Violence against the organised Left in West Bengal

By Jayati Ghosh

The appalling violence that has been unleashed against Left cadres and other innocent citizens in West Bengal is not just deeply disturbing in its own right. It is also a sickening reminder of the dreadful period of the 1970s. At that time, when the Left Front was still essentially an incipient political force and there was fierce contestation for state power, West Bengal was the site of the most noxious and vicious targeted violence against Left individuals, aided and abetted by the then government at the Centre. When the Left targets started retaliating, West Bengal became the terrain of dreadful and continuous violence between groups.

All this happened more than thirty years ago, and therefore most people involved in the current violence – whether as perpetrators or victims – did not experience it, do not remember it and at best are only dimly aware of those terrible years. This forgetfulness is itself is a triumph of the Left movement and indeed of the Left Front government in the state – that it succeeded in bringing peace to a very troubled and violent state, and that too for an extended period of more than three decades. This success has been ignored in much of the current political discourse and media analysis, and indeed has not even been adequately recognised by those within the Left Front themselves.

Of course this does not mean that there was no violence at all in this period, or even that the state government succeeded in completely eliminating all forms of politically motivated aggression. But certainly the appalling tension and corrosive political violence of the early 1970s appeared to have become a thing of the past. West Bengal was also remarkable among most other states in the country in keeping at bay the communal and caste-based conflict that has become endemic to many other states in the country.

This remarkable achievement has clearly been undermined in the recent past, partly because of some mistakes made by the state government, but even more so because of the cynical manipulation of people’s sentiments by the political opposition.

The “Maoist” takeover of Lalgarh and the need to bring in large numbers of state and central paramilitary forces to bring back normal administration in the area is only one example of this, even though it has received the greatest prominence in the national media. But the violence and targeted damage to life and public and personal property have not been limited to this kind of declaration of “liberated zones”.

After the election results, across the state, Left supporters, and particularly members and sympathisers of the CPI(M) have been brutally attacked, assassinated, severely wounded, and their personal property destroyed. The presumption of the attackers apparently is that their victims will not retaliate in kind. Of course that is absolutely correct, since it is clear at least to the Left parties as well as to all right-thinking people that to do so would only cause descent into the worst kind of destructive chaos.

But this restraint should not be interpreted to mean that the state government will remain helpless and inactive in the face of post-election disorder. The operations in Lalgarh have already shown that the state government has been forced to take on the local violence there through its own quasi-military operations. But elsewhere in the state as well, the horrific proliferation of violent attacks also has to be dealt with sternly and quickly.

This is where the role of the opposition parties in the state, the central government, and indeed the national media, all assume so much significance. It is no secret that much of the recent violence has come directly from members or supporters of the Trinamool Congress. It is also no secret that the so-called Maoists in some districts have been first openly and then tacitly supported by the Trinamool Congress, which is reported to have also provided financial and other support to such groups in the past, with the single-point agenda of destroying stability in the state and somehow forcing the collapse of the elected Left Front government.

And the mainstream media has displayed remarkable double standards about the violence in West Bengal and the state response to it. In any other state, such violence would have been immediately condemned. But for West Bengal, the rules are apparently different. On the one hand, there have been calls for the resignation of the state government on grounds of lack of legitimacy because of the recent election results, and a presumption that open violence targeting Left cadre is only to be expected; and on the other hand the government has been pilloried for inaction, when it is well-known that an immediate firm response would have been immediately condemned as being too heavy-handed and aggressive.

But the media response is deeply disingenuous. It is certainly true that the recent election has been a major setback for the Left and especially the CPI(M) and especially in West Bengal. There is correctly introspection and acceptance of the need for course correction.

Yet the extent of the setback also should not be overplayed. With all its flaws and errors of omission and commission, which the party and the ruling state government have themselves accepted, the Left still commands a lot of electoral support in West Bengal. The latest results from the Election Commission show that the CPI(M) got 33.1 per cent of all the votes cast, and together with its other Left Front allies, got 43.3 per cent of the votes. This is only 1.3 percentage points less than the Trinamool Congress (31.18 per cent) and Congress Party (13.45 per cent) taken together. This hardly qualifies as cause for rejection of the state government, and certainly cannot possibly justify any targeted violence against state cadre.

The central government has also played an unsavoury role in the recent violence, with its slow response to the desperate pleas for outside support to control the violence and its implicit encouragement of forces that are out to destroy the Left Front. The cynical attempt to use those who see themselves as “ultra-left” to destroy the Left clearly has wider backing, including from imperialist forces that have not forgiven the Left for its principled opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal and similar alliances.

But this is not just short-sighted, it is also deeply dangerous. The central government too must recognise that allowing this to continue would backfire on itself, much in the same way that Indira Gandhi’s encouragement of the Sikh extremist Bhindranwale in the early 1980s, in order to annoy the opposition party in Punjab, ultimately backfired quite viciously on the Congress Party and the central government.

LALGARH:THE DEVELOPMENTS

By Biman Basu

LALGARH Gram Panchayat (GP) area under Binpur I Panchayat Samity (PS) is presently known to the different cross sections of society for numerous reasons. Therefore, we are to explain the reasons behind the sudden shot up of the name of Lalgarh in the media. Lalgarh GP is surrounded by Poita GP, Dharampur GP, Sijua GP, Ramgarh GP, Binpur GP, Belatikari GP, Andharia GP, Dahijuri GP, and Nepura GP.

The total number of GP seats in the above GPs is around 100 out of which Lalgarh has 10 only. Yet, geographically Lalgarh is not a central place of all these GPs, but available connectivity puts Lalgarh at the central stage. However, Lalgarh is not a ‘red fort.’ It has such a name alone. Binpur I and II blocks constitute the Binpur (ST) assembly constituency. Lalgarh is within this constituency.

Since 1977, assembly elections have taken place in the state seven times and the Left Front-nominated CPI(M) candidates won in 1977, 1987, 1991—thus only three times from this constituency, and the rest of the occasions the seat went to the Jharkhand Party (Naren Hansda faction). At present, Chunibala Hansda of the Jharkhand Party is the MLA from this constituency.

It is a fact that the state Left Front government has already declared in the Human Development Report in 2004 that many of the villages under Binpur assembly constituency are backward. The state government through the three-tier Panchayati raj system, wanted to implement many developmental projects but due to the ‘Maoist’ opposition and reluctance of the Jharkhand Party, the efforts of development could not be implemented properly so far.

They even opposed the digging of ponds, construction of roads, and went in for destruction of the small bridges; they blew up road rollers, and cement mixture machines used for road construction, and even did not spare the tourism buildings and nearby Panchayat offices, which were blasted. They even stopped the mobile health service to the rural, tribal, and other oppressed sections of the society, and killed Dr Dhaniram Mandi, nurse Bharati Kisku, and a mobile medicare van driver.

The same brand of anti-Left forces including ‘Maoists,’ attempted to kill the Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee by planting a ‘directional mine.’ Since then, they formed a frontal organisation called the People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities or PCAPA, and started to spread their activities in and around Lalgarh virtually disallowing the normal rule of law. They wanted to spread their day-to-day activities in all this GP area to stop the functioning of the state administration, and to make a small hamlet to be a government within a government. They started collecting levy from teachers, government employees, shopkeepers, and they even went on to collect funds from the BDO in his office.

AIM OF THESE ATTACKS

It is a known fact that since 2001, ‘Maoists’ started to build their contacts in West Midnapore, Bankura, and Purulia districts and in certain areas, waged concerted attacks against the Left forces targeting the CPI(M) as the main enemy. They also tried to spread their activities in certain other districts. In the above-mentioned districts alone until date, they have killed 74 CPI(M) leaders, workers, close sympathisers, and one Forward Bloc worker. Also, hundreds of other people were driven out from their own living places and residences. In total, they have killed 111 people.

Out of this figure, 88 general people were killed among whom 74 are landless or poor peasants and 25 are tribals. It is true that these ‘Maoists’ would create a sense of terror in large sections of forest areas which is commonly called jangal mahal. It is also true that in these districts, the base of CPI(M), the Left forces, and their political activities are noticeable. ‘Maoists’ wanted to break this political base through armed attacks, and all sorts of anti-CPI(M) forces including internal and external reactionary forces wanted to utilise ‘Maoists’ to weaken the Left Front and the CPI(M) political base.

It is revealed in The Economist, June 27-July 3 issue under the caption of ‘India’s Naxalite: a rag-tag rebellion’ the name of Chatradhar Mahato and his activities covering some 2000 villages with a joint force of PCAPA and ‘Maoist’ guerrillas. The magazine in the post- 2004 parliamentary elections, wrote the first article with a photo of Dr Manmohan Singh, captioned ‘bad days for India.’ In the post-2009 parliamentary elections, an article was captioned ‘good days for India – don’t waste.’ This signifies how the western lobby keeps a close watch on the development of the Left and democratic movement in Indian politics.

The self-styled leader of the so-called people’s committee, Chatradhar Mahato who is a known Trinamul Congress activist, is moving with maintaining close liaison with the “Maoists.’ His younger brother is a zonal commander of the ‘Maoists.’ The Trinamul Congress supremo on February 4, 2009 just before the elections were declared went to Lalgarh and shared the platform publicly with Chatradhar Mahato. It is funny to hear that the Trinamuli supremo declared the Lalgarh agitation as another ‘Santhal rebellion’ though Chatradhar Mahato himself is not a Santhal or even an adivasi. In the mid-19th century, the first Santhal rebellion took place under the leadership of Sidhu-Kanho against the British Raj followed by the revolts led by first Tilka Murmu, and then Birsa Munda.

GAMEPLAN EXPOSED

One of the top former Naxalite leader of the 1960s and even later, Kanu Sanyal, has correctly said ‘who has made Chatradhar the leader of the people’s committee?’ ‘Is the people’s committee represented by all communities?’ ‘Thus, how that can be dubbed as the Santhal Rebellion?’ But this is an irony of fate that the Trinamul chieftain is very much trying to disassociate herself from Chatradhar and ‘Maoists.’ Initially, she used to say that Left Front and CPI(M) are always saying that the activities of Chatradhar as ‘Mao-Mao’ (cat’s meow). These sorts of utterances have given extra strength to the ‘Maoists’ in and around Lalgarh to establish lawlessness and their authority in certain areas of jangal mahal. But ‘Maoist’ supremo Koteswara Rao alias ‘Kishanji’ has exposed the game plan of TMC by saying that ‘we went to Nandigram and adjoining areas to help TMC and made the operation successful, and now TMC is to come forward and help us.’

For the last eight months, Lalgarh and its adjacent areas remained seized by the PCAPA and the normal life of the people of the entire area was completely jeopardised. During this period, the parliamentary elections were completed and the Jhargram parliamentary constituency won by the LF-nominated CPI(M) candidate Dr Pulin Behari Baskey by a margin of 2,92,345 votes. This has infuriated the CPI (Maoist). They started a wrong political game plan with a renewed vigour. In this situation, LF gave a call for political campaign against the dangerous politics of ‘Maoists.’ Just before the LF statement, the state government with the help of the central government started a joint operation to restore normalcy in the affected areas.

The operation has been going on for two weeks now. The People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities did not leave any stone unturned in declaring themselves as the real representatives of the people there, but it is found that when the police forces reached Ramgarh proper under Ramgarh GP, the mass of the people waved at them in joy, and provided them with drinking water with a sigh of relief. Since the civil administration could not continue their normal activities, the people of Lalgarh and adjacent areas were suffering seriously and it is found that when the government started distributing rice, pulses among the deserted families they formed a long queue to receive the relief materials. This has certainly proved how the claim of the PCAPA is completely hollow.

People's Democracy, July 05, 2009

Who Are The Maoists Working For?

by Debasish Chakraborty

The rifle slinging carelessly from his shoulder, the Maoist zonal commander Bikash faced the electronic boom and openly admitted in public that the mine blast in Salboni in November 2008 was meant to kill the West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. He then added that Buddhadeb had been sentenced to death by the Maoists. In the middle of the interview, Bikash ran his fingers through his hair to smoothen it. The total episode may have resembled the shooting of a Bollywood thriller “Main Maoist Hoon.”

THE FLAW LIES HERE

The above sequence must have made some people very excited. Sitting kilometres away from Lalgarh, somebody may have had the desire to participate in a ‘war-war game’. Some had even travelled there in search of the ‘cute’ Maoists but ended up only in meeting Chatradhar Mahato. The loveliest of beauties among the retinue openly lamented, “What Maoist? We didn’t see a Maoist anywhere!” Really, what a pity!

The experience of the people who do have to meet and live with the Maoists, though, seems to be a wee bit different in general. Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have been going through the experience for the last decade or so. From afar, it was easier to paint a romantic picture of the “perpetual class war” going on in these areas. Now people in Belpahari-Lalgarh-Bandwan area have had a first hand experience of the state of things in a ‘liberated’ (!!!) zone.

The Maoists have been able to expand their influence in some districts of six or seven states. Although there has been a debate about the area of the so called Red Corridor, it cannot be denied that the Maoists have been successful in expanding their ‘Raj’ in these six or seven states. Has this ‘Raj’ been the outcome of a vibrant mass movement? Has the movement of the peasantry, or of the working class, been the driving force behind the Maoist domination? Has anybody been the witness of such happenings? Has anybody heard the Maoists spearheading any mass movement for the rightful demands of the poor landless peasants, the rural poor and the adivasis? By name, they are indeed a communist party. But nobody can condemn them for having waged any movement in favour of the class they claim to be the representatives of, that is, the working class. They do not bear any responsibility of building any mass movements. The theory of acquiring dominance at gun point has been termed as a “continuous people’s war” while at times the ‘self- proclaimed revolutionaries’ termed it as guerrilla warfare. Maybe at times, perhaps to win over support from the middle class, they may enter into a public debate. Then they would say that if the state itself is an armed apparatus, an instrument of coercion, the working people should also take up arms against the state for survival. But the flaw lies here.

The Chinese revolutionaries, who understood the true character of the state far better than the Indian Maoists have ever understood, had always stressed on the necessity of mass action and mass movements. And the man in whose name the Maoists are running their party had always emphasised on the supreme importance of mass participation. Comrade Mao had had, several times before as well as after the Chinese revolution, stressed on the active initiative of crores of people.

POLITICS OF TERROR

But the Indian Maoists believe in the politics of terror, perpetrated by their armed squads, instead of an organised and spontaneous mass movement. This particular trend is quite harmful for the real mass movements in our country. The territory where the Maoists are very powerful at this present moment of time happens to be the abode of a vast section of the poorest of the poor Indian masses. Even if, suppose, somebody claims that the adivasi population is the main ‘proletariat’ in the country, he or she must be aware of the fact that a vast majority of the adivasi population too lives in this belt. They are living under the shadow of the Maoist guns and have not been mobilised in any genuine mass movement. They are even being kept several light years away from the primary movements on economic demands. All these must surely be making the ruling classes of this country very happy. Apart from the law and order situation, our ruling classes have nothing to worry about.

Some people may feel thrilled with the thought that the Maoists have built their bases in the adivasi preponderant areas. But it is to be remembered that building such bases has nothing to do with sympathy for the adivasi population. In numerous documents, the Maoists themselves have categorically stated that the reasons behind choosing such areas are related to military tactics. The remote areas, the jungles are tough for the state to reach quickly. Due to this inaccessibility, obviously, these areas become favourable for their “guerrilla warfare.”

Thus the entire interest of the Maoists is in geography, with love or compassion for the adivasis and the poor having never been an issue for them. But, obviously, they can --- and they do --- make use of the intense poverty of the adivasi population, though not for enhancing their consciousness. Instead, this poverty has been used for making the people surrender to their diktat. As long as the news of Maoist mine blasts poured in from Andhra Pradesh or Chhattisgarh, an element of adventurism was there in the air. Now living amidst the muzzles of A K 47, however, people are bitterly realising the harsh reality prevailing in Lalgarh, Belpahari and other areas. As many as 73 CPI(M) activists have been killed in the Junglemahal area of Bengal. A large number has been driven out of their villages. This has been done precisely to create a reign of terror there. The world does not hold any other example where the poor people are afraid of ‘revolutionaries.’

PROTECTING WHOSE INTERESTS?

What are the Maoists doing in their so called open corridor? Are they distributing lands? Is feudalism being ousted? Are collective farms being run? Are development programmes for the adivasis and the poor being implemented? Nothing of the sort is being done. The areas in Bihar where the Maoists are most powerful, are quite comfortable areas for feudal lords. Very interestingly, due to the role of some other naxalite groups in these areas, there was some advancement of land movements in these areas earlier. Those advancements have now faded away. The Maoists and the feudal lords, in fact, share a common understanding among themselves. Land movement does not even have the remotest place in the Maoist agenda. Payment of levy to the Maoists clears the contractors from all sorts of hazards. The added advantage in this regard is that the contractors do not have to even construct the roads. The levy alone suffices the purpose. The Maoists share the same relation with the illegal wood and mine mafias. All parties are getting benefited from this symbiotic relationship. The Maoists act as paid agents of different political parties during the elections in Jharkhand. Children belonging to the poor adivasi families are taken away in the name of Balasangham in Chhattisgarh and Orissa. The Maoists have reached the final stages of degeneration. They are basically a mafia group now.

Of late, it has become a fashion to attribute underdevelopment as the reason for Maoist fervour in the Junglemahal of West Bengal. Lack of development is definitely there, particularly in the backward areas. In spite of some remarkable advancement in some sectors, poverty still persists. The neo-liberal policies pursued in our country over the last two decades have further widened the divide between the rich and the poor. It is an irony that on television channels some people argue for speedy realisation of the policies of neo-liberalism while, side by side, pointing out that lack of development is making the Maoists powerful. The Maoists themselves are against any kind of developmental model. In a capitalist society, any development cannot be there outside the sphere of class components and contents. But before a complete or thorough transformation of society take place, is it a crime to demand development for the working people? If the conditions and chances exist for development somewhere, is the utilisation of such opportunities a crime? Even the weird leftists whom Mao derided as the “Marxists sleeping on Marx,” never stooped so low!

The Indian Maoists oppose the projects of development everywhere. They oppose the laying of rail tracks, construction of bridges and establishment of power projects. Blowing up schools by the Maoists has become a very common phenomenon in Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. In West Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia districts of West Bengal, the Maoists have established themselves to be the strongest hindrance to any sort of developmental works. Whose interest are they protecting?

And let us have a look at their “class enemies.” They have killed 73 CPI(M) activists in the Junglemahal area of Bengal. Out of them, 50 were either agricultural labourers or poor peasants. These poor unarmed people were dragged into the jungle and stabbed or shot to death. Their bodies were left lying on the spot, only to decompose. Their family members were not given the right to cremate them. We don’t know what sort of infernal pleasure these atrocities provide to the Maoists. Making the life of the poor adivasis horrible does not possibly serve any class interests of the downtrodden.

POLITICAL MOTIVE

The political motive and interest of the Indian Maoists is definite and clear. Thanks to the long and sustained struggles, the three districts of Junglemahal have become strong bastions of the CPI(M). And the Maoists look upon their arms as the last resort in their sordid game to order to break this bastion. But this belief is not shared by the Maoists alone. Keeping the Maoists in the forefront, others including Trinamool Congress are playing their role as well. Nowhere in India have the Maoists earlier faced any political challenge. They have had confrontations with the police and the administration. West Bengal has provided the first instance where the Maoists have to taste the people’s resistance and the barrier of a mass movement. Naturally, the attack on the Left has become focussed.

There is no doubt that Bikash or Kishenji will become a star. With the CPI(M)’s tally having come down in the parliamentary elections, the share market has now nothing to worry about. Washington had played the tunes of delight and ecstasy. Big media houses can’t help expressing their excitement. At this point of time, it is quite obvious that the people engaged in killing the cadres of the CPI(M) are slated to definitely become stars. Naturally, the demands of the Kishenji, Bikash & Company are on the high side!

People's Democracy,July 05, 2009

Tribals used as pawns in Maoists' game

By Nilotpal Basu

29 Jun 2009, 0536 hrs IST, TNN

Lalgarh has attracted an unbelievable amount of frontpage news space and primetime slots, not only in Bengal but also nationally. Why has the media otherwise obsessed with cricket or Bollywood shown signs of such an overwhelming interest in a subject so intensely political (or drab,' as one may put it)?

One cannot dismiss the new-found interest in Lalgarh as trivial. Unfortunately, the Lalgarh question has seldom been addressed in a holistic manner.

What does Lalgarh signify? Is it about a "revolutionary" Maoist insurrection? Is it purely a collective expression of innocent tribal outrage against "failed governance"? Or is it about the collapse of CPI(M) in the western districts of Bengal? Was the violence, so clearly directed against CPI(M) and the administration, spontaneous?

An attempt to answer these questions might help us unravel reality from consciously built myth; or, in the words of Deng Xiao Ping, one of Mao's closest comrades and a fellow long marcher, "To seek the truth from the facts".

West Bengal, Naxalbari to be precise, has been the cradle of ultra-Left movement in the country. It could have spread to other parts of the state, but the rural poor refused to be swayed by extremism, cherishing the fruits of the most comprehensive agrarian reforms. The Rightwing security doctrinaires in the wake of Lalgarh, however, refused to concede this achievement to the economic, political and importantly, ideological battle of the organized Left.

The Maoist activities were particularly intense after the formation of CPI(Maoist) with the merger of CPI-ML(PW) group and MCC. The new entity, however, differs fundamentally from the Naxalilte movement of the Sixties. While the latter sprung out of incorrect assessment of the method and course of the agrarian reforms, the Maoists do not believe in partial struggle to mobilize the rural poor to achieve mass demands. Ganapati, the general secretary of CPI(Maoist), has been quite candid: "Our choice of remote forest areas for our guerrilla activities are prompted to suit our military strategic needs." It has to do very little with the concern for uplifting the lot of the poor tribals.

In Lalgarh, what has been evident is not the urgency to lead the tribals to articulate their sufferings, but a calculated move to use these hapless people as human shields and use them as pawns to quench the drive for establishing military control. Not that there is no issue of development in Lalgarh. But the questions of jal, jangal and jameen (water, forest and land), which inspire tribal disquiet in the rest of the country, has in fact played little role in Lalgarh.

The simple reason is that the most important issue land has been largely addressed in these tribal-dominated areas. Till 2008, a total of 1,76,668 tribals have received land pattas for 1,97,350.49 acres. This is in West Midnapore district alone. On the forest produce, 88 LAMPS have been created to facilitate the earnings of tribals from forest wealth, aimed at undermining the role of the contractors who exploited them. In fact, it is revealing that PCPA leader Chhatradhar Mahato happened to be a forest contractor.

But this is not to say that there is no need to redouble efforts to address development concerns. The early activities of the Maoists in the region were specifically aimed at undermining the creation of physical and social infrastructure.

Lalgarh, and the three other gram panchayat areas that stand pivotal to Maoist activities, were never CPI(M) bastions. All four are presently controlled by the Trinamool-Jharkhand Party-Congress combine. The Assembly seat of Binpur, under which Lalgarh falls, is held by Jharkhand party (Naren). So, the majority of the mainstay of the movement are not CPI(M) deserters.

This is not to say that political opponents need not be won over. The battle against Maoists will have to be grounded in efforts to overcome the development deficit and isolate them from people. Firm administrative actions to silence the guns is not the be-all and end-all of our battle to deliver justice to tribals and the rural poor. It can usher in a new phase of initiatives on the social, economic, political and ideological fronts. We owe this to the victims of mindless violence. A consensus across political parties to pursue this objective is the need of the hour.

The writer is CPI(M)'s central committee member

‘Maoists’ And Their Friends In West Bengal

By Debasish Chakraborty

People’s Democracy, June 28, 2009

IN the seventies, a new term became popular in West Bengal: “Congxal”. It was used to identify Naxalite-turned-Congress hoodlums. Initially these elements launched attacks against CPI(M) activists, particularly in and around Kolkata, in the name of “revolution”. After the rigged assembly elections in 1972, a large section of these thugs became Youth Congress activists and a second phase of murderous assault against the Left started. It is well known that more than 1100 CPI(M) activists and supporters were killed and more than 20,000 were forced to leave their homes during the semi-fascist terror period of 1971-77. The infamous Siddarth Shankar Ray regime in West Bengal adopted a two-pronged strategy: on the one hand, a section of the Naxalite activists were brutally killed by the police and Congress workers, on the other, another section was used as murder gangs against CPI(M).

History does not repeat itself but resemblances are not that rare.

From 2001, ‘Maoists’ (Peoples’ War Group and MCC independently and from 2004 their joint party, CPI–Maoists) started a concerted attack on organised Left forces in Bengal. They concentrated mainly on the three districts of West Midnapore, Purulia and Bankura. Till date 73 CPI(M) leaders and activists were killed by them in these districts, while hundreds of others have been forced to leave their homes. It is true that the Maoists have been able to create a reign of terror in large parts of the “Jangal mahal” or the forest areas of these districts. But it is also clear enough that their target was CPI(M) and no one else. Interestingly, not a single activist of Trinamool Congress, Congress or various factions of Jharkhand Party (including JMM) was touched!

GAME PLAN BEHIND THESE ATTACKS

What are the politics and the game plan behind these attacks?

Firstly, the above mentioned three districts are strong bases of the CPI(M). The base has not emerged one fine morning; it was achieved through long and arduous struggles on the question of land and livelihood. The CPI(M) and the panchayats after 1977 worked massively in poorer and backward areas of these districts, particularly for the upliftment of the tribals. There was a dramatic improvement in the standard of living of thousands of people in those areas during the last three decades. The CPI(M), naturally, has a strong political presence in most of these areas. The armed attacks were the only available option for other political forces to break that base. ‘Maoists’ were encouraged by anti-CPI(M) forces to achieve this goal, which they themselves could not do.

Secondly, political geography is important here. Despite a large area of influence, there were certain areas in these districts, particularly in Lalgarh, Binpur blocks in West Midnapore, where CPI(M) was relatively weak. Factions of Jharkhand Party were in control of panchayats, and even won assembly seats with support from the Congress or the TMC. ‘Maoists’ chose those particular areas as their primary bases and the Jharkhandi leaders were quick to surrender. In fact, it was Jharkhandis at first, and then TMC activists who played the role of facilitators for the Maoists.

In spite of development initiatives, many tribal-dominated areas in these districts are still backward. The Left Front government on its own initiated a Human Development Report in 2004 in which many villages in these areas were identified as backward. Interestingly, many of these villages, including villages in Belpahari, Kantapahari, Amlasol are run by Jharkhand Party panchayats. They lagged far behind others in implementing developmental projects. For the last six to seven years, it is the ‘Maoists’ who aggressively opposed any efforts of development. They have destroyed bridges, chased away road construction workers, and blasted tourism buildings, even panchayat offices. They killed doctors and nurses through mine blasts. And, from November last year, their font-organisation “Peoples’ Committee” has dug up roads, destroyed bridges, blocked all kinds of administrative activities.

Another reason why the ‘Maoists’ chose to operate in this area is that it lies in the West Bengal-Jharkhand border. It is well known that the ‘Maoists’ operate in hilly terrain, remote plateaus, densely forest areas in all the states where they are somewhat active. It is not because that they are concerned about the tribal people, but it is part of their military strategy. They choose areas where so-called ‘guerrilla activities’ can be run in a relatively easier way. Particularly in Jharkhand, the ‘Maoists’ enjoy a free run. For quite a long time now, the Jharkhand administration has shown very little seriousness in dealing with them. Moreover, there is virtually no influential political party in Jharkhand which challenges these forces politically. ‘Maoists’ followed a hit and run policy in the border areas. Whenever there was any security offensive, they crossed the border and took shelter in their safe havens in the neighbouring state.

CLOSE AFFINITY WITH ANTI-LEFT FORCES

But most important of all and what can be considered as the special political perspective of ‘Maoists’ activities in West Bengal is their close affinity with the other anti-Left political forces, particularly Trinamool Congress, the main opposition force in the state. Their partnership expanded from western districts to other areas of the state, for example in Nandigram and Singur.

Apart from numerous reports of ‘Maoists’ active participation in Nandigram and their armed attacks along with the TMC gangs, the political and organisational documents of the ‘Maoists’ have also proven the complicity. They have, in fact, evolved a theoretical perspective for justifying this complicity. In a document, published in December, 2008 and circulated among the ‘Maoist’ rank and file, the ‘Maoist’ leaders have emphasised the need of a “united front” with anti-CPI(M) “ruling class parties” and particularly with the TMC. The document, titled “Some important problems in our work and their solutions”, asserted that as the CPI(M) is a “social fascist force” , it is important to organise “anti-fascist” front with other ruling class parties. Whoever wants to join in such “fronts” are welcome. Without giving any scope of confusion, the document has stated that Mamata Banerjee, the leader who was in the forefront of the “struggle” in Singur should be supported and ‘Maoist’ cadres should work closely with her. According to them, West Bengal is now a “flaming field” and many united fronts are emerging. All such joint operations should be encouraged. In another document evaluating the Nandigram episode, the ‘Maoists’ have clearly stated that they were in the forefront of armed activities, including arms training to BUPC, the organisation which spearheaded the agitation against land acquisition. The BUPC was led by TMC and it existed even after the chief minister categorically announced that there would be no land acquisition in Nandigram in February, 2007. In the document the ‘Maoists’ proudly claimed that though they were in leading position in armed aggression and killing of CPI(M) activists in Nandigram from the very beginning, the other parties accepted their leadership from July, 2008. They claimed that that it was an “achievement” that the other parties openly acknowledged the role of ‘Maoists’. They even acclaimed that TMC leaders “fought the war” in close cooperation with them.

During the ongoing security operation in Lalgarh, top ranking Maoist leader M Koteswar Rao alias “Kishenji” has given long interviews to the electronic media. In fact, he was busy in explaining things from morning to midnight in mobile phone interviews. Kishenji has categorically stated and the entire audience listened that ‘Maoists’ helped the TMC in Nandigram in “ousting” CPI(M) and in reciprocation they want Mamata Banerjee’s help to stop central security forces from entering Lalgarh. This mutual relationship was no secret though to any independent political observer in the state.

TARGET: WEAKEN THE CPI(M)

It would be wrong to singularly identify the Maoists though. A rainbow alliance emerged in West Bengal with the sole target of weakening CPI(M) in whatever way. Apart from anti-Left parties joining together, it included even basically fundamentalist organisations which were raising a false alarm of “conscious deprivation of Muslim minorities” and foreign funded NGOs.

The situation in some parts of West Midnapore, Purulia and Bankura was far from normal for at least the last five years. CPI(M) leaders and supporters were brutally killed and the Party could not move in many areas. The situation escalated after the landmine blast in an attempt to kill the chief minister in early November last year when he along with the then union minister of steel Ramvilas Paswan went for laying the foundation of a steel project in Salboni. Just as the state police moved in to search for the culprits, the ‘Maoists’ formed an organisation called “Peoples’ Committee to resist police atrocities”. The roads were dug up and villagers were forced to block all movement in the area. From then on, virtually a reign of terror was unleashed in the entire area. It was a ploy to expand the bases of ‘Maoists’ while the blockade continued. All government offices were virtually closed, schools ceased to function, villagers were forced to pay huge “levies’ to Maoists. CPI(M) activists were killed and many of them were forced to declare that they would leave the CPI(M). The state government exhibited great restraint considering the sensitive aspect of involvement of a section of the tribals. The chief minister publicly stated a number of times that the Left Front government would not be run by the police and it was trying to avoid bloodshed at any cost. However, the ‘Maoists’ escalated the bloodshed and almost every day CPI(M) cadres and sympathizers were killed. It was the exhibition of brutality on the part of “Peoples’ Committee” as dead bodies were left unattended and the family members were not allowed to touch them.

The complicity of TMC was evident here too. The secretary of “Peoples Committee” Chatradhar Mahato is a known Trinamool Congress activist while the president of this outfit Sidhu Soren is a squad member of the ‘Maoists’. Sashadhar Mahato, the younger brother of Chatradhar, is the zonal commander of the ‘Maoists’ and a declared absconder for many crimes. The story does not end here. On February 4, 2009, just before the elections were declared, Mamata Banerjee herself went to Lalgarh to attend a public meeting and shared the dais with Chatradhar Mahato. She declared, with grand fanfare, that the so-called Lalgarh agitation is another “Santhal Rebellion”. While no CPI(M) activists were even allowed to enter his own village in Lalgarh, Mamata Banerjee was welcomed by the ‘Maoists’. The attack against CPI(M) intensified after that meeting.

After the TMC-Congress combine won 26 seats in the recent Lok Sabha elections, murderous attacks against CPI(M) started in many parts of the state. Party offices and the houses of CPI(M) leaders were burnt in Nandigram and Khejuri in East Midnapore district. More than 25 CPI(M) activists were killed in the state post elections. In West Midnapore, ‘Maoists’ gathered forces from Jharkhand and unleashed massive attacks in villages. Of course, in some of the villages they were resisted.

After the state government finally decided to take control of the situation in a firm manner and central security forces joined in, the TMC opposed any intervention by the security forces. Mamata Banerjee even went to the extent of calling this operation as “state sponsored terrorism”. She organised and participated in a march in Kolkata on June 22 to protest against the operation by the security forces in Lalgarh. But, as political pressure mounted, the railway minister has shrugged off her relationship with Maoists and Peoples Committee.

The CPI(M) in West Bengal, on the other hand, has reiterated its conviction of fighting the Maoists politically. In fact, it is in West Bengal that the ‘Maoists’ faced a determined political force for the first time in the whole country, a force which is strong enough to challenge them and is ready for highest sacrifice, while mobilising the masses for a resistance against this murderous mayhem.

The writer is CPI(M) West Bengal state committee member.

West Bengal State Budget 2009-2010

BUDGET SPEECH IN BENGALI AVAILABLE AT:

http://www.wbfin.nic.in/BudgetSpeech2009_BNG.pdf



BUDGET SPEECH IN ENGLISH AVAILABLE AT:

http://www.wbfin.nic.in/BudgetSpeech2009_ENG.pdf

Role of The Communists In The Restoration Of Democracy

By ANIL BISWAS

 

 (This article was published in Peoples' Democracy on '30TH ANNIVERSARY OF 'INTERNAL EMERGENCY’ )

26th June, 2005 

 

THE clamping down of internal emergency on June 26, 1975 and its operation over the next 19 months represents one of the darkest periods in the political history of India. For all practical purposes, the Indian Constitution was kept in suspense, parliamentary democracy was trodden brutally underfoot, and an authoritarian rule proclaimed. Three decades onward to that malevolent episode, the importance of carrying forward the struggle to safeguard democracy has to be realised in the proper perspective of what had happened thirty years ago.

NATIONAL ECONOMY IN DEEP CRISIS

The slogan mongering about removal of poverty (garibi hatao!) notwithstanding, the entire decade before the declaration of ‘emergency’ was riven with abject poverty. The number of people – 70 per cent of the population according to reliable estimates – under the poverty line went on increasing at an alarming rate. The Ford foundation-inspired ‘green revolution’ effectively robbed the rural poor of whatever little purchasing power they yet possessed. The falling prices of cash crops like jute, oil seeds, and cotton ruined the farmers even as black-marketeering and hoarding started to flourish. A 22 per cent increase in the general price level was noted during the early 1970s with the incidence of direct taxes adding to the extreme misery of the mass of the people.

The Indian industry was in deep crisis. Indira Gandhi had closed down 3,000 engineering and textile mills on returning to office in 1971. The industrial recession had a deep and pervading effect on the manufacturing sector. Meeting in Kolkata over June 10-12, 1975, the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) noted that the economy was in a state of dysfunction with spiralling unemployment, wide lay-offs, and a severely shrinking job market. The loot of the monopoly capitalists and of landlords was being ensured at the cost of extreme misery of workers, peasants, employees, professional groups, and small manufacturers.

In this dysfunctional economic background was the swing of political events that gave birth to the evil of ‘emergency.’

 

 

POLITICAL BACKGROUND

The fourth general elections depicted the unravelling of monopoly control of the Congress across the country. The fall-out was a severe internecine strife within the Congress itself. Two trends must be noted here. On one hand, the ‘syndicate’ Congress chose to veer towards the Jan Sangh-Swatantra Party political grouping. On the other, there was a rift within the Left and democratic forces. The 1972 Madurai party congress of the CPI(M) in 1972 had already noted that the leadership of several Left and democratic parties swung towards the Indira Congress and thus exposed their vacillating character. They also, noted the party congress, joined in the campaign of slander against the CPI(M).

It was the massive win that the Congress managed to post in this background of weakness of the Left and democratic forces that started the train of events. The Congress as the ruling party also claimed success over the events in Bangladesh where the struggle of the masses had triumphed. Posing as a ‘socialist,’ Indira Gandhi indulged in reckless counter-democratic ploys to win elections in states like Bengal while also triumphing elsewhere.

THE BENGAL SCENE

In Bengal, the Congress organised and put in place its assault on the CPI(M) as also on democratic forces and organisations led by it. Yet, the CPI(M) emerged as the biggest single political party in the 1971 Bengal state elections, winning 113 seats. Ignoring CPI(M)’s claim to form the government, a makeshift outfit of political coteries was asked to put up a coalition government. Two months later, under President’s rule, a swath of terror cut across Bengal, organised by the central paramilitary forces, and the thugs of the Congress.

The CPI(M) was the chief target. More than 1100 of CPI(M) workers were put to death. Party offices, TU offices, and the offices of mass organisations were ransacked and occupied. Thousands of people were implicated in false cases, thousands more incarcerated without the benefit of trial. In the circumstances, riding a wave of terror and openly rigging the polls, the Congress managed to ‘win’ the election of 1972.

Jyoti Basu wrote in his booklet entitled ‘The Decimation of Parliamentary Democracy in West Bengal’ that the people of West Bengal had remained in the front ranks of the resistance against the policies of the Congress. The Left and democratic forces in West Bengal posed a challenge to the Congress. The triumph of the masses in West Bengal would encourage people elsewhere to defy the authoritarian ploys of the Congress.

The Congress took recourse to semi-fascist terror to clamp down its sway on Bengal. The ninth congress of the CPI(M) noted how the Congress, desperate to cling to office, had trodden underfoot, parliamentary democracy, voting rights, and the dignity due to the opposition.

CPI(M)’S WARNING

As far back as 1972 had the CPI(M) commented at the ninth congress of the Party that factors like the failure to provide relief to the mass of the people, the tendency towards using implements of oppression, the weaknesses of the Left opposition and of the bourgeois parties, and the intolerance shown towards the opposition per se were indicative of the danger of a one-party authoritarianism. The warning went largely unheeded.

In the period preceding the ‘emergency,’ several big movements took place. These included strike actions, particularly the 22-day railway strike that was brutally suppressed. Elsewhere, Jayaprakash Narayan led a movement that brought to the fore issues like the emergent needs of the people, the issue of safeguarding democracy, and fulminating against corruption.

A rift among the bourgeois political parties was apparent when, in March of 1975, Jan Sangh, Congress (O), Bharatiya Lok Dal, and other bourgeois parties placed a charter of demands in the parliament. The CPI(M) was self-critical about its inability to take part in the anti-Congress movements across the country.

EMERGENCY CLAMPED DOWN

On June 12, 1975, the Congress was routed in the Gujarat state assembly elections. On the same day, the Allahabad high court adjudged that Indira Gandhi had won from the Rai Bareili parliamentary constituency by adopting illegal means. The court countermanded the election and ruled that Indira Gandhi would not be able to contest elections for the next six years.

The developments caused ripples to rise against Indira Gandhi within the Congress itself. Rather than tender her resignation, Indira Gandhi chose to declare ‘internal emergency’ on June 26, 1975. She wanted to convince the world that the emergency had to be imposed in order to secure the nation from the right reactionary forces and from the ultra Left. Her arguments do not hold water. Congress had always been friendly with outfits like the RSS whom Indira Gandhi had often praised. The ultra Left Naxalites were in 1975 a disorganised and spent force. Her arguments in favour of the ‘emergency’ were attempts to justify authoritarianism.

The Left remained riven with disunity. CPI jumped on the bandwagon of Indira Gandhi. The CPSU and other communist parties of some socialist countries openly supported Indira Gandhi. The CPI(M) Polit Bureau while calling for a broad front declared that the drive to build up greater and stronger Left and democratic unity must go on relentlessly.

 

 

DEMOCRACY UNDER ASSAULT

A K Gopalan who was the leader of the parliamentary party was stringent in his attack on the ‘emergency.’ He raised the following points in his speech in the Lok Sabha where the bill for approval of the ‘emergency’ was brought up on July 21, 1975.

A large number of opposition leaders were in jail, including 39 MPs, many of whom were Congressmen

The ‘emergency’ was an assault against the people and the people had been robbed of their constitutional rights to democracy

The union government did not tolerate opposition; nor did it put with criticism and movements and struggles were struck down

Three thousand CPI(M) workers were arrested in the name of an anti-rightist drive

The general fall-out of the ‘emergency’ were:

The parliament was deprived of all rights and privileges

Freedom of speech was suspended

Censorship of the media touched horrifying proportions

Thousands of political workers were jailed without trial, including MPs and MLAs

Opposition-run autonomous institutions were set aside

Oppression on the people was unleashed in the name of population control measures

Attempt was made to delete the fundamental rights from the Constitution through the 42nd amendment

The storm troopers of the Congress and the Youth congress created an atmosphere of terror in the country

RESISTANCE

The opposition to authoritarianism ran along two streams of resistance. The CPI(M) and some Left parties were engaged in continuous opposition. They were in the front ranks in the fight against semi-fascist terror in Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura. On the other hand, there were the rightist parties like the Congress(O), the Jan Sangh, and the Swatantra party who became vocal on the issue of democracy. The latter movement grew in stature under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan in parts of north and western India. After meeting with Jayaprakash Narayan in Delhi and Kolkata, the CPI(M) and the Left proposed joint, parallel, or coordinated movements on the issue of civic rights.

The central committee of the CPI(M) had in the meanwhile called for the formation of a broad front with eminent persons of all political parties for the restoration of democracy. It also called for the massing of broad forces, on the tactics of ‘united front from below’, of the supporters of the opposition political parties. It was said that the Left and democratic forces would act as the principal instruments of the broad assemblage of forces; and that the broad assemblage did not connote the formation of either a political party or an electoral front.

Based on this understanding, the struggle against authoritarianism grew across the country and it took covert as well as overt forms. The working class played a big role in this movement for the restoration of democracy. The movements took place despite the ban on such actions. Elsewhere, the Congress(O), the Jan Sangh, the Swatantra party, and the socialist parties combined to set up the Janata Party. The CPI(M) had no illusions about the programmatic understanding of the Janata Party. Its efforts were to ensure that the largest votes were cast against ‘emergency’ and that the opposition unity did not get to suffer. The election slogan of the CPI(M) was: Vote Against ‘Emergency’. In the 1977 elections, Congress(I) was defeated and the new Janata Party-Congress-for-Democracy government withdrew the ‘emergency.’ The struggle, however, had not ended.

STRUGGLE GOES ON

The sustained pressure of movements led and organised by the CPI(M) and the Left that finally saw the restoration over time of the democratic rights that the ‘emergency’ had abrogated. Withdrawal of MISA and of the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, too, saw the new regime drag its feet before the CPI(M) and the Left brought pressure to bear on the union government.

The tenth congress of the CPI(M) was very correct in pointing out that the struggle against overt attempts to clamp down authoritarianism was to be a long and sustained struggle. The defeat of the Congress in the elections never meant the defeat of the classes that created the ambience of authoritarianism. The correlation of class forces had not changed .The danger of parliamentary compromise on the question of removing the structure of authoritarianism continued to remain. The need of the hour was, noted the CPI(M), to unite the masses against authoritarianism.

Realising the importance of broad forum and democratic resistance, the CPI(M) spoke of the need to utilise the opportunity created by the rift in the bourgeois parties to set up the broad forum and to utilise it towards breaking down the authoritarian structure. It was found necessary to bring out from within the fold of the ruling classes and the parties of the ruling classes, those sections that opposed authoritarianism. It was Marxist strategy to mobilise any class and party for the safeguarding of democratic rights.

The tenth congress of the CPI(M) also noted that the danger of authoritarianism lay hidden, in the increasing domination of monopoly and big capitalists, and landlords, and in the increasing influence of foreign monopoly capital. The CPI(M) stated that while utilising the potential of wider resistance to authoritarianism, the CPI(M), and the working class must ensure that the domination and influence of these classes went on the wane.

To change the correlation of class forces and to free the masses from the twin bourgeois-landlord formations, it was necessary to build up a Left and democratic front. A priority of the Left and democratic front would be to continue unabated the struggle against authoritarianism. It was noticed soon enough after the formation of the Janata Party-CFD government that it had great and fundamental difference with the Left on the question of democracy.

Apart from hesitating in carrying forth the task of dismantling the ‘emergency’ structure, the union government, and Janata Party-led state governments, would chose to bring down oppression on the democratic rights and on democratic movements of the people across the country. Indira Gandhi was to take advantage of the disquiet the people felt at the economic policy of the new regime in Delhi and elsewhere.

The Left Front governments of Bengal and Tripura, on the other hand, engaged themselves in the task of expanding democratic rights. Among the issues of priority marked out by the LF governments were: abrogation of incarceration without trial, restoration of democratic rights, freeing of political prisoners, democratising the education system, and holding elections to the three-tier panchayat system. The policy of the LF governments gave relief to the working people, and as the forces of democracy became stronger, the forces of authoritarianism became weaker.

NEXT PHASE OF THE STRUGGLE

The analysis of the CPI(M) about the danger of authoritarianism was proved correct when Indira Gandhi came back to office in 1980. The National Security Act and the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) were put in place ––counter-democratic legislations each. The aim was to increase oppression as the protests against economic deterioration became widespread. ESMA was targeted to ban strike actions. Mail started to be censored. Parliament was to be made inconsequential. States rights started to be interfered with. A presidential form of government was talked about. The Constitution was being amended to suit authoritarian whims.

The rift in the opposition ranks, especially after the formation of the BJP, helped the Congress since the BJP was concerned only in becoming Congress’s alternative and was no longer interested in coalitions or fronts against authoritarianism. The eleventh congress of the CPI(M) (held in 1982) marked the challenge of authoritarianism as the principal danger.

Indeed, the Congress continued to be on the path authoritarianism even after the assassination of Indira Gandhi and of the triumph in the subsequent Lok Sabha polls. As the twelfth congress of the CPI(M) pointed out: the ruling classes and the ruling class parties could never implement their anti-people economic policies without organising an assault on the democratic norms. Democracy, indeed, continued to be attacked at the grass-roots level. NSA continued, MISA was re-imposed, strike actions were viciously attacked, the Andhra Pradesh state government was toppled, the government media was utilised to serve the interests of the Congress.

At the same time, the danger of separatism and secessionism started to raise their ugly heads in Punjab, Assam, north-eastern India and elsewhere — causing a threat to be poised against national unity and integrity. The opportunistic policy of the Congress increased the dimensions of the danger. As the twelfth congress of the CPI(M) noted: in office, the Congress endangers not only democracy but also national unity.

LEFT AND DEMOCRATIC FORCES

It was chiefly under the aegis and leadership of the CPI(M) that the process of building up unity among the Left and democratic forces started to gain momentum once more. The Bengal Left Front played a stellar role in this regard. Following discussions, and after the Bhatinda Congress, the CPI changed the line of cooperation with Congress and joined the Left forces. A coordination committee of the Left was set up at the parliamentary level. The unity of the Left was reflected in the expanding mass struggles. The Left unity also played a role in working out relationships with the opposition bourgeois parties.

In the case of the opposition bourgeois parties, two elements assumed importance. First, taking a secular stand became an effective indicator in the background of the enhanced danger of the forces of communalism. Second, the role of the regional parties became important in the task of safeguarding democracy as these parties gained in strength. Four conclaves of 17-18 opposition parties were held in Vijaywada, Delhi, Srinagar, and Kolkata in 1983-84. These developments saw an increase in the size and frequency of mass rallies on the question of safeguarding democracy.

COMMUNAL DANGER

It is not possible to discuss the struggle to uphold and strengthen democracy without referring to the menace of the communal forces. This is necessary for a correct analysis of the past, for a proper assessment of the present situation, and for the sake of struggle to be waged in the days to come to defend and strengthen democracy.

Before the elections of 1977, the Janata Party was formed. One of the constituents of that party was the Jan Sangh, which was guided by the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh or the RSS. The latter started to control the new regime right from the beginning and encouraged the growth of Hindu communalism in a big way. The Jan Sangh soon claimed that its members must have the right to be the members of both Jan Sangh and the RSS. The crisis within the Janata Party deepened. The CPI(M) had long back issued warnings against the Jan Sangh and the RSS.

Calling the authoritarian Congress and the communal Jan Sangh-RSS the ‘twin dangers,’ the CPI(M) Polit Bureau had in 1974 called for a struggle against both. On the July crisis of the Janata Party, the assessment of the CPI(M) was that following the unravelling of that party, the remaining entity was under the control of the Jan Sangh-RSS with a few socialist and progressive personalities yet remaining within the fold of the party. The CPI(M) refused to support the regime. The central committee of the CPI(M) stated that the struggle against authoritarianism and communalism must be accompanied by the struggle against vested stakes to defend the interests of the people, and to provide at least temporary relief to the masses of the people.

Political parties did not always seriously view the gaining of strength of communal forces during 1987-88. The CPI(M) in contrast talked of fighting the authoritarian Congress by mobilising a comprehensive opposition unity, while working to isolate the forces of communalism. At the height of the struggle against the plethora of corruption at the highest places during Rajiv Gandhi’s premiership, the central committee of the CPI(M) pointed out that the anti-communal stand of the CPI(M) and the Left urged upon those parties, which would enlist the help of the forces of communalism to form electoral alliances against the Congress, to rethink their line.

The CPI(M) in fact continued with energy to bring to the secular platform even those parties that were keen to strike a compromise with the BJP. The CPI(M) spoke clearly of the ‘twin danger of authoritarianism and communalism’ in the election manifesto for the 1989 polls. The CPI(M) also refused to have any seat adjustments with the BJP and, indeed, the CPI(M) candidates won from constituencies like Kanpur and Nawada defeating BJP candidates. On the issue of building of a temple at Ayyodhya during the time the V P Singh-led government was in office at the centre, the CPI(M) made clear that a firm stand must be taken on the question of secularism and against communalism. The Congress and the BJP together proceeded to vote out the Singh government, enhancing manifold the communal danger to the nation.

DANGER TO DEMOCRACY

Subsequently, the BJP government assumed office as a danger to democracy. The attacks on democracy included attacks on minorities, genocide in Gujarat, attempt to introduce presidential form of government through amendment of the Constitution, introduction of POTA, infiltration by the RSS not only in education institutions but also in the armed forces. Ideologically speaking, the communal drive is an attack on democratic values.

It is not correct to think that the danger to democracy would be forthcoming from a particular political party. The danger to democracy is inherent in the various forms of conflict between the people, the ruling classes, and the economic policy that the ruling classes would like to clamp down on the people. To take an example: those who argue forcibly in favour of liberal policies are also vocal in favour of curtailing the rights of the working people. Of late, the interference from the administration, and even from the judiciary, is increasingly witnessed on TU activities, against the right to strike, and against the right to hold rallies and meetings.

The policy of liberalisation, and the economic outlook that caters to the interests of the international finance capital, cannot be established in a full-fledged manner unless they are able to curtail the democratic rights of the people. Thus, the struggle for democracy is essentially important as a part of the struggle against the policy of liberalisation. (INN)