NAXALBARI

On Nepal

2011-12-10T13:44:00.000+05:30

Of school exercises in line struggle...

ajith

Reports in the press inform us that the Constitutional Assembly in Nepal has decided to further extend its term by six months. The steps and process to be adopted for the working out of a draft constitution and its submission have also been decided.

What is of interest here, or rather of concern, is the information that these decisions have been adopted unanimously. If that is accurate, the adherents of the left faction within the UCPN (Maoist), led by Kiran, have also voted in favour of these decisions. In other words, despite their vehement criticism of the rightist turn taken by that party's leadership, they still remain undifferentiated in the one of most substantial manifestations of that rightism.

Since we are on the topic of Constitutional Assembly it would be quite educative to cite an observation made by Marx while commenting on the political situation in Germany.

“A Constituent National Assembly must first of all be an active, revolutionary active assembly. The Frankfurt Assembly however, is busying itself with school exercises in parliamentarianism while allowing the government to act. Let us assume that this learned assembly succeeds, after mature consideration, in evolving the best possible agenda and the best constitution, but what is the use of the best possible agenda and of the best possible constitution, if the German governments have in the meantime placed the bayonet on the agenda..."*

That precisely is the point. The Bhattrai government has, quite systematically at that, been busily formalising the surrender of all that remains revolutionary or even pro-people. It has indeed even exceeded the expectations of the Indian expansionists and their imperialist mentors. This is of course a continuation of what has been happening in Nepal over the past few years. The novelty is in the stability of the government, of the whole process. The various factions of the ruling classes and the new aspirants have evidently arrived at a broad understanding on the reactionary direction to be followed. In other words, they have already “placed the bayonet on the agenda”. The unanimity of the Constitutional Assembly firmly pushes it into the guts of revolution.

The Constitutional Assembly has itself become a convenient tool for reaction. It can no longer offer any tactical advantage to the revolution; except, perhaps, negatively - as a means of exposing how the rightists are colluding with reaction to bury the revolution, of educating the party rank and file and the masses why revolt against the rightist party headquarters and the setting up of a new Maoist party is the only way out.

But those who should do this, those who still wish to be Maoist and persist on the road of revolution are busy, in the words of Marx, 'with school exercises in parliamentarianism'. Even worse, they are indulging in this in the party with their illusion of 'two line struggle'. It is an illusion because the rightist HQ, Prachanda and Bhattrai, are not in the least bothered or bound by this party's decisions. So the rightist HQ decides, it acts and sells out to the enemy at will. And the left has its statements, its line struggle articles and, of course, street demonstrations. Truly, this is 'school exercises in line struggle'. Given the hard fact that there is no united party, in any meaningful sense of that word, a weird exercise at that; being done on a virtual stage.

It would have been catchy to end this by observing that we need a 'revolt within the revolt', if not for the sad truth that the revolt (of the serious type) seems yet to be thought of. (end)

*This is taken from Lenin's 'A Contribution To The History Of The Question Of The Dictatorship', also quite relevant for studying the Nepal issue. These texts can be accessed from the marxists.org website.

A Call from the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist ) NAXALBARI

2011-11-03T12:16:00.000+05:30

Bury the 1 with the 99!

A wave of rage and unrest is seen worldwide. The youth are out on the streets – protesting, resisting, hitting back. They are supported and joined by people from a wide spectrum. Dictators, who squeeze out the life breath of freedom; rulers, who load all the hardship of the crisis on the people’s backs; billionaire sharks, who speculate and profit on hunger and homelessness; politicians, who plunder public funds – the whole lot is targeted. This is wonderful!

In some Arab countries the people have achieved an initial victory by ending dictatorial regimes. In Europe, powerful outbursts of popular fury have forced the rulers to tread slow on their plans to choke the people with cuts in public spending. And in the midst of this, mass protest has broken out all over the USA, the centre of the world imperialist system. The slogans raised by the Occupy movements, initiated by Occupy Wall Street, capture the anti-capitalist sentiments and desire for change of the broad masses everywhere. Occupations replicate the world over and the call resonates with ever greater force.

That’s right, the 99 per cent can no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1 per cent. It must be ended. But let’s get this straight. We need to go all out, if that dream is to be realised. And that’s the only way to keep the 1 in the crosswire. They are indeed outnumbered; but that 1 packs treachery and death. We just saw them hijacking the people’s struggle in Libya. They made that an excuse to bomb their way in and set up a regime, pliant enough to their satisfaction. Their skill at the ‘non-violent, democratic’ way is on display in Tunisia and Egypt. A Ben Ali is replaced with a Hamadi Jebali, a Mubarak with a Tantawi – and it’s business as usual for the 1. They are also adept at promoting protest, as a sort of safety valve and distraction – like they are trying in India. Anna Hazare gets media prime time; people’s anger against corruption is diffused. Meanwhile they step up their War on the People, unleash the army and US supplied drones, and go all-out against the on-going armed revolution of the dispossessed, the people’s war led by the Maoists. Oh yes, this 1 will do anything to hang on to power.

So we need to go to the roots. Dig them out. Demolish the power protecting it. Turn over the soil for the new to shoot up. That’s the only way to end the human-chewing, environment-destroying greed of capitalism, of the worldwide imperialist system. We need to end distinctions of class, caste, gender, race and ethnicity. We need to tear out the economic and social relations on which they rest. We need a thorough cleaning out of all the rotten ideas that go with them. And when you get down to it, that’s the communism we are talking about, a whole new way of thinking, a whole new way of life – for us and this globe.

Revolution, all the way!

Capitalism is a dead-end! There’s a future in communism!

November 2, 2011

Nepal-tactics of struggle or compliance?

2011-09-14T18:12:00.001+05:30

Sadak, sadan, sarkar – tactics of struggle or compliance?

ajith

(This was written in February 2011 for a Nepali Maoist journal as a contribution to the ideological struggle)

When a great revolution marks time the silence is all the more ominous. The humdrum routines of peacetime often dull one from sensing it. But, no matter what, swords are being sharpened. Will the 5 years of peace end up liquidating the gains made through 10 years of people's war or will it provide new resources for the revolution to once again rage on? Much depends on an accurate assessment of the present situation and tactics derived from it. This, obviously, is beyond the capacity of a spectator. But then, the outsider view is not without its benefits too. It allows a distancing, and its objectivity, denied to those on the stage. This is an opportunity for a broader view, a critiquing from outside. It also allows one to take liberties and indulge in wayward thinking. Having thus oiled my hands in anticipation of a sticky time (literally), let me get into the messy business of carving up the jackfruit.

2011-09-12T17:02:00.000+05:30

communist party of india (marxist-leninist) NAXALBARI

P R E S S R E L E A S E

On the current situation in Nepal and the challenge beforethe Maoists

Participation in the Constitutional Assembly process, and ingovernment, in Nepal has been used by the UCPN (Maoist) leadership to liquidatethe revolutionary nature of the party and sink it in the morass ofparliamentarism. For quite some time now, this has been the concrete politicalmanifestation of revisionism, of the derailment of the party from the path ofNew Democratic Revolution. It has now been taken to a new depth with the recentappointment of Dr. Baburam Bhattarrai as the Prime Minister of Nepal through adeal with the Madheshi parties, known agents of the Indian expansionists. Followinga script already given by the reactionaries and endorsed by the UCPN (Maoist)leadership, the new government promptly handed over the keys of the People’sLiberation Army’s (PLA) stored weapons. Severely drained of its fightingqualities through the policies followed by the leadership of the UCPN(Maoist),it is now being prepared for formal elimination, to finish off the lastremaining, and one of the most important, achievements of the 10 years of People’s War. Thus the people will have nothingto bank on and will be helplessly thrown back to the reactionary wolves.

Maoist Road No:1 -a Revolutionary Internationalist Journal

2011-07-28T14:10:00.001+05:30

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_sFtNNVFjIROWRjOWU0YzYtYmY2Yy00OWM5LTg4NzQtMDY2ODM4MGJhNTcw&hl=en_US

Political resolution adopted by the 5th Conference of CCOMPOSA, March 2011

2011-04-28T17:32:00.002+05:30

On the Current Situation and Tasks

Since the 4th Conference of the Co-ordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) held in 2006, there have been significant developments in the world and in South Asia. These changes have given rise to both challenges and opportunities. Guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the unity among the constituents of CCOMPOSA and their joint activities will surely strengthen the revolutionary struggles and initiatives going on in the different countries of South Asia and be a catalyst in facing up to these challenges and seizing the opportunities. This has a significance going far beyond the boundaries of South Asia.

Press release of 5th CCOMPOSA Conference

2011-04-28T17:29:00.003+05:30

Press Release of CCOMPOSA

The 5th Conference of the Co-ordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) was successfully completed in early March. The delegates took up analysis of the current political situation in order to identify its main features. They noted the fall out of the global crisis, the devastations it has caused among the masses, the wave of struggles in imperialist citadels triggered of by the crisis and the recent series of popular upsurges in Arab countries, apart from developments in South Asia such as the successful withstanding of Maoists in India of the state's counter-revolutionary offensive. The Conference observed that "though in an uneven way, the objective situation all over the world, including in the imperialist countries, is developing favourably for revolution. The main trend of revolution is strengthened. In comparison to the favourably developing objective situation and its demands, the subjective strength of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties still lags. Nevertheless, greater attraction of people towards Marxism and socialism all across the world is a very positive sign. "

On Imperialist Aggression in Libya

2011-04-28T17:28:00.000+05:30

Press Release:
CPI (M-L) NAXALBARI
Support the Struggling Masses of Arab Countries!
Imperialist Intervention can never be the Solution!
Condemn and Resist Imperialist Aggression in Libya!
The rebellious masses of Libya are locked in a bitter struggle against its dictator Gaddafi, facing his murderous suppression. This is a just struggle enjoying the support of people throughout the world. But the attacks done by the US, France, Britain, Italy and other imperialist powers in Libya are unjust. They must be condemned and opposed. Though this is being done under the pretext of saving the Libyan masses it is a war of aggression. Its main aim is to replace Gaddafi with a more suppliant ruler. It has nothing to do with supporting the masses. This is well exposed by the reality of their bombing Libya, while actively supporting the equally brutal suppression of the struggling masses in Bahrain which is home to the US military command in West Asia. The protests of the Indian government, along with those of Russia, China and Brazil must also be exposed and condemned as mere propagandist posturing. Instead of blocking the UN sanction for imperialist aggression, they had simply abstained. Thus they too connived in the preparation and execution of the present imperialist aggression in Libya.
The struggle in Libya is part of the great mass upheaval sweeping across the Arab world. It has already toppled dictators, long protected by imperialists, in Tunisia and Egypt. Many others are severely threatened. Though all the imperialists and reactionaries have publicly supported these struggles, the real fact is that they are deeply concerned. They worry that decades old relations of neocolonial domination set up in West Asia and North Africa will unravel. They know that these struggles reflect the deep anger of the masses against the existing exploitative, oppressive conditions in these countries. The yearning of the people for basic change is yet to arrive at distinct emancipatory programmatic positions. But their opposition to nominal changes, to the continuation of the old order in new forms, has persisted. This radical stream, with the potential to develop into revolution, is the one of greatest promise for the oppressed. It will be realized to the extent conscious Maoist intervention is possible. Meanwhile even as a potential possibility it threatens imperialism and reaction. Therefore one important aspect of the present imperialist intervention in Libya is that of threatening the struggling masses into ‘permissible’ limits of protest.
Krantipriya
Spokesperson,
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) NAXALBARI 20th March, 2011

Joint May Day Statement 2011

2011-04-28T17:21:00.001+05:30

People want revolution
Proletarians want the Party of the Revolution
Communists want internationalism and a new international organization

This year’s May Day comes at a time of unprecedented protests and uprisings all around the world. In the Arab world and Persian Gulf, the youth, the proletarians and the broad masses took to the streets and toppled or tried to topple, one after the other, the dictatorial regimes subservient to imperialism.
In the heart of the imperialist countries, working class struggles, general strikes, rebellions of students and youth are opposing the policy of reactionary governments and the development of a modern fascism aimed at shifting the burden of the crisis on to the backs of the masses, bringing layoffs, job insecurity, intensification of exploitation and attacks on education, health care and basic social services.

Naxalbari No: 3, December 2010

2010-12-09T14:48:00.001+05:30

Naxalbari No:3 doc format
Naxalbari No:3 pdf format

Editorial

Wranglingism Is Fine, But...

Mao Tsetung said that "Marxism is wranglingism." It is often quoted by Maoists. But just how good are they in wrangling? Do they energetically jump into 'the ring' when issues come up? Do they stir up wrangles when they think that vital questions are at stake? Or do they remain passive on this front?

The question should be considered from another angle also. How much of this ideological struggle is opened up? In the current practice within the broad Maoist movement, as well as the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), opening up of differences, going public, is reserved for the very end, when the differences have arrived at the level of a denunciation or split. Extreme examples where ideological differences at the leadership level or between parties are known to only a few at the top most level for a long period can also be seen, though this is the exception. The justification for this is the need to carry out ideological struggle in an organised manner. Every Maoist party engaged in serious practice, whatever maybe its level, certainly must handle everything, including ideological struggle, in a systematic and organised manner. There may also be times in a party's life or during a revolution when debate has to be kept aside in order to present a strongly unified force before the enemy. But norms suitable for exceptional circumstances have become extended beyond justifiable limits, stifling ideological struggle. It in turn hampers the politicisation of the broad masses, the vital importance of which was demonstrated by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution's (GPCR).

STATEMENTS

2008-07-17T11:43:00.001+05:30

Krantipriya
Spokesperson,
CPI(M-L) NAXALBARI

Press Statement

Reject the Indo-US Nuclear Deal

By rushing ahead to finalise the Indo-US nuclear deal, unmindful of widespread opposition, the government led by the Indian Nation Congress reveals the extent to which it goes to please the murderer Bush. There are many factors in the agreements signed with the US and proposed to the IAEA that enslave India’s nuclear industry to imperialist interests. But, far beyond all that, the crux of the Indo-US nuclear deal is the surreptitious recognition given to India’s nuclear weapon status in return for pledging its alliance to US strategic interests. This boost to Indian expansionism, at the price of toeing US interests, is the most significant, strategic, aspect. This threatens the peace in South Asia and Asia.

Both the fake Left, led by the CPM, and the NDA, led by the BJP, are silent about this. In fact their concern is about the lack of a formal recognition of India’s nuclear weapon status, a possible ban on further testing of nuclear weapons and insufficient guarantees of fuel supply. While this is expected of the BJP, the stand of the CPM and its allies exposes that they too are strong proponents of Indian expansionism.

The real issues posed by the Indo-Us nuke deal are thus being covered up by the various political representatives of the ruling classes by framing it in terms of what is best suited for Indian expansionism. The people of India have nothing to gain from the nuclear weapons stockpiled by the rulers, or from the arms race this has accelerated. Indian expansionism is the main pillar of imperialist domination and reaction in South Asia. Anything that strengthens it is a danger for the people. US imperialism is the main danger of the world people. Anything that supports its interests must be opposed.

Such real issues are further sought to be covered up by pulling in the energy angle. It is claimed that this deal will allow India to vastly expand pollutant free and cheap nuclear energy while reducing its dependence on fossil fuels. This is a lie. Nuclear energy is a far more dangerous and long lasting source of pollution. The cost of making nuclear energy a major source of total energy supply is extremely high. Moreover, even if all resources were tapped, availability of raw material in the world itself falls far short of fanciful projections on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy. The real answer to the energy problem does not lie in such false solutions that come at the heavy price of dependence to imperialist capital and technology and criminal pollution of the earth. It calls for an end to the irrational, profit seeking, energy guzzling development path followed by the rulers.

To repeat, the Indo-US nuclear deal is not about peaceful nuclear energy development and the main issue raised by it is not the enslaving terms it imposes on the Indian nuclear industry. This deal recognises Indian expansionism’s nuclear ambitions in lieu of tying it up firmly with the hegemonic, imperialist, strategic interests of the US. It takes the growing relation between the Indian ruling classes and US imperialism to a totally new and even more dangerous level. It must be rejected precisely on these grounds.

July 12th, 2008.

Spring Thunder No: 1, 1998

2008-04-18T16:00:00.001+05:30

CONTENTS Page

Repudiation of the CRC, CPI(ML)’s Views on Military Line 4
DOCUMENTS

A Critique of the CRC, CPI(ML) Line 32
Critique of the CRC, CPI(ML) National Question Positions 38

STATEMENTS
Reorganise the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) 3
on the Basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Let the War Cry of Naxalbari Reverberate Ever More 42
Urgent Waming for the Public! 43
Celebrate 150 Years of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ 44
Oppose Indian Expansionism’s Nuclear Ambitions! 45

Published by Spring Thunder Publications
August, 1998

Distributors
Kanal Prasideekarana Kendram
C/o 39/3006, Manikath Road
Kochi- 16, Keralam, India

Printed at
Chithira Printers & Publishers
Kochi - 16

Reorganise the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)
on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

Statement issued on the occasion of forming the Maoist Unity Centre, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)

The Communist Party of Maharashtra (MCP) and the Communist Party of Kerala (KCP) have merged to form the Maoist Unity Centre, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist). The MCP and KCP were formed after the liquidation of the CRC,CPI(ML) in 1991. Later, the Marxist-Leninist sections in both of these parties took up the task of carrying out a thorough rupture from the revisionist ideological-political line of the CRC,CPI(ML). The formation of the MUC,CPI(ML) marks a decisive leap in this struggle, It has been done on the basis of joining the struggle to unite and reorganise the CPI(ML), establishing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the decisive ideological guide for the successful completion of the all-India New Democratic revolution.
The general line of the MUC,CPI(ML) is that of advancing along the path of Peoples War to successfully complete the all-India New Democratic revolution having the main content of armed agrarian revolution, led by the proletariat and directed against imperialism, all-India savarna compradore -bureaucrat bourgeoisie and feudalism. Guided by this general line , it will take up the national question from the strategic viewpoint of the all-India New Democratic revolution, as well as the caste annihilation struggle and the struggle for the emancipation of women. It will join the struggle to unite and reorganise the CPI(ML) on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and contribute in developing a comprehensive revolutionary program which takes Com:Charu Mazumdar’s revolutionary teachings as its basis. It will continuously strive to raise its ideological grasp through deepening the struggle against modern revisionism, which is mainly represented today by the revisionist Chinese clique, and against centrist trends.
The MUC,CPI(ML) upholds the DECLARATION of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and the documents “Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” and “On the World Situation” adopted by the RIM on the occasion of the Mao Tsetung Centenary.
In the present world situation the imperialists and reactionaries are facing more and more obstacles as they try to overcome their crisis and impose their order. Revolution remains the main trend and the principal contradiction at the world level, the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations, is intensifying along with the other major contradictions. The Peoples War in Peru and Nepal led by Maoist communist parties, as well as the revolutionary armed struggles in other parts of the world further promotes this favourable situation.. In India also the all-India ruling class and its political representatives are increasingly getting caught in fresh crisis. The heightening of imperialist penetration is drawing more and more sections of the oppressed masses into struggle. Prospects for a great revolutionary upsurge are very bright. All of this makes the question of uniting and reorganising the CPI(ML) and developing Peoples War a pressing issue.
Maoist Unity Centre,
APRIL 22,1997 Communist Party of India( Marxist-Leninist)

