inspite of expansion to new ares  and remarkable increase in military capabilities and striking power,it faces a political –organizational crisis of sorts.Their goals of ‘building a mighty mass movement against imperialism”, isolating and defeating “dangerous Hindu fascist forces’ and ‘building a powerful urban movement, particularly of the working-class are as elusive as ever.

Deprived of  Legal and open opportunities for propaganda and agitation they find it extremely dificulat to launch large-scale mass movements and demonstration seven in ares where they still have considerable support.

And at a more theoretical level,the inadequacies of their programme  and strategic-tactical line in coping with the complex Indian reality in changed international situation must be slowly becoming clearer to them in the course of their arduous struggle over the years.

For instance, a re-look at the agrarian scenario would reveal  that the typical Indian countryside is neither Dandkaranya nor Sarnada  forest and the question of wage,year-round employment  and disastrous anti-farmer poilices under W.T.O. framework are increasingly competing with the land issue to catch political attention.If the naxalites,including the C.P.I.(Maoist),have been the staunchest allies so far of those landles underdogs  threated by starvation in backward regions,now comes the challenge to take up the issue of suicides by landed farmers as well ina purposeful way.

Whoever tried to separate Charu Mazumdar from Naxalbari, had practically separated themselves from the path of Naxalbari.

In this essay I wish to reflect on his positive contribution and critically portray his stature.


One of the hardest debates today is whether to recognize the formation of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) Till 2004 the C.P.I.(M.L) peoples wra hands down upheld it and classified de-recognizing as counter-revolutionary.This was the stand of the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.).Erstwhile groups like the Maoist Communist Centre and Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India did not uphold it. The principal reason for these forces to reject it was the left adventurist line abandoning mass organizations and not recognizing the converging revolutionary forces around it.Comrade T.Nagi Redy and D.V.Rao were expelled from the All India Coordination Commitee of Communist revolutionaries.

They opposed boycott as a strategic slogan and the calling China's chairman our chairman.Later after the 1970 formation comrades like Souren Bose and Sushital roy Choudhary attempted to combat this line of Charu and to some extent Suniti Kumar Ghosh.We have to analyze whether it's formation had some beneficial aspects.For instance the role it played in expanding or giving life to the Srikakakulam movement before it was beset by left adventurism.

It also shook some plain regions of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as well as inspired youth in Punjab.Probably without it's inspiration Andhra Pardesh Radical Students s Union in 1973 and Virasam in 1970 would not have been formed,even if the party line officially called for ban of mass organizations.Kondappal Seetharamiah himself was a member of the C.P.I.(M.L.)Morally T.Nagi Reddy or D.V.Rao did not advocate stages theory and were preparing an area to create armed struggle.Left adventurism thwarted their bid to created people's armed struggle.

Whoever tried to separate Charu Mazumdar from Naxalbari, had practically separated themselves from the path of Naxalbari.

In this essay I wish to reflect on his positive contribution and critically portray his stature.

Charu Mazumdar was the pioneer in demarcating from Khruschevite revisionism and upholding the torch of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought(now Maoism).This year we commemorate 50 years since Charu Mazumdar started writing his famous 8 documents in 1965.They Sowed the seeds for the line and formation of the re-organized Communist Party.

In 1965,he wrote his first five documents.

On 28th January 1965 C.M wrote the first of his eight documents which analyzed the present and International Situation , how Communists were being arrested ,and how to build the revolutionary party. ( STUDY EIGHT DOCUMENTS HERE)

Within September 1965 he wrote 4 more documents.In the 2nd document summed up the experience of struggles of the Tebhaga.In the third document he analyzed the favourable post world war 2 situation and the failure of the Communist party to utilise it.

He also discussed the agrarian revolution taking lessons from the past and propagated armed struggle.
In a fourth document he covered the forms of organization and struggles combating revisionism and explained the concrete manifestations of revisionism.

In a fifth document he exposed the revisionist character of the C.P.I.(M.).who upheld Khruschevism and opposed path of armed struggle.

These 5 documents sowed the seeds of the glorious Naxalbari Struggle. Later in his 6th document in 1966 gave the call to organize anti-revisionist struggle and exposed the capitulation of the C.P.M.

