‘Naxalbari from Battleground (1967–1978): An Anthology of Samar Sen’s Frontier’ is a landmark collection of articles chronicling and dissecting the Naxalbari movement. Edited by Sushovan Mukhopadhyaya, it is a collection of articles that stands as a precious historical document of a period that witnessed one of the most defining liberation movements in India. Published by Arun Kumar Dey through Radical Impression Publishing House in Kolkata, the book is a vivid illustration of why and how Naxalbari ushered in a new horizon and altered the course of Indian history.
It enables the present generation of youth to understand the significance of that period and serves as a source of inspiration to preserve and continue the legacy of revolutionary journalism at a time when a wave of fascism is sweeping across the country.
The book, published this year, is a curation of articles chronicling, dissecting, analysing and reporting on the Naxalbari struggle from 1967 to 1978. It enables the reader to understand the reactionary character of the state, which, according to these writings, did not change even after the Emergency period.
For a new generation of activists who are ignorant of this history, this anthology is a comprehensive testament to how the pages of ‘Frontier’, edited by Samar Sen, served the cause of liberation. The articles illustrate that the history of the Naxalbari struggle and the evolution of Indian political journalism are incomplete without acknowledging the legacy of Frontier during the Samar Sen era.
The articles reflect how Frontier intervened as a strategic pivot when state attacks on the Naxalite movement reached a boiling point, preserving the spark ignited by Naxalbari and maintaining avenues of communication when other channels had been disabled.
The writings showcase how Frontier illuminated the escalating agony of the Naxalbari era and played a pivotal role in nurturing radical thought, providing a platform for coherent reports and a diverse range of opinions. It enriched the knowledge of the people of India about the reality of Naxalbari.
The book serves as a perfect metaphor for Frontier’s role as a milestone in political journalism. It provides an ample canvas for Samar Sen’s indomitable courage and fearless spirit in exposing an authoritarian state, defying the most brutal suppression while documenting gruesome instances of police brutality, whether in Beialgahta, Jadavpur and Kashipur-Baranagar in West Bengal; Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh; Bhojpur; Wayanad in Kerala; or Rajhara in Madhya Pradesh. It stands as a testament to Frontier’s relentless commitment to documenting the struggles of revolutionaries and the merciless onslaught of the ruling classes.
Different Viewpoints
The book is divided into three parts. The first consists of reports from the battleground, the second provides commentary on events during the Naxalbari period, and the third presents varying viewpoints. The second part encompasses an extensive account of atrocities committed within jails and the merciless killings of Naxalite cadres.
The section presenting different viewpoints on the Naxalbari movement traces the transition and evolution of the uprising from its very roots, exploring its contradictory dynamics and examining the political backdrop of the period. It intensively examines the dichotomy between revisionist and rightist ideologies and trends, as well as the vacillation of different political forces.
It highlights the two-line struggle that took place within the original CPI(ML), and earlier within the All-India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries. A thorough analysis is presented of what the writers regard as the fatal errors of the CPI(ML) in implementing the policy of ‘annihilation of the class enemy’, disbanding mass organisations and abandoning mass movements. However, the writings consistently defend the integrity and substance of Charu Mazumdar’s line, projecting his role in lighting the spark of Naxalbari, upholding the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, combating the revisionism of the CPI(M), and reorganising what they regarded as a genuine revolutionary Communist Party.
Whatever their flaws, the articles evoke a spirit of inquiry through coherent polemical analysis. In essence, they convey the legitimacy, in the authors’ view, of Charu Mazumdar and Naxalbari and argue that Naxalbari ushered in a new dawn. They logically refute the criticisms of those who upheld the Tarimela Nagi Reddy–D. V. Rao trend, which deferred armed struggle and categorised the practice of Charu Mazumdar and the CPI(ML) as terrorist.
The articles are an eye-opener and a knowledge bank for those who wish to explore the transition and dynamics of Naxalbari, the gross errors committed by the CPI(ML), the self-criticism document produced in 1977 by the Andhra Pradesh State Committee, and the document of the Central Organising Committee in 1974.
