i : Mai 1), one of
Writing in the New Delhi left weekly Meinstream (@ctober 31), the prominent leaders of the CPI (right wing) , Mohan esas dca as questioned the credentials of the new Sovict leaders. He ca 8. fo oe authoritative assessment of the roles of all Sovict leaders and in par ic~ ular the two most important leaders, comrades Kosygin and Brezhnev, during the period of Stalin's rule." He recalls that Khrushchov was one of , Stalin's closcst colleagues during Stalin's rule and quotes what — OV said “at the time, referring to the verdict in the trial of Trotsky's followers":
“tThose infamous nonentities wanted to break up the unity of the Party and the Sovict powersee.eThcy raised their murderous hands against Comrade Stalin. Stalin - our hope, Stalin - our expectation, Stalin - the beacon of progressive mankind, Stalin - our banner, Stalin - our will, Stalin our victory.!"
"Comrades like myself," continues Kumaramangalam, “did not forget that Khrushchov also was a party to the exeessive adulation of Stalin and therefore necessarily also has to bear a share of the responsibility for the crimes committed in the latter period of Stalin's rule. Referring to: the alleged "charge sheet" prepared against Khrushchov by his successors, Kumaramangalam asks: "If Khrushchov had been guilty of all these mistakes then what was the collective leadership, including the Central Committee, doing when he committing these mistakes? What attempts were made to correct him..If adequate answers were given to these 33 questions, then perhaps there would not be this disturbing phenemenon of praising highly the merits of a leader of the Party one day and then immediately criticising him for committing serious mistakes - so character-= istic of the Stalinist method of dealing with individuals."
The CPI leader has demanded that the proceedings of the Presidium and the Central Committee of the CPSU be placed before the people of the Soviet Union and the world "so that all of us can judge what exactly were the mistakes of Comrade Khrushchov..." The "secret Simlinist manner" in which Khrushchov was removed, according to him has greatly “impaired the prestige of the Soviet Union." "It is the duty of all Communists," he says, "to raise their voice of protest against the method adopted by the Central Committee of the CPSU...eand demand that this method be abandoned, never to be resorted to again,"
He then raises several pertinent questions for the Soviet leaders who claim that they oppose the practice of the personality cult:
"Have you Sovict Communists taken steps to uncover and tear up the roots of this porsonality cult? Have you brought to life again the Leninist institutions and practices destroyed by Stalin and his colleagues? Have you established the collective leadership of Lenin's days about which you write so much but of which little evidence is scen in the Khruchchov affair? Otherwise how could the cult of Khrushchov'ts personality rise in these short nine years? If these questions are not answered," warns Kunaramangalam, "then can we be sure that 5 or 10 year's hence, we shall not be faced with the cult of Kosygin's personality end his removal and denunciation by Pravda? For we must remember that Comrade Kosygin was a member of tho Stalin leader~ ship (prior to 1953), a momber of Stalin's Politburo!.." Thon follows the -» call for sn assessnent of the now Sevict leaders.