OPPOSE REVISIONISM AND

RIGHT DEVIATION INSIDE CPI (ML) ND

Comrades!

1.1 Our CC decided nearly three years ago to prepare a document on 'Revisionism'.
It gave the responsibility to Comrade Chandram to prepare that document. In
accordance with that decision he prepared that document and submitted it to CC
in April 2009. During the discussions CCMs gave some suggestions. It was
revised accordingly. Despite those changes three times discussions were held.
CC majority could not agree for the document prepared by comrade Chandram.
Then CC decided to send this document to lower ranks along with Political
Resolution and "Build the Secret Party" as a minority document.. Organizational
problems were raised by some comrades objecting the distribution of the
Document written by comrade Chandram. Ultimately it was decided that CC
should prepare its majority document and permit others for writing alternative
documents to write. Finally CC prepared its document and sent it to lower ranks
on 8-7-'10 and requested the comrades to send their alternatives if any within
the stipulated time given to them as per the Party Constitution. Comrades DVK,
VV and Ravi sent their alternative document entitled "Practice Marxism, Not
Revisionism: Intensify the struggle against left and right deviations taking the left
as the main". The orientation of this document is completely against the approved
documents of our 2004 Congress and against the present document "Practice
Marxism, Not Revisionism: Intensify the struggle against the right and left
deviations taking the right deviation as the main". We---Comrade Chandram and
SV--also sent our document entitled "Oppose Revisionism and Right Deviation
inside the CPI(ML)ND"

1.2 Our document basically and broadly in agreement with the adopted documents
of 2004 and opposes the organisational principles and policies enuntiated in the
CC document i.e."Practice Marxism, Not Revisionism: Intensify the struggle
against right and left deviations taking the right deviation as the main" All the
items and aspects contained in 3 comrades document corroborate the correctness
of our document. Hence there is no need for us (Chandram and SV) to add more
and more things in our present document than what we already clearaly narrated
in our document.However our majority CC failed to describe in what concrete
forms the rightist and revisionist views were expressed in our Party since 1977.
It confined only to narrate what is revisionism and what our great Teachers Lenin,
Stalin and Mao explained about this. To prove what is revisionism CC quoted
number of quotations from great teachers. We do not have any difference on
what our great teachers taught about revisionism. We opine that the CC document
on "Revisionism and Right Deviations" is inadequate to meet the challenges being
posed by Revisionist and right deviationist forces inside our Party for many years.

1.3 Already in Soviet Union, China and in East European countries (erstwhile Socialist

1
 Societies) were collapsed due to revisionist ideologies, politics and their
organizational conspiracies. With regard to this the failures of the CPSU(B) and
CPC including the great leaders should have been mentioned. However on this
particular most important item neither our CC drew some lessons nor did try to
draw some lessons from these collapses. Hence we could not agree with the CC
document on this subject. Owing to this precarious situation we are giving our
views in detail regarding the wrong and revisionist trends that cropped up
internationally, nationally, to some extent, in a concrete form. We have no basic
difference with the documents adopted in the 2004 Congress. However, we do
not agree with the present CC document particularly on organisational structural
policy. Committees should be organised in accordance with the Congress adopted
line. Revisionists should not be taken into the leading committees.We request the
party ranks to go through our document to properly understand and estimate the
real danger of revisionism and right deviationist theories and organizational
methods and prevent the danger of our Party becoming as revisionist party in
the near future. Look at the following items carefully:

1.4 In India 87 years have elapsed since the Communist Party of India took its birth.
Opposing the Dange revisionist clique’s naked pro-Indian ruling class policies and
pro-Kruschev revisionist clique’s policies the would be Marxist ranks including the
revolutionary forces left the CPI and formed CPI(Marxist) in 1964. CPI(M)
formation took place without clinching its ideological and political stands in a clear-
cut manner. Particularlly on the polemics in the international Communist
Movement. Some CPI(M) senior leaders like Jyoti Basu, Hari Kishan Singh Surjith
and P.Rama Murthi used to have pro-Moscow politics in the main. The other
section like P.Sundaraiah and Basava Punnaiah, EMS etc. were politically
vacillating in between CPC and CPSU during the great debate.

1.5 During the last phase of Telengana Armed struggle CPI delegation met Comrade
Stalin and got clarifications. Basing on his suggestions 1951 Programme and
Tactical Line were formulated. As soon as Comrade Stalin died in 1953, the
overwhelming majority of the CPI CC leaders became opponents to the path of
CPC and the 1951 Programme and Tactical Line. But these issues were not put
on the agenda and discussed in a thorough manner.

1.6 Therefore, at the time of CPI and CPM split clear cut understandings were not
made regarding the main enemies and the friends of the Indian people: The stage
of Indian revolution and the path to be followed to fulfill the tasks and the role
of imperialism after 1947 and the nature of “transfer of power” to the Indian ruling
classes. Hence not long after the formation of CPI(M) its leadership started
supporting the Kruschev revisionist line and opposing the CPC and Great Teacher
Mao Tse-Tung line. In 1967 general elections in West Bengal the CPM became
the second biggest party. It joined the coalition government led by Bangla
Congress. Took berths in that state government. This was the first time that
Communists joined in a big- bourgeois, big landlord government in India. This
was a time when Congress was defeated in 8 important states due to anti-
Congress wave throughout India. Instead of taking a revolutionary path, the CPM

2
 leaders started preaching the very same parliamentary line advocated by the CPI
for many years.

1.7 Instead of taking a revolutionary line it took the parliamentary line i.e. Kerala and
Bengal road. The West Bengal coalition government mercilessly suppressed the
Naxalbari Peasant Revolt against the Jothedars for land and other facilities. The
CPC led by Comrade Mao praised this struggle as “Spring Thunder over India”
and called the CPM leadership as neo-revisionists.

1.8 Revolutionary ranks inside the CPM violently reacted against this parliamentary
line throughout India. State Committees like AP, UP and J&K completely or
majority opposed the line of CPM leaders brought forward in the name of “New
Situation and New Tasks” Those who opposed the CPM’s neo-revisionist line in
different states came out from that party without waging a proper internal
ideological and political struggle except in AP. .

1.9 Majority of these forces formed AICCR in 1968 and CPI (ML) in 1969. The AP
state Committee leaders—DV Rao, TN, CP and Kolla Venkaiah—placed their
alternative documents in state plenum held at Palakollu in 1968 February. The
state plenum by majority approved the alternative document. State leaders took
this ideological and political battle up to the Central Plenum held at Bardhwan in
April 1968. These leaders came out from CPM and formed the state co-ordination
committee and conducted discussions with the AICCR. Ultimately they joined the
AICCCR in October 1968 and were thrown out from AICCR in February 1969.

1.10 AP state plenums documents came into existence after a thorough going
struggle against Kruschev revisionism and neo-revisionism of CPI(M)
leaderships. The alternative political document adopted at Palakollu by
overwhelming majority mentioned that 1. India is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal
country. 2. The independence we won in 1947 was not real but formal
independence. 3. The stage of revolution is people’s democratic revolution. 4.
Enemies of the revolution are comprador bourgeoisie and feudalism and
imperialism. 5. The path of protracted people’s war is our path etc. The trends
opposed to this alternative document, CPI(ML) programme(1970) and the
“Immediate Programme” of AP RCP (1969, April) started coming forward
once again by 1976-77. These trends in our party particularly in A.P. started
wanting to revise the revolutionary orientation contained in the Programme
of CPI(ML) 1970 and the orientation of the “Immediate programme”. These
trends want to revise the orientation of the Path of Great Thelengana
Peasants' Armed Struggle, the Path of Naxalbari Armed Struggle and
Palakollu alternative document. These trends became a revisionist line now
inside the CPI(ML).

1.11 At that time due to some reasons groupism developed among the leaders who
formed the AICCR. The leadership in AP which fought against the neo-revisionist
leadership could not become part of CPI(ML) at the outset. AP movement was
divided. Thanks to the left adventurist line the revolutionary movements throughout

3
 the country faced severe setbacks particularly in Naxalbari and Srikakulam. At
the outset left-adventurist line of Com.CM arose. In the course of fighting left-
adventurism right trends, rightism or revisionism came and consolidated. They
are trying to take the revolutionary movement towards parliamentarism, legalism.

1.12 As soon as some left-adventurist ideological, political, tactical and organisational

methods cropped up the CPC leadership gave valuable suggestions and
criticisms to the Indian revolutionaries to protect these movements. In 1970 Indian
delegation met CPC leadership twice Comrade Mao described during his talks
with the CPI(ML) delegation that it came into existence having fought against the
modern revisionism. CPC gave the following suggestions and criticisms to the
Indian Delegation:

1.13 “......I think Comrade Bose will remember on the night of the last national day
when Comrade Bose met with Chairman Mao, he said to him: “Your party
represents the hope of the Indian people.” ………. Your party is a revolutionary
party and a brilliant party.

“Comrade Kang went on to say, “If we want to wage real guerilla warfare, we
should apply the method adopted by Chairman Mao. It seems to us that your
general orientation is correct built only some of the policies are not proper and
are not in conformity with Marxism—Leninism—Mao Zedong Thought. I said
during the talk “If we engage in armed struggle in an isolated way, ie. without
the broadest masses of the people, this kind of struggle would not be successful.
Disregarding the vital interests of the peasants and disregarding agrarian struggle
of the peasantry the armed struggle would have no base, hence it will not be
successful. I have said that the level of consciousness of the masses has always
been raised from lower stage to higher, and only when we proceed from the vital
interests, the economic interests of the masses of the people, and raise their
consciousness, can we mobilize them for armed struggle. We should not mobilize
the masses of the people for armed struggle in a way of isolating ourselves from
the masses. (Excerpts from the Book Printed in Montreal, Canada: Page—15)

1.14 Kang Said. “There is also a problem about the attitude towards the middle
peasants. …….. You have also criticized Nagi Reddy saying “Nagi and his like
attempted to confiscate land, cattle and farm tools of big landlords and distribute
among the poor peasants. Do they not think that big landlords should call their
police?......” We do not know much about the advocacy of Nagi Reddy, but from
your formulation, we feel that Indian Marxist—Leninist Party has not yet solved
the question relationship between agrarian struggle and guerilla warfare. In the
light of the experiences of the Chinese revolution, we think that it is just on the
circumstances that we should organize armed forces to defend our land and
guerilla organisations to defend our activities. Previously when we started armed
struggle, we achieved successes in this armed struggle only when we could
mobilize the masses of the peasantry to start agrarian struggles. The peasants
were engaged in struggle for the purpose of defending the fruits of their
struggle...........

4
1.15 “Just as I have said previously, your party has been established and it lacks
experiences;…………Revolution has its ups and downs , and revolution always
advances in a wave like way..........So it is bound to suffer setbacks.......please
consider these questions. After going back home, tell Comrade Mazumdar how
to rectify the policies.

“.....But rectification of mistakes should be done step by step, and this should not
hurt the enthusiasm for revolution of the masses and the party members. ……….
in rectifying our mistakes, we should not be impetuous and this turn should not
be swift. We should be careful.

“.....We should rectify those improper policies in the process of positive

reconstruction. .........

“....... So you should by no means take this opinion as an opinion of the party of
the leadership. You can just put it aside without paying any attention to it. This
is for your references only. I just said this fragmentally,. not systematically.”
(Pages—16 and 17 IBID)

1.16 If we see the suggestions and the way they suggested the corrections, we can
understand that how much interest was paid by Comrade Mao and other CPC
leaders regarding future of CPI(ML) and the Indian Revolution. But Comrade
Charu Mazumdar and his followers did not pay proper attention to these
suggestions. Hence they did not try to place them before the CC and correct the
mistakes. Hence the collapse of the Naxalbari and Srikakulam movements and
the CPI (ML) organisation itself. Had the leadership followed the suggestions and
directions of the CPC followed, the Indian revolutionary situation would have been
different.

1.17 It is already more than 40 years since the Communist revolutionaries came out
from the neo-revisionist party. But failed to achieve the main aims of the new
democratic revolution due to many reasons. Whatever one may claim about PLA,
Base areas or liberated areas etc. up to now Communist revolutionaries in India
could not form a single united revolutionary party, people’s army and united front
of revolutionary classes under the leadership of such a revolutionary party as
Mao taught. The main reason for this failure was left-sectarian line up to 1977
and rightist and revisionist line since 1977 among the CRs particularly in our
party.

1.18 CPSU could succeed in its Socialist Revolution within 20 years after its birth. It
could wage a socialist revolution for 20 years and won because Great teachers
Comrade Lenin and Stalin waged a relentlessly ideological and political struggle
against all alien trends particularly against the rightist and revisionism
(Menshevism) inside CPSU. Likewise the CPC under the leadership of Mao could
succeed in its New Democratic revolution within 30 years. CPC and Mao fought
against left and right deviations and applied Marxism-Leninism to the concrete
conditions in Chinese Revolution. Indian revolution could not succeed even after

5
 its formation of 85 years particularly during the last 40 since CPI (ML) was born.
The main reason has been its failure in waging a relentless struggle against left
and right trends particularly against rightist and revisionist trends and revisionism.
The CPI (ML) leadership failed in waging a merciless struggle against revisionism
inside its ranks in accordance with the experience of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Ze-
dong Thought.

1.19 Our party leadership both at all India and in states knew that there is right-
opportunism and revisionism inside our party but could not dare wage an
uncompromising struggle against them like the five great teachers did during their
life time. Our party conducted four all India Congresses and two All India Plenums.
We have been fighting trends that are fundamentally opposed to our path and
programme. Our party defeated class collaborationist line in 1979, It defeated the
rightist and revisionist political line in 1980 Congress and in 1981 plenum.
Nevertheless, these trends were emerging whenever they get the opportunity.
Therefore our circulars and our commentaries were made repeatedly. In 1994 AP
3rd Circular warned the growing danger of Parliamentarism and legalism among
our ranks. It warned that our party will become a third reformist and revisionist
party like CPI and CPM. The same comment and warning was mentioned in the
CC Circular issued in 1998. CC made its comments against these rightist and
revisionist lines in 1996 during the debate on “Growing capitalism in Indian
Agriculture.” CC made its comments during the debate on “Characterization of
political parties in India” in 1997 and in 2004 mentioned about legalism,
parliamentarism and liberalism towards the CPI,CPM. and opposition to Self-
defense Squads for waging resistance struggle. For having such orientations we
have been terming the CPI(ML) Liberation as revisionist party. But forgetting all
this now our CC majority is, surprisingly, in a fix whether there is revisionism
inside our party and posing questions among ourselves about what is meant by
revisionism?

1.20 Now Comrades VV,DVK and Ravi submitted their alternative document to the CC
document. If our CC majority go through their document in an indepth manner
they will get a clear knowledge regarding what is rightism and what is revisionism
in the concrete conditions of our country. Now let us go through what the great
teachers and International Communist Movement taught us regarding revisionism.

Marx, Engels’ fight against wrong theories during their life time:
2.1 Marx deeply studied the writings of German philosopher Hegel when he was a
student. Likewise he studied the writings of materialist philosopher Ludwig
Feurbach. In 1842 at the age of 24 Marx became the Editor of Leftist Democratic
Organ ‘Rhineishe Zeitung’. Here itself Federik Engels met Karl Marx. Engels also
deeply immersed in revolutionary activities like Marx. He went to London in 1843
and went to Paris in 1844 where he met Marx second time. By then Marx was
prohibited from London and his Organ also was proposed. Marx started his
writings as a Socialist and a materialist. He became a critique of Hegel’s views.
Generally Engels was in agreement with Marx. Both of them became revolutionary
friends and Communists.

6
2.2 Both of them studied Capitalist development of Europe and the class struggles
during the last 4 centuries particularly in 19th Century. In name of socialism
many theories came forward. Particularly the theories of Saint Simon (1760—
1865), Fourier (1772—1825) and Robert Woven (1771—1835) Basing on their
study of these struggles and writings up to 1847, they prepared the theory of
Scientific Socialism. In 1844 Engels wrote a book “The Conditions of working
class in England” They felt, to get rid of the yoke of capitalist class working class
should wage an uncompromising struggles: to wage such struggles an
organization that unites and fights for the cause of working was necessary. For
the unification and fighting there should be a clear cut theory and a well-knit
organisation that applies the theory in its practice.

2.3 In this background they united some organizations as “Communist League” in

1847. The second conference of “Communist League” was held in December
1847. Both Marx and Eagels were present in this conference. This conference
prepared the Constitution and approved it. This conference asked Marx and
Eagels to prepare Programme for the Communist League. Both of them prepared
the draft of the “Communist Manifesto” it was approved at London in 1848
February. Thus the historic document of “Communist Manifesto” came to light. It
had thoroughly exposed various so-called “socialisms” particularly “feudal
socialism” and “petty-bourgeois socialisms”. It gave a clarion call that only
revolution could liberate the working class and the working class loose nothing!

2.4 Soon after the Communist Manifesto came into open revolutions burst forth in
France and Germany. In February itself French Revolution started. This
revolutionary movement spread soon into Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary,
Belgium, Holland etc. Developing bourgeoisie in alliance with the working class
waged a revolution against declining feudal system. The bourgeoisie that came
to power took anti working class stand. Hence, the French working class revolted
against the bourgeoisie in June 1848. Marx and Engels provided not only theories
but they also jumped into these struggles. Having closely observed and
participated in German revolution Marx and Engels came to the conclusion that
in European history Socialism had come to the agenda. However, political
reactionary situation had become serious. Communist League faced factionalism.
Villierscaper resorted to adventurist revolts in Germany. Marx and Engels warned
not to play with armed revolts. Ultimately League split in 1852.

2.5 After the defeats of revolutionary movements in 1848 to the formation of First
Internal in 1864, on the one hand there was a political retreat and on the other
hand industrial development. Number of working class increased and revolutionary
spirit had temporarily decreased. The hunt for revolutionaries in France and
Germany continued. The trial for “Cologne Conspiracy case” started in 1852 and
7 Communist leaders were convicted for long time imprisonment. Industrial
development in European Countries particularly England grew to the sky. Some
facilities were provided to the workers and hence their revolutionary spirit has
decreased and Chartist movement also fizzled out. Gradually the working class
movements and the trade Unions felt the need of an International Organization.

7
 Leaders belonging to different European countries sat together and decided to
form an international in 1864. They decided to frame the programme and
constitution. A Committee was decided in which Marx was a member. Along with
this development a number of anti-working class trends also crept in among the
working class ranks. Marx and Engels called these wrong trends as “sects” which
were later on called as trends of “Left—deviation and right deviations”. Such
trends were in general useful in many ways for the capitalism. They used to bring
damage to the working class struggles and for their unity. During revolutionary
periods they used to play a counter-revolutionary roles. Therefore Great teachers
Marx and Engels fought against such theories and leaders who preached and
organized such things: Let us see against whom and how they waged their
ideological, political and organisational struggles:

2.6 Fight Against Blanquism: Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805—1881) was considered
an important leader in France from 1830 to 1871 Paris Commune. He studied
law and medicine but entered into political arena. He played a great and important
role in the struggle that established Paris commune in 1871. He was imprisoned
many times and once he was given death sentence. Blanqui rejected the class
struggle and maintained that wage slavery could be ended through a conspiracy
organized by a handful of intellectuals and not through the class struggle of the
proletariat. Marx and Engels criticised Blanqui’s sectarianism and conspiratorial
tactics. With Paris Commune Blanquism ended as a political force. Ultimately
Blanquist Party merged with French United Socialist Party during 1904—05.

2.7 Marx and Engels against Proudhanism: Joseph Proudhan (1809—65) by

profession he was a printer. He was clever person who educated himself. He
was the pioneer of modern anarchism. During 1860s he was very popular among
skilled workers. He had his followers in Belgium. He got a strong base in the
International when it was first started. He wrote an important book i.e. “Philosophy
of Poverty) in 1846. In his plan giving loans through peoples banks without interest
was one important thing.

To counter the erroneous views of Proudhan Marx wrote his famous book i.e.
“Poverty of Philosophy” and condemned his petty-bourgeois and anarchist views
regarding the development of society. Proudhanists tried their level best to
capture “the international”and get its support to implement their programme. Marx
and Engels waged serious struggle against this Phroudhanism for two years and
ultimately it was defeated.

2.8 Marx, Engels fight against Lassellism: In Europe there was a widespread belief
among working class that co-operative societies and particularly mutual
cooperative societies would help get rid of workers difficulties. As these views
were widespread in France through Lasselle, though not serious this
understanding was spread even in England through Lassellism. He felt that by
establishing co-operative with the subsidies of the government in a widespread
manner gradually capitalist system could be removed. He believed that to get
such subsidies workers should get adult voting rights. If such voting rights are

8
 achieved 90% of working class representatives would be elected to the parliament
and necessary laws would be made. Lasselle expounded these opinions through
his ‘workingmen’s programme in 1862 and through his open letter in 1863.

2.9 Lasselle’s opportunism also created certain hurdles to utilize certain instruments
to develop workers and political movements. This was a petti-bourgeois ideology
and hence Marx seriously opposed his ideas. Gradually to get his wrong theory
into practice i.e. co-operative with state subsidies, he resorted to make friendship
with Prussian Chancellor Bismark. Bismark utilized this friendship to dilute the
working class movement. Therefore Marx condemned Lasselle as a renegade
to working class.

2.10 Marx, Engels fight against Bakuninism: Mikhail Bakunin (1814—1876) born in
a noble family in Teewar Town of Russia. In Poland he worked as an officer for
Zaar. He left his job in protest against autocracy.

2.11 His main theories were explained in his book written in 1882 i.e.”God and
government machinery.” Bakunin, in the main, acted as the representative of the
petti-bourgeois sections, peasantry and industrially backward european working
class. He did not pay attention about the classes in the society and the class
struggles. Bakunin opposed the very concept of “Dictatorship of proletariat”. Marx
had to compete with Bakunin on three issues. 1. Political struggle of the working
class 2. Dictatorship of the proletariat 3. Party of working class. Marx, in the main,
vehemently resisted his policies of conspiracies and individual terrorism. He
scornfully looked at the struggles for political reforms.

2.12 Bakunin incorporated his leftist anarchism even into the political organizations.
According to him there should not be centralism. Every country should think about
its movements. Bakunin was an extremely enthusiastic and brave. He could
organise his followers in Italy, Spain, Switwizrland and Russia. Bakunin attended
to Basle International meeting as the representative of the French Lassellians.
Bakunin met Marx there in 1864. Instead of joining in International, he and his
followers continued their own organization i.e. “International Social Democratic
Alliance.” But he continued his organisaation in different countries with his trusted
militants in a semi-secret fashion. Since then he feverishly tried to keep the
organization under his control. Marx and other International leaders
opposed most of Bakunin’s theories. Marx and other Communists had to clash
with him. In Hague congress held in 1872 Bakunin was removed from leadership.
Serious clashes occured between these uncompromising groups led to the
ultimate destruction of the International in 1876.

2.13 Marx who did great service to international working class and downtrodden died
on March 14, 1883. After the death of Great Teacher Marx, Eagels continued his
ideological, political and organizational tasks. He meticulously gone through the
material concerning the second and third Volumes of “Capital” and published
them. This was a herculean task that no one could have done. He extended his
support to establish Communist Parties in many countries. He founded the second

9
 International(SI) in Paris on 14 July 1889. Through this International he helped
to the mass movements and he waged a relentless ideological struggle against
wrong theories. Exactly at this time the meeting of other Congress also took place.
The sponsors of this congress declared that “Socialism could be achieved” under
the bourgeois legal structure itself. Some leaders made attempts to unite the two
Internationals. Engels vehemently opposed this attempt of theirs. Second
International in its first meeting decided to observe the 1st May as the International
working class day.

2.14 The entire period of first International was the period of Bourgeois democratic
revolutions. Their impact was more on the first International. The First
International,in the main, faced left adventurist trend. The Second International
(SI) faced completely a reverse trend i.e. rightist trend. From the very beginning
the SI faced the opportunist trend which kills the initiative of the workers By the
time of Paris conference there was a “possibilists” trend out side the SI. There
was a rightist trend dorment inside the SI. Though the SI was formed. yet the
leadership could not take any definite decisions. It worked as a loose federation.
There was favorable situation for the growth of rightist trends during the SI period.
Capitalism was peacefully developing by the time of formation of SI. This situation
gave scope to grow rightist trends among the leadership of working class parties
and workers as well. By providing special facilities and comforts to such people
the management used them for anti-working class interests. On the other hand
many petit-bourgeois intellectuals penetrated into workers organizations. What
they need was posts and fulfillment of their selfish aspirations. By the time of
1896 though the rightist section did not take a concrete shape in the SI yet rightist
thinking exhibited in all the discussions.

2.15 Opportunists argued that May Day could be observed on any holiday and there
was no need of special holiday for it. On this issue the French Party seriously
opposed the rightist attitude of the German Party. The rightist deviation
expressed more among the elected representatives of Parliament. Hence
Engels opposed their inclusion in the SI. Despite his opposition the parliamentary
representatives belonging to Joorich, Millirand, Ivian groups of France were taken
into SI in 1894. How seriously the SI had to face the negative affects of their
inclusion was proved later on. When the issue of whether reforms or revolution
came for discussion, the opportunist leadership of the SI confined itself to the
immediate demands and left the revolutionary aims and ideologies to the winds.
In 1893 the German Party brought forward the concept of reformism even
regarding the destruction of bourgeois state. It preached that by gradually
changing the bourgeois state apparatus, its bureaucratic machinery including the
army, working class could be liberated.

2.16 Kautsky prepared a programme for the German Party in 1891. Later on many
other parties also followed the same pattern. As result of this, the Communist
Manifesto prepared by Marx and Engels in 1848 went into the museum. Lot of
revolutionary phraseology could be seen in Kautsky’s programme but you would
not find the basic things like revolution and dictatorship of proletariat. He preached

10
 that through achieving partial interests a way would be facilitated for socialism.
Persons like George Waall Moore who wants united fronts with bourgeois parties
was also included in the SI. Thus the disturbance of rightist section in SI became
dominant in SI. On the other hand the leftists struggle was also not in the same
high pitch as the rightists did. Leftists also forgot the experiences of the first
International and the basic teachings of Marx. They were in such a predicament
what was the exact difference between them and the centrists. On the other hand,
Bebel, Kautsky and Plekhanov those who claimed to be the centrists started
moving towards rightism. They used to appear as they were clinging to the
fundamental principles of Marxism.

2.17 Therefore the then leftist section including revolutionary trends acted as a
heterogeneous group. As a result of this, they could not supply necessary help
and cooperation for anti-right opportunist struggle being waged by Great teacher
Engels. Thanks to this heterogeneous nature even Lebkhnet also exhibited
liberalism. While writing forward to “Class struggles in France” written by Engels
in 1885 some important parts were left out. Likewise they hid “Condemnation of
Gotha Programme.”They did not publish it for 10 years. They did not publish the
Engels writings condemning the Kautsky’s programme. Nevertheless, Engels
strived well to get the leftist section work well. Though his age was growing
yet he did not leave the task of fighting against right opportunism and
against wrong trends. While waging his fight against right opportunism and
wrong trends the Great Teacher Engels became martyr at the age of 75 years
in England on August 5, 1895.

GREAT TEACHER COMRADE LENIN'S ENTRY INTO POLITICS:

2.18 Comrade Lenin entered into politics just before the death of Great Teacher Engels
in 1895. He entered into active politics when capitalism was fast developing in
Europe and right opportunism was raising its head rampantly in all European
Parties. This right opportunism was fully exposed in the Paris conference held in
1900 in the case of Millirand of France and Bernstein of Germany. There were
five groups in France in 1898. Among them one group was led by Tsars. It sent
Millirand as its representative into the French bourgeois ministry. In that ministry
Gaalifell who mercilessly got Paris Communards killed was also a minister. As
soon as Millirand entered into the ministry the French police killed the striking
workers in many places. The Paris conference of SI discussed the Millirand issue.
Gooisday of French spoke that Millirand’s joining the Ministry was not principled
one. He further told that Socialists should act an opposition without surrendering.
Rosa Laxumberg and Villant supported Gooisday’s views.

2.19 Rosa Luxemburg said “In bourgeois society, naturally, social democracy should
act as an opposition party. Working class party could come into power only on
the ruins of bourgeois state machinery.” Important leader of second trend in
France Tsars fully supported the alliance between the bourgeois parties and the
socialist parties. He further supported the joining of Millirand in the French
bourgeois ministry. He felt by this act French Republic was protected. Moreover

11
 he felt that Solcialists entry into the bourgeois ministries was only a pioneering
step for the socialist revolution. Kautsky represented the third trend. With his
centrist attitude he got the resolution passed. He argued that this was not a
theoretical issue but a tactical one. Hence he argued taking a decision on this
was not correct. Thus he kept the Millirand road open. Upto now he used to
support the Leftists but for the first time he supported the rightists on this issue.
Millirand was expelled as he did not implement the resolution. Clinging to his
post, he served the bourgeoisie throughout his life and became counter-
revolutionary.

Fight against revisionism of Bernstein:

2.20 Paris Commune of 1871 irrefutably proved the validity of “Communist Manifest”
and the teachings of Marx and Engels. With this the fight against these leaders
and Marxism became intensified. First Gotha Programme of German Parties and
next Duhring programme and Kautsky programmes had lot of rightist, opportunist
and liberal views. Marx mercilessly condemned the Gotha Programme and Engels
thoroughly condemned the Duhring.

2.21 Bernstein had been having many views opposed to class struggle and Marxism.
The Stuttgart Congress of the German Social Democratic Party was held in
October 3—8, 1898. For the first time it took up the question of revisionism
for discussion. Bernstein did not attend to the Congress but sent a statement
amplifying and defending the opportunist views he had previously set forth in a
number of articles. Thus he exposed his views for the first time before the
Congress. There was no unity,however, among his opponents: Bebel, Kautsky
and congress majority called for an ideological struggle and criticism of Bernstein’s
mistakes but opposed disciplinary measures; the minority led by Rosa
Laxumberg insisted on a more vigorous struggle against Bernsteinism. In
1889 Bernstein wrote a book i.e. Evolutionary Socialism. German Party took it
seriously and discussed it in its Congress held at Hanover on October 9—14,
1889. In this Congress a special resolution was passed because the opportunists
led by Bernstein had urged the revision of Marxist theory and revolutionary policy
and tactics. Congress rejected these views but its resolution did not criticise or
expose the Bernsteinians and they voted for the resolution.

2.22 In these two Congresses Rosa Laxumberg played leading role. Bebel who was
moving towards centrists also played leading role. The Congress in its own
resolution warned Bernstein but did not declare that adherence to his views
was incompatible with membership in the party.

2.23 Bernstein challenged the theory of Surplus Value of Marx.: He rejected the theory
of Class struggle: Appreciated Millirandism; He glorified imperialism and
colonialism; He ridiculed the theory of “dictatorship of proletariat.” He declared
that revolution was unnecessary and impossible;He declared that violent methods
were necessary to throw away feudal system but not necessary to overthrow the
capitalist system; Capitalist societies are “flexible ones” and hence we should help

12
 for their development; Through voting right a situation has developed where every
citizen is recognized as partner of development. His participation would lead to
development and ultimately it leads for his real partnership; Thus he brought
completely an anti-Marxist Programme. Rosa Laxumberg through her book
“Reformist Concept or Revolutionary Concept” thoroughly exposed Bernstein’s
theories.

2.24 German Social Democratic Party got prominent victories in the elections held in
1903. With this the right wing was very eager to participate in the government
taking Millirand as its ideal. It bargained for getting the post of Reichstag Vice-
chancellor. Therefore the party convention held in 1903 in Dresden totally rejected
the suggestions of Bernstein. It passed a resolution seriously condemning the
participation of Working class party in the capitalist governments. The resolution
says that working class party should not at all participate in the capitalist
governments. After the Dresden Congress of the German Social Democratic Party,
the 6th conference of SI was held at Amsterdam in 1903. In this conference
Bebel, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Laxumberg, Coin Day and Deelian etc stood
against revisionism. These leaders tabled a resolution seriously condemning
revisionism and Ministerialism; Took policies of class struggles; This was the first
International meeting that the would be great teacher Lenin participated.

2.25 In the international conferences though its theories were won yet they failed in
taking necessary care about the composition of their organisational structures.
They exhibited weakness in firmly dealing with them organisationally. The rightists
and centrists utilised this situation very well. These sections while remaining in
the International resorted to all sorts of conspiracies and manouvres to develop
and increase their strength. As a result of this rightism or revisionism gradually
grew in the International. Some times it could also live utilising the left-
phraseology.

Great Teacher Lenin’s struggle against wrong trends and revisionism:

2.26 Comrade Lenin born on April 22, 1870 in a peasant family. His father was a
teacher and his brother belonged to a terrorist organization. Thanks to this a
murder case was foisted against his brother and Monarch Tsar got him hanged.
As Lenin’s brother was a revolutionary, he could not get a seat either in Moscow
or in Petersberg universities. Hence he had to join in Kajaan University. As Lenin
was participating there also in the revolutionary activities, he was thrown out from
there within a month. Thereafter he privately studied Law course and got the
degree. Then he started doing revolutionary activities instead of doing the job of
advocate.

2.27 Lenin joined as a member in a Marxist Centre in Kazan at the end of 1888. He
himself started a Marxist Centre in Samaara in 1889. After this he developed
relations with the Marxists in Petersberg. He studied the social life, economic
development, class relations in Russia to counter the arguments of Narodniks
and to formulate the Party Programme and Tactical Line. In 1895 basing on the

13
 suggestion of Lenin, all Marxist groups in St. petersberg formed as one Social
Democratic Organization i.e. Council for the Emancipation of Workers. Tsar
became terrified with the activities of this Council. Hence Tsar government
arrested Lenin and 40 other youths. Despite this big jute mill strikes occured in
1896 on the advise of Lenin. This strike spread to throughout the country. Owing
to this Government became terrified and reduced the working time for 11.30 hours.
This was the first organized working class struggle under the leadership of the
Social Democratic Organization in Russia.

2.28 Owing to the influence of this country wide strike struggle, Marxist Councils were
formed in other towns also. On the other hand wrong trends also started. Such
persons argued that we should conduct agitation only on economic issues and
organise Mutual Aid Societies for solving the economic demands of the workers.
Moreover, they argued that political struggles should be left to the Liberal Parties.
Lenin termed the supporters of such views as “Economist”. Lenin concluded that
working class should have its own independent party as Marx taught.

2.29 In 1898 the first congress of Russian Social Democratic Party was held when
Lenin was in exile. The Congress was held with 9 delegates representing six
organisations i.e. St.Petersburg, Moscow, Ekaterinoslav and Kiev Leagues of
struggle for the emancipation of the working class, the Kiev Rabochaya Gazeta
and the Bund. After the first congress a big ideological confusion took place.

2.30 Thanks to the victories won in the struggle against Narodnism, and having seen
the revolutionary activities of the working class many youth and intellectuals were
attracted towards the party. However, they did not know the depth of the
ideological matters. As a result of this they were attracted towards the writings
of Legal Marxist in the media. Lenin felt that all these wrong trends should be
washed out from the Party and it should be revolutionised. Tsarist government
was conspiring to kill comrade Lenin. Knowing this he went to Germany in 1890
and run the magazine--ISKRAA from Germany itself. He defeated all the wrong
trends of ‘Economists’ through ISKRAA and through his famous book ‘What is to
be done?’ written in 1902. In December 1902 a revolutionary armed organization
was also organized. Some leaders demanded that immediately Party Congress
should be held. However, Lenin did not agree with this and he felt prominence
should be given to cleanse the party from wrong trends.

2.31 In 1903 comrade Lenin wrote a book i.e. “for village poor”. In this book he
explained the task of the workers that they should maintain friendly relations with
the peasantry. He proposed the theory of “Worker — peasant alliance”. Social
Democratic Organizations started functioning in army also. ISKRAA firmly stood
behind right of nations. Vacillations started while preparing the “Programme” and
“Tactics”. Axelrod and Plekhanov both opposed to seriously criticise the Liberal
Bourgeoisie. Plekhanov opposed even the principle of Party leading the working
class struggles. Serious differences arose even on Agrarian Revolution. After 3
years strivings of ISKRAA, a positive situation developed in ideological and
organizational arenas for organising a revolutionary Marxist Party.

14
2.32 In this background the second Congress of Russian Social Democratic Party was
held from July 17 to August 10, 1903. This congress was held first in Brussels
and later in London. This second congress was an unprecedented incident in the
history of Russian Revolutionary movement. All ISKRAA arguments were accepted
by the Congress except Lenin’s criteria for party membership. Martov got 28 votes
and Lenin got 22 votes. Delegates of Bundists, Economists, Centrists, Rightist
Iskraites and opportunists joined together as one and voted for Martove proposal.
For Iskra Editorial Board Lenin, Martov and Plekhanov were elected. But Martov
opposed to be in the Editorial Board. Martov followers did not participate in the
election for Central Committee.

2.33 Owing to the liberal attitude shown by the majority wing in the Congress, the
internal situation of the party became very complicated soon after the Congress.
The leaders who supported Lenin at the Congress grudgingly changed their sides
and went over to Menshevicks. Plekhanov changed his side. Both ISKRAA and
Central Committee went into their control. Menshevicks replaced the old and
defeated Economists. They tried all their best to turn the revolutionary movement
towards opportunism. Separate functioning of Bolshevicks and Menshevicks
started.

2.34 To bring the danger of Menshevism and its leaders to the notice of party ranks
and bring facts and figures regarding the second Congress deliberation Lenin
wrote the important book i.e. “One Step Forward and Two Steps Backwards” in
May 1904. After this Lenin gave a call to hold the 3rd Congress of the Russian
Social Democratic Party. As the splits between Bolshevicks and Menshevicks were
very very serious, Menshevicks did not attend to the Congress. Not only that they
held their own separate Congress in Geneva. Third Congress (Bolshevicks) was
held in London where Lenin’s Organizational Principles Para-1 which was
defeated by the second Congress was also adopted. Thus Bolshevicks and
Menshevicks Congresses were held separately in 1905. 3rd congress led by Lenin
was held in April, 1905 in London.

2.35 By January 1905 the relations between Bolshevicks and Menshevicks became
very tense. Hence, the Second International suggested to unite both sections of
Russian Social Democratic Party basing on the principle of one country and one
party. Lenin opposed this saying that it was not a principled proposal. Lenin
proposed to hold the Party Congress and decide only in the Congress. The victory
of the Third Congress (Bolshevicks) ushered an enormous impact both on national
and international developments. Immediately after the Congress to explain the
resolutions comrade Lenin wrote a book i.e. Democratic Revolution and two tactics
of Social Democracy.

2.36 1905 revolution started and hence the compromising efforts were stoped. The SI
could not recognise the importance of Bolshevism in RSDLP. It could not
recognise the emergence of real revolutionary party. Due to the internal struggle
majority Party committees in Russia supported Bolshevism and majority of
professional revolutionaries gathered around Lenin. The impact of victory of

15
 Bolshevism spread enormously on national and international working class
movements. Tsarist Russia was defeated in the war against Japan. Russia
compromised with Japan. In fact, Tsarist Russia thought that through waging this
war it could suppress the revolution but the reverse had happened. The war had
further intensified the revolution in Russia.

2.37 Struggles were continuously developing. To conduct the revolution more vigorously
Party members and workers demanded in the meetings unity should be achieved
between Bolshevicks and Menshevicks. Lenin and Bolshevicks accepted this
demand with a condition that unity should be achieved on the basis of
revolutionary Marxism. 4th Congress of RSDLP was held in April 1906.
Menshevicks attended in large number and Bolshevicks attended in less number
due to repression. The wrong ideological and tactical lines of Menshevicks were
won in the Congress. A serious struggle occured between Menshevicks and
Bolshevicks in the Congress. Utilising the resolution that all revolutionary parties
should be united, Lenin made serious efforts and called for the 5th Congress in
May 1907. The Main agenda was “attitude towards the bourgeois parties’. The
Menshevik tactics exposed soon and at the 5th congress Lenin’s line was
victorious again.

2.38 First Russian revolution was in 1905—07. During this period many revolutionary
tactics were implemented. Menshevism followed basically the Berneistenism in all
aspects. In organizational matters also it followed the opportunist and cliquish
line both in Second and fourth Congresses. During first Russian revolution its real
colour fully exposed as a revisionist line. On land question, on the question of
leadership for the bourgeois revolution, on election, on the nature of state etc
Menshevism took basically anti-Bolshevick line and anti-Leninist line.

2.39 First Russian revolution inspired the entire downtrodden sections in the world. All
the reactionaries and capitalists treated this as some thing like 1871 Paris commune.
Scared by this revolution the Centrists of second international further moved towards
rightism. Plekhanov declared the workers should not have taken arms against Tsar.
When the peoples movement was in full swing, Lenin gave a call to boycott the
Elections. When it declined he gave call to partcipate in parliamentary forums.
During this period two wrong trends came forward. One is to boycott elections
irrespective of mass movements and the other is rightist concept.

2.40 These rightists felt elections were a highest form of struggle and proposed that
we should have election alliances with opposition parties. Not only that they
proposed that we should have election adjustments, agreements and united fronts
and join in bourgeois governments.. Lenin seriously opposed these rightist and
leftist trends particularly rightist trends. He preached that we could have election
adjustments or agreements only with the parties that support the revolution. Not
only that. He said that elections were a lowest form of struggle: We should not
join bourgeois governments and he vehemently criticised those who argued
against this concept. To show the negative example of elections, he cited
Millirandism.

16
Comrade Lenin’s Concentration on Second International:

2.41 After the 1905-07 Russian revolution, comrade Lenin attended to the 7th Congress
of Second International. This was held at Stuttgatt in Germany. This was the first
such a big conference. After the 6 conference of Amsterdam, the great Russian
Revolution happened. The opportunist leaders of second international did all they
could to prevent a discussion on this prominent incident. They scared to discuss
it. Hence they satisfied just to congratulate the Russian working class in their
speeches. At that time Lenin was a small leader before the stalwarts of second
international like Kautsky. The issue of Colonialism was taken as important
agenda. German party leaders felt that they got less votes in 1906 elections,
because they were opposing the colonialism of imperialism. The leaders of
imperialist countries and the revisionists felt that small countries and people’s
backward civilisation became a big hurdle for the advancement of the world. With
this concept they took a stand of supporting the colonialism of their own
bourgeoisie. Hence they proposed “the policy of socialist colonialism”. Lenin and
some other leaders opposed this concept which justifies colonialism. Opposing
this an amendment was moved and it won with 127—108 votes.

2.42 War and Militarism and the attitudes of Socialists was also discussed. 4
resolutions came before the Conference. French leaders submitted 3 resolutions
and Bebel submitted his resolution on behalf of German Party. Rosa Laxamburg
and Lenin proposed two amendments to Bebel’s resolutions as additions and it
was passed. Through their amendments Lenin and others categorised the
difference between the “Just and Unjust Wars” and “Revolutionary and other
Progressive and democratic Civil Wars.

2.43 After 1900 all wrong theories and trends started their fighting as revisionist
trends or revisionism inside Second International. German Party had much grip
on the SI, the second international became a forum for opportunism of
Revisionism. In its criticism there was no mention of Kautsky’s rightism. Moreover,
there was a criticism against German left. Kautsky mentioned about this
many times in his book. Big parties divided the workers on the basis of nations.
The Kopenhagen conference of 1910 instead of going deeply into the matter
issued superficial appeals to workers. Russian party opposed this. Lenin said
there was no basic difference between the two books written by Kautsky
and Legion.

2.44 On the eve of First world war, International Conference was held at Baasle in
1912. An antiwar manifesto i.e. Basle Manifesto was issued with left phraseology.
Considering the world situation the revisionists also supported it. Throughout the
world anti-war sentiment was growing and becoming strong. Hence, the
revisionists temporarily retreated and marked their time for their future offensive.
Lenin did not become deceived with this agreement.As soon as the war started
the main leadership of SI took the stand of ‘defense of fatherland’.Though the
Lenin’s amendments were accepted in Stuttgart, Kopen Hogen and Basle
Congresses yet they bid farewell to them later on. Centrists and revisionists united

17
 and betrayed the workers of their own countries. Thus they left the task of
establishing socialism in place of capitalist system.

2.45 The second international did not prepare to fight against the opportunism. It
prepared to live peacefully with the opportunism and supported it. The Second
International that prepared to compromise with opportunism ultimately itself
became a fullpledged opportunist organization. They encouraged the workers of
one country against the workers of the other country to fight in the war of
imperialists. In this way one crore people died. Two crore people became
handicapped. 50 lakh women lost their husbands. One crore children lost their
parents. The strongest party in the Second International-Germany—voted for the
military budgets. Likewise, the leaders of some countries joined in the bourgeois
ministries. Thus due to the betrayal of the majority of the Second International
leaders the SI degenerated both politically and organisationally.

2.46 Comrade Lenin and Stalin followed the teachings of Marx and Engels regarding
the wars between the capitalist countries. They found Russia was the key link to
wage a civil war against Tsar. The Social Chauvinism of the Second International
was the main reason for their betrayal. Surprising thing was that Kautsky joined
hands with Bernstein. He stooped so low that he quoted Marx and Engels to
justify various kinds of social chauvinism of leaders in all countries.This orthodox
Marxist used all his prestige to conclude that the SI could not take any other
decision than what it had taken to support their own bourgeoisie. Comrade Lenin
and Stalin while fighting against the SI revisionists prepared the Russian people
for the February Revolution. With this in February bourgeois revolution completed
but two governments continued up to October 1917. Serious struggles continued.

2.47 To hoodwink the Russian people, with the advises of various imperialists Kernesky
made a pact with the Menshevicks and Socialist revolutionaries and formed a
provisional government. Lenin called this government as “This government is
formed with the representatives who converted as capitalist landlords”. A wonderful
situation where two governments with two kinds dictatorships came into existence.
To educate the people at large and form the workers’ government Bolshevicks
provided the immediate slogans like: Land to the peasants, Food for labouring
people and stop war and restore peace. The provisional government paid a deaf
year to these demands and resorted to severe repression. In the mean while
Comrade Lenin came back to Russia and submitted his April Thesis before the
Central Committee, St.Petersberg and all Russian Soviets of Workers-Army.

2.48 Comrade Lenin’s April Thesis created a prairie fire among the bourgeois parties,
compromising parties with the bourgeoisie. Lenin or his Socialist revolutionary
aims became a hated thing and they started a slanderous propaganda against
them. They prorogated that Lenin had secret links with German Army Command.
Menshevicks propagated that Lenin was serving the reactionaries, revolution was
facing serious threat from him and we should wage a determined struggle against
Lenin and his followers. Plekhanov commented that Lenin’s “April Thesis” was all
a mad bragging. Trotsky gave the slogan for a permanent revolution. Kamaneev,

18
 Raikov, Vyatakov opposed the April Thesis. They said still time did not come for
Socialist Revolution in Russia and Socialist Revolution was impossible in a single
country. However, within three weeks all Bolshevicks Units conveyed their
acceptance to Comrade Lenin’s April Thesis.From April 25 to 29 the 7th Congress
of All Russian party was held. Here comrade Lenin’s Thesis was accepted. This
congress approved that there is a possibility for the victory of socialism in a single
country. Comrade Stalin gave a detailed explanation on the issue of Nationalities.
It was not correct to say that Trotsky was close to Lenin and Stalin was oppose
to Lenin. Look at the following paras what Lenin said about Trotsky in 1914:

2.49 “The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky very well,
and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the younger generation
of workers do not know about him, and it is therefore necessary to discuss him,
for he is typical of all the five groups abroad, which, in fact, are also vacillating
between the liquidators and the Party. (Page,188 Lenin “Against Revisionism”
From Lenin’s Vol.20)

2.50 After February revolution’s success, dual power had come into existence. Serious
developments occured in July. The Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks not
only joined the Bourgeois government but they had become counter-revolutionary
forces. With this RSDLP decided to hold its 6th Congress and take proper
decisions to capture the state power. Depending on the suggestions of comrade
Lenin, Stalin proposed five tasks before the Congress. Since Trotsky’s group
declared its agreement to all the Bolshevik principles, they were taken into
the party. Though some of them joined genuinely, yet others joined to
oppose Leninism from within.

2.51 On the one hand Party was taking all kinds of armed preparations, and on the
other hand enemy was also taking its counter preparations to suppress the waves
of revolt. Kamnev and Zeenovev opposed Lenin and Trotsky proposed to
postpone the armed revolt until the Second Soviet Congress. This was the indirect
way of spoiling the armed revolt. Comrade Lenin insisted that the Armed
Revolution should take place under any circumstances before the Second
Conference of Soviets on 25th October as the enemy got the report about Armed
revolution’s date through the revelation of renegades-Kaamaneev and Zeenovev.

2.52 However, everything occured as Comrade Lenin planned and wished. On 24th
October night itself Kerensky Government was overthroned. By 10 O’Clock in the
morning on 25th comrade Lenin’s declaration about the Victory of October
revolution was issued. The great October Revolution became successful neither
in a fully developed country nor in a feudal or semi-feudal country. It gave an
unique experience and lessons to the working class and the peasantry. Basing
on the lessons provided by the Russian revolution comrade Lenin and Stalin
provided necessary lessons to the world particularly to the backward and
developing countries.

19
THE IMPACT OF OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF COMINTERN:

2.53 The influence of October Socialist revolution was spread far and wide in the world.
It provided confidence to the on going struggles in different countries. The
militancy, political consciousness and self-confidence and socialist consciousness
among the international working class enormously developed. Mass movement
started in Germany demanding stop the imperialist war immediately. In 1918
working class revolution took place in Phinland. Soviets were established in
Hungary, Bulgaria, Chekoslavakia in 1919.

2.54 They could not withstand the reactionary attacks. In Italy workers tookover the
factories. Peasants occupied the landlord’s lands. Revolution developed in France,
Britain and Belgium. In Britain a solidarity movement started in the name of “Don’t
Touch Russia”. In all European countries propaganda organizations emerged to
demand “Prevent Imperialist Intervention in Russia.” The impact of the October
revolution was not there on the national liberation movements. After the victory
of the October revolution it reached quickly to the East.

2.55 That was why Comrade Mao Tse Tung said “The Clarion call of the victory of
October revolution, it reverberated the Marxist-Leninist call in our ears.” Inspired
by the victory of the October revolution the people of China started their May 4th
movement in 1919. In many countries Communist parties emerged.

2.56 On the initiative of Italian Party international socialist parties that oppose war was
held in Grimmerwalt town on 5th September,1915. From Russia, Germany,
France, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Sweden and
Norway 38 delegates attended. From Russia Bolsheviks and Mensheviks
attended. Lenin directly led the Bolshevik delegation. Klara Zetkin and Rosa
Luxemburg were already jailed in Germany and hence they could not come.
Bolshevik delegation proposed that War should be stopped forthwith: Economic
resources needed to the war should be opposed; Socialist representatives should
immediately resign from the governments of England, France, Belgium.
Gimmerwaalt was only an embryonic thing for the formation of 3rd international.

2.57 Gradually incidents proved the majority of Gimmerwaalt was pro-Kautskites.

Hence Lenin directed the Bolshevik Party in April 1917 that we should not tolerate
the Gimmerwaalt rubbish. We should completely cut off our relations with this
Gimmerwalt. He also directed that we should without delay start to organise the
new international revolutionary organization.. On this we should not shirk
ourselves. On the initiative of the Russian Communist Party representatives of
33 countries’ parties held a meeting on March 2,1919 in Moscow. This Congress
established the third international. It declared that establishement of socialism
throughout the world was its aim.

Collapse of the Second International:

2.58 The great October revolution solved many complicated problems in the course of

20
 revolutions. Nevertheless, the pessimism of certain important leaders both in the
Second International, Menshevik and Bolshevik party etc. were not resolved.
Kautsky the omnipotent leader had been feeling that Socialist revolution in a single
undeveloped country was impossible. However the October revolution thrown
these estimations to the winds. While formulating policies and tactics to the
Russian revolution, Lenin relentlessly and uncompromisingly waged struggle
against Kautsky. He wrote “Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism” in 1916.
He mercilessly condemned Kautsky’s theories of “Ultra-Imperialism”. Writing a
foreword to Bukharin’s book “Imperialism and World Economic Policy” Lenin
attacked his theories from left and right. He wrote the book “Proletarian Revolution
and renegade Kautsky” where he thoroughly exposed the liberal bourgeois, rightist
and revisionist views of renegade Kautsky. Lenin proved Kautsky as a counter-
revolutionary.

2.59 Immediately after the success of the October Revolution in Russia, the imperialist
countries started encirclement of Russia — a nascent socialist country. Lenin
formulated new tactics to protect this nascent socialist country. Reached a
compromise with them. “The peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk was concluded between
Soviet Russia and Germany in March 1918. The conclusion of this treaty gained
time for the Soviet Republic to consolidate the political power of the proletariat,
reorganise its economy and build up the red army.” (Page- 251, Vol.1) He
temporarily set aside some socialist policies and started New Economic
Policies(NEP). His economic policies were gaining momentum. In the meanwhile
Comrade Lenin was physically attacked by the Agents of national and International
bourgeoisie. He was hospitalised and died in 1924.

Com. Stalin’s contribution to the International Communist movement:

2.60 Comrade Lenin. the great teacher of the international working class died on 21
January, 1924. The 5th Congress of Comintern was held on June 17 and July 8,
1924. This Congress discussed the failures of the international working class
movements and the reasons. It discussed the temporary stability of the capitalists
and the United front tactics and its programme was formulated. Comrade Stalin’s
Thesis on the Temporary stability of capitalism was thoroughly discussed and the
tasks formulated. The tasks of the Communists in West Europe and the tasks of
the Trade Unions there were discussed.

2.61 The tasks of the Communists in the colonies was explained by Stalin to the
Students belonging to the East on May 15, 1925.He discussed about Chinese
revolution and India with those students. The Comintern forces could show the
real character of rightist and revisionist trade union leadership role and the nature
of temporary stability of capitalist system.

2.62 As soon as the Great teacher Lenin died, the opponents in the Bolshevik party
raised their heads and started their struggle against Bolshevik party particularly
against Comrade Stalin. They started their struggle on the following points:

21
 1. They refused to see the temporary stability and development in the capitalist
world. They came forward with left phraseology in the name of “Permanent
Revolutionary Struggle”

2. They described the New Economic Programme introduced in 1921 as

retrograde policy.

3. They declared that building socialism in one country was impossible and
resisted Socialist construction in Russia.

4. They opposed the principle of democratic centralism of Communist party

and resorted to groupist activities.

2.63 The Bolshevik Party under the leadership of comrade Stalin conducted intensive
ideological struggle against the politics of this group. Overwhelming majority of
party members and Committees rejected their group activities. Ultimataely on 7th
November 1926 they conducteda separate rally. Hence Party expelled Trotsky,
Zeenovev etc. Bolshevik Party again gave them party membership after they
openly announced their repentance and to abide by the party discipline. During
this period Bukharin and his followers criticised the Party programme as rightist
trend. Party condemned these two trends as alien, and inimical ones.

2.64 Comrade Stalin the great teacher of the international communist movement led
the Comintern and Bolshevik party for 30 years after the death of Great teacher
Lenin. He developed the Soviet economy in a planned manner. He developed
Soviet Union technologically, scientifically and militarily on par with other
imperialist countries. He assisted the Communists the world over to establish their
own parties and fight against the capitalists, landlords and imperialists. He
organized the world communist movement to resist the imperialist conspiracies,
aggressions and attacks.

2.65 In this period the Internal enemies in Bolshevik party also colluded with imperialists
in many ways. Zeenovev, Bukharin and Trotsky’s groups were fully defeated when
they started acting as agents and disrupters. In the course of Russian revolution
Menshevik leaders—Trotsky, Plekhanov, Martov etc. were joining the party and
going out. They joined Kerensky Government. Conspired against the revolution.
With different pretexts they had been opposing the tactics of Bolshevik party. After
Lenin’s death they were expelled from the party and on repentance they were
taken back. But they continued their conspiracies. Before the second world war
the activities of Zenovev, Bukharin groups were thoroughly exposed and purged
and Trotsky was expelled from the country. Thus the activities of the fifth fleet of
imperialist were got rid off. Reviewing the activities and conspiracies of these
elements and the vacillations of the leadership at the Second Congress CPSU(B)
history said:

“5) The Congress did not prove equal to its task in matters of organization, showed
vacillation, and at times even gave the preponderance to the Mensheviks; and

22
 although it corrected its position towards the end, it was, nevertheless, unable to
expose the opportunism of the Mensheviks on matters of organization and to
isolate them in the party, or even to put such task before the party.

This latter circumstances proved one of the main reasons, why the struggle
between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, far from subsiding after the
congress, became even more acute.” (CPSU(B) Short course: Delhi edition, page-
44: Paras—3 and 4)

2.66 However, Great teacher comrade Stalin also could not fully implement this lesson
after the death of comrade Lenin the great teacher of the International Proletariat.
That was why the Zeenoveev, Bukharin and Trotsky groups factional activities
continued upto the Second World War. With the great victories won by the Soviet
Army and people comrade Stalin underestimated the danger of internal enmies
and capitalist roaders inside the country.

2.67 Regarding the classes and class contradictions in Socialist Societies comrade Stalin
made a mistake. He felt there were no antagonistic classes and contradictions in
Soviet Union. Therefore he assessed that danger for Socialist Society comes mainly
from the imperialist cocuntries and not from within. So while building a great Socialist
Society he was careful against the encirclement and attacks of the imperilaist
countries; He was negligent regarding the internal enmies inclujding the capitalist
roaders inside the Communist Party: Hence he dealt them with the administraative
measures instead of Cultural revolutions. Though he corrected these theoretical and
organizational lapses in his famous writing "Economic Problems in USSR" yet the
damage had already occured. Many revisionist forces like Kruschevites grew inside
the CPSU(B) Central Commitee itself.

2.68 Thanks to all these developments, as soon as Comrade Stalin died the revisionist
forces inside the Party, government and in Army colluded. Arrested, killed number
of pro-Stalin forces both inside Central Committee, government and inside the
Army and captured the CPSU(B) leadership and government and Army
leaderships. They were removed from the Party,government and army posts.
Thousands upon thousands of party members were removed from the party
records and lakhs of new members were enrolled.Having completed all this
Kruschev placed a "Secret Report aganist Stalin" in the 20th Congress of
CPSU(B). Majority of the Communist Parties in the world could not come against
the Kruschev revisionist in Soviet Union. Not only thaat these parties supported
Kruschev revisionism. Many parties took the Centrist stand. Very few parties like
CPC and Albanian Labour Party stood firmly against Kruschev revisionism and
upheld great leader and teacher comrade Stalin and the great red banner of
October Revolution.

2.69 Regarding the great contributions of comrade Stalin, the CPC and Mao made the
following comments:

''Stalin’s merits and mistakes are matters of historical, objective reality. A

23
 comparison of the two shows that his merits outweighed his faults. He was
primarily correct, and his faults were secondary. In summing up Stalin’s thinking
and his work in their totality, surely every honest Communist with a respect for
history will first observe what was primary in Stalin. Therefore, when Stalin’s errors
are being correctly appraised, criticised and overcome it is necessary to safeguard
what was primary in Stalin’s life, to safeguard Marxism-Leninism which he
defended and developed.”(Page-91, Great Debate: Mass Line Publications.)

Great Debate by CPC and Mao against Krushcev Revisionism:

2.70 Soon after the great teacher comrade stalin’s death the revisionist forces and pro-
imperialist forces under the leadership of Kruschev captured the CPSU and Soviet
state and government. After Stalin’s death in 1953 the top leaders who came to
lead the Party and the State were Malenkov, Beria and Krushcev. Malenkov
became the premier and Kruschev the General secretary of the CPSU. Soon the
Kruschev clique engaged in behind the scene machination and intrigues paving
the way for the coup to usurp the leadership. Beria was executed in 1953 itself
and Malenkov was compelled to resign from the premiership in 1955. Large scale
removals of party members was taken up with a view to change the color and
content of the Party. Disciplinary actions and trials and punishments were meted
out to important followers of comrade Stalin at all levels in a big way. By the time
of the Twentieth Congress in February 1956 the Kruschev clique had acquired
full control over the Party and the State. With this background the 20th Congress
of CPSU was held and Kruschev clique placed their secret report against Stalin.
In fact it was an anti-Marxist-Leninist Document to denigrade the fundamental
principles of Marxism-Leninism.

2.71 Enver Hoxa of Albania severely opposed Kruschev in the Congress hall itself.
CPC under the leadership of Great Teacher Comrade Mao Tse Tung fought
against Kruschev revisionism in a systematic manner. Some other parties also
fought against Kruschev revisionism. International meetings were held in 1957
and 1960 to discuss the differences among the parties particularly between CPSU
and CPC. Basically these meetings broadly took a correct line.Though there were
lapses in the formulations of these documents. They could not firmly resist the
degeneration of Kruschev and his modern revisionism. Many important parties
compromised with the “peaceful co-existence, peaceful competition, and peaceful
transition” theories of Krushev revisionism. Some sections of these parties who
in the beginning opposed Kruschev revisionism to some extent or the other also
gradually started accepting the theories of Kruschev.

Mao’s fight against wrong trends and revisionism:

2.72 During the course of new democratic revolution in China, Comrade Mao faced
left and right trends of Chen Tu-Shi, Chang Kuo-tao, Li Li-san, Wang Ming, Liu-
Shao-Chi etc. After the sucess of new democratic revolution also he faced many
wrong trends ultimately which led him to wage the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution in China.

24
 “It met with immediate opposition from the right opportunists in the party , and
not until the Sixth Plenary sessions of the 6th Central Committee in October 1938
was the right deviation basically overcome.”(Page—61, Mao,Vol.2)

“Parliamentarism” here refers to the proposals of some party comrades that the
system of political power in the revolutionary base areas, the system of people’s
representative conferences should be changed into the bourgeois
parliamentarism.” {page—73, Vol.2, “After the fall of Shanghai and Taiyuan”}

“Inner Party Circular of Historic Significance to rebuff Liu Shao Chi’s Opposition
to the cooperative transformation of Agriculture. In July 1951 behind the backs
of comrade Mao Tse Tung and the Party Central Committee Liu Shao Chi wrote
and distributed a comment in his own name, wantonly attacking a report submitted
by the Shansi Provincial party Committee on promoting mutual aid and co-
operation in agricultural production. In this comment he opposed comrade Mao
Tse Tung’s line on the socialist transformation of agriculture, maligning it as an
“erroneous, dangeours and utopian notion of agrarian socialism” In September of
the same year, Comrade Mao Tse Tung personally took charge of drafting the
“Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist party of China on mutual
aid and co-operation in Agricultural production(Draft)” and on December 15 when
the draft resolution was to be distributed he wrote this circular and instructed the
whole party to take mutual aid and co-operation in agriculture as a major task.”
(P.71, Vol.5 “ Take mutual aid and co-operation in agriculture as a major task”)

2.73 Mao deeply studied the Colonial Thesis of Lenin and convinced with the directions
to the colonial countries. He could grasp about the real enemies and friends and
the nature of the revolution in those countries. Hence Mao explained that Chinese
revolution was in Bourgeois democratic revolutionary stage but it would not be
led by the bourgeoisie. It would be new democratic revolution led by the working
class taking worker-peasant alliance as the basis against feudal and imperialist
forces. He applied concret tactics to the concrete conditions in China—-People’s
War Path. Li Li San opposed this line. Resorted to attacks in the cities and Red
army faced severe losses.

About this Concise History of CPC said: “Although the mistaken “left” line held
sway for only a little more than three months (From June to September 1930),
the party paid dearly for it........In addition, the Red Army suffered huge losses
during its attacks on large cities.” (Page—-151)

During September 24—28, 1930 in Shanghai, the CPC held the Enlarged 3rd
Plenary session of the 6th Central Committee. In his report transmitting the
resolution of the Communist International, Zhou Enlai pointed out the uneven
development of the Chinese revolution. He criticised Li Li San for having made
the mistake of “Left” adventurism in planning the Party’s work. Li Li San made
a self-criticism on Qu Qiubai delivered a summery of the political discussion at
the session.

25
2.74 It corrected the ultra left assessment of the revolutionary situation in China made
by Li Li-San and others, and after the meeting Li left his leading position.”

After Li Li-San left his leading position, Wang Ming and Bo Gu’s left line called
Wang Ming left line came to dominance in the CPC which continued for more
than five years brought untold and unprecedented losses to the Chinese army.
After the Long March, CPC reviewed the situation and elected Comrade Mao
Tse Tung as its leader in 1935. Let us see what happened after Long March:

2.75 Concise History says “Generally speaking Wang Ming and his faction were more
determined and more arrogant than Li Li San and those who had followed his
line of “left” adventurism, and clothed their arguments in more theoretical verbiage.
Therefore they caused greater damage.”

“Why did Wang Ming oppose the principle of independence and initiative within
the united front? ..Because he never understood the Party’s policy regarding the
united front. .....”

2.76 “Another reason for Wang Ming’s right deviationist mistakes was that he worshiped
the instructions of the Comintern and blindly followed the foreign policy of the
Soviet Union. There was nothing wrong in the Soviet Union’s decision at that time
to maintain foreign relations only with the Kuomington government in China. But
some leaders of the Kuomintaong and of the Soviet Union overestimated Chag
Kai Shaik’s enthusiasm for resisting Japan while underestimating his determination
to eliminate the Communists, and their thinking had a great influence on Wang
Ming and his line. ........................................As a result Party’s work was impeded.
......................The Central Committee struggled determinedly to reject Wang
Ming’s Right deviationist mistakes .......................... ...........”(Ibid—-238—-239)

2.77 “Between early September and the beginning of December 1943. when the
rectification movement was in its latter stage, the CPC Central Committee, wishing
to analyse the party’s experience, called 3 successive meetings of the Political
Bureau to discuss the “left” mistakes Wang Ming had made during the agrarian
revolutionary war and the right mistakes he had made at the beginning of the
war of resistance against Japan. At these meetings many comrades critiised
Wang’s mistakes and some criticised themselves. Mao Ze Dong stressed that in
examining Wang’s mistakes Party members should take a historical view, proceed
from reality, make self-criticisms and ensure the unity. He said they should refrain
from employing wrong methods of struggle that had been used in the past, “learn
from past mistakes to avoid future ones” and “cure the sickness to save the
patient”.

2.78 Wang Ming pleaded illness and did not attended the meetings. The party leaders
made painstaking efforts to help him understand his mistakes. Mao Ze Dong
called on him several times and sent people to listen his views. Chou Enlai also
visited him and had heart to heart talk with him. As a result Wang Ming admitted
his mistakes and wrote to the central Committee stating that he fully agreed with

26
 the judgements in the “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of our
Party.” At Mao’s urging Wang Ming was again elected to the Central Committee
at the 7th Party Congress.” (Ibid, Page—295—96)

How the mistaken leaders--Li Li-san and Wang Ming were taken back into CC:

2.79 “At the Third Plenary Session of the Party’s Sixth Central Committee in
September1930 Comrade Li Li-San admitted the mistakes that had been pointed
out and then relinquished his leading position in the Central Committee. Over a
long period of time Comrade Li Li-San corrected his wrong views, and so he was
re-elected to the Central Committee at the Seventh National Congress of the
Party.” (Page—250, Mao Vol.1)

2.80 Thus Li Li-San and Wang Ming were taken back into the CC after 15 and 11
years. They remained outside the CC of CPC up to 1945 due to party’s
disciplinary actions against them. Both Li Li-San and Wang Ming committed, in
the main, grave left adventurist mistakes. What Services they rendered to the
party since 1956, after they were taken into CPC we didn’t have proper reports.

Socialist Construction and Cultural Revolution in China:

2.81 The 7th Congress was the last Party Congress before 1949 liberation. Soon after
the liberation America started its conspiracies to encircle Democratic China by
intervening in Korea. Immediately after the liberation Great teacher Stalin made
historic agreements with China. He extended his wholehearted support to China
both during the Chinese protracted peoples’s war time and after Liberation as
well. Not long after the liberation of China, Comrade Stalin the great leader of
international communist movement died in 1953. Kruschev came to power in
Soviet Union. Started conspiracies in the name of fighting against the “Personality
Cult” of Stalin to defame Marxism-Leninism. 1956 placed his secret report on
Stalin in the 20th Congress which even the arch enemies of Comrade Stalin could
not digest.

2.82 The CPC under Mao started its fight against Kruschev revisionism soon after the
20th Congress. Before Starting a great ideological war against the modern
revisionism of Kruschev for 7 years CPC conducted theoretical debate through
many publications against revisionism. Thus CPC tried to defend purity Marxism-
Leninism and tried its level best to prevent the degenerating revisionist forces in
the world particularly like Kruschev in Soviet Union.

.....The Twentieth Congress was held in February 1956. Soon CPC published the
article “On the historical experiences of the dictatorship of the proletariat” in April
1956. In December 1956 CPC published “More on the Historical Experience of
the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. In the same month in his personal talks with
Soviet leading members said: “Stalin’s merits far outweighed his faults.”

.....In 1960 CPC published the document “Long Live leninism” in April. In this the

27
 revisionist line of 20th Congress was challenged and refuted without naming
CPSU or Kruschev.

.....CPC published the document “Whence the differences”; “Differences between

Togliate and ourselves” etc.

2.83 In short, the CPSU Programme of 20th Congress was a “Bible” for all kinds of
revisionists and anti-Communists. The Kruschev revisionist Clique arrogantly
violated all kinds organizational principles regarding proletarian internationalism.
Intervened in other’s party’s internal affairs to create their cliques. Hence the
CPC started it’s great debate Kruschev’s modern revisionism. Kruschev united
with the world number one enemy-American imperialism, Tito Clique and the
Indian reactionaries. When China was firmly stood to uphold Marxism and
Leninism and rejected to act for the dictates of Kruschev. Owing to this, Soviet
government unilaterally tore up the agreements earlier arrived with the Chinese
government for technological, industrial and defense assistance.

2.84 Kruschev deliberately made public the internal affairs between these two parties.
On March 30,1963 CPSU issued a open letter to CPC making slanderous
propaganda with number of lies against CPC. Therefore on its part CPC under
the leadership of Comrade Mao Ze-Dong started its 9 comments(Articles of Great
Debate) and June 14th open letter and 3 Appendixes written at the time of 1957,
1960 international meetings of Communist Parties.

2.85 After the above mentioned historical documents were published, CPC published
a detailed criticism exposing the imperialist nature of Soviet Union’s relations with
other countries i.e.Socialism or Social Imperialism?

CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE IN SOCIALIST CHINA:

2.86 As soon as the 20th congress was held in 1956, the 8th Congress of CPC was
also held. Some documents were passed here. These documents contained some
formulations which helps the Kruschev revisionist clique in CPSU. To what extent
the differences were there in CPC we don’t know. But one section’s adamant
stand “development of productive forces” theory was a reflection of revisionism
inside the CPC. In opposition to this, CPC under Mao took the stand of self-
reliance in the concrete conditions of China when CPSU was tearing all kinds
agreements with China. The opposition to Great leap forward, Bare foot doctors,
mutual aid teams, co-operative agriculture, the movements for Thachai and
Thaching etc were definitely reflections of class struggle in China.

2.87 Before 8th Congress itself Liu Shao-chi, Teng siao-ping were opposing Mao on
Classes and class struggles in Socialist China. Being in power Liu-shao-chi and
Teng sia-ping waged struggle against Mao on many issues. They opposed
Cultural revolution and socialist road while protecting those who committed
mistakes. Therefore, Mao and CPC started their struggle against those revisionist
leaders who occupied the highest posts inside the Party and the government.

28
 They termed Liu-shao-chi and Deng etc. as capitalist roaders. They gave the
slogan of “Bombard the Headquarters” “Paste big charater posters” against the
revisionist leaders inside the Party.

2.88 During the great proletarian cultural revolution Mao and his supporters—four
most important leaders of cultural revolution—conducted a series of serious anti-
revisionist ideological and political struggles in all sectors. CPC met and
formulated 16 point Circular for conduction of Cultural revolution and started it.
In the initial phase itself both Liu Shao-chi and Deng Tiao-ping resorted to create
hurdles for the cultural revolution. Hence disciplinary actions were taken against
Deng and Liu and intensified the Cultural revolution. It went for 10 years.

2.89 However, before ending the cultural revolution itself, Deng was rehabilitated and again
disciplinary actions were taken. And again Deng was rehabilitated which created a
lot of confusion. All this happened during Mao’s life time itself. These decisions
regarding Deng lowered the prestige of Cultural revolution. With the help of these
rehabilitation the composition in leading committees particularly in CC of CPC
changed. Hence so many rehabilitations of erstwhile revisionist leaders took place.

REPETETION OF CPSU DRAMA IN CPC:

2.90 In Soviet Union to usurp the state and party power, the Khruschev-Breznev clique
called the CC meeting arrested the most important leaders who were loyal to
Great teacher Stalin: Lakhs of party members were removed from the party. In
China also the same drama was repeated in the party organizations as it
happened in Soviet Union.

2.91 In Soviet Union, after Krushev came to power Beria was killed and Malenkov was
removed from the party posts and revisionists captured the Central Committee
and Soviet Governments. Kruchev praised Comrade Stalin during his life time like
any thing. As soon as he died Kruschev started accusing Stalin in a filthy language
for which imperialists praised and garlanded him. This is how the imperialist Agent
Kruschev acted in CPSU. Almost in the same way Linpiao who boasted himself
as Comrade in-arms to Mao brazenly tried to kill the Great Teacher with the
pretext of an accident. In the meanwhile Linpiao died in a plain crash. This incident
severely lowered the prestige of “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and to
some extent the prestige of Comrade Mao Ze Dong” The anti-cultural revolution’s
group led by Deng meticulously planned their manouvres to stage a comeback
and fulfill their dreams of restoring capitalism in that atmosphere. Deng revisionists
utilised Hua Guofeng, the Chairman of the Party and Prime Minister of China for
achieving their nefarious goals.

THE ARREST OF 4 GREAT LEADERS OF GPCR IN CHINA:

2.92 The CPC under the leadership of Hua Gua-Feng made the statement regarding
the arrest of the most important leaders of the cultural revolution in the followging
way:-

29
 ".......Hua Guofeng and Ye Jianying put Jiang Qing, Zhang ChunQiao, Wang
Hongwen, Yao Wenyuan and the faction's core members in Beijing under
investigation on the night of October 6........Hua Guofeng, Ye Jianying and li
Xiannian played an important role in smashing the "gang of four.""(a concise
History of CPC: Pages 711, 712)

".........On October 6 the Political Bureau of the CPC ordered Jiang Qing, Zhang
Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan and Wang Hongwen put into custody for investigations.
The following day the Political Bureau made Hua Guofeng Chairman of the CPC
Central Committee and of its Military Commission in recxognition of the crucial
role he, along with Ye Jianying and Li Xiannian, had played in carrying through
the arrest."(Years of Trial, Turmoil and Triumph: China from 1949--1988; page--
168)

2.93 The four most important leaders of GPCR were jailed in the name of their atrocities
during cultural revolution. CPC under the leadership of Deng resorted to a great
drama of trials in the court and sentenced to death etc. Look at the punishment
meted to the four important leaders of CPC during cultural revolution:

"......The Special Court pronounced judgement on the ten principal culprits on

January 15, 1981. Jiang Qing and Zhang Chunqiao received the death sentence
with a two-year reprieve and were deprived of political rights for life; Wang
Hongwen was sentenced to life imprisonment and deprived of political rights for
life; Yao Wenyean, Chen Boda, Huang Yongsheng, We Faxian, Li Zuopeng, Qiu
Huizuo and Jiang Tengjiao were sentenced to sixteen to twenty years
imprisonment and deprived of political rights for five years." (page--191, Ibid)

THE FLOOD OF CAPITALIST ROADERS INTO THE CPC:

2.94 The four important leaders were not only taken into custody they were also
expelled from the CPC. Look at those developments;

"......The third Plenary Session of the Tenth Party Central Committee in July 1977 decided
unanimously to reinstate Deng Xiaoping in all the posts of the Party and
government he had held previously:.......Resolutions were also passed at the
session, confirming the appointment of Hua Guofeng as Chairman of the Party
Central Committee, expelling forever Wang Hongwen, Zhang Chunqiao, Jiang
Qing and Yao Wenyuan from the party and removing them from all their Party
and government posts." (Ibid, Page-177)

2.95 All kinds of membership and leadership changes occured in a big way after the
arrests of four important leaders. Utilising the Centrist leaders of post-Mao era
in CPC, pro-Mao leaders from top to bottom were removed in a skillfull manner
from the party posts. Look at what Charles Bethleham wrote in his book "What
is happening in China?" "Throughout the 1977 Party Membership purges
continued. Exact information is not at our disposal to count the number of purges.
But the reliable source of information got from the Chinese officials say that one

30
 third of the total party members were removed from the records. All these party
members were enroled during the cultural revolution and developed. Not only
all these members were removed from the party records but all those who were
removed during cultural revolution period also immediately given party
memberships and kept them in their earlier posts. As a result of this by the end
of 1977the composition and the nature of the Chinsese Communist Party cadres
had changed drastically: With this the situation did not remain as it was in 1976
but it changed as it was in 1965 revisionist atmosphere." (from Telugu pages,
133--134: Translators Ranganayakamma, Uday Kumar and Gandhi)

2.96 The veteron friends of Mr. Deng in the CPC cleverly utilised the services of Hua
Guofeng against the four important leaders of Great Cultural Revolution and
thrown him into garbage heap of history. Hua Gua Feng was utilised by Deng
clique and thrown him like the Breznev clique did in the case of Kruschev in
CPSU.

Look at the facts what the friends of Mr. Deng did do to Hua Guofeng:

2.97 "In the course of discussing the draft resoution, many comrades criticized the
mistakes made by Hua Guofeng in his work since the smashing of the "gang of
four" and asked for a change in his post. At the politburo meeting held in
November and December 1980, it was pointed out that Hua Guofeng had done
some useful work in the previous four years, but his mistaken ideas on some
questions of principle had not fundamentally changed, and obviously he lacked
the political and orgaanizational ability required as chairman of the Paarty Central
Committee. At the suggestion of the Politburo, the 6th Plenary Session of the
Party's 11th Central Committee held in June 1981, adopted a resolution, decided
to endorse Hua Guofeng's request to resign from his posts as chairman of the
Party Central Committee and of its Military Commission (prior to this, at the
suggestion of the CPC Central Committee, the 3rd Session of the 5th National
People's Congress held in August and September 1980 had decided that he no
longer hold the premiership of the State ?Council, a post which was taken over
by Zhao Ziyang). The Session elected Hu Yaolbang chairman of the Party Central
Committee, Deng Xiaoping chairman of the Military Commission of the Central
Committee, and Hua Guofeng vice-chairman of the Central Committee......."A
Concise History of the CPC, page-744)

Soon after the death of comrade Mao in September 9, 1976 Hua Guofenf took a pro-
Mao and pro-cultural revolution stand with a view to establish himeself as the
supreme leader of China. The friends of Mr. Deng criticised Hua Guofeng in the
following manner:

2.98 ".........Although Hua Guofeng had performed a meritorious role in the struggle to
smash the Jiang Qing counter-revolutionary clique and had attempted to put an
end to the confusion caused by the "cultural revolution" he failed to have a
fundamental understanding of the problem of the "cultural revolution," particularly
of the relationship between the "cultural revolution" and Mao Zedong's mistakes

31
 in his late years. Hua Guofeng also lacked the insight and couragae to solve the
complicated problem of dealing with and eliminating thoroughly the mistakes of
the "cultural revolution" and at the same time upholding the historical position of
Mao Zedong and the role of Mao Zedong Thought as the guiding ideology of our
Party. He failed to realize that, only by honestly pointing out Mao Zedong's
mistakes in his late years in launching and persisting in the "cultural revolution"
and correcting them, would it be possible to carry on the fine tradition with Mao
Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought as their banner. He maintained that in order
to uiphold Mao Zedong's heritage, it was impermissible to negate his important
ideas and decisions in the "cultural revolution." Proceeding from this wrong
position, Hua Guofeng continued to persist in promoting the idea of "taking class
struggle as the key link," and "continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of
the proletariaat" even after the liquidation of the "gang of four."

2.99 It was due to his obstructions that progress was slow and further advance was
difficult with regaard to restoring the work of veteran cadres and reversing unjust
verdicts in history (including that of the 1976 Tiananmen Incident). These ideas
of Hua Guofeng's found concentraated expression in two of his statements: "We
should firmly uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made; we should
always follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao issued." In fact, this "two-
whatevers" approach, which denied the necessity to do any analysis, far from
upholding the historical position of Mao Zedong and the authority of Mao Zedong
Thought, could only serve to destroy them. Hua Guofeng regarded himself as the
successor to Mao Zedong. While maintaining the old personality cult, he cultivated
and accepted a new personality cult of himself. The fact that the 11th National
Party Congress and the 1st Session of the 5th NPC, instead of correcting the
erroneous theories, policies and slogans of the "cultural revolution," fully confirmed
them, of course had something to do with the historical limitations of the time,
but it was mainly the result of the influence of Hua Guafeng's mistakes."

2.100 The entrenched veterans in the CPC leadership became most beuracratic after
the victory of NDR. They had not been liking the policies of great leader Mao
Zedong itself. Some veterans were removed or expelled from Party during the
cultural revvolution but somany such veterans remained in the leadership overtly
or covertly. Hence they opposed the so-called pro-Mao political policies of Hua
Guofeng. Not only that they even opposed his econonomic policies as well. Look
at the following how they heckled Hua Guofeng:

".......Althougjh the implementation of such plans had just started, and some of
planed projects were completed in later years and produced some results, these
plans were on the whole inadvisable. Despite some differences in socio-economic
conditions, the "rash advance" planned for this period bore some resemblance to
the "great leap forward" in the 1950s,with both originating from a "Left" ideological
guideline which ignored objective conditions. The recent "rash advance" was
planned for a period when the ecocnomy badly needed recuperation after suffering
from the highlydestructive 10 year-long turbulence......"

32
2.101 Developments occured contrary to Hua Guofeng. While utilising the role of Hua
Guofeng the entrenched pro-Deng veterans tried to rehabilitate him in his posts.
On the one hand making Hua as nominal head of the Party and State on the
other hand they took number of steps to bring back Mr.Deng into power for the
second time. They started their efforts even before the expulsion of the four
leaders of the cultural revolution. Look at the facts:

".....At the work Conference of the Party Central Committee in March 1977 Hua
reiterated the "two whatevers" policy and was opposed by Chen Yun and Wang
Zhen, who proposed that Deng Xiao;ing be reinstated and the wrong appraisal
of the Tiananmen Incident be rectified. But owing to Hua's intervention, this
suggestion was not approved....."After this Deng intensified his attacks against
the "two whatevers" Ultimately Deng was taken into all his earlier posts in July
1977 meeting of the Third Plenary Session of the Tenth Central Committee. Look
at the following:

"Following the will of the people, the Third Plenary Session of the Tenth Party
Central Committee in July 1977 decided unanimously to reinstate Deng Xiaoping
in all the posts of the Party and Government he had held previously; member of
the Party CC and the Standing Committee of the PB, Vice-chairman of the Party
CC, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, vice-Premier of the State
Council and Chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberataion
Army..."(Years of Trial, Turmoil and Triumph: page-177)

FALL OF HUA GUA FENG AND CONSOLIDATION OF DENG CLIQUE IN CPC:

2.102 As soon as Deng came into the CC of CPC, he started bringing back all the
'veterans' who were castigated during the cultural revolution.

(A) The third Plenary session of the eleventh CC of CPC which met from
December 18--22, 1978 took a decision affirming the version of Deng on
Mao Zedong's Thought. The same session reversed the verdicts of cultural
revolution against Peng Dehuai, Tao Zhu, Bo Yibo, Yand Shangkun and
other and restored them in their earlier leading positions in the Party and
Government.

(B) Chen Yun who was dropped from the CC at the time of 9th Congress of
CPC was elected as additional Vice-Chairman of the CC and Den Yingchao,
Hu Yaobang, and Wang Zhen as additional members of the PB. All these
persons were removed from their posts during the cultural revolution.

(C) Deng reaffirmed in March 1979 the four Cardinal Principles for China's
modernization.

(D) The 5th Plenary session of the CC of CPC met in February 1980. It
posthumously restored Liu Shao Chi's earlier posts. It is well known that Liu
Shao-chi was the number one culprit to oppose the cultural revolution.

33
 (E) In January 1979 the CC of CPC decided that all former landlords, rich
peasants, counter revolutionaries and evildoers in the rural areas who had
been law-abiding and served well in their work over the years should no
longer be perceived as such but treated as full members of the People's
Communes.

(F) In September 1979 CC decided to correct all the earlier wrong verdicts like
1956 and 1957.

(G) It was announced that a substantial majority of former capitalists who had
been earning an honest living for many years should now be regarded as
part of working people.

(H) The third session of the Fifth National People's Congres held in August 1980
decided to revise the Article 45 of the Constituion. This constitution adopted
both in 1975 and 1978 gave the right to citizens to "have right to speak out,
air views and hold debates in a big way and write big-character posters as
a new form of socialist revolution".

(I) This session passed four Laws including a law for Chimnese-Foreign equity
joint Ventures.

2.103 At the time of 9th Central Committee majority was in favour of cultural revolution.
Deng changed this majority into insignificant minority having annuled all the
verdicts of cultural revolution and brought all the 'veterans' into party within two
or three years after his reinstation in the party and in the government. With all
these developments Hua Guofeng became a non-entity in the CC of CPC and
in the government and resigned to his Premiership in September 1980.

2.104 To bring back the rightists, revisionists, capitalist roaders or bourgeois agents who
were removed from the higher committees of the party or thrown out from the
party would create an irreperable loss to the very life of the revolutionary party:
Hua Guofeng in collusion with others got the Four Most important leaders of the
Great proletarian cultural revolution. Hua committed this kind of grave mistakes
and paid for it contrary to his expectations and brought heavy loss to the Chinese
Communist Party and the people. Our great teacher Mao also commited such
a few mistakes in organizational matters. Deng was the general secretary of the
CPC before the cultural revolution started in 1966. Not only that he was the
second target for the cultural revolution after Liu Shao-chi. Hence Deng was
removed from all his posts both in the party and in government. He was accused
as a capitalist roader. But in 1973 Comrade Mao knowing fully well personally
proposed that Deng should be reinstated in all his posts. Look at the following
piece of informataion:

2.105 "From that point on, large numbers of leading officials in various government
departments, in the Party, and in the Army who had been dislodged from their
posts, and banished to the countryside to do manual labou, were reinstated. Then

34
 in March 1973, at the proposal of Mao Zedong, the CPC Central Committee
decided to reinstate Deng Xiaoping..." (Trial, Turmoil and Triumph: Page-156)

2.106 Some of those including Deng who were dropped during cultural revolution and
at 9th Congress of CPC were elected to the CC in Tenth Congress of CPC. not
only this comrade Mao proposed in December 1973 that Deng should become
a PBM and play the leadership role. Look at the following:

"......In the election to the Central Committee, the increase in the number of
veteran Party members, such as Deng Xiaoping, Wang Jiaxiang, Ulanhu, Li
Jingquan, Tan Zhenlin and Liao Chengdu, only recently rehabilitated after the
attacks and ostracization of the "cultural revolution," was amply counterbalanced
by the election of a large number of solid supporters of Jiang Qing....

2.107 On Mao Zedong's proposal, in December that year the Central Committee of the
CPC decided that Deng Xiaoping should become a member of the Political
Bureau and take part in the leadership of the Central Committee in such capacity."
(Ibid, pages-157and 158)

"The first session of the Fourth National People's Congress was held in Beijing
from January 13 to 18, 1975........elected the Standing Committee, with Zhude at
its head, appointed Zhou Enlai as Premier and Deng Xiaoping as Vice-
Premier..........The decision by the Fourth National People's Congress to place
Zhou and Deng at the nucleus of the policy making organs of the central
government frustrated the Gang of Four's attempt to seize government power."
(Ibid, Page-161)

2.108 Comrade Mao's stand on the reinstation of veterans particularly of Deng and
revokation of past verdicts created critical situations for the followers of pro-cultural
forces in CPC. He should not have recommended for the reinstation of Deng into
CPC Central Committee and in other most important responsibilities in the
governmnet and Army. Regarding the responsibility of comrade Mao, the
theoretical organ of the MLPD in 1988 commented in the following way:

"Since this was an antagonistic contradiction, a contradiction to the enemy

therefore, Deng Xiaoping should have been expelled from the Party. The mistake
made in leaving this enemyof socialism in the Party was to take a bitter toll later.
Since this decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China
was unanimous and was made under the chairmanship of Mao Tsetung, he also
bears part of the responsibility for it." (REVOLUTIONARER WEG 24, P.88)

2.109 Therefore we should take proper lessons from the experiences of CPC particularly
of party organizational matters.

All kinds of Liu Shao Chi’s legacies were rehabilitated and the entire history of
Cultural revolution was buried. Capitalism was restored in China; Utilising the
Socialist structure in China, the present rulers of China in the name of

35
 globalisation becoming millionaires and billionaires. China is also moving fast to
become a social imperialist country. However taking lessons from Kruschev, the
Deng and his followers are not overtly throwing the name of Mao Ze Dong into
dust bin. They are skillfully utilising the banner of Mao Ze Dong Thought to destroy
the essence of Mao Ze Dong Thought. They are acting as if they are upholding
the great red banner of Mao Zedong thought and building socialism with Chinese
4 characteristics. Whatever might had happened in China to-day, Mao Zedong
Thought will be shining in the hearts of the world working class and downtrodden
people particularly in the hearts of the Asian, African and Latin American people.
Comrade Mao created a peoples war path which directly helps as the guiding
theory for the people of the three continents mentioned. He developed the theory
of building socialism and furnished the weapon of Great proletaraian Cultural
Revolutions during the transition period to advance from socialism to Communism.

IMMEMORABLE LESSONS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT:

2.110 Like Great Teachers of the world proletariat comrade Stalin, Mao guided the
people of Soviet Union and China to wage war against Hitler and Chang kai
Shekfought against lakhs of fascist forces in the war field and defeated them. but
their heroic fights were became teethless before the most cruel conspiracies of
the overt and covert enemies of the people and the revisionist forces inside the
party. The great debate he conducted against Krushcev will forever live in the
history of humanity. Comrade Mao was one of the best military strategist in the
world. He was a great teacher in ideology and politics in the International working
class movements. He was a best and matured economist for working class and
down trodden people of the third world countries—Asia,Africa and Latin Americal
countries particularly for China. He was a great philosopher. The theory of
protracted peoples’ war, theory of building socialsm in backward countries, his
theory of classes and class struggles even during socialist stage, his theory of
applying and developing the theory of dictatorship of proletariat in a backward
country, the theory of great proletarian cultural revolution in socialist society for
generations, his tireless effort to create a new type of people in socialist coutry
and his theory of self-reliance are some of the greatest contributions of Great
leader of Mao Ze Dong. His approach to class struggle, his struggles against all
kinds of alien trends particularly against revisionism, his personal sacrifice,
dedication, ideals are path breaking things before all the revolutionaries in the
world! During his life time East Wind prevailed over West Wind. He was the red
son in the East! Long Live Mao Ze Dong Thought!

2.111 The Russian people and the nationalities that join voluntarily in Soviet Union made
innumerable sacrifices during the 1905 Bourgeois revolution and the 1917 October
revolution. The working class and downtrodden people of Russia played their
heroic roles in these revolutions. Communist Party leaders, cadres and the people
at large gave their every thing for the people under the leadership of Comrade
Lenin and Stalin. Lakhs and lakhs of people gave their lives. To resist imperialists
aggressions and defend the Soviet union the Soviet people’s role was
immesuarable. The people and red army extended their full co-operation to

36
 liberate East European countries and Manchuria. Under the leadership of Lenin
and Stalin Soviet Union developed as one of the best developed country in the
world in all sectors. However immediately after the death of Comrade Stalin, the
Kruschev revisionist clique usurped party and government leadership through
conspiracies.

2.112 The revisionist seeds that started with Martov,Plekhanov,Trotsky egged so many
revisionist like Bukharin, Zinovev and Kamanev. Before and after the October
revolution they resorted to overt and covert tactics. They played cruel tactics in
Russia. They became the targets of purges. Trotsky was expelled from the country
for having joined hands with the enemies of the Soviet Union. Thus in Russia
revisionism grew from embryonic stage to the highest stage i.e. from Martov to
Zinovev to Krushcev to Breznev to Gorbochev to Elitsin and destroyed the Soviet
Union into peaces. Soviet Union one of the two super powers until 1990s became
one of the begging power at one stage though it remained as an imperialist
country. As Great teachers taught that revisionism is nothing but bourgeois
ideology in the working class. The usurption of party and state leaderships by
Kruschev reviosionists, the restoration of capitalism to become social imperialism
and the collapse of Soviet union proves the correctness of this great concept of
great teachers i.e. classes and class struggle and the need of using dictatorship
of proletariat remain throughout the historical stage of transformation of socialism
into communism.

2.113 As the CPSU(B) history showed that in organizational matters vacillations and
compromises were made with the revisionists in Russia. Such kind of liberalism
or vacillations regarding electing the revisionist to the higher committees was
incorrect. CPSU(B) history said:

“4) The Congress showed that the place of the old opportunists, the
“Economists”who had already been defeated by the party, was being taken by
new opportunists, the Mensheviks.

5) The congress did not prove equal to its task in matters of organizations, showed
vacillation, and at times even gave the preponderance to the Mensheviks; and
although it corrected its position towards the end, it was nevertheless unable to
expose the opportunism of the Mensheviks on matters of organization and to
isolate them in the Party, or even to put such a task before the Party.

This latter circumstance proved one of the main reasons, why the struggle
between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, far from subsiding after the
congress, became even more acute.” (Page—44, paras 2,3,4 of CPSU(B) History.)

2.114 Some times may be due to over confidence on the strength of the party
committees Mensheviks were taken into leading committees which brought
enormous damage to the Soviet union and to the international communist
movement. Mensheviks colluded with the bourgeoisie during the 1917 revolution.
Nevertheless important Menshevik leaders like Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinovev were

37
 taken back after expulsion believing their ‘repentance’. Soon they resorted to
conspiracies and party had to purge some of them expelling Trotsky from the
country. The remaining revisionist force learn lesson to hide for the appropriate
moment. They took the death of great teacher comrade Stalin’s as the golden
opportunity and most appropriate moment. Kruschev possessed and upheld all
the wrong, alien and revisionist trends that came forward from 1847 to 1953 in
the international communist movement to serve the imperialists. Mao fought
against this most cunning and dangerous international revisionist leader who was
acting as the agent of imperialists particularly the US imperialism. He defended
and protected Marxism-Leninism by upholding the teachings of Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin from 1847 to 1953. The basic principles, arguments and methods
used by the CPC and Mao during great debate against Kruschev Modern
Revisionism were nothing but the basic principles on which Marx, Engels, Lenin,
Stalin used to fight against the wrong trends during their life time.

2.115 From the 8th congress of CPC in 1956 symptoms of Kruschev theories reflected
in the documents of this Congress. CPC Central Committee decided to educate
not only the party ranks but the people of the entire country to face all kinds of
challenges from Kruschev and American imperialism.But the persons leading the
party and the government became a hurdle for this task. Therefore instead of
resorting to administrative measures to control them CPC decided to mobilize the
people in lakhs to start the cultural revolution. Fight against revisionists siting in
the highest level started. Fight against Revisionists like Liu Shao Chi, Deng Shiao
Ping started. They were removed from their posts. Deng was removed from the
post of Secretary general of CPC during cultural revolution. After some years,
Deng was rehabilitated as Vice premier. Once again he was removed from this
post. After some gap of time he was again rehabilitated. With such developments
revisionist utilised this as a golden chance to stage a come back for all the
revisionist forces. Utilising Hua Kua Feng, they capture the party and governments
leadership. They attacked or suppressed almost all the main leadership of Mao
Ze Dong’s followers. Severe punishments were given to four most important
leaders of GPCR in China led by CPC under the leadership of Chairman Mao
Ze Dong. Slanderous propaganda was conducted against “the Gang of Four” to
defame Mao, Cultural Revolution to restore capitalism in China.

2.116 Now China is a capitalist country. It is running after America and European
countries to ‘develop’ its economy utilising globalisation theories. Restoration of
Capitalism in Russia and China and Social Imperialism in Russia indicates the
real danger to Socialism through the persons sitting in the Highest posts and
through allowing them to sit in higher committees with different pretexts. Such
developments should not be repeated by the Communist party leaderships. This
is the most painful lesson to be taken by the Communist forces throughout the
world. Otherwise the fruits of successful revolutions will be handed over to
imperialist and capitalists again. With regard to on going revolutions they will not
be successful because the revisionist way of conducting struggles and different
kinds of compromises with the ruling classes. Not only that these on going militant
struggles also will be smashed. If we observe the developments of international

38
 Communist movement from 1847 to 1977, wrong, alien and revisionism and
factionalism go hand and glove. Revisionism resorts to all sorts of manouvres,
conspiracies to gain upperhand or capture the organizations. It is observed in
history that leftists or left adventurist leaders corrected their ideological and
political mistakes and came back to correct revolutaionary orientations.

2.117 However there was no incident of important revisionist leaders changed their
basic orientation and came back to correct revolutionary orientations. Revisionism
is the bourgeois ideology inside the working class movements. It colludes with
the bourgeoisie and on certain occasions become counter revolutionary force.
This general phenomenon of the international communist movement should
always be in our consideration. This is a lesson furnished by the international
communist movement. Marxist teachers fight against wrong and revisionist
theories particularly Comrade Lenin’s fight against Mensheviks provided us with
so many lessons about the need of merciless and uncompromising fight against
revisionism both politically-ideologically and organizationally: Their fights also
taught us about the danger of centrism both organizationally and ideologically and
politically.

Formation of CPI in 1920 and its split in 1964:

3.1 The Great October Russian Revolution became victorious in 1917. Its impact
spread far and wide in the world particularly in Asia. It spread to India as well.
By 1920 there were some writings explaining about Marx, Engels, Lenin. At the
out set there was a group of Indian people in Berlin. They thought that a
Communist Party should be formed in India. Some people were residing in
America, they also were thinking in the same way and formed the Gadar Party.
The third group was Muslims. Activists belonging to these 3 groups attended a
political class conducted in Russia. Comintern second Congress was held in
Moscow. They participated in this conference. MN Roy also attended to this
conference as a Mexican delegate. Comrade Lenin delivered a lecture on
“National and Colonial Thesis”. Heated discussions took place here between MN
Roy and Lenin. Roy did not agree with this Thesis. Except Roy all others accepted
Lenin’s Thesis. Roy had differences with other Indian team members and
quarreled even with Avani Mukherjee.

3.2 After the second conference of Comintern International, on 22 October 1920 CPI
was formed in Tashkent town in Soviet Union. 7 Members Central Committee
including Roy and with 3 members Secretariat was also formed. General Secretary
was Mohammad Shafiq. Some of the leaders of this committee were coming
through present day Pakistan, on the way they were caught along with some
local people. Peshawar Conspiracy case was foisted against them by the
Britishers. Some others were also incorporated in this case later on. Other batch
coming from Russia started party work in Uttar Pradesh. Shaukat Usman was
the leader of this batch. After the party formation in Tashkent Communist Groups
organized in many places of India.

3.3 Non-cooperation movement was stopped, Communist movement spread very fast.

39
 British Government was planning to suppress the Communist movement. A case
was foisted in the name of “Kanpur Conspiracy” case with 8 members including
Nalini Gupta who was an informer. The remaining members were: 1. MN Roy
2.Muzzfar Ahmed 3.Shaukat Usmaan 4. Gulaam Hussain 5.Dange 6. Singaravelu
Chettiar 7.RC Sarma. To escape from conviction of this case. Dange promised
to the Britishers that he would co-operate with Nalini Guptha. Dange wrote a
letter pleading the government to show clemency. He publically condemned the
policies of Comintern. MN Roy took a leftist line and acted as an opportunist.
He went to Germany in 1924 and wrote a letter to British Prime Minister
asking clemency for him. 5th Congress of Comintern condemned the policies
of MN Roy.

3.4 CPI Congress was held in Kanpur on 26,27,28 December 1925. Delegates
from all groups attended to this Congress. Singarvelu Chettiar presided. New
Central Committee elected Singaravelu Chettiar as president and some others as
CCMs. Comrades in Jail prepared their statement i.e. platform of action in the
light of Comintern’s 6th Congress “programme”. During Jail life Dange resorted
to group activities and hence his signature was not there. One of the founders
of party Shoukath Usman surrendered to the government. As soon as Gandhi-
Irvin Pact was signed Communists released “the platform of action”. Due to long
term convictions All India Centre of the party was closed. Some quarrels also
occurred. Comintern decided to send its representatives to three parties
particularly China to intervene.

3.5 The decisions of Comintern’s 6th Congress were useful as guiding principles for
the CPI. About India the 6th International suggested that ‘’ the Aim of the CPI
should be annihilation of British imperialism, revokation of Landlordism:
Achievement of agrarian revolution:Establishment of worker-peasant dictatorship.
Merge all the splinter groups in a single centralised Communist party: It should
place before the people a programme of opposing the reformist policies of
National Congress and the slogan of uncompromised armed struggle. The
Communist Party while widely propagating the programme of agrarian revolution,
it should conduct peasant struggles on partial demands and organise mass
organizations. Build strong working class movements.”

3.6 In December, 1933 took some decisions and they were published in 1934. The
CC met for five days in 1933 secretly changing its place: “Abdul Haleem, Lahari
and Bhavani Sen from Bangal, SG Patkar and Adhikari from Bombay, PC Joshi
from Uttar Pradesh, Gurudatt Singh from Punjab, Jayavanth Adhikaar from
Nagapur. Adhikari was elected as the General Secretary. After released from Jail
Joglekar, SS Mirajkar and SV Ghate were co-opoted into the CC.

3.7 During the Second World War time from 1934-1942 Communist Party was
banned. Adhikari was arrested and in his place SS Mirajkar was elected as GS.
While going to International Congress Mirajkar and Despande were arrested in
Singapore. Somnath Lahari announced himself as the GS of the party. In 1936
April CC met and elected PC Joshi as the GS of the party. He remained in that

40
 post for 12 years upto 1948. In 1937 Elections Congress won in 7 states. It
implemented the repressive policies more ferociously than Britishers. As part of
“Datt-Badly” thesis Communist party completely supported the Congress Ministries
whereas the Congress Socialist Party opposed the ministries. This is noteworthy.

3.8 By 1942 “Quit India” call the intensity of the national movement was reduced due
to the Gandhi’s agreement with Irvin. Thousands of comrades were jailed and
one section surredered to the government. CPI representatives could not go to
the 7th International conference and that was the last congress of the Comintern.
As soon as the second world war started Datt gave a “People’s War” slogan as
against the Lenin’s call at the time of First World War. During the second world
war period party’s policies and tactics were derailed from Marxist-Leninist ideology
and tactics. After the Second World War Party held its first Congress in May and
June for 10 days at Bombay. Due to its policies of support to Congress Ministries,
Party could not come out from its collaborationist policy. The Party leadership
whatever might be the reasons could not implement the policies of Stalin and
International. On the other hand at the first Congress Hall, Congress and Muslim
league Flags were pasted and the portraits of Nehru and Zinnah were kept on
both sides of the dias. A 22 member CC was elected including Sundaraiah,
Ranadive, Dange, Namboodripad etc. Joshi as GS and Joshi, Adhikari and
Ranadive as PBMs.

3.9 The CC held in 1946 reviewed its mistakes and decided to support the struggles
and conduct them. As the Party took a supportive role to Congress Ministry, it
could not play its role properly. Most militant struggles came forward. INA revolt
in Calcutta, RNA Revolt in Bombay and Thebhaga struggle in Bengal. Punnapra
and Vayalar villages along with other villages waged struggles against
Tranvancore princely state. Varli Tribal people’s struggles for achieving their rights.
Baxar struggle again in 1946—47 and Telengana armed peasant struggle 1951
surged forward. Telengana Peasants Armed Struggle was the first struggle which
was waged on the basis of People’s War Path of China and Mao Tse Tung
Thought.

3.10 Soon after the transfer of power the Congress government in the name of
supporting the Telengana people suppressed their struggle and protected Nizam
with all facilities. British Prime Minister declared in February 1947 that India would
get independence. Mountbatten took oath in March 1947 as Viceroy of India.
Zinnah opposed and Gandhi supported the British Prime minister’s proposal and
showed his comprador nature. In 1947 under the leadership of Joshi CPI passed
a resolution “Mountbatten Award and After’ and supported the Congress. Before
this in 1946 itself there was a struggle between Joshi and Ranadive about the
future tasks of the party. In 1947 Madras state committee openly declared that it
would not fight against the Congress and rejected to implement the party line.
The CC held its meeting in the Second week of December removed Joshi as GS
and elected Ranadive as its GS. Second Congress of the party was held in
February 1948. 75 delegates had to come for this congress but only 4 could
attend. This congress approved the Strategy, tactics and political resolution

41
 submitted by Ranadive. But he did not mentioned the name of “the Great peasant
armed struggle of Telengana”. He proposed 4 names into the CC those who were
leading this struggle.

3.11 The members of the CC elected in the Second Congress were: 1.EMS 2.Arun
Bose 3.SG Sardesai 4. Viswanath Mukherjee 5.Krishna Pillai 6.KC George
7.Basava Punnaiah 8.DV Rao 9.LK Jaake 10.P.Sundaraiah 11.S V Parulekar
12.M.Kalyana Sundaram 13.B.Srinivasa Rao 14.Muzfar Ahmed 15. Biresh Mishra
16. Sunil Mukherjee, 17. Ravi Naarayana Reddi 18.BTR(GS) 19. Bhavani Sen
20. Somanath Lahari 21.G.Adhikari 22. Ajay Ghosh 23. NK Krishnan 24. CR 25.
Maddukuri Chandra Sekharao 26. SS Moosuf.27 Dange etc. Dange was opposed
to BTR’s line but he supported him to avenge against Joshi. Hence Datt called
him as a Titoist. BTR line was near to Li Li-San and Wang Ming’s line. Four
months after he became the GS he started a vicious condemnation of the line
of Telengana Armed Struggle. Before the line of BTR came to operation
government banned the party except in Bombay. Organisationally he took a
disruptive and liquidataionist line. Hence Ajay Ghosh started opposing the line of
BTR. He warned Ajay Ghosh that he would remove him from the party. BTR
expelled Dange followers. Hence Dange published a pamphlet that BTR was a
Trotskyite. Thanks to the policies and tactics and organizational methods adopted
by BTR, party faced a serious crisis during 1948—50.

3.12 During this period Dange was acting as an opportunist. To remove Joshi from
GS post he supported BTR. After that he started supporting CR to remove BTR
from his GS post. None of the CC leaders belonging to other states visited
Telengana Struggling areas. But they were very active in condemning and making
slanderous propaganda against the ''The Great Telangana Peasant’s Armed
Struggle.’’ An opposition centre was formed in Bombay under the leadership of
Dange to conduct anarchist propaganda against Telengana Armed Struggle. Soon
after the Union Military entered in Telengana, Ravi Narayana Reddy started that
Telengena armed struggle should be stopped. He left his shelter without informing
anybody and reached to Dange’s Den’s in Bombay. He brodcosted a statement
asking to stop the armed struggle. Ajay Kumar Ghosh, Dange and SV Ghate
published a note which was completely opposite to the “Andhra Thesis”. These
leaders got full support of Rajani Palmee Dutt. Basing on the report of Ravi
Narayana Reddi, Dutt made a virulent attack against the “Andhra Thesis”. He
asked the CPI to work together with Nehru in accordance with his “ National
Front” theory. CC meeting held in December, 1950. Serious differences occured
among the CC members. It was felt there was no such a situation whereby they
could be resolved in the CC. Central Committee decided that we should go to
Russia whereas Andhra comrades proposed that we should go to CPC.

3.13 Andhra Secretariat sent a document to the CC in June 1948. Historically this is
called as “Andhra Thesis”. This Thesis upheld the path of Chinese revolution and
Mao Tse-tung Thought. It was opposed to the left—sectarian line of BTR and
Rightist and Reformist line of Joshi and others. On January, 1950 the Cominform
in its magazine published its Editorial i.e. “The Great Advance of Liberation

42
 Movements in Colonial and Dependent Countries”. This editorial helped to support
the “Andhra Thesis”. Out of the three lines in the Party “Andhra Thesis” gained
majority in the CC.

3.14 The first meeting of the CC after the Second Party Congress held in 1950.
In this Congress BTR was removed from the GS post. CR as the representative
of the “Andhra Thesis” was elected as the General Secretary of the CC of CPI.
“Andhra Thesis” became the official line of the Party. 4 out of 9 members in PB
were of AP. Serious differences arose among the CCMs belonging to the three
trends. It was decided that a delegation should meet the international leadership
and take their suggestion. A CC delegation consisting of M.Basava Punnaiah,
CR, Dange etc met Comrade Stalin the great teacher of the international
Communist movement. A detailed discussion took place. He gave valuable
suggestions and replies to the questions of the delegation members regarding
the Indian revolution particularly on Strategy and Tactics. After their return
documents on Programme and Tactics were prepared. A special conference was
held in October 1951 for finalising the party documents particularly
Programme and Path. But the Great Telangana Peasants Armed Struggle was
withdrawn. Confusion prevailed in the Party. In this situation exactly after one
year CR resigned as GS and Ajay Ghosh, who was compromiser and a rightist
became as GS.

3.15 The CC met in May 1951 decided Thelengana Armed Struggle should be
withdrawn. For holding talks with the Nehru Government, the delegation of Jyothi
Basu,Muzffar Ahead and A.K.Gopalan was fixed. AKG would be the leader of this
team. On June 15th CC publicly announced that it was ready for talks with the
Nehru Government to solve the issue without asking the Telengana Comrades.
As soon as the CC announced in this way, Nehru warned that no discussions
and the squads should unconditionally surrender. On October 21, 1951 both
the CC and Visalandhra Committee unilaterally announced the withdrawal of the
struggle without any promises. As soon as Ajay Ghosh became the GS the rightist
group resorted to virulent attacks. Ravi Narayana Reddi, Raj Bahaddur Goud and
Deshpande hurled most filthy criticisms on Guerrillas. Ravi Narayana Reddi through
his book “Thelengana naked truths” conducted worst kind of propaganda. He
formed a separate state committee. Instead of taking measures to help the
Guerrillas, dragged the party into group clashes. Behind these clashes the future
elections in 1952 were also there. In this situation Andhra Secretariat resorted to
withdraw the struggle. CC announced that the Telengana Armed struggle was
aimed at Nizam Navab and it was not a liberation struggle.

3.16 To-day both the CPI and CPI(M) leaders assert as the Nizam Navab Rule was
over there was no need to continue that struggle. It indicates there was not
fundamental difference between these two parties on the withdrawal except the
method of withdrawal. Thus Andhra Secretariat bid farewell to its “Andhra Thesis”.
Before placing these documents CPI delegation met comrade Stalin for his
suggestions. Having held the discussions Comrade Stalin gave some suggestions
which they distorted after coming back particularly regarding the Telengana Armed

43
 struggle. In 1952 General elections were held and the party got a big victory due
to the prestige of the Telengana Armed Struggle. Party became the main
opposition party in the Parliament. After the withdrawal of the struggle all those
who surrendered, betrayed and expelled etc were welcomed into the party which
enhanced the strength of rightist, reformist and revisionist forces. Having tasted
the parliamentary facilities both sections of the party (Dange and EMS) soon came
to the conclusions that 1951 Programme and Policy statements were
impediments for the growth of the party.

3.17 After the withdrawal of Telengana Heroic Armed Struggle the CPI leadership
having taken the parliamentary line declared a general amnesty for weak
elements like those who surrendered to the government and revealed or
betrayed to the movement; those who fled to Bombay or Madras leaving
their Dens, areas and the state and were given their earler posts like the
CPC done during Deng period. Those who wrote booklets against the
movement etc were also taken back into the Party. In AP at the time of 1964
split most of such elements remained with CPI. By the time of Telengana
Armed struggle PC Joshi liners were there: BTR Liners came during the
Telengana Armed struggle. Hence there was constantly organizational
tussels inside the CPI. Even in CPI(M) also those who supported the
Telengana Armed Struggle and those who opposed or those uplhold the
line of Socialist Revolution like BTR were there. Hence the organizational
struggle continued even after CRs left the CPI(M) in 1967 and 68.

3.18 In 1956 June, Kruschev formulated modern revisionist policies. The impact of
these principles reflected on CPI very heavily. Majority started supporting the
formulations of Kruschev. CPC sensed the danger of CPI completely becoming
the revisionist. While conveying CPC's expereiences to comrades from Latin
American Countries in 1956 Comrade Mao said in the following way:

“.... The peasants are the chief ally of the proletariat. In the beginning our party
too did not realise the importance of work among the peasants and put urban
work first and rural work second. It seems to me that the parties in some Asian
countries, such as India and Indonesia, have not done so well in rural work.”
(Page—325, “Some Experiences in our Party’s history” Vol.5, Mao)

3.19 Ever since the Comintern was formed Comrade Lenin and Stalin repeatedly
teaching the main tasks and road of the Asian parties particularly India and China.
They explained about imperialism, Comprador bourgeoisie, feudalism, national
bourgeoisie and the stage of revolutions and the friends of the revolution in
colonial and semi-colonial and dependent countries. But top leadership of CPI
thoroughly failed and CPI and CPM leadership have been failing to follow the
teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Particularly Lenin, Stalin and
Mao on colonial and semi-colonial countries.

3.20 By the time of 4th Congress an unbridled policies of Collaboration developed.

The third Congress of CPI was held from 1953 December 27 to January 4 in

44
 Madhurai town of Tamilnadu. It praised the Second Five Years’ plan of Nehru
government and foreign policies of the Nehru government. Thus rightist leadership
took a stand of forming general United Front with the Nehru Government. Though
this third Congress accepted the “Andhra Thesis” and the 1951 “Programme” yet
in practice it has been acting as if our country had got independence. Gradually
in 4th Congress at Palghat it had declared that India got Independence.

3.21 The 4th Congress of the CPI was held soon after the 20th Congress of CPSU.
This Congress declared that India was a Independent country. After the 22nd
Congress of CPSU CPI leadership got confidence to intensify their "peaceful
transition theories" i.e. parliamentary road. It started supporting the theories of
Kruschev-Breznev clique and started praising the Nehru’s foreign policy as
“peaceful one” And hence party could form a front with this government. The
CPI termed the internal policies of the Nehru government as ‘Progressive’ and
opened its gates wide open for a united front with Nehru Government.

3.22 Fifth Congress of CPI was held in March and April, 1958 at Amrithsar. This
Congress concentrated on Organizational Report placed by Ajay Ghosh. This
Congress approved the constitution. Congress elected a CC with 101 members
and the Polit Bureau of 25. A system of Secretariat was also started in this
congress. The same pattern was adopted even in states and districts as well.
This system was, in the main, adopted to resolve the group clashes and it
was a compromise formula. This kind of large committees were organized
having clearly known that these committees would not function. However, this
organizational formula adopted by the party irrespective of ideological and
political unity miserably failed and the crisis further intensified.

3.23 This Congress declared that CPI would achieve Democracy and Socialism through
peaceful means. The election victory in Kerala, they felt, as the victory of their
peaceful means introduced by Kruschev. Whether to have election front or not
with the Congress had become the bone of contention between the two
sections in the Party. Factionalism had become rampant in the party. In this
the slogan of National Unity Government could not gain majority. However,s the
constitution adopted in this congress mentioned that it would strive for
socialism through peaceful methods.

3.24 The Sixth Congress of CPI was held from April 9 to 16, 1961. By the time of this
Congress, Kerala State government was toppled by Nehru. Russian Party
secretary and its theoretician Suslov attended to this Congress in Vijayawada and
openly supported the rightist section. Even the toppling of Kerala Government
could not open the eyes of CPI leaders regarding the peaceful road. The depth
of the class collaborationist policies were adopted in such a deep manner. Even
the arch rightist Ajay Ghosh had to announce that Party’s ideology was derailed,
policies were aimless and party’s organization was in deep crisis.

3.25 Before the Congress in 1960 an agreement was reached to place a common
document. To prepare such a document a Commission was formed but it could

45
 not bring a common agreement. Later, two drafts one by Dange and the other
by Ranadive were submitted. Ajay Ghosh submitted a third document taking the
economic analysis of Dange and Political analysis of Ranadive as the basis. Both
sections agreed for this. After some time Dange section withdrew its support telling
that they became the victims of Ranadive conspiracies. Likewise Ajay Ghosh also
could not stand by his own document in National council. He yielded to the
pressures of Dange and withdrew his document.

3.26 Thanks to the above situation 21 members belonging to NC submitted their

“programme” and “Path” documents. Dange section’s documents became official
documents. Both the documents were distributed and a burning situation started
inside the Party. Tactics and counter tactics to capture the organization started.
Thus party was on the verge of a split. In this situation both sides came to a
compromise to postpone the discussion on these documents and complete the
congress with committee election and immediate tasks.

3.27 Utilising the weakness of the minority section majority section resorted to elect
its members in the Congress instead of following the earlier method i.e.
Committees used to select their members for the higher committees and Congress
used to elect them. In 6th Congress election took place in accordance with the
majority sections wishes. Sundaraiah, Jyothibasu and Surjith were elected for the
Secretariat and national council. They rejected to be in the minority. In the
meantime the India’s China War occurred. The Dange section accused China as
an aggressor. Not only that 22nd Congress of CPSU was also held. Dange section
fully supported the Kruschev attacks on Stalin and his policies where as the
minority section could not take a clear stand to accuse Kruschev policies.

3.28 Some leaders of the minority section took the stand of supporting CPC. CPC had
to openly come out with its article “Long live Leninism”. CPI general secretary
Ajay Ghosh supportered Kruschev policies nakedly. In CEC a resolution “some
problems before the International Communist Movement” was taken for voting.
Ajay Ghosh placed this document before the CEC which fully supports Kruschev’s
policies. In favour of this document 14 votes where as 5 votes in opposition. EMS
and Rammurthi were also voted for Ajay Ghosh document. Only West Bengal
State Committee opposed this resolution. Ranadive escaped from voting, telling
that these matters are related to China and Russia. P.Sundaraiah also did not
sharply oppose this resolution. In the meanwhile Ajay Ghosh died.

3.29 Soon after the 6th Congress of CPI 1000 Supporters of China were jailed. Dange
supported these arrests of Nehru Government and supported the emergency of
1962. At the time of electing new GS, Party faced a crisis of Split. Owing to
this constitution was amended and a post of Chairman was created. Dange
became Chairmen and EMS became GS.

3.30 When Lohia, a friend of Communists was contesting, Dange section opposed him
and supported Congress. Dange section openly declared without consulting others
that they would support the congress candidates in three state elections. Thus

46
 the party faced serious political and organizational crisis and split in 1964. With
the above developments it became clear that two diametrically opposing political
sections cannot continue in the same house. Hence the 1964 organizational split
became inevitable. This shows that political and organizational matters are closely
interconnected. After the split both CPI and CPI(M) held their 7th Congresses.

3.31 CPI in its 7th Congress adopted its Programme which openly sought friendship
with Congress and Nehru government. CPI(M) in its 7th Congress adopted its
programme with a somewhat different ‘revolutionary’ jugglery. Essentially there
was no basic difference in their programmes and both the Party’s were dead
silent about “Kishan Document” of 1951. On national issues CPM took the stand
of opposing Congress policies. Internationally it took via media stand regarding
CPC and CPSU, though it supported CPC in public yet it did not oppose CPSU.
By 1967 CPM's top leadership tilted ideologically towards the CPSU and started
anti-China postures. In the 1967 elections, CPI(M) also took the parliamentary
road and united front politics, reformist tactics. Hence Communist revolutionaries
started opposing and coming out from the CPI(M) since 1967, in this process
CPI(ML) was formed on 22 April 1969 on the birthday of great teacher Lenin.

3.32 Thus the experiences of ideological and political struggles both nationally and
internationally clearly shows that ideological, political and organisational struggles
go hand in glove; That each side fights for its supremacy in the leading bodies
and revolutionaries invariably strive to remove the rightist and revisionist leaders
from the leading bodies. Not only that leaders who committed ideological, political
and organisational mistakes were taken back only after their thorough self-
criticisms. Otherwise our experience proved that Communist Parties become
revisionist and socialist countries become capitalist ones. This hard won and
painful experience cannot be forgotten by the Communists of the world after the
collapse of socialist states both in Soviet Union and in China.

RIGHT TRENDS AND REVISIONISM INSIDE CPI (ML) ND

4.1 After particularly between 1947 to 1951 there were heated debates inside the
CPI regarding the nature of independence and capitalism in agriculture and the
path to be followed by Indian revolution etc. The leaders who upheld that India
got Independence and capitalism in agriculture became rightists and opposed the
path of people’s war in India. Some of them preached the path of Insurrection to
Indian Revolution. And some others became tails to Indian ruling classes with
various arguments. Thanks to these differences, a delegation met the great leader
and teacher of the international Communist movement Com.Stalin. He provided
certain key suggestions to the delegation to frame the Party Programme and
Tactical line. Owing to this, the 1951 programme and policy documents were
adopted by the Indian Communist Party. As a result of the Great Peasant Armed
Struggle of Thelangana, CPI got significant election victories both in Coastal
Andhra and Thelangana regions in 1952 elections. However, very soon with the
pretext of new developments, the leadership of the CPI kept these two documents
in the cold storage immediately after Com.Stalin’s death. One section of the party
led by Dange took a pro-Kruschev’s line internationally and a pro-Nehruvian line

47
 nationally. Nehru government took number of cunning steps to defeat the
Communists in 1957 elections in AP. Hence Communist party faced heavy defeats
in 1957 elections.

4.2 Communist government came to power in Kerala in 1959. With this the Parliament
liners inside the CPI got embolden and intensified their pro-parliamentary path
and reformist arguments. However, Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and
his daughter Indira Gandhi, the then all India Congress President created
disturbances in Kerala and dismissed the first Communist State government in
India.

4.3 After 1951 the two sections inside the Indian Communist Party were fighting about
the attitude to be taken towards the Nehru government’s policies and reforms. In
the meanwhile the great debate between the CPSU and CPC regarding whether
the teachings of Great teachers Marx, Eagels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were
applicable to the contemporary world or not. One section of CPI led by Dange
and Chandra Rajeswara Rao completely supported the Khruschevian modern
revisionist politics and the other section took the stand of partial opposition to
Krushcevian politics and partial support to CPC. Thus the differences between
the two sections inside the CPI on international and national politics took a new
shape with the border war between India and China. The CPI leaders took
advantage of the arrests of the then Marxist leaders (including the would be ML
leaders and ranks). Taking advantage of this, the CPI leaders captured the
leadership of all Committees at different levels. The CPI leaders led by Dange
did not take any significant initiative to get the release of the arrested leaders.
Even then the Marxist leaders proposed after the release of their leaders certain
measures to keep the party united. But the leadership of CPI paid a deaf ear
towards their reasonable proposals.

4.4 In this background the pro-Marxist forces including the Communist revolutionaries
held a convention at Thenali in AP. Basing on the deliberations held at Thenali
Convention, the All India Party 7th Congress was held in Calcutta between
October 31—November 7, 1964. In this Congress a POR entitled “Fight Against
Revisionism” was adopted. Before the Calcutta Congress, 10th Conference of AP
was held at Vijayawada from October 7 to 11, 1964. It prepared a draft entitled
“Revisionism in AP—Resistance of Marxists”. If we go through these two
documents, we can understand how ideological, political lines and organizational
lines go hand in glove: It also shows different ideological, political lines adopt
differeent organizational methods: Rightists or revisionists resort to groupism and
organizational conspiracies to achieve their ends. However, at the time of Calcutta
Congress Ideological and political issues concerning the International Communist
movement could not be summed up.

4.5 Soon after the 1964 Congress the Marxist Party national level leaders started
expressing their differing views with CPC’s great debate on International
Communist Movement and on certain National issues. EMS submitted his own
note on 1964 Party Programme. P. Rama Murthi, Jyothi Basu and Hari Kishan

48
 Singh Surjith openly publicised their opinions. CPM Central leadership could not
fully own up Comrade Stalin and it did not recognise Comrade Mao as a great
teacher. Not only that some leaders like Ranadive denounced Comrade Mao and
CPC. CPI leaders denounced Comrade Stalin and upheld and praised Kruschev
and his politics. Ultimately in 1967 itself the CPI(M) leaders came out with their
true colors through their document “New Tasks and New Situation”. Through this
document they openly came against CPC and started mild support to CPSU.
Thus CPI and CPM vehemently condemned CPC, Mao and the people’s war path
until 1990.

4.6 With this the revolutionary ranks inside the CPM started revolt against the Neo-
revisionist leadership of the Marxist Party immediately after the 1964 Congress.
In West Bengal Comrade Charu Mazumdar and others started a bitter ideological
and political struggle against neo-revisionism while concentrating their work in
Naxalbari peasantry. Ideological and political struggles were conducted in UP,
Bihar and particularly in AP. In fact some comrades led by comrade Charu
Mazumdar opposed number of formulations contained in the Programme of
CPI(M)) during the 7th Congress discussions itself. There was no basic difference
between the programme of CPI and the Programme of CPI(M) adopted in 1964.
Hence the Communist revolutionaries fought against CPI(M) and came out from
it in 1967--68.

4.7 Comrade CP started his ideological and political differences against CPM leaders
like MB in jail itself in 1966. He studied the classics of five great teachers and
other literature concerning the international communist movement. Basing on his
study he prepared the book “World Communist Movement and its evolution” along
with Comrade Manikonda Subbarao. After this he wrote the book “Polemics of
Russia and China”: Through this book he took the stand of supporting CPC. He
also prepared a small booklet entitled “The lessons from the world communist
movement” which was vehemently opposed by the CPM leadership. He translated
“quotations from Mao” into Telugu: Furthermore some writings of Comrade Lenin
like “Revisionism and Marxism” etc. were translated in to Telugu. At the time of
CPM leadership prepared its ideological document and Madhurai document, he
gave a banner heading in Janasakti Daily like “Don’t hear Chinese Radio and
don’t read Chinese literature” to alert the AP ranks against CPM leader’s neo-
revisionism. He was in PC centre then. This has become a clarion call of AP
ranks against CPM’s neo-revisionism. He wrote many a writings to expose
revisionism and neo-revisionism basing on Lenin’s writings.

4.8 In AP ideological and political struggle was conducted from top to bottom and the
overwhelming majority of CPM ranks supported the state CR leadership. AP state
leaders—Com.DV, CP, TN and Kolla—placed their alternative document at state
plenum held at Pallkollu in the beginning of 1968. The same document was placed
before the Burdhwan Plenum and it was defeated. Thus Palakollu document
(Burdhwan Document) was won in AP and was defeated at Burdhwan. Thus
Comrade CP prepared a whole generation of AP CR ranks and laid a solid
ideological and political ground. He went to forest areas taking some cadres to

49
 organize the masses to start armed struggle at the age of 55 in 1968 September.
Regarding the national issues the Palakollu Document debated the national issues
like:1 the growing comprador trade nature of Indian Monopoly Capitalist
class 2. On Nominal Independence: 3. Destroying the monopoly power of
Congress 4. Centre-State relations 5. Kerala—Bengal road and 6.revolutionary
form of struggle. 7 On Self-determination and 8. on united front with revisionists.

4.9 It particularly criticised the "the Kerala-Bengal Road" as nothing buit the parliament
path in India. It quoted Lenin in the following manner:

“.....The experience of alliances, agreements and blocs with the social-reform

liberals in the West and with the liberal reformists (cadets) in the Russian
Revolution, has convincingly shown that these agreements only blunt the
consciousness of the masses, that they do not enhance but weaken the actual
significance of their struggle, by linking fighters with elements who are least
capable of fighting and most vacillating and treacherous. Millierandism in France—
the biggest experiment in applying revisionist political tactics on a wide, a really
national scale—has provided a practical appraisal of revisionism that will never
be forgotten by the proletariat all over the world.”

4.10 While criticising neo-revisionist leadership's parliamentary path it questioned that

party had no path for waging revolutionary form of struggles. The Palakollu
Plenum Document said that we are failing to mobilise the people on an extensive
base in accordance with the present situation. Not only that our party has no
clear understanding regarding the revolutionary form of struggle. The experience
of Chinese revolution and the experiences of recent liberation struggles in
backward countries proves that liberation of the people of such countries can be
achieved only through the form of protracted armed struggle. Having considered
the concrete situation of our country we feel that the form of people’s war alone
is suitable to our country.

4.11 We should carefully study the geographical conditions of our country where we
can use such forms of struggles. We should impart such a correct orientation to
the whole party regarding such forms of struggles. We should conduct the people’s
struggles of the basic classes in agrarian front in various parts of the country.
These struggles should be conducted in a way that they could catch the form of
people’s war. This document further said that our party had no iota of such
thinking. Not only that it criticized that CPM leadership is counterpoising the issues
of mobilising majority people, building strong mass organizations and building a
strong revolutionary party for taking the path of people's war in India.

4.12 It also criticised the CPM leadership that the resolutions of CC and the articles
of BTR on Naxalbari are bringing a different orientation and form of struggle to
our party. The leadership is trying to show that this is a contradiction between
those who want the revolutionary path as the mad fellows preaching armed
struggle and the party wants to create a powerful majority peoples mobilisation.
In the background of CPC’s criticisms CPM leaders proclaimed that they were

50
 abiding to the 1951 policy statement to hoodwink the cadres. The CPM document
“New Tasks—New Situation” proclaimed that “The struggle waged in various
assemblies, among the people, inside the parliament by the non-congress
democratic governments in various states and the democratic parties and groups
alone consolidated the unity and extended. This gives scope for giving the slogan
of forming the non-congress government at the centre practicable.

4.13 The CPM leaders promised in 1964 that they would take a clear stand on "self-
determination issue". However they failed to take it up. Criticising the leadership
on this score palakollu document said that at the time of 1964 Congress, the
CPM leadership promised they would investigate and take a decision on this
issue. 3 years have elapsed. In the meanwhile the issues of Kashmir, Mizo, Naga,
Sikkim, Bhutan, language issues and inter-state disputes came forward. In the
meanwhile China supported the self-determination demand of the Kashmir
people. CPM objected to this. On this issue Palakollu Document supported
China.

4.14 On United Front with the revisionists this document said “When these
revisionists were not completely exposed as the bourgeois agents in the working
class movement, and when the difference between our party and the revisionists
is not clearly exposed before the people, it is more necessary to project our
difference with the revisionists.”

4.15 The CPM document “the new tasks—new situation” says that “Our party is ready
for joint activity with the rightist Communist Party concerning all the issues facing
the people along with their mass organizations: It is ready to work jointly to get
the non-congress governments, in parliament and in various assemblies”
commenting on this approach Palakollu document said that if we remove the
unnecessary phraseology, it is nothing but waging a struggle on paper and united
front with revisionists. This policy is nothing but more useful for the revisionists.
Palkollu document said that on all these issues CPC made its criticism and they
support the CPC stand, in the main: CPM leader look suspiciously those who
differ with “new tasks”: A trend of running to take disciplinary actions on many
small matters is growing in the party. Palakollu document opposed the CPM
leadership’s attitude towards Naxalbari and UP comrades. AP comrades through
their Palakollu Plenum declared in the following way:

4.16 “we wish that our party should play an active role in the deluge of this struggle
against American Imperialism and Soviet Modern Revisionism”. Instead of useful
for our party taking its role in the stream of this struggle against US imperialism
and modern revisionism, it is separating us from this stream of struggle. We feel
ultimately this attitude will lead to form united front with Soviet revisionism thereby
harming our cause and the cause of international Communist movement.
Therefore, this plenum rejects the CC’s draft.”

4.17 “After Burdwaan Plenum the leaders representing CR forces inside AP PC came
out from CPM. Comrade DV, TN, CP, Kolla issued a open call to CPM ranks.

51
 Immediately after this comrade CP prepared a small booklet i.e. “heroic Telengana
Revolutionary struggle” taking notes from comrade DV while he was in hospital.
Having issued that booklet APPC issued a call to observe “The week of Telengana
Armed Struggle” through out the state. In the meanwhile PC took a decision to
provide training to SKL comrades and send some cadres to Godavari Valley forest
areas to organise the people for armed struggle.

4.18 However, the internal struggle inside the CPI(M) did not take place in a proper
manner in all the states. Owing to that revolutionary ranks within the CPM split
from it on their own choice. Peasant movements of different areas broke out after
Naxalbari peasant’s armed struggle. But due to lack of a leader with All India
stature created many problems in forming a single revolutionary party. This
problem is still haunting the All India Revolutionary Movement. In this regard our
All India 13years basic lessons (1981 Plenum) gave many reasons: Look at the
following ones:

“None of the nationally known leaders of the CPM broke away from the CPM. It
was mostly leaders at the state level who came with the revolutionary movement.
Consequently the Communist Revolutionaries had to embark on the path of
protracted People’s War with no recognized All India leadership, without a deep
understanding of the All India situation and of the level of problems in various
states.”(page-10, para-3)

4.19 Though we could not unite from 1967 to 1977 yet many revolutionary struggles
were conducted facing enormous hardships and left and right trends particularly
left adventurist trend. After 1977 in the name of correcting the left-adventurist
trend right opportunist trend started. It raised its head in various forms particularly
in the form of opposing the formation of CPI(ML) and split with CPI(M). Some
comrades in AP also started raising their voices and were opposed in the
beginning itself. However the rightist and revisionist trends had been raising their
heads and consolidating themselves in different CR organizations including our
organization. Our 13 years’ basic lessons posed this question and answered
in the following way:

“Was the Break with the CPM Correct?

4.20 Was this break correct? Certainly it was correct and a historical necessity.

But some, in the name of reviewing the past, are questioning this. They are raising this
question because of the serious set-backs suffered by the movement due to the
left-adventurist line adopted by the then leadership in the beginning of our
movement. They are raising this question, because of the reported talks between
the CPM leadership and the CPC published in the daily press.

4.21 Our Party rejects these arguments. It is futile exercise to find traces of
revolutionary thinking and practice inside the CPI and CPM leadership. Both
these leadership are wedded to the path of parliamentarism and opposed to

52
 Marxism-Leninism and Mao Ze-dong Thought and to the concept and practice of
People’s War. That is why we broke away from the CPM.

4.22 The CPI and CPM leadership have abandoned proletarian Internationalism and
taken to the path of national chauvinism.

The experience of the past 13 years have completely proved that the leadership
of revisionist’s and neo-revisionists are in essence serving the interests of the
ruling classes.” (Ibid, Page-7)......We will take proper lessons from our past
mistakes and are bound to advance. This is our firm confidence.

4.23 The election victories of the CPI and CPM have nothing to do with the Path
of People’s war. These election victories were there even earlier. But this did
not advance the revolutionary movement in the country. They did not bring about
any basic changes in the living conditions of our people. The revisionists will
be allowed to stay in power, as long as it suits the ruling classes. when
they don’t need the help of the revisionists they are bound to be removed
from power. This has been proved throughout history and in all countries.
So the election victories or defeats of the revisionists cannot bring changes in
our struggle for People’s War. The election victories of the revisionist reflect to a
certain extent, the election illusions of our people, their illusions on reforms and
the weakness of the revolutionary movement under the leadership of our Party
to galvanize the dissatisfaction of the masses towards Agrarian Revolution.
Keeping these factors in view, the Communist Revolutionaries will decide on the
necessary tactics of struggle. We should not allow ourselves to be subjected
to any illusions on the election victories of the revisionists. That will only
lead to the betrayal of the Path of People’s War.” (Page,8: para-2)

4.24 Our Party thus noting down the lapses that occurred in the movement expressed
its firm confidence in the path of People’s War and the correctness of CRs
separation from the neo-revisionists. Despite our lessons in the Basic lessons so
many wrong and rightist and revisionist trends have been coming forward among
the CR organizations including our Party. CPI (ML) Liberation took a volte-face
line and adopted the 1967 CPM positions. In our organization also before the
1980 Congress rightist and revisionist trends emerged immediately after lifting
the emergency and fought at the time of 1980 Congress.

“The seeds of rightist and revisionist trends started intensifying in our party when
the central committee lifted our line of election boycott and started dialogue with
the Janatha Government. AP committee fought against these politics through
sending a detailed letter to PCC. Maharastra PC also supported the AP. PC.

4.24 In fact these rightist and revisionist trends started during emergency itself in AP.
After the fake encounter of comrade Neelam Ramchandraiah (AP PCM) and
Jampala Chandra Sekhar Prasad (PDSU state leader) in 1975, these trends
emerged in a section of Hyderabad students and party leaderships. They opposed
programmatic orientation of CPI ML in the main. Not only that they took a stand

53
 of supporting the 20 point programme of Indira Gandhi. They spread these wrong
ideas even to some districts including Godavari forest areas. Comrades CP,
P.Ramanarsaiah and P.V.Rao firmly opposed these wrong trends. Hence most
of them left the party. State PDSU particularly Hyderabad PDSU faced severe
crisis. State PDSU main leaders argued that they could not work in the name
of PDSU and its name should be changed. At that juncture some DCMs from
the joint DC of Guntur and Prakasam districts were also left the party.

Emergence of rightist and revisionist trends during 1980 Congress:

4.25 In the name of imminent world war a section of CC leadership brought out the
line of alliance with America and its friends in India. In fact, these comrades had
been demanding to have election alliances, agreements and adjustments with
opposition parties. For more than 2 years they had been fighting inside the party
for alliances with the ruling class opposition parties to defeat the main enemy.
Party split took place in the begning of 1980. One section of party left the
organization. Some leaders of this section opposed Nandi-Rana’s class
collaborationist line, started discussions with the CC in 1982 ending itself. One
section of PCC, CPI(ML) led by Com. SNS split with Nandi-Rana group in 1983.
They started dialogue with the CC, CPI(ML).

4.26 Com. SNS came along with Com.Saifuddin to Vizag to conduct unity talks. By
that time comrade CP became martyr in Calcutta. They offer their self-criticism.
During the course of unity discussions itself Comrade SNS, our party's ex-general
secretary became a martyr in Vizag. In continuation of these unity talks again
two delegations met in June 1985 and completed the merger talks Com.SR
Bhaijee on behalf of CC, CPI(ML) and Com.Sadham Sarkar on behalf of PCC,
CPI(ML) Signed on the joint statement. PCC, CPI(ML) delegations reserved its
opinions on “Defeat the main enemy ….. “on the Last two chapters of “13 years
basic lessons” adopted by the CC CPI(ML) plenum in 1981. Com. SR Bhaijee
was elected as the new GS of united CC, CPI(ML).

4.27 Before 1980 Congress, some AP comrades brought the arguments of Capitalism
in Agriculture and Junker Path, Big-bourgeois leading the ruling class alliance of
Comprodor Big bourgeoisie, Landlords and Imperialism: Little ‘Independence’
‘United Front with USA against Soviet Union both nationally and internationally’
‘Defeat the main enemy Congress” etc. On Tactical line also they differed with
our path approved in 1981 on parts of “Self-defense” squads at the time of 1981
Plenum. They proposed election alliances and agreements with ruling class
opposition parties particularly with CPI and CPM. At the time of discussions during
1980 Congress, some comrades argued that we should not call CPI and CPM
as our main enemies. Hence as a compromise Comrade CP and others agreed
to call them as the main enemies Ideologically and politically.

4.28 However these comrades never felt them as our main enemies. They submitted
their alternative document on CC’s “political resolution” and on “programme”.
Comrade CP wrote a comment on behalf of the CC appealing the Party ranks

54
 to reject their alternative document. In addition to this they submitted their written
amendments and were distributing their amendments even during the state
conference and Congress. However, their alternative document and most of their
amendments were thoroughly defeated by the AP state conference and 1980
Special Congress. Owing to this they were dropped from the state committee
panel at the time of state conference in 1980.

4.29 These comrades never offered their self-criticism up to now regarding their
alternative ideological and political lines except offering their formal self-criticism
on forming united front with USA against Russia. It is noteworthy that comrade
SNS offered his self-criticism soon after the 1980 split. Since the 1980 Congress
they have also been having a different approach contrary to the party’s line
regarding the joint struggles on mass issues with other political parties. Despite
their defeat in 1980 conference and congress, they have been upholding their
differences on Programme and tactical line. Not only that they have been further
developing their revisionist views. The views of these comrades gradually
consolidated and spreading like mushrooms inside our organization owing to
various organizational problems. With the split in 1984, the strength of
revolutionary section reduced to some extent. After the 1984 split they were
taken back into APPC and they were also taken into CC at the time of 1992
Congress when one section of CC left and joined the 7 Parties’ Unity Move.

4.30 At present they feel their politics proved correct and their strength has increased
a lot inside the party due to the correctness of their alternative line to Path and
Programmes. They propogate that our party will make self-criticism and change
its line on politics and ideology as they stated in their alternative document in
1980. With these hopes they have now again submitted their alternative
document to CC document "On Revisionism". In their document they maintained
their 1980 differences with the Party and added some more differences as well.
For more than 30 years they have been maintaining and consolidating their
alternative opinions. These are nothing but revisionist views of some senior
leaders in AP. In addition to these leaders some of such opinions have been
coming from other states also since 1996 Congress. Thereforre at present our
party is facing the danger of rightist and revisionists and revisionism is growing
inside our party.

4.31 These comrades not only started bringing rightist ideological and political
positions, but they have also violated some organizational methods. “state
committee permitted them to explain their differences in their districts. But they
had their documents placed through their followers instead of themselves in their
district conference to get the approval of district conference. They got the approval
of their documents in their district conferences and brought them before the state
conference as the approved documents of their district conference. This is
opposed to the organizational method.” “One leader acted in a tit-for-tat way with
regard to Com. CP and others propaganda. This method helped to further intensify
the disputes before the state conference itself. “20 years AP review also said:
“....the political teachings of Comrade CP were politically correct whereas the

55
 politics brought by others were rightist ones. Therefore the PC could not control
the wrong organizational methods of Comrade CP and others.......

4.32 At the time of AP new state committee panel in 1980, the names of such leaders
were not included. Up to then these comrades were in the state secretariat and
senior comrades. Except their political differences no other defects were there in
them. So while keeping them in the PC, they should have kept aside from the
state secretariat. State movement faced loss due to not taking them in the PC.
Had we taken them into the PC it would have helped for achieving the unity
inside the Party and could have got the experience of how to work with the
comrades having political differences.” History, since the 1980 conference and
Congress has proved contrary to this lesson taken in the 20 years review. Not
only that Comrade CP’s organizational approach basically proved correct
excepting a few mistakes. These comrades did not change their political opinions
since 1980 Congress. Furthermore they have consolidated and developed their
rightist views into full scale revisionist ones. They have offered their formal self-
criticism only on certain international matters and not on any of their views that
they presented in 1980 Congress.

4.33 In 1984 three comrades including one member dropped at the time of 80 AP State
Conference were co-opted into the AP PC but one responsible leader differed with
this decision and argued that both the dropped comrades at the time of 1980 AP
state conference should be taken. But the majority of PC did not agree. PC
conveyed this decision to the co-opted comrade. But he did not agree to attend
to the PC meetings unless the second one is also taken along with him. He was
absent for some PC meetings also. After the 1984 split these comrades created
number of hurdles in the way of implementing the Congress line.

4.34 Regarding the Self-defense squads and change of their form lot of discussion
took place. On that occasion comrade Chandram wrote a lengthy explanation to
preserve the existence of self-defense squads at the time of 20 years review.
However he accepted to shorten that part to avoid certain technical problems.
This gave scope for giving different explanation about what is meant by changing
the form. Utilising this as a pretext comrades with alternative views and who
oppose the squad formation started opposing the resistance struggle since 1984.
They wanted to change the path through their amendments according to their
orientation in 1992 Congress. Congress opposed their views and enriched the
1981 path removing certain repetitions. Another senior comrade dropped at the
time of 1980 state conference was taken into PC at the time of 1990 state
conference along with others. Three comrades belonging differing political thought
were taken into the CC in 1992 Congress. After this, co-options were made into
AP PC in a big way. Despite the amended path of 1992, they started implementing
their orientation regarding the self-defense squads and forest movement. At the
1992 Congress also one differing comrade proposed certain amendments to the
Programme in accordance with his understanding of 1980 alternative documents
and amendments. In 1980 state conference also these comrades distributed their
amendments just in the conference hall itself without prior information to the PC.

56
4.35 From 1977 onwards legal work and participation of election line along with
discussions on self-defence—squads and the split in 1984 degeneration among
the ranks started in AP. 1985 Merger of PCC, CPI(ML) led by late Comrade SNS
also could not help break the degeneration of ranks in AP. At the time of the
merger they reserved their opinion that “defeat main enemy was a correct”. This
opinion which mainly existed in West Bengal and Bihar gave encouragement to
AP leaders who had already taken that road. On many occasions CC had to
spent lot of time to discuss about this slogan. Though they reserved their opinions
“defeat the main enemy in elections” endless discussions continued by Bihar and
Bengal PC’s, these PCs got support even from some CCMs up to 1992 Congress.
The discussions on sharpening the program with a view to delete certain historical
facts in the name of “Concise Programme” of Com. Lenin's type created some
organisational disturbance inside the CC. This situation helped for the growth
of rightist and revisionist trends inside our party. Furthermore the way the
discussions were conducted at the time of the 1989 All India Plenum on CRs
Unity and 20 year review of AP helped for the growth of legalism, parliamentarism
and ultra democratic trends of various kinds.

4.36 Until 1992 Congress one section of West Bengal PC and Bihar PC created
somany hurdles in the party functioning in building the revolutionary mass
movement as they were having rightist views since 1980 split. The discussions
during the 20 years AP review both in AP and in CC and the adoption of 20
years review in AP and the AP state conference in 1990 could solve neither the
political problems nor the organizational problems in our organization. At the time
of 1992 many important leaders like Paila, Bhaijee, Moni Chakravarthi (all CCMs)
and some important leaders including state secretary of Bengal state committee
left the Party and joined the 7 Party move to form CPI-ML (Janshakti).. All these
developments further enhanced the wrong trends among our ranks. Our 1992
Congress was held in a very complex situation. Owing to this number of
Organizational mistakes in electing the committees occurred both at the Congress
and State conferences, though we could adopt a correctly amended Program
and Path.

4.37 In the disturbed background of 1992 Congress, comrades having different lines
were taken into CC. This polluted the ideological and political situation in CC. To
stop the degeneration and imbibe the revolutionary spirit AP state committee
issued one Circular in 1990, second circular in 1992, the 3rd in 1994 and the
fourth in 1996. The 3rd Circular issued by AP State committee took stock of the
dangerous situation inside the state. Almost the same situation prevailed in other
states also. Look at the 3rd Circular of AP which sensed the growing danger of
revisionism in AP ranks:

“5. The changes occurring in the International Communist Movement and

disintegration of revisionist camp which used to run in the garb of socialism and
establishment of capitalism in a naked manner are also contributing for the raise
and growth of wrong trends and weaknesses. The splits even to-day among the
Indian revolutionaries, the weakness of revolutionary movement etc are also

57
 contributing for the growth of these wrong trends. These wrong trends today have
become as strong force in some lower committees and are struggling for
supremacy. If the ranks, having do not fight uncompromisingly with
revolutionary fervor against the harm these trends could cause, it may not
take many years for our party too to ideologically, politically and
organisationally degenerate to the level of CPI and CPI(M). It may not take
many years to become another centre for legal politics and arm-chair leisure
politics.” (Page—3,” Revolutionary mass movements, Arrests, Repression, Jails,
Courts —Our attitude”)

4.38 Though the third Circular forewarned the coming danger AP PC could not take
necessary steps. Owing to this the revolutionary spirit and ideals also spoiled to
a large extent. In this situation the AP PC adopted a Circular with a lot of debate
"On Ideals etc..." in 1996. However PC did not take serious steps to implement
this circular. After the PDSU state classes in 1997 ending, state Committee did
not dare to conduct classes on this circular. The situation inside AP ranks became
much more worse. Taking stock of the situation inside the Party particularly CC
passed a Circular on "Communist ideals, sacrifices etc.." at the end of 1998. But
of no use. Even the CC did not take any serious step to implement its circular.
Hence the life styles of our ranks inside our party particularly in AP collapsed.

Emergence of Revisionist Election Tactics during 1996 Congress:

4.39 Though the CC was strictly trying to implement the Congress orientation, due to
the rightist and revisionist trends in AP the largest unit of our party and election
of some other rightist leaders to the CC had a negative impact on the
implementation of the party line adopted in 1996 Congress. Before and after the
1996 conference some co-options were made into the AP PC that diluted the
party orientation. Rightist trends in AP grew. After the 1996 Congress gradually
rightist trends have further increased even in West Bengal. In Punjab also these
trends openly started from 1996 Congress to 2000 years.

4.40 In 1994 Darbhanga CC meeting one CCM from AP gave his draft on
"characterization of political parties in India." In this he included CPI and CPM
as friends in the new democratic revolution terming these parties as petit-
bourgeois ones. CC rejected his views. Again he placed his views with a brief
explanation at the time of 1996 Congress as amendment to 2.66 of political
resolution. However, his amendment was defeated by the 1996 Congress. In 1997
a Central plenum was exclusively held to discuss about the "characterization of
political parties in India." AP majority delegation attended to 1997 plenum
supported him on "characterization of political parties in India." But these
comrades clung to their old positions contrary to their agreement in 1980 that
CPI and CPI(M) were ideologically and politically the main enemies of our people.
In 1980 Congress time they were in favour of calling CPI and CPM as the
main enemies of our party ideologically and politically and main enemies
of the Indian people. But now they are in favour of calling them as the
friends in the new democratic revolution. This is nothing but a volte-face

58
 against the party’s basic line on CPI and CPM.

4.41 During the discussions on AP state political and organisaational review of 1996
serious discussions took place. Discussions took place mainly on elections, joint
activities with other political parties, particularly with CPI and CPI(M); discussions
on land questions, self defence squads, and the forms of struggles etc. But the
majority followed Rightist methods, both organisationally and politically. A senior
comrade could not participate in the discussions on AP State review due to his
CC work. He left the conference along with comrade GS to attend the UP
Conference. One CCM made derogatory remarks against some CCMs including
the CCM who was absent in the conference. A slanderous campaign was
conducted against the CCM and CC. At one stage CCMs recorded speech was
investigated by a sub-committee and it was heard by the entire PC. It proved the
abuses were wrong. Having gone through the 1996 AP review, the CCM who
was absent gave his written opinions to the CC immediately after the conference
in June 1996 itself. however, CC could not discuss and failed to take proper
decisions as requested by the CCM.

4.42 Before the 1996 Congress one CCM wrote an article "International Experiences
of UF in Russia and China" contrary to the line of CC. But CC could not discuss
and reject it. As the CC did not do its duty these comrades have been bringing
their arguments and propagating them among the ranks in AP.

4.43 At the time of 1996 Congress one leader of 80’s alternative document proposed
his amendment once again on “capitalism in Indian agriculture”. Without taking
permission from the CC and CC comment on it, he distributed his explanation in
the AP State Conference. Many distortions were there. Then CC observers on
the spot wrote a small comment and gave to the delegates. Later on before the
Congress CC prepared a comprehensive comment on his amendment. A serious
debate i.e. a war took place in the state Conference. He and his supporters
created a serious chaotic situation even prorogating lies against the CC supporters
and CCMs to get their majority in PC conference. At the time of PC panel election,
rightist and revisionist leaders did not agree to remove any one of their followers
from the PC with a view to maintain their majority. Among the new PCMs some
rightists were also taken into the PC. “Keep all of us in the Committees or Drop
all of us” policy was adopted by them at the time of 1996 Conference and
Congresses.

4.44 At the time of selecting the new panel in 1996 Congress, heated discussions
tookplace between differing comrades in CC. Some comrades argued that this
was against the principles of building a Leninist (Bolshevik) party. Due to this
sudden development a correct Leninist principle could not be followed. Hence the
further strengthening of rightism or revisionism inside our party. The rightists in
AP oppose the CC tactics on Elections and on Joint activity with other parties.
This is one more example to show that ideological and political matters and
organizational efforts go hand in glove. At the time of 1996 in opposing capitalism
in Indian Agriculture CC waged a correct ideological and political battle against

59
 the rightist and revisionist views. CC supplied a detailed comment and GS
delivered a lengthy explanation in the Congress Hall. It was decided to bring “the
lengthy lecture of GS’” as a booklet for educating the party ranks. However, we
could neither bring the booklet nor supply the CC Comment on differing comrades
to the lower committees. Due to this their revisionist views have been spreading
inside the party without any brake.

4.45 Look at some of the CC comments against Comrade VV in 1996:

1. CC drew attention to resemblance of Comrade VVs views to the positions

of revisionist parties and also pointed out its effects on many aspects of
the programme and tactical line.

2. Comrade VV says that his amendment “is not the total programme”. Actually
now Com.VV has placed his views with regard to programme as one
amendment. Otherwise he gave substantial amendments which were in the
nature of an alternative at the time of 1980 Congress and he placed his
views before the 1992 Congress as well. He has to explain in what respects
he has changed his from 1980 so as not to necessitate similar exercise in
1996 or he just wants to bring in the changes step by step. CC suggested
that considering his such basic differences with the party programme, he
should have given an alternative document. Had he done so, thorough
discussions would have taken place on all the aspects of the programme
he wishes to change through this amendment.

Com.VV has also protested against CC drawing attention to the resemblance

of his views with the CPM leadership. Actually the intention of CC was to
point out that the points being raised by Comrade..... have been repeatedly
raised in the Indian Communist movement and that the path taken by the
votaries of the capitalist development has been different from the path of
revolutionary communists.(from CC comment of 1996, Page—1)

3. What should be abhorring is not CC’s pointing out the resemblance of

Comrade’s views with the revisionist parties but the fact of this resemblance
which we shall presently see.(Ibid, page-2)

4. No Comrade, there is no use pretending that the Programme embodies your

ideas, you had fought against its basic orientation.........your differences
with the party programme are sharp and clear. Subterfuge will not serve
any purpose.

5. What we must point out that Comrade VVs understanding, whatever

its caliber otherwise, is akin to the revisionist understanding on this
question.

6. Does Comrade VV believe that India has had its bourgeois revolution as
Prussia had had or does he believe India to be a developing bourgeois

60
 country? Lenin clarifies himself further “What is the economic essence of
agrarian question in Russia? It is the reorganization of Russia on bourgeois
democratic lines Russia has become a capitalist bourgeois country but the
system of land ownership in this country has to a very large degree remained
feudal, as regards both landlordism and peasant allotment ownership.
”(Collected works. Vol.20, P.375) Junker path is thus a path of bourgeois
transformation of agriculture in the countries which became capitalistic
without crushing of landlordism. Clearly one would think but not to Comrade
VV who has been on inventing junker path in India.(Ibid, page—3)

7. Comrades, it would have been better had we discussed this vital part of the
programme with its effects on other important parts not as an amendment
but as an alternative document. Para 20 deals with the areas where capitalist
methods of agriculture are being used. Is it not strange that Comrade VV
has raised through amendment in this para the questions relating to
many aspects of the programme? Hence we say it is in the nature of an
alternative. CC wishes to draw the attention of the comrades to this aspect.

This has been one of the basic differences between the revisionists
and the communist revolutionaries. Communist revolutionaries have
struggled hard for this line. We should preserve and defend our
revolutionary orientation. We should not dilute the basic aspects of our
programme which have stood the test of time. It is the programmatic
understanding of the revisionists which has been proved wrong. They are
being forced to admit the dictates of the imperialist powers and the inefficacy
of the bogus nature of reforms of the ruling classes. All these, though are
their formal declarations, wedded as they are to defending and protecting
this system. we should hold firmly to the basic orientation of our party
programme.

4.46 Amendment proposed by Comrade VV is against the teachings of great

teachers on the revolution in colonial and semi-colonial and semi-feudal countries.
We must also be aware that those who have taken to the line of capitalist
development of agriculture have invariably taken to the parliamentary path in the
past. Some of those leaders are now involved in the running of the Central
Govt. even adorning ministerial chairs.

4.47 There is strong connection between the advocacy of capitalist transformation

of India and the capitalist development of its agriculture by big bourgeoisie
leading the Indian state with concepts of little or marginal independence,
enhanced importance of parliamentary democracy and the line of forging
election alliances with ruling class parties and their revisionist allies, in
emphasizing legal and open work and neglect of the peasant struggles
particularly land struggles. It is not a fortuitous development.

The strategy of protracted people’s war is not a strategy for the capitalist
countries whether big or small, weak or powerful, but for the colonial, semi-

61
 colonial and semi feudal countries. The concept of capitalist development
of agriculture thus has a decisive effect on the strategy of the revolution
in India. CC hopes that comrades would give due attention to all these
aspects.

CC also hopes that Comrade VV will also understand the implications of

his proposal and its effect on the basic orientation of the programme. CC
hopes that he would also rectify his mistaken ideas though he has been
holding them for nearly 17 years now.” (Ibid., page 19—20)

“Thus Comrade’s amendment is not only incorrect but also seeks to change
the orientation of party programme of fighting imperialism and feudalism as
the two most important oppressors of the Indian people, its characterization
of society and principal contradiction, and is thus incompatible with its
present orientation.” (from CC remarks page—4 last para; Ibid.)

4.48 Like your face appear in the mirror, the assessment of CC regarding these
comrades and the correctness of the CC comments proved cent per cent correct
just before and during the 1996 Congress itself. With such views these comrades
are derailing from the basic line of the party.

4.49 Look at some of the main points discussed at the time of 1996 Congress:

1. In AP PC review(1996) proposed the work of RCS functioning instead of

self-defense squads in the forest areas.

2. During the pre-1996 Congress discussions some CCMs of AP proposed an

amendment for the “formation of the government.” a lengthy discussion took
place in CC. They proposed an amendment for election alliances with the
“CPI and CPM”. Ultimately they kept these two amendments as reservations.
They have proposed a common minimum programme for election front as
well. A CCM revealed the question of forming the government at the time
of 1996 Congress. Chaos occurred in the Congress hall. These comrades
became vehement and demanded the GS to say that it was a lie on the
floor of the house. Comrade GS held the meeting, found their proposal in
the CC minutes and hence it was not possible to tell like that. It was nothing
but a clear parliamentary line. The amendments proposed by these
comrades to POR and PR were mostly rejected in the CC. Therefore they
encouraged their friends to raise the same amendments in the house. These
comrades also gave their amendments during the congress repeatedly
making changes in the same amendment given earlier to the delegates in
the hall. On joint struggles with other parties and on elections a serious
debate took place and the house rejected the amendments of some AP
comrades and their friends.

3. At the All India Congress held in 1996 serious ideological and political
struggle occurred. Rightists or revisionists waged life and death struggle for

62
 their parliamentary road or peaceful transition. Government formation
through elections also proposed and reserved for future. In the meanwhile
some other kinds of amendments to 2.66 and CMP etc were proposed.
Finally Congress could not drop the proven revisionists and some other
rightist persons were chosen into the CC. Thus without dropping the old
ones some new members were taken into the CC at the time of 1996
Congress. However, the developments occurred at the time of electing the
new GS lowered the prestige of the CC leadership. The declining of CC
prestige started at 1996 Congress itself.

4. For a long time Comrade VV had been raising the issue of class
characterization of political parties in India. CC prepared its understanding
regarding the political parties in India. Two CCMs gave their alternative
opinions. (one from AP and the other from West Bengal)With CC comments
it distributed to the delegates for the All India Congress. All India Special
Plenum was held in 1997.

4.50 Look at the CC comments on the CCMs alternative documents on

Characterization of Political Parties in India:

4.51 “4.3 ......However, it is regrettable that comrade VV has questioned the very line
and orientation of the Party and the very basic formulations of the party...........”

4.52 “4.6 ‘.......Comrades have laid much stress on the words of the proclamations and
programmes of the revisionist parties even while they themselves accept that
these parties are not serious about them.”

4.53 “4.28 ......To deal with this question, let us first take up whether revisionist parties
have a fixed class character for all countries at all times. No it is not so and it
cannot be so. We know the revisionists (the original ones) of the European social
democracy degenerated into the parties of imperialist bourgeoisie. We also know
that Com.Mao had described the Brezhnev revisionist group as representative of
big bourgeoisie. ......So all revisionist parties have not been the parties of petty-
bourgeoisie.”

4.54 “4.31 .....Every revolution, if it is a real revolution, amounts to a class shift.

Therefore the best way of enlightening the people, and of fighting those who
deceive the people by invoking revolution, is to analyse the class shift that has
taken or is taking place in the present revolution”(Lenin’s CW, Vol.25, p 132-
131)....”

4.55 “4.32 ....What about CPI-CPM? One of their nominee is Home Minister while the
other was offered the Prime Ministership itself, by no means the harmless posts
in the Ministry and that too, when semi-feudal semi-colonial India can not be
equated with democratic republic of Europe.

4.56 “4.33 .....Now a few words about Sharing power..............The sharing

63
 arrangements in the period of collapse of a long standing power structure like
that of Tsarist empire can not be compared with the power sharing by the CPI-
CPM in India where they have become part and parcel of the Constitutional
machinery of the ruling classes. Anybody can see the difference between the two.
Here the CPM is running a state government in one important state continuously
for 20 years and in two other states alternating with the Congress. Could these
governments have lasted without the approval of the ruling classes? Remember
how Kerala government was dismissed in 1959 by Nehru. In the centre, they are
having important position in the Central Government. Some apologists of
revisionism, claim of their sideling in the sense of their inability to force certain
issues with their publicly proclaimed, but it only shows their inability or
unwillingness to see the difference between words and deeds of the revisionist
CPI-CPM.

4.57 4.34 In fact, this power sharing elevated to the level of principle by Comrade VV
is harbinger of a part different from the one envisaged in the basic documents
of the party. He visualises developing “people’s democratic front”, even
establishing “New democratic government” without stating that it would be
possible only through and in course of armed struggle. He contents himself
by talking of “all forms of struggle, in all sectors and in all areas” without
delineating the decisive importance of the arms struggle. His real objective is
quite clear when he recommends “we should maintain friendly attitude towards
political parties, which representing allies and this kind of work should be done
consciously from the beginning to the final conclusion of the revolution”. We should
strive to unite these parties in all areas, in all sectors and in all forms of struggle
with this understanding. We should give more importance to these parties in
joint struggles and even in elections also”. (Italics added, P.2) Does he mean
to unite with CPI,CPM in building areas of sustained resistance or in preparing
armed struggle, these are not part of his “all forms of struggle”? The main form
of struggle of these parties are elections and Comrade VV is in favour of uniting
with them in elections also. Do we not have contours of his line clearly
demarcated though he does not say so explicitly?

4.58 “4.35 .....Giving the characteristics of a petty-bourgeois, Lenin says “He is not
averse to a compromise with the monarchy, to settling down quietly on his own
piece of land under the bourgeois system, but at present time his main efforts
are concentrated on the fight against landlords for land, on the fight feudal state
and for democracy”. (CW, Vol.11,P.229) Can differing comrades find any attribute
of this vacillating petty-bourgeois among the CPI and CPM? Is CPI,CPM
vacillating between submission to the leadership of ruling classes (in our case)
and determined struggle against landed proprietorship and feudal state? Where
is their determined struggle against the landed proprietorship and feudal state?
They are not vacillating between the working class and ruling classes. As is the
nature of the petty-bourgeoisie, they are vacillating between the different sections
of ruling classes.”

4.59 “4.38 Comrade VV has made much of the land reforms by the left front going

64
 so far to say that semi-feudalism does not exist in states like West Bengal. This
obviously is not the party’s opinion nor is this the subject matter of the debate.
Party documents have repeatedly highlighted that the basic cause of the land
reforms has been the pressure exerted by the peasant movement. Basing
ourselves on the facts, we have exposed the conduct of the Left Front Govt. on
the question of land reforms. The question of land reforms has not been limited
to revisionist ruled states. We all know that J & K had carried out the land reforms
most thoroughly in the earlier period and it is the Congress Govt. which had
enacted the Zamindari abolition. We have examined all this in detail in the paper
presented by the Party in July 4 Convention at Hyderabad.

4.60 “4.40 Having agreed that deeds and not words of the parties should be taken
into account, these comrades commit the same error when it comes to the
question of CPI-CPM. They give much weightage to the words in the
proclamations of CPI-CPM........ It is pertinent to remember how CPC commented
on the role of CPI leadership in its article entitled “A Mirror for revisionists,”
CPC in its comment criticized that “This clique has usurped the leadership of
the Indian Communist Party and, conforming to the will of the Indian big
capitalists and landlords, has been transforming the party into a lackey of
the Nehru government which represent their interests” “It is pursuing Nehru
government’s policy of hiring itself to U.S. imperialism” { Italics added. The
Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement, London,
P.345} And it was nearly three decades back. Over this period it has betrayed
the working class and people’s struggles, shared power with Congress and later
with other ruling class parties and is now in the Central Cabinet. But for the
differing comrades, it is as yet transformed only into a petty-bourgeois party and
in Comrade VVs opinion it is doing good work though “in its own way”

4.61 “4.41 Comrade VV has made many assertions which are wrong.................It would
be worthwhile to remember how Lenin insisted on expulsion of opportunists from
Communist Parties even in preparatory period saying “First stage of this period
is break with Mensheviks.” (LCW, Vol.32, P.464)

4.62 “4.42 Com.VV has asserted that “Great teachers of working class from Marx to
Mao have taught us that revisionism by its very nature serves bourgeoisie and
not feudalism or semi-feudalism’..........While betraying Telengana did the
revisionists not serve semi-feudalism? While crushing Naxalbari and opposing
Srikakulam, Godavaari Valley and other peasant struggles, did the revisionists not
serve semi-feudalism?”

4.63 “4.46 But despite his tributes, Comrade VV cannot hide the truth. He has to admit
that these parties are compromising and serving the ruling classes, have
abandoned the path of class struggles, they are compromising for foreign capital,
revisionism means socialism in words and serving the bourgeoisie in deeds.
They are in the process of growing in the direction of becoming social democratic
parties, i.e. parties of imperialist bourgeoisie.

65
4.64 “4.54 Comrade VV has approached the question of characterization of political
parties from a preconceived notion of forming People’s Democratic Front and
having election alliances with parties like CPI-CPM. He has approached the
question of PDF from Parliamentary angle which goes against the path of
protracted people’s war as upheld by our party. That is why while dealing with
characterization of parties he has raised the whole gamut of questions
relating to the basic line of the Party. “

4.65 5) Despite the party having a correct ideological and political orientations, the life
styles, ideals etc. of the party leaders and ranks was degenerating. Taking stock
of all these developments CC passed resolution on Ideals, life Styles etc.
one Circular was adopted on 28-10-1998. It explained many things regarding
the internal developments and gave its suggestions. On this occasion CC
wrote about the growing danger of alien trends in the following way:

4.66 “We must admit that over the years certain wrong trends have grown inside the
Party. Particularly alarming is its growth among the leading cadres. Attitude of
comfortable and legal methods of work is taking deeper roots. Growth of such
trends serves as a base for diversion from the revolutionary orientation of
the Party. This trend is fighting for domination at different levels. We must
combat this to preserve the base for revolutionary politics. If we do not beat
back this trend it may not take long for our party to degenerate into a
reformist and revisionist Party like CPI, CPI(M) a centre for legalism and
arm chair revolutionism. We must learn from experiences of the Communist
Parties both ruling and in opposition in different countries, which have
degenerated into revisionist parties. Many of them have even abandoned the
name ‘Communist’ from their name plates. Their degeneration could not have
come about in a single day.(CC Circular: 28-10-1998, Page-3,para-4 of “On
communist life Style. Ideals and methods of work.”)

4.67 Though the above quotations were lengthy we have given them to show how a
large section of our ranks are affected with the peaceful path of revisionism i.e.
parliamentary path. Unless it is checked by all means, our path of protracted
people’s war will collapse.

4.68 3) From 1996 some CCMs and senior leaders and their friends continued their
ideological, political and organizational struggle to bargain and get their orientation
implemented to the extent possible. For this they used various methods against
the CC followers and their opponents both in AP and in CC. They pressed to
change the Mondal Committees into SDLCs so that they can have majority in
Kothagudem and Khammam DLCs. In the midst of congress process CC withdrew
its amendment on revisionism clause as a criteria for taking the comrades into
the CC. The CC could not maintain its previous vigil against rightist and revisionist
politics raising their heads in different forms on different occasions. Regarding
the AP affairs the CC could not pay proper attention. CC became a victim of the
tricks played by the CC minority with various pretexts and finally it lost its
organizational hold on AP PC.

66
 Soon after the 1996 party congress AP state committee prepared a draft “on the
Ideals of Communist Leaders” in Dec 1996. Though it was broadly correct, yet it
contained a few wrong views and lacked the revolutionary spirit and orientation.
One PCM vehemently opposed the fourth circular of AP. To counter his views PC
leadership prepared a reply to that comrade. Three CCMs vehemently opposed
the orientation contained in that reply. They felt it kills the revolutionary spirit
and revolutionary orientation of the whole timers and severely damages the
already spoilt revolutionary lifestyle. Three rounds of secretariat discussions could
not finalise that reply. Ultimately GS attended and gave his suggestions to get it
finalised. Grudgingling AP PC approved it with a rider on it.

In the meanwhile an interview with Comrade Jonna Kotaiah was published in

Praja Pandha, majority of APPC and their followers created a great confusing
situation inside the party. Ultimately CC discussed that interview in an in depth
manner. CC gave its approval for most of its contents in that. CC said

...........................................................................................................................

4.69 CC issued its circular on ideals of party leaders in the end of 1998. Neither the
fourth circular of APPC nor the CC circular was implemented. CC could not dare
to take any steps to implement them which helped the rightist forces to thwart
the revolutionary orientation and spirit.. owing to this the revolutionary spirit and
orientation of the majority ranks of our party became collapsed which helped the
rightist forces.

4.70 CPI (ML) Punjab State Committee merged with CPI (ML) in 2000. At the time of
preparing the Congress documents, CC incorporated the agreed point in path
document. The rightist forces created a big noise both during CC discussions and
Congress discussions.

4.71 On self defense squads objections were raised by opponents of CC. CC had to
send a delegation to AP forest to know the situation. CC Minority and their
followers in the forest spoke against resistance struggle and self defense squads.
During the course of investigations many hurdles were created. CC could not do
anything on its investigations. Hence, comrades opposing their view had to face
severe criticism from various pretexts.

4.72 The opponents of the official line rightists while accusing others as pursuing
groupist activities have been acting as a die hard group. In the state conference
of 1996 rightists made severe remarks against CCMs. In district conferences PC
members acted against the CC resolution and in state conference CCMs acted
against the CC resolution. Before the 2004 Congress various district committees
and DCMs sent their opinions and written resolutions vehemently opposing the
constitutional amendments sent by the CC particularly on forming the CCC and
strategic area committees. These comrades including CCMs voted against these
amendments at state conference. In Adilabad district conference and its DC review
written and oral open criticism was made against CC and CCMs in 2004. All

67
 this happened before a CCM who differs with the CC. It is noteworthy that a
senior comrade and CCM who placed his alternative document at 1980
conferences and Congress and has been repeatedly placing his basic
amendments against the party documents time and again. Some other senior
comrades support most of his amendments and encourage their followers to
support his amendments that are fundamentally against the Party Programme
and Path.

4.73 At the time of constitutional amendments rightists organised it to wage a concerted

attack on the CC before 2004. CC had to withdraw its amendments after the
discussions in the state conferences. This gave a handle to the rightist forces
inside our party. Comrade VV attended to CC meeting only after the withdrawal
of the CC amendment for the constitution on revisionism. In the case of AIKMS
also he did the same thing. In 1984 when he was coopted to the PC he laid a
condition and did not attend to the PC for months together.

4.74 In the organizational affairs of Khammam our CC could not act properly. The CC
decision regarding Khammam tilted the balance of forces in AP in favour of
rightists and revisionist leadership of AP PC. The revisionist and rightist forces in
AP could get encouragement to divide the delegates to Conferences and
Congress. Thus the revisionist leadership utilised the CC’s role to win in the State
Conference in organizational matters. CCMs openly violated the CC’s decisions
before the CC observers, but CC could do nothing. All these and other matters
in AP and Bengal clearly show that politics and organizational matters go hand
in glove.

4.75 4) During 2004 Congress also some comrades placed basically many of their
age-old amendments to political resolution and POR. This parliamentary line
started as a mole in 1977 and developed as a mountain to-day. In 1980, 1992,
1996 they placed alternative documents and Cardinal amendments to
revolutionary line. In 1997 we held a special central plenum. Even after this
Comrade VV wrote an article on the occasion of ASF convention in Hyderabad,
preaching Interim Governments. CC could not do anything. Hence the AP PC
majority openly gave its parliamentary line through its election review 2004 and
wrote in it “Party should be registered for the election purposes”. The same
amendments came before the CC and Congress from AP delegates to the
Congress to register the party for election purposes.

4.76 In the name of factionalism in AP, they wanted to gain and win their rightist or
revisionist line in AP. For this they did every thing to abuse and mentally disarm
the CC supporters. On the other hand they have been using their majority in the
party machinery to conduct their factionalism for more than one decade. CC failed
to grasp the real cause which brought enormous organizational damage to the
CC line in AP, West Bengal and in some other places. After 1992 Congress
particularly after the 1996 congress the disease of AP differing comrades spread
to West Bengal on many issues. Opposition to CC is in majority in West Bengal
PC to-day. There is co-ordination between the opponents of CC liners both in

68
 AP and West Bengal PC. After Parliamentary and Assembly elections of 2004,
AP PC wrote one big para to fully orientate the state cadres in the direction of
parliamentarism. AP state committee thought of registering the party for election
purposes. During the 2004 Congress time they proposed the same amendment
in a different form. They opposed the amendment to Path on self-defense squads.

4.77 5) Some comrades submitted a great many amendments in written form apart
from what they submitted at the time of Congress. The tone and tenor and the
vehemence expressed by some CCMs, PCMs and some DCMs about the CC
amendments to Constitution is well known. The CC gave its comments on their
amendments to PR, POR, Path, Programme etc. and naturally they opposed some
of the cardinal amendments of CC.

4.78 Look at the CC comments against these comrades at the time of 2004:

A. On resistance struggle

Replying their criticism on CC, before 2004 Congress, it said “These comrades
who had a number of differences with the path document in 1992 Congress are
expressing their full agreement with that document now. But they are doing so
only to oppose the agreement with erstwhile Punjab PC, CPI(ML) which is totally
in line with the Path document, enriching it further. They have even gone back
on their agreement with the said document (only Comrade DVK had expressed
certain reservations in CC). (Page one of CC comments—2004)

In the CC meeting on May 29, 2002 one CCM Comrade Ravi said about the
self-defense squads in this way: “If other groups are not there, squads are not
necessary”....Squads are useful temporarily.” He held to this position even on
questioning comrades in squads. Not only that the same opinions were repeated
in July 3,2002 meeting after which CC decided to send a delegation to strategic
areas. This understanding was not limited to speaking in CC meeting.

AP State Review of 1996 had opined in clear terms “Were our organization alone
exist in this area, it would have facilitated to easily strengthen our base and
extended it through RCS itself. In the name of revolution various groups form
their squads to defame the revolutionary process, in general, and seriously
harming the development of mass movements. Thanks to this the importance of
the squads exists.” This approach is further illustrated by the following assertion
in the same review “Though it is not possible to firmly argue regarding the
existence of our squads we have to place our argument.”

These assertions show a firmly held position which is in no need of any smear
campaign. CC delegation had heard similar views from some commanders and
leaders during visit to strategic areas.(Ibid., page—2, para one)...... However, we
should guard against negating or diluting the role of squads which prepares
the ground for their disbanding. CC delegation during its visit had come to
know of the disbanding or withdrawal of squads from Palvancha area in 1992—

69
93 without the decision of any Party Committee. Whatever the conditions should
this not have been discussed in the Party Committees. These comrades have
maintained steady silence on this in CC meetings and even in their amendments,
not even admitting this lapse...... Secondly, we should be clear that CC has never
wavered in appreciation of the role of self-defense squads in Godavari Valley and
has maintained that their role cannot be played by AIKMS organizers.(Ibid,page-
2, para-3}

After the 2004 Congress, we lost weapons in Ellandu area, the weapons were
kept in a house. The squad members moving in villages in civilian clothes. The
comrade who volunteered to stay with the squads does not regularly stay with
the squads. Most of the time he stay out side the area. He stays in Khammam.
He never issue any statement in his name. He get the statement issued through
another comrade. When police caught him in the town he said that he was legal
and got rid off. After he was arrested in border area after a murder he was let
off in the second day. Finally he surrendered to the court without the knowledge
of any committee. One important comrade was arrested when he was sitting in
a legally held political class with his weapon. He was released on bail soon. One
more senior commander was arrested and released on bail soon. He was made
as the AIKMS district leader without the knowledge of either the strategic
committee or the concerned higher committee.This is how the PC leadership
(differing leaders) is protcting the self-defence squads!

B. Present Situation and preparatory stage for Armed Struggle:

CC commented in this way: “.........Coming to the assessment of present

situation of agrarian revolutionary movement,... These comrades avoid posing
these questions to themselves perhaps for the fear of upsetting their
calculations for fullest development of parliamentary and legal struggles.
They talk of people’s upsurge but that is obviously not dependent on us alone.
Revolutionaries should be happy at the upsurge and ready to utilize them but
they avoid saying what to do if such an upsurge does not come about, nor they
assert that such upsurges are taking place. The only conclusion from their
assertion is to wait for them, and in the meantime, concentrate on legal and
parliamentary forms of struggles.(Ibid., p—3,para-3)

“........In the AP state election review they have equated Indian Parliamentary
democracy with “all other bourgeois democracies.” Their underlying
thinking as it comes through the amendments is that India being like other
bourgeois parliamentary democracies, preparation entails mainly legal and
parliamentary struggles. They subscribe to the view of movement going
through unarmed, peaceful, legal and parliamentary phase leading to the
phase of armed overthrow of the state of ruling classes. It is not accidental
that in their election review they could say “we should utilize parliamentary
democracy to develop people’s revolutionary movement with democratic
consciousness in a gradual manner to develop the people, revolutionary
movement to higher level and to take it to the level of armed struggle and thereby

70
 achieve the victory of revolution as well. ”The parliamentary orientation has
been clearly expressed. It is because of this common orientation that those who
negate resistance struggle find themselves in agreement with those diluting it,
making it almost like any militant movement............These comrades unable
to deny the self-defense measures, want to dilute them.

C. On Ideals..........

Similarly these comrade are distorting facts on Jonna Kotaiah’s interview.......CC

had opined that ideals upheld in that Interview were broadly in conformity
with the traditions of communist movement. CC also pointed some points
on which the interview took wrong positions. regarding organization part of
printing of interview, CC did not decide......(Ibid., p-7,para-5)

D. On Stagnation:

“........These comrades see the way to break through the stagnation through
forming election alliances.”

E. On political differences:

“......any talk of CPI,CPM cutting of their links with other ruling class parties is
even otherwise out of place with these parties are sustaining the Central Govt.,
and implementing anti-people policies in the states ruled by them. These parties
are the main pillars of the Central Govt...their nominee is the speaker of
Lok Sabha, their nominees are adorning the various committees and bodies.
They are part of the power structure at the Centre on the basis of Common
Minimum Programme with Congress and other parties while some of our
comrades want to propose another CMP to them.”

“Moreover these comrades have gone overboard in paying compliments to

CPI,CPM. “CPI and CPM are opposing US imperialism and its aggression in
policy and practice. They are opposing World Bank, IMF and WTO; policies. They
are opposing new economic and industrial policies. They are opposing
communalism. They are opposing anti-labour policies of the past and present
Governments. They are demanding land reforms to be implemented.”(P.36 of
Y,X,Z) Even leaders of CPM, CPI may blush at these wholesome compliments.
Needless to say that these compliments are misplaced and wrong as is clear
from the description in Political Resolution.”

4.79 Proximity of theories and views of CPI, CPI(M) and the differing comrades of
CPI(ML)ND:

Compare the proximity of political and ideological views between the revisionists
and rightists inside our Party and the CPI and CPM and other revisionists:

71
The Path and Programmatic Items of CPI:

4.80 Nature of the Indian Society: India got independence in 1947. CPI opines India
is a capitalist country. National Bourgeoisie is the leader of the Indian State and
it is leading the Indian government as well. The influence of the monopoly
capitalists over the government is there on the government and the entry of the
landlords in to the government is admitted by the national bourgeoisie.

4.81 The Stage of the Indian revolution is national democracy. The national bourgeoisie
is fighting against imperialists, Indian monopoly capitalists and big landlords. So
we should form a united front with this section of bourgeoisie to fulfill the anti-
imperialist, anti-monopoly big bourgeois and big landlord tasks.

4.82 The path of revolution during this stage is united front with the national bourgeoisie
and conduct parliamentary form of struggle. It also opines that extra parliamentary
struggles of the party and mass organisations should also subscribe to the main
form of struggle i.e.parliamentary struggle. This was broadly the understanding of
the CPI in1964. Until 1964 the would be CPI leadership fully carried the policies
of Nehru on their shoulders. After the split it fully supported Indira Gandhi in all
matters upto 1975 emergency period. It supported the 1975 emergency rule
imposed by Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India.

4.83 It joined the united front government led by Congress in Kerala. It supported all
the five year plans of Nehru and Indira Gandhi and 20 and 25 point programmes
of Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi. After 1977 it started supporting the Big
Bourgois, Big Land lord parties which are comprador in nature. CPI has been
treating these parties as national Bourgeoisie in nature and land lords having
strong hold in the State Power. They joined UF government at centre taking
important berths like Home and Agrculture. The breakaway section of CPI led by
Dange continued its old stand of supporting the Congress whatever might have
happened. It took the stand of live and die along with the Congress. CPI has
been a ‘LDF’ partner in Bengal for the last 30 years. Recently it was part and
parcel of CMP along with CPM for helping the UPA government at Centre led by
Congress(I). While changing its policies in favour of the ruling classes, ultimately
the CPI itself has become a ruling class party in India. Since 1978 Dange splitting
from CPI became a godfather to Indira Gandhi.

The Understanding of CPI(M) on Programme and Path:

4.84 The united CPI split tookplace in 1964. Until then many leaders of CPI(M) used
to oppose some national and international policies of CPI leaders. After 1964 they
adopted a programme in the 7th Congress. According to this policy CPM also
felt that India got Independence in 1947. The Indian state is in the hands of big-
bourgeois—landlord classes. Big bourgeoisie is the leader of this alliance. CPM
feels Indian big bourgeois has monopoly character like imperialist bourgeoisie.
Stage of the revolution is people’s democratic one. Whatever they may say they
feel now big-bourgeoisie is converting the country into a capitalist country. Hence

72
 capitalism has developed in agriculture. While saying so, they gave the slogan
of “land to the tiller” with gratis. They did not adopt their path at 7th congress.
After a few years in the background of 1967 elections and Naxalbaari armed
peasant struggle they made certain ostensible changes in their policies.

4.84 With the party’s victory in Kerala in 1957 elections and the party coming to power,
“the Kerala Road” came forward during united CPI days. Likewise with the CPM
victories in Kerala and Bengal in 1967, its leadership brought forward “The Road
of Kerala and Bengal” . In fact the parliamentary path orientation was there in
the CPM programme of 1964 itself in the form of approving to form state level
governments through elections. On the one hand they preached about the need
of waging people’s democratic revolution and on the other hand they preached
the formation of state level governments through elections. With the party split in
1968 and in the background of Communist revolutionaries left the party, CPM
leadership brought forward “the Kishan Document” to hoodwink their cadres.
While maintaining their LDF government in Bengal and Kerala for many years,
this party became fully a parliamentary party and a ruling class party particularly
after 1977.

4.85 Imperialists and the Indian ruling classes have fully understood the real nature
of CPM through its policies and massacres of Naxalites in Bengal, and through
its fascist repressive methods and policies against CR’s in the country. There
came an opportunity for CPM leader to become the Indian Prime Minister. It
missed that 'golden' opportunity. One section felt very very sad over this. Therefore
after this it cleared its road through its Congress at Thiruvanathapuram. It decided
that it can form or participate in Central government through elections. It also
removed the clause that “land to the tiller” by taking lands of the landlords and
distribute among the peasants with "gratis". Instead it decided to buy the lands
of the landlords and distribute them to the peasants. It is nothing but completely
a reformist line which the other big Bourgeois, Big Land lord parties have already
been preaching in the country. Having made these changes it became a partner
in CMP of UPA government led by Congress(I). Where is the question of CPM
waging a people’s democratic revolution after it took the road of forming central
government through elections, and removing the clause from its programme i.e.
distribute the lands of the landlords to the landless with gratis?.

4.86 From 1950’s particularly after 1964, CPI had been a close ally of congress up to
1977. after that it changed its policies to make friendship with the ruling class
opposition parties. Both CPI, CPM supported the TDP up to 2002 and then
shifted to support the Congress. Both these parties supported Chandrababu
Naidu & Y.S. Raja Sekhara Reddy who were implementing the world bank dictated
policies, while supporting these two leaders orally and making nominal
amendments to their bills and GO’s. Both these parties took number of seats in
different subcommittees and the CPM’s erstwhile opposition leader in parliament
took the berth of loksabha speakership. Just before the 2009 elections these
two parties left the congress led UPA and started supporting ruling class opposition
parties.

73
4.87 Their roles in supporting congress led state governments, opposition led state
governments, opposition led UF Central Govt., UPA led Central Govt., and their
united role the LDF led Bengal for more than 32 years clearly exposed their true
colours. Thus these two parties are hoodwinking the people and became as full
fledged ruling + parties as our party termed them in 1997 central plenam. In 1967
they used Police and Army against the Naxalbari peasantry. The socalled left front
government in West Bengal tried its best to implement the pro-imperialist, pro-
multinational and pro-comprador SEZ policies in Nandigram and Singur. People
were killed and fascist repression was let loose against the peasants to forcefully
take their agricultural lands. Hence the LDF government in West Bengal was
defeated in the recent elections after 32 years rule of CPI,CPM. In Kerala their
LDF government was also defeataed because of corruption and infighting of the
CPM leaders.

4.88 Both CPI and CPI(M) opine that India got Independence. With shades of
difference both the parties opine Indian ruling classes are distributing the land to
the peasants through their “land reform” acts. Both the parties opine that
capitalism in agriculture had developed in India. Both the parties feel that India
became capitalist country. Both the parties feel only remnants of feudalism is
there in India. Both the Parties hide the comprador nature of Indian bourgeoisie.
CPI gives national bourgeois character and anti-imperialist character to the Indian
big-bourgeoisie whereas CPM gives independent and anti-imperialist character to
the Indian big-bourgeoisie which is beaurocratic and comprador in nature with the
pretext of monopoly nature of the Indian big-bourgeoisie. Both the parties uphold
that India got independence; Indian ruling classes are developing capitalism in
Agriculture and developing the country as a capitalist one; Both these parties are
serving the imperialist countries. Both of them uphold parliamentary path and
became ruling class parties. The experience of these two parties fully proves that
those who take the orientation of our country became independent in 1947 and
capitalism in agriculture invariably go to the path of election politics whatever they
may say about the stage of the revolution, who leads the alliance, “land to the
tiller” etc. One who thinks that our country got independence, our country has
become capitalist country cannot and will not go for the line of New Democratic
Revolution, as the experience of Indian communist moment proved.

Revisionism inside the CR camp including our Party:

4.89 The Immediate Programme of APRCP in 1969 and the 1970 Congress programme
of CPI(ML) clearly said that India did not get independence in 1947. India is
semi-colonial and semi-feudal country, Indian big bourgeoisie is comprodor in
nature, the stage of the Indian evolution is new democratic one and the path of
Indian revolution is people’s war path wherein agrarian revolution is the axis;
Imperialism,comprador beucratic capitalism and big landlords are the enemies of
the Indian revolutionetc. In this background “Boycott of Elections” slogan was also
given. Hundreds of revolutionary leaders and cadres belonging to different CR
organisations became martyrs. Dozens of common people were killed in fake
encounters. Lakhs of people became targets of state’s fascist repression. Due to

74
 the fear of fascist repression and setbacks of revolutionary movements like
Naxalbari and Srikakulam, Mushahari, Lakhimpoor – Kheri, Unnao – Debra –
Gopivallabhpur. By the time of 1975 emergency somany leaders and cadres
went back from the revolutionary work and somany became the agents of
governments and brought enormous losses to the movement. Before and during
the emergency wrong, rightist and revisionist ideas started coming up among the
CR camp including our party. As we mentioned earlier such ideas became a
problem in Hyderabad and other places. If we go through the suggestions and
criticisms given by the CPC to the leaders of the then CPI (ML) during their
interviews, it is clear that the basic orientation and the path chosen by the CPI(ML)
were correct.

4.90 Just before the ‘77 parliament elections our party revoked the slogan of “boycott
of election ." With this the rightist and revisionist ideas hiding inside the CR
camp came out. Seeds of revisionist election tactics started cropping up in the
name of election adjustments, alliances and election fronts with the ruling class
opposition parties and revisionist parties i.e. CPI and CPI(M). These revisionist
election tactics developed into a class collaboration line among some higher level
comrades. These ideas led to a split in our organisation in the beginning of 1980.
Immediately after the 1977 elections revisionist and rightist ideas consolidated in
our party with regard to the programme and path.

4.91 In our organisation the revisionist ideas like our country got ‘little independence’,
big bourgeoisie is the leader for the alliance of imperialism-comprador beurocratic
big bourgeoisie and big landlords; Big bourgeoisie developing capitalism in
Agriculture and the politics of parliamentary path came out. Under the leadership
of Comrade CP such revisionist politics were defeated in 1980 Congress. However
after the 1980 Congress a sharp ideological and political struggle could not be
waged against the revisionist politics due to various reasons. These ideas further
spread inside our party since 1984 split. The 1985 merger added fuel to these
ideas. Before the 1992 Congress some hidden efforts were made to throw the
baby with the bath water in the name of amending and concising the 1980
Congress programme. But CC did not agree to change any basic idea contained
in that programme except some repetation of ideas. Hence they created so much
disturbance in the organization. However, on the principal contradiction serious
discussion tookplace at the time of 1992 Congress.

4.92 There has been a dogged fight against the orientation of politician resolution
approved in 1980 Congress. CC could seriously fight against the wrong orientation
to the extent possible. 1992 Congress further developed the basic ideas contained
in the 1980 political resolution to further develop the revolutionary orientation of
the party. The path document was sharpened removing certain repetitions and
additions. In Short, the basic documents amended and approved in 1992
Congress and the political resolution basically continued the orientation of 1980
and 81 documents and enhanced the revolutionary orientation of the party despite
some CCMs (Com. SR Bhaijee, Moni Chakravarthy and P. Vasudeva Rao, who
were elected in the 1980 congress and some Bengal comrades (WB, PCS

75
 Kaushik, Pradeep Benerjee and Somanath etc., left the party just before the
congress in the name of achieving unity with the other two organisaations.
From 1985 to 1992 number of political and organizational headaches were
created to CC by these comrades of WBPC. They did not, in the main,
implement the CC decisions Bihar PC majority also followed these
WBPCMs.

4.93 In this background (only Com. YK, Chandram and Sadha Sarkar (CCMs from
old CC remained) some leaders with revisionist orientation were taken into
CC and in other committees during 1992 Congress. Comrade VV. CCM
placed his document of “Characterization of political parties in India” in
1994 itself. It dealt primarily election tactics and the united front tactics
during the course of new democratic revolution. CC did not approve that
note. Again before 1996 Congress the same orientation was brought again
in the name of amendments to political resolution for point no.2.66. In CC
while bringing amendments to political resolution “points for common
minimum programme” for having election front with revisionist parties was
also proposed. Not only that an amendment for the formation of government
through elections was also submitted. CC discussed and rejected these
amendment and hence they were kept in reservation. Not only that, Comrade
VV brought his amendment again on the “the development of capitalism in Indian
agriculture.” Wrong organizational methods were applied to propagate these ideas
and get it approved by the conferences and Congress. While explaining his only
one amendment he explained all their views contained in their alternative
documents in 1980 Conferences and Congress. Through this he explained
somany things praising the reforms of the ruling classes like CPI leaders did
before 1964 split. Look at them:

“..........Though feudalism was not abolished completely and the peasants have not got
the land but statutory intermediaries were abolished legally. Though, still land
concentration is continuing but considerable changes have taken place in land
relations. Five year plans mainly “irrigation projects”, “co-operative banks”. “co-
operative societies” “national rural development project” “intensive agricultural
project”, and particularly “green revolution”, which were introduced in 1960s and
other projects, which were introduced at different times such as “white revolution”,
“blue revolution”, “small and poor peasants development projects”, “waste land
development project”, “Dry area land
development project”, “different social welfare schemes of SC, STs”, “integrated
tribal development project”, “20 points programme” and finally the new economic
policies and joining into W.T.O. as a member state after accepting Dunkel
proposals and as a part of this, the Central government recently introduced “new
agricultural policy”… all these policies have weakened feudalism considerably.
Capitalism developed considerably in some areas it developed to certain extent
only and feudal mode of production is prevalent in most parts of the country.”

4.94 In 1996, CC made the following comments about comrade VVs above
understanding in the following way:

76
 “........It is needless to say that Comrade VVs amendment seeks to change the
basic orientation of party programme. His views bear striking resemblance to the
views of CPM leadership.

“.......And thus in one blow he has struck off the imperative need of agrarian
revolution to make India throw off the yoke of imperialist exploitation and feudal
oppression. Also discarded even if impliedly agrarian revolution as the PRIMARY
TASK whatever Comrade VV may say about striving to “abolish landlordism in a
revolutionary way”. Comrade VV opines that through land reforms of the ruling
classes “considerable changes have taken place in the land relations”. He does
not mention as to what “considerable changews” he has in mind other than those
included in the CC proposal. This vagueness creates illusions about the land
reforms of the ruling classes and creates doubts about the slogan “land to the
tiller”.

“...........To him, even the latest offensive of the imperialist powers, the formation
of WTO based on the infamous Dunkel proposals, is also contributing to the
capitalist development of the country”

“Comrade VV’s amendment is not only incorrect but also seeks to change the
orientation of party programme of fighting imperialism and feudalism as the two
most important oppressors of the Indian people, its charactgerisation of society
and principal contradiction, and is thus incompatible with its present orientation.”

4.95 In the course of Congress discussions one Bengal leader who was arguing that
principal contradiction was between feudalism v/s broad masses of the Indian
people supported the amendment on “capitalist development in Indian agriculture.”
On this amendment voting also was teken in state conferences particularly in A.P.
Conference Wonderful methods applied by the supporters of this amendment.
However it was defeated Funny thing at the 1996 Congress was that the mover
of the amendment comrade VV did not vote for his amendment at all India level
having forced the debate on that amendment from lower level conferences to
All India level Congress. Almost all the important amendments of the opponents
of CC line were defeated by the state Conferences and all India Congress in
1996. All these amendments were nothing but rightist and revisionist in nature.
Despite this while electing the committees we could not properly elect the CCMs
in accordance with the orientation of the Congress line. All the senior opponents
to the Congress line were again taken into the new CC.

4.96 After the Congress a Special Central Plenum was held in 1997 to finalise the
parties attitude “on the characterization of political parties in India”. One Bengal
CCM Comrade Thakur and one AP CCM Comrade VV gave their alternatives to
the CC document. Elaborate discussions took place and CC document was
adopted by the Central Plenum by a big majority. But the followers of CC
opponents from AP and West Bengal etc. voted against the CC document. In
accordance with their revisionist ideological and political orientation, they wanted
to dampen the revolutionary spirit of the ranks with regard to ideals and sacrifices.

77
 In a reply to a PCM of AP some earstwhile CCMs Comrades VV,DVK and Ravi
brought some wrong views with regard to ideals and sacrifices. Prolonged and
serious discussion took place in AP PC and it could be finalised with the help of
the then General Secretary Comrade YK. After this CC at length discussed about
the revolutionary ideals and the Interview of Comrade Jonna Kotaiah published
in Prajapandha(Telugu Fortnightly). CC brought out its Circular on “communist
ideals, sacrifices etc” in October 27, 1998. However these documents on ideals
and sacrifices could not be implemented by our party until to-day due to internal
problems. This situation helped to further the growth of rightist and revisionist
forces inside the party. It gradually corroded the revolutionary zeal, spirit,
sacrificing nature and revolutionary commitment of our ranks in a big way.

4.97 Before the 2004 Congress, discussions started in 2002 on CC documents(drafts)

to Congress. Disputes started regarding the self-defence squads in Godavari
Valley. The Opponents of CC line inside the CC did not agree on certain points.
Hence CC had to send a delegation to the strategic areas. During the course
of CC delegations visit to strategic areas, some leaders and cadres expressed
their opinions against the squads and resistance struggle. Surprisingly the
opponents who were also part of the deligation itself obstructed to ask certain
questions regarding the self-difference squads. Neverthless, it submitted a report.
But no use. CC incorporated a point regarding self-defense squads as agreed at
the time Punjab Committeee of CPI(ML) merger with CPI (ML) New Democracy.
An indepth discussion tookplace in Congress over the process and the orientation
of resistance struggle and self-defence defence squads becoming into guerilla
squads. This was approved by the Congress but it was not accepted by the
opponents of party line. Before the congress at the time of joint agreement with
Panjab committee of CPI(ML), One Leader of the opponents Comrade Ravi first
accepted the self defense part while signing the joint note with Punjab Committee.
But later on the changed his position and joined in the chorus of opponents. One
amendment to the Party Constitution regarding the supervising role of CC in
strategic areas was placed before ranks but the same was not accepted by the
opponents and their followers both at state conference and in Congress. CCM’s
opposing the CC amendments voted against CC amendments in AP State
conference against the mandate (resolution) of CC. At the time of 2004 Congress
also they submitted some amendments (particularly on election tactics and joint
actions) to political resolution and POR in the CC meeting during Congress and
they were rejected by the Congress. AP state election review brought forward
fully a parliamentary line against the party line on elections. In the same review
they wanted to register the Party for the purposes of election. It was not approved
by the Congress.

4.98 The PCC, CPI (ML) led by Nandi and Rana took anti—Stalin and pro-imperialist
NGO line. It is still continuing with the same line. Comrade Kanu Sanyal took
pro—China line (China is a Socialist Country). CPI (ML) Liberation claims that it
adopted the 1964 line of CPI(M). The revisionists inside our party never withdrew
their amendments of of 1980, 1994,1996,1997 and 2004 Congress and never
expressed their self-criticism either before the Committees or before the Party

78
 ranks. Their programmatic understanding on “1947 transfer of power” as
independence, “capitalism in agriculture” on “parliamentary path” and “united front”
and “joint actions” are akin to CPI and CPI(M). Their understanding regarding big
bourgeois leading the state and government is akin to CPM. With regard to
ruling class reforms the views of CPI, CPM and the views of these opponents
are more or less the same.

4.99 The wrong trends, deviations cannot be treated as “Isms”. But the theories and
views brought by the opponents of CPI (ML's) basic documents for the last 30
years are not merely trends inside the CR camp. These trends and deviations
have been growing and consolidating themselves for more than 30 years. Now
they have developed into “Isms”. Owing to this we call a few of the opposing
comrades as revisionists:and the rest as rightists or right deviationists. And call
their views and theories as revisionism and right deviationist inside CPI (ML)ND.
Therefore the entire rank and file of our party should fight against their views
ideologically, politically and organisationally to prevent the further spread and
strengthening of revisionism, right deviationists inside our party. We appeal to the
party ranks to defeat the rightist and revisionist views and revisionism to advance
our resistance struggle into armed struggle.

Some Important Negative & dangerous Developments inside CPI(ML)ND

5.1 The differences started soon after the 1980 congress on 13 years AP review.
These differences on this review, in the main, split the party first at AP and then
at CC level after the death of Comrade CP the then General Secretary of our
Party in 1984. The CC divided into 4:4. The differences arose again since 1984
in A.P. PC particularly since 1989 AP Plenum. The CC level political differences
after 1985 merger gave scope for the growth of rightist and revisionist trends up
to 1990 in AP, Bihar and West Bengal PCS’.

5.2 Our party could not take proper organizational steps to prevent the growth of
rightist trends along with ideology and politics. Hence rightist trends became
revisionist trends and they became as revisionism to-day inside our party.
Organizational steps or changes should be in accordance with the political and
ideological line of the party congress. Since the 2004 Congress the majority of
AP and West Bengal state committees are against accepted line of the party. In
AP majority members of 4 or 5 DCs like Khammam, Nizamabad and Adilabad
are against the accepted line. No corrective steps were taken by the CC to make
the organizational structure in tune with the line of the party Congress. Hence
the already disturbed situation has been continuing in various ways. We should
keep politics in command as great teacher Mao taught us. Politics cannot stand
in the air. To defend and protect the revolutionary politics, there should be a
revolutionary organizational structure. without that revolutionaries would have
nothing to fight on behalf of the people.

5.3 At the time of 1986 political resolution some CCM’s opposed the election tactics.
These CCMs continued their differences upto 1992. Overwhelming majority of
West Bengal State Committee Members and one section of Bihar State Committee

79
 members continued their fight against the CC on one or the other issue. Some
CCMs supported the opposition role of West Bengal and Bihar state committee
members. Upto 1992 genuine unification did not come. This opposition is contrary
to the merger agreement. Upto 1990 on many occasions these comrades were
differing with the CC. On joint actions also these comrades were differing with
the CC. On many issues West Bengal committee majority had been fighting
against the CC as a parliament opposition. Created number of hurdlles both
politically and organizationally with the pretext of unity of CRs. Chanting the
MANTHRAS of unity of CRs, one batch after the other left the party. In 1989
exclusively a Central Plenum was held to discuss the CRs unity. A seperate
document on CRs unity was passed by the plenum. This could not save the
West Bengal leaders. This sitution helped for the growth revisionist trends. CC
could not control this situation. In this process West Bengal comrades opposed
the unity line of the party. They opposed Mao-tse-tung thought and wanted to
replace it with thoughts of Mao. The disturbance occured in the 1989 unity plenum
helped to the liquidators. After this number of PCMs and some important CCMs
left the party and took part in the seven party unity effort.

5.4 From 1992 one section of Bengal PCMs continuously takig rightist politics. One
important leader of the PC took the line of capitalisam in agriculture and revisionist
election tacticts. Thus the politics of AP PC majority and Bengal committee
majority became a block against the central committee to-day. We could see this
development in Beliathod while we were forming the AICCPO All India Convention.
These leaders and some committees are fighting for their dominance to have
their political line instead of congress line on every occasion. This is the danger
of rightism or revisionism inside our party existing to-day.

5.5 West Bengal comrades who have been upholding the rightist and revisionist
trends left our organisation. They either joined ruling class parties or taking funds
from imperialist agencies while continuing revolutionary postures. This is the fate
of rightist trends started both before and after the 1975 emergency. Our party
should seriously think over whether the politics and ideology of these persons
are different form CPI, CPI (M) and CPI (ML) liberation parties.

5.6 In AP the disunity among the pro—congress CCMs and PCMs since 1984 and
the repeated co-options of rightist ones into various party committees particularly
into PC’s and DC’s made the party a prisoner into the hands rightism or
revisionism. During the last 30 years the responsible higher committees and
leaders failed to prevent the entry of rightists and revisionist forcesssss into the
higher committees. Hence the growth of rightist and revisionist trends inside our
party. Due to all these reasons revisionism has been growing and it has become
a real threat to-day inside our party both ideologically, politically and
organizationally.

5.7 We should grasp utmost importance of ideological and political struggle to prevent
the danger of class collaboration and revisionism. Our 13 years Basic Lessons
taught about this in the following:

80
 “Experoence has shown us that whenever a wrong trend, left or right deviation
or even class collaboration raises its head inside the Party, we should carry on
a fierce ideological and political struggle against it by thoroughly exposing these
wrong trends before all the Party members and involve them in the two-line
struggle.

“Experience has taught that in the course of the two-line ideological struggle, our
party members and cadres are educated in the basic teachings of Marxism-
Leninism-Mao Zedong Thougt.

5.8 Stressing the need of the unity of our party, basic lessons combined the unity
aspect with the basic agreement on Basic Documents. It said in the following
way:—

They should not take any hasty steps to split the Party, when there is basic unity
on Programme, Tactical Path and New Democratic Revolution. It is wrong to
split the Party on the basis of political differences of a day to day nature. At
such a time we should observe democratic centralism and implement the majority
decisions, while continuing a principled struggle against wrong trends.

5.9 our basic lesson teaches us about the link between revisionism and factionalism
in the following way:-

“The line of class collaboration and revisionism is always linked with

factionalism85”

5.10 About the Class collaboration of Nandi and others and AP comrades, basic
lessons categorically mentioned in this way:

“....all Party Committees including the CC finally helped the Party to decisively
defeat this line of class collaboration and the line of dissidents, which is nothing
but—Nandi line in disguise....”In the name of democracy, — and Nandi combine
demanded full freedom to go anywhere they liked to preach their revisionist
policies. The PCC firmly laid down the rules of internal discussions on the
basis of written documents.”

___Comrade CP described the nature of the alternative document that came

before the 1980 Congress in the following way:-

“In essence their ideologies and political line is only the political line and ideology
of neo-revisionists. If we implement their political line the result would be only
implementation of neo-revisionists’ political line.”

” Their line is a alternative line to PCC line, hence I appeal to reject. I appeal to
save the unity of the Party. I appeal to advance forward the revolutionary
movement.”

81
 5.11 Since 1975 emergency particularly after the emergency from 1977 onwards
rightist and revisionist trends are there in many places but revisionism has been
there in certain places. However, during the last 32 years period the rightist trends
have become revisionist trends and revisionist trends have developed as a line
i.e Revisionism. New rightist trends are cropping up and new revisionist trends
are developing and they are becoming as revisionism. This is the existing situation
inside our Party to-day. However, some comrades belonging to different level
committees are terrified and scared to face this fact. Instead of calling a spade
a spade, they are acting and thinking otherwise. We feel there is revisionism and
revisionists inside our Party. Hence, we should investigate and find out whether
there is revisionism and revisionists inside our party or not. If there is no
revisionism and no revisionists, it is well and good. In case there is revisionism
and revisionists, we have to think of what kind of ideological, political and
organizational steps should be taken against revisionism and revisionists.

5.12 To think if we name certain persons as revisionists, we have to expel them and
in that case party would split is nothing but undialectical approach for building a
Bolshevik Party. Thinking in this way and closing one’s eyes to see the existing
realities is not proper. A Dr. gives medicine to cure the patient. He gives the doses
in accordance with the level of the disease. If the patient dies Dr. says bury the
deadbody or burn the deadbody. Like the Dr. treats a patient, party committees
at all levels also have to act with regard to rightists, revisionists and revisionism.
Otherwise deadbodies stink and spoil the health of near and dears. In the same
way revisionism also spoils the health of the party in various ways and harm the
revolution and revolutionary struggles of different kinds. Therefore we should not
swayed away by the sentiments or ideal notions with regard to our struggle against
revisionism or revisionists or against any wrong trend inside the party. Let us
fight against revisionism and revisionists in accordance with the teachings of
great teachers and the experiences gained by the international communist
movement.

5.13 We also narrated and quoted from CC comments how rightist trends grew into
revisionist and revisionist trends grew into reviusionism. We also mentioned the
organisational weakness of higher committees in preventing the growth of such
trends.

Our opinions on CC document "Practice Marxism, not Revisionism"

6.1 Upto now we have explained how revisionism emerged in the in the
Internaational Communist Movement and How the great teachers fought
against it. Now we are giving our concrete opinions on the CC document.
Look at the following points:-

6.2 In 4th page scond para CC document quoted Lenin in the following way:

`"Taking from Bernstein's catch-phrase "The movement is everything, the

ultimate aim is nothing" Lenin exposed its opportunist conduct "to sacrifice

82
 these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment-
such is the policy of revisionism.........even though it changes the basic line
of development only to an insignificant degree and only for the briefest
period, will always inevitably give rise to one variety of revisionism or
another."

6.3 If we go through the movements from 1985 onwards we have been running
after holding Dharnas, rallies, GBs and public meetings in the main. But we
are not conducting the struggles on basic issues i.e. "Land to the Tiller"
which is the basic issue in the agrarian movement. In states like AP and
West Bengal senior leaders of our party feel that there is no land question
in these states as the land reforms were implemented by the governments
themselves. Even in our day to day struggles we are not propogating the
final aim of the party i.e.agrarian revolution is the axis in our NDR. Comrade
CP formulated "Four Principles of Struggle" for building the Adivasi
movement in AP Forest areas. We are not propogating them in our forest
areas since 1985. We are not propogaating the ultimate aim of our party
during the NDR. The opponents of CC also implementing the policy of
"movement is everything and the ultimate aim is nothing" policy which
Lenin opposed.

6.4 we are opposed to the implementation of 1/70 act in AP. Thereby we have left
left the land struggles against the non-tribal lands which run into lakhs of acres.
Therefore other NGO organisations and other parties penetrated into our forest
areas and trying to draw the tribals to their side. Our TU work is not taking place
in accordance with the principles laid down in the path document. Thus we are
implementing the policy of revisionism in some areas of our work.s

6.5 2) At number of places CC document mentioned "tendency" "trend" "deviation"

as one and the same. We think it is not correct. "Tendency" is the primitive
form of a "deviation". Whereas the "trend" is a developed form of deviation.
Persistant "deviation" becomes "ism" of any deviation. There should not be any
confusion on this. In our Party persistant right deviations are there for many years
on certain important issues like: 1. On Agrarian Sector (since 1980) 2. On election
alliances since 1977. 3. On United Front tactics. 4. On tactics of Joint Struggles
5. Our atttitutude towards the CPI and CPI(M) 6. On Land issue and on 1/70 act.
7. On Ideals, Sacrifices etc. 8. on maintaining regular armed self-defence squads
9. Resistance Struggle 10. On the nature of Indian Independence of 1947 11.
Leader of the Alliance of Imperialism-big comprador bourgeoisie and big landlords.
These were all the issues on which Communist revolutionaries fought against CPI
and CPI(M) i.e. revisionists and neo-revisionists. Hence we should call persons
who had and have been holding such views in a persistant manner as revisionists.

6.6 We opine "rightism", "right opportunism" and "revisionism" as one and the same.
likewise Rightists, Right Opportunists and Revisionists are one and the same.
Comrade Lenin termed "opportunism and reformism" as revisionism. Comrade
Mao used RIGHTISM AND REVISIONISM as one and the same. Likewise he

83
 used the words RIGHTISTS and REVISIONISTS as one and the same.

3. On page 12, para--3: CC document says in the following manner:

6.7 "Obviouslly in the course of criticizing the right deviation or right opportunism, it
is but natural that parallels will be drawn and similarities would be shown between
the positions taken by right deviationists and those of the revisionists. Such
parallels or similarities serve to hightlight the direction of their movement away
from the revolutionary line on the one hand and part of the attempts to convince
them to backtrack from such positions which take them closer to revisionists.
Drawing such similarities by themselves does not mean that they are identical; it
only serves as a warning of the direction of their movement away from the
revolutionary line."

6.8 We cannot agree with this argument of CC on this score. Which great teacher
used this kind criticizm equating right deviation with revisionism to warn and bring
back right deviatgionists on to the correct track? Which right deviationist came
back to the correct track with this kind of criticism during the period of comrade
Stalin and Mao? We never saw this kind of criticism and arguments in our party
life. Comrade CP made criticism against rightists or revisionist in 1980. He never
gave this kind of explanation. He also appealed to such persons to change and
correct their ideology and politics. But they never tried since 1980 to 2010. Our
CC also made Scathing criticism in 1996, 1997 and in 2004 and appealed to
change their political line and come to correct line of the party. It is already 13
and 14 years. Whether they changed a bit? If the CC feels that their views are
not revisionistic it should not make such criticism. Had the CC done so
inadvertently it should make self-criticism. Subterfuges would not help us in this
regard.

4. CC document explained the danger of right deviation in the following way:

6.9 "From Stalin and Mao's struggles against deviations, particularly right deviation,
it is clear that they were (not) underestimating their danger any less. They were
forthright that these deviations represented dangers to the Communist Parties
which could turn them into non-revolutionary parties, support of the ruling classes
and could lead to preparing conditions for the restoration of capitalism in socialist
countries..........

6.10 These dangers depicted by Stalin and Mao show clearly that right deviation is
not less dangerous. Tendency's development towards Policy needs only a fertile
ground, a slackening of ideological political struggle inside the Communist party
among other factors.

6.11 Revisionists who are the representatives of the bourgeoisie inside the party, try
to obstruct the onward march of revolution. They cleverly obstruct the revolution,
turn the balance of forces in their favour and capture the fortress from within.
In order to capture leadership, revisionists while pretending to support many basic

84
 things, try to blunt the cutting edge of class struggles and gradually turn the
situation in their favour......"

6.12 CC thinks that there is no revisiosm inside our Party only Right Deviationists are
there. Even if we agree that only right deviationists are there according to Stalin
and Mao their danger is not less at all. Comrade Stalin and Mao said if right
deviation grows Communist parties become non-revolutionary parties. What
organizational steps our CC had been taking to prevent the growth of right
deviationist forces inside our party since 1980, 1996,1997 and 2004? Whether
such right deviationist forces did not grow into revisionist forces inside our Party?
How the growth of these forces spead from AP to West Bengal etc.? To-day in
AP and West Bengal right deviationist and revisionist forces occupied the leading
position. CC document did not at all mention what orgqanisational steps the
CPSU(B) and Stalin or CPC and Mao took to prevent the growth of Right
Deviationists and Revisionists in their countries? If CC gives some details at least
it would be helpful for understanding their fight against such forces in
organizational arena.

6.13 5) CC document on "Practice Marxism, Not Revisionism" quotes from Stalin and
Mao about keeping "politics in command" and not "organisation in command." In
fact, this is the crux of the dispute inside our CC for many years. CC document
explained its version in the last para of page--14. Look at the para completely:

"As the inner-party struggle is a reflection of the class struggle going on in the society,
it is incorrect to exclusively focus on the individuals and not on the line and its
content, its class roots and its effect on the revolutionary orientation of the Party,
Stalin warned, "These comrades , who in discussing the problem of Right
Deviation concentrate on the questions of individuals representing the Right
Deviation are also wrong....Indivividuals, of course, play some part, nevertheless,
the question is not one of individuals, but of the conditions, of the situation, giving
rise to the Right danger in the Party." (Vol.11,p.232-233) Mao too in the struggle
against revisionism and right oppiortunism and for continuing the revolution,
repeatedly exhorted to "keep politics in command" and not "organisation in
command". In fact revisionists themselves sought to propogate the latter in the
initial stages of GPCR. By keeping politics in command, the line of the rightists
remains at the centre and they are not able to resurrect the same line with different
persons as so often happens and secondly and more importantly the struggle
inside the Party is a reflectiion of the class struggle in the society and hence
primarily not a question of individuals. If we are to keep organisation in command
it will result in organizational maneuverings, tie-ups and factional groupings while
blurring the political distintions between revolutionary Marxism and rightism-
revisionism whcih cannot but work to the latter's advantage inside the communist
party."

6.14 We think that in the above para of CC document completely distorted the situation
inside our Party. We have been waging ideological, political and organisataional
struggle against the right deviationists, class collaborationists and the revisionists

RI85
 since 1977. None of us who have been fighting against such forces said that we
should keep "Organisation in Command" rather we have been steadfastly
demanding that "Politics should be in Command". We feel that while keeping
"politics in command" we whould also pay close attention to keep our organisation
in accordance with politics in command and we should not keep revisionists in
higher committees. Not only that even comrades with right tendencies or right
trends who were either dropped or relieved should not be taken back into higher
committees without proper self-criticisms. As far as we knew neither CPSU(B) or
Stalin nor CPC or Mao did take such elements into the higher committees without
their self-criticisms. Counterposing "keep politics in command" with "keep
organisation in command" is nothing but distortion of the views of those who
oppose the CC document.

6.15 Through Comrade Stalin's quotation it is brought to our notice that individuals, of
course, play some part, neverthless, the question is not one individuals, but of
the conditions, of the situation, giving rise to the Right danger in the party. Those
who have been fighting against right tendencies, right trends, right deviation and
revisionism inside our party since 1977 never targetted any individual and never
exclusively focussed on any individual: Rather they have been waging struggle
against these rightist forces while keep the conditions and situation that gives
scope for the rise of Right danger in the party. On the contrary the right
deviationists and revisionists where they are in majority are targetting and
exclusively focussing pro-revolutionary line followers for all kinds of their attacks.
Are the pro-revolutionary liners targetting or focussing on the individuals? Not at
all. The fact of the matter is otherwise. The Rightist leaders are not individuals
to-day in our party. They are State Committee Secretaries, state secretariat
members, in-charges to DCs. They claim that they have been implementing the
principles of democratic centralism and educating the ranks in accordance with
the CC orientation. But the fact is that the majority of the PCs and DCs which
are under their leadership are against the Congress line. How it happened CC
should explain? So to say that anti-rightist leaders are either targetting the
individuals or exclusively focussing on individuals is totally incorrect. They are
fully against to target or exclusively focus any individuas in the party.

6.16 CC wrote "In fact revisionists themselves sought to propagate the latter(keep
organisation in command) in the initial stages of GPCR." We think this is incorrect.
As fafr as we knew that Revisionists were in majority in CC of CPC at the time
when GPCR was started. As revisioists were in majority Mao and Four leaders
of GPCR had to give the slogan of "Bomlbard the head quarters". We did not
know that revisionists propagated that "organisation in command". We knew that
they wanted to follow the Party constitution and principles of democratic centralism
thinking as they were in majority they could control the revolutionary forces inside
the CPC. While fighting revisionism comrade Mao concentrated his attack against
Liu Shao-chi and Deng Siao-ping. Could it be termed as targetting or exclusively
focussing any individuals? They were such individuals who kept the CC majority
of CPC and other committees under their revisionist party structure. Starting
fightging against these two individuals was absolutely necessary to prevent

86
 revisionism in CC of CPC otherwise Mao and others fight against revisionism
would have been a hoax.

6.17 6) CC document on "Practice Marxism, Not Revisionism" is filled with lot of

quotations from great teachers. There is no question of opposing the content
and spirit of these quotations. All these quotations were taken from the period of
pre-Kruschev and pre-GPCR. The coming of Kruschev clique to power in Soviet
Union and Post Mao periods gave different experiences. For more than 15 years
Trotsky fought political battles against the great teacher Lenin. However when he
opted to join the CPSU(B), it readily agreed for his request. As soon as he joined
he started his political games. After the death of Lenin he started his liberal
bourgeois politics. Mobilised some other CC members of CPSU(B). Created Right
Deviationist cliques inside the Party. So party had to expell him along with some
other revisionists. In China Wang Ming was forced to make self-criticism by his
friends. Ultimately he gave his self-criticism. With the initiative of Mao he joined
the CPC Central Committe in the Seventh Congress of CPC. What did he do
after that?CPC and Mao followed the same pattern and took back Deng in to CC
of CPC in 1975 who was thrown out from the CC accusing him as one of the
arch-capitalist roader and and revisionist. He was the GS of CPC before he was
thrown out from the CC, CPC. When he was reinstated he was given very very
important responsibilities both in Party, government and in army.

6.18 Soon after Mr.Deng's reinstatement he started his political games. Hence on the
instruction of Mao he was removed from CC, CPC and other responsibilities in 1976.
After the death of Comrade Mao he was again reinstated by Hua Guofeng and
others. All his earlier posts were given to Deng. As soon as he was reinstated1977,
he started tricks and started rehabilitaations of his earlier revisionist colleagues in
key posts of Party, Army and Government. Because of all these developments Hua
Guafeng himself had to resign from his responisibilities. Punishments were meted
to the Four leaders of GPCR. Fullsclae retrogressions intensified. Party became
revisionist and capitalist restoration tookplace in China. To-day China is a Capitalist
country. What lessons we should draw from the developments of Kruschev and
Deng's coming to power after the deaths of Great Teachers comrade Stalin and
Mao? These developments give us lessons that we should not restore revisionists
into higher committees? The experiences of CPSU(B) and CPC and our own
experiences categorically proved that restoration of revisionists and rightists of
different varieties is detrimental to the very existence of our party. CC majority through
their document "Practice Marxism, Not Revisionism.." tried their level best to teach
certain lessons on Marxist ideology, politics and organizational problems. We are
thankful for their efforts. We agree with their ideological and political part, but we
are sorry to say that we cannot agree with their organizational orientation. We think
that we should not mechanically apply the organizational approach of CPSU(B) and
CPC for post-Stalin and post-Mao organizational developments. The organizational
opportunities given to Trotsky in CPSU(B) and the opportunity given to Mr.Deng etc.
in China provided with a most painful lesson to the International Communist
Movement. Every Communist should keep this in their mind and try to apply the
teachings of great teachers to our concrete conditioons.

87
6.19 7. The CC majority document wrote in page--19: Para-2 in the following way:
Look at the following version:

"In this brief overview of the struggle inside the communist movement in the country, we
can see that firstly, at least since, the question of path has been of paramount
importance particularly path of peoples war vs parliamentary path; secondly, it could
not but be linked to changes in the programme i.e. on the character of Indian
society and identification of friends and foes and main force of the Indian revolution;
and thirdly it was also often linked to the ideological basis either formally or in its
interpretation or application to the concrete practice of our revolution."

6.20 On all these three points, the rightists and revisionists in our party though they
appear as supporting the path of peoples war yet in reality they propogate, preach
and implement the parliamentary path. These people differ with the party
programme on the nature of '1947 independence', "capitalism in agriculture", "big
bourgeois is the leader of the alliance of trio." "CPI and CPI(M) as strategic
friends," etc. On ideological issues also the differing persons have difference on
Chinese development and on Stalin. But they don't openly express this. Thus the
differing rightists and revisionists have completed their turn on thsese matters.
The CC majority has been taking their differences on different subjects seperately
instead looking at them as one bunch of items and drawing wrong conclusions
regarding the nature of their differences. They forget the important lesson learned
by the Communist Revolutionaries through their struggle against revisionism and
neo-revisionism. As we have already mentioned the present day revisionists in
our party are opposed to Palakollu document Which was the basis for CRs in
AP to come out from CPI(M). Likewise they are opposed to 1970 CPI(ML)
programatic points. We should notr forget the negative examples of CLI, CPI(ML)
Liberation and CPI(ML) Red Flag etc.

6.21 8. Look at the Cermons contained in the CC Majority document:-

"........While pointing out similarities between rightist positions advocated by some

comrades with positions of the revisionists on those issues, we point out the
direction of their movment departing from the revolutionary line so as to make it
cleaar to the ranks the impact of their positions and also to make them reconsider
their positions, if they are willing to do so."

6.22 In 1980 Comrade CP took the same approach and appealed to them to reconsider
and change their positions. They have thrown his appeal into a dustbin and have
been developing their theories. Once again in 1992 oral appeals were made from
the Congress dias by party general secetary. In 1996 a detailed discussion took
place from top to bottom and detailed CC Comment was issued. CC appealed
to reconsider their positions and change their views. This appeal was also thrown
into the dustbin. This appaeal was not observed by the ranks in AP and West
Bengal and lot of our ranks are joining hands with these right deviationists and
revisionists. This is the result we got with our pious appeals to the revisionists
and right deviationist elements in our party.

88
6.23 9) The majority CC document is blind to see the depth of the differences inside
our party. Hence it decided to teach wrong lessons and create wrong impressions
to the rank and file of our party. Are the differing comrades taking each aspect
seperately and terming it as revisionism? Is there no revisionism and right
deviation inside our Party? Look at the following para to know how the CC is
deceiving the rank and file:

6.24 "Here, we must deal with one more point. If every difference with any aspect of
the Party line is taken as revisionism, if every difference with the resolutions of
our Congresses, Plenums and Central Committee are to be taken as a
manifestation of revisionism, then, not only that it would be incorrect and
metaphysical understanding of the process of evolution of the Party line in course
of the practice of the revolutionary movement, it would also mean that all
organisations besides our Party would be treated by us as revisionists and the
question of unity with them as organisations will be ruled out. This does not
correspond to the objective reality of the revolyutionary communist movement in
our country. Moreover, it would also be against the resolutions of our party on
unity of Communist revolutionaries as those of the 1989 plenum on this subject
and resolutions of the subsequent Party congresses on the same issue. We
should not forget that we are only part of the communist revolutionary movement
of India and the task of building a single party of Communist revolutionaries is
still incomplete as enunciated even by our latest Party Congress in 2004."

6.25 The above big para contains some cermons and some mild threats to the differing
comrades on the existence of revisionism and right deviation inside our party. It
is mentioned in that para as if comrades picking difference of one aspect regarding
Congress, Plenum and central Committee's resolutions and terming it as
revisionism. As far as we knew there is nobody inside our party who is picking
only one aspect of different resolutions and terming it as revisionism. We term a
section of comrades as right deviationists and revisionists because of the following
reasons:

1. Before 1980 Congress when Nandi and others took the class collaborationist
line the leading comrades belonging to this section supported that line.

2. During the 1980 Congress the same comrades placed alternative documents
to Party Programme and political resolution.

3. They have been upholding those view from 1980 congress. After 1985
merger these comrades again started supporting the "defeat of the main
enemy in elections"

4. They have been fighting against the armed self-defence Squads in Godavari
valley.

5. 1992 they raised some issues on the floor of Congress.

89
6. 1994 one comrade submitted a document "on the characterization of political
parties in India" With this pretext all their old arguments were brougt for
debate. His document was supported by the majority of AP delegates to
Central Plenum held in 1997.

7. In 1996 Congress, they brought the most important issue "capitalism in

agriculture" i.e.Junker path for debate. CC made a powerful criticism and
comments on this subject. We gave its details already. In the name of
amendments to CC's POR one section of leaders and their followers from
AP and West Bengal opposed important items contained in the POR.
Comrade VV wrote a booklet on "International experiences on UF during
Russian and Chinese revolutions".

The orientation of this booklet was against the revolutionary line on NDR
and hence it was stopped. However education has been taking place in
accordance with this booklet in AP and W.Bengal.

8. During the preparatory stage of the 1996 Congress a section of CCMs from
AP Comrades DVK and VV proposed an amendment for a Common
Minimum Programme for election front. Not only that they proposed an
amendment for the formation of government through elections. A serious
debate tookplace both in the CC and in the 1996 Congress. At the end of
discussion they kept some important amendments in reservation. They are
still pending in reservation but that orientation is orally propagated. AP POR
passed by the state conference wrote a para defaming and devaluating the
existence of Armed Self Defence Squads in Godavari Valley. Central POR
rejected this orientation of AP POR on self-defence squads. But that
orientation is propagated unabatedlu among the ranks in some districts.

9. For discussing the agenda i.e. "Characterization of political parties in India"

CC conducted a Special Plenum 1997. On this occasion in the name of
explanation one section of comrades from AP and West Bengal wrote their
views in opposition to the CC line. Majority delegates from AP and West
Bengal voted against the official line. CC issued a detailed commentary
against the views submitted by differing comrades.

10. During discussion on political resolution and on amendment to path 2002,

one section of CCMs argued that the squad members and committees in
Godavari Valley feel that there is no need of Armed Self-Defence Squads.
CC did not agree with this statement and decided to conduct an enquiry on
this issue with the concerned committees. Report came contrary to their
statement. Majority comrades views in Godavari valley forest areas are in
line with majority CC.

11. One section of delegates from AP and West Bengal to 2004 Congress
opposed CC's amendment to the Path Document and opposed the CC's
explanation on Resistance Struggle contained in All India POR.

90
12. One section of CCMs gave their amendments to CC's amendments to
programme, path, political resolution and POR. CC also gave its detailed
comments in reply to their amendments and their explanation. In their
habitual way they gave some more amendments to political resolution etc.
during the 2004 Congress time. Hence CC could not give its comment on
these amendments.

13. In AP state conference almost 50% of delegates followed the differing CCMs
and voted against the CC's amendments particularly the amendment on A.
Unanimous election proposal at local elections B. Amendment on Strategic
Areas C. On Control Commission D. CC's amendment to Path etc.

14. One section of comrades both at state and All India level oppose to drop
certain comrades either from PC or CC. They adopted the policy of "keep
all of us in the Committee or drop all of us" One section of CCMs participated
in state conference voting contrary to the CC resolution. Likewise their
followers in PC participated in the DC conferences voting.

15. The section which had been opposing the official line demanding that
Delegation to the All India Congress should be in accordance with the
membership in each state. It happened before the 2004 Congress and before
2011 Congress also. However in such areas the UG cadres number is not
increasing. Number of whole timers is not increasing.Neither areas of
resistance are increasing nor the number of self-defence squad members
or weapons are increasing. But the number of party membership is growing
in thousands from congress to congress. Most funny thing in some districts
of AP is that movement remains in stagnation but the Party membership
grows year after year.

16. The opponents of revolutionary line in our party had been very very careful
in increasing their strength in committees and in delegations from congress
to congress. They had been harassing the comrades who support the CC
line and creating a peculiar situation whereby CC supporters would leave
the party by themselves. For example a section which had been the pillar
of CPI(MLD) ND in Nalgonda left the Party: A section which fought against
the opponents of CC in Hyderabad and elsewhere left the Party. The
opponents of CC and revolutionary line are not following the principles of
democratic centralism. The differing comrades in AP are showing favaours
to co-opt and promote their followers into different committees. They are
giving their own intrepretation for the principles of democratic centralism and
for party constitution.

17. Those who opposed the CC's amendments at the time of state conferences
and Congress did oppose the CC's strategic areas work plan too.

18. In 2004, after the Assembly elections AP,PC passed its election review. In
that review "the road to parliament was explained" and Registraation

91
 CPI(MLD)ND for the purpose of elections was proposed. An amendment in
this regaard was also placed before the Congress.

19. After the 2004 Congress CC passed a work Plan and sent to PCs. AP PC
majority opposed some key issues mentioned in the Work Plan. They spent
lot of time in discussions and debates. The CC sent one most important
resolution "Displacement Policy." PC discussed this resolution after 3 or 4
months. Surprisingly some PCMs including senior comrades expressed that
they did not go through it or thoroughly go through it. Ultimately the PC
majority opposed that resolution.

20. PC passed a resolution about Polavaram Project on river Godavari. Again

after 2 or 3 months PC discussed the same and passed a resolution diluting
the important aspects of the first PC resolution. After getting some criticisms
at all India level, CC became alert and passed a resolution opposing the
Polavaram project. Keeping the PC resolutions in mind, CC gave some
suggestions how to oppose the Polavaram Project on River Godavari.
Likewise CC reviewed the Seperate Thelengana issue and passed a
resolution but endless debates are going on on this vital issue while
expressing that despite our opposition we should firmlly implement the CC
resolution on Thelengana. We could not even submit our Party's Note on
Thelengana to the Sri Krishna Committee while engaging in endless
discussions in Secretariat.

6.26 We have given the above points only to show that the opposition of right
deviationists and revisionists is not on a single point of policy but their differences
encompasses on many points on each occasion: Not only that their opposition is
continuous and persistant for the last 30 years.Their difference appears on one
point but it covers many items of party programme, path, political resolutions and
policy resolutions. The right deviationists and the revisionists in our party learned
lessons from the past mistakes of their internal struggle and started playing tricks
with the party on the question of internal struggles. In 1980 they submitted their
complete alternative documents on Programme and political resolutions and were
defeated thoroughly by the state conferences and by All India Congress. From
then on they started the political war against the revolutionary party with their
'amendments'! Alas! Our CC majority completelly fails to see the indepth nature
aims and goals of the amendements submitted by the opponents of the
revolutionary line.

6.27 Therefore we earnestly request the CC to supply the CC's 1996,1997and 2004
comments to the party ranks so that they can understand the nature of ideological
and political lines of the right deviationists and revisionists in our party. We hope
that the CC majority would shed its metaphysical approach towards those who
have been fighting against all kinds of right deviationists and revisionists in our
party. We are opposed to call any CR organisaation outside our party as a
revisionist for simply having one or two policy difference with our organisation.
Hence the CC majority should not become scared on this score. We do not have

92
 any difference to call our organisation as a part of the whole CR movement in
India. Building a single revolutionary party in India is very much needed. Showing
this aspect to criticise others as having metaphysical approach is incorrect. Blind
belief towards right deviationists and revisionists is very harmful, dangerous and
detrimental for the very existence of our party---CPI(ML)ND.

6.28 10) CC majority document on "Practice Marxism, Not Revisionism" says:

"To preserve and develop the revolutionary orientation and line of the Party, it is
imperative to wage a consistent and relentless inner party struggle against right
and 'left' deviation, particularly against right deviation which is much bigger danger
at present. Differences can not be and should not be papered over but
systematically resolved through inner party struggle"

6.29 After this quotation part they also quoted what Engels and Mao taught on internal
struggle. Engels taught that in the long run the contradictions are never slurred
over, but always fought out. And comrade Mao said".....Dilution of struggle against
Right deviation would only encourage its adherents to go further and try to drag
the Party behind them into the quagmire of revisionism..." In 1996, one section
of CCMs and their followers gave their amendments and CC gave its comments
only to delegates to Congress. It was decided to publish it and the explanation
of GS in Congress as a booklet and to be supplied to the ranks and ranks should
be well educated. What CC did? Only papered over its comments and never
systematically tried to conduct internal struggle on these amendments after the
Congress. In 1997 On Characterization of Political Parties a section of CCMs
gave their versions different from CC orientation. CC prepared a big comment
and supplied to delegates to Congress on the floor of the house but never supplied
it to the ranks. Not only that it never conducted systematic internal struggle on
these issues.

6.30 In 2004 also one section of CCMs gave their amendments in written form and
CC also gave its comments just on the floor of the house to the delegates to the
Congress. Is it systematic conduction of internal struggle? Is it not just paper
overing the views of CC? "To preserve and develop the revolutionary orientation
and line of the party, it is imperative to wage a consistant and relentless struggle
against right and 'left' deviation..." Where and when we waged a relentless and
consistent struggle? We failed to wage a relentless internal struggle. Hence, as
Engels and Mao said situation became a quagmire of revisionism: CC majority
wrote in this way "We have been adopting resolutions on departure from the
revolutionary line of the party, but we have not succeeded in eliminating them.
Far from it, the situation remains by and large stagnant on this score, probably
reflefcting and also contributing to the stagnation of the struggle under the
leadershi[p of the party." Had the CC waged a relentless struggle why this kind
of situation? CC majority should seriously ponder over.

6.31 11) CC document says that such struggle should be conducted properly and with
definite aims. No objection. They quoted Stalin also. No problem. Stalin taught

93
 on practical problems and questions of current policy compromises can and shoud
be there but not on principles and there is no middle way on principles. After
quoting Engels, Mao and Stalin CC majority concludes in this way: "We should
not overlook that such struggle may take long or short time as evidenced by the
experiences of the international communist movement and the communist
movement in our own country." What is this argument? Where does the
international communist movement conducted internal struggle for 30 years on a
settled issue? Where does Indian Communist Movement conducted internal
struggle for 30 years on a settled issue? As far as we knew there is no such
incident.

6.32 CC majority appears in a mood to compromise with the right deviationists and
revisionists with this sort of argument. If it does so it will become a compromise
on "principles" as Stalin said. For CRs whether India got independence or not is
a settled question and it is one of the fundamental principles; Formation of
governments through elections is also a settled question and it is also a principled
issue; This is part of parliamentary path: It was rejected by the CRs in 1967
iteself. United front with CPI and CPI(M) throughout the stage of NDR is a settled
question: CRs rejected this proposition in 1967 itself. This is also a question of
"principle". Capitalism in agriculture in India was a settled question during the
Thelengana armed struggle period itself. Not only that we rejected it in 1980 itself.
This is also a question of principle: One who agrees on this cannot wage armed
struggle. Wether India is a capitalist country or semi-feudal and semi-colonial
country? is also a question of "principle" One who agrees on this cannot wage
NDR. One section of comrades in our Party preach and pressurise the CC to
agree for such things. We should not cocmpromise on these "principles". If CC
majority wants to conduct internal struggle on these settled "principles" for another
30 years we don't have objections. They are free but we are not in favour of
such struggle.

6.33 CC document says contradictory things. At one place it says we had waged a
successful struggle against these wrong trends and at another place it says
differentlly. CC says "our struggles till now have not been consistent and
thorough, we have not been able to link these inner party struggles with the
implementation of the revolutionary line of the party. The situation resembles the
repetition of the same and more of the same. Our struggle against revisionist
trends and right deviation must be conducted better....." If our party is conducting
successful struggle against these wrong trends why the situation remains
stagnant? CC should ponder over this. When there are only right trends inside
the party how can it wage a struggle against right deviation and revisionism and
intensify the struggle against them? If we see the CC document "Practice
Marxism, Not Revisionism.." appears very radical but when we see the contents
and arguments most of them particularly in national part are powerless to fight
and intensify the struggle against right deviation and revisionism. Hence we reject
this document.

94
Comrades!

7.1 We have mentioned about the fights of great teachers Marx,Engels against
wrong trends in the International Communist movement upto 1895. We have
also explained how these fights started within the Communist parties to
revise the Marxist theory of class struggles. Revising Marxist theories was
revisionism. Great teachers taught that revisionism was the bourgeois
ideology inside the communist parties.We also explained how revisionism
started in the last decade of 19th century. As soon as Kautsky and
Bernestein and other started revising the Marxist principles in the name of
changes and developments in the societies. We have mentioned how Lenin,
Stalin and Mao fought against the revisionists like Martov, Plexhanov,
Trotsky, Liu Shao Shie and Deng Shiaping and Kruschev's modern
revisionism.

7.2 During the period of Com.Stalin, Tito's modern revisionism rose in the international
communist movement. He became the imperialist agent. He was expelled from
the Communist International. By the time of Gorbochev a new kind of revisionism
rose its head in the name of Euro Communism. Both these trends collapsed with
the collapse of Soviet Union and East Europoean countries.

7.3 We have shown how revisionists tried to strengthen their control over the Party
resorted to groupism, factional activities and conspiracies. On a very few
occasions due to pressures and for the sake of Party unity CPSU(B), CPC and
their leaders like great teachers Stalin and Mao also exhibited some kind of
liberalism on a few occsions organisaational matters whatever might be the
reasons. This is contrary to the firmness they showed regarding the political
and ideological matters. Ultimately two great parties of these countries built by
Comrade Lenin-Stalin and Mao became revisionists immediately after their deaths.
These two revisionist parties restored capitalism there. These became very costly
which led to the collapse of Soviet and Chinese socialist societies immediately
after the deaths of great teachers Stalin and Mao. Every Marxist-Leninist Party
should learn lessons from this very very painful development.

7.4 We have shown how the reflections of Kruschev's revisionism on international

communist parties including Indian Communist parties occured. We have shown
how the rightist and revisionist theories of PC Joshi spread into the revisionism
of Dange and CR; How the correct line of "Andhra Thesis" was dumped soon:
How revisionist line smashed the Great Telengana Peasants' Armed Struggle. We
explained that Kruschev's peaceful theories are nothing but parliamentary path.
The parliamentary path of CPI and its other aspects almost smashed the most
militant class struggles of the Indian people. We wrote how neo-revisionism of
Marxist party emerged. We had also explained how the CR's waged their fight
against the neo-revisionist party. We have also explained why we split with CPM
in 1967-68.

7.5 We have also shown how as soon as Emergency was lifted rightist and revisionist

95
 trends started lifting their heads in a big way among the CR ranks including our
party—CPI(ML). Such trends openly started first during the talks with the Janata
Government. Soon after the Janatha Government came to power, parliamentary
cretinism crept into our party. Some of the important leaders of undivided CPI
took parliamentary path(Kerala Road) after the party came to power in Kerala in
1957. In the same way almost all important leaders of CPI(M) took the
parliamentary path (Kerala and Bengal Road) with the party’s victories and coming
to power both in Kerala and West Bengal in 1967. Likewise before 1980 Congress
some sections belonging to the then PCC CPI(ML) started the resemblances of
Parliamentary path with our party’s election victories both in Illendu and Santosh
Rana’s victory in West Bengal. This parliamentary line had and has been
continuing inside the CPI (ML) ND even after 1980 Congress, 1983 PCC CPI(ML)
split and 1984 CPI(ML) split despite other mergers and splits. Gradually some
leading comrades inside CPI(ML)ND added some strategic differences
(Programmatic, Tactical Line and Political Line) to their parliamentary path and
thus became revisionists. These opponents of party’s basic formulations are
bringing and developing their views with the pretext of developing the NDR and
agrarian revolution.

7.6 With the election victory in Illendu and Santosh Rana in Midnapor (WB) our party
leadership also forgot the basic election tactics incorporated in the CC, CPI (ML)
resolution while lifting the boycott of election. The illusions on elections started
taking its roots. The joining of Nandi’s organization in our party increased such
illusions further. Nandi went from one extreme to another extreme. Such a danger
of rightist and revisionist trends appeared in Khargapur central plenum itself. Hence
comrade CP wrote the CC resolution on “people’s democratic revolution-Immediate
Tasks”. In the name of the danger of world war knocking our doors Nandi and
others started united front with America and its followers in India. Some leaders
of AP also supported the class collaborationist political line of Nandi and others.
Thanks to the struggle on these points our party split in the beginning of 1980.
In short, ultimately the illusions on parliamentary tactics split the party in 1980.

7.7 After Nandi and others left the Party, in AP two comrades(DVK and VV) placed
their alternative documents on Programme and on Political resolution. They were
defeated both at national and state level conferences in 1980. These comrades
started revising the whole gamut of political and ideological fight with the CPM.
They are opposing all the 7 points in Burdwan Plenum document except the point
on self-determination. In 1980 itself comrade CP categorically mentioned how they
were going against the revolutionary orientation.He appealed to the ranks to reject
the above alternative document. As correctly commented in our 1996 CC comment
on Comrade VV's amendment on “capitalist development in Indian agriculture,”
its orientation is going against the programme and tactical line. Our CC’s 2004
comment also once again mentioned about their differences with the revolutionary
line. Though there are some small variations among them they are reaching to
a common understanding on many basic points which go against the revolution.

7.8 Whatever they may say, they treat India as a capitalist country. They don’t treat

96
 it as a semi-fuedal semi - colonial country. Comrade DVK wrote in 2008 saying
that ‘at present we are in a capitalist Society.” They started treating the welfare
schemes of the state and central governments are meant really for the welfare
of our people: They treat the irrigation projects like Polavaram which is mainly
meant for supplying water for SEZ’s as part of development. Some other
APPCM’s also write India got “Independence” in their writings.

7.9 During Nehru period CPI also started treating his schemes as progressive ones for
the cause of development. They praised Nehru’s schemes to the sky. Their praisings
and positive arguments on different occasions about YSR Reddi particularly about
Polavaram ‘irrigation project’ and ‘developmental schemes in Thelengana’ are the
concrete examples. With regard to “Koneru Ranga Rao Land Committee’s Report”
some senior leaders exhibit the same attitude of CPI and CPM parties. Some of
our senior leaders in AP are vehemently opposed to 1/70 act. They take the stand
favourable to non-tribals. This stand is helping the NGO organizations and CPI and
CPM to penetrate in to our areas in Godavari Valley. Our Party’s criticism and
opposition to YS Rajasekhara Reddi’s “Bhooyajnam” is formal: Our ideological and
political struggle against CPI and CPM is also very formal in AP.

7.10 In nutshell CPI, CPM opines that India got Independence in 1947 whereas these
comrades opine that “India got ‘little independence”: On Capitalism in agriculture
these comrades positions are also the same as CPI,CPM. If we see the AP election
review and the amendments they have been moving since 1980 on election tactics,
these comrades are taking the parliamentary road like CPI and CPM. That
is why they are bringing the amendments like CMPs and formation of
governments through elections. The assessment of these comrades is against
the path of protracted people’s war. They are for election fronts, alliances and
whole-sale joint activity with CPI and CPM parties: They are against the orientation
of Resistance Struggle developing into Armed struggle. Like the CPI,CPM these
comrades also oppose the Armed struggle. Therefore we feel they have departed
from the path of people’s war and moving in a parliamentary way while paying lip
service about resistance struggle, revolution, armed struggle and people’s war.
Whatever they may say they feel India is a capitalist country: Hence they feel how
can they wage protracted people’s war in India?

7.11 Therefore we feel why should we call these comrades as only rightists and why
we should term CPI and CPM as revisionists for having the same politics? Hence
we feel that we should call such views as revisionist and call persons holding
such views as revisionists. The danger of rightist and revisionist views spreading
inside our party particularly in AP, West Bengal and in other states due to lack
of alertness in organizational matters. In AP those comrades who brought the
rightist and revisionist line did never make self-criticism except on some
international matters. Even comrade SNS made his self-criticism but these
comrades never made their self-criticism on national matters during the last 32
years. Not only that they are propagating that inside the party the strength for
their line is growing whereas CC liners strength is declining. We should take note
of all these things and act firmly both politically and organisationally.

97
7.12 CC prepared a work plan and sent to all PCs. APPC created a problem and
opposed many of the CCs proposals and delayed its implementation. It does not
seriously want to implement it because APPC majority and ranks are almost
equally divided on the issue of supervision of strategic areas. CC’s amendment
was narrowly won in the 2004 state conference. CC got 64 votes whereas
opposition got 63 votes and 7 neutrals. In the same way the amendment on
Unanimous elections at local level also conference equally divided i.e. CC 66 and
opposition also 66. On elections, and on joint actions also AP majority got a
different line different from CC. Hence they are raising these issues time and
again and bringing them before the CC.

7.13 APPC passed a resolution on Polavaram Project it demanded that first priority
should be given for building Telangana Irrigation Projects and then only start
construction of Polavaram Project. It also demanded first implement the package
for displacement of tribal people and then start the construction of polavaram
project surprisingly in the very next meeting they changed this resolution. CC
resolution on Polavaram was sent to APPC. With the pretext of not studied the
resolution, they delayed the discussion on this resolution. Even after the CC
decision its implementation is not seriously taken by the APPC until now.

7.14 Therefore, keeping all these matters, unless our CC and PCs and DCs are
composed with the overwhelming majority of Congress liners, the revolutionary
line would not be implemented and life styles of our ranks also further degenerate.
We feel considering the restoration of capitalism in Russia, China and in East
European countries and the theoretical degeneration taking place in our party we
should wage an uncompromising struggle against rightists and revisionism. The
collapse of Socialism in Russia in 1950s and China socialist state in 1970’s and
restoration of capitalism there should be a warning for us. We should seriously
study the negative and positive organizational experiences of Russian and
Chinese Parties and take proper lessons from them.

7.15 We should seriously take note of the developments of East European parties
since the death of great teacher com.Stalin: We should seriously understand how
these countries ultimately degenerated into revisionist and capitalist countries. We
should also very carefully understand how the CPI became a revisionist party
after the death of Stalin. We should also deeply understand how most of the ML
parties throughout the world including CPI (ML) liberation either turned out as
revisionist parties or wound up their existences having lost their confidence about
the path of protracted peoples war and in socialist revolutions after the death of
great teacher Mao

7.16 Otherwise we firmly believe that an onslaught of revisionism going to take place in
the near future which converts our party into an another revisionist party with some
shades of difference with CPI,CPM and Liberation. Ultimately we should in a nutshell
clinch what does revisionism mean? As great teachers taught us that revisionism
is bourgeois ideology inside the Communist Parties. Revisionism means which
wants to revise Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought. In India's oncrete

98
 conditions revisionism means which wants to revise the Cardinal Principles of
CPI(ML) programme and path and the principles of Resistance Struggle:
Revisionism means which wants to revise the basic principles contained in the
immediate programme of 1969, CPI(ML) programme of 1970 Congress and the
Congress and Plenum documents of 1980, 1992, 1996 and 2004 Congresses and
1981, 1989 and 1997 Plenums; Revisionism means which wants to basically revise
the assessments of Communist revolutionaries regarding different political parties
in India, friends and foes of NDR; Revisionism means which wants to revise the
principles of protracted people’s war and the armed struggle path of Naxalbari,
Srikakulam, Mushahari, Gopivallabhpur etc. and the resistace struggle path of
Godavari Valley and going back to Parliamentary path of pre-1967; Revisionism
means treating the reformist programmes of the governments as ‘developmental’
programmes just as CPI and CPM did before 1967; Revisionism means throwing
away the 1970 Programmes basic points and Palakollu/Burdwan documents to the
winds: Treating the revisionist and neo-revisionist parties as left parties even after
the 1997 All India Plenum characterised them as ruling class parties etc.

7.17 The entire rank and file of the party particularly the members of CC, PC and DCs
should be prepared to take part in the resistance struggles and self-defense squads
in agency areas, when the concerned committees so decide. Whether all
supporters of the resistance line should go to the forests irrespective of their ill-
health and other aspects? It has to be discussed by the concerned committees
taking the concrete conditions into their consideration. It does not mean that we
are opposed to go or opposed to send comrades into forest areas. We opine that
those who support the line of resistance struggle ideologically and politically are
better than the opponents on this score. We should educate, convince and
encourage the supporters to go to the forest and other areas of resistance struggle
barring exceptional cases. We are fully in favor of sending all comrades who are
healthy. Not only that we are in favour of CC,s proposal that those who refused
to go to forest should not be taken to leading committees. Our position is neither
the revisionists nor the comrades who refuse to work in the forest areas and work
in volunteer squads even after concerned committees decided should not be taken
in to the leading bodies. For a revolutionary Party politics should be in command
and they should be as a key link but it should be a leading body without revisionists.
If there are revisionists in the leading bodies we can not fulfil our revolutionary
tasks. There can be some comrades with some political differences, even rightists
in the leading bodies but not the revisionists or comrades with revisionist orientation
on basic items concerning the New Democratic Revolution in India. Without a
correct ML leadingbody revolution cannot be fulfilled.

7.18 Waging resistance struggles without the revolutionary ideology and politics is
nothing but a humbug. We should uphold the great revolutionary spirit and
orientation enunciated by the CPC during its great debate against Kruschev’s
modern revisionism. We should imbibe our ranks with the spirit and orientation of
great proletarian cultural revolution in China to prevent the degeneration in some
of our ranks particularly in AP and West Bengal. Without combining the
revolutionary ideology and politics with the practical task of sustained resistance

99
 struggle, we can neither build armed struggle nor advance to the stage of waging
protracted armed struggle. We should take rightism or revisionism as the main
danger today both nationally and internationally. We should keep politics in
command and take politics as the key link in our work. We should strive to build
the sustained resistance struggles and armed struggles in accordance with the
basic orientation provided in our “Programme and Path”. Without this building either
the sustained revolutionary struggles, sustained resistance struggles or armed
struggles would be a hoax. Without a leading body composed of persons
committed to the line of Protracted Armed Struggle in India: Committed to keep
the revolutionary politics in command: Committed to wage sustained resistance
struggle; Committed to sacrifice everything for the people and the Party we cannot
wage militant struggles and advance them into the armed struggle.

7.19 We have also gave our opinions in a detailed manner to show how the majority
CC document "Practice Marxism, Not Revisionism" failed to recognise the grave
dangers occuring to the CPI(ML)ND organizational structure due to Rightist
deviations and Revisionism inside CPI(ML)ND. This document exhibited liberalism
on the fundamental principles which laid foundation for the formation of CPI(ML)
in 1970. Not only that, it is compromising on principles but it also proposing
compromising theories on the question of streamlining the Party higher
committees by taking right deviationists and revisionists into them. Due to all these
developments and proposals we are rejecting the majority CC document on
"Practice Marxism, Not Revisionism...."

7.20 Therefore we hope the rank and file of our party would take all precautions to
prevent the emergence, strengthening and spreading of revisionism inside the party.
— Hold high the red banner of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao!
— Hold high the great red banner of People’s War and Armed struggle!
— Defend, protect and advance our resistance struggle in all its forms!
— Firmly stick to the path of NDR and agrarian revolution as its axis!
— Let us advance along the path shown by our beloved and great martyrs!
— Long live Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought!
— Oppose and reject parliamentarism and legalism inside our party!
--- Oppose Revisionism and Right Deviation inside the CPI(MLD)ND!
— Down with revisionism in all forms!
__ Hold high the revolutionary line of Com.CP!
__ Long Live Marxism--Leninism--Mao Zedong Thought!

With Revolutionary Salutes

Chandram, CCM
SV, Central Committee Member
Date: 15--06--2011 CPI (M-L) ND

100