In memory of Naxalbari struggle on May 23rd 1967

[HarshThakor]

This struggle report is posted in memory of the naxalbari martyrs.Today is the 46th anniversary of the naxalbari uprising.It reflects the correct understanding of the struggle.

Rajjeana Conference on November 12th 1994.



IN Punjab the ‘Naxalbari martyrs commemoration committee’ staged a martyrs' commemoration conference on November 12th, 1994. In Rajeana,in Punjab the Naxalbari martyrs commemoration committee staged a martyrs' commemoration conference on November 12th, 1994 commemorating Comrade Bent Singh Rajeana,a martyr of the Naxalite Movement in 1972. A committee was formed for this purpose.This was called the committee for commemorating the martyrs of Naxalbari.The committee took 2 things into consideration.The first was that the content of the platform should be easily understood by the common people. The second was that no controversial point should be raised in the platform.No mutual criticisms should be launched from this platform.It should not be a forum for debating mutual polemics.The maximum revolutionary forces should be launched around it. It was not in the agenda to pass judgement on a particular organization. It was decided that all the martyrs would be treated at an equal level and no discrimination would be launched as regards to a particular group.They would all be treated as Naxalbari martyrs.There were groups in Punjab which took correct positions on certain questions of the line while took a right opportunist position on other questions.The C.P.I.M.L.Janashakti was an example of this.It was decided that even if a revolutionary group was affected by the chief opportunist trends of the day they and their group would not be discriminated against.Tributes would be paid to all as martyrs to the revolutionary movement.



Only 2 groups seriously adhered to the programme,namely the C.C.RI and C.T.C.P.I(M.L).(later merged into the C.P,.R.C.I-M.L)Credit for the eventual success of he conference went to such organizations


Problems were caused by the R.C.C.I.M.L and the C.P.I.M.L.Party Unity.The former raised the controversial topic of the 3 world theory,formation of C.P.I.M.L.and land to the tiller.The Party Unity group decided that C.P.I.M.L.Janashakti should be treated as a genuine communist revolutionary organisation. And it's Punjab unit should be invited to form the committee.The Janashakti group had lost several of their leaders to the Khalistani terrorists.However their line was affected by right opportunist positions.Thus these 2 groups left the platform.

.
A strong mobilisation campaign was undertaken for the conference.Small group meetings of revolutionary activists were held for those who were prepared to carry out the campaign.The comrade decided that the method of propoganda must be understood by the people.The language used must be easily understood by the workers and peasants.There was strong mobilization campaign in Rajeana area in the form of group meetings,big public meetings,rallies and streetcorner plays.Rs.30000 was contributed by the people as donations.A campaign was alos carried out in the village of Rode.This was the native village of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale,chief of the Khalistan movement .60 persons were assassinated by Khalistanif orces and the police here.The masses remembered the martyrs against the Khalistani Movement with great depth of feeling terming them, “Our boys.”


