Challenging neoliberalism

The UPA government's consistent violation of the Common Minimum Programme attracts a stiff warning from the Left parties.

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN in New Delhi

MEMORIES and images of June 2005 came alive in political circles in New Delhi on June 15 as the Left parties submitted a detailed note at a meeting of the Left-United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Coordination Committee raising a number of issues on the two-year governance of the Manmohan Singh-led government.

The Left parties had been making such issue-based presentations at Coordination Committee meetings from the early days of the UPA government, but in June last year they made the first concrete step to highlight their opposition to the policy direction of the Ministry. With an outright rejection of the government's move to disinvest a portion of its shares in the "Navaratna" public sector undertaking (PSU) Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), the Left parties announced the boycott of the UPA-Left Coordination Committee.

There are a number of similarities in the context in which the Left parties took the "boycott decision" last year and the one that existed on June 15 this year when they circulated a nine-page note seeking active consideration of the same before the next Coordination Committee meeting in July. While announcing the decision to "suspend participation" in the Coordination Committee last year, the Left classified the BHEL disinvestment move as the "first serious violation of the Common Minimum Programme (CMP)" of governance of the UPA. It pointed out that the CMP had made a firm assurance about retaining "Navaratna" companies in the public sector even while raising resources from the market.

At the policy-formulation level, the Left parties saw the BHEL disinvestment move as a high point of the anti-working class, neoliberal thrust that sections of the UPA, particularly those belonging to the Congress, were trying to impart to government policies. In their view, such efforts were even contradictory to the mandate of the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, which brought the UPA to power. The 2004 verdict was interpreted widely as a vote against the communal politics of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the neoliberal economic policies that the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government advanced.

The Left's manifest action of June 2005 did have an impact on the government, not merely because its support in Parliament was and still is crucial for the government's survival, but also because the issue evoked support from vast sections of the working class, including those affiliated to trade unions supporting the Congress.

The boycott motivated Congress president Sonia Gandhi to initiate discussions with Left leaders, including Prakash Karat, Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary, and A.B. Bardhan, Communist Party of India general secretary, and as a consequence the UPA government put off the BHEL disinvestment plan.

It also back-pedalled other similar moves, including the selling of government shares in PSUs such as Nalco, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the Power Grid Corporation and the Shipping Corporation of India. This virtual rollback facilitated the return of the Left parties to the Coordination Committee four months later, in October 2005. By all indications, that return followed an understanding between the leadership of the Left and the UPA to make consistent and creative efforts to function in a more cohesive manner in the interests of the people, upholding the spirit of the CMP.

The most important message of the June 15, 2006 meet, in the context in which it was held, was that this understanding has failed to hold. In fact, the issues raised this time around and the way they have manifested within the UPA-Left framework and outside signal a clear escalation of problems between the two political entities. The note of the Left parties makes this abundantly clear.

Listing 11 crucial areas of governance, the note states categorically that the UPA government has not been able to better the material conditions of the vast majority of people. It also states that issues and problems like price rise, the agrarian crisis, unemployment, and the lack of access to education, health and other basic services need greater and more urgent attention from the government. It questions specifically the policy direction and practical steps in various segments of governance - economic affairs, foreign policy, resource mobilisation, agrarian affairs, food security, and planning process.

A common thread that runs through the discussion of all these segments is the focussed criticism of the neoliberal economic policy thrust of various sections of the government. The note suggests that the pronounced pro-United States tilt in foreign policy is accentuating the neoliberal initiatives. It also states that "the Planning Commission" has become the hub for the initiation and pursuit of neoliberal policies, which go against the spirit of the CMP. Highlighting the spiralling rise of prices of essential commodities, the note points out that the repeated (seven times in two years) increase of the prices of petroleum products has aggravated the troubles of the people. "The government has refused to review the structure of taxation of petroleum products in a meaningful manner, which could have made it possible to avoid the petro price hike," the note says.

Commenting on macro-economic policies and resource mobilisation, the note emphasises that the goals of the CMP can be fulfilled only with a substantial increase in Plan outlays in education, health, housing, social security, rural development and rural employment and for this there should be additional resource mobilisation through measures including the rationalisation of tax exemptions and incentives to big businesses. The note points out that the overall fiscal situation clearly points to the tremendous rise of corporate profits.

The critique of the agrarian policies of the government notes that the government's vision on the sector is one of "corporate-driven export-led agriculture" and clearly overlooks the "acute nature of the agrarian and rural distress", which calls for "public investment in these segments at a scale much higher than what has been done so far". The recent recommendations of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution to increase the prices of foodgrains distributed through the Public Distribution System (PDS), cutting allocations for ration-card-holders and reducing the food component in all employment generation schemes, are questioned specifically in the note as yet another violation of the provisions of the CMP. The connection between these "anti-people" economic measures and the pro-U.S. foreign policy tilt is stated clearly in the note.

It points out that the government's strategy at international forums such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) revolves around the view that India's interests are best served through collaboration with the U.S. This, it says, has gone to the level of even siding with the U.S. - at the December 2005 Hong Kong WTO meet - to finalise a deal that could lead to substantial cuts in agricultural and industrial tariffs by developing countries including India.

In a clear denunciation, the Left parties also put on record that the UPA government failed to fulfil its commitment in the CMP to pursue an independent foreign policy. India's vote on the Iran nuclear issue, the UPA government's role in according observer status to the U.S. in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the pursuit of the India- U.S. nuclear deal have been cited as instances of deviation from an independent foreign policy. The Left parties called for immediate corrective steps on all these questions.

In a nutshell, the Left presentation to the Coordination Committee this time challenges the neoliberal policy thrust of the UPA government just as it did last June on the BHEL disinvestment question, albeit with issues of significantly higher scope and scale. The current overall political context at the national level also imparts a greater value and significance to the Left move. It is accepted widely that the positions and contentions of the Left parties have greater credibility and acceptance now, especially on account of their phenomenal victories in the just-concluded round of State Assembly elections.

The Left Front retained West Bengal for the seventh consecutive term and sustained its 30-year-old government in the State, while in Kerala the Left Democratic Front (LDF) defeated the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF). Both victories were interpreted as clear indicators of the popular approval of the Left's policies and projections as the ruling party in West Bengal and as the Opposition in Kerala. Prakash Karat had made it clear that these electoral gains would enhance the Left's intervention in national politics.

One such intervention came in the form of a nation-wide protest against the UPA government's hike in the price of petroleum products, just two days before the Left parties presented the critical note before the Coordination Committee.

In many States the protest turned into a general strike. Significantly, political parties such as the Samajwadi Party (S.P.), which leads the State government in Uttar Pradesh; the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), the principal opposition in Andhra Pradesh; and the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) led by Ajit Singh joined hands with the Left in the agitation.

The S.P. had associated with the Left in its earlier agitations against the pro-U.S. tilt of the UPA government too, but the participation of the TDP in the protests marked a new political shift. The TDP had supported the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre and was an ardent votary of the neoliberal economic policies it pursued. However, with its association with the Left, the TDP leadership, including former Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, seems to suggest that its fervent advocacy of economic liberalisation was wrong.

All this is being viewed by a number of political observers as an indication of issue-based political realignment at the national level. Some of these observers and even some participants in the recent political manoeuvres, such as Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, hastened to add that the situation would soon develop in such a manner as to develop a non-Congress, non-BJP Third Front. Some of them even went to the extent of predicting the withdrawal of Left support to the UPA government or at least increased pressure from the Left to change the leadership of the government.

However, the leadership of the Left, as is its wont, is not ready to corroborate any of these "extremist projections". Speaking to Frontline, Prakash Karat said the Left would continue to take issue-based positions and advance issue-based movements. Following up on the June 13 protests, the Left parties are planning a month-long political campaign in August on a number of socio-economic-political issues, including the ones in the note given to the UPA. "There is of course some satisfaction that more and more parties like the S.P., the TDP and the RLD are joining with us in mass movements, but more needs to be done to form the Third Alternative," Karat told Frontline.

In the meantime, Karat and other leaders of the Left are awaiting the government's response to its note, particularly its assertion that the Left parties are not interested in a Coordination Committee which becomes "merely a forum for talking out issues without producing any concrete results".

Immediate internal reactions from the UPA have to the note signified an element of confusion. Apparently, political forces such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP), and even a section of the Congress have found some merit in the Left's contentions.

However, a number of pro-liberalisation leaders in the Congress are of the view that the Left parties will not precipitate any crisis for the government or cause its downfall despite their strong views against the neoliberal policies.

The argument of this section is that the persisting apprehension of the Left parties about a revival of the communal BJP will help sustain the UPA and its policies. It remains to be seen which of these two lines ultimately prevails in the UPA.

But there is little doubt that the Left parties will use the current political climate to advance forcefully their struggles against neoliberal policies.