Agrarian Revolution... Protracted People's war... Guerrilla Warfare
International Communist Movement is passing through an unprecedented situation. The first worldwide revolutionary march of the international proletariat has been defeated - the international proletarian movement has entered into a worldwide phase of defeat from which the preparatory stage of the second worldwide revolutionary offensive is developing. Every preparatory stage involves difficult and tireless enquiry, confusions, struggle and pain. The extent and depth of this particular preparatory stage is immense. An enormous and complex subject like the summing up of the defeat of the first international proletarian onslaught occupies very significant place in this preparatory stage. This preparatory stage demands self-criticism and deep soul-searching from the international proletariat that has made the stage unique. Moreover, the shock of the defeat has scattered the international proletarian army and reduced it to a leaderless stage. In none of the countries of the world a true Communist Party exists-naturally in this condition there cannot be any possibility of the existence of international leadership. In almost all the countries, including India, various large and small communist groups exist whose mass bases among their own proletariat are more or less insignificant, who are functioning within a narrow perimeter and who are forced to watch the vast social life through their narrow windows.
Such a situation is really unprecedented in the history the International Communist Movement. The present international situation has posed a number of deep problems before us-the communist workers of today-and forced us to go through a process of serious introspection. In spite of this difficult and adverse situation, historically it cannot be said that in the perspective of the development the Marxist movement such a situation is an extremely extraordinary episode baffling Marxist analysis of history. As early as in the second half of 1899 Lenin had said: - "We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life." [1] The greatest authentic document of this truth is Lenin himself. This truth conveys the teaching that history will again and again confront the Communists with the demand of developing Marxism and in such situations the Communists have to fulfil this demand of history, if they want to play their expected role.
But man himself is the product of history. And so every specific historical situation casts its influence on all men-including the Communists-in varying degrees. That is why in the present historical situation all of us are suffering from various confusions; there is a general inclination among all of us to avoid the painstaking search for truth; the fundamental task of "representing the general interest of the proletariat" is getting obscured from our vision; we are inclining more and more towards clutching a somewhat artificial position.
At this stage of revolutionary communist movement ideological debates among the communist revolutionary groups is bound to become an inseparable part of general introspection and self-criticism. The conscious effort of looking into different omissions and commissions, confusions, incompleteness etc. of each other will be mutually helpful and through these efforts each and every of us will be forced to look inwards which will help us to be more and more conscious about the actual role of the communists in this present historical situation.
The December 2000 issue of 'Biplabi Yug', the organ of the West Bengal State Committee of CPI (ML) (People's War) has published an article entitled 'Why in West Bengal also the Revolution will develop along the path of People's War'. The article contains an analysis of the present objective situation of West Bengal and the title itself reveals that the analysis has taken us to some theorisations. These analyses and theorisations are the subject of our present discussion-since we feel that the said article deals with questions that are extremely relevant now.
Theorisation - Approach
26th December 2000 was Mao Tse-Tung's birth centenary. The above-mentioned article was a memorial to Mao Tse-Tung. On 26th December of the same year an article came out in the Bengali daily 'Pratidin', in which it was stated: "Modern governments or states are so powerful that it is easy for them to suppress any kind of armed revolt against them." So "any endeavour of an armed revolt against this state is sheer madness." Citing this it has been commented in the first part of the article published in 'Biplabi Yug': "Even many of the progressive in West Bengal and rest of India who are eloquent in their denunciation of the anti-people policies and take part in the protests in a vigorous way believe that armed revolt against such modern states is futile.
There exists another section that theoretically admits the necessity of armed revolt and people's war. But in real life they avoid that path under the excuses of inopportune time, unpreparedness of the people etc., Actually they want to cover their own immaturity or unpreparedness.
We will look into such opposing, sceptic and escapist interpretations of Mao's theory of People's War on the occasion of his birth centenary in the light of the experiences of the revolutionary struggles of the people at the national and international level, particularly in the perspective of objective condition and the demand of the class struggle in West Bengal . Undoubtedly such an analysis demands our special attention.
