The difference of Marxist-Leninist-Mao Thought follower proletarian revolutionaries of East Bengal with Huq-Toha neo revisionists, Deben-Motin Trotskyte-Gueverist and the conspirator traitor Kaji-Rono clique on determining principal contradiction at the present stage of social development of East Bengal-1970

 

sikder

Chairman Mao Tsetung said, “If in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position. Therefore, in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to finding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved.” This is why the main point of determining political line at different stages of revolution of East Bengal by the East Bengal proletarian revolutionaries is to find out principal contradiction.

But the neo revisionist Huq-Toha , the Trotskyte-Gueverist Deben-Motin and the conspirator traitor Kaji-Rono clique have denied the necessity to determine political line of proletariat even in 1969 and opined that all the contradictions are one and inseparable[ 2] Indian Marxist-Leninist Communist party, at the stage of determining political line of proletariat by concretely analyzing concrete condition of society, mentioned Feudalism versus peasantry as principal contradiction and they took program of agrarian revolution to resolve that particular contradiction.

The East Bengal neo revisionist Huq-Toha, Trotskyte-Gueverist Deben-Motin, Kaji-Rono traitor conspirator clique, as their futile attempt to pose themselves as “Naxalite”, without any self-criticism, overnight changed their position [“The main and fundamental contradiction on the one hand people and the inseparable manifestation of their forces ( Feudalism, Imperialism and monopoly Capitalism) on the other”] to political line of Indian Marxist-Leninist party i.e the principal contradiction is feudalism versus peasantry and took agrarian revolution as its solution. All of them are constantly opposing the line determined by proletariat of East Bengal—national contradiction of East Bengal people versus Colonial ruling regime of Pakistan and line of national revolution to resolve that contradiction i.e., to form an independent national state by separating East Bengal from Pakistan.

Therefore, it is very much important for East Bengal revolution to analyze with Marxist Theories and find out which one correspond to the historic development of East Bengal society—-principal contradiction determined by proletarian revolutionaries of East Bengal or the one that determined by Huq-Toha neo revisionists, Deben-Motin Trotskyte-Gueverist and the conspirator traitor Kaji-Rono clique..

To Concretely Raise this Question in Historical Context

The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits, and, if it refers to a particular country (e.g., the national programme for a given country), that account be taken of the specific features distinguishing that country from others in the same historical epoch.” [6] East Bengal is now in the bourgeoisie democratic historic limit of social development. In bourgeoisie democratic stage of social development, precondition for the development of capitalism is to be created by overthrowing domestic feudalism and foreign bourgeoisie.

Lenin said “Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked up with national movements. For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speaks a single language, with all obstacles to the development of that language and to its consolidation in literature eliminated.” [ 7] Therefore “the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied”[8] So, “…..The national state is the rule and the “norm” of capitalism; the multi-national state represents backwardness, or is an exception. From the standpoint of national relations, the best conditions for the development of capitalism are undoubtedly provided by the national state.” [9] Hindrance to present capitalist social development of East Bengal are US imperialism, Soviet Social imperialism and their lackey Pakistani Colonial ruling regime who are carrying national oppression on East Bengal politically, economically, linguistically and culturally.

So, right of self-determination is needed at the present stage of revolution of East Bengal to clear all the obstacles of development of capitalism. Lenin said, “………by examining the historic-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state”[10] He further added, “The right of nations to self-determination means only the right to independence in a political sense, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing nation”[ 11] He further added, “…..it would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state.” [12] This is why proletarian revolutionaries, in their political program corresponding to the material law of social development of East Bengal at the present bourgeoisie democratic stage of East Bengal, have taken the line of self-determination of East Bengal to clear all the obstacles in development of capitalism and create the best precondition of its development, i.e., line of forming national state of East Bengal by separating it through national revolution from Pakistan of the Pakistani colonial ruling regime that is carrying national oppression over East Bengal by keeping it under their domination.

