PRAGOTI

I am posting a copy of the rejoinder I sent by email to DNA (Daily News & Analysis) Columnist Mr Sidharth Bhatia as a response to his tirade against the CPI(M) in the name of so-called polituical analysis that appeared in DNA on 15/3/2009. In fact, his column is a part of a series of articles that appear in DNA as a propaganda aginst the Third Front, the pivotal role for which is being played by the CPI(M). I hope the rejoinder would be useful for our Pragoti readers.

Maran

Mr Siddharth Bhatia,

your article titled as ,”Comrades fiddle while Left burns” in the DNA.SUNDAY” dated 15/3/2009 is full of anti-Communist prejudice laced with half-truths and distortions. I just could not but laugh to myself after reading your article. Because, you have shown utter ignorance about the Left in general, the CPI(M) in particular. Otherwise, there was no reason for you to say that Karat “is motivated by an intense desire to show up the Congress and specifically Manmohan Singh “ .(emphasis mine) Why? Because, to put it in your words, Singh and his party are the betrayers who sold India to the United States by signing the Indo-US nuclear deal”

So, if the gullible readers of your article are to believe you, Prakash Karat is taking vengeance on Manmohan Singh and the Congress because of the nuclear deal. This is where you are misleading the readers with half-truths. Yes, the CPI(M) holds on to the assessment that Manmohan Singh and the Congress have tied India to the apron-strings of USA by signing the deal with the US and thereby making India as junior partner of the USA. But to imply that that Karat and the CPI(M) are getting back at the Congress and Manmohan Singh due to personal vengeance is to present the readers a distorted view of the CPI(M)’s political position on the need for the third alternative as opposed to both the Congress and the BJP .

You’re totally wrong to suggest that the CPI(M), oh, sorry Prakash Karat(because that is how you are making your story as though the 3rd front is a personal ambition of Karat) is following an ego-based politics.

In a way, your argument is qualitatively no different from what R Jaganathan, Editor of DNA wrote in an OP-ED article in DNA on 12/3/2009 by calling the Third Front as 'Third Affront'. He too presupposed that “for the Left, the Third Front is a cover for its previous embarassment,when it was shown the door by the UPA over the nuclear dear” and the “Third Front is Karat’s way of getting back at the Congress for having the temerity to stand up to Leftist claptrap.” (Emphasis not original) .

Whether nuclear deal or not or whether Manmohan Singh or not, the CPI(M)’s long term goal is to establish People’s democracy as opposed to the present rule of big business interests who are represented politically by the Congress and the BJP. This programme was evolved way back in 1964, when there was neither nuclear deal nor Manmohan Singh.

To help you understand the CPI(M)'s political position more clearly, let me quote extracts from an article penned by none other than the legendary Communist leader and Marxist ideologue EMS Nampoodripad in ‘People’s Democracy’, the official organ of the CPI(M) way back in its issue of Feb 4,1996. Again, let me draw your attention that there was no nuclear deal in 1996.Manmohan Singh was only finance minister then under Narashimha Rao then. .Here is what EMS wrote then:

“The struggle for People’s Democracy is long and arduous. It has to go through a series of transitional stages. A beginning in that direction can be and should be taken by uniting all Left, secular ,democratic and patriotic forces in the country. This is what seeking to achieve in trying to bring about a “third front” against the two bourgeois political parties-the Congress and the BJP”. (emphasis not original)

So, the political position of the CPI(M) and its long-term objective was clearly elaborated by EMS in 1996 itself when there was no nuclear deal or Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister . To understand this political stand of the CPI(M), one need not be a political genius. Even a layman would understand this much clearly.

As such, to say that the 3rd front is the brain-child of Prakash Karat whose “mind is on the Third Front” ,that too “to show up the Congress and Manmohan Singh “ and attribute the serious efforts of the CPI(M) as “a cover up for its previous embarrassment” etc because Singh signed the nulcear deal with the US is a low-level argument coupled with prejudice and half-truth that can be expected only from a political ignorant. Still more ignorant is to say that Karat’s “ own party is not that highly charged on the issue ( of 3rd front) and has more important things to worry about not losing seats in West Bengal and Kerala.”. Such a third rate argument coming from your pen only shows how ignorant you are and if not, how deliberately you mislead the gullible readers . Working for a 3rd alternative is part of the CPI(M)’s programmatic understanding that has been evolved collectively by the whole party that involves not just Prakash Karat but a collective leadership that derives its strength from the party Congress being held in every 3 years in a democratic manner . Prakash Karat is answerable to his Polit Bureau, his Central Committee and his All India Party Congress. If Karat’s “mind is on the Third Front”, it is because he is the General Secretary of the CPI(M) which, as the party has taken a collective decision to withdraw support to the UPA and to work for a “Third alternative” which is “a long process” that would undergo “a series of transitional stages” to put it in the words of EMS in 1996 , one of which is the 3rd front fighting the electoral battle against the Congress and the BJP. To attribute “Karat’s objective” as something that is not shared by “his own party” is certainly a cheap argument that can only be expected from a journalist of anti-Communist prejudice.

Coming to your diatribe against the “Comrades fiddling while Left burns”, do you suggest that just because the two mainstream Communist parties in a particular state have difference in perception over seat-sharing, they should not “fiddle” in national affairs? Do you suggest that just because there was some problem at local level in Singur and Nandigram, the Left should stop taking interest in matters that have far-reaching consequences? Can you name a single party that is not facing any internal or intra party problem? Would you suggest that all these parties should stop taking interest in matters that are of larger interests? Or is it your suggestion that your advice is only meant for the Communist parties ,not for other parties of your preference?

Well, Mr Bhatia, if your kind of logic is accepted , then would you suggest that India as a country and its political establishment that is at government level should stop playing its role on International matters, just because India is riddled, sorry I should use the word “burning ” to borrow from you ,with so many problems like abject poverty, squalor, social evils, obscurantist practices, backwardness in several spheres of life? Remember ,India is placed at 127th place, 2 or 3 places above the bottom most in respect of Human Development. If your logic that the Left should worry more about its own ‘burning’ problems rather than ‘fiddling’ in on Third Front is accepted ,then we should not hold even elections, because there are increasing corrupt electoral practices and criminals entering into Legislative bodies. Would you write a piece to advise the Election authorities to stop elections? .

You have referred to problems in Singur and Nandigram. But you did not bother to pinpoint the parties behind the problems. Do you accept Mamta’s politics of creating road-blocks for every effort of the LF govt to industrialise the state? Why you did not bother to tell the readers of the violence committed by Mamta and her gang? Even Tata himself was disgusted with Mamta’s brand of politics. But alas, there was not even a mention in your write-up , of Mamta and her destructive brand of politics that are mainly responsible for problems in Singur and Nandigram . You say that because of its mishandling the Nandigram and Singur problems, “the professional middle classes and the business lobby are disappointed too” ,as the CPM managed to displease almost everyone”. I would like to ask you to read the DNA’s Sunday magazine page of the same issue (15/3/2009) in which your article too appeared , to know the reaction of one Mr Anjan Majumdar , a businessman of Kokatta who has been quoted as saying , “I am anti-Left, I have to vote for CPI(M)”.Why? Because he is very displeased with Mamta’s brand of politics, because Mamta’s role in driving the Nano out of West Bengal . Don’t you see how contradictory you sound to what a local professional businessman of Kokatta feels.? Well, when one is so biased against the CPI(M), all logic and reasons give way to cheap barbs ,half-truths, distortions and vilification with out objective analysis that is devoid of prejudices.

In your over zeal to beat the Marxists with any stick that is good enough, you are conveniently protecting Mamta’s gang-up of rain-bow coalition from extreme right to extreme left just to feel gleeful about the prospects of heavy losses of seats for the Left in Bengal. You are quoting Subhash Chakrovorthy to predict doom for the Left, but again you are selectively suppressing his prediction that the LF would win at least 28 out of 42 seats in Bengal ,no matter whether there is Congress-Trinamool Congress alliance or not. If you believe Subhash for the “doom” of the Left , what makes you not to mention his prediction about the number of seats that the LF would win? In that case, where are heavy losses for the Left in Bengal. It is going to be a mere 7 seats further loss only to the LF there, if you believe Subhash. .

To conclude:

Your article is just a part of several attempts by the so-called impartial journalists to inject anti-Communist venom in the minds of unsuspecting and uninformed public, particularly the educated middles class who fall easy prey to the kind of vilification campaign against the Left, particularly the CPI(M). Why? Because, the CPI(M) and its General Secretary ,Prakash Karat are in the forefront to give political opposition to both the Congress and the BJP which are the favoured parties to rule the country by the big business corporate houses .It is because the CPI(M) plays a pivotal role in the evolution of the third front that will weaken the mainstream Congress and the BJP, the ruling class is worried. Hence, all-out attempts by journalists to attack the concept of Third front and hence the cheap arguments against the CPI(M) and its General Secretary, Prakash Karat. If the third front is a non-starter and non-entity, why series of articles in DNA against the third front, first by Mr R Jaganathan , editor of DNA first, then your article and again another article in today’s DNA ( March 16,2009) by one Mr Jai Mrug in DNA’s opinion Column? The series of articles berating the CPI(M) in particular are reminiscent of the kind of articles written against the Left and Prakash Karat at the time of debate on Nuclear deal. This shows that every time, when the Left plays a major role in nation’s body polity, there is a series of articles by journalists, analysts and editors that are aimed at discrediting the Left in general, the CPI (M) in particular and Prakash Karat, in more particular to sway the public opinion against the CPI(M) led Left Front and to drum up support for the Congress-led UPA in a brazen manner ,in the name of objective journalism . This does not augur well for the journalists who are expected to present objective analysis of a particular political development to their readers.

R Maran

P'S: I could have sent this response to DNA as letters to the editor. But then, I know ,that DNA would not publish my long response without compromising the basic content of my response. Hence, this email to you,