Unity Statement of RCPI and Radical Socialist, adopted after discussion on 9 and 10 August 2026

 

Revolutionary Communist Party of India (RCPI) was formed during the India freedom struggle from a split in the then Stalinist and class collaborationist CPI in 1934 initially as Communist League and subsequently changed into RCPI when it became a party. The central leader of the RCPI was Saumyendranath Tagore, an Indian delegate to the 6th Congress of the Communist International, who was to gradually question the Colonial Thesis, the decision to expel Trotsky and the sectarian line during the rise of Hitler as well as the bureaucratic decline inside the USSR. In the late 1940s, there was a sharp division within the RCPI when Tagore opposed what he saw correctly as an ultraleft and adventurist line of armed uprising advocated by the majority of the leadership under Pannalal Dasgupta. This led to a split. Sudhin Kumar was able to ensure a recovery of that group after steering out of Dasgupta's politics of untimely locality based armed struggle. Subsequently all sides underwent a decline, but the RCPI continues to exist as a left party, and has achieved re-unification.

The Fourth International (FI), founded in 1938, emerged as a result of a split in the international communist movement in early 1930s against Menshevik, Kautskyan class collaborationist deviation and bureaucratic degeneration led by the Stalinist clique reflected in almost all the countries in the world. In India, it was the formation of the Bolshevik Leninist party of India and Ceylon, later the BLPI, that became the Indian Section of the Fourth International. The Indian Section of the Fourth International has undergone several political and organisational debacles and had different formations (as political group) at different times like Communist League, Inquilabi Communist Sangathan, Radical Socialist (RS) etc., but it has maintained a common lineage throughout. RS (as a political group) was operating as the section of FI in India.

Both RCPI and the Indian section of FI have some glorious legacies as well as dark spots in their history. Both the tendencies have key commonalities in their formative ideologies, with some differences as well, some of which have faded into irrelevance with the fall of the Soviet bloc and the changes in China. However, the journey together by these two tendencies has never really happened, although some efforts were taken at different times.

In spite of proximity in the formative ideologies there have been certain differences between the two political tendencies in actual practices by them in the last several decades. However, with the changing political terrain and the crisis of the left movement in India, RCPI and RS felt the necessity of coming together and to unite based on their original and formative ideologies as the axis of such unification. While not ignoring the mistakes committed, the dark spots and the deviations in the past by the two organisations (or their predecessors), but considering them as political lessons to be acknowledged, the unified organisation upholds only their positive heritage for their unified journey together in the days to come.

The unified organisation is a NEW IDENTITY carrying forward the revolutionary ideology of RCPI and RS, naming itself as RCPI, because of its continuity in maintaining the name, which is absent in the case of the Indian Section of the Fourth International.

The RCPI, as hereafter we shall call ourselves, stands for the following principles:

1. That socialism, our endeavour and goal, is possible and desirable but not inevitable. It will be built by the self-emancipation of the working class, leading behind it all the other exploited and oppressed categories—national minorities, oppressed genders and sexualities, castes, adivasis, and, in certain cases, oppressed religious minorities, without ignoring class realities.

2. A working-class-led revolution must inevitably result, if successful, in establishing the rule of the working class, supported by its allies through institutions of the broadest democracy, cutting out from the beginning bureaucratic and authoritarian institutions that curtail democracy. This was what Marx meant by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not the rule of one party and its bureaucratic leadership, or even one great leader or the Ek Nayak.

3. We reject both Popular Frontism (strategic collaboration with bourgeois parties) as well as ultra-left versions of Stalinism, where minority heroism and armed action are promoted against mass mobilisations and mass struggles.

4. We reject the idea of revolution by stages. A revolution led by the working class cannot stop at some arbitrary point short of seizing the means of production from the current ruling class; it cannot stop at an imagined National, People's or New Democratic stage. We agree that this persists as a consequence of the uneven and combined character of capitalist development in India, tasks that in the 19th century could have been called tasks of the democratic revolution. While this needs special attention, we reject the view that this means a separate stage of revolution. Political power, the essence of a revolutionary overturn, must be under working-class leadership, whatever pre-capitalist remnants and capitalist distortions need to be tackled. 

