The following is the minority report submitted by Jagjit Singh Lyallpuri and Promode Das Gupta to the CPI leadership on the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. These leaders of the CPI did not find the report presented by Z.A. Ahmed, S.G. Sardesai and Unni Raja to be an accurate rendering of the experiences of the Indian delegation in Moscow.
The report is self-explanatory. We may add one correction. The serial mendacity of Nikita Khrushchev is now established. The analysis by Grover Furr of the ‘closed speech’ at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 has not been controverted. One such shocking lie may be seen in the note presented by the CPSU to the delegates at the 22nd Congress in 1962. An example of Albanian repression was depicted in the case of Liri Gega who was allegedly executed whilst pregnant for spying for the Yugoslavs. This had already been denied by Enver Hoxha in Moscow in his speech at the Meeting of 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties on November 16th 1960: ‘To our amazement comrade Khrushchev came out in defense of these traitors and Yugoslav agents. He accused us of having shot the Yugoslav agent, the traitress Liri Gega, allegedly ‘when she was pregnant, a thing which had not happened even in the time of the Czar and this had made a bad impression on world opinion’. These were slanders trumped up by the Yugoslavs in whom comrade Khrushchev had more faith than in us. We of course denied all these insinuations made by comrade Khrushchev’.1 We may also point out that Promod Das Gupta later became a politbureau member of the CPI (M) and that Jagjit Singh Lyallpuri went on to hold the post of the General Secretary of the Marxist Communist Party of India (United). The original spellings in the text of the names of Communist leaders have been retained.
For National Council Members only.
There is a note already in the hands of the National Council members on 22nd Party Congress on behalf of three members of our delegation, Comrades Z. A. Ahmed, S.G. Sardesai and Unni Raja. This notes states that two members (namely we two) did not agree with this note, and hence the note by three comrades only.
We made a factual report of the work of delegation to the C.E.C. on which there were no differences between us. The C.E.C. directed us to make a report to the National Council as well on the basis of that report to the National Council and on similar lines. The report to the C.E.C. was made on the basis of three notes, one taken by Com. Sardesai, and the other two by Com. Lyallpuri. Comrades Ahmed and Promode added a few points but there was complete unanimity in our factual presentation. We asked Com. Sardesai to prepare a single consolidated report on the basis of these three reports, so that it can be presented before the National Council.
But as you find, instead of presenting a factual report, Comrade Sardesai prepares a report which seeks to plead a particular view point on various controversial matter raised in the 22nd Party Congress. In doing so, he seeks to place before you some pieces of information which we never acquired during the course of work of our delegation (reference to certain speeches in 81 party Conference, impressions based on hearsay and so on), and also fails to convey certain information which our delegation collected during the course of its functioning. The note of these three comrades also fails to convey to you certain standpoints of our delegation which we took there after discussion amongst us. Naturally we could not agree to this type of report, and when a copy of the draft of this report was handed over to us, we expressed our inability to agree.
But at the same time, we suggested to Comrade Sardesai to call a meeting of all the members of the delegation present here so that we can arrive at a unified understanding about presentation of factual report. What we did in CEC, could in our opinion be done for the National Council as well. Later on, on the basis of these facts, each one of us can express his standpoint during the course of a discussion.
We regret to inform you that without holding any such meeting of the delegation as desired by us, these three members of the delegation have circulated their report to the National Council members. Under the circumstances, we are forced to submit a separate report here.
In any case, we will try to place before you a factual report without imparting any colour to it.
Our delegation to the 22nd Party Congress consisted of seven comrades selected by the C.E.C. in its September 196l meeting. The members of delegation were ComradesAjoy Ghosh, Z.A. Ahmed, S.G Sardesai, Promode Das Gupta, Jagjit Singh Lyallpuri, Unni Raja and Khandkar. ComradesAjoy Ghosh and Sardesai left for Moscow on 13th October and the other five members reached Moscow on 17th October, the day on which the Congress started. The Congress concluded on 30th. During the days between 17th to 30th; October, all members of our delegation except Comrade Ajoy Ghosh went to visit Leningrad for two days. After the Congress, Comrade Z. A. Ahmed and Comrade S.G. Sardesai came back via Tashkent and the four members of delegation (Promode Das Gupta, Unni Raja, Khandkar & Lyallpuri) went to visit Kiev for two days. We came back for the 7th November, Parade at Moscow, after which we departed.
Our daily programme during the Congress was too crowded. It was difficult to find time to exchange views with any other fraternal delegation. We were putting up along at a separate lodge. That also handicapped us in this manner. We had planned to meet many fraternal delegations, but it became difficult to meet all. Anyhow we could manage to meet members of the PB of CPSU, including Com. Khrushchov at a dinner at which they invited us along with two other delegations. We had also meetings with the Chinese, Greek, Indonesian delegations.
The Reports to the Congress, and speeches of the various leaders of CPSU as well as the messages of various fraternal delegations have already appeared in the Press. We need not go into those in our report. After his return Com. Ajoy also wrote an article giving some information as well as posing certain issues. Herein below will be given some information as a supplement to that.
In the reports of Comrade Khrushchov, besides the programme of building Communism, three other issues also got prominence. These were:
i. The question of personality cult
ii. The question of anti-Party Group and,
iii. The question of Soviet-Albanian relations.
The manner in which, all these three issues were displayed at the Congress were a surprise to us.
Our delegation discussed the message that Com. Ajoy wrote for the Congress. We unanimously came to the conclusion that we should not opine on the Soviet-Albanian controversy although various fraternal delegations had by that time, expressed themselves on that question. Com. Ajoy also reported to us that he had a talk with Com. Aidit, Chairman, C.P of Indonesia who had also expressed his opinion that we do not intend to enter into this controversy. But at the same time, we decided to meet other fraternal delegations, especially Soviet as well as the Chinese comrades in order to get clarity on this controversy.
We had lengthy interview, with the Soviet comrades at the time of our meeting at a dinner, at which Com. Khrushchov explained to us various issues concerning the harmful effect of personality cult, the activities of anti-Party Group and also relations with Albanian Party of Labour. As it was a meeting at the dinner table, we could not take notes of this talk. Anyhow most of the information that they gave regarding Albania is there in the gist of the document that we submit below.
Com. Khrushchov also told us that in August 1961, Com. Ho-Chi- Minh came to Moscow, expressed concern over the turn the relations between these two Parties have taken, and expressed his desire to intervene if it could be helpful. Com. Ho-Chi-Minh told them that after meeting them in Moscow, he would like to go to Tirana to meet Albanian leaders. The Soviet comrades told Com. Ho-Chi-Minh, that if he wanted to resolve the differences, he should go to Peking instead of Tirana. After this Com. Ho- Chi-Minh returned back to Hanoi; he neither went to Peking nor Tirana.
As is known, while delivering the message of greetings Com. Chou- En-Lai disapproved of the unilateral condemnation by the Soviet Party of another brother Party. We could not meet Com. Chou En-Lai, but had an opportunity to meet Com. Pen Chang, a PB member, and requested him to throw some more light on this question. By that time Com. Khrushchov has also delivered his concluding speech in which he had stated that no one is in a better position than Chinese comrades to solve this controversy. The remark was once again a clear indication that Albanian comrades are taking a position which deteriorates the relations with Soviet Union and CPSU, at the instance of Chinese comrades. At the talk over the dinner also Comrade Khrushchov categorically stated so.
We asked Com. Pen Chang that we heard the speech of Com. Chou En- Lai. Would you like to say something more on the question of Albania. Com. Pen Chang expressed his views in the following manner.
“Regarding rights or wrongs of the two Parties, I do not want to say anything. It concerns these two Parties. Comrade Chou En-Lai expressed our opinion in his message. There, are many other delegations also who acted in a wise manner, that is to say, that they did not mention it. That includes Comrade Ghosh also.
“Even in a trial of a prisoner no judgement is passed in his absence. Even a State employs a lawyer to plead his case if he cannot do so. But this is a case of a brother Party. They (Albanian comrades) did not come to this Congress not because they did not intend to come, but because they were not invited to come.”
“Those who are passing such unilateral judgements do not feel that they have firm ground for that. All fraternal parties are equal. How can we a Third Party express who is right and who is wrong between the two Parties, when one Party is absent. We only said it is not proper to express it publicly in this manner. I am worried about the consequences of such a behaviour since Soviet Party has today unilaterally condemned Albanian Party, who can guarantee they will not condemn this or that Party next time. Also, is it permissible for other Parties to condemn Soviet Party when they come to attend their Conference. If everybody is going to follow the same method as followed by CPSU in this Congress, just because it thinks a particular Party has committed mistake, then where is the guarantee of solidarity.
“Is this in conformity with Leninism and Moscow Declaration? What more could be done to discredit the movement? Our delegation is unhappy over it, not because it would create difficulties for People’s Republic of China alone but because it would harm the common cause. As the Indian delegation knows, the Chinese Party was attacked at Bucharest and at Moscow Conferences, but this did no harm to a single hair on our body. Here we are worried because of other reasons.”
“So much on consequences. If they continue like that, what, will happen to Soviet-Albanian relations. Just imagine if imperialism attacks Albania because differences are exposed, can this do any good to anybody. Will this not be condemned by history?”
