The Zigzag Course of the Lalgarh Movement
18 months have already passed since Adivasi Struggle, commonly known as Lalgarh movement, erupted in the vast tract of Jangalmahal, mainly within the district of West Midnapore. It is still continuing in the face of brutal repression of joint forces under state and central command. No matter however, that the struggle at the moment lacks the same intensity as it was during the initial months, it is rather really great that the so long submissive and all-enduring Adivasi people rose in revolt and didn't drop their flag of resistance, in spite of regular torture and harassment, and that too after 18 months of fatigue and exhaustion of bitter struggle. More so, these people are fighting a lone battle. Industrial workers who are to be in the frontline in struggle for democracy, hopelessly failed to assert their strength in support of the Adivasi struggle, thanks to their own disarrayed and disorganized condition and obviously to absence of a truly working class party.
No doubt, the Adivasis of Jangalmahal manifested heroic courage and commitment in their resistance struggle. Yet it is difficult to say where this lone isolated movement can and will lead to. Nevertheless, 18 months of Lalgarh movement is a rich experience sometimes with twist and turn in the course of the movement in the perspective of people's struggle in our country. Fighting workers were attracted although they couldn't play their role as mentioned earlier. The movement also stirred a section of the intelligentsia. Obviously this movement drew special attention of communist revolutionaries. More so, due to the reason that CPI(Maoist)got associated with the Lalgarh movement at one point of time and was conveniently placed so as to be able to exert influence on PCPA, the leading committee of the Lalgarh struggle, particularly in regard to fixing direction of the movement. Some communist revolutionary groups have already published their critical analysis cum observation about the movement, especially dealing with the role of CPI(Maoist)[hereinafter called Maoists], in their respective political journals. We would also try to throw some light on the whole course of Lalgarh movement right from the beginning with special focus on the turn of events that came about consequent to the intervention of the Maoists. We don't feel that this writing would go to help the movement at this stage, it may at best be treated as a humble attempt to draw necessary lessons from the rich and varied experience of the movement up to this day.
Everybody knows, Lalgarh movement was born out of accumulated anger and resentment of Adivasis of Jangalmahal against police atrocities and age-old oppression in general --- spark of revolt was ignited by indiscriminate police torture and harassment, particularly arrest of five students and blinding of a 72-year old woman, on the wake of landmine-blast on the convoy of C.M. and a Union Minister. Revolt took the shape of a spontaneous mass movement encompassing in initial stage almost whole of population of Jangalmahal area and the people in main, demanded that police torture and harassment be immediately stopped and that the police officers responsible for the torture should apologise publicly.
The Own Agenda of The Lalgarh Struggle and the Agenda of the Maoists - Contradiction and Consequence
The initial five-point demands or the subsequently-placed few demands were nothing revolutionary neither the people were fighting for total withdrawal of state institutions like police stations, administrative offices in the area. In fact, revolutionary political struggle and consciousness thereof cannot be expected from the most downtrodden and backward section of the society, particularly at the present hopeless condition of class struggle. Yet, Maoists, in a statement, stated that Lalgarh Adivasis are fighting to establish their authority and power in Jangalmahal. They further state that Indian state is on war against Adivasis and the Adivasi people on the other hand are fighting people's war. It is really inexplicable how on earth Maoists could attribute a revolutionary political struggle --- as high as people's war- to a democratic mass struggle that was for relief or reform as it is the case here. However we cannot take their statement lightly. We believe they really meant it. And this must have serious bearing on the ongoing Lalgarh movement, since they have influence over the leading committee. It is logical that they would try to shape and direct the movement as per their thought, line and scheme of operation. It can be naturally presumed that the Maoists with their standing in the movement would consciously attempt to integrate the spontaneous mass struggle with their own political agenda/programme of building liberated zones through 'people's war'.
As a result historic Lalgarh movement could not but be infected with contradiction- contradiction between people's own agenda and the political agenda of the Maoists. Locked in this contradiction the movement was destined to suffer as it would very likely loose fixity of direction and importantly it was not at all possible to get the above contradiction solved in the course of the struggle. We shall discuss later why this mass democratic struggle for relief or reforms didn't have scope of being transformed, elevated to revolutionary struggle, not to speak of people's war. Rather revolutionary agenda thrust upon the struggle from above, in the given condition was bound to act deterrent to the objective and necessary development of the struggle itself. Truly speaking, any attempt to link the spontaneous mass struggle of backward Adivasis with Maoists' own line of armed activities by armed squads would only go to use the mass struggle as subservient to the armed activities and obviously that attempt shall do justice neither to the development of the particular struggle nor to the cause of the class struggle in general in ultimate analysis.
We would find, two things happened as a result. One, the struggle which in the early months relied mainly on demonstrative programmes where there was always spontaneously huge mass participation went for a change in character. Individual action started taking place; mass action was relegated by and large. It seems PCPA didn't give necessary attention to mass mobilization at later stage, which, we are afraid, brought in passivity in the minds of the people. People were made to depend more on the Maoist armed squads. Secondly, the struggle got protracted i.e. drawn longer beyond the logical limit of this particular struggle which presumably in turn caused fatigue in the minds of the struggling masses. We are made to understand as we follow the chronicle of the Lalgarh movement, that PCPA didn't find expedient to make use of the-then retreating condition of police and administration caused by the terrible impact of struggle, in favour of settling demands, rather the committee which already by then came under the influence of Maoist, perhaps moved with the notion that retreating condition of police and administration if forced to continue, shall eventually get their demands fulfilled.
Significant Change In PCPA
Analysis or understanding of Lalgarh movement first requires us to realize that it was a spontaneous struggle arising out of a great revolt. And it was an isolated struggle. It was not built and organized by any party, not even Maoist. It can be reminded that people by themselves adopted the same tactics and methods as were used in Nandigram struggle such as digging of roads, felling of trees, boycott of Government institutions like police and Government agents etc. The main character in the centre-stage was mass themselves, existing parties, groups, organizations, which had their sway so long over the innocent and apparently peace-loving Adivasi people were in fact thrown out of the stage by the impact of thundering rise in revolt of the Adivasis. Initially however, Majhi-Maroah command, within the clan played important role in drawing masses, particularly peripheral ones into the vortex of the movement. But within a very short time they vacillated and were inclined to come to terms with the administration, whereas Adivasi mass who once broke their long passivity and silence, and stepped into the path of violent resistance, were not at all, in a mood to accept bad compromise that was being catered by the Majhi-Maroahs. Eventually, for carrying on the struggle new leadership became necessary. Peoples' own committee was formed amidst tremendous enthusiasm. Very quickly the newborn committee became accepted as unified leader of the struggle. pcpa emerged as an independent organisation of Adivasi people of a large tract of Jangalmahal, mainly in and around Lalgarh where the struggle was most vibrant. It is of great importance that people didn't stop at revolt, they continued their struggle; but most striking feature was that they formed organization by themselves, independent from all other existing groups, parties etc., for leading their struggle. Of course PCPA belongs to the trend recently emerging, albeit slowly among workers and other sections of people where they are abandoning old organization and forming separate fighting organization of their own. As for instance in some other states, specially in Orissa and Jharkhand, Adivasi people in a number of places have been fighting a fierce battle against land grab for the last few years, not under the banner of any known established party but by forming new separate organization. There is no denying fact that in all such places, the new organization actually made it possible for the agitated Adivasis to fight militant battle as per own will and strength and with no restraint or deterrent intervention from any party whatsoever, as it was at the initial stage of Lalgarh movement.
But unfortunately PCPA couldn't hold on its independence for long. In fact forming separate organization for struggle is one thing but there is also other side of the coin. In Lalgarh, on the wake of spontaneous revolt, urge for continuation of struggle actually gave rise to the formation of people's own committee PCPA. But on the other side, we generally find, that very formation of these separate new organizations, like PCPA, at the same time open up objective scope for any of the groups/parties who are conveniently close to the struggle, to influence the committee. We find from some other experiences that the aforesaid scope is availed of or at least its vulnerability increases, only when the movement is to face multidimensional odds and violent attack of the enemy and secondly where the movement gets locked in for a longer period and obviously when the leaders get inconfident or less self-reliant.
Actually, these very things happened in Lalgarh after negotiation with the administration failed, thanks to Government's arrogance and hard stand in respect of people's just demands. During first few months, say, from November 2008 to February-March 2009, committee played its role quite independently. We saw series of huge militant mass rally and demonstration, almost without break, during these days. Spontaneity and enthusiasm were at height. But how long this height can be sustained? Is it not fatigue and a sense of exhaustion very natural after hectic restless days of continuous programmes and that too for months? It will be perhaps not wrong to suggest that after the negotiation failed, Lalgarh struggle was required to pick up fresh momentum for a new phase. And PCPA was pushed to a point where it needed help from outside and obviously in Lalgarh area it could be none also than CPI(Maoist)as it was Mamata in Singur. Government accusation that Adivasis have turned Maoists is sheer nonsense. It is height of absurdity that backward Adivasi people have taken up politics of building liberated zones, people's war etc.
What we are to observe from an overview of the major events of the Lalgarh struggle is that, if the striking feature of the movement is the spontaneous revolt of Adivasi people and the formation of an independent people's own committee on one hand, other is that the committee couldn't sustain independence and failed to remain truly committed till the end to the struggling mass who formed this leading committee by themselves. We have already seen how this actually changed the course of the movement. We have also seen how much practical compulsion was there. But what is needed most is deeper analysis of this feature and we are to reach out the root of the problem. It is further necessary since it is not an isolated case in Lalgarh, but elsewhere also, even in workers' trade union movement.
The Evolution of Role of People's Own Committees in Singur and Nandigram
We have already seen how Singur movement, which emerged spontaneously as people's own movement, was converted to 'Mamata movement'. However glaring example is Nandigram. Mass resistance against land acquisition started on January 2007 and Government withdrew the concerned notification in late March. The issue over which the movement started was no more after March and there should have no reason to continue the struggle. Yet it continued. Ostensibly it was because the people didn't put absolute trust on the Government and sceptic mind was there as the Government could at any time go back on its withdrawal notification. They thought that they must not slacken their mobilization. This feeling was in fact incited among the people by antileft parties, especially T.M.C. and was skilfully utilized. To the delight of these parties, the movement dragged on and in such condition, what was to obviously follow, Nandigram virtually was turned into a different battlefield away from anti-SEZ platform on which the spontaneous revolt cum resistance of the people started and for which 14 people was killed in police firing. Mass mobilisation got shifted to a different plank of anti-CPIM-ism. Bhumi Uchched Pratirodh Committee lost its previous preponderance as peoples' own independent organisation and allowed itself to align more and more with TMC which had always been stoking the fire of anti-CPIM-ism in mass mind and was able to integrate the BUPC and people with its own political mission of finally dominating CPIM-Left Front in election. Practically it was found that the militant mood of the masses was in command over CPIM which was almost shunted out of Nandigram, until Nov '07 when they got a jolt in the face of joint attack of CPIM goons and police. Interestingly that incident gave TMC the required dividend i.e., growth of anti-CPIM-ism which manifested in parliamentary gain for TMC in Panchayat and subsequent Lok Shabha election. Summary of Nandigram experience:- It was huge militant mass struggle that forced government to retreat. SEZ notification was officially withdrawn. People remained alert and mobilised until they were reasonably convinced that the withdrawal was final. But in the meantime heroic Nandigram struggle continued, correctly speaking it was dragged, however in a different plank of anti-CPIM-ism. Mass mobilisation, mass demonstrative programmes were naturally replaced in the newly imposed battle by armed clashes between the parties, i.e. between CPIM and opposition parties. It became political turf war between the parliamentary parties. In fact what happened (later) after anti SEZ struggle became victorious could not be ascribed as mass struggle. Heroic militant mass struggle actually got lost in parliamentary gain of this and that party.
Criticism of Marxist Intellection
Presumably, based on the general understanding of mass movement and particularly keeping in view of the experience of Singur, Nandigram and such others, Sandhikshan, a Bengali political journal, in one of its issues said, "The struggle of the Adivasi people had as an immediate aim end of police oppression and tyranny. That struggle had not as its aim the change of social structure, and more so it was impossible for a struggle, isolated as it was, to take that direction. Hence, for struggles like this it was an eventual conclusion that these struggles must stop at a certain phase, and whatever was earned had to be consolidated so as to prepare for next bigger struggle" (free translation). This statement of Sandhikshan has been criticised in an article published in an English periodical, "Marxist Intellection" (henceforth mentioned as MI) of February 2010 issue. It says, "We think this approach is erroneous. We object to the term "stop". The Lalgarh movement is not a TU movement. It cannot be settled after some negotiation. ... This struggle could signal the beginning of a revolutionary political battle, however much partial. ... If any particular struggle enters into the larger arena, if it opens up doors of new possibilities, the communists objectively evaluate the existing condition of struggle and endeavour to raise it to a higher phase through continuous effort. The question of 'stopping' does not come up at all". Therefore MI concludes, "Marxism Leninism does not teach us that any struggle has to be stopped for its consolidation and for its being raised to higher plane." Sandhikshan would likely respond to above criticism but as it entails some theoretical controversy, particularly on dialectics of movement, it would be no less interesting to make entry into the discussion, let us ask a simple question to MI, Sandhikshan did not say 'all struggles'. Do they also conclude that every mass struggle does have objective potentiality in itself for being raised to higher plane? Secondly, can it be raised in any condition whatsoever? Curiously enough, MI itself says that one could be raised to higher plane 'if' that particular struggle 'enters into larger arena', and "if it opens the door of new possibilities". Two 'if'-s at least make it clear that MI does not think that not all struggle can be raised to higher plane and that too at any time. It is noted that those two stated 'if'-s essentially involves the question of objectivity of the concerned movement itself and objective condition of whole of class struggle in the society. There is one more aspect or condition. It is a subjective condition. It is the role of the communists. True, MI brought in the question of required role of communists. But one cardinal question remains. Can the communists play the required role of 'raising to higher plane' without being organised in a party based on sizable and effective force of working class i.e. workers organised as a class? Does MI actually believe that individual communists or even group of communists can really 'evaluate', 'endeavour to raise'... etc, especially the latter one? Without working class being organised as a class and without working class hegemony being established in the society at least to an extent, over peasants and other toiling and oppressed people and when, on the other hand today's communist groups are almost isolated from the working class and also general mass and practically many thousand miles away from leading or even influencing the present mass struggles be it Nandigram, Singur, or Lalgarh, Kalinganagar, Kashipur whatsoever, is it not superfluous to talk about those struggles being raised to higher plane?
MI has taken strong exception to the term 'stop'. They have attributed rightist deviation to the 'stop' approach made by Sandhikshan. We have already said that Sandhikshan would probably reply to the criticism. Even they can better tell whether the word 'stop' properly reflects, what they wanted to say. But again a question: If any mass struggle over political demand in its course cannot be continued by being raised to higher plane - be it quantitative or qualitative - due to any reason i.e. absence of objective/subjective condition, and on the other and if it is so that struggle is gradually losing its efficacy and tend to stagnate out of exhaustion and spontaneity on the wane and it is neither moving ahead nor crushed, what would naturally follow? Does it not indicate the virtual end of that very movement? And to describe such stage what else would be the term other than 'stop'. In fact the question is how to consciously act at this stage in the light of class struggle.
Few more points are to be cleared in this connection. It is necessary not so much for refuting the criticism, as it is more for understanding the dialectics of movement in general and Lalgarh movement in particular.
Is it that one would decide from above to put a stop in the movement for the sake of so called consolidation, preparation etc, even when that particular struggle has the strength to continue standing on the fighting unity of those in struggle or when all the contributing factors are ready - both objective and subjective condition - for further development of struggle to a different plane thereby acquiring further strength and striking power? If it is, then MI rightly says that it is right deviation. No, the question is here different, question is, if there is no possibility at all for development of the struggle in right direction of class struggle and if the struggle is stuck up having been exhausted, should one then allow the movement to rot and end in frustration and demoralisation of the fighting mass? In other words, if any struggle does not 'enter into larger arena', does not open up possibilities, and on the other hand if attempt is then made from above to drag (raise) the struggle to 'higher plane', what would MI then attribute to this attempt? Is it also not right deviation in the garb of left adventurism?
Secondly, Marxism Leninism teaches us that what is uninterrupted, what is unstoppable is class struggle as a whole. It continues, taken class society as a whole, throughout the historical period from is primary form to highest form, in spite of ups and downs at times and following zigzag course. This is true for individual struggle. Even if it is not continued physically due to any set back or otherwise, it can be made to continue in a different form. The movement gets crystallised in organisation with all its rich experience and lesson, which in turn becomes competent to lead higher struggle in later days. The process of assimilation of experience in terms of consciousness and organisation is the cardinal life line for development of class struggle. We believe that while suggesting that Lalgarh movement needed a break in probably Feb-Mar 2009 period, Sandhikshan must have in mind the above dialectics of the movement, i.e., interrelation between struggle and organization. MI said that Lalgarh movement was not a TU struggle and therefore there was no question of negotiation. Yes, it is true that negotiation with the opposite class is out of question in revolutionary struggle of the masses. But is it that the Lalgarh movement was a revolutionary movement? It was a spontaneous movement of the masses. There was no conscious leadership of the PCPA. Some specific demands were placed before the government. Further, it is not correct to say that there was no scope for negotiation. And actually there had been negotiation between PCPA and administration-police. We all know that negotiation failed.
The Question of "Raising" in the Backdrop of the Present Stage of Class Struggle
MI talked about raising the struggle but did not spell out how and in what direction Lalgarh struggle could be raised to higher plane. From reading of the article published in Marxist Intellection (MI) we couldn't find even a rough analysis of how the spontaneous revolt-struggle of the Adivasis of Jangalmahal, in its course of development, did at all give birth of the objective necessity for being raised to higher plane. However, at one point of discussion they mentioned about "continuing, consolidating and spreading the mass movement to newer and newer areas...." It is presumed that their suggestion to raise that struggle they actually meant spreading of the movement to newer areas. If it is so, it can be reminded that the movement actually started covering wide areas of three affected districts, and interestingly Adivasi people of few other districts of West Bengal quickly responded with militant solidarity action. But subsequently the movement got restricted in and around Lalgarh. No doubt it was planfully done by the leadership. Anyway, setting aside this question whether 'spread of movement to newer areas' (presumably affected areas of three districts) could be seen at all as raising of the movement, it can definitely be asked that even if the movement could spread to affected areas obviously with same demands and for common cause, would there be any different urge and expectation of the people other than redressal of the specific demands. Redressal of the demands, fully or partially, obviously signifies the end of the particular phase of struggle, irrespective of whether it involves smaller mass of bigger. Further, quantitative addition of strength, i.e., bringing more and more people into the struggle shall eventually add to the strength ie striking power of the struggle, but it would not itself change the nature or content of the struggle, demands remaining the same.
We suppose, while criticising the 'stop approach' of Sandhikshan and thereby signifying the possibility of Lalgarh struggle being raised to higher plane in a linear development, MI might have not taken cognisance of the overriding fact that the working class is at present disarrayed and disintegrated and there is no party of the proletariat. Secondly, by forcefully bringing in the experience of the Lena event they also made it clear that they did not also take cognisance of the existing present situation. They should understand that we are now passing through a painfully peculiar and unprecedented situation in both national and international plane, where not only the party is absent but the stream of class struggle is terribly weak, too weak to have its impact on the society, particularly on the different section of the toiling people. Yet resistance struggle of the different section of the people are being built up as it was in Singur, Nandigram and some other areas in different parts of the country. We have already seen how the militant mass struggles in Singur and Nandigram could not hold out their independence and their initial character of peoples own movement and were finally made to accept the leadership of TMC, correctly speaking Mamata Banerjee. These could happen rather smoothly as there was no working class party in the scene. Eventually what followed was natural. TMC and its other associates, taking full advantage of the backwardness of the masses and having not to face any effective opposition, was able not only to spoil the militant initiative and assertion of the people but also to finally utilise these mass spontaneity for their parliamentary gain. In Lalgarh we find the similar scenario. Here it is not TMC a bourgeois party, here it is revolutionary adventurist left wing party CPI(Maoist).
It goes without saying Maoists would not aspire to achieve parliamentary gains at the cost of spontaneous mass struggle. Actually what they attempted was to raise the Adivasi resistance struggle not only to higher plane but to highest plane. Marxism teaches us that it is not at all possible as per law of development of class struggle. From the politics being pursued by CPI(Maoist) it is apparent that according to their appraisal of the situation, class struggle has attained the highest stage, i.e., stage of armed struggle. It is really a paradox that they are harping on the highest final stage of a thing (class struggle) which does not literally exist. So what best they can do is, in the name of raising the mass spontaneous struggle to political height, to implant the task of "peoples war" on a really backward section of the masses and that cannot in any case serve the cause of the Lalgarh struggle in particular and class struggle in general.
It is really unexplainable, how MI could bring in the example of Lena event to fit in the present context. Yes, it is true the brutal killing of strikers of Lena goldfield didn't end ('stop') in itself. It generated widespread wrath and anger amongst working class against Tsarist autocracy and led to nationwide upheaval which Lenin called a revolutionary upswing. It could happen firstly because Russian proletariat which had passed through the experience of 1905 revolution, after going through a subsequent period of unbridled tyranny under Stolypin reaction, were then in general mood of revolt and it was due to the situation, workers were quick enough to revive the three great revolutionary slogans of 1905 revolution; and secondly and most importantly, the Bolsheviks within RSDLP under the leadership of Lenin could make themselves steeled through consistent revolutionary activities during the period of Stolypin reaction and were able to consolidate its influence and strength amongst fighting workers of Russia by way of purging the Mensheviks after a long continued ideological and political struggle. In a word, Lena strike could act as a turning point in the history of Bolshevik revolution in Russia as Bolshevik party was there and overall situation was revolutionary. Can we place the Lalgarh movement of backward Adivasi people in the above backdrop of Russia of 1912?
It is therefore, of no use to bring in the example of great Lena event in order to substantiate one's own conclusion that Lalgarh movement could be raised to higher plane. Lena event only shows that a particular local partial struggle can give rise to general political struggle of working class in bigger, even nationwide struggle. This is no doubt a general truth. But if one fails to take cognisance of the present concrete condition before ascertaining the possibility or potentiality of Lalgarh and/or such other spontaneous mass struggle for being raised to higher plane, he would have no other way but to land in subjectivism.
It would be a criminal mistake to forget that class-conscious workers are at the moment scattered and disorganised and they are too weak in number. Hence there is no working class party in our country. We cannot forget that since the first offensive of world socialist movement got defeated or in other word severely disintegrated, working class struggle internationally and obviously in our country have been passing through painful phase of retreat. There are of course signs of reversal, but just a starting and nothing more. Now, we must be knowing that it is not only the party of the working class which can intervene and give direction to spontaneous struggle of people of its own class and other section. Party means not only sound proletarian ideology but also strong workers base i.e. workers sufficiently organised as a class and having sufficient strength on which the struggling mass can rely. Party means the movement towards building revolutionary alliance of workers and peasants under working class leadership. That is why any of the communist revolutionary groups can in no case substitute the role of the party.
From practical point of view it is to be understood that Lalgarh struggle could not be raised to higher plane, if however, raising of struggle means continuing this very struggle itself by other way i.e. means transformation or upliftment of the Lalgarh movement alone. Lalgarh struggle could only be lifted if it is merged with the struggle for democracy which would have in truest sense, embodied the inherent aspiration of Adivasis as expressed through the demands of their struggle. Is it possible that Adivasi people of Jangalmahal to fight alone for establishing democracy in the society which is nothing else than establishing workers-peasants rule in the country? Definitely not. Obviously it would have been a revolutionary struggle of all sections of exploited and oppressed masses. It would require long preparation in terms of consciousness and organisation. It is to be led by working class organised in party. No leader worthy of leading united revolutionary struggle is there at the moment. Hence it is useless to talk about raising the present Adivasi struggle to higher plane.
There is no denying the bitter truth that workers have remained almost indifferent to Lalgarh struggle throughout the period. Forget about leading role as frontline soldiers of struggle of democracy, but should they remain passive and simple onlooker when the most oppressed downtrodden people are being ruthlessly persecuted by the state. It is to note with pain and agony that even when the joint forces of centre and state, thousands of police and paramilitary men, under a planned scheme stormed into the villages in and around Lalgarh and started hunting common villagers with vengeance and forcing a reign of terror by indiscriminate torture, arrest, rape and what not, the workers in the industrial centres of even the state of West Bengal could not voice their loud protest. They miserably failed to come out in the street. Small protest rallies were however there in few places but no ripple at all. This is stark reality and we must recognise it before we go to evaluate the heroic struggle of the Jangalmahal Adivasis and make 'judgement' of the whole course of the struggle uptil date.
MI in its article under reference, comments, "The whole fight has been converted into one between a few Maoist cadres and CPIM or one between the Maoists and the state." It may be true in the face of it but we are afraid, it would be one-sided. It is however not denied that the great spontaneity of Adivasis in their mass participation in the resistance movement as was there in the early period of movement and which we hailed, is absent now. As explained earlier, it is almost impossible for a backward and isolated mass to keep up the pitch and spirit of revolt and their earlier struggle, being confined in same plank without proper direction and that too in the face of ruthless state repression. Secondly, we think that it would not be fully correct to suggest conversion of fight to so and so. Because what is happening at the moment in Lalgarh as alleged by MI cannot in any way be called a 'struggle'. Struggle is of course, still there in so far as Adivais did not surrender in spite of horrible condition they are in. and by taking such position they are in fact opposing the offensive of joint forces or so to say Operation Green Hunt. Class conscious workers should not loose sight of this aspect.
MI further says, "The armed intervention of the Maoist party and its hyperactivity are becoming obstacles to the development of peoples' consciousness and their spontaneous participation in the movement." This criticism cannot be called unjustified, looking through a particular angle, to be precise negative angle. But what about positive proletarian movement in developing consciousness and class struggle in general? What about the building an army of class conscious proletariat and/or the truly working class party which only could have played the positive role in preparing the fighting masses, specially the advanced section, in terms of consciousness and organisation? We shall like to drive home the point that criticism is of course deserving for the Maoists for their role in Lalgarh struggle, and for the role of NGO-s of different shades and such other vested groups or established ruling class parties in likewise mass movements that are emerging elsewhere, but what is more necessary, for class conscious workers and in main those who claim to be communist revolutionaries, is to severely criticise themselves. The self criticism is for their failure, individually or collectively to build an army of class conscious proletariat and/or party of the working class. Had the MI taken serious cognisance to the above, they wouldn't have appealed to "the leadership of CPI(Maoist) ... to reconsider and revaluate their tactics" "to save and further develop this movement". Do they not understand that their appeal virtually amounts to appeal for changing their (Maoists') politics as a whole? And is it not sheer absurdity, at least until truly working class party is established.
The Tasks of Communists Regarding Recent Struggles
Before we conclude, let us draw attention to some specific feature of today's workers and peoples struggle. Already stated that working class and the other people are yet passing through a long period of retreat. But it is being seen that for the last couple of years, there have been some big struggle s of the peasants and other section of oppressed people. As the big capitalists and multinationals are in a mad rush for super profit, launching terrible offensive on the people with overzealous state support, spontaneous resistance struggles are coming up at places. At factories these are however in TU plane and almost everywhere the fighting masses, in absence of working class party, are forming their own new organisation for conducting struggle. They are in fact independent of existing established parties. On the other hand ruling class and its governments seem to be bent upon crushing the emerging struggles from very beginning as they are least ready to tolerate any obstacle in their mad rush of super profit and might also be feeling alarmed at the peoples initiative i.e. at the independent feature of these movements. All established parties, both reactionary and reformist-opportunists are in full connivance with the big capital since they are also getting alarmed at the way struggling people are moving away from them. Intention is clear. It is to crush the independence of people in conducting their own struggle and push them back to the lap of old parties serving the interest of big capital, here and abroad. Most agonising part is that they are becoming largely successful in their mission, one by ruthless state oppression and other by conspiracy and manoeuvre, given the backwardness of the masses. History shall have to probably bear this agony as long as party is built up or at least these independence resistance struggles increase in number and intensify.
The point really is that not only the extent of spontaneous struggles of the workers-peasants is to be manifest, but also at the same time they are to maintain their independent organisations fighting all odds, particularly facing the joint assaults and conspiracies of govt and the parties, which again is dependent on the extent of peoples' fighting spontaneity. Recent struggles regarding peasants' struggles for saving land including that of Lalgarh are demonstrating that this task is extremely difficult for isolated peoples' struggles. On the other hand the failures and limitations of the scattered communist groups for the last thirty years in forming a party show that independent of any situation, just by conscious efforts, creation of the party is not only difficult but almost next to impossible. But in this situation it is also a part of reality that the assault of globalisation-liberalisation is compelling the people to turn back and fight and those who are really fighting are to continue bearing inhuman pain totally depending on their own effort. This is a part of the agony of history today, but the other side is the process that has started will continue despite all hostility and state terror. This conviction must not be lost however tremendous the stiff oppositions are today.
Communist revolutionaries must acknowledge that it is not at all possible for them to influence and shape the course of struggle at this juncture of history. But what they should do is to convey the message to people that their independence would rather help them to continue the struggle, and to prepare an organisation that would enable them to hold out what they achieved. Most importantly their central task would be conduct revolutionary propaganda linking practical struggle to build up consciousness among the people and in particular politically prepare the advanced elements for the struggle for future, for full democracy and freedom from all exploitation and oppression i.e. full emancipation.
History has more agony in its store for us and that is no less sore. If we observe the spontaneous struggles/rebellions that have been bursting out in the last eight to ten years we shall see that most of those are rural, urban unrests are comparatively less numerous. The anti-SEZ and generally anti-eviction struggles that drew attention of and created stir in the society of India, including those of Singur, Nandigram, were struggles spread over number of villages or a large area in which large number of peasants and also the agricultural workers took part. The struggles that took place and drew interest more recently were struggles of the most oppressed, deprived and humiliated section of the society - the Adivasi people, and many such struggles are still continuing. The Kalinganagar fight, anti-posco fight etc are memorable. Almost throughout Chhattisgarh, Odisa, Jharkhand forceful fights developed to resist eviction of Adivasi people from forest, land and even their ancestral homes. But the class that is the potential leader of the revolutionary worker-peasant alliance and the struggle for full democracy, the working class, is of course fighting the assault of globalisation-liberalisation but it is fighting in the factory plane, fighting isolate fights and its fight is only in the rudimentary phase in terms of struggle of the class as a whole and in terms of speed and spread their struggle is, needless to say, comparatively much less than those of the struggles of peasants and/or Adivasi people. There must be some objective reasons behind this difference. An important reason is the nature of the assault of the rural people is such that these assaults are objectively combining people of ten, twenty or more villages spreading over a large area. The anti-eviction struggle is placing all those people on a single platform. Secondly, the assault is such that for the people concerned there is nowhere to retreat. On the other hand the assaults that are pressing the workers are happening in the factory plane, different kinds of assaults in different factories. Besides, the workers can still think of resisting in TU plane, as there are, at least seemingly, some chances to do so. But anyway, this topic is beyond our purview here. The mote point is, when the retreating phase of the working class struggle is still continuing after the defeat of the first offensive march of world socialist movement, the struggles of Singur, Nandigram etc anti-eviction struggles, Lalgarh type movement are no less important and struggling people and especially the intelligentsia are getting attracted and will get attracted, by these struggles. This is fact. But we must remember that these struggles cannot take determining role in the development of class struggle. For the later conscious role and leadership of working class and its party is necessary.
We mentioned earlier that it is not possible to develop the peasants'-Adivasi peoples' brave resistance struggles toward greater struggle for establishing real democracy till a true communist party standing on a solid base of unity of class conscious workers is created. It is also another pain inflicted by history. But we are to face this agony head on, without being drifted apart. We must not deviate from the central task, the task of preparing class-conscious workers from among the workers. Though in a lesser extent a tendency of independent initiative of the workers within the factory based struggles is there, and standing on it there is a possibility of preparing a part of the advanced workers into class-conscious workers; this is to be given maximum importance. We must realise that without a party standing on an organised base of class-conscious workers it is not possible to interfere in the spontaneous mass resistance struggles with the aim of directing those in correct orientation - and this is never possible for a CR group to do so. Rather, an opportunity is to be created to carry revolutionary propaganda among the struggling masses relating to their actual struggle. Secondly, if possible, it may also be tried to raise some thoughts among a section of those struggling masses regarding the dynamics of their struggles and their direction; this may be necessary to primarily draw their attention; but everything is to be done with the aim of making politically conscious even if a comparatively small section of the struggling masses.
Finally, we can remind ourselves that is it many times more difficult to help workers gaining class consciousness in this phase of retreat than preparing 'militant fighters' from among masses like the Adivasi people who are the most oppressed and deprived in the society, among whom even a minimum product of capitalist development has not reached. But we are to clutch tightly this more difficult task and whether we can do that is a challenge posed to us by history.
Epilogue
About four months have passed since the above article was written. Meanwhile there has been a great change in the situation of Jangalmahal. We had observed earlier how the heroic resistance struggle of the Adivasi people of Lalgarh and around was already losing its strength and it was virtually on the wane. Now the present scenario in Jangalmahal bears nothing of semblance to the great revolt that resulted in active and vigorous resistance struggle of several thousand Adivasi people encompassing the large tract of Jangalmahal, which could once put the whole police and administration to bay. That of course, does not mean that Lalgarh and around has turned calm, quiet or so to say peaceful. Bloody violence is continuing. But now the battle is different and actors of the stage are different. People who once was at the centre of the stage have left it rather correctly speaking they could not hold on and have been pushed to the back of stage. CPI(M), the ruling party of the state occupies the centre of the stage, of course not without the whole hearted assistance of the villain - the Joint Forces. Fierceful battle is on, if not one-sided, between CPI(M) and the main opposition party TMC, both of which are desperate in preparing their own respective turf for coming assembly election to be held in early next year. And for that Jangalmahal people is paying the price.
CPI(M) dares to declare that they have captured Lalgarh, the hotbed and centre of Adivasi peoples struggle which was unimaginable even few months earlier. In fact, there have ben repeated assaults on the villages by CPI(M) goons, commonly known as Harmads, along with Joint Forces for last three months. With virtually no mass resistance CPI(M) is regaining their lost ground. We can remember, it was initially the mass movement which was actually cornered the party and the leaders had to flee from their villages. Thereafter, as the armed action of so called 'peoples militia' and the Maoists took the front seat and the 'movement' was made to turn into tirade against CPI(M) men. Meanwhile as we said, central leadership of the PCPA became disjointed and disorganised and lost its relevance as leader of the Adivasi people in the face of severe onslaught of the Joint Forces. Most curiously, CPI(M) Harmads could manoeuvre to sneak into already degenerated local committees of PCPA, particularly in the fringe areas of Jangalmahal. In this backdrop, with mass movement of Adivasi people receding on one hand and Maoists being cornered by advancing march of Joint Forces and virtually being pushed back to their old pocket of influence and restoring to their old tactics of isolated armed actions with the help of trusted squads, it is not unusual that CPI(M) the ruling party would find it a proper time to come back with vengeance for which they were waiting so long. But needless to mention, this is not without the overzealous assistance of Joint Forces, particularly state police. CPI(M) is desperate to regain control over this area by any means, obviously before state assembly election.
TMC is, however, not far behind in ongoing turf war with CPI(M). They have already been able to make their appreciable presence even in the interior part of Jangalmahal. Their leaders are regularly holding mass meetings. In a recent meeting held by Mamata Banerjee and others, there was a huge gathering. PCPA helped the meeting with their own mobilisation. PCPA support would definitely give a big leverage to Mamata and her party in their election battle against CPI(M). Mamata seems to go any extent to cash in the anti-CPI(M) feeling deep rooted in the minds of Adivasi people. She is suddenly found to cry hoarse with demands for withdrawal of Joint Forces from Jangalmahal. Nothing but a gimmick, nothing but to hoodwink the now-helpless Adivasi masses. This is nothing for the cause and interest of Adivasi people and everything for capturing the state government in the coming election. In fact, what is going on in Jangalmahal is everything for election campaign and nothing else.
Jangalmahal saw a sea-saw change within a span of two years. From the great historic mass resistance to election battle between two champions of present state system fighting for crumbs of power. But that is not all. The state assembly election may finally put a last nail in the coffin of a great struggle which once shook the country with its thunderous voice. But we are sure the Adivasi people of Jangalmahal will rise again today or tomorrow, not alone but with other fighting sections of toiling people of the country. They passed through a rich experience. They have tasted what they can do. Now they are to learn from their mistakes. They are to understand, that their failure is temporary and they failed because their organisation failed. Let us hope, they will solve the problem of organisation - an organisation which find its direction and lead them in getting unified with exploited and oppressed people of the country for the bigger democracy. Let us also hope, class-conscious workers would help them find the direction, both ideological and organisational.
Long live Lalgarh movement!
Comments:
No Comments for View