English

[Excerpts from the last article of Comrade Vinod Mishra. From Liberation, January 1999.]

The changing international climate

The year 1998 had been one more tumultuous year in this era of great uncertainties. Amidst the reigning chaos, however, one may discern, through a deeper probe, certain subterranean trends that are most likely to erupt in major upheavals with the turn of the century.

Till yesterday the apologists of globalisation boasted that the ‘golden age’ of capitalism has come to stay and that they had answers to all the problems of the world economy. But 1998 changed all this. With the collapse of the Asian Tiger economies and the crisis fast spreading to Latin America, the panic button has been pressed. Now the shadows of a worldwide recession are looming large and the policy-makers at the IMF and the World Bank, unsure of themselves, are not coming forth with the usual prescriptions with any degree of confidence. Clueless about the causes and, therefore, of the solutions, global managers are hinting at various alternative options including the increased role of the state in economic planning. Till the other day this was anathema to the rabid proponents of neo-liberalism. Breaking the norm of the last decade or so, the Nobel prize in economics this year was awarded to Amartya Sen, the philosopher economist who advocates a safety net both for the poor and the rich in case ‘something goes wrong’. One wonders whether the spectre of the ‘30s and the need for advance redressal measures have prompted the Nobel Committee to prop up the Third World avatar of Keynes!

As a consequence of these debacles to the project of globalisation, the ideological and political climate of the world is changing once again. For the present, however, social democratic interpretations of Marxian thought is on the ascendance but the deepening crisis and increasing political action of the youth and the working classes, across the globe, provide favourable conditions for the regrouping of the forces of revolutionary Marxism.

Two tactics of the left in present national situation

The search for an elusive stability led to the snap poll at the beginning of the year but after hardly eight months, the political atmosphere is once again charged with the possibilities of yet another mid-term poll. The BJP that ridiculed the rag-tag coalition of the UF ascended to power on the strength of a still inferior version of the same. Its slogan ‘stable government and able leader’ has earned the distinction of the best joke of the year. A rejuvenated Congress under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is threatening to unsettle the ruling coalition and at the same time marginalising the ‘third forces’ which had prospered at its ruin. This situation has once again brought to the fore the debate on the tactics that the Left should pursue.

With the collapse of the UF and the BJP’s coming to power, the opportunist wing of the Left immediately changed gear and started advocating an alliance with the Congress. In fact, even while the final results were pouring in, Comrade Surjeet started egging on the Congress to take the lead in forming the government. Though the support that the CPI(M) offered to a would-be Congress government was explained as a tactical move, the subsequent bonhomie between the two parties and the ideological colour imparted to this relationship by CPI(M) ideologues leaves no doubt that the two parties are heading towards a strategic cooperation. This move of the leadership was resented by the overwhelming number of delegates in the party congresses of both the CPI and the CPI(M) and even formal resolutions were adopted to launch a third front, that too, with the forces of CPI(ML) and the like, but the leadership appears to be bent upon following the old beaten course.

In the Sixth Party Congress that was held in October 1997, when the UF government was still in power, we had maintained that "in the present national political situation we must firmly pursue our anti-BJP anti-Congress orientation. However, we do recognise the threat of a saffron takeover of India and in such an eventuality, we may have to make certain policy readjustments to forge a broad anti-BJP configuration. These adjustments, however, must conform to the following three basic parameters: (i) Party’s independence and initiative must be retained; (ii) Congress must be isolated from any secular or democratic anti-BJP configuration; and (iii) we must continue to oppose all anti-people policies and steps of non-BJP non-Congress governments."

This could have been the only correct policy to follow by the party of the revolutionary proletariat and our Party consistently adhered to that.

The rejuvenated Congress is also threatening the existence of some major centrist parties and of late, they have also raised their pitch of criticism against the Congress. Analysing the recent assembly election results, some people are talking of polarisation of the political space between the BJP and the Congress, thereby terming the whole concept of the third front as irrelevant. This has terrorised the crisis-ridden third camp and of late efforts are intensified to cobble up a third front of essentially the old UF constituents. In the present concrete conditions such a front is only meant for improving their bargaining position vis-a-vis Congress.

Obviously our Party refuses to involve itself with such attempts. A floor co-ordination with the parties of bourgeois opposition and even temporary tactical alliances at certain times and in certain situations are permissible but any uncritical strategic association with them in a so-called secular or third front can not be the tactics of revolutionary communists. CPI had for long indulged in such tactics under the pretext of a dubious theory of ‘National Democraic Front’ and its search for the national bourgeoisie landed it in the lap of the Congress. While the Congress is still going strong, the CPI is fast becoming a museum piece. The CPI(M)’s formulation of a ‘Peoples Democratic Front’ via the so-called secular front is pushing the party into the clutches of the Congress. Quite logically so, because once the secular front becomes the last word in your tactics, who else but the Congress becomes your natural ally! But then there is no escape from CPI’s fate either.

In contrast we stand for building up a left pole as the core of the Peoples Democratic Front and therefore have called for a left confederation, a confederation that shall include all the forces of revolutionary democracy ranging from communists, socialists to various left-oriented forces of new social movements. Forces of radical democracy are rising from the grassroots and will be seldom found in the precincts of the parliament. Moreover, all the so-called secular forces are not necessarily democratic too and in many a case they are extreme rightist forces. They are also liable to change colours in favour of communal politics as and when it suits them. This is how the Congress behaved in ’80s and early ’90s and this is how Chandrababu Naidu behaved last year.

After the unceremonious demise of the UF we sent fresh proposals for a left confederation but the CPI and CPI(M) leadership rejected them. This was on expected lines as they were busy hobnobbing with the Congress. While the left ranks and the working people were battling together to make the 11 December strike a success, the CPI(M) leadership was conspiring at using the strike as a launching pad for the so-called third front with all kinds of discredited forces of bourgeois opposition who are otherwise strong supporters of the entire package of new economic policies. We, on the contrary, stand for developing this solidarity among the left ranks and the working people towards a left confederation.

The collapse of the UF and moreover, the failure to grow and worse still, the erosion of the base of CPI and CPI(M) in some states, have raised serious questions within them on tactics towards bourgeois opposition. Again there is strong resentment on joining hands with the Congress. Sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the left ranks as expressed in their party congresses, were for the Left to unite and act independently. The slogan of left confederation, therefore, reflects the aspirations of the left ranks as well as that of the broad masses of the working people.

It must be clearly understood that the slogan of left confederation is not just a pious wish to somehow bring all the forces of the Left under a common umbrella; on the contrary it is the specific tactical response of revolutionary communists to the UF-kind of opportunist tactics. We must therefore persist with this slogan and carry forward this battle between two tactics of the Left among broad left ranks and the working people and win them over to the side of revolutionary communism. It goes without saying that this is a long drawn process but this is an inalienable component of our historical struggle against social democracy. This tactic is, at the same time, the most effective antidote against anarchism because it is precisely because of the parliamentary cretinism of social democrats embodied in their ‘UF’ tactics that distracts the revolutionary youth from the organised left movement and facilitates their swelling the anarchist ranks.

Take agrarian struggles as the key link

We had been facing a very difficult situation in the rural areas of Bihar particularly in Bhojpur and Jehanabad districts due to attacks on our social base by the mercenary army of landlords. In December 1997 the Bathe massacre followed where over 60 people were literally butchered. This, however, also proved to be a turning point in the course of the movement. Apart from organising political protests, certain retaliatory actions were also organised and in the subsequent parliamentary elections we more or less succeeded in retaining and activising our social base among the rural poor. Of late, the Ranvir Sena is facing a sort of stagnation and disintegration owing to developing conflicts within its social following. On the other hand, the recently held ‘Reawakening’ rally of our Party in Bhojpur was a big success implying that the mass initiative has once again been released. But there is no room for complacency as the Sena’s striking force is still intact. We have still a long way to go in achieving the final victory over this nefarious Sena, which posed the most serious challenge so far to our movement in Bihar.

In line with the Sixth Congress decisions, agrarian labourers’ organisations are coming up in various pockets of our movement in Bihar and elsewhere. In Bihar, initiatives are being taken up to coordinate these units at the state level and one of the major tasks of the new year is to float a state level body. Organising the rural proletariat in their class organisation and developing their class consciousness is a major challenge before the Party in the agrarian revolution.

The old kisan sabha in Bihar still remains defunct but some efforts on organising broad masses of peasantry on a local basis and on local issues, are indeed being taken in some pockets. Pockets of peasant resistance have also been developing in parts of Bengal, UP, Andhra and Orissa. In Orissa, despite the demise of Comrade Nagbhushan Patnaik, the offensive of the landlords has been beaten back.

On the pretext of a crisis of Indian agriculture, owing to the increasing pressures from the WTO regime, social democrats are urging the rural poor to give up their struggles and rally behind the rich farmers. With similar arguments the anarchists too have floated a common platform with the rich farmers’ organisations. This is a classic example of two extremes meeting at a common point. Some ex-Marxists who have deserted the class viewpoint of Marxism, put the task of fighting against caste-discriminations as an end in itself. They therefore talk only in terms of caste categories, becoming prisoners of BSP kind of politics and virtually surrendering the leadership of poor oppressed masses to the privileged stratum of leaders coming from dalit and backward castes who in turn use the people as cannon fodder in extracting their share of the loot within the parliamentary establishment. Such trends, which were quite pronounced in ML circles in Andhra, have resulted in marginalisation of the movement and disintegration of some groups. In Tamil Nadu too this has created lots of confusion and is actually an important reason behind the movement not picking up despite lots of potential. In Bihar too similar ideas led to groups like MCC and PU becoming pawn in the hands of powerful backward caste groupings and the ruling party.

Castes are undifferentiated classes and therefore the fight against all caste discriminations, an inalienable component of democratic movements, facilitates the process of class differentiation in the entire society. As communists our primary concern is to consolidate the proletarian class forces emerging with a distinct identity amidst this great social churning and our Party is precisely doing the same. While all those who deserted us under the spell of the Mandal wave and in times of crisis of socialism, have degenerated into either ideologues or activists of the Lallo brigade, we stood our ground, organised our class forces, built up the communist party amidst the fire of mass movements and are gradually making forays into the citadels of so-called social justice forces. We must oppose all liberal ideas in the arena of agrarian struggles and firmly adhere to the Party’s class line. These struggles are the soul of the Party and from here only will emerge the mighty forces of the people, which will change the face of the country.

Go for all-round initiatives

In tune with our Party’s rich tradition of organising nation-wide campaigns against the principal enemy, we organised an ‘Oust saffron, save the nation’ campaign in the latter part of the year. Such campaigns are primarily aimed at imparting political education to the masses. At the same time they mobilise the entire Party to focus its attention on the central issue of national concern and thereby ensure the monolithic unity of the Party. And therefore, dilution of the national call in the name of its so-called creative application by a state unit or a mass organisation can not be permitted.

Though the campaign has ended, the exposure of various facets of BJP rule should go on unabated. We should particularly focus on its economic doctrine of wholesale globalisation and that of capitulation to international financial interests. Its gimmick of Swadeshi is thoroughly exposed and it is high time that the Left forcefully espouses the cause of a self-reliant economy. The 11 December action of the working class was a highly significant move in this direction. We have to take a much larger initiative among the working class where the ice has started melting and we have started getting a better response.

