FROM 14TH -16TH MAY WE COMMEMORATE THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE 1ST CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA
(MARXIST-LENINIST) HELD ON
On May-15-16th 2020 we commemorate 50 years since the
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) had its founding Congress to
shimmer the first spark of the Chinese path of protracted peoples War in India which
turned into a prairie fire. During The 8th Congress was recognized by the
communist revolutionaries in India
and by the CPC under comrade Mao Tse-tung.” Legendary Comrade Charu Mazumdar
was elected general secretary—A truly historic event in the annals of Indian
revolution. The 1970 party Congress was the most defining event in India ’s
revolutionary history from a theoretical viewpoint. No event demarcated or
distinguished from revisionism in such depth as USSR was still Socialist when
Telengana Armed struggle was going on. For the 1st time path of Naxalbari and
Great proletarian Cultural revolution demarcating from revisionism was formally
acclaimed at an All-India scale. Path of protracted peoples war was adopted for
the 1st time on an All-India basis. The architect of the path was none other
than the legendary Charu Mazumdar. Contradiction between feudalism and masses
was analyzed as the principal one and the state described as semi-colonial. In
meticulous depth the formation of red army was dealt with. The line adopted in
the Congress is still the very basis of that practiced by the Communist Party
India (Maoist) (C.P.I.(Maoist) today. The 1995 special conference of the
C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War group, the 2001 unity conference of C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples
War and the 2007 plenum of the C.P.I.(Maoist) are a continuation of it. Thus
1970 May Congress was like the roots of all the later developments, which all
owed their historic lineage to it. Today it has great importance with sections
trying to revise the essence of the revolutionary programme of path of
protracted peoples war, reject India's mode of production as semi-feudal and
semi-colonial and class it as capitalist, take imperialism as the principal
contradiction by attributing bargaining power to the Indian state, rejecting
agrarian revolution as principal and contradiction between feudalism and the
broad masses as principal etc. No event gave such crystallization to the path
of Chinese protracted peoples War or converted the spark of Naxalbari into a
Prairie fire as the 1970 Congress. Whatever great accomplishments the erstwhile
C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples War group made in North Telengana ,
Karimnagar and Dandakarnya or erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L) Party Unity group made in
Jehanbad-Palamau -Koel regions were sown in the very roots of the 1970
Congress. Quoting Comrade Ganapathy, secretary of C.P.I.(Maoist) at the
Congress of 2007 in ‘Peoples March’-April 2007 “This Congress is a continuation
of the 8Th Congress held by the CPI(ML) in 1970. That was a start of the new
revolutionary stream which burst forth with Naxalbari. The Eighth Congress held
by the CPI(ML) in 1970 was a start of the new revolutionary stream which burst
forth with Naxalbari. Though the then Maoist Communist Centre (MCC)
was not part of the 8th Congress,at that time the bulk of the
revolutionaries were with the CPI (ML). The essence of the 8thCongress was to
draw clear lines of demarcation with revisionism and the 7th Congress
held by the CPI(M)." "It established the task of New Democratic
Revolution, the path of protracted people’s war, the ideology of
Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Te Tung Thought and saw the agrarian revolution as the
axis of the revolution. Though the MCC differed on some tactical questions, on
basic strategic and ideological issues, particularly on the key question of
advancing the armed struggle, the two trends had similar common thinking. “ It is
not a strange coincidence that this year we also commemorate 40 years since the
peoples war was launched in Dandakaranya, 40th anniversary of the C.P.I.(M.L.) Peoples
War party formation, 25th anniversary of the 1st special conference of the PWG
in November 1995 and 2oth anniversary of the formation of the Peoples Guerilla
army. Historians in the Maoist camp can never forget the impact of the 1995 PWG
special conference in shaping the course of later developments like formation
of the Peoples Guerilla army in 2000.In that conference it asserted that beyond
doubt it was the continuation of the 8th Congress of 1970. A controversial
aspect is on the credibility of line of
“annihilation of the class enemy." fostered by Charu Mazumdar. Even
Charu Mazumdar was firm on the point that he never meant individual assassinations
and he was misunderstood, which gives credence to the view that later Charu
revised his line. I still very much doubt it when I read the reports of Kanu
Sanyal and Sushital Roy Chowdhury or even Suniti Kumar Ghosh. Chandi Sarkar
believed that in spite of errors, Charu Mazumdar's line of armed agrarian
struggle was correct. Sushital Roy vehemently condemned the assassination by
secret squads as anti-Leninist with an ultra-leftist trend merging in the
party. He felt urban actions were most haphazardly or indiscreetly carried out.
He gave a call to defeat the ultra adventurist trend within the party. Strange
that even the C.P.I.(M.L.)Party Unity or PWG did not reject "annihilation
line" it completely and was only critical of the form the line adopted
when negating mass participation. In other forms they still adopted this
tactic. In the view of Party Unity "the line of annihilation the level of
the political tactical line of struggle as the only line isolated the party
from the people and enabled all other forms of struggle to be ignored or
condemned as revisionist. In the view of Peoples War Group, "There was no
wrong in adopting it as a form of struggle, however, our deviation lay in
making it a political tactical line which was regarded as a solution for all
problems relating to class struggle. The problem is not whether class enemies
were annihilated or not or whether the party would adopt other methods of
struggle. As the revolutionary struggle develops further to encompass the whole
country and enter the phase of liberation war, deployment of annihilation could
become a very important method. Annihilation could be deployed as a form of
counter attack against attacks of feudal lords on peasant activists in the countryside.”
The Party Unity group even if rejecting annihilation in relation to secret
squads or negating mass movements, deployed selective annihilation of few class
enemies to confront private caste based senas of landlords like Bhoomi Sena.
Even before the launching of armed struggle the PU group felt that mass
movements of landless peasantry or oppressed castes could never be built up
without the leverage of armed squads .Without the armed corpses the struggle of
the Mazdoor kisan Sangrami Samiti would have collapsed or not built any
striking power of the people. It was similar to the PWG preparatory experience
in Bastar. Even if Chandra Pulla Reddy differed armed struggle in East Godavri district his practice of resistance Struggle
would never have precipitated without building of armed squads for self-defense.
Even if not in peoples war without being armed it would not be possible to
defend any possible democratic movement in Bastar region. It is still
significant that PU group felt that 'mass movement will be the main form of
movement for a relatively long time or even legal mass movement after making a
comparative study of the Chinese situation with the formation of the united
front between the CPC and KMT led by Sun Yat Sena and the Whampoa military
academy. On the other hand it stated "In strategic areas ,with conducive
terrain, armed struggle will become the main form of struggle in this period.
Even if mass organizations were adopting legal and illegal forms of struggle,
the direction of the mass movement should be towards the illegal and that
should eventually become the main aspect of the mass movement." Another
important point was the demarcation with the Chinese revolution. In view of
Party Unity "Our revolution will not be the same replica of China with India having its own peculiarities,
like a centralized political system for long, greater penetration of
capitalism, a larger urban based working class, and complex problems of
nationality, caste and bigger obstacle of confronting revisionism." An
innovation to Chinese path by PW group was that "The centralized character
of the Indian State India
would be liberated by 1975, with 3rd world war breaking out. Nagi Reddy was
denounced as a counter-revolutionary. There was also lack of overall democratic
centralism. The C.P.I. (M.L) disintegrated not because of the assassination of
Charu Mazumdar as assessed 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 Ghosh
was critical of CM for his long silence regarding CPCs criticism of the CPI
(ML) agenda. In his view although the criticisms were known to Charu Majumdar
for a long time he did not act upon it. Suniti Ghosh felt it was unfair to
blame Charu Majumdar for the mistakes attributing the errors to the entire CPI
(ML) Party. Gosh never openly criticized Charu Majumdar 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 straggles'. "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 people’s war it went on to vitiate totally with left
adventurist practice. He called for "resisting the ultra-left adventurist
trend raising its head in the party. "Sushital was very critical of
talking of exclusive era of self sacrifice, authority of 'Charu" and
isolated urban actions . To me whatever gross errors in authoritarianism and
bureuacratism or violating mass line the 1970 Congress was a stepping stone in
knitting the nucleus of a genuine Leninist party and giving Maoist path of
armed revolution a genuine life. A constructive self-criticism was adopted by
Kondapalli Seetharamiah in a document of the Andhra Pradesh state Committee in
1977 on the weaknesses of the line but still he principally supported its
continuity with correction of aberrations. A very sound theoretical criticism
was made by the C.P.I.(M.L.) Central Team on why the party disintegrated,
losing its centralization. In the 1995 special conference of PWG a very
important clause was added on aspect of caste which the party felt was neglected
and had to be respected on equal footing with class. Greater emphasis was also
placed on liberation of nationalities and oppressed communities, particularly
Muslims. The Maoist party places the contribution of the programme of the
Maoist Communist Centre of 1969 on the same footing which is positive but
self-contradictory. After all Kanhai Chaterjee cannot be placed on the same
pedestal as Charu Mazumdar or impact of CPI(ML) in it's time. Morally today
Dandkaranya movement has it's roots in line of Charu Mazumdar. Maoist Communist Centre did not have a
self-criticism evaluation document like what Andhra Pradesh state Commitee
made. Maoist Communist Centre never acknowledged the C.P.I.(M.L) of
1970,attributing no lineage to it. To me it is a contradiction to place the
Contribution of the programme of the Maoist Communist Centre on the same
pedestal or owing the root s of current Maoist movement to MCC on the same
level as the C.P.I(M.L) Strange that 2 parties claiming allegiance to Charu
Mazumdar have totally gone 360 degrees on the path of 1970 Congress like the
Liberation and Red Star factions of the C.P.I.(M.L.), totally disbanding path
of armed revolution and towing the revisionist path of the left parties. Even
if progressive they are towing parliamentary path. Although Chandra Pulla Reddy
was expelled by Charu Mazumdar C.P.I.(M.L.) New Democracy group tooth and nail
upholds his programme, which is praiseworthy. Significant that Kanu Sanyal's
denunciation of Charu Mazumdar was the turning point in his capitulation to
rightist path. A significant development of groups that had their roots in 1970
Party Congress was the building up of various types of mass organizations and
forums to involve broader sections after the APSC criticism of Kondapalli
Seetharamiah. The most open experiment was the formation of the All India
Peoples resistance forum in 1994 to crystallize broad based anti-imperialist
movements even in agricultural sector. The fact that the erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.)
Party Unity enabled supporters of Jayaprakash Narayan to form the major base of
the Mazdoor kisan Sangrami Samiti in the early 1980's revealed it's open minded
approach. The PU also opposed 'Mao Tse Tung Thought ' being part of a manifesto
of a mass organization. Perhaps the infection the Maoist party has which was
not corrected even by Kondapalli Seetharamiah was the approach and democratic
practice within mass Organizations. Still mass organizations in Dandakaranya
are compelled to proclaim party line in Constitution of party. In April 1975
another important development took place which was the formation of the Unity
Centre of Communist revolutionaries of India . It was guided by the path of
Devullapali Venkateswar Rao who had written the immediate programme and basic
documents of Indian revolution. This analyzed and upheld agrarian revolutionary
programmme and application of protracted peoples war in a more dialectical and
thorough manner than the 1970 party Congress. It also emphasized the need for
mass organizations and legal movements. It had a much sounder assessment of the
subjective factors than the programme of the C.P.I.(M.L.) and greater accent on
mass line. The programme of DV Rao which was proclaimed by Tarimela Nagi Reddy
became the basis for the basic documents of the Unity conference of the Communist
Party Re-Organization Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist) in 1995 and thus
commemorates it's 25th anniversary year. In this conference the essential mass line
of DV Rao-Nagi Reddy was polarized from right opportunism and a historic step
in establishing the proletarian revolutionary line for re-organization of the
party. Comrade Harbhajan Sohi was elected as the general secretary who earlier
spilt the original Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India
(Marxist–Leninist) (UCCRI(ML) in 1979 on question of differing with the Dengist[1] 3
worlds theory upheld by DV Rao. It's party programme based on DV Rao line had a
much more comprehensive path for the working class in explaining how the
proletariat would lead the revolution by connecting with the rural areas and
its concrete forms of struggle. The Maoist trend feel DV Rao and Nagi Reddy
were rightists but many Maoists uphold the revolutionary contribution of DV as
a theoretician. DV Rao had greater grasp of essence of mass line than any
theoretician of his time, based on experiences of Telengana armed struggle.
What is significant was the root in practices of mass line in regions like Punjab , Orissa and earlier Andhra Pradesh by the CPRCI
(ML) and its erstwhile constituents without launching armed struggle. I would
recommend all cadres to study the basic documents of the path and programme of
the Communist Party Re-Organization Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist) which is
theoretically the most correct and closer to mass line than any other line
proscribed by a revolutionary group in India . The most important debate is
whether subjective and objective factors exist for applying protracted peoples
War in India .
Whatever their outstanding achievements in confronting the state and
establishing democratic governance in areas the C.P.I.(Maoist) cannot claim to
have established a base are in Dandakaranya like Yenan where a genuine peoples
self government is created and is spreading to regions of plains. The sheer
practice or results in recent times are not conclusive whether the time is ripe
for the formation of the red army or launching of the peoples war. On the basis
of Chinese experience or later Phillipines , Nepal or Peru it would be reformist to defer
the armed struggle and separate the stages of partial struggles with armed
struggle. However if we consider the still fragmented state of the party and
weakness in agrarian movement one may well assess that peoples war still has to
be deferred There may have been important victories in regions like in
Karimnagar, North Telengana. In the past and Dandkaranya and parts of Jharkhand
are shimmering with the red spark of liberation .However let us not forget the
great setbacks in the late 1990's when the armed movement was swept of it's
feet in Telengana and Andhra Pradesh and later in Lalgarh. In certain respects
armed mass movement declined in Jehanabad because of armed actions and even in
Orissa armed squad actions gave a setback to genuine democratic struggles. The
mass massacres in recent years of Maoists in Orissa in 2016 and Chattisgarh
recently could also teach us important lessons. It is debatable whether India 's
geographical terrain is completely suitable for carrying out path of peoples
war .China did not have so much variance in plain and forest areas or as much
difference between tribals and peasants. Today with such penetration of
artificial intelligence structure of Indian Society will be of great variance
to pre-1949 China .
We cannot mechanically copy Chinese model of encircling the cities or building
red army, in the age of telecommunication. In era of globalization perhaps some
amendments need to be made to the 70 party programme like whether Chinese path
is applicable to every region of India , the influence of imperialism
and capitalism on agriculture, development of artificial intelligence and Fascination
of the Indian Society. Different tactics may have to be adopted in urban areas
and possibly urban armed insurrections maybe imperative at a later stage.
Intellectuals have to analyze concretely the nature of Indian semi-feudalism as
warlords do not exist as in China
before 1949 and India
had the complexities of caste system and a disguised parliamentary democratic
framework. The proletarian workforce is far more divided and mechanized than in
China
and cannot be organized using similar methods. With advent of globalization
even our comprador bourgeoisie may not function in the same pattern as before
the Chinese revolution. Chinese path cannot be adopted in to with feudalism not
classical and regions without mountains. Arguably India may have to adopt something different
from Chinese or Russian path.
No comments:
Post a Comment