Today on July 28th, revolutionaries celebrate the martyrdom day of comrades Charu Mazumdar and Tarimela Nagi Reddy.Sadly certain streams that uphold T.Nagi Reddy do not uphold Charu Mazumdar and the main organization ,the C.P.I.(Maoist) upholding Charu Mazumdar does not recognize T.N as a true revolutionary.Infact we must also remember Comrade Devullapali Venkateswara Rao.(D.V.) whose 30th death anniversary just took place on July 12th.Today we recognize the contribution of such comrades as immortal who asserted that we are a semi-feudal,semi-colonial country and demarcated from revisionism.They maintained that the path of protracted peoples War of Comrade MaoTse Tung wa sthe correct line for India.I recommend readers to read Com D.V.Raos writings on the Telengana Armed Struggle and his writing son Mao Tse Tung Thought and protracted War in 1976.Before he upheld the revisionist C.P.C.D.V. Rao had played a great role and was a great leader of the Revolutionary Camp.Today Comrade T.Ns book -India Mortgaged is still relevant in light of repression on the democratic movement. .I was pleased that a Punjabi Communist revolutionary journal Surkh Rekha ,on martyrdom anniversary posted photos of C.M. and T.N.This reflects the correct approach.It is fascinating that before the merger of the 2 organizations into the Communist Party-Re-organization centre of India (Marxist Leninist) the erstwhile Central Team C.P.I.(M.L.)never accepted Nagi Reddy as a true revolutionary while the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India(C.C.R.I.) did not uphold Charu Mazumdar.When merging both parties agreed that each leader played an important role and that only when the final party conference of the re-organized Communist party is held can the verdict be decided on the corrrectness of the formation of the C.P.I.(M.L.) in 1969.In earlier documents of 1978,82 and 89 the Central Team group virtually rejected any constituent that did not have its roots in the legacy of the 1969 C.P.I.(M.L.) The earlier journals of Unity Centre of Comunist Revolutionaries of India of later even Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India unanimuously did not recognize the Charu Mazumdar led C.P.I.(M.L).The Central Team insisted that the 8th central Commitee of the C.P.I.(M.L.) should be reestablished which existed till 1972,while all other centres were revisionist.Their joint work together in the state of Punjab in the 1980s facilitated their merger.One important historical development of the C.P.I.(Maoist) was its recognition of C.P.I.(M.L.) as well as M.C.C.and Kanhai Chaterjee.(The erstwhile M.C.C did not recognize the 1969 C.P.I-M.L.).These unities depict the importance of unity in sphere of practice rather than just past history or theoretical exchange.Inspite of strong historical differences in the past the groups merged. The formation of the Communist Party Re-Organization Centre of India(Marxist Leninist) has great historical relevance towards the mass line and aestablishment of the re-organized party. Comrade T.Nagi Reddy made an immortal contribution towards the building of mass revolutionary movement and enriching the theory of Marxism-Leninsm-Mao Tse Tung Thought in light of conditions prevailing in India.He was the architect of the massline with comrade D.V.Rao and his struggle against the left adventurist and rightist trends prevalent was remarkable.I am posting below the struggle he led of the Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Commitee of Communist revolutionaries in combating the deviations of the A.I.C.C.R..At the recent seminar on transition toSocialism in Allahabad I verified Nagi Reddys leading contribution in the massline.However never forget comrade Devullapali Venkatsewara Raos (D.V) equal contribution in that time.The most correct criticisms of the Charu Mazumdar line were from Nagi Reddy.D.V.Rao,Harbhajan Sohi,the Central .Organizing .Commitee of the C.P.I.(M.L.) and the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.) in that order. I am not belittling the contribution of Comrade Charu Mazumdar without whom the spark of the Naxalbari struggle would never have been lit nor the demarcation from revisionism.Charu wrongly called Chinas chairman the chairman of the Indian party,called the entire Indian bourgeoise as comprador,disbanded all mass organizations and estimated India to be liberated by 1975.However but for his leadership the very Naxalabri movement would not have emerged which later inspired the formation and movements of the C.P.I.(M.L.)Peoples War Group and Party Unity Group.They were critical of CMs errors but always upheld his revolutionary leadership which was instrumental in their development.Whether Kondappali Seetharamiah or now Ganapathy they upheld Charu Mazumdar tooth and nail.the criticism of the C.O.C of the C.P.I.(M.L.) in 1975 and the 1978 A.P.S C criticism of Mazumdars line is very educative.Even the Central Team of the C.P.I.(M.L.) though opposing the glorification of CM stressed that it was phenomenan that had to be historically studied.One factor is whether Com Lin Biao had an effect on Charus line.Infact towards the end even Charu made a self -criticism.We must still study his writings. t Today there is a strong lobby that either claims that India a a capitalist country or a neo-colony.The C.P.I.