In important ways, some trends of that era have been resurrected today, with the CPI(Maoist) ushering in what its supporters described as a new dawn before suffering a grave setback. The articles here are presented as a testament to the validity of the line of the Chinese Revolution and Maoism. To me, they are essential reading for any Marxist or progressive cadre, particularly for understanding the essence of the mass line.
What was noteworthy were the letters responding to the various critiques by readers of Frontier. These letters made logical and coherent arguments and often reflected a Maoist perspective. Nevertheless, sectarian shades were expressed by some of those who defended Charu Mazumdar and the CPI(ML), at times disrespecting the mass line and overlooking the foundations of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. At the same time, many rebuttals rejecting the CPI(ML) line had eclectic overtones.
The most significant articles defending the path of Charu Mazumdar were those by Bhabani Chaudhuri in 1978, Ashim Mitra in 1970 and Abhijnan Sen in 1970.
Bhabani Chaudhuri reiterated criticisms of the CPI(ML), arguing that it was not formed on the basis of practice in Naxalbari, but was instead a product of conspiracy and comprised petit-bourgeois elements rather than having a working-class origin. He drew attention to how Naxalbari invoked the programme of seizure of land, which provided the basis for the struggle to escalate towards the seizure of power. He recalled how it waged a pitched battle against economism. Chaudhuri highlighted how raising the bogey of conspiracy had no credibility, pointing to Charu Mazumdar’s later writings warning against confining the struggle merely to class enemies and urging the initiation of land reform in areas of peasant struggle. The Islampur-Chaterhat comrades had raised these arguments.
Abhijnan Sen elaborated on how Charu Mazumdar practised the concept of the secret party, placing great emphasis on initiating propaganda work among revolutionary students through the building of Red Guard organisations. He made a clear-cut distinction between ideologically advanced activists and students and youth in general. Abhijnan threw light on the process of politicising local peasants’ associations and on how Charu Mazumdar placed emphasis on mobilising the backward sections of the peasantry, leading movements for the seizure of crops and building economic struggles against the feudal classes. He also discussed the relationship with the ideas of Kanu Sanyal in executing land seizures in Gopiballavpur, Debra and Baghmora. The guerrilla offensive ignited the spark in Gopiballavpur. He recalled struggles that were shaped in a more coherent, disciplined and planned manner than those in Naxalbari, taking into account political consciousness and the establishment of ‘red power’.
Ashim Mitra compared the activities of the Naxalites with those of the Bolsheviks in Russia, justifying guerrilla warfare. He extensively referred to Lenin. At the hardest core of his argument, he refuted those who claimed that the Naxalites had disorganised mass movements and asserted that red terror was imperative.
Anarchist Nature
On the other hand, Rafiqul Islam, Mallikarjuna Rao and Prabhat Jana were analytically critical of the path and practice of the CPI(ML), exploring and diagnosing what they regarded as the anarchist nature of the line of ‘individual annihilation of class enemies’, the disbanding of mass struggles and organisations, and the rejection of a united front with the national bourgeoisie.
Rafiqul Islam made an analytical distinction between how red political power was established in China and how it developed in Naxalbari, arguing that the peculiarities of Indian conditions had been placed in obscurity.
Prabhat Jana, in a detailed critique, summed up how mass struggles were relegated to the backseat after the policy of ‘annihilation of class enemies’ came into practice and how innocent people, including trade union leaders, became victims. He also pointed out how the political struggle waged by the CPI(ML) against the CPI(M) turned into a feud, failing to distinguish between the CPI(M) leadership and a large section of its supporters. In his view, no adequate political struggle was launched towards winning over cadres who could potentially have been drawn into the revolutionary movement.
Mallikarjuna Rao made a classical differentiation between the mass line and the CPI(ML)’s sole emphasis on armed struggle, placing mass organisations, the role of the working class and the agrarian programme of struggle into obscurity. He distinguished the practice of the CPI(ML) from that of the Andhra Pradesh Coordination Committee on the grounds of the principal contradiction and forms of struggle. The Andhra Pradesh Committee believed that, for the formation of a revolutionary party, revolutionary action must precede it.
---
*Freelance journalist
Excellent.
ReplyDelete