When the revolutionary movement is strong, generally anyone like to walk with it. They hail it. They glorify the period when they were in the movement. All this is very easy. But it is hard to walk with the same revolutionary movement when it is entangled in war and is suffering losses. It is very difficult too, to understand its phenomena. The number of people who say that the revolutionary movement is on the wrong path will also shoot up. It is but natural to become sad by seeing the bloodshed caused by the government. But those who become desperate and are subject to contradictions will doubt the very future of revolution itself. Its a great human value to wish that there should not be any loss of life. However, those who support this human ideal don’t give a damn about who is inflicting the slaughter or the violence. Or they minimize its significance. They make the claim that all issues will be resolved if we put an end to the revolutionary movement. They argue that we ought to abandon this course and turn to a different, simpler, and more secure method of revolution. They also use serious phraseology. But, in essence they do not indicate any alternate path and end their ‘scholorly discussion.’
Such a pointless argument is put forth not only by some individuals who are watching the revolutionary movement, but there is a danger that the people who are in the leadership role too run the risk of going in the same way. That’s what has happened recently. Nobody will say that those who have joined the revolutionary struggle should remain as revolutionaries all through their lives. It is feasible only in case of people who have prepared themselves for a life long revolutionary movement. The people who have a historical perspective of revolution will only continue to serve the revolutionary cause till the end inspite of any hardships they face. Otherwise they will come back home. Contrary to this, Mallojula Venugopal and Takkallapalli Vasudeva Rao, the leaders of the revolutionary movement, raised a counter argument that protracted armed struggle is wrong and the revolutionary movement is going in the extremist path. They also went to the extent of commenting that so far the revolutionary movement has committed all mistakes and it has neglected legal battles. They even opined that armed struggle is not appropriate to transform this society which is undergoing many changes.They surrendered in military uniform with ammunition along with their followers. The intellectuals who were under the impression that Maoist path itself was wrong, thought that these people who surrendered before the Government would enlighten them with an alternative revolutionary programmae, but they were terribly disappointed.
The crucial question is why such a thing happened; and yet the intellectuals do not think of this. They do not even feel the necessity of it. But, this betrayal bewildered the admirers of revolution. This surrender, which occured especially when the revolutionary movement is facing a challenging situation because of the operation ‘kagar’, will have a long standing effect on the movement both politically and theoritically. This needs to be comprehended in a logical and useful way. The supporters of revolution aught to show greater support, and do whatever they can do in all fields. Moreover, they should not succumb to despair. They should support the movement morally and politically so that it comes out from the present crisis. Thereby they should stand firmly with the class struggle.
When the Government is waging an internal war with the intention of exterminating the revolutionary movement, the argument in favour of withdrawal of armed struggle has come from inside. Lakhs of military forces, Israeli-made weapons, air strikes, technological resources and all put together could harm the revolutionary movement partially. But more damage than this was caused by these people who surrendered by putting forth the theory of cessation of armed struggle. This can be termed as the biggest betrayal in the one-hundred years history of the communist movement. This is not over yet. The surrendered people are giving a call to the activists who are in the movement to leave the movement and come back to their homes. They are also providing their phone numbers to contact them in order to surrender. The Police provided these videos and press releases, according to the newspapers themselves. Thus, those who surrendered are proving themselves that their betrayal was strategic.
The suppression that began twenty years back with the name Salwajudum, converted into war during Kagar’s time. The revolutionary movement is facing many challenges because of this. It withstood two decades amidst the war, but suffered a setback in between expansion – compression – expansion. In this situation, there may be any different opinions as how to revitalise and strengthen the movement. If there are any issues on the line, those issues can be discussed and try to revise it or correct it but being in and actively participating in the movement. Giving a call for withdrawal of armed struggle unilaterally, and surrendering before the enemy is nothing but betraying the people. Such betrayals, extremes and countermeasures might happen in times of war. Many such incidents happened in the past through out the history of global revolutionary movement.
The people who do not consider what happened in the past history, lay emphasis on their argument that the revolutionary movement should abandon its path. Exactly the State wishes this. The objective of the Government is to divert the country’s attention from the anti-constitutional and anti-human Kagar operation to the revolutionary path. The voices that should condemn the repression and the Government’s strategy are now spending their enrgy to propagate the view that the path adopted by the revolutionaries is wrong.
No body gets a doubt that what will happen to the people who are living in the struggle areas and the Adivasis if the Maoists withdrew their struggle. They do not think of the questions – leave aside the implementation of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution in respect of Adivasis, will they be allowed to live in the villages and forests? or will they convert them into slaves in the Corporate Mining? If the armed struggle is withdrawn, will there be any chance for Maoists or anybody for that matter, to wage a ‘democratic struggle’? Will there be any space for democratic struggles when the Indian State has become so autocratic power? They say that this is not the time for armed revolution, but is there any chance for other forms of struggle? Leave aside the people who have relinquished the revolutionary ideology, but will the Government let the revolutionaries live? All these are simple questions, but nobody cares to think.
The Government and the media tactically diverted the attention of the society from the people’s problems and peace talks to the issue of revolutionary path and the surrenders. They created an atmosphere in the society that supports the argument that leaving the arms is a right thing to do. Some intellectuals expressed their disgust at the statement given by the people committed to the revolution that they will continue the armed struggle even in these circumstances. It seemed stupid to them. They commented sarcastically that these people think the path is sacred. That’s it. After all they say all these things, but they do not contribute to any meaningful discussion expect advising the cadre to leave the revolutionary path.
Is it right to say that the revolutionary movement has not achieved anything? Do they have any methodology of study to examine the successes and challenges of the revolutionary movement? Is it correct to say that they never cared to adhere to the advices given by the democratic people when the revolutionary movement was facing difficulties? Do they not know that the movement was not in touch with the urban and plain areas people only because of the oppressive methods they faced? The intellectuals are creating doubts on the future of the revolutionary movement leaving the tradition of discussing things rationally and in a democratic way.
Even uptil now no other way has been put forth to bring about a radical change in the society except protracted people’s war. Fastly changing political and economic fields, intriguing exploitation methods, the cultural and ideological systems becoming complex, increasing forms of violence in all the human relations – all these are increasing the need for class struggle. The specific conditions that are prevailing now in the country prompt to have a protracted peoples struggle with the combination of armed and legal democratic struggles put together. The cultural and ideological struggles are the need of the hour. The revolutionary movement has worked hard in this direction.
Without critically assessing all these aspects, they are putting forth the argument that ‘Maoists should change’. Change to what? Do they mean that they should quit the armed path of revolution and to enter election politics? That is to say that they should become a part of the establishment. They call it with a passionate name as ‘coming to the people’. If these arguments are not understood in the right spirit, the admirers of revolution will lose self-morale. They also may think that the revolutionary path should change. The erstwhile revolutionary students forum is also a group of admirers of revolution. The revolutionary movement was the pioneer of the once revolutionary students struggle. The erstwhile students who were associated with the movement for some time formed this platform, now recognises this as a serious crisis. With the intention of undermining the revolutionary movement and to wipe out the revolutionary path, the government has resorted to this internal war. The erstwhile revolutionary students forum, while retaining its historical and rational faith, appeals to all the other admirers of revolution to recognize that the class struggle and armed revolution are the inseparable parts of historical process. It also requests that the admirers of revolution should solidly support the revolutionary movement so that it overcomes the challenges it is now facing.
5.11.2025
Translated by A. Rajendrababu
