India: Nazariya Magazine – Exposing the Modern Revisionist Line of ‘Balraj’ and Lackeys

We hereby share an important article published by Nazariya Magazine.

Exposing the Modern Revisionist Line of ‘Balraj’ and Lackeys as the Ideological Wing of Operation SAMADHAN-Prahar (Firmly Resolve to Forge the Path of NDR!)

The present political conditions at the international level are the manifestation of the crisis inherent in the capitalist mode of production at the stage of imperialism. The imperialist bourgeoisie has not been able to come out of the crisis faced during the COVID pandemic. Even in the capitalist imperialist countries, the working class is organizing itself against the exploitation of capital. Recently there was a call to strike by the US working class in three giant, big motor industries. This indicates a condition in which the ruling class of imperialist bourgeoisie is incapable of resolving the contradictions within the capitalist imperialist economy. We notice how the large financial institutions of the world are collapsing and are unable to recover the money which they loaned. Under these world-wide conditions, the working class and even the middle classes are losing their jobs. In order to resolve the contradiction, the imperialist forces are looking for methods to ensure the multiplication of profit. The Russia-Ukraine war fits this need of the capital. War means capital multiplication. Through the regular supply of weapons, the US and the other imperialist powers try to strengthen their imperialist bourgeoisie. For example, the USA is one of the biggest suppliers to Israel in its settler-colonial agenda against Palestine, the benefits of which will be reaped by the USA through its relationship with Israel. Besides, the imperialist bourgeoisie is also heavily investing into the economy of oppressed countries like India. The imperialist powers are reclaiming their hold over the oppressed countries. We are witnessing re-groupings at world level. While China and Russia have been trying to introduce new oppressed countries into the BRICS, the G20 group led by US imperialists is also re-grouping itself by adding the oppressed countries of the African continent. The comprador bourgeoisie of India has been playing an important role in these re-groupings. True to its comprador character; it is taking the middle path and is incapable of taking a stand of its own. It has not taken a stand on the Russian-Ukraine war and neither has it accepted the US sanction on Iran.

In the recently concluded G20, the comprador bourgeoisie of India has received heavy investments in their companies from the imperialist bourgeoisie. The G20 meeting at this time was an effort to resolve the crisis of world imperialism. By creating new avenues for capital investments in terms of road building, a new lease to life for US imperialism is to be granted. The US has always used India as the base for their imperialist expansion in South Asia and now it has increased the role of Indian comprador forces- it wants to spend its capital in the African and western Asian economy through India. The comprador Indian state has decreased the import duty of apples from the US, this would cause a great blow to the peasants who cultivate apples in three states of India. Former J&K Chief Minister, in an interview on the effects of the 20% slash in tariffs: “We don’t want imported apples, walnuts or almonds here. It is hard to believe that the government is increasing hardships on the people of Kashmir in order to please the US and other countries. Kashmiris are put in agony only to receive applause from the foreign countries” (Ali, 2023).

Along with the ties of the Indian comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie with the US, it has thousands of ties with the emerging imperialist alliance of Russia and China. It is highly dependent on Russia for oil and dependent on China for electronic equipment. It is through the shoulders of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie of India that the Russian oil reaches European soil. Further, the loot of the basic natural resources is exponentially rising; the government recently amended the Forest Act in order to facilitate the loot of jal, jungle and jameen by the imperialist and comprador bourgeoisie forces. In the countryside, the big landlords in the form of contractors, moneylender and feudal landlords are exploiting the poor and landless peasants. The struggle for increase in wages of the agrarian laborers has developed in several regions of North India. Further, the movement for village common land which is under the occupation of the big landlords has also intensified. The comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the feudal ruling class are trying to strangulate the masses in order to amass profit and monopolize resource loot over oppressed countries through which they exercise their hegemony. For this, the most severe form of fascist onslaught on democratic movement is unleashed. Attacks on Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis and women are on rise. Attacks on democratic movements for the right to self-determination are rising. The Indian state is using aerial bombing to crush the right to self-determination movement in Kashmir. Under these conditions the attack on revolutionary forces unified under the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism becomes tactically important for the ruling class.

Modi and Trump depict the relationship between US imperialism and its lackeys

The ruling class knows that the only power in the subcontinent which can defeat the reactionary plan and desire to build a Hindu fascist state (Hindu Raj) is the revolutionary movement and the masses who are militantly resisting under its guidance. Rising to this need, the ruling class under the direct guidance of US imperialism, has unleashed its most ferocious attack on the revolutionary movement. Under Operation SAMADHAN-Prahar and Surajkund Offensive, the state has been regularly targeting its leadership. Through the use of aerial bombing, it has been trying to harm the revolutionaries. The recent arrests of Pramod Mishra and Deepak Rao are also a part of their nefarious design to annihilate the revolutionary movement. Besides, they have unleashed attacks on the democratic rights mass organizations. Raids on the mass organizations and harassment/arrests of the democratic voices sympathetic to the movement only display the utter desperation of the ruling class.

