In continuation to this statement, issuing their own statements,
the CPI (ML) state committees in many states have organized
meetings condemning the murder of com. Koteshwar Rao in fake
encounter and appealing to all progressive democratic forces to
condemn it.
While appreciating these steps taken by the CPI (ML), some
friends as well as supporters of CPI (Maoist) have raised a
criticism why on such an occasions also we are raising our
criticism of the CPI (Maoist) line. So we consider that it is
our duty to explain the history of the genesis and growth our
differences with the CPI(Maoist). Earlier when com. Shyam and
com. Rajkumar, and recently com. Azad were killed in fake
encounters also we had issued similar statements, condemning the
state action, while appealing to PWG and then CPI(Maoist)
leadership to re-examine the line they are pursuing. We consider
that though CPI (Maoist), in India, is claiming that it is working for the
overthrow of the reactionary Indian state, it is pursuing an
anarchist line which is harming themselves as well as the
revolutionary movement as a whole. In this context, we consider
that it is important to explain the genesis and development of
our differences with it to avoid any misunderstandings. Both,
the present CPI(ML) as well as erstwhile CPI(ML) People’s War
and Party Unity [both of which became part of CPI(Maoist) later]
share the heritage of the ideological-political struggle waged
by the Communist Revolutionaries (CRs) against the revisionist
line of CPI and neo-revisionist line of CPI(M) leaderships under
the leadership of com. Charu Majumdar from 1964, and the
Naxalbari Uprising with “land to the tiller” slogan which
brought agrarian revolution and revolutionary seizure of
political power back to the agenda of the Indian people.
After the severe set backs leading to the disintegration of the
CPI (ML) from 1971, like CPI (ML) People’s War formed in 1973
and CPI(ML) Party Unity formed after 1977, the Kerala state
committee of the CPI(ML) reorganized in 1973 was also basically
upholding the 1970 Eighth Congress line. All of them including
the CPI(ML) Liberation were called Pro-Charu Majumdar, anti-Lin
Biao section. When the publication of the monthly, Mass Line,
was started from 1973 calling for unity of all ML forces
basically upholding the 1970 line, articles and poems of com.
K.G. Satya Murthy and of the leaders of Revolutionary Writers
Association (AP) or Virasam, were published in it till it was
banned and so its publication was suspended during emergency.
Due to the atmosphere of suppression prevalent then, the unity
efforts could not be continued till the emergency was revoked,
when large number of leading comrades who were in jail came out.
During 1978-79 first contacts were established with the two, and
unity talks were held. The CPI(ML) Kerala SC had denounced the
capitalist roaders who had seized power in China after the death
of Mao and their ‘Theory of Three Worlds’ in 1977 itself and it
gave great significance to taking a correct stand on this
question as one of the important points for unity of the
Marxist-Leninist forces. As a result, its unity talks with the
then Bhojpur group, which later became CPI (ML) Liberation,
could not advance, as it was upholding the new Chinese
leadership and its ‘TTW’( as it is doing even today).
In spite of the unity on other questions, the unity talks with
both PWG and Party Unity also failed as they were also not ready
to take a stand on these important questions then. It was at
that time com. S.A. Rawoof, one of the leaders of the PWG,
dissociated with it for not condemning the capitalist roaders in
China and for the statement of com. Kondappally Seetharamiah
calling for a “suspension of armed struggle”. The CPI(ML) Kerala
SC held discussions with com. Rawoof, both decided to merge and
the CRC-CPI(ML) was formed in October,1979.In spite of it, our
discussions with both PWG and PU continued. Comrades K.V. Ramana
Reddy (KVR) and Varavara Rao of RWA participated in the founding
conference of People’s Cultural Forum in Kerala in 1980. At the
mass fronts’ level relations of CRC-CPI (ML) with PWG and PU
continued, though the differences on the approach towards
structure and character of class/ mass organizations, and on
pursuing the mass line had increased.
After CRC-CPI (ML) was reorganized as CPI (ML) Red Flag in 1987,
the unity talks and joint activities at mass front level with
them further strengthened. During 1991-94 period, three rounds
of top level unity talks were held with PWG which ultimately
failed due to differences on approach towards (a)
neo-colonization and the changes taking place in relations of
production in the agrarian front under it; (b) towards Three
World Theory; (c) towards Bolshevik style party building; (d)
towards building of class/mass organizations; and, (e) towards
utilization of all forms of struggle, as PWG stuck to its
sectarian positions including upholding armed struggle as only
form of struggle. Still, along with the cultural organizations
of PWG and PU, the cultural front of Kerala also joined in the
formation of the All India League of Revolutionary Culture (AILRC)
in 1990 and this association continued till 1995, till it became
inactive due to the sectarian approach of PWG.
Com. KVR continued to write in Red Star, organ of the CPI (ML)
Red Flag till 1995. And when All India Joint Action Committee of
Revolutionary Organizations of Workers (AIJACROW) was formed and
it organized a parliament march against imperialist
globalization in 1992, the first parliament march against
imperialist globalization, the trade unions in Maharashtra under
the political leadership of PWG also joined in this. In the
peasant rally organized by PWG in Warangal in 1994, Red Flag
comrades participated. Later, an open polemic was started in the
publications, People’s March of PWG and Red Star on the
ideological-political questions on which there were basic
differences. From these instances it can be seen that even when
there were basic differences on many questions, both sides were
continuing contacts and holding even open polemics on them. The
relations between the two were not antagonistic. CPI(ML) Red
Flag had welcomed the merger of PWG and PU hoping that it will
lead to a rethinking on the ideological-political line as PU
always had more inclination towards mass line.
Mao Tse Tung Thought or Maoism?
Its
merger with the Maoist Communist Center (MCC) and formation of
CPI (Maoist) led to its 2004 Congress adopting more dogmatic
positions, including the acceptance of Maoism in place of Mao
Tse Tung Thought, as its ideological guideline. The differences
between these two concepts are basic. According to the
understanding upheld by the Marxist-Leninist forces, Mao
developed the theory and practice of People’s Democratic
Revolution based on the teachings of the Communist International
and applied it in the concrete conditions of China successfully.
Mao later led the socialist revolution in China in the concrete
conditions there. During the course of his long revolutionary
practice, he developed the understanding about the dialectical
approach towards Contradictions in a given situation. He
developed the ideological-political struggle against the
capitalist roaders who had usurped power in Soviet Union through
the Great Debate documents, and in the course of the struggle
against the capitalist roaders within the CPC developed the
concept of Cultural Revolution, the theory and practice of
developing class struggle under the dictatorship of the
proletariat, based on the Marxist-Leninist teachings.
The Cultural Revolution had reached a peak by 1967 with the
removal of Liu Shaochi and Deng Tsiaoping from all positions of
authority and people’s communes as centers of people’s political
power were coming up all over China challenging the authority of
the capitalist roaders. It is by summing up these contributions
of Mao, the Marxist-Leninist stream which had emerged at the
international level in the course of struggle against the
capitalist roaders who had usurped power in socialist Soviet
Union and degenerated it to a social imperialist power,
colluding and contending with US imperialism for world hegemony,
had put forward Mao Tsetung Thought as their guiding ideology.
But with the publication of the book: Long Live the victory of
People’s War, by Lin Biao in 1966, a sectarian line started
coming to dominance in China, which was ‘waving the red flag to
destroy the red flag’.
While claiming to uphold Cultural Revolution, it suppressed the
mass upsurge developing as a part of it based on Mao’s call,
using the military. In the course of the tortuous class struggle
developing in this period, the correctness of the Leninist
teaching that the right and left deviations are two sides of the
same coin and both ultimately serve the imperialists and their
lackeys was being proved once again. This book characterized the
state and society in all Asian, African and Latin American
countries as semi-colonial, semi-feudal, similar to
pre-revolutionary China. It started advocating that the era of
Leninism, the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution
which was upheld by the Marxist-Leninist forces until then is
over, and a new era of ‘total collapse of imperialism and
worldwide victory of socialism’ had emerged, with Mao Tsetung
Thought as the Marxism-Leninism of the new era. The Chinese Path
of people’s war, which Mao and the CPC leaders had repeatedly
explained till then as a practice developed in the unique
conditions of China was put forward as the strategic line
applicable for all these countries. Following Naxalbari
Uprising, the Beijing Daily published the article: Spring
Thunder over India advocating this line. While this article gave
tremendous enthusiasm to the Communist Revolutionaries (CRs) in
India who were fighting against the neo-revisionist line of the
CPI(M) leadership, it contained an approach which negated the
concrete conditions developing in the Asian-African-Latin
American countries under neo-colonization imposed by the US led
imperialist camp after the Second World War. Refusing to make a
concrete analysis of Indian situation, it was mechanically
followed by all sections of the CRs in India.
