A Review of 'One Day Bandh' as a Form of Movement
Sixties in the last century was a time when the movements of the working class and the toiling masses were on the up-curve; voices of protest could be heard among the student community; CPI & CPI (M) till then had not become so much enslaved in the filth of the parliamentary politics as of today; the impact of conflict between Indo-Pak and Indo-China had hit the common men hardly and brought an overall peril in their lives. Even at that time, Lefts could not think of calling a ?Bharat-Bandh'. It can also be mentioned here that at that time not only in India , but in the developed capitalist countries also, there was an upsurge of the peoples' movement. In contrast to that time, we are now passing thru' a phase when the international working class is passing thru' a period of defeat; in our country, movements of the working class and the toiling masses have taken a backseat, particularly due to the betrayals of the revisionist and reformist left parties; resistance of the organised workers has dwindled; society as a whole has been engulfed by despondency and passivity. In this particular situation we have seen four ?Bharat-Bandh's since ?92 to ?96. Even after these years, a series of ?Bharat-Bandhs' and nationwide industrial strikes have been called. There were a series of statewide Bandhs also. Even in those states where the movements of the workers and the common masses have never been strong and have never reached any significant magnitude, there also a series of strikes are taking place. We cannot call these ?Bandhs' to be unsuccessful. Looking at the successes of these ?Bandhs' if anyone concludes that in comparison to the sixties, the working-class movement is now posing a greater challenge to the ruling class and its government, it is supposed to appear correct.
But if we look at the appalling reality that exists among workers in the factories or peasants in the villages, the above conclusion will face a serious challenge. Let us consider the condition of the working class during this period. The aforementioned four ?Bharat Bandhs' had been called against the attacks of the New Economic Policies. But these did not help to reduce the assaults of the employers; on the other hand, the attack is increasing day-by-day, thus jeopardising the lives of the working class and the toiling masses. And, it is a stark reality that the workers have neither been able to build up resistance at the factory level nor at the industry level against these onslaughts. If we look back at the last twenty/twenty five years, we would only find that the ruling class has become more and more aggressive, and in contrast the workers have retreated or are being forced to retreat from the arena of struggle during this period.
The ruling class is taking advantage of this hapless situation of the working class and making them swallow the anti-worker steps of the ruling-class on their terms. Only a blind man or a stooge of the ruling-class can deny this harsh reality. So it cannot be concluded that a successful bandh does not mean that the class struggle is gaining momentum, and/or it is providing impetus to the working class and the toiling masses to go forward towards a nationwide struggle.
Then what is the implication of these nationwide/state-wide bandhs called by the so-called lefts? How can a nationwide ?struggle' take place when there is not much of a struggle at the grassroot level? Why is it so that even the bourgeois parties now do not hesitate to call for a bandh at any time? Then is it a fact that the inner content of these strikes are being changed at the behest of the revisionist/reformist parties?
It can be noted that whoever calls a bandh, be its statewide or nationwide, it is observed only for a day. No, indefinite periods of bandhs are never being called for. From the experience of the trade-union movement, the workers know it very well that sometimes they have to go for one-day strikes, but these are meant to pressurise the employer and to issue a warning to the employer. But at the same time they also know that when a new demand can not be won or an onslaught of the employer can not be resisted thru' the amicable means, the form of one-day or two-day strike movement becomes insufficient; the only path that remains open to them is to go for an indefinite strike. In fact, a strike means an indefinite strike and nothing else. A one-day strike is a means of preparation to go for an indefinite strike and a token protest against the employer. It is also a form of movement to assess whether the employer wants an amicable solution to avoid an indefinite period of strike. However, such assessment is only possible, when the workers look at it as a step and a means of preparation for a long struggle ahead. It is particularly important to realize, that under present circumstances a one-day strike has no relevance; or, if at all it has, it is insignificant. Even this insignificant role becomes irrelevant, when a day's disruption in production would hardly cost the employer and when the ruling class is taking an overwhelmingly aggressive role.
It is not our intention to equate the economic struggle of the workers at the plant level or at the industry level with the united struggle of the working class along with the toiling masses against the anti-people policy and measures of the ruling class and its governments; neither do we intend to make a comparative discussion between the two. We know it very well that trade union movement is only a form of the class struggle? a preliminary one. We have made the above discussion on this particular aspect of the trade union struggle, only to understand the true nature and character of the present bandh-movement, the intention of the parties calling these bandhs, to assess whether these one day bandhs as a form of struggle is serving in the long run or playing any role for the advancement and development of the class struggle.
We have found that CPI (M), in its English journal, has referred the above-mentioned four ?Bharat-Bandh's as an evidence of their struggling credentials. In a vast country like ours it is no doubt an important achievement to have a successful ?Bharat-Bandh'; and the leadership can definitely demand the credit for it. But in that case they must have to take the credit for leading such a movement, which is futile, and is not able even to register a scratch on the citadel of the ruling class. During the last 10/12 years, a series of one-day strikes have been called for; but have it been able to force the Cong-BJP governments to move away from the path of implementing the measures of New Economic Policy including Globalisation, Liberalisation, Privatisation etc. i.e. all the measures prescribed by the imperialist capital? To tell the truth, the situation prevailing at the first bandh remains the same at the time of fourth-fifth or sixth bandh. The tragedy lies here that the pace of reform is gaining momentum day-by-day and the common people are reeling under this pressure. Nevertheless, the main question does not lie here. It is easily understandable that the continuous aggression of the ruling class cannot be combated by any easy mean; it cannot be done by summoning just a one-day or two-day strike. The moot question is of class struggle, of the advancement of class struggle. Can the struggle of the common masses be kept bound up within the limits of some routine one-day strikes when the ruling class has declared an all-out war against them? If the countrywide strike called by them represents higher and united form of the isolated grassroot movements, then why does it not lead to the indefinite strike that is the natural course of advancement of the isolated struggles? Obviously, we cannot take it for granted that the advancement and development of class struggle will invariably follow such a predetermined form and develop thru' the form of indefinite strike. Whether it will take a distinctly different form, or a conglomeration of different forms, will depend upon the overall objective situation prevailing at that time. Whatever may be the form, the struggle will definitely be more developed, and class struggle will march forward.
This process is absent in the movement of CPI (M), and any conscious effort from their part to advance in this direction is also absent. What is the use of such a struggle that cannot move forward cannot make any impression in the course of class struggle? Or, is it in the interest of some other classes? Incidentally, even if it could be seen that these one-day national strikes are providing courage and energy to the plant-level struggles, awakening and giving impetus to the struggles at the grassroot level, then at least we could say that these one-day national strikes should remain alive and keep their continuity. But this also is not happening. Rather in the further discussion we shall trace how carefully the national one-day strike programme is being organised at the cost of the plant level struggles. So, the CPI (M) and their allies can acclaim the glory of their struggling credentials from the ruling class; working class refuses to declare them so.
While the working class and the toiling masses are frustrated and aggrieved with the continuous attack of the ruling classes and fully aware of the futility of these one-day strikes, then why don't they break down the barrier of routine one-day strike and express their anguish against the attacks of the New Economic Policy thru' some other means? How has it become possible for the Left Parties to hold on the leash on the working class and its allies? And why are the people also remaining in their fold? To find answers to these questions we need an objective analysis of the present condition of the struggle of the toiling masses, particularly of the working class. But before proceeding further, let us look back to an incident that took place in West Bengal in the sixties. At that time the left parties had not yet been so much degenerated like today. They had called for a one-day statewide strike on 10th March in demand of food and fuel. The strike had been called for one-day, but to the utter dismay of the leaders it was carried on spontaneously for the next consecutive two days. For the consecutive three days West Bengal had stood still?there was no respite in the confrontation with the police, whole of South Bengal went on burning. Even after three days when the leaders found that the strike was continuing, they felt alarmed, as then the movement had already been going out of their control. So, to put a rein on the movement, they called for a Central Condolence Rally on 13th March and was successful in their programme. The need of the hour was to heighten the movement by initiating newer and newer forms consistent with the struggle going on at that time. Along with the strike the necessity of organising street battles that had already been developing from the strike was the call of the day, but the communist and socialist leaders betrayed the movement. Anyway, from this experience, it could easily be concluded that it was the people who had converted a one-day strike into a continuous one, and it had become possible because it was the time of mass-uprising and the fighting zeal of the people which was being expressed in a spontaneous manner. In contrast, we are now passing thru' a phase of defeat of the international working class. An unnatural stillness is prevailing in the working-class movement. And, it has percolated throughout the society. The onslaught of the big bourgeoisie is getting fiercer day by day and the workers are continuously being pushed back further and further. The spontaneity of the working-class to instantly mobilise in a resistance fight, seems to have vanished by magic. Under this circumstance working class has been enmeshed in the bourgeois influence, not only through the revisionists and the reformists but even through the reactionaries. An extreme expression of this condition is the complete entanglement of the working class in the parliamentary politics. However, even in this disheartening situation, workers, in some places, are discarding the old leaderships and building up resistance by forming newer organisations of their own. But we must not forget that now is such a time when the old communist parties have already been completely degenerated and a new party of the working class, a true communist party is yet to come into being. The advance, class-conscious workers are still very much scattered and fragmented. In such a dismal situation, it cannot be possible to even give a good jolt to the mood of despondency and the influence of bourgeois outlook that have now gripped the workers and to think of completely ridding them of these is an absurdity. Hence, this has to be realized that in this present circumstances when the execution of the programme of the countrywide bandhs are in the sole hands of the parties and the masses are passive, it is impossible to achieve the results of the 60's in the case of this programme. And probably that is why these parties know that by calling these strikes they are not going to face any confrontation from the ruling classes and at the same time they can create a fighting image of them before the common people. The saddest part is that not only the people, they have also been able to influence even the Communist Revolutionaries. However, we shall discuss this aspect later on.
We have mentioned earlier that, even during this phase of defeat and retreat the workers, in some factories, are now trying to fight back and to build up new organisation, at least, at the plant-level. And, how those who are ?organising the higher form of movement at the national level?, are viewing this new rising trend? What is their role in the events where the workers, organised in the trade unions controlled by them, are, to some extent, expressing their urge to fight back the onslaughts of the ruling class? Unless and until we know the answers of these questions, we shall not be able to understand the real character and nature of these ?higher form of movement? organised by these so-called left parties. Neither will it be clear whether these strikes are in any way related with the class struggle. For the last 10 to 15 years we do not find any struggle in those factories where they control the trade unions. And this is true for not only in West Bengal where they are running a government, but also for those states where they control a considerable number of trade unions. In all these cases, exerting their organisational authority and in connivance with the employers they are throttling the anti-employer grievances of the workers and are strangling their aspirations under the garb of the slogan of ?save the factory?. Where the workers are trying to defy their authority and building up new trade unions, these parties are unleashing terrors on the workers by utilising administrative powers. But it must be remembered that the hypocrisy of these reformist parties does not lie here, but lies elsewhere. To avoid the confrontation with the employers either in the plant level or in the industry level and to make the workers swallow the attacks of the employers without any protest these parties have a constant campaign. What they campaign is that the attacks of the employers can not be combated by trade union struggle; to combat the same, policies of the central government have to be changed, the underlying meaning of which is that these parties are to be elected at the centre. It is natural that, this campaign will invariably influence them where the workers are already in a battered state. The history of the whole of ?80s shows that where these parties had been forced to remain in the trade union struggle, they slow-poisoned the fighting spirit of the workers and finally forced them to surrender. Thereafter citing those experiences, they used to tell other workers who intended to fight that ?if you fight, the factory/industry will be closed?. We would now try to explore further political hypocrisies of these parties.
As we know, in the ?50s and ?60s a series of plant-level and factory-level trade union struggles emerged and as a result workers, particularly of the organised sectors, were able to win some rights and privileges and were able to somewhat improve their standard of living. But in the seventies this scenario started to change. The economy of the country was hit by a crisis; and capitalists became more aggressive in unison. Since then, they started to resist the economic demands of the workers. Not only that, the rights and privileges previously won by the working class, also came under attack.The attacks turned fiercer in the eighties. And finally, in the nineties, thru' the implementation of the New Economic Policies the attack took an organised and all-pervasive character. Undoubtedly the defeat and disintegration of the international working class made it easier for the capitalists to implement this policy. Practically, from that time, it were the capitalists who started to place Charter of Demands, like wage-cut-retrenchment-increase of workload etc., to the trade unions and to negotiate at their terms. No doubt trade union struggle under this situation would invariably face deep crisis and the isolated trade union struggles at the plant level against the organised assaults of the capitalists became extremely difficult. The question arises now, under this situation which form of struggle has to be stressed. As Com. Lenin said, ?By means of strikes, the workers were able in some places to force concessions from the employers with comparative ease, and this ?economic? struggle assumed an exaggerated significance; it was forgotten that trade unions and strikes can, at best, only win slightly better terms for the sale of labour power as a commodity. Trade unions and strikes cannot help in times of crisis when there is no demand for this ?commodity?, they cannot change the conditions which convert labour power into a commodity and which doom the masses of working people to dire need and unemployment. To change these conditions a revolutionary struggle against the whole existing social and political system is necessary;.....?(Lenin, C.W. Vol. 5, pp. 26-27)
So, in our country, where ruling class is trying to shift the burden of their self-created economic crisis on the shoulders of the working class thru' a common policy, an united, organised and nationwide struggle between two opposing classes is required to combat it. It is not a fight for some mere reforms, or for changing government at the centre. It must emerge on the basis of some specific demands or against certain policies of the ruling class. Revolutionary proletariat never differentiate the grassroot/plant level struggle with this main struggle, neither do they pose one in opposition to other. Here lies the dishonesty and hypocrisy of CPI (M) and its allies. As we have seen earlier, they are placing the national level struggles in opposition to the grassroot level struggles. Not only that, the aim of their national level struggle is to replace the government at the centre without hitting the present big-bourgeois big- landlord ruling structure in any way, reform the anti-people policies, so that the exploitation of the present structure controlled by big bourgeois-zamindar can be kept within a tolerable limit. This never means an all out challenge to the present structure. And, they have been able to imbibe this in the consciousness of the common people. Now, people are also trying to find some solution to their problems by changing state/central governments one after another during the last 15/20 years. We do also find that once the pattern of forming coalition government at the centre started, and particularly, since United Front has formed the government in 1996, it is not a distant dream to CPI (M) to be a partner of this type of governance. So, now all their activities have been concentrated in this direction. They now need such a ?national struggle' in the name of which trade union struggles at the plant level can be maimed, allegiance towards the capitalists can be proved, and finally, more and more success in the parliamentary election can be attained through which they can advance towards attainment of the goal of forming a government within this structure. The one-day Bharat Bandhs of these so-called parties is such a programme. Here we must keep in mind the fact that the proletariat has not been able to complete the process of assimilation of the experiences of the defeat and form a real Communist Party. Coupled with this failure the dominance of the mood of despondency and passivity over the working class and the overall lack of spontaneity among them have created a situation in which the objective necessity of building of an united nation-wide class struggle against the all-out attack of the ruling classes is not being realised. But, on the other hand, we can observe some sort of spontaneity and stir among the working class even in this situation when they are retreating in the face of severe attack. At present these phenomenon are confined within the limits of isolated factories or in some cases within the limits of isolated industries and no doubt these are facing tremendous adversity. It may be a cruel irony of history, nonetheless these are the real struggles of today, which implies that in these struggles is lying imbedded the germs of the beginning of the end of the period of passivity. In spite of various contradictions, which are inherent in these struggles, in reality at this precise moment of history these struggles are keeping alive the stream of class struggle. So it is absurd to talk of remaining loyal to the class struggle without strongly gripping these. The programme of struggles like one day's Bharat Bandh may pave the way for the success of the struggle of these reformist-revisionist parties for a change in the government. But we must realise that this success is gained on the basis of the inertness, passivity and the mood of despondency of the working class and the people and as a matter of fact on the basis of frontal opposition to the newly emerging struggles or the struggles, which are endeavouring to emerge in the isolated factories. Hence it must be clearly understood that the struggle of ?Bharat Bandh? is nothing but a struggle for frustrating the real struggles of today. .
Now, one may question, how could the ?Bandhs' of the nineties turn out to be more or less successful in spite of the masses not participating in them or remaining passive? This is a genuine question. But before delving further into the question, we want to raise some fundamental questions. Firstly, we have seen that the vast majority of the trade unions of our country are now controlled either by the reformist or the bourgeois parties and that the workers are not being able to develop or are not developing factory-based or industry-based primary struggles to combat the onslaught of the owners. And this situation is continuing for almost 20 years. How it is becoming possible for this vast majority of the passive and dependent workers to participate in a higher form of political movement like nation-wide strike? Which unique ?dialectical policy' of CPI (M) is making it possible? Secondly, theory of class struggle teaches us that the struggles of the previous stage, in their course of development, reaches higher stage by fulfilling the objective demands for the advancement of the movement; higher form of struggles can never develop in a condition of absence, more particularly in a condition of disintegration of the lower form of struggles. Are these one-day nationwide strikes are being decided on the basis of the development of the struggles at the grassroot and as a continuation of these struggles in the course of development of the class struggle or even on the basis of any sudden countrywide explosion of the masses? Absolutely not. We have already seen the pathetic condition of the present trade unions. The stream of class struggle, which is being objectively generated in these conditions is so weak and lean that, it is obscure and almost invisible before the dominating stream of reformist struggles. And hence the pro gramme of one-day's nation-wide bandh cannot be projected as being in the natural course of development of the struggles at the grassroots. When this would happen in real life, then the bandhs would pose serious challenge before the ruling classes, would take the form of the class struggle of the higher stage and in an underdeveloped country like ours would possibly merge with other struggles.
Anyway, let us come back to the question about the success of the Bandhs. Firstly, we must take note of the fact that during the Bandhs of the eighties, more particularly of the nineties; the concerned governments took almost no serious steps to break the strikes, which the governments were seen to take during such calls for Bandhs during the sixties and seventies. No doubt, this could not have happened if the workers and masses would have actively participated in these Bandhs (even if it be for one day). The ruling classes and their's government have, in the mean time, understood it clearly that these strikes have degenerated into political rituals. Secondly, the ruling classes are fully aware that these types of Bandhs can act as steam-valves and release the steam of the accumulated discontent of the masses, in which case they will gain more than loose. They will be helped to carry on their unilateral aggression. In reality, now it is easier to call and observe a Bandh than organising a militant demonstration. In the later event the police retaliation is inevitability, while in the case of the present Bandhs the police just maintain peace. The police-administration is rarely seen taking steps to break the Bandhs. It has now become a common practice to call local Bandhs, whenever anything happens in the locality. The Bandhs have now turned into a convenient weapon in the hands of these parties with the help of which they can divert the agitation of the masses and drive them from the streets to the indoor. Now even the bourgeois parties are frequently calling Bandhs that are also turning out to be ?successful'.
Thirdly, it is being observed during the past 15/20 years that irrespective of who is calling the Bandh, a broad section of the masses, especially the petty-bourgeois mass is preferring to remain indoors, mainly due to a sense of insecurity and passing the Bandh days in holiday spirit. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in the places with histories of clashes during the previous such movements. At this juncture let us look back a little. The process of criminalisation of politics whose ugly face we are witnessing now, started in the seventies with the formal inauguration of the use of the anti-socials in politics of their tyranny. The late Prime Minister Smt Indira Gandhi was the inaugurator. The germ of this was rooted in the rule the then socio-political conditions. We might recall that the post-second world war boom of the international capitalism first started to experience a setback just before the seventies. This phenomenon naturally affected Indian economy. Among its many other effects the unemployment figure rose abruptly. Discontentments as well as frustrations were simultaneously engulfing the whole country. The direct cause of the frustrations of the masses was the failure of the mass uprisings of the sixties due to the so-called left parties. On the other hand, the social stability and balance that the ruling classes were able to maintain through the structure of parliamentary democracy suffered a serious jolt at that time. Social unrest spread, which engulfed a vast section of the youth who saw no future before them. A spirit of revolt against the failed past was born. A sence of social commitment and the desire for social change drew the sensitive section of the youth to the Naxalbari uprising and the call of revolution beckoned them. But the other section of the youth whose social roots were loosing from quite some time and who were suffering from alienation and loss of value?the social scum of despondent youths?became pawns in the hands of reactionaries. Congress (I), under the leadership of Indira Gandhi drew this section of the youth towards them by providing Governmental patronage, instigated their criminal tendencies and formed an armed tyrannical force with them. At this point we should keep this in mind that the Congress party, which had been enjoying unhindered central and state governmental powers for a long time, had been ousted from the seats of the governments of nine states in ?67 election, and had already become quite isolated from the people. In the meantime the national condition worsened, specially the condition of the national economy had become precarious due to the impact of the two wars. It was urgently necessary for the ruling classes to take some emergency steps for dealing with the situation. Hence it became necessary for Smt Gandhi to put into some reforms in one hand and on the other hand to combat the challenges of the opposition parties (as also the opposition within her own party) and suppress the discontent of the masses with a strong hand. In such a circumstance the the terror force was formed under the leadership of Indira and Sanjoy Gandhi. We must recall the despicable history of how this force was used along with state-terror to crush the bandhs and hartals called by the so-called left parties and even to the movements led by JP against Congress misrule. Ironically, though Smt Gandhi initiated this brand of politics, in the later period the left parties as also all the other bourgeois parties could not remain outside the domain of this brand of politics. After demolishing the power of resistance of the masses, specially of the working class, the left parties, more specially the CPI(M) tended to depend more and more on the terror forces of their own to combat the Congress. Although initially this force was formed with the Party workers, later on this difference between the CPI(M) and the Congress was obliterated. The simultaneous onset of the retreat of the working class from the arena of struggle and of the process of criminalisation of politics i.e.of the appearance of the anti-social elements as an organised force, effected a process of change or of evolution in a whole area starting from Bandhs to election struggles. Infact, the bandhs became arenas of muscle flexing for both the ruling and the opposition parties, i.e. for all the contending parties of the electoral politics. Inevitably both of them took the path of violence?either by the use of naked state terror or by deploying the terror force of the lumpens. During the seventies and a part of the eighties the Bandhs were a bloody affair between the parties where the commen men had to flee for their lives. This phenomenon was observed to be more intense in the states where the opposition parties were strong. However, the repetition of such experiances during two or three bandhs (state-wide and/or country-wide) were enough to cower down the common people to stay indoors for the sake of their own safety. The more the working class and the masses enclosed themselves within the cocoon of passivity, the more this practice became a part of habit and routine. Subsequently the one-day bandhs became a day of leave,with or without pay. As a result the ?success?of the bandhs were assured to a great extent. At the same time, with the gradual adoption of bandhs by the bourgeois parties in their programme the bandhs ceased to be an arena of the trial of strength between two opposing parties. Consequently the bandhs became the subject of an unwritten mutual agreement between the parliamentary parties including the ruling party and each of the parties gave the others a passport for observing a peaceful, trouble-free bandh!
Still, a bandh-supporter may ask, whether the bandhs reflect the discontents of the masses or not. Yes, they do. But the bandh-struggle has so much degenerated at the hands of the ?bandh-parties? that it will be better to state that the present bandhs reflect the passive discontents of the masses and not ?discontents? as such. It is quite natural that any party calling the bandh will keep in mind the points of discontent of the masses at that particular moment and will include the demands generated from these discontents in their programme of their bandhs. Hence it is true that a sort of passive discontent has a role behind the ?success? of the bandhs. If the vast majority of the working class and the masses who are now retreating in the face of unilateral agression of the ruling classes and suffering from parliamentary illusions, look at the bandhs as means of placing their grivances before the government, then there is nothing to be surprised at. Infact, in some cases a particular ?successful and total? bandh can carry the message of the discontent of the masses to the government a bit more emphatically, as for example, the more or less recent West Bengal Bandh called by SUC (I) and some of the CPI (ML) organisations and the Maharashtra Bandh called by one or two communist organisations along with the so-called left parties, Shiv Sena and BJP. But the fundamental question lies elsewhere. After every five years, the masses get an opportunity to express their grievances through the ballot boxes and try to utilise this opportunity within the parliamentary structure. Is the bandh movement such a form of movement whose only purpose is to express the discontents of the masses after every one or two years? What other purpose has been served through the last 5-6 bandhs? The masses went on expressing their discontents and the aggression of the ruling classes continued unabated. The Indian ruling classes are tied to the imperialists and their aggression against the masses has now assumed such a proportion that the expressions of the passive discontent of the masses, even the isolated protests (which end with the protests) are bound to be futile. We have already described this experience. It is rather important now to deal and realise another problem as it is to the question of class struggle. We are aware of the intentions of the so-called left parties and their allies behind their calling of nation-wide bandhs. But we have also seen that these Bandhs reduced to the bandh of the parties and to a programme of expressing passive discontents or at best to a programme of isolated protests. But to the vast majority of the unconscious and backward section of the working class the bandhs objectively appear as programmes of direct struggles?struggles for solving their problems. What is the outcome of this contradiction? The futile experience of these bandh struggles is making the masses more and more despondent about struggles, creating more and more aversion in them towards struggles. Basing on the general passivity and indifference of the masses or on their passive support these bandhs are carried through mainly with the help of party workers. Any amount of boast about the ?success? of these bandhs will not be able to cover up this fact that the repetition of this ?success? is pushing the masses more and more towards this dead end. However, another phenomenon is taking place, which is related to the question of class struggle. The comparatively advanced workers have started to think in a new way.
Most unfortunately, the majority of the communist revolutionary organisations are now seen to support these bandhs called by the revisionist parties. This phenomenon is being observed during the last few bandhs. It is true that the communist revolutionaries are extending critical support to these bandhs. But the question is, what they are criticizing? We ardently hope that on the basis of this long discussion of ours, they will rethink about their present line. But here we would like to draw everybody's attention to a particular aspect of the criticism part of his or her support. Their major criticism against the revisionist parties is that these parties are keeping these struggles restricted within the programme of a one-day bandh. Is the criticism has any real relevance to the people? Firstly, we must clearly understand that in the present conditions when the impact of the defeat of international working class has scattered the Indian proletariat and has infected them with passivity, when even the class conscious advanced workers have not yet been united, when the struggles at the lower level are very weak and the spontaneity among the masses is generally missing, it will then be fanciful to give a call to the masses for extending the one-day bandh to an indefinite one. These communist revolutionary groups must understand that due to the presence of these factors (specially the passivity of the working class) in the present objective reality it is being possible for these parties to keep the program restricted (!) to one-day bandh; at the same time, it is for this same reason it is not possible to go for a continuous strike to launch which will pose serious challenge to the ruling classes. Hence the critical part of the critical support does not carry any meaning to the working class and the masses and only the support part is conveyed to the masses. To the working class and the masses only this message goes that the communist revolutionary groups have supported the bandh call of the revisionist parties and have asked them to participate in the bandh. The harmful result of this is that this support, in reality, is pushing the masses further towards these so-called left parties, helping the parliamentary interests of these parties and shielding the task of making preparation for the development of the resistance struggle from the view of the working class and its advanced section. We must bear in mind that this preparation is the fundamental task of the present moment.
The class conscious advanced section of the working class must understand that there exist two mutually contradictory streams of the struggle of the working class and the masses. One is the anti-class struggle stream; the struggle only for reforms without touching the present structure and this stream is being led by CPI (M) and its allies. At the present moment this stream is very strong and is practically, by far, the dominant trend in the working class struggles. In opposition to this parliament-oriented and dominant stream there also exists a stream of class struggle with complete transformation of the society as its aim. At the present moment this stream is undoubtedly very weak and not even clearly visible. We will find the objectivity of the class struggle in the hard strive of the advanced workers to attain class consciousness, to combat reformist-revisionist trends and remain firm in the independent class position against all odds. We would find this objectivity in those factories where exist some amount of spontaneity in the struggles, where the workers are discarding the old unions and forming new organisations, where workers are fighting almost an unequal battle to resist the aggression of the employers and are not deserting the fighting flag even under severe adverse conditions. Exactly due to this small, apparently unimportant, isolated struggles are facing serious opposition from the ruling classes and their governments, from the leaders of the dominating stream of the working class struggle?the so-called left parties. In fact, the more the scope of reforms is getting limited in the face of aggression of the New Economic Policy formulated by the direction and pressure of the imperialists and followed by the Indian ruling classes, the more the stream is flowing towards the singular aim of serving interests of the present ruling structure and the ruling classes. Under the circumstances it is nothing but absurdity to think that the objectivity of today's class struggle can be developed or strengthened without directly fighting against this stream of politics or by uniting with it in the field of mass struggle. The revolutionary proletariat must clearly understand that even in this disastrous condition of the defeat and retreat of the international proletariat, the future of the class struggle is aspiring to bloom from the process of the attainment of class consciousness of the advanced workers and from the formation and development of new organisations and new struggles in the arena of trade unions. All the ?struggles? of the reformist-revisionists including the party-controlled passive bandhs are precisely directed to destroy this blooming process. Hence it is impossible to play a conscious role in the development of class struggle without dissociating from the politics of bandhs. An imaginary apprehension of getting detached from the vast backward section of the working class must not deviate us from playing a conscious role.
While explaining the causes of failure and degradation of the old famous leaders of the socialist movement of that period Com. Lenin commented that these had refused to realize the changes in the proletariat movement which had inevitable after the onset of the imperialist age and they were carrying on with the old. They had failed to understand that with the change in the situation, a negative sign had been added to the objective reality. To make the explanation lucid he had said that ?3 is greater than 2, but -3 is not greater than -2?. Keeping in mind this extremely lucid explanation of Lenin, we will end our present discussion with this comment that at the time when the struggles of the working class and the masses were on the ascending curve, as was the situation in the 60's, the bandhs-strikes were natural and appropriate. But at the present moment when in the period international defeat of the proletariat the working class is retreating, when even the advanced workers are not united and when the old communist and socialist parties have degenerated into parties of the order. Then a negative sign has been added before the bandhs organized by these parties. Hence those who are seeing some sort of positive sign on the passive bandhs which are organized with the eyes on the parliamentary interests and are imposed on the people by the strength of the party workers, they are wrongly assessing the objective situation and are, in fact, placing themselves against the interests of the class struggle and its politics.
Comments:
No Comments for View