A MIRROR 
FOR 
R E V I S I O N I S T S 

 
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS 
P E K I N G

From Marx to Mao 
ML 
© Digital Reprints 
2006

A M I R R O R 
F O R 
R E V I S I O N I S T S 
³Renmin Ribao² Editorial, March 9, 1963 
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS 
PEKING 1963

Printed in the People¹s Republic of China

1 
In the past twelve months, the revisionist clique 
headed by Dange have seized the leadership of the 
Communist Party of India by taking advantage of the 
large-scale campaign launched by the ruling groups of 
the Indian big bourgeoisie and big landlords against 
China, against communism and against the Indian people. 
They have betrayed Marxism-Leninism and proletarian 
internationalism, betrayed the revolutionary 
cause of the Indian proletariat and the Indian people 
and embarked on the road of national chauvinism and 
class capitulationism, thus creating complete chaos in 
the Indian Communist Party. Their intention is to turn 
the Indian Communist Party into an appendage of India¹s 
big bourgeoisie and big landlords and a lackey of the 
Nehru government. 
How low have Dange and company sunk? Let us first 
look at Dange¹s letter of greetings to Nehru, dated 
November 14, 1962, on the occasion of the latter¹s birthday. 
Here is the full text: 
My dear Panditji, 
Allow me to convey our heartfelt congratulations to you on 
behalf of the Communist Party of India on your 73rd birthday. 
You have inspired and led heroically the Indian nation in its 
struggle for national freedom. 
In the post-independence period you have laid the foundations 
of a new Indian nation pledged to the policies of planned 
development, democracy, socialism, peace, non-alignment and 
anti-colonialism.

2 
Today, in this hour of grave crisis created by the Chinese 
aggression, the nation has mustered around you as a man to 
safeguard its honour, integrity and sovereignty. 
The Communist Party of India pledges its unqualified support 
to your policies of national defence and national unity. 
May you live long to realise your ideals of building a prosperous 
and socialist India. 
This is not an ordinary courtesy letter. In his letter, 
(1) Dange completely sides with the Indian reactionaries 
and violently opposes socialist China; (2) Dange pledges 
the Indian Communist Party¹s support to the Nehru 
government¹s ³policies of national defence and national 
unity² which are directed against China, against communism 
and against the Indian people, and what is 
more, he pledges, not support in general, but ³unqualified 
support²; and (3) Dange places his reliance 
on Nehru, the representative of the big bourgeoisie and 
big landlords, to bring about socialism in India. 
This letter is the Dange clique¹s political oath of betrayal 
of the Indian proletariat; it is an indenture by 
which they sell themselves to the Indian big bourgeoisie 
and big landlords and the Nehru government. 
The Dange clique have revealed their revisionist 
features more and more clearly ever since the Nehru 
government provoked the Sino-Indian border conflict 
in 1959. For the past three years or so, they have identified 
themselves with the stand of the big bourgeoisie 
and big landlords and served as the apologists and hatchet 
men of the Nehru government in the anti-China campaign. 
Yours sincerely, 
S. A. Dange 
Chairman, C.P.I.

3 
(1) In complete disregard of the historical background 
and the actual situation with regard to the Sino- 
Indian boundary, the Dange clique have unconditionally 
supported the Nehru government in its territorial claims 
on China. With regard to the eastern sector of the Sino- 
Indian boundary, they assert that the illegal McMahon 
Line is a ³virtually demarcated border line² and that it 
constitutes the ³border of India². With regard to the 
western and middle sectors of the Sino-Indian boundary, 
they describe the Nehru government¹s unjustified claims 
as ³correct². 
(2) In complete disregard of the fact that the Indian 
ruling groups have deliberately provoked the border conflict 
to meet their internal and external political requirements, 
the Dange clique have tried to shift the responsibility 
for the border conflict on to China, alleging that 
China ³has a wrong political assessment of the Indosituation² 
and ³hence this dispute was created². 
(3) Instead of revealing the truth about the constant 
encroachments on China by Indian troops over the past 
three years and more, the Dange clique, following 
Nehru, have on a number of occasions most viciously 
slandered and attacked China to suit the wishes of the 
reactionary ruling groups of India. They have asserted 
that China ³has committed a breach of faith², that 
China wants to ³settle a border dispute with India by 
force of arms², that China ³insists on the old maps of 
all their old emperors², that China is given to ³a fanatic 
ambition to restore what it considers its historical geographical 
national-state form², that China ³will lay 
down his life and fight against his neighbour and 
brother² ³even for an inch of a hedge², that China has 
been ³overcome by something of Bonapartism², that

