Volume:
4,
No.
2
April
–
June
1986
THE
ALL
INDIA
KISAN
SABHA,
THE
PREMIER
ORGANISATION
of
the
Indian
peasantry
is
celebrating
its
Golden
Jubilee
this
year.
It
already
held
the
Golden
Jubilee
Session
in
the
third
week
of
May.
Today,
the
Kisan
Sabha
is
the
biggest
organisation
of
the
peasantry
with
8.4
million
members,
and
if
the
membership
of
the
All
India
Agricultural
Workers
Union
is
also
included,
the
figure
goes
up
to
9.5
million.
Not
a
day
passes
without
some
struggle
or
movement
being
conducted
somewhere
in
India.
In
many
areas
of
the
country
the
Kisan
Sabha
symbolises
the
aspirations
and
hopes
of
the
multitude
of
poor
and
the
collective
will
of
the
peasantry.
The
organisation
is
growing
everywhere,
and
more
and
more
peasants
are
joining
it
and
taking
part
in
its
activities
and
struggle.
Fifty
years
ago,
when
it
was
founded
in
a
Conference
in
Lucknow,
the
AIKS
was
a
small
organisation,
and
very
few
people
heard
about
its
formation.
During
these
intervening
years
many
heroic
battles
have
been
fought
and
won.
The
battles
which
were
lost,
also
left
their
imprint
on
the
organisation.
Thus
a
great
deal
of
blood
has
been
shed,
and
many
martyrs
have
given
their
lives
fighting
for
the
democratic
rights
of
the
peasants.
Many
comrades
have
sacrificed
the
better
part
of
their
youth
in
the
underground
or
prison.
The
entire
history
of
the
past
fifty
years
has
been
a
long
history
of
severe
repression
against
the
organisation
and
its
workers.
But
none
of
the
sacrifices
have
gone
waste.
Each
ounce
of
blood,
energy
and
time
given
has
strengthened
the
body
and
the
soul
of
the
organisation.
The
Kisan
Sabha
which
we
see
today,
with
its
large
membership
and
an
elaborate
network
of
units
reaching
down
to
the
village
level,
is
a
product
of
this
history.
It
was
founded
to
play
a
distinct
role
in
the
history
of
the
country.
For
an
assessment
of
the
role
played
by
the
organised
peasant
movement
in
the
last
fifty
years
under
the
leadership
of
the
Communists,
it
is
essential
to
understand
the
actions
of
the
peasantry,
first
under
the
feudal
leadership
and
the
later
under
the
leadership
of
the
bourgeoisie,
and
the
class
limitations
imposed
on
the
peasant
movements
by
these
leadership.
Though
the
AIKS
was
formally
established
on
April
13,
1936,
it
had
not
been
built
in
a
day.
The
peasant
movements
in
different
parts
of
the
country
had
existed
for
the
past
century.
Many
of
the
peasant
struggles
fought
in
those
days
were
spontaneous
in
character,
lacked
proper
direction
and
in
many
cases
were
badly
organised.
Still
they
played
a
role
in
raising
the
consciousness
of
the
peasantry
to
fight
against
oppression
and
in
defence
of
their
rights.
The
first
half
of
the
nineteenth
century
witnessed
uninterrupted
anti-colonial
activity
on
the
part
of
the
peasantry,
and
tribesmen
led
by
feudal
lords
who
had
lost
their
privileges.
The
feudal
lords
in
the
Northern
Sarkars
had
been
strongly
resisting
British
domination
ever
since
the
beginning
of
the
nineteenth
century.
In
1807
the
whole
Delhi
regime
took
up
arms;
in
1814
at
Tuppan
of
Muneer
(near
Varanasi).
Rajput
peasants
secured
the
abolition
of
the
sale
of
land
by
public
auction
of
a
large
village
community
to
a
stranger.
In
1817
the
peasants
of
Orissa
led
by
local
feudal
lords,
rose
up
in
protest
against
the
introduction
of
taxation
of
their
rent
free
service
lands.
Poona
district
witnessed
the
uprising
of
the
peasantry
from
1826
to
1829
when
the
authorities
were
obliged
to
cede
to
them
holding
subject
to
low
revenue
charges.
In
1830-31
British
troops
were
sent
to
suppress
a
peasant
uprising
in
Bedsore
district
of
Mysore
State
against
the
tax
increase.
In
1835-37
there
was
an
uprising
in
Gumsur
in
Madras
Presidency.
In
1842
an
uprising
flared
up
in
Sagar.
In
1846-47
the
peasants
in
Karnal
rose
up
in
revolt.
In
1848
Rohillas
in
Nagpur
took
up
arms.
In
1844
in
the
Kolhapur
and
Santavadi
State
bordering
Bombay
Presidency,
there
was
a
large-scale
revolt
in
protest
against
the
British
decisions
increasing
the
land
revenue
to
pay
the
princes’
tribute.
The
peasants
of
Khandeth
in
Bombay
Presidency
rose
up
in
protest
against
the
land
settlement
which
resulted
in
the
increase
of
land
tax.
There
were
also
innumerable
uprisings
of
tribals
in
this
period
–
of
the
Bhils
in
1818-1831
and
Kolis
in
1824
in
Bombay
Presidency,
unrest
in
Kutch
in
1815
and
1832
and
revolt
in
Kittur
in
1824-1829.
In
1820,
there
was
an
uprising
of
the
Mers
in
Rajputana,
and
of
the
Hos
tribe
in
Chote
Nagpur
in
1831-32.
In
1846
the
Khonds
rose
up
in
Orissa
and
1855
witnessed
the
Santhal
revolt
in
Bihar.
There
was
also
unrest
in
the
Indian
towns
usually
resulting
from
the
introduction
of
new
taxes,
which
generally
took
the
form
of
hartals.
These
heroic
struggles
culminated
in
the
First
War
of
Independence
of
1857,
when
the
leadership
of
the
movement
was
taken
up
by
Sepys.
Explaining
the
significance
of
theis
rebellion
Karl
Marx
wrote:
“Before
this
there
had
been
mutinies
in
the
Indian
Army,
but
the
present
revolt
is
distinguished
by
characteristic
and
fatal
features.
It
is
the
first
time
that
Sepoy
regiments
have
murdered
their
European
Officers:
that
Mussulmans
and
Hindus,
renouncing
their
mutual
antipathies,
have
combined
against
their
common
master;
that
disturbances
beginnings
with
the
Hindus,
have
actually
ended
in
placing
on
the
throne
of
Delhi
a
Mohammedan
Emperor’,
That
the
mutiny
has
not
been
confined
to
a
few
localities
and
lastly,
that
the
revolt
in
the
Anglo-Indian
army
has
coincided
with
a
general
disaffection
exhibited
against
English
supremacy
on
the
part
of
the
great
Asiatic
nations,
the
revolt
of
the
Bengal
army
being,
beyond
doubt,
intimately
connected
with
the
Persian
and
Chinese
wars.”
The
uprisings
were
confined
to
northern
and
central
India.
The
peasants
after
driving
out
the
local
representative
of
the
colonial
administration
set
up
armed
detachments
for
their
own
defence
and
defended
the
village
communal
lands,
which
had
been
expropriated
by
the
British
conquerors.
The
population
in
the
town
played
an
active
par
in
the
uprising.
They
not
only
liberated
a
number
of
large
cities
like
Aligarh,
Bareilly,
Lucknow,
Kanpur
and
Allahabad
but
set
up
a
government
in
each
of
them.
This
popular
uprising
of
1857-59
was
defeated
for
various
reasons
the
most
important
being
that
although
the
fighting
forces
had
consisted
of
peasants
and
artisans,
they
were
led
by
the
feudal
nobility,
who
showed
themselves
incapable
of
leading
the
national
liberation
struggle.
They
could
not
evolve
a
united
strategy
and
a
united
command.
The
centres
of
uprising
which
emerged
spontaneously,
acted
independently
of
each
other.
Moreover,
the
feudal
lords
did
not
take
any
measure
to
alleviate
the
lot
of
the
peasantry.
When
the
British
Government
made
concessions
to
the
feudal
lords,
they
dissociated
themselves
from
the
uprising.
The
Sepoy
commanders
were
not
able
to
wage
a
complex
war.
After
the
British
succeeded
in
suppressing
the
uprising,
they
had
to
learn
a
lesion
and
change
their
tactics.
The
East
India
Company
was
liquidated
and
India
became
a
colony
of
the
British
government.
They
also
made
a
lot
of
concessions
to
the
feudal
lords
thereby
winning
their
sympathy
and
support.
In
spite
of
all
this
the
uprisings
left
their
imprint
on
the
national
liberation
struggle,
which
developed
in
subsequent
years.
Then
followed
the
period
of
intensified
exploitation
of
the
country.
This
exploitation
of
India
as
a
source
of
cheap
raw
materials
as
well
s
a
commodity
market
for
British
manufactures
constituted
the
main
form
of
colonial
loot.
It
helped
to
promote
the
development
of
commodity-money
relations
in
both
the
towns
and
villages,
and
this
growth
of
simple
commodity
production
in
a
period
of
formation
helped
in
the
further
penetration
of
trading
and
usury
capital
into
the
spheres
of
agriculture
and
handicrafts.
Discontentment
among
the
people,
especially
the
peasantry,
was
rapidly
growing;
the
defeat
of
Czarism
by
Japan
gave
encouragement
to
the
feelings
national
liberation;
and
the
Russian
Revolution
of
1905
also
made
its
own
impact
on
the
country.
The
immediate
issue
which
galvanised
the
atmosphere,
was
the
partition
of
Bengal
which
aroused
universal
indignation
throughout
the
land,
leading
to
the
movement
for
boycott
of
foreign
goods
which
began
on
August
7,
1905.
Simultaneously,
the
Punjab
was
witnessing
great
unrest
among
the
peasantry
on
the
question
of
the
Colonisation
Act.
A
powerful
movement
developed
against
it,
led
by
Lajpat
Rai,
Ajit
Sigh
and
Banke
Dayal.
These
movements
in
which
the
peasantry
participated
in
large
numbers,
were
accompanied
by
trade
union
struggles
in
Bombay
Calcutta
and
other
places.
The
revolutionaries
who
at
this
time
took
to
the
path
of
armed
struggles
against
imperialism
helped
radicalise
the
politics
of
those
days.
To
meet
the
situation
the
British
rulers
resorted
to
repressive
measures;
heavy
sentences,
deportation
banning
of
meetings,
detention
without
trial,
etc.
But
this
did
not
deter
the
people
from
their
path.
The
Government
had
to
announce
a
review
of
the
partition
of
Bengal
and
withdrew
the
Punjab
Colonisation
Act.
These
developments
and
their
outcome
signified
that
a
new
class
had
come
onto
the
scene,
i.e.,
the
bourgeoisie.
It
was
providing
leadership
to
the
movement
and
was
able
to
get
concessions.
The
outbreak
of
the
imperialist
world
war
in
1914
raised
hopes
among
the
people
for
the
liberation
of
all
colonial
peoples
and
Indian
revolutionaries
abroad,
who
were
mostly
peasants,
took
the
initiative
to
organise
a
revolt
in
the
Indian
Army.
They
formed
the
Gadhar
Party
with
headquarters
in
San
Francisco.
They
raised
the
slogan
of
complete
independence
and
sent
hundreds
of
revolutionaries
to
India
to
organise
a
revolt
against
the
British.
Many
of
them
were
caught
and
hanged,
large
numbers
had
to
undergo
life
imprisonment,
and
face
tortures
and
deprivation.
Although
they
did
not
succeed
in
their
mission
their
impact
in
arousing
the
peasantry
during
the
war
period
should
not
be
underestimated.
An
overwhelming
majority
of
them
later
on
joined
the
Kisan
sabha
when
it
was
formed.
By
contrast
with
the
activities
and
goal
of
these
revolutionaries,
the
Indian
National
Congress
for
its
part
had
expressed
its
loyalty
to
the
imperialist
war
in
all
its
sessions
held
in
this
period.
Even
on
1918
at
the
close
of
the
war
at
its
session
in
Delhi
the
Congress
Party
passed
a
resolution
expressing
loyalty
to
the
King
and
conveying
its
congratulations
at
the
successful
termination
of
the
war.
POST-WAR
UPSURGE
AND
THE
IMPACT
OF
THE
RUSSIAN
REVOLUTION
By
December
1917
news
of
October
Revolution
in
Russia
was
beginning
to
filter
through
to
India
and
the
not-too-efficient
censorship
allowed
it
to
appear
in
the
Press.
Many
articles
appeared
and
demobilised
soldiers
returning
from
the
fronts
also
brought
the
news.
It
had
a
tremendous
impact
on
the
Indian
people,
who
welcomed
the
success
of
the
Russian
Revolution
with
understandable
enthusiasm
in
particular,
its
slogan
of
the
right
to
self-determination
of
a
nation.
At
the
Calcutta
Session
of
the
Congress
in
December
1917,
Annie
Besant
spoke
of
the
Russian
Revolutions
as
one
of
the
factors
that
fundamentally
changed
the
previously
existing
situation
in
India.
As
the
war
neared
its
end,
having
cost
almost
ten
million
lives,
the
Indian
soldiers
began
returning
home,
by
sea,
on
foot,
through
the
endless
expanses
of
the
Himalayan
passes,
covered
with
blinding
white
snow.
But
these
were
no
longer
the
timid
downtrodden
peasants
and
craftsmen
who
had
cowered
before
the
arrogant
Englishman,
or
a
conceited
zamindar.
They
had
forgotten
the
smell
of
freshly
turned
earth;
their
hands
were
no
longer
accustomed
to
the
plough.
Instead
they
brought
with
them
the
smell
of
fire
bayonet,
and
slash
with
a
sabre.
They
had
acquired
a
sense
of
their
own
worth
and
dignity
and
came
to
believe
in
their
own
strength.
In
their
native
villages
and
hamlets
they
found
their
holdings
ruined
or
falling
into
decay,
and
the
land,
which
had
once
been
fruitful,
dried
and
barren.
Clenching
their
teeth
in
anger
they
listened
to
heart-rending
stories,
broken
by
sobs,
of
the
death
from
hunger
of
their
children,
wives
and
aged
parents.
They
had
come
to
understand
that
their
trouble
was
caused
by
the
greed
and
cruelty
of
the
colonialists
and
landlords.
It
was
no
by
chance
that
India
was
in
the
throes
of
an
unprecedented
upsurge
in
the
post-war
period.
Lenin
had
taken
note
of
the
situation.
Addressing
the
Second
Congress
of
the
Communist
Organisations
of
the
East
on
November
22,
1919,
he
stated:
“In
this
respect
you
are
confronted
with
a
task
which
has
not
previously
confronted
Communists
of
the
world;
relying
upon
the
general
theory
and
practice
of
Communism,
you
must
adapt
yourself
to
specific
conditions
such
as
do
not
exist
in
European
countries,
you
must
be
able
to
apply
that
theory
and
practice
to
conditions
in
which
the
bulk
of
the
population
are
peasants
and
in
which
the
task
is
to
wage
a
struggle
against
medieval
survivals
and
not
against
capitalism...”
(emphasis
added)
On
February
17,
1920,
the
Indian
Revolutionary
Associations
headed
by
émigrés
like
Raja
Mohinder
Pratap,
Maulana
Mohammed
Barkatullah
and
Maulana
Obeidullah
Sindhi,
in
an
Assembly
held
in
Kabul,
adopted
the
following
resolution
addressed
to
Lenin.
“Indian
revolutionaries
express
their
deep
gratitude
and
their
admiration
of
the
great
struggle
carried
on
by
Soviet
Russia
for
the
liberation
of
all
oppressed
classes
and
peoples,
and
especially
for
the
liberation
of
India.
Great
thanks
to
Soviet
Russia
for
her
having
heard
the
cries
of
agony
from
the
315,000,000
people
suffering
under
the
yoke
of
imperialism.
This
mass
meeting
accepts
with
joy
the
hand
of
friendship
and
help
extended
to
oppressed
India.”
In
reply
to
this
message
Lenin
wrote:
“I
am
glad
to
hear
that
the
principles
of
self-determination
and
the
liberation
of
oppressed
nations
from
exploitation
by
foreign
and
native
capitalists,
proclaimed
by
the
workers’
and
Peasants’
Republic,
have
met
with
such
a
ready
response
among
progressive
Indians,
who
are
waging
a
heroic
fight
for
freedom.
The
working
masses
of
Russia
following
with
unflagging
attention
the
awakening
of
the
Indian
workers
and
peasants.
The
organisations
and
discipline
of
the
working
people
and
their
perseverance
and
solidarity
with
the
working
people
of
the
world
are
an
earnest
of
ultimate
success.
We
welcome
the
close
alliance
of
Muslim
and
non-Muslim
elements.
We
sincerely
want
to
see
this
alliance
extended
to
all
the
toilers
of
the
East.
Only
when
the
Indian,
Chinese,
Korean,
Japanese,
Persian
and
Turkish
workers
and
peasants
join
hands
and
march
together
in
the
common
cause
of
liberation
–
only
then
will
decisive
victory
over
the
exploiters
be
ensured.
Long
lives
a
free
Asia.”
(Collected
Works,
Vol.
31,
p.
138)
Lenin’s
prediction
proved
to
be
true.
The
peasantry
in
India
was
drawn
into
action
in
a
big
way.
With
the
starting
of
the
non-cooperation
movement
the
peasantry
in
various
parts
of
the
country
became
very
active.
Though
not
strictly
a
part
of
the
non-cooperation
movement,
at
the
same
time,
their
activities
cannot
be
separated
from
the
movement
for
national
liberation.
Peasant
struggles
became
linked
up
with
the
struggle
for
independence
since
it
was
the
imperialist
system
of
exploitation,
which
was
the
main
protector
of
the
feudal
exploitation
in
the
countryside.
In
northern
India
the
Gurudwara
Reforms
Movement,
which
started
with
the
Nankana
Massacre,
brought
the
vast
Sikh
peasant
masses
into
action
against
British
rule,
thus
making
it
a
part
of
the
liberation
movement.
In
UP
had
begun
the
Eka
Movement
of
tenants
who
were
fighting
against
the
extortions
and
oppression
of
the
landlords.
In
the
south
there
was
the
Moplah
Rebellion
in
Malabar
(Kerala)
an
uprising
tenants
against
the
oppression
of
jenmies
(landlord).
The
main
slogan
of
the
Gurudwara
Reforms
Movement
was
the
liberation
of
Gurudwaras
from
the
control
of
Mahants
who
had
the
patronage
of
the
British
imperialists.
Bringing
the
Sikh
peasantry
into
the
national
mainstream,
it
soon
took
the
form
of
an
anti-imperialist
movement.
The
Eka
Movement
was
also
widespread
and
militant.
It
raised
the
demands
of
fixed
rents,
receipts
for
payments,
stoppage
of
beggar
for
the
landlord,
free
use
of
water
from
ponds,
and
the
freedom
to
graze
cattle
in
the
jungles.
It
was
a
revolt
of
the
tenants
against
the
unbearable
oppression
of
the
landlord.
The
Moplah
rebellion,
again
essentially
an
uprising
of
the
tenants
in
Malabar,
began
on
August
20
1921.
The
tenants
were
Muslims
while
the
jenmies
were
Hindus.
The
main
targets
of
the
attack
of
the
rebellion
were
the
police,
military,
landlords
and
moneylenders.
The
police
and
military
suppressed
the
rebellion
with
brutal
violence
in
which
3,266
Moplahs
were
killed.
The
period
also
witnessed
big
working
class
actions-
in
the
textile
and
jute
Mills
in
Calcutta,
Bombay,
Madras;
in
the
North
Western
and
Eastern
Railway,
the
coal-fields
of
Jharia,
the
P
&
T
Department
of
Bombay;
plantations
of
Assam;
tramways
of
Calcutta,
etc.
The
Fourth
Congress
of
the
communist
International
took
note
of
the
situation
and
drew
attention
to
mobilising
the
peasantry
in
the
struggle
for
independence.
The
Congress
emphasised
that
“the
revolutionary
movement
in
the
colonial
countries
would
achieve
no
success
unless
it
gets
the
support
of
the
peasant
masses.
The
agrarian
programme
of
the
Communist
in
the
counties
of
the
East
demands
the
complete
elimination
of
feudalism
and
all
its
survivals
and
aims
at
drawing
in
the
peasant
masses
in
the
struggle
for
national
liberation.”
The
thesis
on
the
Eastern
question
adopted
at
the
Congress
stated
that
the
Communists
must
see
to
it
that
the
national
revolutionary
parties
adopt
a
radical
agrarian
programme.
Dealing
with
the
agrarian
question
and
describing
the
situation
of
the
peasantry
in
the
colonial
countries
the
Congress
came
to
the
conclusion
that
“Only
the
agrarian
revolution
aiming
at
the
expropriation
of
large
land
owners
can
rouse
the
vast
peasant
masses
destined
to
have
a
decisive
influence
in
the
struggle
against
imperialism.
The
fear
of
agrarian
watchwords
on
the
part
of
the
bourgeois
nationalists
(India,
Persia
and
Egypt)
is
evidence
of
the
close
ties
existing
between
the
native
bourgeoisie
and
the
large
feudal
and
feudal
bourgeois
landowners
and
their
ideological
political
dependence
on
the
latter.
The
hesitation
and
wavering
of
this
class
must
be
used
by
the
revolutionary
elements
for
systematic
criticism
and
exposure
of
the
lack
of
resolution
of
the
bourgeois
leaders
of
the
national
movement.
It
is
precisely
this
lack
of
resolutions
that
hinders
the
organisations
of
the
toiling
masses
as
is
proved
by
the
bankruptcy
of
the
tactics
of
non-cooperation
in
India.
“The
revolutionary
movement
in
the
backward
countries
of
the
East
cannot
be
successful
unless
it
is
based
on
the
action
of
the
masses
of
the
peasantry.
For
the
reason
the
revolutionary
parties
in
all
Eastern
countries
must
define
their
agrarian
programme
which
should
demand
the
complete
abolition
of
feudalism
and
its
survivals,
expressed
in
the
forms
of
large
landownership
and
farming.
“In
order
that
the
peasant
masses
may
be
drawn
into
active
participation
in
the
struggle
for
national
liberation,
it
is
necessary
to
proclaim
the
radical
reform
of
the
bourgeois
nationalist
parties
to
the
greatest
extent,
possible
to
adopt
this
revolutionary
agrarian
programme.”
(Documents
of
the
History
of
the
C.I.
vol.
Pp.
550).
CHAURI
CHAURA
INCIDENT:
BETRAYAL
BY
BOURGEOIS
LEADERSHIP
When
in
1922
Mahatma
Gandhi
launched
a
mass
civil
disobedience
movement
in
one
district
of
Bardoli,
it
gave
encouragement
to
the
people
in
the
rest
of
the
country.
A
few
days
later
in
a
little
village.
Chauri
Chaura
in
UP
angry
peasants
stoned
and
burnt
the
village
police
station,
and
the
unpopular
village
constabulary
was
burnt
in
the
flames.
This
unrest
of
the
peasantry
crucial
to
the
Indian
Revolution
was
not
to
the
liking
of
Mahatma
Gandhi.
He
lost
no
time
in
announcing
the
withdrawal
of
the
movement,
disappointing
even
congress
leaders
who
were
then
in
prison.
The
reality
of
the
situation
was
that
the
reformist
control
of
the
movement
was
weakening.
This
concern
was
reflected
in
the
message
telegraphed
by
the
Viceroy
to
London
on
February
9,
only
three
days
before
the
withdrawal
of
the
movement:
“The
lower
classes
in
the
towns
have
been
seriously
affected
by
the
non-cooperation
movement….
In
certain
areas
the
peasantry
have
been
affected,
particularly
in
parts
of
the
Assam
Valley,
United
Provinces,
Bihar
Orissa
and
Bengal.
As
regards
the
Punjab,
the
Akali
agitation….
has
penetrated
to
the
rural
Sikhs.
A
large
proportion
of
the
Mohammedan
population
throughout
the
country
are
embittered
and
sullen…
grave
possibilities.
The
government
of
India
are
prepared
for
disorder
of
more
formidable
nature
than
has
in
the
past
occurred
and
do
not
seek
to
minimise
in
any
way
the
fact
the
great
anxiety
is
caused
by
the
situation.”
