Three Statements by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on Developments in Nepal

Communist Party of India (Maoist)
Central Committee
Press Release
April 24, 2008
The verdict in Nepal is a verdict against feudal monarchy, Indian expansionism and US imperialism; it reflects the growing aspirations of the Nepalese masses for land, livelihood and democracy!
Oppose the moves of the imperialists, particularly US imperialists, and the Indian expansionists to meddle in the affairs of Nepal!!

The election results in Nepal have proved once again the overwhelming anger of the masses against the outdated feudal monarchic rule in Nepal, against the Indian expansionist’s bullying and domination of Nepal, against US domination and oppression, and are a reflection of the growing aspirations of the Nepali masses for democracy, land, livelihood and genuine freedom from imperialist and feudal exploitation. It is these aspirations of the overwhelming majority of the masses that had completely trounced the parties that had either supported the King and/or the Indian ruling classes or hesitated to come out strongly against feudal, imperialist oppression and Indian intervention in Nepal. Hence, when an alternative like the CPN(M) came to the fore, with its open commitment to abolish the feudal monarchy once for all, abrogate all unequal treaties signed with India by the former ruling classes of Nepal, and ensure democracy and equality for the oppressed sections of society such as Dalits, adivasis, national minorities and women, the masses enthusiastically veered towards the Maoists. The CC, CPI(Maoist), hails the Nepali masses for routing the feudal, pro-imperialist, pro-Indian comprador parties and voting for a genuine change in the rotten feudal system in Nepal. It sends its fraternal revolutionary greetings for their victory in the struggle against the reactionary forces which is the culmination of a ten year process of historic struggles and battles where over 10,000 gave their precious lives.
These protracted struggles culminating in the election results have not only sounded the death-knell for the 239-year-old absolutist monarchy but also delivered a severe jolt to the continuous domination, interference, and bullying by the Indian reactionary expansionist ruling classes. Moreover, they have also sealed the fate of all the comprador-feudal electoral Parties which had proved themselves to be the most corrupt, country-selling, anti-people, loyal stooges of imperialists, feudal forces and Indian expansionists. In the eyes of the broad masses, these parties are narrow self-seeking robber gangsters who are out to fatten themselves at the expense of the vast masses of poor and the destitute. The results are a telling indictment against forces which had proved themselves to be a party to the oppression, suppression and exploitation of women, dalits, national minorities and adivasis.
The real test, however, begins now after the CPN(M) taking over the reins of power. It is a fundamental tenet of Marxism that no radical restructuring of the system is possible without the smashing of the existing state. It is impossible to make genuine changes in the system through measures initiated “from above”, i.e. through state decrees and laws. Whichever Party may be in power, not excluding the most radical Maoists, one can only make laws at best, but to implement these it is imperative to mobilize the masses and advance class struggle against exploiters and oppressors and for radical changes for the liberation of the vast majority of poor. No ruling class will give up power without putting up a bitter struggle and carrying out sabotage and subterfuge against the oppressed class. Hence the real, bitter and most cruel struggle for power will now unfold soon after the elections. In fact, drafting Nepal’s Constitution in favour of the poor and oppressed masses is itself a very arduous and bitter struggle. The reactionaries will oppose every change tooth and nail. Lacking a majority in the Constituent Assembly, the Maoists will be powerless to affect radical changes in the Constitution. Either they have to compromise and adjust with a section of the reactionary forces thereby sacrificing the class interests of the oppressed in whose interests they had come to power, or, they have to mobilize the people and intensify the struggle through all means, including armed insurrection, in order to implement genuine democracy and establish people’s power. There is no other alternative.
The CC, CPI(Maoist), suggests to the CPN(Maoist) to beware of the conspiracies of the imperialists led by the US imperialists, the Indian reactionary ruling classes, and the feudal comprador forces of Nepal to engineer coups, political assassinations, creation of artificial scarcity through economic blockades and sabotage, and subversion of the democratic process, and calls upon it to be fully prepared to confront these reactionaries by armed means. The one and only guarantee for carrying through the radical revolutionary programme is to raise the political class consciousness of the vast masses, mobilize them into class struggle, arm and train them to fight the exploiters and all reactionary forces and defend the gains they had derived through long period of class and mass struggle. Nothing could be more dangerous at the present juncture than to become dizzy with success and underestimate the prospects of a reactionary backlash. One must keep in mind that the gains that can be achieved through a government that has come to power by means of elections are very much limited. Survival of such a regime depends on taking a conciliatory stand on several crucial matters. Hence to overestimate the prospects of radical restructuring of the society or economy by a Maoist government would be illusory and will dilute the possibility as well as the ability of the Party to continue the class struggle.
The CC, CPI(Maoist) also strongly condemns the Indian expansionists in trying to create public opinion prior to the elections in favour of the Koirala clique. They went so far as to get the National Security Advsisor, Narayanan, to openly state on TV that they favour a Koirala victory. They also got the media to propagate cooked up opinion polls putting the Maoists at third place and blacking out media reports when the Maoists began to sweep the polls, upsetting all their calculations. The Indian Expansionists, acting as the new-found gendarme of the US in the region, must stop its interference in the internal affairs of Nepal. The Indian Government must immediately rope in the RSS hoodlums that have been allowed to cross the border creating mayhem by attacking and killing the Maoists and the oppressed masses that oppose the feudal elements in the Tarai region. The RSS and its Hindutva gangsters are still desperately trying to prop up the crumbling monarchy and its vast financial empire. The Indian people and CPI(Maoist) strongly condemn these reactionaries meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal and seeking to prop up a crumbling archaic feudal order. The Indian expansionists must keep their hands off Nepal; it is for the people of Nepal to decide their own future.
The CC, CPI(Maoist) sees immense possibilities in present-day Nepal to carry forward the revolutionary programme by firmly relying on the masses and intensifying the class struggle for genuine land reforms and against imperialist/expansionist domination of the country, while guarding against all reactionary plots and schemes. This is possible if the main leadership of the Maoist party does not become part of the government but concentrates on the principal task of continuing the class struggle by mobilizing the masses. Otherwise there is every danger of unprincipled compromises with the reactionary parties and imperialists, degeneration of the party leadership and cadres, and emergence of strong bureaucratic class. In such a scenario, all the gains made would go down the drain and the reactionary parties would once again come to power by cashing in on the frustration of the masses.
Azad,
Spokesperson,
Central Committee,
CPI (Maoist)

Communist Party of India (Maoist)
Central Committee
Press Release: November 13, 2006

A New Nepal can emerge only by smashing the reactionary state!
Depositing arms of the PLA under UN supervision would lead to the disarming of the masses!!
On 5th November the CPN(Maoist) had entered into an agreement with the government of Nepal which stipulated that the PLA would deposit its arms in seven designated cantonments while the government’s armed forces too would deposit an equal number of arms. These would be placed under the supervision of a UN monitoring team while the keys of the lockers of PLA arms would be with the Maoist party. It was also agreed by both sides to dissolve the present Parliament and form a new interim Parliament with a share of the seats for the Maoists, to form an interim government with some portfolios for the Maoists, and to elect a Constituent Assembly by next summer which is supposed to decide the fate of the monarchy and the future of Nepal. The agreement received the final official stamp when prime minister Koirala and chairman of CPN(M) comrade Prachanda signed the agreement and declared it publicly. The CC, CPI(Maoist) has been perturbed by this agreement concluded by the fraternal Maoist party in Nepal with the government of the seven party alliance led by the Indian protégé Koirala.
The agreement to deposit the arms of the people’s army in designated cantonments is fraught with dangerous implications. This act could lead to the disarming of the oppressed masses of Nepal and to a reversal of the gains made by the people of Nepal in the decade-long people’s war at the cost of immense sacrifices. The clause in the agreement to deposit an equal number of arms by both sides will obviously work in favour of the Koirala-led government as the latter will have the option to use the huge stock of arms still at the disposal of the army anytime and to further strengthen the reactionary army of the government. The decision taken by CPN(Maoist) on arms management, even if it thinks it is a tactical step to achieve its immediate goal of setting up a constituent assembly, is harmful to the interests of the revolution.
Entire experiences of the world revolution had demonstrated time and again that without the people’s army it is impossible for the people to exercise their power. Nothing is more dreadful to imperialism and the reactionaries than armed masses and hence they would gladly enter into any agreement to disarm them. In fact, disarming the masses has been the constant refrain of all the reactionary ruling classes ever since the emergence of class-divided society. Unarmed masses are easy prey for the reactionary classes and imperialists who even enact massacres as proved by history. The CC, CPI(Maoist), as one of the detachments of world proletariat, warns the CPN(Maoist) and the people of Nepal of the grave danger inherent in the agreement to deposit the arms and calls upon them to reconsider their tactics in the light of bitter historical experiences.
The agreement by the Maoists to become part of the interim government in Nepal cannot transform the reactionary character of the state machinery that serves the exploiting ruling classes and imperialists. The state can be the instrument in the hands of either the exploiting classes or the proletariat but it cannot serve the interests of both these bitterly contending classes. It is the fundamental tenet of Marxism that no basic change in the social system can be brought about without smashing the state machine. Reforms from above cannot bring any qualitative change in the exploitative social system however democratic the new Constitution might seem to be, and even if the Maoists become an important component of the government. It is sheer illusion to think that a new Nepal can be built without smashing the existing state.
Another illusion that the agreement creates is regarding the so-called impartial or neutral role of the UN. The UN is in reality an instrument in the hands of the imperialists, particularly US imperialists, to dominate, bully and interfere in the affairs of the Third World countries for the benefit of the imperialists. It is used as a guise to provide legitimacy to the brazen acts of the imperialists to oppress and suppress the people of the Third World. Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent instances of UN’s direct role in legitimizing imperialist aggression and occupation of these countries. It is the duty of the revolutionaries to expose, oppose and fight this imperialist role of the UN. Giving it any role in arms management, election supervision, and peace process in Nepal, would only mean inviting imperialist interference, in particular that of US imperialism.
Another disturbing factor is the illusion harboured by the Maoists in Nepal regarding the role of the Indian expansionists. Indian ruling classes are the biggest threat to the people of the entire sub-continent and it is the duty of the people of the various countries of South Asia to unitedly fight Indian expansionism. The Indian state, with the backing of US imperialism, has been continuously interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal; it had backed the monarchy while encouraging its stooges among the parliamentary forces in the name of two-pillar theory; trained and extended all forms of aid to the Royal Nepal Army in their military offensive against the Maoists; has secret deals with the Nepali Congress led by Koirala and with other reactionary parties; and is bent upon disarming the PLA and the masses of Nepal and isolating the Maoists. Its aim is to grab the natural wealth of Nepal particularly its huge hydel potential and to make it a safe haven for the imperialists and Indian comprador capitalists. Comrade Prachanda’s repeated praise for India’s role in bringing about the agreement between the Maoists and the SPA in Nepal creates illusions among the masses about India rather than preparing them for fighting the Indian expansionists who are keen on Skirmishing Nepal in future.
Even more surprising is the assertion by the CPN(Maoist) that their current “tactics” in Nepal would be an example to other Maoist parties in South Asia. Comrade Prachanda had also given a call to other Maoist parties to reconsider their revolutionary strategies and to practice multiparty democracy in the name of 21st century democracy. Our CC makes it crystal-clear to CPN(M) and the people at large that there can be no genuine democracy in any country without the capture of state power by the proletariat and that the so-called multiparty democracy cannot bring any basic change in the lives of the people. It calls upon the Maoist parties and people of South Asia to persist in the path of protracted people’s war as shown by comrade Mao. We also appeal to the CPN(Maoist) once again to rethink about their current tactics which are actually changing the very strategic direction of the revolution in Nepal and to withdraw from their agreement with the government of Nepal on depositing arms of PLA as this would make the people defenseless in face of attacks by the reactionaries.
Azad,
Spokesperson,
Central Committee,
CPI(Maoist)

_______________

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CPI(MAOIST) SPOKESPERSON ON NEPAL DEVELOPMENTS
August 6, 2006

“There is need for caution with the present tactics”
CPN(Maoists) may be giving over-emphasis to the possibility of advancing the movement through the Constituent Assembly!
(With the latest developments in Nepal and the tactics and Strategy now being put forward by the CPN(Maoist) and the continuous appeals by Indian Marxist and revisionists to the Indian Maoists to learn from the Nepalese Maoists, People’s March has been trying to get the response of the Indian Maoists. At last we have received by e-mail a response from the spokesperson of the CPI(Maoists) which, to a large extent, gives their response. We are giving below an interview taken by our correspondent with comrade Azad, the spokesperson of the CC, CPI(Maoist) in end June 2006.)
PM: How do you look at the current developments in Nepal?
Azad: We, in India, have been watching the ongoing developments in Nepal with great interest. The militant mass agitation by the people of Nepal against the reactionary, autocratic regime of King Gyanendra in April, in the backdrop of the powerful-armed struggle, was indeed historic. The people of Nepal had inscribed a glorious chapter in the annals of Nepal by forcing the fascist King to relinquish his adamant stand and to concede power to the parliament. Particularly the one million strong mobilization in Katmandu in June and the lakhs mobilized in the districts indicates the growing influence of the Maoists in the country. Their influence to be encompassing even the urban areas. Our Party hails the historic struggle of the people of Nepal for democracy and a better society. However, the revolutionaries in India hope that the struggle in Nepal will go on until the overthrow of the King along with the so-called parliament and capture of power by the revolutionary and democratic forces. We hope that the Maoists will be able to maintain their initiative to direct the ongoing political developments. They would need to remain alert in their alliance with the seven party alliance, which wants to strike a compromise with the King and betray the aspirations of the people.
PM: How do you view the tactics of the CPN(Maoist) in joining the interim government and promising to abide by the verdict of the constituent assembly?
Azad: The situation in Nepal and the World is complex. Due to the weakness in the international communist movement we see many a people’s war bogged down in a struggle for survival for decades. In this situation it is no doubt that the Nepalese party and people have made historic advances. But we feel there is need for caution with the present tactics. We think that Maoists forming a government jointly with the comprador bourgeois-feudal parties such as the reactionary Nepali Congress, revisionist CPN-UML and the other parties of the ruling classes will not really work out as they represent two diametrically opposed class interests. It is a wrong interpretation on the question of the state in Nepal to expect a possibility of a peaceful transition from the CA to the NDR. One may bring some reforms from above and satisfy certain deprived sections of the people but it will never solve the basic problems of the people as you cannot smash feudalism and throw out imperialism from the soil of Nepal by utilizing the old state whatever embellishments one might do to give it a refurbished image. Nothing short of a revolutionary upheaval of the masses can achieve the above objective. No doubt given the huge mass mobilizations throughout the country and the efforts to create an even wider upsurge are positive preparations to take the revolution forward, but some of the statements in the interviews tend to give the impression that the CPN(Maoists) are giving over-emphasis to the possibility of advancing the movement through the Constituent Assembly and in alliance with the 7-parties. This can have dangerous implications.
The present emphasis of the CPN(Maoist) needs to be seen with caution particularly after they had brilliantly built up their people’s army of 25,000, their Base Areas, the UF and their new Organs of Power, and had stated that they were in the phase of the strategic offensive to seize power. In the process they effectively defeated all efforts of the police and RNA to crush them, maintaining the military and political initiative. But now there is no reference even to the strategic offensive and how it is to advance. They of course do refer to this being a February revolution and that preparations must go on for the October revolution, but we are not aware this later fits into their strategic offensive plan.
PM: And what about the dissolution of the revolutionary organs of power and merging of the two armies?
Azad: These organs are the product of protracted people’s war against the old state and they stand out as shining examples of people’s democratic dictatorship at the local level brilliantly built by the CPN(Maoist) party. The immediate task and the tactics should serve to strengthen these organs and mould them into organs of uprising like the Soviets in revolutionary Russia and China. While consolidating these organs of power we need to strive to mobilize the masses in a big way into uprisings and strive to capture the cities leading to the final seizure of power at the opportune moment. In fact in the concrete situation in Nepal today the Maoists have really only two revolutionary options. Either they must intensify the mass upsurge, evolve the organizational forms of political power suitable for seizing political power at the national/all Nepal level or if that is not possible owing to an unfavorable balance of class forces the existing base areas should be consolidated and strengthened and steps taken to complete the democratic tasks and advance towards in the direction of the socialist tasks. It is possible that in this process two Nepals will emerge – a reactionary one based in Kathmandu and few cities and a revolutionary Nepal based in the countryside.
As regards merging the army within a reconstituted state army, it is even more dangerous. Mao said that without a people’s army the people have nothing. The army is one of the main instruments of class rule. How can two diametrically opposed classes have a single army? By merging the people’s army with the reactionary army of the ruling classes (until now the faithful servant of the King) the people will become defenseless in case of a reactionary armed offensive by the enemy. We have experiences of several countries where the toiling masses suffered heavily due to the wrong line of the Communist party. In Indonesia we know of the cruel massacres of communists and their sympathizers carried out by the ruling classes due to the line of hobnobbing with the reactionary ruling classes whom they considered as nationalist and democratic forces. We also have before us the examples of Chile, Nicaragua and several other countries. One cannot rule out the possibility of the reactionary ruling classes carrying out a coup and reestablishing their monopoly over political power at an opportune moment when the revolutionary forces have been effectively disarmed or weakened. This has been the experience in several countries following the 2nd World War i.e France, Greece etc. But, of course, if the Maoists do not pose a threat to the interests of imperialism and the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois (CBB) and they get accommodated and incorporated into the system then they too would be received with warmth by the ruling classes. The invitation to the UN to supervise the cease-fire and monitor the demobilization of the people’s armed forces is also dangerous. The UN is essentially an instrument of imperialism and particularly American imperialism. It is bound to work in the interests of the reactionary ruling classes of Nepal and imperialism. Overall, the decision of the CPN(Maoist) to dissolve the revolutionary people’s governments in the countryside and to merge the PLA with the reactionary army will unfold an irreversible process of losing all the revolutionary gains achieved till now.
PM: The various parliamentary parties in India, not to speak of the Left parties like the CPI and CPI(M), have been hailing the line of participation in the interim government and parliamentary democracy taken by the Nepali Maoists and say that it will have a positive impact on the Maoist movement in India. How does your Party assess its impact?
Azad: It is the wishful subjective thinking of these parties in India that the developments in Nepal will have a “positive” (what they mean by positive is the Maoists shunning armed struggle and joining the so-called mainstream of parliamentary politics) impact on the Maoist movement in our country. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the Maoist movement in India, with the numerous ups and downs it had gone through in the past four decades after Naxalbari, knows how resilient our movement is. Even when confronted with great difficulties and odds against the revolutionaries, the genuine Maoists in India never vacillated or drifted from their line of new democratic revolution and achieving it through the line of protracted people’s war. They had not only rejected the parliamentary path but also fought against the parties who wanted to participate in elections in the name of utilizing it as a tactic. Of course, there are some pseudo revolutionary parties, like the CPI(ML)-Liberation which had degenerated into parliamentary parties but these stand exposed before the people as revisionist parties in the guise of MLM.
No wonder, the various ruling class parties and the so-called left parties in India are elated at the change of stance by the CPN(Maoist) led by comrade Prachanda. They are naturally hailing the line taken by the CPN(Maoist) and are calling upon the Maoists in India to realize the futility of armed struggle and to follow the Maoists of Nepal by participating in the parliamentary pig-sty in India. As bitter enemies and opponents of revolution all these parties have been in the forefront in suppressing the ongoing people’s war in India. The decision of the CPN(Maoist) to participate in the government along with the reactionary parties, declaring their commitment to the so-called rule of law and the future constitution, and to become actors in the ensuing game of parliamentary elections following the elections to the constituent assembly has come as a breather for the ruling class parties in Nepal and the parliamentary system of India.
In fact, in his interview with The Hindu last February, comrade Prachanda himself hinted at the “positive” impact that his line of multiparty democracy will have on the Maoist movement in India. It must have come as a great relief for the Indian ruling classes to hear comrade Prachanda speak of his Party’s commitment to multiparty democracy and the message he wants to give to the Naxalite movement in India by successfully establishing multiparty democracy in Nepal.
When asked what he would say if he were to meet the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, comrade Prachanda said:
“We are fighting for genuine multiparty democracy but they are imprisoned there, in Patna, Siliguri, Chennai. If you release them all, a message will go out. And if you feel the Naxalite movement in India is a problem for you, we feel we are trying to deal with the problems in Nepal in a new way, so if you release our comrades and we are successful in establishing multi-party democracy in Nepal, this will be a very big message for the Naxalite movement in India. In other words, the ground will be readied for them to think in a new political way. Words are not enough; we need to validate what we are saying by establishing that democracy.”
It is really a matter of grave concern that comrade Prachanda, instead of demanding the expansionist Indian ruling classes to stop all interference and meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs, only talked of how their tactics would bring about a change in the outlook of the Maoists in India. Needless to say, these remarks will not only be deeply resented by the revolutionary masses of our country who have seen the wretched system of parliamentary democracy in India but will also be proved totally wrong through their revolutionary practice.
PM: The CPM and one of its top leaders, Sitaram Yechuri, was focused as a messiah from India to play a role between the Maoists and SPA. After returning back to India he and his party advised the Indian Maoists to follow the line of the CPN(Maoist). How do you explain this when they seem hostile to the Maoists here? Apart from this Yechury told the press that the Indian Maoists have planned to kill him and the secret regarding this decision was informed to him by the Nepali Maoists. What is your comment please?
Azad: The CPM is a party of the Indian ruling classes, representing the interests of imperialism, feudalism and the CBB in India. Their primary task seemed to be to bring the Nepalese Maoists into the parliamentary ‘mainstream’, which they also keep preaching us in India. When we do not accede they have used the worst forms of state terror against us as in West Bengal. Their aim is the same in both countries — to pacify the Maoists in India with bullets and do the same with the Nepalese Maoists with sugarcoated bullets. Yechuri and the CPM in effect played a more affective role for the Indian ruling classes when the Congress was fumbling with the Karan Singh fiasco. But when he overdid his ‘diplomacy’ and was sidelined, he cooked up the conspiracy theory of the Maoists in India planning to kill him to regain some credibility and try and sow seeds of mistrust between the two Maoist parties. A true Chanakya!!
PM: Why are you opposed to the tactic of multiparty democracy as proposed by the CPN(Maoist)?
Azad: Firstly, we are greatly perturbed by the proposal put forth by comrade Prachanda in his various interviews that his party was committed to multiparty democracy, which will be practiced not after the revolutionary seizure of power by the proletariat but within the semi-colonial semi-feudal society. The 2003 Plenum document was quite vague regarding CPN(Maoist)’s concept of multiparty democracy or political competition, i.e., whether it is applicable after the seizure of power by the revolutionary party or prior to seizure itself. It only says it is possible to organize political competition within the constitutional limits of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist democratic state. However, the statements, interviews and documents released after the 12-point Delhi Agreement between the CPN(Maoist) and the Seven Party Alliance in November 2005 all point to the need for competition within the existing system after the Constituent Assembly is elected.
There is also confusion regarding the class character of the Parties with whom such political competition has to be conducted. While the 2003 document clearly stated that these forces will be anti-feudal and anti-imperialist in character, the post November 2005 documents and interviews of CPN(MAOIST) provide scope for such competition with the constituents of SPA who are basically comprador bourgeois-feudal in their character in spite of their role against monarchy, or, more specifically, against King Gyanendra’s autocratic rule.
In fact, in the same document entitled “Present situation and our tasks”, presented by comrade Prachanda and adopted by the Central Committee Meeting of the CPN (Maoist) in May 2003, it correctly described the nature of the parliamentary parties in Nepal in the following words—
“In form it may appear as a triangular struggle involving monarchy, parliamentary forces and revolutionary forces, but in essence and if one looks from a class point of view, the struggle involving only two forces (reactionary and democratic forces) are seen. It has been practically proved that the differences between the autocratic monarchical and parliamentary groups are nothing other than that of share of power within the old state. It has been time and again proved in Nepal that monarchy in the name of nationalism (fake) and parliamentary forces in the name of democracy (fake) want to occupy the seat of power and betray the nation and the people on identical class basis.
“What we have been saying from a class and theoretical point of view and what has become all the more exposed in the present cease-fire and negotiation process is that it is the clash of interests between different international reactionary centers which is behind the mutual recriminations and contradictions between different reactionary groups in Nepal. As the royal army and the palace elements are being manipulated and protected by western imperialism, particularly American imperialism, and the main parliamentary forces by the Indian rulers who seek special hegemony in South Asia, they are having a continuous tug of war between them. Hence the whole Party should be clear that, in the background of political development particularly after the palace massacre, the idea of seeing either the monarchical or the parliamentary forces of Nepal as more democratic or more nationalistic than the other, will be specially harmful and wrong. It has become all the more clear in the present day Nepal that we can never have any ideological and political relationship with either monarchical or parliamentary groups except to manage contradictions in a particular situation.”
While the above analysis of the class character of the parliamentary parties, their fake democracy and loyalty to various imperialist powers, is basically correct, it is indeed very unfortunate that the CPN(Maoist) has not adhered firmly to that analysis from a strategic and class perspective. It is one thing to make necessary adjustments, understandings and tactical unity with these parliamentary forces and even with a section of the imperialists against the main enemy when conditions for such alliances become ripe. But to create illusions on the character of these parties or overlook their links with imperialists and Indian expansionists will do great harm to the revolution in the long run.
Moreover, we find that comrade Prachanda and the CPN(Maoist) had turned the tactics to the level of strategy and path of the world revolution in the 21st century. Thus, in his interview to The Hindu comrade Prachanda stressed that the Maoists’ commitment to multi-party democracy is not tactical but the result of a lengthy ideological debate within the party over three years. He said: “our decision on multi-party democracy is a strategically, theoretically developed position and we are telling the parliamentary parties that we are ready to have peaceful competition with you all.”
The CPN(Maoist) leader directly assured the comprador bourgeois-feudal parliamentary parties that his Party is ready to have peaceful competition with all of them. And by describing this decision on multiparty democracy as a strategically, theoretically developed position comrade Prachanda has brought a dangerous thesis to the fore—the thesis of peaceful coexistence with the ruling class parties instead of overthrowing them through revolution; peaceful competition with all other parliamentary parties, including the ruling class parties that are stooges of imperialism or foreign reaction, in a so-called parliamentary elections; abandoning the objective of building socialism for an indefinite period; and opening the doors wide for the feudal-comprador reactionaries to come to power by utilizing the backwardness of the masses and the massive backing from domestic and foreign reactionaries or the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois and feudal and petty bourgeois forces to hijack the entire course of development of the society from the socialist direction to maintaining the existing system (even if in a new form) in the name of democracy and nationalism. Whatever may be our good intentions for building a more democratic system, the laws governing class struggle will not permit of such a system. History has proved this time and again from the days of the Paris Commune right up till the earlier revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
PM: Then are you in favour of multiparty democracy at least after the seizure of power? If not what is the form of government you envisage after the revolution?
Azad: The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist understanding regarding the form of government that will be best suited for the proletariat is the Commune or the Soviet or the Revolutionary Council that can best serve the proletariat and the vast majority of the masses as they act not as talking shops and mere legislative bodies but as both legislative and executive bodies. The representatives to these bodies are elected and are subject to recall any time the people feel they do not serve their interests. If we look at the very process of the protracted people’s war it entails the setting up democratic power in the Base Areas of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal forces UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PROLETARIAT elected democratically at gram sabhas with the right to remove them also by the gram sabha. Here there is a close interaction between the power structures and the will of the people and therefore truly democratic. Once power is seized at the all-India level, till the transformation to the socialist stage all genuinely anti-imperialist and anti-feudal parties will be part of the new power, and the transition to socialism can only take place through continuing the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This does not deny democracy for the masses at large but, as Lenin said, petty production generates a bourgeoisie daily, hourly and these elements will find their representative at all realms of state power, including the Party. Can anyone think of a better form of government and better form of exercising democracy in the real sense of the term?
“To decide once every few years which members of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament—this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary- constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics”, said Lenin.
This was said by Lenin over a century back. Since then, particularly since World War II, the parliament and its related institutions have become even more corrupt and rotten to the core.
A good example of how the new power was built was the Paris Commune. The concepts practiced there were further worked out in the Soviets of the USSR, the communes in China and the experiments of the GPCR and is being sought to be practiced in the Base Areas being set up by the Maoists in different parts of the world.
Comrade Lenin also explained very lucidly how the Parliament functions even in the most democratic of the republics and, contrasting it to the Commune, showed how the Communes (or the Soviets in Russia and Revolutionary Councils in China) are the most suitable forms of government for the proletariat and the toiling masses.
“The parliamentary bourgeois republic hampers and stifles the independent political life of the masses, their direct participation in the democratic organization of the life of the state from the bottom up. The opposite is the case with the Soviets.
“The way out of parliamentarism is not, of course, the abolition of representative institutions and the elective principle, but the conversion of the representative institutions from talking shops into “working” bodies. “The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.”
“The Commune substitutes for the venal and rotten parliamentarism of bourgeois society institutions in which freedom of opinion and discussion does not degenerate into deception, for the parliamentarians themselves have to work, have to execute their own laws, have themselves to test the results achieved in reality, and to account directly to their constituents. …. We cannot imagine democracy, even proletarian democracy, without representative institutions, but we can and must imagine democracy without parliamentarism, if criticism of bourgeois society is not mere words for us, if the desire to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie is our earnest and sincere desire, and not a mere “election” cry for catching workers’ votes, as it is with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries,”
PM: And how do you ensure political competition with other parties? The CPN(Maoist) claims that it is only by organizing political competition and institutionalizing the right of the masses to install an alternative revolutionary party in power that counter-revolution can be effectively checked.
Azad: It is, indeed, surprising that the CPN(Maoist) should arrive at such a conclusion even after the proletariat is equipped with rich and varied experiences on the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, after it is armed with such an appropriate form, method and weapon as the cultural revolution and is in possession of a wealth of writings by our teachers—Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao—and by several Marxist writers on the subject of checking the degeneration of the Party, Army and the State; preventing the restoration of capitalism; and building a new type of state and society. To think that continuous proletarianization and revolutionization of the Communist Party can be ensured and that counter-revolution can be effectively checked by organizing so-called political competition or by institutionalizing the right of the masses to install an alternative revolutionary party or leadership on the state means falling into the trap of bourgeois formalism and undermining the real task of mobilizing the masses extensively to wage bitter class struggle against the old reactionary defeated classes and the new bourgeois class developing within the Party, Army and the Administration. It is difficult to grasp how alternative revolutionary parties can exist- especially since the communist parties have always understood that different political lines represented either a proletarian outlook or a bourgeois outlook.
The crucial point lies not in ensuring the right of the masses to replace one Party by another through elections, which is anyway the norm in any bourgeois republic or bureaucrat bourgeois-feudal republic, but ensuring their active and creative involvement in supervising the Party and the state, in checking the emergence of a new bureaucratic class, and themselves taking part in the administration of the state and society and in the entire process of revolutionary transformation. And it will be the foremost task of the Party to organize and lead the masses in checking counter-revolution and bringing about the revolutionary transformation in all spheres through continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. And this is the most important lesson handed down to us by the entire historical experience of the world revolution, particularly by the GPCR.
Moreover, is it possible for the Party of the proletariat to prevent the comeback of the defeated classes to power and check counter-revolution peacefully or by a coup by providing such an opportunity to them to compete in a “democratic” manner? Would the Bolshevik Party have won the elections in Russia after the revolution had it organized such political competition given its near-total absence in the vast backward countryside where the most reactionary ideas ruled the roost? In fact, the Bolshevik Party had to even dissolve the constituent assembly immediately after it captured power despite the fact that it was only a minority in it as the constituent assembly acted as an instrument of the reactionaries and became an obstacle for carrying out revolutionary reforms and for exercising proletarian dictatorship as in the Soviets. It is not just the case of Russia, in many countries, particularly in semi-colonial semi-feudal countries, where petty commodity production and peasant economy predominate, the feudal ideology, culture, customs and the force of habit among the majority of the population will make it possible for other non-proletarian and even reactionary parties under the anti-feudal anti-imperialist cloak to come to power relatively easily. Hence it will not be surprising if we find that the idealist and subjective proposal of the CPN(Maoist), though made with good intentions, ultimately becomes a convenient tool in the hands of the capitalist-roaders to seize power.
As regards political competition with other parties, we have the experience of China where several democratic parties such as the Democratic League, Peasants and Workers’ Party and others competed with the CPC and contested in elections to the various organs of power. Although these existed for almost a decade after the revolution the people rejected them when they refused to support socialism and tried to take China along the capitalist road. Political competition was encouraged in China, not in the form of participation in Western-type bourgeois parliamentary elections but in the elections to various bodies. Democratic parties and organizations belonging to the four classes that comprised the motive forces of revolution were to take part in the elections to the various bodies.
The CPC had strived to unite all the anti-feudal anti-imperialist parties and forces during the new democratic revolution and also after the seizure of power and establishment of people’s democracy or the people’s democratic dictatorship.
In his article On the correct handling of contradictions among the people, in 1957, Mao explained the policy of the CPC towards other political parties after the capture of power thus:
“It is the desire as well as the policy of the Communist Party to exist side by side with the democratic parties for a long time to come. But whether the democratic parties can long remain in existence depends not merely on the desire of the Communist Party but on how well they acquit themselves and on whether they enjoy the trust of the people. Mutual supervision among the various parties is also a long-established fact, in the sense that they have long been advising and criticizing each other. Mutual supervision is obviously not a one-sided matter; it means that the Communist Party can exercise supervision over the democratic parties, and vice versa.”
In China many methods were evolved to prevent capitalist restoration and the rise of a new bourgeoisie in the Government and Party. Mao’s let a hundred flowers blossom and let a hundred schools of thought contend; his ‘Three-thirds’ system of democratic representation which restricts the seats of Communist party members in all elected bodies to a maximum of one-third of the whole and gives two-thirds of the seats to members of other parties and non-party elements; his putting six political criteria for political parties to stand for elections; etc; are only a few of the examples adopted. Democracy is not merely a formal putting a vote but must exist in the very living process of any organization, with the leadership under the close supervision of the masses and cadre; this too is possible with only a general raising of MLM consciousness of the Party and the masses and intensifying the class struggle. In China there were many parties after the revolution sharing power, but the unity was on a principled basis, and was part of the front to deepen the class struggle against the remnants of the feudal and CBB forces. In Nepal they in effect dilute the class struggle by forming a government with feudal and CBB elements.
The most important thing is that all the revolutionary bodies in the proletarian or people’s democratic state are elected and every person so elected is subject to recall, which is not seen, in the so-called parliamentary democracies.
PM: Do you find anything wrong when the CPN(Maoist) says it will go to the new democratic stage via the bourgeois democratic or multiparty republic?
Azad: No Maoist would say it is wrong to fight for the demand of a Republic and for the overthrow of the autocratic monarchy. And likewise, none would oppose the forging of a united front of all those who are opposed to the main enemy at any given moment. Needless to say, such a united front would be purely tactical in nature and cannot, and should not, under any circumstances, determine the path and direction of the revolution itself.
The problem with the theorization by the CPN(Maoist) lies in making the fight against autocracy into a sub-stage of NDR and, a tendency to make the sub-stage overwhelm (dominate and determine) the very direction and path of the revolution. The programme and strategy of NDR drawn up by the Party prior to its launching of the armed struggle, its targets to be overthrown, and even the concrete class analysis made earlier based on which the revolution had advanced so far, are now made subordinate to the needs of the so-called sub-stage of Nepalese revolution. The sub-stage of a bourgeois democratic republic appears, from their interviews and statements, to have become the all-determining factor.
As far as we know, we can say that the numerous types of state system in the world can be reduced to three basic kinds according to the class character of their political power: (1) republics under bourgeois dictatorship (in addition to these there are the fake republics in the backward semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries under the joint dictatorship of the CBB and feudal elements, backed by imperialism); (2) republics under the dictatorship of the proletariat; and (3) republics under the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes. In essence, the slogan of a bourgeois democratic republic given by the CPN(Maoist) cannot but come under the first type of republic in spite of the participation of the revolutionary party in the state power along with the comprador bourgeois-feudal parties.
In his interview with the BBC correspondent, comrade Prachanda gave his vision of future Nepal in the following words:
“We believe that the Nepali people will go for a republic and in a peaceful way the process of rebuilding Nepal will go forward.
“In five years’ time Nepal will move towards being a beautiful, peaceful and progressive nation.
“In five years’ time the millions of Nepalis will already be moving ahead with a mission to make a beautiful future, and Nepal will truly start becoming a heaven on earth.”
He further asserted that a democratic republic elected in such a way will solve the problems of Nepalis!!
“We believe that with the election of a constituent assembly, a democratic republic will be formed in Nepal. And this will solve the problems of Nepalis and lead the country into a more progressive path.”
Anyone reading the above lines would think that these views reflect more a nationalist sentiment than a proletarian class outlook.
How will Nepal start becoming a “heaven on earth” after becoming a bourgeois republic? How can the formation of a democratic republic “solve the problems of Nepalis”? Can it free itself from the clutches of imperialism after becoming a republic in the present imperialist era? Does the CPN(Moist), which claims to believe in MLM, really think that the “process of re-building Nepal will go forward in a peaceful way”? And is there a single instance in world history where such peaceful process of rebuilding has taken place? Does not the history of world revolution show that bitter class struggle, bloody and violent at times, continues even after decades following the capture of power by the proletariat? Then how could comrade Prachanda think of such a peaceful process of rebuilding Nepal even at this sub-stage? Do the parties belonging to the SPA really fight imperialism, Indian expansionism and feudalism in Nepal? Is there a guarantee that the CPN(Maoist) will defeat the bourgeois-feudal parties, with which it wants to go for political competition, in the elections and ensure that Nepal does not drift into the clutches of imperialism and Indian expansionism? How could one believe that once the elections to the Constituent Assembly are over and Nepal becomes a Republic, not under the leadership of the working class party but may be under an alliance of a hotchpotch combination of Parties i.e., an alliance of ruling class and working class under CPN(Maoist), the country would free itself from feudalism and imperialism and become a “beautiful, peaceful and progressive nation” ?
According to comrade Prachanda’s opinion, “the reactionary class and their parties will try to transform this republic into bourgeois parliamentarian one, where as our party of the proletariat class will try to transform it into new democratic republic. How long will be the period of transition, is not a thing that can right now be ascertained. It is clear that it will depend upon the then national and international situation and state of power balance.”
This so-called transitional multiparty republic is sought to be transformed into a new democratic republic through peaceful struggle by means of political competition with reactionary class and their parties, which try to transform it into a bourgeois parliamentary republic!!
Whatever be the tactics adopted by the CPN(Maoist) the most objectionable part in the entire matter is its projection of these tactics as a theoretically developed position which it thinks should be the model for the revolutions in the 21st century. In the name of fighting against dogmatism our comrades of CPN(Maoist) are slipping into dangerous territory.
Moreover, as long as the Party wages a consistent struggle against imperialism and local reactionaries and pursues the line of redistribution of land and wealth, nationalisation of all comprador, foreign industries, banks and foreign trade, it is certain to face opposition from the other parliamentary parties. And if it wants to be part of the parliamentary game it has to abide by its rules and cannot carry out its anti-feudal, anti-imperialist policies in a thoroughgoing way. Even the independence of the judiciary has to be recognized as part of the game of parliament and can cause obstruction to every reform which the Maoist party tries to initiate after coming to power through elections. This is already being seen with the 8-point agreement being said to be illegal. US imperialism is even strongly demanding that the Maoist should participate in the constituent assembly only after they lay down their arms. The CPN(Maoists) have rightly opposed this position of the US and also Indian expansionists. We expect that they will remain firm in this.
Then there will be several institutions like the judiciary, the election commission, the media, various artistic, cultural and even religious bodies, non-government organizations, and also human rights organizations some of which are floated by the ruling classes, and so on. If one slips into the quagmire of the so-called multiparty democratic republic, one cannot escape from upholding these so-called independent institutions. Many of these can become hideouts of the reactionary forces and work for counter-revolution in diverse subtle ways. One cannot forget the subtle manner in which the western agencies infiltrated and subverted the societies in East European countries and even in the former Soviet Union.
PM: Comrade Prachanda says that the tactics adopted by his party are based on the specificities of the political and military balance in the world as well as particular class, political and power balance in Nepal besides the experiences of the 20th century. What is your Party’s opinion on this?
Azad: It is true that comrade Prachanda in his interview to The Hindu last February cited the above three factors for his party coming to the decision on multiparty democracy. In fact, this understanding could be seen in the CPN(Maoist) even before the said interview. For instance, in the CC meeting in August 2004, it began to be skeptical about the prospects of victory in a small country like Nepal when it is confronted by imperialism and there is no advancement of any strong revolutionary movement.
“In the present context, when along with the restoration of capitalism in China there is no other socialist state existing, when despite objective condition turning favorable currently there is no advancement in any strong revolutionary movement under the leadership of the proletariat, and when world imperialism is pouncing on people everywhere like an injured tiger, is it possible for a small country with a specific geo-political compulsion like Nepal to gain victory to the point of capturing central state through revolution? This is the most significant question being put before the Party today. The answer to this question can only be found in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and on this depends the future of the Nepalese revolution.”
The same Plenum had also pointed out why the series of tactical steps like cease-fire, negotiation, political way out etc., were taken up.
“There is no doubt that the imperialist forces are now in preparation for even more vicious assault as the Nepalese People’s War is in preparation for strategic offensive from its current position of strategic equilibrium. The entire complexities, opportunities and challenges of Nepalese revolution are the manifestations of this objective condition…but, in Nepal, the development of revolution has reached a very sensitive stage of preparation for strategic offensive. It is essential to understand that the series of tactical steps undertaken by the Party such as cease-fire, negotiation, political way out etc. are based on this strategically favorable and tactically unfavorable world situation and the condition of strategic equilibrium inside the country.”
It is true that the revolutions everywhere are confronting a tough situation especially after the setback of China. Tactically speaking, in the present-day world, the enemy forces are quite strong while our subjective forces are weak. World imperialism has unleashed a massive offensive on the revolutionary forces, national liberation movements and on the people’s movements everywhere. But this is only one side of the coin. At the same time, the objective conditions are quite favorable; imperialism, particularly US imperialism, is hated by the people everywhere and massive people’s movements are breaking out against imperialism, particularly US imperialism, throughout the world. Any revolution in today’s world has to inevitably face the attacks by the imperialists.
To face an enemy much bigger than the revolutionary forces there are no question that it may and will require a great flexibility in tactics. Particularly when we are a sizable force such flexibility can more effectively be wielded for the achievement of our goals. But while doing so there is always a danger to lose sight of our strategic tasks of the seizure of power by armed force. From the statements being made by the CPN(Maoist) leadership it appears that that danger is there. Many statements being made and the interviews being given tend to negate some of the basic Marxist understandings regarding state and revolution. It may be said to have been made in the context of diplomacy; but its end result is to miseducate the revolutionary and progressive camp. It is not expected from a Marxist statesman.
In the interview com Prachanda had gone to the extent of saying:” We are ready to accept the people’s verdict, if they chose constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy.” It is indeed a great tragedy to see the Maoist party finally ending up in these political positions in spite of having de facto power in most of the countryside.
PM: Comrade Prachanda says that the line of multiparty democracy applies to the Maoist movement in India too. How does your party see this?
Azad: We saw his comments on this point in his interview with The Hindu correspondent. It says:
“We believe it applies to them too. We want to debate this. They have to understand this and go down this route. Both on the question of leadership and on multiparty democracy, or rather multiparty competition I believe those who call themselves revolutionaries in India need to think about these issues. And there is a need to go in the direction of that practice. We wish to debate with them on this. If revolutionaries are not going to look at the need for ideological development, they will not go anywhere.”
Such advice has been coming forth from the various ruling class parliamentary parties in India since long. The revisionist CPI and CPI(M), who swear by Marx and Lenin, regularly sermonize through their magazines, documents and statements, regarding the futility of armed struggle for seizing state power and achieving revolutionary social transformation. They desperately try to show how parliamentary multiparty democracy is the best instrument for achieving this transformation as witnessed in West Bengal and Kerala. The CPI(ML)-Liberation, in the name of MLM, preaches the virtues of multi-party democracy and calls all those who do not wish to be tied to the parliamentary pig-sty as anarchists and adventurists.
It is good that the CPN(Maoist) wants to debate with the Maoists in India on the question of leadership and multiparty democracy. There have been interesting discussions and exchange of opinions and experiences between the leaderships of our two parties on the concept of leadership, on the question of personality cult and concentration of all power in the hands of one individual, etc. Our opinion has always been that it is necessary for a good section of the Party leadership to work among the masses and concentrate on building class struggle even after the seizure of power in order to prevent the degeneration in the Party functionaries, officials in the various state departments, particularly the armed forces, in the various units in the production sphere, and so on. We must encourage the masses to criticize the mistakes committed by the party and the party leaders even in the course of the revolutionary movement prior to the seizure of power. We must develop collective leadership rather than focusing on any one individual or delegating revolutionary authority. Dependency on one or few individuals instead of developing collective leadership and involving the entire Party membership and the masses in decision-making has been one of the causes that led to great reversals in Russia and China where, after the demise of outstanding proletarian leaders like Stalin and Mao, the CPSU and the CPC turned revisionist so easily.
We agree with comrade Prachanda when he says that “from the lessons of the 20th Century communist states – we want to move to a new plane in terms of leadership – where one person doesn’t remain the party leader or the head of state.”
In fact, this had also been one of the major points of debate during the inner-party struggle in the CPN(Maoist) during 2004-05 when comrade Bhattarai (Laldhoj), in his Basic Questions for Inner-Party Discussion, raised questions such as: Is proletarian leadership a centralized expression of collectivity, or is it a person centered? Does the principal law of dialectics, viz. one divides into two, apply to the main leadership or not? How does the system of a single person occupying the top Party, army and the state posts, and that too for life, solve the question of generating revolutionary successors and of continuous revolution? Our party, the CPI(Maoist) wish to conduct a serious debate on these questions and also on the question of Prachanda Path and on the concept of path, thought and ism.
PM: What would you say with regard to the concept of 21st century democracy as proposed by the CPN(Maoist) led by comrade Prachanda?
Azad: What is new in the concept of 21st century democracy raised by the CPN(Maoist) and how is it qualitatively different from the democracy of the 20th century? The CPN(Maoist) had also claimed that its “decision on multi-party democracy is a strategically, theoretically developed position” which is even applicable to conditions in India. One knows about bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy, that democracy too has a class character, which in a class-divided society democracy will serve the ruling class while exercising dictatorship over the rest of the people. In bourgeois republics the nature of democracy is bourgeois. It is meant to serve the bourgeoisie while oppressing the vast majority of the people. Its essence is bourgeois dictatorship. Likewise, in people’s democratic republics, the democracy is meant for all the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist classes while dictatorship is exercised over the enemies of the people and their agents. The qualitative difference between different types of democracies lies in their class character. But when the CPN(Maoist) says that there is a qualitative difference between the democracy of the 20th and 21st centuries without any reference to the class character, it is not only unconvincing but also seems to be highly subjective.
One reason given is that in the 21st century there has “been unprecedented development in science and technology, particularly in electronic communication technology, in the world.” How this unprecedented development has a bearing on the strategy of the revolutions in the 21st century or on the nature of democracy in the 21st century is not clear.
It says that “in the field of ideology, the central committee has attempted to draw a strategic outline of the world revolution based on the analysis of today’s world situation and mainly the new analysis of globalized imperialism and proletarian movement and has succeeded to present a totally new concept in relation to leadership and accomplishing revolution and preventing counter-revolution” and “in the field of politics” it says, it has made a “qualitative leap in the concept regarding political and military strategy and tactic established in the 20th century.”
We are still not clear what is this new concept and qualitative leap claimed by CPN(Maoist) except for their line of multiparty democracy and political competition which boils down to competing peacefully with the various reactionary and revisionist parties for power in a so-called transitional multiparty democratic republic.
PM: Finally, where do you see the Nepalese revolution heading?
Azad: We also do see reports that the PLA still maintains its firepower and alertness. Also there is reference to the recent upsurge being the February revolution and the preparations going on for the October revolution. There are also reports of huge mass mobilization to win over new forces to the side of the revolution, including in the urban areas. Also the US imperialists and Indian expansionists (including their stooge, Yechuri) are openly trying to sabotage the alliance demanding as a prerequisite the laying down of arms by the Maoists. Besides, the Maoists have stated that they will not give up their arms and will maintain their own camps. All these are positive trends indicating the readiness of the Maoists to advance towards the New Democratic Revolution. There is need to beware from two situations: falling into any traps laid by the ruling classes and their imperialist and expansionist masters; second to beware of a sudden coup and massacre of communists as witnessed in Greece, Indonesia, Chile and a number of other countries. Even a huge mass base in these countries did not stop such massacres. But we will expect that the CPN(Maoists) will steer the Party forward and advance the revolution for the seizure of power countrywide.
PM: One last question. What is the message you would like to give to the revolutionary ranks of Nepal, India and the rest of the world?
Azad: First we would seriously request the CPN(Maoist) and its leadership to reconsider some of its recent positions and learn from the history of past mistakes. The Nepalese party and people have a great history of struggle and sacrifice. Over 10,000 have lost their lives in the course of the present people’s war. We salute these heroic martyrs of the Nepalese and world revolution. We are confident that the great Nepalese people will advance the revolution forward facing the numerous twists and turns in the movement. There is no doubt that revolution today is no simple task; the path will be zig-zag.
We also call on the people of India to lend full support to the Nepalese revolution. But while doing so it is also the duty of the Indian and world proletariat to render friendly suggestions to their comrades in Nepal. After all, the interests of the Nepalese revolution are very much in the interests of world revolution, and more particularly of its neighbor, the Indian revolution. The revolutionary people of India are ready for any sacrifice in support of the Nepalese revolution. We are confident that we will march forward, together, against the obnoxious system of world imperialism and its local semi-feudal base.
PM: We, on behalf of the People’s March wish to thank you for the interview on this so crucial issue in a neighboring country.
Azad: Thank You

parliament election an illusion

Parliamentary Democracy is an illusion for the masses!
Revolution is their Reality!
To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter.
–Marx
Once again the great Indian fraud is on—the spectacle of the farce of parliamentary elections. Even apologists of parliamentary democracy in India are quick to call it the most fragmented election ever to be fought. In this make believe world of the so-called largest `democracy’, even those who vouch by the system is not ready to say who their friends/foes are in this sham of representation. And this wisdom of the predicament ahead or the predicament of the wisdom of parliamentary `democracy’ in 21st century India is best summed up by none other than Lalu Prasad—one of the PMs in waiting—when he wryly observes that “when all of us want to win why contest separately?” If in the pre-poll scenario the running theme is the wisdom of Lalu to avoid multi-corner contests and hence fragmentation of votes, then the circus of musical chair that ensue the post poll scenario is as fluid as the craving needs of an abusive drunkard short of money. Anyone who has more than thirty seats in the next Lok Sabha elections will be a strong contender for the PM’s post in the dog-eat-dog world of Parliamentary politics.
Fully aware of the complete loss of face of a process that has hardly evoked confidence in the average citizen of the `republic’ all the parliamentary parties right from Congress, BJP to the parliamentary `Marxists’ are harping on the need for every citizen to cast their vote failing which they are set for doom. The electronic and print media are abuzz with a variety of advertisements exhorting every voter the need to utilize a non-existent weapon—their vote. Thousands of crores are being spent by central and state governments, politicians and money bags to instil a sense of urgency and belonging in every voter as if their `right’ vote would lift the sinking ship—the Indian republic. Sixty years after the transfer of power by the British to their servile counterparts in the subcontinent it has become inevitable for the comprador Indian ruling classes to conjure up some legitimacy among the masses, every five years, under the smokescreen of elections for their right to loot and plunder.

Elections or the politics of charcha, parcha and kharcha
Official estimate of expenditure on present elections is a whopping Rs.10000 crores. This does not include the advertisements indulged in by various ruling parties using the people’s money. A cursory look at the recently concluded elections to Kashmir assembly shows how much money is illegally routed by the state to manufacture consent from a people who have been consistently raising their voice for Azadi. It is an open secret that every new aspirant candidate in J &K was given ten lakh rupees by the Indian state. The Election Commission, a toothless wonder, can do little is evident when we look into the last assembly elections in Karnataka. Media reported that on an average each candidate of the BJP, Congress and JD (S) spent in their regions at least 5-6 crores. Most notably, for nine seats in the iron ore rich Bellary district and in almost all urban centres money spent by each candidate was to the tune of 15-18 crores. A conservative estimate of major contenders in all the 224 constituencies put the expenditure at a massive Rs.4000 crores. The big mining mafia of Bellary along with the real estate dons played a key role in bankrolling thousands of crores for the BJP. The real estate dons also became candidates for the BJP. Besides, liquor also played a key role in inducing voters from the economically and socially weaker sections.
In AP, just before the day of declaration of election schedule, the loyal babus of YSR government worked through the night at the secretariat literally burning the midnight oil with lights off to sign 3000 predated GOs doling out benefits to various sections. Not to be left behind the techno savvy former CM Chandrababu raised the jackpot by dishing out 1 crore colour TVs to the poor besides several such sops. So much for the triumph of the Indian democratic process!
The dubious role of black money and money bags in the every day life of the great Indian democracy is evident from the number of scams that have graced parliament since 80s: Lakhubhai Pathak cheating scandal, Bofors Scandal, St. Kitts forgery scandal, JMM bribery scandal, hawala scandal, telecom scam, coffingate, defence procurement scandal, cash for query scam, MPLADS scam, human trafficking scam, cash for vote scam. Due to want of space one is restrained to go into further details.
The Parliamentary Marxists
The most dubious role in legitimising the farce of parliamentary process lies with the so-called `mainstream’ left. The CPI participated in elections even before the transfer of power, gaining British colonial legitimacy. They have since graduated from being reformist to ruling class parties with the CPI (M) turning into social fascists. Their new partner this time is CPI (ML) (Liberation) the entrant to the electoral fray in the early 80s. Notwithstanding their radical pretensions they stand exposed as the most degenerate as they keep changing their partners in their eagerness to feel the gaddi. Liberation which made a song and dance of the CPI and CPM for their servility to imperialists and comprador big business houses like the Tatas, Jindals, Dove etc by brutally suppressing the people’s protests and handing over land and wealth to these sharks in Singur, Nandigram, Salboni, Lalgarh etc. has joined hands with the same parties in Bihar to fight elections! Liberation had tried similar truck desperately with SP, LJP and even RJD in Bihar before.
But for the support of the social fascists the imperialist stooge Manmohan Singh could not have passed several anti-people policies and anti-national acts in the parliament. Thus after four years of hobnobbing with the UPA they had to pull out to save the last straw of eyewash of opposing the UPA in the nuclear deal. The third front that they managed with all crooks and gangsters like Chandrababu Naidu, Mayawati and Jayalalitha, Deve Gowda will collapse due to its own contradictions as the race to the government formation starts. The politics of convenient alliances just to get to the gaddi or to be a dominant partner has really brought out the opportunistic and anti-people nature of the parliamentary left—even their anti-communal pretensions. When it comes to the real problems of the people their subservience to imperialist interests have hardly made them different from the Congress and BJP.
The emerging scenario
Whether it is the Congress led UPA with or without the support of CPM or the erstwhile BJP led NDA, all combinations of the parliamentary circus have—a mute testimony of their comprador nature—very faithfully implemented the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) dictated by the IMF and WB euphemistically called LPG. The outcome of this `shining India’ is for everyone to see.
As the world economy is reeling under the worst ever crisis since the Great Depression, India has been ever more deeply embedded in the imperialist web, particularly the US which has hit the nadir with the largest budget and trade deficits, the dollar hitting an all time low. The dominance of foreign capital is more than ever before. Even the smallest trough in the Western economies has deep repercussions in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country like India as 40 percent of her GDP comes from exports and imports. The stock exchanges that are in the vice like grip of FIIs have been devastated. With the FIIs withdrawing $ 13 billion (Rs. 62,880 crores) from the country in 2008 investors in the Indian stock market lost Rs.36,50,000 crores in nine months. The ninety percent drop in real estate stocks and 80 percent in Mutual Funds where much of middle-class savings are put have further worsened the crisis.
In the equity of the comprador big business houses, share of foreign capital has gone up from an average of about 6 percent to about 25 percent. Even for its credit, the bulk of big business is dependent on foreign borrowings (in the form of ECBs, etc) as interest rates are much less abroad. The bourgeois media has unequivocally pointed out that total investor wealth, in terms of market capitalization, of all limited companies together dipped from Rs.73,00,000 crore in Jan 2008 to Rs.36,50,000 crore in Oct.2008. Since then it has dropped further. Today, half of the 2,699 quoted companies are below the book value. For the first time in 15 years industrial output fell by 0.5 percent in January 2009. The signature Indian economy such as the car market, export industry (leather, textiles,), IT and ITES have slumped drastically.
The learned PM and the erudite FM have sought to take us deeper into the vortex of the imperialist beast as they reduced the restrictions on Participatory Notes, raised the interest rates on NRI loans; increased the equity capital allowed in insurance from 26 to 49 percent; allowed the take-over of India’s largest pharmaceutical company, Ranbaxy, by a Japanese TNC; the list lingers. The policies being adopted—be it the Congress, BJP, CPM, TDP R/JD, BSP, SP, AGP, NC or any of their ilk—are nothing but a prescription for disaster for the people of this subcontinent, a prop for the imperialists (and their comprador agents within the country) to help them shift the burden of their crisis on the peoples of the backward countries like India.
Agrarian distress—awaiting a social explosion
The violent brutality of the policy of LPG consummates in the story of more than 180000 peasants who have committed suicide in the last ten years due to the mounting agrarian crisis when the Vajpayees and Manmohans were shamelessly pedalling the story of `Shining India’. Annual growth rate in agricultural production has further dipped from 3.8 percent in 2006-07 to 2.6 percent in 2007-08 owing to criminal neglect ala India Shining where prime agricultural land is allotted for the real estate bubble and bio-diesel production. Centre’s expenditure on agriculture has fallen by 20 percent between 1990-91 and 2004-05; on irrigation and flood control by 15 percent. The neglect of various governments is despite the fact agriculture still provides 70 percent of employment while the service sector which accounts for 55 percent of the GDP gives only a paltry 0.5 percent of employment. This shift in priority is also in the interest of multinational agri-based industries that have seen a burgeoning market in the world food crisis. Today over 70 percent of our people live in the rural areas in utter backwardness and penury weighed down by varied forms of feudal, semi-feudal and now `modern’ forms of exploitation and loot. As per a study sixty years of the `largest democracy’ have done little to over 77 percent of the population who live on Rs. 20/day on average.
Land grab, displacement and destruction in the name of development
The 600 odd SEZs which are all set to grab a massive 1750 sq km of land will displace 1.14 lakh farming households and 82000 labouring households i.e. a minimum of one million people thus pushing the rural population to the brink. Further, hundreds of thousands of MoUs on mining, mega-dams, super highways, etc. signed with imperialist and comprador capital is nothing but total sell out of valuable resources of the people while displacing lakhs and lakhs of them from their livelihoods. The opening up of the huge retail market in India for multinational retail giants like Walmart will displace 4-6 lakh families from their livelihoods.
Fleecing the people
The masses are the worst hit under the policies of LPG. In these two decades all political parties blamed each other for the ills of the economy while faithfully implementing policies of LPG without any discontinuity which saw the rich getting richer and the lives of the poor going from bad to worse. The policy of industrialization tailor made for the coffers of the comprador bourgeoisie have largely concentrated incomes in a few hands of top promoters and majority shareholders. The share of corporate sector in the national income shot through the roof as it rose by 290 percent in the last five years.
This model of development has created billionaires like Mukesh Ambanis, one lakh millionaires and a parasitic upper class eating off the crumbs of the super rich. India has the dubious distinction of having the largest number of poor in the world while at the same time also housing the second largest number of billionaires.
The rupee declined by as much as 15 percent in the few weeks ending October 2008. If we also take into account retail prices especially of basic necessities, the double digit inflation that was persistent throughout –actually around 20 percent—wreaked havoc among the poor and middle class. The near blind faith of the policy pundits on jobless growth could not be sustained with the worst decline in employment opportunities including absolute decline, slashed wages/salaries and unprecedented price rise. Do any of the parliamentary parties approaching for vote have a concrete solution for this whirlpool of crisis that they are party to? The answer is in the air.

Repression on the people
The UPA government was little different from NDA in unleashing a reign of terror on various sections of the people. Fake encounter killings of Maoists, innocent Muslims, and struggling nationalities like Kashmiri Muslims, Assamese, Nagas and Manipuris were on the rise. Muslims continued to be targets of witch hunt as every party vied the other in their favourite game—to appease the Hindu majority; to create a sense of insecurity to resort to fascist methods to suppress all just and democratic struggles of the people. Hindu fascist gangs and saffron terrorists like BJP-RSS-VHP- Bajrang Dal-Shiv Sena-RJM-Abhinav Bharat, etc. are allowed a free run in inciting anti-Christian riots and massacres while Muslim organizations such as SIMI are banned.
The people of Kashmir had poured into the streets in lakhs demanding Azadi despite unprecedented measures of curfew and force resorted to by the military might of the Indian state. The panic stricken Indian state could only respond with force by killing and maiming the defiant masses.
Salwa Judum is a gruesome reminder of such an assault of the state on the revolutionary masses of Chhattisgarh who have opposed tooth and nail the policies of loot and plunder. Moreover, the authoritarian fascist methods of the state came out in sharp relief through new draconian laws and even without it.
When people protest against such blood thirsty policies they are brutally suppressed through the barrel of the gun. The barrel of the gun again returns to the same battlegrounds— Kashmir, Assam, Manipur, Chhattisgarh, Bihar-Jharkhand— albeit now to elicit the consent of the people as vote to loot them further!
Did anyone say the battle of the ballot?
The democratic alternative as emerging in Dandakaranya
What then would a real democracy entail? It would involve a genuine assertion of peoples’ power from the grass roots. People themselves will determine their future. All wings of the state—parties, political institutions, bureaucracy, judiciary, et al—will be answerable to the people; they having the right to recall. It would usher a society where all are educated and are conscious of their duties as well as their rights. Moreover, a system where every single person has the minimum—food, cloth and shelter.
The initiative of the masses of Chhattisgarh under our party the CPI (Maoist) is a definite step in this direction. Organised under the Janatana Sarkar they have fought the efforts of the state to implement the pro-imperialist model of development in their immediate social formation. In Dandakaranya, this struggle started with the establishment of Gram Rajya Committees (GRC) as the primary units of power and today it has taken deep roots in the form of Revolutionary People’s Committees and the Revolutionary Peasant’s Committees as the embryonic forms of people’s assertion at the village level, block level and division level. It is through these organs of political power that the revolutionary masses have successfully destroyed the reactionary power of the oppressive and exploitative ruling classes in an extensive area under the leadership of the CPI (Maoist) party thus ensuring the production and reproduction of everlasting methods of equitable distribution of resources and produces.
The 8 departments under the sarkar are:
(i) Development (ii) Defence (iii) Justice (iv) Forest protection (v) Culture & Education (vi) Health (vii) Finance (viii) Public Relations (ix) Mass Organizations.
And remember these sarkars are run by adivasis—once illiterate—now educated by the party and have become politically conscious through class struggle. These RPCs are taking shape in our guerilla zones playing an effective role, where a strong party capable of leading people’s war with a battle hard PLGA and its three consolidated forces have organized the people of the area in the form of mass organizations and people’s militia. The leadership of village party organizations are established up to the village level. This embryonic people’s governments with four class united front in the guerilla zones is unflinchingly fighting the white terror of the reactionaries and destroying its armed forces wiping out its power. It is through this organized resistance the genocidal attempt of Salwa Judum on the adivasi population—by the murderous rulers like Manmohan Singh to Raman Singh—was beaten back.
The RPCs have enabled the people evolve a better living by new farming techniques, water management through small check dams, bio-fertilizers, seed sharing and preservation, soil conservation, poultry farming, fish farming, health education, prevention of all curable diseases like malaria, tubercholosis, malnutrition, etc. The underlying principle is equitable distribution sans disparities/ unevenness. The lives of the people have considerably transformed. The role of superstitions in their lives has considerably reduced with education playing an important role. The struggle to decide their own destiny has become their world view; songs; stories.
Relative to all the state powers so far formed in India, these RPCs are the highest and truly democratic systems that would unleash the initiative of the broad masses of peasantry, develop their creativity and collectiveness in the people’s war. These will work towards establishing the joint dictatorship of all the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, anti-Comprador Bureaucratic Bourgeois forces based on the worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the working class through out the area with the aim of New Democratic Revolution.
With the financial crisis fast engulfing the Indian subcontinent India is moving towards a social explosion. None of the political parties have a definite answer for this imminent spectre. Rest assured, they might be overconfident, complacent and numb as even without a crisis they could kill more than one and a half lakh farmers, displace millions through their warped development policies, reduce the health conditions of masses to silent deaths, massacre thousands through state terrorism on revolutionaries, nationalities, Muslims, dalits and all struggling people. The toiling masses of India have only one path. The robust road of revolution! To paraphrase Mao, the masses of the Indian subcontinent have to be practical and do the impossible!
Azad,
Spokesperson
Central Committee,
Communist Party of India (Maoist)
12.03.09

cpi (maoist) karnataka press release

Communist party of India(Maoist)

                        State committee 

Karnataka

  

 

 

Respectable editors and representatives of media, revolutionary   greetings.

 We are sending this press release regarding

1) Murder of peasants, peasants struggle and scarcity of chemical fertilizers,

2) Price rise and Inflation

Requesting to publish this with due consideration.

                                                                   Yours in struggle,

                                     

                                                                             Gangadhara

                                                                             For the state committee

11-06-08                                                                CPI (Maoist)

                                                                             Karnataka

                              

 

1)     We are strongly condemning the brutal and cold blooded murder of agitating peasants and   indiscriminate firing on sons of the soil  on 10/06/08 by the BJP government of Karnataka.

  In that one man dead and tens were injured,3 were seriously injured.

This is nothing but fascist moves of newly formed government. Govt reacted with false assurances and bullets rather than considering demands of fortnight long agitating peasants of state and doing proper arrangements for supply of chemical fertilizers insecticides etc. At the same time all these worst politicians are busy with quarrel, ministry ship sharing and planning of loot.

Peasants are in acute pressure of loan repayments and severe income crunch due to     globalization designs of state and central governments dictated by imperialist masters. By that they are agitating militantly with the apprehension of this year’s future.

 Government should take responsibility of all these undueness and murder.

 

 We are strongly demanding to arrest immediately, police officials responsible for shooting and murder of peasants under murder case.

 

 We are demanding to make responsible the ministries and officials for artificial scarcity of chemical fertilizers, anti people moves and irresponsibility.

 

 We are supporting militant struggles and seizer of unlawful stock of fertilizers by the peasants.

 

  We are appealing to people, democratic, progressive organizations and individuals to condemn this brutal murder and firing, build vast mass movements against this.

 

 Govt, fertilizer companies and big fertilizer traders are playing worst by creating artificial scarcity and charging higher price. They are least concerned with the sons of the soil.

 

     2) People, particularly poor and middle class are in shock of unprecedented price rise and inflation. Food and other day today usables are going out of reach of the common people.  Adding to the wounds, now petrol and diesel prices are increased.

 Inflation and economic recession are common in global level now, because of crisis of imperialism, i.e. world capitalism. Ruling classes and their central and state governments are squeezing landless and poor peasants, poor and middle class people, petty, small and medium traders, small scale and medium scale industries etc by all means, for guaranteeing profit to imperialist and comprador companies. This is the main reason for income crunch of people and further deterioration of their livelihood.

 

 

  We are appealing to all people to unite together by throwing out all these political goons and struggle against imperialism and their local stooges. Build people’s new democratic social system as only way to coming out of this crisis.

                 

                         With revolutionary greetings                   

                                                                                               Gangadhara

for the state committee

                                                                                                 CPI (Maoist)karnataka

110608                                                                                        

stand for modern revisionism- Armado liwanag

Stand For Socialism Against Modern Revisionism

January 15, 1992

 

Revisionism is the systematic revision of and deviation from Marxism, the basic revolutionary principles of the proletariat laid down by Marx and Engels and further developed by the series of thinkers and leaders in socialist revolution and construction. The revisionists call themselves Marxists, even claim to make an updated and creative application of it but they do so essentially to sugarcoat the bourgeois antiproletarian and anti-Marxist ideas that they propagate.

The classical revisionists who dominated the Second International in 1912 were in social-democratic parties that acted as tails to bourgeois regimes and supported the war budgets of the capitalist countries in Europe. They denied the revolutionary essence of Marxism and the necessity of proletarian dictatorship, engaged in bourgeois reformism and social pacifism and supported colonialism and modern imperialism. Lenin stood firmly against the classical revisionists, defended Marxism and led the Bolsheviks in establishing the first socialist state in 1917.

The modern revisionists were in the ruling communist parties in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They systematically revised the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism by denying the continuing existence of exploiting classes and class struggle and the proletarian character of the party and the state in socialist society. And they proceeded to destroy the proletarian party and the socialist state from within. They masqueraded as communists even as they gave up Marxist-Leninist principles. They attacked Stalin in order to replace the principles of Lenin with the discredited fallacies of his social democratic opponents and claimed to make a “creative application” of Marxism-Leninism.

The total collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, has made it so much easier than before for Marxist-Leninists to sum up the emergence and development of socialism and the peaceful evolution of socialism into capitalism through modern revisionism. It is necessary to trace the entire historical trajectory and draw the correct lessons in the face of the ceaseless efforts of the detractors of Marxism-Leninism to sow ideological and political confusion within the ranks of the revolutionary movement.

Among the most common lines of attack are the following: “genuine” socialism never came into existence; if socialism ever existed, it was afflicted with or distorted by the “curse” of “Stalinism”, which could never be exorcised by his anti-Stalin successors and therefore Stalin was responsible even for the anti-Stalin regimes after his death; and socialism existed up to 1989 or 1991 and was never overpowered by modern revisionism before then or that modern revisionism never existed and it was an irremediably “flawed” socialism that fell in 1989-1991.

There are, of course, continuities as well as discontinuities from the Stalin to the post-Stalin periods. But social science demands that a leader be held responsible mainly for the period of his leadership. The main responsibility of Gorbachov for his own period of leadership should not be shifted to Stalin just as that of Marcos, for example, cannot be shifted to Quezon.

It is necessary to trace the continuities between the Stalin and the post-Stalin regimes. And it is also necessary to recognize the discontinuities, especially because the post-Stalin regimes were anti-Stalin in character. In the face of the efforts of the imperialists, the revisionists and the unremoulded petty bourgeois to explain everything in anti-Stalin terms and to condemn the essential principles and the entire lot of Marxism-Leninism, there is a strong reason and necessity to recognize the sharp differences between the Stalin and post-Stalin regimes. The phenomenon of modern revisionism deserves attention, if we are to explain the blatant restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship in 1989-91.

After his death, the positive achievements of Stalin (such as the socialist construction, the defense of the Soviet Union, the high rate of growth of the Soviet economy, the social guarantees, etc.) continued for a considerable while. So were his errors continued and exaggerated by his successors up to the point of discontinuing socialism. We refer to the denial of the existence and the resurgence of the exploiting classes and class struggle in Soviet society; and the unhindered propagation of the petty-bourgeois mode of thinking and the growth of the bureaucratism of the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie in command of the great mass of petty-bourgeois bureaucrats.

From the Khrushchov period through the long Brezhnev period to the Gorbachov period, the dominant revisionist idea was that the working class had achieved its historic tasks and that it was time for the Soviet leaders and experts in the state and ruling party to depart from the proletarian stand. The ghost of Stalin was blamed for bureaucratism and other ills. But in fact, the modern revisionists promoted these on their own account and in the interest of a growing bureaucratic bourgeoisie. The general run of new intelligentsia and bureaucrats was petty bourgeois-minded and provided the social base for the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie.

In the face of the collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes, there is in fact cause for the Party to celebrate the vindication of its Marxist-Leninist, antirevisionist line. The correctness of this line is confirmed by the total bankruptcy and collapse of the revisionist ruling parties, especially the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the chief disseminator of modern revisionism on a world scale since 1956. It is clearly proven that the modern revisionist line means the disguised restoration of capitalism over a long period of time and ultimately leads to the undisguised restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. The supraclass sloganeering of the petty bourgeoisie has been the sugarcoating for the antiproletarian ideas of the big bourgeoisie in the Soviet state and party.

In the Philippines, the political group that is most embarrassed, discredited and orphaned by the collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes is that of the Lavas and their successors. It is certainly not the Communist Party of the Philippines, reestablished in 1968. But the imperialists, the bourgeois mass media and certain other quarters wish to confuse the situation and try to mock at and shame the Party for the disintegration of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes. They are barking at the wrong tree.

There are elements who have been hoodwinked by such catchphrases of Gorbachovite propaganda as “socialist renewal”, “perestroika”, “glasnost” and “new thinking” and who have refused to recognize the facts and the truth about the Gorbachovite swindle even after 1989, the year that modern revisionism started to give way to the open and blatant restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. There are a handful of elements within the Party who continue to follow the already proven anticommunist, antisocialist and pseudodemocratic example of Gorbachov and who question and attack the vanguard role of the working class through the Party, democratic centralism, the essentials of the revolutionary movement, and the socialist future of the Philippine revolutionary movement. Their line is aimed at nothing less than the negation of the basic principles of the Party and therefore the liquidation of the Party.

 

 

I. The Party’s Marxist-Leninist Stand Against Modern Revisionism

January 15, 1992

 

The proletarian revolutionary cadres of the Party who have continuously adhered to the Marxist-Leninist stand against modern revisionism and have closely followed the developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe since the early 1960s are not surprised by the flagrant antisocialist and antidemocratic outcome of modern revisionism.

The Party should never forget that its founding proletarian revolutionary cadres had been able to work with the remnants of the old merger Party of the Communist and Socialist parties since early 1963 only for so long as there was common agreement that the resumption of the anti-imperialist and antifeudal mass struggle meant the resumption of the new-democratic revolution through revolutionary armed struggle and that the old merger party would adhere to the revolutionary essence of Marxism-Leninism and reject the Khrushchovite revisionist line of bourgeois populism and pacifism and the subsequent Khrushchovism without Khrushchov of the Brezhnev regime.

So, in April 1967 when the Lava revisionist renegades violated the common agreement and ignored the Executive Committee that had been formed in 1963, it became necessary to lay the ground for the reestablishment of the Party as a proletarian revolutionary party. Everyone can refer to the diametrically opposed proclamations of the proletarian revolutionaries and the Lava revisionist renegades which were disseminated in the Philippines and published respectively in Peking (Beijing) Review and the Prague Information Bulletin within the first week of May 1967.

The reestablishment of the Party on the theoretical foundation of Marxism-Leninism on December 26, 1968 necessarily meant the criticism and repudiation of all the subjectivist and opportunist errors of the Lava revisionist group and the modern revisionism practised and propagated by this group domestically and by one Soviet ruling clique after another internationally.

The criticism and repudiation of modern revisionism are a fundamental component of the reestablishment and rebuilding of the Party and are inscribed in the basic document of rectification, “Rectify Errors and Rebuild the Party” and the Program and Constitution of the Party. These documents have remained valid and effective. No leading organ of the CPP has ever had the power and the reason to reverse or reject the criticism and repudiation of modern revisionism by the Congress of Reestablishment in 1968.

In the late 1970s, the Party decided to expand the international relations of the revolutionary movement in addition to the Party’s relations with Marxist-Leninist parties and organizations abroad. The international representative of the National Democratic Front began to explore possibilities for the NDF to act like the Palestinian Liberation Organization, African National Congress and other national liberation movements in expanding friendly and diplomatic relations with all forces abroad that are willing to extend moral and material support to the Philippine revolutionary struggle on any major issue and to whatever extent. This line in external relations was in consonance with the Marxist-Leninist stand of the Party and the international united front against imperialism.

In 1982, a definite proposal to the Central Committee came up that the NDF or any of its member organizations vigorously seek friendly relations with the ruling parties in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as well as with parties and movements closely associated with the CPSU. However, this proposal was laid aside in favor of the counterproposal made by the international liaison department (ILD) of the Party Central Committee that the Party rather than the NDF explore and seek “fraternal” relations with the ruling parties of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and other related parties.

 

 

 

 

I. The Party’s Marxist-Leninist Stand Against Modern Revisionism Veering Away from the Antirevisionist Line

January 15, 1992

 

This counterproposal disregarded the fact that the Lava revisionist group had already preempted our Party from the possibility of “fraternal” relations with the revisionist ruling parties. More significantly, the counterproposal did not take into serious consideration the Marxist-Leninist stand of the Party against modern revisionism.

Notwithstanding the ill-informed and unprincipled basis for seeking “fraternal” relations with the revisionist ruling parties and the absence of any congress withdrawing the correct antirevisionist line, the staff organ in charge of international relations proceeded in 1984 to draft and circulate a policy paper, “The Present World Situation and the CPP’s General International Line and Policies” describing the CPSU as a Marxist-Leninist party, the Soviet Union as the most developed socialist country and as proletarian internationalist rather than social-imperialist, as having supported third world liberation movements and as having attained military parity with the United States. This policy paper was presented to the 1985 Central Committee Plenum and the latter decided to conduct further studies on it.

In 1986, the Executive Committee of the Central Committee commissioned a study of the Soviet Union and East European countries. The study was superficial. It was done to support the predetermined conclusion that these countries were socialist because their economies were still dominated by state-owned enterprises and these enterprises were still growing and because the state still provided social guarantees to the people. The study overlooked the fact that the ruling party in command of the economy was no longer genuinely proletarian and that state-owned enterprises since the time of Khrushchov had already become milking cows of corrupt bureaucrats and private entrepreneurs who colluded under various pretexts to redirect the products to the free market.

By this time, the attempt to deviate from the antirevisionist line of the Party was clearly linked to the erroneous idea that total victory in the Philippine revolution could be hastened by “regularizing” the few thousands of NPA fighters with importations of heavy weapons and other logistical requisites from abroad, by skipping stages in the development of people’s war and in building the people’s army and by arousing the forces for armed urban insurrection in anticipation of some sudden “turn in the situation” to mount a general uprising.

 

There was the notion that the further development of the people’s army and the people’s war depended on the importation of heavy weapons and getting logistical support from abroad and that the failure to import these would mean the stagnation or retrogression of the revolutionary forces because there is no other way by which the NPA could overcome the enemy’s “blockhouse” warfare and control of the highways except through the use of sophisticated heavy weapons (antitank and laser-guided missiles) which necessarily have to be imported from abroad.

In the second half of 1986, with the approval of the Party’s central leadership, a drive was started to seek the establishment of “fraternal” relations with the CPSU and other revisionist ruling parties as well as nonruling ones close to the CPSU. A considerable amount of resources was allotted to and expended on the project.

In late 1986, some Brezhnevites within the CPSU and some other quarters made the suggestion that the Communist Party of the Philippines merge with the Lava revisionist group in order to gain “fraternal” relations with the CPSU. But such a suggestion was tactfully rejected with the countersuggestion that the CPSU and other revisionist ruling parties could keep their fraternal relations with the Lava group while the CPP could have friendly relations with them. We stood pat on the Leninist line of proletarian party-building

Up to 1987 the failure to establish relations with the revisionist ruling parties was interpreted by some elements as the result of the refusal on the part of our Party to repudiate its antirevisionist line. These elements had to be reminded in easily understood practical terms that if the antirevisionist line of the Party had been withdrawn and the revisionist ruling parties would continue to rebuff our offer of “fraternal” or friendly relations with them, then the proposed opportunism would be utterly damaging to the Party.

By 1987, the Party became aware that the Gorbachov regime was already laying the ground for the emasculation of the revisionist ruling parties in favor of an openly bourgeois state machinery in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by allowing his advisors, officials of the Academy of Social Sciences and the official as well as independent Soviet mass media to promote pro-imperialist, anticommunist and antisocialist ideas under the guise of social democracy and “liberal” communism. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution, Gorbachov himself delivered a speech abandoning the anti-imperialist struggle and describing imperialism as having shed off its violent character in an integral world in which the Soviet Union and the United States and other countries can cooperate in the common interest of humanity’s survival.

In 1987, the chairman of the Party’s Central Committee made an extensive interview on the question of establishing relations with the ruling parties of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. This was made in response to the demand from some quarters within the Party that the Party repudiate its line against revisionism and apologize to the CPSU for having criticized the Soviet Union on the question of Cambodia and Afghanistan. The interview clarified that the Party can establish friendly relations with the ruling parties even while the latter maintained their “fraternal” relations with the Lava group.

 

 

I. The Party’s Marxist-Leninist Stand Against Modern Revisionism Failed Efforts at Establishing Relations

January 15, 1992

 

In June 1988, the “World Situation and Our Line” was issued to replace “The Present World Situation and the CPP’s General International Line and Policies”. The correct and positive side of the new document reiterated the principles of national integrity, independence, equality noninterference and mutual support and mutual benefit to guide the Party’s international relations; and upheld the basic principles of socialism, anti-imperialism and proletarian internationalism and peaceful coexistence as a diplomatic policy. Furthermore, it noted and warned against the unhealthy trends of cynicism, anticommunism, nationalism, consumerism, superstition, criminality and the like already running rampant in the countries ruled by the revisionist parties.

The negative side included accepting at face value and endorsing the catchphrases of Gorbachov; describing the revisionist regimes as socialist under a “lowered” definition; and diplomatic avoidance of the antirevisionist terms of the Party.

In the course of trying to establish friendly relations with the revisionist ruling parties in 1987 and onward, Party representatives were able to discern that Gorbachov and his revisionist followers were reorganizing these parties towards their eventual weakening and dissolution. Despite Gorbachov’s avowed line of allowing the other East European ruling parties to decide matters for themselves, Soviet agents pushed these parties to reorganize themselves by replacing Brezhnevite holdovers at various levels with Gorbachovites and subsequently paralyzed the Party organizations. However, it would be in 1989 that it became clear without any doubt that all the revisionist ruling parties and regimes were on the path of self-disintegration, blatant restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship under the slogans of “multiparty democracy” and “economic reforms”.

It is correct for the Party to seek friendly relations with any foreign party or movement on the basis of anti-imperialism. But it is wrong to go into any “fraternal” relations involving the repudiation of the Party’s Marxist-Leninist stand against modern revisionism.

In this regard, we must be self-critical for wavering or temporarily veering away from the Party’s antirevisionist line and engaging in a futile expedition. The motivation was to seek greater material and moral support for the Filipino people’s revolutionary struggle. Although such motivation is good, it can only mitigate but cannot completely excuse the departure from the correct line. The error is a major one but it can be rectified through education far more easily than other errors unless ideological confusion over the developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is allowed to continue. Most comrades assigned to do international work were merely following the wrong line from above.

The worst damage caused by the unconsummated and belated flirtation with the revisionist ruling parties in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is not so much the waste of effort and resources but the circulation of incorrect ideas, such as that these parties were still socialist and that the availability or nonavailability of material assistance from them, especially heavy weapons, would spell the advance or stagnation and retrogression of the Philippine revolutionary movement. It should be pointed out that the Lava group had the best of relations with these parties since the sixties but this domestic revisionist group never amounted to anything more than being an inconsequential toady of Soviet foreign policy and the Marcos regime.

At this point, the central leadership and entirety of the Party must renew their resolve to adhere to Marxism-Leninism and to the antirevisionist line. We are in a period which requires profound and farsighted conviction in the new democratic revolution as well as the socialist revolution. This is a period comparable to that when the classical revisionist parties disintegrated and it seemed as if socialism had become a futile dream and the world seemed to be merely a helpless object of imperialist oppression and exploitation. But that period was exactly the eve of socialist revolution.

 

 

II. The Legacy of Lenin and Stalin

January 15, 1992

 

The red flag of the Soviet Union has been brought down. The czarist flag of Russia now flies over the Kremlin. It may only be a matter of time that the body of the great Lenin is removed from its mausoleum in the Red Square, unless Russia’s new bourgeoisie continue to regard it as a lucrative tourist attraction for visitors with hard foreign currency.

The Soviet modern revisionists, from Khrushchov to Gorbachov, had invoked the name of Lenin to attack Stalin. But in fact, the total negation of Stalin was but the spearhead of the total negation of Lenin and Leninism, socialism, the Soviet Union and the entire course of Bolshevik and Soviet history. The bourgeoisie in the former Soviet Union was not satisfied with anything less than the open restoration of capitalism and the imposition of the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

It is necessary to refresh ourselves on the legacy of Lenin and Stalin in the face of concerted attempts by the imperialists, the modern revisionists, the barefaced restorationists of capitalism and the anticommunist bourgeois intelligentsia to slander and discredit it.

The greatness of Lenin lies in having further developed the three components of the theory of Marxism: philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism. Lenin is the great master of Marxism in the era of modern imperialism and proletarian revolution.

He delved further into dialectical materialism, pointed to the unity of opposites as the most fundamental law of material reality and transformation and contended most extensively and profoundly with the so-called “third force” subjectivist philosophy (empirio-criticism).

He analyzed modern imperialism and put forward the theory of uneven development, which elucidated the possibility of socialist revolution at the weakest point of the world capitalist system. He elaborated on the Marxist theory of state and revolution. He stood firmly for proletarian class struggle and proletarian dictatorship against the classical revisionists and actually led the first successful socialist revolution.

The ideas of Lenin were tested in debates within the Second International and within the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP). The proletarian revolutionary line that he and his Bolshevik comrades espoused proved to be correct and victorious in contention with various bourgeois ideas and formations that competed for hegemony in the struggle against czarist autocracy.

We speak of the socialist revolution as beginning on November 7, 1917 because it was on that day that the people under the leadership of the proletariat through the Bolshevik party seized political power from the bourgeoisie. It was at that point that the proletarian dictatorship was established. For this, Lenin is considered the great founder of Soviet socialism. Proletarian dictatorship is the first requisite for building socialism. Without this power, socialist revolution cannot be undertaken. By this power, Lenin was able to decree the nationalization of the land and capital assets of the exploiting classes and take over the commanding heights of the economy.

Proletarian class dictatorship is but another expression for the state power necessary for smashing and replacing the state power or class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, for carrying out the all-rounded socialist revolution and for preventing the counterrevolutionaries from regaining control over society.

Proletarian dictatorship is at the same time proletarian democracy and democracy for the entire people, especially the toiling masses of workers and peasants. Without the exercise of proletarian dictatorship against their class enemies, the proletariat and the people cannot enjoy democracy among themselves. Proletarian dictatorship is the fruit of the highest form of democratic action _ the revolutionary process that topples the bourgeois dictatorship. It is the guarantor of democracy among the people against domestic and external class enemies, the local exploiting classes and the imperialists.

The Bolsheviks were victorious because they resolutely established and defended the proletarian class dictatorship. They had learned their lessons well from the failure of the Paris Commune of 1871 and from the reformism and treason of the social democratic parties in the Second International.

Wielding proletarian dictatorship, the Bolsheviks disbanded in January 1918 the Constituent Assembly that had been elected after the October Revolution but was dominated by the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, because that assembly refused to ratify the Declaration of the Rights of the Toiling and Exploited People. The Bolsheviks subsequently banned the bourgeois parties because these parties engaged in counterrevolutionary violence and civil war and collaborated with the foreign interventionists.

In his lifetime, Lenin led the Soviet proletariat and people and the soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers to victory in the civil war and the war against the interventionist powers from 1918 to 1921. He consolidated the Soviet Union as a federal union of socialist republics and built the congresses of soviets and the nationalities. As a proletarian internationalist, he established the Third International and set forth the anti-imperialist line for the world proletariat and all oppressed nations and peoples.

In 1922 he proclaimed the New Economic Policy as a transitory measure for reviving the economy from the devastation of war in the quickest possible way and remedying the problem of “war communism” which had involved requisitioning and rationing under conditions of war, devastation and scarcity. Under the new policy, the small entrepreneurs and rich peasants were allowed to engage freely in private production and to market their products.

 

 

 

II. The Legacy of Lenin and Stalin The Record of Stalin

January 15, 1992

 

Lenin died in 1924. He did not live long enough to see the start of fullscale socialist economic construction. This was undertaken by his successor and faithful follower Stalin. He carried it out in accordance with the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin: proletarian dictatorship and mass mobilization, public ownership of the means of production, economic planning, industrialization, collectivization and mechanization of agriculture, full employment and social guarantees, free education at all levels, expanding social services and the rising standard of living.

But before the socialist economic construction could be started in 1929 with the first five-year economic plan, Stalin continued Lenin’s New Economic Policy and had to contend with and defeat the Left Opposition headed by Trotsky who espoused the wrong line that socialism in one country was impossible and that the workers in Western Europe (especially in Germany) had to succeed first in armed uprisings and that rapid industrialization had to be undertaken immediately at the expense of the peasantry.

Stalin won out with his line of socialism in one country and in defending the worker-peasant alliance. If Trotsky had had his way, he would have destroyed the chances for Soviet socialism by provoking the capitalist powers, by breaking up the worker-peasant alliance and by spreading pessimism in the absence of any victorious armed uprisings in Western Europe.

When it was time to put socialist economic construction in full swing, the Right opposition headed by Bukharin emerged to argue for the continuation of the New Economic Policy and oppose Soviet industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture. If Bukharin had had his way, the Soviet Union would not have been able to build a socialist society with a comprehensive industrial base and a mechanized and collectivized agriculture and provide its people with a higher standard of living; and would have enlarged the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nationalists in the various republics and become an easier prey to Nazi Germany whose leader Hitler made no secret of his plans against the Soviet Union.

The first five-year economic plan was indeed characterized by severe difficulties due to the following: the limited industrial base to start with in a sea of agrarian conditions, the continuing effects of the war, the economic and political sanctions of the capitalist powers, the constant threat of foreign military intervention, the burdensome role of the pioneer and the violent reaction of the rich peasants who refused to put their farms, tools and work animals under collectivization, slaughtered their work animals and organized resistance.

But after the first five-year economic plan, there was popular jubilation over the establishment of heavy and basic industries. To the relief of the peasantry there was considerable mechanization of agriculture, especially in the form of tractor stations. There was marked improvement in the standard of living.

In 1936, a new constitution was promulgated. As a result of the successes of the economic construction and in the face of the actual confiscation of bourgeois and landlord property and the seeming disappearance of exploiting classes by economic definition, the constitution declared that there were no more exploiting classes and no more class struggle except that between the Soviet people and the external enemy. This declaration would constitute the biggest error of Stalin. It propelled the petty-bourgeois mode of thinking among the new intelligentsia and bureaucracy even as the proletarian dictatorship was exceedingly alert to the old forces and elements of counterrevolution. The error had two ramifications.

One ramification abetted the failure to distinguish contradictions among the people from those between the people and the enemy and the propensity to apply administrative measures against those loosely construed as enemies of the people. There were indeed real British and German spies and bourgeois nationalists engaged in counterrevolutionary violence. They had to be ferreted out. But this was done by relying heavily on a mass reporting system (based on patriotism) that fed information to the security services. And the principle of due process was not assiduously and scrupulously followed in order to narrow the target in the campaign against counterrevolutionaries and punish only the few who were criminally culpable on the basis of incontrovertible evidence. Thus, in the 1936-38 period, arbitrariness victimized a great number of people. Revolutionary class education through mass movement under Party leadership was not adequately undertaken for the purpose of ensuring the high political consciousness and vigilance of the people.

The other ramification was the promotion of the idea that building socialism was a matter of increasing production, improving administration and technique, letting the cadres decide everything (although Stalin never ceased to speak against bureaucratism) and providing the cadres and experts and the toiling masses with ever increasing material benefits. The new intelligentsia produced by the rapidly expanding Soviet educational system had a decreasing sense of the proletarian class stand and an increasing sense that it was sufficient to have the expertise and to become bureaucrats and technocrats in order to build socialism. The old and the new intelligentsia were presumed to be proletarian so long as they rendered bureaucratic and professional service. There was no recognition of the fact that bourgeois and other antiproletarian ideas can persist and grow even after the confiscation of bourgeois and landlord property.

To undertake socialist revolution and construction in a country with a large population of more than 100 nationalities and a huge land mass, with a low economic and technological level as a starting point, ravaged by civil war and ever threatened by local counterrevolutionary forces and foreign capitalist powers, it was necessary to have the centralization of political will as well as centralized planning in the use of limited resources. But such a necessity can be overdone by a bourgeoisie that is reemergent through the petty bourgeoisie and can become the basis of bureaucratism, decreasing democracy in the process of decision-making. The petty bourgeoisie promotes the bureaucratism that gives rise to and solidifies the higher levels of the bureaucrat bourgeoisie and that alienates the Party and the state from the people. Democratic centralism can be made to degenerate into bureaucratic centralism by the forces and elements that run counter to the interests of the proletariat and all working people.

In world affairs, Stalin encouraged and supported the communist parties and anti-imperialist movements in capitalist countries and the colonies and semicolonies through the Third International. And from 1935 onward, he promoted internationally the antifascist Popular Front policy. Only after Britain and France spurned his offer of antifascist alliance and continued to induce Germany to attack the Soviet Union did Stalin decide to forge a nonaggression pact with Germany in 1939. This was a diplomatic maneuver to forestall a probable earlier Nazi aggression and gain time for the Soviet Union to prepare against it.

Stalin made full use of the time before the German attack in 1941 to strengthen the Soviet Union economically and militarily as well as politically through patriotic calls to the entire Soviet people and through concessions to conservative institutions and organizations. For instance, the Russian Orthodox Church was given back its buildings and its privileges. There was marked relaxation in favor of a broad antifascist popular front.

In the preparations against fascist invasion and in the course of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, the line of Soviet patriotism further subdued the line of class struggle among the old and new intelligentsia and the entire people. The Soviet people united. Even as they suffered a tremendous death casualty of 20 million and devastation of their country, including the destruction of 85 percent of industrial capacity, they played the pivotal role in defeating Nazi Germany and world fascism and paved the way for the rise of several socialist countries in Eastern Europe and Asia and the national liberation movements on an unprecedented scale.

In the aftermath of World War II, Stalin led the economic reconstruction of the Soviet Union. Just as he succeeded in massive industrialization from 1929 to 1941 (only 12 years) before the war, so he did again from 1945 to 1953 (only eight years) but this time with apparently no significant resistance from counterrevolutionaries. In all these years of socialist construction, socialism proved superior to capitalism in all respects.

In 1952, Stalin realized that he had made a mistake in prematurely declaring that there were no more exploiting classes and no more class struggle in the Soviet Union, except the struggle between the people and the enemy. But it was too late, the Soviet party and state were already swamped by a large number of bureaucrats with waning proletarian revolutionary consciousness. These bureaucrats and their bureaucratism would become the base of modern revisionism.

When Stalin died in 1953, he left a Soviet Union that was a politically, economically, militarily and culturally powerful socialist country. He had successfully united the Soviet people of the various republics and nationalities and had defended the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. He had rebuilt an industrial economy, with high annual growth rates, with enough homegrown food for the people and the world’s largest production of oil, coal, steel, gold, grain, cotton and so on.

Under his leadership, the Soviet Union had created the biggest number of research scientists, engineers, doctors, artists, writers and so on. In the literary and artistic field, social realism flourished while at the same time the entire cultural heritage of the Soviet Union was cherished.

In foreign policy, Stalin held the U.S. forces of aggression at bay in Europe and Asia, supported the peoples fighting for national liberation and socialism, neutralized what was otherwise the nuclear monopoly of the United States and ceaselessly called for world peace even as the U.S.-led Western alliance waged the Cold War and engaged in provocations.

It is absolutely necessary to correctly evaluate Stalin as a leader in order to avoid the pitfall of modern revisionism and to counter the most strident anticommunists who attack Marxism-Leninism under the guise of anti-Stalinism. We must know what are his merits and demerits. We must respect the historical facts and judge his leadership within its own time, 1924 to 1953.

It is unscientific to make a complete negation of Stalin as a leader in his own time and to heap the blame on him even for the modern revisionist line, policies and actions which have been adopted and undertaken explicitly against the name of Stalin and have_at first gradually and then rapidly_brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism. Leaders must be judged mainly for the period of their responsibility even as we seek to trace the continuities and discontinuities from one period to another.

Stalin’s merits within his own period of leadership are principal and his demerits are secondary. He stood on the correct side and won all the great struggles to defend socialism such as those against the Left opposition headed by Trotsky; the Right opposition headed by Bukharin, the rebellious rich peasants, the bourgeois nationalists, and the forces of fascism headed by Hitler. He was able to unite, consolidate and develop the Soviet state. After World War II, Soviet power was next only to the United States. Stalin was able to hold his ground against the threats of U.S. imperialism. As a leader, he represented and guided the Soviet proletariat and people from one great victory to another.

 

 

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration

January 15, 1992

 

The regimes of Khrushchov, Brezhnev and Gorbachov mark the three stages in the process of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, a process of undermining and destroying the great accomplishments of the Soviet proletariat and people under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin. This process has also encompassed Eastern Europe.

The Khrushchov regime laid the foundation of Soviet modern revisionism and overthrew the proletarian dictatorship. The Brezhnev regime fully developed modern revisionism for a far longer period of time and completely converted socialism into monopoly bureaucrat capitalism. And the Gorbachov regime brought the work of modern revisionism to the final goal of wiping out the vestiges of socialism and entirely dismantling the socialist facade of the revisionist regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. He destroyed the Soviet Union that Lenin and Stalin had built and defended.

To restore capitalism, the Soviet revisionist regimes had to revise the basic principles of socialist revolution and construction and to go through stages of camouflaged counterrevolution in a period of 38 years, 1953 to 1991. It is a measure of the greatness of Lenin and Stalin that their accomplishments in 36 years of socialist revolution and construction took another long period of close to four decades to dismantle. Stalin spent a total of 20 years in socialist construction. The revisionist renegades took a much longer period of time to restore capitalism in the Soviet Union.

In the same period of time, the revisionist regimes cleverly took the pretext of attacking Stalin in order to attack the foundations of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice and eventually condemn Lenin himself and the entire course of Soviet history and finally destroy the Soviet Union. The revisionist renegades in their protracted “de-Stalinization” campaign blamed Stalin beyond his lifetime for their own culpabilities and failures. For instance, they aggravated bureaucratism in the service of capitalist restoration but they still blamed the long-dead Stalin for it.

Tito of Yugoslavia had the unique distinction of being the pioneer in modern revisionism. In opposing Stalin, he deviated from the basic principles of socialist revolution and construction in 1947 and received political and material support from the West. He refused to undertake land reform and collectivization. He preserved and promoted the bourgeoisie through the bureaucracy and private enterprise, especially in the form of private cooperatives.

He considered as key to socialism not the public ownership of the means of production, economic planning and further development of the productive forces but the immediate decentralization of enterprises; the so-called workers’ self-management that actually combined bureaucratism and anarchy of production; and the operation of the free market (including the goods imported from Western countries) upon the existent and stagnant level of production. In misrepresenting Lenin’s New Economic Policy as the very model for socialist economic development, he was the first chief of state to use the name of Lenin against both Lenin and Stalin.

 

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration First Stage: The Khrushchov Regime, 1953-64

January 15, 1992

 

To Khrushchov belongs the distinction of being the pioneer in modern revisionism in the Soviet Union, the first socialist country in the history of mankind, and of being the most influential in promoting modern revisionism on a world scale.

Khrushchov’s career as a revisionist in power started in 1953. He was a bureaucratic sycophant and an active player in repressive actions during the time of Stalin. To become the first secretary of the CPSU and accumulate power in his hands, he played off the followers of Stalin against each other and succeeded in having Beria executed after a summary trial. He depended on the new bourgeoisie that had arisen from the bureaucracy and the new intelligentsia.

In 1954, he had already reorganized the CPSU to serve his ideological and political position. In 1955, he upheld Tito against the memory of Stalin, especially on the issue of revisionism. In 1956, he delivered before the 20th Party Congress his “secret” speech against Stalin, completely negating him as no better than a bloodthirsty monster and denouncing the “personality cult”. The congress marked the overthrow of the proletarian dictatorship. In 1957, he used the armed forces to defeat the vote for his ouster by the Politburo and thereby made the coup to further consolidate his position.

In 1956, the anti-Stalin diatribe inspired the anticommunist forces in Poland and Hungary to carry out uprisings. The Hungarian uprising was stronger and more violent. Khrushchov ordered the Soviet army to suppress it, chiefly because the Hungarian party leadership sought to rescind its political and military ties with the Soviet Union.

But subsequently, all throughout Eastern Europe under Soviet influence, it became clear that it was alright to the Soviet ruling clique for the satellite regimes to adopt capitalist-oriented reforms (private enterprise in agriculture, handicraft and services, dissolution of collective farms even where land reform had been carried out on a narrow scale and, of course, the free market) like Yugoslavia along an anti-Stalin line. The revisionist regimes were, however, under strict orders to remain within the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and the Warsaw Pact.

The unremoulded social-democratic and petty-bourgeois sections of the revisionist ruling parties in Eastern Europe started to kick out genuine communists from positions of leadership in the state and party under the direction of Khrushchov and under the pressure of anticommunist forces in society. It must be recalled that the so-called proletarian ruling parties were actually mergers of communists and social-democrats put into power by the Soviet Red Army. At the most, there were only a few years of proletarian dictatorship and socialist economic construction before Khrushchov started in 1956 to enforce his revisionist line in the satellite parties and regimes.

The total negation of Stalin by Khrushchov was presented as a rectification of the personality cult, bureaucratism and terrorism; and as the prerequisite for the efflorescence of democracy and civility, rapid economic progress that builds the material and technological foundation of communism in twenty years, the peaceful form of social revolution from an exploitative system to a nonexploitative one, detente with the United States, nuclear disarmament step by step and world peace, a world without wars and arms.

Khrushchov paid lip service to proletarian dictatorship and the basic principles of socialist revolution and construction but at the same time introduced a set of ideas to undermine them. He used bourgeois populism, declaring that the CPSU was a party of the whole people and the Soviet state was a state of the whole people on the anti-Marxist premise that the tasks of proletarian dictatorship had been fulfilled. He used bourgeois pacifism, declaring that it was possible and preferable for mankind to opt for peaceful transition to socialism and peaceful economic competition with the capitalist powers in order to avert the nuclear annihilation of humanity; raising peaceful coexistence from the level of diplomatic policy to that of the general line governing all kinds of external relations of the Soviet Union and the CPSU; and denying the violent nature of imperialism.

In the economic field, he used the name of Lenin against Lenin and Stalin by misrepresenting Lenin’s New Economic Policy as the way to socialism rather than as a transitory measure towards socialist construction. He carried out decentralization to some degree, he autonomized state enterprises and promoted private agriculture and the free market. The autonomized state enterprises became responsible for their own cost and profit accounting and for raising the wages and bonuses on the basis of the profits of the individual enterprise. The private plots were enlarged and large areas of land (ranging from 50 to 100 hectares) were leased to groups, usually households. Many tractor stations for collective farms were dissolved and agricultural machines were turned over to private entrepreneurs. The free market in agricultural and industrial products and services was promoted.

In the same way that the revisionist rhetoric of Khrushchov overlapped with Marxist-Leninist terminology, socialism overlapped with capitalist restoration. The socialist system of production and distribution was still dominant for a while. Thus, the Soviet economy under Khrushchov still registered high rates of growth. But the regime took most pride in the higher rate of growth in the private sector which benefited from cheap energy, transport, tools and other supplies from the public sector and which was credited with producing the goods stolen from the public sector.

In the autonomization of state enterprises, managers acquired the power to hire and fire workers, transact business within the Soviet Union and abroad; increase their own salaries, bonuses and other perks at the expense of the workers; lessen the funds available for the development of other parts of the economy; and engage in bureaucratic corruption in dealing with the free market.

With regard to private agriculture, propaganda was loudest on the claim that it was more productive than the state and collective farms. The reemergent rich peasants were lauded. But in fact, the corrupt bureaucrats and private farmers and merchants were colluding in underpricing and stealing products (through pilferage and wholesale misdeclaration of goods as defective) from the collective and state farms in order to rechannel these to the free market. In the end, the Soviet Union would suffer sharp reductions in agricultural production and would be importing huge amounts of grain.

The educational system continued to expand, reproducing in great numbers the new intelligentsia now influenced by the ideas of modern revisionism and looking to the West for models of efficient management and for quality consumer goods. In the arts and in literature, social realism was derided and universal humanism, pacifism and mysticism came into fashion.

The Khrushchov regime drew prestige from the advances of Soviet science and technology, from the achievements in space technology and from the continuing economic construction. All of these were not possible without the prior work and the accumulated social capital under the leadership of Stalin. Khrushchov went into rapid housing and office construction which pleased the bureaucracy.

The CPSU and the Chinese Communist Party were the main protagonists in the great ideological debate. Despite Khrushchov’s brief reconciliation with Tito, the Moscow Declaration of 1957 and the Moscow Statement of 1960 maintained that modern revisionism was the main danger to the international communist movement as a result of the firm and vigorous stand of the Chinese and other communist parties.

Khrushchov extended the ideological debate into a disruption of state-to-state relations between the Soviet Union and China. In the Cuban missile crisis, he had a high profile confrontation with Kennedy. He first took an adventurist and then swung to a capitulationist position. With regard to Vietnam, he was opposed to the revolutionary armed struggle of the Vietnamese people and grudgingly gave limited support to them.

The deterioration of Soviet industry and the breakdown of agriculture and bungling in foreign relations led to the removal of Khrushchov in a coup by the Brezhnev clique. Brezhnev became the general secretary of the CPSU and Kosygin became the premier. The former would eventually assume the position of president.

 

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration Second Stage: The Brezhnev Regime, 1964-82

January 15, 1992

 

While Khrushchov was stridently anti-Stalin, Brezhnev made a limited and partial “rehabilitation” of Stalin. If we link this to the recentralization of the bureaucracy and the state enterprises previously decentralized and the repressive measures taken against the pro-imperialist and anticommunist opposition previously encouraged by Khrushchov, it would appear that Brezhnev was reviving Stalin’s policies.

In fact, the Brezhnev regime was on the whole anti-Stalin, with respect to the continuing line of promoting the Khrushchovite capitalist-oriented reforms in the economy and the line of developing an offensive capability “to defend the Soviet Union outside of its borders”. It is therefore false to say that the 18-year Brezhnev regime was an interruption of the anti-Stalin line started by Khrushchov.

There is, however, an ideological error that puts both Khrushchov and Brezhnev on board with Stalin. This is the premature declaration of the end of the exploiting classes and class struggle, except that between the enemy and the people. This line served to obfuscate and deny the existence of an already considerable and growing bourgeoisie in Soviet society and to justify repressive measures against those considered as enemy of the Soviet people for being opposed to the ruling clique.

Under the Brezhnev leadership, the Khrushchovite capitalist-oriented reforms were pushed hard by the Brezhnev-Kosygin tandem. Socialism was converted fully into state monopoly capitalism, with the prevalent corrupt bureaucrats not only increasing their official incomes and perks but taking their loot by colluding with private entrepreneurs and even criminal syndicates in milking the state enterprises. On an ever widening scale, tradeable goods produced by the state enterprises were either underpriced, pilfered or declared defective only to be channeled to the private entrepreneurs for the free market.

Sales and purchase contracts with capitalist firms abroad became a big source of kickbacks for state officials who deposited these in secret bank accounts abroad. There was also a thriving blackmarket in foreign exchange and goods smuggled from the West through Eastern Europe, the Baltic and southern republics.

The corruption of the bureaucrat and private capitalists discredited the revisionist ruling party and regime at various levels. At the end of the Brezhnev regime, there was already an estimated 30 million people engaged in private enterprise. Among them were members of the families of state and party officials. Members of the Brezhnev family themselves were closely collaborating with private firms and criminal syndicates in scandalous shady deals.

The state enterprises necessary for assuring funds for the ever expanding central Soviet bureaucracy and for the arms race were recentralized. A military-industrial complex grew rapidly and ate up yearly far more than the conservatively estimated 20 percent of the Soviet budget. The Brezhnev regime was obsessed with attaining military parity with its superpower rival, the United States.

The huge Soviet state that could have generated the surplus income for reinvestment in more efficient and expanded civil production of basic and nonbasic consumer goods, wasted the funds on the importation of the high grade consumer goods for the upper five per cent of the population (the new bourgeoisie), on increasing amounts of imported grain, on the military-industrial complex and the arms race, on the maintenance and equipment of half a million troops in Eastern Europe and on other foreign commitments in the third world.

Among the commitments that arose due to superpower rivalry was the assistance to the Vietnamese people in the Vietnam war, Cuba, Angola and Nicaragua. Among the commitments that arose due to the sheer adventurism of Soviet social-imperialism was the dispatch of a huge number of Soviet troops and equipment to Afghanistan at the time that the Soviet Union was already clearly in dire economic and financial straits.

The hard currency for the importation of grain and high-grade consumer goods came from the sale of some 10 percent of Soviet oil production to Western countries and the income from military sales to the oil-producing countries in the Middle East.

The Brezhnev regime used “Marxist-Leninist” phrasemongering to disguise and legitimize the growth of capitalism within the Soviet Union. Repressive measures were used against opponents of the regime, including the pretext of psychiatric confinement. These measures served the growth of bureaucrat monopoly capitalism and constituted social fascism.

The Brezhnev regime introduced to the world a perverse reinterpretation of proletarian dictatorship and proletarian internationalism, with the proclamation of the Brezhnev doctrine of “limited sovereignty” and Soviet-centered “international proletarian dictatorship” on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. It was also on this occasion that the Soviet Union came to be called social-imperialist, socialism in words and imperialism in deed. With the same arrogance, Brezhnev deployed hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops along the Sino-Soviet border.

The Soviet Union under Brezhnev tried to keep a tight rein on its satellites in Eastern Europe within the Warsaw Pact. Thus, it had to expend a lot of resources of its own and those of its satellites in maintaining and equipping half a million Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. Clearly, the revisionist ruling parties and regimes were not developing the lively participation and loyalty of the proletariat and people through socialist progress but were keeping them in bondage through bureaucratic and military means in the name of socialism.

The Soviet Union under Brezhnev promoted the principle of “international division of labor” within the CMEA. This meant the enforcement of neocolonial specialization in certain lines of production by particular member-countries other than the Soviet Union. The relationship between the Soviet Union and the other CMEA member-countries was no different from that between imperialism and the semicolonies. This stunted the comprehensive development of national economies of most of the member countries although some basic industries had been built and continued to be built.

Eventually, the Soviet Union started to feel aggrieved that it had to deliver oil at prices lower than those of the world market and receive off-quality goods in exchange. So, it continuously made upward adjustments on the price of oil supplies to the CMEA client states. At the same time, among the East European countries, there had been the long-running resentment over the shoddy equipment and other goods that they were actually getting from the Soviet Union at a real overprice.

Before the 1970s, the Soviet Union encouraged capitalist-oriented reforms in its East European satellites but definitely discouraged any attempt by these satellites to leave the Warsaw Pact. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union itself wanted to have a detente with the United States, clinch the “most favored nation” (MFN) treatment, gain access to new technology and foreign loans from the United States and the other capitalist countries. However, in 1972, the Brezhnev regime was rebuffed by the Jackson-Vannik amendment, which withheld MFN status from the Soviet Union for preventing Jewish emigration. The regime then further encouraged its East European satellites to enter into economic, financial and trade agreements with the capitalist countries.

During most of the 1970s, these revisionist-ruled countries got hooked to Western investments, loans and consumer goods. In the early 1980s, most of them fell into serious economic troubles as a result of the aggravation of domestic economic problems and the difficulties in handling their debt burden, which per capita in most cases was even worse than that of the Philippines. Being responsible for the economic policies and for their bureaucratic corruption, the revisionist ruling parties and regimes became discredited in the eyes of the broad masses of the people and the increasingly anti-Soviet and anticommunist intelligentsia.

The pro-Soviet ruling parties in Eastern Europe had always been vulnerable to charges of political puppetry, especially from the direction of the anticommunist advocates of nationalism and religion. In the 1970s and 1980s these parties conspicuously degenerated from the inside in an all-round way through bourgeoisification and became increasingly the object of public contempt.

The United States kept on dangling the prospect of MFN status and other economic concessions to the Soviet Union. Each time the United States did so, it was able to get something from the Soviet Union, like its commitment to the Helsinki Accord (intended to provide legal protection to dissenters in the Soviet Union) and a draft strategic arms limitation treaty but it never gave the concessions that the Soviet Union wanted. The United States simply wanted the Cold War to go on in order to induce or compel the Soviet Union to waste its resources on the arms race. The only significant concession that the Soviet Union continued to get was the purchase of grain and the commercial credit related to it.

When the CPP leadership decided to explore and seek relations with the Soviet and East European ruling parties in the middle of the 1980s, there was the erroneous presumption that the successors of Brezhnev would follow his anti-imperialist line in the Cold War of the two superpowers. Thus, the policy paper on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe praised the Brezhnev line in hyperbolic terms.

Although the Gorbachov regime would pursue worse revisionist policies than those of its predecessor, it would become a good source of information regarding the principal and essential character of the Brezhnev regime on a comprehensive range of issues. By using this information from a critical Marxist-Leninist point of view, we can easily sum up the Brezhnev regime and at the same time know the antisocialist and anticommunist direction of the Gorbachov regime in 1985-88.

 

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration The Third and Final Stage: The Gorbachov Regime, 1985-91

January 15, 1992

 

The Gorbachov regime from 1985 to 1991 marked the third and final stage in the anti-Marxist and antisocialist revisionist counterrevolution to restore capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship.

It involved the prior dissolution of the ruling revisionist parties and regimes in Eastern Europe, the absorption of East Germany by West Germany and finally the banning and dispossession of the CPSU and the disintegration of the Soviet Union no less, after a dubious coup attempt by Gorbachov’s appointees in the highest state and party positions next only to his.

The counterrevolution was carried out in a relatively peaceful manner. After all, the degeneration from socialism to capitalism proceeded for 38 years. Within the last six years, the corrupt bureaucrats masquerading as communists were ready to peel off their masks, declare themselves as excommunists and even anticommunists overnight and cooperate with the longstanding anticommunists among the intelligentsia and the aggrieved broad masses of the people in setting up regimes that were openly bourgeois and antisocialist.

Because they were manipulated and directed by the big bourgeoisie and the anticommunist intelligentsia, the mass uprisings in Eastern Europe in 1989 cannot be simply and totally described as democratic although it is also undeniable that the broad masses of the people, including the working class and the intelligentsia, were truly aggrieved and did rise up. The far bigger mass actions that put Mussolini and Hitler into power or the lynch mobs unleashed by the Indonesian fascists to massacre the communists in 1965 do not make a fascist movement democratic. In determining the character of a mass movement, we take into account not only the magnitude of mass participation but also the kind of class leadership involved. Otherwise, the periodic electoral rallies of the bourgeois reactionary parties which exclude the workers and peasants from power or even the Edsa mass uprising cum military mutiny in 1986 would be considered totally democratic, without the necessary qualifications regarding the class leadership involved.

It is possible for nonviolent mass uprisings to arise and succeed when their objective is not to really effect a fundamental change of the exploitative social system, when one set of bureaucrats is simply replaced by another set and when the incumbent set of bureaucrats does not mind the change of administration. It was only in Romania where there was bloodshed because it was not completely within the reorganizing that had been done by the Gorbachovites in 1987 to 1989 in Eastern Europe. Ceaucescu resisted change as did Honecker to a lesser extent. In the dissolution of the CPSU and the Soviet Union, the anticommunist combination of Gorbachov and Yeltsin simply issued the decrees and did not even bother to conjure any semblance of popular demand in the form of huge mass uprisings.

As the last revisionist ruler of the Soviet Union, Gorbachov could accelerate the destruction of the CPSU and the Soviet Union because of the previous work of Khrushchov and Brezhnev. What he did in the main in his brief regime was to engage in a systematic campaign of deception. He described his regime as being engaged in socialist renewal and at the same time encouraged the forces of capitalist restoration to do their work under the slogans of democracy and economic reform.

From time to time, he paid lip service to Marxism-Leninism and socialism and made frequent protestations that he was a convinced communist. But in the end he came out openly as an anticommunist. In his final message as President of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, he used the language of the imperialists in the Cold War to describe his principal achievement, which is “giving freedom” to the people from “totalitarianism” and “civilizing” what he implied as the “uncivilized” Soviet state and people.

In laying the ideological premises of his regime, Gorbachov went back to the strident anti-Stalinism of Khrushchov and described the Brezhnev period as an interruption of the work initiated by Khrushchov. He rehabilitated Bukharin and put him up as a source of wisdom for “economic reforms”.

It became the fashion for Gorbachov and his colleagues at various levels of the CPSU and the state to describe themselves as “liberal communists” and to attack_under the guise of being completely anti-Stalin and depicting Stalin as being worse than Hitler_the entire course of Soviet history. They put forward propositions in abstract supraclass, universalistic, humanistic and ahistorical terms and drew from social democracy and bourgeois liberalism in order to denigrate, deviate from and attack Marxist-Leninist theory and the proletarian revolutionary standpoint.

Gorbachov and his colleagues systematically adopted barefaced anticommunist “advisers” and placed the anticommunists in the various branches of government, the Congress of People’s Deputies, the institutes and mass media in order to churn out a constant stream of anticommunist propaganda. Gorbachov himself took the lead in ridiculing the proletarian revolutionary stand as outdated and Marxism-Leninism as having no monopoly of the truth and won the adulation of the officials, ideologues and publicists of the United States and other capitalist countries as he used the language of social democracy and bourgeois liberalism and ultimately U.S. Cold War terminology.

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration The Third and Final Stage: The Gorbachov Regime, 1985-91

January 15, 1992

 

The main and essential feature of “glasnost” (openness) was the crescendo of anticommunist propaganda. The field of propaganda was monopolized by anticommunism. This was expressed in a variety of ways, modern revisionist, social-democratic, bourgeois-liberal, populist, nationalist, fascist, religious, racist and purely cynical terms. The pluralism of anticommunist ideas, including the most antidemocratic ones, was described as democracy.

But the key idea in the welter of anticommunist propaganda was the advocacy of capitalism and bourgeois liberalism. Gorbachov attacked Stalin to be able by implication to attack Lenin, Marxist-Leninist theory and the entire course of Soviet history. But his subalterns explicitly attacked all these in the entire course of the Gorbachov period.

After eliminating the Brezhnevite holdovers in the Politburo in the most undemocratic manner, replacing them when they were on foreign trips or knocking them down at lower levels of the Party and state bureaucracy, Gorbachov played the middle between the “conservative” Ligachev who accepted “perestroika” but not “glasnost” and the “radical progressive” Yeltsin who went gung ho for both “glasnost” and “perestroika”. Then, he used Ligachev in 1987 to push out Yeltsin from the Politburo only to let the latter continue as his cooperator in attacking the CPSU from the outside.

In the years leading up to 1989, the anticommunist followers of Gorbachov invented all kinds of lies against the socialist course of Soviet history and its great proletarian leaders and clamored for the rehabilitation of counterrevolutionaries and the freedom of all kinds of monsters. The people were fed with all kinds of illusions about a better life under capitalism.

In 1989, he had a new Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies dominated by an anticommunist intelligentsia most of whom were at first formally communists but would eventually declare themselves as excommunists and even anticommunists. The congress included from the very start prominent anticommunists of longstanding.

In early 1990, Gorbachov used the congress to disempower the CPSU and to give him autocratic presidential powers. In the autumn of 1990 he took the posture of siding with the “conservatives” in the CPSU and the state against the “radical progressives” Yakovlev and Schevernadze. But at the same time he agreed to putting the sovereignty of the Soviet Union under question through a referendum in early 1991.

The popular voting in the referendum was for the retention of the Soviet Union. But again he agreed with the nationalist forces in the various republics to make a new “union treaty” whose terms (like having separate armies and currencies, etc.) meant the break up of the Soviet Union. In this period before the alleged coup to save the Soviet Union, Gorbachov announced that it was wrong to stress the role of the proletariat and that he was going to dissolve the CPSU and establish a social-democratic party.

Although the alleged coup of Gorbachov appointees from August 19 to 22, 1991 involved only a few plotters by its very nature, Gorbachov and Yeltsin collaborated in using it as a pretext for dissolving the entire CPSU and the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies. Although the Soviet Constitution and the Soviet Union were still existing and Gorbachov himself had a presidential term extending to 1995, he decreed the dissolution of the Soviet Union and resigned in favor of a commonwealth of independent states (CIS) still on the planning board. Thus, mouthing the slogan of democracy, the anticommunist duo of Gorbachov and Yeltsin autocratically issued decrees, committed the most antidemocratic acts and carried out their own coup against the Soviet state.

In the first place and in the final analysis, “glasnost” was devised by the monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie to pave the way for openly installing the bourgeois class dictatorship. The din of the petty-bourgeoisie about “democracy” is waning. After all, the drumbeating has been for the restoration of capitalism and the bourgeois class dictatorship. The monopoly bureaucrat bourgeoisie remains in control of the levers of political power and the economy while the petty bourgeoisie is being relegated to a worse life of massive unemployment, frustration and misery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration The Third and Final Stage: The Gorbachov Regime, 1985-91

January 15, 1992

 

Perestroika in reality meant capitalist restructuring and the disorganization and breakdown of production, despite the avowals of renewing socialism and raising production through better management, a campaign against alcoholism and absenteeism, higher wages and availability of domestic and imported consumer goods, higher profits for the private entrepreneurs, the expansion and retooling of the means of production and the conversion of military enterprises to civilian uses.

The main line of perestroika is the privatization and marketization of the economy by domestic and foreign investors. One plan after another (the 500-day Shatalin Plan, the Grand Bargain, etc.) was considered and made dependent on foreign direct investments and loans as domestic savings disappeared and the real income of the people was cut down by inflation due to the wanton printing of money by Moscow and the price gouging in the free market. The free marketeers bought cheap or stole from the state enterprises and emptied the state stores. Thus, the people were compelled to buy from the free market.

The most favored among the private businesses were the joint ventures (joint stock companies) with foreign investors and the private cooperatives. Going into joint ventures with foreign investors mainly in the importation of consumer goods and in the repackaging or assembly of these, the high bureaucrats of the ruling party and the state and their family members appropriated for themselves state assets and drew from foreign loans in what may be considered as one of the biggest insider operation and management theft in the entire history of capitalism. These joint ventures were no different from the big comprador operations of high bureaucrats in the Philippines and many other countries in the third world.

However, the most widespread form of business was the private cooperatives of varying scales in industry, agriculture and services. Their operations included the rechanneling of goods and services from the state to the private sector, small and medium private manufacturing and the private export of whatever Soviet goods, including oil and weapons, and the importation of high-grade consumer goods like cars, computers, videorecorders, etc. At least 50 million people out of a population of 290 million were registered as members of small, medium and big private cooperatives. Many people joined these private cooperatives if only to gain access to basic commodities which disappeared from the much cheaper state stores.

The capitalist restructuring or economic reforms did not stimulate production and improve the quality of goods but aggravated the breakdown of production and brought about scarcity of the most essential goods. Yet, it was the long-dead Stalin who got blamed by revisionist and imperialist propaganda for the economic chaos brought about by perestroika. The corrupt bureaucrats who continued to call themselves communists connived with private businessmen more scandalously than ever before in plundering the economy.

From 1988 to 1990, Gorbachov increased the money supply by more than 50 percent even as from year to year production had fallen by 10 to 20 percent or worse and in 1991 alone he increased the money supply by more than 100 percent amidst a production fall of more than 20 percent. The Gorbachov regime had to keep on printing money to maintain the central bureaucracy and the military in view of inflation, corruption, the nationalist refusal of the republics to send up taxes and foreign exchange to the center, the ethnic conflicts and the justifiable workers’ strikes.

At the beginning of the Gorbachov regime, the Soviet foreign debt was only US$ 30 billion. The previous regimes had not been able to borrow more because of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry in the Cold War. But in the period of only six years, the Gorbachov regime was able to raise the foreign debt level to US$81 billion (according to the Soviet Central Bank report to the International Monetary Fund) or to US$ 100 billion (according to the Soviet Central Bank report to the Group of Seven). In the final year of 1991, the Soviet Union borrowed US$44 billion.

In view of the production breakdown, the foreign funds were used mainly to finance the importation of consumer goods and the sheer bureaucratic thievery under the cover of the joint ventures. The Soviet Union practically became a neocolony of Germany which had become its main creditor and supplier. Germany accounted for the biggest bulk of foreign supplies and investments (at least 30 percent as of 1991) in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The ghost of Hitler can never be more happy with the success of the German big bourgeoisie.

There was a chain reaction of closures of state enterprises due to the lack of fuel, spare parts and raw materials; the diversion of funds to import foreign products; the lack of purchase orders; and the private appropriation of state assets and funds through real or fake joint ventures. Agriculture also suffered from the lack of inputs and transport. Conversion of military to civilian enterprises was negligible. The military-industrial complex continued to suck up large amounts of resources. As in Eastern Europe, the economy fell apart in the Soviet Union, with each part throwing away past advantages of cooperation and trying to strike disadvantageous deals with the bourgeoisie abroad.

Massive unemployment surfaced. Hyperinflation started to run at more than 200 percent before the break up of the Soviet Union and was expected to run faster after the decontrol of prices scheduled by Yeltsin for January 2, 1992. Even then more than 100 million Soviet people were living below the poverty line. Most victimized were the pensioners, children, the youth, the women, the unemployed and the low-income people. The shortage or absence of basic necessities was widespread. As in 1990, the leaders of capitalist restoration shamelessly begged for food aid from abroad in 1991. On each occasion, the handling of food aid was attended by corruption as the food was diverted to the free market.

 

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration The Third and Final Stage: The Gorbachov Regime, 1985-91

January 15, 1992

 

The key element in Gorbachov’s “new thinking” in international relations was “de-ideologization”, which actually meant doing away completely with the proletarian class stand and proletarian internationalism and capitulating to imperialism under the guise of cooperation. Gorbachov asserted that imperialism’s violent nature had changed to peaceful and that humanity has integral interests and a supraclass concern about weapons of mass destruction, ecology and other issues. Gorbachov’s “de-ideologization” actually meant the total rejection of the proletarian class stand and the adoption of the bourgeois class stand.

All Marxists recognize the common interests of mankind and the march of human civilization; and at the same time the fact that the world and particular societies are dominated by imperialist and local reactionary classes and that the historic class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is still going on. What Gorbachov did was to use abstract, universalistic and supraclass terms in order to obscure that historic class struggle and find common cause with imperialism.

He considered “legitimate national interests” of states as the most important building material in international relations. After the 70th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, he scaled down the international activities of the Soviet Union related to cooperating with third world countries and anti-imperialist organizations and movements. Prominent advisers of his also proposed that the international people’s organizations financed by Soviet organizations could unite with their counterparts financed by the forces of capitalism to form bigger “nonideological” organizations. What they meant of course was outright capitulation to imperialist ideology.

Gorbachov touted the principle of peaceful coexistence among states, irrespective of ideology and social system. He repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine and stressed that other countries as well as communist parties could decide for themselves. But he was being hypocritical because Gorbachovite agents busied themselves in reorganizing and then scuttling the ruling parties and regimes in Eastern Europe.

He called for an end to the Cold War, for accelerated nuclear disarmament and reduction of conventional forces and for the dissolution of the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Arms reduction treaties were forged faster than at any previous period in the Cold War. The Gorbachov regime undertook all these in the vain hope of attracting foreign investments and new technology to shore up the Soviet economy. But the Group of Seven took the firm position that they would not throw good money after bad and shore up an increasingly decrepit and corrupt bureaucratic economy.

Under the Gorbachov leadership, the Soviet Union collaborated with the United States and other countries in the settlement of so-called regional armed conflicts such as those centered in Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua. The Soviet Union committed itself to unilateral withdrawal of military forces in Eastern Europe and to German reunification in exchange for economic assistance from the West in the form of direct investments, loans, technology transfer and trade accommodations. Among the capitalist powers, Germany gave the most assistance in the form of loans, consumer supplies and housing aid for Soviet troops returning from Eastern Europe. But even the funds advanced for housing these troops became the object of Soviet mismanagement and theft.

As early as 1987, the revisionist ruling parties and regimes in Eastern Europe were already being pushed to reorganize themselves and to put Gorbachovites on top of the Brezhnevites. The word also went around within and outside the ruling parties and regimes that the Soviet Union was decided on withdrawing its forces from Eastern Europe and not interfere in what would happen in the region. Thus, the anticommunist forces had advance notice of what they could do under the new circumstances. They could play on the real grievances of the people and bring down the already much-discredited ruling parties and regimes.

The socioeconomic and political crisis of the various revisionist regimes and the wide open knowledge that the Soviet Union was no longer interested in the preservation of the Warsaw Pact and the rouble-controlled CMEA were sufficient ground for the anticommunist forces to activate themselves and grow. The increasingly clear message from 1987 to 1989 that the Soviet Union would not intervene in any popular action against the local regimes gave the anticommunist forces the confidence to aim for their toppling. Most important of all, the overwhelming majority of the revisionist bureaucrats in the ruling party and the state (with the exception of a few like Ceaucescu who was relatively independent of the CPSU and Honecker and Zhikhov who were longtime Brezhnevites) were just too willing to drop off their communist masks, retain their privileges, exploit the new opportunities and avoid the wrath of an already aggrieved people.

In the critical references of this discussion to the responsibilities of the Gorbachov regime and the East European satellite regimes in the collapse of the latter, there should be no misunderstanding that we wish a certain policy or a certain flow of events to have gone another way. We are merely describing at this point the final stage of the unmasking and self-destruction of the revisionist parties and regimes.

Next only to the destruction of the CPSU and the Soviet Union, the biggest service done by the Gorbachov regime to the capitalist powers was the rapid delivery of Eastern Europe to them and the destruction of the Warsaw Pact and the CMEA.

Within the final year of its existence, the Soviet Union under Gorbachov supported the United States in carrying out a war of aggression in the Gulf region and in asserting itself as the unrivaled policeman of the world.

Gorbachov fully revealed himself in 1991. The destructive consequences to the Soviet Union of his kind of leadership became very clear. It is untenable for any revolutionary to make an apologia for him and to try to make him out as a hero. Those who had been deceived into believing that Gorbachov was engaged in socialist renewal should take a long hard look at the incontrovertible fact that he completed the process of capitalist restoration started by Khrushchov and presided over the destruction of the Soviet Union.

The officials, ideologues and propagandists of imperialism and reaction continue to hail Gorbachov as one of the greatest men of the 20th century for bringing about “democracy” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Indeed they have cause to rejoice. He has brought about the flagrant restoration of capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. The peoples of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are now thrown open to further capitalist exploitation and oppression, suffer the pangs of hunger and greater loss of freedom and face increased political turmoil, widening civil war and military fascism.

 

III. The Process of Capitalist Restoration The Commonwealth of Independent States

January 15, 1992

 

The commonwealth of independent states (CIS) that has replaced the Soviet Union is dominated by Russia, which is flaunting the old czarist flag of Great-Russian chauvinism, and is afflicted with serious contradictions between Russia and the other republics, among republics with common borders, between Russian enclaves and local nationalities in non-Russian republics and among different nationalities within each of the republics.

The contradictions involve political, economic, financial, security, ethnic and border issues. There is political chaos all over the so-called commonwealth. Serious differences between Russia and Ukraine have already arisen regarding economic and financial issues and on the question of dividing the Soviet army, navy and air force, the handling of nuclear weapons and border issues on land and sea. There are independence movements among minority nationalities in Russia and civil wars in Georgia and between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The economic chaos has been aggravated by liberalizing prices on January 2. The prices of many basic commodities have multiplied up to more than twenty times. The state stores are being emptied by backdoor sales to the free market. Even food aid from abroad has flowed into the free market. More than half of the population have fallen below the poverty line and are in danger of starving. Ninety per cent of the population is expected to fall below the poverty line. Under these circumstances, street demonstrations and workers’ strikes are occurring against the openly capitalist regimes. The trade unions are agitated by the severely oppressive and exploitative conditions and have begun to conduct strikes on a wide scale. The Unity for Leninism and Communist Ideals, the United Front of the Working People, the Russian Workers’ Communist Party and the Communist Party of Bolsheviks in Leningrad (St. Petersburg) have been among the most militant in staging mass actions against the Russian bourgeois regime of Yeltsin.

In the Soviet Union, more than 90 percent of the major industries are still owned by the state. This is also true in the case of the East European countries, with the exception of Poland whose privatisation has gone fastest and whose state-owned enterprises are still about 65 percent, according to one report. This continuing predominance of state-owned enterprises does not mean socialism. Since a long time ago, many of these enterprises have acquired a capitalist character. They have long come under the control and have become instruments of the bureaucrat capitalists and the private entrepreneurs although these are state-owned. The ongoing privatisation of these state enterprises is slowed down by the absence of genuine private venture capital, the disappearance of savings among the people and the lack of foreign interest in acquiring outmoded plants and investing in new ones.

The excommunist bourgeoisie and the foreign investors are most interested in acquiring at scandalously low prices those state assets that yield quick and large profits. Inefficient and decrepit state enterprises are maintained only as they are still needed and continue being the milking cows of private entrepreneurs (e.g., steel and other metals, energy and other raw materials, transport, etc.) Closures and reduced production are continuing at an accelerated pace. In the process, millions of workers are laid off. There is a process of deindustrialization throwing back the former Soviet Union or the republics of the so-called CIS and Eastern Europe into the quagmire of third world capitalism.

A strong political and economic center is absent in the CIS. But in the meantime, there is a strong military center because the central command of the former Soviet armed forces is retained. Even the leaders of the capitalist countries who are worried about the nuclear and other strategic weapons insist that these be under a single military command. However, the political and economic chaos can induce the military officers to take matters into their hands as the military rank and file and the broad masses of the people are already gravely discontented.

It is still a matter of conjecture for outside observers whether there will be a social upheaval in the tradition of the Bolsheviks (the military rank and file linking up with the workers’ organizations) or a coup to install military fascism over the entire scope of the so-called commonwealth or in a series of republics (like now in Georgia). The prevalent view is that the new bourgeoisie inside and outside the armed forces is so powerful that for the time being the likelihood for military fascism to rise is greater than the return to the socialist road if there is going to be any new drastic development.

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Certain Lessons from the Collapse of Modern Revisionism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

January 15, 1992

 

It is of crucial importance to make a precise description of the ruling parties and regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the crisis that conspicuously beset them since the early 1980s and their collapse from 1989 to 1991. These ruling parties and regimes were revisionist. Their crisis and collapse are not those of socialism but of modern revisionism or capitalist restoration masquerading as socialism. The blatant restoration of capitalism and the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie are the indubitable proof. The unraveling of the revisionist systems and the unfolding of the truth in the few years before the collapse occurred right before our eyes.

There is ideological and political confusion if the crisis and collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes are described as those of socialism or Stalinism rather than of modern revisionism. Such a description would continue to pass off modern revisionism as socialism. All Marxist-Leninists must firmly recognize the fact that modern revisionism had undermined and prevailed over socialism long before the former itself plunged into a crisis and led to the collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes from 1989 to 1991.

One may speak of a crisis of socialism only in the thinking of some of those who presume modern revisionism to be socialism and observe the crisis and collapse of the ruling revisionist parties and regimes. The imperialists, the revisionists themselves and the bourgeois intelligentsia simplistically call the crisis and collapse of these anti-Stalin parties and regimes as the “crisis of Stalinism” or the “Stalinist model of socialism”. Stalin has been dead for 38 years and a process of “de-Stalinization” has been going on for the last 35 years.

It is preposterous that long after his death Stalin is still being blamed for what his detractors have done or not done all these years in order to promote modern revisionism and restore capitalism. This is pure obscurantism and personality cult in reverse! The merits and demerits of any leader must be considered only within his period of responsibility, unless the objective is not to make a historical assessment but to demonize a leader and use psywar to attack Marxism-Leninism and socialism in a bourgeois personalistic manner. The modern revisionists should not be allowed to cover up their responsibility within their own period of rule. As a matter of fact, Stalin’s great achievements in socialist construction and defense of the Soviet Union are diametrically opposed to the restoration of capitalism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union by the modern revisionists.

We must draw the correct lessons from the betrayal and sabotage of socialism by the modern revisionists from Khrushchov through Brezhnev to Gorbachov. We must combat those forces and elements that wish to destroy the Party and the revolutionary movement from within by aping Gorbachov and the like and opposing the basic revolutionary principles of the Party.

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Certain Lessons from the Collapse of Modern Revisionism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe The Antirevisionist Line

January 15, 1992

 

The reconsideration of the revisionist ruling parties as Marxist-Leninist and the revisionist regimes as socialist since 1982 by certain elements within the Party has generated misunderstanding of scientific socialism and a deviation from the antirevisionist line of the Party. This must be rectified in view of the undeniable fact of the collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes and in connection with the correction of the exaggerated, incorrect and futile notion that these parties and regimes could extend assistance for accelerating the victory of the Philippine revolution.

As a result of the collapse of these parties and regimes, the CPP is ever more resolved to adhere to the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism and to pursue the antirevisionist line and persevere in armed revolution. The anticommunists who seek to use the collapse of modern revisionism as an invalidation and complete negation of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism deserve nothing but contempt.

The CPP upholds the fact that Marxist-Leninist theory has correctly guided the proletarian revolutionaries and more than a billion people to victory in new-democratic revolution and in socialist revolution and construction. As far as the Philippines is concerned, the working class is the leading class in the new-democratic and socialist stages of the revolution. The advanced detachment of this class is the CPP. Without this party, the revolutionary mass movement of the people would not have resurged in Philippine history along the anti-imperialist and antifeudal line, with a socialist perspective. The petty bourgeois groups that seek to confuse, discredit, weaken and destroy the CPP can only continue being servitors of the oppressors and exploiters without the Party and the toiling masses of workers and peasants carrying out the revolution most determinedly.

What the CPP considers now as the greatest challenge in theoretical work among all proletarian revolutionaries, including Filipino communists, is learning lessons from the long-term and peaceful restoration of capitalism in socialist countries and understanding the way of continuing the revolution, combating modern revisionism and preventing the restoration of capitalism in socialist society as well as of fighting for socialism wherever it has been replaced by capitalism.

In countries where modern revisionism has had its way and restored capitalism, the challenge in theoretical and practical work among proletarian revolutionaries is to bring back socialism and bring it to a new and higher level. The forces of socialism can probably win again only after undergoing the violence of capitalist oppression and exploitation and defeating this through revolutionary violence. There is yet no historical example of a nonexploiting society replacing an exploiting class society without revolutionary violence although it has been demonstrated repeatedly in history that a higher form of society can degenerate into a lower form through peaceful evolution.

In the course of both the new-democratic and socialist stages of the Philippines, the basic factors of counterrevolution (big bourgeoisie and landlord class) are never obliterated completely (especially in the sphere of ideology and social psychology) by the main factors of revolution (working class and peasantry). And there are intermediate factors (urban petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie) that operate between the two poles of revolution and counterrevolution. The main factors of revolution can come on top of those of counterrevolution and in the process win over the intermediate factors, which in turn exert both positive and negative influences on the main factors of revolution.

In the complexity of waging the new-democratic and socialist stages of the revolution, the proletarian party must uphold its revolutionary integrity through adherence to Marxism-Leninist theory, from philosophy down to strategy and tactics, and must always conduct concrete analysis of concrete conditions in order to lead the broad masses of the people from victory to victory.

Marxism-Leninism is on the high road of human civilization, cherishing the heritage from the past, availing of all current factors that make for progress; and always aiming for a better future. But it is wrong to use such terms of idealism as universal humanism, classless populism, supraclass state, pacifism and such other abstract terms in order to obscure and negate the proletarian class stand and in fact give way to the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and other backward forces in the real world.

It is wrong to declare prematurely the end of exploiting classes and class struggle while in fact they continue to exist both domestically and internationally during the entire historical epoch of socialism. The seeming disappearance of the exploiting classes by socio-economic definition does not mean that the proletarian character of the ruling party and the state has become unnecessary and that the intelligentsia automatically becomes proletarian in socialist society. In fact, the bourgeoisie first reemerges through the bureaucracy and the intellectual sphere as petty bourgeois and then in the social economy as bureaucrat capitalists colluding with the private capitalists.

It is wrong to propagate, under the cover of idealist and metaphysical terms, mechanical materialism, specifically in the form of the theory of productive forces which posits that the development of the “productive forces” can onesidedly and automatically bring about socialist progress. Revolution in the relations of production as well as in the superstructure must take the lead over production. Otherwise the idea gains ground that socialism with a low technological and economic level can advance only through domestic capitalist-oriented economic reforms and submission to the industrial capitalist countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Certain Lessons from the Collapse of Modern Revisionism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe The Proletarian Dictatorship

January 15, 1992

 

Upon the basic completion of the new-democratic revolution through the seizure of political power in the Philippines, the people’s democratic government is established. This is the form that the proletarian dictatorship takes in consonance with the basic worker-peasant alliance under proletarian leadership. Thus, the socialist revolution can begin in every aspect of society. The building of a socialist society and not a “national democratic society” begins, even if there are still transitory bourgeois democratic measures to undertake.

The people’s democratic government or socialist state must of course serve the entire people. But it cannot be really classless or supraclass. There is a definite class hegemony, either proletarian or bourgeois. For communists to waiver about this is to concede to the initiative of the bourgeoisie and its intellectual and political agents. The socialist state is categorically a class dictatorship of the proletariat to preclude the counterrevolution of the exploiting classes and make instantly possible the substance and process of democracy for the entire people. The party must never relinquish its leadership over the entire state and the people’s army and must retain its Party organization therein until the time comes for the state to wither away, after a whole historical epoch of building socialism, defeating imperialism and neocolonialism and preparing the way for communism.

The modern revisionist bureaucrats systematically opposed the concept of proletarian dictatorship under the cover of populism and “no more exploiting classes and no more class struggle” or the “dying out of the class struggle” in order to resurrect the bourgeoisie within the bureaucracy as well as in society through capitalist-oriented reforms. Proletarian dictatorship should comprehensively guarantee national freedom of the people against imperialism; class freedom of the exploited against the exploiting classes; and individual freedom against the ever potential alienation and abuse of state power.

The socialist constitution and the proletarian dictatorship must guarantee the civil rights of individuals and organizations that adhere to socialism, promote public participation in the affairs of the state and put restraints on the possible abuse of power by the state and its officials. These restraints include the basic freedoms, electoral process, popular power of recall, definite terms of office, age limits and restrictions on personal incomes and privileges and against any kind of privilege or favor which is not based on merit.

No elective national leader may be elected for a period longer than two five-year terms and all officials may retire optionally at 65 and obligatorily at 70. Any individual or organization has the right to express anything in any legal way, be this criticism or constructive proposal without fear of reprisal. Due process is guaranteed. A person is presumed innocent, unless proven guilty in a court on the basis of evidence and through a fair trial. Thus, in the popular struggle against counterrevolution, the target is narrowed and the danger of abuse is averted.

But as already demonstrated in the collapse of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes, it is incorrect to promote individual freedom outside of the clear framework of anti-imperialism (national freedom) and socialism (freedom from the exploiting classes). Individual freedom should not become the license for the imperialists and the local bourgeoisie and other reactionaries to oppose socialism and regain control over society.

In the entire historical epoch of socialism, the proletariat must see to it that the leading role of the proletariat is upheld in the constitution. Subsequent to the democratic coalition government by consensus, there can be an upper house of congress as the house of the working people under proletarian leadership and a lower house of congress as the house of the district representatives of the people. Retired but still mentally able revolutionary leaders can be in advisory councils enjoying high moral authority, most useful in any moment of constitutional crisis that may threaten the revolution.

The proletarian revolutionary party should never be thought of as just any party, comparable to any party in the multiplicity of permitted parties in the bourgeois political system as in the current multiparty system of the Philippines which is actually monopolized by political factions of the exploiting classes. The Party is a revolutionary party that seeks and effects a radical rupture from private ownership of the means of production and all exploiting societies which have existed in various forms for millennia.

Notwithstanding the radical rupture sought and the mission of the working class to build socialism in a whole historical epoch, working class parties which come to power have limited their memberships to a small part of society (typically five to ten percent of the population), with the Party expanding its influence in society through mass organizations and state agencies. It is understandable that the Party is a small part of society in the course of the fierce struggle to seize power because of the coercive power of the reactionary state and the dangers to life, limb and liberty to Party members and that there is a limit to the expansion of Party membership soon after the seizure of political power to avert the avalanche of overnight communists and opportunists coming into the Party. But after the consolidation of political power and proletarian control of all aspects of society, especially the educational and cultural system, there is no reason why the Party should not increase its membership up to the point of including the majority of the people.

The Party has a cadre and mass character now. It should continue to be so after the seizure of political power. The cadres can ensure the high quality of the Party and the mass membership, the strong democratic foundation formed by workers and peasants. The Party cannot automatically ensure its high revolutionary quality by simply remaining small. On the other hand, it is liable to be swamped by an excessively high proportion of intelligentsia, including fictitious communists. Worse, the party will be increasingly regarded as a small and privileged part of society. If the Party remains small, it can be challenged any time by any political group or movement which has a comparatively large or even larger membership; or by the traditionally dominant church which registers most or much of the population as its member and claims the religious or moral allegiance of these people.

In accordance with the historic mission of the working class to build socialism, the representatives of the Party must be assured of at least one third of elective positions in the state alongside the representatives of the mass organizations of the working people and other sections of society. But within every slot allotted to the major components of society, the people inside and outside the Party must be able to choose candidates from a list in an electoral process.

With a large mass membership, the Party can confidently engage in multiparty cooperation along the united front line. The worst kind of model is a political system of only one party which includes only a small fraction of society. The socialist society must be able to allow the existence and cooperation of several parties which offer lists of candidates subject to the consensus in the socialist united front, the electoral will of the people and the constitutional framework of socialist revolution and construction.

 

 

IV. Certain Lessons from the Collapse of Modern Revisionism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe Socialist Revolution and Construction

January 15, 1992

 

Upon the basic completion of the new-democratic revolution through the seizure of political power, the proletariat and the people under the leadership of the Party can begin socialist revolution and construction. The means of production and distribution owned by the imperialists, big compradors and landlords are put under public ownership. The strategic enterprises and the main lines of production and distribution are nationalized. These comprise the initial base for socialist construction. Then the socialist state sector of the productive system can be expanded with further investments from the available domestic capital, export income and foreign borrowing.

But there are bourgeois-democratic economic reforms that still need to be undertaken as transitory measures, such as land reform and concessions to peasants of all strata and petty and middle bourgeois nonmonopoly commodity producers. These reforms and concessions do not mean the building of a “national-democratic economy” in lieu of a socialist economy. The cooperativization of agriculture and nonagricultural enterprises as well as joint state-private ownership can be carried out from one stage to a higher one in conjunction with socialist construction and further industrialization.

In view of the fact that so far in history socialist economies have been established upon a low economic and technological level and worse after a ruinous war, the proletarian revolutionary party is obliged to adopt transitory measures. How long these measures should run depends on the concrete conditions. In the Soviet Union, Lenin had to adopt the New Economic Policy. And Stalin subsequently pioneered in drawing up and implementing the series of five-year plans of socialist construction. He succeeded in building a socialist industrial economy.

But even after a socialist industrial economy had been established, the modern revisionists misrepresented Lenin’s New Economic Policy as the way to socialism rather than as a mere transitory measure. Thus, Khrushchov, Brezhnev and Gorbachov made this misrepresentation by using the name of Lenin against Lenin. They justified the retrogression to capitalist-oriented reforms by counterposing Lenin’s transitional policy to Stalin’s program to build publicly-owned heavy and basic industries and collectivize agriculture in a planned way.

After the New Economic Policy served its purpose, Stalin carried out fullscale socialist construction. It was prompt and absolutely necessary to do so in the face of the growth of capitalism threatening the socialist revolution. Anti-socialist critics decry overinvestment in heavy and basic industries, the suppression of the rebellious rich peasants and the exploitation of the peasantry. But they fail to mention that the hard work, the struggle against the counterrevolutionaries and the sacrifice resulted in the raising of production and standard of living, the mechanization of agriculture and the expansion of urban life in so short a period of time. If Bukharin had had his way and prolonged the NEP, the Soviet Union would have generated an uncontrollable bourgeoisie and a widespread rich peasantry to overpower the proletariat, would have had less economic well-being and less defense capability, would have been an easier prey to Hitler and would have been attacked earlier by Nazi Germany.

After World War II, China under the leadership of Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China was able to demonstrate that there could be a well-balanced growth of agriculture as the foundation of the economy, heavy industry as the leading factor and light industry as the bridging factor between the first two. The line of Mao was to provide as quickly as possible the producer and consumer goods for the people, especially the peasant masses. But even Mao was unfairly accused by modern revisionists of industrial overinvestment and premature cooperativization. At any rate, the Chinese example under the leadership of Mao bettered the Soviet example under the leadership of Stalin in well-balanced development in a poor country engaged in socialist construction. The theory and practice of scientific socialism, therefore, is ever developing. All modern revisionists are carried away by the theory of “productive forces” and economism. They prate about the law of value but at the same time they obscure the critical Marxist theory of surplus value and the creative line of using what is otherwise private profit as social profit and of converting what is otherwise an anarchic yet monopolistic production for private profit into a system of planned production for use and for the benefit of the entire society.

Marxists have always agreed with Adam Smith and his followers that the value of a commodity is equivalent to the average socially necessary labor time and that the exchange value (price) is realized in the market. In the socialist system, there is a system of wage differentials paid according to quantity and quality of work done. Within the system of public ownership of the means of production and economic planning, the new value created is allocated for the wages fund for consumption, economic reinvestment not only to cover depreciation but also expansion of production, general welfare (education, health, infrastructure, etc.), administration and national defense.

Aside from the wage system with differentials which corresponds to the system of commodity values, the commodities produced incorporate inputs which are bought from other parts of the domestic or world market at certain prices and which are taken into account in the market price of the commodities. Price comparisons can also be made with similar commodities produced abroad.

The socialist system of production has proven to be effective in creating full employment, attaining high rates of economic growth, responding to the basic needs of the people and providing social services until a new bourgeoisie starts to appropriate an increasing part of the surplus product and develops a taste for highgrade consumer goods which it at first acquires through institutional buying from abroad.

In addition to the high consumption and excessive privileges of the new bourgeoisie, another big drain is the misallocation of resources towards military expenditures because of the imperialist threat. This in fact constituted the biggest drain on the resources of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe under the long reign of Brezhnev. But this is obscured by imperialist propaganda whenever it asserts that socialism is inherently flawed or that the so-called Stalinist model pursued by the modern revisionists has failed. In going for the arms race, the Brezhnev regime deviated from the concepts of people’s defense and all-round consolidation adhered to by Stalin when the Soviet Union was militarily weaker and faced bigger threats from the capitalist powers.

The fact is that the socialist economies progressed for a certain number of decades and it would take another number of decades for the modern revisionists to make these economies retrogress into capitalism, under such bourgeois notions as stimulating production and improving the quality of production through private enterprise and the free market.

The adoption of capitalist-oriented reforms to “supplement” and “assist” socialist economic development is thereby wrongly rationalized. But the bourgeoisie, the corrupt bureaucrats and rich peasants are recreated and generated to undermine and destroy socialism from within. After a certain period of liberalization of the economy, the bourgeois forces can demand further privatisation and marketization more vigorously and ultimately claim political power as in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union.

But usually at the beginning of their effort to subvert the socialist economy, when there are yet no significant number of private entrepreneurs within the country, they wage a campaign for learning “efficient management” from capitalist countries (unmindful of the wasteful business cycles and wars and the centuries of exploiting the proletariat, the colonies and the spheres of influence), for expanded trade with the capitalist countries, foreign investments, loans and technology transfer and therefore for an investment law attractive to the multinational firms and banks as well as to the domestic bourgeoisie which must be promoted if even the foreign bourgeoisie is allowed to enjoy the freedom of investing and owning assets in the country and hiring local people.

Without having to breach or abandon basic socialist principles and without having to enlarge domestic and foreign private ownership of the means of production, it is possible to use wage differentials and bonuses as incentives for raising the quantity and quality of goods according to reliable and accurate information on productive capacity and consumer demand and according to the resultant economic plan, to satisfy the basic needs of the people first and then to proceed to produce nonbasic goods for improving the standard of living, to build one generation of better housing after another as a lifetime incentive and to decentralize economic activities with better results.

The production of both basic and nonbasic consumer goods are complementary and interactive. When basic needs are satisfied and private savings mount, the people start looking for things to spend on in order to improve or make their lives more interesting. Some highgrade consumer goods can be locally produced. Others can be imported without prejudicing the priority given to the development of the entire economy and the importation of essential producer and consumer goods.

In the case of the Soviet Union, before there could be a Gorbachov, there was the prolonged period of Brezhnev in which the new bourgeoisie developed domestically and resources were wasted in the arms race and in the costly commitments abroad under the theory of defending the Soviet Union by developing the strategic offense capability and by being able to wage wars abroad.

We have seen that the concept of people’s defense or people’s war against an aggressor, within the people’s self-reliant capabilities, within their own national borders and without undermining the growth of the socialist economy, still constitutes the correct policy.

The Soviet corps of research scientists, engineers and technologists was the largest in the world. They made great advances in basic research, experiments and prototyping. But only those advances suitable to the high technology requirements of the arms race were used in a big way. And because of disorientation and some false sense of economy in civil production, old and outmoded equipment tended to be kept and reproduced so that this exceedingly important area of the economy was deprived of the benefits of high technology.

In a socialist economy, the planners must adopt a reasonable measure for depreciation of productive equipment, durable consumer goods and infrastructures so that there is room for innovation and enlivening of production. It is not true that there has to be competition among capitalists in order to generate new and better products. The Soviet Union was able to keep on raising its military and space technology in a planned way.

In carrying out socialist construction, after the transitory period of reviving the economy from the ravages of war and completing the bourgeois-democratic reforms, we shall uphold the principle of instituting the socialist relations of production to liberate the productive forces and promote their growth; and after having advanced along the socialist line and gone beyond certain transitory measures, we shall never retrogress to the revisionist line of using capitalist-oriented reforms to push socialism forward.

 

IV. Certain Lessons from the Collapse of Modern Revisionism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe The Cultural Revolution

January 15, 1992

 

In continuing the revolution, combating revisionism and other counterrevolutionary forces and preventing the restoration of capitalism in socialist society, the cultural revolution must be carried out coextensively and interactively with the political and socioeconomic revolution.

If we are to avoid the errors which caused the failure of the great proletarian cultural revolution in China, we must grasp that the cultural revolution is a persuasive democratic process with Marxist-Leninist theory in the lead carried out along the general line of the people’s revolutionary struggle, that the process is a protracted one and so many times more protracted than either the people’s war or socialist economic construction and should not be rushed in order not to be persecutory; and that to preempt anarchy institutions like the Party, the state, the people’s organizations, the educational system, the mass media and so on should take on responsibility for leadership over the cultural mass movement, with due process rigorously followed and the rights of individuals and groups respected.

The cultural revolution is an important process for keeping high the proletarian revolutionary consciousness and the spirit of selflessness and service to the people. As one generation after another draws away from the accomplished process of seizing political power from the reactionaries and the heroic efforts to establish a socialist society, those who are in the bureaucracy of the ruling party, the state and even in the mass organizations can degenerate into a new bourgeoisie and adopt modern revisionism and other retrograde ideas and policies. The youth and intelligentsia can adopt petty-bourgeois attitudes, grow cynical towards those in power, fall for anticommunist views and adulate the ideas and fashions of the domestic and international bourgeoisie.

Even while we are still engaged in the new-democratic revolution in the Philippines, we are already carrying out a cultural revolution among the people. We are promoting a cultural revolution with a national, democratic and scientific character. At the core of this revolutionary mass phenomenon are proletarian revolutionary cadres guided by the theory of Marxism-Leninism.

Our cultural revolution of a new-democratic type is distinct from and yet continuous with the socialist cultural revolution. Like now, we shall continue to combine Party leadership, the mass movement and a strong sense of the rights of the individual within the anti-imperialist and socialist framework. We shall take all the necessary time, no matter how long, to raise the people’s revolutionary consciousness from one level to another through formal and informal educational and cultural activities and to isolate and defeat the ideas that run counter to socialism.

In socialist society, we shall carry out the cultural revolution to promote the proletarian revolutionary stand and the spirit of service to the people. The cultural revolution shall ceaselessly put revolutionary politics (patriotic and proletarian) and moral incentive in command of production and other social activities. The revolutionization of the superstructure shall complement and interact with the revolutionization of the mode of production.

When the bourgeoisie is deprived of its economic and political power, it seeks to make a comeback at first in the ideological and cultural fields. When it succeeds at ideological revision and cultural pollution, then it can undertake the changes in political and economic policies which favor capitalist restoration. The bourgeoisie is most effective when it can work through unremoulded and degenerate elements within the state and the ruling party. The proletarian revolutionaries have therefore to be ever vigilant and resolute in maintaining the correct line and in militantly waging the socialist cultural revolution.

The main contradiction in socialist society is the one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The old bourgeois class and the landlord class are easy to identify and the people are vigilant towards them. So the members of these defeated classes would rather encourage the intelligentsia and the bureaucracy to start adopting the petty-bourgeois mode of thinking and behavior. On the basis of this, the bourgeoisie can regain lost ground, especially in the ideological and cultural fields. When the proletariat loses the fight in these fields, the already pronounced bourgeois revisionists can push the antiproletarian change of political and economic policies under the guise of transcending classes and class struggle.

By that time, the bourgeoisie shall have been well on the way of reimposing itself on the proletariat and the people and restoring capitalism. The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe proves that the victory of socialism is not irreversible in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. All proletarian revolutionaries can learn important lessons from the way the bourgeoisie has come on top of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through peaceful evolution from within the state and the party and by using the state against the party, particularly the dwindling proletarian revolutionaries in the party.

In building socialism as the long-term preparation for communism, we shall strive to reduce the gap and solve the contradictions between the proletariat and peasantry, between mental and physical labor and between urban and rural life. We shall do so by mustering the capabilities of the proletariat and the rest of the people, utilizing science and technology and fostering a socialist civilization.

We owe to Mao the theory of continuing revolution, combating modern revisionism and preventing capitalist restoration in socialist society; and the application of this theory in the great proletarian cultural revolution, which succeeded for a number of years until the errors accumulated and resulted in a Rightist backlash. If the positive aspects are upheld and the negative aspects are corrected, then Mao’s theory and practice of the cultural revolution can be the treasury of knowledge on the basic principles and methods for continuing the revolution in socialist society. The theoretical work on the cultural revolution is a wide and open field for study.

The failure of a revolution is never the permanent end of it. The Paris Commune of 1871 succeeded briefly and failed. But the theory of class struggle and proletarian dictatorship was never invalidated. After 46 years, the Great October Socialist Revolution triumphed.

Then, the forces of fascism wiped out the working class parties in many European countries and eventually invaded the Soviet Union. But soon after World War II, several socialist countries arose in Eastern Europe and Asia.

Modern revisionism would emerge to afflict a number of socialist countries. And finally from 1989 to 1991, we witnessed the collapse of revisionist parties and regimes. This confirms the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist criticism and repudiation of modern revisionism and eliminates a certain number of revisionist parties and regimes which have caused theoretical and political confusion in the socialist and anti-imperialist movement.

Unfortunately, the capitalist powers have become more arrogant and cruel upon the disappearance of the Soviet Union as a superpower rival of the United States. But they are beset by the crisis of overproduction and contradictions are growing between them and their client states in the imperialist and neocolonial framework. In fact, the continuing crisis of the countries in which capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship have been restored in a blatant manner, has all along been part of the global capitalist crisis. The former Soviet republics and the East European countries have become hotbeds of nationalism, ethnic conflicts, militarism and civil war and lay bare the rottenness of the capitalist system.

Upon the aggravation of capitalist oppression and exploitation, the anti-imperialist and socialist cause is bound to surge to a new and higher level. The high technology in the hands of the capitalist powers has already deepened and aggravated the crisis of overproduction. The trade war among the capitalist powers is developing in the wake of the end of the bipolar Cold War. The United States is disturbing the balance among the capitalist powers as it seeks to revive its productive capacity, expand its trade and solve its huge deficit and debt problems in an environment where the other capitalist powers are holding tightly on to their productive and trade advantages and all neocolonial client states (except a few earners of export surplus due to U.S. market accommodations) in the South and East are long depressed and find no relief from deficits, debt problem and austerity measures.

For sometime, notwithstanding the disappearance of the two-superpower rivalry, the social turbulence and political violence will increase throughout the world. From these will reemerge the anti-imperialist and socialist movement at a new and higher level. The increased oppression and exploitation of the peoples of the world can only serve to generate the revolutionary movement. What has come about as a hostile environment for this movement is a precondition and a challenge for its resurgence.

Stand For Socialism Against Modern Revisionism IV. Certain Lessons from the Collapse of Modern Revisionism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe Proletarian Internationalism

January 15, 1992

 

The ever worsening crisis of the Philippine ruling system provides the fertile ground for the continuance and growth in strength of the revolutionary mass movement led by the Communist Party of the Philippines. But to gain total victory in the new-democratic revolution and proceed to the socialist revolution, the Party must take fully into account the international situation and draw further strength from the world proletariat and other positive forces abroad.

In international relations, we must be guided above all by the principle of proletarian internationalism. Especially in the current situation, we must unite and close ranks with the working class parties and organizations that adhere to Marxism-Leninism and are waging revolutionary struggles in their respective countries.

The ever worsening crisis of the world capitalist system and the ever escalating oppression and exploitation are prodding the proletarian revolutionaries and peoples in various countries to reaffirm the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. Even now, it is clear that the current decade is one of social turmoil in the world capitalist system and popular resistance to neocolonialism. It is not going to be a decade of Pax Americana and capitulation by the forces of revolutionary change.

More than a billion people (a quarter of humanity) continue to live and work in societies that consider themselves socialist and are led by parties that consider themselves communist. The crisis of world capitalist system shall have become far worse than now before the degree or semblance of socialism that exists in the world can be erased.

The disintegration of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and their counterparts abroad is part of the crisis of the world capitalist system and is in fact a positive development in the sense that it provides alerting lessons to all proletarian revolutionaries, demonstrate the folly of straying from Marxism-Leninism and from the road of socialism and argues against the illusions that the modern revisionists have conjured for a long time on a world scale.

In accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism, the Communist Party of the Philippines is more than ever determined to engage in all possible ways to develop mutual understanding, fraternal relations, and mutual support and cooperation with all working class parties and proletarian revolutionaries the world over.

The Party is grateful to all fraternal proletarian parties for the moral and concrete support that they extend to the resolute revolutionary struggle of the Filipino people and for recognizing the Party as one of the advanced detachments of the world proletariat which can contribute to the restrengthening of the world socialist and anti-imperialist movement in theory and practice.

Like today when it sincerely follows the slogan, “Workers of all countries, unite!” and gives uppermost importance to the world unity of workers through party-to-party relations, the Party shall uphold proletarian internationalism as the highest principle and general line of international relations when it is in power and shall give the uppermost importance to the world unity of workers through party-to-party relations as well as through the relations of the socialist state with other socialist states.

Fidelity to proletarian internationalism is a necessary measure of whether a party is Marxist-Leninist or not and whether a state is socialist or not. It is aimed at creating the world conditions for socialism to prevail over capitalism, for the working class to defeat the bourgeoisie and all reaction, and paving the way for communism; and therefore at realizing the mutual support and cooperation of all proletarian revolutionary forces, without any party or state infringing on the independence and equality of others.

We have seen parties and states that start out as proletarian revolutionary but later degenerate and become revisionist and relate with other parties and states only as these become subservient and become their foreign policy tools. They subordinate the principle of proletarian internationalism to diplomatic and economic relations with bourgeois states. They stop mentioning proletarian internationalism as if it were a dirty phrase as cosmopolitan relations with transnational corporations and banks gain the uppermost importance.

Learning lessons from recent history, the Communist Party of the Philippines is resolved that in the future the foreign policy of the new Philippines shall encompass relations with other socialist states, with working class parties, with peoples and revolutionary movements and with states (irrespective of ideology or social system) in that order of importance, under the guidance of proletarian internationalism in basic correspondence to the socialist character of the state and the proletarian revolutionary character of the ruling party.

The Party is confident that the ever worsening crisis of the world capitalist system and the resurgence of the socialist and anti-imperialist movement will create the global conditions favorable for their winning total victory in the new-democratic revolution and for establishing a socialist society that requires the proletarian party and state to practise proletarian internationalism at a new and higher level.

 

 

A humble appeal from dandakaranya

Our Humble Appeal

To all Progressive, Democratic, Patriotic Thinkers and Educationists,
Supporters and Lovers of Proliferation of Literacy and knowledge

Dear comrades, friends and well wishers,

You would be aware that our Party is working for upliftment of the downtrodden masses and for a new democratic society. A society free from exploitation, hunger and poverty; for a just and democratic order. We seek a self-reliant economy free from the chains of imperialist stranglehold. Though we are yet a small force we represent the bulk of the India population who will gain from this new democratic transformation. Those who will gain are the vast masses of the workers, peasants, middle classes and even a section of the national bourgeoisie (the entrepreneurs, small and medium business, retailers, traders who are being wiped out by the penetration of the MNCs and big comprador houses). The enemies of this transformation are the miniscule section of the population —– the feudal elements and their hangers on and those who act as the agents of the imperialists and big business houses. But it is these elements who wield power in our country and so they are unable to tolerate a movement that seeks such a basic change in the system. That is why they have unleash untold suffering on the masses of Bastar and the surrounding areas by their police actions of rape, murder, torture, jails and outright destruction of crops and villages and entire populace. The immediate gainers of these military-style operations are the mining interests like Tata, Esssar, MNCs and other carpetbaggers who seek to loot the rich mineral wealth of the region.
It is in this background that the CPI(Maoist) and its armed detachments and different people’s organizations have been fighting a life and death struggle against these forces of darkness. And it in these difficult situation that our education department is functioning under the aegis of the new power emerging in the region. The Jantana Sarkar or the New Peoples Power as part of its development and welfare programme —– which includes agriculture and animal husbandry development, forest protection, health and hygiene, etc ——– has initiated this Education Department for the all-round development of this extremely backward masses; who have been kept in this state of illiteracy and backwardness for centuries by the various ruling elite of the country including colonialists.
Our Department has three basic tasks which is aimed at raising the knowledge levels of the populace and introducing a scientific temper, free from the hundreds of superstitious beliefs that hinder their growth and development. The first is to bring literacy and modern knowledge to the entire ranks of the Party and the PLGA fighters. The second is to do the same amongst the vast masses of people living in the villages by setting up schools, with whatever limed resources at our disposal which are under the direct control of Janathana Sarkar. The third is political education through political schools to introduce an understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Party programme and the aims, method and path of India’s New Democratic Revolution. As part of this educational process the Cultural wing, Chaitanya Natya Manch (CNM), is conducting a wide campaign of spreading knowledge and democratic values through varied cultural idioms. It is for the fulfillment of these tasks that we have set schools, and devised elementary courses with visual aids all in their mother tongue, Gondi.
But the government and its para-military and police forces cannot bare to see this new assertion of people’s power. So they have launched the brutal Salwa Judum using adivasis as cannon fodder to kill adivasis, together with the military-style operations of the para-military forces. These forces have destroyed what limited education existed by occupying all the schools in the region and turning them into police camps. And what limited education continues is in an atmosphere of terror with the gun-totting forces breathing down their necks. In the name of building schools they are setting up fortified police camps and when the masses destroy them, they claim that Naxalites are opposing education. The schools set up by the Janthana Sarkar party in the villages are being systematically attacked and burnt down and the teachers and children threatened and even killed. The power-that-be are horrified by the enlightenment of the masses; they seek to perpetuate the prevailing darkness and backwardness.
The Party, its armed detachment, different people’s organizations and the vast masses are fighting valiantly against these forces of darkness to liberate the masses from age-old bondage and slavery and our education department is part of this new awakening. Our task is to further educate the people even amidst this ongoing civil war and we are undertaking this task to the best of our ability.
But it is here that we need your help and assistance and therefore request you to contribute in whatever way to this new awakening taking place like a beckon from the woods in one of the most backward regions of the country. Here the bulk of the Party members and even leadership come from the oppressed masses who lack extensive knowledge and technical know-how. We APPEAL to you to lend a helping hand in whatever way possible. This could be in the form of visiting our areas and helping in running the schools; it can be in the form of developing and sending visual teaching aids; it can be in the form of providing text books, dictionaries, notebooks, pens and pencils, maps and cloths of children and even mere cash assistance for running the schools; it can be in the form of lending simple technical know-how to further develop a growing economy like running and repairing mini rice mills, generators, pump-sets and oil mills and installation of mini hydro-electrical plants, etc; it can be in the form of medicines and medical assistance to train a batch of barefoot doctors to treat basic ailments and also those wounded in the civil war; and it can be in any other form that you wish to help.
Comrades and friends,
How much longer can we bare to see the enormous suffering of the masses which has reached such proportions which has pushed over one-and-a-half lakh peasants to suicide; lakhs more to premature deaths due to illness, hunger and poverty; that keeps the bulk of our children wallowing in malnutrition; that is destroying all employment opportunities for our youth by adopting the imperialist-dictated model of ‘development’ —— In short how much longer can we tolerate our country becoming a hell for the vast masses. We therefore once again APPEAL to you to lend a hand in this small sphere of education that can play its part in the liberation of the poverty stricken masses of our country. We call upon all well-wishers to take the initiative and lend such assistance in this sphere of literacy and education to the newly awakening tribals of bastar. We do hope you will come forward and assist in whatever small way possible.

We conclude here with great hope on you.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
Education Department,
Dandakaranya,
CPI(Maoist)
2 August 2008
Our Humble Appeal

To all Progressive, Democratic, Patriotic Thinkers and Educationists,
Supporters and Lovers of Proliferation of Literacy and knowledge

Dear comrades, friends and well wishers,

You would be aware that our Party is working for upliftment of the downtrodden masses and for a new democratic society. A society free from exploitation, hunger and poverty; for a just and democratic order. We seek a self-reliant economy free from the chains of imperialist stranglehold. Though we are yet a small force we represent the bulk of the India population who will gain from this new democratic transformation. Those who will gain are the vast masses of the workers, peasants, middle classes and even a section of the national bourgeoisie (the entrepreneurs, small and medium business, retailers, traders who are being wiped out by the penetration of the MNCs and big comprador houses). The enemies of this transformation are the miniscule section of the population —– the feudal elements and their hangers on and those who act as the agents of the imperialists and big business houses. But it is these elements who wield power in our country and so they are unable to tolerate a movement that seeks such a basic change in the system. That is why they have unleash untold suffering on the masses of Bastar and the surrounding areas by their police actions of rape, murder, torture, jails and outright destruction of crops and villages and entire populace. The immediate gainers of these military-style operations are the mining interests like Tata, Esssar, MNCs and other carpetbaggers who seek to loot the rich mineral wealth of the region.
It is in this background that the CPI(Maoist) and its armed detachments and different people’s organizations have been fighting a life and death struggle against these forces of darkness. And it in these difficult situation that our education department is functioning under the aegis of the new power emerging in the region. The Jantana Sarkar or the New Peoples Power as part of its development and welfare programme —– which includes agriculture and animal husbandry development, forest protection, health and hygiene, etc ——– has initiated this Education Department for the all-round development of this extremely backward masses; who have been kept in this state of illiteracy and backwardness for centuries by the various ruling elite of the country including colonialists.
Our Department has three basic tasks which is aimed at raising the knowledge levels of the populace and introducing a scientific temper, free from the hundreds of superstitious beliefs that hinder their growth and development. The first is to bring literacy and modern knowledge to the entire ranks of the Party and the PLGA fighters. The second is to do the same amongst the vast masses of people living in the villages by setting up schools, with whatever limed resources at our disposal which are under the direct control of Janathana Sarkar. The third is political education through political schools to introduce an understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Party programme and the aims, method and path of India’s New Democratic Revolution. As part of this educational process the Cultural wing, Chaitanya Natya Manch (CNM), is conducting a wide campaign of spreading knowledge and democratic values through varied cultural idioms. It is for the fulfillment of these tasks that we have set schools, and devised elementary courses with visual aids all in their mother tongue, Gondi.
But the government and its para-military and police forces cannot bare to see this new assertion of people’s power. So they have launched the brutal Salwa Judum using adivasis as cannon fodder to kill adivasis, together with the military-style operations of the para-military forces. These forces have destroyed what limited education existed by occupying all the schools in the region and turning them into police camps. And what limited education continues is in an atmosphere of terror with the gun-totting forces breathing down their necks. In the name of building schools they are setting up fortified police camps and when the masses destroy them, they claim that Naxalites are opposing education. The schools set up by the Janthana Sarkar party in the villages are being systematically attacked and burnt down and the teachers and children threatened and even killed. The power-that-be are horrified by the enlightenment of the masses; they seek to perpetuate the prevailing darkness and backwardness.
The Party, its armed detachment, different people’s organizations and the vast masses are fighting valiantly against these forces of darkness to liberate the masses from age-old bondage and slavery and our education department is part of this new awakening. Our task is to further educate the people even amidst this ongoing civil war and we are undertaking this task to the best of our ability.
But it is here that we need your help and assistance and therefore request you to contribute in whatever way to this new awakening taking place like a beckon from the woods in one of the most backward regions of the country. Here the bulk of the Party members and even leadership come from the oppressed masses who lack extensive knowledge and technical know-how. We APPEAL to you to lend a helping hand in whatever way possible. This could be in the form of visiting our areas and helping in running the schools; it can be in the form of developing and sending visual teaching aids; it can be in the form of providing text books, dictionaries, notebooks, pens and pencils, maps and cloths of children and even mere cash assistance for running the schools; it can be in the form of lending simple technical know-how to further develop a growing economy like running and repairing mini rice mills, generators, pump-sets and oil mills and installation of mini hydro-electrical plants, etc; it can be in the form of medicines and medical assistance to train a batch of barefoot doctors to treat basic ailments and also those wounded in the civil war; and it can be in any other form that you wish to help.
Comrades and friends,
How much longer can we bare to see the enormous suffering of the masses which has reached such proportions which has pushed over one-and-a-half lakh peasants to suicide; lakhs more to premature deaths due to illness, hunger and poverty; that keeps the bulk of our children wallowing in malnutrition; that is destroying all employment opportunities for our youth by adopting the imperialist-dictated model of ‘development’ —— In short how much longer can we tolerate our country becoming a hell for the vast masses. We therefore once again APPEAL to you to lend a hand in this small sphere of education that can play its part in the liberation of the poverty stricken masses of our country. We call upon all well-wishers to take the initiative and lend such assistance in this sphere of literacy and education to the newly awakening tribals of bastar. We do hope you will come forward and assist in whatever small way possible.

We conclude here with great hope on you.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
Education Department,
Dandakaranya,
CPI(Maoist)
2 August 2008

Our Humble Appeal

To all Progressive, Democratic, Patriotic Thinkers and Educationists,
Supporters and Lovers of Proliferation of Literacy and knowledge

Dear comrades, friends and well wishers,

You would be aware that our Party is working for upliftment of the downtrodden masses and for a new democratic society. A society free from exploitation, hunger and poverty; for a just and democratic order. We seek a self-reliant economy free from the chains of imperialist stranglehold. Though we are yet a small force we represent the bulk of the India population who will gain from this new democratic transformation. Those who will gain are the vast masses of the workers, peasants, middle classes and even a section of the national bourgeoisie (the entrepreneurs, small and medium business, retailers, traders who are being wiped out by the penetration of the MNCs and big comprador houses). The enemies of this transformation are the miniscule section of the population —– the feudal elements and their hangers on and those who act as the agents of the imperialists and big business houses. But it is these elements who wield power in our country and so they are unable to tolerate a movement that seeks such a basic change in the system. That is why they have unleash untold suffering on the masses of Bastar and the surrounding areas by their police actions of rape, murder, torture, jails and outright destruction of crops and villages and entire populace. The immediate gainers of these military-style operations are the mining interests like Tata, Esssar, MNCs and other carpetbaggers who seek to loot the rich mineral wealth of the region.
It is in this background that the CPI(Maoist) and its armed detachments and different people’s organizations have been fighting a life and death struggle against these forces of darkness. And it in these difficult situation that our education department is functioning under the aegis of the new power emerging in the region. The Jantana Sarkar or the New Peoples Power as part of its development and welfare programme —– which includes agriculture and animal husbandry development, forest protection, health and hygiene, etc ——– has initiated this Education Department for the all-round development of this extremely backward masses; who have been kept in this state of illiteracy and backwardness for centuries by the various ruling elite of the country including colonialists.
Our Department has three basic tasks which is aimed at raising the knowledge levels of the populace and introducing a scientific temper, free from the hundreds of superstitious beliefs that hinder their growth and development. The first is to bring literacy and modern knowledge to the entire ranks of the Party and the PLGA fighters. The second is to do the same amongst the vast masses of people living in the villages by setting up schools, with whatever limed resources at our disposal which are under the direct control of Janathana Sarkar. The third is political education through political schools to introduce an understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Party programme and the aims, method and path of India’s New Democratic Revolution. As part of this educational process the Cultural wing, Chaitanya Natya Manch (CNM), is conducting a wide campaign of spreading knowledge and democratic values through varied cultural idioms. It is for the fulfillment of these tasks that we have set schools, and devised elementary courses with visual aids all in their mother tongue, Gondi.
But the government and its para-military and police forces cannot bare to see this new assertion of people’s power. So they have launched the brutal Salwa Judum using adivasis as cannon fodder to kill adivasis, together with the military-style operations of the para-military forces. These forces have destroyed what limited education existed by occupying all the schools in the region and turning them into police camps. And what limited education continues is in an atmosphere of terror with the gun-totting forces breathing down their necks. In the name of building schools they are setting up fortified police camps and when the masses destroy them, they claim that Naxalites are opposing education. The schools set up by the Janthana Sarkar party in the villages are being systematically attacked and burnt down and the teachers and children threatened and even killed. The power-that-be are horrified by the enlightenment of the masses; they seek to perpetuate the prevailing darkness and backwardness.
The Party, its armed detachment, different people’s organizations and the vast masses are fighting valiantly against these forces of darkness to liberate the masses from age-old bondage and slavery and our education department is part of this new awakening. Our task is to further educate the people even amidst this ongoing civil war and we are undertaking this task to the best of our ability.
But it is here that we need your help and assistance and therefore request you to contribute in whatever way to this new awakening taking place like a beckon from the woods in one of the most backward regions of the country. Here the bulk of the Party members and even leadership come from the oppressed masses who lack extensive knowledge and technical know-how. We APPEAL to you to lend a helping hand in whatever way possible. This could be in the form of visiting our areas and helping in running the schools; it can be in the form of developing and sending visual teaching aids; it can be in the form of providing text books, dictionaries, notebooks, pens and pencils, maps and cloths of children and even mere cash assistance for running the schools; it can be in the form of lending simple technical know-how to further develop a growing economy like running and repairing mini rice mills, generators, pump-sets and oil mills and installation of mini hydro-electrical plants, etc; it can be in the form of medicines and medical assistance to train a batch of barefoot doctors to treat basic ailments and also those wounded in the civil war; and it can be in any other form that you wish to help.
Comrades and friends,
How much longer can we bare to see the enormous suffering of the masses which has reached such proportions which has pushed over one-and-a-half lakh peasants to suicide; lakhs more to premature deaths due to illness, hunger and poverty; that keeps the bulk of our children wallowing in malnutrition; that is destroying all employment opportunities for our youth by adopting the imperialist-dictated model of ‘development’ —— In short how much longer can we tolerate our country becoming a hell for the vast masses. We therefore once again APPEAL to you to lend a hand in this small sphere of education that can play its part in the liberation of the poverty stricken masses of our country. We call upon all well-wishers to take the initiative and lend such assistance in this sphere of literacy and education to the newly awakening tribals of bastar. We do hope you will come forward and assist in whatever small way possible.

We conclude here with great hope on you.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
Education Department,
Dandakaranya,
CPI(Maoist)
2 August 2008

A reply to citizen’s intiative dantevada

Maoist reply to Independent Citizen Initiative on Dantewada
ToThemembers,
Independent Citizens’ Initiative
Dear Friends,
I received the letter sent by six prominent personalities of the Independent Citizens Initiative who had visited Dantewara district of Chattisgarh on a fact finding mission in last May. I could not ascertain when the letter was actually sent as it did not bear any date and I could get hold of it only recently. On behalf of our Party I thank you all for your letter and the responsible attitude and genuine desire shown by you to put an end to the armed conflict in Dantewara between the oppressed adivasis on the one hand and the state-sponsored salwa judum, state police and central para-military forces on the other. I convey my apologies to you for the long delay in sending a reply, whatever are the reasons on our side.
Our Party appreciates the serious efforts made by you in your genuine quest for finding a resolution to the tragic conflict that had suddenly flared up in Dantewara since June 2005 and has taken over 400 lives until now. It is indeed heartening to all of us waging a just war for the liberation of the most oppressed sections of the Indian society to see democratic intellectuals like you seeking to explore the truth and place it before the world. There are some good articles written by some of you such as the one in The Hindu by Sri EAS Sharma, which made attempts to present the truth in a more objective manner. He had correctly analysed the origin and nature of salwa judum in sharp contrast to the barrage of false propaganda that it is a spontaneous movement and an uprising against the Maoists: “It is certainly not a “peoples’ movement” as it has been made out to be. It is a State-sponsored campaign in which unsuspecting Adivasis are used as ammunition in a war that will serve the private interests of a few.” He had also traced the exploitation of the adivasis by the non-tribal trader-contractor nexus: “For decades, unethical land-grabbers, wily traders, and exploitative contractors, all non-tribals, have dominated the lives of the Adivasis in this area, undeterred.”
I would also make it crystal-clear at the outset that just as you do, our Party too believes “that the well-being and all-round development of the adivasis in Dantewada and elsewhere should be the central theme of any discussion or effort that impacts their lives, either directly or indirectly.” However, what we do not believe, unlike you, is “that the defence of the rights of the adivasis can be ensured more effectively through political, non-violent and open means, rather than through armed struggle.” And it is precisely these diametrically opposite ideological-political beliefs by our respective sides regarding the means to be adopted to defend the rights of the adivasis that has led to two differing viewpoints in grasping the reality of the class war in Dantewara. And it is these differing perceptions, outlooks and class biases that are coming in the way of arriving at a correct solution to the ongoing conflict, or what could be more correctly described as a war between the revolutionary forces versus counter-revolutionary forces, that is going on not only in Dantewara but in various parts of the country. Can you show us one instance from the pages of Indian history where the rights of the adivasis were ensured through non-violent and open means? And not just in India but anywhere in the word for that matter? What have the tribals of Kalinganagar received for their peaceful protest against Tata Steel?
You have placed nine questions before our Party. In brief, these are: lack of response from our Party to your call for a dialogue with the government and declaration of cease-fire; our “casual attitude towards taking life”; the legitimacy of jan adalats like the one held in Manikonta; that our Party is placing mines “all over”; that we are training minors under 18 in the use of arms and destroying schools used by the CRPF, our Party’s opposition to the right to vote, road construction and access to government funds for development; putting people to risk and inviting greater repression by resorting to armed struggle; subordinating the interests of the people of Bastar and Dantewara to our wider goal of capture of state power; and showing no distinction between civilians and combatants and so on.
Before answering these questions, the tenor and tone of which unmistakably betray the mind and attitude of the liberal democratic intelligentsia, I wish to ask you one straight question: How does one get to know the truth from a plethora of facts? Can you say with full confidence that your perception of the reality in Dantewara is not tainted by your ideological biases against the Maoist movement and violent revolution? Is it possible for anyone, even if one claims to be a neutral or impartial intellectual, to analyse facts and arrive at conclusions correctly if he/she has an inherent aversion for armed struggle?
We know that our answers will not satisfy you. How is it possible when we both have different ideological and political perceptions towards the means to be adopted to bring the oppressed out of their miserable conditions of existence? There is no level playing field in the merciless class war between the cruelly exploited, brutally oppressed majority on the one hand, and the fatty upper five per cent of our society bulging at the expense of the hundreds of millions of poor on the other. In a class-divided society there cannot be any absolute truth. The truth of the oppressed is different from the truth of the oppressor. This has been true right from the time of Spartacus and the unsung slave heroes who waged struggle against slavery. Either you were with the slaves, in which case Spartacus and the rebels represented a just cause and truth, or you were with the slave owners for whom the revolts were merely the unjust acts of the slaves who had strayed from their duty of serving their masters. Likewise if Bhagat Singh was a hero for the Indian people he was the greatest terrorist and villain for the British colonialists.
In class conflicts, unlike in ordinary sport, it is impossible to have an impartial referee who cries foul whenever there is a violation of the rules by either side. For class war is no game played out between equals based on rules that apply to both sides equally. It is an unequal war between the mighty militarised state that stands in defence of the propertied classes and their “right” to exploit the majority at will, and the vast majority of the wretched of the earth—hungry, homeless, emaciated, docile, helpless masses—who, in the eyes of the ruling elites, are not much distinct from the slaves of bygone millennia. Rules are preset by these very same exploiters through their Constitution with enough provisions for violating the same. Those who imagine themselves to be impartial referees in class war and try to set the rules equally for both sides will ultimately end up as apologists for the oppressors, in spite of their good intentions and sincere attitude. Anyone who thinks that he/she is being impartial in a class-divided society is only a victim of his/her fanciful imagination.
You have condemned both types of violence, i.e., violence unleashed by the state and salwa judum goons at the behest of the imperialist MNCs, big corporate houses like Essar and Tata, unscrupulous traders, contractors, as well as collaborationist adivasi leaders who had become part of the ruling elites, on awakened adivasi masses who are struggling for their just rights and liberation under the leadership of our Party on one hand, and the legitimate revolutionary violence resorted to by the oppressed adivasis on the other. You held both sides responsible for the unfortunate situation. How can you equate the violence of the oppressor with the legitimate violent response of the voiceless oppressed? Whom would such a stand help ultimately? Would it not provide added strength to the oppressors and help perpetuate their domination? All these have to be pondered over by democratic-minded intellectuals. We sincerely appeal to you to stand more firmly on the side of the oppressed and then it will not be much difficult to find answers to most of the seemingly perplexing questions.
Now we shall try to answer your points very briefly:
1. You had called on us to declare a cease-fire and enter into a dialogue with the government. You were dismayed that we had not responded to your call and had even escalated the violence. You also queried whether we are prepared for a dialogue? When the enemies of the people have a single agenda of suppressing the struggling masses through ever-increasing brute force, where does dialogue come in? In fact, ever since 1998 we had always been responding positively for a dialogue on the issues of the people provided the government cried a halt to its repression and oppression of adivasis and created a conducive atmosphere for dialogue by withdrawing the police and para-military camps from the countryside, punish the guilty officers responsible for murders and rapes, and so on.
Today, along with the above demands, other demands such as: immediate disbanding of salwa judum, punishment to the perpetrators of atrocities on the people, suspension of the Public Security Act, 2006, removing obstructions on adivasis who want to go back to their villages from the so-called relief camps have also come to the fore. Is there any justness in asking us to one-sidedly declare a cease-fire and go for dialogue without the government first creating a conducive atmosphere? The talks in AP in 2004 had exposed the hypocrisy and heinous game plans of the Indian ruling classes when the government refused to extend the cease-fire, commenced brutal attacks and created conditions which made second round of talks impossible under YSR’s Congress regime. These bitter lessons have naturally become a deterrent for talks anywhere in the country. To ask us to declare cease-fire even as the exploiting classes continue their cruel barbaric campaign against the people means asking us to commit suicide. It is like the poor lamb believing the butcher. We appeal to you to think over the dangerous implications of your call for a cease-fire from our side in today’s conditions.
2. You conveyed your worry at our “casual attitude towards taking away life”. Deaths of members of the marriage party returning from Gadchiroli or of the traders in Kanker were unfortunate incidents that occurred due to mistaken identity. No revolutionary would ever think of committing such attacks on innocent people. * Social scientists and investigative journalists do not stop at mere facts that happen. They would go into the causes behind these incidents, the history and ideology of those who committed such acts, and the overall prevalent atmosphere that triggered such incidents. Such incidents are exceptions in our long-drawn revolutionary struggle spanning over 25 years in Dandakaranya. Our ideology and politics teach us to protect the people as the pupil of our eyes. We value life and peace as no other party or even a humanist does. It is our love and commitment to the people that had drawn us away from our homes and families and goads us on to sacrifice our lives so as the vast majority can live in peace. To accuse us of having a casual attitude towards taking away life is a myth fabricated by the bourgeois media. Our society including the sharpest critics of the ruling classes are bound to be influenced at least to some extent by this subtle propaganda. With greater care and more meticulous planning we assure you that we shall strive to avoid such unfortunate incidents in future.
We are as much grieved as you when policemen are killed in our ambushes and raids. We made several appeals to the policemen and their families not to kill innocent people or launch attacks on our cadre. We had issued leaflets appealing the Naga battalion jawans, CRPF jawans to defy orders from their superiors and to desist from attacks. We have composed a number of songs describing the plight of poor and unemployed youth who are forced to join police force due to lack of alternative employment. Whenever we attack the police we try to minimise bloodshed. We had never killed any policeman who surrendered. We do not harbour any anger towards ordinary policemen but would anyone expect us to remain silent when people are tortured, killed, women are raped, houses and property destroyed by the police-para-miiary-salwa judum goondas? We stand for the defence of the people’s rights and it is for this reason we are compelled to attack those who are snatching away people’s right to live. You would not have suggested a reconsideration of the strategy of people’s war itself just because a few mistakes were committed had you known why, in the first place, we had taken up arms.
3. Regarding the jan adalat in Manikonta village, the first point we would like to place before you is that those who were punished were not villagers as you describe them but were paid SPOs and SJ goons who had committed terrible atrocities on the people in the name of salwa judum. A retribution of that order is a necessity to control these goons. Common people, generally speaking, do not go to the extent of killing those who had committed crimes. The fact that hundreds of people who were present in the jan adalat resorted to this extreme measure shows the pent-up anger and righteous indignation of the people intimidated since June 2005 without a let up.
You had questioned for evidence that due process was followed in the jan adalats. Before such a question is placed we request you to examine the so-called justice system that is being implemented by the state in Dantewara-Bastar region or anywhere in our country for that matter. Does due process mean engaging professional lawyers (who turn out very often to be unethical professional liars) to prove one’s crime (which is the rarest thing that can happen in our country if you see real-life criminals occupying highest positions of power while hundreds of thousands of innocent languish in jails without trial for years without end). When it is a universally known fact that nine out of ten cases do not get justice through the so-called courts of law why should you find fault with people when they themselves punish the culprits as in the jan adalats held under the leadership of our Party? The very fact that out of the 57 people taken away by the jan militia led by our PLGA from the concentration camp and 44 of them were let off after due investigation of their deeds speaks of the fairness of the jan adalats unlike the so-called courts of law that let off the real culprits and throw the innocents for long years into jails. Moreover, if we see our past history you will find that several times we had let off even police officers after detaining them for days when their crimes were not proved in the investigation. Many anti-social elements were simply censured and let off. It is only the most notorious anti-people criminal-lumpen elements and proven agents of the enemy who were given the highest punishment of death.
In principle, we are against death penalty and our new system that would evolve after the seizure of power will scrap death sentence. But now the oppressed people and the revolutionaries are compelled to resort to it for our defence as even our very survival is at stake if proven counter-revolutionaries are allowed to create havoc with people’s lives and pass on information about our movements to the police. And as for evidence let me tell you that the excellent evidence collected by us—recorded cassettes of the entire investigation in the jan adalat which we had placed by the side of the dead bodies for the world to know—had been taken away by the police. We request you to bring pressure on the government and also ask the courts to direct the police to produce the cassettes. That would answer your question about evidence for due process. If you are ready to collect live evidence then thousands of people in Dantewara are prepared to place the facts before you whenever you come.
4. It is a baseless allegation that we had laid mines all over. People, to defend their very existence, are compelled to plant mines here and there in order to check the influx of hundreds of state forces and SJ goons who are creating a reign of terror in the villages. Neither is this indiscriminate or on an extensive scale. We also do not believe we can prevent salwa judum by using mines. We are with the world people in condemning the use of mines and all other weapons of mass destruction that create more “collateral damage” to borrow the phrase from the greatest terrorist of our time, George Bush Jr., and we stand for total ban of these weapons. If the indiscriminate use of grenades, mortars and aerial bombing by the state’s forces which are deployed in thousands in Dantewara-Bastar region killing or wounding hundreds of people is stopped then there is no need for us to use this weapon.We believe that it is people, and people alone, who can smash salwa judum through mass political movements and mass armed retaliation. Weapons are used by our PLGA and the people’s militia as they have to confront an enemy armed with the deadliest of weapons that are used for suppressing the just and peaceful movements of the people. In fact it is the salwa judum and the large-scale atrocities by the police and para-military forces that had led the people to arm themselves en mass and build armed defence system for their self-defence. They have every right to defend themselves with whatever kinds of weapons available.
5. As regards training minors under 18 years in the use of arms, we wish to make it clear that our policy and the PLGA constitution stipulate that no one should be taken into the army without attaining 16 years of age. And this age limit is strictly followed while recruiting. In the specific conditions prevailing in the war zone children attain mental and political maturity by the time they complete 16 because they are directly or indirectly involved in the revolutionary activity from their very childhood. They receive basic education and political training early in their lives and have organisational experience as members of balala sangham (children’s associations).
But now the enemy has changed the entire situation in this region by pursuing a policy of “kill all, burn all, destroy all” not sparing even children and old people who are forced to flee the villages and stay in forests and have to arm themselves for their self-defence. When the enemy is erasing every norm of international law, the oppressed people have the full right to arm themselves and fight. Making a fuss over age makes no meaning in a situation where the enemies of the people are targeting children too without any mercy. If the boys and girls do not do resist with arms they will be eliminated completely. The intellectuals of the civil society should understand this most inhumane and cruel situation created by the enemy and take the side of the people instead of pushing them more into defensive by raising all sorts of idealistic objections.
As for destroying schools used by the CRPF as their camps, neither the people nor our Party think it is wrong. The schools, once they are occupied by these forces, are transformed into torture chambers and concentration camps and there is no hope that they will once again be used as schools in the near future. Moreover, in many villages that did not have a school for the past six decades after the so-called Independence, new RCC school buildings are now coming up on a war footing for providing the needed infrastructure for the ‘carpet security system’. People living in the villages know for what purpose these buildings are being built. That is why they have decided to destroy them and our Party fully stands by the people.
Education of the adivasis is not affected by destruction of school buildings used by the security forces but by the destruction of entire villages (upto 900 villages had been uprooted since June 2005) by the state police, para-military forces and salwa judum goondas with active police support. In mid-July thousands of students whose education was disturbed by salwa judum goondas came into the streets demanding education and gave slogans against police-judum gangs for depriving them of education. We must all demand the immediate withdrawal of all police-CRPF camps from schools and colleges in villages and towns, stop the destruction of villages and killing of teachers and students by judum goons, allow people to go back to their villages from the so-called rehabilitation centres, and to provide all facilities for education. While destruction of school buildings had taken place in a few villages where people’s very existence has become a question mark you still think that this is affecting the education of the children rather than seeing it in a larger perspective affecting the lives of the entire people. We are curious to hear what you would say of hundreds of other villages which do not have schools although “Maoist threat” does not exist in those villages? It is for you to ponder over whether we are in any way responsible for the lack of education to the children of Dantewara.
6. Another white lie doing the rounds ever since the Maoist movement began to be recognised by a significant section of the people as the only alternative to solve their basic problems is that we are against development and that we obstruct people from exercising their right to vote and to participate in government-sponsored development works. Nothing can be farther from truth. We were surprised to see that you too had fallen prey to this vicious disinformation campaign unleashed by the government and the media controlled by the big moneybags. You wrote: “Not all the lack of development can be blamed on the government People have a right to vote, to work on road construction schemes, to access panchayat money, all of which your party has opposed.”
Is it true that we are in anyway responsible for lack of development? We had never, I repeat never, opposed any schemes of the government if those really helped in ameliorating the lives of the people. You can verify this assertion of ours through independent investigation and not based on complaints from those bigwigs like Mahendra Karma and his agents among the adivasis and the non-adivasi exploiters who feel deprived of the funds that would flow into their pockets if the Maoists were not present.
Our party spokesperson had already explained what model of development our Party stands for which has been published in the EPW and hence I will not elaborate much on this aspect. The main point is that we oppose any development that plays havoc with the lives of the people. You might have known how an Essar and a Tata managed to get the consent of the adivasis by holding fake gram sabhas at gun point (see Down to Earth October 31, 2006). There is immense wealth in the areas inhabited by adivasis from Jharkhand to AP and all the big guns have their greedy eyes fixed on this wealth. Hence they leave no stone upturned to grab this wealth even if it means massacring the indigenous people, razing entire villages to the ground and suspending all fundamental rights of the people. In just the three states Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa over three lakh crores of rupees are likely to be pumped in to extract several times more wealth to fill the coffers of these steel and aluminium barons of India and imperialist countries. And the so-called adivasi leaders like Karma expect fat commissions and bribes from their masters for clearing the areas of Maoists. This is the logic behind salwa judum.
We haven’t placed a blanket ban on all kinds of roads and railway lines. We oppose the laying of only those roads and railway lines that are meant for looting the wealth from the region and for enemy troop movement. It is an open secret that the railway line from Waltair to Kirandul was meant for looting the raw material from Bastar to the imperialist countries like Japan just as the British did during their colonial rule. The proposed line from Raoghat to Jagdalpur is meant for the same purpose. Would you, as enlightened intellectuals support these mega-development projects that result in underdevelopment and misery for the vast masses?
We support the just demand of the adivasis that the raw materials of the region belong to them, that they should not be displaced from their homes due to so-called development projects such as mines and steel plants, and that roads and railway lines should not be laid for looting the wealth from the region. We stand in the forefront of their struggle against these huge projects and the roads and railway lines meant for draining the wealth from the adivasi areas. We expect support from democratic intellectuals like you to prevent wealth from flowing out of the adivasi regions and from our country itself. We have our own model of development which you can see in the areas where we had established the real democratic rule of the masses. You know very well that most of the development funds do not reach the really needy. So much about the story of development.
Even more amusing is the charge against us that we prevent people from voting. The very same marauders who trample underfoot all the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by our so-called Constitution, lament when the Maoists take up election boycott campaign. Here we wish to make it clear that people have not only the right to vote but also the right to boycott. But this right is snatched away at gunpoint by the rulers who deploy huge contingents of central forces to intimidate and force people against their will to vote for their very oppressors. This has been most conspicuous in AP where people are threatened with dire consequences if they dared to boycott and, in several instances, even pulled out of their houses on the polling day and brought to the booths. During the last elections in 2003 and 2004 in Chattisgarh helicopters were used to create terror and huge para-military force was deployed in the name of preventing the Maoists from foiling the elections. Just as other political parties have the right to campaign for electing them to power the CPI(Maoist) too has the right to call upon the people to boycott the elections that are only meant to suppress them. Never was force used by our Party to prevent people from exercising their franchise. This is easily verifiable from the people in our areas of armed struggle.
Boycott of election is a political tactic of our party to mobilize, organize and rouse the oppressed masses against the rotten system and to make them realise the necessity to destroy it through people’s war. It is only then that election of a genuine people’s democratic government becomes possible. With this aim, under our party leadership and with the protection of PLGA, the oppressed masses of Dantewara-Bastar region are not only boycotting the election farce imposed by the oppressors, but are also electing their own organs of political power, Janathana Sarkars, with deep political conviction.
7. I shall deal with the 7th and 8th questions together as they are closely related. Both these questions the very strategy of people’s war and try to set up an artificial wall between our Party and the masses. As one of the great founder-leaders of our Party, comrade Charu Majumdar, pointed out “People’s interests are Party’s interests”. There cannot be any other interest for a genuine Communist Party than that of the vast masses. It is not our armed squads that are waging the actual war but the people themselves.
We believe that it is the people, and people alone, who make history. It is they who have to liberate themselves from all kinds of oppression. Tomorrow if the Communist Party itself changes colour and becomes a bureaucratic ruler after capturing power, as it occurred in Russia and China, people will wage a bitter struggle them also. Our Party and armed squads are mere catalysts that help the masses to achieve their liberation. It is the people who are the real heroes and we awaken them and equip them with the scientific theory of Marxism Leninism Maoism. And theory becomes a material force once it is correctly grasped by the masses. Our Party and the PLGA are able to survive the severest repression of the enemy because we are protected by the masses who act as a fortress of steel. One must have a correct dialectical understanding of the interrelationship between the Party and the masses or else mistakes such as separating one from the other are bound to occur.
And when you ask us are we not “inviting greater repression by taking up armed struggle”, I would say “Yes. But without armed struggle people will continue to live like slaves without self-respect or dignity and will perish like flies with hunger and destitution.” That is why the slogan “better to die in struggle rather than succumbing to hunger!” has become so popular with the masses. You might be aware of the chilling fact that the number of people who died of hunger and disease in just the past one decade far exceeds (by five times according to an estimate) those who died in all the revolutionary wars that occurred in the last two centuries?
The ruling classes will not abandon political power or their exploitation, oppression and suppression of the people until they are forcefully overthrown. Whether to live a life of slavery and indignity and die of hunger by remaining docile or peaceful protests (we all know the fate of those displaced by Sardar Sarovar project even after two decades of non-violent struggle, just to take one instance), or take up arms to completely eradicate the grounds that give birth to all kinds of suppression and oppression in order to live as free and independent human beings. Our armed struggle is to draw the curtain on pre-history of humankind and herald the dawn of real history where people become the makers of their own destinies and not a handful of moneybags and corporate gangsters. As for measuring the support our Party enjoys among the masses anyone can easily verify it. The police could not find a single informer in hundreds of villages which made their task of suppression extremely difficult. In fact, it is the immense support that we enjoy among the masses that made the ruling classes sit up and think of ways and means to suppress us besides deploying the security forces. That was how the heinous strategy of salwa judum evolved by mobilising non-tribal exploiters, lumpen elements among the adivasis who were punished by the jan adalats for their anti-people deeds, and people from villages falling outside the areas of our struggle. It can also be seen in the turnout in the elections with several villages boycotting the polls completely or registering extremely low percentages of votes. 8. We totally agree with your last point that “there must be a distinction between civilians and combatants” and that “those who claim to struggle for the people must struggle responsibly and with full accountability”. Our Party had always demarcated between civilians and combatants. But you say such a distinction does not exist today. We earnestly appeal to you to point out where we have not made the distinction and we shall certainly correct ourselves if it were true. We do not consider all those who joined salwa judum or those who are forced to become SPOs as our enemies. Nor are the people who are herded into the so-called relief camps set up by the government to be treated as enemies. We only consider those who unleash brutal attacks against villages with the help of the state’s forces as people’s enemies and punish them. For outsiders the SPOs might appear as poor adivasis but to the masses of adivasis who had borne the brunt of their cruel attacks the hardcore among the SPOs are even more dangerous and brutal than the police. Any independent and impartial enquiry will bring this truth out. We assure you that we shall take even greater caution in this regard.
Yours sincerely,
ganapathi,
GeneralSecretary,
CPI(Maoist)
October 10, 2006

Italy-

A proposal to the communist and revolutionary movement and to the proletarian political and social opposition forces

Let’s build together wherever we work, in tour neighbourhoods, in the streets, two days of mass political struggle, the 14th and 15th of May to dishearten the Berlusconi’s government, beyond the different positions on the elections and electoral lists and, of course, still supporting the strikes and unions’ demonstrations.
The text below is merely demonstrative. We can write another one together.

The owners and government unload the crisis on the workers, throughout the country they announce sackings and closed factories.
The government helps banks, financiers and big industrialists, while they further cut the social expenses for education, health care, fund for the labour.
The government supports unproductive public project, like the hi-speed railway, nuclear power etc., while for the people the transportations, environment and territories go to the ruin.
Wages are further reduced, workers are more and more poor, unemployed, and precarious, the retired people fall in the indigence.
Rich people do not pay the crisis, they safeguard luxury and waste.
The owners and government are supported by the false parliamentary opposition and the unions leaderships.
Let’s struggle and organize to defend our conditions of life and working.
Let’s build a classist union in the hands of the workers.
Let’s develop the people’s struggle in the neighbourhoods and the streets.
However, the defence struggle is not enough, nor it can achieve a real change and improvement.
We need a political and social battle against the government of the owners and the parliament without opposition, to build the conditions for a proletarian political revolution that will overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and establish the proletarian power.
The Berlusconi’s government marches toward a modern fascism, a police State, an open dictatorship of the exploiting minority on the working and people’s majority. They carry forward en electoral reform to absorb the fake opposition and wipe out any true one. The media and the culture are monopolized and enslaved to the propaganda and the interests of the ruling class, its government and parties.
The law is changed to safeguard the bourgeois, the rulers, the corrupted elements, first of all Berlusconi.
The cops who exercised the State violence in Genoa, Naples and elsewhere are acquitted while the vanguards and the communists are repressed and persecuted.
They want to change to cancel the democracy and the Constitution brought by the antifascist Resistance. They want to forbid the demonstrations, to restrict the right of strike and the freedom of thought, organization and press.
They propel the racism and the fascist organizations, they hide the police brutality and illegalities and even the murders or the judicial made up charges against the genuine opposition.
We need to respond to all this, in every front and camp, developing the united and mass organization, essentially fro below.
More important, we need to re-build ideologically, politically and organizationally the vanguard force of the proletariat and the people’s masses, the communist party of new type, the highest form of organization that the masses can realize, the necessary leadership to unite, struggle and transform the current movement, producing in the defence the conditions for the attack, able to stop the march of the modern fascism, the police State, the open dictatorship and to build the conditions for a new resistance, for a power and a society in the hands of the proletarians and the masses, for a socialist society, toward the communism.
Let’s support and join all the initiatives of struggle and oppositions.

proletari comunisti – PCm Italy
ro.red@libero. it
4/5/2009

women centenary celebrations

From: Vasantha Kumari A S

Centenary Committee to Celebrate International Women’s Day
100 Years of Women’s Struggle: Achievements and Challenges
iwdcentenary@gmail.com

100 years of International Women’s Day
Achievements and Challenges
On the historic occasion of March 8, several organisations and individuals in Delhi, have come together to commemorate hundred years of International Women’s Day, to collectively celebrate the achievements of women’s struggles all over the world, to draw strength from the struggles and sacrifices of our earlier generations and to chart out the course of our future struggles.

Women’s struggles against exploitation, war and political alienation has a long and rich history of sacrifice, repression and ridicule. Whether it was working class women who were locked up in factories, and who got burnt when the factory caught fire, or suffragettes who were repeatedly jailed for asking for the right to vote, women were considered too frivolous to organize and were ignored by trade unions. Yet women throughout the world waged militant struggles to improve their working conditions and to end exploitation. The women’s movement, which began as a struggle against capital, acquired newer dimensions and began to address the myriad issues that affect women. This included the issue of the right over women’s own bodies, and breaking the silence against domestic and public violence.

March 8 was declared as the International Women’s Day in 1910 at the Second International Conference of Working Women in Copenhagen. Clara Zetkin, a leader of ‘Women’s Office’ for the Social Democratic Party in Germany proposed this day for women of the world to press for their demands. Women from 17 countries, representing unions, socialist parties, working women’s clubs, and women parliamentarians greeted Zetkin’s suggestion with unanimous approval. This day was of additional significance because on this day in 1908, women had gathered in New York City to rally around the issue of women’s suffrage.

Women in India have not only struggled for their own rights but have made significant contribution to all struggles for freedom, worker’s rights and land rights. In the twentieth century, one of the first examples of political action for women’s rights was the 1942 Nagpur struggle of thousands of Dalit women for compulsory free education for girls and political representation of Dalit women in public offices. In the 1940s women’s participation in Telangana movement for land rights was another landmark. Over the years, women contributed significantly to many other struggles related to livelihood and environmental issues, like the Chipko movement. Women came out in large numbers in the anti-liquor movement and against price rise.

While Dalit and Adivasi women in rural areas continued to claim their rights and dignity in small and big spaces, the 1980s were also characterised by widespread outrage and legal action by women’s groups and women of all classes in various cases of discrimination and violence against women, like the Shah Bano maintenance case, issues of dowry and dowry deaths, Sati, rape and child sexual abuse. Women in the north-eastern part of India, particularly Manipur, led and continue to lead the struggle against army atrocities and State repression.

With the 1990s, the Indian government embarked on World Bank dictated reforms and women protested against privatization, withdrawal of the State in social sectors and targeted Public Distribution System (PDS).

As a consequence of neo-economic policies, today our society is characterised by unprecedented disparities. Resources are being transferred to national and foreign capital in India with active participation of the State resulting in large-scale dispossession and displacement of people. Government policies have brought about agrarian crises where farmers are pushed to commit suicide. Withdrawal of the State from health, education and social security sectors has caused further impoverishment, exclusion and deprivation. In the name of micro credit, women are being exploited by the state, the microfinance institutions (MFIs) and some NGOs.

And in this process women suffer the most. If there is retrenchment, women are the first to be fired. If the family does not have food, women have even less. If there is dispossession, women lose traditional control and benefits even within the family, as cash compensation are given to male members. Women belonging to Dalit, Adivasi and religious minority communities, women with mental and physical disabilities, along with those marginalised due to their gender and sexual preferences, are even more vulnerable and exploited.

Arms of the state meant to protect citizens, have routinely used rape and sexual assault in order to intimidate, terrorize and control women and populations. Mass rapes and atrocities by security forces during anti-insurgency operations in North-East or Kashmir have further been strengthened by the existence of draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. The recent amendment in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act will also give a fillip to the State in its suppression of people’s movements. Furthermore, private armies sponsored by the State are also using sexual assault as a tool to suppress people’s struggles, like in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.

Women are specifically targeted during communal and caste violence, as we have seen in Gujarat, Khairlanji and Orissa. Similarly women everywhere are under the threat of moral policing. Crimes against women, including against lesbians and bisexuals, and transgender persons, are on the rise, making their participation in public life increasingly difficult and their life within the home and the workplace more insecure.

In the face of dominant imperialist and repressive forces, we need to come together to build a united women’s movements, and resolve to struggle for a just and equitable society.

We hereby demand:

• People-centred and pro-women developmental policies; wherein micro-credit-based self help groups (SHGs) cannot be the only and dominant intervention,
• Food security, including PDS universalisation
• Livelihoods with fair wages and good working conditions, with regulation of working conditions for unorganized sector workers.
• Land reform and women’s access to and control over productive resources
• Freedom from sexual assault and harassment, domestic and public violence
• Effective implementation of laws such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe Atrocities Act.
• Decriminalisation of homosexuality and reading down of Article 377 of IPC.
• Elimination of caste-based professions like manual scavenging that exploit Dalit women
• Strengthening of institutions and mechanisms that are set up to address special needs of women, SC, ST, OBC and religious minorities.
• Repeal of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, UAPA, and Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act.

On the occasion of this Centenary Year of International Women’s Day 2009 we call on women from all over the country to join together with other oppressed peoples to raise our voices against declining living standards, fascist attacks by the State and rightwing mobs, and other forms of patriarchal oppression. Let us use this opportunity to celebrate our achievements and build new solidarities to face the challenges ahead of us. Starting March 8th 2009, commemoration meetings will be held through the year and will culminate in a massive programme on March 8th 2010.

AIPWA, AISA, CADAM, Centre for Struggling Women, Committee Against Violence on Women (CAVOW), Dalit Lekhak Manch, Democratic Students Union (DSU), Disha Chhatra Sangathan, Forum for Democratic Struggle, Gatividhi, Jagori, Krantikari Yuv Sanghatan, New Socialist Initiative, Nirantar, NTUI, Pragatisheel Mahila Manch, Progressive Students Union (PSU), Purogami Mahila Sanghatan, Saheli, Sangat, Stree Adhikar Sangathan, Stree Mukti League, and Arjumand Ara, Chanda Sagar, Dr. Ajita Rao, Indira Chakravarthy, Indira Pancholi, Karen Gabriel, Madhu Aggrawal, Nitoo Das, Shehla Faizee, Shubhra Sethi, Vibha Maurya and others.
–
Vasantha

LUMPEN POLITICS OF CPM

Lumpen Politics of CPM

=A Maoist Critique!=

                                                         

 

 

 Introduction

 

Mr. Anil Biswas has been entrusted by the CPI(M) with the responsibility to take the ideological cudgels against the Maoists and their party the CPI(Maoist). Mr. Biswas and his party think that the supposed attack with the pen along with administrative repression would demolish Maoists’ morale. Alas! Mr. Biswas and his party’s bombardment against the Maoists proved to be a miserable failure. For theory, the CPI(M) and its leader Mr. Anil now repeat nothing new to weaken our sharp ideological weapons, instead the degeneration and double-talks reaching their nadir while lending credence to abject surrender to the lap of the World Bank, the DFID, the MNCs and the World Bank’s  trusted men like Manmohan Singh, Montek Singh, etc. We at least welcome the CPI(M) and its ‘Left-Front’ in West Bengal for staying put in power more tenaciously in order that the people and in particular the section of left forces under parliamentary illusion are seeing in their own eyes to what hellish end the CPI(M) can reach. And why the Naxalites long back in 1967 predicted that the CPI(M) call of preparation for ‘partisan war’, the red-capped CPI(M) cadres parading in the processions, etc. were all gimmicks, a drama to divert the activists from the path of Naxalbari.

 The unexpected victory of the CPI(M) in 1977 and the undisturbed stint for more than 27 years in the existing exploitative structure with, to borrow the CPI(M)’s realisation, has been possible for ‘a responsible trade union’, ‘a stability’ i.e. the party’s and administration’s highhandedness to keep under control Bengal’s proverbial militancy. Anil’s party has already purged itself of the veil of secret love for the imperialist finance capital and the World Bank. The WTO programmed globalisation has torn apart all secrecy and this social-fascist party has now come into the open to be bed fellow of the imperialist institutions, the MNCs and also the Indian National Congress which it called even a few years ago the party of the big bourgeoisie and landlords.

As degeneration demands distortions, slander campaigns and mingling with the state repressive instrument Anil and his party commit all such acts without an iota of shame. Yet, it will be a mistake to think that this social-fascist organisation will hurry to remove the word ‘Marxist’ from its name, or its leaders will speak in support of the World Bank, real estate sharks, lumpen and corrupt elements, etc. minus the words ‘communist party’ and Marx’s, Engels’ and Lenin’s names. It is to be added here that the CPI(M)’s masters too know that banishing the revolutionary kernel those names are imperialist or capitalist friendly and attractive too to deceive the masses.

The supreme irony of the present history is that degenerate revisionist butchers can use the signboard of the communist party and only when expediency demands other suitable boards they put up for carrying on fight against socialism, It is a fact, a brute fact indeed that Andropov, the Russian ruler in the 1980s, was the head of the KGB during the rise of Solidarnose in 1980-81. It was he who was instrumental in setting up people like Mikhail Gorbachov at the helm of the revisionist Russian communist party in 1985. Similarly Boris Yealtsin, who helped formally dismantle the USSR was the former party boss in the industrial city of Sverdlovsk. The same picture is to be found in the East European countries that overturned the signboards of the communist or the workers’ party. Similarly in India the signboards of the CPI(M), CPI, etc.  do not  matter much. What needs to be seen is the role of the degenerate people occupying the leadership positions and their politics. In India too the communist signboards are being used by the corrupt, revisionist leaders for simply hoodwinking the people.    

In any case, we expected a sound polemic stuffed, even for sheer distortions, with the science of Marxism-Leninism and a presentation of a superior order in the context of the developments the world over. We are sorry to state Anil’s 38-page critique or one can say rubbish adds nothing new to really face the Maoists’ revolutionary politics. However, the new thing that surfaces in his writing is a justification of the so-called development with the ‘help’ of the World Bank, DFID, MNCs, etc. The recent Salim group’s invasion of agricultural land, i.e. the CPI(M)’s call for ‘Land to the industrialists (imperialist or native) and foreign compradors’ has been dealt with here briefly to show off the further unmasking of the CPI(M)-led ‘Left’ Front in India. Obviously ‘Salam Salim’ is not the end of the journey of the revisionist CPI(M).

This is our critique and we do know the police machinery shall be pressed into service by the social-fascist Buddhadeb government not to propagate this Maoist rejoinder. We do not like to indulge in character assassination or slanders, we stick to cogent facts and basically concentrate on Mr. Anil’s, i.e. the CPI(M)’s apparently strong points and leave out the trifles. Simultaneously we place the road map of the Maoist policy to seize power in India as the revolutionary Marxists-Leninists and Maoists in India, a part and parcel of the revolutionary struggle the world over for people’s democracy and socialism. We think that this endeavour of ours to focus on revolutionary Marxism has very little scope to reach out to the common activists of the CPI(M) and those of its allies. Yet we strongly believe this will create a stir among the really left forces in India and help teach our comrades to staunchly fight against the social fascism of the CPI(M).

 

Revolution Betrayed: The betrayal

of the CPI and the CPI(M)

In course of world revolutionary movements two revolutionary paths emerged. One is insurgency waged by Com. Lenin in Russia and another the Protracted People’s War led by com. Mao in China. Both the revolutionary movements fought with the enemy to overthrow the then existing systems and establish proletarian dictatorship or people’s democratic rule. Both the Russian revolution and the Chinese revolution in the first and second quarter of the 20^th century respectively and the later revolutions in Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and other unsuccessful armed struggles of Asia, Africa and Latin America and currently ongoing revolutionary struggles of various countries are all armed revolutions. In the protracted people’s war the red army was built from the beginning whereas in case of insurgency in Russia and Europe in Russia and it was first the workers to be armed to form the red army and the revolution spread from the city to the village. To seize power, the party, army and the people (the United Front) were always a must. This was the history of revolution everywhere. 

When the leadership of a party with communist signboard carries an outlook of liberal bourgeoisie since its birth how will it think over seizing the state power? At the time of the Russian Revolution Lenin fought with the right opportunistic line of the Mensheviks to advance the Russian revolution. Lenin established the path of the revolution, organized the party and led the movement. In the mid-July of 1917 after completing the February Revolution when preparations were going on to seize the power, Lenin categorically told in his article ‘on slogan’ regarding the question of the political power in this way: “And the political substance is that power can no longer be taken peacefully. It can be obtained only by winning a decisive struggle against those actually in power at the moment, namely, the military gang, the Cavaignacs, who are relying for support on the reactionary troops brought to Petrograd and on the Cadets and monarchists.” Further he added, “We said that the fundamental issue of revolution is the issue of power. We must add that it is revolutions that show us at every step how the question of where actual power lies is obscured, and reveal the divergence between formal and real power. That is one of the chief characteristics of every revolutionary period.”

In his brilliant investigation of peasant movement in Hunan, Mao categorically said, “The most violent revolts and the most serious disorders have invariably occurred in places where the local tyrants, evil gentry and lawless landlords perpetrated the worst outrages.” He further said that “A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using the greatest force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords which has lasted for thousands of years.” This outlook was not at all grasped and practiced by the undivided CPI then how come we imagine the CPI, the CPI(M) will accept the ongoing revolutionary war? But the history of revisionism took new turns when the CPSU(B) turned into a revisionist party and  brought forth the theory of peaceful transformation of political power. This rubbish was condemned by various communist parties of the world particularly the CPC under Mao’s leadership, which vigorously fought with the CPSU(B) and opposed the line brought forth by it. A worldwide polarization happened and a new camp, which was called a revisionist camp, emerged.

Those who followed the peaceful process to capture power were identified as revisionists and those who practiced and supported armed revolution were known as revolutionaries. Then onwards a bitter struggle between the paths of revolution vs. counter-revolution has been going on. It will continue in future also because revisionism in course of its development has been playing the direct role of counter-revolution.

In our country the undivided CPI’s leadership (majority in the CC) never supported the armed revolution. Before 1947 the then CPI always supported the Congress and its leadership and tried to trace out progressive elements within the Congress. It led to avoid armed revolution, and the question of seizure of political power by overthrowing British imperialism was not on the agenda of the party. When the Telangana armed revolution continued against the Indian Army, the then majority CC leadership of the CPI opposed and then withdrew it. Later they never thought over revolution on this or that pretext.

Peaceful transformation theory of revisionist Khruschev came on the agenda in the 20^th Congress of the CPSU(B). At the time of anti-imperialist struggle itself the CPI  joined the constituent Assembly and tried its level best to basically confine itself to the peaceful process and Gandhian forms against the British. Many a form of struggles emerged and the workers, peasants, and petty bourgeoisie fought on partial issues under the leadership of the CPI. But the party leadership never put forward an agenda for the tearing apart the Union Jack under its direct leadership. Why? Anil Biswas is now arguing against guerilla war and talking much on the Indian conditions but he avoided to tell about the situation between 1925 and 37 between 1940 and 45 period and other periods when different rebellious mass movements emerged on the scene. The CPI lower level activists led even some and others were spontaneous movements due to the maturity of the conditions against the British Raj. So many movements started peacefully but turned violent, which were inevitable due to the situation of that particular period. 

When we received letters of 3 fraternal parties an agenda was prepared for militant struggle but it was not carried out by the party because the leadership never showed such a consciousness to seize the power under the leadership of proletariat. When the party was banned, when the Telangana armed revolution was practically led by the Telengana comrades and on a number of occasions there emerged scope, possibility, and conditions to organize agrarian revolution and the people actively participated in all the struggles. But a revolutionary party a completely new party which can lead the revolution and the people for it was absent and the CPI was unwilling to play its proper role. The central committee of the CPI adopted the line of right opportunism, which never accepted armed revolution.

Just before the 1^st Party Congress of the CPI the CC gave the call in 1943 “Raise the united voice, we need Gandhi to end the national crisis”. [Resolution adopted in the C. C. meeting held on 15^th February 1943. In ‘Communist der Karmaniti, Bharater Communist Party’, August 1943] Instead of fighting against imperialism the 1^st Party Congress held in 1943 urged upon the party members: “…The Communist Party exhorts every member to popularize the role of the Indian allied armies as defenders.

In the threatened areas, Communists must offer organized co-operation of the people through their mass organisation and party units to the British or Indian troops for offensive as well as defensive preparations.” [‘Unity in Action For National Government’, Political Resolution adopted in the First Party Congress of the CPI. In Documents of The Communist Movement in India, Vol. IV (1939-43), NBA, Calcutta, August 1997, p. 600]

This was the understanding of the undivided communist party.  According to the teaching of Com. Stalin, correct political line is necessary to advance the revolution in any country. After that cadres will be motivated to implement the line that will be advanced properly. But in our country cadres sacrificed every thing but the Central leadership failed to put proper line before the cadres and the people. As a whole the CC or the majority in the CC never prepared itself as a proletariat class leader to learn which Lenin advised to Russian Communists and how he transformed the party into a revolutionary party fighting economism practiced in the name of Marxism, wrong theories of the 2^nd International, the Mensheviks and the Narodniks. Lenin prepared the CPSU(B) as a true revolutionary party, which ultimately led the Russian revolution to success and for the first time a soviet power was built and it existed on the earth and influenced the entire people of the globe. We learn from the CPSU(B) history the following.

“As to the structure and composition of the Party itself, Lenin considered that it should consist of two parts: a) a close circle of regular cadres of leading Party workers, chiefly professional revolutionaries, that is, Party workers free from all occupation except Party work and possessing the necessary minimum of theoretical knowledge, political experience, organizational practice and the art of combating the tsarist police and of eluding them; and b) a broad network of local Party organizations and a large number of Party member enjoying the sympathy and support of hundreds of thousands of working people.

“I assert,” Lenin wrote, “1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders that maintains continuity; 2) that the wider the masses spontaneously drawn into the struggle…. the more urgent the need of such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be ….3) that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; 4) that in an autocratic state the more we confine the membership of such an organization to people who are pro-fessionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to wipe out such an organization, and 5) the greater will be the number of people of the working class and of the other classes of society who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.” (pp.138-39)

We did not prepare this type of Leninist party in India at the time of anti- feudal and anti British Raj struggle. Anil Biswas and his party never accept the negative role of the leadership who were never eager like true revolutionaries for the seizure of power through armed revolution.  Now in his article Anil Biswas claims that Indian soil and the people will never opt for guerrilla war and armed struggle. To say this means he is totally negating the history witnessed during the colonial period. Anil actually echoes the pet anti-communist theory that India being a spiritual land can not endorse any violent communist revolution! So, we understand that a proletarian party should forget class struggle, the question of overthrowing feudalism and capitalism as such thought is itself a wrong concept. Well said! Anil Biswas Babu!!…Long live the CPM and its leadership to serve the oppressor class without preparing the mass for revolution and for the people’s democracy and then proletarian dictatorship. Political swindlers like Anil, Jyoti, Sundaraya and their ilk, however, never forget to claim inheritance to the Telengana peasant revolt, the peasant upsurge in Punnapra Vyalar, etc. which the majority CPI leadership – many of whom later joined the CPI(M) – simply betrayed. Why then Mr. Anil Biswas simply rejects any possibility of implementing the Chinese Path of guerrilla war even during the colonial period and why his party leaders try to bask in the reflected glory of the Chinese path adopted by the Telengana heroes? This is most dirty type of modern revisionism.

After the right opportunist role of the CPI, Indian masses witnessed ‘left’ opportunism for a brief period. Left sectarianism of Ranadhive is well known to the Indian masses. Sundaraiah, Basvapunnaiah, Rajeshwar Rao who once spoke of armed revolution took a ‘U’ turn and later remained confined to the parliamentary pigsty for ever. The leaders like Jyoti Basu, Ranadive etc. speak of Telangana, Anil Biswas borrows a few sentences from Lenin and Mao but put iron heel on genuine Maoist movement. These leaders never play the vanguard role because they practice revisionism and now prove themselves as counter revolutionaries.

Anil Biswas wrote an article in the CPM’s magazine ‘The Marxist’, Oct-Dec 2003, issue entitled ‘The Communist Party and Organisation’ in which he referred to Lenin, Mao and Stalin and posed himself as a good disciple of them and their theory. He wrote, “V I Lenin always stood opposed to the theory that spoke about the spontaneous development of society.  Lenin was always careful to distinguish between “trade union consciousness” which the workers could acquire spontaneously (Selbsttätigkeit) and “social democratic consciousness” which it was the Communist Party’s function to develop among them.  The “new kind of a political party” that the Bolsheviks sought to build and towards which they waged a struggle within the then Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was based on the postulate that the socialist movement must not be left alone to spontaneity in any circumstances if it was to be a viable success.  We recall in this connection the dictum of Mao Zedong who while speaking about revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the workers-peasants called upon the proletariat to be the “soldier-activists of the revolution” and to accomplish “with grit and resolve” the “programme of the revolution.”  (On Contradiction, original text, 1937)  Mao did believe that otherwise the Communist Party was in danger of losing its relevance as the centralised vanguard of the proletariat.  J V Stalin firmly believed that politics and ideology should be “in command, all the time” in organising, motivating, and driving forward the communist Party”.  (Underlines are ours)

Then Mr. Anil we have to believe it that Jyoti babu, Buddha babu, Kakababu and obviously you Anil babu and such babus of the babudom in the name of communist leaders are ‘soldier-activists of the revolution’ in India! Do your cadres themselves trust you the babus? Facts tell that the least little spell of earlier deception now does not sell at all. And the exiting state allows you to propagate all such views and act just the opposite.

In our country the CPM is not at all developing even the trade union consciousness, not to speak of revolutionary consciousness. Rather it has developed mafia consciousness and dog fights in the party. Politics and ideology were never in command because they lost their credibility, as communist, then how is it possible for the CPM to practise any thing for the oppressed classes. But without writing all this, they cannot pose themselves as Marxists. They are practising social fascist ideology. Lenin said that who talks for socialism and practise revisionism will be social fascists.

The CPM accepted the Marxism of the 2^nd International and it preferred to act as followers and agents of the Congress in the guise of Communists. Its leaders have always (except some CCMs at the time of the Telangana struggle and later) followed right opportunist line and never showed proletariat class-consciousness before and after 1947 to achieve the task of the proletariat dictatorship. The Telangana resistance was praised by all revolutionaries and it symbolized as a movement which sustained and was strengthened against the Nizam and later against the ‘Socialist’ Nehru. It is an irony who had openly or covertly opposed the Telengana peasant revolt later after its infamous withdrawal became its verbal supporters.

Jyoti Basu wrote in his article titled, ‘The Communists and the Indian Freedom Struggle’ [Published by CPI(M) as 50^th Anniversary Independence Series] that, “In 1946 the communists inspired Punnapra-Vayalar uprising in Travancore. Almost at the same time the peasantry in Telangana rallied under the red flag to rise up against feudal exploitation. This revolt, lasting for five years between 1946 and Oct. 1951, was the largest guerrilla peasant uprising in modern India. This revolt took away at least 4000 peasant lives. Such peasant uprisings for a better social order will continue to inspire us in building a society devoid of exploitation of man by man”

Jyoti Basu who was the CM of the West Bengal state for more than two decades never could think over armed uprising. Not only this he was the person who was instrumental in suppressing the great Naxalbari uprising which once again showed the path of Telangana to the Indian masses who joined in the struggle as a part of world socialist revolution. Jyoti Basu will praise Telangana, suppress Naxalbari to serve comprador bourgeoisie and big landlords, what can be more perfidious than his double speak?

 Ranadive wrote another article titled, ‘The role played by communists in the freedom struggle of India” in which he wrote “It is obvious that the C.P. did not play a decisive role in the freedom struggle, otherwise the Indian people would not have been facing the miserable conditions they are facing today, with poverty and unemployment increasing with the spectacle of a nation at discord, victims of every divisive force. The leadership of the freedom struggle remained firmly in the hands of the bourgeois leadership of the Indian national Congress. Even when mass struggles sometimes went beyond, the limits set by the congress, when people turned to armed resistance, the consciousness of the masses accepting the leadership did not change and therefore the struggle could not spread all over India.” (Stress is ours)

Here one can see the way of approach and the assessment of the ‘proletariat’ party’s leadership. The party veteran leader expressed that

1)                Leadership was in the hands of bourgeoisie

2)                 Sometime People turned to armed resistance

3)                the consciousness of the masses was that they were accepting the leadership of the Congress,

But he never said that

- the CPI never thought of emerging as an alternative to the Congress as a genuine revolutionary party.

- The CPI itself was serving and accepting the Congress leadership,

- The Communist Party had no agenda nor any role to properly lead the people for armed resistance and develop the people’s liberation army (PLA).

Even our eyes were not opened when conditions matured so beautifully that an armed uprising was inevitable. This was the pathetic condition, class collaboration of the then central committee. After ’47 also the CC never thought over organizing, moulding and driving the party for underground work to seize the political power. The blame was thrown on the masses always but the so-called vanguard leadership never expressed apology nor did it offer any self-criticism for its mistakes and for the collaborationist theories and anti-revolutionary role. The CPI and the CPI(M) were blaming the people that mass consciousness did not develop to participate in the revolution. Revisionists have never felt it as their failure not to develop people’s consciousness. Was it possible for us to overthrow the British Raj and to change the colonial and semi-feudal system without concrete programme guided by Marxist Leninist ideology? It is the great duty of the Communists always to play the leading role to mould the mass opinion towards struggle.

So, our party, CPI(Maoist) programme correctly said that “The victory of Great October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, under the leadership of comrade Lenin, the Marxist-Leninist ideology was disseminated in our country. Under the influence of this ideology, and as a result of heroic and militant struggles waged against British imperialism by the proletariat, the CPI was born in 1925. But despite innumerable opportunities, the leadership of the proletariat and its party could not establish itself in the liberation movement. The leadership of the Communist Party continuously refused to recognise the real character of the Gandhian leadership. Thereby it failed to demarcate itself and fight against it along with taking the correct revolutionary path and revolutionary initiative. Rather, they continued to trail behind the Gandhian leadership and turned their back in linking the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Indian revolution. This leadership also failed to integrate itself with the brave Indian people, particularly the peasantry. They also refused to learn and follow the triumphantly advancing Chinese revolution under the leadership of comrade Mao Tse-Tung and the Chinese communist Party. They did not take the path of armed struggle for the seizure of political power in the national liberation movement. Even though the objective revolutionary situation was extremely favourable in India at the time, yet the opportunistic leadership of the communist party always turned their back to take the correct path of protracted people’s war and the armed national liberation war. Actually the leadership of the Communist Party helped in derailing the anti-imperialist people’s militant movement and dragged the revolutionary masses behind the Gandhian leadership through forming an opportunistic alliance with it. Most of all, this leadership betrayed the great Telangana armed revolt of the peasantry and entrenched itself in the mire of parliamentarism and revisionism in the deceptive name of using parliament” (Party Programme, CPI(Maoist) pp. 8-9)

Anil Biswas wrote in his article that, we the Maoists are totally negating the history of Indian Communist movement. Actually we are making both positive and negative assessments dialectically without having any bias or prejudice against history. We are also a part and parcel of the past history, and representing its positive aspects but never hesitate to never disown the negative ones. So our first party congress was considered as a continuation of the VII Congress, after which we disassociated ourselves from the CPM. We uphold the positive aspects as contained in our Programme in the following words: “…brave revolutionary ranks of the Communist Party stood by the side of the fighting people and led many revolutionary struggles. They laid down their valuable lives to achieve the lofty aim of completing the Indian revolution as a part of the world proletarian revolution.” (Ibid. p.9)

Actually people were always involved in struggles and a number of armed revolts were witnessed against imperialism and feudalism from the Santhal rebellion of 1854-56 to the culmination of the First War of Independence of 1857, which were the beginnings of Indian Democratic Revolution. But the undivided CPI since 1920s had no clear revolutionary programme, strategy, tactics and practice to be placed before the Indian Masses. So we have to understand that most Indian ‘Communist’ leaders were grown with liberal bourgeoisies outlook, not with a genuine Marxist-Leninist ideology, politics and work methods, style to advance the Indian revolution. This basic truth is not acceptable to Anil Biswas like people waving red flags to crush a red revolution in India. History shall not forgive them.

 

Maoism & the question of the Chinese Path

 

Anil Biswas negates both these aspects. Often these two are assumed to be synonymous. Biswas too gives that impression. That is not so. First let us clarify what is meant by the above two concepts.

Maoism is considered as the further development to proletarian theory after the contributions of Marxism-Leninism. By the Chinese Path we mean the path of protracted peoples’ war (PPW). Maoism is applicable to all countries whether they follow the path of protracted people’s war or that of insurrection. The path of PPW is applicable to particularly those backward semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries where uneven economic development, peasantry being the principal force, etc. allow for this path to be implemented. Neither does adopting Maoism nor following the Chinese Path mean replicating the Chinese revolution as is made out by Anil Biswas. In fact today the CPC has abandoned Mao and the new bourgeois leadership is close to the CPM, and naturally not to the Maoists of the world. So, when we say that in India we follow the Chinese path we mean we adopt the path of protracted people’s war and that too is based on Indian conditions.

In Vietnam the liberation struggle through people’s war was conducted by the entire people in all fields during a long period, using various kinds of forces to fight the enemy in all theatres of operations towns and cities, rural and mountain areas mobilizing both armed and political forces, from the long-haired army, the white-haired army to the children’s army, combining guerrilla warfare in all places with decisive blows of the main forces, combining military, political and diplomatic means, combining the strength of the nation and that of the epoch. The two wars of resistance waged in 30 years against the French and American aggressors represented a great mobilization…by the theory of the ‘art of people’s war’ [Ho Chi Minh, A Man, a Nation, An Epoch a Cause, Pham Van Dong, External Publicity Division, Minister of External Affaris, Government of India, New Delhi, pp.24-25]

This people’s protracted war i.e. the Chinese Path was conducted in Laos, Combodia, Malay and many other countries. Such war is still on in Nepal, the Philippines, Peru, Columbia, etc. 

We have explained this aspect in detail later.

 

Question of Maoism

All developments in nature and society take place through evolutionary development and revolutionary leaps. So also it is in the realm of thought. Just as Marxism and Leninism were qualitative leaps in the realm of proletarian theory so also is Maoism.

But Anil Biswas says that Mao’s contribution had only relevance to the Chinese revolution and that too only upto 1956. This is what Deng like revisionists and the present leadership in China also say. The CPM is merely mouthing the present official line of the CPC. It is saying nothing new. It is no great discovery of Anil Biswas regarding Mao’s role in the Great Leap Forward; the so-called mistakes have also been pointed out by Deng and Co.

But before coming to elucidate Mao’s contribution on the basis of which we will establish that it is a leap in the realm of proletarian theory we shall first take up some of the confusions that Biswas tends to create.

 

1)                  Thought and Ism

Biswas says that the Chinese themselves did not call Mao’s contribution as an ‘ism’ and it was only in the 9^th Congress that it was called a Thought; and this Congress has been written off by Biswas as being a “Lin (Piao) Congress” with “anarchic decisions”. He further adds that Kisanji and Prachanda in their interviews have added more to the confusion and that what they say are full of contradictions.

Unfortunately the issue is quite straightforward and the confusions and contradictions are created by Biswas to confuse and obfuscate the issue. It was not in the 9^th Congress but in the 1940s that the term Mao Tse-tung Thought was first used. In the 9^th Congress it was said that it was not merely applicable to China but had universal significance.

In India and internationally all Maoists have seen Mao’s contribution to the theory of proletarian revolution as a leap and have adopted as their guideline Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought. Mao’s contribution was put on a plane with that of Marx and Lenin. But as the Chinese first used the term “thought” and not “ism”, that term remained and there is no Chinese wall between ‘thought’ and ‘ism’. It is sheer mechanical understanding to tenaciously cling to the view that till the victory of socialism the world over no new creative thought will further emerge. It might take many decades to destroy capitalism, for that matter imperialism, but it is pureale to say either Leninism will be obsolete or no development of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism will take place. It is clear negation of the dialectics of development. Immediately after Mao’s death the revisionists took power so there was no possibility for Mao’s contribution to be fully compiled and assessed in China. Later some international parties began to use the term Maoism instead of Mao Thought. As the use of the term ism more clearly defines Mao’s contribution than the term “thought”, many parties in India and the world too switched to ‘ism’. The use of the term ism is more scientific than that of “thought” and more aptly defines Mao’s contribution to proletarian theory; and just because the then CPC used “thought”, and there was no use of the term Maoism during Mao’s lifetime as mentioned by Biswas, does not mean that we should mechanically copy what was done then. Does Mr. Anil know that Marxism as ‘ism’ came into use in the international communist movement after Marx’s death and so also happened in case of Leninism? As far as the erstwhile MCCI and the PW go there is no change in the understanding of Mao’s great contributions to proletarian theory while using the term thought or ism. It has been seen as a qualitative leap in the Marxist arsenal right from the start.

It is those within the M-L camp who resist using the term ‘ism’ argue that Mao’s contributions cannot be equated with those of Marx and Lenin. For the genuine Maoists there is no confusion as to the role and contributions of Mao. So, it is Mr. Biswas who is seeking to add to the confusion when none exists. Of course the CPM and Biswas have never considered the significance of Mao’s contribution; and inevitably their practice is not just revisionist but counter-revolutionary, joining the ruling class parties of the country. As revisionists, even their acceptance of the theories of Marx and Lenin are only in name, not in essence. Did the CPI(M) ever accept Mao thought? Why then so much fuss over Maoism? Mr. Anil and the CPI(M) never had shown guts to accept Mao Ze Dong Thought since it meant plunging into revolutionary struggle for seizure of power, not sticking to the election-victory by any means to stay in power in some states in this set up. So the regular mention of non-existence of Maoism in the CPI(M)’s mouthpiece Ganashakti is to by pass the crucial question of Mao Thought/ism itself. Such an effort is ridiculous and meant for basically hoodwinking the CPI(M) cadres. In their recent articles the CPI(M) leaders have now developed a sudden penchant for quoting in an abstract way some quotes from Mao. Is it not to show it that the CPI(M) like the anti-Mao present CPC leadership is also using this great Marxist’s name to denigrate him by wholesome rejection of the contributions of Maoism?

Marxism is not a dogma, it is a guide to one’s practice With the CPM adopting all World Bank, IMF, etc. policies in the states they run there is no question of its following Marxism. Anyhow let us now briefly explain why we see Mao’s contributions as a leap in the development of proletarian theory.

 

Maoism as a leap

It matters little whether we call it a leap, a higher stage, a new contribution, etc. the essence is that in the realm of development of proletarian theory it marked a qualitative development. There would have been many great Marxist-Leninists in the interim period between Lenin/Stalin and Mao, but none contributed so significantly to the development of theory as did Mao. So, today it is the integral science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that constitutes Marxism of the present times. That is why we are of the opinion that without the ideological and theoretical weapon of Maoism, Marxism itself will be incomplete, and it will be difficult if not impossible to create revolution in one’s country and further advance it towards socialism and communism. No doubt as with any dynamic thought, this too will develop in the future.

We find that Mao contributed to all realms of Marxist science — ideology, political economy, proletarian strategy and tactics (including military science) and scientific socialism. Combining the Chinese Revolution and the international proletarian revolution with the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, Com. Mao has protected, inherited and developed Marxism-Leninism to a newer and higher stage. The theory of protracted people’s war was developed through revolutionary struggle for a long 28 years in colonial, semi-colonial, semi-feudal China — in a situation totally different from capitalist Europe, where Marxism till then had developed. His theory of the New Democracy is also a unique contribution to the arsenal of Marxism-Leninism.

Mao defined the working class in China as a motive force and the leading force and the peasantry as the main motive force of the people’s democratic revolution. One of his major contribution lies in mapping out the course of revolution in the peasantry dominated backward china, i.e. through a protracted people’s war proceeding from the countryside to the cities. This is the great theoretical contribution made by Mao in the Marxist movement for the liberation of the colonial, semi-colonial dependent countries.

Mao Tse-tung made invaluable contributions in greatly developing the proletarian philosophy of dialectical materialism including the theory of knowledge. Through his pene­trating study of society and human thought and particularly fighting against the dogmatists he made a conceptual leap in understanding and developing the law of contradiction. He pointed out that the law of contradiction – the unity and struggle of oppo­sites – is the fundamental law of motion governing nature and society including the human thought. He expounded that the unity and identity in all things and processes is temporary and rela­tive, while the struggle between opposites is constant and abso­lute. His articles On Practice, On Contradictions, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Amongst the People, Talks on the Question of Philosophy, and a vast number of writings during he Cultural Revolution are his enormous contribution to the realm of philosophy. It was Comrade Mao, the great Marxist, who contributed profoundly in the philosophical field when he differentiated between two types of contradictions – antagonistic and non-antagonistic – in resolving the problems in the course of struggle and strengthening the socialist system.

In the realm of the political economy of Socialism, Com. Mao Tse-tung made tremendous advances, particularly analyzing the concrete laws of motion governing Socialist Construction, by undertaking a deep and critical analysis of the then ‘Soviet Economics’ and by taking lessons from the positive and negative experiences of socialist construction in Soviet Russia. During this penetrating analysis he defended and highlighted the positive achievements of the socialist construction while at the same time criticised some of its negative aspects. On the basis of this analysis including the analysis of the Chinese experience itself, com. Mao developed a new conception thereby making a major breakthrough in this field. In his masterful writing “Ten Major Relationships” Com. Mao underlined and developed new concepts for building Socialism, such as “take agriculture as the foundation and industry as the leading factor”. He brilliantly developed the relations between the change in the production relations being effectively balanced with the changes in the productive forces. His Tachai and Taching models, worker’s control, communes, reforms in education, health care, housing, etc were all the results of the emphasis he gave to the development of the production relations to keep pace with the growth in the productive forces.

With this higher stage of conception and understanding of the laws of socialist construction Com. Mao formulated some important guidelines in the form of slogans such as “Grasp Revolution, Promote Production”, “Never Forget Class Struggle” and “Take Class Struggle as the Key Link” in carrying out production in the correct direction. Refuting the revisionist theory of “Only Expert”, com. Mao enunciated an important guideline by emphasizing the interrelationship between expertise and revolutionary politics or “Red and Expert”.

Then regarding proletarian strategy and tactic Mao provided a vast arsenal of new ideas. For the entire backward countries of the world he developed the concept of the New Democratic Revolution as part of the two-stage revolution to socialism. In the realm of strategy he worked out for these countries the concept of protracted people’s war as opposed to the insurrectionary path adopted in Russia and, till then, considered the only viable model for revolution. He developed the theory of  guerrilla warfare and other forms into a military science through which a smaller force can defeat a bigger and vastly sophisticated force through the means of people’s war. One of the greatest contributions of Com. Mao to military science lies precisely in his interpreting guerilla warfare on a strategic level. Formerly, guerilla warfare was only considered as a tactical problem. He said that throughout the period of war, guerrilla warfare and mobile warfare of a guerilla character are the chief forms of fighting. One of Mao’s important contributions was to develop the military line of the party. There is a vast wealth of writings on this question. The science of people’s war elaborated by Mao is used by all revolutionaries throughout the world.

Party leaders, Mao said “should themselves conduct investigation in the rural areas to get to know one or two villages” and “dissect one or two sparrows” in order to later lead the struggle in the countryside. Another essential idea of Mao is that the Party ought to give back to the masses what it has apprehended and clarified from the opinions of the masses. To do this, it is necessary for the party to get the masses’ opinion and to practice the mass line. In making  investigation, one must not “look at the flowers on horseback”; one must get off the horse and look at them closely. Precisely on the question of concrete matter as unity of multiples and unique revolves one of the essential, questions of materialist dialectics, as Marx stated. On this question revolves all deviations from Marxism.

Thus he explained the basic method of leadership by showing how correct ideas are formed in the leadership by taking the ideas of the masses and concentrating them, and again going to the masses, persevering in the ideas and carrying them through.

Then he evolved the question of the United Front as one of the three strategic weapons of the revolution in backward countries. “ The Party established a national united front with the bourgeoisie and with the break up of the united front, engaged in bitter armed struggle with the big bourgeoisie and its allies. During the last three years, it has again entered into a period of a national united front with the bourgeoisie. It is through this kind of complex relationship with the Chinese bourgeoisie that the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China have progressed in their development. This is a special historical feature,  a feature peculiar to the revolution in colonial and semi-colonial countries and not to be found in the revolutionary history of any capitalist country.” [Stress ours]

Here lies one of Mao’s great contributions to the treasure-house of Marxism-Leninism. This makes it crystal clear how and why it is necessary to differentiate between the comprador and the national bourgeoisie and the need for the revolutionary tactics of united front with the section of bourgeoisie opposing imperialism and the struggle with the compradors; what Mao who led to the successful completion of the first neo-democratic revolution in a semi-colonial country said that this feature was not be found in the capitalist countries is obviously a weapon for such a revolution and contribution to the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary struggle in the third world countries.

Mao further developed the Leninist concept of the proletarian Party. In order to effectively play the leading role in the movement Mao paid great attention to the question of the continuous proletarianisation of the Party. He evolved the method of using the method of criticism and self-criticism, closely linked with and relying on the vast masses of the People. Apart from fighting against bourgeois ideology and various shades of revisionism Com. Mao developed the profound understanding of how to develop and preserve and enhance the proletarian character of the party through waging active and relentless struggle against the influence of bourgeoisie tendencies inside the party ranks at all levels. In addition Mao’s dialectical presentation of the understanding of democratic centralism was a significant contribution to the Marxist theory of organisational principles. He stressed on creating ‘a political situation in which we have both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of mind and liveliness’ both inside and outside the Party and said that “Otherwise it will be impossible to arouse the enthusiasm of the masses. We cannot overcome difficulties without democracy. Of course, its even more impossible to do so without centralism. But if there’s no democracy there won’t be any centralism.”

He led the CPC in the struggle against modern revisionism led by the CPSU, the first socialist country in the world. Mao Tsetung led the international struggle against modern revi­sionism through initiating the Great Debate. During this great struggle he not only defended Marxism-Leninism but also developed it in some aspects. This struggle was focused on all the major questions particularly on the dictatorship of the proletariat. He set forth a new general line for the international communist movement, which paved the way for the genuine Marxist – Leninist forces for struggling against and revolting from revisionism thereby advanced towards forging and building new ML parties based on ML principles all over the globe.

Among his great contribution to the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism is launching the Great Debate with the capitalist roader revisionists who usurped power in the Soviet Union after Com. Stalin’s death and exposing the degeneration of the Soviet Union into social-imperialism.

This phenomenon was new and could not be apprehended immediately. Firstly, Khruschev, Breznev and their ilk’s forsaking the principles of Marxism-Leninism in words and deeds needed to be comprehended and the imperative need for discovering the essence of this revisionism through experience.

After the World War I Marxists witnessed the nefarious role of the revisionists of the Second International assuming the posts of the governments. They became a party in the assassination of Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemberg and other working class, leaders. These types of revisionists enjoyed crumbs from the exploitation of the oppressed peoples. Comrade Lenin from 1915 onwards called them social-imperialists. In his words “Fabian imperialism and social-imperialism are one and same thing: socialism in words but imperialism in deeds; opportunism becoming imperialism [Third International Tasks, July 14, 1919]

After the World War II Marxists had no problem in identifying British Laborites, French, German, Italian social democrats, etc. as representatives of the monopoly bourgeoisie in those countries.

But the case of the U.S.S.R, a forward post of international revolution, was different after Com. Stalin’s death. It was the pertinent question which class the revisionists represented. The dangerously harmful Khruschevite politics, the great-power chauvinism of the soviet revisionists emerged on the scene. Mao who extensively studied this new phenomenon, the role of the rulers’ of the U.S.S.R who gradually converted the socialist state into a social imperialist one. 

Mr. Anil Biswas, representing the CPI(M), has tried to conceal his Himalayan ignorance and the role of his Party’s Khuschevite degeneration by saying that “we have long back brought out our view on the khitchri concept of ‘social imperialism’.” [p. 145]. It is really a ‘Khitchri concept’ for the degenerate social democrats flaunting the red flag since, to borrow Lenin’s concept, they are mouthing socialism and simultaneously serving imperialists and their native agents exploiting the Indian masses. To prove their great for-sightedness about the ‘deviations-distortions’ in the Soviet Union Anil has said that in the 1960s and 70s the CPI (M) spoke and that particularly in the CPI(M)’s 14^th Congress in 1992 “the faults in building up socialism were to a great extent identified”. [p.14]. What is notable is that the CPI(M) like hypocrats have always consistently justified the social imperialist position of the Soviet Union led by beaurocratic capitalism using the legacy of Lenin. However, with basically and fundamentally siding with the Khruschev’s, Breznev’s and also Gorbachov’s leadership in respect of its internal and external policies, the CPI(M) like some other parties made some ritualistically ‘comradely criticism’ of the Soviet leadership. This social-fascists’ 13^th Congress held on Dec. 27 1988 to January 1989 had shown bold optimism stating that the previous three years had witnessed “changes favouring the forces of freedom, democracy, peace and socialism”. And it was the great role of the Soviet Union backed by “other socialist and non-aligned countries” facilitated this progress. This CPI(M) Party Congress, instead of visualizing the ferment and imminent change towards avowedly capitalist country after years of the rule of mainly beauracratic capitalism, heaped all praise on the Soviet Union as a force “looking forward to quick economic progress” against the reverses in the capitalist countries. It almost echoed the CPSU views on the malady gripping the Soviet Union and expected the measures taken by the CPSU was sure to overcome it. [Political Resolution of the Thirteenth Party Congress, Trivandrum, December 27, 1988 to January 1989, p.1 and pp.4-6]. And once the Gorbachov regime tumbled down the social democrat parties like the CPI(M) sat into a huddle to cook rationale as to how to explain to their party followers and masses about their earlier glorification of the revisionist system as because the CPSU was at the helm and the unforeseen scenario of the Soviet Union and the consequent rejection of the Soviet’s domination as well as the reins of the pro-soviet parties. This emboldened U.S. imperialism so much that in the process it directly interfered in certain countries calling themselves ‘socialist’ for the usurpation of power by reactionary and religious forces.

Finally, and most important of all, Mao’s greatest contribution came with the launching of the GPCR. It is here that his contribution was the greatest in evolving the science of how to advance towards socialism after witnessing the reversal in the USSR and the powerful growth of capitalist roaders in China. The GPCR did not merely make gigantic leaps in the realm of proletarian culture, but in philosophy and its day to day application, in political economy on how to develop the economy to ensure its advances on the socialist path, in organizational methods within the party, and most important of all, in further developing proletarian and communist values on a mass scale. It, in essence, showed how the class struggle had to be led in the period of socialism in all aspects of the economic base as well as the superstructure, including in the party. The concept of the GPCR allowed the masses for the first time to ‘Bombard Headquarters’ and expose the leaders deviating from Marxism. In the name of Communist Party as the highest level of organisation revisionism did not allow the masses to openly fight and expose the revisionists. It was the great people’s movement the GPCR.

William Hinton wrote in Shenfan (p.163) that Mao Zedong’s and Liu Shaqui’s two different lines “reflected two different approaches to China’s problems and called for the implementation of very different policies. ……, and Liu Shaoqui’s thesis, “the call for the consolidation of the new democratic system, was in fact a call for building capitalism.” [Ibid. p.163]

On the emergence of the GPCR Hinton vividly writes in 1993 that “At every step of the way, however, Mao’s line met opposition and resistance, primarily from a more “orthodox” group at the Party center that crystallized around Liu Shaoqui, a man who considered the Party to be above external supervision and capable of self-rectification without immersing itself in great mass movements of the people. The Liu group disregarded the masses as creators of history, relied on planners, stressed technology and expertise, hierarchy and one-man management, pushed material incentive as the key to management, pushed material incentive as the key to progress, and neglected transformation of each individual’s world outlook as necessary groundwork for the building of socialism.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an integrated whole. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (henceforth MLM) is the most advanced and scientific ideology of the world proletariat. Not only that, MLM is the all-powerful weapon, by which we can combat and defeat bourgeois ideology and all brands of revi­sionism, including that which may don the garb of Maoism. Quite naturally it is not to the CPM”s liking.

Marxism arose as a science of the laws of motion of nature, society and human thought, a science of revolution at a moment in history when the proletariat made its appearance as a revolutionary class capable of shaping the destiny of the society including its own destiny. Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat that was further synthesized and developed to new and higher stages. From Marxism it developed into Marxism-Leninism. Thereafter, it further developed into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is not a science pertaining to a particular field of knowledge but a science representing a whole comprehensive philosophical system, political economy, scientific socialism, and the strategy and tactics of the proletariat in comprehending and transforming the world through revolution.

This detailed explanation of Maoism was necessary to counter Anil Biswas’s negation of it. For those involved in revolutionary practice one sees the enormous need for it, which is lost to the likes of Biswas who live in the stratosphere of the ruling elite hob-nobbing with the business world.

 

Comprador Big Bourgeoisie

Mr. Anil Biswas has mechanically and conveniently dabbled with the nature of the Indian big bourgeoisie. He has actually repeated the old cold view of the CPI and CPI(M) to garland the Indian big bourgeoisie supposedly having a progressive role in leading the freedom movement in India. The moot point pertaining to the crucial question of revolution as to the roles of various classes is which classes are our friends and which are the enemies of the revolution. The question of Indian bourgeoisie, their divisions, etc. had been hotly debated in the CPI particularly since the 1950s. The Dangeites discovered great progressive role of the Indian bourgeoisie (except a very small section) embodied in the Nehruvian policies, internal and external. Contrarily, Gopalan, Rammurty, etc. who formed the CPI(M) later theoretically emphasized the wavering character of the big bourgeoisie, its collaborative relationship with imperialism though ‘It was this class which led the struggle for independence’. It was notable here that there still remained another view in the CPI and later in the CPI(M) which clearly stated that in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country like ours the big bourgeoisie never did lead the freedom struggle against British imperialism and such bourgeoisie are comprador in  nature. If Anil Biswas had the minimum intellectual honesty he would not have taken refuge in mechanical definitions and academic jugglery. Nor did he try and look at the stark reality today, particularly in this phase of imperialist globalization.

It is worth mentioning that the birth of the CPI(M) did not bring about any ‘decisive break with revisionism’ with the Dangeites as was  claimed in its 7^th Congress. Before the 4^th Party Congress of the CPI a series of writings in a number of issues of the Forum came up and it is found that the majority of them showed all praise for the Nehru government. If the 4^th Party Congress decisively changed the course of the CPI history by its overtly pro-government slant, the 5^th Congress pushed it further. The Political Resolutions passed highlighted the significance of the Kerala government under E.M.S. Nambordiripad as “a government led by the Communist Party have attracted world-wide attention and constitute the single biggest event in our national political life…” [Resolution of the Communist Party of India, adopted at the Extraordinary Party Congress, April 1958, A CPI Publication, p.4]. This Kerala model of government formation under the existing system became the sole aim of the CPI and later of the CPI(M). Quite in tune with this line of approach the 6^th Congress in 1961 comprising both the rightist CPI and the would-be CPI(M) leaders extolled the soviet help in industrialization, criticized the policy of concessions to foreign and Indian capitalists but simultaneously warned that it would be wrong to conclude that Indian government was turning into a lackey of imperialism or compromising India’s freedom. [Jatiya Ganatantrik Kartabya Sadhaner Janneye Jatiya Ganatantrik Front, Bharater Communist Partier Sastha Congress Grihita Rajnaitik Prastab, Vijayawada: 7 to 16^th April, 1961, pp. 4-9]

In December 1964 after the split of the CPI P.C.Joshi wrote “A note on the Programme of the CPI”. This reliable presentation of the CPI position observed that the Indian state is “A Bourgeois Democratic National State”. [P.C.Joshi, A Note On the Programme of the CPI, CPI Publication, 1964, p.4]. Joshi further specified the objective as “the transformation of the path of independent capitalist to independent non-capitalist development.” [Stress is original, Ibid. pp. 30-31] The Joshi explanation built the foundation of the CPI line of extending support to the Congress government for a “shift to the left”. And the leaders of the CPI(M) phrase-mongers took the same basic line of Joshi-Dange group but for years never forgot to use anti-congress vocabulary with   the backdoor support to the Congress needing its help in crisis situation.

