The
Marxist
Volume:
3,
No.
1
January-
March
1985
IT
is
nearly
two
decades
since
the
phenomenon
popularly
known
as
naxalism
manifested
itself
on
the
Indian
political
scene.
What
is
the
state
of
naxalism
today?
What
has
happened
to
the
ideology
and
politics
of
the
groups,
which
comprised
the
naxalite
movement?
An
answer
to
these
questions
for
the
recent
period
will
be
instructive,
as
it
confirms
the
time-lested
experience
of
the
international
communist
movement
that
left
–
sectarianism
and
ultra-left
adventurism
is
the
observe
of
right-reformism
and
revisionism
and
ends
up
serving
the
interests
of
the
ruling
classes.
Ultra
–
leftism
of
any
variety
of
which
naxalism
is
type,
contains
within
itself
the
seeds
of
disruption
and
self-destruction.
It
is
well
known
that
the
naxalite
movement
disintegrated
into
myriad
groups
and
factions
in
the
early
seventies
within
five
years
of
its
birth.
Along
with
this
organizational
disintegration,
and
preceding
it,
was
the
ideological
disarray
and
confusion.
In
this
article,
the
focus
is
on
the
ideological
deadend
these
groups
have
reached,
which
is
the
basis
for
the
continuing
derailment
of
the
left-adventurist
stream.
After
continuously
grappling
with
the
ideologically
bankrupt
positions
taken
at
the
outset,
the
naxalite
groups
are
nowhere
near
resolving
the
problems,
which
began
when
they
abandoned
their
Marxist-Leninist
moorings.
Every
theoretical
and
political
issue,
which
confronts
them,
leads
of
further
ideological
confusion
and
consequent
organisational
splintering.
Despite
their
decade-long
struggle
to
“reorient
and
rectify”
their
positions
none
of
these
groups
have
come
anywhere
near
correcting
their
dogmatic
errors.
On
the
other
hand,
these
groups
have
further
degenerated
into
anti-left
anarchic
groups
subject
to
the
worst
forms
of
petty-bourgeois
deviations.
The
purpose
in
this
article
is
not
give
an
historical
account
of
the
theory
and
practice
of
these
groups
since
the
disintegration
began
in
the
early
seventies.
The
emphasis
is
on
analyzing
their
ideological
and
theoretical
positions
and
the
inner
contradictions
and
conflicts
between
the
groups,
based
on
their
own
documents
and
publications.
Without
understanding
their
current
positions
on
ideological
questions,
the
splintering
and
kaliedescope
merging
and
splitting
of
the
groups
cannot
be
comprehended.
The
analysis
also
shows
how
the
naxalities
have
had
to
abandon
most
of
the
basic
positions
adopted
by
them
when
they
challenged
the
CPI(M)’s
ideological-programmatic-tactical
line
in
1967-68.
Where
they
have
persisted
in
clinging
to
some
of
the
original
positions,
they
have
landed
themselves
in
irreconcilable
contradictions
between
their
theory
and
practice.
Finally,
the
article
points
out
that
despite
the
failure
of
the
ultra-left
challenge
in
the
ideological
sphere,
the
left-opportunism
pursued
by
these
groups
is
dangerous
for
the
left
movement.
Despite
the
political–organisational
splintering
of
naxalism,
the
potential
for
mischief
by
ultra-leftism
in
new
forms
remains
along
with
the
necessity
to
continuously
fight
against
petty-bourgeois
revolutionism,
which
finds
fertile
soil
in
India
due
to
the
crisis
and
the
impact
of
bourgeois-landlord
rule.
The
much
publicized
claim
of
the
naxalities
that
the
CPI(ML),
launched
in
1969,
heralded
the
new
revolutionary
party,
collapsed
in
shambles
in
1971-72.
Even
before
this
the
movement
had
begun
to
splinter.
A
brief
recounting
of
the
organizational
disintegration
is
necessary
to
get
a
full
picture
of
the
state
of
the
naxalite
groups
today.
Even
before
the
announcement
of
the
formation
of
the
CPI(ML)
in
1969,
the
splintering
had
begun.
In
1968
when
the
various
naxalite
groups
which
split
away
from
the
CPI(M)
formed
the
All
India
Coordination
Committee
of
communist
Revolutionaries
(AICCR),
two
groups
broke
away
that
year
itself
in
West
Bengal-the
Parimal
Dasgupta
and
Asit
Sen
groups.
The
latter
formed
the
Maoist
Coordination
Centre.
This
was
followed
by
the
AICCR
led
by
charu
Mazumdar
disaffiliating
the
Andhra
group
led
by
Nagi
Reddy,
DV
Rao
and
Pulla
Reddy.
In
1969,
the
following
groups
also
disassociated
from
the
Charu
Maxumadar-led
naxalites-the
BB
Chakraborty
group
which
is
known
currently
as
the
Liberation
Front,
the
Moni
Guha
group,
and
the
Kunnikal
Narayanan
group
in
Kerala
which
maintained
a
distinct
identity.
In
September,
1970
a
few
months
after
the
‘First
Congress’
of
the
CPI(ML)
which
elected
Charu
Mazumdar
as
its
General
Secretary,
the
faction
led
by
Satyanarian
Singh
revolted
and
in
1971
formed
their
own
CPI(ML)
Central
Committee.
In
1971,
Ashim
Chaterjee,
Santosh
Rana
and
other
split
away
from
the
Charuite
group.
While
the
SNS
group
opposed
the
line
of
individual
annihilation
pursued
by
the
Charu-led
party
the
Ashim
Chatterjee
group
also
opposed
the
CPI
(ML)
of
opposing
the
liberation
struggle
in
Bangladesh.
In
1972,
after
Mazumdar’s
death,
the
Charuite
committee
was
led
by
Sharma
and
Mahadev
Mukherjee
and
during
this
time,
the
CPI
(ML)
totally
disintegrated.
From
this
point
onwards,
the
CPI
(ML)
Central
Committee,
which
succeeded
Charu
Mazumdar
no
longer
represented
the
mainstream
of
the
naxalite
movement.
The
Khokan
Mazumdar
group
in
West
Bengal,
the
Saraf
group
in
Jammu
and
Kashmir,
the
Punjab,
Tamil
Nadu
and
Kerala
factions
all
began
to
function
independently
without
any
coordination.
The
CPI
(ML)
charuite
group
spilt
two
with
Mahadev
Mukherjee
expelling
Sharma.
The
Mahadev
Mukherjee
group
itself
spilt
into
two-the
anti-Lin
Biao
and
pro-Lin
Biao
groups.
The
anti-Lin
Biao
group
which
was
also
pro-Charuite,
based
in
Bhojpur
district,
Bihar,
later
evolved
into
the
CPI
(ML)
ked
by
Vinod
Mishra.
The
pro-Lin
Biao
group
led
by
Mukherjee
saw
him
ousted
from
leadership
and
after
the
emergency
the
group
was
led
by
by
Nishit
Banerjee
and
Azisul
Haq,
and
is
based
in
West
Bengal.
Meanwhile,
Sharma
who
had
parted
ways
with
Mukherjee,
along
with
the
Suniti
Ghosh
group,
the
Andhra
Committee
and
some
others
formed
the
central
Organising
Committee
(COC)
in
1974.
However,
this
unity
did
not
last
long.
The
October
1975
resolution
“Road
to
Liberation”
was
a
compromise
one
which
soon
led
to
new
disagreements.
In
1976,
the
Andhra
Committee
split
away.
This
was
followed
by
the
COC
breaking
up
with
the
groups
parting
ways.
The
northern
India
group
for
sometime
formed
the
Communist
League
of
India
but
later
became
defunct.
Among
the
major
pro-Charu
groups
existing
today,
apart
from
the
Vinod
Mishra
group,
there
is
the
People’s
War
group
led
by
Kondapalli
Seetharamiah
in
Andhra
Pradesh.
This
group
originated
in
the
Andhra
Committee,
which
spilt
away
from
the
COC
in
1976.
From
this
committee
the
Kondapali
group
combined
with
the
Kothandaraman
pro-Charu
group
of
Tamilnadu
and
formed
the
CPI
(ML)
People’s
War
group
in
1980.
The
decided
to
persist
in
armed
struggle
while
also
working
in
mass
organisations.
Another
pro-Charu
group
existing
today
is
the
Central
Reorganising
Committee
(CRC)
led
by
Venu.
A
section
of
the
Kerala
pro-Charu
naxalites
and
a
splinter
group
from
Andhra
formed
this
group
in
1979.
This
group
also
defends
the
Charuite
line
while
accepting
the
need
for
mass
work.
Among
the
anti-Charu
Mazumdar
groups
also
a
process
of
splits
and
realignments
has
been
going
on.
In
Andhra
the
naxalites
who
from
the
beginning
refused
to
accept
the
CPI
(ML)
understanding
and
tactics,
were
led
by
Nagi
Reddy,
Pulla
Reddy
and
DV
Rao.
This
group
spilt
into
two
in
1971
with
Pulla
Reddy
forming
his
own
group.
after
the
death
of
Nagi
Reddy
in
1976,
DV
Rao
assumed
the
leadership
of
this
group
in
Andhra.
In
1975
the
Negi
Reddy
group
had
joined
with
the
Moni
Guha
group
of
West
Bengal
and
the
North
Zone
unity
center
to
form
the
UCCRI
(ML).
In
1976,
they
divided
again
with
Moni
Guha
and
DV
Rao
expelling
each
other
from
the
organizations,
and
resumed
separate
functioning.
The
DV
Rao-led
UCCRI
also
underwent
various
splits.
In
the
meantime,
the
other
major
anti-Charu
stream
led
by
SN
Singh
had
been
joined
in
1977
by
the
Unity
committee
comprising
the
Khokan
Manzumdar
(N
Bengal)
and
Vaskar
Nandy
groups.
They
constituted
the
Central
committee
led
by
SN
Singh.
In
1975,
the
Chandra
Pulla
Reddy
group
from
Andhra
united
with
the
SNS
group
and
they
formed
from
West
Bengal,
Maharashtra
and
Punjab
revolted
from
the
SN
Singh
group
and
formed
what
is
known
as
the
Central
Team.
The
SNS-Pulla
Reddy
group
which
became
a
major
group
in
the
Naxalite
movement
broke
up
in
1980
with
the
Pulla
Reddy
group
walking
off
and
resuming
independent
functioning.
Another
formation
of
naxalite
groups,
which
opposed
the
Charuite
line
originated
with
the
leaders
lodged
in
the
Vizag
jail.
Kanu
Sanyal,
the
erstwhile
lieutenant
of
Charu
Mazumdar,
took
the
initiative
to
form
the
Organisng
Committee
of
Communist
Revolutionaries
(OCCR).
Nagabhusanam
Patnaik
also
out
of
jail,
formed
his
own
group.
Both
these
leaders
have
been
trying
without
success
to
forge
some
unity
among
the
warring
groups.
Moni
Guha
after
the
debacle
of
the
UCCRI,
has
been
advocating
the
pro-Albanian
line
and
is
considered
anathema
by
other
groups.
The
onlyothe
rpro-Albanian
faction
is
the
Ghadar
Party
which
is
Punjab.
The
Saraf
group
plouged
a
lonely
furrow
and
after
being
decimated
in
Jammu
and
Kashmir
has
formed
its
own
party
titled
the
‘Proletariat
Party.’
From
the
above
maze
of
splits
and
realignments,
it
can
be
said
that
the
major
groups,
which
have
not
become
defunct
are:
Pro-Charu
groups;
1
CPI
(ML)-Vinod
Mishra
group
2.
CPI(ML)-People’s
War
group
3.
CPI(ML)-CRC(Venu
group)
4.
CPI(ML)
Second
Central
Committee
groups
(Pro
Lin
Biao)
Anti-Charuite
groups:
1.
CPI(ML)-SN
Singh
group
2.
CPI(ML)-C.
Pulla
Reddy
group
3.
CPI(ML)-COC
groups
4.
OCCR
(Kanu
Sanyal)
5.
UCCRI
(ML)-(Nagi
Reddy
DV
Rao)
6.
Maoist
Communist
Center
7.
Liberation
Front
8.
CPI(ML)-Central
Team.
Apart
from
these,
there
are
minor
ones
which
still
maintain
some
existence
such
as:
1.
Shanti
Pal
group
(West
Bengal)
2.
Kunnikal
Narayanan
group
(Kerala)
3.
B
P
Sharma
group
(Rajisthan,
UP)
4.
Chelapati
Rao
group
(AP)
5.
Tamil
Nadu
splinters
AOC
and
SOC
6.
Ghadar
party
7.
Proletariat
Party-Saraf
group
8.
Revolutionary
Communist
Party
(Punjab)
However,
it
must
be
remembered
that
the
situation
is
not
static.
The
above
groups
constantly
divide
and
re-form.
For
instance
in
1984,
splits
have
occurred
in
the
major
groups
of
SN
Singh
and
Chandra
Pulla
Reddy
committees.
In
the
S
N
Singh-led
group
before
his
death
in
September
1984,
a
serious
split
developed
between
the
S
N
Singh-led
minority
in
the
PCC,
and
the
majority
led
by
Vaskar
Nandy
and
Santosh
Rana
leading
to
the
formation
of
parallel
committees.
Similarly
in
the
Pulla
Reddy
led
group
also
a
split
occurred
a
few
months
before
his
death
with
a
faction
led
by
Palia
Vasudeva
Rao
Splitting
off.
The
political-ideological
bases
for
these
splits
are
being
dealt
with
in
a
later
section.
Alongside
the
endless
splintering
of
the
groups,
an
equally
endless
but
futile
for
unity
has
also
been
going
on.
The
earliest
move
was
in
March
1975
when
the
SNS
group
united
with
the
Pulla
Reddy
group
and
formed
the
Provisional
Central
Committee
of
the
CPI
(ML).
This
broke
up
in
1980
because
of
sharp
differences
between
the
two
groups
on
the
question
of
united
front
tactics
at
the
international
and
national
levels
against
‘social
imperialism’
and
‘Indian
fascism’.
During
the
emergency
in
1975
the
SNS-Pulla
Reddy
group
had
initiated
a
meeting
with
the
COC
the
unity
Committee
and
the
UCCRI
and
a
joint
declaration
was
issued
for
the
formation
of
an
‘anti-fascist
united
front’.
However,
soon
after
the
COC
and
UCCRI
denounced
the
declaration
and
the
move
failed.
This
was
allowed,
as
stated,
with
the
COC
itself
breaking
up
into
four
groups.
In
1979,
the
Vinod-Mishra
group
and
the
SN
Singh-Pulla
Reddy
group
issued
a
joint
statement
and
agreed
to
take
up
joint
activities.
But
quarrels,
in
December
1981,
Nagabhushanam
Patnaik
and
other
took
he
initiative
to
call
a
meet
in
which
13
groups
attended.
This
meet
also
ended
in
mutual
recriminations
and
the
unity
effort
ended
in
a
fiasco.
In
April
1982,
a
conference
was
held
in
Delhi
initiated
by
the
Vinod
Mishra
group,
which
the
Pulla
Reddy,
Nagabhushanam
Patnaik
groups
and
others
attended.
The
conference
sought
to
achieve
organizational
coordination
and
to
build
up
a
‘national
alternative’.
The
Conference
announced
the
formation
of
an
Indian
People’s
Front
(IPF).
Predictably
the
front
and
its
concept
of
national
alternative
came
in
for
bitter
attack
from
the
SN
Singh
group,
CRC
Saraf,
and
others.
The
SNS
group
saracastically
commented,
“NO
sane
political
creature
believes
that
any
single
political
party
can
emerge
as
the
National
Alternative
to
Indira
fascism
right
now…
Recently
one
group
and
its
supporters
held
a
national
conference
in
Delhi
and
formed
the
Indian
People’s
Front…
Utpoian
dreams
based
on
exaggerated
self-esteem
is
a
disease
that
drives
a
victim
to
commit
suicide.
So
the
Indian
People’s
Front
led
by
one
revolutionary
group
has
become
the
National
Alternative!”
(For
a
new
democracy,
May
Day,
1982)
The
failure
to
unite
is
not
surprising
given
their
ideological
difference
and
inability
to
come
to
any
common
asseements
regarding
the
past
theories
and
practice
of
naxalism.
There
are
some
group
like
the
Vinod
Mishra
group,
CRC
and
People’s
War
group
which
refuse
to
renounce
the
Charu
Mazumdar
line
and
defend
his
basic
positions
with
some
minor
criticisms.
On
the
other
hand
the
SNS-led
group,
UCCRI
and
Pulla
Reddy
groups
consider
the
Charuite
line
disastrous
and
responsible
for
the
debacle
of
naxalism.
Some
like
the
OCCR
and
Nagabhusganam
Patnaik
group
are
attempting
organizational
coordination
unity,
skirting
these
divisive
issues
and
hoping
for
unity
through
united
work
and
struggle.
The
obstacle
to
unity
is
not
only
on
pro
and
anti-Charuite
lines.
Within
these
two
broad
camps,
there
are
innumerable
difference
on
the
content
of
Mao
Zedong
thought,
attitude
to
the
Chinese
Communist
Party
application
of
the
three
world
theory,
participation
in
parliamentary
activities,
individual
annihilation
and
armed
struggle
tactics
and
the
concept
of
mass
work
and
mass
organizations.
It
is
necessary
therefore,
to
look
at
the
ideological
and
political
controversies
which
hold
these
groups
in
a
barren
and
vice-like
grip.
Ideological
Disarray
In
1968,
when
the
naxalite
left-adventurist
deviation
challenged
the
CPI(M)’s
Marxist-Leninst-based
stand
on
ideological
and
programmatic
issues,
they
put
up
a
left-sectarian
position
on
a
whole
range
of
question
pertaining
to
the
international
communist
movement
and
the
path
of
the
Indian
revolution.
The
naxalite
condemned
the
CPI(M)
as
‘neo-revisionists’
on
the
question
of
the
character
of
the
Indian
state,
stage
of
the
revolution,
strategy
tactics,
assessment
of
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
international
correlation
of
class
forces.
Their
stand
then
could
be
summed
up
as
follows:
India
is
not
politically
independent
it
is
semi-colonial,
semi-colonial,
semi-feudal;
the
Indian
state
is
controlled
by
imperialists,
compradore
bureaucratic
capital
and
feudal
landlords,
the
stage
of
revolution
is
national
liberation
against
imperialism,
compradore
capitalism
and
feudalism;
people’s
war
based
on
armed
struggle
of
the
peasantry
is
the
tactical
line
for
liberation;
the
Soviet
Union
is
revisionist
(later
modified
to
social
imperialist)
which
is
collaborating
with
US
imperialism;
adherence
to
Mao
Zedong
thought
is
the
test
of
a
communist
party.
They
condemned
participation
in
parliament
as
reformist
and
adopted
boycott
as
a
strategic
slogan;
they
denied
the
role
of
mass
organizations
and
abandoned
trade
unions
as
reformist
organizations,
further
in
the
sphere
of
tactics,
they
negated
the
role
of
united
fronts,
branding
them
as
class
collaborationist.
The
CPI(M),
countering
the
left-adventurist
positions,
has
stated:
”If
we
take
all
the
arguments
of
the
critics
of
the
ideological
document
what
do
they
amount
to?
They
amount
to
a
total
repudiation
of
the
understanding
of
the
epoch.
They
imply
liquidation
of
the
socialist
camp;
they
convey
that
capitalism
has
been
restored
in
the
USSR
leading
to
imperialist
policies;
that
the
major
fight
of
the
working
class
of
the
world
is
not
against
American
imperialism
but
against
Soviet
and
American
imperialism.
The
fight
against
the
revisionist
leaders
of
the
Soviet
Union
is
replaced
by
the
fight
against
the
“imperialism”
of
the
Soviet
State.”
(Ideological
Debate
Summed
Up
by
Polit
Bureau,
p.173)
This
was
the
package
of
left-infantilism
which
characterized
the
various
naxalite
groups
who
challenged
the
revolutionary
credentials
of
the
CPI(M).
Today
after
nearly
two
decades
of
naxalite
activity,
when
we
assess
where
this
platform
has
taken
them,
it
is
clear
that
they
have
been
forced
to
abandon
most
of
these
position.
In
fact
they
have
retreated
pell-mell
from
the
‘revolutionary’
platform
they
adopted.
Where
they
cling
to
such
positions
their
own
makes
it
difficult
to
reconcile
it
with
the
theories
they
espouse.
Let
us
look
some
of
these
key
positions
and
their
derailment.
Mao
Zedong
Thought
and-Attitude
to
CPC
The
distinctive
characteristic
of
the
naxalite
groups
since
their
inception
has
been
their
advertised
allegiance
to
Mao
Zedong
thought
was
the
essence
of
Marxism-Leninism
of
our
epoch.
Except
for
the
pro-Albanina
groups
who
were
denounced
Mao
Zedong
thought,
all
our
groups
extant
continue
to
swear
allegiance.
However,
their
perceptions
of
its
content
and
role
differ
and
each
accuses
the
other
of
distorting
or
revising
Maoist
ideology.
The
pro-Charu
groups,
except
the
Vinod
Mishra
group,
continue
to
hail
the
Revolution
and
refuse
to
accept
the
CPC’s
critical
revaluation
of
this
period
and
the
damage
it
cause
the
party
and
socialist
construction.
The
whole
gamut
of
left-sectarian
positions
on
the
international
situation
and
building
of
socialism
is
considered
by
these
groups
to
be
the
main
content
of
Mao
Zedong
thought.
On
the
other
hand
the
SN
Singh,
C
Pulla
Reddy
and
DV
Rao
groups
accept
the
CPC
evaluation
as
presented
in
the
eleventh
congress
and
the
sixth
plenum
of
the
C
C
and
the
denunciation
of
the
gang
of
four.
The
pro-Charu
People’s
War
group,
after
initially
accepting
the
CPC
positions,
has
now
come
round
to
considering
them
revisionist.
The
CPC’s
own
assessment
of
some
of
the
erroneous
concepts
upheld
by
the
party
under
Mao’s
leadership
is
not
acceptable
to
the
CRC,
People’s
War
and
Saraf
groups.
These
groups
now
maintain
that
the
CPC
has
become
a
revisionist
party.
At
the
extreme,
the
pro-Lin
Biao
group
has
taken
the
absurd
stand
that
China
has
become
a
social
imperialist
power.
From
the
naxalite
groups
who
held
that
China
was
the
center
of
the
world
revolution,
a
substantial
number
now
have
gone
over
to
the
position
that
the
CPC
has
betrayed
world
revolution.
The
CPC’s
authoritative
documents
produced
in
the
sixth
plenum
of
the
CC,
the
eleventh
and
twelfth
congresses,
have
become
for
them
the
bedrock
of
revisionism
and
betrayal
of
Mao
Zedong
thought.
The
blind
and
dogmatic
adherence
to
Mao
Zedong
thought
as
the
essence
of
Marxism-Leninism
of
the
epoch-
a
position
which
the
CPC
itself
does
not
maintain
now-is
the
key
to
the
ideological
disarray
these
groups
have
reached.
Three
World
Theory
Another
important
aspect
of
the
differences
between
the
groups
on
the
content
of
Mao
thought
concerns
the
Three
world
Theory.
Some
of
the
bitterest
polemics
are
directed
as
to
whether
it
forms
an
integral
part
of
Mao
Zedong
thought
or
not.
Most
of
the
groups
whether
anti-Charu
or
pro-Charu,
the
SNS
group,
the
Pulla
Reddy
group,
the
Vinod
Mishra
group.
D
V
Rao,
etc.,
uphold
the
Three
World
Theory
as
a
component
part
of
Mao
Zedong
thought
and
creative
application
of
Marxism
Leninism.
It
is
on
this
basis
that
they
work
out
their
political
line
on
international
and
national
questions.
The
CPI(M)
had
in
1947
itself,
when
this
theory
was
put
out
by
the
CPC,
criticized
it
as
anti-Marxist
not
being
based
on
class
analysis.
The
division
of
the
world
into
three-
the
first
world
of
the
two
superpowers;
the
second
world
of
other
imperialist
countries
and
the
third
world
of
the
underdeveloped
countries-went
against
the
basic
analysis
of
class
relations
in
the
international
sphere
and
eliminated
the
central
contradiction
between
imperialist
system
and
the
socialist
system.
Now,
some
of
the
naxalite
groups
like
the
CRC
(Venu
group).
Saraf
group
(and
of
course
the
pro-Albanian
splinters)
have
launched
a
bitter
attack
on
the
Three
World
Theory.
They
argue
that
no
such
theory
was
formulated
by
Mao
Zedong
and
such
a
bogus
theory
has
been
smuggled
in
by
the
‘revisionist
clique’
headed
by
Deng
Xiaoping.
In
order
to
defend
their
version
of
Mao
thought,
they
argue
that
Mao
had
only
talked
of
differentiating
the
three
worlds
for
purposes
of
foreign
policy
tactics
and
had
never
elaborated
and
elevated
the
three
worlds
into
a
full-fledged
theory.
Exposing
the
groups
who
uphold
this
thesis,
they
point
out
that
this
theory
has
led
to
the
formulation
that
out
of
the
two
super-powers,
the
Soviet
Union’s
social
imperialism
is
more
aggressive
and
dangerous.
This
has
led
to
these
groups
becoming
soft
on
US
imperialism
and
ending
up
allying
with
US
imperialist
forces
and
the
parties
that
represent
them
in
India.
For
instance
the
CRC
group
states,
“Opportunists
like
Satyanarain
Singh
in
India
advanced
the
thesis
of
building
a
united
front
with
pro-American
ruling
classes.
The
Three
World
Theory’
has
come
as
a
born
to
these
opportunists
who
were
already
well
ahead
on
this
path
of
collaborating
with
the
pro-US
section
of
the
ruling
classes”
(K
Venu:
Mao
Zedong
and
Three
World
Theory’
p.
29)
Further,
it
exposes
the
international
implications
of
this
line
while
talking
about
ASEAN.
Three
World
Theories
shows
great
enthusiasm
in
holding
up
this
organization
as
united
front
against
Soviet
social
imperialism
and
as
one
of
the
factors
conducive
to
the
building
of
a
broad
front
of
the
third
world
countries.
In
reality
however
this
organization
has
been
formed,
with
the
full
backing
and
blessings
of
US
imperialism
by
the
imperialist
lackeys
the
compradore
feudal
states
of
Philippines
Indonesia,
Thailand,
Malaysia
and
Singapore
with
the
objective
of
chalking
out
schemes
for
suppressing
the
people’s
revolutionary
struggles.”
(Venu:
Mao
Zedong
and
Three
World
Theory’
p.
32)
But
the
CRC
naxalite
group’s
fierce
denunciation
of
the
Three
World
Theory
is
only
partial,
as
they
do
not
dispute
the
existence
of
two
super-powers
and
Soviet
social
imperialism.
Their
only
difference
is
that
the
Soviet
Union
should
not
as
a
general
principle
be
considered
the
more
aggressive
imperialist
power.
Both
the
‘imperialisms’
are
dangerous
and
which
is
more
dangerous
will
depend
on
country
and
situation
to
situation.
As
an
illustration,
according
to
them,
US
imperialism
is
more
dangerous
in
Latin
America,
while
the
Soviet
Union
poses
a
greater
threat
in
Afghanistan
and
Kampuchea.
Even
in
the
interpretation
of
the
Three
World
Theory
there
are
differences
between
those
who
uphold
it,
on
how
to
implement
it.
For
instance
the
People’s
War
group
interprets
it
in
a
different
way
from
the
SN
Singh
group.
on
building
united
fronts
based
on
this
theory
also
the
SN
Singh
and
Pulla
Reddy
groups
got
divided.
In
1980
the
unity
of
these
two
groups
was
disrupted
on
the
question
of
building
an
anti-Soviet
front
on
the
basis
of
the
Soviet
Union
being
the
main
enemy
of
the
Indian
people
and
the
necessity
of
forgoing
a
united
front
against
Indira
fascism
by
including
even
pro-US
allies.
After
the
split
the
SNS-led
group
claimed:
“it
was
our
party
which
initiated
and
forged
a
broad
united
front
against
Russian
aggression
on
Afghanistan,
and
united
Gandhites
and
Royists,
Socialists
and
Sarvodayites.
BJP
and
the
Moslem
League
on
the
same
platform
to
oppose
hegemonism
and
aggression.”
(For
a
New
Democracy,
March-April,
1982)
The
crux
of
the
matter
lies
in
the
fact
that
the
various
naxalite
groups
are
forced
to
stick
to
the
erroneous
ideological
positions
put
out
by
the
CPC
during
the
left-sectarian
phase
of
the
cultural
revolution.
To
justify
their
existence,
with
all
their
dogmatic
position
being
rejected
by
life
and
experience,
leads
them
to
cling
to
those
very
concepts
which
eyen
the
CPC
has
critically
abandoned.
Strategy
&
Programme:
Disorientation
Given
their
distorted
loyalty
to
a
dogmatic
‘Mao
Zedong
thought’
it
is
but
natural
that
in
the
sphere
of
strategy
and
programmatic
formulations
these
groups
show
the
same
variety
of
left
opportunism,
sectarianism
and
hopeless
confusion.
In
recent
years,
particularly
after
the
emergency
was
lifted,
most
of
the
groups
have
been
undertaking
the
exercise
of
holding
‘party’
congresses
and
‘special
conferences’
preparing
draft
programme
and
resorting
to
interminable
discussions
within
their
groups
and
amongst
the
different
groups.
The
SNS
group
held
its
party
congress
in
1982
and
prepared
a
programme;
the
Vinod
Mishra
group
held
a
party
congress
in
January
1983;
the
CRC
group
held
a
party
conference
in
January
1982;
the
Andhra
groups
have
also
held
a
series
of
conferences;
the
Saraf
group
held
a
party
congress
with
14
delegates
and
formed
a
Proletariat
Party
in
1983.
simultaneously
all
the
groups
have
been
analyzing
each
other’s
efforts
and
subjecting
them
to
bitter
polemics,
and
at
times
abuse.
In
1970,
the
CPI(ML)-led
by
Charu
Mazumdar
had
adopted
its
programme
by
which
India
was
termed
semi-colonial
and
semi-feudal.
The
state
was
characterized
as
imperialist-compradore
bureaucratic
capitalist
and
feudal.
The
stage
of
the
revolution
was
national
liberation
and
the
principle
contradiction
had
been
termed
as
that
between
feudalism
and
the
broad
masses
of
the
people.
In
reassessing
the
programmatic
formulations
and
tasks,
sharp
differences
have
arisen.
The
Andhra
group
which
did
not
join
the
CPI(ML)
in
1969
continues
to
differ
from
the
1970
propositions.
According
to
DV
Rao
of
the
UCCRI
group,
India
is
a
neo-colony,
which
is
exploited
by
both
superpowers
India
is
not
a
semi-colony
and
had
achieved
political
independence
in
1947.
It
lost
its
independent
status
and
became
a
neo-colony
of
the
superpowers.
As
for
the
compradore
bourgeoisie,
he
has
his
own
peculiar
interpretation.
He
states
that
there
is
a
compradore
class
in
the
industrial
bourgeoisies;
the
compradore
class
is
part
of
the
Indian
bourgeoisie,
thereby
recognizing
that
there
are
sections
of
the
bourgeoisie,
which
are
not
compradore.
Then
he
goes
on
to
further
confuse
the
issue
by
stating,
“Compradore
bourgeoisie
class
means
a
bourgeoisie
class
having
a
compradore
character,
not
a
mere
commission
agent.”
(DV
Rao:
People’s
Democratic
Revolution
in
India,
p.
24)
While
most
groups
pay
lip
service
to
the
principle
contradiction
being
between
feudalism
and
the
Indian
people,
Saraf
violently
disagrees.
According
to
him
the
principle
contradiction
should
be
termed
as
that
between
the
alliance
of
imperialism,
the
compradire
bourgeoisie
and
feudalism
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
Indian
people
on
the
other.
He
inveighs
against
the
other
groups
for
not
understanding
the
key
role
of
alliance
of
these
forces
in
state
power.
(A
Revolutionary
view
point,
Jan-March
1978,
Saraf
p.
83)
J
P
Dixit
who
runs
his
own
journal
(People’s
Power)
pounces
on
the
alliance
theory
and
attacks:
“a
suggestion
of
alliance
between
the
native
classes
and
imperialism
means
an
end
of
the
economic
and
political
subjugation
of
imperialism….
The
theory
is
dangerous
as
it
supports
the
imperialist
fraud
that
their
lackeys
are
not
lackeys
but
their
friends
and
allies.”
(People’s
Power,
Jan
–June
1982,
p.5)
The
S
N
Singh
group
is
also
subjected
to
this
attack
as
in
their
draft
programme
they
amended
the
principle
contradiction
on
the
lines
of
the
alliance
of
imperialism,
compradore
bourgeoisies
and
feudalism.
Not
content
with
this
attempt
to
stretch
all
logic
and
credulity
to
maintain
the
semblance
of
a
lackey
bourgeoisie
in
the
state
power,
the
CRC
(Venu)
group
has
also
made
its
creative
contribution.
“We
have
to
recognize
that
clas
relations
are
undergoing
change
in
differing
degrees
and
that
new
classes
like
the
rural
bourgeoisie
and
the
local
bourgeoisie
in
the
industrial
sector
are
emerging.
If
the
observations
are
proved
correct
we
will
have
to
make
substantial
changes
in
the
programme.
The
character
of
the
New
Democratic
Revolution
will
remain
to
be
anti-imperialist
and
anti-feudal,
but
the
emphasis
will
shift
on
to
the
anti
imperialist
aspect.
The
main
target
of
attack
be
both
the
imperialist
blocs
and
their
Indian
allies,
the
bureaucratic
compradore
bourgeoisie.”(Mass
Line,
May
1984,
Interview
with
Venu)
Like
a
specter,
the
original
sin
committed
in
the
1970
prograame
continues
to
haunt
them
and
there
seems
to
be
nothing
available
to
put
them
out
of
their
endless
misery
of
interminable
and
divisive
discussions.
The
CRC
group
is
still
formulating
the
new
CPI(M)
programme
and
it
seems
to
be
a
protracted
affair.
This
group
and
some
others
including
the
recently
formed
Nandy-Santosh
Rana
faction
of
the
SNS-CPI(ML),
are
unable
to
reconcile
the
evidence
of
capitalist
development
with
a
semi-colony/semi-feudal
model.
The
escape
route
sought
by
the
CRC
group
to
maintain
the
fiction
is
to
bring
about
the
theory
of
imperialist-sponsored
‘capitalist
development’
in
India,
plagiarizing
the
Gunder-Frank/Samir
amin
theories.
The
other
attempt
as
by
DV
Rao
is
to
term
India
a
neo-colony.
Yet
some
others,
like
the
Santosh
Rana-Vaskar
Nandy
faction’s
special
congress
held
in
1984,
attempts
to
state
that
imperialism
is
directly
sharing
power
in
the
Indian
state
as
opposed
to
the
rival
faction’s
stand
that
imperialism
is
indirectly
ruling
through
the
big
bourgeoisie
and
landlords.
Whatever
the
effort,
the
naxalites
are
caught
in
the
trap
of
the
‘compradore
bourgeoisie’
from
which
they
find
so
salvation!
The
CPI(M)
has
pointed
out
at
the
very
outset
that
the
naxalite
version
of
the
programme
“leads
to
left
sectarian
and
adventurist
errors,
and
overestimation
of
the
situation.
What
is
the
implication
of
a
stooge
government
in
a
period
when
imperialist
is
collapsing
all
over
the
world?
It
implies
that
the
state
and
government
is
already
completely
isolated,
universally
hated
and
armed
struggle
is
the
only
from
left
to
the
people;
it
has
only
to
be
called
for
to
be
started.
This
formulation
ignores
the
existing
class
realities
underestimates
the
ideological
and
organizational
hold
of
the
ruling
classes
and
their
parties
on
the
people
the
illusions
nurtured
and
undermines
the
preparations
for
the
requisite
class
alignment
for
building
the
People’s
Democratic
Front.”
(On
Left
Deviation:
Resolution
of
the
Central
Committee,
CPI(M),
August,
1967,
p.5)
Who
is
the
main
enemy
of
the
Indian
revolution?
Here
the
villain
in
the
form
of
the
Three
World
Theory
has
further
confused
the
naxalites.
While
some
staunchly
maintain
that
the
Soviet
social
imperialists
are
the
main
enemy,
others
vehemently
disagree
and
put
forward
the
alternative
theories
that
‘both
imperialist
powers
are
joint
enemies;
feudalism
is
the
main
enemy;
the
imperialist-backed
big
bourgeoisie
and
landlords
are
the
main
enemy
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
D
V
Rao
commenting
on
these
group
states:
“Even
while
claiming
revolutionaries
some
are
unable
to
see
the
difference
between
the
two
superpower
and
he
upper
hand
off
the
Soviet
Union.
As
a
result
whenever
the
Soviet
Union
is
exposed,
they
call
such
an
attitude
pro-US.”
(DV
Rao:
“People’s
Democratic
Revolution
in
India,
forward,
p.24).
The
same
difference
in
perception
of
the
Soviet
Union
as
the
main
enemy
divides
the
otherwise
pro-Charu
Vinod
Mishra
and
CRC
groups.
This
difference
in
perception
of
the
main
enemy
creates
insuperable
problems
for
them
to
agree
on
a
common
united
front
strategy
of
the
classes
in
the
revolution.
The
S
N
Singh
group,
Vinod
Mishra
group
and
the
anti-Charu
Andhra
groups
(Pulla
Reddy
and
D
V
Rao
groups)
pivot
their
strategic
class
front
on
fighting
“Soviet
social
imperialism”
which
is
claimed
to
be
the
dominant
imperialist
power
having
a
stranglehold
on
the
Indian
state
and
economy.
This
programmatic
position
is
rejected
by
other
groups
which
see
this
as
the
basis
for
class
collaboration
with
the
pro-US
section
of
the
ruling
classes.
While
both
sides
maintain
that
the
Indian
ruling
classes
(compradore
bourgeois
and
feudals)
are
divided
into
two
factions,
being
lackeys
of
either
Soviet
or
US
imperialism,
they
are
also
divided
on
the
primacy
of
the
former
and
the
nature
of
strategic
class
fronts
to
be
developed.
In
a
perversion
of
Marxist
analysis,
all
the
groups
subscribe
to
the
position
that
there
are
four
oppressor
enemy
classes
to
be
overthrown
to
make
the
new
democratic
revolution
–Soviet
social
imperialism,’
US
imperialism,
compradore
capital
and
feudalism.
While
united
in
their
determination
to
deny
the
reality
of
an
Indian
national
bourgeoisie
led
by
the
big
bourgeoisie
and
its
dual
character,
these
groups
have
engendered
further
disintegration
by
forcing
class
analysis
to
fit
into
a
mythical
anti-communist
‘social
imperialism.’
Tactics-Hall
Mark
of
Opportunism
and
Aiding
Ruling
Class
Disruption
Naxalite
tactics
had
been
characterized
by
a
dogmatic
and
sole
reliance
on
armed
struggle
in
its
first
phases.
This
was
based
on
the
sectarian
‘people’s
war
thesis
put
forward
by
Lin
Biao
at
the
ninth
congress
of
the
CPC.
In
India
this
brand
of
adventurism
was
interpreted
by
Charu
Mazumdar
to
be
the
tactic
of
individual
terrorism.
After
the
debacle
of
this
tactic
in
1970-71
many
group
split
away
condemning
the
‘annihilation
theory’.
However
the
pro-Charu
groups
have
persisted
in
defending
this
revolutionary
line’
and
continue
to
be
practitioners
of
terrorism.
The
pro
Lin
Biao
groups
in
West
Bengal,
the
Vinod
Mishra
group
in
Bhojpur
the
People’s
War
group
in
Andhra
Pradesh
and
the
Venu
group
in
Kerala
have
all
in
some
form
or
another
continued
to
rely
on
the
line
of
annihilation.
The
difference
exists
only
in
the
emphasis.
The
CRC
(Venu
group)
began
talking
of
a
‘revolutionary
mass
line
in
1979,
by
which
they
mean
that
annihilation
of
any
which
enemy
must
be
part
of
the
mass
struggle
and
resorted
only
which
the
masses
of
an
area
approve
of
it.
Except
for
the
extreme
fringe
of
the
pro-Lin
Biao
groups
the
other
groups
who
uphold
he
Charuite
line
currently
talk
of
annihilation
of
the
class
enemy
as
an
extension
of
the
mass
line.
Though
many
groups
have
denounced
the
past
practices
as
wrong,
the
condemnation
has
stemmed
more
from
the
failure
of
the
tactic
rather
than
any
honest
self-introspection
as
to
its
anti-Marxist
character.
Even
those
who
renounce
it
as
anti-Marxist,
still
cling
to
the
theory
of
permanent
armed
struggle’.
The
OCCR
led
by
Kannu
Sanyal
states:
“the
terrorism
pursued
by
the
struggles
against
revisionism.
That
is,
the
new
process
of
forming
a
Marxist-Leninist
party
which
was
set
in
motion
after
the
Naxalite
uprising
of
1967
was
again
nipped
in
the
bud
and
communist
revolutionaries
were
split
up
into
various
groups.”
(Voice
of
Naxalbari
July
1982).
However,
the
OCCR
has
no
clear
programme
or
tactics
to
break
with
this
old
adventurism.
All
that
has
been
modified
is
that
mass
work
must
be
combined
or
lead
to
armed
struggle.
By
the
debacle
of
individual
annihilation
all
the
naxalite
groups
have
had
to
abandon
their
original
tactical
position
that
work
in
mass
organisation
is
reformist
and
the
trade
union
movement
means
economism.
Self-criticism
by
the
group
is,
however,
combined
with
the
contradictory
chant
about
the
‘revolutionary
situation’
obtaining
in
the
country.
The
subjective
assessment
that
India
is
on
the
brink
of
revolution
and
the
corollary
that
the
Indian
ruling
classes
are
totally
isolated
continues
to
be
sanctified
dogma.
Participation
in
Election
All
naxalite
groups
at
the
inception
had
vehemently
denounced
the
CPI(M)
for
participating
in
parliament
and
elections.
Boycott
of
the
parliament
was
the
sine
qua
non
of
naxalism.
However,
the
retreat
from
this
aspect
of
petty
bourgeois
revolutionism
has
led
to
acrimonious
divisions
among
the
naxalites.
Condemning
this
infantile-left
position,
the
party
had
state:
‘Using
parliamentary
institutions,
according
to
them,
is
remaining
bogged
down
at
the
level
of
mass
consciousness.
The
added
argument
is
that
parliaments
are
obsolete
and
hence
participation
is
no
good.
Thus
in
the
name
of
a
revolutionary
struggle
this
important
form
is
rejected
in
principle.
This
is
nothing
but
an
anarchist
deviation,
which
underestimates
the
fight
against
the
state
in
the
concrete.
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
Leninism.
It
seeks
to
reduce
the
working
class
and
the
masses
to
impotent
spectators
in
the
elections;
bypasses
the
stage
of
their
consciousness;
advances
slogans
which
delink
the
party
from
vast
sections
particularly
in
the
election
and
hands
them
over
to
the
tender
mercies
of
the
Congress
and
the
other
bourgeois
parties.”
(On
Left
Deviation
p.
10)
The
first
group
to
violate
this
‘revolutionary
boycott’
was
the
S
N
Singh-Pulla
Reddy-led
which
contested
the
assembly
elections
in
June,
1977.
since
them,
even
after
they
spilt
up
they
have
continued
to
participate
in
elections
both
to
the
parliament
and
state
assemblies.
In
this
they
were
joined
by
the
OCCR
and
the
DV
Rao
group.
This
plunge
into
bourgeois
election
has
led
to
the
worst
abuse
heaped
upon
them
by
the
CRC
group
the,
People’s
War
faction
and
the
Saraf
group.
The
CRC
is
convinced
that
the
other
major
pro-Charu
group
led
by
Vinod
Mishra
is
also
preparing
to
join
the
‘pig-sty’
of
parliament.
The
V
M
group
in
its
party
congress
in
1983
had
cleared
the
way
for
such
an
eventuality.
This
was
confirmed
with
the
Vinod
Mishra
group
led
IPF
putting
up
a
large
number
of
candidates
in
Bihar
in
the
recent
assembly
elections.
Refusing
to
accept
the
use
of
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
system
as
it
could
negate
their
‘revolutionary
situation’,
the
strategic
boycottists
such
as
Saraf
Vainly
assert,
“the
prospect
for
the
compradore
parliamentary
system
is
one
of
confusion
uncertainty,
one
crisis
followed
by
another,
ultimately
leading
to
the
proletarian
revolution.”
(Saraf:
Current
national
and
international
situation;
A
Revolutionary
View
Point,
July-Sep.
1978,p.
64)
If
the
boycottists’
continuous
calls
for
boycott
have
gone
unheeded
by
the
people
the
participationsts
electoral
tactics
have
been
just
as
disruptive.
For
instance
the
SNS-led
group
has
not
hesitated
to
support
the
worst
communal
and
reactionary
forces
including
BJP-RSS
candidates
in
many
states
in
the
name
of
defeating
the
pro-social
imperialist
parties,
which
by
definition
include
the
left
parties.
In
West
Bengal
they
allied
with
forces
like
the
Jharkhand
Party
and
Mukti
Morcha
to
fight
Left
Front
candidates
in
the
assembly
polls.
When
the
majority
of
groups
not
averse
to
participation
in
elections
at
different
levels,
the
naxalite
stance
of
fighting
revisionism
by
abjuring
parliament
has
been
given
a
quiet
burial.
Mass
Work
And
Mass
Organisations
On
the
abandoning
of
mass
organizations
by
naxalite
the
CPI(M)
had
joined
out:
“Thus
neglecting
the
main
task
of
building
mass
organizations
by
refusing
to
fight
for
every
little
relief
for
the
workers
and
peasants
by
not
paying
serious
attention
to
the
immediate
demands
and
to
simultaneously
raising
political
consciousness,
by
a
mere
reliance
on
organizations
of
force
once
more
leads
to
a
band
of
select
individuals
indulging
in
militant
actions,
under
the
pretext
of
defending
or
revolutionising
the
struggles
and
bringing
disaster
to
the
mass
movement.”
(On
Left
Deviation,
p.
12)
The
S
N
Singh-Pulla
Reddy
CPI(ML)
were
the
first
to
float
the
IFTU
to
organize
trade
union
work.
But
the
other
naxalite
groups
kept
away
from
this
set-up
as
it
was
led
by
‘neo-revisionists’
and
‘liquidationists’.
The
Andhra
groups
outside
the
CPI(ML)
mainstream
had
never
theoretically
denounced
work
in
mass
organizations.
They,
along
with
those
who
have
now
joined
the
bandwagon
of
mass
work’,
conceive
of
work
and
tactics
in
the
mass
organisations
in
an
extremely
disruptive
fashion
which
helps
the
ruling
classes.
One
favourtie
tactics
is
to
raise
immediate
burning
issue
and
organize
protests
and
then
launch
a
confrontation
with
the
landlord,
police,
and
capitalists
without
taking
into
account
the
correlation
of
forces
and
the
consequences
of
such
actions.
Prematurely
inviting
police
and
enemy
class
attacks
leads
to
crushing
of
the
movement
and
disorganising
the
people
completely.
In
Bhojpur
district
in
1975-76,
such
tactics
led
to
severe
repression
and
decimation
of
struggling
peasants.
In
Andhra
the
debacle
of
Srikakulam
has
been
repeated
on
a
minor
scale
in
various
places
which
leaves
these
areas
firmly
under
landlord/police
domination.
In
Wynad,
in
1981
the
‘annihilation’
of
a
‘class
enemy’
led
to
repression.
The
CRC
group
which
boasts
of
this
action
states:
“The
guerilla
action
here
was
done
really
as
the
exercise
of
the
people’s
political
will
after
mobilizing
and
consolidating
it
using
the
method
‘from
the
people,
to
the
people’.
Though
the
party
was
not
completely
smashed
in
the
repression
led
those
by
the
state,
it
could
not
effectively
overcome
the
enemy’s
encirclement
and
suppression”.
(Though
a
New
Phase
of
Spring
Thunder,
p.
154)
Given
their
adveturist
political
line,
for
the
naxalite
groups
every
trade
union
and
mass
struggle
is
seen
as
an
onslaught
against
the
state
power
and
its
agents;
in
the
name
of
fighting
economism,
no
compromise
in
struggle
is
possible-which
leads
to
anarchism
and
disruption.
The
efforts
to
prettify
these
disruptionist
tactics
in
the
mass
movement
as
‘building
people’s
political
power’,
mass
line
to
defeat
revisionism
and
so
on
cannot
hide
the
basis
truth
that
naxalite
tactics
today
are
geared
to
disorient
mass
movements,
foil
united
struggles
and
isolate
the
Left
forces.
The
number
of
student,
youth,
peasant
and
cultural
organizations,
which
have
been
floated
by
the
various
naxalite
groups
must
be
seen
for
what
they
are
and
combated
with
correct
tactics
among
the
people
along
with
ideological
exposure.
Having
no
correct
class
approach,
most
of
these
groups
have
foiled
to
develop
any
mass
base
and
only
succeed
in
creating
temporary
disruptions
in
some
pockets
like
tribal
areas,
though
their
mass
organisational
activities.
They
are
unable
to
organise
the
basic
classes
with
a
correct
political
tactical
line.
Given
their
petty-bourgeois
character,
they
are
unable
to
do
sustained
hard
work
to
build
up
united
class
organizations
of
workers
and
peasants.
Therefore
in
the
post-emergency
period,
many
groups
have
concentrated
on
two
spheres
in
their
mass
work-civil
liberties
and
culture.
For
some
of
the
naxalite
groups,
civil
liberties
organizations
have
become
the
mass
front
to
conduct
their
partisan
activities.
The
history
of
he
PUCL,
which
originated
during
the
emergency,
needs
no
recounting
here.
But
its
nature
and
composition
is
instructive-it
has
become
a
forum
consisting
of
a
specific
group
of
political
elements-naxalite
sarvodayites
of
the
Gandhi
Peace
Foundation
variety
a
sprinkling
of
pro-western
liberals
and
some
BJP-RSS
activists.
This
is
probably
why
the
S
N
Singh-led
CPI(ML)
has
made
this
forum
its
main
front
of
activity
as
it
tallies
with
their
anti-Soviet,
anti-fascist
front
line,.
However,
other
naxalite
have
refused
to
subscribe
to
this
concept
of
a
civil
liberties
platform.
So
there
are
also
civil
liberties
fronts
floated
by
other
naxalite
groups,
some
together
and
some
separately.
The
People
Union
for
Democratic
Rights
(PUDR)
broke
away
from
the
PUCL.
Apart
from
this
there
is
the
Association
for
Production
of
Democratic
Rights
run
by
naxalite
in
West
Bengal
and
the
Organization
for
the
Protection
of
Democratic
Right
(OPDR)
run
by
the
DV
Rao
group
in
Andhra.
The
A
P
Civil
Liberties
committee
is
dominated
by
the
People’s
War
(Kondapalli
groups).
Such
organizations
also
exist
in
Maharashtra
and
Tamil
Nadu.
This
in
the
sphere
of
civil
liberties
also,
the
naxalites
have
their
different
tactics
and
different
organization.
All
these
organizations
naturally
show
a
marked
preference
for
taking
up
cases
of
victimized
naxalite
and
helping
in
their
legal
battles.
They
also
specialize
in
taking
up
so-called
violations
of
civil
liberties
by
the
Left
Front
governments
of
West
Bengal
and
Tripura.
In
all
civil
liberties
forums,
the
naxalite
introduce
their
partisan
politics
of
slandering
the
Left
Fronts,
thereby
reducing
the
whole
exercise
to
a
mockery.
As
for
their
excursions
into
culture,
the
main
aim
of
the
numerous
cultural
groups
and
squabs
has
so
far
been
to
propagate
the
politics
of
the
various
naxalite
groups.
However
in
1983
a
more
ambitious
effort
was
made
when
after
a
conference
in
Delhi
an
All
India
League
for
Revolutionary
Culture
(AILRC)
was
announced
Cultural
squads
from
the
Vinod
Mishra
Pulla
Reddy
and
People’s
War
groups
participated.
The
AILRC’s
declared
aim
is
to
fight,
amongst
other
things
revisionist
culture
and
the
social
imperialist
danger.
This
attempt
to
project
a
‘revolutionary
culture’
has
been
scoffed
at
by
the
CRC
Saraf
groups
who
do
not
believe
any
such
front
is
possible
without
clinching
political
differences.
Naxalite
Version
of
Fascism
Another
curious
aspect
of
their
tactical
slogans
is
the
insistence
of
the
fallacious
belief
that
Congress
rule
represents
fascism,
and
raising
slogans
on
this
basis.
The
S
N
Singh
group
has
been
the
loudest
in
denouncing
‘Indira
fascism’
propped
up
by
Soviet
‘social
imperialism’.
At
the
other
end
of
the
ideological
spectrum,
the
CRC
(Venu
group)
is
also
very
liberal
with
the
use
of
the
term
to
describe
Indian
conditions.
In
fact
it
termed
the
assassination
of
Mrs
Gandhi
as
the
death
of
a
fascist’.
It
sees
every
move
of
the
Congress
(I)
government
as
a
move
to
impose
fascism
and
calls
for
resisting
fascism.
It
is
a
very
pecular
form
of
fascism
in
India
indeed
which
allows
revolutionaries
of
the
SNS
group
of
maintain
legal
offices
and
participate
in
elections;
that
enables
the
leaders
of
the
CRC
groups
to
come
out
on
bail
and
conduct
vigorous
anti-fascist
propaganda
in
the
capital
of
the
country
by
publishing
a
paper!
Stand
on
Nationalities
Question
One
theoretical
position
which
none
of
the
groups
have
abandoned
is
the
right
to
self
–determination
for
the
various
nationalities
in
India.
Programmatically
they
all
extend
support
to
secessionist
movements
as
part
of
the
new
democratic
revolution.
Only
is
its
application
they
sometimes
differ.
For
the
naxalite
with
the
semi-colony
and
semi-feudal
thesis
the
right
of
self-determination
is
to
be
exercised
against
a
compradore
state
exploited
by
superpowers.
By
advocating
this
dangerous
and
erroneous
stand,
in
practice
most
of
the
groups
are
supporting
and
participating
in
the
movements
led
by
the
divisive
forces
bent
upon
breaking
up
the
country
and
dividing
the
working
people
with
the
backing
of
US
Imperialism.
In
no
other
current
question
as
the
national
question
is
the
treacherous
and
pro-imperialist
character
of
naxalite
seen.
In
the
case
of
both
Assam
and
Punjab,
various
naxlaite
groups
have
declared
support
for
the
separatist
movements
and
where
possible
are
participating
in
them.
With
the
exception
of
the
SNS
group,
which
had
some
reservations,
naxalite
groups
have
hailed
the
Assam
chauvinist
movement
as
a
national
movement.
DV
Rao
opines:
“To
say
that
there
is
the
invisible
hand
of
the
US
behind
the
national
movements
going
on
in
the
state
of
the
North-East
is
only
to
divert
the
real
issue.”
He
proceeds
to
exonerate
the
USA
and
targets
the
Soviet
Union;
“The
United
States,
weakened
as
it
is
(is)
contenting
itself
with
the
export
of
its
capital…
But
as
for
the
Soviet
Union,
it
is
attempting
to
grip
not
only
the
country
as
a
whole,
but
all
the
strategic
area
within
it.
The
North
East
is
one
among
them.”
(D
V
Rao:
People’s
Democratic
Revolution,
pp.
25-26).
So
flying
in
the
face
of
all
facts
of
US
imperialist
subversion
in
the
North
East,
a
theory
is
invented
to
project
the
Assam
chauvinist
movement
as
fighting
Soviet
domination!
On
Punjab
most
groups
categorically
state
that
the
extremists
activities
in
Punjab
are
a
fight
‘national
oppression’.
“In
the
case
of
Punjab
the
situation
has
developed
to
the
demand
for
national
independence
involving
armed
struggle
against
national
oppressors.”
(Mass
Line,
June,
1984).
This
is
how
the
CRC
group
gives
the
Bhindranwale
groups
the
status
of
fighter
for
national
liberation.
Not
to
be
left
behind,
the
People’s
War
group
states:
“if
now
leadership
(of
Akalis)
betrays
the
movement
for
the
implementation
of
the
Anandpur
Sahib
resolution
demands
half-way,
if
will
be
the
proletariat
who
will
be
primarily
to
blame.
From
a
bourgeois
leadership
we
could
not
have
expected
otherwise…
It
is
for
the
proletariat
to
take
the
movement
forward,
stick
to
the
Anandpur
Sahib
resolution
and
other
democratic
demands
expose
the
leadership,
fight
the
fundamentalists
…
and
enhance
the
struggle
against
the
center
and
the
police.”
(Varguard,
April-May,
1984)
As
for
as
this
group
naxalites
is
concerned
it
is
the
proletariat
which
has
to
champion
the
Anandpur
Sahib
resolution!
They
also
support
the
Akali
stand
on
Article
25
of
the
constitution.
Their
only
complaint
is
that
some
naxalites
have
joined
the
Bhindranwale
gangs
and
merged
their
identity,
instead
of
joining
the
movement
independently.
The
SNS-led
CPI(ML)
while
inveighing
against
the
chauvinist
aspects
of
the
Assam
movement
is
not
above
combining
with
tribal
separatism.
SN
Singh
writes,
“Is
it
not
a
matter
of
proletarian
pride
that
our
party
has
been
struggling
hard
to
rescue
the
separate
Jharkhand
movement
from
the
opportunist
this
disruptive
hands.
With
‘separate
Jharkhand
on
the
basis
of
adivasi
–non-adivasi
people’s
unity’
as
our
slogan
are
we
not
preventing
the
careerists
and
opportunists
from
dividing
the
exploited
people
…
True
to
their
colour
some
among
the
ultra-‘left’
fraternity
can
be
found
championing
the
chauvinist
line
of
driving
out
all
the
non-adivasis
from
the
Jharkhand
region.”
(SN
Singh:
For
a
New
Democracy,
March-April
1982)
While
S
N
Singh
himself
states
that
they
have
joined
the
movement
to
rescue
it
from
chauvinist
elements,
he
also0
admits
that
those
belonging
to
his
‘ultra-left
fraternity’
are
busy
fanning
the
flames
of
tribal
chauvinism.
The
difference
in
practices
is
only
one
of
degree.
Various
seminars
are
being
organised
by
the
different
groups
of
naxalites
to
espouse
dangerous
stand
on
nationalities.
A
typical
example
is
the
seminar
organised
in
August
1981
in
madras
by
the
A
P
Radical
Studies
Union
where
papers
were
presented
supporting
the
‘national
movements’
of
Assam,
Nagaland,
Chattisgarh,
Jharkhand
Vidharba
Tamil
Nadu.
It
is
in
the
matter
of
facing
the
challenge
of
the
divisive
forces
that
we
see
the
naxalite
at
their
disruptive
worst
today.
Blinded
to
the
threat
of
US
imperialism
by
their
hatred
for
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
socialist
camp,
they
are
easy
prey
for
recruitment
into
the
imperialist-backed
divisive
movements,
which
can
be
covered
with
pseudo-revolution
rhetoric
about
anti-centre
national
movements.
Imperialist
Infiltration
It
is
this
dark
side
of
imperialist
infiltration
into
the
naxalite
movement
that
requires
further
highlighting.
The
recent
episode
of
the
vertical
split
in
the
S
N
Singh-led
CPI(ML)
have
confirmed
the
facts
already
available.
In
mid-1984
the
Provisional
Central
Committee
led
by
S
N
Singh
split
down
the
middle
with
the
Santosh
Rana
-
Vaskar
Nandy
group
and
the
faction
led
by
S
N
Singh
parting
ways
after
a
bitter
inner
quarrel.
It
is
significant
as
the
bankruptcy
of
naxalite
politics
once
again
surfaces
sharply
with
mutual
accusations
of
betrayal
of
Mao
Zedong
thought,
softness
to
US
imperialism
and
divisive
movements
being
bandied
about.
The
S
N
Singh
minority
faction
in
its
document
makes
serious
charges
against
Vaskar
Nandy
and
company.
“In
our
organisation
also,
Nandy’s
close
associates
established
contacts
with
a
foreign
voluntary
agency
and
a
native
voluntary
agency
financed
by
Western
monopoly
capital,
keeping
it
secret
from
the
POC
and
the
general
secretary
of
the
party,
S
N
Singh.
They
established
contact
with
Rural
Aid
Consortium
of
Tagore
Society
which
is
financed
by
West
European
countries
and
the
USA
and
with
one
Danish
Organisation
on
the
Plea
of
providing
relief
to
the
people
of
Gobiballabpur
in
West
Bengal
and
some
areas
in
Bihar.
Lakhs
of
rupees
were
received
for
digging
tanks,
constructing
school
building
opening
a
sewing
training
center
and
distributing
chickens
and
cattle
to
the
needy.
It
also
came
to
our
notice
that
money
was
being
received
by
some
of
our
leaders
from
the
Lutheran
Church.
When
it
came
to
light
to
the
PCC
members,
an
intense
ideological
struggle
burst
forth
in
the
party
on
this
issue.”
(Our
differences
with
Nandy-Rana
group,
PCC-CPI(ML),
p.
29)
It
goes
on
to
state:
“We
thoroughly
investigated
(among
the
cadres
and
people)
in
Gobiballapur
and
Bhargora,
where
relief
work
was
carried
on
through
money
from
the
“Tagore
Society”,
Rohtas
Channpatia
and
Mushhari,
where
schools
were
built
up
by
the
Dabes,
and
party
and
doubted
our
bonafides
…
Several
cadres
have
been
exposed
to
these
agencies.”
It
concludes
with
the
damming
indictment:
“It
does
not
require
intelligence
of
a
high
order
to
find
out
why
some
of
the
former
members
of
the
PCC
adopted
particular
policies
on
the
question
of
caste,
tribe,
Assamese
and
non-Assamese.”
Following
a
blind
anti-Soviet
line,
Satyanarian
Singh
found
out
a
few
months
before
his
death
that
the
majority
of
his
PCC
members
sided
with
Nandy
and
company
in
whitewashing
its
links
with
the
imperialist
funded
voluntary
agencies,
most
having
been,
corrupted
with
foreign
money.
Attitude
to
the
CPI(M)
If
there
is
one
tenet
has
not
been
abandoned
by
any
of
the
groups,
it
is
their
implacable
hatred
for
the
CPI(M).
Most
of
the
groups
characterise
the
CPI(M)
not
only
as
revisionist
party
but
also
a
party
of
the
ruling
classes-
that
section
which
is
allied
to
Soviet
Social
imperialism.
Though
the
phase
of
annihilating
CPI(M)
cadres
has
been
abandoned
as
an
official
policy,
with
some
exceptions
as
in
Warrangal
district
the
same
aim
of
liquidating
the
CPI(M)
is
sought
to
be
pursued
by
opportunity
alliances
with
reactionary
political
forces
and
outright
slander
against
the
CPI(M)
and
the
Left
Front
governments.
As
an
observer
who
was
earlier
not
unsympathetic
to
their
movement
has
noted,
“Often
the
affirmation
of
the
revolutionary
identity
of
naxalism
means
singling
out
the
CPM
and
CPI
for
an
onslaught
because,
according
to
their
theory,
those
parties
can
be
nothing
but
obstacles
to
the
popular
movement
…
the
anti
CPM
and
CPI
aspect
of
naxalism
is
not
new.
The
point
is
that
it
has
become
increasingly
more
important
over
the
recent
past
as
the
naxalite
survival
has
been
threatened.”
(Praful
Bidwai,
“From
Thunder
to
a
Whimper”,
The
Times
of
India
January
11,
1983)
Unable
to
explain
how
the
compradors
in
a
semi
colony
are
able
to
maintain
a
viable
parliamentary
regime,
the
common
rationalization
is
to
blame
the
‘revisionist’
CPI(M).
“The
reason
why
this
compradore
Parliamentary
system
sustai9ned
for
31
years,
does
not
lie
in
its
viability
created
illusions
about
the
reactionary
Indian
state….
adopted
the
parliamentary
road….
blunted
the
edge
of
class
struggle
and
prevented
the
growth
of
a
genuine
revolutionary
party
–
thus
helping
the
perpetuation
of
this
rotten
system
for
such
period”.
(Saraf,
A
Revolutionary
view
point,
July-Sept,
1978,
p.64)
The
anti-Soviet
/anti-Fascist
theorists
include
the
CPI(M)
as
one
of
the
forces
to
be
isolated,
as
according
to
them
the
party
supports
Soviet
hegemonism
and
is
therefore
a
lackey
of
the
Congress
party
too.
The
newly
formed
IPF
in
the
recent
parliament
elections
conducted
propaganda
calling
on
people
to
defeat
both
the
Congress(I)
and
the
Left
Front
in
West
Bengal!
Two
naxalite
groups
in
Tripura
have
openly
allied
with
the
separatist
TUJS
to
fight
the
Left
Front
there.
The
only
difference
between
the
boycottists
and
participationsist
in
elections
is
that
while
those
who
boycott
blame
the
‘revisionist
parties’
for
giving
a
lease
of
life
to
the
‘decaying
parliamentary
system’,
the
participationsis
consider
that
more
effective
propaganda
can
be
made
against
the
CPI(M)
by
intervening
in
the
elections.
The
hostility
is
but
natural,
for
as
Praful
Bidwai
points
out:
“This
is
one
side
of
contemporary
nxalism.
The
other
side
cynical
and
devious
real
politic;
covert,
and
now
increasingly
overt
collaboration
with
the
most
rabidly
right
wing
politicians,
class
and
casts,
behind
the
scene
maneuvers
and
collusion
with
the
police
and
communal
or
regionalist
parties.”
The
experience
of
naxalism
in
the
two
Left-Front
states
of
West
Bengal
and
Tripura
fully
bear
out
this
truth.
The
Future
of
Ultra-Leftism-Potential
for
Disruption
The
disorganised
and
anarchic
state
of
naxalism
indicates
that
this
variety
of
ultra
leftism
is
doomed
to
extinction.
Naxalism
had
arisen
in
the
sixties
in
the
background
of
petty-bourgeois
frustrations
at
the
deepening
crisis
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
system
and
the
left-sectarian
line
advocated
by
the
CPC
during
the
cultural
revolution
phase
in
China.
With
the
elimination
of
the
latter,
the
ideological
steam
for
naxalism
has
petered
out.
However,
the
first
factor
has
not
disappeared.
As
Lenin
pointed
out,
“A
petty
bourgeois
driven
to
frenzy
by
the
horrors
of
capitalism
is
a
social
phenomenon
which,
like
anarchism
is
characteristic
of
all
countries.
The
instability
of
such
revolutionism,
its
barrenness,
and
its
tendency
to
turn
rapidly
into
submission,
apathy,
phantasma,
and
even
a
frenzied
infatuation
with
one
bourgeois
fad
or
another-all
this
is
common
knowledge.
However
at
all
rid
revolutionary
parties
of
old
errors,
which
always
crop
up
at
unexpected
occasion,
in
somewhat
new
forms,
in
a
hitherto
unfamiliar
garb
or
surroundings,
in
an
unusual-a
more
or
less
unusual-situation.”
(Lenin,
Left
Wing
Communism,
An
Infantile
Disorder,
selected
Works
vol.
III
p.
358)
The
horrors
of
capitalism
and
feudal
remnants
still
plague
Indian
society
and
affect
the
vast
petty-bourgeois
sections.
Ultra
leftism
finds
fertile
soil
in
such
conditions.
The
farcical
and
at
times
agonizing
disintegration
of
the
naxalite
ultra-left
trend
bears
the
potential
for
revival
in
other
forms.
The struggle against the left-deviation which the CPI(M) waged alongside the fight against revisionism has scored major success. However, the Party has to continue to vigilantly note the continuing efforts to revive ultra-leftism and must effectively combat these trends in whichever garb they appear. The CPI(M) has been the only party which recognized the counter revolutionary content of naxalism and resolutely waged a political ideological battle without naxalism and resolutely waged a political ideological battle without compromise. The current dead-end of naxalism is a vindication of its line.