il Marx di ‘India, Cina, Russia’ sarebbe ancora un pò perplesso

History of Indian Communist Movement

Harsh Thakor

1.History of Maoist Communist Centre

In October,1908 Co.Amulya Sen was born.This year thus commemorates his 100th birth anniversary year.He made a historic contribution to The Indian Communist Movement and with Com.Kanhai Chaterjee ,he was the founder of he Maoist Communist Centre which was formed I October 20th 1969.Soon In October it will b the 40th aniversary year of the formation of the Maoist Communist Centre.This organization is one of the constituents of the historically formed C.P.I(Maoist) in 2004.It is alos the 40th death anniversary of ComChandrashekar Das who died on Nov.25th 1969.Kanhai Chaterjee literally lived and breathe revolution.Few Orgaisnationjs I hehistory of he Comunst Movement have launches such daring actions on the enemies.It si a tribute to he outstanding tenacity o their comrades that they survived for 35 years,traversing every thorn in the bush.
It was his innovative thinking that made him critical of Charu Mazumdar’s C.P.I(M.L.)and it’s tactical line of individual annihilation. Comrade K.C.chalked out a path for the M.C.C whereby they formulated a strategy of heir own.

The methods of work they adopted resembled Comrade Mao Tse Tung’s Red Army in the revolutionary war. Few revolutionary books or observers cannot remember their striking similarity with the Chinese Peoples Liberation Corpses, particularly he way they fled to the mountains. It was Comrade Kanhai Chaterjee who believe staunchly that the time was not appropriate for the forming of the party.He felt their had to be greater development in the revolutionary movement to form a party. In his view first an agrarian revolutionary movement had to be launched. Today it is significant that both the Charu Mazumar C.P.I(M.L) and the Maoist Communist Centre are recognized as the founding parties and not just Charu Mazumdar’s party.(The Peoples War and Party Unity Groups staunchly defended the Charu Mazumdar Party as the re-organised party.)

History of the Formation of the Party.(Compiled from PeoplesMarch-Nov 2004 issue)

The Maoist Communist Centre was originally called the ‘Dakshin Desh ‘group It was originally apart of he A.I.C.CR but eventually pulled out.
Comrades Kanai Chatterjee and Amulya Sen, while working amongst the masses in Kolkata, Howrah and Hoogli and comrade Chandrashekar Das raised the banner of revolt against the line of the CPM 7th Congress. The “Chinta” group was formed in 1965 as a secret revolutionary centre within the CPM carrying out revolutionary propaganda amongst its rank-an-file. In 1965/66 six issues of the magazine were brought out whichdealt with the following topics: (a) the class character of the Indian state, (b) China’s path is our path, © neo-colonialism and the weapon of PL 480’s role, (d) the Programme of the 7th Congress, the nature of the revisionist leadership and the peasant question in India, etc. The CPM’s English and Bengali organs launched a massive attacks on the articles that appeared in the “Chinta”. This resulted in big discussions throughout the rank-and-file. In late 1966 the secret magazine, “Chinta”, was closed down and a magazine named “Dakshin Desh” was brought out openly. The group came to be known as the “Dakshin Desh” group. In early 1967, before the Naxalbari uprising com. Kanai Chatterjee had a long discussion with Com. CM. At this meeting they had a common understanding on advancing the peasant movement and decided to maintain close relations.
But the relations did not grow. From 1967 to 1969 the then “Dakshin Desh” group built up the movement in Kolkata, Howrah, Hoogli, Midnapur, Bardhwan,Birbum and 24 Parganas, together with some work in Assam and Tripura. They built the peasant movement firstly in Sonarpur during the later part of the 60s and then in Kanksa in Bardhwan district. Thereafter they established some contacts with Bihar, it began work there. In October 1969 the MCC was formed. It was Com. Kanai Chatterjee who laid the basic line for their Centre in the very first issue of “Lal Pataka” brought out in 1969. The important topics dealt with were: (a) the importance of Maoism (then called ‘thought’) in the present era, (b) in the present situation the tactical line and tactical slogans, © the correct policy towards the participation in elections and a correct analysis of the boycott of elections, saying that though it was a question of tactics, it acquires the significance of strategy in the concrete conditions of India, (d) the Correct line regarding the armed agrarian revolutionary war, that is, protracted people’s war including army building and base areas (e) correct orientation towards forms of struggle (open and secret, legal and illegal, peaceful and armed), (f) the programme, tactics and methods of the peasant struggle, (g) approach and method towards the UF, (h) political propaganda (i) on the women’s question, the student movement and the nationality question in India, and (j) methods of leadership..(excerpted from Peoples March Nov-Dec 2004 issue) The founding documents of the M.C.C. stressed te importance of base areas in he revolutionary process.”If we are to build armed agarian revolution,a peoples army and red base areas ,we will always have to remain firm on some basic principles regarding their inter-relation.The building up and consolidation of the armed agrarian revolution,peoples army and base areas -thes tasks are related to each other. “If we are to build up an agrarian revolution no peoples army can be built up.Similarly an agrarian revolution cannot be built up without a Peoples Army..Again without a peoples army no base area can be built up. Similarly without base areas the very existence of peoples army cannot be maintained. It is only through agrarian revolutionary guerilla struggle and the establishment of the peoples army that a red base area can be built up Again throug this work alone can the revolutionary high tide can be accelerated throughout the country,and depending on the base areand with the help of he Peoples Army, the agrarian revolution alo can be consolidated,deepened an expanded.” This statement was he chief demarcating factor of the M.C.C withthe C.P.I.(M.L).

