(The issues of formation of separate states in India has been coming to the fore in a number of regions. One such issue is the formation of separate Telangana.

Our Party has been supporting the formation of separate states where such demand is based on backwardness coupled with separate identity of the people whether they constitute a full-fledged nationality or not. With this understanding we had supported agitations for formation of Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. People inhabiting these regions have different characteristics from those in whom they were forced to be absorbed by the ruling classes in India. In short we have considered these issues as part of the solution of the complex national problem in India. We have dealt with these aspects in our articles dealing with these issues.

Issues of separate Vidarbha and Telangana stand on different footing. Here the backwardness of a region and reasons thereof constitute the main reasons given by the proponents of these demands. Undoubtedly there is backwardness and discrimination against the people of Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. While taking up struggles against the backwardness our Party is not supporting the demand for separate Telangana. It is not that we take the present states as inviolable as is the stand of CPM and CPI, we feel that the real issues of backwardness of Telangana can be fought by people's struggle while there is no basis for separation due to the different identity of the people. Both the regions are inhabited by the same Telugu people.

We do not subscribe to the BJP view of smaller states which they are propagating to impose their Hindi language and northern culture over the people of other region. Ruling sections of the Hindi heartland, the biggest region in India, have not accepted the principle of linguistic state. They were first opposed to formation of such states themselves and now they want division of these states. We should be vigilant against the designs of BJP and other ruling class parties while fighting for the genuine demands of the people.

We should in particular frustrate designs of the ruling classes to divert the real issues before the people and to make them fight each other. Revolutionary and progressive forces do everything to this end. This can best be achieved by building struggles against the common enemies and on common issues besides developing support for the struggles against backwardness of these regions.

While espousing the cause of separate Telangana, some CR organizations are wrongly applying the teachings of great teachers as well as changing established understanding about the character of Indian ruling classes, friends and enemies and primary task of the revolutionary movement at present.

Here we are publishing an English translation of an article by Com. Mohan in which he has analyzed the wrong stands of CPI(ML)-Janashakti and CPI(ML)-People's War on the issue of separate Telangana. As the article is somewhat long we are printing here the first part of the article.

This article had earlier been published in Prajapandha, organ of AP State Committee of CPI(ML)-New Democracy.                 -Editor)

“Comrades, many of you may find that the current controversy suggests something like this: two men come in and invite each other to define the tumbler on the lectern. One says: "It is a glass cylinder, and a curse on anyone who says different." The other one says: “A tumbler is a drinking vessel, and a curse on anyone who says different." …

"A tumbler is assuredly both a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel. But there are more than these two properties, qualities or facets to it; there are an infinite number of them, an infinite number of “mediacies” and inter-relationships with the rest of the world. A tumbler is a heavy object which can be used as a missile; it can serve as a paperweight, a receptacle for a captive butterfly, or a valuable object with an artistic engraving or design, and this has nothing to do with whether or not it can be used for drinking, is made of glass, is cylindrical or not quite, and so on and so forth."

"Moreover, if I needed a tumbler just now for drinking, it would not in the least matter how cylindrical it was, and whether it was actually made of glass; what would matter though would be whether it had any holes in the bottom, or anything that would cut my lips when I drank, etc. But if I did not need a tumbler for drinking but for a purpose that could be served by any glass cylinder, a tumbler with a cracked bottom or without one at all would do just as well, etc."

"Formal logic, which is as far as schools go (and should go, with suitable abridgements for the lower forms), deals with formal definitions, draws on what is most common, or glaring, and stops there. When two or more different definitions are taken and combined at random (a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel), the result is an eclectic definition which is indicative of different facts of the object, and nothing more."

"Dialectical logic demands that we should go further. Firstly, if we are to have a true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and “mediacies”. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity. Secondly, dialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in “self-movement (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world. Thirdly, a full “definition” of an object must include the whole of human experience, both as a criterion of truth and a practical indicator of its connection with human wants. Fourthly, dialectical logic holds that “truth is always concrete, never abstract”, as the late Plekhanov likes to say after Hegel. …."

"Why is Bukharin’s reasoning nor more than inert and empty eclecticism? It is because he does not even try to make an independent analysis, form his own standpoint, either of the whole course of the current controversy (as Marxism, that is, dialectical logic, unconditionally demands) or of the whole approach to the question, the whole presentation- the whole trend of presentation, if you will- of the question at the present time and in these concrete circumstances. You do not see Bukharin doing that at all! His approach is one of pure abstraction; he makes no attempt at concrete study, and takes bits and pieces form Zinoviev and Tortsky. That is eclecticism.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 93-95 )

Readers are requested to excuse me for citing a lengthy quotation from Com. Lenin. It was necessary I felt. This shall become clear as we proceed further.

