Left in India looks jaded By Kuldip Nayar
 

[I][B]One interpretation of China’s Cultural Revolution evokes justification for it. Mao Zedong wanted his party men and bureaucrats to go to the villages and stay there.[/I]

His purpose was that they should imbibe the rigours of life in the countryside so that they would not be complacent when they returned to their chair. The communists’ routing in Kolkata’s recent municipal election brings back Mao’s thoughts. The Communist Party of India’s general secretary A.B. Bardhan has attacked the communist government in Kolkata for becoming “swollen-headed” because of its distance from the ground realities and the people’s aspirations.

Indeed, a government which has ruled for more than three decades and has had all the time to experiment with the communist way of administration is either inept in governance or incapable of ruling. The growing conviction is that a communist state does not fit into today’s world of free thinking and pragmatic working.

The communists in West Bengal remained popular, particularly in the rural areas, as long as they were effecting agrarian reforms, transferring power to the panchayats and making the countryside feel that it was the master of its destiny. Both the communist cadres and those in power then sat back. People expressed their resentment by making the communist candidates lose in by-elections. Still the communists did not get the message. Then the people voted against them in the last Lok Sabha election and reduced the Left’s strength in the country.

The party’s politburo considered the defeat an aberration and did not anticipate the mood of the people when state chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee announced that industrial development had to have priority if economic conditions were to improve. He said that falling living standards and growing youth unemployment could not be tackled without industrialisation.

This was a departure from the communist policy which was primarily based on agrarian reforms. Most ministers, much less the cadre, did not understand or appreciate the new policy.

Even the calculation of the top communist leaders was wrong. How could West Bengal attract industrialists when their cadre had driven them out two decades ago, after humiliating them? The communist cadres had organised strikes and committed crimes which went unpunished because of an indulgent police force. Big industrial houses headquartered in Kolkata eventually moved out.

And when Buddhadeb wanted to bring back the industry and began with Tata’s Nano car plant at Singur through land acquisition “in public interest,” the chief minister failed because he had not prepared the ground. Farmers preferred the agrarian economy to an industrial switchover. Therefore, when the communist cadres, with the help of the police, tried to fight farmers they became oppressors. The cadres showed little consideration for their vote bank, the farmers. The West Bengal government committed atrocities and failed to make any headway. It was inevitable.

The Left did not understand — it does not do so even now — that the support won through improving village life could not be diverted to industry. Farmers could not be expected to hand over their land for cash which would not last them for life.

The West Bengal government should have realised that the land acquired for industry did not come under the purview of public interest. How could the Left create something akin to a special economic zone when it had vehemently opposed the Union government’s decision to have such exclusive estates?

The reason why Indian Maoists have spread to nearly 200 districts is not because they use force but because they pay special attention to the development of the countryside where the tribals and the marginalised live. They have not made industry their priority and have apparently stayed with agrarian needs. B.D. Sharma, an eminent activist, was right when he asked the Indian president in an open letter to allow tribals their traditional life in forests, mountains and mines, which the global economy requires for development, to check the spread of Maoists.

But the communists, unlike the Maoists, have confidence in the parliamentary system. They have come to put their faith in the ballot, not the bullet. The Left in West Bengal should, however, realise that people’s participation in governance, something which the state under Jyoti Basu encouraged, has been diluted.

The administration in Kolkata appears at the beck and call of the communist leaders who throw their weight around. The Left is not so popular anymore. The reason, of course, is the lessening of liberal appeal in the glittering world of consumerism. But another reason is that communist ideology has become jaded.

True, idealism is lessening in society. But at the same time, people are more fascinated by social democracy than the system which concentrates power in a few hands. Those living in poverty, for example, are tired of the trickle-down theory which globalisation promises in terms of benefits “in due course”.

The 21st century poses different challenges. What strings different endeavours together is the fight against bigotry on the one hand and vested interests on the other. The Left should understand that this battle cannot be won until the people’s say is strengthened. Any kind of dictatorship, either of the proletariat or of others, is bound to fail. The communist ideology has to be reinterpreted.

When the West Bengal dispensation starts to reflect on the causes of its unpopularity in the state, it should consider how to build an agrarian society which can increase the output, enhance farmers’ income and bring about egalitarianism. This cannot be done through steps where the land is acquired in “public interest” to benefit a few industrialists. The communist ideology should be radiating with fresh thinking for retrieving idealism which is receding into the shadows.[/B]