By Harsh Thakor
IN BIRTH CENTENARY YEAR AND 50 YEARS OF FORMATION OF THE Communist Party India
Without doubt Charu Mazumdar was one of the greatest
leaders to have ever shimmered the light of Communism who defined a new epoch
in the history of India .
He was one of the most humble and soft spoken of comrades who addressed folk in
very lucid language, with great clarity of thought. In his centenary year we
should resurrect his spirit with neo-fascism at its helm and only Marxist-Leninist
-Maoist ideology which can extinguish it. Professor Amit Bhatacharya felt that
Charu Mazumdar played a much more defining role than any Indian Communist
leader, on a pedestal above even Kanhai Chaterjee. Earlier this year on April
22nd we commemorated the 50th anniversary of a landmark event in the history of
the Communist Movement which was the formation of the C.P.I.(M.L.).The
formation of the party was the culmination of the spark of Naxalbari that was
lit in May 1967 as a consequence of the protracted struggle launched against
the Kruschevite revisionism
With the incisiveness of a sculptor Charu Mazumdar
chalked out the Indian revolutionary path which sowed the seeds for the
revolutionary flame to illuminate the entire country.. Without doubt the
C.P.I(M.L.) converted a spark into a Prairie fire from Naxalbari to Srikakulam,
Birbhum, Debra-Gopiballavpur, Bhojpur, Mushahari Lakhimpur -Kheri in Terai
region as well as regions of Bathinda and Ropar in Punjab
and gave a stepping stone to some of the most notable actions and sacrifices.
We can recount so many instances of sharecroppers seizing crops in
Laxmpur-Kheri and Mushahari and peasants seizing landlord's property and arms
as well as punishing goondas.Guerilla units were also formed. to combat the
police. Punjab it is significant how the
formation of the C.P.I.(M.L.) gave a great impetus to the revolutionary
movement with martyrs who shimmered torch of naxalbari like Baba Bhooja Singh
in 1972 and Daya Singh and the rise of the famous Bhakra Samoan struggle. Even
if they were critical of the left adventurist line it sowed the seeds of the
contribution of Comrades like late Shamsher Singh Sheri, Darshan Singh Khatkar
late Darshan Singh Dusanj and late Harbhajan Sohi who even if representing
different trends were major architects of the Communist revolutionary practice
in Punjab .
The party gave a great impetus to
the Kila-Hakima struggle where hundreds of armed landless peasants hoisted flags
on the farm of a General. It is of historical note that as a result of the
self-criticism line of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) of the C.O.C and the Andhra
Pradesh State Committee the C.P.,I.(M.L.) Party Unity group was formed in 1978
and the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War Group was formed in 1980.To these formations
that played a major role in the eventual formation of the Communist Part India(Maoist)
upholding the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) was an integral part of their political
programme and they insisted on its formation. They highlighted the need to
build mass organizations and movements reject isolated armed actions of squads
and not overestimate era as well as being critical of bureaucratic functioning.
Even if making an criticism of the line of '"annihilation of class enemies"
they highlighted that Mazumdar himself was making a self -criticism of his line
in an article "People's Interest is the party's Interest '.They felt even
if not taking an individual terrorist form certain aspects of 'annihilation
'theory could be deployed in specific circumstances and thus did not outright
reject it. Without the formation of the original C.P.I.(M.L.) thus major groups
like Peoples War Group and Party Unity Group could not be formed. Even the
formation of the C.P.I.(M.L.) Central Team had its roots in the 1969
C.P.I.(M.L.) and formed through self-criticism of the left adventurist line.
