India has witnessed a veritable social transformation in the 20th century. A society characterised for millennia by institutionalised inequality in its most grotesque forms,like untouchability and unseeability,has made a transition to juridical equality,a set of fundamental rights for all citizens,and a form of government based on parliamentary democracy with universal adult franchise. The significance of this transition,despite the fact that it still falls far short of authentic equality,cannot be overstated. It constitutes a part of our long democratic revolution.
This democratic revolution needs to be carried forward,for if it is not,then there will be an inevitable slide-back. Revolutions do not stand still; they either move forward or are overwhelmed by counterrevolutions. The Indian democratic revolution today is faced with the prospects of being so overwhelmed: counterrevolution is gathering strength,and the main reason for this lies in the shift in the position of the bourgeoisie.
How,it is worth asking,does the big bourgeoisie manage to impose upon society such massive increases in inequality,even though the people enjoy formal democratic rights? What,in other words,are the mechanisms of abridgement of democracy that permit such inequalities? The range of such mechanisms is wide; some of them are well-known; and all of them are clearly visible. A formal abridgement of democracy is the obvious first option. Indira Gandhi during the Emergency actually succeeded for a brief period in doing this,but eventually came a cropper. The BJP-led NDA,during its attempt to revise the Constitution,sought to institutionalise such an abridgement,but that attempt too failed. Even so,however,thanks to a plethora of measures,often initiated by the judiciary,like bans on bandhs,restrictions on the right to strike,and curbs on public meetings,there has been a whittling down of peoples democratic rights.
The second obvious mechanism is the nurturing of communal-fascism,which,as Michal Kalecki put it,is kept like a dog on a leash. It is occasionally unleashed,with devastating impact; and,even when it is leashed,the fear of its being unleashed serves to reconcile people to the neo-liberal measures of a non-communal-fascist bourgeois government. Since unemployment and distress provide fertile ground for fascist tendencies,this is a mechanism that neo-liberalism spontaneously generates for itself.
The third mechanism is to incorporate dissent,and to criminalise such dissent that cannot be incorporated. Here the very fact of the economy being open to the vortex of financial flows helps the neo-liberal cause: any attempt to pursue policies different from what international finance capital favours is fraught with the danger of capital flight,and this forces a degree of uniformity in policy-making among all political formations that do not have the courage to go beyond the existing arrangements altogether. Ideologically too,slogans like keep development above politics which is a euphemism for let us unite to endorse neo-liberalism,and let us endorse primitive accumulation of capital,play the role of incorporating dissent. Refusal to be so incorporated on the other hand brings the charge of sabotaging the nations prospects of emerging as a superpower and hence being anti-national. Through a myriad means in other words,involving in particular the use of corporate media,a propaganda barrage is unleashed that identifies the interests of the corporate and financial magnates as the nations interest.
The fourth is the spread of religiosity and the resurgence of pre-modern authoritarian institutions like khap panchayats,which the bourgeois political formations treat with benignity. No doubt,an individual has a right to pursue any religion in his or her private life; but religiosity which entails the intrusion of religious practices and rituals into public life,serves to depoliticise and disunite people.
Indeed the essence of the project of the big bourgeoisie is to depoliticise and disunite people,convert them into atomised empirical entities,rob them effectively of any subject role,and enfeeble them in the matter of defending their democratic rights. The uniqueness of the Left consists in the fact that it is opposed to all this,that its agenda on the contrary is to unite and politicise the people,which alone can make them capable of defending their democratic rights. The Left,in short,is the only consistent force that works in the direction of carrying forward the long democratic revolution in our country.
The Left is different from all of them because it can visualise going beyond the boundaries of capitalism. It can be consistently democratic because it is not imprisoned within the antagonism between capitalism,dominated by globalised finance,on the one hand,and authentic democracy on the other. It is prepared to resolve this antagonism by going beyond capitalism,which is why it can be consistently democratic.
The Left in India,notwithstanding its many mistakes,has consistently stood for the carrying forward of the democratic revolution; for further abrogating,systematically,the millennia-old institutionalised inequality of our old order; for struggling against the hegemony of international finance capital and the deep hiatus that a regime characterised by such hegemony produces; for struggling against communal-fascism; for resisting all attempts to curb the democratic rights of the people in the name of order,combating chaos and anarchy and development(to the point of even issuing public rebukes to senior leaders whose remarks could be interpreted otherwise); and for overcoming religiosity and separateness through political praxis.
Any weakening of the Left weakens the democratic revolution in our country and hence our march to modernity. Indias march to modernity requires not 8,9,10,or 11 per cent growth rate; it requires a carrying forward of the democratic revolution. This is the touchstone by which all political formations have to be judged,and on this criterion the Left,notwithstanding all its weaknesses,emerges superior to all other political formations.
The opposition to the Left,alas,has now gathered momentum to a point where many,claiming to be progressive,use the very arguments mentioned above to attack the Left. I can hear,for instance,an immediate riposte to what I have said above: what about Singur,what about Nandigram?
Much has been written about Singur and Nandigram,and we need not go over all that here. Let us for arguments sake accept the account of the events put forward by the opponents of the Left. Even so,nobody can possibly argue that they reflected the Lefts subscription to an abridgement of the regime of rights of the people. However mistaken one may think the handling of those two cases by the Left Front government was,one cannot say that they represented an attempt by the Left to dilute or abrogate the regime of democratic rights of the people. Of course,any police firing can be interpreted ipso facto,whether rightly or wrongly,as constituting an attack on the democratic rights of the people; but there is a difference between an episode of police firing and a change in stand on the regime of rights. The Left has never changed its basic class position on the regime of democratic rights of the people. It has stood consistently against all attempts to abridge the regime of rights (to a point where it even opposed the banning of the Maoists despite their rampant murderous attacks on CPM cadres). Nandigram and Singur in short were tragic episodes; they do not represent an iota of shift on the part of the Left to any alternative,abridged,regime of rights.
All this has a vital importance in the current election season. The outcome of these polls will have a crucial bearing upon the future of the Left in India. And if the Left receives a setback then the democratic revolution in our country will be in jeopardy.
The writer is vice-chairman of the Kerala State Planning Board and formerly professor of economics at JNU