Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box

Syndicate

India: CPI (M) -- Reconciling `anti-imperialist' rhetoric with `neoliberal constraints'

Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist (Liberation)

March 5, 2008 -- The draft political resolution released by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) for its 19th Congress provides quite a revealing commentary on the opportunist political trajectory of the party. The resolution is characteristically elaborate about the description of the international and national situation. But when it comes to spelling out the concrete positions and role of the party, the resolution is rather vague and evasive. And as for the debate that the party now increasingly faces in its own circles, the resolution dismisses everything as a big anti-CPI(M) conspiracy!

The draft resolution devotes several paragraphs to the global economic situation under imperialist globalisation and the US-led ``war on terror''. It calls for a mighty worldwide anti-imperialist resistance that combines both anti-war and anti-globalisation sentiments and struggles on a global scale. But what task does the CPI(M) derive for itself from this global analysis and advocacy? The answer sounds pretty innocent -– ``rousing the anti-imperialist sentiments of the Indian people and mounting pressure on the Indian government to pursue a steadfast role in promoting multipolarity, defending sovereignty of nations and the non-aligned movement''.

Let us probe a little deeper. The CPI(M) resolution quite correctly identifies imperialist globalisation and the global war on terror as the two principal prongs of the global offensive spearheaded by US imperialism. Now, where do the Indian ruling classes stand in relation to these key components of the imperialist agenda? There can be no denying the fact that in both economic and foreign policy spheres the Indian ruling classes are moving towards ever closer integration with imperialism in general and US imperialism in particular. And this integration is increasingly assuming a strategic and military dimension as well. This policy course has remained unchanged through all the periodic changes of governments over the last two decades and the United Progressive Alliance [UPA - led by the Congress party] government has officially embarked on a course of strategic partnership with the US. Yet the CPI(M) resolution talks of mounting pressure on the Indian government to promote ``the non-aligned movement''!

The CPI(M) never offered any serious opposition to the Indo-US strategic partnership. The official announcement regarding the partnership was made during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's US visit in July 2005. ``Non-aligned'' India also voted duly with the US against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), not once but twice. The CPI(M) did nothing ``commensurate with its strength and stature'' except making some noise in the media. It was only when negotiations over the nuclear deal entered the near-final stage that the CPI(M) stepped up its opposition. That too was diluted in the wake of Nandigram and the government was allowed to proceed with the ``nuclear safeguard'' negotiations in the IAEA. While the UPA government binds India into ever closer strategic integration with the US, the CPI(M) voices only piecemeal opposition from time to time. So much for the CPI(M)'s claimed contribution to the anti-imperialist consciousness of the Indian people.

What about the CPI(M)’s role in ``resisting'' imperialist globalisation? Its governments in West Bengal and Kerala are now routinely borrowing funds and ``vision'' from imperialist funding agencies and consultancy firms. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Department for International Development (DFID), McKinsey are not only well-known names in the CPI(M)-ruled states but they are increasingly the last word in the CPI(M)'s new-found discourse of ``development''. Regarding the economic direction to be pursued by the Left Front government of West Bengal, the draft resolution calls upon the government to maintain a careful balance without accepting wholesale privatisation in all economic and social spheres. How is this talk of ``careful balance'' and moderated, calibrated privatisation any different from the economic policy advocated by governments of other hues in other states or at the Centre?

`Slowing down' reforms

The CPI (M) resolution claims credit for ``slowing down'' the pace of neoliberal reforms. Insofar as neoliberal policies have to co-exist in India with a parliamentary democratic framework and the ruling classes have to renew their license every five years, an element of moderation or cautious calibration is built into the very scheme of things. The credit for slowing down of reforms should go to the popular protests that are building up against the predatory policies of the government and it is no secret that in CPI(M)-ruled states such protests have to face stiff resistance from the party and the government.

Let us take some recent examples. The SEZ (special economic zones) Act was passed unanimously in Parliament in 2005. The CPI(M) owes an answer to the people of India why its 40-plus MPs voted in favour of the Act; or for that matter, under what ``compulsion'' its model government in West Bengal had to anticipate the Central Act with its own 2003 version of the same land-grabbing legislation. If the UPA government has now been forced to introduce some elements of ``moderation'', it has been in the wake of the people’s resistance at Nandigram [peasants resisting land acquisition have been brutally suppressed by the CPI(M)'s West Bengal government] and popular mobilisation against SEZs elsewhere in the country.

And the whole country knows what role the CPI(M) has played at Nandigram -– it has only perpetrated and patronised massacres at regular intervals in a desperate bid to thwart the resistance of the people. Likewise, if there is now talk of amending the Land Acquisition Act 1894, it is all because of the debate that has been generated by what has happened at Kalinganagar and Singur. It is indeed strange that a party that fraudulently uses an arbitrary law like the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to acquire one thousand acres of fertile land for monopoly capital should wax eloquent about the need for ``amending and updating'' this antiquated legislation! We know how CPI(M) ideologues rationalise this hypocrisy. To them it is simply a case of ``distinction'' between a state government operating under ``neoliberal constraints'' and a communist party applying its ``freedom of expression'', and if we are not able to grasp this distinction we are guilty of ``inversion of reason''!

``Liberalism'' in economics is always complemented by illiberalism in governance. The deepening of neoliberal reforms in almost every sector of the economy has been matched by a proliferation of special legislation of control to incriminate every form of public dissent and protest. The so-called ``national security'' doctrine of the UPA government is fast degenerating into a gospel of unmitigated state repression and systematic truncation of democracy. The CPI(M)'s critique of neoliberalism is remarkably reticent, if not silent, about this growing danger.

Even when it comes to the demand for repeal of the most draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the CPI(M) merely advocates replacing it ``with a suitable law which can enable the army to be deployed in disturbed areas to combat insurgency that will do away with the draconian features of the existing law!''. Obviously, one will look in vain for any word of criticism in the CPI(M) document regarding the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act that has incorporated several features of the Prevention of Terrorism Act or draconian state laws like the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act which is being invoked by the BJP [Hindu-chauvinist Bharatiya Janata Party] government in the state to trample upon press freedom and civil liberties. The CPI(M)'s opposition to the BJP revolves only around the issue of communalism, with very little attention paid to the fundamental question of democracy.

For the last four years the CPI(M) has been actively associated with a government at the Centre. How does the CPI(M) describe its association? The CPI(M) is a signatory to the Common Minimum Programme which is the ruling UPA's commonly drafted and commonly monitored manifesto of governance. Yet the CPI(M) would have us believe that its association with the government is only selective. In fact while it claims credit for legislation on rural employment guarantee (will the CPI(M) tell us if it has been instrumental for the NREGA, why the rural poor in CPI(M)-ruled states have not even got ten days' employment a year instead of the assured 100 days?), right to information and prevention of domestic violence, and for the presumed slowing down of reforms, it blames the Congress [Party] for everything neoliberal and pro-imperialist in UPA policies! Whatever may be the CPI(M)'s formula for apportioning credit and blame, the fact remains that the CPI(M) cannot hide its actual status as a participant and major stakeholder in the UPA government.

The draft resolution boldly rules out any alliance or united front with the Congress Party. In state after state the CPI(M) enters into electoral adjustments with Congress (Gujarat was the most recent example), and at the Centre the CPI(M) underwrites a Congress-led coalition government, albeit without any ministerial portfolio. The resolution would like us to believe that it is a one-way relationship where the Congress depends on the CPI(M) with the latter remaining completely independent! [CPI(M) Chief Minister of West Bengal] Jyoti Basu was clearly closer to the truth when he had once famously described this relationship as one of mutual interdependence. The CPI(M) has no problem with sharing a common minimum program of governance with the Congress and with having seat adjustments wherever possible, yet it claims to be steering clear of any ``united front'' with the Congress.

