The
Marxist
Volume:
2,
No.
2
April
–
June
1984
Working
Class
and
Bourgeois
Ramdass
THE
congress
(I)
leadership
is
again
at
the
game
of
canvassing
for
the
presidential
form
of
government
for
the
country.
Two
senior
ministers
in
the
Union
Cabinet
have
extolled
the
virtues
of
the
presidential
system
and
enumerated
its
advantage
over
the
prevailing
parliamentary
system.
The
prime
minister
herself
called
for
a
debate
on
this
issue,
taking
up
the
position
that
both
are
democratic
systems
and
both
have
their
own
advantages
and
disadvantages.
The
Congress
(I)
leadership,
during
the
emergency
in
1975-77,
had
made
serious
efforts
to
impose
the
presidential
form
of
government
on
the
country.
Not
only
the
left
and
democratic
forces
but
the
entire
opposition
including
the
non-Congress
(I)
bourgeois
–
landlord
parties
saw
in
this
move
the
attempt
to
establish
an
authoritarian
dictatorship.
In
today’s
Indian
conditions
the
presidential
system
cannot
be
anything
but
such
a
naked
dictatorship.
Broad
resistance
was
built
up
in
the
country
and
the
ruling
party
had
to
retreat
at
that
time.
While
the
ruling
Congress
(I)
coterie
wants
to
scuttle
the
parliamentary
system
because
it
comes
in
the
way
of
its
authoritarian
designs,
there
are
others,
by
no
means
advocates
of
authoritarianism,
who
are
also
questioning
the
utility
of
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
system.
These
well-meaning
people
seem
to
be
ascribing
the
ills
of
the
bankrupt
capitalist
path
of
development
on
which
the
ruling
classes
have
embarked
to
the
parliamentary
system
and
want
the
system
itself
to
go.
Their
position
is
not
the
same
as
the
Naxalities
who
are
advocates
of
boycotting
the
parliamentary
system.
The
“left”
adventuriests
have
taken
the
stand
that
he
class
which
toll
over
power
in
the
country
from
the
British
is
the
comprador
bourgeoisie.
The
only
task
left
now
is
to
throw
out
this
comprador
bourgeoisie
from
power
through
an
armed
struggle.
They
have
no
use
for
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions,
for
an
independent
party
of
the
working
class,
for
mass
organisations
of
the
workers,
peasants
and
others,
for
day-to-day
ideological,
political
and
organisational
work
among
the
masses.
This
is
not
the
place
to
discuss
how
they
degenerated
into
making
the
CPI(M)
their
main
enemy,
how
they
organised
the
physical
liquidation
of
CPI(M)
cadre
and
how
they
broke
into
umpteen
groups.
Those
others
who
have
become
critical
of
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
system
also
bewail
that
the
Communist
Party
of
India
(Marxist)
has
lost
it
revolutionary
zeal
and
fallen
into
the
category
of
a
parliamentary
party.
The
party
is
solely
engaged
in,
or
is
concentrating
mostly
on
parliamentary
activities
to
the
detriment
of
preparing
the
masses
for
the
revolution.
By
its
participation
in
parliaments
and
legislatures,
and
even
more
so
by
its
participation
in
state
governments,
it
is
helping
the
bourgeoisie
to
work
its
democratic
system.
This
creates
parliamentary
illusions
in
the
masses,
creates
the
belief
in
them
that
basic
changes
can
be
brought
about
through
parliamentary
institution
instead
of
preparing
them
for
the
struggle
to
replace
bourgeois
democracy
by
socialist
democracy.
All
this
is
being
said
at
a
time
when
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
are
again
under
threat
from
the
main
party
of
the
ruling
classes.
Even
through
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
have
so
far
survived
in
India
unlike
in
a
number
of
newly
independent
countries,
which
have
gone
under
dictatorships,
even
though
India
is
capitalistically
more
developed
than
many
of
the
newly
independent
countries,
the
fact
remains
that
bourgeois
democracy
is
not
firmly
entrenched
in
India,
that
its
foundations
are
very
fragile.
When
parliamentary
institutions
are
under
attack,
it
is
all
the
more
necessary
for
the
working
class
in
defends
these
institutions
as
they
provide
an
effective
auxiliary
forum
to
the
representatives
of
the
working
class
to
advance
its
cause.
It
is
also
part
of
the
class
struggle
of
the
working
class
to
go
beyond
bourgeois
democracy.
It
is
when
it
has
become
an
important
task
of
the
party
of
the
working
class
to
protect
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
that
the
idea
of
rejecting
their
use
is
being
advocated.
This
idea
only
deprives
the
working
class
party
of
the
opportunity
to
utilise
these
institutions
to
appeal
to
a
wider
audience
and
to
pillory
the
authoritarian
and
anti-people
policies
of
the
ruling
party.
We
will
come
back
to
this
aspect
later
in
this
ruling
party.
We
will
come
back
to
this
aspect
in
this
article.
It
is
not
only
that
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
are
under
as
serious
threat,
the
present
period
is
also
one
in
which
the
terribly
discontented
masses
are
moving
rapidly,
even
though
on
their
economic
demands
mainly.
Reactionary
forces
aided
by
imperialism
are
doing
their
all
to
divert
the
popular
discontent
into
disruptive
communal
and
separatist
channels.
