otto's war room banner

otto's war room banner

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Celebrating 50 Years since Naxalbari: Part 2


By Harsh Thakor
One of the hardest debates today is whether to recognize the formation of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) Till 2004 the C.P.I.(M.L) peoples wra hands down upheld it and classified de-recognizing as counter-revolutionary.This was the stand of the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.).Erstwhile groups like the Maoist Communist Centre and Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India did not uphold it. The principal reason for these forces to reject it was the left adventurist line abandoning mass organizations and not recognizing the converging revolutionary forces around it.Comrade T.Nagi Redy and D.V.Rao were expelled from the All India Coordination Commitee of Communist revolutionaries.
They opposed boycott as a strategic slogan and the calling China's chairman our chairman.Later after the 1970 formation comrades like Souren Bose and Sushital roy Choudhary attempted to combat this line of Charu and to some extent Suniti Kumar Ghosh.We have to analyze whether it's formation had some beneficial aspects.For instance the role it played in expanding or giving life to the Srikakakulam movement before it was beset by left adventurism.
It also shook some plain regions of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as well as inspired youth in Punjab.Probably without it's inspiration Andhra Pardesh Radical Students s Union in 1973 and Virasam in 1970 would not have been formed,even if the party line officially called for ban of mass organizations.Kondappal Seetharamiah himself was a member of the C.P.I.(M.L.)Morally T.Nagi Reddy or D.V.Rao did not advocate stages theory and were preparing an area to create armed struggle.Left adventurism thwarted their bid to created people's armed struggle.
Whoever tried to separate Charu Mazumdar from Naxalbari, had practically separated themselves from the path of Naxalbari.
In this essay I wish to reflect on his positive contribution and critically portray his stature.
Charu Mazumdar was the pioneer in demarcating from Khruschevite revisionism and upholding the torch of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought(now Maoism).This year we commemorate 50 years since Charu Mazumdar started writing his famous 8 documents in 1965.They Sowed the seeds for the line and formation of the re-organized Communist Party.

In 1965,he wrote his first five documents.

On 28th January 1965 C.M wrote the first of his eight documents which analyzed the present and International Situation , how Communists were being arrested ,and how to build the revolutionary party. ( STUDY EIGHT DOCUMENTS HERE)
Within September 1965 he wrote 4 more documents.In the 2nd document summed up the experience of struggles of the Tebhaga.In the third document he analyzed the favourable post world war 2 situation and the failure of the Communist party to utilise it.
He also discussed the agrarian revolution taking lessons from the past and propagated armed struggle.
In a fourth document he covered the forms of organization and struggles combating revisionism and explained the concrete manifestations of revisionism.
In a fifth document he exposed the revisionist character of the C.P.I.(M.).who upheld Khruschevism and opposed path of armed struggle.
These 5 documents sowed the seeds of the glorious Naxalbari Struggle. Later in his 6th document in 1966 gave the call to organize anti-revisionist struggle and exposed the capitulation of the C.P.M.
In his 7th document he gave a call to the workers, peasants and middle-class youths to work to initiate armed struggle and seize political power.Finally in his eighth document he wrote on the tasks of the peasantry to form liberated areas in the countryside and exposed the class collaborationist policies of the C.P.I.(M.L.) through the united front govt.
It is also the 45th anniversary of the 8th Congress of the C.P.I.(M.L.) held in May 1970 which defined the party programme. It was the 1st time in history that an all-india Communist party upheld the programme of protracted peoples war path’ and classified India as a ‘semicolonial and semi-feudal ‘ society.
A very complex study is whether we uphold the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) Or not.
I am posting some excerpts of writings from 'Voice of the Vanguard in 1997 .I feel at the time of the unity into anew party there should have been amore thorough going analyiss on this aspect rather than announcing that the party had been re-organized.I am not running down erstwhile MCC.or PW.groups but feel there is atheoretical weakness when analyzing the question of re-organized party.
Historian shave to anlyze whether massline was violated before May 1970 Conference or in A.I.CC.R.period iteslf.Did the party collapse only because of C.M's assasination"Did the party loose it's grip from 1969 itself?
Maoist Communist Centre on par with C.P.I.(M.L.) ?
To me it is a distortion that M.C.C had the same stature as the C.P.I.(M.L.) or equated at the same level.
Historically can Kondapalli Setharamiah be placed at the same stature of Charu Mazumdar or Ganpathy?Putting Kanhaiu Chatterjee on par with comrade Charu Mazumdar is erroneous as Professor Amit N Bhattachrya analysed.
Excerpts from Voice of the Vanguard -July -October 1997
I am reproducing this for cadres to analyze the question of party historically.Here the C.P.I(M.L) Peoples War group refutes an article by Maoist Communist Centre understimating or undervaluing contribution nad role of the C.P.I.(M.L.) formed in 1969.
The views and criticism of the M.C.C. on C.P.I.(M.L.) are non-dialectical,one-sided and distorted.
It refutes the article of erstwhile Maoist Comunist Centre being critical of formation of C.P.I.(M.L.) and denying it's historical role.
The M.C.C.upheld Naxalbari but denied the historic role of C.P.I.(M.L.)It reiterated the historic significance of it's formation,the objective necessities of it's formation and the role it played in summing up Naxalbari and other armed peasnt movements.It also underplayed the role of Comrdae Charu Mazumdar.
In MCC's view C.P.I.(M.L.) was not a natural culmination of Naxalbari.
In fact my personal view is that the Maoist Comunist Centre never had the historical a statuture of the C.P.I.(ML) formed in 1969 In fact the C.P.I.(Maoist) is not the re-organized Communist [party but a major component of the party to be re-organized.
I also disagree that after the PW-PU merger in 1998 into C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War,the original C.P.I.(M.L) was re-organized.The 2204 merger of MCC and PW group was principalled but I do not still a tribute it the status of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.)Historically for 18 years the PWG tooth and nail defended the re-organization of the 1960 C.P..I.(M.L).
CP.I.(M.L)played a great role in the great upsurge that swept the countryside in the wake of naxalbari and the heroic battles of the peasantry to seize political power for the 1st time in Indian history.,in Srikakulam,Birbhum, Musahari, Lakhimpur Kheri Gopiballavpur and centers in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh.Can we obliterate these glorious struggles of the seventies which wrote a golden chapter in the annals of the Indian people's struggles for emancipation and can we deny the role of C.P.I.(M.L.) in initiating and advancing the first ever conscious effort to build peoples war,red army and base areas?
In fact in Srikakulam hundreds of villages were liberated giving birth to 'red ares' as a result of conscious effort under the leadership of C.P.I.(M.L.).Can we deny this great heritage which was nothing but development and culmination of the agrarian revolution that started from Naxalbari
Without C.P.I.(M.L.) could these struggles reach the heights where they had reached creating history in Indian revolution?
Can we advance the agrarian revolution today if we fail to take positive lessons from these glorious struggles.Defending C.P.I.(M.L.) is the question of upholding the great heritage of Naxalbari itself which cannot be sepertaed ffrom the party formation.
 True ,he made serious errors calling for 'annihilation of the class enemy ' and for the 'disbandment of mass organizations.'However certain sections of the Communist camp villify his great contributions and only expose his errors.
