Much
is being written these days, especially in the context
of West Bengal, about what is wrong with the CPI (M).
For a Party that has been in power in the state for
more than three decades, this is hardly surprising.
But if a Party has been in power in a state for more
than three decades, then something must also be right
with it. Besides, no matter what the outcome of the
forthcoming Assembly elections, it would still be the
case that almost half of the electorate in the two most
intellectually-advanced states in India, West Bengal
and Kerala, would have voted in them for CPI (M)-led
formations. What explains this, and also the fact that,
notwithstanding all its omissions and commissions, the
CPI (M) still continues to attract some of the finest
young minds of the country?
The
answer is three-fold (and everything I say about the
CPI (M) holds generally for the organized Left as a
whole): first, it is the only modern force in Indian
politics; second, it is the only consistently democratic
force in Indian politics; and third, it is the only
consistently anti-imperialist force in Indian politics.
Of the two main non-Left political formations in the
country, one appeals to Hindutva, and the other appeals
to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Both thrive on the essentially
feudal features of our society. The CPI (M) by contrast
does not owe its being to the identity of Prakash Karat's
grandfather, or of Sitaram Yechury's father-in-law.
It represents in that sense the only residual link to
the modernity of the anti-colonial struggle. The Congress
Party, which retained the leadership of the anti-colonial
struggle throughout its course, was largely a modern
force during that struggle and for a while even after
independence; the leaders were more or less equal, debate
was free, and sycophancy, let alone dynastic politics,
conspicuous by its absence; dynastic politics entered
the Congress party at a later date. The Hindutva group,
by contrast, never had anything to do with the anti-colonial
struggle; its political formation always was, and still
remains, a front for an organization that is fundamentally
pre-modern in its orientation and appeal. But while
modernity was absent from the one and abandoned by the
other, it still characterizes the CPI (M) as a political
force.
Both the non-Left formations have also at different
times sought to abrogate the democratic nature of our
polity. The Congress Party imposed upon this country
the infamous Emergency which ended only because of a
miscalculation on its part and not because of any change
of heart (indeed to this day it still has not expressed
any contrition on this score). And the Hindutva formation
toyed for long with the idea of altering the Constitution
of the country and even set up a Commission to suggest
recommendations for doing so, until President K.R. Narayanan
stepped in to end that effort. The CPI (M) was in the
forefront of opposition on both these occasions (though
the CPI transgressed on the earlier occasion, for which
it later made a self-criticism). The CPI (M)'s systematic
defence of the democratic rights of the people has paradoxically
been somewhat belied by its own reticence to theorize
about the nature of democracy in societies like ours,
and by the pervasive association, derived from historical
experience but lacking any theoretical justification,
of communism with one-Party rule; but this defence has
been as steadfast as it has been forceful. By contrast,
on the issue of secularism, where the Party, free of
any historical baggage, has been more forthright in
theorizing its praxis, its role in defending secularism
has been more widely acknowledged.
Critics often point to this or that misdemeanour on
the part of the CPI (M) cadre, this or that action on
the part of CPI (M) ''hoodlums'' to contest CPI (M)'s
commitment to democracy. But even if each of the alleged
misdemeanours happens to be true, it would be crass
empiricism (or alternatively, what comes to the same
thing, crass moralism) to deny the CPI (M)'s historical
commitment to democracy from a set of individual incidents,
of the sort that all political formations at the ground
level can be accused of.
But even more significant than the two features mentioned
above, is the CPI (M)'s commitment to consistent anti-imperialism,
which indeed constitutes its real differentia specifica.
Imperialism is more than ''the empire''; and anti-imperialism
is more than mere Bush-bashing, or opposition to the
Israeli shenanigans in Palestine or American shenanigans
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-imperialism in short is
not moral opposition to this or that venture on the
part of the hegemonic power of the time; it is a whole
approach to politics that sees every issue of the day
from the perspective of globally-spanning class relations
of domination and subordination. And the CPI (M), and
the Left in general, is the only force in India, that
does so consistently. It sees the Indo-US nuclear deal
not just as a ''nuclear deal'' but above all as an ''Indo-US
deal''. It evaluates the deal not in terms of the costs
and benefits of nuclear power (though the deal is questionable
even on this score), but in terms of what it portends
for India's relationship with US imperialism.
Many would not agree with what they would see as the
CPI (M)'s ''obsession'' with imperialism, an ''obsession''
that even made it withdraw support from the UPA government,
despite the obvious short-term political costs of that
withdrawal. Many would not even subscribe to the concept
of ''imperialism'' itself, the most radical among them
remaining satisfied with the concept of the ''empire''
or the ''evil empire''. But if one sees imperialism as
a global system and not just as the evil actions of
this or that US President, then one cannot help admiring
a Party that can stake its everything on a principled
opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal. Indeed its very
lack of ''pragmatism'' that characterized its total opposition
to the deal, which political pundits and commentators
to this day have seen as sheer ''folly'', is what marks
it out as a political Party and endears it to thousands
who do subscribe to the concept of imperialism. It is
this consistent and principled anti-imperialism on its
part that makes writers like Noam Chomsky feel concerned
when ''progressive'' sections in India launch a no-holds-barred
attack on the CPI (M).
The ultra-Left is at best lackadaisical in its anti-imperialism.
What it thinks on a whole range of issues concerned
with imperialism today is anybody's guess (buried perhaps
in arcane pamphlets). And the fact that it treats the
CPI (M), which is a consistent anti-imperialist force,
as its main enemy, suggests the secondary role at best
that it assigns to imperialism in its calculations,
highlighting once more the difference between it and
the CPI (M) on the issue of imperialism.
The central question of the last hundred years has been
the nature of the modernity brought by imperialism to
the periphery. The national movement was fought on this
issue. The progressive elements of the national movement
who split off to form the Communist Party believed that
authentic modernity could come only by an alternative
route, socialism. While the promise of socialism has
been belied for the moment, and many (including perhaps
even Amartya Sen) have seen in neo-liberalism the promise
of a progressive modernity, the CPI (M) has never given
up its perspective on imperialism, has seen in neo-liberalism
the form that imperialism takes in the current epoch,
and has continued (notwithstanding a passing phase of
naïve ''developmentalism'' in West Bengal for which
it has been self-critical) to hold up a vision of an
alternative anti-imperialist modernity. Anti-imperialism,
it believes, is not a ''fundamentalist'' but a modernist
position. And that in my view is what is right about
the CPI (M).
|
