<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">John Mage wrote: Ulhas wrote: > distraction from the primary goal: the struggle against imperialism. > > It has been argued that the upper caste background of CPs leadership > was the main reason for the neglect of the caste oppression. But I am > not convinced. I forwarded this comment to a professor friend in Delhi, who is a student of the history of the Indian communist movement. His response is posted below. No doubt Ulhas is an expert on many things, but unfortunately he pretends to be one on yet more. john mage ----- Ulhas has indulged in a sweeping condemnation of Indian CPs. He cites no evidence to support his propositions. I still think a brief response may be in order. Caste has not received the attention it deserves from Indian CPs. But that does not mean that Indian CPs have neglected the struggle aginst caste as an ideology and as an institution. The ideology of caste has fragmented peasant movements and workers’ struggles led by CPs. In more recent decades the CPs have had to deal with ‘caste associations’ and ‘caste-based’ political parties as economic interest groups. These latter organizations have further fragmented class struggles led by the CPs, including the Naxalite CPs. Marxist and non-Marxist intellectuals (the latter, for instance, M. N. Srinivas and Andre Beteille) have recognized important elements of class in the caste system, for instance, the caste which owns land exercises effective dominance, despite a lower ritual status. There is also a close interconnection between caste and class, with the ‘untouchable’ castes generally landless laborers. With this brief background, let us briefly get to the facts. ........................ .....The period 1946-51 in the context of decolonization witnessed the major movements of Telangana and in Bengal of Tehbaga. The Telangana movement led by the CPI witnessed large-scale guerilla action (“Peoples’ War”). In liberated districts caste oppression was punished as criminal. These movements raised the possibility of realizing “land to the tiller”. In all the struggles mentioned, and many more, say in Travancore and so on, it would be absurd to claim that the “untouchable” castes or the lower castes did not have a voice. In independent India, the CPI and later the CPM, in their areas of influence, have played an important role in land reform. The Naxalite movement from the late 1960s onward has consistently fought for “entitlements” of the rural poor, especially dalits and tribals, to material resources and izzat (dignity). This movement has had many martyrs, among them the dalit poor and Naxalite activists, including dalits."</pre> </blockquote> REPLY: Thanks for that John. I regret the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak - as I merely contemplated an adequate reply to Ulhas. In fact your correspondent herself/himslef may have neglected one additional aspect: Namely that the seismic Telanagana struggle - itself refelcted a caste element. Alliance ML descirbed this at soem length in our [now ancient document - & thus may need further up-dating] at this web-site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssues/All-5b.htm">http://www.allianceML.com/AllianceIssues/All-5b.htm</a> To quote breifly from that document: "Within one month of the Second Congress of the CPI, the party was desperately floundering. But the top leadership was deliberately excluded from arrest and left outside. Only now did they go underground. Ranadive from hiding issued declarations for general strikes and peasant rising, for which no work had been prepared, and the appeal fell on dry soil. The party deteriorated at this time into individual terrorism. The Congress party was incorrectly labelled as being Fascist. This adventurist path soon lost the CPI support.   After the exposure of the Yugoslavs by the Cominform, the CPI was rebuked. Dyakov wrote: <ul> "That the situation was far from being revolutionary. He did not describe the Indian scene in terms of "revolutionary upsurge", as had Ranadive, but spoke merely of the "peoples' great disappointment" with the new government. He declared that the Government of India and Pakistan "are becoming more and more isolated from the masses", and are " becoming tools of the imperialists." O&W, Ibid, p.281. </ul> Telangana, an open insurrection had taken an avowedly Maoist line by exempting the rich peasantry from CPI attack. This class collaboration was of course inconsistent with the Ultra-Left swing of the CPI and it was condemned by Randive: <ul> "Communist parties in the non-Hindi regions wanted a doctrinal pretext for local alliances with aggrieved regional caste groups whose interest conflicted with the Marwaris.. To ally with any capitalists or landowner was intolerable of course for B.T.Ranadive, then secretary for the CPI.. he screamed heresy at the Andhra Communists.. with their leadership in the wealthy Kamma landowning caste, the Andhra Communists had good reason to espouse the Maoist line in India. The Andhra Communists had established ground rules at the start for the Telengana insurrection in 1948 which assured most of their Kamma brethren went unscathed. So long as the middling rich farmers who make up the bulk of the caste stayed above the battle, they were classified inCommunist strategy as neutralized. This outright deviation from the Ranadive line, which saw all landowners as equally villainous.. Ranadive attacking the Andhra Secretariat, publicly charged that in Andhra Communist ranks: <ul> "It is the rural intellectuals, sons of rich peasants and middle peasants that preponderate in important positions. The party politically based itself on the vacillating politics of the middle peasants and allowed itself to be influenced by rich peasant ideology'". Selig Harrison, Ibid. p.162 </ul> </ul> Of course the Andhra Communists had been Ultra-Rightist, or Maoist on this issue. Nonetheless, an Insurrection had already been mounted. A parallel can be made to Stalin's view that the Kuomintang Generals should not have their lands expropriated, whilst they cooperated with the worker and peasants. The Andhra Communists do not say this but their line appears to be similar: <ul> "The Andhra Communists had made no secret of their "Rich peasant" policy within the party. They explicitly declared themselves on this point in a 1948 program report.. which stressed 2 major tactical rules of thumb: <ul> "1. In delta areas the pressure of population would be heavy and as such slogans should be raised for the distribution of lands belonging to rich ryots among the poor peasants and labourers. 2. Propaganda should be carried out to convince the ryots about the just demands of the workers, and we should also effect compromises with those of the ryots who would follow with us. Assurance should also be given that we should not touch the lands of rich ryots." </ul> Ranadive also singled out for special attack anotherstatement of this position in a 1948 Andhra statement discussing tactics towards Government rice procurement for rationing: <ul> "In the matter of procurement of paddy the Secretariat believes that it is possible to neutralize the rich peasants as the government plan goes against the rich peasantry also. Though the rich peasantry as class is not standing firmly in the fight, it is parting with paddy with dissatisfaction." Harrison, Ibid. p. 163." Cheers, hari Kumar </ul> </ul> </body> </html>