DV Rao T Nagi Reddy

Both Comrades died in July, and widely remembered on the occasion.  This article is published to mark the occasion of com TN’s death on July 28, 1976. DV Rao died in 1984 July. DV Rao wrote several memorial articles on TN, bringing out some aspects of his life and work.

Both TN and  DV Rao were renowned communist revolutionary leaders and elected members of Loksabha (1957-62), but were  remembered more for their revolutionary work, and as  Co-founders of UCCRI-ML, known for its revolutionary mass line and ongoing mass movements. Both of them led underground life for years, and were framed up in cases, and imprisoned and convicted on charges of Sedition and Conspiracy to overthrow Govt etc. The Hyderabad Conspiracy Case was in the fashion of Kanpur (1924) and Meerut (1929) Conspiracy cases foisted by the British imperialists. Theirs was the first such major case framed by the new ruling classes post-1947. DV Rao was known for his role in Telangana Peasant armed struggle which was the basis of the line TN and DV founded and represented.

Readers of Countercurrents are well aware of their life and work for a revolutionary mass line, as opposed to Left and Right opportunism, and their efforts to spread it across India. Decades after both died, their influence on various mass movements can be seen. Countercurrents.org published several articles on and by both DV Rao and TN. A couple of links are given below for easy reference. One can see more related articles from them.




DV Rao had written this article in 1981 August, and it was published as an Editorial, in the communist revolutionary journal, The Proletarian Line, Issue No.-14, 1981 August. DV Rao was its Founder Editor.

A few explanations are given in brackets, and all emphases added. It was published with the title:

Let Us Fulfill the Unfinished Tasks Left Behind By Comrade TN by Strengthening and Extending Our Revolutionary Organisation and Revolutionary Mass Movement

It helps to understand problems of building a revolutionary organization, of unity and splits therein, to clarify some issues raised, and TN’s distinct and principled role in them as seen by his closest comrade-in-arms, DV Rao.

It was reprinted in the same journal, in February 2017

The text of article by DV Rao follows:

***                               ***

Com. T. N. passed away on July 28, 1976.

 It is no exaggeration to say that he lived for revolution, worked for revolution, and died while working for revolution.

His life as a revolutionary was eventful. He fought against British colonialism and then continued his struggle against ruling classes as represented by Congress. His jail life extended to many years. He led struggles of toiling masses. His role as a parliamentarian was unique. He was the author of the famous work “India Mortgaged”, which he wrote while in jail (1970-72). He died suddenly after a brief illness of 2 or 3 days, while leading an underground life.

india mortgaged

 He was popular, not only in Andhra and all over India, but in his native place also where people from all walks of life loved and respected him deeply. It is in contrast with so many pseudo-revolutionaries, who are unpopular in their own places and who migrate to other places only to become ‘leaders’, without any practical revolutionary work.

He was studious and worked day and night for revolution, unlike those easy-going revolutionaries whose work for revolution is insignificant and who talk about it loudly. He never aspired for positions, while at the same time he carried his responsibilities as best as he could, in contrast to those careerists who hunt after positions without realising their responsibilities, not to speak of carrying them out.

In short he had the best of the qualities, which should be emulated by all communist revolutionaries. He was opposed to all the bad features, some of which are mentioned here and which have become common among a section of revolutionaries. They have to be discarded by one and all.


Com. TN’s fifth death anniversary is taking place at a time when the revolutionary movement is advancing all over Andhra Pradesh and other States, and all the genuine revolutionaries who are the product of this movement, are rallying behind our organisation. It is also a time, when a non-revolutionary wing has broken away from our organisation and formed itself into a separate group. Both these developments are interconnected because they are the result of correct application and correct implementation of our line, together with internal struggle that was going on for years for this purpose.

It is the third split after TN’s death. The first was a break with North Zone Committee and its associates, and the second was with Punjab group. All these splits are connected with the fundamental line, its application and its implementation. The break-away sections invariably deviated towards right opportunism, and everyone had its own variety of this deviation.

 Some people say that had there been com. T.N., these splits would have not occurred. It is wrong.

