The CPI-M leadership was not at all serious about the lessons of Telangana, and the Tactical Line of 1951 based on which the Party was founded, he felt
Puchalapalli Sundarayya (1913 -1985 May19), India’s veteran communist leader, had authored the famous, and voluminous book (592 pages,Telangana People’s Struggle and its Lessons (1972), that had several editions in various languages. And he resigned as the General Secretary of CPI-M three year s later as he felt the leadership was not keen on the questions and “lessons” that were linked with Telangana armed struggle (1946-51).Those questions cited by PS in his Resignation Letter, are of importance even today,to the Indian communist movement(ICM), and to CPI-M delegates at Madurai too, and will be discussed briefly in this Part-2 of the article.
CPM is 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. 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.
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 over a decade (1964-75) as the GS.
DV Rao (1917-84 July), the chief architect of the Telangana Path who stood by that until the very end of his life, and a co-CC Member since those times, wrote a detailed Review of the above book by PS. It was published, first in Proletarian Path from Calcutta (now kolkata), edited by DV Rao and Moni Guha… and later 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 were a chief subject discussed in the PS’ Resignation Letter, though without explicitly referring to the Review or DV Rao. Neither PS nor other senior leaders answered those questions that are haunting the Indian communist movement, and ultimately led to Resignation by PS.
*** ***
“Sundarayya’s quest for agrarian revolution led him on a different path” : Prakash Karat
During 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: “Sundarayya’s quest for the agrarian revolution led him on a different path..PS was a direct participant in the historic Telangana peasants struggle…This experience had a profound impact on him and fashioned much of his understanding of the Communist Party and its strategic path.”
(THE MARXIST, XXVIII 3, JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012, Prakash Karat.)
Thus came his resignation in 1975. Sundarayya died on 1985 May 19.The issue of The Marxist, a party journal, which was published soon after Sundarayya’s death did not publish any obituary of its former General Secretary. Such was the situation inside the party, and the cadres had little idea about the depth and import of the problems.
The communists in India, most of them, deserted agrarian revolution…with their own theories of capitalist development or otherwise. Irrespective of their theories, what is the program (for action) for the 15 million members of the All India Kisan Sabha? And to crores of rural poor, who constitute the main force in the worker-peasant alliance, as different from rich farmers, who are engaged in primary sector? It is they who constitute the bulk of Indian electorate, the ruling classes win them over with umpteen doles, and claim a mandate to do whatever the rulers decide.
With waning influence on these vast rural masses, how can any one fight either against fascism, casteism, communalism, obscurantism, patriarchy, or anything else?
*** ***
The book by PS on Telangana History : Some issues
Telangana armed struggle 1946-51. The area with deep color was the area that was original stronghold of the movement. Those in lighter color were areas where the guerrilla movement expanded after Military Action of 1948 September. Hyderabad princely state was spread over 83,000 square miles, about half of which was Telangana.The map is taken from P. Sundarayya’s 1972 book on Telangana struggle. Gram rajyas or village soviets were set up in 3000 villages, and ten lakh acres of landlords’ land was distributed through the struggle. One lakh people were imprisoned, and over 4000 people were shot dead. Despite worst repressive military action, by 50,000 troops of the Indian military, that lasted for over three years, 1948 Sep onwards, Telangana shook the ruling classes. The struggle was withdrawn by betrayal, by the leadership, not vanquished.
Sundarayya had written the book while he was GS of CPM, History of Heroic Telangana Struggle and its Lessons.
In its Preface, PS wrote “At last after 20 years delay, we are able to place this book” in 1972 before the readers.
Why the delay and why it was published then?
One reason was CPM’s credibility as a revolutionary Left party was tested and undermined by Naxalbari, Srikakulam and questions raised by communist revolutionaries. CPM needed to claim the legacy of Telangana. Then many felt Telangana’s legacy helps, even in elections..The campaign claimed CPM ( not the “Rightist CPI, which betrayed the struggle”, they asserted) is the real successor to Telangana and all revolutionary struggles. There was no Left front at the time, CPI was openly with Indira Congress, CPM thrived on anti-Congressism, and the CPI-CPM contest was bitter. Thus it was useful for CPM at the time, felt PS as GS.
But PS very soon found that his leadership team in CPM did not agree with the Lessons, or even the Line:
Prakash Karat, now the chief leader of CPM, wrote: “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…Having fought for his line and lost, he bowed to the majority decision…”
(THE MARXIST, XXVIII 3, JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012, Prakash Karat.)
PS also claimed the withdrawal of Telangana struggle was a decision taken as a result of consultations with Stalin, then at the peak of his prestige and authority (See more on this in the later parts of the article). And Tactical Line of 1951 was a result of those discussions in Russia, and the Line insists on the revolutionary role of the peasant movements and the class role of the rural poor as a most reliable ally of the working class. Any revolution calls for a secret party and a UG apparatus.
The Resignation and the Letter were very much related to these issues:
“ In my letter of 22-8-1975 to PBMs and CCMs I have briefly narrated the reasons for my resignation. They are:
“4. My resignation is also due to some major Party units not taking seriously the agrarian resolution in practice, neither delegating enough cadre to the front, nor building the unity of agricultural labour and the poor peasants on the one hand with the middle peasants on the other…”
*** ***
Tactical Line of 1951 vs Andhra Thesis May 1948 : How the latter is distorted by the former
What is this “Tactical Line of 1951”? “This document was worked out some 25 years ago in 1950-51,” as mentioned in the Resignation Letter. Let us see its background. Tactical Line of 1951, Statement of Policy and related questions raised by PS were all linked with the withdrawal of Telangana struggle in 1951 October.
PS claimed CPM, post-1964 split from CPI, was following Stalin’s advice and 1951 Documents, post-Telangana.
The CCMs from AP had supported, and submitted to the then GS BTR, in early part of 1948, much before the Military intervention (so-called Police action) in 1948 September, the Andhra Thesis of 1948 that advocated a Telangana path, the agrarian revolutionary path, and practised it until Telangana armed struggle was withdrawn in 1951 October.
Their plea and hope, as seen in in Andhra Thesis, was that it be applied elsewhere in India that was witnessing peasant movements, as of Tebhaga, Worlis, Punnapra-vayalar, PEPSU (Punjab), Manipur etc. The CCMS included Chandra Rajeswara Rao (CR, later-day GS of post-split CPI), PS, MB, DV Rao, all of them with rural-agrarian background.
India’s other communist leaders, mostly rooted in urban and trade union settings, or with their own prejudices, saw to it that the Thesis was blocked for over half a century: There were various compendiums of party documents published by PPH, by CPM, Liberation and Frontier Anthologies, but all of themomitted the Andhra Thesis, some of them even while publishing its refutations.
Now we shall go into the questions PS raised, i.e., those related to the agrarian revolution, the crux of Andhra Thesis of 1948, based on Telangana experiences, and sent to the Centre by the Andhra Committee.
DV Rao in his Review of the book by PS, in the Preface of 1974 itself, explained it thus:
“Our revolution in many respects differs from the classical Russian Revolution, but to a great extent is similar to that of the Chinese Revolution. The perspective likely is not that of a general strike and armed uprising leading to liberation of the rural side, but of dogged resistance and prolonged civil war in the form of agrarian revolution, culminating in the capture of political power by the Democratic Front.
(The Thesis of Andhra Secretariat, May, 1948, quoted by Sundarayya – P.393)
“This is the key passage which expresses the basic understanding of the then Andhra Secretariat. This passage does not contain anything which can be interpreted as Indian revolution being an imitation of Chinese revolution. It only says that our revolution is similar ‘to a great extent’ to that of Chinese revolution. Taking similarities as the basis, we are expected to apply the Chinese path to the concrete practice of Indian revolution. Thus, the understanding it provides is fundamentally a correct one.
Note on Indian Situation 1951 (i.e., the Tactical Line 1952, called as Kishan Document in those days), instead of basing its criticism on this passage, distorts it in the following manner.”
DV Rao continues:
“Afterwards, on the basis.of wrong understanding of the experience of Chinese Revolution, the thesis was put forward that the Indian Revolution would develop exactly in the same way as the revolution in China and that partisan war would be the main or almost the only weapon to ensure its victory (emphasis added by DV Rao).
“Obviously, the words exactly in the same way are distortion of what Andhra Thesis said. Basing on this distortion, the Note says that the ‘Thesis minimised the working class and its actions’ and asks the Party to ‘discard’ the above ‘erroneous thesis.’
DV Rao concludes this point thus:
“This is not the place where we can discuss the question of role of the working class in Chinese revolution. Our purpose in quoting the above passage is to explain that the above mentioned Note (I.e., Tactical Line 1951) rejects Chinese path as applied to Indian situation and advocates the following course of action:
“Therefore, in order to achieve victory of the popular democratic revolution, it is absolutely essential to combine two basic factors of the revolution, the partisan war of the peasants and workers’ uprising in the cities.
“Though the path of People’s ‘War does not exclude workers’ uprising at the time of their liberation, the path put forward by the Note is not the same as People’s War. It ‘discards’ this path as ‘erroneous thesis’ in clearest possible terms. Therefore Communist Revolutionaries must be vigilant against introducing alien conceptions of People’s War by the pseudo-revolutionaries…”
PS and DV Rao were both part of the Andhra Secretariat that authored the Andhra Thesis and sent in early part of 1948, to the party Centre with BTR as the GS at that time. BTR arbitrarily rejected it without any discussion either in the CC, or with the Andhra Secretariat. That was the way democratic centralism was “practised” at the time. And same was the fate of the General Secretary PS whose views and criticism were rejected by CPM, and PS had no other way than to resign, when he found his continuation was “untenable”, as Karat put it.
*** ***
“ Too much of constitutional, parliamentary and legalistic illusions” : PS
As if questioning the revolutionary credentials of CPM, PS in his Resignation Letter wrote:
“5. My resignation is also due to ignoring the building of secret part of our Party organisation, as envisaged in Muzaffarpur Resolution…(That would be imperative if CPM were to take a revolutionary path which it never did.)..
“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 party rank 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 never communicated for years. Finally it was leaked in 1985, and published.)
On related issues he wrote :
“ In my report to CC in Feb. 1970, I have stated…“Immediately after our 7th Congress, when practically whole of our party leadership and 1200 leading comrades throughout the country were arrested, a sharp criticism from our ranks arose that the leadership had talked about a revolutionary programme, but had not cared to take elementary vigilance to safeguard even a part of the central and state leadership from the impending attack of the Govt. They sharply questioned whether it was not due to too much constitutional, parliamentary and legalistic illusions…” (Kerala Bengal path, glorified later on, was its manifestation…“Illusions” PS had on the party’s revolutionary character were soon shattered, and PS resigned.)
PS while stressing the need for a secret party apparatus, that was so essential to face worst repression of Indira’s Emergency, quoted PBM approvingly:
“ 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….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…”
That was what PS,MB and some other PBMs felt in 1975. 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.
The CPM even now has no program to counter illusions. Rather it is busy sowing them. Russia’s Stalin remains only as a portrait now. And CPM has all the hopes on today’s Stalin, who gave them a few seats, two out of four in Loksabha. Tamilnadu has elections to Assembly next year. Madurai Congress may help Tamilnadu unit. But is not expected to herald any changes beyond that.
The following lines by their CC indicate the state 50 years later.
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)..
“ 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…”
(In fact there have been defections of CPM cadres, even leaders, into other ruling class parties, into even BJP in Bengal and kerala.)
“ 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.)
The decline of the ICM lies in its very adherence to the parliamentary path wherein the ruling classes call the shots , increasingly so with the decisive role of moneybags, manipulations by those in power, buying votes and leaders, and the very design of the election system. Parliamentary path is inseparable from vote-bank politics of division and diversion, opportunism, corruption and class collaboration in the name of tactics.
Whatever the characterization of BJP, as fascist, fascistic or otherwise..it is immaterial when the communist party is defenceless, has no secret party core. Class collaboration has been a close cousin of parliamentarism and economism of trade unions.
In the absence of any serious work among the rural masses, in particular the rural poor, all “struggles” against obscurantism, communalism, casteism, Hindutva, patriarchy etc – which constitute the breeding ground and base of fascism- remain verbal.And the CC review, cited above, proved they are not even helping to retain the voter base. By rejecting even the pleas made by PS, a reformist-centrist, CPM revealed its basically non-revolutionary character.
Given the basic flaws pointed out by PS in his Resignation Letter, and further degeneration in the last half century, the Madurai Congress of CPM in April will have nothing new, observers believe. Will it help the CPM at least in next elections in Tamilnadu? They hope it will. Or will it help BJP-led NDA that includes ADMK factions, PMK etc, as Amit shah asserted? That depends more on the DMK’s stars, and not stars on the CPM’s flag.
*** ***
For more on the related issues, read..
the detailed articles mentioned below:
DV Rao : Unique Role in Indian Communist Movement (12/07/2020).
https://countercurrents.org/2020/07/comrade-dv-rao-unique-role-in-indian-communist-movement/
Withdrawal of Telangana Armed Struggle (1946-51) : Some Aspects of History and Politics
*** ***
Ramakrishnan is a political observer who frequently contributed to countercurrents.org .
