(c) Lok Awaz Publishers 1996. No Part of this Publication may be reproduced without prior written permission of the publisher.
Comrades, at this time the "restoration of the unity of Indian communists", is one of the most burning questions. The "restoration of the unity of Indian communists" is a phrase which remains the most used in the Indian communist movement since 1964 and before. Nonetheless, unity has evaded the Indian communists. There is a need for all Indian communists to have a clear and concise understanding of what is meant by it at this time, and what rule the creation of India revolutionary theory plays in the restoration of the unity of Indian communists, and what place the work for the unity of the Indian communists has in the revolutionary movement of the working class for emancipation.
Right from the 1920s, when the Communist Party of India was founded, the Indian communists have been divided and their ranks fragmented into big or small pieces. They have been incapable of filling the space for communism that still remains to this day. Claims by some that they are the most numerous does not fill the void which the working class movement and people's movement is experiencing. Shibboleths and praises coming from outsiders also are no substitutes for the sound appraisal of the national and international situation and for creating the conditions for ending the disunity on that basis.
The disunity of the Indian communists is a sign of both their immaturity in the sphere of theory and ideology, and their submission to various forms of bourgeois ideology. Immaturity and submission to bourgeois ideology remain the main subjective factors in the retardation of the independent and conscious movement of the working class. It is also the cause of the disruption of the people's movement, especially in the struggle against state terrorism and in defence of human rights. It is likewise a big blow to the movement for enlightenment. In the objective sense, it is a great social prop for the continuation of the rule of the big capitalists and big landlords.
The burning question of the day is not merely the determination of who and which factors are responsible for this disunity. The point is to change the situation. One of the factors that will greatly contribute to the unity of the communists is the creation of Indian theory. Another factor is the elaboration of the general line for the communist movement for this period. It is around this general line that the unity of the Indian communists can be given a practical shape.
The slogan of unity is both the most ballyhooed and misunderstood by varied political forces throughout the world. What is this slogan of unity? Why is it being raised all the time? Why is it that the working class and the broad masses of the people are demanding so persistently for the unity of the communists in India and indeed all over the globe? How does CGPI look at this question?.
The question of the unity of the communists has become most important during this period of the retreat of revolution, the period in which U.S. imperialism is demanding a unipolar world under its dictate. It is also the period in which Russian imperialism is demanding a multipolar world. Germany has its own ambitions in this regard, and the same can be said for others. It can be said that the world situation is similar to what it was like before the First World War when the struggle for the redivision of the world had started in all earnest. At this time, U.S. imperialism is striving to create a unipolar world. It is working to smash all resistance to this through all peaceful means at its disposal or through war if necessary. It has declared its policy of the "carrot and the stick" and that "might is right".
Social-democracy, which was the vanguard of the working class during the period before the First World War, facilitated imperialism in achieving its aims. It was up to social democracy to have led the working class and society out of the terrible crisis and slaughter it was facing. Instead, social-democracy closed ranks with its own bourgeoisie to "defend the fatherland" throughout the horrors of the inter-imperialist First World War..
No communist should underestimate the fact that at this time, when the world is facing another all-round crisis, CPI(M), CPI and other communists have committed themselves to the defence of the fatherland through their adoption of the program of "national unity and territorial integrity" of India as their guiding principle. Anchoring themselves to this social chauvinist vantage point, they are presenting themselves as the alternative to the bourgeoisie in defending the fatherland within the complex situation. In other words, they are protecting the bourgeois-landlord society instead of leading the working class to get society out of the crisis. They have refused to build the new Indian polity with a new union that is frre and equal, and that recognises all the nations and tribal peoples which are its constituents.
Within these conditions the communists must make a sharp break with the line of "national unity and territorial integrity". At the same time they must create an atmosphere of vigorous discussion and debate, agitations and struggles to lead the working class to extricate the society form the crisis.
An extremely complex and serious problem is confronting the Indian communists at this time. The order of the day is an all-encompassing differentiation of communists on the basis of sharply defining an Indian communist as distinct from a social-democrat or from any revisionist or opportunist. Nonetheless, this differentiation cannot be done on a factional basis. On the contrary, CGPI must work for uniting the Indian communists into one party. It must make the necessary effort to create an atmosphere of discussion and debate. It must analyse all ideological and political forces, all communists without exception, and point out the place they may occupy and the role they must play within the given situation. It must create an atmosphere of "unity and struggle" and fight all efforts to divert attention from this by launching personal attacks. It must steer clear of all those forces engaged in character assassination and smear campaigns.
Communist unity belongs to the working class. The vigorous work for the creation of revolutionary Indian theory, the elaboration of the general line and raising the ideological and political level of the working class and masses will greatly contribute to the restoration of the unity of Indian communists.
At this time in India, there are political forces that look at the slogan of "national unity and territorial integrity" as absolute. On the other hand, there are forces which consider the immediate task to get society out of the crisis as the most important. The Indian polity is being divided into these two hostile camps reflecting the interests of the industrial houses and big landlords on the one side, and the working class and toiling masses on the other hand. These two ways of looking at things are giving rise to two antagonistic politics, one leading to the overthrow of the other.
Indian communists have to ensure that the bourgeoisie is not able to sustain the disunity of the Indian communists and of the Indian working class on the basis of this slogan of "national unity and territorial integrity." They have to avert the catastrophe of fascism and war by building their own unity. In order to frustrate the efforts of the bourgeoisie to perpetuate the division of the communist movement, the CGPI must dedicate itself to work with all the Indian communists and other political forces to extricate society out of the crisis.
"Unity" and "struggle" constitute the conditions, features, opposites, of all things and phenomena that are in their state of development and motion. India is a class society which is in state of development and motion. The protagonists of "national unity and territorial integrity" constitute the opposite of those who want to get society out of the crisis. These opposites mirror the class divisions as they exist in India and internationally. The first is for quantitative change, for the consolidation of the status quo. The other is for its complete opposite, the forces interested in qualitative change, in the complete smashing of the status quo.
All ideological and political forces in India have to be judged by their stand in relationship to this historical divide that will determine the fate of Indian society. This historical divide must lead to the isolation of the forces of reaction. CGPI must work out all the tactics to bring this about. The forces of reaction, more often than not, engage in splitting the working class and society on the basis of this or that policy, or this or that "ism" in order to advance their own cause of preserving the capitalist status quo. It is this division that must be frustrated and thwarted with the vigorous ideological and political action of CGPI and all communists along the lines of this historical divide.
According to V.I. Lenin, "Development is the 'struggle' of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) concepts of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)"(6). Applying this thesis of Lenin to the Indian conditions, it can be seen that the development of India hinges on who the winner is in this historical divide. If the champions of "national unity and territorial integrity" win, there will be a degeneration of society and further deepening and broadening of the crisis. If the forces fighting for lifting the society out of the crisis win, there will be development and the path for the progress of society will be opened. CGPI and all communist forces have to develop the practical tactics in order to ensure the latter.
Lenin further explains that "In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external-God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self-movement"(7)
. Applying this to the Indian conditions, the enthusiasts of "national unity and territorial integrity", leave their "driving force," their "source" and "motive" in the shade while the work of CGPI is fully explained and justified on the basis of the concrete conditions prevailing in India and internationally at this time, as well as according to the theory of contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought. If we were to reduce the struggle merely to repeating that "they are wrong" without fully criticising and explaining why their ideas and practices will further damage Indian society, we will be acting just like them, with the "self movement, its driving force, its source, its motive" remaining in the shade. This would not contribute to any development in the qualitative sense. In fact, it would contribute to the continuation of the status quo.
Lenin clearly points out that "The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry". This is why CGPI is opposed to waging the struggle on a dogmatic and sectarian basis. While, "The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing: it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps', to the 'break of continuity', to the 'transformation into the opposite', to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new". This is why CGPI is putting on an objective basis the discussion, debate, and agitations on the substantive issues with the aim of defeating the class enemy. This will contribute to "leaps" and "breaks of continuity" in the development of the communist movement.
Such thing can be achieved because "The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute." "Mutually exclusive opposites" reveal their true colours only in the course of development even though their basis of existence can be seen right at the beginning, just as CGPI has recognised the existence of the two opposites at this time. By persevering in the aim of bringing forth the unity of the communists and working out tactics suitable to bringing together all those who want to get the society out of the crisis, CGPI will not only be able to restore the unity of the Indian communists but will also be able to isolate and defeat those who are using the slogan of "national unity and territorial integrity" in order to preserve the capitalist status quo.
In the phrase "restoration of the unity of Indian communists", the first problem that is to be solved is to elaborate, explain, and identify that the slogan of "national unity and territorial integrity" is an old one, a slogan which is disastrous for the progress of the communist and workers' movement in India. After having identified the reactionary nature of the slogan, CGPI must work out the tactics, methods of work and slogans to overcome it. It is this planned, systematic and conscious destruction of the old that will give rise to the new. In the course of implementing this plan, the unity of the communists will be restored.
Having settled the question of what is old and what is to be overcome, CGPI will have to work out in clear terms in whose interests it will be to overcome the old. Will it be in the interests of the working class, the toilers of India, and the middle strata? Will it be in the interest of those forces that are fighting for their own national liberation as in Kashmir and the North East? A plan for the unity of all these forces into one struggle to overcome the old has to be brought to life, a point of convergence for all fighting forces. In other words, CGPI has the responsibility to unite all the forces in order to isolate the old to the maximum and hit at what is obstructing the progress of society.
It is clear that, as a starting point, all those who call themselves Indian communists and all political forces irrespective of their ideology have to be looked at as fellow travellers of those who are working to get society out of the crisis. They make up the unity of opposites and, at the starting point, they do not belong to a struggle of mutually exclusive opposites. The mutually exclusive are the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed; in sum, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Those who are in the unity of opposites, that is, in a relationship that is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative, can be identified only if their coincidence, identity, equal action is fully brought to light, explained, and elaborated. In other words, a climate of full discussion and debate needs to be created in the course of various agitations and struggles that are consciously planned. At the same time, those who are in the unity of opposites cannot be identified unless they are compared and contrasted with what are mutually exclusive opposites. That is, CGPI cannot lose sight of and ignore those who are dead set on subverting the communist movement-those who are conciliators with and are creating illusions about social-democracy. In other words, the subject matter of unity cannot be dealt with without examining the self-movement of everything existing, including that which is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative, and which will necessarily divide in the cou! rse of its development into mutually exclusive opposites.
To seek the restoration of the unity of the Indian communists means to re-establish something that is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative and will necessarily divide in the course of development into things which are mutually exclusive opposites. As this program is implemented, there may appear those who do not wish to take this struggle through to the end. They may come up with a plan, even though illusory, to get society out of the crisis, but by maintaining the capitalist status quo. In the end, the fight will surely be between the socialist and anti-socialist forces.
The division that took place in the Indian communist movement in 1964 did not give rise to mutually exclusive opposites. This division was not the reflection of the development of the movement but its degeneration. It was a division on the basis of dogmatic and sectarian principles. It was a development merely in terms of decrease and increase, as repetition. It was a disaster for the communist movement as there are not a few communists at this time who support with enthusiasm the slogan of "national unity and territorial integrity", a social-democratic program, a rehashing of the European social-democratic slogan of the "defence of the fatherland"--a national chauvinist declaration of inter-imperialist war, and at the very least a slogan in the service of the capitalist status quo.
CGPI looks at the splitting and division between communists and the degeneration of communists from the perspective of rallying all the forces behind one program. It attributes the degeneration to the conciliation of some communists with social-democracy under the pressure of the propertied classes who have become extremely excited with the expansion of capitalism and have found their future in it. One of the causes, on the subjective side, on the side of consciousness, was the refusal to recognise that the problems of the Communist Party of India during the 1962-64 period stemmed from its failure to rise to the occasion and call for an independent program of the working class. The stand taken by CPI was subordinate to the stand taken by the Congress, especially on the Sino-Indian conflict in which it disgraced itself by abandoning proletarian internationalism "in defence of the fatherland".
Over thirty year later, CPI(M), which split with CPI in 1964, is the greatest champion of "national unity and territorial integrity". Tragically, CPI to this day co-ordinates and sets its work in accordance with the aims of the Congress. Such a stand is reactive and not pro-active; it is based on the difficulties created by the failure to analyse the concrete conditions of the Indian economy, politics and culture, that is, the failure to determine precisely the stage of revolution in the immediate and strategic sense.
When conflicts appeared in CPI during the 1962-64 period, these were concerned with content. They could have been sorted out through inner-Party methods in the Marxist-Leninist tradition. However, in a typical social-democratic fashion, the struggle shifted onto whether this or that method of struggle is acceptable or not, and to whether this or that section of the bourgeoisie was "progressive". It was extremely easy to create mutually exclusive opposites through mental categories on the basis of differences in methods of struggle, while the differences in content were left in the shade. It was not fortuitous that this happened because the content of those leaders of those who were accusing the CPI leadership of betrayal was basically the same. CPI(M) was merely a faction, and it has remained so to this day. The opportunity to provide one program for all communist and democratic forces was missed. In its place, the polity was plagued with splits and divisions and the working class lost its leading role for long time.
As we look at the Indian communist movement from the point of view of revolutionary dialectics, we see that the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which was to be the mutually exclusive opposite of the Communist Party of India, did not emerge as such. It did not have new content and it did not have new forms consistent with the new content. Many of the groups calling themselves Marxist-Leninist and Maoist did not persist in developing a new content either. Opposing forms of struggle such as parliamentary struggle with revolutionary violence does not provide this form with new content. New forms become the most crucial precisely because there arises an immediate need to accommodate the new content. There is a dialectical relationship between form and content. Persisting in old forms can obstruct the new content.
Objectively, in its content and methods of struggle, CPI(M) was the same as CPI. Its unity with CPI, which was to be its mutually exclusive opposite, was not conditional, temporary, transitory, relative, but absolute. If it had been new, its unity would have been conditional, temporary, transitory, relative and the communist forces would not have been split. It would have been the social-democratic and revisionist elements coming from both right and "left" who would have split. But by pretending that it was new, CPI(M) forced a split that did not lead to development, to mutually exclusive opposites but to further degeneration.
The restoration of the unity of Indian communists, is obstructed by this mutually exclusive opposite, this old content of CPI, CPI(M) and some others who have rallied behind the Congress (I) slogan of "national unity and territorial integrity". This obstruction is facilitated by old forms. One of the old forms is to substitute vigorous discussions and debates with the running of rumour mills and gossip from one end of the globe to the other. It is assisted by utter dishonesty in advncing the program of the "democratic, secular front", a theory and practice of abandoning the cause of the working class, pushing for further splits and divisions amongst the communists, and conciliating and currying favour with this or that section of social-democracy.
The restoration of unity of the Indian communists will not be brought about by the old content and old forms. It will not be brought about by merely accusing this or that party or group of not being what some may think they ought to be on the basis of mental categories, or of what they should have been in order to qualify as a "real" Communist Party. On the contrary, the mutually exclusive opposite is to be found in the rejection of old content and old methods and in carrying out discussions and debates and agitations for the lifting of society out of the crisis. It has to be done on the basis of assessing every political force on an objective basis, uniting on the basis of all the words and deeds which assist in the solution of society's problems.
What is new and most modern, and which can be seen as a result of the development of the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation, is the plan to lift society out of the crisis. It is the plan of democratic renewal, of completing the anti-colonial struggle with the overthrow of the capitalist system. It is also this work of rejection, this struggle to strictly abandon the old content and old methods that will bring about a new development, a "leap" from the old to the new, a "break" in the retrogression of the old movement, a creation of a higher level of the unity of opposites.
Return to: | Whither India Index |
Disclaimer: The opinions presented on this website's event and discussion forums are those of readers from around the world and do not necessarily represent the views of CGPI, its members or any affiliated organisations.
Home | About | Statements & Speeches | Documents | People's Voice | Donate | Act Now! | Download
Search powered by