A brief history of course corrections
The communist movement in India is almost a century old now. Over time there have been many course corrections and a lot more policy changes. The reason behind the successful survival of the communist movement is simple, it has been flexible enough to formulate its course of policies according to the concrete analysis of the surrounding socio-economic conditions. If we trace the history a little, we can find plenty of evidences.
It was the Colonial Thesis of Lenin on the ambivalent character of the bourgeois nationalist movements that urged the Indian communists to support the bourgeois democratic movements through temporary alliance, which was contested by M N Roy's formulation that there are fundamental contradictions existing between the interests of bourgeois nationalists and those of the masses. The fourth and the fifth Cominterns rejected Roy's thesis, and formulated the thesis on anti-imperialist united front, with particular emphasis on the role of peasantry. The sixth Comintern provided a twist to the above stating, the national bourgeoisie as a whole class had to be supported, as well as, exposed, corresponding to its dual role of contradiction, as well as, colluding with the imperialism. Stalin suggested the Indian communists to fight against the compromising wing of the national bourgeois which has struck a deal with imperialism and together collaborate with the revolutionary block of the bourgeois. This above shift was in the view of the compromising stance of Gandhi on Chauri-Chaura.
The Platform of Action (1930) by the Indian Communists published in the Imprecor smacked of a sectarian attitude by identifying the "Left" elements of Congress like 'Nehru, Bose, Ginwala and others' as the most harmful and dangerous obstacle to the victory of the Indian revolution, urging a ruthless war against them. By 1934 there was a course correction by the Indian communists, though the damage was already done. The Naxalite sectarian attitude during late 1960s of identifying the CPI-Marxist as the obstacle towards revolution in India seems to be too similar. Some strains of Naxalites like the CPI-Maoists are still to correct their political course it seems, and continue to kill the hundreds of poor peasants in Bengal just because they are supporter of CPI-Marxist, specially in Bengal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh.
Ultimately it was the praxis, the reality around the communists which led towards correct theorization. The statement by the 18 communist leaders of the Meerut Conspiracy case rectified few left sectarian mistakes, the Provisional Central Committee of 1933 rectified a few more facing the stark reality. Dutt-Bradley thesis published in the Imprecor on anti-imperialist people's front followed in 1936, and finally links with the national movements were forged. At the same time mass fronts like AISF, AIKS and Progressive Writers' Association were formed leading to broadest possible participation in the mass movements. There was a merger of the trade unions in 1938 between NFTU and AITUC, again because the theory was a function of the ground reality. That was a short-lived golden time for the Indian communists with a rapidly rising influence among the masses and the broadest possible participation in the mass movements. It would be beyond the scope of this exercise to go in depth enumerating all the twists and turns in the polices throughout the history of the Indian communist movement. But it can be noted that till the split in 1964 the question – who is a greater enemy, the Congress or the extreme reactionary rightist/communal forces was to be resolved. In fact, the same question has still been vexing the policy formulation, specially when the Congress starts showing its true colours in the face of democratic movements and aspirations. Without having sufficient support base and numbers themselves the Left had to support governments providing space to the communal forces even after the split of 1964. The Babri Masjid demolition was again a watershed event that created closer relation between the Left and the Congress, though the danger of betrayal was still lurking behind the scene, the Nuclear Deal of the UPA-1 being the case in point.
In June 1967, the assessment of the CP of China led to the conclusion that the Indian state was not a bourgeois-landlord state led by the big bourgeoisie but a puppet Government led by the comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie run principally in the interest of imperialism while they themselves were reconciled to being parasites dependent on the crumbs thrown by their foreign masters. It went on to formulate that the Government was already completely alienated from the people and hated by everyone. The ideological and political influence of the Congress was not accepted, naturally the need for peoples' democratic front was underestimated and armed revolution was espoused to be the only way forward. The time is ripe, just waiting for a spark to create the prairie fire, was the clarion call. Whereas during 1967 in India the situation was entirely different, and a mere copy and paste job by the Naxalites led to another split, under the influence of the CPC, ignoring the ground reality. Many of the Naxalite factions later corrected their formulation facing the stark reality around them, except a few, with the major strain being the CPI-Maoists. There have been open condemnation statements by even Rythu Cooli Sangham (Agricultural Labourers Association, a frontal organization of the Maoists in Andhra Pradesh) against the Maoist threat to kill the leaders of the people's movement and other revolutionary organization (http://mlclassstruggle.blogspot.com/2010/02/maoist-threat-to-kill-peoples-leaders.html). But these so called Maoists seem to have buried themselves in the revolutionary jargons and continue to pursue the line of violence creating killing fields in some parts of India.
Another golden era for the Indian communists followed the Salkia Plenum by CPI-Marxist in 1978, which was called to formulate policies because of the changes in socio-economic situation in India, and noted that there is no alternative to building a united front of the Left and democratic forces, leading to massive growth of CPI-Marxist and its influence during the early eighties. According to the eminent columnist Ashok Mitra, the late communist leader Jyoti Basu could have come close to becoming the Prime Minister of India had Mrs. Indira Gandhi been alive to fight the elections of 1985 (http://telegraphindia.com/1100118/jsp/opinion/story_11996552.jsp ).
The politics of Immediate Relief
The CPI-Marxist represents the largest contingent of the Indian communist movement. One of its greatest leaders, Jyoti Basu is no more, and it might be a good idea to look back at his legacy, rather enumerating all the different aspects of the party and its policies. He took over in 1977 after several decades of a downward trend in the economy of West Bengal. The industrial scene was bleak, traditional industries like tea and jute faced inelastic demands, the wartime growth in engineering industry was facing recession since the 60s, freight equalisation scheme of the Center was adding to the woes by impeding the state's locational advantage with respect to mineral resources and thus the 'new' industries of the post-independent period did not locate in the eastern region breeding the lopsided growth of industry for the next 50 years in the west and the south. As a result, unemployment was pervasive. The agrarian economy was in shambles, thanks to the zamindar-jotedar systems choking the productive forces. The negligence in irrigation since the British India following the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Agriculture (1926) that the problem arose from too much water and not too little compounded with the gross step-motherly attitude of the Nehru Government in not providing proper inputs for modern-day agriculture, Bengal missed the bus of green revolution though it was equally burdened by the huge inflow of refugees just like Punjab and Haryana. Jyoti Basu's government provided immediate relief by restoring democracy in the lawless state post emergency and the spate of politics of violence by the Naxalites and the Congress. The Left Front government furthered democracy through Panchayat decentralization immediately after taking over. Operation Barga was carried forward releasing productive forces and changing class balance of power to a large extent, resulting in a dramatic turnaround of the economy, specially in the agriculture sector. Multiple cropping was encouraged, state invested in irrigation and modern day agriculture inputs. Consequently people under poverty line diminished very fast, creating a very large market. The central Government pursued its step-motherly attitude where it can, and didn't provide license to build Haldia Petrochemicals and Salt Lake Electronics Complex for over a decade, and Jyoti Basu led the fight against the discriminatory attitude of the Congress leading to sharpening of the consciousness of the people in Bengal. At the same time the Left Front government focused on employment generating small scale industries with great success. Refugees from the Bangladesh started to get back their democratic rights as citizens, there was no further fear of getting evicted. Thousands of political prisoners including the Naxalites, serving jail terms without even a trial, were freed. The police and administration started finding it difficult to collude with the powerful landlord lobby, resulting in the enhancement of the democratic space in the state. The theory of 'immediate relief' was practiced by Jyoti Basu to perfection.
Jyoti Basu continued his pursuit of building a left democratic front. He continued to lead an alliance of a large variety of left parties in Bengal, he continued to forge links with the other democratic parties in India leading to successful alliances against the ruling class, though short-lived. But he was never isolated in the struggle, he always had many political friends, with whom he could build common platforms on common causes, common aims and objectives mainly on the center-state relations. The Left Front rule under Jyoti Basu can be considered to be the most successful experience so far in using Government as an Instrument of Struggle.