With Lok Sabha [national parliamentary] elections approaching, the CPI(M) will of course now be more in the denial mode regarding its relations with the Congress. A typical expression of this denial mode is the renewed advocacy of a third alternative. The notion of the third front would come in handy particularly in states like Andhra Pradesh and Assam where the CPI(M) may well seek electoral adjustments with regional parties like the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Assam Gan Parishad (AGP). Never mind if the CPI(M) had teamed up with the Congress against the TDP in the last Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh –- the draft resolution describes the TDP as a regional party that seeks cooperation with the Left! In a way the draft resolution marks a near-complete liberalisation of the CPI(M)'s political line where ideology, elections and governance are neatly compartmentalised. Phrases like ``left and democratic unity'' and ``third front'' are used more for ideological posturing and political consumption while policies regarding electoral adjustment and governance are sought to be rationalised in the name of ``neoliberal constraints'' and ``constitutional compulsions''!

`Ruling classes, right-wing reactionaries and the ultra-Left'

The draft resolution calls upon the entire party to ``defend the Left-led governments from the attacks coming from the ruling classes, right-wing reactionaries and the ultra-Left.'' The call must be read in the context of the countrywide opposition and criticism that the CPI(M) has had to face following the forcible land acquisition at Singur and the massacres at Nandigram. Now this opposition has come primarily from the affected and aggrieved people of Singur and Nandigram which in turn has found widespread support from the broad democratic opinion not only in West Bengal but in every corner of the country. In the case of Nandigram, the local people who opposed the West Bengal government's move to set up a chemical hub were all long-standing supporters and activists of the CPI(M) itself. But a rattled CPI(M) establishment could not tolerate this unexpected resistance from within its own base and responded with a series of massacres.

The violence naturally evoked all-round condemnation. Yet instead of paying any heed to the voice of protest senior CPI(M) leaders took it upon themselves to justify the killings –- following the third massacre in November 2007 the Chief Minister openly said that trouble-makers had been ``paid back in their own coin'' -– while heaping scorn and ridicule on whoever condemned the killings and questioned the CPI(M)'s discourse of corporate-led ``industrialisation'' and neoliberal ``development''. Even a thoroughly partisan Prabhat Patnaik who had questioned the neoliberal direction of West Bengal was dismissed by the Chief Minister as an armchair economist devoid of any connection with reality! An eminent Marxist historian became an enemy of the people in the eyes of Prakash Karat simply because he had drawn a parallel between Gujarat and Nandigram! This paranoid arrogance has now been made party policy in the draft resolution.

The CPI(M) may club the ruling classes, rightwing reactionaries and the revolutionary left (ultra-left in its vocabulary) as its common enemy. This does not however prevent the CPI(M) from doing brisk business with significant sections of the ruling classes and their oldest political party, the Congress!

In sharp contrast to this arrogant sectarianism of the CPI(M), the revolutionary left knows how to distinguish between the ruling classes and the opportunist left. The CPI(ML) has serious differences with both the CPI(M) and the self-styled Maoists, but it never subscribes to the anti-communist tirade of the ruling classes and their ideologues. Inside West Bengal, the CPI(ML) has been the only party to have always maintained its independence and demarcation from the entire spectrum of right-wing forces, working consistently for a left and democratic alternative. The misdeeds and arrogance of the CPI(M) are providing a fertile ground for the right and the CPI(ML) is there to counter this process in the best interests of the left movement. The CPI(ML) does not have to indulge in any exercise to malign the CPI(M), but it is certainly the political responsibility of the CPI(ML) to counter the negative impact of the CPI(M)'s utterly indefensible acts like Singur and Nandigram. And this is not a separate task for the CPI(ML), but only an integral part of its overall mission: ``people’s resistance, left resurgence''.

