The
communist code of conduct has been an issue over which both confusion and alien
practice have been rampant among the self-styled Marxist parties in this
country. In a meeting of Calcutta district party workers back in 1969, Comrade
Ghosh provided concrete guidelines as to what should be the communist code of
conduct in this present age and in what way should the leaders and cadres of
the communist movement conduct their inner party struggles, how and why it was
necessary for the leaders and the cadres of the revolutionary party to carry on
unfaltering pursuit of a life-style and day-to-day conduct, imbibing the higher
proletarian culture, ethics and norms free from bourgeois vulgar
individualistic traits, what is the correct understanding of the concepts of
criticism- self criticism, how should the relation between leaders and cadres
be maintained and developed at all stages and phases of party conduction and
various such other vital relevant questions.
Comrades,
The subject matter of discussion at today's party workers' meeting
is : What should be the code of conduct which all comrades, from the leading
organizers to the rank and file, ought to observe in order to develop the
revolutionary consciousness and the revolutionary organization of the masses in
accordance with our object and ideology and in keeping with the overall
interest of the party. Many comrades may be wondering why all of a sudden we
are putting so much emphasis on the code of conduct of the communists. This is
because we are observing, surprisingly enough, that as far as the so-called big
communist parties of our country are concerned, the very talk of a code of
conduct has practically become a matter of the bygone days. Whatever remnants
of a code of conduct are found to be surviving still among the workers of these
parties -- that too, because these are based mainly on the bourgeois sense of
morality and code of conduct -- is giving rise, to endless problems and
complications within their party in this period of all-out crisis and extreme
individualism. What is more, these parties have deliberately set aside the
question of what should be the code of conduct of the party cadre in their
social life. With them, the main criteria for becoming a worker in their party
have come to raising slogans, sticking posters and abiding by the programmes
decided by the party. In other words, one can become a cadre of these parties
just by sticking posters, raising slogans and carrying out party programmes, no
matter how one behaves as an individual, in one's social relationships, or
within the party. This is alarming indeed ! Not only is this practice
continuously weakening the cohesion in the party, it is at the same time
creating many confusions in the mass mind about the communist ideology and
moral values. And not only that; even a little observation will reveal that
these leaders and cadres, by their very life style and in their day-to-day
activities, public contact, mutual relationship, style of propaganda, are only
lowering the standard of the revolutionary ideology and sullying the nobility
of revolutionary politics before the masses.
While examining the issue of code of conduct of
leaders and cadres, obviously the extent of mass support behind the party can never
be a point of consideration. To argue that way would be resorting to deception,
pure and simple. As a glance at the pages of history will make it abundantly
clear that many a time people have rallied in support of many reactionary
ideologies even. That does not ipso facto prove that these
ideologies were correct or that they reflected a high standard of ethics and
culture. However, I don't intend to enter into that issue here. The communists
ought to bear in mind always that the struggle to correctly grasp the code of
conduct conducive to communist ideology is of paramount importance to uphold
the revolutionary outlook and ideology and in conducting the struggle for
dedicated implementation of the revolutionary programmes of the party.
Moreover, it should also be borne in mind always that the culture and ethical
conduct of the leaders and workers, in tune with their revolutionary ideology
and principle, act as the most powerful vehicle -- besides propaganda campaign
-- to carry the proletarian politics, revolutionary ideology and culture to the
masses. As you see, it is through these two features, more particularly through
the leaders and cadres that people first get attracted to revolutionary
ideologies and revolutionary struggles, and only afterwards do they begin to
grasp gradually the theories of revolution.
Now, this code of conduct has two aspects. One
aspect is : the mutual relationship between leaders and cadres, between
the party body, on the one hand, and the leaders and cadres, on the other, and
the norms of discussion and criticism between leaders and cadres and their
general conduct ; and, above all, what should be the attitude, or approach
of everybody in the party, from the leaders to the cadres, to each and every
aspect of their personal life. The other aspect is : what should be the norm of
behaviour of the leaders and cadres in the broader field of social life, in
dealing with people, in public relations, in organizing people's struggles by
being with them and, in building up the revolutionary organizations of the
people, imbuing them with the revolutionary consciousness. This is so important
especially because the high esteem in which the people of our country once held
communism has become greatly lowered today, thanks to the moral standard,
day-to-day conduct and the individual life style of the leaders and cadres of
the so-called communist parties in India. The problem is that since they carry
the name 'communist', the people take them to be genuine communists and their
conduct to be the true communist conduct. Because, they are not really
communists, but masquerade as ones, it is precisely their wrong politics and
utterly non-Marxist approach in individual life and conduct that have in fact
caused this present state of widespread confusion in the mass mind about
communism and communist moral values. Hence the necessity has arisen for the
leaders and cadres of our party to conscientiously practise and master the true
communist politics, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to adhere most
sincerely to the communist code of conduct in their personal life and social
relationships. Only if we can do this would the masses realize easily that
communism is the noblest and loftiest ideology, higher than any other in the
presentday world, and that communism alone can usher in a higher social order
free from all injustice and exploitation.
Now a detailed discussion covering all aspects
of this code of conduct is not possible in a single meeting. Nevertheless, I
like to highlight certain major aspects which are essential to maintaining
cohesion in the party and which have become vital for our party at the moment.
First, I wish to take up one aspect in detail.
Very often it is found within the party that while we criticize a party policy
or a comrade we do not follow any principle. I don't of course mean to say by
this that discussion or criticisms within the party are to be stopped. That is
by no means the point. Rather discussions and criticisms will all be there in
the party and should always be made in an open and free atmosphere. These
cannot and should not be stopped, for that is bound to adversely affect the
health of the party. At the same time, if there is no principle and definite
method in conducting discussions and criticisms, that is , if these are not
done in conformity with the thoughts, ideas and ideology of the party, if these
do not help to cement the unity and cohesion between the leaders and the
cadres, nor do help give shape to the party's programmes for consolidating the
organization and strengthening the mass struggles, if rather they give rise to
misgivings and mistrust, if these breed an inactive and passive mood among the
comrades, it must be understood then that such kind of discussions and
criticisms is surely unprincipled and defeats the very purpose of criticism.
Comrades will always bear in mind the real
purpose and significance of any discussion or criticism for a communist. They
should remember, first of all, that the object of those who make criticism
should be such that if their point is wrong, maybe they are unconscious of it,
they should be able to rectify themselves in the course of this criticism.
Secondly, its aim should be to correct the mistakes of others, keeping in view
the overall interest of revolution and the party, and also to educate the
leaders, cadres and masses about revolutionary politics and ideology and the
correct method of its application in order to maintain the cohesion of the
party and at the same time to train the leaders and cadres on how to work unitedly
with the masses in the interest of revolution. This is the necessity, the only
useful purpose of criticism for the revolutionaries, the communists. For
a revolutionary, the method of criticism is self-criticism first and then
criticism of others. That is to say, only after making criticism of his own
self first and, side by side, a critical appraisal of the plans and programmes
of the party should he proceed to criticize the role of different leaders and
cadres in implementing those plans and programmes. Hence criticism
becomes really helpful for revolution only when it is based on the attitude of
self-criticism. If it is found in a case that criticism is not made
following this method or principle, then however fine may be the expression
apparently, if one goes deep into the matter it will be found that the
criticism is taking this form out of some personal grievances or
dissatisfaction somewhere. Of course, in most cases, even when this accumulated
grievance bursts out, it is found that comrades do not do it consciously, nor
from any ill motive. They fall victim to it for lack of proper party education,
and once caught up in it they become ultimately victim of a process. And while
pursuing this line of thinking, when a comrade falls victim to this process,
then notwithstanding his belief that his line of criticism is correct, he
completely fails to realize that in reality even against his will, his bent of
mind and his activities are turning out to be anti-party, weakening the unity
and cohesion of the party, more particularly causing hindrance to the
development of the correct concept of leadership. They often indulge in
unprincipled gossiping, discussions and criticisms among themselves, arguing
that 'criticism is necessary only to help the party, since the leadership
should not be blindly followed.' A queer thing happens in such cases. The
aggrieved comrades find many friends who are also aggrieved. If you care to
observe, you will find that they develop closeness only with those who are
disgruntled for some personal reasons. It is grievance that brings them closer.
There is also another kind of comrades who are
very good cadres -- whose sense is keen, whose class instinct is very sharp --
they correctly understand it. They can at once sense that a particular
criticism is not of that nature which can help the revolution and the party.
Though this kind of criticism is made in the name of 'the interest of
revolution', these comrades can quite easily smell that somewhere behind these
criticisms a self-interest or grievance is at work, and precisely for this
reason those who are making such criticisms are not doing so according to the
party norm or principle. These honest comrades, whose class-consciousness is
sharp, too, make criticism within the party; but they do not do it anywhere and
everywhere, hither and thither. They understand it well, rather they feel
instinctively where criticism can be made and where not. But those who do not
follow this norm, maybe unconsciously or unwillingly, as I have already said,
do nevertheless cause great harm. It is indeed harmful even if you are an
honest victim.
As Marxists, as dialectical materialists, we are
aware that we do not become what we wish to be or what we ought to be simply
because we wish or think so. It can never be like that. Whether really we will
become so depends entirely on one thing -- whether we are truly following in
actual life the scientific method, that is, the only course which can enable us
to become what we wish to become under given conditions.
Comrades should know that mere scholasticism or
bookish knowledge cannot help us at all in this. That is why pedantry and
scholasticism alone will never provide us with proper answers, nor can it show
the way to a solution. One can lead this struggle successfully only when one
applies the revolutionary theory of the party covering all aspects of one's
life after correctly determining the level of ideological consciousness of the
workers of the party and the level of consciousness and cultural standard of
the vast masses outside the party, while taking into account the development of
revolutionary struggles and party organization in the country in the given time
and given situation.
It is a grave offense to neglect here even
trifles of the individual conduct and take them casually. But as this is true,
it is also important at the same time to constantly keep in mind that while
conducting collective discussions or criticizing minor lapses in the conduct of
an individual comrade in the collective functioning, it is harmful to overlook
the total interest of the organization and drag the question too far ; though,
of course, individually to each revolutionary his own lapses should be a matter
of serious concern.
It should be realized that anything we may learn
by reading the theories preached by leaders and thinkers like Marx, Engels,
Lenin and Stalin gives us only a general outline of the Marxist theory. But is
it the true understanding of Marxism we acquire thus by reading books? No, its
true understanding is not reflected in this type of knowledge. In our country
anybody having knowledge of English can know all this, say, in six months'
time. With a little effort a man can memorize many of these things in this
period of time. But does it prove he has become a big revolutionary
theoretician by that ? Maybe, he can exactly reproduce those theories,
which have already been in print, better than those comrades who have not read
or have had no opportunity to go through all these books. Maybe, he can make
ready references to Lenin or Mao -- say, in which book or in which volume some
particular quotations are to be found. But does it prove that he is really a
man of far greater knowledge? This cannot be the yardstick at all. Because, it
is often found that some other comrade, though perhaps having not much
knowledge and information on Marxist literature, knows how to organize mass
movements, maintain party unity, work collectively and, above all, knows how to
behave as a revolutionary -- that is, he knows what is the code of conduct of a
communist revolutionary and behaves accordingly.
But the other comrade, even after having read so
many books and collecting so much information, does not know how to behave and
act as a revolutionary. On the contrary, though it is often found that due to a
low level of consciousness of the masses and the general rank of comrades their
discussions and discourses get a kind of appreciation at a superficial level,
for they can off-hand come up with a reference here and a quotation there. But
if they lack a deeper realization of the revolutionary theories, then instead
of upholding the party line properly all their discussions become too vague and
lose purposiveness under the burden of references. Whereas, discussions by a
comrade, one who may not perhaps cite so many references but who has grasped
the essence of revolution, play a far more effective role in shaping up the
revolutionary character and developing political consciousness in others and in
upholding the party line properly. Who then has acquired the real knowledge? He
who keeps much information and can present them nicely? Or he who may not yet
have so much information but has understood the essence of the real thing for
which all this is necessary? The fact is that it is the latter who has got the
taste of true culture, has acquired the true class outlook, manifested the
concrete expression of revolutionary consciousness and reflected the true class
conduct. But no one should think I am discouraging the habit of reading or that
I mean it is unnecessary. Rather it is very much necessary. But without
grasping what revolution really is and failing to acquire a revolutionary
character, reading of books often comes down to mere pedantic exercises and
whatever positive impact it could have had in advancing the cause of revolution
gets lost. Besides, if the real understanding regarding the correct process of
acquiring knowledge does not operate within the party, it invariably leads to a
superiority complex in those comrades who are attached to reading only and,
conversely, to an inferiority complex in those who are not. Both these are
great hurdles for a communist in his struggle to build up a true Marxist
character.