(M.L) Red Flag rejects Maos thesis of protracted Peoples war and so do the Communist League of India factions. We must commend intellectuals like the late R.S.Rao who uphold India’s characterization as semi-feudal and semi-colonial. Any strides The Indian Communist movement has made is because of it’s understanding that India is not a fully developed capitalist Society. The author has visited Punjab recently and discovered the monopoly of money-lenders on the poor agricultural labourers and the expropriation of land in courts from poor peasants who sell their land at 10 times less than their actual value rate. Sadly we do not have a front of intellectuals who can combat this thesis propounded by the intellectuals who term India as capitalist. In the recent Maruti Suzuki Workers agitation the workers needed the support of the peasantry to support their agitations. They proved their cultural ties to the peasantry in the villages. No doubt,there has been significant capitalist development but after losing their jobs the workers of Maruti would turn to their lands in the villages.(The author thakns G.N.Saibaba for this information)True we have much more machinery than China in the 1940s and a far more developed urban infrastructure but it is still the big landlords who have the bargaining power and dictate the price of goods in the market.A great politician-landlord nexus exists with so may big landlords still existing..In a fully developed capitalist Society land-grabbing by corporate firms as what happened in India would not occur nor such nerciless impact of commisiion agents in Punjab.No doubt there have been significant changes with globalization nad a greater onslaught of imperialism which has combined a united attack with feudalism as never before. Ironically how many industrial workers have been displaced from their jobs and gone back to the villages to cultivate their lands. Quoting Professor R.S.Rao ‘In the Indian context, it is not just the lack of a democratic process and the corresponding institutions but capital’s use of the pre capitalist processes and institutions like religion, caste, region, hierarchy, that merit ones attention... It is not that factory inspectors need to be appointed but that they have to be above caste considerations.... Capital, when it frees labour, gives anonymity to labour. But capital in the Indian context takes away anonymity and puts the labels of religion, caste, and creed. The resulting process is the division among the working class and the division among poor peasants and agricultural labourers, on an extra economic basis…. Capital exists without its corresponding superstructure. Hence we have capital without capitalism.’ (ibid., p. 89) After an extensive study of the data generated by the Farm Management Surveys and reviewing the debates among economists on the extent and nature of capitalist development in Indian agriculture, R.S. Rao concluded that there was a widespread non-capitalist sector in which productivity and investment seemed to bear an inverse relation to the size of the holding – thus the larger the holding the lower its efficiency and accumulation. This he attributed to the feudal agrarian relation. On the other hand the capitalist sector identified, not through the size of the holding but through the labour hiring criterion broke this inverse relation between holding size and capitalist productivity. ‘Given a high level of commodity production leading to a dominant position of capitalism in agriculture, the inverse relationship gives way to a positive relationship. Further it was observed that in such a village the process of differentiation reaches a high level. The above clearly suggests the existence and further the exploitative efficiency of capitalism in Indian agriculture.’ (ibid., p, 54) Quoting Jaswantha Rao of T.N.Reddy memorial trust: Com.T.Nagi Reddy explained in his statement “India Mortgaged”, the bourgeois and landlord government India has taken to the path of gradual transformation of landlord latifundia into bourgeois economy, with all its plans for the supply of seeds, fertilizers, use of pesticides, mechanization of agriculture, extensive funneling of state loans into the landlord economy with the help of immense aid from the international finance. As Lenin has explained this evolution into bourgeois-Junker-landlord economy….. , condemns the peasants to decades of most harrowing expropriation and bondage. He further explained that, “this is what we are witnessing in our country today. The excruciating pain which the rural economy today is undergoing – the forceful eviction of small peasants and tenants, the growth of concentration of land, increase in the number of agricultural labour, the growing hegemony of upper castes over lower castes – are all symptoms of this growing disease.” He called upon Communist Revolutionaries to firmly oppose this transformation of Feudal Landlordism by supporting the fighting peasantry for the total liquidation of Feudal Landlordism. The developments in later decades proved that Com.TN was correct. During this period, the industrial base of the Indian society had been widened through of the adoption of public sector as the leader. As clearly observed by Marx in his writings, once the capitalist relations were introduced in a country like which has all the potential to develop into a capitalist