Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Maoist Groups in Kerala Unite vs. Operation Green Hunt

Posted by Ka Frank on January 1, 2010

This article was published in Express Buzz on December 28, 2009

Maoist groups to fight against anti-naxal drive

KOZHIKODE: The CPI (Maoist) and the CPI-ML (Naxalbari) have decided to join hands against the massive drive launched by the UPA Government against the Maoists in different parts of the country.

After a meeting of the leaders of these organisations at an undisclosed place in Kerala on December 23, Kiran Kumar, the state secretary of the CPI-ML (Naxalbari) and Mohan, the state organising secretary of the CPI (Maoist), issued a joint statement exhorting the people to put up a militant resistance against the state repression.

Both these outfits, which uphold the path of armed struggle, have been working independently in the state. The CPI-ML (Naxalbari) has prominent frontal organisations like Porattam, Viplava Yuvajana Prasthanam and Viplava Sthreevadi Prasthanam. Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF) is the major frontal organisation of the CPI (Maoist).

There had been several rounds of discussion between the two outfits in the recent past to decide on possible merger. A need was felt among these groups that ‘revolutionary forces’ should merge to strengthen the people’s war in the country. The coming together of these two Maoist parties is seen as a first step towards merger. Even while upholding the Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, both these outfits had major difference of opinion, the most important being the stand on the developments in Nepal. The CPI (Maoist) has branded Nepal Maoist leader Prachanda’s stand as right deviation, while the Naxalbari believe that it is only tactical move.


2 Responses to “Maoist Groups in Kerala Unite vs. Operation Green Hunt”

  1. Ahhh, so that is the difference with CPIML Naxabari. I didn’t realize they were pro-Nepal!

  2. Ka Frank said

    I’m not sure about all the differences. The CPI ML Naxalbari is in the RIM or whatever it is now.
    Here’s one article about Nepal from Jan 2009 that appeared on Maoist_Revolution. It is somewhat critical of the CPNM but doesn’t develop the argument much. There may be other statements.

    The Line Struggle in Nepal

    Ideology guides a Maoist party. This must be concretised through politics. For example, in an oppressed country the Maoists must carry out the task of new democratic revolution, destroying imperialist domination and the comprador, feudal forces. This is an ideological stand. It is concretised in different countries through political practice carried out by taking into account the situation and changes in it. Within this, protracted peoples war is the most important. But war is not the only political practice. In the present world, where the political realm has widened to a great extent, political intervention carried out through diverse forms of struggle has great importance. The recognition of this factor and its utilisation stand to the credit of the Maoists in Nepal.

    Through the political tactics of ceasefire, participation in the interim ministry, and demand of constitutional assembly they succeeded in isolating the monarchy and ending it. This has led to a new situation. If new tactics are not adopted the party will deviate from the task of new democracy. Yet the leadership is not prepared for taking up this task. This is what has led to the present ideological struggle in the CPN(M).

    Overall, this criticism is correct. But since the recent tactics have been justified in relation to the specificities of Nepal and its national needs, they should also be examined from the angle of the opposites patriotism/internationalism.

    Mao said that in an oppressed country patriotism is applied internationalism. Some Maoist parties reject this as a nationalist deviation. We could, quite roughly, summarise their argument as patriotism=nationalism, nationalism X internationalism. This view leads to a denial of the national tasks of the proletariat of an oppressed country, and must be rejected.

    Maos position is not just a legitimising of patriotism. There is something else we should pay attention to. This patriotism must be guided by internationalism, not by nationalism. This is a contradiction. Can we have a patriotism separated from nationalism? This can be answered only by relating the issue to the transformative moment of the revolutionary process in an oppressed country.

    The struggle to destroy the imperialist yoke is decisive in this process. This addresses the interests of the nation. This is the sense in which Mao said that the proletariat in these countries should uphold the banner of the nation. This can be done from a nationalist stand. The last century was witness to national liberation struggles carried out under the leadership of militant nationalism. It also saw how the independence gained through such struggle quite quickly became formal and trapped in neo-colonialism. We have also seen how former oppressed countries like China and Vietnam were caught up in dependency to the imperialist system once again as soon as capitalist restoration took place.

    Both the national and democratic tasks of new democratic revolution are bourgeois in their class essence. But in the final analysis this revolution has to mainly confront another bourgeois force. Therefore a nationalism, bourgeois in content, cannot complete even the national tasks of this revolution. Among them the building of a self reliant economy free from foreign domination has the greatest importance. This cannot be achieved without breaking away from the imperialist system. This calls for proletarian leadership and outlook that has new democracy, advance from there to socialism without delay, and continuing the revolution up till communism, as content. Today the self reliant existence of an oppressed nation is possible only by becoming part of the motion of the world towards communist internationalism. Because the energy for this can only come from the intense aspiration of the people to end exploitation. An outlook capable of unleashing this must lead. This is the particularity of the transformative moment of the revolutionary process.

    The opening shot of the capitalist roaders in newly liberated China was their demand that the new democratic revolution stage should be consolidated. The rightism being criticised in Nepal today is one that, even before liberation is achieved, is demanding that the present interim setup should be accepted as an inevitable stage before advancing to new democracy. This deviation in essence is a nationalist day dream; the illusion that the backwardness of the country can be quickly ended while abandoning internationalism and the socialist transition.

    (translated from Munnaniporali, No:125, January 2009)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: