SRIJAN BASU MALLICK

UG SEMESTER – 6
POLS 022
POLS 682
TERM PAPER
PARLIAMENTARY
PARTICIPATION OF NAXALITES
SUPERVISED BY PROF. PRADIP BASU
The CPI has its roots in Tashkent where it was formed in the year 1920, a year
before the CCP was formed. Following the success of the Chinese Revolution in
1949, the revolutionary method of China was endorsed by the Soviet Union but
only for a short period of time. After World War 2, the USSR adopted the
policy of initiating a peace movement against war due to its military
unpreparedness and national reconstruction as a result of which they even took a
stance which opposed national liberation struggles or proletarian revolution in
capitalist and colonial countries. They, as an alternative, advocated the peaceful
transition to socialism through participation in parliamentary elections. The
CCP however refused to adopt this view and argued that the ruling class would
never give up power in lieu of an electoral mandate. A significant pro-China
block existed within the CPI. An armed agrarian struggle on Mao Zedong’s line
was waged in Telangana even before the Chinese Revolution was successful
and it assumed an agrarian character after the CPI became its leading force. The
CPI adopted a resolution in its second Party Congress in 1948 adopting the
slogan of ‘Telangana’s path is our path.’ However, the movement lost its
momentum once the Indian Army intervened. A conflict arose within the party
which was intense and ultimately it was decided to take help from USSR. After
meeting Stalin in the USSR, the Chinese line was abandoned and in then 1951
party conference, the Telangana movement was called off. The CPI switched
from the Maoist strategy of United Front and New Democratic Revolution to
the thesis of peaceful transition formulated by CPSU. The part became a legal
party and went to participate in electoral parliamentary politics in the 1952
elections. The USSR enjoyed good relations with the then Congress government
and advised CPI to work in close proximity with them. CPI finally became an
instrument of Soviet policy in India in 1958 when it adopted peaceful transition
to socialism as its policy in the Amritsar Party Congress. However, the growing
bitterness between China and USSR resulted in a series of inner conflicts within
the CPI. The Sino-Indian war resulted in an ideological debate within the party
regarding the role of the Indian bourgeoisie and the character of Indian
revolution. A split occurred in 1964 and a new party, CPI (M) was formed.
(Samanta: 10-13)

There was a dissident section within the CPI (M) who viewed the participation
in parliamentary politics as revisionism and a betrayal of the cause of
revolution. The Darjeeling District Committee in West Bengal was a prominent
example. Charu Majumder, the leader constantly critiqued the party line and by
that time, it was clear that there was a difference of opinion on various issues. In
the 1967 Assembly elections, three people – Jangal Santhal, Souren Bose and
Ratanlal Brahmin from the Darjeeling Committee contested the elections as CPI
(M) candidates following a consensus after a debate that at that moment,
participation in elections would help them further the cause of agrarian
revolution. Although they lost, their participation provided the way for
solidarity among workers and peasants. Naxalbari uprising took place in 1967
and was brutally supressed by the United Front government of which the CPI
(M) was a major constituent. The Darjeeling Committee was disbanded and all
its members, including Charu were expelled. The formation of the AICCCR
within the CPI (M) was the building stone towards the third communist party in
India. After the Burdwan plenum in 1968, the AICCCR bowed out of the CPI
(M) and called for the complete rejection of the parliamentary path and
recognised them to have become ‘politically obsolete.’ The AICCCR finally
took the shape of a full-fledged communist party, the CPI (ML) in 1969.
(Mukherji 1983: 42-46)

The political ideas and praxis of the Naxalites lay embedded in the ideas of Mao
Zedong and the pattern of Chinese revolution was to be applied in the Indian
context. If the theoretical premises are to be discussed, two main dimensions
can be observed vis a vis their political programme. Firstly, they rejected
parliamentary participation of all forms and massive emphasis was laid upon
class war where parliamentary participation was viewed as being on the side of
the bourgeois oppressors and a call was given to the people to demolish it
through protracted class warfare in the form of armed uprisings as it was the
ideal ‘objective conditions’ for a ‘new democratic’ revolution. This task would
be undertaken, according to Charu Majumder, by the ‘working class in alliance
with the broad peasant masses.’ Secondly, armed struggle and guerrilla warfare
became an unalterable feature of Marxism-Leninism for them and they
forwarded this stance through the argument of Mao where he states,
‘Revolutions and revolutionary wards are inevitable in class society and without
them it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to
overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore, impossible for the people
to win political power.’ The armed struggle would be agrarian in nature and
guerrilla tactics would be used in it. In this way red bases would be established
across the country and once the strength is sufficient, the cities would be
captured and hence political power would be in their hands. (Johari 1971: 175-
186)
This position and stance underwent a drastic change after the splitting up of the
CPI (ML) into several naxalite factions after 1974. While some Naxalite
organisations kept the non-parliamentary political line of the CPI (ML) intact,
some participated in parliamentary politics in the years to come. They have
been accused of deviating from the basic tenants of Marxism-Leninism and
Mao Zedong thought but they have justified their politics through various
theoretical explanations in their respective party documents. One such major
group was – CC CPI (ML) led by Satyanarain Singh. This paper makes an
attempt to analyse whether the Naxalite political parties have been successful in
creating a revolutionary upsurge among the masses through their ‘tactical’
participation in parliamentary elections.

The CC CPI (ML) participated in the assembly elections of 1977 after they had
engaged in an evaluation of the electoral triumph of the Janata Party and its
allies in the Lok Sabha elections over Indira Gandhi led Congress. It was the
first naxalite group to take a position against Charu Majumder and the first to
recognise the tactical, if not the strategic need for parliamentary politics. Even
after its split with the CPI (ML) it rejected parliamentary participation which
was evident in its 1975 document titled ‘Indian Revolution and its Path.’ It was
only after the defeat of Congress in 1977 that CC CPI (ML) opted for
parliamentary elections and underwent an ideological shift. They argued that the
parliamentary path which was followed by the revisionists and the revolutionary
utilisation of the parliament were not similar things. They argued that the
boycott of parliament resulted in the ‘boycott of partial and economic struggles
and boycott of mass organisations and threw the entire party and its
revolutionary movement of its correct rails.’ To justify their stand, they made
use of Lenin’s work- ‘Left Wing Communism- an Infantile Disorder’ where
Lenin mentioned that the participation or boycott of parliament must be based
upon the objective situation. They further acknowledged the fact that it was
their mistake to assume that parliamentary democracy was both ‘politically and
historically obsolete’ in India. The party declared that its immediate task was to
build a ‘People’s Democratic Revolution’ whose vanguard would be the
working class, a protracted peoples’ war would be undertaken and imperialism,
comprador-bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism must be liquidated. The
immediate tasks, as specified in the resolution were – ‘i) mobilisation of the
people to defend the gains in the areas of revolutionary activity by the party, ii)
utilisation of all available legal opportunities to mobilise the agricultural
labourers and peasants for anti-feudal struggles against their exploitation and
oppression and iii) the mobilisation of the people on the biggest scale possible
for the full restoration of civil liberties.’ (Mukherjee 1983: 50) The general line
of the party included the following dimensions- ‘i) given the existing socio-
political structure the basic problem of the masses could not be resolved through
election to the parliament and assemblies, ii) participation in elections was one
way of exposing the inadequacy of these political institutions, iii) the entry into
these institutions was primarily to apprise the masses directly about national and
international issues as they figured in these institutions and iv) electioneering
helped promote the building and strengthening of mass organisations in
preparation for the politics of armed agrarian revolution.’ (Mukherjee 1983:
51) So, this was the context under which the CC CPI (ML) engaged itself in the
‘historically obsolete but politically relevant’ venture of electoral politics to
further the cause of agrarian revolution.

Gopiballavpur, in West Bengal was one such constituency where the CC CPI
(ML) contested the 1977 assembly elections and Santosh Rana, a popular
Naxalite leader emerged victorious. Partha N. Mukherjee had conducted an
intensive field work and provided an exhaustive qualitative research of the
constituency during the elections. He has engaged in a significant analysis of
the electorate of that constituency. There was a significant division among the
electorate. The speculations of who would emerge victorious, who would split
votes of whom and so on remained confined to the mind of those who were
middle and upper class whereas the agricultural labours and the poor peasants
were more concerned about the end product of the electoral choice that they
would make, especially among the left parties. The issues related to both the
classes also differed in character. The upper and middle classes laid emphasis
on the ‘development of irrigation, availability of cheap fertilizers and
rationalisation of compulsory levy.’ The labourers and poor peasants, on the
other hand, desired for enhanced wages, abolition of usury and obligatory
labour and tenancy rights.’ This reflected the fact that there was an emergence
of ‘new polarities’ between those who owned the means of production and those
who sold their labour. The agrarian power structure was deeply entrenched and
the voting freedom of the poor was in the hands of the dominant landlords and
violating it would result in ‘punishment.’ However, in the 1977 election, the
dominance of the landlords was doubtful. (Mukherjee 1983: 171)

