Home

Another view on the elections' results in West Bengal

Fri, 2010-06-18 13:48 — srinir
Ashok Mitra

 Ashok Mitra, former finance minister of West Bengal and a leading intellectual, has been critical of the LF government in the state for some time now. He has been searing in his critique of the "industrialisation" initiative, in the manner that this was brought about. At the same time, he has been cautioning against the shift of power from the LF to rabid demagogues of "the lady's" variety. Post the Lok Sabha elections, the fiery writer had written an article that assessed the reasons for the defeat but in my opinion, erroneously called for the resignation of the LF government. 

He makes a similar assessment in this particular article in the Telegraph, titled "Hard Times ...". Calling for a reorientation of the Left to its moorings and to stay true to the "formidable mass organizations representing major segments of peasants, workers and the middle and lower middle-classes, including from the minority communities", he invokes a call for the left to reorient itself and to project the alternative that the rest of India would look up to, for

"Any weakening on its part may cause some short-term jubilation in the ranks of the conventional parties on the right and the middle but the real beneficiaries will be the non-parliamentary Left out on the lawless road". 

He is also quite clear on the incorrect reasoning - the withdrawal of support to the UPA - attributed to the losses by the LF, prevalent among sections of the Left leadership in the state. 

This writer does not agree with his prescriptions of a whole-scale change of guard in West Bengal. But the article makes some other important assessments and conclusions that are indeed very constructive. 

The entire article can be read here. 

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (15 votes)

Comments

by NMK on Sat, 2010-06-19 21:22

Familiar, Facile Leaftism

Com. Srinir has correctly summed up Com Ashok Mitra's well meaning but by now predictable views on what ails the CPM and also noted the two important points on which he differs with the veteran .

Com Ashok Mitra's call for resignation of the LF government and a general purge of the CPM leadership in West Bengal has however to be politically rebutted. As a leading intellectual and a former finance minister he should in fact be helping the party to formulate alternative policies rather than pushing the panic button every time. I don't know the present equation between him and the party but whether the CPM leadership listens to him or not , he should articulate in public the alternative policies that he wants the CPM to follow.

Is it not naive for somebody like him to constantly counter pose lily white party cadres and a degenerate leadership ? With his vast experience in Government , Com AshsoK Mitra should know best that there can not be any neat division of labor between the party and its government in the cause of the PDR. They have to work in tandem even in providing immediate relief to the people and implementing alternative policies as mandated by the party program. There can not be one face for the party in West Bengal and Kerala and another, in say Rajasthan . One at the center and another in the states. For there is nothing more important for a Marxist - Leninist party than unity of theory and practice.

Nor can a Marxist - Leninist party arrive at a correct political line based on a fear of being outflanked by its political opponents, either of the Left adventurist or the Right opportunist kind . If that were the case , it would have been enough for the founder leaders of the CPM to have positioned the new party equidistant from the CPI and Naxalites or for that matter, between the CPSU and CPC .Even at the height of the polemics in the international communist movement in the Sixties , they had the courage to develop and defend bold independent positions.

In sharp contrast to this,any one who has followed Com Ashok Mitra's writings from the first generation Naxalite days can sense in him a certain lingering populist urge to prove the revolutionary credentials of the CPM before the lawless far Left . This is '' Leftism" pure and simple which leaves no room concrete analysis of concrete conditions or for seeking truth from facts . I find it sad that Com Ashok Mitra has not evolved from his emotive Frontier and EPW years and that the vast Telegraph audience he is now addressing makes a different use of him than his one time cult following among young leftists.

And finally , what the party needs is certainly not general purge or a wholesale replacement of the party leadership in any state or at the center because most of these comrades have a life time of service and sacrifice for the people and the party behind them .
Genuine rectification of mistakes through self criticism , criticism followed by corrective disciplinary action against the worst offenders should be the the way forward unless one
expects the party to emerge purified from organizational disarray.

