4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
uncompromisingly the Mazumdar line of annihilation which has by now been repudiated by the vast majority of the Naxalites? Irrespective of whether one agrees with the Naxalites or not, the Marxists of India cannot avoid the task of Studying this trend, its past and present as well as its future possiblities, and of drawing their own conclusions from these.
Charu Mazumdar
We begin with an evaluation of the role of Charu Mazumdar; but not with a view to personify the entire movement. Mazumdar as a private person does not interest us; his attitudes., whims, habits and prejudices which do not have any impact on public life are not our concern. Whether he was a saint, a rogue or a crank, whether he was a teetotaller or an alcoholic and drug-addict, and whether his commitment to instant revolution was genuine or a ploy to make his mark in history with Chinese support, all these are trivial compared to the objective role he played in Indian politics. History has shown that it is just as possible for a self-sacrificing idealist to play into the hands of the reactionaries as it is for a person with a less than perfect personal life to play a progressive role.
We are interested in Mazumdar's political role, because of his place in the movement. Mazumdar initiated Naxalism long before Nax-albari, he acted as the main source of inspiration behind Srikakulam and other attempted armed revolts led by the Naxalites, and firmly controlled the party organization until his death. He was the father figure of the movement, a replica of Chairman Mao on an Indian scale. In the words of one of his admirers and trusted comrades, Saroj Dutta, ^The history of India has given Charu Mazumdar the role to carry out the historic task (of conducting socialist revolution). In the present situation Charu Mazumdar is CPI (ML).552 Mazumdar was the 'revolutionary authority9; his talks and comments became the ^arty line5, and not to accept his leadership unconditionally amounted to defying the party.3 ^With the death of Mazumdar a particular phase in the movement ended. Naxalism implied not only a call for immediate armed struggle and devotion to the Chinese path, but also the annihilation theory, the rejection of a united front, mass organizations and mass activities and urban guerilla activities among others. All these carried the personal mark of Mazumdar. Without these policies and without Mazumdar, Naxalism could not have been what it was in 1967-72."4
Because Mazumdar meant so much to Naxalism and the Naxalites, it was inevitable that he would become the principal target of attack with the failure of the movement. The criticism related to both the way he ran the party organisation (for example, see the criticism by the Satyanarayan Singh group of his establishment of 'personal regime9, which they considered as ''''perverse and alien to Marxist-Leninist norms