The characterization of the Indian big bourgeoisie, the support to the Congress, the acceptance of the principled position on the ‘freedom’ of India in the real sense, etc. spring from the politics of reformism in Marx’s name. Anil had to further justify all such bogus view in order to justify the CPI(M)’s intensity of love for the Congress about which it so long convinced the people of Bengal, Kerala, etc. as the organisation of the reactionary classes, the love marriage consummated by way of providing blood and oxygen for the sustenance of both. Rejection of semi-colonial India and justification of non-comprador character of the Indian big bourgeoisie by Anil Babu are actually to hoodwink the honest CPI(M)  followers and the people who have begun to be inspired by the genuinely struggling progress of the CPI(Maoist) in West Bengal.

We should refer to the hotch-potch analysis of the Indian state character, a result of the compromise position hammered out by the theoretically dominant centrist group led by E.M.S Nambordiripad and the rest mainly comprising left phrase-mongers. It said “…the present Indian state is the organ of the class rule of the bourgeosie and landlords, led by the big bourgeoisie who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital.” [CPI(M) Programme, 1964, art.56] This increasingly collaborating character, however, in the opinion of the CPI(M) theoreticians does not by way of the law of motion lead of a fall in the lap of foreign finance capital.  The CPI(M) believes in the genesis and development of the Tatas, Birlas, etc. through basically long-term antagonism with the British Capital. With the taken-for-granted view of independent big bourgeoisie and of the genuinely independent country, the above view on ‘increasingly compromising’ role of the big bourgeoisie is immediately contradicted in the programme keeping the room for alliance saying shamelessly: “….contradiction and conflict exist between the Indian bourgeoisie including the big bourgeoisie and foreign imperialists.” And so “this stratum of the bourgeoisie will be compelled to come into opposition with state power and can find a place in the people’s democratic front’ [Ibid, art.108 and art.106]. Some historians closer to the CPI have been pedalling for long such a distorted view on “the long-term antagonism and short-term accommodation and dependence” of the big bourgeoisie in India during the freedom movement which advanced “towards a bourgeois nation state and independent development.” [Bipan Chandra, The Indian Capitalist Class and Imperialism Before 1947, In Berch Berberoglu (ed) Class, State and Development in India, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1992, p.56] When the main leaders of the CPI(M) led the mock-fight with the CPI right revisionists they at least mouthed the enigmatic view of ‘increasingly compromising role’ of the big bourgeoisie with imperialist capital. And the mock-fight or in their words ideological battle with the right revisionist ended with the same old CPI formulations on the fundamentals in theory and practice with ‘left’ phrase-mongering. The theoretical and practical degeneration of the CPI(M) with such anti-Marxist, anti-revolutionary reformist position has been crytal clear through the turnng of a social democratic party into a double-faced social fascist organisation ‘increasingly compromising’ with the imperialist finance capital, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, landlords particularly during its 28 years of rule in West Bengal.

It is indeed astounding that Anil Biswas should say this today when there is a gigantic leap in the imperialist penetration of the country with full support and encouragement from the ruling elite, particularly the big bourgeoisie. Today, even a child can see how the big bourgeoisie serve the imperialists and facilitate their increasing penetration in the name of ‘economic reforms’. The entire ‘economic reforms’ being pushed through by the politicians and bureaucrats are not only not being resisted by this big bourgeois class, they are the most active and vociferous promoters of these ‘reforms’. In fact, in tune with imperialist demands, they keep shouting that the pace of reforms is too slow. One only has to take a look at the regular statements of the CII, FICCI, ASSOCHEM (the Chambers of the big bourgeoisie), to understand their compradorial character. But more on that later. Let us first turn to the arguments of Anil Biswas.

Anil Biswas, utilizing a single sentence form the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, issued the sermon: The Indian big bourgeoisie can not be comprador. The CPI(M) and Anil Biswas provides another argument to disprove the compradorial character of the Indian big bourgeoisie. Biswas writes (and what the CPI(M) has repeatedly stated), that they were not comprador because they could develop an industrial base of the Indian bourgeoisie, unlike that of the Chinese bourgeoisie.  Anil Biswas takes a handle form the aforesaid sixth Comintern presentation of this class to show that the Indian bourgeoisie did not comprise mere brokers of the contending industrialist powers or mere importers of finished goods and exporters of raw materials from India — which he describes as the meaning of comprador.

Firstly it is not the understanding of Marxists that compradors are mere “brokers” or “mere importers of finished goods and exporters of raw materials” as explained by the CPM or the earlier Khruschivite revisionists. This is the traditional meaning of the word comprador whose origin was Portuguese meaning ‘purchaser’ and coming into use to refer to a local merchants acting as a middleman between foreign producers and a local market. Anil Biswas sticks to this roots of the word comprador, and uses a single sentence quoted from the 6^th Congress of the Comintern avoiding the main formulations of the Comintern to buttress his argument. But the fact is that in Marxist vocabulary it has never been used merely in that literal sense alone. Also the Third International has used it in variously on different occasions and there was much controversy on the issue. It was Mao and the CPC who clearly defined the comprador bourgeoisie as those dependent on imperialism for their existence and growth. The Comintern too in many other places gave this understanding, as during the period between the 5^th and 6^th Congresses. But for the CPM it is convenient to stick to the aforesaid incomplete definition in order to prove the supposed independence of the Indian big bourgeoisie. In fact even in China the four big houses Mao refers to were also involved in manufacturing and were not mere “traders”. Our Bengali babu Sri Anil Biswas, a veteran “Marxist” theoretician cum Polit Bureau member of the betrayer anti-Marxist, die-hard anti-revolutionary CPI(M) has declared with the sub-heading “Big Bourgeoisie are not Compradors, Nor the Country is Semi-Colonial.” The radiance of his argumentation to prove the old rotten view is simply a repeatation of the CPI(M) position taken when the hotch-potch U.F. government with Jyoti Basu as Deputy Chief Minister killed the struggle peasants, in Naxalbari in May 1967. Babu Anil Biswas writes like a teacher “…The industrial base of the Indian big bourgeoisie was far stronger than that of the Chinese big bourgeoisie. They did not merely play the role of brokers (Dalal) of the contending imperialist powers. In reality, they played their role in the freedom movement. Upon possessing state power in the aftermath of independence, the big bourgeoisie took recourse to a special type of capitalist development. After the freedom the big bourgeoisie had a dual character of contradiction and compromise with imperialism. As the revisionists made mistake to realize this dual character, so did the sectarians of the 60s…”[p.18]. It is understandable that the ‘sectarians’ were none but the followers of Mao Ze Dong. What is interesting to note is that the ‘revisionists’ of the CPI were not fundamentally out of sync with such a view of almost glorifying the role of the Indian big bourgeoisie.

Long back Comrade Lenin clearly warned the need for making a distinction between the reformist and revolutionary movements in the backward and colonial countries “….since the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nation too. There has been a certain rapproacment between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies,…[V.I.Lenin, Report of the Commission On the National And Colonial Question, In Lenin, On National Liberation and Social Emancipation, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1986, pp.285-286, stress in original]. All Marxists know about the fact that since the second half of the 1920s Commitern paid far greater attention to India as a part of the colonial question. Before the Lenin-Roy thesis clearly pointing to the ‘rapprochement’ and Lenin’s clear view on the imperialist bourgeoisie’s nefarious role “to implant a reformist movement” in countries like India the relationship of the big bourgeoisie vis-à-vis colonial masters and various movements in such colonized countries were not so much poignantly clear in the Commintern. And then from the 2^nd half of the 1920s, the Comintern paid greater attention to India as a part of the colonial question. The cunning Anil Biswas with a single sentence form the Sixth Congress of the Comintern issued the sermon: Indian big bourgeoisie can not be comprador. An extract from The Communist International on Indian between the Fifth and Sixth World Conference (1924-28) provides an analysis on the colonial bourgeoisie. About the British policy it clearly stated that “the industrialization of India under the control of British finance capital, and with the co-operation (not on equal terms) of the Indian bourgeoisie was giving the latter a semblance of power” [Extract from the Communist International between the fifth and sixth world conferences 1924-25, report (up to May 28) On the Position in all Sections of the World Communist Party”. In G.Adhikari (ed.) Documents of the History of the CPI, Vol. IIIC, 1928, Peoples’ Publishing House, New Delhi, p.455] What do the CPI (M) and its theoretician Mr. Anil Biswas have to comment on this basic fact?

In India, as in the rest of the third world, the Indian comprador is much different from as it was in China. On this there is no difference with the CPM. But just because it is not a replica of the Chinese does it mean that it is not comprador? But when one deals with theory we do not seek mechanical replica of the original. If that were the case there would be no need for theory but mere formulas. Marxist theory is no mathematical formula but gives principles to be applied in the concrete conditions of the country. We are not going to go into the arguments of the Portuguese definition nor seek to counter one quote of the Comintern with numerous others on the same issue to buttress our argument. The question is as to what the principles are and what their application to the reality is.

Regarding the principles we have already seen Mao’s definition. What then is the reality in India? As Lenin had said nearly a century back, imperialism has enmeshed backward countries like India in thousands of threads of control and dependency all of which have got hugely intensified in this period of so-called globalization. In India, first one has the class of top politicians, bureaucrats, army and other officials, etc. who act as the most servile agents of the imperialists due to the huge amounts they earn through kick-backs, commissions, underhand deals, etc. Next you have the vast network of foreign companies, foreign financial institutions or so-called Indian ones with foreign domination (like HDFC, ICICI and hundreds of others). These have increased hundred fold in the last decade. Here too the top echelons have little of no maneuverability and must act as servile agents of the imperialists. Then finally one has the comprador big bourgeoisie (like Ambani, Birla, Tata, etc) who have vast amounts of foreign capital in their total equity, and are tied to the imperialists through thousands of other links like market, outsourcing, technology, etc. In fact it is this latter class, whom the CPM, considers as independent, that have most vociferously been pushing the imperialist-dictated ‘economic reforms’ in the country. Why? If they were at all independent, it should be they who should have been such elements should have been resisting the massive imperialist onslaught. But that is not so, even though they have the economic and political clout in India.

Today, the very stock  market is controlled by foreign capital, banks and insurance are systematically being taken over, mining is going into their hands, consumer industries are defacto in their control, the entire IT sector is fully dependent on imperialist outsourcing, etc, etc. So, what independence is the CPM talking of? Besides, it is estimated (See Globalisation, Attack on India’s Sovereignty, by Arvind; New Vistas Publication) that over 15% of the countries national income is being robbed by the imperialists each year and this huge wealth is being sucked abroad. This is no less than that during colonial times; without any of the expenses of colonial rule. What else is this but neo-colonialism? Anil Biswas and his cohorts live in a make-believe world far distanced from the reality. Here, we cannot go into all the details of imperialist controls but this has detailedly been brought out in the above mentioned book and also elsewhere. But Anil Biswas and others are blind to the reality.

Anil Biswas goes out of his way to show that the big bourgeois class in India is quite different from that in China. Quite obviously so. The two countries, while both being backward, are different to the extent that pre-revolutionary China existed over half a century back and in this period there have been much changes in the world. But the question that arises is what the nature of the big bourgeoisie in India is. Why does not Anil Biswas analyse their character rather than resorting to comparisons and formalistic definitions?

Anil Biswas says “…The industrial base of the Indian big bourgeoisie was far stronger than the Chinese big bourgeoisie. They did not merely play the role of brokers (Dalal) of the contending imperialist powers. In reality, they played their role in the freedom movement. Upon possessing state power in the aftermath of independence, the big bourgeoisie took recourse to a special type of capitalist development. After the freedom the big bourgeoisie had a dual character of contradiction and compromise with imperialism. As the revisionists made mistake to realize this dual character, so did the sectarians of the 60s…”[p.18].

Firstly Anil Biswas has no where defined what is the nature of this so-called special type of capitalist development. Secondly as has been shown the big bourgeoisie did not have a dual character of contradiction and compromise with imperialism but was dependent on imperialism. It is true that they are not mere “brokers” but that does not mean that they have an independent nature with a supposed dual character with the preponderance of contradiction with imperialism. Thirdly their role in the freedom movement was mainly to act as a safety valve to divert the movement into peaceful channels. The very formation of the Congress party was set up with that intention by the British. Though often the movement went beyond the control of the leaders their essence was for compromise and capitulation to imperialism. There has been much documentation of this even by the CPGB historian R.P.Dutt in his book earlier editions of the India Today. But Anil Biswas would prefer the revised view of R.P.Dutta taken after Khruschev assumed power who was close to the CPI and a leading member of the CPGB. In fact at one stage even the CPI had said that the independence was fake. Still 1955 it officially accepted the real impendence coming closer to the Soviet view under Khruschov and plunging into electoral politics. 

Throughout the world we find a bourgeoisie that is comprador and do not just take the form of traders, though even these exist. In fact in this period of globalization the dependency of the third world bourgeoisie has tended to become more and more pronounced and unabashed. This is clearly to be seen in India, but the CPM turns a blind eye to this. This is but natural as the CPM in the two states it runs is implementing all the policies dictated by the imperialists — World Bank, IMF. etc. They are not only pampering the comprador big bourgeoisie in the name of inviting investment and creating jobs, they are now even bringing in huge amounts of foreign capital. Particularly it is focusing on capital associated with US, Japanese and German financial giants. It is therefore not surprising that the CPM would resort to cutting the foot to fit the shoe — adjusting their theory to fit their practice vis-à-vis imperialism and the big bourgeoisie.

In their baseless polemic against the CPI(Maoist) they use words like, increasingly compromising, maneuvering, cooperating with, tilt towards imperialism etc. etc; the question here is none of the above, which may well be true, but the basic question is as to whether the big bourgeoisie in India is independent or dependent on imperialism. They say it is the former, but the reality shows the latter. Whatever outwardly big appearance of the Indian big bourgeoisie we face in India they can not act outside the structured relationship of chronic dependence. Nor can they break loose from the gigantic powers of the imperialist way of neo-colonialism.

It is nobody’s argument that the Indian big bourgeoisie are not stronger than those of the Chinese. It is the question of defining the class enemy in the revolutionary struggle; which of course is beyond the CPI(M)’s imagination. Comrade Mao himself said that among the enemy classes to be targeted for uprooting from China through people’s war were ‘The commercial bourgeoisie’ and ‘The industrial bourgeoisie’ among other classes [Mao Tse-tung, Oppose Book Worship, May 1930, p.32] And Mao was categorical to identify the Chinese big bourgeoisie as a comprador bourgeoisie. If Anil’s or the CPI(M)’s argument is believed then the big Chinese bourgeoisie was also not comprador. In China too the big comprador bourgeoisie was not merely involved in trade as middlemen. The childish argument of the CPI(M) is solely based on the comparable industrial strength between the big bourgeoisie of these two countries. This is ridiculous as it does not consider the functioning of the big bourgeoisie within the general frame of basic dependence on the imperialist system. Secondly, what Anil Biswas stresses swearing by the incomplete definition – obviously suppressing lots of revolutionary decisions and analyses of the Commintern – the Chinese bourgeoisie could not be comprador since they were not solely involved in the aforesaid role of merely import of foreign goods and export of raw materials. Actually speaking, Anil Biswas as well as his party is a bundle of contradictions for preaching the old Khruschevite line on the one hand and, on the other, mouthing phrases from Marx, Lenin, et al.

India is no doubt different from China; the big bourgeoisie too has its differences; but in essence it is dependent on imperialism for its existence and growth — and is therefore comprador. Anil Biswas and his CPM would surely know this as they have extensive dealings with this class in the states that they rule.

 

Fake Independence and the Mercurial Stance of Undivided Communist Party: CPM’s Hotchpotch View on Semi Colony and Neo colony

It is not the CPI(Maoist) to declare such a bitter truth for the first time in India. The editorial in the People’s Age (the CPI mouthpiece) of 21^st January 1948 said that it is “a blasphemous lie to assert that freedom has been achieved…. our national leadership has accepted sham freedom.” The Second Congress of the CPI under Ranadive leadership had taken many adventurist policies but rightly called the power-transfer of August 1947 as sham independence. So also the editorial of the Lasting Peace of 27 January, 1948 assertively stated, “a sham independence (was) bestowed on India” [Cited in M.B.Rao(ed). Documents of the Communist Party of India, vol. VII, 1948-50, PPH, New Delhi, 1976, p.viii] It is well known to the serious readers of the Marxist movement in India that after the extremely rightist policy of the CPI under P.C.Joshi he was ousted from the post of General Secretary and B.T.Ranadive assumed the highest post and pursued a ‘left’ adventurist policy conforming to the line of Tito.

 Ranadive had to go and by this time the Telangana Uprising kindled the fire of revolution on the Maoist lines. The Telangana struggle put the CPI leadership under strong pressure to accept some of the formulations of the Andhra CPI unit. The C.C. members from Andhra submitted their critique of the CPI PB’s vacillating position and the failure to ‘learn from the Chinese experience’. In their critique, popularly known as the Andhra Thesis and accepted by the Polit buro of the CPI for the time being, they made serious criticisms of the Polit buro’s ‘Tactical Line’. They clearly charged the PB with reviving the position on the Mount Batten Award, mistaking the “distinction between the colonial and semi-colonial countries on the one hand and the independent, capitalist, imperialist countries on the other”. [‘Report on Left Deviation Inside the CPI’ (Draft Critique submitted by the member of the CC in its May-June 1950 meeting, In M.B.Rao (ed) Documents…Ibid. p.786]

Like the CPI(Maoist) the Andhra C.C. members also then quoted from comrade Lenin’s “preliminary Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions” for the second congress of the Communist International. We quote what they quoted from Lenin. It runs

“Sixth, that it is necessary constantly to explain and expose among the broadest masses of the toilers of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practiced by the imperialist powers in creating under the guise of politically independent states, states which are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily…” [Ibid. p.790]. The Andhra C.C leaders also justly criticized the tactical line of the P.B. for “starting with relegating the aspect of imperialist oppression and enslavement into the background, ended with clean bypassing the national-liberationist aspect of our struggle and nullifying the distinction between the revolution in independent imperialist countries and revolution in colonial and dependent countries…”[Ibid p.795]

The CPI(Maoist) is fully at one with such a view and is devoted to rekindling the fire of Telangana. Mention should be made here that the revisionist CPI leadership within years backtracked and from 1955 officially declared that what it called fake independence before was actually real independence. Thus the view on semi-colonial India was dismissed and the CPI and then the CPI(M) have faithfully following that revised position to dive into the path of parliamentarism.

Anil Biswas is saying nothing new when he dismisses very easily and perfunctorily the crucial fact of ‘Transfer of power’ on 15^th August 1947, reducing the colonial status of India to a semi-colonial one. It is known to many veterans of the communist movement that even the CPI in 1947-51 period officially rubbished Indian independence as sham. The 1951 CPI Programme also identified India as semi-colonial and semi-feudal. The leader of the British Communist Party [CPGB] and great theoretician influencing the CPI leaders in the 1940s and 50s Rajni Palm Dutt held the view in 1947-48 period that the so-called independence was merely a “a change from the direct rule of imperialism to its indirect rule”. (India Today, Editions of 1947 and 1948).

When the CPI had preferred plunging into the rosy path of parliamentary politics, even shelving the 1951 programme, it re-discovered and re-identified the ‘independent progress of India’ under Nehru. Khruschev’s betrayal provided a handle to the majority of the CPI leaders and the theory of ‘peaceful transition to socialism’ possibility of ‘fundamental social change’ in a number of ‘capitalist and former colonial countries’ by “winning a stable parliamentary majority backed by mass revolutionary movement” of the working people, etc. were easily courted by them. [Quoted in the Report of CPSU, In The Fourth Congress Documents, In Mohit Sen (ed.), Documents of the History of the Communist Party of India, Vol. III (1951-56), Peoples’ Publishing House, New Delhi, 1977 p. 295].

The Palghat Congress of the CPI in 1953-54 had already started singing pro-Nehru song in its way to strengthen ‘freedom’ and acclaimed the “significant” role played by the Indian government “In a number of important international issues”. [Political Resolution of the Communist Party of India, Adopted by the Third Party Congress, Madhurai, 27^th December 1953 to 4^th January 1954, In Ibid. p.295]. The Tebhaga struggle had already ended and the revisionist CPI leadership withdrew the Great Telangana Armed Uprising. And by then the path of electoral politics accepting Indian “democratic system” made the CPI abandon the past official announcement on the fake independence embodied in the semi-colonial, semi-feudal system. It is worth remembering that even the Second Party Congress of the CPI raised such calls like “complete severance from the British empire and full and real independence”, “self-determination of nationalities including the right to secession”, etc. [Political Thesis adopted at the Second Party Congress of the CPI, In M.B.Rao(ed), Documents of the History of the Communist Party of India, Vol. III, 1948-50, PPH, 1976, pp. 85-87]

The ideology of reformism demanded of the CPI to abandon openly the earlier view-points on the Transfer of Power by consent in 1947. Already the extended plenum of the C.C. of the CPI held in 1952-53 went into raptures to declare that in the 1952 elections “The entire party went into election campaign immediately after the all-India party conference held in October 1951”. This plenum also had shown signs of sympathy for the colossal burdens on all classes “including industrialists and merchants and other class of common people.” [The Extended Plenum of the Central Committee held in Calcutta from 30^th December 1952 to 10^th January 1953, PPH, New Delhi, 1977, pp. 199, 201]

This journey in the path of parliamentarism with the bizarre policy of equal love for Nehru, industrialists along with the common people, abandoning the fundamentals of revolutionary Marxism, led the CPI to declare the independent status of India suppressing the surrenderist policy of the government and the comprador big bourgeoisie to imperialist interests. Notable is that with Khruschev’s new line and the CPI’s topsy-turvy the CPGB theoretician Rajni Palme Dutta too uncermoniously turned a somersault by rejecting his earlier view on the fake independence of India in 1947 and joined the chorus of revisionism to declare India as an independent, bourgeois state and that the independence was “a landmark of world history”. [Rajni Palme Dutt, India Today, Preface, Manisha Granthalaya, 1970]

Anil Biswas in his writing preferred rambling to prove the independent – not comprador character – by any means but ended up in proving the CPI(M) theorization inherently contradictory as well as bankrupt. However, except parroting the Dange view on the so-called national bourgeoisie Biswas and his party have nothing to write new. What is lacking in his so-called critique of Maoists is virtual silence on the part under the sub-heading “….the country is not semi-colonial”. Perhaps Biswas felt tired of proving by any means the independent, freedom loving character of the Indian big bourgeoisie and so averted further delving into the question of refuting the Maoist theorization of semi-colonial India. Although Anil’s and the CPI(M)’s hotch-potch theory on the independent capitalist development by virtue of the supposed positive role of the big capitalists like the Tatas, Birlas, etc. and the implied view on ‘independence of India’ convinced Anil Biswas that the less is said on the latter, the better to avoid showing off big holes in the whole theorization.

Let us deal with the Maoist position on semi-colony with our acceptance of Comrade Lenin’s brilliant pronouncements. While dealing with the transitional forms of state dependence in the stage of imperialism based on finance capital Lenin clearly stated: “Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence — the semi-colony.” [Lenin, ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Collected Works, XXII, Moscow, 1974, p.263, stress in Lenin’s]. 

Anil Biswas smacks of his and his party’s bankrupt position. While weaving a web of fantastic theorization on the independent character of the Indian and other third world big bourgeoisie in the present period he takes recourse to idealist fallacy without any foundation in Marxism-Leninism. Rejecting the above formulation of comrade Lenin this revisionist coward writes, “It has been the main and general tendency of the owners of capital the world over to try to cooperate with the international finance capital and to be its partner. Indian big bourgeoisie has taken recourse to such cooperation standing own their on strong basis. It is not business of the comprador bourgeoisie. The flow of international finance has surely influenced the Indian big bourgeoisie with regard to their economic decision and role. While keeping intact their own capital, they are used to taking necessary decision to increase profit. Besides that, from the position of their own strength with the help of foreign investment they are entering new field. If ‘dependence’, ‘co-operation’, ‘relation’ express the compradorial character, then we have to say the capitalists of the whole of the third world are compradors. To tell the truth, then the bourgeoisie of many European countries are to be called comprador bourgeoisie for their keeping close relations with and partial dependence on imperialist capital….”[p.19]

We learn many an anti-Leninist sweeping decision from the above and all are premised on the stock-in-trade preconceived view that the India is independent and her big bourgeoisie have grown enough strength to dictate their own terms while dealing with the tycoons of the industrial west. First, Anil Biswas rejects the ‘diverse forms of dependent countries’ in the stage of imperialism based on finance capital. Based on such assumption, Anil Biswas and the CPI(M) are driven to the conclusion that despite influence of the ‘international finance’ the supposed ‘free’ country’s bourgeoisie do have independent role regarding profit making for “keeping their capital intact”. The novelty of Anil’s brilliance leads him to offer the second gem. He then sets up an enemy (here it is none but the Maoists) to drum into his/her ears that ‘dependence’, ‘cooperation’ and ‘relation’ do not mean loss of independence as occurs in case of compradors. Here also Anil Biswas slips into another contradiction.

The tenor of his entire write-up is a deliberate and conscious effort at holding a brief for the Indian bourgeoisie’s independent and freedom-loving powerful character. Here Anil has added ‘dependence’ to co-operation’ and ‘relation’ of the Indian big bourgeoisie vis a vis the international finance capital. What a pathetic condition of the CPI(M)’s supremo in West Bengal! We are forced to believe that the entire tie-up in different names between the small partners and their big tycoons is as innocuous and pure as ‘co-operation’ and ‘relation’! And as the state of India being led by this class of big bourgeoisie – so the CPI(M) Programme says – the inflow of capital through the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, MNCs, etc. is pure and simple ‘cooperation’, ‘relation’, etc. This is the pet argument of all the successive governments at the Centre and of the current CPI(M) led government that in such deals no strings are attached.

Anil Biswas himself pats on his own back by such silly comments considering it that his frivolous way of presentation shall let down the Maoists and assure the captains of foreign capital an unrestrained flow of capital to India, West Bengal in particular. With such pronouncements Anil Biswas actually wants to arrogate to himself the role of a Khruschevite “Lenin” by dismissing comrade Lenin’s farsighted view on a number of ‘transitional forms of state dependence’, ‘diverse forms of semi-colony’. With such use of words like ‘cooperation’, ‘relation’ Anil conceals the fact that they are possible only in conditions of equality and mutual understanding, but never in conditions of monumental dimension of giant powers poised for domination and exploitation of the people and resources of the countries with whose big bourgeoisie (obviously weak and tied to the former in numerous ways) they lend, yet the sophisticated foolish Anil Biswas problematises his and his party’s scheme by including ‘dependence’ – as if this were a mere word, not a concept. The anachronism becomes glaring. To belittle comrade Lenin’s view on dependence under the cloak of “formally independent” but actually semi-colony, Anil Biswas shrewdly pushes the Khruschevite thesis of independence of India under the leadership of the big bourgeoisie.

So for Anil Biswas and his party ‘dependence’ on imperialist capital is “cooperation”, “relation” and such sugar-coated pills with which that social-fascist organisation, the CPI(M) and its leadership has been justifying globalization, FDIs, World Bank, Asian Development Bank and such imperialist finance capital to smoothly make inroads into India, West Bengal imparticular. There always exists multi-dimensional loot and the great drain of resources, natural and man-made. We may recall the brilliant exposure of so-called selfless imperialist ‘aid’ by Teresa Hayter in Aid as Imperialism that created a lot of flutter in the 70s. Hayter writes, “It may help to crate and sustain within third world countries, a class which is dependent on the continued existence of aid and foreign private investment and which therefore becomes an ally of imperialism.” [p.9] This ‘dependence’ in the cloak of ‘co-operation’, ‘relation, etc. not only limited to comprador bourgeoisie, this ‘dependence’ also breeds a servile class of elite and politicians as well as political parties like the Congress, CPI(M), etc. Those spineless forces are danger to the Indian people and society.

Anil Biswas then sucks up the big bourgeoisie of the Third world by superciliously trampling underfoot Lenin’s and Mao’s lessons on the so-called signboard of freedom of the backward third world countries at one stroke. Armed with the CPI(M)’s revisionist thesis (the revised official view based on the topsy turvy of the CPI on the supposed genuine independence attained on 15^th August 1947 under the leadership of the big bourgeoisie) on free India from the clutches of imperialism Anil Biswas generalizes it with the power transfers in countries of the 3^rd world as symbols of genuine independence and the big bourgeoisie of those countries are genuinely national having revolutionary role in those countries, they are not compradors. This formulation of bankruptcy is placed in a round about way when Anil Biswas scrambles to prove the CPI(M)’s fallacious view by way of a vainglorious attempt, weak at its very core, interrogating the Maoists: “If ‘dependence’, ‘cooperation’, ‘relation’ express the compradorial character, then we have to say the capitalists of the whole of the third world are compradors.” Who cares to listen to Anil’s and his party’s sermon concealing neo-colonial exploitation and playing second fiddle to imperialist capital’s owners and ambassadors? Instead of citing numberless deals and cases of plunder, we only help Anil Biswas and his social-fascist party to fortify their position further with a cue from what the U.S. ambassador in India Mr. Mulford really said in a speech on 1^st September, 2005 at a meeting of the C.I.I. in Chennai: “American capital does not want to come to rule India. The aim behind this coming is solely for fulfilling the dream of India’s development” (sic.) [Source: Kalantar, 7^th September, 2005]. Does not Mr. Anil speak his Master’s Voice?

Anil, in his flight to the world of absurdity, thinks that Maoist formulation of semi-colonial and comprador character of the Indian big bourgeoisie has been demolished with the above generalization. Actually he befools himself and his party’s followers. In his over-statement through the generalization of the non-comprador character of the third world’s big bourgeoisie and their ‘genuine independence’ he foolishly challenges the Maoists: “To tell the truth, then the bourgeoisie of many European countries are to be called comprador bourgeoisie for their keeping close relation with and partial dependence on imperialist capital”. Here also the premise of the argument is to put on the same footing the big bourgeoisie of many European countries and the Indian or other third world’s big bourgeoisie. However, the clever Anil Biswas has added phrases like ‘keeping close relation’, ‘partial dependence’ etc. to avoid bitter controversy but with such phrases Anil Biswas has actually compounded his and his party’s problem further. We can also echo in Anil’s voice that the English capital has close relations with the U.S. finance capital, and it is ‘partially dependent’ on the latter on certain cases, so also is the case of Italy, Canada, France, East-European countries, etc. But what does it suggest? Does it suggest that the growth, development and flourishing of the big bourgeoisie in those European countries particularly with the U.S. hegemony of the current stage reduce them to a mere subservient and completely dependent role tied-up to the U.S. capital without any freedom like the Indian big comprador bourgeoisie? Do their relations, etc. (among the European continental countries) are comparable to India’s, or for that matter third world’s big bourgeoisie’s perpetually dependent role in multifarious ways except the possibility of courting the capital from the U.S. or any other capitalist country? Anil Biswas had better brush up his knowledge bank despite his behind the scene engagement in state administrative duties by taking a look at classics by Marx, Lenin, et al. However, it is our opinion that people like Anil Biswas can not do the basic homework as is evident in their production of page after page of shallow writings.

Anil, representing the CPI(M), is dangerously oblivious to the fact that in the capitalist countries in Europe the growth and development was not dependent on the imperialist masters as in India. The Tatas’, the Birlas’, the Goenkas’ infamous birth lay in the cradles of British colonialists. How come then Anil Biswas crows about the supposedly same status of the big bourgeoisie of the capitalist west confusing them with that of the third world, especially India’s big bourgeoisie? The Maoists are not fools like the ideologues of the CPI(M) to characterize the former as compradors.

Let us shed some light from the pages of history. Some comrades in the Soviet Union cried that after the World War II “the USA has brought the other capitalist countries sufficiently under its sway to be able to prevent them going to war among themselves and weakening one another; that the foremost capitalist minds have been sufficiently taught by the two world wars and the severe damage they caused to the world capitalist world not to venture to involve the capitalist countries in war with one another again….” [ J.V.Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism In The U.S.S.R, Foreign Language Publishing Press, Peking, 1972, pp.32-33].

It is well known to the people with minimum knowledge about the rise of the U.S.A and the fall of the U.K after the end of the World War II and the U.S. efforts with Marshall Plan and various measures to play the leadership role in the capitalist world along with suppressing communism worldwide and to encircle the socialist camp. Comrade Stalin categorically rejected the view of permanent U.S. hegemony in the aftermath of the war-torn economies of other capitalist countries (of course having genuine independence and free development of capitalism).  Comrade Stalin’s farsight proved true with the passage of time. He asserted “Outwardly, everything would seem to be “going well”; the U.S.A has put Western Europe, Japan and other capitalist countries on rations; Germany (Western), Britain, France, Italy and Japan have fallen into the clutches of the U.S.A and are meekly obeying its commands. But it would be mistaken to think that things can continue to “go well” for “all eternity”, that these countries will tolerate the domination and oppression of the United Sates endlessly, that they will not endeavour to tear loose from American bondage and take the path of independent development.” [Ibid. p.33]

The pronouncements are clear and straight-forward. Such possibility of those war – ravaged economies to come out on their own was a reality since those were independent capitalist countries, temporarily finding themselves under U.S. domination. Stalin concluded brilliantly: “…..Would it not be truer to say that capitalist Britain, and, after her, capitalist France, will be compelled in the end into conflict with it in order to secure an independent position and, of course, high profit?” [Ibid. p.34]. And here lies the truth of comrade Lenin’s thesis that the struggle among the capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their competitors are inevitable. For this Comrade Stalin adds that Lenin’s thesis of the inevitability of war is not obsolete. Mr. Anil Biswas and his party, the CPI(M), imagine that the Indian big capitalists are on equal footing with the French or British capitalists and so this leads to the extreme view that they may develop so much strength and courage to be imperialistic like the latter to crush west European competitors even at the risk of war. Sorry to state that Anil’s and his party’s thesis would have us believe about such imaginary culmination. Only a mad can blow up out of proportion that ‘American bondage’ of France, Great Britain, etc. after the war is same as the colonial or neo-colonial bondage structurally binding a 3^rd World state like India to Great Britain or latter to the U.S.A., U.K, etc.

Now we like to add a few more words on Anil’s [and that of the CPI(M)] pronouncement that India is not semi-colonial but independent. We may start with reference to Mr. Attle’s statement made in British Parliament on 20^th February, 1947 on the transfer of power. In point 14 Attle, the chief of British government made it clear that “HMG (His Majesty’s Government) believe that British commercial and industrial interests in India can look forward to a fair field for their enterprise under the new conditions. The commercial connection between India and the United Kingdom has been long and friendly and will continue to be their mutual advantage.” [In Dhirendra Nath Sen, Revolution By Consent? Saraswati Library, Calcutta, 1947, Appendices, p.318, Emphasis ours].

This was a clear statement a few months before the actual Transfer of Power. And obviously the phrase “the mutual advantage” sounds like Mr. Anil Biswas’s ‘relation’, ‘cooperation’, etc. The actual meaning lies in the fact of advantage for the British capitalists and then of the Indian big comprador capitalists nurtured and developed in the lap of the former. The top of the Indian big bourgeoisie, in the CPI(M)’s view a leader of the freedom movement, declared in 1946 itself “I don’t believe this [British capital in India] will ever be expropriated. The British firms will carry on”. [G.D.Birla’s Statement in Hindustan Times 11^th April 1946, cited in Rajni Palme Datt, India Today, Bombay, 1947, p.160]. This is mutual love for mutual advantage.

We are not referring in detail to the volcanic situation in the post-war period created by the revolt of the R.I.N., the militant mass demonstrations, the large-scale strikes by Post & Telegraph workers and others, the Tebhaga struggle, etc. that shook the British rule in India. Simultaneously, it should be remembered that with the decline of the British power, America began to make inroads in the economic field. In a leading article, Eastern Economist wrote in July 1945 that “It is a happy sign that Americans have begun taking intimate interest in Indo-American economic relations.” It also stated that as America could “maintain conditions of full employment by large-scale manufacturing and export of capital goods, India’s post war requirements can, therefore, be absolutely dovetailed into each other.” [“India Britain and the U.S.A”, Eastern Economist, 13^th July 1945, Cited in Suniti Kumrr Ghosh, The Indian Big Bourgeoisie, New Horizon Book Trust, Calcutta 2000, p.262]. So alongside the British capital, the American capital too started extending its stranglehold over the Indian economy on the eve of so-called independence.

What Mr. Anil Biswas and his party wants to hush up is the naked reality that after 15^th August 1947, India became a Dominion of His Majesty’s Government. So many people along with Mr. M.K.Gandhi died in 1948 not as Free Indian Citizens but as British Subjects! What a novelty of ‘freedom’! Such dishonest social fascists suppress the glaring facts that “In their own interests…. the British volunteered to train us in the art of ‘democratic way’ of life and the services of a British Governor – General, Lord Mount batten, to preside over the destiny of the newly created ‘Independent Dominion version of the Government of India Act. 1935…” [Dhirendra Nath Sen, ‘The Paradox of Freedom’, Vidyodaya Library Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, 1958, p.1].

 The peddlers of such “genuine” freedom suppress the fact as to how the last governor under the direct colonial rule of the British could assume the office of free India’s governor general; how two British governors and one Indian governor during the British period could continue in their respective posts after the “freedom” of India; how could the British generals remain the head of the army, navy and air force after the transfer of power? Why the appeal was made to the British army officers and soldiers to serve as before for the “free India’s” security? Why 49% percent British army officers and 94% British soldiers responded to “free India’s” call to stay back in India? Those revisionist liars shall never disclose the fact that the ‘India Allowance’ for the ordinary British soldiers was hiked as high as 50 percent. Those dishonest leaders under the garb of ‘Marxists’ hush up the crucial fact that the rebel soldiers of the Historic Naval Revolt (1946) and the soldiers who joined the I.N.A were not allowed to serve the “free India’s” military service. Their ‘offence’ was that they were patriots!

The entire system of bureaucracy, judiciary, etc. remained as usual after the Transfer of Power. And the same colonial Acts and even various sections of the Acts were retained intact. The height of the paradox of ‘freedom’ was reached when during the “Freedom at Midnight” or to borrow Nehru’s words, “Tryst with Destiny” on the 15^th day of  August 1947 the ‘freedom’ was celebrated according the first prioty to the colonial regime’s national anthem “God Save the King” and only after then the national anthem of “free” India “Jana Gana Mana….” It was not surprising at all that though the tricolour was hoisted on that day at Delhi, Union Jack was allowed to keep fluttering. This is ‘indepence’ by consent! [N. Mansergh, editor in chief, Constitutional Relations Between Britain and India: The Transfer of Power 1942-47, London, 1971-81 – Vol. XII, Cited in Suniti kr. Ghosh, India and the Raj, Vol. II, pp.317-25]

The Transfer of Power also led to the membership of the British Commonwealth headed by the British King. These are only some of the instances to be known by the people of India. Let Anil Biswas and his party answer how to justify this ‘Transfer of Power’ in the name of freedom, not a semi-colony what the Maoists have enough courage and theoretical basis to declare, to the chagrin of all such people and parties enjoying various sorts of opportunities and benefits in the post 15^th August, 1947 India. Mr. Anil Biswas and his party project things in such a fashion as if the CPI(Maoist) has introduced this view of India’s ‘freedom’ out of nothing.

Anil’s [i.e. the CPI(M)’s] knowledge of Marxism and comprehension of the post-world war II situation leading to the transfer of powers to many countries are really full of revisionist radiance and flight of fantasy. Anil Biswas does not know what neo-colony is! His sarcasm against the Maoists proves him as a simpleton of the first degree. Poor Anil Biswas says “If the analysis of the Maoists is accepted then it amounts to saying that with the break-down of the old colony imperialism took recourse to neo-colonial tactics….” [p.20] Mr. Anil makes such utterances in wonders as if the Maoists are inventing something new. He is in great confusion as the much-known Marxist-Leninist concept of new-colonialism, if accepted, will automatically destroy the whole CPI and later the CPI(M) formulation of the state character, to the disturbance of their native and foreign masters.

It is an indisputable fact that the two consecutive world wars, the march of socialism throughout the world and the massive volcanic eruptions of people’s anti-colonial struggles forced the imperialist master to come to terms with the big bourgeoisie and feudal landlords of the third world countries like India to transfer powers on the condition that the new rulers will safeguard the interests of imperialism. This indirect rule in the form of neo-colony has remained as the perpetual dependence on imperialism as evident in the so-called free countries like India. Secondly, the decline of the enormous powers of the British imperialism and vast changes in the international scenario with contradictions among the imperialist countries provided some bargaining space  to the new rulers but by no means this bargaining of different degrees meant the change of character of the ruling comprador bourgeois.

During the Great Debate the CPC under Mao Ze Dong while defining the general line of the international communist movement unequivocally stated that after the World War II the imperialists have not surely abandoned colonialism, rather they have assumed a new form which is neo-colonialism. Rejecting the revisionist propaganda of the Soviet Union which Mr. Anil Biswas and his party clings to, the CPC referred to the important feature of such neo-colonialism as witnessed in the world is the change of their old method of direct rule under a compulsive situation and they have taken recourse to a new form of colonial rule and exploitation depending on their trained and selective agents. The CPC referred to the fact how the imperialists led by US imperialism were forming military alliance, establishing military base, making “Federation” or “Community” and also through their puppets do trample and control those countries which have announced freedom. The CPC in its polemics with the revisionist headquarters of the CPSU referred to economic ‘aid’ and various other forms by which the imperialists keep those “free” countries as markets of their commodities, as source of raw materials and for exporting their capital to loot those countries and exploit their masses. Besides that, those imperialists interfere into the internal affairs of those so-called free countries and make use of the UNO to carry on military, economic and cultural aggression on them. And when all such steps fail to carry on neo-colonial measures in a “peaceful” way, the imperialists engineer coup de ta , resort to subversive activities or direct intervention and aggression.

Comrade Lenin referred to many types of semi-colonies, this neo-colonialism has assumed greater importance particularly since World War II. Comrade Lenin also referred to the fact how under the guise of political freedom of mainly the backward countries how the imperialist countries build up dependent states economically, militantly and through the investment of capital.

Can Mr. Anil Biswas refute any of the formulations about neo-colonialism as stated above? Can Mr. Anil Biswas dismiss the fact that this phenomenon of moribund capitalism at the stage of imperialism is more dangerous and more subtle with many different forms of imperialist exploitation and intervention have been the order of the day particularly since the World War II? Can our CPI(M) ideologue dismiss the neo-colonial rule of India with a number of imperialist countries now led by US imperialism? Anil’s party, the CPI(M) has the habit of using the words like ‘imperialism’, ‘Indian big bourgeoisie’s wavering role’, ‘US pressure’ and what not but as the CPI(M) programme has dictated to define India’s status as ‘free’ since 1947 can the Anils, Buddhas, Karats say otherwise even facing the stark reality of neo-colonialism in India? In any case, we the Maoists put the counter question to Mr. Theoretician Anil Biswas could you say where imperialism is absconding for decades after the “freedom” of almost all the 3^rd world countries? The CPI(M) deserves our pity for such childish talks as presented by Mr. Anil Biswas and his party suffering from acute parliamentary cretinism!

However, Anil’s party further compounds the problem while rejecting semi-colony, neo-colony and such Leninist, Maoist formulations. The CPI(M) even went many paces ahead in its habitual tall talks to prove its anti-imperialist position. In its latest Congress it even talked about ‘re-colonization’ under the globalisation spree and Anil Biswas too being used to double talks – one in party’s theoretical mouthpiece and the other in support of West Bengal ‘Left’ Front’s total surrender to imperialism and native exploiters – has recently not only talked of ‘class struggle’, of fight against imperialist institutions like the World Bank , WTO, globalisation and all such high-sounding words, he even said “Under the exploitative drive of neo-colonialism, the so-called developed nations indulged in rapacious economic exploitation in the lesser-developed nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.” [People’s Democracy, October 09, 2005]. We take note of the conscious use of the phrase “lesser – developed nations” – obviously an escape route to keep India under the CPI(M) propped Congress government and the ‘Left’ government in West Bengal, etc. out of such ‘rapacious economic exploitation’. Still it begs the question what do you understand by the “exploitative drive of neo-colonialism”? However, here too the wily hypocrat used the CPI(M)’s pet theory like “tilting towards imperialism” or “drive of neo-colonialism”, etc. i.e. the process shall not see an end and India like countries shall ever remain independent and its big bourgeoisie shall flourish and flourish with full independence despite some compromising tendency. So it is natural for Anil Biswas & Co. to declare at one go India is neither semi-colony and the Indian big bourgeoisie are not compradors, a Khruschevite thesis first accepted by the Dangeites and then the Namboodripads of the CPI(M).

 

Why Protracted Path of China?

Is Guerrilla War Suitable for Indian Concrete Conditions?

Protracted War which traverses the path of defeat..victory..defeat..final victory: 1946-51 Telangana struggle followed the Chinese path and advanced forward. Andhra CCMs proposed the line of Chinese path. But the majority in the CC later withdrew this glorious struggle. Undivided CPI had a lot of such records and the written history proves them too. But Anil without any qualm is claiming that even in “pre 1947 it was not possible to advance through the Chinese Path.” He gave the reasons as – centrally administered Indian conditions, capitalist development and link with international capital, way of life, ideology the people have and so on..

Revisionists never accept that revolution will advance. Life and the system will be changed depending on the conditions and the role played by the vanguard party. Way back in late 1988 the so-called IPKF had been sent to Srilanka to crush the movement of the Tamil militants within two weeks because the Tamil people were not supposed to be warriors. But the ‘great’ Indian Army stayed for two years, faced defeat and turned back. The ‘great’ American army is now facing serious resistance in Iraq and it will turn back with shame. People are the real fighters and heroes. One should respect them.

At the same time one should assess properly the objective conditions in a country where the revolutionary forces are preparing for war. Our party assessed the changing condition and its impact on the war in detail. Let us see chapter VI under the sub title “The Principle Characteristics of India’s revolutionary war” of our document in which four points are explained. They are “1. India is a vast semi-colonial and semi-feudal country with uneven political, economic and social development, with favourable terrain for guerrilla warfare, that has witnessed a long period of armed struggle by the peasantry and also now witnessing the ongoing agrarian revolutionary guerilla struggle in which the peasantry is playing a heroic role.

2. Our enemy is big and powerful having centralized state machinery and a well-equipped modern army.

3. The Communist Party, the guerilla army and the agrarian revolutionary movement in India are still weak.

4. Our country is a prison-house of nationalities where some nationalities are engaged in bitter struggles against the Indian state to achieve their right to self-determination.” (Strategy & Tactics, p.38-39)

The above characteristics are further analyzed and said that, “The above four principal characteristics determine the line for guiding India’s revolutionary war as well as many of its strategic and tactical principles. It follows from the first and fourth characteristics that it is possible for our Party and People’s army to grow and defeat the enemy. However, it also follows from the second and third characteristics that it is impossible for our Party and our People’s army to grow very rapidly or defeat our enemy quickly. Hence the revolutionary war in India will be of protracted nature.” (Ibid, p.44)

Firstly the acute unevenness in the economic and political development in India shows it glaringly that the people’s war will pass through a zig zag path like in China. Despite the distorted development of capitalism we strongly accept it that for the existence of an army of proletariat the people’s democratic revolution will be led by this class both ideologically and physically. The vast majority of India’s population being the peasants, ours is an agrarian revolution to uproot the semi-feudal system existing in collusion with the comprador bourgeoisie and imperialism. From comrade Mao’s teachings we learn that in the backward countries of the third world the revolution can not but assume protracted people’s war. Contrary to this, the countries where capitalism is the main form of exploitation, where bourgeois democratic rights got established, where the proletariat can prepare itself through long legal, parliamentary and other bourgeois democratic forms, the revolutions will take the form of armed insurrections as happened in Russia.

The objective situation of extreme unevenness in India makes it clear that it is not possible to launch a country-wide insurrection at a time. The vast countryside along with huge gaps in communication and transport system provides ample opportunity to the revolutionaries to establish red powers in different areas and develop many of them as base areas in the concrete situation in India.

India is also a land of rivalries between several imperialist powers, exploiting classes, political parties and factions. All this provides great opportunities for the revolutionaries to grow in strength capitalizing on the contradictions in the enemy ranks.

The Chinese experience of guerilla war is most suitable in such an objective situation to grow into a stupendous force with every passing day by attacking the vulnerable areas of the enemy at different geographical regions. This way the centralized armed forces will be forced to get scattered as well as weakened, making it possible for us to move ahead.

Being a backward country India is a theatre of irreconcilable contradictions between various nationalities and the central and state machineries, forcing the state armed forces to get constantly and increasingly engaged in battles. This feature further weakens the Indian ruling classes and their armed forces, to the advantage of the revolutionaries in India.

All those aspects justify our position on basically following the Chinese path. Indian specificities shall further help us deliver blows after blows on the enemy.

In short, the victorious struggle in Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchia and the on-going struggles in Peru, Nepal, Philippines and many other countries of the 3^rd World cogently prove it that Indian revolution will follow the path of the Chinese revolution. Any revolutionary path is beyond the imagination of Anil & Co. So it is natural that those dark forces will be ever ready to oppose our tactics and strategy.

It is true that we are weak in strength in comparison to the enemy forces but we are definitely a steadily growing force. Mr. Anil Biswas has expressed his sarcasm for our Party’s expectation of the possible changes in the correlation of forces in course of people’s war. Yes we the Maoists in the battle front can chart out the future course of eventual weakening of the enemy on the basis of India’s objective conditions and our increasing subject strength as well as from the rich experiences of the Chinese Revolution and revolutionary wars in many other countries. We say that people’s war following the Chinese Path is a protracted war in our semi-colonial and semi-feudal conditions. Obviously it can not be a path of simultaneous armed uprising like in Russia but even in the broadly Chinese path Indian characteristics are also taken into account.

This Chinese path i.e. a protracted war by the initially small guerrilla force led by our communist party against a powerful state makes it imperative for us to start off the war with the underground preparations. In Russia comrade Lenin’s Bolshevik party devoted itself doing the spadework for the coming opportune moment of insurrection. In this period of activism legal, parliamentary forms were made use of alongside non-parliamentary activities. Like China in India too the starting point of communist activities is synonymous with the launching of armed struggle. That does not mean we reject all other possibilities of using legal or open work. They are necessary but secondary in nature in the continuing agrarian revolutionary activities.

Our weakness in regard to our armed forces, areas of operation, weakened international communist movement, existence of a social fascist party with a considerable following along with the existence of many other powerful political parties, the existing state with a fake democratic cover, etc. are only temporary features. Many of such obstacles will be removed and are being gradually removed with the surging forward of our great struggle. Comrade Stalin clearly said that revolutionary movements grow by leaps and bounds. In India too we are growing like the CPC during the period of people’s democratic revolution.

In short, by following the Chinese path of protracted war we the Maoists have emerged on the scene as the real force to destroy the semi-colonial and semi-feudal system. However, our mistakes might stall this process only temporarily but victory is ours. Let Mr. Anil babu live in the cosy path of legal Marxism and cast aspersions on the Maoists, the people of India and also the state understand too well who the real Marxists are in India and which power is emerging with great speed and depth to sweep away all the fake Marxists like the CPI, CPM along with all the reactionaries in India.  

Guerrilla war will sustain and develop: The changing conditions of India and other backward countries, the imperialist penetration into the entire globe and the transformation of the colonies after the world war II into neo-colonies of different types and all such factors have had their impact on the development of the war. As Mao said, “All the guiding principle of military operations grow out of the one basic principle: To stive to the utmost to preserve one’s strength and destroy that of the enemy.” So, in the entire period of our guerrilla war the enemy will try its level best to crush our forces when they are growing. At the same time the PLGA will try to harass, resist and push out the enemy forces to establish its control and build new people’s political power.

To intensify guerrilla war, active mass participation is an essential one. Guerillas will fight in the plains and even in cities. But the ideal for the guerrilla forces is favourable terrain and adjacent plains. Here a long period is needed to consolidate our forces due to the strength of the enemy and the development of the roads, communications and such other factors. Naturally we shall first concentrate in the favourable terrain to preserve our forces and prepare for battles, which should be fought on guerilla principles.

The entire period of people’s war has three stages. Now our forces are relatively weak and the enemy is waging strategic offensive. However, the enemy too is preparing its forces with its short and long term plans. The strategic areas where we are working already the enemy deployed big forces there, and fortifications of police stations and camps on the one hand and construction of new roads on the other are going on. That means through the tactical counter offensive plans we are resisting enemy within the strategic defensive stage of ours. Whereas the enemy is trying to push us further interior for isolation from the masses through its concentrated encircling offensive campaigns (CEOC) within the strategic offensive stage. But the nature of our TCOC will be limited at the beginning and CEOC of the enemy will be well co-coordinated campaigns for certain period. Later to keep its control the state governments and the Centre and from within the command structure of various forces will increase their pressure on us. However, they will fail as we consider simultaneous development of political movements and people’s resistance in political and military front as essential part of supporting the people’s war.

In the past two decades the war of resistance led by our party achieved a good experience, which will be useful to advance the war. Due to the unevenness in the struggle to develop the resistance in 10-12 states it took time. Even now in some states no doubt we are a weak but a rising force.

After the Second World War imperialism has developed low intensive conflict policy, through which the enemy forces will also be adopting the guerrilla forms in their operations. These methods will be studied to defeat them. But this will also be followed as campaigns of operations on the enemy forces.

However, the formations of the PLGA will develop in a process, whereby it will grow further to form regular units because without having regular army units it will not be possible to push the enemy from our favourable areas. Here Anil referred to Mao to argue that if the small formations continued for long they will perish and the struggle will not advance. It is true; the units of the PLGA should be transformed into bigger and better fighting units to defend themselves from the enemy and that process is going on.

To transform the Guerrilla Zone into Guerrilla Base or Base we need regular units, which can be engaged with the enemy and guerrilla war can be changed into mobile war and positional war. No doubt in the Indian conditions it will take some time. But the rapid changes in the world order and the crisis-ridden society will give more scope to organize the people for the people’s war.

To Transform the Guerrilla Zones into further consolidated areas the destruction of the enemy power and forces is a must. Here Anil and all the parliamentary parties attack us. They will say that we are sitting in the deep forests far away from the people and committing mindless violence. In comparison to others Anil exercised well and tried to use Lenin and Mao frequently with convenient stress on the Indian conditions. However, in his eyes Marxism-Leninism is not both a telescope and a microscope.

Through the past experiences we understood how to advance and how to retreat depending on the situation. However, we have made some mistakes in our advancement. Certainly we will learn further to advance. But without understanding how to wage guerrilla war further, the advancement may become slow and the organized enemy will attack further. Modernisation of the enemy forces or the changing conditions of the state armed forces with the support of the reactionary parities like the CPI(M), CPI, Congress, BJP, etc. are a crucial reality. We do not wear blinkers on our eyes. Imperialism means war. Politics is the continuation of war. So the war should be fought further perfectly.     

 

Indian Base Areas Will not be formed like in China

Anil in his article commented that due to many changes in the world and India liberated bases cannot be built like in China. Yes, we too accept this and have planned depending on the concrete conditions of our country. Anil and his accomplices engaged in the anti-Maoist conspiracy thoroughly read (read misread) our Strategy and Tactics document. Nowhere did we write in the document that we are going to build base like in China. Why then Anil is maligning us? If such fellows openly reject any theory on base areas written and practiced by Mao, then their sincere cadres will challenge them. Already in the ML camp itself, some people are accepting the Chinese path but they are never taking up arms nor do they think over developing bases. Then their own cadres are challenging them to translate the line into practice. For that reason the rightist camp of the so-called ML leaders failed to convince their cadres.

We are not daydreamers to dream for ready-made basis in Indian conditions. Even in China too they lost bases many times over to the enemy and the main forces were shifted from there to relatively better bases. But the CPC never changed the armed formations and fought with the enemy forces unwaveringly. They adopted the policy depending on the given conditions; if one base area was established it did not necessarily survive till the end in all cases.

Mao in his article “Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan”, [Chapter VI (Vol. 2)] dealt in detail on base areas there and the sub-headings there were “1) The type of Base areas, 2) Guerrilla Zones and Base areas, 3) Conditions for establishing Base Areas, 5) Forms in which we and the enemy encircle one another”. He explained in his lucid way.

“What, then, are these base area? They (base area) are the strategic base on which the guerrilla forces rely in performing their strategic tasks and achieveing the object of preserving and expanding themselves and destroying and driving out the enemy. Without such strategic bases, there will be nothing to depend on in carrying out any of our strategic tasks or achieving the aim of the war. It is a characteristic of guerrilla warfare behind the enemy lines that it is fought without a rear, for the guerrilla forces are severed from the country’s general rear. But guerrilla warfare could not last long or grow without base areas. The base areas, indeed, are its rear.” ( Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, Vol- II, Foreign Language Press, Peking 1975, pp.93-94)

He further explained the conditions that should be fulfilled to establish a base: “A base area for guerrilla war can be truly established only with the gradual fulfilment of the three basic conditions, i.e., only after the anti-Japanese armed forces are built up, the enemy has suffered defeats and the people are aroused”. (Ibid, p.99)

Now let us see what we wrote concretely: Chapter VII of our Strategic and Tactics document dealt with the issue of how Maoists here will establish Guerrilla zones and base areas. Our party has a clear understanding about how to select proper places at first to sustain, preserve and how to strengthen our forces. This lesson we took not only from China but also from the specific history of our country for establishing bases. We had the experiences then of 46-51 Telengana, Naxalbari, Srikakulam, etc. to draw proper lessons. We wrote: “Basing on the laws of protracted people’s war in India, in order to confront an enemy, who is far more superior in strength, the revolutionary forces will have to select areas, in which the enemy is relatively weaker and which are favourable to the revolutionary forces, and develop the revolutionary war there. Our country has many such areas that are strategically important for the people’s war where Liberated Areas can be established. These Bases will act as the lever or fulcrum for coordinating and advancing the people’s war in the country and for seizing political power countrywide.” [Strategy & Tactics, pp.50-51]

Due to the uneven development struggle will break out in the forests and in the backward areas. That happened in 1946, 1967 and in the 1980’s. Generally, backward plains are the struggle centers, however it needed to expand into favorable terrain and other pockets within a short time. Otherwise we could not sustain so long and it is against the laws of protracted war. Mao said that “the plains are less suitable than mountains.” That does not mean we will not work in the plains. Actually if we check the history we find how our party initiated anti-feudal struggle in North and South Telangana plains and within a short period we extended to Dandakarnaya to transform it into our guerrilla zone and later we have considered to develop it into our base area. In Bihar too we initiated anti-feudal struggles in Magadh region and then extended to favorable terrain areas. However in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa states majority areas had provided us with favorable terrain.

Even in Karnataka we started anti-feudal struggle in Raichur district, which is totally plain area. So we shifted to Western Ghats, which has a favourable terrain, people and sharpened contradictions. Let us see West Bengal experience also. We selected Bengal-Jharkhand-Orissa borders as a guerrilla zone and sent cadres accordingly. Why we selected this area? Our party had an understanding regarding the social fascist CPM. How it will try ruthlessly to crush us. We have had Naxalbari, Kolkata, Debra and other experiences. In any circumstances we need a support area where our forces can stand to advance the struggle facing the ruthless state-based offensive attack of the CPM. What we expected history has proven it as correct.

Our party initiated class struggles in areas which are mainly plains (Gorbeta) with some light forest and plantations cover and that too is plain land. If we confined ourselves only to the Bengal part the intensification of guerrilla war would not be not possible facing the heavy deployment of paramilitary forces by the CPM led ‘left’ front.

So, to establish bases we have to intensify the guerrilla war by developing a mass base and it is a general condition. We had that mass base in majority guerrilla zones of the south, central and East Indian pockets. Whereas in Telangana we sustained and advanced over 15 years. Later now we are facing an ebb in North and South Telangana. When the guerrilla war broke out in the mid ’80s onwards we resisted the enemy forces. To wipe out guerrilla forces and mass base the enemy attacked very frequently on us. Keeping the Indian conditions in mind we extended the guerrilla war into a vast area covering 1,20,000 sq. km. area under the impact of the guerrilla zone. Again our party has been trying to regain control in Telangana. That battle is going on. But Anil misleads the readers in his article by giving a false and dark picture of our struggles to show Maoists are a miserable failure. But we communists hold aloft the red flag in as many as 12 states.

In the Chinese conditions itself Mao said “Many regions will remain guerrilla zones for a long time” and further he said that “To sit by idly, neither moving nor fighting, or to move about without fighting, would be an intolerable attitude for a guerrilla unit.” (Ibid, p.93) It means the armed units should be engaged in battles with the enemy regularly to sustain and extend the area. This constant battle is very much needed.

Whatever mistakes we have made, time-to-time lessons are also drawn by our central committee. Due to this approach we extend the struggle to newer and newer areas. The terrain and people’s support gave us a scope to sustain in the past 25 years. This extended area, small guerrilla units among the people and recruitment of the local youth are all paving the way to build guerrilla bases where people’s democratic power in embryonic from has taken birth and is growing towards the base area. The present area of guerrilla war is never comparable to the areas fought in China. Yet we are on the move.

Even in China for the growth and transformation of guerilla zones into base areas they had to flush out the enemy forces and then built bases. Some areas were built directly as bases. In an adverse condition some bases will be lost then they will remain as guerrilla zones. At the time of strategic offensive too, if revolutionaries make biggest mistakes then again strategic equilibrium or strategic defensive stage will come. A reversal in the process, so to say. In Mao’s words, “Mistakes in our leadership or strong enemy pressure may cause a reversal of the state of affairs described above, i.e., a guerrilla base may turn into an area under relatively stable enemy occupation. Such changes are possible, and they deserve special vigilance on the part of guerrilla commanders.” (Ibid, p.97)

So, some times our units and area may shrink, but taking the support of nearby areas again our forces will be built because we have the mass base. If that is not there where from new recruits come in the midst of war and serious enemy attacks. Advance, retreat, again advance to newer and vaster areas is the process to strengthen guerrilla bases and forces. The area under our control and influence is bigger in size with greater mass support and greater number of committed cadres than in the struggling areas of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and many Latin American countries. We are glad to say that the size of our struggling areas is greater than that of current guerrilla zones of Peru, Philippines, Turkey, etc.

At the same time China’s development was entirely different in comparison to ours. China got the help of the USSR, Vietnam depended on China and Russia. Today there are no red China and red Russia with the communist role of internationalism. The Maoists know this from the beginning. At the time of Naxalbari the Chinese Communist Party was with the Naxalbari struggle and the CPI(ML) instead of supporting the CPI(M). Soon the world socialist base turned into a revisionist base and started maintaing relations with the Indian revisionists. In an adverse conditions we are advancing. Where the party and guerrilla forces are weak, we are receiving help from where we are strong in our country. All the areas are interlinked. So we keep sustaining and the enemy is getting more and more scared.

Let us take a look at Nepal. The CPN(Maoist) built its bases on its own not as it occurred in China. Even then the CPN(Maoist) is controlling 80-85% of the total area of Nepal and only a few days back some cities and districts HQ come under the control of the PLA. Before establishing the bases there was no regular war between the two opposite armies. The PLA is there with Nepal’s own peculiarities and it is growing by leaps and bounds.

Let us look at Srilanka and the LTTE. They have no proletariat ideology but they have active support base among the Tamils. So they sustained. Due to their accurate calculation on the enemy forces they could defeat the strong Indian forces also with the mass support.

