Thursday, June 8, 2017

Celebrating 50 Years since Naxalbari : Deviations of Revisionist Trend in the Communist Revolutionary Camp Part 9 by Harsh Thakor



Today within India there are some sections that although have rightist tendencies make a positive contribution while there are others that are totally revisionist.C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation is completely revisionist.C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Star may not be revisionist but is not a genuine part of the communist revolutionary camp today.

Here I am summarizing the rightist and revisionist currents.


In the rightist camp,the most progressive or militant organization is the C.P.I.(M.L.) New Democracy.

It has it’s roots in the line of Comrade Chandra Pulla Reddy and the right-deviationsit Satya Narayan Singh.

Today this group contests elections and does often function openly but stil in areas it has built important struggles and is sharpening people’s agitations.

It also even with differences defends the C.P.I.(Maoist) and more thany any group in rightist stream comes out to defend them.

It has done outstanding work in Sangrur in Punjab in organizing the landless Dalit peasantry for fighting for 1/3rd land share in panchayat.

In the last year it has built a major organized movement organizing landless dalits and have bravely thwarted the connivance of the landlord-police machinery.In  a most sustained way resistance has been launched aginst the jat or landlord elements and in areas like Badri Kalan,Jhaneri and Jaloor important victorie shave been won.It is a landmark struggle .

Argubaly it is the best work done amongst dalit landless labourers in the revolutionary camp in Punjab.It has the strongest mass base amongst all the communist revolutionary groups amongst the students and youth in Punjab.I was present in 2 of their mass meetings of dalit agricultural labourers which ranked amongst some of my most memorable experiences ever.

It also organized an allIndia peasant organization conference in Allahabad in April 2016 highlighting all the ingredients for the New Democrtaic Revolution.Rarely in India at an all India level has one witnessed such a strong peasnt gathering.Participants came from mnay states like Telengana,Andhra Pradesh,Bihar,Jharkhand,Punjba,Mahrashtra,Orissa etc.It was a testimony to the work done openly.It has also most consistently through it’s platfor Jankatshep organized seminars and public meetings condeming state repression communal-fasism,globalistion,repression in Kashmir etc more than any group in Delhi.

On trade Union front it has waged many struggles in several states encompassing West Bengal.Punjab,Andhra Pradesh,Bihar,Delhi and Orissa.It has more roots in urban areas than any group within the cr camp in India.

It also regularly brings out a party organ ‘New Democracy’ and consistently defends position s n state repression inKashmir,Operation Green hunt, China and Socialist U.S.S.R.,Agrarian revolution etc.Even if not carrying armed struggle it gives moral support to the Maoists be it in Chattisgarh,Telengana or Orissa.It also has mass organization sin mnay parts of the country be it Delhi,U.P.,Bihar,Andhra Pradesh .

I met it’s secretary Yatindra Kumar in Delhi  ,who had a very balanced view on most aspects.and fair to the other groups as a whole.Displayed general humility which I liked.He defended important positions of the Communist Movement articulately ,particularly G.P.C.R. and stressed on the importance of the Leninist-Maoist vanguard party concept,stating that in the transition phase to communism it wasa necessity.

Otherwise it would be ‘going back to Marx and not understanding developments of Lenin and Mao’,in his view.I was impressed with his sound theoretical understanding.He also stated that today the Maoist party is not implementing the  ‘individual anihilation’line of Charu Mazumdar and made great rectification.

However he was critical of the Maoist’s work and the erstwhile peoples war group work in the plains and felt that their struggle was one-sided in Dandkaranya.He also advocated that a proletarian  party could function in the open banner.Illustratively defended resistance struggle as formulated by Chandra Pulla Reddy and felt that erstwhile C.P.I(M.L.) Peoples War group  in Telengana area could not aply the mass line concept.Felt that the erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity group,a constituent of the Maoist party practised the resistance line similar to that of Chandra Pulla Reddy.He also felt that it was not the PPW concept that the C.P.R.C.I.-M.L was applying in Punjab,athough he admired their work.Admirs his modesty when he stated that no line has still proved correct.He felt comrade Satyanarayan Singh’s self-criticism was sound which I diasagree with,.

However I appreciated his understanding of different conditions  in plain areas in Bihar and Jharkand from Andhra or Telengana and his mutual praise and criticism of the C.P.I(Maoist).He even admired their work in era of C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war during clashes feeling that it proved it’s potential.

Still I feel they are using defective tactics by deploying candidates beforea genuine proletarian  party is formed which gives backseat to the agrarian revolution and in openly projecting the party banner which exposes the party forces.These tactics or practices dilute the genuine mass movement sor organizations and promote economism.To emerge into a major revolutionary force the organization should refrain from openly projecting party banner and sending candidates to contest elections.It should also be self-critical of the rightist Satyanarayan Singh trend.

Quoting an important stand of the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.) in 1993 "Some forces, in the name of taking opportunity of open activity make the whole party apparatus work openly I the name of the party, and organize mass programs and movements under the party banner. They fail to understand that the task of the party is to lead the masses in the path of protracted Peoples War. Only when masses come to realize the party politics through day to day movements. class struggles under the revolutionary leadership of the party, then only the party forces, can move like a fish in water of masses, even when they have become completely exposed.

Any short-cut system of building closer association with the people by presenting the party banner and identity will open the whole party forces to the enemies. The reaction ill remain superficial. The revolutionary party presents itself directly and openly to the masses in it's own ways and actions but dose not expose it's cadres to the enemies. Revolutionary methodology must be adopted to lead the masses and present the party.Consistent work must be done in leading the masses in their struggles and organizations."


JUNE 2016
The landless dalit agricultural workers in Punjab face the wrath of social tyranny and social boycott.

Although they need the support of the landed peasantry they crucially need an organization of their own and a movement representing it's demands.

A successful protest was launched in the state of Punjab led by the Zameen Prapt Sangharsh committee and the Pendu Mazdoor union and supported by the Naujwan Bharat Sabha and Pendu Mazdoor union.

It created the sensation of a spark turning into a prairie fire or several streams converging into an ocean.

The hearts of the landless agricultural workers argued like a tornado erupting opposing their tormentation.

The main demand was for 1/3rd right in the Panchayat.

As i had earlier written the demands of dalit labourers after  for minumim wage of rs 500,work all the year around,plots of 5 marlas of land to every family ,1/3 right in every panchayat,proper toilet and medical facilities,

Today around 3500 people congregated in Sangrur district,around 1500 in Jalandhar and about 1500 in Moga.Accordin to Naujwan Bhrat Sabha and ZPSC activist Rupinder Saingh Chuanda of Malerkotla village the rally was a resounding success in awakening consciousness with the message taken far and across.

It is a stepping stone towards success and if the demands were not met within a week the protest would be re-launched.

Earlier heroic protests  were led against arrest of activists a week ago.

Police had arrested the ZPSC leader PIRTHI LONGOWAL while he was going from his village to another village to attend a meeting related to 7th June rally .

Police and state want to make the movement leaderless ahead of 7 june rally.

In village Guwara (Teh Malerkota Sangrur)Earlier ZPSC leader  SURJAN SINGH JHANERI  was arrested and sent to jail by police for spearheading movement of dalits to get their constitutional right on land.

Goons of ruling akali dal and rich landowners of the village and from adjoining villages attacked the dalits with the connivance of civil administration .

There were 130-150 goons. In this attack several persons associated with ZPSC were injured and admitted to hospital.

After this attack peoples protested in front of Amargarh police station and demanded  the arrest of culprits in this attack. ZPSC condemn this attack and continue this struggle.

In village Bharo (District Sangrur) Dalits are successful under the leadership of ZPSC to get the lease of land at 20000 per year at concessional rate after struggle. people got the 27.5 acres of land that belong to them and where co-operative farming will be practiced.

It must be mentioned that prevailing market rate for ONE ACRE LAND lease is 40000-50000.

Struggle will continue to lower the lease rate. In Village Khokar district Sangrur Dalits farmers are able the secure the land lease at 13000 per acre that is reserved for it last year it was leased at 21000 per acre. Govt moved back from its stand that lease prices will not be slashed.

 It is a victory of Dalits organized under ZPSC

In second place Village Bohpur sangrur Dalits also secured land lease at 18000 per month while prevailing market price is 45000-50000. it is also couple of thousands less than last year.

The success of protest was result of meticuluos ,painstaking work of activists of Naujwan Bharat Sabha and Pendu Mazdur Union.,literally lighting red lamps all over.Heartening to witness the participation of women .

The support of youth and student forces is also of political significance.

Overall one has to give great credit to the party forces of C.P.I.(M.L.) New Democracy for this event.

It is a lesson in how mass preparations and struggles are such an important component in a revolutionary movement.

The struggle reflects a general protracted nature with continuous swings.

The democratic protests against arrest of activists is of great importance.

The  arrest of important activists is an aspect to how the govt treats genuine democratic movements.

It must receive the applause of all democratic sections.
The landless dalit agricultural workers in Punjab face the wrath of social tyranny and social boycott.

Although they need the support of the landed peasantry they crucially need an organization of their own and a movement representing it's demands.

July 21st 2016



History was made in sangrur on July 20th in Punjab which staged one if the greatest gatherings of Dalit agricultural workers ever in the history of India.

It was like witnessing a hurricane or a candlelight turning into a bonfire or several streams converging into an ocean.

We must all praise  the heroic preparations of Naujwan Bharat Sabha ,Punjab students union and Zameen Prapt Sangharsh committee.10000 people mobilized with 80 percent Dalits.Sangrur grain market literally looked lit with red lamps with revolutionary fervour at its highest zenith.

I was privileged to participate in one of the greatest ever gatherings in the revolutionary movement of Punjab.

 A Spark was turned into a prairie fire and the market in Sangrur looked like a bonfire.An inspiration to the whole world today .Rights of 1/3 right in panchayat ,release of NBS Secretary Longowal and many Zpsc activists were raised. Tribute to painstaking work of NBS and PSU as well as ZPSC. 80 percent of participants were Dalits.out of 10000.

History was made today in one of the best ever protests for the Dalit community in the history of India.Such was the spirit within the participants that it looked as though they were illuminating a huge red torch.

ZPSC and Kitri Kisan Union held a rally and surrounded the DC office in sangrur. Due the the pressure of organization civil administration arranged a meeting with CM Prakas Singh Badal tomorrow in Barnala.

ZPSC said there demands are not met then , they will launch a state wide stir. And ZPSC will occupy the Panchayaati Zammens of their share. And Badal's Sanghat Darshan will be opposed in villages and he have to run away from villages.

And the Crop that was sown by big land owners on Panchatati zameen , the land belongs to Dalits will be uprooted. And possessing of land that belongs to dalits will be taken. And indefinite Dharna will be started in front of DC office.

In today's protest IFTU, NBS, BKU (Ughara), IGM, PSU, Krantikari PMU, Punjab khet Mazdoor Union, Punjab Kissan Union , Jamhoori Adhikaar Sabha, Desh Bhagat Yadgar committe , and other organizations joined the rally. .200 participants came from Jaloor,180 from Guva pindi,180 from badri kalan,150 from Pudur,150 from Garachoand 190 from Bhatiwana .Particpants also came from villages like Akbarpur,Narengadh,Kangarh,Maji,Serapur,Shahpur,Alwarh Khedi and many other villages.

Above all it boosted the morale of the dalit landless comunity of Punjab in gaining emancipation from bondage.The rally laid the grounding for a major lanndless dalit labourers movement all over the state.

The rally first assembled at the fruit miadan where many leaders made speeches like Zora Sngh Nazrali of PMKU,Joginder Singh Ugrahan of BKU(Ugrahan),Bhola Singh of Punjab Kisan Union,Aman Deol of Women's consciousness front,Namdee Bhuta of Association for Democratic Rights ,Raminder Singh of NBS Hardev Singh Sandhu of Kirti Kisan Union and Kulwinder Singh  Waraich of indian federation of trade unions  etc.

The present ruling govt was compared with the regime of ruthless Moghul emperor Aurangzeb.After 3 hours at about 3.00 p.m the rally assembled to march towards the District Adminstration office and reached there in an hour.The participants expressed relentless fury at the stage.

The rally in addition to rights for 13rd in panchyat demanded that the remaining 2/3rd would go to peasants owning not more than 4 acres of land.Today generally the landed jat peasantry is antagonistic or hostile towards the dalit community not only because of inherent culture but because it wishes to extract it's labour.

The dalits now are more determined than ever in Sangrur to proclaim their rights and this rally has instilled greater political consciousness.

What was also heartening was that about half the participants were women whose spirit emblazoned the scenario.It's message could spread like wildfire all over the state and promote other district 's movements.

Today at 100.a.m the chief minister started looking at the demands.Further repression is expected in ares of struggle in villages in Sangrur and before the rally police attacked ,arrested and raided houses of ZPSC leaders.

Heartening that participants came from other districts of Punjab like Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Patiala,Jalandhar etc.

About 200 people came from Jalandhar and Patiala.Also trade union sections like Indian Federation of Trade Unions also gave support and Electricity workers union.

Repression will continue and the Dalit community and leaders have to be prepared to thwart attacks of landlords and politicians.full. Marks to CPI ml new democracy group whose mass organizations made a turning point in the history of movement I spoke to convenor mukesh auladh today of the zpsc and he was very positive await cooperation and support worldwide .
24th November 2016



One of Punjab's most effective rallies ever fighting for justice for the landless dalits ever in Punjab was held in Sangrur district headquarters today .8000 people thronged shimmering the light of resistance.