In this context also bear in mind that being
divorced from struggle nobody can become a revolutionary by himself, by reading
books only. To become a revolutionary one has to consciously engage oneself in
the all-out struggle of the party and be a partisan. Because, remember, the
question of class consciousness is still today inherent in the true realization
of revolution. And class consciousness is the concrete expression of
revolutionary consciousness. It is clear then that loyalty to revolution means
unquestioning loyalty to the class. Now what is the correct expression of the concept
of loyalty to class about which we are talking ? The concrete expression
of loyalty to the class is complete and total loyalty to the class party, the
revolutionary party of the proletariat. So, unflinching loyalty to and unbound
love for the class and the class party is the correct expression of class
consciousness and class realization. Thus acquisition of true knowledge and
real revolutionary consciousness means true realization of party consciousness
of the genuine working class party and total identification of the individual
interest with the class or party interest -- at least it means to give more
importance to the interest of the class than to individual or self-interest in
daily life. Now, it may be that even after being equipped with these basic and
essential teachings of revolution from practical struggles and life in general
a comrade remains still poor or lacking in factual or informative knowledge. I
have been repeatedly pointing out about the informative character of this
knowledge, because in our country most people confuse a man of information to
be a man of knowledge. But the fact that these persons attached to reading only
keep themselves better informed does not prove that they are better in grasping
the proletarian politics, its class outlook, method of organization of the
party and people's organizations, or how to behave as a revolutionary. One can
very well see that these two are entirely different. So, it can be now seen
that a prime condition of acquiring the revolutionary code of conduct
is the struggle for identification of the self with the revolution, the class
and the party. He, in whom this feeling of oneness is intense, will be able
to curb his own individualism and ego, which always, knowingly or unknowingly,
tends to lead us astray and make us dissatisfied, irritated and restless. This
feeling is the greatest weapon with which to fight these out. Our thinking
being individual, this struggle for identification with the party is vital for
each and every one of us. Whatever one may otherwise acquire from one's
surroundings, if one falls behind in this struggle one will never be able to
free oneself from the severe problem arising out of individualism.
In this context, another point needs to be
discussed a little more. During criticism or discussions within the party, many
comrades talk of rights. But all having the minimum sense of ethics would
surely agree that right cannot have any meaning without obligation. Otherwise,
it comes down to rank indiscipline and a privilege only. But how many comrades
reflect this understanding while they criticize others? There are comrades who
never hesitate to air their opinions on anything and everything, and in doing
so they do not even bother to maintain the minimum revolutionary modesty. But
do they ever ask themselves what responsibilities they are discharging to
revolution and to the party? And have they ever judged with that yardstick
whether they really deserve that right? Had they ever analysed their own
conduct, they would have surely realized that if their theoretical
understanding and sense of obligation were adequate then the same would surely
have reflection in every step of their activity, conduct and struggle for
identification with the party. But they have no concern at all. Is it
intentional on their part that they do so ? Are they doing it
consciously ? No, that is not the point.
However, from this discussion a question may
arise in the mind of some that if a comrade shares less responsibility or is
unable to do party work properly, is he not entitled then to raise a point for
the benefit of the party if the point strikes him? I say, of course he is. If
the point of criticism of anyone is correct, it will be the party that will
benefit from it. So, if one who does not properly do party work raises a point
of criticism, then if we, the leaders, or anyone against whom it has been
raised get agitated or become furious -- this is not just and proper. Rather if
accusations against the party comes from an enemy even, we must respond to that
too. For, we are not weak. We have nothing to cover up taking recourse to
falsehood. Our sole concern is to search out truth and probe the problems. So,
if something good comes even from an enemy in regard to a problem, why should
we not accept it ? Remember, we consider any critic to be our teacher,
whether he is an outsider, a party man, or an enemy even.And that is why a
comrade who does nothing but grumble and who does not even know that by doing
so he is helping only to pollute his and the party's health and is not solving
any problem, or if he ever points out anything which is worth discussing,
reconsidering at least, then we are in favour of it. Here it is pointless to
ask whether that comrade has the right to criticize or not, since he does not work
for the party as desired and only vents discontent and dissatisfaction. Rather
at once we try to entertain that comrade and encourage him. But this is as
regards our part in it, the part of the leadership.
But what I want to point out here is how the comrade
who is posing these questions and talking of his rights should approach it. He
on his part should see that before criticizing others he should at least do
something himself. He must understand that if others, a good number of people
like him, who have not yet fully linked themselves with the party, nor tried to
probe deeply into its problems, or become a part and parcel of its organism,
start criticizing the party all at once, forgetting all norms and principles,
then what does remain of the health and cohesion of the party. And how does it
help them, too? These comrades do not try to realize that the party itself is
giving them those very rights one after another for which they are fighting and
even if it is not there they are free to fight for and acquire it.
Of course, it may sometimes happen that a
leading comrade, an executive, may interfere with and encroach upon the rights
of a comrade. It is quite possible. As it is a working class party, so there
cannot be any shortcomings or lapses -- only those people who have never had
any experience of direct work can talk like that. In company with a handful of
people they at best can indulge in some utopian dream. But those who have taken
the pains to build up a real organization know how many strange things turn up
even in the lives of really good and honest people. It may also happen even in
the case of a leading executive despite his being honest. Such problems are of
a very complex nature. How the scope of all-round development of comrades is
hindered, how sometimes restrictions are imposed upon them, without having a
proper knowledge and understanding about their real position, and the accepted
rights of the comrades enshrined within the party are suppressed in the name of
discipline -- all these are known to us. Such things may happen and do really
happen even in a genuine working class party. So there is no reason to think
that it cannot happen in our party.
Such things should surely be fought out even if
they come from a leader. Otherwise, it degrades the leader, too, and the cadres
as well. But what is the proper method of struggle to fight it ? What is
that correct method of struggle to protect the rights acquired by the
cadres ? The correct way to conduct the struggle for protecting the rights
of the comrades in order to preserve the health of the party, can never be such
that it leads to breaking down the very health of the party itself. In that
case the struggle for rights would take such a form that whatever health was
there is ruined. Quarrels, bickerings and mutual distrust among the comrades
would increase, all wearing long faces ; no one is happy or is talking
freely but all are criticizing each other behind their back -- is it a sign of
health ? Remember, criticism and bickerings are not one and the same. What
is the need of criticism behind the back if it is in the interest of the party
and for bringing about its greater cohesion? Why cannot the criticism be done
in presence of the comrade concerned, why is it done behind his back ? What is the
need of concealing it ? Why this whispering ? Besides, sometimes some
leaders or comrades are found to relate incidents, or to discuss about a
certain comrade, or to make a reference to someone in a manner that is not
proper. But they cannot, or do not express these exactly in the same way in the
presence of leadership or openly before the general rank of comrades as they do
it elsewhere. Among them there are two groups. One group is of those who
indulge in it consciously, though at present their number is very small. They
are unscrupulous. That they behave in this way is in the knowledge of the
leadership ; the leaders know it. But the party is, on the one hand, giving
them time to rid themselves of this trait, and, on the other, it is still not
considering taking any disciplinary action against them in the overall interest
of the party. But you will surely understand from what I just said that the
leadership is fully aware of it. But there is another type who, although
honest, are falling victim to it yet. They are not at all aware that such
things happen with them too. When they place their views before the party, then
it takes a different form because of the restraining effect of the party
atmosphere and the impact of the presence of leadership. But we find that they
don't tell before the leadership and in the open party forum what they tell
outside. When a leader or a cadre presents 'reports', or makes discussions or
criticisms in this manner he completely fails to understand that these are not
at all in accordance with the communist code of conduct. This could happen with
them quite unawares as the process of rationalization makes their conduct
appear logical to them. They should be on guard against it. But those comrades,
who indulge in it consciously, should also ponder what they gain thereby. How
does it help revolution for which they have dedicated their lives? Those who
act in this way do not ask themselves this simple question. Had they asked this
question they could have easily seen to what extent their mental health has
been affected. They could see that this type of discussion or criticism does
not conform to the communist code of conduct, these are only for
self-satisfaction. It reeks of something which is not impersonal and not in the
interest of the party. Because, what can be said to criticize or discuss about
a leader or a comrade in his absence can equally be said in his presence too.
And that can be put even smilingly. That brings them closer and strengthens
unity and understanding further.
I would mention another point here. In the
course of arguments between themselves, party comrades may sometimes get
agitated and, not being able to control his temper, a comrade may even slap
another. Such things are not impossible, and may indeed happen at times.
Nevertheless, always keep it in mind, this had better not happen. If it really
happens that in the heat of the moment someone failed to control himself and
slaps another, then he should be ashamed of it and try to restrain himself in
future. For, comrades must ask themselves : what is the purpose of our
argument ? The purpose of our argument is to resolve our differences of opinion
with a view to strengthening the unity further in the interest of revolution
and the party. But instead of helping if it hampers unity, creates
misunderstanding and defeats the very purpose of discussion, then comrades
should desist from it. Still if it at all happens, the comrade who gets slapped
should think that this could happen only because both are comrades. For whatever
the anger or excitement, none can usually think of slapping or beating a
stranger. So even if such happens what is there to brood over ? Rather after
realizing the true purpose of discussion and criticism, he should try to
educate that comrade, too, who behaved in this way.
Hence nothing is there to take exception to even
if such incidents occur. Taking it otherwise only means that the comrade is
still carrying along his own individualistic attitude and ego, even while
remaining in the party. What sort of a revolutionary is he then, who claims he
is able to sacrifice his life for the party but who can't surrender his
individualism, ego and false sense of prestige ? In reality a worker who
can deliver fiery pulpit speeches, who has suffered imprisonment and claims
readiness to sacrifice his life for revolution but who can't free himself from
his own ego is a fake revolutionary. Some day or other this
pseudo-revolutionary character is sure to come to light. It may be that someone
has many revolutionary achievements to his credit, including martyrdom, yet
this pseudo-character is sure to get revealed. Maybe it is not there in an open
and filthy manner, but whatever its intellectual garb, it is sure to get
exposed. Comrades should particularly remember that if individualism
and ego remain like this even in the most subtle form, then it will breed
political opportunism, adventurism and revisionism one day. Otherwise, it
can never be explained how an erstwhile dedicated revolutionary worker who made
one day tremendous sacrifices gradually goes out of the orbit of all
revolutionary struggles, becomes completely detached, or turns into a
revisionist in later life.
It should be clearly understood that there is no
room for personal animosity in discussions and debates on questions like
revolution and revolutionary theory. Why should then someone develop grievance
against the party when he is ready even to sacrifice his life for it ? It may,
of course, be that on a certain issue he does not agree with a particular
decision of the party. If the character of his disagreement is of a fundamental
nature, then for him the question is to form a different party. Then it is a
struggle, straight and direct. There is absolutely no question of any clique or
coterie. Everything is open. In that case he has no need to take recourse to
whispering about it. But, say, he agrees with the main political line of the
party and it is his decision that he belongs to the party and will work for it,
but he has differences on certain other questions at the same time. He should
then resolve them straightforward with the party through discussion. For that
there is no need to vitiate the relationship between the comrades by inciting
one comrade against another, one group of comrades against another within the
party. We think about many things, which are either collective or individual
thinking. But what comrades should always keep in mind is that individual
thinking should always be the personified expression of the collective
thinking. Therefore, what then should be the mode of this individual thinking
in all matters? This method is to resolve, through discussions, the conflicts
and contradictions between collective thinking in the party and individual
thinking and always accept the collective thinking. This is the primary
condition for one's complete identification with the party. Short of involving
oneself in this struggle it will never be understood why one comrade looks
askance at another, or one cannot like another. In fact, such things would
never become an issue had there not been some personal factor involved. Say, a
comrade has developed a notion about the leaders, all by himself, that they are
going a bit far on a certain thing. So, he concluded that it was not proper.
But instead of taking it to the party he went on nurturing this thought in his
own mind. That means, he himself concluded that, on a certain matter, some
leaders hold one opinion, some others a different one, while he himself
harbours something still different. Now, what will all these lead to ?
Different leaders and comrades will be carrying on with their own personal
impressions about different individuals within the party. And if such things
continue then it will not only create tremendous obstacles in the struggle for
building up a collective outlook, uniformity of thinking and oneness in
approach but it will also influence his personal lifestyle. But these are all
quite common within the party. Many good comrades even fall victim to it. I
find that a good number of the Marxists of our country do not care much about
human psychology. But I happen to study it a little. Hence many things come to
my notice. But it cannot be left to my individual initiative alone since it is
not an individual problem but a collective one, concerning all. Therefore, what
is required is to bring about a change of the very atmosphere of struggle going
on within the party. If a problem arises centring round one individual this
discussion also should be conducted in an impersonal way.
Comrades must always bear in mind that however
trifling the issue on which difference of opinion exists, if differences in
analysing even minor incidents are not thrashed out and resolved being
considered insignificant then these may assume one day serious proportion in
the greater arena of politics. So, no points or incidents, even the seemingly
unimportant ones, should be neglected as minor. Sometimes some comrades admit
that they hold a different opinion, but they consider it too insignificant to
be taken up. So they don't feel it necessary to thrash them out or make things
clear through discussions. When asked, they would say : 'These are not that
important. So why worry over it when there is unity in the main ?' But if those
were really so insignificant then how could these create turmoils and
contradictions in their mind, make them feel so irritated or disturbed ? The
fact is that whatever they may say, these are not really so insignificant to
them. Another point should be kept in mind. However insignificant may be the
points of difference in opinion of a comrade over certain matters or ideas, if
he does not resolve these through proper discussions then that invariably
affects, however subtle, his process of thinking, his political thinking. This
attitude causes great harm to many good comrades. They gradually lose their
political sensibility and acumen. So long as the base political line of the
party remains correct the party will surely forge ahead, the good workers of
the party will go ahead. But the full potentialities of the comrades would not
be utilized if such an attitude persists.
