 |
||
|
||
|
||
Poor Jyoti Basu. He thinks that it was a "historic blunder" on the
part of the CPI (M) not to join the kichidi government a.k.a. the
United Front in Delhi. He had been offered the Prime Ministership
but the hotheads in the party would not let him accept the honour.
It had to be turned down. That, according to Jyoti Basu, was the
historic blunder. Anyone who has read the history of the Communist
Party knows - and can tell with authority - that committing
historic blunders is a regular habit with the CP. The party is a
national joke, no less. It must all have been written in the
party's horoscope, understanding which, M N Roy with considerable
foresight left it at an early stage. But the Communist Party
(under whatever brand it sails) is like the Bourbons. It has, over
the years, learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. That is its
prescribed fate. Jyoti Babu may fret and fume but has no powers to
alter his party's fate. Consider some of the party's 'historic
blunders'.
In 1939 the Communists deserted Subhas Chandra Bose's Left
Consolidation Committee and later, after he formed the Indian
National Army, called him a "Quisling". The nationalists in Bengal
were greatly offended. To make amends Jyoti Basu admitted, long
after in 1970 at a Netaji Exhibition in Calcutta that his party was
wrong in its assessment of the leader. That is what is known as
eating crow.
In 1942 when Gandhiji called upon the British to Quit India, the
Communists betrayed the Congress and the country. When Hitler
attacked Poland, the CPI had called it an Imperialist War. But
when the Fuehrer attacked the Soviet Union, the same CPI decided
the war had become a People's War. Between 1942 and 1944, the CPI
betrayed several Congress underground workers to the police for
which it was liberally paid by the British Government.
When India became free, that freedom was dismissed as false and
Jawaharlal Nehru was dismissed as a lackey - the phrase used was
'running dog' - of Anglo-American imperialism. This went on for a
long time until the party found itself out of national alignment.
It had to change tracks to gain respectability.
When China attacked India in 1962, followers of the Mao line within
the CPI called India the aggressor to form the CPI(M). The CPI(M)
shamelessly and traitorously criticised its own country. Mao
Tse-tung was raised to sainthood in Calcutta. To this day there is
a Mao Tse-tung Sarani in Calcutta. Mao has been practically
disowned in his own country but not by the CPM.
It was the CPM again which spawned the Naxalite movement of
'annihilating' the class enemy. The CPM is accountable to the
nation for the number of murders committed by the Naxalites. It
was only after the death of Charu Mazumdar in 1972 that the CPM saw
the light.
It was the CPI, under S A Dange. that supported the Emergency in
1975. Three years later the party again had to admit that it had
committed a blunder. No doubt another historic blunder.
Throughout its turbulent history the Communist Party has been
anti-national and when it has not been pro-Soviet Union it has been
pro-Communist China but never pro-India. The Communist Party
abounds in disgrace. Time and time again the party has been on the
wrong side of the fence. Even now the CPM (which is really the
prime mover in the West Bengal government) rules the state by force
which is reflected in the support that Mamata Bannerjee receives
from the oppressed.
Except in two states, West Bengal and Kerala, the CPM has no
support whatsoever. For Jyoti Basu, to say in the circumstances,
that it would have been in the national interest for him to have
been the Prime Minister is an astounding bit of cheek. Fancy India
being foisted with a Prime Minister belonging to a party that could
not even poll two per cent of the national vote.
As it is the CPM and the Gowda government are at loggerheads. They
differ on practically every major issue under consideration. The
Gowda government - such as it is - favours disinvestment. The CPM
is opposed to it. Gowda declared from the ramparts of the Red Fort
that he would support the formation of Uttarakhand; this is
anathema to the CPM which feels that the separation of Uttarakhand
from Uttar Pradesh could fuel the demand for the formation of
Gorkhaland. Similarly on such issues as raising petrol prices,
privatisation of the insurance sector and introduction of austerity
measures for bringing down fiscal deficit, the Gowda government and
the CPM are at opposite ends. In such circumstances how would it
have helped for Jyoti Basu to be Prime Minister? Even in the
matter of Laloo Prasad Yadav, while the Janata Dal continues to let
him carry on, the CPM is hell-bent on destabilising him. What,
then, would have been Jyoti Basu's role as a putative Prime
Minister?
If there is one party that needs to be treated as a pariah, it is
the CPM and not the BJP. What Jyoti Basu forgets is the fact that
support for the BJP comes from practically every state in the
country. That is grass-root support, the kind of support that the
CPM cannot even dream of. The BJP reflects the real ethos of the
country as no other party does. And that's for sure. For the CPM
to try to isolate the BJP is like a parent in the Intensive Care
Ward being denied oxygen.
But what is Basu really aiming at? It is clear that the interview
he gave to M J Akbar of Asian Age was a plant, pure and simple. If
the West Bengal Chief Minister wants to become India's Prime
Minister, he has first of all to convince his own party's politburo
of the wisdom of that move. Will the politburo tamely give in?
Jyoti Basu claims that he has fought Left sectarian forces within
his party before and he is ready to fight them again. Is he
suggesting that he is willing to split the CPM to suit his fancy?
Then again, consider the situation as is prevailing today. The
United Front government is completely at the mercy of the Congress.
Congress leaders keep saying that the United Front government must
toe the Congress line or else. Will Jyoti Basu be willing to "toe
the line" as demanded by Congress?
It is no secret that Sitaram Kesri is waiting for the moment when
he can replace Gowda. Kesri's ambitions to be Prime Minister are
no secret. How will Jyoti Basu reconcile his ambition with that of
the Congress President? Would he agree to play second fiddle to a
Congress dominated government? These are some of the issues that
need to be clarified but which were not clarified in the Asian Age
interview. It is hard to imagine Sitaram Kesri supporting a
CPM-led government in Delhi. Equally hard it is to imagine Jyoti
Basu taking his orders from Manmohan Singh, even if Basu has learnt
the wisdom of coming to terms with the hated capitalists.
The only thing common between the CPM and Congress is their hatred
of the BJP which, incidentally, is the single largest party in Lok
Sabha. In other words, when Jyoti Basu tries to thumb his nose at
the BJP he is insulting a substantial section of Indian public
opinion, a point that Basu might do well to remember. And whatever
its other shortcomings, the BJP has never worked against the
interests of the country as has the CPM. Meanwhile, what needs to
be clarified is Jyoti Basu's going public in regard to his
differences with his party colleagues. Does this presage a
break-up of the CPM? Is a re-alignment of political forces in the
offing? And what would be the nature of such a re-alignment?
The break-up of the CPM would not be a bad thing. In any event the
CPM is outdated and does not have a leg to stand on, ideologically
speaking. Will the Janata Dal break, too? And what about the
Congress itself? It is an open secret that a large majority of
Congressmen want to end the party's support to the United Front
government. It is also a well-known fact that one faction of the
Congress would like to join the government. In fact the party as a
whole would be happy to get back into seats of power. But under
what conditions? Is there a likelihood of a 'national' government
- but without the BJP - coming into existence? And where would that
leave Deve Gowda? Surely nobody whether in the Congress of CPM camp
would want him to continue as Prime Minister. Just as importantly.
where would that leave Laloo Prasad Yadav, now under a cloud and
Mulayam Singh Yadav who considered themselves king-makers? In a
'national' government they would have little manoeuvrability and
would be lost. Also marginalised would be Kanshi Ram and his
Bahujan Samaj Party, which would not be a bad thing, either.
What Jyoti Basu has done with his deliberate and provocative
interview is to open up a number of possibilities. But what needs
to be also remembered in this context is that if Sitaram Kesri is
in his late seventies or early eighties, Jyoti Basu is in his
middle eighties and they may not last the term of the present Lok
Sabha. Whatever decision they may now take will not contribute to
a long-term stabilisation of the political situation in India,
which the country desperately needs. A lot of fresh thinking is
therefore called for that goes beyond the fulfilment of personal
ambitions and puts the nation's interests first, last and always.
One wonders whether the political parties are even dimly aware of
their responsibilities as representatives of the people, especially
the non-BJP parties that are crazed with hatred of the BJP. Since
when hag hatred been an element in good government?
|
||
|
||
|
||