To traverse that road map, the RSS and its founders adopted a twin strategy from the beginning. The Hindu Mahasabha was dedicated to develop its footprints and the RSS to penetrate different sections of society by building a cadre based organisation. This twin strategy continued from the days of Hindu Mahasabha through Jana Sangh and consolidated in the BJP era.

There is something to be learnt by all those who wanted to transform India built on a constitutional secular democratic republic to a people’s democracy (Marxists). To first and foremost is, to preserve constitutional democracy. This requires setting out goals with clarity, identifying ‘enemies’, chalking out a strategy to weed out those that harm society, and lay the foundation of achieving respective goals.

On all these fronts the RSS has travelled a long way and its implications and consequences are before us to see. I am not going to recount all those here except emphasising only one aspect. A political tactical line is not the patented right of the Left or Communist Parties. Any party that aspires to rule any country will ultimately will evolve its own tactics which includes accepting a united front as a tactic whenever such a force is weak.

The RSS has fought hard to come out of the woods and stay relevant within an Indian political context at a time when free India was being built on the basis of the universal values inscribed in Preamble of the Constitution.

The historiography of the RSS will be enriched if one critically looks into the role that this exclusivist organization played during Partition, more particularly in western and eastern parts of India, the two regions affected tragically by a sudden change in demography.

In the immediate aftermath of Independence and Gandhi’s assassination by one of its followers (January 30, 1948), the RSS went into political oblivion. Since then, it has worked patiently among the masses defusing its ideology in the name of being a ‘cultural and charitable organisation’ and at the same time, resorted to united front tactics with the then Congress and constituent partners of the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal.

Despite such occasional encounters with positions of power, the RSS felt that mass politics required far more pragmatic approach and transformed its political arm Jan Sangh into the re-incarnated, BJP. Even then, instead of coming up with its own original ideological road map as prescribed by Golwalkar, the RSS guided the BJP to traverse the path of Gandhian socialism and what not. Despite this, it could not achieve effective pace in political growth and relevance. It therefore came out open in the public, again, with a twin strategy.

The first strategy was focused on framing a debate on the lines of pseudo secularism primarily aimed at undermining one of the key pillars of the basic structure of the Constitution. Coupled with this, the second strategy was to publicly own up to the RSS’ core agenda of militarising Hindus and Hinduising society, and, in fact, building a new kind of civil society around this twin strategy. Demonising constitutionalists and free thinkers and transforming ‘Maryada Purushottam Ram into warrior on alien or alienated sections of society’ both were pivotal in the RSS spectacular rise to power.

The RSS, therefore, never faltered in identifying its enemies, nor resorted to a nuanced approach while dealing with them. In this journey, the RSS clearly held Communists in India to be among its prime enemies.

This was academically acknowledged by the Left in general and the CPI (M) in particular, decades ago. In a document released within in the lead up to the 2019 general elections, titled, In Defense of constitution and democracy, the party stated, “It is for this reason, and also for an alternate policies in the economic sphere promoted and practiced by CPI (M) led state governments, that the BJP Modi led Hindutva platform has openly declared the left and the CPI (M) in particular as its main ideological foe.”

Based on the road chalked out in In Defense of constitution and democracy, the CPI (M) in its Central Committee meeting held in December 2018 concluded, “The Political Resolution has pointed out that our line is not of equidistance between the BJP and the Congress. Hence in states where the main contest will be between the BJP and the Congress, such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and others) we should fight just one or two seats and campaign generally for the defeat of the BJP.” The resolution also called on the cadre to “contribute towards maximizing the pooling of anti-BJP votes based on our political line”.

Subsequently, while analysing the 2019 general election results, the Central Committee was not hesitant in cautioning the Congress party when it said, “The Congress party failed to put in place, on the ground, the unity of opposition secular parties when it was campaigning for in the run-up to the elections. In Uttar Pradesh, the Congress contested independently.”

The review further observed in “Overarching Hindutva Identity that “The BJP-RSS orchestrated an overarching Hindu identity during the campaign which cut across, to some extent, the social and ethnic divides amongst the people.  This was accompanied by micro-level social engineering to successfully combat the dominant caste based social alliances which were forged in some states. The BJP identified the non-dominant castes and individual tribal communities for targeted messaging and propaganda. This was accompanied by physically contacting voters by the RSS and its network, consolidating the BJP’s outreach.” This was observed in documents from the 2019 October Central Committee meeting.

Further the CPI (M) also observed that “The BJP is aggressively working to establish a unitary State structure in India. This is required for them to advance the RSS’s fascist agenda of converting the secular democratic Republic into its ideological political project of `Hindu Rashtra’ (This should appropriately be read as “Hindutva Rashtra”)”.

The document identified four key challenges,

“a) The BJP has won this decisive victory on the basis of unprecedented money power and full support of the international and domestic corporates.  The trajectory of anti-people economic reforms favouring the big business and the rich are bound to intensify by imposing greater miseries on the vast majority of the people.  The Party will take the lead in rallying the maximum sections of the people in struggles against such economic assaults.

“b) The consolidation of the Hindutva communal polarisation will lead to greater attacks on the rights of the religious and linguistic minorities, worsening their security concerns and livelihood.  The safeguarding and strengthening of secularism, as enshrined in our Constitution, will be taken up by the Party drawing in the broadest sections in these struggles.

“c) The penetration of the RSS in all Constitutional authorities that happened during the last five years is bound to further intensify.  This will lead to undermining such Constitutional authorities in order to facilitate the transformation of the Constitutional Republic into the ideological project of the RSS, “Hindutva Rashtra”.  The defence and strengthening of all Constitutional authorities will be championed by the CPI (M) along with all other forces willing to join these struggles. 

“d) The focus of the BJP’s victory was based on the need to establish a `security’ state in India, the infringement upon the rights of individuals specifically the right to dissent will sharpen.  Already ominous indications are evident. The assaults by private armies under one pretext or the other against Dalits and religious minorities will intensify. The rights of working people and religious, linguistic minorities will come under attack leading up to witch-hunting.  The CPI (M) will take the lead in mobilizing the broadest segment of our people who cherish democratic rights and civil liberties to meet these challenges squarely.”

Further, the party also discussed at its Central Committee meeting in January 2020, the intensified challenges from the RSS and stated that,

“The situation in Kashmir continues to remain far from normal even after five months. Apart from the merciless denial of elementary human and democratic rights of the people, the situation has devastated the J&K economy, imposing further misery on the people. All these measures are clearly aimed at consolidating Hindutva communal polarisation and seeking to replace the secular democratic Indian Constitution with the RSS fascist agenda of “Hindu Rashtra”.

It is on this understanding that the CPI (M) adopted its Tasks on Cultural Front document in August 2020 wherein it identified the twin dangers being faced by the country.

The Tasks on Cultural Front clearly stated, “Both neo-liberalism and communalism, domestically, thus seek the homogenisation of public tastes.   The former is to strengthen its cultural hegemony and to reap super profits. The latter, in addition to this, is to pave the way for the establishment of a rabidly intolerant fascist State – the RSS vision of `Hindu Rashtra’.

The RSS’ slogan of “one country, one people, one culture” can acquire a real status and meaning only through such homogenisation, negating the very fundamental foundations of India’s rich cultural diversity.  Further, both neo-liberalism and communalism seek to divert the attention of the people away from day-to-day problems and importantly weaken their struggle against the existing exploitative order.”

The Party also warned secular and democratic forces that the BJP, utilised the period of the pandemic and the consequent disruption of normal life and activities due to lockdown restrictions etc. to advance the core RSS agenda of converting India into their conception of a rabidly intolerant fascist `Hindutva Rashtra’.

The CPI (M) acknowledged that the establishment of such a `New India’ is not a product of this Modi government alone. It has a history of nearly a century – from the founding of the RSS in 1925, Savarkar’s theses on Hindutva and its ideological construct and the RSS’ organisational structure –all with the goal of a fascist `Hindu Rashtra’ by Golwalkar in 1939.

Armed with this understanding, the Party went in to preparations for its 23^rd Congress at Kannur, at which the Political Resolution in the opening chapter itself assessed that, “The period since the 22nd Congress has seen the further consolidation of the BJP, which being in government is aggressively pursuing the Hindutva communal agenda of the fascist RSS. It has mounted a multi-pronged attack through the pursuit of rabid neo-liberal reforms strengthening the communal-corporate nexus, looting of national assets, promoting crony capitalism, legalising political corruption and imposing full-fledged authoritarianism.”

While observing the qualitative change in the political landscape off the country, the Political Resolution also stated, “Para 2.2: Since then, there has been the intensification of the above right wing offensive. However, with the return of the Modi government with a larger number of seats and vote share began the aggressive furthering of the Hindutva communal agenda of the fascist RSS. What is unfolding, particularly, in the post 2019 period, is on the lines laid down in the CPI-M Party Programme:

“The Bharatiya Janata Party is a reactionary party with a divisive and communal platform, the reactionary content of which is based on hatred against other religions, intolerance and ultra-nationalist chauvinism. The BJP is no ordinary bourgeois party as the fascist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh guides and dominates it. When the BJP is in power, the RSS gets access to the instruments of State power and the State machinery. The Hindutva ideology promotes revivalism and rejects the composite culture of India with the objective of establishing a Hindu Rashtra.” (Para 7.14)

“The threat to the secular foundations has become menacing with the rise of the communal and fascist RSS-led combine and its assuming power at the Centre. Systematic efforts are on to communalise the institutions of the State, the administration, the educational system and the media. The growth of majority communalism will strengthen the forces of minority communalism and endanger national unity. The support of sections of the big bourgeoisie for the BJP and its communal platform is fraught with serious consequences for democracy and secularism in the country.” (Para: 5.7)

“Party should fight against all forms of intrusion of religion in the economic, political and administrative life of the nation and uphold secular and democratic values in culture, education and society. The danger of fascist trends gaining ground, based on religious communalism must be firmly fought at all levels.” (Para: 5.8)

Political Resolution of CPI(M)’s Kannur (23rd) Congress also identified the emerging class contradictions in India in the aftermath of the farmers united struggle that forced a retreat by BJP government as follows: “Para 2.123: Class Implications- New class conflicts have emerged during the course of this struggle, between the big bourgeoisie in collaboration with international finance capital and the entire peasantry, including sections of the rich peasants.

“Para 2.124: Secondly, conflicts amongst the ruling class partners are also emerging between the big bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the non-big bourgeoisie, particularly those belonging to the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector, on the other.

“Para 2.125: Thirdly, BJP’s drive to establish its complete political hegemony in the country by destroying the federal structure of our Constitution and, in its place, erect a unitary State structure is creating conflicts between the Central government and elected state governments. Some regional parties, who head state governments, who were supporters of the BJP in Parliament and those who vacillated and remained largely neutral in their support to the BJP in Parliament, are being forced by this hegemonic drive of the BJP to come out in opposition, particularly during this kisan struggle.

“Para 2.126: The emergence of such conflicts amongst the ruling class partners creates possibilities that must be utilised by the exploited classes, particularly the working class, poor peasantry and agricultural labour, to intensify the class battles against the bourgeois-landlord order.”

“Para 2.127: Such possibilities for advancing the class struggle have emerged with the growing coordination between the working class trade union movement, the peasantry and the agricultural labour. Such developments began much earlier and since 2018 made significant advances through joint movements of these sections. This growing unity in struggles must be strengthened further in the coming period.”

It is in this backdrop, coupled with a solid ideological footing and absorbing the international experiences in fighting fascism, that it was decided to implement the Party’s 23^rd Congress directions and the CPI-M worked towards formation of INDIA block which played a crucial role in halting the roller coaster ride of the BJP to Parliament.

The CPI (M) has a programmatic understanding which clearly states that the BJP is ideologically guided by the RSS which has fascist characteristics.

In Telugu there is a saying. You can’t sow rice and reap wheat. Thus the ideological mentoring of RSS which sows fascist tendencies cannot result in any other outcome except that of transforming the country into a fascist Hindu Rashtra, armed with a militant Hindutva ideology.

This is what the understanding with which former General Secretary, CPI (M), Sitaram Yechury led the Party and this is the background in which the present Polit Bureau coordinator, Prakash Karat, acknowledged and hailed the contribution of Sitaram Yechury in expanding the Party’s understanding of the RSS and its fascist efforts to transform our constitutional secular democratic republic into fascist Hindu Rashtra. Whether in strength or in weakness, the RSS has never wavered in naming its enemies with determination.

Today, at this crucial hour, the question before the Party which is organizing its 24^th Congress at Madurai is whether it will further strengthen the ideological contribution of Sitaram Yechury or whether it steps back and wavers in naming the principle class enemy, which is the BJP guided by the fascist RSS.

Will the CPI-M lose ground, step back and retreat into its self-created binary confusion? The formulation on whether to give primacy to struggles against globalisation or to struggle or to strive and struggle to protect the constitutional secular democratic republic (and thereafter) to transform it into people’s democratic republic?

That is the crucial poser that presses for an answer.

(The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Part 1, 2 and 3 can be read here

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2

Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Ram saved RSS-BJP from the brink, will Sitaram rescue the CPI (M)? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To sum up on how CPI(M) evolved it’s understanding about Modi regime which became an effective tool in the hands of Fascistic RSS let us look at the following. This characterisation of the Modi regime based on the party’s public statements, party documents, and broader political strategy:

1. Economic policy critique: Neo-Liberalism vs. Crony Capitalism

• Early Characterisation (2014-2019): Initially, the CPI (M) described the Modi regime as an extension of neo-liberal economic policies that favoured corporate interests over the working class and peasantry. It criticised the government for pursuing privatisation, deregulation, and policies like the National Monetisation Pipeline, which it saw as selling public assets to big business. The emphasis was on the regime’s alignment with global capitalism and its betrayal of the poor.

Further, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as a dangerous blend of neo-liberal economic policies and Hindutva-driven communalism accusing Modi of serving corporate interests—particularly those of crony capitalists—while simultaneously promoting a divisive Hindu nationalist agenda rooted in the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s ideological parent.

Since the 22nd Congress of the Party, this “corporate-communal nexus” was seen as a defining feature, with policies like tax concessions for the wealthy, loan write-offs for big businesses, and the dismantling of labour protections viewed as evidence of a pro-corporate tilt. At the same time, the CPI (M) highlighted incidents like the Gujarat riots of 2002 (under Modi’s watch as Chief Minister) and subsequent communal polarisation as proof of his regime’s anti-minority stance. The CPI(M) also framed Modi’s governance as a betrayal of his 2014 election promises, such as job creation and economic “good times” (achche din). The documents pointed to rising unemployment, agrarian distress, and uncontrolled food prices as failures that disproportionately harmed the working class and peasantry—core constituencies in their ideology.

• Later Emphasis (2019 onwards): While the neo-liberal critique persists, the CPI (M) has increasingly highlighted “crony capitalism” as a defining feature of Modi’s rule. It points to specific instances—like tax concessions for billionaires, loan write-offs for corporate allies, and the concentration of wealth among a tiny elite—as evidence of a regime that serves a select group of capitalists tied to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This shift reflects a growing focus on inequality data (e.g., the top 1% owning 40% of wealth) and a more populist framing to mobilise public discontent.

2. Authoritarianism: from subversion of institutions to full-blown fascism

• Initial Framing (2014-2019): In Modi’s first term, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as authoritarian, pointing to the subversion of democratic institutions like Parliament, the judiciary, and the media. It cited examples such as the refusal to engage with Opposition parties, the misuse of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, and the suppression of dissent (e.g., arrests of activists). In the document the Party released before 2019 general elections titled ‘In Defence of Secular Democratic Constitution’, the Party gave call to defeat the BJP from centre and considered this goal as part of its larger agenda towards advancing peoples struggles to establish People’s Democracy.
• Escalation (Post-2019): After Modi’s re-election and events like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests –2019-2020-and the 2024 temple inauguration in Ayodhya, the CPI (M) has intensified its rhetoric, at times aligning with broader Left voices that label the regime as “fascist” or “Indian fascism.” While not always using the term explicitly, the party describes a “communal-corporate nexus” and an “authoritarian-repressive regime” that merges state power with Hindutva ideology, drawing parallels to historical fascism tailored to Indian conditions. Almost all the resolutions adopted by CPI (M) Central Committee have thereafter categorised the BJP regime as the one advancing the RSS’s fascist agenda.

In sharp focus, after Modi’s re-election in 2019, the CPI(M)’s characterisation evolved to place greater emphasis on the regime’s authoritarian tendencies and its perceived threat to India’s secular democratic framework. While the corporate-communal critique remained, the party increasingly highlighted the subversion of democratic institutions—such as the misuse of central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation against Opposition leaders, the weakening of parliamentary norms, and the erosion of federalism.[1] The CPI (M) described Modi’s leadership as displaying “contempt for parliamentary norms” and fostering an “authoritarian-repressive regime.” This shift marked a broader framing of Modi as not just an economic or communal threat, but a systemic danger to the Constitution and India’s pluralistic identity.

3. Communalism: Hindutva as a tool vs. state-sponsored majoritarianism

• Early Perspective (2014-2019): The CPI (M) initially framed Modi’s communal agenda as a political tool of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP to consolidate power through Hindu majoritarianism. Armed with the 22nd Congress Political Resolution and Political Tactical line the party evolved it’s assessment of the BJP central government with its ideological moorings in the RSS. The CPI (M) has therefore portrayed communalism under Modi as a state-sponsored project, exemplified by the Ayodhya temple event in January 2024, which it called a “death knell of secularism.” The party argued that the regime has moved beyond using Hindutva as a mere electoral strategy to embedding it into governance, violating constitutional principles for example the explicit separation of religion and state.

4. Electoral and tactical shifts: BJP as the main enemy vs. broader Opposition unity

• Consistent position: Throughout Modi’s tenure, the CPI (M) has identified the BJP as the primary political enemy due to its communal and neo-liberal character. It has called for mass struggles to resist these policies, emphasising the Left’s role as the most consistent opponent.
• Tactical variation: However, the CPI (M)’s approach to opposing Modi has varied. In 2014-2019, it focused on independent Left mobilisation, wary of alliances with “neo-liberal” parties like Congress. In its election review of the 2019 general elections CPI (M) without mincing words took the Congress to task for its unwillingness to come up with broader Opposition unity. Subsequently, after the Covid lockdown and the BJP-led government using the lockdown to advance its political goals compelled all Opposition parties to coordination on public issues. This coordination gradually expanded into political actions and culminated in the formation of INDIA block as the Opposition’s unified attempts to unseat the BJP from the centre.

Post-2019, with the formation of the INDIA bloc (a coalition of Opposition parties), the CPI(M) has softened its stance, advocating for a broader unity to defeat the BJP electorally, even while maintaining its critique of Congress’s historical role with regards to neo-liberalism. This reflects a pragmatic shift in characterising Modi as a threat requiring a wider resistance, not just a Left-led one.

5. Response to specific events: Reactive vs. strategic framing

• Reactive Critique: At times, the CPI (M)’s characterization has been event-driven. For instance, it condemned Modi’s handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots (pre-2014) as evidence of his complicity in violence, and later the 2021 oxygen shortage denial as proof of callousness and authoritarian denialism.
• Strategic Framing: Over time, the party has woven these incidents into a broader narrative of a “post-truth” regime that manipulates facts, undermines democracy, and prioritises Hindutva and corporate interests over people’s lives. This shift shows a move from piecemeal criticism to a cohesive ideological attack.

Post-2024 Election: weakened but unchanged in essence

The 2024 Lok Sabha election results, where the BJP lost its outright majority and formed a coalition government under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), prompted a subtle adjustment in the CPI (M)’s rhetoric. They hailed the outcome as a “setback” for Modi’s “image of invincibility” and a public rejection of his authoritarian-communal agenda. However, the party maintained that the core character of the regime remained unchanged. They argued that despite coalition constraints, Modi’s economic policies would continue to favour  big corporations (e.g., through privatisation initiatives like the National Monetisation Pipeline), and his communal politics would persist, as evidenced by ongoing attacks on minorities in the BJP-ruled states.

The CPI(M) also noted that while Constitutional changes (like those undermining secularism or federalism) might be harder to push through due to the lack of a BJP majority, the regime’s “thrust” toward neo-liberalism and authoritarianism would see “no qualitative change.”

Ideological consistency vs. tactical nuances

Throughout these phases, the CPI (M)’s Marxist lens has remained consistent—viewing the Modi regime as a tool of the bourgeoisie, allied with imperialism and monopoly capital, while exploiting communal divisions to maintain power.

However, tactical differences emerge in how they prioritise these elements. Early on, economic critiques dominated, aligning with their class-based analysis. Later, the focus on authoritarianism and constitutional defence reflected a broader alliance-building strategy within the INDIA bloc, where the CPI (M) sought to unite secular and democratic forces against the BJP. Post-2024, their characterisation balances cautious optimism about electoral setbacks with a warning against underestimating Modi’s resilience.

Key differences over time

Thus, the CPI (M) emphasised Modi’s pro-corporate policies (e.g., labour reforms, tax cuts) as the primary betrayal. Over time, this expanded to include a stronger focus on democratic erosion, reflecting the regime’s growing consolidation of power.

2. Communalism as strategy vs. systemic feature: Early critiques framed communalism as a political tactic to distract from economic failures. Later, it was portrayed as an intrinsic feature of Modi’s governance, tied to a broader Hindutva state-building project.
3. Invincibility vs. vulnerability: Pre-2024, Modi was depicted as an unassailable figure backed by money and media. Post-2024, the CPI (M) highlighted his vulnerability, though without softening their overall condemnation.

Conclusion

The CPI (M)’s characterisation of the Modi regime has evolved from a focus on neo-liberal economics and institutional subversion to a more layered critique that integrates crony capitalism, state-sponsored communalism, and fascist tendencies. While the core Marxist analysis—viewing the state as serving ruling-class interests—remains unchanged, the party has adapted its rhetoric and tactics to address the regime’s growing consolidation of power and the shifting political landscape. These differences reflect both an escalation in the perceived threat posed by Modi and a strategic response to rally the wider Opposition, all while staying rooted in its ideological opposition to capitalism and communalism.

The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad; the concluding part of this series will appear tomorrow)

[1] The regime’s pursuit of Hindutva politics intensified in this period, with policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir 9August 2019), both seen as assaults on secularism and minority rights.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Part 1 and 2 can be read here

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Yechury’s approach of boldly confronting contemporary political reality and strengthening the Party was persistent and he started working out an alternative political tactical line in the place of isolationist one.

Way back in 2016 itself the former general secretary of the party who still holds strings of the organisation in his own, unique way wrote an opinion piece in Indian Express concluding that, “The threat that is sweeping through India today is one of authoritarianism, not fascism, he argued. Nor are the conditions present for a fascist regime to be established, even though a ‘determined effort is being made to reorder society and polity on Hindutva lines”

This enables us to understand that immediately after taking over the reins of the Party at the 21^st Congress, against all odds, Yechury started working on this hypothesis, What is Hindu Rashtra, and his opinion piece in Asian Age on the 10^th anniversary of Babri demolition wherein he called the demolition the beginning of fascism in India. Accordingly in the Polit Bureau meeting that was held in October 2017 he proposed an alternative line which was shot down by a majority in the Polit Bureau, then.

With unwavering commitment, however, he pursued the same with the Central Committee that was held in January 2018 where the Draft Political Resolution was adopted. In that meeting he could persuade the central committee to follow the Party Constitution which permitted him to present an alternative political tactical line backed a by minority in the Central Committee. After the January Central Committee meeting, the Tripura election results were out where the Party got routed shockingly at the hands of BJP. This helped Yechury to firm up this commitment about the need for an alternative political tactical line.

Hence, by the time the party assembled itself for the 22^nd Congress to finalise the prospective Political Tactical Line (PTL), there was a buzz in the air that in that, at the conference Yechury, would be asked to resign as general secretary. Several leaders like P Madhu, the than Andhra Pradesh secretary of the Party openly campaigned advancing this sectarian line handed down by BV Raghavulu and others that the PTL has already been settled and the question before the 22^nd Congress was merely to elect a leader (probably like BV Raghavulu, in his opinion) to steel the Party along those lines. The present day secretary of the Andhra Pradesh CPI-M unit, V Srinivasa Rao also publicly told a gathering at Bhimavaram that if Sitaram Yechury was not willing to follow the principle of democratic centralism (which implied an agreement with the sectarian political tactical line backed by the majority in the Central Committee) he would have to step down as general secretary. These narrations are but the symptoms of the malaise. If one gets into details and narrates all part of the criticism(s) against Yechury such as being a ‘Congress agent’, the list will be unbelievably long!

To come back to the main thrust of this article, the draft political resolution then summed up the three years of BJP rule, “2.78 The BJP has consolidated its political position. Under the Modi Government, there has been an intensification of the neo-liberal capitalist exploitation of the people; the secular-democratic framework of the Constitution is being eroded with the pursuit of the Hindutva agenda; and the BJP-led government has bound India closer to the imperialist strategy of the United States. All this marks the onset of an authoritarian-communal regime.” It accordingly called for “2.81 The Party should step up its intervention to advance the struggles of various sections of the working people against the economic burdens being imposed upon them. Combining these struggles against the impact of the neo-liberal policies with the struggles against the communal agenda is the way to advance the struggle against the BJP-RSS combine. The struggles against the neo-liberal 40 policies, Hindutva communalism and authoritarianism, are all inextricably interlinked.”

Having said that much, the draft political resolution stopped at the gates, when it came to the question of dealing the elephant with the elephant in the room, the looming Congress question. This confusion is well articulated in the draft, “2.90: Our tactical approach should be to cooperate with the Congress and other secular opposition parties in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilisation of people against the communal threat. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.” This paragraph reads close to the para 2.89 wherein it states, “2.89 The Party will cooperate with INDIA bloc parties in Parliament and, on agreed issues outside Parliament. The Party will join hands with all secular democratic forces on issues of authoritarian onslaughts against democracy, the use of draconian laws to suppress dissent and the opposition to efforts to subvert the Constitution and the institutions of the State.”

If we read through these paragraphs carefully and analytically, one can decipher that Prakash Karat was sticking to his original understanding formulated way back in 2016, in the recent opinion piece in Indian Express. This is why those who are willing to fight against the fascist RSS and its political offshoot which acquired fascistic characteristics being in power are so worried.

The 22^nd Congress stands as one of the milestones in the long journey of Communist movement in India. This can only be compared to that of the one in 1964 where a threadbare discussion took place about characterising the Indian bourgeoisie state.

The open and fierce discourse witnessed then at the conference split vertically. The minority who backed the Yechury’s alternative tactical line inched ahead, day by day, with more and more delegates are realising what lay ahead for them. Some delegates among those who participated in the discussion –like the ones from Punjab– encountered Prakash Karat on the dais itself by asking him, “When would you agree with the fact that India is on the tenterhooks of fascism? After our cadre and Party passes through gas chambers?” Even after being stung by such penchant criticism, Prakash stick to his line by advocating and repeating his way of thinking, the line. To put it simply, a party that has come to power through Constitutional means cannot not undermine the same.

Against this, the minority resolution presented by the then General  Secretary, Sitaram Yechury, batted for all-out war against BJP and RSS by joining hands with all secular forces including the Congress. Amidst the heated debate, perhaps for the first time in the history of CPI (M), delegates demanded a secret ballot on the Political Resolution. The situation reached a head where it was clear that if, such a secret ballot was allowed, the majority line proposed by Prakash Karat and others, was set to be defeated. Realising the intensity and sense of the house, the majority came down to a kind a battered down position and accepted partially the tactical line advocated by Sitaram Yechury. They agreed that defeating the BJP and ousting the government from the Centre was key.

Given the importance of the line then adopted, and this interpretation (by the writer) is a means to help readers understand the CPI(M) through its own documents. I am, therefore giving below the full text of a significant portion from the CPI-M’s 22^nd Congress Party documents (on the political line):

“Political Line

2.116 (i) Given the experience of the nearly four years rule of the Modi Government it is imperative to defeat the BJP government in order to isolate the Hindutva communal forces and reverse the anti-people economic policies.

(ii) Thus, the main task is to defeat the BJP and its allies by rallying all the secular and democratic forces.

(iii) But this has to be done without having a political alliance with the Congress Party.

(iv) However, there can be an understanding with all secular opposition parties including the Congress in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilization of people against communalism. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.

(v) The Party will fight against the neo-liberal policies being pursued by the BJP government at the Centre and by the various state governments including those run by the regional parties. The Party will strive to develop united and sustained actions on the issues of people’s livelihood and against the onslaught of the economic policies.

(vi) Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles at all levels must be built up. Resistance to the anti-people policies should be intensified. The united actions of the class and mass organisations must seek to draw in the masses following the bourgeois parties.

(vii) Given the serious challenge posed by the Hindutva forces both inside and outside the government it is essential to build platforms for the widest mobilisation of all secular and democratic forces. The emphasis should be on building unity of people to fight the communal forces at the grassroots. These are not to be seen as political or electoral alliances. Similarly, broad unity to fight against the authoritarian attacks on democratic rights should be forged.
(viii) The Party will give priority to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. It will work to broaden and strengthen Left unity.

(ix) All Left and democratic forces should be brought together on a concrete programme to conduct united struggles and joint movements through which the Left and democratic front can emerge. In states, the various Left and democratic forces should be rallied to form a platform around a concrete programme. At the national level, the Left and democratic alternative should be projected in our political campaigns and to rally all those forces who can find a place in the Left and democratic front.

(x) Appropriate electoral tactics to maximize the pooling of the anti-BJP votes should be adopted based on the above political line of the Party.

This understanding is further cemented by the CPI-M’s resolution on Election Tactics which was adopted in October 2018 in face of impending general elections 2019. The Party then agreed, “There cannot be an all India alliance to fight the BJP. We have to therefore work out state-wise election tactics based on the overall electoral tactical line. We should rally (the) secular and democratic forces in the different states so that the widest (possible) forces can be mobilised to defeat the BJP and its allies.” At the same time, it also emphatically stated that the Party should strive for understanding with non-Congress secular regional parties.

The formation of the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) should and K Chandrasekhar Rao aiming to be key player in the post 2019 general election scenario, and Pinarayi Vijayan attending the public meeting on the occasion of BRS formation should be seen in the light of the above resolution. Finally the Federal Front fell flat in the face of the mounting BJP challenge and subsequently the BJP returned to power with enhanced strength.

Though Sitaram Yechury, given the historical background of regional parties, aware that the Federal Front was not going to materialise as such, much like a teacher guiding students based on their errors/mistakes, patiently waited for the consequences of the post 2019 general elections, the unraveling of the true face of BJP government and its parent organization the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), given the power strings it holds on the Union Government.

The tactical and organisational maneuver adopted by the CPI (M) in the post 2019 general elections scenario will be discussed in third part of this series.

(The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Read Part 1 here

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today

The post Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The untimely demise of Sitaram Yechury, the General Secretary, CPI (M), a personable and astute leader also considered to be an ace tactician, less of a pragmatist, more of an orthodox Leninist,  of the  Communist Party of India (Marxist), has created a huge vacuum. Yechury contributed significantly to the understanding of Hindutva politics in India.

This article is an attempt to chart out the contribution of Sitaram Yechury to comprehend the contemporary political reality in order to realise the goals of the Left in India, which is the apparent purpose of the conduct of these such a Conference.

The Political Resolution is an important document in the history of all Communist Parties which sets out their international outlook, assesses certain core ingredients of the country’s politics and sets out a road map for action.

The Political Resolution adopted by the CPI (M) at its 21^st Congress is such an important document The question of resurgence of Hindutva politics was finally acknowledged by the CPI (M) only at its 21^st Congress wherein the Party, in the opening remarks of the resolution observed, “The advent of the BJP government represents the consolidation of the rightward shift in Indian politics. It welds together the neo-liberal thrust and the Hindutva drive with a pro-imperialist orientation. Already, the impact can be seen in the nakedly pro-big business policies which will further deepen social inequalities and intensify the exploitation of the working people. This combined with the offensive of the Hindutva forces poses new and serious challenges to our aim of changing the correlation of class forces in favour of the working people.” Further the 21^st Congress categorically declined any kind of electoral understanding with secular parties as it declared, “(Para) 2.71: The Party will give primary attention to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. At the same time, the Party will strive to develop united actions on people’s issues, defence of national sovereignty, states rights and against imperialism with other democratic forces and non-Congress secular parties. Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles are necessary if the Party is to expand its independent strength. The united actions of the class and mass organisations will seek to draw in the masses following the Congress, the BJP and the other bourgeois parties.” (emphasis is mine)

In consonance with this finding, one would have expect the Party which developed this tactical line under the leadership of ace tactician Prakash Karat to come up with a concrete tactical approach. The tactical line adopted by the 21^st Congress was detailed from Paras 2.68 to 2.72. A bare analytical reading of the same reveals the confusion within the leadership of the Party.

Going by the tactical line adopted at 21^st Congress it appears that the first and foremost task of the CPI (M) is to defeat the BJP and its Hindutva politics. Accordingly it was held that, “(Para) 2.68: The Party has to fight against the BJP and Modi government’s policies. This is the main task at hand. This requires a concerted opposition to the Modi government’s economic policies and its Hindutva oriented social, educational and cultural policies. The Party has to conduct a political-ideological struggle against the BJP-RSS combine. However, the fight against communalism cannot be conducted in isolation. It has to be integrated with the struggle against (the) neo-liberal policies and in defence of people’s livelihood(s).”

The above enunciation reveals that the Party had yet to make up its mind to defeat the BJP and remove that party from the seat of power, at any cost. It was merely confined to fight against the BJP’s policies by opposing the Modi governments economic and Hindutva oriented social education and cultural policies. Though it called for a bold initiative to take on the politics of the landed (land-lord) bourgeoisie parties, nothing concrete had been chalked out at least to strengthen the historical bases of the Party such as West Bengal, the then undivided Andhra Pradesh and Assam. The strengthening of the party was primarily seen through the lens of the Party in power in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala. Once the Party lost its core base Bengal, a question that was posed was about the very survival of Left politics in India.

Subsequent developments however and the policy orientations of the BJP lead by Modi which had bulldozed the foundations of parliamentary democracy caused a serious re-think within a section of the Party. Adhering to the call given by the 21^st Congress to devise a bold initiative the then General Secretary conceptualised a broader alliance of secular forces including Congress, proposed an alliance in the wake of the collusion (unspoken alliance) between the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and BJP. This strategy was agreed upon after detailed discussions and arriving at a majority within the Bengal State Committee of the Party. Accordingly there was an alliance with the Congress in terms of seat adjustments in the 2016 assembly elections. However, given electoral arithmetic (s) and mutual suspicions that developed between the core constituencies of both parties, this alliance tottered.

Surprisingly — and to the astonishment of all Indians aspiring to an alternative politics — the Polit Bureau followed by the Central Committee, both, heavily weighed down in favor of a sectarian approach, resolved that the Party in West Bengal had violated the Party’s understanding. Thereafter it was decided –by the Central Committee –to convey this (report) to CPI-M cadres across the country. With undue haste, almost a kind of one-upmanship, the Party ignored the fact that the very same leadership has scripted the Paragraph 2.288 of the Political Resolution, wherein it had been stated, that, “(Para) 2.88: The struggle for building Left and democratic unity will proceed differently in different states. Various types of Left and democratic combinations will emerge in the states and they will contribute to the building of the Left and democratic front at the all India level. The focus of all the tactics adopted by the Party should be for the realisation of a strong Left and democratic front.” Thus the Central Committee Resolution which castigated the West Bengal State Committee for its electoral understanding with the Congress, was itself, in a way, clearly against its own Political Resolution adopted at the 21^st Party Congress of the CPI-M at Visakapatnam.

Despite having such a solid tactical footing, the then General Secretary, without confrontation, allowed the resolution to be passed adhering to the principle of democratic centralism. This is another instances where the top leadership of the Communist movement in India, often, does not read, its own document and adopts a less rigorous approach.

Despite such a retreat, Sitaram Yechury gradually educated his party’s Central Committee towards the need of not merely battling against Hindutva politics, but also towards a clear-cut strategy to unseat Hindutva forces from the seat of power. Towards this end, he took inspiration from the amended Party Programme. The Party Program, amended at the CPI (M)’s 2000 Special Conference categorically stated, at Para 7.14 that “(Para)7.14: Reactionary and counter-revolutionary trends have existed even after Independence. They make use of the backwardness of the people based on the immense influence of a feudal ideology. In recent decades, making use of the growing discontent against the Congress leading to its steady decline, they are making serious efforts to fill the void left by the Congress Party. The Bharatiya Janata Party is a reactionary party with a divisive and communal platform, the reactionary content of which is based on hatred against other religions, intolerance and ultra-nationalist chauvinism. The BJP is no ordinary bourgeois party as the fascistic Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh guides and dominates it. When the BJP is in power, the RSS gets access to the instruments of State power and the State machinery. (The) Hindutva ideology promotes revivalism and rejects the composite culture of India with the objective of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. The spread of such a communal outlook leads to the growth of minority fundamentalism. This has serious consequences for the secular basis of the polity and poses a serious danger to the Left and democratic movement. Besides, a substantial section of big business and landlords, imperialism headed by the USA, is lending all-out support to the BJP”. (emphasis is mine).

The portion of the paragraph emphasised here had a direct reference to the 21^st Congress resolution wherein it called for, “(Para) 2.83:  There has to be a bold initiative to take on the politics and ideology of the bourgeois-landlord parties and to counter them with the CPI (M)’s political line and the Left and democratic programme. The Party must intervene and take up struggles on social issues.” Finally, sectarianism won and the West Bengal committee got castigated for its alleged violations. Being a leader who follows the core organisational principle of democratic centralism which says minority has to follow the majority decision, Sitaram agreed to follow the majority decision of the 2016, sometime in August that year.

This was the time when the Party castigated its own elected General Secretary to be an ‘agent of Congress’ whereas this electoral understanding with Congress revived the Save Democracy theme which had been coined by the then Party State Secretary, Bimon Basu. The 2016 Bengal elections were a watershed as they were in 2011. The 2011 elections focused only on defeat of the Left Front government by an electoral alliance sans a goal and ideology whereas the 2016 electoral understanding of 2016 focused on the Save Democracy theme in the wake of an onslaught by the a authoritarian regime in the state supported by a more authoritarian regime in center.

(In the second Part, the author, Y Venugopal Reddy, a cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad, will deal with the evolution of the Party’s approach towards BJP’s Hindutva politics by examining its discourse towards 22^nd Conference of the Party)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Part 2 and 3 can be read here

Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3

The post Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The much-awaited Draft Political Resolution (PDR) of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is out. This is the one approved by the Central Committee in its Kolkota meeting by a majority vote. On first reading of this DPR, several questions arose in my mind. Let us discuss them one by one.
 
There are no differences in assessment of prevailing political situation in the country. What I could not understand is much more the larger question played out in public concerning the alleged differences about an alliance with the Congress. The question is to have or to have not such alliance.
 
Columnist Ajay Ashirwad Mahaprashasta in his article on The Wire,who gave a detailed presentation about the so called differences between the alleged two camps in CPI(M) felt that there is nothing much of differences except semantics.
 
What one can gather from the media is this. The two drafts that were presented at the Kolkata central committee meeting had two different tactical lines. One allegedly argued for alliance with the Congress (minority resolution) while the other argued against it (majority resolution). If we are to believe what was published on The Wire, we can conclude that there was a guided misinformation campaign against the Sitaram Yechury camp which supported the minority resolution. It now turns out that the minority resolution presented at the central committee does not argue for overt or covert alliance with the Congress, or for that matter with any ruling class parties at any level. It only wanted an understanding with the Congress so that anti-BJP votes don’t get divided.
 
On the other hand the CC-adopted majority resolution also suggests: “(ix) In states where the main force fighting the BJP alliance is a regional party, we may have an understanding with that party even if it enters into an alliance with the Congress. In such cases, we should not project any state-level front or alliance with the Congress.” But in the fine print that is out for debate across the party this aspect of the majority line is missing. In the CC-adopted resolution there was an explicit comment that the party would confine to the limited seats where the Congress and BJP are the key contestants. Put together, these two approaches are aimed at joining hands with the Congress either directly or indirectly. Thus it is the majority resolution that batted for allying with the Congress and not the minority resolution moved by the party general secretary.
 
As per the DPR the tactics to be adopted is this. “Appropriate electoral tactics to maximize the pooling of the anti-BJP votes should be adopted based on the above tactical line.” The relevant portion from the minority resolution states, “Suitable electoral tactics should be worked out to ensure that the primary objective of ousting this RSS-BJP government and its policies is achieved while not entering into any electoral front or alliance with bourgeois-landlord parties.”
 
That means the final DPR and the one moved as minority resolution argues for the same thing. When the final DPR and the minority resolution argues for the same approach of adopting appropriate electoral tactics to maximize the pooling of anti-BJP votes, what made a section of media to make allegations against the minority resolution?
 
Here subjective factors might have been at work and the consequential adverse campaign. The most striking of this is how the media projects a fiction aimed at vilifying a section of the party. Could this happen without a section of the party leadership cozying up with the media to plant stories of vested interest is to be judged by oneself? The general refrain is that if the party accepts the above mentioned tactical line it might end up in an electoral understanding with the Congress in 2019 elections.
 
Debates in communist parties centre around hard facts rather than on hypothetical projections. If we have to discuss about the possible consequences the same is applicable to resolution adopted by the majority vote as well. More importantly, the majority resolution vocally argued for an explicit alliance with Congress in some contexts. But the organized vilification campaign applied the possible consequence principle only to one resolution and accepted the other in its letter and spirit. This is nothing but double standards.
 
When we were in the Students Federation of India (students’ wing of the party), we were taught about the dialectical approach. The basic principle of dialectical approach is to study any issue on an objective rather than subjective basis. The subjective basis, we were taught, is to look at things the way we think them to be. The objective basis is the one that exists irrespective of our whims and fancies or thoughts.
 
If we apply the same basis to the tone and tenor of the DPR as well as the discussion centered around the majority and minority resolutions that were discussed at the central committee, one could feel that the differences that have cropped up in the CPI(M) are in principle subjective rather than objective ones. When there are subjective imperatives they would obviously lead to factionalism. And if there is factionalism within the CPI(M) definitely it is an unhealthy phenomenon.
 
There has been subjectivism at work within the party for quite some time which leads to ad-hocism which in turn deflects attention from the long-term structured gainful goals towards short-term unstructured ad-hoc goals. When subjectivism takes over, one would look for one upmanship rather than the factual issue at hand.
 
If because of this subjectivism a section of the party leadership conducts an orchestrated campaign against another section it is detrimental to its standing in Indian polity as well as its desired course of revolution. It appears that a section is desirous of advancing its limited interests at the cost of the party and its standing, as is evident for the last two years ever since the former general secretary mooted the idea that BJP is merely authoritarian. This needs separate treatment in the wake of final DPR that was released for debate.
 
With a considerable part of the central committee siding with such a conclusion riddled with subjectivism, the days ahead for Left movement in India are unlikely to bring good tidings. Such subjectivist assessment of an objective situation is going to give an unbridled opportunity for the Hindutva forces that are aiming to transform India into Hindu Rashtra to commemorate centenary celebrations of 1923’s master-piece of Savarkar, i.e. Hindu Rashtra.
 
Let us windup the discussion by looking at the last possible reason for such subjectivist approach on key issues in any party. If factional feud erupts or prevails in any party it takes place with some purpose, mainly for power: say, for the post of minister, chief minister or prime minister. But the situation of CPI(M) is not akin to that. Then what could be the reason for this subjectivist feud is the main question that hangs over the minds of those who are striving to preserve the secular democratic foundations of India.
 
 

The post Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A lot is under circulation about the contents of the resolution moved by the Party General Secretary. This is not the place to reveal the contents in full but one point needs to be noted here. The draft defeated at the CC, we are given to understand, argues that the continuation of BJP government at center would be a major dampener in efforts to realise the anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly, anti-landlord tasks set out by the 21^st Congress held in 2015. It only urged the forthcoming Party Congress to look for the ways and means of ensuring the adherence of the task set out by 21^st Congress. It also argued further that while adhering to the oranisational and political tasks set out by 21^st Congress, and in view of the critical objective of defeating of the BJP-RSS combine, precautions should be taken not to enter into any kind of electoral front or alliance with bourgeoisie-landlord parties. The General Secretary note has not batted for a pre-poll alliance with the Congress, as alleged by a section of media. The columnists understanding of recent political developments also came into question when he concludes about the so called pre-poll alliance with the Congress.

It is a matter of historical record that, throughout the country, there was no such an explicit understanding with the Congress in the 2004 general elections except in Andhra Pradesh. That too, the Andhra Pradesh state committee adopted a synchronised understanding through which it ensured that the Congress did not put up candidates where the CPI(M) was contesting seats. This yielded better results for the Party in 2004 general elections. Another significant point of note, albeit in retrospect: Only in 2004, where a grand understanding was arrived between the secular democratic forces, did the Party get its highest representation in the Lok Sabha, from Kerala as well.

In 2004, there was an explicit pre-poll alliance between Congress and the CPI(M) AP committee where as an understanding was arrived with the Congress and CPIM in Maharashtra , Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. These were the deliberations took place between Harikishan Singh Surjeet and Pranab Mukherjee on one hand and YS Rajasekhar Reddy and BV Raghavulu on the other, the then chiefs of both AP Congress and AP unit of CPIM, respectively. Late Koratala Satyanarayana and P Shiva Shankar were also part of these track two deliberations. It is in the background of these discussions , that BV Raghavulu even agreed to relinquish the Miryalaguda parliamentary constituency, which is a traditionally party stronghold to the Congress, so that S Jaipal Reddy could contest and win. Now is it not surprising that the same BV Raghavulu, who once piloted this explicit pre-poll alliance with the arch class enemy , Congress, is now putting forth an argument that it is because of such alliances the Party has been reduced to its present state ? By putting forth this argument, the hardliners in the CPI-M want to delink the arbitrary withdrawal of support to UPA 1 and what this has meant for the far reduced prospects of the Left in India.

Another fallacious argument advanced by this columnist  was around the Common Minimum Program. The question of Common Minimum Program arose only after the then Congress President Sonia Gandhi personally visited Harikishan Surjeet, the then Party General secretary amidst media glare. Arguing  that the Party stitched the CMP well before elections is a reversal of facts as they transpired. Those who claim that the CPI(M)’s current plight in West Bengal –reduced from its popularity peak — are forgetting one crucial thing. This process started with the Purulia’s arm drop incident to the propping up of underground naxal forces intertwined with political resistance under the leadership of Trinamool Congress. The , consistent efforts by the ruling classes dominated by the interests and allegiance towards international finance capital are today barely concealed from the public eye. Yes. Certain orgnanisational aspects contributed to the overlooking of the class enemies’ and concerted organised political violence in the guise of political protest. This is the understanding arrived by the Party Central Committee at its meeting in June 2011.

For the benefit of readers I am reproducing the relevant portion from the Review Report of Assembly Elections, 2011 (West Bengal) here. “The Assembly elections were held in a situation marked by the concerted efforts of the ruling classes and imperialism to weaken the CPI(M) and the Left. These efforts began due to the role played by the Left during the UPA-I government in opposing the neo-liberal policies and the strategic alliance with the United States. They got intensified after the withdrawal of support to the government in July 2008. The ruling classes and imperialist agencies worked to assemble a range of forces to attack the Left in West Bengal, the strongest base of the Left in the country.”

Similarly the Central Committee review of 2016 Assembly elections states, “The elections were held in a very difficult condition faced by our Party.  During the course of last five years, the terror unleashed by the Trinamool Congress had even before the campaign began consumed the lives of 176 of our comrades apart from internally displacing over 60,000 families of Party members and sympathizers, the ransacking and looting of Party and mass organization offices, the specific targeting of women comrades etc.” Those who today allege that the 2011 assembly outcome  was only because of some drastic shift within the West Bengal Party, are either politically naïve or are ignoring the wider canvass against which these developments took place. Or intentionally don’t want to see them.
Keeping these developments in view, linking the CPI(M)’s current position in West Bengal with the recently defeated minority resolution is a calculated misinformation campaign. Here is the assessment arrived by the Party in the wake of Assembly elections in 2016 in conclusion, “The BJP’s aggressiveness post these elections is taking different forms in different states. Apart from the standard RSS scheme of sharpening communal polarisation to consolidate the Hindutva communal vote bank, the BJP is undertaking specific exercises in social engineering in various states. In the southern states particularly various caste combinations are being created and a caste based coalitions are sought to be built by the BJP in addition to its hardcore communal agenda. In a situation where in different states the Congress party is in a state of disarray for various reasons, the BJP is taking full advantage by undertaking both these tasks. The Party must be conscious of these efforts by the communal forces and strengthen our intervention among the people against these.”(emphasis is mine).

Confirming this assessment by the Party, like West Bengal prior to 2011, Kerala has now become the target for class enemies. The developments taking place in Kerala at the behest of the ruling BJP not only reaffirms the Party’s understanding but also highlights the impending danger. In Kerala, through concerted efforts, the BJP has mobilised large number of its followers from other states in a show of strength and to boost the morale of their local cadre which will have serious consequences. The RSS chief has made it a point to stoke controversies in their efforts to de-popularise the CPI(M) in Kerala and the government under its leadership. It is in this context, the Party rightly decided to defend the Kerala government. The LDF government in Kerala represents various movements against the Congress’ monopoly in the state’s socio-economic life, which is facing unending attacks from the BJP/RSS off late. Which is why, a considerable number of Central Committee members strongly felt that the urgency to ward off the impending threat both for Kerala’s Left Democratic Front and also to the larger secular democratic fabric of the nation,  can only mean defeating the BJP in forthcoming general elections. To ensure that this happen, the adopted draft political resolution (yet to be released formally) argued for a tie up with the anti-BJP regional forces in all the states even though they are in political and electoral tie up with the Congress.  This is the alleged difference between the two drafts.

The review of the political tactical line, which was aimed at  helping the Party to arrive at a correct tactical line in pursuant of the goals set out by the Party Program and successive Party Congress. It is Para no. 6 which is the point of reckoning, arguably self contradictory in style, akin to the stance of Communists, in the country.

In essence the resolution adopted at 21^st Congress clearly affirms the fact, “The successive tactical lines in this period also gave guidance to fight separatism, regional chauvinism and imperialist penetration.” Despite this fact, if the Party is unable expand its strengths, it should be looking inward and evaluating subjective factors rather than trying to change the objective factors which are clearly beyond their control. The deliberations of the CC at Kolkata clearly seem to see things happening the other way round. The operational part of the draft political resolution adopted at Kolkata seems to consist of a section indicating that the Party won’t mind having an electoral alliance with dominant regional parties even if they allied with Congress. The majority decision goes against the spirit of the political and organisational line adopted at the 21^st Congress of the Party. To formulate so, it is pertinent to look at the actual political scenario as on date. Any tactical line cannot be formulated based on assumptions. The draft resolution, if what is revealed through media is correct, clearly tries to formulate its position based on some futuristic assumptions rather than the prevailing factual situation.

The 21^st Congress resolution on PTL clearly concludes, “ Under the impact of globalization and in the neo-liberal policies phase, sections of the regional bourgeoisie are joining the ranks of the big bourgeoisie. Further, the contradiction between the non-big bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie has become muted. As a result we have seen how the neo-liberal policies have been embraced by the regional bourgeois parties. In the recent years we have seen that these parties are not willing to come to any joint platform against the economic policies.”

When this is the given fact of dominant regional parties, most of whom are in power, how can the Party think of allying with them when they are closely knitted with the class enemy of international finance capital wedded with the monopoly capita of the nation, is the what should be pondered over. The draft resolution, if it cannot steer clear from this confusion, is going to be nothing but semantic jargon rather than a clear guiding light for the Party in the days to come. 

(The author is an advocate in the High Court)

The post Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.