IT is a far cry from the bitter polemical wars of attrition waged by the two main communist parties in the '60s and '70s. But the relationship between the parties of the Indian Left in the aftermath of the last general elections is undergoing a subtle, though definite change.
The macro issue from which these differences stem is the varied perception of the CPI and the CPI(M) of what they term the "nationality question"—the nature and form of federalism and devolution of power in India. This is reflected in their respective stands on Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Chattis-garh, Vidarbha and even, to an extent, Kashmir. And, by implication, Gorkhaland.
The twist in the tale is provided by the fact that the CPI, by virtue of being part of the ruling coalition at the Centre, has ensured that these differences are no longer confined to an academic debate. And these problems, though long-standing, have come to the fore at a time when the senior CPI leadership is making a concerted attempt to recapture at least a part of its former glory—in terms of support and influence. Significant, especially since the first step taken by the CPI to this end was breaking ranks and joining the Central Government.
The initial salvo came on August 15, when Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda declared the United Front Government's intention to grant statehood to Uttarakh-and. Senior CPI(M) leaders admit they were taken aback at the suddenness of the move and by the fact that they were kept in the dark about it. Sources said that the matter was raised at an informal level with the CPI and a senior CPI leader, perhaps out of force of habit, even made a statement hinting that Union Home Minister Indrajit Gupta was not party to the decision.
All such innuendoes, however, were put to rest by Gupta himself as the CPI made it clear that it was very much part of the decision, which it supported to the hilt, CPI(M) opposition to the move notwithstanding. The CPI(M), worried about the move snowballing, had its worst fears realised when the Subash Ghising-led GNLF immediately upped the ante for a separate Gorkhaland to be carved out of north Bengal.
The Uttarakhand announcement also sparked off unrest in Jharkhand where leaders of all parties including the CPI, which has a significant presence in Bihar, demanded a similar decision. Then, last fortnight, all seven CPI councillors in the interim Jha-rkhand Autonomous Areas Council (JAAC) resigned from the body. The Bihar state committee of the party, with the approval of the central leadership, is now set on intensifying the struggle for a separate state for south Bihar. And as former prime minister V.P. Singh called for the formation of a body to look into the carving out of smaller states and to finish the job of the original States Reorganisation Committee, the murmurs of approval from the CPI were audible. Not so, from the CPI(M).
The real surprise, however, was the hint of disagreement over Kashmir. Indrajit Gupta was reported to have supported the idea of a division of the state into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh in a media interview. This was met with howls of protest from the CPI(M), and Gupta clarified that his remarks were misinterpreted. The CPI(M) dismissed it as the "opinion of one man" and not of the CPI. But there is clearly a section of the CPI which believes that the principle of smaller states should be applied across the board.
SAYS M. Farooqi, senior CPI leader: "Our state units in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have passed resolu-rate states in Chattisgarh and Vidarbha res pectively, apart from our stand on other such demands. Unlike the CPI(M), we do not believe that creating new, smaller states where the popular mood is in favour of such an arrangement, neccessarily gives rise to fissiparous and divisive tendencies In fact, it can have the opposite effect."
But it is when these differences are placed in the context of the CPI trying to assert its individual character that the lines of divi sion stand out in sharp relief. According to Farooqui: "The individual assessments and moves—whether tactical or political—of the party is what we have to look at. Why do you think we joined the Government?"
Over the past three months, the drive launched by the CPI to attract more people into the fold has culminated in a member ship of over five lakhs, which, for CPI General Secretary A.B. Bardhan, "is an important milestone". The two Union min isters from the CPI—Indrajit Gupta and Cha turanan Mishra—have been touring exte nsively and have two younger members of the CPI national executive, D. Raja and Atul
Kumar Anjan, 'attached' to them to deal with party work. In eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, once strongholds of the CPI, there is a serious attempt to "penetrate the Hindi heartland". The CPI's gameplan extends to using the stature of its ministers and the crucial portfolios they handle—Home and Agriculture—to make inroads into a vast constituency. The idea, say party leaders, is to ensure that brickbats are not all that come their way for joining the UF government. Sources point to the pressure being exerted on Deve Gowda by the CPI on the Bailadila mines issue as a prime example of this attempt to earn some bouquets as well.
What is preventing a public falling-out, apart from ideological affinity and agreement on other crucial issues, is the fact that both parties realise that their bargaining power increases as part of the Left Front.
The CPI does seem to be making an effort to balance its coalition with 'progressive centrist forces', especially on issues where it finds itself closer to them than to its Left partners, with the need to be an integral part of the Left Front working in coordination with the CPI(M). While CPI sources insist that the leadership is aware that this will require a delicate balancing act, CPI(M) insiders admit that an assertive CPI will take some getting used to. Already, there are stray voices in the CPI(M) which are critical of the CPI's alleged 'deviations'.
Says CPI(M) politburo member Prakash Karat: "The fact remains that the issues where we have differences with the CPI are longstanding, though you may consider them to have flared up now. We are all for autonomy to regions of larger states which have been neglected, but we think that a further division of states will give rise to divisive tendencies. And this has been our stand well before the demand for Gorkhal-and. The CPI has a right to expand and strengthen itself and there is more than ample room for both them and us to try and do so. I don't think they will seek to do so on the issue of reorganisation of states." That, however, seems very much on the CPI agenda, though it's certainly not the only issue.
The genesis of the present troubles can be traced to when the CPI decided to join the UF Government while the CPI(M) decided to give the UF only outside support. The CPI(M) is trying to keep its support within the parameters of an "attempt to establish a secular government and keep the BJP from power" argument, with the consequent emphasis on implementing the Common Minimum Programme and having frequent meetings on the steering committee. The CPI, on the other hand, having embarked on the high-risk course of joining the Government, is naturally inclined to see the CPI(M)'s parameters as only one of its many aims.
Tags