The explanation of 'Biplabi Yug' for their conclusion about the inevitability of the revolution in West Bengal advancing along the path of people's war has been quite clearly stated in the early part of the article. About the 'adversaries, sceptics and escapists' it has been said at the beginning: "Again some hold the opinion that guerrilla warfare and people's war has succeeded in the states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar etc. because of the extensive presence of the feudal dominance in these states; but guerrilla warfare or people's war will not be able to advance in West Bengal because of the almost non-existence of the dominance of big zamindars and their private armies. Therefore it is to be ascertained first whether the line of agrarian revolution is applicable in this state. Guerrilla warfare or the theory of protracted people's war conforms to the line of the agrarian revolution. Therefore, if the necessity of the agrarian revolution is exhausted then the need of people's war exhausts itself." [3]
It is clear from this remark that according to 'Biplabi Yug', agrarian revolution, people's war and guerrilla warfare are mutually inseparably interconnected. In other words' according to 'Biplabi Yug', all agrarian revolutions will inevitably develop along the path of protracted people's war. It is also clear from their method of analysis that protracted people's war and guerrilla warfare is synonymous to them. ("Theory of guerrilla warfare or protracted people's war") In the latter part of the article 'Biplabi Yug' has limited their analysis in proving that the scope of agrarian revolution has not been exhausted in West Bengal . From this it is amply clear that according to the comrades of 'Biplabi Yug', the establishment of the truth that the scope of the agrarian revolution has not been exhausted is enough to prove the inevitability of the revolution in West Bengal developing along the path of protracted people's war. Our question lies precisely here.
Theoretically we know that by agrarian revolution we mean the thorough transformation of the old agricultural structure along the revolutionary path - the complete eradication of the feudal and semi-feudal exploitation in a revolutionary way. After the Chinese Revolution protracted people's war under the proletarian leadership has gained universal recognition among the communists of the world as a specific path of development of the agrarian revolution. With this path is attached several typical revolutionary tactics like 'encirclement of towns by villages' etc. The guerrilla warfare is a particular form of war and history has shown us that this form of war is not something that is exclusive for the revolutionary war. How can three different things be inseparably connected? And how can a particular path of development of revolution-protracted people's war-and a particular form of war - guerrilla war - be treated as synonymous? Reason tells us that the path of development of a particular revolution depends on the concrete features of the objective condition of the revolution. In the same way the concrete features of the objective condition of the revolutionary war decides its form of war. Since it will not be at all reasonable to take it for granted that throughout the whole period of development of a particular revolution the objective situation will remain unchanged, it should be borne in mind that during the course of development of a particular revolution a change in form of war may be necessitated by the change in the conditions of war. And at certain junctures an amalgamation of different forms may take place. The teachings of all the great teachers of Marxism-Leninism and the experiences of the proletarian revolutions confirm this truth.
All agrarian revolutions will inevitably develop along the path of protracted people's war and protracted people's war is nothing but guerrilla war - such easy equation can never be found anywhere in Mao's writings. On the other hand, he had taken pains to explain why the Chinese Revolution would develop along the path of protracted people's war and while explaining this his main argument was based on the specific features of the objective conditions of the then China. The international history of the proletarian revolutions also points out that everywhere the agrarian revolution has not developed along path of protracted people's war and that guerrilla war has not turned out to be the main form war in all the agrarian revolutions. After the October of 1917 agrarian revolution was completed in the then Russia under the leadership of Russian proletariat. But that Russian agrarian revolution was not completed along the path of protracted people's war. Rather, big peasants' uprisings, formation of peasants' Soviets-these were the main features of that agrarian revolution. So neither from theory nor from the experiences of the proletarian revolutions we get the teaching that irrespective of any consideration agrarian revolutions must develop along the protracted people's war.
Since guerrilla war is a particular form of war it cannot remain inseparably connected with the path of protracted people's war irrespective of the conditions of war. And it is also not feasible that in a revolution developing the path of protracted people's war the guerrilla war must remain the main form of war during the whole period of revolution. This teaching is embedded in the experiences of Russian Revolution and Chinese Revolution-this is the teaching of Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung.
In May 1938, Mao wrote: "In the War of Resistance Against Japan, regular warfare is primary and guerrilla warfare supplementary..." [4] It should be remembered that while formulating this he never thought that the path of protracted people's war had become obsolete for the Chinese Revolution. So guerrilla war was not the main form of war throughout the entire period of the Chinese Revolution.
As a matter of fact, the pages of the issue of 'Biplabi Yug' under discussion carry the proof of the truth that the form of guerrilla war is not inevitably connected with the path of protracted people's war. In the December 2000 issue of 'Biplabi Yug' is also published a Bengali translation of Lenin's article "Guerrilla Warfare". Before diving into the depths of Lenin's article the published Bengali translation warrants some comments.
