The Communist

Theoretical Journal of the CPI(ML)

Issue No. 1 February 2009
Contents
1. Editorial: The Correctness or Incorrectness of the Ideological Political Line
Determines Everything
2. Explanatory Note of former CPI(ML) Red Flag on the three questions of
difference
3. Explanatory Note of former CPI(ML) led by com. Kanu Sanyal on the three
questions
4. Draft Documents of Com. K.N. Ramachandran
A. On the Character of the Indian State
B. On the Principal Contradiction
C. On the Path of Indian Revolution
5. Draft Document of Com. Subodh Mitra
6. Draft Document of Com. Viswan on Path
7. Approach Paper of the CC, CPI(ML) on Evaluation of Party History 1967-72

EDITORIAL
The Correctness or Incorrectness of the
Ideological Political Line Determines Everything
THE Vijayawada Unity Conference between the CPI(ML) Red Flag and the CPI(ML) formed in
2003 through merger of CPI(ML) Unity Initiative and COI(ML) was held in January 2005
materialised as a result of the earnest desire of all Party comrades for uniting all like-minded
Marxist-Leninist forces into a single party capable of leading the People’s Democratic
Revolution to victory. This decision to merge into a single organisation was taken based on
the Outline Party Programme, the Party Constitution, the Political Resolution and the Unity
Resolution drafted by the Co-ordination Committee of these two organisations through a long
process of discussion and adopted in the Unity Conference. But on four important questions,
viz., on the Evaluation of the Party History from 1967 to 1972, on the Character of the Indian
State, on the Principal Contradiction and on the Path of Revolution, no unanimity could be
achieved. In a situation when the unity of the Marxist-Leninist forces was eluding all the
Marxist-Leninist organisations, these two organisations took a bold decision to unite leaving
these four questions unsettled with the perspective of resolving them through a process of
unity and struggle in the course of developing revolutionary practice based on the Political
Resolution and Unity Resolution. In fact, in a way, it was a bold experiment.
During the last four years after the January 2005 Vijayawada Unity Conference, the CPI
(ML) could achieve significant advances in expanding the organisation to more states, in
strengthening the organisation in a good number of the states, in developing the class/mass
organisations at the state level, in launching agrarian movements in some of the states and in
taking up many struggles linked to people’s problems. In the course of these developments,
the party succeeded in winning over a number of cadres from CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML)
Liberation, CPI(Maoist) and others to its fold, continuing the struggle against right opportunism
and left sectarian tendencies.
The Unity Conference had called for resolving the first question by organising an All India
Plenum within one year. As part of it, the views on evaluating the Party history by leading
comrades were published in the inner party organ and a discussion took place in its pages.
After that the Plenum was held in June 2007 and a joint resolution on points on which unity
could be achieved was adopted leaving the remaining questions to a history commission. This
joint statement is published in the end of this volume of The Communist.
The other three questions, viz., the Character of the Indian State, the Principal
Contradiction and the Path of Revolution are inter-related questions and the two former
organisations had basic differences on them. The approach to these questions by the two
organisations was briefly added at the end of the Unity Resolution. We are reproducing this
part to help the discussion. Though a decision was taken to prepare draft documents on these
questions and for this purpose a sub-committee was constituted in September 2007 itself, this
task was delayed much as the sub-committee could not meet due to the approach of a section
of its members, which they hesitated to put forward, that attempts should be made to prepare
compromise drafts. Finally when sub-committee met in April 2008 it was found that
compromise drafts are not possible. So it agreed to come out with different drafts by
comrades having differing positions.
The draft documents on the three questions reflecting the views of former CPI(ML) Red
Flag was prepared and presented to the CC by July 2008 beginning by com. K.N.
Ramachandran. Another draft was submitted by com. Subodh Mitra by August 2008 and a
third draft by com. Viswam was submitted during December 2008 CC meeting. These two
reflected the former CPI(ML) led by com. Kanu Sanyal positions. The April 2008 CC meeting
had decided that after discussion in the CC, the draft documents should be published in the
inner-party organ, translated to different languages and made available to all Party members
and inner-party discussion should be started in the pages of the inner-party organ to be
followed by the All India Special Conference to be held by November 2009.
From the brief statements of the two organisations given in the Unity Resolution, and the
positions presented in the draft documents it is clear that they put forward two basically
different approaches to these questions. In the discussion in the CC in December 2008 this
point became absolutely clear. In this situation the only option before the CC was to publish
them in the inner-party organ and initiate inner-party discussions. But this democratic process
was obstructed by a section of the CC members. Though the CC met again in January 2009,
the filibustering tactic was continued by this section preventing a democratic decision. So the
CC is compelled to overrule this view and to publish all the three documents in this volume of
The Communist so that they can be translated to different languages, made available to all the
Party members and the inner-party discussion on them can be started.
II
THE CC which met on 22nd January 2009 discussed how the debate on these three inter-
related questions can be carried forward. Evaluating the character of the Indian State,
determining the principal contradiction in the present situation and putting forward the path of
Indian revolution are fundamental questions which determine the future of People’s
Democratic Revolution in the country. There are very vast number of Communists in the
country who claim to uphold Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought or
even Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, scattered in a large number of parties or groups which are
calling themselves communist, Marxist-Leninist or by other names. Among them the right
opportunist trend represented by CPI, CPI(M) like leaderships have degenerated to
parliamentary cretinism following the policies of any other ruling class parties. They do not
even dream of working for People’s Democratic Revolution, even though such claims are still
made in their Party Programme. So those who have become converts to this approach do not
even think of any document on the Path of Indian Revolution. Leaving this section, all other
sections are talking about PDR or NDR and many of these organisations have their own
documents on the Path of Indian Revolution. And most of them from CPI(ML) Liberation to
CPI(Maoist) evaluate India as a semi-colonial country. Based on it all of them uphold the path
of protracted people’s war claiming to be based on Mao Tsetung’s explanation of it, as it was
practiced in Chinese conditions. While CPI(Maoist) is trying to implement this path as
explained and claimed in its Path document, others having the Path document with some
differences have not made any advances in their implementation. So long as they are not put
into practice, it is difficult to find out the real differences among these various Paths put
forward based on the line of protracted people’s war by these organisations. The CC of the
CPI(ML) in its deliberations came out with the view that starting with the publication of the two
drafts of comrades Viswam and Subodh, we should try to publish all available Path of Indian
Revolution documents based on the line of protracted people’s was so that a thorough
discussion on them including the practice of each during the last four post-Naxalbari decades
can be taken up seriously. This will help comrades to recognise the correctness or
incorrectness of evaluating India as semi-colonial and the Path of Revolution based on the
line of protracted people’s war.
There is another stream of organisations, though organisationally weak, but very vocal in
their Marxist-Leninist claims. They analyse India as a capitalist country and stage of revolution
as socialist revolution. We have not come across any path of revolution document by any of
them. Still we can encourage them to write about it explaining how they are going to make
socialist revolution in this country, how do they analyse the democratic stage of revolution is
completed here and how do they analyse India as an independent capitalist country.
Contrary to these positions, drafts presented by com. KN Ramachandran make the
evaluation that India is a neo-colonial country, present principal contradiction reflecting the
changes that have taken place in the production relations in the agricultural sector and a Path
of Revolution in detail to carry forward the revolutionary movement with an all India
perspective according to concrete conditions of India.
All the Marxist-Leninists, we presume, uphold that the correctness or incorrectness of the
ideological political line determines everything. And they also, we presume, uphold that
Marxism-Leninism calls for concrete analysis of the concrete situation based on which the
revolutionary line should be developed. It was only when the concrete situation was correctly
analysed by Marx and Engels in the epoch of capitalism they could develop the theory of
scientific socialism and give a correct orientation to the working class movement. After
capitalism reached its highest stage, imperialism, and when the leaders of the Second
International was leading it to the class collaborationist line based on erroneous analysis of it,
Lenin could lead the revolutionary movement forward only by scientifically analysing
imperialism and developing the Marxist outlook to a higher stage, providing a correct
orientation to the theory and practice of proletarian revolution corresponding to the conditions
of the imperialist stage. In the post-World War II period, when imperialism led by US
imperialism replaced the colonial phase of plunder, through ‘de-colonisation’, to the more
pernicious neo-colonial phase of plunder, the socialist camp and the national liberation
movements, which had achieved great victories by the 1950s, started facing severe
challenges. They started facing severe setbacks as the international communist movement
failed to concretely analyse the new situation and develop the Marxist-Leninist theory and
practice according to these concrete conditions both in the socialist countries as well as in the
countries where revolutionary struggles were being led by the communist parties.
In the bitter struggle against Krushchovite revisionism, though the CPC under Mao’s
leadership could put forward a preliminary analysis of neo-colonialism, expose the
Krushchovite revisionists as apologists of neo-colonialism and put forward the Proposal
Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement in 1963, in the middle
of the fierce struggle taking place first against the capitalist roaders, then against the Lin
Piaoist ‘left’ deviation and again against the capitalist roaders who were trying to usurp power
with more vigour, the revolutionary section within the CPC under Mao’s leadership could not
get the opportunity to make a qualitative development of the Marxist-Leninist understanding
according to concrete conditions of the neo-colonial phase of imperialism, rebuild the
Communist International based on the Proposal, and lead the international communist
movement forward. In fact, the theoretical lead in this period was usurped by the line of Lin
Piao which therefore had great influence on all Marxist-Leninst parties all over the world. Later
the new revisionist wave under Deng’s leadership which succeeded in usurping power in
China and influencing the newly emerging Marxist-Leninist forces to a great extent became a
damper weakening the ideological political struggles then taking place within these forces. A
correct ideological political line can emerge in this situation only by ‘seeking truth from the
facts”.
In India the Naxalbari uprising had encouraged such a theoretical struggle within the
communist movement. The debate on the mode of production started was becoming a great
eye-opener. Similarly, there were studies on neo-colonialism started in India in continuation to
articles put forward by the CPC during the Great Debate. But once the revisionist CPI and
neo-revisionist CPI(M) started degenerating fast to ruling class positions and the CPI(ML) and
other Marxist-Leninist streams suffered severe setbacks by early 1970s, all these initiatives
got more or less blunted. Pragmatism came to dominance. Though annihilation line was
renounced, the semi-colonial understanding and concept of protracted people’s war came to
dominance, whether it was put in to practice or not.
We are of the view that it is high time to restart this debate. We are of the view that the
search for a correct ideological political line should be taken up vigorously without which the
Marxist-Leninist line according to concrete Indian conditions cannot be developed. Only by
developing this line all the communists aspiring for and ready to work for the PDR can be
polarised and a powerful Communist Party can be built up.
With this perspective we want to go beyond confining this debate within our organisation.
We want to open this debate to all the Marxist-Leninists in our country. So we are going to
distribute The Communist in hard copy as well as through our website www.cpiml.in to all the
Marxist-Leninists for a lively discussion. Though we are starting with these three drafts, we
shall try to bring out The Communist almost regularly publishing the Path of Revolution
documents of other organisations as well as articles received as a part of this debate. We
appeal to all Marxist-Leninists cutting across all organisational barriers to actively participate
in this important debate.
With revolutionary greetings
Editorial Board
The Communist

2. Explanatory Note of the CPI(ML) Red Flag

ON THE CHARACTERISATION OF INDIAN STATE
IT was Lenin in his studies of imperialism - the highest stage of capitalism, who explained the
division of the Afro-Asian-Latin American countries during the colonial phase into colonies,
semi-colonies and dependent countries. While countries like India were defined as colonies,
and Latin American countries as dependent ones, countries like China which were partially
occupied by different imperialist powers, while native comprador class serving imperialism
were termed as semi-colonies. Lenin and following him Mao analysed semi-colonies as an
intermediate or transitional stage. But the post-World War II scene reflected many changes.
US imperialism along with Brettonwood twins came to the centre stage with hegemonic
moves. Colonialism was replaced by more heinous and pernicious neo-colonialism. Following
the intensification of imperialist crisis during the late 1960s, the imperialist globalisation is
imposed further intensifying neo-colonisation. The former colonies/semi-colonies/dependent
countries are under neo-colonisation at various stages. The aggression and occupation of Iraq
and Afghanistan have taken this to unprecedented stage. Imperialism led by US imperialism is
recreating the world in its own image at unprecedented speed, integrating the whole world to
the reign of imperialist capital and market system. In spite of continuing semi-feudal relations,
no significant society is left out of imperialist domination. In this situation, reverting to pre-WW
II analysis of terming India like countries as semi-colonial shall not confirm to concrete
analysis of present situation in our country. Rather it will be more scientific to term the
characterisation of Indian state as neo-colonial.
ON PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION
IT was in the course of struggle against metaphysical positions, Mao put forward the
dialectical analysis on contradictions based on the analysis of changes taking place in China.
He also analysed the interaction and interpenetration of the major contradictions while
explaining the targets of revolution and the principal contradiction. But during the late 1960s,
especially in the context of sectarian line dominating the CPC leadership and leaderships of
the most of the ML parties emerging during that period, mechanical understanding about the
interaction and interpenetration of major contradictions and erroneous understanding on
principal contradiction got stratified, further strengthening sectarian outlooks. It is in this
context, even while putting forward the major contradictions at international and national level,
their inter-relation and inter-penetration, the principal targets of world proletarian revolution
and the NDR in India, we are of the view that further studies and analysis of the concept of
principal contradiction is needed before incorporating it into programmatic approach.
ON PATH OF REVOLUTION
IN the course of prolonged discussion our two organisation have arrived at a basic approach
towards formulating the path of NDR based on the concrete conditions of our country and
assimilating the experience of all hitherto revolutions in the world and the peoples
revolutionary movement in our country. The communist party should get organised and be
prepared for all eventualities and possibilities to take the offensive utilising all forms of
struggle and using adequate tactics according to concrete conditions to face the challenges
raised by the ruling system and to overthrow it. Drawing lessons from the past experience and
based on concrete analysis of present situation and in order to accomplish the strategic tasks
of revolution, the path of revolution as the tactical line should be developed and adopted.

3. Explanatory Note of the CPI(ML)

ON THE CHARACTER OF INDIAN STATE AND SOCIETY
1. Since 1947, India became the semi-colonial and semi-feudal society.
Though there were certain changes in the Indian society, as a consequence of the
policies pursued by the Indian ruling classes during the last more than five decades, the basic
character of Indian society remains unchanged, i.e., semi-colonial and semi-feudal.
2. Here the Indian state is the organ of class rule of domestic ruling classes, i.e., the
comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois and big landlord classes serving the interests of
imperialism.
3. From this character of Indian society and state emerge the basic tasks, i.e., the national
revolution to overthrow imperialism and the democratic revolution to overthrow feudalism
through New Democratic Revolution.
These two tasks are inter-related. Unless imperialism is overthrown, feudalism cannot be
terminated because imperialism is its main support. Conversely, unless help is given to the
peasants in their struggle to overthrow the feudal landlord class, it will be impossible to build
powerful revolutionary contingents to overthrow imperialism, because the feudal landlord class
is the main social base of imperialism and the peasantry is the main force in the NDR.
Therefore, these two fundamental tasks, the national revolution and democratic revolution are
at once distinct and united.
ON PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION
1. The question of contradiction, including the principal contradiction is a fundamental
question concerning the ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought.
2. The two basic contradictions, viz. the contradiction between imperialism and the Indian
people; the contradiction between the feudalism and broad masses of people operate through
out the stage of NDR.
3. The identification of principal contradiction is theoretically correct and necessary in
practice to determine the main direction, tactics and tasks of our movement in a particular
phase of our revolution.
4. The way two basic contradictions express themselves in the present day society makes
the contradiction between the alliance of imperialism, feudalism and comprador-bureaucratic
capitalism on the one hand and the broad masses of people on the other the principal
contradiction in the present phase of NDR.
ON THE PATH OF INDIAN REVOLUTION
1. The CPI(ML) holds that the protracted peoples war as explained in the COC’s draft on
the “Path of Indian Revolution” is the path of NDR in India.
2. The CPI(ML) agreed to leave the preparation and adoption of a separate Path
document to the United organisation. At the same time, the Outline of Programme (draft)
adopted by the Co-ordiantion in July 2004 has incorporated certain essential points of Path
with a view to provide guidance for work till a separate document on the Path is adopted.
3. The CPI(ML) is committed to the preparation of a Path document by the United
organisation. It is convinced that the study of and discussions on the experiences of
revolutionary movements in the world and India together with the practice of above mentioned
guide lines would further enrich the understanding and practice of people’s war and help the
preparation of a comprehensive path document.

