Party central Headquarters all of a sudden received a letter of serious nature from comrade Laldhoj, the standing committee member of politburo, in a very sensitive moment when the entire rank of our great and glorious party was going to implement the first historic plan of counter offensive against enemy according to the decisions taken up by the last Central Committee meeting. Party centre would like to clarify the entire party rank on the nature and the questions put forward in it as follows.
1. On the background, method and time-context of the letter
On November 11, 2005, about a four-hour long discussion took place between the central Head Quarters and comrade Laldhoj regarding regular party functioning and mainly about the situation of inner-struggle, as mentioned in the aforesaid letter of November 14, 2005. In the course of discussion, the minute of the last Central Committee meeting decision related with centralization was also read. At last, comrade Laldhoj left the HQ with the consensus that a concrete conclusion would be reached at after 1 or 2 rounds of discussions. But, without any patience to wait for discussion, as was agreed upon, he came, soon after three days, to register through his staff a letter that has objected the last Central Committee meeting and several decisions it has taken. The subject matters that are put forward in the letter are in their place; taking into account of only the method and time-context, it has become evident to bring about serious questions as follows.
i) At a most sensitive period of implementing historic decisions taken up unanimously by the last Central Committee meeting after a long debate-discussion, Comrade Laldhoj, by opposing the whole meeting of Central Committee and important decisions it had taken up, has adopted a very irresponsible method to express non-confidence towards the whole party and, in one way or another, influence the plan of counter offensive negatively.
ii) Comrade Laldhoj, by sending a letter of opposition against the clear agreement that we would decide which method to follow in case there remain things of disagreement after 1 or 2 rounds of discussions with the central HQ showed in fact not only his disgust towards positive and democratic solution of the problem but also exhibited an extreme individualist method to create pressure upon the party.
iii) After reading the minute of Central Committee decision regarding centralization, the fact that this question was most emphatically opposed clarifies that the inspiring factor behind the letter was the decision of centralization. Whatever might have been said as a formality, for comrade Laldhoj, the only condition of support or opposition to party’s ideology, policy, plan, program and the leadership has been his individual post and position, it is in itself an indication of serious deviation.
2. On the questions raised in the letter
i) At the first point of the letter, Comrade Laldhoj has seriously accused that the last plenum of the Central Committee and the process of lofty practice of democracy and extensive discussion carried out till ten days had been “severely unhealthy, unprincipled and factionalist”. A serious question has arisen that he is preparing background to distance from the Party and People’s War through such kinds of allegations upon the Central Committee, which has developed amid direct leadership to long life and death struggle of nine-years of People’s War. Certainly, comrade Laldhoj’s individualist thinking, anarchist working style, intellectual arrogance and his factionalist activities against the central HQ were widely criticized in the Central Committee meeting. The opinion and sentiment the CCMs had expressed, after his resignation in the Central Committee meeting, clarify that the only objective behind such criticism of comrade Laldhoj was to transform him. Admitting some of the criticisms, comrade Laldhoj had withdrawn his resignation, along with self-criticism, at the last of Central Committee meeting. But, this letter now proves that his acceptance and self-criticism were inspired not by the spirit of revolutionary transformation but the sense of revenge only. The serious charges he has placed upon the Central Committee clarify that Comrade Laldhoj could not at all understand Mao’s teaching: “We must believe on party and we must believe on the masses, we can do nothing if we doubt upon these two basic things”.
In his letter, he has mentioned that he “remained balanced and maintained silence over some of the very serious and objectionable questions” of the meeting “keeping in view of some of the immediate complexities of class struggle”. Where in the complex turn of class struggle were they lost, when such kinds of “objectionable questions” had come up in the Central Committee meeting where a lofty democratic practice was being carried? Does not his direct allegation put forward against the Central Committee, which takes up new decisions, and that too, at a most sensitive juncture of implementing decisions, based on the questions some of the comrades raised in his presence at various gatherings, trainings and meetings for their clarification, refute completely his so-called “balance and silence”?
Reality is that comrade Laldhoj himself is going against the decisions and spirit of Central Committee meeting. He is going ahead towards a serious deviation of creating confusion against the unified and centralized decision and sentiment of the party and of involving in factional activities. In the letter, he has demanded inner-party publication “to systematize ideological and political disputes as healthy two-line struggle” as soon as possible. Last Central Committee meeting had certainly decided to organize a congress in an appropriate time and bring out inner-party publication in the course of its preparation. But, at the moment, when it was necessary to centralize total strength on the plan of counter-offensive, comrade Laldhoj’s demand of exhorting party into inner-struggle by initiating to make the two-line struggle unhealthy represents a very harmful thinking for the cause of party and revolution. This kind of demand and vitality at present violates openly the basic concept “freedom of expression and unity in action” of democratic centralism. His act of remaining “balanced and silent” in the Central Committee meeting where freedom of expression is principal and demanding debate when unity in action is a necessity speaks about his metaphysical and anarchist outlook in relation to democratic centralism and at the same time expresses his extreme individualist thinking “let the counter-offensive go to hell” too.
ii) At the second point of the letter, comrade Laldhoj has poured out his rage against Central Committee decision regarding centralization. As is said bourgeois representatives get instigated when the clause number 40 of private property comes into agenda, likewise, he cannot continue undisturbed when the question of centralization comes on the table. MLM and Prachanda Path are correct until when comrade Laldhoj remains as a chief of the united front or state, development of ideology and development of democracy in the twenty-first century also remain correct; but if his position comes into question then all the things become retreat and regression before his eyes. This one-point principle has been raising questions on his understanding of MLM, his credibility and honesty. He stresses, as far as possible, not to go into debate towards that direction, because his biggest fault in his outlook gets expressed at this question. Referring to his resignation that was withdrawn in the Central Committee meeting, he writes in his letter, “I believe no effort will be made from either side to minimize the vital ideological and political questions and raise meager individual comment on it, because, I have already resigned from coordinator’s post of the front and proposed already an appropriate third person for it”. In which circumstance he resigned and in which circumstance he withdrew that resignation is before the eyes of the whole Central Committee. However, more he tries to justify it by way of idealistic arguments more he gets trapped into it and it further proves that his main anxiety is not party and revolution but his individual position. The logics placed in his letter clarify this fact.
He writes in the letter, “Both of us had presented opinion in Central Committee meeting according to the agreement reached at an informal sitting, outside hall, with the comrade Chairman in which it was agreed that right at the moment only a theoretical accord would be made in the question of establishing unified and centralized leadership of the proletariat in Party, Army and the Front and concrete decision would be taken later”. The fact that comrade Laldhoj got confused regarding theoretical talk in that informal sitting (which took place at tea time) and concrete decisions of the meeting is clear from the self-criticism he made for his inattention in “listening to, looking at and understanding” Central Committee minute. The HQ, as a chairman, so far bears in mind, along with other theoretical discussions, it was in that informal meeting said that it was not appropriate to declare right then a single leadership in Party, Army and the Front. Saying that the decision of centralization should be so declared as to make it an effective political attack against enemy, the conclusion the chairman placed in the meeting that the standing committee will take up a concrete decision with an appropriate process and time is before the whole Central Committee.
Other than the question of memory, what is clear from comrade Laldhoj’s letter is that he had some confusion about the decision until he read the minute on November 11. It becomes clear from his abstract expressions in party gatherings and trainings about centralization. But, when the PBMs and CCMs told the decision had already been taken and the standing committee is to decide only about the process and time; and when he read the minute the confusion he had went away. Only after that he wrote a letter against the Central Committee meeting. What is clear from this is that the Central Committee meeting was a meeting of unity and victory for him till he had some hope or confusion to remain as a chief of the state, and the suggestion given to comrade Anil to resign in front of him was also correct, to stay in central department of schooling and publication was also correct. When it was clear that he is no more going to be a chief of the state, all of these things became incorrect and vital ideological and political questions. What can be extreme form of individualism other than this? (Remember it, party decision is not to remove him from the state but it is meant only to say that, in the present situation, it is appropriate to remain all of the standing committee members, including party chairman, unitedly in all the organs of party, army and the state).
