Repoy to A Comrade’s Letter
CHARU MAZUMDAR
From Liberation, July 1971-January 1972.
“This refers to the Midnapur document on recent developments in East Pakistan” — Ed. Liberation.
I have received your letter. You have many questions. It is not possible to answer all of them in one letter. I have given a reply to the Midnapur document* and an article is being published on behalf of Liberation. I hope these will help remove your confusion.
To us there is no contradiction between national and international interests since when we speak of a nation, we mean the peasants, workers and other toiling people. Their interest is to make revolution. That is why Chairman has said: “With regard to the question of world war, there are but two possibilities : “One is that the war will give rise to revolution and the other is that revolution will prevent the war.” The slogan of national self-defence is a bourgeois slogan. By raising it the bourgeoisie seeks to suppress the just right of workers, peasants and petty-bourgeois toilers to exist and tries to utilize all the resources of the nation in its own interest. Therefore, in no way and under no circumstances will that be our slogan. That is why our slogan is national revolutionary war and this war can be waged only in the form of people’s war. To develop people’s war it is necessary to make the peasants — the basic force of this revolutionary war — participants in the revolutionary struggle and this can be accomplished only on the basis of class struggle and a class-line. So, under no circumstance, it is our responsibility to support the bourgeoisie. Our responsibility is to be united with that section of the bourgeoisie which desires to be united with us on the issue of national independence. And on the question of unification also two things have to be remembered : (1) the Party will have the right to conduct war independently; and (2) the initiative in regard to the struggle will be in the hands of the Party. These two conditions are indivisible and only on the basis of these two conditions is it possible to build such unity as can enthuse and inspire the broad masses to participate in the war of national independence. So, you can understand that the idea they are spreading to create confusion in the name of the great Chinese Party is opposed to Mao Tsetung Thought and is only a new edition of the Wang Ming-Liu Shao-chi line of tailing after the bourgeoisie.
If a bourgeois state becomes a partner in a just war, then the Chinese Party and the Chinese Government will surely support it. But this support does not mean that within the country the communists will have to tail behind the bourgeoisie. At the time of World War II Chiang Kai-shek got the support of the Soviet Union1 and on the pretext of that support, he and his associates repeatedly tried to tie the Chinese Party tied to Chiang Kai-shek. As Chairman understood the need for unity, so also he realized the necessity of independent work and initiative and did not make compromise in any sphere. That is why, after 1945, when communists all over the world laid emphasis on unity with the bourgeoisie and decided to surrender arms, Chairman Mao, even after having admitted the necessity of unity, gave a call for taking up arms with a firm hand. That is why we see that after World War II communists of almost all countries took to the path of revisionism but, under Chairman Mao’s leadership, the Chinese Communist Party could, through a successful revolution, raise the banner of Marxism-Leninism higher and reach the stage of Mao Tsetung Thought. Therefore, the revisionist path is the path of tailism and those who today are talking of supporting Yahya have taken to this path of tailism and fallen deep into the mire of revisionism. If you have learnt to hate revisionism, then you will learn to hate this Khrushchev thesis of the national bourgeoisie seizing power through peaceful methods. Eight years ago, Chairman Mao tore the mask off this thesis, as a result of which there has been a new high tide in the worldwide communist movement and a new horizon has opened up before the struggle. After eight years the Khrushchev thesis is being propagated again in our country and this is being done in the name of the Chairman. This is called opposing Mao Tsetung in the name of Mao Tsetung, opposing the Red Flag in the name of the Red Flag, opposing revolution in the name of revolution. In our country the CPI and the CPI-M have directly taken the path of class collaboration; that is why they are supporting Mujib. But behind their ‘Leftist’ mask the others are talking of supporting Yahya on the basis of the same theory. Therefore, this ‘Leftist’ slogan of theirs is in reality another manifestation of revisionism.
I hope you will try to understand properly what I have stated and you will then get the answers to your questions.
The danger of getting isolated from the struggle will appear again and again in the midst of it. Therefore, it is essential to take shelter in the houses of poor and landless peasants and without this one cannot overcome one’s isolation from struggle.
July 23, 1971
Note :
* Also immediately after the war in Europe had ended and only a week before V-J day, the Soviet Union entered in to a treaty of alliance with the Chiang Kai-shek government, promising to recognize the authority of the latter, and its alone, in North-East China (formerly called Manchuria).