In addition to this, ideological warfare is being carried through the use of counter-revolutionary modern revisionist forces that were once a part of the movement at any level. Baccha Prasad Singh aka Balraj and his lackeys are one such force. It is being seen that the state is sparing such forces, with Balraj roaming free openly after he has been released from prison for being a member of the CPI (Maoist). Yet he is publicly declaring himself a Central Committee (CC) member of the banned revolutionary party even in highly surveilled and state-infiltrated institutions like the Press Club of India, Delhi without any repercussions. How is it possible that after being sent to jail for being a member of CPI (Maoist), he is able to declare himself a CC member after his release without being arrested again? These modern revisionist forces create confusion among the masses and try to create disillusionment among the revolutionaries in order to lay them astray from the correct political line. In this fashion, the modern revisionist forces are helping the ruling class. Therefore, it becomes important to wage struggle against such modern revisionist groups and dismantle them. To better understand the nature and tactics of such counter-revolutionary right opportunist forces, it is important to trace their history. In this effort the following paragraphs are presented:  

The history of struggle against the revisionist forces in communist movement can be traced back to the times of the birth of Marxism. Comrade Marx struggled against the class pacifists and reformist idealists who propounded the theory of utopian socialism and bourgeois reformism. Comrade Marx and Engels famously propounded the theory of socialist revolution in Communist Manifesto and said, “The communist disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be achieved by forcible overthrow of all the existing order of the society” (Engels and Marx, 1848). In the ‘Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna’ comrade Marx (1848) wrote, “The purposeless massacre perpetrated since the June and October events the tedious offering of sacrifice since the February and March, the very cannibalism of the counter revolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” As explained in the writing of the great teacher comrade Marx, the bloodiest war between the ruling class and the oppressed class is the necessary stage in the transformation of society. To deny the necessity of force in revolution is to deny the transformation of the society, is to attack against the inevitability of the development of productive forces. Comrade Marx in his talks with the correspondent of ‘The World’ journal held that the transition to socialism from capitalism will have to be akin to the slave holder war of the antiquity. Marx and Engels fought against the reformist and anarchist lines within the First International. In the First International Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht were influenced by the Lassalean line. It is important to note that the socialist ideology at this stage was at its infancy hence the socialists of that time were influenced by the bourgeoisie ideology. In Marx one finds the complete rupture from the bourgeoisie ideology.

While fighting the reformist Lassalean socialists, Marx exposed the reformist line of the Lassaleans and established the theory of scientific socialism based on the principle of dictatorship of the proletariat. Ferdinand Lassalle was the father of modern revisionists, he envisaged that the old state was to be persuaded, or pressured, to bring socialism into being. This idea was smashed to pieces, the historic success of the Paris Commune proved that the correct path towards Socialism laid in armed struggle. After the collapse of the Paris Commune in the Fifth Congress of the International, Bakunin characterized Marx as authoritarian and said that the proletariat state would be as dangerous as the bourgeois state. To this, Marx replied that without dictatorship of the proletariat the formation of classless society is impossible. He termed the position of Bakunin as rhetorical without any political substance in it; he said that Bakunin lacks a theory of state and an understanding on the social class formations. This difference led to the split of the First International in 1872. 

The History of Revisionism in Communist History 

Following the lines of Marx, communist parties emerged in the world. The bourgeois class ideology present in the society infiltrated within the communist party and manifested itself in the form of revisionism. The characteristic feature of revisionism is its vagueness, amorphous and elusive nature. It tries to hide one wrong word between two correct positions. It tries to conceal its identity unless and until it has come into a position where it can influence the large majority. The revisionists would pretend to be one in ideological questions but in practice, they would secretly conspire against the communist forces and their leadership. One very serious and usual mark of revisionism is the usage of the terminology like ‘change in situation’ and ‘in light of changing situation’. Using these phraseologies, revisionists try to rob Marxism of its basic essence of class struggle- both internal and external. Revisionism came up in the international platform only in terms of their allegiance to the Marxist founders i.e. Marx or Engels.

The first man to revise the theory of Marxism in the service of the bourgeoisie was Bernstein. It is worth noting that earlier Bernstein used to defend Marxism against the reformist theory of Lassalle who he termed a social reformer. In the German Social Democratic Party, it was he who appeared to follow the Marxist theory. Best example of the revisionist practice of Bernstein is exhibited when, he along with Karl Kautsky, edited Engels’ introduction to Marx’s Class Struggle in France. He inserted the lines which said that peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism was possible. To this Engels rebuked him, “I was amazed to see today an extract from my introduction… That tricked out in such a way as to present me as a peace-loving proponent of legality”. Bernstein, the first among the first generation of revisionists, started saying that the ruling class rule is not to be smashed but it is to be developed to such a level that socialism is achieved. 

