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.