In-
dian revolution is socialist and not peo-
ples democratic. )
Ramachandran is also said to have
opposed the participation of the CPI(M)
in the opportunist electoral front with
the Sampurna Maharashtra Samiti, noted
for its regional chauvinist character,
along with reactionary bourgeois parties
like the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim
League.
Issues posed by Ramachandran and
the action taken against him have pro-
voked a major controversy inside the Bon-
bay unit of the CPI(M).
Meanwhile B.T.Ranadive, a leading
theoretician of the CPI(M), has launched
a broadside against the so-called "anti-
arty tendencies" in the party's weekly
eoples Democracy ยป edited by him. In an
article entitled "Behind the Revolution-
ary Phrases, Disorganising Struggle
Against Imperialism" in the latest issue of the journal [July 2], Ranadive, true to his Stalinist past, has invoked the bogey of Trotskyism while replying to the charge made by the dissidents that the Left CPI lacked inner-party democracy.
He says: "The demand for the right to form factions inside the party has international but bad precedents." Here Ranadive quotes what Stalin, of all per~ sons, had said about Trotskyism in his report to the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU(B), in a highly slanderous manner. Stalin has been quoted by Ranadive saying:
"The essence of Trotskyism is lastly a denial of the necessity for iron discipline in the party, recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the party .. According to Trotskyism the CPSUCB) must not be a single united militant party, but a collection of groups and factions, each with its own centre, its own discipline, its own press, and so forth."
Apart from the distortion of Trotsky's views on the Marxist-Leninist concept of democratic centralism governing a proletarian party, the inference is obvious. Ranadive is trying to scare the dissidents (who in West Bengal are considerably influenced by Maoist ideas) away from authentic Marxism-Leninism as enunciated by the Trotskyist Fourth International, by telling them in effect that they are following a Trotskyist line on organisational and political questions by their "disruptive attacks" on the leadership and through their methods of "sticking denunciatory bulletins in public.
He forgets, however, that the dissidents have been driven to the stage of "sticking denunciatory bulletins" mainly as a protest against the bureaucratic practices of the leadership and absence of inner-party democracy inside the party.
The dissidents "many of whom" (even according to Ranadive) "might be upright and honest people" have also relied on Lenin's ideas of democratic centralism. They have cited Lenin's views on the subject:
"The elaboration of a common programme for the party should not, of course, put an end to polemics; it will firmly establish these basic views on the character, the aims and tasks of our movement which must serve as the banner of a fighting party, a party that remains consolidated despite partial differences of opinion among its members on partial questions." (Collected Works, Vol.4, page 231.)
While conceding these views of Lenin, Ranadive seeks to make a subtle distinction between the polemics on the "basic party line" once "firmly established" and the "polemics" on "partial differences on partial questions." In his opinion the dissidents have exceeded the limit laid down by Lenin. In fact he thinks that they have no place in the party since they "reject the Party line from A to Z."
An important difference he has discovered with the dissidents is about their characterisation of the present Indian state. The dissidents describe the state in India as "a neo-colonial state" or a "state of neo-colonial powers" as against the official party definition as "a state of the bourgeoisie and landlords led by the big bourgeoisie who are increasingly collaborating with foreign finance capital in pursuit of the capitalist path of development."
There is no literature available so far to explain the real positions of the dissidents on these basic questions apart from the interpretations doled out by Ranadive, or by the bourgeois press for that matter. The whole controversy raised by the dissidents in the left CPI needs to be discussed more fully. But it would suffice here to mention that Ranadive's criticism of the dissidents is that they are in effect "disorganising the struggle against imperialism" by their insistance on a line of class struggle, which alienates the coalition partners of the Left CPI in the so-called "peoples democratic fronts."
This is a negation of the official strategy of an alliance with the "progressive national bourgeoisie"! Says Ranadive: "To agree to their formulation is to agree to disorganise the struggle against American imperialism, against the surrenderist policy of the Government and help the worst reacticnaries in India."
Ranadive's logic is simple. The main struggle of the Indian masses is against imperialism and feudalism to conmplete the democratic tasks of the Indian revolution. Any struggle against the Indian bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state, which it thinks can pursue "an anti-imperialist position under certain favourable conditions," disrupts the "anti-imperialist, anti-feudalist peoples democratic front" and therefore helps the "worst reactionaries in India."
The dissidents rightly reject this concept as "class collaborationism" and "revisionism." That is the genesis of the present split in the Left CPI although it is still not clear whether the dissidents link the present opportunist policies of the leadership with their basic theory -- essentially a Stalinist and Maoist theory of a four class-bloc in the so-called "peoples democratic front."!
RAMACHANDRAN EXPLAINS HIS EXFULSION
{The following statement was issued by K. Ramachandran, former secretary of the Bombay Committee of the pro-Peking Communist party of India (Marxist), on his expulsion from the party, at a press conference in Bombay, August 7, 1967.
(Ramachandran had been a member of the Communist party of India for more than twelve years. He was an active leader of railway employees. He was dismissed from services in the railways in 1960 in connection with a general strike of the central government employees in India.
[Presently, Ramachandran is the regional secretary of the Confederation of the Central Government Employees Unions and Associations. ]
x ke *
The Maharashtra Committee of the Communist party of India (Marxist) has expelled several members from the party on various charges including inactivity, indiscipline, antiparty activity, collaboration with "revisionist" CPI "sectarianism" and "ultra-leftism." Among those expelled or removed from the party rolls, are about ten members holding positions in the various district and branch committees in the city and at least four from the districts including Satara, Sholapur and Bhir. The Poona district conmittee of the party has been dissolved and a few other district and local committees have been threatened with similar action by the state committee.
These extraordinarily bureaucratic steps taken by the state leadership without recourse to the procedures laid down in the party constitution have come as a shock to many members of the CPI(M) who rallied behind its banner with great hopes when the split in the United CPI took place. It is difficult to explain this strange behaviour of the leadership.
I was secretary of the Bombay Committee of the party for some time and had remained a member of the Bombay Committee till my recent expulsion. I have been expelled on the following charges: (1) that I collaborated with the revisionists of the CPI(R) [Right Communist party of India along with some members of ny party and of the "centrist" group, to discuss united trade-uniion action in the city; (2) that I adopted a "pseudo-left Trotskyist position" in that I opposed the party's programme of including the national bourgeoisie and the rich peasantry, in the so-called People's Democratic Front; (3) that I was opposed to the participation of the CPI(M) in the Sampoorna Maharashtra Samiti, a front created on the eve of the general elections in alliance with reactionary parties and (4) that I did not participate actively in the election campaign on behalf of a particular candidate set up by the party for the state legislature.
Obviously these are highly distorted charges. Some minor lapses here and there have been exaggerated out of proportion to justify the undemocratic action against me. I have already replied to these charges in my oral and written statements made to the appropriate party committees.
All those who know me are aware that I have been an active worker in the trade-union field and as such I have to work with trade unionists belonging to various left political parties. I have no doubt in my mind that I did not violate any party discipline by attending a meeting convened by trade unionists belonging to the CPI(R) and the centrist group to consider joint action, since they also are our class allies, in spite of our political differences with them. In fact it has been a policy of the CPI(M) to seek joint action with all left parties on the trade-union and other mass fronts.
As far as the party's programme of Peoples Democratic Front, it was known that along with several other members I had also opposed the theory of a "fourclass bloc" as defined by the CPI(M) since its very inception. I am one of those who has held the view that the concept of an alliance of the working class with the national bourgeoisie (the so-called antimonopoly bourgeoisie) and the rich peasantry is erroneous and that the capitalist class in India cannot be considered as progressive in any sense of the tern. I have also held the view that the democratic tasks of the Indian revolution, of liquidating the vestiges of imperialism and feudalism in the country, can be accomplished only as a part of the socialist revolution led by the working class. The national bourgeoisie, which is basically subservient to the needs of imperialism, cannot accomplish these tasks. In fact it is clear now that there is no fundamental difference between the concept of a "National Democratic Front" as advocated by the CPI(R) and the "Peoples Democratic Front" of the CPI(M) except on the question of the leadership of such a front. Both positions lead to a policy of collaboration with the national bourgeoisie.
Along with some other members I had raised this issue at the first Bombay conference of the CPI(M) and later at the state conference held in Talaseri by moving specific amendments to the programme of the party. Although we were defeated,
we agreed to remain as loyal members of the party in the belief that we shall have freedom to advocate our views within the party. It appears that the party leadership now wants to penalise me for holding a viewpoint which is different from that of the leadership which I consider utterly suicidal. This only proves the charge that the leadership does not want to permit any individual member or a tendency within the party that does not conform blindly to the line laid down by the leadership. This is a total negation of the Leninist principles of democratic centralism that should govern the functioning of every working-class party.
I have now come to the conclusion that the opportunist policies of the leaders of the CPI(M) in different states to enter into multiclass coalitions with the capitalist parties basically emerges from such a programme, of building what is considered as a "Peoples Democracy" in India. The CPI(R) also follows a similar course of action. Unless this line is changed, I believe that the CPI(M) will be discredited in the eyes of the masses as defender of capitalist property relations and rejected as a revolutionary leadership of the workers and peasants. The ministers belonging to the CPI(M) in Kerala and West Bengal, the recent experiences have proved, only help the capitalist class in suppressing the mass movements instead of leading then.