The successful completion of 1995 party Conference by the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples
War group has its roots in the 1969 party. Finally it was the precursor of the
theory and practice of the C.P.I(Maoist) today in the moral sense with the 1970
Eighth conference party programme upheld by the Maoist party and the Inaugural
conference called the 9th Congress. The building of armed agrarian movements in
Karimnagar,Warangal ,North
Telengana ,Dandakarnya by the PWG and in Jehanabad and Koel
-Garwah regions by the PU group had a lot to do with the roots of the
C.P.I.(M.L.)party ,where mass movements harnessed were inclined towards armed
struggles. The building of the Andhra Pradesh Radical Students Union was
greatly influenced by Charu Mazumdar C.P.I(M.L)'s call to the students. and so
was Revolutionary Writers Association Virasam. It is ecclectic like some
sections like C.P.I.(M.L.)Kanu Sanyal ,UCCRI(M.L)-Proletarian line and
Communist League of India to term the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) as a terrorist
organization or term it as a 'terrorist' party. No doubt there were serious
mistakes of left adventurist variety but this was also inherent in the Chinese
Communist Party and in other form seven repeated in later decades. Comrades
have to uphold the similarities of the C.P.I.(M.L.) with that of the Chinese
path but be critical of its serious distortions. It is similar to how groups
earlier equated the erstwhile PWG practice with Khalistani terrorists like
Chandra Pulla Redy section and how today the C.P.I(M.L) Red Star dubs the
C.P.I.(Maoist) as practicing terrorism. The most balanced or correct approach
on this has been by the Communist Party Re-organization Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist)
with Punjabi Revolutionary journal 'Surkh Leeh"upholding Charu Mazumdar as
a great Marxist revolutionary in pioneering rupture from revisionism .It
pointed out the serious errors he committed in violating essence of massline
but not classing his line and practice as 'terroristic." The C.P.I.(M.L)
disintegrated not because of the assassination of Charu Mazumdar as asessed by
some but because of errors before 1972 itself. with one section veering towards
rightist trend of Satya Narayan Singh and the other heading towards left
deviation led by Charu Mazumdar. Suniti Kumar Gosh never openly placed the
blame on CM but felt the responsibility lay in the entire party leadership. In
his view many ultimately absolved themselves of responsibility for errors by
escaping from the field of battle to join mainstream politics. It would be
wrong to call Charu Mazumdar the architect of Naxalbari with many leaders
organizing the peasant movement at grassroots level like Kanu Sanyal but it was
his eight documents that defined the turning point of Naxalbari politics from
revisionism like, giving a skeleton to the flesh of a body. Without the line of
Charu Mazumdar the struggle would have probably adhered to the revisionist or
economist path. It was CM who steered the movement to the correct coarse like
giving a ship a proper direction. Charu Mazumdar was the pioneer in India in
igniting the spark of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and thus
hitting revisionism in the Indian Communist Movement in it’s very backbone and
making a fundamental rupture from the revisionist path of the C.P.M. party.
Significant it was Charu's political work that secured the release of Kanu
Sanyal from prison. There were terroristic aberrations on some of his writings
but thrown into oblivion when compared to the progressive essence of his work
in the main..His formulation were the equivalent of a wheel to an axle in
context of Naxalbari. However
C.P.I.(M.L.) also reflected powerful left sectarian overtones like proclaiming
'China's chairman as Chairman of the Indian party', 'China's path as India's
path’, disbanding mass movements and mass organizations, propagating
‘Individual annihilation of class enemy' by secret squads, terming even the
national bourgeoisie as comprador, underestimating imperialism by proclaiming
revolution would be completed in 1975 and propagating 'Boycott' of elections as
a strategic path for Indian revolution. At the time of formation of the All
India coordination Committee of Communist revolutionaries itself it expelled
comrades Tarimela Nagi Reddy, Devulapalli Venkatestwara Rao and Chandra Pulla
Reddy which was erroneous. This was negation to building the agrarian
revolutionary line. Significant that comrades later within the central Committee
revolted against this line like Sushital Roy Chowdhury, Satya Narayan Singh,or
later Kanu Sanyal.It is also or relevance that the Dakshin Desh group did not
merge into the C.P.I.(M.L.) disagreeing with method pf party formation which it
felt was hasty. in 1969 which went on to turn into the Maoist Communist Centre.
The C.P.I.,(M.L) failed to see the convergence of the communist revolutionary
trend around the party and resorted to bureaucratic functioning.1970 party
programme also had weaknesses in agrarian revolutionary programme and building
of mass organizations which were given considerably more respect by the Maoist
Communist Centre and the Andhra Pradesh Coordination Committee .We have to
historically remember that the All India co-ordination of Communist
Revolutionaries of India could not unite all the Indian Communist
revolutionaries. Sushital Roy Chowdhary pioneered the criticism of the left
adventurist aspects of the C.P.I.(M.L) virtually creating a revolt within the
C.C. by making the most objective analysis by all comrades. in an article. He
felt that although it initially adhered to path of peoples war it went on to
vitiate totally with left adventurist practice. Significant that Zhou En Lai
told Souren Bose in 1973 that the general orientation of C.P.I(M.L) was correct,
but it's policies wrong. History cannot obliterate the formation of groups like
the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries led by T. Nagi Reddy and D.V.Rao
in 1976 which rejected the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) or the Chandra Pulla Reddy section
which even if morally upheld the C.P.I.(M.L.)was never part of 1969 party. It
is ironic today that both sections of the C.P.I.(M.L.)New Democracy which
contest parliamentary elections just as Chandra Pulla Reddy supported in his
lifetime staunchly defend the formation of the party in 1969 .Probably it was
Chandra Pulla Reddy's left adventurist tendency and deviation from
NagiReddy-DV. Rao line that made him uphold the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.). Revisionist
or rightist trends also erupted from groups having their roots in the 1969
party and upholding formation till today. Groups like C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation
and C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Star are the best example, who have virtually rejected
path of protracted peoples war and capitulated to parliamentarism, similar to
revisionist left. They are an illustration how left adventurism can take a leap
to turn towards right deviation..Kanu Sanyal also who inaugurated it's
formation in 1960 too made some valid criticisms of failure of massline before
1970 itself. Infections of Charu Mazumdar line were displayed at junctures even
by groups emerging from C.P.I(M.L.) stream making self-criticism like PWG who
repeated the individual annihilation of class enemy errors committed by armed
squads, particularly in Andhra Pradesh and directly propagated party politics
through mass organizations. One has to bear light on the criticism of the left
adventurist trend by the PCRC led by Harbhajan Sohi which later became the
UCCRI(M.L.) and later the Revolutionary Communist Centre of India(M.L.) formed
by Comrade Sheri. Ironic that the group RCCI(Maoist) led by Sheri merged first
into the Maoist Communist Centre which originally rejected the 1969
C.P.I.(M.L.) and not the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War Group. Important that late
Comrade HBS even left the C.P.I.(M.L.) and so did Sheri. The merger of the
C.P.I.(M.L.) Central Team into 3 groups adhering to the T. Nagi Reddy line in
1994 to form the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L) too shed light on how sectarian it was to
insist on recognizing party formation in 1969.. The fact that the unified
C.P.I.(Maoist ) insists that in 1969 2 parties were formed-The C.P.I.(M.L.) and
the Maoist Communist Centre technically denies the unified party was formed in
1969.To officially uphold the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) the current Maoist party cannot
proclaim itself as the re-organized party as it was the MCC and PWG that
merged.)C.P.I.(Maoist) if upholding the legacy of 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) have to
confirm the aberration of MCC being a separate party in 1969.Upholding both
parties violates the Leninist concept of vanguard party. Thus if it asesses
itself as the unified re-organized party then it is undialectical to uphold
that the unified party was formed in 1969. To me even if making the most
sizable and qualitative contribution the C.P.I.(Maoist) is a component of the
Communist Revolutionary camp of India and does not represent the whole of it
.Historically if one insists on the 1969 party as the monolothic centre then
arguably one fails to see the crystallization or convergence of the proletarian
revolutionary trend in unifications of later years ..Best illustrations are how
groups like Maoist Communist Center and Unity Centre of Communist
Revolutionaries of India merged with groups from original C.P.I.(M.L.)trend it
to form organizations like C.P.I(Maoist) or the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L.) My final
verdict is whatever its great qualitative and quantitative contribution the
C.P.I(M.L.) was hastily formed in 1969 ,unable to unite very significant
sections of Communist revolutionaries and excluding comrades with orientation
of massline. The analysis of whether the practice of what was originally the
T.Nagi-Reddy-D.V. Rao line by the Communist Party-Re-Organization Centre of
India(M.L.) is the correct mass-line will decide the issue.
Chat
Conversation End
No comments:
Post a Comment