The Communist Feb 09

The Communist Theoretical Journal of the CPI(ML) Issue No. 1

February 2009

Contents 1.

Editorial: The Correctness or Incorrectness of the Ideological Political Line Determines Everything

2.

Explanatory Note of former CPI(ML) Red Flag on the three questions of difference

3.

Explanatory Note of former CPI(ML) led by com. Kanu Sanyal on the three questions

4.

Draft Documents of Com. K.N. Ramachandran A. On the Character of the Indian State B. On the Principal Contradiction C. On the Path of Indian Revolution

5.

Draft Document of Com. Subodh Mitra

6.

Draft Document of Com. Viswan on Path

7.

Approach Paper of the CC, CPI(ML) on Evaluation of Party History 1967-72

EDITORIAL

The Correctness or Incorrectness of the Ideological Political Line Determines Everything THE Vijayawada Unity Conference between the CPI(ML) Red Flag and the CPI(ML) formed in 2003 through merger of CPI(ML) Unity Initiative and COI(ML) was held in January 2005 materialised as a result of the earnest desire of all Party comrades for uniting all like-minded Marxist-Leninist forces into a single party capable of leading the People’s Democratic Revolution to victory. This decision to merge into a single organisation was taken based on the Outline Party Programme, the Party Constitution, the Political Resolution and the Unity Resolution drafted by the Co-ordination Committee of these two organisations through a long process of discussion and adopted in the Unity Conference. But on four important questions, viz., on the Evaluation of the Party History from 1967 to 1972, on the Character of the Indian State, on the Principal Contradiction and on the Path of Revolution, no unanimity could be achieved. In a situation when the unity of the Marxist-Leninist forces was eluding all the Marxist-Leninist organisations, these two organisations took a bold decision to unite leaving these four questions unsettled with the perspective of resolving them through a process of unity and struggle in the course of developing revolutionary practice based on the Political Resolution and Unity Resolution. In fact, in a way, it was a bold experiment. During the last four years after the January 2005 Vijayawada Unity Conference, the CPI (ML) could achieve significant advances in expanding the organisation to more states, in strengthening the organisation in a good number of the states, in developing the class/mass organisations at the state level, in launching agrarian movements in some of the states and in taking up many struggles linked to people’s problems. In the course of these developments, the party succeeded in winning over a number of cadres from CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML)

Liberation, CPI(Maoist) and others to its fold, continuing the struggle against right opportunism and left sectarian tendencies. The Unity Conference had called for resolving the first question by organising an All India Plenum within one year. As part of it, the views on evaluating the Party history by leading comrades were published in the inner party organ and a discussion took place in its pages. After that the Plenum was held in June 2007 and a joint resolution on points on which unity could be achieved was adopted leaving the remaining questions to a history commission. This joint statement is published in the end of this volume of The Communist. The other three questions, viz., the Character of the Indian State, the Principal Contradiction and the Path of Revolution are inter-related questions and the two former organisations had basic differences on them. The approach to these questions by the two organisations was briefly added at the end of the Unity Resolution. We are reproducing this part to help the discussion. Though a decision was taken to prepare draft documents on these questions and for this purpose a sub-committee was constituted in September 2007 itself, this task was delayed much as the sub-committee could not meet due to the approach of a section of its members, which they hesitated to put forward, that attempts should be made to prepare compromise drafts. Finally when sub-committee met in April 2008 it was found that compromise drafts are not possible. So it agreed to come out with different drafts by comrades having differing positions. The draft documents on the three questions reflecting the views of former CPI(ML) Red Flag was prepared and presented to the CC by July 2008 beginning by com. K.N. Ramachandran. Another draft was submitted by com. Subodh Mitra by August 2008 and a third draft by com. Viswam was submitted during December 2008 CC meeting. These two reflected the former CPI(ML) led by com. Kanu Sanyal positions. The April 2008 CC meeting had decided that after discussion in the CC, the draft documents should be published in the inner-party organ, translated to different languages and made available to all Party members and inner-party discussion should be started in the pages of the inner-party organ to be followed by the All India Special Conference to be held by November 2009. From the brief statements of the two organisations given in the Unity Resolution, and the positions presented in the draft documents it is clear that they put forward two basically different approaches to these questions. In the discussion in the CC in December 2008 this point became absolutely clear. In this situation the only option before the CC was to publish them in the inner-party organ and initiate inner-party discussions. But this democratic process was obstructed by a section of the CC members. Though the CC met again in January 2009, the filibustering tactic was continued by this section preventing a democratic decision. So the CC is compelled to overrule this view and to publish all the three documents in this volume of The Communist so that they can be translated to different languages, made available to all the Party members and the inner-party discussion on them can be started. II THE CC which met on 22nd January 2009 discussed how the debate on these three interrelated questions can be carried forward. Evaluating the character of the Indian State, determining the principal contradiction in the present situation and putting forward the path of Indian revolution are fundamental questions which determine the future of People’s Democratic Revolution in the country. There are very vast number of Communists in the country who claim to uphold Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought or even Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, scattered in a large number of parties or groups which are calling themselves communist, Marxist-Leninist or by other names. Among them the right opportunist trend represented by CPI, CPI(M) like leaderships have degenerated to parliamentary cretinism following the policies of any other ruling class parties. They do not even dream of working for People’s Democratic Revolution, even though such claims are still made in their Party Programme. So those who have become converts to this approach do not even think of any document on the Path of Indian Revolution. Leaving this section, all other sections are talking about PDR or NDR and many of these organisations have their own

documents on the Path of Indian Revolution. And most of them from CPI(ML) Liberation to CPI(Maoist) evaluate India as a semi-colonial country. Based on it all of them uphold the path of protracted people’s war claiming to be based on Mao Tsetung’s explanation of it, as it was practiced in Chinese conditions. While CPI(Maoist) is trying to implement this path as explained and claimed in its Path document, others having the Path document with some differences have not made any advances in their implementation. So long as they are not put into practice, it is difficult to find out the real differences among these various Paths put forward based on the line of protracted people’s war by these organisations. The CC of the CPI(ML) in its deliberations came out with the view that starting with the publication of the two drafts of comrades Viswam and Subodh, we should try to publish all available Path of Indian Revolution documents based on the line of protracted people’s was so that a thorough discussion on them including the practice of each during the last four post-Naxalbari decades can be taken up seriously. This will help comrades to recognise the correctness or incorrectness of evaluating India as semi-colonial and the Path of Revolution based on the line of protracted people’s war. There is another stream of organisations, though organisationally weak, but very vocal in their Marxist-Leninist claims. They analyse India as a capitalist country and stage of revolution as socialist revolution. We have not come across any path of revolution document by any of them. Still we can encourage them to write about it explaining how they are going to make socialist revolution in this country, how do they analyse the democratic stage of revolution is completed here and how do they analyse India as an independent capitalist country. Contrary to these positions, drafts presented by com. KN Ramachandran make the evaluation that India is a neo-colonial country, present principal contradiction reflecting the changes that have taken place in the production relations in the agricultural sector and a Path of Revolution in detail to carry forward the revolutionary movement with an all India perspective according to concrete conditions of India. All the Marxist-Leninists, we presume, uphold that the correctness or incorrectness of the ideological political line determines everything. And they also, we presume, uphold that Marxism-Leninism calls for concrete analysis of the concrete situation based on which the revolutionary line should be developed. It was only when the concrete situation was correctly analysed by Marx and Engels in the epoch of capitalism they could develop the theory of scientific socialism and give a correct orientation to the working class movement. After capitalism reached its highest stage, imperialism, and when the leaders of the Second International was leading it to the class collaborationist line based on erroneous analysis of it, Lenin could lead the revolutionary movement forward only by scientifically analysing imperialism and developing the Marxist outlook to a higher stage, providing a correct orientation to the theory and practice of proletarian revolution corresponding to the conditions of the imperialist stage. In the post-World War II period, when imperialism led by US imperialism replaced the colonial phase of plunder, through ‘de-colonisation’, to the more pernicious neo-colonial phase of plunder, the socialist camp and the national liberation movements, which had achieved great victories by the 1950s, started facing severe challenges. They started facing severe setbacks as the international communist movement failed to concretely analyse the new situation and develop the Marxist-Leninist theory and practice according to these concrete conditions both in the socialist countries as well as in the countries where revolutionary struggles were being led by the communist parties. In the bitter struggle against Krushchovite revisionism, though the CPC under Mao’s leadership could put forward a preliminary analysis of neo-colonialism, expose the Krushchovite revisionists as apologists of neo-colonialism and put forward the Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement in 1963, in the middle of the fierce struggle taking place first against the capitalist roaders, then against the Lin Piaoist ‘left’ deviation and again against the capitalist roaders who were trying to usurp power with more vigour, the revolutionary section within the CPC under Mao’s leadership could not get the opportunity to make a qualitative development of the Marxist-Leninist understanding according to concrete conditions of the neo-colonial phase of imperialism, rebuild the

Communist International based on the Proposal, and lead the international communist movement forward. In fact, the theoretical lead in this period was usurped by the line of Lin Piao which therefore had great influence on all Marxist-Leninst parties all over the world. Later the new revisionist wave under Deng’s leadership which succeeded in usurping power in China and influencing the newly emerging Marxist-Leninist forces to a great extent became a damper weakening the ideological political struggles then taking place within these forces. A correct ideological political line can emerge in this situation only by ‘seeking truth from the facts”. In India the Naxalbari uprising had encouraged such a theoretical struggle within the communist movement. The debate on the mode of production started was becoming a great eye-opener. Similarly, there were studies on neo-colonialism started in India in continuation to articles put forward by the CPC during the Great Debate. But once the revisionist CPI and neo-revisionist CPI(M) started degenerating fast to ruling class positions and the CPI(ML) and other Marxist-Leninist streams suffered severe setbacks by early 1970s, all these initiatives got more or less blunted. Pragmatism came to dominance. Though annihilation line was renounced, the semi-colonial understanding and concept of protracted people’s war came to dominance, whether it was put in to practice or not. We are of the view that it is high time to restart this debate. We are of the view that the search for a correct ideological political line should be taken up vigorously without which the Marxist-Leninist line according to concrete Indian conditions cannot be developed. Only by developing this line all the communists aspiring for and ready to work for the PDR can be polarised and a powerful Communist Party can be built up. With this perspective we want to go beyond confining this debate within our organisation. We want to open this debate to all the Marxist-Leninists in our country. So we are going to distribute The Communist in hard copy as well as through our website www.cpiml.in to all the Marxist-Leninists for a lively discussion. Though we are starting with these three drafts, we shall try to bring out The Communist almost regularly publishing the Path of Revolution documents of other organisations as well as articles received as a part of this debate. We appeal to all Marxist-Leninists cutting across all organisational barriers to actively participate in this important debate. With revolutionary greetings Editorial Board The Communist

2. Explanatory Note of the CPI(ML) Red Flag ON THE CHARACTERISATION OF INDIAN STATE IT was Lenin in his studies of imperialism - the highest stage of capitalism, who explained the division of the Afro-Asian-Latin American countries during the colonial phase into colonies, semi-colonies and dependent countries. While countries like India were defined as colonies, and Latin American countries as dependent ones, countries like China which were partially occupied by different imperialist powers, while native comprador class serving imperialism were termed as semi-colonies. Lenin and following him Mao analysed semi-colonies as an intermediate or transitional stage. But the post-World War II scene reflected many changes. US imperialism along with Brettonwood twins came to the centre stage with hegemonic moves. Colonialism was replaced by more heinous and pernicious neo-colonialism. Following the intensification of imperialist crisis during the late 1960s, the imperialist globalisation is imposed further intensifying neo-colonisation. The former colonies/semi-colonies/dependent countries are under neo-colonisation at various stages. The aggression and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have taken this to unprecedented stage. Imperialism led by US imperialism is

recreating the world in its own image at unprecedented speed, integrating the whole world to the reign of imperialist capital and market system. In spite of continuing semi-feudal relations, no significant society is left out of imperialist domination. In this situation, reverting to pre-WW II analysis of terming India like countries as semi-colonial shall not confirm to concrete analysis of present situation in our country. Rather it will be more scientific to term the characterisation of Indian state as neo-colonial. ON PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION IT was in the course of struggle against metaphysical positions, Mao put forward the dialectical analysis on contradictions based on the analysis of changes taking place in China. He also analysed the interaction and interpenetration of the major contradictions while explaining the targets of revolution and the principal contradiction. But during the late 1960s, especially in the context of sectarian line dominating the CPC leadership and leaderships of the most of the ML parties emerging during that period, mechanical understanding about the interaction and interpenetration of major contradictions and erroneous understanding on principal contradiction got stratified, further strengthening sectarian outlooks. It is in this context, even while putting forward the major contradictions at international and national level, their inter-relation and inter-penetration, the principal targets of world proletarian revolution and the NDR in India, we are of the view that further studies and analysis of the concept of principal contradiction is needed before incorporating it into programmatic approach. ON PATH OF REVOLUTION IN the course of prolonged discussion our two organisation have arrived at a basic approach towards formulating the path of NDR based on the concrete conditions of our country and assimilating the experience of all hitherto revolutions in the world and the peoples revolutionary movement in our country. The communist party should get organised and be prepared for all eventualities and possibilities to take the offensive utilising all forms of struggle and using adequate tactics according to concrete conditions to face the challenges raised by the ruling system and to overthrow it. Drawing lessons from the past experience and based on concrete analysis of present situation and in order to accomplish the strategic tasks of revolution, the path of revolution as the tactical line should be developed and adopted.

3. Explanatory Note of the CPI(ML) ON THE CHARACTER OF INDIAN STATE AND SOCIETY 1. Since 1947, India became the semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. Though there were certain changes in the Indian society, as a consequence of the policies pursued by the Indian ruling classes during the last more than five decades, the basic character of Indian society remains unchanged, i.e., semi-colonial and semi-feudal. 2. Here the Indian state is the organ of class rule of domestic ruling classes, i.e., the comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois and big landlord classes serving the interests of imperialism. 3. From this character of Indian society and state emerge the basic tasks, i.e., the national revolution to overthrow imperialism and the democratic revolution to overthrow feudalism through New Democratic Revolution. These two tasks are inter-related. Unless imperialism is overthrown, feudalism cannot be terminated because imperialism is its main support. Conversely, unless help is given to the peasants in their struggle to overthrow the feudal landlord class, it will be impossible to build powerful revolutionary contingents to overthrow imperialism, because the feudal landlord class is the main social base of imperialism and the peasantry is the main force in the NDR.

Therefore, these two fundamental tasks, the national revolution and democratic revolution are at once distinct and united. ON PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION 1. The question of contradiction, including the principal contradiction is a fundamental question concerning the ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought. 2. The two basic contradictions, viz. the contradiction between imperialism and the Indian people; the contradiction between the feudalism and broad masses of people operate through out the stage of NDR. 3. The identification of principal contradiction is theoretically correct and necessary in practice to determine the main direction, tactics and tasks of our movement in a particular phase of our revolution. 4. The way two basic contradictions express themselves in the present day society makes the contradiction between the alliance of imperialism, feudalism and comprador-bureaucratic capitalism on the one hand and the broad masses of people on the other the principal contradiction in the present phase of NDR. ON THE PATH OF INDIAN REVOLUTION 1. The CPI(ML) holds that the protracted peoples war as explained in the COC’s draft on the “Path of Indian Revolution” is the path of NDR in India. 2. The CPI(ML) agreed to leave the preparation and adoption of a separate Path document to the United organisation. At the same time, the Outline of Programme (draft) adopted by the Co-ordiantion in July 2004 has incorporated certain essential points of Path with a view to provide guidance for work till a separate document on the Path is adopted. 3. The CPI(ML) is committed to the preparation of a Path document by the United organisation. It is convinced that the study of and discussions on the experiences of revolutionary movements in the world and India together with the practice of above mentioned guide lines would further enrich the understanding and practice of people’s war and help the preparation of a comprehensive path document.

4. Drafts from Com. K.N. Ramachandran A. ON THE CHARACTER OF THE INDIAN STATE 1. Introduction 2. Beginning and development of colonisation phase 3. Challenges before the colonial system 4. Emergence of neocolonialism 5. Revisionist distortion of neocolonialism. 6. Neocolonialism, qualitatively a new phase of imperialist era 7. Neocolonialism in India 8. India, a neocolonial country. 1. INTRODUCTION. THE character of the Indian state along with that of the big bourgeoisie is one of the foremost questions very seriously debated in the communist movement from early days. Till 1947 there was unanimity that it is a colonial state under British imperialism. But unanimity on the characterization of the big bourgeoisie, whether it is national or comprador bureaucratic

eluded right from those days. What is meant by the so-called ‘de-colonisation’ policy, the changes that took place in the form of imperialist plunder in the countries under its domination, what character the Indian state took after the transfer of power, etc. are questions of serious polemics from the post-World War II years. Though during 1950s and 1960s these questions were seriously debated, and for a time colonial, semi-colonial, dependent and neo-colonial were synonymously used from the second half of 1970s in spite of accepting the emergence of neo-colonial plunder by all, later the debate on the fundamental changes which were taking place at international and national level started getting subdued. The consequences of the momentous developments that took place during post-World War II years started disappearing from the debates. There were very little efforts to analyse and develop Lenin’s teachings on imperialism according to concrete conditions. The basic changes taking place in the course of changing from colonial to neocolonial phase were side lined. Though almost all organizations accept the important differences that existed between pre-revolutionary China and India, and more so between pre-revolutionary China and present India many of them are satisfied by calling both semi-colonial. The basic changes that have taken place in the form of exploitation and hegemony of imperialism under the leadership of US imperialism during the post – WW II decades are suppressed while putting forward various approaches regarding the character of Post-1947 Indian state. As a result whether the Indian state is semi-colonial, dependent, neocolonial or capitalist has become a question of serious debate among all the parties/organizations/groups claiming to pursue Marxist ideology. What is attempted here is to arrive at a basic understanding on this question through concrete analysis of the historical evolution of colonialism and its later changes in this era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, guided by Marxism – Leninism- Mao Tsethung Thought. 2. BEGINNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF COLONIZATION PHASE. Marx and Engels have analysed and pointed out succinctly how capitalism and the bourgeoisie developed and the role played by them in the Communist Manifesto as follows: “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, ever lasting, uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last, compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind.” They have also pointed out how the bourgeoisie sets out to plunder the world in the name of “civilizing the barbarians” bringing down all resistances and initiating colonization in the most barbarous forms. They explained: “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations, into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.” Explaining the rapacious colonization policy which led to formation and development of capitalism, Marx wrote: “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief moments of primitive accumulation.” (Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1 p. 751)

Marx analyses how the large scale industrial production under capitalism compels the bourgeoisie to seek more and more outlets to sell their manufactured goods in abundant supply as follows: “As soon as manufacture gains sufficient strength, and particularly largescale industry, it creates in its turn a market for itself, by capturing it through its commodities. At this point commerce becomes the servant of industrial production, for which continued expansion of the market becomes a vital necessity. Ever more extended mass production floods the existing market, and thereby works continually for a still greater expansion of this market, for breaking out of its limits.” (Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 3 p.336) Lenin has elaborated this colonization process as follows.: “Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery pursued a colonial policy and practiced imperialism. But general disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain.” Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital. “The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly established when all the sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all opportunity of competing to buy up, for example, iron fields, oil fields etc. Colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggles against competition including the case of the adversary wanting to be protected by a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world. The more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies”. Aided by the expansion of colonies and intensification of colonial plunder as the concentration of capital went on growing, it necessarily led to monopolisation. This led to the transformation from the era of laissez faire capitalism to the era of imperialism, which is historically and scientifically explained by Lenin in his momentous work: Imperialism, the Highest stage of Capitalism. He pointed out: “Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp 266-267) This led to intense struggles, to colonial wars and later to the World Wars I and II for division and redivision of the World among the colonial powers. Lenin wrote: “When the colonies of the European powers, for instance, comprised only one-tenth of the territory of Africa (as was the case in 1876), colonial policy was able to develop by methods other than those of monopoly – by the “free grabbing” of territories, so to speak. But when nine-tenths of Africa had been seized (by 1900), when the whole world had been divided up, there was inevitably ushered in the era of monopoly possession of colonies and, consequently, of particularly intense struggle for the division and the redivision of the world. (“Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 299-300) Proceeding from the analysis of the transformation of capitalism from its free competition to monopoly stage, to imperialism, Lenin defined imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism. In this period finance capital as the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks went on merging with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists. It proceeded to colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which was completely divided up. Then “without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development”, he gave the following definition for imperialism

(emphasis ours) : “1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life’ 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. (ibid)”. Quoting from the studies of various contemporary scholars, Lenin explained that this colonization drive was quite multi-lenear, complex and uneven. Many of these studies had given figures only for colonies, where the hegemony of imperialism is complete. Proceeding from there Lenin tried to present a complete picture of the division of the World adding data not only on the countries that had become colonies, but also on “non-colonial and semicolonial countries” in which category he included Persia, China and Turkey: “the first of these countries is already almost completely a colony, the second and third are becoming such”. To give more clarity on what Lenin meant by semi-colonial, the transitional form, his analysis on this question is reproduced: “Alongside the colonial possessions of the Great Powers, we have placed the small colonies of the small states, which are, so to speak, the next objects of a possible and probable “redivision” of colonies. These small states mostly retain their colonies only because the big powers are torn by conflicting interests, friction, etc., which prevent them from coming to an agreement on the division of the spoils. As to the “semicolonial” states, they provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found in all spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shall shortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most “convenient”, and derives the greatest profit from, a form of subjection which involves the loss of the political independence of the subjected countries and peoples. In this respect, the semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the “middle stage”. It is natural that the struggle for these semi-dependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up”. (ibid, p 227) Explaining how under colonization, the Asian, African and Latin American countries, or all countries other than the imperialist countries, were brought under domination both economic and political control of imperialism, Lenin divided these countries to colonies which were under total economic, political and territorial control of any one of the imperialist countries, to semicolonies, ie, countries in the transitional stage, where many imperialist countries continued to dominate including territorial domination, and to dependent countries which were “formally independent but in fact enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence.” To make this question more clear the following paras from Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism are reproduced below: “Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, are typical of this epoch, we have already referred to one form of dependence – the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina. “South America, and especially Argentina,” writes Schulze-Gaevernitz in his work on British imperialism, “is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be described as almost a British commercial colony.” Basing himself on the reports of the Austro - Hungarian

Consul at Buenos Aires for 1909, Schilder estimated the amount of British capital invested in Argentina at 8750 million francs. It is not difficult to imagine what strong connections British finance capital (and its faithful “friend”, diplomacy) thereby acquires with the Argentine bourgeoisie, with the circles that control the whole of that country’s economic and political life.” (ibid) Explaining the economic and political condition of China during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, Mao Tsetung has explained vividly how China was a semi-colonial country which was in a transitional stage. By the 1920s China had become a semi-colonial country with a number of imperialist countries exporting finance capital to it with vast areas of its coastal region occupied by these imperialist powers territorially and the country under the rule of comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and feudalists serving imperialism. In 1930s when Japanese imperialism attacked and occupied large areas of North China, Mao added that China had become a colonial, semi-colonial country, further explaining the transitional form of semicolonial formations. Thus, as far as the definitions of imperialism during the colonial phase are concerned, the categorization of colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries during this phase, and the transitional condition of semi-colonial countries are abundantly clear from the Marxist-Leninist analyses of those decades. 3. CHALLENGES FACED BY THE COLONIAL SYSTEM. The challenges posed by the general crisis inherent in the capitalist system could not be resolved through the intensification of the plunder of human and natural resources of the countries under colonization through ever larger measures of export of finance capital by the imperialist countries following the transformation of capitalism to its monopoly stage, imperialism. On the one hand, the second half of 19th century witnessed numerous wars among the colonial powers for division and redivision of the world. It led not to the resolution of this problem, but to the World War I for redivision of the world. But this war created more problems than it resolved. The 1930s witnessed the Great Depression. To get out of it a section of the imperialist countries led by Nazi Germany embraced fascism and launched yet another global war for territorial conquest of the world, for redivision of the world. As Marx and Engels pointed out in Communist Manifesto and further explained through their numerous works, the emergence of capitalism and its efforts to “recreate the world on its own image” did not go unchallenged. Capitalism had created its own grave-diggers, the working class who went on waging numerous struggles to liberate themselves and the world from the plunder and oppression of capitalist onslaughts. As imperialism emerged, these struggles against its barbarism further intensified, with the working class struggles to resolve the ever-mounting contradiction between capital and labour joining with the struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations in the colonized countries, in the colonies, semi-colonies and dependent countries, for national liberation and democratic revolution. Once the victorious October Revolution gave birth to the first socialist country, Soviet Union, because of its goal to abolish all exploitation of humans by humans, it expressed solidarity with the national liberation movements, and the Communist International represented both the streams of proletarian revolution and national liberation. This question was well explained by Stalin as follows: “The October Revolution, 1. has widened the scope of the national question and converted it from the particular question of combating national oppression in Europe into the general question of emancipating the oppressed peoples, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism; 2. It has opened up wide possibilities for their emancipation and the right paths towards it, has thereby greatly facilitated the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples of the West and the East, and has drawn them into the common current of the victorious struggles against imperialism; 3. It has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and the enslaved East, having created a new front of revolutions against world imperialism, extending from the

proletarians of the West, through the Russian revolution, to the oppressed peoples of the East. (“The October Revolution, and the National Questions,” Stalin, Works, Vol. 4, p.170) This question was further explained by Mao Tsetung as follows: “There are two kinds of World revolution, the first belonging to the bourgeois or capitalist category. The era of this kind of world revolution is long past, having come to an end as far back as 1914 when the first imperialist world war broke out, and more particularly in 1917 when the October Revolution took place. The second kind, namely, the proletarian socialist world revolution, thereupon began. This revolution has the proletariat of the capitalist countries as its main force and the oppressed peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies as its allies. (“On New Democracy,” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II, p. 346) The World War II which broke out as an inter-imperialist War for redivision of the World transformed to a great war between the camp of the fascist countries, the axis forces, and the alliance of bourgeois democracies and Soviet Union, ultimately leading to the rooting of the fascist powers, gave birth to a new world situation. Momentous changes took place both in the balance of forces among the imperialist countries and in the contradiction between imperialism and socialist forces, between imperialism on the one hand and proletarian revolution and national liberation struggles on the other hand, compelling US imperialism, the newly emerged leader of the imperialist camp to launch new forms of aggression and plunder around the world to perpetuate its world hegemony defeating the challenges from the powerful alliance of socialist countries led by Soviet Union and the national liberation movements and democratic revolutions. 4. EMERGENCE OF NEO-COLONIALISM The newly emerged leader of the imperialist camp, US imperialism differed vastly from the old imperialist powers of Western Europe as far as the colonization of countries subjected to imperialist plunder and aggression was concerned. From the period of mercantile capitalism itself the old imperialist countries like Portugal, Spain, Britain, France etc were for occupation, territorial control and direct rule by imperialist governors. So, different from the colonies and semi-colonies under their domination, most of the Latin American countries, which were considered the backyard of US imperialism for long, a different policy of indirect control was pursued by US rulers. Lenin categorized these countries as dependent countries. Through export of finance capital and by exploitation of the cartels while economic slavery was imposed, these countries were allowed to have nominal political independence. Some of them had bourgeoisie democratic ruling systems also. But whenever these rulers went even slightly out of control, through military coups or direct aggressions US hegemony was re-imposed. Even though US imperialism did not like it, in these dependent countries finance capital from any other imperialist country could enter. From the early years of 1940s, even before the WW II came to an end, as British imperialism was getting weakened, the US imperialism was emerging as the leader of the imperialist camp. It faced two challenging tasks in order to establish its own hegemony in the world.: Firstly, it had to settle the inter-imperialist contradictions by dismantling the old colonial structures through a process of “de-colonisation” for its own interest in such a way so that formal independence is given to the colonial countries, opening resources and market for the entry of US imperialism. Secondly, it had to face the growing challenge from the everintensifying national liberation movements threatening the overthrow of imperialist powers from their territories which was supported by the growing strength of socialist forces led by the Soviet Union. It is in this complex and challenging world situation that US imperialist chieftains along with their think tanks proceeded to provide new form and content to colonization. The first step towards this was the Brettenwood meet in 1944 which gave birth to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) or the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) for accelerating, regulating and controlling the export of finance capital through aids and loans to impose financial hegemony over the other imperialist countries defeated and weakened through WW II and over the so-called newly independent countries,

the countries where the political power was transferred to the native comprador classes putting an end to direct colonial rule. Along with these by 1948 the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) was put forward to control the world trade and market system. The old cartels were transformed to Multi National Corporations (MNCs), also called Trans National Corporations (TNCs), with an ever-expanding global control of human and natural resources, science and technology, and capital and market system. Along with these, the system of providing “aid” was a further lever for control of the economies of these countries. The dollar was established as the international medium of exchange and trade. To establish their control over foreign trade, trade blocks were started. Along with these, at ideological level, as a diversionary tactic, funding agencies and forerunners of NGOs and later NGOs were created. These were the new instruments mooted by US imperialism for establishing its hegemony over the former colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries, under the new scheme of neocolonialism. At the political level, the United Nations Organisation (UN) was looked upon right from its formation time by US imperialism as a political tool for its heinous neocolonial control at international level. Along with these measures in the economic and political fields, in the military field nuclear bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 over Japan which was already prepared to surrender, and NATO, SEATO, CENTO like military alliances were formed in order to terrorise, intimidate and bring under control of imperialism, especially US imperialism, all other countries. These military moves were a direct challenge against the socialist countries as well as against the national liberation movements. All these steps along with the state intervention in the field of production, and introduction of welfare policies based on Keynesian approach were resorted to replace old colonialism with neocolonialism to meet the challenges faced by imperialist system in the post- WW II years. During this period, in place of the set backs suffered by the national liberation movements and socialist revolutions except in Russia after WW I, after WW II the “imperialists were no longer able to extinguish the prairie fire of national liberation”. The old colonialism was fast disintegrating. Even in the latin American countries the backyard of US imperialism, national liberation movements were gaining strength. Imperialist rulers were thrown out in some of the colonial, semi colonial and dependent countries. Explaining these developments the CPC pointed out during its polemics against Krushchovite revisionism that had usurped power in Soviet Union : “Consider, first, the situation in Asia and Africa. There a whole group of countries have declared their independence. But many of these countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control and enslavement and remain objects of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as arenas of contention between the old and new colonialists. In some, the old colonialists have changed into neocolonialists and retain their colonial rule through their trained agents. In others, the wolf has left by the front door, but the tiger has entered through the back door, the old colonialism being replaced by the new, more powerful and more dangerous US colonialism. The peoples of Asia and Africa are seriously menaced by the tentacles of neocolonialism, represented by U.S. imperialism. (Great Debate p147)” Analysing the new world situation, the CPC further stated: “The facts are clear. After World War II the imperialists have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neocolonialism. An important characteristic of such neocolonialism is that the imperialists have been forced to change the old style of direct colonial rule in some areas and to adopt a new style of colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave or control the colonial countries and countries which have already declared their independence by organizing military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing “federations” or “communities”, and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic “aid” or other forms, they retain these countries as markets for their goods. Sources of raw material and outlets for their export of capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood of the people of these countries. Moreover, they use the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internal affairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economic and cultural aggression. When they

are unable to continue their rule over these countries by “peaceful” means, they engineer military coups d’etat, carry out subversion or even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression. “The United states is most energetic and cunning in promoting neocolonialism. With this weapon, the U.S imperialists are trying hard to grab the colonies and spheres of influence of other imperialists and to establish world domination. “This neocolonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism.” “We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU, under such circumstances how can it be said that the abolition of colonial rule has already entered the “final phase”. (Apologists of Neocolonialism, Great Debate) Criticising the stand of Krushchovite revisionists who had degenerated to the condition of apologists of neocolonialism the CPC further explained: “The national liberation movements has entered a new stage. But this is by no means of the kind of “new stage” described by the leadership of the CPSU. In the new stage, the level of political consciousness of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples has risen higher than ever and the revolutionary movement is surging forward with unprecedented intensity. They urgently demand the thorough elimination of the forces of imperialism and its lackeys in their own countries and strive for complete political and economic independence. The primary and most urgent task facing these countries is still the further development of the struggle against imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys. This struggle is still being waged fiercely in the political, economic, military, cultural, ideological and other spheres. And the struggles in all these spheres still find their most concentrated expression in political struggle, which often unavoidably develops in to armed struggle when the imperialists resort to direct or indirect armed suppression. It is important for the newly independent countries to develop their independent economy. But this task must never be separated from the struggle against imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys.” (ibid) 5. REVISIONIST DISTORTION OF NEO-COLONIALISM. The Kautskyian revisionists who had come to the leadership of the Second International were apologists of the colonization by imperialist powers. They had openly declared that colonial rule was progressive, and it brought higher civilization to the colonies, and developed the productive forces there. According to them the abolition of colonies would mean barbarism. After WW II under the twin blows of the socialist revolutions and the national liberation movements, the imperialists were forced to recognize that if the West had attempted to perpetuate the Status Quo of colonialism, it would have made violent revolutions inevitable, and defeat inevitable. “The old colonialist forms of rule on the contrary are likely to prove ‘running sores’ which destroy both the economic and the moral vigour of a nations life” (John Stratchey, The End of Empire, 1959). Thus it became a necessity to change the form and practice to neocolonialism” (Apologists of Neocolonialism) During these critical years, immediately after the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 and following it, Krushchov started singing to the tune of neocolonialists instead of attacking them. He flaunted the “theory of disappearance of colonialism” in order to cover up the more dangerous emergence of neocolonialism. He tried to induce the oppressed nations to embrace neocolonialism. “He actively propagated the view that “peaceful coexistence” between the oppressed nations and civilized imperialism will make “the national economy grow rapidly” and bring about an “uplift of their productive forces”, enable the home market in the oppressed countries to “become incomparably greater” and “furnish more raw materialists, and various products and goods required by the economy of the industrially developed countries” and at the same time will “considerably raise the living standard of the inhabitants in the highly developed capitalist countries”” as explained in Apologists of Neocolonialism by the CPC, during his UN General Assembly speech in 1960 and in numerous contemporary Soviet writings.

In his attempts to white wash and wish away neocolonialism, Krushchov was following the footsteps of the Second International which had turned in to Yellow International after the WW I, fully engaged in repeating slanders against the Soviet Union and Third International serving forces of counter revolution, in its various conferences and in the speeches of its spokes persons. They opposed wars of national liberation and held that the national question “can be settled only through international agreements”. Upholding this line of the revisionists of Second International Krushchov advocated that a “quiet burial of the colonial system” is possible in his 1960 UN speech. In his services to imperialists’ neocolonisation in distorting its real nature, in his attempts to obliterate it by mispropaganda and in advocating its virtues Krushchove was not inferior to the Kautskyists and other revisionists of the Second International. He went a step ahead by becoming its apologist. The CPC declared in Apologists of Neocolonialism. : “However hard the imperialists disguise their intentions and bestir themselves, however hard their apologists whitewash and help neocolonialism, imperialism and colonialism cannot escape their doom ……….. Sooner or later the apologists of neocolonialism will go bankrupt.” But what happened subsequently was contrary to these expectations. If Krushchovites served as apologists of neocolonialism and engaged in subverting all attempts to develop a Marxist-Leninist understanding about it and resistance against it by the Marxist-Leninist forces, after his fall in 1964 when the Brezhnev clique usurped power in Soviet Union and speeded up capitalist restoration turning Soviet Union into a social imperialist super power, it further distorted the understanding about neocolonialism and started pursuing the very same policy like other imperialist powers, wearing socialist masks. If Krushchovites propagated the “quiet burial of colonialism” and tried to obliterate the emergence of neocolonialism, during the Brezhnev regime the revisionist theoreticians came up with the argument that ‘neocolonialism means a puppet country under total domination of a single imperialist country’, like then South Vietnam under US domination. A number of books were published and Soviet journals continuously wrote to establish this erroneous concept. It was an evaluation which consciously tried to obliterate the momentous developments taking place after WW II, which refused to apply Marxist-Leninist outlook to arrive at a revolutionary understanding about the emergence of neocolonialism replacing colonialism. As far as the CPC was concerned, even while it was engaged in a historic polemics, Great Debate, against Soviet revisionist positions, it was also waging a relentless struggle against the capitalist roaders led by Liu Shaochi and Deng Tsiaoping within the CPC. In the middle of this struggle the CPC statements and journals tried to develop the understanding about neocolonialism re-publishing, Mao’s talks with the US journalist Anna Louis Strong in 1946 and articles from For a Lasting Peace, For People’s Democracy, the Cominform organ, historically and theoretically establishing the replacement of colonial plunder by neocolonial plunder by the imperialist camp. In a critique of Indian ruling classes in the second half of 1960s the neocolonial plunder of India and how countries like India were subordinated to neocolonisation were repeatedly analysed. Anti-imperialist, socialist spokespersons like Nkruma of Ghana and many others contributed to this discussion on neocolonialism. As a result almost all Marxist-Leninist forces at international level during the 1960s had upheld the analysis put forward by the CPC that after WW II colonialism was replaced by neocolonialism, a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism. But without going for an analysis of the phenomenal changes taking place after the WW II and without trying to analyse the qualitative differences of the neo-colonial phase, colonialism and neocolonialism were synonymously used in 1950s. In documents like 1957 Joint statement and 1960 Joint Communique of Communist Parties, the words colonial and neocolonial were synonymously utilized. But guided by the Great Debate documents of the CPC, as far as by the newly emerging Marxist-Leninist Parties in the 1960s were concerned, there was no ambiguity in understanding the neocolonial phase of plunder by imperialist forces using their newly developed economic, political and military tools. That is why like many others, CPI(ML) formed in 1969 called India a neocolony of US imperialism and Soviet social imperialism, even while continuing to use the words semi colonial and neocolonial synonymously in the Party Programme adopted in its 1970 Congress

6. NEOCOLONIALISM, QUALITATIVELY A NEW PHASE OF IMPERIALIST ERA. Though the laws of motion of imperialism continue to remain basically the same throughout the imperialist epoch, and Lenin’s analysis of this epoch continues to remain basically correct, it is important to distinguish the qualitatively distinct changes that have taken place in the neocolonial phase. For example while defining imperialism Lenin had put forward its five distinctive characteristics. But the fifth characteristics, “the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed” calls for further studies based on post-World War II world situation. Except for some military bases and enclaves, imperialist countries in the main are no longer keeping any countries, even the smallest ones, under their territorial control for long. Even after aggression and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by US led imperialist forces, puppet governments were soon constituted and even fake elections were organized to give them pseudo democratic cover. This is one important aspect that should be taken in to consideration. Instead of territorial domination these countries under former colonial domination, in the main, are now controlled through their ever-intensifying integration to imperialist capital–market system, internationalization of production and speculative regime through international financial agencies and MNCs. At the same time, so long as imperialism continue to exist one cannot rule out the possibility for territorial division in new forms. With the disappearance of the territorial division of the world as one of the basic features of imperialism, though six decades have elapsed after WW II, even though numerous local wars and imperialist aggressive wars continue to take place, no World Wars have taken place for division and re-division of the world so far. As a result of the mechanical repetition of what led to World War I and II and as a result of the refusal to recognize the qualitative changes that were taking place in the neo-colonial phase, there were repeated assertions during 1950s, 1960s and 1970s that a World War is imminent by various sections, various forces. All those assertions were proved wrong. Though such assertions are rarely heard from 1980s after the imposition of imperialist globalization, no serious analysis about the reasons for the almost disappearance of territorial division of the world by the major imperialist powers as a major characteristic of imperialist domination and the non-recurrence of another World War even after six decades except for local wars are attempted by most of the Marxist-Leninist forces. As a result there are no attempts to once again study the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the specific characteristics of finance capital which led to the emergence of imperialist epoch. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin had pointed out: “Finance capital is such a great , such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence”. From the fundamental teachings of Lenin it can be evaluated that in the colonial phase if the territorial control of the subjugated countries was one of the main features of imperialist domination, in the neocolonial phase the first four characteristics he had put forward while defining imperialism, especially finance capital as a financial oligarchy has achieved comparative predominance. Along with these the speculative character of finance capital which Lenin had pointed out went on assuming predominance especially after 1970s reaching today to its peak, intensifying the barbarous character of imperialism to unprecedented levels. On the question of war, so long as imperialism remains, the question of wars, even another WW breaking out with the intensification of inter-imperialist contradictions cannot be ruled out. But what is taking place now is low intensity warfare as an imperialist strategy of class struggle, a strategy of class war against the masses of the people. It is the finance capital with its speculative character going on intensifying, and acting through numerous agencies like IMF, WB and MNCs which is dominating the neocolonial phase, especially under neo-liberal policies, to impose indirect, subtle and intricate forms of exploitation utilizing aid, trade, technology etc. However almost for a quarter century following WW II and the ‘de-colonisation’ process, in order to over come the challenge from the growing socialist forces and national liberation movements, a ‘state led development policy’ was pursued under the cover of Keynesianism. But after imperialist crises from 1970s, called stagflation, there was sharp transition from Keynesianism to neo-liberalism. The

transformation of imperialist domination from colonial to neocolonial phase after US imperialism became the leading force of the imperialist camp was, in the main, an economic and political reaction to the rising tide of national liberation struggles supported by the growing strength of socialist camp. Under it the former colonial and semi-colonial countries were given formal political independence while continuing economic domination in new forms. The whole imperialist economic and political framework underwent significant changes. Development of international finance agencies and MNCs to control the policies of the countries under various stages of neo-colonisation and the consequent internationalization of capital closely linked with imperialist state machineries were intended to alleviate the realization crisis constantly jeopardizing the imperialist capital which is beset with the inherent anarchy and ever-intensifying speculative character of finance capital. Due to the availability of cheap labour and raw materials the neocolonial countries became the most ideal dumping grounds for finance capital. Super accumulation of capital by imperialist countries necessitated this. As possibilities for territorial extension of the market, bringing in new areas under its control no longer exists, it can be achieved only through expansion of market and financial sectors, and intensification of exploitation of human and natural resources of the neocolonial countries. For this, export of finance capital through FDIs, FIIs and other means was increased continuously. Transfer of technology, however obsolete it is compared to its present stage of development in the imperialist centres, steadily increased. It gave rise to sharp imbalances and uneven development as a result of the lack of organic link between the advanced technology and centres of production and ‘development’ with the backward social fabric at the bottom. With the introduction of WTO in 1995 imperialist exploitation made a big leap forward, bringing the world trade under imperialist control. Though modern centres of capital intensive industries, consumer products, service centres, IT centres etc increase, they exist without links with the vast masses who are pushed down to increasing miseries and devastation. In the agricultural sector along with the reforms like ceiling acts from above creating a new landlord class, green revolution, white revolution, introduction of modern inputs, increasing cash crop cultivation, corporate farming etc were initiated, increasing the agricultural production and transforming the old semi-feudal, precapitalist production relations to a significant extent. Compared to the colonial phase, in the neocolonial phase imperialism is no longer trying to protect the old agrarian structure. It is transformed, modernized and used to strengthen the capital and market system, though the agrarian relations are not allowed to undergo any revolutionary changes still. All these facts point towards the significant transformation that have taken place in the world situation after the WW II with colonialism replaced by neocolonialism by the imperialist powers, especially US imperialism, to facilitate imperialist plunder according to present concrete conditions. 7. NEOCOLONIALISM IN INDIA. During colonial period British imperialists brutally restructured the pre-colonial Indian economy to suit their plunder. Sprouting manufacturing centres in different cities and the traditional industries were brutally annihilated. The backbone of the Indian mercantile bourgeoisie which was capable of competing with British and other imperialist merchants, was broken by different types of trade regulations to favour British merchants. Introduction of railways and development of trading centres were for enhancing export-import activities to serve British monopoly capital. Development of Indian industry was allowed only under British control. Only before and during WW I and afterwards they allowed growth of local industry to an extent, that also only to serve their interests. It was mainly localized in nature, producing jute, cotton, sugar, tea etc. Though there were national bourgeois sections struggling to develop production, in the main the big bourgeoisie and bureaucratic sections engaged in the industrial sector were comprador in nature, collaborating with British colonialists. The restructuring in the agricultural sector during the colonial phase was mainly aimed at winning over the feudal forces , the landlords, money lenders and traders dealing with agricultural products as their political allies. Zamindari settlement was to modernise and win

over the feudal forces, while ryotwari settlements were to commercialise agriculture. Even though they made superficial changes in old land relations, the semi-feudal, pre-capitalist relations continued to dominate. Whatever transformation was made was for increasing production of cash crops for exports. 80% of exports during the colonial period were agricultural raw materials and natural resources. The transfer of power in 1947 to comprador bureaucratic bourgeois- big landlord classes bestowed formal independence. India became an open field for exploitation of all imperialist powers. But in the 1950s, various factors like the impact of the promises made during the independence struggle, the influence of the powerful socialist camp, the possibilities it created for the big bourgeoisie to utilize the contradiction between imperialist and socialist camps, the demand of the big bourgeoisie in the Bombay Plan for a public sector to develop the industrial infrastructure which they were incapable of developing then, the assistance offered by Soviet Union in various sectors etc. contributed towards the development of the industrial sector during that period especially under public sector. But the weakening of the socialist forces and national liberation movements by 1960s with the degeneration of Soviet Union to capitalist path and the corresponding strengthening of the imperialist camp led by US imperialism along with its machinery of neocolonisation led to the tighterring of imperialist domination in all spheres. At the same time, the building of a powerful infrastructure and core industries with Soviet help had led to further development of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the public sector. Along with this the penetration of imperialist capital led by MNCs also intensified. The merger of local capital as a junior partner with imperialist capital went on increasing. Since the ’60s, a steady increase of capital-intensive and high technology based industry is visible. These big industries both in the public sector controlled by the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and in the private sector controlled by the big bourgeoisie have become the centres of localized modern enclaves which are not organically linked with the social fabric. There is a steady increase in infrastructural development aimed at industrial and agricultural modernization, mainly at the instance of international financial agencies and MNCs. Still, because of the imposed nature of this advanced technology, it is not helping the widespread industrialization of the economy as a whole. Rather, it retards such development. Since the beginning of the ’60s, significant changes are evident in the agricultural sector. The introduction of the neocolonial programme of green revolution in continuation to the land reforms imposed from above at the behest of imperialist think tanks, creating a new big landlord class, was a major breakthrough in this area. In the beginning it was experimented to selected areas like Punjab, Haryana and selected districts in other states. In these areas, feudal relations were transformed in a reformist form and agricultural production took a capitalistic form. The use of fertilizers, high yielding varieties of seeds, mechanization, irrigation, etc, spread to wider and wider areas in all parts of the country. Agricultural production was increasing in absolute terms, though productivity was not making much significant advance, as vast areas are still dependent on the vagaries of nature. Class relations in the rural areas were undergoing significant changes. During three decades following 1947, many land reform measures were imposed from above. Along with these measures, the modernization process has really created some new class relations and contradictions in the Indian country side. The new type of peasant movements which had come up during 1980s in many states were expression of these new changes in the rural areas. These struggles were mainly led by the new capitalist farmers and rich peasants who had emerged during the previous years. They fought for a pricing policy favourable to them – for equality with industrial producers. This phenomenon was yet another manifestation of the viciousness of the imperialist policy of ‘develop and control’. Together with the emergence of a new class of capitalist farmers, big sections of poor and landless peasants have been transformed in to agricultural labourers who have waged a series of struggles for higher wages and land. In areas where feudal exploitation still dominated, militant struggles of peasants for land and against various forms of feudal domination continued.

Another important aspect of the Indian neocolonial economy till 1980s was the leading role of the government as the crucial agent in implementing imperialist policies. Finance capital was channelised through it. The traditional comprador bourgeoisie itself was increasingly dependent on the finance capital – the major share of capital in the monopoly companies in India was supplied by the financial institutions and other government agencies. The agricultural bourgeoisie’s struggle against the government was also to be understood in this context. Even though they opposed both the government and the comprador bourgeoisie, their immediate target was the government, and the bureaucrat bourgeoisie who control it. With the imposition of the imperialist globalization policies, with neoliberal regime dominating every sphere, replacement of ‘import substitution’ with ‘all round export promotion’, with the speedy execution of liberalization privatization policies etc from beginning of 1991, the neocolonization of the country has speeded by leaps and bounds. What is actually taking place is a kind of de-industrialisation on the one hand, and flourishing of financial speculation in every spears on the other hand. With this the whole economy is increasingly integrated to international capital – market system, with a stronger concentration of monopolies which are enriching themselves very fast. This distorted industrialisation is leading to intensifying contradiction between a tiny group of monopolist exploiters and hundreds of millions of exploited people. As the monopolies shift production centres to where there is cheap labour, where there are sources of cheap raw materials and where infrastructure facilities are the best, it is leading to outsourcing, migration and sharpening of uneven development of different regions. In spite of the transformation of the mode of exploitation from colonial to neocolonial phase intensifying exploitation of human and natural resources at global level in unprecedented forms, once again the imperialist countries, mainly US imperialism is caught in the middle of yet another crisis. Stagflation which has resurfaced is intensifying the contradictions. The bubble economy has burst leading to depression and deflation. As a result once again, as attempts are made to bail out the banks, MNCs and corporate houses which were indulging in unprecedented speculation in all spheres on the one hand, and at the same time to transfer the burden of this crisis to the shoulders of the people of neo-colonial countries on the other, India is caught in the vortex of a serious crisis. The neoliberal economy of a neo-colonial country, like India is in a very serious tailspin, with prices of all essential commodities with food grains on the top of the list literally sky-rocketing and inflation which had reached unprecedented levels being overtaken by deflation following the crisis of global financial system. It is giving rise to intensification of all internal contradictions to peak level. 8. INDIA, A NEO-COLONIAL COUNTRY. The above analysis can be summed up as follows: 1. The last years of World War II and the immediate post –War years were an important conjuncture in world history. The balance of forces within the imperialist camp drastically changed. While some of them, the axis powers, suffered defeat and were devastated, Britain weakened loosing its leading position. US imperialism emerged as the leading force in the imperialist camp, initiating a series of measures for its ruthless, aggressive policies for global hegemony. The immense prestige gained by Soviet Union in the victorious anti-fascist war led to the victory of the people’s democracies in East European countries and along with the victory of Chinese Revolution in 1949 gave rise to a powerful socialist camp capable of challenging the imperialist camp. With the support of the socialist camp, the national liberation movements in the countries under centuries of colonization, in the colonial, semi colonial and dependent countries, advanced further. It was in order to face this challenging situation that US imperialism promoted ‘de-colonisation’, that is providing formal independence to the colonial, semi-colonial countries, and developed various measures to initiate the transformation of colonialism to neocolonialism, a qualitatively different phase of imperialist

plunder, with the basic laws of motion of the imperialist epoch, in the main, continuing in new forms. 2. In spite of the thwarting of the national liberation movements by transferring power to comprador classes and initiating the imposition of more stringent hegemony of finance capital over these ‘newly independent countries’ through aid, loans etc by US imperialism and its allies, the existence of the socialist camp, the initiative taken by Soviet Union for the reconstruction of these countries, even US imperialism being compelled to advocate public sector and welfare state policies under Keynesian economic theories of state intervention in the field of production, combined with the influence of the programmes put forward during national liberation struggles led to the emergence of a powerful public sector, introduction of agrarian reforms and agrarian development, initiation of welfare policies etc in many of these countries. But with the degeneration of Soviet Union to capitalist path in the 1960s, US imperialism started intensifying the neocolonial policies subordinating all former colonial, semicolonial and dependent countries under various stages of neo-colonization. In spite of it, as the imperialist system started confronting another general crisis beginning with 1970s, projects were devised for rescheduling the debts of neocolonial countries, and for bringing their economies under direct control of international monopoly capital and the market system through imperialist globalization. As a result of these developments of last six decades the world is divided in to the imperialist countries and large number of countries under various stages of neo-colonisation. 3. Corresponding to these international developments, India, which had started becoming an arena of competition by the mercantile imperialist powers from 17th century, with the British imperialism emerging as the leading power defeating the European rivals and increasingly conquering the Kings and Nawabs turned into a colony under British imperialist domination for almost two centuries after the defeat the First War of Independence in 1857, also went through the transfer of power to the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois–landlord classes and to formal political independence. Under the influence of various factors pointed out above, during 1950s the foundation was laid for the emergence of a powerful public sector, for initiation of welfare policies and for agrarian reforms and development under imperialist domination. In 1960s the neo-colonization started intensifying under increasing penetration of finance capital. By 1980s the impact of the general crisis faced by imperialist system and internal contradictions intensified. It led to imposition of imperialist globalization in the beginning of 1990s. With this the neo-colonization unprecedentedly intensified. The Indian economy is increasingly integrated to international monopoly capital and market system, with speculative capital dominating all spheres. India like other former colonial, semicolonial, dependent countries of the colonial phase has become a country under ever intensifying neo-colonisation. 4. In the 1940s and 1950s the ICM had tried to understand the changes taking place in the concrete conditions at the international level. Stalin and Mao had pointed out how US – led imperialist policies are replacing old colonialism with new form of colonialism, while all basic laws of motion of the imperialist era explained by Lenin continue, in the main. The Cominform through many articles in its organ had tried to explain the transformation taking place in the forms of exploitation of US-led imperialist powers. But the refusal to recognize these, and the reformist positions emerged under Krushchovian revisionism going against the Marxist-Leninist teachings on imperialism has led to the emergence of basic deviations from the concrete analysis of post-WW II situation by many so-called Marxist forces. Some of them analysed the US-sponsored ‘decolonisation’ as a progressive step leading to completion of the tasks of the PDR, transforming former colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries to the capitalist stage. Some others analysed the neocolonial policies like green revolution and the changes it brought in the agrarian sector as steps transforming India to the capitalist stage. All these forces evaluating India as a capitalist country in the stage of socialist revolution, degenerating to reformist paths, are in effect serving the ruling system. 5. Deviating from Marxist-Leninist path and erroneously evaluating the US – sponsored ‘decolonisation’ policies and Keynesian approach as progressive steps that led to

disappearance of colonialism, refusing to recognize the havoc brought by neocolonialism, Krushchovites degenerated to its apologists. And the Soviet revisionists under Brezhnev degenerated to competing with US imperialism in pursing policies of neocolonialism. It was this refusal to recognize the momentous changes which took place in the post –WW II years and the incapability to analyse and develop Lenin’s teachings on imperialism to meet the challenges faced by the ICM in the neocolonial phase which have led to the degeneration of the socialist countries to social democratic path and to capitalist restoration. Almost all the communist parties formed under the guidance of Comintern including CPI and its offshoot CPI(M) also degenerated to capitalist path under the sway of Soviet revisionism. 6. As already pointed out, the CPC under the leadership of Mao Tsetung succeeded in correctly analyzing neocolonialism and pointing out the degeneration of post –Stalin CPSU leadership to the capitalist path as a result of its failure to grasp the significance of understanding neocolonialism from Leninist positions. But as a consequence of the intense inner party struggle going on within the CPC against the rightist forces which gained dominance in the 8th Congress of 1956, and against the ‘left’ sectarian line which gained dominance in the 9th Congress of 1969 respectively, the ideological struggle could not be carried forward based on it vigorously, developing the Leninist understanding on imperialism during this process. As a result, except for occasional articles in CPC journals, the basic issues raised during the Great Debate including neocolonialism were not subjected to in depth studies. The ideological struggle against the capitalist roaders in China did not take up the challenges posed by imperialism through neocolonial forms of plunder seriously. Soon after Mao’s death as the capitalist roaders who usurped power degenerated to apologists of neocolonialism and soon started competing with other imperialist powers for intensifying the neocolonial plunder, whatever contributions were made by the CPC under Mao’s leadership in the theoretical exposure and struggle against neocolonialism were consciously obliterated. 7. In India, as elsewhere, the Marxist-Leninists upholding the critique of neocolonialism by CPC under Mao’s leadership in the course of Great Debate, had raised the issue from the time of the inner party struggle within CPI(M) from 1965 beginning itself. Many of the articles of the communist revolutionaries during these years prove this. Later, after the Naxalbari uprising and formation of the AICCCR, when Liberation started publication as its organ, many articles explaining neocolonialism were reproduced from other journals, or written by leading comrades. But as the theoretical contribution on the question by the CPC did not go beyond the Apologists of Neocolonialism published in 1963, the writings on the issue did not go further ahead. As already mentioned while characterizing Indian state and society, neocolonial and semi-colonial were used synonymously, without going into any in depth analysis of these concepts. From the end of the 1970s though many of the ML groups continued to talk about neocolonisation and neocolonial plunder, most of them again started characterizing Indian State as semi-colonial. Some of the organizations even started distancing themselves from any mention about neocolonization, and emphasized the semi-colonial formulation. Some others started using semi-colonial and dependent concepts eclectically. 8. As already pointed out, semi-colonial is a formulation used by Lenin to pin point those countries which were in the ‘transition stage’, countries where different imperialist forces had occupied small or big regions and where ruling over them, while comprador bureaucratic bourgeois- land lord classes serving imperialist policies were ruling over other regions. Mao has explained this question with regard to China vividly in his work Chinese Communist Party and Chinese Revolution. Including the territorial occupation of the coastal areas of China which had turned it in to a semi-colony of different imperialist powers, there are absolutely no similarities between the pre-revolutionary, semi-colonial China, or countries like Persia and Thailand with the post – 1947 India where the transfer of power took place to the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois-land lord classes. Similarly by repeating India as semi colonial, the fact that it is one of the categories utilized by Lenin to explain the countries under colonization, the qualitative differences between colonial and neocolonial phases of imperialist exploitation are obliterated. Projecting the transformation of imperialist plunder from colonial phase to neocolonial phase during the momentous developments taking place in the post World War II

years and still characterizing India, contrary to present concrete conditions, as semi-colonial has led to the Communist movement vacillating between right opportunism and ‘left’ sectarianism and ‘vice versa’, to the failure to concretely analyse the international and Indian situation, and to the failure to develop the theory and practice of Indian revolution. So recognizing neocolonialism as the present phase of domination by imperialism and finance capital, and characterizing Indian state as neocolonial are Marxist-Leninist positions. The principal contradiction in present day India and the Path of Revolution leading to the victory of the NDR can be defined and developed only based on the Marxist-Leninist analysis of Indian state as a state under neo-colonisation, or a neo-colonial one.

B. ON THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION SEEKING truth from facts is a Marxist-Leninist principle. In practice it calls for developing the revolutionary line based on concrete analysis of concrete situation at a given time or phase in the ever-changing world. It is this fundamental question which Mao Tsetung pointed out while dealing with the major contradictions in Chinese society and the relationship between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions which presents a complicated picture. For example he pointed out that when imperialism launches a war of aggression against a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can be united in a national war against imperialism. Then the contradiction between imperialism and the people and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all other contradictions are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position. In another situation when imperialism, in this era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, carries on its oppression not by war, but by other means — political, economic and cultural — the ruling classes capitulate to imperialism and the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people. So “if in any process there are a number of contradictions one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position”. In the Indian context, it was a colony of British imperialism till 1947. The national liberation from the clutches of imperialism was the principal aspect of the class struggle during this period. Imperialism during the colonial period brought changes in the feudal relations in India to suit its exploitation and protected it. The feudal relations were transformed to semifeudal relations and it became the social prop of imperialism. But as Lenin and under his guidance Communist International pointed out, the tasks of bourgeois democratic revolution overthrowing imperialism and its social basis semi-feudalism cannot be completed, in this era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, under the leadership of the bourgeoisie since it was in the main compromising with imperialism. It was not prepared for a thorough break with colonialism. That is why even Purna Swaraj was adopted by Congress only after the proletarian movement started gaining strength and the Communist Party started campaigning for it. The Comintern pointed out that only by establishing the leadership of the working class in the national liberation struggle to overthrow imperialism, and democratic revolution to overthrow feudal relations the tasks of people’s democratic revolution can be completed, and the revolution can advance to the socialist stage. In this period the principal contradiction was between imperialism and Indian people. As the Communist Party failed to establish the leadership of the working class in the national revolution to overthrow British imperialism, it became easier for the imperialists to pursue the policy of ‘de-colonisation’ by transferring the power to big bourgeois-big landlord classes serving imperialism. As the Outline Party Programme states: “After the transfer of power, the Indian big bourgeoisie in compromise with the landlord class maintained the status quo and strengthened it through rural credit, panchayat raj, fake land reforms, green revolution etc. The big bourgeoisie is making hidden and open compromises with imperialism. Thus imperialism, big bourgeoisie and feudalism became impediments to the progress of Indian Society.”

After reformism started dominating the communist movement by the middle of 1950s, first CPI and then CPI (M) leadership abandoned the tasks of national liberation and democratic revolution which were still incomplete and started compromising with the ruling class positions. In practice the struggle against imperialism, big bourgeoisie and feudalism was abandoned. They did not put forward the understanding about principal contradiction before the Indian people. Though Naxalbari uprising once again brought back the agenda of democratic revolution before the people, under sectarian influence “ feudalism versus masses of the people” was put forward as the principal contradiction and the mechanical concept that its resolution shall lead to resolution of all contradictions.” It caused serious harm to the movement. Once again the question of establishing the leadership of the working class in the New Democratic Revolution and advancing the agrarian revolution as the axis of NDR were abandoned. “In the course of these, especially after the imposition of imperialist globalization, changes in the agrarian sector were further speeded up to serve the needs of imperialist capital and its market system. In the present world situation the neo-colonial form of exploitation is intensifying with every passing year and various imperialist powers are contending for a dominant position in India” (Outline Party Programme). The alliance of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and big landlord class has become more evident than ever. Who are the enemies and who are the friends in the stage of the NDR are also becoming clearer. The inter-relation and inter-penetration of the major contradictions at international and national level put forward in the Outline Party Programme are also becoming clearer. The law of contradiction in things and processes is the fundamental law of materialist dialectics, of nature and of society. According to dialectical materialism contradiction is present in all process of objectively existing things and permeates all these processes from beginning to end. All dogmatist ideas, mechanical approaches to understanding the contradictions should be fought and the distinction and the links between principal and non principal contradictions, as well as the principal and non-principal aspect of the contradictions should be scientifically studied. The various approaches towards the principal contradiction in the present phase of the NDR differ and erroneous approaches are put forward in the absence of above understanding. It should be overcome. Also, why even organizations with the same understanding about principal contradiction fail to unite or to at least work together should be seen in this context. It is with these basic understandings, the inter-relation between all contradictions should be analysed and the principal contradiction should be put forward to advance the revolutionary process. In the present neocolonial conditions in India the principal contradiction is between the alliance of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capital and landlordism on the one hand and the broad masses of people on the other. While coming to this conclusion the inter-relation between the two principal aspects of the NDR, that of national liberation against imperialism uniting all patriotic forces and of democratic revolution against landlordism which include feudal remnants, semi-feudal and all pre-capitalist relations of production through agrarian revolution should be organically analysed, and the revolutionary movement should be advanced accordingly. Unless anti-imperialist movement is continuously advanced, weakening the imperialist stranglehold ultimately leading to the overthrow of imperialism, the landlordism cannot be terminated as imperialism is its main support and is utilizing it as its social base. Conversely, unless the revolutionary section of the peasantry are mobilized based on the agrarian revolutionary programme, the worker-peasant alliance cannot be strengthened and imperialist stranglehold cannot be put an end to leading the country towards completion of the NDR and forward to socialist revolution. Thus, these two fundamental tasks of national revolution and democratic revolution are at once distinct and united.

C. PATH OF INDIAN REVOLUTION 1. INTRODUCTION There are significant differences between drafting a Path of Revolution in a country in the first half of 20th Century when the Third International (Comintern) led by the CPSU had put forward the strategic line of the International Communist Movement (ICM) and the tasks of the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries as well as in the countries under imperialist domination, and in the present situation when the ICM as well as the Communist Parties in each country have gone through momentous experiences, both positive and negative. A mere repetition of certain so-called time-honoured concepts or mechanical repetition of certain experience of revolutionary struggles in Russia, China or elsewhere along with repetitive assertions about the need for applying them according to concrete conditions in ones own country are not sufficient today. Similarly after the departure of Marxist teachers like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and after the degeneration of CPSU, CPC and other erstwhile Communist Parties with rich experience to capitalist path, there are no ‘authorities’ also to look forward to for guidance. The tasks before each Communist Party is to take stock of hitherto international and national experience and develop its own path of revolution based on the concrete analysis of the concrete conditions today, daring to throw out out-dated concepts or concepts proved obsolete in practice, and to go forward developing and applying the theoretical guide line provided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and proletarian internationalism, not in a dogmatic way, but with a historical and dialectical materialist perspective. 2. INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE Marxist theory emerged and practice based on this orientation started developing when capitalism was emerging as a world system of plunder of human and natural resources for accumulation of wealth by the capitalist class and its agents, when the contradiction between increasing socialisation of the mode of production and private appropriation of wealth was intensifying, when capitalism was trying to rebuild the world on its own image, and when colonisation of the world by a handful of capitalist countries was initiated. As the contradiction between capital and labour went on intensifying in the capitalist countries, inspired by the Communist Manifesto’s call : Workers of the world, unite, and the formation of the First International under the leadership of Marx and Engels, Western Europe and North America witnessed numerous working class upsurges threatening the foundations of the very capitalist system itself. In the Paris Commune the working class experienced the first seizure of political power, though for a brief period. Confronted by the growing proletarian challenge, and due to its own internal contradictions, with the merger of industrial capital and bank capital in to the birth of finance capital, capitalism transformed itself to monopoly capitalism, imperialism, advancing from primitive accumulation of capital to export of finance capital as the principal form of exploitation. The geographical division of all regions outside the imperialist countries among the imperialist powers was completed, subjugating these countries to colonial, semi- colonial and dependent conditions. The focus of revolutions shifted from the imperialist countries, where the contradiction between capital and labour was relatively diluted by the transformation of major sections of the working class leadership to ‘labour aristocracy’, to the weak links of imperialism including the countries under colonisation. According to these changes in the concrete conditions, the ICM also went through important transformations. Assimilating the experience of the Paris Commune the First International was dissolved, and soon it was reconstituted as Second International which played an important role in the beginning to inspire the working class movements. But its leadership failed to correctly analyse the imperialist system that emerged, not only as a purely economic system but also as an economic-political one, without overthrowing which the ICM cannot advance. The leadership of the social democratic parties leading the Second International proceeded to compromise and collaborate with the imperialists of their own countries. It was in this context Lenin developed the Marxist theory through his epochal work:

Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism and declared that world is in the Era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolutions. Lenin developed the theory and practice of proletarian revolution in the new era, developed the Path of Revolution in Tsarist Russia according to the concrete conditions there, led October Revolution to victory which led to the birth of Soviet Union and gave leadership for the formation of the Third International, an international of communist and workers parties when social democracy had become a pronoun for renegades. Under the leadership of Lenin and later Stalin the strategic revolutionary concept of world proletariat, the general orientation of the revolutionary theory and practice for the imperialist countries as well as countries under colonisation, the Bolshevik concept of party building etc were put forward. Based on the experience of the CPSU, concepts like democratic centralism, dictatorship of the proletariat, the problems confronting the building of socialism in a country surrounded by imperialist system etc were explained. The building of socialism in Soviet Union, the advances made by national liberation movements under the inspiration of Comintern and the historic victory achieved by the world people with the Soviet people at their head in the war against fascist forces during the World War II the intensification of internal contradictions in the countries under colonisation and the correct leadership of the Communist Parties led to the emergence of people’s democracies in Eastern Europe, victory of Chinese Revolution in 1949, all-round advances made by socialist forces and creation of an international situation, by the beginning of 1950s, when the East Wind of socialism looked like prevailing over the West Wind of imperialism. But during this period the world situation was also going through epochal changes. After the World War II, US imperialism replaced Britain as the leader of the imperialist camp. Developing its own experiences of imposing hegemony over Latin American countries and Philippines for many decades, the Brettenwood twins, IMF and World Bank, were built up from 1944 and later GATT. Export of finance capital was taken to unprecedented levels. Britain and other imperialist countries were compelled to ‘de-colonise’ their colonies, that is replacing direct colonial administration with the rule of local ruling classes, which were subservient to imperialist forces. Various military alliances were built up in continuation to the dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to impose US hegemony wherever possible. And based on Keynesian concepts ‘welfare state’ illusions were promoted to challenge the alternate development models pursued in the socialist countries. The old form of colonialism was being replaced by a new form, neo-colonialism, with finance capital and the market system including ever expanding speculative capital along with MNCs and various imperialist agencies dominating all walks of life, with the economy of all countries being integrated to global economy increasingly. In bringing out these changes the development of science and technology at a very fast pace during W W II and during the post-war years were also put in to service. As a result of these developments and new manoeuvres by the imperialist camp, the class struggle during the post-war years became unprecedentedly complex. NOW CHALLENGES BEFORE THE ICM During the post-W W II decade the ICM confronted two contradictory situations. On the one hand, as already noted, the advances made by it during these years was momentous. On the other hand, the problems faced by CPSU in the course of the socialist transformation in the Soviet Union, problems of developing proletarian democracy, problems concerning development of the Leninist understanding about imperialism according to concrete conditions, approach towards US prompted ‘de-colonisation’ etc were raising serious challenges. Already, the erroneous evaluation of the tactical line put forward by CPSU under Stalin’s leadership of forging an alliance with US, Britain and France to defeat the fascist axis powers had led the CP of USA taking a liquidationist line under Browder’s leadership and CP of India abandoning the struggle against British imperialism in the name of strengthening ‘Peoples war’. After the War, the Titoist Leadership in Yugoslavia had embraced the reformist path of development by opening the country for imperialist capital. In this situation, though Comintform was formed after the dissolution of Comintern, serious problems regarding development of struggle against imperialist camp led by US imperialism which had unleashed

a neo-colonial offensive were faced by the ICM. After the death of Stalin in 1953 these problems aggravated, and the CPSU leadership soon started embracing the path of ‘peaceful competition’ and ‘peaceful co-existence’ with imperialism and ‘peaceful transition to socialism’, abandoning the path of continuing class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat to accelerate the socialist transformation. Abandoning the socialist path the CPSU started embracing capitalist path and the Soviet Union started transforming to bureaucratic state capitalism. Leaderships of the Communist Parties in Eastern Europe and a large number of communist parties swayed by the prestige of the Soviet Union soon started embracing this neo-revisionist path. It was the greatest challenge faced by the ICM till then. All basic Marxist-Leninist principles like seizure of political power in the imperialist countries as well as in countries under imperialist domination, the socialist transformation in countries were proletariat had seized political power, the theory and practice of continuing class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian internationalism were challenged by Krushchovite revisionism. It was in this situation that the Marxist-Leninist forces led by the CPC and Mao Tsetung launched the Great Debate against the neo-revisionist path and put forward the Proposal Concerning the General Line of the ICM. Mao Tsetung launched an intensive movement, the Cultural Revolution, in the course of developing the theory and practice of class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Those were historic steps to combat the neo-revisionist onslaught. In spite of the overthrow of the capitalist roaders in the course of the Cultural Revolution and in spite of the intensive ideological struggle following it, Mao and his followers could not succeed to stop the surfacing of various alien tendencies again within the CPC. Utilising the turmoil following Mao’s death they succeeded to degenerate China also to the capitalist path. Though the national liberation movements in Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea scored great victories in mid-1970s, in the overall atmosphere of degeneration of Soviet Union, China and other socialist countries to the capitalist path, and the neo-liberal offensive launched by imperialism, especially US imperialism in the context of the Stagflation which was posing serious challenges to them these victories could not help to overcome the severe set backs suffered by the ICM. In this situation with the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991, the imperialists and world reaction celebrated it as the ‘end of history’, ‘end of class struggle’ and declared socialism is obsolete. Attacks on socialism reached a new peak. But with the beginning of the 21st century positive changes are visible all over the world. Anti-imperialist movements, especially against US imperialism, have gained strength in spite of the aggression and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of ‘War on terror’. The Iraqi, Afghan, Palestine people’s wars of resistance have intensified, with the US imperialists threatened with another ignominious retreat. In Latin America many countries have joined Cuba in opposing US hegemony. Opposing neo-liberalism they are seeking an anti-imperialist path of development. Working class struggles are intensifying even in the imperialist countries. The contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations on the one hand and imperialism on the other, between labour and capital and between socialist forces and imperialism have intensified with the inter-imperialist contradictions also getting sharpened. Once again conditions for the advance of the proletarian revolutionary forces all over the world are slowly emerging overcoming the severe setbacks of the past decades. The path of Indian revolution should be drafted taking these experiences of the ICM from the time of publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 in to consideration. On the positive side, ‘imperialist barbarism or socialism’ has become the central slogan once again before the world people. Enormous experiences are gained from the revolutionary struggles for capturing political power, on building the communist parties and class/mass organisations, on utilising various forms of struggle to develop class struggle, on building socialism and about continuing struggles against various alien trends including right opportunism and sectarianism. But the severe setbacks mentioned above have given birth to immense problems also.

They have posed many complex problems to be resolved. They include how to concretely analyse the present situation and develop strategy and tactics to capture political power according to it fighting against dogmatism, sectarianism and anarchism, how to develop all forms of struggle without becoming victims of reformism and parliamentary cretinism, how to build a Bolshevik style party as the vanguard of the proletariat, how to develop class and mass organisations mobilising millions of members with peoples democratic perspective, how to develop the concept of democratic centralism always giving paramount importance to developing democratic values with centralism based an democracy, how to transcend bourgeois democracy and develop proletarian democracy with organic practice of ‘‘let hundred flowers bloom, hundred thoughts contend’’, how to combat hitherto experience of degeneration of socialist countries under proletarian dictatorship to bureaucratic state capitalism ,how to develop the protracted Cultural Revolution throwing out decadent systems and values and creating conditions for emergence of socialist values; how to develop continuous socialist education to imbibe revolutionary concepts; how to develop proletarian internationalism as an integral part of national revolutionary struggles etc. It is not possible to resolve all these complex problems as a pre-condition for launching revolutionary struggles. But these and many more such issues continuously coming up during pre and post revolutionary periods should be given cognisance when a Marxist-Leninist party is putting forward its approach towards the Path of Revolution. 3. NATIONAL SITUATION Our country, India, is one of the biggest countries in the world with one of the most ancient civilisations. It is inhabited by about 120 crores of people who have rich revolutionary traditions, a glorious heritage and culture. It is multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious, with specific characteristics like caste system, a historically determined ugly and inhuman feature. India in its pre-colonial days had its own specific agrarian relations and other features. It was taking its own course of development in various spheres. But colonial forces interfered and violently distorted its own course of development. British imperialism conquered India defeating other contesting colonial forces, transformed it in to its colony and imposed a centralised state system. It conquered the hitherto dominant feudal forces, transformed the hitherto existing agrarian relations through the introduction of Zamindari like systems and utilised them as its social base. The caste system was retained and religious divisions were promoted for its ‘divide and rule’ policy. As part of capital accumulation, for the plunder of vast resources of India, a merchant class acting as middle men were promoted, violently destroying the nascent national productive forces in the country. Along with promoting semi-feudal, pre-capitalist relations, capitalist relations were introduced transforming the new merchant class to capitalist class paving the way for the emergence of a new class, comprador bourgeoisie. Through the introduction of English education, a bureaucratic class was created to serve the colonial system. Through these colonial measures the process of integrating the country to the British colonial system was speeded up. The intensification of the colonial plunder and subjugation gave birth to various forms of people’s resistance to them. The different streams of social renaissance movements emerged according to concrete conditions and level of social development in different regions giving rise to democratic values, modernity and patriotic feelings. But the colonial system could blunt their organic growth through the upper caste land owning classes, the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois sections and the casteist and communal forces. Still the resistance of different sections of anti-colonial forces grew paving the way for the outbreak of the First War of Independence in 1857 which shook the very foundation of colonial rule. Following this the British government brought the country under its direct domination with a more centralised ruling system. Within a short time, the national movement against colonial rule started getting strengthened again, in the main led by the Indian National Congress. Though the Congress

leadership was basically reformist in character, and was representing the big landlord and emerging comprador bureaucratic bourgeois classes, the movement assumed mass character many times, crossing the borders set by the leadership. The emergence of the revolutionary forces led by Bhagat Singh in 1920s and the beginning of the Communist Party with the formation of the working class movement and other mass organisations created conditions for the call of Purna Swaraj and intensification of independence struggle. The crushing defeat inflicted on the fascist forces during World War II under the leadership of the Soviet Union, weakening of British and other colonial powers, and the upsurge of national liberation movements all over the world including mass revolutionary upsurge in the post-War years in India, compelled the colonial powers to replace the direct colonial rule with neo-colonial forms of plunder, and to transfer political power to subservient local classes to facilitate it, as the International Communist Movement (ICM) correctly evaluated at that time. In conformity with this, the British colonial rulers, in continuation to its ‘divide and rule’ policy communally divided the country provoking violent fratricidal killings and bloodshed and transfered power to the comprador classes represented by Congress and Muslim League. Thus this country was transformed from a colony of British imperialism to a country under neo-colonial domination by various imperialist powers, especially US imperialism. In the post-1947 years, while pursuing a policy of ruthless suppression of Telengana and other struggles led by the Communist movement in particular, and all people’s movements for various demands in general, the Congress government pursued reformist policies like abolition of Zamindari Act and introduction of land ceiling acts on the one hand, and implementing various welfare policies in the context of the Keynesian policies introduced by US-led imperialist camp to confront the challenge posed by the socialist camp on the other. The Indian state introduced the Green Revolution under US dictates and utilised the land ceiling acts to replace the feudal landlords with a new class of landlords ready to utilise the modern inputs, to promote capitalist mode of production in the agrarian sector and to speed up the integration of Indian economy with the global imperialist system. Implementing the directives of the Bombay Plan and in the context of the existence of a powerful socialist camp, industries, infrastructure building and service sector were developed on a major scale in public sector. Later when socialist Soviet Union degenerated to a social imperialist superpower and the inter-imperialist contradictions between US and Soviet Union started intensifying, this contradiction was reflected in the Indian ruling classes also. In the main this inter-imperialist contradiction was utilised by the Indian State for manoeuvring for its benefits, and to pursue a hegemonic policy in South Asia. These policies of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes led Indian State collaborating with imperialism went on intensifying its contradictions with the Indian people, which got manifested in various ways. The land reforms from above did not give land to the tiller, but only created a new landlord class. The economic policies followed by central and state governments went on increasing the burden over the people like price-rise, unemployment and pauperisation of growing sections. It increased the uneven development also sharply. As the great Naxalbari movement once again brought agrarian revolution back to people’s agenda, peoples of Kashmir and Northeast intensified struggles for right of selfdetermination, and workers, peasantry and other sections went on waging numerous struggles for their rights, the Congress government pursued a policy of ruthless suppression, often resorting to black laws and deployment of army. As people’s upsurge went on intensifying, the internal emergency was clamped down during 1975-77. These developments led to the contradictions among ruling classes and among the political parties representing them also coming to the fore, and to the end of Congress monopoly of power at centre and in the states. The 1980s witnessed economic crisis as reflected in the acute balance of payments problems on the one hand, and intensification of communal, casteist like divisions on the other. India, which was mortgaged to imperialist powers under neo-colonisation, came under acute turmoil. Imposition of imperialist globalisation on the one hand, and demolition of Babri Masjid like acts and later Indian State becoming active partner in the ‘War on Terror’ of

US imperialism on the other hand followed. With the disintegration of Soviet Union, Indian State came under ever-increasing sway of the neo-liberal policies promoted by US Imperialism in its bid for world hegemony. During the last two decades, the Indian State has almost abandoned all welfare state policies. The ruling classes have succeeded to snatch away all rights won by the working class and imposed contract labour system and ‘hire and fire’ policy in all sectors. Government procurement of food grains and public distribution system (PDS) is almost demolished. MNCs and corporate houses are allowed total domination in industries, services, infrastructure building and in wholesale and retail trade. They are allowed uninhibited entry to agrarian sector, intensifying the land accumulation in fewer and fewer hands. More and more sections are thrown out of land through SEZs, new industrial centres, real estate lobby and land mafias. Commercialisation of education, health-care, services, etc. is taking place at ruthless pace. As a result of these policies, the integration of Indian economy with global imperialist system is going ahead at a maddening pace. The grave consequences of this integration at the behest of imperialist powers, especially US imperialism is now felt in all fields following the global financial crisis with its epi-centre in US. The recession and depression have spread fast to India like countries exposing the hitherto tall claims of the ruling classes and their political representatives. While those responsible for it are bailed out by the state at people’s expense, millions of workers are thrown out of jobs and all sections of people are further paupersied. And throwing away whatever progressive aspects the Indian foreign policy had, and whatever sovereignty the country had, Indian State under the comprador rulers is intensifying its strategic ties with US imperialism. At the same time, the gap between the rich and poor has widened phenomenally. Almost half the people are under poverty line, with almost 25% reduced to destitution, when 60-70% of the wealth is accumulated in the hands of less than 10%. The present price rise has unprecedentedly intensified the misery of the vast masses. Contrary to ruling class claims in spite of the inflation rate going down from the peak of 12% it had reached, the prices of essential commodities are continuing to rise. Adivasis, dalits, women and all other oppressed classes and sections are facing acute devastation. Along with these, the imperialist dictated ‘development policies’ have devastated ecology, leading to global warming like impacts. The overall objective situation is one of ever-intensifying neocolonial plunder and oppression, unprecedented sharpening of all internal contradictions, a situation which demands an all out intervention by the Communist Party to overthrow the existing anti-people, reactionary system and ushering in people’s democracy and socialism. 4. STRATEGY OF PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC OR NEW DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION Overcoming the revisionist degeneration of the leadership of the Second International and developing Marxism according to the challenges raised by capitalism in its highest, as well as moribund stage, imperialism, was the revolutionary task before the Bolsheviks led by Lenin. Taking up this challenge, Lenin put forward the Marxian analysis of imperialism, and the general conclusion that “imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution”. Drawing lessons from the weaknesses of the working class parties during First and Second International, Lenin taught that “without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement” and that “the role of the vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory”. Pointing out that “the proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of the bourgeois state machine and the substitution for it of a new one”, Lenin put forward the revolutionary concept that in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution “the proletariat must carry the democratic revolution to its completion by allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and pettybourgeoisie”. Again he reiterated: “From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and in

accordance with the measures of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the Socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half way.” Elaborating these Leninist teachings Stalin stated in 1918 commemorating the first anniversary of October Revolution: “The great world-wide significance of the October Revolution chiefly consists in the fact that: 1) It has widened the scope of the national question and converted it from the particular question of combating national oppression in Europe into the general question of emancipating the oppressed peoples, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism; 2) It has opened up wide possibilities for their emancipation and the right paths towards it, has thereby greatly facilitated the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples of the West and the East, and has drawn them into the common current of the victorious struggles against imperialism; 3) It has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and enslaved East, having created a new front of revolutions against world imperialism, extending from the proletarians of the West, through the Russian Revolution, to the oppressed peoples of the East.” Based on the Marxist-Leninist teachings, the Third or Communist International concluded that the bourgeoisie in the era of imperialism has lost its earlier revolutionary character, that the emerging bourgeoisie in the countries under colonisation under the guidance of imperialism are colluding with imperialism, and that this bourgeoisie is incapable of leading the bourgeois democratic revolution to its completion. In the new era ushered in by the October Revolution, the whole course of bourgeois democratic revolutions have undergone a fundamental change, as explained by Mao Tsetung in “On New Democracy”: “It is an era in which the world capitalist front has collapsed in one part of the globe (onesixth of the world) and has fully revealed its decadence everywhere else, in which the remaining capitalist parts cannot survive without relying more than ever on the colonies and semi-colonies, in which a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semicolonies, and in which the proletariat of the capitalist countries is steadily freeing itself from the social-imperialist influence of the social democratic parties and has proclaimed its support for the liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies. In this era, any revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism, i.e., against the international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category. It is no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist, world revolution, but is part of the new world revolution, the proletarian-socialist world revolution. Such revolutionary colonies and semi-colonies can no longer be regarded as allies of the counter-revolutionary front of world capitalism; they have become allies of the revolutionary front of world socialism. “Although such a revolution in a colonial or semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of further sub-stages, because of changes on the enemy’s side and within the ranks of our allies, but the fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged.

“Such a revolution attacks imperialism at its very roots, and is therefore not tolerated but opposed by imperialism.” The Communist International asserted that in the countries under colonisation, in the colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries, the tasks of national liberation overthrowing the rule of imperialism and the tasks of democratic revolution overthrowing all feudal, semi-feudal, pre-capitalist relations of production are intertwined. The People’s Democratic Revolution combines these two tasks, only after the completion of which a country can advance towards socialist revolution. Explaining this point in the Chinese context Mao said: “Imperialism and the feudal landlord class being the chief enemies of the Chinese revolution at this stage, what are the present tasks of the revolution? “Unquestionably, the main tasks are to strike at these two enemies to carry out a national revolution to overthrow foreign imperialist oppression and a democratic revolution to overthrow feudal landlord oppression, the primary and foremost task being the national revolution to overthrow imperialism. “These two great tasks are interrelated. Unless imperialist rule is overthrown, the rule of the feudal landlord class cannot be terminated, because imperialism is its main support. Conversely, unless help is given to peasants in their struggle to overthrow the feudal landlord class, it will be impossible to build powerful revolutionary contingent to overthrow imperialist rule, because the feudal landlord class is the main social base of imperialist rule in China and the peasantry is the main force of the Chinese revolution. Therefore the two fundamental tasks, the national revolution and the democratic revolution, are at once distinct and united.” INDIAN EXPERIENCE The salvos of October Revolution had brought Marxist-Leninist teachings to India. And from early 1920s the Communist movement started taking roots here. The formation of the Communist Party, its activities to mobilise the working class and to lead it in the struggles along with the mobilisation of the peasantry in the anti-feudal movements it gave leadership to, and the revolutionary work among other revolutionary classes and sections spread the influence of the Party fast in the objective conditions of ever sharpening contradiction of the Indian people with imperialism and feudalism. But in spite of these advances, the leadership failed continuously in correctly analysing the concrete conditions in the country and applying the clear-cut Marxist-Leninist concepts put forward by the International Communist Movement which were being successfully implemented in China in the conditions there. As a result, it came under the influence of both right and ‘left’ deviations continuously. It failed to analyse and understand the revolutionary line pursued by the Soviet leadership during the Second World War to defeat the fascist forces, and as a result of which it took a line of abandoning the anti-British struggle, getting isolated from the masses. Though numerous revolutionary upsurges took place all over the country from the great Telengana struggle to the Naval uprising in the post-war situation, once again the leadership failed to declare a clear-cut approach to the national liberation struggle and about establishing the leadership of the proletariat in it. On the other hand, the leadership became a tail of the Congress and Muslim League, the parties of the big bourgeoisie. It did not oppose the British imperialist’s to divide the country communally and to hand over power to the comprador classes represented by these parties. In the post-1947 period, in spite of extremely favourable situation created by the national and international developments, once again the leadership went on deviating or vacillating from one extreme to another, from the revolutionary path, always refusing to assimilate and pursue the revolutionary line of the Communist International, of completing the tasks of national liberation and democratic revolution by establishing the leadership of the proletariat and allying with and leading the class of landless and poor peasants in the agrarian revolution which is the axis of the democratic revolution. Even after a Party Programme and Policy Statement were adopted after discussion with the CPSU leadership in 1951, they were soon

abandoned, the Telengana struggle was withdrawn, and right opportunist parliamentary cretinist line started influencing the leadership. Once again it was the erroneous evaluation of the class character of the big bourgeoisie which is a comprador class basically collaborating with imperialism, and vis-a-vis of the Congress leadership, which led to the line of class collaboration and revisionism by the leadership. The degeneration of post-Stalin CPSU leadership to capitalist path speeded up this process. And soon the leadership of the Party abandoned even the 1951 analysis of dual character of big bourgeoisie. It was analysed as predominantly nationalist, and the line of National Democratic Revolution to be peacefully completed allying with big bourgeoisie and its party, Congress, was adopted, completing its degeneration to revisionist path. This led to serious inner-party struggle. But the split in 1964, leading to the formation of CPI(M), its Seventh Congress and adoption of a Party Programme did not focus on the revisionist line of CPI leadership. Refusing to take any stand in the struggle against the capitalist line of CPSU leadership waged by the CPC, the CPI(M) leadership took a centrist stand. By 1967 when it formed opportunist alliances in the general election and formed ministries led by it in West Bengal and Kerala, it had abandoned even the 1964 Programme including the agrarian revolution based on land to the tiller slogan. The inner-party struggle against the neo-revisionist line of CPI(M) leadership intensified by then leading to the great Naxalbari struggle, once again bringing forward agrarian revolution to the forefront in the agenda. By 1968 Burdwan Plenum the degeneration of CPI(M) leadership to neo-revisionist line was in the main completed, and the communist revolutionaries coming out of CPI(M) formed the AICCCR and called for intensifying agrarian revolution to complete the tasks of New Democratic Revolution. Thus it took more than four decades of bitter ideological-political struggles for categorically establishing the Marxist-Leninist line in the leadership of the Communist movement. The history of the ideological-political struggle among the Marxist-Leninist forces who were divided in to CPI(ML) formed in 1969 and non-CPI(ML) forces in the beginning, and the CPI(ML) and non-CPI(ML) groups later was focussed on evolving and putting in to practice a Path of Revolution in continuation to the teachings of Communist International and based on the experience of the International Communist Movement and the movement in India. If the domination of sectarian line in the CPI(ML) in the beginning created obstacles for developing a Path based on revolutionary mass line, later the disunity among the ML forces with some of the groups deviating to rightist positions while another section persisting in the sectarian line in more rabid forms, and the failure of the mass line forces to unite in to a single party and develop a Path according to the concrete conditions in India created problems. In the meantime, though many of the groups had put forward their own Path documents, none of them have so far succeeded to build up the party organisation with countrywide influence, to build up powerful class/mass organisations at all India level capable of developing countrywide struggles, to mobilise and politicise the working class in any significant manner to make it the leader of revolution, and to mobilise and lead the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, the main force of the NDR, to carry forward the agrarian revolution with land to the tiller slogan in any significant manner because of them clinging to the path of protracted people’s war. The significance of the Path document put forward now should be seen in this context. The sharpening of all internal contradictions in the country unprecedentedly after the imposition of imperialist globalisation and growing participation of the working class, peasantry and all other oppressed classes and sections in numerous struggles have created an excellent objective situation to put this Path in to practice. The Party should give conscious leadership to mobilise the agricultural workers, landless and poor peasants to relive their historic traditions by creating rural upsurges to carry forward the tasks of agrarian revolution, which is the axis of democratic revolution. Agrarian revolution for elimination of the still surviving feudal, semi-feudal and pre-capitalist relations is integrally linked to the anti-imperialist task of breaking down the grip of the tentacles of imperialist system over the Indian society as a whole. The Communist Party as the vanguard of the Indian proletariat based on worker-peasant alliance should strive hard to build the strategic

united front winning over all genuine anti-imperialist, patriotic, democratic classes and sections according to the concrete situation and state of development of the people’s struggles for overthrowing imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlord classes for replacing the present Indian state with a People’s Democratic State. The Path of Revolution should squarely address this cardinal issue. 5. ON CLASS ANALYSIS IN INDIAN SOCIETY On the class approach to the PDR in India, the Outline Party Programme State : ‘‘The working class, peasantry, petty-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie constitute the revolutionary classes in the present stage of revolution. The working class and peasantry are the most exploited and oppressed among these classes. All these classes are in dire need of overthrowing enemy classes along with the state controlled by them. A united front of these oppressed classes based on worker-peasant alliance must be forged in the course of class struggles, revolutionary movements against imperialism, feudalism, comprador bureaucratic capital, and it will be led by the working class. The working class, being the most advanced and revolutionary class alone can and must lead this revolution.’’. As Mao Tsetung pointed out, determining the enemies and friends of revolution is a most important question in chalking out the Path of Revolution. The basic reason why the revolutionary struggles could not win victory so far is the failure to make a correct class analysis according to concrete conditions in the country, to establish the leadership of the working class, to mobilise the peasantry through agrarian revolution, to forge worker-peasant alliance, and thus to unite with the real friends to attack the real enemies. To overcome this weakness the Path of Revolution should be evolved based on the class analysis of Indian society in present concrete conditions. As significant changes have taken place in Indian society during the last six decades after transfer of power, they should be taken in to consideration while making this analysis. Regarding the Comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie, the leading class among the ruling classes, CPI(M) like forces are continuing to create confusion to conceal their class collaborationist position by defining comprador as a puppet class. They argue that this term does not reflect the contradiction the Indian ruling classes have with imperialism. In the debate continuing from 1960s since the 7th Congress of 1964, the Communist Revolutionary forces have repeatedly pointed out that their basic difference with the 1964 Programme is not in defining the Indian big bourgeoisie as having dual character, collaboration and contradiction with imperialism, but not defining which is primary within these two. That, even while the Indian big bourgeoisie and the bureaucratic class have contradictions with imperialism which is often reflected in their manoeuvres to utilise the inter-imperialist contradictions for their benefit, their collaboration with imperialism is basic which is reflected in their counter revolutionary character repeatedly proved during these decades. Their transformation in to a capitalist class or a class making huge investments in other countries, or some of the corporate houses finding place among the first ten monopolies in the world does not change the basic fact that it is continuing to collaborate with imperialism, to compromise with the precapitalist relations of production and to obstruct the independent development of productive forces in the country. So whether one call it a Junior partner of imperialism or dependent bourgeoisie, its basic character remains the same, it is a comprador class serving imperialist interests in the main. The Congress and BJP are the major political representatives of these classes presently. The stands of all the ‘socialist revolutionaries’, neo-Trotskyist and neo-left like forces, who have defined it as an independent capitalist class and India as an independent capitalist country (which inevitably means another imperialist country in this era of imperialism) stand fully exposed especially after the imposition of the neo-liberal policies, intensifying the neocolonisation. The big landlord class include the remnant feudal forces, the rich peasants who have grown in to a powerful class from the time of ‘green revolution’ and various sections of land owning mafias. It serves to integrate the agricultural sector with imperialist economy

facilitating entry of imperialist capital and MNCs to every sphere of agriculture from production of seeds to procurements of produces, and allies with the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie to perpetuate the neo-colonial plunder of the country. The middle bourgeoisie which can also be called the national bourgeoisie is inconsistent in its attitude towards Indian revolution. It is inter-twined with the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie increasingly and is collaborating with imperialism more than ever for its existence especially after the imposition of neo-liberal policies. It is increasingly feeling that the revolution more than ever shall threaten its ambition to attain the status of big bourgeoisie. In this situation even whatever revolutionary character this class had in the past is getting weakened. So the possibility of it or, a section of it becoming an ally of the NDR has become a very distant possibility now, though it may partially materialise when the NDR advances decisively under the worker-peasant alliance. The petty bourgeoisie, including the middle peasants, both because of its size and class character is a significant one. Under conditions of intensifying onslaughts of imperialist globalisation in every field including the cultural field, the vacillating character and illusions of this class has increased manifold. Though the lower middle class which constitute more than half of this class and may be called its left wing, are facing ever intensifying miseries under the liberalisation-privatisation regime and as a result of which large sections of it have fallen to the level of workers loosing all property, under the neo-colonial conditions even most of them have not abandoned petty bourgeois illusions. Adapting itself to the conditions created by the imperialist globalisation, investing whatever they have on providing higher professional education to their children, influenced by speculative capital enormously, embracing religious fundamentalist and communal positions in a big way, influenced by casteist/savarna/neoBrahministic positions increasingly and contributing activists and leaders to the political spectrum in a major way, the petty bourgeoisie, especially the upper and middle strata of it, have lost whatever revolutionary character it had as a class earlier to a great extent. More and more of its younger generation are coming under the sway of imperialist and reactionary culture like consumerism, alcoholism, criminal character and hatred towards the toiling masses. All these point out towards the fact that possibilities of it joining the revolutionary struggles as a class in a major way now is comparatively less compared to the past. This situation should be concretely analysed and method of winning over more and more of them, especially of the lower middle class should be worked out. As the intensification of all internal contradictions create unprecedented conditions for mass upsurges in near future, objective conditions for volatile sections of this class joining the people’s movements exist. LANDLESS, POOR PEASANTS AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS This class the real tillers of the land, constitute majority of the population comprising 50% to 65% in different areas according to concrete conditions, and include the adivasis, dalits, and most backward and oppressed sections of society. They include the poor peasants, share croppers in areas where semi feudal relations still persist, those who have taken land for tilling under lease, agricultural workers who include large numbers of migrant workers and those who are engaged in a variety of unorganised sectors, handicraftsmen, peddlers, etc. As Mao Tsetung stated the peasant problem is essentially their problem. So when peasantry is mentioned in general it constitutes these sections, not the middle peasants and rich peasants as understood not only by CPI(M), but also increasingly by many of the socalled revolutionary sections, even ‘Maoists’. Agrarian revolution with land to the tiller slogan means creating conditions to revolutionise the agrarian relations by making this class the owner of the agricultural land, as a first step towards co-operative and collective farming. PROLETARIAT India is a country with such a powerful, large working class that without mobilising and politicising them the completion of the NDR and advancement to socialist revolution is impossible. Leave alone the pre-revolutionary China, the working class in India is much more

numerous than it was in pre-revolutionary Russia or any other country where the revolution has taken place. So the working class movement assumes far greater importance here. Under liberalisation-privatisation raj the proportion of the working class in the unorganised sector has enormously increased under the contract labour and hire and fire systems. Even the modern industrial proletariat is coming under this category increasingly Through closures, modernisation, outsourcing, VRS etc. the number of workers and employees in organised sector is dwindling rapidly. The main attack of imperialism is to create flexibility in the labour force. By denying regular hours of work, regular wages, security of service, social security etc. the organised sector is being constantly converted to unorganised sector. Therefore though it is the comparatively tiny organised sector that forms the base of most of the trade unions today, future organisation requires concentration on the unorganised sectors who alone can give new leadership and a new direction to the working class struggles. The task is to mobilise and lead them to local, state-wide and country-wide struggles, creating an atmosphere of working class struggles and upsurges anew. Urgent, conscious plans should be worked out with this orientation. 6. ON BUILDING THE PARTY AT ALL INDIA LEVEL AS THE VANGUARD OF THE INDIAN PROLETARIAT The Communist Party is the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat, it is the advanced detachment of the proletariat. The Communist Party [CPI] was formed in India under the guidance of the Communist International as a Bolshevik style party surrounded by class and mass organisations and based on the organisational principle of democratic centralism. During the 1930s and 1940s it succeeded in expanding its influence to all India level, in building the working class and peasant movements along with other mass organisations. It succeeded in carrying forward the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal movement and gave leadership to Telengana, Tebhaga, Punnapra-Vayalar like historic struggles. In spite of it, due to the failure to concretely analyse the national situation and to draw correct lessons from the Comintern positions, and to concretely analyse the international developments the CPI leadership could not develop its independent initiative and establish the leadership of the working class in the ongoing national liberation movement in the country and lead the NDR to victory. After the transfer of power in 1947, it failed to carry forward class struggle based on the 1951 Party Programme and Policy Statement. Its leadership soon started toeing the revisionist line put forward by the post-Stalin CPSU leadership. As a result of these, the first split in the communist movement took place in 1964 and the CPI (M) was formed. But the CPI (M) leadership did not make a complete break with the revisionist line of CPI and soon came under neo-revisionist positions. It was following this, in continuation to the inner-party struggle taking place within CPI(M), the Naxalbari uprising took place upholding the agrarian revolution with land to the tiller slogan as the axis of the NDR. Following the Burdwan Plenum in which the CPI(M) leadership took a Centrist line in the on going Great Debate between CPSU and CPC, in essence toeing the Soviet revisionist line, the CRs came out of the CPI(M) and formed the AICCCR fighting against revisionism of CPI and neo-revisionism of CPI(M). It was a historic turning point in the Indian Communist movement which paved the way for reorganising the party on the revolutionary line of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung thought as its guide line, as the vanguard party of the Indian proletariat with agrarian revolution as its axis. But sectarianism soon dominated the leadership of AICCCR and the CPI(ML) formed in 1969 could not unite all the CRs in it as evaluated by the 2007 Party Plenum. Vijayawada Conference of 2005 was a serious effort to bring together the CPI(ML) groups, those who had left CPI(ML) and formed other organisations, those who were never part of CPI(ML) earlier and the new generation comrades in to a single party, CPI (ML). As the completion of the tasks of the PDR and advancement towards socialist revolution is possible only under the leadership of a powerful Communist Party with country wide influence, the unity task taken up at the Vijayawada conference is to be carried forward trying to unite all like minded CR forces in the party. As this is an essential pre-condition for victory of the PDR, this task should be given paramount importance. And this party building is a vital aspect of the Path of Revolution, and while carrying it towards the following factors should be given serious consideration.

Firstly, the present concrete conditions compared to the situation in Russia, China and other countries when revolution took place there are vastly different. Today party building is taking place when almost all parties built up under Comintern guidance have degenerated to capitalist path with bureaucratic organisational structures and when the erstwhile socialist countries have degenerated to bureaucratic state capitalism or to open capitalist/imperialist countries. It is also taking place when issues like ecology, women’s liberation etc have assumed unprecedented importance. Amassment of nuclear weapons on the one hand and its proliferation on the other, growth of religious fundamentalism, casteism, racism etc. in newer forms are creating unprecedented problems. It is also taking place when the imperialist camp is intensifying its ideological onslaughts through alien theories and NGOs, when the advantages gained under the development of science and technology are utilised by the imperialist camp for its counter revolutionary offensive. Secondly, when CPI (M), CPI like parties have totally degenerated to ruling class positions, replacing class struggle with class collaboration, and embracing the path of peaceful transition and parliamentary opportunism, their continuing to use the banner of Communist Party is confusing many and used by enemy camp to tarnish Marxist theory and to destroy the image of the communist movement. Under the social democratic influence a section of the ML forces have also already degenerated to parliamentary opportunism. Struggle should be intensified without any let up against these right opportunist trends of all hues. Thirdly, a section of the erstwhile ML forces like CPI (Maoist) has degenerated to anarchist positions. In practice they still continue the ‘annihilation line’. In effect advocating and practising ‘armed struggle’ as the only form of struggle, they have abandoned mass line, got isolated from the masses and have in practice abandoned all organised mass movements. They have joined with NGOs on the one hand, and with chauvinist, parochial forces on the other hand. ‘Maoist bogey’ is utilised by the ruling classes and state machinery to confuse the people and as a cover to suppress all democratic movements and struggles. Some of the ML forces are refusing to settle accounts with these anarchist forces and collaborate with them, harming the unity process. Uncompromising struggle should be waged against these anarchist forces in order to strengthen Marxist-Leninist positions and to carry forward the unity process. It is not opportunist collaboration, but uncompromising struggle which is the only way even to help them to rectify their erroneous line and transform to mass line. Fourthly, it should be a Bolshevik-style party surrounded by class and mass organisations. Whether sectarianism is opposed merely in words or in practice is proved by the approach towards building class/mass organisations. In a country of nearly 120 crores of people, tens of millions of workers, landless-poor peasants and agricultural workers and other revolutionary sections can be successfully mobilised for countrywide campaigns and struggles if the Leninist approach towards Bolshevik party building surrounded by class/mass organisations is studiously pursued. Concepts like ‘Front’ organisations without a democratic programme and mobilisation of people are nothing but manifestations of sectarianism Fifthly, it should be a party with countrywide organisation and political influence. The concept of ‘area-wise seizure of political power’ and ‘base areas’, influence of localism etc. under the line of protracted people’ war are presently used as cover for ‘self-satisfied’ opportunism, of continuing activities reduced to certain pockets of influence. Significant changes that have taken place in the concrete situation in recent decades, especially after the launching of neo-liberal offensive by imperialism and the native ruling classes call for a countrywide offensive by the revolutionary forces mobilising tens of millions. So, political and organisational initiative should be taken for party building at all India level uniting all forces that can be united. Sixthly, the possibilities available today for open activities to launch vigorous ideological and political campaigns, to win over politically advanced sections and for party building should be fully utilised. Already there are numerous instances of spontaneous struggles in different regions against SEZs, so-called ‘development’ projects etc. The sky-rocketing price rise is

creating conditions for food riots in many areas. Possibilities for mass upsurges cannot be overlooked in this situation. The Party should be able to provide leadership to the coming upsurges and organisational and political work should be taken up with this perspective. At the same time, building of party fractions among the working class, organising fractions in sensitive areas including state apparatus and within the police, para-military and military included, should be given importance. In short, while giving emphasis to utilise present opportunities for open activities fully, capability to switch over to other organisational forms according to any changes in concrete conditions should be continuously developed so that there are no contradictions between open and secret, legal and illegal organisational forms, and among all forms of struggles. Seventhly, the ideological-political education and training which keeps the party politically vigorous and organisationally active should be given prime importance. Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action which should be continuously developed to cope up with the changes taking place in the concrete conditions internationally and nationally. The party should be capable of taking up this challenge and prepare the whole organisation accordingly. Eighthly, democratic centralism should be organically practised so that the democratic atmosphere for inner party struggle always exists. It is easy to talk about the undesirability of individual authority and bureaucratic practices. But even after the serious setback suffered by the ICM no proper lessons are drawn from them, so that the above, negative factors can be combated and a lively democratic atmosphere can be maintained within the party and class/mass organisations. Replacement of committee system and collective functioning by individual authority and democratic functioning by bureaucratic methods is one important reason for the existence of so many groups claiming to uphold Marxist-Leninist line even when there are no basic differences between their lines. It gives rise to ‘theory of many centres’ obstructing the unity efforts. So these negative tendencies should be vigorously fought. 7. ON MOBILISING THE WORKING CLASS AS THE LEADER OF THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION Marxism is the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat, the most advanced class engaged in the most developed and advanced field of production. The task of the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, is to transform it from a ‘‘class in itself’’ to a ‘‘class for itself’, capable of leading the revolutionary transformation of the society, by providing leadership to the people’s democratic revolution advancing towards socialist revolution. The Indian proletariat and its vanguard party have to shoulder the responsibility of completing the longpending tasks of democratic revolution and national liberation by mobilising all anti-imperialist, anti-feudal forces, for settling accounts with imperialism, the comprador classes and all precapitalist relations including the feudal decadent relations, and lead the people towards socialist revolution. One of the most important specific features of Indian society is that unlike all other erstwhile colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries, from the second half of 19th century itself there was a comparatively large working class here. They started getting organised from the last decades of 19th century and soon the working class had started fighting for their democratic and trade union right. By 1908 when the working class in Mumbai launched a political strike against the arrest of Tilak, Lenin had congratulated them stating that the working class in India have matured even to launch political struggles: ‘‘they have come of age’’. As the industrialisation received a boost following the colonial policy of British imperialism during and after First World War, the strength of the working class also increased considerably. Trade union movement soon spread to all major industrial centres and numerous struggles also took place. With the beginning of the activities of the Communist movement from 1920s the work among the working class in general and the trade union activities in particular advanced fast. By 1926, the first TU centre, the AITUC was launched as the platform of Indian working class in which the Communists and socialists had considerable influence. So, unlike most of the other colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries, in India

the call of the Communist International (CI) that it is this era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, and only the working class can give leadership to the bourgeois democratic revolution and national liberation to lead them to victory and to advance from there to socialist revolution had special significance. It was not just a theoretical question alone like in many other countries but a practical question of establishing the proletarian class leadership in the movement as this class had already become quantitatively and qualitatively a powerful one. So, while chalking out the Path of Revolution how this task can be taken up by the Communist movement in the country and how concrete political and practical steps to establish the class leadership of the proletariat in the People’s Democratic Revolution overcoming all negative experiences can be developed should be given cardinal importance. An evaluation of the political history of the mobilisation of the working class by the Communist movement in India reveal that the first major setback in this field occured following the decision of the CPI leadership in 1941 to call off all working class struggles in the name of strengthening the anti-fascist war. With the launching of the Nazi blitzkrieg against Soviet Union in 1941, the Soviet and Comintern leadership evaluated that the hitherto interimperialist war had transformed to a People’s War and called on the world people to launch an all out counter-offensive to destroy the fascist forces which had become the principal threat. Against the German-Italian-Japanese Axis Powers, Soviet Union allied with US, Britain and France to carry forward the anti-fascist offensive. Following this, based on an erroneous evaluation of this Comintern call and the concrete conditions within the country, the CPI leadership called for suspending the anti-colonial movement in the name of supporting the People’s War as Soviet Union had allied with Britain. All strike struggles were called off and working class movement suffered a severe setback. It led to a severe setback to the hitherto effects to establish the working class leadership in the national liberation movement. The Congress leadership which had so far refused to utilise the favourable opportunities provided by the outbreak of the inter-imperialist war to intensity the independence struggle, utilised this opportunity and called for Quit India movement in 1942. The Congress supporters in AITUC as well as the socialists, who are die-hard anti-Communists, joined hands to weaken the Communist leadership in the working class movement which later led to the serious splits in the AITUC, paving the way for formation of INTUC and HMS. Though immediately after the War, once again the working class launched significant all India struggles and the Mumbai workers once again launched a political struggle in support of the 1946 Naval Mutiny, the split in the working class movement went on widening. This was another factor which helped the British colonialists to communally divide India and to hand over power to the comprador classes in India and Pakistan. Establishing the leadership of the working class in the PDR, concretely means mobilising and organising them so as to make them capable of providing leadership to the agrarian revolution with land to the tiller slogan, mobilising the landless and poor peasants and agricultural workers who constitute majority of the population, as the axis of the PDR. It requires to make them capable of providing leadership to the anti-imperialist movement, to the struggles waged by all other oppressed classes and sections, to the struggles against decadent casteist, communal forces, and to the struggles for building the party and different class and mass organisations and in leading them in numerous struggles. The serious weakness of the CPI leadership was its failure to establish this leadership of the working class in the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist movement. Soon after the War, from 1946 millions of landless and poor peasants including adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections were drawn in to historic Telengana, Tebhaga like movements. The agrarian revolutionary struggles were developing in many regions. But though the Second Congress of CPI denounced the reformist positions of past years, it refused to take lessons from the advancing Chinese Revolution and the agrarian struggles in the country. It called for an urban-centred insurrection, refusing to establish the leadership of the working class over agrarian revolution. Though this mistake was temporarily rectified in the 1951 Party Programme and Policy Statement, soon they were side lined. As the party leadership went on sliding to reformist positions the AITUC leadership went on becoming a victim of sectarianism which speeded up

the split in the working class movement on the one hand, and of reformism and econimism and putting labour aristocracy in the leadership on the other. After the split in CPI and formation of CPI (M) in 1964, though the CPI (M) leadership also degenerated to CPI position by 1967 in the main, the AITUC was splitted to form CITU without any basic qualitative changes. In spite of the tall claims by the CITU leadership, as the attacks of the ruling classes and their state apparatus went on intensifying against the working class, neither it nor any other TU centres came forward providing leadership to the working class against the capitalist class and the reactionary ruling system The working class leadership, split to numerous centres, went on degenerating to economism, reformism and opportunism. Following the great Naxalbari struggle when the AICCCR was formed it had adopted a resolution briefly mentioning this degeneration of the working class movement and calling for its reorganisation and unity on revolutionary lines. But as sectarian positions soon dominated the CR forces, the mechanical evaluation of the legalist character of existing TU centres and domination of trade unionism and of the influence of reactionary, communal, casteist, reformist and revisionist forces over the working class movement led to the erroneous conclusion that ‘‘class/mass organisations are highways to revisionism’’. Soon the work among the working class was abandoned and in practice the Communist Revolutionaries refused to establish the leadership of working class in the PDR including the agrarian revolution. Going to the other extreme the comrades working in the trade union movement were called upon to abandon them and go to the villages to lead the agrarian revolution. What happened was a negation of the Leninist teachings on building up a revolutionary working class movement. It was after the severe setback suffered by the CPI(ML) forces by 1972, the CR forces tried to pursue mass line and started work among the working class including building up trade unions and TU centres. Still their strength in the working class movement is negligible. After the imposition of imperialist globalisation in 1991, under the neo-liberal regime the working class is confronting ever intensifying challenges. Almost all democratic, wage and TU rights achieved through a century of bitter struggles are mostly snatched away. Contract labour system and ‘hire and fire’ are the rule of the day. What is witnessed is extreme forms of wage slavery. The number of workers in the organised sectors are dwindling fast, with labour aristocracy’ gaining domination among their leadership. The tens of millions of workers in the unorganised sectors, whose number is increasing day by day and who have become the main force among the working class are denied all democratic and trade union rights. Many black laws are imposed for it. Even struggles for economic demands, right to form unions, etc have become extremely difficult Along with de-unionisation, de-politicisation and dominance of casteist, communal, parochial feelings, alchoholism and anarchic tendencies have become the order of the day. The present situation can be reversed, the mobilisation of workers can become possible and their politicisation can be initiated again only by launching major political offensives involving the working class against the neo-liberal policies, the ruling classes and the ruling system. While leadership of the major TU centres like BMS and INTUC are openly advocating foreign investment and actively involved in mortgaging the interests of the working class and the country to imperialist interests in the name of the ‘development policy’ under imperialist globalisation, leaderships of TU centres of like AITUC and CITU are satisfied with making a show of ritualistic opposition to imperialist globalisation. They are reflecting the ideologicalpolitical line of their political leaderships, have abandoned even traditional struggles and degenerated as apologists and propagandists of the ruling comprador system and its policies. They also advocate that ‘there is no alternative to imperialist globalisation.’ Except in words, in practice they have abandoned organising the workers in the unorganised sectors. While BMS like centres openly practice Hindutva communal policies, there are many unions under other communal, casteist, parochial banners. Abandoning agrarian revolution, some of the TU centres have affiliated the agricultural workers to them. There are apolitical NGOs-led trade unions and their centres also. Many erstwhile CR cadres have reduced trade union work to fighting individual worker’s cases in the labour courts and collecting commission for it. The so-

called “Maoists” have reduced their trade union work to mere floating of TU banners as front organisations. Thus labour aristocratic, reactionary, reformist, apolitical and anarchic tendencies are dominating the trade union scene. This is a reflection of the degeneration of the working class movement at international level on a major scale for the last 5-6 decades. In this situation, calls for unity among the working class based on one union in a factory or enterprise or trade etc without trying to address the above problems only add to the depoliticisation of the working class, that is making them subservient to the rule of capital. In this situation when reactionary, reformist and revisionist ideas are dominant, under active involvement of imperialist think-tanks many theories like post-modernism, identity politics, empowerment theories, NGOism etc are propagated which violently oppose class politics. The concept of working class as the leader of social revolution, the necessity of overthrowing the reactionary class rule and the imperialist system and the very basics of Marxist theory are abandoned. The task before the Communist Party is to uncompromisingly fight against all these alien tendencies. Its main direction of work should be to establish the leadership of the working class as the leading class of the PDR. It involves two major fronts of activities, which are inter-related, that of mobilising and organising the working class at all India level into a powerful movement and of conscious activities to politicise them as the leader of revolution. The first part involves uniting all the TU centres and trade unions functioning in various states and regions urgently in to a single TU centre with a radical programme and democratic constitution. Immediate steps should be taken to bring together other like-minded trade unions and TU centres based on this programme to build a federation or confederation. Conscious efforts should be made to utilise present possibilities to organise hundreds of thousands of construction workers and other workers in unorganised sector by developing suitable cadres and deploying them to these fields. As early as possible all India and state level leaderships should be developed, an immediate campaign programme should be drafted, and all India campaigns and struggles should be developed focussing the on vital demands of the working class. Along with economic, democratic, trade union demands, political slogans also should be put forward calling on the working class to spearhead anti-imperialist, anti-ruling class and anti-state struggles with slogans like Throw out imperialist, globalisation, IMF-World BankWTO, MNCs and imperialist promoted ‘development’ policies, and struggle for a people’s alternate development policy ensuring food, clothing, housing, education, healthcare and employment for all. Major propaganda offensives should be launched with this orientation along with developing militant struggles. In this way a militant atmosphere can be created challenging the stagnant, reactionary and revisionist TU centres. This will create conditions for advancing the unity efforts among the working class. In this process necessary united front tactics should be developed and utilised according to concrete conditions. The working class includes politically advanced, backward and middle level sections. This is reflected in the trade unions also. The “Trade union can be developed as political schools” of the working class and the politicisation of the working class based on the revolutionary orientation of the party can be carried forward by organising party fractions within them at appropriate levels and maintaining organic relation between these party fractions with the party organisation. Whatever may be the ideological-political weakness of the party organisation and consequently the trade union centre, from early decades the Bolshevik practice of building party fractions was studiously followed by the CPI and later CPI (M). Even now, in spite of degeneration to capitalist path the CPI(M) is still following this practice to a great extent making it capable of maintaining its strength in TU field. Our Party should learn about the practice of building party fractions within the TU movement at different levels from the experience of the communist movement at international and national level. Without taking up the organisational task of building up party fractions the advanced section of the working class cannot be imbued with the basic understanding about the Party’s revolutionary ideology and the Path of Revolution put forward, the TUs cannot be turned in to political schools and the working class cannot be developed as the leader of Indian revolution.

In all organised sectors major TUs led by the leading TU centres from BMS, INTUC to CITU are already existing. They include strategic sectors like railways, docks, telecommunications, defence industries, coal, steel, electricity etc. Already the TUs in these sectors are splitted to various centres. It is immediately not possible to build our own TUs in these sectors. On the contrary what is immediately possible is to build party fractions secretly in all these sectors, in whichever union it is feasible. Hitherto experience shows that it is possible more in the ‘left’ unions if necessary secrecy is maintained. Political propaganda should be carried forward in a planned way through these cells to win over sizeable sections of workers or employees in due course of time. Through these party fractions in all trade unions, politicisation of the working class, preparing them ideologically and politically, fight against legalism, reformism and economism, strengthening of worker-peasant unity, struggle against all alien tendencies, sending advanced worker comrades to build party among various sections including workers in the new working class areas and sending worker comrades to agrarian sector to mobilise the landless-poor peasants and agricultural workers for agrarian revolution etc should be taken up. More important is the preparation of the trade unions to launch political struggles in line with the needs of developing the PDR. Another important task of the revolutionary trade union movement and the party fraction work within it is to prepare it for taking up international tasks. From the time of degeneration of CPSU to revisionist path the WFTU had lost its revolutionary orientation. From that time the international working class movement became very weak and presently it is virtually reduced only to a mere concept. Necessary steps should be taken to study the present conditions of working class movement in different countries, to establish relations with like-minded TU centres and to initiate efforts to rebuild the international working class movement upholding the slogan “Workers of the World, unite” to develop international level struggles against imperialism and its agents. 8. ON BUILDING THE REVOLUTIONARY PEASANT ORGANISATION On the significance of peasant question in Russian revolution, on how Lenin analysed this question Stalin said: “Are the revolutionary potentialities latent in the peasantry by virtue of certain conditions of its existence already exhausted or not; and if not, is there any hope, any basis, for utilising these potentialities for the proletarian revolution, for transforming the peasantry, the exploited majority of it, from the reserve of the bourgeoisie which it was during the bourgeois revolutions in the West, and still is even now, in to reservoir of the proletariat, in to its ally, Leninism replies to this question in the affirmative, i.e., it recognises the existence of revolutionary capacities in the ranks of the majority of the peasantry, and the possibility of using these in the interest of the proletarian dictatorship. The history of the three revolutions in Russia fully corroborates the conclusions of Leninism on this score” (Foundations of Leninism). This Leninist stand is fully reflected in the Comintern’s analysis of the peasantry as the main force of democratic revolution in the countries under colonisation and agrarian revolution as the axis of the PDR under the leadership of the proletariat. Analysing the role of the peasantry in Chinese revolution, Mao Tsetung wrote: “The peasant movement is a colossal event, In a very short time in China’s central, southern and northern provinces, several hundred millions peasants will rise like a mighty storm, like a hurricane, a force so swift and violent that, no power however great, will be able to hold it back. They will smash all trammels that bind them and rush forward along the road to liberation. They will sweep all the imperialists, warlords, corrupt officials, local tyrants and evil gentry in to their graves. Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put to the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide. There are three alternatives. To march at their head and lead them? To trail behind them, gesticulating and criticising? Or to stand in their way and oppose them?” (Investigation of Peasant Movement in Honan). The decision of the CPC led by Mao to march at their head and lead them led to the historic victory of the Chines revolution. In India also in spite of the hesitations of the leadership of the CPI, wherever the comrades decided to march at their head and lead them, mighty agrarian movements

emerged, masses rallied behind the party and wherever the CPI and CPI (M) have still influence among the masses even after their degeneration are those areas where these movements took place. By 1952 CPI leadership had abandoned the path of agrarian revolution in practice. After initial utterances CPI (M) leadership also trailed this path. The great Naxalbari struggle took place challenging their reformist path and once again brought the agrarian revolution back to the agenda of Indian people. Revolutionary agrarian struggles started emerging in many areas. For a long time the hang over of the sectarian line had stunted the growth of these struggles. Undaunted by these, fighting against reformism and sectarianism, peasant question is once again coming to the forefront of the political scene. But various types of deviations are hindering the development of the agrarian revolutionary movement. First, not only CPI and CPI (M), some of the CPI (ML) groups also have degenerated to the path of ‘peaceful transition’ and parliamentary opportunism. Though they still retain ‘agrarian revolution as the axis of the PDR’ in their programme, they have abandoned the path of both. Secondly, though the CPI (Maoist) repeatedly emphasises the role of agrarian revolution as the axis of the PDR, it is far away from mobilising the hundreds of millions of landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers for agrarian struggles and the PDR. Instead it is still satisfied in persisting in the ‘annihilation line’ in new forms, abandoning the revolutionary mass line. Thirdly, many of those groups who claim to pursue mass line, while organising peasant organisations abandon the class line of agricultural workers and landless and poor peasants, who constitute the class of revolutionary peasantry. In practice they are confined to giving priority to the demands of middle peasants and rich peasants. In theory, even before building a revolutionary peasant movement with a correct class line and mobilising the peasantry for land struggles, they put forward proposals about advancing to protracted people’s war as a pre-condition against the concrete situation in our country. The tasks before the Party are: Firstly, firmly uphold the class line of the agricultural workers, landless and poor peasants, the revolutionary peasantry, consisting of adivasis, dalits and other most oppressed sections. Secondly, build up agricultural workers and landless, poor peasant organisation with specific programme upholding the path of agrarian revolution as the path forward. Build up these organisations at state level and co-ordinate them at all India level. In line with the agrarian revolutionary programme, form land struggle committees starting from village level with the initiative of agricultural workers and landless, poor peasant organisation to launch struggles with land to the tiller slogan. Immediate slogans against forced labour, usury, communal and caste oppression, women’s oppression, for higher wages, for distribution of banjar land, against forest contractors etc. should be raised and struggles organised. While taking up campaigns and struggles for immediate demands, they should be linked to the agrarian revolutionary line. Thus the link between the immediate and basic demands should be established. 9. ON MOBILISING THE WOMEN FOR REVOLUTION In “Origin of Family, Private property and State” Engels has explained how the process of enslavement of human beings by human beings started with the enslavement of women under male chauvinism in the family system which led to the origin of the private property, and to the origin of the state to protect the private property. Women became the first private property. Though class struggle continued under slave system, feudal system and the capitalist system and a socialist camp emerged with the seizure of political power by the proletariat and allied classes in a number of countries, the question of liberating ‘half the heaven’ is not yet given the importance it deserves. As Mao Tsetung pointed out after the first wave of Cultural Revolution in China, the seizure of political power in pre-revolutionary countries and socialist transformation in post-revolutionary societies shall face ever-surmounting problems so long as effective ways for the liberation of these ’first slaves’ remain elusive. All the religions preach to perpetuate this slavery and their enslaved conditions make the women carriers of the superstitions and reactionary traditions, customs and ideologies which are transferred to the children. Though most of them still remain a private property of men in practice, and the private property system has become most barbarous under imperialism, women under the

present family system have become the most important propagandists of it. The failure of the post-revolutionary societies in dealing with the question of women’s liberation effectively along with the continuing stranglehold of remnant feudal values, religious beliefs and imperialist culture played an important role along with various other factors in the restoration of capitalism there. In spite of it even today the weakness of the party in mobilising the women who constitute 50% of the population in the party, class and mass organisations, and in various fields of activities is sharply manifested. While the condition of women in India is much more backward than to those in the imperialist countries, the resistance to bring forward even any superficial changes to it like providing 33% reservation to them in the elected bodies reveal the state of affairs. Manu smrithi’s declaration that ‘women do not deserve independence’ is still dominant. The caste system and all religions perpetuate women’s backwardness. The rule of capital and market system under neo-liberalism has intensified women’s miseries further. Woman and their bodies have become commodities for sale increasingly. The present family system, even where it is transformed to nuclear ones, still remain basically male dominant and conservative. While dowry system and denial of equal right to family property is rampant, even decadent systems like Sati, Child marriage, devadasi system, naked dance by women to please gods etc. still continue in many areas. Growth of communal forces and religions fundamentalism, often sponsored by the ruling system have worsened women’s condition. Though the bourgeois feminist movements have pockets of influence in urban areas, they have failed to address the real issues of the masses of women. In this situation conscious efforts should be made to organize women organisations at different levels to vigorously take up the task of women liberation as a part of the on going struggle for the PDR. 10. ON MOBILISING THE YOUTH Youth in our country has a glorious history of actively participating in the social renaissance movement, in the independence struggle and later in the anti-imperialist, antifeudal struggles led by the Communist Party. The role of Bhagat Singh and other revolutionary youth rallied in the Hindustan Republication. Army challenging the colonial forces still inspire the masses. But with the transfer of power by the colonialists in 1947 and the beginning of the emergence of revisionist tendencies in the Communist Party in the 1950s, the youth started getting frustrated and influenced by retrogressive ideologies. Many joined reformist and even reactionary forces. When the Naxalbari uprising created a revolutionary upheaval through out the country, once again lakhs of youth joined the revolutionary movement. But the influence of sectarian tendencies together with the ruthless suppression by the state forces once again caused setback to this upsurge. The CR movement failed to mobilise these youth in to a countrywide organisation with a revolutionary programme. It was inactive when the CPI(M)-CPI forces had become social democratic in nature and the communal forces were making belligerent moves to influence the youth. Though there were a spurt of progressive activism during and after the internal emergency period, it was shortlived. At all India level the participation of the youth in the left movement went on decreasing. In the mean time under increasing neo-colonisation, especially after the imposition of neoliberal policies, the challenges faced by the youth have intensified unprecedentedly. Unemployment has become rampant. Even the already employed people started loosing employment. At the same time vested interests started promoting imperialist culture, and criminalisation among them to prevent the frustrated youth from joining the revolutionary movement. As a result large sections of youth are presently influenced by retrogressive thinking and practice, and are recruited in large numbers by communal, casteist and chauvinist forces on the one hand, and by the ruling classes as their storm troopers and mafia gangs on the other. A similar situation is rampant at international level also, even though youth in large numbers are joining the resistance struggles in Iraq, Afghanistan and other West Asian countries against US-led aggression and occupation, though youth are playing an important

role in the anti-imperialist advances in the Latin American countries, and though their presence is felt in the anti-war movement in US and other imperialist countries. Compared to the present intensity of the contradiction between imperialism and world people, the role played by the youth is not as powerful as in the revolutionary decades of last century. Factors like the weakening of the socialist forces with the degeneration of the erstwhile socialist countries to capitalist path, the severe setback suffered by the ICM, and the weaknesses shown by the Marxist-Leninist forces in confronting and challenging the counter-revolutionary offensive of imperialists and their lackeys are responsible for it. The Communist Party should seriously take these international and national realities in to consideration, launch a vigorous offensive to politicise the youth with a militant programme at all India level so that the youth can be brought forward to play the significant role they have to take up in this period for advancing the PDR. Immediate steps should b e initiated to unite the youth organisations at various levels in to a powerful all India democratic youth organisation with anti-imperialist positions and socialist vision. 11. ON ORGANISING A DEMOCRATIC STUDENT MOVEMENT Students as a social strata is a major force in our country. The neo-liberal policies of globalisation-liberalisation-privatisation have reduced education in to a mere commodity, increasingly depriving it of whatever social character and orientation it once had. The commercialisation of the education system and the neo-liberal syllabi are taking a large section of students undergoing higher education away from social realities. The commercialisation has made higher education in to an elite sector reserved for mostly the upper caste, upper class students. The syllabus, methods of education and the atmosphere prevalent in these ‘centres of higher learning’ especially in the professional colleges are basically a continuation of the colonial education system, though its present content and forms have changed to serve the neo-colonial plunder. If Mcaulay’s education system was intended to create a class of babus to serve the colonial system, the present system is moulded to serve imperialist globalisation, the capital-market raj. It is well established that the content and form of the education system in a society in a particular period is determined by and implemented for protecting the interests of the then ruling classes. The education system is utilised by them to mould the students in accordance with their ideology and politicaladministrative needs. As a result, a large section of students, especially of the professional colleges, mostly the private, capitation fee, ’self-financed’ colleges grow up cut away from social realities, with hatred towards the lower castes, lower class people and with the spirit of subservience to imperialist forces, especially US imperialism. Instead of patriotism, what is dominating in them is the attraction towards everything imperialist, mostly ‘US patriotism’. This present state of affairs is basically different from the one that was dominant among students during the independence movement. They were imbued with patriotism and influenced by liberatory ideology and empathy towards the downtrodden. During the independence movement, a good section of the students rebelling against the casteist, religious, feudal and backward conditions they were coming from militantly joined the struggle against British colonialists. Similarly many of them rallied in the student movement led by the Communist Party. But due to the deviations in the Communist movement which made it incapable of putting forward a revolutionary alternative and leading struggles for it, frustrated many and weakened the left student movement, Naxalbari uprising and the crisis of the ruling system in the 1970s once again paved way for mighty student upsurges. But as a result of degeneration of CPI(M) to ruling class positions and influence of sectarianism in the CR movement, during last three decades, though there are spurt of activities at local level, the left influence among the students has remained weak by and large at all India level. On the contrary a large section of the students, especially the elitist and middle class sections among them are attracted to the communal, casteist, chauvinist organisations and organisations led by Congress, BJP like leading ruling class parties. They are imitating the corruption and cultural degeneration of their political elders. Most of them uphold neo-liberal raj and its education policy. They compete to divide the students communally, caste-wise, and

in the name of reservation policy. They refuse to fight commercialisation of education, criminalisation of campus life, increasing dominance of reactionary culture etc. This is one of the most important challenges faced by the democratic student movement. But the apathy shown towards these developments or the lack of initiative on the part of the CR forces to overcome this situation is shocking. A few of them are happy with some localised gains, forgetting about the pitiable condition of their all India organisation, if they have any. There are many who do not give any importance to this issue. There are CR groups claiming decades of history, but without a dozen students with them. This situation is suicidal. Today the communal, fundamentalist, casteist like forces start winning over children from the primary or even pre-primary level itself. Even leaving apart these sections there are nearly 1520 crores of students in our country. In chalking out the Path of Revolution, how to organise this important strata of the society in a broad-based democratic student movement is an aspect that should be seriously considered. Our party has student organisations, however weak they may be, in some of the states. Immediate steps should be taken to organise them in to an all India organisation with a broadbased democratic programme. The programme should consist of: stop commercialisation and eliticisation of education system, ensure universal, compulsory and free education for all up to secondary level based on a common syllabus and in their mother tongue, put an end to privatisation of education, stop religious and casteist organisations from interfering in the education system, stop ‘self-financed’ like education markets, develop a democratic, secular, scientific, education system under social control etc. Various aspects of this programme should be subjected to a broad-based discussion before formulating them. An all India students organisation should be consciously organised and developed to fight for this programme and to fight the decadent, reactionary culture trying to dominate the students. Party should not be satisfied with statements which claim that development of revolutionary struggles will inspire the students to join them. It is a very partial truth. The hitherto history of the ICM and experience in India shows that efforts for organising a powerful student movement at all India level is one of the pre-conditions which will help to develop the revolutionary movement at a broader and deeper level. It will influence the society at broader level, give rise to militant movements and provide a continuous flow of cadres to the revolutionary movement. 12. TASKS IN THE CULTURAL FRONT We are living in a period when imperialism and reaction are developing and implementing class strategies in newer and newer forms for exploitation and oppression of the world people. The universal and all-pervading hegemony of capitalism and capitalist relations of production are establishing their domination over all sectors of human thought and scientific knowledge. To serve their reactionary goals imperialism and world reaction are utilising religion, caste, race, linguistic divisions etc and art, literature and cultural forms linked with them to a large extent. Commercialisation and commodification of culture is utilised to dominate all progressive ideas. The quantum revolution that took place in the field of physical sciences in the beginning of 20th century and the technological advances that followed along with the development in other fields of science and technology including that of organic sciences, telecommunication, cybernetics, information technology (IT) etc are utilised to serve imperialist interests. Human development in the intellectual field are utilised in this way. Spread of knowledge is taken to an irrational and religious level. People’s achievements in the fields of art and literature, in the cultural and scientific-fields in general are suffocated, vulgarised and commodified to serve imperialist interests. The hegemony of the ideology of private property and imperialist culture along with continuing influence of feudal culture, religion, casteism are utilised to subvert revolutionary advances in various fields and to serve the imperialist system. We are formulating the Path of Revolution to complete the tasks of PDR, to realise People’s Democracy and to advance towards socialist revolution at a time when drastic changes in the socio-political-cultural fields have taken place unlike the Russian situation

during October Revolution, and the conditions in China and other countries when revolutions took place there. Drastic changes in these fields have taken place during last five decades in India compared to the condition during the struggle against British imperialism and during the Telengana-Tebhaga struggles etc. Though the socialist forces had reached a challenging position by early 1950s, the condition has drastically changed. Erstwhile socialist countries have degenerated to capitalist path and almost all communist parties built up under the guidance of Comintern have degenerated to revisionism and social democracy due to various weaknesses and failure in continuing the class struggle in the fields of philosophy, politics, culture etc, or in the field of superstructure in general, corresponding to the changes taking place or attempted in the field of relations of production, and according to concrete conditions in each country and in the international field. Even after the contribution of Mao Tsetung in developing the theory and practice of continuing revolution in the Socialist countries through the Cultural Revolution, the capitalist roaders could not be prevented from seizure of power after the death of Mao. All these momentous developments point towards the need of linking the revolutionary struggles for seizure of political power with mighty efforts to fight and defeat the pre-capitalist, petti-bourgeois and bourgeois mode of thinking and culture prevalent in the society, and which were and trying to gain domination in newer and newer forms. It is in this context Lenin had called on all Communist Parties to wage continuos struggle against religion, superstitions and private property etc as part of the party education. Evaluating the Chinese experience including Cultural Revolution, Mao had called for continuous struggle against decadent culture and for revolutionary culture right from the beginning of party work, and had stressed the need for a Long Revolution of continuous Cultural Revolutions to defeat attempts for capitalist restoration. All these show that right from the beginning of the party work revolutionary tasks in the cultural field should be vigorously taken up. The serious weaknesses in this field led to the severe setbacks to the ICM providing opportunities for the capital-market raj and worship of private property reaching hegemonic positions. Presently with the degeneration of a major part of the erstwhile Communist movement in India to capitalist path, emergence of ‘New Left’ and other pseudo-left ideologies aiding alien tendencies and increasing influence of imperialist promoted ideologies like post-modernism, identity politics, empowerment theories, NGOism etc the progressive and revolutionary values influencing the society and helping it to advance forward are seriously eroded. The growth of RSS Parivar has led to all religious fundamentalists and communal forces gaining dominance in fields of education, culture etc. Progressive ideas like “annihilation of caste” is replaced by caste-based vote-bank politics. Imperialist culture including consumerism, alcoholism criminalisation etc is dominating. The social consciousness is violently replaced with individualism, selfishness, sexual anarchy, male chauvinism in more vulgar forms, and commodification and commercialisation of everything that was once held in esteemed positions have become the order of the day. Without challenging these retrogressive, fundamentalist, imperialist and reformist trends, without unleashing uncompromising struggles against them, conditions for growth of progressive values and revolutionary movement cannot be created. Mechanical concepts are proved basically faulty. For creating conditions of social revolution, vigorous campaign to liberate people from counter-revolutionary cultural influences is required. Cultural Revolution should be taken as a continuing process, both in the pre and post revolutionary periods. Though Naxalbari gave birth to a new earth quake in the cultural field also, it also was short lived. Soon, similar to what is happening in the economic and political fields, in the art, literature and cultural field also along with feudal remnants, the neo-colonial, imperialist onslaughts have intensified in new forms, strengthening the anti-people atmosphere. The table of these reactionary trends is very long including new imports in art, literature and cultural fields, commercialisation of education and all welfare sectors, neo-colonial projects in the field of research, cultural project of world Bank and other many new incarnations of religions fundamentalism, advocacy of casteism and racism in new forms, attacks on women’s liberation, black acts to curb art and literature etc. It is obstructing the people’s upsurges in all fields. What is required is an all out offensive to reverse this situation.

Though many efforts are made to take up revolutionary cultural activities opposing the counter-revolutionary trends, they are localised, not widespread or protracted. They remain superficial or confined to immediate slogans, do not go to basic ideological issues involved. There are many among the revolutionary ranks who do not recognise the significance of a revolutionary cultural offensive. The lessons of Cultural Revolution are not seriously taken up. Even when it is tried, its political aspects and failure are only stressed. Transforming the human thoughts and culture as a continuous process as a basic task to be taken up right from the beginning as Lenin stressed and Mao repeated is not given the emphasis it needs. So in evolving the Path of Revolution, the emphasis to be given to the work in the cultural field should be underlined. The content of cultural movement should be seriously debated and developed. Forms of organisations also should be developed. While this task should be taken up at state level providing all the emphasis it needs, vigorous efforts should be started to urgently build an all India cultural movement taking up both its theoretical and practical aspects seriously. 13. ON THE CASTE QUESTION The Outline Party Programme states that “starting with putting an end to all forms of social oppression based on the caste system and untouchability, the New Democratic State shall abolish the caste system and all forms of social inequalities.” Though it is so easily stated in a straight forward manner, in spite of the efforts from the period of social renaissance movements for the annihilation of the social plague, in newer and newer forms it still persists making the life miserable for the oppressed castes. The caste system still divides the society. Though our party and some of the other CR forces have tried to take up the resolution of caste question starting with campaigns and struggles against naked forms of casteist oppression rampant in society in some areas, at national level very little is so far done to evolve a comprehensive understanding and methods of struggle against it. Many still maintain the mechanical understanding that once revolution takes place caste question will get weakened and disappear. It may weaken, but whether it will disappear or come back in new forms with more vigour even after revolution cannot be stated conclusively when one goes though the experience of erstwhile socialist countries, where racism and religious fundamentalism have re-emerged in vulgar forms. Still, many CR forces do not give the due importance to this question it deserves. Fighting casteist oppression and campaigning for caste annihilation is not in the agenda of many groups, or even when it is included no concrete plans are put forward. It is the consequence of the reality that even after 150 years of experience of the communist movement the mechanical impositions of the China Wall between revolution in the economic base and revolution in the superstructure is not removed. That is why the close relation between class struggle and struggle against the caste system is not correctly understood and the mechanical approach that class struggle will solve the caste problem is still put forward repeatedly. This mechanical approach should be replaced by the dialectical relation between struggles at these two levels. The caste question, or the oppression based on caste system, instead of weakening has only strengthened in new forms during the last six decades. It is incorporated in to the ruling system through the emergence of caste based parties serving ruling class interest, and through the creation of caste based vote banks. Along with these identity politics, tribalism like reactionary ideologies are created and promoted by imperialist centres to channelise the struggles against oppression based on caste, tribal etc. to harmless paths, to keep these down trodden sections away from revolutionary path. The weakness of the communist movement so far in developing uncompromising struggle against caste system also has helped the efforts to institutionalise caste system and tribal oppression through various means by the imperialists and the comprador rulers. In a society like India, caste question is basically an agrarian question. Casteist oppression was intensified by keeping the dalits away from land ownership, reducing them to mere tillers and those compelled to do all menial jobs to serve upper caste sections. So the backbone of the caste system can be broken only through agrarian revolution based on land to the tiller slogan. Along with intensifying the struggle to carry forward this agrarian revolutionary programme, vigorous campaigns and movements

should be taken up against various forms of caste based oppression on the dalits and adivasis and other back word sections including untouchability still prevalent all over the country. The caste based discrimination against the dalits in various forms should be fought. Inter caste marriages should be promoted. The reservation based on the caste system should be defended and struggle against diluting it should be waged, as a democratic right of the socially and economically backword sections. Along with these the reactionary ideologies like identity politics, tribalism etc should be exposed and fought against. In this way a vigorous struggle to annihilate caste system should be continuously waged combined with the intensification of agrarian revolutionary struggles as part of the PDR. 14. THE NATIONALITY QUESTION On the resolution of nationality question, the Outline Party Programme states: “The New Democratic State shall ensure real equality and autonomy for all nationalities, unite all the nationalities based on the right of self-determination including the right to secede, and build up a federal democratic state structure. While dealing with the nationality question, the imperialists policy of Balkanisation of our country should not be overlooked.” India is a multinational country where even the reorganisation of the provinces under British rule and the princely states, in the main, on linguistic basis took place in 1956 only after bloody struggles by the people. During the last five decades, the central governments propagating the chauvinistic slogan of ‘’national integration’ or Akhandvad have taken away many of the Constitutional rights of the states. Besides the struggle of Kashmiri people and the peoples of Northeast are being suppressed deploying military forces, rejecting the demands for resolving them politically. When struggles of sub nationalities or ethnic groups for state-hood or autonomous regions take place, they are also suppressed refusing to resolve them politically. Meanwhile with the development of capitalist mode of production especially after imposition of imperialist globalisation which has speeded the entry of FDIs, FIIs, MNCs etc and strengthened the capital- market raj, uneven development, pushing up or pushing down various regions in the ladder of ‘development’ is becoming a stark reality. Instead of opposing the imperialist dictated ‘development’ policies implemented by the central and state governments responsible for it, different ruling class parties as well as comprador and petti-bourgeois classes are utilising it to demand statehood to these backward regions. In spite of the negative experience of such small states already formed where the conditions of neither the region nor the vast masses have undergone any positive changes, demands for new states are continuously raised. In order to unite the people on class basis and to advance the PDR, the Party should have a clear perspective toward these questions, which are often manifested as divisive policies. British colonialists who had forcefully ’united’ the princely states into a colony for facilitating their plunder had purshed a ‘divide and rule’ policy utilising religious, casteist, racist ideologies and the feudal forces to crush the unity emerged through the anti-imperialist struggles, But this unity is subverted by the comprador ruling classes after transfer of power. Communist Party should struggle for unity of all nationalities based on their right of selfdetermination. The inherent weakness of the various movements of nationalities and subnationalities led by national bourgeois and petti-bourgeois classes reflect the very weakness and vacillations of these classes in present situation. These movements refuse to take antiimperialist, anti-feudal positions or to raise land to the tiller slogan and democratisation of the society. The task of the Communist Party should be to unite with these struggles. If should be a policy of “unity and struggle”, unity with the cause of rights of self determination or autonomous region, while struggling against all chauvinist tendencies and pro-imperialist, prostate positions. The Marxist understanding is that “a nation is a historically constituted stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” But the demand for the new states coming up based on the backwardness created by the uneven development intensifying under imperialist globalisation is basically a diversionary tactics employed by the ruling classes and

petti-bourgeois sections to divert attention of the people from the real cases of backwardness. They are coming up in a concrete situation when the class struggle against the principal targets of revolution, imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlordism has not advanced. The Communist Party should educate the masses about the real reason for their backwardness, about what is happening in the new states already formed based on backwardness, about utilisation of the proliferation of the states to cut at the root of a real federal structure with increasing rights and powers to the states by the Indian state and the Central governments, and vigorously develop the struggles of the working class and the landless-poor peasants and agricultural workers, of all exploited and oppressed sections, while taking a non-antagonistic approach towards these struggles. As Marxism teaches the nationality question and the various movements emerging directly or indirectly linked with it are bourgeois questions. They are vacillating more firmly towards imperialism and the comprador ruling classes. When imperialism, especially US imperialism, has a hidden agenda of Balkanising the country, and when many of the new state demands are raised to divert people from the cardinal issues confronting them, the Communist Party should seriously guard against becoming a tail of these movements. On the contrary, an approach of Unity and struggle should be pursued, in order to win over the masses of peoples influenced by these struggles, to advance the struggles for PDR with the perspective that along with other basic issues all questions should be linked to national liberation, overthrowing the rule of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlordism. Our Path of Revolution and the struggles charted under it should reflect this Marxist approach. 15. ON UTILISING THE PARLIAMENTARY FORMS OF STRUGGLE India is a country where election to provincial and central level legislative assemblies were introduced from the colonial days. After the transfer of power, under the Constitution adopted in 1950 the parliamentary system was made systematic at all levels. Today, from elections to Lok Sabha to Panchayat level and even to co-operative societies are made regularly drawing large sections of people. Even in pre-revolutionary Russia, experience in participating the elections was partial and limited. In China and other countries where revolution took place, there were no such experience regarding utilising parliamentary system as a form of struggle to develop class struggle. Still drawing from the experience of Second International and of the Communist parties in European countries, Comintern under the leadership of Lenin had pointed out the need to struggle against parliamentary cretinism on the hand and boycottism on the other hand. Taking lessons from these and evaluating the experience of the Communist movement in India from the time of undivided CPI, the methods of utilisation of parliamentary forms of struggle to develop class struggle should be developed which becomes part of the Path of Revolution. On the utilisation of elections the first serious challenge faced by the undivided CPI was in the first general elections in 1952. CPI was leading historic Telengana struggle and many other militant movements in different parts of the country. It was also leading secret fractions within the units of armed forces. Whether to leave all these and participate in 1952 elections in a legal away with a uniform symbol, or to continue these struggles and utilise the elections as a form of struggle to help them was the challenge before it. The party leadership opted for the reformist path. What happened during the elections and the election results revealed that legalism did not help the party. It received considerable support and its candidates won where it had led militant struggles and won mass support. Refusing to take lesson from this, CPI went on surrendering to parliamentary cretinism, especially after adopting the Soviet revisionist line of ‘peaceful transition’. In 1957 CPI won majority in Kerala assembly along with few independents and formed government. Though the education and land reforms bills it put forward were basically reformist, the Congress government at centre could not tolerate it, and in the name of a violent agitation led by Congress joining hands with communal, casteist and other reactionary forces, it was dismissed after 28 months. But this dismissal increased CPI’s vote share in 1960

elections, though it failed to get majority, and increased its prestige all over the country. Instead of drawing correct lessons from these developments, CPI leadership abandoned whatever revolutionary character was left and totally surrendered to parliamentary opportunism in line with its class collaborationist line. In 1967 elections, and in the ministry formation and its functioning the CPI (M) also follwed this parliamentary cretinist path. In tune with their revisionist and neo-revisionist lines both abandoned the revolutionary path of utilising elections to develop class struggle, for mobilisation of masses for the PDR. Both embraced the path of continuing within the frame imposed by the bourgeois Constitution. This degeneration was very fast. In 1969 when Congress split and Indira Gandhi government lost majority, instead of voting it out, both propped it up, proving their degeneration to bourgeois parliamentary path. Under violent reaction to this degeneration and under the influence of sectarianism dominating the movement then, led the CPI (ML) formed in 1969 to adopt boycott of election as a strategic line. Even after many CPI(ML) groups abandoned this line, those who continued to follow the sectarian line went on pursuing it. The Maoist trend still pursues it, though all other sections started utilising the parliamentary form of struggle very soon. But some of these sections soon adopted opportunist united front tactics and started degenerating to parliamentary cretinism. But unlike the CPI(M)-led LF, which has gained power in three states and a sizeable strength in parliament degenerating to ruling class positions, the rightist trend emerging from the CR forces could not advance much. It is in a declining path. Only way out before it is to align with CPI(M)-led LF or perish to the level of a local force. The boycottist experience, on the other extreme, has proved totally negative Even after giving boycott call, the CPI(Maoist) has adopted opportunist tactics like supporting some of the ruling class party candidates. Nowhere it had succeeded to ‘enforce’ its call of boycott. The methods it resorts to enforce boycott only alienates it further from the masses. The CPI(Maoist) is so dogmatic and its thinking so mechanical that it has so far failed is make a concrete analysis of its line like the CPN(Maoist) has done, changing its approach to parliamentary form of struggle. A section of the CR forces, even after adopting mass line and participating in elections, is pursuing a passive boycott approach by refusing to effectively utilise it as tactics to mobilise the masses. Struggling against both right opportunist parliamentary cretinism and dogmatic boycott line, the Communist Party should try to effectively utilise the elections as a form of struggle to propagate party line among the masses and to put forward a people’s alternative to the imperialist dictated development policy of the ruling class parties. As Lenin has pointed out, bourgeois parliamentary system has become historically obsolete. The ruling class and their main political parties are perpetuating the capitalist-imperialist system in the imperialist countries and the comprador rule in countries like India through the manipulation of elections utilising money and muscle power on the one hand, and creating communal, casteist, racist, parochial vote banks on the other hand, effectively utilising the state machinery and monopoly media. It is becoming exposed more and more before the people. Still on an average 50% to 80% votes are polled in the elections. Only when upsurges linked to nationality question as in Kashmir or North-east were taking place the voting had gone below 10%. In 1952 elections even without much campaign by the Party candidates, in area of peasants and worker struggles Communists were successful with people voting massively for them. In 1977 as a reaction to the fascist oppression during the emergency rule and earlier under the Congress rule during which people were suppressed in heinous forms and the CR forces were brutally massacred in West Bengal and elsewhere, people voted massively for the CPI(M)-led LF. Similar was people’s response to Indira Gandhi’s emergency rule in 1977 elections. These instances show that though revolutionary change cannot be brought out through bourgeois parliamentary elections, they can be utilised combined with continuos development of workers and peasant struggles to mobilise the people for advancing class struggle by putting forward a people’s alternative against the ruling class alternatives and effectively campaigning for it. Apart from the above instances in India, recent elections in Nepal and the elections in

Venezuela and other Latin American countries, where anti-US forces have come to power with a people’s agenda, prove this. In India it is the degeneration of CPI and CPI(M), who are known to vast masses in most of the states still as the communist parties, to ruling class positions and the boycott line pursued by most of the CR forces in the beginning and by a few still which has so for blocked the effective utilisation of elections as a form of struggle to advance class struggle. Even now, in spite of these experiences, some of the mass line forces are participating in elections only to “dispel the illusions of the people on the parliamentary institutions” and prepare them for armed struggle! It is a negative approach as explained by Lenin in his work the Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder. People will be disillusioned with bourgeois parliamentary institutions only when the Communist Party succeeds to develop country-wide movements focussing on people’s issue, to mobilise the masses in their millions against the ruling system and to put forward a people’s alternative against the ruling class alternatives. After the degeneration of erstwhile socialist countries and the ruling system built up there by the Communist Parties to capitalist path, mechanical repetition of ‘seizure of political power by armed struggle’ alone cannot win masses to revolutionary path. It calls for the effective utilisation of developing massive people’s upsurges in the pre-revolutionary situation utilising all forms of struggle including parliamentary system. The Communist Party should be able to evaluate past weaknesses and to promote serious discussions to develop perspectives of people’s democratic state and proletarian democracy taking into account what happened in Soviet Union, China and other countries. How to replace the bourgeois parliamentary system with more developed system of democracy which shall help to advance towards socialism and communism is a major challenge before the ICM. Debate on the parliamentary system should be developed with this perspective. India is a country of 120 crores of people with the bourgeois parliamentary system well entrenched in every nook and corner for many decades at all levels. Neither the social democratic path of parliamentary cretinism, nor the anarchist path of boycott is going to help in developing creative ways to transcend bourgeois parliamentary system and to advance along the path of people’s democracy and proletarian democracy. On the contrary, the Communist Party should utilise this bourgeois parliamentary system along with all other forms of struggle to develop class struggle in all fields, to unleash mighty people’s upsurges so that it can advance towards the revolutionary seizure of political power and put into practice people’s democracy. 16. ON DEVELOPING UNITED FRONTS FROM ISSUE BASED TO STRATEGIC In a vast country like India where our Party and class/mass organisations are still comparatively weak, and the level of struggles launched on various issues is still low, in order to take up the numerous issues confronting the people, issue based united fronts have to be built up joining with like-minded forces. These types of united fronts are possible in the working class field uniting with other trade unions or TU centres to struggle for worker’s problems, in the agrarian front uniting the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers and even sections of middle peasants to struggle for problems faced by them, in the women’s front joining hands with other like-minded women’s organisations to fight for issues faced by women, in the youth front, in students front, cultural front, in ecological front, etc. A broadbased, issue-based, democratic approach should be developed to take up issues through these united fronts. Though these are based on issues and shall continue for a brief period only, they help to high light various people’s issues. Such united fronts will help the Party and class/mass organisations to spread out its activities to more areas. Experience shows that under slightest provocation the state machinery unleashes black laws and terror tactics against the people. Democratic rights are taken away. Even peaceful mass movements are brutally suppressed. Functioning of party and class and mass organisations are obstructed. Even activities of civil and democratic right organisations are put down. Against such day to day developments united democratic and civil right movements should be developed according to concrete conditions.

Advancing a step forward from these united front activities, as united struggles and strength of class/mass organisations increase, possibilities for formation of platforms or united fronts at state-wide or country-wide levels, lasting longer period, to take up more basic issues shall emerge. Possibilities shall emerge to build intermediate level fronts, which shall help the development of class struggle. Every such possibility should be fully utilised. For overthrowing the Indian state led by the bourgeois-landlord classes serving imperialism and to create conditions for establishing people’s democratic power, protracted efforts should be made according to concrete situation and level of development of people’s struggles by the Party to build up the strategic united front based on worker-peasant alliance and uniting with all genuine anti-imperialist, patriotic, democratic classes and sections. The Party should continuously develop its united front tactics to serve revolution. 17. THE AGRARIAN QUESTION AND AGRARIAN REVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMME When the transfer of power took place India was a vast agrarian county with 80% of the people dependent on agriculture. Historic Telangana Struggle, Tebhaga movement and other revolutionary agrarian movements against the dominating feudal, semi-feudal agrarian relations were sweeping across the country under the leadership of the Communist Party during those years compelling the government to put an end to Zamindari system. But the withdrawal of the Telangana struggle and abandoning of most of the other agrarian struggles by the CPI leadership just before the 1952 general elections gave a serious blow to them. The Congress government was utilising a two pronged attack: by promoting the Bhoodan movement of Vinobha Bhave to divert attention from revolutionary land struggles, and by launching brutal attacks by para- military, police forces on them. Soon under the advice of US imperialist experts, a land reform from above was introduced including land ceiling in most of the states replacing the feudal landlords by and large with new generation landlords who were ready to embrace the ‘green revolution’ launched under imperialist guidance. Conditions were created for the entry of capital, fertilisers, chemicals, new seeds and other inputs into the agrarian sector. This was the beginning of another step, more intensive than the one pursued during the colonial phase, for the integration of the agrarian sector to the imperialist system. The land reforms introduced were not revolutionary land reforms from below based on “land to the tiller” slogan, but were imposed from above creating a new class of landlords who combine feudal exploitation with capitalistic methods. The land ceiling proposed was flouted in practice through various methods allowing the landlords to own huge land holdings far above the ceiling.The real tillers including the adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections continued to remain landless or owning small house plots. The ‘green revolution’ set in the following tendencies: firstly, it created conditions for the entry of modern inputs and capital to agrarian sector; secondly, it increased the area under cash crops; thirdly, it introduced capitalist mode of production; and fourthly, it paved the way for overall land concentrations with about 60% land held by the landlords who constitute 510% of population linked to agriculture. Overall impact was further integration of agrarian sector to imperialist capital-market system. The historic significance of the Naxalbari struggle is that it brought back the agrarian revolutionary struggle abandoned by the CPI leadership in early 1950s to the agenda, challenging the ruling class policies including the ‘green revolution’. Following Naxalbari agrarian struggles were launched in Srikakulam, Debra Gopiballabhpur, Mushahari and other areas putting forward land to the tiller slogan, mobilising adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections in large numbers. But sectarian tendency started dominating the movement and the ‘annihilation line’ obstructed the development of the mass struggles for land. Though a rectification was initiated by major sections of CPI(ML) and other CR groups from the beginning of 1970s, and significant mobilisation of the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers took place in Bihar and AP, there were no consistent efforts to implement the Telengana-Naxalbari line according to the concrete conditions. As a result, the agrarian revolutionary movement did not make significant advances anywhere in the following years.

The anarchist trend represented by CPI(ML) People War and MCC, which later merged to form CPI(Maoist), is upholding armed struggle as the only form of struggle and pursuing the old annihilation line in new forms. It has no concept of developing mass agrarian revolutionary movement mobilising the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers. On the other hand, some of the CPI(ML) groups, which have adopted the ‘line of peaceful transition’, have reduced agrarian struggle to legalistic forms. Some others are mainly organising middle peasants and a section of rich peasants in their peasant organisation and have, in effect, abandoned the struggles based on land to the tiller slogan, similar to what was done by CPI and then by CPI(M) in the past. While pursuing these different policies all of them have an important similarity that whether they had put forward a Path of Revolution document or not, they cling mechanically to the concept of protracted people’s war based on their semi-colonial analysis. The task before the Party is to develop mass agrarian revolutionary movement with land to the tiller slogan mobilising the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers who constitute 50-60% of India’s population under the leadership of the working class. Agrarian revolution means wiping away all still surviving of feudal, semi-feudal, precapitalist land relations and revolutionising the land relations based on land to the tiller slogan. Launching of agrarian revolutionary struggle should be done in two phases. First phase comprises of organising the poor and landless peasant and agricultural worker’s organisation with agrarian revolutionary programme of revolutionising land relations along with immediate slogans. Mobilise them initially based on immediate slogans and struggles to realise them. Then proceed to campaign for the urgent distribution of land declared surplus under ceiling laws, government land lying vacant, forest land lying fallow, land used for biofuel cultivation and farm lands whose lease period is over, land illegally occupied by plantations and farm owners and land mafia, etc. to the poor and landless farmers and agricultural workers. In urban centres and suburbs there are tens of millions of families without minimum housing. Organise them and campaign for house-sites or housing. In continuation to these campaigns, organise land struggle committees from village level in rural areas and housing right committees in urban and suburban areas. Lead these campaigns to pinpointing the areas to be distributed and then to occupation of those lands, distributing them to the landless under the leadership of these committees. Though volunteer squads may be formed under these committees to help the land occupation, vigorous campaigning and mobilisation of the masses in ever-larger numbers should be the main weapons to be utilised in this period. The main tasks during this first phase is to bring back revolutionary land struggles abandoned by the reformist and sectarian trends to the agenda and prepare the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers for it. How much time will be taken to advance from campaigning to land occupation in different areas will depend upon the concrete conditions in each area and on the extent of subjective preparations including the strength of the committees. By taking the Telengana-Naxalbari line to the most oppressed adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections, campaigning for distribution of above mentioned government and forest lands to the landless, and proceeding to the capture of land, a revolutionary atmosphere can be created among the masses to proceed towards the second phase. The second phase starts with putting forward the agrarian programme to revolutionise the land relations. According to concrete conditions in different areas a ceiling for land required by a family entirely depending on agriculture, land sufficient for such a family to cultivate and subsist on should be declared, for example like 5 acres of irrigated land or 10 acres of unirrigated land for a family of five. For those families mainly depending on income other than from agriculture, ceiling of land for housing and place of profession or business should be declared. Land required for community purposes also should be decided. Land records for each Panchayat/Municipality should be prepared by the land struggle committee of the area concerned. Surplus land should be declared and poor and landless peasants and agricultural labourers should be mobilised for campaigning and then taking over the land, starting with the land in the possession of big landlords, land mafias, corporate houses, MNCs, etc. In urban and suburban areas where housing right committees are functioning, based on a general principle and according to conditions in each area, an urban land ceiling should be declared,

surplus lands, buildings, flat, etc. should be found out and the land records should be announced to facilitate campaigns and then struggles to occupy these areas. The state committees under the guidance of the CC should select areas where our party organisation is fairly strong, where poor and landless peasants and agricultural worker’s organisations have started functioning and deploy cadres from outside also to initiate the land struggle. Social and political condition of the area, class divisions, state of class contradictions should be studied and the first and second phases should be planned and fighting slogans should be formulated after discussion in the party committees and in the peasant and agricultural workers organisation. Land struggle committees should be formed combining this organisation and representatives of trade unions and other class/mass organisation working in that area. The first and second phase of agrarian programme should be formulated and campaigned. Conditions for land capture should b prepared and land occupation and distribution should by started under the Panchayat level land struggle committees, which are the united fronts at the Panchayat level led by the Party committees. While launching the campaigns, forming the land struggle committees and starting the phase one and phase two struggles the following points should be given importance by the party committees. Always ensure the class line of the agricultural workers and landless and poor peasants in the committees. Always persist in investigation and study of concrete conditions in the area and class analysis. When ever question come up consult with the people. Win over the support of the middle peasants and other progressive sections in the area for the struggle. Ensure the active involvement of trade unions and cadres of mass organisation led by the party in the campaigns and land struggle committees. Ensure the involvement of women in ever-larger numbers and while land is distributed women should by given equal rights. Build up volunteers squads under the land struggle committees and guided by party committees. Destroy the authority of the big landlords and other enemy classes in the village by effectively utilising the elections, winning over the three- tier Panchayat committees, co-operative societies, etc. in the area under the control of the land struggle committees. Do not confuse contradictions among the people with contradiction with enemy, and always handle contradiction among the people non-antagonistically, in a healthy manner. Vigorously try to expand the area of land struggles continuously. While the struggle for the land is the fundamental one and it should be carried forward vigorously, the land struggle committees at different levels should handle and resolve struggles for higher wages, against usury, cancellation of the landlords and merchants, struggle for the reduction of rents, struggle against forced labour, struggle of the adivasi people against forest contractors, against women’s oppression, against casteist oppression, etc. also wining over more and more sections of the oppressed classes to the agrarian movement. The experience of the great Telangana struggle, Tebhaga movement and other big and small agrarian struggles led by the undivided communist movement till early 1950s, the experience of Naxalbari and Srikakulam struggle, the Debra- Gopiballabhpur and Mushahari struggle, the agrarian struggle in the plains of Bihar and AP, etc. show that whether starting from partial demands or land issue, all of them ultimately lead to the fundamental question of land, to the question of throwing out all pre-capitalist relations and revolutionising land relations based on land to the tiller slogan. Starting with the contradiction against the feudal remnants and landlord classes, it develops to contradictions with big bourgeois-big landlord state and with imperialists behind it. So the Party should lead the agrarian struggle, in whichever form it may have started, to the fundamental question of land and vigorously try to expand it to more and more areas, to more and more states according to concrete conditions there, firmly upholding revolutionary mass line, uncompromisingly struggling against reformist and sectarian tendencies which shall be trying to dominate the movement always. Utilising all forms of struggles and organisations, always prepared and be flexible enough to change from one form of struggle to another according to concrete conditions, and never loosing initiative in the struggle.

While developing the revolutionary agrarian movement in such a vast country like India with so much diversities and unevenness is an unprecedentedly difficult task. This great size and its vast population themselves can be turned into great advantages for revolution once they are correctly understood and scientifically utilised always relying on revolutionary mass line. In the past and present when any Path of Revolution is drafted by different forces, it is always seen that all of them agree on the basic differences between concrete conditions of China and India not only during 1920-1940 period, but also, in a way more profoundly, between present India and pre-revolutionary China. But after starting discussion on developing the agrarian movement all of them hastily goes on to assert that despite all dissimilarities, the path the Indian revolution should be the path of protracted peoples war with the essential features of Chinese revolution. As a result, none of them give any importance to utilise the concrete conditions in this vast country by expanding the party all over the country, by launching agrarian struggles in all regions according to concrete conditions and by depending upon the vast masses as the greatest shield against the enemy. Once the agrarian revolutionary movement among the 60-70 crores of adivasis, dalits and oppressed sections, the agricultural workers and landless and poor, peasants is consistently expanded and once the leadership of the 15-20 crores of the working class on the agrarian revolution is increasingly established consistently following the revolutionary mass line, no force on this earth can stop the onward march of Indian revolution. Discussion on developing volunteer squads, self defence squads or any other forms of squads, unarmed or armed, should be taken up in the context of development of the agrarian revolutionary movement to more and more areas, in the context of utilising all forms of struggle, and after studying how the contradiction between the agricultural workers and landless and poor peasants, the main force of revolution, and the powerful Indian working class, the leading class of Indian revolution, on the one hand, and the ruling classes on the other is going to sharpen in coming days. 18. ON THE PATH OF INDIAN REVOLUTION India is a very vast country of 1.2 billion people. It has extreme diversities and unevenness. The objective conditions of the country are also favourable for social change, for a social revolution to overthrow the reactionary Indian State led by the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes serving global imperialist interests. Putting forward a Path of Revolution today is much more complex and difficult task to be taken up compared to taking up such a job in 1920s or 1930s when the Communist movement was in its infant stage in the country and when there was the Communist International with extensive Soviet experience to guide it, or in the post-1947 years when the country was going through a revolutionary ferment, or in 1967 after Naxalbari uprising. Today, in spite of almost five decades of intensive struggles against revisionism and neo-revisionism, the CPI(M) and CPI are still existing, the CPI(M)-led Left Front is still strong and is ruling three states, besides playing an important role in the parliament as one of the ruling class parties. They still pose themselves as Marxist-Leninist parties in spite of degeneration to social democratic positions. With the help of corporate media they get extensive propaganda. For most of the people they are the Communist parties still. So long as these degenerates are thoroughly exposed ideologically and politically, they shall continue to remain a threat to the strengthening of the revolutionary party. On the other hand, though the influence of the sectarian, anarchist trend represented by CPI(Maoist) is presently confined to some pockets in four or five states, the Indian State and the corporate media give extensive coverage to them. Thus the CPI(Marxist) and CPI(Maoist) apparently taking extremely opposite stands, acts as two sides of the same coin against revolutionary Marxism. Besides, there are a good number of right opportunist or sectarian or anarchist trends posing as Marxist-Leninists in different states. Even some of the groups advocating post-modernism, identity politics, empowerment theories, NGOism, etc. promoted by imperialist centres are claiming themselves as Marxist-Leninist, adding to the confusion. It is an extremely difficult and unprecedented task to wage ideological struggles against all these numerous trends and establish the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist positions in present day conditions.

Another major problem is the disunity of the Marxist-Leninist forces who advocate mass line and who have apparent identity of views on most of the basic issues. Even if all of them are united, the Marxist-Leninist Party will be weak compared to the gigantic tasks to be taken up in a vast country like India. In such a situation, this disunity among the Marxist-Leninist forces who are opposed to both right opportunism and sectarian, anarchist trends is another crucial challenge faced by the revolutionary movement. These challenges can be boldly faced and the strengthening of the subjective forces of revolution, in which building up a powerful Bolshevik style party with all India influence is the most cardinal task, can be carried forward only if CPI(ML) intensifies its efforts to build up a revolutionary people’s alternative challenging the ruling class alternatives, which are basically united in serving the existing ruling system, utilising all forms of struggles effectively, with the perspective of seizure of political power and completing the tasks of the People’s Democratic Revolution by developing the Path of Revolution based concrete conditions in India. Putting forward the general orientation of the Path of Revolution, the Outline Party Programme of CPI(ML) states: “The historic developments and concrete conditions of the country determine the present stage of revolution which is New Democratic. The CPI(ML) which upholds MarxismLeninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought as its guiding ideology and seeks to apply it to the concrete conditions of India and to integrate it with the concrete practice of Indian revolution, uncompromisingly struggling against both revisionist and sectarian tendencies of all hues, is committed to complete the New Democratic Revolution. The task before the party in the stage of the New Democratic Revolution is to overthrow the rule of comprador bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes serving imperialism and to replace the present reactionary Indian state with the New Democratic or People’s Democratic state led by the proletariat and based on the worker-peasant alliance. The basic programme of the party is to complete the tasks of the NDR with agrarian revolution as its axis and to advance towards Socialist Revolution, to the realisation of socialism and communism. “The Path of New Democratic Revolution in India is based on the concrete conditions in our country, taking the experience of all hitherto revolutions in the world and the people’s revolutionary movements in our country. Rejecting parliamentary cretinism and the line of individual terrorism, and upholding the revolutionary mass line, we resolve to utilise all forms of struggles and organisations to seize political power by overthrowing the Indian State through armed means. Strategic united front of all revolutionary classes and forces with the working class as the leading force and the peasantry as the main force based on worker-peasant alliance as well as necessary tactical united fronts should be developed for furthering the people’s revolutionary movement.” The great Telangana Struggle of 1946-51, in continuation to other anti-feudal struggles in different parts of the country, became the largest and most advanced revolutionary agrarian struggle in the country. It was the first serious attempt to apply the lessons of the theory and practice of people’s war in India, which was developed under the leadership of Mao Tsetung according to concrete conditions in China. The Andhra Letter from the leading committee of the Telengana struggle presented to the 1948 Congress of CPI had explained this question in detail. Telengana struggle taught how revolutionary agrarian struggles focussing on land to the tiller slogan and feudal oppression and led by the Communist Party and with the class line of landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, who constitute the revolutionary section of the peasantry and majority of the country’s population, can lead toward the formation of village committees, organisation of volunteer squads, development of resistance to landlordspolice-goonda violence, and to the beginning of armed struggle against the reactionary state. As the CPI leadership decided to withdraw Telengana struggle and later got immersed in the mire of parliamentarism, the experience of this historic movement could not be carried forward. The great Naxalbari struggle in continuation to Telengana led to subsequent revolutionary uprising of landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, including adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections, in Midnapore, Mushahari, Lakhimpur-Kheri and Srikakulam, the latter reaching a higher level in terms of massive participation of the

revolutionary sections of the peasantry and the resistance struggle they waged. Though these struggles spread to the plains of AP and Bihar later, due to the domination of the sectarian line the movement could not be carried forward. During the last three decades the Communist Revolutionary forces were divided in to many groups with some of them starting to deviate to rightist positions and few others sticking to ‘annihilation line’ in new forms. The cardinal problem before the revolution movement was, and is, that while assimilating the revolutionary experience of the Telengana-Naxalbari experience a Path of Revolution confirming to the concrete conditions of India in the context of present world situation could not be developed and could not be put in to practice. Though the line of protracted people’s war was repeated hundreds of times, whether it is application in present international and national situation after it could not carried forward anywhere successfully after the Chinese Revolution and how it could be developed in Indian conditions and carried forward was never debated seriously. The ICM has the glorious history of the victory of October Revolution in Russia, the victories of revolutions in East European countries during 1944-45 with the defeat of fascist forces, the victory of the great Chinese Revolution in 1949 and later victories of national liberation and democratic revolutions in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea and Cuba. The revolutionary movements in these countries have suffered severe setbacks later in the course of socialist revolution and socialist transition. The Marxist-Leninist forces should take appropriate lessons from these setbacks. Carrying forward the struggle for the seizure of political power in the country calls for taking lessons from these victorious revolutionary advances of the ICM. But taking their experiences do not mean mechanically copying any of their experience or pursuing an ecclectical mixture of their experiences. Taking experience from them means studying their experience and applying them according to the concrete conditions in our country. The history of the ICM shows that in all these countries where revolution took place, there was no mechanical application of the path of other revolutions, each revolution took its own course according to concrete conditions of each country. Even after the victory of Chinese Revolution, its experiences were not mechanically followed in Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea or Cuba. Besides, a concrete study of the conditions of India and China during 1930s and 1940s shows that in spite of many similarities, even at that time itself there were more differences than similarities. And compared to then Chinese conditions, the present Indian conditions are more different. So, the protracted people’s war, the theory and practice of which was developed by Mao Tsetung in Chinese conditions cannot be applied as such or mechanically in present Indian conditions. The theory and practice of Indian revolution should be developed entirely based on the concrete conditions of present day India and assimilating the experiences of all hitherto revolutions including the Chinese Revolution. Though Indian revolution is presently in the People’s Democratic or New Democratic stage, though what happened in the post-revolutionary situation in the socialist countries, especially in Soviet Union and China may not directly affect it, after such a severe setback suffered by the socialist revolution and transition to capitalist path in these countries, a Communist Party cannot develop its Path of Revolution without taking these factors also into consideration, to whatever extent necessary. For example, in areas like party building, in developing concept of democratic centralism based on committee system, in developing appropriate methods for inner-party struggle, in guarding against emergence of bureaucratic tendencies, in organically developing concepts of mass line and class/mass organisations, in avoiding the mistakes of mechanically de-linking class struggle in economic base and superstructure, in avoiding, for example in India’s context, the de-linking of anti-caste struggle from class struggle, in correctly dealing with the contradictions among the people, and in drawing appropriate lessons from the Cultural Revolution. The path of Indian revolution calls for rejecting all shades of parliamentarism and reformism and pursuing the path of revolutionary seizure of political power. It means taking the revolutionary agrarian struggles as the principle form of struggle and combining all other forms of struggles with it. It also means class analysis in general and class analysis in each concrete situation, in different regions, and developing the tactics of united front in all phases of struggle according to the demands of concrete situation.

India is a very vast country of 1.2 billion people with extreme diversities and unevenness, a neo-colonial country, where neo-colonial plunder is taking ever-intensifying forms under the neo-liberal policies, where the principal contradiction is between imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlordism on the one hand and vast masses of the people on the other. The tasks of revolution is to overthrow the rule of comprador bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes serving imperialism, completing the People’s Democratic or New Democratic Revolution, and advancing towards socialist revolution. And the present phase of PDR calls for a path of revolution to be developed according to concrete conditions of India. It involves the tasks of mobilising the people, and launching and developing the countrywide class struggle in all spheres leading to mass upsurges, mass insurrections including armed uprisings interspersed with guerrilla forms of struggles wherever necessary leading to the capture of political power. Mobilising the people for people’s war includes building up of the Party, mobilising and politicising working class as the leader of revolution; organising the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers; organising the women; organising the youth and students; and developing a vigorous cultural movement as already explained above. While mobilising all these sections of people for their immediate demands, they should be mobilised on political, national and international issues also. While launching struggles for immediate and economic demands, political campaigns should be organised to educate the masses for social change. Utilising the present possibilities all out massive campaigns propagating revolutionary programme should be launched. Agrarian revolution should be brought to the forefront once again. The Party and class/mass organisations should develop skill to float all forms of organisations and to utilise all forms of struggle to propagate and practice the revolutionary alternative against the various ruling class alternatives floated by the ruling classes and parties representing them to hoodwink the masses. DEVELOPING REVOLUTIONARY AGRARIAN STRUGGLES AS PRIMARY TASK Land question has become the central issue more than ever with the entry of MNCs and corporates to agrarian sector, millions of acres of agricultural land diverted for jatropha like plants for bio-fuel production, millions of acres being snatched from the peasantry for SEZs and industrial centres, for real estates and infrastructure building, etc. with land concentration becoming a more serious issue than ever. While the MNCs, corporates, real estate lobby, landlords and land mafias have cornered almost 60-70% of the agricultural land, throwing out millions of peasants and agricultural workers, flouting existing land ceiling laws or amending them, 50-60% of the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers own just 10-15% of the land. Besides, tens of millions of families in the urban and suburban areas are deprived of even nominal housing when less than 10% of the rich and super-rich own multi-crore flats and bungalows. The disparity on the question of ownership of land has reached unprecedented and extreme levels. As a result, the struggle of the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, the real tillers, for land for cultivation, the struggle of those whose lands are snatched away for SEZs, real estates and industrial centres, and of those who have no housing has become the central issue. In this situation revolutionary agrarian struggles with land to the tiller slogan have become the main form of struggle involving hundreds of millions of the revolutionary peasantry along with developing the working class struggles and of all other revolutionary sections complementary to it as already explained. This is an all-round struggle against all forms of exploitation based on feudal, semi-feudal and pre-capitalist land relations, against the oppression of the landlords and state machinery. In every state millions of acres of land already declared surplus by government under ceiling acts, banjar lands, de-forested forest lands, lands illegally occupied by plantation owners and landlords, plantation lands whose lease period is over, Math lands, lands cornered by real estate lobby and land mafias flouting existing laws, agricultural land left uncultivated are not distributed to the landless in spite of repeated promises. Even the 1975 Adivasi Land Protection Act to return adivasi land occupied by non-adivasi landlords is still not implemented. The landless, poor peasant and agricultural workers organisation forming village level land struggle committees should occupy these

lands after extensive campaigns to arouse the masses and distribute them among the landless under the leadership of the village committees. This struggle should be combined with the struggle against bonded labour like exploitation of tenants and agricultural workers by landlords, usury, caste and communal oppression and other atrocities of the landlords and state machinery. These struggles launched based on the organised strength of the landless sections for land and against feudal remnants and landlords shall arouse their class consciousness and prepare them for higher forms of struggles. During this period village volunteer squads can be formed under village committees to defend the rights of the oppressed sections. This occupation of land and their distribution under village committees, formation of volunteer squads to resist landlords and feudal remnants leads to the beginning of embryonic forms of political power of the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers and other toiling masses under the village committees. By pursuing revolutionary mass line and mobilising the masses in peasant associations, agricultural workers union and village committees, once this phase of land struggles are successfully launched in more and more areas, and the political consciousness of these oppressed sections is continuously aroused, the preparation for the next phase of land struggle declaring a new ceiling law for agricultural land for a family whose main occupation is farming and only housing and business sites for those not engaged in cultivation can be campaigned for, popularised and the masses mobilised to put it in to practice as explained above. Once this struggle for the capture and distribution of lands owned by landlords and other such ‘private’ owners is started, the real confrontation with the landlords and the state machinery will start. Occupation of these lands is a challenge to the very existence and continuation of feudal remnants and landlords. Only this occupation and cultivation of these lands by the real tillers shall put an end to social-political exploitation of the ‘rural gentry’. By this time, on the one hand, the working class should be mobilised to declare strikes in support of the land struggle. Working class cadres should be send to the villages to lead these struggles after studying from the masses. Women should be mobilised in resistance struggle in large numbers. Youth and student squads and cultural squads should be organised to launch solidarity campaigns and cultural programmes to arouse the masses to widen the areas of land struggle, to organise village committees in more and more areas and to involve larger number of landless sections in the struggle. Volunteer squads and self-defence squads should be formed in larger numbers under the village committees to help the expansion of the struggle and to defend against landlord-police-gonnda attacks. SUCCESS OF THE LAND STRUGGLE DEPENDS ON WIDENING OF THE STRUGGLE AREAS AND STRENGTHENING OF PEASANT AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS ORGANISATION Imperialist globalisation and its barbarous consequences is compelling the working class, the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, the youth and students and women to get mobilised and struggle for their existence. Along with all these sections, all areas in the country can be turned in to struggle areas. So revolutionary war demands an organic linking of the development of the tens of millions of the working class, the women, the youth and students with the struggle of the revolutionary section of the peasantry to advance the agrarian movement. The difference of present concrete conditions with those of the Telangana and Naxalbari phase should be correctly understood. Today in every area the class contradictions are becoming more and more intensified in various forms. This important aspect along with the vastness of the country and prospect of developing struggles in everlarger areas are positive factors unfavourable to enemy, the Indian state, and favourable to the revolutionary forces. The Party Central Committee should guide all the state committees to launch struggles in as many areas and sectors as possible. This is the phase of casting the net wide. To help this, party and class/mass organisation building at all India level, deployment of cadres and pursuing a correct cadre policy should be taken up on an emergency basis. Once this is effectively implemented, possibilities for uniting like minded forces and organising issue based united fronts at various levels under the initiative of the party and class/mass organisations shall also increase in support of this movement.

The question of expanding the land struggles coupled with the resistance against usurpation of agricultural land for SEZs, new industrial centres and real estates, and the struggle for housing rights by tens of millions of families in urban and suburban areas is becoming burning issues in every state, big or small. The attention of the whole party and class/mass organisations should be focussed on these questions also. Extensive campaigns should be organised. And the land struggle should be launched in ever-wider areas with the involvement of tens of thousands of people organised in village committees. Rather than involving in unending discussions about armed struggle and how to develop it, what is required now is launching of country-wide struggles for land, development of appropriate forms of organisations at various levels, evolving slogans and programmes to involve ever larger number of people in them, and weakening the ruling system by hitting it at tens of thousands of places. International and Indian experiences show that once the people in ever larger number are aroused, and they get involved in militant struggles against the landlords and the ruling system under the conscious leadership of the Party, after the development of struggles to a stage, invariably armed resistance to state repression get started. And it develops to higher forms as in Telengana. So the real problem confronting the revolutionary movement is how to link these people’s resistance with all other forms of struggles including parliamentary struggle, and mass upsurges at various levels, and to sustain it in a protracted form so that this war of people develops in to seizure of political power. Recent experiences teach that there were a large number of big or small mass upsurges against imposition of imperialist globalisation connected projects in a number of places, in a number of states. Some of them have taken protracted nature and continuing even after one or two years. Even after ruthless suppression deploying huge contingent of state forces the centre and state governments are forced to abandon many of these projects or postpone them. The resistance struggles of the peoples of Northeast and Kashmir linked to nationality question are also continuing even after decades. Once the Party become capable of establishing the leadership of the working class by mobilising and politicising them at an everlarger areas in as many states as possible, armed resistance of the people against state forces and mass upsurges are bound to break out in a large number of places. What happened during 1945-1950 period is a very good example for it. In the concrete conditions of India, especially in the present conditions, concepts like ‘area-wise seizure of political power’ and ‘establishment of base areas’ based on the path of protracted people’s war should be subjected to serious introspection. Mechanical application of such concepts shall amount to ‘cutting the size of the feet according to the size of shoes’ as is proved internationally and within our country. The challenge is to develop the concept of the Path of Revolution combining all forms of struggle according to concrete conditions of India leading to mass upsurges, insurrections and armed uprisings interspersed with development of guerrilla struggles wherever possible and necessary. It is a Path suited India’s vastness and the objective conditions here. The Path of Indian Revolution should concentrate on mobilising the masses in ever larger number and seizure of political power of through a combination of all forms of struggle. 19. ADVANCING THE TASKS OF PDR AND APPROACH TO PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM The struggles to complete the tasks of the PDR and advance towards socialist revolution is carried forward in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, when imperialism, especially US imperialism, is striving frantically to impose its world hegemony. As part of it, barbarous aggressions were launched and Yugoslavia was disintegrated to a number of small states, a number of erstwhile socialist countries in Eastern Europe and former republics of Soviet Union are assimilated to NATO, Iraq and Afghanistan were occupied and put under military control and extreme forms of neo-colonial domination, Palestine people are devastated, threats of aggressions are repeated against Iran and a number of other countries. Under imperialist globalisation, neo-colonisation is intensified integrating the economies of the African-Asian-Latin American countries to global imperialist system, opening these countries further to the domination of IMF-WB-WTO trio and MNCs, and speculative capital in general, imposing an absolutely reactionary development perspective devastating the lives of vast

masses of people and creating conditions of impending ecological disaster. In spite of all these, the imperialist system could not ward off the general crisis now unfolding. Once again intensifying recession has gripped US and other imperialist countries. It is termed a worse crisis than the great depression of 1930s. In order to overcome it, the imperialist headquarters are hatching conspiracies for the only way left to resolve it: transferring the burden of this grave crisis to the world people, especially to the people in the countries under neocolonisation in a much more magnified scale than presently taking place. It means wars of aggressions, more occupations, more plunder of human and natural resources at global level, more monopolisation and mergers intensifying the speculation regime, more pauperisation of the vast majority of the masses, and more ecological destruction. This is leading to unprecedented intensification of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed peoples and nations, and contradiction between capital and labour, throwing up the gravest ever challenge before proletarian revolutionary forces at global level : intensity efforts more than ever to throw out the imperialist system so that a socialist future can be created. Marx and Engels analysed the capitalist system as an international system of plunder and called for “Workers of the World, Unite” to overthrow it. As capitalist system reached its highest stage, the moribund stage, imperialism, colonising the whole world, the Comintern called on the “Workers and Oppressed Peoples and Nations, Unite’ to overthrow the imperialist system. Thus the international character of this proletarian revolution was emphasised by the Marxist teachers right from the beginning. Presently under the neo-colonial phase in which imperialist globalisation has brought the whole world under the capital-market system, the economies of all countries integrated more and more to imperialist system, the MNCs and various imperialist agencies have transcended plunder beyond the boundaries of countries, and as manufacture and trade has become more internationalised, the international character of proletarian revolution has further increased. The Communist Party, as the vanguard of the proletariat is leading the PDR in India as an integral part of world proletarian socialist revolution. And as a contingent of the great army of the international proletariat, it is the responsibility of the Indian proletariat to dedicate itself to contribute as much as it can to fulfil the historic mission of emancipating the whole of mankind from the yoke of imperialism and its lackeys by carrying forward the primary task of national liberation and democratic revolution as fast as possible and fulfilling the tasks of proletarian internationalism, complementary to it. The international unity of the communist movement suffered a severe setback under the capitalist roaders in China who obliterated the contradiction between socialist forces and imperialism from among the four major contradictions in the world and degenerated China also to capitalist path. Thereafter even many Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations also obliterated this contradiction, and proletarian internationalism was side lined. The influence of this erroneous tendency is still prevalent among many revolutionary forces. It should be struggled against and defeated. After the severe setback suffered by the ICM, once again the anti-imperialist movement is gaining strength all over the world. The Iraqi and Afghan peoples have intensified their resistance war against the US occupiers, which is facing the threat of another ignominious withdrawal. In Palestine the resistance against. US-Israel axis is growing. In Latin America more countries are joining the anti-imperialist front against US. In Nepal putting an end to the two and half centuries old monarchy and establishment of a bourgeois democratic rule is significant. Against US-led aggressions, against the attacks on working class rights, etc. many struggles are reported from the imperialist countries. Even in Africa the imperialist manoeuvres are rebuffed in many countries. All these movements call for International support and solidarity actions. These solidarity movements can be developed only if a platform of like-minded MarxistLeninist parties and organisations at international level can be organised as their political ideological core. This will be an initial step towards rebuilding the Communist International. Possibilities for such an initiative is bright today. While intensifying the revolutionary struggle within the country, the Party should take initiative for such International activities developing

active co-operation among the ML parties drawing lessons from past experiences of the ICM. It will enthuse the revolutionary movement in the country and develop proletarian internationalist spirit among the revolutionary forces. 20. CONCLUSION The Path for Indian Revolution is put forward by our Party, as the above analysis shows, after the ICM has suffered severe setbacks. Though anti-imperialist resistance struggles, especially against US imperialism is taking place around the world and though in some countries they have reached critical stage, the strength of the Marxist-Leninist forces as a whole is still not considerable. In India, a very vast country with extreme diversities and unevenness, in spite of eight decades of Communist activities with a history of many historic struggles involving tens of millions of people, presently the strength of our Party, the only organisation with a fairly large all India presence, is still not considerable. The challenge posed by right opportunist and ‘left’ sectarian trends are very serious. Though along the foot steps of the all India revolutionary struggles of 1946-’51 period spearheaded by historic Telengana struggle, Naxalbari uprising once again brought back PDR to the forefront of the agenda, the Marxist-Leninist movement during the last four decades has not made any significant advances yet, capable of changing the course of history. First sectarian influences caused severe setbacks. Then the movement was divided in to many streams. Out of them some have moved nearer to right opportunist positions of CPI(M). On the other extreme CPI(Maosit) is still contented with continuing to experiment with the annihilation line in new forms using sophisticated weapons. As far as the mass line forces still pursuing MarxistLeninist line are concerned, none of them including our party have so far succeeded in advancing the revolutionary struggles in the direction of seizure of political power mobilising the masses and spreading the influence of the organisation to a significant level. It is in this context, the Path charted above should be approached. On certain basic questions there is superficial unanimity among Marxist-Leninist forces pursuing mass line. Firstly, all forms of struggles including parliamentary struggles should be utilised to develop class struggle. Secondly, a party with countrywide influence surrounded by class/mass organisations should be built up in Bolshevik style. Thirdly, in India path of revolution cannot be charted mechanically copying the path developed and pursued by different parties including CPC in their countries according to concrete conditions there. Fourthly, the path of revolutionary war should be pursued based on the concrete conditions here, while taking the hitherto international and national experiences in to cognisance. But two serious problems are faced by the Marxist-Leninist forces: in spite of these agreements still they have not united in to a single party; in spite of long years of existence still they have not succeeded to develop the concept of People’s War in Indian context and to develop countrywide movements, leave alone the ‘armed struggle based on mass line’ all of them are talking about. Besides due to decades of separate existence, major differences in their style of functioning also persists. The reasons for these should be sought in the basic differences among them, in spite of superficial unanimity on many questions, in understanding Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, in analysing the hitherto experience of the communist movement, in the analysis of the concrete conditions of present India including the character of Indian State and in their approach towards the concept of protracted people’s war as practised in China. Firstly, however violently most of them may protest, they approach the Marxist-Leninist world outlook more as a dogma, not as a living ideology, a guide to action. They repeat quotations but do not go into the essence of Marxist teachings recognising the need to develop them according to concrete conditions of today when imperialism has unleashed a neo-colonial offensive. Many of them have become fundamentalists instead of assimilating the essence of Marxist teachings daring to develop and apply them according to present conditions as all the Marxist classics show us. Secondly, instead of learning from the hitherto experience of the Communist movement most of them are trying to mechanically apply them without a concrete study of the situation

where it is applied. Along with the internal developments it was the mechanical application of Krushchovite revisionism which led the CPI leadership in the 1950s to the line of class collaboration and to the concept of National Democratic Revolution aligninng with the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie which was analysed as predominantly national in character by it. Though critical of Krushchovite revisionism, the refusal to advance to the teachings of Mao led the CPI(M) leadership to a centrist position which ultimately slided back to CPI leadership’s outlook. It is once again the mechanical readings of Marxist teachings that have led a number of fringe groups to analyse that the PDR is completed in India and it has become a capitalist country in the stage of socialist revolution. Similarly, a mechanical understanding of Mao Tsetung Thought, his application of Marxism-Leninism in Chinese conditions, have led the splintered sections of forces claiming to uphold Naxalbari to the condition of ‘blind men trying to understand the elephant’, competing with each other in the claims about the superiority of their lines, but refusing to assimilate the experience of the CPC under Mao’s leadership including its uncompromising struggles against both right opportunist and sectarian deviations and the lessons of the Cultural Revolution. Thirdly, in spite of the valuable contributions of the ICM in the great polemics of the 1940s to 1970s about imperialism resorting to the neo-colonial phase of offensive, while most of these streams reject it, others uphold it only in words. They refuse to go beyond the mechanical understanding of what is already summed up by the Marxist-Leninist classics, refuse to a concrete study of the character of imperialist offensive in the post-World War II decades, and fall victims to the plethora of deviations coming up and working to blunt the Marxist-Leninist offensive during these post-War decades. Fourthly, as far as the CPI-CPI(M) stream is concerned its path is reduced to a social democratic, parliamentary cretinist one, becoming part of ruling class politics. The path of the socialist revolutionaries, an alien trend, is out rightly reformist, serving as apologists of neocolonialism. Contrary to these, whatever may be their claims and practice, a number of organisations ranging from CPI(ML) Liberation, which is a new entrant to the social democratic camp, to the anarchist leadership of CPI(Maoist), all of them in the name of upholding Mao Tsetung Thought and Naxalbari are advocating the path of protracted people’s war, under various interpretations. Starting from their ‘semi-colonial’ understanding they proceed to a mechanical application of Chinese Path in Indian conditions. Fighting against all these trends who have separately and together become obstacles to the advance of Indian revolution the above theoretical approach to neo-colonialism and a path of revolutionary practice according to present concrete conditions are put forward with the hope of widest possible discussion. The building of a Bolshevik style communist party surrounded by class/mass organisations at all India level, an aggressive utilisation of all forms of struggle to develop class struggle, and an advance towards the capture of political power starting from mass upsurges to mass uprisings and armed insurrections utilising all forms of struggles including guerilla forms of struggle is possible only by rejecting the concept of protracted people’s war and developing the path of Indian revolution according to concrete conditions of neo-colonial phase of imperialist onslaught and assimilating the experience of all hitherto revolutionary struggles at international level and in our country. The above Path of Revolution is charted not as an A to Z of Indian revolution. It emphasises on building the Party uniting all like-minded forces, on building class and mass organisations with countrywide influence, on developing countrywide campaigns, struggles, movements putting forward a revolutionary people’s alternative against the ruling class alternatives, on mobilising and politicising the working class as the leader of revolution, on developing agrarian revolutionary movement with land to the tiller slogan according to concrete conditions in different regions arousing the revolutionary section of the peasantry, landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, as the main force of democratic revolution, and on some preliminary steps to build people’s resistance including armed resistance wherever possible against state oppression. It also emphasises on developing a revolutionary understanding on utilising the parliamentary form of struggle without falling to either parliamentary cretinism, or boycottism, or to a passive or negative approach, for advancing

people’s movements. It has desisted from providing ultimate guide to armed revolution or providing the last word on the course to be followed. In its present form it is a guide for consolidating existing forces and for developing the movement in the present phase. As and when the situation, both objective and subjective, undergoes changes, based on these guidelines the path can be further developed and the course the struggle to be followed can be defined more sharply. This Path of Revolution is charted as a guide to action in the present phase of democratic revolution. Analysing the past practices and the ideological struggle developed based on them it is emphasising on the course of practice to be developed in all spheres in present phase with the perspective of people’s democracy and advancing towards socialist revolution. Instead of telling the last word, this Path is put forward to start a great debate among the Communist Revolutionaries for a principled evaluation of hitherto successes and failures on the basis of experiences of revolutionary struggles the world over and in our country so that they can unite in to a single party to lead proletarian revolution forward utilising flexible tactics and all forms of struggle effectively, charting the path forward.

5. Draft Document of Comrade Subodh INTRODUCTION The present debate on the question of semi-colony-neo colony, principal contradiction and the path of Indian revolution is not a new debate in the Communist movement in India. On the above questions we witnessed three great struggles inside the Communist movement in India. The first struggle started during and after Telangana Struggle (1946-52) the second struggle and the during (1964-72) third being 72 afterwards. First question on ‘Semi Colony’ was first debated during period 1947-52 period on International and All India level. Struggling against revisionist line the communist revolutionary section inside the undivided C.P. has argued that India has transformed into ‘semi colony’ after 1947. Subsequently this concept was accepted by the new Central Committee of 1950 and later on 1951 programme of CPI. The revisionist leadership of CPI has changed this formulation and termed India as a independent country. But struggle continues inside the party which subsequently led to the split in 1964. In 1964 because of presssure of revolutionary ranks had to accept the concept of semi colonisation with some change and adopt P.D.R as a stage of revolution. Neo revisionist leadership betrayed the cause and concentrated their position slowly as a result of which the second split in 1967 took place. In 1964 C.Rs have come out of CPI (ML) formed AICCR with clear formulation that ‘India is semi feudal and semi colonial country”. This formulation was adopted by the Communist Revolutionaries in India till today. This is one of the major points of C.Rs camps. Since 1967 onwards till date all including CPI (ML) groups have been holding this position. This position has developed through inner party struggle during the period of 1946-1967. This analysis is one of the important basis of C.R. groups. Prior to 2005 our CPI (ML) and its former constitutents had held this view. 2003 document of CPI (ML) has correctly puts in its adopted Programme under the heading ‘semi colonial and semi –feudal India that “The British……Semi Colonial character of our Country” (Page 7) This formulation needs some explanation. The International and National Situation The concept of neo colony has come during late and 50s, 60s when American Imperialism had captured Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and hatched its design of Neo colony by installing stooge Government in these countries. Through these stooge or puppet government. US army came to ‘Indo China soil and with the help of stooge Government US

established its Neo Colonial rule. The samething US did in Iraq. US military is still presentation in Iraq over throwing democratic government of Saddam. US by military intervention imposed neo colonial rule by installing puppet government. Neo Colony presupposes rule of puppet Government and in neo colony the principle contradiction will be between imperialism and entire nation. In India the ruling class is not a puppet or a stooge. They are only enjoying alliance. Alliance can not be forged with a puppet or stooge. Subseient allous only. Similarly question of path is extremely important. The question of path has been debated again and again inside the Communist movement in India. After a long debate while rejecting the path of peaceful parliamentry as well as terrorist path Andhra PC adopted the path Protracted People’s War in Telangana which was finally adopted the CC, CPI and approved by Cominform. Again in 1967 after 20 years of revisionist regime Naxalbari movement had pushed forward the concept of P.P. War as our path of Indian Revolution as opposed to peaceful parliamentary path. The path of Protrated People’s War is accepted by all C.R.Groups in India. This path has differentiated CR forces from revisionist and anarchist parties. Because of this CPI (ML) in 2003 has again adopted this path as one of the fundamental formulation and basis of CPI (ML) 2003. Without such path unity can not be strengthened. This paths needs some explanation. This is an attempt to explain our position. Question of Semi Colonialism, basic and principal contradiction and path of protracted people’s war are inseparably linked with one another. Serious attention is required.

If we reject the path of Protracted Peoples War, we will definitely desert the camp of C.R and the fall to morus of revisionist history. India is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country, where the state represents comprador bureaucratic capitalism and landlords who protect and serve the interest of imperialism. Under the leadership of Americal imperialism and various imperialist countries dominating and exploiting India, have turned it into a happy hunting ground for neo-colonial exploitation. The countryside, where eighty percent of the population lives, is dominated and exploited by feudal and semi-feudal landlords. Our country has a constitution which was imposed by the British, and is nothing more than a white-wash of the Government of India Act of 1935. The Indian people never fought for this constitution and thus the provisions of a parliament, legislatures and adult franchise are nothing but a hoax to deceive the masses. The transfer of power took place in 1947 and some changes were made in the superstructure, without affecting the basic structure. Under the circumstances, the concept that India is an independent country and that the big bourgeoisie is building up capitalism is erroneous. Colonial India has changed into semi-colonial, semi-feudal India. A people’s democratic revolution can change the present set up. This has been pointed out in our programme. Then what is the path of the Indian revolution? This is a fundamental question discussed time and again, both in the past and at present by the revisionist (CPI) and the neo-revisionist (CPM) both of which are parliamentary parties. Though the latter sometimes makes claims about following the path of insurrection and partisan warfare in order to deceive the people. Moreover, the path of insurrection is not applicable to India. The Indian revolution cannot succeed by insurrection, the path of the October Revolution. The Socialist Revolution can be successful and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat can be established only when the New Democratic Revolution is carried to the end. To bring about this we must follow the path of armed struggle and a protracted people’s war. This is the path of the Chinese revolution, which is the continuation of the path of the October Revolution, and must be traversed by all colonial and semi-colonial countries. It is our fundamental task to apply the theory of People’s War to the concrete practice of Indian revolution. This alone guarantees its victory. 2. Before we go into the question of application, certain wrong theories which are advanced mainly by neo-revisionists must be refuted. They argue that, since there are fundamental differences between pre-liberation China and present day India, the path of people’s war cannot be applied to India. This is wrong. Because in fact the class character of ‘pre-revolutionary China and India today is fundamentally the same. Although every country has its own specific features, and India is no exception to this. It does not mean that the path which led the Chinese revolution to success does not apply to the Indian revolution, both countries being semi colonial and semi-feudal in nature. Due to specific features obtaining in India, the path of people’s war may undergo certain changes in form, but the content remains the same. What forms it takes in earlier and later stages, the advance of revolution alone will decide. From the present we have to take into consideration the experience of the armed struggles that have taken place in India so far, the Telangana, Naxalbari and Srikakulam armed struggles being the most important ones and work out earlier forms, based on the theory and practice of people’s war. There is no other solution to the problem. 3. The neo-revisionists say that India is more industrially developed at present than preliberation China. They mention one of Stalin’s formulations that India (pre-transfer of power days) was industrially more developed than other colonies. They extend this formulation to present-day India, and come to the conclusion that the path of people’s war cannot be applied here. It is a fact that Stalin made the above observation, but he never said that India therefore ceased to be colonial, semi-feudal and semi-colonial, before or after the transfer of power. Stalin stressed the feature of industrialization to point out the revolutionary role of the Indian proletariat. But in spite of this industrialization, imperialism and later social imperialism,

have kept India in semi-feudal, semi-colonial bondage. This is a difference in degree between the level of industrialization in pre-liberation China and present day India, but this does not change its basic character to make it a capitalist state. 4. The neo-revisionists say that there is a parliamentary system in India, whereas preliberation China had none. India being a semi-feudal, semi colonial country, has no more a parliamentary system than it has a socialist one, as the congress party constantly claims. Precisely because the bourgeois democratic revolution of our country has remained incomplete and because, after 1917, the bourgeois was rendered incapable of leading the bourgeois democratic revolution the question of a parliamentary democracy simply does not arise, except as a cruel hoax on our people in order to suppress them more cleverly. Thus it follows that anyone who subscribes to the concept that a parliamentary democracy exists in their country is merely a tool and instrument of imperialism and its lackeys.

5. They argue that the Chinese Communist Party had a 40,000 strong army when it broke with the Kuomintang, whereas we have none. It may be pertinent to ask, was the Chinese people’s army built up through a process according to the specific situation that prevailed at the time in China. We in India, must also begin the process of building our army of liberation according to the conditions that prevail in our country today. In the specific conditions obtaining in India, a people’s army will be created out of the armed struggles as they are developed in various parts of the country. At the present stage of the revolution, an agrarian revolutionary programme should be the basis of the armed struggle. Experience has shown that when the agrarian revolutionary movement reaches the stage of land distribution the peasantry takes to arms to defend and advance the revolution. This will be the proper time to arm the people, and setting up the organs of power i.e. what is known as arming the revolution. India is one of the largest countries in the world, like China. In this vast country of ours there are large areas of fertile land which provides us with food and clothing, mountain ranges across its length and breadth, with extensive forests and rich mineral deposits, many rivers and lakes which provide us with water, transport and irrigation, and a long coastline which facilitates communications with nations beyond the seas. It has borders on the people’s China in the north and north-east, Nepal, Sikh and Bhutan in the north –east, and Burma and Bangladesh in the east. To the west it borders on Pakistan and Afghanistan. India’s geographical setting has its advantages and disadvantages for the Indian People’s revolution. It is an advantage to be fairly distant from the major imperialist powers like Europe and America and to have many semi-colonial countries around us. It is a disadvantage to have Soviet imperialism close to our borders. It is also a disadvantage that our rear with China is mountainous and inaccessible in some areas. The mass movement in the border areas is weak and the ruling class has concentrated huge armies in these areas for ostensible purpose of defence. However, there are also certain advantages. These are firstly, that a considerable population which is severely exploited lives in these areas and secondly, except for lines of defence, communications are on the whole poorly developed. However, it is incorrect to assume that, without a friendly rear, no people’s war can be possible. Such an assumption would deny the inevitability of liberation wars in all the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. 6. Every revolution has its own disadvantages and advantages. Marxist-Leninists will always try to utilize advantages and overcome disadvantages, by working out correct strategy and tactics. The Indian revolution will be won basically by the Indian people alone, while the proletariat leading the revolution will always take advantage of the national and international situation. This is fundamental in a revolutionary mass line, and the path of people’s war is based on this line. Revisionism and neo-revisionism has based itself on this or that international situation and never taken up the fundamental position that it is the Indian people that will make the Indian revolution. This we reject as a departure from the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism. We hold that revolution cannot be imported. The Indian people under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat will win the revolution with their own strength. The Indian revolution has its own advantages and disadvantages. The path of people’s war alone can overcome the disadvantages, utilize the advantages, and lead the revolution to success. 7. The neo-revisionists argue that in pre-revolutionary China there was not much of a transport and communications system, whereas in India there is a well-knit one spread all over the country. No doubt this is a disadvantage to a certain extent. It may delay the setting up of liberated areas. But it will not come in the way of building the agrarian revolutionary movement and starting the armed struggle. In India, armed struggle in the form of guerrilla warfare will have to go on for a long time so that it may spread to various parts of the country. The transport and communications system will not come in the way of fulfillment of this task.

On the other hand, working class centers, which are within the reach of areas of armed struggles, will be used for strengthening and advancing the armed struggle. There are vast areas in the tribal and border regions which are largly untouched by the transport and communication system. At best com munications are meagre and ineffective. Moreover, the people living in these areas are backward, severely exploited and increasingly restive. These people can be organized and prepared for armed struggle. The oppression of the people by the state, the topographical conditions and the lack of proper transport and communications in these areas combine to create added advantage for the armed struggle. We have seen how the arguments of the neo-revisionists are wrong and unfounded. They are the result of a departure from the fundamental premises of Marxism-Leninism, that every revolution has its advantages and disadvantages, and that it is the people alone who make revolution. We reject these arguments as anti-Marxist. 8. The following are the advantages, in view of the national and international situation, for the Indian revolution. We are starting armed struggle in an epoch when world imperialism has reached the last stages of its existence. Soviet social imperialism has reached the last stages of its existence. Soviet social imperialism, though it has stepped into the shoes of Western imperialism, is beset by its contradictions and is bound to collapse before long. The People’s republic of China is advancing with one success after another. National liberation movements and revolutionary movements in a number of countries are advancing. The favourable situation has a positive impact on our country. The level of our people’s consciousness is developing under the impact of the growing revolutionary situation around us. Vietnam, a small and backward country has been fighting the world’s biggest imperialist power successfully for the past 25 years, proving conclusively that the path of people’s war is the only way for all backward countries including India whose bigness is an added advantage. Our people urgently want an alternative to the present regime. Given the correct lead, they will be ready to proceed with the alternative path of armed struggle. The experience of the people’s war in China is within the reach of Indian revolutionaries. So is the experience of Vietnam and other rev olutionary struggles. China, as the centre of world revolution, is of immense help to our revolution. Indian revolutionaries must study these experiences diligently in the light of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, and apply them through concrete practice of the Indian Revolution. 9. These are the main advantages for the Indian Revolution. Factors which should place us in a position of strength to build the revolutionary movement, to start the armed struggle, and to lead and develop it to the higher stages. Resistance and pessimism are impermissible for revolutionaries. At the same time we should bear in mind that the ruling classes were given a breathing space after the ‘transfer of power’ thanks to the betrayal of the Indian revolution by the revisionists. The ruling classes were given enough time to replenish their forces, disrupt their revolutionary movement and corrupt a section of the population by the so-called parliamentary or Panchayati Raj system. We should not underestimate the fact that the ruling classes are armed to the teeth, while the revolutionary ranks are disunited with some of them still away from the mass line, and indulging in ‘left’ phrase-mongering. These are the disadvantages resulting from a delayed revolution in India. Revolutionaries should take note of them in working out their tactics. If we persevere with the correct line, it will not be difficult for us to overcome all these disadvantages, to develop a revolutionary movement, to start and lead the armed struggle to victory. 10. While studying the international experience, we must also examine own past history of struggle. We should analyse the experience of the armed struggle in Telangana (19461951), draw correct lessons and utilize them for building up the agrarian revolutionary

movement and developing the armed struggle in our country. It was a struggle conducted on the basic of an agrarian revolutionary programme, in which in the struggle for land distribution the people took to arms and the revolution advanced. Inspite of the mistakes committed during the struggle, inspite of the betrayal of the leadership the revolutionary movement and armed struggle of Telangana is rich in experiences and lessons. Without drawing correct lessons from the past, the revolutionaries will continue to commit right and ‘left’ opportunist mistakes in the future. The experience of the last 5 years has proved this only too well. We should analyse all the other revolutionary struggles as well’ such as the armed struggles of Naxalbari and Srikakulam, those that took place in various parts of India, armed or otherwise, and draw correct lessons. This is the only way to advance the revolutionary movement and develop armed struggle in India. 11. The basic pre-condition for the victory of the Indian revolution is the forging of an alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry under the hegemony of the proletariat. The working class alone can exercise leadership over the New Democratic Revolution. This is because it is the motive force of the revolution. Not only is the proletariat the most advanced and organized class in society, but in the colonies and semi-colonies where the compradore bourgeois has been created by imperialism and cannot take an anti-imperialist struggle, vacillated between the forces of liberation and the forces of imperialism, and is thus rendered incapable of leading the democratic revolution to victory. The working class can lead the revolution to victory only if it succeeds in forging a firm alliance with the peasantry, which is the main force of the revolution, and also by uniting all other exploited classes under its banner. This united front is one of the three magic sticks necessary for successful completion of the New Democratic Revolution. The hegemony of the proletariat can be realized, firstly by ideological and organizational leadership, i.e. by organizing a Communist Party armed with Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, to lead the Indian Revolution. Secondly, the hegemony of the proletariat should be established by practical leadership. This should be done by organizing economic and political struggle of the working class, struggles in defence of the agrarian revolutionary movement and the armed struggles in the countryside. This is one form of practical proletarian leadership by the working class. Advanced elements of the working class should go to the villages and help the peasantry to organize the struggle, especially at the stage of armed struggle. This is another form of practical proletarian leadership. Indian towns and cities are centers for the counter-revolution as well as centers for the revolutionary proletariat. There is a heavy concentration of armed force here, and in times of struggle, virtual white terror. This phenomenon has become a normal feature of Indian political life, where the ruling classes are increasingly fascistic day by day. The experience of West Bengal recently confirm this. In such conditions how to realize this practical leadership of the working class is a problem to be studied further, in the light of the experience we have gained in our own country and in the light of international experience. Whatever form it may take, the fundamental task of establishing the hegemony of the proletariat, based on the alliance of the proletariat and peasantry must be fulfilled. 12. In view of this we can see the importance of work amongst the working class, students and other revolutionary classes in the towns and cities. We must politicise the advanced sections of the working class in the politics of the New Democratic Revolution. In the present revolutionary situation, this will play decisive role in unleashing agrarian struggle and the armed struggle in the countryside. Therefore we should seize all opportunities of politicizing the working class. The same is the case with students and other revolutionary classes. For this we should seize the leadership of the partial struggles of the workers, students and urban petty bourgeois, and through these draw the backward sections of these classes into the struggle as well. In India, parties of the ruling classes and the so-called opposition parties, are advocating national and social chauvinism. A section of the working class and petty bourgeois have

become victim to this as well. Therefore we can move these classes into revolutionary politics only when we fight against chauvinism and reformist politics. It is sheer ‘left’ adventurism to neglect or overlook work in the cities, i.e. work among the working class, students and petty bourgeoisie, thinking that there is no political work except that of armed struggle in the countryside. It is equally harmful to conduct these struggles in a reformist way, without bringing than to the level of revolutionary politics. In all cases, revolutionary politicalisation is the supreme task of the party when we work among the masses. 13. India is a vast country with uneven economic and political development as well as the uneven development of the mass movement. This calls for forms of struggle based on the level and the requirements of the movement. To implement the massline, we should take into account the consciousness of the masses and adopt suitable forms of struggle. All these forms of struggle are subordinate to the requirements of and preparation for the people’s war. If we adopt this correct attitude, we can build an agrarian revolutionary mass movement in a short period and go over to armed struggle. There is a revolutionary situation in our country with growing economic and political crises, and armed struggle is the main form of struggle under the leadership of the party. But other forms such as mass organization and mass struggle are also important and indeed indispensable, and under no circumstances to be overlooked, but their main purpose is to serve the war. Before the outbreak of a war, all organizations and struggles are for the preparation of the war, and after the war breaks out, all organization and struggle will be coordinated with the war, whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, in order to start an armed struggle in the countryside, it is necessary to build up agrarian revolutionary movement first, which can be build only on the basis of an agrarian revolutionary programme with the objective of the people’s war. For this purpose, necessary forms of struggle, both legal and illegal, have to be adopted before the revolutionary movement reaches the stage of armed struggle. It is sheer ‘left’ adventurism to substitute the ‘main’ form of struggle, ie. armed struggle, to legal forms and preliminary revolutionary forms, without raising it to the higher level i.e. armed struggle, wherever possible. In towns we concentrate out attention on building revolutionary working class and student movements. We adopt all necessary forms of struggle for this purpose. It should be noted that we start armed struggle first in the countryside and only after liberating the countryside, do we go over to the cities and towns to liberate them. This is a fundamental point in the theory and practice of people’s war. 14.

How to Organize Armed Struggle in Rural Areas?

Bourgeois revolutionary democrats and petty bourgeois revolutionaries can also organize armed struggles during the bourgeois and democratic revolutions. But they cannot be called armed struggles based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought. Our conception of armed struggle is based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s Thought. This can only be a protracted people’s war. Building up a people’s army and carrying on a people’s war is inseparably connected with the people’s armed struggle. It has an anti-imperialist, anti feudal programme, and is led by Communist revolutionaries organized into a proletarian party. It is important to understand correctly the connection between the New Democratic Revolution and the Proletarian Revolution. All these are fundamental points as far as we are concerned. There can be no dispute on these questions. Hence we reject all those conceptions of armed struggle which are not based on the fundamental premises above. At present we are in the stage of agrarian revolution. In order to successfully carry out this revolution, we have to build the agrarian revolutionary movement. Armed struggle will be started at an appropriate level of this movement i.e. seizure of lands. Any underestimation of

the role of the agrarian revolutionary movement will deprive the people of an indispensable support of the armed struggle and will leave them unprepared to face the onslaught of the state apparatus. Hence all theories which underestimate or ignore the role of agrarian revolutionary struggle are either ‘left’ adventurist or right opportunist and we reject them. There must be an agrarian revolutionary programme to build an agrarian revolutionary movement. Though semi-feudal relations are common to all parts of India, the forms and extent of feudal exploitation, land concentration and land relations differ from state to state, and from one part to another part in the state. State units must be able to work out their agrarian revolutionary programmes taking their specific features into account. There is an allpervading agrarian crisis in India. With the help of a revolutionary programme we can build a revolutionary movement in the countryside. Without a programme, there cannot be a revolutionary movement, nor a people’s armed struggle. When once a programme is decided, it is necessary to set up an organization which can implement the programme. A formal organization can never serve this purpose. While revolutionaries carry on work wherever they are, it is necessary to select a group of villages in a sufficiently vast area, preferably with similar problems, to build a revolutionary movement. Our activities in one or two villages cannot lead to a broad based revolutionary movement because of the limited number of the population. On the other hand, a revolutionary movement in a group of villages extended over a considerable area will be a match for the state apparatus. Therefore it is the duty of the revolutionaries to build a peasant revolutionary movement distributed over a large area and a comprehensive programme should be worked out. This will help the revolutionaries to contact, mobilize and organize the masses in the initial stage of the movement. If correctly and properly conducted, this movement will reach the level of seizure and distribution of land. In the course of organizing an agrarian revolutionary movement, the people and revolutionaries will have to face repression from the state and the landlords. The form and intensity may vary from issue to issue and will depend upon the sweep of the mass upsurge and the militancy of the struggle. Therefore it is necessary that the party, mass and volunteer organizations are developed and function so that the movement can be defended and developed to a higher level, inspite of the repression. It is indispensable to adopt a correct combination of open and underground work in order to meet this situation. In India, the agrarian crisis is so deep that if correctly organized and led, the poor peasantry and agricultural labour will be ready for seizure and distribution of land. There might be some time lag between one area and another for the movement to reach the level of land distribution, depending upon the form and extent of feudal relations. Therefore it is necessary for the revolutionaries to work with the immediate aim of raising the movement to the stage of the seizure of land in the process required by concrete conditions. All controversies about partial and political struggles is irrelevant and diversionist as far as agrarian struggle is concerned. Short of land seizure and distribution, all agrarian struggles though they may seem to be partial are revolutionary and political in the sense that they are militant, well organized and have land distribution as their main aim. Even the struggles of agricultural labourers are anti-landlord in nature, since these struggles are for distribution of land to the tiller as the central task at the stage of the Agrarian Revolution. Once the poor peasantry and agricultural labourers become ready for the seizure of the land belonging to the landlords, they can be said to have reached the required level of revolutionary consciousness to carry out and complete the New Democratic Revolution. It is to be noted that the peasantry must be politically educated constantly and at all levels of the struggle. Armed struggles in the form of guerilla warfare should begin when the agrarian revolutionary movement reaches the stage of the seizure and distribution of land. This is the stage of the movement when the peasantry will establish the authority of the peasant associations and their parallel organs of power such as the people’s courts. This is the stage when the peasantry will have developed enough revolutionary consciousness and

organization to be able to defend gains on the land and to protect their organs of power. There will be armed clashes throughout the movement in one form or another, but these are of a defensive nature and they will not take the form of guerilla warfare. Such armed clashes should not be confused with regular guerilla war. A people’s armed struggle can and should be developed wherever there are people, whether in the plains, forests or mountains. Therefore it is wrong to say that we should not develop an agrarian revolutionary movement leading to land distribution and armed struggle in the plains. The stage of armed struggle must be reached, it must be prepared on every front-political, economic, cultural and military. We cannot ignore any one of these if we are serious. Base areas are essential, but on no account should armed struggle be started in a single, isolated area even if is prepared for it. Of course Communists should not hold the people back, they must support them, if they rise up, but it is their duty to guide the masses correctly. Armed Struggle should only start when a large enough area has been prepared to ensure support from the surrounding areas and to enable retreat and manoeure. Without this, the struggle will be easily isolated and crushed by the enemy. Along with this we must have a confident and well-trained command. Our leaders must understand military strategy as well as politics. Without fulfilling all these requirements it would be a left deviation to take to arms. But in order to learn how to swim we must go to the water. So our military strategy will develop with practice. But our ideas and plans should be thoroughly discussed and carefullytested so that we do not lead the people astray. Our objective in starting an armed struggle is to set up liberated base areas. Though it is possible and necessary to set up liberated areas even in the plains, forests and mountain areas are more suitable in the earlier stages of the armed struggle. This is because there the administration is weak, exploitation of the people is intense and their problems acute. As communications are weak in these areas, sustained armed resistance can be put up, leading to the setting of liberated bases against the armed forces of the country. Our people are facing acute distress in all parts of the country. Therefore revolutionaries should develop a revolutionary pattern of work wherever they are. They must be able to organize people’s armed struggle in one form or another. This is the only way to guide our people on to the path of revolutionary struggles leading to the armed struggle. When once the armed struggle starts, revolutionaries should lead it with all the firmness and domination at their command. The working classes, students and other revolutionary classes should be mobilized in support of the struggle in whatever forms possible. In view of the armed might of the ruling classes, the armed struggle should be conducted in such a way that it is sustained over a long time till people in other areas join it and new areas of armed struggle are created. 15.

Set up Guerilla Zones Throughout the Country.

Though our objective in starting armed struggle is to setup liberated base areas, the present correlation of forces in India is such that it is not possible to achieve this aim here and now. Even to achieve this aim at a later date it is necessary to create areas of armed struggle throughout the country. For the present and for a long time to come, they will be guerilla zones in the military sense of the term. With the extension of such areas of armed struggle it becomes impossible for the ruling classes to concentrate their armed might in one area. During this process there arises a favourable situation, wherein revolutionaries will be able to wrest the initiative from the ruling classes, and to advance towards the setting up of liberated base areas. Changes of a basic nature in the national and international situation, wherein revolutionaries will be able to wrest the initiative from the ruling classes, and to advance towards the setting up of liberated base areas. Changes of a basic nature in the national and international situation may also lead towards quicker development of liberated base areas.

16.

How are the Liberated Base Areas to be Formed?

We have to fight armed battles in the guerilla zones for a long time to come. Guerilla forces, skilled and tempered in these battles, grow in number as well as in experiences. In the course of these battles there arises a situation wherein the guerilla forces are able to defeat the armed forces of the ruling classes. This is the time when a part of the guerilla force is turned into a regular people’s army. The people in the area are mobilized to help the people’s armed forces in inflicting defeat after defeat on the enemies armed forces and wiping them out. This is how liberated base areas come into being. They are constantly extended into adjoining regions, eventually covering a vast area and a sufficient population with the necessary resources for the people’s sustenance. It is possible to set up liberated areas in the plains and deltaic areas (where there are well-knit communication lines) at an advanced stage of the armed struggle. In the same way towns adjoining the base areas are liberated first, then the rest and finally the whole country. 17.

How then Will the Peoples’ Army be Created?

Our revolution is directed against feudalism, imperialism and the big bourgeoisie. All those who work for this revolution can join the people’s army. Huge number of militants especially from the poor peasants and agricultural labourers will come forward during the agrarian revolutionary struggles. They must be assimilated first as people’s militia, then guerilla squad members and then as soldiers of the people’s army. Students who join the revolutionary ranks should also join the people’s army. They must work among the masses and integrate themselves thoroughly with the people in order to serve the revolution. Working class militants, those who are victimized, retrenched or those who volunteer themselves, should form part of the people’s army. This is necessary to give it a working class orientation. This is one of the prerequisites of the practical leadership of the working class revolution. In the beginning it is better if these militants were in the people a militia first. Normally guerilla squads are developed from among the advanced members of the people’s militia. When guerilla warfare reaches a higher level and conditions are created for setting up liberated base areas, the people’s army units are formed and developed. This is the process of formation of the people’s liberation army. The people’s army is the army of the people. It should consist of revolutionary elements and should be led by the advanced guard of the proletariat. In short, the party has to lead the army at all levels. The army should be educated in Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung’s Thought, and in the principles of people’s war. Learning from the experiences of the battlefield, it will be an invincible force in the course of time. This applies to the guerilla squads and people’s militia as well. It is to be noted that patriotic elements from the enemy army will join the PLA in the course of struggle. 18. Ours is a protracted people’s war. Armed struggle in the form of guerilla warfare will be continued for a long time to come. When the revolution advances, and guerilla warfare reaches a certain stage, the people’s army will adopt the form of mobile warfare. All the military principles Comrade Mao enunciated in his military writings are applicable to our armed struggle in all its forms, i.e. guerilla warfare, mobile warfare, positional warfare. It is the duty of the party and the military leadership to master these principles and be able to apply in a given political and military situation. 19. In order to win the revolution, all revolutionary classes, i.e. the proletariat, the peasantry including the rich peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, should form a United Front under the leadership of the Proletariat based on the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. This must be a united front of armed struggle. While revisionists ignore armed struggle and form united fronts from parliamentary elections and formation of ministries, ‘left’ adventurists ignore the united front and argue that through

armed struggle by the workers and peasants alone will the revolution succeed. Both are wrong. The united front should be formed and developed out of struggles, partial, political as well as armed, during the entire course of the revolution when every class and individual is tested as to whether he is for the revolution or against it. Those who support the revolution will join the united front. The rest will go over to the counter-revolutionary forces, except those who prefer to keep themselves neutral. Every revolution has its neutral sections, in accordance with the role they play in a given society. 20. For the revolution to succeed, a revolutionary party must be built. The Communist Party is the highest form of organization of the proletariat. It is the advanced detachment of the working class. It is a well-disciplined organization, with a scientific understanding of reality, based on democratic centralism, armed with a scientific understanding of reality, based on democratic centralism, armed with Marxism-Leninism –Mao Tse –tung’s Thought, tested in the practice of concrete struggle using the method of criticism and self-criticism, and closely integrated with the masses of the people. It should have fighting cadres. Party members could be recruited from among active candidates tested in revolutionary work, during a fixed period of candidature. We should always remember that the bourgeoisie wants the revolutionary party to be an open, legal party, for they know that it will then be possible to utilize and to suppress the part as well. While maintaining that every legal opportunity should be exploited, we firmly believe that the party should remain underground. It is therefore necessary for the party to adapt itself to the principles of illegal organizations. While taking advantage of legal opportunities, care should be taken to ensure that the party does not degenerate into a legal party. Communist revolutionaries create, develop and strengthen mass organisations and the organized strength of the masses. These organizations should be as broad and open as possible. The revolutionaries must not divide the toiling people and will work even in reactionary–led mass organizations, where such organizations have a mass following. They will try to expose and dislodge the reactionary leadership and establish working class leadership in these organizations. The revolutionaries should not forget that major section of the working class is still under the influence of INTUC, AITUC, CITU etc., and they must pay serious attention to this section of the workers. Wherever the mass movement reaches an advanced stage either the mass organization or a new revolutionary has to be developed. Remembering that our fundamental task is to disseminate Marxist-Leninist politics to the masses, remembering that in the life of a revolutionary, the authority is the revolution itself and not the party. This question arises only when the party departs from the line of MarxismLeninism –Mao Tse-Tung Thought. It is clear that the completion of the revolution is the main aim and the revolutionary party is the indispensable organizational means to this end. A party is formed not for its own sake, but for the completion of the revolution. If this is so, then we must acknowledge the hard reality that the birth and growth of a revolutionary genuine party can never be merely through ideological struggle, or by decree, or by decision or in a meeting. Such ideological struggles, decrees, decisions, meetings etc., divorced from all revolutionary class struggles, are not struggles at all. They are reduced to mere phrase-mongering. The relation between revolution and the struggle for a revolutionary party must be understood. In the present situation in India, there are numerous revolutionary groups and individuals working in various parts of the country. Acceptance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought is common to all of them. It is absolutely necessary that these various groups and individuals are united. But we must clearly understand the basis of this unity. Unity can be forged only through the process of ideological understanding combined with the revolutionary class struggle. This means that the ideological struggle would not degenerate into mere debate or verbal criticism, slander and personal attack, but should be tested in the practice of class struggle. On this basis, i.e. of principled ideological struggle, the Communist revolutionaries can be united into a single party organization. Such a party armed with the

revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-tung Thought can alone carry the revolution to the end. Therefore it is necessary that all efforts should be concentrated towards building such a party. PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION IN SEMICOLONIAL-SEMIFEUDAL INDIA MEANING OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION Marxist-Leninist are always guided by the world outlook of “Dialectical Materialism” a phrase first framed by Plekhanov in 1891 to describe scientifically the “Consistent Materialism” of Marx and Engels. It is called ‘Dialectical Materialism’ because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them is ‘dialectical’, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena its theory is materialistc. (1) According to Engels (1894), ‘Dialectics’ is the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought. Lenin (1915) puts it precisely “Development or motion is the struggle between the opposites i.e. contradictioin”. Thus eveything is inherently contradictory (Hegal 1831) and development is the struggle of the contradiction. This is the universality of the contradictions i.e. contradictions are universally existing. But there are many contradictions in the process of the development of a complex thing (Mao, 1937), when we analyse a phenomenon in its particularity to time, place, phase and context. One of them is necessarily the principal contradiction (2), whose existence and development determines or influences the existence and development of other contradictions. Even in the principal contradiction, there is always a principal aspect which determines the character or nature of the thing or phenomenon. When we accept the characterization of Indian Society as ‘semi-feudal semi-colonial’ we also accept the stragegy of ‘New Democratic Revolution’ as the programme of Indian revolution. Since the problems of India’s New Democratic Revolution can be solved only in conformity with the principles of Dialectical Materialism. We have to base our strategy and tactics on the very principles of contradictions themselves. By the very logic of the semifeudal, semi-colonial system it self, we have to accept the existence of following contradictions. (1)

Imperialism and the Indian nation.

(2)

Feudalism and the broad masses of the people.

(3)

Bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

(4)

Bourgeoisie and peasantry as well as petty bourgeoisie.

(5)

Contradictions in the rank of the ruling classes.

Out of these contraditions, there are two basic or primary contradictions. First is the contradiction between imperialism and the people of the oppressed nations and second is the contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of the people. Whereas all other contradictions are secondary i.e. derived from the basic contradictions themselves one of the definite differences, which existed in our CPI (ML) is centered around the question of principal contradiction i.e. recognition of the contradiction whose existence and development determines or influences the existence and development of other contradictions of our semifeudal semi-colonial society. Our unity convention of 2005 out of which CPI (ML) was born, had seen the discussion on two different opinions on the question of principal contradiction in India. (1) The first opinion held, “The contradiction between the feudalism and the broad masses of people is the principal contradiction in India” Feudalism, is thus the principal aspect of the principal contradiction.

(2) The second opinion on other hand held, “The contradiction between the alliance of Imperialism with domestic reactionaries and the broad masses of the people is the principal contradiction. Imperialism is the leader of this alliance. (3) Third position failed to determine the principal contradiction The opinions were discussed by the delegate of the unity convention. As such nothing was accepted as the official line. The comrades were asked to produce “document” or documents for the discussion . The present document has been prepared as a part of the fulfillment of the task assigned by the unity convention itself. There are two aspects of the present subject one is political aspect and the other is economic aspect. Both should be understood in order to have comprehensive understanding. AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SEMI-FEUDAL SEMI-COLONIAL SYSTEM Anatomy of the civil society must be sought into political economy. According to this principal, the anatomy of the principal contradiction must be sought into the political economy of the semi-feudal, semi-colonial system itself. Maximization of the ‘surplus profit’ (super profit) has been the fundamental law governing both the capitalist policy of colonialism (i.e. the export of commodities) before 1870 as well as the imperialist policy of colonialism (i.e. the export of capital) after 1870. Marx has defined the surplus profit or super profit as the difference between more labor in exchange for less labor. “The favoured country recovers more labor in exhange for less labor, although this difference, the excess is pocketed as in any exchange between labor and capital by a certain class. Since the rate of profit is higher, therefore, because it is generally in a colonial country, it may, provided natural conditions (soil, atmosphere etc ) are favourable, go hand in hand with low commodity prices. “Marx has made it explicitly clear that surplus profit which is the main regulator free exchange’, Rather, it can be recovered only through “forced trade” or unequal exchange i.e. exchange of larger amount for the smaller amount of labour. Thus without unequal exchange surplus profit can not be recovered. According to Marx, “One of the fundamental laws of the development of the capitalist mode of production is that the more the productive forces are developed, (higher the rate of constant capital to variable capital is allowed to grow) the more the proletariat is exploited, i.e. higher is the proportion of surplus labour to necessary labour. From this Marxist formulation a couple of contradictory inferences have been drawn. (1) As the productive forces are developed more and more, the actual daily and weekly wages go on rising higher. It means that wages are higher in the developed capitalist countries than the underdeveloped countries. (2) The more the productive forces are developed, the more the proletariat is exploited. It means that the relative price of the labor i.e. the price of the labor as compared both with surplus value and with the value of the surplus product stands higher in the backward countries (since the ratio of surplus labour is lower than the necessary labour) than the developed countries. Marx had summarized these contradictory inferences in following words. “It will be found frequently, that the daily and weekly wages in the first nation (rich country) is higher than in the second (poor country), while the relative price of labour i.e. the price of labor as compared to both with surplus value and with the value of the product, stands higher in the second (poor country) than in the first (rich country).(6) It means that a situation exists in which more and more wages are paid to less and less labour in a rich country, whereas less and less wages are paid for the more and more labour in the poor country. This difference in wages is the first source of unequal exchange. There is the second source of unequal exchange also. It is the difference in the prices of primary products i.e. agricultural as well as mineral products and the manufactured articles.

Marx had accepted the argument of all the bourgeoise scholars right from John Start Mill to Ricardo that with the progress of the society with the development of capitalism, the exchange value of the manufactured goods would tend to fall, whereas the exchange value of the primary products drawn from agriculture and mines would tend to rise. In other words, the rate of profit will go on falling in the capitalist countries in course of their development. As Lenin (1916) and Bukharin (1917) have argued, since there has been a regular and universal rise of the cost of primary products, imperialists are forced to struggle fiercely to control the areas of chief raw material or primary products as colonies or semi-colonies in order to maximize their super profit. From the above brief analysis of the tendencies of capitalism made by Marx, it is apparent that capitalism in the developed countries can not maximize its super profit without an unequal exchange nature, where more and more labor can be exchanged for less and less wages, where more and more commodities can be exchanged for less and less prices. This unequal exchange between the two countries is ultimately the unequal exchange between the labour and the products of a low productivity economy with those of high productivity-economy. This can be ensured only by the export of capital which links and subordinates the economy of the backward colonial as well as semi-colonial countries to the economic needs of the developed capitalist countries. This export of capital transforms the dialectical relationship between the two countries. The developed capitalist country is transformed into an imperialist country whereas the backward country is transformed either into a colony or the semi-colony. This export of capital generates, regulates, as well as maintaining a definate scheme of class-structure or class-arrangement in the semi-feudal, semi colonial countries without which no unequal exchange is possible. This scheme of class-arrangement for the purpose of unequal exchange has been thoroughly investigated, discussed and formulated by the “commission for colonial and national question” as the “Triangular alliance” among imperialism, compradore capitalism and feudalism against the majority of the people in semi-colonies. The report of the commission was prepared under the Chairmanship of Com. KUUSINEN of Finland, which is called The Colonial Thesis of Third Communist International” or ‘Colonial Thesis’ in brief. It was adopted at the 6th Congress in Sept 1928. The Colonial Thesis is supposed to be the second manifesto of the communist party prepared for the people of colonies and semicolonies. Paras 9, of the Colonial Thesis says, “The recent history of colonies (and semi – colonies as well) can only be understood, if it is looked upon as an organic part of the development of capitalist world economy as a whole”. “Where the ruling imperialism is in need of a social support in the colonies, it first allies itself with the ruling strata of the previous social structure, the feudal lords and the trading and money-lending bourgeoisie against the majority of the people. Every where Imperialism attempts to preserve and perpetuate all those pre-capitalist forms of exploitation (especially in the villages) which serve as the basis of or the existence of its reactionary allies”. Again para 13 says “Since the overwhelming mass of the colonial population is connected with land and lives in the country-side, the plundering character of the exploitation of the peasantry by imperialism and its allies (the class of landowners, merchants and money-lenders) acquires special significance. It is thus this ‘triangular alliance’ against the broad masses of the people for their exploitation as super profit through unequal exchange that constitutes the principal aspect of the principal contradiction. Feudalism is assigned a role in this alliance, but not as a principal or leading force but as an ally of imperialism. No alliance can be formed without feudalism. As such a part of the surplus, not the whole of it drained from the people is shared by the feudalism. But the major part of the surplus is shared by compradore bourgeoisie and the imperialist forces among themselves. No class-struggle against such alliance can be waged without directing its edge against ‘the weakest link in the alliance’ i.e. Feudalism. ‘Agrarian revolution which is axis of New Democratic Revolution on the other hand, is directed not only feudalism alone, but against the whole alliance. ‘SUPER PROFIT’, ‘UNEQUAL EXCHANGE’ AND ‘ALLIANCE’.

Just as ‘Super profit’ can not be obtained without unequal exchange, in the same way unequal exchange can not be made without this ‘triangular alliance’. It is thus apparent that neither super profit nor unequal exchange is possible, if feudalism is allowed to be principal aspect of the principal contradiction. Let us see how without this triangular alliance neither unequal exchange nor super profit is possible. Lenin has described (7) “Super profit” (extra profit obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their own country) as the fundamental law governing the export of capital to both colonies and semi-colonies where labour, raw material, and land are cheaper and the capital is scarce. Consequently by the very process of the export of capital, capitalist mode of exploitation is super imposed (imposed from above or outside) on the feudal mode of exploitation by imperialism itself through indirect means i.e. joint-collaboration, joint-ventures, joint-trade and bi-lateral economic co-operations. This 8 capitalist mode of exploitation, Super imposed by the export of capital (through joint collaboration, joint- ventures etc.) on the feudal mode of exploitation is described, defined and characterized as the semi- feudal, semi colonial mode of production. Such a mode of production itself is the unity or alliance or co-existence between the two opposite modes of production-the feudal mode of production i.e. small scale production based on manual labor operating through the formula of C-M-C and the capitalist mode of production i.e. large scale production based on machines operating through the formula of M-C-M. But according to Lenin, such alliance between the two opposite modes of production or the co-existence of large scale production based on machines side by side with the small scale production based on manual labor cannot continue for long simply because of the capitalist law of the development i.e.9 the law of the displacement of small scale production based on manual labour by large scale production based on machines. But the economic history of India of last 205 years, i.e. from 1853 when the net-work of railways was spread till 2008, reveals just the opposite trend. During this whole period there was very little displacement of small scale production by the large scale production, as a result of which there was no marked displacement or change in the share of the industrial product in relation to the total National Product from 1948 to 2008. It proves that share of industry in the Net National Product in 1948 was 17.1% and it remained almost the same i.e. 16.7% in 2008 after a gap of 60 years. The analysis of the distribution of Population confirms that there has been no displacement or change in the percentage of population engaged in industry either. In 1911, there were 9.8% of people engaged in the industries and even after a gap almost (in 1981) 100 years, the percentage remains, almost the same i.e. 9.90% and even after This situation of no displacement of small scale production by the large scale production, no displacement in the shortage of industrial production or population either can be explained only in terms of the role which imperialism has played in India directly before 1947 and indirectly after 1947. “Capitalism in our country, because of the historical conditions of colonialism did not spring from the class-struggle of Indian people, from our soil by the efforts of national bourgeoisie of our country. Rather, it was imposed from above and outside by the imperialist bourgeoisie. As a result of it, capitalism, which was super imposed, was not competitive with feudalism. Rather it was complementary to it. Imperialism has maintained this unity, alliance or co-existence by paying two opposite roles just to preserve the condition of the “unequal exchange” through which super profit could be obtained. Imperialism has encouraged the simple commodity production under the formula of C-MC, while at the same time it has discouraged the extended capitalist production under the formula of M-C-M. So two unequal sources of exchange (C-M-C as the source of lowproductivity economy and M-C-M as the source of high productivity economy remains maintained in the economy. It is because of this alliance between the two parallel modes of production, opposed to each other that the more and more labour and labour products are exchanged for less and less labour and labour products by the imperialists. Imperialism exploits peasants and handicrafts by obtaining more and more products for less and less prices through the formula of C-M-C with the help of feudalism, and exploits working class

(proletariat) by obtaining more and more labour power for less and less wages through the formula of M-C-M with the help of compradore bourgeoisie. This exploitation by the alliance of imperialism, compradore capitalism and feudalism constitutes the solid basis for another alliance for the class-struggle. It is the alliance between the working class and peasantry. It confirms that the alliance between the two parallel or opposite modes of production unequal in the level of productivity is the alliance for unequal exchange or the super profit itself. Single mode of production i.e. feudalism or capitalism can not serve imperialism with unequal exchange. The economic necessity of the unequal exchange rules out completely the possibility of feudalism, being the principal aspect of the principal contradiction in a semi feudal semi-colonial country. The contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of people is found to be the only basic and principal contradiction only in a feudal society with which no large-scale exchange is possible due to the pre-dominance of Natural economy. On the other hand unequal exchange is impossible with capitalistically developed bourgeoisie countries. It is thus this triangular alliance in the semi-feudal semi colonial countries that forces the prices of the primary products exported therefrom to decline up to 40% from 1900 to 1945 in place of rising. 12 The assistance given by the rich countries to the poor countries compensated only less than half the loss suffered by underdeveloped countries due to exports and unequal exchange.13 Due to the super-profit through the mechanism of un equal exchange, the development of capitalism in the imperialist countries becomes at the same time a process of under development in semi-feudal, semi colonial countries. This process operated in a couple of ways in India. The first is the way of draining away a large volume of “surplus” from India so that India can not accumulate enough capital to make effective use of whatever potentialities it has in terms of human and natural productive factors. The second is the way of distorting Indian economy continuously so as to reduce it to a mere apparatus for supplying raw materials and for absorbing the obsolete products and technology of the advanced capitalist country. Thus, India is suffering predominantly not from the independent development of capitalism but from the insufficient development of capitalism. Independent development of capitalism is a continuous process of economic change in the magnitude and direction, consistant with and advantageous to the realisation of the potentialities of human as well as natural resources of the country. Under development of semi-feudal semi colonial economy is on the other hand, a continuous process of economic change in the magnitude and direction, inconsistent with and detrimental to the realization of the potentialities of both human as well as natural resources of the country. Whereas the development of capitalism is the result of “independence” in the process of economic change, the underdevelopment is the result of dependence in the same process of economic change. The “triangular alliance” is thus the alliance for under development through the dependence of feudalism on compradore bureaucratic capitalism and the dependence of compradore bureaucritic capitalism on imperialism i.e. on the import of capital through direct and indirect routes for their existence and survival. Liberation from under developed means liberation from this triangular alliance i.e. from imperialism, from comprador bureaucratic capitalism, from feudalism at the same time by anti-imperialist, anti-feudal New Democratic Revolution. The word ‘development’ is a neo-colonial concept for the third world countries, where imperialism and feudalism exist together. Susan Geroge 14 says “Development has been the password for imposing a new kind of dependences for enriching the already rich world and for shaping other countries to meet its commercial and political needs. Let us see how the system of triangular alliance works. ALLIANCE BETWEEN FEUDALISM AND COMPRADORE BOURGEOISIE. Agriculture is the foundation of the economy in India whereas industry is the leading factor. 53 to 53% of gross national product is drawn from agriculture and allied economic activities. If handicraft products are added to it, this proportion reaches 61.7% -70% of the export items and products are drawn from agriculture itself. In the concrete conditions of India

today the agricultural sector of economy is controlled by Feudal Lords mainly and the industrial sector of economy is controlled by “compradore bureaucratic capitalism with direct help of imperialism. There are three grounds for the alliance between the two. 1. Feudal lords exploit the peasants and agricultural labourers, and compradore bourgeoisie, the industrial proletariat. Due to feudal oppression in agriculture, the class of compradore bourgeoisie is well assured of the continuous supply of cheap labour at constant real wage rate. This is the first indirect service to compradore bourgeoisie by feudalism in India. 2. Feudalism is the source of the supply of cheap food grains and agricultural raw material to compradore bourgeoisie. Since the prices for the food grains and agricultural raw material are cheaper than the prices for the industrial goods and since the wages of the working class are fixed in terms of foodgrains, the class of compradore bourgeoisie is bound to get more profit due to feudalism. 3.Compradore bourgeoisie in India can not survive without a “domestic market” from where they can recover the “loss” obtained in the international market, over which they can exercise their monopoly-type control. Some times this ‘loss’ is recovered directly by raising the prices of the industrial products and indirectly at times by the rise of administered prices of subsidies through the agencies of Govt. themselves who are the major consumers in the market. In a country like India, the rural market for industrial consumer goods is estimated to be two and half times the size of the urban market. In 1952-53, for instance, rural India absorbed industrial consumer goods worth Rs.31 billion at current prices as against the urban consumption of Rs.12 billion In 1968-69 these figures were respectively Rs.58 billion and Rs.25 billion. Now it goes up to 108 billions. Under these conditions, compradore bourgeoisie can not ignore the rural market. Now, who are the major customers of industrial goods in the rural market? If the Indian data can be taken as the basis for the generalisation, it can be said that only10 percent of the rural consumers consume as much as the total urban population put together. It this top ten percent in the rural areas are identified with the feudal lords and their associates, it is this class of feudal and semi-feudal forces which is the strongest pillar that supports the market for industrial production. Its share in the rural market is as high as one-third or so. (37.64% in the year 1968-69). It is the same class which rules over agrarian economy. This class of feudal lords transfers the major portion of the surplus obtained from the exploitation of peasantry and allied toiling masses to the compradore bourgeoisie through unequal sale and purchase. ALLIENCE BETWEEN THE COMPRADORE BOURGEOISIE AND IMPERIALISM ‘Foreign capital’ in the shape of investments, aids, loans, FDI-SEZ, machines and technology has been exported to India mainly in two forms. First is the colonial or direct form, second is the semi-colonial or indirect form. By the direct form, we mean direct foreign private investment only to be regulated by Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (FERA). By the ‘Indirect form’, we mean foreign capital invested through indirect routes just as ‘Joint collaborations’, joint-ventures’, ‘bi-lateral-cooperations’ and ‘investment in Govt. or Public sectors’. Under the new economic order neo-liberal policy today the direct foreign private investment from 1948 to 2008 in which U.K. and U.S.A. occupy first and second position in order or the size of capital invested with 28.7% and 26.7% respectively as their shares. Secondly ‘indirect foreign investment approved by the Govt. of India’ from 1979 to 2008 in which USA and Japan stand first and second. Thirdly the picture of foreign collaboration is approved by the Govt. of India (1948 to 2005). Economically speaking a country is said to be a ‘colony’ when the ‘direct foreign capital from a single country dominates or rules the entire economy, whereas the same country is said to be a semi-colony when the foreign capital invested through indirect routes i.e. through joint collaborations and joint-ventures from different countries compete to dominate or rule the whole economic scene both in private as

well as public sector. A ‘colony’ is thus transformed into a ‘semi-colony’ when direct rule is replaced by indirect rule. India was transformed politically into a semi-colony from the British colony on 15th August, 1947, only after the British bourgeoisie sold and transferred their direct capital and other direct economic interests to the indirect control through joint collaboration and jointventures in partnership with J.R.D. Tata, G.D.Birla, J.K. and Sri Ram etc. in the ‘Private Sector’ and government itself in the ‘Public sector’ (Railways for example) during 1945 to 1947. It was only after the publication of ‘Bombay Plan’ in 1944 based on mixed economy of public as well as private sectors by the representatives of Indian compradore bourgeoisie which accepted the necessity of foreign capital through the indirect routes of ‘technical collaboration’ and ‘scientific cooperation’ that this transfer of British capital from direct control to indirect control was effected. Now, India is a semi-colony because it is the foreign capital through the indirect routes that is dominating or ruling Indian economy today with the help of compradore bourgeoisie and feudalism. The transfer of power on 15th August, 1947 itself constituted the political basis for the alliance between Indian compradore bourgeoisie and imperialism which can be economically described as the joint-collaboration, joint venture, technical collaboration and economic cooperation. This alliance is getting strengthened every day by the increasing number of foreign collaborations. Through the ‘New economics policy’ of Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 followed the neoliberal policy adopted since 1991 the Indian compradore bourgeoisie wanted to solve the economic crisis of the system by choosing and changing their alliance with the different imperialist groups. This has created a rift in their ranks by splitting FICCI on 17th August, 1987 after 61 years of its existence. Now Assocham led by RJD Tata is throwing a challenge to the truncated FCCI led by Birla. Assocham i.e. Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry has now emerged as a ‘secular’ organisation of bourgeoisie with ‘diversity; in religion and caste-Parsi, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Chattiyars and some of the Hindu Marwadis. On the other hand, FICCI i.e. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and industry has now become a ‘communal’ organization of Hindu bourgeoisie of Marwari-Gujarati and Sindhi origin with a few Sikhs and others as an exception. It is interesting to note that Nuliwadi of Bombay-dyeing has joined Assocham which claims to be more representative of trade and Industry in India than FICCI. Whereas the rival of NUSLIWADIA. Mr.Dhiru Bhai Ambani of Reliance is an active member of FICCI which claims to enjoy the fullest patronage of Rajiv Govt. at the central level. Although both the rival groups stand for growing alliance with imperialism, ASSOCHAM stands for alliance and liberalization without any ‘discrimination’ from the side of Govt. the FICCI is in favour of ‘discriminative alliance’ with imperialism, In fact Indian compradore bourgeoisie is very much in need of foreign capital, technology and finance. Imperialism, on the other hand is also in need of an alliance with the third world bourgeoisie. The tendency of the ratio of profit to fall in mature capitalist countries is sough to be neutralized through rapid technological progress. The advancement of technology renders huge stocks of machinery and equipment obsolete, and unless these out of the date stock piles can be profitably jettisoned somewhere, this escape route of advanced capitalism from its own crisis would be sealed. This is confirmed by a report of united nations, 64 percent of the machine tools in the United States in 1963 were ten years old or older. Comparable figures for the same year were 59 percent for United Kindom, 59 percent for France, 57% for Italy, 55 percent for Federal Republic of Germany and about 50 percent for Russia. The report further says that according to the expert opinion, industrial equipment on the average ten years old should be replaced by new (or reconditioned) equipment in order not to slow down increase in productivity and not to increase production costs. On the basis of such criterion, in 1965 there were about 13,00,000 metal working machines already marked for replacement in the United States alone. Thus, there is a huge surplus of second hand equipment, and with it, the production facilities for producing such equipment also are simultaneously found to be outmoded. Advanced capitalist countries are thus always burdened with a stock of new as well as old, obsolete plant and equiptment, which has to be disposed of profitably. Otherwise technical progress could be choked off. Most of the commercial transactions in second hand

equipment are within the industrialized countries themselves. Export sales, represent only a small fraction of the total sales. For instance, United States machinery dealers National Association reports that export sales for its members in 1964 represented only 22.4 million dollars i.e. 5.5 percent of the total sales. This need not be surprising that the third world countries account for only 7 percent of the total industrial production of the world as a whole. Yet without this export of capital to the third world countries including India, the world capitalism would run into a serious crisis. The compradore bourgeoisie of the third world countries on the other hand, require these second, third or nineth degree obsolete technology and equipment. Their industrial production is aimed at meeting the demands of the limited richest sections of the population-feudal lords, bureaucrates, officers, politicians and bourgeoisie themselves for which their home market is quite suitable. They compensate the high prices for the imported commodity capital and technology from the cheap labour, cheap raw material and cheap land made available to them by feudalism and semi-feudalism through exploiting peasantry and trialal population. After all the fashions of New York, London and Paris take some time to reach Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Cairo. ALLIANCE BETWEEN FEUDALISM AND IMPERIALISM Even if, our country is politically independent, feudalism renders a great service to imperialism first through its alliance with compradore bourgeoisie by creating a modestic market, for the products of manufacturing a modestic market, for the products of manufacturing and chemical industries, for pesticides, fertilizers, tractors and pumping sets together with seeds of high yielding variety. It is the same class of feudal lords which acts as semi-feudal forces i.e. local money lenders, contractors, whole-sale-dealers, commercial merchants proprietors for selling seeds, pesticides, fertilizers. It is the same class of feudal lords who acts as owner of cold storage, holder of license-quota and permits truck transporters for imperialist goods and commodities. It is on the other hand this imperialism which through the export of finance capital helps these semi-feudal elements with the loans from the banks. The alliance of feudalism with imperialism is the alliance of ‘Land Ownership’ with the ownership of banking capital. “Semi-feudalism” is thus the alliance of land-ownership with money lending capital. The whole of the alliance is stronger than the sum total of the individual parts, specially when our great country is pregnant with two-staterevolutions-(New Democratic Revolution as well as Socialist Revolution). Actually, the alliance of feudalism with imperialism serves as the foundation stone of unequal exchange. INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL SITUATION THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATAION The principal contradiction in the world today is that between imperialism and the oppressed nations. It is this contradiction which provided the basic threat to the ever depending crisis of world imperialism on the one hand, and of the semi-feudal, semi-colonial and neo colonial countries on the other. The other basic contradictions in the world are between imperialist powers between the socialist forces and the imperialists, and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the capitalist countries. Immediately after the Second World War and after the victory of the Chinese revolution, and especially after the defeat of American imperialism in Korea, US imperialism began its decline. The international situation was characterized by the solidarity and expansion of the anti-imperialist forces with a solid socialist camp as their nucleus. The tide of the national and democratic movement in Asia, Latin America and Africa was on the rise, while the imperialist camp was splitting into factions. At that time the oppressed peoples of the colonial and semi-colonial countries were not only objectively but also subjectively the real and conscious allies of the socialist camp against imperialism. In this situation, the ruling classes in a number of these semi colonial countries, were forced to proclaim an ‘anti-imperialist’ or ‘non-aligned’ stand as was the case in Egypt and India.

With the betrayal of the Russian revolution at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, this extremely favourable situation suffered a temporary setback. The Soviet betrayal certainly had a major and negative impact on the international communist movement and created confusion in the minds of the people struggling for national liberation for a while. As a result, the contradiction between, imperialism and the oppressed nations came to the forefront and became more sharp. Thus, although the presence of a strong and united socialist camp was an undoubtable advantage to the struggle of the oppressed peoples of the world, it would be incorrect to say that its absence changes the objective situation basically. The real barriers to the development and victory of the national liberation struggle in the majority of the third world countries, has been the lack of unified, mass-based proletarian parties and leadership, and this has given scope for the Soviet renegades and their revisionist henchmen and neorevisionists in the third world to create more confusion and corrupt the ranks of the working class and toiling masses in their own interest. In fact, revisionism has become an international phenomenon. But regardless of this or that socialist country becoming revisionist, and regardless of the uneven and weak condition of the genuine communist parties in most countries of the world, the objective situation continues to develop more and more favourably for the oppressed peoples and nations, while imperialism gets more and more deeply enmeshed in its own fundamental and irreconcilable contradictions. As Lenin pointed out: We are ‘in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution”. In his scientific analysis of imperialism he said that imperialism is monopolistic capitalism, parasitic of decaying capitalism, moribund capitalism, and that it intensifies all the contradictions of capitalism to the extreme. He therefore concluded that “Imperialism is the enemy of the social revolution of the proletariat”. The basic world contradictions as analysed by Lenin are still operative today and have been aptly put by Com Chou En-lai in the report to the Tenth Congress of the CPC where he says, “Since Lenin’s death the world situation has undergone great changes. But the era has not changed. The fundamental principles of Leninism are not outdated; they remain the theoretical basis guiding our thinking today”. The report goes on to say that “the present international situation is one characterized by great disorder on earth. The wind weeping through the tower heralds a rising storm in the mountains”. This clearly shows that relaxation is a temporary phenomenon and great disorder will continue. Such great disorder is a good thing for the people, not a bad thing. It throws the enemies into confusion and causes division among them, while it arouses and tempers the people thus helping the international situation develop further in the direction favourable to the people and unfavourable to imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction. The basic cause for this ‘great disorder’ and conflict is the fierce struggle for hegemony, redivision of the world. Lenin described the essence of imperialism as being “a combination of antagonistic principles, viz., competition and monopoly”. In the sphere of inter-imperialist relations and especillay among big powers this is also a basic law driving them into ever more bitter and fierce contention, even while certain other factors such as the relative balance of economic and military power between the Indian and America blocs, the fear of nuclear holocaust and the rising anti-imperialist struggle of the world peoples, force them into collusion for this very survival. But this collusion is temporary and superficial. Contention is permanent and basic-being a fundamental law of capitalism itself. Thus the danger of another world war remains inherent in the situation, although the imperialists have tried to avert this by adopting the Nixon to Bush doctrine of ‘making Asians fight Asians’ and forcible occupation of Iraq and turned Iran into neo colony of US has threatened the existence of relative independency of Semi Colonial is the And now indo American Policy of or division of world the military agrea agend.

This fundamental and growing contradiction and contention of the big powers for hegemony on the one hand, and their increasing exposure as oppressors and exploiters of the whole world, especially the third world, under the rising struggle for national liberation, on the other, makes it possible for the ruling classes of the oppressed nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America to resist coming under the complete control of a single imperialist power, that is, becoming a neo-colonial puppet. In other words, they are able to retain a semicolonial status allowing them a certain ability to manoeuvre and bargain between the contending imperialist powers. That is, becoming a neo-colonial status allowing them a certain ability to anoeuvre and bargain between the contending imperialist powers. But these ruling classes can never take a stand against imperialist as a whole, even though they may go against one imperialist power in a given situation. They can only exist within the framework of world imperialism, tilting at most, towards this or that super power, in line with the particular concessions or support they need at any given time. WHAT IS A SEMI COLONY? A semi-colony then is economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically subservient to world imperialism. “Semi Colony” is a peculiar condition of state existence in the epoch of imperialism when the world has already been divided up between the imperialist powers. If imperialism was free from all inter-imperialist conditions and rivalries, its preferred policy would be direct colonialism. But with interimperialist rivalry, to re-divide the world and extend the spheres of influence of the contending powers, direct coloniasation becomes more difficult than before, and imperialism is forced to seek subtler and indirect methods of retaining and expanding its hold over the semi-colonial countries as well as the world markets, thus intensifying the contention more and more. Thus, a country is able to retain its semi-colonial status in the face of inter-imperialist rivalry on the one hand and people’s struggle for liberation on the other. For the semi-feudal, semi-colonial ruling classes, this situation enables and also compels them to maintain a semblance of ‘independence’ and ‘non-alignment’, but which they can wring certain concessions from the contending imperialist ‘powers’ and also hoodwink their own people into illusions that they are ‘independent’, thus buying a little more time for their own survival. That his ‘non-alignment’ in reality only a dual or bi-alignment imperialist big super powers is today becoming more and more apparent to the oppressed and exploited peoples, who are rising in revolt against their comprador ruling classes and world imperialism in country after country. As Com. Chou En –lai said in his report to the 10th Congress of the CPC, “The awakening and growth of the third world is a major event in contemporary international relations. The third world has strengthened its unity in the struggle against hegemonism and power politics of the super powers and is playing and even more significant role in international affairs. The great victories won by the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in their war against US aggression and for national salvation have strongly encouraged the people of the world in their revolutionary struggle against imperialism and colonialism. A new situation has emerged in the Korean people’s struggle for the independent and peaceful reunification of their fatherland. The struggles of the Palestinian and other Arab people’s struggle against colonialism and racial discrimination, and the Latin American people’s struggle for maintaining 200 nautical mile terriotorial waters or economic zones all continue to forge ahead. The struggles of the peoples to win and defend national independence and safeguard state sovereignty and national resources have further deepened and broadened. The just struggles of the third world as well as of the people of Europe, North America and Oceania, support and encourage THE NATIONAL SITUATION: THE BASIC CONTRADICTION The world is living in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution today. We cannot analyse any economic or political issue of national or international importance leaving imperialism aside, especially when India is a semi colonial country. Lenin summarized the fundamental traits of imperialism among which the following three are important.

i) The export of commodities;

capital

became extremely

important

as distinct

from

(ii) International capitalist monopolies were formed and shared the world themselves;

export of among

(iii) The territorial division of the entire world among the greatest capitalist powers was completed. Hence, without fighting the imperialist politics of domination, no successful struggle is possible in a semi colonial country. Since ML groups in the other hand, while recognizing India as a semi-colony, arbitrarily separated the anti imperialist struggle from the anti feudal struggle , thus one-sidedly emphasising the principal contradiction of the phase of agrarian revolution while totally ignoring and forgetting that the phase is part and parcel of the stage and that the phase is a tactic for realizing the stratagic aims of both anti-imperialism and antifeudalism. India is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country. This means that there are two basic social contradictions operating in Indian Society. One is the contradiction between feudalism and the great masses of the people, and the other is between imperialism, headed by US imperialism and the Indian nation. Apart from these two basic or fundamental contradictions there are a number of other contradictions as well. It is vital to locate and assert the basic contradictions in a society, and to determine the principal contradiction at a given time. This is because (i) the stage of the revolution is determined by formulating the basic contradictions correctly. The tactical line is determined by the phase and to correctly assess the principal contradiction in the current phase. The basic contradictions of a particular society are the basis of social revolution itself. (ii) Political contradictions arise and develop with phases and stages and are caused by the basic and fundamental contradictions, and only a correct analysis and evaluation of the political contradictions can determine the correct political resolution or policy to be followed. How do we determine the basic or fundamental contradiction? The contradiction between the productive forces and the production relations in a given society is the basis of social revolution. At a certain stage of the development of society the productive forces come into conflict with the production relations of that society which have become obsolete, incapable of further life, and thus act as a fetter on the further development of the productive forces. In such a situation, the objective social law demands that these fetters be broken so that the productive forces can be unleashed and allowed to grow. In a word, the law of social development demands a revolution in production relations. Thus follows a period of social revolution. In India, semi-feudal, semi-colonial society, the predominant feudal production relations in the countryside are a basic obstacle in the unleashing of the productive forces, and the fate of the great masses of the people depends on the liquidation and complete overthrow of this obsolete and bankrupt production relation. Hence, the contradiction between feudalism and the masses of the people is one of the basic social contradictions in our society and can only be resolved by social revolution. The second basic contradiction in Indian society at this stage is the contradiction between imperialism and the whole nation. British imperialism refashioned Indian feudalism and made it its main social base for the ruthless plunder of India’s resources in the colonial period. When British capitalism reached the stage of finance capital being exported entailing the further industrialisation of India for British imperial interests, the protection and maintenance of semi-feudal relations in the countryside became an absolute necessity to ward off the threat of indigenous capitalist development in India which would have destroyed feudalism and striven to establish an independent capitalist state, under normal conditions. This process was no longer possible after the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, and in the epoch of imperialism, when the colonial bourgeoisies of the oppressed countries, fearing

for their money bags more than for the independence of their countries, went over to the camp of imperialism. British imperialism, weakened and in a grave crisis after the second world war was forced to transfer power to the landlords and comprador capitalists in India, turning it from a colony into a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, exploited and dominated now no longer by a single imperialist power, but by a number of contending imperialist powers. However, the fundamental economic interests of imperialism as a whole, continued to be served by retaining the basic feudal social relations in the countryside which forms the main social base of imperialist exploitation and retards the nature, i.e., capitalist development of productive forces. As a result, Indian capitalism in the interest of country can only develop in a deformed and distorted way, not relying on the development of a home market which is the primary factor for genuine capitalist growth but operating on an extremely narrow home base, oriented almost wholly towards export of the national produce on unequal terms and throw away prices to serve the interests of imperialism and social imperialism in the main. Thus, the second contradiction basic to Indian society at this stage is the contradiction between imperialism and the whole nation. Unquestionably then, the main task of the social revolution at this stage is to overthrow the two main enemies of the Indian people: to carry out a democratic revolution against feudal oppression and a national revolution to overthrow imperialist aggression. These two basic tasks are interrelated. Unless imperialist rule is terminated, the feudal –landlord class cannot be overthrown because imperialism is it’s main support. Equally, unless the peasants are mobilized to overthrow the feudal landlord class it will be impossible to build powerful revolutionary contingents to overthrow imperialism because feudalism is the main social base of imperialism and the peasantry is the main force in the Indian revolution. Therefore, the two fundamental tasks, the national revolution and the democratic revolution, are at once distinct and united. THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION Mao Tse Tung in his ‘On Contradiction’ has pointed out that at ‘every stage in the development of a process, there is only one principal contradiction which plays the leading role. “Hence, if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position”. (2) “When Imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national wars against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned, becomes the principal contradiction, while all other contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are relegated to a secondary and subordinate position”. (3)“But in another situation, the contradiction changes its position. When imperialism carries on its operation not by war but by milder means-political, economic and cultural ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism and the two form an alliance for the joint operation of the masses of the people. At such a time, the masses often resort to civil war against the alliance of imperialism and feudal classes, while imperialism often employes indirect method rather than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semifeudal, semi colonial countries to oppress the people, thus the internal contradictions become particularly sharp”. It is apparent that the first situation (1) refers to history when China was a feudal country during the period of Opium War, in 1840, Sino-Japanese war of 1894 or XIHOTUAN war of 1900, sector Japanese association when the contradiction between the feudal system and

the great masses of the people was the principal contradiction, and when due to the direct imperialist war of aggression, China was being reduced to the position of a colony (some Parts) and semi colony. Here the clause, “and so it is now in the present Sino-Japanese war” only refers to the changes that have taken place due to the direct imperialist aggression in the present tense. It has nothing to do with the principal contradiction between feudal system and the great masses of the people written in the past tense. But Charu Mazumdar has distorted the whole thing, and quoted it out of the context. This is the anarchism at the ideological plane. It is further clear by studying the second situation (2) when an alliance between imperialism and feudalism is formed against the broad masses of the people. It becomes and remains the principal contradiction under the semi feudal, semi colonial conditions of economy. The theory of alliance of imperialism (including compradore bureaucratic capitalism) and feudalism against the broad masses of Indian People has been accepted by 1951 programme of CPI adopted first by all India party conference in Oct, 1951, endorsed by the third congress of the party held in Madurai. This programme for the first time accepted India as a semi feudal, semi colonial society. Again the fourth congress of CPI held in Palghat from April, 19 to 29, says the same thing. “The basic conflict (Principal contradiction) in Indian society is the conflict between imperialism and feudalism on the one hand, and the entire Indian people including national bourgeoisie on the other hand”.22 It can thus be safely concluded that1. The alliance of imperialism with compradore bourgeoisie and feudalism against the broad masses of people should be accepted as the principal contradiction in the place of the contradiction between feudalism and broadmasses of the people. This will qualitatively enlarge the scope of class struggle throughout the country. “This class struggle will include all the struggles of all the people of all the areas including urban as well as rural areas”. 2. We should emphasise ‘working class peasant alliance’, “under the leadership of working class’’ as the core of our New Democratic Front. Alliance of the enemies can be fought effectively only by the alliance of the people as the core of new democratic front. It means that we have our class enemies both in cities as well as villages. It also means that we have our class-friends both in cities as well as villages. REFERENCE 1. Stalin, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course) page No.105. 2. Mao, Selected Works, I, ‘On Contradiction’ 3. Mao, Selected Works, I, ‘On Contradiction’ 4. Marx-‘An Introduction to the Criticism of Political Economy’ written in 1859. 5. Marx, ‘Capital’ III page NO.238, Edition 1984. 6.Marx, ‘Capital’ volume I, Page 560 7. ‘Lenin-Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (Introduction) 8 Ranjit Sau-‘Unequal Exchange, Imperialism and Underdevelopment’ page No.142. 9. Lenin-Collected Works, Volume No.22, Page 48. 10. T.Nagi Reddy “India Mortagaged- A Marxist-Leninist Appraisal”, Page No.36. 11. Charn Singh-‘Economic Nightmar of India-Its Cause and Cure’ page No.73. 12. M.V.Dandekar ‘Peasant Working Alliance - its Basic in Indian Economy’ page No.32. United Nations Studies, Relative Prices of Export and Imports of under developed countries (1949)

13. V.M. Dandekar-“United Nations Report’-‘International to the Less Developed Countries’ (1961) page 33. 14. Susan George –‘How the Other Half Dies’, page 17. 15. Ranjit Sau-‘Unequal Exchange, Imperialism and Under Development ‘, page 145. 16. FICCI-ASSOCHAM- ‘Locked in duel for Supremacy’, Hindu (Madras Edition) 13 April, 198. 17. Ranjit Sau-‘Unequal Exchange, Imperialism and Under Development’ page 149. 18. Mao-‘The Principal Contradiction and the Principal Aspect of a Contradiction’, 1937. 19. Draft proposal for the second five year plan under the political resolution, 4th Congress of CPI, Palghat, April 19-29-1956.

6. Draft Document of Comrade Viswam A DRAFT PATH 1. India is a vast country with a large population comprising of various nationalities, ethnic groups, languages and cultures. After transfer of power India at present is semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. And the state represents the bourgeoisie of comprador in nature and the landlords who protect and serve the interest of imperialism, especially the US imperialist plunder. So the stage of Indian revolution is new democratic with agrarian revolution as its main axis. And the targets of revolution are imperialism, feudalism, comprador and bureaucratic capitalism. Our aim is seizure of the state power by smashing the present semi colonial and semi feudal state structure. It means that three most important requirements must be three fold - a genuine communist party, peoples army and the united front. 2. The present Indian constitution is mainly based on the Govt. of India Act 1935. And its propositions of legislative bodies and Adult Franchise are nothing but a hoax to deceive masses. Some changes that have been made by the ruling classes in the super structure without affecting the basic structure do not establish that India is an independent country. In fact the economic and political policies pursued by the ruling classes clearly reflect that colonial India has been transformed into semi colonial and semi feudal India. A successful completion of New Democratic Revolution can alone change the present set up. 3. What then is the path of Indian revolution? Undoubtedly, the path of the Indian revolution, like the path of other revolutions is of armed revolution and armed overthrow of the political power of existing ruling classes. Here it may be mentioned that armed revolution has taken place in several countries including Russia and China. Time and again it was discussed whether we should take the Russian path or Chinese path? We want to state categorically that the New Democratic Revolution in India shall be completed in the Indian path. However, this does not mean that we nothing to learn from other revolutions of the world including Russia and China. We must take lessons from those revolutions. Here again we should stress on the experience of our own revolutionary struggle in the past and the present. 4. India is a underdeveloped country and there is uneven development of the society and India has its own specific features. So the development of the movement will also be uneven and will depend on concrete situation of the area or areas. The experience of people’s war in China, Vietnam and other backward countries are within our reach and we should study and apply them to the concrete practice of our revolution. While applying the theory of people’s war to the concrete conditions of our country.

We have also to sum up the lessons of the struggles waged by the workers, peasants and other working and toiling masses of India, and more particularly the Telengana and Naxalbari struggles. The people’s war can be launched only by organising, mobilising the people directly to participate in the people’s war. However at a certain stage of development of struggle the possibility of armed uprising of the masses in towns and cities cannot be over ruled. Unlike China and other colonial or semi colonial countries India has a more centralised state structure, a parliament, a well organised army, more developed communication system, and a higher degree of industrialisation and urbanisation. Even these dissimilarities, character and aims of our revolution and theory of protracted people’s war is equally applicable here. While formulating our tactics we have to take into consideration both our similarities and dissimilarities with other countries including China. The dissimilarities are: China was facing armed revolution with armed counter revolution. There was no parliament in China which India has. There was no scope of legal movement and mass movement in China. Communist party was illegal from the very beginning. Mountains and hilly areas are much there in China in comparison to India. But there are similarities also. Before liberation China was semi-colonial and semi-feudal country and basically agrarian based. Target of attack was imperialism, feudalism and comprador bourgeoisie. Stage of revolution was NDR. All these features are more or less present in India. 5. We Marxist-Leninist believe that there are favourable and unfavourable aspects of revolution in every country. The Marxist-Leninist, by determining correct strategy and tactics, utilise the favourable aspects and overcome the unfavourable aspects. There are backward areas in the central and border regions of India which are largely untouched by transport and the communications system. At best communications are mearge and ineffective. Moreover the people living in these areas are backward, severely exploited and increasingly and prepared for armed struggle. The oppression of the people and various nationalities by the state, the topographical conditions and lack of proper transport and communication in these areas combine to create added advantages for the armed struggle. It is to be remembered that taking advantage of these conditions the Nagas, the Mizos and other nationalities are continuing armed struggles and this is also favourable for our revolution. We should support ongoing nationalities struggles in the north east region and elsewhere of the country. At the same time the fatricidal killings engineered by the ruling class should be stopped immediately in their interest to fight their common enemy. The Indian revolution will be won basically by the Indian people. While the proletariat leading the revolution always take the advantage of national and international situation. This is a fundamental in a people’s war. 6. There is a parliamentary system of limited democratic rights provided by the ruling class irrespective of the subjective desires of the masses of our country. The legal opportunities available in this system (no matter how limited) are to be utilised in full. Mass organisation must be built, legal movements must be organised, and masses should be mobilised in large numbers, organised and made politically conscious for the development of the spirit of the struggles throughout the time of the legal opportunities available. However even within the parliamentary system with the limited right, the ruling class is drowning in blood the people’s agitation. Hence the organisations and struggles built up by us through the utilisation of legal opportunities shall exceed the limit of legal struggle and advance towards the path of confrontation and take the form of militant struggles, our tasks will be to advance towards the path of armed struggle and build up struggle armed as the principal form of struggle. In this context it should be remembered that while we categorically reject the parliamentary path, our participation or boycott of elections is tactical question and depends on concrete conditions. 7. We categorically reject the parliamentary path. At the same time we also reject the path of anarchism-terrorism, i.e., annihilation of individual class enemy. Because both these two

lines are alien trends to Marxism Leninism. Rejecting both alien trends we should uphold revolutionary mass line utilise all forms of struggles to seize political power by overthrowing the present state. Our experience shows that even the limited rights and opportunities for democratic movements are being curtailed. Hence legal methods should be combined with illegal methods and open organisations should be combined with secret. But as long as various struggles do not make the form armed struggles, legal movements, mass organisations and mass struggles are helping and serving to build up armed struggle as the principal form of struggle. And whenever armed struggle becomes the principal form of struggle, the legal opportunities, mass organisation and mass movements will co-ordinate directly with armed struggles according to the concrete conditions. It should be remembered that all militant struggles are not armed struggles. A peasant struggles in a certain area might take a militant form, but should be termed as armed struggle. We should also remember that irrespective of our objective wishes a militant struggle in a small area might be converted into armed peasant struggle. However once struggle begins in a situation like this we should not obstruct it or condemn it. According to concrete conditions our task shall be to see it that the struggle survive through further experience. In short the essential thing at present is to develop mass struggles approach on economic and political issues we must adopt a positive issue and transform it into the principal form of struggle. We must a positive approach towards propaganda and preparation for legal work and building up of mass organisations. 8. Our conception of armed struggle is based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao tse-tung thought. This only can be protracted peoples war. Building up a people’s army and carrying on people’s war is inseparably connected with the people’s armed struggle. It has anti-imperialist and anti-feudal program and is led by the communist party. 9. At present we are in the stage of NDR and agrarian revolution is the main axis. It is the countryside where the armed struggles is based on the peasantry and can be linked to be most substantive democratic reform, land reform and with the building of organs of political power and the largest mass organisations, especially of peasant masses. The task of agrarian revolution is to eliminate the feudal and semi feudal landlords as a class by confiscating all the movable and landed property of big landlords, distribution of the same among the landless and the poor peasants and to overthrow the authority of landlords and to establish the peoples political power in its place. The caste system being an integral part of the feudal system, the struggle for the eradication of caste system forms an important and inseparable part of agrarian revolution. We must oppose casteism and fight in theoretically and practically. The feudalism kept the women oppressed. It has degraded women into a dependent who could neither think nor carry any significance or rights. Imperialism views woman as a commodity and means of income. The present system - an admixture of these two - is pushing the women in to abysmal depths. We must fight against feudal imperialist oppression and patriachal oppression and patriachal ideology. The must be an agrarian revolutionary program to build an agrarian revolutionary movement. Though semi-feudal relations are common to all parts of India, the forms and extent of feudal exploitation, land concentration and land relations differ from state to state and from one part to the another part of the state. State units must work out their agrarian revolutionary program taking their specific features into account. Without investigation and a resultant program, neither is a revolutionary movement nor a people’s armed struggle. Armed struggle will be started at an appropriate level (seizure of land) of this movement. Moreover mass armed struggle has nothing to do with the line of individual annihilation which is the manifestation of anarchism and left adventurism, any underestimation of the agrarian revolutionary movement will deprive the people of an indispensable support to the armed struggle and will leave them unprepared to face the onslaught of the state apparatus. Hence

all the theories which underestimate or ignore the role of agrarian revolutionary struggle are either left adventurist or right opportunist, it should be rejected. Here it should be mentioned that armed struggle is the highest form of class struggle. To reach this stage we are to go through all types of classes and sections including the movement for the democratic and civil rights of people. 10. In the course of anti-feudal struggle, the landlords, the goondas and police resort to attacks against the peasant movement. Party should prepare the people from the beginning to resist their counter revolutionary violence will locally available weapons. It should build village volunteer squads and village defence squads depending on the objective situation and people’s preparedness. In the course of building the peasants resistance movement of these kind, the self defence squads can be formed with the militants from the movement where the conditions so demand. The task of these squads is to organise the people, provide the leadership to the people’s resistance and defend the people’s movement. They should defend themselves in every possible form. The bureaucracy and the police attack the people’s movement in order to destroy it. For this the state combines the two weapons, the weapon of repression and the weapon of law and concession to contain and suppress the movement. In the face of this situation, the party has no alternative other than patiently preparing the people to overcome it. It must adopt the tactics and methods suitable to the situation such as asking the important cadre of the areas to work secretly among the people. 11. The task of party is to help the people to gain the consciousness and preparedness through their direct experience necessary for armed resistance. The peasant revolutionary movement cannot sustain itself and develop further, unless it is linked with the key problems of seizure and distribution of landlords land and building of people’s democratic power. In the context of our revolution, the armed struggle in our country will be peasant armed struggle in the main. For starting armed struggle party must asses the overall situation in the country, geographical conditions of the area, mental make up and preparedness of the people to directly participate in the armed struggle in all its aspects, self sustainability of economy, strength of the party to lead the struggle and also the isolation of the enemy classes from the people in the area or areas. This demands an all India perspective, strategic planning and proper deployment of forces. 12. Establishment of liberated base areas is a difficult task. CRs have been trying to establish base areas in different areas of our country employing deferent tactics. But they have not succeeded in doing so. The experience of CRs in Bihar, Bengal, AP and other places in the last 40 years has show that the peoples revolutionary movement, in the course of its development, has succeeded in smashing the economical, social and political authority and power of landlords and establishing peoples power at local level in an embryonic form but when it came to dealing with the centralised state of the ruling classes, it has not succeeded. Rather, the state has succeeded in containing and/or inflicting serious damages to the revolutionary forces. The situation is stagnating at this stage, i.e., neither the peoples to the revolutionary forces are capable of destroying the state and establish the base areas nor is the state capable to destroying the peoples revolutionary forces. This experience shows that a state of duel power, in the sense, rule of people at local level or contest for it and the power of ruling classes will simultaneously continue for quiet a long time in different areas before the formation of base areas. This is special feature of Indian revolution. In such a situation, the CRs are required to adopt suitable tactics to defeat the enemy. They must prepare the peoples for armed struggle, against the landlords with an aim of destroying their economic, social and political authority and power and establish the peoples power at local level. They must build and create conditions for the peoples resistance struggle for the destruction of the state and the formation of the base areas should be launched when the nation enters into a revolutionary crisis and other subjective preparedness have been made for the armed confrontation with the state. If thus tactics of armed struggle are employed, the state of duel power would change and the formation of base areas would be

possible. We must employ all forms of struggle to reach that stage and isolate the enemy from the people. 13. The cities of our country have speciality. Hence our work in cities has great importance. While our cities are the nerve centres of power of the ruling class, a conscious and organised mass of working class including student, youth, employee, women and other are also there. They have a great tradition of anti imperialist struggle. The post 1947 period witnessed massive people’s movement on various people’s issues. Many of these movements went beyond limits of parliamentary bounds. A movement like all India railways in 1947 has also crossed the urban boundary and spread to the countryside. Even the movement led by the Jayaprakash Narayan had an all India dimension. It led to put an end to the autocratic rule of Congress(I) led by Indira Gandhi. Earlier in the perspective of Naxalbari Peasant and workers revolt a large number of urban students, youth, teachers, employees and women had come forward. The experience shows that the students, youth, teachers, employees and women can play a remarkable and important role in creating political consciousness amongst the workers and peasant in carrying the struggle and thereby helping the New Democratic Revolution. Unless there are movements by all sections of people in cities it is not possible to survive advance the higher form of struggle in the face of governmental attack and repression. The mutiny of army in 1948, the police mutiny in UP and the countrywide strike by the police and CRP in 70’s and the Mutiny in the army in 1948 have made the indispensability of urban work more apparent. Therefore, if we want to advance agrarian revolution, then there is no place for the neglect of work in the cities. Urban work will act as complementary to the advancement of armed peasant struggles in the countryside. In other words we should not forget that the cities will play an important role in the agrarian revolutionary movement in our country. 14. The building up of necessary UF during various phases in the process of development of the NDR is an important weapon for the victory of the working class. There is a mechanical conception regarding the building up of UF, namely UF means UF of only with the natural allies of the working class. The peasantry is one of the principal driving forces in the NDR under working class leadership and the petty bourgeoisie is also another driving force. The peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie are thus natural allies of the working class. The problem of the establishment of UF shall certainly be class based. However, building up of UF signifies the building up of an front with the bourgeoisie by the working class and its natural allies. Another matter demands our attention as regard to building up of UF. This happens to be the fact in a class divided society every political party represents one class or another. Hence while we build up fronts of workers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie through various mass fronts we also build up ‘fronts’ with political parties representing various classes. In fact we often build issue based ‘fronts’ with various political parties. Such issue based organisations should not be confused with the task of building up United Front of different classes in the stage of New Democratic Revolution. The issue based platforms of struggles are temporary and limited in nature and their purpose is only to isolate the main enemy and utilise the different contradictions in the society. We do not neglect the task of building up these issue based platforms either as because that would result in the isolation of the working class from other classes. In short throughout the period of NDR we are to build up and maintain a united front of working class, peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie (vacillating ally) led by the working class and worker-peasant alliance must be the fundamental basis of this UF. The party must also build an anti-feudal UF in the countryside. It involves party mainly relying on the landless and poor peasants, winning over the middle peasant, neutralizing and winning over larger section of rich peasant, letting the small landlords comply with the land reform to isolate and destroy the class of big landlords and landlordism as a whole. 15. For the revolution is succeed, a revolutionary party of the proletariat armed with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought must be built. The communist party is the highest

form of class organisation of the proletariat. It is the advanced detachment of the working class. It is well disciplined organisation with the scientific understanding of reality, based on democratic centralism, tested in the practice of concrete struggle, using the method of criticism and self criticism and closely integrated with the masses of the people. While maintaining that every legal opportunity should be exploited, the party should remain basically secret. It is therefore necessary for the party to adopt itself to the principles of illegal organisation. While taking advantage of legal opportunities, care should be taken to ensure that the party does not degenerate into legal party. According to concrete situation the party will decide which of its wings should functions openly or not. In the present situation in India, there are numerous revolutionary groups and individuals working in various parts of the country. It is absolutely necessary that thus various groups and individuals are united on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought. Unity can be forged only through the process of ideological understanding combined with the revolutionary class struggle. This means that the ideological struggle should not be degenerate into mere debate of verbal criticism, slander and personal attack, but should be tested in the practice of class struggle; on this basis that is of principled ideological struggle, the communist revolutionaries can be united in to a single party organisation. Such a party armed with the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought can alone carry the revolution through to the end. Therefore it is necessary that efforts should be concentrated towards building such party. 16. The working class will provide theoretical leadership to the NDR in our country through a communist party. However, the aspect of the direct leadership by the working class over the revolutionary activities in our country requires more attention. The working class can provide leadership to agrarian revolution by launching economic and political struggles. It can provide such leadership through organisation mass political strikes in support of peasant’s struggle. It can provide leadership by sending worker cadres to the rural areas to organise militant peasant struggle. For this investigation and the study are the requisite. It can provide leadership by sending armed units to the countryside one the peasant struggle has begun. Besides these, there can be other methods which will emerge out of the experience of the future struggles and educate us further. 17. The building up of the New Democratic Cultural movement is indispensable in uniting all the revolutionary classes and strata. This new cultural movement will act as an important weapon against the atmosphere of degenerate culture created by the present ruling class and their paid intellectuals with the help and blessings of imperialist culture in order to keep intact the decadent social system. Hence, we have to strengthen our activities in the cultural front.

7. Approach Paper of the CC, CPI(ML) On Evaluation of Party History 1967-72 THE MERGER of the erstwhile CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag into a single organisation, the CPI(ML), at the Vijayawada Unity Conference from January 27th to February 1st 2005 was an earnest response of the Communist Revolutionary forces to the situation and subjective needs of our revolutionary movement. The Unity Resolution adopted by the Unity Conference stated, “The present situation is characterised by a deep crisis in the world capitalist system, mounting unemployment and curtailment of social security in the developed countries, frenzied efforts to re-divide the world to suit US imperialism and its allies leading to widening of the differences among the different imperialist powers increasing stranglehold of imperialist exploitation and plunder of the developing world leading to a deep economic crisis and pauperisation of the vast masses of people there, and growing people’s resentment and protest against this situation”. It further noted that taking advantage of the setback to the world communist movement, “The US, the remaining super power, unleashed an ideological,

political and military offensive to establish its global hegemony”. “In our country also suffering of the people has increased many times due to increasing exploitation and oppression by the Indian ruling classes and their imperialist masters. People are angry and they want change”. Dealing with the subjective situation, the Unity Resolution said: “There is no strong, viable and reliable political force to bank upon to lead them to liberation from nightmarish conditions of the day. There is no Communist Party capable of providing leadership to people’s movements”. “Communist Revolutionaries are divided and splintered into numerous groups causing deep frustration among the masses”. “In the moment of trail and tribulation, the unity of Communist Revolutionaries is a matter of great importance. Keeping this in view, the CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag have decided to merge into a single organisation to further people’s struggle and unity process.” Our Unity Conference adopted four documents, namely: (1) Draft Outline of Party Programme, (2) Party Constitution, (3) Political Resolution and (4) Unity Resolution. The Outline Programme declared the ideological and programmatic orientation of our organisation that the “The New Democratic revolution in India is taking place in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, when imperialism headed by US imperialism is striving for world hegemony. The New Democratic Revolution in India led by the Communist Party, as the vanguard of the proletariat, is an integral part of the world proletarian socialist revolution. The historic task of the Communist Party is t give leadership to the Indian proletariat in this momentous struggle by mobilising all revolutionary classes, sections and masses of people for it”. “The CPI (ML) upholds Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought, fighting against revisionism and sectarian positions and left adventurism”. The CPI (ML) is committed to the task of “uniting the genuine communists in our country and paving the way for the building of the Communist Party which is capable of leading the New Democratic Revolution in a country of more than 100 crores of people”. The CPI (ML) “dedicates itself t the great revolutionary cause of building the Communist Party to lead the masses of Indian people in a protracted revolutionary struggle to over throw the present system and complete the tasks of the New Democratic Revolution leading towards socialism and communism”. The significance of our unity lies in our bold move to unite with differences on four important questions and to resolve them through discussion in the united organisation. We acted in a mature and responsible manner by responding to the genuine aspirations and urges of our ranks and the people, and the needs of the revolutionary movement. We have taken up the discussion on the evaluation of the party history for 1967-1972 in the right earnest and seriousness. We have published articles from leading comrades in THE GUIDE. The documents of our Unity Conference, the writings in The Guide and interactions make it clear that we have common understanding on the following points on evaluation of party histroy. COMMON POINT OF AGREEMENT 1. After Telangana, the Naxalbari uprising and Srikakulam movement provided an excellent opportunity to break free from the chains of revisionism and neo-revisionism which dominated the communist movement at that time and to take steps to build a genuine party of the proletariat guided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought. 2. The formation of AICCCR was a correct step in the direction of bringing the CR forces inside the communist movement on a common platform. 3. Soon after the formation of AICCCR, the left sectarian trend gained ground which scuttled the phenomenal growth and expansion the AICCCR as a platform of CRs coming from different parts of the country. 4. As the left sectarian line gained ground, the democratic process was scuttled and important sections of the CRs like APCCCR led by com. TN, DV, etc. and sections in West Bengal under the leadership of comrades Promode Sengupta, Parimal Dasgupta, Asit Sen, etc. who opposed the left sectarian line, were forced out of it. 5. Manifestations of the left sectarian and anarchist line were as follows:

a. Adopting the line of individual annihilation against mass line and people’s revolutionary struggle. b. Adopting guerrilla warfare as the only form of struggle and rejecting all class/mass organisations and other forms of struggles, and squads as the only form of organisation. c. Adopting the concept “Whoever does not dip their hands in the blood of a class enemy is not a communist”. d. Adopting the slogan that “China’s Chairman is our Chairman”. e. Rejecting the Leninist concept of the era being that of imperialism and proletarian revolution and replacing it with that of a new era of “the total collapse of imperialism and world-wide victory of socialism”. f. Adopting the concept of rural based party. g. Adopting the concept that “the more you study, the more foolish you become”. h. Pursuit of the erroneous concept of “individual authority’ of com. CM. i. Adopting the concept of boycott of elections as strategic. These concepts are alien to Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought. 6. There was a situation favourable for the formation of a genuine communist party based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought by uniting all the CR forces active in the country at that time and for leading the people’s struggles surging forward in different parts of the country. 7. The CPI(ML) was formed in 1969 in haste, with a sectarian approach and method due to which valuable and influential sections of the CRs, especially of AP and WB were left out. Due to this the CPI(ML) could not emerge as the rallying point of all the CRs in the country. 8. The CPI(ML) characterised the stage of revolution as NDR with agrarian revolution as its axis. This generated great enthusiasm among the struggling people throughout the country. But very soon, the enthusiasm generated by the formation of the party started waning due to the erroneous line adopted by the CPI(ML). As a result of this, the anti-imperialist and antifeudal struggles could not be advanced in the correct direction. 9. The opposition to the wrong political line grew from within the CPI(ML) and by the end of 1971 majority members of the CC, CPI(ML), outside and inside the jails, stood against the dominant left sectarian line in it. 10. The CR forces which were not a part of the CPI(ML) got organised into different organisations and were opposing the left sectarian line in different parts of the country. They characterised the stage of revolution as NDR with agrarian revolution as its axis and adopted the protracted peoples was as the path of revolution and the revolutionary mass line in theory and practice. 11. As the leadership under com. CM did not rectify its left sectarian mistakes, the CPI(ML) split into several groups. 12. The left sectarian line of Lin Biao which came to dominate the CPC for a short while also encouraged the left trend prevailing in the communist revolutionary movement. But when the CPC representatives pointed out the left sectarian trend of CPI(ML) to the CPI(ML) delegation which visited China after its 1070 Congress, the leadership of the CPI(ML) led by com. CM did not take steps for rectification based on these suggestions. The Communist Movement in our country consisted of the CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML) along with APCCR and other communist revolutionary groups. Ideological and political struggles against revisionism, right reformism, right deviation, left sectarianism and terrorism were carried out on inside the aforesaid organisations in some way or the other. Waging relentless struggles against these trends alien to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought, our organisation, CPI(ML) was formed through Unity Conference in 2005 held between CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag. It is neither continuation nor re-organisation of any of the aforesaid

organisations. The formation of our organisation, CPI(ML) is part of the process of unification of communist revolutionaries comprising of forces coming from CPI(ML), forces who were never a part of CPI(ML), forces who were part of CPI(ML) but came out of it and formed separate organisations and the forces who were new. We commit to stand by our promise to continue struggle against both the left and right deviations, as these are the twin dangers to Marxism-Leninism. The All India Plenum held at Vijayawada from June 26-29, 2007 has adopted the above points as points of agreement as the evaluation of Party History for 1967-72. As decided by the All India Plenum, the CC has constituted a History Commission with specific terms of reference to make an objective evaluation of the history of Communist Movement with special reference to the history of International Communist Movement. Central Committee Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)