HISTORIC TALK BETWEEN SOUREN BOSE AND CHOU EN LAI- IN PEKING –A LANDMARK EVENT IN HISTORY OF COMMUNIST MOVEMENT TOWARDS BUILDING MASS LINE- Part 1

50th anniversary on October 29^th –By Harsh Thakor

 

 

I am posting this article in memory of 5oth anniversary of meeting between Souren Bose of the Communist Party India (Marxist Leninist) and Zhou En Lai (周恩来). on October 29th, 1970. I am posting an abridged version of a historic talk in 1970 between Souren Bose and Premier Zhou En Lai. Ironically earlier in May it was the 50th anniversary of the founding Congress of the C.P.I.(M.L.)This talk is one of the most enriching or enlightening with regards to the mass line and the subtle differences between the practice of the Communist Party China and the C.P.I.(M.L.) in 1970.The interview is a permanent part of a Marxist -Leninist treasure house.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Whatever the immortal sacrifices of the C.P.I.(Maoist) today I don't think it has full extricated itself from errors of Charu Mazumdar era, In spite of glorious developments. Today still left sectarianism vitiates the armed movement. I feel the advice Comrade Chou En Lai gave to Souren Bose still has relevance.

 

India cannot blindly imitate the Chinese path of protracted peoples War. In Premier Zhou's words the Indian revolution should carve out it's own path. India’s condition today is not akin to what China was in pre-1949 days with landlordism taking on another form and far deeper imperialist penetration in addition to a more inbuilt bourgeois structure. Technological development is simply on another plane as China was before 1949 or India was even in 1970. Unlike China India had a firmly entrenched bourgeois democratic structure.

 

 

Intellectuals like Bernard De'Mello, Sumanta Banerjee or Tilak Gupta firmly believe that it is capitalism that is determining the socio-economic order and that only certain tracts in India are semi-feudal. Arjun Prasad Singh upholds India as semi-feudal but feels that it is capitalism that is determining the feudalism prevalent and that the principal contradiction is between the Comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie and the broad masses.

 

They fail to understand that whatever the advent of globalization and imperialism, feudalism is still the dominant mode, even if in a much disguised form. Landlords are not prevalent like warlords in China or in 1970's in India but still there is huge control of land by absentee landlords and dominance of money lenders and commission agents. Hard to visualize such land grabbing by upper caste politicians in a capitalist society nor seizure of tribal lands.

 

No doubt some credibility has to given to them as feudalism does not exist in the same form and the prevalence of even a cosmetic bourgeois democratic structure makes it significantly different from China pre-1949.The nature of fascism in India would also not take the same shape as it did under Chiang Kai Shek (蔣中正)with a much more form bourgeois parliamentary system. Even with the sustained consolidation of Hindutva variety of fascism it is harder for fascism to triumph than it was in China before the revolution.

 

Premier l Zhou gave some outstanding aspects of mass line which were neglected in India, articulately summarizing importance of agrarian revolution, urban work and rejection of 'annihilation ' tactics.

 

With the 40th anniversary of the movement in Dandkaranya this year I would have loved to witness an exchange between a leader of the C.P.I.(Maoist) with Zhou En lai. It is hypothetical but in my view the premier would have pointed out important mistakes in military line agrarian revolution and building base area. Significant that in no part of interview any discussion took place on caste.

 

Very correctly Zhou was critical of the C.P.I.(M.L) for terming Chairman Mao as chairman of the Indian party and stating 'China's path is our path. "Infact Zhou should have gone to the extent of stating that path of protracted peoples war is not necessarily the correct road for every third world country. Latin American countries were after all neo-colonies, with some even having greater urban populations.

 

I strongly feel that the same Zhou would have basically supported the C.P.I. (Maoist) today. However that would be a result of not completely understanding the ground reality facing India in terms of weakness of subjective factor or relative unpreparedness of agrarian revolution. One glaring weakness of the interview was it did not touch upon the aspects of Nature of fascism in India nor caste. There was an inherent weakness of the CPC in finding striking similarities in other 3rd world countries and not grasping the distinguishing factors. Even today the C.P.I (Maoist) has not completely resolved the contradiction or established link between guerrilla warfare and armed agrarian revolution, in light of mass line.

 

I would have hypothetically loved to have witnessed an exchange between Premier Zhou En Lai and leaders from the T.Nagi Reddy-DV Rao trend like Harbhajan Sohi or important leaders of the Communist Party Re-Organization Centre of India(Marxist Leninist) In spite of not leading armed struggle the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L) in pockets of Orissa and Punjab given highest level of practice of mass line in India. In Orissa it gave best practice of agrarian resistance of Adivasis armed with conventional weapons in Malkangiri.

 

 

Today there is a predominant trend in the International Communist Movement to only recognize the C.P.I.(Maoist) as the sole force practicing mass line in India and completely negating other trends like that of T. Nagi Reddy.

 

There is even a line where Zhou is critical of T. Nagi Reddy being thrown out referring to how Charu Mazumdar rejected the middle peasants into the united front. Coincidentally it is also the 25th anniversary year of the founding Conference of the Communist Party Re-Organization Centre of India (Marxist Leninist) when the basic documents were released.

 

Without doubt the C.P.I.(Maoist) should be saluted for leading the biggest armed struggle in the world with deep penetration in forest regions of Dandkaranya and built sustained resistance and forms of peoples power. However it is still a striking distance away from forming a base area as the CPC did earlier.

 

The Maoist party fails to understand the positive contribution of T. Nagi Reddy-DV Rao in building mass line till 1975 through the Andhra Pradesh Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries. No doubt C.P.I.(Maoist) does bear important features of the CPC when executing people’s war but still not built an adequate agrarian revolutionary movement .

 

No doubt it's erstwhile constituents built powerful mass organization s but they were not awarded sufficient democratic identity or democratic functioning. Significant that in plain areas the armed struggle is virtually extinguished be it North Telengana or Jehanabad. It also has very minimal presence in urban areas or factory workers.

 

EXCHANGE OF PREMIER ZHOU AND SOUREN BOSE

 

Premier l Zhou gave some outstanding aspects of mass line which were neglected in India, articulately summarizing importance of agrarian revolution, urban work and rejection of 'annihilation ' tactics.

 

Zhou stressed on secret party work in the cities and open work only in the countryside. "We refused to undertake painstaking work amongst the workers in factories and students in schools An ideal example was given of how the CPC mistakenly held a May Day programme in the cities. An event was recounted when Students on May Day openly distributed leaflets and held banners which instigated a counter-attack from the Kuomintang (中國國民黨). Although at first people thronged, very fast the spark extinguished and people were dissuaded. Examples were also given of errors committed in putschist retaliatory actions in cities, replacing path of people’s war. Zhou explained how at first it drew the masses but it invited counter-revolutionary attacks. Examples were also given of errors committed in putschist retaliatory actions in cities, replacing path of peoples war. Premier Zhou felt that the agrarian revolution in India should be undertaken with much more meticulous study and patience and not just through spontaneity and romanticism.”

 

"In the country, after the defeat of the first great revolution, there were such situations. There are 2 phenomena -one is successful armed struggle. In those years we mobilized masses of the people to go deep among the masses of the people in the country side, among the farm labourers and poor peasants and rise them in struggle for food grains, higher wages etc. and for guerrilla warfare. Are per the teachings of Chairman Mao (Zedong/毛泽东) we must stress on mobilizing the broadest masses of the people .When needed we may kill a few local bullies and tyrants who incurred bitter hatred of the masses. However when we kill them it must be done after facing a trial before the masses and based on their demand. When the masses are fully mobilized and we also deploy the armed forces to defend the fruits of the struggle and distribute land and food grains, under such conditions peasant masses dare to distribute land and food grains among themselves. The extension of armed forces and guerilla units, then grow from weak to strong. Networks of struggles are now knit. In the manner of a spark ignited to create a prairie fire a base area is built. In these base areas, we relied upon armed forces, to defend political power and defend fruits of agrarian revolution. Armed struggle must be integrated with the masses of the people and agrarian programmes must be continuously sharpened. Party members must only be recruited from advanced members of the peasantry. This was the trump-card which secured our base in Chingkanshan, shimmering the spark of revolutionary power.’

 

 

“After the defeat of the first revolution, a leftist deviation of putchism developed. We relied upon a few persons to go with arms to the countryside and assassinate landlords. For a time no doubt the masses are aroused. However it invites the wrath of reactionary armed forces in the countryside and the cities who executed the handful of advanced comrades with weapons. Thus the putschist line had a negative consequence. Without mobilizing or relying on the masses no strides can be made and the deciding factor is the correctness of the party's political line.”