4. Drafts from Com. K.N. Ramachandran

A. ON THE CHARACTER OF THE INDIAN STATE
1. Introduction
2. Beginning and development of colonisation phase
3. Challenges before the colonial system
4. Emergence of neocolonialism
5. Revisionist distortion of neocolonialism.
6. Neocolonialism, qualitatively a new phase of imperialist era
7. Neocolonialism in India
8. India, a neocolonial country.
1. INTRODUCTION.
THE character of the Indian state along with that of the big bourgeoisie is one of the foremost
questions very seriously debated in the communist movement from early days. Till 1947 there
was unanimity that it is a colonial state under British imperialism. But unanimity on the
characterization of the big bourgeoisie, whether it is national or comprador bureaucratic
eluded right from those days. What is meant by the so-called ‘de-colonisation’ policy, the
changes that took place in the form of imperialist plunder in the countries under its domination,
what character the Indian state took after the transfer of power, etc. are questions of serious
polemics from the post-World War II years. Though during 1950s and 1960s these questions
were seriously debated, and for a time colonial, semi-colonial, dependent and neo-colonial
were synonymously used from the second half of 1970s in spite of accepting the emergence
of neo-colonial plunder by all, later the debate on the fundamental changes which were taking
place at international and national level started getting subdued. The consequences of the
momentous developments that took place during post-World War II years started disappearing
from the debates. There were very little efforts to analyse and develop Lenin’s teachings on
imperialism according to concrete conditions. The basic changes taking place in the course of
changing from colonial to neocolonial phase were side lined. Though almost all organizations
accept the important differences that existed between pre-revolutionary China and India, and
more so between pre-revolutionary China and present India many of them are satisfied by
calling both semi-colonial. The basic changes that have taken place in the form of exploitation
and hegemony of imperialism under the leadership of US imperialism during the post – WW II
decades are suppressed while putting forward various approaches regarding the character of
Post-1947 Indian state. As a result whether the Indian state is semi-colonial, dependent,
neocolonial or capitalist has become a question of serious debate among all the
parties/organizations/groups claiming to pursue Marxist ideology. What is attempted here is to
arrive at a basic understanding on this question through concrete analysis of the historical
evolution of colonialism and its later changes in this era of imperialism and proletarian
revolution, guided by Marxism – Leninism- Mao Tsethung Thought.
2. BEGINNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF COLONIZATION PHASE.
Marx and Engels have analysed and pointed out succinctly how capitalism and the
bourgeoisie developed and the role played by them in the Communist Manifesto as follows:
“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production,
and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.
Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first
condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production
uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, ever lasting, uncertainty and agitation
distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their
train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new formed ones
become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is
profaned, and man is at last, compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life
and his relations with his kind.”
They have also pointed out how the bourgeoisie sets out to plunder the world in the name
of “civilizing the barbarians” bringing down all resistances and initiating colonization in the
most barbarous forms. They explained: “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all
instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all,
even the most barbarian nations, into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the
heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’
intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of
extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it
calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates
a world after its own image.”
Explaining the rapacious colonization policy which led to formation and development of
capitalism, Marx wrote: “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation,
enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the
conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial
hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These
idyllic proceedings are the chief moments of primitive accumulation.” (Karl Marx, Capital Vol.
1 p. 751)
 Marx analyses how the large scale industrial production under capitalism compels the
bourgeoisie to seek more and more outlets to sell their manufactured goods in abundant
supply as follows: “As soon as manufacture gains sufficient strength, and particularly large-
scale industry, it creates in its turn a market for itself, by capturing it through its commodities.
At this point commerce becomes the servant of industrial production, for which continued
expansion of the market becomes a vital necessity. Ever more extended mass production
floods the existing market, and thereby works continually for a still greater expansion of this
market, for breaking out of its limits.” (Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 3 p.336)
Lenin has elaborated this colonization process as follows.: “Colonial policy and
imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism and even before capitalism. Rome,
founded on slavery pursued a colonial policy and practiced imperialism. But general
disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental
difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or
bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain.” Even the capitalist
colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy
of finance capital.
“The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist
associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly established when all the
sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the
international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all opportunity of
competing to buy up, for example, iron fields, oil fields etc. Colonial possession alone gives
the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggles against
competition including the case of the adversary wanting to be protected by a law establishing
a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw
materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials
throughout the whole world. The more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies”.
Aided by the expansion of colonies and intensification of colonial plunder as the
concentration of capital went on growing, it necessarily led to monopolisation. This led to the
transformation from the era of laissez faire capitalism to the era of imperialism, which is
historically and scientifically explained by Lenin in his momentous work: Imperialism, the
Highest stage of Capitalism. He pointed out: “Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of
development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in
which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the
world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the
globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.” (Lenin, Collected Works,
Vol. 22, pp 266-267)
This led to intense struggles, to colonial wars and later to the World Wars I and II for
division and redivision of the World among the colonial powers. Lenin wrote: “When the
colonies of the European powers, for instance, comprised only one-tenth of the territory of
Africa (as was the case in 1876), colonial policy was able to develop by methods other than
those of monopoly – by the “free grabbing” of territories, so to speak. But when nine-tenths of
Africa had been seized (by 1900), when the whole world had been divided up, there was
inevitably ushered in the era of monopoly possession of colonies and, consequently, of
particularly intense struggle for the division and the redivision of the world. (“Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 299-300)
Proceeding from the analysis of the transformation of capitalism from its free competition
to monopoly stage, to imperialism, Lenin defined imperialism as the monopoly stage of
capitalism. In this period finance capital as the bank capital of a few very big monopolist
banks went on merging with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists. It
proceeded to colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which was
completely divided up. Then “without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all
definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a
phenomenon in its full development”, he gave the following definition for imperialism
(emphasis ours) : “1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a
high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life’ 2) the
merging of bank capital with industrial capital and the creation, on the basis of this “finance
capital”, of a financial oligarchy; 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of
commodities acquires exceptional importance; 4) the formation of international monopolist
capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and 5) the territorial division
of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is
capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance
capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in
which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division
of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. (ibid)”.
Quoting from the studies of various contemporary scholars, Lenin explained that this
colonization drive was quite multi-lenear, complex and uneven. Many of these studies had
given figures only for colonies, where the hegemony of imperialism is complete. Proceeding
from there Lenin tried to present a complete picture of the division of the World adding data
not only on the countries that had become colonies, but also on “non-colonial and semi-
colonial countries” in which category he included Persia, China and Turkey: “the first of these
countries is already almost completely a colony, the second and third are becoming such”. To
give more clarity on what Lenin meant by semi-colonial, the transitional form, his analysis on
this question is reproduced: “Alongside the colonial possessions of the Great Powers, we
have placed the small colonies of the small states, which are, so to speak, the next objects of
a possible and probable “redivision” of colonies. These small states mostly retain their
colonies only because the big powers are torn by conflicting interests, friction, etc., which
prevent them from coming to an agreement on the division of the spoils. As to the “semi-
colonial” states, they provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found in all
spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, such a decisive, you might
say, force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and
actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shall
shortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most “convenient”, and derives
the greatest profit from, a form of subjection which involves the loss of the political
independence of the subjected countries and peoples. In this respect, the semi-colonial
countries provide a typical example of the “middle stage”. It is natural that the struggle for
these semi-dependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance
capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up”. (ibid, p 227)
Explaining how under colonization, the Asian, African and Latin American countries, or all
countries other than the imperialist countries, were brought under domination both economic
and political control of imperialism, Lenin divided these countries to colonies which were under
total economic, political and territorial control of any one of the imperialist countries, to semi-
colonies, ie, countries in the transitional stage, where many imperialist countries continued to
dominate including territorial domination, and to dependent countries which were “formally
independent but in fact enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence.” To
make this question more clear the following paras from Imperialism, the highest stage of
Capitalism are reproduced below:
“Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be
observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers
for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms
of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies,
and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which,
politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and
diplomatic dependence, are typical of this epoch, we have already referred to one form of
dependence – the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina.
“South America, and especially Argentina,” writes Schulze-Gaevernitz in his work on
British imperialism, “is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be described as
almost a British commercial colony.” Basing himself on the reports of the Austro - Hungarian
Consul at Buenos Aires for 1909, Schilder estimated the amount of British capital invested in
Argentina at 8750 million francs. It is not difficult to imagine what strong connections British
finance capital (and its faithful “friend”, diplomacy) thereby acquires with the Argentine
bourgeoisie, with the circles that control the whole of that country’s economic and political life.”
(ibid)
Explaining the economic and political condition of China during the 1920s, 1930s and
1940s, Mao Tsetung has explained vividly how China was a semi-colonial country which was
in a transitional stage. By the 1920s China had become a semi-colonial country with a number
of imperialist countries exporting finance capital to it with vast areas of its coastal region
occupied by these imperialist powers territorially and the country under the rule of comprador
bureaucratic bourgeoisie and feudalists serving imperialism. In 1930s when Japanese
imperialism attacked and occupied large areas of North China, Mao added that China had
become a colonial, semi-colonial country, further explaining the transitional form of semi-
colonial formations.
Thus, as far as the definitions of imperialism during the colonial phase are concerned, the
categorization of colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries during this phase, and the
transitional condition of semi-colonial countries are abundantly clear from the Marxist-Leninist
analyses of those decades.
3. CHALLENGES FACED BY THE COLONIAL SYSTEM.
The challenges posed by the general crisis inherent in the capitalist system could not be
resolved through the intensification of the plunder of human and natural resources of the
countries under colonization through ever larger measures of export of finance capital by the
imperialist countries following the transformation of capitalism to its monopoly stage,
imperialism. On the one hand, the second half of 19th century witnessed numerous wars
among the colonial powers for division and redivision of the world. It led not to the resolution
of this problem, but to the World War I for redivision of the world. But this war created more
problems than it resolved. The 1930s witnessed the Great Depression. To get out of it a
section of the imperialist countries led by Nazi Germany embraced fascism and launched yet
another global war for territorial conquest of the world, for redivision of the world.
As Marx and Engels pointed out in Communist Manifesto and further explained through
their numerous works, the emergence of capitalism and its efforts to “recreate the world on its
own image” did not go unchallenged. Capitalism had created its own grave-diggers, the
working class who went on waging numerous struggles to liberate themselves and the world
from the plunder and oppression of capitalist onslaughts. As imperialism emerged, these
struggles against its barbarism further intensified, with the working class struggles to resolve
the ever-mounting contradiction between capital and labour joining with the struggle of the
oppressed peoples and nations in the colonized countries, in the colonies, semi-colonies and
dependent countries, for national liberation and democratic revolution. Once the victorious
October Revolution gave birth to the first socialist country, Soviet Union, because of its goal to
abolish all exploitation of humans by humans, it expressed solidarity with the national
liberation movements, and the Communist International represented both the streams of
proletarian revolution and national liberation. This question was well explained by Stalin as
follows: “The October Revolution,
1. has widened the scope of the national question and converted it from the particular
question of combating national oppression in Europe into the general question of
emancipating the oppressed peoples, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism;
2. It has opened up wide possibilities for their emancipation and the right paths towards it,
has thereby greatly facilitated the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples of
the West and the East, and has drawn them into the common current of the victorious
struggles against imperialism;
3. It has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and the enslaved East,
having created a new front of revolutions against world imperialism, extending from the
 proletarians of the West, through the Russian revolution, to the oppressed peoples of the
East. (“The October Revolution, and the National Questions,” Stalin, Works, Vol. 4, p.170)
This question was further explained by Mao Tsetung as follows: “There are two kinds of
World revolution, the first belonging to the bourgeois or capitalist category. The era of this kind
of world revolution is long past, having come to an end as far back as 1914 when the first
imperialist world war broke out, and more particularly in 1917 when the October Revolution
took place. The second kind, namely, the proletarian socialist world revolution, thereupon
began. This revolution has the proletariat of the capitalist countries as its main force and the
oppressed peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies as its allies. (“On New Democracy,”
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II, p. 346)
The World War II which broke out as an inter-imperialist War for redivision of the World
transformed to a great war between the camp of the fascist countries, the axis forces, and the
alliance of bourgeois democracies and Soviet Union, ultimately leading to the rooting of the
fascist powers, gave birth to a new world situation. Momentous changes took place both in the
balance of forces among the imperialist countries and in the contradiction between
imperialism and socialist forces, between imperialism on the one hand and proletarian
revolution and national liberation struggles on the other hand, compelling US imperialism, the
newly emerged leader of the imperialist camp to launch new forms of aggression and plunder
around the world to perpetuate its world hegemony defeating the challenges from the powerful
alliance of socialist countries led by Soviet Union and the national liberation movements and
democratic revolutions.
4. EMERGENCE OF NEO-COLONIALISM
The newly emerged leader of the imperialist camp, US imperialism differed vastly from the
old imperialist powers of Western Europe as far as the colonization of countries subjected to
imperialist plunder and aggression was concerned. From the period of mercantile capitalism
itself the old imperialist countries like Portugal, Spain, Britain, France etc were for occupation,
territorial control and direct rule by imperialist governors. So, different from the colonies and
semi-colonies under their domination, most of the Latin American countries, which were
considered the backyard of US imperialism for long, a different policy of indirect control was
pursued by US rulers. Lenin categorized these countries as dependent countries. Through
export of finance capital and by exploitation of the cartels while economic slavery was
imposed, these countries were allowed to have nominal political independence. Some of them
had bourgeoisie democratic ruling systems also. But whenever these rulers went even slightly
out of control, through military coups or direct aggressions US hegemony was re-imposed.
Even though US imperialism did not like it, in these dependent countries finance capital from
any other imperialist country could enter.
From the early years of 1940s, even before the WW II came to an end, as British
imperialism was getting weakened, the US imperialism was emerging as the leader of the
imperialist camp. It faced two challenging tasks in order to establish its own hegemony in the
world.: Firstly, it had to settle the inter-imperialist contradictions by dismantling the old colonial
structures through a process of “de-colonisation” for its own interest in such a way so that
formal independence is given to the colonial countries, opening resources and market for the
entry of US imperialism. Secondly, it had to face the growing challenge from the ever-
intensifying national liberation movements threatening the overthrow of imperialist powers
from their territories which was supported by the growing strength of socialist forces led by the
Soviet Union.
It is in this complex and challenging world situation that US imperialist chieftains along
with their think tanks proceeded to provide new form and content to colonization. The first
step towards this was the Brettenwood meet in 1944 which gave birth to the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) or the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund (IMF) for accelerating, regulating and controlling the export of finance capital
through aids and loans to impose financial hegemony over the other imperialist countries
defeated and weakened through WW II and over the so-called newly independent countries,
the countries where the political power was transferred to the native comprador classes
putting an end to direct colonial rule. Along with these by 1948 the General Agreement on
Tariff and Trade (GATT) was put forward to control the world trade and market system. The
old cartels were transformed to Multi National Corporations (MNCs), also called Trans
National Corporations (TNCs), with an ever-expanding global control of human and natural
resources, science and technology, and capital and market system. Along with these, the
system of providing “aid” was a further lever for control of the economies of these countries.
The dollar was established as the international medium of exchange and trade. To establish
their control over foreign trade, trade blocks were started. Along with these, at ideological
level, as a diversionary tactic, funding agencies and forerunners of NGOs and later NGOs
were created. These were the new instruments mooted by US imperialism for establishing its
hegemony over the former colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries, under the new
scheme of neocolonialism. At the political level, the United Nations Organisation (UN) was
looked upon right from its formation time by US imperialism as a political tool for its heinous
neocolonial control at international level.
Along with these measures in the economic and political fields, in the military field nuclear
bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 over Japan which was
already prepared to surrender, and NATO, SEATO, CENTO like military alliances were
formed in order to terrorise, intimidate and bring under control of imperialism, especially US
imperialism, all other countries. These military moves were a direct challenge against the
socialist countries as well as against the national liberation movements.
All these steps along with the state intervention in the field of production, and introduction
of welfare policies based on Keynesian approach were resorted to replace old colonialism
with neocolonialism to meet the challenges faced by imperialist system in the post- WW II
years. During this period, in place of the set backs suffered by the national liberation
movements and socialist revolutions except in Russia after WW I, after WW II the “imperialists
were no longer able to extinguish the prairie fire of national liberation”. The old colonialism
was fast disintegrating. Even in the latin American countries the backyard of US imperialism,
national liberation movements were gaining strength. Imperialist rulers were thrown out in
some of the colonial, semi colonial and dependent countries.
Explaining these developments the CPC pointed out during its polemics against
Krushchovite revisionism that had usurped power in Soviet Union : “Consider, first, the
situation in Asia and Africa. There a whole group of countries have declared their
independence. But many of these countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and
colonial control and enslavement and remain objects of imperialist plunder and aggression as
well as arenas of contention between the old and new colonialists. In some, the old
colonialists have changed into neocolonialists and retain their colonial rule through their
trained agents. In others, the wolf has left by the front door, but the tiger has entered through
the back door, the old colonialism being replaced by the new, more powerful and more
dangerous US colonialism. The peoples of Asia and Africa are seriously menaced by the
tentacles of neocolonialism, represented by U.S. imperialism. (Great Debate p147)”
Analysing the new world situation, the CPC further stated: “The facts are clear. After
World War II the imperialists have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely adopted
a new form, neocolonialism. An important characteristic of such neocolonialism is that the
imperialists have been forced to change the old style of direct colonial rule in some areas and
to adopt a new style of colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents they have
selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave or control the
colonial countries and countries which have already declared their independence by
organizing military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing “federations” or “communities”,
and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic “aid” or other forms, they retain these
countries as markets for their goods. Sources of raw material and outlets for their export of
capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood of the people of these countries. Moreover, they
use the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internal affairs of such
countries and for subjecting them to military, economic and cultural aggression. When they
are unable to continue their rule over these countries by “peaceful” means, they engineer
military coups d’etat, carry out subversion or even resort to direct armed intervention and
aggression.
“The United states is most energetic and cunning in promoting neocolonialism. With this
weapon, the U.S imperialists are trying hard to grab the colonies and spheres of influence of
other imperialists and to establish world domination.
“This neocolonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism.”
“We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU, under such circumstances how can it be
said that the abolition of colonial rule has already entered the “final phase”. (Apologists of
Neocolonialism, Great Debate)
Criticising the stand of Krushchovite revisionists who had degenerated to the condition of
apologists of neocolonialism the CPC further explained: “The national liberation movements
has entered a new stage. But this is by no means of the kind of “new stage” described by the
leadership of the CPSU. In the new stage, the level of political consciousness of the Asian,
African and Latin American peoples has risen higher than ever and the revolutionary
movement is surging forward with unprecedented intensity. They urgently demand the
thorough elimination of the forces of imperialism and its lackeys in their own countries and
strive for complete political and economic independence. The primary and most urgent task
facing these countries is still the further development of the struggle against imperialism, old
and new colonialism, and their lackeys. This struggle is still being waged fiercely in the
political, economic, military, cultural, ideological and other spheres. And the struggles in all
these spheres still find their most concentrated expression in political struggle, which often
unavoidably develops in to armed struggle when the imperialists resort to direct or indirect
armed suppression. It is important for the newly independent countries to develop their
independent economy. But this task must never be separated from the struggle against
imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys.” (ibid)
5. REVISIONIST DISTORTION OF NEO-COLONIALISM.
The Kautskyian revisionists who had come to the leadership of the Second International
were apologists of the colonization by imperialist powers. They had openly declared that
colonial rule was progressive, and it brought higher civilization to the colonies, and developed
the productive forces there. According to them the abolition of colonies would mean
barbarism.
After WW II under the twin blows of the socialist revolutions and the national liberation
movements, the imperialists were forced to recognize that if the West had attempted to
perpetuate the Status Quo of colonialism, it would have made violent revolutions inevitable,
and defeat inevitable. “The old colonialist forms of rule on the contrary are likely to prove
‘running sores’ which destroy both the economic and the moral vigour of a nations life” (John
Stratchey, The End of Empire, 1959). Thus it became a necessity to change the form and
practice to neocolonialism” (Apologists of Neocolonialism)
During these critical years, immediately after the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 and
following it, Krushchov started singing to the tune of neocolonialists instead of attacking them.
He flaunted the “theory of disappearance of colonialism” in order to cover up the more
dangerous emergence of neocolonialism. He tried to induce the oppressed nations to
embrace neocolonialism. “He actively propagated the view that “peaceful coexistence”
between the oppressed nations and civilized imperialism will make “the national economy
grow rapidly” and bring about an “uplift of their productive forces”, enable the home market in
the oppressed countries to “become incomparably greater” and “furnish more raw materialists,
and various products and goods required by the economy of the industrially developed
countries” and at the same time will “considerably raise the living standard of the inhabitants in
the highly developed capitalist countries”” as explained in Apologists of Neocolonialism by the
CPC, during his UN General Assembly speech in 1960 and in numerous contemporary Soviet
writings.
 In his attempts to white wash and wish away neocolonialism, Krushchov was following the
footsteps of the Second International which had turned in to Yellow International after the WW
I, fully engaged in repeating slanders against the Soviet Union and Third International serving
forces of counter revolution, in its various conferences and in the speeches of its spokes
persons. They opposed wars of national liberation and held that the national question “can be
settled only through international agreements”. Upholding this line of the revisionists of
Second International Krushchov advocated that a “quiet burial of the colonial system” is
possible in his 1960 UN speech. In his services to imperialists’ neocolonisation in distorting its
real nature, in his attempts to obliterate it by mispropaganda and in advocating its virtues
Krushchove was not inferior to the Kautskyists and other revisionists of the Second
International. He went a step ahead by becoming its apologist. The CPC declared in
Apologists of Neocolonialism. : “However hard the imperialists disguise their intentions and
bestir themselves, however hard their apologists whitewash and help neocolonialism,
imperialism and colonialism cannot escape their doom ……….. Sooner or later the apologists
of neocolonialism will go bankrupt.”
But what happened subsequently was contrary to these expectations. If Krushchovites
served as apologists of neocolonialism and engaged in subverting all attempts to develop a
Marxist-Leninist understanding about it and resistance against it by the Marxist-Leninist
forces, after his fall in 1964 when the Brezhnev clique usurped power in Soviet Union and
speeded up capitalist restoration turning Soviet Union into a social imperialist super power, it
further distorted the understanding about neocolonialism and started pursuing the very same
policy like other imperialist powers, wearing socialist masks. If Krushchovites propagated the
“quiet burial of colonialism” and tried to obliterate the emergence of neocolonialism, during the
Brezhnev regime the revisionist theoreticians came up with the argument that ‘neocolonialism
means a puppet country under total domination of a single imperialist country’, like then South
Vietnam under US domination. A number of books were published and Soviet journals
continuously wrote to establish this erroneous concept. It was an evaluation which
consciously tried to obliterate the momentous developments taking place after WW II, which
refused to apply Marxist-Leninist outlook to arrive at a revolutionary understanding about the
emergence of neocolonialism replacing colonialism.
As far as the CPC was concerned, even while it was engaged in a historic polemics,
Great Debate, against Soviet revisionist positions, it was also waging a relentless struggle
against the capitalist roaders led by Liu Shaochi and Deng Tsiaoping within the CPC. In the
middle of this struggle the CPC statements and journals tried to develop the understanding
about neocolonialism re-publishing, Mao’s talks with the US journalist Anna Louis Strong in
1946 and articles from For a Lasting Peace, For People’s Democracy, the Cominform organ,
historically and theoretically establishing the replacement of colonial plunder by neocolonial
plunder by the imperialist camp. In a critique of Indian ruling classes in the second half of
1960s the neocolonial plunder of India and how countries like India were subordinated to
neocolonisation were repeatedly analysed. Anti-imperialist, socialist spokespersons like
Nkruma of Ghana and many others contributed to this discussion on neocolonialism. As a
result almost all Marxist-Leninist forces at international level during the 1960s had upheld the
analysis put forward by the CPC that after WW II colonialism was replaced by
neocolonialism, a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism. But without going for an
analysis of the phenomenal changes taking place after the WW II and without trying to
analyse the qualitative differences of the neo-colonial phase, colonialism and neocolonialism
were synonymously used in 1950s. In documents like 1957 Joint statement and 1960 Joint
Communique of Communist Parties, the words colonial and neocolonial were synonymously
utilized. But guided by the Great Debate documents of the CPC, as far as by the newly
emerging Marxist-Leninist Parties in the 1960s were concerned, there was no ambiguity in
understanding the neocolonial phase of plunder by imperialist forces using their newly
developed economic, political and military tools. That is why like many others, CPI(ML)
formed in 1969 called India a neocolony of US imperialism and Soviet social imperialism, even
while continuing to use the words semi colonial and neocolonial synonymously in the Party
Programme adopted in its 1970 Congress
6. NEOCOLONIALISM, QUALITATIVELY A NEW PHASE OF IMPERIALIST ERA.
Though the laws of motion of imperialism continue to remain basically the same
throughout the imperialist epoch, and Lenin’s analysis of this epoch continues to remain
basically correct, it is important to distinguish the qualitatively distinct changes that have taken
place in the neocolonial phase. For example while defining imperialism Lenin had put forward
its five distinctive characteristics. But the fifth characteristics, “the territorial division of the
whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed” calls for further studies based
on post-World War II world situation. Except for some military bases and enclaves, imperialist
countries in the main are no longer keeping any countries, even the smallest ones, under their
territorial control for long. Even after aggression and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by
US led imperialist forces, puppet governments were soon constituted and even fake elections
were organized to give them pseudo democratic cover. This is one important aspect that
should be taken in to consideration. Instead of territorial domination these countries under
former colonial domination, in the main, are now controlled through their ever-intensifying
integration to imperialist capital–market system, internationalization of production and
speculative regime through international financial agencies and MNCs. At the same time, so
long as imperialism continue to exist one cannot rule out the possibility for territorial division in
new forms.
With the disappearance of the territorial division of the world as one of the basic features
of imperialism, though six decades have elapsed after WW II, even though numerous local
wars and imperialist aggressive wars continue to take place, no World Wars have taken place
for division and re-division of the world so far. As a result of the mechanical repetition of what
led to World War I and II and as a result of the refusal to recognize the qualitative changes
that were taking place in the neo-colonial phase, there were repeated assertions during
1950s, 1960s and 1970s that a World War is imminent by various sections, various forces. All
those assertions were proved wrong. Though such assertions are rarely heard from 1980s
after the imposition of imperialist globalization, no serious analysis about the reasons for the
almost disappearance of territorial division of the world by the major imperialist powers as a
major characteristic of imperialist domination and the non-recurrence of another World War
even after six decades except for local wars are attempted by most of the Marxist-Leninist
forces. As a result there are no attempts to once again study the Marxist-Leninist teachings
on the specific characteristics of finance capital which led to the emergence of imperialist
epoch. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin had pointed out: “Finance
capital is such a great , such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and all
international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even
states enjoying the fullest political independence”. From the fundamental teachings of Lenin it
can be evaluated that in the colonial phase if the territorial control of the subjugated countries
was one of the main features of imperialist domination, in the neocolonial phase the first four
characteristics he had put forward while defining imperialism, especially finance capital as a
financial oligarchy has achieved comparative predominance. Along with these the speculative
character of finance capital which Lenin had pointed out went on assuming predominance
especially after 1970s reaching today to its peak, intensifying the barbarous character of
imperialism to unprecedented levels. On the question of war, so long as imperialism remains,
the question of wars, even another WW breaking out with the intensification of inter-imperialist
contradictions cannot be ruled out. But what is taking place now is low intensity warfare as an
imperialist strategy of class struggle, a strategy of class war against the masses of the people.
It is the finance capital with its speculative character going on intensifying, and acting
through numerous agencies like IMF, WB and MNCs which is dominating the neocolonial
phase, especially under neo-liberal policies, to impose indirect, subtle and intricate forms of
exploitation utilizing aid, trade, technology etc. However almost for a quarter century following
WW II and the ‘de-colonisation’ process, in order to over come the challenge from the
growing socialist forces and national liberation movements, a ‘state led development policy’
was pursued under the cover of Keynesianism. But after imperialist crises from 1970s, called
stagflation, there was sharp transition from Keynesianism to neo-liberalism. The
transformation of imperialist domination from colonial to neocolonial phase after US
imperialism became the leading force of the imperialist camp was, in the main, an economic
and political reaction to the rising tide of national liberation struggles supported by the
growing strength of socialist camp. Under it the former colonial and semi-colonial countries
were given formal political independence while continuing economic domination in new forms.
The whole imperialist economic and political framework underwent significant changes.
Development of international finance agencies and MNCs to control the policies of the
countries under various stages of neo-colonisation and the consequent internationalization of
capital closely linked with imperialist state machineries were intended to alleviate the
realization crisis constantly jeopardizing the imperialist capital which is beset with the inherent
anarchy and ever-intensifying speculative character of finance capital.
Due to the availability of cheap labour and raw materials the neocolonial countries
became the most ideal dumping grounds for finance capital. Super accumulation of capital by
imperialist countries necessitated this. As possibilities for territorial extension of the market,
bringing in new areas under its control no longer exists, it can be achieved only through
expansion of market and financial sectors, and intensification of exploitation of human and
natural resources of the neocolonial countries. For this, export of finance capital through
FDIs, FIIs and other means was increased continuously. Transfer of technology, however
obsolete it is compared to its present stage of development in the imperialist centres, steadily
increased. It gave rise to sharp imbalances and uneven development as a result of the lack of
organic link between the advanced technology and centres of production and ‘development’
with the backward social fabric at the bottom. With the introduction of WTO in 1995
imperialist exploitation made a big leap forward, bringing the world trade under imperialist
control.
Though modern centres of capital intensive industries, consumer products, service
centres, IT centres etc increase, they exist without links with the vast masses who are pushed
down to increasing miseries and devastation. In the agricultural sector along with the reforms
like ceiling acts from above creating a new landlord class, green revolution, white revolution,
introduction of modern inputs, increasing cash crop cultivation, corporate farming etc were
initiated, increasing the agricultural production and transforming the old semi-feudal, pre-
capitalist production relations to a significant extent. Compared to the colonial phase, in the
neocolonial phase imperialism is no longer trying to protect the old agrarian structure. It is
transformed, modernized and used to strengthen the capital and market system, though the
agrarian relations are not allowed to undergo any revolutionary changes still. All these facts
point towards the significant transformation that have taken place in the world situation after
the WW II with colonialism replaced by neocolonialism by the imperialist powers, especially
US imperialism, to facilitate imperialist plunder according to present concrete conditions.
7. NEOCOLONIALISM IN INDIA.
During colonial period British imperialists brutally restructured the pre-colonial Indian
economy to suit their plunder. Sprouting manufacturing centres in different cities and the
traditional industries were brutally annihilated. The backbone of the Indian mercantile
bourgeoisie which was capable of competing with British and other imperialist merchants, was
broken by different types of trade regulations to favour British merchants. Introduction of
railways and development of trading centres were for enhancing export-import activities to
serve British monopoly capital. Development of Indian industry was allowed only under British
control. Only before and during WW I and afterwards they allowed growth of local industry to
an extent, that also only to serve their interests. It was mainly localized in nature, producing
jute, cotton, sugar, tea etc. Though there were national bourgeois sections struggling to
develop production, in the main the big bourgeoisie and bureaucratic sections engaged in the
industrial sector were comprador in nature, collaborating with British colonialists.
The restructuring in the agricultural sector during the colonial phase was mainly aimed at
winning over the feudal forces , the landlords, money lenders and traders dealing with
agricultural products as their political allies. Zamindari settlement was to modernise and win
over the feudal forces, while ryotwari settlements were to commercialise agriculture. Even
though they made superficial changes in old land relations, the semi-feudal, pre-capitalist
relations continued to dominate. Whatever transformation was made was for increasing
production of cash crops for exports. 80% of exports during the colonial period were
agricultural raw materials and natural resources.
The transfer of power in 1947 to comprador bureaucratic bourgeois- big landlord classes
bestowed formal independence. India became an open field for exploitation of all imperialist
powers. But in the 1950s, various factors like the impact of the promises made during the
independence struggle, the influence of the powerful socialist camp, the possibilities it created
for the big bourgeoisie to utilize the contradiction between imperialist and socialist camps, the
demand of the big bourgeoisie in the Bombay Plan for a public sector to develop the industrial
infrastructure which they were incapable of developing then, the assistance offered by Soviet
Union in various sectors etc. contributed towards the development of the industrial sector
during that period especially under public sector. But the weakening of the socialist forces
and national liberation movements by 1960s with the degeneration of Soviet Union to
capitalist path and the corresponding strengthening of the imperialist camp led by US
imperialism along with its machinery of neocolonisation led to the tighterring of imperialist
domination in all spheres. At the same time, the building of a powerful infrastructure and core
industries with Soviet help had led to further development of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in
the public sector. Along with this the penetration of imperialist capital led by MNCs also
intensified. The merger of local capital as a junior partner with imperialist capital went on
increasing.
Since the ’60s, a steady increase of capital-intensive and high technology based industry
is visible. These big industries both in the public sector controlled by the bureaucratic
bourgeoisie and in the private sector controlled by the big bourgeoisie have become the
centres of localized modern enclaves which are not organically linked with the social fabric.
There is a steady increase in infrastructural development aimed at industrial and agricultural
modernization, mainly at the instance of international financial agencies and MNCs. Still,
because of the imposed nature of this advanced technology, it is not helping the widespread
industrialization of the economy as a whole. Rather, it retards such development.
Since the beginning of the ’60s, significant changes are evident in the agricultural sector.
The introduction of the neocolonial programme of green revolution in continuation to the land
reforms imposed from above at the behest of imperialist think tanks, creating a new big
landlord class, was a major breakthrough in this area. In the beginning it was experimented to
selected areas like Punjab, Haryana and selected districts in other states. In these areas,
feudal relations were transformed in a reformist form and agricultural production took a
capitalistic form. The use of fertilizers, high yielding varieties of seeds, mechanization,
irrigation, etc, spread to wider and wider areas in all parts of the country. Agricultural
production was increasing in absolute terms, though productivity was not making much
significant advance, as vast areas are still dependent on the vagaries of nature.
Class relations in the rural areas were undergoing significant changes. During three
decades following 1947, many land reform measures were imposed from above. Along with
these measures, the modernization process has really created some new class relations and
contradictions in the Indian country side. The new type of peasant movements which had
come up during 1980s in many states were expression of these new changes in the rural
areas. These struggles were mainly led by the new capitalist farmers and rich peasants who
had emerged during the previous years. They fought for a pricing policy favourable to them –
for equality with industrial producers. This phenomenon was yet another manifestation of the
viciousness of the imperialist policy of ‘develop and control’. Together with the emergence of
a new class of capitalist farmers, big sections of poor and landless peasants have been
transformed in to agricultural labourers who have waged a series of struggles for higher
wages and land. In areas where feudal exploitation still dominated, militant struggles of
peasants for land and against various forms of feudal domination continued.
 Another important aspect of the Indian neocolonial economy till 1980s was the leading
role of the government as the crucial agent in implementing imperialist policies. Finance
capital was channelised through it. The traditional comprador bourgeoisie itself was
increasingly dependent on the finance capital – the major share of capital in the monopoly
companies in India was supplied by the financial institutions and other government agencies.
The agricultural bourgeoisie’s struggle against the government was also to be understood in
this context. Even though they opposed both the government and the comprador
bourgeoisie, their immediate target was the government, and the bureaucrat bourgeoisie who
control it.
With the imposition of the imperialist globalization policies, with neoliberal regime
dominating every sphere, replacement of ‘import substitution’ with ‘all round export promotion’,
with the speedy execution of liberalization privatization policies etc from beginning of 1991,
the neocolonization of the country has speeded by leaps and bounds. What is actually taking
place is a kind of de-industrialisation on the one hand, and flourishing of financial speculation
in every spears on the other hand. With this the whole economy is increasingly integrated to
international capital – market system, with a stronger concentration of monopolies which are
enriching themselves very fast. This distorted industrialisation is leading to intensifying
contradiction between a tiny group of monopolist exploiters and hundreds of millions of
exploited people. As the monopolies shift production centres to where there is cheap labour,
where there are sources of cheap raw materials and where infrastructure facilities are the
best, it is leading to outsourcing, migration and sharpening of uneven development of different
regions.
In spite of the transformation of the mode of exploitation from colonial to neocolonial
phase intensifying exploitation of human and natural resources at global level in
unprecedented forms, once again the imperialist countries, mainly US imperialism is caught in
the middle of yet another crisis. Stagflation which has resurfaced is intensifying the
contradictions. The bubble economy has burst leading to depression and deflation. As a result
once again, as attempts are made to bail out the banks, MNCs and corporate houses which
were indulging in unprecedented speculation in all spheres on the one hand, and at the same
time to transfer the burden of this crisis to the shoulders of the people of neo-colonial
countries on the other, India is caught in the vortex of a serious crisis. The neoliberal
economy of a neo-colonial country, like India is in a very serious tailspin, with prices of all
essential commodities with food grains on the top of the list literally sky-rocketing and inflation
which had reached unprecedented levels being overtaken by deflation following the crisis of
global financial system. It is giving rise to intensification of all internal contradictions to peak
level.
8. INDIA, A NEO-COLONIAL COUNTRY.
The above analysis can be summed up as follows:
1. The last years of World War II and the immediate post –War years were an important
conjuncture in world history. The balance of forces within the imperialist camp drastically
changed. While some of them, the axis powers, suffered defeat and were devastated, Britain
weakened loosing its leading position. US imperialism emerged as the leading force in the
imperialist camp, initiating a series of measures for its ruthless, aggressive policies for global
hegemony. The immense prestige gained by Soviet Union in the victorious anti-fascist war
led to the victory of the people’s democracies in East European countries and along with the
victory of Chinese Revolution in 1949 gave rise to a powerful socialist camp capable of
challenging the imperialist camp. With the support of the socialist camp, the national liberation
movements in the countries under centuries of colonization, in the colonial, semi colonial and
dependent countries, advanced further. It was in order to face this challenging situation that
US imperialism promoted ‘de-colonisation’, that is providing formal independence to the
colonial, semi-colonial countries, and developed various measures to initiate the
transformation of colonialism to neocolonialism, a qualitatively different phase of imperialist
plunder, with the basic laws of motion of the imperialist epoch, in the main, continuing in new
forms.
2. In spite of the thwarting of the national liberation movements by transferring power to
comprador classes and initiating the imposition of more stringent hegemony of finance capital
over these ‘newly independent countries’ through aid, loans etc by US imperialism and its
allies, the existence of the socialist camp, the initiative taken by Soviet Union for the
reconstruction of these countries, even US imperialism being compelled to advocate public
sector and welfare state policies under Keynesian economic theories of state intervention in
the field of production, combined with the influence of the programmes put forward during
national liberation struggles led to the emergence of a powerful public sector, introduction of
agrarian reforms and agrarian development, initiation of welfare policies etc in many of these
countries. But with the degeneration of Soviet Union to capitalist path in the 1960s, US
imperialism started intensifying the neocolonial policies subordinating all former colonial, semi-
colonial and dependent countries under various stages of neo-colonization. In spite of it, as
the imperialist system started confronting another general crisis beginning with 1970s,
projects were devised for rescheduling the debts of neocolonial countries, and for bringing
their economies under direct control of international monopoly capital and the market system
through imperialist globalization. As a result of these developments of last six decades the
world is divided in to the imperialist countries and large number of countries under various
stages of neo-colonisation.
3. Corresponding to these international developments, India, which had started becoming
an arena of competition by the mercantile imperialist powers from 17th century, with the
British imperialism emerging as the leading power defeating the European rivals and
increasingly conquering the Kings and Nawabs turned into a colony under British imperialist
domination for almost two centuries after the defeat the First War of Independence in 1857,
also went through the transfer of power to the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois–landlord
classes and to formal political independence. Under the influence of various factors pointed
out above, during 1950s the foundation was laid for the emergence of a powerful public
sector, for initiation of welfare policies and for agrarian reforms and development under
imperialist domination. In 1960s the neo-colonization started intensifying under increasing
penetration of finance capital. By 1980s the impact of the general crisis faced by imperialist
system and internal contradictions intensified. It led to imposition of imperialist globalization in
the beginning of 1990s. With this the neo-colonization unprecedentedly intensified. The
Indian economy is increasingly integrated to international monopoly capital and market
system, with speculative capital dominating all spheres. India like other former colonial, semi-
colonial, dependent countries of the colonial phase has become a country under ever
intensifying neo-colonisation.
4. In the 1940s and 1950s the ICM had tried to understand the changes taking place in
the concrete conditions at the international level. Stalin and Mao had pointed out how US –
led imperialist policies are replacing old colonialism with new form of colonialism, while all
basic laws of motion of the imperialist era explained by Lenin continue, in the main. The
Cominform through many articles in its organ had tried to explain the transformation taking
place in the forms of exploitation of US-led imperialist powers. But the refusal to recognize
these, and the reformist positions emerged under Krushchovian revisionism going against the
Marxist-Leninist teachings on imperialism has led to the emergence of basic deviations from
the concrete analysis of post-WW II situation by many so-called Marxist forces. Some of them
analysed the US-sponsored ‘decolonisation’ as a progressive step leading to completion of
the tasks of the PDR, transforming former colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries to the
capitalist stage. Some others analysed the neocolonial policies like green revolution and the
changes it brought in the agrarian sector as steps transforming India to the capitalist stage.
All these forces evaluating India as a capitalist country in the stage of socialist revolution,
degenerating to reformist paths, are in effect serving the ruling system.
5. Deviating from Marxist-Leninist path and erroneously evaluating the US – sponsored
‘decolonisation’ policies and Keynesian approach as progressive steps that led to
disappearance of colonialism, refusing to recognize the havoc brought by neocolonialism,
Krushchovites degenerated to its apologists. And the Soviet revisionists under Brezhnev
degenerated to competing with US imperialism in pursing policies of neocolonialism. It was
this refusal to recognize the momentous changes which took place in the post –WW II years
and the incapability to analyse and develop Lenin’s teachings on imperialism to meet the
challenges faced by the ICM in the neocolonial phase which have led to the degeneration of
the socialist countries to social democratic path and to capitalist restoration. Almost all the
communist parties formed under the guidance of Comintern including CPI and its offshoot
CPI(M) also degenerated to capitalist path under the sway of Soviet revisionism.
6. As already pointed out, the CPC under the leadership of Mao Tsetung succeeded in
correctly analyzing neocolonialism and pointing out the degeneration of post –Stalin CPSU
leadership to the capitalist path as a result of its failure to grasp the significance of
understanding neocolonialism from Leninist positions. But as a consequence of the intense
inner party struggle going on within the CPC against the rightist forces which gained
dominance in the 8th Congress of 1956, and against the ‘left’ sectarian line which gained
dominance in the 9th Congress of 1969 respectively, the ideological struggle could not be
carried forward based on it vigorously, developing the Leninist understanding on imperialism
during this process. As a result, except for occasional articles in CPC journals, the basic
issues raised during the Great Debate including neocolonialism were not subjected to in depth
studies. The ideological struggle against the capitalist roaders in China did not take up the
challenges posed by imperialism through neocolonial forms of plunder seriously. Soon after
Mao’s death as the capitalist roaders who usurped power degenerated to apologists of
neocolonialism and soon started competing with other imperialist powers for intensifying the
neocolonial plunder, whatever contributions were made by the CPC under Mao’s leadership in
the theoretical exposure and struggle against neocolonialism were consciously obliterated.
7. In India, as elsewhere, the Marxist-Leninists upholding the critique of neocolonialism
by CPC under Mao’s leadership in the course of Great Debate, had raised the issue from the
time of the inner party struggle within CPI(M) from 1965 beginning itself. Many of the articles
of the communist revolutionaries during these years prove this. Later, after the Naxalbari
uprising and formation of the AICCCR, when Liberation started publication as its organ, many
articles explaining neocolonialism were reproduced from other journals, or written by leading
comrades. But as the theoretical contribution on the question by the CPC did not go beyond
the Apologists of Neocolonialism published in 1963, the writings on the issue did not go further
ahead. As already mentioned while characterizing Indian state and society, neocolonial and
semi-colonial were used synonymously, without going into any in depth analysis of these
concepts. From the end of the 1970s though many of the ML groups continued to talk about
neocolonisation and neocolonial plunder, most of them again started characterizing Indian
State as semi-colonial. Some of the organizations even started distancing themselves from
any mention about neocolonization, and emphasized the semi-colonial formulation. Some
others started using semi-colonial and dependent concepts eclectically.
8. As already pointed out, semi-colonial is a formulation used by Lenin to pin point those
countries which were in the ‘transition stage’, countries where different imperialist forces had
occupied small or big regions and where ruling over them, while comprador bureaucratic
bourgeois- land lord classes serving imperialist policies were ruling over other regions. Mao
has explained this question with regard to China vividly in his work Chinese Communist Party
and Chinese Revolution. Including the territorial occupation of the coastal areas of China
which had turned it in to a semi-colony of different imperialist powers, there are absolutely no
similarities between the pre-revolutionary, semi-colonial China, or countries like Persia and
Thailand with the post – 1947 India where the transfer of power took place to the comprador
bureaucratic bourgeois-land lord classes. Similarly by repeating India as semi colonial, the
fact that it is one of the categories utilized by Lenin to explain the countries under colonization,
the qualitative differences between colonial and neocolonial phases of imperialist exploitation
are obliterated. Projecting the transformation of imperialist plunder from colonial phase to
neocolonial phase during the momentous developments taking place in the post World War II
years and still characterizing India, contrary to present concrete conditions, as semi-colonial
has led to the Communist movement vacillating between right opportunism and ‘left’
sectarianism and ‘vice versa’, to the failure to concretely analyse the international and Indian
situation, and to the failure to develop the theory and practice of Indian revolution. So
recognizing neocolonialism as the present phase of domination by imperialism and finance
capital, and characterizing Indian state as neocolonial are Marxist-Leninist positions. The
principal contradiction in present day India and the Path of Revolution leading to the victory of
the NDR can be defined and developed only based on the Marxist-Leninist analysis of Indian
state as a state under neo-colonisation, or a neo-colonial one.

