to the Karnataka Maoist Swatantra Kendra in the below document,
I do believe they have some valid points.
Download the below document in word format
http://naxalrevolution.googlepages.com/disruption_of_Rev__final__July_6.doc
Source : Recieved via email
OPPORTUNISTS NEVER UNDERSTAND
DIALECTICS OF REVOLUTION!
REVOLUTIONARY DIALECTICS WILL ALWAYS TEAR
DOWN THE MASK OF ALL OPPORTUNISTS!!
INTRODUCTION
The successful completion of the Unity Congress-9th Congress of our Party, CPI (Maoist) is a historic leap in the history of the revolutionary movement in India. The Congress not only reaffirmed the correct ideological, political, military and organizational positions of the 8th Congress held in 1970 under the leadership of comrade CM, but also enriched them by summing up the revolutionary practice and experience of the international proletariat and particularly of the two revolutionary parties, the erstwhile MCCI which built a powerful movement under the leadership of Com KC and the CPI (ML) [People’s War]. The Unity Congress, which was held after a gap of 36 years defeating the massive enemy encirclement to foil it, signifies the culmination of the unity process of nearly all genuine revolutionary groups and individuals in the country, although a small section still remains outside the Party. Most importantly, the Congress signifies an achievement in fulfilling the long cherished aspiration of the Indian proletariat and the oppressed masses of India by establishing a single directing centre of the Indian revolution.
But recently, a breakaway group from our party in Karnataka, calling itself as the Karnataka Maoist Swatantra Kendra (KMSK), brought out a Bulletin entitled the ‘Dialectics of Revolution’ in November 2006, and later two booklets of correspondence and the sum-up of five years inner-party struggle explaining the reasons for splitting the party and its perception of the so-called political, ideological and organizational crisis facing the Indian revolutionary movement. Many comrades in the Party are aware of the inner-party struggle in Karnataka which went on for five years from 2001 October to 2006 July, till its culmination with the State Conference. The political, ideological and organizational issues raised by the leaders of this group were repeatedly discussed not only in the SC but also at various levels of the party and finally resolved in two State Conferences, one in May 2003 and again in July 2006.
The KMSK is a group formed by splitting the Karnataka (KN) unit of the CPI (Maoist) during the course of the State Conference held in the process of holding the Congress. In this Conference there was a two-line struggle where two views were presented: one, that basically supported the line of the Party, and the other put by four leading comrades with diametrically opposing positions. These two views had been subject to detailed discussion throughout the KN unit of the party prior to the State Conference and were finally clinched there.
Both views were heatedly debated at the Conference and voted upon. They included the two reviews of the three years work in the State. In the spirit of democratic centralism the majority views were adopted. When the members of this group found their views defeated at the Conference, they led their faction to walk out, refusing to abide by the majority decision. Not only that, inspite of assuring the Conference that they would not take any step that will damage the Party till the Congress, within a fortnight they held a plenum and formed another group.
It is a well known fact that any proletarian Party in the world is built on the organizational principles of democratic centralism. This is the most democratic form of organizational structure when properly implemented. In India, when the centre of the CPI/ML was smashed by the State soon after its formation by 1971, the party got split into many groups and in the late 1970sand 1980s the splits continued. As a result, inspite of the heroic image of struggle and sacrifice there was disillusionment about the movement. This was a result to a large extent due to the petty-bourgeois outlook of the leaders and the wrong understanding/implementation of democratic centralism. Thus the ruling classes and reactionaries who have always striven to engineer splits and disunity among the struggling forces and the masses were benefited by this process. In the late 1960s and early 70s, when the M-L movement was new to the country the Party could not consolidate soon after its formation due to an incorrect style of work and wrong assessments of the concrete situation as also due to massive repression and the martyrdom of the bulk of the leadership. At such a time rabid petty-bourgeois values were rampant in the movement. Individualism and a bureaucratic mind-set prevailed with the approach “My views alone are correct and all must accept or else we will separate”. So with this approach the splits reached ridiculous proportions and few had any significant practice to show for the validity of their views.
Fortunately this process began to be reversed since the mid-1990s. Those serious about revolution began to advance the revolutionary movement and initiate the armed struggle while the non-serious ones began to fade out or disintegrate. In the process the demarcation line within the M-L-M between the revolutionaries and revisionists became clear. The erstwhile PW, MCC, PU, etc belonged to the first category and since the last 7 to 8 years the process of merger and unification became the major trend. A large number of groups and revolutionary individuals began uniting into the CPI (ML)(PW) and the MCCI, with the line of demarcation between the genuine revolutionaries and the other rightists/revisionists within the M-L-M getting clearly demarcated. This trend was to be seen since about 1998 when all those serious of advancing the people’s war in the country began uniting. Since 2000 the two main streams of the revolution began to grow closer and finally united into a single revolutionary party in Sept 2004. After the merger and formation of a united single party, the CPI (Maoist), in the country many of those remaining outside have been joining. Yet, at such a juncture a handful from KN have once again started such splittest activities to the delight of the ruling classes.
Unfortunately, while throughout the country the unity process has been continuing since, now this group has not only split the party in KN but has been roaming all over the country encouraging others to split. Particularly when the Congress of the CPI (Maoist), after two years of detailed discussions, formulated the correct line for the Indian revolution, the leading members of this group unable to adopt proletarian discipline have fallen prey to their petti-bourgeois traits and are trying to spread confusion. But, comrades in the revolutionary movement have shown greater maturity saying “whatever maybe your differences you should struggle from within as is the established tradition of any communist party; particularly when the Party is facing the full attack of the government such a step is unadvisable”. After being defeated in the State Conference, instead of abiding by the decisions of the Conference and later the Congress, they resorted to a slander campaign against the Party, its leadership and the Party line.
In their Bulletin they have listed out their differences with the party line and the methods adopted by the party leadership. Not only that, they have brought out almost all organizational details including internal correspondence about the inner party struggle. They not only engineered a split in the party but also continue their disruptive activities in many states by propagating against the party with lies, half truths, one-sided and distorted information.
The Bulletin, correspondence, and the sum-up of five years inner-party struggles contains many wrong conceptions politically, ideologically and organizationally apart from the distortions and half truths on the inner-party struggle in Karnataka, party history and the revolutionary movement as a whole. In this they have explained their political, organizational and ideological differences with the party leadership, basically opposing the political line of the party and its organizational principles. They have utilized weaknesses in the party to attack the very line itself. Many of the weaknesses have been identified and rectified to some extent and some more still continue and need rectification. In order to confuse the readers the opportunists have mixed up the weaknesses already identified and rectified with those that are still prevailing. If at all the solutions proposed by this group are implemented in the name of overcoming the weaknesses, the party and the movement would definitely fall into the mire of opportunism and revisionism.
The context of the line struggle was begun when the KN party, was making serious efforts to overcome its problems in building the revolutionary movement by taking lessons from past mistakes, and particularly while making serious efforts to build the armed struggle in Malnad. All their verbiage about building the revolutionary movement, armed struggle, guerrilla zones and base areas becomes empty phrases when the party really took up this task and put it into practice. It is like the Chinese saying that a prince dreamt to see a dragon in real life but when the dragon actually appeared he ran away.
It does not come as a surprise for the comrades in Karnataka that this group chose to split the party and blame the party leadership for the same because for the last five years they tried to scuttle the ongoing armed struggle in Malnad. When their opportunist methods failed to change the course of the revolutionary movement they resorted to this final action. It is a well-known fact in the history of proletarian movement the world over that such disrupters blame the party and the leadership for their splitting of the Party by making use of the shortcomings and the weaknesses in the party. In the past six years we also have this kind of experience of Manik of West Bengal from erstwhile the CPI (ML) [PW] and Badal-Bharath from the erstwhile MCCI. Now Bharath is acting as a stooge in the hands of the ruling classes and their repressive state machinery against the revolutionary movement.
The differences first emerged in the context of building the revolutionary movement in Malnad. It was initially confined to the issues related with the movement in KN, but later expanded into a full fledged alternative line over a period of five years. Every question, whether political, ideological and organizational, has now become part of a line question.
In this reply we will concentrate on the major political, ideological, organizational issues and the facts about the inner-party struggle, many of which were already discussed democratically throughout the party in Karnataka and resolved in the State Conference held in July 2006. Their main intention in bringing out the Bulletin, Correspondence and Sum-up, is to create an impression in the Party and among the sympathizers that their genuine political and ideological differences were not addressed properly due to the dogmatism, sectarianism and bureaucratic handling of the leadership. And that, had it been handled properly they would have abided by the majority and conducted the inner-party struggle. This may create some doubts in the minds of some comrades who are in other states and those who are not well versed with the Karnataka movement. In order to repudiate their wrong conceptions and firmly establish the Party’s line we are publishing this reply explaining the CC’s understanding on the political, ideological and organizational issues raised by the splitters and the facts concerning the inner-party struggle in Karnataka.
The answer is divided into two parts; first we will deal with the political and ideological issues and then with the organizational issues. The main political and ideological issues that will be answered are: on the question of the mode of production in India; on the principal contradiction in the country; on the nature of semi-colonialism and the CBB; on the caste question in India; on the question of insurrection and protracted people’s war; the approach to mass work and mass struggle; and on the question of armed struggle in Malnad. The organizational questions that will be dealt with are: on the question of splitting; on the question of democracy and the practice of democratic centralism; using organizational methods to deal with political questions; and exposing party secrets and jeopardizing the very party itself.
I
POLITICAL AND IDELOGICAL ISSUES
The points raised by the KMSK are far reaching and concern not only the very programme of the Maoist party but also the strategy and tactics of Indian revolution. Most of the points raised by this group have been raised by some M-L group earlier and have been settled. But as they have again been raised by the KMSK, albeit in a new form, we shall deal with them again.
1. On the changes that have taken place in the agricultural sector:
One of the main accusations of this Group is that the leadership is very dogmatic in recognizing the changes taking place in the mode of production in the country with the growth of capitalist penetration in agriculture and this is the main reason for adopting a wrong strategy and tactics and for the failures. So let us examine their arguments on this issue.
In their methodology they outline at length the extensive changes in agriculture, without corroborative data, and from that draw conclusions of some basic changes. They have listed out a long list of changes such as “decrease in the number of big landlords who held sway over the political, economic, social and cultural life in the countryside; land holding of the big landlords has come down to 30%; number of small and middle peasantry has increased; number of ‘hardcore landlord’ (a new terminology for political economy contributed by the opportunists) is decreasing while the number of landlords adopting capitalist methods is increasing; extent of irrigated land has increased; use of tractors, tillers, hybrid seeds, chemicals, pesticides has increased; capitalist farming sector has increased; urban expansion; migration of labour to the cities; hold of CBB is increasing due to the infra-structural development; influence of consumerist culture, rural unemployment are increasing; old feudal authority is loosening and the hold of ruling classes and the state is increasing in the form of local elected bodies, courts and offices; corporatisation of agriculture, land ceiling act is modified in the interests of CBB and imperialists; agriculture is being more and more integrated with the market and is caught in the tentacles of imperialists due to globalization and WTO agreements, due to these reasons contradiction between peasantry and CBB-imperialists combine has increased considerably”. After stating so many changes in the mode of production they concluded that “we can see that considerable changes have come in each of them:
· Concentration of productive forces in agriculture, especially of land (i.e. capitalist concentration of land)
· Bank capital-landlord capital
· Production for consumption; production for market
· Mechanization of agricultural process (tractors, tillers etc.)
· Freedom of the labour
· Rural debts (which classes take which type of loan)
· Labour payment in commodity or in cash
· Changes in the caste hierarchy
After listing out these changes one expects that it will be corroborated with facts and figures and with some analysis, if not in detail at least in brief. But these opportunists did not feel it necessary to analyze and establish their ‘findings’ by placing facts and figures. And this is not for the first time they have acted like this. Even during the inner-party debate on the issue of the concrete conditions in Malnad they did the same. Without collecting any data, without undertaking a deeper study and analysis of these data utilizing Marxist political economy they simply argued that many changes have taken place. But it is mere sophistry to talk about changes with out concretely identifying what type of changes they are. It is a method repeatedly adopted by these opportunists in the inner-party struggle.
They just say “we are not going into explanation of the above aspects for reasons of length. But if we compare these with the socio-economic-political situation that prevailed when the party’s Programme was first drawn up in 1970, it is crystal clear that significant changes have come in all these parameters” and went on to conclude that “It is true that the imperialism have preserved semi-feudalism for their own interests. But this does not mean that the feudalism, which is historically in the direction of decay, is predominantly preserved as it was earlier. Nor does it mean that ‘refeudalisation’ is taking place, as some argue. It is against the law of motion of society. As part of its historical movement feudalism keeps moving towards decay. In the absence of socialist forces and of revolution, its movement would be gradually towards capitalism, but it will not be static or will not strengthen against history either.” (Emphasis added; KMSK Bulletin, Dialectics of Revolution P-44)
For the sake of clarity let us look at the main points they have concluded.
a)The imperialists and the CBB while preserving semi-feudalism are gradually transforming it into capitalism.
b) Due to the absence of socialist forces and (prospect of) revolution semi-feudalism is gradually moving towards capitalism.
c) Historically feudalism is in the direction of decay.
These three points reveal the concepts of the opportunists on the ongoing revolutionary movement and the ‘reforms’ carried out by the imperialists and their local compradors. It is not strange that for them only feudalism is in the process of ‘decay’ and not capitalism. The teachings of our great teachers Lenin, Stalin and Mao have shown that capitalism itself was in a state of decay when it reached the stage of imperialism; that capitalism has become historically obsolete and the direction of the movements of the world is towards socialism and communism; that with the earth-shaking victory of the October Revolution in Russia the ‘omnipotent’ capitalist system started to disintegrate; that with the emergence of the socialist camp an alternative economic system for the toiling masses emerged in place of the ‘all embracing’ capitalist economic system; that for a semi-colonial country in general, and particularly for India, the path of capitalist transformation has been shut and the only alternative is New Democracy and socialism. All these issues are conveniently sidelined and for them the imperialist sponsored ‘reforms’ carried out by the ruling classes in their all out efforts to come out of the intensifying all round crisis can bring progressive change and democratic transformation. Therefore imperialism is in their eyes not decadent and moribund but still can play some progressive anti-feudal role. To imply this means to deny the Leninist understanding of imperialism and Mao’s understanding of New Democracy.
In addition it is an outrageous and malicious distortion to say “in the absence of socialist forces and of revolution”. This was not written by mistake. It is their concept. They don’t see any possibility or prospect of revolution in India under the leadership of our Party and do not even consider our Party as a ‘socialist force’ and the ongoing movement as revolutionary. They made this clear umpteen times in their Bulletin. So the only alternative is that India is gradually ‘transforming’ into capitalism. This is not just a difference of opinion on certain political and ideological issues but differences on the very basic understanding of our Party and the movement.
Now let us look into the changes that have taken place in India in the last two decades.
Nobody denies that changes have taken place when compared with 1970. These splitters try to portray as if the central and state leadership are so blind and dogmatic that they don’t recognize the changes after 1970. But the Party Programme, recently passed at the Party Congress, have taken into cognizance of all these changes in points 10 and 15 and in other places. This is further discussed in the Political Resolution while discussing the impact of globalization on India. Not only that, in a separate detailed analysis the nature of the changes in
Though these splitters well know the Party’s understanding on the changes taking place in the agrarian sector due to the penetration of e imperialists and their stooge CBB, why are they bent upon insisting that the Party is blind to these changes? The reason is simple. They want that the Party should agree to their assessments and politics, whatever it may be.
When we look at the question of the mode of production we must do it in the context of Lenin’s theoretical basis on this issue. The points to be considered as per the Leninist understanding are mainly, nature and extent of the wage labour, nature and extent of capital accumulation and extended reproduction, extent of class differentiation of the peasantry in the countryside, types and extent of tenancy, types and extent of credit/moneylending, extent and nature of capitalist commodity production vis-à-vis simple commodity production, extent and nature of land concentration, the extent of the artisan population, productivity trends, question of superstructure and nature of political authority asserted in the village, existence and extent of non-economic forms of coercion, extent and growth of industry and manufacturing in the region, etc. Lenin has said that the development of manufacturing acts as an important factor in bringing about agrarian changes. So, while studying the mode of production in rural India we should not just look at it in isolation, but see its interlinking with the rest of the Indian economy, particularly the growth of manufacture and thereby the generation of capitalist relations.
In addition the above analysis must be concretely applied to a backward country where imperialism and its agents, the CBB, act to retard indigenous capitalist development. Today, the impact of imperialism and the CBB has serious implications for the development of capitalism in backward countries such as India. This is most crudely evident in this period of imperialist globalization where the gigantic amounts of imperialist and CBB capital have not led to a growth of capitalist relations but, on the contrary, a marginalization/displacement of vast sections of the population. IT, big industry, big retail chains, etc has led to the closure of lakhs of small scale units on the one hand; while the total neglect of agriculture and policies like bank privatization (reduction in primary sector lending), dismantling of government support prices, etc, etc has led to unbelievable levels of rural distress whose extreme case are the thousands of suicides.
Now let us look into the facts as to what are the changes and how far they have changed the relations of production in the agrarian sector. Here we will only touch on just some points as a detailed analysis will appear in our magazines.
First, let us take the question of commodity production. In their Bulletin the KMSK argued that the increased usage of inputs led to capitalist development. Com Lenin said “one cannot even discuss ‘consumption’ unless one understands the process of the reproduction of the various parts of the social product…. It is not with ‘production’ that political economy deals, but with the social relations of men in production, with the social system of production. Once these social relations have been analyzed, the place of production of every class, and consequently, the share they get of the national consumption is thereby defined”. This key understanding is often distorted by the opportunists, who merely mention “consumption” (of inputs like tractors, tillers, fertilizer and pesticides), without analyzing its impact on the relations of production. For example because of the extra burden on the land (due to lack of employment in other spheres, with each successive generation the number of people living off the same small plots of land continues to grow --- and the land is regularly fragmented with each successive generation). To survive, these families have to increase productivity, so many of such families began to adopt HYV and were drawn into the market though they continued to remain at subsistence levels of existence and within the framework of the old production relations. This vast section of the rural population that has been drawn into the market by the imperialists are involved in what is called simple commodity production and not capitalist commodity production.
In simple commodity production the producer sells his product in order to purchase other products which satisfy his specific wants. He starts with commodities, turns them into money, and then once again into commodities. Commodities constitute the beginning and the end of the transaction which finds its rationale in the fact that the commodities acquired are qualitatively different from those given up. Marx designates this circuit symbolically as C-M-C. Under capitalism, on the other hand, the capitalist, acting in his capacity as a capitalist, goes to the market with Money, purchases Commodities (labour power and means of production), and then, after a process of production has been completed, returns to the market with a product which he again converts into Money. This process is designated as M-C-M ′ (M ′ is profit or surplus value added to the capital invested). The bulk of the small and middle peasants (and even a section of the rich peasants), though they have been drawn into the market do not produce surplus value and are therefore involved in simple commodity production and not capitalist production.
Secondly, if we now turn to the question of credit we find in fact in this period of globalization with a fall in primary sector lending the amount of informal credit is once again on the rise. For all their needs, for productive and non-productive expenditure, the peasantry depends more on the private money lenders and usurers. This kind of moneylending and usury practice is associated not with capitalism as the opportunists argue but semi-feudalism. According to the govt itself “the credit extended to agriculture from the commercial banks constituted around 12 per cent to 13 per cent of total net bank credit in recent years as against the target of 18 per cent.”
For example in the Tamilnadu and Kerala, ‘developed areas’ according to the opportunists, in the areas where commercial crops like cotton, oil seeds, cardamom, rubber, pepper cultivated by middle peasantry, who produce for the market, are entangled in a number of ties of extra-economic coercion and exploitation -- levying exorbitant rates of interest more than the market rate, forcing to buy the fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs at more price and even low quality, forcing the peasants to sell their produce at cheaper rate than the market price -- by the notorious money lenders/merchants and private financial institution, called by the infamous name “blade company” in Kerala and southern Tamilnadu. Thousands of small scale rubber producers in Waynad lost their land and other properties, even committed suicide, due to this pre-capitalist method of plunder. Two years back there were many struggles against these “blade companies” involving hundreds of people.
Thirdly, let us look at the question of the generation of surplus value in agriculture. If capitalism was predominant in agriculture the surplus value generated should reflect this. But we find the capital generation by means of investment in this sector is miserable. Over the last two decades public investment in Indian agriculture has virtually halved.
The so-called private investment in the agricultural sector in the post-reform period did not alter the conditions even by a little. Rather it further aggravated the miseries of the peasantry. By its own admission the government of India pointed out in its Mid-Term Appraisal of the Ninth Five-Year Plan points out, “there is a strong complementarity between public and private investments, and inadequate public investment could lead to a 25 per cent lower private investment than desired”.
Today, in this period of globalization and agrarian crisis the worsening terms of trade (due to the crash in agricultural commodity prices and leap in cost of inputs) the surplus generated in agriculture is being mainly sucked out by the imperialist and CBB companies leaving little even for the well off farmer. With the entry of the retail chains the bulk of the surplus will be extracted by these huge corporates where the farmers are turned into mere appendages of them.
We find that with the crisis in agriculture, except for the first decade of the Green Revolution due to the disparity between the rise in price of inputs and falling price of agricultural output has resulted in a continuous squeezing of the surplus. For example, the crash in prices of coffee, tea, areca nuts, etc, have badly impacted the farmers in Karnataka, Kerala and Tamilnadu. In the period of globalization of the 1990s the crisis has got even deeper not only reducing this surplus even further, but pushing thousands of peasants to suicide. So, according to data available gross capital formation in agriculture dropped from 11% of the total in the 1980s to 7.6% in the 1990s.
Besides this low generation of surplus in agriculture, even that which is generated, particularly by the big landlords goes primarily to other spheres. With the return on money-lending and trading far more profitable, a large proportion of this surplus is not re-invested in agriculture, instead finds its way in such spheres of activity. In fact, as long as usury continues to dominate the countryside as a most profitable sphere of investment, it will restrict the growth of capitalist development. Of course, when compared with the pre-green revolution period with the inception of the 'green revolution' things have somewhat changed; but the limited extent to which it has generated capitalist farming can be seen from the poor levels of capital investment in agriculture taken as a whole.
In addition the expenditure on rural development fell from 14.5% in 1990 to 5% in 2003-04. This continued decline in public investment in agriculture and rural development resulted in the decline in the development of infra-structure like irrigation, rural electrification, roads and markets. Further, the combined expenditure by the central and state governments on agricultural research and development, which is very important to the growth of productive forces has stagnated around 0.5 percent of GDP as against 1 percent projected by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research in this period of ‘economic reforms’.
These types of pre-capitalist methods and decline in public and private investment led to a miserable situation in capital generation in agriculture and does not encourage capitalist growth in agriculture continuously in a big way or significantly.
Fourthly, if we look at the other indicator of labour power becoming a commodity to generate surplus value we find that more and more they are being pushed to destitution eking out a living not in some capitalist enterprise but thorough odd jobs. Government employment generation schemes are more towards self-help groups; so are those linked to micro-finance; these only perpetuates the semi-feudal conditions of labour as the bulk are involved in petty production and not drawn in relations with capital to produce surplus value. Most labour extracted is semi-free and constrained by numerous extra-economic forms of coercion linked to caste, patriarchy, etc.
These are just some points touched on; these, together with others mentioned above will have to be looked into in depth. These will be taken up in our magazines and other publications .
Today the agrarian economy is in a serious crisis and with greater and greater imperialist and CBB penetration into the rural economy vast sections of the rural populace are being marginalized even further. What is given above is a mere sketch of this situation. At the Congress a detailed study was presented on the changes in agrarian relations in Punjab. As a result of these studies, whether for Punjab or for the rest of the country, the Party is of the opinion that inspite of the growth in distorted capitalist relations, semi-feudalism continues to be the predominant mode of production. Unfortunately these splitters who wax eloquent about basic changes in the agrarian economy have never taken the pains for in depth analysis or study neither of India nor even Karnataka.
2. On Caste question
On caste question the opportunists accuse that the Party is dogmatic in understanding the particularity of Indian feudalism. But how have they themselves understood this question? How do they relate the caste issue with the so-called transformation of Indian society into capitalism? You cannot find any answer from them. Because they don’t even feel it is their responsibility to do such things. The historic 9th Congress of the CPI (Maoist) made significant advancement on this issue. Even before, in 1997, the erstwhile CPI (ML) (PW) had not only prepared a perspective paper on the caste question but also formed concrete organizations in different states to fight against this evil system. In the Unity Congress our understanding on the caste question was further enriched and it also decided to form concrete forms of organizations to eradicate it, particularly untouchability and violence on Dalits. To quote from the Strategy and Tactics “In
“Socially and ideologically, Brahminism and the caste system brings an added oppression to the lower castes and dalits. With Dalits it takes the inhuman form of untouchability. These also act as measures for extra-economic forms of extracting surplus by the feudal interests”.
Explaining the landlord class it is added that “The landed sections in the countryside largely come from the upper-castes and upper rung of the backward caste. They use brahminical ideology under the garb of religion to keep all other sections of the population under their domination, particularly Dalits”. (Page-9)
Again describing the landless, poor peasants and semi-proletariat it is said that “The landless and poor peasants face not only economic exploitation but also social oppression as they come basically from backward castes, tribes and Dalits. Due to these extra-economic forms of coercion they live a life of, not only starvation, but also marginalization on the fringes of society” and “mostly comprising the artisan and service castes they too belong to the oppressed castes. Though they some of themselves practice untouchability, they face acute caste oppression from the upper castes. This too is over-and-above the economic exploitation that they have to face”. (Page-12) Explaining the feudal culture, “feudal culture is primarily the Brahminical caste-based culture of engrained superiority. This Brahminical culture puts its stamp on nearly all aspects of social interaction and thinking, from approach to labour, women, oppressed castes, other communities, marriage norms, birth, death, language, etc and even has numerous caste symbols. Ironically the so-called modern imperialist culture easily adjusts with the archaic and retrogressive Brahminical culture” (page-19)
In page-38, it is said “The cooperatives should not in any way be caste based, and the traditional caste-based occupations should be gradually abolished”.
Again in page-50 explaining the non-proletarian trends in the party the document mentions “These are particularly reflected in Brahminical ideology which is deep-rooted in the people’s psyche. Its worst feature is the casteist superiority it inculcates; with its extreme form being the practice of untouchability” and,” in a country like India this particularly means breaking caste barriers and thoroughly integrating with Dalits, tribals and other oppressed castes”.
On building united front it is said “Particularly in our country where casteism and caste oppression is so widespread, drawing Dalits and other oppressed caste into the UF is an important aspect of building the new democratic front”. (page-63)
“We should work jointly with these petti-bourgeois organizations on these issues while at the same time conducting ideological and political debate with them on their orientation towards reformist solutions to eradicate caste, like conversion and reservations. We should propagate the revolutionary policy on the caste system”.
On the special social group it is amended that “India is a deeply caste ridden society where caste oppression and Brahminical superiority is widespread. Dalits are at the lowest rung of this ladder facing the inhuman practice of untouchability.
Though all forms of caste oppression must be opposed the Party must particularly focus on the oppression of Dalits and eradication of untouchability”
“We must initiate and lead the struggles against all forms of violence and discrimination on Dalits from our own class organisations. There is also urgent need to build organizations to fight untouchability, caste discrimination and for the eradication of the caste system as part of the new democratic transformation of society”. (Emphasis added)
As part of urban work it says “There has been a strong dalit movement in the country fighting untouchability. Though part of this has been co-opted by ruling-classes the spontaneous struggles keep breaking out against attacks on Dalits and against their humiliation. This is so not only in the rural areas but also in the urban areas where Dalit assertion has increased. It is important to participate in these movements and where possible lead them. While doing so we should seek to give these movements a correct orientation linking caste oppression and untouchability to he task of the entire democratization of society, i.e, the tasks of the NDR”.
But what have the opportunists done in this regard? Apart from suggesting to delete “…without forming caste based organization” (which many states conferences and committees have proposed and deleted in the Congress after detailed discussion) from the party Programme and S&T, they had not even written why it should be deleted. Anyone who is serious about it should have written.
The Congress has made significant advances on understanding the caste question in
3. Understanding semi-colonial nature of India
The opportunists said in their Bulletin that “whether it is under the control of one imperialist country or of several imperialists does not express its political essence. Such explanation does not bring out to the fore the fundamental difference in essence between the neo-colonial countries and semi-colonial countries.” (Emphasis added; Page-46-47). In order to justify their opportunist line they quote comrade Lenin by robbing it of its essence. Such methods will not only fail to convince the readers but also exposes their hollowness on the issue. If they had taken little patience to study what Lenin has said they could have easily understood that he was writing in the context of the territorial division of the world by the great colonial powers and in that context mentioned some examples as semi-colonies in transition to colonies. Two pages earlier from where they quoted, Lenin said “we think it useful, in order to present a complete picture of the division of the world, to add brief figures on non-colonial and semi-colonial countries, in which category we place Persia, China and Turkey: the first of these countries is already almost completely a colony, the second and third are becoming such”. (Imperialism, Highest stage of Capitalism. Page-95}.
If we read the quotation fully which the opportunists have quoted we can easily understand this. It reads “The "semi-colonial" states provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found in all spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, it may be said, such a decisive force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shall shortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most "convenient”, and is able to extract the greatest profit from such a subjection as involves the loss of the political independence of the subjected countries and peoples. In this connection, the semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the "middle stage." It is natural that the struggle for these semi-dependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up. (Emphasis added; ibid. page-97)
Anyone can understand that comrade Lenin was speaking about the contention among the great powers for the territorial redivision of the world. He clearly pointed out that the semi-colonies are the territories of bitter struggle between the imperialists and are in the process of becoming colonies. But the opportunists distort Lenin in order to justify their opportunist line. Later comrade Mao analyzing China’s semi-colonial status explained “The contradictions and struggles among the cliques of warlords in China reflect the contradictions and struggles among the imperialist powers”. (Why is it that Red political power can exist in
From these, it is clear that a semi-colony is a territory where imperialism rule these countries indirectly (in case the imperialists occupy, the territories under its rule it becomes a colony, as it happened in China after the Japanese aggression); that it is controlled and exploited not by a single imperialist power but many imperialist powers; that there is contention between these imperialists to take control of the whole country. But the opportunists tried, of course vainly, to portray that the Party’s understanding is wrong.
World history traversed from there and now we are living in a neo-colonial period of imperialism. Why do the opportunists choose to quote Lenin, selectively, after a century when we are living in the neo-colonial period? It is only to bring forward their outright revisionist theory in the name of “semi-dependent”, “intermediary stage”, or “states in the transition process”. In which direction is India transforming? Towards a colony, neo-colony or towards complete independence? They have not said anything on this. They are deliberately silent on this. What happened to their ‘concrete analysis of concrete conditions’? It not only exposes their ignorance to understand the difference between the old colonial form of exploitation and rule and the neo-colonial form of exploitation and rule; but also their stale revisionist theory of “semi-dependent” India. These theories are nothing new in the history of the revolutionary movement. Many so-called ML groups and Maoists have already doled out this theory before.
During the mid fifties of the last century the Soviet revisionists in order to advance their imperialist policies denied the semi-colonial nature of the countries which came out of the shackles of direct colonial rule and power and was transformed into the faithful servants of the imperialists -- the CBB and the landlord classes. By advancing the revisionist theory of ‘peaceful transformation’ they blunted the people’s consciousness on the need for the new democratic revolution to liberate themselves completely from colonial exploitation and rule. The main argument they put forward was that the countries that came out of direct colonial rule are ‘politically independent but economically dependent on imperialism’. In order to bring them out of the imperialist hold the socialist countries must help them economically and develop them in a non-capitalist path. In the Great Debate with the Soviet revisionists the CPC led by comrade Mao exposed this revisionist theory and waged a resolute attack on the apologists of colonialism. To quote:
“Consider, first, the situation in Asia and Africa. There a whole group of countries have declared their independence. But many of these countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control and enslavement and remain objects of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as arenas of contention between the old and new colonialists. In some, the old colonialists have changed into neo-colonialists and retain their colonial rule through their trained agents. In others, the wolf has left by the front door, but the tiger has entered through the back door, the old colonialism being replaced by the new, more powerful and more dangerous U. S. colonialism. The peoples of Asia and Africa are seriously menaced by the tentacles of neo-colonialism, represented by U. S. imperialism”.
“After World War II the imperialists have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neo-colonialism. An important characteristic of such neo-colonialism is that the imperialists have been forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule in some areas and to adopt a new style of colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave or control the colonial countries and countries which have already declared their independence by organizing military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing "federations" or "communities", and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic "aid" or other forms, they retain these countries as markets for their goods, sources of raw material and outlets for their export of capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood of the people of these countries. Moreover, they use the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internal affairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economic and cultural aggression. When they are unable to continue their rule over these countries by "peaceful" means, they engineer military coups d'etat, carry out subversion or even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression”. (Emphasis added. Apologists of colonialism. Page- )
The above quoted understanding explains the present day neo-colonial system of imperialism. The Strategy and Tactics document of our party upholds this understanding and concludes that India is a semi-colony under the neo-colonial form of exploitation and rule. These opportunists try to counterpose Lenin’s understanding on semi-colonialism with the present day understanding. On the contrary it is only a further development of Lenin’s understanding.
The opportunists discovered that “the political essence of the countries, i.e., the characteristics that they are relatively independent but are on the whole subservient to imperialism”. This understanding is against what Mao said about the semi-colonial countries under the neo-colonial system. The ‘old’ colonialists were forced to ‘declare’ ‘independence’ to their colonies only to deceive the masses and to continue their exploitation and rule in the neo-colonial form. Our Party Programme says that “The declaration of ‘Independence’ in 1947 was nothing but fake in essence”. But, the opportunists consider the ‘independence’ granted by the imperialists is political independence in its real sense. This understanding is nothing but the revisionist parties understanding that India is politically independent but economically dependant on imperialism. Many so-called ML parties also had the same stand on the question of political independence.
They said “copying what com. Mao said about the way in which semi-colonial nature expressed itself in China to explain India’s semi-colonial nature is yet another example of dogmatism. (ibid).
We have already mentioned their political bankruptcy in understanding the teachings of Comrades Lenin and Mao on semi-colonialism. Even a casual and superficial reading of our documents is sufficient to understand that we don’t repeat that India is a semi-colony replicating China. Still, the opportunists repeat this blatant lie endlessly. It is a Goebellsian tactics that by repeating a lie hundred times it will be established as a truth.
But the point is why are they indulging in such an exercise and what is their motive in doing this? In order to establish their revisionist theory of ‘semi-independent’, ‘relatively dependent’ they are deliberately branding the leadership as ‘dogmatic and blind to the reality’. While on semi-feudalism their understanding is that India is ‘gradually moving towards capitalism’ and on semi-colony ‘it is politically independent and economically dependent’. These two aspects together amounts to negate the semi-feudal semi-colonial nature of
4. Understanding about Indian CBB
First, let us see whether the CBB is an exclusive class. The comprador class in India was born and nurtured under the close guidance and patronage of the British colonialists to divert the growth of the independent capitalist class which may provide leadership to the growing freedom movement. It is a separate class born by the collusion between the British colonialists and the feudal lords and big merchants of India. It has grown under the aegis and tutelage of imperialism. That’s why this treacherous class has been serving imperialism since its birth and will continue to do so until its last breath. The birth, growth and survival of this comprador class is inseparably tied with imperialism. That’s why we cannot separate the comprador bourgeoisie and the imperialists. The Comprador bourgeoisie will exist in India as long as imperialist rule and exploitation continue.
Sometimes as part of inter-imperialist contradiction or when a country is aggressed by any imperialist power a section may participate in the liberation struggle. Just because of its participation in the liberation struggle it should not be confused whether it has acquired the nature of a national bourgeoisie. It must be clear that it is participating in the struggle only as part of the contradiction among the imperialists to gain control over that territory. It will not become a ‘national’ bourgeois by virtue of participating in the liberation struggle, as the revisionists CPI and CPM argue.
But the opportunists argue that India is politically independent and the CBB is ‘having political-economic-military authority” and further it is “theoretical blindness of understanding CBB only as part of imperialism without recognizing this distinctness will push the practice to the plight of groping for the way”. It is very dangerous to describe the CBB in this way. While it is true that the CBB in India is not a puppet of the imperialists describing the CBB separating it from imperialism undermines that the CBB is an agent of imperialist rule and exploitation and its interests are inseparably tied with the interests of the imperialism; without serving imperialism it is not possible for it to serve itself so that its principal character is to serve imperialism; that its contradiction with imperialism, as a whole, is a non-antagonistic one. Failing this will lead to ‘discover’ some anti imperialist role for a section of the CBB, like the revisionists and the right opportunists of the MLM camp did earlier, and pave the way for a strategic united front with them in the name of tactics or struggle against the main enemy.
Second, on the question of ‘dropping’ the fundamental contradiction between the CBB and the broad masses. The opportunists, in order to prove their point, are going to any extent of distorting the facts and trying to create an impression that the historic merger between the two parties was based on ‘theoretical concessions’. This is nothing but accusing that the merger is opportunistic, as some opportunist parties in the guise of MLM parties accuse. The facts on this issue were already explained to all party cadres in the erstwhile CPI (ML) (PW). The erstwhile PW party did not make any ‘theoretical concessions’ or “biggest political compromise”, as the diehard opportunists accuse, but made its position clear that it considers that the contradiction between the CBB and the broad masses is a fundamental contradiction. But, it is not just for achieving ‘practical’ aim of unity but it is principally for fulfilling an utmost important task before all genuine Maoist parties and elements with the political aim of building a single directing centre for the Indian revolution, it was decided to reserve its difference and not to insist on this question as a condition for the merger of two parties and it can be resolved in future after a process of further practice and studies by the new party. It is a blatant lie to say that this issue will not be raised in the Congress. It is only said that the CC which finalized this merger after the detailed discussion will not go against that. It is up to the party members and delegates of the Congress whether to raise or not to raise the issue. The CC appealed to all party members to understand the history of the Indian revolution and the party and grasp the great task of unifying genuine Maoist Parties and forces to build a single leading centre of the revolution and uphold its decision on that issue. Almost the entire party, the rank and file, displayed a high level of political maturity in understanding the whole issue and finally approved the erstwhile PW CC’s decision at all the conferences and in the Congress. When the whole party, sympathizers and the revolutionary masses hail the merger and the subsequent Unity Congress, the opportunists of KN not only termed it as the biggest political compromise but also played a liquidationist role by conducting a slander campaign against the party and merger and by splitting the party shamelessly.
They also leveled several baseless accusations on the Party such as that it considers the oppression on nationalities in India and Indian expansionism as only an imperialist conspiracy. Also, that it is having “mechanical conception of viewing feudalism means rural work and CBB means a matter concerning urban”. (Bulletin P-49) Actually it is only the opportunists who have such conceptions that our shortcomings in urban work, work among the working class and UF are linked with our failure to have a correct understanding about the CBB. Just one sentence above it is said “It is also the reason for not giving due priority to urban work and the work among the working class and for not giving due importance to the question of UFs”.
5. Fallacy in identifying principal contradiction
After quoting Mao elaborately on the principal contradiction the opportunists concluded that in India “the contradiction between the alliance of the Indian ruling classes (CBB and feudal forces) and the broad masses becomes the principal contradiction”. (Bulletin P-51). What are the reasons to arrive at this conclusion? It is said in the Bulletin that “in the rural sphere the struggle will have to be conducted simultaneously against feudal exploitation as well as exploitation of by CBB, imperialism and the state, particularly the exploitation by the CBB. The land question, which is the core question of agrarian revolution, has not remained today as a question related with the landlords alone. Today control over the land is not only in the hands of the landlords. It is the hands of CBB and the state as well. The CBB’s hold over the agriculture sector as a whole is increasing day by day. That is why resolving the land question comprehensively will be possible only by developing struggle against landlords and CBB classes both.” (ibid. P-51). What a fantastic explanation of these postmodernist type revolutionary pundits to understand the principal contradiction. While it was mentioned that “the struggle will have to be conducted simultaneously against feudal exploitation as well as exploitation of by CBB, imperialism and the state” it was conveniently omitted when identifying the principal contradiction. May be they must have thought that the ‘control and the hold of imperialism and the state over land and agricultural sector’ has not yet reached the level of CBB to include them in the principal contradiction. We can list many more such ridiculous arguments by these opportunists.
Now, let us see what Mao said about principal contradiction and we should apply our concrete condition. He said
“When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction, between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position. So it was in China in the Opium War of 1840, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 and the Yi Ho Tuan War of 1900, and so it is now in the present Sino-Japanese War.
But in another situation, the contradictions change position. When imperialism carries on its oppression not by war, but by milder means -- political, economic and cultural -- the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people. At such a time, the masses often resort to civil war against the alliance of imperialism and the feudal classes, while imperialism often employs indirect methods rather than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semi-colonial countries to oppress the people, and thus the internal contradictions become particularly sharp. This is what happened in China in the Revolutionary War of 1911, the Revolutionary War of 1924-27, and the ten years of Agrarian Revolutionary War after 1927. Wars among the various reactionary ruling groups in the semi-colonial countries, e.g., the wars among the warlords in China, fall into the same category.
When a revolutionary civil war develops to the point of threatening the very existence of imperialism and its running dogs, the domestic reactionaries, imperialism often adopts other methods in order to maintain its rule; it either tries to split the revolutionary front from within or sends armed forces to help the domestic reactionaries directly. At such a time, foreign imperialism and domestic reaction stand quite openly at one pole while the masses of the people stand at the other pole, thus forming the principal contradiction which determines or influences the development of the other contradictions. The assistance given by various capitalist countries to the Russian reactionaries after the October Revolution is an example of armed intervention. Chiang Kai-shek's betrayal in 1927 is an example of splitting the revolutionary front.
(MSW, Vol-I, P-331-332)
Here Comrade Mao points out three different forms of rule and control adopted by imperialism which brought changes in the principal contradiction in a semi-colonial country like China.
One, when imperialism directly aggresses a semi-colonial semi-feudal country by sending its armed forces the contradiction between the imperialism and that country becomes principal; two, when it adopts milder methods, i.e. through political, economical and cultural, to oppress a country, instead of military intervention the contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses becomes principal; three, when the revolutionary war reaches a stage which threatens the very survival of imperialism and its running dogs imperialism sends its armed forces in support of the reactionary ruling classes or splits the revolutionary camp in order to continue its rule and exploitation. In that situation the contradiction between the broad masses and imperialism and its running dogs becomes principal. The method adopted by imperialism – direct aggression, indirect rule, and sending its armed forces in support of the ruling classes or splitting the revolutionary camp – determines the overall situation in the country and the principal contradiction.
Now, let us see how imperialism rules, controls and exploits semi-colonial semi-feudal India. It still, without sending its armed forces, adopts “milder” methods. But the opportunists discovered the “alliance between feudalism and CBB” as the principal contradiction. This alliance is there since the birth of the comprador bourgeoisie. The alliance is not only between the “feudal forces” and the CBB but it includes imperialism also. Even after the transfer of power to the CBB and the “feudal forces” this alliance still continues. The opportunists should explain when the contradiction between the ruling classes and the broad masses become principal. Is it from 1947, when India attained ‘political independence’, or even before, or after ‘globalization’?
Not only the alliance, but direct control over land was there in the hands of all these classes. The CBB emerged from the class of comprador merchants, feudal lords, brokers and big usurers. The maharaja of Mysore was a landlord as well as a CBB and we can find scores of such flunkeys all over India. The Tatas, Birlas, Kotharis, and scores of other CBB own hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural lands even before they get ‘political power’. So what is new in this? Do they own more land than the ‘traditional’ landlords? The state is the biggest landlord in this country. It owns millions of acres of agricultural as well as cultivable land. If control over the land is the criteria to determine the principal contradiction then, why is the state left out? This opportunist concept of principal contradiction is very much related with their earlier concept of ‘capitalist penetration Indian in agriculture’. Without any study of the ideology or the concrete condition these opportunists try to discover new concepts. This is not only a superficial understanding but also eclectic outlook.
More than two and a half decade ago the right opportunist C.P. Reddy party put forward this eclectical concept on principal contradiction and latter on it is being followed by all Janashakthi Groups. It is said in their programme “the two fundamental contradictions, the one between feudalism and the vast masses of the people and the other between imperialism and the people will continue through out the stage of the new democratic revolution. The way these two fundamental contradictions manifest themselves in this present society makes the contradiction between the alliance of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism on one side and the vast masses on the other side , as the principal contradiction.” (25th point Programme of the Indian Democratic Revolution of CPI (ML) Janashakthi. 1993). Of course the arguments of that party are different from these opportunists. But it is quoted only to show how opportunists distort theoretical concepts to suit their opportunist politics.
These opportunists in order to get some credentials to their opportunist politics quoted from the documents and other articles of Maoist parties in other countries. But actually what they did in the name of quoting was distorting those portions to give a wrong understanding or justifying their eclecticism. Every communist party, which is a detachment of the international proletariat formulates its programme, strategy and tactics based on the concrete conditions of that country. For example, they quoted from the Strategy & Tactics of CPN (M). Actually, the title of the document is Strategy and Tactics of Armed Struggle in Nepal. The portion they quoted from is under the sub-title “The Target of Armed Struggle”. They chalked out three basic contradictions –between feudalism and Nepalese people, imperialism-mainly the Indian expansionism- and Nepalese people, CBB and the Nepalese people. Further it is said “and in the immediate term the contradiction between domestic reaction which is made up of a combination of feudal and comprador & bureaucratic capitalist classes & backed by Indian expansionism and the Nepalese people. This way it is clear that the target of armed struggle will be to confiscate the lands of feudals and landlords & distribute them amongst the landless & poor peasants on the basis of the principle of land-to-the tiller and to attack them for the purpose, and, in order to cut the roots of imperialist exploitation, to nationalize industries, banks etc. in the hands of the comprador and bureaucratic capitalists and enterprises run by government & non-government organizations and to attack them for the same. Thus it is clear that the target of armed struggle will be against feudals, landlords, comprador & bureaucratic capitalists.(Emphasis added). The opportunists, instead of understanding the essence, distort it by taking few words “in the immediate term” jumped to the conclusion as the principal contradiction.
In India, feudalism, imperialism and the CBB are targets of the new democratic revolution. It is ruled by the reactionary alliance of landlords and the CBB backed by imperialism. The masses, under the leadership of our Party and PLGA, are waging a revolutionary war against these enemies. The opportunists mix up targets of revolution and the principal contradiction.
Even after knowing that the CPP has not written anything as the opportunists try to interpret by quoting American imperialism and feudalism as the “major problem affecting the entire country”. Major problems have also become principal contradiction! Poor opportunists!! If they scroll over the internet they will get some more ‘useful’ documents from revisionists like KN Ramachandran of the erstwhile CPI (ML) Red fag and present day CPI ML) Kanu Sanyal-KN Ramchandran.
They also said about the “clique of the CBB and feudal forces as the principal contradiction”. We do not understand what they mean by this. (let us hope at least they understand what they say). Whether they want to say the whole class of CBB and landlords is a clique or a small group within these classes? Normally a clique denotes this. The opportunists might be aware that there are already some ‘pioneers’ like the liquidationist SNS, revisionist Vinod Mishra, right opportunist SOC in Tamilnadu who had ‘identified a clique’ within the ruling classes and gave a call to ‘isolate’ them and build a united front against this ‘clique’. We know what they are doing and which position they reached today. It is not too far that these opportunists also follow the path laid by the ‘pioneers’.
6. On integrating aspects of insurrection with the strategy of PPW
The opportunists have put forward a concept, borrowed from CPN (Maoist), of integrating aspects of insurrection with the strategy of PPW. They came to this conclusion based on the ‘study and analysis’ they have made on the socio-economic changes in the country. There are two aspects in this ‘new concept’, one, the changes in the international situation, which demands, according to CPN (Maoist) and mimicked by the opportunists such (con)fusion; two, the changes in the internal situation, i.e. penetration of capitalism in Indian agriculture.
The question of this so-called fusion theory has already been discussed at length in an earlier issue of People’s War. In Nepal for all their talk of insurrection, in practice the armed struggle was led only in the rural areas as per the principles of PPW; and when the movement reached the stage of the strategic offensive, not insurrection but parliamentary tactics is being practiced. So the Nepal concept is still to be seen at the ground level in their country. Whatever, before coming out with this fusion theory the Nepal comrades went through a decade long experience of people’s war and set up extensive base areas.
The problem with the Nepal comrade’s new theorization is that the reason for this new ‘path’ is not clearly outlined, nor its implications. The only reason given is the link to the new development of technology and the supposed reduction of the world to a global village enabling the imperialists to strike anywhere with ease. So the necessity to rise simultaneously everywhere …….. i.e. cities and countryside. Unfortunately their own practice has not proved this.
But the KN theory of this fusion theory is somewhat different; it is linked to their concept of capitalist development in India. It is nothing but a ploy to avoid armed struggle in the name of ‘incorporating aspects of insurrection’, as in this “mixed” path there is extensive peaceful preparations to be made before the final uprising.
The KN opportunists found some theoretical justification for their right opportunism when one of the revolutionary party waging people’s war and advanced to the level of strategic offensive put forward this fusion theory. These opportunists trembled at the advancing people’s war at the all India level facing the cruel repression of the state armed forces. Even in KN when their empty talk of ‘initiating’ people’s war become imminent reality in-spite of their struggle by all means to stop it they failed and hastily ran away from the struggle advancing all types opportunist theory. The real nature of their proposal of ‘incorporating’ aspects of insurrection is nothing but the old opportunist theory put forward by the liquidationists VS and SM in 1985 in the name of ‘dual policy’, i.e. conducting guerrilla warfare (people’s war) in rural areas and political movements, political mobilization in the cities.
The liquidationist VS who betrayed the revolutionary movement which was advancing in Dharmapuri and has created a state-wide political impact in TN, tried to bring forth his opportunist ‘dual policy’ by hatching a conspiracy to capture the leadership. The opportunists instead of advancing the class struggle in TN to the level of guerilla war and guerilla zone with the perspective of establishing base area hatched conspiracy to capture the central leadership and liquidate the political line of the party. Similarly, the KN opportunists also put forwarded the same old toddy in a new pot.
Today, the KN opportunists tried to bring this policy in 2002 by cobbling up a majority in the state committee. When their efforts were defeated by the CC and majority SC members and comrades in the state, they again tried to push through it in the state conference in 2006 and again were defeated. The main essence of both these ‘policies’ is to belittle the PPW as the strategy applicable only to the ‘backward’ rural areas and it is insufficient or inapplicable to advance the revolutionary movement in urban areas and the areas where ‘capitalist’ relations penetrated in agriculture. It not only exposes their ignorance of PPW but also their insidious methods to bring forward an opportunist policy. It means that the strategy of PPW will be not the strategy for Indian revolution as almost all over India capitalist relations have penetrated to some extent or other and will continue to grow.
On the preparations for the urban insurrection it should not be misconstrued that the opportunists are sincere to that. It is only a cover to their legalist/revisionist tactics
So by taking recourse to this ‘path’ they have theoretical justification to avoid armed struggle which has been the source and cause of their deviation and do ‘peaceful’ and legal work. In their conception as there is significant capitalist development and also semi-feudalism; the capitalist development will entail the insurrection path and the continuation of semi-feudalism will entail the PPW path. This is naïve formal logic not a dialectical approach to the problem; it is like saying a horse has four legs and a donkey has four legs so a horse is same as a donkey.
7. On Starting Armed Struggle and Building Base Area in Malnad
Starting armed struggle and building base area is the most discussed and debated issue in the two-line struggle. The main arguments of the opportunists are:
a) Armed struggle should be taken up only after mass struggle reached a particular stage
b) Malnad is relatively developed are; hence it should be consider as different kind of Strategic Area
c) The production in Malnad is tied to international market, the enemy is strong and we are weak, and Malnad has developed infra-structure. Hence, base area cannot be established unless there is country wide revolutionary upsurge
Now let us see these points:
a) They said “If armed struggle is taken up at a point when class struggle with the exploiting classes becomes intense and armed struggle becomes necessary for its advancement, a new leap occurs in the class struggle”. “But if armed struggle is started when even class struggle is not yet intensified and vast sections of people not yet convinced of the need for armed struggle, then majority of people will only remain spectators or supporters. On the other hand, the state will get alerted and intensify repression. Consequently, expected growth in the struggle will not occur and the entire process will get unnecessarily prolonged. Stagnation or setback sets in.” (Bulletin P-17).
The quintessence of the opportunists in developing revolutionary movement, particularly starting armed struggle is similar to the opportunist line of the TN-DV and CPR groups. This is making mass struggles (of course it is a euphemism of opportunists for only legal struggles) a precondition for starting armed struggle. The principal and immediate task of the revolutionary party in a semi-feudal semi-colonial country is to mobilize the broad masses in the revolutionary war. How this should be done depends upon the overall situation, i.e. the sharpness of contradiction between the exploiters and the exploited prevailing in that area, the level of consciousness of the masses to fight against the exploitation and oppression, the attitude of the state towards the revolutionary movement, the preparedness of the party to wage the struggle -- and it is not just depending upon the socio-economic conditions.
Just like any other right opportunists and revisionists the KN opportunists also accuse that the masses, in Malnad, are not prepared for the armed struggle. People have to be ‘prepared’ by taking legal forms of propaganda and partial struggles. This ‘line’ is put forwarded by the liquidationist SNS, TN-DV, CP Reddy group, SOC of Tamilnadu and others. Not withstanding some differences between them, these organizations are ‘preparing’ the masses for the last thirty five years to start the armed struggle. Even after three and half decades the ‘preparations’ are yet to be completed. No body of them is not sure when they are going to complete. The KN opportunists have become the new heirs of this ‘glorious’ tradition.
b) They say that “Malnad is a relatively developed area and it is not purely under the first category of Strategic area. So we must adopt different tactics taking these changes into consideration”.
This argument, although not in the same language, is not completely new in the history of the Communist movement. The question of building base areas is one of the demarcating lines between the right opportunists and the revolutionaries. In the name of centralized state machinery, modern army, developed economy or some other pretext the opportunists oppose the possibility of building base areas in India. Those who claim themselves as “Marxist scholars” advance some more arguments like in the present international situation where the imperialists have penetrated deep into the remotest rural areas, particularly after globalization, the expansion of the ‘market economy’ and as a corollary these remote areas are drawn into the cobweb of ‘market relations’ and become part and parcel of the ‘world economy’, it is impossible to build Base areas, sustain and expand them; at the most one can retain some armed bands and engage in armed clashes with the state armed forces. The opportunists, although do not directly oppose the possibility of building base areas, but in the name of concrete condition of Malnad they raise questions on the party line whether it is correct to categorize Malnad as first type of strategic area. (There is nothing in the document as “first category of strategic area” it is said only as strategic areas and other types of rural areas).
What then do we mean when we say it is a strategic area? The Party document, ‘Strategy and Tactics of Indian Revolution’ ( P-28) says:
“These strategic areas are hilly regions with dense forest cover, have sufficient economic resources, a vast population, and a vast forest area spreading over thousands of square kilometers. In such areas the enemy is weak, and these areas are very favourable for the maneuvers of the people’s army. In these strategic areas we can defeat the enemy completely by fulfilling the tasks of building and consolidating a strong proletarian party and a strong people’s army; procuring the people’s support and economic resources, while developing the guerrilla war aiming at the building of liberated/base areas in these areas.”
India is a vast country with uneven development. The conditions vary from place to place, region to region. It is the duty of the central and state leadership to understand the concrete condition of a particular region/strategic area, without deviating from the party’s political line of building base areas in the strategic area. In the name of concrete conditions any argument which diverts from the principal task is nothing but deviating from the party line.
The relative development of capitalist relations in Malnad is not even throughout the region. For that matter there is no region in India that is developed evenly and there is no region with out the penetration of capitalist relations. Such growth is not something new but it has started with the commencement of plantations during the colonial period and continues to grow. In all these strategic regions revolutionary war is the principal form of struggle and armed formations of revolutionary masses, i.e. people’s army is the principal form of organization. The masses must be organized principally on the basis of revolutionary politics and organization. This is the most important task. Without this the revolutionary movement cannot advance. However, this does not mean that other forms of struggle and organization are not important. While paying our main attention to implement this principal task, we must also pay proper attention to achieve other tasks. In fact, the principal task cannot be accomplished without paying adequate attention to other tasks.
By keeping this strategic approach in mind we have to adopt suitable tactics which will help to achieve the main task. Only by advancing in this direction, preparing the party, army and the masses for death defying sacrifices and training them up through an arduous process, by adopting appropriate tactics taking concrete changes in the enemy camp and our camp, we can build guerrilla zones and base areas. The KN movement has already embarked in this direction. The arguments by the opportunists are intended to divert from this direction and will deviate the movement from this correct orientation.
There is no doubt that we have some limitations and shortcomings in organizing the broad masses in an effective way on anti-feudal, anti-imperialist, anti-state issues and building struggles. We have reviewed this and are making serious attempts to rectify this shortcoming. Concretely, serious efforts are being made to build such struggles. But to brand that the party does not have any understanding and policy or tactics on these issues is like making a mountain out of a mole-hill. The erstwhile PW and MCCI parties have taken up many such struggles where these issues have come up in guerrilla zones and also in other areas. Joint fronts were formed and struggles were conducted on electricity, on remunerative prices, on irrigation water, on famine etc., but they could not be developed into a mighty movement due to our shortcomings and enemy repression. Even in KN, with all their shortcomings and weaknesses, the comrades there had tried to build the movement by taking up these types of issues. In fact, in the beginning our mass base was mainly based on the struggle against the Kuduremukh national park. Apart from this, cover organizations were formed. Campaigns and struggles were taken up to some extent against the forest department on evicting the adivasis in the name of ‘clearing the encroachments’ and also to assert the rights of the Adivasis over the forest. Groundwork for building broad-fronts for the areca growers was also made.
But what the opportunists say, apart from distorting these facts, is to “build legal broad-fronts and legal struggles as the principal form of organization and struggle” for a long period. In the name of ‘developed area’ they want to ‘prepare’ the masses for ‘revolutionary war’ by adopting the above said utter reformist ‘tactics’ purely based on economism. This understanding of the opportunists counters the political line of the party on building movements in the strategic areas.
Apart from shouting from the roof top to ‘adopt different tactics’ what did they contribute to study the conditions in Malnad and develop new tactics? They ridiculed the socio-economic survey conducted in Malnad saying that “subjecting only 1 percent of the total area of Malnad to social investigation cannot be concluded about the entire Malnad’s social condition”. Penetration of ‘capitalist’ relations in Malnad has become the determining factor in their whole argument. “Nevertheless, it is very essential to study factors like, what are the changes which have crept into the feudal and capitalist relations? What are the changes that are coming about? In particular, what is the intensity of contradiction with the feudalism, what is the intensity of contradiction with imperialism and what is the interrelationship between the two? We need to formulate our tactics depending on these factors only”. (Emphasis added. Minority POR. P-26)
While giving one-sided emphasis to the penetration of capitalist relations it will be reprehensible if you see what they really did to study and analyze the condition. Not only that they have unashamedly said that, “we cannot generalize the situation in NP(National Park) area as the situation in whole of the Malnad. Our perspective area comprises of 10% of the Malnad area and the areas where we have conducted the study belongs to 10% of that PA (Perspective Area). Hence we can say that the study pertains to 1% of Malnad. Moreover this part cannot be a perfect sampling to understand the situation in Malnad. This is an Adivasi area where neither the landlordism is strong nor the capitalist development has occurred considerably. We will be ridiculing ourselves if we generalize anything about prevailing feudal exploitation or contradiction with imperialism, basing on this. The necessity of a proper study for a comprehensive understanding still remains”.(Emphasis added; Minority POR. P-25).
The fact is, social investigation was conducted in about 125 villages by selecting model villages in the Adivasi, non-Adivasi, mixed population and CBB areas. On the basis of this investigation a report “Social condition in Malnad” was written and tactics were adopted based on this report and under the orientation of the party’s document strategy and tactics. Except taking part in the discussions none of the members of this opportunist clique had participated in this process of investigation. It was explained in the meetings and in the plenums that it was only a preliminary study and further study is needed in the process of developing the class struggle in Malnad. Even in the investigation report it was mentioned only as “A report based on preliminary social investigation conducted by survey teams during August-October 2001 in the Perspective Area”.
Dominance of semi-feudal relations in Malnad was explained in the investigation report which was approved in the July 2002 SC meeting thus:
“The commodification of labour is still partial. We have seen that labour continues to be coerced. It is not a “free” commodity yet. Moreover, the largest part of all social labour is expended on one’s own land rather than submit itself into a commodity. A minor part of the labour of the poor peasants, and most part of the labour of the middle peasants, continue to fall outside the ambit of commodity relations. Further, there is yet no significant trend indicating the subjection of labour on a social scale into a commodity.
The transformation of social labour into a commodity can be achieved only when the structure of property relations is transformed. In other words, land, the principal form of property in agriculture, must itself become a commodity. Without this the mass of petty producers cannot be expropriated by capitalism. It is clear even from a cursory glance at the social economy of Malnad that the peasantry is generally not selling land and that an agrarian bourgeoisie that has been accumulating capital by constant purchase of land is not in ascent. The approach of the peasantry as a whole, including the poorest sections is to stick by their land and scratch its surface rather than part with it. Only one case was reported of the sale of 1 acre of land by a peasant in all our investigation. And even this did not reach the hands of either a landlord or a capitalist. Unless land is transformed into a commodity, unless it acquires the social motion of a commodity in the market, capital accumulation, its production and reproduction, will remain ephemeral and the emergence of capitalism will remain illusory. On the contrary, facts from the Perspective Area demonstrate the trend of fragmentation of land instead of its further accumulation into social capital. Generational land fragmentation is the specific manifestation of the crisis of semi-feudalism and not of capitalism which requires the dispossession of land from the hands of the petty producer to that of the capitalist who applies capital on an increasingly larger scale thereby leading to the polarization of society—the concentration of capital at one pole and the concentration of the proletariat at the other.
Thirdly, production must be for the market. The produce must assume the form of a commodity so that profits that are gained may be ploughed back for achieving more production with more labour and more productive means so that more profits may be made during the next cycle. But we have seen that production continues to be made for consumption. And a good part of what is sold by the peasantry is forced out by semi-feudal usury”. (Social Conditions in Malnad; Page-31)
While emphasizing the predominance of the semi-feudal relations the report also explains the level of capitalist aspects there. “There is capitalist penetration in agriculture”. “It is true that labour power is bought and sold. This is a capitalist trait. It is also true that land exists in the form of private property. The legal system provides for the purchase and sale of land. This also is a capitalist trait. Thirdly, agricultural production does take place for the market. This also is a capitalist trait. But there is a semi-feudal rider that operates behind all this. And that is what is principal”.
In the Philippines, where the penetration of capitalist relations is comparatively more than India, Jose Maria Sison, on the nature of semi-feudalism and the line, has said “Correspondent to the semi-colonial and semi-feudal character of Philippine society, the CPP has put forward the general line of national democratic revolution through protracted people’s war under the leadership of the proletariat. The strategic line of encircling the cities from the countryside and accumulating strength in the countryside until it becomes possible to seize the cities realizes and activates the basic class alliance of the working class and the peasantry.
In this regard, the CPP has deployed its cadres in the countryside in order to build the people’s army and the peasant movement, solve the land problem as the main problem of the democratic revolution and build the people’s democratic power even while reactionary state power is still entrenched in the cities. Responding to the demand of the peasant majority of the people for an agrarian revolution, the anti-feudal line is the main component of the general line of national democratic revolution”. And “Some opponents of the general line of national democratic revolution pretend to be anti‑imperialist and progressive and therefore avoid questioning the description of the Philippine ruling system as semi-colonial or neocolonial. But they concentrate on attacking the description of the Philippine economy as semi-feudal in order to do away with its precision, confuse the situation and exaggerate “development” or prospects of it under the auspices of the imperialists and the local reactionaries and attack the general line of the national democratic revolution, especially the strategic line of protracted people’s war.
The Philippine economy has been called many names — “free enterprise,” “market,” “mixed,” “developing,” “dependent‑capitalist” and so on. But none of these is more precise than “semi-feudal” in denoting the level of development of the productive forces and the relations of production”(Emphasis added; An update: qualitatively unchanged conditions; April 1995)
When these are the facts the opportunists distort them in order to justify their disruption of the party and movement. Without making even the slightest effort to study the conditions they have came to the conclusion that the situation in Malnad is different and needs ‘different’ tactics. We have seen people who study something and come to different conclusions and changing the tactics. But these opportunists have the audacity to propose ‘new tactics’ with their half baked ideas.
c) Malnad is a developed area and that production is tied to the Indian and international market; that the enemy is strong and we are weak; therefore it would be difficult to liberate the area. Moreover, the enemy also will enforce an economic blockade of essential goods to the base area ultimately leading to its collapse.
This petty-bourgeoisie vacillating and defeatist mentality of the opportunists fearing hardships in the protracted people’s war is another reason for their right opportunism. To quote from their POR presented in the state conference “That the enemy is stronger and the area is a base for the reactionary forces is a big disadvantage for the revolutionary forces”.
That Malnad is the centre of commercial crops, and that these crops depend on the national and international markets and that the economy here is not a localized economy but one which has highly integrated with the capitalist market and that the enemy has a strong and a developed transportation and communication network suggests that it is not easy to transform Malnad into a liberated area”. (Minority POR. P-28)
Let us take the first aspect, that the enemy is strong. In the beginning of any revolution the enemy will be stronger than people’s strength; it applies to our revolution also. And at present in our country also the enemy is stronger than the revolutionary forces. But the strength of the enemy and the weakness of the revolutionary forces are relative. If we look at it one-sidedly, as the opportunists, we shall fall into pessimism. On the other hand if we take only the weakness of the enemy and the strength of the revolutionary forces we will fall into adventurism. The enemy has his weaknesses and the revolutionary forces have their strengths. The concept of the protracted people’s war in a semi-feudal semi-colonial country is that a weak force fights against a strong force depending on the support and active participation of the broad masses. Only in the process of waging revolutionary war it accumulates strength and annihilates the enemy bit by bit. The experience of all revolutions and our own experience irrefutably proved this fact. In the beginning of 1980s the revolutionary armed forces, which started in a small pocket with some mass base and with few members twenty five years back, have developed into the PLGA with thousands of guerrillas. Thousands of people are organized in people’s militia are waging a heroic war facing the cruel onslaught of the state and central armed forces.
The second aspect they say is that Malnad is not a ‘localized economy and it is depending on the national international markets’. The way the opportunists explained this is that Malnad cannot be liberated before the whole country is liberated. Therefore, there is no question of any advancement of class struggle to develop it in to armed agrarian revolutionary war and building a base area there. It will remain as a ‘guerrilla zone’ without guerrilla war for a ‘long time’ or eternal period because the revolutionary forces cannot control the national and international trade without which the commercial crops produced in Malnad cannot be marketed. This is nothing but vulgarizing the very concept of liberated base. The truth is that the opportunists do not have confidence in building base areas not only in Malnad but in whole of India. Their concept of penetration of capitalist relations haunts them in every aspect of building the revolutionary movement. If you look at the tactics put forward by them and their concept of ‘building political movements’ clearly exposes their concept of not building base areas. They said “Base areas have important significance in the Peoples war. That without a base area guerilla war alone cannot sustain for along time is a Maoist understanding. Hence it is necessary to concentrate more on the areas, which has the possibility of developing into base areas and build them. Strategy and Tactics also point out to use the base areas as the rear to develop guerilla war in other areas. Coming to our conditions, there is no possibility of using any other area as rear. We have to develop Malnad only as rear. But it is a hard fact that unless a revolutionary situation develops all over the country and a condition where enemy cannot concentrate his forces in any one single area and is unable to impose economic blockade, Malnad cannot be transformed into a liberated area. This means that Malnad may have to continue as guerilla zone for a long time”.
“Keeping in mind the above two factors- facing strong enemy repression right from the beginning and the transformation to base area not being easier-which make it necessary to conduct guerilla warfare for a long time, it becomes essential to build strong peoples movement by uniting all the people except big landlords, CBB and reactionary leaders. The anti-imperialist struggles in Malnad have the capacity of uniting broad masses of the people. There is a possibility to include small and anti-imperialist landlords also in this struggle. Moreover the favorable terrain provides the possibility of conducting guerilla warfare for a long time. But as the enemy is stronger and is having an advanced transport and communication to his benefit, it is not possible to advance guerilla warfare successfully without the active support and participation of the people, however favourable the terrain may be”. (Emphasis added. Minority POR. P-29)
This is mere sophistry and distortions that the opportunists spew out. The essence of the preconditions they have given for building base areas means it is not possible to build base area not only in Malnad but also all over India. Who can assure that a situation will emerge that the enemy will be unable to “impose an economic blockade”? Is there any experience in the international communist movement that a revolutionary movement will advance without facing economic blockade? In 1985 itself the AP movement, apart from facing severe state repression, also faced destruction of very means of livelihood of the masses like destroying the fields, burning of crops, demolition of houses and other dwellings, pouring kerosene in wells, cutting off transport and other civic facilities, etc. Hundreds of villages and thousands of people were affected and suffered from this brutal economic destruction. We must remember that in 1985 our movement had not even developed to the level of guerrilla zone anywhere. The ruling classes and the state machinery will do anything and everything to put down the rebellion and bring the masses into submission. But the masses endured this and the movement advanced. Until now the revolutionary movement in different regions is facing various kinds of coercion, economic, social, psychological and military, even before entering the level of a liberated base. What type of repression is the movement in DK facing now even in the stage of guerrilla war itself? It is a multi-pronged attack, including pitting adivasis against the adivasis, mopping up campaigns, etc. The masses have not only endured this onslaught of the enemy while paying unprecedented sacrifices but are also inflicting serious losses to the reactionary forces and advancing step by step towards establishment of base area by strengthening PLGA and advancing guerrilla war. The KN opportunists neither have the preparedness to endure nor have the confidence in the masses. Their thinking revolves around the vacillation of a petty-bourgeois pessimism.
The experiences of China, Vietnam, Philippines, Nepal shows that the market relation between the base area and the “outside” area was not snapped despite the economic blockade by the enemy. Regular flow of goods and essential commodities are maintained with the “outside world”. Of course, the economy in the base area may not remain the same way before its liberation. It will be re-oriented in accordance with the requirements of the people. Naturally, it entails great deal of sacrifice and hardship. If the leadership deals this problem as an inseparable part of PW and mobilize masses of that area and the country then only it will certainly succeed. When the people are motivated by the revolutionary politics and when they realize that they are the masters of their own destiny, not just the economy, they will be ready for any sacrifice and hardship.
The Chinese experience shows that the market relations were not snapped even when Chiang Kai Sheik adopted a policy of blockhouse warfare in 1933, i.e. blocking any movement of personnel or goods to and from the base area. By the end of January 1934 an estimated total of 2,900 blockhouses had been built in Kiangsi Province. More than half million armed forces were deployed in the fourth “encirclement and suppression campaign”. Even under such severe conditions grain, wolfram, timber, camphor, paper, tobacco, linen, dried mushrooms and peppermint oil exported to the White areas and imported cloth and salt.
Comrade Mao said “The imperialists and the Kuomintang are bent on wrecking the Red areas, the work of economic construction now in progress there, and the welfare of the millions of workers and peasants who have achieved liberation. For this purpose, they have pursued a ruthless policy of economic blockade, in addition to organizing forces for military campaigns of "encirclement and suppression". But, leading the broad masses and the Red Army, we have not only smashed one enemy "encirclement and suppression" campaign after another, but have also been doing all the essential work of economic construction within our power in order to defeat this vicious economic blockade. In this respect, too, we have scored one success after another.
The enemy blockade has made it difficult for us to market goods outside our areas. There has been a decline in production in many handicraft industries in the Red areas, notably tobacco-curing and paper-making. But the difficulties of sending goods out are not entirely insurmountable. We have an extensive market of our own because of the mass demand in our areas. We should systematically restore and develop handicrafts and also certain industries, firstly to supply our own needs and secondly for trade with the outside”. (Pay Attention to Economic Work; 1933)
The usual refrain of the opportunists will be that the Chinese conditions were different during that time. There is not even an iota of doubt that the conditions in China was different and it cannot be replicated as it is, but what lessons do we get from that revolution? Is it possible to break the encirclement and suppression campaign and the economic blockade or should we ‘wait till the enemy will be unable to impose economic blockade’? Then what policy we should adopt-a revolutionary one or reformist-in Malnad and Karnataka to create that situation in the county? It is another demarcation between revolutionaries and opportunists/revisionists.
No doubt, the conditions not only in Malnad but in the whole Western Ghats are different from other strategic areas and vice-versa in some aspects. Commercial crops like coffee, tea, rubber, cardamom, pepper, areca, fruits and vegetables, flowers etc. are produced in large quantity and marketed outside that area. But the people are not just doing that. They also engage considerably or large extent in production of food grain and minor forest produce and services. The poor and middle peasants grow commercial crops primarily for their subsistence. Moreover, the market for crops like tea, coffee, pepper, cardamom, rubber, areca nut can be ‘localized’ to a considerable level. Raw rubber, curing of cardamom, pepper, tea, and coffee can be done at the home industries locally. Similar to agricultural cooperatives industrial cooperatives also can be formed. How are we going to accomplish these tasks? How do we ensure the well being of the masses? Only in the process of building, consolidating and expanding the base areas, taking enemy tactics and other objective and subjective factors into consideration we can formulate suitable measures from time to time.
On the question of infra-structure, anyone who has knowledge of our movement, either in AP and NT, or the “backward regions” of DK, AOB, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, MP, Maha Rashtra, Orissa, Bihar, and Bengal can easily understand the level of infra-structural development taking place in those regions, particularly in transport and communication. Almost every nook and corner, except few pockets, can be approached by motor within a range of 5 KMs. Now the enemy engages helicopters for aerial survey, transporting personnel and goods and it will not be too far that they will be engaged in bombing and other combating operations. In the age of satellite communications, where the ruling classes use most modern equipments and centralize all information, differences in the level of infra-structure for military maneuvering is negligible. However, this does not mean that there is no difference between state governments, the tactics they adopt and the terrain in Malnad and other areas. But making comparison like most “advanced” and “backward” not only exposes their ignorance of the concrete situation of our movement and enemy tactics but also a lack of a correct understanding on the question of conducting People’s war in India.
8. Wrong Concept towards Mass Work & Mass Struggle
A major issue that this group is raising is that the Party is not adopting a correct approach to mass work and mass struggle. They claim that there is an over emphasis on armed struggle and that in the name of armed struggle, mass struggle is neglected. This is a common theme of even the revisionists in the ML garb like the Liberation, Kanu Sanyal and ND groups and so this needs clarification once again (the issue had earlier been taken up in a comment on the Kanu Sanyal on their founding Conference a couple of years back).
Though there has been no doubt that some weakness in our ability to politically mobilize the masses, and this has been recognized by the Party (and steps considered for correcting it), the ground reality is that the mass mobilization on a reasonably large scale is possible only in the armed struggle areas while in other areas it is very limited. The ability of our party to mobilize the masses has increased in areas where we have advanced the armed struggle. So, the logic of pitting the mass struggle to the armed struggle is absurd. Besides what is the mobilizing capacity of those who constantly emphasize legal struggles and who wax eloquent about mass work/mass struggle like the KMSK and others? Even after decades of work their ability at mobilization of the masses is very limited.
But leaving aside this ground reality the problem is the question of approach. It is a political question. The question arises as to mass work for what purpose? The revisionists and other bourgeois parties also mobilize the masses for their demands in order to extend their vote base. The reformists and NGOs also mobilize the masses either to consciously control the movements and keep them within certain limits, or with an understanding that getting relief is all that is possible. It is only the Maoists who are mobilizing the masses with the perspective of awakening them against the entire system and of drawing them into the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the present order. Organizational building also takes place with different perspectives: the fully legal loose mass structures suit the politics of vote/reform and approach for compromise. While solid mass organizations, with a strong cadre base, have underground structure within it is geared for militant battles and with a revolutionary perspective.
The question is not merely whether one has a few mass struggle or not, but how to draw the masses into the revolutionary movement on a mass scale while taking up their struggles around their partial demands and immediate problems. How to draw the vast masses into the struggle for political power? It is this problem that needs to be addressed and not merely the question of taking mass struggles in general. What the leaders of the KMSK and the other so-called M-L groups emphasize in practice are mass struggles maintained within the confines of bourgeois legality and open structures which restricts the struggles from taking more militant and effective forms. This alone in their opinion is mass movement. For the rest they use terms as sectarianism, anarchism, even terrorism. They dread the propagation of revolutionary politics widely amongst the masses and seek to confine this to small circles. The only result of all their ‘mass work’ is nothing but economist and reformist activities.
No revolution can advance until and unless the vast masses are mobilized to actively participate on a mass scale in it and not merely stay as passive observers. To do so requires that the Party, the people’s army (or defence units) and the UF are effectively consolidated while doing the mass work. Building the secret Party deep amongst the masses and drawing them into the armed struggle and anti-imperialist anti-feudal United Front can alone result in effectively wielding the three magic weapons of revolution for the seizure of political power. While mobilizing the masses this has to be the goal, or there will be no revolution. Let alone revolution there will not be even any effective political mobilization on the issues of the day. The mass organizations will get bogged down in routine activities and remain indifferent to the big political issues being throw up daily.
This politics has to be introduced in the masses in a most creative and effective way, combining partial struggles with revolutionary propaganda and militant actions, coupled with systematic organizational consolidation. And in order to give such depth to the mass movement it only possible through deep integration of the organizers in their areas of work and having a good understanding of the pulse of the masses. Besides, consolidation of this work politically, through raising the political consciousness of the masses and consolidating the advanced sections into secret party cells, activists groups and mass organization leaders is not possible without such deep integration.
Many of these so-called revolutionaries of the KMSK type and other such groups seek to maintain their petty-bourgeois existence; do not consider the need to deeply integrate with the oppressed masses and so for all their talk of mass work the mobilization can only be superficial and lack depth. Without such integration neither are comrades from petty-bourgeois background able to de-class nor are they able to build effective class struggles. Most of these elements who pit mass work against armed struggle, have mostly this superficial style of functioning where at best they can build a trade union type of mass organization with a reformist agenda, that serves little purpose for advancing the revolution. The experience in KN mass work, particularly in LDOs is not different from this. It has been reviewed many times that our mass work is mainly revolves around petty-bourgeois circles, confining only to holding seminars, meetings and protest march. In the last six years it has hardly reached the basic masses.
Doing revolutionary propaganda in an abstract and mechanical way has little impact; also shying away from revolutionary propaganda on any pretext does not help draw the masses for the revolution. It is only by knowing the pulse of the masses that revolutionary propaganda can be creatively taken amongst them and they can be mobilized politically.
There is no doubt some short-comings in our ability to draw the masses on a wide scale into the political struggles, but the solution to this lies elsewhere and not as the KMSK would have us believe in divorcing the struggle around partial demands from revolutionary politics, divorcing all UF activity from the aim of building the Strategic UF in India, and divorcing the mass struggles from the armed struggle. Such an approach can only lead us into the mire of reformism, economism and finally revisionism.
With this we complete the main political/ideological questions raised. There are others too, but these are the main. We will now turn to the organizational questions they have raised and the methods they have adopted.
II
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
The organizational line of the opportunists is in accordance with their right opportunist political line. The main aspects are opportunism, anarchism, ultra-democracy, liquidationism and legalism. Right from the beginning of the inner-party struggle and even before, they adopted one or the other or a combination of these methods to achieve their ulterior motives. They have most hatred and contempt for the principle of democratic centralism. They hold the Menshevik position on the rights and duties of a party member. They want all the rights without abiding by the decisions of the majority or higher committee. In the name of democracy they want to expose every thing to everyone. In party building they adopt legalist methods and neglect secret party structures and a secret network. In the name of two-line struggle they exposed all details of committee functioning and other details of the SC and CC. They adopt slander as a tool to denigrate individual members and the committee. Before discussing their opportunist politics they will create a bad impression on the leading members of the SC/CC utilizing the mistakes of the individual member. These methods although started from 2001 onwards had its roots from 1993 itself. When the political struggle intensified these anarchist and liquidationist methods also increased finally leading to the split in the Karnataka party in 2006. Not satisfied with that they continue to indulge in disruptive activities in other states even after splitting the party in Karnataka.
In this part we shall look into some of the major arguments put forward by the opportunists on the organizational issues.
1. Is ‘split’ inevitable?
Every point narrated in the section “inner-party struggle-Karnataka experience” in their Bulletin needs refutation as it is filled with blatant lies, distortions and half truths. What they attempted to explain in this section is that the method adopted by the leadership has become an obstacle for ‘real unity’ and they were pushed to take the decision ‘reluctantly’ to part away from the party, that too with a hope of “forging higher, qualitative unity with CPI (Maoist) party as well as all other genuine revolutionary forces”. They went to the extent of saying that “in the context of inner party struggle the organizational methodology adopted towards this political struggle determines its nature, path and even the end results to a large extent”. (emphasis added. Bulletin P-56). These statements from the opportunists are nothing but sophistry, to say the least. Now, let us look into the details of their sophistry.
The inner-party struggle with these opportunists was started in 2001 when the decision to start preparation to initiate armed in struggle in Malnad became an imminent reality. Actually the opportunists --- earlier they were called as ‘minority’ as their opportunist politics was in the minority in the SC as well as in the whole KN state party, (it is more appropriate to call them as Mensheviks of Karnataka as it not only refers to minority but also opportunism), --- thought that in the name of preparations they can bring forward their right opportunist politics and postpone the commencement of armed struggle. In fact, it is not just starting the armed struggle rather it is how to build a revolutionary movement, as a whole.
The delegates from Karnataka (KN) for the IX Congress of the erstwhile CPI (ML) (People’s War),{of which one is a leader of this opportunist faction} made a proposal to the CC, immediately after the Congress, to shift the focus of rural work from Raichur to Malnad. The CC, in its extended meeting in April 2001, agreed to this proposal and has taken a decision in this regard. It asked the KN SC to convene a state plenum, review its shortcomings in building the rural movement, take lessons from it and motivate the entire KN party comrades for it start building the movement in Malnad. The SC instead of convening a plenum took a decision to implement an 18 month plan, conceived by martyred comrade Saket, passed by the SC in its May 2001 meeting. Without holding a thorough discussion and educating the cadres on the shifting and the tactics to be adopted in the party, addressing the doubts in the minds of some comrades about the 18 month plan, and without reviewing the failures in building the rural movement there was hastiness in the SC to implement the 18 month plan and entire work in this state. Even the 18 month plan had some subjective assessments in the fixing of time limits for achieving some targets. But these shortcomings were cunningly utilized by the opportunists to disrupt not only the 18 month plan but also the political line of the party. (From their own writings the readers can understand the fundamental differences between them and the party).
Since October 2001, an endless debate was started in the KN SC, which developed into a full fledged two-line struggle. Today, the opportunists have come out in the open in their true colours. But, at that time they adopted deceitful methods like what comrade Lenin described “An opportunist, by his very nature, always evades formulating an issue definitely and decisively, he seeks a middle course, he wriggles like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view, trying to 'agree' with both and to reduce his differences of opinion to petty amendments, doubts, righteous and innocent suggestions, and so on and so forth.” (Vol. VI, p. 320.) Their opportunist politics was thoroughly discussed not once but many times in the SC in the presence of CCMs and PBMs and it was pointed out that their politics “contains the danger of stage theory”. While the leader of the opportunist clique, in December 2001 outwardly agreed to this, in real sense did not change anything -- the understanding or the attitude -- as they were determined not to allow the party line to be implemented. It is sheer falsehood to say that they had implemented the decisions, in letter and spirit, of the SC or the higher committee or the Special Conference by reserving their differences. They tried innumerable methods to scuttle the armed struggle which is in the formation in Malnad through non implementation of the SC resolutions, feigning inability to implement the decisions, by engaging in protracted discussion to take decisions, particularly related with the movement in Malnad etc. Vexed with their non-cooperation and dragging their feet methods, comrade Saket made a proposal to SWRB opting out from the responsibility of State Committee Secretary (SCS) just a few months after conclusion of the Special Conference. But they have shamelessly written in their Bulletin that they have raised the same questions raised in 2001, “only at the time of the 5th conference, i.e. at the time of review after 4 years of practice” (P-64). In the April 2005 state plenum, after the martyrdom of comrade Saket, they brought the very same arguments, and one of the leaders of the opportunists went to the extent of proposing withdrawal of the people’s guerilla squads from Malnad.
The role played by the leader of the opportunist clique in the whole issue is very important. In the IX Congress of the erstwhile PW party in 2001 he opposed the party line from a left sectarian stand point. Within a matter of few months he went to the other extreme of opposing the party line from a right opportunist stand point. He did not make any self-criticism either in the SC or in any other forum that he had committed a left sectarian error. He only said that he was swayed by the ‘senior leadership’. In the SC meeting held in September 2001, the SC passed a resolution upholding the stand taken by the delegates from KN and criticized the CC accusing that it dealt bureaucratically. This type of somersault is very common with him. In March 2002, he proposed that the armed struggle in Malnad should be led by the Nationality Front, instead of the party, as the front has more mass base in the state and it can justify the armed struggle politically. When the SC asked him to place all his views on this issue comprehensively in the next meeting he retracted and dropped that proposal without any self-criticism. These are only few examples for his swinging positions from one extreme to another, politically unstable, and not having a proper grasp on the political line of the party. When the movement entered a critical stage of advancing class struggle with armed formation his vacillations ended and he firmly upheld the rightist line and adopted opportunist methods to achieve it.
The opportunists claim that the “senior leadership or higher committee” was bureaucratic throughout the last five years. In that case, why did they choose to part away from the party right at the venue of the state conference during the proceedings? It was clear through out the whole period of internal debate that they are in the minority and the CC is also opposed to their opportunist politics and ultra-democratic methods, but still they continue to stay in the party. The reason is that they harboured an illusion that they will be able to cook up a majority in the party, (before the state conference) particularly in the perspective area where the armed struggle is being started recently, by utilizing the shortcomings prevailing there, by confusing the inexperienced cadres, more importantly by utilizing the petty-bourgeois legalist tendency in the party. The leader of the opportunist clique even opted for an area visit to Malnad, ostensibly to study the conditions there. (He stayed there for about three or four days with a squad and came out with an ‘analysis’ that there is no semi-feudalism in Malnad). Their efforts were intensified after the martyrdom of comrade Saket, SCS, the main architect of Malnad revolutionary movement, in February 2005. In the state plenum held in April 2005, they tired to obstruct the tactics being implemented in Malnad. But it was defeated in the plenum. In the August 2005 SC meeting discussion on the party’s basic documents was held, their differences were recorded and it was decided to discuss them in the conference and also to send it to the CC as the preparations for the state conference. When the state review was taken up the differences could not be reconciled and the ‘minority’ (Mensheviks) opted to write a separate POR. Immediately they wrote a letter to the CC explaining their opinions and differences. Responding to this letter the CC (P) meeting passed a resolution. Following is the excerpts of the resolution. “The CC (P) is of the opinion that at the core of these views is a tendency to deviate from the party line as expressed in the Strategy and tactics document. The CC appeals to these comrades to rethink their positions and avoid falling into right deviation”. “The CC also takes serious view of the fact that in essence many of the differences being expressed are those which were debated and settled at the time of the special conference held in May 2003. The CC is of the opinion that endless discussion on issues which have been settled in conferences is not conducive for the health of the party. It is of utmost importance that the decisions arrived after a debate be implemented and brought into practice without delay”. “Without sufficient amount of time having passed and experience accumulated from practice it is wasteful to endlessly review the past in this manner”. “The CC calls upon the comrades to settle all differences in the process of the state conference and unite the party around the revolutionary line of the party.
Again in the November 2005, SC meeting which was attended by two PBMs and three CCMs, it was explained to them in clear terms that their politics is a right deviation from the party line and the methods they adopt is political opportunism. The opportunists are not so naive to believe that a party leadership, steeled in conducting various inner-party struggles and having come out of two crises at the central level successfully, would agree to their opportunism. But what they were confident or imagined that if they were able to gain majority in the state conference then the CC will not be in a position to do anything to them. Even if the CC or the Congress rejects their line they will be able to continue in Karnataka with the ‘credibility’ of ‘majority’ gained in the Conference. With that plan they attended the State Conference. Although they formed into a block and tried to influence the delegates with sophistry, their right opportunist line was thoroughly exposed in the Conference and the majority upheld the party line and rejected their right opportunist line and anarchist/ultra-democratic organizational methods. When things were clear that they cannot get a majority they decided to desert from the revolutionary movement.
Today this group is propagating that because of bureaucracy it was impossible to continue in a single party. But the 2003 Conference itself had accepted that there was bureaucracy in the ‘majority’ and that this had to be rectified. This was also identified as one of the weaknesses in the 2001 Congress of the erstwhile PW and was taken up as part of the rectification campaign. The method for curing illnesses within the Party is not by splitting it but through a process of criticism and self-criticisms and rectification movements. It is only petty-bourgeois individualism that leads comrades split etc due to problems/weaknesses in the Party.
Another aspect of this desertion is that the revolutionary movement at the all India level entered a new phase. Particularly after the formation of the CPI (Maoist) the ruling classes considered it as single most threat for internal security and evolved ways and means to wipe out it and unleashed new forms of repression at the all India level. In KN also encounter killings and combing operations were stepped up which sent shock waves to those who want to participate ‘legally’ in revolution or make revolution legally. The armed struggle and the retaliation on the enemy forces inevitably bring repression on these legal communists also. Instead of limiting themselves to participate in the revolutionary movement to whatever extent possible, they want to convert their limitations into the limitations of the party. Their petty bourgeois egoism and arrogance did not allow them to admit this. Instead they conspired to transform a revolutionary party into an opportunist party, at least in KN. The mistakes committed by the state leadership in building the movement in KN and shortcomings in the party had become a convenient pretext for the opportunists to put forward their opportunist line. The CC and SC have struggled with them to implement decision of the SC and the Special Conference and build the revolutionary movement in rural and urban areas with a comprehensive plan according to the party line. But they repeatedly flouted the decisions of the committee and CC advice and continuously tried to create a wedge between the rural and urban movement. They distanced themselves from the rural movement and unilaterally implemented their opportunist line in the urban areas. Thus they inflicted a serious damage to the party and the revolutionary movement in Karnataka. When their opportunist politics was thoroughly exposed, their liquidationism, opportunist, anarchist methods and disruptive activities were nakedly exposed, when their political line democratically discussed and rejected by the state conference they could not hide behind any pretext the opportunists ultimately ran away from the party and put on new mask, KMSK, to attack the party and its revolutionary line from outside.
2. Anarchist concept of democracy
Anarchism and ultra-democracy is the organizational concept of the opportunists. It is not a new concept ‘acquired’ by them after ‘studying’ the concepts of ‘twenty first century democracy’ but it has a long history in the KN party. Their petty bourgeois class background is a natural source of such alien tendencies. After joining the communist party one has to consciously inculcate the principles of democratic centralism and voluntarily submit to the organizational discipline of the party. At the same time one has to fight against any violation or mistakes committed either in observing democracy or centralism. These anarchists right from the beginning had contempt towards democratic centralism, particularly centralism, and were influenced by liberal bourgeois ideas on democracy.
In 1993, these anarchists in the name of fighting against bureaucracy formed a four member block without the knowledge of the SC and met secretly, chalked out a plan to mobilize support in the party for their ‘rebellion’ against bureaucracy. The state plenum, convened subsequently to discuss the problems in the party, severely criticized this four member block and initiated disciplinary action. As the party in KN was new not much experienced this problem was limited to that level. Again in 1995, in the third state conference, some of these anarchists debated on the question of “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” and vehemently opposed to use that terminology “dictatorship” as it gives wrong notion. Instead they proposed the terminology “Proletarian Democracy” as they believe it conveys the “essence” of the proletarian rule. When the CCMs intervened and explained the wrong concept of these anarchists they persisted with that and moved amendment for voting. While their amendment was defeated in the conference almost all the ‘leaders’ of the present clique voted for the amendment. It is not that they do not have the right to move an amendment but the point is their ‘concept’ of democracy is nothing but anarchism.
In 2001, after commencement of inner-party struggle what these anarchists did was to totally undermine centralism in the party. There is no dispute that the state leadership has committed some mistakes in building the revolutionary movement and in dealing with organizational problems. The party cadres have every right to criticize and if that leadership as a whole or any member/members of the leading committee are found to be incapable of leading the movement then they may be changed. But what these anarchists did was to undermine the role of the leadership saying that it is a failed leadership; it is incapable of leading the movement; it is responsible for the sectarian tactics implemented in the party and thereby causing losses to the party; it adopted bureaucratic methods in dealing with cadres and receiving the opinions of the cadres and the ‘minority’ (Mensheviks) in the SC. At the same time they do not have the confidence that they can lead the party or the majority of cadres will accept their political line and organizational leadership. By conducting a systematic campaign they tried to create distrust on the leadership. By pushing the leadership into a corner and utilizing the political backwardness of the cadres they thought that it will be possible to push through their opportunist line. In the 2002 state plenum they tried to do this. Their main arguments were “as this is a failed leadership then how is it possible to trust that the tactics formulated by this leadership will be correct? That too when it is mired neck deep in subjectivism? Hence according to them “any tactics should be formulated only by involving the cadres and the SC should play a role of coordinating this process”. As already mentioned, the wrong method adopted by the state leadership in implementing the 18 month plan became a pretext for this anarchism. Even before the plenum these anarchists formed into a clique and functioned as a separate group within the party (of course, they had taken necessary precautions not to commit the same mistake of forming a ‘formal’ group as they did in 1993). They wanted to convert the plenum into a debating forum of “exchanging the opinions of the participants” and hell bent on not allowing the tactics of “preparations for the guerrilla zone” to be adopted in the plenum and the deployment of squads in Malnad. By blocking that they tried to implement their line of ‘preparations’ and postpone the armed struggle to an unknown period. The whole modus operandi of the opportunists in that plenum was to relegate the SC as a body which cannot be relied upon; to abide by the majority is only formal and ‘technical’ sans the essence of democratic centralism hence the SC should not take any important decision on any political and organizational issues. They did all these in the name of ‘fighting against bureaucracy and for democracy’. One of the members of the anarchist group expressed his desperation in the plenum saying “what we can do if you send the squads and start fighting the state armed forces?” However, the plenum while criticizing the SC for its mistakes rejected the anarchists view on the functioning of the leadership committee and decided that the SC can take decision on any political and organizational issues in accordance with the needs of the movement.
To justify their anarchist concept of democratic centralism they elaborately quoted Mao and distorted the views of the SC and CC. What they said in the past and continue to hold the same concept to this day, is that they should be allowed to ‘exercise’ their democratic right not to abide either by the majority decision or decisions of the higher committee. The members having the same political views should be allowed to function as a faction within the party and allowed to implement their opportunist politics. Any decision by the majority or higher committee restraining them from doing this was described as ‘bureaucracy’ and curtailment of ‘democratic rights of the minority.’ To quote from their Bulletin “the correctness or incorrectness of any opinion or action can only be verified through intense political struggle in the sphere of ideas and validate through a serious test of it in the field”. That is to say if there are differences in the party on the line question, then both lines are to be implemented and the correctness of the line will be proved in the field. This is what the liquidationist and neo-Trotskyite Venu of erstwhile CPI (ML) CRC exactly did in 1982. Later, the party and the revolutionary movement was liquidated. The KN anarchists hold the same Trotskyite concept of democracy. Comrade Stalin said “In the sphere of organization, Trotskyism is the theory that revolutionaries and opportunists can co-exist and form groups and coteries within a single party”. (Trotskyism or Leninism. P-131)
3. Practice of democratic centralism in the party
To prove the bureaucracy in the party the anarchists trace it from the SCR brought out in 1974. As said earlier, they are not only ignorant about the party history but arrogantly wrote everything as if they mastered everything. The following is what they said “The PW pre-congress POR mentions about earlier lessons and new tasks in the SCR prepared in 1974. One of it is ‘to build the Party of a new type’ and ‘ to conduct the inner-party struggle in a Marxist way’ (p-25). No further mention of it is there in any of the documents. The lessons are not imbibed correctly, not concretized and hence are not reflected in practice”. (Bulletin P-62). The erstwhile CPI (ML) (People’s War) party has conducted inner-party struggle twice at the central level and resolved many political and organizational questions involved in those struggles. There are five volumes of Rectification documents which were circulated throughout the erstwhile PW during the first inner-Party crisis in 1985-87.
The experience of inner-party struggles and two crises was summed up in the Political and Organizational review of 1995. the following is the summing up of the inner-party struggles. We have reproduced a long portion of the CPOR for the benefit of the readers to understand the party history, which the anarchists try to distort.
“A few opportunists in central and state committees created crises in the Party in 1985 and 1991, doing incalculable damage to the Party and revolutionary movement. In the context of these crises, incomplete discussions were held on Party discipline and methods of internal struggle. We should evaluate this experience in the light of MLM thought and formulate proper ML methods so that we can resolve the differences that arise in the Party and prevent any crisis”. (P-59)
“Proper ML methods should be followed in the internal struggle in the Party to strengthen and carry forward correct ideas against incorrect ideas, good against bad, dialectical materialism against idealism, and Marxism against revisionism. Only thus will it be possible to safeguard our Marxist line from the influence of the bourgeois, feudal classes and to establish revolutionary unity.
The reason for this struggle not to be carried out in these methods is that a part of the leadership attempted to split the Party by forming an opportunist clique in violation of all the Party roles.
If they obeyed the Party Constitution and introduced their political line in the form of a document, a two-line internal struggle would have been possible in the Party. In the Chinese Communist Party, despite serious differences, all of them abided by the Party organizational principles, and so, although there were major struggles between the two lines, they not only averted a split but achieved unity at a higher level.
Therefore, if the two-line struggle should be properly conducted and crisis should be avoided, the guiding principles given below must be followed by every Party member.
1. All Party members and all units must function abiding by the Party Constitution.
2. Party must have iron discipline. Democratic centralism must be implemented from Party cell to the central committee, not only in words but also in practice. Party members and lower committees should be bound by the decisions and suggestions of the higher committees.
3. Only central committee would have the authority to take decisions on national and international political and organizational issues. Following the direction of the decisions taken by the central committee, various committees at different levels should take decisions on matters falling within their purview.
4. Decisions in practice should be carried out based on majority opinion. If the minority is prepared to struggle for upholding their opinions, even while respecting the majority decisions, they should be given the opportunity. Internal struggle bound by the Party Constitution should be waged to learn different opinions and sift the truth from them.
In ordinary circumstances, when serious differences are expressed in the committees, they should be resolved through detailed discussions. In special circumstances when prompt decisions should be taken, we should be prepared to implement the majority decision and introduce the discussion in subsequent meetings.
Every Party member has the right to send their differences of opinion, criticisms, suggestions and appeals up to the central committee.
Internal struggles should be conducted in appropriate forums in accordance with the Party Constitution. No one should create his own forum in contravention of the Constitution to express differences and criticisms. Similarly, no single individual or unit has the special right to suppress any difference of opinion expressed in accordance with the rules.
5. Criticism and self-criticism must be conducted in all committees. The major focus should be to concentrate against dictatorial attitude, subjectivity, over democratic attitude, dogmatism, empiricism and unilateral tendencies. Criticism should be with the aim of rectifying the comrades from mistakes. Every comrade must oppose any forms of destructive criticism.
6. Every Party member has the right to freely participate in Party meetings and in discussions of Party magazines, when dealing with problems arising from implementing the Party policies”. (Pp-60-61)
This is not only written in the documents but is also being implemented in practice. In the 1995 All India Special Conference itself many questions concerning political issues and the movement were discussed and adopted in the Conference. During the IX Congress of the erstwhile CPI (ML) (People’s War) many differing political views were discussed thoroughly, even when it was not discussed in the lower conferences. But the anarchists try to project as if the Congress was not conducted in a democratic atmosphere. In the name of democratic approach and comradely approach, they seek to blur the political questions involved in the debates. The fact is that the line question from KN-TN delegates was directly brought to the Congress without any discussion in the lower-level conferences or written beforehand to the CC. It is not only a procedural mistake but it also forced the CC and the delegates to conduct the debate without proper political preparations. Even then, the CC decided to discuss the line question in the Congress and was discussed for more than three days. Another right opportunist and deserter from the revolution, the then Secretary of West Bengal, Manik, distributed the Note on his revisionist positions to some of the delegates even without a formal intimation to the CC. He withdrew his paper after discussion with the CC and placed some points as amendments. Later, the same opinion, more elaborately, was placed by him in the state plenum and it was rejected by the majority. The PB had taken a decision to provide that paper on demand by any comrade, but it could not be delivered to the KN SC due to some technical problem. In the meantime, as Manik had not only deserted the revolutionary movement but also began propagating slanders against the party, the SC too did not pursue the matter.
They also alleged “that both a political culture and a democratic culture is not up to the mark in the party”. (Bulletin P-63). What is the mark and who sets its level? The anarchists want that there should be no hold on anything, and whatever they demand should be accepted and implemented. To measure the ‘mark of political and democratic culture’ they want the KN inner-party documents to be circulated throughout the party. Firstly, the anarchists had not demanded that it should be circulated throughout the party; secondly, every opinion written by a member need not be circulated in the party, the CC has every right to decide whether it is necessary and worthy for the movement so that it needs to be circulated in the party. What they intended is to turn the party into a debating club. The anarchists quote Mao on inner-party democracy out of context. Comrade Mao, particularly addressing on the right opportunists, said:
“At the same time as we criticize dogmatism, we must direct our attention to criticizing revisionism. Revisionism, or Right opportunism, is a bourgeois trend of thought that is even more dangerous than dogmatism. The revisionists, the Right opportunists, pay lip-service to Marxism; they too attack "dogmatism". But what they are really attacking is the quintessence of Marxism. They oppose or distort materialism and dialectics, oppose or try to weaken the people's democratic dictatorship and the leading role of the Communist Party, and oppose or try to weaken socialist transformation and socialist construction. (Emphasis added. ‘On the Correct Handling of Contradiction among the People’ MSW Vol. V. Page-411)
He further added:
“What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned, the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech. But incorrect ideas among the people are quite a different matter”. (Ibid P- 410)
The five years experience of the KN inner-party struggle undisputedly converted the party in the state into a debating club as a majority of the party leadership and the cadres devoted considerable time and energy in the futile exercise of resolving the differences. (We have already explained why it is a futile exercise). It definitely harmed the party and the movement there, particularly in Malnad where the party had started the movement newly, and so required its total concentration.
The opportunists mentioned that “the specific demand for a political Bulletin to express and exchange ideas, for a democratic discussions/debate under centralized guidance did not materialize”. (Ibid P-63). Firstly, it was an SC decision, under the insistence of the SWRB, taken after the conclusion of the Special Conference, to run a party magazine for political and ideological education of the cadres. It was decided that it can be utilized for the political debates also. In fact, only in the 1980s, the KN party brought out a party magazine (five issues) for internal circulation. After that the SC decided to stop its publication and utilize the open magazine also for political education. Only in 2003 the need for a political and ideological magazine was felt. But the situation in the party was so pathetic that the SC was not able to bring out even the open magazine regularly. This was partly because of the internal crisis which affected the functioning of the party and partly because of the non-cooperation of the publication unit which was under the control of the opportunists. Even the party circulars and documents were kept pending for more than a year after they were given for printing. Now the opportunists have written that “it was not materialized”. The Party’s central magazine “People’s War”, resolutions and circulars were not translated and circulated in the party. Who is responsible for this? Why was the SC unable to implement its own decisions? It is not only this, there were many such decisions which were thrown into the dustbin without implementation. The opportunists engaged in the blame game accusing “the majority in the SC did not evince any interest in it”. With all their empty talk like “political debate”, “suitable platform for political debate”, “concrete analysis” etc, these opportunists, till now, did not make any serious studies or written a single piece or article on any polemical issue for debate. They are shouting from the roof top for the last five years on the ‘changed’ socio-economic condition in Malnad. Apart from making some general statements they have not studied, let alone from the field, even from secondary sources, to present it either before the SC or the CC or for circulation in the party. Such is the intellectual integrity of the opportunists. Comrade Stalin correctly described these type of people as “windbags”.
4. On attempting Organizational Solutions for Political Questions
The opportunists attempted to vilify the party through mud-slinging. These anarchists did not have even the minimum respect and loyalty to the party. Talking about the Mensheviks comrade Lenin said “..the minority were demonstrating by their deeds their political instability not only as regards principles, but even as regards elementary Party loyalty” (One Step Forward Two steps Back). Slandering the party with blatant lies they discovered “grave organizational crisis in developing the armed struggle into a genuine people’s war”. Without citing even a single example for solving political questions through organizational means they went on to say that “the leadership which was not in a position to politically solve the political questions that came up as part of this struggle tried to ‘deal’ even these questions organizationally. Such organizational dealing which did not have the political justification naturally needed the assistance of bureaucratic and sectarian methods to ‘succeed’. (Bulletin P-69)
If that was the case what was the entire democratic process of discussions and debates that culminated in the state conference in which a whole lot of ‘political questions’ were addressed. Did at any time the SC majority or the CC attempt to ‘block’ their opinions to be circulated or discussed in the committees or in the party? Can they show even a single incident? As we have mentioned earlier not even a single essay or article was written by them to establish their political views. They want to conceal their political bankruptcy behind the slanders like ‘bureaucracy, sectarianism, and dogmatism’. What do they really mean when they say that the SC or the CC should accept their ‘political and ideological views’ and implement it as ‘the correct line to advance the revolutionary movement’. When you do that you are ‘democratic, objective and dialectic’. This is what they consider as ‘correct method to address political questions’. If you do not agree with their ‘views’, you are a bureaucrat, a dogmatist, a sectarian and “blind to the changes”. Only a hardcore anarchist and arrogant egoist will think that his ‘line’ should be implemented even if it is not accepted by the majority of the comrades in the party or in the committee. Now, the opportunists, concealing their real face, adopt more deceptive methods of trying to confuse comrades in other states with their lies and distortions. Asking them to abide by or implement the decisions taken by the majority either in the committee or in a Conference is depicted as imposing “organizational solution to the political questions”. Even after the political views of both sides are discussed through out the party in almost all the units in KN and every political question was adopted, after a debate, in the conference through voting it is described as “organizational solution” simply because the majority voted against their opportunist politics. This is how the opportunists had been adhering to the principle of democratic centralism.
Regarding the issue of ROL (Right Opportunist Line) and ROA (Right Opportunist Alliance), the SC majority and the concerned CCMs self-criticized in the 2003 special conference for their exaggerated assessment of the problems. The CC and the conference delegates also criticized the CCMs and they accepted the criticism. The CC also criticized the ‘majority’ for its role in the internal problems and the SC as a whole for failures in not advancing the movement in KN in the 2003 Special Conference. But these opportunists spew out blatant lies that “the CC turned highly sore and failed to play a democratic role in organizational matters once the struggle was expanded against it”. They exaggerate the mistakes committed by the ‘majority’ and the CC and brazenly cover up their anarchist methods. The special conference while not agreeing with ROL and ROA, clearly stated that the politics of ‘minority’ is a right deviation from the party’s line in some aspects and that the ‘minority’ had adopted ultra-democratic methods causing serious damage to the party. The leader of the opportunist clique even self-criticized for that. But what we find after that is the same opportunist politics was brought forward more forcefully and in a more developed form. This is how they ‘rectified’ their political mistakes. They did not recognize that the special conference had rejected their concept of ‘preparations’ for the armed struggle and the political arguments advanced by them and had upheld the tactics adopted by the majority. Not only that, now, what they have attempted in their Bulletin is to distort the whole political and organizational questions involved in the inner-party struggle during 2001-03. While a review of the movement in KN was an important aspect, the political questions were also discussed in the whole process and concluded that the ‘minority’ views represented a “right deviation from the party’s political line in some aspects”.
Again in 2006, when they brought forward their opportunist politics it was taken up for discussion in the SC. With regard to the amendments to the basic documents they have never written anything, either partly on any aspect of the documents or any alternative to the drafts, apart from writing their views in the state POR. What they demand is that, the ‘doubts/questions’ raised by them, intentionally to scuttle the development of armed agrarian revolution, should be ‘addressed satisfactorily’ and ‘clear’ their doubts. What else one can say that their politics is nothing but the TN-DV type right opportunist line masquerading under the guise of ‘changed socio-economic condition’ or ‘particularity of Malnad’? It was repeatedly explained and replied on many occasions, as explained earlier, but they are not ‘convinced’ by those answers. Despite this the political questions raised in the state POR were also discussed in the party units and special batches before the state conference. However, discussions were delayed for about two months due to the attempts by the opportunists to vitiate the atmosphere and also due to the reaction by the RBMs. But, as part of their smear campaign the opportunists have been spreading lies in their Bulletin that the CC/RB is unable to give answers to their ‘political’ questions. They conceal the truth that after a gap of two months again the meeting was conducted and all the political questions raised were discussed in the batch discussion and later throughout the party in KN and finally discussed in the state conference.
Even after the political issues raised by the opportunists were discussed many times in various forums, including the state conference, they continue to slander the party leadership that organizational solutions are attempted to resolve political questions. It is nothing but a petty-bourgeois anarchists’ howling unable to digest that their opportunist politics and methods are not acceptable to the revolutionary party.
5. Exposing all details of the party in the name of two-line struggle-liquidation of the party.
In accordance with their right opportunist line, which primarily emphasized on legal forms of organization and legal forms of struggle they adopted organizational methods consistent with their politics. Legalism and liquidationism were being followed by the opportunists continuously. Paying lip service to building the secret party and building the secret network they paid least attention to these matters. It was one of the important issues of differences regularly discussed and debated in the SC meetings for the last six years. Whenever the issue of building secret party units and sending few cadres for secret work the opportunists opposed it on the pretext “there is no one to look after open work”. Not only that they even accused the other comrades, including CCMs who proposed to send few cadres for secret work as ‘neglecting open mass work and mass movement’, subjectively over emphasizing secret work and dogmatically imposing decisions on the cadres to go underground without taking into consideration the concrete conditions in KN. In fact the 2003 Special Conference in KN after reviewing the party building, gave a call to transform the party which is basically open into a basically secret party. When attempts were made to implement this call and set right the legalist deviation in the party the opportunists staunchly opposed it.
This legalism further strengthened in the course of two-line struggle and developed into liquidationism exposing details of the committee functioning and committee members in their Bulletin, letters and other documents. In the name of two-line struggle they brought out many details meant only for the SC/CC. Even the names of the PBMs and CCMs who attended the SC meetings and who told what, who played what role and other such details were exposed. This is nothing but placing details of the party to the public and through that to the enemy. For example, the decision on SCS taken in the plenum, held in April 2005, after the martyrdom of comrade Saketh was published in the press within four days with many details. In their Bulletin they exposed many details of the discussions held with PBMs and their views, which must be kept strictly secret, were also exposed. We can give any number of examples of this liquidationist method.
This liquidationism is the outcome of their anarchist concept of democracy and legalist style of party building. No revolutionary party which is waging a serious armed struggle against the state can allow such liquidationist methods.
III
CONCLUSION
The essence of the KMSK line is to counter the very proletarian line of the Maoist party in India and divert the revolution from the path of protracted people’s war. Their differences are in the realm of theory and the party programme, on the question of strategy of the Indian revolution and on basic organizational principles.
Politically they negate the very programme of the party by: questioning the semi-feudal character of the country (in this they create more confusion by not taking any clear-cut positions); the question the semi-colonial character of the country giving a type of independent status to the CBB and veering towards the discredited dependency theories; on the question of principal contradiction they bring forward some alliance theories thereby negating that the axis of the Indian revolution is agrarian revolution.
On the question of the strategy for the path of the Indian revolution they oppose the path of protracted people’s war and are putting forward some vague concept of fusion between the insurrection path and that of PPW. Not only that they nowhere show how this path is to be implemented in practice and how their present practice is linked to this ‘path’.
Even on organizational questions they basically oppose the well established principle of democratic centralism in the name of fighting bureaucracy. No proletarian party in the world can be built without this organizational principle, which is the most democratic that so far exists. Also on the question of the mass movements and mass organizations they promote economism, spontaneity, legalism and oppose any kind of revolutionary political propaganda and agitation.
In the realm of philosophy they utilize eclecticism and formal logic instead of dialectical materialism.
So we see in all spheres they have distanced themselves from the Maoist movement. Not only that their practice has a high degree of opportunism and disruptions. It is not a coincidence that the origin of this debate can be traced to the decision of the SC/CC to begin armed struggle in Malnad region. They first sought to delay it, then to postpone it and finally to stop it altogether. When none of this worked they sought to link it to the line of the Party and in the name of ‘differences’, deserted the Party and distanced themselves from the armed struggle. But instead of modestly accepting their shortcomings and taking up activities commensurate to their preparedness they sought to adjust the line of the Party according to their preparedness and accordingly split the party to disrupt the revolutionary movement. When the enemy is adopting various tactics to wipe out the revolutionary movement and the party and PLGA which leads it, one of his tactics is to split the party or create confusion on the revolutionary line. No doubt for the role they played the KN opportunists, let alone attract repression from the ruling classes will be showered with all sorts of praise. The level of opportunism of this factional group can be understood by the fact that one of its prime leaders was a delegate to the erstwhile PW Congress of 2001 where he was one of the participants who sought to push a left sectarian line. Within six months of this he became the prime pusher of the right opportunist line in Karnataka; a 180 degree somersault. It was also he together with the other Karnataka delegate who presented the Malnad plan to the Congress and the CC. Within a few months he became the prime pusher for its postponement in the name of ‘preparations’ and then its withdrawal by placing an alternative plan.
Their disruptionist activities impacted the swift advance of the movement in Malnad and also the development of the mass organizations and Party building in Karnataka. Not only that, after their disruption of the movement in Karnataka they have been seeking to disrupt the movement in other parts of the country through slanderous attacks on the party leadership, using unethical methods. Instead of conducting an open debate with comrades from our party, they surreptitiously meet individuals and small groups spouting venom at the party. They have nothing constructive to show. Besides, their attitude of endless debates paralyses effective activity and distracts from the concept of testing all theory in the crucible of practice. Since 2001, for a full six years, they have been engaged in debates after debate, it is time they get down to practice their line and prove it at the ground level.
Today the KMSK has brought forward their right opportunist line to sabotage the revolutionary movement in Karnataka from its very roots. Whatever maybe their intentions objectively they seek the disruption of the revolutionary movement and its liquidation. History has shown that at important turning points in a revolutionary movement such non-proletarian lines do arise which seeks to destroy the Party from within. If it prevails the party is destroyed and turned into a revisionist party. History has shown that even the best of communist parties have been destroyed from within. The great CPSU which successful fought the Hitlerian hordes was destroyed by Khrushchev revisionism. The legendary CPC with three decades of revolutionary practice and another nearly equal length of socialist construction which included the huge strides made during the GPCR was finally defeated by Deng revisionism. A similar fate can be seen of many a party in Europe. Today the much weakened state of the communist movement worldwide is primarily due to the prevalence of these bourgeois lines that have gnawed at the very vitals of communist parties and movements. That is why we say that it is revisionism that is the main danger to the communist movement.
So also the Karnataka splitters through their line and disruptive methods have, to some extent, been able to push back the advance of the revolutionary movement in Karnataka. Their disclosure of party secrets and loose talk has also opened up much of the secret party structures to the enemy. Now, due to this and also many leagalistic methods of functioning within the party itself we have lost our beloved leader, Com. Murali (Naveen), who was in the forefront leading the armed struggle in Malnad and fighting the right opportunist disrupters. This loss is a severe bow to the Maoist movement in India, particularly in Karnataka.
The entire Party must seriously study and understand the essence of the political and organizational line of the splitters and what are its implications for the revolutionary movement. By developing a deep understanding and refutation of this line we can raise the political level of the entire party to be alert against such trends and understand how such non-proletarian trends worm their way into the Party and grow to become a revisionist line to stab the revolutionary movement in the back.
Such opportunists generally raise their head utilizing some weaknesses in the party and/or setback in the movement as the pretext for questioning the very proletarian line and basis of the party. Instead of pinpointing the causes for the weakness and reasons for the setback and work hard collectively to rectify and overcome from the weaknesses such opportunists give the weaknesses/setback as the reasons for questioning the very line of the Party. What the KMSK has done is nothing new. We see this often in past history. For example SNS pushed his revisionist line in the name of countering the left sectarian weaknesses and the setback after Naxalbari. Again a right opportunist line was pushed by VS-SM utilizing some of the weaknesses in the then movement of the erstwhile CPI (ML)(PW). Similarly the KMSK has pushed their line utilizing the weaknesses in the movement and difficulties faced in advancing the armed struggle in KN, a place which has never seen such a practice.
As long as class struggle in society exists, such alien class trends will be reflected in the Party of the proletariat, which, if not countered in time, will destroy it from within. Let us draw lessons from this example by negative experience, further develop our grasp of MLM and the political line of the Party, firmly counter such retrogressive views and activities, seek proper solutions to our weaknesses through a frank self-critical approach, overcome stagnations and setbacks where they exist by getting to the roots of the actual problem, and through this process advance the revolution to a higher stage beating back the enemy offensive.
************************
dear comrade how can i get the booklet of Karnataka Maoist Swatantra Kendra, since i think there stand on agrarian transformation is correct
ReplyDelete