In the 9th Congress of the CPC in 1969, this sectarian, left
adventurist line of Lin Biao came to dominance in China as
reflected in the basic documents adopted by the Congress. In the
Constitution of the CPC, Lin Biao was upheld as the heir to Mao
also. Under the sway of this adventurist line, all sorts of
formulations like ‘armed struggle as the only form of struggle’,
‘class/ mass organizations are highways to revisionism’, ‘the
more you read the more foolish you become’ etc emerged, leading
to the set backs and disintegration of the newly emerging ML
movement all over the world within a very short time. The 10th
Congress of the CPC in 1973 rejected these formulations. But the
centrists led by Chou Enlai who had come to dominance by this
time did not put forward any analysis about how such an
adventurist line come could to dominance, since they also had
played a role in the suppression of the people’s upsurge against
the capitalist roaders along with the Lin Biaoists. They soon
opened the way for the return of the capitalist roaders to
positions of power also. Using these developments as a pretext,
a handful of the ‘Lin Biaoists’, who are mainly surviving in
Bengal under the leadership of Mahadev Mukherjee and few others
had rejected the 10th Congress, and upheld the 9th Congress of
the CPC, and advocated the new era theory. But they were also
still upholding Mao Thought. Internationally it was Gonzalos,
the chairman of the Communist Party of Peru, known as the
Shining Light, who had put forward Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and
Gonzalos Thought as its guiding ideology in early 1980s. The
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), formed in 1984,
soon adopted Maoism as its guiding ideology.
But in India the ‘credit’ for upholding Maoism for the first
time goes to the Maoist Communist Center (MCC), ardent followers
of the 1969 CPC line. This sectarian concept was adopted by PWG
and PU, it seems, as a sacrifice for their unity with MCC. In
Latin America, though some ML organizations uphold the concept
‘Maoism’, their explanations show that they do not accept the
RIM’s line of explanation about it. In short, Maoism, as
advocated by the CPI (Maoist), is nothing but an aberration, a
deviation from the basic understanding about Marxism-Leninism.
Presently, UCPN (Maoist) of Nepal, in spite of still upholding
Maoism in name, has basically changed its practice and has
criticized the CPI (Maoist) for its sectarian line. Again, it is
reported that because of the sectarian approach of the ‘front
organizations’ of CPI (Maoist), they are now expelled from the
International League of People’s Struggles (ILPS) led by the
Communist Party of Philippines, which is also upholding Maoism,
but practicing mass line to a great extent.
With the considerable weakening of the RIM and its constituents,
presently the CPI (Maoist) has become the main flag bearer of
this sectarian concept. Agrarian program in neo-colonial phase
UNDER this concept, Marxism is reduced to a dogma. Marxist
classics are reduced to idols. So the Maoists indulge in idol
worshipping and do not find any need for analyzing the reasons
for the degeneration of all the erstwhile socialist countries to
capitalist path or the degeneration of most of the erstwhile
communist parties to revisionism. Abandoning Bolshevik style of
Party and class/mass organization building, relying only on the
supremacy of the squads and their fire power, it has reduced
revolution to a game of heroes. If Lenin taught “Revolution is
the festival of the masses” and Mao declared “Masses, masses
alone are the creators of history”, according to the Maoists it
is the heroes who create history. It refuses to look around and
see the vast changes taking place around them internationally
and in India. So, even when the proletariat and the masses are
revolting in US or Greece or Italy or elsewhere, the Maoists in
these countries are only interested in whiling away their time,
speculating how to start guerrilla warfare there. They fail to
analyze how the people’s upsurges broke out in North Africa and
in West Asia and what should be the approach of the Communist
forces towards them.
In spite of the further intensification of the corporatization
of agriculture following the second generation green revolution,
bringing vast changes in the agricultural field in India, they
still call it semi-feudal and still uphold the principal
contradiction as the one between feudalism and the masses of the
people. They mechanically repeat that the resolution of this
contradiction will resolve all contradictions and lead to
capture of political power. In CPI (Maoist) documents the word
neo-colonialism is repeated many times. But, as they have not
put forward any analysis of transformation that has taken place
in the forms of imperialist exploitation during the post-Second
World War period, the transformation of colonial forms to
neo-colonial forms of plunder, it is evident that similar to
what was done in the 1970 Program, they are using neo-colonial
and semi-colonial words synonymously. Their analysis that India
is a neo-colonially dependent semi-colonial country borders
absurdity. They fail to evaluate the transformation that has
taken place in the imperialist plunder and domination during the
post- Second World War period from colonialism to
neo-colonialism. As a result, they like their counterparts in
the imperialist countries, fail to analyze the reasons for the
present recurrent meltdown of international finance capital, the
speculative character of which is reaching its peak.
