When a revolutionary movement faces a crisis the struggle to achieve ideological clarity becomes even more crucial. We have the high standards set by comrade Charu Mazumdar (CM) as a model to follow. The period leading to the Naxalbari armed peasant rebellion, the struggle to form the party and the following years-all were marked by intense ideological struggle. Some of the attacks on the line and practice of the party led by him were quite possibly influenced by state agents. Kanu Sanyal and some other erstwhile members of the Central Committee launched an open attack from inside the jail. This could have been branded as something done under pressure from the state. But that was not how these attacks were handled. CM focused on ideological, political issues. He stuck to this. Even when attacks on the line were colored by personal allegations. This approach did not emerge from some personal trait of CM. It was guided by Mao Zedong’s teachings on handling criticism and ideological struggle.
In times of crisis, ideological and political confusion infects many people. This gets reflected as some amount of slackening in organizational discipline. Quite often comrades start looking for answers ‘on their own’, rather than adhering to proper organizational channels. They may even meet up with those who have declared their opposition to the revolutionary path. All of this no doubt creates room for ‘left’ and right opportunists and state agents to cause trouble. But it would be wrong in principle and counter-productive to hastily brand such comrades as accomplices. Their confusion must be overcome through ideological education. Care must also be taken to avoid playing into the hands of the enemy by compromising the security of those with whom we disagree. Instead of distracting with allegations and counter-allegations on who is, or is not, an agent, who met with whom and why etc., the focus should be on ideological, political issues. Efforts must be concentrated on analyzing the factors leading to the setback and patient ideological, political and organizational work to overcome it. Mao taught us to ‘unite the many to defeat the few’.
The Maoist movement in our country did see a negative trend of branding criticism as the work of state agents. This was after the martyrdom of CM. Mahadev Mukherjee declared himself to be the one and only true follower of CM. Anyone who opposed this was declared to be an agent. Not surprisingly he was a staunch supporter of Lin Biao. He remained so even after Lin Biao was denounced as a proponent of a ‘left’ in form right in essence deviation by the Communist Party of China led by Mao Zedong. Lin Biao and his associates tried to assassinate Mao and carry out a coup. He died while trying to flee the country. But the campaign to ‘Criticize Lin Biao and Confucius’ was not about these criminal acts. They were focused on his ideological, political views, their links with the reactionary views of Confucius and their negative implications in continuing the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lin Biao and his supporters had a major role in leading the Cultural Revolution in the initial years. During that time the stress was more on branding capitalist roaders as Kuomintang agents etc. But after he was overthrown, the whole struggle against the capitalist road was deepened in a profound manner at the ideological level. New understanding on the ideological, political and material factors leading to the transformation of former revolutionaries into capitalist roaders was developed through this. Hurling accusations and branding people or deepening ideological struggle? It would be worthwhile to keep the lessons of history in mind while seeking answers.
K. Murali (Ajith)
July 4, 2026
Source : https://ajithspage.in/wp/pages/lekhanam-essay/english/ideological-struggle/