The
resolution
adopted
by
congress
Working
Committed
on
the
withdrawal
of
the
movement,
on
February
12,
1922,
makes
clear
as
daylight
that
Mahatma
Gandhi
and
the
Congress
leadership
were
afraid
of
the
agrarian
revolution
and
opposed
to
it.
They
were
not
interested
in
drawing
in
the
working
class
and
peasantry
as
classes,
into
the
movement.
After
deploring
the
activities
of
the
peasants
of
Chauri
Chuara
as
inhuman,
the
working
committee
resolution
instructed
the
local
congress
committee
“to
advise
the
cultivators
to
pay
land
revenue
and
other
taxes
due
to
the
government
and
to
suspend
every
other
activity
of
an
offensive
character.”
In
order
that
there
should
be
no
ambiguity
on
this
question,
it
further
stated.
“The
working
committee
advices
congress
workers
and
organisations
to
inform
the
ryots
(peasants)
that
withholding
of
rent
payment
to
the
zamindars
(landlords)
is
contrary
to
the
Congress
Resolutions
and
injurious
to
the
best
interests
of
the
country.”
The
resolution
then
ended
by
coming
out
in
open
defence
of
the
landlords
as
against
the
peasants:
“The
working
committee
assures
the
Zamindars
that
the
Congress
movement
is
in
no
way
intended
to
attack
their
legal
rights,
and
that
even
where
the
ryots
have
grievances,
the
Committee
desires
that
redress
be
sought
by
mutual
consultation
and
arbitration.”
It
is
clear
from
the
above
resolution
that
the
question
here
was
not
one
of
violence
or
non-violence.
It
was
instead
a
clear
question
of
defence
of
the
class
interests
of
the
landlords-the
exploiters
against
the
exploited.
Gandhi
and
the
dominant
leadership
of
the
Congress
called
off
the
movement
because
it
was
beginning
to
threaten
those
propertied
class
interests
with
which
they
themselves
were
closely
linked.
Thus
the
class
limitations
of
the
bourgeois
stood
revealed:
though
it
wanted
the
peasantry
to
be
drawn
into
the
national
liberation
struggle,
did
not
want
the
peasantry
to
come
into
action
as
a
class.
And
thus
began
the
struggle
between
the
two
approaches,
the
approaches
of
the
working
class,
which
had
by
now
emerged
on
the
scene,
and
that
of
the
bourgeoisie.
WORKING
CLASS
LEADERSHIP
By
contrast
March
1923,
the
Executive
Committee
of
the
Communist
Internation
issued
a
manifesto
on
the
Chauri
Chaura
sentences
where
172
peasants
had
been
given
death
sentences,
asking
for
protest
meetings
and
a
movement
for
their
release.
The
peasantry
had
already
had
the
experience
of
betrayal
by
the
landlords
during
the
struggles
of
the
19th
century.
In
the
Chauri
Chaura
struggle
they
were
able
to
se
the
betrayal
by
the
bourgeoisie.
The
Communists
and
the
Left
in
the
Congress
learnt
from
the
experience
of
these
two
betrayals
by
the
two
classes,
who
were
considered
their
natural
leaders,
and
decided
to
organise
the
peasantry
independently,
as
a
class,
though
working
in
cooperation
with
other
anti-imperialist
classes
and
strata
including
the
bourgeoisie.
In
May
1923,
the
formation
of
the
Labour
and
Kisan
Party
was
announced
and
its
action
programme
for
the
peasants
included
protection
against
eviction,
20
per
cent
reduction
on
all
economic
rent
in
ryotwari
settlement
areas,
eventual
abolition
of
Permanent
settlement
abolition
of
beggar,
protection
against
oppression
of
zamindars,
abolition
of
salami,
free
irrigation,
abolition
of
dowry,
etc.
loans
in
seed
or
money
without
interest,
etc.
This
was
the
beginning
of
the
preparations
for
a
platform
of
action
for
the
peasantry.
Subsequently,
peasant
organisations
also
came
into
existence
in
various
places.
A
Note
of
Satya
Bakta,
Secretary,
Indian
Communist
Party
dated
June
18,
1925,
states:
“In
order
to
organise
the
Indian
peasants,
labourers
and
other
working
people
and
with
a
view
to
bettering
their
condition,
the
Indian
Communist
Party
resolves
to
adopt
the
following
programme:
“In
these
days
there
are
several
kisan
sabhas
(peasants’
unions)
in
UP
and
other
provinces.
They
are
striving
after
some
reforms.
But
as
long
as
landlordism
exists
in
India,
peasants
cannot
become
happy
and
prosperous.
That
they
should
pay
something
to
the
Government
is
after
all
acceptable.
But
there
is
no
reason
why
middlemen
or
commission
agents
should
be
allowed
to
exist.
But
until
the
victory
of
the
proletarian
class,
landlordism
cannot
be
abolished
entirely.
“Even
now
the
government
and
leaders
of
our
country,
if
they
really
desire
the
betterment
of
the
peasants
can
improve
the
present
conditions
to
a
great
extent.
In
our
opinion
peasants
should
be
entitled
to
pay
their
rent
direct
to
the
Government
who
may
pay
to
the
landlord
their
share.
They
should
not
be
allowed
to
have
any
other
connection
with
or
control
over
the
peasants.
In
this
way
while
landlords
will
loss
nothing
of
their
legitimate
income,
they
and
especially
their
servants
will
no
longer
be
able
to
rob
peasants
in
the
shape
of
unlawful
taxes
and
gratuities.
For
this
purpose
the
Indian
Communist
Party
will
agitate
among
the
peasants
and
will
urge
upon
all
new
and
old
kisan
sabhas
to
work
in
the
suggested
manner.”
It
is
clear
from
this
that
kisan
sabhas
had
already
come
into
existence
in
many
parts
of
the
country.
Subsequently
the
Labour
Swaraj
Party
was
formed
in
Bengal,
on
November
1,
1925.
It
was
called
the
Labour
Swaraj
Party
of
the
Indian
National
Congress.
Its
programme
for
the
peasantry
stated:
Land
taxes
to
be
reduced
to
a
fixed
maximum
and
fixity
of
the
interest
rate
of
the
Imperial
Bank
on
arrears
of
rents;
fixity
of
tenure,
no
ejection
cessation
of
illegal
and
extra
taxation,
right
of
transference,
right
of
felling
trees,
sinking
wells,
excavating
tanks
and
erecting
pucca
structure;
fixed
term
of
fishery
rights
in
jolkars;
fixity
of
maximum
rate
of
interest
to
be
levied
by
moneylenders;
agricultural
cooperative
banks
to
be
established
to
provide
credit
to
the
peasants
and
to
free
them
from
the
clutches
of
moneylenders
and
speculating
traders;
agricultural
machinery
to
be
sold
or
lent
to
the
cultivators
on
easy
terms
through
the
cooperative
banks.
This
organisation
was
a
forerunner
of
the
Workers
and
Peasants
Party.
On
February
6-7,
1926
the
Second
Session
of
the
All
Bengal
Kisan
Conference
was
held
in
Krishna
Nagar
(Nadia
District).
It
decided
to
organise
a
peasants
and
Workers
Party
called
the
Bengal
Peasants
and
Workers
Party.
While
the
basic
demand
mentioned
that
the
ultimate
ownership
of
land
would
vest
in
a
self-contained
autonomous
village
community,
it
put
forward
the
following
immediate
demands:
1)
Fixity
of
rates
in
relation
to
the
rents
payable
by
the
tenants:
the
interest
charged
on
arrears
of
rent
to
be
equal
to
the
rate
of
interest
charged
by
the
Imperial
Bank.
2)
Cultivator’s
undivided
ownership
be
recognised
on
the
land
he
tills.
3)
Permanency
of
tenure
in
land
(which
the
cultivator
tills),
banning
of
evictions.
4)
Stopping
of
all
unjust
and
illegal
cesses.
5)
Right
freely
to
transfer
the
land
to
another
without
payment
of
salami.
6)
Right
to
cut
the
trees,
to
dig
wells
and
cut
canals
and
build
a
house
on
his
land
without
paying
any
salami.
7)
Fixing
conditions
for
catching
fish
in
the
ponds
on
the
land.
8)
The
highest
rate
of
interest
to
be
charged
by
the
mahajan
to
be
fixed
at
a
rate
not
more
than
12
per
cent.
9)
Establishing
cooperative
agricultural
banks
to
give
credit
to
the
peasant
and
thus
to
release
him
from
the
grip
of
the
greedy
and
professional
moneylender.
10)
Machinery
needed
for
cultivation
etc.
to
be
sold
outright
to
the
peasant
or
to
be
given
to
him
on
rent
for
use,
and
the
price
of
the
same
or
the
rent
amount
thereof
to
be
recovered
from
peasant
in
easy
instalments.
11)
To
make
arrangement
for
the
wholesale
sale
of
jute
or
other
commercial
crops
so
that
a
just
profits
rate
is
guaranteed
to
the
peasant.
It
was
on
February
24,
1927
that
the
Workers
And
Peasants
Party
was
formed
in
Bombay.
It
resolved
that
“a
political
party
of
workers
and
peasant
be
established
to
voice
the
demands
of
these
classes
within
the
National
Congress,
to
promote
the
organisation
of
trade
unions
to
wrest
them
from
their
alien
control,
to
advance
the
organisation
of
peasants
on
the
basis
of
their
economic
and
social
requirements
and
to
present
a
determined
and
pertinent
opposition
to
the
government
and
thus
secure
the
social,
economic
and
political
emancipation
of
these
classes.”
In
formulating
the
economic
demands
it
proposed:
12)
The
abolition
of
indirect
taxation
and
the
introduction
of
graded
income
tax
on
all
income
exceeding
Rs
250
per
mensem.
13)
Nationalisation
of
land
wherein
all
cultivable
land
will
be
leased
by
Government
to
cultivator.
14)
Nationalisation
of
means
of
production,
distribution
and
exchange.
15)
Rent
of
land
holding
not
to
be
excessive.
16)
Establishment
by
the
government
of
State-aided
cooperative
banks
controlled
by
local
organisations
for
the
provision
of
credit
to
peasants,
at
a
rate
of
interest
not
exceeding
seven
per
cent.
In
a
programme
formulated
for
the
All
India
Congress
Committee
it
proposed:
“70
per
cent
of
the
population
which
is
engaged
in
agriculture
is
to
be
organised
into
peasant
societies,
by
district,
taluk,
and
village,
on
the
lines
of
the
village
panchayat,
based
on
universal
suffrage
aiming
to
secure
control
of
the
economic
life
of
the
rural
areas.
Through
the
agricultural
cooperative
banks
to
be
established
by
the
State
for
the
provision
of
cheap
credit
to
the
peasants,
whereby
they
will
be
enabled
to
free
themselves
from
the
grip
of
Saukars,
and
to
purchase
modern
machinery
and
other
equipment;
limitation
by
law
of
the
rate
of
interest
at
seven
per
cent
per
annum;
limitation
of
rent
to
10
per
cent
of
the
total
produce
to
be
paid
direct
to
the
Sate,
and
brining
into
cultivation
by
State
aid
cultivable
land
by
present
unused.
But
the
bourgeoisie
leadership
of
the
Congress
was
not
prepared
to
take
up
the
peasant
demands.
When
a
proposal
was
mooted
before
the
Subjects
committee
of
the
Congress
that
it
should
side
with
peasants
and
workers
when
a
conflict
arose
between
them
and
the
zamindars
and
capitalists.
Pandit
Motilal
Nehru,
the
then
President
of
the
Congress,
contended
in
reply,
that
the
Congress
was
not
the
Socialist
or
Communist
Party.
The
reason
for
making
this
statement
was
that
the
Congress
was
by
no
means
ready
to
stand
up
for
those
who
produce
all
things
by
their
labour.
J
M
Sengupta,
leader
of
the
Bengal
Swarajists,
made
this
even
clearer.
He
said
that
the
party
includes
many
zamindars
and
that
without
their
help
so
many
men
of
their
party
would
certainly
never
be
able
to
enter
the
Councils.
So
they
could
by
no
means
help
the
peasants,
going
against
those
zamindars.
They
tried
to
cover
this
defence
of
the
interest
of
the
landlords
under
the
pretext
that
no
class
struggle
existed
in
the
countryside,
and
the
congress
represented
the
whole
country.