As the political situation is turning topsy-turvy and one can not rule out the possibility of yet another mid-term poll in the year 1999, the Party must remain fully prepared for any eventuality. Hence, all our mass organisations, particularly the youth front, should take bold initiatives on all issues of people’s concern and strive to march ahead of all others. The days of closed door conferencing are over. This is the time for all round initiatives. In history the issues of major significance are only resolved in the streets.

Strengthen the Party organisation

The Party Sixth Congress had warned, "Open and mass party, however, in no way means diluting the basic quality of a communist party, weakening its integral character and undermining its centralism and discipline. Hence, a consistent struggle against all sorts of liberal ideas that seek to transform the revolutionary communist party into a social-democratic parliamentary outfit is imperative." This warning, to say the least, has only become more relevant now.

A strong communist party firmly upholding the red banner of revolutionary Marxism, a powerful movement of the rural poor and an al- round initiative against the designs of the saffron power are the three major challenges before us in this year. Social democrats as well as anarchists of all hues are facing serious internal disorders due to faulty tactical lines and every advance we make will further destablise them and establish us at the head of the left movement. Such a development is absolutely essential for building a democratic front that is really a people’s alternative in contrast to various versions of bourgeois alternatives.

Comrades,

In 1998 we lost many important leaders and cadres who sacrificed their lives fighting class enemies. Assassins’ bullets snatched away from us Comrade Anil Barua, a member of the central committee, who was a widely respected personality in Assamese society and a comrade of supreme dedication to the cause of the Party and the people. And as the year was drawing to a close, Comrade Nagbhushan, one among the few great leaders that the Indian communist movement has produced in its nearly 75 years of history and whose death-defying spirit had become the symbol of CPI(ML)’s spirit of rising again and again from the ashes, departed from amongst us. On his deathbed, he declared, "In life and in death I meant for the Party and revolution." This is the true spirit of a revolutionary communist and let it guide us in striving hard to score greater successes in the days to come.

[From Liberation, October 1998.]

Two weeks back, while commenting on the Panchamarhi Conclave of the Congress(I) we had written in ML Update, "The official Left, in particular, had pinned much of its hopes on the expected review of the economic policy in the conclave. They were eagerly awaiting some positive signals from Panchamarhi on this score in order to sell their line of close cooperation with the Congress(I). This was particularly important in the context of the forthcoming party congresses of both the CPI and the CPI(M) where a stiff resistance is expected against hobnobbing with the Congress(I)." And also that "Left leaders, however, felt cheated, since, barring some old cliches like ‘Garibi Hatao’ and ritual reiteration of Socialist pattern etc., Manmohanamics held full sway in the economic resolutions."

Now when the CPI’s Chennai congress is over, we hear this from the horse’s mouth. The Hindustan Times, dated September 19, quotes Mr.Bardhan as saying that "there were expectations from the Congress(I) that its Panchamarhi session would do a reappraisal of its policies. ...(But) the core issue of economic policy was not adequately attended to". However, this concern for economic policy is more for appearences rather than a major point of divergence between the official Left and the Congress(I). After all, the Common Minimum Program of the UF government had hardly come up with a different economic program. The moot point is that after the collapse of the UF experiment a new phase of collaboration between the Congress(I) and the official Left has indeed begun. The pace has, of course, slowed down because of inadequate gestures from Panchmarhi and the resultant inability of the leadership to sell its line of active collaboration with Congress(I). In the face of active resistance by a good number of delegates who opposed this policy of ‘manoeuvring at the top’ and insisted that there is no substitute to the hard work, the Chennai Congress had to restrict itself to the outside support to Congress(I) instead of any general alliance or a common secular front.

CPI(M) leadership, too, is moving along similar lines. Comrade Jyoti Basu is too enthusiastic about moving closer to the Congress(I) but, learning from the experience of CPI’s congress and expecting even greater resistance from its ranks in Calcutta the party leadership has started treading cautiously. Jyoti Basu absented himself in CPI(M)’s recently held rally at Delhi on the pretext of illness and Surjeet chose the occasion to come down on the Congress(I) as well. Well, in view of the lacklustre response from the rank and file and deep divisionss within the leadership itself, and, moreover due to Congress(I)’s own lack of enthusiasm to go the whole hog with the Left, both the CPI and CPI(M) leaders have decided to move slowly. But the essential message is clear. The rhetoric of the third front has been dumped unceremoniously and an era of closer cooperation with the Congress(I) has begun.

The wheel, thus, has turned a full circle. One remembers that just two years back the same left leaders were talking so big even on accepting support from the Congress(I) for the UF government. Then they defined Congress(I) support as one out of compulsion. Indrajeet Gupta even challenged the Congress(I) to withdraw support and then face the music. However when the threat of withdrawal of support did come, the UF meekly responded by sacrificing Deve Gowda. When the threat was repeated they showed the bravery of sacrificing the government rather than dismissing the two DMK ministers, a bravery they deeply repent now. The resultant mid-term elections brought the BJP to power, rejuvenated the Congress(I) and dealt a deathblow to the UF. The politics got polarised between the BJP and Congress(I) and the much-cherished concept of third front, the so-called transitory step towards the people’s democratic front etc., got a drubbing. The same DMK for whose sake the heroic sacrifice was made has come up with the novel idea of differentiating between the BJP government and the BJP as party. The same Mr.Indrajeet Gupta, in his inaugural speech at Chennai, advocated backing the Congress(I) in its bid for power as the ‘Left is weak’.

Congress(I) understands this dilemma of the Left and therefore gave a green signal to it in Panchamarhi without, however, diluting the thrust of its economic policy. At the same time it tried to distance itself with the Laloo-Mulayam duo. Apart from the concern to rebuild the party in its erstwhile strongholds of UP and Bihar and to win back its traditional upper caste and minority support, the move was cleverly aimed at removing any buffer between itself and the BJP.

Signals are thus clear. The opportunist Left is inexorably moving towards Congress(I) and in a sense this is the formalisation of their long-standing overt and covert relationship with the Congress(I). The anarchist Left on the other hand is aligning itself with the rich farmers’ lobby under its pet banner of non-politicalism on the pretext of saving the Indian agriculture from the onslaught of WTO regime.

The agenda for rebuilding the third front on a revolutionary democratic basis should be taken up by the forces of the revolutionary Left. There are enough social and political forces that will respond to this call in the changing political situation. Even in the CPI congress, the overwhelming sentiment was in favour of building a broader left alliance, which the leadership tried to derail by confining it within the ambit of so-called communist unity with the CPI(M). Erstwhile socialist forces are in a disarray after the Samata joined the BJP bandwagon and so are innumerable other forces that are all eagerly waiting for a fresh bid to rejuvenate the whole concept of the third front. We have already renewed our appeal for a left confederation and the ongoing campaign, "oust saffron, save the nation", must be transformed into a positive campaign for a Third Front.

[Excerpts from the speech delivered at a seminar held on 4 August 1998 in Siliguri. From Liberation, September 1998.]

The Pokhran blast has provided the necessary impetus for a new phase of the anti-nuke movement and has enhanced the observance of Hiroshima Day. It has also provided a new fillip to all struggles aimed at total destruction of all nuclear arsenals on this planet. In the realm of anti-nuke movement we encounter a pacifist variety that opposes all atom bombs and all kinds of war. We do sincerely share their struggle. But we also need to understand the politics behind the bomb.

The blast in Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 was not so much for forcing Japan to surrender as it was for declaring the violent arrival of US into world politics, particularly Asia. This cruel experiment with Hiroshima was designed for realising this sinister US-ploy. And today we know what that has meant for us. So it is as important, if not more, to understand the politics behind bombs as the destructive potential of the bomb.

Today there is a lot of hype about the scientific expertise and technological finesse behind the production of the bomb. But the inventor of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, rated his achievement as moderate at best. He, along with many other scientists, raised voices against nuclear stockpiling and Einstein too had time and again expressed his agony. Einstein proposed a global kind of government, a supra-judicial body to somehow combat the nuclear threat.

In the history of development of arms, discovery of a strike weapon has always been closely followed by discovery of a befitting defence mechanism. What is special about nuclear weapons is that here the question of defence or deterrence does not arise. The only deterrence to an atom bomb is another atom bomb. That is why Hiroshima had sparked off a chain reaction with more and more countries taking the nuclear path.

The US today has a stock of seven lakh bombs and spends 35 billion dollars every year (or 96 million dollars a day) in maintaining the nuclear establishment there. The total amount spent by US in its nuclear programme in the last half century is around 5.5 trillion dollars. It is not easy to get a clear idea from this astronomical figure, even in our imagination. If you convert this amount into one-dollar notes and go on sticking them in series, it will produce a chain extending up to the moon and back!

The US is an imperialist country and draws a huge surplus through colonial and neo-colonial exploitation from all over the world and hence can bear this amount without many problems. But in the case of USSR (till 1989) which did not enjoy any such advantage, it was becoming gradually impossible to afford such a huge expenditure. And what we have seen is that the huge nuclear stock that they piled up to safeguard socialism from imperialist attacks ultimately proved to be counterproductive and did play a crucial role in dismantling the socialist system itself. It became impossible for a socialist state in the long run to satisfy the voracious need of the nuclear establishment. And in their attempt to do this, they perilously neglected the priority sectors of industry leading to a total distortion of the economy and ultimately to a defeat of socialism.

Back home, conducting nuclear tests was the first major step taken by the BJP government after it assumed office. It had certain motives and compulsions behind the decision.

So far as the immediate motives of the BJP are concerned, they have utterly failed to capitalise on this. They wanted to create nationalist frenzy inside the country, they wanted to threaten Pakistan and thus establish India’s supremacy over South Asia. Mao once called the atom bomb a paper tiger. I don’t know about the other bombs but in the case of India’s atom bomb his prophecy has indeed come true. They failed to rake up national chauvinism this time. On the contrary, they have faced waves of protest against it. So far, the term national chauvinism was found in the lexicon of the communists alone, more particularly in the lexicon of the CPI(ML). Even other left parties had stopped using this language for some time now. They used to join the bourgeois chorus on Kashmir against Pakistan. It is for the first time that large sections of the intelligentsia have written in newspapers against Advani’s provocative anti-Pak statements. There have been protests even in the parliament against the government’s chauvinism. Vajpayee too was found to be defensive in the parliament on such occasions. All these show that they failed to create a consensus, which they had expected to do. The VHP also had to beat a retreat from their programmes like the construction of Shaktipeeth etc. And after Pakistan blasted its bombs (one more than India did), cold water was poured on BJP’s total gameplan. BJP calculatedly cultivated an anti-China sentiment in the pre- and post-blast period in order to draw support from the US. But to its dismay, China and US issued a joint statement against the Indian blasts and India has been badly cornered in international politics. A few days back I saw the German Foreign Minister’s caustic remark about India and Pakistan commenting that these two countries which can’t supply food and drinking water to their own people and move from door to door with a begging bowl, are producing atom bombs. They thought that bombs would enhance their image but the opposite has happened. They are being mocked at everywhere.

The BJP has a good influence over middle class people. But while campaigning against bombs we have noticed a change. People themselves are now raising some pertinent questions like whether we can survive with a continuous belligerence towards our neighbours. They are holding the blasts responsible for unprecedented price rise, and the popularity curve of the BJP is declining fast. It is in this sense I said that the BJP’s immediate aims have not been realised and they are on the defensive.

But nuclear tests have a long-term aim and implication, which we must understand in its proper context. Their long-term aim is militarisation of the Indian economy. Now the Chairperson of the Atomic Energy Commission, R.Chidambaram says that India has to build up a military-industrial complex. Once it is built up it will be the new strategy for not only defence but for economic development too. They have already started taking steps in this direction. This is the path treaded by America and Israel; this has to be India’s path too! When Indian industry is mired in recession the industrialists want to make their way to the defence industry and thus enhance industrial growth! This is the saddest part of the whole scheme. This means a huge chunk of the budget will be drained for militarisation, links between private capital and defence will grow closer and as a by-product civil life will be the worst hit. Betterment of civil society will no longer be the priority of the state; and the priority will be shifted to the industrial-military complex: industry for the army, industry for arms. This nexus among military bureaucrats, scientific bureaucrats and private capital — a new class nexus will strive to give Indian industry and economy a totally new direction.

The responsibility of the leftists is to expose this class reality besides opposing the blasts. They must unite with all and sundry in opposing the bomb, but the responsibility of educating people about this politics, this long-term aim of the BJP government, rests with the leftist forces alone. They must work hard to unite the anti-nuke movement on this basis.

[Speech delivered at the seminar organised by Forum for Democratic Initiatives in New Delhi on 15 June 1998. The text of the speech was published in July 1998 issue of Liberation after slight alteration by the speaker in favour of publication.]

I don’t know how far the atomic explosions that took place at Pokhran have released nuclear radiation, but the fact that they have caused a lot of ideological pollution throughout the country is pretty clear.

Now there are several opinions regarding the reasons behind the explosions. Firstly, as Chaturananji has also pointed out, it was said while the atom bomb was exploded that Gautam Buddha smiled. At this rate Buddha will perhaps laugh to his heart’s content the day the bomb is used to kill millions of people. Some people argue that the bomb was used to diffuse the two human bombs viz. Mamata Bannerjee and Jayalalitha within the ruling BJP-led coalition. If the government of the day is governed by such irresponsible thinking, it really represents a great danger for the country. There is yet another opinion, which says that the tests were carried out to provide an alternative agenda to the fanatic BJP ranks that were dissatisfied at the postponement of the Ram Mandir agenda. Again this is a matter of great concern because you know that BJP ranks have a communal frame of mind; when they raised the slogan "Proudly say we are Hindus", it culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Today while centering around the bomb, once again Hindu metaphors of Shakti Peeth, Shaurya Diwas etc. are being invoked, I wonder where all this will lead to.

The slogan of Ram Mandir was targeted against Muslims and that of atom bomb is being directed against Pakistan. In this background, for the BJP cadres, belonging as they are to a party whose agenda does not make any distinction between nationalism and communalism and which takes an anti-Muslim orientation as its cornerstone, the atom bomb is nothing but a Hindu bomb.

All this ideological pollution that has come up along with the Bomb has engulfed the country’s skies and constitutes the dangerous fallout of the nuclear explosion. Still I would consider it secondary compared to the more dangerous portents of the bomb here on the ground. In the first place, I wonder where this ultra-nationalist frenzy, this jingoism unleashed through the tests will lead us to? Tensions in our relationship with neighbouring countries have been raised to a high pitch, war hysteria is being systematically built up, and we are indeed heading towards war preparations. Now, when you orient the whole thing towards nationalist frenzy, and, along with that when you step up military preparations, it has to have its fallout on national politics as well. That is what we witnessed in the wake of the first nuclear test at Pokhran in 1974, when just one year after that Emergency was clamped on the country. Therefore, a question justifiably comes up in our minds: how far will this building up of ultra-nationalist frenzy, coupled with the nuclear explosions, tolerate the democratic process that is still there in the country? And we again witness that arguments are being raised that our country needs a presidential system. They say the present parliamentary system does not bring stability to our polity, where elections are being held often, which is not a good thing, because it entails heavy national expenditure. And then they talk about the need for a great and able leader, a great personality. With all these middle class concerns and aspirations, attempts are underway to prepare the public mind to finish off the democratic process in the country and impose a dictatorial system. As I see it, this is the greatest danger that lurks behind the ultra-nationalist frenzy coupled with the nuclear explosions and tension building and war preparations against our neighbouring countries.

Secondly, I would like to point out that it is not a case of testing a single bomb. As a consequence of a nuclear test a whole nuclear stockpile has to be built up. During the past 30 years a whole project has been going on in the name of peaceful application of atomic power and enormous funds have been allocated under this head in successive budgets, an expenditure that has never been subject to public scrutiny and any kind of accountability. Gradually, a whole structure, a giant bureaucratic-scientific establishment has been built. And now there are attempts to militarise the whole national economy!

I would like to recall the following words of our Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Mr.R Chidambaram, which appeared in a national daily few days back: "The sinews of science and technology which spur development, are also the foundation on which national security is based and without assured security, development falters. India needs to build up an industrial-military complex which can ensure security on the one hand and catalyse development on the other." Now this is a radically different hypothesis, a diametrically opposite vision of development, a drastic departure from the kind of vision on which developmental endeavours were being made for the greater part of the past 50 years. This new vision says to the extent you strengthen your industrial-military complex through building arms factories, atomic energy, bomb explosions, etc., you pave the way for development. This I feel is a dangerous proposition. Now it is being visualised not just as a question of testing one or two bombs or even of weaponisation, or for that matter, of manufacturing a number of bombs or missiles in isolation from our development strategy. It is not even being taken as a component of the development model, rather it has been made the central theme of the whole of our developmental thinking. The entire strategy of development will henceforth revolve around the industrial-military complex. This is the Chidambaram thesis of development.

This is extremely unfortunate and disconcerting. Scientists including Albert Einstein, based on whose theory the atom bomb was designed, were not pleased with this weapon of mass destruction. Even Robert Openheimer, the scientist who is known as the Father of the Atomic Bomb, opposed the making of the hydrogen bomb, calling it a weapon of unprecedented destruction. As a consequence, in 1953 the US Atomic Energy Department branded him a security risk. But here in India, as well as in Pakistan, we see that scientist-bureaucrats are addressing press conferences flashing victory signs and proudly proclaiming their preparedness that if ordered they can make bombs of still greater destructive capability. This I think goes against the whole spirit of science, against the spirit of knowledge. And I do feel sorry that every party is busy praising these scientists for their so-called great achievements. However, as far as I know, there are also a great number of scientists who have opposed this act.

Well, I wished to pinpoint the twin great dangers emanating from the bomb blasts — the danger posed to the democratic process in the country by the jingoistic frenzy which has been systematically whipped up, and the danger of militarisation of the country’s economy and developmental process emanating from the doctrine of a military-industrial complex.

A related question however arises as to what should be our approach to the bullying tactics adopted by the big powers vis-a-vis India and Pakistan! How rational and legitimate is it on the part of the five big nuclear powers, the P-5 or permanent members of the Security Council, to exert pressure on India and Pakistan to sign the CTBT, while the US Congress itself has not yet ratified the treaty? It is expected to ratify this treaty only in the year 2000. These countries have themselves built up huge nuclear stockpiles, and through hundreds of tests, have reached a stage where they can conduct further tests merely by computer simulation. Then, even in the CTBT there is a provision that if necessary, these countries can resume tests in their supreme national interests. When these countries mount pressure on us and on Pakistan to sign the CTBT, it is nothing but sheer hypocrisy. I think the peace movement should make these big nuclear powers, the P-5, its main target. Among other things, it also seems that the tests have opened up a new debate in the world around these old treaties. Doors of newer initiatives have opened up, people are demanding to know from these powers what program they have for nuclear disarmament. We think the peace movement in our country should link itself with this initiative.

Sometimes it happens that when things reach their extremes, they begin to turn into their opposites. Although India and Pakistan have made and tested bombs against each other, now that a parity has been reached and both are being made targets of sanctions, both are facing pressures from big powers, perhaps a historical opportunity has come our way when India and Pakistan can stand shoulder to shoulder. As we have already witnessed, offers of talks are being exchanged after the nuclear explosions and I hope that a new round of talks will begin, and with their own identities, the two countries may evolve a joint stand against the big powers. If this happens, it will certainly be a good beginning. Conditions for such an eventuality have indeed begun to ripen. However, till forces like the BJP remain at the helm of affairs in New Delhi, I am afraid, this process cannot gain much momentum. The conditions are there, but these governments in India and Pakistan may not be able to realise them. I particularly talk of the BJP government in New Delhi because its whole agenda is directed against Pakistan. The cause of peace and cooperation between India and Pakistan has got invariably linked up with the task of replacing this government. Addressing this seminar here are representatives of various political parties and various trends of thought, and I hope we will be able to fight unitedly against militarisation of the country and the growing danger to our democracy.

[From Liberation, April 1998.]

The Fall of UF and the Rise of BJP

The Varanasi Congress had taken serious note of the looming threat of BJP coming to power at the centre. The report had said, "We do recognise the threat of saffron power taking over India. The collapse of the UF may well prove to be the catalyst for such an eventuality. Although the BJP has its own problems and internal rifts, and has limited a reach as of now in many parts of the country, yet the threat is indeed real and we must not underestimate it. And if that happens, certain readjustments of policy may also have to be effected depending upon the concrete situation obtaining then."

We said it in October 1997 when the UF government was still going strong with assured Congress support. In less than five months our apprehensions have come true. The report did underline the limited reach of BJP in many parts of the country and as the 1998 election results testify, its own strength in Parliament has not risen to any considerable degree. If we still considered the threat to be real, it was essentially due to our perception of a possible collapse of the UF that could prove to be the catalyst for such an eventuality. And that is precisely what has happened.

Ironically, Congress, the villain of the piece, which was primarily responsible for throwing the country into election turmoil again in less than two years, and, which appeared to be fast disintegrating under a powerful BJP onslaught, ultimately emerged unscathed. It not only maintained its tally, but also, inflicted a crushing blow to the BJP in Maharashtra and Rajasthan. This single fact did puncture, to a large extent, the moral authority of BJP to rule.

On the other hand, the UF, which went to the hustings on a common manifesto this time and with the halo of a martyr, amazingly found its strength depleted to half, and precisely the other half went over to the BJP camp.

The JD, the biggest UF constituent, was routed in Karnataka and its major chunk in Orissa crossed over to the BJD, the BJP ally. In a show of rank opportunism, the Prime Minister Gujral contested on Akali support and another stalwart, Mr.Ram Vilas Paswan, entered into a tacit alliance with Samata Party. The DMK-TMC combine suffered the most unexpected defeat in Tamil Nadu. Still when the BJP fell short of the magic figure, none else but the UF convenor Mr.Chandrababu Naidu extended a helping hand in a rare show of acrobatics. A few other UF constituents, viz. NC, AGP, have also made a decisive tilt towards the BJP. Every one of the BJP allies is citing the specific interests (compulsions!) of the respective states as the rationale behind their somersault. The cat is finally out of the bag. Specific regional interests had united them in the United Front and the same has now led to their parting of ways in a changed political situation. The secular principle was just a smokescreen manufactured by our social-democratic windbags.

It was a bad innings for the social-democratic Left as well, and the writings on the walls of Calcutta are quite ominous. Prior to elections, the CPI(M) leaders boasted of winning all the seats by capitalising on the split in the Congress. In fact they could just maintain their tally. The victory margin as well as the vote percentage witnessed a steep decline.

In an ostrich-like fashion, however, they continued to hope for a repeat performance of the 1996 scenario and quite earnestly prepared themselves to take over power at the centre. To salvage the hurt Bengali pride, Mr.Jyoti Basu announced his readiness to move over to Delhi. The desperate bid to undo the ‘historical blunder’ landed the CPI(M) in the morass of a ‘historical stupidity’. Well, to come back to the point, UF’s fall has been BJP’s gain both politically and numberwise.

Very few political analysts, however, have noted this direct relationship between the UF’s collapse and BJP’s ascendance to power. The reason is not far to seek. As BJP and Congress remain two main players, analyses generally remain confined to the BJP versus Congress framework.

Interestingly though, both the BJP and the Congress invoked the plank of a stable government and able leader. This was a direct indictment of the UF which became synonymous with instability and incompetent leadership. The people’s mandate, within the limits of its being manipulated by the ruling elite, went decisively against the UF this time. The post-election disintegration of the UF only confirms this.

Where did the UF Go Wrong?

Where did the UF go wrong and what are the implications of this collapse? From the Left’s point of view, probing these questions is quite important for deciding the future course of action.

First of all, the projection of the UF as an anti-BJP, anti-Congress formation — even its diluted version of anti-BJP, non-Congress front — has proved to be a social-democratic myth. In the same vein, the description of the UF as a transitory step towards the People’s Democratic Front, within whose ambit the unity and struggle between the working class and the forward-looking bourgeoisie will ultimately lead to the establishment of proletarian hegemony, has proved to be yet another social-democratic theoretical jugglery, essentially meant to rationalise their opportunist alliances. If anything, from ’96 to ’98, the transition of the social-democrats from the position of keeping the Congress out of power at any cost to the position of bringing the Congress to power by all means, is quite noteworthy.

Secondly, in the practical arena the UF miserably failed in pursuing progressive legislations. The bill on agrarian labourers remained pending and atrocities on dalits, including massacres in Bihar failed to elicit any response from the government. The ‘communist home minister’ kept himself busy with insurgency in Kashmir and the North-East and had neither the time nor the resolve to undertake any specific measure. And this, while the defence minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, vehemently opposed the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in order to appease the upper castes.

The UF did nothing to check ‘criminalisation of politics’ which had become a potent issue after the killing of Chandrashekhar. Neither did it take a single step towards resolution of the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi issue, nor did it take any measure to punish those guilty for the demolition. It made all sorts of compromises with the corrupt regimes of Laloo and Mahanta.

Thirdly, to stay in power, it sacrificed its first Prime Minister and therefore its show of bravery at a later stage on the issue of dismissing two DMK ministers did not cut much ice with the people.

One and a half years of UF regime will be remembered for Chidambaram’s ‘dream budget’ and the VDIS scheme. While the former, if one goes by the all-round decline in indicators of economic growth, remained a pipe dream, the latter was by far the most liberal offer to whitewash black money.

The UF, paradoxically, was seen as more friendly to multinationals though it was backed by powerful segments of the Left who excel in anti-imperialist rhetoric. With the darling of multinationals at the helm of financial affairs, the ‘nationalist’ plank was meekly surrendered to the BJP. The corporate world clamoured for a ‘nationalist government’ and a ‘level playing field’. And with the theme of Swadeshi, the BJP propaganda machinery was set in full steam.

The only strong point of the UF and its essential identity was its commitment to the principle of federalism. Slogans ranging from ‘more power to the states’ to ‘strong states and weak centre’ were raised. Well, the Centre did appear weak and unstable during the UF regime and it was defeated precisely on this score. Its strongest point proved to be its major failing. This underscores the essential characteristic of Indian polity. Whenever a strong centre tends to be authoritarian, powerful regional economic interests begin asserting themselves in opposition. In turn, however, when the centre appears weak and unstable, cravings for a strong centre assume prominence. The dynamics of Indian society can be related to the strong interdependence between the interests of powerful regional economic groupings and the imperatives of a unified national economy. The advocate of a weak centre, a qualification that logically made Chandrababu Naidu the convenor of UF, himself became instrumental in stabilising a strong centre led by the BJP government.

As political logic went against the UF, it had to go one way or the other. But this is not important. The moot point is that it failed to leave any imprint of its own that could be pursued for a future comeback.

The social-democratic Left oscillated between ‘historic blunders and stupidities’ but it never thought in terms of utilising the ‘historic opportunities’ that came its way. The concern of its ideologues was confined to prolonging the stay of the UF by all kinds of ‘go-betweens’, ‘compromises’ and ‘backroom deals’. Surjeet made the infamous statement that the Left did not pressurise the government to implement any left agenda, in order not to trouble the UF government. He expected the same from the Congress and other UF constituents. None obliged him. So the first ever central government in India backed by powerful Left segments, including a section heading important ministries, failed to leave any Left imprint whatsoever.

BJP Government — Threat of a Fascist Dictatorship

Every opportunist sin exacts its own price. And there stands amidst the debris of the UF, an overtly communal BJP government at the centre. After half a century of freedom, the central government is led by a party and a person whose roles in the freedom struggle were dubious to say the least.

And yet, wrong lessons are being drawn from this tragedy that has befallen India. A whole group of liberals including sections of left intelligentsia is lamenting the decimation of the ‘great institution that is the Congress’. This is an exercise in self-negation that rejects the history of anti-Congress struggles for progress and democracy.

The BJP government has won the vote of confidence and it pledges to run the government on a so-called national agenda. Atal Behari Vajpayee is repeatedly assuring the nation that as long as he is the Prime Minister, his government will not pursue any hidden agenda. This is a clever exercise of lulling the opposition to silence, splitting it and seeking more allies.

Some socialist and left intellectuals have already started arguing that BJP’s ascendance should not be equated to the rise of fascism. Some put in the argument that the economic basis of fascism as understood in a classical sense, is absent in India.

In the strict economic sense, it is true that the Indian bourgeoisie — a dependent bourgeoisie by itself — cannot pursue the Hitlerite agenda of grabbing the world market and seeking colonies. But is there anybody who is suggesting this? The Varanasi Congress report defined fascist dictatorship in the Indian context in the following terms: "BJP’s agenda includes pursuing a chauvinist policy vis-a-vis India’s neighbours, particularly Pakistan, escalating the nuclear arms race, transforming India into a Hindu Rastra where religious minorities will be treated as second-grade citizens, undermining the federal polity, unleashing brutal state repression and organising private armies of landlords to crush agrarian movements of the rural poor, unilaterally suppressing ongoing movements of national self-determination and crushing all sorts of dissent in intellectual, aesthetic and academic fields. In short, imposing a fascist dictatorship in India."

The internal dimensions of this dictatorship as well as its designs for emerging as the regional superpower are quite akin to what is popularly known as fascist dictatorship.

One must not forget that the BJP is indeed a party with a difference. Whereas all other political parties are independent entities in themselves, the BJP only enjoys an autonomous political space vis-a-vis the extra-constitutional authority of the RSS. The agenda precisely is that of RSS and the BJP, as its political tool, will invariably move in this direction. Besides, RSS has a wide range of networks and several other organisations to push through its agenda.

Towards a Confederation of Left and Democratic Forces

The march to fascist dictatorship cannot be halted by relying on the good wishes of the so-called moderate leadership of BJP or by the so-called moderating influence of BJP’s allies. A conglomeration of all kinds of discredited forces in the name of expanding the UF and rallying behind the Congress is no answer to the saffron menace.

We do not deny the need for a broader understanding between left and secular forces and the Varanasi Congress specifically called for ‘certain readjustment of policies’. The policy adjustment necessarily entails opposing the BJP government’s bid to pressurise, blackmail or dismiss the opposition governments; in joining hands against all kinds of communal onslaughts and undemocratic measures; in floor co-ordination in parliament and assemblies to checkmate the BJP’s gameplans etc.

But an outright alliance with RJD in Bihar or for that matter Left Front in West Bengal is certainly no answer to this complex problem.

Some commentators have chided the Left for blowing out of proportion the corruption issue against Laloo Prasad and its subsequent parting of ways with Laloo. Social-democrats are too eager to take this advice and go back to Laloo’s fold. But how is one going to account for the fact that it was precisely during the period of honeymoon between Laloo and the official Left that the BJP, otherwise a marginal force in Bihar, sprang to the centerstage? No high principles, but only the decline in Laloo’s seats and the serious drubbing that the Left received in the 1996 parliamentary elections in the face of a powerful BJP-Samata onslaught, led to a rethinking in the social-democratic camp and they decided to part ways.

Laloo’s regime has become synonymous with all-pervading corruption and all-round criminalisation. All democratic norms have been thrown to the winds and the State is in a state of prolonged economic stagnation. These conditions have indeed provided fertile ground for the rise of the BJP-Samta combine, which, apart from mobilising feudal and ‘upper-caste backlash’ has also won over major segments of backwards and extremely backward castes. In essence, it is not the Left’s opposition to Laloo’s misdeeds but the lack of it in a concerted and unified way that has left open much of the democratic space to the BJP and resulted in the Left’s own marginalisation.

Similarly, it is not our responsibility to defend the Left Front government when workers are deserting it because of pro-management policies; when labouring people on Calcutta’s streets are mercilessly thrown out of their meagre source of livelihood in order to appease the neo-rich and the multinationals.

Political alliances and electoral adjustments with the parties of bourgeois opposition can never form the cornerstone of the policies of a revolutionary communist party. We must primarily rely on mass movements to seek and widen our space in the democratic polity of India.

The BJP’s national agenda specifically targets students and youth. It aims at communalising their mindset through major changes in educational syllabus. The unemployment bogey is sought to be exploited by the BJP to launch the so-called ‘national reconstruction corps’, most probably the official version of RSS shakhas.

The Party therefore must accord top priority to mobilising students and youth against communalisation and pin down the government on its tall promises on employment.

The BJP is bound to dither on the women’s reservation bill and is all set to pursue all kinds of obscurantist agenda vis-a-vis women. Mobilising women against saffron is another major immediate agenda before the Party.

All mass organisations are to be invigorated to take up independent as well as joint initiatives with a wide range of left and progressive organisations to take on the BJP on every specific front.

The Party’s propaganda machinery needs to be streamlined to expose every policy statement and every specific act of omission and commission of the BJP government. No attack on democratic rights, on freedom of speech, and also no denigration of the institutions of parliamentary democracy by the BJP government should go unchallenged and unprotested.

And finally, as feudal forces everywhere are emboldened by the BJP’s ascendance to power, attacks on agrarian labourers and poor peasants and atrocities on dalit masses are bound to intensify. The Party will have to strengthen its combative preparations to foil all such attacks.

In short, this is the national agenda before all left and progressive forces to halt attempts at imposing fascist dictatorship in the country. And it is through this process of developing a heightened consciousness of the masses, and growing mass movements that we can advance towards a confederation of left and democratic forces — the truly transitory step towards the goal of building a People’s Democratic Front.

[From Liberation, January 1998.]

The first phase of the UF-Congress cooperation came to an abrupt end, even earlier than expected. Despite the cooling period allowed by the President neither the UF and the Congress could make it up among themselves nor could any other viable ruling arrangement take shape and thus within two years the nation has to face yet another general election.

Kudos to the UF for its firm refusal to submit to the Congress’ blackmail but unfortunately this brave act may prove to be its last united act. Some sections were willing to toe the Congress line even earlier and now, with the elections round the corner, they are contemplating an open or tacit alliance with the Congress under the pretext of special conditions in certain states. Similar considerations have led the major chunk of the JD in Orissa to embrace the BJP. Even Mr.Gujral — the UF Prime Minister — who refused to abide by the UF diktat on expelling RJD ministers from the cabinet — is seeking the blessings of Akali Dal to enter the Lok Sabha. Moreover, Laloo after his well-timed release is proving to be a major headache for the UF in general and the JD in particular.

Despite a Common Minimum Programme and common appeal, the UF appears a divided force without leadership and without orientation. As such, it is hardly likely to fire the popular imagination in the hustings as a cohesive political unit.

Though the Congress withdrew support on the Jain Commission Report, the significance of the report lies in nothing more than asserting the Congress dynasty and unifying the party around the same and thus providing a cause for the parting of ways with the UF.

As our Party’s Sixth Congress had noted, "...a coalition arrangement where both the major national parties the BJP and Congress, which together have nearly two-thirds of parliamentary seats, are out of power, can only be an exception rather than a rule. Sooner or later either of the two will rally enough support behind them to run the government."

Commenting on VP Singh’s formula of UF and Congress sharing both the ruling and the opposition space, the report said, "The basic fallacy of the argument is that it disregards the continuous process of conflicts and hence the changes in the relative strengths of various parties which otherwise constitute the broad anti-BJP spectrum and it assumes a permanently subordinate role for the Congress at the Centre. The Congress, still a major national party, cannot rest content with its present predicament. By making clear its agenda of opposing both the BJP and the CPI(M), it plans to work on the centrist camp to overturn the UF applecart."

The report had remarked, "At present the UF government is running more by default than by design and the Congress is waiting for the next opportunity to catapult itself to power."

This Congress tactic, apparently similar to the tactic vis-a-vis Charan Singh government in 1979 and Chandrashekhar government in 1990, however can lead to a very different outcome. This is the phase of Congress decline and the Congress at the most can aim at a coalition with the centrist camp where it may play a leading role. To achieve this goal the Congress will resort to tactical games.

As the Party Congress report described, "It (the Congress) hopes to play up the contradictions in the UF and seek allies in the next election. It does retain considerable manoeuvring capability to create confusion and splits in the so-called third camp of the left, centrist and regional formations and stage a comeback in the form of a Congress-led coalition."

It also said, "It (the Congress) has already developed a rapport with the RJD, is developing equations with Mulayam and is also working assiduously to bring the TMC and the DMK into line. Having forced the UF to tone down its initial criticism of Congress on issues of secularism and corruption, it hopes to refurbish its image, win over alienated Muslims and emerge at the head of an anti-BJP coalition by the next elections."

The entire exercise of interpreting the UF as a viable political alternative both to the BJP and the Congress, as a model coalition, as a secular and federal front and even the precursor of a People’s Democratic Front etc. was patently absurd. The alternative to Congress in 1996 elections, paradoxically, emerged in the shape of the UF-Congress cooperation because in the meantime the BJP had emerged as the single largest party inching closer to the seat of power. That political logic still holds true. The mid-term elections will prove to be a great leveller in reshaping UF-Congress relations. In the process both will undoubtedly go through major internal shakeups in the form of desertions, splits and new social equations but that will only strengthen the basis of cooperation between the UF and the Congress.

The biggest gainer of the present turmoil is of course the BJP. It has been able to wash away the stigma of ‘untouchable’ attached to it and has been winning new friends and allies. In the process, however, tall claims of ‘value based politics’ have been thrown to the winds. In its bid at usurping the Congress legacy, it is also appropriating the notorious Congress culture of harbouring criminals and super-corrupts.

It now has emerged as the first preference of the corporate world and as the Varanasi Congress report had pointed out, "the ruling establishment is all set to welcome a BJP takeover by the next election, if not earlier."

The BJP knows that this is the best chance offered to it and therefore it is moving at a breakneck speed to capture Delhi with the motto ‘now or never’. The confusing political scenario and the craze for stability coupled with the BJP capturing the bastion of UP and gaining an upperhand in Bihar through fostering criminal gangs like Ranvir Sena, have all made the saffron threat very real and left and progressive forces can only ignore it at their own peril.

The Varanasi Congress had pointed out, "We do recognise the threat of the saffron power taking over India. The collapse of the UF may well prove to be the catalyst for such an eventuality. Although the BJP has its own problems and internal rifts and has a limited reach as of now in many parts of the country, yet the threat is indeed real and we must not underestimate it. And if that happens, certain readjustments in policy may also have to be effected depending upon the concrete situation obtaining then."

While dealing with the bid for a temporary alliance with the Samata Party during the 1995 Bihar assembly elections, the Party Congress report had pointed out, "In practical politics, tactical alliances aimed at weakening our rivals may often be quite temporary. If this is lost sight of, the Party’s capacity for political manoeuvring and flexibility in tactics in the changing political situation will be seriously reduced."

This brings us to the all-important question of tactics of the Left in general, and our Party in particular, in the coming elections.

First of all, the so-called slogan of stability is a hoax and meant only for the forces of status quo. Indira Gandhi’s stability only led to excessive centralisation and Emergency. Narasimha Rao’s stability proved to be the most corrupt regime India has ever had. And the BJP’s stability will only lead to a Ram Mandir, destroying the secular fabric of Indian society and prove a morale booster to criminal gangs like Ranvir Sena. A loose and unstable kind of government based on UF-Congress kind of cooperation is best suited for advance of the left movement in India. Here the UF should be understood in broad generalised terms, which includes all kinds of centrist forces including those being cobbled up by Laloo Yadav in his so-called Secular Front.

Secondly, this necessarily demands an independent separate consolidation of the Left which may be in a better position to keep up pressure on such a government to extract as many concessions as possible for the people’s interests. Instead of hankering after participation in a bourgeois government and even seeking its premiership offered to an individual Mr.Jyoti Basu — whom the bourgeois world believes to be the right person in a wrong party — the Left should prepare itself for playing the role of democratic opposition at the Centre.

The leadership of the official Left, however, thinks otherwise. AB Bardhan is repeatedly insisting that Jyoti Basu would have made a better prime minister and under his premiership the UF-Congress cooperation would not have stumbled. How, only god knows! Surjeet, the other day, while castigating the Congress for its pressure tactics, took credit for the fact that the Left, despite its serious reservations on many issues, did not pressurise the government on any of them. What a shameless claim! Be it Chidambaram’s ‘dream budget’, or sitting over the agrarian labourers’ bill as well as the women’s reservation bill, the Left didn’t feel it necessary to put pressure on the government. The CPI(M) leadership remained totally preoccupied with ‘number games’ and ‘placating the Congress’ — i.e., political manipulation at the top — instead of taking up issues for a democratic mass mobilisation of the people. Social Democrats indeed will have to answer for their role in providing an unhindered free space to the BJP. At this crucial political juncture, when each and every political action is significant, they did not even hesitate to field a common candidate and vote along with the BJP against Rabri Devi — in complete disregard to the decision in the 17-party front — in the Bihar Legislative Council elections.

The CPI(M) leadership is preparing the party to accept participation in any future government and Jyoti Basu is once again ready to move over to Delhi, with bag and baggage. The debate on the tactics of the Left must therefore be intensified and we may hope to garner support from a section of the CPI(M) leadership.

In the coming elections, we shall have to gear up all our strength and undertake a massive independent all-India campaign reaching to the broad section of masses. We must contest in all our major areas of movement which symbolise the Party’s identity. Next, we should try to come to a political understanding and seat adjustments as far as practicable with our front partners in states like Bihar and Assam. And lastly, in vast numbers of constituencies where neither we nor our front partners are contesting, or where some front partners have entered into tacit alliances with the BJP, we shall support other political formations, except the Congress, against the BJP. And where a Congress candidate is the only viable candidate against the BJP, we should better keep our votes reserved.

For secularism, democracy and transparency!
Against participation in a bourgeois government — For a left opposition!
All against the saffron threat — All for polls!

[From the Political-Organisational Report of the Sixth Party Congress.]

Congress Decline

In the 1996 parliamentary elections, Congress(I), the main political party of the Indian ruling classes, was voted out of power. Its number of seats in parliament went down to a record low and subsequently most of its ministers, including the prime minister, were chargesheeted for involvement in one scandal after another. The government that introduced the new economic policy of liberalisation proved to be most liberal on corruption and was exposed as the most corrupt central government India has ever had.

The Congress today naturally stands thoroughly discredited. In particular, its marginalisation in UP and Bihar, the two most populous Hindi-speaking states of India has raised a serious question mark over any immediate prospects for its revival. Then there is unending factional strife and the threat of splits by important segments. By changing its leadership and invoking the Nehru dynasty, it is trying hard to refurbish its image but still there are no signs of its catching the popular imagination.

Although in terms of political influence and organisational network it is the only party that has an all-India presence, yet it does not appear to be anywhere near capturing the central power on its own.

In this sense the situation is quite different from what existed in 1977 and even in 1989. Therefore, the support that it has extended to the UF government is of a long-term, strategic nature. It hopes to play up the contradictions surfacing in the UF and seeks allies from the centrist and regional camps in order to muster a majority in the next elections. It does retain considerable manoeuvring capability to create confusion and splits in the so-called third camp of the left, centrist and regional formations and to stage a comeback in the form of a Congress-led coalition.

The BJP Threat

The BJP made important gains in the last elections. Still it was short of a majority which it failed to muster despite the best efforts. It has however succeeded in finding allies — other than Shiv Sena — in the BSP, Samata, Akalis and Haryana Vikas Party. It is desperately trying to win over some regional forces to tilt the balance in its favour and Atal Bihari Vajpayee even mooted the idea of a national democratic front. Somewhere along the line it has realised that it has reached its zenith and has not been able to expand much beyond northern and western India. Then it has its share of Vaghelas and Khuranas.

To enhance its credibility and acceptability, which got a drubbing after Babri Masjid episode, the BJP has adopted a two-pronged strategy. In the first place, it is trying hard to appropriate the legacy of the freedom movement by projecting itself as the heir apparent to the Gandhi-Patel tradition of Congress. This, it hopes, will help it make further forays into the Congress base. Secondly, it is trying hard to shed its bania-upper caste image and penetrate among dalits, backwards as well as other social groups who earlier formed the base of Charan Singh in North India. To this end, it advocates strategic partnership with parties like Samata and BSP and is projecting state-level leaders from other communities.

With its swadeshi plank it assures India’s industrialists of a better bargain with multinationals. And by harping constantly on the theme of ‘shuchita’ (purity) and ‘bhay-mukt samaj’ (terror-free society), it has managed to improve its stock considerably among sections of the intelligentsia and urban middle classes. But just as its earlier volte face over the Enron issue has taken the shine off saffron swadeshi, the ongoing political developments in UP, where Kalyan Singh has fallen back on the most brazen kind of horse-trading, including the induction of a whole array of criminals, have knocked the bottom out of its claim to being the only ‘party with a difference’. In fact, Kalyan Singh’s second coming in UP has been a great eye-opener since day one. He lost no time in trying to rake up the Ayodhya issue as soon as he assumed the chief minister’s chair, even as he stood chargesheeted as a key accused in the Ayodhya demolition case. Our comrades in U.P. raised a timely voice of protest by organising a well-publicised dharna outside the State Assembly even as Kalyan Singh was being administered his second oath of office.

In short, the rightwing shift of Indian polity that arose as a consequence of economic crisis and political turmoil of the late ’80s has found its centralised expression in BJP and a real saffron threat is for the first time looming large over India, a preview of which can perhaps be best seen in the second coming of Kalyan Singh in U.P.

The BJP’s agenda includes pursuing a chauvinist policy vis-a-vis India’s neighbours, particularly Pakistan, escalating the nuclear arms race, transforming India into a Hindu Rashtra where religious minorities will be treated as second-grade citizens, undermining the federal polity, unleashing brutal state repression and organising private armies of landlords to crush agrarian movements of the rural poor, militarily suppressing ongoing movements of national self-determination and crushing all sorts of dissent in intellectual, aesthetic and academic fields. In short, imposing a fascist dictatorship in India.

It must not be forgotten that the reigning chaos in the country, erosion of the credibility of institutions of parliamentary democracy, thorough degeneration of Congress, disintegration of the so-called social justice camp, devaluation in the Left’s ideological moorings and the failings of the present UF set up — all have created a wide space for BJP. In reality, the Indian ruling establishment is all set to welcome a BJP takeover by the next elections, if not earlier.

The UF Phenomenon

In a situation of political stalemate, a 13-party United Front took shape and, with Congress support, assumed power. Since then for a year and a half now it has been at the helm of affairs. Though the offer of prime ministership for Mr.Jyoti Basu was rejected by the CPI(M) Central Committee, Harkishan Singh Surjeet assumed the mantle of supra prime minister in the first phase of the UF government. The Congress, however, consolidated itself under a new president and in a superb coup it forced a change in prime minister and wrested the initiative. The language of the UF leaders, with regard to the Congress changed overnight. At present the UF government is running more by default than by design and Congress is waiting for the next opportunity to catapult itself into power.

The UF phenomenon has been described in several ways. Let us judge their validity.

In the first place, it is being said that the UF symbolises the advent of an era of coalition in Indian politics. Of course, with India’s multifaceted diversity asserting itself in full it may prove difficult for any single party to command enough majority and, in this sense, coalition age appears to have come to stay. But a coalition arrangement where both the major national parties, BJP and Congress, which together have nearly two-thirds of parliamentary seats, are out of power can only be an exception rather than a rule. Sooner or later either of the two will rally enough support behind them to run the government.

Secondly, the UF has been described as marking the advent of greater federalisation of polity, with regional parties enjoying considerable clout in running the central government. The role of regional parties in the Indian political system has indeed increased, particularly with the advent of the new economic policy. This policy, by relaxing central regulations, has given the states much freedom to directly invite private investments. State chief ministers are making a beeline to the West to attract foreign capital to their respective states. They are also competing among themselves to give tax incentives to the investors.

Public sector investment in the Ninth Plan (1997-2002) has been cut down to just 36% and the bulk of the amount is supposed to come from the private corporate sector. Private sector investment, even if it materialises, is likely to go to the profitable sectors and areas. This is bound to further exacerbate the imbalances among the states.

Powerful regional forces are quite averse to accepting statehood or autonomy demands raised by sub-national groups in their respective states. In most of the cases regional power groups are crucially dependent on landlord-kulak groupings and as such they are not keen on pursuing land reforms.

Therefore, looked at from the point of view of carrying out democratic reforms, federalism, in an absolute sense, is not all that golden in the Indian context. Moreover, the perspective on federalism differs for stronger and weaker states. The demand for a separate Khalistan in Punjab, or for that matter the Akalis’ demand that except for four items viz. currency, foreign affairs, defence and communications, all other powers be vested in the states, amounts to the secession of the successful. In the case of Assam however, the demand arises more from the neglect of the state by the rulers in Delhi.

Thirdly, the UF is projected as an anti-BJP, non-Congress front; a united front of workers-peasants and the progressive/forward-looking bourgeoisie; a unity which in the process of development of proletarian hegemony will transform itself into the cherished people’s democratic front; a union of the best of the left and the Gandhian legacies etc. These views have been expressed by none other than Comrade Namboodripad in the official CPI(M) organ. These were the opinions in the formative stage of the front when the CPI(M) leadership was busy spreading the myth that the CMP has rejected the new economic policy of the Rao government and the Congress support was unconditional and out of compulsion.

Since then much water has flowed down the Yamuna. The Congress has wrested the initiative and exercises greater influence on the UF government. The CPI(M) on the other hand feels marginalised and has become much more critical in its outpourings. Ironically, it is now the CPI(M) which has to remain in the UF out of compulsion!

It is not known how the CPI(M) leadership judges its earlier formulation but, all said and done, the hope of transforming the UF into a people’s democratic front has been belied and now it is just a question of political exigency.

Realignments and Shifts

Mr.V.P. Singh, the most far-sighted bourgeois visionary in Indian politics, recently made two important observations. One, a national consensus has developed around the new economic policies among all the major political parties. And two, an era of cooperation between UF and Congress has begun. He is perfectly right.

Stretching this premise to the realm of practical politics he has come out with a recipe that prescribes sharing of both the ruling and the opposition space in various states among UF partners, Congress and others belonging broadly to the social justice camp.

The basic fallacy of this argument is that it disregards the continuous process of conflicts, and hence changes, in the relative strengths of various parties which otherwise constitute the broad anti-BJP spectrum and it assumes a permanently subordinate role for the Congress at the centre. The Congress, still a major national party, cannot rest content with its present predicament. By making clear its agenda of opposing both the BJP and CPI(M), it plans to work on the centrist camp to overturn the UF applecart. It has already developed a rapport with RJD, is developing equations with Mulayam and is working assiduously to bring the TMC and DMK into line. Having forced the UF to tone down its initial criticism of Congress on issues of secularism and corruption, it hopes to refurbish its image, win over alienated Muslims and emerge at the head of an anti-BJP coalition by the next elections.

The anti-BJP, anti-Congress theme has already been watered down to an anti-BJP non-Congress plank and at least in the case of certain UF constituents it has further been diluted to an anti-BJP, pro-Congress stance. We, however, are strongly of the opinion that since both the Congress and the BJP continue to remain the two main all-India parties of the ruling classes, we must treat both as our primary enemies and remain firm in our anti-BJP anti-Congress orientation.

[This article, translated from Bengali, first appeared in the October 1996 special issue of Deshbrati.]

At the time of writing this article, a significant change has taken place in the Congress Party. Sitaram Kesri has replaced Narasimha Rao as the Congress president. It is not yet clear what implications this change will have on the reunification of the Congress. From Arjun Singh to VP Singh, all are talking of returning to the fold of the party. To what extent the existence of the Deve Gowda government is dependent on the changes in the internal politics of Congress can be understood from the fact that as soon as he heard the news of Narasimha Rao’s resignation, the Prime Minister rushed to his house and talked to him without aides for 45 minutes. According to newspapers, it was the 24th time that Deve Gowda met Rao in his house during the span of three and a half months of his tenure.

All eyes are set on the outcome of UP elections. Although Mulayam has been successful in getting a governor of his choice appointed to the state with a view to extract advantage in the event of a hung assembly, his defeat may usher in a crisis for the UF government as well. To put it differently, its dependence on the Congress would increase, and even the question of direct participation of Congress in the government may well arise. In all likelihood, the resignation of Rao has paved the way for that possibility. Given the situation, what will be the tactics of the Left? Maybe we shall soon face this question. However, for the time being we would limit ourselves to dealing with the attitudes of different leftist streams towards the present UF government.

Why this debate within the Left?

In the last Lok Sabha elections, none of the three main forces could attain majority. Besides, several regional parties and small political parties taken together, bagged a considerable number of seats in Parliament. In a hung Parliament, after the 13-day wonder of the BJP government had faded out, another novel phenomenon appeared on the scene. The United Front of 13 parties formed a government with the support of the Congress and, most unexpectedly, Deve Gowda became the new prime minister. On the question of participation in this government, difference of opinion was witnessed among the left parties, and moreover, debates also started within the parties as well. This debate assumed most intense proportions within the CPI(M), and then in the entire left movement, centring on the decision made by the CPI(M).

Here one must keep it in mind that the basic factor giving rise to the debate is the participation of CPI and CPI(M) in the United Front. In 1989 they were not part of the National Front, and the Left Front had a separate existence. It was the NF which had formed the government and the LF and BJP had supported it from outside, in the same way as, one can say, today Congress is supporting the United Front government. Although the CPI(M) theoreticians often portray their support at par with that of the Congress from outside, it is nothing but a half-truth. The independent existence and integral entity of the Left Front has been sacrificed at the altar of the United Front by joining it. The attempt to erect a Chinese Wall between the United Front and its Government is just a clever exercise in playing with words. You are an integral part of the government; the difference may only lie in direct or indirect participation. You are an important constituent of the United Front, yet you talk of supporting its government from outside! This is evidently self-contradictory. Just because the self-contradiction is so manifest, the CPI(M)’s decision not to join the government seemed quite unnatural and irrational to the people, and even the party’s central leadership stood divided on this question.

The CPI, without any delay, arrived at a decision to join the government. Some sort of opposition was of course there, but that was insignificant. After 1967, the CPI did join several non-Congress governments, and in the latter period even formed a coalition government with the Congress in Kerala. They have extended support to various Congress governments at the Centre, the height of which was their support to the Indira Government at the Centre during Emergency. Their supporting Emergency was the climax of the CPI’s line of transition to national democracy and socialism under the leadership of the ‘progressive section’ of the bourgeoisie. After making self-criticism in its Bhatinda Congress, however, the CPI washed off this stigma and adopted the line of maintaining a distance from the Congress. It is from then onwards that the relations between CPI and CPI(M) started improving. Between 1977 to 1996, the political cycle has completed a full circle and the CPI has again joined a non-Congress government — and that too at the Centre — a government which sustains precisely on the support of the Congress. However, this time the CPI(M) is not able to launch any forceful protest; on the contrary, it is itself divided on this question. The CPI theoreticians regard this as a victory of their line of national democracy. In a show of rare enthusiasm, Chaturanan babu asked the CPI(M) to re-evaluate their assessment of the Congress.

In the past, the CPI(M) has supported several policies of the Congress, a number of times it has also supported the Congress candidates for presidentship, and saved the previous Congress government at crucial junctures; nevertheless it never went into any formal relationship with the Congress. It supported the Janata government in 1977 in the context of anti-Congressism, although the then Bharatiya Jan Sangh was an integral part of it. Of course, its dubious role in toppling the Morarji government triggered a debate inside the party popularly known as the ‘July Crisis’. It also supported the National Front government in 1989 side by side with the the BJP to keep the Congress away from power. However, this is the first time that the CPI(M) is caught on the horns of a dilemma, because it has to support a non-Congress government which is itself critically dependent on Congress support for its survival.

The CPI(M) had hoped that Congress(T) or other rebel factions of Congress would bag a considerable number of seats and therefore the support of Rao Congress would not be required. However, in reality this did not happen. Even after the declaration of election results, Comrade Surjeet hoped that a major split would take place within the Congress and in that case branding these rebels as progressive sections of the Congress, a majority could be attained with the help of their support. But that too was not to happen. Ultimately, Deve Gowda had to plead in Rao’s court. Now the whole propaganda machinery of CPI(M) is busy brainwashing the rank and file, putting it in their heads that the Congress had no alternative but to support this government, that they have supported it unconditionally, and of course, on their own, that the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) has rejected the economic policies of Rao’s Congress government, etc. etc. In order to prove their political chastity their magazines are nowadays full of such subjective analyses.

However, truth was revealed by none other than Mr.VP Singh, the most far-sighted bourgeois visionary in present-day Indian politics, when he claimed that a new phase of cooperation between the United Front and Congress has begun. He also said in very clear terms that irrespective of whatever one says, an unwritten national consensus has developed around the new economic policy. Deve Gowda’s statements supporting the new economic policy have been known to all for quite some time, and by no way was it an accident that Chidambaram, who had been personally involved in formulating the economic policy of Rao government, was made the new finance minister of India. We will return to this matter a little later.

Why did CPI(M) Not Join the Government?

Immediately after joining the United Front, as its natural corollary, pressure began mounting on CPI(M) to join the government and this reached to an extreme when Jyoti babu became the consensus candidate for the post of prime minister. The Party’s rank and file, its intellectual sympathisers and so many left-oriented people could not find any rationale behind losing this golden opportunity. The logic behind staying out of the government could not be digested by them because, firstly, the CPI(M) was already a constituent of United Front; secondly, they were getting the post of prime minister, so they could play a major role in policy formulation, and thirdly, every constituent in the 13-party United Front was in a minority, rather the left bloc of 55 MPs was the largest among them. Therefore, the traditional logic that they would not participate in the government if they were in a minority, and consequently not in the principal role in policy formulation, was irrelevant in this context.

This situation quite naturally intensified the division in the leadership and later it was known that the decision to stay out of the government was carried only by a margin of few votes. The logic behind not joining the government is understandable if the question were about the extreme dependence of this government on Rao Congress and consequently the compulsion of carrying on with the new economic policy, but in that case there is a question mark on the relevance of the United Front government itself. However, when the CPI(M) leadership is incessantly claiming that support by the Congress is unconditional, that they are forced because they have no alternative, and that the CMP has rejected the new economic policy of the erstwhile government, then the logic behind the CPI(M) staying out of the government is really beyond one’s comprehension. The points of debate in the party central committee have still not come out in the open, probably they will in the next party congress. We will, however, deal here with an opinion that disapproves participation in the government.

Explaining the rationale behind not joining the government, a well-known intellectual has written that had Jyoti Basu become the prime minister the fascist forces in their rage would have started a country-wide counter-revolution, the whole capitalist class would have gone on nation-wide strikes, and given the nature of the state power, it would have only sided with them. As because the necessary strength — including armed people’s militia — to face such an onslaught is not there with the CPI(M), there is no point in stirring the fascists’ nest. Well, such explanations only suit arm-chair academicians. Jyoti babu has been there as chief minister of West Bengal for 20 long years, never did we see any counter-revolution taking place there, on the contrary, the native and foreign capitalists have been proffering Jyoti Basu the character certificate of a ‘gentleman communist’. To put it squarely, the consensus on Jyoti Basu’s name was there not because of his revolutionary image, rather it was precisely because of his liberal image which is reasonably acceptable to the establishment. The same intellectual wizard has also asked as to what Jyoti Basu could possibly do by becoming the prime minister if he had to offer ministerial posts to so many thieves and thugs of the United Front, rather it would have only tarnished the image of CPI(M). But has not the CPI(M) for quite long time been sharing the same shed with these very persons and even hailing them as great democrats and even revolutionaries; and does not Basu have to face many such problems in the West Bengal government too with such ministers? How could CPI(M) get away from this infamy while remaining in the United Front?

The Centrist Position of Namboodiripad

It is learnt that ultimately the intervention by veteran leader EMS Namboodiripad became decisive in arriving at the Central Committee decision. From his recent articles in People’s Democracy and elsewhere, we can understand CPI(M)’s attitude on different questions and also the debate that is going on inside the party.

He has propped up his arguments on the basis of the twin premises of the united front policy of the Communist International and the line of the 1951 party congress to unseat the Congress government from power.

He holds that the present United Front is specific Indian experiment of the Communist International policy of united front of the working class with the forward-looking bourgeoisie. In his opinion, the United Front has been built up by two components: one, sections of secular and democratic parties who are, in class terms, representatives of progressive bourgeoisie; and two, the leftist and left-leaning parties who represent workers-peasants-toiling people. He does talk of a delicate balance between the two components; he has also mentioned a tug-of-war, and then expressed some doubts regarding the stability of the Front. However, in the euphoria over the United Front, this aspect has not been allotted much importance in his thesis. EMS informs us that on the question of new economic policy of the Rao government there was some vacillation within the Front but it was seriously thrashed out and only after rejecting that economic policy was the CMP formulated on the basis of consensus. Well, one will be tempted to conclude that now onwards the struggle will centre on ensuring that no deviation takes place from the CMP. But here is a catch. In the following line EMS informs us that the CMP still contains ‘within itself’ the remnants of anti-people and anti-national policies of the erstwhile Rao government. How strange! How come there was a consensus in that case? Did you make a compromise on the matter of principle? Or else, are those anti-people and anti-national policies part of your own programme too? In case you hold that in the concrete situation prevailing today this limitation of a democratic programme is unavoidable, then why don’t you have the political courage to say that clearly, and to defend the programme in its entirety? On the one hand, you are owning the programme as common, and on the other, you are terming some part of it as anti-people and anti-national; is it not a clear case of self-contradiction? It is in this self-contradiction that the content of CPI(M)’s political opportunism is hidden. Right from VP Singh to Deve Gowda to Narasimha Rao, all are talking of a consensus on the NEP and it is known to all that the basic orientation of CMP favours this policy, whatever little changes or reforms that have been made there are precisely in order to provide a human mask to the same policy. In no case do the representatives of the bourgeoisie in the United Front government represent the non-monopoly bourgeoisie against big monopoly bourgeoisie, nor has there been a split within the bourgeoisie along progressive and reactionary lines.

Whatever you may call them, forward-looking or progressive, the leadership of the United Front rests in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the motive force of which is the new economic policy of the big bourgeoisie. The fact that the left partners are capable of doing there nothing save raising a hue and cry on some trivial questions has by this time become evident on a number of occasions. EMS had better also mention there that the Communist International had repudiated joining such fronts or governments terming the same as class collaboration.

Moreover, EMS has described the United Front as a necessary phase for the evolution of people’s democratic unity. How would this transition be realised? In his own words, "Broad unity and fraternal struggle among the two contingents of the United Front and the Government will continually promote and strengthen the independent position of workers and peasants. This will in turn gradually develop proletarian hegemony. This is the process through which the present unity of left, secular and democratic forces will transform into people’s democratic unity."
Describing such a United Front — which is a product of sheer political exigency, which has come into existence not through any democratic movement (better not to forget that in the course of movement against new economic policy we leftists never received any help whatsoever from any of these forces), and which is of a very transitory nature and it is not sure where its various constituents will take shelter in the face of a bourgeois offensive — and its government as the precursor to and indispensable stage for people’s democratic front, is nothing but a shameless distortion of the revolutionary theory of Marxism. More importantly, EMS is viewing this transition as something like a straight line, a smooth process of broad unity and fraternal struggle, where there are no ruptures in the backdrop of intensifying class struggles, no sharp conflicts with the proletariat on the question of leadership. It all seems very much like an echo of the Khruschevite thesis of peaceful transition, of course presented in Gramscian language of accumulation of proletarian hegemony etc. Such liberal and meaningless phrases become the norm in a party where revolution becomes a proscribed word.

Mentioning the 1951 party line, EMS says that there it was decided to unseat the Congress from power through elections (here he describes as supplementary the mention of non-parliamentary struggle in 1951 line), therefore the principled position of CPI(M) has been: "while it is eager to replace Congress by another bourgeois government, it cannot participate in a government in which it is a microscopic minority."

According to EMS, CPI’s policy is class-collaborationist because "they are for joining the government even if they are in a microscopic minority."

Therefore, the difference here is not on the question of participation in a bourgeois government, not even on whether you are in a majority or a minority, but on whether the minority is microscopic or substantial. In the Marxist-Leninist principle mentioned by EMS himself, there is a provision for supporting a bourgeois government, but not for joining it. However, by introducing the category of microscopic minority he has brought down the difference between CPI and CPI(M) to a question of mere degree. When the government belongs to the bourgeoisie, it is but natural that communists there can only be in minority. Nonetheless if this minority is not just microscopic but a substantial one, EMS has no objection to join a bourgeois government.

From the above one can get an idea of EMS’s traditional centrist position between the two conflicting sides within the Central Committee, and moreover, it can also be understood how this position has for the time being succeeded in effecting a unity in the CC.

Thus, by introducing the concept of absence of substantial minority between the two opposite views -- not joining the bourgeois government supported by Congress versus joining the government and getting the post of prime minister on the basis of left being the largest bloc — EMS has on the one hand rejected the thesis of not joining the government, and on the other, also rejected the practicability of joining it. As the matter is just of difference in degree of minority, this time there is no such sharpness in the debate between the CPI and the CPI(M). Even the gentleman’s agreement between the two sides is worth noticing. Also worth noticing are a few statements by EMS:
"For the first time in the country’s history a united front of former Congressmen and communists has formed the government which is working on the basis of CMP."

"While all the 13 constituents of the UF are committed to defend this government against all attacks from wherever they come, and while one of the four left parties (CPI) has even joined the government, the three other left parties including the CPI(M) have opted out to support the government from outside."

Here it would be worth mentioning that EMS has repeatedly described UF as a united front of communists and erstwhile Congressmen. In his article which appeared in The Times of India, he has termed ex-Congressmen right from Acharya Kripalani, as true disciples of Gandhi and from there he has traced the legacy of cooperation between communists and the ex-Congressmen or true Gandhians. According to his analysis, today the true disciple of Gandhi bearing that legacy is Deve Gowda, and the United Front government symbolises the best of leftist and Gandhian legacy. While using these superlatives it seems to have slipped out of his mind that the political guru of Deve Gowda is none but the noted syndicate leader Mr.Nijalingappa. Overtaken by his zeal he just forgot that this front of communists (or ex-communists?) and ex-Congressmen is dependent on the present Congress for its existence and survival.

The Attitude of CPI(ML) Towards These Governments

A few words regarding the stand of CPI(ML) towards this government are also required here, because there is no dearth of confusion on this score both within and outside the Party. And it would be better to be clear that in the parliamentary arena our basic position is to play the role of revolutionary opposition. Be it the reactionary government of the BJP or the Congress, or the centrist government of Laloo or Mulayam, or the leftist government of CPI-CPI(M), there arises no question of change in this basic position.

But if we merely learn this basic policy by rote and apply it mechanically, we would fall prey to dogmatism and people will consider us fools. In order to apply this basic policy in the practical field we also require tactical flexibility. We will have to learn to differentiate between various situations, various governments and various issues. Often our parliamentary representatives may have to vote for left or centrist forces against the BJP or the Congress; if there occurs a polarisation between two opposite sides our representatives cannot just remain neutral, because that neutrality may help the main enemy and this may tarnish the image of our Party. In a transitory phase, starting from offering critical support to a centrist or left government we may step by step transform our role to that of an opposition, so that our position looks rational and comprehensible to the people.

These tactical steps taken in the arena of parliamentary politics often create confusion among comrades. A good many of them start taking tactical flexibility as opposed to the basic position of the Party, and on the other hand, there are many others who demand elevation of the specific tactics adopted at a particular juncture to the status of basic policy. Viewing our practice in the last few years, we can understand that although our representatives have voted in favour of centrist governments against the no-confidence motions brought on the floor by the BJP or the Congress, and though we have even offered critical support to a centrist government for a short period, in the overall analysis we have only played the role of revolutionary opposition, and in this respect the tactics of building an independent left bloc is an important element of our policy. As regards the Deve Gowda government, the first thing is that our representative did not join the United Front; he has criticised the government on all matters concerning alliance with Congress and spoken against each and every anti-people measure taken by the government. And, then, during the confidence motion when the whole house stood divided along secular and communal lines, in his speech our representative put forward his criticism expressing the apprehension that the new economic policy would continue, and voted for the government. This is to mean that he clarified that the support was critical. The point of our emphasis was that the Left should come out of the United Front and take up an independent position, building an independent left bloc. In the Bihar Legislative Assembly we have adopted the same position. In Assam too, the ASDC has refused to join the government, and starting from proclamation of their support to it from outside, they are, step by step enhancing their level of opposition by building an independent democratic bloc. We hold that in the specific situation of Assam it is better to advance in this way.

We shall always launch movements on all democratic issues as well as in the interests of the labouring people outside Parliament and legislative assemblies against these governments.

Limitations and The Question of Marginalisation

Nowadays some people are extremely worried that our Party continues to remain a marginal force and is not able to enter the mainstream. One gentleman, who once looked after the IPF Central Office but later retreated and got himself well-settled, and who is nowadays bringing out a magazine in which Mulayam Singh is eulogised and failures of Marxism are highlighted, has in an article, appearing in another magazine, written that CPI(ML) stands on the margin and will remain in the margin. His allegation against us is that in an age when the world has advanced greatly, we are still confined within the same old Marxism. Of course we do discuss many new problems, but we search for their answers in the same old formulations of ‘by now outdated’ Marxism. His further allegation is that, when others were involved in politics centring Mandal and reservation issues, we held a rally under the slogan of ‘daam baandho kam do’; or when others have abandoned the slogan of social justice it is we who are holding it aloft. In his opinion we are not marching with time, so we are doomed to remain a marginal force. Some comrades within the Party have praised the article, they also think we must somehow enter the mainstream, this isolation is no longer desirable.

In fact, in comparison to any other ML stream, our Party has, over the span of the past decade or more, made an all-round attempt to intervene in the mainstream of politics. Through establishing contacts with various streams of democratic forces throughout the country, joint activities with various streams of the Left at different levels, through attempts to utilise every debate or division among our political contenders in our favour, through organising nationwide campaigns and holding national rallies, through active intervention in the election process, etc., the Party is incessantly trying to expand its initiative. In the midst of ups and downs we have also gained some successes in this endeavour. Here one must remain clear about our point of departure while intervening in the mainstream of politics. Should one get co-opted into the ongoing stream of left-democratic politics? Or should one try to transform it? If we get co-opted into that stream, will it not become our fate to remain a marginal force forever? On the other hand, the task of transforming this stream is no doubt protracted and painstaking, but within this lies the great possibility of future when, breaking the present isolation, we can become the determining force of the mainstream.

We must keep it in mind that we represent the urban and rural proletariat, and although this class is overwhelmingly large it remains a marginal force in the present socio-political system. The question is that of bringing that class into the mainstream of politics through political mobilisation. In this endeavour, superficial political manoeuvres are not going to pay. The question is not at all of bringing the CPI(ML) or some ambitious personalities into the political mainstream in an abstract way.

When I talk about this class it does not mean that we shall remain confined only to them. In the phase of democratic revolution, the communist party should become the representative of all the sections of the people. When, after the Bathani Tola incident, Laloo Yadav, while highly praising our Party on the floor of Bihar Legislative Assembly, said it is the CPI(ML) which truly represents poor people, some of our comrades got very pleased. They did not understand the bourgeois conspiracy lying hidden behind this liberal praise; they are advising us to confine ourselves only to the rural poor and not attempt to represent other sections of the society. The ruling class first tries to finish us by means of repression, but when they do not succeed in that, they try to get us confined within our limited sphere, and for that, they often sing our praises too. We must break this limitation and reach out to all strata and sections of society, and represent their interests as well. Here lies the utility of various political tactics and joint activities with the object of forging a united front. All this should be done while keeping unflinching faith on revolutionary Marxism, upholding the revolutionary position of the Party and remaining consistent in the revolutionary movement. Only then there would be any significance of the legacy of CPI(ML), of the blood shed by thousands upon thousands of martyrs. If we rely on shortcut methods or superficial manoeuvres, the unity of the Party will get hampered and not only will we remain in the margin, there will be great disaster too.

Centring around the close relationship between United Front and Congress, the debate is bound to sharpen in the days to come and it is in the course of this debate that there lies the possibility of a new polarisation among left forces. Towards this objective we must build our own mass base through painstaking work, spread our propaganda far and wide by making it more rational and make an active intervention in the ongoing debate on the role of Left in the national politics. Today’s phase of preparation will, in a favourable turn of political events, usher us in the main position of the left-democratic stream.

[ Interview by Ramji Rai, Editor of Lokyuddh. From Liberation, June 1996.]

How do you assess the present political situation?

The present political situation has demolished many myths. In the scramble for power, the BJP in an effort to manipulate a majority, sidelined all the issues that go to make up its specific identity. On the other hand, many would not have expected the pace and the ease with which the JD and the Left have established coexistence with Narasimha Rao’s Congress(I) and its direction of economic reform.

The emergence of BJP as the largest political party and the emergence of a common understanding among centrists, leftists, regional parties and Congress(I) for ‘secularism and economic reforms’, is a new juncture in Indian politics. At this juncture, the agenda of social justice has to be redefined and we have to rebuild the third force anew.

No political party could get a clear mandate in the parliamentary elections to form a government. Does this indicates some crisis of the ruling classes or its democratic vitality?

We communists have always been pointing to India’s multinational, multilingual and hence multidimensional cultural diversity as against the BJP’s Indian nationalism with Hindutva as its essential thread. National unity should be built on the progressive ideology of anti-imperialism, democracy and a modern state and not on archaic Brahminical values. The failure of BJP to gather majority in spite of presenting a moderate face and also the composition of the present Indian parliament confirms our understanding of Indian society.

Of course, there is a crisis. After the decline of Congress(I), we have witnessed the limits of the other centralised all-India political formations. Indian society may be a ‘great coalition’ but to translate it into a stable political coalition is a tough job, especially when there is no strong nucleus at its centre.

To get out of this dual problem, the process of experimentation shall continue and it is to be seen how long and how far can the institutions of parliamentary democracy bear it.

Political analysts and most of the bourgeois political parties are looking at this situation as the beginning of a new era of coalition governments and are modifying their tactics to suit these conditions. Does it not appear to you that Indian politics is going to pass through a phase of coalition governments for a long time to come?

There were talks of the phases of coalition governments in 1977 and ’89 too but those proved to be shortlived. This time the number of parties in the coalition governments is quite high but its largest constituent has only 42 seats. The BJP and Congress(I) are still the first and second largest parties and ironically both of them are outside the government, the former as an opposition, and the latter as a supporter of the government from outside. Both are pursuing the tactics of utilising the contradictions and splits in the United Front government to their benefit. That is why, to say that this experiment of coalition government will decide the general direction for the future, would be too premature a conclusion.

The CPI(ML) has commended the CPI(M) for not participating in the coalition government. But they have just followed their old policy, there is nothing new in it. So, why did tou congratulate them?

The pressure on CPI(M) to participate in the government was much more this time, and, as is known, one section of the leadership had already made up its mind to participate in the government. In such a situation, CPI(M)’s Central Committee’s decision to firmly stand by the party programme is indeed important. At the political level, the logical culmination of the straight line of ‘secular alternative’ can only be joining the government. On similar pretexts, CPI had in the past joined even the Congress(I) governments. The decision of the CPI(M) central committee acted as a brake against floating with the current. You might have seen that while CPI called this decision unfortunate, we welcomed it.

But many questions emerge after this decision, on which the CPI(M) has to clarify its position. For example, last time while getting into an understanding with the NF, LF had maintained its separate independent identity, but this time CPI(M) and other left parties have become constituents of the United Front. And since the government is of the UF, even without participation in it you will be equally responsible for the omissions and commissions of the government. The decision of the CPI to participate in the government has threatened the very existence of LF as a united bloc. Even more, Deve Gowda has been an ardent admirer of Narasimha Rao’s economic policies. From the very beginning the Congress(I) has been making the question of continuation of the economic policies the main condition for its support. Deve Gowda becoming the prime minister and Chidambaram the finance minister amounts to capitulating before this conditionality. The irony is that the Congress(I), though remaining outside, is pulling the strings of the government but the CPI(M), in spite of being a UF constituent, is unable to determine the direction of the government.

This very contradiction of the CPI(M)’s position is increasing the outside pressure on it to reconsider its decision on joining the government and, on the other hand, the internal demand to give critical support to the government by staying out of it is also gaining ground. We will welcome any such decision of the CPI(M) that maintains a distance with the Congress(I) along with the BJP.

Even this time the CPI(ML) failed to join any united front. Is this an indication of the failure of the Party’s united front policies or one of its drawbacks, or the inadequate development of a situation conducive to its policies? Do you feel the need for a rethinking on your united front policies?

Even now, considering the level at which we are working the main thrust is on building our strength. At the social level, our effort to build a united front with various classes and sections of the masses is continuing. This is a long drawn process and has no alternatives.

At the national level we have always identified ourselves with the camp of anti-Congress and anti-BJP third force and have always participated in joint actions. But at the organisational level, tying ourselves with any front will blunt our initiatives in various states and may prove suicidal for the Party. Even then we are continuously trying to develop tactics to properly utilise every division among and within our opponents to our favour, and in this respect, a scope for serious discussion is definitely there.

A front with any of the left or centrist forces could not be made. Even where the social bases are concerned, no success has been attained at forging a front with any section of the middle castes or middle class. How do you see this? What is your future strategy regarding this?

We did get support from some sections of the middle castes and middle classes, or else our progress in the three seats in Bihar, where we have polled more than one lakh votes each, would not have been possible. In these elections we laid emphasis on strengthening our class base. This was necessary due to the inroads being made by Janata Dal into our support base.

In the light of the jolt received by JD, certainly a conducive condition has been created to expand our influence among the middle castes and we have taken the decision to take up this task in a planned manner.

What kind of role does the current situation demand from the Left Front today? Will left forces be able to advance unitedly in this direction?

Left leaders must do away with their role of brokers between the centrist forces and the Congress(I) and raise their voice against communalism and the foreign-capital-based economic development. In Parliament, they should adopt the role of left opposition, demarcating themselves from the United Front. This is the feeling of the left cadres too. Whether the leadership of the left forces will unitedly proceed in this direction, only time can tell.