Firstly, in the Bengali translation there is no mention of the source of the original article of Lenin. As a result, if any reader feels the urge of reading the original article of Lenin and compare the Bengali translation with the original then he will be put into serious inconvenience We fail to understand the reason for quiet unnecessarily creating such inconvenience for the readers. Secondly and more importantly, the published Bengali translation does not cover whole of Lenin's original article-only a part of the original has been covered in the Bengali translation. The original article can be found in Volume-11 of Lenin's Collected Works and it runs from Page-213 to Page-223 of the said volume. But the Bengali translation, which has been published, covers only the portion included between Page-216 and Page-221 of the original. Moreover, the first two lines of Page-216 and the last eight lines of Page-221 have been left out in the Bengali translation. It is really unfortunate that it is nowhere mentioned in the translation that only a portion of Lenin's original article has been translated and published. Due to this unfortunate omission any reader who is not acquainted with the original will be mislead to think that the whole of Lenin's article must be just this. This mistake is really unpardonable-because we have no right mislead people about the teachings of the great teachers of Marxism-Leninism. We must keep in mind that all the articles of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao were written with definite perspectives and the whole significance of each of the article was intimately connected with the definite perspective associated with it. Devoid of the perspective the publication of selective portion of any article of these great teachers may produce a distorted idea about the real significance of the said article, may convey a wrong teaching not intended in the original article. This is exactly what has happened in this case.
Lenin wrote the article "Guerrilla Warfare" at the end of September 1906 when the revolutionary onslaught of the Russian proletariat was retreating after the failure of the December uprising of 1905. The motivation of writing was made explicitly clear by Lenin in the very first line of the article wherein it was stated: "The question of guerrilla action is one that interests our Party and the mass of the workers." [5] Why? Just because guerrilla war was really being waged in the then Russia . We can find clear statement about this in the portion of the original article translated and published in the aforementioned issue of 'Biplabi Yug'. Let's see what we find in that portion. "The fact that 'guerrilla' warfare became widespread precisely after December, and its connection with the accentuation not only of the economic crisis but also of the political crisis is beyond dispute. The old Russian terrorism was an affair of the intellectual conspirators; today as a general rule guerrilla warfare is waged by the worker combatant or simply by the unemployed workers." [6] If the comrades of 'Biplabi Yug' had concentrated more deeply on this portion of Lenin's article then two very significant points must have caught their imagination. Firstly, in that particular time guerrilla warfare "became widespread" in Russia and secondly, this guerrilla warfare was being "waged by the workers combatant, or simply by the unemployed worker." Two truths emerge from these two facts: - one, guerrilla war spreads spontaneously and spreads in real course of the revolutionary war of the working class and the masses; secondly, as a form of war the guerrilla war is not solely connected with agrarian revolution or the revolutionary wars of the peasantry. Under certain conditions the revolutionary struggle of the working class may as well take the form of guerrilla war.
In this context we shall focus our attention to another portion of Lenin's article which has been included in the translation published in the December, 2000 issue of 'Biplabi Yug' where Lenin has written: - "A concrete analysis of the question will show that it is not a matter of national oppression, but of conditions of insurrection. Guerrilla warfare is an inevitable form of struggle at a time when the mass movement has actually reached the point of an uprising and where fairly large interval occur between the "big engagements" in the civil war."
It is absolutely clear from the above quotation from Lenin that as a form of war-guerrilla war has no obvious connection with agrarian revolutions, revolutions developing along the path of protracted people's war; under certain specific conditions it can as well be an 'inevitable' form of war in the cases of revolutions developing along the path of worker's insurrection. It can also be noted that Lenin has clearly characterised guerrilla war as a form of war .In that particular historical condition of Russia guerrilla war had emerged as an 'inevitable' form of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and so Lenin had taken up cudgel against those who were dismissing this form of revolutionary struggle of the Russian working class by characterising it as 'Blanquism', 'Terrorism' etc.
We have noted earlier that the part of Lenin's original article, the Bengali translation of which has been published in 'Biplabi Yug', does not reflect Lenin's view about the subject dealt in the article, in its totality and even opens up the possibility of creating wrong and distorted understanding about Lenin's teachings which the article upholds. This apprehension takes deep roots when we find that the part translated and published in 'Biplabi Yug' is preceded and followed by such invaluable summing up and teachings that the omission of these curtails and distorts Lenin's total view about the subject. More especially in his presentation Lenin has started with a theorisation without which the article turns into a drab superficial statement. From the portion of the original article published in the journal under discussion there is every possibility of getting the wrong impression that the original article reflects Lenin's general support to guerrilla warfare as such. Nothing can be further from the truth. This cannot be realised without looking into the theorisation part of the article with which the original article starts and which has been omitted in the translation. We take the liberty of quoting at length from that portion which, we are afraid, may appear burdensome for the readers. But we will insist on the readers to take this burden to honour Lenin.
"Let us begin from the beginning. What are the fundamental demands that every Marxist should make of an examination of the question of forms of struggle? In the first place, Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not "concoct" them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes that arise of themselves in the course the movement. (The italics is ours). Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which as the movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms struggle, unknown to the participants of the period, inevitably arise as the given social situation changes. In this respect Marxism learns , if we may express it from mass practice, and makes no claim whatever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by "systematisers" in the seclusion of their studies. We know... that the coming crisis will introduce new forms of struggle that we are now unable to foresee.
In the second place, Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of forms of struggle. To treat this question apart from the concrete historical situation betrays a failure to understand the rudiments of dialectical materialism. At different stages of economic evolution, depending on differences in political, national-cultural, living and other conditions, different forms of come to the fore and become the principal forms of struggle; and in connection with this, the secondary, auxiliary forms of struggle undergo change in their turn. To attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given movement at the given of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position." [8]
We hope that every conscious reader will now be convinced of the absolute necessity of quoting this part of Lenin's article at such length and will admit that this contains priceless teachings. Now if we do not give due importance to this invaluable teaching of Lenin and try to project that in the article under discussion Lenin has expressed his general support for guerrilla warfare irrespective of the objective conditions then shall we be correct in our understanding or shall we be showing real respect towards a great teacher of the proletariat like Lenin?
The correct Marxist-Leninist method of determination of form of the revolutionary struggle of the revolutionary classes in its different stages has been explicitly explained in the above quotation from Lenin. It does not appear that further detailed discussion is really necessary. Still we want to draw the attention of the readers to two very important parts from the above quotation.
Number one, Marxist-Leninist "generalises, organises, gives conscious expression" to those forms of revolutionary struggle "which arise of themselves in the course of the movement". Number two, in the context of determination of the form of struggle "Marxism learns from... mass practice" and "makes no claim whatsoever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by "systematisers" in the seclusion of their studies." If we look at the history of the international proletarian revolution we will find that at various stages of the Chinese the Russian Revolution the different forms of the revolutionary war were determined in this manner. The forms "which arise of themselves" were given conscious expression by the Bolsheviks under Lenin's leadership and the Chinese Communist Party under the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung.
This is not a place for discussing the detailed histories of the Russian and the Chinese Revolution, nor these histories are the subject matter of this article. In this context we shall mention two very significant general features of these two revolutions. There was no pre-determined plan of creation of Soviets included in the programme of the Bolsheviks right from the beginning and it would not be historically correct to ascertain that the destiny of the Russian Revolution to develop along the path of the formation of Soviets was clearly chalked out in Lenin's head right from the beginning and before the Soviets were actually formed. On the contrary, in 1905 the Soviets "arose of themselves" in the course of the development of revolutionary struggle of the Russian proletariat, first in Petrograd followed quickly by 40 more in other industrial centres. It was the genius of Lenin that understood very quickly the significance of the Soviets in the path of development of the Russian Revolution and "gave conscious expression to" this form "which arose of themselves". It would not also be historically correct to ascertain that right from the beginning Mao was very clear is his conception about the path the Chinese Revolution would follow in its course of development or about the different forms this revolutionary war would take in its various stages. In order to reach to a correct realization of these even Mao Tse-Tung had to wait until 1927 for the real experiences of the revolutionary peasant war when the central, southern and northern provinces of China were engulfed in rapidly rising tides of peasants' uprisings with Hunan as the centre of storm. The real experiences of these real peasants' uprisings showed the path of development of the Chinese Revolution which again the genius of Mao that grasped it very quickly and "gave conscious expression" to it. Moreover, the history of the Chinese Revolution showed that the real experience of the events of 1927 was not enough for Mao to completely grasp the intricate problems related to the development of the Chinese Revolution; to attain this he had to wait for more experiences of revolutionary war-for the experiences of the anti-Jap revolutionary war when the path of the protracted people's war, the transformation of guerrilla warfare into mobile warfare, the combination of guerrilla warfare and mobile warfare etc. were totally and wholly grasped by Mao Tse-Tung. We are citing these instances to establish the fact that as true Marxists both Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung "learned" the forms of struggle "from mass practice" and "made no claim whatever to teach the masses the forms struggle."
Have the comrades of 'Biplabi Yug', in this way, learned from the real experiences of the revolutionary struggles of the revolutionary classes of India and on the basis of these experiences arrived at their conclusion about guerrilla warfare? Is guerrilla warfare the "generalised" form, the "conscious expression" of the forms of struggles of the revolutionary classes of India "which arose of themselves in the course" of the struggles of those revolutionary classes? Most importantly-have they treated this question in connection with the concrete condition of the peasants' struggle of West Bengal as well as of India ? Unfortunately we do not find any such fact-based analysis in the article under discussion. We must have noticed that Lenin had made a concrete analysis of the concrete situation of the revolutionary struggle of Russia in the September of 1906 to establish the truth that guerrilla war had become the inevitable form of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in the then Russian conditions and brought forward the fact that in real life guerrilla warfare was being waged by the worker combatants and by the unemployed workers. This incontestable fact supplied Lenin with the material on which he developed his analysis. "The struggle will be conducted mainly through the guerrilla form"-is not it just a statement that does not prove anything? Moreover, it is more of a direction from "above" and in no way reflects a summing of the experiences of the struggles which are actually being conducted by the peasants from "below" and which by its very intrinsic nature is spontaneous. Can we not demand from Marxist-Leninists such analyses based on indisputable facts spontaneously being manifested in reality?
There is a long history of struggles of the Indian working class and peasantry. If we look at this history we shall find that while in some concrete situations the revolutionary struggles of the peasantry had taken the form of guerrilla warfare, at the same time there were a number of instances where the revolutionary struggles of the peasantry had erupted through the form of peasants' uprisings. And right from the days of the anti-imperialist struggle we had seen a series of nationwide uprisings of the Indian working class.
Does this long history of the struggles of the Indian working class and peasantry bring forward any particular form of the revolutionary struggle as the main form of that struggle valid for the whole period of development of the Indian revolution? More importantly, does the present concrete condition of the revolutionary struggles of the Indian masses, particularly of the peasantry throw before us any particular form of the struggle as the main form of struggle that "has arisen of itself in the course of the movement" and is demanding "conscious expression" from the revolutionary communists? The answer is an emphatic 'no', if we really try to concretely analyse the concrete situation. The present concrete conditions of the revolutionary struggles of the Indian masses do not, in any way, allow us to generalise, like Lenin, that "The fact that guerrilla warfare became widespread... is beyond dispute" and that any particular section of the Indian working class or peasantry is waging guerrilla warfare of their own "as a general rule". Is it not a fact that the revolutionary communist movement of India, or for that matter, of West Bengal is not immediately confronted with the task of solving the problem of "giving conscious expression" to the main form of the revolutionary struggle of the Indian working class and the peasantry, more precisely of the peasantry as that is the problem the article under discussion is seized with. It is an unquestionable truth that it is absolutely impossible for any Marxist-Leninist to find the correct solution to any concrete problem that in that particular objective reality has not become urgent and immediate. It is more particularly true for problems concerning practical class struggles. In such cases the Marxist-Leninists cannot but have to wait for the problem to become immediate, urgent and real. Precisely for this reason are we not bound to wait for the revolutionary struggles of the Indian working class and peasantry to develop and spread when the problem of "giving conscious expression" to the form of the revolutionary struggles which will inevitably "arise of themselves in the course of the movement" will be urgent and immediate. And who knows what unforeseen new forms of struggles the coming revolutionary days will introduce? Why should we bind the movement to any one particular form of struggle, precisely when the answer to the question lies in the womb of the future? If we try to solve the problem with which we are not immediately confronted will it not inevitably turn into a "concoction"? Can we confront life, "keep pace life" with any concoction, any abstract 'invention'?
Analysis of the Objective Conditions?
We have already mentioned, to the comrades of 'Biplabi Yug', the single fact that the feudal production relations still dominates in agricultural scene of West Bengal and consequently the scope of agrarian revolution has not yet been exhausted here is enough to prove that the revolution will develop along the path of Peoples' War even in West Bengal.
While discussing this topic the article writes: - "It is necessary to undertake research work to find out the ways and extent of the existence of the feudal production relations in the different parts of West Bengal . But very many signs of capitalist development of a great magnitude are also not noticeable in this state. Even in the regions where the agriculture is most developed, instances of extensive centralisation of land or of capitalist farming seldom catch our eye." [9]
The trouble is that this kind of statement cannot prove any socio-economic reality. It is beyond dispute that accurate objective facts and the proper analysis of these facts are needed to establish any specific socio-economic reality. If someone just states that in West Bengal "even in the most developed agricultural regions instances of extensive centralisation of land or of capitalist farming seldom catch our eyes", then any one can easily reply that in the most developed agricultural regions of West Bengal great many instances of extensive centralisation of land or of capitalist farming can be noticed. In that case the debate will be bogged down in the narrow net of personal power of observation or perception and the objective facts will be kept out. It must be understood that it is impossible to prove anything without carrying on analysis based on hard objective facts.
Secondly, it has been mentioned at the beginning of the article that "there are some people" who think that the path of guerrilla war or peoples' war can not forge ahead in "places like West Bengal " as big zamindaris are absent in this state. Now if someone just cites the instance that large-scale land-centralisation is not observed in rural West Bengal then the above-mentioned persons may jump up and say - "That's what we are stressing. The rarity of large-scale centralisation of land signifies the rarity of big zamindaris and consequently the absence of feudal dominance." Therefore if the single logic of the rarity of large-scale centralisation of land is put forward then it can cut both ways. It is clear that more facts and analyses are necessary to prove the dominance of feudal exploitation in rural West Bengal .
We also do not hold the opinion that the dominance of feudal or semi-feudal exploitation has been swept away from the rural scene of West Bengal and the necessity of agrarian revolution has been exhausted. But at the same time we do feel that while the absence of the dominance of big landlords and their private armies as such does not prove the abolition of the dominance of feudal exploitation in rural West Bengal, the rarity of the large-scale centralisation of land of itself also does not establish the fact that capitalism has not been able to a make much headway in the agricultural sector of West Bengal. There is no scope in this article for a detailed discussion on this topic. We can only say at this juncture that the promise that is given at the beginning of the article under discussion to "analyse the adverse, sceptic and agnostic arguments against Mao's theory of Peoples' War" has been almost totally forgotten in the later part of the article.
There is an endeavour in the article to depict a picture of the dominance of feudal exploitation, as it exists presently in the rural sector of West Bengal . Just after stating that "large-scale centralisation of land is a rarity in West Bengal" we have been told that "Rather along with a little amount of centralisation of land we have seen, in the last 20 years, the emergence of a new social class in the villages (of West Bengal) who have carried on large-scale usury and have utilised governmental power to appropriate different types of businesses, contractorships and jobs and who are now the owners of the economic, social and political power in the villages. While this section includes a large portion of the old jotedars and usurers, it also includes a part formed of middle and rich peasants who are now not connected with labour and carry on various types of extra-economic coercion in the rural areas. ...In West Bengal they are the new landlords (zamindars)." [10]
We are at a loss to understand in what sense these people are characterised as feudal landlords. We must remember that landlords belong to a specific economic category - a specific class with specific characteristic features and specific methods of exploitation. We cannot lump together all the rural rich and tyrants as landlords. By feudal landlords we mean that section of the rural population who on the basis of their power as owners of land appropriates the total surplus-labour of the peasants. How can those people be called landlords who have become owners of economic, social and political power in rural West Bengal by "carrying on large-scale usury and utilising governmental power to appropriate different types of businesses-contractorships-jobs?" They may be owners of usurious capital, owners of trading capital, but can never be landlords. It must be remembered that the above fact has been placed in the article as a proof of the still existing dominance of feudal exploitation in the countryside of West Bengal . Therefore there can be no question of accepting the characterisation other than the definition of feudal landlords as a specific economic category.
Moreover, it has been written in the article under discussion that - "Viewing politically, the greatest proof of the existence of feudal relations in West Bengal is the absence of political freedom. There is no democracy here. The leaders of the party in power have the last word here." After a few lines it has been added within brackets that ("Here the term political freedom has been used to mean the political freedom of the people, not the political freedom of the country.") [11]
It is beyond dispute that the working class and the peasantry along with the vast number of other exploited sections of the masses of India enjoy a political freedom that is limited and partial in nature; their democratic rights are also limited and partial. But in this context we want to ask... in which country masses enjoy such a degree of political freedom as has been envisaged by the writer of the article under discussion? Do the exploited masses even of the advanced capitalist countries like the United States , England , France, Japan etc. enjoy such political freedom? In which class-divided and exploiting class dominated country the representatives of the ruling classes do not have the last word? Of course we do not want to mean that the working masses of India enjoy the same degree of political freedom and democratic rights as are being enjoyed by the working masses of the advanced capitalist countries. Of course there are differences. But what we want to point out in this context is that, in no class-divided country of the world the working masses enjoy such high degree of political freedom and democratic rights which has been impressed upon by specially drawing our attention to the difference between the political freedom of the country and the people which the writer of the article intends to make. The economic-political reality of a country where, in spite of the widespread existence of the remnants of feudalism, a bourgeois-parliamentary structure with all its limitations is being maintained for the last fifty years without any major hindrance, bourgeois elections are being held more or less regularly, the elections are effecting regular changes in the seat of power in the context of the different political parties of the ruling classes, does present a complexity. It is impossible to reach to a correct understanding of the economic-political reality of India without taking into account of this complexity.
However, to us, the more important point of consideration is the description that has been given in the later part in pursuance of the logic of the absence of political freedom of the masses in the rural scene of West Bengal . After characterising the 'new landlords' of West Bengal it has been described that: - "The exploitation and oppression of this parasitic leaders on the poor, middle and rich peasants have crossed the limits of their patience. The masses are fuming in revolt. But the agitation of the masses can not find any outlet due the complete absence of political liberty." [12]
Is there any truth in the analysis that sometimes the masses cannot find any way-out to give vent to their agitation in a situation where they are fuming in revolt? Do the history of the struggles of the workers and peasants teach us this lesson?
Absolutely not. Did the workers and peasants in Tsar's Russia use to enjoy greater degree of political liberty and democratic freedom than their modern Indian counterpart? Lenin unhesitatingly characterised the Tsar's regime as an autocratic regime. There also it had been observed that the absence of political liberty could not prevent the outbursts of the agitation of the workers and peasants when they were actually fuming in revolt. And the character of these outbursts was, of course, spontaneous. We have seen many such examples during the course of the Chinese Revolution.
In this context it may be useful to remember some portions of the first part of Mao's "Investigating Into Peasant Movement in Hunan ".
Commenting about the then developing peasant struggle in China Mao had written that: - "In a very short time, in China's central, southern and northern provinces, several hundred million peasants will rise like a tornado or tempest, a force so extraordinarily swift and violent that no power, however great, will be able to suppress it. They will break all trammels that now bind them and rush forward along the road to liberation. They will send all imperialists, local bullies and bad gentry to their grave. All revolutionary parties and all revolutionary comrades will stand before them to be tested, and to be accepted or rejected as they decide.
"To march at their head and lead them? Or to follow at their rear, gesticulating at them and criticising them? Or to face them as opponents?
"Every Chinese is free to choose among the three alternatives, but circumstances demand that a quick choice be made." [13]
We have been forced to quote a bit extensively from Mao as because the article of 'Biplabi Yug' has tried to build such logic that the rural masses of West Bengal are not able to express their deep resentment openly in actual struggles, as they do not find any revolutionary leadership in front of them. It follows from the above logic that the discontentment of the rural masses of West Bengal will burst forth at the moment they will find a revolutionary leadership before them. From the above quotation of Mao Tse-Tung we want to emphasise the truth that the history of the workers and peasants' struggle prove this logic to be wrong and the objective dialectics of the mass movement runs contrary to this logic. The objective conditions, independent of anybody's desire, wish or beckoning, create such spontaneity favourable for the open expression of the deep resentment of the masses. When such a condition is created, the absence of political liberties or any such thing cannot prevent the manifestations of the discontentment of the masses in the form of open struggles. At such objective conditions when the spontaneity among the masses reach the degree essential for drawing the masses into open struggle the masses have never waited and will never wait for the revolutionary leadership to appear before them. Rather the expression of the anger and agitation of the masses in the form of open spontaneous struggles of the masses draws the revolutionary leadership in front of them, supplies the revolutionary leadership with mass base and teaches them. In the conditions of the First World War when Lenin concluded that objective revolutionary conditions had been created throughout Europe , he did not reach the conclusion on the basis of the existence of revolutionary leaderships. Rather Lenin was very much perturbed by the absence of revolutionary leadership when almost all of Europe was being rocked by spontaneous outbursts of the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat. At present we are witnessing sporadic expression of factory-based revolts among the workers of West Bengal . And it can never be claimed that these revolts were inspired by the presence of revolutionary leadership. Rather it can be observed that in most cases of such revolts of workers the revolutionaries are trying to catch up with these revolts after these have been openly expressed.
The task that the revolutionary leadership faces in the context of these spontaneous outbursts of the revolutionary classes is to stand before these struggles and lead them... not to build these struggles, because struggles cannot be built, but they objectively develop.
Does the fact that the discontentment of the workers and peasants of India including West Bengal is not finding its expression in open struggles pose some truth before us? Will the comrades of 'Biplabi Yug' ponder over the question?
Moreover, the way the rich peasants have been included among the peasant masses of West Bengal who are 'fuming in revolt' against the 'parasitic leaders' also raises serious question. While speaking about the characteristics of the rich peasants of the then China Mao had stated in his article "Chinese Revolution And Chinese Communist Party"- "Generally speaking, they (the rich peasants) might make some contribution to the anti-imperialist struggle of the peasant masses and stay neutral in the agrarian revolutionary struggle against the landlords." [14] We must note here through using the expression 'might make some contribution' Mao Tse-Tung had kept the possibility open for the rich peasants not making any contribution. In the Hunan report also Mao had described the role of the rich peasants in the peasant upsurge of Hunan in the following way: - "Thus an official of the township peasant association (generally of the "riffraff" type) would walk into the house of a rich peasant, register in hand, and say, "Will you please join the peasant association?" How would the rich peasant answer? A tolerably well-behaved one would say, "Peasant association? I have lived here for decades, tilling my land. I never heard of such a thing before, yet I have managed to live all right. I advise you to give it up!" A really vicious rich peasant would say, "Peasant association! Nonsense! Association for getting your head chopped off! Don't get people into trouble!" [15] If in the context of the agrarian revolutionary struggle the rich peasant behave in such away then what has specially happened in rural West Bengal that the rich peasants have started to fume in revolt so early? The much publicised success story of the Left Front Government of West Bengal in the agricultural sector is nothing but an endeavour of the govt. to initiate "from above" a process of capitalist development in West Bengal agriculture. As per their class character the rich peasants ought to have supported this endeavour of the Left Front Government. Can we not demand an explanation as to why the rural West Bengal is witnessing a reversal of the above theoretical understanding? Or is it really happening? Where are the facts to justify the statement?
While delving deep into these questions and looking enquiringly towards ourselves a tormenting question confronts us. Is it a fact that the working class and the masses have to be taught about everything about their own struggles? Are the struggles of the masses 'to be developed' under all circumstances? Does the spontaneous outbreak of mass struggles solely depend on the presence of revolutionary leadership? Have the masses no other role apart from obediently following the revolutionary leadership? Then why it is that while pointing out the characteristic features of an objective revolutionary situation Lenin had included the observance of the rapid spread of the 'independent revolutionary struggles of the working class and the masses' as an important feature of such a situation? And why he did not make the presence of the revolutionary leadership as a necessary precondition for the outbreak of such struggles? "The working class and the masses are the real driving force of history" - is it a lifeless dogma or a serious belief and a guide to us?
References:
1. Lenin, CW, Vol. 4, pp 211-212
2. Biplabi Yug, December 2000, p 4
3. Ibid
4. Mao Tse-Tung, Selected Writings, Peking , 1977, Vol. 2, p 79
5. Lenin, CW, Vol. 11, p 213
6. Biplabi Yug, Dec. 2000, p 14
7. Ibid, p 15
8. Lenin, CLW, Vol. 11, pp 213-214
9. Biplabi Yug, Dec. 2000, p 7
10. Ibid
11. Ibid
12. Ibid
13. Mao Tse-Tung, op. cit. Vol. 1, pp 23-24
14. Ibid, Vol. 2, p 323
15. Ibid, Vol. 1, p 30
Comments:
No Comments for View