Wednesday, December 28, 2011

PC (AP) Statement on Kim Jong-Il’s Death

Dear comrades:
 
On December 17 comrade Kim Jong Il, top leader and leader of the Labour Party of Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Korean people, died. His death attracted various comments and speculations by capricious and malicious agencies, reactionary and imperialist news, and even the machinery of war in Japan, U.S. and South Korea which are put on “maximum alert” and of course, as usual, not only the openly reactionary and imperialist pour their poison, also false anti-imperialist leftists stick their voice to refer to the death of Comrade Kim Jong IL, as the death of a “dictator”, a “Stalinist” to the Communists never been an offense, rather it is that we honor appoint “Stalinist.” All with morbid excitement seeking “signs of popular discontent” in order to reaffirm their reactionary plans, last minute, to justify an imperialist military progression.
For those who, from Marxism-Leninism, assume the national liberation struggle for popular democracy and socialism, the death of Comrade Kim Jong IL, is a source of genuine and deep regret. Korean people, under his guidance, learned to face the aggressive maneuvers of imperialism and the South Korean puppets, always sought the support and supported those who dared to walk on their own feet and use their own heads, who are not subjected to imperialist hegemony, many unresolved battles and all the lands with which the DPRK under the leadership of Comrade Kim Jong Il, has demonstrated the dignity, courage and to stand with those who fight and defend self-determination, anti-imperialism, and socialism.
Comrade Kim Jong Il, through great courage and as an internationalist revolutionary, was not discouraged by the revisionist betrayal restored capitalism in the former USSR and other Eastern European countries, on the contrary, scientific and burning attachment revolutionary, unmasked as a betrayal of the working class, the people and its system, socialism, stating clearly that the main cause lies in the fact that the leaders of those countries moved away and abandoned the ideology of the working class, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
At present we can only join the pain of the workers and people of Korea, and with them to honor the memory of Comrade Kim Jong IL, a loyal fighter for self-determination, national sovereignty, for socialism Only then can we impose the truth of the workers and peoples of the manipulations, falsifications and lies of the reactionaries and imperialists, and only win!


Honor and Glory to Comrade Kim Jong IL!

Friday, December 23, 2011

AIFTU(New), AIKMKS Rally at Vishakhapatnam on 18th December 2011.


The new Central Trade Union, ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS (AIFTU) NEW and Peasants Organization ALL INDIA KHET MAZDOOR AND KISAN SABHA(AIKMKS)




Com. KRISHNA, Cultural activist of Chasi Muliya Adivasi Sangam, Kidnapped by Maoists last October 2011 but not surrender to their threat 


Com. G.Vijaya Kumar (AIFTU(new) president)


Com. Subodh Mitra (AIKMKS) convener


Delegates from various states 


Cultural Activists from AP







Cultural Activists from Orissa







Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Condemning Maoist Kidnapping of CMAS Activist from Koraput.


CHASI MULIA ADIVASI SANG (CMAS).          (Koraput, Raygada Dt., Orissa) Affiliated to ALL INDIA KISAN- MAZDUR KISAN SANG (AIKMKS)

Condemn Maoist Kidnap Of Com.Krishna, Activist of CMAS Koraput.
We are demanding his Immediate Release.
Dear Friends,
With shock and anguish we are informing you all that on October 18th, 2011 at about 4.30PM nearly 40 armed men led by the CPI (Maoist) had interrupted a section of Adivasi people when they were on their way towards Kathulapeta from Bandugaun in Koraput district and forcibly kidnapped 4 Adivasis, namely Imrika Sanga, Imrika Yenkati of Bankidi village, Imrika Paraiah of Silabadi Village and Puvala Kayu of Vikram Village. Some of the kidnappers covered their faces with towels while some others were wearing Red shirts. Some were seen with guns on the nearby hill top. The 4 CMAS activists were taken towards Jhangidivalas forest in Kabirbadi Panchayat
It is to be noted here that on October 18th, 2011 about 3000 Adivasi people from various villages of Bandugaun Block took out rally under the leadership of CMAS to Bandugaun to present a charter of their demands to the BDO such as: schools for Adivasis, teachers, proper health care, medicines for malaria, tube wells, BPL cards, draught relief, work under NREGA, implementation of 2/56 and other acts aimed at protecting the rights of Adivasis and lands to the Adivasis etc. Four Adivasi activists who were kidnapped by the Maoists were returning to their homes after taking part in this rally. The CMAS and Adivasi people have protested against this act and demanded for an immediate and safe release of the activists.
It was only on October 20th, 2011 morning the news came out that the 4 kidnapped activists were set free. However, their families and the people had to wait for this more than 40 hours in agony and tension.
But the Maoists did not relent. On October 20th, 2011 morning at about 10’O’ clock, 40 armed Maoists had intercepted Com.Krishna, a leading activist of CMAS and cultural activist, when he along with two of his colleagues were passing through Almando Bazar in Bandugaun Block on a Motor Bike. The armed Maoists have pushed a stick in the wheels of moving Bike and thus made them fall down. Then they forcibly kidnapped Com.Krishna and fled away. Com.Krishna’s whereabouts and his conditions are not yet known. Why he is kidnapped is not known. It is a fact that Com.Krishna is a leading activist of CMAS and critical of certain acts of Maoists against poor Adivasis. (He openly criticized the Maoists act of breaking the lock of poor Adivasi houses in Kanaga and Neelabadi Villages, destroying the belongings and crushing under the feet the photos and Marx,Engels,Lenin and also the photo of Com.Kendruka Arjun.)
It needs to be recollected here that on August 9th, 2010 an armed murder squad of Maoists had killed Com.Kendruka Arjun when he was going to hospital together with his sick wife. Com.Arjun was secretary of Koraput district Chasi Mulia Adivasi Sang. He was a poor Adivasi and developed into a popular leader of Adivasi people’s movement through his long dedicated work. The Maoists sought to defend their crime by branding Com.Arjun as police informer. But this allegation was proved to be blatant lie. The democrats, Intellectuals and well-wishers of the people’s movement widely and sharply condemned the Maoist act. The Adivasi people of Koraput district took part in thousands in the last journey of Com.Arjun and again on August 9th, 2011 they held the first anniversary of Com.Arjun’s Martyrdom. The people are determined to march ahead under the leadership of CMAS and complete task handed over to them by their leader Com.Arjun. Our CMAS has repeatedly appealed to the Maoists through booklets, leaflets and public meetings to shun the politics and methods of murder and antagonism against other Communist Revolutionary Organizations and Mass Organizations. We appealed not to harm the people’s movements and direct their ire against the exploiting ruling class and their state.
Yet the Maoists have resorted to the acts of kidnapping the activists of CMAS in Koraput district.
We once again wish to point out to the Maoists that resorting the methods like threats, coercion, pressure of killing against the members, activists, leaders and people led by other Organizations leading the struggles of Adivasi people against the exploiting ruling classes and their governments and the attempt to weaken, destroy, and grab the movements by such acts would only gladden the exploiters, oppressors and their states. It will lead to immense problems to the cause of people as a whole.
We appeal to the Democratic Organizations, Democrats, Intellectuals and whole those who stand by the just Democratic Rights and Cause of People to Immediately Intervene in the situation, CONDEMN THE MAOIST ACT OF KIDNAPPING AND DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE AND SELF-REALSE OF COM. KRISHNA, THE ACTIVIST OF CMAS KORAPUT DISTRICT.
Regards,
Srikant Mohanty
Convener
Chasi Mulia Adivasi Sang (CMAS)
Koraput, Raygada



Saturday, October 8, 2011

DEVELOP A STANDARD CRITICISM AND SELF-CRITICISM THAT IS BASED ON PROPER REASONS AND PROPER EVIDENCE

Develop A Standard Criticism And Self-Criticism That Is
Based On Proper Reasons And Proper Evidence.

By Com. Fu Che-Yang.


We must be reasonable, concrete and honest when we are making criticism and self criticism. We must not think that we lose reputation. We must forget it. We must not allow the idea whom we are criticizing to enter our mind. ‘Like every tree will have an outer layer, all would have a dignity’- this is an old saying. It is related to the philosophy of old social relations. The proletariat is an open-hearted and genuine class. It is a class that acts frankly. It strives to grasp the truth from the matters. Com Mao taught us that “we must cut off the tail i.e. mistakes with no hesitation what so ever”. Our comrades must not flatter and flaunt themselves. Admitting your mistakes does not mean that you are totally rotten. You will only gain, not lose and will not be harmed by admitting the mistakes and by informing the same in your militant group and your closer group. Not only you will not lose your dignity because of this, but your “dignity” and prestige would grow. Your relation with people would grow stronger with an open hearted admission of your mistakes. Therefore, it is a fact that the people would welcome the open heartedness.


 A comrade who tries absolutely to conceal his mistakes or who tries to argue that he has committed no mistakes or who excludes himself from the mistakes will ultimately alienate himself from the people. The people would get dissatisfied by these comrades. They lose confidence in him. His credibility among the people will get destroyed.One must not adopt a fickle minded and irresponsible attitude towards criticism and self criticism. He must not take a middle road. He must not adopt an attitude of a spectator. As against all this, we must adopt a definite attitude. We must keep in mind the well being of all the comrades and the entire group. So the comrades who are committing the mistakes are having the tendencies harmful to the revolutionary aim. 


Therefore, this is a question that concerns all. The attitude of ‘why should I be bothered about the mistakes of others’ is totally wrong. His mistakes will not harm him alone. They are harmful to the collective and the entire group. The comrades must develop self criticism. They must pay attention to the criticism of collective team. Comrades must not differentiate the mistakes of their own from the mistakes of others. A comrade showing the tolerance towards the mistakes of others means he is destroying those comrades. Similarly, if one shows lenience towards his own mistakes, it means he is committing suicide in terms of ideas. Supporting the mistakes or tolerating the mistakes only amounts to adding one mistake to other mistake and patronizing the mistakes.


What type of mistakes the comrades must be saved from committing and what are to be ignored? The questions can be dealt only by upholding principle? A larger interest of the working class is our guiding principle. Party objectives, Party policies, Party path and people’s well being alone are our best guiding principle. We can benefit from the criticism and self criticism only by upholding this principle. We can find proper solutions for the problems only by following this way. Small things like those concerning the daily routine i.e. why a particular person brushes his teeth four times a day? Why a particular woman tied her hair in such a way? Why that man talks so loudly? The things such as this which have no relation what so ever to the principles are not fit for team’s criticism. These things must not be raised to the level of principle.


What happens if we concentrate only on the mistakes of the comrade, do not recognize of refuse to recognize the good qualities in him and if we portray him as totally bad? What happens is, firstly, he will not be able to admit even a small particle of the criticism, irrespective of the nature of our criticism. Our criticism becomes bitter for him. Not only this, we would be creating a feeling in him that he is good for nothing. Dissatisfaction and despair would develop in him. What we should do? Does it mean that we must go on listing out his good qualities every time before we criticize his mistakes? No. Then, what is its meaning? It means we must also keep in mind his good qualities while criticizing his weaknesses. We must not confine our criticism and self criticism to those comrades who have committed more mistakes. It means, we must also apply our criticism and self criticism to those who have committed fewer mistakes. 


A good comrade is rarely criticized as compared to the comrade who has committed more mistakes. Because of this, carelessness and arrogance would develop in that comrade. So the comrade must occasionally be warned. It saves him from falling prey to arrogance. The criticism and self criticism is a process that must be taken part by everyone with no exception.The comrades must not be emotional while making criticism and self criticism. They must realists and good natured. They must be rational in their criticism. They must be elaborative. They must not make discriminatory, thoughtless and slanderous accusations. It means the criticism and self criticism must be in proportion to the mistakes. Some would attribute certain trends and attach labels to others. It is a consequence of not knowing the things in all their aspects, subjectivism and narrowness. 


The persons coming from a petty bourgeoisie class origin would often do not show the farsightedness. While making a criticism, one must be able to differentiate what is principal and what is non principal in a thing. They must be able to identify what is a mistake committed consciously and what is the mistake committed unconsciously. This is most important. We can make others to accept our criticisms happily and unconditionally only when we search and grasp the truth from the things. We must also show him the way to overcome the mistakes. The objective of our criticism must be to help the comrade to ge rid off the influences of the feudal or petty bourgeoisie ideas and imbibe him with the proletarian ideology and communist ideas.


The criticism must be aimed at criticizing the unwanted tendencies in a comrade, helping him to overcome them and make him to work better in the future. Wrong tendencies in a comrade are our enemy. Our struggle, therefore, is not against him as a person but against his mistaken ideas.One needs courage to make the self criticism. One must also need courage to criticize others. Some comrades carry on the battle fearlessly in the battle field. They would be ready to sacrifice their lives. But they cannot hold the weapon of self criticism. They shiver. Some comrades try to be always in the forefront in work. They would be challenging others to compete with them. But when they required to make self criticism, they would hide somewhere behind. Instead of cleaning the dirt in them, they would conceal it. They would keep their cloths and rooms clean. They would take bath thrice a day and wear clean dresses. But they do not try and show special attention to wash away the wrong and mistaken ideas that have crept into their understandings and views.


One must not resort to petty bourgeoisie tactics in the struggle against the wrong ideas. We cannot carry on the struggle against the wrong ideas and wrong orientations as long as we persist in the attitude of remaining silent and wrong orientations.At the end, we e must understand: the criticism and self criticism must be based on proper reasons. There must be strength in them. There must a proper point in them. They must have a guiding principle. True, we must not be casual, but be serious while criticizing a person. But we must keep in mind that ‘reckless methods, ostentatious shows, boastings and pretensions’ won’t work when we are in a struggle concerning the understandings.  ===================================================================                                                       

Friday, September 2, 2011

ON PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION.

ON PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION.
Aravind Sinha.
                                                                                                                               
At the time of unity talks KNRamachandran said that the concept of principal contradiction is not needed because it creates lot of confusion leading to serious problems in developing party work. This is what happened after 1970 CPI (ML) All India Party congress. At that time, the principal contradiction was declared as between feudalism and broad masses of the Indian people i.e. landlords vs. the peasantry. This created one-sidedness on the one hand, and anarchist tactical practice on the other. Likewise the question of path of Indian Revolution led to effort for mechanical copying of the Chinese Revolution. The main slogan became in those days “Chinese path is our path”. This led to serious mistakes and anarchist practice. So, it is better not to clinch the issue of Principal Contradiction and Path of Indian revolution at the present stage of our movement. This may be decided later on after some more experience and deeper studies on these important matters. But we emphatically put forward our suggestion to decide on these important issues in a given time frame through a Special Party Conference as these issues are crucial to give a correct orientation to our work. Finally, this suggestion was accepted.


Com.Mao studied and developed the philosophy and method of Dialectical Materialism and explained these complex concepts in his famous articles “on Practice” and “On contradiction”. There he explains that there are many contradictions in a society at any given time, but, only one of them is the Principal contradiction. The development of this contradiction has profound impact on all other contradictions existing in society. One aspect of the principal contradiction is dominant at any particular time and is the Principal aspect of the Principal Contradiction. By carefully analyzing these contradictions in a country and their relative position and strength, one may understand the existing situation as well as future dynamics of society. Applying the principle of dialectical materialism in understanding human society Marx said that the history of mankind is history of class struggles. So if you want to understand the society you have to understand the class nature of society, which is the ruling class (the most powerful among social classes), and which class/ classes are exploited by the ruling class/classes. One has to analyze the relative position and strength of different existing contradictions in the society and which contradiction plays the most decisive role. But developing such an understanding one can understand the nature and character of the society. And by locating the principal contradiction one will be able to understand which are the principal target and the principal enemy of the people. Which forces will be pitted from amongst the people to fight against the enemy of the people?

Mao developed this concept of principal contradiction and applied it to the concrete conditions of the Chinese society. Before aggression on China by Japanese imperialists, Mao characterized the principal contradiction in china as the alliance between imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism on the one hand, the broad masses of Chinese people on the other. So the target of revolution was imperialism, feudalism and comprador bourgeoisie. But when Japan occupied large parts of China and tried to convert china into the colony of Japan, at that time, Mao said that in the changed situation the nature of principal contradiction had changed, i.e. the principal contradiction has become Japanese Imperialists vs. the Chinese nation and the stage of revolution had change from New Democratic Revolution into a National revolution had changed from New Democratic Revolution into a National Revolution for national Liberation from the clutches of Japanese Imperialists.

This change in the situation resulting into a change in the nature of principal contradiction brought about change in United Front tactics of the Communist Party. Before Japanese aggression, the target of Chinese Revolution was entire imperialist camp and their Chinese compradors. But Japanese aggression CPC adopted the policy of forging united front with those sections of the comprador ruling classes who were opposed to Japanese aggression and occupation. This section of the ruling classes of china were allied to the western Imperialists like England, America, France etc. Due to the pressure from Chinese people and the patriotic sections of Kuomintang Party and the army it had to change its stand. Chiang Kai sheik did not want an alliance with the Chinese communist Party. A rebellion started against his leadership which compelled him to respond positively towards the proposal for an anti-Japanese National United Front put forward by the Chinese Communist Party. This gave a big impetus to the struggle against Japanese aggression. CPC and the Red Army under its leadership became the main vanguard against foreign occupation. Due to this, the support base of the CPC expanded throughout China.

When the Second World War began, the allied forces i.e. Great Britain, France; USA etc came into direct confrontation with Japan as Japan was a part of axis powers led by Fascist Hitler. This conflict ultimately culminated into nuclear attack on Japan by the USA in 1945. Atom Bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima resulting into surrender by Japan before Allied Forces. After this the nature of contradiction again changed in China. CPC under Mao again noted that fight against comprador ruling classes had become principle again. Chiang Kai Sheik engineered many conspiracies against CPC and the Red Army with the support of American and British Imperialists. In this situation CPC broke alliance with Kuomintang and civil war started again. Within four years an extremely bloody civil war started and Chinese people defeated reactionary forces under the leadership of Kuomintang which had backing of most powerful of the imperialist forces, the US Imperialism. In this way by successful application of the theory of dialectics and the concept of Principal contradiction CPC under Mao’s leadership successfully accomplished Chinese Revolution in 1949.

In our document, Character of Indian State and Society, we have discussed about the nature of our state and society in detail. We have characterized India as a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country where the people are exploited and oppressed by imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism. The broad masses of people comprising mainly workers, peasants and petty bourgeoisie face exploitation and oppression in every walk of life. The national bourgeoisie also faces to some extent exploitation and oppression due to the system dominated by imperialism, feudalism and comprador bourgeoisie. Even after 60 years of end of the British rule in India common working people find it extremely difficult to survive and lead a life with human dignity. A commission setup by the Central Govt. a couple of years back under the chairmanship of famous economist and planning commission member Dr.Arjun Sen Gupta to study the condition of unorganized sector of the working people found that 77% of people in our country are compelled to live with an income of Rs.20, or less per day per person.

One may imagine how pitiable would be the condition of these people in the unorganized sector. It is on record that nearly 2 lacks peasants committed suicide during the last 16 years of Liberalization, globalization and Privatization regimes. Millions of workers in the organized sector were thrown out of their jobs because of retrenchment and closure of the Industries. Lacks of small and medium enterprises were closed during this period of Globalization India. The rate of creation of jobs in the permanent sector has been decreasing over the years. Unemployment and Underemployment has increased manifolds. Security of jobs has become a thing of the past. Most of the jobs are of contractual nature in the Industrial regimes which following the out sourcing mantra coming from the imperialist countries. The condition of the tribes has deteriorated considerably and their existence is being threatened by giant multinational corporations and India big business in mining and metallurgical fields. In Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand hundreds of MOUs have been signed by these giant companies and the state governments. Mittals, Jindals, Tata, Posco, DeBeers etc. have signed contracts for large scale mining and production. The tribes inhabiting there for thousands of years are being compelled to go out of their villages and fields and hand over the area to these multinational sharks. But it is being resisted and opposed by large sections of the people including the tribes, the workers, urban middle classes and progressive intelligentsia of the country, spontaneous and organized mass movements can be witnessed in Kalinga nagar in the Puri district, Singhbhum, Ranchi, Santhal Parganas and many other parts of Chhattisgarh and Orissa. Big protest march being organized in cities like Kolkata, Bhubaneswar, Ranchi, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Raipur, Delhi, Mumbai etc. to oppose SEZs and eviction of tribes and other peasantry. Nandigram and Singur successfully resisted in the move of multinational and corporate houses backed by the State Govt. The exploitation by imperialist powers in our country is facilitated and promoted by Indian big bourgeoisie and big landlords and respective govt. at the centre and the states.

