Opinion Communism in India is let down by its own incoherence
The communists have not produced any serious literature or political thesis in several decades. Since the 1990s, they have been focused, that too in a shallow manner, on the RSS-BJP.
Their 100-year journey began with the ambition of revolution. Now, they exist not because of their strength or conviction but the generosity of their allies. The communist movement, which was once a formidable force and voice in Indian politics, has declined not only electorally but also among workers and the peasantry. The Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), an affiliate of the RSS, is the most dominant player in the trade union movement. Even on the centenary of its ideological-political journey, there is little evidence of open or internal deliberations aimed at understanding the reasons for the Left’s decline. This goes against its own legacy of intensive debate and discussion. The new generation of communists can dispel their unawareness by engaging with the oral testimonies of their ideological forefathers, available in the Prime Ministers’ Museum and Library. However, the nature of politics across the world has changed. If there is no Piloo Mody or Minoo Masani on the Right, there is also no M N Roy or M Basavapunnaiah among the Left.
The communists have not produced any serious literature or political thesis in several decades. Since the 1990s, they have been focused, that too in a shallow manner, on the RSS-BJP. As votaries of the public sector and state ownership, the CPI, CPI(M) and CPI(ML) together could not produce an alternative view on neoliberalism, foreign direct investment (FDI), privatisation and inequality. RSS affiliates like the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch and the BMS are far ahead even on such issues.
There is a marked difference between the communist parties in Europe and India. The former do not suffer from an identity crisis. In India, the communists’ quest for an answer to the question “Who are we?” bred controversies, conflicts and splits. The first of these was on ideological nationality. A founder of the CPI, Satyabhakta, wanted the party to be indigenous and to apply the communist principles to change Indian society “with due regard to the conditions and mentality of the Indian people”. The Meerut Conspiracy case document (1929) mentions his statement that “we are not ready to tie our hands nor do we want to take instructions or dictation from others”. The pro-Soviet lobby suppressed him and compelled him to leave the party. They took their ideological cues from the Comintern, the Soviet-dominated platform.
It was the same loyalty question that split the CPI on the question of the Indo-China war. A section of the party was not ready to call China an aggressor. B T Ranadive, who was later a prominent face of the CPI(M), said, “Only fools and knaves, not Marxists and communists, would believe that a socialist country would be an aggressor.”
The communist parties’ leadership has largely been constituted by people of non-proletarian backgrounds with little or no experience of the people’s movement. The gap between the workers and the elite leadership persisted in these parties. The movement also could not free itself from its inherent dilemma to become an integral part of parliamentary politics. The communists experienced more disintegration than consolidation of their support base. In Bihar, caste-based parties absorbed their leaders and cadres. The communists’ ideological and political role is now more that of seminarists than vanguards. Therefore, they fail to inspire people. They suffer from an image and trust deficit.
Moreover, the communists could not resolve the contradiction of participation in parliamentary democracy on the one hand and their ideological training to subvert it on the other. The cadres still read the Stalinist and Maoist literature. Therefore, they are neither here nor there. The delusion that power can be achieved through romantic ideology persists. They have an outsized role in the opinion industry, but that hardly serves their organisational purpose.
It is also important to note that they denied space to culture in their scheme. They spent more time and energy on debating Hindu communalism than the proletariat. They continue to live with old dreams and outmoded ideas and lack the courage to respond creatively to altered realities.
There is definitely space for socialist ideas in contemporary politics, and parties with socialist ideas secured around 20 per cent vote share in each general election till 1967. However, they increasingly rendered themselves unworthy to maintain this. A British official once described communists as a Trojan horse. Today, they are no longer capable of playing even that role. Their 100-year journey began with the ambition of revolution. Now, they exist not because of their strength or conviction but the generosity of their allies.
The writer is a former BJP Rajya Sabha MP
Share