His government furthered democracy in the state, lawlessness was curbed, recruitment to the government and government-funded institutions were held through democratic processes. The rights of the citizen were re-established. In elections after elections in Municipalities, in local bodies, in school and colleges the Left gained strength. Barring a few exceptions like Marichjhnapi, the Left Front rule under Jyoti Basu can be termed as an epitome of democracy and peace. On a few occasions leaders like Mamata Banerjee gave clarion calls of ringing the death bell for the Left Front government, and the result was more support for the government, one example being the historic rally in the Brigade Parade ground of Kolkata during 1992, when millions of people reposed their faith in the democratically-run government. It might be worthwhile to remember the editor of Now and later Frontier magazines, Samar Sen, once quipped in his memoir Babubrittanto, that during his stint in Moscow as a translator he found the people in the post-revolution USSR to be apolitical, and he himself turned apolitical because of that stint of few years in Moscow. Similarly, the people in Bengal gradually turned a bit apolitical during this period, and gradually after the immediate relief measures started reaping benefits, turned away from politics in general. There were only one or two slogans that rang aloud, one against the discriminatory nature of the Central government, and the other being a call to keep the Left Front government for ages (Bamfront sarkar juge juge dorkar). The sharpening of the political consciousness took a back seat over time.
The essence of limitations and the raison d'être of the Left Front government can be best explained by one of the public speeches by Harekrishna Konar, one of the foremost peasant leaders of the communist movement, where he told the audience that this United Front government in the state cannot solve the basic problems of the people, but can do a few things like reestablish the democratic rights of the people, reestablish the human dignity in contrast to the life of animals one had during the Congress rule, the rural poor can go and claim their rightful Barga as sharecroppers and Jyoti Basu's police would not attack the poor on behalf of the landlords (3rd April 1970, Bardhaman Recording of the speech). Over time the leaders stopped pronouncing publicly the limitations of this kind of intermediate governments the communists are participating in. Over time the Left Front government started using force against democratic movements, everyone is aware about Singur and Nandigram. Recently Swapan Dasgupta, the editor of an ultra-left periodical died in custody in Kolkata. These do not seem to be the legacy that Jyoti Basu ushered in the left politics, but aberrations to it.
The Spring Thunder and aftermath
In Bengal since 1959, there have been waves of peasant struggle, starting with the Food revolt in the Calcutta streets. Under AIKS, the landless peasants were capturing the benami (vested) land of the landlord class. With the installation of the United Front government in Bengal, the Marxists wanted to identify and redistribute the vested lands through legal and constitutional means, carrying forward what the constitution and the Congress promised but didn't deliver. Charu Mazumdar termed it as economism of the United Front government, because these would blunt the class consciousness of the peasants. He reasoned, once the landless class gets land, the revolutionary zeal gets blunted with the change in his class character. In his eight documents during 1966-67, he termed the measures of the United Front government as revisionist compromise, class collaboration with the ruling class, leading ultimately towards betrayal of the revolution. He wrote that the revolutionary tide that was blowing everywhere was being stymied by the Marxists, and urged to consciously establish armed struggle on mass base. He identified the destruction of the state power as the task of the moment, only which can carry forward the agrarian revolution, anything else was revisionism. At the same time the CPI-Marxist leaders like Jyoti Basu and Harekrishna Konar campaigned against this adventurist political line, for them it was a betrayal too. They opined, when the United Front government has just started working on redistribution of vested lands, there was no reason to call for an armed struggle to achieve similar goals. The root of the sense of betrayal on both sides and animosity between the Marxists and the Naxalites can be traced to this period in time. The animosity rose sharply when Charu Mazumdar found it is his revolutionary duty to declare war against the Central Committee as he thought the ulterior motive of the CPI-Marxist C. C. Resolution was to deceive the revolutionary section inside the party, and more, to act secretly as a stooge in the interests of U.S. imperialism, Soviet revisionism and Indian reactionary forces. Conspiracy theories started gaining ground. Charu Mazumdar thought it was time to