Let us go now to the ideological and political questions he has raised. He has linked up the question of centralization of leadership with ‘democratic-centralism’, dictatorship of the proletariat, continuous revolution and the burning questions of contemporary communist movement. In addition to this, he has said that the centralization of leadership is a retreat from the crux of Prachanda Path and the proposal of the development of democracy in the twenty-first century and consequently is an act of inflicting serious loss to the movement. Against Central Committee’s evident decision that paying attention to the conspiracy the domestic and foreign reactionaries are escalating against the party and revolution, and the necessity of counter-offensive, it is for now appropriate to build up unified and centralized leadership of Party, Army and the Front, Comrade Laldhoj, by erecting a vital ideological and political charge against the Central Committee decision has in fact revealed his own ideological and political poverty and deviation only. Has the theory of democratic-centralism, dictatorship of the proletariat and continuous revolution said anywhere that there can be no unified and centralized leadership in the party and movement? Nowhere! Rather, the main essence of the teachings of MLM and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is to establish unified and centralized leadership of the proletariat class. Has Prachanda Path pinpointed anywhere that single leadership in Party, Army and the Front must or must not be necessarily established? Nowhere! On the contrary, being firm on the theory of establishing unified and centralized leadership of the proletariat class, Prachanda Path has emphasized on the necessity of taking concrete decision in accordance with the concrete situation of the development of class struggle. Has the proposal on the development of democracy in the twenty-first century opposed centralization of leadership? No. Rather, that proposal has emphasized on the necessity of changing periodically the party representatives who are leading the state not those leading party. In this way, what is clear is that comrade Laldhoj, standing against the centralization of leadership, has ultimately made him stand against democratic-centralism, dictatorship of the proletariat, continuous revolution, Prachanda Path and democracy in the twenty-first century.
Opposing single leadership, comrade Laldhoj has in his letter said, “It does not come into sight that anything can be gained by doing so right now except additional confusion, suspicion and loss to the movement. Rather, it will bring about a big loss to the proletarian task of developing all the three component parts of MLM and party’s expedition of ideological synthesis in a new way.” Here too, he has plainly raised ill-logics. Because, it is an evident conclusion of political knowledge that it will give rise to further clarity not any confusion, further confidence not any doubt and further gain not any loss when all of the standing committee members go unitedly forward in Party, Army and the Front in a specific and sensitive process like strategic offensive. But, our intellectual comrade Laldhoj, owing to his defect in outlook, has been confused and, looking at from his own spectacles of self-centered individualism, subjectively declares the loss seen at him as the loss in the movement. Confusion, suspicion and loss in the movement does not arise from party’s correct decision of going forward in a unified and united way, rather Comrade Laldhoj’s individualist effort of creating dispute against the decision is doing so. His logic that there will “only be losses” in the ideological synthesis when all five members of the standing committee remain in the leadership level of Party, Army and the Front is also strange. It is not that he does not understand the reality that there could be additional help in ideological synthesis when responsible comrades of the party leadership work unitedly in the three main organs of revolution, rather, there can no any conclusion other than he has pretended not to have understood it.
In his letter, he has mentioned party’s argument that in the present situation it is appropriate to go organizationally in a unified way in order to succeed strategic offensive and make enemy’s conspiracy ineffective is “light, childish and unprincipled”. Realizing the profound necessity of counter-offensive and the living reality, in which not only domestic but also the external enemy has been intensifying conspiracy of inner-destruction against the party in a planned way, it is not that the decision, which has been brought forward to make as far as possible the division of work unified, is “light, childish and unprincipled” on the contrary, it is not difficult for anybody to understand that comrade Laldhoj’s act of resigning when no situation prevails for him to occupy state and demanding even a third person from outside party in that post is hundred percent “light, childish and unprincipled”.
iii) At the third point of the letter, the reference of comrade Sunil’s resignation has been raised. It is definite that party has very seriously taken the incidents of arrests carried out at Delhi, Siliguri and Patna of India. Therefore, in this context, party had decided to push forward the process of probe and investigation seriously. On the basis of the seriousness of matter and the written and verbal report from the comrades arrested in Patna, in which a question was raised upon comrade Sunil too, not only the HQ but the standing committee inclusive of comrade Laldhoj had collectively suggested comrade Sunil to resign in which it was said that it would be appropriate to resign on the basis of morality till the final investigation is accomplished in such a sensitive issue. It is clear that the whole Central Committee had ratified it after he resigned.
But, before the investigation report has come, comrade Laldhoj has now worked out to make this issue provocative. At the beginning of the point, he has confirmed that “it is an action (it is a kind of action to give obligatory instruction by HQ to resign) to oblige him to resign before sufficient basis of his involvement has been proved in the incident”. The fact that why did a learned comrade, who can now place “such an exclusive” judicial argument, support the suggestion of resignation in the Central Committee and in the discussions taken place many times in the standing committee was because of “liberalism”, as he has mentioned at the last of the letter, the secrete behind this logic is in itself very much contradictory. Here it becomes further clear that it did not take place because of his liberalism, as had been mentioned on the question of centralization, but was a conscious silence that was kept because of his confusion on the decision of centralization.
It is known to all that the incidents of successive and inexplicable arrests taken place in India have created a big sensation and anxiety in party and the masses. It is very much obvious to give rise to different kinds of curiosities in party and outside too. Comrade Laldhoj also knows about what was the authentic decision of the party center regarding investigation and how had the HQ presented the subject matter in the first regional party-training after the Central Committee meeting. In spite of the intention of party center including the HQ was not to baselessly charge anybody including comrade Sunil, now, without any solid impact and basis and before the investigation report has come, comrade Laldhoj himself, in fact, is attempting to make the inner-struggle antagonistic by saying very much subjectively that it is a “dangerous indication” of “antagonistic struggle”. He has opened up his factionalist intention in his tempo of seriously charging the party. In the letter, giving reference to a faction inside the party he has tried to portray oneself at the role of defender of that so-called faction. Which is that faction? And who charged that faction? No concrete evidence has been presented in the letter. One of the well known facts in the history of our party is that all of the decisions in the past 11 years, subsequent to the action on right liquidationists in the first national conference in 1995, have been taken unanimously, not on the basis of any faction. In the context of first rectification, only the trends of right, centre and “left” were looked into at the party center.
In this situation, Comrade Laldhoj, talking about a faction inside the party, has not only revealed his factional mentality but also is trying to find pretext to form a faction. From his so-called sympathy shown now upon comrade Sunil and favoritism of the faction, nothing other can be proved except the aforesaid conclusion. What becomes clear from this is that when the party center ended all the possibilities of his representing a parallel headquarters, the essence behind his constant opposition to centralization, then he is now collecting materials to become leader of a faction. This is, in itself, an evidence of seriously mistaken outlook only.
iv) At the fourth point of the letter, he has resigned from the central schooling department, propaganda and publication department, effective from the date of the letter, concluding by himself that there remained no necessity and justification. In the context when party centre had appointed him in those departments by realizing his necessity and justification and their first meetings were accomplished in his presence, now, his personal decision to resign at the midway speaks only about his individualist thinking and anarchist working style.
It is clear from the aforesaid analysis of comrade Laldhoj’s letter that he is going ahead towards a serious deviation from all the aspects of ideology, methodology and time-context. He has, in fact, attacked upon the party, revolution, great martyrs and the revolutionary people by attacking party Headquarters, Central Committee and its decisions at a sensitive historic turning point where the great people’s war has entered into counter-offensive. It is clear that extreme self-centered individualism existing within him is working from behind for this kind of serious deviation.
