Discussion on Current 'Affairs' in General Forum at TeluguPeople.com

Talks between Govt. and Naxals : Can we expect peaceful life?

saleem Sorry the article is too long and not well spaced.. you can just paste it in word pad and read if it is very hard to read it here

Posted by: Ms. swapna CCCP At: 17, Oct 2004 9:55:53 PM IST

Saleem, I dont have any manifesto of the naxalites (well- I am not one among them ) Here is a document telling about their revolutionary approach. THE SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE INDIAN REVOLUTION AND MARXIST APPROACH TOWARDS RESOLUTION OF THOSE PROBLEMS I As is well known to Marxist-Leninists, the revolution in each country has its own peculiarities, its own special features that need to be studied, analysed and taken account of in chalking out the specific programmes, strategies and tactics for leading the revolution in that country to victory. No revolution can be an exact replica of another, notwithstanding the fact that all revolutions follow certain common universal laws. Marxism provides the general principles, the theory and, most important, the method, to study and to analyse the specific characteristics of each revolution. The Marxist-Leninist theory is a science that provides an understanding of the objective laws of motion of nature, society and thought. It is a "science of the development of the society, the science of the working class movement, the science of the proletarian revolution, the science of the building of the Communist Society. And as a science it does not and cannot stand still, but develops and perfects itself. Clearly in its development it is bound to become enriched by new experiences and new knowledge, and some of its propositions and conclusions are bound to change in the course of time, are bound to be replaced by new conclusions and propositions corresponding to the new historical conditions". (History of the CPSU (Bolsheviks), Kamgar Prakashan, P. 355). Marxist-Leninist theory provides us with the tools of analysis of particular phenomenon in concrete historical conditions in light of the universal laws that are inherent in all phenomena in general. "Our teaching is not a dogma, but a guide to action, Marx and Engels always used to say, rightly ridiculing the learning and repetition by rote of 'formulas' which at best are only capable of outlining general tasks that are necessarily liable to be modified by the concrete economic and political conditions of each separate phase of the historical process... It is essential to realize the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognisance of real life, of the concrete realities, and must not continue to cling to a theory of yesterday..." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XX pp. 100-1). Thus Marxism which arose under conditions of pre-monopoly capitalism had to be modified in the era of imperialism under the new conditions of monopoly capitalism. Com. Lenin developed Marxism and enriched it with new experience gained in the process of applying the Marxist theory in the new conditions of imperialism. Those who considered Marxism as a dogma such as the Mensheviks led by Plekhanov clung to the old proposition that it was the bourgeoisie that could lead the democratic revolution in Russia and transform the Russian society into a capitalist society. They argued that it was not the business of the proletariat to lead the democratic revolution in Russia and that the task of the proletariat was to lead the socialist revolution once the bourgeois democratic revolution was consummated under the leadership of the liberal bourgeoisie. Hence the Mensheviks advocated a line of conciliation and cooperation with the liberal bourgeoisie in the fight against Czarist autocracy. The European model was thus sought to be mechanically supplanted on Russian soil in the new historical conditions of imperialism. Com. Lenin, on the other hand explained that under the new historical conditions prevailing in Russia, it was the proletariat alone that could lead the democratic revolution to victory despite the bourgeois character of the revolution and that the task of the proletariat lay in isolating the liberal bourgeoisie and in winning over the peasantry for a decisive victory against Czarist autocracy. He also put forth the new proposition that the victory of the revolution over Czardom would lead to the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Thus while the Mensheviks were overawed by the letter of Marxism, the Bolsheviks led by Com. Lenin, on the other hand, grasped the substance of Marxism and applied it as a scientific method of analysis and as a guide to action thereby enriching it further. "Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means being able to enrich the theory with the new experience of the revolutionary movement, with new propositions and conclusions, it means being able to develop it and advance it without hesitating to replace - in accordance with the substance of the theory - such of its propositions and conclusions as have become antiquated by new ones corresponding to the new historical situation". (History of the CPSU (B), p. 356). Dogmatism once again reared its ugly head during the course of the Chinese revolution epitomised by the 28 1/2 Bolsheviks. Notwithstanding the high degree of training they had in the theory of Marxism-Leninism, they failed in grasping its dialectical method and its living soul - the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Hence they chanted the 'mantra' that the path of revolution in China was that of the Russian model of insurrection. When applied, this led to disastrous results. It was only by learning from these failures and by a more thorough grasp of the substance of Marxist-Leninist theory that the CPC under Com. Mao could evolve a new path of revolution to be applied to the concrete conditions in China - the path of protracted People's War. Thus, Com. Mao applied the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism to the particular concrete conditions prevailing in China and, by gaining greater knowledge through the practice of the Chinese revolution, he, in turn, further enriched the universal science of Marxism-Leninism. From the universal to the particular and from the particular to the universal such has been the method pursued by our great Marxist teachers in applying and advancing the science of Marxism. In India too, the dogmatic understanding of Marxism-Leninism (and Marxism-Leninism- Mao Tse-Tung Thought from the mid-1960s) and the failure to analyse the concrete conditions prevailing in the country led to a series of setbacks. In the first four decades of communist movement in India ending in the later half of the 1960s, the Party leadership was basically 'Menshevik' in its understanding of the Indian democratic revolution. It assisted and cooperated with the Indian comprador big bourgeoisie and placed the leadership of the Indian democratic revolution in the hands of the latter. It also imagined that the revolution in India would be of the Russian type of insurrection and hence confined itself mainly to propaganda and agitation instead of making any serious effort to launch armed struggle. Even the sole exception of the Telangana armed uprising of 1946-51 which saw for the first time guerilla warfare in an extensive region, was given up due to the betrayal by the revisionist leadership of the Communist Party. It was only from the mid-1960s that serious attempts were made to study and analyse the concrete realities prevailing in India and the path of the Indian revolution was scientifically formulated for the first time in the history of the Indian Communist movement as the path of the protracted people's war. Support was extended to the ongoing struggles of the various nationalities in the country. The eight documents prepared by our great revolutionary leader, Com. Charu Mazumdar, between 1965-68 and the various articles that appeared in the issues of "Liberation" until July 1972 contained several studies and analysed the concrete Indian conditions. The studies, of course, are incomplete and a lot more needs to be done to understand the special features and concrete realities of the Indian revolution. Dogmatism on the part of the leadership of some Communist Revolutionary (CR) groups and parties in the past two decades and more, became a great hurdle for undertaking a deeper objective study of the concrete Indian realities. On the other hand, several other CR groups and parties that claim to have undertaken precisely such deep studies of the concrete Indian conditions, have eventually landed themselves into the mire of bourgeois reformism and abandoned class struggle with the pretext that their newly 'discovered' concrete realities dictate that either caste struggle or nationality struggle or parliamentary struggle or some such struggle should be waged in place of armed struggle. In light of such dogmatic and revisionist trends, it becomes all the more important for the genuine CR groups waging consistent armed struggle to undertake objective studies of the special features of the Indian revolution from a working class viewpoint in order to advance the Indian revolution to final victory. With this brief introduction, we proceed to analyse the special features of the Indian revolution and our Party's approach in solving the problems arising there from. II Of the several special features of the Indian Revolution, we think it is imperative for us to deal with six important ones in this short paper. They are: 1. the absence of a unified revolutionary Party at the All-India level; 2. the existence of a highly centralised state machinery with well-equipped and well-trained armed forces and advanced transport and telecommunications system; 3. the existence of, and the struggles waged by, the various oppressed nationalities; 4. the problem of caste; 5. the communal problem; and 6. the existence of a Parliament and other legislative bodies standing over a semi-feudal and semi-colonial economy and social structure. Let us now deal with these special features one by one. III The first special feature that needs mention is the existence of several centres and the absence of a unified proletarian party to lead the Indian revolution. Needless to say, without the establishment of a Bolshevik type of