country, nothing could stop the reproduction of these capitalist relations. This gave rise national bourgeoisie mainly in the form of small scale industry. But imperialism with its strangulating hold on the Indian state had been either destroying these rising capitalist relations through uneven competition or adopting them to serve its monopoly interests. Numerous instances can be quoted here how the imperialism amalgamated the indigenous industries or destroyed them. Suffice it to say that as a result the Indian national bourgeoisie could not able to grow beyond certain stages and assert it in terms of its class interests. Thus the emerging capitalist relations in the industrial section were always remained in a deep crisis, living at the mercy of Indian big bourgeoisie and imperialism. On the other hand, the big bourgeoisie continue to be comprador in nature through myriad arrangement in the form joint ventures, technical and financial collaborations. Even though the value of assets and investments by the big bourgeoisie grew phenomenally, their dependence on imperialism also grew proportionally. In the first half of 1980 decade, the Indian economy faced a severe all-round crisis and the Indian ruling classes turned to the imperialism to extricate them from the crisis. The imperialist financial institutions – World Bank and IMF – started dictating restructuring of Indian economy so as to increase the imperialist plunder many times. The loan taken from the IMF was paid back by the Indira Gandhi government not because the Indian economy had turned around but because of remittances made by the Indian workers toiling in gulf countries. While this was tom-tom as the success of the policies that were implemented, the crisis forced the Indian government to prostrate before their imperialist masters and PV Narasimha Rao’s government embarked on the New Economic policies as designed and dictated by imperialism. The New Economic Policies had turned the agriculture into economically unviable activity for the poor and middle peasants. Some of these measures are hiking the rates of electricity, fertilizers and irrigation water. The effect of these set of policies was immediately felt by the vast peasant masses. The deep rooted malaise got expressed in the form of suicides by the peasants. The depth and extent of the crisis can be gauged by the very fact that the total number of suicides by farmers surpassed one and a half lakhs in the span of 8 years. Yet the Indian ruling classes and their political representatives were undaunted in their pursuit of the policies dictated by imperialism and started exhorting the virtues of implementation of second stage of economic reforms, particularly in agriculture, second stage of green revolution. This makes it clear that it was a deliberate policy and not an aberration. The aim of this strategy was to implement a set policy that turns the Indian agriculture into an appendage to the imperialist economy. The Indian agriculture shall produce to meet the commercial needs of the agribusiness MNCs and not to meet the needs of the Indian people. By pauperizing the poor and middle peasants through economic levers, the ruling classes intend to push the peasants into contact and/or corporate farming which in practice degrade the peasant to tied producer or farm land supervising the cultivation on behalf of the MNC. The slogan of intensive cultivation and mechanization of agriculture which led to green revolution and the country into an intractable crisis, continue to hold the field with addition of genetically modified seeds which are designed to perpetuate the dependence of agricultural production upon the MNCs for inevitable use of inputs. Thus the penetration of imperialist capital into agriculture will take place with full force. The effect of these policies has led to the concentration of land in the hands of neo rich sections that amassed wealth by siphoning off the public funds. This concentration is not of the nature of capitalist relation. The land is being increasingly leased out to the peasants at exorbitant rent, which is nothing but extra economic coercion because otherwise land is not available to the peasant who had no other way of employment. The increasing number of rent farming indicates this. Yes, the form of feudal exploitation had changed; but not the content. The vast masses of peasantry (which includes landless laborers, poor and middle peasants) were forced submit to the exploitation being deprived of means of production that is land. During the last four decades, with the penetration of imperialist capital, the peasant masses are burdened with the additional task of quenching thirst of imperialist sharks. Hence, the agricultural sector has witnessed many changes, but continues to reel under feudal forms of exploitation and imperialist plunder. The intensity of exploitation had increased many folds withholding any progress of the Indian society towards independent capitalism and the Indian ruling classes along with the imperialism are maintaining status quo to safeguard their rule. Hence the Indian society continues to be semi-feudal in nature. The new economic policies being implemented as part of globalization strategy of imperialism have brought vast changes in the industrial sector. In pursuit of maximizing profits the imperialism gobbled up the manufacturing sector in India often replacing the Indian big bourgeoisie. The basic sectors like iron and steel, coal, non-ferrous metal, power generation went into the hands of foreign monopoly capitalists. Even in the service sector telecommunications was taken over by the telecom MNCs and the public sector BSNL is up for sale. The most publicized infrastructure projects being implemented are all pocketed by the foreign companies in the name of joint ventures. Foreign capital has occupied commanding heights in the Indian economy. India became a happy hunting ground for every imperialist to plunder our national resources, human labour and financial sources at whatever rate they like. All the imperialist countries are competing with each other to increase their hold on our economy. The Indian big bourgeoisie has grown; their assets grew at astronomical numbers; their industries grew in numbers. When we dissect each and every investment made by the big bourgeoisie, we will find they were tied with foreign capital with innumerable threads like financial, technical and corporate collaborations. And the foreign capitalist had the final say in running the industry. The big bourgeoisie claims itself as corporate entity, but in fact almost all the big bourgeois houses function as private limited companies in the form of Hindu undivided family; and thus they are in no way answerable to society; even the y were not called for disclosing their profits. Despite apparent growth, the growth of Indian big bourgeoisie is stunted because of its comprador nature and it’s dependence on imperialism for its survival. The increase of imperialist hold on the Indian society denotes that it continues to be semi-colonial in nature. The apparent changes that we are witnessing during the last four decades are brought into effect to meet the changing exploiting needs of imperialism and Indian big bourgeoisie. And thus have not intended to change its status as semi-colony. Thus India continues as semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. Unless and until the Revolutionary Redistribution of Land basing on the LAND TO THE TILLER is implemented, the feudal relations and their existence will not disappear. Unless and until the imperialist capital was thrown out of the country with its allies, Indian society does progress an inch forward. Imperialism, Feudalism and bureaucratic comprador capitalism are decisive impediments for the progress of Indian Society into a democratic, self reliant and independent society. Only the success of New Democratic Revolution will guarantee such a transformation. It is the duty of Communist Revolutionaries to strive to build united party that provides leadership to the revolutionary strugglers of the Indian people. Quoting Revolutionary Democracy journal (april 1996):The peasant question in a country of medium level of capitalist development where there was an agrarian question of the anti-feudal type precluded, then, the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship and the transition to socialism as the immediate stage. Stalin recalled that Lenin had objected to any underestimation of the role and importance of the petty-bourgeoisie, particularly of the peasantry: it was this which had led to Lenin opposing Trotsky who before the February revolution had not understood the importance of the peasant question, and had argued that the slogan of the moment was no tsar, but a workers government. Furthermore, it was the support of the vast masses of the petty-bourgeoisie in Russia immediately after the February revolution which led, not as had been anticipated by some, to the predominance of the proletariat but to the parties of the petty-bourgeoisie such as the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. The proletarian dictatorship had been established in Russia as a result of the more or less rapid growing over of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution.43 The need for democratic revolution is indicated by the domination of imperialism and the big Indian bourgeoisie dependent upon it which is engaged in an intensified offensive under the slogans of liberalisation and structural readjustment programmes; imperialism has to be combatted to establish the national independence of the country. Democratic revolution is required directed against: the survivals of feudalism which engender the movements of the peasantry for land; the oppression of the nationalities which have given rise to the national liberation struggles of Kashmir and the North-East, the movements for the use of the national languages; the survivals of the caste-system by the movements of the oppressed castes; the exploitation of the tribal peoples; the denial of the rights of women; the widespread prevalence of religion and illiteracy. The formation of a revolutionary Communist Party of the proletariat, free of all revisionist trends, is the indispensable pre-condition for the working class to win the leadership of the democratic movements, particularly the agrarian struggles, which will facilitate the uninterrupted transition from the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry to the proletarian dictatorship and the socialist revolution.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:22:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015