From my limited knowledge about the events in JNU, the office-bearers of the SFI had not resigned from the SFI. They did resign from the party because taking a political position which is different from the party's was not possible under the party constitution. The principle of democratic centralism requires that even though a party branch might have a position which is different from the party's, it is the higher committee's decision which prevails. Therefore, the members in their own capacity couldn't express their collective opinion in public. However, there are no such compulsions for the mass organisation. Otherwise, why have a mass organisation?
There have been SFI units in the country without a party branch so the SFI all India leadership could have tried a hands-off approach and see where it was going instead of casting aspersions on their motives. After all, even now the SFI there is upholding the SFI constitution and defending the left legacies of the SFI and the CPI (M). What is malafide in this?
This whole episode has raised some critical questions about the relationship between the party and the mass organisation which I hope would be debated in our party in the days to come. For example, couldn't the SFI take a position critical of the party on an event like Nandigram? I guess you wouldn't have opposed their taking a critical position then? My point is this debate could generate space for such a possibility. But unfortunately the dissent has been nipped in the bud.
One last thing. Just to reiterate the point I have made in response to Aniket. Although Prasenjit's resignation was a trigger for initiating this debate, seeing the two events as the same is incorrect to my mind (for reasons given above).
More information about formatting options
Send letter to the editor.
Follow Pragoti on Twitter.
Add to Blogger