B. ON THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION

SEEKING truth from facts is a Marxist-Leninist principle. In practice it calls for developing the
revolutionary line based on concrete analysis of concrete situation at a given time or phase in
the ever-changing world. It is this fundamental question which Mao Tsetung pointed out while
dealing with the major contradictions in Chinese society and the relationship between the
principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions which presents a complicated
picture. For example he pointed out that when imperialism launches a war of aggression
against a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can be united in a national
war against imperialism. Then the contradiction between imperialism and the people and the
country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all other contradictions are
temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position.
In another situation when imperialism, in this era of imperialism and proletarian revolution,
carries on its oppression not by war, but by other means — political, economic and cultural —
the ruling classes capitulate to imperialism and the two form an alliance for the joint
oppression of the masses of the people. So “if in any process there are a number of
contradictions one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive
role while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position”.
In the Indian context, it was a colony of British imperialism till 1947. The national
liberation from the clutches of imperialism was the principal aspect of the class struggle during
this period. Imperialism during the colonial period brought changes in the feudal relations in
India to suit its exploitation and protected it. The feudal relations were transformed to semi-
feudal relations and it became the social prop of imperialism. But as Lenin and under his
guidance Communist International pointed out, the tasks of bourgeois democratic revolution
overthrowing imperialism and its social basis semi-feudalism cannot be completed, in this era
of imperialism and proletarian revolution, under the leadership of the bourgeoisie since it was
in the main compromising with imperialism. It was not prepared for a thorough break with
colonialism. That is why even Purna Swaraj was adopted by Congress only after the
proletarian movement started gaining strength and the Communist Party started campaigning
for it. The Comintern pointed out that only by establishing the leadership of the working class
in the national liberation struggle to overthrow imperialism, and democratic revolution to
overthrow feudal relations the tasks of people’s democratic revolution can be completed, and
the revolution can advance to the socialist stage. In this period the principal contradiction was
between imperialism and Indian people. As the Communist Party failed to establish the
leadership of the working class in the national revolution to overthrow British imperialism, it
became easier for the imperialists to pursue the policy of ‘de-colonisation’ by transferring the
power to big bourgeois-big landlord classes serving imperialism. As the Outline Party
Programme states: “After the transfer of power, the Indian big bourgeoisie in compromise
with the landlord class maintained the status quo and strengthened it through rural credit,
panchayat raj, fake land reforms, green revolution etc. The big bourgeoisie is making hidden
and open compromises with imperialism. Thus imperialism, big bourgeoisie and feudalism
became impediments to the progress of Indian Society.”
 After reformism started dominating the communist movement by the middle of 1950s, first
CPI and then CPI (M) leadership abandoned the tasks of national liberation and democratic
revolution which were still incomplete and started compromising with the ruling class
positions. In practice the struggle against imperialism, big bourgeoisie and feudalism was
abandoned. They did not put forward the understanding about principal contradiction before
the Indian people. Though Naxalbari uprising once again brought back the agenda of
democratic revolution before the people, under sectarian influence “ feudalism versus masses
of the people” was put forward as the principal contradiction and the mechanical concept that
its resolution shall lead to resolution of all contradictions.” It caused serious harm to the
movement. Once again the question of establishing the leadership of the working class in the
New Democratic Revolution and advancing the agrarian revolution as the axis of NDR were
abandoned.
“In the course of these, especially after the imposition of imperialist globalization, changes
in the agrarian sector were further speeded up to serve the needs of imperialist capital and its
market system. In the present world situation the neo-colonial form of exploitation is
intensifying with every passing year and various imperialist powers are contending for a
dominant position in India” (Outline Party Programme). The alliance of imperialism,
comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and big landlord class has become more evident than
ever. Who are the enemies and who are the friends in the stage of the NDR are also
becoming clearer. The inter-relation and inter-penetration of the major contradictions at
international and national level put forward in the Outline Party Programme are also
becoming clearer.
The law of contradiction in things and processes is the fundamental law of materialist
dialectics, of nature and of society. According to dialectical materialism contradiction is
present in all process of objectively existing things and permeates all these processes from
beginning to end. All dogmatist ideas, mechanical approaches to understanding the
contradictions should be fought and the distinction and the links between principal and non
principal contradictions, as well as the principal and non-principal aspect of the contradictions
should be scientifically studied. The various approaches towards the principal contradiction in
the present phase of the NDR differ and erroneous approaches are put forward in the
absence of above understanding. It should be overcome. Also, why even organizations with
the same understanding about principal contradiction fail to unite or to at least work together
should be seen in this context.
It is with these basic understandings, the inter-relation between all contradictions should
be analysed and the principal contradiction should be put forward to advance the revolutionary
process. In the present neocolonial conditions in India the principal contradiction is
between the alliance of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capital and landlordism
on the one hand and the broad masses of people on the other. While coming to this
conclusion the inter-relation between the two principal aspects of the NDR, that of national
liberation against imperialism uniting all patriotic forces and of democratic revolution against
landlordism which include feudal remnants, semi-feudal and all pre-capitalist relations of
production through agrarian revolution should be organically analysed, and the revolutionary
movement should be advanced accordingly. Unless anti-imperialist movement is continuously
advanced, weakening the imperialist stranglehold ultimately leading to the overthrow of
imperialism, the landlordism cannot be terminated as imperialism is its main support and is
utilizing it as its social base. Conversely, unless the revolutionary section of the peasantry are
mobilized based on the agrarian revolutionary programme, the worker-peasant alliance cannot
be strengthened and imperialist stranglehold cannot be put an end to leading the country
towards completion of the NDR and forward to socialist revolution. Thus, these two
fundamental tasks of national revolution and democratic revolution are at once distinct and
united.
C. PATH OF INDIAN REVOLUTION
1. INTRODUCTION
There are significant differences between drafting a Path of Revolution in a country in the
first half of 20th Century when the Third International (Comintern) led by the CPSU had put
forward the strategic line of the International Communist Movement (ICM) and the tasks of the
Communist Parties in the capitalist countries as well as in the countries under imperialist
domination, and in the present situation when the ICM as well as the Communist Parties in
each country have gone through momentous experiences, both positive and negative. A mere
repetition of certain so-called time-honoured concepts or mechanical repetition of certain
experience of revolutionary struggles in Russia, China or elsewhere along with repetitive
assertions about the need for applying them according to concrete conditions in ones own
country are not sufficient today. Similarly after the departure of Marxist teachers like Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and after the degeneration of CPSU, CPC and other erstwhile
Communist Parties with rich experience to capitalist path, there are no ‘authorities’ also to look
forward to for guidance. The tasks before each Communist Party is to take stock of hitherto
international and national experience and develop its own path of revolution based on the
concrete analysis of the concrete conditions today, daring to throw out out-dated concepts or
concepts proved obsolete in practice, and to go forward developing and applying the
theoretical guide line provided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and proletarian
internationalism, not in a dogmatic way, but with a historical and dialectical materialist
perspective.
2. INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Marxist theory emerged and practice based on this orientation started developing when
capitalism was emerging as a world system of plunder of human and natural resources for
accumulation of wealth by the capitalist class and its agents, when the contradiction between
increasing socialisation of the mode of production and private appropriation of wealth was
intensifying, when capitalism was trying to rebuild the world on its own image, and when
colonisation of the world by a handful of capitalist countries was initiated. As the contradiction
between capital and labour went on intensifying in the capitalist countries, inspired by the
Communist Manifesto’s call : Workers of the world, unite, and the formation of the First
International under the leadership of Marx and Engels, Western Europe and North America
witnessed numerous working class upsurges threatening the foundations of the very capitalist
system itself. In the Paris Commune the working class experienced the first seizure of
political power, though for a brief period. Confronted by the growing proletarian challenge, and
due to its own internal contradictions, with the merger of industrial capital and bank capital in
to the birth of finance capital, capitalism transformed itself to monopoly capitalism,
imperialism, advancing from primitive accumulation of capital to export of finance capital as
the principal form of exploitation. The geographical division of all regions outside the
imperialist countries among the imperialist powers was completed, subjugating these
countries to colonial, semi- colonial and dependent conditions. The focus of revolutions shifted
from the imperialist countries, where the contradiction between capital and labour was
relatively diluted by the transformation of major sections of the working class leadership to
‘labour aristocracy’, to the weak links of imperialism including the countries under colonisation.
According to these changes in the concrete conditions, the ICM also went through
important transformations. Assimilating the experience of the Paris Commune the First
International was dissolved, and soon it was reconstituted as Second International which
played an important role in the beginning to inspire the working class movements. But its
leadership failed to correctly analyse the imperialist system that emerged, not only as a purely
economic system but also as an economic-political one, without overthrowing which the ICM
cannot advance. The leadership of the social democratic parties leading the Second
International proceeded to compromise and collaborate with the imperialists of their own
countries. It was in this context Lenin developed the Marxist theory through his epochal work:
Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism and declared that world is in the Era of
Imperialism and Proletarian Revolutions.
Lenin developed the theory and practice of proletarian revolution in the new era,
developed the Path of Revolution in Tsarist Russia according to the concrete conditions there,
led October Revolution to victory which led to the birth of Soviet Union and gave leadership for
the formation of the Third International, an international of communist and workers parties
when social democracy had become a pronoun for renegades. Under the leadership of Lenin
and later Stalin the strategic revolutionary concept of world proletariat, the general orientation
of the revolutionary theory and practice for the imperialist countries as well as countries under
colonisation, the Bolshevik concept of party building etc were put forward. Based on the
experience of the CPSU, concepts like democratic centralism, dictatorship of the proletariat,
the problems confronting the building of socialism in a country surrounded by imperialist
system etc were explained. The building of socialism in Soviet Union, the advances made by
national liberation movements under the inspiration of Comintern and the historic victory
achieved by the world people with the Soviet people at their head in the war against fascist
forces during the World War II the intensification of internal contradictions in the countries
under colonisation and the correct leadership of the Communist Parties led to the emergence
of people’s democracies in Eastern Europe, victory of Chinese Revolution in 1949, all-round
advances made by socialist forces and creation of an international situation, by the beginning
of 1950s, when the East Wind of socialism looked like prevailing over the West Wind of
imperialism.
But during this period the world situation was also going through epochal changes. After
the World War II, US imperialism replaced Britain as the leader of the imperialist camp.
Developing its own experiences of imposing hegemony over Latin American countries and
Philippines for many decades, the Brettenwood twins, IMF and World Bank, were built up from
1944 and later GATT. Export of finance capital was taken to unprecedented levels. Britain
and other imperialist countries were compelled to ‘de-colonise’ their colonies, that is replacing
direct colonial administration with the rule of local ruling classes, which were subservient to
imperialist forces. Various military alliances were built up in continuation to the dropping of
atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to impose US hegemony wherever possible. And
based on Keynesian concepts ‘welfare state’ illusions were promoted to challenge the
alternate development models pursued in the socialist countries. The old form of colonialism
was being replaced by a new form, neo-colonialism, with finance capital and the market
system including ever expanding speculative capital along with MNCs and various imperialist
agencies dominating all walks of life, with the economy of all countries being integrated to
global economy increasingly. In bringing out these changes the development of science and
technology at a very fast pace during W W II and during the post-war years were also put in to
service. As a result of these developments and new manoeuvres by the imperialist camp, the
class struggle during the post-war years became unprecedentedly complex.
NOW CHALLENGES BEFORE THE ICM
During the post-W W II decade the ICM confronted two contradictory situations. On the
one hand, as already noted, the advances made by it during these years was momentous. On
the other hand, the problems faced by CPSU in the course of the socialist transformation in
the Soviet Union, problems of developing proletarian democracy, problems concerning
development of the Leninist understanding about imperialism according to concrete
conditions, approach towards US prompted ‘de-colonisation’ etc were raising serious
challenges. Already, the erroneous evaluation of the tactical line put forward by CPSU under
Stalin’s leadership of forging an alliance with US, Britain and France to defeat the fascist axis
powers had led the CP of USA taking a liquidationist line under Browder’s leadership and CP
of India abandoning the struggle against British imperialism in the name of strengthening
‘Peoples war’. After the War, the Titoist Leadership in Yugoslavia had embraced the reformist
path of development by opening the country for imperialist capital. In this situation, though
Comintform was formed after the dissolution of Comintern, serious problems regarding
development of struggle against imperialist camp led by US imperialism which had unleashed
a neo-colonial offensive were faced by the ICM. After the death of Stalin in 1953 these
problems aggravated, and the CPSU leadership soon started embracing the path of ‘peaceful
competition’ and ‘peaceful co-existence’ with imperialism and ‘peaceful transition to socialism’,
abandoning the path of continuing class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat to
accelerate the socialist transformation.
Abandoning the socialist path the CPSU started embracing capitalist path and the Soviet
Union started transforming to bureaucratic state capitalism. Leaderships of the Communist
Parties in Eastern Europe and a large number of communist parties swayed by the prestige of
the Soviet Union soon started embracing this neo-revisionist path.
It was the greatest challenge faced by the ICM till then. All basic Marxist-Leninist
principles like seizure of political power in the imperialist countries as well as in countries
under imperialist domination, the socialist transformation in countries were proletariat had
seized political power, the theory and practice of continuing class struggle under the
dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian internationalism were challenged by
Krushchovite revisionism. It was in this situation that the Marxist-Leninist forces led by the
CPC and Mao Tsetung launched the Great Debate against the neo-revisionist path and put
forward the Proposal Concerning the General Line of the ICM. Mao Tsetung launched an
intensive movement, the Cultural Revolution, in the course of developing the theory and
practice of class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Those were historic steps to
combat the neo-revisionist onslaught.
In spite of the overthrow of the capitalist roaders in the course of the Cultural Revolution
and in spite of the intensive ideological struggle following it, Mao and his followers could not
succeed to stop the surfacing of various alien tendencies again within the CPC. Utilising the
turmoil following Mao’s death they succeeded to degenerate China also to the capitalist path.
Though the national liberation movements in Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea scored great
victories in mid-1970s, in the overall atmosphere of degeneration of Soviet Union, China and
other socialist countries to the capitalist path, and the neo-liberal offensive launched by
imperialism, especially US imperialism in the context of the Stagflation which was posing
serious challenges to them these victories could not help to overcome the severe set backs
suffered by the ICM. In this situation with the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991, the
imperialists and world reaction celebrated it as the ‘end of history’, ‘end of class struggle’ and
declared socialism is obsolete. Attacks on socialism reached a new peak.
But with the beginning of the 21st century positive changes are visible all over the world.
Anti-imperialist movements, especially against US imperialism, have gained strength in spite
of the aggression and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of ‘War on terror’. The
Iraqi, Afghan, Palestine people’s wars of resistance have intensified, with the US imperialists
threatened with another ignominious retreat. In Latin America many countries have joined
Cuba in opposing US hegemony. Opposing neo-liberalism they are seeking an anti-imperialist
path of development. Working class struggles are intensifying even in the imperialist
countries. The contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations on the one hand and
imperialism on the other, between labour and capital and between socialist forces and
imperialism have intensified with the inter-imperialist contradictions also getting sharpened.
Once again conditions for the advance of the proletarian revolutionary forces all over the world
are slowly emerging overcoming the severe setbacks of the past decades. The path of Indian
revolution should be drafted taking these experiences of the ICM from the time of publication
of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 in to consideration.
On the positive side, ‘imperialist barbarism or socialism’ has become the central slogan
once again before the world people. Enormous experiences are gained from the revolutionary
struggles for capturing political power, on building the communist parties and class/mass
organisations, on utilising various forms of struggle to develop class struggle, on building
socialism and about continuing struggles against various alien trends including right
opportunism and sectarianism. But the severe setbacks mentioned above have given birth to
immense problems also.
 They have posed many complex problems to be resolved. They include how to concretely
analyse the present situation and develop strategy and tactics to capture political power
according to it fighting against dogmatism, sectarianism and anarchism, how to develop all
forms of struggle without becoming victims of reformism and parliamentary cretinism, how to
build a Bolshevik style party as the vanguard of the proletariat, how to develop class and
mass organisations mobilising millions of members with peoples democratic perspective, how
to develop the concept of democratic centralism always giving paramount importance to
developing democratic values with centralism based an democracy, how to transcend
bourgeois democracy and develop proletarian democracy with organic practice of ‘‘let hundred
flowers bloom, hundred thoughts contend’’, how to combat hitherto experience of
degeneration of socialist countries under proletarian dictatorship to bureaucratic state
capitalism ,how to develop the protracted Cultural Revolution throwing out decadent systems
and values and creating conditions for emergence of socialist values; how to develop
continuous socialist education to imbibe revolutionary concepts; how to develop proletarian
internationalism as an integral part of national revolutionary struggles etc. It is not possible to
resolve all these complex problems as a pre-condition for launching revolutionary struggles.
But these and many more such issues continuously coming up during pre and post
revolutionary periods should be given cognisance when a Marxist-Leninist party is putting
forward its approach towards the Path of Revolution.
3. NATIONAL SITUATION
Our country, India, is one of the biggest countries in the world with one of the most
ancient civilisations. It is inhabited by about 120 crores of people who have rich revolutionary
traditions, a glorious heritage and culture. It is multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and
multi-religious, with specific characteristics like caste system, a historically determined ugly
and inhuman feature.
India in its pre-colonial days had its own specific agrarian relations and other features. It
was taking its own course of development in various spheres. But colonial forces interfered
and violently distorted its own course of development. British imperialism conquered India
defeating other contesting colonial forces, transformed it in to its colony and imposed a
centralised state system. It conquered the hitherto dominant feudal forces, transformed the
hitherto existing agrarian relations through the introduction of Zamindari like systems and
utilised them as its social base. The caste system was retained and religious divisions were
promoted for its ‘divide and rule’ policy.
As part of capital accumulation, for the plunder of vast resources of India, a merchant
class acting as middle men were promoted, violently destroying the nascent national
productive forces in the country. Along with promoting semi-feudal, pre-capitalist relations,
capitalist relations were introduced transforming the new merchant class to capitalist class
paving the way for the emergence of a new class, comprador bourgeoisie. Through the
introduction of English education, a bureaucratic class was created to serve the colonial
system. Through these colonial measures the process of integrating the country to the British
colonial system was speeded up.
The intensification of the colonial plunder and subjugation gave birth to various forms of
people’s resistance to them. The different streams of social renaissance movements emerged
according to concrete conditions and level of social development in different regions giving
rise to democratic values, modernity and patriotic feelings. But the colonial system could blunt
their organic growth through the upper caste land owning classes, the comprador bureaucratic
bourgeois sections and the casteist and communal forces. Still the resistance of different
sections of anti-colonial forces grew paving the way for the outbreak of the First War of
Independence in 1857 which shook the very foundation of colonial rule. Following this the
British government brought the country under its direct domination with a more centralised
ruling system.
Within a short time, the national movement against colonial rule started getting
strengthened again, in the main led by the Indian National Congress. Though the Congress
leadership was basically reformist in character, and was representing the big landlord and
emerging comprador bureaucratic bourgeois classes, the movement assumed mass character
many times, crossing the borders set by the leadership. The emergence of the revolutionary
forces led by Bhagat Singh in 1920s and the beginning of the Communist Party with the
formation of the working class movement and other mass organisations created conditions for
the call of Purna Swaraj and intensification of independence struggle.
The crushing defeat inflicted on the fascist forces during World War II under the
leadership of the Soviet Union, weakening of British and other colonial powers, and the
upsurge of national liberation movements all over the world including mass revolutionary
upsurge in the post-War years in India, compelled the colonial powers to replace the direct
colonial rule with neo-colonial forms of plunder, and to transfer political power to subservient
local classes to facilitate it, as the International Communist Movement (ICM) correctly
evaluated at that time. In conformity with this, the British colonial rulers, in continuation to its
‘divide and rule’ policy communally divided the country provoking violent fratricidal killings and
bloodshed and transfered power to the comprador classes represented by Congress and
Muslim League. Thus this country was transformed from a colony of British imperialism to a
country under neo-colonial domination by various imperialist powers, especially US
imperialism.
In the post-1947 years, while pursuing a policy of ruthless suppression of Telengana and
other struggles led by the Communist movement in particular, and all people’s movements for
various demands in general, the Congress government pursued reformist policies like
abolition of Zamindari Act and introduction of land ceiling acts on the one hand, and
implementing various welfare policies in the context of the Keynesian policies introduced by
US-led imperialist camp to confront the challenge posed by the socialist camp on the other.
The Indian state introduced the Green Revolution under US dictates and utilised the land
ceiling acts to replace the feudal landlords with a new class of landlords ready to utilise the
modern inputs, to promote capitalist mode of production in the agrarian sector and to speed
up the integration of Indian economy with the global imperialist system. Implementing the
directives of the Bombay Plan and in the context of the existence of a powerful socialist camp,
industries, infrastructure building and service sector were developed on a major scale in public
sector. Later when socialist Soviet Union degenerated to a social imperialist superpower and
the inter-imperialist contradictions between US and Soviet Union started intensifying, this
contradiction was reflected in the Indian ruling classes also. In the main this inter-imperialist
contradiction was utilised by the Indian State for manoeuvring for its benefits, and to pursue a
hegemonic policy in South Asia.
These policies of the comprador bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes led Indian State
collaborating with imperialism went on intensifying its contradictions with the Indian people,
which got manifested in various ways. The land reforms from above did not give land to the
tiller, but only created a new landlord class. The economic policies followed by central and
state governments went on increasing the burden over the people like price-rise,
unemployment and pauperisation of growing sections. It increased the uneven development
also sharply. As the great Naxalbari movement once again brought agrarian revolution back to
people’s agenda, peoples of Kashmir and Northeast intensified struggles for right of self-
determination, and workers, peasantry and other sections went on waging numerous
struggles for their rights, the Congress government pursued a policy of ruthless suppression,
often resorting to black laws and deployment of army. As people’s upsurge went on
intensifying, the internal emergency was clamped down during 1975-77. These developments
led to the contradictions among ruling classes and among the political parties representing
them also coming to the fore, and to the end of Congress monopoly of power at centre and in
the states. The 1980s witnessed economic crisis as reflected in the acute balance of
payments problems on the one hand, and intensification of communal, casteist like divisions
on the other. India, which was mortgaged to imperialist powers under neo-colonisation, came
under acute turmoil. Imposition of imperialist globalisation on the one hand, and demolition of
Babri Masjid like acts and later Indian State becoming active partner in the ‘War on Terror’ of
US imperialism on the other hand followed. With the disintegration of Soviet Union, Indian
State came under ever-increasing sway of the neo-liberal policies promoted by US
Imperialism in its bid for world hegemony.
During the last two decades, the Indian State has almost abandoned all welfare state
policies. The ruling classes have succeeded to snatch away all rights won by the working
class and imposed contract labour system and ‘hire and fire’ policy in all sectors. Government
procurement of food grains and public distribution system (PDS) is almost demolished. MNCs
and corporate houses are allowed total domination in industries, services, infrastructure
building and in wholesale and retail trade. They are allowed uninhibited entry to agrarian
sector, intensifying the land accumulation in fewer and fewer hands. More and more sections
are thrown out of land through SEZs, new industrial centres, real estate lobby and land
mafias. Commercialisation of education, health-care, services, etc. is taking place at ruthless
pace. As a result of these policies, the integration of Indian economy with global imperialist
system is going ahead at a maddening pace. The grave consequences of this integration at
the behest of imperialist powers, especially US imperialism is now felt in all fields following
the global financial crisis with its epi-centre in US. The recession and depression have spread
fast to India like countries exposing the hitherto tall claims of the ruling classes and their
political representatives. While those responsible for it are bailed out by the state at people’s
expense, millions of workers are thrown out of jobs and all sections of people are further
paupersied.
And throwing away whatever progressive aspects the Indian foreign policy had, and
whatever sovereignty the country had, Indian State under the comprador rulers is intensifying
its strategic ties with US imperialism. At the same time, the gap between the rich and poor has
widened phenomenally. Almost half the people are under poverty line, with almost 25%
reduced to destitution, when 60-70% of the wealth is accumulated in the hands of less than
10%. The present price rise has unprecedentedly intensified the misery of the vast masses.
Contrary to ruling class claims in spite of the inflation rate going down from the peak of 12% it
had reached, the prices of essential commodities are continuing to rise. Adivasis, dalits,
women and all other oppressed classes and sections are facing acute devastation. Along with
these, the imperialist dictated ‘development policies’ have devastated ecology, leading to
global warming like impacts. The overall objective situation is one of ever-intensifying neo-
colonial plunder and oppression, unprecedented sharpening of all internal contradictions, a
situation which demands an all out intervention by the Communist Party to overthrow the
existing anti-people, reactionary system and ushering in people’s democracy and socialism.
4. STRATEGY OF PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC OR NEW DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION
Overcoming the revisionist degeneration of the leadership of the Second International and
developing Marxism according to the challenges raised by capitalism in its highest, as well as
moribund stage, imperialism, was the revolutionary task before the Bolsheviks led by Lenin.
Taking up this challenge, Lenin put forward the Marxian analysis of imperialism, and the
general conclusion that “imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution”. Drawing lessons
from the weaknesses of the working class parties during First and Second International, Lenin
taught that “without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement” and that
“the role of the vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced
theory”.
Pointing out that “the proletarian revolution is impossible without the forcible destruction of
the bourgeois state machine and the substitution for it of a new one”, Lenin put forward the
revolutionary concept that in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution “the proletariat
must carry the democratic revolution to its completion by allying to itself the mass of the
peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyse the
instability of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution by allying
to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force
the resistance of bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and petty-
bourgeoisie”. Again he reiterated: “From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and in
accordance with the measures of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and
organised proletariat, begin to pass to the Socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted
revolution. We shall not stop half way.”
Elaborating these Leninist teachings Stalin stated in 1918 commemorating the first
anniversary of October Revolution:
“The great world-wide significance of the October Revolution chiefly consists in the fact
that:
1) It has widened the scope of the national question and converted it from the
particular question of combating national oppression in Europe into the general question
of emancipating the oppressed peoples, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism;
2) It has opened up wide possibilities for their emancipation and the right paths
towards it, has thereby greatly facilitated the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed
peoples of the West and the East, and has drawn them into the common current of the
victorious struggles against imperialism;
3) It has thereby erected a bridge between the socialist West and enslaved East,
having created a new front of revolutions against world imperialism, extending from the
proletarians of the West, through the Russian Revolution, to the oppressed peoples of the
East.”
Based on the Marxist-Leninist teachings, the Third or Communist International concluded
that the bourgeoisie in the era of imperialism has lost its earlier revolutionary character, that
the emerging bourgeoisie in the countries under colonisation under the guidance of
imperialism are colluding with imperialism, and that this bourgeoisie is incapable of leading the
bourgeois democratic revolution to its completion. In the new era ushered in by the October
Revolution, the whole course of bourgeois democratic revolutions have undergone a
fundamental change, as explained by Mao Tsetung in “On New Democracy”:
“It is an era in which the world capitalist front has collapsed in one part of the globe (one-
sixth of the world) and has fully revealed its decadence everywhere else, in which the
remaining capitalist parts cannot survive without relying more than ever on the colonies
and semi-colonies, in which a socialist state has been established and has proclaimed its
readiness to give active support to the liberation movement of all colonies and semi-
colonies, and in which the proletariat of the capitalist countries is steadily freeing itself
from the social-imperialist influence of the social democratic parties and has proclaimed
its support for the liberation movement in the colonies and semi-colonies. In this era, any
revolution in a colony or semi-colony that is directed against imperialism, i.e., against the
international bourgeoisie or international capitalism, no longer comes within the old
category of the bourgeois-democratic world revolution, but within the new category. It is
no longer part of the old bourgeois, or capitalist, world revolution, but is part of the new
world revolution, the proletarian-socialist world revolution. Such revolutionary colonies and
semi-colonies can no longer be regarded as allies of the counter-revolutionary front of
world capitalism; they have become allies of the revolutionary front of world socialism.
“Although such a revolution in a colonial or semi-colonial country is still fundamentally
bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although
its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a
revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist
society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution
led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic
society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this
revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of
socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of further sub-stages,
because of changes on the enemy’s side and within the ranks of our allies, but the
fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged.
 “Such a revolution attacks imperialism at its very roots, and is therefore not tolerated but
opposed by imperialism.”
The Communist International asserted that in the countries under colonisation, in the
colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries, the tasks of national liberation overthrowing the
rule of imperialism and the tasks of democratic revolution overthrowing all feudal, semi-feudal,
pre-capitalist relations of production are intertwined. The People’s Democratic Revolution
combines these two tasks, only after the completion of which a country can advance towards
socialist revolution. Explaining this point in the Chinese context Mao said:
“Imperialism and the feudal landlord class being the chief enemies of the Chinese
revolution at this stage, what are the present tasks of the revolution?
“Unquestionably, the main tasks are to strike at these two enemies to carry out a national
revolution to overthrow foreign imperialist oppression and a democratic revolution to
overthrow feudal landlord oppression, the primary and foremost task being the national
revolution to overthrow imperialism.
“These two great tasks are interrelated. Unless imperialist rule is overthrown, the rule of
the feudal landlord class cannot be terminated, because imperialism is its main support.
Conversely, unless help is given to peasants in their struggle to overthrow the feudal
landlord class, it will be impossible to build powerful revolutionary contingent to overthrow
imperialist rule, because the feudal landlord class is the main social base of imperialist
rule in China and the peasantry is the main force of the Chinese revolution. Therefore the
two fundamental tasks, the national revolution and the democratic revolution, are at once
distinct and united.”
INDIAN EXPERIENCE
The salvos of October Revolution had brought Marxist-Leninist teachings to India. And
from early 1920s the Communist movement started taking roots here. The formation of the
Communist Party, its activities to mobilise the working class and to lead it in the struggles
along with the mobilisation of the peasantry in the anti-feudal movements it gave leadership
to, and the revolutionary work among other revolutionary classes and sections spread the
influence of the Party fast in the objective conditions of ever sharpening contradiction of the
Indian people with imperialism and feudalism. But in spite of these advances, the leadership
failed continuously in correctly analysing the concrete conditions in the country and applying
the clear-cut Marxist-Leninist concepts put forward by the International Communist Movement
which were being successfully implemented in China in the conditions there. As a result, it
came under the influence of both right and ‘left’ deviations continuously. It failed to analyse
and understand the revolutionary line pursued by the Soviet leadership during the Second
World War to defeat the fascist forces, and as a result of which it took a line of abandoning the
anti-British struggle, getting isolated from the masses. Though numerous revolutionary
upsurges took place all over the country from the great Telengana struggle to the Naval
uprising in the post-war situation, once again the leadership failed to declare a clear-cut
approach to the national liberation struggle and about establishing the leadership of the
proletariat in it. On the other hand, the leadership became a tail of the Congress and Muslim
League, the parties of the big bourgeoisie. It did not oppose the British imperialist’s to divide
the country communally and to hand over power to the comprador classes represented by
these parties.
In the post-1947 period, in spite of extremely favourable situation created by the national
and international developments, once again the leadership went on deviating or vacillating
from one extreme to another, from the revolutionary path, always refusing to assimilate and
pursue the revolutionary line of the Communist International, of completing the tasks of
national liberation and democratic revolution by establishing the leadership of the proletariat
and allying with and leading the class of landless and poor peasants in the agrarian revolution
which is the axis of the democratic revolution. Even after a Party Programme and Policy
Statement were adopted after discussion with the CPSU leadership in 1951, they were soon
abandoned, the Telengana struggle was withdrawn, and right opportunist parliamentary
cretinist line started influencing the leadership. Once again it was the erroneous evaluation of
the class character of the big bourgeoisie which is a comprador class basically collaborating
with imperialism, and vis-a-vis of the Congress leadership, which led to the line of class
collaboration and revisionism by the leadership. The degeneration of post-Stalin CPSU
leadership to capitalist path speeded up this process. And soon the leadership of the Party
abandoned even the 1951 analysis of dual character of big bourgeoisie. It was analysed as
predominantly nationalist, and the line of National Democratic Revolution to be peacefully
completed allying with big bourgeoisie and its party, Congress, was adopted, completing its
degeneration to revisionist path.
This led to serious inner-party struggle. But the split in 1964, leading to the formation of
CPI(M), its Seventh Congress and adoption of a Party Programme did not focus on the
revisionist line of CPI leadership. Refusing to take any stand in the struggle against the
capitalist line of CPSU leadership waged by the CPC, the CPI(M) leadership took a centrist
stand. By 1967 when it formed opportunist alliances in the general election and formed
ministries led by it in West Bengal and Kerala, it had abandoned even the 1964 Programme
including the agrarian revolution based on land to the tiller slogan. The inner-party struggle
against the neo-revisionist line of CPI(M) leadership intensified by then leading to the great
Naxalbari struggle, once again bringing forward agrarian revolution to the forefront in the
agenda. By 1968 Burdwan Plenum the degeneration of CPI(M) leadership to neo-revisionist
line was in the main completed, and the communist revolutionaries coming out of CPI(M)
formed the AICCCR and called for intensifying agrarian revolution to complete the tasks of
New Democratic Revolution. Thus it took more than four decades of bitter ideological-political
struggles for categorically establishing the Marxist-Leninist line in the leadership of the
Communist movement.
The history of the ideological-political struggle among the Marxist-Leninist forces who
were divided in to CPI(ML) formed in 1969 and non-CPI(ML) forces in the beginning, and the
CPI(ML) and non-CPI(ML) groups later was focussed on evolving and putting in to practice a
Path of Revolution in continuation to the teachings of Communist International and based on
the experience of the International Communist Movement and the movement in India. If the
domination of sectarian line in the CPI(ML) in the beginning created obstacles for developing
a Path based on revolutionary mass line, later the disunity among the ML forces with some of
the groups deviating to rightist positions while another section persisting in the sectarian line
in more rabid forms, and the failure of the mass line forces to unite in to a single party and
develop a Path according to the concrete conditions in India created problems. In the
meantime, though many of the groups had put forward their own Path documents, none of
them have so far succeeded to build up the party organisation with countrywide influence, to
build up powerful class/mass organisations at all India level capable of developing
countrywide struggles, to mobilise and politicise the working class in any significant manner to
make it the leader of revolution, and to mobilise and lead the landless, poor peasants and
agricultural workers, the main force of the NDR, to carry forward the agrarian revolution with
land to the tiller slogan in any significant manner because of them clinging to the path of
protracted people’s war. The significance of the Path document put forward now should be
seen in this context. The sharpening of all internal contradictions in the country
unprecedentedly after the imposition of imperialist globalisation and growing participation of
the working class, peasantry and all other oppressed classes and sections in numerous
struggles have created an excellent objective situation to put this Path in to practice.
The Party should give conscious leadership to mobilise the agricultural workers, landless
and poor peasants to relive their historic traditions by creating rural upsurges to carry forward
the tasks of agrarian revolution, which is the axis of democratic revolution. Agrarian revolution
for elimination of the still surviving feudal, semi-feudal and pre-capitalist relations is integrally
linked to the anti-imperialist task of breaking down the grip of the tentacles of imperialist
system over the Indian society as a whole. The Communist Party as the vanguard of the
Indian proletariat based on worker-peasant alliance should strive hard to build the strategic
united front winning over all genuine anti-imperialist, patriotic, democratic classes and
sections according to the concrete situation and state of development of the people’s
struggles for overthrowing imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlord
classes for replacing the present Indian state with a People’s Democratic State. The Path of
Revolution should squarely address this cardinal issue.
5. ON CLASS ANALYSIS IN INDIAN SOCIETY
On the class approach to the PDR in India, the Outline Party Programme State : ‘‘The
working class, peasantry, petty-bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie constitute the
revolutionary classes in the present stage of revolution. The working class and peasantry are
the most exploited and oppressed among these classes. All these classes are in dire need of
overthrowing enemy classes along with the state controlled by them. A united front of these
oppressed classes based on worker-peasant alliance must be forged in the course of class
struggles, revolutionary movements against imperialism, feudalism, comprador bureaucratic
capital, and it will be led by the working class. The working class, being the most advanced
and revolutionary class alone can and must lead this revolution.’’.
As Mao Tsetung pointed out, determining the enemies and friends of revolution is a most
important question in chalking out the Path of Revolution. The basic reason why the
revolutionary struggles could not win victory so far is the failure to make a correct class
analysis according to concrete conditions in the country, to establish the leadership of the
working class, to mobilise the peasantry through agrarian revolution, to forge worker-peasant
alliance, and thus to unite with the real friends to attack the real enemies. To overcome this
weakness the Path of Revolution should be evolved based on the class analysis of Indian
society in present concrete conditions. As significant changes have taken place in Indian
society during the last six decades after transfer of power, they should be taken in to
consideration while making this analysis.
Regarding the Comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie, the leading class among the ruling
classes, CPI(M) like forces are continuing to create confusion to conceal their class
collaborationist position by defining comprador as a puppet class. They argue that this term
does not reflect the contradiction the Indian ruling classes have with imperialism. In the debate
continuing from 1960s since the 7th Congress of 1964, the Communist Revolutionary forces
have repeatedly pointed out that their basic difference with the 1964 Programme is not in
defining the Indian big bourgeoisie as having dual character, collaboration and contradiction
with imperialism, but not defining which is primary within these two. That, even while the
Indian big bourgeoisie and the bureaucratic class have contradictions with imperialism which
is often reflected in their manoeuvres to utilise the inter-imperialist contradictions for their
benefit, their collaboration with imperialism is basic which is reflected in their counter
revolutionary character repeatedly proved during these decades. Their transformation in to a
capitalist class or a class making huge investments in other countries, or some of the
corporate houses finding place among the first ten monopolies in the world does not change
the basic fact that it is continuing to collaborate with imperialism, to compromise with the pre-
capitalist relations of production and to obstruct the independent development of productive
forces in the country. So whether one call it a Junior partner of imperialism or dependent
bourgeoisie, its basic character remains the same, it is a comprador class serving imperialist
interests in the main. The Congress and BJP are the major political representatives of these
classes presently.
The stands of all the ‘socialist revolutionaries’, neo-Trotskyist and neo-left like forces, who
have defined it as an independent capitalist class and India as an independent capitalist
country (which inevitably means another imperialist country in this era of imperialism) stand
fully exposed especially after the imposition of the neo-liberal policies, intensifying the neo-
colonisation.
The big landlord class include the remnant feudal forces, the rich peasants who have
grown in to a powerful class from the time of ‘green revolution’ and various sections of land
owning mafias. It serves to integrate the agricultural sector with imperialist economy
facilitating entry of imperialist capital and MNCs to every sphere of agriculture from production
of seeds to procurements of produces, and allies with the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie
to perpetuate the neo-colonial plunder of the country.
The middle bourgeoisie which can also be called the national bourgeoisie is inconsistent
in its attitude towards Indian revolution. It is inter-twined with the comprador bureaucratic
bourgeoisie increasingly and is collaborating with imperialism more than ever for its existence
especially after the imposition of neo-liberal policies. It is increasingly feeling that the
revolution more than ever shall threaten its ambition to attain the status of big bourgeoisie. In
this situation even whatever revolutionary character this class had in the past is getting
weakened. So the possibility of it or, a section of it becoming an ally of the NDR has become a
very distant possibility now, though it may partially materialise when the NDR advances
decisively under the worker-peasant alliance.
The petty bourgeoisie, including the middle peasants, both because of its size and class
character is a significant one. Under conditions of intensifying onslaughts of imperialist
globalisation in every field including the cultural field, the vacillating character and illusions of
this class has increased manifold. Though the lower middle class which constitute more than
half of this class and may be called its left wing, are facing ever intensifying miseries under the
liberalisation-privatisation regime and as a result of which large sections of it have fallen to the
level of workers loosing all property, under the neo-colonial conditions even most of them
have not abandoned petty bourgeois illusions. Adapting itself to the conditions created by the
imperialist globalisation, investing whatever they have on providing higher professional
education to their children, influenced by speculative capital enormously, embracing religious
fundamentalist and communal positions in a big way, influenced by casteist/savarna/neo-
Brahministic positions increasingly and contributing activists and leaders to the political
spectrum in a major way, the petty bourgeoisie, especially the upper and middle strata of it,
have lost whatever revolutionary character it had as a class earlier to a great extent. More and
more of its younger generation are coming under the sway of imperialist and reactionary
culture like consumerism, alcoholism, criminal character and hatred towards the toiling
masses. All these point out towards the fact that possibilities of it joining the revolutionary
struggles as a class in a major way now is comparatively less compared to the past. This
situation should be concretely analysed and method of winning over more and more of them,
especially of the lower middle class should be worked out. As the intensification of all internal
contradictions create unprecedented conditions for mass upsurges in near future, objective
conditions for volatile sections of this class joining the people’s movements exist.
LANDLESS, POOR PEASANTS AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
This class the real tillers of the land, constitute majority of the population comprising 50%
to 65% in different areas according to concrete conditions, and include the adivasis, dalits,
and most backward and oppressed sections of society. They include the poor peasants, share
croppers in areas where semi feudal relations still persist, those who have taken land for tilling
under lease, agricultural workers who include large numbers of migrant workers and those
who are engaged in a variety of unorganised sectors, handicraftsmen, peddlers, etc.
As Mao Tsetung stated the peasant problem is essentially their problem. So when
peasantry is mentioned in general it constitutes these sections, not the middle peasants and
rich peasants as understood not only by CPI(M), but also increasingly by many of the so-
called revolutionary sections, even ‘Maoists’. Agrarian revolution with land to the tiller slogan
means creating conditions to revolutionise the agrarian relations by making this class the
owner of the agricultural land, as a first step towards co-operative and collective farming.
PROLETARIAT
India is a country with such a powerful, large working class that without mobilising and
politicising them the completion of the NDR and advancement to socialist revolution is
impossible. Leave alone the pre-revolutionary China, the working class in India is much more
numerous than it was in pre-revolutionary Russia or any other country where the revolution
has taken place. So the working class movement assumes far greater importance here.
Under liberalisation-privatisation raj the proportion of the working class in the unorganised
sector has enormously increased under the contract labour and hire and fire systems. Even
the modern industrial proletariat is coming under this category increasingly Through closures,
modernisation, outsourcing, VRS etc. the number of workers and employees in organised
sector is dwindling rapidly. The main attack of imperialism is to create flexibility in the labour
force. By denying regular hours of work, regular wages, security of service, social security
etc. the organised sector is being constantly converted to unorganised sector. Therefore
though it is the comparatively tiny organised sector that forms the base of most of the trade
unions today, future organisation requires concentration on the unorganised sectors who
alone can give new leadership and a new direction to the working class struggles. The task is
to mobilise and lead them to local, state-wide and country-wide struggles, creating an
atmosphere of working class struggles and upsurges anew. Urgent, conscious plans should
be worked out with this orientation.
6. ON BUILDING THE PARTY AT ALL INDIA LEVEL AS THE VANGUARD OF THE INDIAN PROLETARIAT
The Communist Party is the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat, it is the
advanced detachment of the proletariat. The Communist Party [CPI] was formed in India
under the guidance of the Communist International as a Bolshevik style party surrounded by
class and mass organisations and based on the organisational principle of democratic
centralism. During the 1930s and 1940s it succeeded in expanding its influence to all India
level, in building the working class and peasant movements along with other mass
organisations. It succeeded in carrying forward the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal movement and
gave leadership to Telengana, Tebhaga, Punnapra-Vayalar like historic struggles. In spite of
it, due to the failure to concretely analyse the national situation and to draw correct lessons
from the Comintern positions, and to concretely analyse the international developments the
CPI leadership could not develop its independent initiative and establish the leadership of the
working class in the ongoing national liberation movement in the country and lead the NDR to
victory. After the transfer of power in 1947, it failed to carry forward class struggle based on
the 1951 Party Programme and Policy Statement. Its leadership soon started toeing the
revisionist line put forward by the post-Stalin CPSU leadership. As a result of these, the first
split in the communist movement took place in 1964 and the CPI (M) was formed. But the CPI
(M) leadership did not make a complete break with the revisionist line of CPI and soon came
under neo-revisionist positions. It was following this, in continuation to the inner-party struggle
taking place within CPI(M), the Naxalbari uprising took place upholding the agrarian revolution
with land to the tiller slogan as the axis of the NDR. Following the Burdwan Plenum in which
the CPI(M) leadership took a Centrist line in the on going Great Debate between CPSU and
CPC, in essence toeing the Soviet revisionist line, the CRs came out of the CPI(M) and
formed the AICCCR fighting against revisionism of CPI and neo-revisionism of CPI(M).
It was a historic turning point in the Indian Communist movement which paved the way for
reorganising the party on the revolutionary line of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung thought as
its guide line, as the vanguard party of the Indian proletariat with agrarian revolution as its
axis. But sectarianism soon dominated the leadership of AICCCR and the CPI(ML) formed in
1969 could not unite all the CRs in it as evaluated by the 2007 Party Plenum. Vijayawada
Conference of 2005 was a serious effort to bring together the CPI(ML) groups, those who had
left CPI(ML) and formed other organisations, those who were never part of CPI(ML) earlier
and the new generation comrades in to a single party, CPI (ML). As the completion of the
tasks of the PDR and advancement towards socialist revolution is possible only under the
leadership of a powerful Communist Party with country wide influence, the unity task taken up
at the Vijayawada conference is to be carried forward trying to unite all like minded CR forces
in the party. As this is an essential pre-condition for victory of the PDR, this task should be
given paramount importance. And this party building is a vital aspect of the Path of Revolution,
and while carrying it towards the following factors should be given serious consideration.
 Firstly, the present concrete conditions compared to the situation in Russia, China and
other countries when revolution took place there are vastly different. Today party building is
taking place when almost all parties built up under Comintern guidance have degenerated to
capitalist path with bureaucratic organisational structures and when the erstwhile socialist
countries have degenerated to bureaucratic state capitalism or to open capitalist/imperialist
countries. It is also taking place when issues like ecology, women’s liberation etc have
assumed unprecedented importance. Amassment of nuclear weapons on the one hand and
its proliferation on the other, growth of religious fundamentalism, casteism, racism etc. in
newer forms are creating unprecedented problems. It is also taking place when the imperialist
camp is intensifying its ideological onslaughts through alien theories and NGOs, when the
advantages gained under the development of science and technology are utilised by the
imperialist camp for its counter revolutionary offensive.
Secondly, when CPI (M), CPI like parties have totally degenerated to ruling class
positions, replacing class struggle with class collaboration, and embracing the path of
peaceful transition and parliamentary opportunism, their continuing to use the banner of
Communist Party is confusing many and used by enemy camp to tarnish Marxist theory and to
destroy the image of the communist movement. Under the social democratic influence a
section of the ML forces have also already degenerated to parliamentary opportunism.
Struggle should be intensified without any let up against these right opportunist trends of all
hues.
Thirdly, a section of the erstwhile ML forces like CPI (Maoist) has degenerated to
anarchist positions. In practice they still continue the ‘annihilation line’. In effect advocating
and practising ‘armed struggle’ as the only form of struggle, they have abandoned mass line,
got isolated from the masses and have in practice abandoned all organised mass movements.
They have joined with NGOs on the one hand, and with chauvinist, parochial forces on the
other hand. ‘Maoist bogey’ is utilised by the ruling classes and state machinery to confuse the
people and as a cover to suppress all democratic movements and struggles. Some of the ML
forces are refusing to settle accounts with these anarchist forces and collaborate with them,
harming the unity process. Uncompromising struggle should be waged against these
anarchist forces in order to strengthen Marxist-Leninist positions and to carry forward the unity
