INDIAN REVOLUTION - INDIAN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

  INDIAN REVOLUTION – INDIAN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

Almost a hundred years have passed since the formation of the Communist Party of India. Since its inception, the party has been subjected to repression. This repression was unleashed on the freedom-loving national revolutionaries as well as on the communist fighters who participated in the independence struggle with an anti-imperialist aim. They were implicated in the Peshawar, Lahore, Kanpur, and Meerut conspiracy cases. In the trial of the Kanpur and Meerut conspiracy cases, Communists had not concealed their ideals and causes. They declared that it was not at all a crime to wage the struggle for the liberation of the people of India from the imperialist shackles and to emancipate the toiling masses of workers, peasants, and weaker sections from economic, political and cultural exploitation. They voiced the necessity for the people to organize against feudalism, imperialism, and capitalism.

  We as communists, from 1925 to 1947, and then up to 1952, had built the movements of workers and peasants while participating in the independence movement. We have organized many a militant struggle of the working class. The middle-class employees and teachers got organized under our leadership. We organized the writers and artists with patriotic, democratic, and socialist aims. We fought for the rights of women and made them part of the movement for independence and peace. The communist party established itself as the party of the toiling people with the policies and slogans: oppose fascist war, protect socialism, oppose communalism and national chauvinism, and oppose the attempts of the imperialist, feudal, and capitalist forces to flare up communal, caste and regional clashes among the people.

 Until 1942, for two decades, the party through its hard and untiring work in the face of many repressions got itself identified as the third largest party in the country. It gained wide recognition among the people even amid internal struggles on the policies of the party. The people's movement had reached the level of armed resistance.

 The party worked with a concrete program against feudal ideology. It owned up and brought to light many social reformers and progressive writers. It showed the way for a new culture by promoting it on a wider scale the widow marriages. Social marriages as against the traditional form of marriage. It opposed child marriages and marriages against the will of the girls. It worked for gender equality. The communist party swam against the tide at a time when untouchability, caste discrimination, and blind faiths and practices were prevalent.

 The Communist Party educated the people on how to resist the feudal atrocities: if you do not have a stick in your hand even a goat will bite you; get yourselves armed and fight against caste oppression and communal attacks. It was the party that inculcated consciousness among the people and made them organize around the general slogans of independence, democracy, socialism, and world peace led the people’s movements, and built the organized people's resistance against imperialism and feudalism. The dedicated work without expecting anything in return personally and even laying down their own lives by thousands of party members and hundreds of party cadre were invaluable. We cannot forget the positive impact they have made on the society. The values and commitments established by that generation of communists continue to inspire and are worth emulating to us even today.

 The communist movement means the organizations and the agitations and struggles conducted by the organizations of patriots, democrats, workers, peasants, other toiling people in urban and rural areas, women, youth, students, children, writers, and artists as well as defying the atrocities committed by the exploiting classes and repression by the state. More than this the communist movement means the movement built through the life sacrificing work for a social cause.

 This was one phase. It was the best phase in the communist movement. But it could not march forward. Why it was so? True, it could not march ahead; faced setbacks. Yet the cause of communism is there standing tall before us. With the strength of this cause, we will review the history; learn lessons from it, and march forward.

  The defeat of fascism in the Second World War and the victory of peace-loving, democratic, and communist forces have brought many changes in the world. The victory of the Soviet Union; its reconstruction of the country from the destruction brought by the fascist war; the march of socialist construction; the coming to power of workers' parties in East Europe; the Chinese Revolution at the verge of victory; the rise of peasants and workers struggles in our country; the progress of the party in various sectors – all this had two types of influence on the party leadership and ranks. Subjective thinking had overtaken the dialectical materialist approach. The central leadership of the party led the worker's and peasants movements with two types of guidance. The differences in the political and ideological understandings of the leadership were the reason for this situation. There was a struggle on two or three understandings at the level of central leadership.

 We cannot forget the fact that the root cause for the split in the communist party was the differences in the assessment of the character of the bourgeoisie in India and the ideological differences that arose in the international communist movement. A friendly discussion on these issues can enable us to correct the mistakes in our understanding and show the way for our unity.

 Along with the above issue, there is another crucial issue: the confusion that prevailed in deciding the character of our society. At what stage we are now in the process of development of society from slave to semi-slave to feudal to the semi-feudal, capitalist, and socialist system? The communist movement is plagued with confusion and differences on this issue.

 The character of the big bourgeoisie in India and the process under which the power had come into its hands; its subservient relations with imperialism; the support of imperialism to feudalism and feudal landlords' support to imperialism help each other to withstand or not – does these questions remain as points of difference? Are not serious differences existing in the assessment of these issues?

 Who is the national bourgeoisie? Is it industrialist or big business? Is it the upper middle class and middle class that owns and earns private property? Has not lack of clarity on this issue led to disunity in the party?

 Has not the phenomenon manifested in the leadership of the party that was over-awed by the philosophical thinking of and qualities of the bourgeois leadership of the national movement, blunted our class orientation and the edge of our class struggle? Has not the role of our party as one of the leaders of a national movement been reduced? As a result of this, had not the basic classes of the party – rural toilers and urban workers – run behind the mirage of reforms by the exploiting government? Had not many alien theories raised their ugly heads due to abandoning dialectical and materialist principles in conducting class struggles? Has not the party’s mass base and hold not weakened? In the struggle of the proletariat, who stands by our side, and who takes the side of exploiting classes? Are we deciding on these questions based on class analysis? Are not our capabilities being lost because of alien class outlooks on this issue?

 Many communist sympathizers, well-wishers of the revolutionary movement, and even our adversaries think that personal ambitions, egos, and careerism are the reasons for the inability of communists to remain in one organization. Consequently, pessimism is being expressed. Are there no ideological, political, or organizational reasons for the spread of such tendencies?

 The communist party does not discuss the differences based on ideological principles and class struggles. The discussions are being focused on non-issues and secondary issues.

 Taking this as an advantage, some opportunist intellectuals who vulgarize communist ideas are mixing some progressive ideas with romanticism. They are spreading certain theories and ideas that are anti-Marxist and serve the interests of exploiting classes. They are trying to project themselves as the ‘guides for the misguided communists’. This is a prominent trend today. Our failure to be sufficiently cautious about these intellectuals who maintain close relations with the communists and move around spreading wrong interpretations of communist theories and the histories of class struggle. As a consequence, alien class theories, trends, and practices are creeping into the party and are creating impediments to the process of our development. These forces cannot destroy us, but they remain as hurdles for class struggles and the unity of class movements.

Keeping this whole situation in our view, where to begin our discussions? What are the ideological tenets to formulate clear-cut policies? We have to concentrate on these issues.

 What is the character of Indian society? What is the stage of the Indian revolution? There is a need for deeper and wider discussion on these issues. There is a need for discussions on the feudal and semi-feudal and colonial and semi-colonial characters. Is the understanding of the penetration of capital into the rural economy new? Is then the idea that the entry of capital into rural India would change the nature of Indian society being pushed forward? Then should the communist party adopt achieving socialism as its sole aim and work? If so, have we to change the understanding that imperialism, feudalism, and the comprador bourgeoisie have become the main impediments to the progress of the people of India?

 Then are we proposing to put aside our program of CPI (ML)? No, not at all. Our documents have to be tested in practice. If we let the documents remain as just documents and move in our way, will not our integrity towards our policies be questioned? So, we have to continue our practice based on our party’s documents. At the same time, we are placing the above questions and issues for discussion keeping in view the long-term perspective and the task of rallying and uniting forces on a broader scale. It is not unnatural if questions like: Is it correct to engage in academic discussions and is it necessary to open up Pandora’s Box now etc. to crop up. Yet it will cause no harm to the movement as long as we have enough convictions and commitment towards the cause and practice.

 The confusions being spread by the opportunist theoreticians and intellectuals have been influencing the genuine communists, and Marxist-Leninists and disheartening the well-wishers of the communist movement. So, the above issues are meant for wider discussion. Without keeping aside our practice, discussing the problems faced by the revolutionary movement dispassionately stands as a historic task and responsibility before all the communists today….

=========================================================================

 

 

IMPERIALIST GIANT CORPORATIONS INTO OUR AGRICULTURAL SECTOR.

 IMPERIALIST GIANT CORPORATIONS INTO OUR AGRICULTURAL SECTOR.

(This article is from ‘Class Struggle’ – Monthly Organ of CPI(ML) Central Committee)

Already the Indian agricultural sector is steeped in severe crisis due to the implementation of imperialist globalization policies for the past four decades. Small and marginal farmers are pushed into abject poverty and distress. Imperialist giant seed corporations like Monsanto have caused the suicides of thousands of cotton farmers. Still, these imperialist giant corporations are not content even after draining away the surplus created in the Indian agricultural sector in the form of profits, royalties, and fees for the supply of technical help. They are persistently making inroads into our agricultural sector, through devious means.

The imperialist global farm giant Walmart is one such corporation that has already penetrated the Indian agricultural sector. It has entered through so-called non-profit organizations which are being funded by its philanthropy arm Walmart Foundation. These non-profit organizations in turn create the so-called farmer producer organizations (FPOs) touting that they will help farmers thrive by building the collective strength of small and marginal farmers – those with land holdings of less than 1.1 hectares. They also claim that they provide technical support to help farmers build infrastructure to connect to formal markets so that smallholder farmer can grow their incomes and improve their livelihoods and that they will cut out middlemen.

With such dubious promises, as if the small and marginal farmers are pushed into distress due to a lack of infrastructure and technical support to connect to formal markets Walmart by mesmerizing farmers in penetrating into our agricultural sector. The Vice president of Walmart's philanthropy claims that the company complements the union government's work.

Walmart which had already experimented in Central America and Mexico in the past, has penetrated into India, through a farming network of 500 organizations (FPOs) with eight lakh farmers across nine states – Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Odisha, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Madya Pradesh. These ‘non-profit’ organizations with different names are already working among small and marginal farmers cultivating coffee, cashews, mint, mango, vegetables, wheat, and millet. Walmart in 2020 launched the formation and scheme of promotion of 10,000 farmer producer organizations to push forward 10,000 new FPOs until 2027-28. Thus, Walmart created such a network linking with farmers and is promoting it.

Imperialist Giant Corporations into our Agricultural Sector! ‘Non–profit’ organizations like Techno Serve, Digital Green, and Pradhan entered into Andhra Pradesh 6 years ago associating with coffee farmers in Arakuvalley, cashew farmers and women farmers, and with farmers cultivating chilies, cashew, and turmeric in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states.

These ‘non-profit’ organizations claim that 13% of cashew prices increased due to their intervention and that the farmer’s revenues have increased by over 500%. They specifically claim that they have brought on board a bunch of large institutional buyers such as Blue Tokai and Starbucks to purchase coffee from Arakuvalley. They claim that through FPOs the farmers benefited by getting improved yield and revenues. They also claim most of what is produced is sold domestically by the exposure in the reliance stores etc.

However, it is unknown to what extent Walmart is profiting through its middle-man non-profit agencies by selling coffee, cashews, turmeric, and chilies to large institutional buyers. But, that Walmart is benefiting enormously by entering into the Indian agricultural sector is a certainty. That without earning profits, it will never commit to investing $39 million in India creating FPOs is an irrefutable fact.

This type of farming FPOs may destroy the traditional ‘mandi’ system and weaken cooperative societies in existence and the entire agricultural market will be encroached by these imperialist giant corporations at the peril of small and marginal farmers. In the near future, they may be pushed into bankruptcy to sell away these small land holdings due to the monopolization of the markets as we often witness in the cases of tobacco-cultivating farmers in various states of our country.

It is unknown whether the farmers have really benefited through FPOs or not, but it is a hard fact that the prices of coffee, cashews, turmeric, and chilies for the customers have abnormally increased. Probably by offering a pinch of extra revenue to farmers, Walmart must have been profiting and looting in the mountains.

The experiences of the farmers of Central America and Mexico with regard to the experiment of Walmart through, FPOs created by its non-profit organizations are unknown and have to be studied in depth.

Probably Walmart’s penetration into the Indian agricultural sector is another refined form of East India company’s entry into India.

But one thing is clear. Walmart is initially entering into agricultural market in India, with a profit motive. We have already witnessed how the transnational giant corporation Monsanto played havoc with our farmers and their lives.

So, we have to be alert and cautious against this sort of penetration of imperialist giant corporations into the Indian agricultural sector and the impending perils attendant to such penetration. ********************************************************************************

SEMI-FEUDALISM , CAPITALISM , IMPERIALISM , INTER RELATIONS.

 SEMI- FEUDALISM – CAPITALISM – IMPERIALISM – INTER RELATIONS. By

Late Com. P. Jaswant Rao.

Indian society has the nature of a semi-feudal, semi-colonial system. These two are so entwined as to be indivisible. While feudalism serves as a social base for imperialism, imperialism in turn strives to uphold the feudal system by bringing about changes in it to suit its needs of exploitation. This document tries to analyze this in-depth by the method of materialist dialectical historical methodology.

Karl Marx explained that in shaking up the self-reliant closed economic system, thriving in India, China, and other Asiatic Societies, British colonial rule played a revolutionary role. He stated the following about the restructuring it has undertaken in the agricultural sector aftermath of the said destruction:

“Both the zamindari and raitwari systems are agrarian revolutions ensuring out of British orders. But the two systems stand in opposition to each other. One is of regal nature and the other of democratic nature. One is the distorted form of the English landlord system. The other is a distorted form of French peasant ownership. Both are regressive. Both have irreconcilable contradictions ingrained in them. They have been created not for the sake of peasants who cultivate or for the sake of lords who hold feudal rights. They were created for the sake of the government which imposes the burden of tax on land”.

Marx has described the manner in which the Indian rural system was destroyed and how the feudal system, which was required for exploitative colonial rule, was restructured. Since then all the changes which British rulers affected in the feudal system have been continued without altering its fundamental nature.

At the same time, Marx also keenly analyzed the future consequences of British rule. The British rulers who destroyed the economic system of India which had all the potential of developing into a capitalist system, have in turn introduced capitalist relations through the formation of Railway lines. And their further development could not be checked.

He felt that those developing capitalist relations and the rise of the working class resulting from them would not only undo the British rule but also lead to industrial development which would lead to the abolition of the feudal system and along with it the abolition of the caste system and its characteristic hereditary division of labor.

With colonial exploitation as the main economic source, the capitalist system in European countries has morphed into its highest form namely imperialism. Giving up the progressive role it played till then, it has compromised with all the reactionary elements including feudalism. It has protected them and formed them as its social base and continued its hegemony.

Conscious of its inability to curb the growth of capitalist relations which were introduced by it in colonies, it adopted the policy of holding them under its wing. As a result of this, the independent development of them was prevented. It created a comprador bourgeoisie that was bound to it in a thousand different links. This is how the Indian comprador class came into existence. Indian big bourgeoisie grew up under the lens of British rulers and acted in collusion with the feudal forces. The Indian big bourgeoisie usurped the leadership of the anti-colonial national movement and its political representative namely,

Indian National Congress never offered any program to the peasants, leaving aside an anti-feudal one, at any stage of a national movement. It has also watered down the anti-feudal movements taken up by the anti-feudal peasantry on their own initiative.

The great leader Lenin who had made an in-depth study of these conditions declared that the only way for the colonies to develop was the bourgeoisie mode of agriculture.

He stated that the development can occur in two forms. One is the transformation through the reformation of the feudal economic system. The other is to abolish feudalism through revolution.

This was the situation in India in 1947 when the transfer of power occurred. The direct rule of the Britishers ended and the transfer of power to the Indian big bourgeoisie and the big landlord class occurred.

On one side the peasantry was waging an anti-feudal struggle. The heroic Telangana peasant armed struggle had already begun. This brought onto the agenda the abolition of the feudal system and the revolutionary land reforms demanding land to the tiller. This posed the question of the reform path proposed by Lenin or the revolutionary path in the face of the ruling classes.

Indian ruling classes have chosen the Path of reform. Accordingly, they have picked up the reformative measures of abolition of the zamindari system and land ceiling legislation.

These were meant to create illusions in the minds of the peasantry. At the same time, they have drowned the peasant struggles in bloody repression. The abolition of the zamindari system gave the rights to Zamindars over vast swathes of land and the peasants got nothing. Land ceiling legislation with so many loopholes in them failed to help the takeover of the lands under the occupation of landlords. These policies adopted by the Indian ruling classes soon after the takeover of power indicate that they intended to preserve the status quo.

After brutally suppressing the peasant movements only the ruling classes took measures to bring about a change in the feudal system slowly and gradually.

Com. TN concluded that “Every specific step which the government implemented in this direction helped in strengthening the feudal base in rural areas”.

“With all the talk of land reforms and its innocuous land ceiling legislation and tenancy acts, no democratic land reforms have been implemented by the Congress government in its long tenure in office for the last 23 years. Practically no change in land relations has taken place, except that with the vigorous implementation of Panchayat Raj, Cooperative institutions, loans for tractors and other agricultural machines, etc., only happened. The economic and political strength of the landlords has been further strengthened in the rural economy. (P.417, India Mortgaged, 2002 edition)

About what harmful effects this gradual change has brought by the 1960 decade, Com.TN has described as follows:

“This is what we are witnessing in our country today. The excruciating pain that the rural economy today is undergoing — the forceful eviction of small peasants and tenants, the growth of concentration of land, the increase in the number of agricultural labor, and the growing hegemony of the upper castes over lower castes — are all symptoms of this growing disease. Lenin has explained that “The evolution is the transformation of feudal bondage into servitude and capitalist exploitation on the land of feudal landlords” (Ibid, P.414)

He has also enunciated our tasks at that stage of social evolution:

“Therefore, no communist can support this kind of evolution of feudal landlordism. Our task is to firmly oppose it by supporting the fighting peasantry to liquidate feudal landlordism”. (P. 414)

This was the situation by the 1960s. By then itself green revolution was on the go. The green revolution was strategically framed for the entry of imperialist capital into Indian agriculture in the form of technological know–how with the aim of preventing a revolutionary peasant upsurge. To this end in some areas of the country development of irrigation infrastructure was initiated. As a follow-up high-yielding crop varieties were introduced which can yield big only with the inputs of high quantity chemical fertilizers and pesticides. These varieties introduced at the behest of American monopoly capitalist organizations such as the Ford Foundation, covered almost all types of crops.

Green Revolution strategy made peasantry the purchasers of high-yielding seed varieties and thus created a market for the agro-industry of imperialist countries. Com. TN. has described the Green Revolution strategy as follows:

“Therefore, it is clear that the imperialist policy of improving agricultural production in under-developed countries is only to develop a profitable demand by the underdeveloped countries for obtaining additional goods necessary for agricultural development” (P. 144)

“Another result of this policy would be that, with the strengthening of landlordism in the countryside, the social tensions which have been growing between the haves and have-nots will intensify, creating bitter struggles between the landlords and the downtrodden agricultural labor and poor peasantry in all walks of life-economic and political” (P.145)

Just in the span of a decade, the Green Revolution strategy fell into crisis. The crop yields stagnated. Contrary to the expectations of the government the rich farmers and the feudal landlords played no role in the venture of the Green Revolution. It was the small farmers who increased agricultural production with the support of subsidies offered by the government. But with the stagnation of crop yields the poor and middle-class farmers are mired in problems.

Under these circumstances, the crisis in India's economic and political system sharpened. The people of India were beset with restlessness. A wave of people's movements cropped up demanding solutions to the problems faced by them. The Adivasi and Peasant revolts in Srikakulam and Naxalbari had shaken the Indian political system.

This led to the second phase of reforms in the agricultural sector undertaken by the government. To divert the peasantry from the path of struggle the ruling classes spread the illusions with a series of land ceiling legislation. At the same time, they unleashed brutal repression on people’s struggles. Also, they ventured to water down the power of people's unity inculcating divisive politics based on caste, religion, and regionalism. As a result of the crisis borne out of the Green Revolution life became unbearable and the youth were in a state of desperation. We are aware that the Congress government diverted this into the Khalistan movement in Punjab.

At this very juncture imperialism in order to get over its crisis formulated strategies to throw its burden on the third-world countries. Its target was to see that imperialist finance capital got more and more penetration into the agricultural sector of those countries.

With this, the World Bank came forward with its version of the solution to the problems. It prepared a report on the effect that food grains produced in India with the help of subsidies provided by the government to the farmers are of high cost and that they are available in the international market at a lesser price. So, Indian farmers should give up their production and instead, they better cultivate export-oriented commercial crops. With the income gained, food grains may be imported at a lesser cost.

But the real reason for the crisis in the venture of Green Revolution is that much of the surplus produce goes into the purchase of agricultural in-puts (fertilizers, etc....) manufactured by imperialist industries and this finds its way to the imperialist countries, leaving no gain to the peasantry. By suppressing this fundamental reason and highlighting only the factor of low yields of crops, this version of interpretation has the strategic aim of latching the Indian agricultural sector to the wheels of imperialist exploitation.

The Indian ruling classes by accepting the dictates of imperialists have begun to implement them. By propagating the lie that the subsidies offered to the peasantry were an unbearable burden, they began to cut to the lowest levels. The irrigation service charges, electricity charges, and fertilizer prices have been raised. All this has gradually led the peasantry into a debt trap. That this has led three lakh peasants to suicidal end is a well-known fact. Through financial leverage, they set out to remove peasants from their lands.

During this period technical know-how in agricultural practices rose up in imperialist countries. The technical know-how regarding genetically improved varieties of crops, animals, and biofuels has made great progress. With this in hand imperialism drove forward to turn the agricultural sector of the third world countries as tail-end to its economic system. Besides capturing crores of acres of fertile land in the countries of the African continent, and in countries like India by way of contract farming and corporate cultivation, it has tried to get the agricultural sector under its control. We have been enlightening the evolution and consequences of all this at appropriate junctures.

The question confronting here is whether these transformations have brought about a change in the feudal relations in the agrarian system?

1. Centralization of land: There is not much of a change in the level of concentration of land between the 1960s and 2010s. Even when the number of small and marginal farmers increased, they together hold only 30% of land either now or then. Less than 5% of those with more than 25 acres hold 30% of the land.

2. Even though the centralization of land is continuing and has brought in capitalist relations to some extent, they are in constant stagnation. Mechanization of agriculture, institutional loan lending, utilization of modern technology, cold storage - all these cannot take a step forward without governmental support. All the recent governmental steps offering financial support to utilize the above indicate the crisis in the just-said capitalist relations.

3. In the conditions of increasing landlessness, the depressed state of the extra-economic poor peasantry, increase in the number of agricultural laborers and lack of alternative employment in the population of agricultural dependency leads to the enhancement of the fundamental cause of exploitation, namely, extra-economic coercion.

In this coercion, we find an increase in the number of tenant farmers and enhanced rates of lease. These tenants are not capitalist tenants. These lease rates are governed by capitalist economic principles. It is well known that capitalism does not hesitate to utilize pre-capitalist modes of exploitation. An example of this is the exploitation of Mexican migrant labor in the grape gardens of America.

4. What are the reasons for the stagnation of capitalist relations in the Indian agricultural sector? The reason is that while the major part of the wealth created through labor in agriculture is whisked away by imperialism, a large part of the remaining wealth is gulped by big business. This appears clear in the case of commercial crops. As a result agricultural sector is deprived of any surplus. As such capital investment fund remains unavailable for the expansion of capitalist relations in the agricultural sector. That is why the demand for the increase in investment by the government in the agricultural sector is coming to the fore again and again. With the intention of encouraging capitalist relations government has undertaken the flow of bureaucratic capital into the making of cold storage, market yards , and institutional lending.

5. Just as it is keeping the capitalist relations in the industrial sector in its control and allowing them to grow only to the extent they serve its interests of exploitation, imperialism is also bent on regulating the extant capitalist relations in the agricultural sector. We can gain an understanding of this if we critically analyze the suggestions of the World Bank regarding the so-called reforms in agriculture.

Finally,

When we define a society as semi-feudal it means that in that society feudal relations and capitalist relations are cohabiting. Those capitalist relations should naturally grow and reach a level to abolish feudal relations. But imperialism and the comprador bourgeoisie are playing a role in arresting this process. As a result, capitalist relations are steeped in crisis. They have not grown to the level of abolishing feudal relations. They have no independent future.

Today we are witnessing the harmful effects of this slow and gradual social evolution.

The concentration of lands in the hands of a few; land grab by the native and foreign bourgeoisie with the collusion of the state; the growing landlessness among the rural population; peasantry in debt-trap; unemployment of agricultural labor; the ongoing farmer suicides; the nominal employment schemes brought up to pacify the angry peasantry; oppressive measures by the state, these being labeled as upper caste attacks on lower castes, these are disease symptoms of gradual, slow social transformation. These disease symptoms which Com. T.N. had pointed out five decades ago are being witnessed by us today in a more severe form.

As Lenin said, “It implies the utmost preservation of bondage and the serfdom (remodeled on bourgeois lines), the least rapid development of the productive forces and the retarded development of capitalism; it implies infinitely greater misery and suffering,  exploitation and oppression for the broad masses of the peasantry, and consequently also for the proletariat.” (Lenin, Page 243)

I conclude my paper with the words of com. TN once again: “Therefore, no communist can support this kind of evolution of feudal landlordism. Our task is to firmly oppose it by supporting the fighting peasantry to liquidate feudal landlordism”. (P. 414)

(Document Presented by Com. P. Jaswantha Rao in the Seminar on “Indian Revolution-Indian Communist Movement” in Vijayawada on the 3rd and 4th of April, 2015). =======================================================================