It
is
not
accidental
that
certain
juridical
measures
of
reforms
in
tenancy
rights
were
introduced
in
India
not
at
the
initiative
of
the
bourgeoisie,
but
by
imperialism
often
in
the
face
of
nationalist
bourgeois
opposition.
POPULARISATION
OF
THE
AGRARIAN
PROGRAMME
The
formation
of
the
All
India
Workers
and
Peasants
Party
and
the
subsequent
historic
Meerut
Trial,
helped
in
popularising
the
agrarian
programme
among
the
Indian
masses.
The
Meerut
Trial
went
on
for
more
than
four
years.
The
persons
involved
in
the
trial
in
their
statements
advocated
the
programme
of
the
Communists
in
relation
to
the
working
class,
peasantry
and
other
toiling
sections
of
the
Indian
population,
along
with
their
unflinching
opposition
to
imperialist
rule
in
the
country.
This
was
the
period
when
the
economic
crisis
of
the
30s
had
engulfed
the
world.
India
was
the
worst
hit
during
this
crisis
and
in
1931
the
Central
Banking
Enquiry
Committee
registered
the
general
conviction
that
“Indebtedness
leads
ultimately
to
the
transfer
of
land
holdings
from
the
agricultural
class
to
the
non-agricultural
money-lenders
leading
to
the
creation
of
the
landless
proletariat
with
a
reduced
economic
status.
The
result
is
said
to
be
loss
of
agricultural
efficiency
as
the
moneylenders
sub-let
at
a
rate
which
leaves
the
cultivators
with
a
reduced
incentive.”
(Enquiry
Committee
Report.
P.
59)
The
1931
Census
report
reached
the
conclusion
that
“It
is
likely
that
a
concentration
of
the
land
in
the
hands
of
the
non-cultivating
owners
is
taking
place.”
(Census
of
India,
1931,
Vol.
1)
Similarly,
the
extent
of
the
collapse
in
prices
of
agricultural
commodities
was
such,
that
whereas
in
1928-29
the
value
of
agricultural
crops,
taken
at
an
average
harvest
price,
was
about
Rs
1034
crore,
in
1933-34
it
was
only
Rs
473
crore
a
fall
of
55
per
cent.
In
the
United
Provinces,
the
number
of
tenants
abandoning
their
land
because
they
could
not
pay
rent,
reached
as
high
as
71
440
in
1931.
The
burden
of
debt
doubled.
Peasants
were
groaning
under
their
heavy
indebtedness,
their
lands
were
passing
into
the
hands
of
moneylenders
and
they
were
being
forced
to
live
the
life
of
paupers.
The
peasant
organisations
emerging
in
various
States
now
had
a
clear-cut
programme
not
only
for
immediate
relief
but
also
directed
against
the
system
of
landlordism.
The
peasants
had
realised
the
necessity
of
organising
themselves
as
a
class
which
was
numerically
not
only
strong
but
also
the
worst
exploited
under
the
triple
attack
of
the
imperialists
landlords
and
moneylenders
and
traders.
The
Indian
National
Congress
was
desirous
of
mobilising
them
in
the
struggle
for
independence
since
without
them
it
was
not
possible
to
bring
pressure
to
bear
on
the
imperialists
but
it
did
not
want
the
peasantry
to
emerge
as
a
class
conscious
of
its
rights
and
determined
to
put
an
end
to
the
rule
of
the
landlords.
The
Congress
started
the
Civil
Disobedience
movement
but
its
11-point
charter
of
demar
ds
did
not
contain
any
demands
of
the
working
class
and
peasantry
against
the
capitalists
and
the
landlords.
The
resolution
of
the
Karachi
Session
of
the
Congress
where
fundamental
rights
were
mentioned
in
relation
to
the
peasant
demands
it
did
not
stipulate
more
than
a
substantial
reduction
of
land
revenue
and
rent,
and
total
exemption
only
for
the
necessary
period
in
the
case
of
uneconomic
holdings.
There
was
no
reference
to
abolition
of
landlordism
or
even
the
annulment
of
at
least
a
portion
of
the
rural
debt.
It
was
clear
that
that
Indian
National
congress
did
not
want
to
rouse
the
peasantry
against
feudal
oppression.
Gandhi’s
hopes
for
a
compromise
were
shattered
at
the
Round
Table
Conference
and
he
had
again
to
continue
the
movement,
which
lasted
up
to
1934,
drawing
into
its
fold
huge
masses.
Once
again
the
movement
was
withdrawn
without
achieving
its
aim,
and
Gandhi
withdrew
from
the
Congress
exercising
his
influence
from
outside.
FORMATION
OF
ALL
INDIA
KISAN
SABHA
The
Communist
Party
was
banned
in
1934
but
continued
to
exercise
its
influence
on
the
working
class
and
on
the
Left
in
the
Congress.
The
ideas
of
Socialism
wee
becoming
very
popular,
and
left
dements
in
the
Congress,
becoming
disillusioned
with
Gandhi
formed
the
Congress
Socialist
Party,
in
order
to
give
the
Congress
a
Left
orientation.
Coming
to
realise
that
the
vast
masses
of
the
peasantry
could
be
brought
into
the
struggle
for
independence
only
by
taking
up
the
anti-feudal
struggle
and
their
immediate
demands
they
were
also
realising
the
necessity
of
organisation
the
peasantry
as
a
class.
They
had
already
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
struggle
for
real
political
freedom
could
not
be
separated
from
the
struggle
of
the
peasantry
for
an
end
to
landlordism
and
for
radical
restructuring
of
rural
society.
The
Communists
were
already
trying
to
develop
class
organisations
and
had
popularised
the
ideas
of
independent
class
organisations
of
the
working
class
peasants
and
other
sections
of
the
toiling
people.
Thus
it
was
the
Left
Congressmen,
Congress
Socialists
and
Communists
who
took
the
initiative
in
organising
the
All
India
Kisan
Sabha.
The
First
Session
was
held
in
1936,
Lucknow
to
coincide
with
the
holding
of
the
Session
of
the
Indian
National
congress.
The
idea
was
to
project
the
kisan
movement
as
a
part
of
the
national
movement
though
maintaining
its
separate
identity
as
a
class
organisation.
BROAD
BASED
ORGANISATION
The
following
list
of
the
names
of
some
of
the
participants
in
the
first
All
India
Kisan
Sabha
Session
is
revealing
:
EMS
Namboodiripad,
Dinkar
Methta,
Kamal
Sarkar,
Sohan
Singh
Josh,
Lal
Bahadur
Shastri,
K
D
Malaviya,
Mohan
Lal
Gautam,
B
Sampooranand,
Jayaprakash
Narain,
Swami
Sahajanand,
NabaKrishna
Choudhury,
Harekrishna
Mahtab,
N
G
ranga,
Indulal
Yajnik,
R
K
Khadilkar,
Bishnuram
Medhi
and
Sarat
Sinha.
Many
of
them
became
prominent
national
and
state-level
personalities
in
subsequent
years.
It
also
suggests
how
broad-based
the
Kisan
Sabha
was
from
the
very
beginning
and
how
it
tried
to
attack
people
of
varying
political
views
to
join
together
in
defence
of
the
democratic
rights
of
the
kisans.
The
formation
of
the
AIKS
was
preceded
by
a
meeting
in
Meerut
in
January
1936,
where
the
necessary
preparations
were
made.
A
clear
decision
was
taken
to
launch
the
organisation
with
a
broad-based
programme
and
membership
to
link
it
closely
with
the
national
movement
for
independence
and
to
view
the
fight
against
imperialism
as
an
integral
part
of
the
fight
against
the
feudal
social
order
since
the
former
patronised
and
provided
state
support
to
the
latter.
Today
with
the
benefit
of
hindsight
one
is
struck
by
the
simplicity
and
directness
with
which
the
very
first
session
set
out
its
tasks
in
the
main
resolution.
To
quote:
“The
objective
of
the
Kisan
movement
is
to
secure
compete
freedom
from
economic
exploitation
and
the
achievement
of
full
economic
and
political
power
for
the
peasants
and
workers
and
all
the
other
exploited
classes.
“The
main
task
of
the
kisan
movement
shall-be
the
organisation
of
peasants
to
fight
for
their
immediate
political
and
economic
demands
in
order
to
prepare
them
for
their
emancipation
from
every
from
of
exploitation.
“The
kisan
movement
stands
for
the
achievements
of
ultimate
economic
and
political
power
for
the
producing
masses
through
its
active
participation
in
the
national
struggle
for
winning
complete
independence.”
It
their
indicted
the
zamindari
system,
“supported
by
the
British
government
in
India”,
as
“iniquitous
unjust,
burdensome,
and
oppressive
to
the
kisans”,
and
declared
that
“all
such
system
of
landlordism
shall
be
abolished
and
all
the
rights
over
such
lands
be
vested
in
the
cultivators.”
This
was
the
essence
of
what
the
kisan
movement
stood
for
at
the
time
of
the
launching
of
the
AIKS.
The
other
issues
covered
by
resolutions
included
questions
of
rent,
irrigation
rates
and
prices
of
inputs,
prices
of
marketed
agricultural
products,
indebtedness,
forced
labour
and
illegal
exactions
from
the
tenants
by
the
landlords
and
the
distribution
of
landlords
land
to
the
landless
poor
peasants
as
also
the
vesting
of
waste
land
and
grazing
land
in
the
village
level
panchayats.
The
AIKS
also
demanded
minimum
wages
for
the
regulating
their
unionisation.
Any
one
reading
those
resolutions
will
immediately
notice
that
many
of
the
issues
raised
by
the
conference
of
the
AIKS
in
its
first
session
have
remained
unresolved
till
today.
PART
OF
THE
NATIONAL
MOVEMENT
The
Bombay
session
of
the
Central
Kisan
Sabha
Council
(CKC)
held
in
August
1936
further
elaborated
many
of
the
points
raised
in
the
founding
session.
It
categorically
stated
that,
since
the
kisans
constituted
more
than
four-fifths
of
the
population,
“no
political
or
economic
programme
which
has
the
audacity
to
ignore
their
needs
and
demands
can
by
any
stretch
of
imagination,
be
labelled
as
a
national
programme”,
and
called
upon
the
Indian
National
Congress
to
make
“the
solution
of
the
problems
of
the
peasantry
the
chief
plank
of
its
political
and
economic
policy.”
At
the
same
time
the
CKC
felt
the
need
for
a
political
movement,
which
draws
“its
main
strength
and
inspiration
from
the
peasantry.”
These
two
struggles
---
the
kisan
movement
and
the
national
movement
were
seen
as
“inter-dependent,
the
strength
of
the
one
adding
to
the
other.”
The
CKC
meeting
also
strongly
emphasised
on
the
need
for
peasant
unity.
The
AIKS
was
an
“expression
of
the
awakening
of
the
peasantry”,
and
should
represent
not
only
the
ryots
the
tenants
and
the
landless
labourers
but
also
all
sections
of
cultivating
peasantry
---
“in
other
words,
it
represents,
and
speaks
and
fights
for
those
who
live
by
cultivation
of
the
soil.
All
these
different
strata
among
the
kisans
will
have
to
combine
and
fight
for
removal
of
all
the
letters
imposed
by
British
imperialism
and
it’s
allies
the
landlords.”
FUNDAMENTAL
AND
MINIMUM
DEMANDS
The
Bombay
Session
made
a
separate
listing
of
“fundamental
demands”
and
“minimum
demands”.
The
former
included
the
demands
for
abolishing
intermediary
tenures,
replacement
of
existing
land
revenues
by
graduated
land
tax,
cancellation
of
old
debts
and
allocation
of
land
to
landless
and
poor
peasants
for
cooperative
farming.
The
minimum
demands
included
the
cancellation
of
the
rent
and
revenue
arrears;
exemption
of
uneconomic
holdings
from
land
revenue;
reduction
of
rent
revenue
and
water
rates
by
half;
immediate
grant
of
right
permanent
cultivation
to
tenants
cultivating
land
held
by
zamindars,
talukdars,
etc.,
rent
remission
for
these
tenants;
graduated
taxation
of
agricultural
income
abolition
and
penalisation
of
all
feudal
and
customary
dues,
forced
labour
and
illegal
exactions;
a
five
year
moratorium
on
debts
freedom
from
arrest
and
imprisonment
for
debtors
and
also
immunity
from
attachment
for
small
holdings;
licensing
for
money-lenders;
arrangement
of
credit
from
the
state
cooperative
and
land
mortgage
banks
over
a
long
period
of
40
years
t
five
per
cent
interest
lowering
the
freight
on
agriculture
goods
introduction
of
one
paise
postcards;
abolition
of
indirect
taxes
on
salt
kerosene
sugar,
tobacco
molasses,
etc.,
stabilisation
of
agricultural
prices
minimum
wages
legislation
to
recognise
collective
action
of
the
peasants
insurance
for
cattle
fire
and
health
adult
franchise
and
establishment
of
village
panchayats
for
managing
civic
affairs
and
communal
land
among
others.
These
show
the
wide
range
of
issues
covered
by
the
AIKS
in
its
campaign
which
catered
to
the
needs
and
aspirations
of
various
sections
of
the
peasantry.
From
its
very
beginning
the
AIKS
was
alert
and
reacted
to
major
national
and
international
events.
While
striving
for
the
country’s
independence
the
AIKS
had
a
distinct
concept
of
independence,
which
was
outlined
in
various
resolution
where
along
with
political
independence,
socio
economic
independence
was
emphasised.
To
quote
from
the
resolution
of
the
Bombay
CKC
meeting
in
1936
again
it
stated:
“The
Kisan
must
fight
for
national
socio-economic
independence
Indian
a
democratic
of
Britain
must
be
transformed
into
a
free
progressive
democratic
India
of
the
masses.”
There
was
no
room
for
exploitation
and
oppression
in
the
concept
of
the
free
Indian
that
the
AIKS
held.
It
was
never
solely
concerned
with
narrow
peasant
issues
and
defined
the
interests
of
the
peasantry
in
broad
terms.
FOR
WORKERS
PEASANT
ALLIANCE
One
of
the
cornerstones
of
its
policies
had
always
been
the
unity
of
the
peasants
with
the
workers.
In
its
Gaya
Session
in
1939
the
AIKS
talked
about
the
objective
of
building
“a
democratic
State
of
the
Indian
people
leading
ultimately
to
the
realisation
of
Kisan
---
Mazdoor
Raj”.
Even
earlier
in
its
second
session
at
Faizpur
the
Presodential
Address
stated:
“It
is
the
sacred
duty
of
every
of
our
kisans
to
fraternise
with
the
workers
in
the
village
and
in
the
town…
There
is
much
to
be
achieved
by
both
workers
and
peasants
by
common
effort
for
their
mutual
benefit.”
The
adoption
of
the
red
flag
with
hammer
and
sickle,
signifying
the
unity
of
these
two
classes,
was
strongly
defended
by
the
General
Secretary
Swami
Sahajananda
at
the
Comilla
Session
in
1938
on
the
grounds
aspirations
of
the
exploited
and
the
oppressed.”
Its
commitment
to
anti-imperialism
was
reflected
in
the
resolutions
passed
in
the
earlier
years
condemning
the
Italian
attack
on
Ethiopia
and
the
Japanese
attack
on
China,
and
supporting
World
War
began
it
doggedly
opposed
the
war
efforts
championed
the
cause
of
world
peace
and
later
when
the
fascist
forces
of
Hitler
attacked
the
USSR
it
firmly
came
out
with
the
slogan
of
defeating
the
fascist
hordes
to
save
humanity
from
fascist
enslavement.
It
mobilised
popular
opinion
against
fascism.
On
national
issues
too,
the
AIKS
conferences
not
only
passed
resolutions
against
the
colonial
rulers
but
also
fought
for
a
determined
struggle
against
British
rule
and
State
organised
oppression.
In
fact,
many
of
the
leaders
of
the
AIKS
were
themselves
the
stalwarts
in
the
national
movement
and
spent
many
years
in
British
prisons.
AGAINST
HEAVY
ODDS
The
formation
of
the
AIKS
was
greeted
with
hostility
from
many
sides.
Both
the
Hindu
and
Muslim
vested
interests
joined
hands
against
the
AIKS
and
tried
their
best
to
disrupt
the
working
of
the
organisation
by
terrorising
the
peasants
and
using
communal
propaganda.
The
British
government
alarmed
by
its
growing
hold
on
the
peasantry
intensified
its
repression
by
arresting
key
leaders,
from
time
to
time
and
forcing
many
others
to
go
underground.
A
report
of
the
intelligence
Bureau
of
the
British
colonial
government
in
India
said
in
1937:
“The
Communist
leaders
are
developing
a
strangle
hold
upon
any
future
agrarian
movement
as
well
as
inspiring
this
with
their
special
methods
and
outlook
of
which
by
no
means
the
least
is
the
belief
in
mass
violence
and
the
violent
overthrow
of
British
rule.”
The
right
wing
of
the
Congress
party
led
by
Sardar
Ballavbhai
Patel
and
Dr
Rajendra
Prasad
fought
against
the
collective
affiliation
of
the
Kisan
Sabha
to
the
Indian
National
Congress
and
strongly
opposed
the
separate
existence
of
the
kisan
organisation
had
produced
such
an
atmosphere
of
violence
in
the
countryside
that
an
explosion
may
occur
at
any
moment.”
In
many
provinces
the
Congress
leaders
took
an
openly
pro-landlord
view
and
used
their
power
in
governments
formed
in
the
late
thirties
to
suppress
the
agitation
of
the
peasants.
In
Bihar
they
made
an
alliance
with
the
landlord
lobby
to
fight
off
AIKS
activists.
In
its
formative
years
therefore
the
AIKS
had
to
grow
fighting
against
such
heavy
odds.
But
it
grew
nevertheless.
The
very
formation
of
the
organisations
inspired
peasants
all
over
the
country
to
take
up
immediate
issues
and
light.
As
opposed
to
the
path
taken
by
the
Indian
National
Congress,
which
compromised
with
landlords
and
other
vested
interests,
and
spoke
of
non-violent
resistance,
the
AIKS
rallied
the
peasants
to
stand
up
to
the
attacks
by
the
armed
thugs
of
the
landlords
and
the
police.
The
Gaya
Session
of
the
AIKS
in
1939
reported
that
“the
past
year
has
witnessed
a
phenomenal
awakening
and
growth
of
the
organised
strength
of
the
kisans
in
India.
FORMATION
OF
MINISTRIES
To
keep
the
mass
movement
under
control,
congress
decided
to
implement
the
Constitution
of
1935
and
formed
the
ministries.
Congress
policy
was
again
put
to
the
test
and
again
it
was
found
that
it
stood
by
the
side
of
the
landlords
against
the
tenant
and
the
landless.
But
the
organised
peasant
movement
supported
by
the
Congress
Left
was
proving
capable
of
exercising
influence,
and
the
Congress
Ministries
were
being
forced
to
give
some
concessions.
However,
the
Congress
never
defined
the
meaning
and
importance
of
national
freedom
other
than
as
freedom
from
British
rule.
It
was
the
Communists,
Socialists
and
the
Congress
Left,
which
were
trying
to
propagate
the
understanding
that
freedom
from
foreign
rule
could
have
real
meaning
only
if
it
was
followed
by
agrarian
revolution
and
completion
of
the
bourgeois
democratic
tasks.
The
masses
were
getting
disillusioned
and
impatient,
and
wanted
the
Congress
leadership
to
launch
a
final
assault
on
British
rule.
The
leadership
wanted
to
restrain
them
and
use
them
for
pressure
and
bargaining.
The
peasant
movement
thus
came
again
into
conflict
with
the
bourgeois
leadership
of
the
Congress,
especially
on
the
issue
of
struggle
against
feudal
and
semi-feudal
relations.
The
limitations
of
the
bourgeois
leadership
were
starkly
revealed
and
it
could
be
clearly
seen
that
it
did
not
want
to
come
into
conflict
with
the
landlord
class.
The
leadership
was
prepared
to
accept
and
support
certain
demands
of
the
peasantry,
which
were
directed
against
the
Government,
but
was
not
prepared
to
take
up
the
basic
issue
of
abolition
of
landlordism.
In
fact
it
was
afraid
of
agrarian
revolution.
Therefore,
the
kisan
sabhas,
while
supporting
the
struggle
for
national
independence
had
not
only
to
strengthen
the
independent
class
organisations
of
the
peasantry
but
also
to
forge
unity
with
the
working
class,
the
most
revolutionary
class
for
our
society
for
completion
of
the
agrarian
revolution.
KISAN
SABHA
AND
THE
WAR
As
compared
to
the
Indian
National
Congress,
which
lent
its
support
to
the
war
efforts
of
British
imperialism
the
AIKS
came
out
in
firm
opposition
to
the
war.
Here
again
there
were
two
different
class
approaches-one
supporting
the
British
imperialist
power
the
other
expressing
its
firm
opposition
to
imperialist
war
being
fought
with
the
sole
purpose
of
redividing
the
world
for
the
continuation
of
colonial
exploitation.
The
AIKS
gave
a
call
for
struggle
against
British
rule
and
their
Indian
lackeys,
and
launched
a
no
rent,
no
tax
movement.
The
AIKS
was
naturally
subjected
to
unprecedented
police
repression
and
its
open
functioning
became
extremely
difficult.
Its
officers
in
Bengal
and
other
States
were
raided
and
put
under
lock
and
key,
and
its
main
functionaries
were
either
arrested
or
forced
to
go
underground.
However,
with
the
attack
on
the
Soviet
Union
by
the
German
Fascists
in
June
1914
the
Sabha
raised
the
slogan
of
defeating
fascism
to
save
humanity
from
fascist
enslavement.
It
took
the
view
that
on
the
victory
over
fascism
depended
the
survival
of
the
first
Socialist
State
as
well
as
the
independence
of
countries
including
ours.
The
AIKS
therefore
considered
it
the
sacred
duty
of
the
organisation
to
support
the
cause
of
defence
of
Socialist
State
and
defeat
of
fascism.
While
the
task
of
fighting
fascism
was
given
the
priority
it
deserved
the
AIKS
in
its
Session
in
1914
reminded
its
members
that
“the
struggle
for
India’s
freedom
should
not
be
slackened
even
temporarily.”
The
CKC
meeting
at
Nagpur
in
1942
demanded
transfer
of
power
to
a
national
Government
and
a
declaration
recognising
India’s
right
to
freedom.
It
identified
the
British
colonial
regime,
which
was
working
“in
complete
isolation
from
the
millions
on
the
land”
as
the
greatest
obstacle
to
the
mobilisation
of
India’s
millions
in
the
defence
of
their
country
and
the
successful
persecution
of
the
war.”
When
on
August
9,
1942
Gandhi
and
other
leaders
of
the
Congress
were
arrested
leading
to
violent
protests
in
many
parts
of
the
country,
the
AIKS
expressed
its
full
support
to
the
Congress
demand
for
transfer
of
power,
demanded
the
released
of
Gandhi
and
other
national
leaders,
and
condemned
the
“indiscriminate
firing
and
repression
that
have
been
let
loose
by
the
Government
on
the
people.”
POST-WAR
UPSURGE
The
military
defeat
of
the
fascist
powers
headed
by
Hitlerite
Germany
and
the
decisive
role
played
by
the
Soviet
Union
altered
the
alignment
of
class
forces
on
a
world
arena
in
favour
of
Socialism.
This
also
resulted
in
the
general
weakening
of
imperialism
on
a
world
scale.
Inspired
by
this
powerful
national
liberation
struggle
swept
throughout
the
countries
of
Asia.
India
the
largest
country
of
the
British
Empire
witnessed
a
mass
revolutionary
upheaval
against
British
rule-peasant
revolts
of
which
the
heroic
armed
struggle
of
the
Telengana
peasantry
was
the
most
important
general
strikes
of
workers,
student
strikes
and
the
states
people
mass
struggle
developed
on
an
unprecedented
scale.
The
demonstrations
for
the
release
of
INA
personnel
took
the
form
of
a
country
–
wide
revolt
against
British
rule.
This
wave
of
protest
reached
a
climax
with
the
uprising
of
the
Royal
Indian
Navy
in
February
1946
in
Bombay,
Karachi
and
Madras.
The
Union
Jack
was
removed
from
the
ship’s
masts
and
the
Congress
and
Muslim
League
flags
hoisted
instead.
In
Bombay
the
naval
ratings
carried
the
Red
Flag
of
the
Communist
Party
along
with
the
other
two.