They still repeat that like in the colonial days, now also
imperialism is maintaining and using feudalism as its social
base, when with the penetration of capital-market forces and
technology imported by the MNCs, vast changes are taking place
in the agrarian sector leading to its devastation in new forms,
with hundreds of thousands of the poor and marginal peasants
committing suicide, and millions displaced from their land and
occupation for the sake of neo-liberal projects. Instead of
utilizing feudalism, by and large, as its social basis during
the colonial days, it is systematically transforming and
integrating the agrarian sector to the international finance
capital system. Still their whole strategy hinges on anti-feudal
tasks, as proved in their Program and tactical line. But as they
refuse to recognize the vast changes that have taken place in
the agrarian sector under neo-colonization and have no agrarian
program based on it and mass organization of the peasantry,
practically nothing is done to advance the agrarian revolution
with “land to the tiller” slogan. As a result, though it speaks
about feudalism as the principal target, its activities are
reduced to squad actions in the forest areas far away from the
real peasantry.
From the analysis of the present world and Indian situation put
forward by CPI (Maoist) it is difficult for anyone to explain
why the present mass upsurges are taking place. Same is the fate
of the Maoist fringe groups in the imperialist countries in
Europe and North America also. As a result, even when big mass
movements emerge in different areas and when they get an
opportunity to influence any of them as happened in the Lalgarh
area of W. Bengal, they reduce it to an area for deploying their
guerilla squads and to organize few actions like the derailing
of Gyaneswari Express which killed many and inconvenienced
millions for nearly two years, as the railway department stopped
plying trains through that route in the night in the name of
lack of security. In Chhattisgarh, the Maoists are calling the
forest areas of Dantewada district as their liberated area.
After visiting it Jan Myrdal has written a book “Red Star Over
India” actually ridiculing himself and the good intellectual
work he had done earlier, a mechanical imitation of the great
book “Red Star Over China” written by Edgar Snow.
But contrary to what is reported by the petty-bourgeois
intellectuals who blindly support the Maoists, what is happening
there is a different story. When, earlier, the Congress
government tried to privatize the Shivnath river and later when
the BJP government declared a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in
Rajnandgaon district a powerful mass movement was organized
under the initiative of CPI(ML) due to which the latter’s
implementation was truncated and the latter had to be abandoned.
Similar mass movements are taking place against other
neo-liberal projects also. But in Dantewada, a corporate group
like Essar has constructed a more than 200 km long pipeline to
loot the rich iron ore of that area. The same is the case of
other so-called Maoist controlled areas in Jharkhand, Lalgarh in
Bengal and Odisha-AP border areas also. Instead of mobilizing
the masses and throwing out the MNCs, corporate houses and
mining mafias, often Maoists are serving as their mercenaries
after taking huge sums from them.
The Communist Parties built under the guidance of the Communist
International based on Bolshevik principles had a great
tradition of building the Party surrounded by the class and mass
organizations. They collected money from the people and the mass
organizations besides the levy from the party members and
sympathizers. But the method of ‘levying’ adopted by the Maoists
under coercion, especially when they are in the infantile stage
of their growth has corrupted their own cadres. Combined with
the sectarian practice of ‘money actions ‘ followed by many
groups and splinter factions in many areas corruption has become
rampant among these sections including the Maoists as there is
no accounting of the money collected or no principles are
followed in collection. In areas of AP and some other states,
money is demanded to become cadres. The spirit of depending on
the masses is alien to many of them.
Maoists are justifying it in the name of huge amounts required
to purchase sophisticated arms and to maintain hideouts. But
whatever may be the justification this practice has led to a
deterioration of communist values among the cadres. In relation
to the state and the ruling class parties, the CPI (Maoist)
claims that they boycott all forms of elections as a strategy.
But during their three decades of existence they have not
succeeded to mobilize the masses for boycotting elections in a
single area so far. Even after threatening the voters, bombing
the roads and polling booths and occasionally punishing the
people brutally, it has not succeeded to enforce boycott
anywhere. Even in Dantewada region more than 60% voting take
place. Another notable feature is that though in Dantewada the
Maoists have succeeded to reduce the strength of once
predominant CPI in this region, BJP has emerged as the main
force and winning the elections from there continuously. And it
is an open secret that the CPI(ML) People’s War, after calling
for boycott canvassed for Chenna Reddy led Congress in 1980s.
Later it supported the TDP led by N.T. Rama Rao in the 1990s.
In 2006 elections in AP, as the Congress leader Raja Sekhara Rao
had promised talks with the Maoists, they supported him. In
Bihar MCC used to follow the same path. Lalu Prasad had
benefited from it many times. In Jharkhand during last two state
assembly elections Maoists supported The JMM led by Shibu Soren.
While doing so they threaten other candidates and do not allow
other candidates to campaign in areas where they have influence.