Party it would be utterly utopian to think that Indian revolution can advance towards victory. As Com. Lenin observed: "In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but its organisation... International capital will not be able to withstand this army". He also pointed out: "unless an organising and leading staff exists the victory of the proletariat and the maintenance of its power is impossible. Hence the enormous importance of Party organisation, of unity of view and singleness of will, the strictest Party discipline, and the expulsion from its ranks of all opportunist and alien elements." But it is precisely such a unified, militant, revolutionary party "bold enough to lead the proletariates in the struggle for power, sufficiently experienced to find its bearings amidst the complex conditions of a revolutionary situation, and sufficiently flexible to steer clear of all submerged rocks in the path to its goal" that the Indian revolutionary communist movement has fallen short of in the past seven decades. We have the unique experience of having a seven-decade-old Communist movement without a continuity of central leadership. While the revisionist leadership dominated the Party till the outbreak of the Naxalbari upsurge and the formation of CPI (ML), the quarter-century-old history of the CPI (ML) was characterised by several splits, fragmentation and disunity The formation of the CPI (ML), undoubtedly, represented a genuine break with the revisionist theory and practice that had become entrenched in the Indian Communist movement for over four decades. For the first time, the party correctly identified the character of the Indian state and society, enumerated the targets of the New Democratic Revolution, the motive forces of the revolution, the fundamental contradictions and the principal contradiction in the Indian society and laid down the basic strategy of the Indian democratic revolution. Thus while its analysis of the Indian society was basically correct, and it worked out a correct programme and strategy for the Indian revolution, the tactics pursued were sectarian and adventurist. The rejection of mass struggles and mass organisations and the dogmatic acceptance of the line of annihilation as the only form of struggle after the 8th Congress of the Party in May 1970 contributed in the main for the setback of the revolutionary movement. After the setback of the Naxalbari, Srikakulam, Mushahari, Birbhum and other armed peasant struggles and the martyrdom of Com. Charu Mazumdar, the founder leader of our Party CPI (ML), the CC become virtually defunct and the Party units in various parts of the country have been functioning in isolation from one another in the past 23 years or so. Though some CCs emerged in the course of time, each of these represented only a part of the original party and operated in just two or three states. Throughout the decade of the 1970s attempts for unification of the party were made by the various factions of CPI (ML) groups but due to the failure to achieve a unified understanding of the past mistakes as well as due to differences in the strategy and tactics of the Indian revolution apart from the different perceptions arising out of segregated practice, these attempts proved a futile exercise. The isolated existence and functioning as separate factions each claiming itself to be the only genuine revolutionary party has been, and continues to be, the biggest hurdle to the Indian revolution. There are close to 30 groups each claiming itself to be the genuine party and swearing by MLM Thought. There are at least dozen CCs functioning under a variety of names. The differing political perceptions and the failure of the CR groups to develop any powerful revolutionary movement only led to further splintering during the 1970s notwithstanding the sincere attempts on the part of some to achieve unity. During the 1980s, there was some growth of revolutionary mass movement in some parts of the country which laid down the objective basis for the unification of the genuine CR groups that are leading revolutionary class struggles. But empiricism, arising out of isolationist practice, and dogmatism, resulting from a lack of understanding of the concrete conditions in India and the world, have been a serious impediment in bringing about the unity of even those genuine CR groups that have been involved in leading revolutionary class struggles in some parts of the country. Such a situation is something peculiar to India. Neither the Bolshevik Party during the course of the Russian Revolution nor the CPC in pre-revolutionary China faced such a situation where the entire CC itself became defunct. Despite the emergence of some non-Party petty-bourgeois revolutionary groups and some minor splits, the core of the Party leadership remained intact both in the Bolshevik Party and the CPC right from the founding of those parties till well after the success of the revolutions in those countries. Theoretically speaking, the proletariat in any country can have only a single, homogeneous, politically and ideologically unified Party. Proletarian ideology is indivisible and does not permit even the existence of factions within the proletarian party. Several of the factions, groups and parties that go by the name of the proletarian parties are, in reality, petty bourgeois or non-proletarian in character. The only real test to distinguish the proletarian from non-proletarian parties is not the revolutionary jargon and the umpteen number of policies, resolutions and "class standpoints" these parties proclaim aloud, but the actual deeds and the revolutionary practice that they are involved in. Hundreds of documents have been published by the various groups and parties in the past two decades and more, all of which claim to apply MLM Thought creatively to the concrete conditions of India. While some of these groups and parties have gone over to the camp of the bourgeoisie notwithstanding the character of MLM Thought, some have treaded the right deviationist line. There are very few groups and parties at present which adhere to MLM Thought not only in theory but also in practice. These groups or parties have been waging armed struggle for a considerable period of time. On the whole, of the various groups and parties going by the name of CPI (ML) or other Communist Revolutionary organisations, some have already gone deep into the mire of revisionism, some others have been pursuing the right deviationist line though these can still be considered part of the revolutionary camp in general and a third category of genuine revolutionary groups and parties that are persisting in revolutionary class struggles and are proceeding towards the creation of guerilla zones and seizure of political power through revolutionary means. The immediate task confronting the Indian proletariat is to build a single, unified, mass proletarian revolutionary party of a new type - a truly Bolshevik Party - by unifying the genuine revolutionary groups and Parties belonging to the third category mentioned above. While there is an objective basis at present for bringing about such a unification, it will still involve a process as there exist different political perceptions of the problems facing the Indian revolution, with regard to the complex international situation, and concerning the organisational methods practiced by each of these groups and parties. The absence of a lively and open-hearted debate and interaction between the various CR groups and their isolated functioning as independent and separate entities for nearly two decades is reflected in the political and organisational differences at present and still continues to impede the process of revolutionary unification. However, as every party that engaged in serious class struggle has begun to realise that the Indian revolution cannot advance to a qualitatively higher stage without a single directing centre, the unification of the various revolutionary movements in different parts of the country is becoming realisable wish. While trying to achieve the unification of revolutionaries of the third category, attempts should also be made to bring about a preliminary unity of action with those groups and parties in the revolutionary camp that are pursuing a right opportunist line. A long and protracted political and ideological struggle should be waged to rectify the right opportunist political line and bourgeois liberal methods of organisation pursued by these parties of the second category before any attempts for political and organisational unity with them can be made. Joint struggles against the common enemy - the formation of a unified front of the various mass organisations belonging to these groups and parties - is the most desirable and healthy starting point for achieving real unity in the long run. Dimitrov's remarks in this regard are note worthy: "To propose to unite at once instead of forming a united front means to place the cart before the horse and to imagine that the cart will then move ahead. Precisely for the reason that for us the question of political unity is not a manouevre, as it is for many Social Democratic leaders, we insist on the realisation of unity of action as one of the most important stages in the struggle for political unity". (Consolidating Communist Parties, Georgi Dimitrov) To conclude, we propose a joint political forum comprising all those parties and groups falling broadly in the revolutionary camp i.e., the second and third categories above, to take up joint struggles against the class enemies, to organise united fronts of mass organisations, and to initiate political-ideological debate among the various groups and parties. Those parties which resolve their political and organisational differences can merge with a single Party and continue the process of unification through the broader joint forum. IV The second important feature that has to be taken into account in formulating the strategy and tactics of the Indian democratic revolution is the existence of a highly centralised state machinery unlike in pre-liberation China. The armed forces of the state are well-trained and well-equipped and, seen tactically, their power is overwhelming. But strategically, they are but "paper tigers" when confronted with the armed might of the masses. In spite of their overwhelming