The
slogans
the
navy
men
raised
showed
the
political
nature
of
the
action-Jai
Hind,
Inquilab
Zindabad,
Hindu-Muslim
Unity.
Release
INA
and
other
political
prisoners.
Down
with
British
Imperialism,
Accept
our
demands.
Rajani
Palme
Dutt,
in
his
outstanding
and
seminal
work,
India
Today,
not
only
captured
the
spirit
of
the
time,
but
gave
a
keen
analytical
insight
into
the
significance
of
the
event
and
the
class
reactions
it
engendered:
“The
Naval
rising
and
popular
struggle
in
the
February
days
in
Bombay
revealed
with
inescapable
clearness
the
alignment
of
forces
in
the
explosive
situation
developing
in
India
in
the
beginning
of
1946.
It
showed
on
the
one
hand
the
height
of
the
movement
the
courage
and
determination
of
the
people
and
the
overwhelming
mass
support
for
Hindu-Muslims
unity
and
Congress-League
unity.
It
showed
that
the
movement
had
reached
to
the
armed
forces
and
that
therefore
the
basis
of
British
rule
was
no
longer
secure.
But
it
showed
on
the
other
hand
the
unreadiness
and
disunity
of
the
existing
national
leadership
and
their
consequent
inability
to
lead
the
national
struggle.
“But
now
when
the
masses
were
really
in
movement
when
Hindu-Muslim
unity
was
being
realised
and
practised
when
the
armed
forces
had
united
with
the
civilian
population
in
the
common
national
movement
and
when
the
real
struggle
for
freedom
had
opened
the
gates
of
British
rule,
the
attitude
of
the
upper
leadership
of
the
national
movement
revealed
a
marked
change.
The
upper
class
leadership
of
the
Congress
and
Muslim
league
found
themselves
in
opposition
to
the
mass
movement
and
aligned
with
British
imperialism
as
the
representative
of
law
and
order
against
the
people.
A
whole
series
of
statements
and
denunciations
were
issued
condemning
the
“violence”
not
of
the
imperialist
authorities
whose
firing
slaughtered
hundreds
in
three
days
but
of
the
unarmed
people
who
had
been
the
objects
of
military
firing
Vallabhai
Patel
issued
a
statement
in
which
he
declared
that
the
Naval
ratings
ought
not
to
have
taken
to
arms
and
that
he
endorsed
remarks
of
the
Commander-in-Chief
that
there
ought
to
be
discipline
in
the
Navy”
(India
Today.
P.
583)
The
RIN
uprising
however
was
followed
by
militant
struggles
in
the
countryside
at
the
head
of
which,
at
the
many
places
stood
the
Communist
Party.
And
by
1946
the
AIKS
through
militant
struggles
in
Punjab,
UP,
Bihar,
Kerala,
Maharashtra
and
Andhra
had
drawn
the
attention
of
all
on
the
question
of
abolition
of
landlordism.
The
slogan
of
agrarian
revolutions
was
brought
onto
the
agenda
in
the
armed
resistance
of
the
peasants
of
Vayalar
and
Punnapra
in
the
State
of
Travancore,
the
militant
Tebhaga
struggle
of
the
peasants
of
Bengal
the
struggle
of
the
Warli
peasants
in
Maharashtra
and
the
struggle
of
the
Tripura
peasants.
Crowning
all
these
struggles
was
the
epochal
struggle
of
the
peasantry
of
Telengana,
which
has
no
parallel
in
the
history
of
the
country
where
peasants
fought
with
arms
in
hands
from
1946-1951
for
three
years,
1948-51
against
the
armies
of
the
Indian
State.
In
the
course
of
the
movement
guerrilla
squads
were
formed
from
the
village
to
the
district
level,
which
met
the
terror
unleashed
by
the
Razakars,
and
in
many
instances
scared
away
the
landlords
in
the
area.
At
the
peak
of
the
struggle
almost
3000
villages,
with
roughly
30
lakh
of
the
people
and
an
area
of
16,000
square
miles
were
liberated
and
brought
under
the
administration
of
Gram
Raj.
In
this
area
guerrilla
squads
of
2000
and
a
people’s
militia
of
10,000
guarded
the
villages
and
about10
lakh
acres
of
land
were
distributed
among
the
landless.
Among
the
reforms
introduced
by
the
revolutionary
leadership
was
the
slashing
of
usurious
interests
banning
of
forced
labour
and
fixation
of
a
minimum
wage.
This
was
the
real
alternative
developing
to
bourgeois
landlord
rule
in
the
countryside
and
its
significance
lay
in
the
fact
that
if
it
had
been
allowed
to
develop
a
qualitative
change
would
have
come
about
in
the
situation
combining
agrarian
revolution
with
the
national
liberation
movement
and
the
course
of
history
would
have
been
entirely
different.
BOURGEOIS
PARTIES
SETTLE
WITH
IMPERIALISTS
Telengana
showed
the
direction
the
mass
movement
could
have
taken
if
it
had
not
been
checked.
The
completion
of
the
tasks
of
the
bourgeois
democratic
revolution
had
come
onto
the
political
agenda
with
the
agrarian
revolution
as
its
crux.
But
though
the
‘workers
and
peasants’
alliance
was
being
forged
and
the
Communist
Party
was
at
the
head
of
some
of
these
struggle
it
was
not
in
a
position
to
assume
the
leadership
of
the
national
movement,
which
still
remained
in
the
hands
of
bourgeoisie.
Afraid
of
this
mass
upsurge
the
bourgeoisie
realised
that
if
the
struggle
against
imperialism
developed
into
a
general
revolt
the
leadership
of
the
mass
movement
would
slip
away
from
is
hands.
British
imperialism
also
saw
that
it
would
no
longer
be
possible
to
continue
their
rule.
Under
these
circumstances
the
leaders
of
the
National
Congress
and
the
Muslim
League
reached
a
settlement
with
the
British
imperialists.
With
the
outmoded
agrarian
relations
not
being
radically
changed
and
a
path
of
capitalist
development
in
compromise
with
imperialism
and
feudalism
being
pursued
by
the
ruling
Congress
party,
it
was
but
natural
that
the
tasks
of
the
bourgeois
democratic
revolution
remained
incomplete.
Had
the
bourgeoisie
not
compromised
at
this
stage,
the
situation
would
have
gone
out
of
its
control.
It
would
have
lost
its
leadership
and
the
working
class
would
have
been
in
a
position
to
lead
the
movement
and
complete
the
tasks
of
the
bourgeois
democratic
revolution.
By
now
our
country
would
have
also
taken
the
road
to
Socialism
as
has
been
done
by
China,
Vietnam,
North
Korea
and
other
Asian
countries.
EXISTENCE
OF
CASTE
AND
COMMUNAL
PROBLEM
The
existence
of
the
communal
and
caste
problems
and
threat
of
divisive
forces
with
which
we
are
faced
today
also
originates
from
the
policies
pursued
by
the
Congress
party
in
the
pre-in-dependent
and
post-independent
period-its
policy
of
alliance
with
feudalism
instead
liquidating
it
and
the
weakness
of
the
organised
peasant
movement
in
leading
the
agrarian
revolution
in
alliance
with
the
working
class
the
position
which
it
started
acquiring
during
the
post-war
period
but
was
not
able
to
bring
to
a
decisive
turning
point.
Historical
experience
shows
that
it
is
only
in
countries
where
feudal
and
semi
feudal
relations
have
been
put
an
end
to
and
the
agrarian
revolution
has
been
led
to
successful
completion
that
the
problem
of
caste
or
communalism
can
be
overcome.
It
is
only
in
the
countries
where
the
national
liberation
struggle
was
led
by
bourgeoisie
but
was
not
led
to
its
completion
that
this
problem
not
only
remains
but
gets
aggravated
to
be
used
by
the
ruling
classes
to
divert
the
discontent
of
the
masses
and
to
disrupt
the
unity
of
the
democratic
movement.
Experience
has
also
shown
that
in
the
areas
where
the
peasant
movement
was
strong
in
spite
of
efforts
made
by
the
British
imperialists
riots
could
not
be
organised
and
the
unity
forged
during
the
struggle
between
the
Hindu-Muslim
peasants
stood
as
the
guarantee
of
communal
peace.
The
Kisan
Sabha
never
allowed
any
scope
for
communalism
and
casteism
on
its
platform.
It
not
only
maintained
its
secular
character
but
exposed
the
communal
ideology
and
fought
against
this
virus
during
the
riots
in
Punjab,
Bihar
and
Bengal.
In
pursuing
this
policy
some
of
its
leaders
and
cadre
laid
down
their
lives
fighting
against
the
dark
forces
of
communalism.
Thus,
though
the
leadership
of
the
national
liberation
movement
was
in
the
hands
of
the
bourgeoisie,
alternative
political
forces
represented
by
the
trade
unions
and
kisan
and
other
militant
organisations
had
started
emerging
as
a
powerful
force
at
the
end
of
the
war
to
offer
a
real
challenge
to
the
bourgeoisie.
This
became
clear
with
the
results
of
the
first
general
election
in
free
India.
Wherever
there
had
been
strong
peasant
organisations,
the
combination
of
Left
and
other
Opposition
forces
won
a
magnificent
victory,
becoming
the
main
opposition
in
Parliament,
the
recognised
Opposition
in
four
State
Assemblies-West
Bengal,
Hyderabad,
Madras
and
Travancore-Cochin.
The
struggle
for
an
alternative
leadership
continues
to
this
day.
CONGRESS
AGRARIAN
POLICIES
In
the
post-independent
period
the
bourgeoisie
continued
its
alliance
with
the
landlords
and
the
balance
sheet
of
bourgeois
agrarian
policy
is
explained
in
the
Programme
of
the
CPI(M),
in
para
34.
“In
no
field
is
the
utter
failure
of
the
bourgeois-landlord
government’s
policies
so
nakedly
revealed
as
in
the
case
of
the
agrarian
question.
Nearly
two
decades
of
Congress
rule
has
proved
beyond
any
shadow
of
doubt
that
the
aim
and
direction
of
its
agrarian
policies
is
not
to
smash
the
feudal
and
semi-feudal
fetters
on
our
land
relations,
and
thus
liberate
the
peasantry
from
age-old
bondage,
but
to
transform
the
feudal
landlords
into
capitalist
landlords
and
develop
a
stratum
of
rich
peasants.
They
want
to
depend
upon
the
landlord
and
rich
peasant
section
to
produce
the
surplus
of
agricultural
products
to
meet
the
requirements
of
capitalist
development.
They
also
want
to
make
these
sections
the
main
political
base
of
the
ruling
class
in
the
countryside.”
Although
these
measures
did
not
bring
the
desired
resulted
of
making
the
tiller
of
the
soil
the
owner
of
the
land
it
made
certain
changes
in
the
agrarian
relations.
Under
the
impact
of
the
agrarian
movement
intermediary
tenures
like
zaminidaris,
jagirs,
imams,
etc.,
which
prevailed
over
quite
a
large
area
of
the
country
were
abolished
in
the
early
50s
and
more
than
20
million
tenants
were
brought
into
direct
relation
with
the
State.
It
was
these
occupancy
tenants
who
directly
benefited
from
the
land
reforms
to
become
owners
of
the
land
they
tilled.
These
rich
and
middle
peasants
were
no
longer
interested
in
radical
land
reforms.
This
has
been
shown
by
the
subsequent
developments
also.
The
overall
result
has
been
that
even
after
four
decades
of
independence
the
pro-landlord,
anti-peasant
policies
of
the
Government
have
resulted
in
the
further
deepening
of
the
agrarian
crisis,
which
manifests
itself
in
growing
landlessness
increase
in
disparities
both
inter-regional
and
inter-sectional
in
the
same
region,
an
extremely
low
level
of
consumption
of
food-grains
despite
increasing
production
and
bourgeoning
stocks
held
by
the
Government
growing
poverty
and
unemployment
despite
all
the
poverty
alleviation
schemes
and
growing
indebtedness
which
finds
partial
reflection
in
the
growth
of
overdues
in
institutional
credit
supplied
to
the
agricultural
sector
and
so
on.
In
spite
of
two
rounds
of
Land
Ceiling
legislations
in
the
1950s
and
1970s
only
7.2
million
acres
have
been
declared
surplus
out
of
which
5.6
million
acres
have
been
taken
over
and
4.4
million
acres
actually
distributed.