The Relation of Class Struggle with National Struggle

Chairman Mao teaches us, “In final analysis national struggle is a matter of class struggle” [13] He further teaches us, “In a struggle that is national in character, the class struggle takes the form of national struggle, which demonstrates the identity between the two” [14] So, the national struggle of East Bengal against Pakistani colonial ruling regime is in final analysis is class struggle of different classes of East Bengal against US imperialism, Soviet social imperialism, their lackey Pakistani colonial ruling regime-who are carrying colonial rule over East Bengal-and their collaborator and supporter traitor bourgeoisie and feudal-land lord groups.

But the neo revisionist Huq-Toha, the Trotskyte-Gueverist Deben-Motin and the traitor-conspirator Kaji-Rono clique by totally abandoning Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, are declaring that national struggle is not class struggle and are opposing national struggle by disguising themselves with the cover of carrying anti-feudal class struggle. Chairman Mao teaches us, “to subordinate the class struggle to the present national struggle”[15] He added, “for a given historical period the political and economic demands of the various classes must not be such as to disrupt co-operation (among the classes—writer); on the other hand, the demands of the national struggle should be the point of departure for all class struggle” [16] At the present bourgeoisie democratic stage of social development of East Bengal, we have to form national based state of East Bengal by separating East Bengal from Pakistan through carrying national revolution.

So, a character of East Bengal revolution is national. That is why, struggle of different classes of East Bengal will take the form of national struggle while class struggle will be under national struggle and will correspond to that. This means, no class of East Bengal society will have such demand what will crush class cooperation of different classes for national struggle. In another way, the neo revisionists, the Trotskyte-Gueverists and the traitor-conspirator clique are also saying of establishing independent sovereign East Bengal while saying domestic feudalism versus peasantry as principal contradiction. In this way, they are making task of national separation, national independence and national liberation secondary.

That means, they are making national revolution secondary and by saying internal class struggle principal, they instead of promoting cooperation among the classes, are trying to crush that. In this way, by not putting main emphasis on national struggle, by not holding high the flag of national struggle, by leaving that, they have handed that over to the six point-bourgeoisie. In this way, they pushed hundreds of thousand national liberation seeking people to Awami League.

Lenin said, “If, in our political agitation, we fail to advance and advocate the slogan of the right to secession, we shall play into the hands, not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the feudal landlords and the absolutism of the oppressor nation.” [17] Thus, the program that is left in form and based on saying feudalism versus peasantry principal contradiction, is in final analysis helping Pakistani colonial ruling regime, their East Bengal collaborator and supporter bourgeoisie and feudal land lord groups, the East Bengal six-points bourgeoisie, US imperialism, and Soviet social imperialism. This is why that program is right in essence.

It is leftwing Trotskyte deviation.

National Struggle is basically Peasants’ Struggle

Majority of the people of East Bengal are peasants. So, without their participation, victory of national liberation movement is not possible. At the present stage of social development of East Bengal, the basic problem of peasantry is whether land of East Bengal will belong to hands of peasantry of East Bengal or Pakistani colonialists and their lackey traitor land lord and Jotdars.

So, to establish right of peasantry on lands of East Bengal by overthrowing Pakistani colonialists and their lackey land lords-Jotdars from land, and to abolish all sorts of oppression and discrimination by colonial ruling regime and their lackey Jotdars-Jamindars and US imperialism and Soviet social imperialism, peasants will participate in national liberation movement and will work as the biggest basic organizing force of revolution.

By raising them and rallying upon them, with their participation it is fully possible to carry people’s war for national liberation. Lenin said, “The typical features of the first period are: the awakening of national movements and the drawing of the peasants, the most numerous and the most sluggish section of the population, into these movements, in connection with the struggle for political liberty in general, and for the rights of the nation in particular.” [18]

This is why Stalin correctly said, “We often say that the national question is, in essence, a peasant question”[19] He added, “But this does not mean that the national question is covered by the peasant question, that the peasant question is equal in scope to the national question, that the peasant question and the national question are identical. There is no need to prove that the national question is wider and richer in its scope than the peasant question.”[20] That means, not only peasants but also workers, petit bourgeoisie, different tribes, religious communities, patriotic groups and political parties and enlightened gentry can be united in issue of national emancipation, what is not possible in peasant question.

For this reason, broad masses can participate in national war for the salvation of motherland, where as peasant question is internal people’s war which actually goes on basically with peasants’ participation. So, national question is with broader in essence and length.

Political program of Indian proletariat in concrete condition of Indian society And Political program of East Bengal proletariat in concrete condition of East Bengal society

Lenin said, “The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits, and, if it refers to a particular country (e.g., the national programme for a given country), that account be taken of the specific features” [21] “Concrete analysis of concrete conditions, concrete solution of concrete contradiction.. is the living soul of Marxism” In order to determine political program corresponding to the material law of development of East Bengal society, East Bengal proletariat must determine in which historic epoch East Bengal society is, and also what are the differences it has with other country societies, especially with that of India in the same historic epoch.

[recently Abdul Huq, the no.1 revisionist traitor in an article, with the first part of Stalin’s this quotation that “national question is, in essence, a peasant question” tried to prove that in East Bengal society peasantry versus feudalism contradiction is the principal contradiction. But the traitor clique concealed the later part of the quotation. Even this traitor clique didn’t mention from which work and page it has been quoted so that nobody can read the later part that says “But this does not mean that the national question is covered by the peasant question, that the peasant question is equal in scope to the national question, that the peasant question and the national question are identical. There is no need to prove that the national question is wider and richer in its scope than the peasant question.” They did so because by reading it everyone can recognize the principality of national question and will understand the deceit of Abdul Huq traitor clique.]

East Bengal and India is in the bourgeoisie democratic historic limit of social development. Working in periphery of multi-national Indian state, the program of Indian Communist party (Marxist-Leninist) is the program of passing through bourgeoisie democratic stage of all nationalities of India. As imperialism or social imperialism have not attacked India and as imperialists, social-imperialists and lackey bureaucratic capitalists of India are exploiting and plundering vast peasant masses, so, feudalism versus peasant masses contradiction is the principal contradiction in India.

As multi-national state is not the best but backward condition for the development of capitalism, so, obviously national oppression and national liberation movement against that will continue to exist there (where bourgeoisie democratic revolution remained unfinished) Indian proletariat, by recognizing this material law of social development, have included in their program the right of self-determination of each nationalities, that means, right to establish separate independent nationality based state. This is why they support liberation movement of Naga and Mijo and other oppressed nationalities and tribes.

On the other side, proletarian revolutionaries of East Bengal are to determine political program for East Bengal which is under national oppression and discrimination. For this reason, characteristics of social revolution in bourgeoisie democratic stage of East Bengal is national self-determination, that means, clearing the obstacle of bourgeoisie development through establishing nationality based state in East Bengal by national revolution by separating it from Pakistan and by overthrowing feudalism. So, they have totally abandoned the scientific method of dialectical and historical materialist social analysis by adopting political line of concrete condition of multi- national India without making concrete analysis of concrete condition of nationally oppressed East Bengal.

The neo revisionist Huq-Toha, Trotskyte-Gueverist Deben-Motin and the traitor- conspirator Kaji-Rono, without having concrete analysis of concrete condition of East Bengal society and without determining particular contradictions and their concrete solution on that basis, the program they determined by taking peasantry versus feudalism contradiction from Marxist-Leninist Communist party of India composed in social condition of India does not correspond to the material condition of East Bengal society. This is why that program is not acceptable to East Bengal people.