In this connection party comrades should not
forget that mind is very much like a mirror. As you cannot get a clear image of
an object if the mirror is not kept clean and shining, so also if someone is
unhappy or gloomy due to some personal problems or something that agitates his
mind, say about some comrades or some grievances, or over some theoretical or
organizational problems -- whether they are right or wrong is an entirely
different matter and will be revealed through a critical examination -- what
reflection will he get in his mind about the very many struggles and incidents
or the mode of life of comrades and about everything going on inside the
party ? That reflection can never be correct. Then one forms a false
picture of reality, since it is a cloudy glass. If the mind is not free it can
never reflect the true picture of the objective reality. Even if someone has
the ability to see, he cannot notice anything good and worthy that may be
abounding all around when his mind is not free. Then it is he who misses much.
For, in spite of his intellect, intelligence and power of judgement he failed
to see the truth. That is why I say : don't burden your mind for nothing.
A cloudy mind cannot see the objective reality truthfully. Therefore, you will
have to free your mind by bringing all differences you may have, even the minor
ones, into the discussion and resolving them. And only in this way will you be
able to unravel for yourselves the real truth of the objective world free from
distortion. Nonetheless, even then mistakes may and will occur depending
entirely upon the degree of wisdom, experience and power of grasping. But you
should note that theoretical exercise alone cannot keep our minds free. To keep
our minds free, it is necessary to conduct an all-out struggle to apply the
revolutionary ideology in all aspects of life and make untiring efforts to
build up people's struggles under the leadership of the party along with the
struggle to acquire the theoretical knowledge.
Those comrades who do not engage themselves in
this all-embracing struggle, who cannot overcome their own shortcomings despite
all possible efforts of the party to help them, they can never be an integral
part of the party organism. They do not get themselves involved in the living
organism of the party despite serious attempts for the same by the leadership.
So even if there is any potential in them for becoming a highranking leader, it
hampers that also. Instead, they start finding fault with everyone on this
point or that. It happens in case of many good comrades also. That is why the
party cannot remain content with the theoretical accomplishment of a comrade or
his oratorical skill alone. It has to consider another aspect, that is, the
aspect of his involvement in the living organism of the party. It has to
examine the degree of identification of a comrade with the party. Despite this,
there may be so many slips. One whose identification with the class interest is
rather deep today and feelings for the party are high, may very surprisingly
change sometimes. So, it should be realized that no test is final for any
leader or cadre in this struggle for identification with the party and
revolution. Failure to conduct this struggle correctly at every moment and
giving way to complacency or sense of pride may cause them to degenerate also
and if it continues in this way, then one day it may be found that they too
have gone against the revolution and the party. Thereby they cause harm to
themselves as well as to the party.
In this regard something needs to be said about
the leaders and responsible comrades also. In the revolutionary movement
leaders and responsible comrades also may sometimes commit mistakes in
implementing the party's policies and in the course of building the
organization. That is quite possible and natural. Keep in mind that these
mistakes cannot weaken the cohesion of the party provided these are correctly
recognized and rectified.
But the revolutionary movement stands the risk
of being misled by those leaders who, after having once gained popularity by
means of the parliamentary platform or by some other means, crave for more
popularity, on the one hand, and tend more and more towards populist gestures
which are alien to the communist code of conduct, and, on the other, drift away
gradually from the struggle to merge oneself with the party. As I already told
you, no test is final for any leader or cadre. If the struggle is not conducted
correctly, if leaders fall victim to self-complacency, then they also start
deteriorating. The revolutionary workers and leaders should take great care
that in their constant association with the people in order to organize
people's struggles against all sorts of social injustice and oppression, they
always uphold the standard of proletarian ethics and never, for once, fall
victim to the bourgeois or petty-bourgeois hypocrisy, that is, bourgeois or
petty-bourgeois populist gestures and style of agitation for gaining cheap
popularity.
It is to be remembered that in most cases the
realization of the revolutionary theories dawns upon the masses most clearly by
the impact of the high standard of ethics and culture reflected by the
revolutionaries as they move among the masses to unite and organize them, and
this, on the other hand, gradually elevates the cultural standard of the
masses, too. At the same time, it should also be kept in mind that as the
masses get inspired with revolutionary consciousness, culture and outlook
through the examples of the revolutionary workers, so also the revolutionary
workers, too, have many things to learn from the masses. But only those
revolutionaries can learn from the masses who on the basis of revolutionary
ideology can mix with people, acquiring the appropriate revolutionary way of doing
so. What happens otherwise ? If leaders and cadres fall victim to populist
bourgeois gestures and conduct in their bid to become popular and go on
compromising with the culture and taste prevalent among people which has
naturally arisen from the existing social system, then their own standard of
culture steadily goes down. The essence of acquiring that revolutionary art of
mixing with the people lies in correctly realizing the fact through continuous
cultivation of revolutionary theory and practice, that the way of becoming
popular in the bourgeois sense through populist gestures and populist conduct
is completely different in character from the way the revolutionaries become
popular. Otherwise, the term 'revolutionary' becomes a catchword for one who talks
about revolutionary theories and revolutionary ideology but moves like a
bourgeois. Those leaders and comrades who betray such signs, though there are
but a few of them, should better be on guard against it.
Again, it is sometimes observed that some responsible
leaders and senior comrades are incapable of giving association to ordinary
comrades. Whenever some comrades approach, either they pick up a book or a
paper or get busy with something else. That is, they have a tendency of always
posing to be very busy in presence of others. But on the other hand, they are
found spending hours together in aimless gossips with their social friends or
relatives who are not party comrades either. Gossips like this are obviously
apolitical and aimless in nature. And as a result, not to speak of attracting
those friends or relatives towards the revolutionary movement, they themselves
unknowingly fall victim to the influence of their culture. Thus, those who are
not giving association to their party comrades and not having cultural
exchanges or exchanges of ideas and thoughts with them, what do they do ?
Naturally, in the sphere of culture and taste they get their grist from their
associations outside the party, and, as a result, their revolutionary cultural
level gradually goes down.
Another aspect quite often noted during mutual
discussions and criticisms within the party is the tendency to find fault with
and make unnecessary criticism of comrades. While criticizing this way,
comrades often fail to observe the communist code of conduct. In judging each
individual, communists always begin with their own negatives and start their
analysis with the positive qualities of the others. Communists know that nobody
is endowed only with qualities and no shortcomings. There can be no great man
who has only qualities completely free from negatives. And nor can there be any
such man who is all bad and has no qualities. Rather every individual
is a combination of both good and negative qualities, in greater or less
measures. So, for developing someone's good qualities, eliminating his
shortcomings, the communist method is not to continuously pick at his faults
but to encourage more his positive sides and qualities. By encouraging his
qualities and helping them develop more and more, his failings get eliminated. But
often comrades are found to be oblivious to this aspect while criticizing
others. Otherwise, if they were duly aware they would see that even a comrade
who is found to be exhibiting a low level of culture, even in him one can find
some qualities that are high and make him distinct from the common man. Despite
some bad traits he wants to fight for the country, the revolution and the
working class which many others fail to do. His longing for revolution has
brought him here. We can in no way underestimate this aspect of his character.