The condition in the agrarian sector is even more alarming. Millions of peasant families have gone bankrupt. Rising cost of seed, fertilizer and power coupled with non-remunerative price of farm products and vagaries of weather has created this alarming situation of the agrarian sector. Recurring droughts and floods and absence of any insurance and/or any other social security has rendered the peasantry bankrupt. Peasant indebtedness in the hands of private money lenders at very high interest rates has deepened their exploitation leading to destitution. Fertilizer is being imported due to closure of large number of fertilizer factories by the government.

The MNC are selling their seeds and fertilizers at very high cost. Nearly 80 % of farming land does not have assured irrigation facility. The cumulative outcome of all these factors is that agriculture contributes only 20% of the GDP of our country today. On the other hand, 60% of the populace is dependent upon the farm sector for its survival. These factors are sufficient to explain the pauperization of the peasantry and large scale migration of the agrarian populace towards developed urban and industrial centers. Due to large scale corruption, funds earmarked for the welfare of the village community hardly reaches to them. A small section of middle men and bureaucrats are fattened by plundering of the development and welfare fund earmarked for the rural areas have become contractors and middlemen to deal with the development and welfare funds provisioned by the government. This class has benefited and enriched at the cost of vast rural masses. 60 years of development in general and 16 years of development under Globalization in particular has created a situation where India has the largest number of Billionaires in Asia (53) on the one hand and maximum number of poor and starved people in any single country on the other.

In the present Parliament 300MPs are crorepatis and 3 are billionaires. The Parliament has turned into a club of the rich. Hardly anything meaningful in the interest of the common is ever seriously discussed and debated there. Ministers, MPs and legislative assemblies have become commission agents of big corporate houses and MNCs. In this way we see that in our country the present social, economic and political system serves the interest of comprador big bourgeoisie, big land lords and imperialist powers at the cost of brutal exploitation of the working population i.e. the workers, the peasants and different petty bourgeois classes (intelligentsia and other middle-classes).
 
This situation makes it clear that the principal contradiction in our country is the alliance of imperialism, feudalism and comprador big bourgeoisie on the one hand vs. the broad masses of the Indian people on the other. This alliance was found during the British rule in India. Indian big bourgeoisie and big land lords served the British colonial interest and received a part of the booty from the imperialist masters.

In 1947, the British imperialism was forced to get out of India due to surging and busting movements of Indian people in different part of the country. To avoid revolutionary takeover of power by the Indian people, British colonialists entered in to agreement with bourgeoisies and landlord classes of India to hand over power at the expense of common Indian people. This is how transfer of power took place in 1947.

Thus, India changed from a colonial and semi-feudal country into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. The Principal contradiction changed from being British imperialism vs. the broad masses of Indian people into alliance of Imperialism, Feudalism and Comprador Bureaucratic Capitalism vs. broad Masses of Indian people.  


2nd September 2011.
==========================================================================

NATIONAL SEMINAR BY OPDR AND PUCL AT AP on Sept. 24 and 25th 2011.

Dear Friends,                                                                                                                        
24th August, 2011 Indian Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights movement completes 75years of age. The first civil liberties movement of India was mooted by I N C and it's concrete form is ICLU. The inaugural meeting held in Bombay on 24th august 1936. Rabindranath Tagore was it's president, Vijaya Lakshmi Pundit and K B Menon were it's working presidents and General secretary respectively. Jawaharlal Nehru, Babu Rajendraprasad, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Jakeer Hussein etc. were (21members) in the executive. It was explicitly stated that ICLU was a inseparable part of anti colonial movement and any individual who agreed this orientation and was willing to condemn the astronomical repression of the colonial government on Indian people could be the member of it. whatever his/her political affiliations and convictions. The inaugural session was held at Bombay on 24th August 1936. Soon the Madras and Calcutta branches were also formed. It had slowly lost stream by 1940 and became totally defunct by 1942. It is partly because of the congress leadership's real nature.
Between 1946 and 51 terrible repression let loose on workers and peasants struggles and against communist ranks. Once again civil liberties movement sprang up (off course with the initiative of the CPI) and worked against with the repression until 1955 by which time the CPI has taken to parliamentary politics.Once again there was a repression on newly formed CPI(M) during 1964-65 and once again civil liberties associations came into existence in the places like Calcutta, Bombay, Andhra Pradesh etc. After release of CPI(M) carders and leaders from jails these associations too went dormant/defunct. Then in 1967 thus Naxalbari - Srikakulam tribal peasant struggle broke out with a big bang. In fact the struggle was a part of an attempt to establish a new democratic state in India through armed revolution. So, the Indian state used it's mighty armed strength and crushed it. In that process Indian state murdered thousands of peasants, students and revolutionary cadres through out the country. To denounce this brutal massacre a few intellectuals and certain revolutionary leaders, especially in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal took initiative to build up a new type of civil liberties movement. That is democratic rights movement whose main objective is to uphold the right to struggle of the people, including the right to change the system. APCL and DR was formed in 1971 in Andhra Pradesh and APDR was farmed in West Bengal in 1972. APCLC and OPDR-AP are the offshoots of APCL and DR.
The internal emergency of 1975, for the first time extended the repression on to the opposition establishment parties also. As a response to it PUCL and DR was formed in Delhi in 1976 under the leader ship of late.Jayaprakash Narayan. The existing PUCL and PUDR are the offshoots of this. After 1977 and particularly 1980,many more 'rights' associations came into existence since 1982  efforts have been going on to form either all India organization(s)with limited success
At present the Noe liberal onslaught on the rights of the people is phenomenal and hence to develop a coherent co-ordination at all India level is urgent task.PUCL and CDRO are fulfill this task to certain extent however it is important to review the entire history of Indian civil liberties and democratic rights movement.Every organization may have its own assignment of the past and present.It is necessary to pool up these assessments.With this aim OPDR proposed in June an all India seminar with the theme"75years of civil liberties and democratic rights in India-challenges and problems" it proposed the seminar may be jointly organized by OPDR,APCLC,PUCL(AP),HRF.But APCLC and HRF expressed their inability to be joint organizers.However they accepted to attend the seminar and present their view
So this all India seminar shall be jointly organized by OPDR-AP and PUCL-AP at Vijayawada(the biggest railway junction in India) on 24,25 September 2011. All civil liberties and democratic organizations(not receiving funds from foreign countries or Indian corporate sector) are cordially inviting to participate and present a paper in the seminar.Eminent Intellectuals interested in peoples rights shall be invited.Suggestions are invited.
regards,
c.Bhaskararao,gen.secy.,OPDR (cbrao1945@gmail.com)
Jaya vindhayala gen.secy.,PUCL-AP                                                                                2nd September 2011.

Thursday, August 4, 2011


"INDIA MORTGAGED-IT'S RELEVANCE TODAY"



Wednesday, July 20, 2011

ESSENCE OF KNRAMACHANDRAN POLITICS

Essence of KNRamachandran Politics                                                                           Aravind Sinha.
The most important aspect of Ramachandran’s politics is his understanding of imperialism and the world order that emerged after Second World War. Let us look at what he says in this respect in his documents.
“The consequences of the momentous developments that took place during the post World War II years started disappearing from the debates. There were very little efforts to analyze and ‘develop’ Lenin’s teachings on imperialism according to concrete conditions. The basic changes taking place in the course of changing from colonial to neo-colonial phase were side lined.”
So Ramachandran took upon himself to ‘develop’ Lenin’s teachings in the present ‘phase of neo-colonialism’ after World War II. In this endeavor he found that the fifth characteristic of imperialism, as defined by Lenin, has become obsolete. In Ramachandran’s words:-“With the disappearance of the territorial division of the world as one of the basic features of imperialism, though six decades have elapsed after World War II even though numerous local wars and imperialist aggressive wars continue to take place, no world war have taken place for division and re-division of the world so far.”
Again, regarding these local wars he further says, “But what is taking place now is low intensity warfare as an imperialist of class struggle, a strategy of class war against the masses of the people.” So, according to Ramachandran these ‘local wars’ and “imperialist aggressive wars” are “class war against the masses of the people,” not war between imperialist powers. In this way Ramachandran has not only declared ‘territorial division of the world among imperialist powers’ obsolete, but has also declared that in the present phase of neo-colonialism, war among imperialist powers has become non-existent. So, in his opinion this characteristic features of imperialism that inter-imperialist rivalry and wars are inevitable in the era of imperialism, has also become obsolete. So what is left after World War II is a world which is divided between imperialist powers on the one hand, and new colonies on the other. Imperialist powers in this world have succeeded in resolving their conflict for territory and markets peacefully, and have imposed a neo-colonial exploitative system on other countries which are neo-colonies of the united imperialism. Imperialism unleashes aggressive wars and the people when they rise against this system of neo-colonial system. But no wars are taken place due to rivalry among imperialist powers. In this analysis imperialism become more powerful after World War II they imposed’neo-colonization’ on the world “which is a more pernicious form of colonization.” Then what about successful liberation struggles in Vietnam and other countries of the world? What about cold war between US imperialism and Soviet Social Imperialism? What about present day war going as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are these not for world hegemony by US imperialism Vis-a Vis other imperialist powers.
The way Ramachandran has ‘developed’ the Lenin’s thesis on imperialism has brought him close to Kautsky’s line of ultra-imperialism or super imperialism. Kautsky visualized a ‘peaceful’ world order in which imperialism resolved their differences peacefully and ruled the colonial people through brute force. In this way a prolonged phase of brutal exploitation and oppression would continue in the world. Lenin on the other hand saw bitter rivalry and wars among the imperialist countries for colonies, raw materials and markets. These wars, local or world war would weaken the imperialist system and provide opportunity to the proletariat and other revolutionary people to make new democratic and socialist Revolutions. That is why Stalin defined, “Leninism is the Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution.” Ramachandran going Kautsky’s ways overestimates the strength of imperialism and underestimates the strength and power of the people. Again by rejecting Lenin’s thesis of contradiction being the principal aspect of inter-imperialist relationship leading to war. He rejects the possibility of emerging opportunities for the oppressed people to make successful revolution. Inter-imperialist rivalry and hegemonic designs of the US imperialism have resulted in numerous wars and conflict zones in the world. This weakens imperialist global order and provides opportunities to the revolutionaries to advance revolutionary struggle for NDR and socialism. Present day global financial crisis and melt down is the outcome of all the contradictions of imperialist system which Lenin had characterized.  In this way Ramachandran has fallen in the ditch of right opportunism by rejecting Lenin.
Basing upon this wrong analysis Ramachandran makes serious mistakes regarding Indian Revolution. He Says, “The principal contradiction in present day India and the path of revolution leading to victory of the NDR can be defined and developed only based on the Marxist-Leninist analysis of Indian State as a state under neo-colonialism or a neo-colonial one.”He further elaborates his ideas on these vital questions in the following way:- “In the present neo-colonial conditions I  India the principal contradiction is between the alliance of imperialism, comprador bureaucratic capital and landlords on the one hand and the broad masses of the people on the other.”
On the question of path of Indian revolution, he rejects the concept of ‘area-wise seizure of political power’ and ‘base areas’ as influence of localism and advocates: “significant changes that have taken place in the concrete situation in recent decades, especially after launching of neo-liberal offensive by imperialism and the native ruling classes call for a country wide offensive by the revolutionary forces mobilizing tens of millions.”
From these passages it is clear that Ramachandran does not accept semi-feudalism also which he had accepted in 2005 Unity conference. So, he has replaced ‘feudalism by ‘landlordism’ in his definition of Principal Contradiction in India. So, in his analysis semi-feudalism is not there, and a capitalist system has been foisted on the whole country by Imperialism. So, economic and political developments are one inter connected whole in the country. No fault lines, discontinuities distortions or disfigurements of local natures are caused due to feudalism. So, the revolutionary forces should, and can be organized at all India level, and they should launch all India revolutionary offensives.  Brave words! But hardly any action matching these brave words. Any person even a with even a ordinary knowledge of contemporary political history of India knows that most of the movements have been regional or state wise or local in nature. But Ramachandran lives in world of imagination built by his erroneous concepts. And what are weapons in this all India Revolutionary offensive? It is fighting lections in as many seats as possible, even at those places where his party is nearly non-existent. He thinks that just by giving call to fight against imperialism during elections he can mobilize “millions” at All India level to launch an all India offensive.
This way Ramachandran’s line is a line of opportunism and parliamentary cretinism. By rejecting Lenin’s thesis on imperialism in the name of ‘developing’ Lenin’s teaching he has embraced the concept of Second International led by Karl Kautsky. This is the line of social democracy, capitulations to imperialism, and parliamentary path. So, this line must be rejected lock, stack and barrel.
===================================================================


Saturday, July 2, 2011

ON THE CHARACTER OF INDIAN STATE


Having arrived at the conclusion that there is need to “develop” Lenin’s teachings on the question of imperialism in accordance with concrete conditions; or in an attempt to fill the vacuum said to have emerged due to the alleged failure on the part of Marxist Leninist forces or rectify the distortions that crept into the theoretical and political analysis of the developments, especially in the post second world war period, KNRamachandran has come out with certain formulations. These formulations, in essence, declare that certain essential aspects of Lenin’s teachings on imperialism had come obsolete and propose certain amendments to Marxism Leninism.
Ramachandran asserts that in the “neo colonial phase” of imperialism, “basic changes “or “qualitatively distinct changes” had taken place in the form of imperialist exploitation and hegemony. More importantly, he concludes: (a)”the fifth characteristic, “the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed” is no longer evident. (b)”with the disappearance of the territorial division of the world as one of the basic features of imperialism, though six decades have elapsed after world war 2nd  no world war has taken place for division and re division of the world.”(3) In the neo colonial phase, “financial oligarchy, along with this the speculative character of finance capital has achieved predominance” (4)”The whole imperialist economy and political frame-work under went significant changes.”(5)”As possibilities for territorial extension of the market, bringing in new areas under its control no longer exists; it can be achieved only through expansion of market and financial sectors, an intensification of exploitation of human and natural resources of the neo colonial countries”.
These conclusions are theoretically anti Marxist-Leninist; politically are wrought with danger of driving one into the reformist mire; factually are based on a total distortion of facts and politically carry harmful consequences for the revolutionary movement and the struggle against imperialism.
These conclusions seek to reform imperialism. They assure that the imperialists are no more in a position to extend the areas of control and they are left with only economic means but not the means of war to extend their markets, financial sectors and loot of human and natural resources. In essence, according to these conclusions the inter-imperialist contradictions and rivalries in the present world cannot go beyond the competition in the economic sphere and war as a means of major imperialist powers to settle the question who dominate the world has become obsolete.
But the realities are otherwise.
Today, the imperialist powers, more particularly US imperialists, are doing everything to retain their monopoly on most sophisticated and most destructive weapons – both in terms of quantity and quality. The US imperialists and, in a lesser degree, other imperialist powers are having military bases at a number of chosen strategic points throughout the world. They had built up military alliances such as NATO and are using the same threaten, attack and subjugate other countries. The US attempts and moves to encircle of arms and Russia militarily, maintain its upper hand over it in the strength of arms and Russia attempts to oppose it and resort to counter moves are unending features in the present world. We find no country today which is not threatened or interfered or bullied or attacked by the US imperialists. We had seen many proxy wars in different countries waged by the imperialist powers, more particularly the two super powers, in their contention for hegemony. It is a fact that the imperialist powers who were engaged in armed invasions and who are responsible for many mini and proxy wars and internal armed conflicts and coups, etc. had shed blood, brought human and material destruction and committed barbarities many times greater than what we had seen in two world wars taken together. In every region in the world, the US maintains military out posts such as Israel and it is engaged in constantly multiplying them with a view to use them to bring the countries and people under its control and domination.
So none of the basic features of imperialism, including the territorial division of markets, has either disappeared or was abandoned by the imperialist powers. The contradictions, rivalries and contention for markets and spheres of influence continued all along last six decades period. Some times their intensity was either more or less; sometimes they had manifested between the two main or leading rivals. Sometimes, the imperialists had settled their disputes over share of spoils ‘peacefully’ as they were then confronted with more formidable enemy in the form of oppressed people or a potential rival within their own camp. Direct and physical control on a country or region is not the only form or method that determines whether a particular country or region has come under the influence or domination of an imperialist power. There are different forms and degrees of influence or domination. It is not just subjective wishes of imperialist powers that determine the form. They act in accordance with the concrete situation and decide what can be a best course and form to realize their aims in the given situation. War has never been the only weapon, but one important weapon to decide the question, who dominates a country or region. The imperialists use this weapon basing on their assessment of the concrete situation.
Ramachandran’s  conclusion that the possibilities for territorial division of markets and their expansion “no longer exist today “have no relation to the realities. His argument, basing on the fact that since no world war has taken place after 1945 we can conclude that the imperialists had abandoned war as a means of dividing or expanding their markets or areas of domination is too simplistic.
The developments in the last more than six decades were full of zig zags, ups and downs and turbulence. The balance of powers within the imperialist camp as well as between imperialism in general and US in particular on one side and the democratic, national socialist forces had been undergoing many changes and ups and downs. While forces of revolution are struggling hard against many odds to withstand and turn the situation in their own favor, the imperialists and reactionary forces that are plagued by their own crises, contradictions and rivalries are doing everything to pursue their own interests. The US imperialists who had come up in the post-second-world war period the leader of world capitalist system, had been doing everything to cut to size other imperialist powers while, at the same time, finding common cause with them in the suppression of forces of revolution. They are working with a clear aim of weakening and preventing other imperialist powers from becoming potential contenders not only economically, but also militarily for world hegemony. These courses of development show that the inter-imperialist contradictions and rivalry continue to operate even today in every sphere, including military. While antagonism and irreconcilability are the fundamental features of inter-imperialist contradictions, the contentions or collusions among the imperialists would change their positions from primary to secondary and, sometimes, both go together in accordance with the concrete conditions. Declaring that war no longer remains a means of resolving the inter-imperialist contradictions is nothing but denying the fundamental character of imperialism and attempting at reforming Leninism.
Ramachandran says: “except for some military bases and enclaves, imperialist countries are no more keeping any countries, even the smallest ones, under their territorial control. Even after aggression and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by US led imperialist forces, puppet governments were soon constituted and even fake elections were organized to give them pseudo democratic cover. “
It is height of absurdity.
In his eagerness to present imperialism as a ‘peaceful’ vegetarian animal, Ramachandran is minimizing the imperialist strategic, world wide spread of military network into just “some military bases and enclaves.” In his eagerness to prove that the imperialist are no more in a position to pursue the policy of dividing or re-dividing the territories, he is excluding even countries ruled by the puppets (and protected by the occupationist armed forces) from the countries territorially occupied by the imperialists. What is the difficulty for him to call the countries like Afghanistan and Iraq as neo colonies? His difficulty is: this will go against his own conclusion that ‘the imperialist countries are no longer keeping any countries, even the smallest ones under their territorial occupation’. It goes against his conclusion that the world today is ‘divided into the imperialist countries and large number of neo-colonial countries’ if he puts countries like Afghanistan and Iraq in a category different from others. His apprehension is: if he puts the countries like this in a separate category, the category of neo-colony, he may be compelled to put countries like India, not ruled by the puppets but by the comprador bourgeois-landlord classes who are in alliance with imperialism, in the category of semi-colony. So, he has chosen to put all these countries in one basket – basket of neo-colonial countries, as countries outside the realm of territorial domination or control of imperialist powers.
Ramachandran has come out with one more dangerous formulation. He says, “instead of territorial domination these countries under the former colonial domination are now controlled through their ever intensifying integration to imperialist capital-market system and internationalization of production through international financial agencies and MNCs.”
Lenin explained: “Monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts first divided the home market among them and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections and ‘spheres of influence’ of the monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things ‘naturally’ gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels. This is a new stage of world concentration of capital and production, incomparably higher than the preceding stages.” Lenin called it ‘super monopoly’ too.
So, capitalism - in its investment of capital, production and marketing is international in character. Imperialism which has assumed the leadership of world capitalism has taken it to new heights. Thus it is not at all a new phenomenon.
Today, there is a trend in the international communist movement which advocates that the international class struggle and world revolution had assumed more importance than earlier because the internationalization of production and market and consequent and inevitable fall of national boundaries are a growing phenomenon. Objectively, this theory only serves the purpose of relegating the task of revolution to a secondary place in the individual countries and reducing the international struggle against imperialism into an abstract and general campaign.
Lenin, in his time, too confronted this problem in a different form. Here is what Lenin wrote: “certain bourgeois writers (now joined by Karl kautsky, who has completely abandoned the Marxist Position he had held, for example, in 1909) have expressed the opinion that international cartels, being one of the most striking expressions of the internationalization of capital, give the hope of peace among nations under capitalism. Theoretically, this opinion is absolutely absurd, which in practice it is sophistry and a dishonest defense of the worst opportunism.”
Lenin has dealt the slogan of “United states of the world “too. He wrote, “A united states of world (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism – until the time when the complete victory of communism brings about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a united states of the world would hardly be a correct one, first,   because it merges with socialism; second, it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such country to the others.
On the question of colonialism and neo colonialism; Ramachandran has come out with some confused and inconsistent ideas.
He confused the form with content. He calls a country which, even according to him is in process of neo colonization as a neo colony. He views, neo colonization not as a policy pursued by imperialism to exploit and control another country but as a “phase” of imperialism. He sees no difference between a country ruled by the Comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois and land lord classes in alliance with imperialism and a country ruled by puppets installed and protected by the imperialists.
When Lenin concluded in 1916 that “the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed,” he did not mean that the entire world was divided in to ‘imperialist countries and a large number of colonial countries’ as Ramachandran puts it now (imperialist countries and large number of colonial countries).
Lenin said,” Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also diverse forms of dependent countries which politically, and formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch.”
Ramachandran referred to ‘semi colony’ as ‘a transitional form,’ a’ form of dependence’. He mentioned Portugal an independent sovereign state as a “British protectorate” but, at the same, a country owning small colonies.
The point here is: It is simplistic and wrong to put all countries be it in the period of colonial period or neo colonial period in one broad vision. Because, in both these periods, countries were or are under diverse forms of dependence or control.
As everyone knows, the neo colonialism as a policy of imperialism is a post second world war phenomenon. The policy of colonialism received a powerful blow with the defeat of Fascism, victories or advance of the national liberation, national independence movements and people’s revolutions in the world. Historically, colonialism became obsolete and stood thoroughly exposed. However, the imperialism was only weakened but not over thrown. In the face of rising tide of national liberation, national independence movements and people’s revolutions the imperialist powers had to change their tactics to survive and pursue their policy of plunder and domination. The US imperialists, who had certain advantages over the other imperialist powers, had come to the fore as a champion of these new tactics and policy, came to be known as neo colonial country, the imperialists in general and US in particular had put this policy in practice in accordance with the concrete conditions in each country and region. They adopted the processes and different forms of control and domination.
The essence of debate and struggle between the CPSU on one side and the CPC on the other side at the time of Great debate on the question of imperialism and neo colonialism was: the CPSU asserted that the colonialism has collapsed once forever and therefore, the proletariat was left with no task of leading the national and democratic revolutions and peoples’ revolutions. The CPC said that imperialism has not certainly given up the colonialism, but merely change to new form, neo colonialism. It has correctly pointed out that this neo colonialism is more pernicious and more sinister form of colonialism and therefore, the national, democratic and people’s revolutions must be carried with all firmness and thorough to the end.
At the same time, the CPC has evaluated the concrete situation in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It said: “The whole groups of countries have declared their independence. Many of this countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control and enslavement and remains object of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as areas of contention between the old and neo colonialists. In some, the old colonialists have changed into neo colonialists and retain their colonial rule through their trained agents. In others, the wolf left through the front door but the tiger has entered through back door, the old colonialism being replaced by the new, and more powerful and more dangerous, US imperialism. The people of Asia and Africa are seriously menaced by the tentacles of neo colonialism, represented by US imperialism.”
The CPC also warned that the imperialists, headed by the US enslave or control countries which have already declared their independence by organizing military blocks, setting military bases, establishing ‘federations’ or ‘communities’ and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic ‘aid’ or other forms, they retain these countries as markets…….. Source of raw material and outlets for their export of capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood of people of these countries. They use UN to interfere in the internal affairs of a country, subject them to military, economic and cultural aggression. When these ‘peaceful’ means fail, they engineer military coups, carry out subversion or even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression. The developments in the last more than three decades had confirmed the correctness of this entire evaluation.
By his refusal to clearly define the basic features of neo colony and to demarcate it from other countries Ramachandran is only diluting the meaning of a neo colony.
Ramachandran has come to the fore with criticism or comments on the Marxist Leninist force that they had not made enough efforts to study and analyze post second world war period. In their international struggle against imperialism, they had put the main edge against the US, as they assessed the US imperialism as the biggest exploiter, biggest oppressor and the common enemy of entire world people. When the Soviet Union has come up as a social imperialist super power with designs and moves and entered into contention with another super power – US – for world hegemony and both seemed to be pushing the world towards another global war, the Marxist Leninist forces had rightly focused their main edge of international struggle against the two super powers as the biggest exploiters, biggest oppressors and main source of war in the given international situation at the time. They pursued an international line of opposing imperialism in general, the hegemonies and war policies of two powers in particular and advancing revolutions in their own countries in accordance with basic tasks and concrete situation in their countries. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the US as a single super power has stepped up its hegemonic drive in an offensive way, the Marxist Leninist forces took note of this change and pursued the line and tasks suitably. In the entire period the Marxists Leninists firmly upheld Lenin’s definition on imperialism, the formulation, the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and pursued line and task by applying Marxism Leninism Mao Tse Tung thought to concrete conditions.
Mistakes in the evaluation of situations; in the application of theory to concrete situations and the sectarian or right deviationist tilts in formulating the task and practice had occurred in some occasions and on the part of some sections of Marxist Leninist forces. Such mistakes and deviations, no doubt, proved costly. However, they were within the reach of correction provided the concerned forces took the guidance and help of Marxism- Leninism- Mao’s thought. Ramachandran’s criticism or comment on the CPC and the Marxist Leninist forces is only a product of his conclusion that some aspects of Lenin’s teaching on imperialism had become obsolete and need amendment. So, naturally, he negates the efforts made by the Marxist Leninist forces in right direction.
On the characterization of Indian Society and state Ramachandran says: “India is a neo colonial country”.
“With this the neo colonization unprecedentedly intensified the Indian economy increasingly integrated to international monopoly capital and market system, with speculative capital dominating all spheres. India, like other former colonial, semi colonial and dependent countries of the colonial phase has become a neo colonial country, a country under ever intensifying neo colonization.”
“Thus this country was transformed from a colony of British imperialism to a country under neo colonial domination by various imperialist powers, especially US imperialism. Later when socialist Soviet Union degenerated to a social imperialist super power and the imperialist contradiction between US and Soviet Union started intensifying, this contradiction was reflected in the Indian ruling classes also. But in the main this inter-imperialist contradictions was utilized by the Indian state for maneuvering for its benefits and to pursue a hegemonic policy in south Asia.”
Here Ramachandran in infirm and inconsistent in his ideas on the question. He contradicts his neo colony characterization when he also says that India is a “country ever intensifying neo colonization” which only means that the process is still on.
Ramachandran agrees that various imperialist powers are contending in India for domination with US being in an upper hand in this contention. He agrees that the inter-imperialist contradictions are reflecting in the Indian ruling classes and the Indian state has utilized the same for maneuvering for its benefits. Elsewhere in his path document he explained that “even while the India big bourgeoisie and bureaucratic class have contradiction with imperialism which is often reflected in their maneuvers to utilize the inter-imperialist contradictions for their benefit, their collaboration with imperialism is basic…..”   “So whether one calls it a junior partner or dependent bourgeoisie, its basic character remains the same.”
Our outline Programme says:  “The ruling classes represented by the comprador-bureaucratic bourgeoisie and big land lord classes depending and serving imperialism is engaged in joint exploitation and plunder of the country and people.”At another place it also said, “In the present world situation, the neo colonial form of exploitation is intensifying with every passing year and various imperialist powers are contending for dominant position in India.”
Puppets cannot be expected to be in a position to either ‘share power’ or ‘collaborate’ or ‘junior partner or engage themselves in ‘joint exploitation and plunder’ together with imperialist power or ‘utilize the inter-imperialist contradiction’ and pursue a policy of ‘hegemonism’ in a region. A puppet as long as he is a puppet cannot pursue economic and political interests’ independent form and opposed to his imperialist master. But a comprador as long as he is a comprador can enjoy some maneuverability with in frame of serving imperialism on the whole vis a vis a particular imperialist power when they are contending for domination in the country. 
When we call India as semi colonial we are clear that it is neither a colony nor an independent country. It is a country which was transformed from a colony to semi colony. It is transitional form adopted by the imperialists in collusion with the Indian ruling classes to safeguard their own interests in the face of irresistibly surging movement for national liberation in India; collapse of Fascism, national forces in to a formidable force. So this semi colonial form was a road block laid on the way to prevent India from becoming an independent country. Their move to transfer power to the Indian ruling classes and withdraw to the background was also a sort of step backward, again, to protect their interests in the changed conditions. A semi colony may either be pushed back into colonial embrace if the imperialists succeed in their counter revolutionary designs and neo colonial drive may save itself from this disaster and take a road of independence and democracy if the revolutionary forces succeed in leading the NDR to victory.
Neo colony is a country ruled by puppets of one imperialist power or a bloc of powers. It need not necessarily be a military occupied country. State here may sometimes do the garb of democracy, independence and sovereignty to befool the people. But it is the imperialist masters who decide its policies and the state will be required to execute them to the best satisfaction of the imperialist master.
In semi colony, such as India, the stage of revolution will be NDR and overthrowing feudalism and imperialism are its basic tasks. In the present phase, while according to primary importance to agrarian revolution as it brings the main revolutionary force – toiling peasants and the rural masses – into revolutionary action we would do everything to intensify the struggle against imperialism. The revolution may go over to the phase of national war even within the frame of NDR when the situation matures for it. In a neo colony, the stage of revolution will be National Democratic Revolution. Here the principal thrust of revolution will be directed against imperialism and their puppets, while at the same time, doing everything to strengthen the democratic content of the revolution by intensifying the struggle to weaken and dismantle the feudal social basis of imperialism in the country. When the country becomes an occupied one, the revolution assumes the character of National Liberation Movement from the beginning and all other struggles, including the struggle for democratic reform would be linked in a way to strengthen and advance NLM as a whole.
Ramachandran concluded that ‘recognizing neo colonization as the present phase of imperialism and finance capital, and characterizing the Indian State as neo colonial is Marxist Leninist Position. The revolutionary orientation to lead the NDR forward can be developed only based on these positions.” He argues that characterizing India as semi colonial after so many momentous developments in the post world war 2nd years has “already led to the communist movement vacillating between right opportunism and left sectarianism and vice versa to the failure to concretely analyze the Indian situation and develop the theory and practice of Indian revolution.”
These are empty assertions. In his entire note, Ramachandran has brought nothing to show how he differentiates a neo colony from a semi colony except repeating certain oblivious and uncontroversial facts such as that the imperialist countries, especially US imperialists are pursuing neo colonial forms of exploitation and plunder to gain domination over India and the policies associated with the globalization brought an added momentum and speed for the neo colonial drive. He agrees with all the formulations and elaborations contained in the outline of the programme which are quite in consonance with the semi colonial character of the Indian society and state. Despite all this, he concludes that the non adoption of the word, ‘neo colony’ has already led the communist movement to vacillate between right opportunism and sectarianism, etc. it is unfair.
Barring a section of CRs who over a period of time, have arrived at the conclusion that India is relatively independent, all the other CRs continue to adopt the semi colonial formulation with same elaboration as we have made in our outline Programme. There was a time when the words semi colony and neo colony synonymously used, but the word neo colony was abandoned eventually after a discussion and debate which led to see a clear differentiation between the two in content and form. It was correct. So it is simplistic as well as sweeping to attribute right opportunism or left sectarianism to the semi colonial formulation. To claim that neo colonial formulation alone is a Marxist Leninist position without explaining where it qualitatively differs from semi colony and what changes it brings in the tasks and direction of revolution defined in our outline Programme.
So we must adopt the characterization of ‘semi colonial and semi feudal society and state’ for India with all the elaboration contained in our outline Programme.
*******************************************************************






Visitors

flagcounter.com/more/OFw2">free counters