PHOTOS OF NAXALBARI MARTYRS STATUE and COM> KANU SANYAL

Com.Viswam’s writing:

The uniqueness of the unity Conference lies in the fact that it clearly enunciated the differences existing between the then merging organizations, i.e., CPI (ML) and CPI (ML) Red Flag. It also openly declared to the people about these differences and the process adopted to resolve them.

 

The Unity Conference adopted four documents, viz. outline of the Programmed, Constitution, Unity Resolution and Political Resolution as basic documents that guide the practical activities of our organization. Since then our organization is functioning basing on these documents.

 

The differences, no doubt, are basic in nature. Their resolution needs patient, open and dispassionate discussion to understand each other’s view point, the extent of the differences and the commonness prevailed. Such discussion will lead us to arrive at a common understanding.

 

This requires utmost responsibility on the part of the leadership. In order to understand the nature and the extent of nature and extent of differences and their impact on practical activities of our organization, the leadership has to discuss each other’s views on the differences. It helps them to clearly delineate the extent of commonness and divergence we have had on each difference. This process will help us to achieve unanimity to the maximum possible extent and to arrive at a common understanding that will not impede but rather gives impetus to the practical activities and advancement of our organization. The leadership should strive hard to conduct such discussion and arrive at a common understanding. As a result, when the differences are placed for discussion among our rank and file, they could discuss with ease of mind and are able to express their opinions clearly and freely.

 

Such an exercise should have been conducted first among the leadership. Then this effort should have been continued in the Sub-committee, CEC, and CC. Then the leadership could have been able to act with clear understanding about the differences.

 

But the Sub-committee on documents has not paid sufficient seriousness to this aspect. It took the attitude that one could write his document because the differences are basic in nature. The Sub-committee has not taken into consideration the possibility of having commonness to some extent on the points of difference. Moreover, it precluded the discussion that could have taken place in the Sub-committee and also to some extent obstructed the same in the CEC and CC. In this way, the leadership has not discharged the responsibility of identifying the extent of unanimity and divergence on each point of difference and of finding commonness to the possible extent on them.

 

The process of achieving unanimity on the differences and the role of leading bodies were kept aside by adopting this method. Due to this, the CEC and CC would remain as mere distributors of documents received and conductors of the Special Conference, but could not provide guidance and lead to the process of discussion and thus to the resolution of the differences.

 

There is a scope for the rise of danger of rallying comrades around documents. This impedes the process of achieving the political and ideological integration between the two currents that merged into one. This undermines the very spirit of unity.

 

Instead, we have to strive hard at the leadership level to find unanimity and divergence on the given difference and go to the rank and file with maximum possible common understanding. As a result of this effort, discussion can be started among the ranks explaining the divergences existed beyond the unanimity. The internal organ “The Guide” should be published with these articles. This helps to conduct the discussion among the rank and file in an organized manner. When the process of Special Conference begins, comrades representing the divergences would attend and explain their views to the forums at various levels.

 

We have the experience of organizing the discussion on the party history. We should take into consideration the shortcomings and achievements of this process and experience of conducting the Plenum. In the light of this experience, the CC should think over about the preparations and organizing the Special Conference and conducting the internal discussion and take appropriate decision on the entire process of Special Conference.

 

Instead, distributing the documents already received and others as and when they were received by the centre would be a mechanical approach. It creates apprehensions that rallying around one’s own opinions is taking place. It harms the unity of our organization.

 

The Unity Conference noted the following differences:

1.    The characterization of Indian state and society

2.    Principal contradiction

3.    Path of Indian revolution

4.    Evaluation of Party history.

 

1. On the characterization of Indian state and society:

We are in agreement that the semi-feudalism is impeding the development of Indian society and acting as the social base for imperialism. From the side of imperialism, it is abetting the semi-feudalism in various forms and utilizing it to have stranglehold not only on agricultural sector but also on Indian economic life. We have the commonness in identifying the enemies of revolution, i.e., feudalism and imperialism, and nature of revolution, i.e., anti-feudal democratic and anti-imperialist national revolution. We have also agreement that both the revolutions are intertwined, inter-related and inseparable in the present situation. We have the commonness on the tasks emanating from this assessment, i.e., overthrow the rule of feudal landlord class, big bourgeoisie and imperialism. Accordingly the central tasks are agrarian revolutionary movement with land to the tiller, and national liberation movement with the aim of removing imperialist domination in all fields of life. And finally we have the agreement that Indian society is semi-feudal in nature. The divergence is whether we call it semi colony or neocolony, though we have common understanding on the role being played by imperialism in India since the transfer of power. An in-depth detailed discussion is needed to understand which term is more scientific theoretically and politically and what is its impact on the practical activities of our organization. To find a solution to this is not difficult once we took up the discussion at leadership level.(based on the explanatory notes of CPI(ML) and CPI(ML)Red Flag appended to unity resolution)

 

2. On Principal Contradiction:

We have commonness on the major contradictions operating in the Indian society and two of them as basic contradictions. We have also commonness that these two contradictions are intertwined. Alliance of landlord class, big bourgeoisie and imperialism is aptly representing the present situation. A further concrete analysis can be taken up.

 

3. Path of Indian Revolution:

We have a basic approach towards the path of New Democratic Revolution. In order to concretize the path, an in depth study and discussion should be taken up on the experiences of Indian communist movement.

 

4. Evolution of Party History:

We have adopted a basic approach towards the evaluation of party history and the Plenum adopted a resolution. The decision of the Plenum should be incorporated in the Constitution as preamble.

 

Vijayawada with revolutionary greetings

10-8-2008                                                                               Viswam                                                                        

CLASS STRUGGLE-New Organ of CPI [ML]

‘Class Struggle’ from now is the new central organ {English} OF CPI (ML) in place of ‘Red Star’ as per central committee decision. The change in name of the organ is effected from February, 2009 following dissociation and desertion of a section of Central Committee members including two Delhi based editors of the former organ’Redstar’.

‘Class Struggle’ according to the present arrangement will be published monthly from AP.

Of late, distortion of and deviation from the accepted ideological and political line of the party became evident in many of the contents of various issues of Red Star. The views expressed in the contents are non-proletarian that only serves in bolstering up our enemy- besides giving birth to a lot of confusion and misconception about the political line of our party CPI (ML), in the political circles as well as among the people.

‘Class Struggle’ will cope with the new situation.It will combat the problems from ideological point of view with the greatest determination  by propagating and projecting truly the Marxist views and stand of the party of all issues both national and international and thereby help dispel misconceptions about the general political line of the party.

In the process, it will explain to the people the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal line of the party that champions the proletarian cause, in the simplest, clearest and most convincing manner enabling the party to have stuck deep roots in the mass of the people-a task not performed by ‘Red Star”.

At the same time as a Marxist organ it will combine with this assigned party task-the responsibility of carrying forward, in the words of comrade Lenin, “tireless and steadfast advocacy of “the only consistent, the only relentless overt and covert ideological assaults by the imperialist as well as revisionist and anarchist camps.

Let us hope that ‘Class Struggle’ would rise up to the occasion and perform in right earnest its role in preserving, strengthening and expanding the unity of the party achieved through Unity Conference held in Vijayawada in 2005.

28.01.2009                                                                                                                Kanu Sanyal

FIGHT AGAINST DISRUPTION OF PARTY, SAFE GUARD; CARRY FORWARD THE PARTY AND FRUITS OF UNITY.

(Resolution adopted by the CC-CPI (ML) in its meeting held in Jan 21-24, 2009).

In a gross breach of trust, belying the spirit of unity, frustrating the CC’s efforts to resolve the differences through inner party discussions and special conference and in the spirit of further strengthening unity and declaring that they would not abide by the constitution, committee system and any discipline Com.knramachandran and a section of CCMs had broken away from the party in a conspiratorial and most irresponsible manner.

Our party –CPI(ML)- came into existence a s a culmination of unity process between the CPI (ML) and CPI (ML) Red flag. We held our unity conference in 2005 in an atmosphere of enthusiasm and spirit of unity.We declared to the ranks as well as people that we are uniting into a single organization with differences on four basic questions and we would resolve these differences through inner party debates while carrying out the documents adopted in the Unity Conference. Thus this unity has become possible because of our approach to unite with differences. In the last four years, we have advanced our activities at all India level and in the states, extended our party to more states and rallied a good section of CRs in various states into our party. We resolved the difference on party history internal debate and an all India plenum.

However, we could not fully integrate and consolidate our party because Comramachandran accepted unity and unity documents in words but, in practice, pursued his own policies. ramachandran maintained and built up his own group within the party. He made use of the name, image, credibility, resources, party organs and his organizational position for this purpose. Many times, he has put the CC in a state of faith accompli, interpreted CC’s decisions to suit his need and push his views by back door. He made every attempt to frustrate the CC’s efforts to develop integration, consolidation and unity through discussions, practice and collective functioning on the basis of unity documents. He refused to rectify his attitude and methods despite repeated criticisms and decisions by the CC. He sought to sow prejudice, dissension and opposition against the CC among the units and comrades in the party. He has weakened the collective leadership and party committee system and sought replace them by factionalism and anarchism. He has misused the tolerance and concern shown by the CC in the overall interests of unity and the party.

When the CC has decided to take up the remaining questions(character of Indian state and society; Path of Indian Revolution and principal contradiction)  for internal discussion Comramachandran chose to sit with his own group separately and came to fore with documents which proposed amendments to Leninism and questioned certain basic positions of the  unity documents. He declared that no commonness can be attempted in the CC on the questions of debate as the differences are basic, irreconcilable and cannot be compromised. Thus he has blown up the differences. He denied the right and responsibility of the CC to organize, guide and lead the whole process of internal debate and special conference. He rejected the CC’s suggestion to amend his documents in conformity with the documents of unity conference. Throwing the constitution and organizational norms to winds he went ahead with his factional mobilization of units and comrades by sending letters unauthorized and holding group meetings against the CC. He resorted to disinformation, lies, vilification and factionalism to confuse, mislead and rally comrades.

Jan 2009 CC took a proposal for consideration. The proposal asked: 1.The distribution of Comramachandran’s document as they are. 2. Commitment to abide by the constitution, the system of collective leadership so that CC can guide the whole course of internal debate and special conference, and 3.Com ramachandran to explain his whole conduct which went against the norms of organization. But comramachandran has bluntly declared that the questions of debate are basic and therefore cannot be solved within the frame work of constitution. He declared that the question of explaining his conduct does not arise. He also declared to disassociate from the party and go in his own way. Refusing to reconsider his attitude and continue in the CC meeting he along with a section of CCMs left the venue of the CC silently at 5, am on 22^nd Jan’09 as per predetermined plan. Thus he has frustrated all the possibilities for the resolution of difference within the party.

The whole conduct of comramachandran exposes his political bankruptcy, contempt for the principles of communist organization and utter lack of conviction and honesty towards the aim of the unity. He has resorted to organization anarchism, anti organisational, disintegrating practices and finally took the road of disruption. Here he made a fun of aspirations and urges of ranks and C Rs as whole for unity.

The CC re-affirms its commitment to the approach of unity with differences. We could have retained and further strengthened unity provided there was honesty of purpose, adherence to the spirit of unity and the principles of organization. The whole conduct of Comramachanran shows that he joined the unity not with a honesty of purpose, but with a dishonest and a factional purpose. Through all his actions and disruptive course he has frustrated our earnest efforts and unites the C Rs with differences.

The CC re-iterates its commitment and decision to hold the special conference by Nov.2009.It resolves to start the process of special conference on the basis of CC’s draft documents and make the arrangements for the circulation of other documents-amendments to CC’s drafts and alternate documents-from the members of our party through the Guide. The CC will organize and guide the entire inner party debate culminating in the special conference.

The CC calls upon all the committees and comrades to expose, fight and defeat the forces of disruption, defend the party and uphold the spirit of unity. The CC appeals to the comrades who were mislead by the force of disruption to re-examine attitude and take the attitude of upholding unity, principles of communist organization and protecting the fruits of unity we have achieved.