In Indian conditions the process is different but now with the extended area, suitable terrain and the people tested in the class struggle will give sleepness nights to the enemy forces. The areas that the Maoists selected certainly represent the advancement of thinking on building the bases. That is why our party clearly cautioned that, “while taking into account factors favourable to the enemy, we must, in the course of carrying out the protected people’s war, take many more precautions and we should establish liberated areas by developing guerrilla zones keeping in mind that it is not possible to build liberated areas in quick succession.”  (Strategy & Tacics, p.45)

 

‘Spectre’ of Revolutionary Marxism Haunting

Social Fascist CPM

Now let us check once again how Sundaraiah expressed his and his party’s supine position after the of India-China war on armed struggle and on going underground. Rejecting the fear of “Preparations for Telangana type Armed struggle” Sundaraiah gave the undertaking, “Let me once again categorically deny the slander that we are preparing to go underground for making preparations for a Telangana type armed struggle to coincide with a future Chinese invasion of our country…..If we have had any thought of going underground, how is that myself, instead of going underground, had started setting up our party head quarters at New Delhi and fixing up cadres for our English and Hindi organs be published from there? How is it that I had shifted my headquarters of our party?” (Documents of the Communist movement in India, vol. XI, p.47, NBA, Kolkata)

In this background we have to understand Anil Biswas’s article and his understanding regarding armed struggle and guerrilla war. The party and its central and state leadership from 1925 to 67 abode by the peaceful means and always avoided the question of seizure of political power by armed struggle. At the time of the Telangana armed struggle its leadership accepted protracted path. Actually, the armed struggle was advanced and it sustained in Telangana. But the central leadership did not even try to extend this armed rebellion to bordering states or countrywide. The majority CC supported Ravi Narayan Reddy, the betrayer of the Telangana armed struggle, when it was advancing and finally the struggle was withdrawn.

At the early stage of the movement there was no clear-cut idea, regarding the seizure of power. But in course of anti-feudal struggle the party’s Telangana leadership first accepted the Chinese path and advanced the struggle. At that time Chinese revolution advanced boldly towards a victory facing many a hardship, ebb and tide. After the advancement of the Telangana armed peasant movement the party leadership had no idea as to how a vanguard of the revolution will play a correct role to organize its own class.

In the history of the Indian democratic revolution, the CPI leadership had not shown the communist consciousness which is a must for a vanguard party. The history of the Indian Communist movements can be divided into periods beginning from 1925 to 46 (the period ending with the Tebhaga movement in Bengal, that started spontaneously and the CPI supported them and withdrew against the opinion of militant leaders of Kakdwip and other places); 1946-51 (out-break of Telangana struggle and later official withdrawal was announced by the CPI leadership) later 1952-67 (parliamentary politics period) and 1967 (revolutionary forces broke away from the CPM and Naxalbari spring thunder echoed countrywide) onwards as revolution vs. revisionism. Struggle went on. At the time of Great Debate itself Mao warned, “Revisionism is the main danger”.

The transformation of the CPM into a ruling class party was completed and in the Indian context the revisionists turned into social fascists and the struggle between   revolutions vs. social fascism was sharpened. But the mask of Marxism they wore was not torn completely. To misguide the masses the CPM was cleverly utilizing its Marxist phraseology without any militant struggle. Indian social fascists are now playing a role model as saviours of the existing system against the revolutionary movement. When the democratic revolution has not been completed in a country like ours, imperialism, feudalism, comprador bourgeoisie shall never allow a peaceful process towards the seizure of political power. If a revisionist party adjusts itself for a few assembly and parliamentary seats or legislative power in one or two states it can never play the role to seize the power. The Communists will always lead the people to achieve victory in their own country and will play a vanguard role to win the world revolution.

So the current debate is a useful one to further polarize the forces to intensify the class struggle in India as a part of world revolution to counter revisionism and social democracy on a global scale.

In Oct. 3-9 issue of ‘Peoples Democracy’, Anil Biswas wrote an article captioned, “Once again haunted by the ‘spectre of communism’. In this article he gave a sub-title ‘Inevitability of class struggle’ in which he referred to Marx and Engles freely to show himself as if he were a genuine communist and stands for class struggle. He wrote “In a social set-up overwhelmed by class exploitation, there is no way one can expect democracy to function. Whatever little there is by way of democratic norms comes out of the womb of class struggle and is never a merciful gift of the ruling classes”.

He further explained that class struggle would be in three forms viz. economic, political and ideological struggles. There is no mechanical separation among the forms of struggles. Anil Biswas clearly avoided the form of war that must be the main form to seize the power. All other forms will assist to advance the war once it breaks out. Here lies the cunning nature of the CPM leadership. In one para he wrote that “economic struggle alone can never change the character of exploitation, not can it end exploitation. Capture of state power alone can lead to a change in the correlation of production relationship.” Even he wrote that “struggle is waged in various forms, in and outside of the parliament towards the ultimate aim of winning of the state power by the working class.”

To lead even low level political and economic movements there is no compulsion on your party to be a communist. Bourgeoisie will always try to rally the masses with them on certain political and economic demands that will enable them to fortify their power. To overthrow feudalism, bourgeoisie fought many battles in Europe by putting political demands. In our country parliamentary parties in the Opposition and even the NGOs are exposing the party in power on certain issues at a particular period. To cover its ‘Marxist’ face it needs more attractive slogans and calls than any other parliamentary parites. True Marxists will lead the political and economic struggles to seize power.

Anil Biswas babu perhaps you have heard the proverbs like ‘The cat goes to temple after killing mice to take sanyas’ and ‘Devils chant the mantras’. Now your role is the same. You and your party belong to the ruling classes suppressing the little democracy left in your ruling states, and being confined to parliament and legislative assemblies you chant from Marxist classies and quote from Marx, Engles et al and talk occasionally of class struggle and seizure of power. Well! ‘Comrade’! Long live the CPM and its Central Committee under your ideological and organisational leadership! You enjoy the prerogative of this mammoth state machinery: chant Marxist phrases unopposed and hunt with the state to kill revolutionary Marxists in India.

 

Indian Revolution is a Part of World Revolution

Our document on strategy and tactics clearly asserted that, “The history of social development throughout the world since the emergence of class divided society is the history of class struggles itself. In the process of social development the revolutionary struggles of the peoples of different countries proceed through different stages and these struggles will have their peculiar characteristics too; but they are always subordinate to the general laws of development of the history. The motion of development of world history through class struggle is towards the very establishment of a society without class and without exploitation, towards socialism and communism. The revolutionary movement of the Indian people is also advancing through different stages; it has got its own peculiarities too. But it remains within the general laws of development towards socialism and communism.

The world-historic objective of the international proletariat and its vanguard, the Communist Parties of the whole world, is in full conformity with the laws of development of history. The historic goal of the working class of India, as well as of the whole world, is to establish socialism and communism in the world as a whole.

The Great October revolution was nothing but an inevitable outcome of the revolutionary struggles of the international proletariat and the people and the Great Chinese Revolution was the continuation of that process. The Indian Revolution too is an inseparable part of the revolutionary struggles of the international proletariat and the people.” (Strategy and Tactics, p.11)

The document further said that “India, a vast country inhabited by 105 crores of people, rich and abundant in natural wealth, is one of the strongest bases of imperialism. And that is why the progress and success of the new democratic revolution of India, directed against imperialism, comprador big bourgeoisie and feudalism, will not only liberate the Indian people from the ruthless exploitation and oppression of imperialism but will also elevate to a new stage the struggle of the people of the whole world for independence, democracy, socialism and peace. The success of the new democratic revolution of India and the establishment of a people’s democratic state in India will play an important role in accelerating the world proletarian revolution and will signify an important historical advancement towards the establishment of a new world free of imperialism, capitalism and the exploitation of man by man.” (Strategy and Tactics, p.13)

In this background, here we have to see Anil’s arguments. Anil Biswas wrote that the contradiction between socialist camp and imperialist camp still exists. Our documents says that, “Another fundamental contradiction-the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp-that had characterised the world for almost six decades from the Great October Revolution, went out of existence at present with the restoration of capitalism in the last Socialist Base of the world proletariat, People’s Republic of China, after the demise of Com. Mao in 1976.

However, the struggle between socialism and capitalism will continue to exist through out the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Today it is manifested chiefly in the ideological, political and cultural spheres and as a struggle between the two contending classes – the proletariat, representing the forces of socialism, and the bourgeoisie, representing capitalism. The victory of revolutions in one or a few countries and the re-emergence of a socialist camp will once again bring the fourth fundamental contradiction into existence.” (Strategy and Tactics, p. 12)

The CPI(M) considers the present China, Cuba and North Korea as socialist countries. So, naturally the CPM will find socialism in the post-Mao China under so-called market-socialism. The CPM claims itself a genuine Marxist party, adopting Marxism in the concrete conditions of India. So certainly, it will claim, the contradiction between socialism and imperialism still exists.

If one analyses the class character of the CPM one finds easily that it never represents revolution. Let us see its tall claim. Recently when its ideologue and first ranking leader Sitaram Yechury led a multiparty delegation team to Nepal. Peoples Democracy the central official organ of the CPM, reports on Nepal visit in the first week of October 2005 claiming that “The solidarity visit was fruitful” and “as a gesture of reciprocation the Indian delegation invited a delegation of the seven party alliance in Nepal to visit India at their convenience.” The leader of Indian delegation further assured that, “There cannot be any question of India harbouring Nepali Maoists”.

When the Nepali Maoists are fighting to overthrow the monarchy and have established base areas and a revolutionary army and are controlling more than 85% land of the Himalayan Kingdom and representing absolute majority of the masses the CPM extended all support to the state of Nepal, and Nepali bourgeois parties, and revisionists were welcomed and supported by the CPM. It only glaringly shows that counter revolutionary forces like the CPI(M) never support revolution and always represent the interests of oppressor classes politics. Actually the delegation represents the views of Indian expansionism using the name of Marxism and to serve better the Congress/UPA government the delegation went to Nepal with a big fanfare. One can remember the proverb: birds of the same feather flock together.

 

Our Stand On Elections

In European countries capitalism and its institutions came into existence through intense fight against feudalism. Whereas in our country feudalism and imperialism co-existed and the parliamentary institutions were formed with the blessings of the British Crown. Before it was Constituent assembly and after 1947 we had a parliament yet the laws and rules have not changed much. An independent and feudal India changed into colonial and semi-feudal India and then into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal India.

When the first General elections took place in 1952, the undivided CPI participated in it. However, participation in the electoral process started during the colonial period itself. At that time of the first general elections the Telangana armed revolution was withdrawn to participate in general elections. Within the Party it was a big debate whether to continue the Telangana struggle or to withdraw. The majority of the CC opted for elections. The Telangana cadres and masses opted for continuing the struggle. At this juncture a delegation went to Russia to meet Com. Stalin and after coming back, they falsely propagated that it was advised by the then international leadership to participate in elections.

It should be remembered that the leaders of the Congress considered that the British rule was necessary and a boon for India. The colonial government supported by the opportune-seekers portrayed a rosy picture of the British sense of justice and fair play’. Under the growing pressure of the freedom movement, in the year 1861, the ‘British government decided to install a legislative body in India. The Indian Council Acts, 1861 came into being. Right in the following year emerged India’s first legislature. In a state like Bengal, the Legislative Council of Bengal was born in 1862 and within 30 years its membership rose to 20, out of it 7 were elected. The colonial government introduced the process to derail the mounting militant outbursts and diffuse the tensions.

The significant steps that followed were (i) Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) enabling one Indian to be a nominated member of the Governor General’s Executive Council, along with an increase in the representatives, to the central and state legislatives. (ii) The Montague Chelmsford Reforms of 1919-20 creating two central houses delivering some limited responsibilities to some Indians along with allowance of some responsibilities to the Indian ministers as regards states, an improved dual-rule system and (iii) the most important, the Government of India Act 1935 — ironically that also constitutes two-thirds of the so-called free Indian’s Constitution — bringing about a change for greater participation of the natives in India. The 1935 Act, under the colonial system based on Lord Linlithgow proposals, was initially opposed by the CPI and the Congress but was soon accepted as a step forward, ‘marking a non-violent path to freedom and democracy’. Indian business magnets and Gandhian leaders soon jumped to the prospect of ministry-making under this Act. with all its limitations, even “remaining silent about Dominion Status” [Sumit Sarkar, Modern India, Macmillan India Limited, New Delhi, p.338].

On the very next day of the RIN revolt, on 18th February 1946, the British Prime Minister Attlee announced the formation of a Cabinet Mission comprising Lord Pethic Lawrence, Sir Strafford Cripps and Mr. A.V. Alexander. The Cabinet Mission declared a plan on the future Indian constitutional set-up prior to the transfer of power. On June 26, 1946, P.G.Griffiths, leader of the European Group in the Indian Central Legislative Assembly, said in a speech: “India, in the opinion of many, was on the verge of a revolution before the British Cabinet Mission arrived. The Cabinet Mission has at least postponed, if not eliminated, the danger”. On 6th July 1946, the Congress Working Committee approved the Cabinet Mission Plan. Later, on 5th March, 1947, Stafford Cripps said in the British Parliament that there were two alternatives before the British Government either to maintain British direct power in India by a considerable reinforcement of forces or to make a political transfer of power on the 1947 settlement. Cripps was candid to declare that the second option was the best possible one. This alone could ensure British presence through the transfer of power to the Indian reactionary classes, making them junior partners in defending British interests and avoiding an anti-imperialist revolution.

British imperialism studied the gravity of the situation. The February Declaration of 1947 led to its expected end by dishing out the notorious Mountbatten Plan to grant Dominion Status with the partition of India. The February Declaration made it clear that no constitution for India drawn up by a Constituent Assembly be acceptable if not “in accordance with the proposals” contained in the Cabinet Mission Plan. Revealingly it further warned that if the Indian Constitution is not approved by Britain, the British government would have to “consider to whom the powers of the Central Government in British India should be handed over”.

This notorious Declaration of February 1947 was the significant policy statement for the peaceful transfer of power on 15 August 1947. This makes it abundantly clear what role the Constituent Assembly in India could play, lacking in any power of formulating a Constitution for India. The very Constituent Assembly was also not formed on the basis of universal suffrage of the Indian people in a condition free from imperialist pressures, conditions and manoeuvres. It was not the sovereign will of the people and the preliminary preparations for the formation of the Constituent Assembly were carried out by the governors of provinces according to the directive of June 16, 1946 from the British Governor General. The legislatures formed under the Government of India Act 1935 had the so-called elected representatives based on property and qualifications along with membership of Princely states. What is notable is that the  provincial governors, acting on the strength of the Government of India Act 1935 called the provincial legislatures into session to elect representatives to the Constituent Assembly. The more ridiculous side of this farcical democratic basis of “free India” is that the most important personalities like Jinnah, Nehru, Ambedkar, etc. were not even ‘elected’ members of such legislatures formed and dictated by the colonial rulers.

A few words are necessary to shed light on the CPI role vis a vis the above farcical process. Soon after the operation of the Government of India Act 1935 the CPI joined the anti-revolutionary process and could send, in 1937 itself, its leader Bankim Mukherjee to the united Bengal legislature. In 1945, Jyoti Basu, Rup Narayana Roy and Ratan Lal Brahman could become the members of the Bengal Legislative Assembly. And then the CPI had sent Soam Nath Lahiri to the Constituent Assembly. The training in the notorious colonial “democratic” process, in however small way, had ultimately helped in opening the floodgates of parliamentarism in the future.

Already, we have seen in this article the CPI leadership did not show any interest nor did it make any concrete analysis and plan to rally the people under its leadership (the then undivided CPI) to overthrow the Raj. Due to this wrong understanding and liberal bourgeois outlook, economism and class collaborationist opportunistic outlook of the 2^nd International the party leadership left the path of struggle and shifted to Delhi, to build an open and legal party which continues to participate in elections without any preparations for armed struggle.

This right opportunism of the leadership further consolidated and took a full shape when the international communist movement got divided over two lines for capturing the state power. One was the path of peaceful transformation advocated by the Russian leadership and the other was for armed struggles, may be protracted or insurrection, depending on the concrete condition of a country. The path of peaceful transformation suited to our great leadership’s world outlook. So the Danges, Nambudripads, Gopalans, Rajeshwars, Sundaraiahs etc. all jumped to the politics of elections and pledged not to go underground and not to build an underground party, the people’s liberation army for ever. So the forces within the Party that always represented the revolutionary outlook revolted against the bourgeois headquarters of the party and the spring thunder over India started pealing from Naxalbari.

Marxism was made into a dogma not as a guide to practice by the revisionists. Marx and Engles fought with these dogmas and enriched the dynamic theory further. Then Lenin further fought the dogmatic understanding of the 2^nd Communist International (CI) and formed the 3^rd Communist International to unite the workers of the world in order to win the world socialist revolution.

Way back in 1871 Marx made a devastating criticism of parliamentarism. The parliament as a body is formed once in three or six years to decide which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress the people. Lenin wrote that professional Cabinet Ministers and parliamentarians, the traitors to the proletariat and the “practical” socialists of his day had left all criticism of parliamentarism to the considered bourgeois anarchists, and, “on this wonderfully reasonable ground, they denounce all criticism of parliamentarism as “anarchism”!!”[V.I.Lenin, State And Revolution, In Marx Engels Lenin, On Historical Materialism, p.355]. Lenin added this in a mood of exposure: “To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament – this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary – constitutional monarchies, but also in most democratic republics.” [Ibid, p.355].

Lenin bitterly criticized the revisionist cowards of Russia who opposed the steady revolutionary preparation for insurrection. He wrote: “One of the most vicious and probably most widespread distortions of Marxism resorted to by the dominant “socialist” parties is the opportunist lie that preparation for insurrection, and generally the treatment of insurrection as an art, is “Blanquism”. [Ibid. p.579]. Lenin adds that Bernstein also accused Marxism of Blanquism. [Ibid. p.579]. Blanquism means the seizure of power by a minority’. It is an utterly revisionist view preached by Indian revisionists that the actual preparation for the revolution will start when the majority of the people switch over to the revolutionary front. The situation for the revolution in Russia was created by the objective condition and mainly by the bold non-parliamentary preparations made by the Bolsheviks. Even in April 1917 Lenin anticipated two possibilities: “Possibly the peasantry may seize all the land and all the power” and that “…. It is possible that the peasants will take the advice of the petty-bourgeois party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, which has yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie, has adopted a defencist stand, and which advises waiting for a Constituent Assembly…” [From V.I.Lenin, Letters on Tactics, Marx Engels Lenin, On Historical Materialism, Ibid. P.517.] Comrade Lenin did not bother when the Socialist Revolutionaries charged the Bolsheviks with Blanquism for making the preparations for materialising the upsurge.

Lenin’s Bolshevik Party participated in elections in the European context but such participation was not obviously for ‘providing relief’ from within the exploitative system but to root out the illusion of bourgeois parliaments. Indian social democrats like the CPI, CPI(M) etc. have had enough of experience in parliaments, legislative bodies in India but is there any voice heard to expose parliamentary democracy? Rather we find the reverse i.e. how to add to the dangerous illusion itself. They even dream a false dream of social change by using the Parliament in India. The CPI, the CPI(M), etc. have also joined the ministry in the crisis-ridden semi-feudal, semi-colonial set-up.

When the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Mensheviks joined the bourgeois ministry Lenin made a devastating criticism. Lenin said “…Revolutionary democratic phrases to lull the rural simple simons, and bureaucracy and red tape to ‘gladden the hearts’ of the capitalists this is the essence of the ‘honest’ coalition”.[Ibid p.557, Emphasis by Lenin]. This is also the actual role of Indian social democratic parties. And if one ransacks the huge body of CPI or CPI(M) literature one hardly finds such Leninist critiques of parliamentary politics. Revisionists cannot change themselves. They only justify participation in the socalled democratic process of semi-colonial semi-feudal India, which actually needs agrarian revolution through protracted people’s war.

Hitler attempted to capture power in Bavaria in the early 1920s by a coup when the communists enhanced their strength formidably in parliament and outside parliament. But he resorted to constitutional electoral means plus terror tactics with the full-throated backing and material support of racist sections of the bourgeoisie. Thus pushing aside and traumatizing the communists and other anti-Fascist forces, the Nationalist Socialist Party of the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag in 1931 and 1932, and Hitler was installed as chancellor by President Hindenburg in 1933. And then the edifice of the bourgeois parliamentary system exposed the skeletons in the cupboard when electoral competition was finally abolished. Obviously this was an extreme situation of acute crisis of the capitalist system. And it should be stated that Hitler had already Storm Troopers and Mussolini’s party in Italy had set up fascist militia.

The present parliamentary system that emerged prominently in England and European countries during the anti-feudal struggles played some role during bourgeois democratic revolutions. Such parliaments at that stage reflected some democratic aspirations of various classes of people.

However, at present the most fundamental task of elections is legitimizing the right of some parties and individuals by any means to serve the existing system. An atmosphere is created by the state and all parliamentary parties in India including the CPI, CPI(M), that the upcoming election must bring in Himalayan responsibilities on the people to exercise their precious right and as if their failure shall push them towards the doom’s day. The Indian people have grown habituated to such rhetorics during every election.

Elections, stability of the system, providing a semblance of democracy are all state matters. No class rule behind the state can afford to ignore the very crucial task of winning the support of the people. ‘Participatory democracy’, Parliamentary democracy’, ‘Greatest democracy’ and all such rhetoric have come up to strengthen the stability of the existing class rule.

The great successful revolutions, the Russian and the Chinese – with socialism existing for decades was turned upside down by the revisionist camps and social fascist governments when capitalist roaders within the party captured party head quarters after the demise of Stalin and Mao. The Khruchves, Dengs who were in the party advocated capitalist ideology and captured the power and strengthened the hands of imperialism and the revisionist parties where genuine communist ideology taught by Marx to Mao took the back seat.

In all the countries where capitalist roaders captured power with their revisionist rubbish destroyed the socialist base politically, economically, culturally and in every negative sense possible. In India the CPI(M), CPI, etc. have enjoyed the crumbs of power through electoral victories in not more than three states. The CPI(M) claims that in West Bengal its 29 years stint has been possible for people’s struggle. Anil babu where is that people’s struggle? Can you deny the actual reality that such a long stay in power in West Bengal has been possible only by his party’s purging off even the threat of militant economic movement, let alone the actual movement and by providing the great safety value to the ruling classes as their agents to tide over all crisis the system is facing by misdirecting the people’s wrath?

Revisionism in the garb of parliamentarism was also obvious in France and Italy after the rout of fascism in World War II. During the period of the anti-fascist war, the French Communist Party organized a 500 thousand (five lakh) people’s armed force at one time liberated Paris. Thorez, the modern revisionist general secretary of France (CPF) returned to France in November 1944 after a period of self-exile abroad and handed the armed forces to the bourgeois classes in exchange for an official covetous post of vice-premiership and participated in the elections. It was the first National Assembly in November 1945 under the auspices of the de Gaulle government. France was, till then, seething with wrath against the new set-up. The CPF did not ask the people to boycott elections, it participated in it and formed the “Left majority” in the Assembly. But the fond hope of the revisionist leaders was shattered within years with the amendments to the electoral law by the ruling French bourgeoisie. The CPF saw a downturn in the elections of 1951 securing 103 seats but lost 79 seats. In the ensuing elections in 1958 with a further revision of the electoral law and the loss of the earlier militant role of the CPF, it secured only 10 seats. In 1968 when the youth movement spread to France the CPF lost its prestige and credibility further by its calculated indifference and evasive role. The CPF, which had a glorious role in the anti-fascist resistance struggle, is now a paralytic parliamentary force in the arena of electoral politics.

Like Thorez in France, Togliatti and his trusted coterie in the Italian Communist Party derailed a great prospect of advancing towards socialism after the fall of the fascist regime of Mussolini during the World War II and after. The Italian Communist Party boasted of a 256,000 strong armed guerrillas and insurgent workers. They liberated Milan, Venice and more than 200 other large and small cities and executed fascist chieftain Mussolini. Like Thorez, Palmiro Togliatti, the general secretary of the Italian Communist Party, returned from abroad after 18 years to Italy and began to preach the dangerous capitulationist line of bringing in socialism “not by resorting to force and insurrections” but by going through the process of reforming the social structure. His parliamentarism, like that of Thorez, later received the praise from Khrushchev and other revisionist parliamentary parties like the CPI in our country. Togliatti too destroyed the huge potential of advancing towards socialism after the heroic resistance by the party’s armed force and militant workers against the fascist Mussolini regime.

The Chinese Khrushchev Liu Shao-Chi too advocated a similar line after the war of resistance against Japan ended in 1945. He too preached that “armed struggle in general has come to a stop” and that “the main form of struggle in the Chinese revolution has now become peaceful and parliamentary, this is a legal struggle and parliamentary struggle” and “all political issues should be solved peacefully”. [Quoted in Satya Ghosh, “Boycott Elections” some Lessons of Recent History, Liberation, 3 January 1969]. Had Mao Tsetung and the revolutionary leaders of China not bitterly fought and rejected such capitulationist parliamentary politics China would not be transformed into a People’s Democratic Republic on 1 October 1949.

So also the revisionist leadership in the CPI readily accepted such a capitulationist theory in the 1950s and then the CPI(M) too theoretically and practically accepted such parliamentary revisionism adding some catchy left phrases. And now Indian parliamentary revisionism of the CPI or of the CPI(M), etc. has grown into a dangerous enemy of revolution in this country.

In Chile Com. Salvador Allende who came to power by peaceful means tired to change the law and rule of the country was brutally murdered in 1973, where ‘our’ CPM bosses transformed themselves into lawmakers using the mask of Marxist phraseology to misguide the people. The Indian big bourgeoisie understood the essence of the CPM’s ‘Marxism’, so they put up Buddha as a role model Chief Minister of India. An uncompromising Allede of Chile or Aidit in Indonesia will be murdered and the Buddhas will be praised for taking the peaceful process to power by supporting the Congress without joining the ministry at the Centre or accepting the plum post of the speaker by the CPM’s MP Somenath Chatterjee. Mr. Karat like people will try to ‘guide’ or to be guided by Sonia, the U.S. ambassador David Mullford, the World Bank President, etc.

Social democrats preaching revisionism cleverly try to make it a point that many people in India do still have expectations from the existing parliamentary system to deliver the goods. Well, we do accept that despite frequent elections and all their murky features many people still cast their votes. Several factors lie behind such false consciousness and it is a fact that the reactionary parliament will still continue.

Firstly, the state, the political parties in parliamentary politics and particularly the crude parliamentarism preached by the CPI, CPI(M) like parties are to be held responsible for such misplaced hope.

Secondly, the lack of a strong revolutionary alternative will take some sections of the masses to the polling booths or those sections are coaxed into voting by the leaders of the ruling class parties and even many are forcibly led to the polling booths by the goons of the parliamentary parties.

Thirdly, in the stage of protracted people’s war with the existence of two state powers, one the highly powerful Indian state of the ruling classes and the other the burgeoning alternative revolutionary power centers in the villages, expected to gain strength through battles with the former, many people, except the conscious sections, shall not altogether reject the existing state along with its organs at one go, particularly the legal, administrative and parliamentary system.

Fourthly, and what is most important is, in the path of people’s war in a country like India with extreme unevenness in the economic, cultural, social and political spheres, it does not lead to a simultaneous explosion of the crores of oppressed people throughout the country, or to a series of revolutionary upsurges within a short span of time in the early stage. In the long-drawn armed struggle, the parliamentary system of the bourgeois-feudal classes, particularly in a country like ours, will continue with all its perverted as well as increasingly refurbished features for many years like caste, communal and other varied factors. Here it is in order to state that even after the great October Revolution in 1917 capturing the main power centers in the cities, the revolution had taken a few more years to crush the remaining bourgeois power centers in the villages.

Here in India, the great worshipper of parliamentarism, the CPI(M), reiterates formulas senselessly learned by rote to kill Marxism by presenting a somewhat soft, state-friendly version of Marxism in the name of these great Marxist founders.  The CPI(M) leaders have got used to resorting to the cunning way of quoting from Lenin’s book “Left-wing” Communism – An Infantile Disorder, written against the wrong tactics of some European parties working in a specific context, deciding to skip participation in the bourgeois parliament. Such revisionists never pointed to the wealth of Lenin’s Writings concentrating on building a revolutionary party, making preparations for revolutions and also the need for boycotting elections during the revolutionary upsurge. Even in that valuable book meant for correcting the mistake of the West European Marxist parties (i.e. in the insurrection path), comrade Lenin stated the possibility for such participation in parliament “to expose, dispel and overcome these prejudices…” [‘bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices” of the peasantry and workers [V.I.Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism – An Infantile Disorder, In Marx, Engels, Lenin. On Historical Materialism, Ibid. p. 656] This too was in the context where the seizure of power by armed force was the central task of the revolution and any occasional participation was linked to it. Besides, in the Russian experience the Bolsheviks sometimes participated, sometimes boycotted, utilizing whatever tactic served the central task best — i.e. preparations for the armed uprising. But here, the revisionists while utilizing Lenin’s quotes, participate day-in and day-out in all parliamentary/legislative elections without any link to the armed struggle.

Imperialism will try to survive by using all the possible methods and will always try to smash communism because it bears diametrically opposite class ideology, which is engaged in a bitter class war. The two ideologies try to overthrow each other. For the bourgeoisie to stay in power and to strengthen the bourgeoisie dictatorship are the main aim. Imperialists adjusted with feudalism to continue in power and the native agents backstabbed the revolutionary fruits and those agents try to enjoy the fruits of power from inside. Even US imperialism assisted to dismember the USSR and now sanctioned ban on Russia trying to come out from its economic crisis. Here in India too Indian ruling classes absorbed the parliamentary left and put it in front of the people for their survival. This is the lesson for us to learn from the Indian parliamentary experience.

So boycott elections is the way to advance the agrarian revolution. There is no doubt that all forms of struggle come into the category of tactics. But some forms will be outdated in a given conditions. So the elections as a form of struggle are of no use in the Indian condition. The role of the CPM, the CPI and other parties like the RSP, the FB are helping imperialism and feudalism to get a breathing space to face from the outbursts and rebellions of the militant masses.

Simultaneously, it is to be made clear that boycott of elections does not mean abandoning myriad forms of people’s struggles. Nor does it mean not intervening in the on-going electoral political process. It only means that instead of supporting this or that party, or putting up candidates, one widely propagates the politics of boycott. Practice has shown there is enormous response to this propaganda, even if people finally go and vote due to lack of a powerful alternative. The level of the campaign depends on our subjective strength in a particular area, and will assume various dimensions. In the areas of intense struggle, with popular support of the people, and its armed detachments, the boycott call would be an action slogan concretely resisting the farcical electoral process through a mass upsurge (like what is often seen in Kashmir). Here, the Old Power will be sought to be smashed and the New Power established. In areas where the movement for alternative people’s power has developed and the enemy forces are actively locked in battles with the revolutionary forces, the boycott call will mainly assume the form of an agitation slogan. On the other hand, in other areas where revolutionary movements are at a low ebb or yet to take shape, the election boycott, for a period of time will be a mere propaganda slogan. But in all areas the political focus will be the same.

So, Anil Biswas and co. need elections as a line for their survival and to serve the semi-feudal and semi-colonial system as faithful servants. If the Maoists get engaged in a war to destroy the system itself they will be called anarchists and phrases from Marx to Mao can be put forward to confuse the masses. The CPI(M) will claim that its struggle with the Maoists is an ideological battle, but thousands of forces will be deployed to crush them in West Bengal. Even at the time of last elections to suppress the people 25 army helicopters roamed about West Bengal. Midanapore, Bankura and Purulia district, which carried the message of resistance to the people, witnessed the actual show of the CPM.

The people who are living in the guerrilla zones generally boycott elections. The administration, police and the parties in power utilize force to see it that votes are cast. It is another thing whether they will cast votes or oppose.

The CPM and other parliamentary communists and socialists are losing day by day their electoral appeal. The trend of wining the seats has declined all over India except in Bengal for various reasons. Even those so called CPI(ML) parties which have been participating in elections never have recorded expected performance as they claim to use the parliaments as centers for revolutionary politics. Secondly they failed to develop any real tactics to advance the revolution. Till the final victory the drama of elections will be continued. Without a strong red army and base areas total boycott and stopping the very process of election will not be possible, but the politics of boycott and the reasons for boycott and the debate on the forms of boycott, about the stand taken by Maoists etc. will continue. Whatever it may be, our strategy and tactics document defined our approach towards elections in the following way, “In the concrete conditions of semi-colonial, semi-feudal India where bourgeois democratic revolution too has not been completed and uneven social, economic and political conditions exist, the objective conditions permit the proletarian party to initiate and sustain armed struggle in the vast countryside. In the name of preparation for armed struggle, participation in election will only sabotage the revolutionary movement. No peaceful period of preparation for revolution is required in India, unlike in the capitalist countries where the bourgeois democratic revolutions were completed and armed insurrection is the path of revolution.” (Strategy & Tactics, p.47)

Further it concluded that “Hence we can conclude that boycott of elections, though a question of tactics, acquires the significance of strategy in the concrete conditions obtaining in India as it is not at all compatible with the strategy of protracted people’s war.” (Ibid. p.48)

 

Leading Day to Day struggle of Masses

To cover up their misdeeds and alienation from the masses the CPM supremo in West Bengal Anil Biswas is hurling stones at us by saying that the Maoists never stand by the people in their day-to-day struggle. He also pointed out the supposed shortcomings the Maoists are facing for their own understanding. It sounds like if they come over, it will be ok. Thanks to Anil babu for his logic and suggestions! But he cleverly avoided to disclose actually what role his party and its government is playing in West Bengal where they have been in power and where there is virtually no opposition, so to say. Let us see some points he has raised.

According to the political line of our party it will organize mass movement on political and day-to-day economic issues. While mobilizing the people it should set its task according to it. Once the armed struggle was started all preparations would be to intensify the revolutionary war in multiple ways. According to Mao, “… War is the main form of struggle and army is the main form of organisation. Other forms such as mass organisation and mass struggle are also extremely important and indeed indispensable and in no circumstances to be overlooked, but their purpose is to serve the war. Before the outbreak of a war all organisation and struggle are in preparation for war….After war breaks out, all organisations and struggle are coordinated with the war either directly or indirectly.” (‘Problems of War and Strategy’; Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, Vol.-II, p.221)

Our main, principal and immediate task will be to establish liberated areas. So whatever initiative we will take will be to rally the masses ultimately for this purpose. We are saying it clearly. A communist will rally the masses to prepare them to take part in the struggle for the seizure of state power.

In the Past 25 years the erstwhile two parties viz. the CPI(ML) People’s war and the MCCI initiated, developed, advanced and led directly the oppressed masses of 6 states mainly Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Dandakaranya, Chhattisghar, Orissa and we have made our prence conspicuously felt in some districts of another 8 states like Maharastra, Madhyapradesh, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, Uttarpradesh, Punjab, Haryana and having general political influence in another 4 states. Besides that some forces stand in our fold in states like Kerala, Delhi, Gujarat and Uttaranchal. We led hundreds of varities of mass struggles in open, secret, legal and illegal forms and in many places we fought in joint forums – in many places we fought in joint fronts and even under cover organisations where all types of open and legal activity of our party and revolutionary mass organisations are virtually banned.

See for example in Dandakaranya (which is comprised of some districts of Chhattisgarh and some of Maharastra) the two state governments never permitted us for open activity even for a mass rally in any name. So in the past 25 years we hosted thousands of rallies small and big where people attended with full of revolutionary spirit by breaking the orders of the ruling classes. It goes to Andhrapradesh to prove how lakhs of people participated in our open rallies when the Congress permitted our open and legal programmes for a few months after the lifting of official and unofficial ban in vogue since 1978.

In Bihar some time we got permission and rallied masses for more than a decade and half. But later particularly since 2000 onwards we, the erstwhile two parties, were not permitted in general to organize open rallies. Even when we formed the CPI(Maoist) our public meeting at Patna too was disturbed and the state govt. virtually clamped a ban. Even our ‘friend; Anil Biswas and his lieutenant Buddha never permitted our open programmes in South Bengal districts such as Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia.

When we entered Uttarpradesh, Chhattisgarh and Madhyapradesh the state administrations showed all hostilities and deployed armed forces within a few weeks. To say this does not mean that we are not justifying our shortcomings but the reality is that we have not generally got any legal and open opportunity to stand by the oppressed masses in their day-to-day struggle. Facing many a hardship we sustained and stood by the people in all their difficult times to rally them for small and big struggles.

The glorious history of our movement and the people’s acceptance of us as their leaders is our strong point and base for sustaining, advancing and extending to newer areas with a strong committed cadre and people who have been steeled in the firmness of the class struggle. Let us see some important struggles of day to day life of the masses in forests, plains, urban, sub-urban and working class areas, educational institutions and the remote places of the rural belts. Our struggles touched upon the social problems and resolved many contradictions among the masses and the contradictions between the oppressed and the oppressor. To do all this thousands of comrades were martyred and thousands of thousands had to bear the brunt of the state violence. People lost their properties worth crores of rupees, hundreds of man-days were lost due to the worst ever-highhandeness of the state and central armed forces.

 

Land struggle: Our Bengali babu Mr. Anil Biswas has set off a false propaganda that we Maoists do not lead land occupation struggle. Actually speaking, for such votaries of so-called land reforms through state blessings can not realise what the revolutionary land reforms mean. Land issue is the key issue to be resolved in the entire period of agrarian revolution. When we were weak we rallied the masses for all types of lands including waste lands, forest lands and the lands occupied by the landlords and bad gentry of the villages. In some areas we led the people to occupy temple lands and absentee landlords’ lands. Later when our mass base gradually increased especially in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharastra, Chhattisgarh peasantry occupied lands of the landlords under our party leadership. When the peasants entered the land of landlords’ states armed forces too entered and thousands were arrested. Where feudal authority was the final word the landlords and other influential sections of the villages keep in possession the lands of the government. Even to protect those landlords administration tried its level best by sending out its armed units.

When the landlords left the villages the poor and landless peasantry occupied them and it was distributed by the Krantikari Krushak (Peasant) Committees (KKC) or sometimes by land distribution committees formed by the village masses under the guidance of our party. In some places we issued land papers of our own where those areas remained under the guidance of KKC or Revolutionary Peoples’ Committee – the embryonic from of the People’s democratic government. On the whole the poor and landless peasants have got 10 to 12 lakh acres of all types of lands in the past two decades of struggles. What Mr. Anil Biswas has said is baseless and a deliberate lie. Ours is not obviously state supported efforts as are common with the CPI(M).

Some lands in Andhra Pradesh could not be cultivated by the peasantry, where the movement was weak. To cultivate the entire land occupied in the land struggle is not possible due to various reasons. For the limitation of the frame and purpose of this article we are not writing in detail though we have facts, figures and the analysis of land struggles with us. 

Whereas in some states the CPM/CPI land grab is basically confined to submitting applications to Tahasildars, the BDO and the collectors. If the leader of the local unit of the CPM knows the laws then through his methods a few hundred acres government waste lands are given on temporary basis i.e. 1-2 years of pattas to the landless peasantry. In many cases the influential leaders themselves of the CPM were the landlords, whose lands were occupied in certain areas of Andhra Pradesh. Even in some cases they were killed by the revolutionary masses. The killings in West Bengal, even among the ruling ‘left’ partners, are a part and parcel of land disputes. In Goaltore, Gorbeta and Sarenga we fought for land with the CPM landlords and the neo-rich who had developed rapidly in the past three decades of the CPM rule.

 

Wage Struggle: As a part of rectification of our 1970’s left sectarianism, in the dark days of emergency (The CPI, the CPM’s position on emergency is well known to the people) we entered the villages and rallied the masses in Andhra Pradesh on wage struggles. For increased wages of agricultural laboures and Kendu (Bidi leaves) leaf labourers we organized them in struggle forums and the struggles were a great success. Anil Biswas like cowards were roaming about the roads of Kolkata at that time. So they never bothered to study the ongoing history of the people in our country. In Bihar we fought on the same issue and built the confidence of the people.

If the wage struggle starts in one village it will spread to 30-40-50 villages also at a time and unity among the agricultural labourers gets increased. In the past 25 years we rallied thousands of labourers to participate in these struggles. In all the construction sectors daily mazdoor wages, particularly the wages of bamboo cutting labourers’ rates, were increased in around 2000 villages in Andhra Pradesh, Maharastra, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, which Anil Biswas can never imagine. The wages of one and two rupees in 1983 now have increased to Rs. 80 to 95. The wage rate of bamboo cutting mazdoors increased 15-20 times in 5 states. Kendu leaf collection rates also increased every year. Our Party has been leading these struggles standing in the forefront. The wage, which people gets is supposed to meet their minimum household needs but it is not even enough to buy rice.

Less wages are the general phenomena in the South and North Bengal districts. The CPM will always claim that under its rule the life of an agricultural labour is going well. The fact is that in any government department work and in agricultural work government decided rates are not received by the majdoors. So, for the minimum wages our party and the revolutionary mass organizations are trying to rally the people through wage struggle. This will not be acceptable to Anil Biswas and his CPM. General rate for different types of work in majority villages is Rs. 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50. It will depend on the area, work, the unity and consolidation of the semi-proletariat of that area and our party comrades are moving among the people to rally them into struggle while Anil-Buddha-Biman controlled ‘left’ front government is sending thousands of troops to suppress us.

If a poster appears on the day-to-day demands of the people in any village of Midanapore, Bankura-Purulia-Nadia and elsewhere in West Bengal within an hour or two special police batches will come and remove it. Earlier till 2001 CPM’s village leaders removed those posters, and since they were questioned infront of the people now the Alimuddin street and the Writers’ Building are sending the troops to tear them. Anil Biswas will not accept this bitter truth. But the alacrity of the administration and the CPI(M) offices to stop postering by the Maoists only proves how much they fear us and our views.

 

Struggle Against All Forms of Feudal Oppression: After the set-back of the 70s again we initiated our work in the plains of Magadh, Telangana and others areas. After a break-through in the anti-feudal struggles, we picked mass leaders as party organizers to send them to newer areas to develop class struggle. The Peasants fought under our leadership against the tyrant landlords and other bad gentry. In some strategic parts the erstwhile two parties the CPI(ML)(People’s War) and the MCCI entered to build up anti-feudal struggle. At some places our party had to rally the people to fight with the tribal heads who control the power like autocrats.

At many places big and small landlords developed their own cult figures in the villages and controlled every thing. Without destroying the feudal power, alternative people’s power can never emerge. So, the people were mobilized in both open and secret forms depending on the concrete situation of that particular area. Those landlords who fought against the people with the help of the police and organized others were captured and brought before open people’s court for trial and the PLGA units implemented the verdict of the people. In Magadh and Telangana majority of the landlords surrendered, a few were punished and a section shifted to cities. The land of the majority of the landlords was seized and distributed. Within 6 to 10 years time feudal hold on the villages was torn asunder. Our party led a bitter anti-feudal struggle. They resorted to scores of forms of repression. Repressors were countered, resisted and defeated. Then only our movement sustained and advanced. Telangana witnessed many more struggles with a strong mass bases. New forms of resistance developed and the worst ever repression was let loose in comparison to 46-51 period. This is a fact which the CPM leadership dislikes to accept. But the fact will not change despite the likes and dislikes of such people.

Caste oppression is the worst type of oppression in rural India. We fought and are still fighting against it. In Bihar and Andhra landlords generally belong to the upper castes. We led massive struggles against feudal practices like upper caste domination, untouchability, bonded labour engaging the Dalits and other backward castes. Those struggles helped establish our leadership among the oppressed people. This built a strong unity among the oppressed and the barricades of casts were broken. All those struggles were fought daily and our party led them directly. In the earlier period the party organized armed squads and led these struggles, later the village party; mass organisations and people’s militia units led them.

Anil Biswas like people have never led this type of anti-feudal struggles. In post 1946 period of Telangana, Tebhaga and Punapra Vayyalar struggles the cowards like Anil Biswas and his veteran comrades were never seen on the struggling fronts. The revolutionary sections of the undivided CPI fought these struggles, and those comrades who revolted had been representing the revolutionary aspirations of that glorious past and they later joined struggles in Naxalbari, Srikakulam, Mushahari, Kanksha and other areas led by our party. Whereas the CPM bosses are using the glorious history of the late 40’s till today for their revisionist class collaborationist practice and to get some seats in the elections.

Naxalbari burst forth in the backward areas of North Bengal. Comrade Lenin visualized the breaking down of the chain of capitalism first in the most backward, weakest part of the western world. Again current struggles have been going on in Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia. Most backward areas are witnessing the struggles once again. But this time also the CPM, the counter revolutionary party, has been facing revolutionary struggle as it witnessed during its UF government in 1967 in West Bengal. We are sorry Mr. Anil Biswas. Revolutionary struggles do not spare the reactionaries standing in the way. The CPI(M), the Congress or the BJP – none can avoid Maoist revolutionary fire.

Before the outburst of Naxalbari it was an ideological battle with them. Later their roles and characters changed totally. So, the current battle is not only ideological but it also becomes military battle as state administration is controlled by the CPI(M). Without fighting such a reactionary force in the battlefront it is impossible to defeat it. The ideology of the CPI(M) is social fascism, pure and simple.

The CPM is well consolidated at Panchayat level and is executing its total control on the village through it. If panchayat accepts one daily mazdoor then only he will get work, loans, shelter, social relations and what not. If one opposes the neo-feudal class suppression then he or she loses all. These new rulers are more aggressive than the old traditional type of landlords.

Grampanchayat system is the power-executing centre for the CPM. It is more corrupt, and by which all the resources of the Panchayat and government-sanctioned money will be controlled by the Panchayat leaders belonging to the CPM. A neo-feudal class has emerged in rural Bengal. This class is close to the CPM and this class will only get the loans and work. Even daily majdoors will not get work anywhere if they oppose the CPM’s diktats. In this adverse situation we are with the people. Hundreds of people moved to gherao the panchayat in Salbani area of Midnapore in 2001. Within 20-30 days the total situation changed. And within 30 days big contingents of police forces were deployed. Massive arrests went on. Agricultural labourers and other peasants of these areas were arrested and kept in jails for 6 months or one year and later now they are moving from one court to another regularly. More than 1400 were booked in different cases.

 

People’s Courts: To control the village landlords we organized the panchayat (village courts) to resolve the disputes among the people. Majority of the rural Indians never approached the government courts for justice. They followed the traditional system. When revolutionary politics began to spread in the backward areas and people were organized in the mass organisations the form of resolving the contradictions among the masses was utilized by us, by changing its nature and content. Then onwards almost all the 12 states witnessed frequent sitting of people’s courts.

 

Anti-liquor Movement: It was the first ever popular movement led by our party in Andhra Pradesh. The Party stands by the traditional caste ‘Gouda’, who depends on sales of toddy and in all the villages the business was controlled by landlords turned contractors or the landlords themselves. The Gonds fought first with them under party’s leadership, later the struggle was consciously taken up by the party as anti-liquor struggle in which people participated in large numbers.

 

Students’ Struggles: Way back in the late 60’s our party trained the students mainly in political movement. This tradition was restarted after the set back of the Naxalbari struggle. So after the dark days of the Emergency our students’ unions rallied the students in all their just demands and this tradition has been continuing in various parts of this country. But due to serious enemy offensive and the ban on students’ unions in Andhra Pradesh concentration of our work there is to some extent weak. Hundreds of student leaders were martyred in the battlefront in the past two decades. In some places work is going on but currently it is having no such strength to impact the countrywide movement. In the period 1996-1999 in Andhra Pradesh alone more than 130 full time youth leaders were shot dead by the state special forces. In the rest of the states youths are the main pillars in our mass organisations, party and the PLGA. However we have political influence on majority of the students and youth but consolidation is now weak. Our party will fulfil this task in the coming days.

Contrary to this development of ours the SFI led by the CPM has been turned into a goonda bahini without any commitment in Bengal. It never initiated any political struggle in the past two decades rather it is struggling hard to check its honest members from joining the Maoist movement. As it is now the rulers’ organisation in Bengal so with whom will it fight? The SFI has been used as a muscle force by the CPM leaders. In the rest of India its presence is weak and is never recognized as a struggling union. However, according to its 2003-2004 report the SFI had 32,88,760 total membership of which West Bengal had 13,03,482; Kerala- 8,57,729; Andhra Pradesh-4,92,528; Tamilnadu and Tripura had more than one lakh each, but this force never stands to lead anti feudal and anti-imperialist struggles or any mentionable political movement. Then what is the purpose of this force? In similar manner youth organisations’ membership was shown as 1,42,89,210 of which West Bengal’s share was 75,73,243. The role of this youth force is well known to the Bengali people how Alimuddin Street controls it for non-Marxist activities.  

 

Struggles on Women’s Issues: Women’s mass organisations under the leadership of the CPM turned into a basically non-political body. In our struggles women’s participation started from wage struggle. In rural India majority of the women are wage labourers. Oppression on them is very common. In Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Dandakaranya, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and many other states our party rallied women and they fought under the party’s leadership courageously. Half of our PLGA fighters are women. This is a glorious history in women’s movement in India.

Struggles were built against dowry, child marriages, forced  marriage, rape and all types of atrocities and equal wages for men and women, was widely popularized among the people. So widely such issues are taken that in remote areas too women’s organisations and party units carry on them with utmost seriousness. But the main aim of all these is to advance the war and to strengthen the party, the army and the united front

In the CPM’s political organisational report of the last Congress were 5 pages (119 to 123) were allotted to report on women’s front activities but concretely speaking that is no report describing what struggles they have led for women. They reported with all pride that in the propaganda for “election campaign” women participated and that there was little scope to work “against the communal forces” and social impact of neo-liberal policies.  So the Maoists and the fake Marxists stand far apart on women’s question in India.

In the same report under “Violence against women” it is stated that some mobilization was made directly in Haryana, Bihar and Tamilnadu” (p.122) But ‘our friends’ Anil-Buddha-Biman trio’s police attacked and harassed the participants when a forum called, ‘Forum against violence on women’ organized a seminar in 2003 in Kolkata. This was the actual struggle in the women’s front taken by ‘great’ Anil Biswas and police Buddha by means of harassing hundreds of women in Midnapore-Bankura-Purulia districts. Mothers and sisters of our party, of the PLGA and mass organisations have been facing police high handedness regularly.

 

Struggles for Remunerative Prices: Apart from land, daily wages, anti-liquor and other anti-feudal struggles, revolutionary peasant organisations rallied peasantry on many issues. The Party propagates its stand first then underground kisan unions, different cover organisations, joint fronts, issue-based temporary committees are formed to lead the struggle. Here the nature of struggle forms and the purpose itself are totally different in respect of the CPM and the CPI(Maoist) positions.

So, for remunerative prices for paddy, cereals, sugarcane, chilli, tamarind were taken up by the peasants under our leadership. For forest produce also we took struggles in many forms. When the forest department did not accept the demanded rates the local small business men purchased it or in some cases the party opened collecting and purchasing centers under different covers because all the struggles and participants are facing innumerable problems under the state.

When peasantry suffered from regular draught co-operatives were formed to collect and supply paddy seeds to the needy peasantry.

 

Struggle for agricultural development: In the backward areas where cultivation methods were not much developed and the capital for cultivation was less in all the cases the party initiated forming different organisations. Such as vikas committees in 5 states. Even in the plains of Telangana (Majori area comprising 75%-80%, some plain parts of West Bengal, Uttarpradesh and North Bihar were covered by us in different forms for the above stated purpose. At every step peasantry fought with the state apparatus which is acting as a stumbling block.

The peasants demand water for irrigation, the government wants to build roads in the name of development, but actual purpose is to despatch armed forces quickly. So, we rallied people and built new tanks, repaired old tanks and canals, wells and sank wells, etc. for drinking water, formed seeds and fertilizer cooperatives, etc. Telangana, Dandakarnaya (parts of Maharastra and Chhattisgarh), Jharkhand, Bihar and Andhra-Orissa border are the main centres of revolutionary struggles for real development.

 

Government Reforms: Our party led people have seen in their own eyes the govt. reforms in the past 10/15 years. When the anti-feudal struggles succeeded and revolutionary movement advanced the central and state governments planned reforms along with repression. In the name of counter revolution, the World Bank and imperialist agencies pumped money into the rural India. At first Govt. departments tried to supervise the works but failed due to public protects. Later the govt. pushed the NGOs to work in struggle zones and they tried to bribe a section of the leadership but failed in their efforts. However, a few individuals joined with the NGOs, government administration, mainly with the armed forces. Thousands and thousands of rupees was declared as allotment but was not spent for the people or on the said projects. Ruling class leadership and officials swallowed more than 1/3 of the allotted amounts. Majority of villages stopped taking govt. projects due to the education imparted by the party. Some alternatives were also discussed and planned by the masses where collective labour and sramadan programmes were initiated mainly in more than 4000-5000 villages of the 6 states.

In such government sponsored reforms the West Bengal state government organized Ban Surakha Samiti (BSS), a pet project of the World Bank. West Bengal comes first to implement this scheme. Through this scheme also the CPM tried to control the villages and filled its men in it. Similar projects were started in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Madhyapradesh where we are working. On this issue also we fought with the state and the central govt. and imperialist agencies. We have organized parallel organisations to protect the forests. People fought against forest mafia and against indiscriminate felling of tress by the landlords and rich peasants. The RPC, the KKC and other mass organisations regulated the felling for the necessary use of the village people.

The Food for work programme of the Central government was also not yet implemented properly. Our mass organisations audited the records and seized the rice, wheat and distributed them freely to the needy. Fair price shops were also checked and demand was made to supply ration properly. Some time hundreds, some time thousands mobilized to take part in such movements.

The majority of rural India the villages witnesses weekly markets. Businessmen sell their goods for high prices. Struggle committees and other types of mass organisation units are formed to check and control the prices.

Against privatisation we fought in Andhra Pradesh, where the Privatisation of Road Transport Corporation (RTC) was stopped. Teachers, employees, women supported and participated in Nationality struggles, the struggles for separate state. On ecological issues, etc. people participated under our leadership. Actually thousands of party members and thousands of mass organisation activists and leaders led masses on their partial issues regularly. Very few examples we quoted in answer to Mr. Anil Biswas’s attack and misinformation and the conspiracy of misguiding the people to justly his party’s and government’s anti-people policies. Anil Biswas has actually resorted to slanders against us to cover his organisational weakness and crisis in the party and the government. 

The CPM and its leaders will also rally the people but for different purpose. The CPM and its ‘left’ front parties are transforming the consciousness of the masses to improve their vote percentage in Assembly and Parliamentary elections. To do this they will issue catchy calls and organize some meetings but all they add nothing to develop revolutionary consciousness of the people.

 

Forming of Embryonic form of People’s government is the main trend  today: Anil categorized the CPI(Maoist) as an anarchist organisation. But the CPM itself knows that, the Maoists are not anarchists but the most potential organisation to overthrow the system. After the merger of the erstwhile two parties imperialists, comprador big bourgeoisie and feudals decided to concentrate their attacks on the newly formed party. No doubt the ruling classes has advantage and the current phase of the offensive attack has been categorized as strategic offence by the enemy, whereas it is the strategic defence for the Maoists. The Maoists initiated tactical counter offensive campaigns (TCOC) within the strategic defence and the ruling classes initiated Concentrated Encircling Offensive Campaigns (CEOC) within the strategic offensive stage. The purpose of these campaigns for the both is to keep initiative to gain control on the situation. Many a campaign is needed for us to deliver blow after blow on the enemy forces to flush out the enemy’s armed forces from guerrilla zones to build base areas.

Around a dozen guerrilla zones were selected by the Maoists, which are spread in 10 states, where the majority of the Indian people live. Seven sisters and Jammu & Kashmir have been always engaging the Indian big bourgeois and big landlord classes, whatever ups and downs the movements have faced in their journey towards their goal. So, around 18 states have been engaged in a bitter fight to overthrow the ruling classes. Anil’s party and its mentors are neither infavour of class struggle waged by us nor are they in support of the ongoing Nationality struggles. Even in their long period of rule in West Bengal separate statehood movements, like Gorkha land and Kamtapuri have been facing them. Due to the CPM’s weak organisational position it had to make some compromise and a special council was formed for the hills, whereas the Kamatapuris’ struggle is a becoming a real threat for the govt. in North Bengal, where already all types of crisis deepened and contradictions sharpened ever than before.

Let us see the trend of struggle by the Maoist forces in various guerrilla zones. Of course the concept of the guerrilla zone and base areas itself is ‘anarchist day dreams’ for the leaders of the CPM. But they know the reality better than any other partner in the left front of Bengal and the UPA in Delhi.

Revolutionary peasant committees executed to a certain extent political power in the Guerrilla Zones (covering a huge area of Andhrapradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisghar, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar, etc.). To consolidate it further the Maoists completed their ground work on the following slogans and formed Revolutionary People’s Committees (RPC) at different levels, which are the embryonic centers for the people’s democratic political power.

“In the guerrilla zones and in those areas where our work is going on with the task of forming Liberated Areas, we should organize the people into struggles by rallying them around the following concrete slogans: This takes place through the Revolutionary Peoples Committees, as part of the politics of capturing the state power.

1. Overthrow feudal authority; establish people’s political power.

2. Take over the lands of the landlords, the lands of the government, and of other exploiting institutions and distribute them to the poor and landless peasants!

3. Build armed people’s militia!

4. Stop repayment of debts and interests to landlords and moneylenders!

5. Stop paying taxes, cess and levies to the government!

6. Right over the forest belongs to Adivasis and the toiling people, Stop the plunder of forest wealth by imperialist, CBB and big contractors!

7. Develop agriculture and cooperative movement! Increase production and achieve self-reliance in every sphere!

The implementation of the above slogan, by mobilizing all the anti-feudal forces into struggle against imperialist exploitation and the exploitation of landlords and comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie classes, will be the immediate political task. As a result of the political mobilization that takes place on the above slogans, the peasantry will intensify the class struggle in the form of armed struggle in a big way; it will provide innumerable warriors for the expansion of the PLGA and for the development of PLGA into the PLA. It will ripen the conditions for the establishment of the liberated area.” (‘Strategy & Tactics’ , CPI(Maoist),  p.67)

We the Maoists make it clear that among the above slogans majority were completed and some are in the process of completion. The process is taking a sharp turn in many special areas (zones). In the past 25-30 years of the struggle many achievements were consolidated and the level of the movement has qualitatively changed. Two opposite classes are preparing themselves regularly to advance their roles where armed forces and war transformed into the main form of organisation and struggle. So, all the ongoing work is linked to advance the war. So, the consolidation of the power organs is going on in the vast rural belt according to the line of protracted people’s war. On the one hand contention for power and on the other consolidation of power have been going on in different areas depending on the concrete objective and subjective situation.

Feudal power, tribal authority and the administration of the state have been destroyed in certain pockets (Due to the technical reasons, we are bound to avoid the names of the places. For this revolutionary readers may excuse us) and guerilla war increased in intensity in comparison to the mid 90s. To establish people’s power the embryonic centers of power are vigorously working. A new system of power, which is an alternative to the existing one, has been born in whatever rudimentary form it may be. The departments like agriculture department, people’s judicial department, finance department, people’s defence department, people’s education and cultural department, public health-social welfare departments, forest protection department and public relations department were formed and are functioning.

Last year somewhere in guerrilla bases the village party committee of an RPC took the following review along with the new tasks.

“1. We have to explain our understanding to the Party members and other organizations in the village. We must stabilize them in this work.

2. We must provide an understanding to the people about the aim and objective of our development activities.

3. The Committee members must not stay in one area but move in the villages, organize the people and implement the program adopted.

4. We must not confine to crops but also adopt a plan for the needs of agriculture like cattle, ploughs seeds and fertilizers.

5. In addition to the collective work we have to support the farmers in their personal work like house works whenever possible.

6. We have to form committees in the villages where until now we conducted without them.

7. We have to prepare some more whole time activists.

8. In addition to production we have to discuss and build movement political issues also.”

This is the positive aspect of the work, real communist dedication to advance the agrarian revolution in India.

After the merger of the two erstwhile parties the area and prospects to from the RPC has qualitatively changed. The combined strength of the party, the CPI(Maoist), will certainly give a push to consolidate the people’s power which will take a leap forward for the people’s alternative system and obviously it will be a great jolt to the decaying, crisis ridden existing system.

 

Communal Fascism was defeated by us in Midnapore in West Bengal: Anil Biswas is making criticism of us that we have no role in the anti-communal movement. That we can see later, let us see first how Anil’s CPM is fighting against the communal forces. If we see the picture of Kerala we find how social fascism patches up with communal fascism and vice versa. In Anil’s own state West Bengal if 6 years back here in Midnapore areas such as Gorbeta, Chandrakona Road, and other blocks a section of social fascist leadership and its henchmen turned into leaders and muscle power of the TMC-BJP-combine force and the same reactionaries switched over to the CPM when the BJP and the TMC-combine force was defeated by us. In Midnapore, Bankura and Hoogly districts we fought with the TMC and the BJP bitterly. The CPM leadership at the village level fled the villages and took shelter somewhere in the camps arranged by the government. But our party, mass organisation comrades waged a real war on the BJP-TMC forces.

When we entered there we convinced all the people who were then divided into two basically opposite camps viz. TMC-BJP camp and the CPM-CPI camp. We took pro-people stand and checked the terror unleashed by both sides. At that time what did Anil babu’s party leaders do? Our party members, mass organisation and armed squads worked day and night among the people. But our friend Anil Biswas and his right hand Buddha sent CPM’s goonda bahini and paramilitary forces to crush the Maoists. After these developments in the whole area the CPM has never taken any mass struggle on the day-to-day issues of the masses. Actually the entire CPM organisations have been geared up to set the para military forces against us to ensure their existence. Whatever cock and bull stories Anil may weave out the stark reality can not be changed on one’s will and wish.

We will proudly say that the advancement of the communal force was resisted and defeated by us in Midnapore, Bankura and Hoogly. This is known to the people of South Bengal in particular and West Bengal in general. The sleepless nights of more than 400 to 500 villages were changed when our party initiated resistance against the BJP and Trinamools Raj. In course of this resistance at first we punished the BJP leaders. They too tried their level best and killed 13 of our comrades in which 4 comrades belonged to a single family in Sandipur village. Every one knows these truths. Those who were sympathetic to the Red flag stood by us at the time of bitter fight with the BJP and the Trinamool combine.

But the scenario changed the other way when we made tactical mistakes in assessing the cunning CPM. At the time of our struggle against the BJP-TMC combine, the CPM took it as an advantage and at the time of retreat of the BJP-TMC, the CPM occupied the village where our forces were weak. The CPM forces then started the attack on us. At first we retaliated but heavy contingents of para military forces entered in the name of maintaining peace for the assembly elections. This situation was fully utilized by the CPM. At the same time a section of our own leaders turned into right opportunists and lost confidence in fighting with the CPM. This hampered our consolidation work. When the CPM first attacked us, we retaliated. This was our fight in West Bengal against the communal forces, where the CPM fled the villages and never fought the battle.

What role did Buddha play with Advani and Co. and what role have the CPM’s parliamentary members played while hobnobbing with the communal forces? Our people know all very well that the CPM never built a consistent movement in any state and countrywide. Against Narendra Modi and other killers of Gujarat riots or in any other serious case the CPI(M) could do nothing but issue some written protests. Every time the CPM leadership made underhand dealings but it never felt to blurt out serious anti-communal voice openly. In any state where minorities were butchered the CPM state/dist. committees only issued statements but they did not fight a real fight with the communal forces. They left the battle ground in their own ruling state then how the minorities will believe them?

Kerala is a relatively strong state for communal and social fascist forces. There the CPM role has been the same. In other states the picture is the same where they can mobilise some masses. There is no evidence that proves that the CPM took any firm stand to safeguard the rights of the minorities. In Punjab what role did the CPM play? What role has the CPM been playing in support of the Kashmir struggle? In Hyderabad (AP) what role did the CPM play to safeguard the interests of the Muslim people in its whole history? In the Bombay riots what role the CPM played to save the Muslims and what did the CPM do to save the Tamils and Non-Marathis when ‘Shivsainik Tandav’ went on in Maharashtra? In Karnataka what role did the CPM play? Forget all. If one can go and ask Muslim people they will paint the real character of the so-called Marxists.

Dear academics in the CPM and its science forums and elsewhere please think over the way how your bosses are showing hypocrisy in the fight against communalism. The communalists are organizing their units very well and they are opening thousands of schools from most advanced metros to the most backward forest villages in many forms. The majority of the people in general can not grasp the nature of these schools used as the cover the communists are hiding in.

Neither in its ruling states nor in the rest of India the CPM did open schools which represent even anti-communal curriculum, forget progressive outlook or Marxism-Leninism. Anil-Buddha-Biman trio’s police will pick our comrades who dare to possess Communist Manifesto, Lenin’s writings or such type of Marxist-Leninist literature. The ‘police Buddha’ will act on the arrested comrades and will break their hands for carrying the ‘dangerous’ books and crush the fingers so that they can not write on Marxism in future.

This ‘police Buddha’ force has been now running schools in Belpahari, Salbani and other areas. Probably Buddha is expecting his cops will brainwash the students to inject ‘Buddhism’ (Not the Goutam Buddha’s Buddhism) which he is preaching aggressively to the Bengal people to salute the MNCs and Comprador big bourgeosie of India.

This is the ongoing struggle of the CPM against the communalization of the education system!