Although critical of gross mistakes the Andhra Pradesh state commitee led by Kondappali Seetharamiah and the C.O.C.(M.L.) upheld the programme of the 1970Congress .Later the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war and Party Unity sections also upheld it. Although critical of left adventurism comrades like Sushital Roy Choudary, Suniti Kumar Ghosh ,Kondappali Seetharamiah and Darshan Singh Dushanj upheld the positive aspect of Comrade C.M.
Even a revolutionary punjabi jounal 'Surkh Rekha' upheld his contribution in 1993 and in 2014 which also upheld Comrade T.Nagi Reddy.In the same article in 1993 it upheld the contributions.of Comrade C.M.and T.N. Forming a new party in 2004 did not mean rejecting the contribution of CharuMazumdar.Morally Charu Mazumdar led the Naxalbari struggle and later groups like PWG or PU always though critically,swore by his name.
Significant that degenerated or revisionist Marxist -Leninist groups reject Majumdar.
Today groups like Red Star have villified the party programme of the 1970 Congress while the Kanu Sanyal C.P.I.(M.L.) does not uphold C.M's revolutionary contribution.Red Star Group has distorted the 1970 party programme by advocating ‘neocolonial era ‘ and ‘’path of peoples democratic revolution.’
It was Comrade Mao Tse Tung who himself endorsed the 1970 party Congress programme.
The 1970 C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Congress programme set the base for the later struggle of the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War group, Party Unity Group and the present C.P.I.(Maoist) ,of course with amendments. In the 1995 C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War Conference and the 2001 9th party Congress(actually 2nd of C.P.I-M.L.) the 1970 Congress party programme was upheld and a portrait of Charu Mazumdar was garlanded.
Both these conferences were termed as a continuation or sequence of the 8th party Congress held in 1970 and thus the events were termed as the 9th Congress. Even the unity Congress of the C.P.I.(Maoist) in February 2007 called it’s event as a continuation or step from the 8th Congress of May 1970.It must be stated that earlier in the late 1990’s the erstwhile Maoist Communist Centre was critical of Charu Mazumdar and the C.P.I.(M.L.) formed in 1969...
However when the C.P.I.(Maoist) was formed it unanimously recognized it and the verdict was reached that 2 parties were formed the C.P.I.(M.L.) and the Maoist Communist Centre. In the earlier decades C.P.I.(M.L.)Peoples War Group was critical of M.C.C.not joining the C.P.I.(M.L.) while M.C.C claimed that the conditions for formation of the party did not exist and it was hastily formed. In this context we should also study the analysis of T.Nagi Reddy,D.V.Rao ,Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Commitee of Communist Revolutionaries, and the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L.) which analyses that only when the final party is formed can unanimity be reached on the question of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L).
I do not think it was correct to conclude that the C.P.I.(M.L.) was re-organized with the PU-PW meger into C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war or that the party was re-organized with the formation of the C.P.I.(Maoist).Maoist Communist Centre did not join the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L) but that dies not give it the same stature as the C.P.I.(M.L.) .M.C.C.I.had the same status as the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples war .party.
True Charu Mazumdar was wrong in calling the entire bourgeoise as comprador’, abandoning mass organizations and movements, calling ‘China’s chairman,our chairman’,advocating ‘annihilation of the class enemy’,considering ‘boycott of election’as a strategic slogan , ‘Guerrilla warfare’ as the only means of struggle, ‘that a revolutionary situation existed in every nook and corner of India’ etc. Such slogans reflected doctrinarism and not Marxism.
Authoritarianism, bureaucratism or egoism was prevalent and mass line was violated..However it was C.M’s very efforts that sowed the seeds of the demarcation of revisionism and the upholding of Mao Tse Tung thought in India. Quoting 1983 Liberation organ of C.T.C.P.I.(M.L.) “Proper evaluation of Comrade C.M. has not yet been done on the basis of dialectics of historical materialism,which requires a thorough study of his writings and deeds.
It requires time for such research of his writings and deeds. Thus we do no deem it proper to make any irresponsible comment on C.M.,even if a rectification of his errors is necessary. Comrade C.M.’s main line of thinking was not isolated but evolved through the process and development of 2-line struggle inside the C.P.I.and C.P.M.,who were concurrent with the 2 line struggle in the international arena ,particularly the great debate. Comrade C.M. tirelessly fought against class collaborationist line of the revisionists and waged bitter fight not only in theoretical field but practical field.
Thus he was under continuous suppression by revisionist forces.” Arguably Lin Biaoist line had it's effect on Mazumdar's ideology in the period from 1967-72..
We must all read the interview of Zhou En Lai by Souren Bose in 1970 critical of C.P.I.(M.L.)’s policies but also remember the tension prevailing because of Lin Biaoist line.
In yesteryears the erstwhile Central Team faction always called for the re-uniting of the central Commitee formed at the 1970 C.P.I.(M.L.) 8TH Party Congress. The erstwhile U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.) of Nagi Reddy and D.V.Rao.did not give Comrade CM the appraisal he deserved .