[The CPI (ML) Liberation's web sites are mlint.wordpress.com and www.cpiml.org .]

Comments

Sat, 05/03/2008 - 17:39 — normd

CPI (Marxist) 19th Congress: `not double standards, dialectics!'

From the May 2008 edition of Liberation, magazine of the CPI (ML) Liberation.

http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2008/may/cpim_19congress.html

CPI (Marxist) 19th Congress

“Why, it’s not double standards, comrades, it’s dialectics!”

By Arindam Sen

How do we explain opposing Tata in Kalinganagar and welcoming him in Singur? How do we oppose globalisation and imperialist capital in other areas of the country while endorsing both in West Bengal? It was in response to many such doubts aired by some delegates to the 19th all India congress of CPI(M) that the above remark was made by one of the most visible and articulate leaders of the party. To what extent this ingenious application of Marxist philosophy enthralled his audience is anybody’s guess. Very interestingly, in a post-congress exclusive interview, a pro-party magazine like Frontline questioned the re-elected general secretary about the opinion that the “policy framework being given to the party-led State governments would be at variance with the national policy perspectives of the CPI(M) congress with regard to liberalisation”. This did indicate something, and Karat was further asked, “Would not this lead to a kind of confusion among the CPI(M) cadre?”
At the top of confusions and debates, however, it was West Bengal which really stole the show at the 19th congress. Bengal leaders dominated the cut-outs marking the Coimbatore skyline. The biggest attraction of the inaugural session was a video-recorded speech of the leader who had laid the foundation of today’s much-hyped Bengal model of industrialisation. Who could forget the tenacity with which the then octogenarian Jyoti Basu used to trot the globe in the 90s in quest of capital, never minding the meagre success he would score? He has been the only communist in history whom a host of bourgeois parties wished to see as Prime Minister of India. Even to this day he most religiously maintains a fine equilibrium of what he famously termed “mutual interdependence” with the Congress, allowing his colleagues to safely engage in occasional outbursts of anti-Congress and anti-Centre rhetoric without any jolt to the time-tested friendship. No wonder, then, that though he was not in a position to physically attend the congress, his personality and his politics were very much present there. It was for him alone that the post of “permanent invitee” was created in the Politburo -- another first in the annals of the party.
Following the inaugural session, eulogisation of Brand Buddha dominated the proceedings. A congress document supported the economic policy of the West Bengal government in great detail, project by project. This was only to be expected, because development of that policy has always been a joint endeavour of Bengal leaders and the party centre. As far back as in the party’s 12th Congress in 1985, BTR (yes, the same BT Ranadive who as the General Secretary of the undivided CPI in 1948 had sought to plunge the entire party into an adventurous insurrection to overthrow the rule of capital represented by the Nehru government) came down heavily against opponents of state-private joint ventures, helping Chief Minister Jyoti Basu take a big stride forward in his drive for industrialisation. From then onwards, top leaders including General Secretaries have offered all assistance and guidance to the process of continual rightward drift in the Left Front Government’s economic policies. Joint ventures, or what we would call PPPs today, proved to be a transitional step towards privatisation and then the neoliberal industrial policy document of 1994. Through all such steps right up to the West Bengal SEZ Act of 2003 and the current craze of corporate industrialisation, the central leaders stood solidly behind the Bengal leadership, providing theoretical justification to whatsoever the latter did, or wished to do. In 2005, for instance, the 18th Congress opened up the gates to foreign investment. By and by it became clear to all that there was actually no such thing as Kolkata line versus Delhi line. The Bengal line was and is the central line. To be more accurate, the Bengal practice has always been the motive force in the evolution of the all India political perspective. (In this congress too, the party adopted a policy document that further liberalised the economic policies of state governments run by it.) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury made this amply clear in Coimbatore when he said, “What is happening in Bengal is not anti-liberalisation. We are open to foreign capital. Whatever we are doing in Bengal, we are asking Manmohan Singh to do for India”.
