otto's war room banner

otto's war room banner

Friday, July 21, 2017

Celebrating 50 years since Naxalbari: Concluding Part and Summary Part 10

Written by Harsh Thakor; This article contains a lot of documented information but also reflects the personal views of Thakor.

May the inextinguishable light of Naxalbari resurrect it’s earlier glory  to illuminate the whole nation and extinguishing the dark forces of fascism.
We cannot live on the glories of the past like the Naxalabri struggle or on the achievements of past decades in Andhra  Pradesh, Telenagana, Bihar ,Jharkhand etc.
No doubt what started as a stream turned into an Ocean with the movement spreading like wildfire even if there was great fragmentation and several setbacks.
Today because of the great sacrifices of comrades striving for correct path a superstructure has been built  but this base has to be consolidated and protected.
Today the enemy is even stronger blowing a much stronger gale against the revolutionary movement than 5 or even 2-3 decades ago.
They are armed to the teeth to defeat organized struggles, much more equipped than the Maoist forces.
In this concluding part 10 I am summarizing the positive aspects and weaknesses in the Indian Maoist Movement and the tasks for the future.
The theme is in spite of great strides we have too understand how India has to practice a path of protracted peoples war taking into account it’s own specific characteristic and not adhere blindly to the Chinese model.
I feel the Indian PPW will have significant differences from the Chinese path even if there are also very strong similarities.
Today we must salute the C.P.I.(Maoist) for shimmering it’s flame in Dandkaranya to create a new model of people’s power and sow the sees in other regions but still not have illusions that it is on the verge of victory .


The most significant progress has been made in Dandkaranya, Jharkand, Orissa where the torch of the C.P.I.(Maoist) is blazing.
It’s red flame is shimmering like in those parts like never before with alternative people’s structures been built in Dandkaranya.
The wave has even spread in regions of Kerala and the Maharashtra Border revealing a fire that is in extinguishable.
Although not waging armed struggle a mass movement in Punjab of the peasantry under the leadership of various communist revolutionary groups  has been built as never before.
Earlier although there was a great student and youth movement in Punjab there never existed such a strong united peasant movement of both the landed or landless peasantry.
The unity amongst many trends of landed peasantry organization and their support to the dalit landless labor movement in Jaloor in  Punjab is of great significance.
There is also unity there amongst mass political organizations like Lok Sangram Manch. Inquilabi Lok Morcha, Inquilabi Kendra, Lok Morcha etc. The joint election campaign of 3 different groups in January this year was of great relevance. In the same light 3 groups commemorating 50 years of Naxalbari in Ludhiana in May was very positive.
In West Bengal the movement is very splintered but the unity in joint protests and the recent unity of 5 groups jointly commemorating 50 years of Naxalbari in Silguri was heartening.
Also spirited cadre in regions of Uttar Pradesh combating the menace of castesim and Saffron fascism in Benares University.
The most positive aspect of today is the unity that has emerged amongst different trends within the revolutionary camp and the determination of cadres from so many trends to Unitedly  fight the ongoing fascist assault of the state represented by the ruling B.J.P.
Some of the most outstanding united protests have taken place in cities like Delhi, Kolkata and towns of Punab like Moga and Barnala.
I was most impressed with over 12 groups uniting in College square of Kolkata organizing a march in November and later a sitting protest in December against the massacre of Maoist activists in Malkangiri and earlier against Operation Greenhunt.
Be it from Kanu Sanyal, 2nd C,C. New Democracy, Maoist or Red Star  they assembled creating the presence of a torrent.
Protestors displayed heroic fighting spirit in defying the police barricade.
Similarly in Delhi similar effect was created with even mass organization sof C.P.I..(M.L.) Liberation and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights participating.
In Barnala and Moga districts of Punjab some of the most qualitative protests and conventions have been held in recent times burning the flame of resistance against Operation Greenhunt, massacre of Maoists in Malakangiri, and life sentence on Maruti Suzuki workers.
The Democratic Front against Operation Greenhunt has built an organized movement like no other in combating state fascism even if it’s numbers are not so great.
It has sown the seeds for building democratic consciousness ,which is of great significance. Such a force is backbone of the revolutionary movement in protecting itself.
Similarly the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights has been revived and held some great seminars on state repression in Kashmir etc. A strong democratic rights Organization is the need of the hour and an essential prerequisite in the protracted peoples war.
The protest launched in Mumbai after the suicide of Rohit Velmula was one of the strongest ever seen in India in February 2016 and the later students upheavals in Delhi University protesting against the arrest of student leader  Kanhaiya  and Umar Khalid displayed great fury and determination.
On very few occasions in the past has such intensity been displaced against castes' oppression nation wide .
In Punjab the fiercest determination was expressed by Students for Democratic Society protesting police attack on movement against fee
I was also greatly impressed by the qualitative response by the common public to protests in Kerala against the assassination of comrades Devraj and Ajitha by the C.P.M. govt. There was spontaneous support and sympathy to that cause by common people.
Today trends that evolved from Chandra Pulla Reddy like New Democracy group or from T .Nagi Reddy –D.V. Rao like  C.P.R.C.I.(M.L.)  never openly criticize the Maoist armed actions.

2 decades ago the N.D. group in public condemned the armed squad action of Peoples War group and similarly sections of U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) Morally today the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L.) displays significantly more admiration for the Maoist party than it’s erstwhile constituent which was C.C.R.I. show towards the Peoples War group.
The general polarization of Unity has reduced confusion amongst cadres with the unity of the C.P.I.(Maoist) a major landmark.
Other mergers like C.P.I.(M.L.) Kanu Sanyal with Janshaktti into C.P.I.(M.L.) also reflected this phenomena.
Splits in past decades caused immense confusion.
Today the movement is striving to integrate the caste question with Maoism and the revolutionary movement which was earlier ignored. A really sustained effort was  made by the Maoist party leader and ranks to facilitate this like Anuradha Ghandy.
The Maoist movement cannot progress by neglecting caste question and not integrating it with class struggle. Here Anand Teltumbde also made a significant contribution.
In Tata Institute of Social sciences a bi-monthly magazine is brought out highlighting revolutionary democracy and state repression on campuses in relation to Dalit and Ambedkarite movement.
The Internet has given access to a lot more information about the movement and it’s ideology.It played a major role in popularizing the Maoist movement and inspiring cadre. I would never have known so much without the internet on practice and polemics.
The crisis of globalization has openly given a clear insight to the peasants and workers about the fascist nature of socio-economic system which has removed it’s blinkers.
I am re-posting excerpts on an outstanding summary or analysis of  the C.P.I.(Maoist) s from

  ‘Is the Torch Passing?’ by Robert Weil.