In the view of he new organization

"The Central Leadership of the C.P.I(M.L)failed to resolve correctly certain questions of policy regarding mass line ,military line and style of work. Instead of devicing correct CT Marxist Leninist policies in the light of objective analysis, the cental leadership started divicing such policies subjectively. Consequently our revolution receive setrbacks.The Central leadership gradually deviated from the very ideological foundation of the party.
They revealed a sectarian, individualist and bureaucratic trend. The failed to mobiles all the sincere C.R's in he party,through ideological persuasion and political struggle. Although the 8th Congress of the C.P.I(M.L),boldly drew a clear line of demarcation between Marxism and Revisionsism, upheld the correct general orientation and path of Indian Revolution, yet adopted certain left adventurist policies on the questions of mass and military line.It asserted that mass struggles and mass movements wee indispensable and that the principal contradiction was that between feudalism and the broad masses.
It is significant that later in their April 1993 issue of Liberation they wrote, 'The C.P.I(M.L) had failed to understand the significance of consistent struggle of ideological, political nature within the party and outside for further quantitative and qualitative consolidation of revolutionary forces in and around he C.P.I(M.L)Early success led them to sectarian politics and organizational authoritarianism.They failed to realize the significance of consistent struggle in each and every activity of party leadership brought forth from C.PI.and C.P.M. Revolutionary broadness and flexibility was replaced by authoritarian principles .The leadership failed to realize the dimension of the converging process of revolutionaries in and around the party. Opportunist onslaught within the party gave rise to organisational centralism.
The Central Team however upheld the formation of the C.P.I(M.L)in 1969.Quting their journal, "The heroic ideological struggle through concrete actions leading to armed agrarian upsurge by the peasntry ,the main force of revolution gave birth to the re-organised Communist Party-the Communist Party of India(Marxist Leninist)In 30 years the party has split into several fractions.Some of them claim to be he party while others operate as part of the paty.Many Communist revolutinaries are divided in these gropups.
There has been failure of Communist Revolutionaries to evaluate correctly the original/correct formulation on which the structure of he party was built.The time is most suited for the true communist Revolutinaries to merge with he whole.i.e.with the "C.P.I.M.L". and form the centre to take up the responsibility of the Indian Revolution which is New Demoratic and principally an armed agrarian revolution.
We must establish the monlolithic Centre of democratic centralism which was lost after 1972.9
When the original C.P.I.M.L disintegrated)The All India Revolutionary Centre(re-esatablish the 8th Central Committee) of the party must be re-established."
The above document is significant as there was once a conflicting viewpoint on thr formation of the party in 1969.Groups like Peoples War Group,Party Unity or C.R.C upheld it unchalengingly,while factions like Maoist Communist Centre ,Chandra Pulla Reddy Group,U.C.C.R.I.(M.L0' OF Nagi Reddy opposed it. Today the C.P.I.(Maoist) concludes that there were 2 founding parties the Maoist Communist Center and the Charu Mazumdar led C.P.I(M.L).
Significantly the erstwhile Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.) which upheld C.M. critically merged with the C.C.R.I in 1994 which upheld the line of Nagi Reddy. into the C.P.R.C.I.(M.L. )Like Maoist Communist Centre steams remained outside the C.P.I.(M.L.) like the Chandra Pulla Reddy or Nagi Reddy factions but that does not mean we downplay the validity of the historical role played by Charu Mazumdar.
We must be critical of the sectarianism of the C.P.I.(M.L) of 1969 in preventing other Maoist revolutionary forces from joining it and endorse the views of T.Nagi Reddy ,D.V.Rao etc on it’s major errors.


No comments: