CPM General Secretary Com. Prakash Karat and Polit Bureau Member Sitaram Yechury deserve appreciation, as both of them are candid in admitting, at least theoretically, the lapses and mistakes of the communist movement in India, unlike their predecessors who were clinging on dogmatically to clichés and doctrines that were unrelated to Indian realities. Speaking at a conference in honour of British Indian Marxist historian Victor Kieman, in Cambridge University, of which he is an alumnus, on October 20, Com. Karat, in a candid overview of the state of the communist parties in India has said that the Left forces were still banking on concepts and theories of the 1940s. The communist movement was historically wrong in writing off the deeply entrenched caste system, he has admitted. Com. Karat has admitted that the Left parties in India were ‘deficient’ in theory.
Definitely, this is not due to any shortcoming in the greatest and most progressive economic, political and social theory in human history, viz. Marxism, but in its mechanical interpretation and application by the Indian Marxists, who in effect repudiated the very fundamental concept of Marxism that objective conditions being the determining factor for any movement for radical social change. Taking the experience of capitalist transformation and the rise of the working class as a revolutionary force for the overthrow of exploitative rules in Europe, the Indian communists applied the class theory mechanically in Indian conditions, completely ignoring and writing-off the reality of a deeply entrenched caste system for millenniums, which itself categorized society on the basis of occupations prescribed by birth as ordained by divine destiny.
Although communists hailed the Marxian interpretation of casteism and evolution of Brahminism by renowned scholar Rahul Sangrithyayan in his popular work ‘From Volga to Ganges’, they failed to incorporate and adopt the struggle for eradication of casteism in their party programme and strategies. Late EMS Namboodiripad was the only Marxist theoretician who studied the evolution and role of casteism, and the rest right from M.N.Roy, S.A.Dange et al, to B.T.Ranadive, P.Ramamurthy and others laid total emphasis on class struggle, not only ignoring the reality of all-pervasive caste system but also ridiculing and pooh-phooing movements for social reform and social justice. In Tamil Nadu they worked against the Dravidian movement which spearheaded the struggle for the eradication of caste system, the domination of Brahminism and for the upliftment of the oppressed sections of the society, like the backward classes and Dalits.
It was only in early 1990s when the National Front government led by V.P.Singh sought to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission report for 27 percent reservation for OBCs in Central government services and the following fierce opposition and agitations against the move by casteist forces, that the Indian Left, particularly the CPM woke up to Indian reality of casteist society after losing their citadels in the students unions in the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University and trade unions in northern states. The rise of majoritarian communal forces and their capture of power at the Centre awakened them to the threat of communalism.
Although, they have been belatedly talking about social justice and the fight against communalism, still by their party programmes they remain stuck at the same place where the communist movement was started around 90 years back. While the CPI describes the class character Indian state as that of big bourgeoisie and landlord combination collaborating with imperialism, to be overthrown by national democratic revolution by the working class combining with the national bourgeoisie for the CPM it is a bourgeoisie-landlord state led by big bourgeoisies to be thrown out a people’s democratic revolution led by the working class. The Left extreme groups of all hues call it a “comprador bourgeoisie-feudal state to be overthrown by a New Democratic revolution as in China. None of them speak anything about casteism and communalism. If Com. Prakash Karat is honest in his admission in Cambridge he must initiate the process of fundamental review of his party’s programme and strategy.
Another malaise that the communists in India should address themselves is the sheer electoral opportunism even in their trade union and democratic struggles. The CPM may feel better in this respect than the CPI, which had no compunction in joining Samyukta Vidayak Dal governments in northern states in 1967 in which the BJP’s earlier avtar, the Jan Sangh was also a constituent. But how could the CPM leaders defend their soliciting support for their demonstration for NLC contract workers and Foxconn workers. The ADMK leaders who participated in their demonstration in Chennai boasted of the return of their Amma to power and solve the problems of the workers. Even a political novice in the state would laugh at the suggestion of Jayalalitha being pro-working class or pro-people. Is not the invitation to the ADMK for a trade union struggle an opportunistic compromise for the sake of some crumbs (seats) in the elections next year?
Hopefully, Com. Prakash Karat also makes an honest introspection of the affairs of the party at least in Tamil Nadu and come out with a candid admission (and correction) in this respect too!
(31-10-10)
Definitely, this is not due to any shortcoming in the greatest and most progressive economic, political and social theory in human history, viz. Marxism, but in its mechanical interpretation and application by the Indian Marxists, who in effect repudiated the very fundamental concept of Marxism that objective conditions being the determining factor for any movement for radical social change. Taking the experience of capitalist transformation and the rise of the working class as a revolutionary force for the overthrow of exploitative rules in Europe, the Indian communists applied the class theory mechanically in Indian conditions, completely ignoring and writing-off the reality of a deeply entrenched caste system for millenniums, which itself categorized society on the basis of occupations prescribed by birth as ordained by divine destiny.
Although communists hailed the Marxian interpretation of casteism and evolution of Brahminism by renowned scholar Rahul Sangrithyayan in his popular work ‘From Volga to Ganges’, they failed to incorporate and adopt the struggle for eradication of casteism in their party programme and strategies. Late EMS Namboodiripad was the only Marxist theoretician who studied the evolution and role of casteism, and the rest right from M.N.Roy, S.A.Dange et al, to B.T.Ranadive, P.Ramamurthy and others laid total emphasis on class struggle, not only ignoring the reality of all-pervasive caste system but also ridiculing and pooh-phooing movements for social reform and social justice. In Tamil Nadu they worked against the Dravidian movement which spearheaded the struggle for the eradication of caste system, the domination of Brahminism and for the upliftment of the oppressed sections of the society, like the backward classes and Dalits.
It was only in early 1990s when the National Front government led by V.P.Singh sought to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission report for 27 percent reservation for OBCs in Central government services and the following fierce opposition and agitations against the move by casteist forces, that the Indian Left, particularly the CPM woke up to Indian reality of casteist society after losing their citadels in the students unions in the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University and trade unions in northern states. The rise of majoritarian communal forces and their capture of power at the Centre awakened them to the threat of communalism.
Although, they have been belatedly talking about social justice and the fight against communalism, still by their party programmes they remain stuck at the same place where the communist movement was started around 90 years back. While the CPI describes the class character Indian state as that of big bourgeoisie and landlord combination collaborating with imperialism, to be overthrown by national democratic revolution by the working class combining with the national bourgeoisie for the CPM it is a bourgeoisie-landlord state led by big bourgeoisies to be thrown out a people’s democratic revolution led by the working class. The Left extreme groups of all hues call it a “comprador bourgeoisie-feudal state to be overthrown by a New Democratic revolution as in China. None of them speak anything about casteism and communalism. If Com. Prakash Karat is honest in his admission in Cambridge he must initiate the process of fundamental review of his party’s programme and strategy.
Another malaise that the communists in India should address themselves is the sheer electoral opportunism even in their trade union and democratic struggles. The CPM may feel better in this respect than the CPI, which had no compunction in joining Samyukta Vidayak Dal governments in northern states in 1967 in which the BJP’s earlier avtar, the Jan Sangh was also a constituent. But how could the CPM leaders defend their soliciting support for their demonstration for NLC contract workers and Foxconn workers. The ADMK leaders who participated in their demonstration in Chennai boasted of the return of their Amma to power and solve the problems of the workers. Even a political novice in the state would laugh at the suggestion of Jayalalitha being pro-working class or pro-people. Is not the invitation to the ADMK for a trade union struggle an opportunistic compromise for the sake of some crumbs (seats) in the elections next year?
Hopefully, Com. Prakash Karat also makes an honest introspection of the affairs of the party at least in Tamil Nadu and come out with a candid admission (and correction) in this respect too!
(31-10-10)
No comments:
Post a Comment