Repudiation of the CRC, CPI (ML)’s views on military line
[A basic criticism of the CRC, CPI (ML)‘s position on armed struggle was made in ‘A Critique of the CRC, CPI(ML) Line’ (seep. 35). The following article deepens this criticism by unravelling the inner connections between different aspects of the CRC’S revisionist line. Rupture is also a process of self criticism and we welcome criticism to further sharpen it -Central Organising Committee, MUC, CPI (ML), 1998]
From its formation in 1979 till its dissolution in 1991 the views of the CRC, CPI(ML) on armed struggle and military line underwent three important shifts. The first one took shape in the period 1979-1982. It was sanctioned by the all-India Conference of 1982 and further developed during the following months. The second one emerged during the discussions leading to the 1985 all-India Plenum and the 2nd all-India Conference held in 1987. It was formalised in 1988. The third shift took place with the adoption of the document ‘On Proletarian Democracy’, put forward in the form of a draft for discussion. It could not be finalised since the CRC, CPI(ML) was liquidated in October 1991. Throughout this period the CRC, CPI(ML) claimed to uphold the path of People’s War and its basic Concepts. This is why we have characterised the changes in its views on armed struggle and military line as ‘shifts’. But, as we shall see below, they really represented a consistent, step by step, deviation from the military science of the proletariat
Moving away from Charu Mazumdar
The CRC,CPI(ML) [CRC] upheld the “proletarian revolutionary line of Comrade Charu Mazumdar” as one of its basic positions. It stated “Armed struggle is the main form of struggle and all other forms of struggle should be complementary to it”. But, from the very beginning, the main constituents of the new organisation diverged in their grasp and practice of this basic position. The Andhra Pradesh unit was of the view that the main weakness of the earlier movement lay in the military aspect. Whereas the Kerala unit considered that it should be sought in errors in developing mass organisations, mass struggles and economic program. Just preceding the formation of the CRC, the Kerala State Committee (KSC) had adopted certain positions on these questions. Pointing to particular conditions in Keralam, it argued that the armed struggle could be initiated only after “uncovering and sharpening contradictions by intervening in ongoing mass and trade union struggles and developing them into political struggles.” These differences were settled by the ‘82 Conference. The issue was decided in favour of the Kerala State Committee’s positions. An earlier draft ‘Tactical line’ document drawn up along the lines of the basic position adopted in 1979 was withdrawn by decision of the Conference. Since the positions of the KSC became decisive in the further evolution of the CRC’s views on armed struggle and military line, we will probe them in more detail.
The positions of the KSC diverged from the 1970 line of the CPI(ML) in two important aspects. The more obvious one was its proposal to develop mass struggles into political struggles in order to prepare grounds for initiating armed struggle. This contradicted Charu Mazumdar’s well known opposition to making economic or partial struggles a precondition for the initiation of armed struggle. It also contradicted Lenin’s refutation of economism and the Leninist stand that economic struggles cannot be developed into the political struggle for power. By now, the KSC had already come to the view that the CPI(ML) failed to develop mass organisations and struggles complementary to People’s War. It held that this remained as a major issue of rectification. This was the justification for diverging from Charu Mazumdar. But the contradiction with Leninism could not be explained away so readily. The KSC sought to do this by adopting a new style of militant mass struggle built around the slogan “To rebel against injustice is right”. The thrust of its practice was on intervening in local issues and conducting ‘People’s Trials’ with mass participation mobilised on the basis of this slogan. Contradictions among the masses as well as contradictions between the masses and local oppressors were handled in these Trials. They were conducted by People’s Committees temporarily formed to take up specific issues. These Trials were projected as ‘rudimentary forms of parallel political power.’
Work along these lines spread out very quickly. In some areas this led to a sharpening of the contradiction with local oppressors and annihilations. The whole experience appeared to validate the KSC’s claim of developing mass struggle complementary to armed struggle without sliding into economism. Furthermore, it also appeared to substantiate its claim of applying the lessons of the struggle in defence of Mao Tsetung Thought and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) against the capitalist usurpers in China, to resolve the crucial problems facing the Indian New Democratic Revolution.
We noted that KSC positions diverged in two ways. The second, not so obvious one, was contained in the assumption that the armed struggle could be initiated only after uncovering and sharpening contradictions. This implied that, apart from subjective conditions, objective conditions for initiating armed struggle were also either absent or weak. Yet this conclusion was never spelt out. Rather, the CRC continued to maintain that, despite of being uneven, a continuous revolutionary situation existed throughout India.
While discussing the prospects for initiating and sustaining armed struggle for seizure of power, Mao Tsetung had pointed to the existence of a continuous revolutionary situation in China. This was formed by objective contradictions namely, the contradiction between imperialism and the people and that between feudalism and the broad masses. Mao had also pointed out that the revolutionary situation was never static. Depending on conditions and the advance of armed agrarian revolution, it could be stagnating or developing and there could be ebbs and high tides. By initiating the war in regions of sharp contradictions, building up armed forces and seizing power areawise, the communist party should expand Red power in waves upon waves. Thus it should accelerate the development of the revolutionary situation. Charu Mazumdar had insisted on these Maoist positions as one of the cornerstones of the new party’s ideological and political line.
Accepting the existence of a continuous revolutionary situation in the oppressed countries means, in essence, accepting the objective possibility and necessity of initiating armed struggle to seize political power, without waiting for the maturing of a countrywide revolutionary crisis. Evidently, this does not negate the necessity of preparations, the building up of sufficient subjective forces to initiate and sustain armed struggle. But it makes this preparation, and only this preparation, the key ideological, political and organisational task which must be addressed by a Maoist party. Though the KSC’s positions on the necessity of uncovering and sharpening contradictions appeared to be in the nature of such preparations, its essence was quite different. If conditions in Keralam had created a situation where objective contradictions were nowhere sharp, then apart from preparation of subjective forces, the objective conditions for taking up the armed struggle for seizure of power itself had to mature. In that case, armed struggle could not be an immediate agenda, regardless of the level of the subjective forces.
This was the key to the camouflaged economism of the KSC. Though not everywhere and in equal intensity, objective conditions for the initiation and development of People’s War always exists in an oppressed country. The central task of a Maoist party is to seize this opportunity and make the initiation and development of war the centre of gravity in all its areas and spheres of activity. If this task is kept aside or grasped in a formal way then the party’s line will be reformist, no matter what its subjective intentions are. Because, when socio-economic and political conditions have already put the armed struggle for seizure of power, the highest task of revolution, on the agenda, any line which falls short of directly taking it up will be economist.
Once again, this does not mean that the party should initiate armed struggle without preparations. It also does not mean that it should be initiated in all of its areas of activity. Even in the vast countryside where contradictions are comparatively sharper, there will he regions where objective conditions are less developed. The party should make a materialist evaluation through investigations, identify and concentrate in that region (or regions) most suitable for the initiation and development of People’s War. Besides, its work in other regions, both in the countryside and cities, must be handled in a manner serving the task of initiation. “Before the outbreak of war all organisation and struggle arise in preparation for the war...After the war breaks out, all organisation and struggle are coordinated with the war, either directly or indirectly.”
The successful initiation and development of People’s Wars in Peru and Nepal at the fag end of the 20th century is powerful testimony to this Maoist position:- The central and immediate task of a communist party in an oppressed country is to seize power from the class enemy through People’s War. All of its activities should be oriented towards the resolution of this task. All the activities of the party should be judged primarily in relation to this central task. It should either carry out the seizure of power or should be preparing for it.
During this period, the KSC [and later the CRC] was upholding the strategic line of an Indian New Democratic revolution. There was no question of drawing up a separate tactical line for Keralam. Yet, instead of reviewing and rectifying the KSC positions, they were made the dominant guide lines of the CRC. Moreover, the KSC’s contention on the particular conditions existing in Keralam were never investigated and challenged in a systematic manner.
True, certain transformations were taking place in Keralam’s class relations. They played a role in the ebb of the revolutionary situation since the mid ‘70s. But the agrarian question was by no means resolved. Besides, even in those conditions, there still were regions of sharp contradictions with explicit forms of semi-feudal exploitation. In other words, unevenness remained (and remains) as an important feature. In particular, this period of ebb was also a period of intensification in the exploitation and oppression of the Adivasi masses, by any standards, the lowest section of society. Land grabbing from Adivasis became an immensely profitable business for powerful landlords and money lenders. The two parliamentary fronts led by the Congress and the CPI(M) had reached stagnation. Significant sections of the Dalit basic masses were being alienated from the parliamentary left. The rise of new forms of share cropping and tenure, the rapid growth of private financiers (known as ‘blade’ companies among the masses), and evolution of new bureaucrat capitalist relations in agriculture and industry through the agencies of the state and co-operatives, were also part of the new situation. In other words, transformations in class relations had never made Maoist basic principles irrelevant in Keralam.
Instead of making a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, the KSC made a summary evaluation which in essence wrote of the possibility of initiating People’s War in Keralam. Its acceptance of a continuous revolutionary situation was formal and idealist since it neither analysed nor grasped the specificities of the revolutionary situation. This deviation was endorsed and further worsened by the subsequent positions of the CRC.
These two intertwining strands of economism and idealism were continued in the CRC ‘s positions on parallel political power and its concept of political power. As mentioned earlier, People’s Trials were seen as a rudimentary or embryonic form of parallel political power. In reality, they were no more than the imposition of the momentarily organised will of the masses in some specific partial issues. Just as much as a forcible seizure of land does not, in itself, contain the seizure of political power, a People’s Trial leading to the annihilation of a hated tyrant also did not represent anything more than the violent resolution of a partial issue. Furthermore, these Trials were not protected by any means of revolutionary armed force. Hence they could be conducted only up till the point that the enemy’s political power did not unleash its suppression. Once the enemy decided that enough was enough and started suppressing those organising and participating in such Trials, they came to a stop. The lesson was not a new one. No amount of ‘organised will’ can stand up to the enemy’s armed suppression unless it takes up arms. Political power can only grow through the barrel of a gun. The enemy’s political power must be destroyed through armed struggle to set up and defend the new power. Without such political power “everything is an illusion”. In the case of the CRC, this illusion was created and maintained by its concept of parallel political power. It was later deepened with its ‘new concept of political power.’
We will first analyse the concept of parallel political power. Parallel to what? If it supposed to be parallel to the enemy’s power then the question of whether it can exist over a long time must be answered. More fundamentally the question of whether at all revolutionary political power can exist parallel to the enemy’s power must be answered. The Maoist concept of Red power, base area, liberated area etc., can be said to be parallel political power only in the sense that they exist in a small part (or parts) of a country where countrywide political power is still held by the enemy. Within the base area Red power is the sole power. Moreover, as proved by the experience of the October revolution, even in capitalist countries, ‘dual’ power can exist only for a brief period. They can exist only under exceptional circumstances where neither of the contending powers are in a position to forcefully impose its domination. This duality has to be resolved in favour of one or the other power. In a certain sense, the Red power pockets established through People’s War also face a similar urgency. Unless the pockets of Red power are created and sustained as base areas of People’s War, unless they are expanded to accelerate the revolutionary situation, unless the war is developed as a ‘total war’ aiming at the countrywide seizure of power, they will not be able to exist for long. This is apart from the constant possibility of their being abandoned temporarily in order to manoeuvre, or their being seized back by the enemy.
Within the strategy of People’s War, particularly in the initial period leading to the areawise seizure of power, parallel power other than as pockets of Red power, has no place and can have no place. Any concept of establishing power without the areawise armed smashing of the enemy power and the building up of armed forces to defend the new power is sheer idealism. It is the substitution of the ‘illusion of power’ for real political power. This is why Mao insisted that, “The fundamental conditions for establishing a base area are that there should be armed forces, that these armed forces should be employed to inflict defeats on the enemy and that they should arouse the people to action”. Lenin himself had pointed out that the seizure of power even in a small area would immediately confront the revolutionaries with all the tasks of government. The point is that one cannot have power in parts. Areawise seizure of power is partial only in relation to the countrywide power of the enemy. Within that area or base, it must be the sole power. Otherwise it is not yet political power. We will have to come back to this question later on.
‘Left’ spontaneity complements economism
The positions of the KSC which later on became the line of the CRC did not go unchallenged. Within the Kerala unit itself some comrades had opposed these positions and many had doubts. But the strongest opposition came from the AP unit. It continued the struggle till splitting away in 1985.
As pointed out earlier, the AP unit had identified the military aspect as the principal issue of the setback. On its own, and later on as part of the CRC, it launched a number of armed assaults. But they could not be sustained. Many leading cadres were caught and killed by the police.
Actually, apart from correctly identifying the military aspect as the key issue to be taken up, the AP State Committee never tried to make a systematic summation of the military line and experiences of the CPI (ML). Merely insisting on the correctness of Charu Mazumdar’s positions and trying to keep the flag of armed struggle flying, it repeated a number of errors which were evident in the armed struggle led by the CPI (ML) in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. There was no rupture from the powerful elements of spontaneity in military matters. This failure sustained ‘left’ errors in developing mass work to prepare for and serve People’s War. Ultimately, its correct stand on seeing the military aspect as the principal issue leading to the setback did not advance beyond a formal assertion. The failure of the AP unit in taking up the military question from the standpoint of line and synthesising both the positive and negative lessons of the armed struggle led by the CPI (ML), gave ample room for the CRC leadership to establish the Kerala experience as the cornerstone of its summation of CPI(ML) experiences.
The feeble opposition in Keralam also suffered from a similar weakness. From 1967 till 1976, the revolutionary movement in Keralam had carried out armed struggles, including successful assaults on police outposts. But the struggle could not be sustained. In fact, unlike other States in India, the movement was totally crushed by the enemy a number of times. Given this experience some hard thinking was called for. Dogmatist denial of mass struggles and organisation and secretism had helped the CPI-CPM revisionists in isolating the party. Yet it still enjoyed prestige among the basic masses. After the repeal of Emergency in 1977 most of the cadres, including leading ones, could resume revolutionary activities. Based on these positive strengths, a proper summation of political-military failures aimed at charting out the application of the People’s War path in the concrete conditions of Keralam was needed. But the opposition to the new positions failed to rise up to this task. They too failed to rupture from the elements of spontaneity, subjectiveness and one-sidedness in the CPI (ML) line and practice. Subsequently they were swept up into the spontaneity of economism.
Summing out revolution
All the elements of the CRC’s positions on armed struggle as it existed till 1985 had thus emerged by 1982. What remained to be done was the task of placing them in a comprehensive line and making this the basis of evaluating the experiences of the CPI (ML). This was done in the 1st all-India Conference.
The CRC’s summation, ‘Towards a New Phase of Spring Thunder’, picked on some real errors in Charu Mazumdar’s positions and the CPI (ML) line and practice in order to reverse correct verdicts. Charu Mazumdar’s “counterpoising of mass struggles and mass organisation to guerrilla struggle”, ignoring the necessity of an agrarian program and one-sided stress on secret work etc., were identified as the major reasons for the setback. Regarding military line it argued, “...the party was not implementing a well thought out and well defined line on the military front. At times the military line was developing spontaneously and at other times comrade Charu Mazumdar was attempting to give a shape to it.” But this justified criticism of spontaneity covered up the worship of spontaneity from the opposite, economist, end. The CRC’s ideas about a ‘conscious development’ of military line meant that “...the communist revolutionaries who were leading the Naxalbari struggle could not chalk out a thorough, concrete program for establishing parallel power centres and continuing it for a long time because they did not think seriously about the possibility of the existence of dual power centres in the countryside for a long time. Without a political line of setting up people’s power centres in parallel to the enemy’s existing power centres and gradually overcoming the latter through a long drawn out struggle, the concept of establishing political power at the local level can never be realised, leading ultimately to the countrywide seizure of power.” This error was attributed to “…the lack of the very concept of protracted war.” Charu Mazumdar’s counterpoising of the struggle for political power and the struggle for “economic gains” was also identified as one of the reasons leading to the setback. In fact, this was characterised as the very basis of “...the dogmatic understanding of the question of political power and one-sided rejection of other forms of struggle and organisation.”
Let us start from this argument. Any class seizes power in order to overturn existing relations of production and establish new ones corresponding to its class interests. This is also a decisive way of suppressing and eliminating the overturned class. Though not in its fullest dimension, areawise seizure of power also entails these tasks. In an oppressed country the crux of these tasks is the overturning of semi-feudal agrarian relations and the implementation of ‘land to the tiller’. This is what an agrarian program should deal with. Though the CPI (ML) did not have a worked out agrarian program it did have a clear cut agrarian policy. This policy was realised in the Naxalbari armed rebellion. The Terai report gave an exhaustive account of this experience.’ It also summed up the reasons for the setback at Naxalbari in the following way: “...lack of strong party organisation; failure to rely wholeheartedly on the masses and to build a powerful mass base; ignorance of military affairs; thinking on old lines and a formal attitude towards the establishment of political power and the work of land reform.”
Obviously, each of these are linked to one another and the crux is the seizure of power. Without overturning political, economic and social relations enforced by the political power of the enemy classes, the peasants could never impose the program of ‘land to the tiller.’ Their seizure of land was not a struggle for economic “demands” or “gains” in a partial sense. It was decisive in overturning the whole semi-feudal structure in Naxalbari. This was the gist of Charu Mazumdar’s summation, “...militant struggles must be carried on not for land, crops etc., but for seizure of political power.” Seizing on the lapse in this formulation, which gave room for excluding the economical dimension in the areawise seizure of power, the CRC reduced the struggle in this sphere to one for “economic demands.” It then went on to argue that this struggle should precede the struggle for political power.
One year after Naxalbari, Charu Mazumdar explained his line for developing protracted People’s War by relying on the masses, “To forge close and intimate links with the people, the party units comprising the poor and landless peasants must organise the class struggle of the broad peasant masses by spreading and propagating revolutionary politics in accordance with the Thought of Chairman Mao. When such class struggles are organised, these party units, comprising the poor and landless peasants will be transformed into guerrilla units. These guerrilla units must then broaden and strengthen the party’s mass base by spreading and propagating revolutionary politics through armed struggle. Only in this way and through a protracted struggle can a regular armed force be created and the struggle developed into a People’s War.” On this, the CRC said, “By merely propagating revolutionary politics, class struggle cannot be developed. All the day to day problems of the people are to be handled using all possible open and secret mass activities and thus developed into higher forms of class struggle. Along with implementing such a program, we have to propagate revolutionary politics. Otherwise, in the absence of such a program for the fulfillment of the economic demands of the people, the revolutionary politics will appear as abstract slogans unconnected to real life.” Thus, organising class struggle on the basis of revolutionary politics, i.e. seizure of political power, is replaced with organising class struggle on the basis of economic demands. The revolutionary agrarian program, which alone can fulfill the economic demands of the masses in a fundamental sense, is replaced with a program of struggle for partial demands. Economic struggle is separated from revolutionary politics.
At this point it is worthwhile recapitulating the struggle between Charu Mazumdar’s line and the line of Nagi Reddy. The crux of the struggle was the issue of armed struggle for seizure of power. Charu Mazumdar correctly stressed that the party should centre all its work from the very beginning on the armed struggle for the areawise seizure of power. Whereas Nagi Reddy tried to theorise the spontaneous course of development of the Telengana armed struggle into a line. He argued that the peasants must be first mobilised to struggle for land. Following this an armed resistance struggle to defend this economic gain must be developed. This resistance struggle should be developed into the struggle for political power. For convenience sake, we will term this as the ‘phase theory of People’s War’. (Some sections had argued that the armed resistance should be organised simultaneous to land seizure and blamed the postponing of resistance as economism. Clearly this is only a variation of the same line.)The essence of this line is the view that the masses can be mobilised for the struggle to seize power only in phases−struggle for land, armed resistance to defend gains and then the struggle for power. In opposition to this Charu Mazumdar stressed the development of class struggle to the highest level by arming the masses with the politics of areawise seizure of power. Even though the CRC formally declared itself in support of Charu Mazumdar’s line, its thrust was towards a rehashed version of the Nagi Reddy line.
This political deviation guided the CRC’s evaluation of military experiences. As quoted earlier, the CRC saw the main military reason for the setback at Naxalbari in the lack of the very concept of protracted war. This was explained as the absence of a concrete program for establishing parallel power centres and continuing them for a long time. We have already pointed out the error in the concept of parallel power. Here we can further note how this concept serves and is served by economism, both politically and militarily. Dual power centres existing over a long period of time, as conceived by the CRC, could only exist as such by restricting themselves to the handling of partial issues. Perhaps in a militant way, but nevertheless partial issues. In actual fact, this would not be a political power centre but rather a new type of mass organisation, even if they were backed by revolutionary armed force. The CRC’s choice of words itself are revealing. Instead of the seizure of power it spoke about “setting up” people’s power centres. Instead of the wavelike expansion of Red power through armed struggle, it wanted to “gradually overcome” the enemy’s power ‘through a long drawn out struggle”. Finally areawise seizure of power was replaced by “establishing power at the local level”.