Let us cite another example how our party has been engaged with whatever resources it possesses to spread education to the masses and students. In many forest pockets Adivasi people have been practicing their own tribal rituals and customs. Once Christianity entered these pockets and since past 15-20 years back Hinduism has been entering very aggressively and construction of temples was coming up rampantly. Our party approached the people, discussed with them and finalized that aggressive entry of Hinduism, Christianity should be stopped. According to it steps were taken. Mr. Anil, can we consider this struggle as a part of mass struggle?

In Bihar, Jharkhand, Dandakaranya and other areas we are organizing schools. The syllabus was written. Teachers with some knowledge in Marxism, Leninism and Maoism were appointed by the RPC and the KKC. But governments’ armed forces are destroying the schools and arresting the teachers. The whole village is resisting. This struggle was transformed into struggle between the people and the armed forces. Have the people gained economic consciousness or political, please think over. Can the student community learn Marxism from these schools or from ‘Police Buddha’s schools in West Bengal? There is no scope for the CPM leadership to think over these matters, but the academic friends who have unknowingly joined the CPM may think over how to participate in the real anti-communal struggle.

 

Struggle against different forms like resistance against informers, coverts‘sendras’, ‘salva judums’, etc.: To advance a war by a weak force is much difficult. Every step should be properly judged before advancing. A modern state which has many facilities will use them against the revolutionaries. People will be mobilised to participate in all the struggles waged against the state. Actually in every struggle where the state will be targeted, the state target at every step will be to crush the revolutionary, pro-people and anti-state struggles.

A set-up of informers has been built secretly by the state to know the information of the revolutionary activities. Generally in the rural side where government mechanism and feudal power were destroyed, as a policy the state adopted the method to pick up the persons who can be purchased or tamed by force, who can help the state to act against the people and the revolutionaries. They will be recruited as informers. A few individuals who are helping the state turn against the village and the villagers and even their own family members. The informers will pass on information to the police regarding the ‘suspicious’ activities of the persons. People are eyes and ears to the movement. Informers generally will be given many opportunities to change their attitude. What is more revealing is that the CPI(M) offices and activists are now the main informers of the police in West Bengal.

We can cite the examples of Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia In most cases of killing informers, the party and the people warned them not to act for the police. They did not listen. When their existence became a question of surveillance they had to be punished after a trial in the People’s Court basing on the opinion from the people. Anil-Buddha-Biman instigate the people and the CPM workers to keep eyes on every person who comes to village, to which house he or she goes, etc. This was one of the dangerous methods to prepare a section as informers to act for the police. These methods will be checked. Covert is also a form developed by the police depending on the weak elements.

Weak persons leave the organisation or surrender to the state to save their lives. In these cases the party and the people are trying to control and rectify them. When it will not work they will be punished in different forms.

In all the 12 states new employment opportunities were stopped. Recruitment in the police department is only going on and for every recruit the police is putting a condition that if he or she can pass on information about the Maoists then only they would get final posting orders. Majority are rejecting such proposals. But some are yielding and people are catching them in 80% cases. 5-10% were punished and a few persons escaped and joined the jobs.

Anil criticized these killings as mindless. Like the police department he also passes the punished informers for innocent villagers. But he never stopped to prepare informers to crush the peoples’ struggles. Apart from the informers Anil & co. formed an organisation known by the name ‘Gana Surakaha Samiti’ (GSS) depending on anti-socials, informers and surrendered persons working for the sake of money. Shyam Singh, a police officer of the SOG, was the publisher of the GSS literature using the pseudonym Dibakar Chowdary. Runu Guha Neogi, the most notorious officer of the 70’s, was the mentor of Shyam Singh. With such worst type of cruelty and hypocricy how will the CPM fight politically aganist us? A shadow police organisation of the state armed forces shall play anti-people role. Police officials, secret leaders and activists of such criminal organisation are busy pasting posters, distributing anti-Maoist leaflets, etc. one can not deny that such organisations like Gana Suraksha Samiti are the ‘Left’ Front’s present secret political wing to conduct CPI(M)’s ideological battles against the Maoists! This type of organisations will not do political fight. These counter revolutionary organisations should be defeated by using all types of forms.

‘Sendra’ (Mass hunting) and ‘Salva Judum’ another two forms were organized by Babulal Marandy of Jharkhand and Mahendra Karma of Chhattisgharh respectively. As a class these two belong to landlord class. Karma’s farther was an MLA since in first general elections in 1952, later his son continued the family ‘legacy’ farther. If they were punished the CPM would counter us by saying Adivasis were killed. Ganshakti would write that the Adivasis are not with the Maoists. The BJP, Congress and so-called Marxists all are singing the same song. To resist us all those above forms perpetuated by the state is a part and parcel of the class struggle. In every country where revolution succeeded and where it failed such methods were adopted. Without struggle, without punishing the class collaborationists people’s struggles will not advance.

 

Neck deep economism –revisionism-counter revolutionary

Character of CPM in working class movement

Regarding work among the working class and urban areas we have enriched our understanding in comparison to the past. We have consolidated our work in some urban centers and working class in the coal fields located between Dhanbad and Ranigunj, in Western coal fields of Maharashtra, among jute workers, tea garden workers and in many industrial units in West Bengal, etc., etc. in areas like Singareni, Hyderabad, Vishakapatnam, Warangal in Andhra Pradesh.

We are working in many other states including Delhi to build urban and working class movements. Urban petty bourgeoisie generally followed our calls. But the iron heel of the state, including your own ruling state has always been putting obstacles to our work. In key industries we politically influence workers, so your CITU tactics now and then stands challenged.

 About our shortcomings what Com. Charu Mazumdar and in the recent interview Com. Kishan told are true. Our outlook is clear and we will improve our work in the way Com. Kishan told. The Centre and state governments maintain consistent repression, particularly in the name of encounters even the employees of road transport workers were shot dead in the period of Chandrababu Naidu in AP. It is the legacy continued under the Congress CM Rajasheker Reddy. Apart from this in the Indian working class and urban movement the role of revisionist trade unions, particularly of the CITU of the CPM, is playing negative role. Our ‘friend’ Anil Babu never accepts this truth because the earth under his feet will move. The CITU as a leading union in the working class since last 37 years and even earlier its ‘avatar’ for another 5 decades has a total history of economism and betrayal to the cause of the working class. More than 80 year passed in the history of the parliamentary Marxists like the CPI, CPI(M) with basically economism, opportunism, betrayal, pro-ruling class, and pro-imperialist role of the majority of the leadership using the name of ‘Marxism’ while many honest activists sacrificed their lives considering it that they were fighting for a good cause.

Actually, Indian trade union movement since its birth has been basically playing the role of reformist union. In some incidents in its history it played the role of militant economism but it was not transformed of into revolutionary union front as Lenin led in the Russian Revolution. Comrade Lenin taught

“Economism and that we shall never rid ourselves of this narrowness of our organizational activity until we rid ourselves of Economism generally (i.e., the narrow conception of Marxist theory, of the role of Social-Democracy and of its political tasks). And these attempts were revealed in a twofold direction. Some began to say; the masses of workers themselves have not yet advanced the broad and militant political tasks that the revolutionaries are attempting to “impose” upon them; they must continue, for the time being, to fight for immediate political demands, to conduct “the economic struggle against the employers and the government” and, naturally, corresponding to this  struggle which is “easily understood” by the mass movement must be an organization that will be “easily understood” even by the most untrained youth). Others, far removed from any kind of “gradualaness” began to say: it is possible and necessary to “bring about a political revolution”, but that does not require building a strong organization of revolutionaries to train the proletariat in the steadfast and stubborn struggle.”  (V.I.Lenin; What Is To Be Done; Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1970; pp.129-130)

Those revisionist unions degenerated politically and got exposed before the workers, but when we are weak and not able to play our role as an alternative at this juncture CITU’s  calls influence the workers to some extent. Without overcoming our own weakness we will not be able to rally the working class under our leadership. Their negative impact will continue for sometime. So we will educate the working class that to rectify economism, to stop betrayal of the CPM, CPI and other non-proletarian trends we have to intensify the class war and the ongoing-armed revolution. Then only the Indian working class will play its leading role and lead the struggles on all fronts standing in the front row.

Anil Biswas is attacking us that we will not participate in any such struggles rather we will neglect all the forums formed to lead anti-imperialist and the anti-LPG struggle and on other demands too. Yes, we criticize the so-called left front partners and a section of so-called ML too for politically misguiding various movements in the name of leading struggles. Actually, Indian revisionists, the CPM and its partners like the CPI, RSP and FB had never shown any considerable difference to lead the various issues of immediate concern. Without accepting the truth Anil Biswas is accusing us. Since when the CPM joined the UPA, the CPM has kept falling at the Congress feet, and Buddhadeb Battacharjee and Manmohan Singh – the grand father and brain behind the LPG policies – are making honeymoons, so how can Indian people keep confidence in the CPM? But, our ‘friend’ Anil Biswas is claiming that we are isolated and that they are advancing the mass movements by staying in the fore front. The CPI(M) leaders know it too well the dire straits they have landed in.

 

Suppress Voice of Dissent in Bengal Murders are common for CPM

We killed less than a dozen village leaders or bad gentry or informers [who incidentally were CPI(M) members] or ‘Marxist’s sarkari men, and now Anil Biswas is trying to label us as annihilationist. But the reality is that the hands of top to bottom leadership of the CPM are soaked in blood. The leadership of the local committee (LC) to district committee has been well armed without license. Arms are  dumped in the name of ‘gram rakkha Bahini’ and ‘peace force’ units and all the party officials are well armed in the name of facing the ‘danger’ called Maoists. The State police and the Centre know this. The lawmakers have never bothered about it. The TMC activists captured ex-minister Sushanta Ghosh four years back with a carload of weapons but the then SP freed the vehicle. Media Published a number of times photos of the armed gangs and news of CPM dadagiri. But no one was booked under the Arms Act or any act in the past 28 years. At the time of elections in the streets of Kolkata, in the entire rural belt one can hear the echoes of bomb blasts. Bihar and Rayalaseema of Andhra Pradesh may come next to West Bengal in bombaji and murders.

Real estate contractors and their henchmen, ruffians and extortionists operate freely with the CPI(M) blessings in West Bengal. Can anybody deny it? Even for lucrative postings or for jobs, in most cases, Alimuddin street’s diktat is final. The nexus between the anti-socials and the CPI(M) is now crystal clear to the people. Here lies no ideology, no politics except the politics of self-aggrandizement. Can Anil babu avoid the fact that intra-party killings over economic gains have been the order of the day? At present from the CPI(M) activists to their leaders Marxism, Leninism or any revolutionary ideology is nothing but a taboo – is it any exaggeration of the Maoists? Go to any village or any city or town, the skeletons in the CPI(M) cupboard tumble down every moment, every day with an increasing pace.

 We the revolutionary Marxists can not but expose the revisionists and social fascists and punish the anti-people goons along with reactionary classes. So we accept class enemy annihilation as a form of struggle. Before executing the verdict of the people’s court at least twice the details of the accused will be checked following the norms of mass line and class line.

In course of development of the history we over reacted on revisionist forms of organisation and made some left mistakes and practiced annihilation as the major form for a very brief period. After realizing this mistake again we corrected it. When we resorted to annihilation in any state of this country we have done it, including in west Bengal, as a part and process of class struggle and as a form of struggle. We are considering it necessary and will do it in the future also. Where and when we make mistakes we make self-criticism openly. But the CPM never showed the sincerity rather always showed its cunning nature. When it became compulsion it disowned the killer members like in the case of tea gardens. But when the killers are powerful persons they disown the incidents like in Chota Angaria and its leader Tapan Ghosh.

In the CPI(M) ruled Bengal, the leadership of these social fascists always provoked,  guided and led its gooms in arsons, loot, dacoity, rape, killings and what not. The CPM never spared even its life partners in the ‘left front’. They have been killing the SUCI, TMC, Congress and the BJP activists and supporters year after year and the number has been only increasing. But our wise leader Anil Biswas never tells the truth but always says his party cadres were killed. Yes very few CPM goons were killed. If any one checks the percentage of the list of the killed persons a small number will go to the CPM. Where murders have become a common feature and the so-called Marxists are the main culprits what right do they have to talk on the counter violence? When they are killing 100, how much the weak opponent can do to retaliate in protest? That is happening in Anil’s Bengal. Anil Biswas you should stop the hues and cries, better it is not to kill others at random. But the way you have built the state CPM unit, now, it is not in your hands too. So the Frankenstein shall now act on its own. Basmasura hasta, like the Basmasura of Hindu mythology. Whether the line, which is being practised by the CPM, is the symbol of democracy or white terror people should judge. Yes! people are the judges to support between the CPM and the CPI(Maoist)!

We as true revolutionary Marxists will advance our class struggle and punish class enemies for the greater interests of the oppressed masses. Anil babu, Listen!

 

People are laughing at anti-imperialist struggle claims of the CPM

After CPI(M)-led government’s rule of 29 years the Chief Minister of West Bengal declared that globalisation is a must. The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) in its meeting in September 2005 gave a ringing endorsement to the line and approach taken by Mr. Buddhadeb. Any person with a minimum of commonsense understands what is all about the CPI(M)’s paper thunder on globalisation and if at all this deceiving party can go against imperialist globalisation. We know that some traditional pockets of the undivided communist party as located in West Bengal, Kerala, Tripura, Punjab, etc. might respond to the low-keyed calls of the CPI(M) for at best some rallies, postering etc. against globalisation, privatisation and all such imperialist dictated policies which are faithfully practiced in West Bengal. Under the CPI(M)-led rule, the same CPI(M) masks in its apparent posture of anti-globalisation, anti-privatisation in the states where it failed to make an entry, let alone assumption of power through certain printed literature to deceive the people. When Buddhadeb is acclaimed by the Indian big comprador bourgeois lobby and the imperialist institution as the most pragmatic chief minister one can easily realize the classes this CPI(M) represents in India. The CPI(M)’s man Mr. Somenath Chatterjee, the speaker of Lok Sabha, has proved his hard core pro-globalisation stance for many years now. When the NDA was in power he was a staunch supporter of reforms to completely open the doors for imperialist institution and the MNCs in India. He himself peddlaed for materializing the McKinsey policies of reforms in West Bengal agriculture. And now Buddhadeb roars “Reforms or perish”. Whatever ‘displeasure’, ‘grievance’ ‘opposition’ to this or that position of the current UDA government are expressed by the CPI(M) they are all ‘Left’ gimmicks as a part of electoral politics and to bargain for some more share of power.

Now the people are laughing at the continual double-talks and double-faces of the CPI(M) holding in one hand the flag of imperialist globalisation, privatization and liberalisation and in the other hand a faded capitalist friendly red flag. The CPI(M) leadership claims its support to the UPA government is based on the so-called Common Minimum Programme but the reality is summed up in the voice of the World Bank President: “World Bank has praised the Left parties for their ‘broad-based vision’ on social sector and infrastructure development and said the UP government’s Common Minimum Programme was in tune with the Bank’s objectives…….It does not seem to be a red flag at all’, he said referring to the Left parties….” [Times News Network, 23.11.2004]. Mr. Anil babu, listen, thus said your Master! And now a days the praises from such classes of people have so much piled up that even dogs cry when you feign to be anti-imperialist.

In its latest drama during the military exercise of the Indian air-force with the U.S. air-force. Dipak Sarkar, the CPM  district secretary of West Medinipur said, “We will disrupt the exercise at any cost.” [The Telegraph, 6^th November, 2005) The CPI(M) leaders indulged in tall talks as if the protest against Indo-US air exercise will cross all limits. [Statesman 9^th Nov, Kalantar 7^th Nov, Ganashakti, 7, 8 and 9 November, 05] In Kolkata the police department took upon itself the great duty by forcibly stopping all the main city arteries running towards Dum Dum airport for hours together to exaggerate the presence of rallists under the CPM leadership. Things proved to be a ludicrous whimper. In Kalaikunda the gathering could not exceed more than a few thousand, obviously not lakhs as claimed by Mr. Anil Biswas and  the people present at the show were more moved by the exercise than expressing protests. CPI(M)’s protests vanished within a day while the exercise went on. The rally was acually meant to pep up cadres before the 2006 polls.

The pro-US slant became more and more obvious with the CPI(M) Finance Minister Mr. Asim Dasgupta left for the USA on 7^th November, 05. Among other assignments Dasgupta decided to have meetings with the US imperialism’s industrial masters in Boston, New work, etc. to woo them for investing in West Bengal. [Dainik Statesman, 7^th Nov. 05]

While projecting a big show of protest the Ganashakti or Mr. Anil Biswas never disclosed the fact that it was going to be a “dissent by consent”. There was nothing this time comparable to the storm raised 37 years ago when the huge politically anti-US crowd took to the Kolkata streets barricading the path of World Bank president Robert McNamara. A day before the tamasha Pranab Mukherjee clearly told that he had spoken to Mr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and everything had been “sorted out”. All dailies reported about this “sorted out” except the CPM daily. Mukherjee made it clear that what the show would “do on the road will not matter on the run way”. [The Telegraph, 5^th November, 05]

People are now laughing at what the CPI(M) says and does in reality in West Bengal.

 

CPM Always Unleashes White Terror But Never Faces State Terror

Between 1925 and 62 occasionally the undivided Communist Party faced some repression and ban by the British Raj and then by the Congress regime in 1948, since when the party had withdrawn the Telangana armed resistance then onwards no ban, no actual repression, no harassment by the ruling classes of India except for a brief period on the pro-china forces during Indian attack on China. Because once the CPM, CPI, etc. assumed power instead of facing state attack they are instigating the state and its own terror machine on the masses and their leader the CPI(Maoist).

If you check the pages of history between 1967 and 1977, the CPI(M)’s role was firstly to put down the revolutionary forces, misdirecting the focal point of struggle with left phraseology and then total inactivity with some sort of underhand understanding with the Siddhartha Shankar Ray’s Congress government in West Bengal. The early 1970s was the peak period of Maoist movement and West Bengal witnessed how the CPI(M) – police nexus with green signal from the Congress government could lead to large-scale killing of the revolutionary Maoists and getting them arrested. West Bengal also stood witness to the massacres of our comrades and supporters in Kashipur-Burrahanagar in 1971 with a clear entente between the Congress and the CPI(M) with the backing of a huge number of state armed forces. This Congress-CPI(M) sweet relationship was seen in 1969 when these revisionist swindlers came out to help Mrs. Indira Gandhi stave off a crisis in the Congress party itself. The present marriage through the propping up of the UPA ministry by the CPI(M) led so-called ‘left’ is the culmination of the decades long love affair between the two parties. However, once it was out of power as in 1969 it primarily resorted to display its force by calling bandhs or some mass programmes in the legal way but the main aim behind such apparently fighting mood was to forestall the large scale dissidence in the CPI(M) itself and the tempo of bidding farewell to the CPI(M) revisionism to join the Maoist path by many of its activists and lower level leaders. Sometimes lathi charge can be faced, jail bharo programmes can be called or courting symbolic arrests with much fanfare can be entertained but one misses the repression, police torture, brutality by the state and all such acts of state terror in case of the CPI(M) leaders and activists. Further that the ‘left’ tempo created by the CPI(M) has been now reduced to organizing blood donation camp by the workers (The Political Organisational Report of the West Bengal State Committee admitted it in 2005), persuading the unemployed youth in Kolkata and other towns in West Bengal to maintain road traffic control, to organizing musical soiree by presenting film stars and star artists of the tinsel world, etc. The followers of the CPI(M) have now been tamed well to complete their ‘left’ duties by casting votes (and false votes) in favour of the CPI(M) candidates. Mr. Anil babu, could you dismiss any of the above complaints? Go to the people and you can get many more.

Against this degeneration, the Maoist history of practice is undoubtedly glorious for its dedication, death-defying courage and revolutionary practice. We faced set back in early 1970s but as communists can not be finished off we reorganized ourselves against all odds and successfully expanded our activities to several number of states. If we leave apart the number of martyrs of Naxalbari, Srikakulam struggles, etc. of the late 1960s and early 1970s in the ongoing people’s war we had lost around 7000 communist heroes in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, North Chhattisgarh, Dandakaranya, Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra, Tamilnadu, Karnataka, UP and West Bengal. False encounter killings have been common in may states, including West Bengal. New Armed Special Forces were built in the past two decades. Forces deployed to stem the tide of our movement increased by many many times. Elite Commando Forces, Black Cats, etc. have been pressed into service. Indian Reserve Batallions have been formed. Informer network has been widely built up. And it should be clearly stated that the Jyoti or Buddha dispensation in West Bengal has been a committed party to this massive state operation against the Maoists. Is it Marxism Mr. Anil babu?

Under the Sarkari shadow all protest programmes or calls of the CPI(M), CITU, etc. turn into damp squibs. They have reduced the weapon of Hartal to a  ‘Left’ government’s approved holiday. Buddhadeb has issued sermon that gheraos must not be resorted to. He repeatedly expresses his wrath against the workers to pamper the industrialists. What type of class consciousness is being instilled into the minds of the workers, peasants, youth, students, etc. is best known to Buddhadeb, Anil and their ilk in Alimuddin street. Actually speaking, under the ‘Left’ Front dispensation even the struggles for minimum demands have been almost banned to appease the capitalists, landlords and their foreign mentors. Revisionists turned social fascists can never represent the interests of the common people. Let us take a look at the ongoing development in Bengal districts like Midnapur, Bankura, Purulia, Bardhaman, Birbhum, Nadia, Murshidabad, etc. and see the real role of the CPI(M). Does it stand for the common toiling people fighting for the realisation of their demands? No. Rather the CPI(M) government sends armed forces to quell the rising of the wretched of the earth. So it is natural that the people will revolt against this government and it is the duty of the Maoists to lead such revolts, expose the social fascist forces and instill into the minds of the people revolutionary consciousness. We are not only leading the people’s war, the party will lead all the struggles of the people like the struggle for getting drinking water, for wage-rise, remunerative prices of the peasants’ produce, for the preservation of forest, for fighting against mafia gangs and all such people’s demands in West Bengal. And we know we can materialize even the common minimum demands of the people fighting against Buddhadeb’s police force, the CPI(M) gangs and all such reactionary forces now grown stronger under the ‘Left’ Front rule in West Bengal. 

If we come out from Bengal we find our party always stands by the people in their day-to-day struggle. We will lead day-to-day struggles and at the same time we will ask the people to get ready and prepare for more and more battles which are needed. Once we had some sectarianism regarding waging partial struggles. This is very very past history. Anil Biswas will think only on petti-demands and ask the people not to cross the laxman rekha prepared by them.

We are rallying the people in open and secret forms. 5 to 30 thousand people will participate in our secret meetings in 6 states – Andhra Pradesh, Dandakarnaya, Andhra-Orissa Borders, Bihar, Jharkhand and in parts of Maharastra-Madhyapradesh on many occasions. Our PLGA will guard the venue of the meeting. Militia will guard all the roads which lead to the venue of the meet. The nearest paramilitary camp stationed at a distance of 3 to 5 KM can not trace out the venue of the meeting. Anil Biswas like people have never heard this type of meetings. 1 to 5 lakh gathering in open meetings are common to us in Andhrapradesh where the CPM never could rally more than a few thousand pro-CPM people. In many other states even after having all facilities and mechanism it could never rally more number of people. Still Kolkata is the only rallying centre for them due to long years in power and Subash Chakrabortry type of leaders and para goondas and dadas are there to take the masses to Brigade Parade ground. How much pressure will be built upon the masses we can easily understand.  What is also notable that a large number of people now come by bus or other transport to visit places in Kolkata. The partisan masses that once the CPI(M) claimed to have roped in have pathetically thinned over years. Many of the city visitors are found in the TMC or Congress rallies in Kolkata. In all the meetings we prepare the people for struggle and people repose confidence in the role of the party.  

One of the comments of Anil’s was on our party’s role in the ongoing people’s struggle. Thanks my dear friend, your daydreams may live long. If you accept we have mass base and are advancing then your credibility will lose. Rallying some people in the states and putting some demands in parliament or assembly will not serve you long to sustain. Because the power which you are wielding and stand as a pillar to the existing system can not help lead any popular movement.

After the split in 1967 as the history witnessed till date there was no popular movement under the CPM’s leadership even according to their much publicized programme. Our party, PLGA and revolutionary mass organisation will meet upon the people daily and call all the village people to discuss various issues like political development, day to day struggle, military related aspects and organisational aspects of Kantrikari Kisan (Peasant) Committee (KCC), Revolutionary People’s Committee (RPC) and the party’s various departments functioning to develop activities, mass organisations and they are all functioning. Priority will change from area-to-area and according to the situation.

Generally at the time of enemy’s concentrated offensive campaigns within the strategic offensive phase the planning for resistance will be given top priority in all battle zones where revolutionary war is advancing. In the areas where preparations for guerrilla war are in progress there resistance and mass mobilization will be given priority. From 1990 onwards extension of the movement without resistance became a problem because of heavy deployment of state and central armed forces. Here the intention of the government is clear that at any cost it will try to check our party and guerrillas to move among the people to consolidate its power and to further the expansion of revolutionary activity.  So upsurge in mass movements will certainly emerge because the general crisis of capitalism which encompasses our country is triggering further socio-economic and political crisis towards sharpening the class contradictions. As Mao Said “Historically, all reactionary forces on the verge of extinction invariably conduct a last desperate struggle against the revolutionary forces, and some revolutionaries are apt to be deluded for a time by this phenomenon of outward strength but inner weakness failing to grasp the essential fact that the enemy is nearing extinction while they themselves are approaching victory.”  (“The Turning Point in World War II” (October 12, 1942), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 103.)

According to this guideline we will plan our work. Anil’s outlook, practice and our ideological, political outlook and practice are diametrically opposite. In the name of socialism they are the warriors for the Indian ruling classes and imperialism. Whereas we are fighting with the warriors and their masters to change the system and society.

Anil Biswas quotes from Mao in his article a number of times. A few readers may be impressed that Biswas Babu may have confidence in Maoism (Sorry! Mao’s writings!). Biswas and company already distorted Marxism and now they will use Mao as a new shield, to protect themselves and to see their younger generation does not to get impressed by the Maoists. Already media reported that mock assemblies were organized in a number of places in Bengal to educate the youth not to be inclined to Maoism. Anil and his collaborators must be a failure to expect that the youth will not prefer the new dawn breaking in the embryonic form of people’s political power in Dandakaranya, Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar, etc. We have confidence in them because they nurture vibrant revolutionary aspiration. 

Regarding mass line also Anil Biswas wanted to teach us something. To adopt mass line as revolutionaries we always follow Mao. Mao said to depend on advanced element of the masses and rally middle section and win over the backward. Generally we follow this. Some times due to non-proletarian trends particularly due to sectarianism and bureaucracy at different levels we fail to grasp Mao’s teachings. Then party intervenes to educate and check the wrong trends.

The erstwhile CPI(ML)(PW) initiated an education and rectification campaign whereas our wise friend Anil Biswas never bothers how to remove mafia gangs from his party; criminalizetion, lumpenization etc. are the main character of the CPI(M) leadership and cadre, where it rules, and anti-socials rule on the people; worst gang wars and factionalism for power, rampant corruption, degeneration of all types of moral values and what not have overwhelmed Anil’s party! They know it all. So to convince a section within the CPM and the people Anil as a member on a sub committee on party organisational affairs, wrote in the central organ ‘The Marxist’ Dec. 2003, “The principal content of the rectification campaign was the struggle against parliamentary opportunism.  The deviation was not limited to the people’s representatives of the Party.  A crass ignoring of the tasks of organising mass struggles and building up and strengthening the Party organisation marks the parliamentary deviation.  Another important issue of the rectification campaign concerned the fight against the erosion of the principle of democratic centralism.  From these deviations appear factionalism and individualism within the Party.  The third content was the preservation and safeguarding of Communist principles and progressive values.  The fourth issue had to do with the advancement of ideological education in the Party and to improve the political-ideological standard of the party members.” 

This rectification was not taken till now and in the future also the CPM leadership will not be able to initiate it. Because it is, rotten-decaying and crisis ridden social fascist party. In the CPM party more aggressive bureaucratic leadership comprising people like Buddha, the Indian Gorbachevs have emerged on the center stage. The comprador big bourgeoisie, the imperialists and the feudals also want this transformation to survive themselves. Is it exaggeration, Mr. Anil babu? 

But to cover up this degeneration he will spew venom on us by saying we depend on individuals, not on the mass or that we are cornered in some small pockets. We ourselves are saying that our party is relatively weak, we are exgaged in building a strong Bolshevik party which will lead the revolution in India and strengthen solidarity movement in South Asia to transform the region into a real focal point of the world revolution, which can rally all the genuine revolutionaries of the world to wage relentless political war on neo-revisionists and social fascists.

Anil advises in his article in page 29 that Maoists need courage for open work and talent to answer the queries of the public. Thanks! Anil Biswas babu! If our party, the PLGA and revolutionary mass organisations have missed any point in your ‘kind’ suggestions they will try to follow. Every activist needs courage, abilities to convince the people on many issues and it is very much needed. Further, the mass line which Mao advocated ‘from the masses to the masses’ is practised by us to check non-proletarian tendencies in the movement. While for the social fascists, mass line or Marxism is not for practice it is only to cover their misdeeds and fascist type of activities. Anil Biswas tried out arguments and they are the same old arguments of the past without any change to prove that Naxalites do not know anything other than Khatam activity. So, they repeat, we are not showing keenness about the people and their struggles; this problem comes from the sectarianist ultra left outlook transforming the Maoists into anarchists. And that due to this ultra left understanding we are not preparing to work openly. So it was asked by the Anil Biswas to work openly.

Actually what he wants is that if we transform into revisionists and advocates of elections then the so-called left can carry on the mock fight with the bourgeoisie. The acceptance of ‘main-stream politics’, ‘independent India and its achievements’, the support to globalisation, to obey the state, etc. will be gladly praised by the CPI(M) and its leadership and only then they will allow us ‘democracy’ to preach and practise a state friendly politics. And if we stick to our principled position Buddha will send his armed forces and the CPI(M) will act as local agent to cursh our movements in the name of fighting ‘anarchism’, ‘terrorism’, etc. Anil Biswas may nurture such a fond hope that the CPI(Maoist) will lay down arms and reject the Chinese path but we are sorry for not fulfilling his day-dream.

In fact to mobilize the masses we will use all available forms, legal, semi-legal, illegal, etc. suitable for strengthening the people’s war. Whatever Anil & Co. might think we will always stand by the people in their life and death struggle against the state and the governments. In this process we have lost thousands of our great people’s fighters, sons and daughters of this land, 13 states of the country in particular.

 

The World Bank Supported Land Reforms:

A Road Map Against Agrarian Revolution

The propaganda of the CPI(M) about the first successful land reforms in India has by now been a clitched one. Yet we take a look at how and why the masters in the West or New Delhi are so much pleased with the CPI(M)’s land reforms programme and its much propagated success story within the semi-feudal and semi-colonial set-up? What is that land reform Mr. Anil Biswas is so much jubilant about?

In the 1950s Prasanta Mahalanabis estimated about 18% of the total cultivated land [1.3 million acres] might be obtained as above ceiling surplus as fixed by the Land Reforms Act. As a consequence of the massive Tebhaga Movement the 1955 Act in Chapter III dealt with Bargadars (share croppers) in Article 15 regarding “certain safeguards for land cultivated by bargadars”. However, the dependence on beaurocrats and pro-jotedar bias of the Congress government very little could be done to implement the Act. The Food Movement and then the anti-Congress discontent throughout West Bengal inspired the peasants to seize vested lands. The Naxalbari uprising changed the course of peasant movement in India. The explosive situation in West Bengal under the United Front led by the CPI(M) put an alternative model of peasant movement against the seizure of power. The impact of the Naxalbari movement was extradinary and far-reaching to all corners of India. All of a sudden not only the CPI(M), CPI, etc. the Congress Party led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi woke up to the urgency of land reforms in a Constitutional way. Soon after the AICC session in Bangalore Mr. Gandhi urged upon the chief Ministers for taking up land reforms at a conference in November 1969. Mrs. Gandhi warned, “We must act now, when there is still time and hope; we dare not to fail because the consequence of failure will be beyond our control”. Addressing this conference the Home Minister Y.B.Chyavan sounded the necessary warning: “Unless the green revolution is based on social justice, I am afraid, the green revolution may not remain green”. The then CPI(M)’s Land and Land Revenue Minister Hare Krishna Konar – the betrayer of the agrarian revolution and the supporter of state repression against the Naxalbari peasant upsurge – told the press after attending that conference “…If land reforms were not implemented soon and fully in the country, green revolution would not remain green, and might become red. There would be upheaval in the rural areas.” [Economic Times, Nov. 30, 1969]. We the Maoists rightly point to what Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Mr. Chyavan and the CPI(M) theoretician on the peasant front rightly pointed for implementing state sponsored land reforms to stem the tide of bursting out peasant upheaval in India. Not only the rising fascist P.M. Indira Gandhi and social fascist CPI(M) leader Mr. Konar invited Mr. Lanejinsky, the World Bank’s expert and formerly Mc. Arthur’s advisor to India, the latter expressed concern after a visit to Bihar where the Maoist movement was then spreading. He generalized the land reforms scenario in India considering it as the “deepest of doldrums” which could just possibly “turn to raising hell as easily as raising crops” [Statesman, Oct. 27, 1969]. It is significant that the architect of the CPI(M)’s land reforms programme Mr. Hare Krishna Konar met Ladejeinsky, sought his valued advice and invited him to Calcutta. An evidently satisfied media then heaped all praise on Mr. Konar for being alive to the Naxalite challenge and for realizing the service of the World Bank expert Ladejeinsky. Thus began the beginning of the land reforms drama under the parliamentary Marxists with the blessings of the World Bank and the Indian National Congress. The Bill what Konar wanted to place before the Assembly conformed to the Ladejeinsky –Indira land reforms proposal like land ceiling of 25 acres on the basis of the family, hereditary rights to new owners of land; setting up of peasant committees to be associated with officials; land tribunals to hear appeals at district and state levels, etc. While Jagjivan Ram, the then Union Food and Agricultural Minister recommended that the barga system should be abolished immediately and bargadars should be declared as ‘tenants’ [Statesman, Nov. 28, 1969] So Ladejeinsky, Indira, Jagjivam Ram like people too outsmarted our “firebrand Marxist” Hare Krishna Konar in the prescription of land reforms. What is noteworthy is the grave concern from the official of the World Bank to the “Marxist” Hare Krishna Konar about the indispensable need to chart out a course of land reforms that could really check the Red Revolution in India, an agrarian revolution to be precise on the Chinese lines.

The great stir and the militant mood of the peasants on whom the CPI(M) did develop greater control through administrative and organized parliamentary skills could materialize the constitutional land reforms programme to some extent. However, the vast mass of agricultural workers and landless basically remained outside the ambit of the Harekrishna Bill. It is notable that with the exit of the UF government, the notorious Siddhartha Shankar Roy government did not generally dare to reverse the process by forcibly taking away the lands occupied by the peasants, instead this Congress government in West Bengal reduced the family based ceiling level to 52 bigha or 17.29 acre from Hare Krishna proposed 25 acres. Further that Siddhartha Shankar government conceded even a little more than two thirds of the produce to the bargadars, on the condition if bargadars bore all the expenses for cultivation.  However, no serious effort was taken to implement the Act. The unexpected victory of the Left Front and assumption of power in 1977 made it think of the prospect of winning the favour of the poor peasants. Thus the land reforms acts including the amendment by S.S.Roy government started materializing with great enthusiasm. What was new was that bargadars were now not reguired to prove themselves as bargadars, instead the landowners were to prove their raiyati right on the land. This helped check ejection form land at will. Later the ‘Left’ Front did not lower the land ceiling in any considerable way. Moreover, such high-sounding words like ‘Operation Barga’ could not make bargadars the rightful owners of land by destroying the feudal system and it was not the agenda of the Indira Government, nor of the World Bank, nor the ‘Left’ Front.

The interesting side of the ‘Operation Barga’ operation and waste land distribution is that all they started clear signs of ebbing since the ‘Left’ Front victories in the general elections in 1982 and the Panchayat elections in 1983. Secondly, under the ‘Operation Barga’ about 14 lakh bargadars cultivating 8% of the land were registered [Economic Survey 2002-03]. For argument’s sake, if unregistered bargadars too enjoy some sort of stability and constitute another 14 lakh peasants, the impact of the much propagated ‘Operation Barga’ is limited to only 16% of the land. The CPI(M) theoreticians exaggerated this bargadar registration to such a height that it was even presented as the continuation of the course of the Great Santhal Rebellion! Various researches have confirmed it that share cropping does not exceed more than 20% of the land and limited to paddy cultivation and a bargadar earns in a month as much as does a contract labourer in a factory.

It is worthy of mention that with the lack of seriousness and political will after easy election victories 3.2 percent bargadars were forced to part with their rights by way of their ejection even before 2002. With the pro-rich bias of the ‘Left’ Front bargadars came to be increasingly trifled with as expressed in the CPI(M)’s peasant front diktat to its cadres in its 32^nd session in 2003: “….(It) is highly important to initiate movement among bargadars against the opportunist tendency prevailing among bargadars about not to cultivate properly or not to part with the share of the owners of the lands….” [Paschimbanga Pradeshik Krishak Sabha, 32^nd Session, January 23-26, 2003, p.15] This warning against avoidance of looking after the interests of the owners and productivity, etc. is nothing but the same policy the CPI(M) has been insisting on for the workers for many years now while in power. Mr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, who is now the trusted blue-boy of the World Bank, MNCs, etc. went into raptures during the 26 years celebration of the ‘Left’ Front by such tall claims “…. The most distinct picture of our success lies in the fact that in our State 72 percent cultivable land is in the hands of the poor and marginal peasants…15 lakh bargadars have been recorded! It is a fundamental matter. After coming to power we have rescued 11 lakh acres of land and got it distributed…. This ownership character of cultivable land, what we call land reforms – within this structure….” [In Saral Biswas (ed) Partir, Rananini Ebong Bamfront Sarkar, p.18] Such way of demagogy of the ‘Marxist’ CM sunk into parliamentarism is also found in the tall claims of other governments at the Centre and states. Facts, however, do not substantiate such tall talks. The World Bank, other international financial bodies and some economists favouring the CPI(M) pat on the backs of the CPI(M) leaders for raising such a constitutional model of land reforms to avert agrarian revolution. The CPI(M) too feels inspired to refer to such praises. Now let us cite some findings on how the peasantry is deceived and what the land reforms praised by the international finance capital so much have actually brought about.

In 1976 per capital daily net food production during the Congress rule in West Bengal was 419 gms. While in the rest of India it was 479 gms. The same figure was 364 gms and 462 gms in 1981, in 1997 it was 451 gms and and 504 gms and came down for West Bengal to the tune of 444 gms and 502 gms for the rest of India and then further dropped to 451 gms for West Bengal in 2000 and 501 gms for the rest of India and this further dipped to 413 for West Bengal in 2001. [Source: Ajit Narayan Bose, Paschimbanger Arthaniti O Rajniti] This clearly shows that per capita food production could not be enhanced owing to much-touted land reforms. What is an irony is that during the first 10 years of the ‘Left’ Front rule when the so-called land reforms, the Panchayat system were in full swing the per capita food production rather decreased. Yet there was no less drumming into the ears of the masses by the CPI(M) propaganda machine about the great success story of the so-called constitutional land reforms. For such dwindling of production and also in certain years its increase too some extent practically depended on the inclement weather to a great extent – an all India phenomenon, to be precise. Some economists have even refused to link up agricultural production to the partial and constitutional land reforms. It is very relevant to put it here straight that out of the total of all vested land distributed so far about 60% was distributed during the previous Congress regimes itself in West Bengal when the ‘Left’ Front’s limited land reforms programme was yet to be kickstarted. As a whole during this long rule of the parliamentary ‘left’ the net result till 2001 September was that the total vested land distributed was 10.58 lakh acres and the number of registered bargadars working on land was 11.08 lakh acres. This totalled only 15.5% of the net cultivable land. The rest 84.5% land ownership remained outside the ambit of the land reforms!

The CPI(M) policy makers had to face the bitter reality of receding agricultural production and the inherent constraints of their constitutional land reforms keeping the semi-colonial and semi-feudal structure intact. So the alternative was to take recourse to the much discredited World Bank prescription of Green Revolution to cope with the situation. Mr. Anil Biswas, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, Mr. Karat and such people betray the people at every step but always try to refurbish their image as ‘left’ parroting Marx, Lenin, Stalin as the occasions demand. The agricultural crisis was not clearly admitted but rather in the name of development under ‘More Improved Left Government’ those betrayers adopted the New Agricultural Policy – a policy to woo the World Bank, WTO and the MNCs and deceive the peasantry. Now the global American Consultant McKinskey was entrusted with the responsibility to save the ‘Left’ Fornt government by showcasing West Bengal as the most lucrative destination for the transnational corporations. Mckinsey observed in its report that the fragmentation of land was a major impediment to foreign investment in agriculture. Immediately the CPI(M) state secretariat in a meeting in July 2002 decided to introduce a Bill to pave the way for overturning the earlier ‘Left’ Front land reforms policy. McKinsey report had recommended crop diversification from the traditional paddy and jute cultivation to aromatic rice, pineapple, litchi, mango, potato, green vegetables and even floriculture. It also advised a master plan to be prepared defining the geographic areas for agro-centred specialties in particular kind of crops and food production catering to the local, inter-state and foreign markets. The Report advised “Make the transition from agriculture to agribusiness.” [Times of India, 23.10.2005], Quite naturally the CPI(M) government in the above-said bill proposed the merger of separate pieces of land into a single plot. The Times of India (June 28, 2003) wrote that the Bill “will also allow several plot holders to form a company and enter into agreement with potential investors in food processing and agribusiness – the latest thrust area of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee government…” This is the current mantra of the peddlers of ‘development’ through foreign investment and depriving the rights of the peasants on their land. Mckinsey also prescribed contract-based cultivation between the peasants and the MNCs and creation of variety in agricultural produce and it received the green signal from the NDA regime. Multinational food companies like Pepsi, HLL, Cargil, RPG, ITC and domestic majors like Dabur, etc. have already begun exploring investment opportunities.

Mr. Anil Biswas in his attack on the Maoists has charged us with having no faith in the possibility of development within this state structure. If all the above becomes the mantra of development by tying the Indian peasantry and other toiling masses with the imperialist globalisation programme is the sign of development we assertively say that we are on the opposite pole. We clearly say that such measures of ‘development’ was actually started by the British rule and further carried on on a wider scale by the existing state which the CPI(M) considers as wheels of the of ‘development’ engine making an atmosphere of pro-globalisation or rather rallying a section of the people with some illusory gains. This is pure and simple parliamentarism of the worst type.

Quite naturally with the shift in agrarian policy of the ‘Left’ Front the vigorous effort is on to up the land ceiling limit and the agro-business venture is going on full steam in West Bengal. In tune with the Mckinsey prescription the state conference of the CPI(M) in February 2002 prescribed the notorious capitalist theory of productive force bluntly saying that “…It is also essential to adopt modern technology for bringing about change in the crop pattern towards production of cash crops and increase in agricultural production. It is not possible to tackle the situation unless the poor and marginal farmers have their access to irrigation, fertilizers, improved seeds, agricultural implements, etc.” [Left Front Government Our Tasks, Resolution adopted by the West Bengal State Conference of the CPI(M), February 2002. In The Marxist, April-June 2002, p.80]. This is nothing but a cunning spade work for justifying the handing over of the small plots of land to others who can arrange cash crops, with irrigation facilities, access to fertilizers, improved seeds and so on. This prescription is also for the so-called Green Revolution with left phraseology.

Here we must say it that those revisionists and yes-men of international finance capital had already introduced the ‘Green Revolution’ policy and it gained momentum when the partial land reforms proved a failure to increase agricultural production. It is noticeable that before the ‘Left’ Front’s assumption of power in 1977 the use of fertilizer per acre in West Bengal was well below the all India level. But by 1980-81 this rate outstripped all-India level by using 10% more fertilizer per acre of land and by 1995-96 its use was 35% more than all India level. And by 2000-01 when the over all fertilizer use got further reduced in India West Bengal recorded 31% more than all India level (Source: Ajit Narayan Bose, Paschim Banger Arthanithi Rajniti, p.129] In the same way, the use of HYV seeds was 33.6% for West Bengal while it was 30.2% of the cultivable land in India. And in 1995-96 such seeds were put under 54.1% land area in India, in the ‘Marxist’ led state it soared to 74.6% of the cultivable area. [Source, Ibid] We all know how the prices of those inputs have increased many times beyond the reach of the poor farmers. Prof. Ajit Narayan Bose has shown from various government published sources that between 1980-81 and 2000-01 the area for the cultivation of pulse and cereals (poor people eat them for the low prices) has reduced respectively by 48% and 52%. On the other hand there has been a huge increase (more than 4 times) in the cultivation of boro paddy in West Bengal in this period. This variant of paddy is notorious for excessive consumption of water (48 inch per acre for boro cultivation, 12 inch per acre for wheat and 10 inch per acre for oil seeds) This is clearly the disastrous step of the ‘Left’ Front for showcasing rapid rise in paddy production. We have ample evidence from Punjab, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, etc. how such policy of so-called Green Revolution has caused disaster to the peasants, particularly poor peasants.

Already land alienation and the rise of a neo-rich class pose a threat to the poor peasants. M.S.Swaminathan, the father of the so-called Green Revolution, whose expertise is tapped by Buddhadeb gave the sermon after a long meeting with the latter and commented like the Mckinsey’s road map: “what Bengal lacks is investment, but the role of private investors is to help the farmers and any kind of contract cultivation should be mutually beneficial and not exploitative….” [The Telegraph, May 7,2003] 

We must keep in mind that agriculture is not only the provider of raw material to the industrial sector. It provides raw materials to agro-based industries which have a current weight of 21.2 percent in the index of industrial production (Base 1980-81=100) and weight of 17.6 percent in the index with base 1993-94=100. Another important aspect is that it is the generator of agricultural income that enables rural demand for industrial products to take place. An eminent economist Rangarajan (1982) estimated that a one percent increase in agricultural output tends to raise industrial production by 0.5 percent. As now the agricultural production has been constantly decelerating for some years now the negative impact is obviously felt in the industrial production as such. [Uma Kapila, Indian Economy Since Independence, Academic Foundation, New Delhi, 2004-2005, pp.201-202]. So Indian industrial scenario in the productive sector can not but give only a dismal picture.

Now we cite below which class outlook the ‘Left’ Front is pursuing and why the so-called urbanization and industrialization are merely a hoax in West Bengal with stagnation in both agriculture and industrialization.

In the production of food per head in West Bengal has already lagged behind all-India level of food production for long and in 2001 the net production of food per head in West Bengal came down to only 413 gms while that of all India level stood above 500 gms. What is striking is that during the period of much-hyped land reforms from 1976 to 1986 the net food production per head dropped from 359 gms to 149 gms. The same picture of decline is evident in jute production, cereals, etc. we have stated above that about 84.5% lands remained outside the ambit of land reforms till 2001. Many economists have identified the fall in food production lying in the ‘Left’ Front’s policy of adopting the policy of so-called ‘Green Revolution’ and the slight and temporary increase during the ‘Left’ rule in some years was brought about basically by ‘boro’ cultivation destroying the water level and by excessive dependency on HYV seeds, fertilizers, etc.

The Economic survey for 2002-2003 clearly shows that at the top layer of the rural society in West Bengal lies 13.2% families occupying 48.9% land. While the picture for India as a whole in this period shows that 14.2% families have kept in their ownership 68.5% land. This clearly shows that the land ownership pattern of West Bengal does not show any sharp contrast to India as a whole in respect of land concetration.

The CPI(M) mouthpiece Ganashakti has drawn a similar parallel in respect of the conditions of the khetmajoors in West Bengal and India as a whole. It discloses the dismal scene in West Bengal stating clearly that in West Bengal “Despite playing very important role in the development of agriculture, not the least of development has reached the Khetmajoors. As majority of the Khetmajoors belong to the scheduled tribes and castes and other backward people both socially and economically they have lagged behind further…”(Ganashakti, 6 October, 2005)

According to the census 2001 the total number of peasants was 129.64 lakh. This count was not based  including the ‘marginal’ peasants who had worked for less than 6 months a year. Among them 56.13 lakh are peasants in govt. record. In other words they are either owners of cultivable land or sharecroppers. And the rest 73.51 lakh are landless khetmajoors. Thus it stands out that among the peasants 56.7% were landless khetmajoors.  In the year 1991 the percentage of khetmajoors was 46.11% and their number was 54.82 lakh. Thus we can easily dismiss the ‘Left’ Front claim of development when the poverty striken khetmajoors’ number and percentage have both increased alarmingly. Facts disprove the lies of the ‘Left’ Front. More that that such khetmajoors cannot get work generally for more than three months a year.

The wheels of ‘development’ have particularly crushed the poor peasants. The number of landless khetmajoors was 32.72 lakh in 1971, 38.92 lakh in 1981 and it increased to 50.55 lakh in 1999. And now the number has further spiralled to 73 lakh and 18 thousand. Is this development Mr. Anil Biswas?

With the jugglery of statistics the Chief Minister Buddhadeb is preaching on full steam that West Bengal is completely self-sufficient in food and agriculture and has stood first among the states in India. Actually speaking during the 26 years of its tenure from 1977-78 till 2003-04 the food production increased from 89.70 lakh tones to 160 lakh tones i.e. the rate of increase per year had been less than 2.3%. While the CPI(M) leader claims it that the irrigated land in West Bengal during the ‘Left’ Front rule has come first in India to speed up production of food. The actual reality is that statistics shows that in 2002-03 West Bengal came fourth (UP being the first with 3.67 crore tonnes) with 1.44 crore tonnes. Still now cereals and fish are brought from other states in West Bengal. The comprehensive National Sample Survey (1999-2000) clearly shows that the rural population below subsistence level in Indian villages as a whole was 27.1% while it was 31.85% in West Bengal. Secondly the survey states that the rate of rural employment per head in India was 1.3% while it was 1.2% for West Bengal. Thirdly per head expenditure for West Bengal in this period was Rs. 454 while the all India figure for it was Rs. 486. That Survey blasts the ‘Left’ Front claim to great success in ‘development’ in comparison with other states. Actually the shift from agriculture to industry, as the ‘Left’ Front claims, is based on the clear understanding that nothing could be further done through agriculture despite so much cries on success in land reforms and the panchayat system.

The present minimum wage has been fixed by the government as Rs. 64.80 but it is actually the maximum wage as in most areas khetmajoors are deprived of this minimum stipulated wage. The CPI mouthpiece the Kalantar writes that in every block despite the presence of government inspector to oversee the matter in most cases that minimum wages are not being implemented. In some parts of Bankura, Purulia, West Medinapur, the most poverty stricken of states, most of the landless khetmajoors are found. (Kalantar, 23 October 05).

In such a situation bargadars who received land has been losing the gains of partial land reforms everywhere and the rich are further gaining to increase their land possessions It was even admitted by the CPI(M)’s 20^th State Conference Report (p.89). The tall talks of agricultural development and land reforms are now proved to be a dismal failure. In the period of imperialist globalisation West Bengal’s rural scenario clearly shows the rise of a new class of rich having close links with the CPI(M) or its partners and by way of muscle power and political clout this new class represents the CPI(M)’s politics, with the nearly complete ebbing of interests of earlier poor or middle peasants in politics A sort of depoliticisation that is seen everywhere under the ‘Left’ rule too evident among the toiling masses in rural Bengal.

To add to their misery, it is found in the latest sample survey that both in West Bengal and India as a whole 50% of the peasants are in debt, generally paying a very high interest to the usurers. [Sanbad Pratidin, 18 September, 05] The CPI(M) literature speaks too much on the pathetic condition of the peasantry in Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Karnataka, etc. but never discloses the reality in West Bengal.

Sometime past among 33,000 rural families in 16 states were surveyed by one semi-govt. institution National Council of Applied Economic Research covering 300 aspects of human livelihood between 1992 and 1995  and the revealing fact was that in respect minimum needs for mere living 16% of the rural people in villages could not spend Rs. 3 in a day and the rest 19% could barely spend Rs. 5 per day. Leaving apart the rising inflation rate since 1994-96 we could easily say that the conditions worsened further. The worst states in the survey were Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar, UP, MP and Rajasthan with the per head income of the rural people in a year was 3028/-, 3157/-, 3169/-, 4166/- and 4229/-.  This survey clearly showed that in West Bengal itself 50% rural people was below subsistence level.

With the all-round failure on the peasant front being too evident the CPI mouthpiece declared that since the 1990s stagnation has been persisting in agriculture [Kalantar 3 Sept. 05]. And when the productive industrial sector is facing acute ‘crisis with massive closures, retrenchments, lay-offs, etc. now the CPI(M) has been for sometime past knocking on the doors of the World Bank, DFID, Mckinsey, Price Waters, etc. to wriggle out of this crisis. The CPM minister Mr. Kanti Biswas had to find alibi for the new policy, basically a mix of Keynesian and post-Keynesian models. Mr. Kanti Biswas, a CPI(M) minister of the ‘Left’ Front bluntly writes “….Whatever development is made possible for the agricultural system, there can not be great increase for employment opportunities. Agri-based industry has been emphasized. Without industrialization no such great advantage can be brought forth – this stark reality has to be understood…” [Ganashakti, 12 October, 2005] Mr. minister Kanti Biswas actually speaks from McKinsey Report and in tune with the World Bank approved reforms. The stark reality what our CPI(M) double-dealers never dare to clearly speak to the people. But who can conceal the open prescriptions of the CPI(M)’s new masters?

We the Maoists clearly challenge the tall claims of industrialization. Indian city scenario does prove it cogently that the industrial units, even if some take off in reality in this system can not absorb the army of unemployed, increasing with every passing day. Now it is the capital-intensive industries such Industrialisation is for jobless growth.

 

The CPI(M)’s Alibi for Industrialisation: A Hoax

If simplified, it can be said that the village helps in industrialization by way of providing food for the workers, supplying raw materials for the industries and creating the market. This complementary relationship does not posit the village against the city, rather it makes it clear that the more the productivity of the village, the more the enrichment  of the industry. Of course in such a general proposition we defer for the time being the very crucial question of the possibility of productivity, social justice, political, economic and cultural rights of the peasantry as lying in the fundamental question of land reforms, independent economic development and such other relevant issues.

India is a third world country where this complementary relationship between the village and the city is essential. This is more so in respect of the question of decentralization of power and economy, in which the village too can emerge as the core of industrialization process. The village cannot exhaust itself solely by supplying raw materials for industry. And the other most important question is that industry can not sustain without producing goods for the village and in condition of low economic standards of the villagers. Like foolish Buddha we cannot call for the destruction of villages. One writer Kevin Lynch wrote “Imagine that the growth of population and the evolution of technology have organized the entire globe – that a single world city covers the usable surface of the earth. The prospect is a nightmare. One instantly has a vision of being trapped in endless rows of tenements or little suburbon houses. Of no escape from the continual presence and pressure of other people. The city would be monotonous, faceless, bewildering. It would be abstract, out of contact with nature; even the man-made things would not be handled or changed. The air would be foul, the water murky, the streets crowded and dangerous. Bill boards and loudspeakers would force their attention on everyone. One could be at home in sealed room, but how could one farm or hunt or explore? [Kevin Lynch, The City as Environment, (ITIES a scientific American book, New York, 1971, p.192]

We also want Unnayan (development) and industrialization but in whose interest? The glossy many lanes roads, fly-overs, shopping malls, cleansing of the ghettos on the sides of the canals, ejection of the poor hand to mouth people from the rail-tract sides, etc. are development, we the Maoists hate and oppose them.

Excessive industrialization and urbanization without considering the vast numbers of people in a country like India destroy the complementary relationship between the village and the city. Here we must reckon the fact that here too for now we do not refer to the character of capital, imperialist, comprador or native behind the process of industrialization or urbanization, we emphasize the fact that certain industrial or manufacturing units are obviously better located in the village like grinding mills, oil-extracting, casting, various types of repairing of machines, weaving, etc. At a later stage of a balanced development the village can also be the core centre of small/medium industries and this is rationally realizable in a situation of overturning class relations from the top to bottom. To be more precise, the degree of industrialization and urbanization that a basically village-based country like India can afford must be based on the economic uplift of the vast rural masses and the capability of the industrial or urban centers to absorb the migrant villagers. If the landless mass of peasants migrate to cities with little scope of employment and live in acute distress in shanties or ghettoes we can never call it a balanced real development. We have however to accept the fact that this complementary relationship between the city and the village is not inelastic and non-dynamic. Actually, the development of cities is the simultaneous development of the villages.

Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee like sycophants during their visit to Indonesia after the failure in the agricultural sector might find fault with agriculture to woo the Salim group with dollops of anti-peasant offers but that can never solve the crisis, nor can they provide ‘relief’ what the CPI(M) steeped in parliamentarism justifies for its power-greedy politics. This is actually inviting disasters for thousands of peasants. In any case, in our brief survey we find that before 1900 no society of Europe could be called as predominantly urbanized in the modern sense and by 1900 only Great Britain could only be regarded as so. Modern cities or urbanization i.e. a switch form a spread-out pattern of human settlement to one of concentration in urban centers through migration from villages went in tandem with the industrialization process. While the industrial revolution brought about vast changes in the urbanization process, the modern cities/urban centers of the west with 1 lakh or more people were made possible by the breaking down of the feudal order. It was obviously a positive march of capitalism over the destruction of feudalism. It was still then a progressive capitalism over the past feudalism by moving on to the path of industrialization and urbanization. This capitalism in the end of the 19^th century itself turned into a decaying system and then imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism did not only carry on exploitation of labour for super profits, annexing new lands, etc. but also became the gigantic power for destroying environment. We the Maoists are not obviously, to borrow George Lukac’s words, “Romantic anti-capitalism” or the post-modern conservatives. What we stress is that industrialization or urbanization for the actual extraction of super-profits, destruction of nature, production of basically luxury goods, lethal weapons and the sway of speculative capital, etc. – all working closely in the country like India with the support of native dalals – through  the dictates of the World Bank, the IMF, the IDBI and the MNCs at the cost of our bio-diversity, water bodies, eviction of peasants from land, etc. are only for steady inflow of finance capital to strengthen the noose around Indian masses. Besides that the current trend of financial capital is not for industrialization to absorb the unemployed but basically for so-called urbanization and increasing consumerism as an ideology to mesmerise the people to go in for goods at high prices basically not essential for livelihood.

When Buddhadeb thunders from Indonesia that industry is progress and agriculture is backwardness in the stage of moribund imperialism he actually wants to destroy the agriculture of West Bengal, to the satisfaction of the World Bank, MNCs, etc. This shall also further strengthen the ‘Promoters’ Raj in West Bengal. The Buddha theory of so-called industrialization under the semi-colonial and semi-feudal condition at this present stage of imperialist globalisation devastating nature and destroying man-nature relationship is a dangerous design. Long back Marx, who hailed the positive role of capitalism at the early stage had also forewarned in this way “All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the workers, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of soil for a given time is progress towards ruining the long-lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country proceeds form large scale industry as the background of its development, as in the case of the United States, the more rapid is this process of destruction. Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the techniques and the degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original source of all wealth – the soil and the workers.” [Marx, Capital, Vol. I. pp.637-38, quoted in John Bellamy Foster, Marx And The Environment, Monthly Review, July-August 1995, p.109]

Marx’s materialism is obviously not the ‘Baconian’ domination of nature and economic development. It contained the assertion of ecological values, the assertion for a balanced man-nature relations. It is opposed to a spiritualistic, vitalistic view of the natural world tending to be the worshipper of nature.

Mao opposed the theory of productive forces emphasizing politics in command in the context of his fight against the capitalist roaders. In India too the CPI and the CPI(M) on different occasions voiced in favour of pure industrialization citing the examples of the first world countries.

The motive for super profit, destruction of nature and production of lethal weapons etc. have been closely associated with the present moribund capitalist system and the extent to which those dangerous features have reached any conscious Marxist or even a democrat must think twice before extending support to any industrialization or scientific experiments. However, in Buddha’s case the sole aim is to ensure the so-called urbanization with a very small number of factories (at a time when industries are getting closed and industrialists themselves prefer speculation to setting up industrial units) as the investment/ ‘aid’/ ‘grant’/loan strings of the WFID, World Bank and the MNCs bind the state and its people, the peasantry in general to maintain stability of the system. And Buddhadeb finds such way out in vain in order to stave off the crisis emanating basically from agricultural stagnation in the Semi-feudal set-up.

 

Development theories and the CPM

Generally speaking the theorists of modernization distinguish between traditional, transitional and modernized societies. While the development theorists speak of underdeveloped, developing and developed societies. However, both of those Western schools of thought basically American emphasize the process from tradition to modernity or from underdevelopment to development. Both of them arising, particularly after the post-World War II, emphasized to take into account the volume of Gross National Product (GNP) and the degree of industrialization through state capitalism or/and private-owned capitalist industries. Since the 1970s those theories burst asunder with the pathologically poverty-ridden condition of the most third world countries. While accepting those models or within the parameters of those Western models – emerging as they did against the Soviet or Chinese models of socialism or people’s democracy – some critics started giving some thought to the question of basic needs and gradual upgrading of the quality of life. Thus the Western modernization paradigm, based on American behavioral approach now began to spare a few thoughts on economic imperatives while development economics, in turn, started looking forward to the anti-Marxist behavioral and institutional aspects of development.

Marx favoured industrialization on the destruction of feudal or pre-capitalist social formations. It is also a fact that Marx in the Communist Manifesto visualized the progress registered by industrialization but simultaneously he formulated the anti-thesis of the process as inherent in capitalism itself with the emergence of the socialist system under the proletarian leadership. Simultaneously, it was Marx who was not a worshipper of capitalism examined the ills of capitalism. His Capital is the dissection of the capitalist system itself to show its internal contradictions leading towards its doom to yield place for the socialist system. Secondly, Marx in his lifetime virulently attacked the growing imperialist role of the Western capitalist countries. In his mature age most of his writings on the capitalist system a trenchant criticism of the barbarous role of the capitalist countries in internal as well as external relationships with the backward countries.

What the present day votaries of development under the so-called ‘More improved’ Left Front in West Bengal push forward is nothing but the World Bank’s development model in the new bottle. It is notable that in the 1960s as United Nations designated the decade of the 1960s as the ‘Development Decade’ with the target of an annual growth rate of 6% of GNP stressing a faster rate of growth in relation to the population growth. Such a model too placed a notion of economic development exaggeratedly stating: a planned alternation of the structure of production and employment. The size and share of the rural agricultural sector was to decline; those of the urban industrial sector, involving the growth of manufacturing and service industries. Do we not find certain striking similarities in such phantastic programme between the CPI(M)’s or in other words Anil Biswas’s brief for the World Bank sponsored development model and the above pronouncements. Here too is the notion of the trickle-down effect or to say it more lucidly, the crumbs of the swollen bourgeoisie landlords and other vultures to pass on to the poor down trodden. And as was expected by the revolutionary Marxists, the U.N. programme based on the dangerous views of pumping in foreign ‘aid’, import of technology, seeds, fertilizers, etc. proved a miserable failure.

The crisis of the decades preceding the onslaught of globalization tore off the veneer of the western model of development for a country like ours in semi-colonial and semi-feudal condition. In the state of parliamentary cretinism the CPI(M) cries hoarse about the rich getting richer and the poor poorer in all states of India except in the ‘Marxist’ paradise called West Bengal or in the state where the CPI(M) receives the Indian state’s blessings to stay put in power. Actually, the problem is that such a development model or the whining for development from anti-Marxist Anil Biswas & Co. is rooted in the noble task of development for the interests of a small section of the rich or nauveau rich, the America dominated World Bank, WTO and the MNCs for being the mentors of the degenerate and decaying CPI(M).

Samuel Huntington, the notorious pro-American theorist who provides the moral support to the present American designs in Iraq in his much-publicised book ‘The Clash of Civilizations’, wrote a book in 1976 under the title “The Change: Modernisation, Development, and Politics” [In Cyril E.Black (ed), Comparative Modernization, New York, The Free Press, 1976, pp.30-31]. Huntington like Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee stated without mentioning the structural presence of semi-feudalism that efforts were underway towards transforming rural agrarian centres into urban industrial centers and that both modernization and development are a global process with the ideas and techniques being diffused from the centers of development (i.e. west) to the other parts of the world. Huntington added that such industrialization, etc. was meant for human well-being both culturally and materially. But the whole model of so-called development crashed within years, showing glaring incongruity between the tall promises and the structural constraints of the 3^rd World.

