Volume 4, No. 4-5, April-May 2003

The entire proceedings of the 7th Congress of the CPI (ML) Liberation (henceforth called Liberation), reads like that of any parliamentary opposition party.

It starts by reaffirming its "supreme commitment" to its coming "over-ground in its Fifth Congress held in Kolkata in December 1992". To prove this commitment it announced publicly the list of not only its entire CC, but also its Polit Bureau - a method avoided by genuine legal communist parties even in the developed countries. Its "central agenda" was not the furtherance of revolution, but "Resistance to Saffron Fascism and US Aggression and War". The tactics for such "resistance" was to be through the unification of the so-called Left forces in what was termed as "a broad-based confederation of all Left forces". In this, there was utter desperation to seek recognition and unity with the ruling class CPI/CPM, best reflected in the very opening speech of the party secretary. Pleadingly he appeals "Why can’t we, the heirs of Bhagat Singh, wage a powerful and unified resistance to defeat the disciples of Golwalkar and admirers of Hitler? Why can’t we hold out a vibrant democratic vision of united India that can inspire confidence even in the smallest and weakest of minorities in the face of the growing clamour for a Hindu Rashtra…….. Why can’t we come closer in our day-to-day struggles on issues of livelihood and democratic rights……". He does not answer this, but the answer lies in their revisionist politics, and the traditional social-democratic policy of appeasement of the fascists.

If we then look at the Political-Organisational Report it reads like that of any bourgeois party, where analysis of parties are done more in electoral terms rather than class terms. Its Policy Resolutions on Tactics too is more concerned with electoral semantics, focusing chiefly on electoral alliances and manipulations for seeking power at various levels of the existing governmental structures, and factors like protracted people’s war and armed struggle are totally ignored. Like the CPM, the entire focus is on getting power (or even sharing power) through elections. There is not even a whiff of revolution in this entire "tactics". The party programme too, like that of the CPM, talks of "people’s democratic revolution"; and is at cross-purposes in its class analysis calling India, on the one hand, semi-feudal, while at the same time saying that what exists are merely remnants of feudalism. Finally, its Constitution gives the seal to the Liberation’s bourgeois and counter-revolutionary politics, when Article 45 in its Constitution says "The Party shall bear faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India".

In spite of this openly anti-communist and pro-establishment role of the 7th Congress of the Liberation, it was surprising to see in its report a number of parties from abroad attending or sending fraternal messages. Liberation reported that "guests and observers" participated in the Congress from "Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, Australia and Norway", and that solidarity messages were sent by parties from Germany, Belgium, the Philippines, Malaysia and Italy.

While at the ground level the CPI (ML)(PW) and the MCC (now MCCI) is witness to the Liberation’s reactionary role in Bihar, going so far as to link up with the state against them, here we shall look into the theoretical basis for such actions. We shall now look deeper into the resolutions passed at the Congress and available to us:

At this Congress their main Political-Organisational Report, set out the Party’s position on certain key questions. It deals with both questions at the international plane as also the political situation in the country. To take international questions first:

On the section on international developments, though it correctly analyses the crisis of imperialism and targets US war-mongering, it sees the social-democrats in power as a supposed left and progressive alternative and not another face of reaction. The problem with this approach is the lack of understanding of the policies of the ruling classes. In the face of unimaginable deterioration in the living standards of the people, they may use the ‘progressive’ mask of the social-democrats to dupe the masses. When that gets torn off they use more open reactionary methods of rule. So, in the section on Latin America they portray struggles within the ruling classes as the victory of the ‘Left’ against reaction. Such an incorrect analysis, in the final analysis, detracts from the struggle against reaction and imperialism (as a whole) as it puts its faith in forces that are unreliable and anti-people.

As far as the Chinese revisionists are concerned the Liberation is "puzzled" - called "The Chinese Puzzle". Actually, their dishonest method adopted of pretending equivocation on the subject, is geared to give legitimacy to the Chinese counter-revolutionaries through the back door. That is why in their "puzzle" they say, "We do acknowledge the enormous difficulties in building socialism in a single country……."; and add that "We also refute the methodology that discusses the question of building socialism in the abstract, as an ideal utopian model that can just be transplanted anywhere, anytime by sheer will power. Instead we look at socialism as a society evolving out of contradictions of capitalism, evolving as a natural process of history and therefore adopting myriad forms in different contexts and different countries". In other words, without taking a clear-cut stand on the policies of the CPC, the Congress, through such statements, seeks to legitimize any and every bourgeois formulation under the signboard of allowing myriad forms in different contexts and different countries. The fact that they support Deng and criticize the Cultural Revolution makes it rather embarrassing for them now, when these policies have been taken to their logical extreme in China, where full-fledged capitalism is clearly visible throughout the country, even to a child. But, such eclecticism is the trademark of Vinod Mishra-style politics, to dupe its cadres, while dancing with the devil. His disciple, Dipankar Bhattacharya, appears to have mastered well the art of the guru.

On the section on South Asia there is not even a mention of Indian Expansionism, let alone a call to counter it. They do not in anyway portray the Indian ruling classes as the primary source of destablisation and war in the region and their gross intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. While there is passing reference to the "regional hegemonistic" designs of the BJP, they are unable to see Indian expansionism as part and parcel of the Indian ruling classes as a whole; of which the BJP is playing a more aggressive role. By not taking a clear-cut stand against Indian expansionism, they defacto fall prey to tacit support of the policies of big nation chauvinism. This is an example of precisely how the social-democrats tend to appease the fascists.

But now, let us turn to events within the country and the Liberation’s analysis of these. An important part of the POR is devoted to electoral stunts in parliament in the name of alliances with various forces. There is also a lengthy review of their parliamentary work, with an emphasis to increase their numbers. No principles are outlined, and their only difference with the CPI/CPM is that while Liberation are for an anti-BJP, anti-Congress front, the former want to include the Congress in their so-called secular front. So the essence of the Liberation’s tactical line can be summed up in their statement, "the communist tactical line at the present stage must be geared towards preventing a full-fledged fascist victory and beating back the fascist offensive". And their basic method for doing this is that "the revolutionary tactical line must stress the need for a powerful left intervention which alone can serve as the basis for a third or democratic front".

But here too there is much opportunism. They say unity with the UF is OK while it is in opposition, but not when it is ruling. Not only that, to open the doors wide to all types of bourgeois electoral semantics, they say that in specific circumstances (undefined) "readjustments of policy may also have to be effected depending upon the concrete situation obtaining then". Here they refer to the PW, as "essentially radical petty-bourgeois formations" (in other parts of the Congress reports they are dismissed as anarchists, but on this we will come later), and in typical bourgeois fashion they see the underground Party as undemocratic, while its legal fronts as democratic. But their obsession is not for unity with such radical petty-bourgeois formations, but with the ruling class CPI/CPM in their so-called confederation of the left. This is reflected in their euphoria over the "17-Party Opposition Front in Bihar" where "for the first time that CPI and CPI(M) joined us in a political front".

Even when the POR goes on to analyse the Dalit and Muslim questions their entire framework is electoral and not dealing with the serious problems of untouchability, castism and communalism, within the present political context. So, the Liberation document, deals primarily with the electoral implications of dalit politics; saying, for example, that the Dalit question has emerged as a major question, particularly with the phenomenal rise of BSP. If does not deal with the total marginalisation of dalits in the present environment of globalisation, privatization and Hindutva, and their greater self-assertion for their rights in the casteist, brahminical system. And as far as the Muslims are concerned, they are said to be afflicted by a "peculiar minority syndrome, which has been further reinforced by the rise of the forces of Hindutava", and the Liberation is only interested as to how they can overcome this syndrome and win them over to their vote bank. Such an insensitive approach to a community that has been brutalized, shunned and isolated by the ruling establishment, can only come from those lacking a proletarian approach to the oppressed. So, to appease their Hindu vote-banks they will not call for the unconditional rebuilding of the Babri Masjid, illegally broken by the Hindu fascists, nor take an uncompromising approach in defense of Muslim rights, rather we find this condescending approach.

Finally, the section on peasant movements, have a splendid mix of economism, reformism and demagogy on armed struggle, coupled with vile accusations thrown at the MCCI and PW. As the area-wise seizure of power is nowhere mentioned as part of their agenda all the peasant/labourer/tribal demands mentioned in the POR are nothing but economism and reformism - to enhance the party’s influence and extend their vote-base. As in Bihar, in the main rural base of Liberation, as not even the pettiest politician functions without arms, not to talk of it would have made them look absolutely ridiculous. So, armed struggle is mentioned only in relation to the feudal gangs, and political struggle with relation to the Indian state (i.e. police, government, etc). In other words, their ‘armed struggle’ is not for the seizure of power, but for mere survival from feudal gangs. But even these clashes with the private armies are seen to be a negative fact as, because of it, "the functioning of peasant association or movement on peasant issues are left behind". There is no logic in this, as, through the intensification of the class struggle, the associations should get strengthened. But for the Liberation, as the peasant associations are specifically for their vote banks and have nothing to do with the ongoing class struggle in the region, by this intensification of the class-struggle, peasant issues is left behind. So, that is why the poor Liberation laments, "such a situation is of course forced on us and we can do little in avoiding it". In fact, at the ground level they have been avoiding it, as it is in their heartland of Bhojpur that the most notorious feudal private army, the Ranvir Sena, has grown and spread, with little resistance from the Liberation. It has been the PW and the MCCI that have primarily taken on the Ranvir Sena. In fact, to avoid confronting such elements, the POR concludes that "it should never be forgotten that political initiatives, movements on popular issues and developing popular resistance are the key elements in taking up the challenge of combined onslaught of feudal-state".

Such counter posing of armed struggle to the mass mobilization on partial demands, is the standard diet of all economists; and is the life-line of revisionism. It is therefore not surprising that the Liberation resorts to it. But, like all the parliamentary parties, the Liberation seeks only to enhance its vote base, and even partial demands are taken only so far as to help this process. Besides, for any communist or revolutionary, all struggles for partial demands have to be linked to the question of the seizure of power, to have any long-term meaning. Particularly in a backward area like rural Bihar, where feudal armies are rampant, the agenda of armed struggle and seizure of power, faces the revolutionaries soon. Comrade Jauhar, the founder of this Party in Bihar, was a pioneer in this; Vinod Mishra was the betrayer. But now Dipankar Bhattacharya says "in the history of the international communist movement, Comrade VM’s role can perhaps only be compared to the role played by Lenin in Russian revolution after the dress rehearsal of 1905, and that by Mao in developing a Chinese path for the Chinese revolution after the initial setback faced in copying the Russian model in China". No wonder com. Jauhar is sidelined and VM glorified. But there is a limit to the glorification of the individual. The new secretary seems to go into the realm of fantasy comparing the likes of VM, to the great revolutionaries Lenin and Mao. A more apt comparison may be of that with Deng, where both had the immense acumen to, step by step, take a revolutionary party into the mire of revisionism. On that ability, of course, they cannot be faulted.

It is in this POR that the Liberation unleashes slander and abuse at the revolutionaries, without any political arguments and substantiation of their accusations. Casual abuse is thrown at the PW and MCCI as "anarchist" parties throughout their report. Further they make the accusation that "anarchist organisations which are degenerating into money-collecting machines are indulging in a killing-spree of our cadres and people and are using ultra-left rhetoric to the hilt to cover up their dubious links and their dirty mission of disrupting organised mass movements".

In passing, the term "anarchists" are used for revolutionaries time and again, more as an abuse, as it is nowhere explained as to why they are anarchists. Is their philosophy/theory anarchist, or is their organizational methods anarchist, or are their tactics anarchist? This is nowhere explained. Mere branding and labeling does not help understand phenomena, even if they feel it were true. Obviously the Liberation is on weak ground so it cannot explain this accusation.

Firstly, in the realm of theory and philosophy the PW & MCCI are staunch upholders of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and are for the organization of a new democratic state after seizure of power. So in this realm they cannot be anarchists. Regarding organizational methods they have a tight party structure and abide by democratic centralist methods; so here too they cannot be anarchists. Finally, presumably it is in the tactics adopted that they refer to them as "anarchists". Here too, if following the path of armed struggle and protracted people’s war is equated with anarchism, this entails turning Marxist theory upside down. If it is claimed that these parties conduct armed actions in isolation from the masses; even on this account it is well known that both these parties have a huge mass base, far exceeding that of the parliamentary ‘Maoists’.

Armed struggle is, in fact, the path adopted by all genuine communists in the backward countries of the world. The question is: why has the Liberation left it? The point here is that there are clearly two different paths being chosen: one is that of people’s war, the other of peaceful transformation through the electoral path. The revolutionaries have chosen the first, the Liberation the later. But, to cover up its own betrayal the Liberation has to resort to abuse of the genuine communists and revolutionaries labeling them "anarchists". These two paths have been the bone of contention between the revisionists and the Marxists for the last century. It is nothing new. Mouthing the word ‘MaoTse-tung Thought’ does not cover the revisionist reality of the electoral path. Social-democrats and revisionists from the time of Kautsky to Khruschev to Deng have voiced this, while Lenin, Stalin and Mao have upheld the revolutionary path of armed struggle - whether it be by insurrection or protracted people’s war. Liberation has chosen the former; the MCCI and the PW the latter. Rather than adopt tricks like labeling, it would be more honest for the Liberation to explain why the path of people’s war is wrong in India and why the electoral path is correct. But, on the question of electoral tactic we shall come later.

Now, for the other accusation of being money-collecting machines. The fact is that large amounts of funds are necessary for any organization; particularly those with underground structures and leading an armed struggle. Liberation too requires large amounts for its election campaigns and bourgeois legal existence of running elaborate offices and the life-styles of their parliamentarians. While the revolutionaries take money by the assertion of their political authority in their areas of influence, as a tax; the Liberation-types gather their funds by cozying up to various sections of the prevailing power structures - whether it be a section of the elite or through their association in the governmental structures. In addition, the greater sacrificing nature in the revolutionary camp, results in greater amount of donations being got from well-wishers. So, this type of accusation is just slander and is merely parroting what is said by the BJP/Congress-type parties. Even a large section of the establishment and media accepts the self-sacrificing nature of the revolutionaries - but the Liberation, with such slander, has degenerated to levels of the BJP and Congress!!

And as for the so-called killing sprees of their cadre, the ground reality has to be seen, as to who is really responsible. Accusations and counter-accusations do not help; and this is best cleared up by independent fact-finding teams of, either human rights activists, or from the communist camp. The fact is that, with the Liberation-type bourgeois politics, their association with powerful local vested interests is inevitable; and in the rural Bihar type environment these forces are highly aggressive and of criminal character.

The main problem of the tactics outlined here is that it is not placed within the framework of a concrete strategy. While the term ‘strategy’ is liberally thrown around in this document, it is nowhere defined what exactly is its strategy for the seizure of power, and the path for achieving it. The strategic goal of ‘people’s democratic revolution’ is mentioned but not the strategic tasks. Without strategic tasks being clearly defined, ‘tactics’ inevitably falls prey to all kinds of opportunism. And so it is with this document.

In its tactics there is no mention of armed struggle; only petty-bourgeois politicking around electoral politics, in the name of United Front. In this they differ little from the CPM when they say : "we recognise the possibility that it is possible for a revolutionary communist party to win a majority of seats, either singly or in alliance with like-minded forces, in local bodies and in exceptional cases even in a few provincial assemblies. As laid down in our programme, such communist-led district councils or state governments will try and accomplish a set of democratic tasks of the movement and also play the role of a revolutionary opposition against the central authority. However, in conformity with our policy of differentiating not only between enemies and friends but also between bigger and lesser enemies, we do not flinch from offering critical support to governments run by parties other than the principal representatives of the bourgeoisie in the face of a mounting enemy offensive".

Being a fringe outfit they are far from achieving this dream of getting into government, but it is obvious that they, like the establishment communists, nurse such dreams. This of course is followed by sanctimonious proclamations of not sowing illusions about this system. The latter is only to dupe its cadres and the revolutionary camp. The very act of participation in elections in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, in which the parliament is a mere appendage to a highly autocratic rule, creates illusions of a functioning democracy. Participation in governments adds ten-fold to these illusions. (Though in developed countries the state is in essence a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there is a difference in the nature of the State there and in the backward countries like India. Except during periods of open fascisms, bourgeois democratic traditions exist in the former, while they are mostly absent in the latter.) Unfortunately, it is not only that the leadership of Liberation is creating these illusions, it itself appears to be under an illusion when it mentions in its Programme that "….compared to many other Third World countries, the affairs of’ the Indian state are generally conducted within a constitutional and parliamentary-democratic framework".

Here the impression created is that India is a functioning democracy, like those that have gone through bourgeois democratic revolutions. Yet they say that India is semi-feudal. Both concepts are a contradiction in terms. Then they add to the confusion by saying there are only feudal remnants in the country. If there are only remnants, it means that the society is basically capitalist and not semi-feudal. Of course it could also be termed semi-feudal if the superstructure continues to be semi-feudal. But if that were so, one major aspect of the superstructure, the government, would not have a parliamentary-democratic framework. So, the leadership of the Liberation has tied itself in a heap of contradictory knots. To justify its parliamentary cretinism it must go from one falsehood to another, throwing dust in the eyes of the revolutionary camp in general, and of its cadres in particular.

As we have already mentioned, the essence of their tactics is confined to such electoral alliances and the so-called Confederation of the Left. It is this, they say, that "would greatly facilitate the cause of a Left resurgence against the growing threat of a reactionary right-wing ascendance……". The Liberation is living in a fool’s paradise if it thinks so. This so-called parliamentary Left is a spent force and is unable to mobilize even its existing large hold in the trade unions against the fascist onslaught. In fact they have played the role of tying the hands of the masses in numerous ways. So, for example, having soaked their ranks in economism and opportunism for decades, these forces have been passive even in the face of the Gujarat holocaust. The task today of the genuine revolutionaries is in fact to liberate these masses from the dead weight of these revisionists and bring them into the revolutionary and democratic stream, rather than maintain utopian dreams of a Left resurgence. This task may be difficult, but there are no short cuts. It entails penetrating, consistent political work amongst the working-class, to release its initiative and its potential revolutionary role.

The boycott of elections in this fake democracy is not "anarchist desperation" as the Liberation would have us believe, but the most practical way to dispel parliamentary illusions, of which the Liberation talks so much about. Neither is boycott merely "a valid tactical response to the revolutionary crisis of the late 60s" as the Liberation would have us believe, but a vital and necessary political step to pull the masses out of the parliamentary quagmire, onto the path of protracted people’s war. But then the Liberation has long since forsaken this path, lending only lip-service to armed struggle and Mao; so it makes little difference to them, what they do. A more practical step for them would be to join the CPM, as now, with its present line, there is little to distinguish between the two.

Next, in this document there is a lengthy section on the nationality question in India, which is rife with as contradictory statements as that on semi-feudalism and democracy. After all the political and theoretical somersaults, they in essence support the existing unitary state structure. While, in general waxing eloquent on Lenin’s principles of the right to self-determination and secession; when they come to the concrete reality of the country, they, in essence, push the same stand as all the other parliamentary parties, upholding a strong center and denying the nationalities their rights.

So, they say, "Recognition of this right does not necessarily mean blanket support to all kinds of secessionist tendencies. The question of support will be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into account the overall interest of development of the democratic movement". But even in the case of Kashmir they hedge, saying "We are not averse to the demand for an independent Kashmir or plebiscite, in principle. Still, we are skeptical about the viability of an independent Kashmir sandwiched between two hostile powers, India and Pakistan. In such a situation, there is a potential danger of such an independent country becoming an easy target for imperialist manipulations". Such ridiculous arguments mean that no small country should ever be granted independence, as all are likely to become "easy targets for imperialist manipulations". It, in fact means a blanket opposition to the demand of the nationalities for self-determination. Their attitude to the struggling nationalities of the North-East is also much the same. With all these ifs and buts, the essence of the Liberation’s stand is opposition to these movements and their demand for secession.

Not only this, they even oppose India being federal and are also opposed to the demand for more powers to the states. They counterpose federalism to autonomy, when in fact the two deal with different realms. Federalism relates to the relation between the various nationalities as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; autonomy relates to regions within a nation. In the Indian context both are necessary as part of the new democratic state. And such democratic structures do not negate centralized planning as made out by the Liberation document. In this short critique, there is no space to go into a detailed argument on the issue; suffice it to say that in essence Liberation supports the existing unitary structure of India (being opposed to the struggles of the NE, Kashmir, etc for secession, opposed to federalism and opposed to more power for the states), with all its implications of supporting Indian expansionism, national domination and centrally organized state repression. No wonder in the Liberation Constitution they uphold the Indian Constitution and the "sovereignty, unity and integrity of India".

Finally, their Policy Resolutions on Agrarian Question is in no way linked to agrarian revolution and the area-wise seizure of power. In fact there is no mention of it. Their demands for fighting the landlords, kulaks, etc. is pure economism, with no reference whatsoever of establishing the authority of the landless and poor peasants in the villages. So, quite naturally there is no talk of building up a people’s army and the tasks necessary for doing so.

The section on The Revolutionary Course is a masterpiece of duplicity, wherein a clear-cut revisionist line is sought to be covered by abstract statements of intention (with no policy or plan for it).

First and foremost, while in the POR it waxes eloquently of the growing danger of fascism, in its programme the Liberation seems to have great faith in Indian democracy. It says: "It is true that under normal circumstances, Indian polity allows communists to work through open, legal and parliamentary means. It is possible for communists to secure victories in elections at various levels and also win majority in local bodies and even state legislatures. While tilting the balance of class forces through protracted and vigorous political struggles, the Party is prepared to utilise such opportunities independently or in coalition with like-minded forces provided the Party enjoys the strength to ensure the fulfillment of its own commitment to the electorate". If fascist forces are growing, as outlined in the POR, why is the Liberation not preparing the party for underground existence to fight these forces, and why are they adding to the illusion saying that "under normal circumstances, Indian polity allows communists to work through open, legal and parliamentary means"?

First and foremost, even prior to the present growth of the fascist forces, India has basically an autocratic state structure on which has been imposed a parliament, and so under normal circumstances the genuine legal opportunities of dissent are limited. This is to be seen, not only in the brutality of the state vis-à-vis Naxalites but even against liberal trade union leaders like Nyiogi, Samant and many others who have been killed in cold blood. The Indian rulers are an intelligent breed, with a cunningness of a Chanakya. They are not concerned by any label, whether it is ‘communist’, ‘revolutionary’, or any other, as long as they are harmless. So, when Liberation says "that under normal circumstances, Indian polity allows communists to work through open, legal and parliamentary means", it is true. For, those who are harmless to them, and in fact assist the ruling classes, and divert the masses from struggle, particularly militant and armed struggle, they are not only tolerated, but welcomed. But when it comes to even distant sympathisers of the genuine communists and the nationality movements, we find that they are not only hounded but also brutally murdered in extra-judicial killings. This is clearly visible in Andhra Pradesh and in Kashmir and the North East. But, like the ruling class parties the Liberation is silent on all this.

Where was Liberation’s great democracy when Rachamalla Venkanna, a district committee member of the AIPRF, was abducted, tortured and killed in cold blood by the AP police in Nov.02. Besides, during the last two years, dozens of activists of the AIPRF have been arrested and tortured for their anti-globalisation activities. Then, a year ago, Chandra Shekhar, a teacher employed in a government school and an activist of the Democratic Teachers’ Federation of AP, was murdered in a similar fashion. So was the famous cultural artist, Ilaiah, of the Telangana Jan Sabha. Then what about the brutal killings, in broad day-light, of the lawyers and civil rights activists Purshottam and Azam Ali, by fascist gangs? Besides, it is well known that hundreds of revolutionaries have been tortured and killed in fake encounters, including three top leaders of the PW. So also have thousands ‘disappeared’ in the nationality movements of Punjab, Kashmir and the North-East. Such extra-judicial killings has even surpassed in its brutality many a tin-pot dictator, albeit with the democratic mask. Yet, Liberation talks about India’s ‘great democracy’. Then what about the brutal pogroms against the Sikhs and now the Muslims? Forget all this, of late, even any militant trade union struggle is not permitted, as can be seen by the viscous actions and mass arrests of the public sector employees, coal mine workers, transport workers, etc. If, inspite of all this, the Liberation continues to harp on the great democratic possibilities in India, one can understand the extent of their capitulation. No wonder the ruling classes applaud them. Today, even liberals speak of the growing fascism, but the great ‘revolutionaries’ of the Liberation speak with a forked tongue - talking of the growing fascism, while numbing people’s fight against it, through utopian hopes of long-term democratic possibilities!!

Finally, they speak of peaceful transformation, though camouflaged in revolutionary verbiage. Witness their duplicity when they finally say: "The Party does not rule out the possibility that under a set of exceptional national and international circumstances, the balance of social and political forces may even permit a relatively peaceful transfer of central power to revolutionary forces. But in a country where democratic institutions are based on essentially fragile and narrow foundations and where even small victories and partial reforms can only be achieved and maintained on the strength of mass militancy, the party of the proletariat must prepare itself for winning the ultimate decisive victory in an armed revolution. A people’s democratic front and a people’s army, therefore, remain the two most fundamental weapons of revolution in the arsenal of the Party". Throughout their entire documents there is not a word about seizing power through armed struggle, nor is there any mention of the people’s army, nor have they set a single task in their documents for either advancing the armed struggle and building a people’s army, yet they say "A people’s democratic front and a people’s army, therefore, remain the two most fundamental weapons of revolution in the arsenal of the Party". Is this not sheer hypocrisy and deceit? In fact the focus of all their documents is purely geared to electoral tactics, and that, in essence, is their path, yet it says "the party of the proletariat must prepare itself for winning the ultimate decisive victory in an armed revolution". Where through the entire documents is there a single step taken for these preparations? Such statements are a hoax to befool the cadres and the revolutionary camp. The essence of their tactics and programme outlined through the Congress is in fact the "relatively peaceful transfer of central power to revolutionary forces".

Today, after the set-back in the communist movement in the Soviet Union and China, revisionism is the main danger to the International Communist Movement. In India too, revisionism comes in various forms with various labels. There are the establishment communists of the CPI and CPM, who are now part and parcel of the ruling classes of the country. In West Bengal, where the CPM rule, they have launched fascist attacks on the revolutionaries, just like any other ruling class party. Then there are the fake Maoists, like the Liberation, who seek to fool the genuine revolutionaries and take them in to the morass of revisionism. Then there are various other brands, some who are deep in the revisionist quagmire, others who are sitting on its edge, refusing to take to the path of armed struggle. Many are mere paper organizations of little significance.

Without fighting the cancer of revisionism within the proletarian movement it is not possible to take a single step forward in the struggle against reaction. These revisionists act to lull the masses, divert the cadres from the revolutionary path, dupe the entire democratic camp, and make a show of mock opposition. They act as the last bulwark of the ruling classes; a safety valve to let off revolutionary steam. In the name of unity these hypocrites seek to paralyse the entire revolutionary and democratic struggles.

But, within their ranks there are still large numbers of genuine elements that have been duped by their cunning leaders. The genuine revolutionaries need to reach out to them and save them from the quicksand into which they are being drawn by their leaders. To do so there is need to unite in direct struggles around specific demands, where the revolutionaries have the full freedom to put forth their views and are not constrained by the limitations of the rightists and revisionists.

In the final analysis the clear line of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism will get drawn in the battlefield by advancing the people’s war in the country. The advancing people’s war will force others to take a clear stand to decide on which side they are - with revolution, or with the counter-revolution. The genuine cadres of the Liberation, as also the communists the world over, need to understand the duplicity of the leaders of the Liberation, the fake Marxism that they promote, and stand by principles, genuine Marxism, and join the revolutionary mainstream.

We appeal to all the genuine revolutionary communist forces in India and abroad to understand the class collaborationist role of the Liberation, cease giving legitimacy to such disruptionist forces, expose their negative role in the Indian revolution, and thereby facilitate the process of building a strong unity of all the genuine communists, not only in India, but the world over. It must be emphasised, once again, that effective unity amongst communists can only be achieved by drawing clear lines of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism, and not by glossing over the differences. Once this line of demarcation is clearly drawn, shades of difference are bound to exist; these can be tackled through discussions in a democratic atmosphere of give and take.

<Top>