Siraj Sikder Works: Rebellion of revolutionaries against reactionary leadership, or that of reactionaries against revolutionary leadership?

Siraj Sikder

Siraj Sikder


The Proletarian Party of East Bengal produced the original Bengali document on 1972

The Communist Party Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Bangladesh translated the document in English and published online via on 16 March 2014. The party slightly edited the translation on 11 January 2017


The traitor Fazlu-Sultan clique is making hue and cry saying that they have rebelled against the ‘reactionary’ leadership of comrade Siraj Sikder and central committee, and others should do the same too; they serve people, love people and revolution, and they are revolutionary and communist etc.

By Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, we should determine who is revolutionary and who is reactionary and what the real incident is.

Only the correct Marxist-Leninists can produce correct line

The Fazlu-Sultan clique says that the politics of organization is correct while the leader is reactionary.

The leadership of the organization comrade Siraj Sikder produced the correct politics of the organization and other correct lines, on the basis of that only, the organization developed and reached at the current stage.

In spite of the fact that the organization’s political and other line is correct and comrade Siraj Sikder is correct on that, yet, according to them, he is reactionary.

They could not find any error of the central committee or comrade Siraj Sikder on any political, theoretical or ideological question.

They have taken rumor, slander, falsification and personal bad naming as their manifesto.

Since the very ancient time till now, the reactionaries, by not being able to attack politically, ideologically and theoretically, at last adopted rumor, slander, conspiracy, intrigue and personal bad naming. Such things were done against all including Marx-Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao.

In the First International, Bakunin wrote to Marx to have his trust, “I am a student of you, and I am proud of that.” Later, when his conspiracy to seize power of the first international failed, he called bad name to Marx and said, “As a German and Jews, he (Marx) is top to bottom an autocrat and dictator.”

In the Second International too, the renegade Kautsky used the same language to call bad names to Lenin. He condemned him by branding him as “God of atheists” by saying, “he (Lenin) not only made Marxism a state religion but also a middle age or Eastern myth.”

In the Third International, Trotsky-Tito attacked Stalin by branding him a “bureaucratic” dictator.

Khrushchev, in each of his words and writings made quotation by praising Stalin, even called Stalin as ‘Great father Stalin’ but secretly conspired to overthrow Stalin. He slandered Stalin as ‘dacoit’, ‘murderer’, ‘goon’, ‘tyrant’, ‘fascist’ and all sorts of bad name.

Liu Chao Chi and Co. traitors, to achieve Chairman Mao’s trust, made Chairman Mao’s quotation and praised him in each of their words and writings, but secretly, they continued conspiracy to overthrow Chairman Mao. Lin Piao also did the same.

The Fazlu-Sultan clique praised comrade Siraj Sikder, said that to oppose him means to oppose revolution, and he wrote poem in praise of him. But when conspiracy to seize power failed, they, by uniting with various forms of revisionists, made filthy slanders, like Khrushchev, against comrade Siraj Sikder branding him bureaucratic and dictator.

Thus, by adopting the old tactics of their master Khrushchev, Liu Chao Chi, Lin Piao and other old and modern revisionists, they said comrade Siraj Sikder reactionary by recognizing the fact that he is correct in political and other lines.

Can a comrade be reactionary in personal life when in fact he makes correct political, organization and military line?

One can make correct line if he or she achieves proletarian world outlook and apply it to political and other fields. It proves that his or her proletarian aspect is principal when he or she prepares political and other lines.

One is reactionary in personal life means that he or she applies reactionary world outlook in personal life. Therefore, reactionary aspect is principal in his or her personal life.

A cadre, who is in personal life, has family, children; on the one hand, he or she takes shelter-food, converse and mix with other comrades, and on the other, he or she resolves political, organization and other problems daily.

If the theory “proletariat in political and other lines but reactionary in personal life” is correct, every day, two aspects will be principal at the same time that means proletarian aspect is principal at the time of resolving political and other problems while reactionary aspect is principal in personal life.