For us, communism is learnt from the experiences of nearly three centuries of working-class struggles, successful and failed revolutions, from the revolutionary practice of proletarian organisations since the Communist League of 1847, the first three Internationals during their periods of greatness, and other progressive social struggles and teachings of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Lev Trotsky and Saumyendranath Tagore and many other Marxists thereafter. That is why our Marxism is also a method to incorporate the lessons of concrete material reality for social change. For this reason, we want to highlight that a contemporary revolutionary programme must take into account the developments since the 1940s.

1. We hold that the collapse of the USSR and the Transformations in China mean the restoration of capitalism in present-day China and Russia. While we continue to see US imperialism and NATO as the leading imperialist threats, we oppose any alignment with Russia, China in the name of anti-imperialism. BRICS, containing as it does many imperialist-sub-imperialist powers of its own, is not an anti-imperialist bloc.

2. We are all aware of global warming and other ecological issues. But we need to bring them explicitly into a socialist, class-struggle framework. The struggle against climate change must therefore be made coherent with the struggle for socialism.

3. What we stand for in today’s world and today’s India is gender justice, the rights of ethnic national entities, the full emancipation of oppressed castes from Brahmanical and upper caste oppression, and the linking of Adivasi rights with ecological concerns. We do not support extreme forms of identity politics, but we recognise the reality of multiple oppressions and identities. Identities are real, and exploitation, oppression, alienation, based on them trample all human rights. There is no advance to socialism without addressing these, because the worst victims of identity-based division and oppression are the working classes themselves. We do not consider that all organisations fighting for identity rights should be rejected. We must draw close to progressives among them.

4. We propose a transitional programme, a bridge between the immediate economic and other partial struggles with the struggle for a socialist alternative. It is important to combine the global perspective with immediate and localised demands. To win people away from the capitalist system, to encourage them to resist, successful struggles are needed that give courage and demonstrate that partial victories are possible. Successful struggles require better organisation. This is always true in principle, but today—in times when organised working-class struggles are weakened and the left is fragmented—it is important to promote practical cooperation in a non-sectarian way, especially among the anti-capitalist left, and at the same time to support workers in their self-organisation.

5. We need concrete programmes and recognition of what we have failed to do for women and sexual minorities—participation in women's rights and LGBTQI+ struggles, recruiting them, ensuring more space for them in party meetings and party leaderships. In the same way, we need concrete programmes and recognition of a specific orientation to the multiple oppressions and exploitation of Dalits and Adivasis and to recruit them, creating more space for them not just in the membership but the leadership of the party.

6. We are for the building of a Leninist party, which is not a structural prescription of the organisation, but a fundamental political pillar of socialist revolution and devoid of any Stalinist or social-democratic distortions. For us, the significance of democratic centralism is political and is much higher than its organisational dimension and is not some fixed format in the changing or escalating dynamics of class struggles. The right of all sections of the party to have their views communicated to other sections, unity in action when decided in consistency with the programmatic understanding, the right of minorities to question the majority, the right to act separately when decisions contradict the basic programme, regular publications, conferences, meetings including virtual meetings, etc. are some common practices.

7. ‘Workers of the World Unite’ is not a mere slogan for chanting but for practising internationalism. We therefore conclude with our wish to obtain the status of a ‘permanent observer’ of the Fourth International. We shall also strive to collaborate with like-minded organisations all over the world.

★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭ ★☭

On the 91st Anniversary of the RCPI

Dear comrades and sympathisers of the Revolutionary Communist Party of India,

On this proud occasion, the 91st anniversary of our Party’s founding on 1 August 1934, the moment when Comrade Saumyendranath Tagore courageously broke from the CPI to establish the Communist League, later renamed the Revolutionary Communist Party of India (RCPI), we salute each one of you who carries forward the torch of revolutionary communism.