The
ruling
party
itself
is
blaming
the
parliamentary
system
and
advocating
an
authoritarian
regime
in
the
garb
of
presidential
system
to
cure
the
country
of
all
its
ills.
It
becomes
the
task
of
the
working
class
party
to
channelise
the
discontent
of
the
people
in
the
right
direction
so
that
the
struggle
against
bourgeois
–
landlord
policies,
the
struggle
against
attempts
to
impose
an
authoritarian
regime
gets
strengthened.
Here,
again,
effective
use
of
parliamentary
institutions
facilitates
the
carrying
out
of
this
task.
The
Communist
Party
of
India
(Marxist)
does
not
hold
that
the
working
class
can
win
state
power
through
elections
or
by
the
party’s
representatives
participating
in
parliaments,
legislatures
and
even
in
state
governments.
It
has
always
held
that
electoral
victories
are
only
formal
victories.
But
there
are
certain
immediate
political
which
the
Party
is
trying
to
achieve-isolating
the
main
party
of
the
ruling
classes,
advancing
the
ideology
of
the
Party,
liberating
the
working
class
and
the
people,
especially
the
peasantry,
from
the
grip
of
bourgeois
ideology,
increasing
the
confidence
of
the
people
in
themselves
and
against
the
bourgeois
–
landlord
government
led
by
the
big
bourgeoisie
and
so
on.
For
this,
purpose,
while
the
struggle
outside
goes
on,
while
the
revolutionary
ideological
political
work
among
the
masses
continues,
parliament
and
legislatures
are
used
as
auxiliary
forms
for
exposing
the
exploiting
regime
and
the
exploiting
classes.
In
this
the
Party
follows
the
Marxist-Leninist
teachings
about
making
revolutionary
use
of
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions.
This
is
what
the
critics
of
the
Party
do
not
understand.
They
do
not
understand
that
revolutions
do
not
materialise
on
command.
On
the
contrary
the
physical
revolution
has
to
be
prepared
by
the
mental
revolution
and
that
entails
educating
the
people.
Bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
can
be
effectively
used
towards
this
objective.
To
say
that
parliamentary
activities
should
be
combined
with
extra-parliamentary
work;
that
parliamentary
activities
should
be
subordinated
to
the
revolutionary
work
among
the
masses
is
one
thing.
But
to
scoff
at
making
use
of
bourgeois
democratic
rights
to
advance
the
cause
of
the
revolution
is
to
adopt
a
totally
erroneous
position.
Marxism-Leninism
not
only
makes
is
necessary
but
obligatory
for
communists
to
make
use
of
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions.
Marx
and
Engels
in
the
1840s,
when
they
urged
the
working
class
to
participate
in
the
democratic
revolutions
of
those
days
used
to
say
that
the
working
class,
by
its
help
to
the
bourgeoisie
fights
to
abolish
feudalism,
and
to
win
bourgeois
democratic
rights
like
freedom
of
the
press,
trial
by
jury,
freedom
of
assembly
freedom
of
organisation
and
popular
representation,
and
thus
indirectly
also
fights
for
its
own
proletarian
interests.
For
the
workers,
it
was
necessary,
in
the
struggle
for
democratic
institutions,
to
create
the
conditions
for
the
socialist
transformation
of
society.
With
this
proposal,
Marx
emphasised
the
close
connection
between
the
struggle
for
democracy
and
for
socialism
a
principle
that
today
as
then
belongs
to
the
strategy
and
tactics
of
the
revolutionary
workers’
party.
The
German
workers,
Engels
wrote,
“supplied
their
comrades
in
all
countries
with
a
weapon,
and
one
of
the
sharpest,
when
they
showed
them
how
to
make
use
of
universal
suffrage”
(Selected
Works,
Vol.
1,
p.
195).
One
of
the
sharpest
weapons
–
that
is
how
Engels
describes
the
working
class’
use
of
universal
suffrage.
And
it
is
this
“one
of
the
sharpest
weapons”
that
our
critics
advise
us
to
abandon.
Engels
also
wrote:
“With
this
successful
utilisation
of
universal
suffrage
however,
an
entirely
new
method
of
proletarian
struggle
came
into
operation,
and
this
method
quickly
developed
further.
It
was
found
that
the
state
institutions,
in
which
the
rule
of
the
bourgeoisie
is
organised,
offer
the
working
class
still
further
opportunities
to
fight
these
very
state
institutions.”
(Ibid,
p.
196)
In
line
with
these
teachings,
and
with
the
rich
experience
of
the
Russian
revolutionary
movement,
Lenin
makes
it
obligatory
for
the
party
of
the
working
class
to
participate
in
bourgeois
parliamentary
elections
and
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions.
The
freedoms
obtained
in
the
bourgeois-democratic
order
have
to
be
used
to
combat
these
very
institutions.
“They
(the
social-democrats)
have
never
been
afraid
of
saying,
and
never
will
be,
that
they
‘sanction’
the
bourgeois
republic
only
because
it
is
the
last
form
of
class
rule,
because
it
offers
a
most
convenient
arena
for
the
struggle
of
the
proletariat
against
the
bourgeoisie;
they
sanction
it,
not
for
its
prisons
and
police,
its
private
property
and
prostitution,
but
for
the
scope
and
freedom
it
allows
to
combat
these
charming
institutions.”
