From Foes with Love: Fall of the Left

I have been mulling like many others in the Left over the spectacular fall of the Left Front government in West Bengal after 34 years of rule. Perhaps, the metaphor is not apt particularly from someone who is a sympathiser of the Left Front - the fall itself seems like the burning of the effigies of Ravan, Meghnad and Kumbkaran during Dussehra. Like in the myth it is known to all that the fall is inevitable, and when the effigies are erected in a public open field people go past it, sometimes admiring it but with the full awareness that on the appointed evening it will be reduced to ashes. And yet a crowd gathers on the Dussehra evening to participate in, witness, facilitate and celebrate the fall. In West Bengal, however, the Dussehra was scheduled for 13 May 2011.

Responses to the fall have been many - let us leave aside the predictable responses from the TMC or the CPI(M) camp. Nothing much need be said of the TMC for they are only too happy to celebrate their victory by entering into a spree of 'revenge' killings. The CPI(M) in its analysis has once again reiterated that they have learnt their lessons. What are the lessons on the menu are doubtful. This line on 'correction' was put forward during the election campaign. However, the conduct of the CPI(M) leadership in the election campaign itself betrayed this emotion. Other than the most unfortunate and much condemned statement made by Anil Basu, we saw Buddhadeb Bhattacharya announcing at Singur that 'factory wahin banayenge' - I wonder what is the wisdom of rubbing such wisdom into wounds still fresh. And Gautam Deb was vehement that the government had made a mistake by allowing Mamata Banerjee sit on a dharna at the National Highway at Singur - 'amader macha bhenge deowa uchit chhilo [we should have demolished her tent]'.

On the one hand the neo-liberal types in the media - like the obnoxious Sagarika Ghosh and Meghnad Desai have suggested that the Left should go the Social Democracy way. This is actually hilarious, if there is any lesson to be learnt from the Nandigram and Singur agitation and similar agitations against land acquisition across the country - peoples' rights have to be strengthened. The Left in West Bengal was receiving flak for violating democratic principles and not for sticking to them. These are the the primary foes of the Left who want to have a chuckle at its sorry state and would be happy for the Left to leave all together.

The more serious set of articles come from another set of scholars who are democratic minded and often take recognisably Left positions on issues - yet nevertheless shying away from any form of organised participation in politics. Such scholarship have the following points to make:

1. The Left Front which came to power in 1977 did so riding on the hopes of the people of West Bengal for a democratic alternative. The Left Front, according to these commentators did work well in living upto that hope for about 10-15 years of its rule.
2. Beyond this 10-15 years the Left Front lost it! They betrayed the people and turned neo-liberal.
3. This phase was also characterised by an oppressive presence of the party machinery, to the extent of interfereing in personal and family affairs of the people. This machinery actually was a rent collecting structure which made the already meagre public services distant for the common people. This machinery penetrated all known sectors of public machinery from culture to the police. Even though Singur and Nadigram provided the immediate reason for the 'regime change', it was a release from this oppression that the people desired.
4. This machinery which existed at the lower levels could not be tackled as the upper echelons of the CPI(M) had become ideologically bankrupt - either they were given over to the neo-liberal doctrines as in the West Bengal CPI(M), or like Prakash Karat at the Central Leadership an inflexible and unthinking orthodoxy. Both viewpoints, however, agree that all levels of the CPI(M) are plagued by arrogance.
5. And, of course, added to this was the neo-liberal eventuality where the Left Front intervened with force at Singur and Nandigram (some of this articles actually recall that there never was a proposal to acquire land at Nandigram), on behalf of corporate land grabbers.

According to this thesis therefore, the loss of the Left Frond a.k.a CPI(M) in West Bengal is no great loss to the democratic movement in India, in fact, it is a positive development. Most of these articles have declared the CPI(M) dead and look forward to a post-CPI(M) Left in India.

Not all the afore mentioned criticisms of the CPI(M)-Left Front are baseless. In fact, such ideas have been articulated even by certain allies of the CPI(M)! Whether well intentioned or otherwise this criticism needs to be heeded and the CPI(M), assuming that it is not dead yet, has to think creatively for the future.

However, such soul searching may not be fruitful without paying attention to a few other points which the many Friends and Foes of the CPI(M) have missed in this analyses:

1. The spectacular fall was preceded by the spectacular rise. In 2004 and 2006 the Left Front won unprecedented mandates in both the Centre and the State. It is possible that the catharsis for the people of Bengal came late but it is impossible to ignore the importance of the land acquisition events to explain the timing of the catharsis. Possibly, people were willing to tolerate an arrogant CPI(M) for they still were unsure of the vitriolic nature of the TMC. It was when the pro-poor tag was shattered by the Nandigram firings that the catharsis was magically reached.
2. Will the situation in Bengal be any different now that the CPI(M) is out of power? None of these articles have even glossed over the prospect of life under the TMC!
3. The Left Front still enjoys 41% of the popular vote, enough to have resulted in a landslide victory in most other Indian states. Why have these 41% stayed on with the Left Front? Are they likely to wander away now that the Left Front is out of power?

I have earlier after the Lok Sabha 2009 results reflected on certain issues facing the Left Front which I think are relevant even today [The Debacle of the Left in India]. However, I must note that there has been a significant silence from Left academicians and intellectuals on the Left's defeat in West Bengal. I feel at a time when the CPI(M) is in a publicly announced state of introspection it is useful to speak up.

Let us remember, that though the Ravan effigy is burnt, it returns again to stand tall. And in some traditions Ravan is the hero and Ram the villain.

The Fatal Response

In the wake of the biggest set back to the Left movement in India since Independence, and certainly to the CPI(M) it is time for us to enter into a deep introspection into the reasons why the Left has lost its way. Today I take the liberty of bringing into the public domain an email I had written to a CPI(M) functionary on 19 March 2007, four days after the police firing at Nandigram:


"i think the situation is extremely difficult for the party.

i understand that there are elements which have tried to rehash the Keshpur formula, and i believe that we shall be able to ultimately give a rebuff to these forces - but there seems to be a certain difference between Keshpur and Nandigram - why was it so difficult to anticipate the ability of the opposition to organise the fear of 'land grab' and turn it into a consolidation against the party.

the comparison may be a far cry and very inappropriate - but i still can take this liberty with you - the Nandigram case reminds me of the point the CAG had made about the 'ideological zeal' which lead the BJP govt. to be lax on the measures of disinvestment. is the 'ideological zeal' of the WB govt. towards industrialisation leading it to over-ride its contact with the people of WB?"

The Politics of Anna Hazare

Over the last week not only the corporate Indian electronic media but people in various cities of India have joined themselves in solidarity with Anna Hazare and others in the search for a anti-corruption regime. They are today celebrating what they are terming as their victory. Yet the support received from these sections by Anna Hazare is not unprecedented. Such mobilisation of 'civil society' has been seen often in recent times on varied issues such as the Jessica Lal murder case, the Arushi Talwar case, the Ruchika Girhotra case and so on. In all such cases public mobilisation has been aided by a vigilante media. But in most such cases the target of 'civil society' ire have been the law enforcement agencies. With Anna Hazare the target is the Indian Parliament and the political system.

The mobilisation has also been helped by tremendous anger among wide sections of the Indian people over the instances of mega-corruption which have come to light during the period of the Prime Ministership of Manmohan Singh. However, in this mood of euphoria and almost unwritten code in which everyone on your Facebook friendlist have signed up their support for Anna Hazare and the 'Jan' Lokpal Bill, and that much of this support has actually translated into actual attendance at Jantar Mantar, India Gate or candle marches in different cities and campuses - there have been a few people who have dared to question the motives and processes of this movement. In a beautiful piece titled At the Risk of Heresy: Why I am not Celebrating with Anna Hazare Suddhabarata Sengupta has articulated some of these concerns. Sudhabrata points out the undemocratic provisions in the Jan Lokpal Bill, its authoritarian moorings and an impatience with representative democracy. Suddhabrata also highlights the selective activism of the middlle class 'civil society' in choosing certain issues for its attention and being mute about certain others - like Irom Sharmil'a agitation against military brutality in the North-East.

I would, however, like to highlight another aspect of the Anna Hazare show which is equally troubling. It has been read as one of the virtues of the movement - is a disdain for the entire political class. While the public fury against Om Prqakash Chautala and Uma Bharti is understandable - what is not is Anna Hazare's insistence that he is not willing to associate with any politician, almost suggesting therefore, that all politicians are corrupt. Hazare and his friends, however, had no qualms about sharing the dais with the corporate media and publicity hungry celebrities - many of whom are have dubious distinctions themselves (eg. Barkha Dutt being a player in the 2G scam and Amitabh Bacchan's income tax records). I am not arguing that Anna Hazare should have shared his platform with political parties and their representatives. But his reiteration of the middle class adage that all politicians and all political parties are corrupt is another aspect of the undemocratic moorings of this movement.

Politics and therefore, political parties cannot be wished away. The attitude of the 'Jan' Lokpal Activist actually help the reformist agenda of maintaining the system and would prevent systemic change. You would now have, if they are successful, an undemocratically selective and unaccountable 'watchdog'. It is the same point which Montek Singh Ahluwalia harps on in favour of privatisation of public services - that regulation can fight anomalies and corruption. However, it has been argued that corruption cannot be fought without changing the class structure in India - it cannot be fought by subverting democracy but through deepening democracy.

In fact, Anna Hazare's act is deeply political and so he too is a 'politician'. May we raise questions about the symbolism of his movement - the huge portrait of 'Bharat Mata' on the podium lends suspicion towards a particular brand of politics which not all would like to associate with.