Our party’s ideology stands firmly against capitalism and reformist deviations, embracing a determined, proletarian-led socialist revolution that unites the working class, peasants, working intellectuals, and all exploited strata of society under a single banner of class struggle. We reject collaboration with bourgeois elements and uphold the timeless teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, and many other revolutionary theorists, and above all, Tagore’s insistence that “democracy can exist and blossom only in its proletarian form”.

In different parts of the country, our party sustains its presence in students’ movements, trade unions, youth organisations, and among other oppressed social groups. Today, as we commemorate decades of struggle and sacrifice, we honour those courageous revolutionaries who gave everything—time, family, job, freedom, and even life—for the cause. We salute countless unnamed comrades, imprisoned, lamed, or assassinated, who faced repression rather than betray the revolutionary principles.

Comrades, on this foundation day, let us renew our pledge to uphold RCPI’s mission of revolutionary communism, to deepen our roots among workers, peasants, intellectuals, students, and youth. Let our struggle today be worthy of the sacrifices made by those who came before us. Let every protest, every pamphlet, every mobilisation carry the spirit of our ideology forward.

We extend revolutionary greetings to all members and sympathisers of the RCPI.

Long live the Revolution!

Biren Deka
Party Secretary

Trade Unions’ Strike on July 9

In 2019-20, the Government of India, demonstrating its anti-worker position once again, introduced four labour codes that include the Code on Wages Act, 2019, the Industrial Relations Code Bill, 2020, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code Bill, 2020, and the Social Security Code Bill, 2020.

According to the 2025 Global Rights Index report by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), India occupies the second-worst position, with a rating of 5 on a scale ranging from 1 to 5+, where 1 indicates the best conditions for workers and 5+ the worst. In such a country, the government is further trying to worsen the working conditions and curtail their rights by introducing these codes.

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code permits firms to assign women to potentially unsafe jobs and makes accessing maternity leave difficult. Workers are eligible for paid leave only after 80 days in the job, allowing private employers to dismiss them beforehand and avoid payment. The Code also raises the threshold for its applicability—from 10 to 20 workers in firms with power supply, and from 20 to 40 in those without. Since most workers are employed in smaller firms, this change excludes them from protection. Additionally, the Code lacks a judicial process for resolving labour disputes, further weakening workers’ rights.

The Industrial Relations Code permits companies employing up to 300 workers to hire and dismiss employees without seeking prior approval from the government. Earlier, this exemption applied only to firms with up to 100 workers. In addition, it places restrictions on the right to strike. It mandates that trade unions must provide a 14-day advance notice before initiating a strike, and this notice remains valid for only 60 days. Strikes are also prohibited during the seven days set aside for conciliation efforts and for a period of up to 60 days following the conclusion of tribunal proceedings.

The Wage Code 2019 contains several provisions that shift power in favour of employers. It allows employers to deduct wages for losses caused by workers’ neglect or default, enabling wage cuts that could reduce demand and employment. It expands exemptions from bonus payments, letting more firms deny workers these benefits. These provisions imply that profits benefit employers, while losses are passed on to workers. The Code does not specify minimum wage rates within the legislation, leaving this to the appropriate government. While it includes informal workers within its scope, it does not provide strong mechanisms for wage enforcement across all sectors.

The Code on Social Security fails to extend universal social security benefits to informal sector workers. Rather than strengthening protections, it limits the authority of labour officers to assess the amount of provident fund and state insurance owed to workers by employers. The Code also prevents the reopening of older cases, leaving many workers who were previously underpaid or denied benefits without any legal remedy. Additionally, it weakens the role of labour inspectors responsible for ensuring compliance, shifting instead to a system where employers self-certify their adherence to labour laws.

Opposing these labour codes, the Revolutionary Communist Party of India will stand with the working class on the streets during their General Strike today, on 9th July 2025. The various other demands of the working class in India must also be fulfilled.

Long live the revolution!

Condemning the State-Sponsored Murders under the Banner of Operation Kagar in Chhattisgarh

The Revolutionary Communist Party of India condemns the murder of Nambala Keshava Rao, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), along with approximately 30 other members of the party, in Chhattisgarh. While there could have been peaceful talks between the party and the government, the latter chose violence and has continued its practice of extrajudicial killings, under the guise of Operation Kagar. 

