parisar …………………………………………….परिसर

a forum of progressive students……………………………………………………………..प्रगतिशील छात्रों का मंच

The Revolutionary Road in India

by Bernard D’Mello


The editors of Aneek have asked us to present, in brief, our stand regarding what we think is “the correct path” towards equality, cooperation, community, and human solidarity, that is, socialism in India.  The struggle for socialism is going to be long, hard, and violent, and I, for one, cannot imagine a socialist India in isolation, in a hostile capitalist global order, though a successful Indian revolution would profoundly alter all international equations.  Remember Marx once said that if the Irish made it, the rupture of the bourgeois order in Britain might not be too far behind.  Let me not stray, though, from the task at hand.  The question posed by the Aneek editors needs our focussed attention.  We begin with an essential clarification with regard to the Maoist path, move on to the political context in India today, look at aspects of the Maoist strategy of uniting the majority of the Indian population in support of the struggle for a “new democratic” India leading on to socialism, and, in doing so, highlight one of Maoism’s promises to humanity.

The Maoist Path

As I understand, the Communist Party of India (Maoist)’s strategy — political and military — involves the seizure of political power through protracted people’s war (PPW), where the main form of struggle is armed struggle and the principal form of organisation is the people’s army (presently the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army [PLGA]).  But mass organisations and political work among peasants, workers, students, youth, women, intellectuals, and other sections of the people are very much on the party’s agenda.

Indeed, as is well known, the CPI (Marxist-Leninist) (People’s War), which merged with the Maoist Communist Centre of India (MCCI) to form the CPI (Maoist) in September 2004 had developed powerful mass movements under the banner of the Rythu Coolie Sangham (RCS) and the Radical Students’ Union (RSU), but they were forced to go underground in the face of severe state repression.  One might also recall the influence of the Revolutionary Writers’ Association, popularly known as VIRASAM (Viplava Rachayithala Sangham), and the hugely popular Jana Natya Mandali, which came to be regarded as the party’s cultural wing, and the Andhra Pradesh government’s crackdown on them for “propagating Naxalite ideology.”  The question is whether the party can succeed in building such mass movements in the face of severe repression, further risking the loss of lives of the leaders and cadre of the mass organisations.  Well, to their credit, they are making some headway on this count in the guerrilla zones.1 Take, for instance, the Kraantikari Adivasi Mahila Sanghatan, which Arundhati Roy refers to in her celebrated essay, “Walking with the Comrades” (Outlook, March 29, 2010).

Nevertheless, with the mass organisation forced to go underground and “utmost secrecy” imposed, through sheer necessity, wouldn’t the mass movements wither?  The Maoists are well aware of the fact that a strategy of PPW cannot be successful without, in the first place, winning the active support of larger and larger proportions of the dominated, the exploited, and the oppressed in the rural areas.  For this is the first step to establishing “base areas” there, carrying out “land to the tiller” and other social policies in these areas (run democratically as miniature, self-reliant states) to thereby build up a political mass base in the entire Indian countryside to finally encircle and win mass support in the cities.  In other words, they are doubly conscious that it is politics that has to command the gun, and it is the quality of the party’s politics that is of utmost importance.  The Maoist strategy unfolds in terms of an inner logic, which, going by the political component of the PPW, necessarily entails taking recourse to both violent (a tragic necessity) and non-violent means, the latter, in the form of the “mass line” (“from the masses, to the masses”).2 Unfortunately, however, the Indian state has been more successful so far in not allowing the non-violent means to unfold.  Going by classical Maoist principles of revolutionary organisation, strategy, and behaviour, armed struggle plays a crucial supporting role on the road to liberation.  But it is the strategy of the Indian state to reduce the movement to violence alone.