It does justice to the Movement more than any writer with a most symmetrical and objective evaluation in context with the concrete situation of India.
It refutes anyone who calls the Maoists as a terrorist force or isolated from the people or those who claim that the Maoist war is on the verge of a famous victory.
The rise of the CPI (Maoist) to its leading revolutionary position today is the outcome of specific conditions over the past several years, and its ability to take advantage of the openings provided by these new developments.
In part this is due to its flexibility. With well trained cadre, a battle-hardened guerrilla army, and a mobility that has, in large part, been forced upon it by constant suppression campaigns, the party has developed the kind of “have guns, will travel” capability that allows it to quickly seize opportunities that the system of oppression opens up before it.
This was seen in 2005, when Maoists were once again largely driven from their bases in Andhra Pradesh, with heavy losses, yet not only quickly regrouped, but reached a new peak of national mobilization. This ability to convert setbacks into gains, to seize openings that constantly arise for expansion, is not simply the result of flexible and mobile organization, however.
Over the last three decades, the Maoists have “seeded” the vast forest regions and other parts of the interior hinterland with dedicated cadre, who have helped to stimulate and lead resistance struggles by those who have suffered from centuries-long oppression and exploitation.
These communities rise up over and over again when conditions become unbearable. This deep and dialectical tie between the Maoist revolutionaries and popular forces is the primary reason why the struggle continues to flare repeatedly, and to spread across the country, often at the very point when the movement has suffered setbacks.
The CPI (Maoist) is of course anathema to most of the ruling parties and wealthy classes, but criticisms of its methods and doubts about its prospects are widely shared among the intelligentsia and in leftist circles.
Even these critics commonly express admiration for the dedication and courage of its cadre and fighters, and it is not unusual to hear them say, “if I were younger, or more willing to take risks, or less tied down to family or career, I might join them.” 

Many of those who criticize the revolutionary Maoists are themselves also lifelong activists who courageously struggled for radical social change, often at great personal sacrifice, including long years of hardship and imprisonment. Not a few of them go back in their activism to Naxalbari itself. So attention must be paid to their critiques.
The list varies, but among the most common themes are that the CPI (Maoist) wants to put in place a one-party state, a classic “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and that in the areas under its control, it excludes and even suppresses all other parties. Many object to what they see as a violation of the multiparty system, and fear that a Maoist victory would mean the end to all forms of civil liberties and political freedom.
Some also hold the view that India is not, as Maoists claim, a semi-feudal, semi-colonial nation, but rather a modern capitalist economy that, while highly exploitative, is that of a fully independent state, with a parliamentary democracy in which even most of the poor still believe.
Others note that the Indian working class is undergoing rapid changes, in which casual and unorganized forms of labor are already dominant, undermining the basis for a “classical” proletarian-led revolution.
A closely related critique is that the Maoist forces are isolated in the forests and unable to expand beyond their primarily tribal base. In this view, the main agricultural population in the plains, and especially urban workers, remain largely beyond their reach and ability to organize.
Others hold that the CPI (Maoist) is not so much a national force, as a collection of semi-autonomous regional units, and that its liberated zones are relatively unstable, and unable to carry out development projects or provide civil services, while at the same time obstructing those of the state.
That leads, from this viewpoint, to excessive reliance on military force and violence, and to overly adventuristic actions. Some even note that the Indian party lacks a single dominant and charismatic revolutionary leader, such as Mao Zedong, around whom to rally.
Overall, for many such critics, the state and military in India are simply too powerful to confront, much less overcome, with the guerrilla strategy that the Maoists have been forced to adopt. For both substantive reasons, therefore, and the tendency to want “to go with the winner,” many progressives and leftists hold back from, or even oppose, the CPI (Maoist).
Of all the critiques leveled at the party and its actions, however, the most damning and ubiquitous is the “sandwich” theory. Over and over again, critics of the CPI (Maoist) claim that it lacks broad popular support, and instead, through its violent attacks, places the poor and oppressed in the “middle” between its revolutionary guerrillas and the state.
This theory takes various forms. To some, adivasis are seen as a passive population, who are caught and crushed between two larger forces beyond their control. For others, tribal uprisings, such as in Lalgarh, are an expression of the “purity of the people,” a kind of “noble savage” role, while the “unprincipled and opportunistic”
Maoists are viewed as having stripped them of the ability to serve as their own subjective political actors.70 Still others assert that the goals of the adivasis are limited to only practical demands for improvement of their situation, and that they are not interested in seizing state power.
In the most extreme version, these critics assert that the mass demonstrations in the CPI (Maoist) areas are based on coercion by the party, that it indiscriminately kills any who oppose it, and that its attacks serve only to bring down repression by the state. In any case, the claim is made that the majority of the population are the main sufferers, while “It is the duty of middle India, according to the ‘sandwich theory’, to ‘rescue’ the hapless Adivasis and rural poor from the armed combatants.”71 Clinging to such “apparent neutrality” and similar reasoning, many of those who supported struggles in Singur and Nandigram are much more hesitant to rally for Lalgarh, with its closer ties to Maoists.72
But there is an alternative view of this relation. Until now, according to such a standpoint, the adivasis and other oppressed communities have for long been crushed under the heavy power of the state, and the brutal exploitation and abuse of upper castes and classes, as in a “sandwich” with only one piece of bread on the top. Viewed in this way, Maoists have finally provided the “bottom slice,” the ability to resist and fight back
In the yesteryears there were no Maoists. No political intervention from outside. And yet autonomous revolts got defeated in no time though all these movements created social mobility and consciousness for the next phase of rebellion. The violent past helped them raise their sights.
This time tribals revolted against the attacks on their livelihoods, and objective condition was such that Maoist intervention was logical to sustain resistance against the mighty state and fill up the subjective vacuum.
Had not the Maoists intervened, the struggle for survival could have been crushed much earlier. The Maoist presence is delaying the victory of armed forces over a community that has nothing to lose other than shame and drudgery. In many cases tribals themselves invited the naxalites….73
Earlier adivasi revolts were beaten down, in other words, regardless of any “sandwich.”
Now those who rebel against oppression at least have a base to rest on and to help defend them, an improvement even if they are in the “middle.” Calls on the Maoists to “leave the people alone,” in their “natural” condition, just serve to weaken them once again in the face of their oppressors, and to abandon them virtually disarmed against those in power.
There is a special irony here. When Mazumdar called for the peasants to “annihilate” the landlords and moneylenders who oppressed them—a much disputed policy even within the Naxalite movement—he at first insisted that they use only their own conventional weapons, “choppers, spears, javelins and sickles,” not guns, which would lessen the self-initiation and immediacy of their revolt, and make them reliant on others for arms.74
Now, in a strange echo of the Naxalbari leader, some who oppose the CPI (Maoist) suggest that reliance on its guerrilla army for support ruins the “purity” of the adivasis, who should confront a powerful modern state alone with their bows, arrows and knives. Yet whether it is a Maoist policy in 1970 or an anti-Maoist one in 2010, this kind of “primitivism” approach is inadequate.
The oppressed and impoverished of India, like those everywhere, have the right to fight “by any means necessary,” to arm themselves with the most effective weapons available, and to choose those allies who offer them the greatest support and the best ability to resist the enemy, as they and they alone determine.
Incidents, in any event, do not, and indeed could not, represent the strategic policy of the CPI (Maoist), and should not be twisted into absurd accusations. The claim, for example, that 20,000 adivasis, armed with their own traditional weapons, who for months have driven out the security forces of a powerful modern state, can be forced against their will to attend a rally or protest by a relative handful of Maoist guerrillas, defies logic as well as the historic record of such movements, which always depend on wide popular support. “The Maoists cannot influence the events in tribal belts simply by showing gunpowder.
It’s a life-and-death question of thousands of tribal families that keeps the Maoist campaign going despite periodic setbacks.”109 Similarly with the Maoists imposing a boycott of legislative elections.
 A statement by adivasi women in Dandakaranya (DK) belies this.
KAMS [Krantikari Adivasi Mahila Sangathan/Revolutionary Adivasi Women’s Organization] gives full support to the DK revolutionary movement which is carried on with the following aims – ‘Land to the tiller’, ‘Forest to the adivasis’, ‘State Power to the oppressed people’, ‘Women’s Liberation’.
We work shoulder to shoulder with our fraternal mass organizations in the armed struggle and political propaganda against the exploitative government and its army. We participate in the election boycott actively with the aim of establishing people’s power as an alternative to the parliamentary politics in which we have lost confidence. The ruling classes who could not tolerate this are perpetuating brutal violence on the adivasi women.110
Any woman activist who can make such a statement is not a passive pawn in the hands of anyone. Even if, as is likely, KAMS is a Maoist front, with 30 years work and 100,000 members, it is representative of the prominent role taken by adivasi women and the clear nature of their demands.111
This activism penetrates into every area of life, a critical new aspect of democracy. “Women now hold meetings independently,” and challenge all the old centers of power, such as tribal elder authority, or their abusive and humiliating treatment by non-adivasis.
With the understanding gained in this process the women now know that men must become part of housework and child rearing. They know that woman too go out for organizational work like the man. If only one can leave the house, they know that it is necessary to discuss democratically and decide who has to go. Earlier the women were not allowed into the places where the harvest was stored. Now this tradition is not seen.
The fight for wearing blouses was a turning point in women’s lives. In the areas where the Revolutionary People’s Committees were formed, the men have been democratized and they now understand that they have to discuss with their wives before doing anything that involve both. Readers are aware that land pattas [ownership documents] are issued by the RPCs [Revolutionary People’s Committees] in the name of both men and women in the newly occupied lands.112
Many “are becoming professional revolutionaries,” ready to go wherever needed, and “even question the discrimination they face in guerilla life in order to gain their rights”—an indication that despite advances, women still confront limitations on their role in the revolutionary movement and issues with their treatment by men in the party and army hierarchy.
Still, in virtually every such area, the CPI (Maoist) is turning its contradictions and weaknesses into new strengths.113 Even the absence of a single “great leader” within the party has a democratizing effect, working against the rise of cultish excesses, and emphasizing the guiding role of the people themselves, who do not need dependence on charismatic national personages in order to carry on their struggles.
United front work with other parties, NGOs, intellectuals and students plays a similar role.As the “large” democracy of India proves itself ever more ineffective and corrupt, and is shown to be an instrument in the exploitation of the people, it is the very resistance of the Maoists to “playing by the rules” that increases their attractiveness to the marginalized, and drives growing numbers of the disaffected in their direction.
This “erosion of democratic spaces” must be hailed as an achievement of the Maoist intervention, to the extent that it undermines democracy as an instrument of rule for the state and the ruling order…
So now, the message from Dantewada is that the democratic game is over—instead of lamenting over the loss of democracy, the erosion of democratic spaces, it is precisely this end of the democratic game that is the most laudable achievement of the Maoist movement.
It is the poor saying that “democracy” only seeks/extracts our mandate for your well-entrenched power. We do not want to be exploited and given a democratic voice, we refuse to be drawn into mandating our own exploitation…. It is the poor saying that it is not just the undemocratic nature of capitalism we have problems with, but with capitalism as such, with, in fact, democratic capitalism.114
What is at stake here is not just the nature of the state, but the character of the capitalist system that it upholds. The two are no longer separable, either in practice or in the minds of millions of the exploited. A revolutionary New Democracy confronts both, demanding an end not only to exploitation, but to the bourgeois political system that is enforcing it.
The C.P.I.(Maoist) and it’s guerilla army exhibit outstanding dedication and courage and as the conditions of hundreds of millions worsen and alienation from the current system of large democracy grows, they are showing the forces of popular struggle an alternate path to revolutionary transformation and democratic unity. To succeed it must in effect help lead the forging of a new nation founded on a set of alternative principles, bringing about greater unity by strengthening the democratic rights and participatory power of its disparate elements.
 It is extraordinarily hard against a powerful state using unrestrained force and unrestrained brutality to prevent it. The revolution it has undertaken holds out the promise of breaking the cycle of wasteful and destructive violence by transforming the underling inequalities and social injustices of caste,  class, gender, ethnicity and religion.
For the C.P.I.(Maoist) the hardest task may be finding a path to broaden its appeal to others, and to show sufficient strategic and tactical flexibility to fit the Indian situation, today. It challenges Gandhian methods as well as other leftist methods, which have alternate visions of a non-violent path but have been unable to show in practice how the exploitative economic system and the statist militarism that upholds it can be restrained or undermined to allow emergence of their utopian new worlds.
The Maoist party is turning strengths into weaknesses in spite of the absence of single great leader within the party .
Some critiques claim that it lacks broad popular support and instead through it's violent activities sandwiches the poor between the guerrillas and the state. They see Adivasis as a passive population. However others challenge this stating that the Adivasis and other oppressed classes have for long been crushed under the power of the state and the brutal exploitation of the upper castes. Only the Maoists have displayed the ability to fight back.
In yesteryears there were no Maoists and no political intervention from outside. Autonomous revolts got defeated in no time though all these movements created social mobility and consciousness for the next phase of rebellion.
This time tribals revolted against attacks on their livelihood and it was only Maoist intervention which enabled their struggle to survive. The Maoist presence delayed victory of the armed forces over a community that had nothing to lose other than shame and drudgery. Had it not been for intervention by the Maoists the resistance would have been crushed much earlier.

Amit Bhattacharya on movement in Lalgarh

The ongoing struggle in Lalgarh, nay, Jangal Mahal has already completed one year in early November 2009.
This struggle is totally different from any other recent movement in our country. If Singur faced the initial experience of defeat, Nandigram could take pride in having tasted victory in course of a long bloody battle against the anti-people ‘left-front’ government and terror perpetrated by the hermads backed by the ruling CPI(M).
The struggles waged in both Singur and Nandigram were directed against the land-grab movement resorted to by domestic big comprador capital and foreign imperialist capital. In both Singur and Nandigram, the parliamentary parties played some role, although in the case of the latter, the Maoist party that rejects the parliamentary path did play some role. In the case of the Lalgarh movement, on the other hand, parliamentary parties were actually rejected by the people and the Maoist party played a major role.
In one sense, the Lalgarh movement began in a different context. It started as a response against the brutality perpetrated by the police on November  5, 2008. It was, at the same time, a fight against age-old deprivation and humiliation and for the assertion of dignity and the rights of the people. However, if one takes into account the land mine attack on the WB chief minister on 2 November 2008–the day the corporate house of the Jindals inaugurated the Shalboni steel plant (it was a SEZ), then that event possibly acted a catalyst that started a snow-balling process. In that sense, it started as a response to the land-grab movement also, like those in both Singur and Nandigram.
The Lalgarh movement can be divided into Five phases: A) From 5 November 2008 to the day the dates for parliamentary elections were announced. B) From that day to 16 May when results were declared throughout the country. From 17 May 2009 to 17 June just one day before ‘Operation Lalgarh’ was started. D) From 18 June 2009 when the joint forces started moving into Lalgarh to 26 October when decisions were taken by the PCAPA to form the people’s militia. E) From the formation of the ‘Sidhu-Kanu Gana Militia’ on 27 October till date. The day coincided with halting the Rajdhani Express by the members of the PCAPA demanding the release of Chhatradhar Mahato, release of political prisoners and the withdrawal of joint forces.
Each of these phases has its distinctive features. If one studies the movement, one will be able to see that it was not just a movement against land grab or just for the assertion of the rights of the adivasis or against age-old humiliation suffered by the tribal people; it was more than that. And that broader aspect gradually unfolded itself as movement rolled on.
One of those major aspects of the movement is their advocacy of a pro-people new model of development—a model that definitely shows the imprint of the Maoist party. This aspect of the movement hardly received any attention from the urban intellectuals. Let us take up that neglected, but very important aspect first.

For the rest click here.

OVERESTIMATING FORCES OF HINDU FASCISM, POSITION'S ON CASTE, WEAK DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS MOVEMENT- just to name some of the topics covered by this article in its full posting.
Such a large and analytical article is too long for this blog. However it is posted in full on Democracy and Class Struggle. These topics are informative and interesting. Be sure and check these other parts of this article out. 

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

US Army is on an extermination campaign

Not long ago people complained about the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. Back then President George Bush called those prisoners "enemy combatants." he said they had no rights at all as enemy soldiers. They had no right to trial.
Todaymany years later—where are the enemy combatants?
The answer is simple­—we no longer take prisoners. We just kill those who violate our western values. Not since the US Indian Wars was there such an attempt to exterminate a people as is now being done in Iraq.
If we go back to World War II, our army captured many troops and leaders of those troops. Out troops took prisoners in the Korean War. Not today. We are exterminating them.
So what happens to those who actually surrender to US led coalition troops?, according to Independent UK News:

"Iraqi security forces kill Isis prisoners because they believe that if the militants are sent to prison camps they will bribe the authorities in Baghdad to release them. “That is why Iraqi soldiers prefer to shoot them or throw them off high buildings,” says one Iraqi source. A former senior Iraqi official said he could name the exact sum that it would take for an Isis member to buy papers enabling him to move freely around Iraq."
Guantanamo bay is almost empty today. We are fighting wars in IraqSyria and Afghanistan. So were are all the prisoners from battles we won? There are nonf. We kill them all. When it comes to leaders our US Army makes a priority of attacking and killing leaders. From NBC News:

"The leader of an ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan was killed in a U.S. airstrike on the groups’ headquarters this week, the Pentagon said Friday.
Abu Sayed, the emir of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in the Khorasan Province, called ISIS-K, died in Tuesday’s airstrike in Kunar Province, a region on Afghanistan’s northeast border with Pakistan.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters on Friday that when leaders of terror groups like ISIS-K are killed the groups could be set back a day, a few weeks or a month. "It's obviously a victory on our side, in terms of setting them back. It's the right direction," he said."
So we see the proud victory of an Army that takes no prisoners and celebrates every time the kill an important person.
This is nothing less than genocide. This country has decided to kill all those who don't fit in with their new global order. In this war the idea is to wipe out the people who may have differences of opinion.
Another thing missing is any kind of negotiating. Our military treats that as weakness. But we have no way of moving out of this war. There can be no solution to these wars but absolute and total victory for the US Empire who is now relying on their  superior weapons. 
This is one more reason to oppose these phony wars. We know they are not about terrorism, that is a lie. This is about defending the US empire against all those who oppose it. The US started this war, not them. They are extermination campaigns and nothing less.

Pix by Facepunch. 

Sunday, July 16, 2017

An Open Letter to Liberals & Progressives from the Black Bloc

The Black Block is probably closer to MLM views than many of the Liberals and Progressives they seek to reach with this open letter. I believe in giving leftists the right to be heard. So I'm posting this. សតិវ អតុ

The deep state isn’t coming to save us. Trump isn’t going anywhere and it seems clear that the elites have no desire to remove him. Meanwhile war and another economic collapse lay just on the horizon, as violence, intimidation, and threats from the far-Right seek to attack anyone who isn’t loyal to the billionaire king. As tens of thousands mobilize in Hamburg,Germany against neoliberal capitalism and as both repression and resistance at home heat up, progressives and liberals must ask themselves a simple question: what side are you on? 

In recent days, the mainstream media has been rocked by the story that Donald Trump has yet again shared social media created by the white supremacist Alt-Right, and secondly that neo-Nazis from within that movement have begun to threaten journalists and their family members for reporting on the story.
Only several days before, liberal and progressive groups organized protests to demand that Trump be impeached and were met in numerous cities by Alt-Right counter-demonstrators who used violence in an attempt to push them off the streets. In San Diegomembers of the Alt-Right carried flags with racist symbols and attempted to surround protesters, in LA and Philadelphia clashes broke out, and, in Austinthe far-Right attempted to block the march’s route.
The targets of the Alt-Right weren’t just the black bloc, anarchists, or antifa–they were anyone who dared to come out that day and voice their displeasure with the president. Ironically, despite the permitted rallies hardly even being disruptive, in the months leading up to them, far-Right conspiracy theory websites such as InfoWars claimed that they would lead to violent riots backed by the Democratic Party in an effort to play up hysteria.
This fear mongering was then kicked into overdrive with the shooting of Steve Scalise by James Hodgkinson in Virginia, as the Right used it as a vehicle to pump up fears of “left-wing violence.”While at the center of this demonization are anarchists and antifascists, as the recent viral NRA video shows, the target has widened to the entire Left, including liberals and progressives.
All of this is taking place against an immense backdrop of rising far-Right violence, murder, and arson attacks, which have been almost completely ignored by both the media and the Trump administration. This violence is also growing in the midst of a massive campaign attacking the working class, pushing through repressive measures that defile civil liberties and the right to protest, slash taxes on the wealthy and regulations on the environment, and move billions in services and healthcare out of the hands of the poor and most vulnerable and into the pockets of the billionaires, CEOs, and 1%.
At the same time, the Trump administration has launched a campaign to gather voting information from all states in order to launch a countrywide version of Cross Check, the same system that struck millions of mostly Democratic black and brown voters from the rolls in 2016. Heading the campaign is Kris Kobach, who is both the Kansas secretary of state as well as the legal counsel of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a white nationalist think tank.
For the rest click here.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Is the Torch Passing? The Maoist Revolution in India*

This is actually a good article. It jumps into the question of democracy of the future. It admits that bourgeois democracy has reached its limits and can no longer deliver its promises to the majority of the world's people. It admits that imperialism is in its twilight and yet it will do everything in its power to stop the Maoist revolution in India. To date almost no mainstream press in the US has even covered the revolution in India. They have blacked it out as if they want the people in the US to not know about it. This article admits that this is the biggest Maoist insurgency in the world and if it succeeds it will be the largest revolutionary change since China, in 1949. Most amazing is this article questions whether future democracy will come from movements such as the Maoist in India. - សតិវ អតុ

 By sdonline
Does size matter?
The basic contradiction is this: in the very heartland of what is often referred to as the “world’s largest democracy” there is also occurring the “world’s largest revolution.” Revolutionary forces, led by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and its military wing, the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army,1 have an active presence in at least a third of the country, and dominate major and shifting swaths of territory, with control over several key regions where they have established their main liberated areas. Their goal is to overthrow the entire Indian political, economic and social system, and to replace it with a radical transformation of the class structure and new forms of popular democratization and development. They are raising an alternative vision for society, one that challenges bourgeois political and economic norms that are dominant across the global capitalist system led by the United States. Within this imperialist structure, India is viewed as a rising star of international capitalism for its rapid economic growth, largely driven by foreign investment, and its adherence to Western style democratic practices. But it is these very aspects of its society that are leaving hundreds of millions of Indians in ever greater poverty and despair, fueling their revolutionary upsurge and demands for new forms of democracy and development. The success of the Maoist revolution would not only transform India itself, therefore, but deliver a critical blow to the entire structure of imperialist capitalism, and to the political methods now used to maintain its global hold.
The issue of scale is relevant here. The constant references, at home and abroad, to the democratic processes in India as “large” are part of the justification offered, even by some on the left, for maintaining its current system. The size and the viability of its political institutions are seen as being closely linked. As the vice-chancellor of Delhi University put it in a poster urging participation in the parliamentary elections of 2009, “The largest democracy of the world is going to the polls to choose its representatives. Wider voter participation will strengthen democracy in India and will make it more vibrant.” But why does size matter? Is the issue of democracy in India and elsewhere in the world today primarily one of quantity or quality? In the United States, the democratic ideal is often the Greek city state or the small New England town where every citizen could participate directly in choosing leaders and making the decisions that affect them. But in a country of over one billion people such as India, is it important that democracy is “large”? In one sense, yes. The system of democratic parliamentarism, inherited from British colonialism, was the primary instrument used after Independence in 1947 to stitch together a modern national state out of many disparate elements. The sprawling nation, covering an entire subcontinent, and deeply divided by class, caste, ethnicity, religion and language, still depends largely on this political structure to keep its centrifugal forces from flying apart. Democracy is the critical national “glue.” But by the same token, the breakdown of the current Indian parliamentary democratic process, the approach of its historical limits, and above all its growing inability to meet the needs of hundreds of millions, bursts the bonds of bourgeois political practices inherited from the colonial past, and threatens the fragile unity of the nation and the “ungluing” of its social order.
Under such critical circumstances, the demand arises all the more insistently for an alternative system of national organization, and for forms of democracy adequate to this new historic stage. It is this path of revolution, linked to the democratic upsurge of the oppressed, that the CPI (Maoist) is now taking. Led by these self-defined “Maoists,” significant areas of India are today in armed revolt against the state. Here again the question of scale is relevant. Though hardly unique—there are revolutionary forces guided largely by Maoist principles in Nepal, the Philippines, and other countries as well—the Indian struggle is the most widespread such movement in the world, both in the extent of its territorial reach and the size of the population where it is active. A so-called “Red Corridor” at least partly under control of Maoists, now stretches some 750 by 300 miles through much of eastern and central India, while regions under their influence extend even further south and into more isolated pockets elsewhere.2 Up to 20,000 fighters in the PLGA, plus Maoist militia “estimated by several intelligence analysts at over 50,000,” with supporting political and cultural cadre, are active in 20 of 28 states, and one-third of the administrative districts.3 With the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)—which is independent from its Indian counterpart—now struggling internally to define its direction and a new role in national political power, after a decade-long guerrilla war, the territory where the forces of revolution are actively engaged reaches virtually unbroken from the Chinese border in Tibet deep into the south of the subcontinent. Success by the Maoists in India would constitute the largest revolutionary victory since the 1949 triumph of the Communists in China. Like that revolution, it would “shake the world.”
Whether the Maoist leadership will be accepted by a large enough majority to succeed, is now the central issue of Indian society. So serious is the challenge, that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Congress Party-led coalition government has declared the Maoists “the greatest internal security threat to the country since Independence”—surpassing even longstanding regional insurgencies in Kashmir and the Northeast. The relation of the present Indian parliamentary system to the forces of revolution, and their alternative visions of democracy, reverberates at the core of the national dilemma today, and the consequences of how it is dealt with will largely determine the outcome of the current struggle. But the implications of this revolutionary expansion are much broader, extending far beyond the borders of India itself. The growth of the popular basis for revolution and the reaction to it under the specific Indian historical conditions pose a fundamental challenge to Western forms of democracy handed down from the earliest stages of bourgeois society, especially when these were adopted or imposed under the conditions of colonialism and neocolonialism. The upsurge of Maoist revolutionaries in India is testing the very limits of existing democratic practices to solve the contradictions of late imperialist capitalism, especially in the global South. The outcome could have profound ramifications not only across south Asia, but also for China itself—the original home of “Maoism”—and for the worldwide imperial structure under the domination of the United States. The rising up of millions of exploited and oppressed Indians under the leadership of Maoists would threaten the very foundations of the international capitalist system, and realign the working classes across the entire globe. As the recent profound economic crisis initiated by the United States, which spread worldwide, has demonstrated, the ability of the “great democracies” of capitalism to manage their global empire is now rapidly approaching its historic limits. The decisive historical break, the passing of the revolutionary torch, may come at any time and place. Is India at such a turning point?

