The Programme and the tactical line of 1951 were adopted on the understanding that the Indian big bourgeoisie has a dual character. By this dual character was meant that the Indian big bourgeoisie has an anti-imperialist role as well as a proneness to compromise with imperialism. In other words, the Indian big bourgeoisie is regarded as the national bourgeoisie though Comrade Stalin said as early as 1925 that the section of the Indian bourgeoisie which is big and powerful had already deserted to the camp of the imperialists and had formed a bloc with them. Yet, while swearing by the name of Comrade Stalin and adopting a programme of national uprising, the treacherous leadership of the Communist Party depicted the big bourgeoisie as the national bourgeoisie. This enabled the revisionist leadership to describe the Indian state as an independent bourgeois state. Though they held that the Indian Government is the government of the landlords and the big bourgeoisie closely linked with imperialism, they put forward the theory that the big bourgeoisie is the most powerful element in this combination and that it is they who are building the Indian state as an independent bourgeois state. Taking advantage of this theory the Dange clique adopted the political line that feudalism does no longer exist in India and capitalism has developed in agriculture. Thus, Nehru was described as the representative of the progressive bourgeoisie. The Dange clique adopted a liquidationist policy as they held that India’s national democratic government would be set up by forming an alliance with the bourgeoisie. At the same time they preached that the more Soviet ‘aid’ India received, the more secure would be India’s freedom. That is, Soviet ‘aid’ would enable India to move out of the orbit of imperialist domination. We learn from the experience of the great Chinese Party that in 1927, after Chiang Kai-shek’s rise to power, the Chinese Trotskyites declared that the Chiang Kai-shek clique had overthrown imperialism and feudalism and was treading the path of independent capitalist development. The Right opportunist Chen Tu-hsiu followed this Trotskyite line. They held that with the completion of the democratic revolution, China had entered the stage of Socialist revolution. They raised the demand “Set up the National Assembly,” opted for legal movements and deserted the path of revolutionary struggle. They were opposed to all kinds of revolutionary struggle and were expelled from the Party. The treacherous revisionist leadership of the CPI followed the same path and opposed every kind of revolutionary struggle. They forced Telengana’s revolutionary peasants to surrender arms and stabbed the struggles of the peasants in the back wherever in India they rose in revolt. When, in 1962, the Indian Government launched an attack against the Chinese frontier guards, the treacherous role of the Dange clique was clearly exposed before the Party ranks. The Party members rebelled against the renegade Dange clique. Taking advantage of this revolt, the Ranadive clique again seized the leadership of the Party, as in 1948. Even in the Programme adopted at the Seventh Congress of the Party in 1964, they have depicted the Indian state as an independent state. Assuming that the Indian big bourgeoisie has an anti-imperialist role, they have declared that Soviet ‘aid’ will safeguard India’s freedom and lead to the sharpening of the contradiction with US imperialism. The same Trotskyite theories have been adopted in the Programme of the Seventh Congress too. By describing the Indian revolution as the second stage of the People’s Democratic Revolution, instead of directly calling it socialist revolution, the Ranadive clique has resorted to trickery. No sooner had the Seventh Congress been over than it was declared on behalf of the Polit Bureau that the Party did not entertain any thought of armed struggle and that the Party would pursue the legal, parliamentary path. So no revolutionary party but another bourgeois party emerged out of the Seventh Congress. And this party has today forged unity with world reaction by allying itself with the renegade Dange clique and has become a party hostile to the Indian masses — an instrument for suppressing the liberation struggle of the Indian people. Yet this period has witnessed increasing collaboration between Soviet and US imperialism for joint world domination. Bourgeois dictatorship has been set up in the Soviet Union. In collusion with US imperialism, the Soviet revisionist renegade clique is opposing every national liberation struggle in the world and has tightened its neo-colonial grip on India. Despite all this, the Ranadive clique not only sings praises of the Soviet Union as a ‘socialist state’ but is also loud in praise of Soviet ‘aid’. Though the character of the Indian big bourgeoisie is essentially comprador and bureaucratic, the Ranadive clique propagates the lie that they are independent and sovereign and thus tries to make India’s revolutionary struggle an appendage to the bourgeoisie. By under-estimating the feudal exploitation of the peasant masses they belittle the importance of the agrarian revolution and seek to lead the peasant struggles along the path of compromise. So, the most important task today is to build up a revolutionary Communist Party armed with Marxism-Leninism, the Thought of Mao Tse-tung. Today the sparks of Naxalbari have spread to many states of India and will soon spread to newer and newer areas. Without overthrowing the enemies of the Indian people — US imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, India’s comprador-bureaucratic capital and feudalism — there can be no solution of any of the problems of the Indian people, the reign of darkness over India cannot be ended, nor can India advance one step along the road of progress.