tactical superiority, the entire armed might of the Indian state - military, para-military and the various police forces - comprises about a quarter of one percent of the Indian population. But given the weakness of the revolutionary forces until now, the state's tactical superiority is seen by some of the CR groups as a factor that does not allow large-scale armed struggle or the setting up of guerilla zones and base areas in the countryside as in pre-liberation China. Thus most of the CR groups and parties that had carried on armed struggle against feudal forces, virtually abandoned the struggle when confronted with the armed might of the state. They found an "easier" way out by going into the parliamentary and other peaceful forms of struggle. The relatively well-developed machinery of the Indian state, the advanced transport and communication system etc. cannot be seen in isolation from the other important features that characterise the Indian society - the vastness of Indian territory, its huge agrarian population, the struggles of the various nationalities, the uneven development of its economic and social conditions, and the existence of a terrain favourable for protracted guerilla warfare. All these features determine the nature and direction of the revolutionary war in India. They prove that, notwithstanding the tactical superiority of the enemy's strength, it is possible to wage large-scale revolutionary guerilla warfare in the Indian country-side and, that by developing an extensive mass base and by equipping oneself with a clear-cut perspective, guerilla zones can be developed throughout the country. They also prove that in regions where the terrain is favourable to wage large-scale guerilla war, it is also possible to develop base areas under certain favourable conditions. The failure of the Indian Communist movement in developing the guerilla zones and base areas lies, not in the objective factors such as the tactical superiority of the centralised Indian state as is often being claimed, but in the absence of a consistent revolutionary line of area wise seizure of power. The Telangana armed struggle of 1946-51, which had all the potential of extending to wider areas if guided by a consistent revolutionary line of protracted people's war, suffered an ignominious setback due to the betrayal by the then revisionist leadership of the Communist Party when confronted by the armed onslaught by the Indian state. The Naxalbari, Srikakulam, Mushahari, Birbhum, Debra-Gopivallabhpur struggles of the late 1960s and early 1970s suffered a setback due to the wrong tactics pursued by the then CPI (ML) leadership rather than due to the superiority of the Indian state. Instead of drawing appropriate lessons from the failures of these armed peasant movements and thereby formulate effective tactics and counter strategies to face the offensive by the Indian state, most of the CR groups and parties in India have come to the wrong conclusion that armed struggle itself cannot be sustained when confronted by the might of the Indian state. In the history of the ML movement in India, facing state repression has always been the most important turning point. It has been at this point that many groups got degenerated. New theories, new programmes, new perspectives, new political-technical lines and new 'bold' (!) initiatives - in short, every innovative thing in the world is drawn up, everything except a concrete plan and an initiative to face state repression. Our Party, on the other hand, has been carrying out armed struggle for nearly a decade against the armed mercenaries of the Indian state. It was only by preparing the entire Party to face the state repression and effectively defeating the enemy tactics that our Party could take the movement to a higher stage in Dandakaranya and North Telangana. There is also a considerable amount of confusion and even deviations among the CR groups and parties on the question of commencing armed struggle. Some think that armed struggle against the state should begin only after the struggle passes through a succession of phases. This 'phases theory' insists that in the beginning there should be a phase of wide revolutionary propaganda to be followed by a phase of economic struggles and then a phase of armed peasant resistance and it is only after the completion of such a process that armed struggle against the state should be taken up and efforts be made to establish guerilla zones. Due to such a mechanical understanding, several CR groups and parties have been bogged down in pure propaganda work or in day-to-day economic struggles. Some have confined their struggles to limited armed actions against feudal forces in the name of developing armed peasant resistance and have totally failed to advance armed struggle by formulating necessary tactics to counter the armed offensive by the State. Our Party's experiences have shown the incorrectness of such a theory of phases for launching armed struggle in India. Our Party had to begin armed struggle in the course of taking up economic struggles itself. The present armed struggle that our Party is waging against the state is for the fulfilment of both economic demands as well as for the seizure of political power. In the midst of severe repression by the enemy, our Party had to take up wide propaganda campaign, extensive economic struggles, political education, training and consolidation of the party's rank and file while persisting in armed struggle to combat the state repression. At the same time, we will be failing in our duty as revolutionaries if we do not take into account the above-mentioned special feature of the Indian revolution - the existence of a centralised powerful state machinery. This feature makes it far more difficult for us to establish stable base areas unlike in China prior to liberation. The main effort should therefore be to develop several Guerilla zones throughout the Indian countryside with the aim of creating a countrywide mass upsurge and to bring about a change in the objective balance of forces between the enemy and ourselves in the course of time. In such a situation when the enemy's armed forces have to be increasingly dispersed over wider areas and have to be engaged in the armed combat with our guerilla forces in several guerrilla zones, it would be quite possible for us to advance to the stage of base areas, however temporary and mobile the latter may be, in those regions where there is a favourable terrain for conducting large-scale mobile warfare (and, at times, even positional warfare) by the people's armed forces. Moreover, several other factors favourable for the creation of base areas are bound to arise in the course of political developments in India and the world at large. For instance, it is certain that, the contradictions within the ruling classes will sharpen further as a result of the sharpening of the inter-imperialist contradictions thereby leading to a severe political crisis and a highly unstable rule; that the armed struggles of the various oppressed nationalities will intensify further thereby diverting a considerable chunk of the enemy's armed forces, energies and finances; that a massive people's upsurge against imperialism and the Indian state will develop in several areas as the intensifying crisis brings about an awakening among the hitherto dormant masses. Revolts by a section of the police and jawans of the military and para-military also cannot be ruled out nor can the possibility of an outbreak of war (regional or world war) that could divert part of the enemy's strength and resources. In short, a revolutionary crisis may develop wherein a revolutionary party that is steeled in the course of the protracted people's war against the enemy's armed forces can seize the occasion to develop base areas in certain regions or even succeed in a countrywide seizure of political power. Whatever may be the combination of factors that may arise eventually in favour of a quicker shift to a qualitatively higher stage of our revolutionary warfare, the pre-condition for utilising such a favourable situation lies in our serious and consistent effort to develop several guerilla zones throughout the country. Like the Parties of the Second International, those communist revolutionary groups and parties which imagine that guerilla zones cannot be established without the emergence of such a favourable situation as described above can never succeed in fighting the Indian state even when such a revolutionary crisis becomes a reality. It is only through a protracted armed struggle against the Indian state that the tide can be gradually turned in our favour. At the same time, it is also the imperative duty of the revolutionary party of the Indian proletariat to exert maximum effort to weaken the state machine internally by working secretly within the various arms of the state especially the armed forces based on a long-term perspective. Concentration should also be placed upon the task of working in the key sectors of transport, telecommunications and defence-related industries so as to paralyse the effective functioning of the state in times of need. It is also essential to undertake political mobilisation of all sections of the Indian people affected by the pro-imperialist and anti-people policies of the Indian ruling classes, to widen the mass base among the workers in urban areas, and to build and strengthen Trade Union organisations under the Party's leadership. All the above-mentioned anti imperialist tasks should contribute to the advancement and strengthening of armed struggle. Only by linking them with armed struggle can the above tasks fulfil their revolutionary role. V Another special feature of the Indian revolution is that it is taking place in a multi-national country where scores of nationalities and national minorities are oppressed by the Indian state in league with imperialism. Some of these oppressed nationalities, as those in the North Eastern states of India, have been waging armed struggles against the Indian state more consistently than even the communist revolutionaries. Of late, more and more nationalities have taken to the path of militant struggle - in Kashmir, Punjab, Gorkhaland, Jharkhand, Uttarkhand, Bodoland etc. Several more nationalities, hitherto dormant and unaffected by political events, are bound