|
There are faint indications that the
comrades are waking up to the cause of their decline. Although
they have been on a downhill slope ever since their obdurate
opposition to the nuclear deal, which made Amartya Sen say the
Left lost its voice as a result, the latter had given no evidence
that it was becoming aware of the reasons which slashed its
parliamentary seats by a third in 2009.
Arguably, it is this refusal to read the writing on the wall which
was responsible for the Left's drubbing in its 34-year-old
stronghold in West Bengal. Even today some of its thinkers believe
a consolidation of the traditional support base of the Communists
- the workers, peasants and agricultural labourers - would revive
their fortune.
But there has also been an admission by Prakash Karat, general
secretary of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), that
there is "a disconnect between the Left and sections of the middle
class". What is more, this "disconnect" has been most pronounced
in the case of the "young who have benefited post-reforms in terms
of better opportunities, jobs, income".
This observation, probably the first from a Communist which
suggests that the economic reforms aren't such a disaster after
all echoes what Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the
Planning Commission, and an ardent votary of the reforms, has said
about the "steady improvement in the living standards" of a
"substantial" section of the population.
If there is no backtracking by the Communists from Karat's
position, especially to meet what he called the "big challenge" of
reaching out to the well-off young people by updating the party
programme, then there might at last be a pragmatic reorientation
of the Communist parties, which have shied away from such an
exercise despite the collapse of their doctrine in the former
Soviet Union and its eastern European empire in 1989.
It isn't only the CPI-M leader who has spoken of a relook at the
party's policies, Communist Party of India (CPI) leader A.B.
Bardhan has also said the Left had "underestimated" the growth of
the "great Indian middle class...in the last few decades", whose
importance lay in the fact that it "moulds public opinion".
Unlike Karat, Bardhan was mildly critical of the new middle class
because it was "more consumerist, more careerist". As a result, it
might not respond to "struggle, propaganda, agitation", the
familiar features of a communist movement, according to Bardhan.
At the same time, this segment could not be ignored because "it is
a very big mass of the people".
What is evident from these statements is the Left's realization
that because of the huge size of the middle class, the
commissars can no longer deride it as lackeys of the bourgeoisie
who deserve contempt rather than an attempt at assimilation.
Besides, the modern means of communication via the mobile phones
and the internet made these consumerists and careerists exert
considerable influence on public opinion through radio, especially
the private music stations with their amusing gigs, and
television.
As such, the Communists have no option but to take cognizance of
their presence on the social and political scene. Hence, there is
a need to factor them into the Left's "tactics and policies", as
Bardhan said. This is evidently where the "updating" of the party
programmes will be necessary. For the comrades, however, such an
enterprise will mean entering uncharted territory, for they will
not be able to find any example in Russian and Chinese histories
of the early and middle 20th century, when the communists had to
deal with such a large, prosperous and influential middle class in
these two countries.
Karat's acknowledgement that the economic reforms have provided
"better opportunities, jobs, income" to a large section is
important in this context. An acceptance of this line will mean
that the communists will no longer be able to deride either the
market or its corollary, imperialism, as stridently as before. It
also means a belated justification for Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's
pro-private sector initiatives in West Bengal although these were
subsequently criticized as a lowering of the party's "ideological
guard" by noted Leftist economist Prabhat Patnaik.
That the dogmatists in the CPI-M like Patnaik and former Kerala
chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan will not be pleased with any
further dropping of the ideological guard is obvious. Nor is it
clear whether Karat's and Bardhan's comments are off-the-cuff
remarks in media interviews or a serious articulation of a new
party line.
It is possible that the doctrinaire group will resist any
"updating" of the line by pointing to the 41 percent votes which
the Left received in West Bengal and its narrow defeat in Kerala.
But there is little doubt that a vigorous internal debate is on
the cards.
(Amulya Ganguli
is a political analyst. He can be reached at aganguli@mail.com)
|
Comments
|
Quick links