In his 7th document he gave a call to the workers, peasants and middle-class youths to work to initiate armed struggle and seize political power.Finally in his eighth document he wrote on the tasks of the peasantry to form liberated areas in the countryside and exposed the class collaborationist policies of the C.P.I.(M.L.) through the united front govt.

It is also the 45th anniversary of the 8th Congress of the C.P.I.(M.L.) held in May 1970 which defined the party programme. It was the 1st time in history that an all-india Communist party upheld the programme of protracted peoples war path’ and classified India as a ‘semicolonial and semi-feudal ‘ society.
A very complex study is whether we uphold the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) Or not.

I am posting some excerpts of writings from 'Voice of the Vanguard in 1997 .I feel at the time of the unity into anew party there should have been amore thorough going analyiss on this aspect rather than announcing that the party had been re-organized.I am not running down erstwhile MCC.or PW.groups but feel there is atheoretical weakness when analyzing the question of re-organized party.

Historian shave to anlyze whether massline was violated before May 1970 Conference or in A.I.CC.R.period iteslf.Did the party collapse only because of C.M's assasination"Did the party loose it's grip from 1969 itself?

Maoist Communist Centre on par with C.P.I.(M.L.) ?
To me it is a distortion that M.C.C had the same stature as the C.P.I.(M.L.) or equated at the same level.

Historically can Kondapalli Setharamiah be placed at the same stature of Charu Mazumdar or Ganpathy?Putting Kanhaiu Chatterjee on par with comrade Charu Mazumdar is erroneous as Professor Amit N Bhattachrya analysed.

Excerpts from Voice of the Vanguard -July -October 1997
I am reproducing this for cadres to analyze the question of party historically.Here the C.P.I(M.L) Peoples War group refutes an article by Maoist Communist Centre understimating or undervaluing contribution nad role of the C.P.I.(M.L.) formed in 1969.

The views and criticism of the M.C.C. on C.P.I.(M.L.) are non-dialectical,one-sided and distorted.

It refutes the article of erstwhile Maoist Comunist Centre being critical of formation of C.P.I.(M.L.) and denying it's historical role.

The M.C.C.upheld Naxalbari but denied the historic role of C.P.I.(M.L.)It reiterated the historic significance of it's formation,the objective necessities of it's formation and the role it played in summing up Naxalbari and other armed peasnt movements.It also underplayed the role of Comrdae Charu Mazumdar.

In MCC's view C.P.I.(M.L.) was not a natural culmination of Naxalbari.

In fact my personal view is that the Maoist Comunist Centre never had the historical a statuture of the C.P.I.(ML) formed in 1969 In fact the C.P.I.(Maoist) is not the re-organized Communist [party but a major component of the party to be re-organized.

I also disagree that after the PW-PU merger in 1998 into C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War,the original C.P.I.(M.L) was re-organized.The 2204 merger of MCC and PW group was principalled but I do not still a tribute it the status of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.)Historically for 18 years the PWG tooth and nail defended the re-organization of the 1960 C.P..I.(M.L).

CP.I.(M.L)played a great role in the great upsurge that swept the countryside in the wake of naxalbari and the heroic battles of the peasantry to seize political power for the 1st time in Indian history.,in Srikakulam,Birbhum, Musahari, Lakhimpur Kheri Gopiballavpur and centers in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh.Can we obliterate these glorious struggles of the seventies which wrote a golden chapter in the annals of the Indian people's struggles for emancipation and can we deny the role of C.P.I.(M.L.) in initiating and advancing the first ever conscious effort to build peoples war,red army and base areas?

In fact in Srikakulam hundreds of villages were liberated giving birth to 'red ares' as a result of conscious effort under the leadership of C.P.I.(M.L.).Can we deny this great heritage which was nothing but development and culmination of the agrarian revolution that started from Naxalbari

Without C.P.I.(M.L.) could these struggles reach the heights where they had reached creating history in Indian revolution?

Can we advance the agrarian revolution today if we fail to take positive lessons from these glorious struggles.Defending C.P.I.(M.L.) is the question of upholding the great heritage of Naxalbari itself which cannot be sepertaed ffrom the party formation.

 True ,he made serious errors calling for 'annihilation of the class enemy ' and for the 'disbandment of mass organizations.'However certain sections of the Communist camp villify his great contributions and only expose his errors.