 The imperialist stranglehold, the land relations, the built-in inequalities, etc. all proved to be insurmountable in such development model. The cries for development as our CPI(M) leaders with their abject surrender to the enemies of the people, both international and national, would ultimately lead to more and move dependency on imperialist capital and further dacay in West Bengal’s economy. The critics of such development within the existing structure with increasing dependence on the imperialist penetration have also raised several questions like environmental disasters; agricultural decay; inroads of consumerism, the culture of adjustment with the system itself through a well-synchronised policy of extracting consent by way of various types of rewards and other means; the increasing defence budget, etc. Buddhadeb endeared himself, to the compradors of Indonesia, by such glib talk like agriculture is backwardness, and industry is a forward movement. All revolutionary Marxists also do know that countries like India were looted by the imperialists perpetually gagging up the real development of those countries. We also know the crucial question that after the Great October Revolution bourgeoisie can not lead to success the democratic revolution in the backward countries.

The entire CPI(M) policy for ‘development’ is structurally based on the World Bank, WTO prescriptions for free flow of finance and some amount of industrial capital for industrialization, urbanization, westernization. And all such processes of West Bengal are pure and simple way of devastation of  the West Bengal economy as a whole, agriculture in particular. We have to comprehend in what context and to whom to appease Buddhadeb thundered against Bengal agriculture in favour of destroying the agricultural field in the name of development. Why did the reciprocal patting immediately came from none but the avowedly pro-globalisation policy like Mr. Monmohan Singh, Montek Singh and such mentors of Buddhadeb? It is in order to state that Indira Gandhi dismissed the critics of development in the third world through industrialisation at the cost of environment. She like Buddhadeb and the CPI(M) leaders sent out the message loaded with tall talks that for these societies poverty is the greatest pollution, removal of poverty amounting to improvement in the quality of environment. [S.C.Dube, Modernization And Development, The Search for Alternative Paradigms, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1988, p.8] Here lies the shedding of crocodile’s tears for the poor both in case of social fascist Buddhadeb and the autocrat, fascist Indira Gandhi.

What Buddhadeb and his ilk don’t disclose that agriculture is not the demon, the demon lies in the massive inequalities in respect of distribution, rising usury, inroads of the MNCs, sprouting shopping malls, high ways by encroaching upon and destroying paddy field, the presence of so many Amlasholes, rising inequality in land possession, etc.

For the alternative model, it is true that each and every country must have some specificity that will impart their stamps on the developments of the respective societies. This does not mean, as some theoreticians argue, that each and every society must evolve its own alternative and that alternatives before man in society are infinite. We the Marxists-Leninists-Maoists do not entertain such a view based on cultural relativism. The alternative to the capitalist model, so far as our Marxist experiences teach us, can not but be the socialist model with obvious specificities of the societies, the economies and the cultures concerned.

American and European economists and political theorists of third world development on the capitalist lines offer the modernization theory under different names to lead “from tradition to modernity”. Edward Shills, S.N.Eisenstadt, Almond and Verba, etc. to name a few, propagated modernization of the backward regions basically in the post-World War II situation. What those theoreticians simply avoided were the class rule, class composition of the society and state’s class composition. They avoided such crucial questions after the October Revolution in the Soviet Union and the Chinese Revolution with a diluted presentation of the privileged classes as ‘elite’ leadership. Those theorists practically justified the western capitalist model of modernization in the post-war neo-colonial stage of the 3^rd World Countries. The challenge to such hybrid capitalism came from the Marxists as well as many non-Marxist writers. Yash Tandon from Uganda had long ago questioned the basic assumptions and definitions implied in the European notion of a centralized state or the conception of ‘consociational democracy’ being imposed on Africa with multi-tribal societies. J.A.Silva Michelena from Venezuela has questioned the whole theory of the Western model of modernisation forming the mainstay and theoretical rationale provide by Pye, Rustow, Silvert, Deutsch, Almond and Verba, etal.

Many years back Condido Mendes of Brazil, commenting on the experience of the southern countries of Latin America, elucidated the general critique of so-called modernization theory to show how different historical conditions made even some of the most prevalent concepts change their meaning when applied to particular configurations. He criticized the concept of ‘elite’; a common ‘civic’ culture, participation, etc. which did not emerge with structurally decided economic dependence and where there is the absence of a genuine national bourgeoisie. Mendes said that the emerging civic pantheons are thus extremely equivocal, without a clear-cut cultural anchor. Development in such states has thus to “be necessarily conceived in discontinuous forms, as rupture lurks in all that went before.” The conclusion was devastating. He declared in such conditions it is difficult to see how the existing models of development can furnish any meaningful explanation. [Cited in Rajni Kothari Rethinking Development, In Search of Humane Alternatives, Ajanta Publications, 1988, Delhi, p.173]

 

Development Programme of the Congress and the CPM: After the transfer of power, the model of development taken up by the ruling Congress Party under Nehru was to develop/modernize the economy to catch up with the developmental process. In such a model development was equated with establishment of factories, dams and to go in for such other indicators. The question of uplift, nay equality, of the oppressed masses was simply negated or the assumption of the planners in the 50’s and 60’s was the percolating effect of development at the top would automatically raise the standard of living of the poor millions.

Such a development model did not visualize development as a process encompassing all the aspects of the economy, politics, culture, health, education, environment, etc.

Gandhian alternative to the Marxian model was based on an absurd premise with such grandiose belief that a new society would emerge (obviously maintaining the fundamentals of class relations) on the principles of social responsibility and moral disinterestedness with the integration of property ownership.

In fact the whole lot of development theories have been premised on the concept that if the production of consumer goods and services are augmented. i.e. if the Gross National Product or the current Gross National Income is raised the solution to the problem of development will be naturally solved. This view is also well expressed in the West Bengal’s so-called left government’s policy and the CPI(M)’s party and mass-fronts literature.

Buddha’s view on agriculture as symptom of backwardness echoes social Darwinism accepting the survival of the fittest. This view was preached in the 19^th century by the rising big advanced technology would have the rightful place in the process of development replacing the weak. Buddha here not only drums up for the technological development, he preaches the view that the occupation of agricultural land by the foreign investors in collusion with the CPI(M) symbolises progress, the progress to be bought about by the worshipping of industrial of technological sector as naturally more powerful and advanced than agricultural sector. This has two devastating consequences. Firstly, like the development theories sponsored by the World Bank, Ford Foundation, Rockfeller Foundation, etc. Buddha and his party accept the so-called development and that is also within this grossly unequal system – at the cost of peasants inclusive of many bargardars.  Secondly, such a view automatically endorses, though not explicitly states, though not explicitly states, the ‘percolating effect’ theory of the Indian planners, ignoring the consequences of such a rash drive for garlanding the MNCs and foreign institutions to ensure displacement of peasants from land, creating unemployment and all that.

Yet the symbols of the CPI(M)’s development are like highways fly-overs, mega cities, shopping malls, motorable roads for car race and the majestic well-decorated buildings on premier lands in Kolkata and other places. The poor in the villages must be thrown to the brink to yield place to the more powerful rich classes. The industries – implanted finance capital pumped in (they are also not boons but banes for secret deals shall never be known) are progressive forces in Buddha’s view and so agriculture, chronically suffering from maladies, must be destroyed. The funny aspect is that the displaced will also have no right for a living since the CPI(M) sponsored development will never increase employment. This patent fact should not be raised or questioned as it is a taboo in the CPI(M)’s police regime.

It is in order to note it that in the imperialist globalization model the western consumerism and western type industrialization, wide-range network of speculative capital are pushed into the third world countries like India the vilest interests. What is alarming is that despite the expansion of the capitalist economy five times than what was before fifty years, there lies a yawning gap in the world to the tune of seventy times between the income of the rich and the poor (UNDP 1994, 1998). The peddlers of ‘development’ or Unnayan actually sweep such a glaring fact under the carpet. The UNDP report 2005 has ranked India 127^th among 177 countries surveyed on the composite index of a long, healthy life, literacy and gender equality in 2004 too. (The Telegraph 8^th September 2005).

 

So-Called Development With FDI: If in the world capitalist system two poles are conceived one the imperialist, capitalist world of the West (except Japan in Asia) and the other in the vest third world countries, the latter can not sustain substantially without cutting off their links of dependency on the former. Such countries can’t avoid imperialist plunder.

Not only the hacks of imperialism, the social-democratic parties intending to develop Nehru type so-called socialistic system can never accept such a clear view. The “success” story of Mexico, Brazil, Taiwan, South Korea, particularly of the so-called ‘Asian Tigers’ have already proved that under the aegis of U.S. imperialism land reforms, health facilities, spread of education were taken up to set up as models against the socialist countries. The Chinese Revolution goaded the U.S. imperialist power into pouring ‘aid’ and investment generously. One can not ignore this stark fact that under the Marshal Plan South Korea received the maximum U.S. ‘help’ far exceeding the amount received from it by the whole of West Europe. Besides that, the huge presence of the US army stationed in many of such countries indirectly helped receive some sort of economic advantages as a spilling over effect. In fact, despite the induced changes from above through the imperialist plan to reduce backwardness of those countries, Samir Amin states, they turned into sub-contractors of imperialist monopolists. It is crystal clear that blending of imperialist plunder and internal class exploitation might apparently jack up economic growth for some time yet the real income of the direct producers will invariably come down or stagnate as was seen in Brazil and South Korea. Apart from this, such so-called development through mass production of luxury goods and building up of fly-overs, roads etc. can not make such countries break loose the shackles of imperialist control. 

The Globalisation protagonists projected South Korea and Taiwan as models of development in East Asia. The economics crashed in the 1990s. What the World Bank and its allies pumped in moving fast from one country to the other was no productive capital but basically speculative in nature. Which follows no systematic rules and based on inherent instability. Till the beginning of the 1990s it was Mexico as the rising symbol of globalization. Like India (and West Bengal under ‘Marxist’ government) Mexico opened its door for liberalisation and foreign investors hummed to the fertile ground as vultures. Ultimately a serious crisis set in reducing the poor Mexicans to a miserably unstable economic state. No real Marxist organisation can afford to ignore this basic fact that the fundamental purpose of current globalization is to remove all barriers for the free movement of capital to dovetail the backward economics of the third world to the aggressive policy of reaping super profits by the MNCs. The temporary growth generated by such inflows of capital can not sustain for too long a period nor can it open substantial opportunities for the unemployed in distress. Instead it strengthens the neo-colonial noose around those countries.

Now let us shed light on the regular topsy-turvy of the CPI(M) sitting tight at the helm of West Bengal government for more than 28 years. The most ridiculous aspect of this CPI(M) staged drama is that for the vast Indian sub-continent it keeps on parroting the need for fighting the imperialist globalisation programmes of liberalisation and structural adjustment but for West Bengal its prescription and practice are just the opposite.

The CPI(M) since its first Congress (7^th Congress) in 1964 has been talking about making inroads into the Hindi belt and other regions. But the results so long have been a dismal failure. For sometime past this Party, deeply sunk into parliamentarism, has gone whole hog for piggy-back politics by striking electoral alliance sometimes with the Congress, sometimes with the RJD, sometimes with such other reactionary forces for entry into other regions. And for those vast parts of India the CPI(M) tries to project itself as an unflinchingly left organisation meant for the workers, peasants and other common people. One easily finds it that for those states the CPI(M) is at least in mouth poses as a vocal fighter against globalisation programme. The reverse policy stares out from the CPI(M) documents for West Bengal, Tripura, etc. where it is in power. Buddhadeb, Yeachury, Jyoti Basu and their gang of swindlers have no shame to accept globalisation for the CPI(M) ruled states. The discrepancy is appalling. Let us quote from the CPI(M)’s political Resolution (Adopted at the 18^th Congress, April 6-11, 2005, New Delhi)

“Finance Capital dominates current-day capitalism. Its expansion drives the imperialist assault on the economics of less-developed countries. Its current offensive involves not just opening the markets of less-developed countries to commodities and foreign direct investment form the advanced capitalist countries, but also opening up the financial sector to permit free play of speculative finance in stock and capital markets in the search super profits. The inflow of such capital imposes a sharp decline in public expenditure in the recipient countries.” [Para 1.28, p.7]

The fact is that the CPI(M), particularly after propping up the UPA ministry led by the reactionary Congress Party shall never resort to any militant policy to fight against the assault on the Indian economy by the imperialists, the U.S in the forefront. In the past two years it has proved itself as a mere low-keyed opposition to the central policies of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation only to come down to a compromise on those fundamental questions. Chidambarans, Manmohons and their ilk know it too well and even publicly observe that the ‘Left protest’ never stands in their way to implement the same old policies started during Narshimha Rao ministry and flourished to the full under the NDA dispensation. While for West Bengal the CPI(M) led U.F. under Buddhadev shows no qualms about foreign direct investment, World Bank, Asian Development Bank and such imperialist efforts to actually destroy West Bengal economy like the blue boy of the World Bank Mr. Chandrababu Naidu. Actually the last Party Congress (18^th Congress) after elaborating on the dangerous globalisation policy and its assault on the backward countries in its Political Resolution and Political Organisational Report concluded with such vague toothless call.

“The struggle for an alternative socialist order has to be based on the revolutionary socialist formation of the existing order. This is turn, needs an engagement (i.e., joining issues) of the revolutionary forces with the existing world realities with the sole objective of changing the correlation of forces in favour of socialism.” [CPI (M), Political Organisational Report, 18^th Congress April 6-11, 2005, p.29]

Such new jargons and phrases like ‘engagement’, ‘existing world realities’, ‘changing the correlation of forces’ were then repeated with the actual aim of urging the CPIM followers to accept compromises in the ‘existing world realities’ and that by way of alliance and re-alliance with all hues of political forces in the parliamentary political arena by which the CPI(M) will worm its way to achieve the goal of socialism. Why should they call for revolutionary destruction of the society and prepare for it? Such efforts were cunningly incorporated in its first (7^th) Congress progamme and then in the name of ‘existing world realities’ or saving the Left Front, UPA government, etc. the CPI(M) and its leaders now show no hesitation to accept the ‘realities’ of the World Bank, FDI, cordial relations with the earlier NDA government, banning such efforts like militant struggle, nay the question of preparing for revolutionary overturning of this existing system. The new vocabulary like ‘engagement’ actually means accepting the unholy marriage between the CPI(M) and the reactionaries being solemnized by the ringing endorsement of the imperialist institutions, MNCs and Indian comprador bourgeoisie.

 

Unnayan Mantra of CPM is reversal of basic Marxism

 Mr. Anil Biswas has charged the Maoists with sarcasm that we are against “development”? He writes “It is clearly seen in the programmes of the Maoists that they think it that from within the existing state structure no development is possible. They think that raising slogan for partial development amounts to committing betrayal of the revisionist path. It is their idea that raising the slogan of development without arms in hand is synonymous with the act of agent (Dalali) of the ruling class…..” [p.37]

Anil Biswas here plays the cunning trick by mixing up the very question of energetic participation of the people like him and his party in the distorted development process and the relevance of movements on partial demands. Anil Biswas wants to conceal the facts of his party’s turning into the agent of the ruling classes by confusing the readers by way of equating the movements for partial demands with that of the so-called slogan of development. We the Maoists are clearly on the opposite pole on the question of so-called development being carried on since the British period till date within the colonial, semi-feudal structure first and then the semi-colonial, semi-feudal state structure of the present.

We take a look at the history of Kolkata under the British rule we also find the ‘development’ through ‘improvement’ activities like the policies on public health, lighting of the city, drainage system, conservancy under health officer, disposal of carcasses, water supply, ‘public safety’, etc. Apparently speaking, all such policies and measures taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation are for ‘development’ in the ‘Left’ Front’s perception. Now the Left Front has been over active in building up flyovers in and around Kolkata and they are projected as quantifiable steps of development. Comrade Mao said that all the rulers need public opinion in their favour and it is a reality that even the notorious regimes take up some amount of  measures as had been taken by the colonial rulers in the then Kolkata. As regards improvement of the Kolkata Road System – what Buddhadeb should accept as ‘development’ – Lord Wellesley in his Minute of 1803 had spoken like our CPI(M) ministers. He said “…..It is a primary duty of Government to provide for the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of this great town, by establishing a comprehensive system for the improvement of the roads, streets…..”

He did not stop at that. What he said was actually the need for ‘development’ strengthening the colonial set-up. Wellesley clearly said, “The appearance and beauty of the town are inseparably connected with the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants, and every improvement which shall introduce a greater degree of order, symmetry and magnificence in the streets, roads…….will tend to ameliorate the climate and to promote and secure every object of a just and salutary system of Police.” [Municipal Kolkata, Its Institutions In Their Origin And Growth, Compiled by S.W.Goode, Macmillan India Ltd, Reprint 2005, p.237, stress in ours]

The above colonial administrator’s Minute speaks Volumes on the beauty of the roads and the roads as necessity for the colonial security system. The projection of the flyovers, high ways in the Buddha regime as symbols of ‘development’ is closely related with the security of the state administration like in the colonial period. Can Buddhadeb Anil and such people deny such stark reality? Mr. Anil might spread such falsehood like  “No Barrier Exists Between class struggle & Development”, [People’s Democracy, October 232, 2005]. We the Maoists hate such ‘development’ view under the supervision and leadership of the World Bank, DFDI, etc. and such efforts at passing it as a part of class struggle.

It is absolutely bogus that Maoists dismiss the partial demands of the common people. It is also pure hypocrisy when the CPI(M) uses the red flag and invites the MNCs, World Bank, ADB, etc. to create an atmosphere of illusion about this structure of the exploiting state in the name of development. Mr. Anil Biswas has also written with all boasts that “The CPI(M) looks upon the question of development from a class outlook and against specific socio-economic backdrop”. (p.38)

Now we place below for what and whose development programmes the so-called ‘Left’ front is so vigorously implementing now. And for which classes and in whose interests the earlier clamour for ‘relief’ for the common people through participation in state governments the CPI(M) is now changing so vocally about ‘development’.

There are certain theoretical aspects of globalization for which we approvingly borrow from the CPI(M)’s own documents and see its two-faces. Mr. Sitaram Yechury, the Polit Bureau member of the CPI(M), states in the same Marxbadi Path (August 2005) that “The essential aim of this globalization is to destroy all barriers and to tie up the developing economies in such a way that makes it possible for the multi-national corporations to extract super profit. They are trying to attain this aim making use of this international-wide trio – the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. Their aim is quite clear – i.e. to make those developing countries as their colonies of financial exploitation….”[p.43].

This has been stated over and over again by the CPI(M) before and now too as theory for the non-CPI(M)   ruled states, the central governments in India and other countries. But for the CPI(M) ruled states like West Bengal those three U.S controlled institutions are angels for such fake left’s development programme. Let us hear from the mouth of CPI(M) Finance Minister Asim Das Gupta, “The World Bank is distancing itself from the IMF……And we are doing business we intend to do on our terms again…..The World Bank, IMF were very similar till four years back. Distance is emerging now….Yes they are listening, they are not imposing…..” [The Indian Express, 14.12.2004]. And as a tout for imperialist globalization and seller of the CPI(M)’s pro-reforms development theory Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee had gone a step forward at a conference of Kolkata Consular Corps to declare this piece of gem, “It is a wrong notion to brand us anti-reforms. Let me make it absolutely clear that we are pro-reforms. We also understand that the process of economic reforms is irreversible. All we want is that the reforms should have a human face….” [Times News Net work, 10.06.2004].

So now we have to believe that the much touted reforms programme sponsored and led by the enemy of the world people the U.S. imperialism and implemented in India can have a “human face” and the World Bank has changed its heart for the CPI(M) government in West Bengal. On several occasions before the captains of Indian and foreign industries, among whom the CPI(M) polit Bureau member and West Bengal Chief Minister Mr. Bhattacharjee finds a pleasant bliss and ease, such expressions have been blurted to send the message: Don’t heed to what the CPI(M) cries out in public, don’t trust to the CPI(M)’s appearances before the masses. Trust in what the CPI(M) does.

The captains and their representatives understand too well that the ‘development’ urge or the support for ‘reforms’ is the incontrovertible proof of the CPI(M)’s acceptance of the so-called globalization programme. The matter was made abundantly clear by Mr. AB Mitra, the secretary general of the FICCI during his visit to the U.S. Mr. Mitra confidently clarified that the CPI(M) is unlikely to crate problems for economic reforms in India: “Please differentiate the noise and the sound of the left. Noise is the cacophony, and sound is substance and that will be no different on the forefront of the reform movement in India.[www.indusbusinessjounal.com/news/2004/06/15/. cited in ‘UP DATE’, Kolkata]

Now let us see it is whose ‘development’ plan that the pro-reforms CPI(M) and its allies are so much talking about in the name of “second phase of reforms” or “restructuring” wholly depending on the World Bank, DFID (Department For International Development, a U.K. govt. body for providing grants), Asian Development Bank ( a sister organisation of the World Bank), JBIC (Japan Bank for International Co-operation), etc.

The deputy country head of DFID India, Mr. Howard Taylor was candid enough to say, “Our relations with West Bengal have strengthened over the last two years. This is because, first, the state has emerged as the driving force in the reform process and secondly, it has adopted a transparent and professional approach in cutting down the huge losses in the state PSUs…” [Times of India 19.05.2005]. The DFID on which our ‘Marxist’ government depends so much for the current ‘development’, or in other words reforms for imperialist globalization has its own policy as found in its official programme. We quote from the programme certain relevant facts.

DFID “is the British government department responsible for Britain’s contribution towards international efforts to eliminate poverty….” “……the British government believes that the elimination of global poverty is a matter of enlightened self-interest. Poverty breeds insecurity and conflict……It also undermines trade, business and investment opportunities….”. “In today’s globalised world decisions made by western governments have an impact on poor people in developing countries. DFID, in the UK and overseas, works to ensure that policies in different areas such as trade and investment, debt relief and global environmental concerns consider and promote the needs of poor people.”[www.ukinindia.com, cited in ‘UP DATE’, Kolkata]

Then this great helper of the CPI(M) govt. states it more clearly “….And, if we don’t take action now to reduce global inequality, there is a real danger….” and so “The challenge is to connect more people from the world’s poorest countries with the benefits of the new global economy. And that means globalization must be managed properly – to benefit everyone”. And then this imperialist government organisation speaks clearly in the CPI(M) voice: “Government in poorer countries have to create conditions at home that will help the poorest people in their communities find work or a market for their goods that will sustain their families….it’s now widely accepted that efficient markets are indispensable for effective development. Developing countries must attract foreign investment.” Like Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Anil Biswas the DFID also clearly states “….States which invest in basic infrastructure such as water and sanitation, transport, electricity and telecommunications can play a major part in giving poor countries an access to global markets.” [www.dfid.gov.uk; accessed on 6.4.05, cited in ‘UP DATE’, Kolkata]

Thus the DFID is categorical about the investor friendly environment and various sorts of poverty minimizing programmes to help remove “insecurity and conflict”. The 10^th 5 year Plan document of India, a framework for carrying on globalization and reforms clearly admits  “The 10^th plan is a basis for an Indo-UK development partnership”, iterating the position on DFID’s work and the approval of policies on reforms followed by Andhra Pradesh, MP, Orissa and West Bengal”. [India: ‘Country Plan, Nov. 2004; www.dfid.govt.uk;] 

Now see what Mr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee emphatically said after his trip to southeast Asia “Reform, perform or perish”. Prakash Karat, the supremo of the CPI(M) endorsed this position saying “we the CPI(M) are not dogmatic. With time, our party has changed its stand on various issues. We are open to change and have changed.” [The Telegraph, 1^st September, 2005]. Is it not a fact that when the CPI(M) speaks against ‘reforms’, ‘globalization’ etc. it is a hoax?

Let us see how the so-called development programme of the DFID and that of the ‘Left’ Font is the same with the British imperialist department, like some others, pouring fund for the purpose. The DFID programme for West Bengal clearly states “DFID is working with the ADB, UNICEF and others and seeking opportunities to support public sector efficiency and initiatives to tackle the state’s fiscal situation, with a focus on freeing up additional resources for pro-poor spending. DFID continues to follow up the fiscal reform agenda in a limited way with Go WB (Govt. of West Bengal) by proposing to support 28 million Pound Public Sector Enterprise Restructuring Programme.” [westbengal state.htm; accessed on 22.01.05].

So the great role the DFID has taken upon itself for saving the poor, PSEs and obviously the ‘Left’ Front in implementing the reforms. Mr. Nirupam Sen, the CPI(M) leader, minister and ideologue for justifying ‘reforms’ or ‘development’ stated “we have another understanding with DFID. The money we save after the restructuring will be funded in social sector. If you call it a conditionality we will agree….” [Marxbadi Path, Vol. 24, No.2, November 2004]. Is it not a pleasing bliss for the British government that the CPI(M) is committed to implementing the DFID programme of reforms under globalization the with a human face”? Here the CPI(M) will readily answer in the most ridiculous way that like the World Bank, DFID too has changed with its dollops of pro-poor programmes.

Mr. Anil Biswas in a recent article has once again taught how the MNCs are out to disburse ‘the extra-ordinary capital accumulation’ in the process of globalization of capital with the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO providing “the leadership” “to clamp down once again an economic colonialism over third world nations”. [People’s Democracy, October 09, 2005]. Biswas has not also spared the US as one of the leading perpetrators of the “barbaric drive at world domination”. (Ibid) However, the imperialist institutions and the MNCs have now been quite habituated to such stingless verbosity. More than that they know that the CPI(M) has a propaganda machine which has been ever busy to impress upon people’s mind that those are not bad at all for West Bengal as the “Left Front” is in power. We place below what the World Bank programme is and how they converge with the ‘Left’ Front programme of ‘development’.

The World Bank in its official statement on strategy has “included a focus on states undertaking reforms, in order to support the leaders of change and serve as a catalyst to the state level reform process.” The World Bank in consultation with India is helping the states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, etc. which “are engaged in a dialogue on cross-cutting reforms that are focus of adjustment lending (fiscal management, governance, service delivery, the power sector and the investment climate) regardless of their eligibility for adjustment lending…..ADB has also had a longstanding engagement with West Bengal.” In this World Bank document we also find what the CPI(M) announces: “strengthening Fiscal Management and Reallocating Public Resources to Priority Areas For the Poor”. Then with such a great concern for the poor in the process of reforms under the globalization scheme the World Bank also prescribed “steps to increase the voice of the poor and strengthen decentralization”.

The World Bank in this document has also urged the Indian policy makers to remove the “limits on foreign direct investment (FDI)”, “impediments to the functioning of land and labour markets”, the “dominance of state-owned enterprises”. It has also promised help in India’s power sector reforms, large investments in infrastructure (for flood control, drainage, storage, sanitation, waste water treatment, etc.) with “greater resource mobilization form users and efforts to leverage scarce public funds with private funding..”. It declared, “in the power distribution and transmission, road, water and sanitation and solid waste sectors, involvement of the private sector needs to be encouraged through a variety of models including public-private partnerships.” The World Bank is also promising assistance for ‘privately provided health services”, ‘public private partnerships” in the health sector. [Country strategy for India, Report No. 29374 – In, World Bank, September 2004; cited in ‘UP DATE’, Kolkata]

Can Mr. Anil Biswas and his Party prove that the West Bengal government is really against the World Bank strategy? Is it not the CPI(M), its ministers and theorists justifying the World Bank strategy, seeking its assistance and implementing the same? Instances are so many that one feels it nauseating to hear and read the CPI(M) literature against reforms, globalization, world Bank, etc.

The ‘Left’ Front has been pursuing the World Bank, IDBI diktats with some left vocabulary and pragmatism like “Go and tell the World that we are changing. We Marxists are not fools to cling to obsolete ideas. In West Bengal, the left is right. And this is the right place for to invest” (Buddhadeb’s speech at CII summit, The Indian Express, 14.02.2005]. Yes we have been saying for years that such so-called Left is rightly Right. Marxism can not allow holding power in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal structure in the name of development sponsored by the imperialist capital. The entire politics is to destroy protests and revolution in India.

We the Maoists and all the conscious people look at the degradation of the CPI(M) as a social-fascist party. Why not Mr. Anil Biswas will thunder against the revolutionary struggle of the Maoists in India, West Bengal in particular, when both Uncle Sam and the CPI(M) sniff terrorism in such struggles and when the CPI(M) Chief Minister announces as ‘obsolete’ the Marxist view points against World Bank, FDI, IDBI and such imperialist loot? Yes, we the Maoists are against such massive penetration of imperialist finance capital for what the ‘Left’ Front describes as ‘development’. When the CPI(M) leaders face challenge or the skeletons of so-called development tumble down the pet argument, as Mr. Anil Biswas too has taken prior guard in his tirade against the Maoists, is that ‘Don’t forget the limitations in the existing structure’. Such pet argument is never found in the CPI(M) literature highlighting the dream-come-true development under the ‘Left’ Front rule.

The most ridiculous thing that the CPI(M) leaders frequently say is that the World Bank, Asian Development Bank or foreign investors do always impose some conditionalities for any government at the Centre or the state but for the ‘Marxist’ led ‘Left’ Front govt. it is always minus any string of conditionality! Then one might question with what magic weapon the CPI(M) does neutralize the immensely aggressive powers of controlling the world economy and why those blood sucking powers become angels of generosity in West Bengal? It is a black lie that such institutional and multi-national capital will not impose any condition.

Similarly, no government, central of state does ever openly disclose the conditionalities imposed by such investors or providers of loan, grants, etc. As the taste of an apple lies in its eating the practice of the ‘Left’ front in the name of development amply proves it that the diktats on the so-called development programmes of the IFDI, World Bank, etc. that the CPI(M)’s ‘Left’ Front government pursues so faithfully is the cogent proof of accepting the conditionalities of the imperialist capital. Can Mr. Anil Biswas and his ilk deny it? Can such people reject the claim tinged with romance of love declared by Dr. Stephen Howes (the World Bank’s lead economist) in the following words: “As for the fiscal reforms, I believe both the World Bank and the West Bengal government are finding many things common in their perception.” [Financial Express 01.12.2004]

This common perception emanates from the politics of reforms in the name of development, serving the interests of multinationals and Indian compradors. The fiscal reforms include attacks on wages, pensions, subsidies, salary bills, for so-called decentralization, for the removal of limits of the foreign direct investment, power sector reforms, etc. And the ‘Left’ Front has agreed to follow all such diktats or conditionalities. Yet we have to accept the fact since the party attaches a ‘Marxist’ tag to its name it cannot stop left-phrase mongering now well accepted by the captains of international capital as sheer cacophony.

As India is a semi-colony, not only from the U.S and the U.K, finance capital from other countries too is funneled in West Bengal. In the list of foreign direct investment American companies top the list. They are followed by Japanese, French, German and other capitalist countries’ capital with which Buddhadeb like people want to bring about the second stage of reform for the resurgent Bengal. The moot point is through the implementation of privatization; liberalization and globalization policies dictated by the international finance capital which classes gain and which lose out devastatingly.

Cruel facts tell us that the wheels of so-called development programmed by the DFID, World Bank, etc. as stated above have mainly benefited a small layer of the population, already rich for mainly being close to the CPI(M)-led ‘left’ circle. While the cream is being skimmed off by the multinational companies, the noose of aid as imperialism, political, economic and cultural domination of imperialist finance capital tying firmly the whole of West Bengal. Here we refer to another voice of the CPI(M) from Delhi: “MNCs make financial investment in any country elsewhere – not for the welfare of the people of the host country, but for the maximization of their profits. Similar is the case with the big indigenous capitalists also….”[People’s Democracy, 14^th August, 2005]. The CPI(M) ideologue here remains completely mum as to the consequences of the loaded cries for ‘Unnayan’ with the sumptuous flow of the MNCs in West Bengal. Let us look at facts.

The New Economic Policy of the ‘Left’ Front government is reflected in its new industrial policy. Buddhadeb receives our compassion for clarifying the industrial policy adopted in 1994. In his own words “….What is the crux of that Industrial Policy? In a word we are inviting here private capital. We are saying that as there lies the necessity of the state sector there is similar importance of the non-government sector, we are saying this openly and emphatically……”[In Saral Biswas (ed), Partir Rananiti, Ranakausal Ebong Bamfront Sarkar, NBA, p.24]. The result was that from 1980-81 to 1998-99 the number of factories was reduced by 13.15 percent, the number of workers lost jobs by 27.12 percent, the number of workers on a factory basis come down by 15.97 percent and the total employment slid downwards to 28.02 percent. In the organized sector (from 1991 to 2001) the workers’ population came down by 3.98%, 21.62% and 9.42% in the primary, secondary and tertiary sector respectively [Labour in West Bengal, 1999, 2001]

The CPI(M) wants to prove that after making the solid foundation in agriculture it now eyes industrial development. We have seen the actual reality in agriculture. In the industrial sector too we find the same picture of decay. As from 1991 to 2001 though the number of organized industrial units increased at the rate of 6.62%. in that period in the organized sector total job reduction was recorded at 4.78% i.e. the industrial sector failed to absorb the landless and unemployed rather the unemployment further increased with such unbalanced industrial progress, thought at a snail’s pace. Facts tell that between 1985 and 2003  with the new factories coming into being the number of jobless workers further increased. As in 2003 432 factories were closed leading to 6 lakh and 35 thousand jobless workers. And in the same year new 238 new factories could provide employment to only 9120 persons. Actually the capital  intensive factories failed to absorb enough number of workers. In 1999 in West Bengal the average number of workers in each organized unit stood at 149.46 and it came down to 133.48 in 2001.  

Now the policy of introducing new technology without people’s concern and the anti-labour policies of the industry owners have thrown out thousands of workers. Hard facts prove that between 1985 and 2003 the number of workers lost services far exceeded the number of workers employed in new factories every year. Simultaneously between 1991 and 2001 in 545 industries the capital investment was to the tune of Rs. 19,775.20 crore but this huge amount could afford jobs to only 62,404 persons. With the high pitched noise on development and progress the stark facts tell that in the past two decades the number of lock-outs has been steadily increasing. In about 92% cases of closures lock-out is the main culprit. (Naba Dutta, Banglar Shilpa O Shramiker Itibitta, Nagarik Mancha, January 2005, pp.73-80)

 In another study it is said that in the past 15 years more than 29 factories were closed, workers retrenched were 12 lakh and fresh employment was only 43 thousand and 799 persons. While the working class receives the blows the CITU like unions in the name of saving the ‘Left’ Front Government or ‘responsible trade union’ allow the attacks on the workers in all forms to go unabated. All such instances prove that in West Bengal new industrial units, thought a few in reality, would never absorb considerable number of workers. The crisis is perpetual. The CPI(M) CC member cum minister Nirupam Sen made things crystal clear”….We have to resort to various measures to attract capital. It is not possible to set aside from our discussion what industrialists demand, why should the industrialists be eager to invest in this state if it is not known what they demand and if some necessary measures are not taken accordingly.” [In Anil Biswas (ed), Unnatataro Bamfront Aamader Bhabna (More Advanced Left Front Our Thinking) NBA, May 2002, p.28]

This makes it immensely clear what the counterrevolutionary polities of the CPI(M) is on the working class front. This social fascist government even does not care to revise the minimum wages after every four years. Of the 52 types of jobs in the list of every 4-year wage revision, in the last 20 years no minimum pay revision was done in 22 types of jobs. In case of 15 types of jobs for the past one-decade no minimum wage revision was made. [Naba Dutta, ibid, p.81]. This minimum wage is the necessary wage for survival. How come one expects a better performance of healthy living of the common toiling people under the steamroller of liberalization, privatization and globalization regime in West Bengal?

The argument or justification for reducing the number of workforce in the sugar-coated names like ‘Golden Handshake’, ‘VRS’, or simple reduction of staff or work-force in a surreptitious way by not any fresh employment, etc. have been going on since the ‘Left’ courted the globalization programme in West Bengal. The pet argument is that if those stern measures are helpful for the industrial units, government and government assisted institutions can help them sailing well then why not to opt for them? The most crucial question arises who are the gainers of the World Bank, DFID, etc. sponsored policies and ‘assistance’ in West Bengal? Obviously the eagles are eyeing West Bengal for super profits and what is showcased by the ‘Left’ Front and the captains of industries as “Destination East” is devastation for the common people in West Bengal.

As retrenchment is the keyword in the LPG Schemes the state’s ‘Marxist’ government is going to axe 10,000 employees with the West Bengal State Electricity Board through ‘early separation scheme’ considering them as “surplus” (Ananda Bazar Patrika, 04.03.2004). Similarly this World Bank, DFID dictated Buddhadeb government has decided “restructuring and reviewing the transport sector” after discussion with those masters. (The Telegraph 30.11.04 & 21.01.05). This will deprive services of many thousand. Also contract basis service has come up in medical, teaching and other sectors. All such steps in the name of ‘development’ under more-improved ‘Left’ Front clearly betray the actual nature of the anti-workers, anti-service holders programmes chalked out by the masters in the U.S.A or the U.K or in such other countries and implemented in West Bengal ruthlessly and in a planned way. Now a new story is heard that the good aspects of globalization should be utilized. The entire programme of GPL is meant for squeezing the common people and creating a small class of the rich and careerists who alone can procure some fringe benefits.

What is to be understood is that now the investment potentials of the imperialist finance have grown many times but the constraints lie in rewarding investments and profits. This hugely accumulated finance capital needs pumping it into the economies of the 3^rd world countries. And the CPI(M) is plying that role in West Bengal to make room for such imperialist capital.

 

World Bank, DFDI, etc. Are the Key Players Behind Mr. Anil’s ‘Unnayan’

For some time past, particularly after Buddhadeb’s grand tour of Indonesia and Singapur and his servile appeasement to Salim group of industries’ owner Mr. Santosa the CPI(M) leadership has suddenly turned into a worshipper of industry. Now its theoreticians have started saying that it is industry which alone can solve the problems of West Bengal. Actually speaking, a charmed and mesmerized Buddhadeb for the grand reception and the reciprocity of love of the Salim group heads sang so many songs of privatization, industrialization, liberalization there that the CPI(M) supreme leaders had to come out in support of the Bengali babu CM Mr. Prakash Karat too changed his tune and declared that after successful land reforms in West Bengal the destination is now industrialization, We the Maoists had to crosscheck again from the CPI(M)’s imperialist master’s prescriptions and found it that the capital friendly ‘Marxists’ are not on the wrong track.

The CPI(M)’s sudden switch over to clamouring for industrialization has already eyebrows of many people. Mr. Anil writes in his critique “The CPI(M) considers the question of Unnayan (development) from a class outlook and the concrete socio-economic context”. He criticizes the media people who do not consider development when foreign goods are easily available. In a mood of reaction Mr. Anil expresses his ‘Marxist’ voice to hoodwink, simply to hoodwink with the customary left posturings, the retorts, “So the struggle for development means the struggle of the majority of the people of the country …………” [p.38]

A simple child can ask Mr. Anil where is the ‘struggle’ for Unnayan led by your party in West Bengal? Why do you follow Uncle Sam’s dictates through the World Bank, IMF or Blair’s prescriptions at every step for the imperialist globalization? Is West Bengal not getting flooded with foreign goods and so-called services from the masters of globalization depending on Buddhadeb like people?

We the Maoists are clear that the euphoria on ‘development’ created by the ‘Left’ Front is simply for the inflow of Western capital under the imperialist globalization. The recent call for industrialization is a cover for greater role of foreign imperialist capital after the stagnation of agriculture. This is actually a ploy of jobless growth, the scheme under globalization. It is worthy of mention that employment in Asia has not kept pace despite the so-called recorded economic growth rate. The reality is that the rate of unemployment in the region i.e. 4.4 percent in 2004 appears to be among the lowest in the world, the anomalies and peculiarities characterizing the labour market, such as a large informal sector, underemployment and the low skill levels actually mask the extent of the problem. As a whole in the whole of south Asia the real wages in the 1990s has been flat or declining. It is also notable that though China’s industrial output under the bourgeois revisionist rule increased by 9.5 percentage points from 1900 to 2002, the share of employment in the industrial sector in total employment fell by –0.3 percentage points. The CPI(M) too speaks too much on its growth model paving the path of industrialization and urbanization. It is notable the in South Asia, according to Transparency International, the most corrupt country in the World is Bangladesh. Yet its growth rate is 5 percent per year, with per capita GDP growing at over 3 percent. All such statistics do not justify the actual poverty and staggering unemployment in Bangladesh. The CPI(M) creates an atmosphere in West Bengal that this present system can deliver enough for the army of the unemployed through industrialization and urbanization.

The CPI(M) has now been landed in a tricky problem as to how to come out of the imbroglio being neck-deep in parliamentarism. Being true to its character the Buddha government has now been hungry for foreign funds in industry and is now all set to involve the World Bank to conduct a study for improving the FDI climate. The World Bank against which the CPI(M) literature has been so much vocal to project its ‘left’ image will do that job in association with the confederation of Indian Industry (CII) or the Federation  of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the organization of the Indian comprador big bourgeoisie to recommend the ‘short, medium and long-term reforms to immediately improve the climate for overseas investors.” [The Telegraph, 26 September 2005].

In the same day’s daily in another news we see Buddhadeb blaming the people “creating unrest in north Bengal” at the CPI(M)’s meeting in Siliguri organized by the Darjeeling district Committee. Mr. Buddha also cried like Mr. Anil that “while his government was trying to put North Bengal on the path of development, these elements were misleading the people in an effort to impede progress in the region.” If the World Bank, WFID, Indian big bourgeoisie and the MNCs are so much appeased to “develop” West Bengal we can really understand the actual voice of Mr. Anil and his party regarding the so-called development of West Bengal. When Mr. Anil speaks of class out behind ‘unnayan’ we easily understand whose class outlook spurs the CPI(M) to consider so much on agri-business, industrialization, urbanization, etc. Not only the World Bank, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and our ‘Marxist’ ‘Left’ Government have now taken a joint programme for the sanitation services in West Bengal after the USAID Director Geroge Deikun and Mr. Ashoke Bhattacharya, the CPI(M) minister huddled together on 26^th April, 2005. This programme mainly relates to the municipalities with the US fund for sanitation, garbage collection, ‘to improve the financial positions of municipal governments” with “market based-financing” [Source http:// mumbai.us consulate.govt/www whindpur 204.html; accessed on 03.05.05.] An ebullient Mr. Bhattacharya confirmed that the projects of USAID are slated to be implemented in the Durgapur-Assansol belt and in the Siliguri area (Business Standard, 27.04.05) He also added that the ‘Left’ Front govt. would seek further help form USAID for the development of 126 municipalities for funds raising from capital market. This is all for the ‘development’ of West Bengal Mr. Anil would have us believe. It is necessary to add here that the World Bank, DFID, ADB, etc. have been for some time past emphasizing the ‘improvement’ of West Bengal’s infrastructure, particularly roads, communications, power, etc. The ADB has given $ 210 million as loans for the West Bengal Corridor Development Project with “implicit conditionality” to provide foreign business houses as much orders as to make super profits. A US Website (http:/strategis.ic.grr –7557f.html; accessed on 30.03.2005) reported that this project will provide US business with as much lead this time as possible concerning procurement and consulting opportunities” This project is intended, it claims, for “improvement of National Highway 34, which is the artery of north south transport corridor and the eastward connection to the border of Bangladesh”. This is the part of urbanization process led by Mr. Anil-Buddha and their party’s present masters in the west.

What Mr. Anil has sung for ‘development’ is actually the development of the international masters and their native agents as well as the political minions like the CPM, Congress, BJP, etc. Actually speaking, what is on course in West Bengal and elsewhere is actually jobless growth through urbanization and such efforts to ensure the investment of finance capital of the West to rake in huge profits in the otherwise stagnant economic atmosphere. The ‘left’ in West Bengal have now no qualms to invite global real estate players to do business in West Bengal. The international property consultant, Chestertom Meghraj is setting up office in Kolkata. It is the Indian Subsidiary Chestewtorn, Blumenauer Binswanger, a consortian of three consultant majors of the world with 160 offices world over. [Times of India, 3/3/04]

Meghraj is followed by the American firm NAI Global in alliance with the local real estate, big shark, N.K.Realtors. The US firm operates in 300 markets and 40 countries. This is “A strategic alliance with mall development and retail consultancy major, Asia Property Group with the help of NAI-NK Entity to prepare the retail platform [Times of India, 27.04.05] The Times of India [09.02.2005] reports that, Kolkata is now all set for entertainment boom. And the investment on multiplexes in Bengal could even rise to Rs. 1000 crore. FICCI president said, “six multiplexes would open in West Bengal soon” More clear stance came in the Times of India of 13 May 2005 which said, “the govt. has changed its stands on using industrial land, for industries alone. They have taken the market route to unlock the land in closed industrial premises in and around the city…..the proposal entails some changes in the Urban Land (ceiling and regulation) act….” The news item further adds that the volume of land locked in closed industries in the state is 40,000 acres of which 30 percent will be found if the govt. makes changes in the act. Thus Mr. Anil’s Marxist govt. is throwing open the Urban land market in the name of development. The wheels of such “development” and for giving some ostensible beauty looks thousands have been evicted under the ADB scheme, who got settled along the canals at Tollygunge and such places in and around Kolkata. The ‘Left’ Front following the international masters is now actually translating the globalization scheme in the health, education, culture and all other sectors. Mr. Asim Dasgupta, the finance minister of West Bengal, told the Indian Express on 14 December, 2004, “……everybody pays fees. Fees are much below the private sector and above the government sector”. Already the World Bank has been invited to the health sector and the state CM went a step forward asking the people who can afford to go to the private nursing homes. The wheels of “development” have taken their toll on the employment in the health sector. Now the private agencies hire people to clean and maintain the wards in all the Kolkata hospitals. Buddhadeb, who goes gaga over the inflow of foreign capital, said that, the success of private-public ventures in housing projects could not be neglected in health care. [The Telegraph, 24.08.2004]

All the main important cities and towns in West Bengal have now been the hubs of promoters working developing a nexus with basically the ruling parties and the administration. The Dainik Statesman (11.08.05) refer to the confession of the director of land and land tax department Mr. Sukumar Das who made it clear that more than 50,000 acres of cultivable lands have already been grabbed by the promoters in West Bengal. This land grab ensured amassing huge fortunes for the promoter while the landless have spiralled to a staggening 72 lakh. So, it is a reality that the expansion of the cities and the emergence of new towns under the ‘Left’ rule have brought about immeasurable gains for certain classes, both native and foreign.

The blue boy of the MNCs and the World Bank and Manmohan Singh’s “role model” the CPI(M) Chief Minister Buddhadeb has now gone whole hog for ousting a large number of peasants form their home-steads and cultivable lands to keep the doors ajar for the penetration of the MNCs and other imperialist institutions. In his latest move, this Bengali babu CM, blessed by the party polit bureau headquarter in New Delhi had flown to Indonesia with begging bowl to Salim Group of Indonesia, a lumpen big bourgeous organization, nurtured and developed directly by American imperialism after massacres of lakh of Communists in 1965. Salim came to the limelight during the notorious Suharto’s rule and was involved in importing goods in flour mills, cement factories, chemicals insurance, hoteliening, etc.

One should know that Salim tied up with Suharto to float Asia biggest flour mill. It is the buzzword in Indonesia that Madam Suharto came to be known as “Madam 10 percent”, for receiving amount that of commission form every venture of the Salim group. [Dainik Statesman, 30.08.05]

The secret deals between Bhattacheajee and Salim Group chairman, Anthony Salim will never be known by the peasants who would be driven out of their lands measuring more than 5000 acres in South-24 Parganas and Howrah. The lackey of the MNC’s, World Bank etc. Buddha as a special guest of Indonesian people’s enemies justified his nefarious positions declaring. “We accept reality…”, “we are for hundred percent privatization of airport in West Bengal”, etc. Buddha’s sermons and immense wisdom initially put the CPI(M) top brass in an awkward predicament as to how to justify one hundred percent privatization of airports etc. Yet the Delhi based leaders came out in support of Buddha who now changed his voice slightly. It was clear to the people that despite occasional flutters in an apparent protest to the UPA govt. the CPI(M) leadership also moves to the same aim towards privatization and globalisation.

However, back home with heaps of ridicule Buddha “the Pushy reformer abroad”, and fake Marxist at home instituted a topsy turvy and stated that he wanted only 49 percent FDI in airport and only the entry of Singapore banks and that he was against the FDI in retail business [Times of India, 30.8.05]. However, the CPM CC patted on Buddha’s back and Mr. Prakash Karat made such shameless statement that “the work for industry and improving infrastructure is on course on the basis of land reforms and success in agricultural productions”. [Gansakti, 06.09.2005] The nonsensical utterances in support of building flyovers, shopping malls, entertainment center etc. for the rich at the cost of livelihood of thousands of peasants only make it crystal clear why Montek Singh (whom Jyoti basu called World Bank’s man a few months back) extended all help in Buddha’s bid for inviting Salim Group and why the prime minister Mr. Manmohan Singh (the pioneer of WTO sponsored GPL policy in India) feted Bhattacharjee “for business deals in Singapore and Indonesia” [The Telegraph, 04.09.05] and put him up as a role model for other Indian states.

The devil lies in the tall and double talks and Mr. Anil’s party goes to the extent to declare in the headlined news of the party mouth piece: “Foreign Investment In the State In Consideration of the Interest of the Poor.” [stress in Ganasakti front page dated 4^th September 2005]. Here the declaration is from our wise and pragmatic leader Mr. Anil! However, Anil mouthed his specious arguments against conditionalities. This is a black lie and reminds us of what the American ambassador told in a CII meeting in Chennai on 1^st September 2005. This ambassador for strengthening the neo-colonial noose around India declared as politely as Mr. Anil Biswas that American capital does not want to come to rule India. The aim behind this coming is solely for fulfilling the dream of India’s development (sic) [Kalantar, CPI’s Bengali Daily of 7^th September 2005] We want to know how does it happen that Mr. Anil Biswas, the American Ambassador, Mr. Manmohan Singh and obviously the CPI(M) do speak in the same voice on the much touted ‘development’? Does such “development” go against the imperialist globalization? We the Maoists are quite clear about the policy of Left Front’s urbanization and so-called industrialization, the former is basically for the rich and the latter is a vague effort while the closures of factories and retrenchments have become the order of the day. If saving the system of semi-colonial rule and carrying on so-called development schemes are projected as progress or the result of people’s struggle or symbol of Left Front’s progressive rule we can say that similar developments were pioneered by the colonial British Raj, then the Congress govt. and now the ‘Left’ Front to maintain status quo to contain people’s revolutionary spirit against the system itself. We pity Mr. Anil for weaving out stories on ‘development’ when West Bengal is ruled by his social fascist party, when the policies are now directly chalked by the world bank, WFID, etc. to destroy the possibility of a red revolution led by the Maoists here. Mr. Anil recently said that Maoists are attacking us “as if we are deviating form Marxism” [Ganashakti, 10.10.05]

Do the above policies of surrender to imperialist masters and the social fascist rule of the CPI(M) led ‘Left’ Front leave an iota of doubt that Mr. Anil and his party are against the globalisation spree of the UPA government following the diktat of the World Bank, MNCs, etc.? Not even a mad will say in the affirmative.

 

A Case Study of Amlashole village 

Let us place below some concrete facts from our study on the farce of development going on in Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia which have for some time past hit headlines of the dailies for the Maoist movements.

It is really an irony that the so-called chariot of ‘development’ has entered those struggling areas to stem the tide of the Maoist struggles. For the past five decades those areas remained completely backward and now with the surge in Maoist-led struggles roads are laid out in full swing actually for the plying of police and para-military jeeps and convoys in the basically tribal areas. Simultaneously the state armed forces are patrolling in large numbers, arrests of revolutionaries and sympathizers go on unabated with the offer of scanty relief for the distressed people. Chirakuti and Kankarajhor road laying programmes have drawn the attention of the people of West Bengal. Such ambitious programme is to cost Rs. 5 crore but for the agricultural development the ‘Left’ government shows its back. This ‘development’ programme has also taken care to set up large number of police camps. This has been the practice of the armed gang of each police camp to visit 15 villages daily to unleash terror.

Alongside the government programme, various political parties and NGOs now pour into Amlashole, the darkest spot of ‘development’ under the ‘Left’ Front government. But the poverty-stricken tribals of Amalashole received only heaps of promises. At present 70 families reside in Amlashole. Out of them 18 are Shabar, 35 Munda and others comprise 7 families. The government now gave Rs. 20,000 as loan and grant to each Shabar family, of which 10,000 for buying goats and the rest Rs. 10,000 to be deposited with the Bank. Out of this 20,000, Rs. 10,000 is grant and the rest Rs. 10,000 is loan. The plan was mooted that with the kids of goats the loan would paid off. Alas! all the goats died reaching the village. Then how to repay the loan?

The government is building homesteads under Indira Abas Yojna for 18 families there spending Rs. 20,000 for each. Actually the cost of building such houses can never exceed Rs. 10,000. The corrupt administration in cahoots with the CPI(M) leaders will pocket that huge amount.

In Amlashole the farce does not end there. Here three dams have been built up. But the irony is that even during the rains the water will not accumulate there. Then why such ventures by the ‘Left’ government? The local people understand this bitter reality. From any of the dams one cannot expect water even for only one bigha land. Here for potable water a well has been sunk spending Rs. 20,000 and for renovating an old well Rs.36,000 has been sanctioned. The fact is that even during the rainy season one can not use them for getting water.

Similarly a new school has been set-up here spending Rs. 3,65,000. However, the school is actually not for learning but for the use of police forces to be stationed there.

What has been presented above is the tip of an iceberg about the dangers of so-called development bulldozer run by the CPI(M) – police administration nexus in Amlashole, the chronically poor area now famous for the Maoist led struggles. 

 

Police forces in ‘Unnayan’ game: a Sinister design

In the ‘Unnayan’ plan the police department is also a player under the CPI(M) rule. During the Congress rule in West Bengal the CPI(M) demanded reduction in police budget and increase in budgetary allocation for education. While the budgetary allocation during the Congress Chief Minister Bidhan Roy’s tenure of 10 years increased from rupees 5 crore to 10 crore, during the assumption of power by the Left Front the police budget was increased from rupees 47 crore to 58 crore 25 lakh and 75 thousand and now in the budget of 2004-05 the allocation in the police budget spiralled to rupees 1324 crore 88 lakh and 53 thousand. [Dainik Statesman, 13 November 2005]. Is it not development Mr. Anil babu? Is it not strengthening the state’s armed forces instead of crushing it, Mr. Anil babu? In whose interest the ‘Left’ Front, NDA govt., UPA govt. are so generous to spend money for the armed forces?

In the recent meeting at Hyderabad on 19^th September with the States Chief ministers the Home Minister also advised that the police forces should be involved in the so-called humanitarian development work to stem the tide of Maoist movements in India. A new Police Act is also on the anvil to “inject a strong element of human rights and attitudinal changes into the thinking and functioning of the men and women in Khaki” [The Statesman, 10^th October, 2005]. Actually speaking, a deep conspiracy has been hatched to project the armed forces as angels in the areas where militant movements are on course and police or para-military bullets are randomly used against the people. The ‘Marxist’ CPI(M) has now been pioneers in this act of intervention by the police on the civil society in many ways. In West Midnapore, the fields of militant peasant struggle, since 2001 31-company BSF, CRPF and EFR forces have been permanently stationed and very recently on Buddhadeb’s request to the Centre 1000 specialty trained CRPF forces have been despatched there to contain the spate of Maoist struggles. Like the frequent T.V. coverage of aggressor American forces fondling the babies in Iraq here Buddhadeb’s butcher policemen are now keen enough to play such a role in the Maoist influenced regions. The trigger happy policemen are now conducting the schools in Banspahari, Bhulaveda, Simulpal and Lalgarh of West Midnapur. Are they teachers? It is a damming indictment to this government when 2001 census report says that still now 31% people in West Bengal are illiterate. Among them most are tribals and women. The more shameful thing is that throughout West Bengal under the fake Marxists’ rule in more than 10 thousand primary schools only one teachers is available for each school. [Dainik Statesman, 15^th September, 2005]. So now the police will take two responsibilities: fight Maoists and teach students. They are teachers in anti-Maoist CPI(M) regime, they provide assistance to students in various ways and also take on guardians’ role to take the innocent children to visit cities. On 5.9.05 from Maoist-influenced 30 villages in West Midnapur boys and girls were taken to Kolkata for brain-washing as well as sight-seeing. In this extraordinary effort children were shown the Writers’ Building, Governor House, the Victoria Memorial, zoo, etc. (AnandaBazar Patrika, 6.9.05). The CPI(M) mouthpiece Ganashakti now provides almost regular space to prove that police in khaki and armed with rifles in West Bengal dismisses the Leninist view on the state and the role of the armed forces. We are citing some reports form the Ganashakti. In one issue the caption was “Villagers built up police camp stopping the Puja”. At Shyampur in Howrah district “The villagers around Sitapur under Shyampur police station build up the police camp to receive police help in their danger… about 2 lakh rupees was spent to built up this new police camp ….For receiving help (to build the camp) the local Durga puja was cancelled for this year….”. This report appeared in the Ganashakti during the first week of October, 05.

Another report in the Ganashakti on 5.10.05 with the heading “The police staff gave away new clothes for the flood affected victims” states how the non-gazetted police staff samity came out to help the affected people at Hingalganj and Sandesh Khali in Bashirhat sub-division in 24 Pargans (North). Similarly in another report (Ganashati, 6^th October 05) on Hoogly dist. eulogizes the bond between the police and the common people “….In the Bhadreshwar police station premises 300 distressed people were distributed cloths by the police staff”.

We the Maoists strongly oppose such deliberate conspiracy of the Buddhadeb government to project the police forces as ‘people’s friends’ and to make the poor people victims of such ‘blessings’ to instill into their minds the anti-Marxist politics of police-people good relationship. This is also the actual class line of ‘development’ that Mr. Anil Biswas and his mentors are so desperately trying to implement in West Bengal. The Siddhartha of the 1970s has been further enlightened as Buddhadeb who howled to the cheers of police top brass at the Science City Auditorium in Kolkata on 18^th September, 2005 that “From all sides we have segregated  the Naxalites in this state”. The occasion was to confer ‘Prasansa Padak’ [Reward of Praise], ‘Nistha Padak’ [Reward for Sincerity], etc. to the skilled butchers of the police forces. Buddha even added “we have defeated them (the Maoist) administratively, politically and ideologically” [Source: Ganashakti, 19.9.05]. Manmohan’s and the World Bank’ s role model Mr. Buddhadeb at least disclosed one bitter truth that administration was used to defeat the Maoists. So far as politics and ideology are concerned there is no taker (except Manmohan, the World Bank, etc.) of hypocrisy from the common people but Buddha must have received all praise from the Home Ministry at the Centre and its international masters for his brutal dependence on the administration and establishing the state’s armed forces as people’s friends. This is a dangerous role what even Siddhartha of the 70s could not practise so skillfully! Now the civil society, democratic rights, schools of children, etc. will be looked after by the armed forces in West Bengal and it is also the new World Bank dictated ‘Marxism’ of the notorious CPI(M) in West Bengal.

 

Conclusion

The above critique of Anil Biswas’s slander campaign against us or, in other words of the CPI(M)’s social fascist policy of fake Marxism has taken up the important aspects pertaining to our principled positions, CPI(M)’s degeneration and the revolutionary Maoist alternative. Our friend the cunning Anil preferred rambling from this point to that point on most questions without any polemical attitude and on certain other issues he simply reiterated the much publicized old Dange line or the utterances of the CPI(M) during the spring thunder over India in 1967 and after.

Mr. Anil Biswas’s 34 pages printed tirade in Bengali (its English translation has also come out recently) against the Maoists is conspicuous by its clear, tangible and all-pervading fear now gripping the CPI(M) camp for the growing influence of Maoism and the Maoist party, the CPI(Maoist). The psychological defeat and intense unease are all too evident. In West Bengal we are a growing but small force till now. Yet our ideology and bold presence against the backdrop of CPI(M)’s dirty politics of surrender to the state and its foreign mentors have created so much shuddering impact to the fake Marxists that Mr. Anil was entrusted by the social fascists to write such a whopping trash. Buddhadeb boasts of his government’s roaring success in finishing off the Maoists. Then why such a huge write-up? The reasons are not far to seek. Firstly this will send the message to the ruling classes and imperialists, Uncle Sam in particular, how the CPI(M) challenges the Maoists in writing too and secondly, it will convey the message to those brutal class forces how the CPI(M) falls in line to train the guns on the Maoists.

What is found is that Anil and his party after swimming in the luxuries of the legislative power in West Bengal for 28 years are now vocally preaching the World Bank view on globalisation and practicing it quite sincerely too. The decay and utter degeneration clearly justifies the politics of Naxalbari as diametrically opposite to the comfortable parliamentary path to social change. Even the genuine Khuschevite or its Indian edition Dangeite revisionism is paled into insignificance considering the tricky use of Marxian idiom simultaneous with open and blatant marriage with the Congress, openly following World Bank diktats and the brutal use of state’s armed forces against the Maoists and any other forces opposing the CPI(M) power. Even the big comprador bourgeoisie and the feudal forces – old and new – are quite frank and generous enough to heap all praises on the CPI(M)-led government in West Bengal. Anils, Buddhas are now laughing stocks, and the ruling classes repose all faith in the CPI(M) to allow this party to carry on further. All movements what even the bourgeois liberals and social democrats are so much enamored of have been bidden adieu to save and protect the ‘Left’ Front with the support of the Indian ruling classes.

Certain things are quite evident. So-called land reforms have begun to prove a failure for some years past. Land concentration in the hands of a rich minority is the general trend in India, West Bengal is no exception. The ‘Left’ Front under the CPI(M) shall not allow any democratic voice to express itself. And finally, the Maoist alternative is the principal enemy of the social fascist CPI(M) and this makes it amply clear where we stand as revolutionary Marxists in India. Anil & Co. will find place in the garbage heap of history.

In recent times a few other write-ups have appeared in the CPI(M) journals against us. Mr. Sushanta Ghosh, the notorious minister, has recently written a longish article in Ganashakti, a rubbish which does not merit a reply from us.

Sitaram Yechury chose the occasion of Maoist blitzkrieg in Jehanabad on13 November, 05 in Bihar to actually denigrate the Maoists and repeat the peace-loving position to the satisfaction of the state in a full page attack against the CPI(Maoist) in the People’s Democracy on 27^th  Nov. 2005.

Yechury starts the write-up as a great worshipper of the Indian state thus: “The audacious assault conducted by the CPI(Maoist) at the Jehanabad jail raises serious questions of security and intelligence lapses.” He then repeats the same rubbish like Mr.Anil Biswas and once again quoting from the CPI(M)’s programme at the end clearly tries to assure the CPI(M)’s international and native masters with such old undertaking: “The Communist Party of India (Marxist) strives to achieve the establishment of people’s democracy and socialist transformation through peaceful means……” Yechury, the CPI(M) ideologue, assuringly wrote that “social transformation of India”, “can neither replicate the Russian or Chinese or for matter of any other experience in the world.” Thanks Mr. Yechury, Mr. Anil’s comrade, for writing so many words against the violent course for the real transformation of this existing system! Yechury hates the violent path and any revolutionary violence that Marx considered as a midwife to bring about a new society from the womb of the old. Yechury acts coy and imaginatively sets up the CPI(M)’s enemy who, he says, will use the politics of Maoist violence against the CPI(M)’s innocuous parliamentary creed. In his words

“Such violence is often described as Left extremism. In the process, there is a concerted attempt to denounce communism as fostering a ‘cult of violence’ and equating ‘anarchism with revolutionary activities.” Yechury brings in the RSS and sadly complains that this organisation equates “such anarchic violence (of the Maoists) with the revolutionary work that the CPI(M) is engaged in”.

Any conscious reader will realize the actual object of such self-justificatory plea: we are not for violence of any type. Our Party’s “Marxist” tag is merely an identity for contesting elections.

We the Maoists have an ideology and the revolutionary experience in practice. Our clear view on Anil’s i.e. the CPI(M)’s dangerously shameless theory and practice of state-friendly, imperialist friendly politics has been discussed quite in detail. We hope this will reject the lumpen politics of the Indian social-fascist, the CPI(M) and spread our revolutionary politics to every nook and corner of India, West Bengal in particular.

Yet we must make it clear here that the CPI(M) led ‘Left’ Front’s police forces will not allow us to reach out to the common people with our critique of Mr. Anil Biswas’s article. Actually speaking the Police Raj in West Bengal cannot permit the Maoists to openly participate in a debate with the social fascist CPI(M). With all constraints against us we shall try to reach out to as many people as possible with our view on revolutionary struggle holding aloft the red flag of Marxism Leninism and Maoism. Our path is thorny and blood-soaked. With the people on our side the final victory is ours.