Today was the concluding day of the protest demanding prosecution of the killers of gurdev kaur and 2major crimiunals were brought to the book.

All democrats must salute the Jaloor Jabbar Virodhi action commitee for burning the flame of resistance for such a prolonged period and bringing the killers to the book.

It will pla a major role in the dalit landless labourers fortifying their base of struggle and sharpening their sword to defy the attack sof landloird forces backed by the ruling parties.

The joint United front of revolutionary forces from different trends  played a major role .

A great march was earlier held going towards chief minister Prakash Singh Badal's house which was obstructed by the police on 20th November .

This depicted the true nature of  how the administration is so partisan with the ruling classes and lifts every straw to surpress the people's genuine movements.

Neverthless we must continue the 5 day long gherao of house of Parminder Singh Dhindsa which had a strong impact.

It was a lesson to all democratic forces in how to organize democratic resistance and was overall a tribute to the revolutionary democratic movement of Punjab.

The role of women and youth was heartening as well as the support  of the landed peasantry .

The preparatory work of Zameen Prapt Sangharsh Commitee must be saluted for laying the seeds for the future struggle.for one of the best resurgence of dalit landless labour movement in recent decades.

It proves the potential the dalit community has to light the spark of resistance and turn it into a flame.

Successful Conclusion of Third All India Conference of AIKMS

April 5, 2016 3:24 am

Third All India Conference of All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha (AIKMS) concluded on April 4, 2016 with call to launch struggle on the immediate issues of peasants including sharecroppers/tenanct peasants and agricultural labourers. The Conference was attended by 625 delegates representing over 3 lakh members spread over 11 states. Conference elected a new Central Executive members of 25 members with Com. Vemulapalli Venkataramaiah, renowned peasant leader from Telengana as President and Dr. Ashish Mital from UP as General Secretary. Conference passed a number of resolutions.

The Conference expressed grave concern at the deteriorating conditions of peasants, share-croppers and agricultural labourers and held Govt. policies responsible for the same. Share of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product is falling while majority of people remain dependent on it. The terms of trade are adverse to the agriculture and the condition is further deteriorating. The cost of inputs is rising while agricultural produce is not being given remunerative price. Crop damage due to inadequate measures taken by the Govt. to address the natural causes like insufficient rains and floods and due to spurious seeds, fertilizers and pesticides supplied by the greedy companies which are being protected  by the ruling politicians are leading to increase in suicides of peasants. Even suicides by agricultural labourers have been reported. Conference demanded that crop damage should be fully compensated by the Govt. Conference condemned the artificial limits set on compensation or eligibility and demanded that every crop damage due to any of the above causes should be compensated in totality.

Conference demanded that Govt. should give Rs. 10 lakhs to the family of every peasant who has been led to commit suicide. Further the Govt. should waive all loans to peasants including tenant peasants and agricultural workers. Conference demanded that institutional credit should be made available to all the peasants including sharecroppers and agricultural labourers so that they are not forced into the grip of private moneylenders which is one of the main causes of suicides.

Third All India Conference also demanded that share-croppers/tenant peasants should be immediately and fully recorded all over India so that they can get access to institutional credit, compensation due to crop damage and sale of produce to Govt. agencies. The Conference also noted with concern that Govt. has abandoned land reforms and called for intensification of the agitation for distribution of land to landless and poor peasants.

The conference noted the abysmal conditions of agricultural labour, their not getting enough employment, even not getting employment guaranteed under MGNREGS, not getting minimum wages and even payment under the Govt. scheme is delayed. The Conference demanded that full employment be provided to agricultural labourers. Conference also demanded immediate enactment of a comprehensive legislation guaranteeing the rights of agricultural labourers.

Condemning the repression launched by the Govt. on the struggles of peasants and agricultural labourers, the Conference noted that Govt. is adopting policies which are against the interest of peasants and are in the interest of corporate. The Conference also condemned the suppression of peasants to dispossess them from their land and means of livelihood. Conference hailed and supported the struggle of peasants against forcible displacement. The Conference condemned Operation Greenhunt launched in Central India and demanded that it be stopped.

The Conference also condemned the repression on movements against power plant in Karchana and against Kanhar dam in Sonebhadra district and expressed solidarity with struggling people in these places and elsewhere.

All India Conference condemned that fascist drive by the communal forces led by RSS, who are ruling in the country for their attacks against the minorities, oppressed castes and other toiling sections. Conference condemned repression on the students in Hyderabad Central University, JNU and other premier educational institutions and expressed solidarity with forces struggling against them. The Conference resolved to intensify struggle against the fascist drive of Modi led Govt. and decided to cooperate with other forces in this struggle.

All India Conference called for a propaganda compaign over three months on the demands listed in the Call approved by the Conference and in the resolutions approved. Conference also decided to launch a countrywide struggle on these issues after that period.

Third All India conference concluded with great enthusiasm among the delegates. Conference ended with singing of Internaionale.

Sixth Conference of POW (Telengana) Successfully Held in Khammam

January 10, 2015 4:12 am

The sixth Conference of Progressive Organization of Women (POW) was held in Khammam, Telengana (It was the first conference of POW Telengana) on 4th and 5th January 2015. This was preceded by a rally and mass meeting by POW on 3rd January.

More than 10,000 women mostly holding red flags of POW, marched through Khammam town in a blaze of red from S.R. & B.G.N.R. College grounds to Pavilion grounds in a two and a half kilometer trek on 3rd afternoon. Preceded by Arunodaya activists who sang and danced folk dances (similar to dandiya) through the streets, they attracted the town’s population to come out of offices and homes to watch the procession. The rally was headed by flag and banner bearing executive committee members of POW Telengana along with guests from sister organizations of AP, Punjab and Delhi along with other guests.

The mass meeting at Pavilion grounds was packed with scintillating and colourful performances by Arunodaya teams of the various districts. Com Jhansi (President POW Telengana) conducted the proceedings. Chief Guest Shanta Sinha (erstwhile chairperson of National Childs Rights Committee, currently with Central University Hyderabad and also a founder member of POW) was the first speaker. She emphasized on the need to involve men in the defence of women’s rights, and placed the need for more schools equipped with basic services to cater to education needs. The next speaker was Com. Aparna from IFTU who outlined the challenges before the women’s movement at the current juncture and highlighted that fight against patriarchy involves solidarity with the revolutionary movement which will upturn the structures which sustain patriarchy.

She then released a book of songs “ O Mahila Kadilira” complied and published by POW Telengana. Com. Aruna (General Secretary, POW Telengana) spoke about the issues for which women in Telengana have been fighting, also raising the need for wage parity with men. Com. Rama (President, POW, Andhra Pradesh) and Com. Laxmi (General Secretary, POW, Andhra Pradesh) spoke on the issues and challenges before the women’s movement. Com. P. Ranga Rao (State Committee member and Khammam Dist. Secretary of CPI(ML)-New Democracy) spoke of the expectations of the people including women in the newly formed state of Telengana and the need for building struggles. Com. R. Chandrashekhar (Telengana State Committee member of CPI(ML)-New Democracy) addressed nearly 15,000 strong meeting which continued upto 10 PM.

Next morning formal Conference proceedings got off to a start at Susenna-Chinta Laxmi Nagar at Kalakshetram. The delegates to the conference were elected from nine districts of Telengana and represented a membership of 50,000. The POW flag was hoisted by Com. Jhansi to powerful songs remembering the martyrs and slogan shouting by the 500 delegates.

At the inaugural session first the Chairperson of the Reception Committee, Ms. Vijeyeta welcomed the delegates and the guests. Following this the Conference was inaugurated by the Chief Guest, Rama Malkote, erstwhile Professor at Osmania University . She pointed out that while production processes fissured with globalization, this was also a period when in India movements tended to be fissured into identity movements. Raising several questions, she said that united movements of various identity movements were necessary. After this, the Telegu translation of the message from Nandita Haksar, who was to have been a Guest at the Conference but could not attend due to severe sudden illness, was read out. In her message dealing with different types of oppressions faced by women she observed, “We have to bring class struggle to the centre stage of political life. I myself have been involved in fights on behalf of Naga people and Kashmiris but I feel increasingly the ethnic, the religious and the nationality divisions should not allow us to undermine the idea of class solidarity or the solidarity of the poor”

Representatives of sister organizations- Com. Poonam (Gen. Sec. PMS Delhi), Com Amandeep (Gen. Sec. Stree Jagriti Manch –Punjab), Coms. Rama and Lakshmi (President and Gen. Sec. of POW Andhra Pradesh) gave solidarity messages from their organizations. Com. P Ranga Rao (Member State Committee of CPI(ML) New Democracy)also addressed the meeting as also Com. KR (AIKMS) and representatives of PDSU,PYL and IFTU. A cartoon exhibition was also on display which was inaugurated by Com. Sandhya.

In the next session, Com. Vimla addressed the delegates on the effects on women of the new economic policies while Com. Devi (cultural activist) spoke about the cultural changes and how they are affecting women. Com. Jhansi then presented the Constitution of Telengana POW which was approved and passed by the Conference. Com. Aruna then presented the Gen. Sec.’s report which was discussed and passed with several suggestions of the delegates.

The Conference passed a 23 member executive and elected 21 members leaving two posts for co-option.Com. Jhansi was elected as President, Com. Aruna as Gen. Sec., Coms. Godavari (Nizamabad), Jyoti (Adilabad) and Jyoti (Karimnagar) as Vice Presidents and Coms. Kalpana (Khammam), Padma (Karimnagar) and Jaya (Mehboobnagar) as Joint Secretaries.

The Conference gave a Call For Struggle for immediate formation of Women’s Commission in Telengana and for Ban on Surrogacy. It declared 23rd January as a Protest Day on these issues. The Conference passed resolutions demanding regularization of women contract workers in Telengana, for Bidi workers (maximally women) to be paid Rs.1000/ per month as per electoral promise of TRS leaders, against move to ban feature film PK, demanding equal opportunities in education and health for women, and reservation for women in Parliament and Assemblies.

Experiences of  right deviationist tactics of Participating in Elections.(Compiled from Comrade journal of June 1991)

Below I am compiling some excerpts of ‘The Comrade’ which illustrates perfectly ho wopportunistically certain communist revolutionary section sused tactic sof participation in arliamentray elections.In Italics I am placing the quotes of the writing of those groups.Here I wish to highlight deviationsit tendency which started with S.N.Singh-C.P.Reddy stream under influence of Dengist 3 worlds theory.U.C.C.RI sections
also  got infested with this trend with 2 of it’s factions participating in elections namely Mukitikami and DV Rao group.

In 1991 in the parliamentary general elections 3 groups namely the C.P.I.(M.L.) Resistance,U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) Muktigami and C.P.I.(M.L.)  Prajapandha groups in their election manifestos clarified that they were fighting for new democratic revolutionand that parliament was not the solution for people’s problems.They emphasised that none of the ruling class parties offered a solution to the country’s problems,and there wa sno difference among them.They alos formally agreed  thta Indian democracy is fundamentally autocracy.

Contradicting this the 3 groups treated the right to vote as a basic democratic right in contradiction of the analysis that it was nort a fundamental right with the state not a bourgeois democratc one .They mobilised their mass organizations in order to propgate the right to vote.Election campaign committees were set up at these group’s inintiatives  defending the scared right to vote.(condemning systematic violation of the constitituional rights and the election code)

The emphasis of the propoganada became not the irrelevance of the right to vote in today’s social set up ,but the absence of adequate protection for that right.Magazine Janashakti wrote : “The ruling classes know that they would not get people’s approval for their policies,if election swere conducted in afree atmoshphere in real sense.”.By this statement ,had the elections been held in afre atmosphere ,and had the ruling class candidates won,this would indicate peole’s approval for their policies.”
The editorial forgot the purpose of participation when it went on to say: “To protect their right to freely vote,the people know how to bring down this clay-foted giant through organized struggle.”
These groups rather than be seen as relentless supporters of the parliamentary system fight for parlimaentray rights .One writer in an article in party organ ‘Resistance.’ wrote: “The widespread countermanding of the polls in anumber of constituencies,violence between contending parties resulting in te death of a number of persosn, booth capturing,rigging etc,which took place in the firts round of polling to the tenth sabha electin son 20th May has rightly been exposed and condemned by the bourgeois press.”

Even as the press has been playting it’s role ,there are instances of systematic and quite violations of the norm sof free and fair election in one important constituency of A.P.,which it has totally by-passed.”

First,His only complaint is that the press have not given sufficient publicity to the violence in Karimnagar where the C.P.I(M.L.)-UCCRI-ML Contetsed.The writer again and again condemn sthe fcat that the police are “preventing the CP1-ML Party and people to participate in a fre and bold manner.”Instead of explaining how police repressionon the campaignersin term sof the ‘impossibility of free elections”the writer concludes “Democrtaic process of elections which is guaranteed in the constitution is losing it’s credibility.The role of the police in karimnagarconstituency during the phase of electioneering as an indication of the resurgence of a new trend of repression which exposese and defeats the very nature of the bourgeoisie parliamentary elections.If this trend continues ,genuine people’s parties like C.P.I.(M.L.) would be denied to participate in  a free and fair manner and the people’s right to choose a candidate and a party of their choice and wish.It would be infact not only sunvert the very democratic process of elections,to be guaranteed by the constitution and election code but would also replicate in India,an electoral process found and practised in the ‘banan arepublics’ of the Ltain-American continent.”

One can dereive from such evaluation that the writer of ‘Resistance’Journal article believes that there is some measure of democratic forces the Indian elections ,which distinguishes it from the banana republic.,and must be protected from a repressive force.

In an article in journal, ‘Prajapandha’Revolutionaries have this strategic assesment about democracy. “At the same time,they take into consideration difference between democracy in the developed countries,limited democracy in the backward countries like India,military rule,fascist rule Emergency rule.Among these forms of rule,the limited democracy existing in India and what exists in developed countries is more beneficial for the people than military or emergency rule.These democracies depend on the conscious ness of the people,on the strength of the peole’s movbements and the condition of the ruling classes.Thus revolutionaries in order to extend or widen civil rights and democratic rights mobilize people all the time.To instil democratic consciousness among the people is an important task for revolutionaries.”

Here the principal task of revolution is substituted wit the need to thwart military?emergency rule and to protect ‘limited’ democracy.

Groups like Prajapandha or ‘Resistance” which rejected tactic sof ‘boycott’faced a dilemma aof what to do in areas where they cannot put up a candidate .They supported ‘democrats’ declaring: “We will support non-party individuals who fought for civil and democratic rights,and also thiose who are honest and patriotic.”

Resistace-Muktigami similarly supported various ‘democrats’ who were anti-feudal,anti-imperilaist and fight for democratic rights. “There is no compulsion for such candsidates to propagate revolutionary politics,nor any discipline they must observe once in parliamemnt.” Such support by revolutionary groups self-evidently would serve to heighten peole’silusions about the parliamentary sytrem,not shatter them.

During the course of te campaign it was revealed that what was given a priority was not campaigning effectively but winning the elections.Quoting Resistance: “It is clear that the ruling classes v and the police machinery in A.P.are dead set aginst the C.P.I.(M.L.) success from the Karimnagar constituency-a  success which is distinctly possible,given the popularity of C.P.I.(M.L.).The success of a C.P.I.(M.L.) candidate would in all certainty deliver another political blow to the landlords and ruling parties representing their interest.It would alos mean a further intensification and expansion of peasnt struggles not only in Karimnagar ,but alos in other parts of Andhra Pradesh.Hence very clear atteampts on the part of the state and the ruling classes to prevent the C.P.I(M.L.) for conducting it’s campaign in a free manner.”

The above testifies the support to bourgeois democracy and recognizing the state as bourgeois democratic.
“A special effort wil be made to buil;d a united front with Dalit organizations which are nnot aligned with the big bourgeois,big landlord class parties.”This contradicts’There will be no alliance or seat adjustment of any sort with any of the big bourgeoisisie,big landlord class parties,the revisionists and neo-revisionists.”'

When such significance is attached to wining elections it is only natural that the brunt of one’s propaganda gets turned to assuring’freeness and fairness’ and moreover that one employs any technique to gather votes.

‘A special  effort will be made to build a united front with Dalit organizations which are not aligned with the big bourgeoisie ,big landlord class parties.”

“In the context of these elections we tried to come to some understanding with some dalit organizations which have not formed an alliance with nay ruling class party.We discussed with theBSP.There were differences in understanding  between that party and us,so we could not come to any definite agreement on the matter of mutually supporting each oher’s candidates in these elections.When while taking these aspects into consideration we also considered the moving urge among the dalit masses to win the revolutionary movement to get out of the conditions where they face the landlord-ruling class exploitation,repression nad deceptions and ruling class parties.With this approach wherever the revolutionary candidates/democratic candidates supported by us are not contesting,we are announcing our support to BSP candidates ,and we hop that the BSP will withdraw it’s candidates whee the revolutionaries and democrats are contesting..”

First,note that this so called united frfont,is not to be drawn up on the basis of revolutionary demands,but on the basis of electoral seat adjustment.The earlier claims to participation in agrarian revolution are now conveniently forgotten.Naturally,this united front is now formed not on class lines i.e.with caste-based organizations.Secondly,it is also a measure of how far down the parliamentary road the Resistance-Muktigami combine has travelled that it discovered merely’some differences of understanding between itself and the BSP..

Later these 2 groups made a specific appeal to muslim voters.In a C.P.I.(M.L.)-U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) leaflet titled. “Fight agionst the opportunistic alliance of Congress-B.J.P to spread communalkism and create riots.Unite behind revolutionary forces.”tells Muslim voters:People have seen that in the communal riots in recent times,communist revolutionaries have determinedly fought aginst Hindu chauvinismin a principled mannerand they stood up on the side of the Muslim oppressed people .Wherever movements are going on,,they noticed that Muslim oppressed masses and other oppressed masses are being united to those movements by the revolutionaries.In their situation,in different parties ,Muslim oppressed mases have been showing keen interest in,and affection for ,the communist revolutionaries.They are waging forward to participate in the activities and movements under their leadership.In the presnt election they are supporting C.P.I.(M.L.) candidates in Karimnagar,Siddipetetc.”

“The Muslim oppressed masses should unite to protect their rights.They should defeat the Hindu chauvinists and ruling class parties and conspiracies.They should determinedly stand on the side of the communist revolutionarieswho are leading the agrarian revolutionary movement.By voting for the communist revolutionary candidates and the candidates supported by them,they should express their commitment to the struggle.”

Note the above call is not for the oppressed masses of all communities to unite but for the “Mulsim masses to uniteto protect their rights.”Their comitement to struggle is expressed by “voting for communist revolutionary candidates.”

The anti-comunal propaganda of the revolutionaries should attempt to build class solidarity  of the exploited and their class hatred of the exploiters,This class solidarity is consolidated not in voting pattern sbut in class struggle.Basically the Muktikami-Resistance combine has made a communist appeal and lack sclass methodolgogy.


In the current movement in India the revisionist trend is basically propounded by The C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation.This organization has totally abandoned the path of protracted peoples war,denied India is semi-feudal and semi colonial,totally embraced the parliamentary  path joining hads with C.P.I.and C.P.M.and earlier upheld Soviet Union as a Socialist state and not social Imperilaist in Gorbachev’s era.No doubt it takes progressive postions against state repression ,communal fascism,imperialist pro-coprporate policies etc but basically has no agenda to combat the enemies of,capitalism ,feudalism and imperialism.It often connives aginst the genuine revolutionary democratic movements while waving the red flag with Bihar and Jharkahnd being the best example.No doubt their cadre have participated in protests aginst upper castre gangs and police oppression but often the leadership has conspired to defeat the genuine class movements of the dalit and landless peasantry for electioneering purposes.It destroyed thebasde of armed peasnt struggles in important areas.Even their peasnt struggles for land are virtually linked with election campaign.It even in 1994 abandoned the independent mass front it created called the ‘Indian Peoples Front’ which played a significant role in building  abase for people’s movements independent of a political party.However morally it’s line supported opposition parties like Janata Dal and even endorsed election alliances with them.The mass fronts of Liberationhave participated in protests aginst Operation Grenhunt.attcks on Marutu workers,trade Unionrights but it is basically token.Parliamentray politic is basically imposed on their mass organizationslike All India Students Organization,A.ICCTU.etc.In Jawaharla Nehru University they have destroyed the genuine revolutionary forces by vehemently supporting the Students Federation of India.It is overtly critical in theory of the C.P.I.(Maoist) and in earlier times launched mnay attack son the erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.)Party Unity.and it’s peasant movemen.t A critical attack on the line of this group was almost as important as attacking the revisionist parties like C.P.I. and C.P.M.It mislead many genuine cadres ,particularly in Bihar,Bengal and Andhra Pradesh.


The entire proceedings of the 7th Congress of the CPI (ML) Liberation (henceforth called Liberation), reads like that of any parliamentary opposition party.

It starts by reaffirming its "supreme commitment" to its coming "over-ground in its Fifth Congress held in Kolkata in December 1992". To prove this commitment it announced publicly the list of not only its entire CC, but also its Polit Bureau - a method avoided by genuine legal communist parties even in the developed countries. Its "central agenda" was not the furtherance of revolution, but "Resistance to Saffron Fascism and US Aggression and War". The tactics for such "resistance" was to be through the unification of the so-called Left forces in what was termed as "a broad-based confederation of all Left forces". In this, there was utter desperation to seek recognition and unity with the ruling class CPI/CPM, best reflected in the very opening speech of the party secretary. Pleadingly he appeals "Why can’t we, the heirs of Bhagat Singh, wage a powerful and unified resistance to defeat the disciples of Golwalkar and admirers of Hitler? Why can’t we hold out a vibrant democratic vision of united India that can inspire confidence even in the smallest and weakest of minorities in the face of the growing clamour for a Hindu Rashtra…….. Why can’t we come closer in our day-to-day struggles on issues of livelihood and democratic rights……". He does not answer this, but the answer lies in their revisionist politics, and the traditional social-democratic policy of appeasement of the fascists.

If we then look at the Political-Organisational Report it reads like that of any bourgeois party, where analysis of parties are done more in electoral terms rather than class terms. Its Policy Resolutions on Tactics too is more concerned with electoral semantics, focusing chiefly on electoral alliances and manipulations for seeking power at various levels of the existing governmental structures, and factors like protracted people’s war and armed struggle are totally ignored. Like the CPM, the entire focus is on getting power (or even sharing power) through elections. There is not even a whiff of revolution in this entire "tactics". The party programme too, like that of the CPM, talks of "people’s democratic revolution"; and is at cross-purposes in its class analysis calling India, on the one hand, semi-feudal, while at the same time saying that what exists are merely remnants of feudalism. Finally, its Constitution gives the seal to the Liberation’s bourgeois and counter-revolutionary politics, when Article 45 in its Constitution says "The Party shall bear faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India".

So, the CPI (ML) Constitution itself clearly states that it will uphold, not only the existing semi-feudal, semi-colonial system, but also the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, thereby lending legitimacy to the jack-boots of the Indian rulers, that is crushing by brute force the nationality movements in the country.

In spite of this openly anti-communist and pro-establishment role of the 7th Congress of the Liberation, it was surprising to see in its report a number of parties from abroad attending or sending fraternal messages. Liberation reported that "guests and observers" participated in the Congress from "Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, Australia and Norway", and that solidarity messages were sent by parties from Germany, Belgium, the Philippines, Malaysia and Italy.
While at the ground level the CPI (ML)(PW) and the MCC (now MCCI) is witness to the Liberation’s reactionary role in Bihar, going so far as to link up with the state against them, here we shall look into the theoretical basis for such actions. We shall now look deeper into the resolutions passed at the Congress and available to us:

On Political-Organisational Report

At this Congress their main Political-Organisational Report, set out the Party’s position on certain key questions. It deals with both questions at the international plane as also the political situation in the country. To take international questions first:
(i) International
On the section on international developments, though it correctly analyses the crisis of imperialism and targets US war-mongering, it sees the social-democrats in power as a supposed left and progressive alternative and not another face of reaction. The problem with this approach is the lack of understanding of the policies of the ruling classes. In the face of unimaginable deterioration in the living standards of the people, they may use the ‘progressive’ mask of the social-democrats to dupe the masses. When that gets torn off they use more open reactionary methods of rule. So, in the section on Latin America they portray struggles within the ruling classes as the victory of the ‘Left’ against reaction. Such an incorrect analysis, in the final analysis, detracts from the struggle against reaction and imperialism (as a whole) as it puts its faith in forces that are unreliable and anti-people.

As far as the Chinese revisionists are concerned the Liberation is "puzzled" - called "The Chinese Puzzle". Actually, their dishonest method adopted of pretending equivocation on the subject, is geared to give legitimacy to the Chinese counter-revolutionaries through the back door. That is why in their "puzzle" they say, "We do acknowledge the enormous difficulties in building socialism in a single country……."; and add that "We also refute the methodology that discusses the question of building socialism in the abstract, as an ideal utopian model that can just be transplanted anywhere, anytime by sheer will power. Instead we look at socialism as a society evolving out of contradictions of capitalism, evolving as a natural process of history and therefore adopting myriad forms in different contexts and different countries". In other words, without taking a clear-cut stand on the policies of the CPC, the Congress, through such statements, seeks to legitimize any and every bourgeois formulation under the signboard of allowing myriad forms in different contexts and different countries. The fact that they support Deng and criticize the Cultural Revolution makes it rather embarrassing for them now, when these policies have been taken to their logical extreme in China, where full-fledged capitalism is clearly visible throughout the country, even to a child. But, such eclecticism is the trademark of Vinod Mishra-style politics, to dupe its cadres, while dancing with the devil.

His disciple, Dipankar Bhattacharya, appears to have mastered well the art of the guru.
On the section on South Asia there is not even a mention of Indian Expansionism, let alone a call to counter it. They do not in anyway portray the Indian ruling classes as the primary source of destablisation and war in the region and their gross intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. While there is passing reference to the "regional hegemonistic" designs of the BJP, they are unable to see Indian expansionism as part and parcel of the Indian ruling classes as a whole; of which the BJP is playing a more aggressive role. By not taking a clear-cut stand against Indian expansionism, they defacto fall prey to tacit support of the policies of big nation chauvinism. This is an example of precisely how the social-democrats tend to appease the fascists.