to come into the arena of struggle with the ever-intensifying crisis in the Indian and world economies that inevitably push the burden of the crisis more and more on to the backs of the people of the various oppressed nationalities in India. The question, therefore, that confronts squarely the party of the Indian proletariat is: How to unite these struggles of the various oppressed nationalities into a common fighting united front against the common enemy - the Indian State? And what should be the programme of the Indian proletariat to solve the national question in India? The various CR groups and parties in India are as much divided on this issue as any other. While some view the struggles of the various nationalities, especially those that are being waged with the demand of secession from the Indian Union as imperialist-inspired and, so disrupting the unity achieved by the Indian people in the course of the long-drawn-out struggle against British imperialism, yet others assert that it is not the business of revolutionaries to get involved in these struggles since these are neither class struggles nor are led by the proletariat. Interestingly all the CR groups and parties support the right to self-determination of nations, including their right to secession in theory! At the other end of the spectrum, some groups claiming to be Marxist-Leninists, have degenerated to the level of bourgeois nationalists by replacing class struggle with national struggle through their line of organising every nationality in India separately and fighting for secession irrespective of the stage of historical development of the particular nationality, the level of development of class struggle and political consciousness among the people of a particular nationality. There is also the extreme position of advocating for organisational federalism like that of the Jewish Bund in pre-Revolution Russia. The nationality question in India thus poses a formidable challenge to the Communist Revolutionaries. Let us briefly look into the nature of the problem and then the Marxist-Leninist approach to resolve it. Modern nations, as we know, are a product of a definite epoch. The epoch of rising capitalism. The process of the abolition of feudalism and the development of capitalism was also a process of formation of people into nations. Whereas in Western Europe as a whole, the formation of nations coincided with the formation of centralised states, thereby leading to the emergence of independent bourgeois national states, in India on the other hand, a centralised state arose prior to the break-up of feudalism i.e. prior to the formation of full-fledged nations, on account of colonisation by the British. Hence the various nations in the process of formation could not develop into separate nation states but were artificially brought together into a multi-national colonial state. It was only in the course of the struggle against feudalism and British imperialism that the various nationalities in India began to assert themselves as separate entities. A certain degree of unity was achieved among the various nationalities inhabiting India in the course of their struggle against their common enemies - feudalism and British imperialism. As the various nationalities were artificially and deliberately fragmented to become parts of different administrative units under the British as part of the latter's policy of "Divide and Rule", the struggles of the nationalities became part of the broader anti-imperialist struggle to throw out British imperialism from Indian soil. In post-British India, virtually the same old policies were followed by the new Indian ruling classes to whom power was transferred - the big landlords and the comprador big-bourgeoisie. It was only after a long and arduous struggle by the various nationalities that linguistic reorganisation of states could take place. The process is by no means complete as is being witnessed by the struggles of the newly emerging nationalities for separate statehoods as in Gorkhaland, Bodo Land, Jharkhand, Chattisgharh, Uttarakhand, Poorvanchal etc. More and more such struggles are bound to breakout in the future especially in the Hindi heartland of UP, Bihar and MP and in the North Eastern States. But granting of statehood within the Indian Union addresses only a minor part of the national problem since the real problem lies in the oppression by feudalism, imperialism and comprador big bourgeoisie. As long as such nationality is weighed down by these three big mountains, there cannot be any genuine development of their economies, culture, language and so on. Complete democracy, which is the basis for the elimination of national oppression, cannot be achieved without overthrowing these three monsters. Once these oppressors are overthrown, a voluntary Indian Federation can be formed consisting of the various national People's Republics which will have the right to unhampered secession. One distinguishing feature of the national oppression in India is that it is being carried out not by any one particular dominant nation as was the case in Russia, but by the above three enemies of the people and by their agent, the Indian state. Thus the task of the Indian proletariat is to lead the struggles of these various nationalities against the above enemies with the specific programme of equality of all nations and languages in the country and recognising the right of all nationalities for self-determination including secession. Each and every struggle of the nationalities should be supported if it is directed against imperialism and the Indian state and if it does not bring about any division within the oppressed masses. The policy pursued by the Soviet Union and China with regard to the nationalities in their respective countries should serve as a guide line. The Russian policy was expressed unequivocally in the following words: "The essence of this policy can be expressed in a few words: the renunciation of all 'claims' and 'rights' to regions inhabited by non-Russian nationalities; the recognition (not in word but in deed) of the right of these nationalities to exist as independent states; the formation of a voluntary, military and economic union of these nationalities with Central Russia; the granting of aid to the backward nationalities in their cultural and economic development, without which what is known as 'national equality' becomes an 'empty sound' and the basing of all this on the complete emancipation of the peasants and the concentration of the entire political power in the hands of the toiling elements of the border nationalities - such is the national policy of the Russian Communists". ('The October Revolution and the National Policy of the Russian Communists' (1921) - Stalin). The 'Resolution of the National Question' adopted by the Seventh All-Russian Conference of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, held in 1917, further stated: "The right of all the nations forming part of Russia freely to secede and form independent states shall be recognised. To negate this right, or to fail to take measures guaranteeing its practical realisation, is equivalent to supporting a policy of seizure and annexation. The recognition by the proletariat of the right of nations to secede can alone bring about complete solidarity among the workers of the various nations and help to bring the nations closer together on truly democratic lines". The Constitution of the Chinese Soviet Republic too declared the same policy with regard to its national minorities though the overwhelming majority of the Chinese population - almost 93% - belonged to the Han nationality: "The Soviet Government in China recognises the right of self-determination of the national minorities in China, their right to complete separation from China, the formation of an independent state for each national minority. All Mongolians, Tibetans, Miao, Yao, Koreans and others living in the territory of China shall enjoy the full right to self-determination i.e. they may either join the Chinese Soviet state or secede from it and form their own state as they prefer". ('The Fundamental Law of the Chinese Soviet Republic', London, 1934). One cannot even be a democrat, let alone being a socialist, if the Right to Self-Determination of the nationalities in India including their right to form independent political states is not recognised. But the question that has plagued the Indian Communist movement for decades has been: should Communists support every struggle for secession? What should be the yardstick for deciding whether a particular struggle for secession by a nationality is progressive or not? The CPI brought out its first comprehensive document on the nationality question in 1942. It upheld the right to self-determination of the Indian nationalities including the right to secession in its First and Second Congresses held in 1943 and 1948 respectively. It advocated the formation of a voluntary Indian Union. But after 1955, the CPI fell into the revisionist position of denying the right to secession for the Indian nationalities. It even began to assert that struggle for secession could disrupt the unity and integrity of the country. The CPI (ML) formed in 1969, once again reaffirmed the principle of the right to self-determination including the right to secession and extended its support to the ongoing nationality struggles. In the last two decades, several wrong trends have appeared among the various CR groups and Parties on the national question. The proletariat however, can have only a single standpoint on the nationality question and with regard to the ongoing nationality struggles in India if Marxist-Leninist method is genuinely applied as was done by Com. Lenin and Stalin in the Soviet Union. As Com. Stalin pointed out: "When we put forward the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination we thereby raise the struggle against national oppression to the level of a struggle against imperialism, our common foe. Unless we do so, we may find ourselves in the position of people who bring grist to the mill of the imperialists. If we, the Social Democrats, were to deny the Finnish people the right to declare its will on the subject of secession and the right to give effect to its will, we would thereby put ourselves in the position of people who