1.1       In the last Party Congress, it was decided to finalize a separate resolution on the characterization of the political parties in India through a Plenum. Though in the political resolutions of the successive Party Congresses, class character of major ruling class parties has been dealt, but the need is being felt for a separate resolution characterizing different political parties.

1.2       The need for a separate and exhaustive resolution is being felt and correctly so, in a specific context. The context concerns the characterization of the revisionist parties and the smaller parties which abound in the political landscape of the country. It is felt that a clear characterization will enable the Party to adopt a clear-cut attitude towards different parties, in drawing some of them in new democratic front, in determining our attitude towards them in elections and in conducting joint activities with them. The question does need close attention.

1.3       In ascertaining the class character of the different political parties, we should pay serious attention to the teachings of Lenin. While undertaking the characterization of political parties in the then Russia, Lenin furnished valuable tools to determine the class character of political parties. We should carefully imbibe these lessons and determine the class character of the different political parties in our concrete conditions.

1.4       Every political party has a class character, which means it represents and serves the interests of certain class or classes. There can not be a party standing above the classes. But the converse is not true that every class must have its separate party. In fact many do not have. That depends on the historical evolution of the class antagonism in a given society and the place occupied by that class in the given socioeconomic setup.

1.5       It is elementary that the character of a party is not determined by its proclamations. In a parliamentary system howsoever mutilated and abridged, all parties pretend to work for and belong to the peasants and workers, the bulk of the voters. Deception towards the masses is part and parcel of the politics of the exploiting classes. It is not what the parties say but what they actually do, that should be the basis of our determination.

1.6       Character of a political party is also not determined by its support base or the votes of the different sections it may poll in one or more elections. Lenin observed: “But the class character of a party can not be judged from the fact that certain elements, among others, voted for it at a given moment.” (Lenin, Vol. 12, p. 179) That way the hitherto principal ruling class party in India, the Congress, has been polling the bulk of the votes of the workers and agricultural labourers and poor peasantry in the country.

1.7       In determining the character of a political party the composition of the membership of a political party is also not decisive. If that were true the only true proletarian party would have been the Labour Party of Great Britain which has a constitutional mechanism in its party constitution of a majority of votes from trade unions, but which we all know is the party of imperialist bourgeoisie of Great Britain.

1.8       Of crucial importance in determining the character of a Party is the politics it pursues which means the classes whose interests it serves in a class divided society. Com. Lenin observed: “If you do not show the interests of which classes and which particular interests are dominant at the moment in determining the nature of various parties and their politics, you are really not applying Marxism and have, infact, rejected the theory of class struggle.” (Lenin, Vol. 12, p. 498)

1.9       Lenin discounted the ideas which attributed the attitude and positions taken by a party to the conditions of revolution or class struggle and which did not see these attitudes and positions taken by a party rooted in the classes represented by them. He was severe on the Menshevik understanding that “these negative tendencies hindering the development of revolution” come more strongly “to the fore at the present moment of temporary lull.” (ibid., p. 497) There is no place for alibi of revolution being in lull or weakness of the revolutionary forces to confuse the class character of the political parties. Every political party adopts a stand of its class, strongly or weakly, depending on the situation, but the standpoint of its class none the same. Conciliationism of the bourgeoisie and the revolutionism of the peasant, according to Lenin, come from the different class interests they represent and not “coming out of the situation of our revolution in general”. In fact Lenin categorically stated about such standpoints – “That is not a Marxist, but a liberal theory, seeking the roots of different social tendencies outside the interests of different classes.” (ibid., p. 497)

1.10     There is undoubtedly much instability in the character of political parties and it could not but be true in the complex and variable conditions in our country. And though some parties may and do undergo some changes, the objectivity of certain class interests remains. Thus we can broadly characterize the parties in certain groups relating to certain prominent classes.

1.11     So in determining the class character of the political parties in our country, we should base ourselves on the interests of which classes and which particular interests are dominant at the moment.

1.12     Ours is a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country and we are at the stage of new democratic revolution with agrarian revolution as its axis. The principal contradiction in our country is between the alliance of imperialism, comprador-bureaucrat capitalism and feudalism and the broad masses of the people. This is a product of the two basic contradictions, i.e., between imperialism vs. nation and feudalism vs. broad masses of the people. Imperialism, comprador-bureaucrat capitalism and feudalism are the targets of Indian revolution. Working class, peasantry, urban petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie are the revolutionary classes and worker-peasant alliance is the basis. The Indian state is in the hands of big bourgeoisie, big landlord classes which are subservient to imperialism.

1.13     Besides the basic contradictions, there are some other contradictions in India as well. These relate to the questions of castes, religious communities and different nationalities. These contradictions though not basic characterize the complexity of Indian socioeconomic and political life. These contradictions operate on the basis of basic contradictions in Indian society but have their special features as well. Ruling classes and their parties utilize these contradictions to divide the people and to disrupt and lead their movements astray. In order to push the basic contradictions into the background and in the pursuit of their interests for power, ruling class parties sometimes intensify these contradictions to such a degree that they sometimes apparently overshadow even the basic contradictions.

1.14     Ruling class parties belong to the big bourgeois, big landlord classes subservient to imperialism. The conflicts between the contending imperialist powers are reflected in the fights among these ruling class parties. In a semi-colonial country, the alignment of big bourgeois, big landlord parties exclusively or mainly to any particular imperialist power is dependent on the stage of conflict between the imperialist powers for redivision of world. In India, at present no major ruling class party is aligned to a particular imperialist power exclusively. Of the ruling classes in the country, the comprador big bourgeois which is an appendage of imperialism, acts as one of the links between imperialism and feudalism. Comprador big bourgeois has relatively high concentration of capital which explains its important role. Secondly, all the comprador big bourgeois do not have economic interests spread all over the country. There are sections of comprador bourgeois with strong economic interests in a given national region. While all the comprador bourgeois are for defence of this semi-feudal, semi-colonial setup, these do utilize national or regional aspirations to further their interest vis-à-vis the sections having all-India interests. Their contradictions relate to attracting the imperialist capital and over the markets. These comprador sections do not represent the genuine national aspirations of the people as they are unpatriotic and anti-national.

1.15     Of the other section of the ruling classes, the big feudal landlords contribute to much disunity and divisiveness in the ruling class parties. They represent the outmoded feudal relations in the semi-feudal system. They are dependent on imperialism on their very survival and sustenance. They are widespread and their interests are mostly local or regional at best in case of some very big landlords and former princes and kings. They are linked to comprador bureaucratic capitalists, both all-India and regional. Their natural affinity is to the regional sections where these are developed. In certain regions, all-India big bourgeois interests are dominant and hence linked to the local feudal landlords. The interests of feudal landlords and comprador bourgeoisie are interlinked under the tutelage of imperialism which supports and sustains both and whose interests they serve while wielding the state power.

1.16     Over the years, the growth of the regional comprador sections and development of their links with the big landlords is behind the rise of a number of regional parties of the ruling classes. As they defend the semi-feudal and semi-colonial setup, they call themselves as “regional parties with all-India perspective”. Comprador sections with all-India interests too sponsor these parties for their interests but the question is what interests are dominant at the moment. Their interests are dominant in the all-India ruling class parties.

1.17     Thirdly, the ruling class parties do not have uniform and identical expression of interests of the big bourgeoisie and big landlords. Their conflicts in the nature of relative preponderance also operate within the overall framework of the semi-feudal semi-colonial system. This too explains some of their divisions.

1.18     In addition to the above differences, certain sections of ruling classes base themselves on some of the contradictions mentioned above. They too defend the semi-feudal semi-colonial system but also represent some sectional interests which prop up these parties both to utilize the existing contradictions as well as prevent the oppressed sections from going over to the side of revolution. They have relations with other ruling class sections for defence of system and conflict for defence of sectional interests. Parties like BSP, RPI etc., fall in this category. In some others there is overlap of regional and sectional interests like SP, Samata Party etc. These are also parties of the big bourgeois big landlord classes both at all-India level as well as regional level. They support the new economic policies dictated by the imperialist powers, are patronized by big business houses and neither struggle for land reforms nor carry them out wherever they are in power. While defending the class rule of big bourgeois, big landlord classes, parties like BSP fight for the elite sections of dalits for the place in the present power structure. It was and is the case with Muslim League also. This special characteristic of these parties becomes relevant on specific issues of oppression concerning these sections as outlined in the Political Resolution of the last Party Congress.

1.19     Hence, we can characterize these ruling class parties into:

All-India ruling class parties – BJP, Congress, Janata Dal*, BSP, IUML

Regional ruling class parties – Akali Dal, DMK, AIADMK, TDP, AGP, Samata Party, SP, Shiv Sena, NC, Haryana Vikas Party, JMM

(* In JD, there are strong groupings with regional and sectional interests. It has been splitting in past to give rise to such formations. Its all-India framework is weak and it actually works as a loose federation of such groupings.)