The Political Context

With this clarification, let me come to the political context in India today.  At the very outset, first, I would like to caution the reader by stating that we can never really comprehend, in a radical way, the significance of the concrete social, political, economic, and cultural conditions prevailing if we are not deeply involved in the collective endeavour of changing those very conditions. I am alluding to my shortcomings on this score.  Second, under the leadership of the CPI (Maoist), in parts of central and eastern India, the poorest of the poor are struggling for justice and have taken to violent means to achieve their ends.  Who am I to judge whether this class struggle, with all the tragic loss of lives and limbs it has entailed, is warranted or unwarranted?  Third, as a socialist, I do not advocate violence, but, unfortunately, violence is a tragic necessity in the prevailing circumstances.  What then are those circumstances?

If “politics is the most concentrated expression of economics,” then we need to first get to the economic realm.  India is a dependent, backward capitalist country in the periphery of the world capitalist system.  The rate of exploitation is and has always been very high.  Exploitation does not merely involve the appropriation of surplus value produced by the working class, but a large part of the workforce is exploited directly and indirectly by landlords, traders, and sahukars (moneylenders), primarily in the rural areas but also in the cities and towns.  The surplus extorted is “commercialised and becomes indistinguishably mingled with capitalistically produced surplus value,” as Paul Sweezy once put it when he was analysing the periphery of the world capitalist system.  We might also add that the pillage of Mother Nature and the expropriation of social property are rampant in India today.

All this enables the dominant classes to derive the privilege of consumption and levels of living corresponding to those of their counterparts in the US.  However, what of their other — the workers, peasants, and the marginalised poor in the countryside and the urban slums?  The latter are condemned to a life of poverty, misery, and degradation, often below the margins of what are, reasonably considered, subsistence levels of existence.  The high rate of exploitation, built into the very structure of dependent, backward capitalism in India, is the source of its failure to develop a mass market and approach “developed” status.

Indeed, the very high rate of exploitation requires a highly repressive political system; the Indian constitution and the bourgeois democratic institutions copied from or modelled on Westminster are empty façades.  Nevertheless, the political system is bourgeois-democratic, which, in certain contexts, renders the struggle against specific forms of exploitation, oppression, and domination less harrowing.  This political order is, however, deeply flawed, for how can democracy flourish in a society that is so deeply marked by profound inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth, and manifest with discrimination on the basis of race, caste, gender, religion, and political affiliation?  So we have the periodic charade of choosing members of the political establishment, those financed and co-opted by the dominant classes, who will then govern the country, the states, the municipalities, and the panchayats, where they exist, if at all, for the next five years.  More than ever before, what we now get is governments of the markets, by the markets, and for the markets — the market, as one poet put it, which knows all about prices but nothing about values.  Nevertheless, politics emanates from the set of basic conflicts in the society.

Over the last two decades, the economic, social, political, and cultural terrains in the country have been heavily overridden by a globalised landscape.  The dominant classes and their representatives now claim that, following the strategic alliance cemented with Washington, the nation is on its way to becoming an economic superpower, never mind the reality of India, which is best characterised as the “Republic of Hunger,” as the political economist Utsa Patnaik portrayed it six years ago.  One has only to look at the dispossessed masses, their lived experience, which represents “the focal point of all inhuman conditions in contemporary society.”  It is in this mass of humanity that “the human being is lost,” but “has won a theoretical consciousness of loss and is compelled by unavoidable and absolutely compulsory need . . . to revolt against this inhumanity.”  What we have paraphrased is what the young Marx and Engels wrote about the proletariat in Western Europe in 1844 in The Holy Family, but this applies so well to the wretched of the Indian earth and underlines the dire necessity of a socialist revolution in India, more so in the context of the utter failure of those laws and institutions of the Indian state that claim to safeguard the interests of the people.  Moreover, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the completion of the ‘great leap backward’ to capitalism in China, the existential situation of the damned of the Indian earth has worsened.  Capitalism has taken its gloves off — it has little or no qualms in resorting to brutal forms of expropriation in the process of accumulation, akin in some ways to what it did at its birth.  What then is the way out of this quagmire?