After he registered his letter at the central Headquarters, Comrade Laldhoj’s activity as mentioned below is engendering a danger of giving inner-party struggle an antagonistic form of class struggle.
i) Conduction of parallel Headquarters against the party Headquarters. Comrade Laldhoj is defying party’s minimum discipline and values-norms by explaining and distributing, without any knowledge of party Headquarters, to anybody he meets with, the aforesaid letter, ‘basic questions of inner-party discussion’ and the resignation letter that was withdrawn from the last Central Committee meeting and said to be kept at party Headquarters as a record.
ii) Comrade Laldhoj, by giving public announcement against the contradiction inside party and party’s established values-norms, is following the footprints of right liguidationists expelled from party in the past that used to demand factional freedom. Laying blame, one way or another, upon great Lenin who in the tenth congress of the Russian Communist Party proposed an idea of bringing to an end the factionalism in party, Comrade Laldhoj, has not only made effort to make contradiction antagonistic but also has publicized his pluralist and liquidationist thinking.
iii) By harmonizing his anti-party logics directly or indirectly with the worthless charges that the foreign reactionaries and revisionists were uttering since the past 9 years, Comrade Laldhoj is eventually revealing his bourgeois class outlook.
iv) Comrade Laldhoj, through his 13-point documentation prepared with the heading “basic questions of inner-party discussion”, has disclosed following things:
a) He is vigorously working out to build base for a faction and split by distorting facts and embellishing with ideological garb the issues that were already decided or could be decided easily.
b) The method of employing positive and revolutionary logics, a new characteristic of revisionism that was witnessed in the course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, has been utilized nicely to fulfill his own negative and opportunist objective.
c) Very inferior method of amassing all the positive achievements developed by party the people’s war in one’s personal bag and placing all limitations and weaknesses in other’s shoulder has been used in that documentation.
d) A bourgeois individualist intellectual arrogance, which preaches others by granting status of a thinker to own by oneself, has been exhibited from that documentation.
e) A bourgeois intellectual arrogance that utterly minimizes revolutionary practice, the real touchstone of theoretical knowledge, and accuses revolutionary leaders, cadres and the masses and principally the People’s Liberation Army of ignorance has been exhibited.
v) Only the thing that is noticed is that comrade Laldhoj, by escalating factionalist and splitist activities, has been, in one way or another, going ahead towards the course of providing help to imperialism, expansionism and royal military fascism at the most important moment of implementing the plan of revolutionary transformation and counter-offensive adopted in the Central Committee meeting.
What do aforesaid facts prove is that comrade Laldhoj’s life philosophy seems to have been guided more by Nietzche’s extreme individualist philosophy of subjective arrogance, which thinks oneself as a capable thinker and says that the fittest must rule, than the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist proletarianism.
If comrade Laldhoj failed to embrace proletarian outlook to correcting such kinds of deviations mercilessly and believing party, revolution and the masses, it is definite that he will be victimized of bourgeois idealism that is expressed ideologically in the form of individualist anarchism, politically right capitulationism and organizationally liquidationism. Party wishes that comrade Laldhoj, being ruthless against his mistakes and weaknesses, will follow the process of transforming oneself. Party will always remain ready to provide necessary help in that process.
Essays in this series…
Capitalism, the Absurd System: A View from the United States
(June 1, 2010)
South Africa’s Bubble Meets Boiling Urban Social Protest
(June 1, 2010)
Political Reawakening in Zimbabwe
(April 1, 1999)
April 1999, Volume 50, Number 11
(April 1, 1999)
The Financial Power Elite
(May 1, 2010)
July-August 2010, Volume 62, Number 3
(July 1, 2010)
Foreword to the Summer Issue
(July 1, 2010)
Awakening in Oaxaca: Stirrings of the People’s Giant
(June 1, 2010)
Time to Pay the Piper
(June 1, 2010)
Sartre: Conversations with a “Bourgeois Revolutionary”
(June 1, 2010)