20 SOCIAL SCIENTIST capture of state power, in the belief that the people of India are ready for revolution,, has been discarded by the Naxalitrs, and like the CPI(M) they too are now committed to a series of partial struggles on economic and political demands., in order to raise the political consciousness of the people or to establish links with the broadest possible section of masses. A united front is no longer taboo; in fact in some instances, for example the JP-led movement, the Naxalites have appeared willing to be even more accommodating than the CPI(M), without feeling embarrassed about their association with rightwing elements. Differences, however, persist on several issues. First, the allegiance of the Naxalites to the Chinese party or its various minomy factions. Whatever their differences with one another on interpretation, all the Naxalite groups accept Mao's thoughts as their guiding principles. Their characterisation of the Soviet Union as 'social imperialist9, and as being more dangerous than U S imperialism, their "three world5 analysis which even makes the capitalist countries of Europe the allies of the revolutionaries in their fight against 'social imperialism', and their refusal to accept the national aspirations of the people as being the main force behind the Bangladesh liberation struggle—all these arc cases of important differences on international questions which cannot be easily bridged. Whereas the GPI (M) leadership is prepared to have friendly relations with the Communist Party of China, in contrast with the attitude of the Naxalites, they would expect such relationship to be governed by the principles of total equality between the fraternal parties, non-interference in each other's affaiis. and resolution of conflicts through party-to-party affairs, and resolution of conflicts through party-to-party dialogue. Although China does not figure so prominently in the Naxalite literature of-today as it did only five years ago, even now the foreign policy of China continues to have a major impact on the policy formulation of the Naxalites. A second area of difference would be their contrasting position on the analysis of class character of the Indian state. While both the CPI(M) and the Naxalites talk of bourgeoisie-landlord rule, there are vast differences between them on the nature of such rule.61 Furthermore, the Naxalite analysis talks of e four mountains' on the back of the Indian people, the other two being the two superpowers who are controlling the two dominant Indian classes. Here again, the recent acceptance by the CPI (ML) group led by Singh that not all the bourgeoisie is ^com-prador', and not all the rich peasants are TeudaF, goes a long way towards correcting the highly simplistic class analysis, and brings it nearer to the CPI (M) position, but not enough yet. Thirdly, even where there are similarities in the formal position of the two—for example on the use of the parliamentary institutions, or on the use of mass organizations for developing political consciousness among the people—doubts and suspicions persist, as to whether these