[Translated from the Bengali original and published in Liberation, Vol. II, No. 3 (January 1969).]
It was in 1847 that Marx presented his thesis about the state at the Second Congress of the Communist League. He said: "The state does neither control the class society nor does it determine the characteristics of the class society, but it is the class society that controls the state and determines its characteristics. Therefore, the politics and the history of political development should be examined in the light of the economic development and not the reverse." This Second Congress asked Marx and Engels to prepare a manifesto. This manifesto — the Communist Manifesto — has been a sharp-edged weapon in the hands of the international proletariat.
Class society controls the state. In other words, the state grows out of the class society to serve its needs. Despite some relatively independent motion that it seems to acquire for some time after its birth, the state must necessarily conform to the development of production relations. Moreover, all the laws, rules and regulations of the state are made with the specific purpose of preserving the existing social-economic structure. Since the exploiting classes control this social-economic structure, they wield the state power also. In other words, the state is the highest form of organization of the exploiting classes which they use to protect their class positions. Naturally they have to make arrangements to suppress by force class struggles whenever necessary. This arrangement is the organization of armed force.
It becomes clear, therefore, that the working class and the toiling masses must first of all seize state power in order to win their freedom and liberation. But what state power should they seize? They must smash the existing state apparatus which protects the existing class relations based on exploitation, and build up a new state power, a new state apparatus of their own to replace the old one. Only by doing this can they seize state power and basically change the existing class relations. There is no other way to seize state power. It is never possible to bring about fundamental changes in class relations simply by getting hold of the existing state apparatus. Such thinking is anti-Marxist and merely results in preserving the existing class relations. This, of course, does not mean that the exploited classes can launch their decisive struggle any time they like. It may not be possible for them to launch this struggle at any given moment, but that should not deter them from preparing themselves for this struggle ceaselessly, never postponing this preparation even for a moment. The inter-relation between the state and the class relations must never be lost sight of, or the working class is sure to lose the main direction of its struggle.
From the above it becomes clear that in a class society there is absolutely no room for pure democracy, that is, a democracy which guarantees equal rights to all. Even the widest democracy in a class society can only be unrestricted power in the hands of one class to defend its own class interests, a dictatorial power to suppress by force the other class or classes.
Though basically it is dictatorial power of the bourgeoisie over the working class and other toiling people, bourgeois democracy apparently recognizes some rights of the oppressed classes. Of course, such recognition is merely formal and flimsy and had to be extracted from the bourgeoisie through a long bloody struggle. After it had overthrown feudalism and seized power primarily with the help of the peasantry and other toiling people whom it had rallied under its banner of "Liberty, equality and fraternity", the bourgeoisie began to exercise this dictatorial power against the oppressed classes. Naturally, the working class rose in protest and began to fight for establishing its class rights in the political power by demanding introduction of adult franchise. Though the bourgeoisie had to concede this demand, it took good care to keep the bureaucracy, the police and the military — that is, the essential components of state power, safely out of the scope of the right to vote. The constitution which granted this adult franchise was framed by the bourgeoisie itself and the essential components of state power were placed beyond the reach of the working class. The elected representatives constituted various types of legislatures, which can pass laws only within the limits set by the constitution and, as we know, the bourgeois constitution has never been framed anywhere by elected representatives. As a result, the real power has always been in the hands of the bourgeoisie and the elected representatives have no power whatsoever to change the bourgeois social system limited as they are by restrictions imposed by the bourgeoisie through its constitution. The bourgeoisie frames its constitution in a way so as to perpetuate the existing social order and never allows provisions which may interfere with the production relations. Further, as long as the system of exploitation exists, even the rights earned by the exploited classes lose their meaning. Take, for example, the freedom of speech and its main instrument - the newspaper. It does not require much knowledge to understand that the toiling people are quite unable to own newspapers to serve their needs. The few that they own can hardly cope with the huge mass of propaganda spread by hundreds of newspapers owned by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie spread as a rule anti-people ideas and try to drown the small voice of people's propaganda media in a deluge of bourgeois propaganda. Moreover, the bourgeois constitution arms the bourgeoisie with provisions to gag the people's propaganda media any time on charges of sedition. The same thing applies to meetings, processions and strikes. And all these rights can at any time be taken away on the plea that they infringe upon the right of private property.
So we see that the state in a class society, be it a democracy, a republic, monarchy or an open dictatorship, can never come under the control of the exploited classes. The exploited classes can seize state power only by destroying the bourgeois state apparatus and building a completely new one of their own.
That the so-called democracy in our country is only a weapon to exercise dictatorship over the toiling people will become evident from a discussion of the Indian Constitution and the Constituent Assembly which framed it. What is more, we shall see that India's reactionary rulers do not even have full freedom to exercise this dictatorship; they are mere partners of foreign imperialist exploiters in exercising it. Lastly, we shall find that no class can take away state power from another class without destroying the old state apparatus through a revolutionary struggle.
For a better understanding the old story needs retelling. By 1870, capitalism, after going through the phase of competition, developed into monopoly capitalism which again grew into finance-capital. Then some advanced capitalist countries began to export capital and thus built up huge empires in the vast regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Countries of these regions were turned into colonies and forced to remain backward and agricultural in order to perpetuate imperialist exploitation. In some countries exploitation was carried on by imperialism through indirect political domination. Later, the two World Wars brought about great changes in the world situation. After the Second World War, in particular, national liberation struggles developed vigorously. As a result, the imperialists felt the urgent need to change its tactics to retain their colonial possessions under the new situation. This new tactic consisted in giving formal independence to the colonies. The demonstration of this new technique of formal independence took place in Egypt in 1922. In 1927, it was again applied in Iraq with treaty provisions covering the maintenance of British bases there. In 1946, after the Second World War, Jordan was similarly made formally independent. The U.S. imperialists, following the British, applied the same technique in the Philippines in 1947, and a year later, in 1948, the British imperialists applied it again in Burma. The reality is, far from withdrawing from the countries which it made formally independent, imperialism retained, and even strengthened its hold over them through the new technique. The essence of imperialist colonial policy consists in:
Let us see how this new technique was applied in India.
On June 24, 1946, P.J. Griffiths, leader of the European Group in the Indian Central Legislative Assembly, said in a speech: "India in the opinion of many was on the verge of a revolution before the British Cabinet Mission arrived. The Cabinet Mission has at least postponed, if not eliminated, the dangers. Later, on March 5,1947, Stafford Cripps said in the British Parliament that there were two alternatives before the British Government: (1) to maintain British direct power in India by a considerable reinforcement of troops, or (2) to make a political transfer on the lines of the 1947 settlement. As he admitted, the British Government "had not the power" to maintain its direct rule by force of arms. Indeed, political transfer of power was the only choice before the British to continue its exploitation and domination over India. For this transfer, they picked up the representatives of the Indian big bourgeoisie and big landlords, the reactionary classes which readily became imperialism's junior partners in defending imperialist interests and drowning the people's anti-imperialist revolution in blood.
The February Declaration of 1947, which led to the notorious Mountbatten Settlement, spoke of transferring power to "responsible Indian hands" by June 1948. At the same time the Declaration warned that no constitution drawn up by a Constituent Assembly would be accepted by Britain unless it was drawn up "in accordance with the proposals" contained in the Cabinet Mission Plan. It further warned that if the Indian Constituent Assembly should dare draw up a Constitution not approved by Britain, the British government would have to "consider to whom the powers of the Central Government in British India should be handed over."
This Declaration of February 1947 was the key guiding statement of policy for the "transfer of power" which took place six months later. As is evident from this, there was no question of a free choice by the Indian people of the kind of government under which they might wish to live. There was no question of a free sovereign Constituent Assembly, freely elected by universal suffrage of the Indian people. The so-called Constituent Assembly was under direct British imperialist pressure to draw up a Constitution acceptable to them. So, the "transfer of power" did not create an independent sovereign Indian State but merely installed in power a ‘representative’ body chosen by the imperialists and committed to protect most effectively the imperialist interests.
In fact, to get a Constituent Assembly (Consembly) convened and then get a constitution passed by it is not the important thing for a country that wishes to become independent and sovereign. The important thing is who convenes that Constituent Assembly and how it is really being constituted. A necessary pre-condition, even according to bourgeois democratic conventions, for convening such an Assembly is formation of a temporary government by the people who are to take over power. Only such a government can constitute and convene a Constituent Assembly. It is a fact that no such temporary government was formed in India, and the preliminary preparations for the formation of the Consembly were carried out by the governors of provinces according to the directive of June 16, 1946, from the British Governor-General. It is clearly seen that the provincial governors, acting on the strength of section 62(2) of the Government of India Act of 1935, called the provincial legislatures into session to elect representatives to the Consembly. These legislatures, which were themselves formed under the Act of 1935 and elected on the basis of extremely restricted franchise based on property or educational qualifications, proceeded to "elect" representatives to the Consembly according to the directives of the governors based on section 63(2) of the 1935 Act. This is how the 'sovereign' Consembly came into being! That is not all. Some people, and important people at that like Jinnah, Nehru, Ambedkar etc., were not even 'elected' by these puppet legislatures but were simply chosen by the British imperialists to 'represent' end 'lead' the Indian people!
So, we see that the Consembly was not constituted under the care of a qualitatively different temporary government, but under the benevolent guidance of the British military and civil bureaucrats in terms of law passed by the British imperialist government. Thus, an 'Interim Government' was formed by the British in July 1946 with Jawaharlal Nehru as vice-president (the president was the British Viceroy Wavell). Every member of this government was required to take three oaths — the first being the oath of allegiance to the British Crown. This so-called Interim Government was formed to continue British imperialist rule under the guidance and control of the British viceroy.
The transfer of power on August 15, 1947 turned India into an 'independent Dominion' in terms of the Independence Act of 1947 of the British Parliament, headed by a Governor-General appointed by the British imperialists. The Dominion government led by Nehru, who, like all other Indians, continued to be a British subject, owed allegiance to the British crown like its predecessor — the so-called Interim Government. This state of affairs continued for about three years upto January 26, 1950.
This "Independent" Indian Dominion government took over and carried forward the entire administrative machinery of imperialism; the same bureaucracy, judiciary and police of the old imperialist agents and servitors; the same methods of repression, police firing and lathi-charges on unarmed crowds, prohibition of meetings, suppression of newspapers, detentions without charge, persecution of trade union and peasant organizations and filling jails with thousands of left-wing political prisoners. The interests of imperialism in India were zealously protected. Military control continued to remain in the hands of the British imperialists. In the initial stages, this government was even headed by a British imperialist overlord, Mountbatten, and British governors were maintained in some key provinces. In short, this government served as a bailiff of the imperialist overlords and did what the imperialists wished to be done.
What were the economic policies of this "independent" government?
On February 17, 1948, Prime Minister Nehru declared: "There will not be any sudden change in the economic structure. As far as possible, there will be no nationalization of existing industries." In April, Reuter's Trade Service Financial Section confidently reported: "Large scale nationalization of existing industries is ruled out in the Government of India's industrial and economic policy for the next ten years." This was confirmed in the Resolution on Economic Policy published five days later.
This government's intimate links with imperialism were most pronounced in the fields of military strategy and foreign policy, where the close and firm bonds binding the 'independent' Indian government to the chariot-wheels of Anglo-American imperialists are seen more clearly.
The CPI leadership has always been fully aware of what the British imperialists, with the help of Indian reactionary classes, were trying to achieve through the so-called transfer of power, though it must be admitted that its significance was not clear to the broad Party masses and cadres. The CPI leadership fully utilized this fact to carry through their treacherous policy of betraying the cause of anti-imperialist national liberation struggle and thus served fully the needs of foreign imperialism and the Indian big bourgeoisie. Since then these leaders have dodged the question of agrarian revolution, the primary condition for accomplishing national democratic revolution, under one pretext or another. But things are quite different now. Learning from the experience of their own lives, the common people, the toiling masses, have come to realize that feudalism in the countryside, which has been nurtured and protected by imperialism, must be eliminated. This is the principal task to be accomplished. Once this is accomplished, imperialism and the Indian big bourgeoisie will be doomed. The people have not only realized it but are already plunging into struggle to accomplish this task.
In this situation, the counter-revolutionary revisionist leaders of the CPI, the Dangeite and neo-revisionist cliques, can no longer disrupt this revolutionary upsurge by applying their old tactic of issuing Party mandates. So, they have adopted a new tactic, which is: to defend the 'sacred Constitution', to fight for using the 'limited opportunities' given by this Constitution, that is, to fight for the ministerial guddi. They think they can convince the toiling people through this tactic that the Constitution, which in reality serves as a shield protecting the interests of imperialism and the Indian big bourgeoisie, is a precious achievement of the struggle of the toiling people, which they must defend! Obviously, this 'new' tactic of these traitors serves the interests of imperialists and Indian reactionaries even better than their old tactic. Indeed, what can be better for the imperialists and the Indian reactionary classes than that the vast masses of the Indian people can be persuaded to play the game of 'using' the 'limited opportunities' given by the 'sovereign' Constitution while feudalism and imperialism carry on their ferocious oppression and exploitation of the toiling people without hindrance and on an increasing scale under the protection of the same Constitution? The new tactic of the Dangeite and the neo-revisionist clique aims at prolonging the life of imperialism and feudalism in this country and so eminently serves their needs.
But what is the people's road to liberation which these renegade leaders have always opposed? To win liberation for the hundreds of millions of toiling people of India, it is necessary to wipe out feudalism — the main base of imperialism in India, in the countryside — and in the process, to build people's armed forces in the course of struggle, and eventually to break the back of comprador-bureaucrat capital and capture the cities. This is the path blazed by Naxalbari. Naxalbari grew out of historical necessity and is the living inspiration for the people to move history forward.
It is, therefore, not difficult to see why, today, in the liberation struggle of the workers and all other toiling people of India, the conflict between the two lines, the two paths — the peaceful parliamentary path and the revolutionary path of armed struggle — has grown so acute.
While analysing the situation after the boycott of the Witte Duma, Lenin said that the constitutional illusions had been spread so widely among the proletariat that the only means of combating such illusions was the boycott. And he repeatedly warned us in this connection that we must proceed from a concrete analysis of a concrete situation to judge whether we should take advantage of parliamentarism.
But a more important thing is that whatever Lenin said about parliamentarism and elections relate to the parliamentary systems in independent capitalist countries. We get the correct direction from the thought of Chairman Mao, which fully applies to the concrete conditions in India. This is what Chairman Mao said of the old China under Chiang Kai-shek's rule: "The characteristics of China are that she is not independent and democratic but semi-colonial and semi-feudal, that internally she has no democracy but is under feudal oppression and that in her external relations she has no national independence but is oppressed by imperialism. It follows that we have no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organize the workers to strike. Basically, the task of the Communist Party here is not to go through a long period of legal struggle before launching insurrection and war, and not to seize the big cities first and then occupy the countryside, but the reverse."
The bourgeois agents who wear the mask of Marxism-Leninism jump at our throat in malicious glee at this and shout, "Now you see, India has a parliament whereas China had none!" Well, gentlemen, we deliberately discussed, though briefly, the history of the introduction of the 'parliamentary system' in our country with you in mind. The British imperialists did this because they had to. In the changed new historical context imperialism could prolong its existence in India only by introducing such a ‘parliamentary system’ as this. Moreover, without this it could not have reared and trained its agents who now rule India or sit in the 'opposition.' But how can genuine Marxist-Leninists ever overlook the fact that imperialism continued to safeguard its interests even as it introduced the bait of an 'independent and sovereign' parliament and a constitution before the people, designed to preserve and safeguard its interests in the future also? Is it any wonder, therefore, that the makers of the Constitution, the members of the so-called Constituent Assembly, were not free citizens of a free India but merely subjects of the British Empire, that even to this day the 'Republic of India' continues to remain in the British Commonwealth and owes allegiance to the British Crown, a fact which continues to determine her existence as a 'Republic', and that the so-called Constitution of 'free' India is based upon the Government of India Act of 1935, which was prepared by the British imperialists and passed by the British parliament in order to safeguard imperialist interests in India?
A general principle of British laws is that the British imperial domination be ended, legally, only by laws properly made by the British or by force, that is, by overthrowing that authority through a successful revolution. Since 1858, when India came under the direct rule of the British Crown, its sovereignty has never been seriously challenged by India. Neither the Government of India Act of 1935 nor the Indian Independence Act of 1947 did end the British sovereignty over India. What is more, even the Presidential proclamation that India had become a Republic did not in any way curtail that sovereignty. The proclamation did not dispute the fact that India had already accepted [in 1949, a few months before this proclamation] the British Crown as the symbolic head of the Indian state by agreeing to stay on within the British Commonwealth, all members of which accept the British Crown as its "symbolic head." The formal right that the Indian Independence Act of 1947 gives to India and Pakistan, the right to decide whether to stay in or get out of the British Commonwealth, exposes its utter worthlessness when we remember that neither of them ever cared to slip out of the grip of the Commonwealth tentacles by exercising that right.
The rebellious American bourgeoisie in their Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, asserted their sovereignty and broke off all the bonds of British colonial domination in these unambiguous terms: "These united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political communication between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." One cannot find anything even distantly resembling this bold assertion of independence and sovereignty by the American bourgeoisie in any document of India.
The British Nationality Act, 1948 provides for the protection of special privileges of officials in Ireland who are or have been in the service of the British imperial authority, and of persons who have been in one way or other connected with the United Kingdom. We in India also come within the scope of this Act. In addition to this, there is that "India (Consequential Provisions) Act" of 1949, passed just before India was to become a Republic [on January 26,1950], with a view to keeping her firmly bound to the chariot-wheels of the British Crown, which lay down clear provisions by which all the existing British laws or those subsequently passed by the British Parliament as well as all other British enactments would have validity in India also from the date she declared herself a Republic! These laws would operate in relation to India and persons and things belonging to or in any way connected with India. This Act of 1949 made it clear that the British laws would continue to have the same validity in India in respect of the above matters after she declared herself a Republic as they had before the proclamation.
The fact is that we in India, the citizens of 'free' India, continue to be even now the subjects of the British Imperial Majesty !
The simple conclusion, and the only conclusion, that flows from all this is that imperialism covered up its rule in India with the cloak of 'parliamentary democracy' in order to frustrate the liberation of India and the democratic revolution. And to make this cloak look convincing India's Constitution was made into the most voluminous one in the world, full of contradictory statements and boring even to the most eager student of political science.
Take one example from the 'fundamental rights' provided for in the Constitution. The 'freedom' and 'independence' of the Indian State is such that it is unable to confiscate the British or any other foreign capital in India. There is a clause in the fundamental rights of the Constitution which forbids such an action without legitimate and adequate compensation. This clause, like many others, was borrowed from the GOI Act of 1935. More, this clause in the Constitution curbs the state's right in this regard to an even greater extent than the one in the 1935 Act.
The traitorous Dangeite and neo-revisionist cliques ceaselessly preach the false notions that the British imperialists were forced to concede sovereign power to the Indians and leave India because of the strength of the national liberation struggle and that the Indian rulers, after securing the reins of power in their hands, proceeded to introduce parliamentary democracy in the country. These have no relation whatsoever to reality.
The truth is, after Russia and the colonies of the Tsar comprising one-sixth of the world broke out of the world imperialist system in October 1917, the Indian bourgeoisie's ability and role to lead the revolution for national salvation ended. From then, its role was strictly limited to containing the enormous power of national revolution within pre-determined limits and using it as a lever to gain concessions from imperialism. Later, during the Second World War, in the changed circumstances the Indian bourgeoisie had to give up even this role, since the anti-imperialist solidarity of India's workers, peasants and all other toiling people proved more dangerous to it than imperialism. On the other hand, imperialism also began to devise new ways to meet the new situation unfavourable to them. Faced with the situation, imperialism entered into an alliance with its two most reliable and safe allies in India ¾ the big bourgeoisie and the big landlords. This alliance does not mean surrender of power by imperialism. On the contrary, it means that imperialism retreated one step in order to blunt the power of the national liberation revolution by means of a new tactic and to continue to exploit India's workers, peasants and all other toiling people with an even greater ferocity. The imperialists needed the ruse of parliamentary democracy to achieve these two objectives. This explains why the British imperialists themselves introduced, built up and nurtured the system of parliamentary democracy in India with the help of the big bourgeoisie and big landlords. The toiling people of India played only a secondary and passive role during the counter-revolutionary machinations and during the transfer of power. Only a conscious revolutionary role of the advance-guard of the toiling people could activate the toiling masses. We may, therefore, recall here the role played by the Communist Party, which is supposed to be the political organization of that advance-guard.
As is well-known, at the time when imperialism and the native big bourgeoisie and big landlords were jointly hatching plots and working to cripple the national liberation struggle, the revisionist leadership of the CPI did not come forward to lead the people to achieve victory in the national liberation revolution. Nor did this leadership call upon the toiling people of India to advance along the path of class struggle in order to frustrate the imperialist conspiracy. Nothing of the sort. On the contrary, what this counter-revolutionary revisionist leadership did, amounted to advising the imperialists to choose the most suitable ruse to cover up the ugly features of their heinous conspiracy so that the people might be made to swallow the same with the least difficulty. So, instead of organizing people's struggles to throw out the British imperialists — the No. 1 enemy of colonial India — this renegade leadership of the CPI preferred to submit a memorandum to the imperialist Cabinet Mission. In the memorandum the renegades spoke of ending British rule. But it is clear they were not even thinking of ending this rule through a revolution. To do so, one does not submit memoranda to the imperialist oppressors. The only way to achieve liberation of India from the clutches of imperialism is to throw it out by the revolutionary force of the people. This traitorous leadership, by this memorandum business, was cynically spreading among the people the poisonous revisionist notion that imperialist rule, the grip of imperialist exploitation and oppression, could be ended by submitting petitions and memoranda to the imperialists themselves, by appealing to the 'good sense' of the imperialists! Further, in this memorandum these readers 'demanded' that the imperialists prove their sincerity by declaring India independent and sovereign! As an additional proof, they demanded that the British Government should also declare that all British troops would be removed from India within six months.
What did these 'demands' amount to? By these 'demands' the revisionist leadership was only trying to increase their own political prestige among the people by showing off their 'anti-imperialism' while in fact serving faithfully the needs of British imperialism. They 'demanded' of imperialism essentially what it itself intended and needed to do in order to prolong its existence in India. These renegades were not at all concerned with overthrowing the existing socio-economic structure and the backward semi-feudal land-relations — the mainstay of the British in India; they were happy to demand only the withdrawal of the British troops from India because it had already become impossible for the British economically, politically and militarily to continue to station troops in a vast country like India after the Second World War. The British were not in the least worried over these 'demands' — because these exactly fitted in with the new tactic of imperialism of ruling India not directly, but through trusted local agents. This is neo-colonialism, pure and simple. And the CPI's traitorous leaders have since then been peddling this neo-colonialist domination of imperialism as the victory of anti-imperialist revolution, as national salvation!
Opposed to this road of neo-colonialism that imperialism carried through, endorsed by the CPI leaders, there was another road, the road of people's revolution, which alone could bring national salvation. To defeat imperialist conspiracy it was necessary to organize revolutionary anti-imperialist struggle and carry it through to the end. To do this it was necessary to develop anti-feudal struggle in the backward countryside where imperialism has its main social base, as the main component of the liberation struggle. But such anti-feudal struggle can only be a bloody, difficult and protracted struggle and such a struggle began in Telengana. Defying the petition-wallah leaders of the Party, the revolutionary Communists led the heroic Telengana peasants in armed struggle against feudalism and for the overthrow of imperialist rule. But in the conditions that existed then, the memorandum-wallah Party leadership succeeded, with the help of Nehru, Bhave and the Tito clique, in forcing the heroic communists and peasant revolutionaries of Telengana to surrender with arms to the reactionary Nehru government.
The conditions in which the revisionist CPI leadership succeeded in betraying the revolutionary Telengana struggle do not exist now. The revisionists can no longer succeed in stopping the revolutionary tide in the old way. That is why they have launched a new struggle to defend the 'sacred Constitution', that is, 'defending' people's interests by defeating their class enemies through the 'battle of the ballot box', through elections. This 'struggle' is, however, merely a development of their old capitulationist policy. Today, these renegades stop at nothing in their effort to convince the people that India is independent, that the Constitution is a sovereign democratic constitution and that the reactionary Indian state is sovereign. They fraudulently preach that there is nothing essentially wrong with the Constitution or the so-called parliamentary democratic structure as exist in India today. The trouble is, according to them, the enemies of the people have managed to grab power and are desecrating the Constitution and pushing the people deeper and deeper into misery. So, they have started the ruse that 'parliamentary democracy' and 'Constitution' are m peril, being misused by the ruling Congress Party, and call upon the people to rally in defence of 'parliamentary democracy' and the 'sovereign and democratic' Constitution! They claim this to be the main struggle in the present and also prescribe the weapon to be used in this struggle — the weapon of so-called 'adult franchise' conceded by the Constitution.
Years ago, they could at least criticize, no doubt cautiously and mildly, the Constituent Assembly, which framed the Constitution, as undemocratic and not representing the overwhelming majority of the Indian people. This they did in their memorandum to the Cabinet Mission. But the situation has changed since then and these renegades now do not dare indulge even in the mildest criticism. They consider that in the conditions prevailing in India today, which is like a volcano about to erupt, even the most cautious criticism may prove fatal for them and their masters. So, they are exerting their utmost to falsify history and spin out all sorts of arguments to justify this falsification. Their shameless peddling of the parliamentary path, of the forming of the so-called "alternative democratic governments," the so-called "non-Congress" UF governments, is the necessary logical outcome of this. These renegades are seriously working to contain the revolutionary tide within the four walls of the 'struggle' for ministerial guddis, within the limits of the Constitution imposed by the imperialists. They are prepared to go to any length, and in fact are already going, to disrupt any struggle that threatens to spill over beyond these limits. This explains why they have been so furiously spreading all sorts of slanders against the heroic Naxalbari struggle and those who support and uphold it, and have been borrowing indiscriminately all kinds of anti-China slanders from the U.S. imperialists and Soviet revisionists to detract from the immense and growing prestige of revolutionary China and Chairman Mao among the Indian masses.
World imperialism led by U.S. imperialism, though in its death-throes, has succeeded in enslaving India's economy. This has been possible, first, because the big bourgeoisie and big landlords of India have long since entered into an alliance with imperialism, having no longer any role to play in the national liberation struggle; secondly, because of the capitulationist treacherous policy pursued by the CPI leadership. The degeneration of the Soviet Union into an imperialist power and its active participation in imperialist exploitation and oppression of India, which it is trying to preserve and safeguard as part of the world imperialist camp, add a new aspect to the Indian situation.
To throw away the trammels that bind them now and to liberate themselves, the toiling people of India must first of all complete the revolution that is long overdue. Agrarian revolution is the axis of this revolution which is to take place under conditions when imperialists exploit and oppress India indirectly. To organize this agrarian revolution they must first of all tear off the deceptive mask of the so-called parliamentary democracy in India. And this can be done successfully only by thoroughly rejecting and repudiating the electoral politics. We must not forget that imperialism, feudalism and the comprador-bureaucrat bourgeoisie exploit and oppress our people with impunity by means of this electoral politics. The revisionist cliques of the CPI and the CPI (M) are frantically going about peddling their rotten theory that the Constitution offers opportunities, even if "limited", and that people should take advantage of these "limited" opportunities to defend their rights and improve their living conditions. This is absolutely false and has not even a grain of truth in it. There is absolutely no opportunity, not even limited which the people can use to their advantage in any way within the existing semi-colonial semi-feudal structure in India. This is the iron-clad fact. To deceive the people with talks of 'taking advantage of limited opportunities offered by the Constitution' is an unpardonable crime. This is done by the revisionists and neo-revisionists in order to help prolong imperialist-feudal exploitation and oppression of India. This is the essence of their electoral politics and parliamentary path.