IT was on the day of the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution, on its 47th anniversary, November 7 in 1964 that the CPI(M) formally announced its formation with its revolutionary Programme at the conclusion of its 7th Congress. The CPI(M) continues to maintain that the origins of the Indian Communist Party lie in its formation in Tashkent on October 17, 1920. The CPI, on the other hand, marks the origins of the party to the meeting of various Communist groups operating in different parts, both in colonial British India and in the Princely States, that converged at Kanpur from December 28-30, 1925. This meeting was chaired by the Communist leader from the then Madras Presidency, Singaravelu Chettiar. But this meeting itself would not have been possible unless various Communist groups were functioning in different parts of the country earlier. Further, during the freedom movement at the Ahmedabad session of the AICC in 1921, two Communist leaders, Maulana Hasrat Mohani and Swami Kumaranand, on behalf of the Communist Party of India, moved a Resolution that the AICC should put forward the demand of Poorna Swaraj. It is a different matter that Gandhiji had not accepted this Resolution at that time as he was still demanding `dominion status’, i.e., Indians under colonial rule should be treated as equal citizens of the British Empire. The AICC finally gave the slogan of Poorna Swaraj only on December 31, 1929 at its Lahore session. The moving of such a Resolution in 1921, on behalf of the Communist Party of India, shows that the party was formed before this. That is why in 1964, declaring ourselves as the true inheritor of the Indian revolutionary movement and as the vanguard of the Indian revolution, the CPI(M) numbered its founding Congress as not its first but as its seventh following the break with the right revisionist class collaborationist understanding of the CPI. This 50th anniversary, therefore, is also the 94th anniversary of the formation of the Communist Party in India. The Political Organisational Report of the 11th Congress of the CPI(M), January 1982, observed: “The inner Party struggle in the CPI during the years 1955-62 for a correct political ideological line had ended in the Party split and the formation of the CPI(M) in the year 1963-64. The differences that sharply divided the two relate to several questions – political, ideological, national and international.” Further, this said: “The two divergent assessments of the class character of the Indian State and Government led to the adoption of two opposed programmes and political-tactical lines as revealed in the subsequent years”. Writing on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the 7th Congress of the CPI(M), Comrade BT Ranadive, in a special article in the People’s Democracy (November 7, 1984) states: “The key question regarding the internal assessment was the class character of the new Indian State and Government and the tasks that flowed from it for the working class in the revolution. The CPI(M) defined the class character of the State as bourgeois-landlord, led by the big bourgeoisie collaborating with foreign finance capital. This meant an irreconcilable struggle against the Government and State in the struggle for power, for a State of People’s Democracy. The CPI(M) was therefore able to carry on a consistent struggle against the Government braving its repression and its semi-fascist terror in West Bengal, its murderous campaign in Kerala, Andhra Pradesh. The CPI(M) had to bear the brunt of the oppression directed against the Left and mass movement and keep the torch of resistance alight all these years, sometimes alone, deserted by all Left parties. “How did the CPI leadership understand the character of the Indian State? It understood it as a State led by the big and non-big bourgeoisie as a whole. In reality, the contention was that the State and the Government was headed by the non-big bourgeoisie”. Though there was no difference concerning the democratic stage of the revolution, there were sharp differences on the issues of the class character of the State, the dual character of the Indian bourgeoisie and the consequent tactical line that should correctly flow. During the course of this year, much would be written on most of these issues. Already much has been written on these issues. I wish to concentrate on few ideological foundations of the CPI(M) which continue to be important in today’s context, which amongst others, defined the formation of the CPI(M) and its subsequent rise as a leading Communist force in the country. However, before we address this issue, it is necessary to comment on something that is often raised by Party sympathizers and Communist movement’s well-wishers. This relates to a feeling that perhaps if the separation and the split would have been avoided, then the progress registered by the Communist movement may well have been much more than what it is today. Addressing this issue thirty years ago, Comrade BT Ranadive in the same article says: “Any senseless split in the Communist movement is of course an act of criminality. Those who indulge in it, opposing a correct line, get isolated from the people and unless they change their erroneous course, are eliminated as a political force. At the same time conflicts and splits often arise when a dominant leadership in the Party pursues a wrong line, refuses to change its course and shows its determination to take the party to the path of class collaboration. The harmful results of such a line are seen in practice.” The subsequent events confirming the CPI(M)’s position as the leading Left force in the country has only vindicated the correctness of this understanding. The disastrous consequences following the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the CPI(M) had concluded at the time of its formation itself and subsequently at the ideological Plenum in Burdwan in 1968, threw open the door for the worst form of revisionism and class collaboration. The CPI(M) Central Committee resolution (May 28-31, 1990) had noted that as a consequence of such a rightwing deviation in the international Communist movement, “many a Communist Party was virtually decimated. The Communist movements in the developing world, like in Egypt, Sudan, Iraq as well as in other countries were all victims of this revisionist onslaught that left the international Communist movement weakened”. The unfortunate experience of Indonesia, where the mighty Communist Party was violently destroyed, needs also to be kept in mind. The struggle against revisionism in India, thus, was a crucial factor in not permitting such an erasement of the Communist movement in our country. It is, therefore, the split in the CPI against the revisionist and class collaborationist policies that preserved the revolutionary content of the Indian Communist movement and carried it forward. The CPI(M), therefore, while correctly assessing the liquidationist impact of revisionism on the Communist movement in India and in the third world countries, however, self-critically admitted (Central Committee Resolution, May 28-31, 1990 and subsequently at its 14th Congress in January 1992) that it had underestimated the impact of “revisionist and dogmatic deviations which led to tactics that adversely affected the strength of the international working class movement and blunted the edge of class struggle ….This was true both in relation to the movement of class struggle on the world scale and the impact it had on the collective consciousness of the people in the socialist countries itself”. This (portion in italics), the CPI(M) concluded was one of the important factors that contributed to the later day major reverses to world socialism. This understanding was subsequently elaborated in the 14th Congress Ideological Resolution that gave our analysis of the dismantling of socialism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. The subsequent emergence of the Left adventurist deviation and the CPI(M)’s struggle against it steeled the Party and its ideological moorings in carrying forward the revolutionary movement on correct Marxist-Leninist scientific lines in our country. The intensity of this ideological struggle against both these deviations, however, was conducted by the CPI(M) without denouncing either the Soviet Union which was supporting the revisionist deviation in India or China which, for some years, supported the adventurist deviation of the then Naxalites, as non-socialist countries. The CPI(M) nevertheless openly criticised these ruling Communist parties as surrendering to grave deviations from Marxism-Leninism and committing grave mistakes in the process of building socialism. Thus, for nearly quarter of a century, the CPI(M) remained “isolated” from the international Communist movement. In this context, recollect that EMS Namboodiripad was once asked by the media in 1964, when the world’s Communist parties had all come to attend the seventh Congress of the CPI while none came for the CPI(M)’s, “who is supporting the CPI(M)?” EMS replied, in his typical style, “The people of India”! It is by its relentless activity and work among the working people based on the revolutionary content of Marxism-Leninism that the CPI(M) emerged as the leading Communist force in India. It is only after the defeat of internal Emergency and the emergence of the CPI(M) in India’s national politics and the governments led by it in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, influencing the course of Indian politics, that various contingents of the international Communist movement started to renew contacts with the CPI(M). It was only in the decade of 1980s that the CPI(M) was being invited to fraternal Communist events in the Soviet Union and other countries. It was only in 1983 that the relations with the Communist Party of China were renewed at the latter’s initiative. The lesson that needs to be learnt from the experience of these decades is that the ultimate test of a Communist party lies in its correct Marxist-Leninist analysis of the concrete conditions in respective countries and the pursuance of a consequent correct tactical line. This can only be done by deepening the Party’s steadfast ideological commitment and by strengthening its links with the exploited people in our country. This is the essence that the entire Party needs to keep in mind while observing this 50th anniversary. WORLD SOCIAL CONTRADICTIONS Following the dogmatic deviation that gripped the Communist Party of China which initially began the correct struggle against the revisionist deviation led by the CPSU, the international Communist movement was badly divided. Efforts were made to try and resolve these differences, in a meeting of some Communist parties in 1957, which led to the conference of 81 Communist parties in 1960. In the CPI(M)’s 14th Congress, we had self-critically admitted the mistakes and corrected the erroneous understanding of the unanimous declaration (to which we were a party to) of the 1960 conference which had grossly underestimated the capacity of world capitalism to adapt itself to changing circumstances and temporarily overcome its crisis, making itself capable of mounting a counter revolutionary offensive against socialist countries. Simultaneously, we grossly overestimated the capacity of world socialism to advance uninterruptedly towards its global triumph. This notwithstanding, the CPI(M)’s 14th Congress, endorsed the correctness of the 1960 declaration on the fundamental world social contradictions. Amidst the multitude of contradictions that exist at any point of time, the world developments, in the current epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, can be comprehended only by a proper study of the four fundamental contradictions of the present epoch, viz., between the forces of world socialism and imperialism, between imperialism and peoples of the developing world, between imperialist countries themselves, and between capital and labour in the capitalist countries. The CPI(M) continues to adhere to the correct understanding that of these four, the contradiction between imperialism and socialism on a world scale occupies the central role in this epoch. Further, that any of these four can intensify so as to come to the forefront of world developments at a point of time without replacing the central contradiction. The importance of this understanding lies in the following: all these four contradictions are fundamental to this epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. Of these, the central is the contradiction between imperialism and socialism. In the current global situation, the balance of class forces, globally, between socialism and imperialism have shifted in favour of imperialism following the collapse of the USSR. Nevertheless, this continues to remain the central contradiction. Of these four, any one can emerge as the focal contradiction at a point of time. During the period of the US imperialist war against Vietnam, the contradiction between imperialism and the third world countries emerged as the focal contradiction, meaning that its resolution would determine the future course of global developments. The defeat of US imperialism resolved this contradiction at that time in favour of socialism. Today, all these four are intensifying, inter imperialist contradictions much less than the other two. But, if, for instance, the USA today unleashes a military aggression against socialist Cuba, then the central contradiction itself can emerge as the focal contradiction. The CPI(M) remains guided by the basis of this understanding. Its ideological resolutions of 1968, 1992, 2012 and its assessments of the concrete international developments in the Political Resolutions of every Party Congress have been based on this understanding. What is being attempted here is not an assessment of the current global situation on the basis of this understanding. This will be continued to be done by our Party Congress’s resolutions. What needs to be noted here is that an erroneous understanding of these world social contradictions can lead to very serious deviations in the international Communist movement as well as the internal tactical line pursued by different Communist parties in their countries. There was a time, during the Cold War and the consequent arms race between the USA and the USSR, when the CPSU considered the central contradiction between socialism and imperialism as being expressed as one between war and peace. Hence, it followed that, this had become the focal contradiction of that time. It, naturally, flows from this that all those non-Communist political forces who support world peace and oppose US imperialism’s war efforts are allies of Communist parties in their respective countries. This led the CPI in India to intensify their revisionist class collaborationist understanding of supporting the then Congress party for being champions of world peace against imperialism. This went against the concrete Indian conditions when the people’s struggles against the policies of the ruling classes was being compromised and diluted leading eventually to the CPI’s initial support to Indira Gandhi’s internal Emergency and all else that followed. The CPI subsequently corrected its wrong understanding at its Bhatinda Conference, post Emergency. On the other hand, ignoring the central contradiction of the epoch and considering the focal contradiction, particularly during the US war against Vietnam, as being the central contradiction as well for the advance of the world Communist movement, led to the Leftwing adventurist deviation that ended up in characterising the socialist Soviet Union as “social imperialism”, amongst others. Domestically, this led to the understanding that the ruling classes were “comprador” or mere puppets of imperialism without having any social base amongst the people of any consequence. This, in turn, led to an understanding that the situation is ripe for a revolution, as the vast majority of the people are ranged against the ruling classes, and all that was required was to arm the people for an uprising. This led to the emergence of the slogan “Peoples’ War” in many countries. This was embraced, initially by the `Naxalites’ in India and, now being followed by the Maoists. All of us know the devastating consequences of such deviations on the Indian Communist movement. A point of vital importance was bypassed by both these deviations: the present ruling classes can only be replaced by shifting the correlation of class forces amongst the Indian people in our favour. The CPI(M), while adhering to the correct understanding of world social contradictions refused to denounce either the Soviet Union or China as being `non-socialist’ despite their active interference in the Indian Communist movement and the damage that this was causing. At the same time, the CPI(M) unsparingly demarcated and fought against such deviations and mistakes being committed by the global Communist giants and, thus, upheld the revolutionary basis of Marxism-Leninism and on its basis, continues working towards a revolutionary change in our country. Such an advance of the revolutionary movement in India, however favourable the objective conditions may be, can only be carried forward by strengthening the “subjective factor” of the Indian revolution – the strengthening of the revolutionary ideological struggle of the working class and its decisive intervention under the leadership of a party wedded to Marxism-Leninism – by mobilising all exploited sections of the Indian people under the leadership of the Indian working class to change the current correlation of class forces amongst our people and mount the revolutionary offensive for the establishment of people’s democracy and on its foundations, socialism. It is on this basis that the ideological resolution of the 20th Congress of the CPI(M) identified the concrete areas which need to be addressed with urgency in order to strengthen this `subjective factor’. The eight areas that need immediate attention identified by the 20th Congress are the following: Strengthening parliamentary and extra parliamentary forms of struggles complementing each other; building the worker-peasant alliance; strengthening working class unity; combating the negative consequences of `identity politics’; intensifying struggles against social oppression and correctly responding to caste based political mobilisation; actively combating and defeating communalism; intensifying struggles on gender discrimination and oppression issues; and combating the negative expressions of various form of `nationalism’. It is only on the basis of our active intervention and strengthening of the work in intensifying the class struggles overall and specifically in these mentioned areas that the revolutionary movement in our country can advance. The necessary tactical line based on the concrete analysis of concrete conditions is a task that will be undertaken by our regular Party Congresses. But it must be borne in mind always that, `all tactics and no strategy’ leads to revisionism and `all strategy and no tactics’ leads to adventurism. We must resolutely guard against both. As the 20th Congress Ideological Resolution noted: “The CPI(M), since its birth, has vigorously and steadfastly combated both these deviations (revisionism and adventurism), amongst others, in order to carry forward the Indian revolution on correct scientific lines. This struggle has neither ended with the formation of the CPI(M) nor will it end even after the triumph of the Indian revolution. The experience of the USSR and Eastern Europe has shown the need to exercise the utmost vigilance and guard against becoming victims of all deviations that rob, thus undermine the revolutionary content of Marxism-Leninism. The failure to do so had consumed socialism in the USSR to the extent that its form and content cannot be replicated in 21st century.” Under the present circumstances, therefore, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the CPI(M)’s formation, we must redouble our resolve to strengthen the “subjective factor” of the Indian revolution. The answer to the question – what is the future of socialism – is that: “Socialism alone is the future”. Or else, the future shall be in rewinding the clock of human civilisational advance to the dark ages of barbarism. In the 20th century, Rosa Luxembourg had given the slogan that is repeated by Fidel Castro today, “Socialism or barbarism”. That is the choice before humanity today. As far as India is concerned, the CPI(M) is determined to carry forward the revolutionary struggle to prevent our country’s slide towards barbarism by sharpening the class struggles for “People’s Democracy” and on its basis, for socialism.