build up a new revolutionary party, and declared India to be a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country and so theorized that guerrilla warfare is the only tactic for carrying on peasants' revolutionary struggle. In the mean time, on July 5, 1967, Communist Party of China published the famous Spring Thunder Over India document, applauding the peasant uprising at Naxalbari as the single spark that can start a prairie fire, denouncing the CPI and the CPI-Marxist as running dogs of imperialism. CPI-Marxist-Leninist was formed through intermediate formation of AICCCR (All India Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries). In its first party congress in 1970, the programme stated, "The working class can wage a successful People's War by creating small bases of armed struggle all over the country and consolidating the political power of the people. This is possible only by developing guerilla warfare which is and will remain the basic form of struggle throughout the entire period of our Democratic Revolution", under a heavy influence of the theory of encircle and capture the cities of Lin Piao. The current political party programme of the CPI-Maoists doesn't have any fundamental differences in essence or character with the above, and accordingly the hatred, the sense of betrayal continues even today. At the same time, today's ultra-left and their sympathizers gloat in "exposing" the CPI-Marxist and consider it as their greatest revolutionary task, which seems to have uncanny similarity with the stance of the pre-independent communist movement on Nehru and Netaji.
It was Charu Mazumdar who first devised the line of annihilation of class enemy in his Hate, Stamp and Smash Centrism. The annihilation theory, together with the sense of betrayal created the killing fields in Bengal during the late 1960s. Charu Mazumdar himself never advocated killing of the unarmed poor peasants and school teachers in his writings, but the latest edition of the killing fields in Bengal at Lalgarh seemed to have forgotten even the lessons of Charu Mazumdar altogether. Explaining his theory of annihilation Charu Mazumdar wrote in his Main Task Today (December 8, 1966), "Those who should be attacked are mainly: (1) the representatives of the state machinery like police, military officers; (2) the hated bureaucracy; (3) class enemies. The aim of these attacks should also be the collection of arms." During 2009, a whopping 135 civilians died due to the Maoist violence in Bengal whereas only 15 police/military personnel and only nine armed Maoists were among the dead in the same period (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/maoist/data_sheets/maoist_datasheet.html) in Bengal. Considering the class characters of the victims in the hands of these so called Maoists here in Bengal over the past few months, would it be unwise to call these so called Maoists renegade in the true spirit of the lessons of their respected leader Charu Mazumdar?
It would be very interesting to note that the CPI-ML Liberation in their theoretical periodical "The Marxist Leninist" published a whole article in its October 2009 issue on "How the Theory of "Protracted War" has Harmed Marxist-Leninist Movement." It would be more important to note that many of the large Naxalite parties realized their mistakes and chose to correct their course after 1980s, and many of them now find it important to participate in mass movements, create mass fronts, and participate in parliamentary democracy too. Another insightful example is of the Maoists in Nepal, where they chose and changed their path according to the reality around them. At this point it might also be useful to remind that while writing the famous "A Single Spark Can Start A Prairie Fire" in 1930, Mao Tse-tung listed at least six specific and unique conditions prevailing in China that time that was helping the revolutionary tide. He also listed at least four specific and unique contradictions in details which made him decide, "Once we understand all these contradictions, we shall see in what a desperate situation, in what a chaotic state, China finds herself. We shall also see that the high tide of revolution against the imperialists, the warlords and the landlords is inevitable, and will come very soon. All China is littered with dry faggots which will soon be aflame. The saying, "A single spark can start a prairie fire", is an apt description of how the current situation will develop." Mao wrote this just after the failure of a massive upsurge when there was an atmosphere of gloom among his comrades, possibly his idea was to defeat the pessimism all around him, and surely it did its job very successfully. A mere superimposition of that theory of another time, another place and another situation did neither help these so called Indian Maoists of our time, nor the cause they have been championing. It is also very surprising that they are found to be collaborating with the Trinamool Congress providing a second fiddle to its campaign of paribartan (change) in Bengal.
