Wrong shade of red

Sitaram Yechury
The Hindustan Times: November 19, 2005

Often described as Left extremism, there is a concerted attempt to denounce communism as fostering a ‘cult of violence’ and equating anarchism with revolutionary activities. It needs to be underlined that anarchism is the very antithesis of Marxism and mindless militancy negates — and often regresses — the fundamental tenets of revolutionary activity.

The CPI(M) was formed in 1964. Certain sections went on to form the CPI(M-L) in May 1969, based on an erroneous understanding that the Indian ruling classes were a ‘comprador bourgeoisie’, i.e. they were merely agents of imperialism and, hence, did not possess a social force or a mass following domestically, it was, therefore, only a matter of time when they would be overthrown. Thus, there was no necessity to mobilise the people and organise a mass revolutionary party. The people, it is presumed, are ready for a revolution by overthrowing the ruling classes. All that was needed was to arm the people and, hence, emerged the slogan ‘People’s War’. This slogan was accompanied by its twin of ‘annihilation’ of class enemies. The following years saw widespread violence and anarchy. The CPI(M) was the main target as it was seen as ‘obstructing’ this process.

Apart from such reprehensible violent activity, there is a serious ideological problem as well. While expressly appropriating ‘Maoism’, they seek to replicate the pre-revolutionary Chinese experience in modern India. By doing so, they negate Mao himself who once said a party which was not able to analyse the situation evolving in its own country and would rather emulate experiences of another country without analysis was a “hotchpotch”. It is a serious ideological flaw to universalise this experience and to seek to impose it under modern Indian conditions.

The CPI(M), while rejecting both the ideological positions and the practice of the various Naxalite groups, stated in its programme: “The struggle to realise the aims of the people’s democratic revolution through the revolutionary unity of all patriotic and democratic forces with the workers-peasants alliance at its core, is a complicated and a protracted one. It is to be waged in varying conditions in varying phases. Different classes, different strata within the same class, are bound to take different positions in these distinct phases of the development of the revolutionary movement. Only a strong Communist Party, which develops the mass movements and utilises appropriate united front tactics to achieve the strategic objective, can make use of these shifts and draw into its ranks these sections. Only such a party bringing within its fold the most sincere and sacrificing revolutionaries would be able to lead the mass of the people through the various twists and turns that are bound to take place in the course of the revolutionary movement.” (Article 7.16)

“The CPI(M) strives to achieve the establishment of people’s democracy and socialist transformation through peaceful means. By developing a powerful mass revolutionary movement, by combining parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggle, the working class and its allies will try their utmost to overcome the resistance of the forces of reaction and to bring about these transformations through peaceful means. However, it needs always to be borne in mind that the ruling classes never relinquish their power voluntarily. They seek to defy the will of the people and seek to reverse it by lawlessness and violence. It is, therefore, necessary for the revolutionary forces to be vigilant and so orient their work that they can face up to all contingencies, to any twist and turn in the political life of the country.” (Article 7.18)

Social transformation in India, thus, can only be on the basis of the concrete analysis of the concrete conditions that exist in India. It can neither replicate the Russian or the Chinese or for that matter any other experience in the world. The writer is Rajya Sabha MP and Member, CPI(M) Politburo