A joint statement was signed on the merger of CPI(ML)–Unity Initiative with COI(ML) on 17^th January 2003. An English version of the statement was published in “Unity Initiative” and a Bengali version in “Lokhitoyshi”. A few discrepancies can be discerned in the two versions. However, keeping in mind the composition of the signatories, we will consider the English version as original for a further discussion.

Regarding the Name of the United Party

The joint statement states, “… we agree to continue the name CPI(ML) – for the present – [in] order to unite ourselves into a single organization.” It is thus clear that the agreement is ‘for the present’. The vital question then is – Why did the leadership of the two organizations agree to the name? Their answer is “Despite committing serious blunders, the CPI(ML) gave the slogan – ‘The path of Telangana and Naxalbari is our path’”, and that is why “we agree to continue the name CPI(ML)”.

According to the joint statement, (a) CPI(ML) committed “serious blunders”, (b) CPI(ML) “vulgarized Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought”, and (c) CPI(ML) “prated in words that the path of Naxalbari is our path, but in practice rejected the lessons of Naxalbari and upheld the left deviation, anarchism and terrorism of Com. Charu Majumdar.”

Lenin had taught us to remember “We should judge the parties not by their words, but by their deeds.”

Reminding the signatories of the joint statement of the above teaching of Lenin, we will like to point out that though, according to their statement, CPI(ML) committed “serious blunders”, “vulgarized Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought”, and “prated in words that the path of Naxalbari is our path, but in practice rejected the lessons of Naxalbari and upheld the left deviation, anarchism and terrorism of Com. Charu Majumdar”, they laid importance on the words, the slogans of the party, and not on its deeds! And based on that they at least ‘for the present’ agreed to ‘continue the name CPI(ML)’.

Why this Self-Contradiction?

Why did the united organization adopt the name CPI(ML), even after severely attacking CPI(ML)? Why could not they introduce themselves as COI(ML), or for that matter as UCCRI(ML)?

Branding CPI(ML) as social terrorist and anarchist, bracketing it in the same category as CPI and CPI(M), calls were given to form a new party opposing revisionism and terrorism, and efforts to implement the calls were also made. But life has rejected them. In fact, while assessing the history of CPI(ML), those who wanted to abandon their own creation and wanted a turbulent stream to carry it away were not obliged by life and reality. On the contrary, they were forced to adopt the same CPI(ML), even though ‘for the present’, and even though late in the day.

The left opportunism – which emerged in the last phase of All India Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR), which took concrete shape after the formation of CPI(ML), the dominance of which in the political front gave rise to authoritarianism in the organizational front – gave rise to serious consequences for the party, the revolution and the people. This is one aspect – an important aspect – but not the entirety of CPI(ML)’s history. But some considered it the only aspect and called for the formation of a separate party. Thanks to Mr. Reality, this call at present has almost died out.

Even after such a disaster, the CPI(ML) again stood on its feet emerging out of the ashes like a Phoenix. Immediately after the Party Congress, the Party initiated its corrective measures against the mistakes on the basis of its own experiences, long before the suggestions of the Chinese leadership. Late Com. S.N. Singh will always be remembered for his role in this direction. While correcting itself, CPI(ML) has carefully safeguarded all the positive aspects of its theory and practice, enriching itself with newer ideas. And in this way CPI(ML), rebuffing those who had rung the death knell of CPI(ML), is adhering to the task of building up of a New Democratic Society. And for this purpose, it has proclaimed the task of formation of a Unitary Communist Party as a task that must be accomplished.

The joint statement declares, “Within years, the CPI(ML) broke up into innumerable splinter groups.” Could anyone prevent this breaking up? Left opportunism in the political front and authoritarianism in the organizational front are intimately connected to the breaking up of CPI(ML). These mistakes could not be unitedly corrected through debates and discussions at the central level. But those who claim to have built up their organizations on the basis of correct political and organizational principles, why do they have to face break up? Why could not UCCRI(ML) avoid breaking up? Why could not COI(ML) either?

Even after the breaking up of CPI(ML) “into innumerable splinter groups”, as mentioned in the joint statement, can this reality be anyway disputed that an overwhelming majority of the Communist Revolutionaries (CRs) in India has remained with CPI(ML)? Even of those who were outside CPI(ML), an overwhelming majority has already associated with CPI(ML), and others are also going to do so. And there is a clear move in this direction.

If there is an earnest desire to unify the CRs of India, if there is an earnest desire to form a United Communist Party of CRs in India, a rational viewpoint towards understanding of the formation of CPI(ML) and its history, and towards Com. Charu Majumdar must be adopted. A negative attitude will not do. We hope that the signatories of the statement will give a thought to it.

The reasons behind the self-contradictions in the signatories of the joint statement, their stress more on words rather than deeds, more on slogans rather than on practice, their two-way trouble can be enumerated as follows. (a) They are not able to go beyond the general line of the party that was formed on 22^nd April, 1969, the line which the then Communist Party of China identified to be correct. (b) Despite tailoring History, they are not able to disregard the inner-party struggle for a correct line against the erroneous trends in CPI(ML) right from its inception to the Party Congress of 1970 and beyond. (c) Though the joint statement evaluates History through statements like “The CPI(ML) prated in words that the path of Naxalbari is our path, but in practice rejected the lessons of Naxalbari”, they are unable to deny the peasants’ uprising in Gopiballavpur in Midnapore District (West Bengal) in December 1969, just about 8 months after the formation of the party. (d) They are not able to ignore the fact that overwhelming majority of the CRs are still with the divided CPI(ML). (e) And above all, the call for the formation of a new Communist Party in opposition to the revisionists CPI, CPI(M) and the terrorist CPI(ML), and the efforts to implement this call, could not gain ground.

Essence of History

Comrade Mao, while discussing “What our outlook should be while studying our historical experiences”, had said, “While judging the party history this time, we should not stress on the tasks and responsibilities of a few individuals. Rather we would stress on the analysis of the circumstances under which these mistakes were committed, of the contents of the mistakes, and of their social, historical and ideological basis.” And if ‘excessive stress is laid on personal responsibilities’, then in the words of Mao, “The extent to which we could have united people in our common activities, we have been unsuccessful in doing that.”

The joint declaration also proclaims, “Com. Charu Majumdar, … had usurped the leadership of AICCCR” and “The entire COC and later the CC elected by the Party Congress succumbed to the anarchist and terrorist line of Com. Charu Majumdar.”

Is it a materialistic interpretation of history? Without deeply analysing how, under what circumstances and why Com. Charu Majumdar came to the leadership of AICCCR, if we just state that he “had usurped the leadership”, we will not get any answer to the intricate question. The same way, saying that “The entire COC and later the CC … succumbed”, firstly does not present history accurately and objectively, and secondly does not answer why they ‘succumbed’.

We know that the ‘Terai Report’ at several places made statements like “Our respected leader, Com. Charu Majumdar”. We also know that when intense struggle was on within our Party against authoritarianism, many leading representatives in the Party Congress chose to keep quiet, and some made audacious statements – “Even if the CC is on one side and Charu Majumdar is on the other, I am with Charu Majumdar.” Some warned those who dared to break Charu Majumdar’s revolutionary authority, and explained how Charu Majumdar’s revolutionary authority was established through four phases. Even in “More about Naxalbari”, Com. Charu Majumdar was stamped as a ‘political opportunist’, his role in the historic Naxalbari Struggle completely rebuffed, but it had to recognize “the unconditional confidence of the Naxalbari cadres on Charu Majumdar”. Why Com. Kanu Sanyal had to assert in the Meeting on 1^st May, 1969 – “It is our respected leader, Com. Charu Majumdar, who directed the building up of Naxalbari, i.e., lead the correct application of Mao Zedong Thought in the particular context of India for the first time”? Why had he to say “In 1965, when our respected leader, Com. Charu Majumdar, revolting against the Sundaraya, Ranadive, Nambudripad, Pramod, Jyoti leadership of the revisionist clique, called upon the revolutionary peasants of the Marxist Party to build up an armed struggle, he had been victim of all sorts of abuses. … Com. Charu Majumdar’s call created sensations throughout India. We the revolutionaries of Darjeeling District were inspired through Com. Charu Majumdar’s analysis …”? (Translated from Deshabrati, 8^th May, 1969 and Jalark, July-September, 1999.)

