Ruffling The Reds

Apart from providing official confirmation of the fact that the CPI(M) continues to bedeeply divided over the issue, Basu’s views also lay bare the intense theoreticaldebates within; and are a clear pointer towards a power struggle in the party. Says asenior Left leader who was in constant touch with Basu throughout May 1996 when the CPI(M)Central Committee twice rejected the politburo decision to join the Government and letBasu lead it: "What Jyotibabu’s statement has done is to make public the debateover the future line and tactics of the Indian Left."

"It is a power struggle, but not in the sense as it is understood by the bourgeoisparties. Nobody within the Left movement or for that matter within the CPI(M) disagreesover the fundamentals; it is the dogmas that Basu and his followers in the party areseeking to jettison." Clearly, Basu has decided to widen the ambit of his appeal;addressing not just the CPI(M) and its leaders, but trying to involve the common peoplewhatever their class bias.

"By going public Basu is introducing a kind of glasnost within the party. Evenhardline communists admit that a lack of transparency is the precursor to losing contactwith the people and eventually it leads to self-destruction. That is what happened tocommunist parties in the Soviet Bloc through the past decade. Also, the CPI(M) is alwayscalling for greater transparency  from non-Left parties. Some of its own work tooshould be carried out more publicly," said a CPI(M) West Bengal state committeemember who says the party should have joined the Government.

Basu himself endorsed this at a speech he gave on January 2 in Calcutta whileinaugurating a new building for the CPI(M)’s Bengali mouthpiece, Ganashakti."Let there be self-criticism. In the open. Temporarily our enemies will take someadvantage, but if we are truthful and honest, the people will be with us." He shouldknow, having won five elections in a row between 1977 and 1996.

The genesis of Basu’s differences with the party’s leadership on the crucialquestion of handling power can be traced to the C P I(M)’s political programme of1964. And section 112 of this programme holds the key to the present controversy.Ironically, both Basu and hardliners who opposed the party’s participation in theGovernment, can interpret this section to suit themselves.

At one place it states that the party will never join any government or coalition whereit is not in a position to influence decisively the process of policy-making, which hasbeen quoted time and again by leaders such as Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechuri at the partyheadquarters and Anil Biswas and Biman Bose in West Bengal, to justify their opposition tojoining the UF Government. On the other hand, a section also emphasises the need for theparty to support "interim slogans" to deal with the swiftly changing alignmentof forces and political development and help in the creation of governments perceived tobe more responsive to the needs of the people. This is the area that Basu and those whosupport him are emphasising.

But what is really significant, is that many supporters of the Basu-Surjeet line, ledby Basu himself, are showing signs of going f u rther than that. "Section 112 is notcomprehensive enough in the present context. How can a formulation drawn up in 1964 be  the yardstick for what is happening in 1996-97? Naturally, it has to be amended inaccordance with the contemporary situation," said a Central Committee member.

But why has Basu raised the issue now? Sources in the Left parties feel that thoughBasu’s position has, over a period of time, been moving away from hardliners who havegained a degree of ascendency, the conflict was confined to the realm of theoreticaldebate. It was only in May 1996 that these percepts were put to the test. And Basu had toretire licking his wounds. "Both Surjeet and Basu were very disappointed at the time,but while Surjeet carried on regardless, it still obviously rankles with Basu," feelsa CPI leader.

ADDED to that is the fact that Basu’s line, despite attracting strong support fromSurjeet and some leaders from West Bengal, did not have the support of even the majorityof the Central Committee members from West Bengal in May 1996. And that situation prevailseven today. Observers feel that while the party rank and file in West Bengal isoverwhelmingly with Basu on this issue, the leadership is not. Hence, it is particularlygalling. Sources close to the chief minister give all of these as reasons for Basu beingunable to "hold out any longer".

Then again, Basu is a chief minister and has had to grapple with the ideologicalconundrum created by rigid party formulations on foreign investment and the role oftransnationals. And balance it with the demand for economic development in a financiallystruggling state. It is in this context that one of the reasons he gave for joining theGovernment at the Centre— that the CPI(M) would have done a better job ofimplementing the Common Minimum Programme— needs to be seen.

Also, it is being suggested that the consolidation within the Congress with SitaramKesri at the helm, coupled with the shakiness of the H.D. Deve Gowda administration, hasleft Basu convinced that the Government cannot last. And the Left may again find itself ina similar situation to that after the 1996 polls. Basu is saying, in effect, that shouldthis situation occur, the Left should join the Government. Though he has made it clearthat at a personal level he is ‘grateful’ to the Central Committee for‘saving his health’ by refusing to let the CPI(M) join the Government.

The CPI(M) politburo reacted to Basu’s statements by saying that the CentralCommittee decision not to join the Government had been fully debated and the chapter wasnow closed. While Surjeet supported Basu in May 1996, he has refrained from joining thecontroversy saying that he was a party to the decision. Though he did say in Calcutta that"Basu has not criticised the party", making it clear where his sympathies lay.

Senior leaders from Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, E.K. Nayanar and L. Gangadhar Rao, havebeen far more critical. And are pressing for a Central Committee meet to discussBasu’s stepping out of line. Inadvertently serving Basu’s purpose in revivingthe debate. "Basu the statesman has taken precedence over Basu the Communist. Heunderstands that only openness can help his party to survive, even if others cannot,"said a West Bengal state committee member. The final word?