On the History of the Communist Movement in Pakistan (Part II)

Magnus Bernhardsen magnus.bernhardsen at nm.no
Fri Sep 28 08:35:44 MDT 2001

[ Part II ]

Slandering the Communist Party of Pakistan

"Following their theory, they [CPP] joined Muslim League. In the Muslim
League, they supported the bourgeoisie against the feudal lords."

What absolute nonsense.  The CPP never joined the Muslim League.  If
Suleria reads his history he will know that the Punjabi left leaning
feudal lord Daultana invited a few intellectuals who were suspected of
having communist sympathy to help write the manefesto of the Muslim
League.  This occurred before the election campaign of 1946 when the CPP
did not exist.  How could the CPP have joined the Muslim League even
before it came into existence. Furthermore, these individuals had no
link with the CPI.  Further, the CPP after its inception in 1948 never
joined the Muslim League.  This is the most horrific distortion of
history yet.  Mr. Suleria does not even bother to get the facts
straight.  Its general secretary Sajjad Zaheer was in prison.  When did
the CPP join the Muslim League? From inside jail? The Rawalpindi
conspiracy case was not a result of alienation of the CPP in the Muslim
League but was the product of internal contradiction in the army (refer
to the above notes). 

It is true that the Communist Party of China courted the Ayub
government but the question is why?  In 1962 India had attacked China. 
The US was trying to push for a war in Asia between India and China. The
US promised generous military aid.  In order to maintain strategic
equilibrium, the Peoples Republic of China established diplomatic
relations with Pakistan.  But they never said that Ayub Khan was a great
proletarian revolutionary.  They said he was a progressive (in certain
respects Ayub was very progressive, for example, to date the marriage
laws that Ayub created have been the most progressive laws in the

Every communist state has the right to enter into negotiations with
bourgeois states.  All communist parties understand that.  The only
danger is when in an effort to make these negotiations go better, the
communist party begin to portray the bourgeois state as socialist states
(such as Khrushchev began to do with respect to India).  But to the
credit of the Chinese they never did that.  Furthermore, China was
correct in saying that India was an aggressor.  And it is self evident
that the Chinese were not referring to the Indian working class.  It
pains me to have to even say such obvious and simple things. 

Further, the Sino Soviet split did not occur because of Stalin's two
stage theory or bureaucratic distortions.  Only an anti-communist would
think that. It occurred because the CPSU adopted the path of revisionism
which eventually led to its collapse.  The split caused some
apprehension in the early period.  However, if the CPC had not exposed
the revisionists the working class movement would have been
ideologically defenceless when the Soviet Union collapsed.  The only
reason why the communist movement is recovering today in the form of
peoples war in Nepal, Turkey, Peru, Columbia is because the CPC exposed
the revisionists. 

Honestly, is this really worth my time... These are self-evident and
obvious things from the history of the communist movement.  I think I
will just intersperse my comments in his paper from this point onwards. 
This is such pedestrian stuff that it hardly worth my time refuting the
most elementary ABC things about the history of the communist movement. 
Nonetheless, here we go. 

"After the merger [with the NAP], the Communists dissolved their
independent identity and did not organise any class movement

First, there was no merger.  The CPP was working underground as I
already explained.  Second, during this period the CPP organized the
worker and peasant committees and created a mass base which were crucial
to any real work. 

"Pakistani Maoists started supporting Ayub Khan."

Which Pakistani Maoists started supporting Ayub Khan.  I need to know
the names of the organizations.  The MKP the largest Maoist party never
supported Ayub. Where are these magical parties springing from nowhere
that supported Ayub.

"The Soviet bureaucracy was not playing a radical role either. It was
supporting the Indian bourgeois."

This statement regrettably is true.  But the Trot kites have never
pondered to ask why? It was because their darling Khrushchev had turned
the CPSU into a revisionist party after the anti-Stalin speech.  By the
way, the fourth international supported Khrushchev.  In other words, the
Trotskyite movement supported revisionism (and vice versa) and then went
ahead and criticized the foreign policy of the USSR never bothering to
understand the blatant contradiction in their actions.  

"The pro-Moscow left dissolved into so-called liberal, progressive
bourgeois parties. The left itself remained divided into pro-Moscow and
pro-Beijing. The former would support one section of the bourgeoisie,
terming it progressive, while the latter would support the other section
of the bourgeoisie, terming that progressive."

No, this is wrong. The pro-Moscow left did not dissolve. It remained a
united party and used many other umbrella parties to keep itself
disguised from the state.  

Please tell me which section of the bourgeoisie were the Maoists
supporting when they declared peoples war in Hashtnagar?  Which section
of the bourgeoisie was the CPP supporting when it declared armed
struggle in Patfeeder? (note: despite being pro-soviet, the CPP was a
militant party and conducted armed struggle, in the future this became a
basis for the future unity of the CPP with the MKP).  One of the
defining features of the MKP and the CPP in Pakistan has been its
consistent conflict with the ruling class.  If it had taken the line of
class collaboration it would have been a huge party like the PPP. But
the Communists have always been the most militant fighters against the
ruling class. In fact, in most cases they have been ultra-leftists. 
They deliberately never participated in elections.  They refused to make
ID cards or vote. They did not build offices because they were building
base areas for guerrilla war. So these accusations are totally baseless
and can only come from the most base person. 

"The left during this period, instead of organising and associating
itself with the new layer of the proletariat, was hunting for
progressives among the bourgeoisie to whom it could lend support. Its
flirtation with the working class was confined only to sloganeering.
This was why, when a revolutionary movement, the first of its kind,
began in 1968-69 and explosive revolutionary events swept away the
military dictatorship which had made dictator Ayub the richest president
of the poorest country, the left was taken aback."

The fact of the matter was that the communists aggressively organized
during this period.  It was on the basis of this organizing in the
1960's, under the cover of NAP, that the MKP was able to launch armed
struggle in so many districts. Did they magically make armed struggle in
Hashtnagar, Deer, Swat, Malakand, Mianwalli, Dera Ghazi Khan etc. 
Obviously not.  It was during the 60's that they laid the foundation for
this struggle. 

"Professor Muzafar Ahmad, a Communist leader of the National Awami
Party, explained this position at the time in Outlook. He said that when
he talked of favourable objective conditions, he did not mean objective
conditions for socialism but for bourgeois democracy. Consciousness in
Pakistan was in no way socialist, therefore revolution must pass through
stages, he added. We definitely need a revolutionary party, but in the
next stage, he concluded."

I really don't care what some progressive in the NAP said.  I care what
the CPP or the MKP said (the two big parties). What this professor said
was correct. Objective conditions favoured a bourgeois democratic
revolution.  But the second part is nonsense. The proletariat needed a
revolutionary party precisely to turn the push to the next stage of the
revolution: a peoples democratic revolution.  Only the creation of a
Marxist-Leninist party could do this. This was the thesis of Mj. Ishaq
in 1965 and the foundation on which the MKP was made. He argued that
only a proper class party can propel the upsurge to the next stage of
development. In arguing so, he was 100% consistent with Lenin's thesis
of uninterrupted revolution. Obviously, our Trotskyite friends have not
read Lenin's writings on the Third World. They should read Lenin's
writings such as "Advanced Asia and Backward Europe" or on Sun Yat Sen. 
Then it will become clear what type of a revolution the third world was
approaching at the time. 

But all this mud slinging, in reality, is only there to set the stage
for the PPP which the Trotskyites so admire.  They were (and a section
of them still is) part of the PPP.  Lets see what they say about that. 

"The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) was formed on September 1, 1967. Its
program was radical socialist; a Communist leader, J.A. Rahim, had
written its basic manifesto."

J.A. Rahim, a minister in the Ayub government is a "radical socialist"
and a "communist leader".  And Mj. Ishaq who was fighting alongside the
peasants was a horrible bureaucrat I suppose. Trotskyite logic. 