process. It is not opportunist collaboration, but uncompromising struggle which is the only way
even to help them to rectify their erroneous line and transform to mass line.
Fourthly, it should be a Bolshevik-style party surrounded by class and mass
organisations. Whether sectarianism is opposed merely in words or in practice is proved by
the approach towards building class/mass organisations. In a country of nearly 120 crores of
people, tens of millions of workers, landless-poor peasants and agricultural workers and other
revolutionary sections can be successfully mobilised for countrywide campaigns and struggles
if the Leninist approach towards Bolshevik party building surrounded by class/mass
organisations is studiously pursued. Concepts like ‘Front’ organisations without a democratic
programme and mobilisation of people are nothing but manifestations of sectarianism
Fifthly, it should be a party with countrywide organisation and political influence. The
concept of ‘area-wise seizure of political power’ and ‘base areas’, influence of localism etc.
under the line of protracted people’ war are presently used as cover for ‘self-satisfied’
opportunism, of continuing activities reduced to certain pockets of influence. Significant
changes that have taken place in the concrete situation in recent decades, especially after the
launching of neo-liberal offensive by imperialism and the native ruling classes call for a
countrywide offensive by the revolutionary forces mobilising tens of millions. So, political and
organisational initiative should be taken for party building at all India level uniting all forces
that can be united.
Sixthly, the possibilities available today for open activities to launch vigorous ideological
and political campaigns, to win over politically advanced sections and for party building should
be fully utilised. Already there are numerous instances of spontaneous struggles in different
regions against SEZs, so-called ‘development’ projects etc. The sky-rocketing price rise is
creating conditions for food riots in many areas. Possibilities for mass upsurges cannot be
overlooked in this situation. The Party should be able to provide leadership to the coming
upsurges and organisational and political work should be taken up with this perspective. At the
same time, building of party fractions among the working class, organising fractions in
sensitive areas including state apparatus and within the police, para-military and military
included, should be given importance. In short, while giving emphasis to utilise present
opportunities for open activities fully, capability to switch over to other organisational forms
according to any changes in concrete conditions should be continuously developed so that
there are no contradictions between open and secret, legal and illegal organisational forms,
and among all forms of struggles.
Seventhly, the ideological-political education and training which keeps the party politically
vigorous and organisationally active should be given prime importance. Marxism is not a
dogma, but a guide to action which should be continuously developed to cope up with the
changes taking place in the concrete conditions internationally and nationally. The party
should be capable of taking up this challenge and prepare the whole organisation accordingly.
Eighthly, democratic centralism should be organically practised so that the democratic
atmosphere for inner party struggle always exists. It is easy to talk about the undesirability of
individual authority and bureaucratic practices. But even after the serious setback suffered by
the ICM no proper lessons are drawn from them, so that the above, negative factors can be
combated and a lively democratic atmosphere can be maintained within the party and
class/mass organisations. Replacement of committee system and collective functioning by
individual authority and democratic functioning by bureaucratic methods is one important
reason for the existence of so many groups claiming to uphold Marxist-Leninist line even
when there are no basic differences between their lines. It gives rise to ‘theory of many
centres’ obstructing the unity efforts. So these negative tendencies should be vigorously
fought.
7. ON MOBILISING THE WORKING CLASS AS THE LEADER OF THE PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC
REVOLUTION
Marxism is the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat, the most advanced class engaged
in the most developed and advanced field of production. The task of the Communist Party, the
vanguard of the proletariat, is to transform it from a ‘‘class in itself’’ to a ‘‘class for itself’,
capable of leading the revolutionary transformation of the society, by providing leadership to
the people’s democratic revolution advancing towards socialist revolution. The Indian
proletariat and its vanguard party have to shoulder the responsibility of completing the long-
pending tasks of democratic revolution and national liberation by mobilising all anti-imperialist,
anti-feudal forces, for settling accounts with imperialism, the comprador classes and all pre-
capitalist relations including the feudal decadent relations, and lead the people towards
socialist revolution.
One of the most important specific features of Indian society is that unlike all other
erstwhile colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries, from the second half of 19th
century itself there was a comparatively large working class here. They started getting
organised from the last decades of 19th century and soon the working class had started
fighting for their democratic and trade union right. By 1908 when the working class in Mumbai
launched a political strike against the arrest of Tilak, Lenin had congratulated them stating that
the working class in India have matured even to launch political struggles: ‘‘they have come of
age’’. As the industrialisation received a boost following the colonial policy of British
imperialism during and after First World War, the strength of the working class also increased
considerably. Trade union movement soon spread to all major industrial centres and
numerous struggles also took place. With the beginning of the activities of the Communist
movement from 1920s the work among the working class in general and the trade union
activities in particular advanced fast. By 1926, the first TU centre, the AITUC was launched as
the platform of Indian working class in which the Communists and socialists had considerable
influence. So, unlike most of the other colonial, semi-colonial, dependent countries, in India
the call of the Communist International (CI) that it is this era of imperialism and proletarian
revolution, and only the working class can give leadership to the bourgeois democratic
revolution and national liberation to lead them to victory and to advance from there to socialist
revolution had special significance. It was not just a theoretical question alone like in many
other countries but a practical question of establishing the proletarian class leadership in the
movement as this class had already become quantitatively and qualitatively a powerful one.
So, while chalking out the Path of Revolution how this task can be taken up by the Communist
movement in the country and how concrete political and practical steps to establish the class
leadership of the proletariat in the People’s Democratic Revolution overcoming all negative
experiences can be developed should be given cardinal importance.
An evaluation of the political history of the mobilisation of the working class by the
Communist movement in India reveal that the first major setback in this field occured following
the decision of the CPI leadership in 1941 to call off all working class struggles in the name of
strengthening the anti-fascist war. With the launching of the Nazi blitzkrieg against Soviet
Union in 1941, the Soviet and Comintern leadership evaluated that the hitherto inter-
imperialist war had transformed to a People’s War and called on the world people to launch an
all out counter-offensive to destroy the fascist forces which had become the principal threat.
Against the German-Italian-Japanese Axis Powers, Soviet Union allied with US, Britain and
France to carry forward the anti-fascist offensive. Following this, based on an erroneous
evaluation of this Comintern call and the concrete conditions within the country, the CPI
leadership called for suspending the anti-colonial movement in the name of supporting the
People’s War as Soviet Union had allied with Britain. All strike struggles were called off and
working class movement suffered a severe setback. It led to a severe setback to the hitherto
effects to establish the working class leadership in the national liberation movement.
The Congress leadership which had so far refused to utilise the favourable opportunities
provided by the outbreak of the inter-imperialist war to intensity the independence struggle,
utilised this opportunity and called for Quit India movement in 1942. The Congress supporters
in AITUC as well as the socialists, who are die-hard anti-Communists, joined hands to weaken
the Communist leadership in the working class movement which later led to the serious splits
in the AITUC, paving the way for formation of INTUC and HMS. Though immediately after the
War, once again the working class launched significant all India struggles and the Mumbai
workers once again launched a political struggle in support of the 1946 Naval Mutiny, the split
in the working class movement went on widening. This was another factor which helped the
British colonialists to communally divide India and to hand over power to the comprador
classes in India and Pakistan.
Establishing the leadership of the working class in the PDR, concretely means mobilising
and organising them so as to make them capable of providing leadership to the agrarian
revolution with land to the tiller slogan, mobilising the landless and poor peasants and
agricultural workers who constitute majority of the population, as the axis of the PDR. It
requires to make them capable of providing leadership to the anti-imperialist movement, to the
struggles waged by all other oppressed classes and sections, to the struggles against
decadent casteist, communal forces, and to the struggles for building the party and different
class and mass organisations and in leading them in numerous struggles. The serious
weakness of the CPI leadership was its failure to establish this leadership of the working class
in the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist movement. Soon after the War, from 1946 millions of
landless and poor peasants including adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections were
drawn in to historic Telengana, Tebhaga like movements. The agrarian revolutionary struggles
were developing in many regions. But though the Second Congress of CPI denounced the
reformist positions of past years, it refused to take lessons from the advancing Chinese
Revolution and the agrarian struggles in the country. It called for an urban-centred
insurrection, refusing to establish the leadership of the working class over agrarian revolution.
Though this mistake was temporarily rectified in the 1951 Party Programme and Policy
Statement, soon they were side lined. As the party leadership went on sliding to reformist
positions the AITUC leadership went on becoming a victim of sectarianism which speeded up
the split in the working class movement on the one hand, and of reformism and econimism
and putting labour aristocracy in the leadership on the other. After the split in CPI and
formation of CPI (M) in 1964, though the CPI (M) leadership also degenerated to CPI position
by 1967 in the main, the AITUC was splitted to form CITU without any basic qualitative
changes. In spite of the tall claims by the CITU leadership, as the attacks of the ruling classes
and their state apparatus went on intensifying against the working class, neither it nor any
other TU centres came forward providing leadership to the working class against the capitalist
class and the reactionary ruling system The working class leadership, split to numerous
centres, went on degenerating to economism, reformism and opportunism.
Following the great Naxalbari struggle when the AICCCR was formed it had adopted a
resolution briefly mentioning this degeneration of the working class movement and calling for
its reorganisation and unity on revolutionary lines. But as sectarian positions soon dominated
the CR forces, the mechanical evaluation of the legalist character of existing TU centres and
domination of trade unionism and of the influence of reactionary, communal, casteist,
reformist and revisionist forces over the working class movement led to the erroneous
conclusion that ‘‘class/mass organisations are highways to revisionism’’. Soon the work
among the working class was abandoned and in practice the Communist Revolutionaries
refused to establish the leadership of working class in the PDR including the agrarian
revolution. Going to the other extreme the comrades working in the trade union movement
were called upon to abandon them and go to the villages to lead the agrarian revolution. What
happened was a negation of the Leninist teachings on building up a revolutionary working
class movement. It was after the severe setback suffered by the CPI(ML) forces by 1972, the
CR forces tried to pursue mass line and started work among the working class including
building up trade unions and TU centres. Still their strength in the working class movement is
negligible.
After the imposition of imperialist globalisation in 1991, under the neo-liberal regime the
working class is confronting ever intensifying challenges. Almost all democratic, wage and TU
rights achieved through a century of bitter struggles are mostly snatched away. Contract
labour system and ‘hire and fire’ are the rule of the day. What is witnessed is extreme forms of
wage slavery. The number of workers in the organised sectors are dwindling fast, with labour
aristocracy’ gaining domination among their leadership. The tens of millions of workers in the
unorganised sectors, whose number is increasing day by day and who have become the main
force among the working class are denied all democratic and trade union rights. Many black
laws are imposed for it. Even struggles for economic demands, right to form unions, etc have
become extremely difficult
Along with de-unionisation, de-politicisation and dominance of casteist, communal,
parochial feelings, alchoholism and anarchic tendencies have become the order of the day.
The present situation can be reversed, the mobilisation of workers can become possible and
their politicisation can be initiated again only by launching major political offensives involving
the working class against the neo-liberal policies, the ruling classes and the ruling system.
While leadership of the major TU centres like BMS and INTUC are openly advocating
foreign investment and actively involved in mortgaging the interests of the working class and
the country to imperialist interests in the name of the ‘development policy’ under imperialist
globalisation, leaderships of TU centres of like AITUC and CITU are satisfied with making a
show of ritualistic opposition to imperialist globalisation. They are reflecting the ideological-
political line of their political leaderships, have abandoned even traditional struggles and
degenerated as apologists and propagandists of the ruling comprador system and its policies.
They also advocate that ‘there is no alternative to imperialist globalisation.’ Except in words, in
practice they have abandoned organising the workers in the unorganised sectors. While BMS
like centres openly practice Hindutva communal policies, there are many unions under other
communal, casteist, parochial banners. Abandoning agrarian revolution, some of the TU
centres have affiliated the agricultural workers to them. There are apolitical NGOs-led trade
unions and their centres also. Many erstwhile CR cadres have reduced trade union work to
fighting individual worker’s cases in the labour courts and collecting commission for it. The so-
called “Maoists” have reduced their trade union work to mere floating of TU banners as front
organisations. Thus labour aristocratic, reactionary, reformist, apolitical and anarchic
tendencies are dominating the trade union scene. This is a reflection of the degeneration of
the working class movement at international level on a major scale for the last 5-6 decades. In
this situation, calls for unity among the working class based on one union in a factory or
enterprise or trade etc without trying to address the above problems only add to the de-
politicisation of the working class, that is making them subservient to the rule of capital. In this
situation when reactionary, reformist and revisionist ideas are dominant, under active
involvement of imperialist think-tanks many theories like post-modernism, identity politics,
empowerment theories, NGOism etc are propagated which violently oppose class politics. The
concept of working class as the leader of social revolution, the necessity of overthrowing the
reactionary class rule and the imperialist system and the very basics of Marxist theory are
abandoned.
The task before the Communist Party is to uncompromisingly fight against all these alien
tendencies. Its main direction of work should be to establish the leadership of the working
class as the leading class of the PDR. It involves two major fronts of activities, which are
inter-related, that of mobilising and organising the working class at all India level into a
powerful movement and of conscious activities to politicise them as the leader of revolution.
The first part involves uniting all the TU centres and trade unions functioning in various
states and regions urgently in to a single TU centre with a radical programme and democratic
constitution. Immediate steps should be taken to bring together other like-minded trade unions
and TU centres based on this programme to build a federation or confederation. Conscious
efforts should be made to utilise present possibilities to organise hundreds of thousands of
construction workers and other workers in unorganised sector by developing suitable cadres
and deploying them to these fields. As early as possible all India and state level leaderships
should be developed, an immediate campaign programme should be drafted, and all India
campaigns and struggles should be developed focussing the on vital demands of the working
class. Along with economic, democratic, trade union demands, political slogans also should
be put forward calling on the working class to spearhead anti-imperialist, anti-ruling class and
anti-state struggles with slogans like Throw out imperialist, globalisation, IMF-World Bank-
WTO, MNCs and imperialist promoted ‘development’ policies, and struggle for a people’s
alternate development policy ensuring food, clothing, housing, education, healthcare and
employment for all. Major propaganda offensives should be launched with this orientation
along with developing militant struggles. In this way a militant atmosphere can be created
challenging the stagnant, reactionary and revisionist TU centres. This will create conditions for
advancing the unity efforts among the working class. In this process necessary united front
tactics should be developed and utilised according to concrete conditions.
The working class includes politically advanced, backward and middle level sections. This
is reflected in the trade unions also. The “Trade union can be developed as political schools”
of the working class and the politicisation of the working class based on the revolutionary
orientation of the party can be carried forward by organising party fractions within them at
appropriate levels and maintaining organic relation between these party fractions with the
party organisation. Whatever may be the ideological-political weakness of the party
organisation and consequently the trade union centre, from early decades the Bolshevik
practice of building party fractions was studiously followed by the CPI and later CPI (M). Even
now, in spite of degeneration to capitalist path the CPI(M) is still following this practice to a
great extent making it capable of maintaining its strength in TU field. Our Party should learn
about the practice of building party fractions within the TU movement at different levels from
the experience of the communist movement at international and national level. Without taking
up the organisational task of building up party fractions the advanced section of the working
class cannot be imbued with the basic understanding about the Party’s revolutionary ideology
and the Path of Revolution put forward, the TUs cannot be turned in to political schools and
the working class cannot be developed as the leader of Indian revolution.
 In all organised sectors major TUs led by the leading TU centres from BMS, INTUC to
CITU are already existing. They include strategic sectors like railways, docks,
telecommunications, defence industries, coal, steel, electricity etc. Already the TUs in these
sectors are splitted to various centres. It is immediately not possible to build our own TUs in
these sectors. On the contrary what is immediately possible is to build party fractions secretly
in all these sectors, in whichever union it is feasible. Hitherto experience shows that it is
possible more in the ‘left’ unions if necessary secrecy is maintained. Political propaganda
should be carried forward in a planned way through these cells to win over sizeable sections
of workers or employees in due course of time. Through these party fractions in all trade
unions, politicisation of the working class, preparing them ideologically and politically, fight
against legalism, reformism and economism, strengthening of worker-peasant unity, struggle
against all alien tendencies, sending advanced worker comrades to build party among various
sections including workers in the new working class areas and sending worker comrades to
agrarian sector to mobilise the landless-poor peasants and agricultural workers for agrarian
revolution etc should be taken up. More important is the preparation of the trade unions to
launch political struggles in line with the needs of developing the PDR.
Another important task of the revolutionary trade union movement and the party fraction
work within it is to prepare it for taking up international tasks. From the time of degeneration of
CPSU to revisionist path the WFTU had lost its revolutionary orientation. From that time the
international working class movement became very weak and presently it is virtually reduced
only to a mere concept. Necessary steps should be taken to study the present conditions of
working class movement in different countries, to establish relations with like-minded TU
centres and to initiate efforts to rebuild the international working class movement upholding
the slogan “Workers of the World, unite” to develop international level struggles against
imperialism and its agents.
8. ON BUILDING THE REVOLUTIONARY PEASANT ORGANISATION
On the significance of peasant question in Russian revolution, on how Lenin analysed this
question Stalin said: “Are the revolutionary potentialities latent in the peasantry by virtue of
certain conditions of its existence already exhausted or not; and if not, is there any hope, any
basis, for utilising these potentialities for the proletarian revolution, for transforming the
peasantry, the exploited majority of it, from the reserve of the bourgeoisie which it was during
the bourgeois revolutions in the West, and still is even now, in to reservoir of the proletariat, in
to its ally, Leninism replies to this question in the affirmative, i.e., it recognises the existence of
revolutionary capacities in the ranks of the majority of the peasantry, and the possibility of
using these in the interest of the proletarian dictatorship. The history of the three revolutions in
Russia fully corroborates the conclusions of Leninism on this score” (Foundations of
Leninism). This Leninist stand is fully reflected in the Comintern’s analysis of the peasantry as
the main force of democratic revolution in the countries under colonisation and agrarian
revolution as the axis of the PDR under the leadership of the proletariat.
Analysing the role of the peasantry in Chinese revolution, Mao Tsetung wrote: “The
peasant movement is a colossal event, In a very short time in China’s central, southern and
northern provinces, several hundred millions peasants will rise like a mighty storm, like a
hurricane, a force so swift and violent that, no power however great, will be able to hold it
back. They will smash all trammels that bind them and rush forward along the road to
liberation. They will sweep all the imperialists, warlords, corrupt officials, local tyrants and evil
gentry in to their graves. Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put
to the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide. There are three alternatives. To march
at their head and lead them? To trail behind them, gesticulating and criticising? Or to stand in
their way and oppose them?” (Investigation of Peasant Movement in Honan). The decision of
the CPC led by Mao to march at their head and lead them led to the historic victory of the
Chines revolution.
In India also in spite of the hesitations of the leadership of the CPI, wherever the
comrades decided to march at their head and lead them, mighty agrarian movements
emerged, masses rallied behind the party and wherever the CPI and CPI (M) have still
influence among the masses even after their degeneration are those areas where these
movements took place. By 1952 CPI leadership had abandoned the path of agrarian
revolution in practice. After initial utterances CPI (M) leadership also trailed this path. The
great Naxalbari struggle took place challenging their reformist path and once again brought
the agrarian revolution back to the agenda of Indian people. Revolutionary agrarian struggles
started emerging in many areas. For a long time the hang over of the sectarian line had
stunted the growth of these struggles. Undaunted by these, fighting against reformism and
sectarianism, peasant question is once again coming to the forefront of the political scene.
But various types of deviations are hindering the development of the agrarian
revolutionary movement. First, not only CPI and CPI (M), some of the CPI (ML) groups also
have degenerated to the path of ‘peaceful transition’ and parliamentary opportunism. Though
they still retain ‘agrarian revolution as the axis of the PDR’ in their programme, they have
abandoned the path of both. Secondly, though the CPI (Maoist) repeatedly emphasises the
role of agrarian revolution as the axis of the PDR, it is far away from mobilising the hundreds
of millions of landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers for agrarian struggles and the
PDR. Instead it is still satisfied in persisting in the ‘annihilation line’ in new forms, abandoning
the revolutionary mass line. Thirdly, many of those groups who claim to pursue mass line,
while organising peasant organisations abandon the class line of agricultural workers and
landless and poor peasants, who constitute the class of revolutionary peasantry. In practice
they are confined to giving priority to the demands of middle peasants and rich peasants. In
theory, even before building a revolutionary peasant movement with a correct class line and
mobilising the peasantry for land struggles, they put forward proposals about advancing to
protracted people’s war as a pre-condition against the concrete situation in our country.
The tasks before the Party are: Firstly, firmly uphold the class line of the agricultural
workers, landless and poor peasants, the revolutionary peasantry, consisting of adivasis,
dalits and other most oppressed sections. Secondly, build up agricultural workers and
landless, poor peasant organisation with specific programme upholding the path of agrarian
revolution as the path forward. Build up these organisations at state level and co-ordinate
them at all India level. In line with the agrarian revolutionary programme, form land struggle
committees starting from village level with the initiative of agricultural workers and landless,
poor peasant organisation to launch struggles with land to the tiller slogan.
Immediate slogans against forced labour, usury, communal and caste oppression,
women’s oppression, for higher wages, for distribution of banjar land, against forest
contractors etc. should be raised and struggles organised. While taking up campaigns and
struggles for immediate demands, they should be linked to the agrarian revolutionary line.
Thus the link between the immediate and basic demands should be established.
9. ON MOBILISING THE WOMEN FOR REVOLUTION
In “Origin of Family, Private property and State” Engels has explained how the process of
enslavement of human beings by human beings started with the enslavement of women under
male chauvinism in the family system which led to the origin of the private property, and to the
origin of the state to protect the private property. Women became the first private property.
Though class struggle continued under slave system, feudal system and the capitalist system
and a socialist camp emerged with the seizure of political power by the proletariat and allied
classes in a number of countries, the question of liberating ‘half the heaven’ is not yet given
the importance it deserves. As Mao Tsetung pointed out after the first wave of Cultural
Revolution in China, the seizure of political power in pre-revolutionary countries and socialist
transformation in post-revolutionary societies shall face ever-surmounting problems so long as
effective ways for the liberation of these ’first slaves’ remain elusive. All the religions preach to
perpetuate this slavery and their enslaved conditions make the women carriers of the
superstitions and reactionary traditions, customs and ideologies which are transferred to the
children. Though most of them still remain a private property of men in practice, and the
private property system has become most barbarous under imperialism, women under the
present family system have become the most important propagandists of it. The failure of the
post-revolutionary societies in dealing with the question of women’s liberation effectively along
with the continuing stranglehold of remnant feudal values, religious beliefs and imperialist
culture played an important role along with various other factors in the restoration of capitalism
there. In spite of it even today the weakness of the party in mobilising the women who
constitute 50% of the population in the party, class and mass organisations, and in various
fields of activities is sharply manifested.
While the condition of women in India is much more backward than to those in the
imperialist countries, the resistance to bring forward even any superficial changes to it like
providing 33% reservation to them in the elected bodies reveal the state of affairs. Manu
smrithi’s declaration that ‘women do not deserve independence’ is still dominant. The caste
system and all religions perpetuate women’s backwardness. The rule of capital and market
system under neo-liberalism has intensified women’s miseries further. Woman and their
bodies have become commodities for sale increasingly. The present family system, even
where it is transformed to nuclear ones, still remain basically male dominant and conservative.
While dowry system and denial of equal right to family property is rampant, even decadent
systems like Sati, Child marriage, devadasi system, naked dance by women to please gods
etc. still continue in many areas. Growth of communal forces and religions fundamentalism,
often sponsored by the ruling system have worsened women’s condition. Though the
bourgeois feminist movements have pockets of influence in urban areas, they have failed to
address the real issues of the masses of women.
In this situation conscious efforts should be made to organize women organisations at
different levels to vigorously take up the task of women liberation as a part of the on going
struggle for the PDR.
10. ON MOBILISING THE YOUTH
Youth in our country has a glorious history of actively participating in the social
renaissance movement, in the independence struggle and later in the anti-imperialist, anti-
feudal struggles led by the Communist Party. The role of Bhagat Singh and other
revolutionary youth rallied in the Hindustan Republication. Army challenging the colonial
forces still inspire the masses. But with the transfer of power by the colonialists in 1947 and
the beginning of the emergence of revisionist tendencies in the Communist Party in the 1950s,
the youth started getting frustrated and influenced by retrogressive ideologies. Many joined
reformist and even reactionary forces. When the Naxalbari uprising created a revolutionary
upheaval through out the country, once again lakhs of youth joined the revolutionary
movement. But the influence of sectarian tendencies together with the ruthless suppression by
the state forces once again caused setback to this upsurge. The CR movement failed to
mobilise these youth in to a countrywide organisation with a revolutionary programme. It was
inactive when the CPI(M)-CPI forces had become social democratic in nature and the
communal forces were making belligerent moves to influence the youth. Though there were a
spurt of progressive activism during and after the internal emergency period, it was short-
lived. At all India level the participation of the youth in the left movement went on decreasing.
In the mean time under increasing neo-colonisation, especially after the imposition of neo-
liberal policies, the challenges faced by the youth have intensified unprecedentedly.
Unemployment has become rampant. Even the already employed people started loosing
employment. At the same time vested interests started promoting imperialist culture, and
criminalisation among them to prevent the frustrated youth from joining the revolutionary
movement. As a result large sections of youth are presently influenced by retrogressive
thinking and practice, and are recruited in large numbers by communal, casteist and
chauvinist forces on the one hand, and by the ruling classes as their storm troopers and mafia
gangs on the other.
A similar situation is rampant at international level also, even though youth in large
numbers are joining the resistance struggles in Iraq, Afghanistan and other West Asian
countries against US-led aggression and occupation, though youth are playing an important
role in the anti-imperialist advances in the Latin American countries, and though their
presence is felt in the anti-war movement in US and other imperialist countries. Compared to
the present intensity of the contradiction between imperialism and world people, the role
played by the youth is not as powerful as in the revolutionary decades of last century. Factors
like the weakening of the socialist forces with the degeneration of the erstwhile socialist
countries to capitalist path, the severe setback suffered by the ICM, and the weaknesses
shown by the Marxist-Leninist forces in confronting and challenging the counter-revolutionary
offensive of imperialists and their lackeys are responsible for it.
The Communist Party should seriously take these international and national realities in to
consideration, launch a vigorous offensive to politicise the youth with a militant programme at
all India level so that the youth can be brought forward to play the significant role they have to
take up in this period for advancing the PDR. Immediate steps should b e initiated to unite the
youth organisations at various levels in to a powerful all India democratic youth organisation
with anti-imperialist positions and socialist vision.
11. ON ORGANISING A DEMOCRATIC STUDENT MOVEMENT
Students as a social strata is a major force in our country. The neo-liberal policies of
globalisation-liberalisation-privatisation have reduced education in to a mere commodity,
increasingly depriving it of whatever social character and orientation it once had. The
commercialisation of the education system and the neo-liberal syllabi are taking a large
section of students undergoing higher education away from social realities. The
commercialisation has made higher education in to an elite sector reserved for mostly the
upper caste, upper class students. The syllabus, methods of education and the atmosphere
prevalent in these ‘centres of higher learning’ especially in the professional colleges are
basically a continuation of the colonial education system, though its present content and forms
have changed to serve the neo-colonial plunder. If Mcaulay’s education system was intended
to create a class of babus to serve the colonial system, the present system is moulded to
serve imperialist globalisation, the capital-market raj. It is well established that the content and
form of the education system in a society in a particular period is determined by and
implemented for protecting the interests of the then ruling classes. The education system is
utilised by them to mould the students in accordance with their ideology and political-
administrative needs. As a result, a large section of students, especially of the professional
colleges, mostly the private, capitation fee, ’self-financed’ colleges grow up cut away from
social realities, with hatred towards the lower castes, lower class people and with the spirit of
subservience to imperialist forces, especially US imperialism. Instead of patriotism, what is
dominating in them is the attraction towards everything imperialist, mostly ‘US patriotism’.
This present state of affairs is basically different from the one that was dominant among
students during the independence movement. They were imbued with patriotism and
influenced by liberatory ideology and empathy towards the downtrodden. During the
independence movement, a good section of the students rebelling against the casteist,
religious, feudal and backward conditions they were coming from militantly joined the struggle
against British colonialists. Similarly many of them rallied in the student movement led by the
Communist Party. But due to the deviations in the Communist movement which made it
incapable of putting forward a revolutionary alternative and leading struggles for it, frustrated
many and weakened the left student movement, Naxalbari uprising and the crisis of the ruling
system in the 1970s once again paved way for mighty student upsurges. But as a result of
degeneration of CPI(M) to ruling class positions and influence of sectarianism in the CR
movement, during last three decades, though there are spurt of activities at local level, the left
influence among the students has remained weak by and large at all India level.
On the contrary a large section of the students, especially the elitist and middle class
sections among them are attracted to the communal, casteist, chauvinist organisations and
organisations led by Congress, BJP like leading ruling class parties. They are imitating the
corruption and cultural degeneration of their political elders. Most of them uphold neo-liberal
raj and its education policy. They compete to divide the students communally, caste-wise, and
in the name of reservation policy. They refuse to fight commercialisation of education,
criminalisation of campus life, increasing dominance of reactionary culture etc. This is one of
the most important challenges faced by the democratic student movement.
But the apathy shown towards these developments or the lack of initiative on the part of
the CR forces to overcome this situation is shocking. A few of them are happy with some
localised gains, forgetting about the pitiable condition of their all India organisation, if they
have any. There are many who do not give any importance to this issue. There are CR groups
claiming decades of history, but without a dozen students with them. This situation is suicidal.
Today the communal, fundamentalist, casteist like forces start winning over children from the
primary or even pre-primary level itself. Even leaving apart these sections there are nearly 15-
20 crores of students in our country. In chalking out the Path of Revolution, how to organise
this important strata of the society in a broad-based democratic student movement is an
aspect that should be seriously considered.
Our party has student organisations, however weak they may be, in some of the states.
Immediate steps should be taken to organise them in to an all India organisation with a broad-
based democratic programme. The programme should consist of: stop commercialisation and
eliticisation of education system, ensure universal, compulsory and free education for all up to
secondary level based on a common syllabus and in their mother tongue, put an end to
privatisation of education, stop religious and casteist organisations from interfering in the
education system, stop ‘self-financed’ like education markets, develop a democratic, secular,
scientific, education system under social control etc. Various aspects of this programme
should be subjected to a broad-based discussion before formulating them. An all India
students organisation should be consciously organised and developed to fight for this
programme and to fight the decadent, reactionary culture trying to dominate the students.
Party should not be satisfied with statements which claim that development of revolutionary
struggles will inspire the students to join them. It is a very partial truth. The hitherto history of
the ICM and experience in India shows that efforts for organising a powerful student
movement at all India level is one of the pre-conditions which will help to develop the
revolutionary movement at a broader and deeper level. It will influence the society at broader
level, give rise to militant movements and provide a continuous flow of cadres to the
revolutionary movement.
12. TASKS IN THE CULTURAL FRONT
We are living in a period when imperialism and reaction are developing and implementing
class strategies in newer and newer forms for exploitation and oppression of the world people.
The universal and all-pervading hegemony of capitalism and capitalist relations of production
are establishing their domination over all sectors of human thought and scientific knowledge.
To serve their reactionary goals imperialism and world reaction are utilising religion, caste,
race, linguistic divisions etc and art, literature and cultural forms linked with them to a large
extent. Commercialisation and commodification of culture is utilised to dominate all
progressive ideas. The quantum revolution that took place in the field of physical sciences in
the beginning of 20th century and the technological advances that followed along with the
development in other fields of science and technology including that of organic sciences,
telecommunication, cybernetics, information technology (IT) etc are utilised to serve
imperialist interests. Human development in the intellectual field are utilised in this way.
Spread of knowledge is taken to an irrational and religious level. People’s achievements in the
fields of art and literature, in the cultural and scientific-fields in general are suffocated,
vulgarised and commodified to serve imperialist interests. The hegemony of the ideology of
private property and imperialist culture along with continuing influence of feudal culture,
religion, casteism are utilised to subvert revolutionary advances in various fields and to serve
the imperialist system.
We are formulating the Path of Revolution to complete the tasks of PDR, to realise
People’s Democracy and to advance towards socialist revolution at a time when drastic
changes in the socio-political-cultural fields have taken place unlike the Russian situation
during October Revolution, and the conditions in China and other countries when revolutions
took place there. Drastic changes in these fields have taken place during last five decades in
India compared to the condition during the struggle against British imperialism and during the
Telengana-Tebhaga struggles etc. Though the socialist forces had reached a challenging
position by early 1950s, the condition has drastically changed. Erstwhile socialist countries
have degenerated to capitalist path and almost all communist parties built up under the
guidance of Comintern have degenerated to revisionism and social democracy due to various
weaknesses and failure in continuing the class struggle in the fields of philosophy, politics,
culture etc, or in the field of superstructure in general, corresponding to the changes taking
place or attempted in the field of relations of production, and according to concrete conditions
in each country and in the international field. Even after the contribution of Mao Tsetung in
developing the theory and practice of continuing revolution in the Socialist countries through
the Cultural Revolution, the capitalist roaders could not be prevented from seizure of power
after the death of Mao. All these momentous developments point towards the need of linking
the revolutionary struggles for seizure of political power with mighty efforts to fight and defeat
the pre-capitalist, petti-bourgeois and bourgeois mode of thinking and culture prevalent in the
society, and which were and trying to gain domination in newer and newer forms. It is in this
context Lenin had called on all Communist Parties to wage continuos struggle against religion,
superstitions and private property etc as part of the party education. Evaluating the Chinese
experience including Cultural Revolution, Mao had called for continuous struggle against
decadent culture and for revolutionary culture right from the beginning of party work, and had
stressed the need for a Long Revolution of continuous Cultural Revolutions to defeat attempts
for capitalist restoration. All these show that right from the beginning of the party work
revolutionary tasks in the cultural field should be vigorously taken up. The serious
weaknesses in this field led to the severe setbacks to the ICM providing opportunities for the
capital-market raj and worship of private property reaching hegemonic positions.
Presently with the degeneration of a major part of the erstwhile Communist movement in
India to capitalist path, emergence of ‘New Left’ and other pseudo-left ideologies aiding alien
tendencies and increasing influence of imperialist promoted ideologies like post-modernism,
identity politics, empowerment theories, NGOism etc the progressive and revolutionary values
influencing the society and helping it to advance forward are seriously eroded. The growth of
RSS Parivar has led to all religious fundamentalists and communal forces gaining dominance
in fields of education, culture etc. Progressive ideas like “annihilation of caste” is replaced by
caste-based vote-bank politics. Imperialist culture including consumerism, alcoholism
criminalisation etc is dominating. The social consciousness is violently replaced with
individualism, selfishness, sexual anarchy, male chauvinism in more vulgar forms, and
commodification and commercialisation of everything that was once held in esteemed
positions have become the order of the day. Without challenging these retrogressive,
fundamentalist, imperialist and reformist trends, without unleashing uncompromising struggles
against them, conditions for growth of progressive values and revolutionary movement cannot
be created. Mechanical concepts are proved basically faulty. For creating conditions of social
revolution, vigorous campaign to liberate people from counter-revolutionary cultural influences
is required. Cultural Revolution should be taken as a continuing process, both in the pre and
post revolutionary periods.
Though Naxalbari gave birth to a new earth quake in the cultural field also, it also was
short lived. Soon, similar to what is happening in the economic and political fields, in the art,
literature and cultural field also along with feudal remnants, the neo-colonial, imperialist
onslaughts have intensified in new forms, strengthening the anti-people atmosphere. The
table of these reactionary trends is very long including new imports in art, literature and
cultural fields, commercialisation of education and all welfare sectors, neo-colonial projects in
the field of research, cultural project of world Bank and other many new incarnations of
religions fundamentalism, advocacy of casteism and racism in new forms, attacks on women’s
liberation, black acts to curb art and literature etc. It is obstructing the people’s upsurges in all
fields. What is required is an all out offensive to reverse this situation.
 Though many efforts are made to take up revolutionary cultural activities opposing the
counter-revolutionary trends, they are localised, not widespread or protracted. They remain
superficial or confined to immediate slogans, do not go to basic ideological issues involved.
There are many among the revolutionary ranks who do not recognise the significance of a
revolutionary cultural offensive. The lessons of Cultural Revolution are not seriously taken up.
Even when it is tried, its political aspects and failure are only stressed. Transforming the
human thoughts and culture as a continuous process as a basic task to be taken up right from
the beginning as Lenin stressed and Mao repeated is not given the emphasis it needs. So in
evolving the Path of Revolution, the emphasis to be given to the work in the cultural field
should be underlined. The content of cultural movement should be seriously debated and
developed. Forms of organisations also should be developed. While this task should be taken
up at state level providing all the emphasis it needs, vigorous efforts should be started to
urgently build an all India cultural movement taking up both its theoretical and practical
aspects seriously.
13. ON THE CASTE QUESTION
The Outline Party Programme states that “starting with putting an end to all forms of social
oppression based on the caste system and untouchability, the New Democratic State shall
abolish the caste system and all forms of social inequalities.” Though it is so easily stated in a
straight forward manner, in spite of the efforts from the period of social renaissance
movements for the annihilation of the social plague, in newer and newer forms it still persists
making the life miserable for the oppressed castes. The caste system still divides the society.
Though our party and some of the other CR forces have tried to take up the resolution of
caste question starting with campaigns and struggles against naked forms of casteist
oppression rampant in society in some areas, at national level very little is so far done to
evolve a comprehensive understanding and methods of struggle against it. Many still maintain
the mechanical understanding that once revolution takes place caste question will get
weakened and disappear. It may weaken, but whether it will disappear or come back in new
forms with more vigour even after revolution cannot be stated conclusively when one goes
though the experience of erstwhile socialist countries, where racism and religious
fundamentalism have re-emerged in vulgar forms. Still, many CR forces do not give the due
importance to this question it deserves. Fighting casteist oppression and campaigning for
caste annihilation is not in the agenda of many groups, or even when it is included no
concrete plans are put forward. It is the consequence of the reality that even after 150 years of
experience of the communist movement the mechanical impositions of the China Wall
between revolution in the economic base and revolution in the superstructure is not removed.
That is why the close relation between class struggle and struggle against the caste system is
not correctly understood and the mechanical approach that class struggle will solve the caste
problem is still put forward repeatedly. This mechanical approach should be replaced by the
dialectical relation between struggles at these two levels.
The caste question, or the oppression based on caste system, instead of weakening has
only strengthened in new forms during the last six decades. It is incorporated in to the ruling
system through the emergence of caste based parties serving ruling class interest, and
through the creation of caste based vote banks. Along with these identity politics, tribalism like
reactionary ideologies are created and promoted by imperialist centres to channelise the
struggles against oppression based on caste, tribal etc. to harmless paths, to keep these
down trodden sections away from revolutionary path. The weakness of the communist
movement so far in developing uncompromising struggle against caste system also has
helped the efforts to institutionalise caste system and tribal oppression through various means
by the imperialists and the comprador rulers. In a society like India, caste question is basically
an agrarian question. Casteist oppression was intensified by keeping the dalits away from
land ownership, reducing them to mere tillers and those compelled to do all menial jobs to
serve upper caste sections. So the backbone of the caste system can be broken only through
agrarian revolution based on land to the tiller slogan. Along with intensifying the struggle to
carry forward this agrarian revolutionary programme, vigorous campaigns and movements
should be taken up against various forms of caste based oppression on the dalits and adivasis
and other back word sections including untouchability still prevalent all over the country. The
caste based discrimination against the dalits in various forms should be fought. Inter caste
marriages should be promoted. The reservation based on the caste system should be
defended and struggle against diluting it should be waged, as a democratic right of the socially
and economically backword sections. Along with these the reactionary ideologies like identity
politics, tribalism etc should be exposed and fought against. In this way a vigorous struggle to
annihilate caste system should be continuously waged combined with the intensification of
agrarian revolutionary struggles as part of the PDR.
14. THE NATIONALITY QUESTION
On the resolution of nationality question, the Outline Party Programme states: “The New
Democratic State shall ensure real equality and autonomy for all nationalities, unite all the
nationalities based on the right of self-determination including the right to secede, and build up
a federal democratic state structure. While dealing with the nationality question, the
imperialists policy of Balkanisation of our country should not be overlooked.” India is a multi-
national country where even the reorganisation of the provinces under British rule and the
princely states, in the main, on linguistic basis took place in 1956 only after bloody struggles
by the people. During the last five decades, the central governments propagating the
chauvinistic slogan of ‘’national integration’ or Akhandvad have taken away many of the
Constitutional rights of the states.
Besides the struggle of Kashmiri people and the peoples of Northeast are being
suppressed deploying military forces, rejecting the demands for resolving them politically.
When struggles of sub nationalities or ethnic groups for state-hood or autonomous regions
take place, they are also suppressed refusing to resolve them politically. Meanwhile with the
development of capitalist mode of production especially after imposition of imperialist
globalisation which has speeded the entry of FDIs, FIIs, MNCs etc and strengthened the
capital- market raj, uneven development, pushing up or pushing down various regions in the
ladder of ‘development’ is becoming a stark reality. Instead of opposing the imperialist dictated
‘development’ policies implemented by the central and state governments responsible for it,
different ruling class parties as well as comprador and petti-bourgeois classes are utilising it to
demand statehood to these backward regions. In spite of the negative experience of such
small states already formed where the conditions of neither the region nor the vast masses
have undergone any positive changes, demands for new states are continuously raised. In
order to unite the people on class basis and to advance the PDR, the Party should have a
clear perspective toward these questions, which are often manifested as divisive policies.
British colonialists who had forcefully ’united’ the princely states into a colony for
facilitating their plunder had purshed a ‘divide and rule’ policy utilising religious, casteist, racist
ideologies and the feudal forces to crush the unity emerged through the anti-imperialist
struggles, But this unity is subverted by the comprador ruling classes after transfer of power.
Communist Party should struggle for unity of all nationalities based on their right of self-
determination. The inherent weakness of the various movements of nationalities and sub-
nationalities led by national bourgeois and petti-bourgeois classes reflect the very weakness
and vacillations of these classes in present situation. These movements refuse to take anti-
imperialist, anti-feudal positions or to raise land to the tiller slogan and democratisation of the
society. The task of the Communist Party should be to unite with these struggles. If should be
a policy of “unity and struggle”, unity with the cause of rights of self determination or
autonomous region, while struggling against all chauvinist tendencies and pro-imperialist, pro-
state positions.
The Marxist understanding is that “a nation is a historically constituted stable community
of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and
psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” But the demand for the new states
coming up based on the backwardness created by the uneven development intensifying under
imperialist globalisation is basically a diversionary tactics employed by the ruling classes and
petti-bourgeois sections to divert attention of the people from the real cases of backwardness.
They are coming up in a concrete situation when the class struggle against the principal
targets of revolution, imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlordism has
not advanced. The Communist Party should educate the masses about the real reason for
their backwardness, about what is happening in the new states already formed based on
backwardness, about utilisation of the proliferation of the states to cut at the root of a real
federal structure with increasing rights and powers to the states by the Indian state and the
Central governments, and vigorously develop the struggles of the working class and the
landless-poor peasants and agricultural workers, of all exploited and oppressed sections,
while taking a non-antagonistic approach towards these struggles.
As Marxism teaches the nationality question and the various movements emerging
directly or indirectly linked with it are bourgeois questions. They are vacillating more firmly
towards imperialism and the comprador ruling classes. When imperialism, especially US
imperialism, has a hidden agenda of Balkanising the country, and when many of the new state
demands are raised to divert people from the cardinal issues confronting them, the
Communist Party should seriously guard against becoming a tail of these movements. On the
contrary, an approach of Unity and struggle should be pursued, in order to win over the
masses of peoples influenced by these struggles, to advance the struggles for PDR with the
perspective that along with other basic issues all questions should be linked to national
liberation, overthrowing the rule of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie and
landlordism. Our Path of Revolution and the struggles charted under it should reflect this
Marxist approach.
15. ON UTILISING THE PARLIAMENTARY FORMS OF STRUGGLE
India is a country where election to provincial and central level legislative assemblies were
introduced from the colonial days. After the transfer of power, under the Constitution adopted
in 1950 the parliamentary system was made systematic at all levels. Today, from elections to
Lok Sabha to Panchayat level and even to co-operative societies are made regularly drawing
large sections of people. Even in pre-revolutionary Russia, experience in participating the
elections was partial and limited. In China and other countries where revolution took place,
there were no such experience regarding utilising parliamentary system as a form of struggle
to develop class struggle. Still drawing from the experience of Second International and of the
Communist parties in European countries, Comintern under the leadership of Lenin had
pointed out the need to struggle against parliamentary cretinism on the hand and boycottism
on the other hand. Taking lessons from these and evaluating the experience of the
Communist movement in India from the time of undivided CPI, the methods of utilisation of
parliamentary forms of struggle to develop class struggle should be developed which
becomes part of the Path of Revolution.
On the utilisation of elections the first serious challenge faced by the undivided CPI was in
the first general elections in 1952. CPI was leading historic Telengana struggle and many
other militant movements in different parts of the country. It was also leading secret fractions
within the units of armed forces. Whether to leave all these and participate in 1952 elections in
a legal away with a uniform symbol, or to continue these struggles and utilise the elections as
a form of struggle to help them was the challenge before it. The party leadership opted for the
reformist path. What happened during the elections and the election results revealed that
legalism did not help the party. It received considerable support and its candidates won where
it had led militant struggles and won mass support. Refusing to take lesson from this, CPI
went on surrendering to parliamentary cretinism, especially after adopting the Soviet
revisionist line of ‘peaceful transition’.
In 1957 CPI won majority in Kerala assembly along with few independents and formed
government. Though the education and land reforms bills it put forward were basically
reformist, the Congress government at centre could not tolerate it, and in the name of a violent
agitation led by Congress joining hands with communal, casteist and other reactionary forces,
it was dismissed after 28 months. But this dismissal increased CPI’s vote share in 1960
elections, though it failed to get majority, and increased its prestige all over the country.
Instead of drawing correct lessons from these developments, CPI leadership abandoned
whatever revolutionary character was left and totally surrendered to parliamentary
opportunism in line with its class collaborationist line.
In 1967 elections, and in the ministry formation and its functioning the CPI (M) also
follwed this parliamentary cretinist path. In tune with their revisionist and neo-revisionist lines
both abandoned the revolutionary path of utilising elections to develop class struggle, for
mobilisation of masses for the PDR. Both embraced the path of continuing within the frame
imposed by the bourgeois Constitution. This degeneration was very fast. In 1969 when
Congress split and Indira Gandhi government lost majority, instead of voting it out, both
propped it up, proving their degeneration to bourgeois parliamentary path.
Under violent reaction to this degeneration and under the influence of sectarianism
dominating the movement then, led the CPI (ML) formed in 1969 to adopt boycott of election
as a strategic line. Even after many CPI(ML) groups abandoned this line, those who continued
to follow the sectarian line went on pursuing it. The Maoist trend still pursues it, though all
other sections started utilising the parliamentary form of struggle very soon. But some of these
sections soon adopted opportunist united front tactics and started degenerating to
parliamentary cretinism. But unlike the CPI(M)-led LF, which has gained power in three states
and a sizeable strength in parliament degenerating to ruling class positions, the rightist trend
emerging from the CR forces could not advance much. It is in a declining path. Only way out
before it is to align with CPI(M)-led LF or perish to the level of a local force.
The boycottist experience, on the other extreme, has proved totally negative Even after
giving boycott call, the CPI(Maoist) has adopted opportunist tactics like supporting some of
the ruling class party candidates. Nowhere it had succeeded to ‘enforce’ its call of boycott.
The methods it resorts to enforce boycott only alienates it further from the masses. The
CPI(Maoist) is so dogmatic and its thinking so mechanical that it has so far failed is make a