But Marxism teaches us that one aspect is principal in one comrade in a particular time and that’s what determines what the comrade is. If his reactionary aspect is principal, he is reactionary. If his revolutionary aspect is principal, he is revolutionary.

And, the transformation of these aspects, that means, transformation of proletarian aspect principal to secondary, or reactionary aspect principal to secondary needs time. This change cannot occur several times a day. That means this is an anti-Marxist theory that one is principal in the morning, another in the afternoon or noon or both are principal at the same time.

Therefore, a comrade who is proletariat in political and other fields, at the same time cannot be reactionary in personal life. Either he or she is reactionary or he or she is proletariat in both political and personal life.

That is why comrade Siraj Sikder being proletariat in preparing political and other lines, cannot be at the same time reactionary in personal life. In personal life too, his principal aspect is proletarian.

Even if the principal aspect is proletarian, secondary aspect may manifest in political and personal life. That is why comrades have mistakes. There are no such revolutionaries in the world who haven’t had any mistakes. Therefore, when judging comrades, we have to determine which aspect is principal – proletarian or non-proletarian. He or she is proletariat whose proletarian aspect is principal. He or she is reactionary whose reactionary aspect is principal. To say those comrades reactionary whose proletarian aspect is principal is an act of reactionaries and class enemies.

Chairman Mao said about evaluating cadres on the basis of reviewing their aspects, Draw two lines of distinction. First, between revolution and counter-revolution, between Yenan and Sian. Some do not understand that they must draw this line of distinction. For example, when they combat bureaucracy, they speak of Yenan as though “nothing is right” there and fail to make a comparison and distinguish between the bureaucracy in Yenan and the bureaucracy in Sian. This is fundamentally wrong. Secondly, within the revolutionary ranks, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between right and wrong, between achievements and shortcomings and to make clear which of the two is primary and which secondary. For instance, do the achievements amount to 30 per cent or to 70 per cent of the whole? It will not do either to understate or to overstate. We must have a fundamental evaluation of a person’s work and establish whether his achievements amount to 30 per cent and his mistakes to 70 per cent, or vice versa. If his achievements amount to 70 per cent of the whole, then his work should in approve the main. It would be entirely wrong to describe work in which the achievements are primary as work in which the mistakes are primary. In our approach to problems, we must not forget to draw these two lines of distinction, between revolution and counter-revolution and between achievements and shortcomings. We shall be able to handle things well if we bear these two distinctions in mind; otherwise, we shall confuse the nature of the problems. To draw these distinctions well, careful study and analysis are of course necessary. Our attitude towards every person and every matter should be one of analysis and study.

That is why Chairman Mao said, “We should not blindly label anybody with opportunist brand, or adopt that method of struggle against him.”

The Fazlu-Sultan clique, by not adopting the method of Marxist analysis, have marked those comrades as reactionaries who have revolutionary aspect principal.

Is the Fazlu-Sultan clique revolutionary?

Chairman Mao said, “What are the requirements for worthy successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat?”

“They must be revolutionaries who wholeheartedly serve the overwhelming majority of the people of China and the whole world, and must not be like Khrushchev who serves both the interests of the handful of members of the privileged bourgeois stratum in his own country and those of foreign imperialism and reaction.”

The Fazlu-Sultan clique, other than serving people, served own clique, lover, post and power; and at last made conspiracy-intrigue, stole arms and money, deceived cadres and conspired to secretly kill pure revolutionaries.

Thus, he made all-out effort to weaken and smash the Proletarian party of East Bengal.

Isn’t it the best service to enemies of East Bengal and world and the various forms of revisionists?

Chairman Mao said, they must be model in applying the Party’s democratic centralism, “must master the method of leadership based on the principle of from the masses, to the masses, and must cultivate a democratic style and be good at listening to the masses. They must not be despotic like Khrushchev and violate the Party’s democratic centralism, make surprise attacks on comrades or act arbitrarily and dictatorially.”

