CPI-M debacle - General Election 2009

General Election 2009:

Analysis of CPI-M debacle in particular and Left Parties poor showing in general

Tendency of blaming Com. Prakash Karat alone, for withdrawing support on account of the N - deal is opportunistic – it mostly comes from those who at one point of time suffered from the illusion of joining the Central Govt. as an instrument to make a difference to the influence and reach of Leftist/ Communist movement at an all – India level;

This tendency comes perhaps from the outlook that aims and objectives of the Communist movement can be served better by staying close to bourgeois state power instead of organising the toiling masses on their fundamental class issues/ interests;

Whereas Com. Karat might have made the most significant contribution in formulating the tactical line of CPI-M in the post – 2004 period; it was ultimately a collectively adopted line, often receiving almost doctrinaire/ inflexible advocacy from other Left Parties;

CPI-M needed to demarcate itself as an upholder of the voices and interests of the toiling masses and could not have gone to the polls at the tail – end of Congress;

A dissociation from Congress and UPA was always on the cards, in view of the obvious fundamental difference in world view between Congress and CPI-M; it would have been better and more credible had the severing taken place even earlier, rather than few months before the elections – even if it precipitated a mid – term election;

Though its opposition to the N – deal was eminently valiant and strategically/ ideologically justified, CPI-M and perhaps Com. Karat committed a tactical mistake in not opting for a voting resolution in Parliament against the N – deal as suggested/ dared by SP, INLD etc. immediately after publication of the 123 Agreement;

It would have put a big hurdle before the Manmohonomic pursuit of the N-deal and could have saved CPI-M from the saleability of severing ties with UPA on a rather abstruse issue. Of course, as time passed by, nobody was left in any doubt of the fundamental and persevering opposition of CPI-M to the deal its intention of advancing to a strategic tie up with USA by jettisoning Non-Alignment. The doubting Thomases also fell silent;

The silver lining in the present gloom is that CPI-M would not have shoulder the additional burden of propping up a secular Central Govt. at times diverting its energy away from leadership of the working class movement. It may concentrate now more on the class issues of the toiling masses;

Fighting for a principle and firmness on a standpoint will often requires paying a price; it requires hard work, commitment and will to fight to prove a point

It is not always necessary for a tactical line to register immediate success in order to be regarded as correct. Setbacks and reverses may always have to be suffered before the line actually is vindicated;

Despite the disintegration of UPA, a strong Congress undercurrent based on the desire to have a stable secular Govt. bolstered Congress chances in Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Maharashtra and most states of the Hindi Belt;

As stated by Com. Yechury, the Third Front was electoral cut and paste job without any programmatic cohesion. So, it did not carry any conviction at the all – India level;

Factors in Bengal:

Affairs of Singur and Nandigram need not be clubbed together. At Singur, the local party organisation ultimately found its feet and was steering it to be a successful showcase story. That was one of the reasons, why Mamata was so desperate to sabotage it;

Unlike Keshpur of 2000-02, Nandigram was a far more complex case. Both the local party and local/ State Administration failed to grasp the ground realities. The tactics of islanding locality at Nandigram was not employed at Keshpur by Md. Rafiq;

Following the Chief Minister’s announcement of not acquiring land at Nandigram and the resulting apparent calm led the WB Home Secretary and IG police to enter Nandigram to re-establish administration in the isolated zone, while overlooking the fact that CPI-M supporters were still being forced to leave at Khejuri relief camps, stacking of weapons were going on for forcing a fight if police tried to enter, possibility of use of sniper fire and human shield by the Mamata led anti – communist rainbow coalition killers

The much condemned police killing of Nandigram villagers was therefore avoidable – though it was later unearthed that some of them were killed from the back by Mamata’s Maoists;

The second and successful freeing of Nandigram – in the largely peaceful way of Keshpur fight back method by the evicted CPI-M supporting villagers themselves should have been applied on the very first occasion itself after making adequate preparation for a fight back;

Since fear of Nandigram many villagers were sought to be used to dislodge CPI-M activists of peasant movements and roll back land reforms & Panchayeti Raj achievements at Nandigram, it was wrong to allow local leaders of Mamata’s conspiring coalition to return and resume their murderous and disruptive activities after the peaceful freeing of Nandigram on the second occasion;

Mamata should not have been allowed to lay siege on NANO factory and Durgapur Expressway – this portrayed a helpless, soft and passive bystander image of the State Govt.;

Though during the drive – out NANO attempts, sections of even the Trinamul supporting urban middle class became vocal against her, later on it again fell prey to the Big Business Press orchestrated campaign of “end the 30 year old Left – rule for a change of palate and variety” campaign;

It became almost customary for smaller constituents of LF to criticise CPI-M, WB industrialisation programme and the State Govt. (even by ministers like Kshiti Goswami) openly and CPI-M not responding in public in the interest of the so – called Left unity;

It was becoming the order of the day that parties like FB, RSP as also CPI at times would only share the spoils but spare themselves the trials and tests. They often joined the detractors of the Communist movement to berate CPI-M on any controversial issue. Their attitude was to pander to the petty bourgeois sentiment;

The tactics of berating CPI-M has become one way of blocking every attempt of job creation and improvement of the living conditions of rural toiling masses on one hand and putting the blame on CPI-M for perpetuating unemployment on the other;

1. 
   The fact that Land Reforms, Panchayeti Raj band of policies and resulting upliftment of huge sections of the peasantry above the poverty line, reduced child mortality on the one hand and caused population pressure in the villages on the other necessitating much more non – farm jobs and rapid industrialisation, received less than adequate analytical attention. Dissociation of the disguised unemployed from Left-led peasant movements must have been noticed by the Mamata led anti – communist forces. Hence, the vehement opposition to Left led industrialisation.