1.20     While discussing these main groupings it may not be out of place to mention the danger of fascism. In India, the fascist repression of mass movements, particularly revolutionary peasant movements, is routine. It is inherent in the very nature of the socioeconomic setup of the country and the dominance of feudal landlords in the vast countryside. It is not fortuitous that in many parts the fascist repression is let loose by regional ruling class parties, like TDP in Andhra Pradesh and JD in Bihar. As the economic crisis deepens and the political instability grows and the imperialist powers through WB/IMF/WTO further intensify the imperialist exploitation and loot of the country, the danger of fascism also grows. This danger of fascism coming to power in the country as a whole comes from the ruling class parties with strong backing from all-India comprador big bourgeoisie and linked to feudal landlords in major parts of the country as well being main beneficiaries of the patronage of the imperialist powers. Only BJP and Congress fulfil the requisite criteria. Of the two as well, at present the danger comes more from BJP with the help of its communal allies in view of its emerging as a party of choice of the most reactionary sections and earning the preference of imperialists in the conditions of deepening economic crisis and rising social contradictions and conflicts.

Revisionist Parties:

1.21     There are a number of revisionist parties in the country. They have arisen from the working class movement in the country having betrayed the revolution and deserted the working class. As taught by the great teachers, Lenin, Stalin and particularly Mao, they represent the ideology interests of the bourgeoisie in the movement of working class and toiling people. It is well established that a revisionist party is not a working class party.

1.22     Revisionism is the ideological basis of these parties. It expresses their ideological baggage opposed to Marxism. This baggage depends on the point of their betrayal and desertion from the ranks of revolution. Like some of them use the epithet of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.

1.23     Nor do all the revisionist parties represent the same class interest in the country. All of them are not transgressed to the same degree in the class ladder of the present Indian society, nor all of them have the same degree of utility to the Indian ruling classes and hence not the same degree of urge of the ruling classes to adopt them.

1.24     Revisionist parties have had their own progression. It had also been the case with regard to Social Democrats, the Bernsteinaians, the Kautskyites and the Mensheviks. They started as the representative of the upper stratum of the working class adopting the viewpoint of petty-bourgeoisie, going over to the petty-bourgeois sections and degenerating into the party of imperialist bourgeoisie. There are a number of such parties in European countries, which are ruling or are strong contenders for ruling. Social Democrats are the single largest group in the European Parliament.

1.25     The degeneration of the parties in the former socialist countries have different evolution. As there were no organized bourgeoisie as a class in the economic life, the bourgeois elements arose out of the degeneration of the proletarian party and socialist state, revisionism serving as the ideological base for such degeneration. The CPSU(B) in Great Debate was referred to as the party of privileged stratum of Soviet society and during Brezhnev’s time it was referred to as the party of big bourgeoisie by Com. Mao. Indian revisionists in their degeneration have followed the pattern of Social Democrats rather than the revisionists of former socialist countries, their ideological pretensions notwithstanding, as in our country the bourgeoisie has not emerged from the degeneration of a socialist state.

1.26     CPI and CPM are the main revisionist parties and have come a long way since their desertion from the ranks of revolution. CPI leadership including the section which later led the formation of CPM, betrayed Telangana armed struggle and embarked on the path of parliamentarianism. CPI has since last three decades been participating in the coalitions led by Congress and other ruling class parties. CPM had since long been pursuing the Kerala-Bengal road, i.e., leading the governments in the states but not participating where they are not in a position to have decisive say. Their adoption of parliamentarianism was and is directed at their becoming part of the ruling class power structure and has nothing to do with revolutionary utilization of parliamentary institutions or elections. After the last parliamentary elections, CPM participated in the Central Govt. of the United Front without taking ministerial positions. Since long CPM has been defending and protecting semi-feudal, semi-colonial system and the interests of the ruling classes stably in a number of states and has been supporting the governments of different ruling class parties. CPM has not participated in the governments of the main all-India parties – Congress and BJP. This is also due to their interests in the states ruled by them. CPI and CPM have become part and parcel of the ruling class politics in the country serving the interests of the big bourgeois, big landlord classes as well as of imperialism even as their leaders have been increasingly taking to bourgeois style and life. They have adopted even the new economic policies which are adaptation of Structural Adjustment Programme being thrust upon third world countries by the imperialist powers and international financial institutions controlled by them. Hence they are socialist in words and reactionaries in deeds.

1.27     CPM in particular tries to keep its deceptive mask. But in the states they are ruling, they are implementing the reactionary policies like other ruling class parties. They are welcoming the MNCs in the name of industrial development of the states where they are in power. Industrial policy of the West Bengal Govt. led by them is clear evidence of this. They are even diluting the land reforms giving concessions to the MNCs and in the name of agro-business while they are doing very little to implement even the land reforms enacted by them. They are betraying the interests of poor peasants to the big tea garden owners. They recently resorted to fascist methods to evict hawkers which are but petty traders to please and attract the MNCs. CPM and CPI can in no way be termed the parties of petty-bourgeoisie as they do not stand for the defence of the interests of the petty-bourgeois masses if we go by their deeds and not by their deceptive words. They are not vacillating as the representatives of the petty-bourgeoisie are likely to, they are adopting and implementing the policies of the ruling classes at the dictates of imperialist powers. They disrupt and suppress the movements of working people against the effects of the new economic policies. Their public protestations against some of the steps of the Govt. of which they themselves are part, is meant to hoodwink the people. It is very common for the ruling class parties to act that way.