This
is
about
seven
per
cent
of
the
surplus
estimated
i.e.,
63
million
acres
by
the
Mahalanobis
Committee
after
the
first
round
of
ceiling
laws
were
enacted
and
one
fifth
of
the
surplus
estimated
on
the
basis
of
date
made
available
by
the
NSS
26th
Round.
Even
if
we
take
into
consideration
the
1981
Agricultural
Census
land
concentration
continues.
As
compared
to
three
per
cent
land
holders
holding
10
acres
and
above
and
operating
a
total
of
26
per
cent
of
the
land
in
1976-77
in
1981-82,
2.4
per
cent
of
land
holders
held
22.8
per
cent
of
the
land.
It
is
also
estimated
by
the
Planning
Commission
that
even
now
if
a
20-acre
ceiling
is
imposed
and
all
loopholes
in
ceiling
laws
plugged
about
23
million
acres
of
land
can
be
made
available
for
distribution.
But
the
Seventh
Plan
makes
no
mention
of
amending
the
ceiling
laws
nor
about
breaking
the
land
monopoly.
And
typically
the
Central
Government
took
more
than
five
years
to
give
Presidential
assent
to
the
West
Bengal
Land
Reforms
Legislation,
which
seeks
only
to
plug
certain
loopholes.
PEASANT
MOVEMENT
AFTER
INDEPENDENCE
In
the
first
six
years
of
the
post
independence
period
the
peasant
movement
again
had
to
face
severe
repression
at
the
hands
of
the
Government
Afraid
of
the
tempo
of
the
growing
revolutionary
movement,
it
unleashed
repression
making
the
functioning
of
various
units
impossible.
The
All
India
Kisan
Sabha
was
not
able
to
hold
any
session
till
April
1953.
But
in
spite
of
this
the
Kisan
Sabha
was
busy
organising
the
resistance
of
the
peasantry
especially
on
the
question
of
evictions,
and
militant
fights
were
put
up
in
many
States.
Subsequently
various
Congress
Government
were
forced
to
take
measures
of
land
reforms
such
as
ceiling
legislations
security
of
tenure
and
rent
reduction,
consolidation
of
holdings,
etc.,
but
all
failed
to
fulfil
the
declared
objectives.
On
the
other
hand
the
period
witnessed
a
large-scale
eviction
offensive
throwing
millions
of
tenants
into
the
ranks
of
agricultural
workers.
In
the
late
fifties
the
Kisan
Sabha
fought
many
struggles
on
the
issues
of
land
fair
prices
for
peasants
produce,
debt
relief,
in
defence
of
the
rights
of
tribal
people
and
on
the
issue
of
the
burden
of
heavy
taxation.
The
most
important
of
these
struggles
was
the
heroic
struggle
of
the
Punjab
peasantry
against
the
imposition
of
the
betterment
levy
tax
in
the
beginning
of
1959.
This
was
the
most
important
struggle
fought
under
the
flag
of
the
Kisan
Sabha
after
the
epoch-making
Telengana
struggle.
The
peasants
defied
firings
lathi-charges,
beating
and
all
types
of
repression.
The
all
in
peasant
unity
forged
during
the
struggle
was
unparalleled,
when
peasant
united
irrespective
of
their
political
affiliations.
The
movement
ultimately
forced
the
Government
to
withdraw
the
tax
amounting
to
Rs.
136
crore.
The
agrarian
crisis
further
aggravated
in
the
60s.
By
the
mid-1960
stagnation
in
agriculture
and
the
consequent
food
crisis
worsened.
The
bourgeois-landlord
classes
began
losing
their
hold
over
the
mass
of
the
peasantry
with
the
result
that
in
the
1967
elections
the
Congress
monopoly
of
power
was
broken
in
eight
States
with
West
Bengal
and
Kerala
giving
victory
to
the
Left
and
democratic
force
among
which
the
CPI(M)
played
an
important
role.
Powerful
peasant
struggle
took
place
in
different
States
on
different
issues.
In
Kerala
and
West
Bengal
these
struggles
were
most
widespread
and
became
intimately
connected
with
political
issues.
The
United
Front
Government
of
West
Bengal
and
Kerala
made
a
big
impact
on
the
masses,
not
only
in
those
States
but
also
in
the
rest
of
the
country.
When
the
Central
Government
dismissed
these
governments
hundreds
of
thousands
of
peasants
actually
joined
the
struggle
for
democracy
in
West
Bengal
combining
this
with
the
struggle
for
defending
heir
land
and
crops.
Mid-term
elections
gave
a
bigger
victory
to
the
United
Front
in
West
Bengal
and
the
peasant
movement
attained
wider
sweep.
Millions
of
peasants
all
over
the
State
unleashed
an
unprecedented
struggle
with
the
backing
of
the
United
Front
Government,
for
recovering
benami
land
for
possession
and
distribution
of
surplus
lands,
for
loans
in
kind
and
for
checking
hoarding
and
black-marketing.
In
this
period
more
than
three
lakh
acres
of
land
were
located
taken
over
and
distributed
among
the
landless
through
village
level
committees.
Many
peasants
lost
their
lives
in
the
battles
fought
on
this
issue,
but
it
gave
a
big
impetus
to
the
kisan
movement
and
the
AIKS
spread
to
all
districts.
These
struggles
achieved
important
gains
and
helped
in
raising
the
political
consciousness
of
the
peasantry.
It
was
because
of
this
that
the
Kisan
Sabha
was
able
to
face
the
semi-fascist
terror
of
1917
to
1977,
fight
back
the
repression
and
defend
their
interests
though
working
in
semi-legal
conditions.
In
Kerala,
the
peasants
conducted
a
statewide
movement
for
agrarian
legislation
and
debt
relief
legislation
for
the
rights
on
Government
lands
against
threat
of
central
intervention.
As
a
result
of
the
campaign
one
lakhs
pattas
were
distributed
to
erstwhile-unauthorised
occupants
of
the
land.
The
ceiling
was
revised
downwards
and
made
family-based
many
exemptions
were
withdrawn
and
hutment
dwellers
were
given
rights
on
land
on
which
they
lived.
Tens
of
thousands
of
agricultural
labourers
conducted
powerful
and
successful
struggle
for
better
wages
and
living
conditions.
The
discontent
found
powerful
expression
in
other
parts
of
Indian
also.
In
Maharashtra,
Andhra
Pradesh,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Bihar,
Assam,
Tripura,
etc.,
widespread
struggles
took
place
for
occupation
of
forest
or
government
lands
and
against
eviction
from
these
lands.
In
Punjab
and
UP
widespread
agitations
took
place
on
the
question
of
sugarcane
prices.
Struggle
took
place
against
increased
taxation
on
the
question
of
food
and
relief
rent
reduction
and
against
unjust
levies.
Militant
struggles
of
agricultural
labourers
took
place
in
Tamil
Nadu
and
Andhra
Pradesh.
This
period
also
witnessed
two
splits
in
the
AIKS
one
from
the
Right
and
other
from
the
Left.
While
they
did
a
lot
of
harm
to
the
Kisan
Sabha,
it
not
only
survived
these
attacks
but
advanced
further.
At
the
same
time
it
also
failed
to
properly
understand
the
changes
in
the
agrarian
structure
and
work
out
the
appropriate
tasks
on
that
basis.
By
1978-79
it
was
able
to
give
a
new
orientation
to
its
policy,
which
led
to
its
big
advance.
Membership
of
the
Kisan
Sabha,
which
had
never
gone
beyond
ten
lakhs
till
1968-69
after
1978-79
jumped
by
millions
and
now
stands
at
84
lakhs.
PRESENT
PHASE
OF
STRUGGLE
In
this
connection
the
question
may
be
asked
why
has
the
bourgeoisie
not
been
able
to
implement
radical
land
reforms
when
the
latter
would
serve
its
objective
interests?
The
breaking
of
the
feudal
and
semi-feudal
relations
would
naturally
lead
to
the
expansion
of
the
internal
market,
which
would
be
helpful
for
expanding
industries.
The
answer
lies
in
the
fact
that
in
spite
of
the
objective
interests
of
the
bourgeoisie,
the
latter
dies
not
want
the
forces
of
agrarian
revolution
to
be
unleashed
which,
in
unity
with
the
working
class
would
pose
a
threat
to
its
class
rule.
It
was
from
this
angle
that
it
forged
an
alliance
with
the
landlords
and
now
tries
to
solve
its
contradiction
through
pressure
and
bargaining.
All
conflicts
and
contradictions,
which
arise
between
the
landlords
and
the
bourgeoisie
whether
on
the
question
of
remunerative
prices
for
agricultural
produce
cheep
agricultural
inputs
and
machinery
or
on
the
question
of
taxation
the
push
and
pull
between
the
two
remains
but
the
alliance
continues.
It
is
in
this
context
that
the
Kisan
pursues
its
alternative
line,
the
line
of
completing
the
agrarian
revolution,
in
unity
with
the
working
class,
and
continues
to
lead
the
mass
struggle
of
the
peasantry
in
this
direction.
Since
independence
the
situation
has
changed.
Although
land
monopoly
remains
a
lot
of
changes
have
taken
place
in
the
agrarian
structure,
which
require
a
changed
approach
in
building
peasant
unity
and
in
leading
the
agrarian
revolution
to
success.
Land
to
the
tiller
and
total
abolition
of
landlordism
have
been
the
basic
slogans
of
the
Kisan
Sabha
since
its
inception.
What
bearing
do
the
changes
in
agrarian
sector
have
on
these
basic
slogans?
Before
examining
these
changes,
let
me
state
here
at
the
outset
that
the
seizure
and
distribution
of
the
land
of
the
landlords
still
remains
the
central
slogan
for
the
kisan
sabha
to
propagate
among
the
peasantry
and
other
democratic
classes.
Without
the
victory
of
this
slogan
there
cannot
be
any
solution
to
rural
poverty
unemployment,
a
fast
development
of
a
balanced
economy
in
the
country
and
so
on.
But
the
correlation
of
class
forces,
which
existed
at
the
time
when
the
Kisan
Sabha
inscribed
these
basic
aims
in
its
programme
are
not
the
same
as
exist
today.
It
is
necessary
for
us
to
understand
his
change
since
it
has
great
relevance
to
the
chalking
out
of
our
immediate
slogans
and
actions.
The
land
reforms
which
the
Congress
Government
set
about
to
introduce
after
independence
were
not
directed
to
end
landlordism
and
give
land
to
the
tiller
though
this
was
the
pledge
the
Congress
had
made
to
the
peasantry
during
the
freedom
struggle.
These
land
reforms
had
only
very
limited
objectives,
the
main
one
of
which
was
to
reform,
not
abolish
the
old
type
of
feudal
landlordism
by
converting
the
absentee
feudal
landlords
into
capitalist
landlords
personally
supervising
cultivation
in
large
farms
with
farms
servants
and
hired
agricultural
workers.
This
is
the
new
type
of
landlord
who
combines
in
himself
elements
of
both
feudalism
and
capitalism.
Another
objective
was
to
create
a
stratum
of
rich
peasants.
These
two
sections
were
to
constitute
the
political
base
of
the
ruling
party
in
the
rural
areas.
They
were
also
to
produce
the
surplus
food
grains
necessary
for
the
Government
to
feed
the
urban
people
as
well
as
to
produce
the
raw
materials
for
industry.
With
thousands
of
crores
of
rupees
from
the
public
exchequer
pumped
into
agriculture
these
sections
have
been
helped
to
adopt
modern
methods
of
farming.
Here,
we
should
warn
against
one
tendency.
Earlier
there
was
a
tendency
to
altogether
ignore
the
penetration
of
capitalism
into
agriculture.
Now
a
reverse
tendency
is
raising
its
head,
which
considers
that
feudal
landlordism,
and
other
semi-feudal
relations
have
almost
totally
been
abolished.
This
is
wrong.
The
extent
of
capitalism
in
agriculture
varies
from
State
to
State
and
even
from
region
to
region
inside
a
State.
Here
a
concrete
study
of
the
situation
in
each
area
is
necessary.
We
have
also
the
note
the
phenomenon
of
the
monetisation
of
the
entire
agrarian
economy.