Karl Kautsky became the true successor of Bernstein. He propounded the theory that under bourgeois rule, armed struggle is not needed. He said that it would be ridiculous to preach the violent overthrow of the state. Kautsky misquoted Marx and asserted that in his writings Marx talked about peaceful transition to socialism through parliamentary means. Comrade Lenin (1918) in his writing ‘The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky’ smashed the revisionism of Bernstein and Kautsky he said, “Kautsky beat the world record in liberal distortion of Marx”. Lenin smashed the revisionism within the Second International and asserted that “civil war without which not a single Marxist has conceived of transition from capitalism to socialism” is the path for revolution. Comrade Lenin thus defended the Marxist theory from the opportunists and developed Marxism to the concrete condition of the monopoly age of capitalism. Under the leadership of Comrade Lenin, Russia saw the earth-shaking proletariat revolution; this smashed the revisionism which later on emerged in different forms. 

Khrushchev became the new figure in which the spirit of Bernstein and Kautsky was imbibed. He propounded that the peaceful coexistence of different classes is possible. Along with that he also said that the transition of capitalism to socialism is possible through peaceful means. This sort of revisionism in the communist movement after the martyrdom of comrade Stalin came to be known as modern revisionism. The great communist revolutionary comrade Mao, under whose leadership the Communist Party of China (CPC) successfully completed revolution in semi colonial semi feudal China, waged relentless struggle against modern revisionism. Comrade Mao laid down the correct Marxist-Leninist path for the revolution. CPC (1964) exposed the Khrushchevite revisionism and asserted that “events since World War 2 have also shown that if the communist leadership believe in the parliamentary road and fall victim to incurable disease of parliamentary cretinism, they will not only get nowhere but will inevitably sink into the quagmire of revisionism and ruin the revolutionary cause of proletariat”. Though modern revisionism was exposed by the CPC, this form of revisionism managed to assert great influence in many countries. Modern revisionism took different forms including Browder revisionism, Soviet revisionism, Titoite revisionism, Hoxhaism, Lin Piao revisionism, Deng revisionism etc. The revisionist forces use the writings of the great teachers of the proletariat (Marx and Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Charu Majumdar and Kanhai Chatterjee) in order to deceive the masses from the path toward communism and keep them under the yoke of bourgeois dictatorship. This is what makes the revisionist a handy tool in the hands of the ruling class. Throughout the history of the communist parties around the world the ruling classes have used these forces against the genuine revolutionary forces. The revolutionary movement in our country too has seen the manifestation of these debates. It was after the great Naxalbari rebellion that comrade Charu Majumdar (to be referred to as ‘CM’ throughout the article) and Kanhai Chaterjee (to be referred to as KC throughout the article) fought against modern revisionist CP(M) and envisaged that the revolution in India will have an agrarian axis that it shall follow the Chinese path. Thus, the Protracted People’s War based on area wise seizure of power became the guiding light for revolution.

The Struggle against Modern Revisionism in India 

Comrade Charu Majumdar (1965) (CM) in his article ‘Carry on the Struggle against Modern Revisionism’ said, “No movement of the peasants on basic demands will follow the peaceful path”. He called upon the masses to give active resistance, he formulated that any form of mass movement has to be militant and not just in passive form but in active resistant forms. He quotes comrade Mao saying, “Mere passive resistance against repression drives a wedge in the fighting unity of the masses and invariably leads to the path of surrender”. The programme of active resistance has to be organized before any mass movement. This formulation of Comrade Charu has become even true in the times of rising fascistization of the Indian state under the openly reactionary, hard-core brahmanical Hindutva forces. Comrade CM endorsed the tit for tat method of avenging the attacks of class enemies on masses and revolutionaries. Based on the line laid down by Comrade Mao, Comrade CM held that the main task of the workers in a semi colonial semi feudal country like India is to “collect arms and build up bases of armed struggle in rural area, this is called the politics of working class; the politics of seizure of power.” Opposition to this basic task of the communists comes from the modern revisionists who are for reformism and not for revolution. In order to achieve this, it becomes important to organise the revolutionary movement in the most secret way, which is indelible to the ruling class. 

For this, comrade CM (1966) in his writing ‘Our Tasks in the Present Situation’ has asked the revolutionary communists to form underground activist (UG) groups in large numbers. He said that the UG comrades of the party must give leadership to the party members who shall form these activist groups (AGs) among the masses. The basic line laid down by comrade CM guided the revolutionary movements in India. But after the martyrdom of comrade CM, the revolutionary movement got split into different groups.  Amid confusions with regard to the revolutionary paths, MCC (Maoist Communist Centre) under the leadership of comrade Kanhai Chatterjee (KC), after opposing the modern revisionist line of CPM, carried on the revolutionary movement in the regions of Bihar’s Chota Nagpur region. MCC formed guerrilla zones in these regions based on which it started armed agrarian movement in the plains of Magadh region. Similarly, comrade K. Seetharamaiah formed CPI ML (PW) and after some critical reviews carried the line of comrade CM.

Comrade Charu Majumdar

The Present Revolutionary Movement in India

Through the concrete implementation of the Chinese path in Indian concrete conditions, the revolutionary movement has proved that the line laid down by comrade CM and KC stands true. In accordance with its practice, the revolutionary movement has been struggling against left and right deviations within the revolutionary movement. At the same time, the revolutionary movement has established the correct political-military line for revolution. In an exception to the general development elsewhere in the world, it was in India that a Lin Piao group under the leadership of Madhav Mukherjee was formed. This Lin Piaoist group was based on the theory of revolutionary authority. This group specified that the line of CM was completely correct. They uncritically accepted CM’s line. This was a left-deviationist line in the revolutionary movement which later on turned into right opportunism, at present they are active under the banner of modern revisionist party CPI ML (Liberation). 

Lin Piao was the greatest conspirator against the CPC. He used the shrewdest technique to establish leadership over the party. He can be called as the father of conspiratorial revisionists. Adding Lin Piao’s name to that of comrade Mao, new slogans were given to proclaim, “Long Live Comrade Mao and his closest comrade in arms comrade Lin Piao”. A slogan to glorify Lin read “while our great leader comrade Mao is the founder leader of People’s Liberation Army Vice-Chairman Lin is directly leading it” to which comrade Mao has sarcastically rebuked Lin Piao’s opportunism, “as if I am incapable of leading the army.” This slogan was tactically raised in order to establish the leadership of Lin Piao in the party. For Lin knew that Mao cannot say do not undertake your cult, undertake my name alone. Lin also used to say that anyone who opposed Mao’s view must be expelled from the party and everyone must follow Mao’s view even if they do not understand those views. But it was Lin himself who opposed the Cultural Revolution, he wanted to bring the party under the leadership of the army and it was Lin who opposed the participation of party cadres in the production process.

Revisionists in general are opportunists. They tend to use different tactics in order to win over the cadres and masses to their side. Comrade Lenin (1904) said, “When we speak of fighting opportunism, we must never forget the feature characteristics of present-day opportunism in every sphere namely its indefiniteness, diffuseness, elusiveness. An opportunist by its very nature always evades formulating an issue definitely and decisively, he seeks a middle course, he wriggles like a snake between two mutually exclusive views, trying to agree with both and to reduce his difference of opinion to the level petty amendments, doubts, righteous and innocent suggestions”. We have revisionists who vow to work on the revolutionary line and claim to be more revolutionary than any of the comrades working under the discipline of the revolutionary movement but in practice, they implement revisionism and wait for a chance to assume leadership of the revolutionary movement. Such revisionist forces spread different political lines among the masses and try to organise the masses on a counter revolutionary. However, when confronted with questions on ideology and political line they vow ‘true’ allegiance to revolutionary line or sometimes might try to evade the question. They never clearly state their ideological differences for they know that the clear revisionist line can easily be smashed in a truly revolutionary movement. In order to organise on their line they adopt conspiratorial methods, they deploy methods of targeting the leadership, and they spread falsehood among the masses about the leaderships. Using such conspiratorial methods they try to break the unity of the revolutionary movement. They fear stating their ideological positions.

Balraj and Lin Piao: Same Essence, Different Form

Such was the general trait of every revisionist; such is the specific traits of Baccha Prasad Singh aka Balraj and his lackeys. He had been a member of the Madhav Mukherjee group and had gained a basic training in conspiracy hatching from this group. This is clearly manifested in the way he moves among the masses by calling himself a CC member of CPI(Maoist); this is despite the fact that he has been officially expelled by them. His pretense of allegiance to the revolutionary movement is similar to the conspiracy which Lin Piao hatched against the CPC. As we have seen, Lin Piao used to associate his name with comrade Mao- the same is true for the counter revolutionary element Baccha Prasad. Balraj is using his past association with the revolutionary movement in order to deceive the masses and break the ideological unity of the revolutionary movement. At a time when the ruling class has unleashed the most dreaded offensive against the revolutionary movement in particular and the masses in general, the right opportunist forces like Baccha Prasad are the ruling class agents of Operation SAMADHAN-Prahar and Surajkund Offensive plotting to destroy the revolutionary movement. 

He has been meeting the masses and trying to create the impression that he represents the revolutionary movement. As the masses develop faith in him, he starts his propagation of the counter-revolutionary line and petty bourgeois politics of class pacifism. Baccha Prasad is a Lin Piaoist in figure and a grandson of Bernstein in spirit. The political issue which he is raising is nothing new. These are issues that have already been raised and refuted multiple times within the revolutionary communist movement in India and internationally. Instead of directly presenting his political ideological positions, he is persistently attacking the revolutionary leadership in the most hapless and timid manner with no political substance in it. At the time when the state repression on the revolutionary movement is strong, Baccha Prasad, a trained Lin Piaoist, is opportunistically exploiting the condition to infuse disillusion among the cadres. Mao says that revisionism is the main danger. Modern revisionism is one of the chief enemies of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the new democratic movement and revolution. The anti-imperialist anti-feudal revolutionary culture of the people cannot be established without fighting against modern revisionism. In this respect, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the strongest weapon in the fight against modern revisionism. Therefore, it becomes important to expose his ideological, political and organisational positions. Following are the main questions/issues raised by Balraj. The author attempts to present a refutation of these by summarising the main ideological and political points in the debate:

1.  “That it is not possible for the current revolutionary movement to guide the mass work openly and therefore a different structure or committee which has to be open for guiding the mass work is needed.”

This argument is not new. MN Roy, the revisionist who was expelled from the International for his pro-bourgeoisie stand, had propounded this idea. In his book ‘The Future of Politics in India’, he stated that there has to be two parties- first, the legal, democratic and open party which he named the Workers and Peasant Party of India and another, the proletarian party i.e. Communist Party of India. The former shall be used to mobilize the broad masses. This was criticised by the Comintern and the CPI changed it. Comintern urged the need for forming an independent party of the proletariat. Comrade Lenin in his debate against Menshevik revisionists laid down the theory of party building. A Bolshevik party has to be united and disciplined. Without the strong unified Bolshevik party under a strict discipline the revolution in Russia would not have been successful. Comrade Lenin had firmly held the position that socialists need to have a separate party from the petty bourgeoisie reformists. The open party which is being advocated would be the platform for the dissemination of petty bourgeois reformism. The legal democratic mass work without an active militant resistance within it would be an apology for modern revisionism (Lenin, 1904; Lenin, 1907). As quoted above, Comrade Charu Majumdar in his work ‘Oppose Modern Revisionism’ stated that only those mass work which has an active resistance group within it can be of any use to the revolutionary movement. A party for mass work without an UG leadership is basically a modern revisionist group preparing for elections. This is a step toward demolishing the cause of the proletarian class in general and communist party in particular. 

The plea by Balraj and his lackeys for a separate party is basically to disassociate themselves from the revolutionary path of Protracted People’s War (PPW) [1] and falls into the mire of bourgeois parliamentary politics as propounded by their forefather Karl Kautsky. The transition to new democratic society and thereafter to a socialist and further to a communist society as envisaged in the political program of a New Democratic Revolution demands a single and united party which works in service of armed struggle from the very beginning of our work in any area. As the history of the International Communist Movement has shown, the UG leadership of a communist party is in a position to give the highest sacrifice for the cause of the party, revolution and people. The leadership of the most advanced comrades is necessary to guide the movement. This will instill the motivation among the cadres to move in the path towards a position of leadership in the vanguard party. 

An open center for the party, if it has to be revolutionary and practicing PPW, cannot survive openly- this is because an exposed party structure would leave it open to attack by the enemy. This would allow for the state to arrest, encounter and disappear both the leadership and cadre of the party, without which the revolutionary movement would weaken and may come to be in a position of severe backfoot. This is a trend that we are seeing since Operation Green Hunt and in its intensified form in Operation SAMADHAN-Prahar and Surajkund Scheme as well, developed through the ‘Hearts and Minds’ strategy and integral to the state’s psychological war against the revolutionary movement, and the party which leads it. It is only when a party is reformist in character that such an open structure as propagated by Balraj can work. This way, the so-called revolutionary party is not a threat to the larger interests of imperialism and its running lackeys. In fact, the illusion of class struggle and resistance which embodies the essence of these so-called parties benefits the interests of the ruling classes – if the masses are deceived into believing that they are contributing towards revolutionary change, they will remain a non-threat to the ruling class. This is because their ideological and political position will be dulled due to the lack of class struggle, and when the masses are weakened, so is a revolutionary party and its capacity to propagate revolution and expand its cadre. Is the Balraj group suggesting forming a new modern revisionist party? 

Balraj very well knows that a revolutionary party needs to be UG from the very first day of its formation because without secret functioning, such a “party” will be destroyed by the enemy. Therefore, this demand is rooted not in ideological, political and organisational correctness but in the subjective, individualistic frustration born out of Balraj’s inability to undertake the difficult task of UG functioning. This is a result of Balraj’s own political degeneration, his failure to rise up to the occasion and guide the PPW by being UG in any one of the strategic regions where he is needed by the people and their cause. Due to his petty bourgeois weaknesses, he is trying to craft a theory that best suits his own class comfortability, and the conditions created due to lack of internal struggle. The task of being UG will be a life of constant vigilance against the state and its agents, which means that one’s existence would come at the cost of personal comfort with one’s existence having no meaning except for the sole purpose of serving the party and advancing the revolutionary movement till they are martyred in the process of class war.

There is a very popular idiom in the subcontinent which says that a bad dancer blames the floor. In order to hide his personal shortcomings, Balraj is using the ideological mask of MLM. He wants to lead the party despite his weakness. That is, despite him not being willing to develop the capacity of going UG, he wants to establish himself as a leader among the party cadres and wants to keep guiding the party as a CC-M (Central Committee Member, the group of the most advanced and developed organizers in a communist party) by instead propagating an anti-revolutionary theory. This debate was soundly settled in Lenin’s seminal ‘What is to be Done?’ already. That is the reason why he wants an open party for open work. This is nothing short of a feudal supremacy manifested under the garb of MLM. He is acting like that feudal lord who does not want to lose hold over his land but is incapable of raising defense for protecting the land from the peasant force. The hold of Brahmanical feudalism over Balraj makes him unable to politically comprehend the two line struggle within the party. For him the two line struggle is a way to establish his feudal supremacy over others instead of an avenue to advance the interests of the most exploited and oppressed people and their revolutionary allies by advancing the party’s collective understanding in the process of criticism-self criticism and debate.

2.  Balraj alleges, “That the party is not giving due importance to mass work and the military line is dominating.”

Comrade Mao (Tse-tung, 1938) said: “The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and highest form of revolution. But while the principle remains the same (for all countries), its application by the Party of the proletariat finds expression in various ways according to the varying conditions”. For every Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, the question about armed struggle, the military line, is of central importance. Comrade Lenin said that the only thing which differentiates a communist from a social democrat is whether or not they accept the dictatorship of the proletariat and without an armed struggle, it is not possible to smash the most reactionary ruling classes. This question of laying stress on mass movement was raised in different forms by Parimal Dasgupta, regarding which comrade Charu Majumdar (1969) wrote in ‘On Some Current Political and organizational Problems’: “the question is if everyone concerns himself with building mass organizations, who is to build upon the underground party organization? Do we expect the mass organization to build an agrarian revolution?”

Rebutting the stress on mass organizing, comrade CM said that trends to form open mass organization without the formation of UG party structures guided by UG leadership would invariably lead into the formations of open mass organization in the interest of rich and middle peasant like that of the Kisan Sabhas. This stress on mass work at the cost of surrendering the politics of PPW is modern revisionism and economism in politics. In 2007, the CPI (Maoist) highlighted this in its document titled ‘Political and Organisational Review’. The document is accessible on public domain but, like all Maoist documents banned and censored by the world’s largest democracy, is not accessible for a broad section of Indian people. However, the Indian state’s organ, the Supreme Court itself, in the case of G.N. Saibaba and Ors. v. Union of India has clarified that reading and possessing banned literature (including literature of banned Maoist parties), adhering to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology and promoting it is not a crime. Therefore, the author is reproducing what the POR states: “We should always keep ‘Politics in command’. The seizure of state power should be the goal of all our activity— whether in building the three instruments of revolution [Party, Army, United Front], or in conducting our day-to-day mass work, or in building the mass movement. Neglect of this central task will lead to economism in the movement and will confine the masses mainly to reformist practice.” This sums up the actual MLM position on this question and is in accordance with what the 5 great teachers of the proletariat have taught us on the question of economism and the relation between partial struggles and the ultimate goal of seizure of state power.

The leadership of the poor and landless peasant on the peasant movement can only be organized through UG party organizations among the peasants. In a time of the rising threat of Brahmanical Hindutva Fascism, and a clear cut support from the US Imperialism to these reactionary forces of comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and feudal ruling class, any communist party (if it is actually communist i.e. serious about leading a revolution to victory) will be concerned primarily on the military question. Only with an active resistance against fascism through a correct military line would they be able to smash the fascist state and build a New Democratic state. As quoted above, comrade Mao had said that active peoples resistance to the rising repression should be the method of the revolutionaries. Comrade CM guided us to use the method of ‘tit for tat’ in order to weaken the military offensive of the ruling class.

However, in the name of masses, Balraj is propagating an anti-people politics of bourgeois pacifism. There is no dichotomy between the mass work and the military line. The document ‘Strategy and Tactics of the Indian Revolution’ written by the CPI(Maoist) which is publicly available on the government platform ‘South Asia Terrorism Platform’ says, “Before the outbreak of a war all organization and struggle are in preparation for the war and will serve it directly or indirectly after war breaks out. The path followed by the Chinese revolution is also applicable in semi colonial, semi-feudal India due to basic similarities in the conditions between India and pre-revolutionary China. It is the principal characteristics of the objective conditions of India that determine the Path of the Indian Revolution as the path of protracted people’s war”. The politics of PPW relies on the masses and mass work but not in the form of bourgeoisie tailism but as the vanguard. No PPW can be carried through without the masses; it is the sea of the masses in rural areas that would hold weapons to destroy the ruling class fort in villages. The political line as envisaged in the S&T document states, “People are getting mobilized in various parts of the country into armed agrarian revolutionary struggles under the leadership of the Party, which is growing in strength day by day. People’s guerrilla army is getting expanded and people’s war is spreading to new areas. Since our agrarian revolution is a just one, and since it defends the interests of the majority of the people, the support of the people is increasing day by day.” The political line which Balraj and his lackeys are propagating is most harmful for the revolution. This chest thumping for mass organization is nothing other than an excuse to avoid the task of building UG party structures. The avoidance of party building is to avoid the task of armed agrarian revolution.

People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) under the leadership of CPI (Maoist)

3. “There is capitalist development in Punjab, Haryana and elsewhere”

The argument is basically to claim that in India it is impossible to establish liberated areas, to build the Red Army and to carry out protracted people’s war because there is relatively more industrial development, capitalist relations in agriculture and better transport and communication facilities, and because the Indian government has a strong centralized administrative system with a very big modern army when compared to pre-revolutionary China. These arguments are wrong, sprouting from the modern revisionist line. However strong the enemy’s military power may be and however weak the people’s military power, by basing itself on the vast backward countryside-the weakest position of the enemy-and relying on the vast masses of the peasantry, eager for agrarian revolution, and creatively following the flexible strategy and tactics of guerrilla struggle and the protracted people’s war – as a full meal is eaten up mouthful by mouthful, exactly in the same way – by applying the best part of its army (a force few times stronger than that of the enemy) against different single parts of the enemy forces and following the policy and tactics of sudden attack and annihilation, it is absolutely possible for a communist party to defeat the enemy forces and achieve victory for the people in single battles. It is thus possible for them to increase the people’s armed forces, attain supremacy over the enemy’s forces and defeat the enemy decisively. While taking into account factors favorable to the enemy, such a party must, in the course of carrying out the protracted people’s war, take many more precautions and it should establish liberated areas by developing guerrilla zones keeping in mind that it is not possible to build liberated areas in quick succession.

The revolutionary communist movement working towards a New Democratic Revolution (NDR) will have to mobilize people into class struggle more skillfully and cautiously based on class line and mass line. Some changes have indeed taken place since 1947 in the production relations in India. Nobody can deny that. However, these changes are only quantitative in character and the relations of production continue to be semi-colonial semi-feudal in nature because the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and big landlord classes and their imperialist masters do not have it in their interests to allow any qualitative transformation of production relations in India. While according to these changes, communists must formulate concrete tactics that suits the peculiarity of each specific region, the character of the revolution in India still remains New Democratic and the path of revolution still remains area-wise seizure of power through armed agrarian struggle in the countryside to surround the cities i.e. the path of PPW. As Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we must uphold the historic dialectical materialist method and base ourselves on the concrete analysis of concrete conditions and not make subjective analyses.

The Spring Thunder of Naxalbari in 1967, for the first time in the history of the Communist movement in India, made a rupture from revisionism and gave a clear-cut answer to what the path and character of the Indian revolution will be and what the nature of the Indian state is. Since then, forces deserting the path of revolution have been giving the same argument- that India is no longer semi-colonial semi-feudal and PPW is no longer valid. Once again, revisionist Balraj and his lackeys are bringing up this argument to make ideological attacks on the revolutionary movement and deviate comrades from the path of revolution. Hence, it is very important for us to struggle against this form of revisionism.

4.  “That there is no place for debate in the party”

Any MLM party follows the method of “two-line struggle” to resolve debates. In fact, there is a rich history of debates within the CPI(Maoist) as well. The debates between the erstwhile Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Party Unity and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People’s War in the process of their merger into CPI(ML)PW; and the debates between the CPI(ML)PW and the erstwhile Maoist Communist Centre of India to form the CPI(Maoist) gave rise to a lively two line-struggle on many important specific questions of the Indian revolution and the international global situation. A historiography of this and other debates within the revolutionary communist movement is beautifully provided in Prof. Amit Bhattacharyya’s (2014) ‘Storming the Gates of Heaven- The Maoist Movement in India: A Critical Study 1972-2014’. 

Debates within a communist party are based on the correct Marxist-Leninist-Maoist method of party functioning. The principle of Democratic Centralism has to be followed in all situations. All forms of debate and differences can be placed within the structure of which the comrades are part of. A communist party is not a debating society, it debates not for the sake of debating or in revisionist perspective of breaking up the unity of the party but in order to devise the correct political path to move ahead towards the goal of NDR through PPW.

In the name of freedom to debate, the party cannot grant freedom to spit venom on the party line in the most opportunistic manner in order to carry forward the task of modern revisionists which Balraj and his lackeys are clearly guilty of. Instead of presenting their differences inside the structures of the party, Balraj and his lackeys are moving around the world propagating their revisionist line. The question for debating space is therefore a conspiracy to weaken the party unity and facilitate the ruling class offensive of Operation SAMADHAN-Prahar and Surajkund Offensive against the party and the entire New Democratic Revolutionary movement. In actuality, Balraj’s argument is used against the leadership of the party, the leadership which is guiding the party in forming guerrilla zones and base areas, the party which the Indian state has proclaimed as its Number 1 enemy. We must not forget that the leadership whom Balraj and his lackeys are targeting has shown to this world the methodology through which we can liberate masses from the yoke of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism. But all Balraj has to present to the oppressed and exploited masses is class compromise and foot worship of the most reactionary ruling class and their institutions. This is traitorous to the cause of revolution and the masses.

Balraj and his lackeys have exposed their anti-revolutionary modern revisionist tendencies among the revolutionary forces of the country. They have proved traitorous to the cause of revolution. Comrade Mao had propounded the theory of three magical weapons for the completion of NDR. These three magical weapons are the party, army and united front. Balraj and his lackeys have failed as communist revolutionaries on all the three parameters. Firstly, under the modern revisionist practice of giving greater stress on mass movement over the task of building the people’s army, they have belittled the need and the most urgent task of forming a revolutionary party. Secondly, they have deserted the path of PPW. This is reflected in their criticism over what they call “too much militancy”. They have no vision for ‘forcible overthrow of the existing order of the society’. Thirdly, if they lack these two weapons (Party and Army) then what is left for the United Front (UF)? Their UF would be the rest house for liberals and soft Hindutva fascists forces. UF, devoid of PPW, is a platform of reformists to serve the ruling class interest. Thus we have a Balraj who slipped from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal. He has turned away from Maoism to modern revisionism.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the revisionist lines of the Balraj clique have been proving extremely harmful to the revolutionary communist movement. They are propagating the politics of the same old Lasalles, Bernsteins, Kautskys, Khrushchovs and Lin Piaos which the communist revolutionaries of yesteryear had to fight tooth and nail against. Today, it is our task to smash the line of the Balraj revisionist clique. As comrade CM had said, “In joining the revolutionary struggle the very first thing you should understand is that revisionism is the main danger in the world today. Even when suffering defeats one after another revisionism does not relent but continues to launch new attacks in different ways.” And we must continue waging the struggle against revisionism and crush revisionism in the course of class struggle. At the present juncture, the revolutionary movement must expose the Balraj revisionists and consign them into the dustbin of history.

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Protracted People’s War (PPW): PPW is the path of revolution in oppressed semi-colonial/colonial and semi-feudal countries where the democratic revolution remains unfinished and hence the axis of the revolution remains agrarian. In such countries the model of area-wise seizure of power and surrounding the cities from the countryside is followed as had also been proclaimed by coms. CM and KC as the path of revolution in India.

Submission by Rudra, student rights activist

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This is a purely theoretical article which is written in accordance with resources found online, largely based on the principles of what a communist party should be like as given by Charu Majumdar in the book ‘Eight Historical Documents’ published by Foreign Languages Press, available at the link: LINK TO FLP PUBLICATION (CM, EIGHT HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS). The author’s view is their own and Nazariya only takes responsibility for the publication and circulation of the article to the extent of upholding Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles.

REFERENCES

Bhattacharyya, Amit. Storming the Gates of Heaven: The Maoist Movement in India: A Critical Study 1972-2014. 2nd ed., Daanish Books, 2014.

Ali, Jehangir. ‘Kashmiris Made to Suffer for Applause from Abroad’: Fears Over Govt’s Apple Import Tariff Slash’. The Wire (15 Sept. 2023) https://thewire.in/trade/kashmir-apple-import-tariff-reduction.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedreich. ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party’. Marxists.org (1848) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Marx, Karl. ‘The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna’. Marxists.org (1848) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

Lenin, V.I. ‘The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky’. Marxists.org (1918) https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/

Majumdar, Charu. ‘Carry on the Struggle Against Modern Revisionism’. Marxists.org (1965). https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1965/x01/x02.htm

Majumdar, Charu. ‘Our Tasks in the Present Situation’. Marxists.org (1966). https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1966/01/28.htm

Lenin, V.I. ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back’. Marxists.org (1904). https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/index.htm

Lenin, V.I. ‘The Attitude Towards Bourgeois Parties’. Marxists.org. (1907). https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/may/00.htm

Tse-tung, Mao. “Problems of War and Strategy”. Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press. Available at Marxists.org (1938). https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_12.htm

Majumdar, Charu. ‘On Some Current Political and Organizational Problems’. Marxists.org (1969) https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1969/07/x01.html

Previous post Follow the A Nova Democracia’s official accounts
Next post Masses destroy a paramilitary camp in Manipur