Policy Resolutions on Tactics

"Marxist tactics consist in combining the different forms of struggle, in the skilful transition from one form to another, in steadily enhancing the consciousness of the masses and extending the area of their collective action, each of which, taken separately, may be aggressive or defensive, and all of which, taken together, lead to a more intense and decisive conflict."

(Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 20, p 210)

This excellent definition by Lenin clearly emphasises the essential components of Marxist tactics in their interconnection and serves as our guideline in formulating effective tactics in pursuit of our revolutionary strategic goal and perspective.

In our context of new or people's democratic revolution, the strategic goal is to establish a revolutionary people's democratic dictatorship by overthrowing the ruling alliance of big bourgeoisie and landlords, an alliance dependent on imperialism. The contradiction between feudalism as represented by powerful multifarious feudal remnants and the broad masses of Indian people is identified as the principal contradiction which operates in conjunction with several other basic, fundamental or major contradictions -- contradiction between imperialism and the Indian nation, contradiction between big capital and the Indian people, the working class in particular, and contradiction among various sections of the ruling classes.

The challenge of developing effective tactics in the light of this strategic perspective entails working out a set of policies and positions regarding various bourgeois institutions and parties as well as various social classes and other identities and forces.

Mass Organisations and Struggles

Mass work or organising the broad masses of the two basic classes, the urban and rural proletariat and the labouring peasantry, and sections like students and youths, women and various compatible social strata is a basic task of the Party. Revolutionary mass organisations serve not merely as conveyor belts supplying communist members from among the masses, they themselves play a crucial role as part and parcel of the revolutionary movement. The strategic goals of some of these organisations may go beyond the minimum goal of new democracy. A revolutionary trade union must, for example, have socialism as its motto; similarly a revolutionary women’s organisation fights for the strategic goal of women's liberation, for the attainment of which new democracy or even socialism provide necessary but not sufficient conditions. The relation between the Party and various mass organisations is accordingly marked by varying degrees of flexibility.

While laying special emphasis on deepening mass work with strong local roots, we also try to organise it on as broad scales as possible. This stands in sharp contrast to the currently proliferating phenomenon of voluntary organisations or NGOS, which are almost as a rule funded either by the government or foreign funding agencies or both and cater to very specific issues and local grievances and problems of the people, thereby serving as effective vehicles of reformism and depoliticisation. Apart from launching our own network of organisations wherever necessary and possible we also follow the policy of developing mutual cooperation and broad-based unity in action with a whole range of mass organisations so as to facilitate the development of broader class solidarity and radicalise ongoing mass struggles. If conditions so demand, for this purpose we are also prepared to carry on fractional work within organisations which are otherwise reformist or even reactionary in nature.

Various Identities and Other Social Forces

Organisations and struggles of various nationalities, backward and oppressed castes and minority religious communities are quite widespread and important in our society. Very often such organisations and struggles present the mixed picture of a reactionary or conservative leadership commanding a powerful mass base and cashing in on popular democratic aspirations. As long as such trends operate in opposition to the ruling classes and do not degenerate into agencies of reaction, we believe in interacting with such trends with a view to intensifying the process of class formation and class struggle within the concerned identities and winning over the masses involved in such organisations and struggles to the revolutionary movement. Under certain specific circumstances, the Party itself initiates and leads such organisations and struggles.

United Front Practice

Building a new democratic or people's democratic front comprising the class forces of new democratic revolution is a key strategic task of the Party. Such a front is to be built under the leadership of the working class around the core of the worker-peasant alliance and it is to pursue the minimum programme of the Party in the stage of democratic revolution leading up to the establishment of a revolutionary people's democratic dictatorship. The development of such a revolutionary front on a comprehensive programmatic basis has necessarily to pass through a whole series of transitional stages. The class forces of such a front do not operate in a vacuum but are found organised under different banners on the basis of different issues or partial programmes. To polarise these scattered forces in favour of a single front of democratic revolution, the Party applies the tactic of building issue-based or programme-oriented united fronts with like-minded forces. To this end, the Party selects and combines a whole range of suitable issues of struggle and forms of organisatiotin. The tactic of united front is particularly relevant in our context of a caste-ridden society where class issues often acquire caste appearances, which in turn tend to distort and impede the development of the underlying class reality. The tactic of united front under such conditions helps in pinning down and isolating the main enemy, defusing unnecessary social tension and bringing the class essence to the fore.

For a Left Confederation

With right reactionary forces rapidly consolidating their position in Indian polity in the wake of growing communal offensive and wholesale adoption of neo-liberal economic policies, so-called centrist forces are increasingly giving way to this Rightwing ascendance. Only a broad-based and popular resurgence of the Left can check this menace and prevent the centrist forces from going over to the Right. This calls for a different model of Left unity as opposed to the opportunist model of Left Front which first got bogged down in running and defending state governments and has of late even compromised its basic identity by appending itself to a motley combination of bourgeois parties. The kind of Left confederation we advocate will, on the contrary, be a fighting combination of various Left forces whose basic task and identity will be to serve as a radical Left core in national politics. Constituents of such a confederation will be free to pursue their independent lines in their own spheres while working together on the national plane on a commonly agreed agenda of action. It is only as an extension of such a fighting core that necessary agreements would be forged with non-Left forces against the Right. Such a Left confederation would greatly facilitate the cause of a Left resurgence against the growing threat of a reactionary Rightwing ascendance and in the process it would also go a long way towards our cherished goal of eventual unification of all revolutionary Indian communists in a single communist party.

Attitude to Bourgeois Parties

Most of the mainstream political formations including parties that are popularly classified as centrist or democratic parties are bourgeois parties in terms of their guiding policies and programmes and the class interests they serve. Over the past few decades Indian politics has witnessed the rise of a whole range of parties. Apart from old type of all-India parties, we now have a number of regional parties or parties professedly espousing the cause of specific castes and communities. While the rise of these parties reflects the inherent contradictions of the so-called Indian process of development, the leaders of these parties have been increasingly accommodated in the ruling elite. This is seen not only in the kind of national consensus that has emerged over vital issues of economic policy but also in the ease with which these parties have been aligning and realigning among themselves. While grasping this basic point of class unity running through the whole gamut of bourgeois parties, a communist party also has to differentiate one shade of bourgeois parties from another. It must, however, be clearly understood that in our society any radicalism in the bourgeoisie has essentially to be a reflection of peasant radicalism.

It is primarily to win over the peasant base of these parties that we follow the tactic of unity and struggle, of developing interaction and even alliances with such bourgeois parties against the main enemy. Crucial to this context is the utilisation of various existing and potential rifts between the bourgeois parties. This may also entail the forging of certain agreements, however temporary and partial, between the Communist Party and its bourgeois rivals. We must remember that the raison d'etre of such a tactic is not to inspire different sections of the bourgeoisie into action but to free the working people from bourgeois influences.

Participation in Elections

Elections at regular intervals to Parliament, State Assemblies and local bodies represent crucial occasions of political struggle in the parliamentary democratic form of government that exists in India. Unless faced with exceptional conditions demanding a boycott of such exercises, the Party stands for an active and vigorous participation in elections. The basic purpose underlying such participation is the organisation of powerful election campaigns with a view to heightening the political assertion of the working people as an independent force and projection of alternative policies in different spheres. Electoral agreements, ranging from mere seat-sharing arrangements to full-fledged electoral blocs that may be arrived at with various Left and democratic forces must subserve this basic purpose. However, we recognise the possibility that it is possible for a revolutionary communist party to win a majority of seats, either singly or in alliance with like-minded forces, in local bodies and in exceptional cases even in a few provincial assemblies. As laid down in our programme, such communist-led district councils or state governments will try and accomplish a set of democratic tasks of the movement and also play the role of a revolutionary opposition against the central authority.

Attitude to Various Governments

In the parliamentary arena, the Party remains firm and consistent in its role of the extreme revolutionary opposition. Our MPs and MLAs are duty bound to oppose every anti-democratic step and anti-people measure of every government regardless of its political composition. However, in conformity with our policy of differentiating not only between enemies and friends but also between bigger and lesser enemies, we do not flinch from offering critical support to governments run by parties other than the principal representatives of the bourgeoisie in the face of a mounting enemy offensive. But offering such conditional and exclusively parliamentary form of support does not in any way restrict or inhibit our extra-parliamentary role and initiatives which remains the primary aspect of our practice.

The Battle of Two Tactics

Maintaining proletarian independence is a principle that is absolutely central to any revolutionary tactical line. This requires revolutionary communists to firmly uphold the banner of proletarian internationalism as opposed to bourgeois nationalism. In our context, it means remaining firm on anti-imperialism, opposing every act of bourgeois betrayal of national dignity and interests vis-a-vis imperialist powers, while simultaneously rallying the proletariat and the broad masses of the people against the ruling classes' attempt to whip up war hysteria or jingoistic frenzy against neighbouring countries or at any rate to derail the people's class consciousness and struggles by resorting to chauvinistic propaganda whether against neighbouring countries or against secessionist insurgencies or statehood or autonomy movements waged by various nationalities within India. To combat the chauvinistic or regional hegemonist line of Indian ruling classes and break with the disastrous legacy of Partition, we uphold the cause of closer regional unity in South Asia and formation of a confederation comprising India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Equally important in this context is our steadfast refusal to sanctify the bourgeois system and its institutions under any circumstances. It is one thing to utilise the given system and combat every imperialist or fascist attempt to disrupt the existing institutions and in this sense we are opposed to the anarchists. Sanctifying and glorifying the bourgeois system and sowing illusions about the possibility to reform it and make it work in favour of the proletariat and the working people at large is quite another proposition and on this score we are firmly against the opportunists. While combining various forms of struggle to carry forward the revolutionary movement we wage a relentless war against both anarchist desperation and opportunist illusions

But this independence must not be mistaken for the line of so-called splendid isolation. Independence has to be safeguarded and asserted in the course of active proletarian intervention in the political process. If tailism is to be rejected outright, so is passivity. Behind this battle of two tactics lie two conflicting visions of democratic revolution. While the revolutionary tactical line is inspired by the drive to assert proletarian leadership over democratic revolution, the opportunist line looks to this or that section of the bourgeoisie for leadership and advocates a policy of collaboration and power-sharing for the proletariat.

Again, this active intervention must not be equated to the so-called game of manipulations bourgeois politicians play and excel in. The challenge is to lend a sharp and principled political edge to the growing strength of the working people and their movement. In other words, developing and transforming proletarian independence into proletarian hegemony is the crux of revolutionary communist tactics

Ensuring a proper balance between tactics and strategy is another crucial challenge. Many of the mistakes we committed in the earlier phase of our movement arose from our failure to extricate essentially tactical questions pertaining to forms of struggle from the framework of strategy. Boycott of elections, almost a near-exclusive emphasis on armed struggle, rejection of trade unions could all be justified as a valid tactical response to the revolutionary crisis of the late 60s, but when these measures were wrongly elevated to the level of strategy for the entire stage of democratic revolution the movement suffered from a whole set of left deviationist mistakes. The opportunist wing of the communist movement has, on the other hand, freed tactics from all strategic concerns. Devoid of the essential strategic thrust and perspective, the pursuit of such "independent" tactics has only led to the practice of unchecked tailism with leaders engaging themselves in the politics of manipulations and manoeuvres and thus serving as active vehicles of bourgeois illusions and influences among the masses.

Our Party has always been actively engaged in carrying forward this battle of two tactics. The experience and evolution of the opportunist tactics has always served as a great negative teacher for us in our endeavour to develop effective revolutionary communist tactics in India.

Policy Resolutions on Nationality Question
and Related Issues

India is a land of several nationalities and ethno-lingual groupings. Growing economic and cultural interaction and decades of unity forged in the course of anti colonial freedom movement and anti-imperialist democratic struggle have lent a unified Indian face to the multi national mosaic of our Indian society. But this process of evolution of Indian identity suffers from major bureaucratic and chauvinistic distortions, large-scale economic disparities and cultural economic discriminations. Various nationalities and national minorities in India are locked in a serious contradiction with the over centralised Indian state, which also expresses itself through strong centrifugal tendencies.

Hence, the situation warrants, reconstitution of national unity on the basis of federal, democratic, secular polity recognising the nationalities right to self determination including secession and instilling a sense of belonging, equality and security in all minority groupings, effective democratisation of decision making, devolution of resources and decentralisation of developmental activities to enlist popular participation in nation building.

(From the Party Programme)

Distorted Process of Nation Building

Indian ruling classes utterly failed to appreciate the underlying process of evolving national unity. Their adherence to the British legacy of policy of imposition, the reversal of the policy of Congress from relatively strong provinces to strong centre towards over centralised trend of state structure, hindered the natural growth of unity and fusion. The recommendations of State Reorganisation Commission as appointed by Nehru in 1953 did not care for the question of self-determination and autonomy; rather in the name of unity, national security and economic viability it justified the trend of super-imposed centralisation.

In addition to the serious wounds inflicted by partition, expansionism practiced by Indian ruling classes in relation to neighbouring countries, with chauvinistic overtones, attempted imposition of Hindi as link language and brutal suppression of struggles of different nationalities for self-determination and autonomy contributed further to distorting and complicating the very process of nation building.