(Lenin,
“Revolutionary-Democratic
Dictatorship”,
Collected
Works,
vol.
8,
p.
300)
Lenin
lashed
out
at
parliamentary
cretinism.
He
unmasked
the
class
works-
“The
Proletarian
Revolution
and
the
Renegade
Kautsky”
and
“The
State
and
Revolution”-
to
unmask
those
who
would
make
the
working
class
forget
the
class
character
of
the
state,
sing
paens
to
bourgeois
democracy
and
disorganise
the
struggle
for
the
dictatorship
of
the
proletariat.
Marxist-
Leninists
keel
all
these
valuable
teachings
in
mind
to
guard
demanded
that
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
should
not
be
boycotted
as
a
matter
of
principle,
that
wherever
the
opportunity
exists
they
should
be
used
to
further
the
struggle
of
the
proletariat
to
expose
their
class
character.
Parliamentary
activity
should,
of
course,
be
an
auxiliary
form
of
struggle
subordinated
to
the
main
form.
But
not
to
use
it
at
all,
to
boycott
it,
would
be
a
grave
error,
he
had
warned.
In
his
“Letter
to
Workers
of
Europe
and
America”,
Lenin
writes,
“The
bourgeois
parliament,
even
the
most
democratic
in
the
most
democratic
republic;
in
which
the
property
and
rule
of
capitalists
are
preserved,
is
a
machine
for
the
suppression
of
the
working
millions
be
small
groups
of
exploiters.
The
socialist
the
fighters
for
the
emancipation
of
the
working
people
from
exploitation
had
to
utilise
the
bourgeois
parliament
as
a
platform,
as
a
base
for
propaganda,
agitation
and
organisation
as
long
as
our
struggle
was
confined
to
the
frame-work
of
the
bourgeois
system”
(Collected
Works,
vol.
28,
p.
432).
Further,
“Prior
to
the
capture
of
political
power
by
the
proletariat,
it
was
obligatory
(necessary)
to
make
use
of
bourgeois
democracy,
parliamentarianism
in
particular,
for
the
political
education
and
organisation
of
the
working
masses….”)”Draft
Programme
of
the
RCP
(B),
Collected
Works,
vol.
29,
p.
106)
When
the
German
“left”
communists,
in
the
post-first
world
war
period,
took
up
the
position
of
no
participation
in
bourgeois
parliaments,
because
parliamentary
forms
of
struggle
have
become
historically
and
politically
obsolete,
Lenin
had
to
tell
them,
“This
is
said
with
ridiculous
pretentiousness,
and
is
patently
wrong.”
“Parliamentaruanisim
has
become
‘historically
obsolete’.
That
is
true
in
the
propaganda
sense”,
he
wrote.
Then
Lenin
explains
that
parliamentarianism
is
“historically
obsolete”
form
the
standpoint
of
world
history,
i.e.,
the
era
of
bourgeois
parliamentarism
is
over,
and
the
era
of
the
proletarian
dictatorship
had
begun
with
the
victory
of
the
Great
October
Revolution
and
the
establishment
of
the
dictatorship
of
the
proletariat
in
Russia.
That
is
incontestable,
says
Lenin.
“But
world
history
is
counted
in
decades….
But
for
that
very
reason,
it
is
a
glaring
theoretical
error
the
apply
the
yardstick
of
world
history
to
practical
politics.”
Let
our
critics
note
the
stress
Lenin
lays
on
participation
in
parliamentary
elections
and
in
the
struggle
on
the
parliamentary
rostrum
being
obligatory
on
the
party
of
the
revolutionary
proletariat
as
long
as
it
lacks
the
strength
among
the
masses
to
do
away
with
bourgeois
parliamentary
and
other
reactionary
institutions.
In
our
country,
only
a
very
small
minority
of
the
people
follow
and
vote
for
the
CPI(M)
and
left
parties,
the
vast
majority,
almost
ninety
per
cent,
including
the
majority
of
the
working
class,
follow
and
vote
for
bourgeois-landlord
parties,
firs
and
foremost
the
ruling
bourgeois-landlord
party.
The
Party
has
to
use
the
struggle
on
the
parliamentary
rostrum
to
rescue
this
majority
from
the
influence
of
bourgeois-landlord
leadership,
it
has
to
use
electoral
battles
to
reach
out
to
this
majority,
educate
them
and
organise
them.
To
ignore
this
task,
even
to
neglect
it,
is
to
demonstrate
lack
of
seriousness
in
preparing
the
masses
for
revolution.
Making
use
of
parliamentary
institutions
is
all
the
more
obligatory
in
the
present
Indian
situation.
Vast
millions
of
the
Indian
people
had
no
voting
rights
under
British
rule.
Whatever
elections
were
held
by
the
British
regime
were
under
limited
franchise.
When
after
independence,
universal
adult
franchise
was
ushered
in
there
was
naturally
exultation
among
the
Indian
people.
That
exultation
may
have
waned
to
a
certain
extent
due
to
the
assaults
made
on
the
parliamentary
institutions
by
the
bourgeois-landlord
classes
themselves,
but
vast
sections
of
the
people
still
cherish
universal
adult
franchise
as
a
major
right.
In
fact
the
demand
is
for
the
extension
of
franchise
to
those
attain
the
age
of
eighteen
instead
of
21
as
at
present.
It
will
be
serious
error
to
ignore
this;
it
will
also
come
in
the
way
of
the
Party’s
efforts
to
raise
the
level
of
the
consciousness
of
the
backward
masses.
Our
critics
do
not
seem
to
understand,
do
not
want
to
understand
that
while
the
real
education
of
the
masses
cannot
be
separated
from
the
class
struggle,
from
their
mass
experience
in
the
course
of
the
revolutionary
struggle,
that
while
it
is
correct
to
say
that
it
is
the
duty
of
the
communists
to
carry
forward
and
develop
the
consciousness
of
the
masses
and
not
tail
behind
it,
it
does
not
mean
that
communists,
in
advocating
their
immediate
tactical
slogans,
do
not
take
into
consideration
the
level
of
mass
consciousness
obtaining
at
a
given
time.
These
critic
by
slyly
contrasting
participation
in
parliament
to
class
struggle
virtually
negate
the
use
of
this
form
of
activity
of
the
working
class,
confuse
participation
in
the
parliamentary
struggle
with
reformist
opportunist
in
parliament,
with
substituting
the
main
class
struggle
by
constitutional
struggle.
Thus
they
discard
this
important
form
of
struggle
and
dispossess
the
working
class
of
an
important
weapon
to
free
the
peoples
of
their
parliamentary
illusions
and
develop
their
revolutionary
consciousness.
They
cannot
grasp
that
a
revolutionary
use
of
the
parliamentary
forum
is
an
adjunct
to
the
class
struggle
and
that
it
should
not
be
contrasted
with
it.
How
important
auxiliary
forums
are
to
influence
the
masses
can
be
seen
from
the
teachings
of
Marxism-Leninism
and
the
party’s
own
experience
of
fighting
electoral
battles.
Engels
had
written:
“In
election
agitation
it
(the
suffrage)
provide
us
with
a
means,
second
to
none,
of
getting
in
touch
with
the
masses
of
the
people
where
they
still
stand
aloof
from
us;
of
forcing
all
parties
to
defend
their
views
and
actions
against
our
attacks
before
all
the
people;
and,
further,
it
provided
our
representatives
in
the
Reichstag
with
a
platform
from
which
they
could
speak
to
their
opponents
in
parliament,
and
to
the
masses
without,
with
quite
other
authority
and
freedom
than
in
the
press
or
at
meetings.”
(Marx
and
Engels,
Selected
Works,
vol.
1,
p.
196)
What
has
been
our
party’s
experience?
We
have
been
fighting
those
seats
where
we
have
mass
bases
and
building
electoral
alliances
with
other
parties,
including
bourgeois-landlord
parties,
to
isolate
the
main
bourgeois-landlord
party
and
inflict
as
heavy
a
defeat
on
it
as
possible.
Election
times
see
intense
political
activity,
which
very
much
influences
the
masses.
To
keep
away
from
these
battles
is
to
leave
the
field
clear
to
the
bourgeois-landlord
parties
to
keep
the
masses
under
their
influence
with
spurious
promises.
On
the
other
hand,
participation
in
these
battles
enables
the
working
class
party
to
reach
out
to
vaster
sections
of
the
people
than
it
can
do
otherwise.
By
utilising
these
election
battles,
the
party
can
take
to
wider
sections
of
the
people
than
those
who
follow
it
in
ordinary
times
the
entire
programme
of
the
party,
the
programme
of
People’s
Democracy.
It
can
unmask
before
millions
the
reactionary
class
character
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
state
and
government
led
by
the
big
bourgeoisie.
It
can
contrast
its
own
programme
to
the
programme
of
other
parties.
It
can
tell
the
people
of
the
evils
of
the
capitalist
system-unemployment,
poverty,
exploitation,
militarisation
and
so
on
in
the
imperialist
countries-and
in
contrast,
the
achievements
of
socialism
in
the
Soviet
Union
and
other
socialist
countries,
thus
bringing
before
the
people
the
path
they
have
to
take
for
their
own
emancipation.
The
Party
gets
the
opportunity
to
demand
a
straight
anti-Congress
vote
from
the
people
and
inflict
as
big
an
electoral
defeat
on
the
Congress
as
possible
so
that
the
confidence
of
the
people
to
plunge
into
further
class
battles
is
enhanced.
It
enables
the
Party
to
use
the
state
assemblies
and
parliament
to
unmask
the
class
character
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
state.
These
tactics
have
enhanced
the
prestige
of
the
Party,
expanded
its
influence,
and
increased
its
strength.
Such
electoral
victories
have
enabled
the
Party
to
organise,
bigger
mass
struggles,
on
its
own
and
joining
hands
with
others.
This
is
the
combination
of
parliamentary
and
extra-parliamentary
struggle
being
converted
into
electoral
victories,
and
the
electoral
victories
being
used
to
further
strengthen
the
mass
struggle.
In
this
process,
the
masses
are
educated,
they
get
their
own
political
experience
and
the
ranks
of
the
revolution
get
swelled.
Those
who
call
for
the
boycott
of
elections
perhaps
thinks
they
are
advocating
revolutionary
tactics.
Far
from
it.
Their
tactics
only
keep
the
working
class
away
from
a
big
political
action
like
elections
and
leave
the
field
clear
for
the
parties
of
the
exploiting
classes.
These
tactics
deprive
the
party
of
the
working
class
of
the
opportunity
to
take
its
entire
programme
and
policy
and
its
critique
of
bourgeois-landlord
policies
to
a
wider
audience.
The
Russian
revolutionary
movement
has
rich
experience
of
boycott
of
elections
and
the
Bolsheviks
have
drawn
very
valuable
lesions
from
it,
which
are
lessons
for
all
communists.
Lenin
sums
up
this
experience:
“In
1908
the
‘left’
Bolsheviks
were
expelled
from
our
for
stubbornly
refusing
to
understand
the
necessity
of
participating
in
a
most
reactionary
‘parliament.’
The
‘lefts’….
based
themselves
particularly
on
the
successful
experience
of
the
1905
boycott.
“The
Bolsheviks
‘
boycott
of
‘parliament’
in
1905
enriched
the
revolutionary
proletariat
with
highly
valuable
political
experience
and
showed
that
when
legal
and
illegal,
parliamentary
and
non-parliamentary
forms
of
struggle
are
combined,
it
is
sometimes
useful
and
even
essential
to
reject
parliamentary
forms.
It
would,
however,
be
highly
erroneous
to
apply
this
experience
blindly,
imitatively
and
uncritically
to
other
conditions
and
other
situation.
The
Bolsheviks’
boycott
of
the
Duma
in
1906
was
a
mistake,
although
a
minor
and
easily
remediable
one.
The
boycott
of
the
Duma
in
1907,
1908
and
subsequent
years
was
a
most
serious
error
and
difficult
to
remedy,
because
on
the
one
hand,
a
very
rapid
rise
of
the
revolutionary
tide
and
its
conversion
into
an
uprising
was
not
to
be
expected,
and
on
the
other
hand,
the
entire
historical
situation
attendant
upon
the
renovation
of
the
bourgeois
monarchy
called
for
legal
and
illegal
activities
being
combined.
Today,
when
we
look
back
at
this
fully
completed
historically
period,
whose
convention
with
subsequent
periods
has
now
become
quite
clear,
it
becomes
most
obvious
that
in
1908-14
the
Bolsheviks
could
not
have
preserved
(let
alone
strengthened
and
developed)
the
core
of
the
revolutionary
party
of
the
proletariat,
had
they
not
upheld,
in
the
most
strenuous
struggle,
and
illegal
forms
of
struggle
and
that
it
was
obligatory
to
participate
even
in
a
most
reactionary
parliament
and
in
a
number
of
other
institution
hemmed
in
by
reactionary
laws
(sick
benefit
societies,
etc)”
(collected
works,
vol.
31,
pp.
35-36)
What
does
the
Party
do
inside
the
Parliamentary
institutions?
The
Party’s
groups
in
parliament
and
legislatures
are
one
of
the
party
organisation,
functioning
under
the
Party’s
discipline,
with
close
connection
with
the
party
leadership,
with
their
task,
as
that
of
the
party
outside,
to
carry
on
the
work
of
criticism,
propaganda,
agitation
and
organisation
Communists
in
Parliament
expose
the
class
nature
of
the
government’s
measures
and
proposals
with
particular
attention
given
to
those
which
affect
the
economic
interests
of
the
broad
masses,
especially
issues
of
the
labour
and
agrarian
question,
the
budget,
etc.
These
are
issues,
which
are
the
most
sensitive
nerve
of
public
life
and
at
the
same
time
the
most
sensitive
spot
of
the
government.
On
all
of
them,
communist
members
counters
and
policies
in
defence
of
the
interests
of
the
people.
They
carry
into
parliament
the
Party’s
struggle
for
the
defence
and
extension
of
the
democratic
rights
of
the
people,
to
bar
the
path
to
authiritarianism,
for
states’
autonomy,
against
government
repression
of
the
struggle
of
the
working
people,
for
defending
and
improving
the
living
standards
of
the
people,
against
rising
unemployment
and
the
growing
offensive
of
the
employers
against
the
working
class,
against
landlord
tyranny
and
the
landlord-police-administrative
collusion
in
the
rural
areas,
for
a
better
future
for
the
youth,
for
equality
of
women,
against
the
rampant
corruption.
Upholding
the
Party’s
proletarian
internationalist
outlook,
its
representatives
in
parliament
champion
the
cause
of
peace
against
war,
the
cause
of
all
people
fighting
against
imperialism,
neo-colonialism,
zionism
and
racism.
And
the
forum
of
parliamentary
itself
is
used
to
dispel
the
constitutional
illusions
of
the
masses
of
the
people.
Thus
the
Party
effectively
using
parliament
as
an
auxiliary
form
contributes
in
a
big
way
to
the
main
revolutionary
work
in
them
masses.
It
is
as
part
of
the
work
in
parliamentary
institutions
that
the
Party
is
participating
in
governments
in
some
states.
The
Party
does
not
participate
in
every
non-Congress
state
government.
In
1967,
the
Party
rejected
the
offer
to
participated
in
the
state
governments
in
Bihar,
UP,
etc.