Winds of change
Of late strong winds of change are blowing over Bengal. Starting with the Singur and Nandigram agitations, the united opposition could build a successful coalition accommodating both the right and the left spectrums under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee. The recent electoral reverses of the Left in the Panchayat and the Loksabha elections indicate a possible reversal of the Left in the 2011 Assembly elections too. It might be interesting to envisage what might follow.
Under the neo-liberal dispensation the tax-GDP ratio declined since the early nineties and the Center not only withdrew itself from agriculture and curbed rural development expenditure, it also shifted the burden on the states and imposed a fiscal squeeze on the states through reduced transfers and extremely high interest rates. It is widely recognized that the large overhang of debt of almost all state governments has implied such large interest payments that the States are effectively crippled with respect to the ability to undertake important socially necessary expenditure. Since the States are dominantly responsible for most of the types of public expenditure which affect the day-to-day life of the people, ranging from law and order and basic infrastructure to health, sanitation and education, the fiscal crisis of the States has meant that these expenditures have been very adversely affected in most parts of India. Since the nineties, states' debt as a proportion of GDP has ballooned and the ratio of debt to revenue receipts of states has nearly doubled due to the combination of falling central transfers and related inability to repay the high interest on previously contracted debt. There has been decline in central transfers to States over the years. Such transfers have declined from 40 per cent of the central tax receipts in the first half of the 1990s to an average of 36 per cent after 1996. Also the interest rates the states are paying have remained high. The central government has been charging the state governments higher rates of interest on debt which it issues to them, in fact substantially higher than the Centre has been paying itself. The Centre has also used aggressively its Constitutional powers to limit the ability of the States to borrow from the market and from commercial banks. Any state government which has a revenue deficit therefore has to seek special permission from the Reserve Bank of India to borrow from commercial banks, permission which is not necessarily granted. Finally, state governments taking on debt provided by multilateral institutions or even loans from bilateral donors have not paid the rate of interest charged by them, but a much higher rate imposed by the Centre, which is the intermediary for such transactions. (http://www.macroscan.org/fet/may05/fet250505State_Government_Debt.htm)
As a result, the states were forced to implement neo-liberal reforms directed by the Center. The role a state can play in implementing alternative economic policies under this condition of financial squeeze is negligible. At the same time, the Indian state is increasingly curbing the space for democratic movements as evidenced by the defeat of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the situation of the Posco, Niyamgiri and a few other democratic and entirely legal movements under constitutional norms. So it seems continuing with the politics of CPI-Marxist using state government as an instrument of struggle by providing immediate relief and implementing alternative economic policies would be increasingly difficult. In fact there are not many concrete evidences to prove that the influence of CPI-Marxist has increased throughout 1990-2010 though it ruled over three states during most of the time in this period. If the policies pursued remain the same focusing most of the energy in trying to reinstall another Left Front government in Bengal and in other states, it might prove difficult to recreate the magic spell Jyoti Basu's government during the late 70s and the 80s, as the limitations in running a state government now are manifolds higher than it was, forget about 'left alternative policies', even providing 'immediate relief' would be difficult. It would be wise to remember that even the best possible measures by the Left Front government in Bengal were inadequate to provide immediate relief in the face of recent inflation of food prices and essential commodities. It might be a good idea to deeply introspect and review the policies under this changed situation.
If the Left Front government has to go from office in 2011, it would not anyway have many choices, specially when the Left contingent in the parliament is no more a strong one. Extra-parliamentary struggle is the principle form it would have to anyways pursue. It might be wise, in the mean time, to build stronger relation with the other left-democratic and communist parties, possibly create a common platform for action.