Differentiated propoganda was done for different sections.The politics of Naxalbari was to be connected to the basic interests of different sections.The workers and employees were told that the message of Naxalbari was to fight against narrow,sectional interests and to integrate workers and employees mass movements with the revolutionary movement and that the workers should help the peasantry get organised to build an agrarian revolution.Different propoganda was done with the peasantry. To the landless labourers it was propogated that Naxalbari was the name for the confiscation of the land,property and implements of the landlords and their distribution amongst the landless labourers.It is also the name for bringing bonded labour to the end as well as feudal exploitation.To the landed peasantry it was propagated that they were bent on bringing to an end the present social and economic system which supports the monopoly of land by the landlordsand exploitation of peasants in the form of land rent and usury. They would also confiscate the capital and property in India of all the Indian imperialists and compradors.
The Akali leaders attempting to trick the common people instilled fear amongst the masses that the common people would be arrested if they supported the Communist revolutionaries. For 2 weeks an intensive combat took place between the ranks of the Communist Revolutionaries and the leaders and Ruling Class supporters. The campaigning team explained their politics with great patience and persuasion,reminescent of comrades of Mao's Red Army in explaining people the relationship between their day to day lives and politics. In a village called Rhode the masses redressed their grievances to the campaigning team whereby during the period of Khalistani terrorism,60 people were either executed by the terrorists and the police. They explained how they were threatened by the terrorists blaming the relatives of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who extorted lakhs of Rupees as Ransom money and funded Khalistani leaders living in bungalows.
In the Rajjeana area small group meetings were heldas well as big public meetings and rallies.The masses participated most enthusiastically contributing Rs 30,000.
The Commemorating committee decided that if the State declared a ban on the conference they would not cancel their preparations towards it. In fact they would resist the police parties and assert their democratic Right to assemble. Sit-Ins and roadblock-traffic could also be struggle forms. Protest demonstrations may be organised near the police blockades. To some extent, the committee felt such demonstrations would serve the purpose of the Conference.
The final conference was the biggest ever gathering that took place in Punjab for 25 years among the revolutionary forces.10, 000 people were mobilised.In this conference the real meaning of Naxalbari was explained. Earlier it was understood that Naxalbari meant armed actions of squads.Many people came to understand for the 1st time that it was a mass-based political movement. A separate programme was made for landless peasants and a separate programme was made for the landed peasantry. The need for a correct agrarian revolutionary programme was explained. The people's attitude to the revolutionary movement was greatly changed by this. Here are some examples.
A resolution highlighting the sacrifice ,heritage and path of the martyrs was passed. This included
1. To draw a clear-cut demarcation from the parliamentary path and to expose the hypocritical nature of those who propogated it as well as the bankruptcy of that ideology towards the liberation path.
2. To give a call to People's liberation.
3. To highlight the importance of building the Agrarian revolutionary movement as well as the revolutionary United Front.
4. To highlight the democratic right of the people to build revolutionary mass resistance
5. To explain the Indian people the connection between their struggles and those of Imperialist and third -world countries as well as building solidarity movements to revolutionary struggles all over the world particularly the revolutionary armed Struggle in Peru.
6. The significance of organizational and political self preparedness for self -defence against counter revolutionary violence .based on the recent experience they faced in Punjab.
7. Commemorating the Martyrs and explaining the necessity of building a single Communist revolutionary organisation.



There wee families of revolutionary activists who opposed participatin in the revolutionary movement ,considering the risks and consequences they would fcae4.However after attending the conference their attitudes were totally revrsed.They now had second thoughtys about heir husbans or son spaticipating.
"We had been mistaking Naxalbari people as a terror. Now we know they are very much for their welfare. Such comments were made by landless labourers and peasants. A leader of a group of 8to 10 migrant labourers said "We had been observing for a full 9 years whether anybody exists in Punjab or not. Now we know that they are very much here. Had we known of their presence earlier we would have created doomsday in the factories."



A family member commented “This is good work,here everyone is with them,we had been anxious for along time meaninglessly.’







In landless colonies of Rajjeana respect and adulation for the revolutionary activists was sky0high.A landless woman labourer residing in the landless colonies of Rajjeana stated, “One should give assurance of only one’s own mind ,nether of one’s son or daughter.I shall dedicate my remaining life to the party.This is my line engraved on astone!I do not bother about whether anyone else comes to the party or not.”


A major reason for the success of the conference was the method of mobilisation. People were introduced politics to their level of understanding and could relate the politics of Naxalbari to the problems they faced in their day to day lives. This reminded one of the mass line followed by the Chinese Red Army in the pre-revolutionary period. The Red Army's primary objective was to arm and educate the masses and the strength of the enemy was always critically evaluated. Before holding conferences Mao insisted that the masses were properly educated and that adequate preparations were made to combat an enemy attack .

[Per Levy]

2. To give a call to People's liberation.

so who are the "people" then? the bourgeoisie are the people, just as the petit-bourgeoise, or the peasants not to mention the workers. all of these, lets call them classes, are the people but all of them have different class interests. so wich of these peoples you wish to liberate?


3. To highlight the importance of building the Agrarian revolutionary movement as well as the revolutionary United Front.

isnt the united front a trot thing? and what is the agrarian revolution? a peseant revolution?


7. Commemorating the Martyrs and explaining the necessity of building a single Communist revolutionary organisation.

and kill all the other communists that dont agree with us or we dont want in our "single communist organisation".

[hashem]

so who are the "people" then?

" In Europe, in 1871, the proletariat did not constitute the majority of the people in any country on the Continent. a “people’s” revolution, one actually sweeping the majority into its stream, could be such only if it embraced both the proletariat and the peasants. These two classes then constituted the “people”. These two classes are united by the fact that the “bureaucratic-military state machine” oppresses, crushes, exploits them. To smash this machine, to break it up, is truly in the interest of the “people”, of their majority, of the workers and most of the peasants, is “the precondition” for a free alliance of the poor peasant and the proletarians, whereas without such an alliance democracy is unstable and socialist transformation is impossible.

As is well known, the Paris Commune was actually working its way toward such an alliance, although it did notreach its goal owing to a number of circumstances, internal and external. "

(Lenin - The state and revolution)


isnt the united front a trot thing? and what is the agrarian revolution? a peseant revolution?

United front [of proletariat with peasants and other toilers] is completely against Trotkyism. Trotsky thought that peasants are counter revolutionaries who wont support proletariat in its struggle and will enter a "hostile conflict" with proletariat after the revolution.


and kill all the other communists that dont agree with us or we dont want in our "single communist organisation".

isnt that what the government and its servant "communist" parties are doing? especially CPI(M) which its members have directly participated in killings?

all of workers have same class interests, therefore there can be only one true communist party (or organization) in each country which reflects their will. if several organizations are calling themselfs "communist" but are unable to rally the workers and toiling masses, this means they are carrying bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie ideology under the banner of "communism".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Are there not several Naxalbari groups, though? Moreover, were there not several proletarian parties in Russia before the October Revolution? The Bolsheviks, the Mezhrayonka, Larin's Internationalist group and so on? Accidents of history and geography (the latter seems to be a particular influence in India) can result in the formation of several proletarian parties, but these parties will act in unison in revolutionary situations.

And yes, Trotskyism emphasises the proletarian leadership of even democratic revolutions (in opposition to stageism) and thinks the middle peasantry is a problematic stratum. This does not mean, however, that Trotskyism abandons an alliance between the poor peasantry and the proletariat.

Obviously I think many of the theories held by the various Naxalbari movements are wrong, but in the end, they seem to be the only ones struggling against the bourgeois dictatorship in India. Perhaps they will correct their line on the national bourgeoisie and whatnot in the course of their struggle. In any case, I hope they will succeed.

[hashem]

Accidents of history and geography (the latter seems to be a particular influence in India) can result in the formation of several proletarian parties, but these parties will act in unison in revolutionary situations

if several parties (which are officially different) are holding a similar proletarian line, they are practically a single party and will only need time and proper conditions (such as legality and communication) to become one. class interests of proletariat demands a single communist party but petty bourgeoisie supports organizational pluralism.


Trotskyism emphasises the proletarian leadership of even democratic revolutions (in opposition to stageism) and thinks the middle peasantry is a problematic stratum. This does not mean, however, that Trotskyism abandons an alliance between the poor peasantry and the proletariat.

this is not true. Trotsky clearly wrote that proletariat and peasants will enter a "hostile conflict" after the revolution. he never made an exception about the poor section of peasantry. no one who holds this view can support a democratic revolution. such idealism can only serve the counter revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

if several parties (which are officially different) are holding a similar proletarian line, they are practically a single party and will only need time and proper conditions (such as legality and communication) to become one. class interests of proletariat demands a single communist party but petty bourgeoisie supports organizational pluralism.

Alright, but this was more or less my point. I certainly do not think atomisation is the correct policy, or that it is desirable, but certain objective conditions can result in a plurality of revolutionary parties, and that should be kept in mind.


this is not true. Trotsky clearly wrote that proletariat and peasants will enter a "hostile conflict" after the revolution. he never made an exception about the poor section of peasantry. no one who holds this view can support a democratic revolution. such idealism can only serve the counter revolution.

I hope you will forgive me for quoting extensively from "The Peasant War in China and the Proletariat":

«At the present time it is evident that there are substantial grounds for expressing the hope that, through a correct policy, it will be possible to unite the workers’ movement, and the urban movement in general, with the peasant war; and this would constitute the beginning of the third Chinese revolution. But in the meantime this still remains only a hope, not a certainty. The most important work lies ahead.

In this letter I want to pose only one question which seems to me, at least from afar, to be the most important and acute. Once again I must remind you that the information at my disposal is altogether insufficient, accidental, and disjointed. I would indeed welcome any amplification and correction.

The peasant movement has created its own armies, has seized great territories, and has installed its own institutions. In the event of further successes—and all of us, of course, passionately desire such successes—the movement will become linked up with the urban and industrial centres and, through that very fact it will come face to face with the working class. What will be the nature of this encounter? Is it certain that its character will be peaceful and friendly?

