Revolutionary peasant movement in the plain areas of Rohtas District (Bihar), while passing through different stages of development, is steadily advancing under the leadership of CPI(ML)-New Democracy. Anti-feudal aspirations and militancy of the landless peasants and other toiling masses in the villages are gaining expression through our movement. At the same time murderous attacks of feudal landlords on our mass movements are intensifying. Several of our party activists and brave peasants have sacrificed their lives in these bloody struggles for land. Our struggles have drawn a clear line of class demarcation between landlords on one side and landless peasants and other toiling masses on the other in a number of villages of this district. In addition to the reactionary ruling classes and the rural tyrannical landlords, who are the principal enemies of the masses and our party, revisionism and anarchist actions too are emerging as a danger to our revolutionary peasant movement.

Our Party has, right from the beginning, been struggling against revisionism and anarchism. In keeping with this historic tradition, we have been educating and raising the level of consciousness of the toiling masses against the danger of these but have adopted a policy of refraining from confrontation with them. We hold that revisionism and anarchism are harmful to revolutionary agrarian struggle and they try to divert the masses from the path of revolutionary struggles. These wrong trends can be isolated from the masses only through ideological and political education and raising of the level of consciousness of the people against these trends. However, the revisionists and those indulging in anarchist activities have intensified their anti-people activities against us day by day. In many places they are joining hands with class enemies to disrupt our anti-feudal land struggles. Their basic aim is to ruin our struggle.

The Telangana and Naxalbari armed peasant struggles in India had exposed the revisionist CPI and the neo-revisionist CPM. Particularly, the wave of anti-feudal agrarian revolution generated by the Naxalbari armed peasant struggle is still continuing. This wave of Naxalbari drew in 1967 a clear line of demarcation between the Communist Revolutionaries (CRs) and the neo-revisionist CPM. The continuation and further development of this wave has now removed the Deng-revisionist Liberation from the arena of revolutionary peasant struggle.

Like CPI and CPM, the Deng-revisionist Liberation has also got entangled in the political mesh of ruling class. Dreaming of forming a government in Bihar similar to those in Kerala and Bengal, Liberation has deserted the path of anti-feudal revolutionary struggles, based on the basic issues of the landless poor and other toiling masses. It has joined hands with other ruling class parties in the game of bringing down the Rabri Devi Govt. Apart from Kerala, Bengal and Tripura, where CPI and CPM have become the main ruling class parties, in the rest of India the ruling class has defined their limits. Similarly in Bihar, Liberation too is not able to cross the limits drawn by the ruling classes. At the same time, however, the ruling classes are still projecting Liberation as a Naxalite party, as a part of their game plan. Bur the struggling masses of Bihar are well understanding this propaganda of the ruling classes and are forsaking this pseudo-Naxalite Liberation. In this way, the degenerating Liberation, in order to save its existence, is implementing its electoral strategy and is organising the local exploiters along with the middle class in different areas of Bihar. At the same time, it wants to maintain a base among the most backward and passive sections of the landless and the poor, just as ruling class parties do.

In particular, Liberation has become the leader of the landlord forces and local exploiters opposing the anti-feudal land struggles going on under our leadership. Liberation openly supported the murderous attack on 3^rd March, 2003 by the notorious mafia don and MLA, Sunil Panday on our party supporters among landless peasants of Bhuian caste of Gobardhanpur village in Akodigola. Three members of one family were injured in this feudal attack. Leaders of Liberation gave false press statements on this issue and demanded of the police that they acquit the guilty feudals. Though the local police were more than ready to oblige them, but the people’s fury against the incident stopped them. Struggles between the rural feudal landlords and the landless of the area were going on due to land disputes. Armed gangs of the rural and local landlords had attacked the landless in order to push back their struggles and terrorise them. Liberation here openly sided with the feudal landlords and against the landless. Earlier too, Liberation had attacked the landless along with the local landlords in the land struggles in the villages of Jogipur, Kheri, Badihan, Nuaon, Riwan, Masihabad, Bahoranpur etc. It is openly joining hands with the newly formed Panchsheel Sena and local tyrant forces and evil elites in order to suppress the ongoing land struggles of the landless and to eliminate our party’s activists.

On several occasions in different places, Liberation has allied with other ruling class parties and tried to defame our movements and helped to intensify state repression on them. It sang in tune with the ruling class parties in the context of the Bahoranpur incident of 30^th November, 2001. Liberation supported the allegations labelled against our party by ruling class parties after the incidents of Chilbili and Jogipur on 7^th December, 2002. In the Chilbili incident, Liberation joined the supporters of RJD in attacking the red-card holding landless of Riwan and Parhuti. Liberation is doing all these with the intention of strengthening its electoral base. That is why it is going ahead of the ruling class parties to show its sincerity towards landlords and local tyrants. Just as CPM unleashed brutal repression on CRs after the Naxalbari armed peasant struggle to prove that only it can stop the Naxalite movement, so is Liberation trying to become the party serving the ruling classes in rural areas. Liberation is trying out this formula of CPM, the difference being that CPM was then a partner in the ruling clique, but here Liberation is not in state power. None the less, it is utilising its MLAs against us. Some time back, its MLA from Karakat had organised some mass meetings against us, but the local people did not participate in them. It also organised a mass demonstration against our party in Dehri Division. What was the meaning of holding a demonstration against us at Dehri? Apart from that, the demonstration was laughable, as hardly any ‘masses’ were present and the participation was by local landlords and anti-socials.

Revisionists are class betrayers, who destroy the essence of revolutionary struggles, instead of leading them to a successful revolution. Against the ideological position of the establishment of a classless and stateless society, Revisionism becomes a new element keeping alive and perpetuating the ruling classes and their repressive state. CPM’s rule in West Bengal and Liberation’s influence in Bihar can be seen in this manner. In West Bengal CPM has become quite notorious for suppressing Naxalite movement in the state; and in Bihar, Liberation is joining hands with the mafia and the feudal forces in order to crush land struggles of the landless. Hence, for the CRs and the revolutionary people to have any expectation from the Revisionists is not in the interests of the revolutionary movement. Revisionists are the new political spokespersons of the ruling classes as can be seen from the overall role of Liberation in our struggles.

In order to fool the revolutionary toiling masses, Liberation still holds up the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. It is still projecting itself among the masses as a Naxalite organisation. In the process they are claiming themselves to be the sole organisational heirs to Com. Charu Mazumder’s legacy. It is also trying to misguide the people on the question of elections. In many places, the question is being asked – What is the difference between Liberation and New Democracy, when both of them participate in elections? The question is also being raised that both the organisations take part in open activities. It is necessary to explain these issues to the common masses.

As pointed out in the Path Document of our Party, elections are a strategic question for ruling class and revisionist parties, because various sections of the ruling class assume power from one another through the process of elections. But CRs, on the basis of the concrete situation that masses are not in armed rebellion against the bourgeois state, see election as a form of struggle, just like other forms of struggle, and can use it in favour of our mass movements. Our aim is not government formation at any level, nor making alliance with ruling class or revisionist parties to attain state power. This is not at all the line of Liberation. Its aim is to form government in Bihar. For this purpose it even makes alliances and understandings with ruling class parties. Ideologically it has accepted bourgeois parliamentary strategy, rejecting armed struggle. Trying to or claiming to form government in the current bourgeois system is not part of tactics from any angle. Tactical line is guided and decided by strategy. Tactical line is prepared on the basis of the concrete analysis of the concrete situation for the success of strategy. Strategy is drawn with a long term and clear goal in mind. Tactics is decided in accordance with the current situation, for the success of strategy. Tactics can be continually altered according to the demands of the situation, but strategy is not usually altered. That is why our Party has implemented the line of using elections as one of the forms of struggle for advancing our strategic goal. We should keep in mind that of the two things – content and form, content is always primary. Various forms can be utilised keeping in mind the content. There is basic difference between our participation in elections and Liberation’s fighting elections. While our aim is to advance revolutionary agrarian struggle, Liberation’s goal is to form a government in the existing system.

Liberation’s agrarian revolution is now limited to land reforms. Earlier it has been raising the demand for nationalisation of land, but all this is not possible without Liberation coming to power. As in the case of the CPM Govt. in West Bengal, some minimal land reforms can be achieved after forming government. But nationalisation of land will not be possible even after Liberation coming to power in the state, because the semi-feudal land relations cannot be abolished within the existing system. This is possible through armed agrarian revolution. At the same time a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country like India transforming into an independent capitalist country in the era of imperialism can only be a figment of the imagination. Hence through agrarian revolution only can the semi-feudal land relations be abolished. Actually, while backtracking from the basic slogan and goal of “land to the tillers”, Liberation evolved many erroneous formulae which have been proved futile.

Imitating the Deng-revisionists in China, holding up the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought along with that of Naxalbari, Liberation is trying to make a place for itself within the existing semi-feudal, semi-colonial system. It is utilizing the name of the first General Secretary of the party, Com. Charu Mazumder, to hide its own revisionist line, while sidelining the role of Com. Charu Mazumder in the ideological and political struggle against neo-revisionism. This is a crude mockery of Com. Charu Mazumder and his revolutionary legacy. The ideological and political importance of Naxalbari movement lies in the ideological struggle against revisionism and neo-revisionism, otherwise there had been several movements bigger than that of Naxalbari.

Participation by our Party in some open activities or movements and the establishment of Liberation as an open and parliamentary party are in no way comparable. Neither the open activity of a section of the party nor participation in movements in the name of the party is against the Leninist principles of party organization. The attitude of revisionists and ultra-lefts on this issue are opposite to one another. While the revisionists want to form an open and parliamentary party, the ultra-lefts want to form only a secret party. We had always been stressing the formation of a party organization in line with the Leninist principles which would be suitable to utilize all forms of struggle – open and secret, legal and illegal, parliamentary and non-parliamentary, contrary to the understandings and ideas of revisionists and ultra-lefts. We have also achieved some success in this direction. We have made some progress on this issue. We have advanced to some extent in the areas of struggle and party work in Rohtas. That is why our organization is a target of the revisionists and those indulging in anarchist actions.

We have been waging ideological and political struggles against the revisionists for a long time in the plain areas of Rohtas. The landless and other toiling masses have rejected the revisionists in the areas of our struggle. Our struggle against the revisionists is still continuing. Under such circumstances, we have started facing challenges from anarchist actions too in some areas of Rohtas. Those indulging in anarchist actions take the ideological basis of Marxism-Leninism. They have rechristened Mao Zedong Thought as Maoism. Our party recognizes the universality of Mao Zedong Thought and considers it a sequential and historical advancement of Marxism-Leninism. However, during the life time of the great teacher Mao Zedong itself, the Communist Party of China (CPC) formulated the contributions of Mao as Mao Zedong Thought.

The most prominent flag-bearer of this so-called Maoism in India is the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). Coming out of the forest and hilly areas of Bihar and Jharkhand, MCC is keen to spread its anarchist activities in the plain lands of Shahabad area. Actually MCC is not following teachings of great teacher Com. Mao Zedong. Its intention is to distribute the entire area through its armed squads doing anarchist acts to establish a business of tax extraction, just as the bourgeois government establishes repressive police machinery and police stations for extraction of tax. In its drive to expand its area of influence, MCC targets the anarchist, rebellious and anti-social elements of an area and takes them under its armed influence. Once an armed squad is built up this way, MCC uses this squad to try to make a mass base to make a place for stay and hiding. It does not face much difficulties in doing this work, because apart from the basic contradictions, there are some other contradictions, such personal contradictions, caste contradictions etc., which help them. Actually MCC does not have much to do with the basic contradictions, it is advancing through the utilization of other contradictions. Utilizing the contradictions among Dalits in the Jaipur Village of Sasaram Block, it looted the police picket of Madanpur on the night of 2^nd May, 1999 basing itself in the houses of one section. This loot of rifles helped it to acquire a few rifles. Subsequent to this loot, when police repression on the innocent landless and poor peasants of dozens of villages was unleashed, MCC was nowhere to be seen. Continually for around two months, dozens of innocent people of different villages including Jaipur became targets of police repression. None of them were members of MCC. The innocent landless, after facing police repression and getting released on bail after spending more than two years in jail, are still plagued by police terror. It is to be noted here that the act of looting of the police picket by MCC had nothing to do with the people’s issues and movements. As a result, the people took exception to the police repression and unnecessarily going to jail. The ongoing people’s movements under our leadership in the area sustained the maximum loss, by this action of the MCC. Jaipur had been a major centre of anti-feudal struggle in this area. For some time before the incident, the village feudals utilized some neo-rich Dalits of Jaipur who were instrumental in the incident, while the landless were united under our party banner. After the incident, the landless also became apprehensive and started hesitating in taking part in anti-feudal struggles. Instead of directing caste contradiction towards class struggle, MCC has adopted the ruling class direction of caste-massacres. This is a simple task. It does not require implementation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This distortion of the old feudal system is an inheritance of today’s semi-feudal society.

The widespread dissatisfaction of the mass base of revisionist Liberation towards it has made relatively easy the entry of MCC in the Shahabad area. Due to backtracking from anti-feudal struggles, some activists and masses of Liberation left the party and are joining the MCC in order to satisfy the needs of their movements, taking it to be a powerful organization, though MCC will not be able to fulfil the interests of the people and the needs of their movements, because neither does it have a line of mass struggle, nor a class-organization to make them successful. In the absence of a direction and a class-organization, MCC is resorting to anarchist activities in order to maintain its sway and in order to remain under discussion. The incidents in Tilai village in Bikramganj division in the recent past are proof of this. Through these incidents, neither did the landless of Tilai achieve anything and nor was their interest or participation there in the incidents. Through the incident MCC has come to the limelight.

Over the past few years, MCC has been trying to misguide the struggling masses in the areas of our intense struggle in Nokha and Kargahar. Our party in this area, from 1996 onwards, has been countering the armed attacks of feudal landlords and their armed gangs, particularly the Dhan Singh gang, called the Ranvir Sena, and the newly formed Panchseel Sena, through local arms and militant unity. MCC have been making strong efforts to weaken the fighting spirit of the people and create inconfidence in local arms among the people in several villages of our struggle by displaying automatic arms. MCC is also trying to organize some anti-social and criminal elements of the area against us. It is also trying to divide our mass struggles by influencing the unregulated, indisciplined and selfish elements within our masses. As a result of these anarchist activities of MCC, the suppressed anti-social and criminal elements of the area are raising their heads. Though majority of the broad masses are firmly with our party, but the situation is quite pleasing for the local landlords and mafias. By weakening our mass struggles, MCC is helping them.

MCC has created an environment of terror in the villages of the forest and hilly areas of Rohtas. The armed struggle which MCC talks about is based on handing arms to a handful of rebellious elements of the area and has little support among the masses. These few rebellious and anarchist elements, crushing the aspirations of the broad masses, are extracting what money they choose from the forest mafias, contractors, brick kiln owners and stone quarry owners. The attitude of the anarchist elements is non-proletarian and undemocratic. We have also found that politics does not command the gun in this organization, rather the gun commands its politics. Its unexpected attack on some activists of our party on 15^th June, 2002 is testimony to it.

Our party is concentrating its struggle against feudal landlords, their armed gangs and the ruling class. In accordance with our tactical line, we restrain from any form of struggle other than ideological and political struggle against the revisionists and those indulging in anarchist activities. But the revisionists and anarchist elements have created difficulties for us by attacking us. MCC’s political weakness and organizational hollowness had come to light in the case of killing of DFO Sanjay Singh. Initially MCC disowned responsibility, but later when governmental enquiry started, it acknowledged the same and laid the responsibility at the door of the local squad. It is to be noted that only after MCC denied having any hand in the incident, the People’s War issued a press statement, demanding punishments to the killers of the DFO. While claiming to be the genuine and the only Maoists, the leadership of MCC should instruct its armed squads about the political control of the party over the Red Army during the armed New Democratic Revolution in China and Mao’s three rules and eight principles regarding discipline in Red Army. If MCC is of the understanding that no other organization should work in those areas where it is working, then it must apply this rule on itself too.

In India, just like the revisionists, the organizations indulging in anarchist actions too are trying to establish anarchist actions whose roots mainly lie in the petty bourgeois trends and non-proletarian understanding under the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. A policy of armed aggression against the bourgeois state in India from the very beginning, imitating the armed revolution in China, is a dogmatist understanding, because there is a difference in the economic, political and social conditions, and the form of state between the then China and the present India. Here some guerrilla activities can destroy some police pickets, some rifles can be appropriated, but the broad masses cannot be organized for people’s war. It is a different matter that the police due to their acts have become so infamous and hated among the people that armed attacks on them make the poor people happy. In the process MCC gets the support of the people at some places. Historically, folklores of acts of bravery are quite widespread among the common masses in the cultural and social life of India. But to organize the broad masses as a struggling force and to prepare them for a revolutionary revolt against the entire ruling class and its state machinery is the highest method of practically implementing Mao’s line of people’s war in India. MCC should learn through its own practice that its line of boycott of elections in its own areas of armed struggle, despite the glitter of arms and some explosions, is not acceptable to the masses.

If MCC studies the condition of the lives of bidi leaf, kiln and stone workers, and the general toiling masses living in the ‘liberated areas’ or areas of influence of MCC, and the lives of mafias, contractors and other owning classes protected by them, it would become clear which class in the areas is changing and developing.

Neither revisionists nor those pursuing anarchist actions are the leaders of revolutionary class struggle. On the one hand, the revisionists try to make a place for themselves in the bourgeois parliamentary system through the utilization of class oppression and repression; on the other hand, those indulging in anarchist actions utilize class oppression and repression for the establishment of their areas of dominance. The intention of both is to make the broad masses inactive and lethargic towards revolutionary struggles. Here, the revisionists lead the most backward and class-betraying sections of the toiling masses, while the lumpen and anarchist sections of the landless poor peasants are attracted towards anarchist actions. In our areas of struggle, the revisionists and those indulging in anarchist actions are posing challenges as a regressive force of revolutionary peasant movement.

While accepting these challenges posed by the revisionists and the anarchist actions, our party will have to intensify the mass struggle, focusing primarily against the feudal forces, other exploiters and the entire ruling class in order to expose them before the masses.

(Translated from Hindi original)