“There is another possibility. It may be there are people who believe that by exerting pressure they can remove Com. Enver Hoxha and Sheikhu from the leadership. Suppose for a moment that they succeed. Will it not be vicious? It will create a precedent that one Party or a group of Parties can change-leadership of another Party and put anti-leadership people into power. If so where is the spirit of Moscow Declaration.
“We have been advising both the Parties to exercise restraint in their relations and solve the differences in atmosphere of mutual respect. We have not yet given up hope, whether we succeed or not, let us see.”
“In his concluding speech, Com. Khrushchov remarked that if the Chinese Party is willing it can help If he means. what he says, we ask a question – Has he left any room for Chinese party to act.”
“Is it better to have 12 or 11 Socialist countries?”
In connection with Soviet-Albanian relations, CPSU prepared a lengthy note for information of the fraternal delegates. Summary of its important points is attached herewith.
When our delegation returned from Leningrad in the morning, we learnt that the previous evening a resolution had been passed in the Congress calling upon the Government to remove the body of Com. Stalin lying by the side of Com. Lenin. At that time, we were ignorant as to what they proposed to do with the body of Com. Stalin. We had a discussion and all except Dr. Ahmed came to the conclusion that Com. Ajoy should convey to the Soviet leaders, that Com. Stalin’s body should not be buried or destroyed as it would be resented by the people in general, and if they have decided to remove it from there, as it cannot be placed equal to. Com. Lenin, then they should preserve it in some other Mausoleum. But as we came to the Congress Hall, we were informed that the body had already been buried besides the Kremlin Wall.
Our Delegation also decided to convey it through Com. Ghosh to the
Soviet- leaders that the manner in which they have dealt with, the
Soviet- Albanian relations is not proper.
C.C. of the C.P.S.U. prepared a note for information to the fraternal delegates regarding Soviet-Albanian Party disputes. The main contents read out to us are as below:
C.C. of the CPSU addressed a letter to the delegates of Moscow Conference on Dec. 1, 1960. This letter gives evaluation of the Conference and regrets the stand taken and speech delivered by Enver Hoxha, Albanian Party leader.
It contained unsubstantiated attack on Soviet and other Parties. They try to force a discussion not in accord with the principles of Marxism and fraternal relations. It was natural that it was condemned by over-whelming majority.
CPSU did not deem it necessary to reply these allegations – Deliberate omission in N.S. Khrushchov’s speech of Nov. 23rd 1960.
If Albanian leaders really want friendship they must not resort to such methods.
The letter also deals with the history of relations between these two Parties. Relations were friendly till recently. A Conference was held in 1957 between the representatives of two parties and a communique was issued. It stated, “negotiations held in atmosphere of friendship ... Unity of views in all matters…”
The same was registered in May, 1959, when Soviet Party and Govt. delegations visited Albania, headed by N.S. Khrushchov. It was stated in the communique issued:
The Soviet Union has rendered and, trained cadres for building socialism. CPSU always held that Albania be aided more in order to set an example to Muslim countries how Albania following socialism and aided by Socialist countries is able to raise its standard. Com. N.S. Khrushchov emphasized the significance of prosperous Albania.
Soviet Union advanced credits more than one billion rubles. In April 1957, wiped off past arrears of debts amounting to 422 million rubles.
In addition Soviet Union transferred: as a gift all industrial establishments built in Albania. Also helped in finding oil. Although quality of oil found was low, even then Soviet Union agreed to purchase it.
From 1951-60, 3027 Soviet specialists visited Albania. It also helped Albania in building defence. Provided 50 percent foodstuffs and equipment to Army free.
It played a great role in turning backward Albania in to agrarian- industrial country.
In his speech at 21st Congress, Enver Hoxha stated “Our profound gratitude for all Soviet Union has done for Albanian people.”
Later on in one of his speeches, E. Hoxha stated that June I960 Conference was convened unexpectedly. It is not true as proved by correspondence between Socialist countries.
In a letter in June 1960 Soviet Union asked for the possibility of holding a conference at Bucharest to discuss political issues. All Parties including Albanian agreed.
On June 7, 1960 CPSU wrote a letter that all Parties of Socialist countries have agreed to it. It is known that 50 Parties participated, and a Communique is signed by all. Nevertheless, Com. Enver Hoxha says that this Conference was one sided and does not express collective opinion.
In view of the fact that differences had arisen CPSU made efforts to improve relations.
CPSU addressed a letter in Aug. 1960 to Albanian leaders to come to Soviet Union to take rest and have talks. But they rejected invitation in view of the forthcoming Party Congress of Albanian Party.
Again on Aug. 30, 1960, CPSU sent another letter saying “we deem it necessary that the Albanian Party of Labour and CPSU should reach unanimity at the forthcoming Moscow Conference. It would be correct to extinguish the fire till it grows into flames. That is why we should have talks before the Conference. If it is agreed we would like to meet your delegation.”
