HVK Archives: On the horns of a dilemma
On the horns of a dilemma - The Hind
Hasan Suroor
()
April 19, 1998
Title: On the horns of a dilemma
Author: Hasan Suroor
Publication: The Hind
Date: April 19, 1998
Concerned over the drift in the Left parties, a sympathiser said
recently In mock-seriousness that they needed a dose of
"Stalinism" to bring them back on track. That was clearly an
extreme suggestion, but there is no denying that the ideological
and organisational laissez faire which has gripped the Left
should be curbed if it does not want its credibility to suffer
beyond a point.
It is one of the Ironies of the Indian Left movement that for all
the pride it takes in its tactical skills, this Is one area where
it has consistently failed. Between the Congress(l) and the BJP,
It has not been able to declare which Is more harmful, not so
much because it does not know but because of its political
compulsions in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, where the
Congress(l) has been its traditional rival. The divergent
perceptions of the Central and State leaders have been at the
heart of what looks like confused thinking.
Thus, even while the Left has been conscious of the threat from
the BJP's divisive agenda, it has hesitated to declare it a
"bigger enemy" fearing that it might be seen as going "soft" on
the Congress(l). At the 1995 CPI (M) congress in Chandigarh, the
issue was debated at length and it came close to identifying the
BJP as the main "enemy". But the formulation was eventually
changed to club both the Congress(I) and the BJP as the "twin"
enemies following pressure from the party's West Bengal, Kerala
and Tripura units.
The CPI congress later the same year in Delhi saw a replay of
Chandigarh. Initially, the party was all set to name the BJP the
principal target but as the debate gathered momentum, the cadre
>from West Bengal and Kerala made it clear that any suggestion
that the party was softening its approach towards the Congress(I)
would hamper their "fight" against it back home. The CPI, too,
thus ended up adopting the CPI(M) line of "equidistance" from
both the BJP and the Congress(l).
Since then, however, there has been a shift in emphasis and both
the communist parties have taken a more overtly anti-BJP
position. Which Is fair enough because the political situation
has changed radically since 1995. While the BJP has emerged as a
major force and therefore an immediate rival, the Congress(l)
looks even more harmless than it did three years ago. Even in
1996, it become obvious that the Congress(l) was the lesser of
the evils and the Left did try to walk a tightrope but so
grudgingly as to be almost apologetic.
Even as the Left parties helped form a government with the
support of the Congress (I), they sought to make it out that it
was the Congress(l) which needed them. Senior Left leaders would,
at the slightest provocation. mock at the Congress(l) leadership
saying that it was supporting the United Front Government because
of its own political compulsions. Yet, when the Congress(l)
decided to pull the plug on the government, the Left was red with
moral indignation, accusing it of "betraying" the secular forces
and helping the BJP.
The problem, to put it simply, is that neither the CPI nor the
CPI(M) has been candid enough to acknowledge the shift towards a
sharper anti-BJP position. Instead of projecting it as a natural
response to the changed political realities, these parties have
sought to clothe it with obfuscation. The result is that while
officially the "twin enemies" theory is still valid, it has not
prevented the senior leaders from speaking in different voices.
All through the elections, the Left fretted and fumed with
everyone from Mr.Jyoti Basu downwards, repeatedly stating that
they would have nothing to do with the Congress (I). They would
rather sit in the Opposition than sup with the Congress(I), they
said. The refrain was that it was a party riddled with
corruption, riven by factional intrigues and guilty of
compromises with "communal" forces.
Yet, as the results of the recent Lok Sabha elections started
coming in and it became clear that the BJP was leading the pack,
the first thing the Left did was to declare that it was willing
to help the Congress(l) form a government. The move was floated
by the CPI (M) general secretary, Mr. Harkishan Singh Surjeet,
during a TV interview, and promptly endorsed by his CPI
counterpart, Mr. A. B. Bardhan. And this, even before the
Congress (I) itself had decided its future course.
The contradiction between the pre-election anti-Congress(l)
rhetoric and the post-election friendly noises was not lost even
on those who thought that tying up with the Congress to pre-empt
the BJP's bid for power was not such a bad idea. The episode
confirmed the Left's muddled approach to its relations with the
Congress(l). That there is no collective Left perspective on the
Congress(I) is evident from the fact that not only the Left Front
as a whole is divided on the issue but there are fissures even
within individual Left parties.
The Forward Bloc and the RSP, for example, remain
uncompromisingly anti-Congress(l) and they have already expressed
their unhappiness over what they regard as the CPI and the
CPI(M)'s "softly, softly" approach. The CPI(M) is divided between
the anti-Congress(l) hardliners and those who favour a more
pragmatic approach. Mr. Basu and Mr. Surjeet are identified with
the section which prefers some sort of a working relationship
with the Congress(l) at the national level to combat the BJP
while continuing to fight it in the States where the Left is
pitted against it.
The divisions have come out in the open. At the end of last
week's Politburo meeting, a senior member said there was no
question of aligning with the Congress(I), but the next day Mr.
Surjeet declared that the Congress(l) was "not untouchable". The
confusion created by such conflicting statements is likely to
continue until the party congress formulates a new "line" later
this year. In the CPI, too, there are two views, but if past
experience is any indication, it is almost certain that
eventually it would be guided by the CPI(M).
The biggest mistake which the Left has made, though its leaders
think it is great tactics, is to try and raise its national
profile by lining up with parties with which it has little in
common, apart from their own anti-Congress or anti-BJP
sentiments. Though the Left's intentions have been above board,
some of its allies have been less than loyal to their
"commitment" to oppose divisive politics. Look what has happened
to the United Front? After swearing by secularism for 18 months,
the gloves were off at the first hint of trouble. And the first
to plump for the BJP - a party he earlier dubbed "communal" - was
none other than the U.F convener, Mr. Chandrababu Naidu. Dr.
Farooq Abdullah, another "secularist", was quick to follow in Mr.
Naidu's footsteps and together they managed to save the Vajpayee
Government on the vote of confidence in Parliament.
Both invoked their "political compulsions" to justify their
actions. It would be unfair to accuse them of anti-secularism but
the point remains that when the chips were down they put their
"political compulsions" - a euphemism for political survival -
above their avowed "commitment" to sink or swim with the United
Front which was formed wit the sole purpose of fighting the BJP
and the Congress(l).
What Mr. Naidu and Dr. Abdullah did had a precedent. Mr. George
Fernandes and Mr. Nitish Kumar, once the leading lights of the
campaign against "communal forces", signed up with the BJP to
fight Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav. It is noteworthy that the BJP-
Samata Party's gains in the recent Lok Sabha elections have been
essentially at the cost of the "secular forces" - the United
Front.
"The cat is out of the bag," as the CPI(M-L general secretary,
Mr. Vinod Mishra, points out in an article in his party's journal
Liberation. "Specific regional interests had united them... and
the secular principle was just a smokescreen manufactured by our
social-democratic windbags."
The politics of "quick-fixes" (alliances formed on the eve of
elections or government formation) which the Left has begun to
practise to get itself a place on the national scene is at odds
with the notion of the "long view" associated with it. Communists
have been known to be long-distance runners and even when they
take shortcuts or piggyride, they are expected to have put in a
full day's work. Of late, however, there has been little evidence
of this.
Back
Top
|