National Struggle under Working Class And National Struggle under Bourgeoisie

The East Bengal working class can achieve leadership in bourgeoisie democratic revolution only by taking the lead, guiding and accomplishing the present national revolution. Proletarian leadership in bourgeoisie democratic revolution “fundamentally changes the whole face of the revolution, brings about a new alignment of classes, gives rise to a tremendous upsurge in the peasant revolution, imparts thoroughness to the revolution against imperialism and feudalism and creates the possibility of the transition from the democratic revolution to the socialist revolution.”[22]

But this revolution can’t be accomplished under bourgeoisie leadership as in the era of imperialism and social imperialism, bourgeoisie is bound with imperialism and feudalism in hundreds of bonds. Imperialism chains them with plunder and exploitation. This is why bourgeoisie historically collude with imperialism and feudalism, and the bourgeoisie democratic revolution remains unfinished. So, by not differentiating working class leadership and bourgeoisie leadership in independence and national struggle and saying that as bourgeoisie also demand national struggle, so it should be rejected, the neo revisionist Huq-Toha, the Trotskyte-Gueverist Deben-Motin, the traitor conspirator Kaji-Rono prove themselves that they have totally lost their capacity to differentiate between proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Conclusion

From the above mentioned Marxist analysis we find that national liberation question is the main question in East Bengal that means the contradiction of East Bengal people with colonial ruling regime of Pakistan is principal contradiction. The neo revisionist Huq-Toha, Trotskyte-Gueverist Deben-Motin, the traitor conspirator Kaji-Rono by saying (since some days they are saying) the contradiction peasantry versus feudalism as principal have opposed Marxist theories on national question that is left in form and right in essence, that means, Trotskyte theory from left, and in this way, they are betraying with national revolution of East Bengal, are pushing proletarian revolutionaries and people of East Bengal away from national struggle behind the enemy, And they are serving as the running dog of Pakistani colonial ruling regime, US imperialism, Soviet social imperialism, Indian expansionism, East Bengal bourgeoisie, land lord and all the reactionary demons.

Long live Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought!

Long live East Bengal Workers Movement!

Long Live Democratic Republic of East Bengal!

Crush revisionism, neo revisionism, Trotskyism-Gueverism and all other distortion and revision!

Notes

1 a) Chairman Mao Quotation, P 255 2 a) See program of the neo revisionist East Pakistan Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) b) See Draft strategy and tactics of the Trotskyte-Gueverist East Bengal Communist party.

2 c) Abdul Huq in his “East Bengal semi colonial semi feudal” booklet wrote (58 pages) “These there forces (feudalism, imperialism and monopoly capitalism) are one and inseparable. To judge this inseparable entity separately is nothing but willingly or unwillingly to advocate on the side of those (three forces) and work for their interest. Today, the main and fundamental opposition in our country is on the one hand people and the inseparable manifestation of those three forces on the other.” On the other side, Chairman Mao teaches us, “one must not treat all the contradictions in a process as being equal but must distinguish between the principal and the secondary contradictions, and pay special attention to grasping the principal one.”[3] Because “Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved.”[4] So, this is a main principle of proletarian philosophy the dialectical materialism to determine principal contradiction by analyzing different contradictions in complex process of social development of East Bengal. But Abdul Huq denied dialectical materialism by saying all the contradiction as “one and inseparable force) and corrected that. Chairman Mao said about them “There are thousands of scholars and men of action who do not understand it, and the result is that, lost in a fog, they are unable to get to the heart of a problem and naturally cannot find a way to resolve its contradictions.”[5] In this way, the traitor clique distorted and corrected Marxism in order to collaborate with the class enemy.

3. Mao Four Essays on Philosophy-p.54

4. Do, P-53

5. Do, P-54

6. V.I. Lenin: Critical Remarks On The National Question. The Right of Nations to Self- Determination. P-74

7. Do, P-66

8. Do, P-67

9. Do, P-73

10. Do, P-67

11. Do, P-175

12. Do, P-68

13. Chairman Mao Quotation, P -11

14. Selected Works of Mao Tsetung Vol-II. P-215

15. Do P-215

16. Do P-215

17. V.I. Lenin. Critical Remarks On the National Question. The Right of Nations to Self- Determination P-93

18. Do P-75

19. J.V Stalin: Problems of Leninism. P-141

20. Do P-141

21. V.I. Lenin: Critical Remarks on The National Question. Right of Nations to Self- Determination. P-74

22. Mao. Four Essays on Philosphy. P-44

Comments are closed.