(ii) Indian Situation
But now, let us turn to events within the country and the Liberation’s analysis of these. An important part of the POR is devoted to electoral stunts in parliament in the name of alliances with various forces. There is also a lengthy review of their parliamentary work, with an emphasis to increase their numbers. No principles are outlined, and their only difference with the CPI/CPM is that while Liberation are for an anti-BJP, anti-Congress front, the former want to include the Congress in their so-called secular front. So the essence of the Liberation’s tactical line can be summed up in their statement, "the communist tactical line at the present stage must be geared towards preventing a full-fledged fascist victory and beating back the fascist offensive". And their basic method for doing this is that "the revolutionary tactical line must stress the need for a powerful left intervention which alone can serve as the basis for a third or democratic front".

But here too there is much opportunism. They say unity with the UF is OK while it is in opposition, but not when it is ruling. Not only that, to open the doors wide to all types of bourgeois electoral semantics, they say that in specific circumstances (undefined) "readjustments of policy may also have to be effected depending upon the concrete situation obtaining then". Here they refer to the PW, as "essentially radical petty-bourgeois formations" (in other parts of the Congress reports they are dismissed as anarchists, but on this we will come later), and in typical bourgeois fashion they see the underground Party as undemocratic, while its legal fronts as democratic. But their obsession is not for unity with such radical petty-bourgeois formations, but with the ruling class CPI/CPM in their so-called confederation of the left. This is reflected in their euphoria over the "17-Party Opposition Front in Bihar" where "for the first time that CPI and CPI(M) joined us in a political front".

Even when the POR goes on to analyse the Dalit and Muslim questions their entire framework is electoral and not dealing with the serious problems of untouchability, castism and communalism, within the present political context. So, the Liberation document, deals primarily with the electoral implications of dalit politics; saying, for example, that the Dalit question has emerged as a major question, particularly with the phenomenal rise of BSP. If does not deal with the total marginalisation of dalits in the present environment of globalisation, privatization and Hindutva, and their greater self-assertion for their rights in the casteist, brahminical system. And as far as the Muslims are concerned, they are said to be afflicted by a "peculiar minority syndrome, which has been further reinforced by the rise of the forces of Hindutava", and the Liberation is only interested as to how they can overcome this syndrome and win them over to their vote bank. Such an insensitive approach to a community that has been brutalized, shunned and isolated by the ruling establishment, can only come from those lacking a proletarian approach to the oppressed. So, to appease their Hindu vote-banks they will not call for the unconditional rebuilding of the Babri Masjid, illegally broken by the Hindu fascists, nor take an uncompromising approach in defense of Muslim rights, rather we find this condescending approach.
Finally, the section on peasant movements, have a splendid mix of economism, reformism and demagogy on armed struggle, coupled with vile accusations thrown at the MCCI and PW. As the area-wise seizure of power is nowhere mentioned as part of their agenda all the peasant/labourer/tribal demands mentioned in the POR are nothing but economism and reformism - to enhance the party’s influence and extend their vote-base. As in Bihar, in the main rural base of Liberation, as not even the pettiest politician functions without arms, not to talk of it would have made them look absolutely ridiculous. So, armed struggle is mentioned only in relation to the feudal gangs, and political struggle with relation to the Indian state (i.e. police, government, etc). In other words, their ‘armed struggle’ is not for the seizure of power, but for mere survival from feudal gangs. But even these clashes with the private armies are seen to be a negative fact as, because of it, "the functioning of peasant association or movement on peasant issues are left behind". There is no logic in this, as, through the intensification of the class struggle, the associations should get strengthened. But for the Liberation, as the peasant associations are specifically for their vote banks and have nothing to do with the ongoing class struggle in the region, by this intensification of the class-struggle, peasant issues is left behind. So, that is why the poor Liberation laments, "such a situation is of course forced on us and we can do little in avoiding it". In fact, at the ground level they have been avoiding it, as it is in their heartland of Bhojpur that the most notorious feudal private army, the Ranvir Sena, has grown and spread, with little resistance from the Liberation. It has been the PW and the MCCI that have primarily taken on the Ranvir Sena. In fact, to avoid confronting such elements, the POR concludes that "it should never be forgotten that political initiatives, movements on popular issues and developing popular resistance are the key elements in taking up the challenge of combined onslaught of feudal-state".

Such counter posing of armed struggle to the mass mobilization on partial demands, is the standard diet of all economists; and is the life-line of revisionism. It is therefore not surprising that the Liberation resorts to it. But, like all the parliamentary parties, the Liberation seeks only to enhance its vote base, and even partial demands are taken only so far as to help this process. Besides, for any communist or revolutionary, all struggles for partial demands have to be linked to the question of the seizure of power, to have any long-term meaning.

Particularly in a backward area like rural Bihar, where feudal armies are rampant, the agenda of armed struggle and seizure of power, faces the revolutionaries soon. Comrade Jauhar, the founder of this Party in Bihar, was a pioneer in this; Vinod Mishra was the betrayer. But now Dipankar Bhattacharya says "in the history of the international communist movement,

Comrade VM’s role can perhaps only be compared to the role played by Lenin in Russian revolution after the dress rehearsal of 1905, and that by Mao in developing a Chinese path for the Chinese revolution after the initial setback faced in copying the Russian model in China". No wonder com. Jauhar is sidelined and VM glorified. But there is a limit to the glorification of the individual. The new secretary seems to go into the realm of fantasy comparing the likes of VM, to the great revolutionaries Lenin and Mao. A more apt comparison may be of that with Deng, where both had the immense acumen to, step by step, take a revolutionary party into the mire of revisionism. On that ability, of course, they cannot be faulted.

On Slander Against Real Revolutionaries
It is in this POR that the Liberation unleashes slander and abuse at the revolutionaries, without any political arguments and substantiation of their accusations. Casual abuse is thrown at the PW and MCCI as "anarchist" parties throughout their report. Further they make the accusation that "anarchist organisations which are degenerating into money-collecting machines are indulging in a killing-spree of our cadres and people and are using ultra-left rhetoric to the hilt to cover up their dubious links and their dirty mission of disrupting organised mass movements".

In passing, the term "anarchists" are used for revolutionaries time and again, more as an abuse, as it is nowhere explained as to why they are anarchists. Is their philosophy/theory anarchist, or is their organizational methods anarchist, or are their tactics anarchist? This is nowhere explained. Mere branding and labeling does not help understand phenomena, even if they feel it were true. Obviously the Liberation is on weak ground so it cannot explain this accusation.

Firstly, in the realm of theory and philosophy the PW & MCCI are staunch upholders of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and are for the organization of a new democratic state after seizure of power. So in this realm they cannot be anarchists. Regarding organizational methods they have a tight party structure and abide by democratic centralist methods; so here too they cannot be anarchists. Finally, presumably it is in the tactics adopted that they refer to them as "anarchists". Here too, if following the path of armed struggle and protracted people’s war is equated with anarchism, this entails turning Marxist theory upside down. If it is claimed that these parties conduct armed actions in isolation from the masses; even on this account it is well known that both these parties have a huge mass base, far exceeding that of the parliamentary ‘Maoists’.

Armed struggle is, in fact, the path adopted by all genuine communists in the backward countries of the world. The question is: why has the Liberation left it? The point here is that there are clearly two different paths being chosen: one is that of people’s war, the other of peaceful transformation through the electoral path. The revolutionaries have chosen the first, the Liberation the later. But, to cover up its own betrayal the Liberation has to resort to abuse of the genuine communists and revolutionaries labeling them "anarchists". These two paths have been the bone of contention between the revisionists and the Marxists for the last century. It is nothing new. Mouthing the word ‘MaoTse-tung Thought’ does not cover the revisionist reality of the electoral path. Social-democrats and revisionists from the time of Kautsky to Khruschev to Deng have voiced this, while Lenin, Stalin and Mao have upheld the revolutionary path of armed struggle - whether it be by insurrection or protracted people’s war. Liberation has chosen the former; the MCCI and the PW the latter. Rather than adopt tricks like labeling, it would be more honest for the Liberation to explain why the path of people’s war is wrong in India and why the electoral path is correct. But, on the question of electoral tactic we shall come later.

Now, for the other accusation of being money-collecting machines. The fact is that large amounts of funds are necessary for any organization; particularly those with underground structures and leading an armed struggle. Liberation too requires large amounts for its election campaigns and bourgeois legal existence of running elaborate offices and the life-styles of their parliamentarians. While the revolutionaries take money by the assertion of their political authority in their areas of influence, as a tax; the Liberation-types gather their funds by cozying up to various sections of the prevailing power structures - whether it be a section of the elite or through their association in the governmental structures. In addition, the greater sacrificing nature in the revolutionary camp, results in greater amount of donations being got from well-wishers. So, this type of accusation is just slander and is merely parroting what is said by the BJP/Congress-type parties. Even a large section of the establishment and media accepts the self-sacrificing nature of the revolutionaries - but the Liberation, with such slander, has degenerated to levels of the BJP and Congress!!

And as for the so-called killing sprees of their cadre, the ground reality has to be seen, as to who is really responsible. Accusations and counter-accusations do not help; and this is best cleared up by independent fact-finding teams of, either human rights activists, or from the communist camp. The fact is that, with the Liberation-type bourgeois politics, their association with powerful local vested interests is inevitable; and in the rural Bihar type environment these forces are highly aggressive and of criminal character.

On ‘Policy Resolutions on Tactics’

The main problem of the tactics outlined here is that it is not placed within the framework of a concrete strategy. While the term ‘strategy’ is liberally thrown around in this document, it is nowhere defined what exactly is its strategy for the seizure of power, and the path for achieving it. The strategic goal of ‘people’s democratic revolution’ is mentioned but not the strategic tasks. Without strategic tasks being clearly defined, ‘tactics’ inevitably falls prey to all kinds of opportunism. And so it is with this document.

In its tactics there is no mention of armed struggle; only petty-bourgeois politicking around electoral politics, in the name of United Front. In this they differ little from the CPM when they say : "we recognise the possibility that it is possible for a revolutionary communist party to win a majority of seats, either singly or in alliance with like-minded forces, in local bodies and in exceptional cases even in a few provincial assemblies. As laid down in our programme, such communist-led district councils or state governments will try and accomplish a set of democratic tasks of the movement and also play the role of a revolutionary opposition against the central authority. However, in conformity with our policy of differentiating not only between enemies and friends but also between bigger and lesser enemies, we do not flinch from offering critical support to governments run by parties other than the principal representatives of the bourgeoisie in the face of a mounting enemy offensive".
Being a fringe outfit they are far from achieving this dream of getting into government, but it is obvious that they, like the establishment communists, nurse such dreams. This of course is followed by sanctimonious proclamations of not sowing illusions about this system. The latter is only to dupe its cadres and the revolutionary camp. The very act of participation in elections in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, in which the parliament is a mere appendage to a highly autocratic rule, creates illusions of a functioning democracy. Participation in governments adds ten-fold to these illusions. (Though in developed countries the state is in essence a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there is a difference in the nature of the State there and in the backward countries like India. Except during periods of open fascisms, bourgeois democratic traditions exist in the former, while they are mostly absent in the latter.) Unfortunately, it is not only that the leadership of Liberation is creating these illusions, it itself appears to be under an illusion when it mentions in its Programme that "….compared to many other Third World countries, the affairs of’ the Indian state are generally conducted within a constitutional and parliamentary-democratic framework".

Here the impression created is that India is a functioning democracy, like those that have gone through bourgeois democratic revolutions. Yet they say that India is semi-feudal. Both concepts are a contradiction in terms. Then they add to the confusion by saying there are only feudal remnants in the country. If there are only remnants, it means that the society is basically capitalist and not semi-feudal. Of course it could also be termed semi-feudal if the superstructure continues to be semi-feudal. But if that were so, one major aspect of the superstructure, the government, would not have a parliamentary-democratic framework. So, the leadership of the Liberation has tied itself in a heap of contradictory knots. To justify its parliamentary cretinism it must go from one falsehood to another, throwing dust in the eyes of the revolutionary camp in general, and of its cadres in particular.
As we have already mentioned, the essence of their tactics is confined to such electoral alliances and the so-called Confederation of the Left. It is this, they say, that "would greatly facilitate the cause of a Left resurgence against the growing threat of a reactionary right-wing ascendance……". The Liberation is living in a fool’s paradise if it thinks so. This so-called parliamentary Left is a spent force and is unable to mobilize even its existing large hold in the trade unions against the fascist onslaught. In fact they have played the role of tying the hands of the masses in numerous ways. So, for example, having soaked their ranks in economism and opportunism for decades, these forces have been passive even in the face of the Gujarat holocaust. The task today of the genuine revolutionaries is in fact to liberate these masses from the dead weight of these revisionists and bring them into the revolutionary and democratic stream, rather than maintain utopian dreams of a Left resurgence. This task may be difficult, but there are no short cuts. It entails penetrating, consistent political work amongst the working-class, to release its initiative and its potential revolutionary role.

The boycott of elections in this fake democracy is not "anarchist desperation" as the Liberation would have us believe, but the most practical way to dispel parliamentary illusions, of which the Liberation talks so much about. Neither is boycott merely "a valid tactical response to the revolutionary crisis of the late 60s" as the Liberation would have us believe, but a vital and necessary political step to pull the masses out of the parliamentary quagmire, onto the path of protracted people’s war. But then the Liberation has long since forsaken this path, lending only lip-service to armed struggle and Mao; so it makes little difference to them, what they do. A more practical step for them would be to join the CPM, as now, with its present line, there is little to distinguish between the two.

