English

(From Liberation, August 1995 Excerpts]

Writing on Bihar elections after nearly three months may appear strange but the delayed review has the added advantage of scrutinising various arguments and conclusion advanced by other analysts. Then, the alternative positions from within the Party that capitalise on the confusions in the Party ranks have begun taking shape only recently. All this necessitates a fresh look about our election practice and election results.

Let us first see how some analysts have reviewed our position. Mr.Chaturanan Mishra, a CPI ideologue, writing in a Hindi daily commented that whereas a large share of votes of CPI and CPI(M) came through their alliance with JD, only a small share of CPI(ML) votes came from its alliance with Samata Party. He wondered that CPI(ML) mached the number of seats gained by CPI(M). Mr.AK Roy in his much-published article lamented on the increased dependence of the Left on JD. In the same breath he branded CPI(ML) as 'defiant for refusing to be the ally of JD and then accused is of entering into unprincipled alliances with Samara Party and JMM, unprincipled because, as he felt, it was motivated by just the lure of seats and power.

Mr.Tilak D Gupta, an ex-Naxalite belonging to Parry Unity stream and now a journalist, wrote in Economic and Political Weekly: “The CPI(ML) group has reason to be satisfied with its electoral show though its performance fell far below is somewhat exaggerated expectations. Among all parties, the CPI(ML) had to face the maximum hostility from an administration organically connected with the big landwners. Additionally it had to face a situation where a substantial section the toiling rural masses, who have been mobilised by the party in agrarian struggles, opted for the Janata Dal in election time. Further the CPI(ML) fought the elections solely on its own strength compared to CPI and CPI(M). Given these circumstances, it may be said that the Pany did fairly well in a rather difficult situation.”

After handing out these compliments, Mr. Gupta adds, "Having said this, it need to be pointed out that the unprincipled attempt to forge alliance with the patently right-wing formation, though with socialist pretensions articulating the aspirations of non-Yadav landed interests, smacks of a kind of political opportunism so commonly witnessed in the Indian communist movement in the past. Besides, in its anxiety to defame and dethrone the Janata Dal, the CPI(ML) group along with the other opposition parties became to a certain extent supporter of, if not a willing collaborator to, the arbitrary and biased acts of the Chief Election Commissioner in Bihar."

TWO ALLIANCES: TWO TACTICS

Now let us see what all these statements actually mean. Mr.Chaturanan Mishra's analysis seeks to put CPI-CPI(M)'s alliance with JD and CPI(ML)'s alliance with Samata Party at par with only a quantitative difference, i.e., the share of votes accruing to them out of their respective alliances. He glosses over the qualitative difference in the very nature of the alliances themselves. While the former was an alliance with the party in power, the latter was with a party in opposition. Moreover, whereas the former was in the nature of absolute dependence, the latter signified absolute independence. This is clearly borne out by the fact that a large share of votes of CPI and CPI(M) were due to JD's support in contrast to CPI(ML)'s victories solely on its own strength. The alliance with Samata Party having been reduced to a token gesture and barring two or three seats with Samata candidates opposing us everywhere else, it is ridiculous to speak of even a small share of our votes coming due to Samata Party's support. It is even more ridiculous because Samata itself proved a total flop. Then again, equating CPI(M) and CPI(ML) on the basis of equal number of seats gained is a mockery of ground realities. Despite CPI(M)'s large share of votes coming through JD's support it is still less than half of our votes.

Two alliances, two election campaigns and two categories of votes secured were of qualitatively different nature and unless this is understood every election analysis will be nothing but superficial, at best a clever subterfuge to cover up one's own opportunism.

While the running thread from the beginning to the end in the first alliance was dependence and nothing but dependence on its bourgeois ally, in the second it was absolute independence of the party of the proletariat vis-a-vis its bourgeois ally. Whoever confuses this, wittingly or unwittingly is guilty off obliterating the basic difference between the election tactics of Social-Democracy and revolutionary communists.

Mr.AK Roy, who admits that the Left's election tactics of aligning with JD has only led to an increasing dependence on JD, doesn's answer the question what else than the lure of seats and power motivated the Left in aligning with JD? The loss of identity or increasing dependence on JD was built in the very process of their relationship with JD for the last five years and it was not say sudden development. If CPI(ML) preferred us remain defiant in the entire period in the face of all adversities and refused to be lured by the lust of seats and power, wasn't the question of principle involved here? The stoical silence maintained by the self-proclaimed moralist on the unprincipled alliance of his own outfit Marxist Coordination Committee with JD is quite intriguing to say the least.

As for our alliance bid with JMM and Samata Party we had all along made it clear that we shall never be part of any Samata-JMM government, and at best, only offer conditional support. Had any such situation emerged – chances of which were very remote from the very beginning – it was obvious that our Party, ingrained as it is in the battle for radical transformation, would have soon resumed its role of revolutionary opposition. A Samata-JMM government would have hardly accepted and followed our conditions. The question of lusting for power was ruled out from the very beginning. Now, what are the facts of our relationship with JMM?

In the first place, our relations with JMM didn't come up all of a sudden just on the eve of elections and for an opportunist sharing of seats and power. It began when Laloo Yadav made a somersault and rejected the demand for a Jharkhand state. Amidst a new spurt in the Jharkhand movement we participated with JMM in a joint forum. Secondly, as JMM still remains the foremost representative of the Jharkhand movement in parctical politics it is virtually impossible to deny having any relations with it. We made the relationship, however, conditional by demanding separation from Congress in any joint move. And we did walk out of the joint body when the JMM began hobnobbing with the Congress. Thirdly, except for some political statements expressing the desire for alliance from both the sides, no formal talks on alliance or seat sharing ever took place. And eventually, owing to its hobnobbing again with the JD during the crucial election period we decided to reject even a symbolic alliance with JMM. Later on, when they again came back, it was Samara Party which forged an alliance with them and we were never a party to that.

Will Mr.AK Roy tell us where the principle is sacrificed here? On the contrary, Mr.Roy who had been a foremost votary of a separate Jharkhand state, who was the moving spirit behind the formation of JMM on the premise of upholding local people's interests vis-a-vis Bihari outsiders and who went to the extreme of describing Jharkhand as the ‘internal colony of Bihar’, remained clinging to Mr. Laloo Yadav even after the latter adopted the typical ‘Bihar colonialist’ stand in relation to Jharkhand. Aher throwing away his principles to the winds, if Mr.Roy laments at the loss of identity of the Left, who is he blaming for that?

Now JMM is happily back in the fold of the National Front and through NF-LF combination the Left, including Mr.Roy, will again resume relations with JMM without, however, bothering to answer how principled this relation will be?

POLITICAL IMPORT OF AGRARIAN STRUGGLES

Mr.Tilak D Gupta compliments us for keeping our score card intact even when 'a substantial section of toiling rural masses who have been mobilised by the Party in agrarian struggles opted for Janata Dal in election time'.

First of all, I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of our votes which remains comparable to our old performance five years back came from the same toiling rural masses who have been mobilised in agrarian struggles. The phenomenon of shift of such votes to JD was basically confined to the district of Jehanabad and to one or two constituencies of Patna district. The sharp decline of our votes did take place in Bikramganj and Barachatti – the seats we had won earlier – but the shift was mainly in the votes of middle sections who had voted for us last time. This time, whatever votes we got was exclusively from the landless and poor strata.

We, more or less, maintained our position in Shahabad zone, improved a bit in South Bihar and scored impressive advances in the North-western region. The debacle in Jehanabad is intimately connected to the serious organisational disorder there which again is related to the political disorientation, that is, a diversion in the mobilisation of the toiling people in agrarian struggles. This diversion again arose out of a situation where the Party was forced to take on the MCC-PU onslaught. It was part of a well-calculated strategy of Laloo Yadav to instigate these forces against us and all our efforts to settle the disputes through talks evoked no response from MCC and PU. Moreover, the administration's hostility was at its peak in Jehanabad.

It was only after elections that we could move a set of senior leaders to Jehanabad, unite the ranks and take up drastic organizational mearares to revamp the situation and return to the path of mobilisation of the tailing mases in the agranan struggles.

Jehanabad is a very specific exception and a typical example showing how the anarchins practically serve the cause of the ruling classes MCC-PU did succeed in damaging our Party to a great extent in Jehanabad to the advantage of JD, but could they develop any alternative political model based on election boycott? Their election boycott call took an adventurist turn and ultimately proved to be a total flop. Ground reports, as noted by several journalists, clearly proved that a large section of their cadres and supporters voted for Janata Dal. Politically, these groups were reduced to a nonentity at a time of sharp political fervour.

In contrast, our electoral support has essentially been the political reflection of the agrarian struggles being conducted by our Party. This fact is admitted by Mr.Gupta when he comments that, "Significantly, for the first time the CPI(ML) group bagged two seats in the North Bihar plains in the face of a pro-Laloo Prasad wave to indicate the growing spread of agrarian movement beyond the traditional Naxalite strongholds of South and Central Bihar".

