The Liberation has envisaged to move "Beyond the Euphoria of Merger and Truce". [Liberation, November 2004, by "political Observer]. Why is the Liberation so perturbed over "Merger and Truce" involving the CPI(Maoist), a continuation of the true Maoist tradition in India, assuming the new name by way of merger of the CPI(ML)PW and the MCCI? And why does the Liberation get irked so much and indulge in curious sorts of fantasies, weaving out a reactionary dismal picture? Is it only desperation or a bid to trample polemics for lining up with the Advanis, Massnmohans, Yechuries, etc. to crush the Maoists? In the earlier article in the People’s March the fundamentals of Liberation’s revision-ism was addressed. Here we will concentrate on the political frustration and outpourings of the Liberation’s Political Observer.

The Liberation has quite a long time past distanced itself from what is really known as the CPI (ML) of which it was once a part. However, it does it by utilizing the banner of the CPI(ML). Liberation has already changed its colours and abandoned the CPI(ML) i.e. Naxalbari politics. This rupture with all that glorious death defying sacrifice and iron-determination pushes the Liberation into an abyss of filth, possessing the right to hobnob with bourgeois and revisionist political outfits.

In this article, the author seeks to widen the bridge between the CPI(ML) and the MCC, distorting the earlier history. What a bother for the Liberation to delve into the genesis of the revolutionary CPI(ML) and the MCC’s opting out of it at that stage? Yes, the MCC, to be precise the Dakshin Desh group, did not join the CPI(ML). But where on earth did the wise Political Observer find that the MCC "remained content operating exclusively as an armed formation"? The cunning Observer needed some ploy to present the erstwhile PW as having "a different history" to revive the CPI(ML) in sharp contrast to the MCC’s practice as an exclusively armed formation. The Observer’s comments, blended with half-truths, seeks merely to widen the gaps. It goes without saying that the Dakshin Desh group led by Comrades Amulya Sen and Kanai Chatterjee didn’t join the CPI (ML) formed under the leadership of Comrade Charu Mazumdar. Regarding the formation of the party there were obviously differences and it is also a fact that besides the main revolutionary party, the CPI (ML), the MCC had a definite history of integrating general Maoist theory and revolutionary practice in some states in India. The Political Observer makes the sweeping comment "in their own times Charu Mazumdar and Kanai Chatterjee represented two irreconcilably different lines and approaches". This is a specimen of Liberation’s spiteful refusal to come to terms with the truth. It is well known to many Liberation leaders that the MCC, despite differences on the formation of the party with the CPI (ML), was not a protagonist of parliamentary politics and had devoted itself to developing revolutionary struggling areas of armed agrarian struggle on Mao’s line. It had never been an organisation limiting its activities to open legal party offices and sloganeering over petty demands. In the early 1970s when the massive struggles of the CPI (ML) suffered a set-back, the MCC had shown unflin-ching adherence to the path of armed struggle and Naxalbari by developing glorious struggles of the peasants in Kanksa, Ausgram and Budbud areas of Bardhaman district. The Naxalbari flame was very much felt by the Siddhartha Sharkar Roy ministry and it let loose large-scale repression in those areas. All the revolutionaries in Bengal and outside derived inspiration and praised it. So, what was basically a difference on the question of the formation of the party has been exaggerated by the Liberation to make out as though there was a difference in line between the two.

The Liberation has for more than a decade changed its colours and sees only anarchism in all revolutionary retaliations by the Maoists against the class enemies and the state. As it has abandoned revolutionary politics it is now closest to the CPI (M)/CPI in its approach to any revolutionary struggle. It is now miles away from CM’s politics yet puts on a pretentious air of melancholy for the merger of the PW and the MCCI with an exaggerated statement of "irreconcilably different lines and approaches" pursued by CM and KC. Both Com. CM and Com KC had obvious differences on the party formation in 1969 but both were the great leaders of the Indian revolution by virtue of their fundamental unity of approach to Mao’s path and for the spirited zeal in developing areas of armed struggle for the ushering in a People’s Democratic India. Both Com. CM and KC were irreconcilable enemies of parliamentary politics. And on all those counts one can justifiably assert that Com. CM and Com. KC represented an irreconcilably different approach and line from that of revolution-fearing Vinod Mishra, Dipankar and Co. Then why such a hue and cry from the Liberation over the PW and the MCCI merger? The reason is not far to seek. The Liberation expected that the PW would also step into the footsteps of the Liberation by banishing all that is associated with the Naxalbari struggle. The great leader of the Liberation Dipankar even went many steps ahead in his farsightedness to divulge his own views to the press that the talks by the earstwhile PW with the AP government was the beginning of the end of the underground set-up and preparation for open activities i.e. Liberation-like practice. Facts have already nailed such astrologer’s prophesy and the Liberation must have befooled itself.

Now a few words about the so-called anarchism. Near about the mid 70’s Bihar appeared on the centre stage of the revolutionary struggles. Standing at the forefront Com. Jauhar led these struggles in several districts of Bihar with Bhojpur as the focal point. Soon after, the peasant struggles led by the then MCC broke forth like prairie fire in Gaya, Aurangabad, Girdhi and other districts. After the martyrdom of Com. Jauhar, Vinod Mishra took over the reigns of the CPI (M-L) Liberation. From the early 1980’s, the peasant struggles led by the CPI (M-L) (PU) in Jehanabad and other areas spread like a wild fire within a short period. It is a fact that there were differences of approach among these three organizations at that time. Yet nothing like the "irreconcilably different lines" on the fundamental issues ever came up at that time. They emerged only after Vinod Mishra derailed the revolutionary movement, then going on under the leadership of the CPI (M-L) Liberation and firmly led it on to the tracks of Parliamentarianism. As a corollary, from then on, all the practices and policies of the CPI (M-L)[PW] and of the MCCI came to be branded as anarchism. This is the hallmark of the ‘Liberation’ type degeneration which equates all revolutionary practice with anarchism and the rotten parliamentar-ianism with revolutionism, that too in the name of Marx! This pack of ‘Liberation’ renegades had the audacity to try to sell their brand of parliamentarianism under the name of Comrade C.M. – who all through his revolutionary life was a sworn enemy of every trace of parliamentarianism.

The Liberation Observer goes on, now assuming the role of a business man, and taking stock of the merger in terms of "give and take". None but our ‘wise’ observer can imagine that the merger of two revolutionary organisations having oneness of view on the Maoist strategy of revolution in India, and which have more than three decades of revolutionary practice will take place on a non-dialectical basis. It is true that when the merger took place, these two organizations sorted out differences on a dialectical basis. Moreover, the new unified party, the CPI (Maoist) declared that notwithstanding the unanimity on the fundamentals, the congress of the new unified party – to be held soon – will further cement the ideological and political unity. Yet one thing has to be made clear here. The Maoists believe in contradictions, not the policy of ‘give and take’ like Vinod Mishra.

Our sneering cynic, the Liberation Observer, now resorts to tricky, censuring a thesis out of the glvskeys that "For the Indian Maoist, however, the army is the party…" disappointed us as he fact that the merger of the CPI (M-L) (PW) and MCCI did not lead to dumping of Naxalbari revolutionary politics of armed struggle, the observer now displays his cunningness by willfully distorting the meaning of the Maoist assertion that "Armed struggle is the principal from of struggle." The Maoists have expressed this idea on the party, the army and the united front, making it quite clear that the party will lead the army and not vice versa.

Not getting satisfied with the above falsehoods and will-full distortions the observer now goes in for outright slander, in order to accomplish his mission of maligning the CPI (Maoist) by hook or by crook. He hints at a nexus between the Maoists, the congress and the RJD. This is nothing but the age old trick of the thief shouting thief! Thief! By such slanders the observer wants to cover the abject surrender of the CPI (M-L) Liberation to the state, its total degeneration and parliamentary cretinism. The commitment to revolutionary Marxism and the exercising spread of the revolutionary influence of the CPI (Maoist) to all corners of the country by itself gives a fitting reply to all such attempts of slander. Let the liberation swim in its own cesspool of parliamentarianism.