The desolation of Kashmir

Seventeen year old Tufail Ahmad Mattoo, a class XII student, was preparing for the medical entrance exam. On 11 June, while coming home from his tuition class, he was caught in a street fight between a stone-pelting crowd and the police in Srinagar’s Rajouri Kadal area. Tufail took shelter in the Gani Memorial Stadium but a tear-gas shell fired by the police from close range landed on his head. He died on spot. The administration first tried to pass the blame on the protesters claiming that the boy was killed “to keep the pot boiling’’ but later retreated when eyewitness evidence and the autopsy report confirmed that the murder was caused by police firing. Since then, large-scale street violence has erupted across the Kashmir valley. The police and the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) were seen engaged in frequent clashes with incendiary crowds armed with nothing but stones and chunks of rocks. Reacting to the young stone-pelters, the security men, apparently ignorant about non-lethal ways of crowd control greeted the youngsters by firing bullets straight at them. The indiscriminate firing caused several civilians to die on the streets. Most of the casualties, shockingly, are teenagers and school going children, aged between nine and nineteen. Normal life is suspended in the Valley for months by strict and indefinite curfews imposed almost every day.

The End of CPI(M)?

The distressful performance of the CPI(M) in the 2009 Lok Sabha polls has uniformly delighted the Indian corporate bosses, big media, political analysts and a large section of the ‘conditioned’ civil society. Except in the north-eastern state of Tripura, where the party was able to maintain its dominance by winning both the Lok Sabha seats, the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s overall performance in the country was terrible. The party suffered a serious setback in the ‘red bastions’ of Bengal and Kerala. To some extent, the Kerala results were expected where internal strife between Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan and the state party secretary Pinarayi Vijayan has greatly affected the party’s electoral prospect. The Kerala electorates also have a tendency to switch their political preference from one election to the next. But the Bengal electorates have delivered the most startling verdict. As a result, an ecstatic mood is visible among sections of the ‘awake and aware’ Left intellectuals who have gone into raptures over the outcome and came out in open with their daggers of intellectual reproach to pounce upon the ‘utterly vindictive’ and ‘arrogant’ leadership of the CPI(M). The General Secretary of the party Mr. Prakash Karat is their primary target. Calling him the ‘Commissar’ who ‘understands nothing of India and even less of politics’, the mocking tone of their criticism is clearly determined by a longstanding contention against Mr. Karat and the party. (Source) Many of these intellectuals who furtively eulogize the Maoists and their tactical line on elections are leaving no stone unturned to bash the Marxists for their electoral debacle. To them it was ‘a resounding slap on the face of the CPM’. Moreover, the ‘joyous news’ has encouraged the celebrated anti-communists and turned them completely berserk to announce that the Left is now history! (Source) Almost immediately after the election results were out, the Anandabazar Patrika group has planted a fictitious story to establish a deep feud between the Bengal CPI(M) and the party’s Central leadership, also aiming at the party’s General Secretary. To take advantage of the situation, the media group also spread a speculative newsroom scoop about Buddhadev Bhattacharyya’s willingness to resign as Chief Minister! This entire disposition is quite comprehensible due to the fact that the Marxists had fostered end number of enemies as a result of the particular brand of politics they have practiced during the last five years.

To find out why the CPI(M) has suffered so badly, in this discussion we will attempt to probe the imperative aspects of the episode, remaining confined only to Bengal. It is just not an election debacle for the CPI(M) but a much deeper and serious crisis for the Left movement in India. The crisis is enormous, complex and multidimensional which is virtually impossible to tackle within the limited space of a blog post.

Neither the CPI(M) nor the opposition Trinamool Congress (TMC) or the Indian National Congress (INC) had ever predicted such a fantastic outcome during the poll process. However, it was almost certain that the TMC-INC combine, forged just before the elections to prevent the anti-Left vote to split, was going to perform well. This was predicted after the experience of last year’s Panchayat polls where the Left Front and the CPI(M) has lost several of their grass root strongholds. According to the inner party predictions and pre-poll surveys conducted by various media groups, the combine was expected to win near to eighteen seats. But no one could foresee the final tally where the CPI(M) was left with only 9 seats and was wiped out in ten districts out of nineteen in the state. There is no doubt that it will take quite some time for the awestruck CPI(M) state and central leadership to restore the conditions in their favor after such a magnitude of thrashing. The overall repercussions that will automatically follow will also be rather difficult to deal with in the coming days. For the honest and sincere party workers and sympathizers, it is tough to keep faith on the maxim – tomorrow is another day.