Towards a ‘Correct Path’

In India, with universal suffrage, but a degenerate bourgeois-democratic political system, a huge, centralised state machinery and a well-equipped modern army, can a communist party capture power through winning an overwhelming majority in parliament, bringing in a socialist constitution, neutralising the repressive apparatus of the state, and, even as it attempts all of this, get ready for armed confrontation, finally breaking up the state and replacing it with one that represents the interests of the exploited?  I think that the Indian ruling classes would never give up their wealth and power without armed resistance.  We can now be more certain about this, confirmed by the Chilean episode (November 1970 to September 1973), as well as the Nicaraguan experience in the wake of the Sandinista revolution in 1979, the elections of 1984 which Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista National Liberation Front won by an overwhelming majority but the US persisted in negating by its subversion and proxy war, which included the Iran-Contra affair.  Nevertheless, whether the CPI (Maoist) should use parliament to spread its ideas and opinions, but subordinate this to developing mass movements and struggles as part of the PPW, and, in times of crisis, give top priority to the latter, is a matter of its political line.  I do not think I am the right person to render advice, that too, unsolicited, on its choice of alternatives.

Spokespersons of the CPI (Marxist) often quote from Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (written in April-May 1920 to encapsulate the lessons the Bolshevik party had learned from its involvement in the three revolutions in Russia) to paint the CPI (Maoist) in the darkest possible colours.  But it is the CPM that, following in the footsteps of the CPI, has replaced Lenin’s State and Revolution (written in August-September 1917) by the un-Marxist and un-Leninist theory of peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism.  A real Leninist party is one that devotes all it has to developing the ability and the will to lead a revolution.  Frankly, it is the CPI (Maoist) that is developing that ability — if we were to go by Arundhati Roy’s essay, mentioned earlier, and Gautam Navlakha’s “Days and Nights in the Heartland of Rebellion” (Sanhati, April 1, 2010) — through a close relationship with the masses in the areas where it has gained a foothold.  The party is empowering the wretched of the Indian earth on the revolutionary road to an egalitarian society.  It has also been gathering the determination to lead a revolution by resisting the temptation to work within the framework of the system, instead doing all it can to take the class struggle to a successful conclusion.  The CPM, in contrast, even as it is organised along Leninist lines, has virtually been taken over by the backward bourgeois society that India is, and has been turned into a reformist force.  This is unfortunate, for the party, along with the CPI, still has, within its fold, a number of outstanding individuals.

Now, as we have said, in the CPI (Maoist)’s schema, PPW is the revolutionary path wherein the main form of struggle is armed struggle and the principal form of organisation is the people’s army.  As I understand the party’s stand on boycotting elections, it argues that participation in elections is not compatible with the strategy of PPW.  All the same, the party is trying to build alternative institutions of people’s power in the guerrilla zones.  But the problem, from the Maoist perspective of progress in the PPW, is that the party has not been able to turn any of the guerrilla zones into a base area.  It is impossible to advance the ongoing guerrilla war or the further spread of guerrilla zones without the establishment of base areas.  In the plains areas — which are less suitable for guerrilla warfare and the establishment of guerrilla zones — the higher guerrilla units have been unable to continue their operations and gradually have had to move to the forest and hilly areas.  Some of the existing guerrilla zones are potential candidates for transformation into base areas, but ‘the enemy’ has to be defeated there and the organs of political power have to then be established, a formidable task in the face of severe repression.  From the Maoist point of view, if they create and sustain a few base areas, the PPW will be able to sustain itself over a long period; in the absence of base areas, the Maoist guerrilla army will not last long or grow — in guerrilla parlance, the base areas are its essential ‘rear’.  However, I must mention that within the guerrilla zones, the Maoists have carved out their own domains in particular stretches, which they call guerrilla bases.  The latter serve as a sort of ‘rear.’

Those of us who are not in tune with the essence of PPW often fail to understand that the combination of a people’s army and mass organisations has the ability to advance and retreat over long periods of time.  If the formation of mass organisations before the building of a supporting armed force able to survive proves to be a failure, the reverse will be attempted, and the appropriate techniques of asymmetric warfare will be devised to support the growth of the mass organisations, even in the plains areas.  After all, the party is learning by doing — practice, collective learning from its mistakes, practice again (with greater success), and so on, in ever greater, rising concentric circles.

However, the question that needs to be posed is whether the economic and political conditions in India today are, at least, somewhat similar to those of China in the 1930s and 1940s.  No doubt, the peasant question is extremely important in India today, but it is being transformed from dispossession through class differentiation to dispossession via displacement and ecological degradation.  At the macro-level, millions of rural people are being rendered proletarians (in the form of casual and contract labour), hungry, malnutrition-ridden, homeless and landless paupers, forced migrants, threatened autochthonous peoples, lumpenproletariat, and so on.  This suggests a relatively rapid rise in the proportion of the population in the urban and semi-urban areas in the medium term, with an even larger proportion constituting the “precarious” classes — workers with little bargaining power vis-à-vis the capitalists, and a vast section of non-wage earners at the margins of subsistence in the urban informal sector.

Surely the CPI (Maoist) will have to reckon with this, which brings us to the question of how the urban movement provides the worker cadre and leaders for the revolutionary alliance of workers and peasants.  The Maoists are often criticised for failing to organise the industrial working class.  But even where they did make significant headway, for instance, in organising the coal miners of Singareni, under the banner Singareni Karmika Samakhya, the union was banned and its leaders driven underground.  The Maoists are nevertheless conscious of the crucial importance of organising the workers, for it is the proletarian who, when she/he is politically socialistically sensitized, understands the value of socialising the means of production, knows that collectively the workers can bring the economy to a standstill, especially if they are organised in the “strategic” sectors of the economy, and again, understands that, collectively, they can overcome their exploitation.  As far as organising in the urban areas is concerned, the party has been at it in the towns falling within and around the areas of armed struggle.

Now, besides the worker-peasant alliance, there is also the question of forming the “united front,” the so-called four-class alliance, as the Maoists conceive of it.  But given the experience of the new democratic revolution (NDR) in China, where, with the Maoist tenet of uninterrupted revolution (correct, no doubt), the NDR becomes a socialist one immediately after the communist party comes to power, will any anti-imperialist section of the Indian bourgeoisie (if it exists at all) even commit to such an alliance?  Moreover, in this age and time, it is doubtful if any section of the Indian bourgeoisie would be interested in any kind of revolution.  It might then be best to infuse much more of a socialist content in the composition and programme of the united front.

Maoism’s Promise

Overall, then, on the question of the combination of mass organisations and the people’s army both of which are so fundamental to successfully carrying through the PPW, the radical left in India and elsewhere will be keenly following how the Maoists follow their scientific dictum of practice, collectively learning from one’s mistakes, practice again with greater success, and so on, in ever greater and rising concentric circles, and extending this ability to act and learn collectively to the vast majority of the Indian people and beyond, to humanity.

1 What we mean by guerrilla zones, guerrilla bases, and base areas and the differences among and between the three are explained in my article “Spring Thunder Anew: Neo-Robber Baron Capitalism vs. ‘New Democracy’ in India,” Monthly Review, March 2010.

2 What we mean by mass line, uninterrupted revolution, new democratic revolution, and other Maoist terms that we employ in this note are explained in my essay “What is Maoism?” in Bernard D’Mello (ed.), What is Maoism and Other Essays (Kharagpur: Cornerstone Publications), 2010.

Bernard D’Mello ( is deputy editor, Economic & Political Weekly, and a member of the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights, Mumbai.  He thanks John Mage and P A Sebastian for their critical but helpful comments on an earlier draft.  The usual disclaimers apply.  This article first appeared in Bengali in the magazine Aneek in its July 2010 issue, which is a special number entitled ‘Somaj – Biplob o Soshostro Sangram’ (‘Social Revolution and Armed Struggle’).


