One Year Of Split  – Sankar

One Year Of Split

 Sankar

The break-away group which walked-out from the 12th Party Congress of our party held in Kozhikode, Kerala, in 2022, formed a different group in end-December, 2022. Since then an entire year has passed and the experiences which one can gather from the episodes played throughout these three hundred and sixty five days are really valuable to understand the present condition of communist movement in general and revolutionary movement in particular. It is interesting to observe that immediately after coming out from CPIML Red Star this group jumped into an effort of a so-called merger process with three other Communist Revolutionary (CR) parties. They did not stop for a while, did not take time to review their past activities, did not put a serious effort to evaluate or reevaluate the real problems within the CR camp. They immediately jumped into a so-called merger where much larger and deeper politico-theoretical differences are present. Naturally, the question arises, those who could not work in a party where much less differences were present and the persons were more familiar to each other due to the fact that they worked together in the last several years, how can they cope up with more serious and larger differences?

One ready-made answer to this question is available. The answer is, there was no democracy in Red Star, and the new process is so democratic that even larger and deeper political differences are not a barrier for the constituent parties to work together. Let us examine the answer before going to other important questions.

Why was it said that there was no democracy in Red Star? The break-away section propagated this theory everywhere. They argued that they were not allowed to present their alternative document in the Party Congress. Was it a fact? Yes, it is a fact that they were not allowed to present their alternative document in the Party Congress. Why were they prevented from doing so? The main documents including Party Programme, Constitution, and the Path of Revolution were finalized by the January-end of 2022. The process of translating those in different languages started immediately and on the basis of those documents the process of state conferences started in March and by the month of August all the state conferences were completed. The dissident group, at that time known as G8 submitted their alternative documents after completion of all the state conferences, only before twenty days of the Party Congress (PC). Therefore, very naturally the majority section in the Central Committee (CC) did not accept the discussion on the alternative documents as an agenda in the PC. In response, the G8 cried that there was no democracy in Red Star. They argued that alternative documents can be submitted at any point of time, even on the PC floor! The majority section argued, if it is so then the alternative documents could not be translated and discussed at the state conference level and the whole process of Congress would be limited among the delegates of the PC only. And even the delegates of the PC will not be able to study the documents and develop independent opinions on these. The whole process would lead to chaos.

The general atmosphere within the party deteriorated very fast since the beginning of the year and by the middle of the year the dissident group took full ownership of Kharda Commune in Kolkata declaring clearly that two sections could not stay under the same roof anymore. The comrade in the commune who belonged to the majority section in the CC had to leave the commune by June, 2022. In every CC and PB meeting the G8 section started creating chaos followed by heated and irrational arguments. The overall atmosphere at that time compelled the majority section to take the decision that there should be no representatives of that group in the organizing committees of the PC (like Presidium or Steering Committee). On these two issues, alternative documents and G8 representation in the Presidium/ Steering Committee, voting took place in the last CC before Party Congress where the G8 section was defeated.

The process of developing the documents of the PC took one and half years. By this time at least five CC and seven PB meetings took place where thorough debates and discussions took place. There are very few parties in India where so much discussions are organized at the Central level to finalize the Congress documents. However, the dissident section never admitted this fact. They started propagating that there was no democracy in the party on the basis of two aforesaid issues without seeing their own faults, completely denying to realize how irrational their demands were.

The most striking and amazing fact is that when they wrote the constitution of their own party (CPIML RI) after the separation they did not allow anyone to submit alternative documents at any point of time. What they demanded in Red Star, and on what basis they declared that there was no democracy in the party, was not accepted in their own constitution! What did they write? They wrote in their constitution that the alternative documents must be submitted within one month of finalizing the official documents! Hypocrisy had no limit for the opportunists and career seekers!

While preparing this article, the first issue of ‘Revolutionary Initiative’, the central organ of RI, was published. Nearly all the major articles have targeted our party raising the same allegation that Red Star was ‘sectarian’ and ‘undemocratic’. In order to substantiate their arguments they again have resorted to blatant lies. Every line of those articles are full of lies, hypocrisy and crude cleverness. However, countering those line by line might be tiring to the readers who are already fed-up with these sorts of allegations and counter-allegations between the ML parties. Therefore, we will be limited to comment on some essential points to understand the real problems in revolutionary movements.

In one of those articles the relation between Party and class/mass organizations is dealt with. It is alleged that after the split, the Red Star leadership broke the class/mass organizations displaying their sectarian and undemocratic nature. Now let us discuss a few points on this. Since the 7th all-India conference of TUCI held in Kolkata in 2014, a section of our party started propagating that there should be complete separation between the Party and class/mass organizations. As a result when Comrade KNR, then GS of the party reached Kolkata to inaugurate the conference he was not allowed to do so by Sanjay Singvi, then GS of TUCI. Thenceforth, this tendency gradually gathered momentum and when Pradeep Singh Thakur joined Red Star and became the GS of All Indian Krantikari Kisan Sabha (AIKKS) in 2015, this tendency became powerful. Apparently, displaying good intentions, this policy looks very effective and democratic to unite the working class or peasantry. Similar policy was also adopted in all the class/mass organizations. However, at this present juncture of CR movement, when rampant theoretical, ideological and philosophical anarchy exist from top to bottom, this policy has been proved as a potent danger. It is noteworthy that since the time  around the 7th conference of TUCI, the political position of Sanjay started moving away from the party line in some questions. Specially, in the question of evaluation of parties like CPI and CPIM, Sanjay was taking more and more rightist positions. Pradeep Singh Thakur had similar positions as Sanjay from the very beginning, however, they were a minority in the CC.

It is not a crime to possess a different political position, even if it is imbued with the rightist tendency. On the contrary, for a healthy communist organization it is expected that the party-workers must be independent thinkers and through inner-party debates and conflicts, the correct political position emerges. However, it is a crime to be dishonest. Being a minority in the Party if someone practices his/her own line in the class/mass organization using the apparent good intention to unite the masses as cover in the name of complete separation of party and class/mass organizations and transforms the class/mass organization which he/she leads as his/her fiefdom, then it is obviously an unpardonable crime. That is why Marx quoted a line many times in his works from the Christian theological texts that ‘the road to hell is always paved by good intentions!’

This was the situation before the split. Therefore, one can imagine what these fellows can do after the split. They were using the platform of class/mass organizations to work against  CPIML Red Star. Therefore, we realized that two hostile parties could not work in the same class/mass organizations. That is why we decided not to continue in the same organizations.

Now, what is happening? They have completed the conference process of their section of TUCI. They widely propagated the reports, videos and photos of the all-India conference of their TUCI held in Chennai. One can easily identify all the top party-leaders including the General Secretary Pradeep Singh Thakur were present in the conference. The theory of ‘complete separation between party and class/mass organizations’ has been quickly abandoned when they formed their own group (now, they are not a minority in the party!). Here lies actual intention behind all lofty intentions. Hypocrisy and dishonesty had really no limit for them!

Another allegation against our party which they are trying to popularize is that Red Star is a sectarian party, that is why they could not stay in that. How do they try to substantiate this proposition? They propagate that when the task of upgrading the Party Programme was taken in hand, the new Programme which was drafted was too long with many unnecessary, superfluous matters. Secondly, it was written that India was a neo-colonially depended country in order to characterize the Indian state knowing fully well that no other CR group or party would accept this. Their argument is that if this characterization remains in the Party Programme then how can a merger with others be possible! Therefore, they say, what Red Star says in words, that uniting all the CRs in a single party is actually false, a lie. Why does Red Star behave like this? Because Red Star is a sectarian party.

Let us discuss one by one. Firstly, take the question of unnecessary, superfluous matters. Although PST (Predeep Singh Thakur) has said about many superfluous, unnecessary matters in the Programme, he actually pointed out one single thing in this regard. Programme started with a description of our country. All parties that claim themselves as Communist start their Party Programme from around 1920, when the communist movement started in India. Or, they start from the colonial time when the British started ruling. However, this time, while upgrading our Programme we felt that a very short description of the emergence of class division and consequently the emergence of classes and class struggle should be given in the Programme, otherwise the relation between class and varna-caste could not be established in a comprehensive and logical way. Their disagreement solely is here, only at this point. However, they do not have enough courage to express it clearly. Therefore, PST invented a technique. He started quoting Lenin. Let us hear directly from him. He wrote in their organ,

“Similarly when we saw that the updated party programme placed by majority primarily based on PAST,….  it starts from vedic civilization, then again we drew the attention of the ‘majority’ to the reaching of Lenin: ‘The programme of RSDLP should BEGIN the definition (and indictment) of Russian capitalism’.”

Now, firstly, the draft documents including Party Programme was not drafted by any majority, but by a Commission set up by the PB consisting four members, namely, Comrades KNR, PJ, myself and Alik. In fact, there was no difference within the Draft Commission on Party Programme, however, when it was placed in CC, PST raised his objection. Secondly, our Programme has a total of 78 points divided into six chapters. Out of these seventy eight points there are only three points on the ancient history of our country, one point on the Sultanate/Mughal period and five points on colonial era. Can it be said that the Programme is primarily based on the past? Our previous Programme had all these points except the ancient and Sultanate/Mughal section. Therefore, the Commission added only four new points. However, PST started crying, ‘A programme is not a place to discuss history.’ He started quoting Engels, ‘All that is superfluous in a programme weakens it’, etc etc. Thirdly, Lenin wrote a Programme which was suitable for Russia more than one hundred and twenty years before. Now, we have to write  a programme which is needed in India after one hundred and twenty years. How can we blindly follow Lenin? Does it mean that the era has changed? Does PST want to say that in the same era Lenin must be blindly followed? Does PST follow Lenin words by words? The answer to all these questions is a big No! Actually, using the theory of era PST wants to make his readers fool.

But why were these people so panicked with only three extra points? What was written there? In these three points it is said that in India class division emerged in the form of varna division, and it is historically proved that “caste struggle and gender struggle have been developing as two integral aspects of Indian class struggle from the very beginning.” The Brahmanichal Manuist mindset which is hidden in one section of Indian communists from very beginning came under heavy attack with this formulation. The RI leaders either are themselves brahminical or they want to postpone this struggle, or do not want this struggle at all. Why? Their argument is very clear. They want to unite all CRs in a single party! For them, a correct party line, correct ideology, correct policy do not matter at all. For them the cloak is important, not the person under the cloak! For them the ML banner is sufficient, not the actual politics! What a pity!

Now let us take the state character question. Our Party Programme says that India is a neo-colonially depended country.

It is interesting to note that in our party there was absolutely no disagreement with this formulation. Not a single member had a different understanding. However, a new kind of disagreement, which was absolutely an unprecedented one, had been invented by a section of present RI leadership. They started saying that although we had no doubt that this formulation was correct, there were no other CR organizations that could accept this formulation. Therefore for a merger with others, in order to unite all the CRs in a single party we should not write this in the programme. What a gem! The existing members had no difference on this point but the future members might have objection to it! This imagination compelled them to leave a formulation which they themselves opined as correct! What a gem!

Now see what is the consequence of the muddle-headed politics! We have received the draft party programme of their much advertised merger-conference to be held in March from a reliable source. I have got the Bengali version of the draft. Therefore I had to translate it into English. So, the translation is mine. The Programme is very brief as PST wanted. According to them, ‘a Leninist Programme’! Upholding the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin the Programme is drafted, they can claim. I am not going into a detailed discussion now. Let us take the first paragraph, the very first point. The very first line says, “India is a backward capitalist country with a pre-capitalist impression which is oppressed and exploited by different imperialist powers in the world.” The formulation of “neo-colonially depended country” is totally forgotten. It is also interesting to note that PST always argued in Red Star in favor of the existence of feudalism in India. However, this time in the draft programme the existence of feudalism is absolutely marginalized. PST always argued in Red Star that feudalism still existed in Indian agriculture. However, the fourth line of the draft programme says, “The Indian agriculture has transformed from feudalism to capitalism.”  The sixth line says that in agriculture “as the principal exploiter class the old landowners are replaced by the capitalist.” However, feudalism still exists! How? The eighth line says, “Although the remnants of feudalism still exist it has no role in the state power, however, it has heavy influence in the Indian ideology and culture.” Therefore, feudalism neither exists in the economy nor has a role to play in the state power. It only exists in ideology and culture. But the very next line says, “There is an alliance of imperialism, monopoly capitalists and feudal remnants..” which is identified as one pole of the principal contradiction in our country. The other pole is the broad masses of the people. Therefore, the principal contradiction is an alliance of imperialism, monopoly capital and feudal remnants vs the broad mass of the people! But there is no feudalism in the economy and in state power. But feudalism exists in principal introduction. What a gem! The CPIML Prajapantha is happy with the formulation of ‘backward capitalist country’. The official section of PCC (a large section of PCC had not joined in this farce) is happy with the formulation of the existence of feudalism in ideology and culture only (not in economy and in state). And PST is happy seeing his dear feudalism in the principal contradiction! All are happy! The bourgeoisie call this situation ‘the win-win situation’! However, when all these contradictory formulations are put together in a programme then it becomes a child’s play, instead of becoming ‘a Leninist Programme’! If Lenin were still alive he surely would give a tight slap on the face of these leaders for using his name to justify this b-grade drama.

Unification of the Communist Revolutionaries involves sharp ideological political discussions, debates supported by serious and deep study as well as honest learning. Nobody can avoid this tedious task in this time of theoretical, ideological and philosophical chaos and anarchy. Unity of CRs can only be based on developed theoretical understanding. In this process temporary isolation may come as a result of necessary uncompromising theoretical  struggle. However, the opportunist leadership of RI is chasing a quick success. They talk about Lenin, quote Lenin frequently but never study Lenin’s life and works. Actually these leaders have left the agenda of revolution completely. A false glory of a false success is enough for their pursuit of name, fame and property. Once the historical significance of CPIML was to bring back the agenda of revolution in the Indian communist movement. Half a century later this is a pity that a section of leadership has forgotten and left the task of radical transformation of the society.