 |
||
|
||
|
||
In a soul searching exercise, the CPM today admitted that the party had not made much progress in expanding its base in the country and raising the political consciousness .of cadre despite having succeeded with the United Front experiment at the Centre m the late 1990s.
In a free and frank debate on the political-organisational report introduced by party general secretary Harkishan Singh Surjeet at the ongoing 17th congress today, many delegates pointed out that the party had failed in strengthening its independent activity during the period.
Some delegates particularly those from Kerala are understood to have felt that thought the party enjoyed the role of “kingmaker” at the Centre during the UF rule, it could not raise the political consciousness of die cadre and failed to ensure implementation of political line.
Acknowledging that there was some self-criticism at the congress on this count, Politburo member Prakash Karat told the media that the party could not enhance the cadre's ideological understanding including the basics of Marxism Leninism.
The congress resolved that this political consciousness was only possible through launch of class and mass movements. This has been reflected in the party's growth in membership since the last congress at Kolkata in 1998. “Barring West Bengal and Kerala, we could not grow outside,” Karat admitted.
Today, the party’s membership is 7,96,073, which is about 11 per cent more than that in 1998. Of this, Kerala topped with 3,01,562, while West Bengal occupied the second place with 2,45,026. Growth in membership too is more in these two states. The details of membership in major states is as follows: Tamil Nadu (86,868), Andhra Pradesh (40,785), Tripura (38,737), Bihar (17,672), Punjab (14,328), Assam (10,480), Maharashtra (8,545), Uttar Pradesh (5,169) and Orissa (3,091).
Karat admitted that the party could not provide proper political education to the members. While 60 per cent of the party members were below 40 years, only 8 per cent of the total members were women, he explained.
Replying to generational divide
Karat justified the concentration of power in the hands of old-guards at
the central and state levels. “After at in a big country like India, it
is not possible for anyone to conic-to the central positions before arming
the age of 50,” he said.
|
||
|
||
|
||