Recent developments in the Naxalite movement - communists in India

Monthly Review, Sept, 1993 by Tilak D. Gupta

V

Recognizing that the Naxalite movement has made appreciable progress in the period under review, it is necessary to point out its localized nature. Despite efforts to break fresh ground, their agrarian struggles have remained mainly confined to regions where the pre-capitalist socio-economic structure is stronger. Moreover, the extent of the Naxalite mass base, though impressive in absolute terms, still appears rather narrow when viewed in the context of a country of 884 million. Even within their sphere of influence, no broad peasant unity has developed. While the Marxist-Leninists describe the rural movements under their leadership as "revolutionary peasant struggles," it might be more appropriate to term them as struggles of agricultural laborers and the poorest sections of the peasantry, who usually also toil in the fields of others. Though some expansion of the movement is continuously taking place around the present Naxalite strongholds, a number of Marxist-Leninist organizations report that a sort of stagnation has crept into many of the old areas of struggle.

Looking beyond the agrarian struggles, one finds a host of other problems confronting the Naxalite movement. The industrial working class, middle-class employees, and other sections of the urban petty bourgeoisie have until this date not shown much inclination towards Naxalite politics. Lack of urban influence, localized rural work, underground existence, and the divisions of the movement have also prevented the Marxist-Leninist voice from being adequately heard on the national plane. Thus, in spite of a long tradition of heroic struggle and countless sacrifices, the movement has, as yet been able to make only a marginal impact on the general course of Indian political and economic development. To appreciate this point, one only has to note the swift and phenomenal growth of the Hindu communal forces in the last five years. Reference can also be made to the fact that the Congress Party-led minority central government has so far been remarkably successful in taking the country along the disastrous IMF path. Thus the tasks of deepening the agrarian movement and raising it to a new height and the need for boldly intervening in the ongoing political battles on the all-India plane constitute the major challenge before the Indian Marxist-Leninists today. The bewildering plurality of a multi-national, multi-religious, and caste-divided Indian society of course poses a host of other obstacles to forging class unity and advancing class struggle. It goes without saying that any successful revolution will have to take care of all these peculiarities in its strategic framework.

VI

It is almost impossible to capture the many colors in the Naxalite spectrum that are grappling to respond to these diverse challenges ahead. At the risk of making a very broad generalization, one can identify two major trends.

One trend, best represented by CPI (M-L) (People's War), the most influential group in Andhra Pradesh, is seeking answers to the new problems within the old strategic framework. For them, all enrichment of tactics must serve the cause of building a people's army and guerrilla zones in the countryside. With this objective, the group has deployed its main strength in the contiguous forest areas covering parts of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh. To overcome the present lull in the movement that has occurred due to ruthless state repression, the armed squads under its leadership have already begun guerrilla-type counterattacks against the police and paramilitary forces. It considers legal party and parliamentary forms of struggle incompatible with the path of a people's war, and would go only so far in that realm as to an All-India People's Resistance Forum (AIPRF) to propagate the politics of agrarian revolution and to convey its views on contemporary national political issues. It rejects any unity or alliance with those it considers revisionists (the CPI, CPI (M), and even some M-L groups) but shows a willingness to form a united front with various nationality struggles seeking secession from the Indian state. So far, this organization seems to be convinced that, apart from some small regions of capitalist development in agriculture, a Chinese model of agrarian revolution remains valid for the country.