"The Communists (both pro-Moscow Stalinists and Maoists) were
supporting the Ayub dictatorship, while Bhutto was representing the
masses' feeling. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (the father of Benazir Bhutto)
appeared in the political arena as a challenge to the Ayub

The big Sindhi feudal lord, foreign minister, and Ayub Khan's protégé'
was representing the feelings of the masses.  On the other hand, the MKP
rooted in the working class and peasantry was supporting Ayub Khan. 
Trotskyite logic. 

But this logic pales in comparison to the analysis of the PPP and
Bhutto.  This is a piece fit for the museum of theoretical stupidities. 
Keep in mind that during this period all the Trotskyites were inside the
PPP. Just look at how many names they have for Bhutto. 

"An intelligent bourgeois politician, he raised the slogan of socialism
and joined hands with some leftists to form the PPP.  [The PPP had] a
socialist program."

How many contradictions can one put in a sentence. Was Bhutto a
"bourgeois politician" or did he "raise the slogan of socialism".  Lets
go on. 

"[the communists] found a radical bourgeois in Bhutto and started
supporting him. Instead of organising and launching class struggle, the
left developed the working class's illusions in Bhutto and the PPP. They
reconciled with feudal and capitalists in the PPP, and even presented
them as leaders. Hence the PPP became a working-class party with feudal
leaders who used socialist sloganeering."

Ah, the communists "found" (with a magnifying glass I suppose) a
"radical bourgeois in Bhutto" (he was hidden inside somewhere I suppose)
and started supporting him (not like the Trotskyites who were organizing
an independent party called the CPP or the MKP).  No, the fact was that
all these Trotskyites were themselves in the PPP, had no clue what was
going on (and still don't) and would sometimes call Bhutto socialist and
at other times a bourgeois.  The communists created no illusions in
Bhutto.  They tried to expose him from the beginning. Those who were in
his party (the current Trot. leadership) created and is still creating
illusions in the PPP. Check the next sentence. "They (meaning the
communists) reconciled with feudals and capitalists in the PPP."
Hello... we were not even in the PPP, you were. If any one reconciled
with the feudals it was you.  But our brilliant theoretician concludes
that the communists were responsible for the (to use a favourite trot
term) degeneration and bureaucratisation of the PPP.  As they say in
Urdu Ulta chur kotwal ko dantay (the thief scolds the guard for trying
to steal). But this continues and gets better still.

"Instead of organising the PPP on a radical socialist program, it was
organised on a bourgeois democratic basis, which led to a right-wing
turn by the party."

 So, it was the duty of the communists to organize the PPP on a
"radical socialist program" but oh horror of all horrors, there was a
right wing turn and it became a bourgeois democratic party.  Magic...
What childishness. If you pick up the manifesto of the PPP and bother
reading it, you will come to the conclusion that the PPP was always a
bourgeois democratic party.  And none of the communists were fooled.
Only theoretical "geniuses" like yourself were fooled.  But Suleria goes
on to state:

"It was again their [the communist's] ideology that stopped the left
organising the PPP on a revolutionary basis."

Oh, it was the two-stage theory, or socialism in one country. "Stalin
was to blame." The stock answer to everything that goes wrong in
history.  How simple the trots have made history for us.  We the
communists are supposed to organize this bourgeois democratic party with
a bourgeois politician (oh perhaps he was a radical bourgeois) on a
revolutionary basis, but Stalin prevented us. If this were true, I think
all the communists would thank Stalin for not making the errors that the
Trots did.  According to the Trots, even if a donkey dies in the
vicinity of Moscow, it was due to the two stage theory and socialism in
one country. 

"When the PPP came to power in 1972, many Communists joined the

No one from the MKP or the CPP joined the government.  Miraj Mohammed
Khalid joined the government but he was sent from Mazdoor Mahaz (which
is a Hoxaist party) and we are not responsible for his actions. Many
leftists were in the government, no doubt, but they were not
communists.  They were not from the CPP or the MKP. 

"This disillusioned the working class. The proletariat took to the
streets during the period May-September 1972. The movement was
especially strong in Karachi. The government decided to crush the
movement. A demonstration of workers was fired on in Landhi, Karachi,
leaving dozens dead. This angered the Communists who had joined the
government, and some of them resigned in protest. Perhaps they had
forgotten that capitalist governments, no matter how radical they may be
at times, always repress the proletariat."

These Leftists who joined the government (including Miraj Mohammed
Khalid, J.A. Rahim, Dr. Mubashar etc) were disillusioned but the trots
continued in the PPP even when the PPP sent in squads to crush the
workers movement.  I guess these leftists learnt their lesson.  But
obviously the Trots who still sit in the PPP (Tabqati Jedojehd) while
the PPP enforces the SAP haven't learnt their lesson.  We know who
remembers the lessons of history. 

It seems that the Trots can't make up their minds.  Was Bhutto a
bourgeois democrat or a socialist???  Was the PPP a socialist party or a
bourgeois democratic capitalist party ??? They can't make up their
minds.  They keep switching from sentence to sentence.  When they want
to defend the PPP, it becomes socialist. When they want to show that
they are better, it becomes capitalist.  They are just theoretical
prostitutes. In the end they say "Hence the PPP became a working-class
party with feudal leaders who used socialist sloganeering."  Well, then
obviously, this was not a working class party... but the Trots can't
make up their mind. 

We are not responsible for statements made by anyone who calls himself
a leftist. We are only responsible for statements made by the CPP (the
largest pro-soviet party) or the MKP (the largest Maoist party). So
Miraj Mohammed, Sher Mohammad Marri, Ata Ullah Mengal, or small groups
like Pakistan National Party, National Democratic Party, Awami Tehrik
(People's Movement), Awami National Party (People's National Party), QIP
(National Revolutionary Party---Qaumi Inqlabi Party) Qaumi Mahaz-e-Azadi
(National Liberation Front), Workers Party, AJP (Awami Jomhori Party -
People's Democratic Party), National Liberation Front can say whatever
they want to.  It doesn't make a hoot of a difference as far as the CPP
or the MKP is concerned.  We are not responsible for defending their
positions.  Everyone knows that the largest Marxist party in Pakistan,
the one with the largest mass following was and is the MKP.  Other
groups have made many mistakes and performed many meritorious deeds. 
But they should not be lumped together with the glorious history of the

"A united front, Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD), was
formed. The PPP right wing, liberals and the left all joined hands on
this platform. A united front against dictatorship is not a wrong
policy, but the left, instead of presenting a transitional program and
linking it with a socialist program, reduced itself to social democratic

Actually, we never joined the MRD but we fought alongside it with our
independent Peoples Democratic Program.  

"By this time the Communist Party (pro-Moscow Stalinist), Workers
Peasants Party (MKP, a Maoist party) and Socialist Party (a Stalinist
party) had some good mass bases in different areas. But they did not use
these bases to launch an independent and organised struggle."

No, these mass bases were built without struggle.  They dropped from
the Stalinist sky.  What nonsense.  We only built those basis with the
sacrifice of hundreds of workers and peasants.  Read my comments in

"However, in 1986 a new element had entered the politics of the
Pakistani left" [This group aimed to sow confusion and hatred for
everything the communists had done in the past].

"This was the Struggle Group" [who had struggled for many years inside
the PPP until they decided in the mid 90's that the PPP was dying].

"Activists who called themselves supporters of the monthly Mazdoor
Jeddojuhd (Workers Struggle)" [but mostly represented petty bourgeois
students and a thin layer of the labour aristocracy].

"The Struggle Group, formed in 1980 in the Netherlands" [and received
enormous funding to set up three printing presses and computers, God
only knows why we were given so much funding].