At first glance the question might appear to be superfluous. The peasant movement is headed by Communists or sympathizers. Isn’t it self-evident that in the event of their coming together the workers and the peasants must unanimously unite under the Communist banner?

Unfortunately the question is not at all so simple. Let me refer to the experience of Russia. During the years of the civil war the peasantry in various parts of the country created its own guerrilla detachments, which sometimes grew into full-fledged armies. Some of these detachments considered themselves Bolshevik, and were often led by workers. Others remained non-party and most often were led by former non-commissioned officers from among the peasantry. There was also an “anarchist” army under the command of Makhno.

So long as the guerrilla armies operated in the rear of the White Guards, they served the cause of the revolution. Some of them were distinguished by exceptional heroism and fortitude. But within the cities these armies often came into conflict with the workers and with the local party organizations. Conflicts also arose during encounters of the partisans with the regular Red Army, and in some instances they took an extremely painful and sharp character.

The grim experience of the civil war demonstrated to us the necessity of disarming peasant detachments immediately after the Red Army occupied provinces which had been cleared of the White Guards. In these cases the best, the most class-conscious and disciplined elements were absorbed into the ranks of the Red Army. But a considerable portion of the partisans strived to maintain an independent existence and often came into direct armed conflict with the Soviet power. Such was the case with the anarchist army of Makhno, entirely kulak in spirit. But that was not the sole instance; many peasant detachments, which fought splendidly enough against the restoration of the landlords, became transformed after victory into instruments of counter-revolution.

Regardless of their origin in each isolated instance—whether caused by conscious provocation of the White Guards, or by tactlessness of the Communists, or by an unfavourable combination of circumstances—the conflicts between armed peasants and workers were rooted in one and the same social soil: the difference between the class position and training of the workers and of the peasants. The worker approaches questions from the socialist standpoint; the peasant’s viewpoint is petty bourgeois. The worker strives to socialize the property that is taken away from the exploiters; the peasant seeks to divide it up. The worker desires to put palaces and parks to common use; the peasant, insofar as he cannot divide them, inclines to burning the palaces and cutting down the parks. The worker strives to solve problems on a national scale and in accordance with a plan; the peasant, on the other hand, approaches all problems on a local scale and takes a hostile attitude to centralized planning, etc.

It is understood that a peasant also is capable of raising himself to the socialist viewpoint. Under a proletarian rgime more and more masses of peasants become re-educated in the socialist spirit. But this requires time, years, even decades. It should be borne in mind that in the initial stages of revolution, contradictions between proletarian socialism and peasant individualism often take on an extremely acute character.

But after all aren’t there Communists at the head of the Chinese Red armies? Doesn’t this by itself exclude the possibility of conflicts between the peasant detachments and the workers’ organizations? No, that does not exclude it. The fact that individual Communists are in the leadership of the present armies does not at all transform the social character of these armies, even if their Communist leaders bear a definite proletarian stamp.

And how do matters stand in China?

Among the Communist leaders of Red detachments there indubitably are many declassed intellectuals and semi-intellectuals who have not gone through the school of proletarian struggle. For two or three years they live the lives of partisan commanders and commissars; they wage battles, seize territories, etc. They absorb the spirit of their environment. Meanwhile the majority of the rank-and-file Communists in the Red detachments unquestionably consists of peasants, who assume the name Communist in all honesty and sincerity but who in actuality remain revolutionary paupers or revolutionary petty proprietors. In politics he who judges by denominations and labels and not by social facts is lost. All the more so when the politics concerned is carried out arms in hand.

The true Communist party is the organization of the proletarian vanguard. But we must not forget that the working class of China has been kept in an oppressed and amorphous condition during the last four years, and only recently has it evinced signs of revival. It is one thing when a Communist party, firmly resting on the flower of the urban proletariat, strives through the workers to lead a peasant war. It is an altogether different thing when a few thousand or even tens of thousands of revolutionists, who are truly Communists or only take the name, assume the leadership of a peasant war without having serious support from the proletariat. This is precisely the situation in China. This acts to augment to an extreme the danger of conflicts between the workers and the armed peasants. In any event, one may rest assured there will be no dearth of bourgeois provocateurs.
In Russia, in the period of civil war, the proletariat was already in power in the greater part of the country, the leadership of the struggle was in the hands of a strong and tempered party, the entire commanding apparatus of the centralized Red Army was in the hands of the workers. Notwithstanding all this, the peasant detachments, incomparably weaker than the Red Army, often came into conflict with it after it victoriously moved into peasant guerrilla sectors.

In China the situation is radically different and moreover completely to the disadvantage of the workers. In the most important regions of China the power is in the hands of bourgeois militarists; in other regions, in the hands of leaders of armed peasants. Nowhere is there any proletarian power as yet. The trade unions are weak. The influence of the party among the workers is insignificant. The peasant detachments, flushed with victories they have achieved, stand under the wing of the Comintern. They call themselves “the Red Army,” i.e., they identify themselves with the armed forces of the Soviets. What results consequently is that the revolutionary peasantry of China, in the person of its ruling stratum, seems to have appropriated to itself beforehand the political and moral capital which should by the nature of things belong to the Chinese workers. Isn’t it possible that things may turn out so that all this capital will be directed at a certain moment against the workers?

Naturally the peasant poor, and in China they constitute the overwhelming majority, to the extent they think politically, and these comprise a small minority, sincerely and passionately desire alliance and friendship with the workers. But the peasantry, even when armed, is incapable of conducting an independent policy.

Occupying in daily life an intermediate, indeterminate, and vacillating position, the peasantry at decisive moments can follow either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. The peasantry does not find the road to the proletariat easily but only after a series of mistakes and defeats. The bridge between the peasantry and the bourgeoisie is provided by the urban petty bourgeoisie, chiefly by the intellectuals, who commonly come forward under the banner of socialism and even communism.»


Actually, I think that Trotsky's prognoses in this letter are far too pessimistic; in the end the Chinese communist movement was able to link up with the proletariat of the urban centres and establish a workers' state, albeit deformed and retaining a "national" bourgeoisie. But no matter what one thinks of Trotsky's assessment of the events in China, it is clear that he did not think the peasantry automatically comes into conflict with the proletariat - he merely emphasised the need for proletarian leadership, even in conditions where the proletariat is a minority, which is hardly some crazy Trotskyist theory.

[Per Levy]

United front [of proletariat with peasants and other toilers] is completely against Trotkyism. Trotsky thought that peasants are counter revolutionaries who wont support proletariat in its struggle and will enter a "hostile conflict" with proletariat after the revolution.

just to note, the united front was coined by trotsky as an alternative to the stalins popular front. thats why i asked.


isnt that what the government and its servant "communist" parties are doing? especially CPI(M) which its members have directly participated in killings?

sure but maoists and other stalinists are also pretty good at killing other communists they dont like. besides, is there really anyone who takes official communist partys serious? they deformed so much that they are at best social democrates.


all of workers have same class interests, therefore there can be only one true communist party (or organization) in each country which reflects their will. if several organizations are calling themselfs "communist" but are unable to rally the workers and toiling masses, this means they are carrying bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie ideology under the banner of "communism".

and this is exactly my point, as long as maoists adhere to classcolaboration like the bloc of 4 classes they will always "carry bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie ideology under the banner of "communism". cause is you include the national bourgeoisie into your revolutionary party, that means capitalists, you will always end up selling out the workers and poor peasants you proclaim to fight for, as it happend in china, as it happend in nepal and as it will happen in india if the maoists dont change clearly wrong politics.

[ind_com]

Are there not several Naxalbari groups, though? Moreover, were there not several proletarian parties in Russia before the October Revolution? The Bolsheviks, the Mezhrayonka, Larin's Internationalist group and so on? Accidents of history and geography (the latter seems to be a particular influence in India) can result in the formation of several proletarian parties, but these parties will act in unison in revolutionary situations.

True, but most parties that use the Naxalbari label have nothing to do with revolutionary politics anymore. In India, the working class is highly militant, and is objectively ready for armed revolution. Therefore, the only revolutionary line must be based principally on an armed revolution by the working class and poor peasantry supported by other revolutionary sections of the people. Only about five Naxalite groups uphold and implement this line, with the CPI(Maoist) being the largest among them.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Since someone else responded to your other points I'll just comment on one



and kill all the other communists that dont agree with us or we dont want in our "single communist organisation".

I'd like you to cite an instance of mass slaughter of other communists.

But of course, in West Bengal Maoists do target the governing communist party. The governing communist party at that time, was attempting to auction off peasant and communal land to multinational corporations. To pull this off, cadres from that party formed small death squads to intimidate peasants into voting for them, and the peasantry under the leadership of the CPI(Maoist) fought back. So in this sense I support the killing of other communists.

Likewise, in India, the communist parties are no longer communist in any actual sense of the word but are nothing more than institutions of bourgeois class rule much like the police and clergy are institutions of class rule. We aren't talking about Stalinists killing Trotsky here, we are talking about proletarians fighting the bourgeois. So if they are a bit violent in these confrontations, then good for them!

[hashem]

I hope you will forgive me for quoting extensively from "The Peasant War in China and the Proletariat"

why do you quote about Trotskys position towards China and not Russia? doesnt his writings about the Russian revolution carry more weight and political significance than a country which he had never participated in its political life? Trotsky had another position toward peasants while his words still carried a value and could influence the upcoming events.


it is clear that he did not think the peasantry automatically comes into conflict with the proletariat

what did he said about peasants rule in Russian revolution?

"... the proletarian vanguard in the very earliest stages of its rule would have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations. While doing so it would enter into hostile conflict, not only with all those bourgeois groups which had supported it during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry, with whose collaboration it -- the proletariat -- had come into power." (Trotsky, "1905").

in other words: proletariat and peasantry will automatically enter a "hostile conflict" after the revolution. he suggested the party of proletariat to fool and misuse the peasants and suppress them later! what a tactful diplomat!

if Trotsky has taken a different position towards the revolutionary movement in China, this means he either admitted to his mistake or tried to conceal it. even if we accept his position towards China as his final say, Trotskyism didnt contributed a single thing to scientific socialism and accepted a basic teaching with a long delay.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

why do you quote about Trotskys position towards China and not Russia?

Basically, because his letter on China is an expression of his mature theories, those that are relevant to the modern Trotskyist movement. Trotsky's thought evolved, and if you want to condemn him for something written in the period of the August Block, by all means do so, but the Trotsky of the August Block period is irrelevant to modern politics.


what did he said about peasants rule in Russian revolution?

"... the proletarian vanguard in the very earliest stages of its rule would have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations. While doing so it would enter into hostile conflict, not only with all those bourgeois groups which had supported it during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry, with whose collaboration it -- the proletariat -- had come into power." (Trotsky, "1905").

"1905" is an important work, but Trotsky himself admitted that it contained numerous mistakes. His later work is much more cautious on the peasant question.


in other words: proletariat and peasantry will automatically enter a "hostile conflict" after the revolution. he suggested the party of proletariat to fool and misuse the peasants and suppress them later! what a tactful diplomat!

And why not? Are we the party of the proletariat, or are we the party of the peasantry? If the peasant strata turn against proletarian power, should we balk at suppressing them? We should not. Obviously at least some of those strata will, and we can not stay our hand in that event. When the Peruvian peasants rise against the PCP, do we condemn the PCP? I'd think not.

Nor does Trotsky suggest that the proletarian party will fool the peasants, even in his early work; he suggests that there exists a possibility that the peasant layers, who formerly found their interests aligned with that of the proletariat, will revolt when the socialist programme is implemented in full.


if Trotsky has taken a different position towards the revolutionary movement in China, this means he either admitted to his mistake or tried to conceal it. even if we accept his position towards China as his final say, Trotskyism didnt contributed a single thing to scientific socialism and accepted a basic teaching with a long delay.

Except that the Trotskyist policy on the agrarian question is still not identical to the Marxist-Leninist one. We Trotskyist know of no "nonantagonistic" classes, nor do we think the middle peasantry is a reliable ally of the proletariat.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Removed Bold from Text in OP - Rusty Shackleford

[Akshay!]

In India, the working class is highly militant, and is objectively ready for armed revolution.

I want to believe this but I, somehow, can't. My experience (mainly in Delhi and Mumbai) suggests the opposite. Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

[ind_com]

I want to believe this but I, somehow, can't. My experience (mainly in Delhi and Mumbai) suggests the opposite. Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

I have lots. What do you think about the striking Maruti workers in Delhi?

[Akshay!]

I have lots. What do you think about the striking Maruti workers in Delhi?

That was awesome but I'd consider it an aberration rather than a rule. I mean it's not like those kind of actions are happening ever month?