The
reason
is
that
the
Party
will
participate
in
governments
only
where
the
left
forces
are
predominantly
in
the
legislatures,
and
among
the
left
forces,
the
CPI(M)
is
a
strong
force.
Otherwise,
the
Party
is
bound
to
become
an
appendage
of
other
parties.
In
1957,
in
Kerala,
the
Communist
Party,
with
the
support
of
some
Independence
put
up
by
it,
formed
the
state
government.
In
1967,
the
CPI(M)
participated
only
in
the
state
governments
in
Kerala
and
West
Bengal
where
the
Left
forces
were
strong.
Since
1977,
Left
Front
in
which
the
CPI(M)
is
the
strongest
force,
have
been
in
government
in
West
Bengal
and
Tripura,
and
for
a
brief
period
in
1980-82,
there
was
a
Left
and
Democratic
Front
Government
in
Kerala.
We
are
attacked
for
participation
in
these
governments
on
the
ground
that
whatever
relief
given
by
these
governments
to
the
people
strengthens
constitutional
illusions
among
them
and
give
them
the
feeling
that
basic
changes
can
be
brought
about
through
parliamentary
means.
The
experience
of
these
governments
shows
just
the
contrary.
These
governments
have
record
totally
in
contrast
to
that
of
congress
governments.
It
is
only
in
these
states
that
the
repressive
machinery
of
the
state,
the
police,
etc.
is
not
used
against
struggling
workers,
to
help
landlords
against
agricultural
workers
and
sharecroppers.
These
are
the
states
in
which
full
democratic
rights,
including
the
right
to
strike,
are
guaranteed
to
government
employees.
In
these
states,
serious
efforts
have
been
made
to
implement
land
reforms
in
favour
of
the
rural
poor
and
curb
the
vested
interests
in
the
rural
areas,
the
sharecroppers
are
given
legal
protection
against
eviction
and
ensured
their
share
of
the
produce,
the
agricultural
workers
are
helped
to
get
the
fixed
minimum
wages.
At
times
of
natural
calamities,
these
governments
try
to
give
maximum
relief
to
the
people
within
their
limited
resources.
These
are
all
benefits
for
which
people
in
the
Congress-ruled
state
are
fighting
and
the
CPI(M)
and
other
opposition
forces
are
leading
struggles.
The
people
are
asking
for
some
relief
from
the
growing
burdens
that
are
being
imposed
on
them.
Is
it
necessary
that
the
Let
Front
Governments
of
West
Bengal
and
Tripura
try
to
relieve
the
economic
distress
of
the
people
to
some
extent?
Does
this
limited
relief
solve
any
of
the
basic
questions?
Or
dies
it
make
the
people
realised
more
quickly
that
unless
the
entire
set-up
is
changed,
not
radical
improvement
can
take
place
in
their
condition,
and,
with
the
confidence
of
protection
from
the
Left
Front
Governments,
carry
on
the
struggle
for
the
basic
aims
with
even
more
determination?
The
CPI(M)
itself
has
been
constantly
telling
the
people
not
to
expect
much
from
these
state
governments
as
real
power
is
in
the
hands
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
classes
and
not
in
the
hands
of
the
working
class
and
its
allies.
The
Left
Front
Ministries
can
only
be
the
instrument
of
people’s
mobilisation
and
struggles
and
not
of
solving
basic
problems.
The
people
are
themselves
learning
this
from
experience.
When
the
West
Bengal
bill
for
a
comprehensive
land
legislation
which
will
benefit
the
rural
poor,
is
held
up
without
being
given
assent
by
the
center,
the
people
see
from
their
own
experience
where
real
power
lies.
When
they
find
that
the
center
is
concentrating
more
and
more
financial
resources
in
its
hands
starving
the
state
governments
of
the
finances
they
need
to
give
even
limited
relief
to
the
suffering
people,
the
people
again
see
where
real
power
lies.
When
the
center
interferes
with
an
entirely
state
subject
like
law
and
order,
sending
its
own
police
forces
into
the
state,
etc.
when
the
center
erodes
more
and
more
even
the
;omitted
powers
of
the
states,
again
it
is
education
for
the
people
with
regard
to
the
source
of
real
power.
In
West
Bengal,
the
influence
and
strength
of
the
CPI(M)
has
grown
very
much.
This
growth
in
the
Party’s
strength
can
be
seen
in
the
massive
membership
of
5.6
million
members
in
the
Kisan
Sabha.
The
CITU
has
expanded,
and
the
influence
it
wields
in
the
trade
union
movement
was
seen
in
the
recent
jute
workers’
strike.
The
SFI
has
a
membership
of
1,105,630
in
West
Bengal
and
the
DYFI
3,328,000.
the
Ganatantrik
Mahila
Samiti
is
the
biggest
women’s
organisation
in
the
state.
The
main
bourgeois-landlord
party,
the
Congress
(I),
which
rules
at
the
center,
has
been
defeated
in
successive
elections
to
parliament,
assembly,
municipalities
and
panchayats.
Similar
is
the
advance
of
the
Party
and
the
mass
movement
under
its
leadership
in
Tripura,
where
in
the
recent
panchayat
elections,
the
Party
again
inflicted
a
big
defeat
on
the
Congress
(I).