What went wrong? Why did the loyal supporters and sympathisers of 32 long years increasingly distanced them from the CPI(M)? Did the party leadership put too much weight on the 2006 assembly poll slogan ‘agriculture is our base, industrialization our future’ and closed their eyes about the discontents that was emerging from the Buddhadev Bhattacharyya government's land acquisition policy? Did the party ignore the core areas of its strength – the poor and underprivileged rural populace and failed to convince them about the seemingly pro-capital stance of the Left Front government? Is it because of the arrogant attitude of the grassroot party functionaries who have turned into present day landlords in the eyes of the people? Is it because of the corruption and nepotism practiced by a good section of the party leaders which has led to their detachment from the people? Has the CPI(M), which is generally perceived as a cohesive, dedicated, closely controlled and regimented party has actually been metamorphosed into an inefficient, dishonest and sick organization? Is it because even after identifying the rot within its different layers, the leadership was unable to take proper action from the fear of losing the image, mass character and dominance of the party? Any of these or a combination of these rudimentary causes could be the reason why this time the people have decided not to trust the party which was reelected just three years ago in 2006 by a mammoth people’s mandate. The fall of communist character within the CPI(M) is highlighted by many pundits as the core reason behind the election debacle. There are plenty of ready facts to support this argument but did these detrimental features suddenly develop within the party over the last three years? If not, then how does it explain the party’s triumphant victory in the 2006 assembly polls?

According to the initial findings, there are three major interlinked reasons behind the disaster in Bengal. The first of the reasons is the startling pro-Congress wave in the country for a stable government at the center that has entirely rejected the Left Front and the CPI(M)’s call for a third alternative. Riding on the wave, the TMC has gained considerably in south Bengal to rout the Marxists. At the all India level, the vote share of the INC has increased by 2 per cent while CPI(M)’s vote share in Bengal has decreased by 6 per cent. This statistics is a clear indication that the pro-Congress wave was not the central reason behind the poor show of the party. Secondly, as the biggest constituent of the Left Front government, the CPI(M) has failed to appropriately explain to the agricultural poor, small farmers and labourers why the government got involved in acquiring fertile land for industry. Instead of gaining their confidence, the party was caught up in direct confrontation with them. The party leaders cannot coherently explain why the industrialization drive in Bengal was different from the capitalist model of market economy. The twin episodes of Singur and Nandigram were the epicenter of the land-industry controversy. Particularly, the fateful events of Nandigram had ripped open a can of worms, of various shapes, sizes and colors, which had ultimately turned lethal against the party. The party tried hard to control the all-out attack but failed to counter it. The TMC successfully manipulated this failure to build-up grave discontent within the masses with the active assistance of various comprador agencies and their peers including some prominent intellectuals. The cunning tactics adopted by the ‘magnetic’ Trinamool chieftain to extend her sweet lap towards all anti-CPI(M) forces including the Maoists for an all-out attack was one of the key reasons behind the reinforcement of public opinion against the CPI(M). Sensing that the state government is on back foot, the Trinamool chieftain almost ran a parallel government in the state, dictating terms and conditions to every government policies and programs. During the election campaign, the party had tried to relate the opposition’s violent anti-CPI(M) agitation with the semi-fascist terror atmosphere perpetrated by the Bengal Congress against them in the seventies. But 32 years is too long a time for people to even forget the face of their real enemies. The land acquisition controversy has gravely affected the party and was directly responsible for the erosion of a traditionally loyal and sizable Muslim support base of the Left, particularly in the rural centers of Bengal. The abrupt upshot of the Rizwanur Rehman case (Source) and TMC’s bitter and aggressive campaigning following the half-truth findings of the Sachar Committee Report concerning the backwardness of the Muslims in Bengal was the other contributory factors behind the loyalty shift of the Muslims to the opposition. The third potential reason was the accumulated ‘sins’ from three decades of uninterrupted power and the disdainful behavior and fraudulent activities of a section of arrogant and overconfident party leaders who had completely lost touch with the people to feel there pulse. All the three reasons clubbed together will make clear why large number of people has lost their trust on the party and its leaders – at least for now.

Few months before the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, the Left parties withdrew their support from the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government over the issue of the Indo-US Nuclear deal. The CPI(M) under Mr. Karat undertook a pivotal role to strongly opposed the deal from an ideological standpoint. There were reasonable arguments to oppose the various tricky aspects of the nuclear deal which the party leaders had credibly raised at that time. But all these remarkable efforts looked like a grave tactical blunder when the party leadership failed poorly to convey the logic behind their opposition, the subservient attitude of the Prime Minister and the American lobby within the UPA, the Congress government’s disgraceful surrender before US imperialism and the evil designs behind the deal to the general public. The whole nuclear deal debate was reduced into an intellectual squabble between pro-deal and anti-deal argumentative groups and could not accurately expose the hidden threat – the threat of a close strategic and military tie up with the US that will drastically overturn India’s independent foreign policy.