This doesn't mean that I want to underestimate our weaknesses in Jehanabad. The Party should have stuck to its orientation of agrarian struggles despite extreme provocations and we singularly failed on that count in Jehanabad. The point I want to make is that the formulation that "a substantial section of toiling masses mobilised in agrarian struggles by the Party opted for Janata Dal in election time" is basically wrong. On the contrary it happened only in areas where the Party, for some reason or other, failed to pay proper attention to mobilising the rural masses in agrarian struggles.

Mr.Gupta has also talked of our "exaggerated expectation". It is true that our results were much below our expectation, we had been expecting 12 to 13 lakh votes and 10 to 12 seats to enable us to get recognition. This target was not far beyond the reach of the Party. Administrative hostility, "killing of a senior Party leader, abnormal delay in the whole election procedure that gave the major parties a lot of room for manoeuvring, Maharashtra-Gujarat election results that brought the sharp polarisation between JD and BJP and the rigging, etc. were in no way less important factors in affecting our election prospects to a considerable extent. We had pointed out at the very outset that we were strong in 25 seats where we hoped to be in the race. Out of these we won six, stood second in eight, and polled between 14,000 to 25,000 votes in the other ten seats. In Hilse, the 25th seat, countermanding of elections did greatly affect our prospects and Samasa Pany, which was nowhere in the race in the first phase, emerged the main challenger in the second round. In our original list of top 25 seats, of course, it was Barachatti in place of Bhore and that was the only anomaly. I have elaborated in detail to show that in face of these ground realities ous expectations can in no way be termed as "exaggerated".

Having said this, I must point out that exaggerated expectations were indeed there which banked upon superficial subjective factors like hoping to rope in the negative votes of upper casts, Samaa Party’s base among Kurmis, wherever Samata was not in the race, caste supports to individual candidates, etc. This wishful thanking narurally raised the expectations of seats from 25 to 30 and even more. This, I must remind you, was in no way the official Party position, but manifestations of petty bourgeois subjectivism and parliamentary cretinism which did affect a section of leaders and large sections of ranks. Every time elections are round the corner and by the time election fever rises to a high pitch a lot of people begin to cherish wild dreams and just refuse to listen to any sober assessment. This is a serious deviation which invariably brings in its wake frustration and despondency. The Party has to consistently fight this trend.

Mr.Gupta singles out for criticism our so-called unprincipled attempts to forge alliance with Samata Party which he feels is more to the right than JD – and this he equates with the political opportunism of the CPI and CPI(M) brand. Mr.Gupta had himself admitted that we conducted elections solely on our own strength compared to CPI and CPI(M). He has also conceded that our victories in North Bihar are an indication of growing expansion of agrarian struggles. In the case of alliance too, he differs from Mr.Chaturanan Mishra and AK Roy as he has referred to "unprincipled attempts" only knowing fully well that the alliance eventually was reduced to a token gesture. Now this reduction of the alliance to tokenism, in contrast to the "complete understanding" which CPI and CPI(M) entered with Janata Dal is itself symbolic of our Party's attaching utmost importance to upholding its absolute independence, absolute insistence on fielding its candidate in all centres of agrarian struggles including those where our Party has been historically entangled in struggles against Karmi kulaks, its firm refusal to act as junior partners of Samata Pany, to share a common manifesto, common programme and common campaign.

OUR RELATIONS WITH SAMATA PARTY

Regarding Samata Party, I quote what I had said in the August ’94 State Cadre Meet at Patna, “Regarding JD (George) I want to clarify one thing. Nitish, in the name of opposing Yadav excesses and Yadav domination is uniting Kurmis and other castes. We don't agree with such an idea. ... Large sections of Yadav in Bihar are poor and middle peasants. ... We are trying for a polarisation within Yadav community. ... We cannot go as per Nitish's idea. We have fundafamental differences with them. In fact it is the reverse. The way he is gathering Kurmi support. we have a struggle on this issue ... with Kurmi kulaks.” (Lokyuddh, September 15-30, 1994)

Then again in February 1995 when talks on seat adjustment broke downs, I wrote, “We tried for electoral adjustment with Samata Paany. Actually what we wanted was to win over this party to our side on an agenda of social change, keeping aside the politics of Laloo versus Nitish or the Yadav-Kurmi divide. However, we have not yet succeeded in this venture because the leaders of this party wish to come to power through manipulations based on caste. Rather they have tried to marginalise our party.

"For us communists, any adjustment with a representative of bourgeois democracy doesn't mean sacrificing our independence, nor can we help such at party to come to power at the cost of our development and expansion." (Lokyuddh, February 1-15, 1995)

Here again I must clarify that our relations with the HMKP of George Fernandes began several months before the split in JD when we entered in joint struggles to defend sovereignty. Still the Samata Party leaders in Bihar were averse to go in for any joint activity and alliance with us. They held several rounds of talks with CPI and CPI(M) and then with Anand Mohan. We made it clear that until they sever all connections with BPP, any alliance with us is ruled out. Only when they openly denounced BPP did a formal dialogue begin in the form of an intellectual seminar where differences between Nitish's perceptions and mine on the dalit question were clear to any attentive listener. There was nothing secretive in our relations with Samata Party. And it was precisely when they tried to reduce us to the status of a junior partner in the pattern of JD-CPI/CPI(M) relations and made winning potential as the criterion for seats distribution that we decided to break off the relation. We squarely pointed out to them that we shall be contesting all those seats which are politically important to us in the context of the needs of our movement. The victory or the number of votes are simply immaterial. Talks broke down and we decided to plunge into the battle single-handedly. It was only on desperate insistence of their central leadership at the last moment that we agreed to have a token alliance. A deep scrutiny of the whole struggle with Samata Party in the course of forging the alliance and its eventual reduction to a token alliance will reveal to any neutral observer that our tactics were based on the very negation of “the political opportunism so commonly witnessed in the Indian commmunist movement in the past.”

There is that nothing unprincipled in the whole process of concluding the alliance. Well, one may, of course, object to the very decision of forging an alliance with Samas Party on account of its class character etc. Herr one must not forget the stark realities of practical politics. We were the sole left opposition to the Janata Dal regime for the last five years. CPI and CPI(M) were with Laloo Yadav, and MCC and PU were bent upon eleminating us, Laloo Yadav had split our legislature group and we had lost four out of seven MLAs we earlier had. By invoking the Mandal plank he was slicing away our support among OBCs. A section of Party ranks had deserted us to join JD's bandwagon. The general impression was that JD and MCC were eating away our social base and Laloo Yadav arrogantly declared that the Party was finished for good. MCC-PU too were jubilantly making similar declarations. We were indeed encircled from all sides.

THE LENINIST TACTICS OF ALLIANCE

It was at this juncture that we took recourse to various measures to stave off the crisis and rejuvenate the Party. The first task of course was the intensification of agrarian struggles and extending it to new frontiers right up to the very bastion of Laloo Yadav in North Bihar. Secondly, we contrasted the slogan of social justice with the slogan of social change and held a massive party rally at Patna. Thirdly, to extend the battleline within the JD camp we invoked the spirit of the '74 movement, activised our student organisation to take up militant battles and called upon all democratic elements in the Janata Dal to rise against corruption and the betrayal of '74. We clinched the offer with George Fernandes as we sensed an impending split in JD. The split did materialise after a few months and the splitters walked out invoking the very plank of the 74 movement. In the context of ourselves facing the Janata Dal as the main adversary in Bihar, the tactics of utilising any split within it was totally justified, more so when we ourselves had played the catalyst role in aggravating the split.

Mind you, for the entire five years in our struggle against the JD government we never had any truck with opposition parties like the right-wing Congress and BJP. On our part, our first priority had always been to develop closer relations with the Left. We tried to clinch every such opportunity but the concrete political situation prevailing prevented our coming closer. With the change in situation now when the JD has obtained a majority on its own and CPI's willingness to share power has been shunned, the latter has been forced to sit in opposition benches. And once again, under political compulsion, the process of left unity has gained momentum.

Equating independence with self-imposed isolation may sound very revolutionary, however it is nothing but an infantile disorder that can only wreck the movement. Seeking mass allies even if temporary and unreliable and utilising every split in the camp of one's main adversary is an integral part of Marxist-Leninist tactics. Our bid for seeking alliance with Samata Party and JMM was only an implementation of this tactics and in the five year career of Laloo Yadav it was only for that brief period that we could turn the tables on him and force him to spend many sleepless night. Maintaining the absolute independence of the party of the proletariat within the alliance was a newer phase of Pany practice and CPI(M) emerged from that unscathed and with flying colours. Even our worst adversaries had to concede that CPI(ML)’s votes were based on its own strength and on the strength of the agrarian struggles of the rural poor.

The Sheshan Phenomenon

Here I must add that we did support Seshan’s moves to introduce ‘free and fair’ elections in Bihar, a state where the entire election process had been reduced to a mockery. We, however, knew their limitations. ‘Free and fair elections’ in an ideal bourgeois sense simply means doing away with the process of open coercion like booth capturing etc. In other words, it means a free play of capital in deciding the outcome. And therefore, ‘free and fair elections’ in a bourgeois society still remain bourgeois in their essential nature.

However, we never supported Seshan’s arbitrary actions in splitting and delaying the election process and we came out with the statement that it is all designed to help Congress(I). We also refused to make any joint representation to the Election Commission on election irregularities along with Congress(I) and BJP as suggested by Samata leaders. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of Mr.Gupta to accuse us of becoming the tacit supporters of other opposition parties on this count.

Facade of Laloo’s Charishma

Mr.Gupta attributes Laloo’s victory to his personal charisma, his identification with the common masses, his giving voice to the long-suffering silent majority, etc. Well, how has one to define his victory? It is a fact that except in CPI(ML) strongholds JD did get overwhelming support from the rural poor, and that the rural poor did get carried away by his demagogy, more or less in the fashion they earlier backed Indira Gandhi or back NT Rama Rao and Jayalalitha now. Our Party has hailed the assertion of rural poor in elections which only expresses their strivings for a dignified and better life. But this does not completely explain the full import of the victory of Janata Dal. Even if the allegation of administration’s active connivance with JD is rejected, none including Laloo Yadav has accused the Bihar administration of in anyway working against Janata Dal’s interest. Given that Bihar administration is organically linked with big landowners, as pointed out by Mr.Gupta himself, how does Mr.Gupta explain this strange behaviour of the administration vis-a-vis the messiah of the poor?

It should not be forgotten that a large number of JD MLAs are renowned criminals and several of them come from upper castes, particularly Rajputs, with notoriously feudal backgrounds. The other face of Laloo was revealed in garnering the support of upper caste gentry with the plea that only he can save them from Naxalite violence.

During his five-year rule, by distributing privileges and favours with impunity he won over several powerful feudal elements to his fold who originally belonged to Congress(I) and BJP. To win Muslim support religious fundamentalism was invoked to the extreme, and barring a few exceptions, the Muslim gentry too solidly backed Laloo Yadav.

In short, beneath Laloo’s individual charisma is hidden a social coalition of various power groups and landed interests of several dominant castes including a significant section of upper castes. If these social dynamics are not understood one is liable to be trapped in a one-sided, liberal and social-democratic interpretation of Laloo’s victory.

Laloo Yadav is nothing but the ruling class response to the growing revolutionary struggle in Bihar. This is the secret behind the support given to him by the administration as well as by the majority of dominant power groups: Laloo Yadav is quite conscious of his mission and one can find him simultaneously projecting himself before the upper-caste landed gentry as the alternative to the violent Naxalites. When he claims that Naxalites handed over guns to the poor and he has handed them books he exposes his mission of disarming the people mentally and physically in the otherwise highly violent and armed society of Bihar.

A comrade writing in Lokyuddh has ridiculed our election practice as a transition from area-wise seizure of power to area-wise seizure of seats. But a deeper analysis reveals that our electoral gains and our anti-feudal struggles are organically related. The areas where we won victories are the areas where the struggles were sharpest and, if the last three months are any indication, our victories have only gone to further intensify the pitch of struggle. In fact these areas represent the model of integration of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggles par excellence. Despite our marginal presence in the assembly we were very much part of mainstream politics in Bihar for the past five years. The next five years will be no exception.

[Excerpts. From Liberation, March 1995.]

The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) has been conducting grassroots struggles in Bihar since 25 years, aimed at a revolutionary transformation of society. In order to reach out to the masses with a revolutionary democratic programme and give new momentum for the struggle for social justice it contested last assembly elections through IPF and is now contesting as a registered political party -- Communist Party of India (ML) Liberation.

For it, any electoral adjustment is subservient to the immediate and basic interests of the common people.

During the Janata Dal regime, it was only this party which played the role of revolutionary opposition and about 500 leaders, activists, and sympathisers have fallen to the bullets of the Laloo regime.

The central slogan of CPI(ML) Liberation for this election is:

Struggle against mafiadon for establishing democracy!

The Party reposes full faith on every peace-loving, honest member of the society who stands for development, above caste and religious barriers.

Our Priority

1. Re-establishing democracy in Bihar

The minority JD government which came to power in 1990 has throttled all democratic norms in order to save Laloo’s throne.

Out of 151 MLAs, about 140 MLAs have been promoted to the status of ministers or the equivalent of ministers. Even the socalled ‘independent’ MLAs with criminal background have been given a free hand.

Even as more and more people come to live below the poverty line, benefits for ministers have cost the state exchequer Rs.25 crores.

Whereas Jai Prakash Narayan had been trying for a change of heart for the dacoits of Chambal, Laloo has collected all the most infamous criminals and history-sheeters at the centre of power in Patna and Ranchi. This is how the socio-economic life of Bihar has been totally captured by the mafiadom. Last year there were 300 cases of kidnapping and almost all believe that they were engineered at the centre of power. During the last five years, elections to panchayats and nagarpalikas have also not been held.

The education system in Bihar has been corrupted by the education-mafia in Laloo’s coterie. In order to stall the upliftment of students, student unions have been banned and students’ movements made to brave the brunt of bullets and lathis.

Several cases of naked parading of women in the streets, repression on women, an incident of rape of a dalit woman by a JD leader or the rape of a minor girl of the minority community by another JD leader have come to light. Yet a state-level women’s commission has not been constituted.

The bill for autonomy of the Jharkhand region was finally passed after a lot of manipulation. Yet when it was passed, it was already too late for implementation.

Though the slogan of social justice was given for the dalits and backwards of Bihar, the government turned the state into a slaughter house for dalits. All previous records were broken so far as the matters of dalits are concerned. On those struggling for minimum wages, land and social dignity, police repression became the norm.

In Narhi, 7 dalits fell to police bullets whereas in Gaya and Matgarha dalit students were killed in fake encounters. The report on the Arwal massacre was suppressed by the government. The government has bargained the corpses of the dead with a meagre compensation only.

Till date the culprits of the riots of Bhagalpur and Sitamarhi go unpunished while some of the rioters and BJP people have been incorporated into the JD. The government is based on corruption, crime, autocracy and falsehood.

The Party is committed towards reviving the spirit of the movement of 1974 for the establishment of democratic norms.

In the years to come we will struggle

a) against booth capturing, electoral malpractices, for the guarantee of the right to vote for the dalit electorate;

b) against special privileges for ex-chief ministers and against the misuse of money from the government coffers;

c) for making the Assembly a meaningful platform for discussion on vital issues, for right to recall (of people’s representatives) and for making the people’s representatives responsible towards the electorate;

d) for timely and regular elections to institutions of people’s representation e.g., corporations, panchayats, unions etc.;

e) for constitution of state women’s commission and for special women’s courts;

f) for forest land and other lands, rights to formulate new laws and for an autonomous council, and finally an autonomous state for the Jharkhandi people;

g) for judicial enquiry into the massacres of dalits in Bihar and the murder of Comrade Virendra Vidrohi (poet) committed by JD and the MCC; and

h) for legal action against the culprits of the Bhagalpur and Sitamarhi riots and for legal action against the rapist of a minor Muslim girl, a JD leader.

2. For the revitalisation of the economic life of Bihar

The rate of development in the last 5 years has dropped down from 3.5% to 1.5%. The per capita income (per annum) of a citizen in Bihar has gone down from 1100 to 1091. There has also been a 30% hike in the unemployment. The non-plan expenditure has gone up and the government is eating up 80% of its present budget. Government employees and teachers go without salary. The state lacks an industrial policy and industry and business has shifted from the state. About 2 lakh posts remain vacant in governmental institutions and corruption is rampant in the system for employment.

The Bihar government has not put up any resistance worth the name against the anti-people policies of the central government that discriminate against Bihar. …

All its promises of land reform remained empty assurances.

We will struggle for revitalisation of the economy.

a) against the new economic policy and industrial policy of the central government and against the step motherly treatment meted out to the state;

b) for a fresh survey of land, for distribution among landless poor of land exceeding the ceiling limit, for recording of sharecroppers, for special land tribunals for disposal of land disputes;

c) for adequate wages for agricultural labourers, for, guarantee of employment all through the year, for availability of all essential commodities at low price;

d) for the modernisation of all old canals, for availability of water. electricity, fertilisers, insecticides at low price;

e) for revitalisation of all cotton mills, Ashok paper mill, Dalmianagar industry, sugar and jute mills that have been shut down;

f) for basic change in the system of sales tax. For protection of entrepreneurs and traders from the criminal nexus operating in this sphere; and

g) for the protection of those engaged in small trades against Rangdari. Against the deprivation of the daily bread of small traders and hawkers in the name of removal of encroachments.

3. Renaissance of socio-cultural life

We demand:

a) reservation be raised up to 60%, out of which 30% would be for women. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment the creamy layer of the backwards be determined and for the determination of reservation quota for extremely backward and backward sections of minorities;

b) that the literacy campaign be carried on as a movement to achieve total literacy in Bihar by the close of the century. To regulate and stop misuse of Charwaha Vidyalayas. To provide budget allocation for all educational institutions to enable them to run and for regularisation of the academic sessions; and

c) for putting an end to all forms of obscenity and feudal-brahminical culture of sycophants and to encourage pro-people cultural values.

The successful implementation of this programme is only possible through the establishment of a left-democratic alternative. It is for this reason that the CPI(ML) has entered the electoral battle.

In order to oust the symbol of mafiadom, the Laloo government, and to stop the Congress, BJP, Bihar Peoples Party, which are the representatives of feudal, casteist and communal forces of Bihar from utilising this opportunity in their favour and for establishing genuine democracy, the CPI(ML) is in the electoral fray with the following objective:

To struggle
* Against mafiadom, for establishment of democracy
* Against the system based on loot, for a comprehensive programme of development
* Against social degeneration, for socio-cultural renaissance.

[Excerpts of speech delivered at Vikas Convention (Convention on Development) in Patna. From Liberation, November 1994.]

It is not enough to say that there is only sluggishness in regard to the development in Bihar. The actual situation is that Bihar is moving backwards. This is Bihar’s special quality. The big public sector factories set up under the old economic policy are fast becoming sick. On the other hand, reinvestment of capital on the basis of NEP like in other states is not to be seen in Bihar. New or old, the results of both the economic policies haven’t been beneficial for Bihar. The state government corporations are incurring heavy losses. Bihar has the lowest per capita income in India. It also comes first in the percentage of people living below poverty line and this percentage is ever increasing.

The other thing we see here is that, be it royalty from coal, be it a grant from the centre or a World Bank aid, be it the salaries of employees and teachers, be it even their provident fund, all of this goes into running the government. In other words, there is not much internal generation of revenue.

The third speciality of this state is the nature of political leadership. The people exercising political leadership at present have no economic viewpoint for Bihar’s development. Politics is the reflection of economics, and hence, what we call as criminalisation of politics is actually the reflection of the criminalisation of the economy. The change that has occurred from Jagannath Mishra to Laloo Yadav has been reduced from the hegemony of criminal elements of the forward sections to the hegemony of the criminal elements of the backward sections. Even the tribal leaderships from Jharkhand have a pronounced mafia element in them. This process is on in all directions. And even the politicians have become a type of ‘class’ of their own. For the people of Bihar already loaded under the weight of landlords, kulaks and various types of criminals, here is another mountain load of trouble from the class of politicians. Capturing government jobs has become the focal point of all politics in Bihar.

The fourth speciality of Bihar is the complete degeneration of the democratic system, the elections are most violent and no elections for the panchayats and municipalities take place. The last one took place in 1978 and 2000 people died in it.

The fifth form of Bihar’s tragedy is the most wrathful forms of violence in the state. Killing of three-four people is no news nowadays. Only large-scale massacres make some news. This only goes to show the cheap value of human life in Bihar.

The rapid degeneration of cultural values is the sixth speciality of the state: educational anarchy, wheedling the state and the projection of political leadership as kings and demi-gods.

The cessation of growth in Bihar’s agricultural production is the root cause of all the other degenerations in the state. Even though, in Bihar, on one acre of land, compared to the national average, 70% more peasants, 120% more agricultural labourers and 65% more animal strength is put in, yet it is far behind the national average in produce. On analysing deeply we see that farming is essentially subsistence farming, i.e. production is only for domestic consumption and not for the market.

Why is it so? On a closer investigation of the institutional constraints we find that the basic problem is of land reform which even today is incomplete in Bihar. When Laloo Yadav came to power he said -- he in fact threatened — that he would take legal action against the 85 families who have land holdings above 500 acres and if need be he would nationalise the land. A circular on recording the lands of all landlords was also brought out by the state government. With the passage of time Laloo stopped saying such things and even withdrew the circular. But while Laloo was saying all this, Jagannath Mishra raised his objections to this. His first objection was that the recording process would consume thousands of crores, perhaps four thousand crore rupees. And secondly, all this would create social tension. We see that gradually Lalooji too stopped saying these things and also withdrew the circular. So, a historic agreement took place between Laloo and Jagannath Mishra, between JD and Congress. Or you can say that an agreement was reached between the kulak sections of the forwards and backward castes that we will not fight over the basic question of land: If we have to fight we will keep it restricted only to the fight over the reservation in government jobs. It is not good to fight over the basic question of land for it will cause social tension whose benefits will be reaped by the revolutionary forces.

There is a view from some intellectuals that land reform is no longer required in Bihar because whatever land reform had to take place is already over. The tenants among the a section of the forwards and a section of the backwards have all got possession of land and zamindari system has also ended. And now these intellectuals say that ‘Kisan Raj’ (in the context of the Laloo government) has arrived. And hence it would be dishonest to talk about land reform. And a view has also surfaced that the agenda of land reform can be taken up as a leftover, here-and-there, agenda but there is no need for enlarging it. There is a need for educating the masses so that a feeling of enterprising initiatives is awakened in them. Bihari youth should invest capital and set up industry instead of becoming a ‘Babu’. And they said all this was not caste-dependent but based on human qualities and it is required to nurture these human qualities. This should be done through training and education. And instead of cultivating only rice and wheat, potatoes should be cultivated and sold, fisheries should be encouraged etc. This is supposed to be the way for Bihar’s progress. I will say that such ideas, in whatever left form they come in, are all wrong. For you will see that the status-quoist forces present here, be it Congress or JD, they all in a roundabout way say that there is no need for land reform. If only we proceed with advanced farming in Bihar and if a little bit of training is given to the bureaucracy, then probably all the troubles of Bihar can be eradicated. So we understand that somewhere or the other all these arguments are all in favour of the status-quoist and government forces.

If we look at history we see that, in 1973, in Bihar, a seminar on land reform had taken place where Jai Prakash Narayan, was present along with many well-known intellectuals and many others. Various things were discussed and suggestions were given for what is to be done, especially by the Bihar government. The first suggestion that came up was that land records were not proper and that they needed correction, specially the recordings of the tenants was required. Secondly, there should be reform in tenancy whose ultimate goal should be making the tenants the owners of their own land. For this, if need be, the tenants should be provided with adequate funds to pay for the compensation. For the compensation, the government should provide loans to the tenants, which should be recovered gradually in instalments. These tenants should be able to do farming in a better way and their outstanding debts to the landlords should be cleared off with the help of low-interest loans from banks and financial institutions. The third recommendation that came up was that ceiling laws should be modified and properly implemented. Fourthly, special land tribunals should be formed and the cases should be transferred from the courts and speedily settled in these tribunals.

And recently, in 1991, a workshop on land reform took place in the same Patna where too various intellectuals participated among whom were some who had participated in the 1973 seminar. This workshop discussed what happened to the suggestions of the 1973 seminar in the last twenty years. They concluded that in Bihar the process of agricultural reform has not progressed at all. There was no progress on bringing in laws for limiting land ceiling and on distribution of the acquired land. In fact what happened was that the agenda of land reform was always pushed to the background by calling it irrelevant. This workshop again sent some new proposals to the state government hoping they would be implemented. The special recommendation was to set limits to land holding in a new way in which the presently followed classification of land into six types should be changed to three types. One, cultivated land which has a ceiling of 15 acres; uncultivated land with a ceiling of 22 acres and barren and waste land with a ceiling of 30 acres. Secondly, all concessions related to ceiling given to people holding land under private trusts and land possessed in the name of sugar mills, should be withdrawn. The third proposal was that land tribunals should be formed which the government had attempted but was stopped by the High Court. So it was suggested that permission be taken from the Supreme Court in its favour. The fourth point was that an ‘Operation Batai’ should be undertaken in Bihar similar to ‘Operation Barga’ in West Bengal. Even these proposals sent by well-known intellectuals were not implemented by the Bihar government.

So this position is not only ours. Well-known intellectuals of the country, all established intellectuals who want the betterment of Bihar, agree on this point that the process of land reform in Bihar is incomplete and completing it holds the key to Bihar’s development. Only forces like Jagannath Mishra and Laloo Yadav or broker-intellectual types say that there is no need for land reform in Bihar and newer technology in agriculture is the only panacea for Bihar.

The first and foremost thing is the question of agricultural labourers and they should receive their minimum wages. For this, before the farming season, local farmers, peasants, labourers, Kisan Sabha-like organisations of the masses and the officials of the administrative machinery should sit and decide the wages for the season. This should become a regular system because every year conditions change and new rates of wages are to be decided and their implementation should be guaranteed because they don’t get work throughout the year. So a guarantee for their work should be made and land provided for their housing. This should be the first programme. Secondly, fresh surveys should be carried out to record land and then not only should the land be distributed but collectivisation is also required so that farming can be done scientifically. Apart from this the rights of the tenants should be secured and they should be provided low-interest loans from the government institutions so that they can do farming in a better way and eventually be the owners of their own land. This should be our second programme.

The third programme is to strengthen the infrastructure of agriculture in Bihar like augmenting irrigation, renovating old canals and improving land for better productivity. The fourth agenda is the diversification of agriculture. Poultry farming should be started. The fifth point is that the traditional industries of Bihar like the jute mills, sugar mills or handloom units of North Bihar should be revived. The sixth point is that we must revive all democratic institutions like panchayats. And the seventh point I would like to make is that democratic organisations like Kisan Sabha are to participate in this whole process.

So I think that this programme is essential for the development of Bihar. But implementing it is not an easy task. For this we have to traverse a long path of struggle. In the first place, struggle has to be waged against the owners of land, or the rich Kulaks, and those who are associated with multiple businesses, and those who manipulate politics and run regional politics from behind. These three qualities were present in the notorious landlord of Bhojpur, Jwala Singh. On the one hand, he was the owner of a sizeable amount of land, on the other, he ran his various business ventures with black money from his underworld activities and coordinated the entire politics of that region. Such forces are present in all corners of Bihar and the first thing is to wage a struggle against them. Secondly, an extensive struggle should be waged against the corrupt bureaucracy. Thirdly, we have to wage a struggle against the class of politicians I mentioned earlier.

And the last thing I would like to say is that there is a need to end the educational anarchy rampant in Bihar. Instead of wasting time on ‘Charwaha Schools’, agricultural training institutes should be opened. In line with the needs of technology, in Bihar, unnecessary private high schools like those of Ramlakhan Singh Yadav and Tapeshwar Singh should be closed and converted into technical institutes instead. And in this context I would like to add that education should be secular and we should change these casteist educational institutions. Reservations should be made for the dalits excluding the creamy layer. This could be increased to 60-70% and in this a minimum of 10% reservation should be made for women because if the process of breaking the backwardness of Bihar has to be accelerated then women have to be put in the forefront of social development.

[Excerpts of speech delivered at a special cadre meeting of the Party on 27 August 1994 in Patna. From Liberation, November 1994.]

Comrades,

Seven months back we had a convention in the same place. At that time there was a view was that our Party was getting finished under the pressure of the MCC and the JD. Such ideas were floating in the newspapers. In the cadre meet we said that if you make determined efforts you can change the state of affairs in Bihar. We all united and with all-out efforts we organised the historic 18 March rally successfully. After the rally the newspapers changed their views and instead of saying that we were buckling under pressure from MCC and JD, they said that the illusions regarding JD were dispelled and that we were a force to reckon with.

So I want to reiterate that our cadres have the strength to stand united and make all-out efforts. The present situation in Bihar is that we can steadfastly advance towards revolutionary changes. Another thing seen during the period is that our leaders have developed a new work pattern. We have seen that this is a healthy workstyle because earlier we had undertaken the rectification movement for this very reason. Somewhere or the other we had seen a gap between the leaders and the cadres. Whatever work-style we developed during the rally should be followed rigorously.

All differences existing at various levels in the Party should be sorted out because alien forces take advantage of this and we have seen this in the past. That is why I would like to emphasise again that from top to bottom steel-like unity should exist.

You all have put forth your views on the document placed before you. Many good things came up. I believe the state leadership will discuss these points like the point raised by many comrades pertaining to the realistic and actual assessment of the political forces. If there is a mention in the document that JD(B) has been finished or it is of hardly any significance at the national level, this is not a correct assessment. They are still a strong opposition. Hence, if there is such a mention it should be corrected. If there is a mention about BSP like that then it too should be corrected. BSP is making inroads into Bihar. They are strong in UP and on the basis of that strength they will try to advance in Bihar. That is why we should be careful about them.

Regarding a political alliance with JD(G) and JMM many comrades have expressed doubts about the trustworthiness of these forces. Especially about JMM who in the past have hobnobbed with Congress. And also about the present situation of JD(G). I think the feelings of the comrades are correct. At present if such things like alliance with JD(G) or forming a government with them appear in the document then they should be removed. With JD(G) at the most there can be some adjustment over seats which can be discussed. Such an assessment is appropriate for the present. Some comrades have expressed doubts about the extent to which seat adjustment can take place or whether it will take place at all. I think that this doubt is also correct and that ultimately a political alliance may not come about. Even seat adjustment might not be possible. May be we will have to fight it out alone. We cannot rule out this possibility. That is why it will perhaps be better if on this matter the document speaks less on alliances. In fact, the possibility that we may have to go to the polls alone should also be mentioned. And we should be prepared for that. Yes, we will surely try to look for friends. But any political alliance or any prograrnme-related understanding may not be possible.

In Jharkhand, the second force there which could be called more progressive or left-leaning in a comparative way, the JMM (Mardi) group -- or, we can say, the Vinod Bihari Mahato group — is gradually going over to JD presently and has virtually dropped its demand for Jharkhand. Other forces like AJSU came up with big promises but eventually disintegrated or went into opportunist agreements here and there. There are two aspects to JMM. The way you talked about their leaders is correct. They are mafia elements and hooligans. But this is not how Adivasis see them in general. The people see them as the representative forces of Jharkhand. One question came up before us. That is, quite often they move closer to the Congress, or the Centre, which makes use of them. This is natural because of their class basis and their class situation. But there can be another side to this. We pose a direct question to them: you have to choose -- either the Congress or the CPI(ML). We are not talking about any such friendship where they can continue relations with Congress as well with CPI(ML) at the same time. If you have an alliance with the Congress then you cannot have any relations with CPI(ML). This is what we mean by friendship. In the all-party committee we told them this. When they started going with the Congress we broke our relations with them. In their conference, in their own way, they have also raised this issue. They have said, on the one hand, that they want a relation with CPI(ML). On the other hand, they are maintaining a relationship with Congress. In this we can hope that after getting a jolt from the Congress they will come over to us and debates will intensify within their own organisation. They had convened a people’s parliament where one person reported that he had invited Congressmen also to that parliament. This created resentment among many present there. To my knowledge, anti-Congress slogans were also raised. According to my understanding there is a debate among them on this question and some such forces opposed to Congress exist there. We want to continue to raise this question and if we cannot bring them towards us totally then at least there will be a split. This is not a question of friendship between JMM and Congress, rather it is a question of direct conflict between us and the Congress. Our efforts are to keep them away from the Congress and bring them closer to revolutionary forces. In this tug of war between the two sides, Congress pulls from one end and we from the other. So this is the substance of our tactics of joint front with them and we want to make an attempt.

Regarding JD(G) I want to clarify one thing. Nitish’s idea is that in the name of opposing Yadav excesses and Yadav domination he is uniting Kurmis and other castes. We don’t agree with such an idea. We are not in favour of making friends with other castes on the basis of their opposition to the Yadav caste. Since Yadavs are in large numbers in Bihar a large section of them are poor and middle peasantry. A big section of our forces — leaders, cadres and activists -- hail from the Yadav caste and we have our work among Yadav population in various places. And in reality we are the only Party that can challenge Laloo Yadav on the Yadav front. There is no room for any other party on this score. We are trying for a polarisation within the Yadav community. And we hope to make a new history by doing this. Because other parties have accepted that all Yadavs are with Laloo, they are resigned to the idea of thinking only of other castes. Our Party doesn’t think like this or we wouldn’t remain a communist party. We cannot go as per Nitish’s idea. We have fundamental differences with them. In fact it is the reverse. The way he is gathering Kurmi support, we have a struggle on this issue with the Kurmi kulaks.

In this context I want to say one thing. Last time on the questions of reservations, Mandal and backwardism, Laloo had created a wave and won the elections. It is true that he will make such an effort again. As the popular saying goes you cannot bath in the same river twice. There are many reasons for this. At that time their party had a national upsurge. It had national leaders. And now that party is finished. VP Singh is retiring from politics. They have a big problem before them. Hence they won’t be able to create a big wave this time. Whatever percentage of reservation they might talk about we would like to raise the question of creamy layer because they have always maintained that there is no creamy layer. We have always maintained that Laloo is the representative of the creamy layer and hence it is natural that he won’t accept it. But we would like to make this point that whatever be the percentage of reservation, the creamy layer has emerged from the backward castes which reaps all the benefits because in total the chances of employment are limited. Whatever possibilities exist will be taken away by the creamy layer. Whether they are Kurmis or Yadavs, a big section of any caste will never benefit from this. The extremely backward castes will never get anything.