Focusing the spotlight on Bengal and its Chief Minister was a carefully considered political decision. BB is obviously the brightest poster boy of the new-look CPI(M). It is he who best represents the aggressive version of social democracy which works directly and violently for big capital and against peasants and workers while still carrying the red flag. Highlighting him is the party’s way to project its own brand of neoliberal developmentalism as the best selling point to improve the stakes in the corridors of power at the central as well as state levels.
And this was also necessary to send the proper signals to the lords of capital in India and abroad. To be sure, they do rely on the likes of Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, P Chidambaram -- and their counterparts in the BJP -- for managing their affairs in India. But when it comes to marketing the economic philosophy of liberalisation-globalisation, their best bait after the fall of the ‘computer savvy’ Chandrababu Naidu is the ‘pragmatic communist’ BB. Long ago GD Birla advised his class colleagues: rather than forming our own “capitalist party”, let someone who has abdicated all property speak for us. The allusion was clearly to the “Mahatma” in loincloth. Today Buddhadeb and his party enjoy far greater credibility than Congress, BJP and others in speaking for Tatas and Salims, for World Bank and Wal-Mart. Certainly the latter would feel reassured when they see their brand ambassador being accorded the highest prominence in the all India meet.
But how about the bad name earned in Singur and Nandigram? Well, it was precisely for the purpose of covering up the stigma that a high level of praise was considered necessary. Of course, the customary one-line self-criticism was also there: a political and administrative mistake has been committed in Nandigram. The General Secretary conceded that Nandigram had supplied the anti-left forces throughout the country with a suitable handle for criticism. Singur was not forgotten either. A formal caveat was pronounced: it is better to spare agricultural land for industrialisation unless absolutely necessary. For the rest, it was declared that SEZs are fine -- though not so many and so big as contemplated by the centre -- and land acquisition by the state government on behalf of industrialists but “in the interests of peasants” will go on. Not all delegates were satisfied with this, though. A few from Maharashtra reportedly voted against a resolution that endorsed the concept and practice of SEZs.
For all the greatness thrust on him, however, the Chief Minister of West Bengal had a tough time facing a number of embarrassing questions too, from mediapersons as well as delegates. If there is so much of development, why does the state continue to be a laggard in areas like education and health services? The inevitable comparison with Kerala also came up. Buddhadeb apparently could not summon the courage to speak the truth and say that he had been too preoccupied with taking good care of his capitalist friends to look after these small matters. What he tried to say instead, not very convincingly, was something like this: yes we must do better... in Kerala, you see, the Christian missionaries set up many schools...
You say you are opposed to the centre’s “mad” rush after unnecessarily big SEZs -- asked some journalists -- why did you not move any amendments to the SEZ bill when it was moved in parliament? BB was clearly on the defensive: in fact we could not measure up the full implications at the time. You say you won’t allow foreign firms into the retail sector, but what do you do when Wal-Mart seeks entry in joint ventures with Bharthi? We are thinking over that, came the evasive answer.
But Buddhadeb is not given to wasting time in empty thoughts. He made it a point to go and meet the industrialists of Coimbatore. Come to our state, he said, you will get cheap and abundant land, electricity, labour -- you name it, we have it. But labour unrest? Don’t worry, now it is all quiet on that front, replied the confident Chief Minister. Incidentally Coimbatore itself has lately witnessed mighty and continuing waves of workers’ struggles led by the CPI (ML); naturally it did not occur to him or to other leaders to go and meet these workers.
But does it look good if the number one “Left” leader of Bengal comes to be known only as a friend of capitalists, a close confidant of Manmohan Singh and “Pranabda”? It does not. His predecessor in the CM’s chair used to do all these things, but that did not prevent him from waxing eloquent on the need to restructure centre state relations, moving resolutions on this topic in party congresses, and taking the lead in the “conclave politics” of opposition unity. Now BB is being groomed for that role too. This time around it was he who moved the resolution on restructuring of centre-state relations. With elections approaching, the party seems to be all set to project him as a firebrand “national leader” from Bengal.