This last point was heralded by the CRC as its unique contribution and must be probed further. We will start with this quotation from its summation document, “Under the present circumstances, the concept of establishing political power at the local level has got a wider significance. Generally this concept is considered to be applicable only to the colonial and semi-colonial countries. But comrade Charu Mazumdar had pointed out that it was Lenin himself who put forward the concept of establishing political power at the local level. Comrade Charu Mazumdar continued: “In the era of socialism all the elements of areawise seizure of power are present in our framework.” It is quite clear that comrade Charu Mazumdar was not confining the concept of the areawise seizure of power to a mere tactical concept for revolution in colonial and semi-colonial countries...Of course we can’t say that comrade Charu Mazumdar was having, at that time, a clear cut understanding of all the elements of this concept about which we can discuss today. Moreover, the distinction between the present concept of establishing political power at the local level and the areawise seizure of power was not understood properly at that time. Now we have all the experiences of the GPCR and also that of the fierce struggle taking place in China since the capitalist roaders have come to power. Today we know that even in a socialist society, the key factor in the struggle against capitalist restoration is to establish and consolidate the real political power of the working class at the local level, at the level of each factory, co-operative farm, commune or any other such institution...So at present the concept of establishing political power at the local level ...has become the real essence of the struggle for socialism and communism. Indeed this concept itself has undergone a qualitative change.”
Later on, while discussing Revolutionary Committees, the document said, “...in the beginning when comrade Charu Mazumdar was talking about areawise seizure of power he was not referring to this new concept of Revolutionary Committees evolved out of the GPCR. The tactic of areawise seizure of power is only a part of the military strategy of People’s War. But the concept of establishing political power at the local level is aiming at the decentralisation of political power by developing people’s power centres at the local level through unleashing the initiative of the people. Of course, this concept can be easily connected with the tactic of areawise seizure of power.”
First of all, refuting the revisionist thesis on seizing power at the centre in one stroke with the areawise seizure of political power is not at all a mere matter of tactics. In the theory of People’s War, the establishment of base areas (which is what is meant by areawise seizure of power) is an essential aspect of strategy. Reducing this to tactics implies the possibility of using ‘other tactics’ to seize power. It undermines the very essence of the path of People’s War.
Moreover it is wrong to equate the areawise seizure of power to the ‘establishment of power at the local level’, for two reasons. The ‘establishment of political power at the local level’ can also be done after seizing power at the Centre through an insurrection. So this equation will open the door to abandoning the path of People’s War. And this is exactly what the CRC did later on. More basically, Red power created through the areawise seizure of power is from the very beginning itself the centralised power of the revolutionary classes led by the proletariat. It can be termed as ‘local’ only in the sense of the restricted area controlled by it. Obviously, depending on the spread of area under Red power the power structure must have local organs apart from the central organs. But these local organs are still parts of the single, centralised power. State power, however limited the area controlled by it, can only be centralised power. The simple reason is that it represents the interest of a class (or classes). This interest cannot be divided up or ‘decentralised’. It emerges from objective conditions and the historical role of the class. It is common to all of its members. The CRC’s position on ‘local level power’, linked to the idea of ‘decentralising’ power, emerged from a misreading of the lessons of the GPCR. It confused centralisation and decentralisation in the administration of power with the impossible task of decentralising state power. This initiated a deviation from Marxist teachings on state power. In the Indian context, this went to weaken the vital struggle against the reactionary ideology of Gandhism which has always prattled about decentralised power (Panchayati Raj) in order to cover up the reactionary character of the Indian state and present political power as something neutral or standing above classes.
Idealist reading of the GPCR lessons and implications for Military Line
In the immediate period following the capitalist coup in China, the KSC leadership had published a series of articles titled ‘Socialist Path and Capitalist Path’, written by K.Venu. (They were published in the 1979 issues of Mass Line). This work exposed the revisionist fallacies of the Deng-Hua clique and refuted their distortion of Mao’s teachings and the lessons of the GPCR. In line with this it exposed the material basis of capitalist restoration − bourgeois right and capitalist elements engendered by it. But this mainly correct analysis was soon replaced by one which identified the roots of capitalist restoration in the bureaucratisation of the party and state machinery.
This view was elaborated in the article ‘The Concept of People’s Power—a Re-examination’. It said, “...in a juridically socialised system (when the entire means of production are turned into state property) the entire means of production are governed by a few individuals at the top of the hierarchy. So the slogan of socialisation in the absence of a concrete program for decentralisation of political power will prove to be counter-productive...no serious attempt at decentralisation of this centralised power took place in the Soviet Union. Consequently, the bureaucratisation of the state machinery and the emergence of the new bourgeoisie were facilitated leading to capitalist restoration at a later stage.”; “In a socialist society the process of capitalist restoration starts at the local level. It is taking place at the level of each factory, co-operative or commune. At each level, wherever the worker-peasant masses are not vigilant enough to wield the political power in their own hands and to fight against the emerging new bureaucratic class, the people loose their power into the hands of this emerging new bourgeoisie.”
Let us keep aside the grossly distorted presentation of state power and economy in the socialist Soviet Union in order to concentrate on the basic argument raised here. This is the thesis that bureaucratisation and the emergence of a new bourgeoisie were facilitated by centralised political power. According to Mao (and later as elaborated by Chang Chun Chiao and Yao Wen Yuan) the roots of the new bourgeoisie lie in bourgeois right, in the continuing, though restricted, role of commodity production, exchange and the law of value. In other words, in the continuing elements of capitalism in the socialist economy. This is why revolutionary transformation of production relations and superstructure have to be carried out continuously, taking class struggle as the key link. The positions advanced by the CRC replaced this materialist analysis of the contradictory nature of socialism with an idealist and erroneous view of ‘new bourgeoisie springing up from the bureaucracy’. Perhaps this view is supported by Mao’s later comment that the “bourgeoisie is within the party”? No. The bourgeoisie within the party are the agents of bourgeois relations. The struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, the two line struggle within the party, is nothing other than the reflection of class struggle arising out of the material contradictions of socialist society. The capitalist roaders within the party violate the democratic centralist principles and mass line of the party and try to subvert them by promoting bureaucratism. Bureaucratism is thus the result not the cause of the capitalist road.
The idealist error of the CRC is further worsened by its argument, ‘capitalist restoration starts at the local level’. By this it did not mean that new elements of capitalism are engendered at the basic level of economy. When it mentioned factories, co-operatives and communes, this meant the local organs of power. Besides, it was discussing the restoration of capitalism, not the engendering of the capitalist road. The restoration of capitalism does not start at the local level. It starts at the very top, when capitalist roaders usurp power or parts of it.
Idealist reading of the GPCR lessons and the stress on decentralisation of power as the key means of preventing capitalist restoration lead in turn to an idealist and metaphysical deviation in the very concept of political power. The CRC argued that the old concept which stated that “...political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, and that “...the army is the chief component of the political power of a state...is only partially true and quite inadequate.”
Distorting Mao’s teachings, it claimed that he had “...developed his earlier inadequate definition of political power” by creating “parallel power centres of the people at the local level through unleashing the initiative of the people and developing their political consciousness... With this development the concept of people’s power came to acquire a wider and altogether different meaning. Seizing power through the gun is an important factor in building up people’s political power. But real political power will never be created by this act alone. Mobilisation of the political will of the people is a must here...Real people’s political power can be established only if both these aspects—the armed might of the people and the political will of the people—are developed and brought together as complementary aspects of the same phenomenon.”
The main thing to be noted here for the purpose of our topic of review is the formulation, “seizing power through the gun is an important factor in building up people’s political power.” What this shows is how an idealist concept of political power inevitably leads to undermining the central role of armed struggle in the seizure of political power. This arises from the separation of political power into political will and armed might. This separation is idealist and metaphysical. There can be no ‘political will’ separate from the means to impose it. If no such means exist or are not created, this ‘will’ can be really nothing more than a political aspiration. The real purpose of this separation was to argue that the process of politically mobilising the masses and that of armed struggle are two distinct, separate processes—”to be developed and brought together.” The next step was this argument, “Whenever the people take an organised decision they are exercising their own political power.”; “. ..the old idea that we can talk about political power only when a liberated area with a standing army is established is negating this dialectical process of the development of political power.”
Thus, there can be a preliminary stage or phase, where ‘embryonic forms of political power’ already emerge through the ‘organised decisions’ of the masses. This will be followed up by a phase where these organised decisions are now enforced by armed might. The ‘new’ concept of political power was supposed to ward off economism. What really took place was that economist theory and practice led to the denial of the central role of armed struggle. The line of replacing the struggle for political power by the ‘illusion of power’ was further advanced. The strategic task of areawise seizure of power was thoroughly undermined. These positions were explicitly laid out in a follow up article, “To Work Out a Military Line”
Digging away Maoism
It was argued that, unlike China, there are no warring groups among the rulers in India and the centralised and powerful state is capable of reaching every nook and corner of the country. It stated,, “From our own experiences, we can conclude that unless the state machinery is challenged on a very wide scale, simultaneously from many parts all across India, it is almost impossible to even think of building up liberated areas in one or two or a few pockets here and there.”; “The pivotal question is ....how to force the enemy to disperse his forces and compel him to leave many areas out of his direct control.”
Apparently, this seems to address some real military questions. But the very posing of the issue indicated a line of thinking contrary to the theory of People’s War. Even militarily, the pivotal question in the areawise seizure of power is NOT the dispersal of enemy forces. It is the construction of a red army as the main form of organisation and the piecemeal destruction of the enemy’s armed force. The schematic picture presented by the CRC was like this: first force the enemy to disperse his armed forces by a simultaneous attack all across the country, then concentrate forces to destroy him in a few suitable areas. This scheme denies
the very dynamics of war − preserve oneself by destroying the enemy. When, in keeping with the principles of People’s War, the armed struggle is initiated even before the capacity for a simultaneous attack from many or all parts of the country is attained, it can sustain itself only by pursuing a line of offensive within the strategic defensive. Guerrilla struggle must be developed over larger and larger areas. The masses must be drawn into the war and revolutionary armed forces must be built up. The areas of operation must be transformed into guerrilla zones as a step towards the areawise seizure of power. This is the only way to sustain and advance BECAUSE the dynamics of war is equally valid for the enemy. It cannot (and will not) restrain or limit its armed suppression on the plea that the revolutionary party has not yet launched an offensive to seize power.
Within a specific strategic campaign to seize base areas in suitable regions, tactical diversionary attacks or movements aimed at luring away the enemy or dispersing its concentration in the main point of attack, will have to be carried out. But this is properly part of the overall military plan and its sub-plans. It cannot be the strategic plan for the whole war or for its initiation.
The article negated the view that, “...in an area- however small or isolated it might be- the struggle can be developed to the maximum extent of smashing the enemy power totally and establishing real people’s political power.” It said, “But now, under the present conditions in India, we know that it is practically impossible to build up such areas of people’s power in a few places at one go.” Once again this argument appeared to be a rectification of some real errors in the military thinking of the CPI (ML). And once again, it was picking on real errors to negate its positive aspects − aspects which made Naxalbari possible. This was done by confusing the total destruction of the enemy’s political power with the establishment of stable base areas. It is not only possible but absolutely necessary to totally destroy enemy power locally. In fact this is decisive in the development of People’s War. But, this destruction will lead to the establishment of a base area, only if the revolutionary armed forces are able to expand the zone of guerrilla actions and militarily prevent the enemy’s attempts to restore his power. The party must consistently prepare the grounds by developing and spreading guerrilla struggle. It must evaluate overall conditions and judge the correct time for launching its military campaign to seize base areas. The error of the CPI (ML) leadership lay in its failure to prepare such military plans, due to the strong elements of spontaneity and subjectivism in its military thinking. But it was absolutely correct in insisting on the total destruction of enemy power locally and directing the guerrilla struggle towards the areawise seizure of power.
In the CRC’s scheme, during the first phase, the party must “...consciously delimit the extent of struggle to the level of spreading class struggles including all sorts of mass struggles to wider and wider areas, and developing them to confrontation with the enemy at a lower level.” In this phase it must “... take a decision not to launch offensives aimed at wiping out the enemy forces in any particular area before we reach the stage in which our struggle has spread to a number of points so that the enemy can be kept engaged in all these areas. To repeat, this is a negation of the dynamics of war. It denies the fact that apart from the seizure of base areas, the armed struggle itself can be spread only by repeatedly wiping out the enemy.
The developed form of the CRC’s ‘phase theory’ was an outgrowth of its deviations on the question of political power and its economist line of activity. So, it naturally concluded that in the first phase, “...the main stress must be to build and expand the mass base.” This military line was an inseparable part of the whole package − parallel political power, ‘new’ concept of power, mobilisation of political will, etc. It still claimed that military squads must be built in order to implement the decisions of parallel political power centres and carry out ‘lower level’ confrontation with the enemy, including annihilations. But this ‘armed struggle’ was totally different in content from the People’s War launched by the Naxalbari rebellion which directly addressed the task of areawise seizure of power. It was a reformist concept, a line of ‘armed resistance to gain and defend partial demands’. This line went onto advocate ‘insurrectionary tactics’ in areas where working class masses were the major force. (Such areas included the whole of Keralam!) Of course, it also had some words to refute an outright rejection of People’s War which was advanced by a section who later left the party. They had derived the roots of social fascism in armed struggle carried out by squads without the direct participation of the masses. But this refutation only helped to worsen matters. It said, “Mass struggle cannot develop into military struggle spontaneously because the two are, as forms of struggle, qualitatively different from each other. Special training and organisational forms are needed to develop armed struggle.” The politics of seizure of political power from which armed struggle and its forms of organisation emerge is replaced by ‘special training and organisational forms’. The point that mass struggles cannot develop into military struggles because the latter represents a leap into the ‘highest form of politics’ is covered up with a plea for ‘consciously’ developing mass struggles into armed struggle.
We will end this section by probing the CRC’s concept of base area. The CRC conceived base areas as something permanent, emerging at ‘one go’. Apart from the question of ‘one go’ setting up of base areas, even if they are established through a prolonged struggle, base areas are never considered to be absolute or permanent in the theory of People’s War. During the course of war they can exchange hands a number of times. They may have to be abandoned in the face of attack or for purposes of manoeuvring. Besides, Mao wrote about various types of base areas—stable, relatively stable, temporary and seasonal. Whatever be the type or favourable locations for building them, the crux of the matter is that areawise seizure of power and building up base areas is the essence of People’s War. Politically, the People’s War advances and accelerates the revolutionary situation by expanding Red power in waves. Militarily, without base areas the Red army and guerrilla forces will not be able to sustain the war over a protracted period in the face of enemy encirclement and suppression. The essence of the position which starts by posing the question ‘is it possible to build base areas which cannot be crushed by the enemy?’, is this: negation of the areawise seizure of power and the path of People’s War; considering external conditions such as crisis in the ruling class and overall political situation as the decisive factors in the setting up of base areas; negation of Mao’s line
on accelerating the revolutionary situation by developing People’s War and expanding Red power in waves. If such metaphysical ideas on base areas are not rooted out thoroughly, they can lead to derailment of preparations for war and loss of initiative even if the People’s War has been launched.
Criticisms from the ranks
While the new line was accepted in toto by the all-India leadership, it did not pass unchallenged by the ranks. Important criticisms were put forward in two articles published in the April 1983 issue of Liberation. In his article, ‘For a Scientific Military Line’, Kumar attacked the new line as a deviation denying “...the effort of building up Red areas right from the beginning...” and relegating ‘...the question of building base areas and formation of people’s army to the secondary position.” He criticised any effort to artificially compartmentalise ‘building base areas and forming people’s army’ from ‘taking up the popular demands of the masses and building mass movements’, on the plea of two phases. He stressed “Building of base areas is the pivotal question in any liberation war. Of course we can’t say just now when we shall be able to build our base areas, but the point is that all our military activities have to be concerted towards this direction.”
Examining the experiences of Naxalbari, Srikakulam and Bhojpur, Kumar concluded that though we succeeded in building red areas (“powerful, centralised state machinery notwithstanding”) we could not maintain or develop them. He argued, “One possible answer to this, thought by Comrade Charu Mazumdar, was the spreading of armed struggle over vast areas, thus engaging the enemy forces in several areas which will help to sustain and develop Red areas...For example, we can take the particular case of Sreekakulam. Here we failed to develop the armed struggle over a vast area around it, and hence the enemy forces were able to concentrate their attacks on us. Again in Bhojpur, in comparatively larger areas armed struggle could be launched, but at that time not many armed struggles were going on in the country as a whole. So the enemy was able to concentrate its forces which was more in comparison to our strength. With all seriousness, we should therefore think how to begin our activities over a vast area so that enemy forces can be kept sufficiently engaged , and a red area, whenever(?) built, can be sustained and developed.”
Kumar made a vigorous attempt to resist the tide towards negating People’s War and raised some correct criticisms. But he could not break away from a key pillar of the CRC’s line—the theory of beginning with simultaneous attacks or struggles in order to disperse the enemy. One reason for this was his uncritical attitude on the military thinking of Charu Majumdar. It is true that Charu Majumdar had given the correct orientation of spreading armed struggle. But there was no serious theoretical effort to systematically develop a military plan to achieve this purpose. The failure to separate what was right and what was wrong in the CPI(ML)’s line and practice, hindered Kumar from developing his criticism into a total attack on the CRC line.
The other notable criticism was Iqbal‘s article, “People’s Political Power—A Rightist Danger in Practice.” Iqbal pointed out that the ‘new’ concept of political power negates “...the concept of areawise seizure of power (i.e. of establishing bases—liberated zones—and then widening them)” since armed might itself is considered as a development of mobilisation of people’s political will, “...it is actually given a secondary importance.” He focused on the question of line and pointed out that “...our present line is not at all giving any guarantee” that it will lead to the formation of people’s armed forces. Examining the practice in Keralam, he showed how it is dodging the basic task of building people’s army. He also pointed out that if the new people’s committees are not armed, they will either be crushed or coopted by the enemy as a new tool of oppression. The conclusion was curt, “It is not that we will face such a (rightist) danger in future, rather we have started facing it.”
But this timely warning was not taken up. Soon the fledgling struggle over the military line was swept aside. A two pronged attack on the basic line of the party came to the fore. The central leadership advanced its theory of neo-colonialism and national liberation struggle. Drawing on this to a great extent, the leadership in Keralam developed its theses on ‘limited democracy’. In the following years these positions became the most keenly contested questions, covering up the real issues.
Stepping forward to leap back
During this period the military significance of the multinational character of the Indian state and the absence of a dominant nationality were identified. This was seen as an inherent weakness of the Indian state. The CRC leadership acknowledged that it had earlier overestimated the enemy’s strength. It admitted that this had led to a complacent attitude towards developing armed struggle. This had also indirectly encouraged many rightist tendencies. The revolt of a section of Sikh soldiers in the wake of Operation Blue Star and the Indian state’s political-military compulsions which made it handle the Gorkhaland agitation in a cautious manner, were taken as pointers to the military potential of the national question. It was acknowledged that in situations where nationalist forces were already engaged in armed struggle the party could intervene only by initiating armed struggle on its own. These positions were developed over the period 1984-1987. They were formally sanctioned by the 2nd all-India Conference held in 1987. The Conference also accepted the plan of action proposed by the leadership—initiate armed struggle in Punjab and prepare for initiation in Keralam and Maharashtra within one year. While this appeared to be a forward motion in the military question, it was actually constituted on the foundations of a backward leap to revisionism and liquidationism. The theory of neo-colonialism itself was an attack on the path of People’s War. It reduced the armed agrarian revolution to a task for areas where semi-feudal relations still prevailed. This theory also argued that the trend towards elimination of feudalism by imperialism was dominant even in such regions. Thus it became a ‘passing task’ in comparison to the national liberation struggle. Along with this, the concept of New Democratic Revolution in India as an ensemble of the New Democratic Revolutions of the different oppressed nationalities fractured the path of People’s War into separate People’s Wars with separate People’s Armies. These two positions became the foundations of the CRC’s line after the 1985 Plenum and were enshrined in its ‘Strategic Line’ adopted in the 1987 Conference.
Immediately following the Conference, a sharp struggle took place over the military line. The first draft ‘On Military Line’, submitted for discussion in early 1988, basically represented an attempt to polish up earlier positions on political power and military line in keeping with the new political line. In view of the self- criticism on the error of overestimation of enemy strength, ‘the two phase theory’ could not be repeated in the same form. But the revisionist content of the new political line amply made up for this hindrance. The ‘phase theory’ was developed into an even more explicit rejection of People’s War.
The draft argued, ‘...guerrilla war assumes strategic position in the whole strategy of People’s War in national liberation struggle.”; but “The old idea of liberating countryside and encircling the cities cannot be applied in the same manner, in the context of national liberation struggle. The ‘70 line approach was based on feudal class contradictions in the countryside. It is true that such class relations still exist in many areas. But in many other areas changes in class relations have created new problems. Changes in the old type of feudal relations have not reduced the revolutionary potential of the peasant masses; rather it has assumed new dimensions. In all the areas where Green Revolution and similar policies have been implemented, leading to changes in the class relations, peasant masses are revolting en masse against the state. These peasant upsurges can be channelised into national liberation struggles, as the peasant question in this form develops closely related to the national struggle. In this way, the countryside again becomes the base areas of national liberation struggles. But this will be different from the old type of base areas formed by liberating the villages one by one from the clutches of local landlords. Even in the areas where influence of old types of feudal relations are still prevalent, struggle against local landlords and their defeat will not lead into the formation of liberated areas, as the state machinery is existing above these local ruling class ... Armed struggle will have to be linked up with political mobilisation at the national level ...under such conditions, concentrating in any selected area will not be advisable...”. Then, without the slightest blush, the draft went on to say; “...comrade Charu Mazumdar had pointed out that we must concentrate in plains as the vast majority of people live there. In the Indian context this approach is more applicable, especially when the people as a whole in each nationality have to be mobilised in favour of national liberation. “!
The distortions are only too evident. Yet it is useful to list them out to get a deeper grasp of revisionist subterfuges and the leap from bad to worse. First of all, acknowledgement of the ‘revolutionary potential’ of the peasant masses is really a denial of their role as motive force of New Democratic Revolution. If agrarian relations have changed, then this role no longer exits. Their ‘revolutionary potential’ has been reduced. Though this document spoke about a new dimension and hinted at applying the path of encircling the cities from the countryside in a new manner, it reduced the role of the peasantry to one of massive numbers. This was covered up by the exaggerated and subjective characterisation of broad peasant agitation as en masse ‘revolts’ against the state. The implication was that they were dealing with the issue of political power when in fact they were nothing more than struggles for economic demands. This in turn was used to cut away the concept of base areas from the seizure of power. In this way it becomes nothing more than an extended area of activity. Finally with its talk of mobilising the people ‘as a whole’ and distorting Charu Mazumdar, the military line is firmly pushed in the direction of the insurrectionary path. The subterfuge continues. The document claimed that it was applying People’s War in ‘our concrete conditions’ and declares that guerrilla war ‘assumes strategic position’. And, just in case the hint was not taken, it said, “...armed struggle can be launched anywhere within the national formation, only after completing political mobilisation at the national level as a whole.”
The concept of ‘parallel power’ was also pushed ahead. The draft repeated the earlier argument on ‘local political power’ as the sole guarantee against capitalist restoration. But, in place of the earlier formulation, ‘establishing power at the local level’, it now spoke about ‘transferring political power to the people at the local level’. This seemingly innocent change in formulation signified a shift from petty bourgeois day dreaming to hard headed bourgeois politics. The draft explained, “...under the context of national liberation struggle, building up local power centres of the people assumes another dimension. An essential aspect of national liberation struggle is the process of a people identifying themselves as a historical entity and realising it in the form of seizing political power at the national level. A people of a nation can conceive of their political power only at the national level. It is through the consolidation of this political power at the national level that they emerge as a people. Hence the realisation of political power at the local level can be conceived only within the framework of political power at the national level.”
Earlier we had discussed how the concept of decentralising political power leads to a negation of the class content of state power. At that point the CRC’s views on political power as a local entity represented petty bourgeois subjectivism. After the leap to bourgeois nationalism and in order to fortify this ideology, it is declared that political power can be conceived only at the ‘national’ level. That is, as a centralised entity. The implication of negating the class content of state power is now spelt out with ideas on ‘national’ level political power representing the ‘whole people’. This idea is identical to the bourgeois claim that their state represents the interests of the whole nation and not that of their class alone.
At this point let us examine how the ‘areawise seizure of power’ differs fundamentally from this position, not only from the angle of war strategy but also from that of political content. According to the concept of ‘national level’ power the decisive aspect is ‘emergence as a people’. That is, the formation of a nation state through exercising the right of self-determination. The social component of New Democratic Revolution, overturning all imperialist, bureaucrat capitalist, feudal relations of exploitation and oppression, is no longer decisive. Some aspects maybe included; to the extent that they serve the formation of a nation state. The extent and nature of ‘transfer’ of power to the ‘people at the local level’ will also be defined by the ‘framework of political power at the national level’. Since ‘frameworks of power’ are decided by class interests, this means ‘local‘ power will be nothing more than Panchayats. As proved by world experience, this petty bourgeois/national bourgeois state (to present it in the best possible light) will in no time sink in stormy imperialist waters. It will not be able to unleash the revolutionary energy of the basic masses. All remaining illusions about ’local power’ will be rudely ended. To sum up, this ‘national’ agenda not only denies the right of the masses to rule, it is also a recipe for national capitulation.
In contrast to this, areawise seizure of power serves the strategic aim of seizing countrywide power for the proletariat and its allied classes, as part of the world proletarian revolution. It initiates the fulfilment of this strategic task, by uprooting the old power at the bottommost level itself; by overturning all social, economic and political relations underpinning this power. Through such destruction it plants the seeds of a new state and society. This is done by drawing in the basic masses at the local level itself. They get trained in exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat, defending it and continuing the revolutionisation of all spheres of life. Thus, political mobilisation of all revolutionary masses and patriots throughout the country is spurred on. The revolutionary situation is accelerated into a revolutionary crisis. The basis for a new self-reliant society with a revolutionary people who dare to take on their internal and external enemies is laid down.
‘Left’ nationalism and People’s War
The draft ‘On Military Line’ kicked off a sharp struggle in the CRC central leadership. It was led by those who had already started to question the earlier positions on political power and the ‘two phase theory’. An attempt to study Charu Mazumdar’s writings, Mao Tsetung’s military writings, and PCP documents and learn from the experiences of armed struggles in India, helped to sharpen up their positions. Through struggle they were able to muster a majority in the all-India Leading Committee and the draft document ‘On Military Line’ was rejected. An alternate draft, ‘On Developing a Military line’ was submitted. This draft was adopted in 1988 with some amendments. They were quite significant. But this was hardly the reason for its failure to make any noticeable change in the CRC’s practice. An analysis of the original version and the amended one will show us why.
The alternate draft tried to differentiate itself from the rejected one by stressing the following points—Once the political line is settled the next crucial task is the formulation of the military line. The main component of this must be a strategic military plan. To make military line principal, all mass work must be carried out as preparation for People’s War. Mao’s analysis of revolutionary situation is not negated by neo-colonial transformation. The notion that nation-wide intensification of the national contradiction must be a precondition for initiating armed struggle is wrong. Such intensification will come about only through the successful advance of People’s War. The preconditions for initiation were put like this: political and organisational preparation of the party to take up armed struggle; making initiation and development of war the centre of gravity of the party; preparing a strategic military plan; building up mass base according to this plan; propaganda and struggle to propagate on a broad scale the necessity of waging national liberation struggle. The new draft criticised the ‘phase theory’ for failing to grasp the dynamics of war. It declared that once the armed struggle is initiated it must be resolutely advanced. The importance of selecting appropriate regions for initiating the war was stressed in view of the strategic task of building base areas. Building guerrilla zones and establishing base areas were upheld as the most crucial aspect distinguishing proletarian military science from petty bourgeois guerrilla activity. It insisted that the army is the chief component of the state. Hence it should be led by the party and moulded as a proletarian organisation serving the task of establishing a New Democratic state as part of the world revolution.
What is significant is that almost all these positions were continued in the amended version. The important differences were as follows: 1) The original version said, “…initiation of armed struggle in a specific nationality should be done on the basis of evaluating the revolutionary situation, of which the intensity of the national question is an important aspect (though not the only aspect and in some conditions - in semi-feudal areas where national formations have not yet emerged - even a minor aspect)” The amended version said, ‘...to correctly determine the nature and intensity of the revolutionary situation in the different national formations in specific junctures, it must be analysed mainly in relation to the contradiction between imperialism and the central state on the one hand and the people of the respective nationalities on the other hand.” Further on it said, “…in regions where national formations are still in the making and where semi-feudal relations still dominate, the dynamics of revolutionary situation will have its own specificities ... armed struggle has been going on continuously in these areas, mainly fuelled by the intense contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses. But since these struggles are linked to the anti-feudal aspect ... they are not crossing the boundaries of armed economism ... (T)he national question ... must be consciously linked up to the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle and the armed struggle should be waged centred on the slogan of national liberation.” ; 2) The order of preconditions for initiation was reversed. The first one became, “Carry out political mobilisation with the aim of rousing the national consciousness of the people and making them aware of the need to wage national liberation struggle.” It was explained that, “This specific situation (i.e. the inherent weakness of the Indian state due to national contradictions) existing in India brings forward the task of broad political mobilisation to rouse national consciousness ... as a means of developing the revolutionary situation and preparing grounds for launching armed struggle ... It is meant to rally the people of a nation to the cause of waging a national liberation war to assert their right of self-determination...“
The changes were no doubt significant. The intensification of the national question became the main criterion for judging the revolutionary situation. Further, it was accepted that the revolutionary situation could be developed through broad political mobilisation also. But, more than these differences, what should be noticed is the common ideological-political positions shared by the original version with the amended version and with the rejected draft ‘On Military Line’. This was the ideological -political position of conceiving the New Democratic Revolution in India as an ensemble of New Democratic Revolutions, of claiming that ‘the struggle for self determination under the leadership of the proletariat, in the form of national liberation struggle becomes the specific form of New Democratic Revolution in India’, of arguing that changes in class relations due to neo-colonialism are making the “...approach of concentrating in areas where feudal exploitation is intense ... as a way to initiate armed struggle ... more and more irre1evant.” In short, the basis of both the lines was the ideological-political line of the CRC. The alternate draft was nothing more than an attempt to give a ‘left’ interpretation of this line. It represented a fundamentally flawed grasp of People’s War. The new military line document had made a big deal of defending Mao’s analysis of revolutionary situation. This was done to refute the idea of carrying out nation-wide mobilisation of the people as a precondition for initiation. But the two ingredients of right of self-determination as the specific form of New Democratic Revolution and neo-colonialism made this defence meaningless. Mao had analysed the objective conditions in a country dominated by imperialism. He pointed out how imperialism, bureaucrat capitalism and feudalism were intensifying contradictions continuously. This is the objective basis of the ‘continuous revolutionary situation’. Because of this there will always be regions where contradictions are relatively more sharpened. There will be sections of the basic masses whose only hope is revolution. This is why it is necessary and correct to initiate People’s War in such areas without waiting for a nation-wide revolutionary situation or nation-wide mobilisation of the people. The objective situation which allows this war is given by the sharp social and national contradictions created by the exploitation and oppression of imperialism, bureaucrat capitalism and feudalism—the three mountains weighing down on the backs of the masses. When the revolutionary resolution of these contradictions through a New Democratic Revolution is replaced by a struggle for right of self-determination, when the question of feudal exploitation and oppression (of armed agrarian revolution) is considered to be ‘more and more irrelevant’, no amount of ‘defending’ Mao’s theses on revolutionary situation will be of help.
The ‘national blind spot’ of the new military line forced it to be vague and eclectic on the issue of where the party should concentrate to initiate the People’s War. It said, “The initiation of armed struggle should be seen not just in relation to the presence of an area of intense contradictions but in the context of the nation-wide situation. On the other hand.., the revolutionary situation will always be uneven and so waiting for a nation-wide revolutionary situation... is wrong…” Though it spoke about studying the objective situation, geographical conditions, enemy’s deployment etc., its ‘neo-colonial’ blinkers and nationalist prejudice prevented it from analysing this in political terms, i.e. in terms of contradictions. Hence it could not really deal with it in military terms. This shared prejudice easily gave the rejected line sufficient cover. Actually the rejected line was inherently more consistent. Its content was more in tune with the bourgeois content of the political-ideological line. On the other hand, the new military line was floundering in an eclectic mix of Mao and nationalism.
This eclecticism is also seen in its argument on making war the centre of gravity and carrying out all mass work as preparation for initiating People’s War. It said, “...the role of mass organisation and mass struggle in preparing for war cannot be seen only as political mobilisation of the masses in favour of armed struggle. They will have a military aspect ... keeping with the military strategy and tactics... (T)he question of selecting different sectors … for concentrating our efforts, or of selecting different regions to do this have to be handled keeping in view the military aspect also, apart from the general political aspects.
Let us remember that this line emerged from a rejection of the political will/military might dualist concept of political power and the ‘phase theory of People’s War’. Yet it was still incapable of breaking away from the metaphysical separation of political activity and military activity. It was still incapable of taking a firm stand on making preparations principal. The clue lies in the formulation “apart from general political aspects.” This arose from the idea that the national contradiction is THE contradiction; it operates at a national level; it creates new opportunities for broad political mobilisation. It also arose from the idea that neo-colonialism is transforming and eliminating feudalism and is creating a “relatively integrated economy”. The new type of broad peasant struggles was taken as sign of this. Thus, the ideological-political line reintroduced politics/military dualism even while it was formally rejected in the form of a political will/armed might dualist concept of political power. Despite ‘defending’ Mao, it could not drive home the point that in a New Democratic revolution, making war is the main form of mass political activity and that the whole party should be oriented to People’s War.
The theory of People’s War is a continuation of proletarian politics. It is a continuation of the politics of “violently overthrowing all existing social relations” and building a new world. If this politics is removed, then one will only have the dead shell of People’s War. Beneath this any petty bourgeois or bourgeois insect can live on securely. This is what happened with the new military line. Its vision was restricted to the nation. Grand visions of “rural armed upsurges” modelled on the national struggles of Punjab, Kashmir and Assam and broad peasant agitation was an inevitable part of this line. Its restricted vision prevented it from deeply probing into the relation between the class interests leading these struggles and their capacity for broad mobilisation of people in the initial stages itself. The only difference it could make was to argue for preparing such upsurges consciously.
The pitfalls of its nationalist vision were further seen in ruling out civil war. It stated, “Since the contradiction with the Central state and imperialism is principal, and since intervention by the Centre will bring out national oppression more openly, the People’s War will mainly be a national war, regardless of the direct aggression of imperialism. Though internal class struggle will be there.., this cannot be taken as civil war since the army and armed forces we face from the very beginning will be controlled by the Central state.” Whether we ‘take it’ as civil war or not is basically a matter of whether we stand for overturning all the dominant relations of exploitation and oppression. As Lenin said, “In politics, too, it is possible to restrict oneself to minor matters and it is possible to go deeper, to the very, foundations. ‘Marxism recognises a class struggle as fully developed... only if it does not merely embrace politics but takes in the most significant thing in politics—the organisation of state power.“ (meaning revolutionary seizure of power) If the war is to be waged principally for the right of self-determination, then ‘class struggle’ will necessarily be restricted by the political compulsions of this strategic aim. We will not be able to go all out to overthrow the dominant exploiters and mobilise the masses on that basis. Moreover, the new military line ignored the fact that the dominant local (‘national’) exploiters were very much a part of the ruling classes and the Central state. This is not to deny the national contradictions existing in India. We definitely do have the possibility to turn national sentiments in favour of the New Democratic Revolution in a situation of widespread suppression by the Central armed forces.(Most usually the forces used for this comprise of troops from other nationalities.) But this has never taken place in a linear manner. It will not take place in this manner. This possibility will emerge as a favourable political factor only through the further intensification of class polarisation achieved by means of civil war. As experience shows, the dominant local exploiters will use their roots in the nation as a powerful weapon to isolate and attack the revolutionary party as disrupters of ‘national development’. The ‘national banner’ will itself be fought over. And the issue will be ultimately clinched by the development of the revolutionary civil war. Because, this alone will pose the issue of national liberation on a revolutionary basis as part of the tasks of New Democratic Revolution.
Finally, despite its criticism of the ‘phase theory of People’s War’ this line did not critically sum up the whole package. It also accepted the theses of parallel political power as the form of power in the initial stages of the war.
We have devoted much time to a critical examination of this military line precisely because of its ‘left’ism. This illusion of being ‘left’ was the main obstacle preventing a sharp polarisation and line struggle within the CRC central leadership. Its influence lingered on for quite sometime, even after the liquidation of the CRC,CPI(ML) and the rejection of many of its blatantly anti-Marxist positions. But, if so much time has been devoted here for this line, the CRC hardly devoted any effort to practice it. The brief period of its formal dominance was also the period during which the motion towards explicit bourgeois nationalist positions and practice became intense. By the end of 1989 itself the majority of the central leadership had started ‘re-examining’ this military line. The adoption of the document ‘On Proletarian Democracy’ delivered the final blow.
Towards removing inconsistencies
Following the adoption of this document, the CRC leadership prepared yet another draft document ‘On Military Line’. Most of the earlier positions not totally consistent with the bourgeois political line were ironed out. Based on the bourgeois stand of rejecting the dictatorship of the proletariat, it openly attacked the theory and practice of People’s War. It said, “So far, discussion on military line has been mainly centred around the theory and practice of People’s War, developed by Mao based on his famous dictum that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. This very concept was emanating from the concept and practice of party dictatorship implemented in the name of proletarian dictatorship since the October revolution of 1917. The political power is considered as a centralised entity in the form of the proletarian state, the main pillar of which is the army...” Of course, it did not reject armed struggle! But this was to be a struggle to “...smash the existing state structure...” And, for this limited purpose it accepted that this “...can be fulfilled only under the centralised leadership of the party and the army under it. So the task of developing the military line remained as important as earlier.” Along with this ‘important as ever’ sweet talk, the grounds for exploring the possibilities of peaceful transformation were also prepared. It was argued that, neo-colonialism replacing direct imperialist military control with economic-political domination, “...coupled with the widening democratisation process all over the world, has significantly strengthened the role of global public opinion....Even the most powerful super power is not in a position to arbitrarily assert its will, using its military might over a small country disregarding global public opinion.” (This was written during the Gulf war period!) To clear up all doubts about what is meant by smashing the state structure it said, “Political mobilisation of the broad masses can lead to conditions of insurrection even in Third world countries. Even such an insurrection can smash the existing state, as was seen in the case of the Iranian revolution of 1979.” On the United Front it said, “It is through this organ (UF) that the political will of the people is being consolidated. This consolidation is aimed not simply for seizing power, rather for advancing it as the real power of the proletariat. “ This separation of seizing power, i.e., smashing the existing state, from ‘advancing real power’, was already contained in the ‘new concept of political power’ (see p.9 of this article). Now it fulfils its legitimate role, freed from all ‘dogmatism’. The task is to smash the state structure, not the state. Therefore, ‘simply’ smashing the state will not do. It must be ‘smashed’ to the extent of replacing control by the Centre with that of the nation state. The military activities and organisations necessary for this become nothing more than tools of pressure tactics. The party must be able to switch them on and off depending on the needs of ‘political mobilisation’. “The party must have two wings... an (open) wing...and a separate military wing... This organisation will be completely under the party leadership, but it will be able to operate claiming to be an independent organisation.” After having said all this it did not forget to add, “Basically (this military strategy)... is the strategy of People’s War applied in our developing situations(sic).”!
‘Our situations’ were certainly ‘developing’. By the end of the year the CRC,CPI(ML) was liquidated. All the ‘burdens’ of Marxism were unloaded. Soon enough, any idea of using armed activities even as a bargaining chip became a hindrance. The theory of ‘non-class aspects of democracy’ came to the rescue. And the hitherto ‘unrecognised’ potential of parliamentary elections for ‘broad political mobilisation’ was finally discovered. Ultimately the author of this line, K.Venu, ended up as a Congress supported candidate in the 1996 State Assembly elections—politically mobilised to serve the Indian ruling classes.
Some lessons for the future
One important lesson of this review is the indivisibility of proletarian ideology. That is, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism cannot be applied in bits and pieces. The class content of this ideology, its universal principles, must guide each and every aspect of the party’s line, policies, organisation and practice. The moment this is violated and alien ideologies are imported, the party enters the danger zone of changing its colour. This is what happened with the CRC,CPI(ML). In the name of tackling ‘new questions’ and breaking away from ‘dogmatism’, it opened itself up to petty bourgeois, bourgeois ideological currents. Once these ideologies became implanted in the line of the party, they spread like a virus and, one after the other, all aspects of line, policy, organisation and practice got corrupted. First, it was a matter of ‘applying Marxism in specific conditions’. Then, it became one of ‘solving the new questions of political power’. This ‘concern’ lead to ‘fresh thinking on military line’. Finally, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism was itself rejected as ‘fundamentalism’.
Another important lesson is this. If a deviation is left not rectified it will generate conditions for its growth into a wrong line. It will do this by moulding the thinking of the leaders and cadres in its own image. We have discussed the differences and struggles within the CRC, CPI(ML) in the preceding sections. We also saw how this opposition not only failed, but also ended up as fuel for the wrong line itself. This happened because there were a lot of common views shared by the contending ideas. At first, in the form of’left’ and right spontaneity. Later, in the form of ‘left’ and right nationalism. Despite all its eclecticism, a wrong line has its logic and dynamics. It will incessantly push the party away from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The obvious divergence from Marxist-Leninist-Maoist positions will no longer seem to be so. Large sections within the party may not feel comfortable with such divergence. But their ideological alertness is already dulled by liberal thinking — ’well, they do have a point which must also be considered’. More ground is yielded to the wrong line. Ultimately, the struggle against the wrong line flounders within the ideological, political boundaries set up by that line itself, causing demoralisation.
Finally, the most important lesson is this. No matter how high the heap of garbage, it can always be dug away. Provided, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is firmly grasped and wielded with determination to make a total rupture.
________________

