By Harsh Thakor
TODAY
ON MAY 14TH IS THE BIRTH CENTENARY OF IMMORTAL COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARY LEADER
CHARU MAZUMDAR WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THE EVENT THAT SHAPED OR TURNED THE
DESTINY OF THE NATION THAN ANY-THE EPIC NAXALBARI STRUGGLE. HE MADE GROSS
ERRORS THROUGH PROPAGATING INDIVIDUAL ANIHILATION OF CLASS ENEMY, OPPOSING MASS
ORGANIZATIONS, CALLING CHINA'S CHAIRMAN THAT OF INDIA'S, OVERESTIMATING THE
ERA, ADVOCATING 'BOYCOTT OF ELECTIONS AS A STRATEGY ETC. BUT STILL MADE AN
IMMORTAL CONTRIBUTION. HIS LINE WAS MORALLY THE PERCUSOR OF THE PRACTICE OF THE
ERSTWHILE C.P.I(M.L.) PEOPLES WAR GROUP AND NOW THE C.P.I(MAOIST). THROUGH COC
AND A.P. STATE COMMITEE MADE A SELF-CRITICISM REVIEW OF MISTAKES OF CHARU BUT
WITHOUT HIM THE MOVEMENT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE SKELETON TO ADD THE MEAT TO.
SAD WE HAVE NO MEMORIAL MEETING ORGANIZED TODAY IN ANY PART OF THE COUNTRY. CM
WAS THE PIONEER OF THE DEMARCATION FROM CPM REVISIONISM. LET US ALL DIP OUR
BLOD IN HIS MEMORY.
Today
on birth centenary revolutionary comrades dip their blood in memory of
legendary comrade Charu Mazumdar who even with important aberrations, was the
architect of Naxalbari armed peasant struggle. CM made gross errors but
neverthless was the pioneer in giving birth to genuine Maoism in India. Today
morally stil the C.P.I.(MAOIST) morally upholds Charu Mazumdar as the most
important revolutionary leader even if formally Kanhai Chaterjee is placed on
the same pedestal. Today sadly groups wiithin the revisionist or rightist camp
also uphold CM villifying his actual line and practice.The best example is the
C.P.I.(M.L.) Liberation which formally upholds India as capitalist and having
attained status of true independence in 1947. In practice it has violated every
important aspect propogated by comrade Mazumdar, C.P.I.(M.L.) Red Star has
totaly revised the path upholding India as neo-colonial and agricultural
relations as capitalist. C.P.I(M.L.) of the Kanu Sanyal trend have deviated
from true practice of protracted peoples war through parliamentary practice.
Today the roots of protracted peoples war practice in India have it's roots in CM's 8 documents. Here he has elaborated the concept of agrarian revolution and how the parliament is a pigsty. He also upheld the Cultural Revolution in China. Upholding feudalism as the principal contradiction as against capitalism, imperialism and comprador bureaucratic bourgeoise is a major part of the ppw line. His inclination to arm was with modification the percursor of the later movements led by the erstwhile CPI(M.L.). People's War group and now the C.P.I.(Maoist) have had great corrections made from 1980 after the review but at every juncture the basic line of Charu Mazumdar was upheld. Whatever the mistakes it was incorrect to term CM as practising 'terrrorist' line. Studying his 8 documents is a must for every revolutionary cadre, the equivalent of a bible for Indian maoists.
Charu mazumdar's writings and practice have all the more relevance when a tide of fascism is encompassing the whole nation and ideology of Maoism is attacked at it's very roots like poison being planted in fields to stop growth of new roses from emerging. The numerous spits, non-proletarian trends too are obstacles particularly that of revisionist and New Left variety. Cadres must meticulously study Charu Mazumdar's writings on party building in light of re-organizing the proletarian party in India. Comrade Mazumdar attacked revisionism like cutting a plant from it's very roots. We must remember how leaders like even Kondapali Seetharamiah immortalized CM even if he founded the PWG in Andhra Pradesh and intellectuals like Amit Bhattacharya. Professor Amit Bhattacharya felt that Charu Mazumdar made a much greater contribution than Kanhai Chaterjee historically in the movement and historically the C.P.I.(Maoist) was incorrect to place him on the same pedestal. Infact the 2007 C.P.I.(Maoist) unity congress was analyzed as a continuation of the 8th 1970 C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Congress, as well as the 2001 C.P.I.(M.L) Peoples War Unity Congress. String rectification was made of the original Charu Mazumdar C.P.I.(M.L.) Line by the COC in 1975 and the AP State Committee in 1977. However the line of Charu Mazumdar still formed the backbone of the struggles started by the PWG in Jagatiyal in Karimnagar and the Party Unity group in Jehanabad-Palamau. CM line gave those struggles the armed inclination. Leaders like Kondapali Settharamiah, founder of PWG and Narayan Sanyal even if critical tooth and nail defended Charu Mazumdar. The most accurate analysis in my view was made by the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.).
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. True Charu Mazumdar was wrong in calling the entire bourgeoisie 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.
Quoting journal A World to Win in 1999 "Much has been said about the so-called “sectarianism” and “adventurism” of Charu Mazumdar which supposedly “isolated” the party from the masses and caused setbacks. Yes, elements of one-sidedness, spontaneity and subjectivism which run counter to Charu Mazumdar̓s overall Marxist-Leninist-Maoist stand, viewpoint and method are evident in his works. But what strikes one most forcefully while reading them now is the resolute clarity in his criticism of revisionism, a keen grasp of the key question of seizing power, deep faith in the masses and robust revolutionary optimism. Far from isolation, his leadership deeply entrenched the party among the masses and created a vast reservoir of support which is still being tapped by genuine revolutionaries. His name continues to haunt the ruling classes and inspires revolutionaries. "
Quoting one of the founding members of C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity, Bhabani Roy Choudhary "It was wrong to quote any international communiqué like 'China's chairman is our chairman. 'In Presidency jail in Bhabani Roy's view Charu Mazumdar made a self-criticism of that statement, claiming he was going to withdraw it. Bhnabi even stated that basically Charu was correct in propagating line of agrarian armed struggle.
Suniti Kumar Ghosh was critical of CM for his long silence regarding CPC's criticism of the C.P.I.(M.L.) agenda .In his view although the criticisms were known to Charu for a long time he did not act upon it. Charu got avail of the C.P.C. criticisms by 1970 party Congress. Another criticism was that Charu was changing his party line gradually so that the line changed remained in conformity with the line of that of the C.P.C. Essays quoted were 'On Party's work in the rural areas: a note, 'March forward by Building up people's Liberation Army'. However it was not done on basis of sufficient self-criticism and summing up experiences of past struggles. Suniti Ghosh felt it was unfair to blame Charu Mazumdar for the mistakes attributing the errors to the entire C.P.I.(M.L.) Party. Gosh never openly criticized Charu Mazumdar for his errors but attributed it to party leadership as a whole. He was critical of many leaders and intellectuals for solely putting the blame on Charu. Sushital Roy Choudhary was very critical of the party's line terming it 'left-adventurist' and 'neglecting class and economic struggles."
Charu Mazumdar himself admitted in his speech in the rally at Shaheed Minar on 11 November 1967, the leader of Naxalbari was not him but the local organizers including Kanu Sanyal, Jangal Santhal, Kadam Mallik and Khokan Mazumdar etc. We have discussed above that Naxalbari was built by rejecting the proposal which was put forward by Charu Mazumdar in his eight document series in which he began his agrarian revolution not through mass line, rather on “left” adventurist basis. Naxalbari peasant-uprising was in fact a proof of the success of revolutionary mass line and concrete rejection of “leftist” deviation. But it would be wrong to say that there was no role of Charu and his eight documents in it, because there were two aspects of the ‘eight documents’. Its important aspect was that it brought the clear proposal of the re-formation and re-building of an All-India Revolutionary Party in the agenda by making a decisive blow on revisionism and parliamentary dogmatism. Its negative aspect was that instead of determining the strategy and general tactics of Indian revolution through the study of Indian economic-social-political structure, it not only gave the slogan of blindly following the program and path of Chinese revolution, but it also made the guerrilla peasant struggle as synonym of ‘action’ of armed secret squads by denying the importance of political education and propaganda along with economic struggle and by rejecting the importance of all kinds of mass activities and mass organizations. The leadership of Naxalbari rejected the second aspect, but the first aspect became its ideological-political basis. The organizers like Kanu Sanyal etc. too had prepared themselves politically against the revisionism of the CPM leadership during their stay in prison but it was Charu who wrote the series of documents against it, made an attempt to take it to the cadre and after coming out of prison of Kanu, etc, to provide theoretical basis for the act of rebellion against the CPM leadership in the form of the ‘eight documents’. Hence, while on the one hand it is incorrect to say that Charu was the leader and architect of the Naxalbari peasant uprising, on the other hand it must be admitted that he played a fundamentally important role in preparing its ideological basis. It can be said that Charu Mazumdar played a decisive role in undertaking radical rupture from CPM politics. Had it not been for Charu, perhaps the Naxalbari struggle would remain as merely the next episode of various radical economic and democratic (or political to a limited extent) demands under the communist leadership in that area in the decade of sixties. Behind the decisiveness of anti-revisionist struggle, there could be a petty-bourgeois impatience of a “left” adventurist (as his “left” adventurist line was consistent from the beginning to the end), but at that time it was the aspect of decisiveness which was dominant. It can be said that it was Charu’s line which became responsible for the impasse, fall and disintegration of the Revolutionary Left politics, but on the other hand, it is also true that had it not been for Charu, perhaps the Naxalbari peasant-revolt could not become a point of departure and a symbol of Revolutionary Left politics.
Today the roots of protracted peoples war practice in India have it's roots in CM's 8 documents. Here he has elaborated the concept of agrarian revolution and how the parliament is a pigsty. He also upheld the Cultural Revolution in China. Upholding feudalism as the principal contradiction as against capitalism, imperialism and comprador bureaucratic bourgeoise is a major part of the ppw line. His inclination to arm was with modification the percursor of the later movements led by the erstwhile CPI(M.L.). People's War group and now the C.P.I.(Maoist) have had great corrections made from 1980 after the review but at every juncture the basic line of Charu Mazumdar was upheld. Whatever the mistakes it was incorrect to term CM as practising 'terrrorist' line. Studying his 8 documents is a must for every revolutionary cadre, the equivalent of a bible for Indian maoists.
Charu mazumdar's writings and practice have all the more relevance when a tide of fascism is encompassing the whole nation and ideology of Maoism is attacked at it's very roots like poison being planted in fields to stop growth of new roses from emerging. The numerous spits, non-proletarian trends too are obstacles particularly that of revisionist and New Left variety. Cadres must meticulously study Charu Mazumdar's writings on party building in light of re-organizing the proletarian party in India. Comrade Mazumdar attacked revisionism like cutting a plant from it's very roots. We must remember how leaders like even Kondapali Seetharamiah immortalized CM even if he founded the PWG in Andhra Pradesh and intellectuals like Amit Bhattacharya. Professor Amit Bhattacharya felt that Charu Mazumdar made a much greater contribution than Kanhai Chaterjee historically in the movement and historically the C.P.I.(Maoist) was incorrect to place him on the same pedestal. Infact the 2007 C.P.I.(Maoist) unity congress was analyzed as a continuation of the 8th 1970 C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Congress, as well as the 2001 C.P.I.(M.L) Peoples War Unity Congress. String rectification was made of the original Charu Mazumdar C.P.I.(M.L.) Line by the COC in 1975 and the AP State Committee in 1977. However the line of Charu Mazumdar still formed the backbone of the struggles started by the PWG in Jagatiyal in Karimnagar and the Party Unity group in Jehanabad-Palamau. CM line gave those struggles the armed inclination. Leaders like Kondapali Settharamiah, founder of PWG and Narayan Sanyal even if critical tooth and nail defended Charu Mazumdar. The most accurate analysis in my view was made by the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.).
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. True Charu Mazumdar was wrong in calling the entire bourgeoisie 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.
Quoting journal A World to Win in 1999 "Much has been said about the so-called “sectarianism” and “adventurism” of Charu Mazumdar which supposedly “isolated” the party from the masses and caused setbacks. Yes, elements of one-sidedness, spontaneity and subjectivism which run counter to Charu Mazumdar̓s overall Marxist-Leninist-Maoist stand, viewpoint and method are evident in his works. But what strikes one most forcefully while reading them now is the resolute clarity in his criticism of revisionism, a keen grasp of the key question of seizing power, deep faith in the masses and robust revolutionary optimism. Far from isolation, his leadership deeply entrenched the party among the masses and created a vast reservoir of support which is still being tapped by genuine revolutionaries. His name continues to haunt the ruling classes and inspires revolutionaries. "
Quoting one of the founding members of C.P.I.(M.L.) Party Unity, Bhabani Roy Choudhary "It was wrong to quote any international communiqué like 'China's chairman is our chairman. 'In Presidency jail in Bhabani Roy's view Charu Mazumdar made a self-criticism of that statement, claiming he was going to withdraw it. Bhnabi even stated that basically Charu was correct in propagating line of agrarian armed struggle.
Suniti Kumar Ghosh was critical of CM for his long silence regarding CPC's criticism of the C.P.I.(M.L.) agenda .In his view although the criticisms were known to Charu for a long time he did not act upon it. Charu got avail of the C.P.C. criticisms by 1970 party Congress. Another criticism was that Charu was changing his party line gradually so that the line changed remained in conformity with the line of that of the C.P.C. Essays quoted were 'On Party's work in the rural areas: a note, 'March forward by Building up people's Liberation Army'. However it was not done on basis of sufficient self-criticism and summing up experiences of past struggles. Suniti Ghosh felt it was unfair to blame Charu Mazumdar for the mistakes attributing the errors to the entire C.P.I.(M.L.) Party. Gosh never openly criticized Charu Mazumdar for his errors but attributed it to party leadership as a whole. He was critical of many leaders and intellectuals for solely putting the blame on Charu. Sushital Roy Choudhary was very critical of the party's line terming it 'left-adventurist' and 'neglecting class and economic struggles."
Charu Mazumdar himself admitted in his speech in the rally at Shaheed Minar on 11 November 1967, the leader of Naxalbari was not him but the local organizers including Kanu Sanyal, Jangal Santhal, Kadam Mallik and Khokan Mazumdar etc. We have discussed above that Naxalbari was built by rejecting the proposal which was put forward by Charu Mazumdar in his eight document series in which he began his agrarian revolution not through mass line, rather on “left” adventurist basis. Naxalbari peasant-uprising was in fact a proof of the success of revolutionary mass line and concrete rejection of “leftist” deviation. But it would be wrong to say that there was no role of Charu and his eight documents in it, because there were two aspects of the ‘eight documents’. Its important aspect was that it brought the clear proposal of the re-formation and re-building of an All-India Revolutionary Party in the agenda by making a decisive blow on revisionism and parliamentary dogmatism. Its negative aspect was that instead of determining the strategy and general tactics of Indian revolution through the study of Indian economic-social-political structure, it not only gave the slogan of blindly following the program and path of Chinese revolution, but it also made the guerrilla peasant struggle as synonym of ‘action’ of armed secret squads by denying the importance of political education and propaganda along with economic struggle and by rejecting the importance of all kinds of mass activities and mass organizations. The leadership of Naxalbari rejected the second aspect, but the first aspect became its ideological-political basis. The organizers like Kanu Sanyal etc. too had prepared themselves politically against the revisionism of the CPM leadership during their stay in prison but it was Charu who wrote the series of documents against it, made an attempt to take it to the cadre and after coming out of prison of Kanu, etc, to provide theoretical basis for the act of rebellion against the CPM leadership in the form of the ‘eight documents’. Hence, while on the one hand it is incorrect to say that Charu was the leader and architect of the Naxalbari peasant uprising, on the other hand it must be admitted that he played a fundamentally important role in preparing its ideological basis. It can be said that Charu Mazumdar played a decisive role in undertaking radical rupture from CPM politics. Had it not been for Charu, perhaps the Naxalbari struggle would remain as merely the next episode of various radical economic and democratic (or political to a limited extent) demands under the communist leadership in that area in the decade of sixties. Behind the decisiveness of anti-revisionist struggle, there could be a petty-bourgeois impatience of a “left” adventurist (as his “left” adventurist line was consistent from the beginning to the end), but at that time it was the aspect of decisiveness which was dominant. It can be said that it was Charu’s line which became responsible for the impasse, fall and disintegration of the Revolutionary Left politics, but on the other hand, it is also true that had it not been for Charu, perhaps the Naxalbari peasant-revolt could not become a point of departure and a symbol of Revolutionary Left politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment