Left agenda

The CPI(M) and the CPI reiterate commitment to fight imperialism, neoliberalism and communalism.

in New Delhi and Coimbatore

From cautious optimism to preparation for multidimensional struggles. This should sum up the political journey of the two mainstream communist parties of the country the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India from their last triennial congresses to the latest, which unfolded over the last week of March and early April in the South Indian cities of Coimbatore and Hyderabad respectively. In 2005, when the party congresses were held in the North Indian cities of New Delhi and Chandigarh, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre, which the two communist parties had helped come to power, was barely a year into office. The victory against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the 2004 April Lok Sabha elections was not a distant memory for the delegates. More importantly, there were hopes, albeit guarded, that the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) for governance that had been worked out between the UPA and the Left parties would pave a new path in the countrys development.

Three years later, the delegates at the two national conferences were on a strikingly different course. The parties are now all set to embark on a long-drawn agitation against the UPA government over a range of issues, including violation of the CMP, failure to control the price rise in essential commodities, and deviation from the countrys time-tested foreign policy, which has manifested itself in a surrender to the interests of the United States.

Both parties announced that they would discuss the agitation plan between themselves as well as with other Left, democratic and secular organisations before giving it final shape. The third week of April was slated for the launch of anti-government mass agitations on the issue of price rise.

The sustained opposition of both parties to the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal also repeatedly got aired at the congresses where a stern warning was issued to the Manmohan Singh-led government that it should not attempt to formalise the deal without placing all relevant facts before the UPA-Left coordination committee.

The political resolutions that were discussed at the party branches and finally adopted at Hyderabad and Coimbatore were, however, not entirely critical of the UPA governments track record. It noted how the cautious optimism shown in 2005 had been justified on many occasions during the UPA regime. For instance, a number of progressive and people-oriented decisions such as the passage and implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), the Right to Information Act (RTI) and the Forest Rights Act (FRA) were essentially the result of the collective pressure put by the Left parties on the UPA government. It was also pointed out that during the three and a half years of the UPA government, the Left had effectively prevented the efforts to increase foreign direct investment in insurance and banking; it also managed to stop FDI in retail trade after its partial introduction.

The political resolutions noted that the strong opposition of the Left to the disinvestment of profitable public sector units (PSUs), especially the disinvestment of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), had helped stall disinvestment of the Navaratna companies and other profitable PSUs. Another people-oriented initiative was the restriction that the government was forced to impose on futures trading in rice and wheat. The governments inability to privatise pension funds or bring about major changes in labour laws were also evaluated as gains of the Lefts intervention.

The net result of all these, the congresses of both the CPI and the CPI(M) noted, was the slowing down of the neoliberal tendencies of the UPA government. Nevertheless, the overall direction of the UPA government, especially its economic policy, has been dictated and driven by neoliberalism. The governments economic policy, the CPI(M) political resolution pointed out, was geared towards providing more concessions to big business and foreign finance capital. The abolition of long-term capital gains tax on equity was a glaring example of the bonanza handed out to the speculators and corporates who have made super profits out of the stock market boom. This distorted growth had led to the rich becoming richer, while the hardships of the common man grew by leaps and bounds, the parties pointed out.

Talking to Frontline after the Hyderabad congress, A.B. Bardhan, who was re-elected general secretary of the CPI for the fourth consecutive term, said that the first two years of the UPA government had seen greater intervention from the Left parties, partly because the UPA also showed greater commitment to the CMP. However, this trend increasingly got reversed in the past year and a half, leading to the rising predominance of neoliberal tendencies, he said. It was in this context that the Left parties were gearing up to launch intensive agitations against the government.

The leadership of the two parties, including Bardhan and CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat, said the mass agitations being launched in association with other Left, democratic and secular parties could, in the medium and long term, pave the way for a Third Alternative to the Congress and the BJP. The tone and tenor of the deliberations at the congresses was that the Third Alternative should be steadfastly policy-oriented and should not end up as a mere association of parties to fight elections. In this context, the experience of the earlier anti-Congress, anti-BJP united fronts was highlighted.

Responding to a question from Frontline, CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said that the party would consider working together with organisations like the CPI (Maoist) in mass struggles, taking up issues and causes of the people, provided the Maoists shunned violence and were ready to follow the path of democratic political activity.

The pronouncements regarding the agitations against the UPA governments policies combined with the effort to build up a Third Alternative signified only a couple of aspects of the multidimensional struggles discussed at the congresses. At the concluding public rally of the CPI (M) conference, Prakash Karat said the Third Alternative would be consistently anti-communal and decidedly block the return of communalism to the centre stage of Indian politics. He said there was an impression in some quarters that the Third Alternative was merely against the Congress party. This, he pointed out, was an utterly erroneous impression.

In broad political and ideological terms, what the Hyderabad and Chennai congresses did was to reiterate the commitment of the two parties to continue their fight against imperialism, neoliberalism and communalism. Bardhan elaborated on this and said that the CPI was of the view that the struggles against communalism and neoliberal policies were interconnected. According to him, a careful observation of the developments during the NDA regime as also during the UPA regime would show that both communal forces and champions of neoliberalism are pro-imperialist. However, he asserted, the CPI would not want the benefit of its struggles against the UPA to go to the BJP, especially at a time when the BJP was waiting expectantly to get to power after having announced its Prime Minister-in-waiting.

The political resolutions of both parties perceived the communalism-neoliberalism combination as the biggest threat. In many ways this position is similar to the one that was held by the two parties in ousting the BJP-led NDA from office and helping the Congress-led UPA to take hold of the reins of power. But, at the same time, Yechury said, the Left had decided not to give any quarter to neoliberalism and its advocates and agents.

The result of introspection at the party congress was a note that sought to develop a framework for the functioning of the Left-led State governments in the country. The framework note was a continuation of the document on Certain Policy Matters presented at the CPI(M) congress in Delhi and later finalised by the partys Central Committee. The 2005 document had sought to give certain directives to party workers and party-led governments on engaging issues of globalisation and neoliberal economic policies. Talking to Frontline, Prakash Karat said that the attempt this time was to build upon the 2005 document, especially because some policy matters impinged on the functioning of the Left-led governments.

The framework, reportedly, addresses a number of questions that concern the Left-led State governments at this point of time. It notes that the nature of the Central governments intervention and the encroachment on the States rights have acquired a new dimension after liberalisation and deregulation. The Centre was seeking to push through neoliberal policies by setting conditions on transfer of resources to the States.

In spite of all these constraints, the Left-led governments have been returning to power repeatedly and this points towards the great expectation and solidarity that the people have shown towards these governments, the framework notes.

In such a situation, it says, the Left-led governments cannot confine themselves to the idea of giving temporary relief in a bourgeoisie State but need to think in terms of evolving alternative policies while working within the system. By all indications, this could entail adopting some of the Union government-sponsored programmes that the Left, particularly the CPI(M), has not accepted theoretically.

Even while suggesting this, the framework has pointed out that the Left-led governments should not compromise on certain basic principles. These include holding workers interests as paramount, taking a firm stand that profitable public sector units (PSUs) would not be closed down, and taking the people into confidence in the case of all projects and initiatives. The emphasis on the third aspect is perceived to be a reaction to the chaotic developments in West Bengals Nandigram when the State government sought to set up a chemical hub there.

There were significant changes in the organisational set-up of the two parties, too. The CPI(M) witnessed a sort of generational change as two of its founding Polit Bureau members former party general secretary Harkishan Singh Surjeet and former West Bengal Chief Minister Jyoti Basu were relieved of full-time official positions and made special invitees to the Central Committee and Polit Bureau respectively.

The three new members in the Polit Bureau are Kerala Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, Trade Union leader Mohammed Amin and Industries Minister Nirupam Sen (both from West Bengal).

The CPI, too, saw a significant organisational change through the elevation of Andhra Pradesh leader S. Sudhakar Reddy to the position of deputy general secretary. The 82-year-old Bardhan was re-elected general secretary though he had expressed the desire to step down from official responsibility, citing age as the reason.

At the 2005 congresses, both parties had drawn up plans to expand their political and organisational base across the country, particularly in areas where the parties have not registered a significant growth.

There was a special emphasis from both parties about strengthening political and organisational activity in North India.

The CPI admitted at Hyderabad that it was yet to advance its plans comprehensively vis-a-vis organisational development and reiterated its resolve to focus in States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh where the larger mainstream Left party, the CPI(M), does not have a mass appeal.

According to Prakash Karat, the CPI(M) has taken a few initiatives with regard to organisational expansion, but it would take more time before it can be translated into political influence. The CPI(M) congress also noted that the party had still not been able to eradicate negative trends like factionalism in areas where the party is strong. Prakash Karat said a new guideline for the rectification process would be prepared, taking into account the events in the last one decade or so.

Clearly, the mainstream Left parties, led by the CPI(M), have opened a number of struggles in different directions. But, there is little doubt that in the immediate context, the one that would have primacy over others is challenging the neoliberal economic policies and the foreign policy deviations of the UPA government.

Whether that would have as concrete a political impact as the successful fight against communalism in the period between 2002 and 2004 is to be seen.