4 
China has taken a ³militarist and recalcitrant attitude² 
and ³now threatens even world peace², and so on and 
so forth. 
(4) Instead of condemning the Nehru government for 
its obstinate stand in perpetuating tension along the 
Sino-Indian border and spurning a peaceful settlement, 
the Dange clique have done their utmost to justify the 
Nehru government¹s attitude in rejecting negotiations. 
They have expressed their ³full support² for the precondition 
which the Nehru government laid down for 
the resumption of negotiations. 
(5) The Dange clique have shamelessly provided 
cover for the large-scale attacks launched by Indian 
troops against China. Seven days after the order issued 
by Nehru on October 12, 1962 to ³free² Chinese territory 
of the Chinese frontier guards who were safeguarding 
it, Dange issued a statement, talking about ³intrusion 
by the Chinese forces to the south of the McMahon Line, 
thus violating Indian territory², and saying that ³we 
take the Indian Government¹s report as true in this 
respect². 
(6) After the Nehru government had mounted a 
large-scale armed attack on China, the Dange clique 
clamoured for the ³defence of the Motherland². On 
November 1 and December 2, 1962 and on February 12, 
1963, they issued successive anti-China resolutions which 
pledge full support to the Nehru government¹s ³policies 
of national defence and national unity², inveigle the 
people into making ³greater voluntary sacrifices², support 
the Nehru government in ³buying arms from any 
country² and back its policy of ganging up with U.S 
imperialism.

5 
It is only too clear that, cloaked as Communists, the 
Dange clique have played a role which the Nehru government 
cannot play in deceiving the people, stirring up 
reactionary nationalist sentiment and undermining the 
friendship between China and India. No wonder the 
Home Minister of the Nehru government said gleefully 
not long ago: ³What better reply could be given to China 
than the leader of the Communist Party in this country, 
Mr. Dange, himself condemning the Chinese stand and 
upholding the viewpoint of the Government of India?² 
The national chauvinism of the Dange clique runs 
counter not only to the interests of the Indian proletariat 
but also to the interests of the overwhelming majority 
of the Indian people, that is, to the national interests of 
India. Internally, the national chauvinism of the Dange 
clique serves the reactionary nationalist purposes of 
India¹s big bourgeoisie and big landlords; externally, it 
serves the purposes of U.S. imperialism which is promoting 
neo-colonialism in India. Their chauvinistic 
policy is a policy that provides support for the Nehru 
government in repressing the Indian people and in hiring 
itself to imperialism at the cost of national independence. 
Their policy constitutes a betrayal of the international 
proletariat as well as a betrayal of the Indian people. 
From the very first day the Nehru government launched 
its massive armed attack, the Dange clique, going 
further and further, have unfolded a whole series of 
activities in support of the Nehru government¹s ³policies 
of national defence and national unity², and they have 
pursued their line of class capitulation ever more 
thoroughly. 
Here is a striking example. Four days after the all-out 
attack by the Indian forces on the Chinese border, and

6 
after Nehru had called upon all workers ³not to indulge 
in strikes², Dange, in his capacity as the General Secretary 
of the All-India Trade Union Congress, rushed in 
with a letter to Nehru. He proposed that a tripartite 
conference of representatives of workers, employers and 
the government be held to discuss ³the problems of the 
production front and defence². The Nehru government 
readily accepted his advice and lost no time in calling such 
a tripartite meeting. The meeting adopted a unanimous 
resolution prohibiting the workers from engaging in 
strikes or slow-downs and urging them to work extra 
hours, contribute to the ³National Defence Fund² and 
subscribe to ³Defence Bonds². 
By this action Dange directly assisted the Indian big 
bourgeoisie to sabotage the workers¹ movement, deprive 
the workers of their basic rights and intensify the exploitation 
and enslavement of the working people. This 
shameless action which Dange took as Chairman of the 
Communist Party of India and General Secretary of the 
All-India Trade Union Congress proves that he has 
wholly turned himself into an instrument of the ruling 
class for repressing the working class and the working 
people. 
Here is another striking example. In November 1962, 
S. G. Sardesai, a member of the Dange clique on the 
Central Executive Committee of the Indian Communist 
Party, had a leaflet distributed, which reads in part: 
³Our moral responsibility to defend our country when a 
socialist country attacks us is greater than that of our other 
compatriots, not less.² 
³It is our sincere and fervent appeal to the ruling party, 
the National Congress, as also to all other patriotic parties 
that we must set aside all our differences at this crucial hour