This proposal was also rejected. As an excuse they said in a reply, “Marxism also teaches that if two Parties start negotiations among themselves which would aim at criticism of general line of any other Party that would be against principles of Marxism-Leninism.”
Baselessness of this argument is proved by the fact that we did not suggest discussions of any line but to iron out the misunderstanding that had arisen between two Parties.
Later on Albanian Party of Labour started accusing Soviet diplomats of interference in internal affairs of Albania.
It was in those days that CPSU started receiving letter regarding changed attitude towards Soviet citizens in Albania.
They levelled unfounded allegations against C.C. of C.P.S.U.
The First Secretary of one of the District Party Committees of Albania in his talks-with Soviet citizens stated that the line adopted by CPSU on Yugoslavia is opportunistic.
There was arrogant attitude towards Soviet Military personnel.
There were some accusations in relation to Soviet Policy of War & Peace.
For example, Balucar, Albanian Defence Minister stated that Soviet policy was not sufficiently firm. He told a Soviet officer that Khrushchov said that we will blow U.S. and other bases if more American flights on Soviet territory but when U.S. again violated the space, there was no retaliation.
How can one evaluate such statement. If these words were not said by a Defence Minister of a friendly country, it would be considered as a provocation, meant, for pushing us into war.
He wanted to show that Soviet Govt. does not follow its words with deeds. Despite all this, CPSU continued its efforts.
On Nov.10, 1960, CPSU delegated Com. Mikoyan, Kozlov, Suslov and others to go to see Albanian comrades staying in Moscow. A meeting did take place but without any results.
Com. Mikoyan & Kozlov again met them and had lengthy talks. Then on Nov.12, Com. Khrushchov expressed a desire to meet them. A meeting took place. Com. Khrushchov, Mikoyan and others of CPSU. and Com. Enver Hoxha, Sheikhu, Kapo and others from Albania participated. At that meeting Albanian comrades conducted arrogantly. It. showed that they had no desire to iron out differences and in the middle of the discussion, they walked out.
CPSU again made efforts to meet them. On Nov.14 1960 another letter was sent to them.
Albanian comrades did not reply till Nov. 21 and met on Nov. 25. Enver Hoxha had left for Albania at that time but, Sheikhu and Kapo met Mikoyan and Kozlov.
At that meeting Albanian comrades did not show any desire to improve relations. We told them that after Bucharest we have uttered no word against you whereas in Albania systematic campaign is conducted against us. We also told that there can be misunderstanding but it can be solved.
They accused us of applying pressure upon them. It was obvious that they do not intend to improve relations.
To sum up, all our attempts to improve our relations with them failed.
1. Liri Belishova: A PB member removed from that position and also of Parliament membership. Her husband, Chomo, Minister of Agriculture also deprived of his post. It was towards the end of 1960.
Their sole guilt was that they supported the line of CPSU and Soviet Govt.
2. Koch Tashco, Chairman, CentralAuditing Party Committee, a veteran Communist who was sentenced to death before liberation, was removed from his position because he called upon Albanian leadership not to worsen relations with Soviet Union. He was expelled from the Party, expelled from Tirana with family and his son studying in Moscow recalled.
These facts resemble the deeds of Yugoslav leadership, earlier. (The
document enumerates some detailed history of relations with
Enver Hoxha stated that at difficult times Soviet Union refused to send wheat loan ...
It is wrong. He is silent to state that it is the Soviet Union which supplied them all the grains. In 1960, Soviet Union honoured its commitment ahead of time, i.e. by September 5th.
In his speech Enver Hoxha alleged that Soviet Union supports agents of Tito. Indeed some time ago CPSU sent a letter to Albanian comrades trying to find out what had happens to a P.B.M, Liri Goga, who was condemned of high treason of spying for Yugoslavia. We asked the Albanian comrades not to execute a woman who was pregnant. Even Czar did not hang pregnant women. It would be impermissible in a Socialist country. We warned the Albanian comrades about the mistakes which would discredit the whole socialist world. Unfortunately they did not heed to it and executed her some times during 1960, some months before the Bucharest Conference. (The letter is silent whether CPSU believed she was guilty or not.)
Poliako another comrade fled to Yugoslavia in 1957 and from there sent a letter to CPSU why he had fled. CPSU immediately informed the Albanian comrades about this letter.
Enver HOXHA was in Moscow at that time. Copy was given to him. – The matter was dropped at that time; But later on, he wanted to raise it again. The comrade had applied for asylum in USSR but he was not granted.
This is how the letter: to delegates sums up.-
Source: Kamgar Prakashan Library.
1. Enver Hoxha, The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern
Revisionism, Speeches and Articles, The Naim Frasheri Publishing House,
Tirana 1972, p. 76-7.
Click here to return to the April 2017 index.