Political Repression in West Bengal Today : INTERVIEW WITH SURJYA KANTA MISHRA

The Marxist, XXXI 2, April–June 2015 

The Left movement in West Bengal – the most powerful contingent of the Left movement in India – today faces intense repression by the State Government led by the Trinamul Congress (TMC) and by the ruling classes in general. Dr. Surjya Kanta Mishra, member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), holds the two crucial positions of Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and and Secretary of the State Committee of the CPI(M). Dr Mishra gave this interview on the state of political repression in West Bengal to Madhav Tipu Ramachandran on May 19, 2015. The interview was conducted over three hours, during a journey by car from Kolkata to Nadia. In the interview, Dr Mishra speaks on what he characterises as a three-pronged attack on democracy and the people in West Bengal, an attack whose victims go beyond the Left and Left parties; on the attack on Left forces in the State; on comparing the current repression with the period of semi-fascist terror in the State in the 1970s; and on the need and prospects for a resurgence of the Left in the State and in India.

MTR: What is the nature of political repression in West Bengal today?

SKM: The repression that we have been facing in West Bengal today, four years after the changing of the government, is a multi-pronged one. There have been three types of attack against the people of the State: first, an attack on democracy and democratic institutions; secondly, an attack on peoples’ livelihoods, and thirdly, an attack on secularism in the State.

Concurrently, there has been a concerted and violent attack on the CPI(M) and the Left Front.

MTR: What has the Left had to confront?

SKM:  Around  170  comrades  have  been  killed  during  this  period.  More  importantly,  thousands  of comrades have been brutally attacked and denied hospital treatment, their complaints have not been registered, and many of them — more than 5000 by my estimate — will be physically handicapped for the rest of their lives.

More than 1500 offices of the Party, the Left Front and mass organisations have been attacked, and either captured and converted to Trinamul Congress (TMC) offices or put under lock and key.

More than 100,000 comrades have been implicated in false cases.

Many people have been forced out of their places of residence, more than 51,000 at the last count. When people return to their places of residence after a certain period of time, say one or two years, they are not allowed to speak to anyone, not allowed to leave their houses, their mobile phones and landlines are taken away, and they are not even allowed to drop letters into a post box. They are forced to pay fines to goondas, often to the tune of several lakhs.(our estimate is that Rs 50 crores have been taken in total by means of extortion in the State)

MTR: How does the extortion take place?

SKM: The money is taken after threats and leaving no paper trail, although we do have a few documents. Where persons who have been forced to leave their home do not return, members of their families are sometimes tortured. The goons say: “Tell him (or her) to come back, live here, pay the fine; send him (or her) the message that otherwise their family will not be allowed to live here in peace.”

MTR: You described the first kind of attack as on democracy and democratic institutions.

SKM: What I have described is part of the larger attack on the forces of democracy in society.

It  is  said  that  in  parliamentary  democracy,  the  House  belongs  to  the  Opposition,  that  is,  the Opposition must take the lead in addressing issues within the Legislature. In West Bengal, we publish an account every year of how many questions we asked, how many remained unanswered, how our adjournment motions were rejected, how no time was spent on non-official discussion and non-official resolutions, how resolutions were passed solely by the Government — no one else — and how our resolutions were thrown out.

The Press Corner in the Assembly is no longer open to the Leader of Opposition when the House is not in session.

MTR: What exactly is the Press Corner?

SKM: During our time in Government, we organised that a Press Corner be opened, in order that any member of the House be able to meet the Press and discuss policies and open issues to debate. As a Government, we believed in keeping ourselves accountable to the people via the Press. We used to regularly go to the Press Corner and discuss our policies.

The  Press  Corner  usually  has  to  close  by  5  p.m.,  and  one  day,  a  few  months  after  the  new Government had come to power, an accusation was levelled against me to the effect that I had exceeded the deadline by five minutes. Although I am sure that I did not overstep the time limit, even if I had, it is hardly cause to close the Press Corner to the Leader of Opposition. They have closed down the Press Corner for three and a half years now, and whenever the Assembly is not in session, I have to arrange Press Conferences in the street outside (although I can, of course, hold them in the Party office as well). Ministers can hold press conferences in their offices, but ordinary MLAs of any political party should have the right to speak out to the press, which is why the Press Corner was built in the first place.

MTR: There have been other incidents in the Legislative Assembly.

SKM: These are manifestations of the new regime. When we moved an adjournment motion in the house for a discussion about the Sarada chit fund scam, a few of our MLAs were beaten up and injured inside the House by ruling party MLAs. The injured included a woman, Debalina Hembram, a former Minister, who was thrown between bench and desk in the Treasury benches. The other injured MLA, Gauranga Chatterjee, our State Committee member, sustained a fracture in the skull, but the government hospital to which he was admitted said that there was no injury, and refused to admit him. He was then admitted to a private hospital and the CT scan he undertook subsequently revealed his fracture clearly. Nothing further could be done about this, for if something happens within the House, the Police will not take action and so nothing was done.

Thus, even the legislature, which is said to be the place where the Government in a parliamentary democracy is accountable to the people, has failed to discharge its constitutional responsibilities.

MTR: Are these attacks directed solely at the Left?

SKM: No, the attacks that were first aimed at us are now aimed at the entire Opposition — as well as at members of the ruling party itself. I told the Chief Minister that at least 50 people of her party have been killed by her own people, and I believe they do not even have a record of them.

The historical experience is that when the attack on democracy begins, nobody is spared, not even members of the ruling party. In the chit fund case, TMC MPs and other ruling party loyalists are now being disowned or being forced to leave by the party as its leaders believe that these people may have divulged sensitive information to the CPI(M), or to the courts or police.

MTR: What about other democratic institutions?

SKM: All of them are under considerable pressure. The local bodies and all the authority they had are under attack. Elections are rigged, people outside the ruling party are not allowed to submit nominations, and even if they do manage to submit them, are then forced to withdraw their candidatures. Co-operatives are  similarly  besieged  (have  been  “captured”)  –  no  elections  are  held,  and  they  are  run  by “administrators.” There is no campus democracy for students or teachers. Student elections are under attack, and the right of students to form unions denied. The right of workers to strike has been taken away.

Other democratic organisations, such as the constitutional bodies, are under attack. There is no Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), because when the Commission delivered certain judgements  or  recommendations  unpalatable  to  the  government,  they  found  a  way  to  remove  its Chairman. Thereafter, they appointed the former Director General to the HRC, an appointment that I opposed as a member of the Selection Committee. I stated that never has a police officer with several human rights violations sub judice been appointed to a Human Rights Commission. He now acts as de facto Chairman of the Commission – which is a reflection the state of human rights in our State.

The State Election Commission has not been spared either, as the government’s war with the State Election Commission on the issue of holding panchayat elections showed. A Sessions Court judge has had to come to us for safety and security, which shows that there are members of the judiciary who are under personal threat. The Central Bureau of Investigation has had to ask the High Court to transfer the case out of Alipore court, since they did not expect justice from the Alipore court.

MTR: You described the second kind of attack as being one on people’s livelhoods.

SKM: People are denied wages after working on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, denied work when funds are available, and sometimes denied employment on the basis of political loyalty, anyone but a supporter of the ruling party being unacceptable for employment. Wages are sometimes withheld for six months or even a year, thus violating the terms of the law.

Farmers are not paid the procurement prices declared by the Government, and mechanisms for output procurement are not in place. The agrarian situation is deteriorating every day. There have been farmer suicides in West Bengal, as had not occurred in the 34 years of Left Front rule preceding the period in power of this Government.

MTR: Are the issues of livelihoods singularly issues of rural areas?

SKM: No, in recent times, the industrial sphere has been characterised by closures in traditional sectors (for example in the tea and jute industries) and in other sectors, and by a failure to start new industries. People are thrown out of employment because factories are being closed and because of the hooliganism of the ruling party in the factory sector. Today’s newspaper says that the Chief Minister has announced that seven jute factories are to reopen. These mills had become unviable and unable to function because hooligans of the ruling party had demanded ever greater amounts of money as extortion. The Chief Minister has ultimately had to ask them to see that the factories reopen. A temporary change in the situation does not, however, reflect what is happening every day everywhere else; her words in this case are nothing more than lip service, with nothing actually changing in the field.

Members of the business community have begun to complain that they are unable to run businesses because they have to pay this ‘extortion fee’. The insurance scheme that we introduced while in Government has not been implemented properly. The Government is not paying the premium amount to which it is committed, and a sum of to Rs 69-70 crores has been left unpaid by the government in the last four years (a substantial proportion of this relates to crop insurance). Government employees and teachers have not been paid their dearness allowance; up to 48 per cent — a proportion almost unheard of — of their wages remain unpaid, and the failure to pay wages now affects around a million people.

MTR: You described the “third prong” of the attack as being on secularism.

SKM: There has never been any serious incident of communal tension in this State since Partition. During the 34 years of Left Front rule, whenever there was communal tension in the country, the army was swiftly deployed and political steps were taken to ensure that such tension did not flare up in the State.

For example, when anti-Sikh riots swept the country after Indira Gandhi’s death, not a single case was registered in West Bengal. Similarly, after the Babri Masjid incident, the firm secular stance of the government prevented communal violence here in West Bengal. Our political ability and the mobilisation of people ideologically and organisationally against communal violence made sure communal forces were unable to raise their swords.

A dangerous situation is now developing in the State, with the ruling party at the Centre taking the Hindutva line and the ruling party in the State giving shelter to Jama’atul Mujahideen fundamentalists from the other side of the border. The government in Bangladesh is in pursuit of them and they find protection here under the ruling party and its administration. With respect to the incidents at Khagragarh, subsequent to the investigation carried out by the intelligence agencies, the political people who sheltered the guilty have not been apprehended; in fact, the administration has gone into denial mode and has destroyed evidence of the blast in Khagragarh. No one in the ruling party has been booked. There is a tacit understanding between the two ruling parties, with the ruling party at the Centre and the ruling party in the State taking opposite sides, thus further polarising the two communities. It is one of the greatest dangers of the present time that, in a State that had not seen political parties taking the side of this or that community for so long, the left and democratic and secular forces are attempting to be made irrelevant, and that the people are being divided along communal lines. Even during the semi-fascist terror of the 1970s or during the days of the Emergency, this sort of communal tension was never seen in West Bengal.

MTR: How would you characterise the differences between the present situation and the semi-fascist terror in West Bengal in the 1970s?

SKM: There are many differences between the two periods of political repression. The 1970s were a different time, the situations at the State, national, and international levels were different — and history does not repeat itself. The attack then came at a time when the CPI(M) and associated Left Parties were growing very fast. In terms of electoral performance, we had 40+ Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in 1967, 80+ MLAs in 1969, and 110+ MLAs in 1971. It was a fast growing force that came under sharp attack during the semifascist terror, notwithstanding the rigged 1972 elections. After 1972, we boycotted the State legislature for five years, a period during which we depended solely on extra- parliamentary activities. We won only 14 seats after that election, down from around 114; the election of 1972 was an one that made the term “rigging” enter the political lexicon in a new way. When elections were held in 1977, the Left Front achieved a majority of almost two-thirds; it had great popular support, and remained in power for 34 years, its share of the popular vote always remaing between 40 and 50 per cent. In the 2009 and 2011 elections, we saw a definite decline in the Left vote-share. The elections of 2009 and 2011 were not rigged as were the elections of 1972. These two elections gave the popular mandate to the ruling party; in other words, we were not, in 2009 and 2011, a growing party as we had been in the 1970s.

MTR: Are there other differences? What about the number and method of deaths? Are they similar?

SKM: The number of casualties now is not comparable to the number in those years since the nature of the attack has changed: more attacks, fewer deaths, more handicapping injuries than fatalities — a change, therefore, in the tactics of attack. The attack is also much more extensive or widespread than in the 1970s. The semifascist terror was concentrated in urban areas in a few districts and in certain select rural areas. The current political repression is mostly in rural areas and covers all districts barring one or two, more repression though in a different form.

The international contexts are also different. The Vietnam war ultimately succeeded, all of South Vietnam and Saigon were taken over by the National Liberation Front, and the socialist camp and the international community had not been overwhelmed by imperialism as they have been now. That was the time of the Bangladesh liberation movement, and the Indo-Soviet Treaty signed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi brought a certain unity to the fight in Bangladesh.

MTR: And you mentioned the issue of the State’s secular fabric.

SKM: Yes, in spite of the attacks of the democracy, communal forces did not gain ground. In Bengal, the entire people were united behind the liberation forces in Bangladesh, irrespective of which side of the border they were on. Whether a person was Hindu or Muslim, the shared the opinion that the Razakars were the enemies of the people. The situation has changed. The erstwhile Razakars, now part of the fundamentalist forces, are crossing over and being provided shelter on this side of the border.

MTR: What are the tasks – the battles — that confront a new political generation today?

SKM: It is a new experience that the present generation is going through, and an important one. Our generation had the experience of fighting semi-fascist terror and working during the Emergency. The young today must gain experience in fighting in the new global situation and the new correlation of world forces in favour of imperialism, of confronting globalisation and neoliberalism and their impact on national policies, identity politics, and reactionary post-modernist philosophies that are being propagated on a global scale. There is thus a great change in the situation — our generation did not have the experience of confronting these challenges simultaneously. The younger generation faces a multi-pronged challenge, difficult and complicated at every level, globally, nationally and in individual States. I believe they will gain more experience than we did during our lifetimes.

MTR: And what, in that context, are the prospects for a resurgence of the Left?

SKM: I shall not go into the global dimensions of this question, although the fundamental objective of establishing a socialist and democratic order in the country is associated with the international situation and what other countries are going through — and there is much need to learn from each other’s experiences. I believe that there are objective conditions for a successful resurgence of the Left, whether globally or in the State of West Bengal.

MTR: What would you say about West Bengal in particular?

SKM: We first noticed the erosion in our support base after the panchayat elections of 2008 (that is, even before the Lok Sabha elections of 2009). In spite of the changes that have taken place in elections thereafter, we believe that there has been no fundamental change in the correlation of the forces in the State since then. Notwithstanding some erosion, the ruling party continues to have majority support in terms of its popular base. Now they have taken to force, and are rigging the elections to distort the actual correlation of votes in the State out of the fear that if there is a free and fair election, their vote share will decline substantially and the Left Front’s share will increase, and although they would probably not lose the majority of votes, their margin of victory would decrease. They are apprehensive particularly in the areas where the Left are strong and able to offer some resistance.

MTR: What are the positive developments in this regard?

SKM: The phrase that the bourgeois press loves to repeat — “The Left continues to bleed” – can no longer be made to appear self-evident, because, going by the municipal election results, in terms of popular support, the Left have been able to stop the erosion. Siliguri, but not Siliguri alone, has shown that it is possible to counter the terror and beat the TMC. That is the positive development, and has happened for the first time after four years.

MTR: What about the threat of the BJP’s rise in Bengal?

SKM: That is the other important development, and manifested in the municipal election results. about a year back, there was a campaign that the BJP was emerging as the real alternative to the TMC in the State. We said firmly at the time that there is no alternative to the Left, and that statement has been vindicated by the municipal election results. The threat of the BJP emerging as the alternative to the TMC has been proved beyond doubt to not be the case, as the BJP has suffered a considerable erosion in support. Be it Congress or BJP, the other parties remain behind the Left in terms of vote share — that is the other important fact to have been established.

But when all said and done, the situation is so complicated and difficult that one should not become complacent as a result of the reduction in the BJP’s vote share. One must perceive that communal forces continue to pose a great threat to the unity of people and to secularism, and that that threat should never be underestimated, for communalism cannot be gauged just by vote shares; it has the potential to do severe damage to the state’s secular fabric.

MTR: What do you conclude from these recent developments?

SKM: Our conclusion is that, in spite of its complications, the present situation is one in which there is potential for the Left to forge ahead and grow further. This is evident from the mood of the people, and the successful resistance to attack in the last municipal elections, the attack itself having been launched by the ruling party in connivance with the local administration (with the State Election Commission pleading its helplessness). It is also evident from the fact that resistance is something that has developed almost spontaneously, with women at the forefront of the struggle.

So objective conditions that have developed that are favourable for the Left to project itself as the real alternative in the battle for democracy and for secularism and against the increasing attack on people’s livelihoods. What we consider our most important task is to see that the subjective conditions are focused on organising local and broad-based struggle, uniting the Left and the people, and people and parties associated with the secular and democratic struggle, to build up organisation and not to depend solely on spontaneity. The objective situation occurs independently of individual human will; at the same time, the subjective can be used to take advantage of the situation and overcome the complexities of the objective situation — and that depends on our effort and our will. It is the Left and only the Left only that can provide the alternative in this battle for democracy.

On Agrarian Transition in West Bengal

By Surya Mishra

From THE MARXIST, VOL. XXIII,

NO. 2, APRIL TO JUNE, 2007

(ABRIDGED VERSION)

This article deals with changes in the agrarian situation in West Bengal over the last three decades, that is, since the inception of the Left Front Government in 1977. It also examines options before the Left Front at this juncture, as the Left Front Government strives to implement the policy programme to which it committed itself in the election manifesto issued before the Assembly elections of 2006. These are the specific objectives of this essay. The article deal with some issues of theory and policy before the Left Front Government and Left movement in respect of agrarian transition in West Bengal.

OPTIONS BEFORE THE LEFT FRONT

In the classical Marxist debate on the agrarian question, Lenin identified two distinct paths to the development of capitalism in agriculture, namely, the “Junker” (or “Prussian”) path (capitalism from above) and the “American” path (capitalism from below). Since then, the world has witnessed a rich variety of agrarian transitions, including those of present and erstwhile socialist economies and of countries in other parts of the Third World. The experiences of agrarian transition in India and in West Bengal have their own distinctive characteristics. While these experiences merit careful study, it can be stated with confidence that the capitalist development that has taken place in West Bengal in the last three or four decades is primarily a product of class struggle, that is, a form of capitalism “from below.” Given the situation in West Bengal today, what are the options before us? The CPI(M) has been of the considered opinion that production relations have to correspond to the degree of development of productive forces, and that a Marxist-Leninist assessment of the concrete situation, and of the correlation of class forces prevailing at the national and international levels, is required in this regard. After 1977, thanks to the land reform carried out by the Left Front Government, West Bengal achieved the highest agricultural growth rates in the country, and these were based on the productive performance of small farms. West Bengal made substantial progress in respect of rural per capita food grain consumption. It saw the sharpest decline in the country of income-poverty. The internal market expanded as a result of increased purchasing power in the hands of the rural masses. Above all, the policies of the Left Front Government changed the correlation of class forces in the countryside,a change that has been sustained for three decades. At the same time, there was some capital formation in the primary sector. Bank deposits in rural areas grew, and the State mobilised the highest levels of small savings in the country. Despite the fact that surpluses generated in the primary sector enhance the potential for the industrialisation of West Bengal, the class nature of the Indian state and specific policies of the Central Government have discouraged the industrial development of West Bengal.

Agriculture

With respect to agriculture, we certainly cannot embark on a policy of corporate farming in the way some other States have. These States have doled out vast stretches of agricultural land (on the pretext that they are wastelands) to agribusiness companies for captive farming. Some options, however, merit serious consideration.

First, we can upgrade small farms technologically. We can do so by mobilizing public and private investment, and utilizing contract farming arrangements in a way relevant and appropriate to our situation. This will enable us to replace, in collaboration with domestic capital, inefficient marketing systems as they exist today (and which have significant pre-capitalist characteristics). To ensure that the gains of this accrue the peasantry and the people, we have to depend on the bargaining power of the organised peasantry and regulatory measures by the Government.

Secondly, a functional consolidation of holdings, for instance by hiring in tractors and other equipment collectively, has emerged spontaneously in the West Bengal countryside.6 There is much room for organizing such initiatives in a planned manner. Cooperatives and self-help groups organised into clusters and federations can play a significant role in providing credit, other services, extension and marketing support. While it would be utopian to attempt large-scale cooperative farming or collectivisation in an age when even socialist economies like China or Vietnam have, on the basis of experience, gone in for decollectivisation followed by peasant farming, we must not be mistaken for those who eulogise petty commodity production from an anti-Marxist viewpoint and derive satisfaction from the collapse of collectives in the former USSR and elsewhere. The disastrous consequences of the forced dismantling of collective and State farms in former USSR have been noted even by bourgeois economists.

Thirdly, while de-peasantisation is not unexpected under capitalism, this phenomenon serves to emphasise the importance of using the possibilities of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP) to the full in order to create employment and new assets. Such employment and asset-creation may be in the form of water harvesting, land development, plantation in the lands of land-reform beneficiaries, the creation of assets and employment for households below the poverty line, Scheduled Caste and Tribe households, and other schemes.

The Industrialisation Imperative

The seventh Left Front Government came to office with a mandate to go ahead with industrialisation and consolidate the gains in agriculture. It can be said that the issues of the conversion of agricultural land to industrial land and the issue of whether elections in the State were free and fair became the two main issues on which the electorate delivered its verdict. The electoral verdict was unequivocal, and the strength of the Left Front increased both in terms of seats and vote-share. Any vacillation or backtracking with respect to industrialisation would represent a breach of faith in the trust reposed by the people in the Front.

The issue is not of industry versus agriculture, as the Opposition – who are the known enemies of the peasantry – would have us believe. The issue now is that of industrialisation for the sake of the peasantry and agriculture itself. All that the State and its people have achieved on the agrarian front will be at peril if balanced growth of secondary and tertiary sectors fails to take off.

Nothing other than such growth can release the burden of the workforce dependent on agriculture and subjected to both pre-capitalist and capitalist mode of exploitation, thereby making a more equitable distribution of work and earnings among the workforce in all three sectors possible; ensure a more sustainable growth of the primary sector by providing inputs necessary for the modernisation of and higher productivity from this sector; add value to primary-sector products, thereby enhancing income and employment; and · augment revenue resources of the State Government, thereby enabling more public investment in the primary sector in infrastructure, inputs, extension and human resource development possible. In class and political terms, nothing other than such growth can deliver yet another blow to pre-capitalist elements and their politicalmentors; utilise the contradiction between Indian big bourgeoisie and imperialism and the difference within the ruling classes and their parties in the country in such a way as to develop a Left and democratic alternative by changing the correlation of class forces; meet the onslaught of globalised finance capital to de-industrialise our economy; and meet the immediate need of forging the broadest possible unity of the peasantry, working class, petty bourgeoisie and all patriotic and democratic sections of the people to resist the terror let loose by the grand alliance of the most reactionary section of the ruling class. As contradictions and the class struggle intensify, Right and Left opportunists, along with vacillating sections of petty bourgeoisie, the lumpen proletariat and both varieties of communal forces are sought to be mobilised into this grand alliance in order to isolate and attack the CPI(M).

History teaches us that this attack against CPI(M) will not remain confined to the Party. The situation in West Bengal is reminiscent of the 1970-77 period, although it is too early to identify and list the common features at the present moment. The design to expand the current attack to a semi-fascist offensive against the all sections of people, irrespective of their political affiliation, in this advanced outpost of democracy in the country, has to be properly understood and explained to the people all over the country.

ISSUES FOR DEBATE

Many issues of theory and practice have been raised in the aftermath of the events in Singur and Nandigram. Some of these proceed from the assumption that the opposition of the Left Front Government to neo-liberal economic policy is less sharp, and has somehow been blunted in recent times. Such a perception maligns the most advanced outpost of democracy. It not only ignores the Budget speeches and other policy statements of the Left Front Government, but also the stark reality that West Bengal has made the biggest contribution – inside parliament and outside – to the struggle against neo-liberal policies. Critics who say that the Left Front Government is to be criticised for not protesting against the imposition of neoliberal economic policies on the people have lost sight of the fact that it is because of this resistance that the UPA Government is unable to push through fully the neo-liberal agenda to which it is committed.

Industrialisation

With respect to industrialisation in the State, one position is that, since the only industrialisation possible under the neo-liberal regime is corporate industrialisation, it is anti-people, since very little, if any, new employment is created. This position rejects as baseless the argument that industrialisation is necessary because it will take surplus labour out of agriculture, and states that it is awareness of this fact that “makes peasants most reluctant to part with their land for industrial purposes.” Further, the argument goes, the situation in India today is not one of industrialists competing for the attention of State Governments, but of State Governments competing to attract capitalists to their respective States.

These arguments must be met squarely. First, they do not take into account the relative advantages of West Bengal as an industrial destination. We have mentioned the nature of changes wrought by land reform, and the situation with regard to small savings and other forms of capital formation in the primary sector. West Bengal also has a stable and transparent State Government and a vibrant system of local self-government. Its geographical location permits it to serve as a gateway for some 200 million people in the region, besides being a gateway to South East Asia. It also has a reasonably large pool of skilled workers. Going by our experience, we believe that the present situation, particularly after de-licensing and the partial withdrawal of freight equalisation, is more one of capitalists opting to invest in West Bengal than of the Left Front Government running after them to invest. The fact is that it was not the Tatas who threatened to go to Uttaranchal, but the grand alliance of anti-CPI(M) forces that threatened them and told them to move out of West Bengal. Nor must we forget that capitalists compete against each other and attempt to prevent their competitors from investing in “flagship” technology that threatens their own markets.

Secondly, it is useful to remember that the Left Front Government has never forced reluctant peasants to part with their land. It was the armed goons of the grand alliance who forced peasants not to transfer land in exchange for one of the best compensation and rehabilitation packages that have been offered in the country.

Thirdly, it is often forgotten that the Left Front Government in West Bengal distributes more land every year free of cost to the peasantry than it acquires for all purposes taken together – and the current period is no exception.

Fourthly, the Left Front Government has been able to make progress with respect to Public Sector Undertakings, Central and State. Over the last year, investment of Rs 10 billion for the modernisation of IISCO has been ensured; in addition, progress has been made with respect to the revival of Bengal Chemicals, Gluconate, Infusion India, as well as the fertilizer industry and the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation.

The Left Front Government, too, is concerned about the limited potential of corporate industrialisation with respect to employment creation. In its last Party Congress, the CPI(M) emphasised the need to engage with the current situation, to look for new productive investment (including foreign direct investment that brings in new technology) and add to our productive capacity and ensure whatever employment growth is possible.

Thus, while the argument in question correctly opposes the Luddite argument against industry as indefensible, it also asserts that an employment argument for industrialisation is unacceptable. Our contention here is that the employment argument is valid, and serves to demystify the debate.

“Vulgar” Economy

Further, an exclusive reliance on the argument that industrialisation can be justified only on the grounds that it produces use values also has problems. As Marx wrote in the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital, “overwhelming and exclusive emphasis on ‘thing-ness’ (use value) is nothing but a modern variant of ‘vulgar economy’.”

Let us pursue this matter further. While opposing any method of analyzing a situation exclusively based on the materiality of objects, that is, its “thing-ness” or use value (the “vulgar economy” error), Marxist-Leninists must not make the mistake of passing judgments exclusively based on social relations as they appear, ignoring their material basis. These deviations represent opportunisms of Right and Left variety in the sense that they attempt to erect a Chinese Wall between “things” and “relations”, “use value” and “exchange value”, “concrete labour” and “abstract labour”, “productive forces” and “production relations”, and so on. A commodity represents a unity of opposites — its origin, development, decay and final disappearance being manifestations of the intensification of the contradiction between its use value and exchange value, which correspond to concrete and abstract labour respectively.

An error of some Left intellectuals and progressive scholars is that of assuming that this two-fold nature did not characterize pre-capitalist societies. Such an assumption implies that commodity production was non-existent in pre-capitalist societies, which was clearly not the case. The most concise definition of capitalism was given by Lenin when he stated that capitalism is a system of generalized commodity production where labour power itself has become a commodity. This definition differentiates capitalist commodity production from pre-capitalist commodity production.

The relevance of the issue under discussion in the Indian context must not be underestimated. Production relations continue to exhibit pre-capitalist fetters. This explains in part the vulnerability of our economy to the pressure of globalised finance capital.

Issues of Strategy and Tactics

It is our position that, with the big bourgeoisie, which is the leader of the bourgeois-landlord class alliance, increasingly collaborating with global finance capital in the pursuit of its bankrupt capitalist path of development, it is only a People’s Democratic state that can accomplish the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly and democratic tasks of the Indian revolution. The CPI(M) has much experience of the disastrous consequences of mixing up the tasks of different stages of revolution. The entire construction of those engaged in the battle against “vulgar economy” runs the risk of being misunderstood. It gives the impression that there is nothing much left to be done to abolish new forms of landlordism, the hegemony of the rural rich, and remnants of feudalism. The underlying view here seems to be that the focal contradiction between the landlords and the peasantry is being replaced by a contradiction between imperialism and the Indian people as a whole, that is, including the entire rural population. Such a view fails to understand that mobilising the rural poor against landlordism is critical to ensuring the broadest mobilisation againstimperialism.

While the development of capitalism in agriculture as well as the development of democratic and peasant movements have been uneven in the country, nowhere (including in the Left-led States) have pre-capitalist relations been eliminated. There are wide variations in the levels of socio-economic development and in historical background even among the three Left-led States, and it cannot be wise to offer a single set of solutions for all situations. For example, if one area in India today has a Permanent Settlement background, another has a history of predominance of ryotwari, and yet another a history of tribal-communal ownership of land with shifting cultivation.

Even today, a substantial part of the peasant economy in West Bengal is characterised by a combination of subsistence farming and commodity production. That West Bengal is the highest producer of rice and has a relative surplus with respect to rice production today is because of the fact that poor peasants who benefited from land reform have focussed almost exclusively on rice production to ensure their own food security. They had, after all, learned lessons from the food movement and its brutal suppression in the days when West Bengal was dependent on the supply of rice from the Central pool. Thus, a good part of the rice that these peasants produce is for their own consumption, and has only use value (and no exchange value). This is a form of security that they would like to protect.

The fact that capitalism tends to destroy petty production shows that precapitalist relations are inherent in such production. That these relations survived so long is not because the Indian state after Independence has provided support in the interests of getting “crucial petty bourgeois support” for strengthening the base of capitalist development. They persist because of the inherent limitations of the development of the capitalist path pursued by the Indian state, which
provides all its support for landlord capitalism (from above) and not peasant capitalism (from below).

Let us reiterate an issue raised earlier in the article. While the solution to the present problems of petty production does not lie in corporate agriculture promoted by neo-liberalism, it is utopian to talk of “cooperatives and collective forms” (if those are to mean cooperative or collective farming) as an immediate alternative direction for the Left movement. Following the cataclysmic changes in the international polity and economy in the early 1990s, the discussion in the CPI(M) on “Certain Ideological Issues” concluded that production relations have to correspond to the degree of development of the productive forces. The point here is whether the Indian Left today can afford an alternative that is currently only being experimented with in socialist states. We are aware of some of the experiments pursued in People’s Republic of China. It may also be relevant here to quote the experience of the Communist Party of Vietnam with regard to collectivisation and cooperativisation:

However, despite the positive factors, there was stagnation of production and food scarcities, given the lack of sufficient care of collective land. The life of peasants became more difficult and there were years when 3-4 million peasants suffered from food shortage while tens of thousands of hectares of land were left uncultivated…Thanks to the extensive and intensive reform already undertaken, Vietnam has been transformed from a food importing country into one that not only meets its own needs but can also export 4 million tons of rice every year.”

Similarly, the Cuban experience is that The economic mechanism of the agrarian state sector was based on centralised planning with restricted enterprise autonomy, a limited market and little use of prices and finance. The mechanism was intrinsically expensive, inefficient and bureaucratic, which explains the unprofitability and high subsidies needed to cover losses that became unbearable for macroeconomic balance during economic crisis of the 1990s.

The Cubans also recognise the existence of a powerful peasant sector, which is growing rapidly in the rural Cuban environment today. Of course we would prefer the cooperative peasant, once he represents a higher productive and social form in our society.

As mentioned earlier, we in West Bengal believe that while cooperatives can help a lot in providing credit, other non-land inputs and services, and other forms of support, functional collectivisation in form of farmers collectively hiring machinery and so on, can provide support to sustain peasant farming.

Some Left intellectuals not only lay lopsided emphasis on production relations or productive forces in isolation from each other, but also fail to take an all-sided view of other phenomena as well. There are problems of de-linking tactics from strategy, realisable demands from propaganda slogans, the immediate from the ultimate and, above all, practice from theory.

The CPI(M) has to work for many alternatives. These include the socialist alternative (achievable only after the People’s Democratic revolution has been accomplished); the People’s Democratic alternative, which requires “the actuality of revolution” to occur; and the Left and democratic alternative, based on programmes to advance the cause of People’s Democratic Revolution that are worked out in Party Congresses. Our Party-led State Governments, however, cannot be expected to implement any of the alternative programmes mentioned above. Within the constitutional and other limitations under which they function, they offer alternatives that fall short of full Left and democratic programmes.

It is clear that the alternatives that the Party proposes at the national level are not ipso facto applicable to Left-led State Governments. Sweeping formulations that do not take this distinction into consideration create confusion. When the Left Front Government talks about the need for “a shift of the agriculture-dependent population to manufacturing and other non-agricultural pursuits”, “competitiveness”, “Public-Private Partnership (PPP)”, “productivity increases”, “modernisation”, or even “investment”, “ development”, and “growth rate”, it is not unaware of the class content with which each of these terms is loaded. Terms such as these have meanings that vary with the class interests that underlie their use. Awareness of such class content also involves a recognition of the present change in correlation of class forces at the international level in favour, albeit temporarily, of imperialism. How the Party and movement are to engage with such a situation has partly been dealt with in the document titled “Certain Policy Issues” approved by the 18th Party Congress.

There must be no confusion in our minds with regard to the difference between “Xian” and “Yenan”. Defence of the CPI(M)-led Governments and the Left bastions in the country is an integral part of the struggle against neoliberalism.

On Industrialisation in West Bengal

By Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee


The Marxist, Vol. XXIII, 1, January to March, 2007
I would like to discuss our overall outlook on the development of West Bengal’s economy after the formation of the Left front Government on the issues of agriculture, industry and services. Some differences have been expressed regarding our purpose and objectives. The controversy has been triggered off by those parties that are directly opposed to us—the BJP, the Congress, the Trinamul Congress. On the other side there are Naxalites and the SUCI and then there are some NGOs. The disagreement with us and opposition to our policy has varied in form and character. There is a tenor of opposition from within the Left Front itself. Thus, we really need to state clearly what we precisely aim to achieve. Some theoretical postulates and ideological positions have surfaced. The need is to state our position with precision.


It is generally acknowledged that we have no ‘model’ in front of us to emulate and follow. It will indeed be a mistake to follow a specific model. We have closely observed and seen the changes in and the development of the Chinese economy and the Vietnamese economy. We are trying to ascertain facts there. In Latin America, a kind of new leftism has appeared and changes have occurred. We have gone through an interesting book called Dispatches from Latin America. We have gathered from the book the thoughts and ideas of the Brazilian president Lula, of the Venezuelan head of state Chavez, and of the Chilean Socialist Party.


We are trying to understand and realise the purport of the changes taking place. However, the fact is that we have to determine our own path, taking into account the reality of the situation in India and the constraints of the Left forces in the state within the present framework. We have to offer a workable alternative. The late CPI(M) Polit Bureau member and secretary of the West Bengal unit of CPI(M) Comrade Saroj Mukherjee, used to speak about an ‘untravelled path’.


With regard to the agricultural situation, we must look back to the 1960s when a strong peasant movement started. During the two short-lived United Front governments of 1967 (9 months) and 1969 (13 months) the movement got accentuated. That movement saw economic and political changes taking place in rural West Bengal in a remarkable way. The zamindari system received a severe blow. Land was transferred to the kisans through a struggle for possession. Politically, the influence of the Congress based on the zamindari system was curbed, resulting in change in the political correlation in favour of the Left. The land that was with the kisans could be preserved, with a small number of exceptions, even during the period of bloody violence of the 1970s.

After the installation of the Left Front Government in 1977 the land movement gathered further momentum and the transfer of land from the zamindars to the poor and marginal farmers was given administrative recognition. This was done through the granting of ‘patta’ rights to the kisans in possession of what was previously zamindari land parcels. The LF government has distributed ‘patta’ rights for 1.3 million acres of land—the bulk of the agricultural land, in fact, of this state. 83% of the agricultural land is in the possession of the poor and marginal kisans. We have won several court cases relating to land. Recently we have got possession of 30,000 acres of land after winning court cases. 800 acres of land have been distributed at Khejuri in Midnapore East amongst 1200 poor farmers.


The process of distribution of ‘patta’ rights has been accompanied by ‘Operation Barga’ (recognition of the right of share-croppers)—something that is new and unique, a process that has received high praise from those who are engaged in research in agrarian relations and matters related to agriculture. It is important to recall here that without the surge of kisan struggles, the distribution of barga rights would not have been possible. The administrative efforts would not have been enough to accomplish the task. A part of the process of redistributive land reforms, the recording of barga rights has covered 1.5 million in number.


There was once a debate within the government and the Party as to the viability of small plots of land. Our experience has proved that these plots are viable. Meanwhile, with the three-tier Panchayati system in place, the poor of the rural sector started to become assertive. It is noteworthy that in our state both the bulk of the agricultural land and the majority of the panchayats are in the hands of the rural poor. This is the consequence of the process of land reforms. This will never happen in states where the zamindars own the land and the lathi-wielding pehelwans run the Panchayats.


A direct result of the land reforms programme is the increase in agricultural production. Against the disastrous all-India agricultural growth rate of less than 2 per cent, West Bengal has been able maintain a sustainable growth rate of 4 per cent for more than last ten years. With massive aman and boro paddy production this year, the foodgrain production itself will exceed 15 million metric tonnes (MT). We have been self-sufficient in the production of paddy for the last three years. There have been difficulties in crop diversification. Besides paddy production, we are trying to concentrate on pulses and oil seeds—but not with notable success. We were able to procure 1.7 million MT of paddy last year. This year the target is 2.1 lakh MT. It means that we will be able to ensure supply for the PDS, especially for the Annapurna Antodaya and the BPL schemes.


We have also been successful in producing the highest quantity of vegetables in the country since last year (despite the paucity of land). We could produce 11.6 million MT of vegetables on 5.4 million hectares of land. Paddy production this year will exceed 11.6 million MT. We also hold the top position in the production of fish. Our fish production is 1.4 million MT. We do lag behind somewhat in deep-sea fishing because we have a shorter coastline compared to Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. We shall have to initiate different and scientific methods to increase fish production. The fishing folk cannot hold on to sibling (sprawn) for some years. The sprawns are taken to Andhra Pradesh, made to grow, brought back to Bengal, and sold to consumers in the markets. The fisheries university is being asked to look into the process of how to shorten the usual period.


Our success is reflected in the increased purchasing power of the kisans in the villages. Our kisans possess the highest purchasing power of industrial goods in the whole of the country today in the retail sector, be it cement, radio, cycle, motorcycle, or apparel. No other state has 8 per cent growth rate. Only Punjab and Haryana are slightly ahead of us in terms of productivity. The success has undoubtedly pushed us ahead by one-and-a-half decades, economically and politically. However some problems are developing in the agricultural sector. Agricultural universities have been asked to probe the problems. The special committee of the State Planning Board carried on research on landlessness and the problem of rural indebtedness.


A few negative tendencies were mentioned in the primary report that we received on the eve of the Assembly elections last year. The fragmentation of land in the wake of the land reforms among the successors of the original owners have contributed to the reduction of the produce. This fragmentation of land is a major problem.


Owing to the country’s economic policies, the prices of all inputs such as irrigation, water, seeds, pesticide, and fertiliser have increased manifold. It is becoming difficult for farmers to get minimum procurement prices for their products. The question of remunerative prices does not arise. With expenditure rising high, the cost of agricultural production has gone up. There are other specific problems. Because of lack of viable marketing mechanism, many vegetables produced are left to rot in the fields—tomatoes in Coochbehar or cabbage in Murshidabad, for example. Of the total production of 11.6 milliom MT, 10-15 per cent is spoilt in the field because we do not have adequate means of preservation. Another problem is value addition. Currently, we can fix added value for 3 per cent of the produce only.


Another problem concerns the society and the mind-set. The members of a kisan family till the land through generations. The first generation, despite having received education, may yet be willing to accompany the father to the field. The second generation does not. They are not willing to go back to the fields after passing out from schools and colleges. We must ponder whether this is a progressive or a regressive frame of mind. We must preserve the success of the agricultural production and ensure our food security. Any deviation will harm us. Then if the success in vegetable production can be conserved through a marketing mechanism and value is added to the produce, the scope for employment in the food processing industry will increase.


A few important facts need to be mentioned at this point. The greatest amount of investment in the state is in the iron and steel sector. The next in line are chemicals, petrochemicals, and food processing. Among the big companies, Frito-lay, Dabur in North Bengal are functioning. Dabur went for processing mangoes and pineapple. Later, they are going to undertake processing of tomatoes. In the food processing industry, (China could add value upto 40 percent), employment will go up. We have to increase the production condiments. This will further guarantee our food security. Horticulture is another important area where development can take place further. Flower markets in the Netherlands sell roses and lotuses from Kolkata. If the trend can be expanded, our flowers will fetch ten times the price that they do here.


The basic issue that involves the attitude of the opposition and of some others is that we need not proceed any further and stay in place. We do believe that if we try to stay in place and enjoy the success we have achieved we will stagnate and drift backwards. What then is the alternative? We have to note certain facts before dealing with the issue of industrialisation. In the economy of West Bengal, the share of agriculture is 26 per cent, industry 24 per cent, and services 50 per cent. This is better than the situation in other states. The service sector includes education, health, entertainment, hotel, tourism, telecom, software, call centres, etc. The trend of the service sector occupying a 50 per cent share of the economy is in keeping with that in the rest of the world. Look at the relative figures of the agricultural sector and the industrial sector. It is not correct to hold that this is the end of the road and the end of history. We must bring about changes gradually, and I use the word with deliberation. We must maintain food security but increase the share of the industrial sector, gradually reducing that of agriculture. This is the general trend of the economy. Marxists hold that development is from agriculture to industry. We reiterate that we do not have a model to follow. In China, the share of agriculture in the GDP is just 14 per cent. We do not say that the Chinese model is our model. They had to struggle when they were ushering in change. Wage differential between urban and rural areas is a fact. The migration of population from the rural to the urban areas has been a problem. However, the transition from agriculture to industry is an inevitable phenomenon both in capitalism and in socialism.


A few facts can be cited to bolster this line of argument. 65 per cent of the population of this state is involved with economic activities. They are involved with agriculture and allied activities like animal resources and fisheries. Is this a picture depicting high standards? We cannot agree with the postulate that agriculture is the last and final stage of development and that we have to stay at the place that we have reached. 63 per cent of land in this state is agricultural. This includes, as in Purulia and Bankura, 4 per cent rain-fed land where agriculture depends on rainfall for irrigation. Fallow land amounts to just 1 percent. The all-India figure here is 17 per cent. We have started to experiment in fallow land to grow plants and a variety of fruits. 13 per cent of land is under forest cover, which we are trying to increase further to improve the environment, keeping in view the issue of global warming. Thus, we are left with 23 per cent of land that is urban and industrial. The opposition asks us not to go beyond that 23 percent and stay in place with 126 municipalities and corporations—and with no more urbanisation and industrialisation. This is a position which is not acceptable.


Under capitalism, in India, the expropriation of the land of the peasantry is taking place in a brutal manner. In our drive for industrialisation in West Bengal, we will not proceed this way. We are committed to protect the interests of the farmers. If land needs to be taken, it will be done by providing those owning and dependent on land a fair deal, without coercion.


We have ascertained facts through a land survey, and I have kept the LeftFront informed. We have received detailed report of vested land, and nonagricultural land district-wise, mouza-wise, block-wise. This is needed for the purposes of a land bank. Urbanisation cannot be stopped. When we assumed office, there were only 80 urban local bodies, and now the figure is 126. There is a long pending list of areas that want to urbanise and become municipalities. How can we tell them to remain in the Panchayat areas and in villages? We can tell investors and entrepreneurs about the locational alternatives that are there and they can choose. In a market economy, we can hardly ignore their priorities. The priorities have a practical basis. Iron and steel industries cannot be set up away from coal mines. IT industries require airport facilities. The IT investors would be reluctant to move out of urban areas. However, we will try our best to keep them within certain circles.


Now I would like to concentrate my discussion on some specific industries. The State Government’s industrial policy was declared by former Chief Minister Jyoti Basu in 1994. During visits abroad, the attempt was made to convince investors about the investment-friendly role of our government. It was stressed that investment would be made on the basis of mutually advantageous terms. They would earn profits and at the same time create employment opportunities. They would come here for the purposes of capitalist development.


The opposition accuses us of having agreed to capitalist development. Is it possible to talk of socialist development in one state of our country? What we can do at the most in this structure is to bring in some alternative Left policies. This comprises land reforms, protecting public sector, some initiatives in education and health, and so on. The Party Congress and the Central Committee have said that this means there is no need for foreign investment where we have the technology. We are not to allow FDI in retail trade. Do we need foreign entrepreneurs to sell our agricultural products as one Indian entrepreneur told us some time back?


IBM, Cognizant, and GE Capital have evinced interest in investing in the IT sector and we need their units. We will await the final denouement of the software debate. We must do something about our young men and women who are computer-literate and know English. Mitsubishi Chemicals invested Rs 1.7 billion at Haldia, and they are willing to open a second unit there—we really cannot refuse them. Videocon is willing to set up a TV factory in North Bengal. Shall we dissuade them? Jindals have chosen to set up a Rs 35.5 billion steel plant at Salboni in Midnapore West. The message that we would like to send to entrepreneurs abroad is that we need private capital. The Party Programme has been changed. Earlier it talked about state takeover of all monopoly and foreign capital. We do not really hold that position now. The last Party Congress resolved that there would be no FDI in the retail trade. West Bengal has not moved an inch outside the assessment of the Party on the issue.


The opposition is of the view (and a few Left Front partners) that the foreign capitalists are rushing in on their own to exploit us. The actual picture is different. There is tough competition all around. We cannot discourage investment. Had there been an alternative to the present form of investment we would have opted for it. The idea is that we do need private capital, with limits set, and not everywhere.


The electoral success in the seventh Assembly elections with our majority increasing from two-thirds to three-fourths of the seats has sent a message to the corporate houses that the people’s verdict is with the Left Front government. The year we set up the Haldia unit, there was total investment of Rs 60 billion. In 2006–07, the figure stands at 300 billion. The corporate houses prefer West Bengal because of natural resources, human resources, and skilled labour. The skill of the labour in West Bengal has found international recognition. The young men and women of West Bengal are also at the forefront of IT. We have 68,000 primary schools, 16,000 secondary schools, 450 colleges, 68 engineering colleges and 18 universities. Agriculture and villages are important but they alone cannot comprise the Left alternative for the torch-bearers of the 21st century.


We cannot deny the viability of IT and bio-technology. We have set up a bio-technology park in association with Kharagpur IIT. The emphasis is on small, medium, and manufacturing industry. The chemical hub once set up will produce employment in the ancillary and downstream units as they have done at Haldia. We are also going in for clusters—foundries in Howrah for example, and also plastic manufacturing clusters and apparel manufacturing clusters. The manufacturing and IT industries would absorb vocationally trained students and science graduates. We have also spread the industrial units around the state. 50 jute and plastic industrial units have come up in Coochbehar. IT would be set up in Siliguri. Food processing will be done in Siliguri and in Malda. There will be more sponge iron units at Bankura and Purulia besides the ones that we already have in Durgapur and in Asansol. The environmental issue will be tackled for the sponge iron units.


Then there is the Singur issue. Tata Group almost decided to set up the motor car factory project at Uttarakhand. The Union government offers full tax concessions to investor for setting up units in north-east Indian states, Sikkim and Uttarakhand (the Union Government bypasses North Bengal in this respect). These concessions include sales tax, income tax and excise duties. For the small car project the Tatas would get a concession of Rs 18,000 per 0.1 million rupees.


First, we had to persuade the Tatas to come to West Bengal with the small car project. They were shown locations in Kharagpur and in some other places. They preferred Singur because of several reasons. Important among them were the Durgapur expressway and Singur’s proximity to Kolkata. We have no modern automobile manufacturing unit in West Bengal except the sick Hindustan Motors. The alternative was to tell the Tatas to go away to Uttarakhand. The unit once set up will create many employment opportunities in the ancillary and downstream sectors.


The land that was identified for the production unit at Singur was singlecrop and double-crop. We calculated and found that the motor car factory at Singur would create large job opportunities and improve the quality of life there. Mandays produced will be much more. The work of setting up the boundary wall for the factory itself has created jobs for 3,000 people. By 2008, the production will take off. The Tatas will set up primary schools and health services and they have started training local people. The Singur Company has commenced training of women in tailoring. A canteen run by women has started to function. It is the moral responsibility of the government to ensure that the affected people benefit from the economic opportunities, which will be created by the motor car factory.


There has been a kind of unbalanced zeal about Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Delhi. In states like Maharashtra, 25,000 to 40,000 acres of prime land are being given away for real estate development. Is the SEZ for industry or is it for real estate development? This is a crucial question. Proposals for SEZs are coming. Tamil Nadu alone has submitted proposals for 86 SEZs. In China SEZs have been set up for technology-transfer in which the people of China are very efficient. They started with six SEZs. We have started with 450 in India. The Left has sent important amendments to the SEZ Act and rules.


In this background, I may state that the decision to set up a chemical hub in Nandigram in Midnapore East was not taken by us. The Union government preferred our proposal for a chemical hub over all others. (The Union government called for the hub to be set up in Haldia. Haldia alone we realized would not do, as we needed another sea port. Kolkata and Kulpi would be ancillary ports.) There was a mistake on the part of the local authority, for it initiated steps without informing the local people. The local people were not aware of the alternative. We have decided not to proceed further here. There is no need to hurry. Let the debate over SEZ come to a conclusion and then we can look at the project again. I have asked the Party to see that the SEZ debate is brought to a conclusion. We do need the chemical hub where the Indian Oil Corporation is the primary investor. The downstream units will produce textiles from polymer, and rubber from butadiene. This is needed for economic development of the area and the state.


The opposition has brought hoodlums from outside of Nandigram and engaged in sheer violence. We did commit the initial error and we need to proceed with great caution. The land issue is a very sensitive issue. The unrecorded bargadars of Nandigram and Singur feel deprived and they have turned violent. They are poor people. We must carry them with us. If we fail to do that, the distinction between us and the governments in states like Maharashtra and Gujarat will be gone. The Left always looks after the interests of the poor. The effort should also be on to develop industries. We feel that we are at a crucial phase of development. With agriculture as the basis, we shall build industry. This process must be well-planned and the interests of the poor must be safeguarded. There can be no development without the poor. We have to take due note of criticism, which is legitimate in a democracy. We have to convince our people from the ideological and theoretical point of view based on our programme. We must not move away from our class outlook.


(Based on a speech to the Central Party units in West Bengal, February 9, 2007.)

Left Front Govt: Bastion of Left Democratic Forces

by Prakash Karat

Published in The Marxist
Volume: 18, No. 02
April-June 2002

The existence of the Left Front government in West Bengal for 25 years is a remarkable record. The achievements during this long tenure in government is chronicled in the subsequent articles appearing in this issue. The focus of this introductory piece is to place the Left Front government in the context of the CPI(M)’s understanding on participation in state governments and its relationship with the strategy and tactics of the Party. This article also assesses the impact of the Left Front government on national politics over the last two and a half decades. The significance of the quarter century rule of a Left government which is headed by a Communist Party in a state with a population of over 80 million (the fourth largest in India) cannot be underestimated.

I

The CPI(M) has been participating in state governments for more than three decades. Prior to that, the first Communist ministry headed by E.M.S. Namboodiripad was formed in Kerala after the united CPI won a majority in the assembly elections in 1957. Based on the programmatic understanding provided in para 112 of the Party Programme, which was adopted in 1964, the Central Committee of the Party spelt out its understanding on joining the state governments in 1967 after the general elections. In its Political Report on `New situation and the new tasks before the Party’, the scope and the potential role of the state governments in which the CPI(M) would be involved were elaborated.

The Party Programme had stated that : "Even while keeping before the people the task of dislodging the present ruling classes and establishing a new democratic state and government based on the firm alliance of the working class and the peasantry, the Party will utilise the opportunities that present themselves of bringing into existence governments pledged to carry out a programme of giving immediate relief to the people. The formation of such governments will give great fillip to the revolutionary movement of the working people and thus help the process of building the democratic front."

It is this tactical direction provided in the Programme which was fleshed out by the 1967 report keeping in mind the then prevailing political situation. For the first time, the Congress party suffered a serious blow after the 1967 general assembly elections when it lost in nine states. Non-Congress state governments came into office in all these states. Of these, in two states – Kerala and West Bengal – the CPI(M) decided to participate in the united front governments which were formed.

The CPI(M) decided to participate in the united front governments in Kerala and West Bengal since the Left and democratic forces were in a predominant position. The CPI(M) decided not to join other non-Congress governments. The consideration was, whether the CPI(M) and other Left and democratic forces were in a position to influence the policies and the course of such governments. The Party did not want to tail the bourgeois parties in the non-Congress alliances, if its independent strength was minimal and inadequate.

Defining the scope of these governments, the report stated: “In a word, the UF governments that we have now are to be treated and understood as instruments of struggle in the hands of our people, more than as governments that actually possess adequate power, that can materially and substantially give relief to the people. In clear class terms, our Party’s participation in such governments is one specific form of struggle to win more and more people, and more and more allies for the proletariat and its allies as the struggle for the cause of people’s democracy and at a later stage for socialism.”

It was based on this understanding that the CPI(M) worked in the united front governments of West Bengal and Kerala. The life of these governments were relatively short. In West Bengal, the 1967 government existed for nine months followed by the 1969 mid-term elections, which saw its return and its continuation till 1970 when it was dismissed by the Central government. In Kerala, the 1967 ministry lasted till October 1969.

In this period, the Party gathered rich experience in running governments and utilising the stints in government to foster struggles and expand the class based movements. The best example is the land struggle unleashed in the 1967-1970 period when Jyoti Basu was the Home Minister and Harekrishna Konar was the Land Reforms Minister in the united front government. The struggle by the peasants to occupy the benami lands and the surplus land above the ceiling law led to nearly six lakh acres being taken over from the landlords. The ruling classes were alarmed by this development.

The Congress party which had weakened on the all-India plane after the 1967 general election hit back with renewed vigour under the leadership of Indira Gandhi after the split in the Congress in 1969. In Kerala too, the policy of "administration and struggle" saw the sharpening of the conflict with landlords and vested interests and this was reflected within the united front when an anti-CPI(M) combination, which included the CPI, arose.

It took the tumultuous years of 1970s which saw big struggles including the historic railway strike, the advent of the emergency and the defeat of authoritarianism for the reforging of Left unity to begin.

The 1967 report had talked of the role of the non-Congress governments and, in particular, the "democratic non-Congress governments" which were set-up in West Bengal and Kerala. The victory of the Left Front in June 1977 in West Bengal brought about a government comprising only the Left parties. It was not merely a democratic or non-Congress government. Further, the Left Front won a two-thirds majority getting 228 out of the 294 seats in the Assembly. The CPI(M), on its own, won an absolute majority with 177 seats.

The defeat of authoritarianism in the wake of the Emergency, the favourable national and international situation and the strength of the CPI(M) and the Left Front in the Assembly with a solid majority made it possible, for the first time, for a Left-led government to function in a stable manner in the state. These factors were the basis for a Left-led state government, for the first time, completing its full term of five years despite the severe limitations imposed on the state government under the Constitution.

The implications of the longevity of the Left Front government began to be realised gradually. The perspective set out in the 1967 report proved to be fruitful in dealing with the situation in which the united front governments functioned. These were governments with no majority for the Left and which had to face the brunt of a hostile centre and a gang up of anti-Communist forces within the two states. The formulation stated that these governments "are to be treated and understood as instruments of struggle in the hands of our people, more than as governments that actually possess adequate power that can materially and substantially give relief to the people". It correctly stressed the limitations of a state government within the constitutional structure and the necessity to use these governments as instruments of struggle. But the understanding was that these governments would be short lived. So while providing some immediate relief to the people, all efforts should be made to mobilise the people, the emphasis was on utilising the governments as instruments of struggle for winning more and more people to the side of the Party and the people's democracy. Underlying this approach was also the overall framework of the Party's understanding in the late 1960s that the struggle for people's democracy will progress rapidly given the favourable correlation of forces internationally -- an understanding which also permeated the Programme of the Party adopted in 1964.

Experience of the Left Front government in West Bengal over the years necessitated a reappraisal of this approach. This was mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the Party had to arrive at a correct conclusion about the longevity of the Left Front government. Secondly, the changed context of the international and national situation which came into being in the nineties.

Right from the outset, the twin policies of implementation of land reforms and revitalising and institutionalising the three-tier panchayat system were the basis for the advance of the CPI(M) and its political influence among the rural masses. By the end of the first term of the Left Front government, 8 lakh acres of surplus land had been distributed to the landless. In 1978, the first elections to the three-tier panchayat system were held which led to the Left Front winning 38,468 seats out of the 66,000 seats for which elections were held. The CPI(M) alone won 34,445 seats which was over 60 per cent of the seats.

Successive terms of the Left Front governments expanded and consolidated in these two areas. It is this unique record of the CPI(M) in advancing the interests of the rural poor which gave it a sound and stable mass base. The post-1977 period also proved to be different from the earlier period. The divisions in the ruling classes which were reflected in the conflicts between the bourgeois-landlord parties resulted in the Emergency, but they continued even after 1977.

The success of the Left Front in 1977 was widely seen as a victory for the democratic forces in the anti-authoritarian struggle. It was not possible for the ruling classes to isolate the CPI(M) and the emerging united Left in the manner in which it was done in the 1969-70 period. A far cry from the days when Atal Behari Vajpayee, the leader of the Jan Sangh, speaking in the Lok Sabha in 1971 demanded harsher measures against the Marxists in West Bengal, including the use of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.

Not that there was any respite for the Left Front government from hostile attacks. Here again, it was the Congress party, which took the lead in 1980s. After the return of Ms. Gandhi to power in 1980, repeated efforts were made to create difficulties for the functioning of the state governments. The Rajiv Gandhi government from 1984 to 1989 continued with this hostile approach. Even the clearance for a petrochemical project in Haldia took nearly a decade.

Fighting the Communists provided the impetus for the Congress, the major bourgeois-landlord party, to support a variety of divisive forces. At a time when the Congress was professedly fighting such forces which threatened national unity in Punjab, Assam and elsewhere, it had no hesitation in giving tacit support to the Gorkhaland agitation which saw large scale violence and the killing of over 100 cadres and activists of the CPI(M).

The international dimension of the hostile maneouvres against the Left Front government was exposed by the air dropping of arms in Purulia in 1994 which marked a new stage in the conspiracies against the Left Front government. One of the main actors in the conspiracy, Peter Bleach, who is now serving a sentence in jail, has confirmed that the arms were meant for use against the Communist government in West Bengal. The immediate recipients being the fascistic Anand Marg which has international connections.

If the Congress Central governments and its party units in West Bengal were spearheading the anti-Communist campaign in the earlier phase, the durability of the Left Front government invited attacks from another source in the recent years. This has emanated from Trinamool Congress-BJP combine -- a formation which came into existence after the BJP assumed power at the Centre in 1998. The BJP with its visceral anti-Communism found the Trinamool an ideal instrument to rally the landlords and neo-rich elements to mount this attack.

The 1999-2000 period witnessed intense attacks, planned and sponsored by this combine. In the space of a few months in a triangular area covering parts of Midnapore and Hooghly districts, armed gangs spread terror and drove away scores of CPI(M) activists and cleansed large areas of Communist influence. This attack too was foiled and rolled back. A heavy price was paid with 300 CPI(M) and Left Front workers being killed. The assembly elections of May 2001 signalled the defeat of this latest round of conspiracy against the Left Front government.

The development of a strong base for the Communist movement in West Bengal is the best example of the creative application of Marxism to Indian conditions. Under the present set-up, State power resides in the Centre and the state governments have limited powers under the Constitution. Though called a Union of states, in practice, all the major powers of the Indian State vest with the Centre.

The innovative approach to participation in the state governments worked out by the CPI(M) on the basis of the experience gained from the time of the first Communist ministry, and of the United Front governments in the late sixties was further developed with experience of the Left Front government in West Bengal. Belying the earlier expectation, the Left Front government has lasted for two and a half decades. The formulation in the Programme adopted in 1964 that such government should provide "immediate relief" to the people cannot hold good any more. It has to be extended in the light of the achievements and progress made in various spheres. That is why, in the Programme which was updated in the year 2000, the section on the Party's participation in government talks about carrying out "a programme of providing relief to the people and strive to project and implement alternative policies within the existing limitations". Projecting and implementing alternative policies within the existing limitations has assumed greater importance given the longevity of the Left Front government of West Bengal.

A new course for rural development building upon the land reforms implemented, became essential. New social relations and aspirations existed in the rural areas. Industrialisation and urban development acquired a priority in the current phase. The small scale industries sector had made good progress but it was necessary to go into new areas with advanced technology. The democratisation of society through the strengthening of local bodies and decentralisation had to be carried forward. The quality of public education and health system had to be improved. It was not possible to run the government with makeshift policies, when the whole framework of Central policies had changed.

The context in which a more long term approach had to be devised was also different. A big change had taken place between the first fifteen years of the Left Front government and the subsequent decade. The entire world situation changed with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the change in the correlation of forces in favour of imperialism. The impact of the imperialist driven globalisation was directly felt in India. The policies of liberalisation, accepting the neo-liberal framework set out by the IMF and the World Bank brought about a new environment in which the Left Front government had to operate.

The unfolding of this new phase of liberalisation and coping with its pernicious onslaught had to be squarely met. The CPI(M)'s framework for running the state government consisted of two aspects:

Firstly, the limited powers given under the states list of the Constitution are to be used effectively in areas like land reforms, school education, panchayat system and partially the police and labour machinery. Policies in these areas would help to expand the mass base of the Party and rally wider sections around the Left and democratic platform.

Secondly, in those areas where real power exists only with the Centre and these are the key levers of State power like the bureaucracy, financial resources, judiciary and economic policy, the state governments functions under severe limitations. Here the struggle for alternative policies have to be conducted in West Bengal as part of the all-India movement. The Central framework of policies cannot be altered, or, transcended in West Bengal alone. At the same time, policies had to be devised to protect the people's interests and livelihood.

With the advent of the liberalisation and abandonment of the old State-sponsored path of capitalist development, the policies of the Left Front government and the tactics of the mass movement had also to change. In December 1994, the Central Committee adopted a resolution on the "Role of the West Bengal Left Front government in the context of the new economic policies". The resolution stated: "Unlike in 1985, when the struggle was against the discrimination of the Centre, with its power of licensing and regulation of industry against West Bengal today with deregulation and delicensing it is upto the Left Front government to initiate steps to attract capital investment in West Bengal. This can be done only by allowing greater investment of private capital in various sectors. This is the basis on which the Left Front government has to adjust its policies in West Bengal to meet the new situation brought about by the Centre's policy of liberalisation….

"The Left Front government's policies should be in defence of the public sector in core areas, retaining the state intervention in the infrastructure development and in social infrastructure like health and education while actively canvassing for fresh capital investment in the sectors such as electronics, petrochemicals and other specialised areas which cannot be developed with government funds. In every forum where official policies are debated, the Left Front government must clearly set out the alternative policies possible in the present situation and in the long term and this should be the basis for our Party's propaganda and mobilisation among the masses."

After nearly a decade of the policies of liberalisation, the sixth Left Front government was elected in May 2001 once again with the two-thirds majority. A cabinet with Buddhadeb Bhattacharya as the Chief Minister took office. It became necessary for the Party to chalk out a more systematic approach on how to deal with the situation wherein the state government has to work within the liberalisation framework of the Central government. The steps to dismantle the public sector, reduction of public investment, cutbacks of public expenditure on public services and the social sector were all creating serious difficulties for the state government. Further, the Centre was making it contingent on the state government to implement its policies for receiving funds. The adverse consequences were being felt by the state government with the deepening fiscal crisis and the limited capacity of the state government to intervene in economic matters.

It was in this context that the state conference of the West Bengal unit of the CPI(M) held in February 2002 discussed this issue thoroughly and adopted a resolution on "Left Front government and our tasks". Streamlining government's expenditure; securing investment for new industrial projects; provision of adequate facilities for small and marginal farmers to sustain agricultural production; innovative schemes for generating employment and improvement of health and education facilities constituted some of the directives.

The Party was also enjoined with certain responsibilities to mobilise the people for effective implementation of government schemes and ensuring proper coordination between the people and the administration. A set of demands to the Central government, to ensure that the commitments made to the people were fulfilled, constituted an important part of the resolution which will form the basis for popular mobilisation and rallying other states on common demands.
Noting the circumstances in which the Left-led governments have to function, the Political Resolution of the 17th Congress of the Party stated: "Both the West Bengal and Tripura governments have to work under the severe constraints imposed by the economic policies of the Centre and the withdrawal of the State from economic activities. We should explain to the people frankly the situation and devise measures which can effectively fulfill our commitments to them."

The record of the 25 years generates the confidence that this challenge too will be met successfully by the West Bengal government. The CPI(M) is committed to the basic postulates set out in the Programme regarding the state government that it leads: Such a government will stand with the people and provide whatever relief is possible within the existing limitations; it should formulate and implement policies in a manner which is different from that of the bourgeois-landlord state governments; it will continue to mobilise the people in the struggle to implement alternative policies.

The Left Front government of West Bengal by its policies and performance can aid the struggle against the BJP-led government's policies in a big way. The Left Front government's role will immensely strengthen the all-India struggle not only against the economic policies but also in building the Left and democratic front which is essential to bring about a change in the correlation of forces.

II

The vital importance of the Left Front rule for the Communist movement in India cannot be overemphasised. When the CPI(M)-led Front won the elections for the first time in 1977, the international situation was favourable for the progressive forces in general. The national liberation struggles were at a high pitch. Vietnam has been liberated and re-unified after an epochal struggle, two years earlier in 1977. The liberation struggles in southern Africa, in Angola and in Mozambique were advancing. The socialist bloc seemed capable of thwarting the maneouvres of imperialism. From that time to now, there has been a drastic change. The Left Front government went through this whole period and witnessed the transition to a more hostile environment in 1990s. In the last decade, when the Left has been under siege internationally, the Left Front fought three state assembly elections -- in 1991, 1996 and 2001 -- and won decisively. Similarly, the Left emerged victorious in two rounds of panchayat elections involving the entire rural population held in 1993 and 1998.

At the national level, the 25 years have seen seven successive governments at the Centre and nine Prime Ministers. When Jyoti Basu first became the Chief Minister, there was the Janata Party-led coalition government headed by Morarji Desai. It was followed by the return of the Indira Gandhi led Congress government, the Rajiv Gandhi government, the V.P. Singh led National Front government (an interim six-month Chandrashekhar regime), the Narasimha Rao led Congress government, the United Front governments under Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral and finally, the BJP-led Vajpayee government since 1998.

When the country as a whole is faced with the offensive of the communal forces led by the RSS combine, West Bengal has maintained communal harmony. It is a state with a substantial Muslim minority population of 24 per cent. The Left Front government while firmly defending the rights of the minorities has also refused to compromise with fundamentalist forces for short-term gains.

It is the uninterrupted presence of a Left Front government in West Bengal that provided a constant base for the projection of a Left and democratic alternative at the national level. On every major issue -- political, economic and social -- which arose in this period, the intervention of the Left has been enhanced by the stance of the Left Front government.

The strength of the CPI(M) and the Left in West Bengal has boosted the Left profile in national politics. The bulk of the Left MPs in Parliament have come from West Bengal. The state has contributed 70 to 75 per cent of the Left members in both Houses of Parliament. It is the mainstay for the parliamentary representation of the Left.

The Left and democratic alternative policies include the implementation of land reform, decentralisation of powers at all levels, stepped up adequate State expenditure on education and health and expansion of these sectors, strengthening the public distribution system, stepped up public investment in agriculture and strengthening of the public sector in key sectors, regulating foreign finance capital flows and determining foreign direct investment according to the national priorities. In all these areas, the policies of the Left Front government working under limitations have added to the credibility of the Left's fight against the IMF-World Bank dictated path of development.

The Left Front government's firm stand in defence of secularism and refusal to compromise with the communal forces in contrast to the dubious record of various other state governments have provided teeth to the Left's consistent opposition to communal ideology and politics. In particular, the Left Front government has firmly dealt with the activities of the Hindutva forces whatever they sought to create communal tensions and threaten peace and harmony. West Bengal was able to show how communalism of various varieties can be kept in check if there is a government of firm political will to defend secularism. This is a significant achievement given the history of communal politics in the undivided Bengal before independence.

The consistent advocacy of the rights of States by the Left Front government of West Bengal has played a major role in putting the restructuring of Centre-State relations on to the national agenda. Chief Minister Jyoti Basu and his Finance Minister played an important role in the Srinagar conference on Centre-State relations held in 1983 which provided a sound basis for a federal structure. The convening, for the first time, of the Inter-States Council in 1989 by the V.P. Singh government was a concrete step in this continuing effort. The voice of the states for adequate devolution of financial resources, to halt the encroachment on states' rights was heard more effectively due to the able championing by the representatives of Left Front government in all national forums.

Time and again, it is the principled stance adopted by the Left Front government in defence of the rights of the working people which has checked the hand of the Central government when it sought to embark on legislation and policy decisions harmful to the working class and the common people. The Left Front of West Bengal has never seen itself as only the custodian of the rights of the working people of West Bengal, but of the entire country when it comes to all-India policy matters. On the rights of States, on protecting democratic rights of citizens, on decentralisation of powers upto the village level, on protecting the rights of minorities, on strengthening national sovereignty and self-reliance -- the Left Front government always spoken of on all these issues lending weight to the stand taken by the Left and democratic forces in the country.

West Bengal, under the Left Front government, also showed it is possible to take up social policies in the interests of the dalits and adivasis in such a manner as to render substantial gains to them without creating caste and social divisions. The steady advances made by the scheduled castes have not led to any upper caste backlash, nor are there atrocities against the socially oppressed sections. The polarisation created by the implementation of the Mandal Commission report and the caste based mobilisation common in other parts of the country have not affected the state. The steps taken to provide joint pattas to women and enlarge their participation in economic activities and local bodies are also noteworthy.

Another area in which the Left Front government has enhanced the prestige of the Communists and the Left forces is in the setting of high standards of integrity and probity in public life. All the ministers and the elected representatives of the Left in the state legislature as public servants have shown what needs to be done to be committed to public service. The salaries of the ministers in the West Bengal Cabinet are the lowest in the country (apart from Tripura). The salaries, allowances and perks of the legislators are the least in West Bengal. Incidentally, an MLA in Bihar receives two to three times the salary and allowances available to a West Bengal legislator. The ministers and legislators of the CPI(M) pay levy to the Party on their salaries which leaves them with incomes not much higher than that of other Party cadres. Whenever a few cases of misuse of funds by elected representatives in the panchayat system have come to light, the Party has taken firm action by removing such persons from the membership of the Party. There is no loot of public funds by the elected representatives of the Left as is normal among ruling parties in other states.

III

The key to the Left Front government's success cannot be only its policies and the performance. The record of the performance is modest in certain spheres. There is still a high degree of bureaucratic sloth which thwarts many worthwhile governmental and private initiatives. The secret of its longevity and the tenacity of the popular support for a state government severely hampered by the bourgeois-landlord system lies elsewhere. It is in the realm of people's consciousness.

No other state government has aroused such hostility in the dominant bourgeois media. The vicious campaign conducted through the years by the Ananda Bazar Patrika and similar newspapers displayed the naked class hostility under the cover of media criticism. The inflammatory campaign which involved a mix of lies and distortions was reminiscent of the way the El Mercurio and other right-wing papers in Chile conducted propaganda against the Allende government in 1972-1973.

It is a tribute to the organisation of the CPI(M) and the popular consciousness generated by the Party and the Left Front government that they could withstand the barrage of propaganda conducted by the dominant media in the state. West Bengal would be one of the few exceptions where the power of the modern bourgeois media was, to an extent, effectively neutralised. This by itself would merit a separate study.

Despite the most powerful and lethal anti-Communist propaganda, the people who remained loyal to the Left has been steady. In no assembly election has the Left polled less than 48 to 49 per cent of the vote. To be able to retain such a base through the ups and downs of the political situation in the country and the hostile international environment testifies to the political consciousness of the people.

The role of the Communist Party in creating this consciousness has been crucial. More than 30,000 Party cadres and activists are involved in running various aspects of the government administration and local bodies. Tens of thousands are in daily contact with the people, explaining the political situation, dealing with urgent problems of the people and leading them in different forms of struggle. This is a tribute to the Leninist principles of organisation, which have been so well mastered by the West Bengal unit of the CPI(M).

The critics from the Left often maintain that the existence of the Left Front government has actually acted as a dampner on class struggle in West Bengal. Nothing can be farther from the reality. The building up of a powerful peasant movement (the Kisan Sabha has a membership of one crore ten lakhs) is a result of ceaseless class struggles. The trade union movement in the state is the strongest contingent of the working class movement in the country. Every all-India action of different sections of the working class evokes the most widespread participation of the workers of the state.

The struggle to defend the Left Front government is itself a manifestation of the class struggle which has reached higher levels in the state than elsewhere. The 3,400 cadres and activists of the CPI(M) who were killed in the past 25 years under Left Front rule were part of this class struggle. The CPI(M) and the Left Front have not used the police and administrative machinery to suppress political opponents. Rather it is the reliance on political struggle and mass mobilisation which has enabled West Bengal to be free of the anti-democratic exercises so common in the states run by bourgeois parties. This again is not due to the CPI(M) and the Left parties alone, but stems from the higher level of democratic consciousness which has been created amongst the people.

The country as a whole has witnessed a rightward shift in the past one decade. The existence of a rightwing communal regime at the Centre and the recent events in Gujarat are pointers to the possibilities of an authoritarianism tinged with fascism. The existence of a Left Front government in West Bengal stands as an open challenge to these dark forces. That by itself makes the 25th anniversary of this popular government an occasion invested with great meaning.