Fifty Years of Naxalbari Peasant Struggle
Introduction
The peasant struggle of Naxalbari has stepped into the fiftieth year. Fifty years is not a short time. During this period the communist movement has suffered several setbacks, both at the national as well as at the international level. In this country, in continuity of existence of a communist party, a new party CPI (ML) emerged from the Naxalbari movement by dissociating from the CPI (M). But the new party failed to uphold the advancement of the communist movement. Within a couple of years after its birth, the CPI (ML) disintegrated and the continuity of a communist party in our country was snapped. Nearly 50 years have passed since then, yet no communist party with a national presence has emerged. On the other hand the first campaign of the international socialist movement has suffered a major defeat during this period. In fact, no country in the world has seen an emergence of a real communist party ? a party of the working class. Globally, the working class is disintegrated. Class struggle is at its very low ebb. Following numerous splits and mergers, a bunch of splintered communist revolutionary groups are now surviving, or better to say that the communist movement is merely making its existence known to us through the presence of these groups. The perspective of course is that class struggle cannot cease to exist in a class divided society. Whatever and however ruthless a debacle may be, communist movement in some form exists and will continue to exist. However, the present-day communists are not in a position to commemorate the glorious events of past with due pride and honour - in a manner in which the revolutionary proletariat, on the strength of advancement of class-struggle or revolutionary struggle and its expanse, is able to show respect and commemorate past glories. We are compelled to observe 50 years of the historic Naxalbari peasant struggle and honour the brave martyrs with utmost humility and shame. We have lost our right to bask in the glory of our past. Hence, any formal celebration of the Naxalbari movement is meaningless. Instead, if the communists and the advanced class conscious workers can analyse the Naxalbari movement in light of positive and negative experiences of that time, and confronting the right and left deviations (particularly the right) of the present-day communists, advance even in a small way the struggle for revival of the communist movement - then that will be the real and correct way to remember and pay respect to the Naxalbari struggle.
Fifty years before i.e. in 1967, a few thousands of landless labourers and poor peasants from the Naxalbari region of north Bengal armed with indigenous weapons, plunged into a venture to seize vested (khas) and benami (illegally possessed) land. 11 people died in police firing. The timing of this uprising or revolt of Naxalbari's peasant population is significant. This historic event took place in May 1967. Two months before, in the month of March, CPI (M) along with other left parties joined with a dissident section of the Congress and formed the first non-Congress United Front government in West Bengal. There was another aspect, and this is particularly more important because this aspect has been intricately connected to the Naxalbari struggle and its historical significance. It was the growing intra-party ideological struggle within the CPI (M). Soon after the birth of CPI (M) from the old CPI, a revisionist-reformist trend/deviation was apparent within the party, rather within the party leadership. Dissatisfied party workers and few local and state level leaders started a struggle against this trend. The eight documents of Com. Charu Majumdar (henceforth referred to as CM), written between 1965 and 1967, undoubtedly provided the primary direction in the emerging internal ideological political struggle against the revisionist line and the ideological deviations of the CPI (M). In this context, the eighth and final document/letter of CM was incidentally published about only a month before Naxalbari.
Many people think that the overthrow of the prolonged and established Congress rule and consequent formation of government by the leftists in 1967inspired the peasant masses of Naxalbari towards their significant militant struggle. As if the formation of the United Front government played the main role in the birth of Naxalbari struggle. There is an element of truth in this thought, but it is partial, a relatively insignificant part of the whole truth. We should remember the time. Formation of the United Front government itself was founded on the emergent struggles of the workers and the peasantry. The protest rally of hundreds of thousands of peasants in 1959 in Kolkata----killing of 81 peasants in police firing; then post-1962, after the movement came to a halt for a few years in the face of state terror, but thereafter the huge food movement of the masses in 1966; beside these the workers struggle continued during this period confronting the joint attack of police and Congress goons; the workers of many big industries established red flag unions and continually fought to uphold their unions, all these cannot be forgotten. We cannot turn a blind eye to all these events and consider the formation of United Front government simply as an isolated electoral incident. It may be noted here that we have simply put forth the forceful presence of workers and peasants struggle in West Bengal prior to 1967. However, whether the United Front government really represented the above trend of movement or not, that is a subject of separate discussion. Not only in West Bengal or India, we should also look at the developed capitalist nations as well as other countries of the world. Imperialism-capitalism was beginning to experience a crisis in the latter half of the 1960s. Mass and class movements started rising in different countries. Of course we cannot forget the heroic struggle of 1968, when the French workers and students attempted to occupy factories. In our country as well as in several Latin American countries, revolutionary struggle against their respective exploitative classes and the imperialists was present strongly. It was also a time when the Cultural Revolution was forging ahead in China under the leadership of the Chinese communist party. The working class and toiling masses of the entire world was influenced by these events. Without considering the explicit and implicit impact of these national and international events, it is impossible to explain the historic uprising of the Naxalbari peasants. In particular, the struggles of the workers and peasant masses prior to the 1967 elections were the most important factors influencing the Naxalbari peasant struggle. Instead of understanding the Naxalbari movement in continuance of these struggles, if we emphasize on the role of the non-Congress United Front government, it will undoubtedly be wrong and misleading. Such an outlook implies that we are identifying the bourgeois constitutional government as an ally of class struggle.
We have already mentioned that the role of the United Front government, rather the presence of the United Front government played a part, albeit partial and implicit, in the Naxalbari struggle. In those days, the workers and peasantry considered the red flag bearing left parties as their representatives, and waged their struggles under their leadership. It was, therefore, natural for the workers and peasantry, due to the lack of consciousness, to regard the government as ?our government'. It was a time when the workers peasants were not yet overwhelmed by the idea of government as a means for getting minor reforms and reliefs, as they are today, in a period of struggle-less lull. By ?our government' the workers-peasants, particularly the fighting people assumed a government for their struggle. They thought that under these governments they would be able to advance their struggles.
These kinds of thoughts were likely to be present within the peasant masses of Naxalbari. We need to remember that Naxalbari movement was not a spontaneous revolt of the peasantry. The conscious organizational preparation by CPI (M) committee of the Terai area of Darjeeling led by CM, Kanu Sanyal and other leaders and by the Siliguri wing of the All India Kisan Sabha, played a major role in organizing the movement. We come to know from the letters of CM and other documents of that period that the agitational campaign launched by them during the preparatory period of peasant struggle demanding seizure of vested (khas) and benami land had always been a demand of the CPI (M) controlled Kisan Sabha itself. Hence to what extent can a government having the leaders of their past struggle in the CPI (M) and Kisan Sabha oppose their struggle? It was not unusual for the peasant population to have such doubts. However, we can definitely assert that the leadership of the Naxalbari movement had no doubts whatsoever in this regard. CM and his comrades had already started the ideological struggle against the reformist deviation of CPI (M). Hence it would not be wrong to say that the Terai committee led the Naxalbari movement remaining fully conscious what role the United Front government can assume, even if there be some traces of doubt among certain sections of the struggling masses.
Besides, a significant event had already occurred in the workers movement in West Bengal. Industrial workers were the worst hit by the economic crisis/stagnation arising out of the Indo-China and the Indo-Pak wars. Soon after the provincial Congress government was overthrown in 1967 elections, the attack of the capitalists became even more intense and retrenchment of workers assumed huge proportion. On the other hand, as the new government was formed, the workers started more militant struggles to settle pending dues and against retrenchments. They took a new path of struggle by spontaneously resorting to gherao(encirclement of company officials)movements in different factories, particularly in engineering firms. The workers expected the new government to stand by their side. But that never happened. The typical class character of a government in a bourgeois constitution was revealed. The government with its police force came down heavily on the gherao movements, sending a clear message to the workers and the peasants that legal limits cannot be crossed. There is no reason to believe that this message did not reach the Naxalbari peasants. We may recall, prior to the Naxalbari uprising, CM in its 8th letter had already mentioned about the experience of the gherao movement.
Let us turn to another important aspect in this regard. CM did discuss about the experiences of the gherao movements to expose the role of the United Front government as the custodian of legal framework within the confines of a bourgeois constitutional government. Unfortunately, he failed to realize the fact that by transgressing the legal confines, workers movements presented a living scope for advancement of class struggle. It will not be wrong to say, CM and later the CPI (ML) envisaged the question of agrarian revolution in a uni-dimensional (rather obstinate) manner detaching it from the working class struggle and workers revolution. This contained the reason for their apathy and disregard for workers movement. However, the outcome was dreadful and even the present-day communists are still suffering from the consequences of it. Thus removal of the advanced conscious workers from their class groove undoubtedly inflicted a great loss, and left the large mass of workers in the hands of the reformists. Not only that, by making wrong analyses of the revolutionary peasant movement of Naxalbari and on the question of working class leadership, they did gross injustice towards the agrarian revolution itself.
We have already mentioned that Naxalbari was not a bolt from the blue. Behind it was a stream of militant struggle by the workers and peasants, and especially isolated and sporadic struggles for seizure of vested (khas) and benami land in rural West Bengal. Naxalbari was born in continuation of these struggles. It was not merely a coincidence that CM, Kanu Sanyal and the other leaders emerged from the leadership of Terai area of CPI (M) committee and Kishan Sabha to organize and lead the revolt of the peasant masses of Naxalbari. They were the ones who initiated the political ideological struggle against the reformist-revisionist deviations of CPI (M), right from 1965-66. Naxalbari was not an incident of spontaneous upsurge of the peasantry. There was as much political preparation as there was organizational groundwork. However, it is difficult to comment today whether they wanted to draw a clear line of demarcation with the revisionist-reformist politics of CPI (M) by giving a concrete militant form to the struggle of the peasants for vested (khas) and benami landor in other words, whether the leadership wanted to provide a concrete form to the political ideological struggle that they had started against the CPI (M) leadership and present that firmly in front of the general workers of CPI (M) and before the worker-peasant masses.
Nonetheless, this happened to be the reality. We saw how and how fast the dissident CPI (M) workers and the communist revolutionary workers from different corners of the country, who were carrying out ideological political struggle against the CPI (M), organized and united around the Naxalbari movement. Undeniably, Naxalbari movement played an important historical role in drawing together all the communist revolutionaries from around India to a particular centre and resolutely brought to the forefront the agenda of revolution which the CPI (M) had shelved.
Is Raising the Revolutionary Agenda Same as Defending the Revolution?
In an article published in Red Star commemorating 50 years of Naxalbari movement, the author writes, "The most important positive contribution of the Naxalbari uprising and the efforts of the communist revolutionary forces to reorganise the communist party was that it saved the revolutionary movement from the path of liquidation pursued by the CPI and CPI (M)?." Could the revolutionary movement be truly defended in reality? It is true that the lives of the brave martyrs of Naxalbari and the sacrifices of the thousands of revolutionary workers served a severe blow to the "liquidationist" degenerated politics of CPI (M) and strongly brought the revolutionary agenda to the forefront. But can we consider defending the revolution, implying advancement of the revolutionary struggle and bringing to the forefront the agenda of revolution to be synonymous? Only a real communist party, a true working class party, could have combated the betrayal by the left parties like CPI, CPI (M), of the worker and peasant masses, potent with revolutionary possibilities, and protect the revolution in its totality from the clutches of revisionism and reformism. Unfortunately, the new CPI (ML) party, created out of the ideological struggle within the CPI (M), right from its inception was detached from the working class and fell prey to left deviation. Within a couple of years the party disintegrated due to the internal contradictions arising out of the left-adventurist line. Needless to mention, that left-wing anarchist line cannot combat revisionism-reformism or advance the revolutionary struggle. The hard reality is CPI (ML) was not able to save the revolution, and neither did history spare the party. Undoubtedly, the responsibility for the failure of revolutionary potential of the growing workers-peasants struggle rests on the communist-revolutionaries and not on the historic Naxalbari struggle.
Was the Ultra-Left Politics of CPI (ML) Compatible with the Peasants' Struggle of Naxalbari?
We have already mentioned about the emergent struggles of the workers and peasants of West Bengal and few other states in the sixties of the last century. Of particular significance was the evolving revolt and sporadic movements of the peasantry of West Bengal upholding the demand for occupying vested (khas) and benami land. And further how in continuance of these arose the armed struggle of Naxalbari peasant which significantly influenced stirred up the fighting sections of the workers, peasants and toiling masses of the entire country. At the same time the Naxalbari peasant struggle organized against the dictats of the CPI (M) leadership violating legal restrictions of the government was also a revolt against the reformist revisionist politics of CPI (M). Naturally, the necessity of the time was to consolidate the revolt on the basis of the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat. However, the anti-revisionist, anti-reformist struggle that started under the leadership of CM was already influenced (ravaged) by ultra-left deviations. Hence, the Naxalbari movement, organized under the leadership of the Terai committee effectively became, rather was made to become the representative and bearer of ultra-left politics. Naxalbari struggle was detached from its content. Let us look at this from a different angle. Why did the CPI (ML) drift towards ultra-left politics right from its inception? Was that ingrained in the land seizure movement of Naxalbari? And again we are sure that no one will say that the Naxalbari peasants' struggle was an anarchist program. Naxalbari movement was a mass movement. No mass movement can ever uphold the direction or teachings of boycotting mass-movement and mass-organization, even if it temporarily recedes or is crushed by state terror. Although, Naxalbari peasants' struggle and CPI (ML) politics appears to be inextricably linked, or projected to be a unified whole, the hard reality is that the political ideological position adopted by CPI (ML) through its 8th Congress, did not at the least, represent the Naxalbari movement. Rather it is widely accepted that the ideological-political struggle which was initiated within CPI (M) through the eight documents of CM, proceeded in a particular path and aligned CPI (ML) along a left-adventurist position. Had it been able to imbibe the true education from the Naxalbari movement, left anarchist lines like annihilation of class enemies, snatching of rifles, and to top it all, boycott of mass organization, would have had to face serious questions.
Yet, communist revolutionary and Naxal became synonymous. Hence, assumption of a stand in favour of the Naxalbari peasants' revolutionary struggle in effect was tantamount to supporting CPI (ML). Consequently, we who dissociated from another left organization and got associated with workers movement from the standpoint of revolutionary position of the proletariat, had a different objective experience: Naxalbari movement at its initial stages significantly influenced and enthused the struggling workers, but they were unable to continue with that as they could not reconcile themselves with the left-adventurist lines of trade union boycott etc., adopted by the Coordination Committee and CPI (ML) in the name of Naxalbari struggle, so to say the peasant revolution.
In the Perspective of National and International Situation
Based on the struggle against revisionist-reformist deviations of CPI (M) and particularly upon the Naxalbari movement, a new party quickly emerged. The party started its journey with ultra-left deviations and adventurist programmes, that were subsequently taken, which heralded the debacle of the party. But how and why did this debacle of the ML movement happen? An easy answer could be located solely in the failure of the people in the leadership who defected from CPI (M) and other left parties and held aloft the flag of revolution. CM can also be held largely responsible. However, without considering the prevailing national and international situation of the mid and late sixties of the last century, if we look into the failure of few individuals in an isolated manner, that would be wrong, biased and would not allow us to identify the overall failure and deviation of the leadership. The history of sacrifice of the most sensitive section of the society consisting of thousands of petty-bourgeois students and intellectuals, who plunged for the revolution, would remain unexplained.
The path of peaceful development adopted by global capitalism in the post Second World War period was halted in the mid-Sixties. The capitalist world once again started experiencing a sort of crisis which not only had an effect on the European capitalist countries but also impacted the huge masses of the underdeveloped or the so-called developing nations like India. In our country, following the independence, masses were enthused and spirited with aspirations of a new life, which started receiving major blows from the early sixties, due to the increasing problems on life and livelihood, particularly in the aftermath of the Indo-China and Indo-Pak wars. Expectations turned into frustrations. Nationalist emotions gave way to mass agitation and struggle. Another aspect was of more significance - the betrayal of the CPI (M) and other left parties. Using their organizational authority and influence they stalled the development of the then revolutionary possibility in the emergent struggles. On the contrary, they started diverting the mass agitation towards parliamentary elections. It must be remembered here that even though there arose isolated dissensions among the fighting workers and peasants, apart from some exceptions, generally the party's character of being a betrayer or in other words that of reformism -revisionism was not clearly exposed before them. Any active participant in the left movement or more specifically the workers movement of those times would testify it. Whatever it be, such a situation however gave birth to revolts among a substantial section of conscious, revolutionary comrades within the CPI (M) party. Of course from an ideological political position. They broke the ties with the party. All this is a fact. It would be at the same time curious to note that the very situation (from the view-point of objective revolutionary possibilities in the struggle) which made the comrades and the leaders abandon the old party, might have also pushed and prodded them to take up the challenge to liberate the masses from stagnation created by the old party and pull them along towards revolution, at one go. And this pushed them towards a programme for revolutionary action or in short towards commencement of the revolution, skipping the necessary phase of preparation. Unfortunately, they only looked at the revolutionary potential within the people's struggle and the betrayal and reformist character of the CPI (M). But on the other hand these Communists failed to notice or remained indifferent to the fact, how these parties have so long kept aside the task of organising the working-class as a class and were able to keep the mass struggles confined within opposition of the Congress party simply. There is no reason to doubt that with an overwhelming urge to combat such a situation they were pushed towards left adventurist activities such as boycott of trade unions and elections and adopting other so-called revolutionary activities.
At that time the aspect of international situation that considerably influenced the communist movement in general and especially the communist revolutionaries world-wide was the degeneration/decline of the Soviet Union, the Great Debate between China and Russia, the emergence of the Chinese Communist Party as the international centre in the absence of a centre for the world socialist movement and overall the Cultural Revolution in China. In our country also the communist revolutionaries were greatly influenced by the Chinese Party and the Cultural Revolution. Not only that, they crowned the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao Tse Tung as the unquestioned leader of the world revolution. It cannot be denied that the support of the Chinese Party (although it was conditional) greatly contributed in raising the morale and faith of the activists and the masses and helped the leaders in earning the credibility and consolidation for the AICCCR and the CPI (ML). In fact that history is not unknown to us, that the emergence of the ultra-left line within the Chinese Communist Party in the final phase of the Cultural Revolution decisively influenced the ML-movement in different parts of the world.
But one thing needs to be clarified here. Even though the international and national situation contributed objectively to the frame of thought of CM and the subsequent deviation of the CPI (ML) towards the ultra-left line, there cannot be any doubt that failure to take a firm conscious proletarian position as a communist played the decisive role behind the debacle. It is true that here we have presented the objective situation with emphasis. There is reason for that. Between the two periods, the Naxalbari movement and that of 50 years later i.e. today, there is lot of difference in the two situations. They are not only different but almost in opposite poles. Then throughout the world class-struggle was in an up-curve. Today for the last 30-35 years it's in a down-curve. In the international situation a big disaster has occurred. Through the fall of China and Russia the first campaign of international socialist movement has been defeated. The negative impacts of defeat, its influence, is not only affecting and counter-acting on the working-class and toiling masses but even the communists. At that time in history the main danger before the communists was left-adventurism. Now it is right deviation, or more clearly said, the danger of reformism-opportunism in newer form. Practically, the retreat of working class struggle due to defeat, fragmentation of the class, all pervading dominance of parliamentarism and above all the existence of communists in innumerous fragmented groups and detached from the working-class - in the midst of all of these there is an increasing trend of right deviation. Knowingly or unknowingly there are becoming victims of these circumstances. There is less churning among the workers, hence the main task of organising the working-class is being neglected. Just because there is comparatively more churning among petty-bourgeois sections hence increasing tendency to organise broad masses for mass-struggle, increasing electoral tendencies. Remembering the lessons of the past it can be said that the principal question of the moment is standing firmly with a correct proletarian position combating the negative impacts and counter-actions of defeat. The struggle for revival of the communist movement is demanding proper resolution of this question.
Leadership Vs Authority
How could CM's line of thought acquire a decisive role in determining the style of work and principles of the CPI (ML)? Naturally the question that arises is what were the other leaders doing? With the disaster faced by ML movement within a couple of years many leaders vehemently criticized CPI (ML) or in other words CM's left adventurist line, such as boycott of trade unions and mass organisations, election boycott and line of annihilation of class-enemy. Then what had been the reasons, the compulsions of them accepting all these earlier? Even if it be accepted that they were then in agreement then why did they lose the capacity to judge the correct from the wrong? Almost every one of them had a long political experience. It is an undeniable fact that a number of questions already arose within the Coordination Committee and in spite of incompleteness the comrades who opposed the ultra-left line, especially the thought of boycotting the workers movement, either they themselves dissociated or were removed. In this context it is relevant to note about a particular disease or distortion going on in the Communist movement. It is required not only to understand the past but also in the interests of the present. The issue is about confusing between the content and form of leadership and authority. The great teachers of Marxism and Leninism teach us that in class-struggle or from a bigger perspective, in Communist movement, there is no place for individuals, sects or in general the authority of the party. If the question of authority arises then that is of the class, which means the political authority of the working class over the peasantry and the common masses. Lenin used both the expressions - hegemony of the working class, at the same time, working class leadership. It can be said without any doubt that Lenin did not use the word hegemony in the sense of authority. Clearly speaking there may be an element of leadership within authority but these two words are never synonymous. Rather within authority the major component is supremacy and control. Probably this has been the reason for Lenin to clearly pronounce that the general secretary of the International should not be from Soviet Russia.
Now let us look back for a while. Looking back it appears that the firm, brave and conscious role played by CM and the way he presented the line of the Indian revolution with such clarity (remembering the time prevailing) before the dissident activists of CPI (M), that de facto placed him in a position of authority in the anti-revisionist, anti-reformist movement. In fact his position was further strengthened by the awe-inspiring armed struggle of thousands of peasants of Naxalbari. We have mentioned earlier that the Naxalbari struggle had an all-encompassing influence on the country-wide anti-revisionist, anti-reformist struggle prevailing at that time or in other words among the activists of the CPI (M). The communist revolutionaries of different parts of the country promptly and unquestionably considered CM as the unquestionable leader of that struggle. Undoubtedly it is very difficult to differentiate between unquestionable leadership and authority, especially in the context of a left-adventurist politics and programme. Whatsoever, this is true that the authority of CM helped in bringing together a large section of communist revolutionaries present at that juncture. But on the other hand also this harsh truth cannot be denied that the same authority while in the process of fulfilling the particular immediate demands of that time narrowed down the intra-party struggle and thus ushered in a grave danger to the future of the CPI (ML) movement, as well as the communist movement in general. Although it cannot be denied that while state terror had been one of the important reasons for the disintegration of the CPI (ML), the principal reason was the unresolved conflicts/disputes within the party. It must be clarified here that, putting the onus for the loss or setback that happened to the then communist movement only on CM is totally wrong (in some cases that has occurred). The other front ranking leaders who de facto handed over the authority of the communist movement to CM voluntarily and did not play their necessary role are equally responsible or rather more responsible in a way.
We have especially brought in the above experience and lesson, on this occasion of 50 years of the Naxalbari struggle, because in different extents and forms the authoritarian way of thinking and mentality is still continuing within the communist movement. It is not only in prevalence within the method of work among the leader-dependent communist revolutionary group organisations but also in a wider sense within the realization of the inter-relationship between the communists and the working-class. It must be remembered that in this 50 years the scenario has become changed by almost 180 degrees. At that time there was a predominance of left-adventurist politics, although it prevailed for a short period. On the contrary, during last 30/35 years, especially after the defeat of world socialist movement there has been generally a growth in rightist trend in the communist movement instead of any lessening of it (a discussion about the prevalence of the extreme left programme is something separate). Undoubtedly the authoritarian thinking in the present condition is more dangerous at least not less. We cannot remain indifferent to the painful experiences of keeping the workers dependent by curbing their independent initiative and imposing the authority of the party on them. On the other hand we cannot forget how and why the necessity of a bigger and historically recognized authority arose for the CPI (ML) movement when the slogan "China's Chairman is our Chairman" had to be invoked. It was an extreme expression of authoritarian consciousness. As mentioned earlier that prevailed for a short period. Whatever it be, both kinds of experience reminds us how necessary it is to struggle against authoritarian thinking and tendencies.
WHY IS THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE AGAINST REFORMISM AND OPPORTUNISM STILL PRINCIPALLY IMPORTANT?
Looking at it essentially, the rousing struggle that started against reformism and revisionism during the mid and end of 1960s, got deviated along the left-adventurist line and obviously failed to reach its culmination. In short, the struggle remained incomplete. 50 years later, even today that same condition prevails in the communist movement. In fact the struggle of the majority of the innumerous communist revolutionary groups that had arisen as a result of the splintering of the CPI (ML) had been concentrated against the left adventurist line of the CPI (ML). As a result the struggle against reformism-opportunism in the real sense remained neglected. It must be remembered here that the left-adventurist line was a reaction against reformism and obviously it was not to defeat reformism. Hence with the incompleteness of the struggle against reformism inherent in CPI (ML) or in other words as a matter of course in reaction to the left adventurist politics the groups came into being with the rightist trends (obviously with variations in the extent of that trend). Subsequently, with passage of time, particularly after the failure of initial attempts to unite and form a party, as the groups proceeded to consolidate their respective political positions, that incompleteness or the painful shortcomings and the above-mentioned trend not only remained within the groups but rather became more developed. Further it is a fact that in an effort to form their own mass base in the present condition of retreat of the workers struggle (which is still continuing) after the defeat of the world socialist movement, the non-proletarian rightist trends within the groups is increasing. In other words the tendency of compromising with the backwardness, passivity and especially the prevalent parliamentarian consciousness of the workers and peasant masses is growing.
In an article on 50 years of Naxalbari published in "Red Star", the author has written "Naxalbari had put forth the lesson on the one hand that forming government through election in the existing system is no hurdle in developing workers-peasants struggle, on the other hand the government formed must also cross the limit set by the ruling class for only carrying on reform works and stand by and encourage people's upsurge". Let the question, as to whether the lesson that the comrade has sought to bring before us, has actually transpired out of the revolutionary peasant struggle of Naxalbari, be kept aside for the moment. Rather let us see which lesson the comrade has spoken about and what he means by it. Ultimately what he has explained is that in the present condition the communists can participate in a government elected in accordance with the Indian constitution. This because, according to his opinion not only a government of the communists will not be a hurdle to the development of workers-peasants movement i.e. the class-struggle, but will rather be a support, of course if such a government doesn't keep itself confined within the constitutional limits. He supposedly believes, a bourgeois constitutional government can cross the limits set by the constitution or in other words it is possible for such a government to adopt and sustain with a revolutionary position instead of a reformist position. How amazingly the comrade has muddled up the class nature of an elected parliamentary government within the present system as if with the communists in such a government the bourgeois class nature of it gets transformed. Thus he not only confined himself to endorsing participation in bourgeois elections but also formation of government, passing it of as a lesson of Naxalbari peasant struggle.
Probably the author of that article in "Red Star" must have forgotten or doesn't know that the slogan of the United Front government that was formed in 1967 was "United Front Government is the weapon of struggle" (sangharsh ki hathiyar). If this is taken as plain and simple hoax then that will be over-simplification of the truth. The CPI (M) of 1967 and the CPI (M) of post-1977, especially post-1982 was not the same. The United Front government of 1967 was formed based on the struggle of worker and peasant masses (of course its direction was just opposing the Congress Party). It must be remembered that constitutional compulsion inevitably took this government to the position of opposition to the struggles of the rousing masses which most of the times was going beyond the limits of law. Sending police forces to suppress agitations of encirclement of factory managements by workers (called "gherao andolan"), large-scale repression of the Naxalbari movement by the police, starkly revealed before the struggling masses, especially the advanced sections, that an elected government within the "prevailing constitutional system" goes against the struggles of workers and peasants, that hurt the ruling class interests, i.e. the government acted against the class-struggle. There cannot be any question of such a government standing in favour of class struggle, even if the communists form such a government. Further it needs to be remembered also that, as on one hand it is true the United Front government did not in any real way stand in support of the then rousing struggles, but on the other even whatever it was compelled to do under pressure from below, because of that only the government was toppled within just 7 months by the power of constitutional laws. During the second stint of 1969, the United Front government could not even remain in power for 11 months. Whatever be the extreme left position in CM's thought or later the CPI (ML), they firmly upheld the above truth. In the name of a lesson of Naxalbari movement there cannot be any question of departing from that standpoint. Even for the sake of debate if it be assumed that a communist party does form a government, its degeneration into reformism is inevitable or it has already become afflicted by it.
It is true that the CPI (ML) rejecting the participation of communists in government extended it up to boycott of elections. Let us keep aside any discussion about those who still follow this extreme-left/left-adventurist line. But the communist revolutionary organisations who oppose boycott of elections, aren't they once again pulling it along to the other extreme and de facto placing the electoral struggle within the reformist frame? Isn't coming out of the boycott sufficient? The main point of following the Leninist tactics in electoral struggle is utilising the elections for educating and making the workers and other masses conscious and through it demarcate from the left-adventurist line of election boycott on one hand and on the other combat the reformist line of thought. Through this it is possible to adopt a correct proletarian standpoint. Unfortunately over a long time we have carried out a number of discussions and ideological struggle on this issue of Leninist tactics in electoral struggle but unfortunately of no avail till date. Even if we keep aside the question of participation in constitutional government, in effect the tendency of hankering for votes in order to expand organisations by compromising with backward mindset among the masses does never fall within Leninist tactics of participating in elections.
EPILOGUE
The most interesting thing is, there is no such communist revolutionary organization which is not commemorating the 50 years of Naxalbari struggle. But are we in a position to commemorate the revolutionary struggle of 50 years ago with due appreciation and its historical significance? Are we truly in a position to do that? Commemorating does not merely mean remembering it. It means moving ahead. The Naxalbari movement brought forcefully into focus the necessity of revolution. 50 years after that, especially after the defeat of international socialist movement, many changes have come about. May be the agenda of revolution itself have receded or is in the process of receding in our minds. Of course it must be remembered that mistakes or deviations is not something to get troubled about, the important thing is learning from the past, rectifying it and moving ahead. We cannot assume that there exists an open unhindered, smooth path for the struggle to establish socialism in the world by throwing out capitalism-imperialism. It has to go through many ups and downs. It is true that we are now passing through a very tough situation. Revolutionary situation does not prevail now. The leader of revolution, the working-class party is absent. Even though independent initiatives are being seen to emerge among workers, in the main the working-class is still in a fragmented condition caught up in a post-defeat period. The main question is whether we are able to keep our commitment towards the historically revolutionary role of the working-class, the revolution and of course the proletarian politics with firmness and work for the present necessary tasks towards the revolution in future. Are we able to continue with our untiring efforts for the most important task of all - organising the working-class as a class? Undoubtedly remaining unconcerned about this task while commemorating the Naxalbari struggle and ceremoniously hailing it with red salutes can give us self-satisfaction, but amounts to nothing but that will be nothing more than pretence.
Comments:
No Comments for View