concrete analysis of its line like the CPN(Maoist) has done, changing its approach to
parliamentary form of struggle. A section of the CR forces, even after adopting mass line and
participating in elections, is pursuing a passive boycott approach by refusing to effectively
utilise it as tactics to mobilise the masses.
Struggling against both right opportunist parliamentary cretinism and dogmatic boycott
line, the Communist Party should try to effectively utilise the elections as a form of struggle to
propagate party line among the masses and to put forward a people’s alternative to the
imperialist dictated development policy of the ruling class parties. As Lenin has pointed out,
bourgeois parliamentary system has become historically obsolete. The ruling class and their
main political parties are perpetuating the capitalist-imperialist system in the imperialist
countries and the comprador rule in countries like India through the manipulation of elections
utilising money and muscle power on the one hand, and creating communal, casteist, racist,
parochial vote banks on the other hand, effectively utilising the state machinery and monopoly
media. It is becoming exposed more and more before the people. Still on an average 50% to
80% votes are polled in the elections. Only when upsurges linked to nationality question as in
Kashmir or North-east were taking place the voting had gone below 10%. In 1952 elections
even without much campaign by the Party candidates, in area of peasants and worker
struggles Communists were successful with people voting massively for them. In 1977 as a
reaction to the fascist oppression during the emergency rule and earlier under the Congress
rule during which people were suppressed in heinous forms and the CR forces were brutally
massacred in West Bengal and elsewhere, people voted massively for the CPI(M)-led LF.
Similar was people’s response to Indira Gandhi’s emergency rule in 1977 elections. These
instances show that though revolutionary change cannot be brought out through bourgeois
parliamentary elections, they can be utilised combined with continuos development of workers
and peasant struggles to mobilise the people for advancing class struggle by putting forward a
people’s alternative against the ruling class alternatives and effectively campaigning for it.
Apart from the above instances in India, recent elections in Nepal and the elections in
Venezuela and other Latin American countries, where anti-US forces have come to power
with a people’s agenda, prove this. In India it is the degeneration of CPI and CPI(M), who are
known to vast masses in most of the states still as the communist parties, to ruling class
positions and the boycott line pursued by most of the CR forces in the beginning and by a few
still which has so for blocked the effective utilisation of elections as a form of struggle to
advance class struggle. Even now, in spite of these experiences, some of the mass line forces
are participating in elections only to “dispel the illusions of the people on the parliamentary
institutions” and prepare them for armed struggle! It is a negative approach as explained by
Lenin in his work the Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder.
People will be disillusioned with bourgeois parliamentary institutions only when the
Communist Party succeeds to develop country-wide movements focussing on people’s issue,
to mobilise the masses in their millions against the ruling system and to put forward a people’s
alternative against the ruling class alternatives. After the degeneration of erstwhile socialist
countries and the ruling system built up there by the Communist Parties to capitalist path,
mechanical repetition of ‘seizure of political power by armed struggle’ alone cannot win
masses to revolutionary path. It calls for the effective utilisation of developing massive
people’s upsurges in the pre-revolutionary situation utilising all forms of struggle including
parliamentary system. The Communist Party should be able to evaluate past weaknesses and
to promote serious discussions to develop perspectives of people’s democratic state and
proletarian democracy taking into account what happened in Soviet Union, China and other
countries. How to replace the bourgeois parliamentary system with more developed system of
democracy which shall help to advance towards socialism and communism is a major
challenge before the ICM. Debate on the parliamentary system should be developed with this
perspective.
India is a country of 120 crores of people with the bourgeois parliamentary system well
entrenched in every nook and corner for many decades at all levels. Neither the social
democratic path of parliamentary cretinism, nor the anarchist path of boycott is going to help
in developing creative ways to transcend bourgeois parliamentary system and to advance
along the path of people’s democracy and proletarian democracy. On the contrary, the
Communist Party should utilise this bourgeois parliamentary system along with all other forms
of struggle to develop class struggle in all fields, to unleash mighty people’s upsurges so that
it can advance towards the revolutionary seizure of political power and put into practice
people’s democracy.
16. ON DEVELOPING UNITED FRONTS FROM ISSUE BASED TO STRATEGIC
In a vast country like India where our Party and class/mass organisations are still
comparatively weak, and the level of struggles launched on various issues is still low, in order
to take up the numerous issues confronting the people, issue based united fronts have to be
built up joining with like-minded forces. These types of united fronts are possible in the
working class field uniting with other trade unions or TU centres to struggle for worker’s
problems, in the agrarian front uniting the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers
and even sections of middle peasants to struggle for problems faced by them, in the women’s
front joining hands with other like-minded women’s organisations to fight for issues faced by
women, in the youth front, in students front, cultural front, in ecological front, etc. A broad-
based, issue-based, democratic approach should be developed to take up issues through
these united fronts. Though these are based on issues and shall continue for a brief period
only, they help to high light various people’s issues. Such united fronts will help the Party and
class/mass organisations to spread out its activities to more areas.
Experience shows that under slightest provocation the state machinery unleashes black
laws and terror tactics against the people. Democratic rights are taken away. Even peaceful
mass movements are brutally suppressed. Functioning of party and class and mass
organisations are obstructed. Even activities of civil and democratic right organisations are put
down. Against such day to day developments united democratic and civil right movements
should be developed according to concrete conditions.
 Advancing a step forward from these united front activities, as united struggles and
strength of class/mass organisations increase, possibilities for formation of platforms or united
fronts at state-wide or country-wide levels, lasting longer period, to take up more basic issues
shall emerge. Possibilities shall emerge to build intermediate level fronts, which shall help the
development of class struggle. Every such possibility should be fully utilised.
For overthrowing the Indian state led by the bourgeois-landlord classes serving
imperialism and to create conditions for establishing people’s democratic power, protracted
efforts should be made according to concrete situation and level of development of people’s
struggles by the Party to build up the strategic united front based on worker-peasant alliance
and uniting with all genuine anti-imperialist, patriotic, democratic classes and sections. The
Party should continuously develop its united front tactics to serve revolution.
17. THE AGRARIAN QUESTION AND AGRARIAN REVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMME
When the transfer of power took place India was a vast agrarian county with 80% of the
people dependent on agriculture. Historic Telangana Struggle, Tebhaga movement and other
revolutionary agrarian movements against the dominating feudal, semi-feudal agrarian
relations were sweeping across the country under the leadership of the Communist Party
during those years compelling the government to put an end to Zamindari system. But the
withdrawal of the Telangana struggle and abandoning of most of the other agrarian struggles
by the CPI leadership just before the 1952 general elections gave a serious blow to them. The
Congress government was utilising a two pronged attack: by promoting the Bhoodan
movement of Vinobha Bhave to divert attention from revolutionary land struggles, and by
launching brutal attacks by para- military, police forces on them. Soon under the advice of US
imperialist experts, a land reform from above was introduced including land ceiling in most of
the states replacing the feudal landlords by and large with new generation landlords who
were ready to embrace the ‘green revolution’ launched under imperialist guidance. Conditions
were created for the entry of capital, fertilisers, chemicals, new seeds and other inputs into the
agrarian sector. This was the beginning of another step, more intensive than the one pursued
during the colonial phase, for the integration of the agrarian sector to the imperialist system.
The land reforms introduced were not revolutionary land reforms from below based on
“land to the tiller” slogan, but were imposed from above creating a new class of landlords who
combine feudal exploitation with capitalistic methods. The land ceiling proposed was flouted in
practice through various methods allowing the landlords to own huge land holdings far above
the ceiling.The real tillers including the adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections
continued to remain landless or owning small house plots.
The ‘green revolution’ set in the following tendencies: firstly, it created conditions for the
entry of modern inputs and capital to agrarian sector; secondly, it increased the area under
cash crops; thirdly, it introduced capitalist mode of production; and fourthly, it paved the way
for overall land concentrations with about 60% land held by the landlords who constitute 5-
10% of population linked to agriculture. Overall impact was further integration of agrarian
sector to imperialist capital-market system.
The historic significance of the Naxalbari struggle is that it brought back the agrarian
revolutionary struggle abandoned by the CPI leadership in early 1950s to the agenda,
challenging the ruling class policies including the ‘green revolution’. Following Naxalbari
agrarian struggles were launched in Srikakulam, Debra Gopiballabhpur, Mushahari and other
areas putting forward land to the tiller slogan, mobilising adivasis, dalits and other oppressed
sections in large numbers. But sectarian tendency started dominating the movement and the
‘annihilation line’ obstructed the development of the mass struggles for land. Though a
rectification was initiated by major sections of CPI(ML) and other CR groups from the
beginning of 1970s, and significant mobilisation of the poor and landless peasants and
agricultural workers took place in Bihar and AP, there were no consistent efforts to implement
the Telengana-Naxalbari line according to the concrete conditions. As a result, the agrarian
revolutionary movement did not make significant advances anywhere in the following years.
The anarchist trend represented by CPI(ML) People War and MCC, which later merged to
form CPI(Maoist), is upholding armed struggle as the only form of struggle and pursuing the
old annihilation line in new forms. It has no concept of developing mass agrarian revolutionary
movement mobilising the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers. On the other
hand, some of the CPI(ML) groups, which have adopted the ‘line of peaceful transition’, have
reduced agrarian struggle to legalistic forms. Some others are mainly organising middle
peasants and a section of rich peasants in their peasant organisation and have, in effect,
abandoned the struggles based on land to the tiller slogan, similar to what was done by CPI
and then by CPI(M) in the past. While pursuing these different policies all of them have an
important similarity that whether they had put forward a Path of Revolution document or not,
they cling mechanically to the concept of protracted people’s war based on their semi-colonial
analysis. The task before the Party is to develop mass agrarian revolutionary movement with
land to the tiller slogan mobilising the poor and landless peasants and agricultural workers
who constitute 50-60% of India’s population under the leadership of the working class.
Agrarian revolution means wiping away all still surviving of feudal, semi-feudal, pre-
capitalist land relations and revolutionising the land relations based on land to the tiller
slogan. Launching of agrarian revolutionary struggle should be done in two phases. First
phase comprises of organising the poor and landless peasant and agricultural worker’s
organisation with agrarian revolutionary programme of revolutionising land relations along with
immediate slogans. Mobilise them initially based on immediate slogans and struggles to
realise them. Then proceed to campaign for the urgent distribution of land declared surplus
under ceiling laws, government land lying vacant, forest land lying fallow, land used for bio-
fuel cultivation and farm lands whose lease period is over, land illegally occupied by
plantations and farm owners and land mafia, etc. to the poor and landless farmers and
agricultural workers. In urban centres and suburbs there are tens of millions of families without
minimum housing. Organise them and campaign for house-sites or housing. In continuation to
these campaigns, organise land struggle committees from village level in rural areas and
housing right committees in urban and suburban areas. Lead these campaigns to pinpointing
the areas to be distributed and then to occupation of those lands, distributing them to the
landless under the leadership of these committees. Though volunteer squads may be formed
under these committees to help the land occupation, vigorous campaigning and mobilisation
of the masses in ever-larger numbers should be the main weapons to be utilised in this period.
The main tasks during this first phase is to bring back revolutionary land struggles
abandoned by the reformist and sectarian trends to the agenda and prepare the poor and
landless peasants and agricultural workers for it. How much time will be taken to advance
from campaigning to land occupation in different areas will depend upon the concrete
conditions in each area and on the extent of subjective preparations including the strength of
the committees. By taking the Telengana-Naxalbari line to the most oppressed adivasis, dalits
and other oppressed sections, campaigning for distribution of above mentioned government
and forest lands to the landless, and proceeding to the capture of land, a revolutionary
atmosphere can be created among the masses to proceed towards the second phase.
The second phase starts with putting forward the agrarian programme to revolutionise the
land relations. According to concrete conditions in different areas a ceiling for land required by
a family entirely depending on agriculture, land sufficient for such a family to cultivate and
subsist on should be declared, for example like 5 acres of irrigated land or 10 acres of
unirrigated land for a family of five. For those families mainly depending on income other than
from agriculture, ceiling of land for housing and place of profession or business should be
declared. Land required for community purposes also should be decided. Land records for
each Panchayat/Municipality should be prepared by the land struggle committee of the area
concerned. Surplus land should be declared and poor and landless peasants and agricultural
labourers should be mobilised for campaigning and then taking over the land, starting with the
land in the possession of big landlords, land mafias, corporate houses, MNCs, etc. In urban
and suburban areas where housing right committees are functioning, based on a general
principle and according to conditions in each area, an urban land ceiling should be declared,
surplus lands, buildings, flat, etc. should be found out and the land records should be
announced to facilitate campaigns and then struggles to occupy these areas.
The state committees under the guidance of the CC should select areas where our party
organisation is fairly strong, where poor and landless peasants and agricultural worker’s
organisations have started functioning and deploy cadres from outside also to initiate the land
struggle. Social and political condition of the area, class divisions, state of class contradictions
should be studied and the first and second phases should be planned and fighting slogans
should be formulated after discussion in the party committees and in the peasant and
agricultural workers organisation. Land struggle committees should be formed combining this
organisation and representatives of trade unions and other class/mass organisation working in
that area. The first and second phase of agrarian programme should be formulated and
campaigned. Conditions for land capture should b prepared and land occupation and
distribution should by started under the Panchayat level land struggle committees, which are
the united fronts at the Panchayat level led by the Party committees.
While launching the campaigns, forming the land struggle committees and starting the
phase one and phase two struggles the following points should be given importance by the
party committees. Always ensure the class line of the agricultural workers and landless and
poor peasants in the committees. Always persist in investigation and study of concrete
conditions in the area and class analysis. When ever question come up consult with the
people. Win over the support of the middle peasants and other progressive sections in the
area for the struggle. Ensure the active involvement of trade unions and cadres of mass
organisation led by the party in the campaigns and land struggle committees. Ensure the
involvement of women in ever-larger numbers and while land is distributed women should by
given equal rights. Build up volunteers squads under the land struggle committees and guided
by party committees. Destroy the authority of the big landlords and other enemy classes in the
village by effectively utilising the elections, winning over the three- tier Panchayat committees,
co-operative societies, etc. in the area under the control of the land struggle committees. Do
not confuse contradictions among the people with contradiction with enemy, and always
handle contradiction among the people non-antagonistically, in a healthy manner. Vigorously
try to expand the area of land struggles continuously. While the struggle for the land is the
fundamental one and it should be carried forward vigorously, the land struggle committees at
different levels should handle and resolve struggles for higher wages, against usury,
cancellation of the landlords and merchants, struggle for the reduction of rents, struggle
against forced labour, struggle of the adivasi people against forest contractors, against
women’s oppression, against casteist oppression, etc. also wining over more and more
sections of the oppressed classes to the agrarian movement.
The experience of the great Telangana struggle, Tebhaga movement and other big and
small agrarian struggles led by the undivided communist movement till early 1950s, the
experience of Naxalbari and Srikakulam struggle, the Debra- Gopiballabhpur and Mushahari
struggle, the agrarian struggle in the plains of Bihar and AP, etc. show that whether starting
from partial demands or land issue, all of them ultimately lead to the fundamental question of
land, to the question of throwing out all pre-capitalist relations and revolutionising land
relations based on land to the tiller slogan. Starting with the contradiction against the feudal
remnants and landlord classes, it develops to contradictions with big bourgeois-big landlord
state and with imperialists behind it. So the Party should lead the agrarian struggle, in
whichever form it may have started, to the fundamental question of land and vigorously try to
expand it to more and more areas, to more and more states according to concrete conditions
there, firmly upholding revolutionary mass line, uncompromisingly struggling against reformist
and sectarian tendencies which shall be trying to dominate the movement always. Utilising all
forms of struggles and organisations, always prepared and be flexible enough to change from
one form of struggle to another according to concrete conditions, and never loosing initiative in
the struggle.
 While developing the revolutionary agrarian movement in such a vast country like India
with so much diversities and unevenness is an unprecedentedly difficult task. This great size
and its vast population themselves can be turned into great advantages for revolution once
they are correctly understood and scientifically utilised always relying on revolutionary mass
line. In the past and present when any Path of Revolution is drafted by different forces, it is
always seen that all of them agree on the basic differences between concrete conditions of
China and India not only during 1920-1940 period, but also, in a way more profoundly,
between present India and pre-revolutionary China. But after starting discussion on
developing the agrarian movement all of them hastily goes on to assert that despite all
dissimilarities, the path the Indian revolution should be the path of protracted peoples war with
the essential features of Chinese revolution. As a result, none of them give any importance to
utilise the concrete conditions in this vast country by expanding the party all over the country,
by launching agrarian struggles in all regions according to concrete conditions and by
depending upon the vast masses as the greatest shield against the enemy. Once the agrarian
revolutionary movement among the 60-70 crores of adivasis, dalits and oppressed sections,
the agricultural workers and landless and poor, peasants is consistently expanded and once
the leadership of the 15-20 crores of the working class on the agrarian revolution is
increasingly established consistently following the revolutionary mass line, no force on this
earth can stop the onward march of Indian revolution. Discussion on developing volunteer
squads, self defence squads or any other forms of squads, unarmed or armed, should be
taken up in the context of development of the agrarian revolutionary movement to more and
more areas, in the context of utilising all forms of struggle, and after studying how the
contradiction between the agricultural workers and landless and poor peasants, the main force
of revolution, and the powerful Indian working class, the leading class of Indian revolution, on
the one hand, and the ruling classes on the other is going to sharpen in coming days.
18. ON THE PATH OF INDIAN REVOLUTION
India is a very vast country of 1.2 billion people. It has extreme diversities and
unevenness. The objective conditions of the country are also favourable for social change, for
a social revolution to overthrow the reactionary Indian State led by the comprador
bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes serving global imperialist interests.
Putting forward a Path of Revolution today is much more complex and difficult task to be
taken up compared to taking up such a job in 1920s or 1930s when the Communist movement
was in its infant stage in the country and when there was the Communist International with
extensive Soviet experience to guide it, or in the post-1947 years when the country was going
through a revolutionary ferment, or in 1967 after Naxalbari uprising. Today, in spite of almost
five decades of intensive struggles against revisionism and neo-revisionism, the CPI(M) and
CPI are still existing, the CPI(M)-led Left Front is still strong and is ruling three states, besides
playing an important role in the parliament as one of the ruling class parties. They still pose
themselves as Marxist-Leninist parties in spite of degeneration to social democratic positions.
With the help of corporate media they get extensive propaganda. For most of the people they
are the Communist parties still. So long as these degenerates are thoroughly exposed
ideologically and politically, they shall continue to remain a threat to the strengthening of the
revolutionary party. On the other hand, though the influence of the sectarian, anarchist trend
represented by CPI(Maoist) is presently confined to some pockets in four or five states, the
Indian State and the corporate media give extensive coverage to them. Thus the CPI(Marxist)
and CPI(Maoist) apparently taking extremely opposite stands, acts as two sides of the same
coin against revolutionary Marxism. Besides, there are a good number of right opportunist or
sectarian or anarchist trends posing as Marxist-Leninists in different states. Even some of the
groups advocating post-modernism, identity politics, empowerment theories, NGOism, etc.
promoted by imperialist centres are claiming themselves as Marxist-Leninist, adding to the
confusion. It is an extremely difficult and unprecedented task to wage ideological struggles
against all these numerous trends and establish the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist positions in
present day conditions.
 Another major problem is the disunity of the Marxist-Leninist forces who advocate mass
line and who have apparent identity of views on most of the basic issues. Even if all of them
are united, the Marxist-Leninist Party will be weak compared to the gigantic tasks to be taken
up in a vast country like India. In such a situation, this disunity among the Marxist-Leninist
forces who are opposed to both right opportunism and sectarian, anarchist trends is another
crucial challenge faced by the revolutionary movement. These challenges can be boldly faced
and the strengthening of the subjective forces of revolution, in which building up a powerful
Bolshevik style party with all India influence is the most cardinal task, can be carried forward
only if CPI(ML) intensifies its efforts to build up a revolutionary people’s alternative challenging
the ruling class alternatives, which are basically united in serving the existing ruling system,
utilising all forms of struggles effectively, with the perspective of seizure of political power and
completing the tasks of the People’s Democratic Revolution by developing the Path of
Revolution based concrete conditions in India.
Putting forward the general orientation of the Path of Revolution, the Outline Party
Programme of CPI(ML) states:
“The historic developments and concrete conditions of the country determine the present
stage of revolution which is New Democratic. The CPI(ML) which upholds Marxism-
Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought as its guiding ideology and seeks to apply it to the
concrete conditions of India and to integrate it with the concrete practice of Indian
revolution, uncompromisingly struggling against both revisionist and sectarian tendencies
of all hues, is committed to complete the New Democratic Revolution. The task before the
party in the stage of the New Democratic Revolution is to overthrow the rule of comprador
bureaucratic bourgeois-landlord classes serving imperialism and to replace the present
reactionary Indian state with the New Democratic or People’s Democratic state led by the
proletariat and based on the worker-peasant alliance. The basic programme of the party is
to complete the tasks of the NDR with agrarian revolution as its axis and to advance
towards Socialist Revolution, to the realisation of socialism and communism.
“The Path of New Democratic Revolution in India is based on the concrete conditions in
our country, taking the experience of all hitherto revolutions in the world and the people’s
revolutionary movements in our country. Rejecting parliamentary cretinism and the line of
individual terrorism, and upholding the revolutionary mass line, we resolve to utilise all
forms of struggles and organisations to seize political power by overthrowing the Indian
State through armed means. Strategic united front of all revolutionary classes and forces
with the working class as the leading force and the peasantry as the main force based on
worker-peasant alliance as well as necessary tactical united fronts should be developed
for furthering the people’s revolutionary movement.”
The great Telangana Struggle of 1946-51, in continuation to other anti-feudal struggles in
different parts of the country, became the largest and most advanced revolutionary agrarian
struggle in the country. It was the first serious attempt to apply the lessons of the theory and
practice of people’s war in India, which was developed under the leadership of Mao Tsetung
according to concrete conditions in China. The Andhra Letter from the leading committee of
the Telengana struggle presented to the 1948 Congress of CPI had explained this question in
detail. Telengana struggle taught how revolutionary agrarian struggles focussing on land to
the tiller slogan and feudal oppression and led by the Communist Party and with the class line
of landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, who constitute the revolutionary section
of the peasantry and majority of the country’s population, can lead toward the formation of
village committees, organisation of volunteer squads, development of resistance to landlords-
police-goonda violence, and to the beginning of armed struggle against the reactionary state.
As the CPI leadership decided to withdraw Telengana struggle and later got immersed in the
mire of parliamentarism, the experience of this historic movement could not be carried
forward. The great Naxalbari struggle in continuation to Telengana led to subsequent
revolutionary uprising of landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, including adivasis,
dalits and other oppressed sections, in Midnapore, Mushahari, Lakhimpur-Kheri and
Srikakulam, the latter reaching a higher level in terms of massive participation of the
revolutionary sections of the peasantry and the resistance struggle they waged. Though these
struggles spread to the plains of AP and Bihar later, due to the domination of the sectarian line
the movement could not be carried forward. During the last three decades the Communist
Revolutionary forces were divided in to many groups with some of them starting to deviate to
rightist positions and few others sticking to ‘annihilation line’ in new forms. The cardinal
problem before the revolution movement was, and is, that while assimilating the revolutionary
experience of the Telengana-Naxalbari experience a Path of Revolution confirming to the
concrete conditions of India in the context of present world situation could not be developed
and could not be put in to practice. Though the line of protracted people’s war was repeated
hundreds of times, whether it is application in present international and national situation after
it could not carried forward anywhere successfully after the Chinese Revolution and how it
could be developed in Indian conditions and carried forward was never debated seriously.
The ICM has the glorious history of the victory of October Revolution in Russia, the
victories of revolutions in East European countries during 1944-45 with the defeat of fascist
forces, the victory of the great Chinese Revolution in 1949 and later victories of national
liberation and democratic revolutions in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea and Cuba. The
revolutionary movements in these countries have suffered severe setbacks later in the course
of socialist revolution and socialist transition. The Marxist-Leninist forces should take
appropriate lessons from these setbacks. Carrying forward the struggle for the seizure of
political power in the country calls for taking lessons from these victorious revolutionary
advances of the ICM. But taking their experiences do not mean mechanically copying any of
their experience or pursuing an ecclectical mixture of their experiences. Taking experience
from them means studying their experience and applying them according to the concrete
conditions in our country. The history of the ICM shows that in all these countries where
revolution took place, there was no mechanical application of the path of other revolutions,
each revolution took its own course according to concrete conditions of each country. Even
after the victory of Chinese Revolution, its experiences were not mechanically followed in
Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea or Cuba. Besides, a concrete study of the conditions of India and
China during 1930s and 1940s shows that in spite of many similarities, even at that time itself
there were more differences than similarities. And compared to then Chinese conditions, the
present Indian conditions are more different. So, the protracted people’s war, the theory and
practice of which was developed by Mao Tsetung in Chinese conditions cannot be applied as
such or mechanically in present Indian conditions. The theory and practice of Indian revolution
should be developed entirely based on the concrete conditions of present day India and
assimilating the experiences of all hitherto revolutions including the Chinese Revolution.
Though Indian revolution is presently in the People’s Democratic or New Democratic
stage, though what happened in the post-revolutionary situation in the socialist countries,
especially in Soviet Union and China may not directly affect it, after such a severe setback
suffered by the socialist revolution and transition to capitalist path in these countries, a
Communist Party cannot develop its Path of Revolution without taking these factors also into
consideration, to whatever extent necessary. For example, in areas like party building, in
developing concept of democratic centralism based on committee system, in developing
appropriate methods for inner-party struggle, in guarding against emergence of bureaucratic
tendencies, in organically developing concepts of mass line and class/mass organisations, in
avoiding the mistakes of mechanically de-linking class struggle in economic base and
superstructure, in avoiding, for example in India’s context, the de-linking of anti-caste struggle
from class struggle, in correctly dealing with the contradictions among the people, and in
drawing appropriate lessons from the Cultural Revolution.
The path of Indian revolution calls for rejecting all shades of parliamentarism and
reformism and pursuing the path of revolutionary seizure of political power. It means taking
the revolutionary agrarian struggles as the principle form of struggle and combining all other
forms of struggles with it. It also means class analysis in general and class analysis in each
concrete situation, in different regions, and developing the tactics of united front in all phases
of struggle according to the demands of concrete situation.
 India is a very vast country of 1.2 billion people with extreme diversities and unevenness,
a neo-colonial country, where neo-colonial plunder is taking ever-intensifying forms under the
neo-liberal policies, where the principal contradiction is between imperialism, comprador
bureaucratic bourgeoisie and landlordism on the one hand and vast masses of the people on
the other. The tasks of revolution is to overthrow the rule of comprador bureaucratic
bourgeois-landlord classes serving imperialism, completing the People’s Democratic or New
Democratic Revolution, and advancing towards socialist revolution. And the present phase of
PDR calls for a path of revolution to be developed according to concrete conditions of India. It
involves the tasks of mobilising the people, and launching and developing the countrywide
class struggle in all spheres leading to mass upsurges, mass insurrections including armed
uprisings interspersed with guerrilla forms of struggles wherever necessary leading to the
capture of political power.
Mobilising the people for people’s war includes building up of the Party, mobilising and
politicising working class as the leader of revolution; organising the landless, poor peasants
and agricultural workers; organising the women; organising the youth and students; and
developing a vigorous cultural movement as already explained above. While mobilising all
these sections of people for their immediate demands, they should be mobilised on political,
national and international issues also. While launching struggles for immediate and economic
demands, political campaigns should be organised to educate the masses for social change.
Utilising the present possibilities all out massive campaigns propagating revolutionary
programme should be launched. Agrarian revolution should be brought to the forefront once
again. The Party and class/mass organisations should develop skill to float all forms of
organisations and to utilise all forms of struggle to propagate and practice the revolutionary
alternative against the various ruling class alternatives floated by the ruling classes and
parties representing them to hoodwink the masses.
DEVELOPING REVOLUTIONARY AGRARIAN STRUGGLES AS PRIMARY TASK
Land question has become the central issue more than ever with the entry of MNCs and
corporates to agrarian sector, millions of acres of agricultural land diverted for jatropha like
plants for bio-fuel production, millions of acres being snatched from the peasantry for SEZs
and industrial centres, for real estates and infrastructure building, etc. with land concentration
becoming a more serious issue than ever. While the MNCs, corporates, real estate lobby,
landlords and land mafias have cornered almost 60-70% of the agricultural land, throwing out
millions of peasants and agricultural workers, flouting existing land ceiling laws or amending
them, 50-60% of the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers own just 10-15% of the
land. Besides, tens of millions of families in the urban and suburban areas are deprived of
even nominal housing when less than 10% of the rich and super-rich own multi-crore flats and
bungalows. The disparity on the question of ownership of land has reached unprecedented
and extreme levels. As a result, the struggle of the landless, poor peasants and agricultural
workers, the real tillers, for land for cultivation, the struggle of those whose lands are snatched
away for SEZs, real estates and industrial centres, and of those who have no housing has
become the central issue.
In this situation revolutionary agrarian struggles with land to the tiller slogan have become
the main form of struggle involving hundreds of millions of the revolutionary peasantry along
with developing the working class struggles and of all other revolutionary sections
complementary to it as already explained. This is an all-round struggle against all forms of
exploitation based on feudal, semi-feudal and pre-capitalist land relations, against the
oppression of the landlords and state machinery. In every state millions of acres of land
already declared surplus by government under ceiling acts, banjar lands, de-forested forest
lands, lands illegally occupied by plantation owners and landlords, plantation lands whose
lease period is over, Math lands, lands cornered by real estate lobby and land mafias flouting
existing laws, agricultural land left uncultivated are not distributed to the landless in spite of
repeated promises. Even the 1975 Adivasi Land Protection Act to return adivasi land occupied
by non-adivasi landlords is still not implemented. The landless, poor peasant and agricultural
workers organisation forming village level land struggle committees should occupy these
lands after extensive campaigns to arouse the masses and distribute them among the
landless under the leadership of the village committees. This struggle should be combined
with the struggle against bonded labour like exploitation of tenants and agricultural workers by
landlords, usury, caste and communal oppression and other atrocities of the landlords and
state machinery. These struggles launched based on the organised strength of the landless
sections for land and against feudal remnants and landlords shall arouse their class
consciousness and prepare them for higher forms of struggles. During this period village
volunteer squads can be formed under village committees to defend the rights of the
oppressed sections. This occupation of land and their distribution under village committees,
formation of volunteer squads to resist landlords and feudal remnants leads to the beginning
of embryonic forms of political power of the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers
and other toiling masses under the village committees. By pursuing revolutionary mass line
and mobilising the masses in peasant associations, agricultural workers union and village
committees, once this phase of land struggles are successfully launched in more and more
areas, and the political consciousness of these oppressed sections is continuously aroused,
the preparation for the next phase of land struggle declaring a new ceiling law for agricultural
land for a family whose main occupation is farming and only housing and business sites for
those not engaged in cultivation can be campaigned for, popularised and the masses
mobilised to put it in to practice as explained above.
Once this struggle for the capture and distribution of lands owned by landlords and other
such ‘private’ owners is started, the real confrontation with the landlords and the state
machinery will start. Occupation of these lands is a challenge to the very existence and
continuation of feudal remnants and landlords. Only this occupation and cultivation of these
lands by the real tillers shall put an end to social-political exploitation of the ‘rural gentry’. By
this time, on the one hand, the working class should be mobilised to declare strikes in support
of the land struggle. Working class cadres should be send to the villages to lead these
struggles after studying from the masses. Women should be mobilised in resistance struggle
in large numbers. Youth and student squads and cultural squads should be organised to
launch solidarity campaigns and cultural programmes to arouse the masses to widen the
areas of land struggle, to organise village committees in more and more areas and to involve
larger number of landless sections in the struggle. Volunteer squads and self-defence squads
should be formed in larger numbers under the village committees to help the expansion of the
struggle and to defend against landlord-police-gonnda attacks.
SUCCESS OF THE LAND STRUGGLE DEPENDS ON WIDENING OF THE STRUGGLE AREAS AND
STRENGTHENING OF PEASANT AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS ORGANISATION
Imperialist globalisation and its barbarous consequences is compelling the working class,
the landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, the youth and students and women to
get mobilised and struggle for their existence. Along with all these sections, all areas in the
country can be turned in to struggle areas. So revolutionary war demands an organic linking of
the development of the tens of millions of the working class, the women, the youth and
students with the struggle of the revolutionary section of the peasantry to advance the
agrarian movement. The difference of present concrete conditions with those of the
Telangana and Naxalbari phase should be correctly understood. Today in every area the
class contradictions are becoming more and more intensified in various forms. This important
aspect along with the vastness of the country and prospect of developing struggles in ever-
larger areas are positive factors unfavourable to enemy, the Indian state, and favourable to
the revolutionary forces. The Party Central Committee should guide all the state committees
to launch struggles in as many areas and sectors as possible. This is the phase of casting the
net wide. To help this, party and class/mass organisation building at all India level,
deployment of cadres and pursuing a correct cadre policy should be taken up on an
emergency basis. Once this is effectively implemented, possibilities for uniting like minded
forces and organising issue based united fronts at various levels under the initiative of the
party and class/mass organisations shall also increase in support of this movement.
 The question of expanding the land struggles coupled with the resistance against
usurpation of agricultural land for SEZs, new industrial centres and real estates, and the
struggle for housing rights by tens of millions of families in urban and suburban areas is
becoming burning issues in every state, big or small. The attention of the whole party and
class/mass organisations should be focussed on these questions also. Extensive campaigns
should be organised. And the land struggle should be launched in ever-wider areas with the
involvement of tens of thousands of people organised in village committees. Rather than
involving in unending discussions about armed struggle and how to develop it, what is
required now is launching of country-wide struggles for land, development of appropriate
forms of organisations at various levels, evolving slogans and programmes to involve ever
larger number of people in them, and weakening the ruling system by hitting it at tens of
thousands of places. International and Indian experiences show that once the people in ever
larger number are aroused, and they get involved in militant struggles against the landlords
and the ruling system under the conscious leadership of the Party, after the development of
struggles to a stage, invariably armed resistance to state repression get started. And it
develops to higher forms as in Telengana. So the real problem confronting the revolutionary
movement is how to link these people’s resistance with all other forms of struggles including
parliamentary struggle, and mass upsurges at various levels, and to sustain it in a protracted
form so that this war of people develops in to seizure of political power.
Recent experiences teach that there were a large number of big or small mass upsurges
against imposition of imperialist globalisation connected projects in a number of places, in a
number of states. Some of them have taken protracted nature and continuing even after one
or two years. Even after ruthless suppression deploying huge contingent of state forces the
centre and state governments are forced to abandon many of these projects or postpone
them. The resistance struggles of the peoples of Northeast and Kashmir linked to nationality
question are also continuing even after decades. Once the Party become capable of
establishing the leadership of the working class by mobilising and politicising them at an ever-
larger areas in as many states as possible, armed resistance of the people against state
forces and mass upsurges are bound to break out in a large number of places. What
happened during 1945-1950 period is a very good example for it.
In the concrete conditions of India, especially in the present conditions, concepts like
‘area-wise seizure of political power’ and ‘establishment of base areas’ based on the path of
protracted people’s war should be subjected to serious introspection. Mechanical application
of such concepts shall amount to ‘cutting the size of the feet according to the size of shoes’ as
is proved internationally and within our country. The challenge is to develop the concept of the
Path of Revolution combining all forms of struggle according to concrete conditions of India
leading to mass upsurges, insurrections and armed uprisings interspersed with development
of guerrilla struggles wherever possible and necessary. It is a Path suited India’s vastness and
the objective conditions here. The Path of Indian Revolution should concentrate on mobilising
the masses in ever larger number and seizure of political power of through a combination of
all forms of struggle.
19. ADVANCING THE TASKS OF PDR AND APPROACH TO PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM
The struggles to complete the tasks of the PDR and advance towards socialist revolution
is carried forward in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, when imperialism,
especially US imperialism, is striving frantically to impose its world hegemony. As part of it,
barbarous aggressions were launched and Yugoslavia was disintegrated to a number of small
states, a number of erstwhile socialist countries in Eastern Europe and former republics of
Soviet Union are assimilated to NATO, Iraq and Afghanistan were occupied and put under
military control and extreme forms of neo-colonial domination, Palestine people are
devastated, threats of aggressions are repeated against Iran and a number of other countries.
Under imperialist globalisation, neo-colonisation is intensified integrating the economies of the
African-Asian-Latin American countries to global imperialist system, opening these countries
further to the domination of IMF-WB-WTO trio and MNCs, and speculative capital in general,
imposing an absolutely reactionary development perspective devastating the lives of vast
masses of people and creating conditions of impending ecological disaster. In spite of all
these, the imperialist system could not ward off the general crisis now unfolding. Once again
intensifying recession has gripped US and other imperialist countries. It is termed a worse
crisis than the great depression of 1930s. In order to overcome it, the imperialist headquarters
are hatching conspiracies for the only way left to resolve it: transferring the burden of this
grave crisis to the world people, especially to the people in the countries under neo-
colonisation in a much more magnified scale than presently taking place. It means wars of
aggressions, more occupations, more plunder of human and natural resources at global level,
more monopolisation and mergers intensifying the speculation regime, more pauperisation of
the vast majority of the masses, and more ecological destruction. This is leading to
unprecedented intensification of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed
peoples and nations, and contradiction between capital and labour, throwing up the gravest
ever challenge before proletarian revolutionary forces at global level : intensity efforts more
than ever to throw out the imperialist system so that a socialist future can be created.
Marx and Engels analysed the capitalist system as an international system of plunder and
called for “Workers of the World, Unite” to overthrow it. As capitalist system reached its
highest stage, the moribund stage, imperialism, colonising the whole world, the Comintern
called on the “Workers and Oppressed Peoples and Nations, Unite’ to overthrow the
imperialist system. Thus the international character of this proletarian revolution was
emphasised by the Marxist teachers right from the beginning. Presently under the neo-colonial
phase in which imperialist globalisation has brought the whole world under the capital-market
system, the economies of all countries integrated more and more to imperialist system, the
MNCs and various imperialist agencies have transcended plunder beyond the boundaries of
countries, and as manufacture and trade has become more internationalised, the international
character of proletarian revolution has further increased. The Communist Party, as the
vanguard of the proletariat is leading the PDR in India as an integral part of world proletarian
socialist revolution. And as a contingent of the great army of the international proletariat, it is
the responsibility of the Indian proletariat to dedicate itself to contribute as much as it can to
fulfil the historic mission of emancipating the whole of mankind from the yoke of imperialism
and its lackeys by carrying forward the primary task of national liberation and democratic
revolution as fast as possible and fulfilling the tasks of proletarian internationalism,
complementary to it.
The international unity of the communist movement suffered a severe setback under the
capitalist roaders in China who obliterated the contradiction between socialist forces and
imperialism from among the four major contradictions in the world and degenerated China
also to capitalist path. Thereafter even many Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations also
obliterated this contradiction, and proletarian internationalism was side lined. The influence of
this erroneous tendency is still prevalent among many revolutionary forces. It should be
struggled against and defeated.
After the severe setback suffered by the ICM, once again the anti-imperialist movement is
gaining strength all over the world. The Iraqi and Afghan peoples have intensified their
resistance war against the US occupiers, which is facing the threat of another ignominious
withdrawal. In Palestine the resistance against. US-Israel axis is growing. In Latin America
more countries are joining the anti-imperialist front against US. In Nepal putting an end to the
two and half centuries old monarchy and establishment of a bourgeois democratic rule is
significant. Against US-led aggressions, against the attacks on working class rights, etc. many
struggles are reported from the imperialist countries. Even in Africa the imperialist
manoeuvres are rebuffed in many countries. All these movements call for International
support and solidarity actions.
These solidarity movements can be developed only if a platform of like-minded Marxist-
Leninist parties and organisations at international level can be organised as their political
ideological core. This will be an initial step towards rebuilding the Communist International.
Possibilities for such an initiative is bright today. While intensifying the revolutionary struggle
within the country, the Party should take initiative for such International activities developing
active co-operation among the ML parties drawing lessons from past experiences of the ICM.
It will enthuse the revolutionary movement in the country and develop proletarian
internationalist spirit among the revolutionary forces.
20. CONCLUSION
The Path for Indian Revolution is put forward by our Party, as the above analysis shows,
after the ICM has suffered severe setbacks. Though anti-imperialist resistance struggles,
especially against US imperialism is taking place around the world and though in some
countries they have reached critical stage, the strength of the Marxist-Leninist forces as a
whole is still not considerable. In India, a very vast country with extreme diversities and
unevenness, in spite of eight decades of Communist activities with a history of many historic
struggles involving tens of millions of people, presently the strength of our Party, the only
organisation with a fairly large all India presence, is still not considerable. The challenge
posed by right opportunist and ‘left’ sectarian trends are very serious. Though along the foot
steps of the all India revolutionary struggles of 1946-’51 period spearheaded by historic
Telengana struggle, Naxalbari uprising once again brought back PDR to the forefront of the
agenda, the Marxist-Leninist movement during the last four decades has not made any
significant advances yet, capable of changing the course of history. First sectarian influences
caused severe setbacks. Then the movement was divided in to many streams. Out of them
some have moved nearer to right opportunist positions of CPI(M). On the other extreme
CPI(Maosit) is still contented with continuing to experiment with the annihilation line in new
forms using sophisticated weapons. As far as the mass line forces still pursuing Marxist-
Leninist line are concerned, none of them including our party have so far succeeded in
advancing the revolutionary struggles in the direction of seizure of political power mobilising
the masses and spreading the influence of the organisation to a significant level. It is in this
context, the Path charted above should be approached.
On certain basic questions there is superficial unanimity among Marxist-Leninist forces
pursuing mass line. Firstly, all forms of struggles including parliamentary struggles should be
utilised to develop class struggle. Secondly, a party with countrywide influence surrounded by
class/mass organisations should be built up in Bolshevik style. Thirdly, in India path of
revolution cannot be charted mechanically copying the path developed and pursued by
different parties including CPC in their countries according to concrete conditions there.
Fourthly, the path of revolutionary war should be pursued based on the concrete conditions
here, while taking the hitherto international and national experiences in to cognisance. But two
serious problems are faced by the Marxist-Leninist forces: in spite of these agreements still
they have not united in to a single party; in spite of long years of existence still they have not
succeeded to develop the concept of People’s War in Indian context and to develop
countrywide movements, leave alone the ‘armed struggle based on mass line’ all of them are
talking about. Besides due to decades of separate existence, major differences in their style of
functioning also persists.
The reasons for these should be sought in the basic differences among them, in spite of
superficial unanimity on many questions, in understanding Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung
Thought, in analysing the hitherto experience of the communist movement, in the analysis of
the concrete conditions of present India including the character of Indian State and in their
approach towards the concept of protracted people’s war as practised in China.
Firstly, however violently most of them may protest, they approach the Marxist-Leninist
world outlook more as a dogma, not as a living ideology, a guide to action. They repeat
quotations but do not go into the essence of Marxist teachings recognising the need to
develop them according to concrete conditions of today when imperialism has unleashed a
neo-colonial offensive. Many of them have become fundamentalists instead of assimilating the
essence of Marxist teachings daring to develop and apply them according to present
conditions as all the Marxist classics show us.
Secondly, instead of learning from the hitherto experience of the Communist movement
most of them are trying to mechanically apply them without a concrete study of the situation
where it is applied. Along with the internal developments it was the mechanical application of
Krushchovite revisionism which led the CPI leadership in the 1950s to the line of class
collaboration and to the concept of National Democratic Revolution aligninng with the
comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie which was analysed as predominantly national in
character by it. Though critical of Krushchovite revisionism, the refusal to advance to the
teachings of Mao led the CPI(M) leadership to a centrist position which ultimately slided back
to CPI leadership’s outlook. It is once again the mechanical readings of Marxist teachings that
have led a number of fringe groups to analyse that the PDR is completed in India and it has
become a capitalist country in the stage of socialist revolution. Similarly, a mechanical
understanding of Mao Tsetung Thought, his application of Marxism-Leninism in Chinese
conditions, have led the splintered sections of forces claiming to uphold Naxalbari to the
condition of ‘blind men trying to understand the elephant’, competing with each other in the
claims about the superiority of their lines, but refusing to assimilate the experience of the CPC
under Mao’s leadership including its uncompromising struggles against both right opportunist
and sectarian deviations and the lessons of the Cultural Revolution.
Thirdly, in spite of the valuable contributions of the ICM in the great polemics of the 1940s
to 1970s about imperialism resorting to the neo-colonial phase of offensive, while most of
these streams reject it, others uphold it only in words. They refuse to go beyond the
mechanical understanding of what is already summed up by the Marxist-Leninist classics,
refuse to a concrete study of the character of imperialist offensive in the post-World War II
decades, and fall victims to the plethora of deviations coming up and working to blunt the
Marxist-Leninist offensive during these post-War decades.
Fourthly, as far as the CPI-CPI(M) stream is concerned its path is reduced to a social
democratic, parliamentary cretinist one, becoming part of ruling class politics. The path of the
socialist revolutionaries, an alien trend, is out rightly reformist, serving as apologists of neo-
colonialism. Contrary to these, whatever may be their claims and practice, a number of
organisations ranging from CPI(ML) Liberation, which is a new entrant to the social
democratic camp, to the anarchist leadership of CPI(Maoist), all of them in the name of
upholding Mao Tsetung Thought and Naxalbari are advocating the path of protracted people’s
war, under various interpretations. Starting from their ‘semi-colonial’ understanding they
proceed to a mechanical application of Chinese Path in Indian conditions.
Fighting against all these trends who have separately and together become obstacles to
the advance of Indian revolution the above theoretical approach to neo-colonialism and a path
of revolutionary practice according to present concrete conditions are put forward with the
hope of widest possible discussion. The building of a Bolshevik style communist party
surrounded by class/mass organisations at all India level, an aggressive utilisation of all forms
of struggle to develop class struggle, and an advance towards the capture of political power
starting from mass upsurges to mass uprisings and armed insurrections utilising all forms of
struggles including guerilla forms of struggle is possible only by rejecting the concept of
protracted people’s war and developing the path of Indian revolution according to concrete
conditions of neo-colonial phase of imperialist onslaught and assimilating the experience of all
hitherto revolutionary struggles at international level and in our country.
The above Path of Revolution is charted not as an A to Z of Indian revolution. It
emphasises on building the Party uniting all like-minded forces, on building class and mass
organisations with countrywide influence, on developing countrywide campaigns, struggles,
movements putting forward a revolutionary people’s alternative against the ruling class
alternatives, on mobilising and politicising the working class as the leader of revolution, on
developing agrarian revolutionary movement with land to the tiller slogan according to
concrete conditions in different regions arousing the revolutionary section of the peasantry,
landless, poor peasants and agricultural workers, as the main force of democratic revolution,
and on some preliminary steps to build people’s resistance including armed resistance
wherever possible against state oppression. It also emphasises on developing a revolutionary
understanding on utilising the parliamentary form of struggle without falling to either
parliamentary cretinism, or boycottism, or to a passive or negative approach, for advancing
people’s movements. It has desisted from providing ultimate guide to armed revolution or
providing the last word on the course to be followed. In its present form it is a guide for
consolidating existing forces and for developing the movement in the present phase. As and
when the situation, both objective and subjective, undergoes changes, based on these
guidelines the path can be further developed and the course the struggle to be followed can
be defined more sharply.
This Path of Revolution is charted as a guide to action in the present phase of democratic
revolution. Analysing the past practices and the ideological struggle developed based on them
it is emphasising on the course of practice to be developed in all spheres in present phase
with the perspective of people’s democracy and advancing towards socialist revolution.
Instead of telling the last word, this Path is put forward to start a great debate among the
Communist Revolutionaries for a principled evaluation of hitherto successes and failures on
the basis of experiences of revolutionary struggles the world over and in our country so that
they can unite in to a single party to lead proletarian revolution forward utilising flexible tactics
and all forms of struggle effectively, charting the path forward.

5. Draft Document of Comrade Subodh

INTRODUCTION
The present debate on the question of semi-colony-neo colony, principal contradiction and
the path of Indian revolution is not a new debate in the Communist movement in India. On the
above questions we witnessed three great struggles inside the Communist movement in
India. The first struggle started during and after Telangana Struggle (1946-52) the second
struggle and the during (1964-72) third being 72 afterwards.
First question on ‘Semi Colony’ was first debated during period 1947-52 period on
International and All India level. Struggling against revisionist line the communist
revolutionary section inside the undivided C.P. has argued that India has transformed into
‘semi colony’ after 1947. Subsequently this concept was accepted by the new Central
Committee of 1950 and later on 1951 programme of CPI.
The revisionist leadership of CPI has changed this formulation and termed India as a
independent country. But struggle continues inside the party which subsequently led to the
split in 1964. In 1964 because of presssure of revolutionary ranks had to accept the concept
of semi colonisation with some change and adopt P.D.R as a stage of revolution. Neo
revisionist leadership betrayed the cause and concentrated their position slowly as a result of
which the second split in 1967 took place. In 1964 C.Rs have come out of CPI (ML) formed
AICCR with clear formulation that ‘India is semi feudal and semi colonial country”. This
formulation was adopted by the Communist Revolutionaries in India till today. This is one of
the major points of C.Rs camps. Since 1967 onwards till date all including CPI (ML) groups
have been holding this position. This position has developed through inner party struggle
during the period of 1946-1967.
This analysis is one of the important basis of C.R. groups. Prior to 2005 our CPI (ML) and
its former constitutents had held this view. 2003 document of CPI (ML) has correctly puts in
its adopted Programme under the heading ‘semi colonial and semi –feudal India that “The
British……Semi Colonial character of our Country” (Page 7)
This formulation needs some explanation.
The International and National Situation
The concept of neo colony has come during late and 50s, 60s when American
Imperialism had captured Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and hatched its design of Neo colony by
installing stooge Government in these countries. Through these stooge or puppet
government. US army came to ‘Indo China soil and with the help of stooge Government US
established its Neo Colonial rule. The samething US did in Iraq. US military is still
presentation in Iraq over throwing democratic government of Saddam. US by military
intervention imposed neo colonial rule by installing puppet government. Neo Colony
presupposes rule of puppet Government and in neo colony the principle contradiction will be
between imperialism and entire nation. In India the ruling class is not a puppet or a stooge.
They are only enjoying alliance. Alliance can not be forged with a puppet or stooge.
Subseient allous only.
Similarly question of path is extremely important. The question of path has been debated
again and again inside the Communist movement in India. After a long debate while
rejecting the path of peaceful parliamentry as well as terrorist path Andhra PC adopted the
path Protracted People’s War in Telangana which was finally adopted the CC, CPI and
approved by Cominform. Again in 1967 after 20 years of revisionist regime Naxalbari
movement had pushed forward the concept of P.P. War as our path of Indian Revolution as
opposed to peaceful parliamentary path.
The path of Protrated People’s War is accepted by all C.R.Groups in India. This path has
differentiated CR forces from revisionist and anarchist parties.
Because of this CPI (ML) in 2003 has again adopted this path as one of the fundamental
formulation and basis of CPI (ML) 2003. Without such path unity can not be strengthened.
This paths needs some explanation. This is an attempt to explain our position.
Question of Semi Colonialism, basic and principal contradiction and path of protracted
people’s war are inseparably linked with one another. Serious attention is required.
 If we reject the path of Protracted Peoples War, we will definitely desert the camp of C.R
and the fall to morus of revisionist history.
India is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country, where the state represents comprador
bureaucratic capitalism and landlords who protect and serve the interest of imperialism.
Under the leadership of Americal imperialism and various imperialist countries dominating
and exploiting India, have turned it into a happy hunting ground for neo-colonial exploitation.
The countryside, where eighty percent of the population lives, is dominated and exploited by
feudal and semi-feudal landlords. Our country has a constitution which was imposed by the
British, and is nothing more than a white-wash of the Government of India Act of 1935. The
Indian people never fought for this constitution and thus the provisions of a parliament,
legislatures and adult franchise are nothing but a hoax to deceive the masses. The transfer
of power took place in 1947 and some changes were made in the superstructure, without
affecting the basic structure. Under the circumstances, the concept that India is an
independent country and that the big bourgeoisie is building up capitalism is erroneous.
Colonial India has changed into semi-colonial, semi-feudal India. A people’s democratic
revolution can change the present set up. This has been pointed out in our programme.
Then what is the path of the Indian revolution?
This is a fundamental question discussed time and again, both in the past and at present
by the revisionist (CPI) and the neo-revisionist (CPM) both of which are parliamentary parties.
Though the latter sometimes makes claims about following the path of insurrection and
partisan warfare in order to deceive the people. Moreover, the path of insurrection is not
applicable to India. The Indian revolution cannot succeed by insurrection, the path of the
October Revolution. The Socialist Revolution can be successful and the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat can be established only when the New Democratic Revolution is carried to the
end. To bring about this we must follow the path of armed struggle and a protracted people’s
war. This is the path of the Chinese revolution, which is the continuation of the path of the
October Revolution, and must be traversed by all colonial and semi-colonial countries.
It is our fundamental task to apply the theory of People’s War to the concrete practice of
Indian revolution. This alone guarantees its victory.
2. Before we go into the question of application, certain wrong theories which are
advanced mainly by neo-revisionists must be refuted. They argue that, since there are
fundamental differences between pre-liberation China and present day India, the path of
people’s war cannot be applied to India. This is wrong. Because in fact the class character
of ‘pre-revolutionary China and India today is fundamentally the same. Although every
country has its own specific features, and India is no exception to this. It does not mean that
the path which led the Chinese revolution to success does not apply to the Indian revolution,
both countries being semi colonial and semi-feudal in nature. Due to specific features
obtaining in India, the path of people’s war may undergo certain changes in form, but the
content remains the same. What forms it takes in earlier and later stages, the advance of
revolution alone will decide. From the present we have to take into consideration the
experience of the armed struggles that have taken place in India so far, the Telangana,
Naxalbari and Srikakulam armed struggles being the most important ones and work out
earlier forms, based on the theory and practice of people’s war. There is no other solution to
the problem.
3. The neo-revisionists say that India is more industrially developed at present than pre-
liberation China. They mention one of Stalin’s formulations that India (pre-transfer of power
days) was industrially more developed than other colonies. They extend this formulation to
present-day India, and come to the conclusion that the path of people’s war cannot be
applied here. It is a fact that Stalin made the above observation, but he never said that India
therefore ceased to be colonial, semi-feudal and semi-colonial, before or after the transfer of
power. Stalin stressed the feature of industrialization to point out the revolutionary role of the
Indian proletariat. But in spite of this industrialization, imperialism and later social imperialism,
have kept India in semi-feudal, semi-colonial bondage. This is a difference in degree
between the level of industrialization in pre-liberation China and present day India, but this
does not change its basic character to make it a capitalist state.
4. The neo-revisionists say that there is a parliamentary system in India, whereas pre-
liberation China had none. India being a semi-feudal, semi colonial country, has no more a
parliamentary system than it has a socialist one, as the congress party constantly claims.
Precisely because the bourgeois democratic revolution of our country has remained
incomplete and because, after 1917, the bourgeois was rendered incapable of leading the
bourgeois democratic revolution the question of a parliamentary democracy simply does not
arise, except as a cruel hoax on our people in order to suppress them more cleverly. Thus it
follows that anyone who subscribes to the concept that a parliamentary democracy exists in
their country is merely a tool and instrument of imperialism and its lackeys.
 5. They argue that the Chinese Communist Party had a 40,000 strong army when it broke
with the Kuomintang, whereas we have none. It may be pertinent to ask, was the Chinese
people’s army built up through a process according to the specific situation that prevailed
at the time in China. We in India, must also begin the process of building our army of
liberation according to the conditions that prevail in our country today. In the specific
conditions obtaining in India, a people’s army will be created out of the armed struggles as
they are developed in various parts of the country. At the present stage of the revolution, an
agrarian revolutionary programme should be the basis of the armed struggle. Experience has
shown that when the agrarian revolutionary movement reaches the stage of land distribution
the peasantry takes to arms to defend and advance the revolution. This will be the proper
time to arm the people, and setting up the organs of power i.e. what is known as arming the
revolution.
India is one of the largest countries in the world, like China. In this vast country of ours
there are large areas of fertile land which provides us with food and clothing, mountain ranges
across its length and breadth, with extensive forests and rich mineral deposits, many rivers
and lakes which provide us with water, transport and irrigation, and a long coastline which
facilitates communications with nations beyond the seas.
It has borders on the people’s China in the north and north-east, Nepal, Sikh and Bhutan
in the north –east, and Burma and Bangladesh in the east. To the west it borders on Pakistan
and Afghanistan. India’s geographical setting has its advantages and disadvantages for the
Indian People’s revolution. It is an advantage to be fairly distant from the major imperialist
powers like Europe and America and to have many semi-colonial countries around us. It is a
disadvantage to have Soviet imperialism close to our borders. It is also a disadvantage that
our rear with China is mountainous and inaccessible in some areas. The mass movement in
the border areas is weak and the ruling class has concentrated huge armies in these areas for
ostensible purpose of defence. However, there are also certain advantages. These are firstly,
that a considerable population which is severely exploited lives in these areas and secondly,
except for lines of defence, communications are on the whole poorly developed.
However, it is incorrect to assume that, without a friendly rear, no people’s war can be
possible. Such an assumption would deny the inevitability of liberation wars in all the
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
6. Every revolution has its own disadvantages and advantages. Marxist-Leninists will
always try to utilize advantages and overcome disadvantages, by working out correct
strategy and tactics. The Indian revolution will be won basically by the Indian people alone,
while the proletariat leading the revolution will always take advantage of the national and
international situation. This is fundamental in a revolutionary mass line, and the path of
people’s war is based on this line. Revisionism and neo-revisionism has based itself on this
or that international situation and never taken up the fundamental position that it is the
Indian people that will make the Indian revolution. This we reject as a departure from the
fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism.
We hold that revolution cannot be imported. The Indian people under the leadership of the
revolutionary proletariat will win the revolution with their own strength. The Indian revolution
has its own advantages and disadvantages. The path of people’s war alone can overcome the
disadvantages, utilize the advantages, and lead the revolution to success.
7. The neo-revisionists argue that in pre-revolutionary China there was not much of a
transport and communications system, whereas in India there is a well-knit one spread all
over the country. No doubt this is a disadvantage to a certain extent. It may delay the setting
up of liberated areas. But it will not come in the way of building the agrarian revolutionary
movement and starting the armed struggle. In India, armed struggle in the form of guerrilla
warfare will have to go on for a long time so that it may spread to various parts of the country.
The transport and communications system will not come in the way of fulfillment of this task.
On the other hand, working class centers, which are within the reach of areas of armed
struggles, will be used for strengthening and advancing the armed struggle.
There are vast areas in the tribal and border regions which are largly untouched by the
transport and communication system. At best com munications are meagre and ineffective.
Moreover, the people living in these areas are backward, severely exploited and
increasingly restive. These people can be organized and prepared for armed struggle. The
oppression of the people by the state, the topographical conditions and the lack of proper
transport and communications in these areas combine to create added advantage for the
armed struggle.
We have seen how the arguments of the neo-revisionists are wrong and unfounded.
They are the result of a departure from the fundamental premises of Marxism-Leninism, that
every revolution has its advantages and disadvantages, and that it is the people alone who
make revolution. We reject these arguments as anti-Marxist.
8. The following are the advantages, in view of the national and international situation, for
the Indian revolution. We are starting armed struggle in an epoch when world imperialism has
reached the last stages of its existence. Soviet social imperialism has reached the last stages
of its existence. Soviet social imperialism, though it has stepped into the shoes of Western
imperialism, is beset by its contradictions and is bound to collapse before long. The People’s
republic of China is advancing with one success after another. National liberation movements
and revolutionary movements in a number of countries are advancing. The favourable
situation has a positive impact on our country.
The level of our people’s consciousness is developing under the impact of the growing
revolutionary situation around us. Vietnam, a small and backward country has been fighting
the world’s biggest imperialist power successfully for the past 25 years, proving conclusively
that the path of people’s war is the only way for all backward countries including India whose
bigness is an added advantage. Our people urgently want an alternative to the present
regime. Given the correct lead, they will be ready to proceed with the alternative path of
armed struggle.
The experience of the people’s war in China is within the reach of Indian
revolutionaries. So is the experience of Vietnam and other rev olutionary struggles. China, as
the centre of world revolution, is of immense help to our revolution. Indian revolutionaries must
study these experiences diligently in the light of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s Thought,
and apply them through concrete practice of the Indian Revolution.
9. These are the main advantages for the Indian Revolution. Factors which should
place us in a position of strength to build the revolutionary movement, to start the armed
struggle, and to lead and develop it to the higher stages. Resistance and pessimism are
impermissible for revolutionaries.
At the same time we should bear in mind that the ruling classes were given a breathing
space after the ‘transfer of power’ thanks to the betrayal of the Indian revolution by the
revisionists. The ruling classes were given enough time to replenish their forces, disrupt their
revolutionary movement and corrupt a section of the population by the so-called
parliamentary or Panchayati Raj system. We should not underestimate the fact that the ruling
classes are armed to the teeth, while the revolutionary ranks are disunited with some of them
still away from the mass line, and indulging in ‘left’ phrase-mongering. These are the
disadvantages resulting from a delayed revolution in India. Revolutionaries should take
note of them in working out their tactics.
If we persevere with the correct line, it will not be difficult for us to overcome all these
disadvantages, to develop a revolutionary movement, to start and lead the armed struggle to
victory.
10. While studying the international experience, we must also examine own past history
of struggle. We should analyse the experience of the armed struggle in Telangana (1946-
1951), draw correct lessons and utilize them for building up the agrarian revolutionary
movement and developing the armed struggle in our country. It was a struggle conducted on
the basic of an agrarian revolutionary programme, in which in the struggle for land distribution
the people took to arms and the revolution advanced. Inspite of the mistakes committed
during the struggle, inspite of the betrayal of the leadership the revolutionary movement and
armed struggle of Telangana is rich in experiences and lessons. Without drawing correct
lessons from the past, the revolutionaries will continue to commit right and ‘left’
opportunist mistakes in the future. The experience of the last 5 years has proved this only
too well.
We should analyse all the other revolutionary struggles as well’ such as the armed
struggles of Naxalbari and Srikakulam, those that took place in various parts of India,
armed or otherwise, and draw correct lessons. This is the only way to advance the
revolutionary movement and develop armed struggle in India.
11. The basic pre-condition for the victory of the Indian revolution is the forging of an
alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry under the hegemony of the proletariat. The
working class alone can exercise leadership over the New Democratic Revolution. This is
because it is the motive force of the revolution. Not only is the proletariat the most advanced
and organized class in society, but in the colonies and semi-colonies where the compradore
bourgeois has been created by imperialism and cannot take an anti-imperialist struggle,
vacillated between the forces of liberation and the forces of imperialism, and is thus rendered
incapable of leading the democratic revolution to victory. The working class can lead the
revolution to victory only if it succeeds in forging a firm alliance with the peasantry, which is
the main force of the revolution, and also by uniting all other exploited classes under its
banner. This united front is one of the three magic sticks necessary for successful
completion of the New Democratic Revolution. The hegemony of the proletariat can be
realized, firstly by ideological and organizational leadership, i.e. by organizing a Communist
Party armed with Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, to lead the Indian Revolution.
Secondly, the hegemony of the proletariat should be established by practical leadership. This
should be done by organizing economic and political struggle of the working class,
struggles in defence of the agrarian revolutionary movement and the armed struggles in the
countryside. This is one form of practical proletarian leadership by the working class.
Advanced elements of the working class should go to the villages and help the peasantry to
organize the struggle, especially at the stage of armed struggle. This is another form of
practical proletarian leadership.
Indian towns and cities are centers for the counter-revolution as well as centers for the
revolutionary proletariat. There is a heavy concentration of armed force here, and in times of
struggle, virtual white terror. This phenomenon has become a normal feature of Indian
political life, where the ruling classes are increasingly fascistic day by day. The experience of
West Bengal recently confirm this. In such conditions how to realize this practical leadership
of the working class is a problem to be studied further, in the light of the experience we have
gained in our own country and in the light of international experience. Whatever form it may
take, the fundamental task of establishing the hegemony of the proletariat, based on the
alliance of the proletariat and peasantry must be fulfilled.
12. In view of this we can see the importance of work amongst the working class,
students and other revolutionary classes in the towns and cities. We must politicise the
advanced sections of the working class in the politics of the New Democratic Revolution. In
the present revolutionary situation, this will play decisive role in unleashing agrarian
struggle and the armed struggle in the countryside. Therefore we should seize all
opportunities of politicizing the working class. The same is the case with students and other
revolutionary classes. For this we should seize the leadership of the partial struggles of the
workers, students and urban petty bourgeois, and through these draw the backward
sections of these classes into the struggle as well.
In India, parties of the ruling classes and the so-called opposition parties, are advocating
national and social chauvinism. A section of the working class and petty bourgeois have
become victim to this as well. Therefore we can move these classes into revolutionary
politics only when we fight against chauvinism and reformist politics.
It is sheer ‘left’ adventurism to neglect or overlook work in the cities, i.e. work among the
working class, students and petty bourgeoisie, thinking that there is no political work except
that of armed struggle in the countryside. It is equally harmful to conduct these struggles in
a reformist way, without bringing than to the level of revolutionary politics. In all cases,
revolutionary politicalisation is the supreme task of the party when we work among the
masses.
13. India is a vast country with uneven economic and political development as well as
the uneven development of the mass movement. This calls for forms of struggle based on
the level and the requirements of the movement. To implement the massline, we should take
into account the consciousness of the masses and adopt suitable forms of struggle. All
these forms of struggle are subordinate to the requirements of and preparation for the
people’s war. If we adopt this correct attitude, we can build an agrarian revolutionary
mass movement in a short period and go over to armed struggle.
There is a revolutionary situation in our country with growing economic and political crises,
and armed struggle is the main form of struggle under the leadership of the party. But other
forms such as mass organization and mass struggle are also important and indeed
indispensable, and under no circumstances to be overlooked, but their main purpose is to
serve the war. Before the outbreak of a war, all organizations and struggles are for the
preparation of the war, and after the war breaks out, all organization and struggle will be co-
ordinated with the war, whether directly or indirectly.
Therefore, in order to start an armed struggle in the countryside, it is necessary to
build up agrarian revolutionary movement first, which can be build only on the basis of an
agrarian revolutionary programme with the objective of the people’s war. For this purpose,
necessary forms of struggle, both legal and illegal, have to be adopted before the
revolutionary movement reaches the stage of armed struggle. It is sheer ‘left’ adventurism to
substitute the ‘main’ form of struggle, ie. armed struggle, to legal forms and preliminary
revolutionary forms, without raising it to the higher level i.e. armed struggle, wherever
possible.
In towns we concentrate out attention on building revolutionary working class and
student movements. We adopt all necessary forms of struggle for this purpose. It should be
noted that we start armed struggle first in the countryside and only after liberating the
countryside, do we go over to the cities and towns to liberate them. This is a fundamental
point in the theory and practice of people’s war.
14. How to Organize Armed Struggle in Rural Areas?
Bourgeois revolutionary democrats and petty bourgeois revolutionaries can also
organize armed struggles during the bourgeois and democratic revolutions. But they cannot
be called armed struggles based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought.
Our conception of armed struggle is based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung’s
Thought. This can only be a protracted people’s war. Building up a people’s army and
carrying on a people’s war is inseparably connected with the people’s armed struggle. It has
an anti-imperialist, anti feudal programme, and is led by Communist revolutionaries
organized into a proletarian party. It is important to understand correctly the connection
between the New Democratic Revolution and the Proletarian Revolution.
All these are fundamental points as far as we are concerned. There can be no
dispute on these questions. Hence we reject all those conceptions of armed struggle which
are not based on the fundamental premises above.
At present we are in the stage of agrarian revolution. In order to successfully carry out
this revolution, we have to build the agrarian revolutionary movement. Armed struggle will be
started at an appropriate level of this movement i.e. seizure of lands. Any underestimation of
the role of the agrarian revolutionary movement will deprive the people of an indispensable
support of the armed struggle and will leave them unprepared to face the onslaught of the
state apparatus. Hence all theories which underestimate or ignore the role of agrarian
revolutionary struggle are either ‘left’ adventurist or right opportunist and we reject them.
There must be an agrarian revolutionary programme to build an agrarian revolutionary
movement. Though semi-feudal relations are common to all parts of India, the forms and
extent of feudal exploitation, land concentration and land relations differ from state to state,
and from one part to another part in the state. State units must be able to work out their
agrarian revolutionary programmes taking their specific features into account. There is an all-
pervading agrarian crisis in India. With the help of a revolutionary programme we can build a
revolutionary movement in the countryside. Without a programme, there cannot be a
revolutionary movement, nor a people’s armed struggle.
When once a programme is decided, it is necessary to set up an organization which
can implement the programme. A formal organization can never serve this purpose. While
revolutionaries carry on work wherever they are, it is necessary to select a group of
villages in a sufficiently vast area, preferably with similar problems, to build a revolutionary
movement. Our activities in one or two villages cannot lead to a broad based revolutionary
movement because of the limited number of the population. On the other hand, a
revolutionary movement in a group of villages extended over a considerable area will be a
match for the state apparatus. Therefore it is the duty of the revolutionaries to build a peasant
revolutionary movement distributed over a large area and a comprehensive programme
should be worked out. This will help the revolutionaries to contact, mobilize and organize the
masses in the initial stage of the movement. If correctly and properly conducted, this
movement will reach the level of seizure and distribution of land.
In the course of organizing an agrarian revolutionary movement, the people and
revolutionaries will have to face repression from the state and the landlords. The form and
intensity may vary from issue to issue and will depend upon the sweep of the mass upsurge
and the militancy of the struggle. Therefore it is necessary that the party, mass and volunteer
organizations are developed and function so that the movement can be defended and
developed to a higher level, inspite of the repression. It is indispensable to adopt a correct
combination of open and underground work in order to meet this situation.
In India, the agrarian crisis is so deep that if correctly organized and led, the poor
peasantry and agricultural labour will be ready for seizure and distribution of land. There
might be some time lag between one area and another for the movement to reach the level
of land distribution, depending upon the form and extent of feudal relations. Therefore it is
necessary for the revolutionaries to work with the immediate aim of raising the movement to
the stage of the seizure of land in the process required by concrete conditions.
All controversies about partial and political struggles is irrelevant and diversionist as
far as agrarian struggle is concerned. Short of land seizure and distribution, all agrarian
struggles though they may seem to be partial are revolutionary and political in the sense
that they are militant, well organized and have land distribution as their main aim. Even the
struggles of agricultural labourers are anti-landlord in nature, since these struggles are for
distribution of land to the tiller as the central task at the stage of the Agrarian Revolution.
Once the poor peasantry and agricultural labourers become ready for the seizure of the
land belonging to the landlords, they can be said to have reached the required level of
revolutionary consciousness to carry out and complete the New Democratic Revolution. It is
to be noted that the peasantry must be politically educated constantly and at all levels of the
struggle.
Armed struggles in the form of guerilla warfare should begin when the agrarian
revolutionary movement reaches the stage of the seizure and distribution of land. This is
the stage of the movement when the peasantry will establish the authority of the peasant
associations and their parallel organs of power such as the people’s courts. This is the
stage when the peasantry will have developed enough revolutionary consciousness and
organization to be able to defend gains on the land and to protect their organs of power.
There will be armed clashes throughout the movement in one form or another, but these are
of a defensive nature and they will not take the form of guerilla warfare. Such armed
clashes should not be confused with regular guerilla war.
A people’s armed struggle can and should be developed wherever there are people,
whether in the plains, forests or mountains. Therefore it is wrong to say that we should not
develop an agrarian revolutionary movement leading to land distribution and armed struggle
in the plains. The stage of armed struggle must be reached, it must be prepared on every
front-political, economic, cultural and military. We cannot ignore any one of these if we are
serious. Base areas are essential, but on no account should armed struggle be started in a
single, isolated area even if is prepared for it. Of course Communists should not hold the
people back, they must support them, if they rise up, but it is their duty to guide the masses
correctly. Armed Struggle should only start when a large enough area has been prepared
to ensure support from the surrounding areas and to enable retreat and manoeure. Without
this, the struggle will be easily isolated and crushed by the enemy. Along with this we must
have a confident and well-trained command. Our leaders must understand military strategy
as well as politics. Without fulfilling all these requirements it would be a left deviation to take
to arms.
But in order to learn how to swim we must go to the water. So our military strategy
will develop with practice. But our ideas and plans should be thoroughly discussed and
carefullytested so that we do not lead the people astray.
Our objective in starting an armed struggle is to set up liberated base areas.
Though it is possible and necessary to set up liberated areas even in the plains, forests and
mountain areas are more suitable in the earlier stages of the armed struggle. This is
because there the administration is weak, exploitation of the people is intense and their
problems acute. As communications are weak in these areas, sustained armed resistance
can be put up, leading to the setting of liberated bases against the armed forces of the
country.
Our people are facing acute distress in all parts of the country. Therefore
revolutionaries should develop a revolutionary pattern of work wherever they are. They must
be able to organize people’s armed struggle in one form or another. This is the only way to
guide our people on to the path of revolutionary struggles leading to the armed struggle.
When once the armed struggle starts, revolutionaries should lead it with all the
firmness and domination at their command. The working classes, students and other
revolutionary classes should be mobilized in support of the struggle in whatever forms
possible. In view of the armed might of the ruling classes, the armed struggle should be
conducted in such a way that it is sustained over a long time till people in other areas join it
and new areas of armed struggle are created.
15. Set up Guerilla Zones Throughout the Country.
Though our objective in starting armed struggle is to setup liberated base areas, the
present correlation of forces in India is such that it is not possible to achieve this aim here
and now. Even to achieve this aim at a later date it is necessary to create areas of armed
struggle throughout the country. For the present and for a long time to come, they will be
guerilla zones in the military sense of the term. With the extension of such areas of armed
struggle it becomes impossible for the ruling classes to concentrate their armed might in one
area. During this process there arises a favourable situation, wherein revolutionaries will be
able to wrest the initiative from the ruling classes, and to advance towards the setting up of
liberated base areas. Changes of a basic nature in the national and international situation,
wherein revolutionaries will be able to wrest the initiative from the ruling classes, and to
advance towards the setting up of liberated base areas. Changes of a basic nature in the
national and international situation may also lead towards quicker development of liberated
base areas.
16. How are the Liberated Base Areas to be Formed?
We have to fight armed battles in the guerilla zones for a long time to come. Guerilla
forces, skilled and tempered in these battles, grow in number as well as in experiences. In the
course of these battles there arises a situation wherein the guerilla forces are able to defeat
the armed forces of the ruling classes. This is the time when a part of the guerilla force is
turned into a regular people’s army. The people in the area are mobilized to help the people’s
armed forces in inflicting defeat after defeat on the enemies armed forces and wiping them
out. This is how liberated base areas come into being. They are constantly extended into
adjoining regions, eventually covering a vast area and a sufficient population with the
necessary resources for the people’s sustenance.
It is possible to set up liberated areas in the plains and deltaic areas (where there are
well-knit communication lines) at an advanced stage of the armed struggle. In the same way
towns adjoining the base areas are liberated first, then the rest and finally the whole
country.
17. How then Will the Peoples’ Army be Created?
Our revolution is directed against feudalism, imperialism and the big bourgeoisie. All
those who work for this revolution can join the people’s army. Huge number of militants
especially from the poor peasants and agricultural labourers will come forward during the
agrarian revolutionary struggles. They must be assimilated first as people’s militia, then
guerilla squad members and then as soldiers of the people’s army. Students who join the
revolutionary ranks should also join the people’s army. They must work among the masses
and integrate themselves thoroughly with the people in order to serve the revolution.
Working class militants, those who are victimized, retrenched or those who volunteer
themselves, should form part of the people’s army. This is necessary to give it a working
class orientation. This is one of the prerequisites of the practical leadership of the working
class revolution.
In the beginning it is better if these militants were in the people a militia first. Normally
guerilla squads are developed from among the advanced members of the people’s militia.
When guerilla warfare reaches a higher level and conditions are created for setting up
liberated base areas, the people’s army units are formed and developed. This is the process
of formation of the people’s liberation army.
The people’s army is the army of the people. It should consist of revolutionary
elements and should be led by the advanced guard of the proletariat. In short, the party has to
lead the army at all levels. The army should be educated in Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-
tung’s Thought, and in the principles of people’s war. Learning from the experiences of the
battlefield, it will be an invincible force in the course of time. This applies to the guerilla squads
and people’s militia as well. It is to be noted that patriotic elements from the enemy army will
join the PLA in the course of struggle.
18. Ours is a protracted people’s war. Armed struggle in the form of guerilla warfare will be
continued for a long time to come. When the revolution advances, and guerilla warfare
reaches a certain stage, the people’s army will adopt the form of mobile warfare. All the
military principles Comrade Mao enunciated in his military writings are applicable to our
armed struggle in all its forms, i.e. guerilla warfare, mobile warfare, positional warfare. It is
the duty of the party and the military leadership to master these principles and be able to
apply in a given political and military situation.
19. In order to win the revolution, all revolutionary classes, i.e. the proletariat, the
peasantry including the rich peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie,
should form a United Front under the leadership of the Proletariat based on the alliance of
the working class and the peasantry. This must be a united front of armed struggle. While
revisionists ignore armed struggle and form united fronts from parliamentary elections and
formation of ministries, ‘left’ adventurists ignore the united front and argue that through
armed struggle by the workers and peasants alone will the revolution succeed. Both are
wrong.
The united front should be formed and developed out of struggles, partial, political as well
as armed, during the entire course of the revolution when every class and individual is tested
as to whether he is for the revolution or against it. Those who support the revolution will join
the united front. The rest will go over to the counter-revolutionary forces, except those who
prefer to keep themselves neutral. Every revolution has its neutral sections, in accordance
with the role they play in a given society.
20. For the revolution to succeed, a revolutionary party must be built. The Communist
Party is the highest form of organization of the proletariat. It is the advanced detachment of
the working class. It is a well-disciplined organization, with a scientific understanding of
reality, based on democratic centralism, armed with a scientific understanding of reality,
based on democratic centralism, armed with Marxism-Leninism –Mao Tse –tung’s Thought,
tested in the practice of concrete struggle using the method of criticism and self-criticism,
and closely integrated with the masses of the people. It should have fighting cadres. Party
members could be recruited from among active candidates tested in revolutionary work,
during a fixed period of candidature. We should always remember that the bourgeoisie wants
the revolutionary party to be an open, legal party, for they know that it will then be possible to
utilize and to suppress the part as well. While maintaining that every legal opportunity should
be exploited, we firmly believe that the party should remain underground. It is therefore
necessary for the party to adapt itself to the principles of illegal organizations. While taking
advantage of legal opportunities, care should be taken to ensure that the party does not
degenerate into a legal party.
Communist revolutionaries create, develop and strengthen mass organisations and the
organized strength of the masses. These organizations should be as broad and open
as possible. The revolutionaries must not divide the toiling people and will work even in
reactionary–led mass organizations, where such organizations have a mass following. They
will try to expose and dislodge the reactionary leadership and establish working class
leadership in these organizations. The revolutionaries should not forget that major section of
the working class is still under the influence of INTUC, AITUC, CITU etc., and they must pay
serious attention to this section of the workers. Wherever the mass movement reaches an
advanced stage either the mass organization or a new revolutionary has to be developed.
Remembering that our fundamental task is to disseminate Marxist-Leninist politics to the
masses, remembering that in the life of a revolutionary, the authority is the revolution itself and
not the party. This question arises only when the party departs from the line of Marxism-
Leninism –Mao Tse-Tung Thought. It is clear that the completion of the revolution is the main
aim and the revolutionary party is the indispensable organizational means to this end. A party
is formed not for its own sake, but for the completion of the revolution. If this is so, then we
must acknowledge the hard reality that the birth and growth of a revolutionary genuine party
can never be merely through ideological struggle, or by decree, or by decision or in a meeting.
Such ideological struggles, decrees, decisions, meetings etc., divorced from all revolutionary
class struggles, are not struggles at all. They are reduced to mere phrase-mongering. The
relation between revolution and the struggle for a revolutionary party must be understood.

