Since Independence, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] largely functioned within parliamentary opposition frameworks. Critics have argued that their adherence to Marxism-Leninism remained largely theoretical, with limited articulation of an alternative democratic revolutionary programme, particularly in the rural and agrarian context. Their engagement with questions of land redistribution, capital concentration, and resistance to neoliberal economic structures has also been contested.
In states where CPI(M) formed governments, its record has been debated, including instances of confrontation with workers’ and peasants’ movements. The party has entered electoral alliances with non-left parties in different regions, including alliances with the Bharatiya Janata Party in West Bengal and the Akali Dal in Punjab, which have been subject to criticism within the broader left movement. Questions have also been raised regarding the approach of left parties toward issues of national self-determination, including movements in Kashmir and Assam.
There have been serious allegations involving party cadres in incidents such as the Dahanu events in Maharashtra in 1983 and the killing of activist Bhowmik in West Bengal. The CPI’s support for the Emergency declared in 1975 has also been cited in critiques of its political orientation.
At the same time, left parties developed a cadre base that often acted as a counterforce to communal mobilisation during periods of communal violence. Their organisational networks also provided political training for individuals who later joined various revolutionary groups. During the militancy in Punjab in the 1980s, several CPI members were killed while opposing Khalistani armed groups. The CPI has consistently opposed extrajudicial killings, including those involving alleged Maoist cadres, and has participated in protests against state-led security operations, as well as against attacks on minorities, Dalits, and workers during periods of economic restructuring.
The Naxalbari Movement
The Naxalbari uprising of 1967 marked a significant shift in the Indian communist movement, particularly in its orientation toward armed agrarian struggle. Following the uprising, revolutionary factions within the CPI(M) formed the All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR), which formally split from the CPI(M) after the Burdwan Plenum in 1968. On 22 April 1969, the AICCCR dissolved itself to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) [CPI(ML)], led by Charu Mazumdar.
The CPI(ML) faced sustained state repression and subsequently fragmented into multiple groups that upheld varying interpretations of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. Analysts have identified several strategic and tactical errors during this phase, including the adoption of China’s revolutionary experience as a direct model for India, the characterisation of the national bourgeoisie and rich peasantry as uniform enemies, the dissolution of mass organisations, the prioritisation of individual armed actions, and the rejection of electoral participation. These positions contributed to organisational isolation and operational difficulties.
Developments After Naxalbari
A notable development was the self-criticism issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Committee in 1977, which examined earlier tactical errors, including the overemphasis on armed actions and the abandonment of mass organisations. Earlier, in 1975, the Central Organising Committee of CPI(ML) had also produced documents reassessing past strategies, contributing to later regroupments such as CPI(ML) Party Unity in 1983.
Despite these reassessments, elements of earlier strategic approaches continued to influence political practice. Some mass organisations affiliated with revolutionary groups required adherence to Maoist ideology as a condition of participation, raising questions about organisational autonomy. The formation of the Central Team of CPI(ML) in December 1977 represented another attempt at systematic reassessment, prioritising the reconstitution of the original 1969 Central Committee.
Leaders such as Tarimela Nagi Reddy, D.V. Rao, and Chandra Pulla Reddy were earlier expelled from the AICCCR due to disagreements over strategic questions, including the uncritical adoption of the Chinese revolutionary model, election boycotts, and the disbanding of mass organisations. These disagreements highlighted structural weaknesses in the initial formation of CPI(ML).
Mass Line Experiments
The formation of the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India in 1975, followed by the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India in 1988 and the Communist Party Re-Organisation Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist) in 1995, represented efforts to emphasise mass participation and organisational work. These initiatives drew on documents authored by D.V. Rao in 1969, which stressed the role of mass organisations within protracted people’s war.
There remains debate over whether this line underestimated armed struggle or overstated stage-based revolutionary theory. In practice, however, it prioritised the development of independent mass organisations and local struggles, particularly in states such as Odisha and Punjab.
Fragmentation and Electoral Orientation
Fragmentation within the communist revolutionary movement has been attributed to ideological disagreements, organisational disputes, regional considerations, and differing assessments of armed struggle. Over time, several groups adopted electoral participation as a tactic, beginning in the late 1970s. Critics argue that this shift contributed to a gradual accommodation with parliamentary politics.
Groups such as CPI(ML) Liberation and CPI(ML) Red Star now operate primarily through electoral and legal frameworks. Other organisations, including the Communist League of India, advocate a socialist revolution model distinct from Maoist frameworks.
Assessment of CPI (Maoist)
The CPI (Maoist) currently represents the principal organisation advocating armed struggle. It has focused primarily on forested and tribal regions and has played a role in mobilising resistance against displacement and state repression in these areas. However, it has not succeeded in establishing sustained base areas with autonomous systems of self-governance. Observers note a continued emphasis on military activity relative to mass political mobilisation and difficulties in extending influence to agrarian and urban working-class populations.
The party has faced severe repression, including the killing of senior leaders. Its capacity to overcome state encirclement strategies, particularly in regions such as Dandakaranya, remains limited. Internal challenges include cadre retention and the integration of armed activity with broader political struggles.
Contemporary Challenges
Current debates within communist movements centre on organisational methods, mass participation, and strategy under contemporary conditions shaped by globalisation, urbanisation, and technological change. Proposals include rethinking party structures, expanding autonomy within mass organisations, developing new forms of coordination across movements, and addressing urban working-class struggles.
There is also discussion on engaging with democratic fronts, addressing authoritarian political trends, and reassessing ideological approaches to caste, class, and social movements. The relevance of historical experiences such as the Bolshevik Revolution and the Chinese Cultural Revolution continues to be examined in relation to present conditions.
---
*Freelance journalist
Comments