The Fazlu-Sultan clique totally suppressed democratic centralism of party under their feet, give prominence to own wish and committed despotism. They violated the congress-elected central committee, chairman and unanimously taken decision in the meeting. Thus they violated democracy. They violated party decision. Thus they abandoned centralism.

In order to materialize own views and wishes, they, other than carrying democratic struggle in proper level of party, made conspiracy and intrigue, made surprise attack on comrades and spread filthiest personal slander against them because they (Fazlu-Sultan) were ousted from post.

Their wish was to start autocracy of individuals.

Chairman Mao said, “They must especially watch out for careerists and conspirators like Khrushchev and prevent such bad elements from usurping the leadership of the Party and the state at any level.”

The Fazlu- Sultan clique made conspiracy and intrigue, became double dealer, lied and staged show. Thus, they expressed own real face as utter careerist and conspirator.

Chairman Mao said, “They must be genuine Marxist-Leninist and not revisionists like Khrushchev wearing the cloak of Marxism-Leninism.”

The Fazlu-Sultan clique, by hanging the signboard of Marxism-Leninism, actually remained as feudalist, petit bourgeoisie lumpen. Their class itself manifests as revisionism under the cover of Marxism.

Chairman Mao said, “A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any individual, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.”

The Fazlu-Sultan clique is not open-minded. They did not express their inside evil intention and thought.

They destroyed the trust of party and stole arms-money of party. They showed their action for personal love and post and to form clique. But, other than showing their action for work of party and revolution, they fled.

Other than placing the interest of revolution above own lives, they placed the interest of lover, sex and post above revolution, fled to save own lives, for lover, became opportunist, made conspiracy-intrigue for post and at last posed themselves as the leader by forming faction.

Other than being firm on the side of correct principle and thought, they became liberalist to themselves and others.

The Fazlu clique hided deviation of Tareq and Sultan. Fazlu and Sultan hided deviation of own and each other, they made contact with various renegades, opportunists and those elements who have discontent with party, formed faction by taking them and united on the basis of opportunism.

Other than consolidating party’s collective life and the interconnection between party and people, spread rumor, slander and bad name to destroy party life, make doubt each other and make many cadres and people have non-confidence on party and leadership.

They became more careful to own lover, security and post. Other than being careful to others, they conspired to make comrades (even comrade who was seriously ill) arrested and annihilated.

From the above mentioned analysis, we can see that the Fazlu-Sultan clique is completely reactionary and counterrevolutionary.

Is the Fazlu-Sultan clique patriot?

If the Fazlu-Sultan clique was patriot or they had minimum love for people and country, they would not commit counterrevolutionary act to kill genuine comrades of a revolutionary party, hatch conspiracy, stole money and arms and disgrace party and leadership. They are counterrevolutionary and reactionary.

Counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries, whatever extent they make leap service patriotism; actually they are traitor to country, cheater to people and killer. In the name of serving people what they do is to confuse and deceive people; they do huge harm to people in the name of loving people, do national treachery and treason in the name of patriotism, and counterrevolution and subservience in the name of revolution.


The leadership of the Proletarian party of East Bengal, by not compromising with these reactionaries and not adopting liberalism, through carrying principled struggle, remained firm in principle.

The Fazlu-Sultan clique, by not being repentant or not promised to correct themselves, hatched conspiracy and at last, was expelled from the party.

Hence, in order to protect themselves and to cheat cadres and people, they are saying here and there that they have rebelled.

Truly, they have rebelled but that is of reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries against revolutionary leadership, revolutionary party, revolution of East Bengal and world, Marxism- Leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought, the class proletariat and the people of East Bengal.

This rebellion of reactionary counterrevolutionaries is their step towards doom, the last journey to be thrown to the dustbin of history.

Soon, the revolutionaries and people of East Bengal will finally bury and throw them to the dustbin of history.


Meanwhile, the traitor Fazlu, with one of his companions, when carrying counterrevolutionary activities, have been annihilated by the guerrillas of the Proletarian party of East Bengal