Although critical of gross mistakes the Andhra Pradesh state commitee led by Kondappali Seetharamiah and the C.O.C.(M.L.) upheld the programme of the 1970Congress .Later the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war and Party Unity sections also upheld it. Although critical of left adventurism comrades like Sushital Roy Choudary, Suniti Kumar Ghosh ,Kondappali Seetharamiah and Darshan Singh Dushanj upheld the positive aspect of Comrade C.M.

Even a revolutionary punjabi jounal 'Surkh Rekha' upheld his contribution in 1993 and in 2014 which also upheld Comrade T.Nagi Reddy.In the same article in 1993 it upheld the contributions.of Comrade C.M.and T.N. Forming a new party in 2004 did not mean rejecting the contribution of CharuMazumdar.Morally Charu Mazumdar led the Naxalbari struggle and later groups like PWG or PU always though critically,swore by his name.

Significant that degenerated or revisionist Marxist -Leninist groups reject Majumdar.

Today groups like Red Star have villified the party programme of the 1970 Congress while the Kanu Sanyal C.P.I.(M.L.) does not uphold C.M's revolutionary contribution.Red Star Group has distorted the 1970 party programme by advocating ‘neocolonial era ‘ and ‘’path of peoples democratic revolution.’

It was Comrade Mao Tse Tung who himself endorsed the 1970 party Congress programme.
The 1970 C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Congress programme set the base for the later struggle of the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War group, Party Unity Group and the present C.P.I.(Maoist) ,of course with amendments. In the 1995 C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War Conference and the 2001 9th party Congress(actually 2nd of C.P.I-M.L.) the 1970 Congress party programme was upheld and a portrait of Charu Mazumdar was garlanded.

Both these conferences were termed as a continuation or sequence of the 8th party Congress held in 1970 and thus the events were termed as the 9th Congress. Even the unity Congress of the C.P.I.(Maoist) in February 2007 called it’s event as a continuation or step from the 8th Congress of May 1970.It must be stated that earlier in the late 1990’s the erstwhile Maoist Communist Centre was critical of Charu Mazumdar and the C.P.I.(M.L.) formed in 1969...

However when the C.P.I.(Maoist) was formed it unanimously recognized it and the verdict was reached that 2 parties were formed the C.P.I.(M.L.) and the Maoist Communist Centre. In the earlier decades C.P.I.(M.L.)Peoples War Group was critical of M.C.C.not joining the C.P.I.(M.L.) while M.C.C claimed that the conditions for formation of the party did not exist and it was hastily formed. In this context we should also study the analysis of T.Nagi Reddy,D.V.Rao ,Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Commitee of Communist Revolutionaries, and the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L.) which analyses that only when the final party is formed can unanimity be reached on the question of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L).

I do not think it was correct to conclude that the C.P.I.(M.L.) was re-organized with the PU-PW meger into C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war or that the party was re-organized with the formation of the C.P.I.(Maoist).Maoist Communist Centre did not join the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L) but that dies not give it the same stature as the C.P.I.(M.L.) .M.C.C.I.had the same status as the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war .party.

True Charu Mazumdar was wrong in calling the entire bourgeoise as comprador’, abandoning mass organizations and movements, calling ‘China’s chairman,our chairman’,advocating ‘annihilation of the class enemy’,considering ‘boycott of election’as a strategic slogan , ‘Guerrilla warfare’ as the only means of struggle, ‘that a revolutionary situation existed in every nook and corner of India’ etc. Such slogans reflected doctrinarism and not Marxism.

Authoritarianism, bureaucratism or egoism was prevalent and mass line was violated..However it was C.M’s very efforts that sowed the seeds of the demarcation of revisionism and the upholding of Mao Tse Tung thought in India. Quoting 1983 Liberation organ of C.T.C.P.I.(M.L.) “Proper evaluation of Comrade C.M. has not yet been done on the basis of dialectics of historical materialism,which requires a thorough study of his writings and deeds.

It requires time for such research of his writings and deeds. Thus we do no deem it proper to make any irresponsible comment on C.M.,even if a rectification of his errors is necessary. Comrade C.M.’s main line of thinking was not isolated but evolved through the process and development of 2-line struggle inside the C.P.I.and C.P.M.,who were concurrent with the 2 line struggle in the international arena ,particularly the great debate. Comrade C.M. tirelessly fought against class collaborationist line of the revisionists and waged bitter fight not only in theoretical field but practical field.