It is one of the best examples of proletarian internationalist help and proves that the C.P.C. did not play a big -brother role over communist parties of other countries.

Zhou recounted that Chairman Mao was the greatest Communist of the time but it is eclectic to overestimate him. We must remember that the Indian Communist party is fraternal party and not the same party. "This is not the same party; because each party has a different historical background, environment, and different historical development. So to win revolution in a particular country, we must integrate Marxism-Leninism with the concrete conditions of that country.

 

Extensively Premier Zhou explained the three weapons of the party, army and united front. "It is only the armed forces under a party which carries out correct policies that can win victory. The 1935 Tsunyi meeting was the turning point when Chairman Mao was elected after which the party expanded like an inextinguishable flame illuminating place after place. During the anti-Japanese War in Yenan a huge rectification campaign was carried out among the high ranking cadres of the party, being critical of the wrong line."

 

"The third weapon is the revolutionary united front of various classes. A most crucial issue was our evaluation of the bourgeoisie within which we recognized a national bourgeoisie and did not term the entire bourgeoisie as comprador. In the Sixth national Congress in Moscow we analyzed the nature of the Chinese Revolution to be bourgeois democratic. The mistake of left putschism was rectified. In earlier days instead of forging an alliance, we wrongly attacked the intermediate classes like small and middle enterprises or rich peasants, indiscriminately.”

 

"During the anti-Japanese War in order to combat foreign aggression, the united front was further expanded with an alliance with the KMT. Simultaneously there was a United Front of Workers and peasantry United Front between proletariat and other labouring people. The Worker-peasant alliance formed the fulcrum of the United Front. The working class itself is divided into left, middle and right. In one juncture in the Chinese Revolution we failed to work within the yellow trade Unions which caused a setback. By ignoring the trade Unions we isolated ourselves from the people and many of our comrades were sacrificed or arrested.”

 

A healthy exchange took place on the issue of the Srikaulam movement. Premier Zhou asked Bose whether mass organization, existed in Srikakulam, conditions of the terrain with regard to presence of mountainous regions, nature and level of arms, strength of people, etc. Strangely Comrade Bose answered that mass organizations existed bit not on the basis of armed forces. A Federation of peasants existed. Bose stated that worth Kanu Sanyal he trained guerilla units.

 

Bose also told Zhou that they did not posess firearms but local weapons. He recounted how thy taught masses 16 character secret of guerilla warfare.

 

Zhou went on to ask whether the mass organization was open. Existence of reactionary landlords, Percentage of mass organization in local population, rectification campaign, comrades continuously shifting to other areas, whether only rich peasants existed, whether there were comrades to stand on guard in hilly regions etc.

 

After hearing reply Zhou replied that the Indian comrades in Srikakulam were not completely cut off from outside and went on to ask about self-sufficiency.

 

Zhou En Lai acknowledged "Your party represents the hope of the Indian people. It is a revolutionary and brilliant party. We are very thankful to your party for supporting the Cultural Revolution and having the highest respect for Chairman Mao Tse Tung. You have clearly defined the nature of your revolution as fighting against imperialism, feudalism, revisionism and bureaucrat capitalism. Your party has persisted in mobilizing the masses for peasant armed struggle.Ofcourse as your party is in the stage of infancy ,it is unavoidable to make some mistakes.

 

Premier Zhou stated “We are in strong opposition to 2 articles. "Chinese Chairman is our path, Chinese path is our path." and "March forward through summing up the experiences of the peasant revolutionary struggle of India. "In the first article you underestimate the role of the middle peasants, rich peasants. Small industrialists, intellectuals and other intermediary classes. Erroneously you state that they could be united with only after seizure of political power. In our view the United Front with them can be built will before the capture of power. In the second article you reject the need of forming mass organizations and leading open mass movements and feel that they are an obstacle to guerilla warfare. You also refer to 'Annihilation of class Enemies', which rejects mass line. It incorporates actions of secret squads. You also advocate that guerilla units should be kept secret from the local people who have not mastered the methods of legal work. Such a policy is an obstruction for revolution as it divorces itself from the masses and the party organization."

 

 

To be continued=>