It shows that they boycott elections calling the existing
parliamentary system as pseudo democratic, but due to their
actions they make it more pseudo. The latest instance was
Maoists supporting the TMC led by Mamta Banerjee, a constituent
of the central UPA government against the CPI(M) led Left Front.
In all these cases they have supported the main ruling class
parties, after calling for boycott. They never support any force
from the left. It is a most opportunist and unprincipled
mercenary policy followed by the CPI (Maoist) which has greatly
tarnished the image of the communist movement all over the
country. As a reward for the support they give in the elections,
the AP chief minister invited Maoists for talks in Hyderabad. As
was evident from the beginning to everybody except the Maoists,
nothing came out of the talks. But the state machinery used the
opportunity to make aerial coverage of the emergence and return
of the Maoist team. Within a short time, almost all the Maoist
squads and most of the main cadres were wiped out by the Special
Forces. Still they do not study anything from these debacles.
Their politbureau member Shyam and now Kishen were killed by
trapping them using the talks with government as a lollypop.
Firstly, as a force which talks only strategy, what is there to
talk with the state at the present stage of their growth?
Secondly, after the bitter experience of the AP incident why
they refuse to take any lessons? What is coming out of the
Kishen killing is that they have great illusions about the
ruling class leaders even when they claim to have declared total
war against the state. It will be useful if they once go through
the military writings of Mao at least to avoid such infantile
mistakes. How the extremists ultimately help the state The
experience of the Tamil People’s struggle in Sri Lanka and how
LTTE greatly damaged its cause should be an eye opener for all
those who have soft-corner for them. Nearer home, in Assam
during the two decades when ULFA leadership and cadres were
collecting huge sums from the large number of plantation owners,
they were getting huge profit as they could deny any wage rise
or other benefits to the hundreds of thousands of workers.
Wherever Maoists are having influence the MNCs and corporate
houses and mining mafias can operate by paying the ‘levy’ to
them.
Similarly, the presence of the extremists is used by the state
as a pretext to increase ‘security forces’ manifold and to
deploy them anywhere dubbing even mass movements as extremist
ones, to deploy them to all areas in the name of law and order,
even to deploy army and impose AFSPA like draconian laws in the
name of insurgency for decades and even dare to impose the
latest draconian establishment like National Counter Terrorism
Centre (NCTC), intensifying the state terror. To facilitate
this, if there are no extremists in an area they will create
them as the insurgent groups are made by RAW in Manipur. Or they
will propagate that the extremist influence is increasing as lot
of publicity is given to the Maoists at the state level with the
help of the corporate media. In this the Indian state is copying
the US authorities, who are the greatest terrorists, but have
declared a war against terror! Some friends will definitely ask:
how can you criticize the Maoists when they are shedding so much
blood, when their leaders are also killed? How can you criticize
them when they are waging a war against the state? Of course, we
have respect for the sacrifice of the cadres of CPI(Maoist).
That is why we condemned the killings of Shyam and Kishen, and
many others like them in the past.
Mao has repeatedly advised that we should not waste even a drop
of blood, avoid unnecessary sacrifice. But even after more than
three decades of their practice, the CPI(Maoist) leadership is
not prepared to make an evaluation of their practice so far. In
the first wave of left adventurism almost all the ML parties
which emerged in 1960s suffered severe setbacks and
disintegrated. Later, almost all the Maoist groups in different
parts of the world like the Shining Path of Peru were wiped out.
The Maoists in Philippines is almost stagnant. In Nepal they
succeeded to play a leading role in overthrowing the monarchy
only when they changed their line and took mass line. In India,
whatever may be the claims of the Maoist leaders and the
propaganda of the state, they are a dwindling force. Not only
that, all the former socialist countries have degenerated to
capitalist path and the ICM is facing a severe setback. Without
taking these aspects in to consideration, and the momentous
changes that have taken place during the post-Second World War
decades in to consideration, just by waging few squad actions in
such a big country like India with more than 1.25 billion people
and with such organized and centralized oppressive state
machinery, how can the revolution be led forward? If the CPI
(Maoist) leadership, impervious to all these factors, continue
its suicidal path, can anyone justify them?
We are of the view that the leadership should be ruthlessly
criticized and they should be asked to change their line if they
want to contribute towards revolutionary advance. We are
criticizing the CPI(M) leadership more fiercely, as revisionism
is still the main danger in the communist movement. The task
before the communist force is to take lessons from the past,
reorganize the Party and lead the People’ Democratic Revolution
forward mobilizing all the revolutionary classes and sections
for it. We appeal to their cadres to come out of this anarchist
politics and join the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist camp.
Author K N
Ramchandran is the All India General Secretary of CPI-ML.
