I know there are lots of communist parties in India, but these two are the ones I saw that have the largest presence, especially in Kerala.

What are the core ideological differences between these two parties? What exactly caused the split? Shouldn't they both technically be "marxist" if they are communist parties? Do they currently cooperate in the modern day, or do they find themselves at odds with each other?

Thank you for your insight!

In 1958, the CPI backed an uprising, the New Tebhaga Movement. It is now 1965, and 7 years later, the movement is still going strong. More or less ignored by the government, the peasants have probably created a self governing area after kicking out their landlords. The Communist Party of India is also very emboldened, as the government just kind of let it happen. Now, the time is ripe for revolution. The Communist Party of India has the potential to defeat the state, and spread the revolution. The All Indian Kisan Sabha (AKIS) have been building power for years, and war is now within reach.

As the CPI, I will spend several years building up a military force, and relying on the fact that the Indian government has mangled the economy. After I build support for the revolution, I will, on the ten year anniversary of the start of the New Tebhaga Movement, formally begin the revolution. We will spread our forces through the cities and towns, and push the forces of capital into the sea. We will spread our forces from West Bengal to all of India.

A while ago, a post about Social Democracy in asia had me wondering about leftist movements in India and heard that the CPI are a Communist Party that is Social Democratic policy wise. Any Indians that could help me understand the party and what are their

-Platform

-Proposed Policies

-General Voter Demographic

If there are any leftist party that represents Social Democrats that are in, or could possibly win in parliament in this decade please educate me. Thanks!

Since 1925, not a single Dalit leader could become general secretary of either the CPI or CPM.

> In a way, the Indian communist leaders believed more in Lenin who said that the intellectual leadership comes from outside the working class. For example, the Brahmins were never supporters of the communist movement but the communist intellectual leaders came from among the Brahmins.
>
>These people were always with the RSS-BJP, as these formations were close to their socio-spiritual heart and mind. On the contrary, the Dalit/OBC masses were with communist parties but not many intellectual leaders have emerged from them.

The CPI first split in 1964. The breakaway group, the CPM, split again with Maoist factions leaving the party. These Left parties could not become a national alternative in the settled constitutional-democratic set up of India.

A Rajya Sabha MP from Tamil Nadu, Raja now becomes the first Dalit leader to be the general Secretary of a mainstream party in India , 2019

So don't they have a dalit ?

Are they against Identity politics , which is what their Centralised decision-making thinks ?

Manik Sarkar, a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s politburo , answer when asked about the same

> “We do not believe in picking up leaders,” he said. “They should emerge with a merit of their own. We do not believe in caste-based identity leadership.”

Though the communists are considered to be "Pro Poor", but they all carry tags of higher caste like,

Sarkar (Manik), Bhattacharya (Buddhadeb), Basu (Jyothi), Mitra (Ashok) indicate caste background.

Indian communists, who took the theory of class struggle from the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ to fight for for socio-economic change and transformation , but still carry the propriety caste tags in their surname

So should the communists first start with de-classing themselves ?

Communist has been ruled West Bengal , Tripura and Kerala for decades but why has the educated middle class in these states have not thrown up even one communist leader worthy of being a member of the politburo ?

In 2015 too, a journalist had asked Prakash Karat why CPI(M)’s politburo always consisted of people majorly from upper-caste Brahmin, Nair, Kayastha communities (and some people from OBC communities) but not Dalits. Karat came up with an [evasive reply](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/CPM-talks-of-equality-but-denies-dalit

Copied verbatim from:

https://www.ahouseofcards.net/groups/foil/

#Claims Indian Independence is Hegemonic Vision of National Community While Celebrating Pakistani Independence

On August 15, 1997, India celebrated 50 years of independence. The year was marked with huge celebrations and joyous outpourings from all around the world, including of course, India. India received wishes from almost all the countries in the world and from major leaders, spiritual personalities, media and film personalities, industrial icons and so on.

However, FOIL was not in the same mood. In an article titled 50 Years?, FOIL said the parades and celebrations were “attempts to suture hegemonic visions of national community”[239]and “it is crucial to underscore the limits of national identification in the varied and particular forms of violence and deprivation inflicted on bodies named South Asian.”[240] In other words, FOIL seems to imply that the vision of India is that of hegemony. It maintains that the “hegemonic majority of India” is suppressing minority populations, a thought that pervades throughout FOIL’s writings.

For example, FOIL mentions that “…the equation of nation and community with the state can make us less mindful of state violence against South Asians.”[241] But, FOIL only focuses on India as usual. It spotlights the “atrocities” of the Indian armed forces in Kashmir, where “the Indian government’s arming of paramilitary groups is responsible for summary executions and torture of its subject[ed] peoples, as well election-related intimidation of voters, contributing to the militarization of life in that region.”[242] One would expect a discussion of military oppression to include both India and Pakistan, since both are part of South Asia and both the countries celebrated 50 years of independence. Sadly, the bias is strong against India. In the same article, FOIL continues to highlight “undemocratic measures” of the Indian government. The economic reforms of 1990 are also denounced in typical Communist slander of capitalism. FOIL asserts: “Economic liberalization with the interests of capital at the center and the concomitant erosion of labor rights indicate the state’s complicity in furthering human bondage and exploitation.”[243]

FOIL then refers to many “evils” of independent India, such as the rights for gays and lesbians, the Babri Masjid riots, the Bombay communal riots of 1993 (after the embassy bombings by terrorists) and of “good Hindu wives” being

Them for development not stupid freebies and appeasement. The biggest example I give you is Vivek Ranadive the owner of basket ball team Sacramento Kings. He was the nephew of the Communist party leader Balkrisham Teimbak Ranadive and Ahilya Ramgnekar. These guys dipped India and are all super rich because they prospered in free world. While their relatives ruled over people of India and keeping this country in constant state of poverty.