The use of lethal force instead of legal procedures suggests that the government is unwilling to understand what the Maoists are fighting for. The rights of the adivasis—a central concern of the CPI (Maoist)—remain unacknowledged and neglected by the government. If the armed forces knew the whereabouts of the cadres, they could have arrested them rather than resorting to lethal action, particularly when the party had proposed a ceasefire and negotiations.

The RCPI demands a judicial inquiry into the killings and the publication of the findings. We also call for a thorough investigation into the lives and backgrounds of those killed. In the past, innocent civilians have also been killed by the Indian armed forces on suspicion of being “terrorists”.  However, that does not in any way justify celebrating the recent killings—even if the victims were members of the party.

Despite our differences in ideology, tactics, and strategies with the CPI (Maoist), we demand an immediate ceasefire and an end to Operation Kagar.

Report on Key Developments in the Current Political Scenario

(Adopted at the Central Committee Meeting of the Revolutionary Communist Party of India held on September 14-15, 2024)

The Economics and Politics of the Violence in Manipur

Riots are not as simple as they appear from a distance. Observing them carefully can lead one to recognise the forces behind them. A burning example is Manipur. By oversimplification, it is said that the Meiteis, who make up more than 50% of the total population and a majority of whom are Hindus, have been granted the Scheduled Tribe status, which has enraged the already existing ST communities in the state. The enraged people have thereafter been termed “violators of human rights” and the government as “irresponsible”; we do not say that these simplifications are wrong. However, there are further complexities that we should look into.

In August 2022, Godrej Agrovet, an agricultural business, announced that it had signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with the governments of Assam, Manipur, and Tripura to advance and promote oil palm cultivation under a central scheme. In May 2022, the Ministry of Agriculture’s Assessment Committee had identified 66,652 hectares across six districts in Manipur as suitable for oil palm cultivation. These districts include Imphal West with 14,516 hectares, Thoubal with 18,475 hectares, Bishnupur with 10,389 hectares, Churachandpur with 11,662 hectares, Chandel with 6,803 hectares, and Ukhrul with 4,808 hectares.

However, according to environmental scholars, palm oil cultivation requires a significant amount of water, which can deplete water resources. Palm is a water-intensive crop, with each plant requiring approximately 300 litres of water daily. The need for around 45,000 litres of water per hectare per day also poses a considerable risk to soil fertility, which renders the cultivation of other crops fruitless. Yet, under capitalism, there is little concern for the environment.

Incidentally, about 90% of Manipur’s land is in the hills, while the remaining 10% is in the valley. Therefore, the government’s palm-cultivation project necessarily targets the hilly areas for oil palm cultivation. In their final report, “Developmental Action Plan for Promoting Oil Palm in the North Eastern Region of India”, submitted to the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (MoDoNER), the North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (NEDFi) stated:

“In states like Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, where oil palm is being taken up along the Assam plains, labourers may be engaged from amongst communities traditionally engaged for tea plantations in Assam, as many members of such communities are looking for work on account of reduced opportunities in Assam. In Manipur, the population of hill areas is adequate for the oil palm plantation.”

Having learned about the government’s project, certain youth groups began sensitising the local people about its impact on the environment. Consequently, a conflict was needed to dislocate the people from the hilly areas of Manipur.

On the 27th of March, 2023, the High Court of Manipur ordered the BJP-ruled state government to “consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously…”, which was questioned by the Supreme Court of India when tribal bodies appealed the High Court’s order. Eventually, the High Court had to withdraw it.

But the damage was already done. The order of the High Court led to protests by the Kuki people, which were attacked by Meitei vigilante groups like Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun. These groups, linked with broader networks like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), played a key role in the violence. The Kukis, a majority of whom are Christians, suffered the most. 

Section 158 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, talks about a “Special provision regarding Scheduled Tribes”. It says,

“No transfer of land by a person who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes shall be valid unless—
(a) the transfer is to another member of the Scheduled Tribes; or
(b) where the transfer is to a person who is not a member of any such tribe, it is made with the previous permission in writing of the deputy commissioner; or
(c) the transfer is by way of mortgage to a co-operative society.”

Granting the Meiteis ST status would thus give them easy access to land. The violence in the state has forced many tribals to flee the hilly areas. The Modi-led BJP government, with its Hindutva ideology, is using the Meitei community not only to attack the religious and ethnic minorities but also to seize land from the hill people. In Manipur, this purpose is served by its Chief Minister, N Biren Singh, who claims that the Kuki people are illegal immigrants from Myanmar. He also claims that the “conflict is not between communities but between Kuki militants and security forces.”

Even after hundreds of deaths in the state, Modi failed to speak a word on the situation. When a video of a naked woman being marched went viral on social media, he spoke, but again, not a single word on the political scenario. The Prime Minister, who boasts about denying rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, has failed to tackle the situation in Manipur. The Central Government could have implemented President’s Rule in the state, but how could it happen? Both governments, after all, are led by the same party!

Therefore, it is evident that the ongoing violence in Manipur is not only the consequence of the BJP’s Hindutva ideology, which excludes minorities but also its service to the bourgeoisie.

The Meitei community must understand the factors that led to the violence in Manipur. All communities of Manipur must unite and resist the handover of the hills, valleys, rivers, and lakes of their land to the bourgeoisie and work towards a sustainable environment. We must acknowledge the fact that nature and capitalism cannot coexist.

N. Biren Singh, the Chief Minister of Manipur, must accept his incapability and step down from his position. Justice for all victims is demanded. All those who have lost their homes must be compensated by the government. No to the confiscation of lands from the tribal people! Let all violators of human rights be punished!

Palestine Must Be Free!

On 7th October 2023, as a direct response to the continuous violent suppression of the Palestinians by Israel, the Islamic Resistance Movement, abbreviated as Hamas, attacked the Zionist state. Whenever the Palestinian people opposed the occupation of their state by the Zionists, they were brutally repressed by the Israel Defense Forces. Following this, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the most reactionary government in the history of Israel, declared a “state of war”, resulting in thousands of casualties in both Palestine and Israel. 

While all the imperialist governments were blind to the atrocities of Zionist Israel for several decades, they have now woken up and are talking about Israel’s right to self-defence. Leaders like Biden, Harris, Sunak, Macron, and Starmer are now trying to frame Israel as a victim nation and are directly or indirectly supporting the genocide of the Palestinian people, calling it a war. Israel has been receiving military assistance from the United States since its creation in 1948, which clearly shows how shamelessly the US supports the genocide. We assert that this is not a war but a genocide against the Palestinian people.

However, now that the United States elections are approaching, Kamala Harris, the presidential candidate of the Democrats, has started changing her tone. As she shared with the world what she had told the Israeli Prime Minister in their recent meeting:

“I told him that I will always ensure that Israel is able to defend itself, including from Iran and Iran-backed militias, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. From when I was a young girl collecting funds to plant trees for Israel to my time in the United States Senate and now at the White House, I’ve had an unwavering commitment to the existence of the state of Israel, to its security, and to the people of Israel.”

She also mentioned that she had expressed her concerns about the deaths in Palestine:

“I … expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians. … The images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety — sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time — we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering, and I will not be silent.”

Such is the hypocrisy of our bourgeois leaders! This hypocrisy is clearly aimed at creating a vote bank of Arabs in the US. The world must recognise that Kamala Harris is not a friend of the Palestinians. 

India, on the other hand, has a very vague stance on this issue. On 10th October, Modi tweeted, “People of India stand firmly with Israel in this difficult hour.” Although India speaks about a free Palestine, it does not condemn Israel for its brutalities against the Palestinians. How could Modi condemn Netanyahu? Both of them share some remarkable traits! In fact, when people in India unite in protest against the genocide in Palestine, they are met with violence and arrests by the Indian state forces.

