SPECIAL REPORT
THE SEVENTH State Conference of the Party was held in Uttar Pradesh, in Jamania, Ghazipur, from June 26 to 28. Comrade Dipankar Bhattacharya, Party General Secretary, inaugurated the conference. Comrade Swadesh Bhattacharya, senior polit bureau member, was present as the chief guest throughout the conference and delivered the concluding speech. Comrade KD Yadav attended the conference as the central observer. Comrade Raja Bahuguna, CCM incharge of the recently carved out state of Uttarakhand, also attended as guest.
The conference was presided over by Comrades RN Upadhyay, Ishwar Chand, Krishna Adhikari, Ambarish Rai and Purushottam Sharma, and the steering committee comprised Comrades Lal Bahadur Singh, Yashwant Singh and Pranay Krishna.
The conference adopted the report unanimously and elected a 23-member state committee, which in turn re-elected Comrade Akhilendra Pratap, polit bureau member, as the state secretary.
 |
| Comrades Dipankar Bhattacharya and Swadesh Bhattacharya |
Though the mass meeting and the rally could not be held in the open because of heavy rain, the conference created a good impact in Jamania and other neighbouring villages.
The Seventh State Conference was not a routine affair for the Party in Uttar Pradesh. Rather it was the culmination of a process of hectic political-organisational activities and initiatives. This conference marked the emergence of CPI(ML) as a political trend rooted in the soil of UP rather than just an extension of the “Biharwalli party”.
The conference gave a clarion call to combat the saffron police-mafia state of Rajnath Singh and develop waves of resistance struggles for a democratic alternative.
In his inaugural address, Comrade Dipankar Bhattacharya said that the Vajpayee government, encircled by the rising tide of mass unrest on domestic affairs, was trying to gain something on the external front by inviting Musharraf for talks. But he questioned the seriousness of the government since it was not ready to involve Kashmiri representatives in this process.
Later in the evening on June 26, discussions commenced on the 36-page draft report, presented by Comrade Akhilendra Pratap Singh, on behalf of the outgoing state committee. The discussions were conducted in three parts: the first covering political analysis, the second concentrating on mass organisations and the third on party building. Around 100 delegates participated in the discussions.
Commenting on the political situation, the draft noted that, “on the whole, in the recently concluded assembly elections in five states, people have rejected BJP and its allies. At the same time, people have not accepted the Congress or any other front. Uncertainty still prevails in the situation. This provides us with an opportunity to unleash the initiative of the broad masses on various issues related to the disastrous neo-liberal policies and the communal-fascist agenda of the BJP and march towards a democratic alternative through interaction with various left-democratic forces.” Regarding the Lok Morcha, the draft noted that “It seems to be a bad carbon copy of the old UF. In reality, it is still a non-starter. Abandoning a principled position on corruption, and even at the cost of their image, the Lok Morcha leaders may justify their (mis)deeds in the name of practical politics. But for Jayalalitha, it seems to be more a matter of increasing her bargaining power to pressurise the Vajpayee government to do away with the corruption cases against her. Anyway, the future of Lok Morcha depends on the UP elections.”
On the UP situation, the draft report noted that, “there is a sharp decline in BJP’s popularity in the state. But after the swearing in of Rajnath Singh as the chief minister, the drifting away of Rajput power groups has been checked to some extent. The BJP’s strategy is to face the elections projecting Rajnath upfront. In their executive meeting at Shahranpur, the BJP talked of stability, peasant welfare and development etc. To consolidate its upper caste feudal base and check the drifting away of the most backward castes, Rajnath is trying to rake up the politics of reservation afresh. It is obvious that BJP’s intention behind raising the issues of reservation for upper caste poor and separate quota for the most backward castes among the OBCs is not intended to share power with the most backward castes. Its clear message for the upper caste feudals is that only BJP can guarantee their political hegemony by combating the Mandal politics of the OBCs and splitting the latter.”
The draft further noted, “None of the major opposition parties stood up against the BJP alliance in a genuinely oppositional role. During the recent years, Mulayam was targeting Congress but was soft towards the BJP. He has been avoiding agitations against the anti-people and anti-democratic measures of the BJP government. Like Mayawati, Mulayam too did not visit Bhavanipur, after the brutal massacre, or Kanpur, after the police atrocities against the minorities. In fact, the SP and the BSP are busy competing to win over the feudal-mafia forces from the upper castes. The BSP was always prepared to bail out the BJP in case there was a crisis and, in all probability, the BSP might form government in alliance with the BJP after the elections. Mayawati’s statements regarding the recent massacres of dalits objectively favour autocratic feudal forces. According to her, upper castes and dalits are getting polarised in her favour and the massacres are part of a conspiracy to check this. ... On the whole, the “Sarvajan” politics of the BSP is strengthening the feudal remnants in the state and is proving to be a morale booster for autocratic forces.”
Regarding the left parties the draft report said, “the decline in the mass base of the CPI(M) and CPI continues after the formation of the Lok Morcha and these parties have again accepted the leadership of Mulayam Singh. Despite this, fissures will develop between CPI and Mulayam because Mulayam will hardly oblige the CPI by giving them as many seats as they demand.”
In contrast, the report asserted that, “our Party has made vigorous attempts to unleash the bold initiative of the masses on questions of land reform, agrarian development and other democratic issues, and has acquired the identity of an upcoming communist party. In many pockets of eastern UP, the rural proletariat is in the process of becoming a class-for-itself, and hence, the spectre of naxalism haunts Rajnath. Mulayam and Mayawati, too, maintain silence on issues like the Bhavanipur massacre.”
Regarding interaction with left forces, the report noted that, “It has been our policy to forge unity with the left parties but we seldom get any response from them. ... The CPI shows a vacillating attitude towards us and intends to use our Party in its bargain with the CPI(M). Still, we should make efforts for joint initiative on popular and basic issues of the people. But we must keep in mind that only by developing our own mass base and ensuring a effective role for the Party, the left forces can be brought to one platform. Unity does not preclude criticism of social-democratic or anarchist tactics, because, they, despite their separate points of departure, are at one in not challenging the political hegemony of the ruling classes, and thus, negate the independent political assertion of the left. In UP, where the anarchists are making efforts for carving out a niche for themselves, we should propagate our tactical line among the masses still more clearly, and intensify our work. In eastern UP, our struggle has reached the level of resistance and we should make all-out efforts to prepare for organised resistance struggles”.
During discussion on the political part, many important points of elaboration, clarification, addition etc. were made. However, real heat was generated on the question of United Front, and approach towards SP, BSP etc. Some delegates, through a written amendment, insisted on an addition: “Let us continue to expose the pro-feudal policies of SP, BSP etc.” On the face of it, it was such a suggestion which nobody could oppose and already there was a thorough, all-round, exposure of SP, BSP etc. in the draft report. Yet, one wondered, why this insistence? Those delegates clarified their position when they elaborated on this. What they actually meant was that we should not have any truck (joint activity/front etc.) with the SP, BSP, Lok Morcha etc. for the fundamental reason that we were conducting anti-feudal struggles, and if we wanted to develop our base among the rural poor there was no other way left. This was the demarcation line. Arguing that the anti-BJP struggle was weakened by this approach, they said, we could not abandon our principled position.
This triggered the debate. Some comrades made fervent appeals for joining united fronts. There were different shades in this position though the essential theme was the same: “Side by side with our criticism, we should take initiative for a joint front with Lok Morcha”; “Since we are not a big force, we are to forge an with alliance some forces”; and “It is not sufficient to have an alliance with the CPI and CPI(M). We must try to join the Lok Morcha” etc.
Strong opposition came from other delegates: “Since we are contending with the SP and BSP for the same social base, we have to expose their pro-kulak policies. Having any interaction with them would be a rejection of our class line”; and “Since our idea of united front is based on anti-feudal struggles as the main axis in contrast to that of the CPI and CPI(M), for whom the contradiction within the enemy camp is the primary one, we cannot join in any front with SP, BSP, Lok Morcha etc., as these forces are aligned with feudal forces. Since the CPI and CPI(M) have abandoned anti-feudal struggles and turned into parliamentary parties, the tactic of utilising the contradiction within the enemy camp is suited to their betrayal of anti-feudal struggle. But it is forbidden for us. We may join in a front only with those who are conducting people’s movements with us” and so on. This thought-process reached its extreme when one comrade even said that BSP is our main enemy as it is befooling the class we represent.
Comrade Akhilendra, while elaborating on the draft, said that in state politics we are no players today (implying that the debate on joining the United Front etc. is a hypothetical one in today’s context). However, he urged to make a demarcation between the basic similarity of class character of different ruling class parties, on the one hand, and their political contradictions, on the other, lest we fall into an anarchic mode of thinking. He said, in UP today, there is not even the remotest possibility of an alliance with the Lok Morcha.
In the ‘Party Organisation’ part, the draft noted, “During the ‘Strengthen the Party’ campaign, it came to the fore that defeatist mentality and escapism were visible in UP Party organisation. Anarchistic and liquidationist ideas and practices crop up from time to time in Party life. To rectify these alien thoughts, a democratic environment and regular functioning of the organisational structure are necessary. It is also seen that there are many comrades who are busily engaged in developing class struggle and there seems to be no dearth of hard work and sacrifice on their part. But when they fail to bring about a change in the balance of class forces, and thus enable the Party to play an effective role, they become disheartened and, even if they do not become inactive, they gradually start behaving as fatalists.” The draft also expressed serious concern over the decline in membership of women.
After a long and lively discussion on the entire draft report, Comrade Akhilendra Pratap Singh replied to the debate and then the report was unanimously adopted. It was followed by election of the new state committee under the supervision of the central observer Comrade KD Yadav. In his concluding speech, Comrade Swadesh Bhattacharya dealt with the national political situation and called upon the comrades to start serious preparations for the coming elections in UP. He cautioned the comrades that only through areawise, concentrated political work and class struggle, we can increase our mass base. Political intervention from above can only create the right atmosphere but cannot increase the mass base. He said that only by fighting petty-bourgeois work style, life style etc., we can develop a revolutionary proletarian style. He stressed the need to focus on basic class issues to increase our mass base while, of course, raising general democratic issues along with that. He welcomed the assertion of women for their rightful place in the Party and society and said that they should not depend on bourgeois-feudal structures.
The conference adopted a 21-point agenda for movements. Among them were social issues like: separate quota for Most Backward Castes and Muslims in reservation, inclusion of the tribals of south-eastern UP in ST category and providing them with reservation in services as well as in the legislature.
Finally, with the adoption of political resolutions and a midnight resolve of Hum Honge Kamyaab, the conference came to an end.
-- Lal Bahadur Singh