Bihar CPM : Split within a Split

Flag of Communist Party of India (Marxist)

NK SINGH

Maybe as has been alleged in the letters column of this journal by overpublicizing the poll rigging story, Frontier is trying to console the frustrated, bewildered and disillusioned cadres of the CPM and thus helping the consolidation of its shattered house.

However, the thing has failed to click in Bihar where the two rival factions within the party seem to be heading for an imminent showdown. Perhaps with this point of view, the CPM Politbureau has called a meeting of the Bihar State Party in Calcutta for May 20. 

Besides the five-man State Secretariat, which forms the core of the 'official' group, the other leaders summoned are Messrs G. S. Vidyarthi, U. S. Shukla, Taqui Rahim and Chandi Prasad. Obviously, all these gentlemen belong to the 'rebel' group. The meeting will be supervised by three of the PB members: Messrs P. Sundarayya, B. T. Ranadive and Promode Das Gupta. 

The differences between the two factions are so deep-seated their roots lie deep in the ideological grounding that the summit's utter failure may easily be forecast. The matter of fact is that the inner fight between the two varying groups has brought the party to the brink of a virtual spilt.

Things inside the Bihar State CPM have moved very rapidly and dramatically, too since the last mid-term poll, in which the party lost its sole seat in the State Assembly. The defeat, though not unexpected, hastened the process of polarisation between the 'non-official extremists' and the official liberals' within the party, which (For details see had started long ago. my report, "Bihar: Division In CPM," in Frontier, February 26, 1972.)

The process of eliminating the 'extremists' from the party, which had started with the expulsion of Mr A. K. Roy in September 1971 and led to the virtual capture of the State Committee and the State Secretariat by the 'liberal' group with the consent of the party bosses in Calcutta earlier this year, culminated in April when the infuriated State Secretary walked out of a meeting of the Patna Town Committee and later dissolved it as it had become "the centre of anti-party activities." 

The walk-out, unprecedented in the history of the communist movement for never before had a member of a higher committee walked out of a lower committee was provoked, it is said, by an intrepid party member who alleged that the State Secretary's blue-eyed boy, who was nominated as the party candidate in the last election from Patna West despite the protest of the entire Patna District Committee, had taken money from his Jana Sangh counterpart and collaborated with him. The accuser was willing to supply evidence in support of his grave charge. As a reward, he, a member of 15 years standing, was suspended by the State Secretary.

Later, in a stormy general body meeting of the Patna Town CPM, the State Secretary was accused of being a "neo-revisionist", while he dubbed the members as "agents of Yahya Khan" for their stand on the question of the so-called Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh. The meeting ended with militant members accusing the national leadership of "Hindu communalism." 

Besides Patna, the other district committees opposing the 'liberal official' group are Gaya, Champaran, Ranchi and Saharsa. Mr S. S. Srivastava, the State Secretary, in a special interview with this correspondent, described the 'rumour' of groups in his party as "nonsense" and said that "groups are incompatible with a Marxist-Leninist party."

Ironically, the election review (described by Mr Srivastava as "for inner-party consumption only") passed in the April 30-May 2 meeting of the Bihar State Committee flashed that there were dangerous trends of groupism....and inner sabotage" within the party 1 So if one follows the criteria led down by the State. Secretary, either this point in the election review (drafted by the Secretary himself) is wrong or else the CPM is not a Marxixt-Leninist party.

The election review is an interesting document in the context of the factionalism prevalent in the party (It should be remembered that the liberal' group has a sway on the State Committee). The review strongly criticises the Gaya District Committee-an 'extremist' stronghold for its failure in the election. 

It has also taken to task the Patna District Committee, and in an indirect reference to its Secretary's participation in the 'Bihari Bachao convention, accuses it of "blatant opportunism" and "the member of the State Committee from the area" (obviously referring to the District Secretary. Mr Taqui Rahim who had participated in the 'Bihari Bachao' convention)  of gross individualism."

The State Secretary confirmed the report and said that the Bihari Bachao convention was attended by "one of our State Committee members, who was neither asked by the State leadership nor did he officially represent the party...He was later censored for it."

Censored or not, the Patna District Committee still holds that its stand on the 'Bihari' Muslims was correct. Twice did it refuse to accept the election review of the State Committee and passed a resolution to this effect. One of the points on which the Patna District Committee criticised the State leadership was that the election ticket from the Sonepur constituency was allocated to a woman who was not even a candidate member of the party. Her only qualification was that she is the daughter of a 'pro official' member of the state secretariat.

The Patna District Committee, in a resolution, has demanded that a fresh State conference be held and new bodies be formed. Perhaps there was a rigging of the CPM's inner party's election tool.

Frontier

20 May 1972