The question of Telangana, rather the question of statehood for Telangana region, has come to the fore again. The debate is no more confined to publication of literature, small group meetings etc. This current debate and the agitation have put Chandrababu Naidu into a ‘defensive’ situation. This debate and the agitation can help the Communist Revolutionary (CR) forces in the present situation wherein even minimum democratic rights like holding public meetings, distributing pamphlets etc. are denied in Telangana. Had the CR organizations taken a common approach towards the question, it would have been much more useful. It is unfortunate that it could not be so.

Some of the CR organizations like CPI(ML)-Janashakti (hereafter referred to as Janashakti) have adopted an eclectic approach- which was criticized sharply by Com. Lenin- towards the question. Even CPI(ML)-People’s War (hereafter referred to as People's War) is not free from such mistakes. Maybe it is an attempt to appear ‘more radical’ than others. Or maybe it is a pragmatic approach to overcome the problems the movement is facing currently. Whatever may be the reason; their attempts at theorizing the question precisely reflect eclecticism. Non-Marxist arguments are pieced together with liberal usage of Marxist jargon and you have a theory! Marxism is thrown to the winds in this process. These arguments, exercises could complicate the problems further in future. They are already negating their own history. They remain chained to the present that is beset with problems, rather than march ahead. CPI(ML)-People’s War will also be mentioned and criticized to the extent we feel necessary.

Janashakti and the Question of Telangana

Firstly it should be noted that Janashakti has not been consistent in its approach towards the question. It changed its stance thrice during the last five years. It is nobody’s case that one should remain with the same stance. As our knowledge gets enhanced through the course of practice we get a better view of the social processes. However, it is obligatory on the part of a political organization to explain to the people as to what has prompted them to change their stance. They should make an honest self-criticism about their past practice which they now feel was wrong. Janashakti is one organization which never cares for such self-criticism. They say “History can wait.” Without any explanation for their change of stance, without making any self-criticism, they immediately start branding others based on their ‘new’ stance. Often they remind us of the pot calling the kettle black. Let us see the changes in the opinions of Janashakti over the question of Telangana.

In 1993, Janashakti, in its Resolution on the international and national situation declared “Now Vidarbha and Telangana movements can be characterized as separatist movements that arose as a result of dog fight amongst the ruling classes for power.” (Retranslation from Telugu). It is to be noted that this happens to be the official document of Janashakti. Neither have they disowned it or announced corrections to it nor have held a conference to amend it!

During 1997-98, Janashakti demanded autonomous council for regions like Telangana and published some articles. They held a Convention and formed an organization which began and ended there itself.

Currently, Janashakti is demanding (separate) statehood for Telangana region. Even during 1997-98, they opposed separate statehood for Telangana. After their change in stance they are lampooning others who do not agree with their recent opinion.

We find a similar attitude with CPI(ML)-People’s War and AIPRF. In 1996 CPI(ML)-People’s War, the then CPI(ML)-Party Unity (merged into CPI(ML)-People’s War since) and MCC held an international seminar on the nationality question under the banner of AIPRF. Till 1997 CPI(ML)-People’s War had a different assessment. It was only in June 1997 that CPI(ML)-People’s War gave a call for “separate and democratic Telangana”. Prior to that, see what they wrote in 1996 February:

“The dominant political and economic powers however were not for such an equitable sharing of resources and power. This further developed a sense of deprivation among the people of these regions and hence they wanted to rectify the earlier arrangements foisted on them by the Centre, which is reflected in the movements like Vidarbha movement, movement for separation of Andhra and Telangana into states. Though these were initiated and led by opportunist elements, they enjoy tremendous popular support because of the objective situation that existed. They were betrayed by the leadership and in AP, they did not rise again because of the integration of these regions into the economy of the state and due to the intensification of class struggle under the leadership of communist revolutionaries.” (Symphony of Freedom, AIPRF, pg. 128-129)

Thus in 1996 they felt that movement for separate statehood for Telangana did not arise again (after 1970s) because Telangana got integrated with the AP state economy and because of intensification of class struggles under the leadership of the CRs. This understanding has changed and they took a different position in 1997. Agreed, they have the ‘right’ to change their opinion. But they too did not feel it necessary to explain the reasons for their change. Nor was there any self-criticism. Instead they resorted to a trick – AIPRF published its 1996 paper on Nationality Question in Telugu later. See what they have written:

“The movements for the separation of Andhra and Telangana reflect this. But it is a fact that these movements for separate statehood had people’s support. However, the leadership was in the hands of opportunists. They have betrayed the movements. And revolutionary movements arose under the leadership of Communists in these regions.” (Telugu version paper on Nationality Question in India, p 14, published by AIPRF, translated from Telugu)

Apart from the freedom taken in translation, one can notice a glaring omission. The sentence explaining the reasons for non(re)emergence of Telangana, i.e., integration of Telangana into the state economy and intensification of class struggle, have been omitted altogether. This trick of translation amounts to deception. Had the earlier assessment been acknowledged as a mistake, it would only have helped them. [Here comrades of CPI(ML)-People’s War might argue that during 1970s also they have supported the separate Telangana Movement and there is no apparent change in the current position. This argument is untenable. Though CPI(ML)-People’s War (or the erstwhile organization represented by CPI(ML)-People’s War now) supported the separate Telangana movement during 1970s, they did not feel that it would arise again. As they wrote in the AIPRF seminar paper, they thought this was because Telangana was integrated in the AP state economy and also due to the fact that there is a strong revolutionary movement in Telangana. Not only that, in their papers in the APRSU seminar, on the nationality question Telangana is conspicuously absent. The very fact that they formed mass organizations like APRSU, APRYL, APRCS make it clear that they were under the impression expressed in the AIPRF seminar paper. They also saw the representative of regional bourgeoisie in NTR in Andhra Pradesh during 1980s. Only in 1990s they rectified their mistake.]

Reasons for the Underdevelopment/Backwardness of Telangana – Janashakti’s New Contribution

Janashakti has recently characterized Telangana as an ‘internal colony’. Before going into the details, we feed a brief history of Janashakti leadership shall be in order.

It was in February 1997 that Provincial Committee Secretary came forward with the formulation of Telangana being an ‘internal colony’. Then the entire APPC was dissolved. He was the incharge of AP as a CCM. When this formulation was questioned by some comrades in a party forum, he retreated. He explained that it was not his conclusion and he wrote the word to a comrade in a “personal letter” in a figurative sense.

Janashakti, their Central Organ, wrote thus, in 1997, in the editorial “We need not bother too much if some one terms this situation as ‘internal colonization’ out of anger. The term may have been an incorrect and unscientific one. But we have to agree that it has its origin in acute oppression … Though we cannot agree with the terminology used to analyze the particular conditions of these areas, we have to recognize the fact that they have brought the forces and regions that are fighting for a radical change in the Indian society. At the same time we need a correct terminology and a correct explanation of the problem so that a correct message reaches the people. Otherwise, there is a possibility of making the ‘developed’ regions and the people the targets by people of the ‘undeveloped’ region. The ruling classes often resort to this to serve their own interests. The term ‘semi-colony’ would be a correct one.” (Editorial of Janashakti, translated from Telugu, Vimochana 1-6/1, 15-7-1997)

Probably this comment in those columns might have been made keeping their AP Provincial Committee Secretary in mind. Though the term ‘internal colonization’ was viewed sympathetically and as one that arose from the conditions of acute oppression, it still disagreed with the terminology and described the term ‘internal colonization’ as unscientific. The Janashakti editorial in 1997 felt that a correct explanation of the problem and a correct terminology was needed.

The situation inside Janashakti appears to have changed. The AP Provincial Committee Secretary seems to have come out with his opinion. Thus they have now chosen the “incorrect and unscientific” term. Now they say openly “The exploiters belonging to the delta region … have not only acquired the comprador (this is the character of the rulers of the country itself) but also a colonial character. In this sense we can call them as colonial Kamma, Reddy, Kshatriya upper caste ruling classes of coastal delta region.” (Jana Vimochana, 15-6, 1-7-2001: readers are to note that CPI(ML)-Janashakti changed the name of its Telugu organ to Jana Vimochana. Earlier it used to be Vimochana.)

Thus they have declared that these exploiters belonging to the coastal region have a dual character of colonial and comprador. They further say “The intellectuals and democrats call this situation as one of ‘internal colonialism’. Whatever may be the meaning of the term colony, practically speaking that exactly sums the situation of Telangana people under the unified Andhra Pradesh State. We need not get bogged in the discussion as to what ‘colony’ means and engage ourselves in such academic gibberish. We should not get confused over the term. Practically the analysis that describes Telangana as an internal colony is a matter of fact.”

The cat is out of the bag. They are calling the theoretical debate on internal colonies as academic gibberish. Practically the analysis of internal colonies is a correct one, they are admitting. If they feel so, why hesitate to debate it? Why call such a debate as academic gibberish even before conducting it? They could have enlightened other CRs on the question. Only thing is they proclaim their ideology as Marxism-Leninism-Mao’s Thought and it is this ideology that is coming in their way. They attempt to reconcile contradictory theories. See what Janashakti Central Organ is forced to say now,

“Some describe the situation of ‘underdevelopment’ within the country and even within the states as internal colonization. Whether the term internal colonization is correct is not the question. Whether it arose out of acute oppression is the question.” (Janashakti Editorial, May-June 2001. Retranslated from Telugu Jana Vimochana 15-7, 1-8-2001.)

We can clearly notice the marked difference between the editorials of Janashakti between 1997 and 2001. While the 1997 editorial of Janashakti described the term ‘ internal colonialism’ as incorrect and unscientific, the 2001 editorial is conspicuously silent about the question. Meanwhile their AP Provincial Committee has openly embraced the theory of internal colonies. To forestall any question on the issue, they have branded the debate as academic gibberish! The entire exercise of CPI(ML)- Janashakti’s Central and State Committees seems to be an attempt to reconcile the Marxist-Leninist analysis of characterizing India as a semifeudal, semicolonial country with non-Marxist arguments prevalent among  supporters of Telangana state. This is the basis of their eclectic attempts. We shall return to the ‘internal colonies’ question later. This is not a question of a ‘term’ or terminology, a host of issues are involved. As Janashakti leaders have admitted it to be a practically correct characterization, they have also (re)defined their strategy and tactics of their movement in Telangana region. We once again request the readers to note that this is not merely a question of terminology.

Janashakti’s theoretical contributions on contradictions!

The Janashakti analyses the contradictions in Telangana region as “There are internal as well as external factors for the backwardness of Telangana. While the feudal and other exploitative relations of production are the internal factors, the coastal delta colonial rulers, the central and (AP) state governments are the external factors for this backwardness. These two are interrelated and yet distinct. The external factors have become the immediate impediments to the future development of the people of Telangana.” (Jana Vimochana 15-7, 18-2001)

The Janashakti leaders have prepared a draft manifesto to one of the forums on Telangana. In that they have written “There are both internal and external factors for the backwardness here. The local exploitative relations of production are the internal factors. The external factors include the ‘internal colonial’ rule which consists of regional discrimination, special exploitation and oppression of the region and the dominance of non-locals. The rule of foreign imperialist is also a very important external factor.” (Draft Manifesto, Point 2)

Here we can see a perfect example of eclecticism criticized by Com. Lenin above. Two contradictory arguments, non-Marxist analysis characterizing Telangana as an ‘internal colony’ and Marxist-Leninist analysis that stresses the role of imperialism in the present era of imperialism and proletarian revolution are clubbed together and the result is before us to see. Janashakti leadership further says “Apart from the internal exploitative relations of production, the rule by the colonial coastal delta, wealthy rulers and their lackeys, and the united Andhra Pradesh state as its instrument act as strong external factors for this. Vision 2020, Globalization, and the unitary policies of the Central Govt. also act as other strong external factors. The development of Telangana and thus the resolution of internal contradictions which paves the way for a democratic socio-economic system shall not be possible without eliminating these external factors.” (Draft Manifesto, Point 14)

This entire analysis delineating the external and internal factors is faulty. There is no substance but only Marxist rhetoric. First let us see what Com. Mao has explained on internal and external factors.

“The metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist world outlook sees things as isolated, static and one-sided. It regards all things in the universe, their forms and their species, as eternally isolated from one another and immutable. Such change as there is can only be an increase or decrease or change of place. Moreover, the cause of such an increase or decrease or change of place is not inside things but outside them, that is, the motive force is external.”

“They ascribe the causes of social development to factors external to society, such as geography and climate. They search in an oversimplified way outside a thing for the causes of its development, and they deny the theory of materialist dialectics which holds that development arises from the contradiction inside a thing.”

“As opposed to metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but  internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within a thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes. Thus materialist dialectics effectively combats the theory of external causes, or of an external motive force, advanced by metaphysical mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism. It is evident that purely external causes can only give rise to mechanical motion, that is, to changes in scale or quantity, but cannot explain why things differ qualitatively in thousands of ways and why one thing changes into another. As a matter of fact, even mechanical motion under external force occurs through the internal contradictoriness of things. …. Similarly, social development is due chiefly not to external but to internal causes.”

“Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supercession of the old society by the new. Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes.” (Mao, On Contradiction, SW, Vol. 1, p.312-314)

Leaders of Janashakti seem to have read Com. Mao upside down. Mao has explained in a simple and direct manner that in the development of any thing (phenomenon) the internal contradictions are primary and the external factors are the conditions that operate through the internal contradictions. However, Janashakti leaders feel that “The resolution of internal contradictions and thus paving the way for a democratic socio-economic system in Telangana shall not be possible without eliminating these external factors.”

Thus Janashakti enriches Mao Thought!

As mentioned above, analysis of Janashakti about internal and external factors is faulty on another count. The Telangana region has been a part of ‘united Andhra Pradesh’ till now. Then how come it became an “external factor”? According to them Telangana as well as united Andhra Pradesh is ruled by “coastal delta upper caste, colonial rulers” and their lackeys and Telangana is their internal colony. Then how can they become “external factors”? Even imperialism is not totally an external factor. Some CR organizations, including CPI(ML)-Janashakti, characterized the principal contradiction in India as the contradiction between the alliance of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism, and the broad masses. To the extent that they act in alliance, imperialism acts as an internal factor hindering the development of India and Telangana as part of it. To the extent that the third world countries get integrated into the world imperialist market, imperialism acts as an internal factor. Even the external factors operate through the internal contradictions. That is why the CRs in India, though having differences on the question of principal contradiction, commonly agree that

–          contradiction between the people of India and imperialism

–          contradiction between feudalism and broad masses

–          contradiction between bourgeoisie and working class

–          contradiction among ruling classes

are the four important contradictions. Of these four, it is generally agreed that the first two are basic. Even the understanding of Janashakti documents is the same. Now, they seem to have drifted and based on their new understanding they have adopted new strategies and tactics on Telangana.

Does the Comprador Bourgeoisie have Regional or National Character?

The CRs generally agree that the big bourgeoisie in India is a comprador class. They agree that this bourgeoisie originated and grew under the tutelage of British colonialism and it does not have any independent, national character. This was an important point that led to break with neo-revisionists in India. Coms. T.N. and Suniti Ghosh explained this in detail. We do not intend to go further on this. The national bourgeoisie is being suppressed by imperialism and comprador monopoly bureaucratic capitalism in India. Thus the CRs treat the national bourgeoisie an ally of working class, but it has a vacillating character. This is the strategic perspective of the CRs. However the arguments of Janashakti seek to revise this perspective. Even the CPI(ML)-People’s War is veering towards such arguments. The characterization of ruling classes in AP as the ‘colonial’ rulers, thus ascribing to the comprador class the power to convert regions into their colonies, amounts to such revision. Here it should be noted that both CPI(ML)-Janashakti and People’s War are not using ‘migrant’ but ‘colonial’. This cannot be treated as imprecision in using certain terms. Colonialism has an important place in Marxist understanding. Marxism treats the colonies as an important condition for the existence of imperialism.

“Hence we are living in a peculiar epoch of world colonial policy, which is most closely connected with the “latest stage in the development of capitalism”, with finance capital. For this reason, it is essential first of all to deal in greater detail with the facts in order to ascertain as exactly as possible what distinguishes this epoch from those preceding it, and what the present situation is. In the first place, two questions of fact arise here: is an intensification of colonial policy, a sharpening of the struggle for colonies, observed precisely in the epoch of finance capital…

”Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of  capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But “general” disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain” Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital.”

                        (Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism)

We do not feel that Janashakti is ‘loosely’ using the term ‘colony’ or ‘internal colony’. There are theories that describe coastal Andhra as capitalist and Telangana as feudal and with the formation of united Andhra Pradesh ‘feudal Telangana’ became an internal colony of ‘capitalist Andhra’. (e.g. Simhadri, P.L. Vishweshwar Rao, from a book on Telangana in Telugu, 1998). Janashakti’s attempt is to reconcile these theories with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought in an eclectic manner. Even People’s War is not free from such mistakes.

While attributing a regional/national and hence colonial character to the comprador class, the Janashakti is now searching  for vacillating allies in the compradors belonging to Telangana region. They have come out openly with such a programme. As mentioned earlier People’s War treated NTR as a representative of regional bourgeoisie and as an ally during 1980s. It is the duty of Marxist-Leninists to correctly identify the contradiction between the ruling classes and the contradiction among the people and to clearly make a distinction between these two contradictions.

Do we not utilize contradictions among ruling classes? We do, no doubt about that. But the distinctions we make among the enemies should not necessarily lead to a united front with them.

There is  a lot of difference between the tactical approach that neutralizes a section of enemies and that unites with a section of enemies considering them as vacillating allies. The utilization of contradiction among ruling classes does not mean that you search for allies in the enemy camp. Janashakti is doing precisely that at this moment.