Facts show that there were such splits when com. TN was alive and was the convener of Andhra Pradesh Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries.

The Charu Majumdar group including Srikakulam District Committee broke away when he was the convener (1968-69). The group led by Chandra Pulla Reddy broke away (1970-71) when he was in jail, and was a leading member of the State Committee Secretariat (Com. D.V. was Secretary). The group, misusing the opportunity, could mobilise a good chunk of cadres behind it. The NZC group broke away, immediately after com. T.N’s death (August, 1976), because it completed the preparations for such a step while com. TN was alive. What had happened in August, 1976 was only a formalisation of the conspiracy hatched earlier.

That com. TN had worked for unification of revolutionaries and revolutionary groups is indisputable. This did not mean that he could prevent a split or splits, caused by opportunism which took place either before or after his death. Contrary were the facts as mentioned above. Such splits could be postponed for a few months or more, if there were reasonable compromises which may act as a stepping stone for further unification. Though such a compromise is not a guarantee against the possibility of a split, it is desirable for above reasons. Splits may also be averted for the time being by opportunist compromises. But this only leads to further disintegration and disunity and hastens a more serious split. Therefore, the splits were inevitable and they had to take place at one time or other. So they did, because they were based on “fundamental” differences on the line, its application and implementation.

In fact, the history of our merger with various groups and subsequent functioning in one organisation, is the history of reasonable compromises for achieving unification, because their acceptance of our line was formal and their understanding, application and implementation was fundamentally different from ours. We had then visualised that we could resolve these differences through internal struggle and practice. But we could not achieve this because, the other side was invariably a victim of opportunism which came to the surface in course of time when we found that they were not ready to resolve their differences through normal inner-party methods. The same is the case with the present dissident group.

Therefore, to say that there would have been no split if com. T.N. were alive, will amount to say that he would have made never-ending compromises with the breakaway groups and sections which can only be opportunist compromises. By this they are denigrating him, and not elevating him to his proper position at all.

He was opposed to opportunist compromises and compromises at any cost. He was for principled unity: He was not opposed to earlier splits which took place when he was alive, even though we had to part with a good number of genuine revolutionaries, who were misguided by left-adventurism.

Com. TN. had an ardent desire to see the revolutionary movement, which is now developing and extending on correct lines for some years. He worked relentlessly for this purpose while he was alive. He had seen earlier movements and led some of them though they suffered set-backs because of various reasons. But the present day dissidents are opposed to such movement. They have attempted to disrupt it without success. They have carried out a slander campaign against it but they failed to stall its advance. If com. TN were alive, he would have hailed this movement together with throwing the dissidents into the dustbin.

It is to the credit of the revolutionary movement and the organisation which is leading it, that it is following the behests of com. TN, who did not live to see it. Communist revolutionaries are organising such movements not only in one State (Andhra Pradesh, then undivided)  but in other States as well, to fulfill the desire of com. TN.


There has always been a non-revolutionary wing in our organisation, now organised and now unorganised, which has been consistently giving a right opportunist twist to our line, which it attributed to com. TN. He never held such views nor did he endorse its contention. The fact of the matter was  that our line, enunciated as an outline in 1968, was developed in full by the end of 1969, and was elaborated in a series of documents subsequently which were mostly in the form of polemical documents against right and “left” opportunism.

This line gained popularity among all genuine revolutionaries, including a section of those who were under Charu Majumdar’s left-adventurist influence, and who began to accept it as basically a correct line. There were a set of comrades with right opportunist tendencies, who had joined us earlier. Later, when Charu’s line was defeated in 1970, a section of his erstwhile followers had contacted us, accepting our line to be basically correct and expressing their desire to join us in one organisation. Frustrated by the defeat of Charu Majumdar’s line, and the excesses he committed against them in his organisation, they developed right opportunism in practice though couched in “left” phrase-mongering. They found a common language with the above mentioned right opportunists.

Our line advocates preparatory work of developing revolutionary movement and proletarian revolutionary organisation as a precondition to adopt higher forms of struggle as against “annihilation of class enemies”, which needs no revolutionary movement and no revolutionary organisation.

The right opportunists in our organisation, from the very beginning, renounced this task and indulged in reformist and humanitarian work or did no work at all. They adopted opportunist tactics all along. All this resulted in stabbing in the back of the revolutionary line. At the same time, these sections paraded themselves as the followers of the revolutionary line. Obviously there is no basis for this contention of theirs. It is clear that communist revolutionaries carried on struggle against such forces all along, with the result that there is a mass revolutionary movement and proletarian revolutionary organisation, which is advancing every passing day on correct lines. This is a great achievement of immense significance. It is this which comrade TN cherished. Had he been alive today, he would have played a leading role in the struggle, as well as in the movement and the organisation.

Now that the right-wing has left our organisation, its leaders are taking shelter under TN’s name claiming from house-tops that they are the ardent followers, defenders, inheritors and what not, whereas communist revolutionaries are not. It reveals its bankruptcy that it cannot stand on its own legs. By seeking to use his name to serve its interests, its leadership is again discrediting him because there is nothing common between him and the right wing. There was a time, when our opponents had slandered that he was a revisionist to discredit and isolate him from the revolutionary ranks. But they failed miserably. The present leaders of the breakaway group are doing the same from a different end in that they are using his name to discredit him. They should know that they cannot succeed where other variety of our opponents had failed.


Opponents of Communist Revolutionaries were always propagating that there were fundamental differences between the top leaders, especially between comrades TN and DV.  To their utter disappointment they found that their hopes were more imaginary than real.

It is quite normal that the ruling classes and counterrevolutionaries pin their hopes on the division and disunity to see that the revolutionaries are weakened. The disruption caused by late Charu Majumdar group and certain opportunist sections encouraged them to adopt such an attitude. To begin with, we too faced such divisions which resulted in the exit of some genuine revolutionaries. But as the struggle for correct line advanced, the division was in the main between genuine communist revolutionaries and the opportunists, which led to strengthening of our organisation and the movement. Obviously our opponents did not expect this development.

Inside our own organisation, all varieties of opportunists have misused TN’s name more than our opponents outside of it. While the opponents slandered utmost when he was alive, opportunists inside the organisation have been misusing his name after his death. Those who had denigrated him while he was alive are raising him to the skies after his death.

If some of them “discover” different “approaches” between TN and DV, as explained earlier, others are carrying out a campaign that TN had a different line other than what DV has been following all along. It is purely a fabrication.

If one goes through TN’s India Mortgaged and DV’s  People’s Democratic Revolution: An Explanation to the Programme of Communist Revolutionaries ( It is popularly known as “Court Statement” by DV, because he read it as his statement during the hearing of the famous Hyderabad Conspiracy Case, in which TN was co-accused) . one finds a remarkable identity of views on common subjects they contain. It should be noted that they were written independently of each other. The Programme, though drafted by DV, was finalised with minor changes and was adopted unanimously, after a thorough-going discussion in which he was the main participant, along with DV.

All the pamphlets written by DV had the concurrence of TN even without minor changes. It is quite possible that he had reservations on certain issues, but he could remove them either through discussions, or study. He could even wait till events unfold to see that some of the issues are clarified. In the same way, DV had been benefitted by his clarity of views on political and economic issues.

When issues are discussed in any Committee, opinions expressed by the members do vary with one another. In the end they find unanimity. When it is not possible, the Committee takes a majority decision.

But there was no occasion when both were divided and a majority decision was taken. Such was the unity between the two comrades. Therefore all talk about the differences on fundamental line is baseless.

Comrade TN had never built an organisation for himself to be named after him. Nor he had worked out a line on his behalf which is other than what DV advocated or what our organisation is following.

Therefore there is one organisation. It was Andhra Pradesh Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (APCCCR) to begin with, which had changed its name into Andhra Pradesh Communist Committee of Revolutionaries in the Convention held in April 1969. Then it took the shape of Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (Marxist-Leninist) (UCCRI-ML)  in a Conference held in April 1975. Though the name of the organisation has been changing from time to time, its content was one and the same. In the same way there is only one line all along, which is our fundamental line which we are following. To attempt to find a separate organisation and a separate line for TN is absurd.

But the break-away groups are continuing with the same name i.e., UCCRI (M-L) claiming that they are adhering to the same line. (They changed their names many times, later on..while UCCRI-ML continued till date )  If it were so, there was no necessity for a separate existence for themselves. They chose separate existence because they have nothing in common with our line and the revolutionary content of the organisation. At the same time they want to steal away the popularity of the organisation and the line and capitalise them for themselves. There can be no other reason for the nefarious attitude they had adopted. That they are claiming to be the real representatives of the line and inheritors of the organisation, does not provide them the right for the same. It is well known that thieves assume the ownership of stolen goods till they are disposed at throw away prices. The same is the case with break-away groups.


Internal democracy and the scope for internal discussion is an issue on which the break-away groups and individuals attribute differences between TN and DV. The letters released contain this issue, properly explained and clarified leading to uniting on this issue also.

Ours is a revolutionary organisation and our pattern of work is revolutionary. We cannot allow ourselves to indulge in never-ending discussions at the cost of revolutionary movement. The appropriate Committee decides on the issue to be opened for internal discussion. It is a must that the opinions of the lower committees and the rank and file are to be given due consideration by the leading committees, but this does not mean that they are allowed to dictate terms to higher committees as to what to do and what not to do, because it has nothing in common with internal democracy. It is ultra-democracy which we reject.

We have come across a bunch of intellectuals, who are wobblers, vacillators, and are victims of outside propaganda. They want never-ending discussions on every issue, big and small. They have contempt towards practical revolutionary work. They evade it by all possible means, which are within their easy reach, because they happen to be a privileged section. They won’t get convinced on any issue because once they are convinced, there won’t be any further discussion on it, which is so dear to them and also they cannot use the issue as a trump card against the correct line and the leadership, when they can fish in the troubled waters. This does not apply to those who have genuine differences which need discussions in an appropriate form.

The differences contained in the North Zone Committee’s (NZC) “Prepared statement” on Emergency (1976) were genuine, though it suffers from right opportunist deviation. There was no objection to get them discussed if they were put forward in a proper manner. By publishing it in the official organ of the CC “The Spark”, without submitting it to the CC, the CCM concerned (in fact he was the author of the statement) adopted street-fighting methods whose purpose can only be to capture the leadership of the entire organisation. To counter this step: firstly, it was necessary to explain how it was a right opportunist statement. com. DV did it in his various notes and documents. Secondly, stringent disciplinary measures were necessary against the CCM leading to expulsion from the CC, together with such other measures against NZC which accord with its involvement in this affair. The CC was too weak to take such measures in a given situation. As a result the CC disapproved the “statement” and approved the position taken by com. DV. All this made it clear that there was no need to open internal discussion on the subject. Subsequent events had shown that the other CCMs’ (NZC and Bengal) acceptance of the line was formal. Their understanding and the practice had nothing in common with our line. Therefore they parted their ways with us.

The same was the case with the CCM from Punjab and his group, though in a different form. He took the Albanian Party’s position, basically, on problems relating to the international communist movement, more so, on “Three Worlds Theory.” After prolonged wrangling, it was decided to open the internal discussions in which the CCM wanted a privileged position as a representative of a group. When the preparations were complete and the discussion was about to start, the group parted its ways with us.

The same was the case with the present breakaway group, which had adopted surreptitious as well as street-fighting methods, long before it announced openly that it had formed into an hostile separate group. The material contained in PL No. 13 is sufficient to prove this.

Therefore, the question of internal discussion did not arise because it was the question of parting of the ways and not the unification with these groups which was on the agenda. The internal discussion takes place basing on the fundamental line and within the frame work of a monolithic organisation which functions according to principles of proletarian party organisation. There was an internal discussion on the issues raised by the then Secretary (1977 of A. P. State Committee) culminating in a special conference in Andhra in which his views were rejected in toto. The discussions were conducted under the guidance of com. DV. There were prolonged discussions on the politics and practices of the subsequent Secretary, one of the erstwhile CCMs, for a long time culminating in his removal as Secretary. The preparations were almost complete to open pre-Conference discussions of an all India nature, when the break-away group parted its ways to avoid a rout, a rout in the coming Conference. These are the facts one can not deny.

Is it not a pure fabrication that DV does not practise internal democracy.

(In fact, DV Rao submitted his resignation, dated 1980 Nov 6, as the Secretary of the CC , when he felt he and the line he pursued on certain questions had no majority. He was ready for a conference in which his views and his “performance as the secretary” will be a subject. He was ready “for all the obligations” that followed the resignation. However, it was not accepted by his opponents in the committee. Instead, within a few months, the Rival centre arbitrarily and illegally conducted a “plenum” , that was unrepresentative, and that “decided” to “expel” him from UCCRI-ML, though it was not competent to do that.  He was not even informed – so were many cadres who they believed would support DV Rao –  and DV  came to know of it through newspapers..Among issues they kicked up were post-Mao China and Three World’s’ Theory, which  DV felt did not merit a split in Indian revolutionaries. All related issues and documents were published in The Proletarian Line, No.13, 1981 June-July.)  

To bring in com. TN in support of their accusation that com. DV rejected internal discussion all along is to equate him with opportunists, who broke away from our organisation at various phases of ideological struggle carried on by us. We do not permit them to do so.

We are practising widest possible internal democracy in our organisation. We will settle accounts with all hostile groups on all questions connected with Indian revolution and international communist movement. We have done the same in the past and will continue the same in future. We will carry on fruitful discussions with friendly groups as long as it is necessary so that we may unite with them in one form or the other. This has been our practice in the past and it will be the same in future.


Com. TN, while he was alive, especially in his last decade, aspired for developing an alternative leadership which is young and energetic so that it can fulfill the tasks ahead. He was correct in having such aspirations because any revolutionary organisation worth the name should have such programme and implement it vigorously. Accordingly, he had provided opportunities to some and pinned his hopes on others. He had done it in his own native district, (Anantpur) in Andhra Pradesh and on all-India level. They were not many because the then existing organisation was too small. Some of them betrayed his hopes by feathering their nests while he was alive. Some others have become disrupters of the worst kind who proved their worth in organising disruption leading to formation of separate groups. Some of them are enjoying key positions in the present day rival groups. It is obvious that they have nothing in common with the aspirations of com. TN.

The deserters have degenerated to this extent because they have failed to emulate what is best in him as a revolutionary. Instead, they have utilised their association with him for careerist ends. As a result they could not grow as revolutionaries but remained as non-revolutionaries, opportunists and careerists. This is how the upstarts come to the surface of the organisation and the mass movement when latter are too weak to drive them out. When they become strong, such elements cannot survive. Hence their departure from the scene – to form a new group for themselves. The present-day rival group belongs to this category.

There are comrades in his native district, who worked under his leadership. Though some of them dissociated from revolutionary activities even when he was alive, there are considerable number of comrades who were victims of persecution by the leaders of the present-day rival group. Today, they are coming forward to work among the masses and to build revolutionary movement irrespective of their advanced age and hand-to- mouth life. This is how they are loyal to the cause for which com. TN laid down his life. They are the indication of the shape of things to come.

Today there is no dearth of revolutionary cadres who are present among people. Once we move them into action, they come out in large numbers. The upstarts cannot be revolutionaries nor do they have anything to do with the masses of the people. TN wanted young and genuine revolutionaries in the organisation. We succeeded in developing such leadership, not to speak of a number of young revolutionaries.


Com. TN was a staunch proletarian internationalist. He was above regionalism and local nationalism. When the separate Andhra State was formed, certain issues had cropped up which led to flaring up of regionalism; where to locate the capital was one such issue. He was by then a popular figure in his region as well as entire Andhra. But he stood above regionalism, at the cost of his popularity, to implement the then party’s decision, which was wrong. The agitation he carried on together with other party members was historic.

There were diversionist agitations (just before and after 1970, which did not then succeed; in 2014 finally AP was bifurcated )  to create Separate Telangana and Andhra States which were the result of squabbles in the ruling clique, who utilised the discontent of the masses for their ends. While criticising the diversionist nature of the agitation, he fought against the repression let loose by the authorities. For this, he was arrested when his mother was on the death-bed. Contrary to this, the revisionists and neo-revisionists roused Visalandhra chauvinism and supported the repression. Charu Majumdar group and its associates supported the diversionist movements in toto, and took part in it.

The present day break-away group was a victim of regional and local national chauvinism, when it opposed the supply of drinking water to Madras city from river Krishna. It is a fact that the region is a chronic drought-stricken area through which the water from Krishna River to Madras city is arranged. For a drought-stricken area like this, even a small fraction of the water counts much. At the same time, the issue is not merely the quantity of water. It is the relations between people of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu which are involved in this issue. Therefore  it was wrong and chauvinistic to oppose the supply. com. TN was for the brotherly relations between the two peoples and fought for such relations while he was alive.

Com. TN’s opposition to India’s China war was well-known. For this, he was detained in jail together with others in 1962. Proletarian internationalist as he was, he firmly stood on this position to the last. He also opposed India’s war of aggression against Pakistan leading to the formation of Bangladesh. The leaders of the present-day break-away group have been taking a bourgeois nationalist and Indian national chauvinist stand towards China and Pakistan. It was more blatant recently than ever. It has nothing to do with TN’s proletarian internationalism. In fact, it is a departure from it.

We have been opposing chauvinism of all varieties, including those of the break-away group. We have been adopting a proletarian internationalist and genuine nationalist stand on all international and national issues. This is in accordance with TN’s position while he was alive. The leaders of the break-away group have renounced what TN had said and done on this important question.


Eversince TN’s death, we maintained and intensified the tempo of ideological struggle against internal and external opportunist and disruptive forces. Besides this, every anniversary saw something new, which was a firm indication that the organisation was developing in quality and quantity. By first anniversary, we could regroup our forces. Much to the disappointment of our opponents who were eager to see that our organisation is washed away after the death of TN, we could declare that our line has come to stay, by the second anniversary. Subsequent anniversaries took place at the height of new achievements.

The present anniversary is taking place when a non-revolutionary wing led by opportunists and careerists have left the organisation. It is clear that Marxism- Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought and opportunism cannot co-exist in one organisation. One has to replace the other. Due to our constant internal struggle, the former replaced the latter. Hence the exit of non-revolutionary wing. It is an achievement for our organisation and the movement.

The present anniversary is taking place at a time when our organisation is more united and more developed in all respects than ever. It is extending its activities to new areas where it is welcomed with open arms by the revolutionaries as well as the people. On the contrary, the breakaway group is thoroughly isolated from the revolutionaries and the people. Some reformist and humanitarian type of work and a paper-show of their “strength” cannot hide this fact.

The present anniversary is taking place when the revolutionary movement is far advanced than ever. Now that we have removed the stumbling blocks by the exit of non-revolutionary wing, the movement will advance further and further. The other side has no such movement, not to speak of its advance. Therefore we are safe with the revolutionary organisation and the revolutionary mass movement.

Com. TN has left us too early. He has left us a number of unfinished tasks, ideological, political as well as organisational. We are already on the way of fulfilling them. Our achievements are standing examples which go to show that we are on correct lines and we will continue to be so.

On this occasion, we, communist revolutionaries, take a pledge that we will fulfill the unfinished tasks com. TN left for us. Though the task of completing people’s democratic revolution is fundamental, the immediate tasks are building a mass revolutionary movement of high order and building a proletarian revolutionary organisation with highest revolutionary standards. We have already taken up this task and we will continue to fulfill it.

* Let us dedicate ourselves on this day for the cause for which com. TN has devoted his entire life.

* Long Live com. TN’s memory.

* Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.


Courtesy: The Proletarian Line, No.-94,  February 2017.  It was published as an Editorial. 

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B. Subscribe to our Telegram channel


One Comment

  1. S. N. Murthy Ch says:

    Even after fourty years, this article is quite relevant and most useful. Thanks for publishing the same. The revolutionary unity between Com.D.V.Rao and Com.T.Nagireddy were unparalleled. There is no separate T.N. line. There’s only one line and that is DVTN line.