It is necessary to make it clear that the CPI split was concerned with the defining of the classes, which could be allies of a democratic revolution. In practical terms if the ruling Congress party could qualify for a role in the people’s movement, the question of parliamentary path or of forming ministries in the existing set-up did not arise as a major point of debate between the right and the ‘left’ followers. A more intresting aspect is that the ‘left’ camp needed the powerful support of the centrists like Namboodiripad and Jyoti Basu. Thus what came as the CPI(M) programme and policy was a diluted patch-up understanding based on the compromise between ‘leftist’ and ‘Centrist’.

The ideological patch-up expresses itself in the CPI(M) programme passed in its first Congress. On the one hand it stated that, "the present Indian State is the organ of the class rule of the bourgeoisie and landlord, led by the big bourgeoisie who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital."¹⁶ This is then contradicted in order to keep room for an alliance by stating that, "contradiction and conflict exist between the Indian bourgeoisie including the big bourgeoisie and foreign imperialists."¹⁷ And "this stratum of the bourgeoisie will be compelled to come into opposition with state power and can find a place in the people’s democratic front."¹⁸

Thus, like the openly revisionist position of the CPI, this CPI(M) left open the back door for making alliances with the class representative parties of the bourgeoisie and landlords like the Congress. It is also significant that this new party in the leftist garb left open all opportunities of following the Kerala model of forming ministries in the existing setup. The programme stated "The Party will utilize all the opportunities that present themselves of bringing into existence government pledged to carry out a modest programme of giving immediate relief to the people.."¹⁹

Thus the new party, the CPI(M), did not show any fundamental difference with the Rightist CPI. The earlier draft signed by Basava Punnaiah, P. Rammurti and H.K.S. Surjeet on 15 Feb. 1964 had clearly accepted the position of the People’s Republic of China in the forefront of struggle for socialism.²⁰ But the CPM Congress virtually led by EMS Namboodiripad, Jyoti Basu, etc. declared a policy of equidistance from the politics of both China and the Soviet Union.

It was a turbulent period with a food crisis and the spirited movements of the people. Elections were round the corner and both the CPI and the CPI(M) plunged into the fray. The Election manifesto of the CPI brought out in December 1966 announced that, "the mood of the masses is unmistakably in favour of radical change."²¹ It is notable that in the atmosphere of anti-Congress mood of the people the CPI(M), a hotch potch embodiment of pro-right, centrist and ‘leftist’ leadership resorted to attacking the right CPI and, till then, the degeneration of the Party had not reached its nadir. E. M. S attacked the CPI leadership on the question of the unity of India. He stated that the bourgeois approach "would consider the ‘unity of India’ as ‘good’ and the ‘fissiparous forces’ (such as the caste, the religions community, the tribe, the language and the religion) as ‘evil. It would therefore give a stirring call to the people to oppose and defeat the fissiparous forces and strengthen the forces of Unity."²²

It is notable that in course of time such a view was abandoned by the CPI(M) for sticking to power. The CPI had long since rejected the right of secession of the nationalities in India and the CPI(M) too followed suit from its very advent.

The Election Manifesto of the CPI(M) for the 4th General elections spoke much against foreign capital, landlords, Indian capitalists, with anti-Congress thunder and onslaught against other parties like the Jana Sangh and Swatantra. It demanded, "immediate distribution of the hundred million acres of uncultivated land among the agricultural workers and poor peasants and their distribution gratis among agricultural workers and peasants…"²³ In the revolutionary situation the revisionist CPI(M) instead of leading revolutionary struggles held out the programme of formation of Non-Congress Ministries. A.K. Gopalan, and Jagjit Singh Lyallpuri, president and general secretary respectively of the peasant front AIKS, issued the statement asking the Non-Congress Ministries formed after the elections "to redress the grievances of the peasants."²⁴

It is curious to note that in this crisis situation the World Bank dictated and the then Prime Minister dished out the policy of the Green Revolution. In similar fashion the Indian revisionists the CPI, CPI(M), etc. gave a call for non-Congress ministries as vehicles of redressing the pent-up grievances of the Indian people against the system controlled by the landlords, comprador big bourgeoisie and their henchmen. True to its party programme, the CPI(M) leadership while using jargons like preparation for partisan war, militant struggle, etc. tried to put in all its efforts to stem the tide of mass upsurge, and to chanellise it towards establishing non-Congress ministries. The united fronts with the CPI(M) as a major force in West Bengal and Kerala soon set the example of providing "relief" within the man-eating state system. This was the line of Khrushchev in the USSR and various hues of social democrats deceiving the people with the programme of gradual change, utilizing the state machinery.

Notes