I enjoyed reading a debate on Prabhat Patnaik’s letter which I consider an over simplification of the reality on the ground. I find it appalling that he chose to label everyone who does not subscribe to an official version, as belonging to the Camp hostile to the interests of “the people”. Hopefully, he would not put me into the above category without checking my background first (see below).

I do share some of his concerns about the role of the intellectuals from right to the far left using the Nandigram issue to grind axes against the CPI(M). However, his idea of two Camps theory sounds like US President George Bush’s slogan before the invasion of Afghanistan, “either you are with us or against us”. More recently such Mrs Sonia Gandhi also used the same slogan in relation nuclear civil agreement by saying, “…those who are oppose to Civil Nuclear Agreement are enemies of the people”. Frankly speaking Patnaik’s two Camps theory not qualitatively different from the above and could easily be construed as religion rather than Marxism. Further I do not consider everything written about the Nandigram issues could be considered by an independent observer (commonly defined as one who is familiar with the issues but who is not overly sensitive) as the revolt against the CPI(M)and hence revolt against politics. I am also somewhat concern about the intellectuals who take liberty to decide themselves their role for the left movement in general and the working class in particular. Perhaps, a reading of Regis Debary’s Revolution in the Revolution & Prisoner’s Diary might be of some assistance in understanding the role of intellectuals.

Prabhat Patnaik also talks a lot about fight against communal fascism, a term often very loosely used by Indian intellectuals and politicians. However, recent defeat of Congress in Gujarat and Himachal has proved that the ‘people’ did not find UPA slogan of “secularism” quite appealing.

My own experience of some of the Oxford-Cambridge-JNU Pseudo Marxists (with no mass base)has been, they suffer with a great deal of arrogance and have very little tolerance for dissent (although I have seen Donkeys at Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford but I call them suffering with an inferiority complex as if every thing which grows at Harvard and Cambridge is intellect and rest is fruitless?).

In the middle of September 2007 I wrote to Prakash Karat as follows:

Centre for Economics, Finance & Politics P.O. Box 17517-London-SE9 2ZP, Tel & Fax: 020-265 0536, Tel. & Fax: 020 88594657 & 07877008095 E-mail: s_deman2000@yahoo.co.uk, Tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk

————————————————————

15 September 2007

Com. Prakash Karat General Secretary, CPI (M) A.K. Gopalan Bhawan 27-29, Bhai Vir Singh Marg New Delhi 110 001 Fax: (91-11) 23747483

Dear Comrade Prakash:

Perhaps you will recall I wrote to you when you became General Secretary of the CPI (M). I was incredibly impressed with your speech when you refer to CPI(M) was not going to be a tail of anyone. The time has come when CPI (M) should be a leader rather than a follower. I wish this should have happened sometime back. Since I wrote to you earlier a sequence of events have taken place, which prompted me to write to you again. Although I am not a Party Cadre I consider myself a sympathizer and one who has ongoing interest in the left movement, particularly when the legacies and memories of the former Soviet Union are fast fading away. I outline my concerns as follows:

1. Firstly I became concern during my visit to India in January 2006 when I came across an unnecessary controversial debate surrounding Baba Ramdeo on the ZEE TV. Although issues voiced in the debate may have had some relevance (though non-antagonistic), I was not convinced about the significance of the debate to the Party, mass movement and the people. I am also not so sure, if the debate was ever resolved, to date no one knows who were the winners and the losers? However, what I know is that the Hindu fundamentalist exploited the issue and since then Baba Ramdeo’s fees for personal audience to people living overseas have tremendously increased. Further Mr. Kofi Annan, a former Secretary General of the US led UN gave him official platform to become a goodwill ambassador for carrying out the message of Yoga all over the world as if that was the cure for all problems. When Baba Ram Deo returned to Delhi he appeared to have emerged an avant-garde champion of opposing discrimination on the basis of caste and religion, which has overshadowed UPA message of “secularism” under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. In my view this entire issue raked up while there was no dearth of issues related to, “antagonistic contractions” far more vital purposes of mass mobilisation for a revolutionary transformation of society. Having said this, I am not trying to undermine Brenda’s positive contribution to parliamentary debate and for mass movement.

2. Second issue that concerned me is Nandigram incident regardless of who instigated it, I am told it was Naxalite led. The incident in which more than 19 people had been killed in police firing ordered by Mr. Bhuddhdeb Bhattacharya led left front government, should not have taken place under any circumstances. No Marxian theory can justify such an action and it was least expected of a Left front government, in defence of illegitimate land acquisition for SEZs to cater the needs of industrialists under the umbrella of globalisation rather than for a proletarian revolution. Ironically, the CPI (M) was already condemning somewhat similar incident in Rajasthan which led to the police firing killing a number of CPI(M) peasants and an unlawful imprisonment of Comrade Hetram Beniwal of CPI (M) by the BJP Government. While defending left front government action, one of my friends, Com. Vesudev Sharma, General Secretary, CPI (M) in Rajasthan tried to persuade me that Stalin had taken even more drastic action against the Kulaks for the sake of collectivisation than Bhuddhdeb Bhattacharya. You know as well as I do, two wrongs do not make one right. Besides, the two actions are not comparable as the former was taken for the advancement of socialism and the latter for promoting global capitalism. The Nandigram incident also reminded me the dismissal of the first Left Front government led by Namboodripad on the recommendation of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, then President of the Congress. Well, we could not save the Left Front government then but succeed this time although with the forewarning of UPA Chairperson, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi who reportedly told Com. Sita Ram Yechuri in a patronizing manner, “it should not be repeated” [I heard on the Zee TV]. As to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s ideological position one should not forget it was she who went to the United States to see President Clinton following her Party’s defeat in general election 1999, virtually asking her to give her a chance too and she got it. In contrast, when Henry Kissinger was asked his opinion about Mrs. Gandhi when she was assassinated, his reply to ABC news was, “She was an arrogant lady”. Although I was one of the victims of Mrs Gandhi when she declared the state of emergency in 1975 I was happy at this generous assessment of her by an arrogant former American Ambassador & the Secretary of State, as she appeared not to have bowed down before the US hegemony even after having accepted CIA money to fight Kerala elections. In my view, although CPI (M) by now should have sidelined Buddhdeb Bhattacharya to regain public confidence, I am wiling to accept your public statement making distinction between the actions of the Government and the Party’s position. However, criticism of Buddhdeb Bhattacharya’s government was somewhat less visible compared to Mukherjee’s coalition government in West Bengal in 1967-69.

3. One of the most disturbing issues I find in the CPI (M) position is its stand on Civil Nuclear Agreement with the United States and recent joint naval exercises. As a student of Marxism I have learned that there is a dialectical connection between the domestic policy and the foreign policy. Although one can see a clear connection between UPA government’s domestic policies supporting globalisation under the World Bank programs [SEZs, Multinational investment, rapid expansion of private sector through divestment of public sector, etc.] and collaboration with the imperialists in the foreign policy, I wonder how could CPI (M) not see this and continues to support the UPA government? I believe the partnership in the UPA on the basis of common minimum program [mainly secularism] is fundamentally flawed. Had the basis of the partnership been on the common minimum economic program it would have addressed twin objectives, namely, the domestic and foreign policy. The CPI (M) was in the position of strength to negotiate with the Congress a common minimum economic program rather than minimum program to join the UPA. I wonder why CPI (M) did not do so although it was then in a position of strength to negotiate. After the complete sweep by BSP in UP elections clearly the CPI (M) negotiating position appears to have been somewhat compromised.

4. In my opinion the CPI (M) can take cue from the successful experiment carried out under leadership of Hugo Chevaz in Venezuela by optimally combining the task in the sphere of domestic and foreign policies to usher in a socialist revolution. In the South – Latin American Countries they have successfully harnessed anti imperialist feelings of the masses to promote the cause of social transformation. The argument of holding the communal forces at bay under the pretext of secularism in defence of UPA Govt. does not hold water. It is only through an effective implementation of a radical common economic programme that a secular polity can be built and anti imperialist foreign policy course meaningfully pursued. In Venezuela Hugo Chevaz [no Marxist] and Ortega in Nicaragua have effectively used anti imperialist feelings to enhance the appeal of socialism and won the elections. In fact, I recall a telecast during the elections in Venezuela when a reporter asked a layman on the street “who are you going to vote for?” He told him, “Chavez, he will bring socialism”. When the reporter asked him what is socialism? His telling reply was, “I know what is socialism, freedom for poor”. No reading of Marx & Lenin’s works could have conveyed the meaning of socialism to a common man in such simple terms. On the other hand we continue to have a honeymoon [although there are signs of it being over if one goes by media reports] with a government, which has been openly collaborating with the United Sates – The only imperialist Superpower. I am disappointed to see one of the oldest and most experienced Communist Party of the World after the collapse of USSR still dragging it feet in this matter.

5. The Party’s failure to pursue the anti imperialist line stands out in glaring contrast with the Venezuelan experiment. While the party was right in standing up (albeit belatedly) against US Imperialism on the ground that the nuclear deal was pushing the country into the “strategic embrace” of the United States helping it to proposed the name of Pranab Mukherjee as the UPA consensus candidate for the office of The President forgetting that he was the chief architect for the military cooperation agreement with the United States. This created a big credibility gap about its sincere commitment to anti imperialist course. The Party is not known to have taken up cudgel in the public against Pranab Da’s Speech at Carnegie Foundation a couple of years back where he had talked about, “Total convergence” of values and interests between the US and India. He again harped on the same theme in his address at the Defence Staff College in New Delhi. Only last week (overtaken since I drafted my letter)wrote)while speaking in New York before the Council for foreign relations, he again mentioned, “deepening convergence of values and interests”.

6. On the domestic front I see very little influence, if there was any at all, of the CPI (M) policies on the UPA government. For example, last year CPI (M) protested nearly six months against the hike in Petrol prices. Ultimately Mrs. Sonia Gandhi hijacked the issue and got the credit by reducing the petrol prices. In spite of this Congress lost the elections in Delhi and UP where CPI (M) virtually has no base and has got no advantage for being a partner in the UPA. Even on the secular front, Mr. Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat has made a headway when he took an opposite turn and praised Mohammad Jinnah that he was a secular man which appeared to be more secular line than the UPA [though he did so to appease the Muslim voters]. We should not always blame the religious fundamentalism, as it would flourish wherever there is no alternative and there exits ideological vacuum. For example, emergence of Islamic fundamentalism in the former Soviet republics following the disintegration of the USSR. More recent examples are the hostage taking of Army officers in Myanmar and Islamic fundamentalists in Wazisistan area of Pakistan. Nor is the secular ideal per se as sacrosanct and progressive as it is some time made out to be some of its standards bearers keen to exploit it as a cover to conceal their real motives. History bears testimony to ‘secular Jinnah’ willingly acting as a tool in he hands of British imperialist in executing their nefarious design of partitioning India to create theocratic state of Pakistan which was opposed by orthodox Islamists, Ben Gurion, the founding father of Israel belonged to the secular groups of Jewish Nationalist. The United States, The most powerful Imperialist state is one of the most secular countries where the Church and the State are separated and religious education is prohibited in the schools. Secularism without a minimum pro people economic programme is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a really progressive popular alliance.

One should not have delusions about the role of congress in the past and its secular character. Who needs to be reminded about its alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala. Its talk of “soft Hindutva” not so long ago and the recent reference to Rama as the “Management Guru” in the context of “Ram Setu” speaks volumes about its secular credentials.

7. I also did not find any detailed statement of CPI (M) on the issue of reservation policy. It is not suffice to say that only socialism would eliminate problems of discrimination. I believe CPI (M) should come out with idea of positive action through training and monetary compensation and aggravated & punitive damages, if the employers were found guilty of discrimination on the basis of castes and religion through the Tribunals system as an alternative to quotas. This scheme will create a lot of job and burden will be shifted from all taxpayer to discriminatory employers both in the private and public sectors.

8. Last but not the least, I would like to deal with the issue of Nature of the State. We were led to believe that main reason for split in the communist movement was on the characterization of the Nature of the State. Accordingly the CPI justified its alliance with the then Indira-Nehru Congress in completion of National Democratic Revolution. The CPI (M) on the other hand considered this to be a revisionist policy and opposed the congress because on the basis of the Nature of the State, it wanted to lead a Peoples’ Democratic Revolution. I do not understand how the Class character of the State has changed although since the Indira-Nehru era the character of the State has appears to be more pro imperialist due to globalisation, rapidly expanding private sector and open collaboration with the imperialists, which had not happened even during right wing Hindu fundamentalist government led A. B. Bajpai. On the hindsight what is the rational of change in the CPI (M) attitude towards Congress? One might say the character of Congress has dramatically changed since Mrs Gandhi’s era. However, Mrs Gandhi’s Congress then was also a break away group from the Old Congress although after V.V. Giri’s election as President the Old congress was annihilated by the New Congress.

On a positive note I am very pleased that you have taken a hard line in view of recent developments. In my view early election have become inevitable and this is the most opportune time to say goodbye to UPA. At this critical juncture it is important not to unnecessarily kick up non-antagonistic contradictions over the Ram Setu. Hopefully you will take my comments in constructive sprits.

With regards,

Suresh Deman B.Sc., MA (India), MA & ADB (US), MPhil (UK), PhD (Japan) Director of Centre for Economics, Finance & Politics & Visiting Professor at the Markfield Institute PO Box 17517, London SE9 2ZP

Although I would have very much liked to agree with Prof. Patnaik & his colleagues’ mild criticism on Nandigram issue since I wrote the above letter few other developments have taken place.

(a) Some CC members of the CPI (M) proudly told me that over 100,00 CPI (M) militant supporters (I am told some of them armed) entered into Nandigram and got the trouble makers removed before Buddhdeb Bhattacharya could enter into Nandigram to apologies [there is no notion of safeguard against what is known as oppression by the majority, perhaps this would sound like a bourgeois concept), (b)Baba RamDeo, an arch enemy of Branda Karat, if not of the CPI(M), not only supported signing of Nuclear Civil Agreement but has also repeated Mrs Sonia’s words that anyone who opposes the agreement is an enemy of the people. (c) Last month again Pranab Mukherjee continued with his rhetoric in support of Nuclear Civil Treaty while addressing a NRI entrepreneurs conference with the Chief Ministers, (d)Com. Joyti Basu’s statement in support of Bourgeois Industrial revolution under the private ownership of means of production and opposition to the same idea in non CPI(M) states speaks volumes in light of collapse of Soviet model of socialism, (e)Again 5 people got killed in a recent firing resulted in a call for a Bengal Bandh.

Clearly CPI(M) once again fell into the trap of right-wingers to the far left. It is to be noted CPI(M)’s major partner in the UPA i.e., Sonia Gandhi’s Congress called for a Bandh with BJP, Forward Block, Trimul Congress and others. All this flies into the face of CPI(M) fro which no one could be criticised but the CPI(M)intellectuals themselves. Rather then acknowledging the concerns of a fellow Marxist no answer is forthcoming from a Full Marx.

See online : CPI(M) in Retrospect and Prospects – Nandigram Incident

So my questions are ridiculous. Alright. It appears only the super smart intellectuals are allowed here.I am simply a small fish.I guess you guys must have felt insulted to see me here. Good luck to you then. Bye, Bye.

Take for example, the assertion about the state in Prashad’s article (quite apart from insinuations that any critique of the state can only come from some version of neo-liberalism):

“The argument against state power is, of course, the mirror image of the neo-liberal position that says that the state should be ignored in place of the private sector, that the state is itself the fount of tyranny.”

“To eschew state-led sustainable development is to concede the terrain to the powerful social classes who are invested in private corporate-led development. PSPC’s lack of political economy, and the NGO left’s lack of a programme for the transformation of the world, tacitly endorses the politics of the fat cats.”

Here we have the classic scenario. EITHER State OR Private Sector: there are and can be only these two possibilities and if you are opposed to one, you must be for the other. ‘Private’, mind you, is being made to work as a synonym for Capital and capitalist, which is far from the case. Even those whom Communists call petty bourgeois are often far from being capitalists. Neither by action nor by instinct, that is to say; their drive is not to accumulate. Such private entrepreneurship has existed for ages without giving birth to capital or capitalism. One need only read Marx’s Capital, once again on this, in there is need for scriptural sanction. Such property includes peasant and artisanal property – and I am far from believing, going by our contemporary experience, that these forms are obsolete. Second, in Communist Left theory, all kinds of cooperatives are also seen as variations of private property. This is more by way of definitional fiat. Once you have laid down the rule that whatever is not state, is private/capital, then this proposition naturally follows. However, cooperative forms have not been tried out – except when some enterprise has reached a terminal stage. Only in some parts of the world and in some pockets do we have cooperative that were set up not to meet a crisis but as important forms – and they seem to be functioning pretty well.
So, in the first place, it is not clear, despite lot of obfuscation on this issue, that there are or can only be these two types of property ownership.

Second, to respond to Prashad’s assertion that “to eschew state-led sustainable development is to concede the terrain to the powerful social classes who are invested in private corporate-led development,” I can only say that in the present day world, this is being refuted every day and every hour by practical experience. It is only through the state and thanks to the state that the land, forests and water of the world are being handed over to private corporate capital. And it matters NOT AT ALL who is in control of the state – Communists (China, Vietnam, West Bengal), or some kind of a Left Alliance (Brazil, South Africa) – all are complicit through the logic of the state in this cannibalization of the planet’s resources, people and what have you. So, before somebody asserts the self-evident nature of the virtues of the state or evokes this fantasy of state-as-resistance-to-capital, he or she will have to do some very hard work.
Thanks again.

….Professor John Holloway’s 2002 Change the World without Taking Power provides the best summary of this approach. It also finds its Indian face in the work of political scientist Aditya Nigam, particularly in his 2001 paper, “Radical Politics in the Times of Globalization”. Holloway argues that the structure of the state is compromised, and should be avoided in favour of the “power of doing” – of building something in opposition to the capitalist world. Classes and revolutionary subjects are irrelevant to this undertaking, since the “pure eager revolutionary subject” must give way to a “damaged humanity” – that is to say, everyone has to participate in the recuperation of our estranged selves.

Holloway championed the Mexican Zapatista movement in the same way that Nigam extolled the NBA and Kanshi Ram of the Bahujan Samaj Party, both of which he sees as post-nationalist – indeed, as post-state. The argument against state power is, of course, the mirror image of the neo-liberal position that says that the state should be ignored in place of the private sector, that the state is itself the fount of tyranny. On the other hand, the question from the communist left is not so much whether or not to use the state institutions, but which classes actually control the state and to what end the state is utilised……
It’s an interesting exercise.I don’t know whether Aditya Nigam has responded to it. I am eager to hear his response.