The South Asian: The Two-Faced Communists

November 26, 2006

The Two-Faced Communists

In the last few years, like any other party, the Communist parties have made obvious their two-faced nature as well – their sanctimonious sloganeering and their actions in power.

At the Indian Social Forum in Delhi we heard from the student and trade union wings of the so-called ‘left parties’ opposing Special Economic Zones, resisting displacement, presenting solidarity with farmers – an endless list. We have heard the same slogans from the political leaders of these parties in Delhi as well. We have seen them sit in dharnas against displacement in the Narmada Valley and rally against Coke and its unethical policies. Perhaps they should begin by sloganeering against their own governments where they are in power.

Even as evidence was piling up about Coke’s dumping of chemicals in community land and waterbodies, and even as left party workers outside Bengal were protesting Coke’s water policies, the Bengal government – notably led by veteran Communist leader Buddhadeb Bhattacharhee – awarded the Jalpaiguri unit of Coke with the Environment Excellence Award for 2005. Even in Kerala, the communist party was by then opposing Coke’s policies. All this, even though the Joint Parliamentary Committee had held Coke liable for pesticides in their drinks tested from plants across India – a recommendation widely supported by the national communist leaders.

Again, while the left leadership across India has been opposing economic liberalization policies, the Bengal government has been at the forefront of implementing these policies. The Communist government of Bengal attracts among the most Foreign Investment. It has even feted such globally maligned companies as Walmart.

Yet again, the communist government in Bengal has been perhaps only a mite more sensitive to displacement due to projects than other governments. Implementation may have been more successful and with less corruption. However, the government has been as ruthless in breaking down democratic and non-violent protests using overt and covert means as, for example, the Singur case has pointed out.

On the antiwar sentiment, it has presented it self against wars that affect innocent especially with the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. However, again this position has presented itself as hollow and perhaps even politically opportunistic when it has ignored China’s human rights violations, occupation of Tibet and repression of its people. It makes no sense to oppose US by saying that people in Iraq have the right to choose their political destiny while at the same time arguing with another face when it comes to Tibet.

Even in terms of treatment of minorities, the Bengal government is perhaps only slightly better off. While there have been few instances of communal violence and even those have been scattered and easily controlled, the socio-economic index of Muslims is at the very bottom of the Bengali demographics vis-à-vis literacy, economic growth or health indices.

These are clear contradictions. Are the political necessities of power such that the party cannot stay true to its ethics? ‘Progressive’ leadership and leadership of grassroots movements seem to align with the ideologies of the left – not so! On every issue of socio-economic and environmental justice, the CPI-M seems nominally better, but in fact as complicit as every other political power bagger. Their methods and processes are as repressive and become more bothersome when conducted under the claim of being pro-people and just.

So given these contradictions, what does one make of the communists in India? That they are perfectly happy to sloganeer and even bring down governments under the guise of principles but when they are in power, they are quite the champions of all the policies they oppose elsewhere?

Perhaps the national leadership of Dr Raja, Comrade Brinda Karat and everyone else should find it more useful to oppose their politburo colleagues from Bengal. Or else, instead of threatening to walk out of the UPA (or any other coalition of which they find themselves a participant) they should consider walking out of their politburo.

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Links
Left Government Evicts Farmers for Tata Motors
In the Name of Development
Congress and BJP: Twiddle Dee Dee, Twiddle Dee Dum
"The Hindu" Censoring Tibet?
Posted by collective at November 26, 2006 08:57 PM

Comments

You ask, rightly:
" Are the political necessities of power such that the party cannot stay true to its ethics?" Whatever one may say of their 'ethics', in practice they do not seem to be concerned with basic social justice. The communists have been completely disinterested and apathetic with regard to elementary education for all. They have consistently kept away from the struggle to improve publicly funded education, to have a Right to Education Bill passed under the 86th Constitutional Amendment, and to work for a Common School System. It is as though getting quality schools for ALL Indian children without exception AS A JUSTICIABLE RIGHT under the Constitution just does not matter to these righteous-sounding idealists (or ideologues) who can turn into demagogues championing caste-based reservations whenever it seems like a good political strategy.
Vasantha Surya
Posted by: Vasantha Surya on November 27, 2006 08:29 PM

SINGUR: WANTED AN ALTERNATIVE PATH OF DEVELOPMENT
At the moment, the LF govt in WB is being roundly criticised, even by people who would normally vote for them, for two acts:
1. Turning Singur into a barbed wire, guard dog, rubber truncheon enclosure with blatant violation of the fundamental rights of speech, assembly, travel, association, and personal freedom. Justifying (ordering?) high-handed police action.
2. Disregard of what is to happen to the socio-eonomic microcosm of the area and its people. Even if the landholders are satisfied with the compensation offered, which is doubtful, to say the least, and, at present, unverifiable (you won't be allowed in), what is being offered to the sharecroppers, labourers and all the host of people dependent on the dynamics of a flourishing agricultural community? The Tatas will not employ unskilled people (apart from a few security and catering personnel -- now there is talk of training, how many, and in what proportion to the total number affected, remain unclear). The govt is offering some sop to the sharecroppers, but, again, the reaction of the affected is not known. What the govt is offering to some of the labourers is really T.R.
In spite of persistent pro-govt campaigning in print and in television by the House of Ananda Bazar, a large number of ordinary people are, in fact, very angry with the govt on these two counts.

However, this comment is not aimed at repeating the charges against the LF govt arising from its mishandling of the Singur issue. It is aimed at self-criticism. One cannot help foreseeing what would happen if, as a result of agitation, the Tatas do pull out of W Bengal. Most of these ordinary people will veer round to the opposite view, and start condemning the opposition parties for scaring away the Tatas! The CPI(M) is an excellent opinion manager and is capable of turning any setback in Singur into electoral manna.
It must be admitted that people's movements, while opposing human suffering caused by "development" paths pushed by US-led multinationals and domestic big business and criticising specific programmes, have not been too successful in presenting before the people viable alternative paths of development. When the WB CM charts a path of development dependent on investment by major business houses and foreign pirates, and insists that eggs must be broken to make the omelette, that is, if the investor wants prime agricultural land and won't be satisfied with anything else there is no alternative to breaking up agricultural communities, the CM is emboldened by the fact that there is no serious theoretical challenge offered to him.

After a wait for over a decade it is clear that the major opposition party in WB has nothing to offer in this respect, presumably because it is in agreement with the Congress, the BJP and the CPI(M) regarding the path of "development" and opposes the WB govt only on specific issues to gain electoral mileage. Its sincerity on these issues is also in doubt: if it was in the seat of govt would it really have taken a different set of decisions? what decisions? A former finance minister of Jyoti Basu's cabinet, Asok Mitra has presented some elements of an alternative path, but he does not elaborate on his sketch, nor does he fight for his views. And all the time the pet economists of globalisation go on shouting encouragement to the LF govt. The prodigal has returned.

Quite a few economists and social scientists are sympathetic to people's movements. Why don't they present one or several alternative paths of development, addressing not only the issue in hand but also the entire socio-economic set-up? The people are not fools, although our politicians like to think them to be such. They need to be convinced that there is an alternative to the WB govt's surrender to big business before they commit themselves against govt policy .

The alternative must be set out concretely in the context of today's WB. It will not be sufficient just to refer to the general ideas of Gandhi, Marx or Mao.

Posted by: on December 12, 2006 11:59 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Comments:

Remember info?

ARCHIVED ARTICLES