A CRITIQUE OF THE CRC, CPI (M-L) LINE

April, 1997

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The CRC, CPI (M-L) had the distinction of being formed by Marxist - Leninist forces who took a firm stand against the capitalist roaders’ counter revolutionary coup in China and Hoxaite revisionism. It played an important role within and outside India in the struggle to defend Marxism - Leninism - Mao Tsetung Thought and resisted centrist trends. Thus it contributed to the regrouping of Marxist - Leninists at the international level and in the formation of the Revolutionary internationalist Movement (RIM). The CRC, CPI (M-L) also did much to raise the crucial importance of taking up issues like the national, caste and women’s questions and grasping the nature of transformations taking place in the socio-economy. Yet, none of this led to the development of a revolutionary line or practice.
1.2. Years of rightist tendencies in the leadership finally shaped up into outright revisionism and liquidationism. The 1985 All India Plenum of the CRC, CPI(ML) adopted a line which characterised the path of Indian revolution as an ensemble of New Democratic Revolutions of all the nationalities in India. This was confirmed and developed by its All India Conference held in 1987. This line speeded up the degeneration of the organisation. In 1990, the CRC, CPI(ML) leadership adopted the document, ‘On Proletarian Democracy’ which attacked the fundamentals of Marxism while pretending to uphold them. Within a year after this the party itself was formally liquidated through a decision of its leading body and national parties were formed. Though a minority within the leading body and some cadres at the lower levels of the organisation tried to put up resistance, the continuing influence of liberalism and revisionism prevented them from breaking away at that time itself. The liquidators led by K.Venu went on to openly attack the fundamentals of Marxism and soon joined bourgeois politics. In this situation the remaining revolutionary cadres in Keralam and Maharashtra took up the task of rupturing from the revisionist heritage of the CRC, CPI(ML) and retrieving whatever was of value on the basis of a better grasp of Marxist ideology and practice. This was also a process of struggling to deepen their own self-criticism and getting rid of a lot of old rubbish.
1.3. The struggle to accomplish this task was greatly aided by close ties with the RIM, experiences of the People’s War led by the Communist Party of Peru and in particular by the ideological struggle which led to the RIM’s formal adoption of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its ideology.
1.4 The formation of the Maoist Unity Centre, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) marks a decisive leap in this struggle. This document puts forward its preliminary critical conclusions on the CRC, CPI(ML) line, which will be further deepened through the struggle to unite and reorganise the CPI(ML) on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and revolutionary practice.
2. IDEOLOGICAL STAND
2.1. Though the CRC, CPI(ML) played an important role in defending Marxism_Leninism- Mao Tsetung Thought, the tendency of the leadership to deny the universality of this ideology was present from the very beginning. Instead of applying proletarian ideology while taking up the analysis of particularities, its tendency was to seek for answers elsewhere with the plea that they have not been dealt with by the leaders of the proletariat. This inevitably led to liberalism in ideological questions even while the party was formally opposing it. New things and knowledge are constantly emerging in this world. The proletariat must grapple with them and continuously develop its ideology and practice. But it cannot ignore the fact that all of these new things have a class character. So the vanguard party should analyse them from its own class stand point and outlook. It should carry out synthesis on the basis of the fundamentals of its ideology. Otherwise it will become eclectic and liberal in its ideological approach, opening the door to revisionism.
2.2. The dialectic of theory and practice in the development of knowledge is a well established principle of Marxism. But this principle was progressively abandoned by the CRC, CPI(ML) leadership. So its theory became sterile, academic and highly idealist. The rank and file faced a crisis in practice while the leadership faced a crisis in theory. Thus two planks were formed. The rank and file practiced in a haphazard manner leading to disillusionment and the leadership ended up rejecting Marxism.
2.3. The CRC, CPI(ML)’s struggle against dogmatism and secretism was carried out on a rightist basis. In the name of rectifying dogmatist approach in mass work, an anti-Leninist economist position was adopted. The line of developing armed struggle for seizing power out of partial mass struggles was enshrined as the essence of mass line. Despite a number of struggles against revisionist lines which openly argued for abandoning the revolutionary path, this rightist basis was never challenged. Hence none of these line struggles helped in building the party ideologically or in developing revolutionary practice. Instead such struggles increasingly became opportunist and degenerated into factional strife and split. Opposition from the rank and file was manipulated or outrightly neglected as per the convenience of the leadership.
2.4. The Naxalbari revolt and the formation of the CPI(ML) took place under the leadership of Com. Charu Mazumdar by establishing Mao Tsetung Thought as a new and higher stage of Marxism - Leninism. Though this ideological advance has generally been upheld by the ML forces in India, centrism and vacillation were widely seen among them at the time of the 1976 capitalist coup in China. In this context also, the negative experience of the CRC, CP1(ML), which had played a decisive role in defending Mao Tsetung Thought at that time, itself raises the task of deepening the struggle to grasp and wield proletarian ideology. Here, the struggle within the RIM on adopting Maoism is of direct relevance. This struggle has arrived at the conclusion that the proletarian ideology should properly be termed as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in order to fully reflect the leap achieved through Mao Tsetung’s teachings. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism clearly puts forth the milestones in the development of this ideology achieved by Marx, Lenin and Mao Tsetung. It shows the continuity as well as the universality of this ideology. Adopting Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not a matter of changing terms but of grasping its universality, particularly of Maoism. The struggle to thoroughly root out the CRC, CPI(ML)’s revisionism and liquidationism must be taken up in relation to the task of establishing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism.
3. CLASS STAND
3.1 The CRC, CPI (ML) drew attention to the importance of grasping philosophy. But its liberalism soon led to treating dialectical materialism merely as a methodology which can equally serve any class. The proletarian bias of this philosophy was in effect denied. Later this developed into the bourgeois theory of ‘non-class aspects’.
3.2 The party’s position on national, caste and women’s questions were all dominated by this theory. Hence its correct initiative in taking up these questions was derailed. They ended up as apologies for abandoning the class stand and denying the principal role of class struggle. Though each of these questions have their own particularities, they are stamped by existing class relations and must be dealt with from the proletarian class standpoint. The vanguard party must identify the most revolutionary sections of society and consciously seek to establish itself amongst them. Instead of this the CRC, CPI(ML) always dealt with the questions of revolution in terms of the ‘people’ and ‘masses’, negating class analysis.
3.3 The theory of ‘non-class aspects’ fully emerged as an attack on fundamental Marxist positions through the document ‘On Proletarian Democracy’. This document put forward the bourgeois theory of denying the class character of democracy. It denied the vanguard role of the party, class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin stated, “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat”. To this Mao Tsetung added as an important instruction and question of theory “Why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? It is essential to get this question clear. Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism”.
4. THE THREE WEAPONS OF REVOLUTION
4.1 Mao Tsetung developed the theory of the three weapons of revolution - party building, army and united front. The party must be built up ideologically, politically and organisationally as the vanguard of revolution amongst the basic classes, through class struggle. The CRC, CPI(ML) never grasped this vital task. It could never really equip the cadres ideologically nor develop a cadre policy. It was left to the cadres to raise their ideological level through their own efforts. The economist approach and ‘non-class aspects’ theory undermined the concept of vanguard party and transformed the organisation into an open one. Later on the nationality based line in effect converted the all-India Party into a coordinating body. It paved the way for its formal dissolution in 1991 and the formation of national parties. Though the workers coming from different nationalities have national characteristics they are all part of a single, all India multinational proletariat. The all-India party should represent the immediate and long term class interests of this class. This is the only way it can become the vanguard fighter of all the exploited and oppressed in this country.
4.2 Right up to its liquidation in 1991, the CRC, CPI (ML) continued to formally accept the continuous existence of revolutionary situation in oppressed nations as put forward by Mao Tsetung. But it never made any serious attempt to act accordingly. The very role of armed struggle was undermined by its idealist concept of political power. According to this concept, parallel political power could emerge merely through the implementation of an organised decision of the masses. Later on the principles of People’s War such as the key role of establishing red base were denied. A revisionist concept of two phase struggle was propounded. (First a phase of ‘spreading class struggle’ and then a second phase of ‘launching armed struggle to seize power’.) Then an eclectic combination of People’s War and insurrection was put forward as military line. Finally this also was rejected after adopting ‘On Proletarian Democracy’. The liquidationists started to openly call for participating in elections. They attacked the theory of People’s War and slandered it as social fascism.
4.3 The CRC, CPI (ML) position on united front went against Maoism. Its approach was that of issue based united activity. The united front was elevated to the status of the main weapon of revolution. Class collaboration was theorised in the name of uniting with the national bourgeoisie. This revisionist approach was also reflected in its approach to mass organisations. They were projected as independent democratic forums.
5. AGRARIAN REVOLUTION
5.1 The CRC, CPI (ML) had put forward the theory of a neocolonial phase of imperialism. The crux of this theory was that “... during the post- world war II period imperialism wants to limit or transform feudalism in order to integrate the Indian economy with the world imperialist system”, unlike the earlier period when feudalism was the social base of imperialism. This theory undermined the program of agrarian revolution and pushed it into an unimportant position compared to the national struggle,
5.2 According to its theory of neocolonialism the CRC CPI (ML) argued that “In the present neocolonial phase of India, imperialism is the major factor preventing the natural development of productive forces...”. Eversince the start of colonial domination imperialism has been the main force dominating arid determining the extent and nature of development of productive forces. Its exploitation and oppression are mainly concretised in the economy through internal production relations. The anti- imperialist struggle cannot be carried out without taking up the task of destroying these production relations. This is why the anti- feudal struggle is correctly considered as inseparable from the anti- imperialist struggle in the theory of New Democratic Revolution. In the post colonial period semi- feudal relations have been further transformed according to the new needs of imperialism and the all- India savarna compradore - bureaucrat bourgeoisie in some nationalities and regions. In such areas the predominantly feudal mode of exploitation has been transformed into a predominantly capitalist mode of exploitation. But it is distorted and retains features of the past. Moreover the agrarian economy is still predominant.
While it is necessary to break away from dogmatism and investigate the new relations in order to develop a revolutionary line and practice, , this has to be done precisely from the angle of developing the armed agrarian revolution as the main content of New Democratic Revolution.
5.3 The eclectic approach of the CRC, CPI (ML) led it to separate the caste annihilation struggle from the agrarian revolution. The form of feudalism existing in India is savama feudal. So, when the question of transformation in feudal relations is analysed, it must also be analysed in terms of the transformation in savama feudal relations which had enforced a caste based exclusion of Dalits from even land tenancy. Though the CRC, CP1 (ML) accepted that caste is part of the economic base, it never analysed agrarian relations from this angle.
6. NATIONAL QUESTION
6.1 The CRC, CPI (ML) put forward the position that the revolutionary program of the proletariat should be chalked out by taking ‘ national formations’ as the basic unit of analysis. It criticised the CPI and CP1(ML) for failing to do this. The essence of the CRC’s position really meant that nationalities should be taken as the basis of preparing programs. Historically, nationalities have emerged through the destruction and forcible integration of many peoples. Even if the democratic rights of all peoples are accepted, a program formulated on the basis of nationality will inevitably contain the seeds of national chauvinism, in India, for example. the question of why some nationalities (Marathi, Malayalee, Punjabi etc.) are taken as the basis to prepare programs and why not others like the Bhil or Tulu nationalities, can only be answered by pointing out that they are majority nationalities. Thus, such an approach will inevitably lead to basing the revolution on the majority nationalities and open the door to bourgeois nationalism. In order to chalk out its program the vanguard party must analyse the dominant socio-economic structure and identify classes and class relations. In some cases this may correspond to that of a single, dominant nationality. (Czarist Russia and China were examples of this.) But it need not be so in all cases.
6.2. In the case of India, the Indian socio-economic structure which was set up and developed under imperialist control is the dominant one. No revolutionary program can be chalked out if this is ignored. In light of the multinational character of India, the analysis of the Indian socio-economic structure has to be deepened by analysing the national socio-economic relations which give particular form to the class-caste relations existing in the different nationalities. Though the CRC, CPI(ML) took a correct step by recognizing the existence of national socio-economic, its bourgeois, idealist approach led to seeing them in an absolute, isolated manner. Consequently national oppression was seen as something external. The intemalisation of imperialist and all-India ruling class exploitative relations within the national socio-economic as well as their continued subjugation and determination by these relations were ignored. Politically this was reflected in the position of giving first place to the struggle for the right of self-determination and the line of ‘completing the New Democratic Revolution in India as an ensemble of New Democratic Revolutions’.
6.3. Though the national and social tasks of the New Democratic Revolution will have specificities according to the concrete condition in the different nationalities, this does not make them separate revolutions. The oppressed nationalities within India can be liberated only as part of the All-India New Democratic Revolution led by the proletariat. However, such concrete conditions directly touch on vital issues of line such as class-caste relations and the trend of the revolutionary situation. Thus, handling the national question crosses the boundaries of tactics and must be dealt with from the strategic view point. Slogans such as ‘New Democratic Maharashtra’ etc. should be raised keeping the strategic needs of the all-India New Democratic Revolution in mind.
6.4. The CRC, CPI(ML) equated the struggle for right of self-determination with national liberation and distorted Leninist positions. The struggle for self- determination led by the bourgeoisie in oppressed nations usually avoids the question of smashing imperialist domination. The splitting away of an oppressed nation from a multinational country resolves the question of self-determination. But unless imperialist domination is smashed, it will still remain as an oppressed nation. So while the vanguard party should uphold the right of self-determination, including the right of secession, and support the struggles of oppressed peoples against the imposed integration of the Indian state, its tasks is to lead the all-India New Democratic Revolution. This is the only way to smash the yoke of imperialism and the Indian state.

7. CASTE QUESTION
7.1 Caste annihilation is a crucial task of the New Democratic Revolution. The vanguard party should take up this task as a vital part of class struggle. The CRC, CPI(ML) drew attention to the necessity of grasping the laws of motion of the caste system and synthesising the experiences of the anti-Brahminic democratic tradition, particularly the contributions of Dr.B.R. Ambedkar. But its ‘non-class aspects’ theory led to the position that ‘the bonds of caste can stand above those of classes’. It is true that mobilisation on caste issues unites sections from various classes. But even in such cases, this mobilisation does not stand above classes. It is invariably dominated by the interests of one class or the other. Hence the caste annihilation struggle can only be carried out under the leadership of the proletariat which is the only class capable of destroying all forms of domination and exploitation in a thorough manner. The CRC, CP1(ML) ‘s position led to tailing bourgeois, petty bourgeois sections of the oppressed castes, separating caste annihilation from class struggle and ending up as apologists of casteist reformism.
8. WOMEN’S QUESTION
8.1. The CRC, CPI(ML) took up the criticism of the negative approach prevalent in the M-L movement on the women’s question. But it failed to identify and build upon the revolutionary Marxist stand and practice in this regard, particularly the experience of the GPCR. Hence, instead of developing a proletarian line, its position ended up considering oppression of women as something separated from class domination. It abandoned the orientation of ‘unleashing the fury of women as a mighty force of revolution’. The vanguard party must take up the women’s question with this orientation, consciously fight against male chauvinist ideology and promote the ideological emancipation of women. It should primarily aim at taking the revolutionary line to the toiling women.
9. COMMUNAL QUESTION
9.1 The CRC, CPI (ML) correctly exposed the savarna Hindu character of the all-India ruling class and identified this as the very root of the communal question in India. It took a firm stand against the overt and covert promotion of savama Hindu ideology carried out by different sections of the ruling class. Some advance was made in analysing religious fundamentalism in the concrete context of imperialist oppression. But, in this issue also, the ideological deviations of the CRC, CPI (ML) prevented any significant intervention. While fighting against savarna Hindu fascism and communalism and defending the rights of national minorities, it failed to promote militant materialism. Tendencies of ignoring the struggle against minority religious ideologies were nurtured in the name of unity against savama Hindu fascism.
_____

Critique of the CRC, CPI(M L) National Question Positions

(1.1) The CRC national question positions started out mainly from a methodo¬logical criticism of the CPI, CPI(M L) positions on the national question. "The CPI failed to recognise the necessity of taking specific national forma¬tions as units of concrete analysis to formulate programmatic positions. As a result its program based on analysing India as a single national formation always remained abstract..... the CPI(M L) also failed to achieve a break¬through on this question (the right of self determination and secession)...The party failed to recognise and rectify the methodological error... and it continued to take India as the unit of analysis for formulating the program." (, para 7 8, page 7, ’Position Paper on National Question in India’, Mass Line, April 1986)

(1.2) India is not a single national unit. But it is a single socio economic unit. This was a fact during the colonial period and remains so even today. Imperialist domination and the domination of the all India ruling class is primarily a matter of all of India. It is shaped primarily by the whole reality of this country. In other words, accepting the material fact of India as a single unit was not a methodological error. The mistake lay in limiting analysis to this aspect even after it was understood that India is not a single national unit. The CRC extended the analysis to the level of nationalities. But the dynamics of the national socio economies unraveled through such analysis was not synthesised on the basis of the dynamics which primarily determine them, namely that of the Indian socio economy. As a result of this, the fact that relations which concretise national oppression of imperialism and the all India ruling class are internalised within national states was in effect denied. Politically this was reflected through the position of giving first place to the question of self determination and secession instead of to the comprehensive program and practice of New Democratic revolution. Along with recognising the philosophical error contained in not proceeding from analysis to synthesis, we must examine the analytical method employed by the CRC in order to identify its class base.

(2.1) The CRC held that "(the)...absence of any dominant nationality repre¬sented as the Indian nationality and the existence of many distinct and emerg¬ing nationalities are the characteristics of Indian society. These different national formations are to be taken up as socio economic units both for making concrete study through a historical materialist analysis and for chalking out concrete program for revolution." (Position paper, para 8, page 8, ibid.)

(2.2) Is it correct to base the program for revolution on the dominant nation or, in its absence, on 'national formations'? Socio economic structure and national formation are not one and the same thing. India itself is an exam¬ple. In order to chalk out a revolutionary program the dominant socio economic structure (not dominant nation) within a given society must be ana¬lyzed. Because, classes and class struggle within that society are concre¬tised through its relations. In some case, this structure may correspond to that of the dominant nationality. Czarist Russia and China were such exam¬ples. But Lenin and Mao did not formulate revolutionary programs by analys¬ing Russian and Chinese societies because they were the dominant nationali¬ties. They did this because they were the dominant socio economic structures. This method of analysis is a question of principle.

(2.3) Historically, nationalities have emerged through the destruction and forcible integration of many peoples. Even if the democratic rights of all peoples are accepted, a program formulated on the basis of nationality will inevitably contain the seeds of national chauvinism. In India, for example, the question of why some nationalities (Marathi, Malayalee, Punjabi etc.) are taken as the basis to prepare programs and why not others like the Bhil or Tulu nationalities, can only be answered by pointing out that they are majori¬ty nationalities. Thus such an approach will inevitably lead to basing the revolution on the majority nationalities and open the door to bourgeois na¬tionalism. In K. Venu’s theory this is not a problem. In his theory of deve¬lopment of social organisational forms, with its stages of tribe, village and nation, the highest stage of development which can be attained by humankind would be the nation.( ‘Democratic Concepts of a Communist, pp 241 43) Though this bourgeois viewpoint which cannot conceive of anything beyond nations was not presented in a full fledged form within the CRC, one can see that it was the basis of its approach in preparing national programs. The history of each nationality was examined, hurdles in its development identified and the direction and steps required to resolve them and establish a nation state were pointed out.

(3.1) Though the '86 Position Paper speaks about an all India economy ( para 1.2) and it was accepted that national programs should be prepared according to the all India strategic line, the CRC had identified the need for an all India party in the united struggle of different nationalities against the common enemy necessitated by ".... their continued existence for a long period under a single, centralised state giving rise to a single polity at the all India level." ( ‘Strategic Line for New Democratic revolution in India’)

(3.2) Centralised state and polity are aspects of the superstructure. They serve the ruling class, namely the all India savarna compradore bureaucrat bourgeoisie and thus imperialism. This class and the domination of these enemies are concretised through the production relations of the unitary all India economy. So far as the exploited masses throughout India are concerned, this is the material base of not only national oppression but also of all types of oppression and exploitation. Their common political interest in destroying this prepares the material base for their united struggle. The '87 CRC concept on all India party paid nominal attention to this aspect and gave one sided emphasis on the superstructure. Its concept was totally flim¬sy, idealist and contained the seeds of liquidationism. This was the reason why it degenerated into a coordination committee long before its all India body was dissolved.

(4.1) "... the intermingling and coexistence of the working class population from different national formations in metropolitan cities and other industrial centers should be utilised by the all India proletarian party as the solid foundation for building up the unified struggle of the people of different national formations and for laying the basis for the future voluntary unity of the liberated nationalities." (Strategic Line, para 35)

(4.2) Though such statements like ‘all India proletarian party’, ‘proletarian party at the all India level’, were made, the CRC never gave a clear answer to the question of whether the proletariat in India is a single, multinational proletariat or a collection of different, national proletariats. The commu¬nist party should represent the class interests of the proletariat. Hence when the need of an all India party is accepted the structure of this class and its characteristics should be investigated and a clear answer must be given to this question. Why did the CRC evade this? We should examine this question in relation to the criticism raised in section (3.1). When the CRC ac¬cepted that an all India party is necessary, this was not done keeping in mind the class interests of the proletariat. It was done keeping national struggle and its necessities in mind. The main basis of the CRC's all India party concept was bourgeois nationalism. The liquidation of 1991 and the decision to form national parties was the inevitable outcome of this ideology. Though the CRC did not characterise the national struggle as something absolute and termed them as New Democratic revolutions under proletarian leadership this was nothing but a subjective concept without any roots in the material reality of class and society. It was an opportunist position.

(4.3) The proletariat throughout India have emerged from capitalist produc¬tion relations formed and existing under imperialist domination. These rela¬tions are basically and inseparably part of the all India economy. And for this reason itself, the proletariat which is formed by it is a single, all India multinational proletariat. [The intermingling and coexistence (above all class struggle) of the working masses from different nationalities creates a more favourable situation to recognise this objective reality and develop class consciousness.] Sections of the proletariat from different nationali¬ties have national characteristics corresponding to the historical, social and cultural particularities of the respective nationalities. Such particular¬ities which include caste structure, process of class formation and history of class struggle will be reflected in their class consciousness also. But this does not change the material reality that they are part of a single, multina¬tional all India proletariat. The all India party represents the immediate and long term class interests of the all India multinational proletariat. This is the only way it can become the vanguard fighter of all the exploited and oppressed in this country. National tasks should be taken up as an insep¬arable part of the tasks of this class, to serve its class interests and as part of the all India New Democratic revolution.

(5.1) "The New Democratic revolution in India can only be completed as an ensemble of New Democratic revolutions of the various national formations." this was the political essence of the CRC line.

(5.2) In the light of the criticisms given above the opportunism in this position is evident. The CRC was not striving to carry out the New Democratic revolution under proletarian leadership but to carry out the national struggle for the right of self determination including secession. This was the inevi¬table result of its bourgeois nationalism. What about 'ensemble of revolu¬tions'? There is no Indian nationality. But the all India socio economic system, its contradictions and dynamics are real. This material base which raises the immediate tasks of democratic revolution also determines its tar¬gets imperialism, all India savarna compradore bureaucrat bourgeoisie and feudalism. Thus it also points out the sole class which can lead this revolu¬tion, namely the all India multinational proletariat. Since proletarian leadership is an essential condition it is also established that the democrat¬ic revolution can only be carried out as a New Democratic revolution. The contradictions necessitating New Democratic revolution, the all India charac¬ter of its leadership and its targets all of these make it clear that it is a single revolution. Though the national and social tasks of the New Demo¬cratic revolution will acquire specific expressions according to the concrete conditions in the different nationalities and regions due to India's op¬pressed, multinational character, the content will be the same. So the na¬tional question raises the issue of different expressions of a single revolu¬tion and not that of different revolutions.

Conclusions

(1) Conceiving the revolution as a single revolution and preparing program on the basis of the reality which is India is the basically correct approach. This is to be done through a synthesis of the complexities of the Indian situation.

(2) Today, the oppressed nationalities of India are forced to exist under the yoke of the all India savarna compradore bureaucrat bourgeoisie which was created by imperialism. They serve its interests and transform according to its needs. Hence their national and social emancipation is possible only as part of the all India New Democratic revolution led by the all India multina¬tional proletariat. The concrete conditions existing in different national¬ities directly touches on vital issues of line such as class caste relations and the trend of revolutionary situation. Hence handling the national question crosses the boundaries of tactics and must be dealt with from the strategic viewpoint. slogans such as New Democratic Keralam should be raised, grasping the aspect of different expressions of a single revolu¬tion and keeping strategic needs of the all India New Democratic revolution in mind.
_______________________________

STATEMENTS
Let the War Cry of Naxalbari Reverberate Ever More!
Thirty years have passed since the revolutionary call to arms sounded from the village of Naxalbari. Its message was loud and clear -- destroy the reactionary state with the force of arms; build the new state led by the proletariat that alone can guarantee an end to the exploitation and domination suffered by the oppressed masses.
India, after Naxalbari, has never been the same. Whether it be the struggle of Dalits against inhuman caste oppression, the struggle of oppressed nationalities against Indian domination, the struggle of women for emancipation, the struggle in the academic circles for a materialist analysis of society, the struggle in the realm of culture for anti-imperialist, anti-feudal art and literature or the struggle for basic democratic rights, Naxalbari marked a turning point and a brilliant revolutionary inspiration. Indirect at times, but always present despite the bloodbath of the reactionary state. The oppressed had stood up to overturn this world. For the first time led by a conscious grasp of proletarian ideology, concretised in the leadership of com:Charu Mazumdar and the CPI(ML).
Naxalbari hoisted the red flag of Marxism-Leninism-MaoTsetung Thought (today Maoism), the resolute enemy of all sorts of revisionism and centrism that dilute and shackle the revolutionary cause. Naxalbari drew on the advanced lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China led by Mao Tsetung. With this conscious grasp of ideology, the bow twangs of the peasant revolutionaries in Naxalbari reverberated as mighty peals of spring thunder throughout India and even abroad.
Naxalbari firmly declared ‘No, to elections; Yes, to Peoples War’ and broke away from the CPI-CPM parliamentary cretins and class collaborationists. It gained this firmness by breaking away from economism, this thinking which refuses to put the seizure of political power in the center, always chants ‘first land, then power’ and ultimately ends up in the mire of reformism. Naxalbari marked the stage of New Democratic revolution, directed against imperialism, savarna compradore-bureaucrat bourgeoisie and feudalism. Naxalbari laid down the path of Peoples War and the basis of a united front for seizing power through armed agrarian revolution, with worker-peasant unity as its axis. It inspired thousands of youth to go to the villages. Not to follow the Gandhian path of engaging in reformism and shoring up reactionary power, but to integrate with the real toilers of land. To join them in overturning this world of oppression and exploitation. Above all, Naxalbari gave the toiling masses their vanguard party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist).
30 years have passed. 30 more years of imperialist exploitation. 30 more years of the rotten all India ruling class and the wretched parade of its political parties. It is high time to fully reclaim the heritage of Naxalbari. To unite all forces and struggles led by revolutionary Marxist-Leninist parties into a mighty torrent of New Democratic revolution predicted by Naxalbari. To fully realise the immortal words of com:Charu Mazumdar, “Naxalbari has never died, it will never die.” It is time to go all out.

Let the war cry of Naxalbari reverberate ever more--
‘Seize political power through armed agrarian revolution!’
Red salutes to the martyrs of Naxalbari
Red salutes to com:Charu Mazumdar
Unite and reorganise the CPI(ML) on the basis of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

May 23,1997 Central Organising Committee, Maoist Unity Centre, CPI(ML)

URGENT WARNING FOR THE PUBLIC!
Beware!
Parliamentary beasts have been let loose

IF YOU STILL BELIEVE
CRIMINALS, CONMEN, COMMUNALISTS, SEX MANIACS AND PIMPS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE FIT TO RULE

IF YOU STILL BELIEVE
THEIR FLAGS FROM SAFFRON TO RED ARE REALLY DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER

IF YOU STILL DON’T SEE
THE BLOODY INTERESTS OF SAVARNA COMPRADORES, FEUDALS AND IMPERIALISTS HIDING BEHIND THEIR SMILES
YOU
WILL BE THEIR VICTIM

Their parliament is not the seat of democracy. It is an instrument of deception. Together with their army, police, bureaucracy and judiciary, it is part of their state. This state protects the interests of Indian and foriegn oppressors and exploiters. It enforces caste oppression, male domination and national slavery.

IT MUST BE DESTROYED!

BOYCOTT ELECTIONS,
PREPARE FOR PEOPLES WAR!

THIS IS THE ONLY PATH TO LIBERATION. THIS IS THE PATH OF NAXALBARI. POLITICAL POWER GROWS OUT OF THE BARREL OF THE GUN. WE MUST GET READY TO PICK UP THE GUN. THROUGH ARMED AGRARIAN REVOLUTION WE MUST SMASH THEIR HATED STATE, ESTABLISH A NEW DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND MARCH FORWARD TO CLEAR THIS WORLD OF ALL PESTS.
Maoist Unity Centre, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)
February, 1998
BURY THE OLD! BE YOUNG, BE COMMUNIST!
Celebrate 150 years of the ‘Communist Manifesto’
A hundred and fifty years ago, two young men wrote down these sentences, “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to loose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all countries, Unite!” These were the concluding sentences of the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and published in February, 1848.
The Manifesto of the class conscious proletariat scornfully dismissed the bourgeoisie’s pompous claims of having the last word in history. In lucid words it soberly analysed the world transforming scope as well as the rapacious exploitation of the bourgeois epoch. Equipped with the “...advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement”, it brilliantly summed up the lessons of centuries of struggle against oppression and exploitation —“the history of class struggles”. The possibility and task of violently overthrowing old society was placed before the workers. In its thorough materialist analyses, historical depth, radical rupture, revolutionary zeal and prophetic vision of the future, the Communist Manifesto remains an outstanding work combining rigorous scientific analyses with youthful vigour of the new class bounding forward to fulfil its historic mission of ending all exploitation and oppression.
The bourgeoisie has always tried to ‘disprove’ the insuperable message of the Communist Manifesto. On each occasion when the International Communist Movement has been disrupted by revisionism or suffered setbacks, the fair weather friends of revolution have joined their chorus. Today too, there are those who tell the proletariat and the oppressed peoples to forget the Communist Manifesto since it is ‘outmoded’ by more than a century. Outmoded?!. Will anyone among the basic masses in the oppressed countries and the imperialist countries, deny these words of the Communist Manifesto — “...the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it .“ Can anyone seeing the repeated destruction of lives and fruits of labour in trade wars, crisis, and ‘meltdowns’ of ‘modern’ capitalism which boasts of technological leaps, deny that bourgeois “...society...(which)...has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.” If there is anything outmoded it is this wretched system.
Anyone seriously interested in destroying it has no better guide other than the Communist Manifesto, ably developed by the advanced positions of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. In the battlefields of Peru, Nepal, Philippines, India and elsewhere, in the bellies of the imperialist beasts, new generations of Maoist Communists fight on to bury the old. Their needs are as modest as they were 150 years ago — they only want the world.

February 18, 1998

OPPOSE INDIAN EXPANSIONISM’S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS!
The nuclear weapon explosion conducted by the Indian State is a provocative act primarily directed against the peoples of India and neighbouring countries. Though it has been done by the Vajpayee Government it is nothing but a continuation of the nuclear weapon policy followed by successive Indian Governments including the United Front Government. It is meant to terrorise the peoples and force them to go along with the chauvinist, expansionist, Hindu revivalist agenda of the ruling classes. It is also a desperate attempt to cover up the crushing effects of economic recession. Acting as if it were defying discriminatory imperialist nuclear controls and sanctions declared by some powers, the Vajpayee Government is trying to whip up jingoism and use it as a cover to accelerate the sellout to imperialism.
Despite loud talk about standing up against imperialist pressures, it is evident that consolation of imperialist concerns is the main plank of ‘damage control exercise’ being carried out by the government, main opposition parties and big monopolists. Simultaneously they are carrying out a ‘damage exacerbating’ exercise by issuing recklessly provocative threats against Pakistan and China and whipping up war fever.
It may be noted that no less a person than general Sundarji, ex. Army Chief, has gone on record to state that India was in possession of. Chinese territory in 1962 and is still holding its territory. Besides, over the past decade the Indian ruling class has been trying to arrive at an accommodation with the neo-capitalist Chinese regime on the border issue in order to release some of its armed forces and use them against the armed struggles going on in India. Nothing has changed in this regard. What is new is the powerful advance of the Peoples War in Nepal led by the C.P.N. (Maoist). This is a vital threat to Indian expansionism and its imperialist mentors. The deliberate attempt by the Indian Government to heat up Sino-Indian issues is directly related to the armed intervention plans of the Indian State directed against the Peoples War in Nepal. Over the past three years the Indian State has already tried to create a smokescreen for its expansionist intervention in Nepal. Its intelligence agencies have been feeding stories about Chinese military activities in the region and about Pakistani infiltration through Nepal. It has overtly and covertly aided the brutal suppression of the Nepali State and also pressurized it to gain more concessions. The new propaganda about the ‘Chinese threat’ is evidently a part of this expansionist at game. This has precedence. In 1990 Nepal was blockaded by India. And one reason cited was ‘defence concerns’ raised by Chinese activity in Nepal. This arrogant denial of the Sovereign rights of Nepal to decide its on affairs and external relations is symbolic of the ugly nature of Indian expansionism.
Already a large number of intellectuals, democratic and progressive people have condemned India’s nuclear weaponisation programme and Hindu revivalist jingoism. This is a good thing. It must be further strengthened and spread through creating a sharper awareness about Indian expansionism and the war mongering, interventionist nature of the Indian ruling classes.

May21, 1998

Naxalbari No:2

2008-04-18T15:52:00.002+05:30

Naxalbari

Journal of CPI(ML) NAXALBARI

No: 2, JUNE 2003

Contents

The Drama Unfolds page 2
The Fight to Establish Maoism – ajith page 6
Maoist Perspective on People’s War – bhavin page 13

The Drama Unfolds- New World Order 2
Vs
New Wave of World Proletarian Revolution.

The New world Order 2 was offing since mid Nineties. But it got a real push with Bush wrestling his way, through manipulation, to the Presidential Office. The arena left open after the fall of Soviet Social Imperialism was to be grabbed and the US monster put up its stake. Most of the other imperialist forces were swept aside by the swaggering tail of the monster unleashed. As for the crawling insects –the third world regimes- they were left with two choices, either get out of the way or get trampled. Afghanistan, Iraq were crushed. All in a span of 3 years.
The imperialism in its driven by the greed for super profits wants to control everything’s. The markets, natural resources, production, labour power, culture, technology-including what we should think and how we should live, everything, everything under the sun. The self proclaimed policeman of the world-the US- dreams to be the unchallenged emperor of the world. This is the fairy tale version of the US crusade.
The imperialism in its deathbed is becoming vicious day by day. As the keeps growing the competition among the imperialists keeps intensifying. Now there is no room for fair playing sharing the loot US wants to grab the lion’s share, leave the rest for those imperialists who support them. Of course the crumbs are meant for the comprador puppets of the III World. The new world order which started with WTO Globalisation, was supposed to be an open competition among the imperialists to deepen their hold and exploitation of the third world market. The colonisation of Iraq with sheer military strength against a hopeless and extremely weak country with disregard even to their own façade of democratic norms and values-ushers the New World Order-2, the American variety. Henceforth their word will be the final word, their decisions the law, their decree the justice.
Last few months we saw feeble opposition of Franco- German clique, to the US’s Middle East and Gulf oil it means US controls the supply of oil to Europe. It also means end of their stakes in Iraq and Gulf. Yet they could not dare flex their muscles. Because, America is far, far more powerful than the entire imperialist lot who opposed the Iraq War. America’s capability to deploy huge number of troops along with tanks and heavy armaments in short notice anywhere in the world, there technical superiority in air and missile strike, advanced technology, strong defensive mechanism to thwart any challenges and to mention their huge nuclear arsenal, backed by evergrowing extraordinarily high defence beget-makes them highly invincible in conventional warfare. Infact Russia, France Germany unashamedly expressed their inner feeling-that in event of war with Iraq-US must win. This meek submission to US established the dialectical nature of imperialist contradiction ,collusion and contention. It also explains why the British ruling class is stooping so low. Blair is reduced to the level of mere member of Bush cabinet.
UN- the instrument and the democratic mask of the imperialists has out grown its utility in the present world order. It could not stop US aggression of Afghanistan and Iraq. It has now legitimised US colonisation of Iraq. Iran, Korea, Syria are in firing line of US. US senate has approved an increase in budget by 50 billion dollars for the next year. Top US officials do not shy away in boasting US fighting capacity at various war fronts throughout the world simultaneously. ‘Imperialism means war’- Lenin said, and they can’t do away with it. The entire imperialist empire of hegemony and domination, their edifice of loot and exploitation, is based on their armed strength. Nine of the other imperialists have political and economic hold over the III world countries as strong as America. All these together puts America way ahead of the rest combined. Hence they are dictating terms. They have asked Mushraff and Vajpayee to settle differences and they are abiding like obedient servants. LTTE has bowed down and agreed for talks principally due to pressure from US. This is just the start of the New World order2.
America knew it very well that its aggression is bound to meet with stiff resistance. But then, imperialism is known to lift the biggest rock to drop it on its own feet. Their arrogance has added fuel to the fire, and this fire is going to take the form of a prairie fire, which Mao has often talked about. In past 10 months we have seen the growth of ‘hate US imperialism’ wave. Crores of people from all walks of life have protested against US terrorism. On Feb. 15th alone more than 1.5 crore took to the streets in various cities throughout the world. This is unprecedented in history. Even in the turbulent 60’s we didn’t see such an Anti-war. US outrage. The puppet regimes of US too have found it difficult to openly support US and they had to circumvent ways to indirectly support US; succumbing to the people’s pressure and probable loss of face. The die hard rightists, RSS, who had in the 60’s demonstrated in support of US war in Vietnam, had to keep their excitement in control. Though Togadia made a comment in calling this war as a just war on communial lines, he had to retract from his position as soon as the entire Sangh Parivar washed their hands off, by saying it was his personal opinion. The entire reactionary press too was solent in showing any indication of support to this war overtly. In fact since Afganistan war the press is forced to write about US highhandedness, their human rights violation records, their rule through arm-twisting and greater details of how Osama and Saddam were their own creation. The globalised world of hitech communication had made it easier for people in far off places to communicate their voice of dissent. All this favours greatly the emerging new wave of World Proletarian Revolution. It has been taking shape in the form of various, armed and unarmed, people’s resistances and struggles throughout the world. Every WTO meet since Seatle has witnessed higher and higher resistance, so much so that even recently, in Evian and Geneva, the authorities had to open fire at the protestors and resort to ruthless lathi charge.
Similarly each country has witnessed growing dissent and instability, with the basic needs of jobs, food, shelter, healthcare, water, clean environment slipping away from the millions of toiling masses. Peoples’ discontent is getting organised and expressed through various forms of struggles, like nationality, ethnic, caste, race or religion and are refusing to die out easily. Though most of these struggles are led by chauvinists and rightists and directly or indirectly become the pawn in the imperialist and reactionary game plan-yet it has brought forward to the masses the necessity to raise arms. We know very well that the leadership of these struggles are surely going to ditch the masses, but as the revolutionary option will come forth, glaringly polarisation will take place and the masses will choose the right path.
The much political stability for the imperialist and the reactionaries is getting far from their reach. The people of Iraq have already started their resistance against US occupation. While Palestine, the bone in US throat, just refuses to be cowed down; even in an extreme repressive situation where unarmed women and children are facing an advanced and vicious Isreali military.
In this situation of chaos we see 3 specific anti-imperialist trends developing. One, of Ngo’s, Socialists Democrats, Liberals, Greens, Humanists etc., getting organised as World Social Forum. Its Asian chapter was very consciously held in Hyderabad recently. They are the one who are playing the lead role in organising the anti-globalisation struggles and demonstrating in front of every WTO meet, throughout the world. But that is the extend they can go, peaceful demonstration, voluntary boycotts, social empowerment programmes, alternative technologies, etc, programmes funded by the imperialist institutions. They oppose armed struggle and expect Gandhian from of struggles to be the weapon of the masses to fight the bloodthirsty monsters and their conscience-less local reactionary puppets, their terror machinery, their draconian laws. They are cherishing impossible dreams that with people boycott of MNC products alone, they can run the gaint multinationals ‘out of business’. These day dreams are intoxicants in progressive wrappings and in more than one way it helps the imperialists and their rivalry. Already a new trend backed by French and Germans are making rounds that there are good MNCs-with intentions of uplifting the poverty levels, are environment friendly and more humans-and there are bad MNCs swindlers exploiters, environmental abusers (like Enrons, Monsanto-of course all American MNCs). They are also developing their theories. Presently there is a talk about emergence of another superpower challenging the US superpower and that is-voice of the people of the world. This is a perverted version of the strength of the masses. They provide illusions of power called ‘empowerment’ and never speak of real political power to the masses. They oppose all kinds of violence-reactionary violence as well as violence of the struggling masses. These propagators of peace are in fact delaying the total onslaught of the masses on this repressive system and thereby serving imperialism But masses will not be cheated for long by these people. The emerging wave will sweep them aside.
The other trend that has developed is that of the Islamists. The radical Islam will be on the rise and more attacks on imperialism is to follow. But the ideology of Islam like any other reactionary ideology serves the ruling class and imperialists. It lacks the capacity to unite the entire masses against the common enemy. In fact they cannot unite their own sects which are diametrically opposed and are killing each other. Most of the Islamist leaders and organisations have been built and nurtured by CIAs like Saddam, Osama, Mullah Omar, etc The Islamic states in Iran under Taliban, and Khomeini, Khatami, Afghanistan under Taliban, and the Arab countries the Kings were and are worst reactionary regimes. The people in Iran are waging fierce struggle against the draconian laws and repression of the theocratic state.
Though Islamist organisations have taken up arms and practice self-sacrifice in the name of fighting for god-‘jihad’ they can’t and will not root out imperialism due to their inherent reactionary class nature. Saddam Hussein who was been looked upon as an anti-imperialist hero, who vowed to die fighting on the Iraqi soil, back stabbed the brave resistance put up by Iraqi people. The leaders, the elite Republican Guard commanders and officers, all sought safe havens for themselves leaving the people in lurch to face the enemy. The political-economical structure of any Islamic state is no different from any other reactionary semi feudal, semi-colonial state. Their jihad is against non-believers of Islam, hence they don’t see any difference between masses and rulers. No wonder they have not been able to punish a single reactionary leader. Their victims throughout the world had been ordinary people.
The third and most important, promising emerging trend is that of the Maoist revolution. In Nepal , Peru, Philippines Turkey, India the Maoist People’s War is advancing and giving a hard time for the imperialist and reactionaries. In a short period of seven years CPN(M) in Nepal could transform the countryside into shining trenches of world revolution. The formation of C0-ordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) is the sign of growing unity and co-ordination among the Maoist Parties to fight the common enemy and advance the revolutionary Peoples War in South Asia. The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), as an embryonic centre of Maoist, synthesizes positive negative experience of the movements and guides the movements through debates on various questions, developing the level and coming to a common understanding. RIM played an important role in establishing Maoism as the third and higher stage of proletarian ideology as a weapon to deal with the neo-revisionists and opportunists. RIM has correctly declared the principal contradiction in the world today is between the imperialist and the oppressed masses and countries and that revolution is the main trend. It aims at forming a communist international of a new type. Efforts of RIM has helped various organisations within it to grasp Maoism and rectify their understanding and line. Formation of new Maoist parties, mCP(Italy), CPN(MLM)(Iran), have strengthened RIM as the leading International Maoist organisation. Recent Congress of MKP {Party of Turkey and North Kurdistan, earlier TKP[ML]} has made thorough summations of 30 years of armed struggle and plans were drawn up to surge ahead based on the advanced experience of Peru/Nepal.
Distinction between genuine revolutionaries and revisionists is getting clearer and polarisation taking place accordingly, with a speeding up of unity process. Firm anti-feudal, anti-imperialist stand, a political programme to root out the reactionary ruling class and destroy its system and establish the new state under the dictatorship of the proletariat and march on by continuing class struggle right up to communism comes from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is the only liberating scientific ideology which can unite the entire toiling masses against the enemy class- it is the only hope of the wretched of the earth.
The drama has begun- The new wave of World Proletarian Revolution is progressing, emerging advanced and scientific as against the New World Order which is the struggle of a dying-decaying imperialist system to survive. Decks are getting cleared for final assault on the Maoists. (Present pressure on Com. Jose Mario Sisson of CCP (Philippines)and threats to CPN(M) are some of the indication.) Maoists are getting ready to defeat it by trying to mobilise the struggling masses throughout the world to unite and get organised under the banner of Maoism. This new wave of World Revolution alone can challenge the new world order. All the tech technological might, and advanced fire power will bite the dust once the masses rise in torrents. China, Vietnam, Korea are the glaring examples in history where peasants and workers under the leadership of Communist Party-armed with Maoist theory of People’ War-could destroy and humiliate the warring imperialists .Saddam’s and Osama’s can’t even think of it. The new wave of World Proletarian Revolution is growing. It is our responsibility to accelerate its pace.
Our responsibility lies principally in advancing the revolutionary process in our country by launching a new wave of People’s War in India much higher than the first wave experienced in the 60s under CM’s leadership. The situation now demands an all out effort to start the destruction of this parasitic repressive state. Fore centuries the masses, burdened by the feudal ruling class and later by imperialist colonisers and comprador bureaucrat capitalist ruling class, are craving to be organised and led scientifically. 56 years of bogus freedom is enough for the masses to realise the futility this system. Only a small section of the educated, job holding urbanites have faith and hope in this decomposed dead corpse which only serves the parasites and maggots.
The ruling classes are visualing this danger. Hence, enactment of POTA, carrying out genocides, false encounters, repressions, malicious campaigns, telling blatant lies and covering up with bogus judicial inquiries-whenever and wherever the people are voicing dissent. Only by uniting our strengths, on correct lines, can we, not only thwart their repression and terror but also give decisive blows to this ailing system.
__________

The Fight to Establish Maoism
ajith

It is now more than 20 years since the Communist Party of Peru adopted Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) and almost 10 years since it was adopted by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM). The initial decade was one of struggle and steady advance within the ranks of the RIM. Following the adoption of MLM by the RIM in 1993, the worldwide struggle to establish it acquired a powerful thrust. Since then, Maoist Parties engaged in People’s War, but outside the ranks of the RIM, have also adopted MLM. This has further sharpened the lines of ideological demarcation and strengthened the struggle to establish Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the commander and guide of the world proletarian revolution. In a related development, the RIM was further strengthened when the Maoist Communist Centre [at present Maoist Communist Centre India (MCCI)], a party with a decades long history of waging People’s War, joined it. The adoption of MLM has further propelled its participant members to make leaps. The most significant among them was the historic initiation of the People’s War in Nepal by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) [CPN (M)] and its rapid advance. New leaps were also seen through the foundation of the Maoist Communist Party, Italy and the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) as well as in the successful 1st Congress of the Maoist Communist Party (of Turkey and North Kurdistan, earlier TKP [ML]), which has made significant progress in the line of the party. The advances made by our party in summing up the past, developing an outline perspective on the military line and tackling the tasks of completing preparations is also a direct product of the struggle to uphold, defend and apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, particularly Maoism.
MLM emerged through struggle and continues to advance through struggle against various rightist trends. In India, the CPI(ML) Red Flag (RF) tried to brand RIM’s position on MLM as Lin Piaoism. Unable to put up any substantial argument, it tried to confuse the issue by raising the false charge that RIM was defining Maoism as the Marxism-Leninism of the new era. The fact is that RIM’s document ‘Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism’ clearly states: “...Lenin described the era in which we live as the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution.” (A World To Win, No: 20, page 6, emphasis added.) This fraudulent attack of the RF was quite in keeping with the fraudulent tactics it employed to justify its slide to parliamentarianism. It will be useful to examine the ideological approach guiding these tactics.
The essence of the tactics employed by the RF consists in pitting the initial positions of the international communist movement (ICM) against its advanced grasp achieved later on. Thus the RF tried to hide its parliamentarist revisionism by taking refuge in one sentence of the 1963 General Line Proposal, which speaks about mastering all forms of struggle. (The explicit stand of this document on the necessity of waging armed struggle to seize political power was conveniently kept aside.) More importantly, the RF went on to reject the clarity achieved later on by the Maoist movement, when it firmly established the path of protracted People’s War (or the Chinese path) as the sole path of revolution in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries. For the RF this was yet another Lin Piaoist sectarian deviation. What we see here is how revisionism handles the development of ideology. It studies the past not to shed light on the present ideological tasks, but to negate the advance of ideology. This approach often appears in various forms in the struggle to establish the new and it is worth paying attention to it.
The RF was well on its way to abandoning the revolutionary road when it tried to attack Maoism. But, significantly enough, we see a similarity between its conclusions and those of the Nepal Communist Party (Mashal) [NCP (Mashal)] or of the section, which was expelled from the MCCI in 2001. In both these cases the era question was sought to be used to obstruct the adoption of Maoism. The argument was that since the era had not changed there could not be any new ‘ism’, or overall development of ideology, after Leninism. One can speak of an overall development of proletarian ideology when it is developed in all the three components of philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism. But, as Mao pointed out, “The basis is social science, class struggle.” (Talks on Philosophy) That is, developments in all the three components have taken place through the continuing role of Marxism in guiding class struggle. If one keeps in mind the ups and downs and the advances made by the ICM since Lenin’s time, one would have no difficulty in grasping that this reality had thrown up the necessity of an overall ideological leap. This is what Mao Tsetung achieved.
Refuting the NCP (Mashal) the Committee of the RIM pointed out, “To maintain that Leninism covers all the contradictions of the era of imperialism and the building of socialism is to ignore the reality and replace it with some preconceived idea in one’s brain. It proceeds from formed definitions, not material developments, and as a result earthshaking events are treated as trivial and not requiring major effort to develop our understanding. This is subjective idealism, not Leninism.” (A World To Win, No: 20, pages 46-47.)
This qualification is equally applicable to the section expelled from the MCCI. They argued that, “As there are two stages of developments of capitalism, no third stage is there, so in case of Marxism there cannot be any third stage of its development.” (Quoted in the MCCI’s article “Take a Correct Position in the Debate on Maoism”, page 1.) In this case, the development of ideology is linked solely to economic stages!
Yet another common feature of both the NCP (Mashal) and this section is their so-called defense of Stalin. Both of them reject Mao’s criticisms on Stalin. They argue that his contributions are nothing more than a continuation of Stalin’s positions. Finally, both of them conclude that Mao’s contributions are only equal to Stalin’s. Thus, they have ended up negating their own previous position of considering Mao Tsetung Thought as a new stage! Or rather, they have only succeeded in exposing that their earlier adherence to Mao Tsetung Thought was really covering up deep-rooted revisionism. One sees here yet another variant of the revisionist tactics of pitting the old against the new. Beyond that, their attack on Maoism, quite close to Enver Hoxha’s attack, raises an important question. How should we grasp the rupture/continuity dialectic in the development of proletarian ideology?
Mao Tsetung no doubt inherited and applied the contributions of Stalin. We particularly stress Stalin’s contributions in the struggle against anti-Leninist currents on international questions, building socialism and specific questions of the Chinese revolution. Moreover, he played a leading role in the ICM in the struggle to defend Stalin from the vile attacks of Krushchevite revisionists. But, and this was the key aspect, he did this by rupturing from outmoded ideas as well as real errors of Stalin. The continuity with Stalin’s revolutionary legacy, or more broadly with the Marxist-Leninist legacy, was possible precisely because of this rupture. This is what paved the way for the development of the new, higher and third stage of proletarian ideology. On the other hand, in the name of defending Stalin, Enver Hoxha clung to his errors and ended up as a renegade. This has also been the inevitable trajectory followed by the NCP (Mashal). The section expelled from the MCCI can be expected to trail it, especially since they have taken to slandering the People’s Wars in Peru and Nepal as ‘left’ adventurism; a regular refrain of the RF and the NCP (Mashal). This discussion helps us to understand how their metaphysics complements their idealism in the question of ideology.
For a long time before its expulsion from the RIM, while claiming to uphold Mao Tsetung Thought, the NCP (Mashal) had nursed a line, which was essentially rightist. Maoists accept the theory of People’s War as an all round development of proletarian military science. But, for the NCP (Mashal) it was mere tactics. While Mao talks about continuous revolutionary situation existing in semi-colonial countries, the NCP (Mashal) was keen on imposing Lenin’s analysis of revolutionary situation related to capitalist countries. All of these were, for long, essential aspects of the NCP (Mashal)’s line. Sharp exposure of these rightist positions took place only after the CPN (Maoist) [then NCP (Unity Centre)] adopted MLM and developed the revolutionary line. In fact, this rupture from the longstanding rightism within the Maoist movement of Nepal paved the way for the People’s War and its rapid advance. On the other hand, despite its legacy of standing up against Teng revisionism, the NCP (Mashal)’s attack on Maoism rapidly opened the doors for its degeneration into a tool of the reactionaries.
These experiences bring us to an important question raised by the struggle to establish Maoism. Apparently, the adoption of Maoism is only a matter of terminology. Yet, in the two instances seen above, it led to much stirring up and brought out the revisionist sludge hiding behind the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. It revealed sharp differences, within the RIM, the Nepali movement and the MCCI, over what exactly is understood as the universality of Mao’s contributions. It posed sharp questions over what is grasped by claiming them to be a new or higher stage. Inevitably, these differences were of a vital nature affecting all aspects of a Party’s line and practice. What was apparently a mere question of change in terminology turned out to be something of great ideological significance. If this is not grasped as such, the adoption of Maoism will remain a mere formality. Let us not forget that the sharpening of the battle against revisionism can never be the automatic product of a new term in itself.
It is true that a formal checklist comparing Mao Tsetung Thought and Maoism will not reveal anything new. But that is hardly the point and we must be alert to avoid this trap of formalism held out by the opponents of Maoism. Mao Tsetung Thought and Maoism are not the same. There is something new here. Something new of great ideological importance is achieved by adopting Maoism. And this newness is not so much in the word as such. It resides in the rupture from an incomplete or fractured understanding of the universality of Mao’s contributions taken as a whole and in the leap to a qualitatively higher, better, deeper grasp of our ideology. Evidently, any reasoning, which harps on emphasising that nothing new is added, will fail to mobilise the whole Party and lead it in carrying out this rupture. The task of actualising this grand potential for a vigorous ideological rectification, for achieving a better grasp of MLM, will be done in a partial manner. Even worse, it will be left to spontaneity.
One of the strengths of the RIM’s 1993 document on MLM is that it addresses this squarely. The RIM had emerged from the consistent worldwide ideological struggle against Teng-Hua revisionism and Enver Hoxha’s dogmato-revisionism. Its 1984 Declaration had correctly stressed Mao Tsetung’s qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism and affirmed that he had raised it to a new stage. Yet, despite these advanced ideological positions, it was quite clear that the adoption of MLM was not a mere matter of changing terms. The experience of parties in the RIM, which had adopted MLM, clearly pointed out the ideological significance of this change. This was summed up in the following words, “... the use of the term ‘Mao Tsetung Thought’ in our Declaration reflected a still incomplete understanding of this new stage. In the last nine years our movement has been engaged in a long, rich and thoroughgoing discussion and struggle to more fully grasp Mao Tsetung’s development of Marxism. During this same period the parties and organisations of our Movement and RIM as a whole have been engaged in revolutionary struggle against imperialism and reaction. Most important has been the advanced experience of the People’s War led by the Communist Party of Peru, which has succeeded in mobilising the masses in their millions, sweeping aside the state in many parts of the country and establishing the power of the workers and peasants in these areas. These advances, in theory and practice, have enabled us to further deepen our grasp of proletarian ideology and on that basis take a far-reaching step, the recognition of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the new, third and higher stage of Marxism.” (A World To Win, No: 20, page 4, emphasis added.) Yes, this further deepening of our grasp of proletarian ideology is exactly the key issue in adopting Maoism. It must be adopted on that basis and on that basis alone if it is to illuminate the way forward and defeat revisionism.
The struggle for Maoism has once again thrown up a longstanding issue within the ICM. Are ‘ism’ and Thought one and the same? Is the difference between them merely a matter of better expression? And how do they relate to line and the lessons of a specific revolution? The debate on such questions is only shaping up. So the views offered below are necessarily preliminary.
The 7th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), held in 1945, stated that Marxism-Leninism and the Thought of Mao Tsetung was its guiding ideology. It also said that this Thought is specific to China. But even a quick survey shows us that many major contributions of what is now established as Maoism had already been developed and tested over long years of revolutionary practice. The theory of New Democratic revolution, People’s War, concept of bureaucrat capitalism, mass line, development of party concept, united front theory and ideological rectification, apart from Mao’s philosophical contributions, are some among them. All of these were developed through struggle against right and ‘left’ opportunism, Trotskyism and dogmatism. In particular, Mao’s creative application of Marxism-Leninism was closely related to a bitter struggle against mechanical copying of Russian experiences. And we know that the international sources of this deviation were the Comintern and Stalin. This raised a complex problem. Quite rightly, Stalin was considered as the authoritative international leader in that historical period. Some of the basic views put forward by this leadership on the world revolution in general and the Chinese revolution in particular were correct and had to be upheld. At the same time, there was also some wrong thinking and views, which had to be rectified. Hence, it wouldn’t be wrong to assume that the term ‘Thought of Mao Tsetung’ emerged from the necessity faced by the CPC to draw attention to and clearly establish the distinct ideas guiding it, as compared to the prevailing, accepted, thinking dominating in the ICM. Whatever that may be, what is more important is the nature of Mao’s contributions at that time itself. They were already having a universal character. In fact, they represented, and still represent, the one and only correct Marxist understanding about the path of revolution in colonial, semi-colonial countries. (The ICM acknowledged this only 4 years later.) Moreover, Mao’s contributions already represented an advance in the Marxist-Leninist understanding on party, party building, united front and mass line. All of these are valid for both types of countries, that is imperialist and oppressed nations. (As we know, this was established in the ICM only after the Maoist revolt against Khrushchevite revisionism in the 1960’s.) Thus, when the CPC used ‘Thought’ in 1945 and said that it is specific for China, this already represented a substantial qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism, tested through practice and having universal significance.
However, its further development was not mere addition. In the course of leading socialist revolution and the struggle against modern revisionism Mao Tsetung took proletarian ideology to new heights. In particular, it achieved an all-round development and made a grand leap through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). The GPCR itself gave a powerful push and paved the way for declaring this through the 9th Congress of the CPC. A major part of the Congress report is a systematic exposition explaining what is new in Mao Tsetung’s theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The term ‘Thought’ was retained. But its universality, its role in achieving the third milestone in the development of proletarian ideology, had to be proclaimed and established. The 9th Congress report declared that Mao Tsetung had brought Marxism-Leninism to a higher and completely new stage. It sanctioned the term Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. The process by which the ‘Thought’ of 1945 attained the heights of a completely new stage by 1969 is clear enough. Also clear is the difference between the ‘Thought’ of 1945 and that of 1969. Even though Mao Tsetung’s contributions had achieved a universal character by 1945, this was far surpassed by the heights attained through the GPCR. It really merited the term Maoism. This much is evident from its contents and the role it played in advancing the ICM. One can only surmise that the CPC refrained from adopting Maoism due to the particular situation existing in the ICM at that time. Some have tried to use the 1973 10th Congress report’s clarifications on the era and Leninism to argue that the term ‘Thought’ was retained precisely for these reasons. But this logic goes against the recognition of the completely new stage, sanctioned by the 9th Congress and maintained later on.
This review leads us to conclude that ‘ism’ and ‘Thought’ must be distinguished from each other. While ‘Thought’ is also universal, ‘ism’ should be understood as an all round development of ideology, which takes it to a new stage. The difference is not one of more or less universality, but of more or less all round development that marks the leap to a new stage. Aided by this understanding we can proceed to examine the process by which the application of a revolutionary line gives rise to development of proletarian ideology.
‘Line’ is specific to a country and party. It is a particularity. But, if it is formulated through creative and correct application of MLM, this particularity contains the universality of MLM. It reflects this universality. In the course of its formulation, application, testing through practice and development it will give rise to a new grasp of MLM. It may also generate new concepts or contributions. The laws of revolution expressed by MLM are universal. But, as Lenin pointed out, every law ‘freezes’ reality. It is incomplete, relative. Therefore, the application of MLM laws or principles to chart out the course of revolution in any country also calls for enriching, developing, the conceptual understanding of those laws. Otherwise it would be cutting the feet to suit the ‘shoe’ of laws. This is the point about creative application. In fact, creative application of MLM precisely calls for such conceptual leaps in grasping the universal laws established by MLM. And thus, through its application in unraveling and handling the specific laws of a particular revolution, the universal laws of MLM themselves become more complete, more capable of grasping the complex, contradictory, motion of the whole human society. Even if the development of a revolution only gives rise to a new grasp of MLM, this still would be a qualitative development. It would still hold out lessons for every contingent of the ICM. Some revolutions may achieve even more and generate new concepts or contributions. But, the point to stress, is that all of this is possible even while there is only a ‘line’ and not yet a ‘Thought’. Or, in other words, a new ‘Thought’ is not a necessary condition for new contributions that enrich our ideology.
As stated at the beginning of this discussion on ‘ism’, ‘Thought’ and line, these views are quite preliminary. More study and debate is necessary to clinch the issue. At any rate, this whole debate holds out the promise of the ICM arriving at a deeper grasp of the whole process of development of proletarian ideology. This won’t be merely a matter of definitions or criteria to judge ‘ism’ from ‘Thought’ or line. It will give a tremendous boost to the contingents of the ICM in carrying out their tasks through creative application of MLM.
Earlier, we had mentioned the all round development and grand leap achieved through the GPCR. To be more precise, “...it was in the crucible of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that our ideology took a leap and the third great milestone, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, fully emerged.” (Quoted from RIM’s document on MLM, A World To Win, No: 20, page 9.) This is worth stressing and grasping deeply, especially in the context of vicious revisionist attacks on the GPCR. It is also necessary in view of the continuing confusion spread by neo-revisionists like the NCP (Mashal) who present the GPCR as nothing more than a matter of continuing class struggle in socialist society, go on to argue that this was already conceived by the great leaders of the proletariat and thus negate the ‘new’ in the GPCR. In the quotation cited above the key words are ‘leap’ and ‘fully emerged’. The GPCR was no doubt a continuation of class struggle in socialist society. But more than that it was the highest pinnacle achieved by world proletarian revolution. And this came out of some new, path breaking study made by Mao Tsetung on the contradictory character of socialist society. Taking lessons from the experiences of the Soviet Union, he came to the clear conclusion that the question of ‘who has won’ (the proletariat or the bourgeoisie) has not yet been settled. He went on to identify who the bourgeoisie is in socialist society, their roots and the center of their power. He also worked out how to fight them and uproot them. This was the cutting edge of the leap in ideology in all its three components. A comparison of the summation made in the 9th Congress report with further heights attained through the struggle against Lin Piao and Teng’s rightist wind makes it amply evident that this leap took shape over the whole course of the GPCR, right up till the death of Mao Tsetung and the capitalist coup. This is why it is necessary and correct to say that this leap ‘fully emerged’ through the GPCR. It reminds us of the need to take up a deep study of the whole of Maoism as it developed through the GPCR and warns us against lowering our sights.
In this context it is necessary to insist that this leap also contains the outstanding analysis of the diverse aspects of class struggle in socialist China, made by Mao Tsetung’s genuine followers. Among them, the sharp exposition of the material roots of capitalist restoration seen in the works of Chang Chun Chiao and Yao Wen Yuan merit special attention. (‘On Exercising All-round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie’ by Chang Chun Chiao and ‘On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-party Clique’ by Yao Wen Yuan. Though Yao later capitulated his work remains as an important contribution.) Mao Tsetung had observed “...China is a socialist country. Before liberation, she was much the same as a capitalist country. Even now she practices an eight-grade wage system, distribution according to work and exchange through money, and in all this differs very little from the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has changed.” (And Mao Makes Five, Page 211). He also said, “Our country at present practices a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist works.” (Ibid, page 209). Starting from this, Chang Chun Chiao and Yao Wen Yuan went on to pinpoint how the continued existence of bourgeois right provides the soil for engendering the new bourgeoisie, why this soil has to be continuously dug away and why this has to continue all the way uptill communism since bourgeois right can only be restricted during socialism. These expositions armed the Maoists with a deep insight into the danger of capitalist restoration and were of immense help in quickly understanding what was happening in China after the coup. Furthermore, the struggle led by comrade Chiang Ching against Hua Kua Feng’s line of pushing modernisation (as opposed to class struggle) as the key to advance the socialisation of agriculture also needs mention, since Hua is still considered by some as a genuine, if weak, element.
In the ‘60s, Comrade Charu Mazumdar wrote, “...today, when we have got the brilliant Thought of Chairman Mao Tsetung, the highest stage of the development of Marxism-Leninism, to guide us, it is imperative for us to judge everything anew in the light of Mao Tsetung Thought and build a completely new road along which to press ahead.” (‘Party’s Call to Students and Youth,’ from The Historic Turning Point, Volume 2, Page 36, emphasis added.)
This crucial direction is again seen in the 1993 document of the RIM where it says: “From the higher plane of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism the revolutionary communists could grasp the teaching of the previous great leaders even more powerfully and even Mao Tsetung’s earlier contributions took on deeper significance. Today, without Maoism there can be no Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, to negate Maoism is to negate Marxism-Leninism itself.” (A World To Win, No: 20, Page 9, emphasis added.)
Yes, today the key to grasping proletarian ideology is grasping Maoism firmly. To say this does not in anyway separate it from the integral whole of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Rather, it is imperative to put stress on Maoism in order to sharpen the struggle against revisionism and all other alien thinking. We must uphold, defend and apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, particularly Maoism.
_______________________

Maoist Perspective on People’s War
BHAVIN

Complexities of developing People’s War in India
India is a vast country with huge population. The reactionary ruling classes are presently tied up with the lone superpower, the US. With their blessing they are pursuing expansionist dreams and have become the hated villain in South Asia. They have en-massed a huge defense system (4th largest in the world). Along with this they have a strong police, paramilitary, and espionage network, which makes it look almost invincible to defeat.
The other challenge faced by the revolutionaries is the sharp unevenness spread throughout the country’s length and breadth. Disparities in the socio-economic situation tend from highly feudal States like Bihar, UP, AP, Rajasthan to the pseudo-developed states like Kerala, Punjab, and parts of Maharashtra and Gujarat. Same is true of the consciousness of the masses, which is inseparably linked to the history of struggle in the States. If Rajasthan, MP, UP and Gujarat are very much under the control of fascist reactionaries and are backward, Kerala and Bengal, due to their long history of communist movement can be termed as advanced in comparison, though long hold of revisionists have muddled the views of the masses there. Different languages, nationality problems, cultures, castes, creeds and religion also divide the revolutionary classes. Hence a common formula for the entire country cannot be adopted.
The other serious question faced by the revolutionaries in India is to demarcate Maoist People’s War from the mire of various armed activities going on in India - nationalist wars, Islamist armed activities, Hindu fundamentalist genocides, Mafia clashes, warlordism and also various state sponsored terrorist activities. Imperialists and reactionaries brand any armed dissent as ‘terrorist’ to isolate it from the masses and crack down on them. Hence we not only need to demarcate from this but also bring out the strength of Maoist war, which alone can dilute enemy propaganda, fight back attempts to isolate us and face up to the enemy onslaught.
But fissures and cracks are widening just under the thin veil of stability and unity. The ruling classes are preoccupied fighting various contradictions. Nationality problems have translated into fierce armed struggles in Kashmir and North East and continue to bleed the state. Expansionist and dominating attitude of the Indian ruling classes has strained relationship with all its neighbors. Poverty, unemployment, natural disasters, and failure of the system to provide basic necessities cannot be just wiped off by hollow speeches on India’s progress and development. Globalisation, Liberalisation and Privatisation have started taking their toll, in the rural and urban areas alike. Small businesses are being swallowed up and the process of declassing is speeding up. Anger and discontent is widespread. Even the exposed parliamentary parties and reformist are forced to mobilise the masses for militant struggles. Masses have lost faith in the system, its bogus parliament, corrupt judiciary, and administration, and they hate the terror machinery. The objective conditions had never been so ripe for revolution. As the masses crave to be organised and led, the subjective forces, the revolutionaries are yet to unite and establish an All India Maoist vangaurd party capable of giving leadership to the masses throughout the country.
Apart from these stark realities there are characteristics, which stand as advantages for revolution in India. The enemy’s armed strength is duly engaged in fighting nationalist wars in Kashmir and North East and can’t afford to leave the borders. The so-called unity of the army got a major jolt after the Blue Star Operation in Amritsar. Desertion and revolts are taking place in the army and its morale too is down in the wake of Tehelka and coffin scandals. The contradictions among the ruling classes are serious too, though not sharp. This is bound to aggravate with deteriorating situation.
The revolutionary situation is much more favourable than in CM’s time, nationally and internationally. The anti-US, anti-war, anti-globalisation fervour is increasing rapidly. Ideological differences have been sorted out to a great extent and polarisation between revisionists and revolutionary forces are growing. We have the great experience of the armed struggle in AP, Bihar and Dandakaranya which has proved that armed struggles can be sustained over long periods. Moreover they are the pillars of our revolution.
It is in this background that we have to study the war question. Just crying over the unfavorable aspects will not do. As Maoists we have to weigh the positive and negative aspects judiciously, utilise the favourable aspects to change the unfavourable. As Mao reminded, “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight hundred wars”. Maoists in each country will have to study the specific laws of development of revolutionary war, learn from experiences of one another and develop methods of applying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) creatively to the concrete conditions to unleash the revolutionary potential of the masses and bring about a nationwide high tide.