Under the pretext of enforcing national unity from above, the Indian state has only been strengthening its reactionary apparatus, enacting draconian laws and legitimising fake encounters and mass killings. It goes without saying that these reactionary instruments of repression are not reserved for nationality movements but are applied liberally against various streams of democratic movements.

The aspirations of various nationalities/ethno-linguistic groups are, of course, not expressed in a uniform way, they assume multifarious forms according to the degree of sense of alienation, feeling of insecurity and inequality etc.

Nationality Question in Indian Conditions

Nationality question in India manifests itself with its own specific Indian characteristics and is distinctly different from those of Russia, where a single "Great" Russian nationality under the Tsarist Empire was oppressing other smaller nationalities, or in pre-revolution China, where nationality question was more or less a non-issue. The trend of secession is essentially a peripheral issue in Indian politics whereas it was a highly potent one in Russia given the specific composition of the multi-national Russian empire. Unlike other countries, multi-national Indian state came into being in a peculiar way, i.e., neither through voluntary agreement between different nationalities, nor through any extreme level of oppression and force. In India, we cannot identify any one single nationality oppressing the others, here we have class-based state oppression by an alliance of big landlords and big bourgeoisie encompassing almost all the nationalities. In this backdrop, we feel it is wrong to think in terms of separate liberation of various nationalities followed by the building of an Indian union based on an agreement. Such a view is nothing but an anarchist distortion of the Marxist-Leninist outlook on nationality question.

Barring the trend of independent Kashmir and Nagaland, that too mainly because of long, historical reasons, all other nationality demands are either for statehood within India or for autonomy. Given the over-centralised, unitary state structure, nationality aspirations are, in some cases, articulated in the form of secession. But more often than not the demand for secession is only meant to exert greater pressure on the Indian state to secure certain concessions and rights for the nationality concerned and the leaders have almost invariably been co-opted into the system. This, however, does not rule out the possibility of any future aggravation of centrifugal tendencies.

In spite of the fact that Indian unity has consolidated itself on the basis of a unified market complemented by a unitary super structure, nation building in India is still an unfinished agenda. Economic disparities grown out of distorted, dependent Indian capitalism and the Indian state policy of perpetuation of the same are stumbling blocks to attain the cherished goal of the real unity of the nation.

In order to advance the cause of national unity on a truly democratic, secular basis we extend support to the movements for statehood and autonomy, considering the merit of every case, as it is directly related to the democratisation of Indian polity. We even demand the constitution of a new state reorganisation commission.

We believe that the unification of India and the nationalities' right to self-determination are two inseparable principles. Because, we believe that the recognition of right to self-determination including secession in some special cases, does really facilitate the goal of achieving a real, voluntary union of the country on an equal and democratic basis. Recognition of this right does not necessarily mean blanket support to all kinds of secessionist tendencies. The question of support will be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into account the overall interest of development of the democratic movement. Such tendencies might also have to be opposed in the event of the forces and demands playing into the hands of imperialist and reactionary forces.

We even envisage a confederation of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to undo the partition of our great country. We, from the standpoint of proletarian internationalism, strongly oppose the Bismarckian way of nation-building from above and Indian expansionism with chauvinistic overtones.

On Federalism

We recognise, in principle, the nationalities' right to self-determination including secession because, "the closer a democratic system is to complete freedom to secede the less frequent and less ardent will the desire for separation be in practice."

For communists, splitting a country, division of a nation or ideal of federalism and small nation states is not desirable, rather united and centralised state is one of the important conditions for advancing towards socialism - a transitional stage between medieval division and unification on the basis of communism - but the only question is how to achieve it in a democratic way. To quote Lenin, "The great centralised state is a great historical step forward from medieval disunity to the future socialist unity of the whole world, and only via such a state (inseparably connected with capitalism), can there be any road to socialism. It would, however, be inexcusable to forget that in advocating centralism we advocate exclusively democratic centralism."

For communists, federalism cannot be a principle in itself as building up of a people's democratic state and its transition to a socialist society presupposes centralised planning as one of its important components. Autonomy to every region having appreciably distinct economic and social features, populations of specific national composition etc., is, on the other hand, an essential component for the democratisation of polity and society for it encourages popular participation in nation-building. As Lenin said, "... As far as autonomy is concerned, Marxists defend not the right to autonomy, but autonomy itself, as a general, universal principle of a democratic state with a mixed national composition, and a great variety of geographical and other conditions." Federalism in general is against any kind of centralised planning and is essentially a sophisticated version of narrow regionalism in Indian situation whereas autonomy is an integral and indispensable component of a democratic centralism.

To quote Lenin again, "Recognition of self-determination is not synonymous with recognition of federation as a principle. One may be a determined opponent of that principle and a champion of democratic centralism but still prefer federation to national inequality as the only way to full democratic centralism." Based on this basic position only, in spite of our preference for a centralised state, we feel that in a vast and diverse country like India we just cannot rule out a federal restructuring of the polity and more power to the states etc. altogether and we support such demands also from the angle of sharpening the contradictions and to advance the cause of democratic movement in an overall sense. But, such a federal restructuring should necessarily be based on a greater role for centralisation with particular regard to national planning, equitable distribution of national wealth etc., as against the demand of regional power groups to have a weak centre with a limited power, i.e., empowered only with very few departments as well against the perception of oppressive or undemocratic overcentralisation advocates by the national ruling classes.

At the same time, we cannot support the demand for more power to the states in such cases that leads to the situation of a state's doors being opened up to the direct entry of MNCs, at the cost of centralised control or where it fuels certain varieties of strident regionalism, with religious fundamentalist overtones, articulated, for instance, by forces like Shiv Sena and Akalis which are basically representatives of the elites of advanced regions. In the backdrop of the stronger influence of feudal forces at regional level state power, the demand for federalism and more power to the states, basically a euphemism for regionalism, at times acquires a reactionary character too, deserving opposition by the communists. In these circumstances, we stand for a "strong state and a strong centre" in contrast to the slogan of "strong states and a weak centre". Moreover, we feel that the demands for exclusive rights over a state's resources are also unjustified because such demands negate the very unity of the country and only fuel secessionism.

Under the impact of imperialist globalisation regional disparities have further widened and contradictions have become sharper. Also, it weakens the basis of unity which was forged in the course of anti-imperialist democratic struggles. In the backdrop of market forces being unleashed due to globalization drive, World Bank is advocating newer role of the state through deconcentration of administration, decentralisation of power and devolution of finance and resources to a defined limit. It is only aimed at encouraging larger private participation. All these tall talks of decentralisation etc., are nothing but a ploy to preserve the same unitary system of governance through macro-level controls. This is the essence of cooperative federalism which is also the inspiration for state Chief Ministers to enter into direct agreements with MNCs. It has nothing to do with any genuine democratisation.

