Comrades,
In different parts of India, the people are rising in revolt against the present regime of oppression and exploitation. It is not likely that all these revolts will be led by communist revolutionaries or that these will suffer from no weaknesses. It is only natural that mistakes will be committed even in struggles waged under the leadership of the communist revolutionaries. But how should we assess a struggle ! In assessing it, we should be guided by two criteria : (1) Which class or classes have taken part in it ? (2) Who are the targets against whom it is directed ?
We know from the reports in the bourgeois papers that poor and landless peasants took part in the revolt in Kerala. We also know that this revolt was directed against the reactionary state power. It is, therefore, indisputable that this revolt is a part of the revolutionary struggle of the Indian people. It is the duty of the revolutionaries to comeout in support of this struggle and, at the same time, to point out how the thought of Chairman Mao can be integrated with the concrete practice of the Indian revolution. A detailed analysis of the role of the leadership, instead of helping this task, strengthens the hands of reaction.
One may recall here that in 1966 an agitation led by the sadhus, rank reactionaries, spontaneously turned into a struggle against the reactionary government and the ruling Congress Party. While reporting on this incident over the Peking Radio, our Chinese comrades declared that this protest demonstration reflected the deep discontent and anger of our people towards the Congress Party and its government which weigh heavily like a dead weight on the back of the Indian people. This statement was used by the neo-revisionist leadership only to malign the great Communist Party of China. Revolutionary communists did not then come forward to unmask the neo-revisionists and analyse and interpret the event from a Marxist angle. We failed to draw the lesson that we should look into the essence of things and should not allow ourselves to be deceived by their mere appearances. That is why many of us have now been unable to understand the happenings in Kerala.
It will no doubt be necessary to analyse the role of the leadership, fina out whether it was right or wrong, and draw lessons from this analysis. But we shall learn nothing if we fail to respect the uncommon courage and heroism of the poor and landless peasants of Kerala, if we fail to acknowledge the leadership of the revolutionary classes.
No doubt, the revolutionaries of Kerala put politics in command. If the revolt suffered from any weakness, it might be that proper importance was not given to class struggle. If class struggle is neglected, our politics become empty and the will to struggle becomes weak.