1.28     The expectation that parties like CPI, CPM will side with revolution, if the revolutionary forces become strong, is also not justified. The argument that though they are no good in the present period, but they may be of use during a period of upsurge is refuted by the role of these parties during such periods. Past experiences of revolutionary struggles of Naxalbari, Srikakulam, Mushahari, Gopiballavpur and Godavari Valley prove that when the revolutionary movement was on the upswing, they sided with the ruling classes and against the revolutionaries. Their deception is unmasked in such situations. The experiences of the other countries equally prove the same point, with Mensheviks siding with counter-revolution in October 1917.

1.29     Of other revisionist parties, some of them are incapable of pursuing any independent role like some other constituent parties of ‘Left’ Front. For all practical purposes they toe the CPM policies and should be treated as such. But there are also revisionist parties outside the ‘Left’ Front. These parties too have abandoned the revolutionary orientation and have adopted parliamentarianism and reformism as their path and programme. Yet, these parties are not part of the ruling class power structure in the country though the direction of their degeneration is same and there is and will be no Chinese Wall for such degeneration. While recognizing this direction of their ‘progression’, it is also necessary to understand their present nature. They sometimes take positions representing the interests of petty-bourgeoisie, particularly the urban petty-bourgeoisie. However, this is temporary phase in most cases as these parties if they can emerge strong enough to be of use to the ruling classes, are bound to degenerate further. This is inevitable, as revisionism is the ideology opposed to working class and serving the interests of the ruling classes. Our attitude to them is dependent on their attitude to the revolutionary forces and ruling class parties.

1.30     So the revisionist parties can be classified as under:

Revisionist parties representing ruling classes: CPI, CPM and some ‘Left’ Front parties

Revisionist Parties not part of the power structure at present: SUCI, Liberation

Parties of National Bourgeoisie and Petty-Bourgeoisie:

1.31     National bourgeoisie do not have any all-India party. Their interests bring them in sharp clash with imperialism and domestic reactionaries. They are weak as the policies of the successive governments have ruined them and the present offensive have added to their miseries. While certain elements among them are encouraged to turn comprador, they are being continuously ruined as a class. Owing to their weakness, bulk of them follow the ruling class parties hoping for certain petty concessions.

1.32     However, a number of nationalities are openly fighting against the Indian State. In such cases parties of national bourgeoisie have emerged in these nationalities. It is important to note that while national bourgeoisie are spread in all nationalities, their parties strongly emerge where national movement is strong. Such parties represent definite interests. JKLF and NSCN are some of the examples of these parties. Because of the duality of the class represented by them, with the decline of the movement they may degenerate into regional parties of ruling classes or may be absorbed by the all-India ruling class parties.

1.33     The petty-bourgeois classes in a semi-feudal semi-colonial country are objectively revolutionary and constitute the bulk of the population of the country. At the present stage of our revolution, their interests are mainly represented by the revolutionary forces. There may be separate parties representing their interests but that can not and will not be stable. Petty-bourgeoisie also have a small reactionary section which supports counter-revolution and is aligned to the ruling class parties. At present bulk of the petty-bourgeois masses follow the ruling class parties and revisionist parties owing to the weakness of the revolutionary movement. Democratic parties of the petty-bourgeoisie emerge only when the revolutionary forces are strong. In China as well, democratic parties of the petty-bourgeoisie could stabilize only when the revolutionary forces became formidable.

Working Class Party:

1.34     There is no unified, single revolutionary party of the working class. It is divided into several communist revolutionary organizations. These organizations do occupy a definite place in the political spectrum of the country, differing radically in their outlook, approach and policies from the other political forces. Unification of these organizations into a single party continues to be an imperative task.

1.35     As the stage of our revolution is new democratic with solution of peasant question at the core, the petty-bourgeois classes do constitute an important section of the revolutionary masses. Conversely, there is widespread influence of petty-bourgeois thinking and trends in the revolutionary ranks. The trends of conciliationism, parliamentarianism, legalism, economism, anarchism, sectarianism, terrorism, and other right and ‘left’ deviations in the revolutionary ranks are but the reflections of these influences, mainly reflecting the influence of rural and urban petty-bourgeoisie. At the present stage fighting these influences presents a complex task. On the one hand is the task of rallying ever more closely the petty-bourgeois toiling masses and intelligentsia around the working class party with worker-peasant alliance as the base. There is also the task of fighting the petty-bourgeois influence inside the working class party which hampers its ability to lead the masses and in leading the revolution through to the end.

– All-India Plenum

CPI(ML) – New Democracy

21^st November 1997