And later on it is said, as in “More about Naxalbari”, “This political self-seeking group utilized the glorious role of peasant uprising of Naxalbari to identify a single person in the Co-ordination Committee as the creator of Naxalbari.” Then we feel like saying that instead of putting the blame on so-called ‘political self-seekers’, they should objectively assess the roles played by themselves.

Com. Mao had said, “Treat all questions analytically; do not negate anything. The question concerning the line of the central leadership during the period from the fourth Plenary Session to the Tsunyi Meeting [from January, 1931 to January, 1935], for example, should be analysed from two aspects. It should be pointed out on the one hand that the political tactics, the military tactics and the cadres policy which the central leading body adopted during that period were wrong in their main aspects, but on the other hand that on such fundamental issues as opposing Chiang Kai-shek and carrying on the Agrarian Revolution and the struggle of the Red Army there was no dispute between ourselves and the comrades who committed errors. And even the tactical side needs to be analysed. On the land question, for instance, their error consisted in the ultra-Left policy of allotting no land to the landlords and poor lands to the rich peasants, but these comrades were at one with us on confiscating the land of the landlords for distribution among peasants who had little or no land. … Lacking analytical approach, many of our comrades do not want to go deeply into complex matters, to analyse and study them over and over again, but like to draw simple conclusions which are either absolutely affirmative or absolutely negative.” (“Our Study and the Current Situation”, Selected Works of Mao, Vol. III, pp. 164-5.)

We will have to go deeply into complex matters, like assessment of the History of CPI(ML), assessment of Com. Charu Majumdar, will have to analyse and study them and we have to have an analytical approach for that purpose. Drawing simple conclusions on History of CPI(ML), role of Com. Charu Majumdar – either absolutely affirmative or absolutely negative – will not do. Pronouncing “It is our respected leader, Com. Charu Majumdar, who directed the building up of Naxalbari,” at one point of time and “This political self-seeking group” established Charu Majumdar “as the creator of Naxalbari” at another point of time – such absolutely affirmative or absolutely negative conclusions will not solve any of the problems. And if such simple conclusions are drawn, then the extent to which CR forces could be united will not be done, the extent to the people could be united in our common activities will not be done.

In the article entitled “The Collapse of the Second International”, Com. Lenin had stated, “The serious scientific and political question … is this: how was it possible for the most prominent representatives of the Second International to betray socialism?

“This question should not, of course, be considered from the standpoint of the biographies of the individual leaders. Their future biographers will have to analyse the problem from this angle as well, but what interests the socialist movement today is not that, but a study of the historical origins, the conditions, the significance and the strength of the social-chauvinist trend. (1) Where did social-chauvinism spring from? (2) What gave it strength? (3) How must it be combated? Only such an approach to the question can be regarded as serious, the ‘personal’ approach being in practice an evasion, a piece of sophistry.” (Collected Works, Lenin, Vol. 21, pp. 241-242)

Although Lenin had put forward this assessment in the context of the reasons behind the collapse of the Second International, we can apply the same approach in the assessment of the history of CPI(ML). And if we look for the answers within personalities or in the attempts of the political self-seekers, then in the words of Lenin, “the ‘personal’ approach being in practice an evasion, a piece of sophistry.”

(Translated from Bangla original)