Thus he was under continuous suppression by revisionist forces.” Arguably Lin Biaoist line had it's effect on Mazumdar's ideology in the period from 1967-72..

We must all read the interview of Zhou En Lai by Souren Bose in 1970 critical of C.P.I.(M.L.)’s policies but also remember the tension prevailing because of Lin Biaoist line.
In yesteryears the erstwhile Central Team faction always called for the re-uniting of the central Commitee formed at the 1970 C.P.I.(M.L.) 8TH Party Congress. The erstwhile U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) of Nagi Reddy and D.V.Rao.did not give Comrade CM the appraisal he deserved .

In the view of he new organization

"The Central Leadership of the C.P.I(M.L)failed to resolve correctly certain questions of policy regarding mass line ,military line and style of work. Instead of devicing correct CT Marxist Leninist policies in the light of objective analysis, the cental leadership started divicing such policies subjectively. Consequently our revolution receive setrbacks.The Central leadership gradually deviated from the very ideological foundation of the party.

They revealed a sectarian, individualist and bureaucratic trend. The failed to mobiles all the sincere C.R's in he party,through ideological persuasion and political struggle. Although the 8th Congress of the C.P.I(M.L),boldly drew a clear line of demarcation between Marxism and Revisionsism, upheld the correct general orientation and path of Indian Revolution, yet adopted certain left adventurist policies on the questions of mass and military line.It asserted that mass struggles and mass movements wee indispensable and that the principal contradiction was that between feudalism and the broad masses.

It is significant that later in their April 1993 issue of Liberation they wrote, 'The C.P.I(M.L) had failed to understand the significance of consistent struggle of ideological, political nature within the party and outside for further quantitative and qualitative consolidation of revolutionary forces in and around he C.P.I(M.L)Early success led them to sectarian politics and organizational authoritarianism.They failed to realize the significance of consistent struggle in each and every activity of party leadership brought forth from C.PI.and C.P.M. Revolutionary broadness and flexibility was replaced by authoritarian principles .The leadership failed to realize the dimension of the converging process of revolutionaries in and around the party. Opportunist onslaught within the party gave rise to organisational centralism.

The Central Team however upheld the formation of the C.P.I(M.L)in 1969.Quting their journal, "The heroic ideological struggle through concrete actions leading to armed agrarian upsurge by the peasntry ,the main force of revolution gave birth to the re-organised Communist Party-the Communist Party of India(Marxist Leninist)In 30 years the party has split into several fractions.Some of them claim to be he party while others operate as part of the paty.Many Communist revolutinaries are divided in these gropups.

There has been failure of Communist Revolutionaries to evaluate correctly the original/correct formulation on which the structure of he party was built.The time is most suited for the true communist Revolutinaries to merge with he whole.i.e.with the "C.P.I.M.L". and form the centre to take up the responsibility of the Indian Revolution which is New Demoratic and principally an armed agrarian revolution.

We must establish the monlolithic Centre of democratic centralism which was lost after 1972.9

When the original C.P.I.M.L disintegrated)The All India Revolutionary Centre(re-esatablish the 8th Central Committee) of the party must be re-established."

The above document is significant as there was once a conflicting viewpoint on thr formation of the party in 1969.Groups like Peoples War Group,Party Unity or C.R.C upheld it unchalengingly,while factions like Maoist Communist Centre ,Chandra Pulla Reddy Group,U.C.C.R.I.(M.L0' OF Nagi Reddy opposed it. Today the C.P.I.(Maoist) concludes that there were 2 founding parties the Maoist Communist Center and the Charu Mazumdar led C.P.I(M.L).

Significantly the erstwhile Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.) which upheld C.M. critically merged with the C.C.R.I in 1994 which upheld the line of Nagi Reddy. into the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L. )Like Maoist Communist Centre steams remained outside the C.P.I.(M.L.) like the Chandra Pulla Reddy or Nagi Reddy factions but that does not mean we downplay the validity of the historical role played by Charu Mazumdar.

We must be critical of the sectarianism of the C.P.I.(M.L) of 1969 in preventing other Maoist revolutionary forces from joining it and endorse the views of T.Nagi Reddy ,D.V.Rao etc on it’s major errors..