continue the policy of Czarism". ("Report on the National Question" delivered at the 7th All Russia Conference of the RSDLP, April, 1917). He also explained most convincingly as to how the overwhelming majority of nationality movements have a revolutionary character: "The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily pre-suppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle, the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan, is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas, the struggle waged by such desperate Democrat and Socialists, revolutionaries and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaude and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its result was the whitewashing, the strengthening the victory of imperialism. For the same reason, the struggle the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to Socialism, whereas the fight British Labour Government is waging to perpetuate Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of 'for' socialism." ('The National Problem', April 1924, from the Lecture on the Foundations of Leninism delivered at the Sverdlov University). Thus though "the question of the right of nations freely to secede must not be confused with the question of whether a nation must necessarily secede at any given moment" and "the question of secession must be determined in each particular case independently, in accordance with existing circumstances...", the communists only have the right to convince the people against the demand for secession in the interests of the proletariat, but should not oppose the struggle for secession unless in a rare instance of its strengthening imperialism. Com. Stalin, though he was opposed to the secession of Transcaucasia due to the concrete conditions prevailing in that region, made this explicitly clear: "I personally would be opposed to the secession of Transcaucasia, bearing in mind the general level of development in Transcaucasia and in Russia, certain conditions of the struggle of the proletariat, and so forth. But, if nevertheless, the peoples of Transcaucasia were to demand secession, they would of course, secede, and would not encounter opposition from us". ('Report on the National Question', April 1917). Keeping the above observations in view, the Indian proletariat must extend all support to the various ongoing nationality struggles in India since these struggles are primarily directed against imperialism and the comprador Indian ruling classes. A distinction must, of course, be made between the nationalities of the North East and Kashmir on the one hand and those in the other states of India on the other. The former have never considered themselves as part of India since they were actually annexed by the British and added to India. The ruling classes of India have continued their occupation of the territories of these nationalities after the transfer of power despite promises made prior to 1947 that in the present concrete conditions, we must extend complete and unflinching support to the demand for secession of the former while in the case of the latter, we ourselves should lead the struggle for a voluntary union of the Indian nationalities. Even if some regional comprador-feudal parties rake up the national issue to the point of secession in those states, the proletariat should expose them and try to convince the people that secession is against their basic interests and that coming together into a political and military points of view. If, however, the entire people of that nationality insist on seceding, we must not oppose it. By following such a policy alone it will become easier for us to unite with them again after a lapse of time after gaining their confidence through our consistently democratic policy towards them. We must at the same time, fight against the attempts by some so-called Marxist-Leninist groups to play up the tendencies of national narrow-mindedness and prejudice, their exaggeration of the national peculiarities, and their advocating the formation of nationality organisations as the sine quo non of their revolutionary work. This is a dangerous trend as pointed out by Com. Stalin in the case of Russia: "When the workers are organised according to nationality they are isolated within their national shells, fenced off from each other by organisational partitions. The stress is laid not on what is common to the workers but on what distinguishes them from each other. In this type of organisation the worker is primarily a member of his nation: Jew, Pole and so on. It is not surprising that national federalism in organisation inculcates in the workers a spirit of national aloofness." ('Marxism and the National Question', 1913). Communists must, of course, be in the forefront of every democratic demand of the nationalities whether it is for autonomy; for equal status for their languages; for separate statehood; against economic, social cultural and other forms of oppression by a certain dominant nation (oppression by Bengalis over Assamese and over other nationalities of the North East; the oppression by the Assamese over the small nationalities in the state of Assam such as the Bodos, Karbis, Mishings etc); against the policy of discrimination exhibited in any field towards particular nationality, and so on. Appropriate forms of struggle and organisation should be evolved to fight every manifestation of national oppression taking all care, at the same time, to bring the people of the particular nationality out of national aloofness and to promote a spirit of international solidarity among them. Such should be the essence of the Marxist-Leninist approach to the nationality question in India. VI The question of caste is another special feature of the Indian revolution that any serious revolutionary party should place high on its political agenda. But, unfortunately, this stands out as the most neglected question throughout the history of the Indian Communist Movement. The general tendency among the communists has been to treat the question of caste mechanically as a super-structural category that could be eliminated once the existing social system is changed through a social revolution or to treat it as a question to be taken up only after the resolution of class struggle. Hence the Communist Party, ever since its inception, had not given due importance to the immediate social problems faced by the oppressed castes. Though the revolutionary trend in the Indian Communist movement made some sincere attempts to draw the oppressed castes, especially Dalits, into the revolutionary movement, it did not formulate a concrete programme and plan of action to tackle the caste question. It is true that the complete resolution of the caste question is possible only after the present semi-feudal, semi-colonial state and society are changed through the New Democratic Revolution. At the same time, we should not forget that the struggle of the downtrodden castes against social and cultural oppression by the upper castes who are firmly entrenched in positions of power forms an integral part of the wider class struggle going on in the society for total change. Applying Marx's famous words to the Indian context, where caste is a concrete living reality, we can say: "All hitherto history of India is the history of class and caste struggles". From the time of the Charvakas to the present day, i.e., for over two-and-a-half millennium, the oppressed castes and classes have been raising the banner of revolt time and again against the unjust, cruel, criminal, barbaric caste system - a system the like of which has never been witnessed anywhere else in the world. Sanctified by the Hindu religion, this authoritarian, undemocratic and hierarchical institution of caste stultified the human mind, suppressed the human abilities and potentialities and distorted human development. By placing a vast section of the population - almost a fifth - outside society as outcastes and creating several rigid hierarchical gradations even within the peasant castes, the Sudras, it has effectively checked the formation and growth of class consciousness for long. Right from the time of the Buddha, various religious and social reformers, such as Basavanna, Ramanuja, Chaitanya, Kabir, Sankar Dev, Guru Nanak, Tukaram, Narayana Guru and others launched extensive movements to fight the evils of the caste system. But the caste system continued as the "steel frame of Hinduism" untouched by the "storm clouds of the political sky". Caste-Class Awakening During the British Period: When the British arrived on the scene, they did not touch the Brahminical Hindu order with its inhuman caste system but, on the contrary, had even tried to strengthen it through their policy of 'Divide and Rule' in order to perpetuate their colonial rule. But the British colonialists, from their own class needs, had set about an objective process that gave rise to new social classes from within these castes while the caste system continued in newer forms. The upper castes in the Chaturvarna system - the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas - became the new ruling class of Zamindars, the industrial, commercial and financial bourgeoisie, and the new bureaucracy, retaining of course, all the birth marks of their respective castes. The peasant caste of Sudras became transformed into tenants under Zamindars and absentee landlords and into a class of peasant proprietors divided into upper, middle and lower strata. Some of these also became part of the modern working class engaged in industry, mining, plantations and transport. The majority of the Dalit castes became largely landless labourers while a few became part of the working class. The rise of these new social classes, however, had not replaced the caste system but had only modified it to suite the new social needs arising out of the transformation of the feudal economy into a semi-feudal colonial economy. During the British period, the democratic awakening of the depressed castes took place as an integral part of the general democratic awakening of the oppressed classes, masses and nationalities against imperialist rule. This awakening came in the form of a powerful anti-Brahmin movement in the Southern Indian states and in Western India. Since the Brahmin caste, generally speaking, exercised its monopoly