This
is
the
political
advance
in
the
masses,
especially
the
rural
masses,
which
the
Party
has
been
able
to
register
in
this
period
by
correctly
using
the
parliamentary
institutions
and
combining
parliamentary
work
with
the
work
outside
in
the
masses.
What
is
also
not
seen
is
that
this
record
of
the
Left
Front
Governments
enables
the
Party
to
approach
the
broad
masses
in
the
states
where
the
Party
is
weak,
and
popularise
the
basic
slogans
of
the
Party
exposing
the
class
character
of
the
protest
state.
The
entire
experience
of
participation
in
parliamentary
institutions
and
Left
Front
Governments
has
proved
that
the
tactics
followed
by
the
Party-of
fighting
elections,
of
sending
its
representatives
to
the
legislatures,
of
forming
electoral
fronts
or
making
electoral
adjustments
without
compromising
the
independence
of
the
Party,
of
popularising
the
Party’s
entire
programme,
its
basic
slogans-has
been
proved
to
be
correct.
The
growing
strength
of
the
Party
and
its
influence
proves
it.
This
is
an
effective
contribution
to
the
advance
of
the
working
class
movement
towards
its
revolutionary
aims.
Any
reformist
understanding
in
regard
to
the
utilisation
of
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
by
the
party
of
the
working
class
will
lead
to
serious
opportunity
mistakes,
as
it
happened
in
the
case
of
the
Communist
Party
of
India.
It
was
after
a
long-drawn
struggle
in
the
united
Communist
Party
of
India
on
the
strategy
and
tactics
of
the
Indian
revolution
that
the
party
spilt
two
decades
ago.
The
CPI
took
the
programmatic
position
that
the
national
democratic
revolution
it
envisages
and
the
new
state
that
comes
into
existence
will
not
be
under
the
leadership
of
the
working
class
but
under
the
joint
leadership
of
the
working
class
and
the
bourgeoisie.
CPI
leaders
also
declared
that
the
parliamentary
path
was
the
only
path
for
the
Indian
revolution.
This
had
its
won
consequences.
Though
they
had
been
saying
that
right
reaction
was
the
main
danger
and
had
to
be
fought
as
the
main
enemy,
when
in
1967,
the
Congress
was
defeated
in
a
number
of
states,
the
CPI
joined
hands
with
precisely
these
reactionary
forces-the
Jana
Sangh,
Swatantra,
et
al-to
form
coalition
governments
in
states
like
Bihar
and
Uttar
Pradesh.
At
a
time
when
the
main
party
of
the
ruling
classes,
the
Congress,
had
been
isolated
and
temporarily
defeated,
the
CPI
could
not
give
the
leadership
to
carry
forward
this
mass
upsurge,
because
it
was
a
participant
in
these
coalition
governments
along
with
bourgeois-landlord
parties.
It
could
not
influence
the
policies
of
these
coalition
governments.
Instead,
in
the
eyes
of
the
people,
it
became
party
to
the
anti-people,
pro-vested-interest
policies
of
the
dominant
bourgeois-landlord
partners
of
these
state
governments.
When
communal
riots
took
place
in
Ranchi
in
that
period,
which
the
Jana
Sangh,
a
constituent
of
the
coalition,
had
organised,
the
CPI
remained
helpless,
unable
to
come
out
against
the
Jana
Sangh
immediately
and
carry
on
the
fight
against
communalism.
In
1969,
the
CPI
broke
away
from
the
united
front
in
Kerala
which
led
to
the
fall
of
the
CPI(M)-led
Government
in
that
state.
The
CPI
then
formed
an
anti-CPI(M)
front
and
government
first
with
the
support
of
the
main
bourgeois-landlord
part,
the
Indira
Congress,
from
outside
and
then
with
that
Congress
as
a
partner
in
the
coalition.
In
West
Bengal
also,
they
broke
helped
the
Congress.
Not
only
did
they
not
condemn
the
semi-fascist
terror
unleashed
by
the
Congress
against
the
CPI(M),
the
CPI
also
joined
the
attack
on
the
CPI(M).
The
CPI
later
had
electoral
adjustments
with
the
Indira
Congress.
The
Culmination
of
all
this
was
the
support
which
the
CPI
gave
to
the
internal
emergency
which
Indira
Gandhi
imposed
in
June
1975
to
establish
her
authoritarian
regime.
The
emergency
struck
a
big
blow
to
parliamentary
institutions,
but
the
advocates
of
the
parliamentary
path
lent
support
to
Indira
Gandhi’s
action
the
Marxist-Leninist
teachings
on
bourgeois
parliamentarianism
are
no
longer
the
guide,
when
warnings
against
its
pitfalls
are
ignored.
In
such
cases,
instead
of
making
revolutionary
use
of
parliamentary
institutions,
parliamentary
activity
becomes
the
most
important
activity
of
the
party
and
the
party
itself
is
reduced
to
a
parliamentary
party.
Those
who
call
for
boycott
of
elections
and
parliamentary
institutions
also
forget
what
is
happening
in
countries
under
military
and
other
reactionary
dictatorships.
The
Indian
peoples
see
what
is
happening
across
the
border
in
Pakistan.
Except
for
a
brief
period
in
the
beginning
and
a
brief
spell
in
between,
that
country
has
been
under
the
heels
of
military
dictatorships
for
most
part
of
its
life
after
independence.