Next, in this document there is a lengthy section on the nationality question in India, which is rife with as contradictory statements as that on semi-feudalism and democracy. After all the political and theoretical somersaults, they in essence support the existing unitary state structure. While, in general waxing eloquent on Lenin’s principles of the right to self-determination and secession; when they come to the concrete reality of the country, they, in essence, push the same stand as all the other parliamentary parties, upholding a strong center and denying the nationalities their rights.
So, they say, "Recognition of this right does not necessarily mean blanket support to all kinds of secessionist tendencies. The question of support will be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into account the overall interest of development of the democratic movement". But even in the case of Kashmir they hedge, saying "We are not averse to the demand for an independent Kashmir or plebiscite, in principle. Still, we are skeptical about the viability of an independent Kashmir sandwiched between two hostile powers, India and Pakistan. In such a situation, there is a potential danger of such an independent country becoming an easy target for imperialist manipulations". Such ridiculous arguments mean that no small country should ever be granted independence, as all are likely to become "easy targets for imperialist manipulations". It, in fact means a blanket opposition to the demand of the nationalities for self-determination. Their attitude to the struggling nationalities of the North-East is also much the same. With all these ifs and buts, the essence of the Liberation’s stand is opposition to these movements and their demand for secession.

Not only this, they even oppose India being federal and are also opposed to the demand for more powers to the states. They counterpose federalism to autonomy, when in fact the two deal with different realms. Federalism relates to the relation between the various nationalities as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; autonomy relates to regions within a nation. In the Indian context both are necessary as part of the new democratic state. And such democratic structures do not negate centralized planning as made out by the Liberation document. In this short critique, there is no space to go into a detailed argument on the issue; suffice it to say that in essence Liberation supports the existing unitary structure of India (being opposed to the struggles of the NE, Kashmir, etc for secession, opposed to federalism and opposed to more power for the states), with all its implications of supporting Indian expansionism, national domination and centrally organized state repression. No wonder in the Liberation Constitution they uphold the Indian Constitution and the "sovereignty, unity and integrity of India".

Finally, their Policy Resolutions on Agrarian Question is in no way linked to agrarian revolution and the area-wise seizure of power. In fact there is no mention of it. Their demands for fighting the landlords, kulaks, etc. is pure economism, with no reference whatsoever of establishing the authority of the landless and poor peasants in the villages. So, quite naturally there is no talk of building up a people’s army and the tasks necessary for doing so.
On The Programme
The section on The Revolutionary Course is a masterpiece of duplicity, wherein a clear-cut revisionist line is sought to be covered by abstract statements of intention (with no policy or plan for it).
First and foremost, while in the POR it waxes eloquently of the growing danger of fascism, in its programme the Liberation seems to have great faith in Indian democracy. It says: "It is true that under normal circumstances, Indian polity allows communists to work through open, legal and parliamentary means. It is possible for communists to secure victories in elections at various levels and also win majority in local bodies and even state legislatures. While tilting the balance of class forces through protracted and vigorous political struggles, the Party is prepared to utilise such opportunities independently or in coalition with like-minded forces provided the Party enjoys the strength to ensure the fulfillment of its own commitment to the electorate". If fascist forces are growing, as outlined in the POR, why is the Liberation not preparing the party for underground existence to fight these forces, and why are they adding to the illusion saying that "under normal circumstances, Indian polity allows communists to work through open, legal and parliamentary means"?
First and foremost, even prior to the present growth of the fascist forces, India has basically an autocratic state structure on which has been imposed a parliament, and so under normal circumstances the genuine legal opportunities of dissent are limited. This is to be seen, not only in the brutality of the state vis-à-vis Naxalites but even against liberal trade union leaders like Nyiogi, Samant and many others who have been killed in cold blood. The Indian rulers are an intelligent breed, with a cunningness of a Chanakya. They are not concerned by any label, whether it is ‘communist’, ‘revolutionary’, or any other, as long as they are harmless. So, when Liberation says "that under normal circumstances, Indian polity allows communists to work through open, legal and parliamentary means", it is true. For, those who are harmless to them, and in fact assist the ruling classes, and divert the masses from struggle, particularly militant and armed struggle, they are not only tolerated, but welcomed. But when it comes to even distant sympathisers of the genuine communists and the nationality movements, we find that they are not only hounded but also brutally murdered in extra-judicial killings. This is clearly visible in Andhra Pradesh and in Kashmir and the North East. But, like the ruling class parties the Liberation is silent on all this.
Where was Liberation’s great democracy when Rachamalla Venkanna, a district committee member of the AIPRF, was abducted, tortured and killed in cold blood by the AP police in Nov.02. Besides, during the last two years, dozens of activists of the AIPRF have been arrested and tortured for their anti-globalisation activities. Then, a year ago, Chandra Shekhar, a teacher employed in a government school and an activist of the Democratic Teachers’ Federation of AP, was murdered in a similar fashion. So was the famous cultural artist, Ilaiah, of the Telangana Jan Sabha. Then what about the brutal killings, in broad day-light, of the lawyers and civil rights activists Purshottam and Azam Ali, by fascist gangs? Besides, it is well known that hundreds of revolutionaries have been tortured and killed in fake encounters, including three top leaders of the PW. So also have thousands ‘disappeared’ in the nationality movements of Punjab, Kashmir and the North-East. Such extra-judicial killings has even surpassed in its brutality many a tin-pot dictator, albeit with the democratic mask. Yet, Liberation talks about India’s ‘great democracy’. Then what about the brutal pogroms against the Sikhs and now the Muslims? Forget all this, of late, even any militant trade union struggle is not permitted, as can be seen by the viscous actions and mass arrests of the public sector employees, coal mine workers, transport workers, etc. If, inspite of all this, the Liberation continues to harp on the great democratic possibilities in India, one can understand the extent of their capitulation. No wonder the ruling classes applaud them. Today, even liberals speak of the growing fascism, but the great ‘revolutionaries’ of the Liberation speak with a forked tongue - talking of the growing fascism, while numbing people’s fight against it, through utopian hopes of long-term democratic possibilities!!
Finally, they speak of peaceful transformation, though camouflaged in revolutionary verbiage. Witness their duplicity when they finally say: "The Party does not rule out the possibility that under a set of exceptional national and international circumstances, the balance of social and political forces may even permit a relatively peaceful transfer of central power to revolutionary forces. But in a country where democratic institutions are based on essentially fragile and narrow foundations and where even small victories and partial reforms can only be achieved and maintained on the strength of mass militancy, the party of the proletariat must prepare itself for winning the ultimate decisive victory in an armed revolution. A people’s democratic front and a people’s army, therefore, remain the two most fundamental weapons of revolution in the arsenal of the Party". Throughout their entire documents there is not a word about seizing power through armed struggle, nor is there any mention of the people’s army, nor have they set a single task in their documents for either advancing the armed struggle and building a people’s army, yet they say "A people’s democratic front and a people’s army, therefore, remain the two most fundamental weapons of revolution in the arsenal of the Party". Is this not sheer hypocrisy and deceit? In fact the focus of all their documents is purely geared to electoral tactics, and that, in essence, is their path, yet it says "the party of the proletariat must prepare itself for winning the ultimate decisive victory in an armed revolution". Where through the entire documents is there a single step taken for these preparations? Such statements are a hoax to befool the cadres and the revolutionary camp. The essence of their tactics and programme outlined through the Congress is in fact the "relatively peaceful transfer of central power to revolutionary forces".
In Conclusion
Today, after the set-back in the communist movement in the Soviet Union and China, revisionism is the main danger to the International Communist Movement. In India too, revisionism comes in various forms with various labels. There are the establishment communists of the CPI and CPM, who are now part and parcel of the ruling classes of the country. In West Bengal, where the CPM rule, they have launched fascist attacks on the revolutionaries, just like any other ruling class party. Then there are the fake Maoists, like the Liberation, who seek to fool the genuine revolutionaries and take them in to the morass of revisionism. Then there are various other brands, some who are deep in the revisionist quagmire, others who are sitting on its edge, refusing to take to the path of armed struggle. Many are mere paper organizations of little significance.
Without fighting the cancer of revisionism within the proletarian movement it is not possible to take a single step forward in the struggle against reaction. These revisionists act to lull the masses, divert the cadres from the revolutionary path, dupe the entire democratic camp, and make a show of mock opposition. They act as the last bulwark of the ruling classes; a safety valve to let off revolutionary steam. In the name of unity these hypocrites seek to paralyse the entire revolutionary and democratic struggles.
But, within their ranks there are still large numbers of genuine elements that have been duped by their cunning leaders. The genuine revolutionaries need to reach out to them and save them from the quicksand into which they are being drawn by their leaders. To do so there is need to unite in direct struggles around specific demands, where the revolutionaries have the full freedom to put forth their views and are not constrained by the limitations of the rightists and revisionists.
In the final analysis the clear line of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism will get drawn in the battlefield by advancing the people’s war in the country. The advancing people’s war will force others to take a clear stand to decide on which side they are - with revolution, or with the counter-revolution. The genuine cadres of the Liberation, as also the communists the world over, need to understand the duplicity of the leaders of the Liberation, the fake Marxism that they promote, and stand by principles, genuine Marxism, and join the revolutionary mainstream.
We appeal to all the genuine revolutionary communist forces in India and abroad to understand the class collaborationist role of the Liberation, cease giving legitimacy to such disruptionist forces, expose their negative role in the Indian revolution, and thereby facilitate the process of building a strong unity of all the genuine communists, not only in India, but the world over. It must be emphasised, once again, that effective unity amongst communists can only be achieved by drawing clear lines of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism, and not by glossing over the differences. Once this line of demarcation is clearly drawn, shades of difference are bound to exist; these can be tackled through discussions in a democratic atmosphere of give and take.


I would apologize if I am harsh but the C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Star group may well have left the revolutionary camp.It condemns path of protracted peoples war,openly calls the Maoist party as anarchist,and functions totally openly .Floating the C.P.I.(M.L.) Party banner it has destroyed the legacy of every important principle of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L) It analyses the C.P.I.(Maoist) path as Lin Biaoist and even terams the post-1969 Chinese Comunist party as supporters of Lin Biaoism.To them relacing Mao thought with formulation of ‘Maoism’is Lin Biaoism.It even conducted it’s central conference openly,violating the Leninist understanding and teachings of a proletarian party.It does not seek alliances with any ruling class parties but morally calls for a united front of democratic forces having illusion s about the nature of the socio-economic system prevailing.It’s line and practice does not sharpen or give a cutting edge to the day to day struggles of the working class and peasantry.It alos morally has a very class collaborationist stand and practice towards combating communalism ,agrarian and workers movemenst and in essence tails the revisionist parties,even if it officialy does not join them.It is also very loose  in it’s defence of Socialist U.S.S.R. attributing reversal to Stalinist era itself and advocates that Mao should have surrendered or dissolved the entire state and army in Socialist  China in 1967 itself.Thus it takes an idealist position hardly recognizing the post-Marx contributions of  Lenin and Mao with regards to the necessity of the vanguard party which is so required in the transition stage and upholds multi-party concept.It also claims India is a neo-colony and the state has independent bargaining power.This has led to it taking a class collaborationist and eclectic stand on Kashmir question.It had formed a people’s democratic front of progressive organizations but this has no genuine anti imperialist or revolutionary democratic character.It has even led it’s democratic rights organization to attck the movement of the Maoists openly .It very rarely joins the protests of groups of the revolutionary camp.It’s concept of aleft united front disregards the nature of the state .It wishes to make a revolution through mere agitations in cities and villages with a party completely open.This negates any concept of armed struggle,evenif differing with orthodox protracted peoles war concept.My greatest critique of them is to attack the C.P.I.(Maoist) as a terrorist force and negate the Leninist principle of a party.It claims that the Maoist squads are undertaking extortions or money dealings and have created no genuine movement.By launching a tirade aginst the Maoists in Chattisagarh it is acting as an indirect agent of the state,even if it has progressive intentions. In 2011it criticized the C.P.M through a perspective that it did not initiate political and economic change by becoming a part of the apparatus.This maens that after becoming part of the state apparatus it wants to buld a revolution!
I do admire certain aspects still.It takes a consistent stand against Hindu Communal fascism in it’s jounal red Star and stages many programmes exposing the fascist nature of the Sangh Parivar,R.S.S..It alos takes a fortright position on ambedkar and caste and even invited Anand Teletumde to join it’s platform.It has rejected the earlier mechanical assessment of Leninst groups on caste question,integrating class question with caste.It also regularly brings out a theoretical journal which a cadre must appreciate ,which defends important aspects of revisionism,Leninism,dictatorship of the proletariat ,revisionism in Chinaetc.No organization so regularly publishes a party  organ like red Star today.It also joined hands in condemning the attacks on Maoists in Malkangiri and Kerala which is notable and also condemned state repression in Kashmir.It also is consistently critical of the revisionist parties and atleast does not make electoral alliances with them.It has done creditable work by organizing the peasant agitation in Bhangar where many of it’s leaders were arrested.Unlike C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation and U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) Proletarian Line group it condemns the Chin aof today as revisionist which is positive and upheld the aims of the G.P.C.R.Even if not a serious force in the camp it has a progressive nature and I admire it’s efforts to initatite consistent work in all fronts.
Before 1993 when the name of the group was C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Flag it did some great work in Kerala in democratic agitations,in exposing the false propoganad against the fall of communism and defending the erstwhile groups like C.P.I.(M.L.) PWG.During fall of Social Imperilaist U.S.S.R it upheld the sword of Leninism as i witnessed in Bombay in a meeting in November 1991.Arguably no group in that era had such a zest for establishing unity or displayed as much enthusiasm in practice in defending Marxist -Leninist-Maoist ideology openly.It organized more seminars and public meetings defending Socialist  ideology and exposing revisionism  more than any group in India in the early 1990’s. A concrete example was the nation-wide campaign it initiated in support of peoples war in Peru.In the early 1990’s it defended the erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.) peoplesawar through pages of Red Star more than any group when other trends were openly critical.Till 1993 Red  Star consistently defended the revolutionary positions and their polemic articles had sound theoretical understatnding towards massline and defateing left sectarianism and right deviation.I was greatly impressed in this regards with their 1st 3 issues of 1992.Even comrades of PWG stream or CCRI. Had respect for it’s work.Also organized an all india convention ion Kerala aginst Hindu communal fascism,globalisation and State repression.Still even then errorneously openly used  party banner and considered imperialism the main enemy.The turning point towards revisionist path or dramatic slide to the right came when they started participating in parliamentary election from 1998.Still even in 1999 when they gave a long reply to C.P.I.(M.L.)Peoples war group criticism they were on a sounder track revealing a more balanced approach .In an organized manner in issues of Red Stra in 2010 it explained differences with Maoists and on establishing linme of C.P.I(M.L) but it hardly had dialectical or sound  theoretical analysis and was more like a vendetta on the C.P.I.(Maoist)Overall,it is an ideal illustration of how the seeds of revisionism are sown and the need for ideological ofenisve when New Left trends are playing havoc.