Concept of Total War
Objectively the task of waging protracted People’s War to seize political power is already on the agenda in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country like ours. Hence war must be made the center of gravity of all our party work right from the beginning. Mao says “Before the outbreak of war all organisations and struggles are in preparation of war... After the war breaks out, all organisations and struggles are coordinated with war directly or indirectly...” (Problems of War and Strategy) Here it is clear that all organisations and struggles come under the purview of war or are centered on the war question before and after launching of war. This aspect of Maoist People’s War theory is well grasped by CPN(Maoist) and PCP. The application of this aspect is expressed in their concept of Total War. The plans they formulated also took into account the role of mass organisation and mass struggle. The political content of mass struggles too was defined in the plans. The brilliant usage of both forms of struggles alternatively in accordance with the requirements and tasks of particular sub-stages and specific campaigns is the creative application of this aspect, which is worth learning.
Mao says “Victory in war is not just the sum total of victories in battles”. We have to view this from the strategic point. There is a big difference between sporadic actions, armed struggles, and total war. Total war is a declaration: enough is enough and now we stand firmly to root out the system. It is carried out simultaneously in the rural areas as well as cities, with cities as complementary. Only with an all out effort, putting in all our strength to push the war through as planned for seizure of political power, will the full revolutionary potential of the masses be fully unleashed. (“As the thoroughness of the historic action increases, the magnitude of the masses whose cause it represents will also increase.” Marx-Engles.) Only then can we draw the line of demarcation with the enemy and deepen polarisation among various classes; not by war for resisting the enemy repression or for retaliation. Only then, through our own efforts, can we bring about a revolutionary high tide in the country and not wait for it to come on its own. In order to push through our People’s War and create a momentum of its own, which is of course linked with the principle of drawing in the masses, we have to select proper actions. Actions based on plans for each stage and sub-stage that will carry our political message. Actions striking at the symbols of the exploitative system, repression and imperialism and serving the establishment of the political power -dreamt for long time by the masses. This will differentiate the Maoist war from the various armed struggles and armed activities being carried out in the country. Only then can we come to the center stage at the national level.
We have to remember we have not been able to make much of a dent on the political agenda of the reactionaries. We have only reacted after every anti-people programme and policies have been successfully carried out by the reactionaries. The point to be stressed is that with our war we have force the ruling classes to take guard openly. We have to force them to change their tracks and to react to our war. This can be done only and only if we forcefully carry out our agenda in a planned manner and become the central threat to the enemy. This is what Mao means in “... to draw a line of demarcation with the enemy.” around which polarisation takes place. This is possible only when we really grasp the concept of total war, importance of strategic planning and accordingly push the People’s War through campaigns, stage by stage, developing it through leaps.
To think that the enemy will not carry out total war from the beginning itself, just because they won’t deploy the army, is to be naïve. They always employ proportionately higher force than our subjective strength and carry out total war – militarily, politically, ideologically, economically, emotionally, culturally and with malicious propaganda campaigns – with everything at their disposal. So limiting our war as a war of resistance, as a reaction to the enemy, only serves to confuse the masses, who are actually supposed to take the struggles to higher levels in gigantic waves. Roles and tasks that the masses should take up don’t come out clearly to them and thus the energies are not fully channelised. Unlike vanguard cadres and leaders who learn from study of classics, history, national and international experiences and synthesizing the party’s experience, the masses mainly learn through experience. It is only when things become distinctly clear that the masses take up the struggle of self-sacrifice to emancipate themselves with full confidence. Apart from Nepal and Peru, experiences of Naxalbari distinctly stand out as an example of this approach. Though Naxalbari employed only one form of struggle, annihilation, for starting as compared to Peru and Nepal, which utilized all the four forms, the political content of going all out for seizure of power was loud and clear. That is why it could create a wave of revolutionary struggle. It is high time that a new wave of revolutionary People’s War is launched and hence it is necessary to grasp the finer details of Maoist People’s War theory in its entirety and apply it creatively.

Question of strategic planning
No work can be developed without planning, may it be of any level, a small action or a big operation. Mao said that though there are uncertainties in war it is possible to have a relatively stable plan. Plans can be made at various levels. For tactical plans or plans for battles, i.e. particular actions, the degree of uncertainty is much higher as they have smaller targets, smaller formation, swift movement, shorter duration and depend a lot on enemy movement. But still we have to plan for these actions meticulously keeping all eventualities in mind and, if the situation changes, change or abandon the plan accordingly. The plan for a campaign, which comprises of a number of battles and actions, done with a larger formation and for a longer period, generally can be more stable. But within it partially, or at times entirely, plans will have to be changed. Similarly the strategic plan is applicable to the whole strategic stage, i.e. strategic defensive, strategic equilibrium and strategic offensive, and has to be changed with the change in stage. (As explained in ‘On Protracted War’, point 88, Military Writings of Mao Tsetung, page 245) In the same paragraph Mao stressed, “The making and changing of tactical, campaign and strategic plans in accordance to scope and circumstance is the key factor in directing war.” There are two points worth noting. One,, he spoke of directing a war, ‘not just carrying out armed struggles’; directing it towards our final goal of country-wide seizure of power. The other important point is the need for making plans, especially strategic plans. Mao didn’t point out conditions for drawing plans, like “only if All China big party is formed, then…” or “enemy faces stiff struggles on various fronts and are forced to disperse the army and the conditions become favourable, then …” etc. But he stressed according to the scope and circumstances and that is the key factor. This means preparing ourselves for a bigger drama and not just local games. Hence, to achieve this, to be capable of directing a war, we need a strategic plan based on the stage and also by studying the development of war through the sub-stages in it in a broader perspective.
Furthermore he explained, “War plans are the concrete application of strategy and tactics, and must be flexible so that they can be adapted to the circumstances of war. We should always seek to transform our inferiority into superiority and our passivity into initiative so as to change the situation as between the enemy and ourselves.” Here Mao mentioned about the conscious role in transforming our subjective strength to achieve a change in objective reality. It is only through our initiative in war that we can direct the war in a proper direction and bring about a change in the situation and not wait for external developments to change the situation. Changes in nature and society take place in leaps. Hence we can deduce that through strategic war plans that are flexible, we consciously gain initiative in war and achieve leaps in our subjective strength and continuously change the objective situation in our favour.
In understanding the situation at a broader level, which Mao termed as “war situation as a whole”, we have to grasp that whenever we start a war a war situation develops. When we start a total war with the aim of areawise seizure of power, we have to think in terms of war situation at all India level. Unless we develop thinking in this manner within the entire party, there is a fair chance of the war slipping into localism and gradualism. Unlike Nepal and Peru we are a big country and the war will take place at different places simultaneously though unevenly. But it is a must that it takes place as a part of single war. This can be successfully achieved only with a Strategic War Plan. Gradualism in war denies the development of revolutionary process in leaps and seeks linear development ‘inch by inch’ as against the Maoist understanding of ‘development in waves’. It is necessary to establish this firmly among the cadres and commanders.
Strategic thinking evolves from studying the science of strategy. Mao, in his ‘Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War’ deals with this at length. He defined, “The task of science of strategy is to study the laws for directing a war that govern a war situation as a whole. The task of the science of campaigns and the science of tactics is to study the laws for directing a war that govern a partial situation.” He further explained why it is necessary for the commander of a campaign or tactical operation (i.e. specific battles, actions) to understand the laws of strategy, at least to some degree. “Because an understanding of the whole facilitates handling of the part and because the part is subordinate to the whole.” It means to have a strategic plan, outlook, and based on it tactical plans and campaign plans should be made. Mao identified people who deny planning and called them relativists. Relatively stable plans for the whole stage and sub-stages in it, keeping the war situation as a whole in mind, is a necessity. Based on it we have to draw out plans for campaigns for sub-stages and plans for battles and actions for each campaign.
After the Chinese revolution led by CPC under the leadership of Mao, it is only in Peru and Nepal that we see the concrete application of strategic planning and that too in a creative manner. Based on this understanding PCP Chairman Gonzalo established the axes, sub-axes, and the directions and lines of movement, so as to maintain the strategic direction of war. This was done after a thorough study of history of social relations, past wars, political, military and economic conditions, terrain etc. Next on the basis of this National Military Plan was formulated, which was strategically centralised and tactically decentralised guided by the Maoist understanding “every plan is an ideology and must reflect reality in all its complexity.” Then, linking strategy and tactics, strategic operational plans were formulated. Every committee below it formulated their own strategic operational plans based on the strategic operational plan followed by the entire party. All military plans are based on thorough reconnaissance and careful study of the situation of the enemy and our forces, and are guided by the political strategy and the military strategy. (From PCP Base Document,p43) The strategic centralistion and tactical decentralisation gives full play to the lower committees to decide specific struggles to be carried out in their area, based on the guidelines and the necessities of the area. The Strategic Operational Plan followed by the whole party gives the political content of each campaign, the organisational leap in the form of increase in the number of party units, drawing in the masses and develop new areas of struggles with the aim of seizure of political power or building new people’s power. The military content spells out the targets of leap to be achieved. On this the regional committees decide the number of actions, form of actions, propaganda, struggles etc. They put forward the objectives - how much is the party going to grow? How much is the People’s War going to grow? How much is the people’s power going to grow? How much is the PGA going to grow? - of a specific campaign. At the end of the campaign thorough summation is carried out and new campaign is launched without any delay. The contents of every campaign is different each time and not mere repetition. They have made it a rule to increase the scale of war to a higher level each time, since the situation becomes more complex and fighting must be more intense.
Here we see the conscious attempt by the party to heighten the tempo of war and push the objective situation in favor of revolution. This creative application was devised by Com. Gonzalo and studied and adapted by CPN(M) in their situation. The situation in Nepal was quite different. The party for a long time had been only in peaceful struggles and reformist style of work was dominating. They had to take up the task of transforming themselves into a war party, a task added and so different from PCP. They had to bring about an ideological consolidation as a part of preparation for launching.

Areawise Seizure of Power Our Main Target
Areawise seizure of power or formation of base areas is the essence of protracted People’s War. Com. Charu Mazumdar identified this and the necessity to go all out for it. “Yes, comrades, today we have to speak out courageously in a bold voice before the people that it is the areawise seizure power that is our path. We have to make the bourgeoisie tremble by striking hardest at it weakest spots.” said CM and we find similar formulations throughout his writings. He grasped the fact that only when the peasantry breaks free from ages of subjugation and realises the taste of power- no matter how small the area and how short the time period be - will the revolutionary potential be fully released. It is in accordance with Mao’s understanding “…accelerate the nationwide revolutionary hightide through consolidation and expansion of Red Political Power”. People’s War is the strategy of the proletariat –only by destruction of old state will the simultaneous construction of the new state begin –not by bargaining. Formation of base areas is not merely a question of military tactic but a matter of vital political importance.
Without a clear-cut line directing the process of forcefully pushing ahead ceaselessly towards areawise seizure of power, establishing base areas and sustaining them, all other work will be meaningless exercises. Any pull back attitude towards forming base areas is a reflection of ambiguity and distorted understanding of Maoism and is a form of phase theory. Mao put it very distinctly, “A revolution or revolutionary war in its emergence and growth from a small force to a big force, from the absence of political power to the seizure of political power, from the absence of a Red Army to the creation of a Red Army and from the absence of revolutionary base area to their establishment, must be on the offensive and cannot be conservative, and tendencies towards conservatism must be opposed.”
Apart from the strategic importance of base area, of relying on it to carryout strategic tasks as a rear to our forces, it stands out as a challenge to the existing system, puts the central question of areawise seizure of power for resolving contradictions as top priority in national politics and enthuses the masses as they see the results of their struggles and firmly establishes faith in the party as genuine vanguard. “We struggle for political power for the proletariat and people not for personal power. We are against the outlook of roving-rebel bands and their understanding of base areas. The new state is built in the midst of the People’s War and follows a specific course of development. In our case it is built first in the countryside until it surrounds the cities and is established countrywide; the old state is destroyed through this process, as the contradiction old state/new state finds expression, until the reaction’s political and military plans are thwarted and masses are drawn in.” (PCP Base Documents, p53). The formation of a new state as a challenge to the old state unleashes the masses revolutionary vigour and raises their hopes steadily.
When we launch People’s War in the strategic areas we will face stiff challenge from the reactionary forces (not the army in the initial stages). This is the toughest phase in the early periods (the 1st stages of strategic defensive) where we are weak and the enemy is much stronger. By consciously pushing the war with the aim of driving out the enemy from the area, we will gain in strength and transform the operational zone into guerrilla zone. This is the period where neither side has total control over the area. These guerrilla zones are to be creatively transformed into base areas and it is an arduous task. “…transformation of a guerilla zone into a base area is an arduous creative process, and its accomplishment depends on the extent to which the enemy is destroyed and masses are aroused.” (Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War, MMW, p172) Mao talks of three conditions for building base areas; they are existence of revolutionary armed forces, inflicting defeats on the enemy and moblising the masses. The important aspect in advancing the process for building base areas is identifying the transitory nature of guerrilla zone. Absence of a plan to proceed to base area formation or delaying it for years under any pretext means no all out effort to drive the enemy out of guerrilla zones. Hence enemy forces and our forces reside side by side for prolonged periods. We strive to maintain status quo while enemy contends for regaining power. As they can’t contend militarily they employ all possible means at their disposal to win over the masses and reduce our support base. Infiltrations, politics of incentives and developmental programmes create divisions amongst the masses. We are forced to carry out counter programmes and activities thereby leaving room for economism. Mao cites a specific kind of guerilla zone, which will remain a guerrilla zone for a long time. But they are a ‘specific kind’ and for specific reasons – this cannot be taken as a general rule. “Examples of this kind are to be found in enemy occupied regions, along the railway lines, in the plains.” (Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War, MMW, p172)
Hence the principal question is that of establishing people’s power, because only this will give an alternative to the discontent of the oppressed masses – it will give hope to the hopeless and raise the revolutionary torrent to new heights. We have to creatively employ our resources, utilise armed struggle and mass struggle to maximum benefit for the revolution and push the enemy out politically, ideologically and militarily.
It is this creative application of Maoist principle by PCP and CPN(M) that signifies distinction from other revolutionary struggles led by Maoists in the world. In Peru and Nepal the forceful and all out launching of People’s War drove the enemies out of the guerrilla zones within 2 years.

City Work

This is one department that needs immediate attention. To look upon the cities only as means of raising funds, to develop intellectuals and carry out peaceful propaganda and agitation is a seriously mistaken line. Now where in CM’s writings do we see such a pathetic understanding of city work. It is not only possible to develop party and people’s resistance movements but also possible to carry out guerrilla warfare. Our own historical experience in Kolkatta after Naxalbari is a glaring example of what potential is at store. On the other hand CM was able to utilize the favourable situation to draw in the militant youth into the movement with his inspiring writings to scale the heights. Though we see the lack of planned work in the cities, he had no apprehensions about the role of city work in advancing the revolutionary high tide.

PCP and CPN(M) have proved through practice that the immense potential of city work can be utilized in favour of revolution by conscious and planned effort. In relation to the line on city work PCP says, “People’s War which in our case takes the specific form of a unified People’s War in which the countryside is principal and the city complementary.” (PCP Base Document). They have no plans of building base areas in the city, as it is impossible. “The difference is that in the cities what is built is not the new political power, base areas, but rather a front concretised in Peoples Revolutionary Defense Movement, with resistance centers that wage peoples war and prepare the future insurrection that will take place when the forces in the countryside storm the cities in combination with the insurrection from within.” (PCP Base Document). Every plan and campaign has its city component, as to what work, propaganda, guerrilla actions has to be done within it. Thus we see a comprehensive line of development of work in the urban areas. After the experience of Naxalbari city work got neglected mainly due to the absence of a line. Though at times some mass movements and trade union struggles continued, but with no clear-cut approach as to its direction of development, it stagnated. The trade union work is muddled in the mire of economism and the fighting spirit of the working class is entangled in legalism. It has failed to develop revolutionary movement among the working class, to politicise them and develop the advanced section as vanguards. This again has its roots in gradualism, expecting external causes to boost the revolutionary high tide, not seeing the potential and most important lack of strategic thinking and planning. As result city work has become the domain of petty bourgeois activity and token passive response.
No doubt due to the heavy presence of the state machinery city work has to be qualitatively different, but we can’t afford to loose sight of developing the movement and prepare our organisation accordingly. Especially now and in the coming years the cities are going to face severe problems. Rich-poor divide is widening, opportunities are dwindling; high cost of living, unemployment, lockouts, draconian laws, insensitive and brutal state machinery, corruption - people are fed up with this system. The stories and pictures of the international struggles of the masses against globalisation, war etc. flashed now and then, prepare them mentally. The possibilities of developing and sustaining resistance movement are very high. There is a material basis for developing urban guerrilla warfare. We have to develop our thinking in this regard, carryout investigations, develop links with the masses, built up sound underground structure, mass work etc. We will have to build up the movement by showing some level of creativity to have an impact over the masses till they gain confidence.

Advanced Experience of International Communist Movement
Agreed Peru and Nepal are very small countries, both have weak ruling classes and states as compared to India; but quite strong and fierce in their own countries. Impact of even small actions can be nationwide. Poor infrastructure and advantageous terrain make it easier to sustain bases for longer periods. This has enhanced the efforts of CPN (M) and PCP in utilising favourable conditions. But apart from just talking about their advantages it is necessary to grasp the fineness with which they have implemented MLM in the given context. How we apply Marxism to the given concrete reality is where the creativity comes and for this deeper grasp of the universal ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is essential. Inspiring developments in Peru and Nepal show advanced grasp of Maoism. As communists we have the responsibility to learn from this. Mao said, “In this era, any revolution will definitely end in defeat if it lacks, or run counter to, the leadership of the proletariat and the communist party. Of all the social strata and political groupings, the proletariat and communist party are most free from narrow mindedness and selfishness, are politically the most far sighted, the best organised and readiest to learn with an open mind from the experiences of the vanguard class, the proletariat, and its political party throughout the world and to make use of this experience in their own cause.”

In every sub topic of this article we have shown how Nepal and Peru People’s Wars are experiences of the advanced grasp of Maoism creatively applied to their concrete reality. This is exactly what we have to learn -- learn to creatively apply Maoism to the concrete conditions here. Mere imitations of Peru and Nepal are of no use. The primary thing in grasping laws of People’s War is to acknowledge the dynamism of war. The basic principle as Mao pointed out is “…to strive to the utmost to preserve our own strength and destroy that of the enemy.” Here Mao clearly stated that in order to protect our strength we have to destroy the enemy- conservative ideas emerging from thoughts of our destruction pegs the all out flow of People’s War. Any form of limiting the war, i.e. not going all out to wipe the enemy out of struggle areas - in order to avoid provocation of the enemy - only leads to ‘phase theory’. It denies leaps in the development of war and follows gradualism. This is in fact violation of the dynamics of war. Viewing leaps as qualitative transformation that comes after a series of quantitative additions alone, neglects the conscious role of the vanguard in propelling the war to higher level and advancing in waves. The basic principle of “preserve oneself and destroy the other” applies to both the revolutionary forces as well as the reactionary forces. Either we kick them out or they push us out. Things will not remain stagnant for long - where we can sustain, naturally the enemy’s armed might has to be sufficiently smashed. It calls for a leap from guerrilla zones to actual seizure of power and establishment of new people’s power. If not, eventually we face setbacks.
Any idealist understanding of base areas too will hamper the leap from guerrilla zone to base area. To consider base areas as highly impregnable and most safe is a wrong understanding of Maoism. In the uncertainty of war it is possible that we might have to abandon some base areas. The crux of the matter is to seize power no matter how small the area and however short the duration.
These advances in grasping Maoism, especially in relation to its application to the People’s War was first conceived and tested through practice by the PCP led by com. Gonzalo. Only after struggle and debate now it is getting recognition. Launching of People’s War in Nepal and its continuous advancement has helped in establishing it firmly. All those who had apprehensions about this are now forced to rethink. RIM played a vital role in its propagation and achieving further clarity on it. The parties within RIM have started taking this seriously and this will be developing as an advanced international trend. It will further enhance the emerging ‘New Wave of World Proletarian Revolution.’ Maoist Communist Party [MPK](Turkey and North Kurdistan, formerly TKP[ML]), a party engaged in armed struggle for around 30 years, and a member of RIM, recently held its 1st Congress. It is important to note their Congress document’s observations on People’s War in Nepal and Peru, “Our first Congress has challenged spontaneity, which is contrary to the spirit of People’s War, and learnt from the experiences of Nepal and Peru, which reflect a great application of the ideological and political contributions of Mao in practice. It has pointed out the Tactic of Advancing with Deliberation, with a Strategic War Plan.” (AWTW-No.29, p60) In India further debate is necessary to make this advancement a part of the general line of the serious Maoist Parties.
________________