August 9, 2010 - Posted by | A World to Win, articles, History, marxism-leninism-maoism, movements


  1. Its a good article makes the understanding the simple understanding the class structure of Indian society and unveil the structure of burgeon democracy and and justify the Maoist path in the circumstances. But again pose some serious question which is 1) the practice of mass organization without the cover of arms is ultimately wastage of energy of mass?
    2) again the political wing like CPI(M)couldn’t achieve any remarkable success in mass mobilization instead of its populist politics and and legal formation. So what stooped the party if state was not having any threat from this organization.

    I am thankful for the moderator for posting such a nice article on blog. Thank you.

    Comment by nandan | August 10, 2010

  2. Today,the C.P.I(Maoist) is carrying out a major movement In the areas of Jharkhand, Bihar and Dandkaraya. Without doubt they have committed serious errors and have serious theoretical flaws, but any Maoist critique must applaud their effort.To have created such bastions of revolutionary struggle in Andhra Pradesh,Jharkhand,Bihar and Dandkaranya is an achievement of historical proportions. In Lalgarh they made great efforts to enhance the movement.Base areas have yet to be created but with great tenacity they have defended their guerilla zones. The fact that they have heroically resisted the enemy forces f or a period of 30 years and form a Central Peoples Guerilla army to become the strongest Maoist party in the World when no Socialist Country in the World exists and when the forces of globalization are acting as tentacles is one of the greatest achievements in the annals of the world Communist Movement.

    It is worth studying the writings of Comrades like Tarimala Nagi Reddy and Devulipalli Venkateshwara Rao against the Charu Mazumdar Military line,in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.Remarkable work wa sdone t shape the Srikaulam armed struggle.The Formation of the Andhra Pradesh Co-ordination Commitee of Communist Revolutionaries has great significance in the light of developing the mass line as well as that of the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India in 1975.Similarly Com.Harbhajan Sohi refuted the Charu Mazumdar line and led the Punjab Co-ordination Commitee which provided the leadership line for the Punjab Students Union .

    Com.D.V. Rao upheld the military line of the Telenagana Armed Struggle and in the late 1970’s deferred the formation of the Red Army without adequate development of Agrarian revolutionary Movement.

    I wish to refute one theoretical point that today the situation is conducive for both the tactis of ‘Active Boycott’ or participation ‘ in parliamentary elections .Below i am quoting a December 1989 edition of a revolutionary Journal which voiced the views of Com.T.Nagi Reddy .

    There can be 3 tactics deployed in The elections. Either you adopt the tactic of ‘ active boycott’ or that of participation.,or that of ‘active political campaign.’In all cases the political campaign should consist of

    a.exposing the uselessness of he presnt parliamentary institutions.

    b. explaining the impossibility of achieving political liberty and social emancipation by parliamentary methods and

    c .Explaining the necessity of armed Struggle in the form of protracted Peoples War centered around the agrarian question and of establishing he organs of peoples power,i.e of peoples democracy. The crucial aspects should be made are to the people by integrating hem with examples of the pat and present experiences and by concrete exposure of the deception of he ruling classes, their institutions and political parties. The only difference I his regard of implementing the basic tactics are the slogans of action they give an he pace which with theory work. Slogans of action have to be allotted in accordance to level of revolutionary movement at a given time.

    Boycott is a higher form of struggle which is associated with imminent direct revolutionary action of the masses against the state and with setting up of organs of political power . For this,the party of the proletariat should have established it’s leadership over the revolutionary movement and prepared itself, politically and organizationally ,to lead the people’s armed struggle along with setting up suitable organs of political; power. Without this the boycott slogan will become meaningless, and futile as far as the realization of it’s full revolutionary potential is concerned. It will lead to cynical attitudes amongst the people.

    On the other hand for adopting the revolutionary utilisation of participation in election as legal form of Struggle, the emergence of revolutionary democratic elements is a necessity. It need a proletarian party organization to train and control a cadre team for his specialized activity, to organise a legal front without liquidating the illegal party structure, and to link and co-ordinate the activities of its members in these institutions with the direct revolutionary struggles of the people.Othrwise it will blunt the class –consciousness of the people, blur he political demarcation between the party of the proletariat and the ruling class political parties and will be a weapon in the hands of the ruling class forces to defeat he proletarian vanguard.

    At present a unified, effective and influential party is lacking Comunist revolutionaries are only in the formative stage-in the sage of re-organisatin. In most areas ,any Communist Revolutionary Organisation is yet to establish it’s identity,I the field of organization and mass -political influence.The level of political consciousness and organization of the people is lagging behind their actual practice of struggle or the objective potential for evolutionary struggle.F or asimilar reason,the emergence and development of revolutionary democratic elements is delayed .It is because of this situation that he present acute political crisis is not being converted into a revolutionary crisis. A general mood of distrust of leaderships and cynical indifference to political affairs and developments that a further hurdles are being created..

    But or this circumstances the C.R’s could have in condition of great turmoil adopted the tactics of ‘Active Boycott’ and and called upon the revolutionary forces to carry out he agrarian revolutionary programme, conducted armed struggle and set up alternative organs of peoples power. In other times ,under adverse political conditions they could have participated in the electins as a tactical ploy.

    Toady there are 2 serious deviations. The first one is that of carrying out ‘Boycott’tactics without the scope of direct revolutionary mass action and setting up of parallel organs of political power. The second is of using participation tactics without the proletarian party,sufficient mass opolitical influence and other necessary organizational means.It will organizationally lead to liquidationsim and politically to tailism

    The only possible campaign is that of ‘Active Political Campaign’.They must build mass revolutionary struggles They must urge the people to rely and concentrate on their own struggle movement and organization-building to prepare for direct revolutionary mass action against the ruling classes and their institutions of political power.

    In the campaign the Comunist Revolutionaries should analyse the specific features which get manifest in ruling class politics and their manouvres in elections. Eg Warring factions of ruling classes and their political representatives.T he uselessness of parliamentary institutions must be explained as well as parliamentary methods. The political objective of the working class movement and the democratic revolutionary movement led by it should be projected.

    On Armed struggle I am quoting the views of Coms D.V.Rao and Tarimala Nagi Reddy who refuted the Charu Mazumdar Line.

    “The armed struggle is the highest form of class struggle of which agrarianrevolutionary movement is the axis. While the class struggle develops througha process, from lower to higher to the highest levels and corresponding forms,it is the task of the communist revolutionaries, throughout all phases ofthe revolutionary movement, to constantly educate the people in the politicsof seizure of political power and to prepare them for armed struggle in anappropriate manner (to enable them to imbibe the necessary revolutionaryconsciousness and preparedness on the basis of their own experience). Itis the level of consciousness and preparedness of the people that determinesthe realisation of the necessity and launching of any form of struggle includingthe armed struggle. While the armed struggle proper will start at a certainlevel of development of the agrarian revolutionary movement (which is objectivelyverifiable in terms of actual manifestations of the consciousness andpreparedness of the people to seize and control the means of production andhence political power through their own instruments of struggle and power),the people should be guided and prepared to arm themselves to put up self-defenceand resistance to armed attacks of the ruling classes and their agents; theparty forces among the masses playing the leading role in carrying out suchself-defence–all of which is a part and parcel of the process of developmentof class struggle to its highest form–the armed struggle. Integrating therevolutionary struggles of different sections of people with the agrarianrevolutionary movement and integrating and developing different forms ofstruggle to the armed struggle, should be addressed to by the communistrevolutionaries with an integral concept and plan of tasks of the revolutionarymovement in all the stages of the process of its development. In a nutshell,the process of development of armed struggle should be conceived in its organicrelationship with the process of development of the class struggle, of theParty and of the revolutionary united front. Though the objective in starting armed struggle is to set up liberatedbase areas, the present correlation of forces in India is such that it isnot possible to achieve this aim immediately. To achieve this aim, it isnecessary to create areas of armed struggle in a number of areas in the country.For a long time they will be guerrilla zones in the military sense of theterm. With the numerical extension of such areas of armed struggle it becomesextremely difficult for the ruling classes to concentrate their armed mightin one area. During this process there arises a favourable situation, whereinrevolutionaries will be able to wrest the initiative from the ruling classes,and to advance towards the setting up of liberated base areas. Some majorchanges in the national and international situation may also lead towardquicker development of liberated base areas. Revolutionary forces have to fight armed battles in the guerrilla zonesfor quite some time. Guerrilla forces, skilled and tempered over a long timein these battles, grow in number as well as in experience. In the courseof these battles there arises a situation wherein the guerrilla forces areable to defeat the armed forces of the ruling classes. This is the time whena part of the guerrilla forces is turned into a regular people’s army. Thepeople in the area are mobilised to help the people’s armed forces in inflictingdefeat after defeat on the enemies’ armed forces and wiping them out. Thisis how liberated base areas come into being. They are constantly extendedinto adjoining regions, eventually covering a vast area and a sufficientpopulation with the necessary resources for the people’s sustenance.It is possible to set up liberated base areas in the plains and deltaic areas(where there are well-knit communication lines) at an advanced stage of thearmed struggle. In the same way, towns adjoining the base areas are liberatedfirst, then the rest and finally the whole country.”

    Armed struggle is a debatable issue but the Current line of the C.P.I(Maoist)is plagued with defective trends towards the building of military political power.There is also an erroneous concept towards the building of mass organisations and their relationship with the party and mass organisations are virtually formed as Front organisations nad hardly given an independent identity.the military line has shades of Che Guevera’s focoist tendency.. Historically there is a difference between revolutionary base areas and guerilla zones.Quoting Mao’s writings on military line, “When guerilla Warfare began,the guerillas could not completely occupy the places ,but could only make frequent raids,,they are areas which are held by the guerilla forces when they are present and the by the puppet regime when they are gone.Thus they are not guerilla bases but zones.Thse zones can be converted into bases by consolidating guerilla warfare and after large portions of enemy troops have been annihilated,and the puppet regime destroyed..The mass organsiations also formed as well as peoples local armed forces.The extent to which the enemy is destroyed is the vital factor.“ The C.P.I. (Maoist). in implementation of line often confused the difference between forming a guerilla zone and a base area. Today the trend is similar. In their zones they retaliate and defend their areas through their guerilla squad actions and are not able to replenish their losses. They do not have sufficient support of the broad masses. There is insufficient development of mass agrarian revolutionary struggle and revolutionary democratic movement.A maoist mass military line has not been built.For many a action there is lack of adequate preparation of agrarian revolutionary Movement. What was defective was the nature of squad actions not properly evaluating the co-relation of the enemy with the masses..Over-emphasis has been placed on armed struggle without combining effective mass struggles. To a considerable extent the military actions reflect anarchist tendencies and have not adhered to a the maoist mass military line Today it’s all India Front the Revolutionary Democratic Front can hardly function openly like the A.I.P.R.F could earlier.I t has been dealt a severe blow In states like Orissa and West Bengal,and is for all moral purposes banned in states of armed MovementS.Unable to withstand the counter-onslaught of the state the mass organizations of such groups were virtually crushed and forced to function underground.Now mass struggle is completely substituted by armed Struggle.They have not created the level of preparation for armed struggle which was done In the Telengana Armed Struggle of 1946-1951 where work was initiated in the AndhraMahasabha ,or in the 1924-1927 period in China where Peasant associations were formed and a base was built for mass agrarian revolutionary Movement.,or even the preparation period for he launching of armed struggles i Phillipines or Peru I the periods of 1959-1968 a 1968-1980 respectively.

    Comment by Harsh Thakor | December 28, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s