Mukherji engages in a theoretical analysis of the Naxalite movement through

the class and elite models of analysis and he puts it as a conflict between two
theoretical models where the elite model involves participating in the
parliamentary elections and the class model involves engaging in extra
parliamentary struggles. In the parliamentary structure there is a relationship
between the leader and the led (masses) and it creates the scope for
consolidation of elite rule within the legitimate institutional structures through
transfer of power from a set of governing elites to a non-governing one.
However, he argues that the naxalites gave an alternative to the elite model as
the resorted to politics based upon class orientation. They engaged in an explicit
identification with the interests of the labourers and poor peasants and refrained
from campaigning amongst those classes which were antagonistic to the classes
they represented. The party also laid stress upon the fact that it was necessary to
create leadership among the oppressed as it would help in arousing class
consciousness and bring organisational unity to struggle for their interests. This
was evident through the fact that they gave the call for the formation of
‘Krishak Samities’ which would comprise of labourers and poor peasants only
and it reflected their attempt in the formation of class organisations instead of
mass organisations where ‘the interests of the less fortunate classes get
subsumed and lost under the elite.’ This was similar in structure to the
organisational aspects of the previous Naxalite movement. (Mukherjee 1983:
179,180)

Mukherji argues that when the previous naxalite movement in its armed
agrarian character was taking place in Gopiballavpur, a ‘new set of structures
defined a new set of relationships. The prevailing value domains (feudal) were
invaded and even at places replaced by an alternative value system. Thus new
social groups with well-defined boundaries guided by an alternate value system
came into existence and challenged the premises on which the established social
order rested and operated.’ (Mukherjee 1983: 182) Peasant committees shaped
up, a parallel structure of power and authority - ‘Gana Adalat’ or people’s
courts was put into effect and they could not be defied, usury, indebtedness and
bonded labour became nearly extinct and benami lands were confiscated and
distributed among the poor and landless peasants. Massive social mobilisations
were involved in the emergence of these structures. The emergence of these
structures led to a violent confrontation between the state apparatus and the
naxalites and in the obviously unequal struggle, the movement got suppressed
and uprooted. However, he argues that the ‘outcome of this dialectics between
the manifest relationships and forces which constituted the established order and
the sudden emergence of structures which aimed to challenge and replace it
with a new social order’ was twofold. Firstly, although it was true that there was
a failure in achieving the desired ends and the movement was suppressed, a
relapse did not take place. A ‘climate of change’ had already been created and a
‘glimpse’ of the character of an alternate order was already experienced by the
groups and it would remain ‘submerged in the collective consciousness in the
entire movement belt in some form’ and hence ‘the possibility that a process of
resurfacing of structures could have taken place by re-activating the latent
residues of collective experience for change could not be ruled out.’
(Mukherjee 1983: 183) Secondly, the vacuum that was there in the region
following the decimation of the naxalites was occupied by the CPI (M) and they
apparently became the ‘synthesis’ projecting a class approach that was defined
well and stated the they would refrain from engaging in extremism and
‘adventurism’ of the naxalites. Usury kept on taking place in a low profile and
labour conditions saw marginal improvement. It was under these conditions that
the naxalites arrived in the electoral field and became a topic of universal
speculation in the entire constituency. (Mukherjee 1983: 183) Their
reappearance was under drastically changed situations. A seven year hiatus was
what they took to come back and they could continue what they did earlier
recollecting the historic struggles they engaged in. However, the differing point
is the fact that in the past, they engaged in taking control of power through
‘non-institutional’ means and not competing for it. Now that they were
contesting elections, they had to abide by its rules and finally a Marxist party, of
which the naxalites themselves used be a part one time, was its competitor in
the elections. (Mukherjee 1983: 184) The issues that were taken up by the
naxalites during their armed insurrection were already there and were revamped.
It was only that the ‘methodological idiom and style had changed. The threats of
direct action were ever present but through gherao and Satyagraha. The attempts
at creating a parallel locus of power were there but it was difficult to think of it
replacing the power of the state.’ This, according to Mukherjee was the vital
difference between the naxalite movement of 1970 and naxalite participation in
the elections of 1977. (Mukherjee 1983: 185,186)

Santosh Rana won the 1977 elections in a convincing manner. However, he lost
the next assembly elections in that constituency. It is, till date the first and the
last time that a Naxalite candidate has contested and won an election in West
Bengal. They have failed in retaining the bases that were once their strongholds
before and after they had contested elections. In the other states too and
nationally, they have failed to become the revolutionary force they projected
themselves to be. A few seats in the Bihar Assembly and a few victories in two
Parliamentary Constituencies in Bihar and Assam respectively is ‘all that’ CPI
(ML) Liberation- another Naxalite group participating in the elections has been
able to manage till now. They had an extra parliamentary force, Lal Sena which
resolutely waged an armed struggle against feudalism in Bihar during the 1970s
and 1980s. It has been dissolved as of now and the CPI (ML) Liberation, in the
current parliamentary elections has entered into an alliance with the same feudal
groups they had fought and campaigned against. The basic failure of Naxalites
lie in combining parliamentary and extra parliamentary struggles which would
have create a revolutionary upsurge among the masses and increase their
support for them.

If I analyse the reason for failure of the Parliamentary participation of the

Naxalites as a ‘tactical’ measure, I would refer to Lenin’s book, Left Wing
Communism – An Infantile Disorder. Firstly, the Naxalites were correct in
rectifying the position they maintained earlier regarding the role of the
parliament. They corrected the mistake by recognising that although
parliamentary democracy was historically obsolete but it was still not politically
obsolete. The participation in parliamentary should be viewed as a tactical
principle. However, they have lacked in their praxis. Parliamentary
participation, although obsolete for them was not obsolete for the class and the
masses. However, Lenin states, ‘the Communist Party, should not embrace the
parliamentary action of the masses. It is their task to campaign against this
bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudice and arouse consciousness
within the masses. But for that, there must be a sober observation of the actual
state of class consciousness and preparedness of the whole class and all the
toiling masses.’ (Lenin 1940: 42) The Naxalites have failed to do so in the long
run. Since, the parliament has reactionary and feudal elements that are in
majority, it becomes all the more necessary, according to Lenin, for
revolutionaries to participate in these counter revolutionary and bourgeois
parliaments until it can be dispersed. In this way the hollowness of the
parliament can be exposed to the working class and it can be highlighted as to
why it becomes all the more necessary to do away with such parliaments. In this
way the parliaments will become ‘politically obsolete’ through the
revolutionary upsurge that will take place with Communist Party in the role of
the vanguard. Here, it has become the exact opposite. The Naxalites, who take
part in elections, are no more serious about exposing the hollowness of the
parliament and engaging in a prolonged campaign to make it politically
obsolete. Rather, they are engaged in contesting Parliamentary and Assembly
elections with the sole objective of increasing its seats even if it comes at the
cost of entering into alliances and compromising with bourgeois and feudal
political parties. At present, there is no political distinction between the
Naxalites who participate in elections and the parliamentary left, i.e. CPI and
CPI (M).

ABBREVIATIONS:

 CPI - Communist Party of India

 CCP - Chinese Communist Party
 CPSU – Communist Party of Soviet Union
 CPI (M) – Communist Party of India (Marxist)
 AICCCR – All India Coordination Committee of Communist
Revolutionaries.
 CPI (ML) – Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)
 CC CPI (ML) – Central Committee Communist Party of India (Marxist-
Leninist)
 CPI (ML) Liberation - Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)
Liberation

REFERENCES:

 N. Mukherji, Partha : From Left Extremism to Electoral Politics- Naxalite

Participation in Elections; 1983; pp. 41-55, 169-186
 Samanta, Amiya : The Left Extremist Movement; pp. 10-13
 Johari, J.C. : POLITICAL IDEAS OF MARXIST-LENINIST
COMMUNISTS IN INDIA; The Indian Journal of Political Science; Vol.
32, No. 2 (April—June, 1971); pp. 175-186
 Lenin, V.I. : Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder - A Popular
Essay in Marxian Strategy and Tactics; 1940; pp. 39-48