But what solution do we, as communists, have for this problem? Lenin, as early as 1920, understood the Zionist project. In his words,

“The Zionists’ Palestine affair can be characterised as a gross example of the deception of the working classes of that oppressed nation by Entente imperialism and the bourgeoisie of the country in question pooling their efforts (in the same way that Zionism in general actually delivers the Arab working population of Palestine, where Jewish workers only form a minority, to exploitation by England, under the cloak of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine).” (Theses on the National and Colonial Questions)

He understood well that the western imperialists’ support for a Jewish state was just to dilute the unity of the Jewish and Arab workers in Palestine. However, although Lenin opposed the reactionary ideology of Zionism, things changed under the leadership of Stalin. While Lenin was against the Zionist project of a Jewish state, Stalin’s bureaucracy supported it, and the USSR, eventually, became the first country to grant recognition to Israel.

We must grasp the underlying class politics in this genocide. We must recognise that Western imperialism has always sought to victimise the Arab population throughout the world. To comprehend Islamophobia, we must acknowledge its roots in imperialism. Let us recall the last words of Aaron Bushnell, a 25-year-old serviceman of the United States Air Force, who set himself on fire on February 25, 2024:

“I am an active duty member of the United States Air Force. And I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest. But compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonisers—it’s not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal.”

Bushnell, an anarchist, recognised that such a situation was created by the “ruling class”, in other words, the bourgeoisie.

Carrying the legacy of Leninism, we firmly stand with the people of Palestine and advocate their right to self-determination. We strongly believe that only a socialist revolution in both Israel and Palestine can end the Zionist regime, as no borders should divide them. The Palestinian people must recognise that it is the Zionists, not the entire Jewish population, who pose a threat to peace in Palestine. Likewise, the Jewish population must understand that Zionists are not advocates of Jewish rights but tools of imperialism. We sympathise with both the Arab and Jewish populations, many of whom have lost their lives in the attacks and counter-attacks in the region. We urge the Arab and Jewish workers of Palestine and Israel to unite and dismantle the Zionist project.

In view of our stand, we raise the following slogans:

• No to the war on Palestine!

• Jewish and Arab workers of Israel and Palestine, unite!

• Release all political prisoners!

• Transport workers of all countries, unite and stop shipping military goods to Israel!

• No more military relations between India and Israel!

• Intifada until victory!

End the Russia-Ukraine War!

The Russia-Ukraine war, which began in February 2022, represents one of the greatest geopolitical crises of the 21st century, rooted in imperialism. To comprehend this conflict, we must delve into the political and historical dynamics of the nations involved.

Instead of calling it the Russia-Ukraine War, we should refer to it as “Russia’s war on Ukraine”. Having said that, we invite criticism from the so-called progressives in our society. Many who label themselves as progressive have failed to understand the root causes of this war. Let us briefly analyse the conflict.

We must recognise Russia as an imperialist force, while also acknowledging US imperialism. However, in this context, Russia cannot be justified in any way. Many leftists and anti-US liberals claim that the war is a consequence of NATO relations, but this is not entirely true. The war is rooted in Russian imperialism. Although Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, its imperialist agenda has existed for decades. From its occupation of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Chechnya to that of Crimea, the Russian Federation’s imperialist character is evident. The case of Crimea is ten years old. In February 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and overthrew the democratically elected government. However, less than 50% of the Crimean population, with a majority being Russian, wanted to join Russia.

In 1994, Russia had agreed to “respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” However, in 2011, Putin reportedly told Bill Clinton, “I don’t agree with this deal. And I don’t support it. And I am not bound by it,” to which Clinton replied, “I knew from that day that it was just a matter of time.”

These instances indicate that Ukraine, not Russia, is the actual victim. Socialists must unite and stand in solidarity with Ukraine in its defence against Russian imperialism.

On February 25, 2022, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) stated,

“The efforts to get Ukraine to join NATO would pose a direct threat to Russia’s security. Russia is also concerned about its security due to the threat posed by the presence of NATO forces and missiles at its borders in Eastern Europe. Hence the Russian demand for security guarantees, including Ukraine not joining NATO, is legitimate.”

As we can see, they are more concerned about the security of Russia—a country that started the war—than about Ukraine’s resistance against such an imperialist force.

