The Left: Rudderless, Confused!
- Where and how to go from here?
- 10 parties patiently take the flack in stride
(Vithal
Rajan)
Dr
Vithal Rajan
A grand gathering of Left-wing parties of
Telangana, including the CPI, the CPM, the different M-L factions, the Forward
Bloc, and socialist groups, held a meeting to ‘develop consensus,’ on October
21st, at the Sundarayya Vigyan Kendra, Hyderabad. The veteran leader, Chukka
Ramaiah, spoke with great feeling about the sacrifices that had been endured in
the past. He reminded the audience that Left-wing philosophy was at the core of
Telangana political culture. He bemoaned corruption of the political system, in
which hero worship had replaced participatory decision making. The veteran CPI
leader, Venkat Reddy, said that despite progressive laws, complete failure in
implementation was witnessed in all aspects of public policy. Professor Rama
Melkote asked why the Left parties had not joined hands with progressive Dalit
and Muslim movements. Professor Haragopal declared that the Left parties had no
cultural roots in society, and hence were unable to mount a massive challenge
to national parties, like the Congress and the BJP, though both were almost
identical in their politics and class structure. Several other leaders spoke
with passion about the failure of the left parties to come together, time and
again, to an audience that contained the cream of Telangana’s intellectuals and
activists.
The meeting, not the
first of its kind, was a reminder to people that the Left parties had failed to
seize the initiative during the hugely popular people’s movement for a separate
Telangana, that had rocked the region for over five years. The palm of victory
had been surrendered to a new political grouping, the TRS. Perhaps, at the back
of the minds of the political leaders, who had summoned the meeting, was the
thought that it might not be too late to put forward before the people a
left-wing agenda for the future development of Telangana State.
Corrupt
Congress and ambitious BJP
Narendra
Modi
For such a belated expectation to produce
political acceptance with the people, it might be vital to reconsider where
Indians find themselves today. Disgust with the unashamed corruption of
Congress leaders, who left no stone unturned to make a quick illegal buck, even
in sport arenas, swung the loyalty of people away from a flaccid party which
had no belief in itself towards a populist leader heading the BJP, which was
vociferous in its claim to be the traditional guardian of culture. So high is the
expectation heaped upon Modi’s government that there is little chance that any
superman can meet the aspirations of people within the foreseeable future.
Bitter disappointment could erupt into anger and chaos, and this is the
greatest potential threat facing India today.
No political leader should be misled by the
present-day political euphoria masking this real threat. America-trained gurus
keep repeating the mantra that the fundamentals are strong, meaning that the
financial market is soaring on expectations, and that the major business
entities are making profits. Curbing of inflationary trends with cheaper money
seems to be their cure, while they are confident that even the poorest common
man acknowledges that God alone is responsible for fluctuating monsoons
controlling crops. Manipulated statistics further give comfort to the rulers
that poverty is declining, however slowly. The focus of the rulers of India is
turned on its nuclear arsenal, its demand for a seat on the Security Council,
its political competition with China, its successful billionaires, its numerous
IT professionals, its well staffed army and bureaucracy. All these are of no
real consequence to India’s debatable future.
What remains unseen is the swelling tsunami of
aspirations, awakened by global media connectivity, and disappointment,
exacerbated by inter-community rivalries, and frustrations unleashed among the
young, by the sexual repression of traditional culture and class-dominated
exclusion from economic opportunities. The age old patience of the Indian poor
under privation will not last forever.
‘What needs to be Done?’ was an urgent question
first raised by Tolstoy, and later by Lenin. An answer closer to meeting
India’s crying needs was provided by Tolstoy who saw the primacy of labour not
only for changing society, but oneself, and for recognising labour as the true
human quality at the core of society. He provides a spiritual explanation of
Marx’s labour theory of value, which the simplest Indian can appreciate, again
making true his statement that ‘all great ideas are simple.’ But how is this
idea to be applied practically to national development?
Left
joins hands with Western adventurists!
Deng
Xiaoping
Many in India’s Left leadership joined hands with
Western adventurists on the Left and quickly dismissed Chinese developments
since the 1980’s as a return to capitalism. We have failed to learn from the
developmental experiences of our greatest neighbour. Despite this, the
astonishing success of China and the growth of its economy remains the
‘elephant in the room’ for all economists, which refuses to be driven out of
discussion. Chinese experience is all the more relevant to Indians when we
consider that World War II had exhausted all economies, except the American,
and India stood as a potential industrial power in 1947, while China was in
shambles as a destroyed economy and polity.
The ease of growth of the Chinese economy and its
commercial successes has mesmerised Indian planners into a belief that a
similar trajectory is possible for India with a little more tinkering of the
system. The flatulence of political bombast that has clouded Indian relations
with its greatest neighbour has further obscured from reasonable analysis the
causes that have differentiated the growth trajectories of the two great
economies. It has suited Western theoreticians and their Indian disciples to
accept the masked and politically motivated Chinese interpretation that Deng
Xiaoping and capitalism happened after Mao’s death in 1976, ‘and all was
growth.’ If anyone is amazed at the industry of the Chinese working classes the
simple acceptable explanation among these experts is that it is extorted by
totalitarian control. The Chinese have shown no intention of arguing this
point.
Long
March and the Long Leap
Mao
Zedong
The long years of struggle and privation, and the
Long March, taught Mao, the Chinese communist party and its army, that their
country and its nationalities and classes lived under varied conditions and
possibilities, which required local solutions and management, and that the hope
for the future depended upon a working collaboration between the leaders and
the communities of the poor. Building on traditional clan practices, the first
years of development saw the emergence of the mutual aid teams, then the larger
production brigades and the bigger communes. A feudal and oppressed people
learned that they had capacities of self governance, and during the ill-fated
Great Leap Forward that even simple peasants could aspire to make backyard
steel. A huge human cost was paid then, and later during the Cultural
Revolution, which despite the shambles posed a more thorough challenge to the
Chinese bureaucratic mandarinate than Manmohan Singh’s curbing of some
bureaucratic power through liberalization.
This great storm-tossed political period from 1949
till the beginning of the 1970’s was a period, which can be called one of ‘latent
development,’ that is, an economic process that was real but hidden from
view, which could not be measured in economic terms while it lasted, but which
would ensure economic growth in the future. Hence it had not much to show in
dollar terms in the years between 1949 and 1976, but vastly more than the world
had ever seen before in the rise of the self-confidence of the masses in their
own social, technical, economic and political abilities. ‘The battle for
China’s past,’ as a recent scholar, Mobo Gao, has put it, is by no means over
in terms of understanding it, but it is time our economists researched it.
What is clear is that ‘development is a
political process,’ which requires politicization of associations of the
people, as farmers, as artisans, as women, as workers. Real development cannot
occur without a genuine partnership between government and communities, however
destabilizing this may be for inefficient and self-serving politicians. Such a
partnership would be a real growth initiator, while the much touted
public-private mode is merely collusion among the despoilers.
Partnership
with communities
Prof
Rama Melkote
The possibility of such partnerships with communities
should not be viewed as a mere heuristic construct in the present instance.
Telangana with under-developed natural resources, and lacking in a large cadre
of skilled professionals, is blessed with a large population of poor SC and ST
communities who could be mobilised in their and the national interest.
Telangana’s present situation in any case is far better than that of Cuba in
1992 when soon after all Soviet help was withdrawn, Cubans were left with
little financial resources, no markets, and a crippling American economic
blockade that was forcing them into starvation. The record of the remarkable
recovery of this tiny island and its brave people holds many lessons for
Telangana’s leadership in how to create self-sufficiency through such government
and local community partnerships.
So far in India, developmental processes have been
entrusted to bureaucratic hands, which can only do what was previously laid
down. But ‘development’ immediately implies change across several dimensions,
and this depends on the political acumen of the masses to take appropriate and
sustainable decisions for their myriad disparate communities and localities.
The elite belief that a few experts can solve problems created by complex
differing development issues over a vast landscape has proved self-delusional,
and dangerous for national stability.
Prof
Hara Gopal
A stable future depends on the rapidity with which
grassroots communities are politicized and linked to empowered Panchayati Raj
Institutions in a working planning relationship with higher structures of
government. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments
must cease to be political ploys and PRIs must become in reality engines of
local governance. This cannot happen unless the masses are mobilised in their
own interests. The labour of India’s excluded masses are the only engines of
steady growth. The primary agricultural sector can sustain itself despite
periodic monsoon failures, and support the manufacturing sector, whose growth
must exceed that of the tertiary sector for years to come if the economy is to
meet people’s aspirations.
None of these ideas can be termed in common
parlance as rocket science. They have the virtue of simple common sense. And
the Indian elite are also well aware that this is so. After the days of Mahatma
Gandhi, the political elite lazily corrupted itself benefitting by the patience
and enormous ability to bear pain of the masses. But media and the globalizing
world warn that the days of unaccountable self-serving indulgence are fast coming
to an end. The elite for survival need to change.
A
Cotton there and a Sankaran here…
The bureaucrats and the learned middle-classes
have grown up within a hierarchical system of governance created by the East
India Company, and inherited without much change by Independent India. If
Mahatma Gandhi had been alive he might have seen the dangers of a continuation
through brown sahib rule, but the aristocratic Nehru found the old system
convenient and to his taste. The early British rulers had little need for
development, and none for trusting the people. A system was created to keep the
masses in their place at little cost. There was no thought of involving subject
races in a partnership of governance. Upper caste Indians who came later to
rule the country found no issue with this approach. But their own survival in a
darkening future depends on accepting the simple idea that the Indian masses
can be trusted to develop their communities and localities, and save the nation
from the possibility of chaos and collapse. Individual good men while
reaffirming our faith in human nature can do little by themselves, however
committed they may be. Telugu-speakers have seen great and good men do their
best for people over the last two centuries. Sir Arthur Cotton could help
irrigate five million acres, but he could not give land to the tiller or
prosperity to Indian farmers. SR Sanakaran, a saintly bureaucrat, helped many
Dalit families, but dalit communities continue to remain oppressed and
dispossessed.
The freedom struggle, though by and large
peaceful, was extraordinarily revolutionary in a systemic sense, for its
tactics and processes of struggle were such that the oppressors were ‘unable to
rule in the old way,’ while the struggle itself taught the masses through practical
experience that they need not ‘be ruled in the old way’ – a distinction that
Lenin would have welcomed.
A people-centred Telangana political leadership
should mobilise communities not to support their party, but around people’s own
immediate interests and demands. The leaders must support people in their
demands for better agriculture support; public distribution systems, water,
energy, housing, jobs, medical and educational facilities. If these are
non-negotiable political demands of people, independent of whatever delivery
system the government has inherited, technical solutions can be found. If these
demands remain petitions, the age-old system structured to deny people their
rights and resources will continue to starve them of all benefit. These demands
can only become political demands if associations of people and their PRIs have
rightfully seized power guaranteed to them by the Constitution. If the left
leadership can bring about this peaceful transformation of rightful political
inheritance by the people they would have created a revolution of greater
consequence than that of the French, of the Bolsheviks and of Mao, for they
would have created a replicable revolutionary model for other Third World
peoples to follow which cannot be countered by force or by fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment