Naxalbari and Subsequent Four Decades: A Retrospection (Part-3)
-Deepayan Bose
In the first part of this essay we had discussed the brief background of the history of communist movement and revisionist departure of the party along with the Naxalbari peasant uprising, the formation of ‘All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries’, the process of further strengthening of the “Left” adventurist line by cornering every approach, thinking and line of revolutionary mass line during the lifetime of the committee and subsequently the holding of the Eighth Congress in May 1970 on the same line until the formation of CPI (M-L). In the second part, apart from the mention of the failure of the “Left” adventurist line in Srikakulam these less known facts were discussed that how deeply the revolutionary uprising of Naxalbari had also influenced the industrial working class besides students and youth, though the party could not take any advantage of the historic opportunity due to complete negation of revolutionary mass line by Charu Mazumdar and the party leadership.
Now in this current part of the essay we will discuss the circumstances and sequence of events which arose and developed within the party after the party-congress. The process of split along with unity which had ensued in the tenure of the coordination committee itself, continued even after the congress.
After the Congress: Differences with Satyanarayan Singh, the First Split Within the Party and the Subsequent Beginning of the Process of Disintegration
The first meeting that was held immediately after the founding congress of the party proved to be the last meeting. The Central committee formed an eleven member polit-bureau whose nine members included Charu Mazumdar, Sushital RayChauduri, Shiv Kumar Mishra, Kanu Sanyal , Saroj Datta, Satyanarayan Singh, Rampyare Sarraf, L. Appu and Sauren Basu. Two positions were left vacant. Besides this, four zonal bureaus were formed: the bureaus of south, north-west, north-central and north-east areas. Saroj Dutt and Suniti Kumar Ghosh were made in-charge of the party organs. No meeting took place in future of these zonal bureaus as well. The proposal to accept Charu Mazumdar as ‘revolutionary authority’ was rejected in the congress and the meeting of central committee and it was decided that Charu Mazumdar would work in consultation with the other members of central committee, but, in practice, Charu Mazumdar took most of the decisions on his own including the important decision to announce the formation of ‘people’s liberation army’. Even the polit-bureau member Sushital Raychaudhury who used to be available for consultation was not consulted generally. Hence after the congress, in practice, not only Charu did act as a ‘revolutionary authority’ but, in fact, went further and acted like an unchecked sole leader. Even the remaining democratic modus operandi that used to prevail before the party congress, did not continue.
Exactly four months after the party congress the Bihar state committee passed a resolution in September 1970 that was titled as “The new rising and the struggle against left opportunism”. Earlier, immediately after the congress, Satynarayan Singh had written a letter to Charu Mazumdar in which he had asked Charu to remove that portion from the ‘political-organisational report’ and from Charu’s speech based on that, in which it was mentioned that the US attack on Combodia was the beginning of the third world war. Satyanarayan Singh’s argument was that since the report and speech were not published yet, hence removing those portion would make these documents in consonance with Mao-tse-tung’s speech on 20 May 1970 in which he had said: “The danger of a new world war continues to prevail, and the toiling masses of all the countries must be prepared for this, however the main trend in today’s world still is revolution.” Although the assessment presented in the eighth congress report was wrong, but documents that are passed in a congress cannot be amended by an individual or even by central committee in a random manner. It would have been the negation of the democratic methodology. The suggestion of Satyanarayan Singh was reflective of his undemocratic and opportunist modus operandi. Charu Mazumdar did not accept his suggestion. Here, he stood with the correct modus operandi despite being wrong. Even while opposing the Left opportunism, the resolution by the Bihar state committee was not free of the left opportunist deviation. While showering lofty praises for Charu Mazumdar, the “annihilation of class enemy” was termed as a “higher form of class struggle and the beginning of guerilla war” and it was claimed that guerilla zone existed in twelve states and they are continuously spreading and strengthening. This description was not just an exaggeration but much too far away from reality. It was claimed in the document that the enemy’s campaign of encirclement and repression had failed and all the disorganizing ideological offensives of the “reactionary hirelings” like Nagi Reddy-Asit Sen had failed. Firstly, the indiscriminate campaign of state repression had superseded the campaign of annihilation of enemy going on in the name of guerilla war in Srikakulam and other regions even before the party congress. Secondly, Satyanarayan Singh was still hurling abuses such as “reactionary and hirelings” on Nagi Reddy and Asit Sen who were the leaders with impeccable revolutionary character, who had boldly struggled against the “Left” adventurist deviation during the coordination committee period. In order to understand the opportunist character of Satynarayan Singh, an example of just one incident would be sufficient. After separating themselves from party he reached the home of Asit Sen to take along with them. Then Asit Sen had snubbed him. With reference to the workers the resolution of the Bihar state committee mentioned that they are understanding the limits of economic struggle more and more, instead of waging struggle on day to day problems, demands and issues, they have now begun struggle on the issues of dignity and self-respect and their struggle is becoming more and more protracted and turning into violent clashes. Needless to say, this assessment too completely matched with Charu Mazumdar’s “Left” adventurist line about working amongst urban working class and its task. Not only this, in tune with Charu Mazumdar’s call, it was appealed that the party while linking the revolutionary armed struggles going on in cities with those going on in the villages, would bring about people’s democratic revolution and thereby turn 1970s into the decade of liberation from imperialism and feudalism.
Then, naturally, the question arises that what were the issues on which the resolution of Bihar state committee was opposing the “Left” tendencies? There was only one issue, that of rich peasants. The resolution stated that the “Left” opportunism while blurring the distinction between the landlords and rich peasants is narrowing the scope of revolutionary front and is strengthening the counter-revolutionary front. Only a handful of rich peasants are our enemies who have feudal tendency or who are with feudal landlord. Theoretically speaking, it was correct that the rich peasants too are (wavering) friends of revolution as per the strategic alliance of four classes in the new democratic revolution. However, party’s official position on this issue was the same. The problem was arising out of the mistake of assessing the concrete circumstances. By 1970, even the old feudal landlord did not remain rent-seekers and the tendency of producing for the market was taking roots even amongst them. On the other hand, even from the rich and prosperous middle peasantry, the class of rich owner farmer had come into being who used to exploit-oppress the poor-landless of villages. Often caste-based clashes used to take place among these new and old land owners. Yet another fact was that new landlords who were experts in capitalist agriculture were surpassing the old landlords. The party instead of making a distinction between feudal landlords and rich farmers as per the program of new democratic revolution, used to believe the family history to be the criteria as to who was landlord in the past and who was tenant.
Yet another empirical criterion was the caste-based discrimination because the landlords having feudal background often hailed from upper castes while the rich peasants used to belong to the middle peasantry. In the villages where the rich peasants too used to oppress the landless, there was a deep anguish among the poor even against them and the guerilla battalions that were carrying out annihilation of enemy largely consisted of these poor themselves. Consequently, the rich peasants too were on the hit list of the guerilla battalions. Instead of finding root cause of this situation in the ongoing changes in the production relations, Satyanarayan Singh saw it as an effect of “Left” deviation in the party. The subsequent course of events provide ample basis to believe that Satyanarayan Singh had raised it as per his political careerist thinking. This precisely was his opportunism owing to which from being a staunch advocate of “Left” adventurism, he performed a somersault to reach eventually to the serious right wing deviation.
But the resolution of the Bihar state committee had adopted some relatively correct positions and some substantive issues as well. Looking at the unequal and protracted character of Indian people’s democratic revolution, the document had criticized that no distinction was being made between the nature of struggles in the city and the villages and it was stressed that before the advance stage of countrywide class war, the nature of guerilla activities in the cities must be that of self-defense. This was the time when Charu faction while giving the slogan of making Calcutta as the liberated zone during the days of student-youth uprising in Calcutta had given up the old position. The document of the Bihar Committee had indirectly opposed this position. Within the framework of the new democratic revolution, its position was relatively correct. The document of the Bihar Committee also made correct criticism of terming the contemporary time as ‘the era of self-sacrifice’ by Charu Mazumdar and it was stated that there was no such separate era. The document had also rightly criticized the authoritarian trend and the lack of collective functioning, but only the central leadership (i.e. Charu) was held responsible for this. To what extent Satyanarayan Singh was really a genuine opponent of authoritarianism and over-centralisation, can be understood from an incident mentioned by Sauren Basu and Suniti Kumar Ghosh on separate occasions. Before the Congress, in 1970 when Satyanarayan Singh had gone to Calcutta to make arrangement for Charu Mazumdar’s Bihar tour, Suniti Kumar Ghosh had asked him his opinion about an article written by Sauren Basu that called for declaring Charu Mazudar as ‘revolutionary authority’. Satyanarayan Singh opined that it was fine but there was no mention of the successor of Charu Mazumdar in it. Clearly he used to carry the ambition of seeing himself as the successor. This was one of the reasons why he had started doing criticism and condemnation of the “Bengal faction” of Charu’s close circle including Suniti Kumar Ghosh, Sauren Basu, Saroj Dutt and Asim Chatterji by terming it as “Charu Chaukadi”.
In October 1970, a meeting of the polit bureau of the central committee was held in which the a deliberation on the resolution of the Bihar state committee was scheduled. This was the first and the last meeting of the polit bureau. Out of the nine members of the polit bureau only four could take part in it. They included Charu Mazumdar, Shiv Kumar Mishra, Satyanarayan Singh and Saroj Dutt. While coming to attend the meeting, Appu was killed in Tamilnadu by a landlord gang and this information reached the leadership later. Before the meeting Satynarayan Singh and Shiv Kumar Mishra met accidently and Satynarayan Singh showed his document to him. After a cursory glance Shivkumar Mishra promised him to extend his support. Shiv Kumar Mishra was a guileless communist revolutionary. He reached the conclusion that the document of the Bihar state committee is carrying on the same process of the struggle against “Left” deviation that had already been raised in the Uttar Pradesh state committee (here Shri Narayan Tiwari and Ramnayan Upadhyay played more important role than that of Shiv Kumar Mishra). In the meeting, Satynarayan Singh delivered his speech while presenting the document. Subsequently, Shiv Kumar Mishra also delivered his speech. Charu and Saroj Dutt were obviously against this. The meeting could not last long due to the sudden sickness of Charu. Out of nine members only four were present. Hence it was decided that the document of Bihar Committee would be placed before the central committee. But after this, no meeting of central committee was convened. The document of Bihar committee was placed before the West Bengal State Committee that was convened in January 1971. By this time Sushital RayChaudhuri had begun his famous series of articles against “Left” adventurist line (it will be discussed further in essay) and a debate was also scheduled in this meeting of the committee. Nevertheless, the Bengal State Committee rejected the resolution of the Bihar Committee by terming it as revisionist and counterrevolutionary and demanded the central committee that those who prepared the resolution must be thrown out of party. Earlier, Charu Mazaumdar had written against the Bihar resolution in ‘Deshvrati’. Immediately after this, Satyanarayan Singh and his comrades were expelled from the party. Neither a meeting of central committee took place before this nor was this decision approved in any subsequent meeting. By this time a caucus consisting of Charu and his acolytes had begun working as a de facto central committee. Bihar state committee was dismissed and was replaced by an ad hoc committee.
As an immediate response, Satyanarayan Singh called a plenum of Bihar state committee and presented a 110 page detailed report titled “The problem of Indian revolution and neo-Trotskyist deviation”. In brief the conclusion of the above report was as follows: (1) Neo-Trotskyite “Charu Chaukadi” is destroying all possibility of revolutions by mixing democratic, socialist and cultural revolution (2) It does not believe in the Mao’s assessment of the world situation, considers imperialism as a decisive power rather than people and instead of revolution it believes war to be the main trend in today’s world (3) It does not accept the strategy and tactics of protracted people’s war, instead it promotes swift victory, general insurrection and open skirmishes everywhere, and aimless action and hence it leads to the deviation of the revolution from a definite path of victory (4) In order to destroy the revolution it is abandoning the line of making base areas in villages and instead making cities as the main centre of gravity (5) By opposing the economic and partial struggles of workers, peasants, petty bourgeois class and other section of people, it is destroying the mass character of revolution (6) It wants to distort Marxism by carrying out revisionist manipulation, e.g. the amalgamation of democratic and socialist revolutions, war and revolution and other forms of armed struggle and class struggle, the mixing up of the strategy and tactics of people’s war and political struggles with economic and partial struggles, and its wrong conception about party building and party work style (7) The ‘Charu Chaukadi’ wants to make Charu thought as the guiding principle of party rather than Mao thought. The report ridiculed Charu Mazumdar’s assessment of the beginning of the third world war as it was opposed to Mao’s assessment and finally it was concluded that “Charu Chaukadi” was no longer a part of CPI(M-L), it had become the vanguard squad of the counterrevolutionary forces which is hell bent on harming the revolution, party and the leadership of world communist movement. In this plenum, the process of split got consummated and Satyanarayan Singh group started acting as a parallel party-centre.
By the time of the plenum of Bihar State Committee Shiv Kumar Mishra had been arrested. He supported the Bihar state committee’s resolution in the meeting of polit-bureau meeting. He used to consider the “Leftist” deviation as a serious tactical mistake, though he had profound faith in the Charu Mazumdar’s leadership (which remained throughout his life) and he had a strong belief that Charu would correct it in due course. He received the Satyanarayan Singh’s document ‘the Problems of Indian revolution and neo-Trotskyist deviation’ in the prison. He had a strong disagreement with the document. He was a staunch opponent of labelling Charu as a Trotskyist. He developed the opinion that right from the beginning Satyanarayan Singh intended to sideline Charu and even some comrades from Uttar Pradesh committee wanted this. He believed that with the purpose of split Satyanarayan Singh, as a manipulation, used him by taking advantage of his trust (this opinion remained intact throughout his life). After this, the U.P. Committee kept itself away from the organizational attempts of Satyanarayan Singh, but they too had to pay for supporting the resolution of Bihar committee. Charu Mazumdar dissolved U.P. state committee and Shiv Kumar Mishra and his comrades too were expelled from the organization.
The next process of important difference and separation with Charu Mazumdar took place with Asim Chatterji. Satyanarayan Singh had charged Charu Mazumdar of being encircled with the ‘gang of four’ of Saroj Dutt, Sauren Basu, Suniti Kumar Ghosh and Asim Chatterji, however, meanwhile, when the plenum of Bihar state committee was taking place, the difference between Charu and Asim had surfaced. In June 1971, the ‘Bengal-Bihar-Orissa border regional committee’ that was working under the leadership of Asim Chatterji, had vehemently criticized the official party-position towards Pakistan in the ongoing struggle in East Pakistan (current Bangladesh) by issuing a document and had termed it against the position of the Chinese Party. Asim Chatterji believed that Pakistan is waging struggle to safeguard its national independence, geographical integrity and sovereignty and China is extending its support, while the Soviet Social Imperialism and the Indian expansionists want to divide Pakistan for their vested interest and it is against the people of Pakistan. It is correct that China used to consider the Soviet imperialism as more aggressive and more dangerous (social fascist) among the two great powers and used to consider India to be its credible partner. In this way it was against the Soviet-backed Indian intervention in the internal affairs in Pakistan. But at the same time it also used to believe that the question of East Pakistan must be solved as per the wish of its people (S. Nihal Singh : ‘The Yogi and the Beer’, page 92, 172). China suffered from a dilemma between supporting Pakistan and the fight of the people of East Pakistan for their national independence and the Pakistani dictator Yahya Khan was surprised on not getting Chinese support on the issue of East Pakistan (The review of Sultan M. Khan’s book ‘Memories and Reflection of a Pakistani Diplomat’ by A.G. Noorani, published in Calcutta edition of Statesman, 16 November 1998). Despite all this, some questions can indeed be raised on China’s foreign policy in that era which was based on the assessment that owing to the aggressiveness of more dangerous Soviet Union, the danger of Third World War remained and under this situation a joint front the bourgeois powers of Third World countries and the western countries could be forged. As the time proved, this assessment itself was fundamentally wrong, however, this is not the place for that analysis. The basic mistake of Asim Chatterji was that he was determining the policy of a particular country according to the foreign policy and diplomacy of a socialist state. It was true that India at the regional level and Soviet Union at the world level were adopting the interventionist and expansionist policy, but the principal contradiction was the internal contradiction of the Pakistani society. The Bengali nationality of East Pakistan was waging a valiant fight for its liberation against the central power of Pakistan (on which the bourgeois class of Punjabi nation was dominant) and was facing the brutal repression. Under such a situation the support to this fight for self-determination and freedom must have been the policy of any communist party. It is to be noted that despite being weak, Communist Party of East Pakistan (M-L) under the leadership of Mohammad Toha, besides waging the guerilla struggle in some areas against the dictatorial regime of Pakistan, was also opposing the Soviet and Indian intervention besides opposing the submissive attitude of the bourgeois leadership of Awami League (Sheikh Mujeeburrahman). But Asim Chatterji while adopting the lopsided perspective towards the facts went on to consider Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his party to be the representative of the national bourgeois class. On this question, overall Charu’s stand was correct. His view was that even while opposing the policies Soviet imperialism and Indian expansionism it is the duty of the party that it must emphatically support the right to self-determination of East Pakistan and its liberation struggle.
Soon, Asim Chatterji released yet another document on behalf of ‘Bengal-Bihar-Orissa regional committee’ that was titled as ‘With reference to the current Party line”. Later on Asim Chatterji, in an article published in a short magazine, had accepted that before Sauren Basu went to jail he had received this information that the leaders of Chinese Party while seriously criticizing some aspects of the political line CPI (M-L) had given some suggestions ( the context of ‘Chinese Suggestion’ will be discussed later in detail). This was the information which was acting as a decisive factor behind the new document of Asim chatterji. It was under this light that he summed up his experiences and raised the banner of revolt. Sauren Basu had even sent him a letter from Alipur jail encouraging him to write this document (by that time he had been arrested). In his second document Asim had raised question over the annihilation of 120 people in Midnapur (West Bengal), Singhbhoom (then in Bihar, now in Jharkhand) and Mayurbhanj (Orissa) and not being able to form base area and people’s liberation army despite attacks on many prisons and for this he had held the negligent attitude and wrong thinking of Charu Mazumdar responsible. It was stated in the document that the tactical line needed to be changed after summing up the experiences of armed struggle under the leadership of the party. The document had correctly indicated the uneven development of Indian revolution and while improving upon the “left” deviation to an extent this question was also raised that the armed struggle needed to be linked with mass movements and mass organisations. However, armed struggle here meant secret annihilation of class enemy only and such actions were advocated even in urban areas. The document also strongly criticized the party leadership for sleeping over the Chinese suggestions. It was held that establishment of base areas happens to be the highest form of armed land struggle without which all annihilation was futile and people’s power, people’s liberation army and capturing state power bore no meaning. Thus even while accepting the massline in a fragmented way, the document in its ultimate conclusion itself suffered from “Left” opportunism because it used to consider the line of annihilation and that of ‘revolutionary authority’ as necessary. The abominable form of this deviation was that the existence of a people’s liberation army under its leadership was claimed and the building of base area was called upon at a time when in reality the struggle in the area under that committee had been scattered and the leading members of the committee had left the area for secured shelters. In this document, Asim Chatterji and his comrades had also given this warning that they would not carry on ideological-political debate within the party and they would implement their line independently. In practice, it meant to be separated from party. Thus Asim Chatterji’s journey from being a blind supporter to a blind opponent reached completion.
Asim Chatterji had entered the party along with his young friends when the Chinese party was continuously issuing articles, comments and statements in favour of the revolutionary communist movement. At that time Charu appeared as ‘revolutionary authority’. As soon as he received the information about the criticism by the Chinese party, he took no time in turning into staunch anti-Charu and in leaving party.
No sooner than leaving the party Asim Chatterji established contact with Satyanarayan Singh who after the plenum of Bihar state committee was going to conduct a meeting in November 1971 to form a new party. Both shared the ground of opposition to Charu and of their dramatic somersault, hence it did not take much time to reach to a consensus. Asim Chatterji was arrested in Devghar (Bihar) on 3 November while he was going to attend the meeting that was scheduled for November 1971. After some time his other two comrades Santosh Rana and Mihir Rana too got arrested, but another comrade managed to attend that meeting. In the meeting a new central committee was formed and Satyanarayan Singh was chosen as general secretary of the party. Santosh Rana and Mihir Rana too joined the party later. Satyanarayan Singh announced the expulsion Charu Mazumdar and Suniti Kumar Ghosh by terming Charu as ‘Wang Ming’ of India. Asim Chatterji, during his long incarceration, adopted a new path and after coming out of prison in 1980 he started a new innings of politics with Kanu Sanyal rather than going with Satyanarayan Singh. This companionship did not last long. Then he adopted a separate path which was to go towards the disgusting mire of revisionism. This journey will be discussed later at appropriate place.
The comrades of Asim Chatterji who were active in his work area continued making some efforts in their own way until the middle of 1972. Then they got scattered and some of them went along with Satyanarayan Singh. The difference of Sushital Raychaudhury with Charu Mazumdar and his supporters was an important development during the period of one year after the party congress. Sushital Raychaudhury was an old communist leader and a respected theoretician who had been the general secretary of ‘All India Coordination Committee’ and was a member of central committee and polit-bureau and secretary of West Bengal committee. As has been mentioend earlier, in the first and last meeting of central committee that was held immediately after the party congress, when Sauren Basu, Asim Chatterji and Saroj Dutt were arguing for declaring Charu Mazumdar as ‘revolutionary authority’, Sushital Raychaudhury had indirectly opposed them by reading Mao’s quotation on the consolidation of the party committee. During the period of coordination committee when D.V.Rao-Nagi Reddy, Parimal Dasgupta, Asit Sen, Pramod Sengupta etc. had waged struggle against “Left” adventurism on different occasions, Sushital Raychaudhury stood with Charu’s line. He and several leaders like him did not pay heed to the arguments of the opponents of “Left” adventurism and subsequently they themselves gradually started turning against the “Left” deviation. With the help of hindsight, it can be said that its basic reason was the fact that their ideological understanding was to a large extent very weak ( which was the historical legacy of the Indian communist movement). It was owing to this weakness that they had the tendency of uncritical imitation of international leadership and experienced party. That is why as long as there was a voice of support and praise for the coordination committee, CPI (M-L) and Charu Mazumdar in the organs of Chinese party and Chinese media, they did not pay any attention to any argument opposing Charu’s line and the failure of that line in practice. But as the situation changed, among those who started thinking with a critical wisdom and gradually went towards correct position, Sushital RayChaouduri’s name is included prominently.
In this essay we have already discussed the student-youth uprising of Calcutta. After the party congress (May 1970) when the action squads of students-youth began the process of attacking the school-college libray and breaking the statue of bourgeois leaders, the differences of Sushital Raychaudhury with Charu and his supporters developed rapidly in this period. In October 1970 (i.e. immediately a month after the above mentioned incident of the passing of the resolution against Charu’s line by Bihar state committee) Sushital RayChaudhuri took a leave from the post of state secretary for one month due to health-related issue. It was during this time that he wrote a document with the pseudonym of ‘Poorn’ and presented it before the party. In the document he criticized the attacking og the educational institutions in Calcutta and some other cities of West Bengal, obstructing the examination, sabotaging libraries-laboratories during the student-youth uprising of Calcutta and he termed them as ‘Luddite type actions’. It is to be known that after the end of Napoleonic wars when England was suffering from serious economic crisis, unemployment and hunger, many industrial workers were directing their anger towards machines and they were breaking them by assuming that the machines are the demonic force that is crushing their life. These activities were termed as Luddite. Sushital RayChaudhuri’s argument was correct that targeting the educational institutions was like Luddite action because educational institutions are mere instruments in the hands of exploiters and oppressors which function as maintaining and operating the counter revolutionary educational system.
Sushital Raychaudhury also criticized the desecrating of statutes as an act “Left” extremist activity, though his argument in this regard was problematic. He was of the view that it was wrong to desecrate the statues of people like Ram Mohan Roy, Vidysagar and Tagore as they were the intellectuals of era of old bourgeois democratic revolution. But the statues of the representatives of Indian bourgeois class such as Gandhi must be desecrated so that such impressions must be removed from people’s psyche. The first problem with this line of argument was that Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Vidysagar were in no way the intellectuals of the era of any kind of bourgeois democratic revolution. They were the representatives of the middle class that was born out of the womb of British colonial socio-economic structure whose existence depended on the colonial rule. This lacuna was brilliantly caught by Charu Mazumdar in his response and raised this question as to whether the statues must be desecrated selectively? The basic point was that the desecration of statue was wrong under any circumstances because by desecrating the statues and burning the images, the impression of an individual etched in the people’s psyche cannot be erased. It calls for a protracted ideological work. In the ‘Investigative report of Hunan peasant movement’ Mao Tse Tung had clearly stated that the very peasants who make statues with their hands will in due course corner them, hence nobody needs to do that before time. The communist party works to advance the political consciousness of the masses, and leaves the responsibility of getting rid of idol worship, superstitions and mythical beliefs on the people. Clearly, without raising the political consciousness of people and without adequate ideological work, the desecrating of idols of people who were familiar to every household was an extremist act. It was also an act of antagonizing the urban middle class and pushing it towards the enemy camp, which happened to be the strategic friend of the working class in Indian revolution. Sushital Raychaudhury raised his objection on the issue, but his argument was lopsided and problematic.
No sooner than Sushital Raychaudhury presented his paper, he was isolated. None of the members of Bengal state committee and the Bengal’s members of central committee stood with him. In the state committee meeting in January 1971 the situation was such that very aggressive members such as Sauren Basu and Asim Chatterji were presenting resolution to expel Sushital Raychaudhury from the party. Saroj Dutt and Suniti Kumar Ghosh chose the path of maintaining silence. However, Charu Mazumdar knew that the expulsion of a veteran, popular and respected leader like Sushital Raychaudhury would have an adverse impact in Bengal, hence he mediated and said that no one could expel Susheetal Babu from party and the state committee would call the meeting of party units according to his wish and he will be free to present his ideas in it. But in practice Sushital Raychaudhury was completely isolated even while being in the party. It was under these circumstances that he passed away in March 1971.
Before his demise, he had written a document in Bangla language: ‘The Problems and Crisis of Indian Revolution’. It was published by some of his supporters after his death. In this document the time of writing is given as November 1970, but according to Suniti Kumar Ghosh (Naxalbari:Before and After. Page 264), it was wrong as there is a mention the document of the declaration of the formation of people’s liberation army. This declaration was made on 7 December. Hence this document was written sometime after this date. It is very well possible that Sushital Raychaudhury would have prepared it after the above meeting of state committee in January 1971.
In this essay Sushital Raychaudhury while presenting more thorough and vocal criticism of the political line of Charu Mazumdar, had termed it as ‘extremely adventurist’. He wrote that earlier party thought the path of Indian revolution would be strenuous and protracted. Then Charu Mazumdar changed the line and gave this astrological prediction that by 1975 the revolution would be victorious. It changed the way of functioning and rapidity held sway everywhere. Terming the Charu Mazumdar’s interpretation of the term annihilation as against Mao thought the essay stated that for Mao this term meant to deprive the enemy class of its ‘power of resistance’ while for Charru Mazumdar it meant to kill the individuals from enemy class and this act was being performed secretly by secret squads.
According to Sushital Raychaudhury, in the subsequent phase of urban activities, ‘actions’ were given excessive importance and the importance of political propaganda was denied that was reflective of revisionist thinking. In the essay, this criticism was put forward that after Charu Mazumdar’s line became dominant the task of arousing and mobilizing the masses during the revolution through class struggle was neglected, abandoning the earlier stand, the economic struggles were given up and the task of forging joint fronts with the friend classes was not taken up, on the contrary, during the ‘annihilation campaign’ in the urban areas the small shopkeepers and similar people were targeted who were the potential ally of the working class in the revolution.
Sushital Raychaudhury believed that the building the foundation of proletarian base, formation of all just and beneficial mass struggles and saving one’s strength while carrying out those struggles patiently and to wait – these were the tasks of party in the urban areas as per Mao, which Charu and party leadership did not take on. While criticizing the bureaucratic style of Charu he wrote that authoritarianism had reach to such heights that the party committees had become non-functional and Charu had concentrated all powers in his hand. So much so that after the Magurjan incident, he declared the formation of people’s liberation army without consulting anybody. Contrary to Charu’s declaration it was stated in the essay that none of the era in itself is the ‘era of self-sacrifice’. As Mao said the aim of war is always to protect oneself and destroy the enemy, though sacrifice is also required in war.
In the last writing of Sushital Raychaudhury, a thorough and sharp critique of “Left” adventurist line was presented, but sadly despite its publication after his death, owing to the dominance of bureaucratic work style and lack of transparency this document could not even reach the party cadres within West Bengal forget about the entire country. After many years people got acquainted with the evolution of Sushital Raychaudhury ’s ideas and his ideological struggles.
Sushital Raychaudhury was not the last one to present a critique of Charu Mazumdar from the standpoint of mass line. After this, the remaining confidants of Charu started leaving him one by one and they turned into bitter critique of the “Left” adventurist line. We will discuss it later.
(To be continued…)
(Translated from Hindi by Anand Singh)
