Dependent Psychology – Second-Hand Information

In the fields of philosophy, history, politics, and economics, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made many mistakes. Without conducting their own independent research, they depended on the research and ideas of others and developed arguments, analyses, conclusions, and programs based on them. This may be called dependent psychology. In other words, they made decisions based on second-hand information and formulated programs accordingly. The knowledge obtained through books is indirect knowledge, not direct knowledge.

Trying to defeat direct knowledge through indirect knowledge and argumentation is similar to how the advocates of caste hierarchy and social dominance exercised authority over the real creators of wealth, exploiting and suppressing them through theories and ideologies like varna and caste system. 

Marx and Engels succeeded in this task by introducing new terminology and new concepts. Leaving all that aside, I will now confine my discussion to Paris Commune.

The French Revolution – Formation of the Paris Commune – Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

In the matter of the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels made a mistake. In 1871, a major revolutionary event occurred in France, which came to be known as the Paris Commune administration. The people overthrew the monarchy and took power into their own hands.
The slogans “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” were raised, and a great movement took place under these ideals. As a result, the French Socialists came to power and governed for 72 days.
However, after the Blanquists came to power, military officers who supported the monarchy overthrew this revolutionary government within those 72 days and brutally killed many of the revolutionaries.

The French Revolution is Different – Marxism and Communism are Different

Marx and Engels had earlier argued that such a revolution should not have been undertaken at that time, saying the moment for it had not yet arrived. But after all those revolutionaries were killed, they later declared it to be a great revolution and wrote about its “lessons.”
From those lessons they theorized that a revolutionary movement must have its own army. Thus, the idea that the working-class revolution must build its own military force took root.
This idea later led to many mistakes and bloodshed, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides. Whether they said this impulsively or for other reasons is unclear.

In fact, the French socialist movements involved in the Paris Commune were democratic socialists. They were socialists, not communists. Communists believed in one-party dictatorship, whereas socialists supported democratic multi-party democracy.’

The Paris Commune was not a revolution led by Marx and Engels. It was led by socialists. Marx and Engels disagreed with them and proposed the one-party system, later advocating armed struggle.

Why Were the Lessons from India Ignored?

Marx and Engels themselves had written about the Indian Rebellion of 1857, describing it as the First War of Indian Independence. During that uprising, under the leadership of Bahadur Shah II, many kings and princely rulers fought against the government of the East India Company.

They studied numerous books and newspapers available in the British Library in London and documented where the soldiers of the East India Company revolted. Indian soldiers serving in the company’s army rebelled and participated in the First War of Indian Independence, and Marx and Engels recorded this fact.

Then why did Marx and Engels not draw a similar lesson from the Indian experience when discussing the French Revolution? They could have said that soldiers should be won over to the side of the revolution, just as happened in India.

If they had written that the soldiers within the existing government army should be encouraged to rebel and join the movement, it might have been sufficient. Instead, they advocated forming a separate revolutionary army.

Because of this idea, enormous losses have occurred over the last 150 years. The history of these losses is well known. Among the many mistakes they made, the proposal to create a separate armed revolutionary army was perhaps the greatest.

Leaving that history aside, let us now turn again to the situation in India.

What Similarity Do We Have with Russia and China?

The revolutions in Russia and China were national revolutions led by the petty bourgeois leadership. They carried out revolutions according to their material needs and historical conditions. For this purpose, they mobilized the working class and awakened the peasantry. They also made use of the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that were available to them. However, those revolutions were national revolutions, not socialist revolutions. They tried to lead to build road to socialist revolution after capture power in the View of single party orientation. 

The conditions in India are different, the conditions in Russia are different, and the conditions in China are different. In Russia, for some time there was participation in the parliament, Duma but later it was abandoned. Mao Zedong in China never had the opportunity to function through a parliament; instead, he led the Long March.

In India, Mahatma Gandhi led the Salt March (Dandi Salt Satyagraha). Gandhi had even declared in 1929 that independence would come soon, but because of World War I and World War II, independence was delayed.

In India, armed rebellions against the British East India Company and British rule occurred long before Charu Majumdar or the Naxalite movement appeared. There were 169 rebellions, and Vennakanti Raghavayya wrote a large book about them. These 169 struggles reflected the needs of the people, particularly the tribal communities.

The Importance of Petitions and Applications

Even though such struggles had taken place, after the Indian Rebellion of 1857 we did not adopt them as a guiding model.

The British government followed a particular approach. Whenever wars or internal conflicts occurred in countries like Germany or France, it studied the lessons from those conflicts and introduced reforms within its own system, thereby gradually reforming society.

After rebellions took place in France and earlier in India, Allan Octavian Hume founded the Indian National Congress in 1885. He introduced a method of conciliation, telling people:
“If you have any difficulties, express them and submit petitions.”

Marx could not give such suggestions. Instead, he advocated attacking governments with armies. But if wars are to be fought, why do we need new theories? Wars had been fought for centuries. What new thing did Marx and Engels really say?

If people have problems, they should submit petitions. In a democracy, petition or application is the first and most basic instrument. Democracy itself means the right to submit petitions and demand solutions. Whether the problem is solved or not must be explained through that process. Without such a system, democracy does not exist.

The British government in India accepted this approach and gradually introduced many reforms. Indians were gradually included as partners in governance.

For example, Jyotirao Phule served as a member of the Poona Municipality, where he made suggestions regarding prohibition of alcohol and need for girls’ education. The British government even honored him for his contributions.

Such peaceful developments did not occur in Russia or China.

In India’s national movement, many leaders played important roles, including Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Dr B R Ambedkar… 

Subhas Chandra Bose even became the president of the Indian National Congress and later organized the Indian National Army. Leaders like B. R. Ambedkar and Ram Manohar Lohia, Jaya Prakash Narayan, Kripalani, were also active. There were Communist parties, Socialist parties, and many kinds of movements. These were the conditions in India.

By 1919, constitutional reforms had already begun, and the Government of India Act 1935 later became the basis for the Constitution of India adopted in 1950. In this gradual way, Indians were given increasing participation in governance until full power was transferred to them. Such opportunities did not exist in Russia or China. Their conditions and struggles were different.

More People Left the Party Than Those Who Remained

In the party, the number of people who left due to disagreements was greater than those who remained. Some left because of caste issues, some because of women’s issues, others because there were no programs for Backward Classes, and some questioned why electoral power was being rejected.

My Understanding at That Time

In 1986–87, there was a discussion in the party. I said that from 1977 to 1984 we had already organized student unions, youth organizations, peasant-labour organizations, civil rights groups, Singareni workers’ unions, and teachers’ associations in Andhra Pradesh. 

These organizations should continue permanently. People do not live secretly; they live openly. Therefore, there must be opportunities for open political activity. Our actions should not force people into repression. For our own protection we may remain underground, but the masses must have open platforms.

I also said that the caste question must be addressed and the ideas of B. R. Ambedkar must be taken seriously. Just as we accept ideas from feminism, we should also accept ideas from Ambedkarism.

However, these suggestions were treated very lightly and even cruelly.

I also argued that the magazine Kranti should remain a theoretical journal, while reports on workers’ struggles, Singareni struggles, and peasant struggles should be published in the journals of mass organizations such as Arunatara, Srujana, Radical March, and Karmika Margam.

The Need for Open Opportunities – Participation in Elections

The party organization and mass movements should be kept separate. Until the revolutionary movement succeeds, students, youth, teachers, workers, peasants and others must have opportunities to participate in open movements.

We once organized meetings with one to two lakh people in each district. When the Raitu-Coolie Sangham meeting was held in May 1983, N. T. Rama Rao had just come to power. At that time there was a strong belief that the NTR government would fall, and the revolutionary movement would come to power. Even Swami Agnivesh came to Karimnagar and spoke at that meeting. However, from 1984 onward, the NTR government suppressed the movement. Later, when Dr Marri Chenna Reddy came to power in 1990, we again organized meetings with two to eight lakh people.

When repression intensified again, we introduced the Telangana Declaration in Warangal and formed the Telangana Jana Sabha. Later, when the Jana Shakti group organized a meeting, it was brutally suppressed with police violence.

Why did this happen? Because we did not participate in elections. If we had participated in elections, the ruling parties would have feared that we could defeat them through votes. Thus, the power of votes was repeatedly underestimated.

If Telangana Had Been Formed in 1956, the Naxalite Movement Might Not Have Emerged

From 1996 onward, many activists from revolutionary movements played key roles in the Telangana Movement. K. Chandrashekar Rao was more like a symbolic figure rather than the main organizer, although he later claimed leadership.

From 1996 to 2001, extensive social and ideological discussions were conducted across the state. Even after the formation of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, major mobilizations like the Million March and Sagara Haaram were largely organized by supporters of revolutionary movements.

People believed that if Telangana became our own state, such repression would not occur.
If the Telangana state had been formed during the 1969 Jai Telangana movement, the Naxalite or Maoist movements might not have emerged in the region.

The internal colonial domination by people from Andhra regions, the suppression of Telangana people, and the occupation of employment opportunities contributed to the emergence of the Naxalite movement. Communist ideas entered Telangana as part of this Andhra dominance and were used to continue their exploitation and control.
This issue can be discussed further on another occasion.