Home

Banning the CPI (Maoist): Whose Way Forward?

Fri, 2009-06-26 08:26 — chirashree
Maoists_afp.gif

The post-poll attacks and brutal killing of CPI(M) activists and supporters in Lalgarh became headline news since June 17th. The revelling from usual quarters about the CPI (Maoist)’s ‘insurgency’ is hopelessly misplaced in even beginning to acknowledge that it is not so-called 'corrupt CPI(M) leaders' who are being killed and targeted, but poor destitute working class people whose cause both the Maoists and the ‘social movement’ through popular participation for democracy led by the ‘People’s Committee against Police Atrocities’ claim to espouse. One cannot help but beg the question to the sushil bidwajans (intellectuals representing civil society) in West Bengal and their fellow-travellers about how the five month popular movement against the state government based on the pristine virtue of ‘peaceful democratic participation’ transformed itself into an orgy of violence in less than a week with visuals of large groups of people armed with guns and axes telling the mainstream media that they will only rest till they have cleansed the area of the CPI (M). How could a movement for democracy endorse an election boycott? How did the PCPA become the facilitator for ‘squads of roving Maoist guerillas’? Some soul-searching might be useful while composing the music for the 'requiem of a popular movement'.

However, for Left fellow travelers like this blogger, another set of fundamental questions resurface again.

The Centre on June 22nd  banned the Communist Party of India (Maoist), terming it a terrorist organisation. It invoked Section 41 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to do so. The ban came two days after the West Bengal Chief Minister met Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram in the backdrop of violent incidents in Lalgarh and the ongoing operation by the police and the security forces against the Maoists. The Left parties have all unequivocally opposed the ban. The CPI(M) position was clearly stated by its General Secretary: ‘the ban imposed by the Centre on Maoists would not serve any purpose’.

However, the West Bengal government’s views were articulated by the Chief Minister on Tuesday, June 23rd evening when he spoke to the media. "The Centre announced the ban yesterday (Monday) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The ban applies to the entire country, and is valid for West Bengal too," He added that it was for the state government to take a call on when and how to invoke the Act. The invocation followed closely the same evening. Kolkata Police detained and subsequently arrested the CPI(Maoist) spokesperson Gour Chakraborty as he emerged from the office of a private TV channel in Park Street after giving them an interview.


In the silence that has followed, the Union Home Minister seems to have taken on the mantle of waxing eloquent on Party/Government distinction. But the West bengal government's position seems to be an extension of the change in the class basis of the ‘left alternative governance’ paradigm of the Left Front government in the state. If the question of land acquisition for big-corporate-led industrialization drive since 2007 pointed to the increasing ‘cognitive dissonance’ about what it means to be a Left government distinct from a rightwing one, the question of ‘tackling Maoist insurgency’ reveals a clear schizophrenia. That a ban is never the solution to regaining political ground is clear. What is unacceptable is reneging on a position that the Left Front government had held on  to assiduously over years defying central directives to ban Maoist groups. Till Tuesday, West Bengal had been India’s only Maoist-affected state where the CPI (Maoist) was not proscribed.

It is a moot point that bans in other states have followed brutal state repression and suppression and mockery of civil rights of which ‘Salwa Judum’ is the most prominent example. It is even more of a moot point that all the states in which Maoists have been banned remain hotbeds of Maoist activity. The question is not one of effectiveness but that of principles. One cannot defend civil rights and uphold the state’s right to repress. One cannot oppose a ban and implement it as well through Machiavellian logic. One cannot both administratively resolve and politically reclaim people’s confidence that was lost in the first place because of a history of police atrocities. One cannot oppose imperialist orchestrated anti-terror legislation and then invoke its soft version.

This is no way forward for a government claiming a Left identity. If the 2009 General Elections were a debacle for the Left, this reneging will be the beginning of hara-kiri.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (35 votes)

Comments

by Anonymous on Sat, 2009-07-25 01:40

CPI(M) and its future

I don't know whether Chirashree is a committed CPI(M) supporter, though her earlier writings suggest that she is. Whatever her left political preference she has made a timely intervention. I think that's important. Today CPI(M) is becoming more and more a social democratic party like the labour party in Britain. It is a nationalist party with reform agenda up on its sleeve. Needless to say any political party which tries to find solution from within the exploitative capitalist system degenerates. CPI(M) is on the path of degeneration ( this was inscribed on the fate of the party since it was formed in 1964) and nothing can save it. The truth is CPI(M) has nothing to offer to the people of India which is different from what Congress, BJP and other regional parties offer. If one gets into the bottom of antipoverty schemes of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, one can see what is really the whole CPI(M) agenda of "gariber Unnayan" stands for. Recently Abdul Rezzak Molla said that around 25% of the land belonging to the bargadars have changed hands (Ganashakti, I can send the date. It appeared in page one in the month of July). Who are the people who rule the rural Bengal today ? Not the bargadars and landless farmers. But a power network of rationshop dealers, small and mid level businessmen, primary and secondary school teachers and college lecturers , panchayat members, state government officials (police, magistrates etc) and clerks (cordination commitee members), middle peasants and party members - zonal, local commitee members. The power network has a structure of a pyramid. Needless to say, the position of most powerful social group (party leaders) is at the top of the pyramid with the base comprises of a section of the poor So the secretary of the zonal commitee is the most powerful man (very few women) in the locality. He works with a network of social and economic groups - panchayat members, local businessmen, local inteliigenstia (school and colleage teachers). The problem with CPI(M) today is the base of the pyramid is shifting, a section of the poor is slowly moving away from the party. The party is realising this so in recent times it is organising strikes for higher wages for the landless peasants (Hoogly for e.g. but not in Bardhaman). But the problem is with district leaders like Susanta Ghosh, Dipak Sarkar, Amal Halder, Amiya Patra, Anil Basu, Roopchand Pal, Shantimoy Bhattacharjee and many more how it can shed off its most powerful support base of the new elites in the rural Bengal. If the party tries to do that, CPI(M) will become what CPI is today. So the top leaders are trying to maintain a balance. Though this endeavor of maintaining a balance ( typical of any social democratic party) will somehow slow the process of its decline (in terms of vote shares), the tragedy is it exposes itself to the hazards of being portrayed as more and more a party of the Indian Nation State not of the poor and underpriviledged masses to class conscious people.
To justify my argument, I would like to draw attention to this edit page article

http://www.anandabazar.com/23edit4.htm.

One small note about the future of the Maoist politics in India. No politics in today's world would survive without making the masses as the real leaders. We have to be clear that party power is not class power. Class power can only happen through the self emancipation of the working class through the formation of an alternative non oppressive institutions like the soviets and communes. Maoists still believe that a disciplined party in association with the masses can bring revolution.The question is who decides whom to kill and not to kill ? It is based on the judgement of the leaders, ultimately. This kind of mindless violence has no place in socialist struggle for a better society. It only leads of the dictatorship of the party and after years, the dictatorship of the few leaders.

by Anonymous on Thu, 2009-07-23 08:03

Salam Chirashree from Salam Chamchawala

I don't know whether Chirashree is a committed CPI(M) supporter, though her earlier writings suggest that she is. Whatever her left political preference she has made a timely intervention. I think that's important. Today CPI(M) is becoming more and more a social democratic party like the labour party in Britain. It is a nationalist party with reform agenda up on its sleeve. Needless to say any political party which tries to find solution from within the exploitative capitalist system degenerates. CPI(M) is on the path of degeneration ( this was inscribed on the fate of the party since it was formed in 1964) and nothing can save it. The truth is CPI(M) has nothing to offer to the people of India which is different from what Congress, BJP and other regional parties offer. If one gets into the bottom of antipoverty schemes of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, one can see what is really the whole CPI(M) agenda of "gariber Unnayan" stands for. Recently Abdul Rezzak Molla said that around 25% of the land belonging to the bargadars have changed hands (Ganashakti, I can send the date. It appeared in page one in the month of July). Who are the people who rule the rural Bengal today ? Not the bargadars and landless farmers. But a power network of rationshop dealers, small and mid level businessmen, primary and secondary school teachers and college lecturers , panchayat members, state government officials (police, magistrates etc) and clerks (cordination commitee members), middle peasants and party members - zonal, local commitee members. The power network has a structure of a pyramid. Needless to say, the position of most powerful social group (party leaders) is at the top of the pyramid with the base comprises of a section of the poor So the secretary of the zonal commitee is the most powerful man (very few women) in the locality. He works with a network of social and economic groups - panchayat members, local businessmen, local inteliigenstia (school and colleage teachers). The problem with CPI(M) today is the base of the pyramid is shifting, a section of the poor is slowly moving away from the party. The party is realising this so in recent times it is organising strikes for higher wages for the landless peasants (Hoogly for e.g. but not in Bardhaman). But the problem is with district leaders like Susanta Ghosh, Dipak Sarkar, Amal Halder, Amiya Patra, Anil Basu, Roopchand Pal, Shantimoy Bhattacharjee and many more how it can shed off its most powerful support base of the new elites in the rural Bengal. If the party tries to do that, CPI(M) will become what CPI is today. So the top leaders are trying to maintain a balance. Though this endeavor of maintaining a balance ( typical of any social democratic party) will somehow slow the process of its decline (in terms of vote shares), the tragedy is it exposes itself to the hazards of being portrayed as more and more a party of the Indian Nation State not of the poor and underpriviledged masses to class conscious people.
To justify my argument, I would like to draw attention to this edit page article

http://www.anandabazar.com/23edit4.htm.

One small note about the future of the Maoist politics in India. No politics in today's world would survive without making the masses as the real leaders. We have to be clear that party power is not class power. Class power can only happen through the self emancipation of the working class through the formation of an alternative non oppressive institutions like the soviets and communes. Maoists still believe that a disciplined party in association with the masses can bring revolution.The question is who decides whom to kill and not to kill ? It is based on the judgement of the leaders, ultimately. This kind of mindless violence has no place in socialist struggle for a better society. It only leads of the dictatorship of the party and after years, the dictatorship of the few leaders.

My interpretation of Lalgarh struggle is it is not merely the presence of the Maoists that sustained the struggle rather like in Nadigram and Singur, it is the masses who have constantly organised a democratic movement against the unfair government policies.

by Anonymous on Mon, 2009-06-29 11:18

Banning a valued dissentor

CPI-M (Marxist) intention to support the Central Government's idea of banning the CPI-M (Maoist) - or it could be vice versa as well - is the gravest mistake, which would jeopardize the future of the relevant forces of dissent in the Indian context that may lead to dissolution of the softer dissenters as well.

Nishant Kukreja

by subhanil on Fri, 2009-06-26 10:33

thanks Chirashree for

thanks Chirashree for bringing up a much needed debate on the ban on the Maoists.....
 
i think that mere banning of Maoists will hardly serve any purpose, as has been pointed out by Com. Prakash Karat himself and the Maoists will have to be fought politically.
 
however, i think that the article has been too harsh on the Left Front Government in West Bengal. it is a fact that a central government imposed ban cannot be over ruled by any state government. you might agree or disagree but this is a constitutional fact. the position of the LF government has to be seen in this light. in other words it is not the WB government which has banned the Maoists, rather it is the central government.
 
secondly, i think that we should not jump the guns. as this report from The Hindu clearly says the WB cabinet will discuss the issue in details. 
 
 

by Anonymous on Sat, 2009-06-27 10:25

CPM on the ban on the Maoists

Regarding the ban on the Maoists, it is very clear that Chidambaram announced the ban only after the West Bengal CM asked him to.

In any case, the main point is that the CPM has to take a principled stand on the legitimisation of state repression and the use of brute force to deal with political dissent.

by Anonymous on Fri, 2009-06-26 15:10

Next is CPI(Marxist)

They are banning the CPIM (M=Maoists) now, and would ban the CPIM (M=Marxist) when they find it difficult to handle politically. That we the CPIM in not protesting this ban inside and outside the parliament is digging its own grave.

by Anonymous on Fri, 2009-06-26 19:03

no chance. cpi(marxist) has

no chance. cpi(marxist) has always wanted to be the "good boy" of the political class.

by Anonymous on Mon, 2009-06-29 16:22

what about the so-called

what about the so-called revolutionary Maoists? Are they not acting on behalf of the Indian ruling class to undermine the organised Left movement by targetting the CPI(M)? By weakening the main Left party,that is the CPI(M), how do the Maoists think that they are contributing to the growth of the Left movemnet in general and communist movement in particular? It is the Maoists who are acting as the paid agents of the Indian ruling class,not the CPI(M).

by Anonymous on Sat, 2009-08-08 00:11

what about the so-called revolutionary Maoists

The fact is that our nation lacks a real revolutionary force which mobilises people on class basis to march towards a better society, though CPI(Marxist) can grow to such a position. But unfortunately, the party tends to degenerate itself into a social democratic party, thanks to its involvement in parliamentary poliltics.
I never intend to say that the party should eschew the parlimentary politics altogether since class hegemony is being foisted upon the masses under the veil of liberal democracy here. The party must intervene in parliamentary politics. But that does not mean it should turn into a ruling class party. The class content of the party must remain the same.
However, I do agree with the the comment that the so-called revolutionaries of Maoist party, the terrorists with a communist excuse are really acting on behalf of the ruling class. They say they can bring 'revolution' by concentrating on the 8 pc of indian people living in jungles. How is it possible?.
They never have anything to say about Narendra Modi, the Messiah of the Corporate world, who prepared the soil of Gujarat for tycoons with a holocaust. They keep mum on the attempt of the Reliance Industries Limited to plunder the natural resources in Godawari basin though Maoists enjoy sound support in Andhra Pradesh. Why their 'revolution' does not breach the borders of W.Bengal now?. They think the elimination of the organised Left will create a vaccum in the mainstream politics. And the Maoists can grab the class base of the Left.
Actually this is what the ruling class want to see. It needs to avoid any sort of intervention that may debunk the real class nature of the Indian democracy. It needs to thwart any intervention from the part of toiling masses in parliamentary politics. For that it resorts to a two-pronged strategy. First, it tries to mellow down the political stand of the organised Left, by persuading the Left parties to remain in UPA camp forever. Their mouthpieces, off and on, advise the Left to renounce its anti-imperialist stance. They even say that the Left has made a mistake by ditching its UPA allies on the Nuke deal. This tactics of persuasion is only one instance for their attempt to tame the Left.
Secondly, they encourage extremist tendencies in all shades. Be it the ultra Left in W. Bengal, or religious fundamentalists in other parts of the country, all of them enjoy a kind of patronage from the ruling class parties. The example of tribal insurgents in Tripura amply illustrates this.

Satish Suryanarayanan