The accent should be on Self criticism and Unity.Those who have been proved corrupt should have no place in the party.Those in the higher committees found responsible for grave political mistakes should be asked to own up their mistakes.The political self criticism made by some of the leading comrades that are representative of major erroneous views could be made public to ensure that they do not commit the same mistakes twice. It would rebuild the confidence of the cadres and the masses in the party and recharge them. It would also win new friends for the party. And new victories.

by srinir on Sat, 2010-06-19 23:14

@NMK

I am not sure one could reduce AM's general critique over the years to "facile leftism" as you make it out to be. It is not as if he hasn't suggested alternatives on development policy over the years. Some, I personally don't agree with; some I do. The former, for example with his overarching reliance on public sector industrialisation - which is hampered because of finance - on which AM radically suggests changes in centre-state relations; possibly one point that has been his USP. I am not sure if the state government can interminably wait/ struggle for that to happen. But there are other alternatives at various levels he has offered that, I thought were feasible and quite "win-win" for the stakeholders. For example; on Singur - he wrote this article during the heights of the controversy when "the lady" was stalling the project at a crucial phase -

The way out of the Singur impasse lies in re-negotiating the terms of the agreement between the state government and Tata Motors. The latter should be persuaded to make immediate arrangements to give a separate legal corpus to the Singur enterprise. Twenty-five per cent of the equity of this entity may be transferred to the state government as compensation for the land and other facilities promised to the industrial giant. The state administration could follow this up by taking two separate initiatives. First, it could announce a 100 per cent bonus payment over and above the price at which holdings have been acquired for the project. The bonus is to cover all the acquired plots, including those for which payment is outstanding. The state authorities, anxious to get things back to normal, have already hinted at their willingness to consider such a measure.

The second initiative the state government must take is of far greater significance. Of the 25 per cent of the total equity passed on to it, while it could keep 12.5 per cent for itself, the other 12.5 per cent should be distributed among the owners, the sharecroppers and the workers regularly employed in each taken-over holding. Consider the implications of the proposal. The Tatas are on record that they will assemble 3,50,000 cars in Singur every year. Assuming they hold the price at Rs 1,00,000, and the rate of return is about 10 per cent from the sale of each car, the expected annual profit from the project should be around Rs 350 crore with full capacity production; the accrual for the state government would work out to roughly Rs 45 crore; another Rs 45 crore would flow to the farming community.

As part of the total package of the new agreement, the state government could ask for a seat on the board of directors of the Singur corporate unit. It might thereby ensure that the details of the understanding are duly pursued and the planned ancillary units provide satisfactory scope of employment for the neighbourhood youth.

With the peasantry assured of a stake in the ownership of the Singur plant, it is bound to be a totally transformed situation. One has at least reason to hope so.

I thought that the suggestion was not just radical, but provided a viable solution to the impasse and had the potential of setting a standard for all project involving large scale land acquisition and transfer of agrarian land for industry in India. 

AM had also written quite prescient articles in the EPW on the Bengal subjects, for e.g. here. The article talked about electoral prospects after a bye-election in Balagarh, even before the panchayati elections (when the decline really began). Perhaps one should have heeded his suggestions on change of direction then. 

IN sum, I don't agree with your take about AM's writings on the subject to merely be "Facile Leftism" - to counter Naxalite brouhaha. Elsewhere in this site, there was a comment by Arindam - which asked for a class reorientation of policies. I suppose AM's refrain over the years have remained pinned on that subject, too heavily to ignore him. 

by Anonymous on Tue, 2010-06-22 15:37

And you think Tatas would

And you think Tatas would accept that idea? Why on earth would they be willing to part with 25% of profits from a project like Nano - which has potential for tremendous profits over the long term? It was not that Tatas were dying to set up shop in WB - matter of fact, many states were competing very hard to get the project to their state.

by Anonymous on Tue, 2010-06-22 16:13

share of profits

there was a stark choice - either go ahead with land acquisition and the project against the claims of those holding multi-crop land and tilling them, those landless labourers who stood to lose their livelihood and invite the Tatas to finish their project - with soft loans, sops etc or rework the compensation package suitably with Ashok Mitra's suggestions as a certain benchmark. The latter could have been more suitable as an option that could help multiple stakeholders in the project and not just the Tatas alone. For the latter, the locational specifities - closeness to Calcutta Port and potential of reaching the export market in the East; integration with ancillary units - which were dime-a-dozen in small manufacturing friendly West Bengal etc, could have been the larger incentives for them to proceed with the project with the conditionalities envisaged by Ashok Mitra. I think the choice of Sanand later and Singur instead of Uttarakhand in the first place was because of these latent advantages of a location close to a busy port.

The trouble is that the opposition, led by Mamata Banerjee, was taking too maximalist a position - i.e. no project at all and was not amenable to reason. The reason why the Tatas left was not because of the state government, but because of the crazy and often violent (security guards and Tata employees were threatened and some were hurt in violence against them as well) actions of Trinamul sympathizers and partymen. I think the opposition's actions could have been pre-empted if Mitra's ideas could have been tried to be implemented or atleast negotiated. But that of course is in the realm of speculation now.

by NMK on Tue, 2010-06-22 20:09

Setting the threshold

Proceeding with AM's alternative would in effect mean setting a threshold on incentives for big ticket Indian or foreign private investment by the state govt as mooted by Com Prabhat Patnaik as a policy guide line for all three beleaguered CPM led state governments.

In the present political context and given the correlation of class forces this is actually no alternative at all for it would mean barring big ticket private investment. Com PP says it is fine because even if big ticket investment comes it would only bring misery to the peasants agricultural workers and petty producers.

I find it rather cynical even as an interim position or tactics.This is as good or bad as not taking part in parliamentary politics.The political opponents of the CPM ranging from Mamta to Maoists would have no qualms in raising maximalist slogans as in Nandigram or Singur for their minimum program is to weaken the CPM.

by Anonymous on Wed, 2010-06-23 20:50

I completely agree with you.

I completely agree with you. The harsh fact is that Bengal govt is in no position to set decent standards for private investments in the country. Given the strong neoliberal set up both globally and in India, the private investor clearly has the upper hand. If WB pushes for greater share in the profits for the local people, the investor would simply move to other states which offer liberal incentives (with the rulers enriching themselves in the process, damn the people).

Now, there is no gainsaying the fact massive industrialization is the only viable option for long-term economic health of the state. The revolutionary gains that we have made in the agrarian sector has run its course. The state govt is in no position at all to mobilize resources for making large scale public investments in industrial sector. I strongly feel the intellectuals do not really appreciate the completely unenviable position that the party and the government finds itself in.

by Anonymous on Wed, 2010-06-23 12:32

hobson's choice

".....In the present political context and given the correlation of class forces this is actually no alternative at all for it would mean barring big ticket private investment. Com PP says it is fine because even if big ticket investment comes it would only bring misery to the peasants agricultural workers and petty producers....."

But what kind of "big ticket investment" is the question to be asked, right? Labour displacing, capital intensive "big ticket investment" surely can't be a priority for a left government, should it? I do not think Prabhat Patnaik says that all forms of big ticket investment or forms of industrialization should be avoidable. See this article he wrote in the Economic and Political Weekly recently - http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/14090.pdf .. The relevant extract for this discussion is here -

"An example will illustrate the need for this perception. Much debate has taken place recently about the need for industrialisation in West Bengal. While many critics of the Left have argued against industrialisation, if not always explicitly then at least implicitly, they have been rightly criticised for taking a “Luddite stand”. The capacity of modern large-scale industry to generate employment is limited, so that the hope that such industrialisation will absorb labour reserves to any significant extent is a far-fetched one (which indeed is an argument for exploring the possibilities of industrialisation in a more comprehensive sense, going beyond the mere implanting of modern large-scale industrial units). But, even if such industrialisation does not significantly absorb labour reserves, insofar as the products of such industry are used in the country, not having such industries would entail reliance on imports, on foreign loans, and hence eventually on imperialism, which must be avoided. Hence opposition to industrialisation, even in the sense of implanting modern large-scale industrial units, lacks validity.

But the real issue is not whether industrialisation occurs or not, but whether it occurs through subservience to the logic of capital or whether it occurs without compromising the dialectics of subversion of the logic of capital. The issue in short is not one of “use-values”, i e, what thing is produced, but of relations of production, i e, whether the production of the thing jeopardises the Left’s role in carrying forward the dialectics of subversion.

Subscribing to the view that such a dialectics of subversion is impossible for the Left if it leads state governments, that the only immediate choice is between “development”, a euphemism for subservience to the logic of capital, and an attempt to overthrow the system, which is what both the “development advocates” and the ultra-Left would want us to believe, negates any scope for Left politics. The “development advocates” would conclude from this view that the Left must abandon its politics and become subservient to the logic of capital; the ultra-Left would conclude from this view that the Left should abandon its politics and join insurgency. Both are wrong. The scope for Left politics arises precisely by rejecting this binary choice, by transcending the problematic, common to both the ultra-Left and the neoliberals, that the only immediate choice is between subservience to the logic of capital or attempting to overthrow the system. Transcending this problematic is precisely the resolution of the theoretical crisis of the Left. And the scope for politics that is created thereby will also resolve the practical crisis of the Left."

From this extract, my interpretation is that, it is necessary to industrialize, no doubt and not just because of employment potential, but because of generation of "use values". But that industrialization must be done in a manner that does not entail subservience to the logic of capital - in the form of accepting all kinds of sops and easy tax rules, or large scale land acquisition without adequate rehabilitation for the stakeholders involved. There has to be a certain limit to the incentives offered to big capitalists for this form of development and nothing beyond.

The question is whether this indeed was the case in Singur or not and that is the crucial aspect of the debate. To some, the compensation package given as cash money per acre to sharecroppers and registered landowners and promises of employment through training for landless labourers, was enough. For others such as Ashok Mitra, this was not enough. The questions related to this are debatable. But the point to note is that at every turn, it was necessary for the Left to keep the interest of the "distressed classes" in mind.

The Mamatas & co., certainly did not have that in mind. It is increasingly clear that the "stop the project" initiative of the Trinamul had other interests behind it - corporate competitors of the Tatas who were against the group getting a foothold in industrial investment in the state (Ratan Tata himself mentioned this in one of his TV interviews). Perhaps if AM's alternative scheme was given a thought or tried to be negotiated, one could have credibly pitched this line for all the stakeholders in Singur - the landless, the sharecroppers, the ancillary unit workers and even the Tatas against unscrupulous contractors and other bourgeois elements pitched against the Left. And therein every other industrialization initiative in the state, with linkages with the advances in agroprocessing etc could have been pursued simultaneously apart from "big ticket investment" as well.

by NMK on Sun, 2010-06-20 21:16

I understand

Thank U Com Srinir for sobering me down. I used to be an AM fan at one time . So that could be influencing my perception.

by Anonymous on Sat, 2010-06-19 17:06

The Real and Only one View of our Party's isolation in Bengal

Undeniably the CPI(Marxist) has been going through a rough phase in the the recent times, if not tumultous. And it is also a crystal clear fact that the CPI(Marxist) shall successfully overcome this tough phase sooner with all it's ideological maturity and organizational strength. Some major shortcomings have been thoroughly identified and others are still in the process of all microscopic detection at a war-footing and the process of rectification of all flaws,shortcomings and deviations have already been started in its citadel. The transperancy and a democratic culture associated inherently with the CPI(Marxist) provides the Party all the necessary strength,flexibility and pragmatism to self-criticize and wipe out all it's ills and flaws most confidently. For reference one can read the Party Documents on our Electoral loss,Rectification campaign and the Documents of our last 18th & 19th Party Congresses. Also during the last 2 to 3 days we have been getting news from a well known Left-oriented Bangla Newspaper in which we have read the statements given by our WB State Party Secretary Comrade Biman Basu while he has been taking stock of the organizational shortcomings in various districts on the wake of our electoral debacle in the recent Municipality polls. He has given 2 statements - 1. "The Rectification guidelines have not been properly implemented within the various levels of the WB Party."
2. "In the major districts we have been going through all the reasons for our setbacks, and if we find any cases of Organizational sabotage within the Party then we will explicitly take action against those members at whichever level they belong." Comrade Biman Basu spelt out his strong opinions after attending the meeting of the Hooghly District Committee which discussed all the probable reasons for the massive setbacks suffered by the Party and in which several prominent DC members were in the absent list.
But most strangely enough some Comrades within ourselves do not even try to visualise the reality in it's concrete form. They do not even want to recognize that there have been a major organizational lapse and a virtual breakdown in some places that have contributed immensely to our present weakened state of condition. A genuine-most Communist Party gets the required organizational strength and flexibilty only when all it's policies are completely betrothed ever-dedicatedly to the Toiling,Labouring class. While trying to woo and garner the support of the middle class when going all out for the Industrialization and Land acquisition drives there occurred a massive Petite Bourgeoisie deviation on the part of the CPI(Marxist) and it had actually resulted in the complete alienation and isolation of our Party from the most basic oppressed labouring classes whom we solely represent. And this ultimately manifested in the virtual collapse of our once invincible organizational machinery in the grassroot level.

Sincerely ever,
Comradely Greetings.

Kuntal Chatterjee
Bhilai,C.G., Pin - 490006.

by Anonymous on Sat, 2010-06-19 14:10

@srini

why do you disagree on ashok mitra's suggestion that the left front government should step down. partners of the left front other than cpm have also suggested the same. ashok mitra is absolutely right when he points towards the "meshing of subjectivity and objectivity" as far as the perception of the government is concerned, not only in the eyes of the people of west bengal but elsewhere as well. in fact the lameduck west bengal government has become the biggest liability for the entire left movement of the country today. its defeat at the hands of the "lady" in the assembly elections is a foregone conclusion. what difference does it make if the left steps down from power and goes for elections now? successive elections have shown that no recovery is possible under the present set up.

as for the leadership, ashok mitra is right here too. the west bengal leadership of the left needs a thorough change. people want to see new faces with new ideas.

by srinir on Sat, 2010-06-19 19:16

To halt the wanton murder

I think if the LF government would have resigned right after the Lok Sabha elections for e.g.; the repeated murders of CPI(M) sympathisers and supporters from the poor would not have gone down, either in the 'Jangalmahal' area or in other places. I do agree that the leadership holds responsibility for the defeat and have to be accountable; but at the same time, I feel that the government has certain done work toward course correction since the Lok Sabha elections as well. Whole-sale change of guard is therefore something I am not comfortable with, as an idea. I would be immensely glad if the Bengal leadership identifies the areas and cadre who have become thoroughly rotten in their functioning in various parts of the state and replace them. Also, all those who have been cautioning against policies such as land acquisition etc should be accommodated in leadership positions. And the inane "withdrawal of support to Congress" line should be given up. 

Insofar as the government is in power, it can certainly work toward halting rampant anarchy that has been unleashed in West Bengal by various forces- which are not necessarily a consequence of the government's policies. How for e.g., could one characterise the complete mess in Darjeeling orchestrated by the likes of the authoritarian GJM whose leadership was implicated in the murder of Madan Tamang? Or in the rise of various identitarian movements here and there in the state?  

Within the one year that is available to complete the term, there can be various stabilisation measures - the neutralisation of the Maoist threat in the three districts, the better implementation of a few schemes that have been given some fillip since 2009, working toward normalisation in the North of Bengal. This can simultaneously go on as the party rectifies. I hope that the ideological differences get thrashed out well enough to isolate careerist and self-seeking elements that would have to go, in the coming year. The idea is not only to focus on winning elections, but to present a "reoriented Left" for the battle in the long term. I suppose that does not nullify the aims of Ashok Mitra, although it is slightly in variance with his prescriptions.