Today,
it
is
not
only
those
who
have
a
surplus
who
are
taking
their
produce
to
the
market,
even
the
poor
peasant
immediately
after
the
harvest
for
various
reasons,
sells
his
produce
in
the
market
and
later
buys
even
his
food
grains
requirement
from
the
market.
It
is
only
if
this
phenomenon
is
properly
understood
can
we
mount
a
struggle
against
the
big
traders
and
monopolists.
Even
after
the
abolition
of
statutory
landlordism
like
zamindari,
jagirdari,
etc.
concentration
of
land
in
the
hands
of
big
landlords
has
not
been
appreciably
reduced.
Even
today
2.5
per
cent
of
top
landlords
posses
22.8
per
cent
of
the
land.
The
real
concentration
would
be
even
more
if
benami
transactions
are
included.
Congress
land
reforms
have
also
resulted
in
the
eviction
of
millions
of
tenants
who
have
either
joined
the
ranks
of
landless
agricultural
labourers
or
become
tenants-at-will
without
any
rights
or
protection.
Only
a
section
of
the
earlier
tenants
could
by
a
portion
of
the
land
on
which
they
were
working
either
by
paying
compensation
in
instalments
or
outright
purchase
at
lowers
than
market
rates.
So,
after
the
Congress
land
reforms
the
situation
we
find
in
the
rural
area
is
that
three
per
cent
of
big
owners
have
in
their
possession
about
one
third
of
the
cultivated
land.
Another
ten
per
cent
consists
of
rich
peasants
owning
roughly
five
to
ten
acres
of
wet,
or
ten
to
twenty
acres
of
dry
land,
who
contribute
manual
labour
and
employ
a
considerable
number
of
farm
servants
and
agricultural
workers.
Another
15
per
cent
consists
of
middle
peasants
owning
two
to
five
acres
of
wet,
or
ten
to
twelve
acres
of
dry
land.
They
and
their
families
work
on
the
land
but
also
hire
labour
in
busy
seasons.
Twenty
per
cent
of
the
rural
households
are
poor
peasants
possessing
one
or
two
acres
of
wet,
or
two
to
five
acres
of
dry
land.
Apart
from
working
on
their
own
land,
they
have
to
frequently
hire
themselves
out
to
earn
a
living.
The
last
50
per
cent
are
those
who
own
no
land
at
all,
earns
their
livelihood
mainly
by
hiring
themselves
out
as
wage
workers
or
are
engaged
in
handicrafts,
villages’
services,
etc.
Of
course,
it
has
to
be
borne
in
mind
that
this
categorisation
will
pay
from
State
to
State
and
region
to
region.
What
has
to
be
noted
is
that
unlike
in
the
pre-Independence
days,
25
per
cent
of
peasants,
rich
and
middle
peasants
are
not
moved
any
longer
by
the
slogan
of
seizure
of
landlords
land
and
its
distribution.
At
the
other
end
of
the
scale
the
70m
per
cent
of
landless
and
poor
peasants
are
not
conscious
and
organised
enough
to
go
into
action
today
for
the
seizure
of
landlords
lands;
even
when
they
are
moved
into
action,
it
is
only
for
Government
waste
land,
cultivable
forest
land
etc.
Regarding
even
surplus
land
above
the
ceiling
which
the
landlords
are
keeping
illegally,
the
struggle
as
in
Kerala
or
recently
in
Andhra
Pradesh,
could
not
advance
beyond
the
stage
of
locating
such
surplus
land
and
exposing
the
Government’s
claims.
Only
under
the
United
Front
Government
in
West
Bengal
in
1969,
could
some
of
the
surplus
land
be
occupied.
This
we
will
have
to
take
into
consideration
when
we
work
out
our
immediate
tasks.
But
what
we
have
to
note
is
that
the
Congress
Party,
which
ruled
the
country
for
thirty-five
years,
while
failing
to
end
landlordism,
land
concentration
and
growing
landlessness
has
successfully
disrupted
the
pre-independence
peasant
unity.
It
is
true
that
unity
cantered
around
the
rich
and
middle
peasants,
which
today
we
are
striving
to
build
peasant
unity
cantering
around
the
agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants.
The
ruling
class
party,
whether
congress
or
Janata,
also
used
its
control
peasantry
and
the
disruption
of
their
unity.
The
two-year
of
the
cooperatives
rural
banks
etc.,
to
perpetuate
the
division
in
the
peasantry
and
the
disruption
of
their
unity.
The
two
years
of
the
Janata
Party
government
showed
that
its
policies
in
regard
to
land
reforms
were
no
different
from
those
of
the
Congress.
In
fact,
some
of
the
Janata
State
Governments
were
proposing
to
reverse
even
the
Congress
legislation
to
favour
the
landlords.
Taking
note
of
these
structural
changes
and
their
multifarious
consequences
we
have
to
come
to
the
conclusions
that
the
slogan
of
complete
abolition
of
landlordism
and
distribution
of
land
of
the
landless
and
land-poor
continues
to
be
the
central
slogan
of
the
agrarian
revolution
a
slogan
which
we
have
to
continue
to
propagate.
But
it
is
a
slogan
on
which
we
cannot
go
into
action
today
in
most
parts
of
the
country.
While
continuing
to
propagate
this
as
the
central
slogans,
while
continuing
struggles
for
surplus
land,
benami
lands,
waste
land
etc.
the
kisan
sabha
will
have
to
take
up
for
immediate
action
such
issues
as
the
question
of
wages
of
agricultural
workers,
house
sites,
rent-reduction,
75
per
cent
of
the
produce
to
the
sharecroppers
evictions,
abolition
or
scaling
down
of
rural
indebtedness,
remunerative
price
for
agricultural
produce,
cheap
credit,
reduction
of
burdens
and
heavy
levies
like
water
charges,
electricity
rates,
etc.,
landlord-goonda
attacks
with
the
connivance
or
direct
help
from
the
police
the
social
oppression
of
harijans,
corruption
in
administration
etc,.
These
are
issues
which
affect
all
sections
of
the
peasantry-poor,
middle,
rich,
and
they
can
all
be
drawn
into
the
movement
on
them.
All
these
currents
have
to
be
brought
together
to
build
the
maximum
unity
of
the
peasantry
cantering
around
the
agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants
to
isolate
the
small
stratum
of
landlords.
All
this
will,
course
depend
on
how
successfully
we
organise
the
agricultural
workers
and
poor
peasants
and
bring
them
into
action
not
only
on
their
own
specific
demands
but
also
on
the
general
demands
of
the
peasantry
as
a
whole,
and
how
far
we
are
able
to
draw
other
sections
of
the
peasantry
into
movements
on
issues
affecting
them,
and
on
the
general
demands
of
the
peasantry.
There
is
no
doubt
that
the
middle
and
rich
peasants
can
be
drawn
into
movement
on
such
issues.
It
is
our
task
to
see
that
while
other
sections
of
the
peasantry
support
the
agricultural
workers
in
their
struggles,
the
latter
in
turn
extend
support
to
movements
on
the
demands
of
the
peasantry,
thus
paving
the
way
for
building
peasant
unity.
Our
earlier
analyses
of
the
agrarian
policies
of
the
Congress
Governments
have
shown
them
to
be
anti-peasants,
serving
the
interests
of
the
landlords
and
the
bourgeoisie.
As
compared
to
that
the
Left
Front
Government
of
West
Bengal
and
Tripura,
and
the
Left
Democratic
government
of
Kerala
(for
a
brief
period)
with
the
limit
power
they
enjoy
under
the
constitution,
backed
by
the
organised
peasant
movement,
have
tried
to
alleviate
the
conditions
of
the
peasantry.
In
West
Bengal,
land
has
been
distributed
to
12
lakh
families
13
lakh
sharecroppers
have
been
registered
and
more
than
two
lakh
of
them
receive
credit
from
banks
in
a
year,
more
than
two
lakhs
have
been
given
rights
over
homesteads,
minimum
wages
fro
agricultural
workers
are
regularly
revised.
Small
farmers
have
been
exempted
from
land
revenue
and
debt
relief
has
been
given.
In
Tripura
more
than
one-lakh
beneficiaries
have
been
given
land,
debt
relief
has
been
given
to
poor
peasants
and
artisans,
while
minimum
wages
have
been
fixed
and
sharecroppers
recorded.
In
Kerala
under
the
Left
Democratic
Front
Government
holdings
under
four
acres
were
exempted
from
plantation
tax,
rent
arrears
for
holdings
up
to
2.5
acres
cancelled
and
subsidies
given
on
inputs
and
exemptions
on
gifted
land
taken
away.
This
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
strength
of
the
peasant
organisation
because
without
the
active
intervention
of
the
Kisan
Sabha,
the
bureaucracy
would
never
have
allowed
the
implementation
of
measures,
which
would
have
remained
on
paper
as
pious
declarations.
It
is
because
of
these
alternative
policies
that
the
Kisan
Sabha
has
grown
so
strong
in
West
Bengal
with
almost
33
per
cent
of
the
adult
peasant
population
including
agricultural
workers
joining
the
organisation.
In
other
states
also
the
kisan
sabha
has
grown
through
struggles.
Kisan
Sabha
units
in
different
States
have
taken
up
different
issues
depending
on
the
concrete
situation
in
each
state.
In
Bihar
the
question
of
eviction
of
sharecroppers
has
remained
very
acute
and
struggle
fought
over
it;
in
some,
states
against
rise
in
taxation
and
on
remunerative
prices
in
most
of
the
states.
The
first
half
of
80s
witnessed
a
tremendous
upsurge
among
the
peasantry
where
even
the
Congress
base
was
drawn
into
struggles.
This
shows
the
tremendous
possibilities
for
building
the
peasants
movement.
GLORIOUS
HISTORY
The
Kisan
sabha
has
grown
into
a
powerful
organisation
with
84
lakh
members
today
and
if
we
include
agricultural
workers
the
membership
surpasses
95
lakh.
The
50
years’
record
of
the
All
India
Kisan
Sabha
is
a
record
of
glorious
history.
It
played
an
important
role
in
arousing
the
peasantry
in
the
movement
for
national
freedom.
The
All
India
Kisan
Sabha
was
able
to
unite
various
sections
of
the
toiling
peasantry
in
the
struggle
against
feudalism,
big
traders
and
monopolists.
In
its
long
history
of
50
years
it
has
had
to
face
severe
repression.
Even
after
independence
the
bourgeois-landlord
Government
launched
severe
repression
against
it
but
the
movement
not
only
survived,
it
grew
in
influence
and
strength.
It
has
emerged
as
a
premier
organisation
of
the
peasantry.
But
it
should
not
be
forgotten
that
the
peasts
organised
in
the
AIKS
and
other
peasant
organisations
under
their
influence
are
only
a
very
small
percentage
of
the
peasant
population
in
the
country.
Vast
areas
in
our
country
especially
in
the
Hindi-speaking
region
are
untouched
by
the
activities
of
the
organised
kisan
movement.
It
is
imperative
that
this
grave
weakness
is
over
come
as
quickly
as
possible.
The
Golden
Jubilee
Year
of
the
AIKS
should
become
the
starting
point
of
the
biggest
activity
to
expand
the
Kisan
Sabha
to
all
the
areas,
to
spread
the
message
of
the
agrarian
revolution
in
even
part
of
the
country.
The
Kisan
Sabha’s
aim
should
be
to
see
that
there
is
no
revenue
circle
in
the
country
without
an
AIKS
unit.
Seventy
per
cent
of
our
population
lives
in
the
rural
areas
and
is
engaged
in
agriculture
handicrafts
and
other
rural
trades.
Without
organising
the
bulk
of
them
neither
their
genuine
interests
can
be
defended
nor
can
there
be
any
successful
agrarian
revolution.
The
guarantee
of
the
success
is
a
powerful
Kisan
Sabha
as
the
mass
organisation
of
the
peasantry
championing
also
the
cause
of
agricultural
workers
and
forging
unity
with
them
and
building
the
unity
of
the
peasantry
with
the
working
class.
Let
the
Golden
Jubilee
Year
see
the
beginning
of
the
efforts
to
fulfil
this
historic
task.
The Golden Jubilee of the AIKS comes at a time when the national situation is bleak and the international situation is menacing because of the imperialist threat of nuclear war. Only by strengthening the organisation manifold as speedily as possible can the AIKS mobilise the peasantry to intervene in the national situation and strengthen the struggle for peace against the imperialist warmongers.