"We had been working within the PPP because this was a period of fight
back for democracy and the working class had many illusions in the
PPP" [so we added to all these confusions and had a jolly good time in
Netherlands while the communists were fighting in Pakistan. Hey man,
don't get upset. That's politics].

"In 1986, the group's main leadership returned from exile because
there were limited liberties available now under the military
dictatorship" [once we knew they were not going to whack us over the
head or slow poison us like Mj. Ishaq. We came back with Benazir

"The collapse of the Soviet Union shattered the Pakistani left" [but
we were really happy because now we could walk around and say "heh heh
I told you. Stalin was a bad guy like CNN and BBC said"]

"The Stalinist left in Pakistan, as elsewhere in the world, turned to
social democracy" [unlike us, we turned from social democracy inside
the PPP into a total opportunists].

"The Struggle Group, however, did not lose faith in socialism" [that
is because we never had it in the first place. Fooled ya].

"It ended the entrist policy in view of its analysis that the working
class would leave the PPP from now on and that an alternative should
be built." [yeah the damn party was dying, so there was not much point
in hanging around. We thought, hey why not get oodles of money from
the nice people in Europe--God only knows why they gave us so much
money--and make our own funky party.  I know, we will show the world
the ugly Stalinist past of the communists in Pakistan and shine the
way to a socialist future. What not good enough, okay, everyone gets
paid 5,000 rupees to be a whole timer in our party {great applause}]

"To build this alternative party, it launched a Jeddojuhd Inqlabi
Tehrik (Struggle Revolutionary Movement) in 1993 for the formation of
a workers' party by the trade union movement." [man we ripped some of
those trade unionists off big time. Go and ask the All Pakistan Trade
Union Federation. But they didn't like it and now we only have the
carpet workers union. Oh they were labour aristocrats anyway. Hell
with em]

"In 1997, after some success [in ripping people off] it formed the
Labour Party Pakistan. The Stalinist parties by now had shrunk to
small groups." [next step the socialist republic of Pakistan].

"For the sake of survival, the Communist Party and MKP merged in 1994
to form CMKP. On June 3, 1999, another three parties - AJP, Pakistan
National Party and Socialist Party - merged to form the National
Workers Party (NWP). Both CMKP and NWP still believe in a bourgeois
democratic program" [of course I haven't read the program of the
CMKP. I think it says Peoples Democratic Revolution. Cor... I wonder
if that is the same as a bourgeois democratic program.  Oh doesn't
matter as long as I get some CMKP bashing. Who will know anyway cause
you know this article is only being printed abroad.]

"At present the LPP, CMKP and NWP are the three main parties." [kewl I
put our name first].

"None of the left parties has a mass base" [this actually justifies us
not having a mass base. I hear the CMKP has a army though. Shoot
better not tell anyone]

"The left as a whole is hardly recognised as a force at present.
However, the LPP has achieved some success since its formation in
gaining a semi-mass base, especially in Sindh. There exists a big gap
on the left. The LPP is filling the gap. At present it has a
membership of more than 1500, but it is not yet a very consolidated
membership." [you know how we make a member, if anyone comes to our
office we say sign here please. There he is a member. That is why its
not consolidated. But its better than the CMKP, man they don't give
membership to people sometimes for years. They actually refuse people
membership and they ask for money and make you do horrible things like
work. Horrible people].

Friends, this utter rot deserves to be printed in public to let people
know about the filth that the Trotskyites are spreading in Pakistan.
All I can say is, good luck to them.  We are not worried by their
phrase mongering.  We have seen them balloon and we have seen them
decline equally rapidly.  Money and fancy sloganeering will not
convince a politically mature working class.  We have no fear.

We believe in communism.  We uphold the glorious struggle of the
communists of Pakistan.  We are their continuity.  The CMKP is the
only Marxist-Leninist party in Pakistan.  And we know that only we
will succeed.

Long live Marxism-Leninism

Love live Revolution

Long live the Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party

Taimur Rahman 
Punjab Secretary
CMKP Pakistan

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message

More information about the Marxism mailing list