On Contending Views

Social democracy falls to appreciate the national question as a live political issue, even refuses to appreciate it as a part of the broader democratic movement and becomes a mouthpiece of ruling classes in preaching national unity through guns and thereby succumbing to the national chauvinism of the Indian ruling classes. Anarchists, on the other hand, are busy organising international conferences with a view to preaching secession as a universal solution for all nationality problems in the world. There cannot be any internationally uniform solution to the nationality problem. Unlike other questions like that of working class etc., communists' support to this particular question is conditioned by the specific situations of the country and the period concerned. Anarchists are thus mistaken in internationalising the nationality issue in the above fashion and they fall prey to petty bourgeois nationalism by giving calls like "oppressed nationalities of the world, unite," etc. and by splitting the integral agenda of revolution in India into a set of separate armed liberation struggles for different nationalities.

Some Typical Cases

In particular cases where the movements for separation enjoy popular support and have a specific history behind them, they need prudent handling and special solutions. Dismissing all such movements as mere threats to national unity and looking at them as law and order problems cannot certainly help democratic unification.

On the Question of Independent Assam

The emergence of ULFA and the demand for independent Assam has been an offshoot of the Assam movement, which was essentially directed against the backwardness and plunder of Assam. Indeed, there is no viability for secession of Assam. ULFA does not enjoy support from the various cross-sections of Assamese population; rather various tribal groups, religious and linguistic minorities and the tea tribes are demanding autonomy and preservation of their own cultural and linguistic identities. That apart, the emergence of a regional power group, especially through AGP, and its assimilation in the all-India power structure have also thinned the support base of separation. But if the plunder of oil and natural resources and tea etc., continues unabated, leaving Assam under natural calamity and under-development, if the accords are allowed to gather dust and attempts made to resolve the problem by military means, it will only aggravate the sense of alienation.

On Kashmir

We are not averse to the demand for an independent Kashmir or plebiscite, in principle. Still, we are skeptical about the viability of an independent Kashmir sandwiched between two hostile powers, India and Pakistan. In such a situation, there is a potential danger of such an independent country becoming an easy target for imperialist manipulations. Another concern is that such a country could also become a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, thereby turning into a detriment to the cause of a larger democratic movement.

If things have come to such a pass, the blame is squarely to be laid on the attitude of the Indian government. The case of Kashmir is completely a special issue given its method of accession, the Hindu religious chauvinistic attitude of the Indian state and bitter relations with neighbouring Pakistan. Kashmir was attached with Indian territory through the Instrument of Accession Act with a specific constitutional promise to accord a special treatment to the state short of independence and have a plebiscite. A special Article 370 was also incorporated into the constitution of India. But Indian government not only never bothered to stick to its constitutional obligations, it also allowed the situation to worsen by adopting a Hindu communal authoritarian approach thus leading to further alienation of the broad Kashmiri masses. The approach of Indian government not only precipitated the Kashmir question but also disturbed Kashmir's tradition of communal harmony.

Any solution to Kashmir problem presupposes a radical change in the attitude of the Indian government. With all our sympathy for the cause of the Kashmiri masses we want to give peace a final chance. We feel that it is still not too late to work out a solution within the framework of India and with this in view we seek the solution of the Kashmir problem by ensuring maximum possible autonomy. Major steps to be taken in this direction include putting an end to state terror, initiating political dialogue with militants, unequivocal opposition to US intervention, and normalisation of border dispute with Pakistan.

We expect that the people of Kashmir and militants should realise the extent to which the secular tradition of Kashmir has suffered a setback because of the killings of pundits by some fundamentalist forces. We also appeal to them to develop closer interaction with the broader secular, democratic forces of India and to join hands in a common struggle against the chauvinistic Indian ruling classes and the state.

Karbi-Dimasa Movement

The Karbi-Dimasa movement for an autonomous state deserves special mention. Karbi is one of the backward tribes having a population of only 6 lakhs in an interior area of the Northeastern region. Here the movement for autonomous statehood launched by our party in the early 80s soon turned into a popular upsurge under the umbrella of a democratic front - ASDC - and successfully uprooted the reactionary and autocratic Congress leadership in the district. Against all- odds, ASDC has been maintaining its unity and orientation. Despite all provocations and 'sugar-bullets' from the government at centre and state, ASDC did not allow itself to get deviated into anarchist path and time and again won the struggle by safeguarding itself from government trickery. In quick succession, ASDC snatched almost all the seats in district councils of Karbi Anglong and then NC Hills as also the Assembly and Parliament seats lying in the region (mostly represented by CPI(ML) members). A memorandum of understanding has been signed between the movement leaders and the state and central governments providing for the transfer of several additional departments to the autonomous councils. The MoU however has not yet been sincerely implemented and the autonomy movement has anyway made it clear that it will not compromise on the basic demand for implementation of Article 244-A of the Constitution to grant the autonomous region the status of an autonomous state, of a state within state. While the councils have turned into an instrument of upholding the voice of autonomous state, they undertake democratic reforms to the extent possible and continue to fight for attaining further rights for the people. The people here not only take part in general democratic movement but also have organised themselves in trade unions, student-youth organisations and women's organisations affiliated to all-India centres led by the Party. ASDC is the leading initiator of the Tribal People's Front in Assam, comprising various shades of tribal movements. Also, it is an important force in Assam People's Front, the revolutionary democratic movement of Assam. With such a comprehensive and consistent track record, the Karbi-Dimasa movement has emerged as a trendsetter for tribal autonomy movements. Its uniqueness lies in the consolidation of revolutionary left ideology in a backward nationality awakening.

On the Movement for Statehood and for a New State Reorganisation Commission

Popular demands for separate statehood within India, and demands for autonomous states of Karbi Anglong & NC Hills, etc., are undermined or sometimes treated as 'secessionists' and pushed into an antagonistic course. It has been crystal clear that neither the rejections of these demands by earlier commissions not the subsequent pseudo-accommodative approach of the government could stop these movements, rather new demands have come up one after another.

The situation is thus ripe for a fresh reorganisation of the states under new conditions and on a new basis. Setting up a State Reorganisation Commission for this purpose is the need of the hour.