For the rest click here.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Celebrating 50 years Since Naxalbari : From Nagi Reddy Line to C.P.R.C.I (ML) -Part 7

These articles reflect the personal views of Harsh Thakor


A. Centre for Communist Revolutionaries of India-1988

In 1988  5 groups ,namely the CPI(M.L.) led by Chandraskekar, the RCPI led by Jitender, e 2 UCCRI(M.L.) factions led by Harbhajan Sohi and Anand and the  O.C.C.P.I.(M.L.) led by Raghubir  merged to form the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (C.C.R.I.)The formation of the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India had historical significance, as since the formation of U.C.C.R.I.M.L in 1975 there were so may splits.

Theoretically, it was the soundest amongst all revolutionary sections and it’s practice in Orissa and Punjab Outstanding. It enhanced the consolidation of the All India Revolutionary Movement. A 2 line struggle was undertaken by comrade Anand within the U.C.C.R.I.M.L of led by Viswam , on similar grounds that Comrade H.B S split the organization.

The chief architects of this organization were the 2 Comrades Anand and Harbhajan Sohi. Although Comrade Anand(from Andhra Pradesh) remained in the Muktigami period for long time(even after the H.B.S split in 1979) in the author’s opinion the revolutionary Movement has to be sympathetic with his long struggle as he remained within the original origination with the interests of Unity in mind.

One was the issue of the Chinese three Worlds theory, the other was on the question of elections and mass Organizations. There were strong tendencies in Anand’s view of right deviation-like participation in election s or supporting candidates and imposition of the party’s policies on mass organizations. 5 organizations after a continuous process of bilateral negotiations united.

The 1977 Appendix documents written by Harbhajan Sohi were taken as the Organization's international line.

In Punjab  it played a vanguard role in leading the movement and no organization contributed more on the theoretical or practical plane ..This organization made a major contribution in the revolutionary democratic movement in the Khalistani period with the Central Team of the C.P.I.M.L and developed cores of mass revolutionary resistance against the Khalistani Terrorism.

Major mass resistance rallies were led by a mass resistance front formed by them at Moga in 1987 and at Sewawla in 1991 and 1992.

True they were unable to work in all districts of Punjab (Their Front functioned principally in Ludhiana ,Faridkot and Bhatinda districts and was inactive in many districts)) and a revolutionary peasant movement had not been built statewide but their experience was a heroic lesson

It also played a major role in the building of mass agrarian revolutionary line of the Adivasi movement in Malkangiri in Orissa.

In Andhra Pradesh it’s forces attempted to consolidate the Srikakulam Girijan movement ’The most significant contribution of this organization was the theoretical and practical correctness on the relationship of mass organizations with the Party

It stressed on the Party functioning democratically within the mass organizations and helping them develop their democratic identity. One major theoretical development was the stand on elections where they explained how conditions were not accessible for carrying out tactics of ‘active boycott's or participation in Parliamentary elections.

There were also units in Rajasthan and Maharashtra where Trade Union and Democratic Rights work was consolidated and efforts made to have correct mass approach on trade Union Front. Played an important role in guiding the democratic Rights movement in Mumbai in Maharashtra wit correct perspective particularly in times of 1992-93 riots, and state repression in Bihar and Andhra Pradesh. In West Bengal trade Union movement was consolidated and major trade Union struggles were led capturing the Unions.

It also had revolutionary peasant Movement work in Bihar which later was absorbed by the Party Unity Section. For some time some struggles carrying the torch of the mass line were implemented ,particularly against the Bhagalpur riots in 1989. Inspite  of split in 1988 of U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) the All-India Federation of Organizations for democratic Rights, formed in 1982. flourished in it’s total capability with significant sammelan in 1990.

In the author’s view in spite of such a theoretically strong line was unable to inspire an Effective All-India Campaign through mass platforms to expose the fact that it was revisionism that had collapsed in 1989 and not Socialism.

A sustained campaign as a mass political level should have been organized  to defend Mao Tse Tung Thought and Socialism.

 Also perhaps not sufficiently consolidated the mass agrarian revolutionary line by developing peoples armed squads or defense corpses so much needed to sustain peasant's resistance.. It is debatable whether it was premature to carry out an armed struggle in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar in certain regions considering strength of peasant movement.(It had an organization in Bihar that time which later disaffiliated itself).

There was also arguably not enough of practice in resistance against state terrorism during the Khalistani era with more emphasis on the Khalistani forces than the state and inadequate revolutionary armed protection or self-defense  against the Khalistani fascists as shown in Sewewal in 1009 when 18 mass activists were martyred

B. Formation of the C.P.I.M.L Janashakti-1992

The Janasahakti Group was formed in 1992 by the merger of the Ramchandran Group, the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (Muktigami group),the Pyla Vasudeva Group the West Bengal Co-ordination committee led by Parimal Dasgupta, the CP.I.M.L led by Konkan Mazumdar.It was a most opportunist Unity. Without resolving major issues for uniting they merged into a single organization. Suddenly they said that the formation of the Charu Mazumdar C.P.I.ML was correct and at the same time upheld the lines of T. Nagi Reddy and Chandra Pulla Reddy! In no time this group split into 5 different Organizations.

The organization although having armed squads in many areas came out openly and disturbed the mass movement.(Like in Punjab)In Andhra Pradesh they held a joint all India Peasant Conference against Imperialist dictates of the I.M.F .In the trade Union Movement they led struggles but exhibited powerful economist tendencies. In the opinion of the author the organization today has it’s major sections in the revisionist camps ,while has a small section in the Northern parts, which sides with the C.P.I. Maoist and may possibly merge with them. (Signed a joint statement on boycott of elections with C.P.I. Maoist as well as on anti repression and anti-communal issues)

As a result of disunity and theoretical weakness is no more a serious revolutionary force. It still has several revolutionary cadres and the Rajanna faction in Andhra Pradesh is still a militant one, carrying armed struggle at a marginal level.

One of the most predominant features in the history of the post naxalbari communist movement was the trend of splits and right opportunism A most predominant component was Comrade Satyanarayan Singh and to an extent Chandra Pulla Reddy. S,N Singh supported the Jayaparakash Narayan movement in 1974 and later after emergency supported an Anti-Soviet United front thus advocating alliance with erstwhile U.S.S.R which was social -imperialist. S.N Singh supported the Janata party claiming it was a more progressive force to fascism. Although Chandra Pulla Reddy which united with S.N.Singh split in 1980 it was a persecutor of C.P.I.(M.L) Janashakti, which was one of the most opportunist unities ever in the post- naxalite period amongst naxalite groups. It was a great lesson for cr's and cadres about the consequences of opportunist Unity, C.P.I.(M.L)

Resistance, UCCRI(M.L.)Muktigami ,Plya Vasudevea group, C.P.I.(M.L.) Khonkan majumdar. Coordination Committee of Communist revolutionaries led by Parimal Dasgupta etc merged.

It was a total jamboori opportunistically merging the trends of Charu Majumdar , Nagi Reddy and Chandra Pulla Reddy. I n no time they split into about 6 groups. Significantly both the C.P. Reddy and UCCRI(M.L.) sections had a series of splits from the early 1980's and hardly gave historic respect to the important differences between Chandra Pulla Reddy and T. Nagi Reddy. C.P. Reddy had committed left adventurist deviation from the T.N.DV. Rao line by claiming for adventurist armed s quad actions in the area of the A.P.CCR. Without analyzing this historic mistake they decided to unite. Infact C.P. Reddy vice Vera claimed that TN-DV practice was economist and surrendering

Without consulting the State Committee Chandra Pulla Redy called for armed squad actions. The line of participation in elections of SN. Singh-C.P. Reddy caused havoc to the communist revolutionary movement just like Vinod Mishra had earlier. Today in the camp still some section shave not made a critical review of the S.N.Singh-C.P.Reddy line.

No doubt both made a significant contribution, particularly C.P. Redy but like the Erstwhile constituent sections of the Maoist party like the Andhra Pradesh State Committee made of Charu Mazumdar in1974, under Kondappali Seetharamiah. The staunch followers of Nagi Reddy-dv.rao claim thta Chandra O Pulla Redy was similar to Charu Mazumdar. Both T.N and D.V made a strong criticism of Chandra Pulla Reddy. Proletarian Line publication s has reproduced those writings.

In the early 1970's Just like they wrote about Charu Majumdar, DV and TN felt S.N.Singh and C.P.Reddy in essence were no different from Charu and supported line of individual assassination.
Later the Viswam section merged with the C.P.I.(M.L.) of Kanu Sanyal that later merged with the C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Star group but after a short while spilt again.

C .U.C.C.R.I.(M.L)-Proletarian Line Group-formed in 1980-DV.RAO GROUP

Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (Marxist-Leninist) is a political party in Andhra Pradesh, India.

It was formed by D.V. Rao after the 1980 general elections, as a split from the original Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (Marxist-Leninist).

D.V. Rao had been the Central Committee Secretary of UCCRI(ML). However, differences had emerged on issues like how to relate to developments in China after the death of Mao Zedong. D.V. Rao maintained that China under Deng Xiaoping remained a socialist state.

They still bring out an organ called the ‘Proletarian Path.’ Every year they hold commemoration meetings in July upholding Comrades T.N. and D.V. Although they term the Janashakti and C.P.I.(Maoist) as adventurist and opportunist. ,this organisation participates in Elections in  a substantial way.

They had one section of the Student organization, Democratic Students Organization under their influence and a section of Organization For Protection of Democratic Rights. Part of communist revolutionary  camp still but right-deviationist.

Do carry out land struggles in many regions like Khammam, Anathapur, Srikakualm with Srikakulam being  major belt. Very sincerely defend D.V. and T. Nagi Reddy ‘s  legacy and emphasize that their contribution was equal unlike the Muktigami group who do not place DV on the same pedestal.

It felt that the other U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) Organization in Andhra Pradesh after the 1980’s betrayed the line of TN and in every statement on martyrs day exposed them. I do not agree with their stand on China as Socialist ,participating in election and functioning openly but still admire the comrades for defending the immortal role of Comrade DV.

They have a Democratic Students Organization and peasant organization called Rytu Coolie Sangham. I owe a lot of my understanding on practice and theory of mass line in earlier decades from their comrades.

Later the party was led by his Brother Shri Tarimela Ramadass Reddy.

For the rest click here.

Sunday, July 09, 2017

US-Afghanistan war —The Futility of War

From the Peace and Social Justice Center of Kansas, Summer Newsletter, 2017:

         The ongoing 15 year US War on Afghanistan is a sadly perfect example of how war as a remedy for injustice and terror creates those very things. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans have died, large parts of the country have been contaminated by munitions, and nothing permanent has been built. Our taxes continue to be wasted as we build schools and roads there that then are destroyed by more battles. The women we claimed to be liberating are still bearing the brunt of war deaths and injuries. Bombing weddings and other gatherings, accidentally or not, invites retaliation and does not encourage women to go out into the world. And US personnel are still being killed. In the meantime while we wage a futile war our bridges and schools are crumbling because our taxes go to waste.
           All this because we had to start a war for revenge and now can't quit it because politicians don't want to lose face and don't want to confront the military desire to keep going no matter what. There has to be a better way and it starts with withdrawing from these wars by cooperating as much as possible with international institutions, and then using the massive wealth in the US to create a public jobs program to rebuild and clean up our country. Anything less is not sustainable.

Pix by University of Texas Libraries

Saturday, July 08, 2017

Modi Government has murdered many Maoists in India

It wasn't long ago I saw a book offered by Comrade Ajitha on Maoist Road. I have also read some of his other writings. Since then he was captured by the Indian Government. I assumed he would be kept in prison most of his life. But I didn't realize the Indian Government, under Narendra Modi  just kills its opposition leaders. Ajitha is now dead. The authorities had no intention of keeping him alive. The Modi government is fascist and murderous and we can see that by how many of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) leaders Modi his killed. We are dealing with a very murderous government. -  សតិវ អតុ

Monday, June 26, 2017

The Communist Blogs Network (RBC) has translated a statement from the Communist Party of India  (Maoist) late last year, although recently published, condemning the cold-blooded murder of Comrade Kuppusamy, a member of the Central Committee and Secretary of the Special Zone Committee of the Western Ghats, and Comrade Ajitha, a member of the Special Zone Committee and charged with the urban movement in Tamil Nadu, who were brutally detained and killed by the infamous local and state mercenary forces near the village Of Kalkulam, in the service of Hindu fascism.

The communiqué also condemns the collaborationism of the  revisionist Communist Marxist Party (PCM), which governs in Kerala, led by Pinarayi Vijayan, who, while the Indian population and masses suffer repression of Hindu fascism "is dedicated to making theater, acclaiming , On the one hand, to the Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro after his death and organizing commemorations throughout the state and, on the other hand, going from the hand of the national-Hindu-fascist central government of Narendra Modi to root out the ascendant movement Revolutionary leader of the CPI (Maoist). "



December 15, 2016


On 24 November 2016, Comrade Kuppusamy, a member of the Central Committee and Secretary of   the Special Committee of the Western Ghats Zone, and Comrade Ajitha, a member of the Special Zone Committee and charged with the urban movement in Tamil Nadu, were detained alive And brutally murdered by the infamous local and state mercenary forces near the village of Kalkulam in the wooded area of ​​Nilambur in the district of Malappuram in the state of Kerala. The police, as is usual in these cases, stated that "a special forces patrol was attacked by the Maoists. In response, police forces were forced to use their weapons and two people were killed. " Far from being so, it was treated, within the framework of low intensity conflict policies, Of a perfectly planned execution of two leaders whose purpose is to liquidate the Maoist Party. Due to the health problems of the comrades martyrs, the nadugani squad had camped in that area with very few personnel. Hundreds of heavily armed special forces attacked the camp, captured both living comrades, tortured and brutally murdered them. Following this incident, police unleashed an unusual campaign of terror and Goebbelsian propaganda against the Maoist Party throughout Kerala, threatening the local population not to support the Maoists. They have also threatened the relatives of the comrades martyrs.

Meanwhile, the revisionist Marxist Communist Party (PCM), which governs Kerala and heads the fascist Pinarayi Vijayan, is engaged in theater, acclaiming, on the one hand, the Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro after his death and organizing commemorations for The whole state and, on the other, going from the hand of the national-Hindu-fascist central government of Narendra Modi to root out the ascendant revolutionary movement that directs the PCI (Maoist) in the tri-border zone of the Western Ghats. They dream awake if they think they can end the revolutionary movement by killing their leaders. A revolutionary party does not disappear because of the death of its leaders because its guide is the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. They forget the bitter lesson they received from the people of Midnapore, In West Bengal. They try to prevent the oppressed masses from advancing on the revolutionary path. No doubt the day will come when the people will give them their last lesson.Antipopular elements will soon fall.

Comrade Kuppusamy (Manju, Prasad) was born to a poor and oppressed Dalit family in the district of Krishnagiri in the state of Tamil Nadu. After completing his studies, he worked for L & T in Bangalore, Karnataka state. He came into contact with the Party in 1979-80. He was one of the core members of the former PW party of Karnataka. The latter later became the State Committee, of which Comrade Kuppusamy was a member. As leader, he organized the masses of Karnataka in different matters. In particular it devoted itself to the task of organizing the workers and the broad masses of the oppressed in the city of Bangalore and its environs. In 1992, he stood firm on the side of the Party in the struggle against the opportunist Kondappalli Seetharamaiyya, Former secretary of the former People's War Party. He was elected secretary of the Karnataka State Committee in 1993, a member of the Central Committee at the IX Congress of 2001 and re-elected at the Unification Congress of 2007, held after the merger of the PCI (Maoist). He worked as a member of the Southwest Regional Office and developed the Party in the southern states. He particularly espoused the national aspirations of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. He brilliantly analyzed the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) from a Marxist perspective and tried to organize a broad movement of solidarity with them. He gave himself to the task of energizing the revolutionary movement in the southern states of the country, somewhat stagnant, And played an important role in fighting the opportunist line that had become an obstacle in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, bringing the Party back to the revolutionary path. He strongly defended Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in situations of extraordinary complexity, in the midst of revolts and upheavals, of ups and downs and even of the betrayal of renegades opposed to the development of the revolutionary movement in southern India, where Comrade Kuppusamy dared to To open a war front in the tri-border zone of the Western Ghats. He actively contributed to the union of all true revolutionary forces and played an important role in the fusion of the PCI (Maoist) and the Marxist-Leninist PCI (Naxalbari). He was a revolutionary intellectual of the proletariat who, unlike bourgeois intellectuals,

Comrade Ajitha (Kaveri) was born in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. He came into contact with the Party in the early 1990s and was a leader of the Tamil Nadu Pennurimai Kazhagam women's organization.He led many struggles against violence against women and incorporated many of them into the revolutionary path. When the Party in Tamil Nadu suffered heavy losses in 2002, it went underground and began to lead mass urban organizations. In particular, it participated actively in the organization of several trade union disputes. He played a leading role in fighting the opportunist line that emerged in Tamil Nadu. Although his partner joined the opportunist line and abandoned the fight, Ajitha stood firm beside the Party. Ajitha fought relentlessly against male domination both within and outside the Party. Following the fall of four members of the Special Zone Committee in Coimbatore, police tried to stop her several times. According to the guidelines of the Special Zone Committee, Ajitha remained in the jungle, directing the urban movement.


To this day, hundreds and thousands of people struggle throughout the country against the antipopular policies of central government of fascist Modi, backed by Brahmanico-Hindu fascism.All these people are well aware that the CPI (Maoist) is the only revolutionary party that can liberate the working masses from the appalling social situation in which they live. The oppressed throughout the country are increasingly organized under the leadership of the PCI (Maoist), which is why the ruling classes have been adopting various repressive and propaganda tactics in order to liquidate the Party. They have even sought to appease all kinds of popular and democratic struggles, diverting attention from growing social discontent. It is true that the martyrdom of the two leading comrades, Kuppusamy and Ajitha, Is a serious loss not only for the movement of the Western Ghats but also for the rest of the country. But a revolutionary party always outgrows losses. These two exemplary leaders gave their invaluable lives for the liberation of the working masses of hunger, poverty and oppression. They lived and sacrificed their lives for the noble cause of Communism, for the ideals of a classless society. Once again they showed the glorious path of our martyrs, their commitment to the Cause and the people, their disinterest, their swimming countercurrently, their willingness to endure any deprivation, their Bolshevik spirit. And they demonstrated it when the central and state fascist governments unfolded their infamous forces to crush the flourishing revolutionary movement in the trifronteriza zone of the Western Ghats. His sacrifice will not be in vain. The revolutionary red flag is increasingly being shed by the blood of thousands of heroic martyrs in the course of fighting the enemy. The people and the guerrilla will give resolute fulfillment to the dreams of our martyrs with the due answer to the enemy. The Central Committee of PCI (Maoist) strongly condemns the brutal murders of comrades Kuppusamy and Ajitha and calls on the workers, peasants, students, young people, intellectuals, oppressed nationalities and oppressed sectors of society, including Dalits, The adivasis and the religious minorities,

Revolutionary greetings,