The Congress-Trinamool coalition in Bengal led by Mamata has accommodated some strains of the ultra-lefts in it. They also have the so called Maoists as their friends, at least in the Nandigram agitation (http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2614/stories/20090717261412900.htm). But unfortunately, the left strains in the coalition are so allergic to the CPI-Marxist that they seem to be oblivious to the class interest the coalition of Congress-Trinamool represents in the final analysis. The Congress-Trinamool coalition has the massive support of the erstwhile zamindars and jotedars (landlords) who are finding in it their best bet to regain the land and property which got vested during the Left Front rule. It is the interest of this landlord class that this coalition ultimately represents. The struggle between this erstwhile landlord class and the erstwhile landless peasants is intensifying in Bengal, leading to deaths of many, one glaring example being the murder of a District Committee leader of the CPI-Marxist at Mangolkot of Bardhaman in broad daylight. In the aftermath of Nandigram there are concrete evidences of reestablishment of this landlord class in the surrounding of Nandigram, and this force has created such a semi-fascist terror in that region, that they didn't spare even a statue of Lenin, they vandalized it. There is not even a trace of a red flag in this whole region.
Naturally it is evident that if Mamata-led coalition comes to power in West Bengal, the regime of terror that is now blowing over Bengal would compound manifold. Even now when the Left Front is still in governance, there are plenty cases of force, coercion, terror and killing by the Trinamool all across Bengal. In many college elections, mainly in the rural areas, the students are being threatened so that they do not come to cast their vote. While in governance the regime of terror would be unleashed with a stronger force by the coalition led by Mamata. The new government would continue with the neo-liberal agenda in full throttle, while curbing the trade union rights blaming the Left Front government and its militant trade unionism for the lackluster industrial situation of Bengal. Her coalition with the help of the media has been projecting the CPI-Marxist and its supporters as the main reason for the sorry state of Bengal; while in government, the coalition will naturally pursue a line of persecution singling out the CPI-Marxist and its supporters. It might be important to start dialogue between the CPI-Marxist and even the CPI-Maoist and all the other left and communist parties, so that CPI-Marxist does not find itself friendless and isolated bearing all the brunt of this ensuing onslaught.
Right now the unprecedented price rise of food grains and skyrocketing inflation is affecting the poor and the middle class of the country severely. The price rise is compounded by the continuing agrarian crisis leading to suicides of the rural peasants in large number. Nehru promised to hang the hoarders on the lamp-posts after Independence. The promise was never kept; and now with the increasing prices of food and increasing poverty among the peasants, it is this class of hoarders and middlemen who are profiteering the most, under the aegis of the UPA-2 government. Consistent struggle against hoarding and speculative trading are need of the hour on behalf of the left forces. A struggle to force the Center to work on strengthening Public Distributive System and Essential Commodities Act will find many friends too. The parliament of India and even the Prime Minister's meeting with the Chief Ministers tried to hoodwink the people about the real causes of inflation of food prices, protecting the class interests they represent. It might be the right time to build the bridges towards left unity to expose and create a strong resistance against this deceit.
Recently we saw many communist parties of the world exchanged ideas in a conclave organized by the CPI-Marxist. Similar conclaves can also be organized for the left and communist parties of India. It is important not to forget that it has always been a golden time for the communist movement in India when it was united under some common agenda and it could forge relationship with the other left and democratic forces. Finally it is not the so called protracted peoples war by the armed Maoists that can change the policies in favour of the poor, it is the massive left-democratic resistance that the ruling class fears the most. The largest contingent of the Left, the CPI-Marxist needs to lead this movement collaborating with the various left-demotic forces including the other communist parties in India. The CPI-Maoist needs to learn from their experience, introspect, and respond to such calls, abjuring their adventurist path of mindless violence, where ultimately it's the long-neglected adivasis who bear the brunt of the crossfire between them and the police forces. We indeed need a good Marxist analysis of the society and politics in India.
MAKING SENSE OF THE WINDS OF CHANGE - Saibal
4/
5
Oleh
bokep