At the time of criticism, the leaders and workers must always keep this in
mind. Whoever has joined the party, especially a party like ours, is surely one
step ahead of the common masses and precisely for that he has become our
comrade. That comrade should be made to understand that by his conduct he is
jeopardizing the very cause of revolution for which he has joined the party. He
must realize it and others also must help him realize it. That comrade, too,
should think in this way that instead of trying to rectify himself why should
he maintain such disposition and habits which strike at the very interest of
the revolution and the party -- the supreme cause for which he is prepared to
fight, go to jail and even lay down his life ? He should ponder what could
be the point of his joining the party if he remained as low as before ?
Surely nobody has compelled him to join the party ! This is not like
joining a mercantile firm, where one has duty from 10 in the morning to 5 in
the afternoon. We are all volunteers here, we have come of our own. Everyone
here has realized that the question of emancipation of the society and even of
their own selves is inseparably linked up today with the question of the emancipation
of the working class. It is with this realization that he has joined the party.
He has voluntarily made, or is at least trying to make his own struggle for
emancipation one and the same with that of the working class. And it is to
correctly grasp the essence of this struggle that he has joined the genuine
party of the working class and not any other party. Knowing all this, then, why
should he behave in this manner ? Having realized all these the comrade
should rectify himself.
Let me repeat, comrades may have many things to
say about the leadership and about the functioning of the party. Many defects
are there, and that is not unnatural. We are trying utmost to rectify them and
will continue doing so. But at the same time, can there be any plan, programme,
or anything that is absolutely flawless ? No Marxist sees things that way.
Only principle-mongers can adopt such an attitude. Just as comrades should not
overlook any mistakes in the party, so also they should not air grievances over
this. Because, that is harmful. Why should one spread grievances just because
some differences have cropped up ? If it is such a matter which needs to
be fought ideologically, one should do it with the proper method. And that
again with a comradely attitude. If one thinks -- may be mistakenly --
something to be wrong then as long as it is not resolved one should surely
fight in the very interest of the party. To whom should he express it then
other than to the party ? But frequently just the opposite happens with some
comrades. They do not come straightaway to the party -- they come either after
facing some difficulty or yielding to a request or pressure, or after much
consultation with others. They whisper about it to others, gossip at the back,
spread their own grievances among others first, and if perchance sense dawns on
them suddenly, they approach the party and get the issue resolved. And still,
in the case of some comrades it is found that if the party does not concede
their opinion or point, they at last submit, but they cannot happily submit to
the collective decision. That should not be the case. Comrades are free to go
to any length of discussion as far as practicable, but if they fail to be
satisfied with the trend of discussion, they will note the decision, and having
known it they should accept it wholeheartedly. There is nothing to be unhappy
about had there been no individualistic approach in it.
Before airing his grievance over not being
satisfied with any discussion, a comrade should pause to think what would have
been his own decision in a similar situation in the overall interest of the
party and revolution if he had been in the leadership. Or, he should ponder how
the cohesion of the party could be maintained if, say, he assumes the
leadership in future and another comrade, in similar conditions, starts airing
grievances all around, not being satisfied in talks with him. That is why we
say that one should always happily submit to the party decision. Comrades
should always keep in mind another point. According to the communist
code of conduct, before discussing or criticizing somebody else's conduct, one
should first place oneself in the other's position. Otherwise, the mode of
criticism can never be impersonal. In this way comrades will gain
experience ; if necessary, they will conduct struggle again. Fight they
must, but always openly. Conducting struggle openly means they have nothing to
conceal from the leadership. But we notice that certain comrades are often
keeping personal things secret from the leadership and the party. But they
don't keep these secret from many ordinary comrades. If those who act in this
way engage themselves in making an analysis of their own minds, they will find
that they themselves are also not happy themselves. This conduct does not only
weaken the cohesion of the party, what is more, those comrades too gain nothing
from it. If in the realm of thinking there was nothing which is purely
individualistic, then there would be nothing to be dissatisfied. But within the
party another kind of criticism, in which even good comrades participate, is in
vogue, the outstanding feature of which is that even if in the course of
discussion a particular point is not conceded, even then all concerned can be
happy, profoundly happy for all of them are fighting for truth. It should be
understood that there is no question of humiliation in submitting to the party
happily.
In politics we often encounter a type of men who
are always aggrieved. Along with age and experience their ego also keeps on
growing. Because no matter how much struggle they have conducted and however
much experience they have acquired, they have bypassed the struggle to identify
themselves with the party. The comrade did not try to examine his own mind
again and again about his own position in the struggle for identification with
the party and did not verify it with the impression gained about him by other
comrades of the party. Instead, he worked in pursuit of an incorrect line --
airing grievances, grumbling at the back, and nurturing all this grime within.
What does happen then ? If someone is in politics, say for thirty years,
then from mere practice he, too, comes to know many things superficially, and
that way with the help of memory he even reproduces theories. So he starts thinking
that he, too, has grown very wise and thereby invariably develops an inflated
ego. Of course it is true that the knowledge he has acquired from his
experience of long years in the political movement, for that he is in
possession of much information, so ordinary comrades have many things to learn
from him. Nevertheless, he is short of a quality which is be found in those
ordinary comrades who can learn something from him. They have grasped the
essence, they have correctly understood the party and have realized the
identity between the party and the class, which he has failed to realize. Even
if they don't have that experience of say thirty years they have realized that
merger of the self with the class is meaningless without merger of the self
with the party.
Comrades must bear in mind that the bypassing of
this struggle for merger of the self with the party and the class gives birth
to ego. And ego invites a multitude of problems. If one falls victim to ego and
fails to free one's mind from it, he will never understand why he is being
criticized so much despite his long experience of struggle. The party fully
recognizes his abilities and worth, yet the party cannot concede to him any
right to power and position. Because, that will invite serious danger for the
party. The party would have had no objection to vesting this power of authority
in such comrades. For what does it matter to the party to give prestige and
honour to a person ? But that cannot be because, as class conscious
comrades apprehend, if any power or position is given to him, he may use it in
personal interest. From a sense of personal interest and individualistic
notions he may gradually even cause distortion of the theory which may
ultimately lead to reversal of the theory of the party itself. Even an
outstanding pedant like Trotsky could not help being thrown into the dustbin of
history. Having harmed some people for some time he ultimately harmed himself.
But what is to be noted is that his power and capabilities notwithstanding he
could not obstruct the course of revolution. If the advancement of the
revolutionary party could have been halted by sheer obstruction and opposition
-- and as a matter of fact you are quite aware of the malicious abusive
campaign let loose against us throughout the country -- then how is it that we
are advancing despite calumnies against us and mud slinging resorted to not
only by the Congress but by the so-called communists ?