Some references from July-Oct 1997 issue of Vanguard regarding polemical differences of M.C C with Peoples War Group.
Quoting Kanhai Chaterjee “It is wrong to say that Dakshin Desh Group left the A.I C.C.R because of it’s difference is on the issue of immediate formation of the party; A.I.C.C.R. did not recognize any group with a separate identity like the 'Dakshin Desh Groups’ as it's constituents. No representative of this group was a member of the Est Bengal Coordination Committee. Or of he A.I.C.C.R."
The M.C.C made the following criticism of the C.P.I(M.L) 'Naturally as the party was formed without following the revolutionary process, method and style, some known degenerated elements could capture some posts in the leadership from he beginnings. This facilitates undeclared groups and a tendency of group mentality and bureacratism replacing democratic Centralism.'
Kanhai Chaterjee stated "We have to give utmost importance on organ sing extensive political campaign and political exposure campaign on a large scale. Only this will take us towards he path of Peoples War and inspire the masses to politics of Socialism, peoples Democracy and armed peoples dictatorship under the leadership of the working class.In view of he present semi-colonial and semi-feudal society of India the exposure of the economy an politics at present and the propogation of the politics of agrarian evolution or peoples democratic revolution will take the centre sage in the whole programme.
Phases of struggle of M.C.C
The first phase can be stretched from 1964 to 1968 and began when the revisionist line was established at the first Congress of the CPI (M). i) drawing a clear line of demarcation with the revisionists in the political and organizational fields, (ii) linking the daily revolutionary practice of Indian revolution to the theory (iii) developing a political and tactical line not merely as a formality, but giving it a concrete structure in various spheres of activity and (iv) based on these revolutionary policies, style and method, and in the course of revolutionary struggles and guided by a revolutionary theory, to build a revolutionary party. The second phase, which stretched from 1969 to 1978, was a period of implementation of the party's line, policies and plans. It was a period of gaining practical experience towards the path of establishing the 'Red Agrarian Revolutionary Resistance War.' Work was begun on this basis in the Sundarbans, 24 Parganas, Hoogli, Midnapur, Kanksa, Gaya and Hazaribagh. Of these experiences the most encouraging was that of Kanksa and Hazaribagh. Here, a wide movement was built on issues like wage hike, seizure of crops, fertiliser problem, confiscation of grains from landlords and against various forms of political and social oppression. Also, a wide mass movement was built, some notorious landlords punished and steps were taken towards disarming of the enemy and arming the people.
However although claiming to defer from Charu Mazumdar's line in their actual working process, their practice was virtually the same. The Maoist Communist Centre also deployed the tactic of "Individual annihilation of the Class Enemy.' It was Comrade Kanhai Chaterjee who made a rectification of the line where the formation of mass organizations and bulding of mass movements was indispensable. The M.C.C did not build separate peasant organization but had a strategy to build he KrantiKari Kisan Comitees.These Committees tried the landlords and re-distributed land to the landless peasants. Punishments weRe awarded to guilty Landlords.Mass Fronts were also bilt in he student,youth women and Cultural Front.The Nari Mukti Sanggh,a mass organization of women led a significant movement. It was in 1978 when the MC.C made a self-correction and decided to form mass organizations like the Revolutionary Peasants Committee. The mistakes of the past were analysed. The third phase, which stretched from 1979 to 1988, was a period of taking the lessons, both positive and negative, of the second phase and enriching both the theory and practice. In this phase the MCC focused on Bihar; and with the perspective of building a people's army and base area, the Bihar-Bengal Special Area Committee was established, the 'Preparatory Committee for Revolutionary Peasant Struggles' was formed and soon Revolutionary Peasant Councils emerged. In this phase militant struggles developed and the landlords' authority smashed, thousands of acres of land seized and distributed to the landless, and property of the landlords seized and distributed..
Relation with C.P.I(M.L)Peoples War .(Compiled from Peoples March) It has been a long and tortuous path of over two decades of discussions between the two parties. The process witnessed many ups and downs. It saw even some dark periods. But finally it emerged triumphant. The first ever meeting between the latter two parties began in 1981, when the then leaders, comrade Kanai Chatterjee of the then MCC and com KS of the then CPI(ML)(PW) met for over 12 days. After this very first meet both leaders, though belonging to different streams, stated that the grounds to merge are strong as both were basically traversing a similar path. Both parties set out the procedure for preparation of the documents and then merger. Meanwhile, the erstwhile CPI(ML)[Party Unity] also had good relations with the then MCC, both having regular touch. This too continued until the early 1990s, after which relations soured and clashes began. Though the desire for unity of the PW and the MCC was strong it did not progress much, because of various reasons. In 1982 com. KC died out of illness caused from the rigours of underground life and com. KS was arrested. After that the PW was rocked by two major internal crises in the CC, on both occasions involving the general secretaries of the party. Though attempts to further the unity process continued, particularly in the brief period between the two crises (1988-90), it was only after its resolution that talks were again taken up in seriousness from 1992. This continued for three years, after which it finally broke down due to some differences on international issues. Both parties issued a joint statement for the failure of the talks, outlining the differences and its suspension for the time being but vowing to take it up again later. Then relations to some extent also soured between the MCC and the PW, particularly after the merger of PW and PU.
Then in 1998 the two major parties within the M-L trend, the PW and the PU, merged to form a single party of this trend. But already the situation at the ground level in Bihar had deteriorated and after 1998 the clashes between PW and the MCC continued and intensified. Then the two parties entered the period now referred to as the “Black Chapter” of the Indian revolution. Large numbers were killed from both sides. This situation caused much damage to the revolutionary movement. This process continued even when various genuine supporters of the movement opposed the retaliatory methods adopted by both parties. Many intellectuals and progressive elements who support revolution appealed to both the parties to stop these clashes. Different communist revolutionary groups and parties in the country appealed to resolve the clashes. Many South Asian Maoist parties, and other international Maoist forces also appealed to stop the clashes. In due course the process of rethinking was already going on inside the MCC. At the time of the PW/PU unity itself the PW took a decision to unilaterally stop clashes, but neither did it make it public nor convey it to the MCC, so it had little impact. In this overall backdrop the MCC took the initiative in openly declaring a unilateral ceasefire in January, 2000. Thereafter, PW also responded to stop the clashes. Hence the negative relation between the two parties started turning into a positive one. In the meantime the PW held its 9th Congress in August, 2001. Also the MCCI had to face a major two line struggle with a small faction from within on certain ideological-political and other issues.
Finally, the process of talks between the two parties was once again started in August 2001. The other important reason for the growing closeness of the two were the decisions of the PW Congress which rectified some of its earlier understandings and also adopted Maoism in place of Mao Thought. In the very first meeting the delegations of the two parties offered a serious self-criticism, and decisions were taken to initiate joint activities at the Bihar/Jharkhand level. The written self-criticisms were taken publicly throughout the rank-and-file of the Bihar/Jharkhand party and the situation further developed in the positive direction. Throughout the period of the latter part of 2001 and entire 2002 major joint activities were taken in Bihar-Jharkhand including the successful three-day economic blockade of the two states in protest against POTA. Talks also continued between these two parties through this period. Finally, it was in the important Feb. 2003 bilateral meeting that a decision was taken to take concrete steps for starting discussion on ideological- political issues of line with the clear direction and purpose of merger of the two parties. In this meeting a serious and extensive self-criticism was put forward by both parties for the “Black Chapter” and this too was carried publicly. Both parties vowed never to repeat clashes with class friends no matter how severe the difference. At this meeting the grounds were also laid to advance and finalise the process of merger They were, firstly, on the ideology of the Party — Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The other documents decided to be drafted were on the Programme, Strategy & Tactics, Political Resolution on the International and Domestic Situation, and the Party Constitution. The task of drafting the five documents was divided amongst the two parties. Then, in four rounds of negotiations, between the high-level delegations of the two Parties and the respective CCs, final agreement was reached after detailed discussions on these documents on all major issues at a joint meeting of the two CCs on Sept.2004. The documents were adopted and decided to be translated into about 10 regional languages to be discussed throughout the party. Some minor differences that remained were referred for further discussion and study to be clinched at a later date. Finally the joint CC meeting of both parties took the decision of merger and a Central Committee (Provisional) was established.

