KREMLIN. SEEKING TO UNITE COMMUNISTS IN INDIAS
By Kailas Chandra
Bombay ; There Rave been. persistent reports in the Indian press about the possibility of. a rapprochement bétween the pro-Moscow right-wing Communist party. of India and the pro-Peking left-wing Communist party. of India. The initiative in this, it is claimed, was taken by Suslov.,. one. of. the secretaries of the Communist. party of the Soviet Union..Suslov is alleged to have held a series of meetings with P. Sundarayye., general secretary of the left CPI, who is convalescing in Moscow after an abdominal operation there. Sundarayya, one of those arrested and detained under the Defence of India Rules was ‘released by the Indian authorities on medical grounds and given special permission to go to Moscow last year.
The Times of India reported from New Delhi on February 5:
"While the prospects of a merger of the two split communist groups in India are considered remote by both factions, a serious attempt is being made to secure a measure of understending to enable them to forge a joint front in the general election in 1967 as _well as to make common cause. with other left parties for agitational purposes. :
"It is now fairly well known that ‘the Soviet top communist theoretician, Mr. Suslov, has been urging the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party (Marxist) to get together.
"The proposal was made to Mr.S.A.Dange when he visited Russia seon after the outbreak of the Indo-Pakistani conflict and to Mr. P. Sundarayya, who is in Moscow and is expected to return to India about the middle of this month.
"Even Mr. Suslov does not appear to have suggested a reunification of the two factions of communists in India and is further believed to have pleaded with the left communist leader not to make things embarrassing to the chairman of the CPI.
"The Russian. leader was presumably encouraged to moot the idea of. the two factions getting together by a change in the dogmatic -pro-Peking attitude of Mr. Sundarayya, particularly as a result of the India-Pakistan conflict in which China not only actively sided with Pakistan but also made every effort to fan the flames.
"The animus between the two factions seems to persist if the correspondence between Mr. Sundarayya and a colleague of his, said to have been deliberately leaked out, reflects the present thinking of the left Communists.
Although it has been officially denied in both Moscow and India that Suslov and Sundarayya held formal meetings, Rajeshwar Rao, generel secretary of the right CPI, speaking in New Delhi February © at a function to mark the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the Communist party of India, formally "invited" the left CPI to join it in mass movements without raising "fissiparous ideological and political debates."
Rajeshwar Rao, who, like Sundarayya, is from Andhra, made it clear that his party is not thinking of merger now. He said that it. has been his experience that the "communist movement closed ranks whenever it took up mass action." This was a reference to the agitation conducted by the two CPI's jointly with other left parties in India on food and other questions in different states, including Kerala. He. is supposed to have said that "such unity in action" would be in accordance with the decision taken at the Bombay congress of the right CPI. .
Referring to newspaper reports about a Moscow directive, he said he was not aware of any "order" from the Soviet Communist leader, Suslov, to the "two Indian parties to come together." However, he referred to a letter allegedly written by Sundarayya from Moscow to his party members but said it was for Sundarayya to explain whether or not it was authentic. What is purported to be the full text of this letter from Sundarayya was published in the February 5 issue of Current ,. an anti-Communist Bombay weekly.
Rajeshwar Rao made some significant remarks about the relationship of the right CPI with Communist parties in other countries. He said that the international Communist movement had "passed the stage when it put its faith in any one individual or any single party." He added: "Nobody in the international movement after the death of Stalin has been able to do such a thing as ordering us.' This is the first time a CPI leader has publicly admitted that in Stalin's time the CPI took "orders" from Moscow.
Rao admitted that it was a matter of regret that the Communist movement is split in India like the international movement. He
213-
said: "If. both. the parties in India work unitedly other leftist par- ‘ties would also‘come-into the movement: then we can actually change “the events ‘and.mould them. Bitternéss between the two parties will ~.also be“overcome. -Comrades must’ think more in terms of going to the péople and:working among them in terms of debates. ‘Then we can unite the communist movement and united progressive force, and show a path to our country." (Eree Press Journal, February Ve )
Evidently Rajeshwar ‘Rao is “not: ‘prepared for "ea debate" on. the differences'‘that separate thé two :CP's:in India nor is he prepared.:to discuss the issués that Have brought about a split in the international Communist movement. He wants "unity in action without debates." Debates can be embarrassing to the right CPI. Rao has in view the coming general elections in India in: 1967. He really is more worried about winning a few seats for the party in the Indian parliament and state. legislatures than about building up a powerful mass movement to oust the present bourgeois Tegime~
The two CPI's have some things in common. ‘They reject the
perspective of a socialist revolution in India, both of them main- ‘taining that the immediate stage facing the Indian revolution is bourgeois-—democratic-in character. Both of them advocate a "fourclass” ‘bil6e" with the national bourgeoisie. :
Among ‘the differences, the right CPI stands for the creation of a "National Democratic Front" in which leadership would be handed to?the national“bourgeoisié, while the left CPI stands for setting up a "People' s Democratic Front," including the national bour- : geoisie but with leadership held by the proletariat. In addition, the: left CPI holds open ‘the "possibility" of the.proletarian leadership: of-thé "People's: Democratic Front" carrying. forward an "“antiimperialist. and’ antifeudal revolution" uninterruptedly to the next stage of a socialist: revolution. In actual practice the left CPI stands for the workers and poor peasants conducting a militant struggle against the Congress government. That is why it has been subjectéd'to severe repression by the Congress.government since 1962 when thé border conflict between India and China erupted. §-
Within both groups various tendencies are opposed to an opportunistic: unity move. But centrist elements on both sides are “much in favor of a merger of some kind. Bupesh Gupta in the right ‘CPI and Namboodiripad ain the left CPI are among these. They con- ceive of: a process of "elimination of. undesirables" in both groups.
Recent reports have also appeared in the bourgeois press that _ some leaders of the left CPI in jail, including B.I.Ranadive, have been disillusioned with the so-called "Chinese strategy of world revolution" and have become critical: of the Chinese leadership, : especially after: the debacle suffered by the: powerful pro-Chinese Indonesian Communist party.
The right CPI headquarters. in Delhi has admitted that the central committee of the CPSU sent a message wishing every success to the CPI "in achieving unity ‘of its ranks." A letter from the. CPSU
on this topic was, in fact read at the meeting held at New Delhi on February 6. Similar interest in achieving unity between the two CP's: in India is believed to have been taken by the Communist parties: of - Czechoslovakia, East. Germany and Rumania. The Rumanian party is’ supposed to be inclined toward taking a neutral stand in the Sino-Soviet conflict. : be,
On February 6 Pravda officially denied the report in Indian newspapers that Suslov had met with Sundarayya. The report was termed a "concoction" and one which "does not accord with reality." It may be noted, however, that the report first appeared in Janashakti, a Telugu daily newspaper published by the left CPI in Andhra. .—. Janashakti later repudiated the report as did the Eeopie. s Democracy , the party's English-language weekly. :
Sunderayya's letter from Moscow is said to have been cireu- « lated as early as January 11 by the Punjab leader of the left CPI: Harkishan Singh Surjeet. The following extracts are taken from the version published by Current:. be
"The stay in Moscow has been ‘useful in another respect. During the last few days, Suslov of the CPSU leadership visited me onthree occasions and had fairly long talks with me. He expressed oe, concern for my health and soon we were having thorough organsational and ideotogical discussions.
"He seemed. to be interested in improving ‘the relations between the CPSU and ‘ourselves.
"Such an attempt is “not without value to us in providing an. opportunity to neutralise or in any case reduce the support of the. CPSU to the Dange clique without giving in at.all on our positions on national or international issues, and, . I. feel that I have definitively gained in this. sobjectives
"Phe substance of these discussions ‘should be discussed by. the Politbureau and I am, therefore, summarising it-here to the extent possible.
"T want again to point out-that our talks were held at.the initiative of Com. Suslov, who: appeared keen to have an exchange of views. I welcomed the same by telling. him that I hoped that a clear: understanding of our position by the CPSU would contribute to a. greater harmony within the world Communist Movement , which you will no doubt . ‘agree is. now: sadly lacking.
"During our talks I clearly enunciated our ideological | stand and did not yield:on any issue. of ideology or tactics..So far the... discussion has centred around ‘the split in the CPI as Suslov, has avoided any discussion on international issues....
' “Suslov was thus very:keen for the. reunification of the Communist Movement in India-and gave me the impression that.the Dangeites make necessary'changes, expulsions and concessions to -facili-.
tate this, though itis clear that the CPSU had no intention of denouncing the Dangeites at any stage as they believe this to be tactically: inferior and | din ‘the. long. tun UNNECESSATY «9 ¢
“'Suslov assured me ‘that the -Cpsu had rather strongly’ asked. . the Dange group to desist from slanders against the CPI and that he > had. personally advised..Dange to.doithe-needful to forge a Left United -Front. with’ the: CPI. and: other progressive | parties for: the:, 14967 elections.... obs 2) ugusiov. suggested ‘that. ‘the most vulnerable: “aspect. of. ‘the Congress. regime was its inability to féed the people. ‘and this’ offered ~ a very valuable opportunity for joint action’on the agricultural front.
a "Joint: ‘campaigns. with | other’ ‘progressive | parties. must, be pre-_ pared. against . food shortages - and to expose among. the’ peasantry the . “Bogus ‘schemes’ of food procurement hatched by the Government.
The dependerice on American food could. 4 ‘Sa. be ‘utilised tos. show the close working relationship between. the’ Shastri regime, the .. comprador bourgéoisie of India and the imperialists. oS
"This is in summary the substance of my discussion with Con. Suslov so far. I shall write again if any other such discussions are held. I have a clear impression from thése ‘talks that the leaders.of the CPSU are shedding their illusions about the strength and poten- tial.of the Dange clique, and are willing to, Becept the viewpoint of the CPI” on. important national issues." ; eon a a es
Although the existence of the letter has not been. ” alert Bar By the left CPI, it cannot be ruled out that it is a CI£ forgery. The CIA propagandists would naturally like to frighten New Delhi with planted stories about "Soviet designs" | with regard to building up an antigovernment "popular" movement in-India’on the food question.
~ “But if Sundarayya's letter is authentic, it only indicates that the Kremlin bosses are. _trying to win over the left CPI ‘by agreeing to. ‘sacrifice Dange © and his discredited associates in-the right’ CPi. But, as Rajeshwar Rao has pointed out; Moscow can no longer “order": “the: CPI: to. bring about a ‘sudden: ‘change in line to suit the diplomatic needs of the Soviet Union. In this: case ‘in particular, the right CPI is too much committed to a line of class collaboration with the national bourgeoisie and’ ‘opportunistic parliamentarism to embark on a line of militant class struggle. The left. CPI has not yet formally responded to the una ty overtures of the right CPI.