Judging from my own experience I can well understand the circumstances in which the so-called extremists have been expelled by the party leadership in West Bengal, Kerala and other states. I was one of those communist workers who actively participated in the democratic movement for the creation of a linguistic state of Maharashtra. As members of the United CPI we functioned as constituents of the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, despite its grave political limitations. We thought it was permissible for us to remain in such a multiclass united front although it was clear that the leadership of the United CPI committed the serious error of subordinating its role as a working-class party to the needs of a multiclass united front instead of developing independent class struggles of workers and peasants. This policy has only strengthened the capitalist Congress and regional chauvinist forces in Maharashtra.
The creation of the so-called Sampoorna Maharashtra Samiti on the eve of the general elections, in my opinion, was an utterly opportunist move by the traditional left parties to revive linguistic chauvinism to gain petty electoral advantages. There were many members like me in the CPI(M) who were opposed to the participation of the party in the proposed electoral front with reactionary parties like the Hindu Mahasabha, Muslim League, etc. In fact the Bombay Committee had unanimously adopted a resolution, rejecting the move to join the Sampoorna arashtra Samiti. But this resolution was later set aside by a decision of the Maharashtra Committee of the party.
Experience has shown that as a result of its opportunist electoral alliance the CPI(M) has lost its prestige as a Marxist-Leninist party of the working class. Today it has become a tail of other so-called left and even the regional chauvinist parties in Maharashtra. Its role during the recent Bombay Bandh move showed that it has completely abdicated its role as an independent party of the working class.
In spite of my differences with the electoral tactics adopted by the CPI(M), I, along with friends who thought like me, carried out all the instructions of the party during the elections. Therefore the charge levelled against me by the leadership in this connection is utterly frivolous and baseless. Indeed several members who were once active have lapsed into inactivity, disgusted as they are, with the opportunist policies of the leadership and its bureaucratic organisational methods. There is a sense of political apathy growing among them as a result of their frustration. The working-class movement will lose many devoted cadres if this danger is not combatted by providing them with a genuine Marxist-Leninist alternative in place of the present opportunist politics of the CPI(M) leadership.
Much has been made of the fact that I did not appeal to the higher committees of the party against my expulsion. My experience is that the higher committees invariably endorse the decisions taken by the bureaucrats at the lower level. I thought I would only be wasting my time appealing to higher bodies. I had an occasion to bring all these developments to the notice of the General Secretary of the CPI(M), Comrade Sundarayya in person. Although he agreed with my criticism of the local leaders he admonished me for not obeying the "senior leaders" of the party.
I was indeed shocked by this attitude of the topmost executive of the party. I do not think that a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party can be built on the basis of paternalism, of junior members obeying senior members because of their age or seniority in the party. It is precisely this paternalist attitude of the leadership in the absence of inner-party democracy that has led to the emergence of a bureaucracy in the party.
I believe that India has entered a prerevolutionary situation with a major crisis having overtaken the economy. The present crisis is the outcome of the policies pursued by the capitalist Congress to
puild capitalism masquerading it as socialism. It is obvious that this crisis cannot be resolved by the leaders of the capitalist parties within the present capitalist framework.
A revolutionary transformation of the existing property relations alone can unleash the present stagnant productive forces in the country and meet the challenge of the crisis. Nor are the socalled Non-Congress Governments, even those led by the left parties as in Kerala and West Bengal, an answer to the crisis.
The traditional left parties including the CPI(M) by their policy of coalitions with the reactionary capitalist parties like the Muslim League, Bangla Congress, etc., are in fact helping the bourgeois rulers to buy unpopular discontent. They create illusions among the masses that their problems (of food, shelter, security, etc.) can be solved within the present capitalist framework. Te CPI(R) along with the PSP [Praja Socialist party] and SSP [Samyukta Socialist party] has gone to the extent of coalescing with the reactionary capitalist parties like the Jan Sangh and Swatantra party. They are not even prepared vo utilize their positions in the various state governments to implement bold anticapitalist and antilandlord measures, backed up by mass movements outside. In West Bengal the CPI(M), along with other "left" parties is actually helping the United Front government to suppress a heroic peasant movement of Naxalbari by the armed might of the capitalist state.
A time has come when the honest militants within the CPI(M) have to seriously think about combatting the opportunistic politics of the leadership. They should assert to prevent the dangerous drift of the party. I fear that the leadership instead of permitting the ranks to freely reassess their present political tasks might resort to a bureaucratic suppression of all inner party discussions. There is need to create a new revolutionary leadership to fill the present vacuum in the workers and peasant movement, with honest militants within the CPI(M) collaborating with like-minded people outside.
Members of the CPI(M) rightly pose the problem of their loyalty to the party which they have built up. But they must not forget that their loyalty to the movement is greater especially now when the leadership of the CPI(M) is betraying the working class.
On our part, those who have been expelled from the CPI(M) shall try to regroup ourselves on the basis of a correct Marxist-Leninist programme of a socialist revaluation in India. We shall seek the cooperation of all parties, groups and individuals who are prepared to cooperate with us in the realisation of this objective. We have no need to despair. History is with us. The opportunist policies of the leadership trying to persecute us stand exposed.
A NEW