With West Bengal occupying the pride of place in the 19th congress, all eyes were fixed on the new members of Politburo from this state. The election of veteran CITU leader Mohammad Amin in a position left vacant after the death of CITU General Secretary Chittabrata Mazumdar may have been more of a routine affair. But the election of Nirupam Sen from among a group of likely names was politically quite significant. Even as it embraces neoliberal developmentalism as its political mantra, the CPI(M) still needs to explain all the drift in Marxist terms, to try and show that some sort of left alternative is being put in place by the state governments run by it. Leaders like Jyoti Basu and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya have never been great experts here; at the state level the job used to be done mainly by Anil Biswas. Erstwhile editor of the party’s Bengali newspaper Ganashakti and then Secretary of West Bengal state committee, he worked out a theory of “development as a form of class struggle”, later fine-tuned as “development and struggle”, for the purpose. Prominent among those who assisted him in this work was Nirupam Sen. After the departure of Biswas, Sen took up the main responsibility. And that not only in theory but also in practice, he being the Minister in charge of industries, commerce and development. His election to the PB is therefore seen as a further endorsement of the political line he best articulates. And after the congress the first job the new PB member took upon himself was to fly off to Germany -- not to pay tributes to Karl Marx, but to invite German capital to the state. So far, so good.
But is everything going well in the party’s Bengal bastion? Not exactly, according to reports placed in the party congress. The proportion of Muslim members in the party is decreasing in Bengal and elsewhere, says the organisational report. What it does not say is that the alienation is a very normal outcome of the Advani-like steps and statements (on madarsas, or the treatment meted out to Rizwanur, for example) on the part of BB and his government. In recent times the latter have taken many a measure like appeasing Muslim fundamentalism on the Taslima Nasreen issue and announcing sops for the Muslim masses just ahead of the panchayat polls. But results are yet to show up.
Then again, the proportion of women in the party membership on the national level remains at a poor 12 per cent, and a poorer 10.5 per cent in West Bengal. The party does not, of course, admit that this has anything to do with the absolute immobility of its women’s wing and the callous attitude of the party and government in the face of growing violence on women, frequently with CPI(M) activists involved in such cases.
However, the number of party members is generally on the rise in this state too. That this growth represents more of an attraction for power and privileges and less of an urge to serve the people is well known and even recognized by the leaders. What the latter are particularly perturbed over is the fact that many comrades are refusing to renew their membership. The media uses the derogatory term “drop-outs” to describe them, but they are the ones who have still some ideological commitment left with them. They have tolerated the party’s continuing degeneration all these years out of sheer loyalty to the cause, but cannot any longer. In them the party is thus losing whatever remained of its most precious resource. Moreover, in West Bengal the process had started much earlier than in other states. While the current rate of non-renewal is only 3.5 per cent, the cumulative absolute number in West Bengal is therefore quite large. With the growing shortage of sincere and efficient workers, the party is steadily losing its skill in “managing” various social and class conflicts and thereby retaining all sections of the vote bank. This naturally leads to growing reliance on muscle power and higher incidence of corruption and bureaucratic tendencies. It has been also reported that behind the electoral successes lurk some worrying changes in the vote bank. This again was only to be expected because changes in political policies were bound to be reflected in shifts in the party’s social base sooner or later.

In view of all this the 19th Congress has issued the call of yet another campaign to rectify mistakes at lower levels throughout the country. Once again this is only a ritual, an exercise in self-deception. With fundamental ideological problems originating at the top and flowing downwards, such an endeavour is bound to prove as futile as on earlier occasions. When the Gangotri remains heavily contaminated, what is the use of trying to clean up the Ganga at the lower reaches?

parent
reply