Polarisation within the M-L Camp : Maoists & Revisionists

With the merger of the PW and the MCCI and formation of a revolutionary Centre in the CPI(Maoist), the line of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism is getting more clearly drawn. All fence sitters are being forced to take a stand — either with revolution or against it. And so it was with the formation of the ‘new’ party, the CPI(ML) at a conference in Vijaywada. It is yet another ML revisionist centre following in the lines of the Liberation. But this new grouping, unlike the Liberation, which has a programme similar to that of the CPM, maintains some rhetoric of its Maoist past. Other such types of revisionists and right-wing groups are also going in the same direction. Of course, all these revisionist parties claim to be the inheritors of the great Naxalbari struggle, with which they have nothing in common today. They even evoke the name of Charu Mazumdar whose great legacy they have betrayed. All this is only to usurp the past revolutionary glory to justify their present revisionist practice.
In end January of this year the Kanu Sanyal led CPI(ML) {which itself was formed by the merger of some groups} and the CPI(ML)Red Flag merged to form yet another CPI(ML). As per their Bulletin released in March 2005 the basis of their unity was against revisionism and left-sectarianism (i.e. the Maoists).

Both of which they have put on an equal plane. In fact there is greater emphasis on attacking the Maoists, with a separate article devoted to that, and entitled "Maoists are not the inheritors of Naxalbari". In this article and throughout the Bulletin, just like the government, they call the Maoists "anarchists and terrorists". In the entire Bulletin there is not a single mention of armed struggle, or the need to prepare for it, and merely continue to harp on mass struggles and mass line as the point of demarcation with the so-called terrorists. All armed struggle is clubbed as "individual annihilation" and as being opposed to the mass line. But nowhere through the Bulletin do they say how they will seize power, or how the mass struggle will be linked to the armed struggle.

In fact Lenin has said that the seizure of state power by armed force is the central task of any revolution. But on this key question they are totally silent. And this is where their revisionism comes in, no matter even if they invoke Mao’s name. Theirs is not a mere deviation from the path of protracted people’s war but the very negation of it. It is then not surprising that their Conference was held in AP just at that time when the State government had begun to launch a massive killing spree not only against the Maoists, but even against three to four other ML groups.

Question of Mass Line

Right through the Bulletin the main point on which they keep harping is mass struggle and mass line. They use the two interchangeably as though those involved in mass struggles automatically adopt the mass line while those involved in armed struggle go against it. As this is the central point that they seek to make, particularly in order to demarcate themselves from the Maoists, it is necessary to expose the confusion sought to be created on this issue.

Firstly, mass struggle is not equivalent to mass line. A mass struggle entails the mobilistation of the masses, whether on partial demands, or political demands or even for armed struggle. On the other hand the mass line is an ideological approach to be adopted in one style and method of work. It is an attitude that should be adopted in all work, whether amongst the masses or in the Party or even in the Army. It demands of all cadres and leaders to be attentive to the needs and views of the masses with whom they are working and is diametrically opposite to a bureaucratic style of work.

As is well known even those leading mass struggles have, in many places, not at all been adopting a mass line, as is evident with most trade union leaders and their bureaucratic style of functioning. Amongst the masses the mass line entails the approach "from the masses to the masses". In the Party the mass line entails taking into consideration the views of all cadres and not lording it over them, and being concerned with their well being. In the Army it entails mobilising the entire masses for the people’s war and building vast militias in addition to the regular forces. It also entails not functioning like a bourgeois army with commanders acting in an autocratic way.

In 1945 the CPC in its Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party explained the question of Mass Line thus: As Comrade Mao Tse-tung says, the correct line should be "from the masses to the masses". To ensure that the line really comes from the masses and particularly that it really goes back to the masses, there must be close ties not only between the Party and the masses outside the Party (between the class and the people), but above all between the Party’s leading bodies and the masses within the Party (between the cadres and the rank-and-file); in other words there must be a correct organisational line. Therefore, just as in each period of the Party’s history Comrade Mao Tse-tung has laid down the political line representing the interest of the masses, so he has laid down an organisational line serving the political line and maintaining ties with the masses both inside and outside the Party.

So, from this it is clear that along with the political line based on the mass line an "organisational line" has to be adopted both within the masses and the Party. Within the masses it entails going deep amongst them, finding out what are their needs and thinking and then linking these to the immediate tasks of the revolution. To merely go by the views of the masses and not link it to the tasks of the revolution would result in tailism; to not consider their views and needs would result in sectarianism and dogmatism. The former would negate the role of the vanguard Party; the latter would result in alienating the masses as the views we express would in no way be connected to their existing level of consciousness. The new CPI (ML) type revisionists have, in fact, no need to go deep amongst the masses and study their life and consciousness as they only plan to mobilise them in mass struggles and not for revolution. Such mass struggles come out of their existing life conditions and is easily seen; the task of drawing them towards revolution is far more difficult and therefore requires deep study of the masses and their situation.

Such mass struggles have been undertaken by the CPI, CPM and in fact all bourgeois parties on a bigger scale than either Red Flag or the erstwhile COI(ML) could even dream about. And as for mobilization of the masses, did not the CPI(Maoist) in AP indicate the massive mass support through the lakhs that attended their meetings in spite of the repressive hurdles just a couple of months earlier, before the crack-down was once again started? The same type of support is seen to exist in most areas of armed struggle, like Jharkhand, Bihar, Dandakaranya — that too in an atmosphere of repression, arrests, killings and various other forms of harassment. In fact the Maoists have built large mass organisations amongst the peasantry and tribals, and to some extent amongst the workers, students and also various other sections of the masses. For their three decades of existence can this ‘new’ party indicate even a fraction of the mass mobilization as that of the Maoists?

But the question is not only the ability to mobilise the masses or not. The question is as to what direction are we leading the masses. Is it for people’s war and for the seizure of power or for something else? This is the cardinal question before any serious Marxist. If it is the former the approach will get reflected in all aspects of one’s practice, including methods of organization and methods of struggle. If it is the latter, that too will get reflected.

So, for example, the entirely legal functioning of the leaders of this new party for decades is an indication of their lack of seriousness about revolution. India is not a developed country where there may exist such legal functioning of a genuine revolutionary Party for quite some period (even that may now get affected in the post 9/11 growing fascistic environment). It is a country which has no such democratic niceties as can be seen by the brutal repression on even any militant trade union struggle, let alone revolutionary struggle. What happened to the recent Rajasthan peasant struggles, what happened to the struggles of the UP electricity employees; what happened to the numerous struggles of the government employees; and what happens to the hundreds of struggles of workers in the unorganized sector who are allowed absolutely no rights what-so-ever? Though we will use legal opportunities to the extent that it exists, it is unforeseeable that a supposedly communist party having revolutionary tasks in a country like India can remain legal for so long. The continuous legal existence of the top party leaders, let alone leading revolutionary struggles, indicates that they restrict even the mass struggles so that it stays within legal confines.

So, there is mass struggle and mass struggle — done by the ruling class parties, done by the revisionists and also done by genuine communist revolutionaries. The question is as to what is the aim and direction of these mass struggles even while taking up the partial demands. Most use it to create and electoral base for their future vote-banks, while CRs use it for furthering the armed revolution. If revolution is not on the agenda of such parties as the new CPI(ML) the State feels no threat and they allow such a legal existence. And this new party’s continuous attacks on Maoists as "anarchist and terrorists" are nothing but music to the ears of the enemy forces.

Not surprisingly the AP government gave full freedom to these people to launch their new party, while at the same time mowing down others in cold blood. And through this entire Conference there was not a word of condemnation against the state government’s actions though it had already reached cruel and brutal forms by the time of their Conference. By then, in AP, even liberals had come out in condemnation against the brutalities and the fake encounters, but not these so-called proletarians. Why? That too when the Conference was being held in AP!!!

So, the genuine cadres in this party should seriously consider as to what is the real role of the leaders of this party and not get misled by their subterfuge of counter-posing their so-called mass struggle to the armed struggle and totally distorting the understanding of the question of "mass line".
An Infirm Patient Gasps for Oxygen

[A reply to CPI (ML) Red Flag]-TUSHAR

In the September '98 issue of 'Red Star' (RS), in the article entitled "Let the doctor treat himself first" [A response to CPI (ML) PW’s criticism against CPI (ML) Red Flag] the author seeks to justify his party's inconsistencies and its serious deviations to the right. It seeks to avoid clear-cut answers through obfuscation of the main issues

 In the September '98 issue of 'Red Star' (RS), in the article entitled "Let the doctor treat himself first" [A response to CPI (ML) PW’s criticism against CPI (ML) Red Flag] the author seeks to justify his party's inconsistencies and its serious deviations to the right. It seeks to avoid clear-cut answers through obfuscation of the main issues involved.
The questions that arise from the reply are:

(i) Does the CPI (ML) Red Flag (henceforth referred to as RF) accept the strategy of area-wise seizure of power, through a protracted people's war? If YES, how are its present tactics linked to that strategy ? If no, what is its strategy for seizure of power in this so-called phase of 'neo-colonial capitalist development.'

(ii) Does it accept agrarian revolution as the axis of the new democratic revolution ? If not, how then is seizure of power to be achieved ? If YES, what steps is it taking to further this key task?

(iii) Clearly state what is the predominant mode of production within India today. If it is fast heading towards 'capitalist development' (R.S. page 13, Sept. '98), however 'distorted or neo-colonial' that may be, what is the implication of this so-called 'qualitative CHANGE' on the STRATEGY of Indian Revolution?

(iv) With a basically legal party organisation (including leadership) how does RF expect to intensify the class struggle in a country like India which has few democratic institutions or traditions ? Besides, how does it expect to face fascist forces, maintaining a legal existence?

(v)  Can Bolshevisation of the Party be achieved independent of the intensification of the class struggle?

Having posed  these questions, let us now take up some of the major issues raised by RS in its Sept.'98 issue:
(1) On Strategy and Tactics:
In the section entitled 'On armed struggle' (RS pages 19, 20) while pitting the earlier Telangana armed struggle against the present-day armed struggles, RS concludes that “though PW and some other organisations may continue to have dalams and their numbers may even increase, no real break-through is possible in leading the NDR to victory.” First, to pit an armed struggle of the past with that of the present is outright distortion - hailing one, while calling the other 'sectarian.' Second, to state that the present is bound to lead to failure, without suggesting any alternative for seizure of political power, is nothing but defeatist. Third, if the earlier armed struggles are really being hailed, how is the RF at least applying those principles to their present practice?

But, it is apparent that RF is not really serious about armed struggle. This is evident when, in a later paragraph, it says that the "present Indian situation is BASICALLY (emphasis ours) different form that of pre-1949 China. "If it is BASICALLY different, is RF questioning the very Chinese path of protracted people's war? It would appear so! PW clearly states that in essence the Indian revolution will follow the Chinese path, and the differences that exist have been clearly outlined in the PW document 'Strategy and Tactics'.

What then is the RF's alternative to the present armed struggle ? It is a pathetic call "for a mighty ideological-political campaign to combat the counter-revolutionary imperialist offensive in all fields including socio-cultural fields to prepare the masses for revolution." Such counterposing of mere propaganda activity to intensification of the class struggle is an indication of the depths of impotency to which the RF leadership has descended. Such propaganda has been going on for the past two decades. For how many more decades does the RF leadership plan to confine its party's activity to primarily propaganda?