CPI(M) leaders might have anticipated that opposing the deal from an anti-imperialist ideological standpoint will largely elevate the party’s image. But nothing of that sort happened. Instead, when the INC confederates smoothly roped in the Samajwadi Party in support of the government, the Left and the CPI(M) at one shot lost its significance in national politics. They were unsuccessful to convincingly establish the point that supporting the Congress led UPA government was only a strategic compromise, keeping in mind the horrendous deeds of the former BJP led NDA government and its fascist associates. The support was not given as a blank-cheque to the Congress Party to rule the country according to their wish. It was based on a Common Minimum Program (CMP) from which the UPA was gradually but deliberately shifting away. Halfheartedly conducted propaganda by the party mass organizations was too feeble to counter the overwhelming publicity from the neo-liberal bourgeois media in support of the deal and the party lost its credibility in this extensive media war. The CPI(M) and its leaders turned into a villain in the minds of the people for destabilizing the government and ‘betraying the nation’. Moreover, the Left in general and the CPI(M) in particular had surprisingly ignored the opportunity to convert the nuclear deal debate into a major election issue. The party did not even try to explore the inherent possibilities of the topic for which it has taken such an extreme step and risked its political future. This gave chance to people like the expelled leader Mr. Somnath Chatterjee to describe the party’s central leadership as ‘narcissistic’. They had similarly failed to reap benefits from the impressive role they had played to stall the anti-people policies of the UPA government. The Congress on the contrary, had successfully twisted the Left’s positive contribution to the UPA government into their favor.

The CPI(M) has also paid a heavy price for its unrealistic overdrive to forge alliance with dubious political parties in a deviant urge to build up a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative third force. To occupy the non-Congress, non-BJP space, the party leadership had browsed for ‘progressive’ bourgeois allies and embraced almost every political party who was free floating in the uncertain pre-election political milieu. The hobnobbing of party leaders with political groups of unconvincing background, most of them former allies of the ultra-rightist BJP, has not gone down well with the masses. The leadership was unable to even convince a large section of their dedicated party workers to carry the idea of the third alternative among the electorates. The election outcomes have again proved that an opportunistic alliance based on simple electoral gains and devoid of specific programme oriented political struggles is neither creditable nor viable. CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury has rightly described it as a ‘cut-paste job’ done on the eve of the elections. But how did leaders of the stature of Mr. Karat or Mr. Yechury and the entire CPI(M) central committee got carried away by such an enthusiastic gamble? This question still remained unanswered. What was the rationale behind allying with political buccaneers like Deve Gowda and Mayawati, who within three days after the results were declared, jumped in the UPA bandwagon to offer their unconditional support? The party leaders cannot evade this pertinent question by simply stating the terrible step of tactlessness as a mistake.

Today, many of the Left Front partners are putting the entire blame for their poor show on the ‘big brother’ CPI(M) and trying to wash themselves clean in front of the public. Central leaders are blamed for ‘blindly toeing the line of Prakash Karat’ and ‘following the agenda set by CPI(M)’. During the Nandigram incident, several Left Front partners and their upstart leaders had embraced the short-cut way to fame by openly and consistently criticizing the CPI(M) leadership in harsh and offensive language and tried hard to prove how pure Leftist they are. But unknowingly or intentionally they became a pawn in the cunning game of the anti-left forces and their valued representative – the Trinamool chieftain. The Left Front as a whole lost its trustworthiness and appeared to be deeply stained during that time. Though just before the Lok Sabha elections, the dissent Left Front leaders tried to showoff their unity with the CPI(M). But how much this showoff has been conveyed and accepted in the grass root level after all the previous acts of dissent is doubtful. Even if we consider that the unity was nearly total, the wise electorates, frustrated by the attitude of the left leaders were definitely not convinced. And they were absolutely right to do so. After the election results were out, the anti-CPI(M) rhetoric erupted again from several Left Front partners. This proves that a lot of things are not hale and hearty in the Left Front. A void has developed after the demise of the pragmatic old guards and the bigheaded new generations leaders seem to be more engaged to destroy than build.

Accepting the verdict, the CPI(M) politburo in a recent statement has stated that “Both national and state specific factors are responsible for the poor performance”. The politburo has also affirmed that the party will now “seriously examine the reasons for these reverses…conduct a self-critical review to form the basis for corrective steps” and will make “all out efforts to regain the support and confidence of the people”. To what extend this ‘self-critical review’ is conducted and ‘corrective steps’ is taken will determine how the party confronts the populist politics of Mamata Banerjee and her coterie of despotic, deceitful, vicious and repulsive leaders to ‘regain the support and confidence of the people’. Instead of acting as the crisis managers of the bourgeois parties, the party leaders should concentrate on streamlining the mass fronts. For quite some time, the mass fronts have grown droopy about prolonged mass struggles and has almost drifted away from the ideology of a Marxist-Leninist party. If the CPI(M) honestly introspects, corrects their mistaken policies and tactics and effectively turn the election debacle into a watershed, it will be the ideal homage to the countless party workers who had selflessly dedicated their entire life for the party and the Left movement in the country. The task is easier said than done.

In spite of their failure to act in response to the needs of the poor, in spite of the neo-liberal, anti-people policies of economic reforms it has pursued during the last five years of their governance, the centrist Congress Party has nevertheless received a comfortable mandate to rule the country for the next five years. Due to the enormous error of political judgment committed by them, the CPI(M) and the Left could not gain a bit from the prevailing discontent among the masses. This is the biggest irony of the 2009 general elections.

Towards a secular pro-people alternative?

The emergence of a third alternative has raised some serious doubts in the mind of the Indian electorate. Theoretically, the concept of a third alternative is exciting as it has the potential to be more consensus-based and apparently is capable of reflecting the alternative opinion of the electorate in a healthier way. But in practice the idea is underlined by skeptical connotations. The main cause behind this doubt is derived from the historical experiences of similar non-Congress, non-BJP formations of the past. Whenever there was a post-election positive atmosphere generated by political conditions for an alternative force, most of the efforts had failed to deliver in accordance to the public expectations due to the diverse political objectives of the consequent political parties. For many of the constituents, the formation of a ‘Third Front’ was envisaged purely in mere electoral terms, keeping in mind their restricted political equations. These political parties, many of them with strong regional perspectives usually come together in a situation of electoral compulsions but soon enough, due to their conflicting ambitions, prefer to roll back into their respective regional agenda. The lack of common vision and objectives between the constituents quickly move towards internal differences, political and personal rivalry between the leaders sprung up in the most deplorable manner which ultimately compels the formation towards its untimely collapse. Instead of sustaining its significance as a robust force, the ‘Third Front’ formations of the past, on the contrary, have strengthened the Congress and the BJP and both the parties has immensely benefited by the ‘failed experiments’ of the formations. But in spite of this fact, one cannot deny that the experiments had its crucial significances also. Whether we like it or not, it has definitely strengthened the Indian democracy by facilitating the progress of smaller parties to grow important in national politics.

Stability of a future government is one of the prime criteria to the electorates while they cast their votes. There is a deep reservation in the mind of the Indian electorates about the third force concept as all similar non-Congress, non-BJP governments in the past have failed to complete their full term. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the Indian electorate is not too much enthusiastic about the third alternative formation. They are asking – is the alternative capable to provide stability? Will it be possible for them to keep aside their conflicting ambitions to enforce pro-people policies and effectively keep the communal forces at bay? At a time of unprecedented global economic crisis, will it be possible for them to co-opt an effective economic policy which will protect the jobs and livelihood of millions of common people and at the same time encourage the economy to prosper? All these are pertinent questions which need to be convincingly addressed.

The Left is presently playing a key role in giving shape to another pragmatic concept of a third alternative in the 2009 General Elections. They have specified that their aim is to put up a non-Congress, non-BJP choice in front of the electorates and to provide an alternative platform for the people, who do not want to support either the Congress or the BJP. They have laid emphasis on the need for alternate pro-people social and economic reforms and an independent, non-aligned foreign policy which will be qualitatively different from the policies which the two largest national parties have a tendency to follow. According to the CPI(M) general secretary Mr. Prakash Karat, “…democratic and secular forces who can agree with the Left on pro-people economic policies, on social justice measures, and an independent foreign policy” will join hand for this proposed formation. The Left has primarily achieved some vital success during the build-up process of the third alternative. Some regional parties spread across various states of the country, smaller but important in electoral terms, have already agreed to be part of this formation. The prospect that more parties associated with both the BJP led NDA (National Democratic Alliance) and the Congress led UPA (United Progressive Alliance) are likely to join the new formation has also brightened. The Congress and BJP both has initially tried to ignore this formation but in the manner both are mocking the formation and aggressively attacking it with their selective rhetoric in various election rallies is a clear indication that they are growing more and more tensed. The prime reason behind their anxiousness is due to the lack of any major election issue this time. The possibility to win the mind of the Indian voters has therefore become dim and both the Congress and the BJP is finding great difficulty to build-up public support around themselves.

In this scenario, the regional political forces will gain momentum and will certainly play a prominent role in the national level of politics. The possibility that the Congress and the BJP might lose significant ground in the hands of their principal regional opponents in respective states is growing stronger. Also when too many parties are knocking against each other for a limited space, the situation becomes more complicated for the large national parties to deal with. The important fact that both of them have a very limited presence in some of the key big states of the country which contribute close to 50 per cent of the total seats in the Indian Parliament is hard to ignore. This is also the reason why many of the present NDA-UPA allies are keeping their intentions obscure and maintaining a fluid state to reconsider all sorts of possibilities that are likely to emerge after the polls. Even crucial regional parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) while showing interest about a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative have declined to be part of any pre-poll alliance.

The concept of a third alternative is significantly different from the concept of a ‘Third Front’. It should be noted that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which is playing a pivotal role in giving shape to this ‘viable, credible and sustainable electoral alternative’ has never called this formation a ‘Third Front’ but mentioned it as a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative. The term Third Front is actually a misinterpretation of the media. While clarifying the concept, the party has said that it does not conceptualize this third alternative purely in electoral terms but as a force ‘forged on the basis of people’s sustained struggles and movements’. Instead of confining itself to political manoeuvring and electoral bargaining, the desired objective of the party is to contribute to a progressive shift in Indian politics through joint popular struggles on a pro-people agenda built around the two basic issues – opposition to communalism and anti-people economic policies of the Congress and the BJP. The CPI(M) also perceives that opposing anti-people economic policies also means taking a principled anti-imperialist position that will uphold the sovereignty of India in foreign policy issues. Regional secular parties, those who reflect the discontent of common people against the anti-people economic policies will be forced to join this third alternative because they will eventually feel the pressure from their own social base as the living conditions of the masses is deteriorating further and further.

There is really no significant differences in the liberalization and privatization policies of the Congress and the BJP. The successive NDA and UPA regimes both have subscribed to liberalism friendly policies and encouraged rampant privatization in significant social sectors like health and education. Low state spending and reduction of subsidies for agriculture sector has intensified the agrarian crisis and consequently led to more and more farmer suicides not only in Maharashtra but also in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. During the UPA rule, the Left ‘intrusion’ has safeguarded the banking sector from the impact of the global economic crisis, the insurance sector from foreign direct investment and helped to protect many other public sector industries from the disinvestment policy of the Government. Its continuous pressure on the Government has also forced it to approve the Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the Forest Tribal Bill. The Congress led UPA has also struck a strategic alliance with the United State through the military collaboration agreement which is an unprecedented shift from India’s sovereign foreign policy. But the manner in which the Congress led UPA went after the dubious Indo-US nuclear deal which the Left has been opposing from the beginning has greatly disillusioned them about the Congress.

The Congress led UPA has failed to address the alarming price rise of essential commodities including the price of drugs and medicines. This has severely affected the lives of the population who belongs to the lower level of the socio-economic stratum. The economic policies of UPA were targeted towards favoring big businesses and as a result have widened the social divide in the country. The urban and rural rich have reaped the maximum benefits of the so called ‘development’ and at the same time the vast majority has sunk to a greater extent into poverty and hunger. It is bizarre that in a country where 230 million people are undernourished, 40 per cent of children less than three years of age are underweight, 77 per cent of the population spends less than Rs. 20 a day and 39 per cent of adult population is illiterate – four out of the ten richest people in the world are Indians! Who are actually benefiting from the four years of ‘consecutive economic growth’ in GDP till 2008 is evident from these facts.

In the absence of any major election issue, the BJP has returned to its nucleus – pulling out the Hindutva agenda from their closet. Obviously, a leopard cannot shed its spots. By raising the Ram temple and Ram Setu issue and boasting to replicate the Gujarat model, BJP is hoping to stir up a viable and effective election wave that might pave the way for L.K. Advani to occupy the Prime Minister’s seat. In the recent years, communal forces have continued with their vicious and divisive activities under the political umbrella of the BJP. The party continues to cover nefarious elements like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal, those who has perpetrated violent attacks on Muslim and Christian minorities in Orissa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajashtan and Chhattisgarh. The recent Barun Gandhi episode is a ringing proof of this nakedly divisive politics of the BJP. It stands for the most reactionary forces of India and keeps on communalizing the terrorism issue by attributing all terrorist activities to the Muslim community of this country. The party’s hypocritical stand on the Malegaon blasts case where Hindutva extremists were arrested for perpetrating the heinous crime has brought out the diabolical disposition of the BJP in the open. The BJP is essentially a regressive force that seeks to pass off majority communalism as ‘nationalism’ and represents a ‘distilled communalism’ in all aspects of their agenda. Instead of involving the common masses to build up a powerful and unified alternative force against this communalism menace, the Congress has deliberately preferred to take a soft and safer stand in the BJP ruled states where they are the chief opposition party. In a state like Gujarat, it has even taken the path of soft Hindutva – just for electoral gains.

There are predictions that the Left will be unable to sustain its strength of 60 MPs in this election. The lack of any major national election issue possibly will also adversely affect the Left’s prospects in Bengal and Kerala. Though it is early to comment on how much the Left will loose their grounds, one thing is certain. Even if it looses ground, the loss will be replenished by the third alternative allies including the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which will help them to remain important in national politics. This specific aspect has ringed alarm bells to the Congress and BJP. Both the parties are not only worried about their incapability to win enough seats to be in command of any future coalition, the sturdy presence of an ideology bound Left force is always viewed as a spoiler by them. In whichever form it might ultimately shape-up, the significance of the third alternative lies here.

Image courtesy: picasaweb.google.com

The issue of Speaker Somnath Chatterjee

Mr. Somnath Chatterjee has surely established himself as a brilliant Speaker. The son of Sri Nirmal Chandra Chatterjee, a Hindu-Mahasabha leader of Kolkata, Somnath was brought into the party fold in the year 1968 by Pramod Dasgupta, the stalwart leader of The Communist Party of India (Marxist). In 1971 he was elected in Lok Sabha for the first time as an independent candidate supported by the CPI(M). From 1989 onwards, he uninterruptedly won from Bolpur constituency in West Bengal as a CPI(M) candidate and was the party’s leader of parliament. On 4 June 2004, the 14th Lok Sabha unanimously elected him the Speaker of the house which was his 10th term in the Indian Parliament. After being expelled from the party on 23rd of July, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee is receiving a lot of sympathetic support from odd quarters and might have turned into a sort of a hero to the Indian middle-class by defying the party line. All the sympathies are but for the time being only.

But how did he become the Speaker when CPI(M) was not a part of the UPA coalition? The Speaker’s post to Mr. Chatterjee was a reciprocal offering by the UPA and its leading constituent the Congress party to the CPI(M) in return of their support to the UPA coalition government. It was not a show of courtesy but a smart political decision taken by the Congress party think-tank to cement CPI(M) with the UPA coalition. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee was the obvious choice in this political gamble, as he holds a temperate persona among the CPI(M) parliamentarians. That he was never a fierce grass-root leader but a representative of the party in the higher stratum of the society also gave him an added advantage for the unanimous choice.

It is difficult to digest the unfeasible logic propagated by many opinion builders that soon after his party approved him for the Speaker’s job, Mr. Chatterjee suddenly turned an exceptional ‘apolitical’ individual by rubbing out the past forty years of his political life and beliefs in one stroke. How could one forget that before becoming the Speaker, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee was a highly respected member in the CPI(M) and unquestionably was going to continue as the leader of the party in parliament, the post he possessed from 1991? While withdrawing support along with the other Left Front partners the CPI(M) hence included his name in the list of party MP’s which was kept before the President of India. It is to be noted that while Mr. Chatterjee had earlier resigned from the CPI(M) Central Committee after being elected Speaker, he was still holding the primary membership of the party. The party had explained its stand on the Speaker issue by saying that because after withdrawal of support the party will no longer remain a supporter of the government but take the role of the opposition, being a member of the CPI(M) Somnath Chatterjee therefore cannot continue as the Speaker but resign. The Lok Sabha Speaker is never elected from the opposition side.

Surprisingly, Mr. Chatterjee felt miffed by his own party’s act. He refused to vacate his Speaker’s chair because according to his conviction, he is holding an apolitical constitutional position and to preserve the sanctity of his post no longer thinks himself as a party man. Through his conduct, Mr. Chatterjee gave a clear signal to his party that he is deliberately trying to distance himself. The Speaker’s office went to the extent to raise objection even on Mr. Prakash Karat addressing Mr. Chatterjee as “comrade”! Still the party did not take any hasty decision and patiently waited. Mr. Prakash Karat restrained Central Committee members who wanted to expel Mr. Chatterjee before the trust vote and advised them to wait till the vote of confidence on 22nd July was over. Hopes were there that Mr. Chatterjee might change his stand and resign on 23rd of July. When nothing likely happened CPI(M) Polit Bureau announced the expulsion of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee by releasing the following brief statement:

The Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has unanimously decided to expel Somnath Chatterjee from the membership of the Party with immediate effect. This action has been taken under Article XIX, clause 13 of the Party Constitution for seriously compromising the position of the Party.

It is clear from the above stated Polit Bureau announcement that in an important political situation, when the party required him the most, Mr. Chatterjee’s decision to defy his party call was a shocking blow and too much humiliating for the party. The Polit Bureau mentioned it as ‘seriously compromising the position of the Party’. The decision to expel him was an internal disciplinary action which is a significant quality of any good organization, certainly for a Communist party. If for arguments sake we consider CPI(M)’s decision as an injustice to Mr. Chatterjee, then why Mr. Chatterjee’s decision cannot be considered unjust for his party? A Central Committee member of CPI(M) has commented that it would have been appropriate if he had resigned from the party membership when the party asked him to step down as the Speaker. But Mr. Chatterjee did not do so and the party was compelled to take this step. Is it not bizarre a situation where CPI(M) is in opposition to the government and at the same time one of its member continues as the Speaker of Lok Sabha with the ruling coalition’s support?

It is too early to comment on why Mr. Somnath Chatterjee defied his party in such a manner. It could be the result of the brewing generation gap in the party or could be some other paltry reasons, which are now unfolding by some media reports. There are reports those are suggesting that he was expressing his disapproval of the hardliner stand of the party under Mr. Prakash Karat to the CPI(M) leaders close to him. He was also against the withdrawal of support, which he had expressed through a note to the Polit Bureau members questioning the insight of the party voting with the BJP. Media reports has also suggested that Mr. Chatterjee was irked when the party twice refused to nominate him as candidate for the post of President and Vice President for which he had lobbied hard within the party. None of these reports supports his present heroic stature. On the contrary, the reports suggest that Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, at the twilight of his long and impressive leftist political life has deviated from the Left ideology and directing himself on a deplorable path of opportunism.

A lot of his fake well wishers are shedding crocodile tears and making his expulsion a pretext to slam the Communist Party and its policies. For many CPI(M) leaders and party workers, Somnath Chatterjee’s expulsion was genuinely heartbreaking but at the same time inevitable too.

Image courtesy : The Hindu

Indian Democracy: beyond the trust vote

The majority of the people’s representatives of India, better known as members of parliament have kept their trust on the ability and performance of the Manmohan Singh government. The outcome was broadly expected. For the last couple of days, the Prime Minister, his party, and their allies were exceedingly confident of winning the trust vote. A mysterious uncertainty around the events, created by media speculations was proved to be pointless and inaccurate. Looking at the composition of the Indian parliament before the trust vote, the number counts between the two groups were tight but surely the emissaries of the ruling coalition were much clever than their opponents.

It is now reasonably clear that the ploy of survival were planned many days in advance, long before the Left had withdrawn their support. The alliance with Amar Singh and his Samajwadi Party was also the result of a previously plotted stealthy operation. The logic given by the Congress party that they had sensed the ‘conscience’ amongst the MP’s on the nuclear deal correctly and therefore were so confident about the outcome is utter rubbish. They had cunningly played a calculated political game, with lot of undercover transactions and neatly won the trust vote. In the present appalling quality of Indian political biosphere where ‘money doesn't talk, it swears’, winning a vote inside the parliament house requires high caliber players of similar quality. The Congress party and their crooked friends are flawlessly brilliant in this aspect. Compared to them Mr. Prakash Karat and the Left leaders are greenhorns.

Yesterday was a miserable day for Indian democracy. The whole nation, glued in front of television sets viewed the hideous face of our parliamentary democracy where MP’s from the main opposition party displayed bundles of money inside the house to prove that the ruling coalition was directly offering kickbacks to abstain. We saw rowdy members shouting at each other like a bunch of street urchins. We saw senior politicians regularly disrupting the house procedures in the most indecorous manner. And the people of India have to endure this for the sake of saving a government for eight months!

Had the bright smiling face of an ‘apolitical’, spotlessly clean Prime Minister, coming out from the filthy parliament house uplifting his thumb enlighten the Indian public as if he has conquered a great battle on behalf of his fellow citizens? After the results, the craggy words coming out from the foaming lips of Amar Singh were sounding like a rogue delivering sermon. The people of this country must have forgotten the real issue after watching all these puerile disorders from our honorable men and women for two long days. Let us make them remember the issue. The issue was: should India go ahead for the Indo-US nuclear deal? Nineteen decadent votes have settled it.

Manmohan Singh has remarked in his debate speech that Mr. Karat with the other Left leaders has greatly miscalculated the situation while withdrawing their support from the government. He also spoke that he was feeling like a bonded labour under the continuous interference by the Left. Hard words indeed from a crooner! The media immediately jumped upon and persistently started to harp the words. These views are obviously in accordance to the merits of the perceiver. Where is the question of a miscalculation? Did the left really ‘calculate’ anything before taking their decision to withdraw? Honestly speaking, Left’s weakest point is behind their decision there was no calculation.

From the beginning, Left had opposed the nuclear deal from ideological and political grounds. They indisputably believed that the deal was not good for the country. Thus, they tried to resist the stubborn government as a responsible political group. They perceived it as their obligation to the people of India because the UPA government was formed as a result of their support. They tried hard to convince and caution the government not to move ahead with issues which are not included in the Common Minimum Program (CMP), the basis of their support. Was the nuclear deal included in the CMP? When all of their efforts failed, when they clearly understood the obstinate attitude of the government and it’s Prime Minister, they had no other option but to withdraw their support. If they had calculated according to the Prime Minister’s party line, things would have been different.

Was the Prime Minister expecting to strike some sort of a dubious deal with the Left and solve the issue surreptitiously as the Congress party has done with Amar Singh? The Prime Minister was also feeling suffocated like a bonded labour by the constant interference of the Left. This was indeed a truthful confession. How could someone allow such a thing to happen with him when he had long ago merrily enrolled himself as a bonded labour under the US and now resolutely planning to enroll the whole country likewise?

The enemy of the people

A few hours later, it will be clear whether the present Indian government loses or wins the trust vote on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Whatever the outcome may be, it remains broadly insignificant. The government, if it wins the trust votes, will anyway rule the country for few more months as the scheduled general election is only 7-8 months away. If the government loses, the only difference will be that the election might take place a few months earlier. The win will give opportunity to a ‘statesman’ Prime Minister who does not understand politics, his party, and allies to spoil the Indian democracy a bit more. If the government loses, the country will pass through a short phase of caretaker governance. By the way, was there any functioning government in India for the last couple of months? This unfortunate country was been governed by a bunch of domestic and international brokers who has made a mockery of the word ‘governance’.

Whatever may happen, have less doubt on the future of the Indo-US nuclear deal. The deal will face absolutely no crisis at all. The US, yesterday has made it clear that they will have no problem to sign the deal even with a minority Indian government. They are adamant to go ahead with the deal and whatever hurdles may come on the way will be simply brushed aside by their power and propaganda. The Indian media, therefore, should not show a worried face to the nation on the future of the deal. The deal is undoubtedly through. The small opposition voices are irrelevant for a major cause concerning the bright, vibrant, and ‘powered with nuclear power and America’ future of India.

Instead of worrying on the deal’s future, the media should now concentrate more on what they are fussily doing all these days. Continue humiliating the Left for every action it takes and degrade them. Thus, they must locate lawyers, bureaucrats, constitutional experts, journalists and politicians’, those who had fossilized their mind in their anti-communist convictions and provide them prime time coverage to spill venom against the Left. The media should build up imaginary half-truth stories to slow poison the viewers and readers mind on any subject that might disgrace the communists. See how the Indian Express (Why Indian? Why not for the sake of freedom of speech, call it the ‘American Express’?) prepared a major yellow story on Bolpur constituency in West Bengal and illustrated how the voters there have actually voted for Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, the nice individual; not for CPI(M), the Stalinist party. If CPI(M) had nominated anyone other than Mr. Chatterjee they would have certainly lost the seat! The energetic ‘American Express’ journalist interviewed two or three from cozy Shantiniketan and surrounding areas, which are insignificantly tiny parts of the entire constituency (obviously, the reporter and his bosses were in a hurry to cash on the situation) and published their opinion as the opinion of the entire electorate. Clearly, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee has suddenly become a national hero only because he has ‘defied’ his own party and decided to immortalize himself by continuing as the Speaker of the house. Mouth watering stories like how the Bengal CPI(M) is shivering to face an early Lok Sabha poll and how sharp differences in the party are oozing out on the issue of voting with BJP are regularly making headlines.

The Prime Minister looks a relieved person today. And why not? The Indian media is dutifully sharing the extra load of his personal political agenda. They also have vital reasons to do that. Why should they miss the chance to lubricate the bottoms of their American bosses?

The media thus propagates, “What a pity to see a party like CPI(M), the party of Jyoti Basu and Harkishan Surjeet, tolerating the stubborn and egocentric Karat family!” According to their “permanent propaganda policy”, the Indian media therefore continue with their sacred mission to highlight Mr. Prakash Karat and the Indian Left as the enemy of Indian people.

In the mean time, their bosses continue with their assignment: to sell out the country.

How the Left betrayed the Nation!

Chairman of the Congress media committee Mr. Veerappa Moily is a loudmouthed person. Recently he has charged the Left for “joining with communal forces to destabilize the nation against secular forces”. He has also said that “they have not betrayed the UPA or the Congress. They have betrayed the nation” and “they want their personal prestige to have overriding effect on national prestige”. Three times Mr. Moily has used the word ‘nation’ to accuse the Left: destabilizing nation, betraying nation and overriding nation’s prestige. This frequent use of the word ‘nation’ has become a common penchant of the Congress and the Samajwadi Party to justify their politics after the Left has announced to withdraw support to the Manmohan Singh government. Samajwadi leader duo Mulayam and Amar Singh has earlier used the word ‘nation’ to justify their support to the same government.

We have discussed the ‘national prestige’ issue in a previous post. Let us now see how the Left has ‘betrayed the nation’. The main accusation is that the Left has joined hands with the communal forces to destabilize and betray the secular fabric of the nation. This is a ridiculous and obnoxious charge floated by the Congress against the Left, which had supported them for government formation in 2004 on the one and only issue: to prevent the communal forces from power. The basis of the Left’s support to the UPA can be found from the document ‘Report on Political Developments’ adopted by the Central Committee of CPI(M) on July 30-August 01, 2004 just after the Lok Sabha elections:

The isolated Left

After the volte-face of Mulayam Singh in the pretext of ‘country’s interest’ and resolving the age-old enmities with the Congress party, the politics in New Delhi has become throbbing again. Mulayam has announced that communalism is far more dangerous than imperialism, Advani is far more dangerous than Bush. What a perceptive politician that he is! This mood is reflecting in the electronic media where experts have already started to highlight who are the winners and losers in this whole drama. Everyone is sure of one thing. Prakash Karat, the leader of the Left is the foremost loser. A secret deal termed as the ‘master stroke’ has isolated the Left, made them irrelevant now in the national politics. Many hawks are jubilant. Manmohan Singh can now march ahead to finalize the nuclear deal without any more hindrance because everyone except the anti-American Left has cleared their conscience; the deal is good for the country.

And why not? Abdul Kalam has assured the knowledge-seeking politicians how India will benefit from the deal. The depressing part of this country’s scientific psyche is, Abdul Kalam is highly esteemed as the undeniable authority to all scientific issues in India. The former President, phrased by the Indian media as the ‘People’s President’, is considered by the establishment as the topmost living scientist while this man is in fact more a technocrat than a scientist, who began his career as a technology professional. He is the brain behind India’s guided missile program and “regards his work on India’s nuclear weapons program as a way to assert India’s place as a future superpower”. He was the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Ministry who believes that “.....peace is ensured by strength. Missiles were developed to strengthen the country.” and “Only strength respects strength”. The ideological moorings of Kalam were never in conflict with the jingoistic trend propagated inside the collective psyche of modern India by the authorities. Who can imagine that this man would ever advice the sly politicians against the nuclear deal?