 |
| D.V. Rao, T. Nagi Reddy, Harbhajan Sohi |
In 2025, fifty years have passed since the formation of the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (UCCRI), established in April 1975. Its emergence was linked to debates within the Indian communist movement following the Naxalbari uprising and the formation of the CPI(ML) in 1969.
Leaders including T. Nagi Reddy, D.V. Rao and Chandra Pulla Reddy were expelled from the All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCR). The expulsions were based on disagreements over ideological positions, including characterisation of China’s leadership, the application of the Chinese revolutionary path to India, the use of boycott as a strategic slogan, and opposition to the disbanding of mass organisations. These disagreements contributed to fragmentation during the early phase of CPI(ML) formation. According to later analyses, including that of Mohan Ram, the party-building process during this period was conducted from above and did not adequately integrate sections of the Andhra-based communist movement.
In 1969, Nagi Reddy and D.V. Rao initiated the Andhra Pradesh Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (APCCCR). This later contributed to the formation of the Andhra Pradesh Communist Party in 1973 and the UCCRI in 1975. Their political line stressed the importance of partial economic struggles as a means of developing conditions for agrarian revolutionary struggle. Organisational activity during this period focused on regions such as Nalgonda, Anantapur, Kurnool and East Godavari.
The Parvathipuram conspiracy case of 1969, which resulted in the arrest of Nagi Reddy and D.V. Rao, and the subsequent democratic campaign demanding their release, became an episode around which wider political mobilisation occurred. Their release in 1973 coincided with renewed organisational efforts centred on mass political activity.
Between the mid-1970s and late 1980s, several organisations emerged that identified with a mass line orientation, including the UCCRI (1975), the Central Team of CPI(ML) (1977), and later the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (CCRI) formed in 1988 under the leadership of Harbhajan Sohi. During this period, sections from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal joined the Andhra-based organisation to form UCCRI(ML).
Disagreements within this trend also emerged. D.V. Rao’s acceptance of the Chinese “Three Worlds Theory” in 1977 was criticised by sections within the movement as a right deviation. While his writings on mass line, agrarian revolution and the nature of the Indian state continued to circulate, organisational weaknesses remained, including limitations in maintaining underground structures during the Emergency.
In Punjab, the Punjab State Reorganisation Committee (1969) played a role in shaping student and youth movements. Its interventions included critiques of CPI(ML) practice, particularly the neglect of mass movements and the need for region-specific tactics. These debates influenced political mobilisations such as the Moga rally of October 1974. Organisations like the Punjab Students Union and Naujawan Bharat Sabha functioned during and after the Emergency, later merging into the UCCRI(ML) in 1976.
The UCCRI(ML) drew on documents written by D.V. Rao in 1969 that emphasised mass political engagement within a framework of protracted people’s war. In Andhra Pradesh, it was involved in the formation of democratic rights organisations such as the Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights, which documented cases related to the Srikakulam movement. Other mass fronts included the Srikakulam Girijan Sangam, the Democratic Students Organisation and the People’s Literary and Cultural Federation. These organisations opposed making Mao Zedong Thought a mandatory programme condition and resisted the subordination of mass organisations to party structures.
Debate continues regarding whether this political line separated economic and political struggles or underestimated the role of armed struggle. In practice, the approach prioritised mass participation and autonomous organisation-building. Its influence was evident in states such as Odisha and Punjab.
In August 1988, the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India was formed through the merger of several organisations, including factions of the UCCRI(ML), CPI(ML) groups and the Revolutionary Communist Party. Its activities included engagement with Adivasi organisations in Odisha, intervention in mass movements in Srikakulam, and political positioning in relation to the Khalistan movement in Punjab. During this period, CCRI worked alongside the Central Team of CPI(ML) and opposed tendencies that transformed mass platforms into party forums or relied on state-sanctioned armed activity.
In West Bengal, the organisation participated in trade union activity, including interventions in the jute industry. In 1995, CCRI merged with three other organisations to form the Communist Reorganisation Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist). This process involved attempts to consolidate dispersed revolutionary groups. Subsequent conferences were held in 1991, 2001 and 2016.
In Punjab, the organisation participated in movements involving agricultural labourers and peasants, electoral interventions described as “active political campaigns,” and mass platforms such as Lok Morcha. It engaged with issues including land rights, debt, minimum wages and state repression. Similar activity occurred in Odisha, particularly through the Malkangiri Adivasi Sangh, which addressed land and forest rights and maintained organisational autonomy from parliamentary politics.
The CPRCI(ML) placed emphasis on political education, organisational preparation and self-defence within mass movements. Its documents argued for agrarian revolution as the axis of a new democratic revolution, with party-building as a central task. The organisation also emphasised internal debate on tactics, including electoral participation and boycott, and the relationship between mass movements and armed struggle.
Harbhajan Sohi’s writings addressed questions including elections, nationality issues, and interpretations of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. The organisation’s publications and practice focused on maintaining distinctions between mass platforms and party structures.
Limitations were also identified. These included difficulties in building durable mass organisations across states, limited public dissemination of party publications, and unresolved debates on the applicability of protracted people’s war in regions such as Punjab. Following the 2016 conference, disagreements emerged between Punjab-based leadership and sections outside the state, leading to a split and the reconstitution of a faction under the name Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India.
The developments raise questions about the legacy of the Nagi Reddy–D.V. Rao–Harbhajan Sohi line, its theoretical assumptions regarding stages of revolution, and the challenges of adapting revolutionary strategy to Indian conditions.
Individuals associated with this political trend who lost their lives include Purusottam Pali, Gundahar Murmu, Kamalsai Majhi (Odisha); Zora Singh Jalajan, Amritpal Passi and Thane Singh (Punjab); Nimmala Krishnamurty, Ramalingachari and Ramdas Rao (Andhra Pradesh); and at the all-India level, Harbhajan Sohi and Gurdial Singh Parapuri.
---
Freelance journalist
Comments