|
Previous Chapter
Contents Next Chapter
Naxalbari and the CPM
The Naxalbari upsurge of thousands of peasants with the support of tea
garden workers remains as a thunderous blow to the revisionist model of
the parliamentary way to solving the burning issues of the people and
gradually moving peacefully towards a socialist system. The Naxalbari
upsurge burst forth when Mr. Jyoti Basu was the Dy. Chief minister of
the West Bengal United Front government. The CPI(M) and the CPI in the
ministry cast aside the veil of Marxism by sending troops to put down
the militant peasants and killed many women and children. The Naxalbari
struggles emerged on the Indian political scene as an alternative path
to the revisionist United Front Government. Let us refer to the jitters
of the CPI(M) and the CPI soon after the Naxalbari upheaval.
Immediately after the Naxalbari incident the West Bengal State Committee
tried to pacify the discontent of the party members with the following
statement:
People’s Democracy editorial commented on June 4, 1967 that, "....As
West Bengal State Committee’s Statement points out, the question at
Naxalbari was not a law and order question, it was a question of taking
away the lands illegally occupied by jotedars and distributing them
among the land hungry peasants..."
Again the People’s Democracy on June 25, 1967 published the
indignant expression of the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M). It said, "The
Polit Bureau resolution at the same time sharply attacks the other
deviations. Left sectazrian adventurist deviation – which in places like
West Bengal is playing into the hands of extreme reactionaries who seek
to disrupt the united front and restore Congress rule over the State…"
The haunting fear of the CPI(M) leadership to dismiss any struggle with
the refrain that this might dislodge the UF or LF government has been
heard since it assumed power in some states since 1967. It is note
worthy that initially it justified the peasant demands and then with the
threat of the central Government it sang a different tune calling the
revolutionary leadership as tools in the hands of reactionaries.
The CPI(M) Polit Bureau member H. Basavpunniah went a step forward in a
write-up in People’s Democracy on July 9, 1967 captioned "Our
Party’s stand On Naxalbari". He wrote that "the extremist
elements" "hold the view that our party’s participation in the
U.F. Government in West Bengal is born of revisionist and right
revisionist outlook; they want to force the hands of the party either to
quit the U.F Government or become a party in the armed peasantry and
blood bath of the struggling peasantry and thus get discredited as
agents of the landlords and jotedars."
What a bizarre argument to bail out the CPI(M), a direct party in the
butchery of the struggling peasants of Naxalbari! Then the CPI(M) top
gun, B. T. Randive trotted out his die-hard revisionist argument to
justify, in an exaggerated way, the power of the state and the poor
condition of the people to go in for any revolutionary struggle. Randive
announced:
"… The election results have shown the growing shift of the masses as
well as the fact that in spite of its defeat, except in Kerala and
Tamilnadu, the Congress continues to be the biggest single party.
Besides, our dissidents at least are aware that a substantial part of
the anti-Congress vote — vote of partics of the Right as well as some of
the so-called Left parties — PSP, SSP, etc. is not a vote against the
Congress Government … Therefore, notwithstanding the big mass battles
before the elections, especially in West Bengal, the influence of the
classes controlling the State, and parties representing the classes is
considerable."24a
What a dangerous revisionist argument solely considering the vote earned
by Randive’s so-called left parties to reject outright the scope for
launching armed peasant struggle in India. Thus Randive squarely
accepted the fact and which the CPI(M) like revisionists learnt from
Khrushchev – that gaining a majority in the parliament or legislative
bodies will automatically bring about a revolutionary situation for the
change of the system.
Panchayat is at best carrier of bureancracy. Through his
practical
experience 13 panchayats since 1978 CPM leader Mantu Sheikh thinks
"Initially we had no power, yet the people in government
administration were afraid of us. Now panchayats have possessed much
power, but the administration no longer fears the elected panchayat
candidates. As a result the village development and the whole
activity of leading Panchayats is tied to the government red tape."
He cited examples of the visit of District Magistrate and other high
officials and many a good proposal coming from them. But nothing
useful came up. If anything is stated they suggest writing
applications.
Once Birbhum emerged prominently for ‘operation barga’.....
But now examples of failure are on the increase. Now for the failure
to provide the expenses many of them mortgage bargadari to
turn into wage labourers. The condition is same for many landless
who received patta for lands during ‘Left’ rule. In the name
of land reforms, in order to please so many people the CPM
distributed khas lands to the landless, 10-12 cottah per
head. The land distribution per head is so meagre, as also thinks
the state Land Revenue Minister Rejjak Mollah, that on many plots
ploughing is tough. Many of the patta recipients are
mortgaging their pattas. It is illegal so it is not found in
government documents."
The CPM leader Mantu Sheikh himself said, that in the villages the
Advisis could not retain the pattas they received"
(Anand Bazar Patrika, 11 May 2003)
The experience since 1967 is a telling commentary on the waning of
genuine mass base of the CPI(M) even for militant economic struggle in
West Bengal, Tripura, etc. but this party retained its ministry more
than 25 years in West Bengal utilizing all anti-Marxist, unethical means
as well as by capitalizing on the rivalry between the ruling class
parties. And, a more important reason, is that the ruling classes allow
the CPI(M) to rule undisturbed, to serve their best interests.
Now we refer to the rightist CPI position on the Naxalbari struggle: In
a statement Bhowani Sen, secretary of the CPI, West Bengal state Council
demanded a judicial enquiry into the event. In a diluted criticism he
added: "But unfortunately excess sometimes committed by those who
have been conducting the movement is also doing more harm than good to
the share-croppers who have legitimate grievances. All the parties of
the United Front generally admit this. The most deplorable aspect of the
movement is the conflict between landless sharecroppers and honest small
owners. Such a conflict is against the interest of the Kisan movement as
whole."25
The tune of the CPI(M) and the CPI in decrying the militancy of the
peasant and their revolutionary leaders was perfectly concordant. Rather
what came prominently in the minds of the CPI(M) leaders was a deep fear
of losing their legislative power in the growing tide of peasant
militancy. Revisionists turned into reactionary killers after the
Naxalbari uprising in India.
Notes
24a B.T.Randive,
Logic of Anti-Leninism Peoples’s Democracy, July 9, 1967.
25. New Age, June 11, 1967.
|
