:: Nihal Singh

Only a revolt from within can save CPM from itself

S. Nihal Singh

Augest.21 : The Indian Communist movement, outside the extreme factions in Maoist ranks, is in a crisis. It has been long in the making but its acuteness has been highlighted by the venerable Amartya Sen, with a Nobel Prize under his belt, setting the cat among the pigeons by chiding the Left parties in India for losing their way.

Dr Sen, who confesses to his sympathies for the Left, made the central point in promoting his new book on justice that the Communist parties had been going on about the evils of American policies and the Indo-US nuclear deal at the expense of seeking social justice and food for the poor and the underprivileged. In his words, "I was disappointed with the Left for not focusing on issues that are central issues of social justice, focusing much more on India’s sovereignty and that kind of question".

Prakash Karat, the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) general-secretary, retorted in his party’s periodical that the Left could not play as "a sort of Left-wing of the Congress Party" and that domestic issues were linked to the "depredations of global finance capital", that American neo-liberal policies had their impact on the domestic economic agenda. It was a weak response.

The truth is that while European Communist parties have re-invented themselves and the Chinese Communists have become avid capitalists using their ideology to justify a one-party regime, Indian Communists are still singing from the early 20th century hymn sheet. The Marxists still venerate Stalin, who is given pride of place in their pantheon of Gods, and the party’s ideology has not changed in a long while. They have, in addition, earned the sobriquet of being arrogant and losing touch with ground reality from their junior partner, the Communist Party of India (CPI).

The recent introspective sessions of the Marxists did not provide an answer because the main party functionaries are merely skirting round the narrow issues of losing seats in the last election — their internal quarrels are no secret. They did not address the basic issues because the party leadership is simply not equipped or prepared to discuss them. The split in the mainstream Indian Communist parties in the 1960s came about because of the schism in the international movement symbolised by the Sino-Soviet confrontation and accentuated by the Sino-Indian border war of 1962. The CPI turned to Moscow and the CPI(M) leaned towards China while claiming to be non-aligned.

The Communist parties did contribute to the Indian polity by making their mark on the two large states of West Bengal and Kerala, in addition to Tripura. They made their presence felt by undertaking meaningful land reforms and unionising labour and through other progressive steps in the socio-economic sphere. But the Bengal experiment deteriorated into using land to buttress the party structure to the detriment of good governance, and in the urban areas party thugs served the purpose of enforcing party loyalties. In Kerala, union leaders and their followers became a law unto themselves and the party could not resist being sucked into the atomised religion and caste-based politics of a state increasingly ruled by coalitions balancing various factions with party labels.

In West Bengal, chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee sought to take the party from its traditional land-based support in the rural areas to an increasingly industry-based society on the valid argument that overcrowded farm land alone could not provide employment to the army of urban youth. But he failed in the implementation of the iconic Tata Nano car deal because he botched up on its implementation, the party relying on its thugs to enforce land sales on unwilling farmers. And the Opposition Trinamul Congress was waiting in the wings to exploit precisely such an opportunity. The Marxists lost face and the car deal — and votes in the bargain.

Mr Bhattarcharjee must be given credit for seeking a Chinese way out of the Communist cul de sac — in effect, retaining the jargon of the Communist holy grail while following pragmatic policies. The fact that he got Mr Karat, with his Stalinist reputation, to acquiesce in his experiment at industrialisation was an achievement. The tragedy for the Communist movement was that he failed.

Where do the Indian Communist parties go from here? Inevitably, the focus has shifted to personalities. Can the CPI(M), the dominant Communist party, chart a radical new course with Mr Karat at the helm? He is often contrasted with the ostensibly more pragmatic Sitaram Yechury. In other words, can the party’s collective leadership make a clean break with the familiar mumbo-jumbo of Communist lore?

Mr Bhattacharjee seems to be the only candidate who could give a new direction to the CPI(M) to lead it out of the woods. But his immediate task of saving the party’s government in the next state Assembly election might be more urgent. The Trinamul Congress is riding on a wave and its leader, Mamata Banerjee, already smells success. After its unbroken rule of more than three decades, the CPI(M) might benefit from being in the Opposition for a change.

Dr Sen hit a sensitive nerve of the CPI(M) leadership. It is so much easier railing at American imperialism than in getting to grips with the more difficult task of bringing justice and employment to the poor and the needy. The party in West Bengal has also become prey to the universal aphorism of the corrupting influence of absolute power. And in Kerala, where a CPI(M)-led coalition has been alternating in power with a Congress-led dispensation, the party has become one more factional entity among others.

Given the hold of the traditional leadership, prospects of a radical change in the CPI(M) look distant. If the present leaders, barring Mr Bhattacharjee, do not have it in them to think outside their jargon-cluttered formulations, the party must await a rebellion in its ranks among younger freethinking men and women to heed Dr Sen’s admonitions.

In the early years of Independence, Jawaharlal Nehru made the party’s socialists wing irrelevant by donning its garb. Sonia Gandhi’s Congress is repeating the same experiment by following its brand of inclusive politics.