In the Indian subcontinent, the concept of revolution and non-revolution began to clarify in the late 1940s. During the Telangana armed uprising, the main leadership of the Communist Party of India temporarily suspended the Telangana rebellion. They wanted to convey to the revolutionary workers that this was only temporary! In other words, it would be done later. But we know that this temporary hiatus of 75 years has still not ended.
Subsequently, we saw that after 1967, the revolutionary movement led by Comrade Charu Mazumdar faced a crisis in the mid-seventies when many in the movement spoke again about abandoning armed struggle. Among them, one of those original currents has now fully evolved into a parliamentary form in the present CPI (ML) Liberation, which has sought to engage in the struggle to uphold the Indian Constitution by riding on [Indian National Congress leader] Rahul Gandhi’s lap!
In addition, what did Sitaramaiya do for the reconstruction of today’s Maoist movement? Sitaramaiya, around 1978, compiled a basic summary of Comrade Charu Mazumdar’s revolutionary politics in a document and added a host of lines. At that time, he put an end to the “left” and right deviations within the movement, primarily the rightist line. Similarly, the MCC party, led by Comrade Kanai Chatterjee, preserved the revolutionary heritage of the past while establishing new revolutionary areas in actual struggles. The development and eventually unified direction of these two currents led to today’s CPI (Maoist).
Unfortunately, Sitaramaiya later deviated from the revolutionary path of the movement. At that time, comparatively younger leaders, the Ganapathy faction, emerging from the battlefield, took charge.
Over the past 21 years, the CPI (Maoist) has presented a plethora of revolutionary experiences of the 21st century, which certainly embodies the revolutionary continuity of the past. Even in today’s intense encirclement, there is an excellent environment for developing the revolutionary movement through the struggle of two lines. History shows us that during such times, more revolutionary politics are defined. Remember the time of Mao’s retreat to the Jinggang Mountains: Mao lost control of his entire area, and afterward, we saw the successful revolution of 1949.
Thus, crises in revolutionary movements are not new. They occur repeatedly until victory is achieved. History shows that during these times, some people turn to “humanitarianism,” like Sonu has, or is trying to do. The statements he made are not new; he has sought to escape from the higher form of class struggle achieved at the cost of the people’s sacrifices. His motivations, the purpose of his statements are not to save the people.
Today, the question has arisen: how will the Palestinian people be liberated? Some are advocating for surrender by accepting Trump’s proposal. Beyond that, the legacy of the Palestinian revolution is not surrender but advancing this struggle by summarizing the war. Self-defense and surrender are not the same thing. The same question persists in Palestine as does in India. Therefore, if people like Sonu present a line that avoids war and to try to save themselves from the Israeli guns, they too will be cast into the dustbin of history.
Returning to India, the crisis of today’s revolutionary movement is temporary, although merely repeating this superficial statement will not defend the revolution. Sonu has raised some questions. Those questions must be answered by the revolutionaries, and certainly, must not be answered by abandoning the revolution.
Sonu has raised the weaknesses of the revolutionary movement in a way that is simply a rejection of the revolution. He could not explain which lines led to the development of the Indian revolutionary movement. Rather, he used the tool of blaming the leadership (which, amusingly, he was part of).
Those like Sonu will be thrown into the dustbin of history through the revolutionary comrades who carry the heritage achieved by the sacrifice of 7,000 martyrs. If not a single comrade from today’s Indian Maoist Party remains with the revolutionary line, the revolutionary movement does not cease to exist. Even if one comrade does not survive at the hands of the enemy, it doesn’t mean the necessity of revolution in India will cease. The class struggle in India will give birth to it again and again. The experiences that the Indian communists have gained will remain, and from that ignorance, new revolutionaries will be born.
Sonu has renounced the legacy of India’s revolutionary movement. Thus, I am reminded of Comrade Kishenji’s mother, Comrade Madhuramma’s words. After Comrade Kishenji was martyred, she said, “Let another of my children perish in the jungle.”
Oh mother! Another of your children is now on the path of renouncing the revolution. Surely, if you were alive, you would not allow this! Just as we will not!
Long Live The Communist Party Of India (Maoist)!
The Struggles Of The Future Will Proceed Based On Experiences Achieved Through The Blood Of Martyrs!
Mahidul Islam Ibad
Vice-President
Revolutionary Student-Youth Movement (RSYM), Bangladesh
Chittagong Metropolitan Branch
10/04/2025
No comments:
Post a Comment