People’s war in the past

Combining Mass Mobilisation with Armed Resistance-II
Harsh Thakor

The MCC from the mid-1980's built mass fronts in addition to carry ing out major armed actions, but basically were against open activity of mass organisations which mainly functioned secretly. In the open mass work the Maoist Communist Centre formed the Revolutionary Students League and two strong Cultural organisations—the Krantikari Budhijibi Sangh and the Krantikari Sanskritik Sangh. It also set up various units of the Krantikari Kisan Commitees, which carried out People's Courts and distributed land to the tiller. Another significant contribution of the MCC was the work of their women's front organisation, the 'Nari Mukti Sangh'. They played a major role in leading tribal revolts of women. In Bihar the Revolutionary Students League led by the Maoist Communist Centre carried out the first ever 'Go to Villages' campaign in Bihar by a student front in 1989.

One famous action was carried out on landlord Rameshwar Singh. For years the peasants were trampled by the landlord's iron feet. On January 6th-1983 the Kisan Committee gathered at his 'Kacheri'. He was arrested and tried. They not only killed him but burnt his house. This was the first time that the people seriously saw the need of combining mass struggles with armed movements.

One of the most famous actions carried out by the MCC was in Dalechauk-Baghera region in Aurangabad on May 29th 1987. The Yadav activists of the Maoist Communist Centre slaughtered 42 Rajputs in retaliation for murders. Aurangabad is a feudal centre. The landlords launched an attack on Seshani village on April 19th 1987.This was in retaliation to the policies of the Krantikari Kisan Commitees who banned the selling of 150 acres of land owned by the Mahanta of Jnibigha village. This land was bought by one Lotan Singh. The Kisan Commitee destroyed the office of Babu Lotan and his tractors were burnt. A red flag was hoisted over his land. The landlords were also enraged by an earlier clash with the MCC and the fact that hundreds of Mahua trees were owned by the Kisan Samiti. In retaliation landlords launched an attack on MCC organisers in Seshani, killing 8 men and 2 children.

Following this the Red Defence Corps launched an attack on Dalechauk-Baghera. That area historically had the most notorious landlords like Satyendra Narayan Singh, Ram Narseh Singh and Lotan Babu ; Triveni Singh, Samresh Singh and Abhan Singh were other tyrants. It was the Krantikari Kisan Commitees that challenged their might. Another similar incident took place in Bara village in Gaya district on February 12th 1992, when 37 upper caste members of the Bhumihar caste were hacked to death.

The efforts of the PWG, MCC, and Party Unity groups to make self-criticism and initiate agrarian revolutionary movements and the mass political movements described above-particularly to build movements from the underground as well as work openly were no doubt, commendable. However there were sharp tendencies to use such fronts as direct tools of party propaganda and Marxism-Leninism Mao ze Dong thought was directly propagated through these forums. Mass struggles were built but a sufficient broad base was not created as often party politics was propagated from the platform of the student mass organisation (APRSU). The Student and Youth Movement of the Andhra Pradesh Radical Students Union was directly linked to the agrarian revolution and many student cadres directly participated in the armed movements and squads. The required political consciousness was not built up in the student movement to link it with the agrarian revolutionary movement.

In this period Democratic Students Organisation was formed in 1978 to rectify the wrong trends in the student Movement in Andhra Pradesh and give an independent identity to the student organisation and movement. Initially it built a mass organisation implementing the correct trend but later it veered towards the rightist trends. In the 1970's the Navadoya Yuva Sangham played a similar role in defending the revolutionary democratic nature of the mass organisation. It played an important role in opposing the Kappu-Kammu riots in Andhra Pradesh in late 1989. True, a long period was laid out where armed struggle was suspended from 1977 to 1979 by the Andhra Pradesh State Committee, but vanguardist trends prevailed. Mass organisations like Radical Youth League and Radical Students Union initiated direct party propaganda and armed squads. And guerilla actions were carried in areas where people's resistance movements were not still built. The struggle of the Punjab Students Union in the 1970's is a textbook for the study of mass line in student and youth movement. This trend was also prominent in forums like the Revolutionary Writers Association, the All-India League for Revolutionary Culture etc where their manifestos declared their upholding of Marxism-Leninism-Mao tse Tung Thought as a necessary perquisite. In Andhra Pradesh, the Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights (OPDR) formed in 1975 fought for a democratic rights movement that asserted the right to struggle as a fundamental right and against the democratic rights platform being used to propagate political ideology, which was prominent in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee. (This issue divided the democratic rights movement in the 1970's) It is significant that this tendency is still prevalent in the civil liberties movement in Andhra Pradesh (APCLC is virtually a front organisation of the CPI Maoist), however commendable the work of the APCLC is in the last three decades.

In Maharashtra, too these tendencies prevailed. Although the Vidhyarti Praghati Sanghatana built the biggest student movement it was unable to give the mass organisation the correct political orientation and party politics was propagated from this forum (directly linking student movement to villages etc). In the 1980s although small, a significant formation was that of the Vidhyarti Yuva Jagruti Sanghatana, that rejected the imposing of Marxist Leninist policies and defended the need of giving a student organisation an independent democratic identity. It seriously took up issues like facilities and admissions for students but later capitulated to right wing understanding.

In Bihar Maoist historians have to admire the tenacity and skill of the cadres and leaders to resurrect the peasant organisations and revive the agrarian revolutionary movement particularly by the CPI (ML) Party Unity. However in the end the intensity of the repression on the mass organisations grew as the actions of armed squads by revolutionary groups increased. Fronts like Democratic Students Union and Bharat Naujavan Sabha, or earlier Revolutionary Students League could not build mass movements. The peasant organisations were often deployed to create a mass base for the armed squads which complemented the struggles of peasant resistance. But armed actions in mass peasant movements gave a setback to the agrarian revolutionary movement and building of peasant associations and substituted the people's resistance.

The CPI (Maoist) made a major contribution in sharpening the teeth of the Jungalmahal movement, complementing mass struggles with their armed movements. They made great sacrifices but not enough independence was given to the PCAPA or enough space made to extend the mass democratic movement of the Adivasis. The PCAPA virtually became a front for the Maoist armed squads. In Orissa too, although the Chasi Mulia Adivasi Sangh was sympathetic to the Maoist movement, the mass leaders or cadres had differences and a correct mass-organsiational structure was not created. Doubtless CPI (Maoist) made a historic contribution and resisted valiantly in defending the guerilla Zone in Dandkaranya. Great rectifications of previous errors had been made in Dandkaranya and it was the highest form of armed resistance since the Naxalbari period. Prof Amit Bhattacharya compared its level of development to the CCP in the 1930s struggle. However still it didn’t go beyond the stages of Naxalbari or Telengana.

Dandkaranya is not a liberated base area, as the Chinese Communist Party formed in the 1930's or 1940's. It is similar to the AICCR declaring Srikakulam as a base area in 1967. Historically one has to remember how initially from the 1980's armed squads migrated from Andhra Pradesh to directly establish liberated areas in Dandkaranya.

The most correct mass line laid down since the time of Naxalbari and Srikakaulam was that of Tarimela Nagi Reddy and Devullapali Venkateshwara Rao.This was prevalent in the Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (APCCCR). By 1969 an agrarian revolutionary movement had developed in a small pocket of Kondamodalu agency area of East Godavri District under the leadership of the APCCCR. Indispensable work was done to revive the Sriakakulam peasant struggle. The vast masses of the Girijans were drawn with the perspective of the mass revolutionary line. T N and D V defended both Srikakulam and Naxalbari as peasant armed struggles but were critical of the line of 'annihilation of class enemies".

On the theoretical plane the Communist Party Re-Organisation Centre of India (ML) formed in 1994 which is based on the line of T Nagi Reddy, is the most correct. (In practice the most correct and biggest group in Punjab) It is significant that the CPI (Maoist) does not recognise the contributions of T N Reddy and D V Rao towards building the mass line in the period and the erstwhile People's War Group branded them and the APCCCR as revisionists. Today, however the CPI (Maoist) recognises the CPRCI (ML) as a genuine revolutionary force. It is an error that the CPI (Maoist)believes it is the re-organised party in itself .Today the various revolutionary groups are only the components of the revolutionary party to be re-organised and no group can claim to be the re-organised party.

The Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (APCCCR)-led by Tarimela Nagi Reddy and D V Rao from 1968 stood in the forefront of combating left adventurism of Charu Mazumdar who led the AICCCR (All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries).

T N in an interview explained important points in that era which are of relevance to the revolutionary movement even today.
The APCCCR also made the following important criticisms of the left adventurist line of the AICCCR-led by Charu Mazumdar.
1.    Armed Struggle starts only as resistance to landlord goondas and govt repression. This resistance will be in the form of people's mass resistance. However the CPIML rejected this and resorted to isolated squad actions. Out of this resistance only resistance squads are to be formed.
2.   People's War starts only as a form of resistance not as an offensive. Without any such relation, launching offensive actions against any and every landlord, acts against the revolutionary movement.

3.   The People's revolutionary armed struggle is not itself the guerilla warfare even if armed struggle is the main form in the country. In the vast areas, where due to uneven development of the political conciousness, the revolutionary movement has not yet taken the form of armed struggle, other forms of struggle should be adopted and they should be co-ordinated with armed struggle. The armed struggle that the people carry on against the ruling classes is by itself an offensive struggle. Yet, when compared to the armed forces of the ruling classes, the numbers, arms as well as skill of the people's guerilla forces would not only be inferior but would continue to remain so for a long time. In this period communist revolutionaries advanced the revolution defending guerilla areas and raised the slogan of self-defense for the villagers. Without the slogan of self defense the broad masses would never be mobilised to overthrow the ruling classes. The people's armed struggle would begin with the defense of the revolutionary movement, the revolutionary gains, the revolutionary organisation etc, from the attacks of the armed forces of the ruling classes. But in the primary stage, the strength and skill of the armed forces of the ruling classes would be many times greater than that of the armed forces organised by the people. The form of armed struggle adopted by the people at this stage is the guerilla warfare. As the people's armed forces grow in number, and the strength of arms and skill at a certain stage become favourable to the revolutionary masses, armed struggle would reach a higher stage. Then the armed struggle would take the form of mobile warfare and later the form of positional warfare.

Quoting the 1995 CPRCI (ML) path and documents on agrarian revolution (from Maoist documentation project) :
"Although the revolutionary guerrilla war under the leadership of the proletariat, by its very nature and from the very beginning, is based on the extensive support and involvement of the masses of people, mainly the peasant masses, a liberated base area is the most consolidated and comprehensive manifestation of the mobilised might of the people in favour of guerrilla war and against the enemy. That means, the people would have their own armed forces developed and trained enough to inflict defeats on the enemy forces; the broad masses of the people would be greatly aroused, on the basis of the People's Democratic Programme, especially the deepening of agrarian revolution, to set up their own organs of political power and re-arrange economic and social affairs so as to create a strong material backing for the protracted guerrilla war. Such liberated base areas would serve as living demonstrations of the revolutionary alternative and the way to liberation for the revolutionary masses all over the country, exerting tremendous political pressure on the enemy-held areas and giving a marked fillip to the people's struggles everywhere both for their own class demands and against the attempts of the ruling classes to stifle the base areas. Thus, a liberated base area would signify a total war waged by the people on military, political, economic, social and cultural fronts.

"Wherever and whenever the anti-feudal peasant struggles develop into armed agrarian revolts, having built their own democratic platforms and instruments of armed resistance in the process, these armed revolts would have to invariably advance as guerrilla armed struggle. This is because, as the peasantry launch armed agrarian revolt for seizure of means of production and political power, they, in spite of being politically strong, would have to face a far superior enemy (ruling classes) in terms of military strength. The international experience as well as the experience in our country stand testimony to the historical fact that whenever a socially large but militarily weak popular force confronts a small but far stronger reactionary enemy, the guerrilla form of armed struggle is the only form of warfare that can gradually change the balance of forces in favour of the large but popular force seeking to seize power. As guerrilla warfare, by its very nature, avoids decisive military engagements with the stronger enemy-forces and requires that the people's guerrilla forces keep the initiative of fighting in their own hands-fighting at the time and place of their own choosing and to their advantage the change in the balance of forces cannot be brought about quickly but takes place over a long period of sustained guerrilla struggle. So, the lndian people's revolutionary war has to be a protracted guerrilla war."

The experience of the revolutionary people's struggles of India in the past, notably the Telangana peasant armed struggle (1946-51), the Naxalbari armed peasant uprising (1967-68) and the Srikakulam peasant armed struggle (1968-70) clearly indicate the validity of the path of protracted people's war for the People's Democratic Revolution of India. Despite the historical limitations and other weaknesses of these struggles, all three of them positively demonstrated how the anti-feudal struggles of the peasant masses, under the leadership of the proletariat, when conducted on the basis of an agrarian revolutionary programme or perspective and imbued with the revolutionary politics of seizure of State-power, invariably tend to develop into armed agrarian revolts and guerrilla war against the reactionary Indian State. The great Telangana armed struggle in particular, provided the most authentic practical evidence of the feasibility of establishing parallel people's political power in the Indian countryside by dint of the peasant-based and communist-led guerrilla armed struggle.

The CPI (Maoist) underestimates the superior strength of the enemy, since its formation and also in the time of its earlier constituents, particularly in Andhra Pradesh. Like the CPI (ML) People's War did in 1980 in negotiating with the A P govemment, the CPI (Maoist) repeated the same error in Jungalmahal, with Mamata Banerjee.

The CPI (Maoist) must imbibe the teachings of Communist revolutionaries like T Nagi Reddy on mass organisations and the mass line. Nagi Reddy would have recognised the CPI (Maoist) as a most genuine revolutionary force but he would not have agreed that the subjective factors existed today for armed people's war in Dandkaranya, Jharkhand, Bihar and earlier Andhra Pradesh or Bihar from the 1980s. o[concluded]

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 20, Nov 25-Dec 1, 2012

Your Comment if any