Because Bihar has caste divisions and no party denies this division the question of creamy layer becomes very important for us. Every party sees this caste reality and on this basis decides its tactics. The only difference being that some parties like CPI and CPI(M) — become lackeys of JD on the basis of the present caste structure or natural contradiction in it. We also talk of caste but our efforts are always aimed at creating a split along class lines within the caste. It is another thing for those castes which cannot be split along class lines. There are some castes which wholly comprise poor peasantry and agricultural labourers. That is another thing. But wherever there are castes in which the scope for class polarisation is present we are to bring it to the forefront. And this is where communists differ from others. In this context, the idea of creamy layers might have come in the form of Supreme Court judgment but it is a helpful tool in our work. Because with this we can take the idea of division on class lines within various castes and make them understand it and prepare for a split. That is why wherever parties are denying the creamy layer we must raise the point of creamy layer so that we can bring the poor and middle peasantry of the backward castes towards us. For this they have suggested some parameters to identify the creamy layers. Likewise we should also suggest our own parameters to identify who are the creamy layers. You should think of this. Let the Party state committee work on this. We can begin with the wards of the MLAs, MPs and Class I officers etc.

Another question came up here. There was a view that since we had earlier given a call for a Left government we must try more for unity with the left parties instead of JD(G) etc. We have not strayed from our basic principle on this point. We too want left unity and have always wanted it. This has been our number one effort -- to come closer to other left forces and move forward with them together. We have not retraced our steps on this point. But no positive reply has come from the other side. Wherever and on whatever matter joint activity is possible, we would always join them. But in the concrete political situation of Bihar we stand opposed to each other. Regarding CPI(M), be it Dharbanga, Katihar, Nawada or Ranchi, in many rural areas we have had struggles with them and in some cases they have turned into bloodied struggles too. It may be different in other areas but in these rural areas of Bihar the CPI(M) has sided with feudal forces. That is why, seen from outside these are CPI(M) vs. CPI(ML) struggles, but seen in depth it is direct class struggle. The poor and landless peasants are with us and they are siding with the feudal forces.

We have made some political attacks on CPI. But the aim is not to abandon CPI. And we are not making these attacks with the decision that all is over with CPI. In fact, on the contrary, we have done this to intensify the debate that has surfaced within the CPI and we have made some gains. We have met some of their leaders and they have informed us of the debate within their party and also informed us about the demand of a section that without bothering whether we should go with Laloo or George we must first shake hands with CPI(ML). And both the parties must sit down and decide whom to go with. Our aim is to intensify this debate. Compared to CPI(M) which is rigid, the CPI position is often changing. Hence, it is not difficult for them to go here and there, sometimes with Congress and Aat other times with someone else. This opportunism which is the weakpoint of CPI is also the positive side of CPI. This is the hope that the CPI will make a somersault again. If our strength increases and it appears to CPI that Laloo Yadav’s position is shaky and that an alliance with us can be strengthened. Then it will jump from Laloo’s fold to the side of CPI(ML). That is why our dialogue with CPI should be maintained at all levels.

Another point was raised here by some comrades. That was with regard to lack of initiatives on our part on general but popular issues of affecting the masses like floods, diarrhoea etc. I think the comrade who made this point has made a positive criticism. The state leadership must think in details and we should become such a political force which can take initiatives on all the problems of the people of Bihar and that is why leaders must give statements on such issues and take out teams for assessing such situations. Or else we’ll have a one-sided identity.

Now the next challenge before us is the elections. We have a limited aim in this election. By limited aim I mean that we must for the time being get the status of a recognised party and we have to guarantee it in this election. In the last election, we required 1,400,000 to 1,500,000 votes for this status and we fell short by 400,000-500,000. So this time we have to complete this target. How many seats we get or fail to get is one thing. But the more important thing is if in the last elections our target was to get 1,000,000 votes this time our target should be to get 2,000,000. This is the target we need in order to acquire the status of a recognised party in Bihar. Because becoming a recognised party in a state makes a lot of difference at the national level. That is why I want to bring this before you as a challenge.

And finally I would like to reiterate steel-like unity. I am saying steel-like unity because when getting into a war special type of discipline is required. Before the war anyone can express his/her view, take part in the debates etc., but once the battles are on everyone must move the way the troops move.

[Speech at the conference of party committee secretaries in Bihar. From Liberation, March 1994.]

Comrades,

Over a hundred of you who represent Party organisations in districts and blocks have gathered here. You all are Party leaders and with your united and determined efforts, you can once again change the conditions in Bihar. We are conducting a rectification movement in the Bihar Party organisation and I would like to remind you that this movement is being conducted at a time when by countering certain problems and certain losses we have improved our position and started moving forward. On the other hand, Janata Dal, for the time being our main contender in Bihar, is facing trouble from all sides. Till a few weeks back newspapers had been writing that CPI(ML)-IPF is disintegrating in the face of Laloo Yadav’s attacks. Now you know there is a change and one comes across the headings ‘Intensifying Red Offensive against Laloo Yadav’ etc. Particularly the recent elections and resultant political changes have deepened the crisis of the Janata Dal and this is going to have a big impact on Janata Dal in Bihar too.

So this is the specific situation, this is the ambience in which we have decided to launch the rectification movement.

It also clarifies that in the coming days our aim should be to hasten this process, to boldly seize the initiative and launch a powerful political movement. We have to make preparations for this and hence, it is imperative to build a united and disciplined Party organisation. The main aim of the rectification movement in my view, is to enable the Party to seize political initiative in the coming days. And we have already made a start in this direction.

The other important problem before us was to resolve the question of orientation to deal with the Janata Dal, to decide upon the issues and the mode of action. Gradually we have tackled that problem too. Be it the student movement, the movement for land reforms, or the autonomy of Jharkhand, we stand for integrating these different aspects into a single chain. Under the banner of struggle for democratisation of Bihar society we have tried to do exactly this. Now it is clear that this banner, this orientation can be quite effective in dealing with governments like Janata Dal. Already our efforts have hit at the ideological basis of Janata Dal and influenced its social base as well as its supporters in democratic circles. To an extent we have resolved the question of orientation and now various circles of public opinion too expect our Party to lead the democratic movement in Bihar in its new phase.

Our main contender is now deprived of any serious issue, with Mandal largely going to the background. Laloo Yadav who till the other day had been clamouring that IPF is finished, nowadays often telephones our comrades to plead for an alliance of Janata Dal, CPI and IPF for the next election.

So, this is the situation now when we launch the rectification movement. It is very important to understand this political perspective, the particular situation and the particular aim of this campaign. Already some comrades have underscored this necessity and I do feel that without this the rectification campaign will really have no purpose.

We need to unify our Party and make it a disciplined organisation. In this context, various wrong ideas prevailing in our Party organisation have been discussed in the document presented here. I think the question of pragmatism discussed in the document is quite important. We talk of land reforms, of peasant movement, of strengthening peasant association; but when we undertake the gherao of the Chief Minister at Patna, agitate against the government, a tendency appears which looks at all this merely as a move to overthrow the Laloo government, as an immediate struggle against a particular government. That is wrong. We must understand that the agrarian revolution, the peasant struggles form the crucial part of the revolution, the total change we talk about. A particular government comes and goes. The Laloo government, too, will not be there tomorrow, some other government will replace it. Our whole struggle, our agrarian struggle is not meant just to temporarily harass, or to create obstacles for, or to force the resignation on a certain government just to achieve a limited political aim. This must be deeply understood. It is true that immediate slogans directed against a particular government help us in mobilising the masses at a tactical plane, but if the whole aim of the movement is understood in the limited terms of overthrowing a certain government, it is here that an ideological distortion, namely pragmatism, begins. This makes peasant movements an occasional task. It is necessary to go on strengthening our peasant organisation and peasant movement. We often witness that our peasant organisation has become defunct and then it is again reactivised on the basis of certain tasks; why should it be so? We have to organise an agrarian revolution, then why does our peasant organisation often gets trapped in such a situation and then gets reactivised on the basis of certain slogans or against certain policies of the government or through gherao? I think this ideological distortion, this pragmatism somehow or other influences us in these matters, e.g., in taking peasant movements as a political pressure tactics. This may be the style of CPI and CPI(M). They have a friendly government, so from political necessities sometimes peasant issues become important to them and at other times not. But this cannot be our policy. Particularly in a state like Bihar, the peasant movement, revolutionary peasant struggles are very important and through them we have to undertake the revolutionary transformation of the whole society. This undoubtedly is a protracted struggle, and as you know, in this struggle our Party has not set any limits.

While ensuring the active participation of tens of thousands of peasants, the Party has vowed to take these anti-feudal struggles to their highest stage. This is so because this struggle is the key to transform the whole society. Therefore it is neither the question of using peasant struggles as a political lever against a certain government nor setting the limits beforehand. This must be clearly understood because any departure from these principles will only open the floodgates of pragmatism.

I want to emphasise that we are striving to unite all the movements we have been initiating so far — be it student movement or the movement for agrarian reforms or that for autonomy in Jharkhand — into an integral whole, which is nothing but the movement for democratisation of Bihari society, which in popular terms we define as the revival of the ’74 movement. Whatever happens to the Laloo Yadav government in the process is immaterial. This government might have to go down, or it might somehow continue in power. The important thing is the development of democratic consciousness among the people and the movement for democratic transformation of society.

This overall perspective must never be lost sight of. Criticism of the government, the movements against its drawbacks and the struggle against the government on immediate issues are of course important in practical politics. They do help in taking our message to the broad masses, for popular mobilisation. But if our ideological-political thinking gets bogged down in this immediacy, I am afraid we shall lose the very character of a communist party and degenerate into some general democratic organisation fighting for some immediate demands. In this context, the danger of pragmatism as pointed out in the document is most important and I must say that this pragmatism is the manifestation of ideological decay that our Party has undergone for a long time.

This ideological decay has other manifestations as well and the document has referred to them too. One of the manifestations of this decay we have seen in recent times when we participated in parliamentary elections and thus initiated a new experiment. We began with the aim of creating a new revolutionary model in the communist movement in relation to parliamentary struggles in and within the assembly. But as you know we suffered serious setbacks in our endeavours. Four of our MLAs were won over by the Janata Dal or in other words they got trapped in the net of parliamentarism and just sold themselves. In our Party history there have been big mistakes and serious setbacks, but perhaps no mistake or setback has downgraded the Party’s prestige before to such low levels as in the case of these defections. This considerably downgraded our prestige at the national level because people never expected that our MLAs will prove so hollow in their conviction. This is a black spot in our Party history. We have tried to erase this black spot and gradually we have been successful in taking the message to the people that ours is a Party of struggle, of movements, and once again we have refurbished our image to a large extent. But still a major question remains: why did this happen at all? If one says that these people were inherently like that and they should not have been given tickets, the question arises why were they then allotted tickets? If one says that a proper control could not be exercised over them, again the question arises, why did we fail to do that? So one cannot escape just by blaming these deserters; the question as to what the Party organisation had been doing all these years will have to be answered. I think a still deeper question is involved here. These MLAs getting trapped in parliamentary deviations is only the highest expression of the mentality that has gripped our organisation. I think this is the only proper way of looking at the problem.

We have seen that many comrades, even those who had been hard working Party cadres for long years, had started aspiring for a ticket to become an MLA or an MP. Not only new comrades but several old comrades too got infected with the parliamentary virus. And we also saw that in the entire organisation MLAs and MPs started enjoying much more prestige than the Party or organisation leaders. We all along tried to fight it out. We saw at many points that only MLAs and MPs are being called for mass meetings, Party and mass organisation leaders simply became non-entities. In society people consider MLAs and MPs as VIPs and this affected our organisation too. MLAs and MPs in such cases got conceited and for the rest of the cadres too, they became models to be emulated. So it was a trend affecting our entire organisation. We tried to counter it by saying that this is not proper, this is wrong. The prestige of the Party and organisation leaders should be at the top. But this hardly had any effect. Look for yourself, how serious, how grave was the problem that people did not seem to listen despite a struggle. In this sense, rather the desertion of these MLAs has helped in once again changing the atmosphere within the Party and consequently we have moved on to the road of struggle. All this still needs a deeper probe because MLAs and MPs are still there and in future their number will only increase. They are, of course, needed too and they have a significant role to play. How are we to establish the proper role of MLAs in the movement and at the same time establish the prestige and dignity of the organisation? This is a million-dollar question. Due to ideological decay, instead of establishing a positive model in parliamentary struggles we have made a negative beginning in Bihar.

This is a question the whole Party should ponder over. The whole Party must think as to when and how this ideological decay began in the Party. Several ideas have been put forward by comrades here during discussion and we must go for a comprehensive analysis.

This ideological decay brings disunity in organisational life. Therefore ideological decay and organisational disunity become two important problems which the Party shall have to overcome during the rectification campaign. This ideological decay, you see, is like the disease of tuberculosis that gradually eats up the whole body from within. The structure remains there, but from within the bacteria renders the body hollow. The same happens to a party affected by ideological decay. The external appearance, the outward structure remains intact, but from within the party gradually moves towards death, towards destruction. In my opinion, in some way, ideological tuberculosis had gripped our Party which led to such disturbances. The rectification campaign is a battle, a treatment against this ideological disease.

We also know that a person cured from tuberculosis emerges much stronger than before. Therefore, I am confident that we will seriously grasp the harmful effects of the bacteria within, of the tuberculosis affecting the Party body and overcoming them makes our Party healthier and stronger than ever before. …

These are some stray thoughts I wish to share with you on this occasion.

[From the Political-Organisational Report of the Sixth Party Congress.]

Our Party enjoys a lot of credibility in the hill districts of Karbi Anglong and North Cachhar in Assam and new streams of youth continue to enlist in the Party and ASDC’s movement for autonomy which is free from chauvinism, unites a host of national minority groups under a single umbrella in an otherwise disintegrating Assamese society, and is inspired by high ideals of communism and has great potential to change the face of the North-east.

But we must understand that bringing the Party to the forefront does not mean only a change of banner. The Party’s role cannot be restricted to merely supervising council affairs and directing the autonomy movement. Rather, the Party must consciously concentrate on breaking through the confinement of the autonomy movement by focussing on the issues of the poor peasantry in the arena of land reforms. Only then can an independent Party base and staunch communist cadres be built up.

Being in power in the district councils for many years has created a lot of complications there. An easy-going lifestyle, nexus of bureaucrats-contractors-businessmen around executive members and MDCs, the Party and ASDC becoming appendages of the District Council, detachment from masses and the mass movements, factional infighting etc. are a few of these. Although we won the elections with a thumping majority still the moral authority of the organisation has gone down in public eyes. The present predicament of ASDC and the District Council raises the essential theoretical question of usurpation of leadership of nationality movement by the petty bourgeoisie and its gradual cooption within the bourgeois-landlord system.

[Speech at the state cadre training camp organised by the Assam State Committee on the occasion of Party’s 29th anniversary at Guwahati on 22 April 1998. From Liberation, June 1998.]

The whole day you have been discussing many important questions including the autonomous state movement and the functioning of district councils. Well, in classical Marxist understanding as the democratic revolution is essentially a bourgeois revolution, i.e., it clears the way for rapid capitalist development, its leadership will invariably be provided by the bourgeoisie. However, the emergence of the proletariat as an organised force and its bid for seizure of power in the Paris Commune frightened the bourgeoisie. Since then it has given up its revolutionary role and instead opted for a peaceful evolutionary transformation of feudalism. Thus it ended up in an unholy alliance with feudal forces. It was at this juncture that Lenin stepped in and forcefully advocated for proletarian leadership of the democratic revolution. He argued that democratic revolution is the inevitable stage before we can pass over to socialism. And as the bourgeoisie is no longer capable of taking this revolution to its logical end, the historical duty has fallen on the shoulders of the proletariat. The Russian proletariat, then the Chinese and subsequently Vietnamese and others followed suit.

The question posed here in this camp relates to the advisability of the communist party leading the nationality — or to be precise national minority — movements. Well, these movements are an objective phenomenon in many parts of the country, particularly in Assam, and I would say it will be perfectly logical to lead them wherever the opportunity arises. Allowing the leadership to slip into alien hands and then waiting for the process to mature is too doctrinaire a method that leaves out the essential spirit of Marxism.

For some persons the movement loses its significance with their becoming MLAs, MPs, or even MDCs^[1] and acquiring houses and cars. But for a communist party the purpose is entirely different. We find that poor peasants participate in large numbers in national minority movements and they form its motive force. The communist party has to ensure that poor peasants are being organised, asserting themselves as a class, and getting politically conscious. Now if this is interpreted as taking some reform measures for the rural poor and giving them some financial assistance, it is a great folly.

We will also have to see which sections of people are crowding our offices. Are they contractors or poor people? What kind of people move around our leaders? Are they the contractors or the common people? If the former is true then despite all revolutionary phrasemongering our government is turning into a government for contractors.

In the phase of movement as well as at the early stage of government functioning, there^[2] were serious attempts to organise the rural poor. But currently we seem to have entered a phase of stagnation and this in turn has given rise to factional squabblings. It appears that there is a considerable erosion of communist spirit. During the phase of intensive movement same comrades worked with exemplary integrity, made sacrifices and led a hard life. I don’t say that as individuals they have become bad persons. The malaise seems to be far deeper. Actually, only a restoration of communist vision and organising the rural poor as a political class can restore unity and bring about a lasting solution to the problem of factional in-fighting.

Now some people seem to have taken only half-lessons from the glorious Karbi movement. They think that this is the easy route to become an MP, MLA or MDC. But they are terribly wrong. The Karbi movement didn’t grow so easily. There is a long history of hard and painstaking work by large number of cadres who organised the rural poor. Many people tend to forget that the movement was organised on the basis of a revolutionary ideology and it united with other democratic movements in the country. We don’t know much about other national minority movements; say, the Mishing movement. We only hear about some talks going on, some delegations visiting Delhi, some pact in the offing etc.. But what about the movement, about conditions there in the field of party building? Negotiations are okay, but if they are not backed by a powerful movement they are liable to end up in unprincipled compromises. The Karbi movement had skilfully combined the movement with negotiations and others should take lessons from it.

Let’s discuss the so-called progressive nationalism. Now for a long time you have been searching for these forces of progressive regionalism in Assam. Whomsoever we brand as progressive regionalist today turns into a reactionary tomorrow. Undaunted, we decided to turn progressive regionalist ourselves. Well, I think it is futile to search for a permanent category of progressive regional forces. Whichever regional force will join hands with us at any specific stage of our movement we shall brand them as progressive. And this characterisation will hold true till they remain with us. This perhaps demands a review of our tactical line.

We must pay primary emphasis on strengthening our own mass base. We have certain very strong points in Assam. We have a powerful contingent of modern workers in the oil and power sectors under the Party’s influence. A good beginning has also been made among tea workers who constitute quite a large segment of the working class in Assam. A few years back some people thought that it’s highly difficult to make inroads among the tea workers. Now I think they are convinced of the great potential of work there. A comrade from tea gardens has brought forward many complaints on this question. He said that they are working all alone, the Party committee of the concerned district is not extending any help. It is only interested in collecting the levy. Another comrade has put was a very relevant point: why our MP and MLAs do not raise questions concerning tea gardens on the floor of the Parliament or Assembly? Our MP joined striking dockworkers in Australia. That’s fine. But does he participate in workers movement here on the country’s soil or raise workers issues in Parliament? This is an important point and I think our MP and MLAs should take part in workers agitations. This acts as a morale booster for workers as well as puts the administration on the defensive. Then again we have a powerful women’s movement in Assam and it has a good influence among mainstream Assamese people. If apart from this we plan to extend our reach among the mainstream Assamese people, I think we should pay greater attention to the people at the lowest rung of the social order.

Finally, let me say something on the anti-terrorism front. It should be clear that we communists are not against terror in principle. We have to see this: by which forces the terror is being unleashed and against whom? You may also have to create terror against reactionaries when the situation so demands. Anti-people activities resorted to by organisations like ULFA belong to the category of criminal activities and should definitely be opposed. But if we go all out for launching an anti-terror front in general that will mean opposing all kinds of terror including the red terror and this will eventually boomerang on us. The loss of comrade Anil Barua is indeed tragic but we shall have to primarily target state terror.

In Assam there is a great potential for the Party’s development. Prospects of growing left unity have also increased owing to the changed political situation. We must exert all our strength to turn CPI(ML) into the main left force in Assam. Conditions for that have already matured.

Note:
1. MDCs are Members of District Council, the legislative body at district level.
2. The ASDC has been voted to power in the district council of Karbi Anglong thrice successively. Running the government at district level has thus become an important part of party practice in Assam.

[Excerpts from speech at a condolence meeting in memory of martyr Comrade Anil Barua in Calcutta on 24 March. From Liberation, April 1998.]

....So many questions have arisen out of this (assassination of Comrade Anil Barua by ULFA). There are people who go on saying that regionalism is basically a question associated with the issue of self-determination of a nationality and hence must be supported. This is a valid proposition seen from the point of view of principles. But it is not necessary that every struggle for the self-determination of a nationality or for regionalism is a progressive one. There is no such formula. So the question of support or opposition, to these movements must be ascertained by judging their attitude towards democratic movements. What we see today is that regional parties like Telugu Desham, AGP, Akali Dal are all leaning towards the BJP, the rabid communal force. We have seen the Khalistanis and now we see the ULFA, for both of whom the target today is the left forces. Today these things are coming to the surface because there has been large-scale protests against Anilda’s assassination. But even earlier they have killed many workers of CPI-CPI(M). Activists of the PCC have also been killed. Their movement today has become dependent on funding from Tata Tea. Their camps are being organised in Bangladesh, Rawalpindi and Karachi. They are arranging international passports with elan and they are amassing funds of crores of rupees. And as these aspects in their movement gradually grow, they take a more and more anti-left position. The murder of Comrade Anil Brooah is a symptom which shows that ULFA is no more a democratic or progressive force. Hence their ‘Free Assam’ promises to be nothing but a fascist Assam.... They had declared after the elections that 53% of the Assamese population who voted in the elections are not Indian citizens and so don’t have any right to stay in Assam. They will have to leave Assam within a month. They have issued this order to at least 50 lakhs of Assamese people. Our Party will continue its struggle with greater vigour against this barbarism.

[This note, originally meant for an Assamese magazine, was written just on the eve of the military crackdown on the ULFA. From Liberation, January 1991]

On a fine summer morning way back in 1979, as I stood before the mortal remains of Mao-Zedong at his mausoleum in Beijing, my feet refused to move. Here lies, in eternal peace, the man who had changed the destiny of a quarter of humanity, ensured the world will never be the same again, and stirred a whole young generation in the late ’60s all around the globe. Head bowed, I stood deeply absorbed in thought, till the Chinese comrades signalled me to move. Well, a long queue was impatiently waiting behind us.

During my China visit, I traversed the whole course of Mao’s path to revolution -- from the Changsa mountains right up to the Yenan caves.

While the young Chinese guides retold the whole story of the Chinese Revolution, some of the veterans including old peasants narrated passionate accounts of their association with the flesh and blood Mao. Whatever de-Maoisation I could discern in my conversation with senior party leaders at Beijing, at the grassroots practically nothing had changed. Mao was still being worshipped as god. In China the stage had already been set for the ascendancy of Deng and with it for dispelling the myth around Mao, the great helmsman. However, I came back to my country with a renewed conviction on Mao, his revolution and his thought.

Our indoctrination in Mao’s thought began in those stormy days of the late ’60s when the Great Debate had given birth to the Cultural Revolution in China and Naxalbari in India. We read General Giap, Che Guevara, Regis Debray etc. and were fascinated by armed struggles of all kinds much in the same fashion as young comrades of ULFA in the present-day Assam, but ultimately settled for Mao’s thought and his agrarian revolution.

While in Behrampur Central Jail during 1971-72, I got hold of an illegally smuggled volume of Mao’s Selected Writings, and for some reason or other, despite daily searches, the administration never took the book away from me. Confined in the condemned cell 24 hours for months together I had nothing to do but to read the book again and again, truly memorising it. For the benefit of my comrades in neighbouring cells, I used to translate and read it loudly every evening. It was there that I understood the various facets of Mao, the philosopher, frontline strategist and supreme military commander.

In the Third World Mao’s thought has been regarded as the weapon in all revolutionary struggles against oppression, be it against imperialist domination or feudal domination on peasantry or the oppression of a national group within the country. It is quite in the fitness of things that ULFA, the representative body of Assamese national interest, has opted for Mao’s thought as its ideological weapon in its struggle against Indian super-national interest, in the same fashion as we are committed to Mao’s thought in our struggle for liberation of the peasantry from feudal yoke and for India’s complete freedom from the imperialist clutches.

Their faith in Mao’s thought leads them to battle for Assam’s separation from India, our faith in the same thought leads us to struggle for a unified, democratic and federal India where all varieties of national oppression will be done away with. Their faith in Mao’s thought has led them to provide a new turn to the erstwhile Assam movement, a left turn indeed, doing away with its anti-communist, anti-left, communal bias of the early ’80s. Our faith in Mao’s thought has led us to share, with equal concern and from the very start, the aspirations of the Assamese people to exercise control over their resources and their fear of losing their identity in the face of a radical demographic change.

Their faith in Mao’s thought has led them to build a well-knit armed organisation to take on the state. Our faith has led us to organise the broad-based resistance of labouring peasantry and eventually to take on the might of the same state power. Their faith has led them to rebuild the broader unity of the Assamese people who are splintering into various streams and sub-streams, often getting engaged in violent competition with each other. We too work for a broader unity of the people of Assam — a unity where there shall neither be any place for the chauvinism of the mainstream Assamese, nor shall tribal exclusiveness and separatism be encouraged. Whatever influence our Party exercises in the Karbi movement has only helped democratise the latter and promote its unity with the labouring people of all other communities.

Undoubtedly, young revolutionaries of ULFA are petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, and perhaps at present they cannot be anything else. However they have successfully brought a progressive transformation of the Assam movement and they represent the inexhaustible dynamism, courage and splendid organising capabilities of the Assamese youth. Will Mao’s thought, blended with the lessons they learn from real life, help them take the next logical step in communist transformation?

Comrades of ULFA have revived the legacy of Mao and his thought in this part of the country. I offer my red salute to them.