The provincial organisation of British India, in the words of State Reorganisation Commission, 1953, was grounded in imperial interests or the exigencies of a foreign government and not in the actual needs, wishes or affinities of the people. The process of reorganisation on the basis of the 1953 commission also could not generate any positive vision in the process of nation building. Though the basis of the reorganisation is popularly known as "language"; in real life the thrust was to satisfy the trend of bureaucratic centralisation and administrative convenience. The question of self-determination and autonomy of different nationalities or ethno-linguistic groups was negated with the plea that it would lead to division of the country into larger number of units. The problems in hill areas, the commission observed, is as much psychological as political. It took note of the historical 'hangover’ of British policy of national park approach to demarcate the tribal zones and to isolate them from external influences but concluded that no proposal for the amendment of the sixth schedule, which would have the effect of encouraging disruptive tendencies, should be entertained.

Jharkhand was negated with the plea that separation of South Bihar will affect the entire economy of the existing state, separation of Chotanagpur will upset the balance between agriculture and industry in the residual state etc. Essentially, it is this very approach of 'neglect or denial of identity' that the Jharkhand people have all along been fighting against.

As for UP, K.M.Panicker, one of the members of the commission, contested the argument of the commission viz., "that the existence of a large, powerful and well organised state in the Gangetic valley was a guarantee for lndia's unity; that such a state would be able to correct the disruptive tendencies of other states", etc., and termed it as "denial of the federal principle of equality of all units". Partition of the state seemed to him as all obvious proposition. However, by now, the futility of the commission's observations in regard to UP have been proved beyond any doubt - and there is a near consensus in favour of a separate Uttarakhand state.

Several new states formed later on were also primarily based on military or administrative considerations. The proposed state reorganisation commission should keep the above in view and examine (1) the demands of statehood afresh with particular regard to the wishes and affinities of the people (2) relations of existing states with the centre and the problem of autonomy within states at various levels so as to promote effective democratisation of decision making, devolution of resources and decentralisation of developmental activities and enlist popular participation.

Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Vidarbha, Chhattishgarh and Telengana are some of the new states in popular demand. In the case of Uttarakhand and Jharkhand, concerned State Assemblies have also adopted resolutions supporting the call for carving out these new states. The case of Uttarakhand is perhaps the least controversial among all statehood movements and a Prime Minister has already categorically declared his government's decision to create a separate Uttarakhand state in his Indepndence Day address. This commitment must be honoured in full and at the earliest and under no circumstances should this issue be clubbed together with other statehood demands.

On Tribal Autonomy

Of late, growing assertion of tribal people is being witnessed in the North-East and other regions. In spite of variations in their concrete demands, essentially it has brought forth the question of' "autonomy" for tribal people.

We are opposed to chauvinistic designs of the relatively big nationalities, e.g., ultra-chauvinistic trend of Assamese and Bengalis in regard to Bodo and Gorkhas respectively. The question of effective autonomy for these communities will have to be addressed with an open mind. Obviously, we do support the demand for an autonomous hill state within Assam comprising Karbi Anglong and NC hills. We also call for effective autonomy for other tribal communities in Assam including the Misings, Tiwas and Rabhas. We are also for regional autonomy or special belt for tribals/ethno linguistic groups as per the merit of the case, viz., effective Bodoland Council with well demarcated boundary; upgradation of Tripura Area Autonomous District Council. Similarly, demands for regional autonomy by small ethnic groups in Assam and elsewhere in the North-East, MP, Rajasthan, etc. deserve particular attention since they stem from the sense of non-recognition and long deprivation of equal participation in economic and political processes. Such tribal areas can be brought under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

To ensure real representation of the Scheduled Tribe population in state assemblies and Parliament, it is necessary to have re-delimitation of certain existing ST constituencies as well as certain other constituencies with a substantial tribal population.

Policy Resolutions on Agrarian Question

I. The Programmatic Basis of the Agrarian Policy

The last five decades have witnessed far-reaching changes in the Indian countryside. The old zamindari as well as other forms of large-scale landlordism akin to serfdom have undergone considerable transformation. The state policy of limited land reforms and its distorted enforcement has spawned a downsized landlordism of both old and new variety and an alliance of bourgeoisie with these landlords.

The new capitalist landlords have by and large taken to direct cultivation and besides, a section of them engaging in money-lending, trade and other rural business activities are emerging as the rural bourgeoisie. Yet often we also come across side by side, old-type landlordism to a considerable extent, including absentee landlordism, extracting surplus in a semi-feudal manner from tenants and sharecroppers. The predominance of absolute ground rent in such tenancies, whether legal or illegal, acts as a major barrier to the free development of capitalism.

The bourgeoisie is promoting capitalism in Indian agriculture based on new landlords and rich peasants. Apart from many of the old landlords who are undergoing transition into new, capitalist landlords, a section of rich peasants are also emerging into capitalist farmers who can also be characterised as kulaks or agrarian bourgeoisie. Under this landlord path of capitalism, penetration of capitalist relations is very slow and uneven and the forces of capitalism are entering into hybrid relations with feudal remnants. The feudal remnants like bondage, usury and other forms of tied relations have been adopted by the capitalist landlords and kulaks for extraction of absolute surplus value. Thus the semi-feudal 'extra-economic' coercion is the essential part of newly expanding capitalist relations, which hinders the free development of capitalist forces among the peasantry.

The introduction of capitalism in agriculture has given rise to a trend of steady marginalisation and proletarianisation of an overwhelmingly majority section of peasantry. There is also the emergence of new class forces and new movements: apart from kulaks who play a leading role in the farmers movement there is also the formation of a huge class of free agricultural labourers who are launching their independent movements for wages and other issues. Yet small-scale farming remains the predominant character of our agriculture.

Though commercialisation in Indian agriculture is now more or less generalised, majority of the poor and middle peasants are still trapped in subsistence or near-subsistence farming, including those who take a part or whole of their produce to the market for the sake of exchanging it for consumption goods. The entire state policy is geared to promoting the landlord-path of capitalism based on a narrow stratum of capitalist landlords and capitalist farmers who grab lion's share of state's resources flowing into agriculture. The broad mass of poor and middle peasantry, apart from groaning under the yoke of semi-feudal remnants, are at the receiving end of the expanding forces of capitalism, viz. these new landlords and kulaks and are oppressed by these classes. Land reforms have neither given them the land nor ensured their freedom. Though nominally free from serfdom and zamindari they find themselves semi-enslaved by the oppressive forces of semi-feudalism and distorted capitalism promoted from above.

The shifting agrarian strategy of the ruling classes under policies of liberalisation and globalisation reinforces the pro-kulak bias of the state policy and accentuates the inequalities among agrarian classes and provides for the direct penetration of imperialist finance capital into agriculture.

1.2. Path of freest and broad-based development of capitalism - the path of democracy - is possible only by basing on the mass of impoverished peasantry, who at present absolutely lack capital resources. The poor and middle peasants will be the principal actors in this vibrant capitalism. Such a path is possible only by challenging head on this agrarian policy of the bourgeoisie and its state. The central objective of the agrarian policy of the party of the proletariat would be to intensify the class struggle in the countryside: between old and new type of landlords and kulaks and their state on the one hand and the rural proletariat and the vast mass of poor peasantry on the other. Only rural proletariat can take lead in this struggle in firm unity with the broad mass of poor peasantry and in cooperation with middle peasantry. The agrarian policy based on such a class line would aim to thoroughly eradicate all forms of feudal remnants, demarcate with and isolate capitalist farmers from the poor and middle peasantry and win over the broad sections of the toiling peasantry from the influence of bourgeoisie and various shades of its political forces, confront the bourgeoisie and its state with a policy of development of small and middle farmers on a wide range of issues covering the entire gamut of the agrarian question, carry out a policy of thoroughgoing land reforms and agrarian reforms and completely break up the landlord-kulak economy. Without this democratic revolution would not be complete in India. This entire programmatic thrust is best captured by the slogan 'Land and Liberty'

II. The Struggle Against Feudal Remnants

2.0 Despite the developing capitalist relations and growing importance of related issues and demands for the peasant movement, the struggle against feudal remnants has remained the main thrust of our peasant struggles and will continue to remain so in the coming future also.

The struggle against feudal remnants is directed not only against old-type landlords and rich peasants but is also targeted against the new capitalist landlords and kulaks. The struggle against social oppression and atrocities through private armies etc. constitute an important aspect of this struggle.

The movements of poor and landless peasants on a whole range of demands thrown up by the distorted capitalist development should be combined with the struggle against feudal remnants in an integral movement.

III. The Land Question

3.1 All-India land reforms scenario at present is that land reforms have effectively come to an end as policy as far as the bourgeoisie is concerned. In the view of policymakers there is only the question of some residual litigations. Perhaps only a fresh upsurge in land struggles by the rural poor can bring land reforms back on the policy agenda.

Reverse land reform, however, has come on to the governmental agenda now. Powerful lobbies are demanding lifting of agricultural ceiling to facilitate the entry of corporate sector and agro-business units into agriculture. Several states including Karnataka, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu have taken concrete legislative or administrative steps in this direction. A greater exports thrust in agricultural products is bound create more pressures for a rollback of land reforms. An influential section of the farm lobby is also arguing for the same. A powerful resistance needs to be developed against this.

3.2 The aim of land reforms hitherto carried out by the Indian state has-been to break up old large-scale landlordism into smaller landlords suitable to undertake capitalist cultivation. The size of the landholdings was sought to be reduced to appropriate economic limits through land transfers induced by legislative pressures and settling for different levels of compromise instead of expropriating the landlords and in such a manner benefiting only the well-to-do sections of the peasantry. It was also an attempt to prevent any thoroughgoing land reforms by any radical political force, to preempt localised land struggles and defuse ongoing struggles, to freeze local disputes in bureaucratic and legalist web and to foreclose further land reforms options and so on.

The landlordism that exists now is by and large benami landlordism, which has obtained some sort of legal cover for itself. The land records regarding such transfers have been tampered. No new bureaucratic policy on identifying such transfers, however effective, can tackle this. The courts are protective of landlords in general. Only grassroots struggle can be effective in this regard. Put under State List, land administration and land reforms have been left to landlords-dominated state legislatures and state governments. A small lobby of administrators-official academics, which seeks to bring land reforms back on to the agenda through a state-wise review of implementation, has not made much headway.

In view of all this, land question continues to remain the centre-piece of radical agrarian reforms and 'land to the tiller' remains the central slogan on the agrarian question.

Nationalisation of land is the most consistent and thoroughgoing means for redistribution of land and realising the slogan of land to the tiller. This radical bourgeois measure - which however can be realised only under people's power- is all the more relevant under conditions of distorted and, in some states downright farcical, implementation of land reforms and the rise of new landlordism. While land nationalisation would remain the cornerstone of our agrarian policy for the entire country, this would be raised as an immediate, propaganda and agitational slogan at certain stages and in certain states depending upon the level of development of the agrarian movement and under specific political conditions

Our agrarian policy upholds revolutionary approach in land struggle in contrast to the bureaucratic, legalistic and reformist approach. While land nationalisation remains our basic slogan and direct onslaught upon landlordism and direct struggle for land seizure whether localised or relatively more generalised, depending upon the balance of forces - should continue to remain the hallmark of our land struggles, we can advance several minimum or intermediate demands to facilitate this struggle and to confront the state policy of land reforms.

For instance, demands like reduction in ceiling-limits, regulation and abolition of sharecropping and tenancy, or more thoroughgoing implementation of existing policies on land reforms etc. may be raised.

Though tenancy has been banned in many states (it is legal in West Bengal!), it is widely prevalent on the sly. In all the states exemptions are there. We are opposed to all forms of tenancy including those in their capitalist forms. However, in view of the growing trend of reverse tenancy - rich peasants and kulaks hiring in from poor peasants - we'll have to take care that some generalised policies on tenancy oblivious of this reality does not go against a section of poor peasantry.

There has been a demand that all land ceiling legislations should be listed in the Tenth Schedule of the constitution to keep them or their implementation outside the purview of judicial review. It has also been demanded that the ceiling-surplus land, after notification, should be alienated from the landowner and be, vested with the state. Such demands can be raised by our kisan sabhas.

Standing land tribunals to take up new cases, prevention of land alienation among dalits and tribals, plugging other loopholes like exemptions, prevention of land alienation among poor peasantry due to capitalist renting in by the rich peasants, owning ceiling-surplus land and benami land to be made criminal offence, fresh land surveys under the supervision of peasant organisations, computerisation of land records and right to information etc., are other possible demands.

Seizure of all ceiling-surplus land, benami land, community land, government land, land held by mutts, religious trusts and endowments, and the lands of corporate agribusiness houses and big capitalist farms, restoration of the traditional rights of tribals over forest land and produce, restoration of the tribals' land grabbed by non-tribal landlords and rich peasants, establishing the control of the landless and poor peasants over wastelands and social forestry lands as well as these schemes, opposing land alienation among peasants and fishermen in coastal areas due to land grabbing by business houses engaged in prawn farming etc. are among the immediate tasks of our peasant movement.

IV. Shift in the Agricultural Strategy of the State under Liberalisation

4.1 The green revolution brought about an initial spurt of capitalist development in agriculture. While the area cropped in India grew only by 8% between 1960 and 1987, yield increased by 5.1% and production increased by 8.1%. But this green revolution had faltered at the turn of the 90s. While foodgrains production grew at 3.5% per annum during 1980s, it had decelerated to 1.5% during 1990-96, much below the population growth, despite nine successive good monsoons. If this trend continues this may well mark the onset of a new agrarian crisis. The ultimate reason for the crisis of green revolution strategy is that it is based on a narrow stratum of kulaks. Moreover, this green revolution has not extended much beyond the Punjab-Haryana-Western Uttar Pradesh region and the rice growing regions in the Godavari-Krishna-Cauvery basins and some other parts of the country.

There has been a shift in the government's strategy towards agriculture under liberalisation, especially with regard to investment. While public investment is being reduced in the name of refocusing into infrastructural development, private investment is sought to be stimulated through expansion of credit, more subsidies in certain spheres and higher support prices etc. In a highly stratified farm sector, where more than 80% of the institutional credit and 75% of the marketable surplus is accounted for by farmers having four hectares and above, it goes without saying that only kulaks will be further benefited by this shift in strategy. In effect, infrastructural development is also being increasingly governed by market forces and public investment, apart from registering an absolute decline, is being diverted to current expenditure rather than flowing into long-term asset creation.

This shift in the strategy and other policy measures under liberalisation only go to aggravate the crisis of green revolution. Despite some increases the government is unable to maintain the requisite level of fertiliser subsidy and the resultant unbalanced use of fertilisers only causes erosion of soil fertility adding to the already aggravating problems of waterlogging, pests and diseases thrown up by green revolution threatening sustainable agriculture. Irrigation expansion is slipping behind the targets and the move to privatise the SEBs and increase power rates would only aggravate the problem. Rural banking as been deregulated making credit costlier and its 'targeting' has made it beyond the reach of small and marginal farmers. In short, the recent policy changes under NEP will only reinforce the pro-kulak bias and accentuate the deprivation of poor and middle peasants.

Under the impact of liberalisation there is a growing trend of private sector-led, exports-led crop diversification leading to a marked shift in the cropping pattern with reduction in the share of acreage under food-grains, which endangers country's food security.

Our agrarian policy obviously cannot talk in terms of general agricultural development for it is not the business of the proletariat to devise an agrarian policy encompassing the agrarian bourgeoisie. Rather the entire thrust of the agrarian policy, in this context, would be intensification of class struggles in the countryside between the poor and landless peasants on the one hand and the agrarian-rural bourgeoisie and the state which channelises all the resources into their hands, on the other. We should raise a whole set of specific, development-related demands of the poor and landless peasantry only from the point of view of demarcating their interests from those of kulaks and to intensify their struggles against these kulaks. Due care should be taken that the movements on these demands are also conducted in a revolutionary manner and do not slip into the mire of reformism. Our peasant organisations should demand that all subsidies go to poor and landless peasants only and there should be no subsidies for kulaks. Particular attention must be paid to evolve a set of demands on which campaigns of a state-level and all-India level character could be launched in the interests of small farmers and agricultural labourers.

Various specific issues on which alternative positions to counter the changing state policies may be as follows:

Stepping up public investment, changing the present priorities of subsidising the kulaks and refocusing it to the benefit of small and marginal farmers. Tax on the farm incomes of big farmers.

Cheap and adequate credit on demand to small and marginal farmers; against arbitrary loan waivers to the benefit of kulaks; earmarking 50% or more of cooperative credit to dalit and OBC small and marginal farmers; democratisation of cooperative credit societies; curbing diversion of cheap agricultural credit to non-agricultural business activities by kulaks; abolition of usurious non-institutional credit by moneylenders and merchants; and easy consumption credit for agricultural labourers and poor peasants.

(iii) Crop insurance to all crops without premium for all small and marginal farmers and not only to those who avail institutional credit.

(iv) No privatisation of irrigation works and their maintenance and distribution; no water rates for small and marginal farmers; more investment in areas of rain-fed, small-scale farming; adequate irrigation loans to all small and marginal farmers and energisation of their pump-sets in areas of bore-well irrigation; group irrigation schemes and curbing kulak domination over water resources and establishing water control and water management rights of the broad peasantry.

Extensive flood control measures to arrest soil erosion, compensation to the peasants affected by soil erosion and rehabilitation of the rural poor displaced by it.

(v) No privatisation of state electricity boards; and regular, adequate and concessional/free power supply to small and marginal farmers.

(vi) Free seeds, fertiliser and pesticides to small and marginal farmers and subsidised power tillers.

Liberalised Trade Regime

Administered price regime and market interventions by the state in agriculture would make little sense once the country goes in for mandatory trade liberalisation under GATT-WTO. That would be a qualitatively new, higher step in liberalisation compared to what has hitherto been done. US and European Union are now clamouring for an early phase-out of quantitative restrictions in India. A liberalised trade regime may have unpredictable consequences for Indian agriculture and will prove to be devastating for poor and middle peasants. While prices will witness sharp fluctuations and the kulak-cum-trader will be able to reap windfall benefits, millions of small and marginal farmers will be forced out of independent farming.

At present, going by the recent wheat muddle, the state seems to be playing a game of simultaneous imports and exports to prepare Indian farmers for the WTO regime. A section of the farm lobby, Sharad Joshi for instance, has joined this game as an active accomplice. The possible impact of agricultural trade liberalisation needs to be closely studied and the concrete response formulated as the situation further develops. However, it needs to be stressed that trade liberalisation and other such policies provide an excellent opportunity to develop a direct mass movement of the broad peasantry against the imperialist-dictated policies of the government, especially those forced by IMF-WB-WTO.

V. Certain Other Policy Issues

Role of Merchant Capital

5.1 Commercial capital's domination over productive capital is substantial and widespread in Indian agriculture. State trading in foodgrains and regulation has not substituted private trade but only regulates it and plays a dubious double role. It plays a supplementary role to the private grain and other markets dominated by merchants and merchant-landlords and big capitalists and a good amount of state procurement is made from private traders.

One reason why pre-capitalist relations linger on for a long time even after almost near-universal monetisation and commoditisation in Indian agriculture is the outsized role of merchant capital. Merchant capital speedily brings about commoditisation and monetisation without however having a stake in destroying pre-capitalist production relations or increasing productivity. Appropriating semi-feudal forms - often landlords themselves are the merchants - like usurious advances, it siphons of a huge share of surplus and surplus value from peasants and farmers.

With growing exports of agricultural commodities, big capital is also entering agricultural trade. Speculative trade by big capital in agricultural commodities is a growing phenomenon and India is becoming home to some global exchanges for futures and options in certain agricultural commodities.

The specific demands against merchant capital can be:

Struggle against usurious practices of merchants,

State support to farmers against distress sale,

Remunerative, support prices well above the open market prices,

State support to producers’ cooperatives,

Curbing speculative trade practices of big capital,

More cold-storage facilities,

Enhanced credit facilities/crop and storage loans, and

State-aided marketing cooperatives.

Farmers Movement and the Remunerative Prices Question

5.2 We support the farmers movement as a general democratic movement directed against the bureaucrat capital despite its kulak leadership and our support to the demand for remunerative prices has the added dimension that realising high prices - which however would be very difficult on a continuous basis under bureaucrat capital's hegemony - would go a long way in further clearing away feudal remnants.

We support the popular farmers movements for cheaper input prices subject to our basic stance of opposition to any subsidy to big and large farmers.

We should wean away small and middle-peasants from under the influence of kulak leadership in such movements and may launch price movements in our areas under our leadership to win over middle peasants.

One section of the farmers movement led by Sharad Joshi has become strong votaries of liberalisation and strongly support free market regime in agriculture demanded by the West at WTO. This means a section of kulaks are seeing bright opportunities of exports and collaboration directly with multinationals. This trend of the farmers’ movement should be opposed.

While we support the remunerative prices demand in general, certain exorbitant demands like 'world prices', associated with the blackmail of withholding the grain from the procurement agencies do not merit unqualified support and under certain conditions may even have to be opposed as such demands would only go drastically against wage and salary earners and large sections of poor peasants who are net purchasers of grain.

VI. Policy Approach towards Certain Classes

The New Landlords and Kulaks

6.1 Many of the old landlords, by taking to direct cultivation are emerging into a new-type of capitalist landlords. Additionally, from among rich peasants, a class of capitalist farmers, i.e., a class of agrarian bourgeoisie or kulaks, has also emerged in the Indian countryside. Both these classes of agrarian bourgeoisie appropriate semi-feudal forms for extreme exploitation of the agricultural labourers and poor peasants. Sections of these classes also engage usurious money lending, trade and other rural businesses and have thus emerged as the rural bourgeoisie. The kulaks, despite rooted in agricultural production and developing productive forces, resort to aggressive exploitation and oppression of agricultural labourers and poor peasants and hence play a very reactionary role.

These kulaks have emerged not only from the upper castes but also from among some dominant backward castes as well. These kulaks - capitalist landlords and capitalist farmers - usually mobilise their entire castes behind them when confronted with the radical movements of the rural poor or in the face of assertion of the lower castes - or unite on class basis cutting across caste lines if needed - and resort to cruel forms of social oppression including atrocities and massacres. They also take to commercial activities in nearby towns, develop a nexus with officials and leaders of reactionary political parties and they are the hotbed for many criminal and mafia gangs and private armies. They dominate panchayat and cooperative institutions and corner away the developmental funds.

The land struggle is just one aspect of the struggle against new landlords and it is to be taken along with the struggle against social oppression, mafiadom, nexus with bureaucrats and so on.

The Middle Peasant Question

6.2 Basically this question concerns stabilising the vacillations of this section by driving a wedge between them and the rich peasantry and kulaks. And despite its vacillations this class is an ally of the rural proletariat and poor peasants. Correctly tackling this question is crucial to our further political advance where our mobilisation of the rural poor is already fairly well developed.

Numerous economic ties bind the middle peasants and the rich peasants and kulaks and make the former dependent on the latter - for land, water, credit, marketing and inputs. In the context of state-aided capitalism from above, there is also some overlapping of kulak interests and middle/small peasant interests. At the same time, the hegemony of the kulaks and landlords in the local power structures - especially in the panchayats and cooperatives create acute contradictions between them and middle peasants. A big section of the middle peasants face the constant danger of marginalisation while a small section of upper middle peasants are in an upward mobility.

However, in the absence of a strong organised power of the rural proletariat and poor peasants challenging the hegemony of the kulaks/landlords, the middle peasants would not mount a comprehensive opposition against kulaks on their own.

The middle peasants do have a stake in higher procurement/ support prices and when the kulaks take lead they may join such price movements also. But often price question is not their priority. They are more concerned about the increasing cost of their near subsistence production than 'profits'. Often their priority demands are greater credit, cheaper inputs, seeds, irrigation and so on. It is on these areas they face the monopoly and control of power-wielding kulaks. The more principled approach to unite the middle peasants from the standpoint of the rural proletariat would be to unite with them in the struggle against kulaks and the state for their greater access to and control over such resources.

Agricultural Labourers

6.3 Due to the development of capitalist relations in agriculture, a huge class of agricultural labourers has emerged in the Indian countryside as an independent class. They constitute over 30% of the rural households. Their assertion in wage and other struggles against kulaks is already visible in many parts of the country and is bound to become the dominant trend in the future. It is necessary to organise them as an independent class in an independent organisation.

The general demands relating to agricultural labourers include: trade union rights for agricultural labourers, setting up of a competent authority for the registration of all agricultural labourers, security of employment and employment guarantee schemes with at least 100 days of assured employment, revamping of minimum wage formula and more effective implementation machinery, dispute settlement machinery in every block, equal wages for men and women, 8-hour work, old age pension scheme, maternity benefits, social security and other benefits through a welfare fund, extension of medical benefits and ESI coverage, compensation for accidents, safety measures relating to agricultural machinery, fiscal and. other direct curbs on labour displacing mechanisation, ban on crop diversification away from labour intensive foodgrains in areas of acute unemployment like Kuttanad of Kerala, statutory monitoring committees up to district levels with representations to agricultural labourer organisations to oversee the implementation of Agricultural Labourers Act, self-employment loans, land redistribution, end to bonded and child labour, distribution of waste land, banjar land and forest land for joint forest management, soft loans for group farming and for self-cultivation of small plots, house-sites, strict implementation of Civil Rights Act/SC-ST Act, Anti-Atrocities Act etc., special courts for speedy trial of cases involving atrocities on rural labour, holding SP and DM responsible in the case of massacres of agricultural labourers, special packages for migrant labourers and so on.

Sharecropping, sharecropping-cum-labour service arrangement, bonded labour, wages in kind (often as usurious advance), labour service and feudal tenancy-cum-labour service, etc. are feudal forms of tied labour, which are resorted to by capitalist landlords and farmers for the extraction of absolute surplus value. It is necessary to wage a resolute struggle against such forms.

Wage-related demands are not the exclusive demands of agricultural labourers. The demand for land and other productive assets, for self-employment, 'capital' to purchase 'means of production', or cost of production (like fodder), or access to village common property resources - like fishing, grass etc. - may sometimes be their-priority items. By being agricultural labourers they have not ceased to be landless peasants in good many cases. Sometimes they get galvanised more in land struggles than in wage struggles.

VII

Last updated on February 14, 2001