The
most
oppressive
of
these
successive
military
dictatorships
is
the
present
Zia-ul
Haq
regime.
All
political
activities
are
prohibited
under
this
regime.
All
the
political
parties
remain
illegal.
All
civil
liberties
and
democratic
rights
of
the
people
have
been
scrapped.
The
working
class
is
denied
its
trade
union
rights,
other
sections
of
the
working
people
the
right
to
organise
and
struggle.
In
the
name
of
Islamising
the
country,
barbarous
crimes
are
committed
on
the
people.
Women
are
being
dragged
back
to
the
medieval
ages.
With
no
political
opposition
allowed
against
the
regime,
with
no
parliament
or
legislature
to
which
he
is
responsible
dictator
Zia-ul
Haq
is
making
Pakistan
a
client
state
of
US
imperialism,
the
arch
enemy
of
all
people.
When
against
all
those
crimes
of
the
military
dictatorship,
the
Movement
for
Restoration
of
Democracy
arose;
it
was
with
Savage
repression
and
butchery.
Witness
of
all
this,
the
Indian
people
naturally
want
to
protect
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
system
they
have.
Bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
have
to
be
defended
and
properly
utilised
even
to
advance
to
the
higher
stage
of
socialist
democracy.
As
stated
earlier,
it
will
be
foolish
to
think
that
the
bourgeois
parliamentary
system
is
firmly
entrenched
in
India.
Any
such
illusion
should
have
been
shattered
by
the
emergency
that
was
declared
in
June
1975.
it
should
not
be
forgotten
that
in
19777,
West
Bengal
was
subjected
to
semi-fascist
terror
and
this
terror
was
being
extended
to
Kerala
and
Tripura.
These
are
the
three
states
where
the
CPI(M)
is
a
strong
force.
The
emergency
that
was
imposed
saw
a
totally
authoritarian
regime
in
power.
Parliament,
though
it
was
not
dissolved,
was
reduced
to
impotency.
Many
of
its
members
were
put
behind
the
bars,
the
speeches
of
opposition
members
who
were
not
arrested
could
not
be
legally
publicised.
There
was
stringent
press
censorship,
not
a
line,
which
was
not
in
favour
of
the
emergency
regime,
could
appear
in
print.
The
powers
of
the
judiciary
were
so
emasculated
that
it
openly
declared
its
helplessness
to
guarantee
the
security
of
life
of
individuals.
An
attempt
was
made
to
put
the
authoritarian
leader
of
the
ruling
party
above
the
law
and
the
constitution
was
being
tampered
with
to
perpetuate
the
authoritarian
regime.
All
civil
liberties
and
democratic
rights
remained
abrogated.
But,
because
of
the
tradition
of
democracy,
born
out
of
the
long-drawn
freedom
struggle,
unlike
in
Pakistan,
a
powerful
popular
movement
in
which
all
the
opposition
parties
joined
could
put
an
end
to
this
dark
phase
of
the
emergency
in
two
years.
But
the
danger
to
bourgeois
parliamentary
institutions
has
by
no
means
disappeared.
The
ruling
party
continues
to
remain
authoritarian
and
is
again
making
attempts
to
replace
the
parliamentary
system
with
the
presidential
system.
Authoritarian
trends
exist
in
other
bourgeois-landlord
parties
also
as
was
seen
during
the
brief
Janata
Party
regime.
The
constitution
itself
has
anti-democratic
provisions-to
impose
central
rule
over
states,
to
declare
emergency
in
any
area,
to
declare
any
area
as
disturbed
and
hand
it
over
to
the
army,
for
preventive
detention,
etc.
the
repressive
organs
of
the
state
are
freely
used
against
the
struggles
of
the
working
people.
And
in
a
period
of
intense
economic
crisis,
the
ruling
party
finds
an
authoritarian
regime
move
convenient
that
the
parliamentary
system.
The
danger
of
imposition
of
authoritarian
regimes
by
the
ruling
classes
is
always
there.
As
the
Programme
of
the
CPI(M)
warns,
“The
threat
to
the
parliamentary
system
and
to
democracy
comes
not
from
the
working
people
and
the
parties
which
represent
their
interests.
The
threat
comes
from
the
exploiting
classes.
It
is
they
who
undermine
the
parliamentary
system;
from
within
and
without,
by
making
it
an
instrument
to
advance
their
narrow
interests
and
repress
the
toiling
masses.
When
the
people
begin
to
use
parliamentary
institutions
for
advancing
their
cause
and
they
fall
away
from
the
influence
of
the
reactionary
bourgeoisie
and
landlords,
these
classes
do
not
hesitate
to
trample
underfoot
parliamentary
democracy
as
was
done
in
Kerala
in
1959.
When
their
interest
demands,
they
do
not
hesitate
to
replace
parliamentary
democracy
by
military
dictatorship.
It
will
be
a
serious
error
and
a
dangerous
illusion
to
imagine
that
our
country
is
free
from
all
such
threats.”
(Para
72)
It is the interests of the working class to defend parliamentary institutions as they provide facilities, which an authoritarian regime denied, to advance the revolutionary struggle. That is why the CPI(M) at its last two Congresses gave an important place to the struggle against authoritarianism among its immediate tasks.