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