Another aspect should also be kept in mind while
following this code of conduct. I have already pointed out that you can discuss
everything, but we cannot discuss any such thing which we are not able to
discuss also in front of the leaders. It is simply not permissible that when we
place something before the party and the leaders we do it giving it a
theoretical cloak, but outside we make light of it. If making light of things
is one's way of talking, why can't he talk that way before the leaders, too ?
What do I practise myself ? Sometimes it so happens that I discuss about
the leaders openly and frankly before a house full of comrades ; and the
leaders listen to that. Even I severely rebuke them. It means that if I have to
say something, I am not whispering it at their back. I am discussing it before
everybody, thousand times if need be, and that in the interest of the party. I
tell it to leaders individually, and also tell it in presence of all, in a
house full of all the comrades. This helps us doubly. Firstly, if there is any
mistake in my own understanding I can correct myself, because it will be
detected as I am telling it before all. At the same time, if similar defects
are there in other comrades, it also helps to correct them in this way, since
it is being discussed before all. Of course, it may be that certain things
about some comrades cannot be discussed before another comrade. I don't discuss
that matter with another comrade not because of my personal whim. What I do is
to inform the appropriate party bodies who should know it all. So, although I
did not reveal it to all, yet it does not remain unknown to the party. And this
is what we call maintaining a healthy internal atmosphere of the party. Only
when such an atmosphere prevails, feeling of oneness among the comrades
develops. And you see the struggle to develop the feeling of oneness with the
party is indeed very urgent. This struggle for identification is of paramount
importance because, in its absence, even with a correct fundamental line
revolution itself may suffer setbacks from internal squabbles and feuds. Then
again even if revolution becomes possible somehow safeguarding the fundamental
position of the party, these are bound to surface more nakedly afterwards, and
in that event revolution itself cannot be ultimately saved. That is why I would
emphasize again that this struggle for identification is highly important. This
struggle to conduct discussions in an open and free atmosphere must, therefore,
continue always.
Again, there is another point to be kept in mind
in this regard. It may be that on a specific question the party is in the
wrong. Then what should be the method to correct the wrong and how should the
comrades act ? Of course, comrades will take appropriate steps to correct
it. Because, surely it is not for them to brag at detecting a mistake, nor to
sit idle with knowledge that a mistake has been committed, nor even to air
grievance and dissatisfaction everywhere on this account. A mistake is of grave
concern to the comrades because by that the party is harmed, and the process of
developing uniformity of thinking, oneness in approach and one process of
thinking is hindered. Hence, neither the leaders nor the cadres can afford to
neglect the struggle to build up this process. It is this struggle which will
ultimately determine whether the party as a whole was in the wrong or an
individual comrade was. And only in this way will unanimity be achieved between
the individual and the party, between the individual and the collective.
Continuous struggle to achieve unity by resolving all such contradictions is
the only way to bring about uniformity of thinking, oneness in approach and a
uniform style of propaganda. It is important especially to keep all this in
mind.
Now, there should be some norms and methods also
in regard to these discussions within the party. As such it is very important
to keep in mind which leader and cadre of a particular rank can discuss which
matter where and in which manner. While doing discussion or criticism it should
be kept in mind that each comrade can criticize comrades of his own rank before
his own rank or can criticize other comrades of a lower rank before his own
rank or the lower rank. It is to be noted that discussion or criticism over
such personal or organizational issues which are not the concern of all
comrades -- if it involves a comrade of his own rank -- a comrade can enter
into a discussion on this only in his own rank or at a higher rank. But he can
never do it with comrades of a lower rank. Similarly, opinions about a comrade
of a higher rank can be placed before others of a higher body only. And under
no circumstances should they express these before a comrade of his own or a
lower rank. Only ideological and theoretical issues can be discussed by all
before everyone. Comrades should be well aware that from the very beginning of our
party these norms and the codes of conduct were never sought to be imposed from
above as rules. It is only through struggles in our party life that these norms
and code of conduct gradually came into practice.
So, we see, these problems are of two categories.
One concerns personal or confidential problems of comrades, the other relates
to general guidelines evolving out of these individual problems. This second
category should be brought to all for their education. But no comrade should,
under any circumstances, discuss with comrades of his own or lower rank those
organizational or personal aspects of a comrade of his higher rank, which
should be kept closely guarded in the party interest, he having come to know
from higher party bodies. But comrades can openly criticize mistakes or
shortcomings of leaders in regard to their ethical and cultural standard,
political conduct and general mode of behaviour. But remember always
that you must be in a position to make this criticism before the concerned
leader in the same way as you make it elsewhere. Similarly, a comrade may
criticize another of his lower rank, in his absence too, but he must also be
able to do it in his presence as well. Again, in both these cases, the general
aspects of it, the theoretical and organizational aspects can surely be
discussed before all. But the Central Committee can discuss about all leaders
and cadres of the party.
And, over and above the aforesaid norms, certain
other principles also must be maintained. Firstly, in conducting these
discussions it must always be observed whether a particular discussion is in
the interest of the party. Secondly, in criticizing another comrade the
attitude must always be to take due note of his qualities first and then judge
in this background the extent of his shortcomings. Thirdly, before forming an
opinion about a comrade and expressing the same, it must be thoroughly examined
through discussions with the party whether one's individual impression is in
conformity with the party's opinion or not. It may be that a comrade is nursing
an opinion that is not in conformity with the party opinion. If it is found in
course of discussion that one's own opinion on an issue is not in conformity
with party's opinion about that particular issue then one must accept the party
opinion happily. Because, even if one forms an opinion about something, is it
for one's own satisfaction ? Or for the benefit of the party, in the
overall interest of the revolution ? He will have to think in this way.
For, if one goes on holding one's own opinion going beyond the expressed
opinions of the party, it will have disastrous consequences. How then would he
detect whether his impression about that particular thing is correct or not ?
That can be determined only by putting it to a test by bringing it into
conflict with the party's opinion through discussions. Through this conflict,
either the party opinion will be changed or his own impression will be changed,
or a completely new understanding will come out. One of these three must prevail.
Remember, there is no room here for indecision. If someone thinks wishfully
that since his own personal opinion is apparently not causing any harm to the
party life and its activities, nor is it preventing him from taking an active
part in the day-to-day struggles of the party, so he does not think it
particularly necessary to resolve it by discussing with the party, then he will
commit a grave mistake. For, dialectical materialism has confirmed that no
phenomenon is static or unchangeable. Then, would his conceptions or
impressions be at rest ? No, they will not, even if he wants to subdue them. It
will gradually eat into his mental peace like termites eat into timber. His
thinking faculty will start decaying and he will not be able to hide it. For,
mind works in a queer way. How it works at a given time is beyond the
comprehension of ordinary men. If it so happens that someone is entertaining
some ideas in his own mind, avoiding consultation with the party, then it will
invariably have adverse repercussion on his entire process of thinking and
conceptions as well. Don't allow the mind, therefore, to work in whatsoever
way. So many potential revolutionary characters have gone astray, or are still
going, by allowing the mind to indulge in dwelling on petty things. So no idea,
however insignificant it may appear, should be allowed to remain undiscussed.
And the most dependable weapon to judge the truth is the party.
Because, the party opinion has not been built upon sheer individual thinking.
It has emerged from the collective experience derived through the interaction
and conflict of opinions of all comrades of the party.
Therefore, one thing should by now be clear to
the comrades that they are to conduct two types of struggles. One is the
political struggle outside ; the other is the struggle within. This inner-party
struggle must be properly integrated with the struggle of the working class
outside. The day-to-day political battle of the party should be conducted in
tune, in conformity with the struggle to build up the party as 'one man'. So
whoever asks a question, and whenever, the same has two aspects. One is the
political or theoretical aspect and the other is the aspect of conduct of the
person who raises the question. None of these two should be taken lightly. Of
course, all comrades have the right to say lofty words. Because we only wish
that all comrades develop more and more and that the number of leaders
increase. For, only then shall we be able to face this vast problem, this
multitude of problems.
Nowadays I often say that the party is growing
but not the number of leaders. But how can someone be entrusted with leadership
just because he is eager to be a leader ? How can the party entrust
someone with leadership unless he has stood the test and the party feels
convinced that he would rather lay down his own life but never let the party
down ? Many comrades are there who consider themselves quite fit for
leadership ! But has their capability been really proved just because they
think or dream so ? Have they ever taken into account what mark of ability
they have shown in their own lives ? How much of organization have they
built themselves ? How far have they conducted party work ? They
should ponder over all these. As for us, we only want that more and more
comrades attain the ability for leadership. Regular party activities are
suffering for dearth of leaders -- secretariat work is suffering also. Even the
organ of the party, which has such a great demand, cannot be regularly
published. Leaders have to do every kind of work -- from the highest to the
most trivial. Want of competent workers in sufficient numbers is the real
crisis before the party today. So each one of you present in this hall will
become leaders -- that is what we want. But for that you must attain the
standard of a leader. What makes a man a leader ? One who can rouse the masses,
build up revolutionary organization among the people and, at the same time,
maintain cohesion and the health of the party -- only he can become a leader.
Without all-round abilities one cannot become a leader. There are many comrades
who can deliver speeches, can write well, can take political classes, but
cannot tackle the complex problems of the organization. In resolving the
problems of organization the most important point is that one must be able to
clearly understand another's point of view before telling him anything.
Secondly, he who is himself free from problems can alone resolve the
multifarious and complicated problems of the organization. How can a leader
lead others if he fails to conduct the struggle to free his own self from
personal problems ? In that case, the leadership will fall in the hands of
a worthless lot, who will issue circulars, conduct classes and take comrades to
task but will never be able to resolve organizational problems. Party cannot
function with such leaders.
Again, there are many comrades who are ready to
sacrifice so many things for revolution but cannot come out of the family life
even when necessary and cannot consciously submit to the party. How can they
become leaders then ? How did we start ourselves ? Which leader was
there to guarantee us a square meal or job in those days that we cared for
nothing and plunged into this life leaving everything behind ? Rather, in
those days one thing was clear before us, that we might or might not get our
meals. These were the tests to begin with. Even before facing such tests at all
some are thinking by themselves that they are fit for leadership. They have
never reared up a true revolutionary. They themselves have not reared up any
person who has revolutionary dedication. Say, a man had been living with his
family quite happily and comfortably. Leaving all that behind voluntarily, he
has come out to join the struggle happily under someone's leadership. From
where could he have drawn his inspiration ? Hearing speeches only ?
Certainly not. Definitely he will keenly observe the very life of the leader
which is such that even lies and slanders cannot blur its greatness. We cannot
do without such ideal leaders. We need a thousand and one leaders to carry on
the revolutionary work. But such ideal leaders are still very few among us. So,
we do not object if someone wants to be a leader, but if someone is in a hurry
to become a leader without treading the correct path to acquire leadership
qualities, he can never become anything like a leader. If he fails to tread the
correct path, he himself will become an obstacle in developing as a leader.
One more point has to be discussed when dwelling
upon the code of conduct of comrades. Many comrades have a tendency to show too
much interest about another's business, forgetting their own. Now what happens
if everybody neglects his own work and minds about another's ? This way,
playing at the time of reading and reading at the time of playing, can make one
neither a player nor a scholar. So, everyone should carry out his own task
first. After doing his own duty, if one shoulders greater responsibilities,
that is very good. This way only it becomes possible to work both individually
and collectively. He who discharges his own responsibilities without any excuse
can contribute more to the collective. The concept of the collective did not
arise to mean that no one has to discharge individual responsibility. Individual
initiative and individual responsibility taken up and co-ordinated through a
particular method give rise to the collective. This collective is far greater
than just the sum total of the individual initiatives and discharge of
responsibilities -- something advanced which in turn will further guide
everyone and help him acquire more and more proficiency in individual work.
This is what is called collective. So, you see, collective minus individual
initiative of each and every comrade is an empty word and only an excuse for
one's own inaction, or failure in fulfilling responsibilities.
Again there are some other comrades who,
whenever you ask them why the work is not being done properly, find out some or
other excuse. Or they keep saying that they haven't yet received the concerned
circular. And many such excuses they offer. Of course, it is a fault on the
part of the leadership if the comrades do not receive a circular in time. But
how can this be an excuse for his sitting idle, or being negligent in work or
simply gossiping ? Rather, without waiting for the circular if he carries
out a necessary work which if not done will harm the cause of the party and
thereafter he goes on to point out that it was a failure of the office, then
that would really effectively help the leadership to be free from shortcomings
and inspire the newer comrades too. But I find this lacking in many of the
comrades. Even the day-to-day routine work is kept pending. If enquired, they
tell that they have received no instructions, or whatever else, from the
office, so they could not do it. But to set up the daily work for a thousand
and one comrades is an impossible task for the leaders. There is the general
line of the party, meaning what should be the style of work, the style of
propaganda or what are our programmes and policies. These are already explained
to all. Now it is the task of the comrades to create their own work, to plan
their everyday routine, make public contacts and take up programmes according
to this line. This is the part of individual initiative of each comrade. But
when this is found to be absolutely lacking in a particular comrade, leaders
may perhaps have to plan out even the details of his day to day work. Though, I
think that it is not always advisable, since it does not ultimately produce
good results. It cripples individual initiative, contemplation and imagination
of the comrades.
There are many other aspects of the code of
conduct which need to be discussed. But all cannot be dealt with in a single
meeting. In future, I will try to discuss, in some other meeting, more about
it. I conclude here today.