7 
and unite under the common national flag. The only test 
and consideration at the moment must be national defence. . . . 
³. . . we declare explicitly that even if we are excluded from 
the collective efforts for national defence, we shall still devote 
all our energy to the same cause . . . We shall carry i t out 
without expecting the slightest reward, even if some of our 
own compatriots attempt to treat us as pariahs . . . 
³The crucial need of the day, the acid test of our patriotism, 
is . . . . to give monolithic support to Prime Minister Nehru 
to strengthen his hands, and to carry out his behests. He is 
the country¹s supreme field marshal, its commander-in-chief.² 
Look! How perfect is the devotion of the Dange clique 
to Nehru! How disgustingly they fawn upon the Indian 
Congress Party! And what fanatical national chauvinism! 
They are straining themselves to serve the interests of 
the big bourgeoisie and the big landlords of India and to 
drive the broad masses of the Indian people to take a 
stand against socialist China. Does this have anything 
in common with proletarian internationalism or with 
genuine Indian patriotism? 
Here is yet another striking example. In November 
1962 in a report to the General Council of the All-India 
Trade Union Congress Dange said: 
³We do not lay down conditions for defending our country. 
Because the country belongs to the people. I do not hold 
the view that in a condition like ours, we should decide our 
behaviour by asking whether the country is ours or of the 
national bourgeoisie.² 
³. . . we unconditionally support the war effort.² ³My 
unconditional support to Nehru Government is there in the 
matter of defence.² 
³We have to stand by our nationalism. . .² 
³. . . under conditions of the national emergency, defence 
and near-war conditions require that the trade unions of the 
AITUC do modify temporarily their normal relations with

8 
the bourgeoisie, their functioning and approach to the questions 
of the working class.² 
³. . . we as the working class say that for the time being, 
we suspend the question of strike struggles and protecting 
our class interests by that method.² 
³Industrial truce is, in a sense, Œclass collaboration¹. But 
it is consciously accepted. . .² 
³The question of unstinted support to national bourgeoisie 
at this juncture of history was not a matter contradictory to 
the principles of working class movement.² 
³So we support the war effort, we are with the national 
bourgeoisie. . . Don¹t hesitate. The more you hesitate, the 
more you will be confused.² 
Here Dange, completely denying the class nature of 
the state, openly describes as belonging to the people a 
state which is under the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie 
and big landlords. He has completely gone over to the 
side of the bourgeoisie and has publicly called for unstinted 
support of the bourgeoisie. Completely abandoning 
the Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle, he 
openly advocates class collaboration. Dange and company 
have thoroughly degenerated and become cat¹s-paws 
of the Indian big bourgeoisie. 
What is even more shocking is that, while closing ranks 
with the Nehru government under the slogan of ³national 
unity², Dange and company have used the power of the 
Indian ruling groups to push aside the people who disagree 
with them within the Indian Communist Party and 
to split the Party wide apart. After China had effected 
a cease-fire and withdrawn her frontier guards on her 
own initiative, the Nehru government, acting on a list 
of names previously furnished to it, made nation-wide 
arrests, throwing into gaol eight or nine hundred members 
and leading cadres of different levels of the Indian

9 
Communist Party, who are loyal to the cause of the proletariat 
and the people. While ³calling on all members of 
the Party not to be provoked by the arrests but carry out 
the policies of the Party with calm and cool determination², 
the Dange clique exploited the situation and sent 
their trusted followers, on the heels of the police, to take 
over the leading organs of the Party committees in a 
number of states. The purpose of these actions by the 
Dange clique was to reconstitute the Indian Communist 
Party and wreck the Indian revolutionary movement so 
as to serve the ends of the big bourgeoisie. 
Furthermore, Dange and company are assisting the 
Nehru government to hoodwink the people with its sham 
³socialism². They laud Nehru as ³the symbol of national 
unity² and say, ³When you have such a person at the 
head of the nation, and we [Dange and company] take 
our correct position inside the common front, the front 
grows into a leading force for future development. What 
future development? For Socialism!² 
The Moscow Statement clearly points out that Communists 
should expose the demagogic use by bourgeois 
politicians of socialist slogans. But Dange and company 
have done nothing to expose Nehru¹s so-called socialism; 
on the contrary, they have tried to convince the Indian 
Communists and the Indian people that Nehru is really 
pursuing a policy of socialism and should be given unstinted 
support. They have publicly asked the Congress 
Party to co-operate with the Indian Communist Party 
in order to build socialism in India under the leadership 
of the Nehru government. We would like to ask: If the 
Dange clique believe that Nehru and his Congress Party 
can be depended upon to realize socialism, what need

10 
is there for a Communist Party controlled by Dange and 
company? 
The series of facts just cited make it evident that the 
Dange clique are sliding farther and farther down the 
path of revisionism. They have replaced the theory of 
class struggle by the slogan of class collaboration, and 
they have replaced proletarian socialism by bourgeois socialism. 
They are devotedly defending the dictatorship 
of the big bourgeoisie and big landlords, and have cast 
to the winds the revolutionary cause of the Indian proletariat 
and the Indian people. They are giving unconditional 
support to the Nehru government in its policy of 
hiring itself to U.S. imperialism and have totally abandoned 
the task of fighting imperialism. They are 
trampling underfoot the friendship between the Chinese 
and Indian peoples and are acting as buglers for Nehru¹s 
anti-China campaign. For proletarian internationalism 
they have substituted bourgeois chauvinism. In brief, 
the Dange clique have already gone so far in their degeneration 
that they have betrayed Marxism-Leninism 
and proletarian internationalism, and they are sinking 
deeper and deeper into the swamp of class capitulationism 
and national chauvinism. 
This is not the first time in history that revisionists 
like Dange and company have turned up in a Communist 
Party. 
Since World War II, revisionist trends have afflicted 
the Communist Parties of a number of countries. Renegades 
from Marxism-Leninism, like Browder and Gates 
in the United States, Larsen in Denmark and Shojiro 
Kasuga in Japan have appeared in a good many Parties. 
And it is not only in Communist Parties of capitalist countries 
that such renegades have made their appearance; in

11 
Yugoslavia where the proletariat once held power, there 
emerged the revisionist Tito clique which betrayed 
Marxism-Leninism. It is important for Communists 
throughout the world to draw lessons from the damage 
these traitorous cliques have inflicted on the cause of 
communism 
The Tito clique provides a mirror. It reveals how a 
group of renegades following a revisionist line corrupt 
a Party and cause a socialist country to degenerate into 
a capitalist country. 
The Dange clique provides another mirror. It reveals 
how the leaders of a Communist Party in a capitalist 
country take the road of revisionism, slide down it and 
end up as the servants and the tail of the bourgeoisie. 
Today, the Indian Communists and the Indian people 
find themselves in a most difficult situation. The Chinese 
Communist Party and the Chinese people have a deep 
concern and profound sympathy for the Indian Communists 
who are persisting in their struggle for the Communist 
cause, and for the Indian proletariat and the 
Indian people who have a glorious revolutionary tradition. 
No reactionaries, no revisionists can block the advance 
of the Indian people. Relying on the proletariat and the 
broad masses of the people, the forces of Marxism- 
Leninism will in the end overcome all difficulties, and 
develop and expand through complex and tortuous 
struggles. History will prove that those who are firmly 
upholding truth and justice and firmly adhering to 
Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism are 
the genuine representatives of the interests of the Indian 
people and the Indian nation. India¹s future is in their 
hands.

Today, the relations between China and India are 
also passing through a difficult period. The Indian 
reactionaries and revisionists are trying hard to undermine 
the friendship between the peoples of China and 
India. The imperialists are also doing their best to fish 
in troubled waters and to sow dissension. But there is 
every reason not to underestimate the strength of the 
great friendship which exists between the two peoples 
and which has a long tradition. Compared with the great 
strength of this friendship, the Indian reactionaries and 
the Dange revisionist clique are a handful of pygmies. 
In the last analysis, nobody can undermine the friendship 
between the peoples of China and India or the friendship 
between the Chinese Communists and the Indian Communists.


xytuAuBCDE 
* 
abcdecd ( fg ) 
1963h 3 ij1d 
kl: ( m ) 3050‹557 
0 0 0 1 7 
3‹E‹554p


PAMPHLETS TO READ 
Editorials from Renmin Ribao (People¹s Daily) 
and Hongqi (Red Flag) 
WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE, OPPOSE OUR 
COMMON ENEMY 
English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese 
Vietnamese, Arabic, Thai and Esperanto 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMRADE TOGLIATTI 
AND US 
English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese 
Vietnamese, Arabic, Thai and Esperanto 
LENINISM AND MODERN REVISIONISM 
English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese 
Vietnamese, Arabic, Thai and Esperanto 
LET US UNIT ON THE BASIS OF THE MOSCOW 
DECLARATION AND THE MOSCOW STATEMENT 
English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese 
Vietnamese, Arabic, Hindi, Thai and Esperanto 
WHENCE THE DIFFERENCE? ‹ A Reply to Thorez and 
Other Comrades 
English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese 
Vietnamese, Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Italian and Esperanto 
A COMMENT ON THE STATEMENT OF THE COMMUNIST 
PARTY OF THE U.S.A. 
English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Japanese 
Vietnamese, Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Italian and Esperanto 
All the above are 
Published by: FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS 
Pa Wan Chaung, Peking (37), China 
Distributed by: GUOZI SHUDAN 
P.O. Box 399, Peking, China