P.Sundarayya (1913 -1985 May19), India’s veteran communist leader. He resigned in 1975 as the General Secretary and Polit Buro (PB) Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), now having its 24th Party Congress in Madurai, Tamilnadu, from April 2 to 6. Very few cadres in the present generation know why he resigned.Those leaders who knew never explained – then or later – exactly why. In India’s communist movement(ICM) , now in its centenary year, it was a historic event for several reasons. Several crucial questions raised by him, a veteran of the Telangana peasants’ armed struggle (1946-51), in his Resignation Letter, remain important to this day.They are important not only for the CPM, but for the ICM.Those regretting the divisions and desiring unity in the ICM should try to understand where and how the differences had cropped up on substantial issues.This article being published in two parts, seeks to briefly recall the event and some of the issues involved in the resignation by PS.
The Letter of Resignation of 1975 (in around 1200 words; accompanied by a detailed explanation -with extensive extracts from party documents and views of other leaders – by PS running into around 50,000 words ) raised questions that are still crucial and haunting the Indian communist movement half a century later. One question, CPM’s characterization of RSS or the Sangh parivar is a burning question today, and is being discussed this April in the Madurai Congress. This article however is not going deep into that. It only briefly mentions it, before going into the issues raised in the Tactical Line of 1951, in Part-2 of this article.
(This document in about 7500 words is given as Appendix-2. Editor’s Preface is in around 1200 words and detailed Post-script of over 12000 words).
Today CPM is a major Left party in India with around one million members. The party claims to have around 15 million members of the All India Kisan Sabha, and a membership of around 5.7 million workers (2013 data) in the CITU associated with CPM. P Sundarayya (PS), as the General Secretary (GS) of CPI-M,had raised the questions in which direction they were to be led. He felt and wrote that there was no leader inside the party who was serious on these questions, and so he resigned, after serving for a decade (1964-75) as the GS.
The CPI(M) was formed at the Seventh Congress of the Communist Party of India held in Calcutta (now spelt as Kolkata) from October 31 to November 7, 1964. It was then claimed that the party was “born in the struggle against revisionism and sectarianism in the communist movement at the international and national level in order to defend the scientific and revolutionary tenets of Marxism-Leninism and its appropriate application in the concrete Indian conditions.” (all emphases added, in this article).
Puchalapalli Sundarayya (PS, 1913 -1985 May 19), born in Nellore dt of coastal Andhra, who was CPM’s General Secretary since its foundation in 1964, questioned these very claims in his Resignation letter. He was a Central Committtee Member (CCM) since 1934, and remained a CCM for decades.He stated in his Resignation Letter:
The Resignation was kept secret for more than a decade
“9. When I am resigning on these grounds, and especially on the immediate political line, which I consider very harmful to the party, there is no meaning to keep my resignation as GS and as PBM a secret from the part y ranks and lower units. So, as soon as other CCMs from other regions’ opinions are collected by the PB, whatever its decisions, should be communicated to all party units.”
But the party leadership kept it a secret. The Letter itself was leaked and published a decade later, for the first time in 1985 by Marxism Today, a communist journal based then in Delhi. It was again published as a book (of about 70,000 words in all) in a comprehensive manner in 1991, by India Publishers & Distributors New Delhi. It was titled: My Resignation, and also carried related “Documents Detailing Grounds Leading to Resignation of the First General Secretary of the CPI(M) from the Offices of General Secretary and Politburo Membership.” This article takes that Edition, now available online, as its main source.
The Resignation came during Emergency (1975 June- 1977) of Indira Gandhi, true. The leadership may have thought it is not expedient to reveal the resignation at that time. But it is notable that it was a secret – kept secret- for a decade until 1985, when it was leaked by insiders and published. The party itself never questioned the authenticity of the Letter, nor clarified why it acted that way.
Sundarayya died on 1985 May 19. The issue of The Marxist, a party journal, which was put out soon after Sundarayya’s death did not publish obituary of its former General Secretary.
“Sundarayya’s quest for agrarian revolution led him on a different path” : Karat.
It was in the Birth Centenary of PS, Prakash Karat, the chief leader of CPM now, acknowledged, in a write up titled Sundarayya: The Builder of the Communist Party, that he was organizer of party in south india…“Sundarayya’s quest for the agrarian revolution led him on a different path..PS was a direct participant in the historic Telangana peasants struggle. He had the unique experience of leading the biggest peasant armed struggle in the country between 1946 and 1951. This experience had a profound impact on him and fashioned much of his understanding of the Communist Party and its strategic path.”
Karat concluded about the last phase of PS:
“Sundarayya had definite views on how the strategic tasks of the Party should be translated into action. He had increasing differences on the political tactical line and the line to be pursued in the trade union and kisan fronts. By 1974-75, these differences led Sundarayya to conclude that his continuing as the General Secretary was untenable as the overwhelming majority in the Polit Bureau and Central Committee did not share his views. PS dealt with the issue, in characteristic fashion, within the framework of democratic centralism. Having fought for his line and lost, he bowed to the majority decision…” Thus came his resignation. Prakash Karat added:
“He decided to remain in the Polit Bureau and later in the Central Committee and to concentrate his work in Andhra Pradesh…This period till his death in 1985 helped the Party in AP to reorient itself to mass work and to revive the organisation at all levels.”
(THE MARXIST, XXVIII 3, JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012, Prakash Karat.)
It was a dubious claim. How could PS help to “re-orient” the party, when his own line was rejected, he resigned, and was silenced?
The CPM in AP, once a communist citadel, never recovered from the defeat inflicted by the communist revolutionaries (CRs) in the ideological-political struggle against “neo-revisionism.” The CRs led by DV Rao and T. Nagi Reddy (TN1917-1976 July) took the differences to the lower units, educated the cadres, and the official line of the CC was defeated in the state-level Plenum in Palakollu, of the Godavari dt of AP in 1968 January. It was the only major state where CRs educated the cadres and got a majority both among cadres and leaders; 158 out of 218 delegates backed the CRs and opposed the official line that got support of only 52 delegates; the rest 8 were neutral. PS and MB, PBMs hailing from Andhra, were shocked; they saw how their line was ably contested in the state Committee.
The CRs fought for their line; DV Rao (1917-1984 July) was for revival of Telangana path, renounced after the 1952 elections. The Resignation Letter discuses many issues raised by the CCM DV Rao, in 1946-51 period, and more so in the 1965-75 period, without however referring to his name. One can see the link between the two.
DV Rao’s unique and matchless role in Telangana (1940-51), and hence in India, was well known : he was its Secretary from 1940s when CPI units there were formed; was a Member of Andhra Secretariat of undivided CPI; was a Central Committee Member from Telangana by 1950 and until CPI splits of 1964-1969 period; post-split, he was a key leader of the revolutionary Left, representing the trend of revolutionary mass line; was a key leader of APCCR and Founder-Secretary of Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India – Marxist-Leninist, (UCCRI-ML) in 1975. DV Rao raised questions which were never answered by PS or anyone in the CPM. The questions stirred the CPM leadership, which led to acrimonious debate within CPM. Thus came the resignation.
(See the detailed article DV Rao : Unique Role in Indian Communist Movement)
https://countercurrents.org/2020/07/comrade-dv-rao-unique-role-in-indian-communist-movement/
But theCC which allowed not much inner-party discussions relied more on bureaucratic ways, had had its way in the All India Plenum at Burdwan, Bengal, in 1968 April : The CRs, including DV Rao, TN, C Pulla Reddy and Kolla Venkayya were expelled from the Party. The AP Committee of CPM was re-constituted using bureaucratic ways, rather than following principles of democratic centralism.
Anticipating the moves by the CC, after Palakollu Plenum, there emerged, the AP-CCCR, of communist revolutionaries led by DV Rao and TN, in March 1968 as an informal group within CPM, and it came out openly through a AP state conference in 1969 April, after the expulsions by the CC. These developments are reflected in the Letter.
PS in his Resignation letter wrote:
“The PB is of the considered opinion that it is both impractical and harmful to initiate an inner-party discussion on several of the political-organisational differences that were prevailing in PB and CC since long.”
The CCMs from AP had supported the Andhra Thesis of 1948 that advocated the Telangana path, the agrarian revolutionary path, until Trelangana armed struggle was withdrawn in 1951 October. They included C Rajeswara Rao (CR, later-day GS of post-split CPI), PS, MB, DV Rao, TN, BN Reddy. PS wrote :
“Com. M.B (Basava Punnayya, PBM), in his note submitted to CCMs August, has this to say: “I am one with Com. P.S. who holds the view that the perspective tactical line (of 1951) is virtually reduced to the status of an icon, though everyone pleads loyalty to it. No serious attempt is made by our party to study and understand its full import, not any earnest effort, to educate the party on its basis during the last 10 years. This document was worked out some 25 years ago in 1950-51. During these years, many changes have taken place in the socio-economic sphere in our country, besides numerous developments in both capitalist and socialist worlds. The perspective tactical line needs to be rediscussed, at least at the CC and at the State Committees’ level in order to deepen our understanding and make necessary amendments and further improvements. But so far no such thing was done, nor the party and the mass movement building is undertaken on the lines indicated by the perspective tactical line document, This will have to be rectified in as short as possible time.”
It is out of the scope of this article to go into the relevant arguments. We confine here only to state that the CPM leadership was for bureaucratic ways rather than any inner-party discussions. They expelled the CRs, and manipulated committees and cadres.
PS the “centrist” was obviously unhappy; he opposed CRs, sailed with majority for the time being, but had his own understanding of Telangana and its Path. The issues raised by DV Rao (in 1967-68) and other CRs had had their impact, shook the PB and the CC, led to resignations, and led ultimately to the split. It was untenable for PS and he finally resigned in 1975.
PS pointed out in his letter:
“ Before I go into detailed explanation of the factors for my resignation, I want to make it once again clear that the differences in PB have persisted from 1969 beginning, which led Com. M.B and sometimes later PR to submit their resignations from PB but withdrawn later at the request of other PBMs.
“ The differences became more acute by 1972 Madurai Congress of our Party, and it was decided that these differences be placed before CC and to continue the PB and CC without anyone resigning or withdrawing at the Party Congress. Documents enumerating differences were prepared by Com. BTR, M.B. and PS but they were not pressed or placed before the CC. But a statement was made before the CC in Nov. 1972 that the decisions of Madurai Congress (9th Congress) of our Party had given sufficient basis for carrying on the work and that in course of working them, if differences arise, they would be placed before CC for decision.”
The Madurai decisions remained in the cold-storage.
Thus came the split again: The CPM formed in 1964 as the “Left communists”, opposing the “Right communist CPI”, already got split in 1968, and CPM came to be called as “neo-revisionist”. The extra-parliamentary, revolutionary communist trend, the MLs, emerged, and came to stay. DV Rao representing the CRs issued, in 1968 October, a circular titled “Lay foundations for a sruggle-oriented movement” as different from the parliamentary path of the CPI and CPM. Telangana (1946-51) path was the basis for the CRs, who upheld Naxalbari and Srikakulam, even while opposing the Left adventurist trend upheld by Charu Majumdar.
The split is often presented as one between pro-Russian wing and the pro-Chinese wing. It had indeed a bearing on the parliamentary vs revolutionary paths. It was in the wake of a “peaceful” path post-Khruschev, opposed by CPC led by Mao. But the more important issue, not unrelated to this, was differences on the strategy and tactics of Indian revolution. That was the substantial issue, as can be found in the PS letter. (This will be discussed briefly in Part-2 of this article.)
The revolutionary peasant struggles of Naxalbari in Bengal and of Srikakulam adivasis in AP, carrying forward the legacy of Telangana (1946-51), marked the split. The revolutionary trend has come to stay, amid all setbacks, ups and downs, and weathering worst repression.
PS could not agree with the CPM’s majority, was isolated, and quit from the leadership, unceremoniously.
The CPM continued with the parliamentary line, often called as “Kerala – Bengal path”. PS represented what was called a “centrist”, reformist Line. He was used by CPM to defend itself from the Rightist CPI, and later to contend the revolutionary wing that finally broke out.
*** ***
The “Kerala-Bengal Path” was at the mercy of the ruling classes
The CPM majority never revealed to its cadres and even leaders above what PS stood for, and how he fell out. Prakash Karat’s centenary write-up was a rare occasion, to acknowledge “Sundarayya’s quest for the agrarian revolution led him on a different path”..
And there has been a steady decline of the CPM vote.
The dismissal of Left ministries, beginning with EMS Ministry, and toppling Jyoti Basu were well known. It was a status-quoist path, and had little to do with revolution. Even minimal reforms and Bills, as on Land and education, were stalled by the Centre. When the ruling classes decided, and used all the tricks, the Left came tumbling down. The CPM was defeated and relegated in Bengal and Tripura. In Kerala, in 2024 Loksabha polls, the LDF could win only one seat out of 20. CPM won four seats in all, but two were in Tamilnadu thanks to DMK led by stalin, and one was in Rajasthan with Congress help.
CPM leadership knows it, and reviewed thus:
“ The CPI(M) and the Left have suffered a severe setback in these elections particularly in their strongholds of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura. The CPI(M)’s declining presence in the Lok Sabha that the Central Committee has been noting since the 2009 election continues and the Party has now registered its lowest presence in the Lok Sabha till date. In terms of vote share, the decline of CPI(M)’s electoral performance began much earlier. In 1989, we had 6.6 per cent vote share. It declined to 3.2 per cent in 2014. In 2019, this would be around 2 per cent or less. (In 2024 it was around 1.77 percent). ..
“The decline of our vote share in our strong states is a matter of great concern. The preliminary reviews conducted by the state committees have been noted above. However, none of these contain an assessment of how our basic classes – working class, peasantry and the agricultural labour – voted. A deeper review to understand both the alienation of the people from us and the desertion of sections of our traditional vote is required..”
“ 4) In many constituencies, the total votes polled by us is less than the total membership of our class and mass organisations. Even taking into account the overlap of membership, this gap once again informs us that the process of politicisation of our own mass organisation membership is far from adequate…”
Lessons to be Drawn
“ The uncomfortable conclusion that must be drawn from this electoral performance by the Party is that the decline in the independent mass base of the Party, as noted in successive Party Congresses recently, has further deepened. These poor election results indicate that the Party has failed to expand its political influence, increase its organisational strength and functioning and develop its political intervention capacities. The Polit Bureau and Central leadership must take the responsibility for this failure. ”
(Review Of the 17th Lok Sabha Elections, Adopted at the Central Committee meeting held on June 07-09, 2019. Data of 2024 is added.)
Given the basic flaws pointed out by PS, and further degeneration in the last half century, the Madurai Congress in April will have nothing new, observers believe.
*** ***
PS on secret party apparatus that is essential to face fascism
PS was not enamoured by the parliamentary path. Fully aware of butchery and fascist attacks by Congress landlords, during and after Telangana, he was conscious of how the Congress in early 1970s (Siddharth Ray-Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi duo) hounded and murdered hundreds of CPM cadres. In his Resignation letter, he pointed out how the PB and CC were unaware of the impending Emergency, and forgot the need to build a secret party core; he called it “unexposed part” of the party (PS’ explanation deals this question at a considerable length), without which revolution is impossible, and remains verbal. PS linked it with negation of the Tactical Line of 1951. He approvingly quoted the senior PBM:
“ Com. MB is more devastating. In his Note dated April 20, 1970:
“The building up of the party to meet all the eventualities: The party organisation, as it stands today, is not at all in good shape, even as purely legal functioning body not to speak of building an illegal apparatus demanded of any genuine Communist Party….. All of us agree that it is absolutely necessary and we have practically nothing of the kind till now. Every PM is exposed and the entire work is conducted on the bourgeois legalistic pattern…”
“But the pity is that today, there is not even the immediate political awareness of this aspect in the overwhelming members of our party let alone taking any concrete steps in this regard…”
Whatever the characterization of BJP as fascist or otherwise has no meaning when the party is defenceless, has no secret party core.
In fact, the parliamentary illusions and specious theories about imperialism and national bourgeoisie, had led CPI to support Indira’s emergency, ostensibly to oppose the Right wing. The CPM was not basically different, and its CC, given to anti-congressism if only to oppose CPI, was divided on Congress Vs BJP clash. Class collaboration has been a close cousin of parliamentarism and economism of trade unions.
Based on the information from Bengal and elsewhere , the Editrorial Post-script of the book noted:
“ On October 12, 1975 Sundarayya seemed to have put in his resignation from the CPI (M) leadership. In June the same year Indira Gandhi had clamped the State of Emergency on the country. While the dominant section of the party leadership rushed to call on Indira Gandhi at New Delhi pledging their fullest support to the “national” fight against “right reaction and communalism”, Sundarayya found that the Emergency as no other event so much before exposed certain glaring inadequacies built into the party organisation. The party he found had learnt pretty little from the “semi-fascist” attacks in West Bengal in 1972. The cadres had fled their homes, but the leaders firmly ensconced in the safety of the party offices continued to measure their achievements in terms of votes polled and trade unions captured.”
PS noted in his Resignation about his OG (over the ground, i.e., not UG or secret) comrades during Emergency, when several Rightist and RSS leaders too were arrested:
“It is this theory that resulted in 7 PBMs remaining open, since they are not picked up by the Government and as such can continue to be OG. In some States all leaders are open, Further this OG business of most of top leadership even after 3rd July 1975 PB resolution and CC resolution of September 2, about the prolonged character of Emergency and the need to work more and more secretly, is rather curious.”
PS lost any hope of change in his leadership team, and therefore resigned.
*** ***
CPM’s Relations with Sangh parivar were always dubious
The Madurai conference has before it the controversy regarding the CPM’s attitude towards BJP, and its “fascistic characteristics”. it stirred up an old debate:
PS in his Resignation detested the “parliamentary illusions,” and the opportunist electoral alliances, which include hobnobbing with ruling classes, and even the BJP (then BJS, the Jan Sangh party).
The Resignation Letter begins thus:
“ In my letter of 22-8-1975 to PBMs and CCMs I have briefly narrated the reasons for my resignation. They are:
“. My resignation is due to the fact that the CC majority has decided for joint actions with pro-imperialist Jana Sangh with para-military fascist (storm-trooper like RSS) as its core in the name of fighting emergency, which I consider very harmful for our party; both among democratic masses in our country and abroad, we will be getting isolated from the anti-imperialist and socialist forces.”
Opportunist alliances inherent in parliamentary path
The parliamentary path is such that opportunist alliances are made, often with local vested interests prevailing over the central policy.
The CPM claims it makes alliances to oppose the sangh parivar, and the gullible believe. But the CPM-Congress alliances, over the years, against ‘secular” Mamata-led TMC are well known. At one time there were tacit deals. But the deals are open:
Just before the assembly polls to Bengal Assembly in 2021 CPM GS Sitaram Yechury on Nov 20, 2020, announced:
“In Assam, the CPI (M) will contest the election in cooperation with all secular parties including Congress to defeat the (communal) BJP in the state… In West Bengal, CPI (M) and the Left Front will have an electoral understanding with all secular parties including Congress to seek the defeat of the BJP and (secular) TMC.”
The reason given was : “the CPI(M) had to face intense fascistic terror attacks at the hands of the Trinamool Congress. Out of the 214 Left activists murdered, 209 are CPI(M) activists,” CPM said. For a party that was at the helm in Bengal for over three decades, and for a party that claimed to be revolutionary, and a membership in lakhs, are Elections the main tactic to fight “fascistic terror”?
The CPM had contested only 139 seats, plus its LF allies 26. The Congress contested in 92, and its ally ISF in 37 seats. That is in Bengal that was a bastion of CPM-LF, for decades. The “secular” TMC contested all the 289 seats, and that was the main contender for the CPM-LF, rather than the “communal” BJP. The CPM’s vote share tumbled down to 4.7 percent, down from 37% in 2006. (The Telegraph, 2021 May 10). That was in comparison to TMC’s 48 percent and BJP’s 38 percent.Congress polled 3percent. Despite the alliance – or rather because of that, as some argued – the CPM-Congress duo won not a single seat. TMC won in 213 and BJP grabbed the rest 77 seats.
“CPM, BJP seek votes together in Bengal local body polls”
The CPM-BJP tie up, as reported in a Bengali newspaper, with a wall-writing.
This was a report from Bengal, dated 07 May 2018:
“ Kolkata: Contrary to the decision taken at the Hyderabad party congress, the CPM has entered into an understanding with the BJP in three Bengal districts for the panchayat elections. Both parties have formed grassroots level tie-ups in Midnapore, Nadia and Birbhum districts. Midnapore includes the Nandigram area. Several graffiti have appeared on walls in these places displaying the BJP’s lotus and CPM’s symbol hammer-sickle-star together. ..The 22nd congress of the CPM in Hyderabad, had decided to agree to an “understanding” with the Congress as proposed by the party general secretary Sitaram Yechury.
“ Despite the decision to join opposition forces in tackling BJP, the CPM in Bengal decided to join hands with the saffron party to take on their common enemy, Trinamool Congress. While in some grama panchayats, the BJP has not put up its candidates, in other grama panchayats, CPM has not fielded its representatives. The situation is not different in panchayat samithies – block panchayats – also.
“ The CPM-BJP understanding is in place at 61 grama panchayats and 15 samithies in Birbhum district. In certain panchayats, CPM and BJP are jointly supporting independent candidates.
“ Meanwhile, Kerala has been witnessing numerous political murders as a result of the rivalry between the CPM and the RSS workers. Hence, the decision to join forces in Bengal has left both the party workers red faced. Both the CPM and BJP leadership in Kerala are maintaining silence regarding the tacit understanding in West Bengal…”
Opportunism has no end in parliamentary path pursued by CPM, but that never saved it.
*** ***
PS had authored the famous book (more than 400 pages), Telangana People’s Struggle and its Lessons (1972), that had several editions in various languages. And he resigned three years later on questions that were linked with Telangana armed struggle (1946-51).
DV Rao wrote a detailed Review of the book by PS. It was published as a booklet (100 pages) in 1974 in English and Telugu. This Review by DV Rao, published under the title, Telangana Armed Struggle and the Path of Indian Revolution, had raised several questions – of the Path or the Tactical Line – that are a chief subject discussed in the PS’ Resignation Letter, though without explicitly referring to the Review or DV Rao.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Get the latest CounterCurrents updates delivered straight to your inbox.
The other crucial question in the Resignation Letter is related to the Tactical Line of 1951, related to Telangana armed struggle (1946-51) and its lessons, which will be discussed in Part-2 of this article.
*** ***
Ramakrishnan is a political observer who frequently contributed to countercurrents.org .