This war must be opposed by the entire working-class movement. We urge the working class in Russia to take to the streets against Russian imperialism. They must organise strikes against their government and stop the transport of weapons to Ukraine, which are intended to shed the blood of the Ukrainian working people. At this crucial point, they must adopt a revolutionary defeatist position and start a class war against the Putin-led government. They must also give a befitting response to the government and its armed forces for the repression of anti-war movements within their own country. We cannot justify any form of imperialism. Russia’s weakness as an imperialist power compared to Western imperialism does not make it a lesser evil.

Now, let us discuss NATO’s involvement in the war. Russian imperialism has consistently tried to justify the war by claiming that NATO’s expansion poses a threat to Russia’s existence, a notion echoed in the CPI(M)’s statement as well. However, this war has nothing to do with Russia’s security but rather its imperialist ambitions. While we acknowledge that Ukraine and NATO have strong relations, this should not overshadow the national and democratic rights of the Ukrainian people. Moreover, although the United States had been supporting Ukraine diplomatically, military aid from the former to the latter only began after 2014.

On one hand, we have Russia’s unjust and criminal invasion of Ukraine, and on the other, Ukraine’s right to self-determination. We firmly stand for the latter—the Ukrainians’ right to self-determination—which can be defended neither by Russia, NATO, nor the United States. While we do not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO, we extend critical support to the country in its resistance against an imperialist power. Furthermore, Ukrainians’ support for NATO membership has only increased since 2014, indicating that it is not Ukraine’s ties with NATO that caused the war, but rather the reverse—Russian imperialism is driving Ukraine towards NATO. Certainly, NATO would not miss this opportunity to expand, and the United States sees itself as the ‘saviour’ of the Ukrainian people.

We oppose not only NATO but also the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and any form of military blocs. These organisations, along with all their nuclear bases, must be dismantled! Furthermore, we make it clear that while we do not support Zelensky’s government in terms of political ideology, we stand with the people of Ukraine during these difficult times.

At this crucial moment, we demand:

• The right to self-determination of the Ukrainians!

• International solidarity with the people of Ukraine!

• Restrictions in transport of weapons to Russia!

• Withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Ukraine!

Power to the Students, Youth, and Workers of Bangladesh!

The students and youth of Bangladesh have shown us what can happen when oppressed people unite. Recently, they united and compelled Sheikh Hasina, who had ruled over Bangladesh for more than a decade, to resign and flee the country. We congratulate the people of Bangladesh!

The movement in Bangladesh erupted from protests against the government that wanted to introduce a quota system for employment to reward the loyal politicians of the ruling Awami League and their descendants. Realising the oppressive nature of this quota system, the students and youth of Bangladesh united against the Hasina regime, which finally led to her resignation. However, the military took power immediately, and Muhammad Yunus, a liberal economist, was appointed the Chief Adviser of the interim government, consisting of bureaucrats, military officers, academicians, student leaders, and the like, but without a single representative of the working class.

Although we acknowledge the victory of the united people of Bangladesh, who overthrew the Hasina government, we observe that Yunus cannot be relied upon. The victory of the Bangladeshi people, achieved at the cost of hundreds of lives, should not culminate in the continued rule of the bourgeoisie. The movement against the Hasina government, nevertheless, was organised against autocracy. It did not have any concrete political ideology. The people united against the policy of the government, followed by atrocities committed by the police and paramilitary forces of the state. These state-sponsored atrocities fuelled the uprisings, which resulted in the fleeing of Sheikh Hasina.

We reiterate that Yunus cannot be relied upon. He is a staunch advocate of neoliberal policies, which pleases his imperialist friends from the West. The people of Bangladesh might have trusted him because of his Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him for his service to Western imperialism, and sympathised with him because of his distress caused by the Hasina government.

Even this government knows what the people of the country are capable of. This is why it has recruited a couple of leaders of the student movement so that the student community can be satisfied and indirectly silenced. The students of Bangladesh must understand that the interim government is incapable of solving the problems of the masses. They must realise the nature of the government, i.e. that the main purpose of this government is to serve the interests of the capitalist class.