Work on Mass Fronts
In the open mass work the Maoist Communist Centre formed the first revolutionary Student Organisation in Bihar ,the Revolutionary Students League and a strong Cultural organizations,the Krantikari Budhijibi Sangh and the Krantikari Sanskritik Sangh. .It also set up various units of the Krantikari Kisan Commitees,which carried out Peoples Courts against class enemies and distributed land to the tiller. They also consolidated it’s peasant movement . Another Significant contribution og the M.C C was the work of their women’s front organization,the ‘Nari Mukti Sangh”They played a major role leading tribal revolts of Bihar However by the late 1990’s its student and youth front was totally destroyed by enemy forces.The party recruited 500 wholetimers and more than 10000 members.The Emergence of revolutionary student organisations was of great significance in Bihar. The Revolutionary Students League led by the Maoist Communist Centre was the first ever Revolutionary Student organisation which carried out the first ever Go to Villages campaign in Bihar by a student front in 1989.In that campaign they upheld the Chinese Revolution in commemorating the 40th anniversary year. A Village campaign was also held in1993 protesting against the Death Sentence on M.C.comrades in the Dalechauk Baghera Uprising in Aurangabad and against the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992,where a cycle rally was also held.Memorable Comrades of the Maoist Communist Centre.
.In 1978 Comrdae Jeeblal and several cadres were responsible or he rectification line in the M.C.C.Comrade Jeblal Mahto was martyred .Comrade Mahato was a peasnt activist who was killed I apolice encounter. Comrade Kamdeo,was the son of a middle peasant. Who left college to work as arailway labourr.On August 7th 1984 he was engulfed by the police while satging ameeeting of the Krantikari Kisan Commitewe.He was shot in cold blood with his hands tied behind his back.His last wordswere ‘Long ive the Revolution.’ Comrade Rameshwar Yadav was the son of a middle peasant. In 1976 he joined the M.C.C an became an important peasant leader .He led armed actions with immaculate skill. Ironically he was killed on Republic day while conducting a meeting in Lenjoa village in Hazirabagh district.

KrantiKari Kisan Committee. Notes compiled from Aloke Banerjee’s article fromWorld to win and A.I R.S F.publication (Naxalabari.-Not just the name of a village” -commemorating 30 years)

Struggles were adopted through a huge network of villages. In the initial stages a Krantikari Kisan Sanharsh Committee was formd.(Preparatoty Committee for Revolutinary Peasnt Styruggles)When the peasants were organized in large numbers under this banner,these committees wee developed into full fledged Krantikari Kisan Commitees’.(Revolutionay Peasnt Councils) The 2 slogans raised were “All land to the Real Tillers’ and ALL Power to the Peasant Commitees”. The rape and molestation of wome was taken up in al earnest .Notorious dacoits were punished. The forcible harvesting of crops planted by landlords on gair-Mazruia land was also challenged and they were seized by he Revolutionary Comitees. All types of disputes wre challenged at the village level Armed Red Defence Corpses were active in supporting the strugglesSelf 0defece squads were formed of the village youth. The main areas struggle were Hazaribagh, Gaya and Aurangabad.
One famous action was carried out on landlord Rameshwar Singh. For years the peasants were trampled by the landlords iron feet. On January 6th 1983 the Kisan Committee gathered at his ‘Kacheri’. He was arrested and tried. They not only killed him but burnt his house. This was the firs time that the people seriously saw the need of combining mass struggles with armed movements.
From Gaya to Dhanbad, the struggle spread to Bokaro, Aurangabad, Hazaribagh and Giridih. Later in land seizure movements starting in fulls wing from 1986 to 1990,7000 acres of land were re-distributed. They also raised spectacular squad actions. In August 2001 an armeds squad under the leadership of the Maoist Communist Centre stopped a truckload of grain and distributed half thes sacks of pulses to the masses, before they were forced to retreat by the arrival of police enforcements.The next night they repeated the experience halting 8000 strong trucks on the Grand Trunk Road. Slogans were shouted calling for confiscating the moneylenders good sto distributr amogst the poor,to establish the authority of the revolutionary peasnt committees and protect the people from starvation. Before the goods were distributed, thirty jeeploads of police arrived at the scene. For hours there was afierce combat as the revolutionaries had laid mines. M.CC combatants heroically resisted the might of the police forces.(From Aloke Banerjee’s Article-’Inside M.C.C Country’)
A special court in Gaya had meted out a life imprisonment to a number of members of the Krantikari Kisan Committee which had led an uprising in the 1990’s that had seen the militant involvement of thousands of poor and middle peasants. The M.C.C called for a 72 hour bandh in Bihar and Jharkahnd in protest. Railway tracks were blocked, schools and colleges boycotted, courts boycotted, shops and markets closed etc. Revolutionary raids in retaliation were organized by the M.C.C during the 3 day bandh. In Lohardaga, Gumla etc. (Aloke Banerjee-’Inside M.C.C country.
This trend spread all over and hundreds of landlords were brought to the book. Guilty landlords we shaved and paraded in public. The most notorious were sentenced to death. Some even repented and were forgiven. They would now operate under he watchful administration of the Committee. All the ‘Kacheri’s’ were razed to the ground. Famous examples were Moha Khan of Kadirganj I Gaya, Madhumati Singh of Balia, Surakasha Singh of Pachmi, Main Singh the owner of 2900 acres in Pipra and the Mahant of Bodhgaya. The famous words ‘Utha Hai Toofan Zamana Badal Raha’ were now echoing all over. (A storm has risen, the times are changing). The M.C.C also called a historic 72 hour bandh in Bihar and Jharkhand against he death sentence of members of the Krantikari Kisan Committee who had led a historic uprising. Schools, colleges, courts, offices, shops and markets remained closed. All movement of vehicles virtually ceased. Railway services came to a standstill. Thousands of people lay on the railway tracks. Business came to a standstill. Revolutionary raids were organized in Lohardaga , Gumla and elsewhere.

Memorable Actions (Compiled fro ‘A World to Win Article by Aloke Banerjee and from A.I.R.S.F.booklet-’Naxalbari is not just the name of a Village’

The M.C C.launched a series of military type attacks on the police and military forces. On December 2002 the M.C C was able to disarm 66 jawans in a raid when they captured 50 weapons after attacking a police contingent in Jharkhand. In his appraisal of the Movement of M.C.C Prakash Singh (Former Inspector General of Police in his book The Naxalite Movement in India) states: The M.C.C has been running a parallel judicial system in certain pockets. These are described as Jan Adalat or Peoples Courts. Farzand Ahmed of India Today writes this example, “Silence descends as Laxman, the area commander of M.C.C , a sinister figure with his face covered appears. The 2 accused, with their hands tied behind their backs are brought in. Laxman launches into his ideological monologue ‘In today’s system, the toiling masses working hard but get nothing to eat. On the other hand, these bastard thieves lift goats and diesel. He then asks the villagers to select 5 judges. The 5 judge bench hears he charges and announces its verdict -5 lathi blows and 5 slaps by each children publicly. The verdict ,confirmed by the people by avoice vote is quickly executed, accompanied by the requisite slogan ‘Naxalbari Ek Hi Rasta.’
One of he most famous actions carried out by the M.C.C was in Dalechauk Baghera in Aurangabad on May 29th 1987. The Yadav activists of the Maoist Communist Centre slaughtered 42 Rajputs in retaliation for murders. Aurangabad is a feudal centre. In Seshani Village the landlords launched an attack on Seshani vilage on April 19th 1987. This was in retaliation to the policies of the Krantikari Kisan Commitees who banned the selling of 150 acres of land owned by the Mahanta of Jnibigha village. This land was bought by Lootan Sinh. The Kisan Commitee destroyed the office of Babu Lotan and his tractors wee burnt. A red flag was hoisted over his land. The landlords were also enraged by an earlier clash with the M.C.C and the fact that hundreds of Mahua trees were owned by the Kisan SAmiti. In a attack the landlords launched an attack on M.C.C activists in Seshani, killing 8 activists and 2 children.
Following this the Red Defence Corpes launched an attack on Dalechauk Baghera. That area historically had the most notorious landlords like Satyendra Narayan Singh, Ram Narseh Singh and Lootan Babu. Triveni Singh, Samresh Singh and Abhan Singh wee other tyrants. It was the Krantikari Kisan Commitees that challenged their might. Another similar incident took place in Bara village in Gaya district on February 12th 1992, when 37 upper caste members of the Bhumihar caste wee hacked to death.
According to Prakash Singh (Former Inspector General of Police in his book ‘The Naxalite Movement in India’: The party has built an armed wing known as the Lal Raksha Dal and manged to stockpile about 7 to eight hundred firearms of different descriptions, including a couple of A-K 47 Rifles. ..

Here the M.C.C led a famous movement. They negotiated with leaders of the Jharkahand Mukti Morcha LIKE Sibu Soren and Vinod Mahato that a separate state was no solution for the tribals and what was fundamentally required was uprooting the social system.nI Jharkhand the .M.C.C waged many a famous struggle ,seizing and re-distributing landlord’s land. They defended the formation of separate state of Jharkand but only when it was connected to the overall class struggle.Sibu Soren was unsympathetic but Vinod Mahato was impressed with the M.C.C. Between 1987 an 1990,over 7000 acres of land in Chatanpur were re-distributed among the villagers. Forset offices were attacked .In 1991 the landlords formed the Sunlight Sena in retaliation . The M.C C retaliated. Their armed squads liquidated the entire Sena in the region.

Assesment of the Maoist Communist Centre.
The fact that for 35 years it survived the onslaught of the Indian State with phenomenal tenacity in West Bengal, Bihar etc leading an armed struggle in Bihar is one of the greatest achievements in the annals of the world Communist Movement. The military action it conducted are comparable to the intensity in Peoples Wars in Nepal, Peru and Phillipines and the style of functioning to some extent resembled the Chinese Comunist Party in heir revolutionary Armed Struggle. Its mass fronts joined the All India League for Revolutionary Culture and the All India Revolutionary Students Federation. Its final merger into the C.P.I(Maoist) is a historical achievement.
It must be noted that the heroic actions carried out in Bihar and Jharkhand today is virtually the line of the Maoist Communist Centre until the 2004 merger into the C.P.I.(Maoist). The erstwhile Party Unity or Peoples War Group never carried out as intense military actions. Eg Historic Jehanabad Jail break and the Giridh Armoury raid (commemorating the 75th annioversary of the Chittagong Armouy raid It is the M.C.C which has made he biggest contribution to the bulding of the Peoples Liberation Guerilla Army in Bihar and Jharkkhand.
To me one of the most significant historical contribution sof M.C C was their challenging the authenticity of the C.P.I(M.L) formed by Charu Mazumdar.The fact that the recently constituted C.P.I(Maoist) considers both the Charu Mazumdar Party and the M.C C as the precusors of the re-organised party proves the historical contribution of the M.C.C.I the authors view the revolutionary party has not been re-organised, nor has it developed a mass military line. It is fascinating that even 10 years ago the C.P.I(M.L) Peoles War wrote a polemical critique on MC’C’ refusal to recognize the Charu Mazumdar C.P.I(M.L) as the re-organised party.The peoples War Group thought that it was a left sectarian stand of the M.C.C , unable to understand how sectarian the Charu Mazumdar C.P.I(M.L) was with regard to comrades and organizations outside the A.I C.C R. Weaknesess
The most important question of historic assessment was their original difference with the original C.P.I(M.L) and later why it developed serious differences with the Peoples War Group or Party Unity Group to the extent that even inter-group clashes occurred on a wide scale.This reflected he defective military line of both the erstwhile Peoples War Group and the M.C.C. True they resolved it ultimately but did they analyse the root cause of the clashes and rectify those aspects of the line that caused them?
Although M.C.C led a historic armed struggle its movement was vitiated with serious defects. The organization was unable to develop a correct mass military line. Several actions were performed which did not take into account the state and development of the agrarian revolutionary movement in their respective areas. Such actions instead of basing themselves on people’s mass movements, substituted them. A correct strategy has not been adopted to develop base areas from guerrilla zones. It has not successful defended or consolidated base areas as he Chinese Communist Party did. In this light it is very important to study the method the Chinese Communist Party adopted while carrying out their armed revolutionary struggle. This year is 80 years since the famous Chinkanshang uprising in China. (In 1927 Mao’s Red Army retreated to the mountains. That was the year the seeds of armed struggle was launched with he Autumn Harvest or Nanchang Uprising on August 1st 1927. It is also the 80th anniversary year of the formation of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army) It would also be significant to compare how the Maoist Communist Center consolidated their base areas in comparison with he Chinese Communist Party in their base areas i the 1930’s.The Chinese Red Army. always stressed on the relation of the armed movement with the Agrarian revolution. Even during armed struggle or conducting armed actions they consolidated agrarian revolution and re-distributed land. In this light it is also important to compare the period in China of consolidation and preparation of the peasant mass movement before armed struggle was launched .I uphold their merger with Peoples War Group and heir self -condemnation as remarkable but I don’t hink they have made aself-critical analysis of the agrarian revolutionary or military line.The M.C.C often adopted the line of the ‘Individual annihilation of he class enemy’, in contrast to the mass line. Significantly it was known as he ‘Jungle’ party as it hardly resorted to open activity.
Athough mass organizations were formed they were utilized as mere front organizations of the M.C.C and not given a distinct open identity .Legal and open mass struggles were neglected to a considerable extent. The relation between armed struggle and open mass activity was hardly developed . Open mass struggles were required during repression of democratic rights, communal riots etc. During the 1993 Babri Masjid riots there were hardly any open mass movements organized in opposition (although mass fronts launched some protests). A separate revolutionary peasant organization was not formed. There was also confusion between caste and class struggle. Acts were launched against oppression of down trodden castes without taking into account class analysis. (1987 Dalechauk-Baghera massacre of Rajputs being he best example) Work on the trade Union sphere was neglected and hardly any emphasis was placed on building revolutionary struggle with the urban areas.(WEst Begal is he best example)
One theoretical weakness of the Maoist Communist Centre was its replacing the term ‘Mao Zedong Thought’, with ‘Maoism.’ Even the C.C.P did not replace Mao Tse Tung Thought with Maoism in the Socialist and Cultural Revolution Period. This denies the fact that it is the ‘era of imperialism’ as profounded by Comrade Lenin. It also joined the Revolutionary Internationalist movement, a Communist International Organization, which was prematurely formed, without adequate development of the World Communist Movement.
Let us end the article dipping our blood to all the martyrs of the Maoist Communist Centre and bow down to the immortal contributions of Comrade Kanhai Chaterjee. Red Salutes to Comrade Kanhai Chaterjee on his 25th death anniversary ay.(Founder of Maoist Communist Centre) and all the Martyrs of the Maoist Communist Centre.
Pay Homage first to Founding members Kanhai Chaterje, Amulya Sen, Chandrashekar Das. Pay Homage to mass activists leaders like Revolutionary Student League leader Com Arjun, (martyred in 1995. He joined R.S L in 1987 playing a major role in the student movement by initialisng ‘Go To Village Campaigns’. Murdered on 10th July 1995 by Sukar Paswan and his criminal goons in Bageshwari, Gaya after being kidnapped) Comrade Manoj ( C.Y.L.activist and later armed squad member.Killed in encounter on July 1998). C.YL.activist Baijnath Singh,Krantikari KIsan Committee activists Jeeblal Mahato, (1978) Rameshwar Yadav,KamdeoEtc. ,(August 7th,1984) By Harsh Thakor With reference to ‘Naxalbari is not just the name of a village’-commemorating 30 years of Naxalbari ‘Peoples March’ ‘A World to Win -Article by Aloke Banerjee. ‘Naxalite Movement in India’by Prakash Singh. This year is the 20th anniversary year of the Famous Dalechauk Baghera Uprising on May 29th 1987. It is also the 10th death anniversary year of Comrade Baijnath, who fought valiantly in the Revolutionary Student League and the C.Y.L but sadly commited suicide due to socio-economic misfortune. He was born in 1967, so it is also his 40th birth anniversary year.


a..There is a debate in the Revolutionary Camp on the question of whether Maoism can replace the term Mao Tse Tung Thought. One section states that only the term Maoism can correctly credit his contribution, the other condemns this replacement as it feels the that that it replaces the era of ‘Leninism.”

One aspect nobody can deny that Comrade Mao took Leninsim to a higher phase through his development of protracted PeoplesWar in semi-colonial countries and with his thesis on continuous Revolution under the dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was Mao who discovered that even a Socialist Society or State can degenerate into a bourgeoisie order in the economic and political sferes. He imbibed crucial lesson from Kruschev’s transformation of Russia into a Revisionist State. He introduced the concept of a Revolution within a Socialist Society itself, without which he felt that it would revert to a bourgeoisie society. In fact historically Mao’s teachings are most relevant when analysing the triumph of Krusuchev’s bourgeois state in 1956. In fact Revisonism had its roots in the Stalinist era as though he led his country to a great victory in the world War agaisnt Nazi Germay saving the Socialist State he hardly called for Democratic Struggles from below in a Socialist party and unleashed repression on party Members. Mao had earlier applied Lenin’s colonial thesis in applying a military line for the colonial or Semi-colonial Countries thus developing the theory of New Democratic Revolution. Wihout this first stage a Socialist Society could not develop in third World Countries, where a united Front was made with the national bourgeoisie, in aliance with the petite bougeoisie, proletariat and peasantry under the leadership of the proletariat/ Even after the triumph of the Revolution in 1949 the CC.P called the ideology “Marxism-Leninsm and the Thought of Mao Tse Tung. In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution launched in 1966 period the C.C.P, termed it Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought.

Imperialism ‘If hypothetically tomorrow Socialist Revolutions exist in Europe they would have applied Mao’s revolutionary theories before and after Revolution without which they would not be true Marxists. To conduct 2-line struggle in a Socialist Society within a Leninist party as Mao did i the Cultural Revolution was an innovation in itself. To me Mao’s military line can be relevant everywhere whether in a third world Country or a European Country.Look at the peoples War in Chechyna.True it would not have the same charasterictis in China or Asia but the concept copuld be adapted in the relevant manner towards accomplishing the goal of a Socialist Revolution.Remember it was Comrade Mao who discovered the first military line and it would be wrong to say that his theory was inapplicable to a first World Country.Mao was the first to provide the International Proletraiat with a correct Military line. Mao also made philisophical contributions like his discovery of the Law of Contradiction as the fundamental law of dialectics in nature.
To me the fundamental point is whether the term Maoism replaces the era of Leninsm with Maoism. Lenin took Marxism to a higher stage by discovering Imperialism as a development of Capitalism in his colonial thesis.He also developed the concept of the Party of the Proletariat,unlike Marx who felt a revolutionary Society would continue with the Parliamentary democratic System even after the proletarian dictatorship was established. Mao applied Leninism in Party building stressing the concept of democratic centralism, right up to the Cultural Revolution. Mao has not discovered a new era like Comrade Lenin but he has made major theoretical innovations. Lenin took Marxism to a higher stage to a higher stage as a development of Imperialism from Capitalism and thus created a new era.Similarly Mao Tse Tung Thought does not reject Leninism but just means that Leninism has been taken to a higher stage. To me the Importance is that the contribution of Marx and Lenin are not placed on a lower pedestal.Terming the era as Maoism means rejecting the Leninist era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution?.Maoism can only be applied as a component of Marxism and Leninism.Mao took Marxism –Leninism to a higher stage,but did not discover a new era. We must assert that Maoism is thesis and not a law in itself and it would be an un-marxist trend to call the present era the era of Maoism.
To divide the revolutionary Camp on the question of Maoism against Mao thought would be harmful. True Comrades in Nepal had led a major armed struggle and a series of Peoples Wars were fought in the World propogating the terminology of of Maoism. It is also true that organisations still upholding Mao Te Tung Thought like Liberation Group and the Kanu Sanyal C.P.I(M.L) represent ther rightist or revisionst trend. The erstwhile Red Flag Group also has wrong reasoning by clubbing Maosim with the term Lin Biaoism which rejects the leadership of the Party of the Proletariat and terming it as a mere military line.

The Shining Path Movement in Peru was on the verge of victory about 15 years ago, while in Phillipines it is at a progressive stage. In India the C.P.I(Maoist) leads a powerful armed struggle.However let us examiine that 3 of the 4 organisations mentioned have either capitulated, had a major setbak or vitiated by left sectarian trends. The Revolutinary Internationalist Movement is also in a stage of collapsing. Some ideologues feel that the term Maosim dose true justice to Mao’s Contribution. Describing Maoism as an ism in itself would virtually mean that we are existing in the era of Maoism. However to me as long as we accept the modern era as that of Leninism and Imperialism, it is incorrect to replace the term Mao Tse Tung Thought with Maoism. It defines Comrade Mao’s contributions in a more clear manner. Maoism cannot exist withouth Marxism and Leninism and is a component. The reason why forces like the P.C.P,N.C.P(M), and C.P.I(Maoist )justify this as they describe the era as that of total collapse of Imperialism and attribute this to the 9th Congress of the 1969 as different to “Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution’.

It is relevant that even the Chinese Communist Party used the terminology of Mao Tse Tung thought, even in the Cultural Revolution period. A very important point is whether an ism can be seperated from an era. Despite several proletarian Armed Struggles taking place worldwide including the Indian Naxalbari version the Chinese Comrades never replaced the term Mao Tse Tung Thought.

b.Question of Era

In the 1969 Party Congress the C.C.P had reported that it was the era where “Imperialism was heading for a Collapse and Proletarian revolution were triumphing.”This has been interpreted in different ways by the revolutionary Groups.One section states it maent 'the era of total Collapse of Imperialism' and promoted Left Adventurism in defining it as a new era.- and was wrong.Another interprets it as correctly replacing the era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution with era of Total colapse of Imperialism. stating that infact it was a different era-that of Mao Tse ung Thought or Maoism where Imperialism was on the verge of a collapse.The latter trend is the view of the C.P.I Maoist like forces.Such Intellectuals assert that it is not the Imperialism of the Lenin’s period and the World economy has undergone qualitaive changes.In their view it has considerably weakened. And that one can only aknowledge Maoism by calling it the eraof Total Collapse of Imperialism and Victory of Proletraian Revolution.Howevever within this section the Jan Muktikami Group (Interestingly this section terms Maoism a Revisionist and MaoTse Tung Thought Correct).asserts that it is still a part of the era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution.(Infact this group referring to Mao Tese ung thought propagate that rejecting total collapse of Imperialism amounts to abandoning Mao Tse Tung Thought..This is a trend to be combated.It denies the modern era as that of ‘Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution a and replaces it .Whatever may have been the changes in he post World War 2 phase in terms of change of dominace of Colonies to that of the Superpowers or 4 decades later the collapse of erstwhile U.S S R and the change in the World Situation.Even groups who fight tooth and nail against replacing Mao Tse Tung Thought with Maoism feel that not accepting the "total collapseof Imperialism' theory amount s to rejecting Mao. The Cultural revolution left some invaluable lessons for all cadres and students of the Communist Movement. What is most important is to combat the trend of the era of collapse of Imperialism and Vicory of Proletaraian Revolution.The most important theoretical point is whether the . 9th C.P.C Congress held in 1969,actually propogated this.Infact the 10th Congress of 1973 reverted to the defintion of 'Era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution.In the era of globalization there have been Important changes but has Imperialism weakened?Are proletarian Revolutions on the verge of triumphing.?True U.SA,like today has gone through severe economic crisis’s in their history and even European Countries have a fluctuating economies but does that does not prove thhat Imperialism is collapsing.Just because the Imperialuist Countries had resorte to neo-colonialism particularly dose not indicate that Imperialism was collapsing,even i the ra of the cold War betwen the ual Superpowers,U.S.A and the erstwhile U.S S R.Comrade Stalin even after the end of World War 2 asserted the era as that of Imperialism and ProletArian revolution as advocated by Leninism.Another dangerous trend was that which advocated that war was the main trend and not Revolution.Today there are serious revolutinary Movements but no one which is on the verge of triumphing and no Imperialist economy which is on the verge of collapsing.To me it is this wrong analysis that rejects Leninism.It promotes Left Adventurism.

There is alos an erroneous trend that propogates that Lin Biaoism existed in the C.P.C.(view of C.P.I.M.L-Kanu Sanyal group)True Lin Biao used Mao’s cult to promote the fallacious theory of genius and immortalised the Red Book as works of magic.After becoming succesor he oposed the Cultural Revolution.However if Lin Biaoism prevailed then the line of the C.C.P would have ben vitiated.Another trend advocates that Mao did not learn from the lessons of the Paris Comune and Lenin and legalised the revolutionary Commitees which driscouraged the revolutionary Movement.Such writings undermine the ardous efforts the C.C.P made to carry out 2 –line Struggle and establish proletarian power.

c.Question of Dictatorship of the Proletariat and International Line

Anothr Important point is the one on the dicatatorship of the Proletariat..Some forces have gone to he extent of advocating a multi-party system like Nepal or perhaps the R.C.P. U.S A.One thing has to be acceptd.There were important weaknesses in Socialist Society in the Stalinist and Maoist Periods.Dissent was totally supressed in the Stalin era while in Mao’s time intellectuals were wrongly persecuted by Red Guards.Powerful left sectarian trends emerged .One of the most intriguing aspects was the period of Lin Biao and his rises to power.Lin immortalised Mao’s Contribution as though his works were books of magic and greatly promotd a personality Cult of Comrade Mao,of gigantic proportions.Comrade Mao had virtually become aGod.

.Leaders like Bob Avakian propogate the encouragement of dissidence within a Socialist Society inviting criticism and inviting dissent within the Socialist State.They have gone to the extent of even finding fault with Lenin's policies in the 1920’s.The Important theoretical debate is that can such dissent save or promote a Socialist State.Particularly in the Soviet Union intellectuals became victims of repression.Several Innocent party members were also killed .In China criticism of Comrade Mao would not have been allowed even in a dicatatorship of the Working class.However if not structured inviting dissent may defeat the dictatorship of the Proletariat or a Working class State.Would a multi-party System have saved erstwhile Socilaist States of Russia and China?Infact they may well have destroyed them.Would U.S SR have won the Graet Patrotic War agaisnt The Nazis with a MultiParty State or China achieve such great Socialist heights (from 1949-1978)in amulti-pary tructure.Let us remember the C.C.P’ phenomenal achievements from 1949-1976Without the serious 2 line Struggle the graet achievements of the Graet Proletarian Cultural Revolution would not have taken placeNever has the proletariat or peasantry been emancipated to such an extent .True there was a great personality Cult in the Maoist era but it was the first Experiment of it’s kind.Stalin had to combat phenomenal pressure in the 2ND World War. from the Imperialist Enemy forces.According to Leninism the party was the vanguard organisation of the Working class and thus the existence of various parties would contradict the dictatorship of the Proletariat.Socialist Theoreticians need to make a serious study of his aspect,particularly in light of overcoming a personality Cult and preventing supression of democratic dissent.One of the most important aspects of study is the contradiction between mass organisations and mass movements with the proletraian party. In the Cultural Revolution there were powerful, left sectarian tendencies and what has to be studied is what would have prevented the personality cult of Comrade Mao,thevictory of he rightist forces and the Socialist base for the Communist Movement.Althouh there was serious struggle there could have been tendencies of factional struggle taking place between the factions of Liu Shao Chi and MaoTse Tung instead of pure 2 –line strugggle of the Working class agaisnt he bourgeoisie.A question that needs to be researched is whether further revolutionary democratic structures could be formed or developed within the party and the revolutionary commitees.Perhaps scope for factions could be created which ideologically struggled but promoted proletarian Unityand dictatorship.The Cultural Revolution was defeated after 10 years of its launching and we have to ask ouselves why the Gang of 4 (Followers of Comrade Mao)was defeated in 1976 and the capitalist regime in China first accepted. Today leaders like Avakian hardly have structured theoretical solutions on Revolution and even propagate wrong trends that have affected the World Revolution.The organisation R.I.M was prematurely formed. in 1984.Today the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement is affected with fallacious tendencies and may well collapse. Remember even the C.P C opposed the forming of such an International learning lessons from the collapse of he 1943 Comintern.The R.I..M has promoted the capitualtion of the C.P.N.(Maoist)in Nepal and the wekening of the armed Struggle of the Shining Path in Peru.It was formed when the development of Communist Parties and the International Proletarian Revolutionary Line was hardly sufficient .

Some forces criticize the Chinese Communist Party,stating that it was Com Mao who advocated the three World Theory’This is also false as the 3 Worlds theory was advocated by Deng Xiapoing..Some forces go to the extent of stating that Mao and the C.C.P delayed the Graet Debate and that Mao alied with he Natioanl bourgeoisie in the Socialist Revolution.They go on to say that Mao as wrong in elevating Liu Shao-Chi an Lin Bao.They forget that this was a case of 2 line Struggle within a Socialist Society.Infact Mao demonstrated great humility in resigning as head of State in 1959.Some Intellectuals condemn Mao’s foreign policies as pro-U.S as he visted America and advocated relations with them which is wrong.Mao only recognized the bourgeoisie states and did not politicaly support those regimes.It was a political tactic of peacaful-coexistence.I agree that facing it’s border problems with U.S S R it was not able to place as much emphasis on combating U.S Imperialism but Com Mao never differentiated Soviet Social Imperialism as being the greater danger.China gave great support to Vietnam agaisnt America even though Vietnam had taken a centrist postion in the Great Debate.It also never dictated policies to the Communist parties of other Countries. It is interesting that the majority of groups in the Communist Revolutionary Camp upheld the 3 World s theory which advocated that the 2nd World Countries were allies of the Revolutionary Movements against the 2 Superpowers and led them to term Soviet Social Imperialism as the principal Danger of the World people.(Before 1991)The Collapse of the U.S S.R in 1991 was a slap in the face of the 3 world theorists and an abject blow to followers of that line.

d.United Movement

In India today a United Movement to defend the line of the International Communist Movement is the need of the hour.There have been a series of seminars and conferences but almost all have reflected ideological deviations.Some valiant efforts were made in the period when the pseudo-Socialist East European regimes had collapsed in 1989 or erstwhile Revisionsit U.S.S R.had collapsed in 1991.The majority of Communist Revolutionary Groups defended the Socialist line ,bar the section like the then C.R.C group led by K.Venu which rejected the theory of proletarian dictatorship.Certain revolutionary groups went to the extent of supporting the Student Movement of China in 1989 and the Movements in East European Countrise overthrowing East European revisionist regimes.They failed to understand that such movements were not supported by the Proletariat and were backed by the Western Imperialist Countries.True the proletraiat rebelled but their voice or demands were not redressed by the leaderships of such Movements. -.In this respect the author feels the best effort was the one launched by the C.P.I.(M.L)T.N.O.C which held an All India Seminar in Erode in 1990 to defnd MaoTes Tung Thought .Over 13 revolutionary Groups participated representing all the trends within the Revolutionary Camp.The efforts stages by C.P.I(M.L)Red Flag were also commendable through a range of seminars carried out all over the Country,particularly in Kerala.They however erred in openly holding their programmes under the banner of the party and not a mass platform.Sadly organisations in the early 1990’s like the having the correct Understanding of the International Communist Line could hardly launch adequate mass -political platforms to defend Leninism,in the last 2 decades were unable to deply mass platforms to defend Mao Tes Tung Thought.The Janashakti Group held a huge rally of Intellectuals commemorating Mao’s 100th Birthday in Calcutta but were hardly able to relate Mao’s achievements in the language of the Masses and virtually organised Intellectuals.Although C.P.I.(M.L)Red Flag organised a Conference in 1994 C.P.I(M.L) Janashakti an International Conference in 1995 in Hyderabad and R.I.M forces organized a seminar in Calcutta in 1999(commemorating the 50th Aniversary of the Chinese Revolution ) they were hardly succesful in defending the Socialist ideology.This was principally beacuse such groups had their own theoretical weaknesses.One Important point is that such seminars should not have imposed ideolgy on the people but carried out healthy debate. It is also neccesary to explain to the Revolutionary masses in their own simple language and methods with which they could relate to that Socialism is not defeated,expose the Current Revisionsit C.P.C, and defend the achievments of the erstwhile Socialist Countries. In their propoganda the Communist Revolutionary Groups displayed dogmatism The errors of the Stalinist era or the Cultural Revolution were not adequately highlighted and very little space given for criticis.The Achievements of the Socialist Period was not explained in away the broad masses could understand.It was important to connect the achievements of he Socialist Countries wit the day to day lives of the broad masses.Although the theory of Proletarian dictatorship was correctly defended the weaknesses of personality Cult were not elaborated or the question of handling dissent in Socialist Society.The Author in Mumbai witnessed several joint Front programmes but observed lack of mass revolutionary aproach which connected ideolgy to thebroad masses.I admired the concerted efforts made by the omrades but felt here was lack of preparation.One of he best programmes taking place was the one carried out by he United Labour Union in 1991 when the erstwhile U.S S.R crashed.A revolutionary paper Jasood made commendable efffors to expose that it was revisionism that was toppled and not Socialism.Even Though today the C.P.I.(Maoist) has a huge mass base ,it’s mass political Platforms are unable to launch a sustained campaign.Even organisations represnting the Correct International Line fail to form effective mas platforms to defend Socialsit Ideology.A big united Front Platform nust be launched at the National level representing groups of all trends in defence of Marxism-Leninism,which should not become a forum for revolutionary groups to project the image of their groups or to debate mutual polemics.Seperate types of programmes should be launched for advanced Intellectuals and politically conscious workers to that of the broad masses.Some of the most Important points discussed should be on the qustion of Formation of a New Communist International.

In this era of Leninism Socialism may have a serious setback but in no way can we state it is defeated.Wrong trends have to be combated and no doubt worldwide Revolutions will succeed even if it takes 100 years.Peoples Wars ae taking place in Turkey,Phillipines,India and Peru.True the Movements in Nepal have capitalated , the Peruvian Comrades have had amajor setback and the Indian Movement is disorganised or vitiated wit wrong trends but we have to combat intellectuals who propogate that Socialism has met it’s doom.