How polarization between different ideological trends within the communist movement sharpened in India
This article is a rejoinder to A Note on Slogans of “Left Unity,” “Unity of the Communist Revolutionaries” and “Mass Line” by Umair Ahmed, published on the Nazariya blog.
The Naxalbari uprising in 1967 marked a decisive turn in the Indian communist movement. Shortly thereafter, members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] formed the All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR). Following its Burdwan plenum in 1968, the AICCCR split from CPI(M) and on April 22, 1969, dissolved itself to establish the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) [CPI(ML)], under the leadership of Charu Majumdar. State repression and internal contradictions led to the fragmentation of this party into multiple organizations claiming to uphold Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.
Since that period, the Indian communist movement has been divided into four broad trends: revisionists, neo-revisionists, Maoists, and an intermediate camp of various Communist Revolutionary groups. The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation and the CPI(ML) Red Star, among others, have moved towards revisionist politics, deviating from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in both ideological and practical terms. The CPI(Maoist), which was formed through the merger of groups such as CPI(ML) People’s War, CPI(ML) Party Unity, and the Maoist Communist Centre of India, is recognized as the principal organization within the Maoist camp upholding Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. However, it is not the sole representative of the Indian revolutionary movement.
The polarization between different ideological trends within the communist movement has sharpened. The revisionist parties, particularly the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], promote the slogan of "Left Unity," which calls for the unification of all left parties under a common banner, without addressing key ideological differences. Various Maoist and MLM-oriented organizations, particularly those with roots in the original CPI(ML) and AICCCR, raise the slogan of "Unity of the Communist Revolutionaries," although interpretations of this slogan differ significantly across organizations. Some adopt eclectic lines and pursue unity without addressing core ideological questions, often forming alliances that underestimate the class-collaborationist nature of revisionist parties like CPI(M).
Genuine unity among communist revolutionaries requires ideological clarity and adherence to the principles of unity-struggle-unity. Historical experience from the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions highlights the necessity of building unity on the basis of ideological struggle against revisionism and opportunism. The revolutionary pole in India emerged from a break with the class-collaborationist politics of P.C. Joshi, the Titoite revisionism of B.T. Ranadive, the parliamentary cretinism of the CPI, and the modern revisionism of CPI(M), as well as a self-critical evaluation of the tactical and organizational errors of the original CPI(ML). The Andhra Pradesh Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries played a key role in correcting left-adventurist tendencies.
Documents such as the Andhra Pradesh State Committee’s self-criticism in 1977 and the Central Organizing Committee’s rectification document in 1975 were significant efforts to address past errors, contributing to the eventual formation of CPI(ML) Party Unity in 1983. However, many MLM-oriented groups diverged from this path, making inconsistent evaluations of Charu Majumdar and the original CPI(ML) line. While some advocated prioritizing mass struggles in the name of mass line, they often equated such struggles with mass line practice and rejected armed struggle altogether. Conversely, others engaged in armed struggle without grounding it in mass line principles.
The expulsion of leaders such as Tarimela Nagi Reddy, D.V. Rao, and Chandra Pulla Reddy from the AICCCR was based on their opposition to labeling China’s chairman as India’s chairman, their critique of boycotting elections as a strategic slogan, and their defense of maintaining mass organizations. These events suggest that the formation of the original CPI(ML) was flawed and lacked the necessary ideological clarity to unify revolutionary forces. It is notable that the Maoist Communist Centre did not join CPI(ML) at its inception in 1969.
Despite its commitment, sacrifices, and capacity for military resistance, the CPI(Maoist) has struggled to integrate its military line with mass movements effectively. Although it has built one of the most significant armed movements in India’s history, particularly in Bastar and Dandakaranya, and secured important rights for Adivasi communities, it has not established stable base areas or genuine organs of people’s self-governance. There are persistent tendencies for armed squads to dominate mass organizations, undermining their autonomy. Military work is often equated with mass work, and participation in mass organizations is frequently made contingent on acceptance of Maoist ideology. There has been limited success in penetrating the trade union movement or establishing a significant urban presence. The party also overestimates the subjective conditions for armed struggle, without sufficiently developing mass revolutionary resistance capable of crystallizing into a broad-based people’s war. It is therefore inaccurate to consider CPI(Maoist) the re-organized Communist Party of India, as the broader Communist Revolutionary movement remains fragmented.
CPI(ML) Party Unity made notable progress in challenging left-adventurist errors by organizing mass agrarian struggles in Bihar through the Mazdoor Kisan Sangrami Samiti. In urban areas, the Chandra Pulla Reddy groups, which later split into CPI(ML) New Democracy and CPI(ML) Janashakti, made significant contributions to working-class organization and mobilization.
The fragmentation of the Communist Revolutionary movement in India has been fueled by ideological deviations, personality conflicts, regionalism, and the lack of principled two-line struggle to resolve differences. Opportunist mergers and splits have characterized the movement for decades. Debates and splits within the Chandra Pulla Reddy sections, CPI(ML) Janashakti, CPI(ML) New Democracy, and other groups demonstrate the prevalence of these tendencies. While the process of merger between CPI(ML) Party Unity, CPI(ML) People’s War, and Maoist Communist Centre to form CPI(Maoist) involved some level of ideological debate, it lacked the comprehensive self-critical rectification necessary for a coherent party-building process.
Notable efforts toward principled unity were made with the formation of the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (Marxist-Leninist) in 1975 by T. Nagi Reddy and D.V. Rao, the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India in 1988 by Harbhajan Sohi, and the Communist Reorganization Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist) in 1995. These organizations focused on mass line practice and functioned primarily in Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha. While this trend did not merge with CPI(Maoist), it represented a consistent emphasis on mass struggles and people’s self-organization, contrasting with both revisionism and sectarian adventurism. However, there are debates regarding whether this trend upheld a stages theory that separated political struggle from economic struggles and whether it eventually failed to advance armed struggle. Despite its decline in recent years, this trend played an important role in advancing mass line practice.
In the early 1990s, CPI(ML) Red Flag also made efforts to challenge sectarianism and unite various groups on a principled basis. The Chandra Pulla Reddy factions contributed significantly to urban working-class organizing during this period.
The lack of a cohesive revolutionary orientation toward armed struggle, the absence of a socialist state in the world, and the tendency to mechanically replicate the Chinese revolutionary model have all contributed to the continuing fragmentation of the Indian Communist Revolutionary movement. Debates over the correct path for the Indian revolution remain insufficient and unresolved.
India’s parliamentary democracy, while limited, does provide some scope for legal work. Revolutionary parties must explore flexible approaches to legal work in both rural and urban areas, without mechanically replicating clandestine models. Participation in parliamentary elections may be considered tactically, while maintaining the strategic aim of revolutionary transformation. However, it is unrealistic to expect a revolutionary communist party to maintain legal status indefinitely under the current or future repressive state structures.
CPI(Maoist) remains the principal force within the Maoist camp but is not the sole representative of the Indian revolutionary movement. Principled unity among communist revolutionaries, grounded in ideological clarity, adherence to the mass line, and a consistent orientation towards agrarian revolution and armed struggle, remains an urgent necessity.
---
*Independent journalist and political commentator
Comments