over the newly-introduced bourgeois western education and dominated the new occupational structure created by the British thereby serving the British colonial rule in India apart from their role as landlords, the anti-Brahmin movement, objectively speaking, had an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal content despite the fact that it is not articulated in such precise terminology by the subjective forces leading the movement. But although these movements led by such stalwarts as Jyothiba Phule, Dr. Ambedkar, Periyar E.V.R. Ramaswamy Naickar and others did create a democratic consciousness and unleashed the democratic aspirations among members of hitherto oppressed backward castes and dalits, they finally ended up by placing power and privileged social positions in the hands of non-Brahmin upper castes who became the new oppressors in addition to the Brahmin oppressors. It was the Reddys, Kammas and Rajus in AP, Mudaliars, Chettiars, Vellalars in Tamil nadu, the Patels and the Marathas in Maharashtra, Vokkaligas and Lingayats in Karnataka and Nairs in Kerala who benefited the most from these movements. These castes in turn, having compromised with Brahmanism, shared power with Brahmins and the other socially backward castes. In Northern India, where both the Communist movement as well as a strong anti-Brahmin movement were conspicuously absent, the struggles by the dalits and other oppressed castes began only after the 1960s. As a result, untouchability, residential segregation, non-entry into hotels and other public places in the rural areas continued in practice in the post-'47 period. Atrocities by upper castes backed by the state increased on the dalits wherever they tried to assert their rights. The failure of the communists to take up the question of caste oppression and discrimination of the dalits led to the emergence of some radical Dalit organisations like the Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra. But lacking a proper perspective of building a broader class front of all the oppressed sections and dominated by a liberal democratic outlook, the movements gradually degenerated and some of the leaders were absorbed by the ruling classes. Of late, several exclusively caste-based organisations such as the BSP have sprung up among the Scheduled Castes and other Backward Castes which seek to utilise and divert the frustration among the people of those castes, and their growing assertion and awareness, into reformist channels. The Indian ruling classes have stepped up their conspiracies to divide the people and to attack the rural poor by using caste as a major weapon. Caste riots are also being instigated in some urban areas to divert the people from their real problems and to keep them eternally divided. Hence the Communist Revolutionaries must pay special attention to lead the struggles of the oppressed castes and to make these struggles an integral part of the ongoing New Democratic Revolution in our country. Such a task can be taken up if and only if the CR groups and parties realise that the struggle of the oppressed castes against caste inequalities and discrimination is a democratic struggle and is, in essence, an integral part of the wider class struggle waged by the oppressed masses to be free from all types of class exploitation. A line of demarcation should be drawn between the organisations/associations of the dalits and other oppressed castes formed for the defence of their rights and the upper-caste organisations which are formed for maintaining their age-old caste-class hegemony. Inspite of the limitations inherent in the policy of 'reservations', and its reformist nature, we must be in the forefront of the struggles for the implementation of adequate reservations for the Scheduled Castes, Tribes, and the Backward Classes. At the same time, we must explain to oppressed castes that their genuine liberation lies in advancing the Agrarian Revolution with the demand of "land to the tiller" by uniting with poorer sections of all other castes and tribes and in overthrowing the trio of feudalism, imperialism and the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie which serves as the basis for the continuation of caste inequalities and for the savage attacks against the oppressed castes, religious minorities and the people of various nationalities. Mobilisation of the oppressed castes into revolutionary class struggles in rural Telangana - formerly a region of the most savage feudal form of caste-class oppression - on the demand of "Land to the Tiller" and for the establishment of people's authority in place of feudal authority along with other general demands of the peasantry, shows the path of solving the problem of caste oppression. But, even in these areas of intense class struggle, there is a need to chalk out a concrete programme to tackle the caste question and to work with special concentration. In regions where we are weak and class struggle is on a low key, we must actively intervene and lead the movements of the dalits and other oppressed castes on their specific demands and gradually broaden these movements to include all the oppressed sections of society. Appropriate forms of struggle and organisation must be evolved and specific programmes and slogans must be formulated to fight upper-caste chauvinism and every manifestation of caste discrimination and thereby rally the vast masses of the Bahujans especially the dalits who harbour illusions on exclusively caste-based organisations and on parties such as the BSP. We must adopt a policy of forging a common front with the cadres of such organisations on specific issues related to caste discrimination while taking care to expose the bourgeois reformist nature and limitations of their leadership. VII The fifth special feature of the Indian revolution that needs mention is the communal problem. India is a land where at least 15% of the population comprises of religious minorities. It has the second largest concentration of Muslims in the world - over 12 crores - which is more than the total population of Pakistan. India also has a Sikh community of around 2 crores. Then there are other religious minorities like the Christians of various persuasions, Buddhists and Jains. Besides, there are various Adivasi tribes who were never in the Hindu religious fold. The majority of people comprising the religious minorities are actually local converts as they find the Hindu religion, based as it is on the most obnoxious caste system that prevents upward mobility of the oppressed castes, too oppressive. The people belonging to the various religious persuasions have generally lived in an atmosphere of communal harmony and have fought the oppressors unitedly as the Mysore wars, the glorious 1857 revolt, the Sikh revolts against the British, the Garehwal uprising and other anti-imperialist movements testify. The British colonialists used all means at their disposal to inflame communal passions and to divide the people in the same way as they utilised the caste and nationality sentiments. The same policy was continued in the post-British period by the Indian ruling classes and imperialism. Whenever the ruling classes faced a severe crisis, communal passions are raked up to divert the people from the path of united struggle against the exploitative social system. Unable to meet the growing aspirations of the oppressed people in the face of the ever-intensifying crisis in the Indian and world economies, the Indian ruling classes in collusion with imperialism are bound to play up religious prejudices, foment communal riots and institute fascist rule in the name of controlling communal violence. This conspiracy of the ruling classes has become increasingly evident in the past decade. Scores of cities and towns and entire regions were placed under curfew after instigating communal riots. A sense of insecurity and alienation was created among the Muslims and Sikhs and a permanent cleavage between the Hindus and these religious minorities was brought about in the past decade. It is the bounden duty of CRs to expose the conspiracies of the ruling classes and to stand firmly by the side of the religious minorities in their struggle against Hindu chauvinism and in their acts of self-defence against the attacks by the Hindu fascist forces. The failure on the part of the CRs to recognise the pro-Hindu nature of the Indian state, the conspiracies hatched by the Indian ruling classes and imperialism to divide the people along communal lines and the acts of persecution being perpetrated by the Indian state and the Hindu chauvinist elements upon the religious minorities day in and day out, has led to their equating religious fundamentalism of the religious minorities with that of Hindu chauvinism. This is a dangerous trend that would only help the nefarious designs of the ruling classes and further alienate the religious minorities from the mainstream of struggle. As Communist Revolutionaries we must be able to distinguish between the religious fundamentalism practiced by the religious minorities as a desperate defence against the onslaught of aggressive Hindu fanaticism on the one hand, and Hindu chauvinism, backed by the Indian state, to persecute the religious minorities and to divert the vast masses from the path of real struggle for their liberation on the other. It is only by working among the oppressed masses of Muslims, Sikhs and other religious minorities with utmost patience and uniting them with their class brethren among the Hindus on their common class demands and thereby helping them to come out of their feeling of insecurity and isolationism that we can bring them out of their religious fundamentalist shell. The CRs should expose and fight against the pro-Hindu bias of the Indian state machinery - its armed forces, police, judiciary bureaucracy etc., and the media. They should fight against every act of persecution of the religious minorities by the Indian state, by the overtly Hindu fascist organisations such as the BJP-RSS-VHP-Bajrang Dal-Shiv Sena-Hindu Munnani-Hindu Suraksha Samiti etc., as well as the covert means used by other reactionary organisations of the ruling classes to rake up communal passions and communal riots. While standing firmly by the side of the persecuted religious minorities, we must expose and defeat the conspiracies hatched by a section of their leadership belonging to the Indian ruling classes to split the unity of the oppressed masses by giving the struggles of the minorities a purely anti-Hindu orientation and their heinous attempts to rake up religious fundamentalism. We must strive to direct the struggles of the religious minorities against the Indian state, against the various Hindu fascist organisations and other pseudo-secular forces. In exposing the saffron brand of Hinduism practiced by the Hindu fascist forces, we must concentrate our efforts upon working among the dalits, tribes, backward castes and Hindu women - all of whom comprise over 80 percent of the Hindu population and are victims of the inhuman caste system and of the Manu Dharma Shastras. Thus we must organise joint actions everywhere at the grassroots level by uniting the above sections of the Hindu population, the oppressed among the Muslims, the Sikhs and Christians against the communalisation and fascisisation of the Indian state and against the Hindu chauvinist forces. VIII The last feature that we wish to mention is the role of Parliament and other legislative bodies in semi-feudal, semi-colonial India and the question of utilisation or non-utilisation of these by the Communist Revolutionaries. As the Second Congress of the Comintern had pointed out in 1920, the Parliament served as a progressive institution in the period of rising capitalism i.e. in the era of pre-monopoly capitalism when the rising capitalist class played a revolutionary role in breaking up the feudal fetters that became hurdle for the development of the productive forces. Hence Parliament too could be used as an instrument for enacting reforms. "In the preceding historical epoch parliament was an instrument of the developing capitalist system, and as such played a role that was in a certain sense progressive. In the modern conditions of unbridled imperialism, parliament has become a weapon of falsehood, deception and violence, a place of enervating chatter. In the face of the devastation, embezzlement, robbery and destruction committed by imperialism, parliamentary reforms which are wholly lacking in consistency, durability and order lose all practical significance for the working masses". ('The Communist Party and Parliament', Second Congress of the Communist International, August 1920). Further it warned: "At the present time parliament cannot be used by the Communists as the arena in which to struggle for reforms and improvements in working-class living standards as was the case at certain times during the past epoch. The focal point of political life has shifted fully and finally beyond the boundaries of parliament". (Ibid) Thus in the era of imperialism, when the capitalist class itself became parasitic and a drag on the society's productive forces, parliament became a mere tool in the hands of the monopoly capital to suppress and oppress the working class and the subject nations. Corresponding to the degree of internationalisation of capital and production, national parliaments have become increasingly irrelevant. In the present day world when a handful of TNCs and MNCs control the world economy, politics and culture, policies are generally made outside the Parliament and without the consent or even knowledge of the elected representatives. This is even more true in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America where the Parliaments are deprived of the power to enact any legislation to curb the unrestricted plunder by the imperialist monopolies. Given the semi-feudal, semi-colonial nature of most of the societies in the Third World countries, it is only through extra-parliamentary struggles that even the minimum demands of the masses can be met. Despite the fact that the institution of Parliament has hardly any power to enact laws on vital issues concerning a particular Third World country, international capital and the comprador ruling classes are still maintaining it as a showpiece of "democracy" to dupe the masses and are utilising it as a safety valve to let out the pent-up steam of wrath and frustration among the masses so as the latter do not seek revolutionary channels. In the imperialist countries where it is not possible for the proletariat to commence armed struggle before the objective conditions attain maturity and where a long period of propaganda, education, agitation and training of the toiling masses become a prerequisite for staging an insurrection, the parliamentary form of struggle becomes a tactic until the development of a revolutionary crisis. But in countries characterised by extreme uneven development and where the revolutionary situation is excellent and permits the commencement of a protracted people's war, the parliamentary form of struggle has hardly any significance. It should be noted that the Third International's advice to the working class to have its "reconnaissance units in the parliamentary institutions of the bourgeoisie in order to hasten their destruction" concerns the bourgeois-democratic countries that follow the path of insurrection. In our country, the Parliament is not even bourgeois-democratic in character. It is an instrument in the hands of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie-big landlord classes and serves international capital. Even the progressive legislations that are passed in the Parliament have no validity in the vast tracts of rural India where it is the writ of the landlords that shapes the destinies of the people. Since the Parliament in India is not even a bourgeois Parliament, can we assert that it cannot be utilised at all throughout the period of New Democratic Revolution? This is a ticklish question that has divided the CRs in India into two camps - one camp consisting of a considerable number of the CR groups and parties participating in elections, and a second camp of revolutionaries who have been consistently boycotting elections. Marxist-Leninists should, of course, utilise every of the enemy institutions if it furthers the revolutionary interests as a whole. The question of utilisation or non-utilisation of the Parliament is, therefore, a question of tactics as explained by Com. Lenin. A tactic may be used at times or even it may be rejected for an entire period depending on whether it helps to advance class struggle or to divert it. Recognition of the Parliamentary form of struggle as tactics by itself does not necessarily imply that communists should participate in the elections. Nor does the non-utilisation of the parliamentary form of struggle throughout the period of NDR, divest it of its nature as tactics. Our Party stands by the Leninist principle that the Parliamentary form of struggle is a question of tactics but given the nature of the Indian Parliament, the absence of "free and fair" elections and, most importantly, the historical experiences of the tactics of utilisation of parliament by the communists in our country, and the ever-intensifying revolutionary situation in the country, we think that utilisation of the parliamentary institution will not contribute in any way to advance class struggle for a long time to come. Experience of the past four decades has shown that in the name of utilising the parliamentary "form", the communists have become bogged down more and more into the parliamentary "path" thereby abandoning armed struggle. They have stooped to the worst type of bourgeois scheming in order to secure a few seats. Even those honest revolutionaries who thought of utilising the Parliament while carrying on armed struggle met with disastrous results. Instead of their utilising the parliament, the parliament itself began to utilise them. They had to tone down the tempo of their armed struggle, open up a considerable part of their underground organisation, strike alliances with opportunist parties, and even sections of the local vested interests, to win a few seats - in short, to "fine tune" their organisations to suit the parliamentary form of struggle. In return, they gained a seat or two. The corrupting atmosphere of the Parliamentary pig-sty has led to the degeneration of those elected. Those groups and parties that have been consistently boycotting elections and, instead, have been concentrating on developing armed struggle, could extend the struggle to extensive regions as well as raise the struggle to a higher stage of confrontation with the state. Moreover, at a time when the parliamentary institutions have lost all credibility in the eyes of the masses and are treated as dust by the ruling classes themselves who formulate every major policy outside the portals of the Parliament, the CRs who participate in the parliamentary elections would only be refurbishing the image of a faded institution and giving the dying body a new lease of life by raising false hopes and illusions among the people. Hence, in the concrete circumstances prevailing in India at present, we think that participating in elections in the name of utilising the parliamentary institutions would only lead to negative results and hampers class struggle. IX In the foregoing, we have dealt with a few of the most important special features that characterise the Indian revolution. That there is an imperative need to go deeper into the other features goes hardly without saying. These include: the growing importance of the role of the working class; the tremendous influence and grip of the revisionist parties such as the CPI and CPM over the working class, and the need to evolve a strategy for isolating these revisionists; the relatively greater growth (than in pre-liberation China) of capitalist relations in agriculture, the emergence of a class of capitalist landlords and the growing dependence of a considerable section of the peasantry on the market for their agricultural inputs and for the sale of their produce thereby giving rise to a contradiction between the peasantry on the one hand and imperialism and comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie on the other along with the peasantry's contradiction with feudalism which is principal; the growth of a sizeable section of urban middle class employees and the intelligentsia wing to an increase in urbanisation; and so on. The above factors too should be taken into consideration in formulating the strategy and tactics of Indian revolution.

Posted by: Ms. swapna CCCP At: 17, Oct 2004 9:54:31 PM IST

If naxals really want to fight for oppressed, why can't they lay down their arms, contest in elections, win and serve the oppressed? If they really have support from Tribals, that's what they need to do. Maybe Tribals support Naxals out of fear? who knows?

Posted by: Mr. Srinivas Turlapati At: 17, Oct 2004 5:51:39 AM IST

Hey swapna, Can you give me few points about current naxal idealogy? And How do they planing to acheive that? Can you guide me to any naxalism manifesto? Thank you!

Posted by: Saleem At: 16, Oct 2004 1:05:00 AM IST

Vachaspathi, castism is like racism . Losers feel happy by identifying themselves with a particular caste and feeling superior/good about themselves. When the same castits face racism in other coutnries, they complain. /*Hence they enjoy support from locals. Naxals are so polite and humble when they were with tribal societies. I noticed. They even enquired about me when I was there. But never tried to approach me. */ How nice

Posted by: Ms. swapna CCCP At: 16, Oct 2004 0:54:24 AM IST

Do you think naidu will be spared? lol Naidu couldnt do anything to the naxalite movement other than killing a few leaders.. They emerged much stronger than that. and remember it is naidu who came close to extnction but fate saved him in a split second and naidu didnt take naxalites to extinction

Posted by: Ms. swapna CCCP At: 16, Oct 2004 0:49:55 AM IST

!?!?

Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 15, Oct 2004 6:57:37 PM IST

Swapnaji, For any fighters or agitators the goal or objectives are important. They must give a change to the government too. The Government of India may clamp Art.352, if the naxals in all the states united and come-up with guns. They will be perished. It is sure, if they did so. Even though Marx did an excellent job by analysing the human history by means of Historical Materialism, he did a mistake. He over estimated human mind. 'Religion opiates'....man seldom leave his religion. He only may change it. It happens in majority cases(99.99 percent). In India many are fighting and killing people in the name of Hunour Killings to protect their Caste interests and identity. No thinking mind can ignore the inequality, oppression and astrocities. As I did several fieldworks among Tribal Societies I noticed. I had the first hand knowledge about them. It's true whever there is injustice, naxalites are providing immediate relief. Hence they enjoy support from locals. Naxals are so polite and humble when they were with tribal societies. I noticed. They even enquired about me when I was there. But never tried to approach me. Fantastic to observe this. But Naxalitites are fighting for divided people. It is very very difficult for any movement to get suceed when people are divided! In India the primordial loyalty vests with Caste not Religion. I narrated this in my article that may figure soon in Andhra Prabha.

Posted by: Mr. Vachaspathi V At: 15, Oct 2004 6:52:36 PM IST

Srinivas and Baatasari, If you guys dont know what naxals are fighting for, that doesnt mean naxals dont know what they are fighting for. They very well know what they are fighting for and their chances of winning/losing. Vachaspathi, MCC is very violent and I doubt if they will maintain calm. PWG is far less violent compared to MCC. /*In fact, by fighting from the forests, naxalites are doing injustice to the oppressed people in the plain areas. */ The tribals and villagers are horribly oppressed compared to the city dwellers. IT is good to concentrate on them first and then the city dwellers. Srinivas, I have a feeling that talks will fail and the naxals know that( Its a personal opinion and I might be completely wrong). Naxals wont leave weapons. Entering the talks might be a strategic way to gain popularity among all kinds of masses. They are using it as a stage to spread their ideology and way of fighting. It is to make people know more about them. Constructive work? They are doing a great thing fighting for the poor and exploited. They are running private panchayats and also distributing lands. They declared a war on fuedalism to end rape, theft and exploitation and move towards genuine socialism. If you dont find that positive, I cannot help it. If they didnt do anything positive, they wont have such huge support from tribals and villagers in their strong holds. If you are a scheduled caste exploited tribal in Bihar, you would understand what they are fighting for.

Posted by: Ms. swapna CCCP At: 15, Oct 2004 6:19:43 PM IST

You are right Srinivas. They don't know what they are fighting for. And this merger, for what sake? Dear Naxal supporters, I would like to know the costructive works they did till now, because none of this media will publish such matters. Please enlighten our tiny brains by explaining the positive & costructive deeds they did. Also, some intellectuals can compare the primary motto of naxals and naxalism, with the present trend of naxals and naxalism.

Posted by: Bahud♥♥rapu Baatasaari At: 15, Oct 2004 5:56:48 PM IST

< < Previous Page: 13 of 14 Next > >