(In reply to the document placed by comrade Sushital Roy Choudhury)
In his document comrade Purna has divided the student-youth movement into three parts. He does not have any objection to the first and the third part. His objection is with regard to the second part. He does not view the three parts as anti-revisionism struggle as a whole. He fails to notice that the student-youth movement has taken such a broad based form because anti-revisionism struggle has taken deep root among the student-youth.
As regards iconoclastic movement he does not object to iconoclasm of Gandhi or Congress leaders. He objects when this movement is being directed against Rammohan, Bidyasagar to Rabindranath etc. The reason behind his objection is that, these bourgeois intellectuals belong to the intellectuals of the era of bourgeois democratic revolution in our country. So he has raised the question that iconoclasm should be selective. Naturally the issue to be decided is, whether these intellectuals belong to the intellectuals of the bourgeois democratic revolution or not. The first condition of bourgeois revolution in captive India is achieving national freedom. The bourgeois intellectuals whom comrade Purna refers to as the intellectuals of bourgeois democratic revolution, did they ever talk of ousting the British? Not only that they did not support the first war of independence in India in 1857, they opposed it. So the reformist movements they conducted were aimed at directing the general people away from the anti-British freedom struggle. Within a few months after the party congress was held, comrade Purna has expressed a view opposite to the assessment made on the Indian bourgeoisie in the programme unanimously adopted in the congress. Because it has been decided in our programme that the Indian bourgeoisie is comprador from the very inception. He has explained the complexities of colonial and semi-colonial countries and has written there that, imperialism “makes the emergence of its opposition, the bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie and the working class inevitable.” So he has indirectly referred to the anti-imperialist bourgeoisie in the case of India also. If we accept his viewpoint, we have to change our programme and that opportunity was available to him in the party congress.
Comrade Purna through this article has not only tried to amend the programme on the bourgeioisie, but has tried to amend the tactical line adopted in the programme also. He has placed a programme of educational reforms movement and cultural movement before the student-youth. All these movements are open movements and he indirectly talks of open movements.
The student-youth have broken chairs and tables in some cases or have destroyed office records and have attacked the laboratory in one case. He has felt much disturbed at this. The educational system in our country teaches to hate the country and the people of our country. I think, it is a grave crime not to tell this to the student-youth. Because by telling this patriotism is aroused within the student-youth and then only they come to understand the essence of Chairman’s thought–“Serve the people”. Hence every revolutionary cadre and every cadre having firm belief in Mao Tse Tung thought will feel it as his pious duty to create intensive hatred against this educational system. So, if the students break chairs and tables or burn records out of hatred of this educational system, no revolutionary has the right to discourage them.
From comrade Purna’s artlcle it appears that he has reservation on many aspects of the party’s present political-organizational line. Not that nobody can raise these questions again because the party congress is over, because many issues come up at the time of actual implementation of the party policies, which might have escaped notice at the time of theoretical discussions. It is through conducting political discussions on these differences in opinion that the political knowledge of the party members becomes deeper and deeper and draw specific line of demarcation between what is right and what is wrong.
October, 1970