We are hopeful that the student community will rethink the interim government and pressurise it to make reforms in the country, including conducting fair elections, funding education, etc. However, reform is not the solution. A more revolutionary platform must be built under the leadership of the working class, with a Marxist programme, to overthrow the capitalist regime and establish socialism. We hope the working people in Bangladesh will soon realise that the Yunus government is incapable of ensuring higher wages and job security. The students and youth must reunite, and the working class must come forward to take leadership of the movement and ensure the beginning of a socialist revolution in Bangladesh.

***************

Commemorating Saumyendranath Tagore, a Relentless Revolutionary

Saumyendranath Tagore
08.10.1901 – 22.09.1974

This day marks the death anniversary of Comrade Saumyendranath Tagore, the founder of the Communist League, which was later rechristened as the “Revolutionary Communist Party of India.” He was one of the few revolutionaries who had the courage to point out the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy headed by Stalin. While many workers’ parties from different parts of the world were highly influenced by Stalinism, mistaking it for Leninism, Tagore highlighted the flawed policies carried out by the Soviet Union under the banner of “Marxism-Leninism.” From confining socialism to a single country to crushing revolutionary upheavals of the working class in various parts of the world by aligning with the bourgeoisie, Stalinism made several blunders that were strictly against the teachings of Lenin and the idea of class struggle. Saumyendranath Tagore was one of the first-generation revolutionaries in India who stood up against these policies and offered the Indian masses an alternative, demonstrating that Marxism was not what was practised under Stalin’s leadership.

Criticising the post-Leninist Third International and Soviet foreign policy, Tagore pointed out the ideological deviations of the Soviet Union. He observed that while Lenin always emphasised the idea of “World Socialism,” under Stalin, the revolution was confined to a single country. He also highlighted Stalin’s hypocrisy by quoting him from his interview with Roy Howard. When asked about the plans and intentions of world revolution, Stalin had replied, “We never had such plans and intentions… This is the product of a misunderstanding… The export of revolution is nonsense.”

As an opponent of class collaborationism, Tagore opposed any platform shared by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, whether in France, Spain, or India, either against fascism or imperialism. He opposed calling World War II a “people’s war” and instead labelled it an “imperialist war.” This understanding of class relations led him to adopt a pro-working class stance on the question of fascism as well. He was one of the few revolutionaries worldwide who understood the class dynamics of fascism. Echoing the teachings of Lenin, Zetkin, Trotsky, and Gramsci, Tagore repeatedly asserted that fascism must be overthrown only through socialist revolution. Unlike the liberal (and Stalinist left) notion that “(bourgeois) democracy is under attack by fascism,” Saumyendranath Tagore understood that “it is bourgeois democracy which has helped fascism come to power.” Emphasising the idea that bourgeois democracy is a myth, and restoring the so-called “democratic bourgeoisie” to power is futile, he said, “The bourgeoisie can no longer be democratic, and democracy can no longer be bourgeois. Democracy can exist and blossom only in its proletarian form.” This led him to adopt the United Front tactic proposed by the third and fourth congresses of the Communist International and reject the People’s Front policy of Stalin-Dimitrov.

Tagore also castigated the Soviet government for its aggression against Finland. Defending Finland’s right to self-determination, he said, “The Soviet Union cannot attract other peoples and nations to the creation of a common state unless they consciously solidarise with and lend support to the needs and activities of the state system, which offers them a concrete realisation of their social and political aspirations.”

The time has come for us to reread Tagore. He was one of the few revolutionaries in India who stood up against class collaboration and fought for a socialist revolution in India. His ideas on the struggle against fascism, imperialism, and the nature of revolution in India—which differed from those of the Communist Party of India (CPI)—made him a unique revolutionary in the Indian subcontinent. His teachings and leadership gave the Revolutionary Communist Party of India (RCPI) a glorious past, particularly in its struggle against British colonialism in India.

Recommended Readings: Bourgeois Democratic Revolution and India, Political Fatalism, Permanent Revolution, United Front or Betrayal?, The People’s Front or the Front Against the People?, Soviet Foreign Policy and the Third International, Communism and Fetishism, Imperialist War or People’s War?