Propaganda against imperialism is of course imperative, but that cannot indefinitely remain the essence of a proletarian party's activity. Besides, PW has been actively conducting such propaganda and 'ideological and political campaigns' against imperialism, while keeping the anti-feudal armed struggle as its central focus. The two need not be counterposed, as the RF is attempting to do. Let us look at some examples of PW's anti-imperialist programmes.

To build the anti-imperialist consciousness, PW, every year, in all its areas, actively conducts August 15th and January 26th as 'black days'.... and has held April 14th as Anti-Dunkel Day. Besides, it has conducted countrywide campaigns against the government's liberalisation policies, the Dunkel IGATI' offensive, the Gulf War, the Bhopal Union Carbide holocaust, etc. The mass organisations have held seminars against the imperialist/comprador inspired coal policy, education policy, destruction of the environment etc. On the cultural front, the mass organisations have been actively fighting imperialist culture, as in the joint activity against the Miss World contest and the campaign against cable TV in the guerilla zone area  even successfully stopping Cable TV in certain villages. North Telangana guerilla zone areas youth organisations have conducted wide campaigns against the MNC's introduction of mini-cigarettes, and have even successfully banished it in some villages. Besides, at the local level numerous specific campaigns have been conducted, such as the Karnataka student's campaign against Ford Foundation, the coal mine workers' campaign against the new coal policy, etc.

So, for RF to make a fetish of anti-imperialist propaganda and to pit it against the anti-feudal armed struggles is merely a method to cover up its own passivity in furthering the class struggle. The reality is that the RF has no clear-cut strategy for the seizure of power and must therefore rest content with making banalities such as "learning from them (i.e. other revolutions) and learning from the masses of people in our country, we have to make ourselves capable of seizing the political power and creating a New Democratic India." For all the RF's self-professed claims to theoretical purity, its fuzziness on basic questions of strategy and tactics are noteworthy.

(2) On Theory and Practice

The problem with the RF is that it confuses 'Left' rhetoric for 'theory' and then complains that the VG critique negates theory for pragmatism. Quite the contrary, the VG critique merely emphasises the importance of theory to be taken as a guide to action.... not for the sake of 'Left' sloganeering to dupe genuine cadre. For example RF's claim to be inheritors of the CPI (ML) and Naxalbari, its praise for CM, its support to the Peru and Philippines revolutionary movements, etc. is in no way linked to either its present policies and practice, nor to its newly founded alliances with revisionists and counter-revolutionaries.

What is worse, it is manipulating 'theory' to provide a smoke screen for its own drift to the right, by attempting to club the genuine revolutionaries with the Lin Piaoists and spreading false rumours that PW is following the 'foco theory' in its armed struggle. Not once has it been shown in any article or practice wherein PW is basing itself on the 'foco' concept, yet RF persists in this slander.

Is the RF unaware of PW's repeated emphasis on the mass line and the need to arouse the masses for armed struggle ? Are they unaware of the extensive mass mobilisation by the PW inspite of heavy repression ? Do the concepts of the PW to build the guerilla zone by establishing the organs of people's power, establishing development committees, educational committees, justice committees and the village militias, fit in with the Cuban style 'foco' theory ? Does the existence of mass organisations of the peasants, workers, youth, women, students and the sweeping cultural movements, fit the 'foco' concept. Is the RF just ignorant of these facts or is it playing with 'theory'?

(3) On United Front

RS makes contradictory statements (RS page 21) when it first accuses PW of being sectarian for not being part of their 'slogan based joint movement' with various revisionist formations, and in the very next breath accuses PW for incorrectly allying with rich peasant forces.
First let it be clear, that rich peasants form part of the New Democratic United Front, while revisionists do not. As Lenin said, revisionists are nothing but bourgeois agents within the working class movement - they are the enemies of revolution and the last refuge of reaction. For RF to ally with revisionists like CPI (ML) Liberation, CPI (ML) New Democracy, COI (ML) and MCPI in a so-called 'slogan-based joint movement' - which is defacto an anti-imperialist unity - only acts to diffuse any real anti-imperialist struggles. Revisionists of all hues, no matter what demagogic statements they may make, cannot play any significant anti-imperialist role. The MCPI, particularly, is notorious for its anti-people activities in Narsombet area in Warangel district. Its leader, Omkar, a No.1 class enemy in the area, had thrice survived the annihilation attempts by the guerillas of CPI(ML)f People's War]. A front with such elements only acts as an effective safety valve for the dissipation of the anti-imperialist sentiments amongst the rank-and-file and masses under their influence.
It is one thing to have joint actions against imperialist targets - like say, Cargill; KFC, etc. - with all who are willing to participate, it is quite another matter to build a joint movement' with revisionists. Issue based activities can and should be as broad as possible involving all who are willing to participate. But while building up United Front work, the aim should be to build the four class alliance, with the worker peasant alliance as its basis, specifically isolating all the enemies of revolution — particularly those that seek entry wearing a 'Left' mask. And, in the final analysis, the RF calls for a joint movement' with Liberation-type outfits; the CPI (ML) Liberation calls for 'Left-unity' with the CPI(M) type ruling class parties; and the CPI (M) calls for 'secular unity' with the Congress (I)  a cosy chain of unities, tying all to the status quo !

(4) On Revolution and Counter-revolution
The real problem with the RF in all its 'Unity' moves and joint movements' is that it is not able to draw a clear line of demarcation between the revolutionary forces and the revisionists. This vision has got particularly blurred ever since it has changed it stand towards the CPI (ML) Liberation - first treating it as a revisionist organisation, now viewing it as part of the revolutionary camp, with merely a drift to the right.
As Mao said, it is imperative that the party of the proletariat be able to distinguish between Sian and Yenan….. i.e. between revolution and counter-revolution. Once this is done, the attitude towards each will differ. Towards the revolutionary (even with mistakes) it will be positive, and criticisms will be with a view to help and correct, while towards the revisionists the attitude will be quite different.....criticisms will here be with a view to expose and condemn. Such a difference in approach is not visible in RF's present-day criticisms of PW and Liberation.
What is even worse, inspite of the CPI (ML) Liberation falling into the parliamentary path, supporting the erstwhile USSR, defending Deng's China, etc., the RF claims that in essence the PW line and the Liberation line are the same.... just because Liberation also continues to nominally maintain that the contradiction between feudalism and the masses is principal. Does such polemics have any seriousness, when it is quite clear that the two parties are, in essence, poles apart? It is nothing but resorting to formal logic to distort reality .... like saying, a horse has four legs; a donkey has four legs, so a horse is equal to a donkey!

(5) On Principal Contradiction
Here, RS has resorted to a mechanical application of Mao's philosophical concepts and also to distortion of the classics, in order to undermine the anti-feudal task in the Indian democratic revolution.
First, it states that PW is eclectic in its understanding by "its deletion of principal contradiction at the international level, while faithfully sticking to it at national level in its party programme. "And it further adds that the RF is more consistent by removing this concept at both international and national levels. Sounds very logical.... but pure logic has its limitations, specifically when it seeks to cover up the truth. For RS to compare the entity of the World Socialist Revolution with that of the Indian Revolution, is to confuse the issue. The World Socialist Revolution is an ensemble of separate revolutions in different countries, for which there may or may not be a 'principal contradiction'; while the Indian revolution (or the revolution in any one country) is not an ensemble of separate anti-imperialist revolutions and anti-feudal revolutions, but a composite whole, wherein at different times one particular contradiction will be principal.
Next, for RS to state that, "the documents of the 1CM and the communist parties including the CPC till 1968, show that till that time the concept of principal contradiction was never put forward in any of them   is downright dishonest. On the question of World Socialist Revolution, the CPC had never put forward the concept of a principal contradiction, but, at most, referred to the storm centres of world revolution. On the other hand, as regards the Chinese revolution, the CPC has always put forward the concept of a principal contradiction - generally being between feudalism and the masses of the Chinese people, which changed to that between Japanese imperialism and the Chinese nation, at the time of Japanese aggression.
The RF is resorting to bourgeois semantics to justify its removal of the clause that in the Indian revolution the principal contradiction is between feudalism and the masses of the people. If RF seeks to alter this basic content of the CPI (ML) programme, and the strategy and tactics based on it, it should openly say so, rather than resort to such subterfuge.

(6) On Neo-colonialism
The RF's so-called 'neo-colonial phase' runs into two problems. First, is it a new stage of imperialism? Second, what then are the class relations within India ? Let us see what RS says.
On the first point they state (RS, Sept.'98, page 15), “The problem with PW like organisations is that they see changes as only arithmetic progressions. They refuse to see the qualitative changes that have taken place in the neo-colonial phase." As quantitative (or arithmetical) change does not lead to the change in the nature of the entity itself and qualitative change does, the RF must explain what are the qualitative changes in imperialism that have taken place in this so-called 'neo-colonial phase'. The PW definitely does not believe that the present developments have led to any qualitative changes in imperialism, but that the present neo-colonial policies have only accentuated all the aspects of imperialism as defined by Lenin. This is more clearly brought out in an article on 'Finance Capital today', which appears in this issue of the magazine.
On the second point, in RF's neo-colonial thesis, it is not clear what the predominant mode of production is, within the country. Neo-colony, semi-colony, colony, etc 4efines the relationship between a backward country and the imperialists, it does not state what the class relations within the country are - whether they are feudal, semi-feudal or capitalist. On this point RF is consistently ambiguous. Firstly, it denies (RS page 13) that "semi-feudal relations are predominant "; it also denies that it is "predominantly capitalist". So in the RF schema the predominant mode of production at present remains undefined, but predicts that it is fast changing "towards a distorted or neocolonial capitalist development". In other words, for the present, the RF is unable to define the predominant mode of production in the country, and for the future it says, that is will soon be capitalist.... though that capitalism may be "distorted or neo-colonial" in character. This understanding has no relation whatsoever with that of the CPI (ML) 1970 programme and is closer to that of the dependency theories of Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, etc.
Based on an analysis of the changing agrarian relations within India, and utilising Mao's concepts and Lenin's 'Development of capitalism in Agriculture' as a guideline, PW clearly sees the predominant mode of production in India as semi-feudal.

(7) On Political Line and Armed Struggle
There is a tendency for the RF to pit political line against armed struggle... and also mass line against armed struggle.... thereby negating the importance of armed struggle in India. And to give validity to this argument, the failure of numerous armed struggles are cited.

First, let it be clear that armed struggle per se is not the only basis to prove the communist credentials of any movement. In fact in most backward countries, due to the inhuman oppression and fascist brutalities, the oppressed are forced to take to violence to defend even their minimum democratic, civil and human rights. So, often armed struggles are launched not only by communists but also by the oppressed nationalities and various other democratic forces.

In India too, not only is the oppression and exploitation reaching unbearable limits, the brutalities of the state and fascist gangs, are forcing not only the revolutionaries to violence, but also the oppressed nationalities, the dalits, the minorities, the workers and the peasants. Today, for example even minimum trade union rights are being denied

- liberal TU leaders like Niyogi and Samant are openly murdered; the one-lakh strong coal miners union, SIKASA, is banned; and strikes in public sector units have ESMA clamped against them and their leaders arrested. In such a situation, where all peaceful forms of activity become increasingly meaningless, does not the undermining of armed struggle play into the hands of the ruling classes and fascist forces? It is an irony that 'revolutionaries' like RF tremble at the word 'armed struggle', while the fascist forces like the Shiv Sena, RSS, Bairang Dal are openly building up their quasi-military forces. The RF keeps talking of fighting the fascist forces - yet it refuses to prepare itself for the task. It is not even able to learn from past history of the anti-fascist movement during World War II; where communists militantly fought the fascists in the streets as well as through partisan warfare.
One wonders how the RF can face the growing fascist menace with its entire Party apparatus, including the entire leadership, remaining overground and without any preparations for waging armed struggle.

Like the revisionist parties of the Second International, is not the RF leadership commiting the criminal folly of making the party totally defenceless? Even to carry out its self acclaimed anti-imperialist campaign, can it rely on its existing legal setup? Does not the passive, reformist line it has been pursuing lead to a complete decimation of the perty in the face of fascist attacks (provided, of course, the ruling classes think you are a real threat)? We request the RF leadership to seriously ponder over these question.

Though armed struggle cannot per se be equated to communism, in a country like India can any serious communist undermine it ? Here, where armed struggle is on the agenda from the very beginning of the revolutionary movement, any serious communist party must either be leading it, or preparing for it. For the RF to delink the question of political line from that of armed struggle, or to pit one against the other, is bound to lead to all forms of revisionism and reformism. The political line determines the friends and enemies of revolution at a given time, the line of conduct of the proletarian party at that moment, the tactics to be followed, etc.... all within the general strategic plan of revolution. Armed struggle is very much a part of this, and is, infact, central to the implementation of the very political line itself.

In a country such as India, only those communist revolutionaries that are serious about armed struggle are of any significance for making revolution. Political differences may exist even amongst those parties and groups on questions of analysis of the national and international situation, or questions of organisation and tactics, etc.... but these can be resolved through discussion and debate in the course of advancement of the class struggle. But for those who are not serious about armed struggle, who are unable to take the class struggle forward, even discussions lack sincerity.
Finally, the RF must remember, that it was by Opposing revolutionary violence and armed struggle that the Khruschevite modern revisionists built their theories of three 'peacefuls'. The question of revolutionary violence and armed struggle was then very much apolitical question. And so is it today.

(8) On Building an All-India Bolshevik Party

In order to prove PW's 'sectarianism' RF cites the example of lack of unification between the three organisations leading armed struggles and states, "and even the last minute efforts for PW and PU unity also collapsed. "This is probably only wishful thinking on the part of the RF leadership who fear unification between the real revolutionary forces. On the contrary, the RF is itself facing severe splits within its own ranks, with a sizable section coming out of the party and forming another CPI (ML) faction and that too, after severe political and organisational criticisms on the RF leadership.
Of course, it is quite true, that amongst the M-L forces in India there has been much dogmatism and sectarianism, which has been a hurdle for rectification of errors and for unification. This should, no doubt, be corrected wherever it persists. But what has been a source of even greater danger, specifically during the last two decades, has been the proliferation of rightist groups.... all seeking validity in the name of attacking the dogmatism and sectarianism of the past. It is these that have caused greater harm in building a unified revolutionary CPI (ML).

Unite we must, into one all-India Bolshevik style party; but, as Lenin maintained, before we unite and in order to unite, clear lines of demarcation must be drawn between Marxism and revisionism. There must be unity not only on the question of programme, but also on questions of tactics and organisation. There must be unity not only on questions of theory, but also a common practice. The'-e must be a true spirit of democratic centralism in the uniting bodies, which supersedes all forms of bureaucracy, petti-bourgeois individualism and ego, or a mountain-stronghold mentality. Only then can the unity be lasting and advantageous for furthering the class struggle. PW, having learnt this from bitter experience, has taken all the above factors into account, rather than going in for any hasty unity moves.... and it is for this reason that the unification between the erstwhile PW and PU took a little time. It was for the same reasons, for want of commonalty on all the above issues, that unity with MCC has been temporarily stalled. No doubt, as both parties continue on the revolutionary path, unity will be achieved at some future date. Meanwhile, PW has a positive approach towards MCC and its movement, while struggling with it at the ideological and political plane.
But as far as the rightist M-L groups/parties are concerned, many of which have indefinitely postponed the question of armed struggle or even removed it from the agenda itself, unification is only possible after a thorough going rectification ... which involves adopting not only correct strategy and tactics but also developing a correct practice and building a Boishevised party with professional revolutionaries as its core. If such organisations do not critically review their past, the genuine revolutionaries within them are bound to realise the futility of such bodies and rally behind the genuine revolutionary Party.

To take RF's latest split. Not only has the breakaway faction accused the RF leadership of diverting the movement from the revolutionary path.... on a number of basic questions... but has also accused them of incorrect organisational methods. In a statement dated May 20, 1998, a CRC member (RF's leadership body) has said: "When the party wants to change the cardinal aspects of the line it should come out with a document, circulate it among the rank and file and should finalise it after due discussion. There was no document on any of the cardinal questions raised in the beginning of this note (i.e. Area-wise seizure of power, principal contradiction, armed struggle and peoples' army, boycott of elections, concept of secret party organisation and nationality question)  we got the understanding through the articles in Red Star and side talks during CRC meetings. Can a serious revolutionary party adopt such surreptitious methods?" It is obvious that, the infirm patient, while throwing wild accusations against PW and demanding that "the doctor treat himself first", is itself gasping for oxygen in a bid to survive.

In a vast country like India, divided by numerous nationalities, languages, castes, religions etc.; building a homogenous all-India proletarian party is no easy task. This problem has been further compounded by decades of revisionism prior to Naxalbari and a quarter century of fragmentation in the post-Naxalbari period. It is only by further deepening the class struggle, successfully combating state repression, raising the ideological and political level of the entire party organisation, deepening our understanding of the concrete situation within India and of MLM Thought, and by strictly following democratic centralist principles of party organisation, with a modest and self-critical approach.... can a truly Bolshevised all-India party be built. The PW has merely taken a first step forward in this gigantic task.


In this reply we have taken some of the main points raised in the RS article. We have not repeated the points already mentioned in the May-June '98 issue of Vanguard. Regarding some of the wild accusations hurled against us by the RS article we have not thought it fit to counter them, here, practice alone will prove who is correct and who is not. Regarding some of the errors within PW; the party has already done a detailed self-critical review and sought to rectify its shortcomings in both political and organisational matters.

The PW has never claimed to have solved all the complex questions of Indian revolution... this is an ongoing process of study and analysis.... but what it has done is to work out a basic international standpoint, a basic analysis of Indian society, a detailed strategy and tactics, a stand on the nationality question and a policy paper on caste and women. Besides, it has two detailed self-critical reviews -one, for the 1967-80 period, the other for the 1980-95 period. The PW has always been ready and eager to learn from others' experiences, specifically those that have been able to successfully lead the class struggle forward, whether in India or abroad.

The PW has never claimed to have achieved a great strength, given the enormity 6f the Indian state; but what it has achieved, in some pockets of India, is one step beyond the earlier Telangana armed struggle (1948-51) in its ability to withstand the state and with a more developed military line and systematic growth of the organs of power. Of course, it still has a very long way to go.... after all, the Indian revolution is a protracted people's war.

Criticisms from the RF, or any other source, are welcome if they help in furthering the armed struggle and rectifying genuine flaws that will only help achieve the NDR quicker, and thereby alleviate the unbearable suffering of the vast masses in India. If the RF is at least serious in its anti-imperialist tasks, if not agrarian revolution, we hope that they will intensify the struggle against the pro-imperialist policies of the governments and  the MNC onslaught. -


The C.P.I.(M.L.) supporting the Kanu Sanyal line could be placed on the periphery of the revolutionary camp.It functions in open party banner and participates in elections.It has not sharpened class struggles in any region of India today.Earlier it opportunisticall merged with the C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Flag.In his time Kanu  Sanyla treated the C.P.I.(Maoist) line and practice as ‘terorist.’ which was erroneous.Descended from the Janshakti group which was formed by the most opportunist unity ever in the post-naxalbari era.However it still regularly bring sout a journal ‘Class Struggle’ propogating politics of New Democratic Revolution nad condemning state repression.communal fascism,revisionism and Imperialism.It’s best contribution is printing the 2 volumes of the Tarimela Nagi Reddy Memorial Trust of 1946-51 and 1964-72  on the history of Indian Communist movement which is a treasurehouse in any library of a Marxist cadre. One of the finest and most well researched works on the mass line and polemics of Indian Communist Movement ever.Alos brought out a translation of Tarimela Nagi Reddy’s ‘India Mortgaged’ in 3 different languages.It’s mainbase is in the C.P.I.(M.L.) formed by Kanu Sanyal and the C.P.I.(M.L.) led by Viswam which came out of Janashakti.  It has strived to even unite groups from original C.P.I.(M.L.) trend like that of late Khonkan Mazumdar.It has also conducted many a progressive seminar on imperialism and feudalism affecting agriculture.Past weakness was openly condemning Maoist party actions and line but for the last few years have refrained fom it which is positive.

Speakers make positive contributions to conventions condemning operation Green hunt or Hindu communal fascism in Delhi and Kolkata.Also carried out state  and All India level conferences of trade Union nad Peasant organizations like All India Fedetaion of trae Union sand Rytu Colie Sangham.Progressive mass work dome in Orissa in tribal region .Works in trade union front in Tamil Nadu,Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.Some of their comrades or late comrades were the best son sof the land.Not as militant or positive as New Democarcy group but atleast  wave the line of protracted peoples war and the tradition of Leninism.Also not as open as Red Star group.It claims to be the reorganized C.P.I.(M.L.) which should have been deferred in 1969.Very sincere about unity and combating deviationist trends but in practice still hardly sharpened practice aginst revionisim by contesting elections without a proper agrarian revolutionbary agenda.Must learn lessons from opportunistic unity of C.P.I.(M.L.)Janashakti formed in 1992 whch later spintered .


On 22nd of April 2017 the centenary celebration of great October Revolution was celebrated atSelvaMahalKalyanaMandapam, MGR Nagar, Chennai. More than 300 persons took part in the great occasion.At the beginning comrade Chitrarasu welcomed the gathering. Cultural teams of Andhra Pradesh andamil Nadu performed cultural programme with revolutionary songs. The entire hall was filled with of the great October revolution in detail.
In continuance the State Committee member and Veteran Com.Elagiri Raman addressed the gathering.He explained how Com.Lenin fought with various alien trends to Marxism and led the October revolutionsuccessfully and enriched the Marxism to the level of Leninism.
Then Com.Selvaraj Secretary of Salem District Committee and the State Committee member ofTamilnadu emphasized the necessity of inner party democracy and democratic Centralism.

Then Com. Karunanithi, Cuddalore District Secretary and State Committee member insisted thenecessity of the unity of the communist revolutionaries to realize the aim of single communist party inIndia.
Then a great Tamil scholar who has translated “The Capital” in Tamil and a leader of TamilDesaViduthalaiIyyakkam gave a very emotional speech explaining the various aspects of the great Octoberrevolution. He explained how various scholars such as Ravindranath Tagore, Subramanya Bharathi andBharathidasan welcomed the October revolution. He also explained even though various trends existed inRussia only Com. Lenin successfully completed the revolution as he concretely applied Marxism to theconcrete conditions of than Russia. He also emphasized the need of understanding the recent developments

in the international arena. He also stated how Lenin dealt the nationality question in the Tsarist Russia.

Then Prof. Sivakumar one of the renowned scholar of Tamilnadu gave a very beautiful speech regardingthe Great October Revolution and he also noted that one hundred years have already passed since OctoberRevolution we must understand the developments of the world and should pay attention to solve the problemsof revolution by applying Leninism concretely. He also explained how China have became a capitalist stateand nobody should have Illusion about the present China.

Com.Jaswanth Rao, Editor of Class struggle gave a very deep analytic speech about the October revolutionand also explained how India is completely sold out to the Imperialistsby the ruling classes who ruled India continuously. He also explained the plight of the peasants and howagriculture was totally ruined. Peasants are forced to leave their land by economic levers.

dairy sector was opened for the entry of MNCs. This is going to destroy the livelihood of nearly 70 millionpeasant families who are engaged in production of milk that made India the largest producer of milk in theworld. This is the part of the strategy of ruling classes of India and imperialists to gobble up Indian agriculturalsector. His speech in English was beautifully translated by Com.Thyagu to the appreciation of the entirepeople attended the meeting.

Then Com.SankaraSubbu, Peoples Lawyer gave a very short speech hailing the Naxalbari struggleand the martyrs and also explained his role how he defended the comrades who have faced false casesoisted by the repressive governments. At 2 Pm the meeting was adjourned for Lunch.

The convention resumed at 3pm with the revolutionary songs by cultural teams. Com. G. Vijayakumar,Secretary AIFTU (New), gave an inspiring speech in Telugu which was translated by Com.VinthaiVenthan.Heempha-sized the necessity of working class to provide the leadership for the Indian Revolution and it is thetask of the Revolu-tionary party to mould the working class capable of discharging the tasks so as to

complete the new democratic revolution. He also noted the problems faced by the working class movementin India and emphasized that the more intensified and politicized class struggle is the only alternative toovercome these problems.
Com.Siddanantham, Secretary of Dharmapuri District and State Committee member gave a speechexplaining the drought conditions and the plight of the Tamil Nadu peasants. He also mentioned therevolutionary struggles led during the period of Balan who is a great martyr.

Com.Gunalan, Secretary of Tanjore District Committee and State Committee gave a very inspiringspeech hailing the October Revolution and explained its great achievements. He pointed out the need sosuitably apply the lesson of the October Revolution to the objective conditions of India. He also dealt withthe corrupt and anti-people policies of AIADMK state governments and called the masses to revolt againstthem.

Finally Com.Kovai.Eswaran, Tamil Nadu Secretary of CPIML, gave a short speech. He explainedhow comrade Lenin fought against left and right deviations and led the revolution successfully in Russia.He also explained how the left and right deviations that manifested in the Indian Communist party from theinception caused for the split and hampering the unity of the Indian Communist Movement. He called thepeople to rally behind the CPIML which is trying to build a single communist party in the course of advancingthe class struggles on correct Marxist Leninist lines.

The convention was concluded with the speech of vote of thanks by Comrade.Vasantha.After the conclusion a rally led by Com. Udayasuriyan marched from the hall and reached the MGRNagar market with inspiring slogans and revolutionary songs. More than 200 persons marched in the rallyin a highly disciplined manner.

After the end of the rally a public meeting was conducted in the MGR Nagar market area which waspresided by Com.Sundara Vinayagam of Cuddalore and a State Committee member. The beginning of themeeting with the revolutionary songs attracted many people to the public meeting. In the meetingCom.Udayasuriyan explained how the educational system was commercialized by the anti social elementswho were running these institutions and it is imposing heavy damage on the poor by depriving them ofeducation. Then Com.Selvaraj explained how the Hindu communal forces led by Modi was serving theinterests of rich and pauperizing the Indian masses. He explained the plight of the peasants of Tamilnaduwho were committinggovernment. Then Com.Siddanantham in his speech explained the glorious struggles of the peasant masses under the leadership of Com.Balan the great martyr and pledged to forward the legacy. Com.Gunalan gave

a powerful speech explaining the present political situation. He called upon the people to march in therevolutionary path so as to successfully conclude the Peoples Democratic Revolutions. The public meetingconcluded with the vote of thanks by Com. Chitrarasu..

No comments: