PRAGOTI

(Lest there be confusion given the law of contemporary averages)- subhoneel, the idea we all thought was to change the constraints...

I do not know as to why Pragoti has given space to this kind of an article.....i have always looked up to pragoti for providing us with genuine marxist oriented theoretical and political analysis....this article is completely out of sync with that approach and is a blatant apology for revisionism.....the approach of pragoti has been till date to propagate the revolutionary traditions of the left movement....but this article does exactly the opposite, in arguing for social democracy completely throwing away the idea of revolution...this is not furthering the cause of the left and progressive movement in any way....i request the editors of pragoti to desist from putting up such apologia for revisionism.....

Janaki

 
Jyotirmoy seems to suggest that Com. Jyoti Basu and the communist movement of his generation brought about a radical departure from the Marxist-Leninist notion of the state and also from the CPI(M) party programme which is premised on this theorisation. However, he is wrong on many counts.
 
 
Firstly, it must be remembered that India as a state since its inception was never a pure bourgeois state, as is the case with the states of Europe. This is to say that the bourgeois institutions and principles prevalent within the European states took many decades, if not centuries to come into being. For example, universal adult suffrage was not enshrined in the bourgeois states of Europe from the beginning. They were only implemented when the bourgeosie consolidated their rule.  But in India, we see that immediately with the birth of the independent India, this right is guaranteed, in a country which has known thousands of years of hierarchical rule of the Brahminical classes. Our constitution provides equality, in principle to all people, it provides freedom of expression and all the other fundamental rights of the citizens. The party programme of CPI(M) takes into account these peculiarities of the Indian state and says the following, “The Constitution of the Republic of India provides for a parliament elected on the basis of adult franchise and confers certain fundamental rights on the people. (para 5.18).” But  then the programme (same para) goes on to say that, “Many of these rights are misinterpreted, distorted and even violated by the authorities of the State. When it comes to the struggle of the workers, peasants and other sections of the democratic masses, the fundamental rights virtually cease to apply for them. Freedom of assembly is denied to whole areas and regions embracing lakhs of people by putting them under prohibitory orders even for months and years. The violence of the State organs becomes practically savage against the workers, peasants and other democratic masses, when they act in defence of their political and economic rights and demands. Draconian legislations providing for detention without trial have become quite common. Similarly, the provisions of national emergency provided for in the Constitution are misused and ordinances promulgated to suppress democratic struggles. The internal Emergency declared in 1975 was the most severe threat to democracy.” Jyotirmoy is the last person to be reminded of this reality of the Indian state, which is indeed captured by the party programme. Therefore, to suggest that Com. Jyoti Basu and his generation formulated some theory/praxis of the state or the communist politics outside the scope of the party program is blatantly false. The moot point is that the bourgeois landlord state has continuously denied the promised rights to the people because the exercising of these rights will put their rule in danger. It is therefore but appropriate that the CPI(M) has always been at the forefront in safeguarding the interests of the people (even if defined in purely bourgeois terms) in terms of safeguarding parliamentary democracy, secularism, right to freedom of expression etc. This strange dialectical relationship is indeed an innovation of the Indian Left, but strictly enshrined within the party programme of the CPI(M).
 
 
Secondly, Jyotirmoy believes that the party programme and its ultimate aim of overthrowing the bourgeois-landlord state have become dead letter and plays no role in the day to day functioning of the party. Well, the party programme had never any role to play in the day to day functioning of the party, since it is a strategic or long term programmatic document, and spells out the broad class configurations of the Indian state and the stage of revolution. The aspects of day to day functioning of the party are taken up by party congresses and the political resolutions adopted in them, which should be broadly aligned with the overall political content of the programme. Therefore, to claim something from the party programme for which it was never meant, is wrong and unjustified.
 
 
Thirdly, Jyotirmoy believes that peoples’ democracy is currently unachievable. He is both right as well as wrong. Nobody has ever claimed that the revolution is round the corner. But from this to either conclude that it will never be or that the party programme is inadequate to lead that revolution is wrong. It is an age old notion that capitalism will collapse on its own and socialism is inevitable. The agency of the party is thereby ignored. The revisionists as well as the ultra-left make this mistake. But the correct political outlook is to see the essentially Leninist point that capitalism has to be overthrown, under the leadership of the revolutionary class and the party. The choice before mankind, is not strictly a choice between capitalism and socialism. Rather the choice is between socialism and barbarism or a morbid decaying capitalism. The contradictions of capitalism or the Indian state will not create a situation where they automatically collapse. Rather, both need to be overthrown. If that is the case, then the question is not whether peoples’ democratic revolution is currently on the agenda or not. The question is whether the party programme provides a concrete guide to that revolution. To argue that it does not needs either of two propositions—(a) this revolution is not required at all—in other words, this is the end of history. (b) the Indian state needs to be overthrown but CPI(M) is not the party to do so. Jyotirmoy, dodges this question.
 
 
Fourthly, Jyotirmoy says that the politics of Com. Jyoti Basu and the communist party was clearly non-revolutionary. Well, this is a matter of perspective and one’s subjective opinion. But undoubtedly, one can be only as revolutionary as history allows one to be. Clearly, Com. Jyoti Basu did not lead a revolution in India. But this is not merely a failure on his or his party’s part, since the objective conditions were not ripe for a revolution. But that does not qualify him as a non-revolutionary simply because his government surpassed what any other bourgeois government has been able to do in this country in terms of altering the power equation in agriculture and for what he did in terms of organizing the working class against the rapaciousness of capital. To put the matter simply, to judge the revolutionary credentials of any political person, the goal posts need to be defined clearly. It seems, Jyotirmoy’s goal post is in a post-revolutionary society while he is judging the shots of CPI(M) in a pre-revolutionary India.
 
 
Fifthly, coming to the question of Com. Jyoti Basu’s funeral, I think that unfortunately, this is a vacuous and banal debate and only conforms to what the ruling classes and the mainstream media wants to debate on the CPI(M) and Com. Jyoti Basu. (See yesterday’s and today’s The Telegraph for example.) Jyotirmoy has given an anecdotal evidence on Jyoti Basu’s state salute to prove his above mentioned positions. It is not mentioned in his post that the party refused to accept Bharat Ratna for Com. Jyoti Basu, when he was alive. Therefore, there was never any question of accepting state honours as far as the party is concerned. But indeed Com. Jyoti Basu was the longest serving chief minister of India and worked under the constitution of the state. Given this, the state decided to give him a state funeral, where leaders from the entire political spectrum were present. Should the party have made it into a CPI(M) affair only? I think not simply because this is an unnecessary debate and has nothing to do with furthering the politics of the party as well as the vision of Com. Jyoti Basu. The political aims of the CPI(M) and the identification of the primary contradictions within the Indian state and society is not contingent upon taking gun salutes on Com. JB’s funeral. (By the way, in a gesture befitting a great communist, Com. JB has donated his body for medical research. No media and unfortunately Jyotirmoy had mentioned this fact, while assessing him and his party). These are inconsequential matters for the left movement and to conclude anything from this is to indulge in hyperbole.
 
This is not to take on the mantle of self-righteousness and claim that everything is perfect with the CPI(M) or the Left movement. But I think these are not the issues where the movement lacks.
 
This is a very long response. Therefore, I will stop here.

 Jyotirmoy, 

There are various levels of critique that I would want to engage with, vis-a-vis your piece. For now, I am putting forward this critique. 

The program of the CPI(M) has not made a clean break with the old underlying theories of state, revolution and party. Rather, policy-level changes forced by experience (such as the acceptance of multi-party democracy) has been patched over the old formulations rather than being derived from first principles.

Is this really the case? The old underlying theories of state, revolution and party - on the contrary for me - actually are in consonance with the practice of Indian communism. To simply attest that the practise is more in consonance with "social democracy" and not Marxism-Leninism is problematic and wrong, if one understands what "social democracy" itself means. 

Social Democracy, as a construct from Europe was basically a Kautskian synthesis of the working class rallying behind the bourgeoisie to protect its interests, wasn't it? Apart from other features such as building socialism by release of productive forces even within a bourgeois democratic order and not emphasising an "immediate revolution" or overthrow of the state. 

The praxis of Indian communism has always and continues to remain a proletarian internationalist project. It is completely incompatible with the tenets of "social democracy". The reasons for the Third International's formation and its split from the Kautskian "second international" had much to do with this, wasn't it? 

For example on the nuclear deal, the position of a social democrat would have been to emphasise only the negative effects of a "nuclear energy" oriented energy policy or the costs of nuclear energy in her opposition to the deal. Why would a social democrat bother about imperialism or the interests of the working class affected by "capitalism of the highest order" and strategic understanding between the Indian bourgeoisie and Big Capital in the United States? The communist on the other hand will see the centrality of the "strategic relationship" in the nuclear deal and the CPI(M) did that. 

So what about the Indian experience of communism where participation in parliamentary politics, parliamentary system of governance and other works have happened, which have not necessarily led to the overthrow of the bourgeois state? In my opinion, the participation was necessitated from first principles. In the Indian state, the rudimentary presence of capitalism and a working class and the social support and basis that the leaders (technically from the bourgeois landlord segments) enjoyed during and after the freedom struggle, the formulation of a progressive Indian Constitution that provided unprecedented rights and directives (in the Third World) all necessitated an engagement in the bourgeois democratic system. But that engagement was not to subsume within the system but to provide an alternate model very different from what the bourgeois landlord rulers were providing. 

Thus in West Bengal, you had the governance system working for the poor from the day one..instituting land reforms, instituting panchayati raj and so on and also making concessions to the bourgeoisie because of constraints.. in terms of land for industries, setting up privately owned industrial projects etc.. this was in reverse to what the bourgeois landlord governments were doing (and are still doing) elsewhere..wherein piecemeal reforms for the poor are concessions offered by the bourgeois democratic state institutions and not vice versa. 

The participation in bourgeois democracy therefore was meant, apart from the reasons you mention, to indicate that the communist party was not just a party of slogans and opposition but a viable and pro-poor vanguard that could capably rule. And Jyoti Basu - the Marxist-Leninist's greatest achievement was to showcase this capability for 23 uninterrupted years. 

There have been weaknesses and there have been problems that can and must be acknowledged, but the premise that you make that these are because of a "vaccuum" created between theory and praxis, is something I would steadfastly refute. 

Other points regarding the funeral etc would also deserve argumentative discussion, but I am saving that for later.