In the present situation in India, there are numerous revolutionary groups and individuals
working in various parts of the country. Acceptance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung
Thought is common to all of them. It is absolutely necessary that these various groups and
individuals are united. But we must clearly understand the basis of this unity. Unity can be
forged only through the process of ideological understanding combined with the revolutionary
class struggle. This means that the ideological struggle would not degenerate into mere
debate or verbal criticism, slander and personal attack, but should be tested in the practice of
class struggle. On this basis, i.e. of principled ideological struggle, the Communist
revolutionaries can be united into a single party organization. Such a party armed with the
revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-tung Thought can alone carry the
revolution to the end. Therefore it is necessary that all efforts should be concentrated
towards building such a party.
PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION IN SEMICOLONIAL-SEMIFEUDAL INDIA
MEANING OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION
Marxist-Leninist are always guided by the world outlook of “Dialectical Materialism” a
phrase first framed by Plekhanov in 1891 to describe scientifically the “Consistent
Materialism” of Marx and Engels. It is called ‘Dialectical Materialism’ because its approach to
the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them is ‘dialectical’, while
its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena its theory is
materialistc. (1) According to Engels (1894), ‘Dialectics’ is the science of the general laws of
motion and development of nature, human society and thought. Lenin (1915) puts it precisely
“Development or motion is the struggle between the opposites i.e. contradictioin”. Thus
eveything is inherently contradictory (Hegal 1831) and development is the struggle of the
contradiction. This is the universality of the contradictions i.e. contradictions are universally
existing.
But there are many contradictions in the process of the development of a complex thing
(Mao, 1937), when we analyse a phenomenon in its particularity to time, place, phase and
context. One of them is necessarily the principal contradiction (2), whose existence and
development determines or influences the existence and development of other
contradictions.
Even in the principal contradiction, there is always a principal aspect which determines
the character or nature of the thing or phenomenon.
When we accept the characterization of Indian Society as ‘semi-feudal semi-colonial’ we
also accept the stragegy of ‘New Democratic Revolution’ as the programme of Indian
revolution. Since the problems of India’s New Democratic Revolution can be solved only in
conformity with the principles of Dialectical Materialism. We have to base our strategy and
tactics on the very principles of contradictions themselves. By the very logic of the semi-
feudal, semi-colonial system it self, we have to accept the existence of following
contradictions.
(1) Imperialism and the Indian nation.
(2) Feudalism and the broad masses of the people.
(3) Bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
(4) Bourgeoisie and peasantry as well as petty bourgeoisie.
(5) Contradictions in the rank of the ruling classes.
Out of these contraditions, there are two basic or primary contradictions. First is the
contradiction between imperialism and the people of the oppressed nations and second is
the contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of the people. Whereas all other
contradictions are secondary i.e. derived from the basic contradictions themselves one of the
definite differences, which existed in our CPI (ML) is centered around the question of principal
contradiction i.e. recognition of the contradiction whose existence and development
determines or influences the existence and development of other contradictions of our semi-
feudal semi-colonial society. Our unity convention of 2005 out of which CPI (ML) was born,
had seen the discussion on two different opinions on the question of principal contradiction in
India.
(1) The first opinion held, “The contradiction between the feudalism and the broad masses
of people is the principal contradiction in India” Feudalism, is thus the principal aspect of the
principal contradiction.
 (2) The second opinion on other hand held, “The contradiction between the alliance of
Imperialism with domestic reactionaries and the broad masses of the people is the principal
contradiction. Imperialism is the leader of this alliance.
(3) Third position failed to determine the principal contradiction
The opinions were discussed by the delegate of the unity convention. As such nothing
was accepted as the official line. The comrades were asked to produce “document” or
documents for the discussion . The present document has been prepared as a part of the
fulfillment of the task assigned by the unity convention itself.
There are two aspects of the present subject one is political aspect and the other is
economic aspect. Both should be understood in order to have comprehensive
understanding.
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SEMI-FEUDAL SEMI-COLONIAL SYSTEM
Anatomy of the civil society must be sought into political economy. According to this
principal, the anatomy of the principal contradiction must be sought into the political economy
of the semi-feudal, semi-colonial system itself.
Maximization of the ‘surplus profit’ (super profit) has been the fundamental law governing
both the capitalist policy of colonialism (i.e. the export of commodities) before 1870 as well as
the imperialist policy of colonialism (i.e. the export of capital) after 1870. Marx has defined
the surplus profit or super profit as the difference between more labor in exchange for less
labor. “The favoured country recovers more labor in exhange for less labor, although this
difference, the excess is pocketed as in any exchange between labor and capital by a
certain class. Since the rate of profit is higher, therefore, because it is generally in a colonial
country, it may, provided natural conditions (soil, atmosphere etc ) are favourable, go hand
in hand with low commodity prices. “Marx has made it explicitly clear that surplus profit which
is the main regulator free exchange’, Rather, it can be recovered only through “forced trade”
or unequal exchange i.e. exchange of larger amount for the smaller amount of labour. Thus
without unequal exchange surplus profit can not be recovered.
According to Marx, “One of the fundamental laws of the development of the capitalist
mode of production is that the more the productive forces are developed, (higher the rate of
constant capital to variable capital is allowed to grow) the more the proletariat is exploited,
i.e. higher is the proportion of surplus labour to necessary labour. From this Marxist
formulation a couple of contradictory inferences have been drawn.
(1) As the productive forces are developed more and more, the actual daily and weekly
wages go on rising higher. It means that wages are higher in the developed capitalist
countries than the underdeveloped countries.
(2) The more the productive forces are developed, the more the proletariat is exploited. It
means that the relative price of the labor i.e. the price of the labor as compared both with
surplus value and with the value of the surplus product stands higher in the backward
countries (since the ratio of surplus labour is lower than the necessary labour) than the
developed countries.
Marx had summarized these contradictory inferences in following words. “It will be found
frequently, that the daily and weekly wages in the first nation (rich country) is higher than in
the second (poor country), while the relative price of labour i.e. the price of labor as compared
to both with surplus value and with the value of the product, stands higher in the second (poor
country) than in the first (rich country).(6)
It means that a situation exists in which more and more wages are paid to less and less
labour in a rich country, whereas less and less wages are paid for the more and more labour
in the poor country. This difference in wages is the first source of unequal exchange.
There is the second source of unequal exchange also. It is the difference in the prices of
primary products i.e. agricultural as well as mineral products and the manufactured articles.
Marx had accepted the argument of all the bourgeoise scholars right from John Start Mill to
Ricardo that with the progress of the society with the development of capitalism, the exchange
value of the manufactured goods would tend to fall, whereas the exchange value of the
primary products drawn from agriculture and mines would tend to rise. In other words, the rate
of profit will go on falling in the capitalist countries in course of their development. As Lenin
(1916) and Bukharin (1917) have argued, since there has been a regular and universal rise of
the cost of primary products, imperialists are forced to struggle fiercely to control the areas
of chief raw material or primary products as colonies or semi-colonies in order to maximize
their super profit.
From the above brief analysis of the tendencies of capitalism made by Marx, it is
apparent that capitalism in the developed countries can not maximize its super profit
without an unequal exchange nature, where more and more labor can be exchanged for less
and less wages, where more and more commodities can be exchanged for less and less
prices. This unequal exchange between the two countries is ultimately the unequal
exchange between the labour and the products of a low productivity economy with those of
high productivity-economy. This can be ensured only by the export of capital which links and
subordinates the economy of the backward colonial as well as semi-colonial countries to the
economic needs of the developed capitalist countries. This export of capital transforms the
dialectical relationship between the two countries. The developed capitalist country is
transformed into an imperialist country whereas the backward country is transformed either
into a colony or the semi-colony. This export of capital generates, regulates, as well as
maintaining a definate scheme of class-structure or class-arrangement in the semi-feudal,
semi colonial countries without which no unequal exchange is possible.
This scheme of class-arrangement for the purpose of unequal exchange has been
thoroughly investigated, discussed and formulated by the “commission for colonial and
national question” as the “Triangular alliance” among imperialism, compradore capitalism
and feudalism against the majority of the people in semi-colonies. The report of the
commission was prepared under the Chairmanship of Com. KUUSINEN of Finland, which is
called The Colonial Thesis of Third Communist International” or ‘Colonial Thesis’ in brief. It
was adopted at the 6th Congress in Sept 1928. The Colonial Thesis is supposed to be the
second manifesto of the communist party prepared for the people of colonies and semi-
colonies. Paras 9, of the Colonial Thesis says, “The recent history of colonies (and semi –
colonies as well) can only be understood, if it is looked upon as an organic part of the
development of capitalist world economy as a whole”. “Where the ruling imperialism is in
need of a social support in the colonies, it first allies itself with the ruling strata of the previous
social structure, the feudal lords and the trading and money-lending bourgeoisie against the
majority of the people. Every where Imperialism attempts to preserve and perpetuate all
those pre-capitalist forms of exploitation (especially in the villages) which serve as the basis
of or the existence of its reactionary allies”. Again para 13 says “Since the overwhelming mass
of the colonial population is connected with land and lives in the country-side, the plundering
character of the exploitation of the peasantry by imperialism and its allies (the class of land-
owners, merchants and money-lenders) acquires special significance.
It is thus this ‘triangular alliance’ against the broad masses of the people for their
exploitation as super profit through unequal exchange that constitutes the principal aspect of
the principal contradiction. Feudalism is assigned a role in this alliance, but not as a principal
or leading force but as an ally of imperialism. No alliance can be formed without feudalism. As
such a part of the surplus, not the whole of it drained from the people is shared by the
feudalism. But the major part of the surplus is shared by compradore bourgeoisie and the
imperialist forces among themselves. No class-struggle against such alliance can be waged
without directing its edge against ‘the weakest link in the alliance’ i.e. Feudalism. ‘Agrarian
revolution which is axis of New Democratic Revolution on the other hand, is directed not only
feudalism alone, but against the whole alliance.
‘SUPER PROFIT’, ‘UNEQUAL EXCHANGE’ AND ‘ALLIANCE’.
 Just as ‘Super profit’ can not be obtained without unequal exchange, in the same way
unequal exchange can not be made without this ‘triangular alliance’. It is thus apparent that
neither super profit nor unequal exchange is possible, if feudalism is allowed to be principal
aspect of the principal contradiction. Let us see how without this triangular alliance neither
unequal exchange nor super profit is possible. Lenin has described (7) “Super profit” (extra
profit obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of
their own country) as the fundamental law governing the export of capital to both colonies
and semi-colonies where labour, raw material, and land are cheaper and the capital is scarce.
Consequently by the very process of the export of capital, capitalist mode of exploitation is
super imposed (imposed from above or outside) on the feudal mode of exploitation by
imperialism itself through indirect means i.e. joint-collaboration, joint-ventures, joint-trade and
bi-lateral economic co-operations. This 8 capitalist mode of exploitation, Super imposed by the
export of capital (through joint collaboration, joint- ventures etc.) on the feudal mode of
exploitation is described, defined and characterized as the semi- feudal, semi colonial mode
of production.
Such a mode of production itself is the unity or alliance or co-existence between the two
opposite modes of production-the feudal mode of production i.e. small scale production
based on manual labor operating through the formula of C-M-C and the capitalist mode of
production i.e. large scale production based on machines operating through the formula of
M-C-M. But according to Lenin, such alliance between the two opposite modes of production
or the co-existence of large scale production based on machines side by side with the small
scale production based on manual labor cannot continue for long simply because of the
capitalist law of the development i.e.9 the law of the displacement of small scale production
based on manual labour by large scale production based on machines. But the economic
history of India of last 205 years, i.e. from 1853 when the net-work of railways was spread till
2008, reveals just the opposite trend. During this whole period there was very little
displacement of small scale production by the large scale production, as a result of which
there was no marked displacement or change in the share of the industrial product in relation
to the total National Product from 1948 to 2008. It proves that share of industry in the Net
National Product in 1948 was 17.1% and it remained almost the same i.e. 16.7% in 2008 after
a gap of 60 years.
The analysis of the distribution of Population confirms that there has been no
displacement or change in the percentage of population engaged in industry either. In 1911,
there were 9.8% of people engaged in the industries and even after a gap almost (in 1981)
100 years, the percentage remains, almost the same i.e. 9.90% and even after
This situation of no displacement of small scale production by the large scale production,
no displacement in the shortage of industrial production or population either can be explained
only in terms of the role which imperialism has played in India directly before 1947 and
indirectly after 1947. “Capitalism in our country, because of the historical conditions of
colonialism did not spring from the class-struggle of Indian people, from our soil by the efforts
of national bourgeoisie of our country. Rather, it was imposed from above and outside by the
imperialist bourgeoisie. As a result of it, capitalism, which was super imposed, was not
competitive with feudalism. Rather it was complementary to it. Imperialism has maintained this
unity, alliance or co-existence by paying two opposite roles just to preserve the condition of
the “unequal exchange” through which super profit could be obtained.
Imperialism has encouraged the simple commodity production under the formula of C-M-
C, while at the same time it has discouraged the extended capitalist production under the
formula of M-C-M. So two unequal sources of exchange (C-M-C as the source of low-
productivity economy and M-C-M as the source of high productivity economy remains
maintained in the economy. It is because of this alliance between the two parallel modes of
production, opposed to each other that the more and more labour and labour products are
exchanged for less and less labour and labour products by the imperialists. Imperialism
exploits peasants and handicrafts by obtaining more and more products for less and less
prices through the formula of C-M-C with the help of feudalism, and exploits working class
(proletariat) by obtaining more and more labour power for less and less wages through the
formula of M-C-M with the help of compradore bourgeoisie. This exploitation by the alliance of
imperialism, compradore capitalism and feudalism constitutes the solid basis for another
alliance for the class-struggle. It is the alliance between the working class and peasantry. It
confirms that the alliance between the two parallel or opposite modes of production unequal in
the level of productivity is the alliance for unequal exchange or the super profit itself. Single
mode of production i.e. feudalism or capitalism can not serve imperialism with unequal
exchange. The economic necessity of the unequal exchange rules out completely the
possibility of feudalism, being the principal aspect of the principal contradiction in a semi
feudal semi-colonial country. The contradiction between feudalism and the broad masses of
people is found to be the only basic and principal contradiction only in a feudal society with
which no large-scale exchange is possible due to the pre-dominance of Natural economy. On
the other hand unequal exchange is impossible with capitalistically developed bourgeoisie
countries. It is thus this triangular alliance in the semi-feudal semi colonial countries that
forces the prices of the primary products exported therefrom to decline up to 40% from 1900
to 1945 in place of rising. 12
The assistance given by the rich countries to the poor countries compensated only less
than half the loss suffered by underdeveloped countries due to exports and unequal
exchange.13
Due to the super-profit through the mechanism of un equal exchange, the development of
capitalism in the imperialist countries becomes at the same time a process of under
development in semi-feudal, semi colonial countries. This process operated in a couple of
ways in India. The first is the way of draining away a large volume of “surplus” from India so
that India can not accumulate enough capital to make effective use of whatever potentialities it
has in terms of human and natural productive factors. The second is the way of distorting
Indian economy continuously so as to reduce it to a mere apparatus for supplying raw
materials and for absorbing the obsolete products and technology of the advanced capitalist
country. Thus, India is suffering predominantly not from the independent development of
capitalism but from the insufficient development of capitalism. Independent development of
capitalism is a continuous process of economic change in the magnitude and direction,
consistant with and advantageous to the realisation of the potentialities of human as well as
natural resources of the country. Under development of semi-feudal semi colonial economy is
on the other hand, a continuous process of economic change in the magnitude and
direction, inconsistent with and detrimental to the realization of the potentialities of both
human as well as natural resources of the country. Whereas the development of capitalism is
the result of “independence” in the process of economic change, the underdevelopment is the
result of dependence in the same process of economic change. The “triangular alliance” is
thus the alliance for under development through the dependence of feudalism on compradore
bureaucratic capitalism and the dependence of compradore bureaucritic capitalism on
imperialism i.e. on the import of capital through direct and indirect routes for their existence
and survival. Liberation from under developed means liberation from this triangular alliance
i.e. from imperialism, from comprador bureaucratic capitalism, from feudalism at the same
time by anti-imperialist, anti-feudal New Democratic Revolution.
The word ‘development’ is a neo-colonial concept for the third world countries, where
imperialism and feudalism exist together. Susan Geroge 14 says “Development has been the
password for imposing a new kind of dependences for enriching the already rich world and for
shaping other countries to meet its commercial and political needs.
Let us see how the system of triangular alliance works.
ALLIANCE BETWEEN FEUDALISM AND COMPRADORE BOURGEOISIE.
Agriculture is the foundation of the economy in India whereas industry is the leading
factor. 53 to 53% of gross national product is drawn from agriculture and allied economic
activities. If handicraft products are added to it, this proportion reaches 61.7% -70% of the
export items and products are drawn from agriculture itself. In the concrete conditions of India
today the agricultural sector of economy is controlled by Feudal Lords mainly and the
industrial sector of economy is controlled by “compradore bureaucratic capitalism with
direct help of imperialism. There are three grounds for the alliance between the two.
1. Feudal lords exploit the peasants and agricultural labourers, and compradore
bourgeoisie, the industrial proletariat. Due to feudal oppression in agriculture, the class of
compradore bourgeoisie is well assured of the continuous supply of cheap labour at constant
real wage rate. This is the first indirect service to compradore bourgeoisie by feudalism in
India.
2. Feudalism is the source of the supply of cheap food grains and agricultural raw
material to compradore bourgeoisie. Since the prices for the food grains and agricultural raw
material are cheaper than the prices for the industrial goods and since the wages of the
working class are fixed in terms of foodgrains, the class of compradore bourgeoisie is bound
to get more profit due to feudalism.
3.Compradore bourgeoisie in India can not survive without a “domestic market” from
where they can recover the “loss” obtained in the international market, over which they can
exercise their monopoly-type control. Some times this ‘loss’ is recovered directly by raising
the prices of the industrial products and indirectly at times by the rise of administered
prices of subsidies through the agencies of Govt. themselves who are the major consumers
in the market.
In a country like India, the rural market for industrial consumer goods is estimated to be
two and half times the size of the urban market. In 1952-53, for instance, rural India absorbed
industrial consumer goods worth Rs.31 billion at current prices as against the urban
consumption of Rs.12 billion In 1968-69 these figures were respectively Rs.58 billion and
Rs.25 billion. Now it goes up to 108 billions. Under these conditions, compradore bourgeoisie
can not ignore the rural market.
Now, who are the major customers of industrial goods in the rural market? If the Indian
data can be taken as the basis for the generalisation, it can be said that only10 percent of the
rural consumers consume as much as the total urban population put together. It this top ten
percent in the rural areas are identified with the feudal lords and their associates, it is this
class of feudal and semi-feudal forces which is the strongest pillar that supports the
market for industrial production. Its share in the rural market is as high as one-third or so.
(37.64% in the year 1968-69). It is the same class which rules over agrarian economy. This
class of feudal lords transfers the major portion of the surplus obtained from the exploitation of
peasantry and allied toiling masses to the compradore bourgeoisie through unequal sale and
purchase.
ALLIENCE BETWEEN THE COMPRADORE BOURGEOISIE AND IMPERIALISM
‘Foreign capital’ in the shape of investments, aids, loans, FDI-SEZ, machines and
technology has been exported to India mainly in two forms. First is the colonial or direct form,
second is the semi-colonial or indirect form. By the direct form, we mean direct foreign private
investment only to be regulated by Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (FERA). By the ‘Indirect
form’, we mean foreign capital invested through indirect routes just as ‘Joint collaborations’,
joint-ventures’, ‘bi-lateral-cooperations’ and ‘investment in Govt. or Public sectors’. Under the
new economic order neo-liberal policy today the direct foreign private investment from 1948
to 2008 in which U.K. and U.S.A. occupy first and second position in order or the size of
capital invested with 28.7% and 26.7% respectively as their shares.
Secondly ‘indirect foreign investment approved by the Govt. of India’ from 1979 to 2008 in
which USA and Japan stand first and second. Thirdly the picture of foreign collaboration is
approved by the Govt. of India (1948 to 2005). Economically speaking a country is said to be
a ‘colony’ when the ‘direct foreign capital from a single country dominates or rules the entire
economy, whereas the same country is said to be a semi-colony when the foreign capital
invested through indirect routes i.e. through joint collaborations and joint-ventures from
different countries compete to dominate or rule the whole economic scene both in private as
well as public sector. A ‘colony’ is thus transformed into a ‘semi-colony’ when direct rule is
replaced by indirect rule.
India was transformed politically into a semi-colony from the British colony on 15th
August, 1947, only after the British bourgeoisie sold and transferred their direct capital and
other direct economic interests to the indirect control through joint collaboration and joint-
ventures in partnership with J.R.D. Tata, G.D.Birla, J.K. and Sri Ram etc. in the ‘Private
Sector’ and government itself in the ‘Public sector’ (Railways for example) during 1945 to
1947. It was only after the publication of ‘Bombay Plan’ in 1944 based on mixed economy of
public as well as private sectors by the representatives of Indian compradore bourgeoisie
which accepted the necessity of foreign capital through the indirect routes of ‘technical
collaboration’ and ‘scientific cooperation’ that this transfer of British capital from direct
control to indirect control was effected. Now, India is a semi-colony because it is the foreign
capital through the indirect routes that is dominating or ruling Indian economy today with the
help of compradore bourgeoisie and feudalism. The transfer of power on 15th August, 1947
itself constituted the political basis for the alliance between Indian compradore bourgeoisie
and imperialism which can be economically described as the joint-collaboration, joint venture,
technical collaboration and economic cooperation. This alliance is getting strengthened every
day by the increasing number of foreign collaborations.
Through the ‘New economics policy’ of Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 followed the neoliberal policy
adopted since 1991 the Indian compradore bourgeoisie wanted to solve the economic crisis
of the system by choosing and changing their alliance with the different imperialist groups.
This has created a rift in their ranks by splitting FICCI on 17th August, 1987 after 61 years of
its existence. Now Assocham led by RJD Tata is throwing a challenge to the truncated FCCI
led by Birla. Assocham i.e. Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry has now
emerged as a ‘secular’ organisation of bourgeoisie with ‘diversity; in religion and caste-Parsi,
Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Chattiyars and some of the Hindu Marwadis. On the other hand,
FICCI i.e. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and industry has now become a
‘communal’ organization of Hindu bourgeoisie of Marwari-Gujarati and Sindhi origin with a
few Sikhs and others as an exception. It is interesting to note that Nuliwadi of Bombay-dyeing
has joined Assocham which claims to be more representative of trade and Industry in India
than FICCI. Whereas the rival of NUSLIWADIA. Mr.Dhiru Bhai Ambani of Reliance is an active
member of FICCI which claims to enjoy the fullest patronage of Rajiv Govt. at the central
level. Although both the rival groups stand for growing alliance with imperialism, ASSOCHAM
stands for alliance and liberalization without any ‘discrimination’ from the side of Govt. the
FICCI is in favour of ‘discriminative alliance’ with imperialism, In fact Indian compradore
bourgeoisie is very much in need of foreign capital, technology and finance. Imperialism, on
the other hand is also in need of an alliance with the third world bourgeoisie. The tendency of
the ratio of profit to fall in mature capitalist countries is sough to be neutralized through rapid
technological progress. The advancement of technology renders huge stocks of machinery
and equipment obsolete, and unless these out of the date stock piles can be profitably
jettisoned somewhere, this escape route of advanced capitalism from its own crisis would be
sealed. This is confirmed by a report of united nations, 64 percent of the machine tools in the
United States in 1963 were ten years old or older. Comparable figures for the same year
were 59 percent for United Kindom, 59 percent for France, 57% for Italy, 55 percent for
Federal Republic of Germany and about 50 percent for Russia. The report further says that
according to the expert opinion, industrial equipment on the average ten years old should be
replaced by new (or reconditioned) equipment in order not to slow down increase in
productivity and not to increase production costs. On the basis of such criterion, in 1965 there
were about 13,00,000 metal working machines already marked for replacement in the
United States alone. Thus, there is a huge surplus of second hand equipment, and with it,
the production facilities for producing such equipment also are simultaneously found to be
outmoded. Advanced capitalist countries are thus always burdened with a stock of new as
well as old, obsolete plant and equiptment, which has to be disposed of profitably. Otherwise
technical progress could be choked off. Most of the commercial transactions in second hand
equipment are within the industrialized countries themselves. Export sales, represent only a
small fraction of the total sales. For instance, United States machinery dealers National
Association reports that export sales for its members in 1964 represented only 22.4 million
dollars i.e. 5.5 percent of the total sales. This need not be surprising that the third world
countries account for only 7 percent of the total industrial production of the world as a whole.
Yet without this export of capital to the third world countries including India, the world
capitalism would run into a serious crisis.
The compradore bourgeoisie of the third world countries on the other hand, require these
second, third or nineth degree obsolete technology and equipment. Their industrial production
is aimed at meeting the demands of the limited richest sections of the population-feudal lords,
bureaucrates, officers, politicians and bourgeoisie themselves for which their home market is
quite suitable. They compensate the high prices for the imported commodity capital and
technology from the cheap labour, cheap raw material and cheap land made available to them
by feudalism and semi-feudalism through exploiting peasantry and trialal population. After all
the fashions of New York, London and Paris take some time to reach Bombay, Calcutta,
Madras and Cairo.
ALLIANCE BETWEEN FEUDALISM AND IMPERIALISM
Even if, our country is politically independent, feudalism renders a great service to
imperialism first through its alliance with compradore bourgeoisie by creating a modestic
market, for the products of manufacturing a modestic market, for the products of
manufacturing and chemical industries, for pesticides, fertilizers, tractors and pumping sets
together with seeds of high yielding variety. It is the same class of feudal lords which acts as
semi-feudal forces i.e. local money lenders, contractors, whole-sale-dealers, commercial
merchants proprietors for selling seeds, pesticides, fertilizers. It is the same class of feudal
lords who acts as owner of cold storage, holder of license-quota and permits truck -
transporters for imperialist goods and commodities. It is on the other hand this
imperialism which through the export of finance capital helps these semi-feudal elements
with the loans from the banks. The alliance of feudalism with imperialism is the alliance of
‘Land Ownership’ with the ownership of banking capital. “Semi-feudalism” is thus the alliance
of land-ownership with money lending capital. The whole of the alliance is stronger than the
sum total of the individual parts, specially when our great country is pregnant with two-state-
revolutions-(New Democratic Revolution as well as Socialist Revolution). Actually, the
alliance of feudalism with imperialism serves as the foundation stone of unequal exchange.
INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL SITUATION
THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATAION
The principal contradiction in the world today is that between imperialism and the
oppressed nations. It is this contradiction which provided the basic threat to the ever
depending crisis of world imperialism on the one hand, and of the semi-feudal, semi-colonial
and neo colonial countries on the other. The other basic contradictions in the world are
between imperialist powers between the socialist forces and the imperialists, and between
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the capitalist countries.
Immediately after the Second World War and after the victory of the Chinese revolution,
and especially after the defeat of American imperialism in Korea, US imperialism began its
decline. The international situation was characterized by the solidarity and expansion of the
anti-imperialist forces with a solid socialist camp as their nucleus. The tide of the national
and democratic movement in Asia, Latin America and Africa was on the rise, while the
imperialist camp was splitting into factions. At that time the oppressed peoples of the colonial
and semi-colonial countries were not only objectively but also subjectively the real and
conscious allies of the socialist camp against imperialism. In this situation, the ruling classes
in a number of these semi colonial countries, were forced to proclaim an ‘anti-imperialist’ or
‘non-aligned’ stand as was the case in Egypt and India.
 With the betrayal of the Russian revolution at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956,
this extremely favourable situation suffered a temporary setback. The Soviet betrayal
certainly had a major and negative impact on the international communist movement and
created confusion in the minds of the people struggling for national liberation for a while. As a
result, the contradiction between, imperialism and the oppressed nations came to the
forefront and became more sharp.
Thus, although the presence of a strong and united socialist camp was an undoubtable
advantage to the struggle of the oppressed peoples of the world, it would be incorrect to say
that its absence changes the objective situation basically. The real barriers to the
development and victory of the national liberation struggle in the majority of the third world
countries, has been the lack of unified, mass-based proletarian parties and leadership, and
this has given scope for the Soviet renegades and their revisionist henchmen and neo-
revisionists in the third world to create more confusion and corrupt the ranks of the working
class and toiling masses in their own interest. In fact, revisionism has become an
international phenomenon.
But regardless of this or that socialist country becoming revisionist, and regardless of the
uneven and weak condition of the genuine communist parties in most countries of the world,
the objective situation continues to develop more and more favourably for the oppressed
peoples and nations, while imperialism gets more and more deeply enmeshed in its own
fundamental and irreconcilable contradictions.
As Lenin pointed out: We are ‘in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution”. In
his scientific analysis of imperialism he said that imperialism is monopolistic capitalism,
parasitic of decaying capitalism, moribund capitalism, and that it intensifies all the
contradictions of capitalism to the extreme. He therefore concluded that “Imperialism is the
enemy of the social revolution of the proletariat”.
The basic world contradictions as analysed by Lenin are still operative today and have
been aptly put by Com Chou En-lai in the report to the Tenth Congress of the CPC where he
says, “Since Lenin’s death the world situation has undergone great changes. But the era has
not changed. The fundamental principles of Leninism are not outdated; they remain the
theoretical basis guiding our thinking today”. The report goes on to say that “the present
international situation is one characterized by great disorder on earth. The wind weeping
through the tower heralds a rising storm in the mountains”. This clearly shows that relaxation
is a temporary phenomenon and great disorder will continue. Such great disorder is a good
thing for the people, not a bad thing. It throws the enemies into confusion and causes
division among them, while it arouses and tempers the people thus helping the international
situation develop further in the direction favourable to the people and unfavourable to
imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction.
The basic cause for this ‘great disorder’ and conflict is the fierce struggle for hegemony,
redivision of the world.
Lenin described the essence of imperialism as being “a combination of antagonistic
principles, viz., competition and monopoly”. In the sphere of inter-imperialist relations and
especillay among big powers this is also a basic law driving them into ever more bitter and
fierce contention, even while certain other factors such as the relative balance of economic
and military power between the Indian and America blocs, the fear of nuclear holocaust
and the rising anti-imperialist struggle of the world peoples, force them into collusion for
this very survival. But this collusion is temporary and superficial. Contention is permanent and
basic-being a fundamental law of capitalism itself. Thus the danger of another world war
remains inherent in the situation, although the imperialists have tried to avert this by
adopting the Nixon to Bush doctrine of ‘making Asians fight Asians’ and forcible occupation of
Iraq and turned Iran into neo colony of US has threatened the existence of relative
independency of Semi Colonial is the And now indo American Policy of or division of
world the military agrea agend.
 This fundamental and growing contradiction and contention of the big powers for
hegemony on the one hand, and their increasing exposure as oppressors and exploiters of
the whole world, especially the third world, under the rising struggle for national liberation, on
the other, makes it possible for the ruling classes of the oppressed nations of Africa, Asia
and Latin America to resist coming under the complete control of a single imperialist power,
that is, becoming a neo-colonial puppet. In other words, they are able to retain a semi-
colonial status allowing them a certain ability to manoeuvre and bargain between the
contending imperialist powers. That is, becoming a neo-colonial status allowing them a
certain ability to anoeuvre and bargain between the contending imperialist powers. But
these ruling classes can never take a stand against imperialist as a whole, even though they
may go against one imperialist power in a given situation. They can only exist within the
framework of world imperialism, tilting at most, towards this or that super power, in line with
the particular concessions or support they need at any given time.
WHAT IS A SEMI COLONY?
A semi-colony then is economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically subservient to
world imperialism. “Semi Colony” is a peculiar condition of state existence in the epoch of
imperialism when the world has already been divided up between the imperialist powers. If
imperialism was free from all inter-imperialist conditions and rivalries, its preferred policy
would be direct colonialism. But with interimperialist rivalry, to re-divide the world and extend
the spheres of influence of the contending powers, direct coloniasation becomes more difficult
than before, and imperialism is forced to seek subtler and indirect methods of retaining and
expanding its hold over the semi-colonial countries as well as the world markets, thus
intensifying the contention more and more.
Thus, a country is able to retain its semi-colonial status in the face of inter-imperialist
rivalry on the one hand and people’s struggle for liberation on the other. For the semi-feudal,
semi-colonial ruling classes, this situation enables and also compels them to maintain a
semblance of ‘independence’ and ‘non-alignment’, but which they can wring certain
concessions from the contending imperialist ‘powers’ and also hoodwink their own people into
illusions that they are ‘independent’, thus buying a little more time for their own survival.
That his ‘non-alignment’ in reality only a dual or bi-alignment imperialist big super powers is
today becoming more and more apparent to the oppressed and exploited peoples, who
are rising in revolt against their comprador ruling classes and world imperialism in country
after country.
As Com. Chou En –lai said in his report to the 10th Congress of the CPC, “The
awakening and growth of the third world is a major event in contemporary international
relations. The third world has strengthened its unity in the struggle against hegemonism
and power politics of the super powers and is playing and even more significant role in
international affairs. The great victories won by the people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia
in their war against US aggression and for national salvation have strongly encouraged the
people of the world in their revolutionary struggle against imperialism and colonialism. A
new situation has emerged in the Korean people’s struggle for the independent and
peaceful reunification of their fatherland. The struggles of the Palestinian and other Arab
people’s struggle against colonialism and racial discrimination, and the Latin American
people’s struggle for maintaining 200 nautical mile terriotorial waters or economic zones all
continue to forge ahead. The struggles of the peoples to win and defend national
independence and safeguard state sovereignty and national resources have further
deepened and broadened. The just struggles of the third world as well as of the people of
Europe, North America and Oceania, support and encourage
THE NATIONAL SITUATION: THE BASIC CONTRADICTION
The world is living in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution today. We cannot
analyse any economic or political issue of national or international importance leaving
imperialism aside, especially when India is a semi colonial country. Lenin summarized the
fundamental traits of imperialism among which the following three are important.
 i) The export of capital became extremely important as distinct from export of
commodities;
(ii) International capitalist monopolies were formed and shared the world among
themselves;
(iii) The territorial division of the entire world among the greatest capitalist powers was
completed.
Hence, without fighting the imperialist politics of domination, no successful struggle is
possible in a semi colonial country. Since ML groups in the other hand, while recognizing
India as a semi-colony, arbitrarily separated the anti imperialist struggle from the anti feudal
struggle , thus one-sidedly emphasising the principal contradiction of the phase of agrarian
revolution while totally ignoring and forgetting that the phase is part and parcel of the stage
and that the phase is a tactic for realizing the stratagic aims of both anti-imperialism and anti-
feudalism.
India is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country. This means that there are two basic social
contradictions operating in Indian Society. One is the contradiction between feudalism and
the great masses of the people, and the other is between imperialism, headed by US
imperialism and the Indian nation. Apart from these two basic or fundamental contradictions
there are a number of other contradictions as well.
It is vital to locate and assert the basic contradictions in a society, and to determine the
principal contradiction at a given time. This is because (i) the stage of the revolution is
determined by formulating the basic contradictions correctly. The tactical line is determined by
the phase and to correctly assess the principal contradiction in the current phase. The
basic contradictions of a particular society are the basis of social revolution itself. (ii) Political
contradictions arise and develop with phases and stages and are caused by the basic and
fundamental contradictions, and only a correct analysis and evaluation of the political
contradictions can determine the correct political resolution or policy to be followed.
How do we determine the basic or fundamental contradiction? The contradiction between
the productive forces and the production relations in a given society is the basis of social
revolution. At a certain stage of the development of society the productive forces come into
conflict with the production relations of that society which have become obsolete, incapable
of further life, and thus act as a fetter on the further development of the productive forces. In
such a situation, the objective social law demands that these fetters be broken so that the
productive forces can be unleashed and allowed to grow. In a word, the law of social
development demands a revolution in production relations. Thus follows a period of social
revolution.
In India, semi-feudal, semi-colonial society, the predominant feudal production relations in
the countryside are a basic obstacle in the unleashing of the productive forces, and the fate of
the great masses of the people depends on the liquidation and complete overthrow of this
obsolete and bankrupt production relation. Hence, the contradiction between feudalism and
the masses of the people is one of the basic social contradictions in our society and can only
be resolved by social revolution.
The second basic contradiction in Indian society at this stage is the contradiction between
imperialism and the whole nation. British imperialism refashioned Indian feudalism and made
it its main social base for the ruthless plunder of India’s resources in the colonial period. When
British capitalism reached the stage of finance capital being exported entailing the further
industrialisation of India for British imperial interests, the protection and maintenance of
semi-feudal relations in the countryside became an absolute necessity to ward off the
threat of indigenous capitalist development in India which would have destroyed feudalism
and striven to establish an independent capitalist state, under normal conditions. This
process was no longer possible after the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, and in
the epoch of imperialism, when the colonial bourgeoisies of the oppressed countries, fearing
for their money bags more than for the independence of their countries, went over to the
camp of imperialism.
British imperialism, weakened and in a grave crisis after the second world war was
forced to transfer power to the landlords and comprador capitalists in India, turning it from a
colony into a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, exploited and dominated now no longer by
a single imperialist power, but by a number of contending imperialist powers.
However, the fundamental economic interests of imperialism as a whole, continued to be
served by retaining the basic feudal social relations in the countryside which forms the main
social base of imperialist exploitation and retards the nature, i.e., capitalist development of
productive forces. As a result, Indian capitalism in the interest of country can only develop in
a deformed and distorted way, not relying on the development of a home market which is the
primary factor for genuine capitalist growth but operating on an extremely narrow home
base, oriented almost wholly towards export of the national produce on unequal terms and
throw away prices to serve the interests of imperialism and social imperialism in the main.
Thus, the second contradiction basic to Indian society at this stage is the contradiction
between imperialism and the whole nation.
Unquestionably then, the main task of the social revolution at this stage is to overthrow
the two main enemies of the Indian people: to carry out a democratic revolution against
feudal oppression and a national revolution to overthrow imperialist aggression. These two
basic tasks are interrelated. Unless imperialist rule is terminated, the feudal –landlord class
cannot be overthrown because imperialism is it’s main support. Equally, unless the
peasants are mobilized to overthrow the feudal landlord class it will be impossible to build
powerful revolutionary contingents to overthrow imperialism because feudalism is the main
social base of imperialism and the peasantry is the main force in the Indian revolution.
Therefore, the two fundamental tasks, the national revolution and the democratic revolution,
are at once distinct and united.
THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION
Mao Tse Tung in his ‘On Contradiction’ has pointed out that at ‘every stage in the
development of a process, there is only one principal contradiction which plays the leading
role.
“Hence, if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the
principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a
secondary and subordinate position”.
(2) “When Imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its
various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national wars against
imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country
concerned, becomes the principal contradiction, while all other contradictions among the
various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction between
the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are relegated to a secondary and
subordinate position”.
(3)“But in another situation, the contradiction changes its position. When imperialism
carries on its operation not by war but by milder means-political, economic and cultural ruling
classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism and the two form an alliance for
the joint operation of the masses of the people. At such a time, the masses often resort to
civil war against the alliance of imperialism and feudal classes, while imperialism often
employes indirect method rather than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semi-
feudal, semi colonial countries to oppress the people, thus the internal contradictions
become particularly sharp”.
It is apparent that the first situation (1) refers to history when China was a feudal country
during the period of Opium War, in 1840, Sino-Japanese war of 1894 or XIHOTUAN war of
1900, sector Japanese association when the contradiction between the feudal system and
the great masses of the people was the principal contradiction, and when due to the direct
imperialist war of aggression, China was being reduced to the position of a colony (some
Parts) and semi colony. Here the clause, “and so it is now in the present Sino-Japanese
war” only refers to the changes that have taken place due to the direct imperialist aggression
in the present tense. It has nothing to do with the principal contradiction between feudal
system and the great masses of the people written in the past tense. But Charu Mazumdar
has distorted the whole thing, and quoted it out of the context. This is the anarchism at the
ideological plane. It is further clear by studying the second situation (2) when an alliance
between imperialism and feudalism is formed against the broad masses of the people. It
becomes and remains the principal contradiction under the semi feudal, semi colonial
conditions of economy.
The theory of alliance of imperialism (including compradore bureaucratic capitalism) and
feudalism against the broad masses of Indian People has been accepted by 1951
programme of CPI adopted first by all India party conference in Oct, 1951, endorsed by the
third congress of the party held in Madurai. This programme for the first time accepted
India as a semi feudal, semi colonial society. Again the fourth congress of CPI held in
Palghat from April, 19 to 29, says the same thing.
“The basic conflict (Principal contradiction) in Indian society is the conflict between
imperialism and feudalism on the one hand, and the entire Indian people including national
bourgeoisie on the other hand”.22
It can thus be safely concluded that-
1. The alliance of imperialism with compradore bourgeoisie and feudalism against the
broad masses of people should be accepted as the principal contradiction in the place of the
contradiction between feudalism and broadmasses of the people. This will qualitatively
enlarge the scope of class struggle throughout the country. “This class struggle will include all
the struggles of all the people of all the areas including urban as well as rural areas”.
2. We should emphasise ‘working class peasant alliance’, “under the leadership of
working class’’ as the core of our New Democratic Front. Alliance of the enemies can be
fought effectively only by the alliance of the people as the core of new democratic front. It
means that we have our class enemies both in cities as well as villages. It also means that
we have our class-friends both in cities as well as villages.
REFERENCE
1. Stalin, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course) page
No.105.
2. Mao, Selected Works, I, ‘On Contradiction’
3. Mao, Selected Works, I, ‘On Contradiction’
4. Marx-‘An Introduction to the Criticism of Political Economy’ written in 1859.
5. Marx, ‘Capital’ III page NO.238, Edition 1984.
6.Marx, ‘Capital’ volume I, Page 560
7. ‘Lenin-Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (Introduction)
8 Ranjit Sau-‘Unequal Exchange, Imperialism and Underdevelopment’ page No.142.
9. Lenin-Collected Works, Volume No.22, Page 48.
10. T.Nagi Reddy “India Mortagaged- A Marxist-Leninist Appraisal”, Page No.36.
11. Charn Singh-‘Economic Nightmar of India-Its Cause and Cure’ page No.73.
12. M.V.Dandekar ‘Peasant Working Alliance - its Basic in Indian Economy’ page No.32.
United Nations Studies, Relative Prices of Export and Imports of under developed countries
(1949)
13. V.M. Dandekar-“United Nations Report’-‘International to the Less Developed Countries’
(1961) page 33.
14. Susan George –‘How the Other Half Dies’, page 17.
15. Ranjit Sau-‘Unequal Exchange, Imperialism and Under Development ‘, page 145.
16. FICCI-ASSOCHAM- ‘Locked in duel for Supremacy’, Hindu (Madras Edition) 13 April,
198.
17. Ranjit Sau-‘Unequal Exchange, Imperialism and Under Development’ page 149.
18. Mao-‘The Principal Contradiction and the Principal Aspect of a Contradiction’, 1937.
19. Draft proposal for the second five year plan under the political resolution, 4th Congress
of CPI, Palghat, April 19-29-1956.

6. Draft Document of Comrade Viswam

A DRAFT PATH
1. India is a vast country with a large population comprising of various nationalities, ethnic
groups, languages and cultures. After transfer of power India at present is semi-colonial and
semi-feudal country. And the state represents the bourgeoisie of comprador in nature and the
landlords who protect and serve the interest of imperialism, especially the US imperialist
plunder.
So the stage of Indian revolution is new democratic with agrarian revolution as its main
axis. And the targets of revolution are imperialism, feudalism, comprador and bureaucratic
capitalism. Our aim is seizure of the state power by smashing the present semi colonial and
semi feudal state structure. It means that three most important requirements must be three
fold - a genuine communist party, peoples army and the united front.
2. The present Indian constitution is mainly based on the Govt. of India Act 1935. And its
propositions of legislative bodies and Adult Franchise are nothing but a hoax to deceive
masses.
Some changes that have been made by the ruling classes in the super structure without
affecting the basic structure do not establish that India is an independent country. In fact the
economic and political policies pursued by the ruling classes clearly reflect that colonial India
has been transformed into semi colonial and semi feudal India. A successful completion of
New Democratic Revolution can alone change the present set up.
3. What then is the path of Indian revolution? Undoubtedly, the path of the Indian
revolution, like the path of other revolutions is of armed revolution and armed overthrow of the
political power of existing ruling classes. Here it may be mentioned that armed revolution has
taken place in several countries including Russia and China. Time and again it was discussed
whether we should take the Russian path or Chinese path? We want to state categorically that
the New Democratic Revolution in India shall be completed in the Indian path. However, this
does not mean that we nothing to learn from other revolutions of the world including Russia
and China. We must take lessons from those revolutions. Here again we should stress on the
experience of our own revolutionary struggle in the past and the present.
4. India is a underdeveloped country and there is uneven development of the society and
India has its own specific features. So the development of the movement will also be uneven
and will depend on concrete situation of the area or areas.
The experience of people’s war in China, Vietnam and other backward countries are
within our reach and we should study and apply them to the concrete practice of our
revolution. While applying the theory of people’s war to the concrete conditions of our country.
We have also to sum up the lessons of the struggles waged by the workers, peasants and
other working and toiling masses of India, and more particularly the Telengana and Naxalbari
struggles. The people’s war can be launched only by organising, mobilising the people directly
to participate in the people’s war. However at a certain stage of development of struggle the
possibility of armed uprising of the masses in towns and cities cannot be over ruled.
Unlike China and other colonial or semi colonial countries India has a more centralised
state structure, a parliament, a well organised army, more developed communication system,
and a higher degree of industrialisation and urbanisation. Even these dissimilarities, character
and aims of our revolution and theory of protracted people’s war is equally applicable here.
While formulating our tactics we have to take into consideration both our similarities and
dissimilarities with other countries including China.
The dissimilarities are: China was facing armed revolution with armed counter revolution.
There was no parliament in China which India has. There was no scope of legal movement
and mass movement in China. Communist party was illegal from the very beginning.
Mountains and hilly areas are much there in China in comparison to India.
But there are similarities also. Before liberation China was semi-colonial and semi-feudal
country and basically agrarian based. Target of attack was imperialism, feudalism and
comprador bourgeoisie. Stage of revolution was NDR. All these features are more or less
present in India.
5. We Marxist-Leninist believe that there are favourable and unfavourable aspects of
revolution in every country. The Marxist-Leninist, by determining correct strategy and tactics,
utilise the favourable aspects and overcome the unfavourable aspects. There are backward
areas in the central and border regions of India which are largely untouched by transport and
the communications system. At best communications are mearge and ineffective. Moreover
the people living in these areas are backward, severely exploited and increasingly and
prepared for armed struggle. The oppression of the people and various nationalities by the
state, the topographical conditions and lack of proper transport and communication in these
areas combine to create added advantages for the armed struggle. It is to be remembered
that taking advantage of these conditions the Nagas, the Mizos and other nationalities are
continuing armed struggles and this is also favourable for our revolution.
We should support ongoing nationalities struggles in the north east region and elsewhere
of the country. At the same time the fatricidal killings engineered by the ruling class should be
stopped immediately in their interest to fight their common enemy.
The Indian revolution will be won basically by the Indian people. While the proletariat
leading the revolution always take the advantage of national and international situation. This is
a fundamental in a people’s war.
6. There is a parliamentary system of limited democratic rights provided by the ruling
class irrespective of the subjective desires of the masses of our country. The legal
opportunities available in this system (no matter how limited) are to be utilised in full. Mass
organisation must be built, legal movements must be organised, and masses should be
mobilised in large numbers, organised and made politically conscious for the development of
the spirit of the struggles throughout the time of the legal opportunities available. However
even within the parliamentary system with the limited right, the ruling class is drowning in
blood the people’s agitation. Hence the organisations and struggles built up by us through the
utilisation of legal opportunities shall exceed the limit of legal struggle and advance towards
the path of confrontation and take the form of militant struggles, our tasks will be to advance
towards the path of armed struggle and build up struggle armed as the principal form of
struggle. In this context it should be remembered that while we categorically reject the
parliamentary path, our participation or boycott of elections is tactical question and depends
on concrete conditions.
7. We categorically reject the parliamentary path. At the same time we also reject the path
of anarchism-terrorism, i.e., annihilation of individual class enemy. Because both these two
lines are alien trends to Marxism Leninism. Rejecting both alien trends we should uphold
revolutionary mass line utilise all forms of struggles to seize political power by overthrowing
the present state.
Our experience shows that even the limited rights and opportunities for democratic
movements are being curtailed. Hence legal methods should be combined with illegal
methods and open organisations should be combined with secret. But as long as various
struggles do not make the form armed struggles, legal movements, mass organisations and
mass struggles are helping and serving to build up armed struggle as the principal form of
struggle. And whenever armed struggle becomes the principal form of struggle, the legal
opportunities, mass organisation and mass movements will co-ordinate directly with armed
struggles according to the concrete conditions.
It should be remembered that all militant struggles are not armed struggles. A peasant
struggles in a certain area might take a militant form, but should be termed as armed struggle.
We should also remember that irrespective of our objective wishes a militant struggle in a
small area might be converted into armed peasant struggle. However once struggle begins in
a situation like this we should not obstruct it or condemn it. According to concrete conditions
our task shall be to see it that the struggle survive through further experience. In short the
essential thing at present is to develop mass struggles approach on economic and political
issues we must adopt a positive issue and transform it into the principal form of struggle. We
must a positive approach towards propaganda and preparation for legal work and building up
of mass organisations.
8. Our conception of armed struggle is based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao tse-tung thought.
This only can be protracted peoples war. Building up a people’s army and carrying on
people’s war is inseparably connected with the people’s armed struggle. It has anti-imperialist
and anti-feudal program and is led by the communist party.
9. At present we are in the stage of NDR and agrarian revolution is the main axis.
It is the countryside where the armed struggles is based on the peasantry and can be
linked to be most substantive democratic reform, land reform and with the building of organs
of political power and the largest mass organisations, especially of peasant masses. The task
of agrarian revolution is to eliminate the feudal and semi feudal landlords as a class by
confiscating all the movable and landed property of big landlords, distribution of the same
among the landless and the poor peasants and to overthrow the authority of landlords and to
establish the peoples political power in its place. The caste system being an integral part of
the feudal system, the struggle for the eradication of caste system forms an important and
inseparable part of agrarian revolution. We must oppose casteism and fight in theoretically
and practically.
The feudalism kept the women oppressed. It has degraded women into a dependent who
could neither think nor carry any significance or rights. Imperialism views woman as a
commodity and means of income. The present system - an admixture of these two - is
pushing the women in to abysmal depths. We must fight against feudal imperialist oppression
and patriachal oppression and patriachal ideology.
The must be an agrarian revolutionary program to build an agrarian revolutionary
movement. Though semi-feudal relations are common to all parts of India, the forms and
extent of feudal exploitation, land concentration and land relations differ from state to state
and from one part to the another part of the state. State units must work out their agrarian
revolutionary program taking their specific features into account. Without investigation and a
resultant program, neither is a revolutionary movement nor a people’s armed struggle. Armed
struggle will be started at an appropriate level (seizure of land) of this movement. Moreover
mass armed struggle has nothing to do with the line of individual annihilation which is the
manifestation of anarchism and left adventurism, any underestimation of the agrarian
revolutionary movement will deprive the people of an indispensable support to the armed
struggle and will leave them unprepared to face the onslaught of the state apparatus. Hence
all the theories which underestimate or ignore the role of agrarian revolutionary struggle are
either left adventurist or right opportunist, it should be rejected.
Here it should be mentioned that armed struggle is the highest form of class struggle. To
reach this stage we are to go through all types of classes and sections including the
movement for the democratic and civil rights of people.
10. In the course of anti-feudal struggle, the landlords, the goondas and police resort to
attacks against the peasant movement. Party should prepare the people from the beginning to
resist their counter revolutionary violence will locally available weapons. It should build village
volunteer squads and village defence squads depending on the objective situation and
people’s preparedness. In the course of building the peasants resistance movement of these
kind, the self defence squads can be formed with the militants from the movement where the
conditions so demand. The task of these squads is to organise the people, provide the
leadership to the people’s resistance and defend the people’s movement. They should defend
themselves in every possible form.
The bureaucracy and the police attack the people’s movement in order to destroy it. For
this the state combines the two weapons, the weapon of repression and the weapon of law
and concession to contain and suppress the movement. In the face of this situation, the party
has no alternative other than patiently preparing the people to overcome it. It must adopt the
tactics and methods suitable to the situation such as asking the important cadre of the areas
to work secretly among the people.
11. The task of party is to help the people to gain the consciousness and preparedness
through their direct experience necessary for armed resistance. The peasant revolutionary
movement cannot sustain itself and develop further, unless it is linked with the key problems
of seizure and distribution of landlords land and building of people’s democratic power. In the
context of our revolution, the armed struggle in our country will be peasant armed struggle in
the main. For starting armed struggle party must asses the overall situation in the country,
geographical conditions of the area, mental make up and preparedness of the people to
directly participate in the armed struggle in all its aspects, self sustainability of economy,
strength of the party to lead the struggle and also the isolation of the enemy classes from the
people in the area or areas. This demands an all India perspective, strategic planning and
proper deployment of forces.
12. Establishment of liberated base areas is a difficult task. CRs have been trying to
establish base areas in different areas of our country employing deferent tactics. But they
have not succeeded in doing so. The experience of CRs in Bihar, Bengal, AP and other
places in the last 40 years has show that the peoples revolutionary movement, in the course
of its development, has succeeded in smashing the economical, social and political authority
and power of landlords and establishing peoples power at local level in an embryonic form but
when it came to dealing with the centralised state of the ruling classes, it has not succeeded.
Rather, the state has succeeded in containing and/or inflicting serious damages to the
revolutionary forces. The situation is stagnating at this stage, i.e., neither the peoples to the
revolutionary forces are capable of destroying the state and establish the base areas nor is
the state capable to destroying the peoples revolutionary forces. This experience shows that a
state of duel power, in the sense, rule of people at local level or contest for it and the power of
ruling classes will simultaneously continue for quiet a long time in different areas before the
formation of base areas. This is special feature of Indian revolution.
In such a situation, the CRs are required to adopt suitable tactics to defeat the enemy.
They must prepare the peoples for armed struggle, against the landlords with an aim of
destroying their economic, social and political authority and power and establish the peoples
power at local level. They must build and create conditions for the peoples resistance struggle
for the destruction of the state and the formation of the base areas should be launched when
the nation enters into a revolutionary crisis and other subjective preparedness have been
made for the armed confrontation with the state. If thus tactics of armed struggle are
employed, the state of duel power would change and the formation of base areas would be
possible. We must employ all forms of struggle to reach that stage and isolate the enemy from
the people.
13. The cities of our country have speciality. Hence our work in cities has great
importance. While our cities are the nerve centres of power of the ruling class, a conscious
and organised mass of working class including student, youth, employee, women and other
are also there. They have a great tradition of anti imperialist struggle.
The post 1947 period witnessed massive people’s movement on various people’s issues.
Many of these movements went beyond limits of parliamentary bounds. A movement like all
India railways in 1947 has also crossed the urban boundary and spread to the countryside.
Even the movement led by the Jayaprakash Narayan had an all India dimension. It led to put
an end to the autocratic rule of Congress(I) led by Indira Gandhi.
Earlier in the perspective of Naxalbari Peasant and workers revolt a large number of
urban students, youth, teachers, employees and women had come forward. The experience
shows that the students, youth, teachers, employees and women can play a remarkable and
important role in creating political consciousness amongst the workers and peasant in carrying
the struggle and thereby helping the New Democratic Revolution. Unless there are
movements by all sections of people in cities it is not possible to survive advance the higher
form of struggle in the face of governmental attack and repression. The mutiny of army in
1948, the police mutiny in UP and the countrywide strike by the police and CRP in 70’s and
the Mutiny in the army in 1948 have made the indispensability of urban work more apparent.
Therefore, if we want to advance agrarian revolution, then there is no place for the neglect of
work in the cities. Urban work will act as complementary to the advancement of armed
peasant struggles in the countryside. In other words we should not forget that the cities will
play an important role in the agrarian revolutionary movement in our country.
14. The building up of necessary UF during various phases in the process of development
of the NDR is an important weapon for the victory of the working class. There is a mechanical
conception regarding the building up of UF, namely UF means UF of only with the natural
allies of the working class. The peasantry is one of the principal driving forces in the NDR
under working class leadership and the petty bourgeoisie is also another driving force. The
peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie are thus natural allies of the working class. The problem
of the establishment of UF shall certainly be class based. However, building up of UF signifies
the building up of an front with the bourgeoisie by the working class and its natural allies.
Another matter demands our attention as regard to building up of UF. This happens to be the
fact in a class divided society every political party represents one class or another. Hence
while we build up fronts of workers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie through various mass fronts
we also build up ‘fronts’ with political parties representing various classes. In fact we often
build issue based ‘fronts’ with various political parties. Such issue based organisations should
not be confused with the task of building up United Front of different classes in the stage of
New Democratic Revolution. The issue based platforms of struggles are temporary and limited
in nature and their purpose is only to isolate the main enemy and utilise the different
contradictions in the society. We do not neglect the task of building up these issue based
platforms either as because that would result in the isolation of the working class from other
classes.
In short throughout the period of NDR we are to build up and maintain a united front of
working class, peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie (vacillating ally) led by
the working class and worker-peasant alliance must be the fundamental basis of this UF.
The party must also build an anti-feudal UF in the countryside. It involves party mainly
relying on the landless and poor peasants, winning over the middle peasant, neutralizing and
winning over larger section of rich peasant, letting the small landlords comply with the land
reform to isolate and destroy the class of big landlords and landlordism as a whole.
15. For the revolution is succeed, a revolutionary party of the proletariat armed with
Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought must be built. The communist party is the highest
form of class organisation of the proletariat. It is the advanced detachment of the working
class. It is well disciplined organisation with the scientific understanding of reality, based on
democratic centralism, tested in the practice of concrete struggle, using the method of
criticism and self criticism and closely integrated with the masses of the people.
While maintaining that every legal opportunity should be exploited, the party should
remain basically secret. It is therefore necessary for the party to adopt itself to the principles of
illegal organisation. While taking advantage of legal opportunities, care should be taken to
ensure that the party does not degenerate into legal party. According to concrete situation the
party will decide which of its wings should functions openly or not.
In the present situation in India, there are numerous revolutionary groups and individuals
working in various parts of the country. It is absolutely necessary that thus various groups and
individuals are united on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought. Unity can be
forged only through the process of ideological understanding combined with the revolutionary
class struggle. This means that the ideological struggle should not be degenerate into mere
debate of verbal criticism, slander and personal attack, but should be tested in the practice of
class struggle; on this basis that is of principled ideological struggle, the communist
revolutionaries can be united in to a single party organisation. Such a party armed with the
revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought can alone carry the
revolution through to the end. Therefore it is necessary that efforts should be concentrated
towards building such party.
16. The working class will provide theoretical leadership to the NDR in our country
through a communist party. However, the aspect of the direct leadership by the working class
over the revolutionary activities in our country requires more attention. The working class can
provide leadership to agrarian revolution by launching economic and political struggles. It can
provide such leadership through organisation mass political strikes in support of peasant’s
struggle. It can provide leadership by sending worker cadres to the rural areas to organise
militant peasant struggle. For this investigation and the study are the requisite. It can provide
leadership by sending armed units to the countryside one the peasant struggle has begun.
Besides these, there can be other methods which will emerge out of the experience of the
future struggles and educate us further.
17. The building up of the New Democratic Cultural movement is indispensable in uniting
all the revolutionary classes and strata. This new cultural movement will act as an important
weapon against the atmosphere of degenerate culture created by the present ruling class and
their paid intellectuals with the help and blessings of imperialist culture in order to keep intact
the decadent social system. Hence, we have to strengthen our activities in the cultural front.

7. Approach Paper of the CC, CPI(ML) On

Evaluation of Party History 1967-72
THE MERGER of the erstwhile CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag into a single organisation, the
CPI(ML), at the Vijayawada Unity Conference from January 27th to February 1st 2005 was an
earnest response of the Communist Revolutionary forces to the situation and subjective needs
of our revolutionary movement. The Unity Resolution adopted by the Unity Conference stated,
“The present situation is characterised by a deep crisis in the world capitalist system,
mounting unemployment and curtailment of social security in the developed countries,
frenzied efforts to re-divide the world to suit US imperialism and its allies leading to widening
of the differences among the different imperialist powers increasing stranglehold of imperialist
exploitation and plunder of the developing world leading to a deep economic crisis and
pauperisation of the vast masses of people there, and growing people’s resentment and
protest against this situation”. It further noted that taking advantage of the setback to the world
communist movement, “The US, the remaining super power, unleashed an ideological,
political and military offensive to establish its global hegemony”. “In our country also suffering
of the people has increased many times due to increasing exploitation and oppression by the
Indian ruling classes and their imperialist masters. People are angry and they want change”.
Dealing with the subjective situation, the Unity Resolution said: “There is no strong, viable and
reliable political force to bank upon to lead them to liberation from nightmarish conditions of
the day. There is no Communist Party capable of providing leadership to people’s
movements”. “Communist Revolutionaries are divided and splintered into numerous groups
causing deep frustration among the masses”. “In the moment of trail and tribulation, the unity
of Communist Revolutionaries is a matter of great importance. Keeping this in view, the
CPI(ML) and CPI(ML) Red Flag have decided to merge into a single organisation to further
people’s struggle and unity process.”
Our Unity Conference adopted four documents, namely: (1) Draft Outline of Party
Programme, (2) Party Constitution, (3) Political Resolution and (4) Unity Resolution. The
Outline Programme declared the ideological and programmatic orientation of our organisation
that the “The New Democratic revolution in India is taking place in the era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution, when imperialism headed by US imperialism is striving for world
hegemony. The New Democratic Revolution in India led by the Communist Party, as the
vanguard of the proletariat, is an integral part of the world proletarian socialist revolution. The
historic task of the Communist Party is t give leadership to the Indian proletariat in this
momentous struggle by mobilising all revolutionary classes, sections and masses of people
for it”. “The CPI (ML) upholds Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought, fighting against
revisionism and sectarian positions and left adventurism”. The CPI (ML) is committed to the
task of “uniting the genuine communists in our country and paving the way for the building of
the Communist Party which is capable of leading the New Democratic Revolution in a country
of more than 100 crores of people”. The CPI (ML) “dedicates itself t the great revolutionary
cause of building the Communist Party to lead the masses of Indian people in a protracted
revolutionary struggle to over throw the present system and complete the tasks of the New
Democratic Revolution leading towards socialism and communism”.
The significance of our unity lies in our bold move to unite with differences on four
important questions and to resolve them through discussion in the united organisation. We
acted in a mature and responsible manner by responding to the genuine aspirations and
urges of our ranks and the people, and the needs of the revolutionary movement.
We have taken up the discussion on the evaluation of the party history for 1967-1972 in
the right earnest and seriousness. We have published articles from leading comrades in THE
GUIDE. The documents of our Unity Conference, the writings in The Guide and interactions
make it clear that we have common understanding on the following points on evaluation of
party histroy.
COMMON POINT OF AGREEMENT
1. After Telangana, the Naxalbari uprising and Srikakulam movement provided an
excellent opportunity to break free from the chains of revisionism and neo-revisionism which
dominated the communist movement at that time and to take steps to build a genuine party of
the proletariat guided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought.
2. The formation of AICCCR was a correct step in the direction of bringing the CR forces
inside the communist movement on a common platform.
3. Soon after the formation of AICCCR, the left sectarian trend gained ground which
scuttled the phenomenal growth and expansion the AICCCR as a platform of CRs coming
from different parts of the country.
4. As the left sectarian line gained ground, the democratic process was scuttled and
important sections of the CRs like APCCCR led by com. TN, DV, etc. and sections in West
Bengal under the leadership of comrades Promode Sengupta, Parimal Dasgupta, Asit Sen,
etc. who opposed the left sectarian line, were forced out of it.
5. Manifestations of the left sectarian and anarchist line were as follows:
 a. Adopting the line of individual annihilation against mass line and people’s revolutionary
struggle.
b. Adopting guerrilla warfare as the only form of struggle and rejecting all class/mass
organisations and other forms of struggles, and squads as the only form of organisation.
c. Adopting the concept “Whoever does not dip their hands in the blood of a class enemy
is not a communist”.
d. Adopting the slogan that “China’s Chairman is our Chairman”.
e. Rejecting the Leninist concept of the era being that of imperialism and proletarian
revolution and replacing it with that of a new era of “the total collapse of imperialism and
world-wide victory of socialism”.
f. Adopting the concept of rural based party.
g. Adopting the concept that “the more you study, the more foolish you become”.
h. Pursuit of the erroneous concept of “individual authority’ of com. CM.
i. Adopting the concept of boycott of elections as strategic.
These concepts are alien to Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought.
6. There was a situation favourable for the formation of a genuine communist party based
on Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought by uniting all the CR forces active in the country at that
time and for leading the people’s struggles surging forward in different parts of the country.
7. The CPI(ML) was formed in 1969 in haste, with a sectarian approach and method due
to which valuable and influential sections of the CRs, especially of AP and WB were left out.
Due to this the CPI(ML) could not emerge as the rallying point of all the CRs in the country.
8. The CPI(ML) characterised the stage of revolution as NDR with agrarian revolution as
its axis. This generated great enthusiasm among the struggling people throughout the country.
But very soon, the enthusiasm generated by the formation of the party started waning due to
the erroneous line adopted by the CPI(ML). As a result of this, the anti-imperialist and anti-
feudal struggles could not be advanced in the correct direction.
9. The opposition to the wrong political line grew from within the CPI(ML) and by the end
of 1971 majority members of the CC, CPI(ML), outside and inside the jails, stood against the
dominant left sectarian line in it.
10. The CR forces which were not a part of the CPI(ML) got organised into different
organisations and were opposing the left sectarian line in different parts of the country. They
characterised the stage of revolution as NDR with agrarian revolution as its axis and adopted
the protracted peoples was as the path of revolution and the revolutionary mass line in theory
and practice.
11. As the leadership under com. CM did not rectify its left sectarian mistakes, the
CPI(ML) split into several groups.
12. The left sectarian line of Lin Biao which came to dominate the CPC for a short while
also encouraged the left trend prevailing in the communist revolutionary movement. But when
the CPC representatives pointed out the left sectarian trend of CPI(ML) to the CPI(ML)
delegation which visited China after its 1070 Congress, the leadership of the CPI(ML) led by
com. CM did not take steps for rectification based on these suggestions.
The Communist Movement in our country consisted of the CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML) along
with APCCR and other communist revolutionary groups. Ideological and political struggles
against revisionism, right reformism, right deviation, left sectarianism and terrorism were
carried out on inside the aforesaid organisations in some way or the other. Waging relentless
struggles against these trends alien to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought, our
organisation, CPI(ML) was formed through Unity Conference in 2005 held between CPI(ML)
and CPI(ML) Red Flag. It is neither continuation nor re-organisation of any of the aforesaid
organisations. The formation of our organisation, CPI(ML) is part of the process of unification
of communist revolutionaries comprising of forces coming from CPI(ML), forces who were
never a part of CPI(ML), forces who were part of CPI(ML) but came out of it and formed
separate organisations and the forces who were new.
We commit to stand by our promise to continue struggle against both the left and right
deviations, as these are the twin dangers to Marxism-Leninism.
The All India Plenum held at Vijayawada from June 26-29, 2007 has adopted the above
points as points of agreement as the evaluation of Party History for 1967-72. As decided by
the All India Plenum, the CC has constituted a History Commission with specific terms of
reference to make an objective evaluation of the history of Communist Movement with special
reference to the history of International Communist Movement.
Central Committee
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)