Notes on The Last Assembly Elections
Behind Election Commission's Hyperactivity
Assembly elections for five states of India were held in the month of May this year. Those states were Assam , Kerala, Pondichery, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal . Holding Parliamentary elections, be it for the LS or any state assembly, in one single day is now a history — phenomenon of bygone era. It can be said that since 1970s, i.e., from when the electioneering by the parties and booth management in particular was gradually being handed over to muscle men and rigging-experts of the parties, elections were also being held region wise in multiple days. Ostensibly, this is to provide rotational deployment and thereby to ensure big way mobilisation of police and paramilitary forces in each booth. But all the records of such staggering election have been smashed by what actually happened in the last held elections. For example, election in WB was held in five different dates covering whole of the month of May, thanks to the spurt of activism of the Central Election Commission. The activism of the Election Commission was of course not confined in fixing dates only; it was extended right from the beginning of the election process, i.e., from the very day of official announcement of election. State officials were not relied. Voters lists were finally prepared under direct and strict supervision and control of central officials. On even slightest violation of laid-down rules and instructions of Central Election Commission, state bureaucrats, whether of police or administration, were handed marching order to places in no way connected to the election process. Party leaders were also not spared of regular strictures. West Bengal probably saw the maximum of it.
Activism of Election Commission is however not new. This was being felt during the last decade also. To be precise, hyperactive Election Commission was first seen in the regime of Mr. T. N. Seshan as Chief Election Commissioner. From then on such role of the Election Commission has been increasingly consolidated, however with the avowed intention to impose from above "free, fair and peaceful" election mainly by way of clipping the mercenary wings of the parties, particularly the big ones. Class-conscious worker is aware that this growing activism of Election Commission is not due to overzealous individual effort by the Chiefs such as Seshan, Rammurthy, Tandon, etc. It is precisely because ruling classes of India , in the interest of their class rule, want this role of the Election Commission. They now need free and fair election for both Parliament and State Assemblies, as they need stability in parliamentary system and social and political peace for smoothly going ahead with their New Economic Policy. In fact, free and fair election, at least in appearance, is becoming necessary for them primarily to boost up faith of the people on election process, which has been on the wane due to very conduct of all the contesting parties, like rampant use of manipulation, rigging, coercion, etc. There is another factor also and this is probably more important to the ruling classes and their state. The aggressive role of the Election Commission and more so, the hue and cry raised on the issue are also welcome to them as they would be able to use those to pose themselves as champion of democracy, and also buttress the sense of frustration and indifference amongst people arising out of their own experience, that is, election comes and goes but their conditions do not change. How much success ruling classes will get in their design, particularly the later one, is definitely a question, but meanwhile it cannot be denied that there has been largely fair and peaceful election in five states and percentage of votes polled has stepped up, thanks strong-arm control of Election Commission, or in other words, thanks State intervention.
It has been peaceful election, fine. People by and large could exercise their franchise. Let us also accept it. But still then, was it essentially free in terms of truest democracy? Could it be so at all in bourgeois parliamentary system, especially in countries like ours where bourgeois democratic transformation is yet to be completed due to presence of strong remnants of feudalism and imperialist domination? How could there be free vote when in large tracts of countryside where votes are exchanged even today with money in cash or kind like liquor etc? Who can deny that votes amongst backward rural masses, particularly those socially oppressed, are still influenced and dictated by the men in power — be it political, economic or social. Booth management for a single day with the help of state intervention from above can in no way make any overnight change of what is embedded in the society for years. In fact, elections under this condition may be somewhat peaceful and fair, as we have seen in last Assembly elections, but free election is simply misnomer. But that is not all. Still a fundamental question remains. Even if we think of a condition when the above impediments are removed and there is no coercion either overt or covert, will there be free vote in real terms? As for instances, in West Bengal is it true that workers and peasants who voted freely (to a large extent in the last assembly election) for the left front, did freely vote for the policies of the left front, in particularly for their central slogan of so-called 'development'? They are rather being seen 'voting against' on foot through their actual struggles in the fields and factories.
The subject needs elaborate discussion and it is perhaps strictly not in the ambit of the present review of the last held state elections, but yet let us touch down some points as to what is here actually being meant by free vote: It is when people are able to elect their own representatives i.e. those who can protect their class interest. This is primarily possible only when the workers-peasants are themselves conscious about their class interest. As long as the minds of the people remain captive of bourgeois ideology, they are not at all expected to freely act on the basis of class interest. Worker with bourgeois mind is bound to act in a bourgeois way and can only serve the ultimate class interest of the bourgeoisie. Hence in the most advanced democratic country, the state at best can ensure free vote to the extent people make their own choice without any coercion, but bourgeois choice can in no way be called free choice of the working class in truest terms of democracy. To be specific, in bourgeois election, for the working class, free vote would mean electing representatives for representing class struggle in the floor of the parliament, and it would obviously depend on the condition of development of class struggle and class organisation. This is simply a Marxist standpoint. But unfortunately communist revolutionaries often miss the point as would be evident from their participation in the last assembly elections.
The hyper active role of the Election Commission has been found to be greatly lauded by varied section of the bourgeois media and so to say, by the ruling classes, particularly big bourgeoisie. Very natural. Petty bourgeoisie were elated to see tough bureaucratic handling of the parties in ensuring 'free and fair' election. Parties in government might not always like it but parties in opposition welcomed the role of the EC wholeheartedly. But Indian class-conscious proletariat cannot be swayed by the chorus. Firstly, they are conscious how sham is our democracy, how it is truncated. They are aware that present constitution provides right to organise and struggle but by another provision of the same constitution, the right is curtailed. Extreme example was Emergency in 1975. Even daily experiences suggest how a common man has to live with the odds in judicial, administrative and police intervention/harassment. Workers have almost common experience how much time and labour and in some cases, money is required to get through the registration of their primary organisation like trade union. How one can forget that dreadful judgement of the TN High Court whereby State Employees' strike was declared illegal and as a consequence hundreds of employees were dismissed from their services? ESMA and scores of black laws are there to ruthlessly suppress the struggles of the working class and other toiling people. They are used as and when required by the capitalists. Is it for this democracy(!) that the working class has to rejoice? How can the working class sing in praise for Election Commission for being allowed to "freely vote" for protection of sham democracy and for perpetuating bourgeois system of exploitation and oppression? Yes, working class would use their franchise in whatever way that exists in parliamentary democracy, but only to enhance and widen class struggle and for that this would not have to look out for mercy from bureaucracy.
As we said earlier, present role of the Election Commission was not seen in the early years of Republic and that at least upto the '70s or even '80s of the past century. We know that the Election Commission did not go beyond the constitutional provision in conducting last assembly elections and rules they followed were already in the book. They were simply not used as because ruling classes so long did not face this necessity for doing that. The reason for state intervention, so to say the tough role of the EC has earlier been stated. We explained how was it necessary from the point of view of the ruling classes. Does not the present phenomenon at the other hand indicate terrible weakness in democracy below i.e. in social fabric and social movement? Is not such social condition the breeding ground of autocracy? Are not the Judicial and EC activism in the name of peoples right, in the face of passivity of people more and more strengthening the arm of the state tending towards autocracy? It may appear to be paradoxical how can grow the tendency towards autocracy within one which itself acts for democratic process. But actually what happened in West Bengal ? Was is not virtually under EC's rule (read President's rule) for the period from declaration of election to the final date of the election? Did not we experience the same phenomenon last year during Bihar election? We must remember that democracy is not to be given, it is to be earned. Working class and people remaining passive and politically inert and disorganised, if democracy, even apparent and unreal, exists at the mercy and under full control of ruling classes and the state, it can overnight be withdrawn. We may recall what happened in 1971 and '72 assembly elections in West Bengal . There was no EC intervention in spite of massive rigging and booth capturing and terrorisation of Congress backed by police, as at that time capitalist and landed interest needed to finally crush the fighting mood of the workers and peasants still then existing in spite of the betrayal by the left parties. Again you look at Emergency of 1975-77. It was clamped taking out all the rights of the people. Scheduled Lok Sabha election was deferred. It was necessary because this power that be, was confronted with country wide resistance at that time and also the conflict within the ruling class itself, which did not remain confined in the parliament floor only, rather which spilled over in the streets. Now the ruling class apparently detest Emergency and they do not need it. They are now united under the banner of imperialist globalisation. Working class and the people are mainly on retreat. Ruling class need peaceful time and for that they need parliamentary democracy to function smoothly so to say ensure 'free and fair' election. They do not bother which party or which coalition wins and forms govt in state or in centre, because all the parties vouch for globalisation. They do not now need repeat what they did in 1971 and 72 in West Bengal, rather ground condition remaining placid, they need the reverse for which the Election Commission did play the desired role by forcing down 'free and fair' election. Really a fine tactics. And how at ease they are taken. Upholding the banner of democracy on one hand and on the other hand continuing state offensive against whatever actual resistances are being built up by working class and the people right from Hero Honda to Jute workers in West Bengal , and like reform of Labour Law practically squeezing rights of the worker to organise and struggle and such other. Is it not in synchronisation with what the US imperialism is doing all over the world. They want 'democracy' and that is why they bombed Afghanistan or Iraq , killed thousands of people only to remove a 'dictator' and install from above a 'democratically elected' govt of His Masters Voice. However to conclude, the working class has nothing to join the chorus in praise of Election Commission's hyper active role that we saw in recently held assembly elections. Rather they should ponder in depths. They must ponder whether the apparent success of the ruling class's present tactics, particularly the Election Commission phenomena actually lies in the disintegration of working class, almost a non-existing stream of class struggle, bankruptcy of the present day communist known as communist revolutionary and finally the failure of the class conscious proletariat to unite.
The Condition of Class Struggle vs. The Role of CR Groups
Since there does not exist at the moment any discernable stream of political class struggle, consequentially having no social impact we do not find any perceptible presence of working class in the electoral battle. Further, it is also known to us that in bourgeois parliamentary elections bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties fight one another and in the process draw all segments of masses into the vortex of struggle. Working class joins this political struggle to fight the bourgeois influence on masses. We also know that electoral battle is the continuation of actual class struggle going on in the society outside the parliament. It is therefore obvious that election results of the five states would simply manifest existing class disposition that dominate the political scenario of the present day India, however with state wise peculiarities in which bourgeois politics is on sway exerting overwhelming influence on working class and broad masses, through all the parliamentary parties, working class having been disintegrated is without party of its own. Communist revolutionary groups are there but they have hopelessly negligible influence on working class.
It is true that the contending parliamentary parties right from Congress, BJP do have no difference in their position with respect to class struggle. They are all for globalisation and whoever form the govt follows that policy of the ruling classes and the imperialists. The class conscious proletariat has nothing to bother who forms the govt. They should also not bother to analyse like phsephologists which of the factors — whether it is incumbency factor or factors like caste, religion, region or such others — contributed to the final outcome of the elections. They should rather be eager to analyse those aspects of voting by the masses which would signify their inherent aspiration or even essence of it, which connects class struggle.
Here in this connection let us discuss an important and of course relevant point. We have seen that for last few years, since New Economic Policy came in, there have been spontaneous struggle below of workers-peasants and they are growing, albeit very slowly, in defiance of old leadership of bourgeois or petty bourgeois reformist-opportunist parties. Workers have often been found to revolt in factory plane against old established union leadership and build up new separate unions of their own. But these struggles and even the trend of departure from old leadership did not get reflected or projected in election battle in any of the states. It may appear paradoxical that one who abandons or defies the old leadership in his actual struggle is again voting for these very parties in parliamentary elections. But it is true. Nevertheless, it is the characteristics of the present situation.
Workers are forming their own organisations in trade union struggle but as a class they are yet to show that conscious and collective initiative to form their own political organisation i.e. a party. Yes, the new struggles referred to above, can definitely be considered to be of working class taking the first step to end their long passivity in the wake of defeat of world socialist movement. It can also be said that the workers by fighting against factory wise manifestation of capitalist class's unified and centralised attack under the central policy of globalisation, are objectively fighting the capitalist class. It is also being observed that these struggles in general, are objectively confounded with so many political questions. Yet, in reality these struggles are within the parameter of economic struggle and in trade union arena and that too scattered. These struggles, on the other hand, cannot be elevated or developed to real political struggle without a party i.e. without the class being organised. And hence we find that workers, standing on their halfway assimilation of the past experiences, have started abandoning old leadership in their actual struggle but are yet to make departure from the reformist-opportunist parties politically which could have only been possible by the conscious leading role of truly working class party and of course through political i.e. complete assimilation of the past by the working class. We are therefore, to accept the rude reality that in the present condition of absence of party and near absence of a discernable stream of political class struggle, working class standing only on newly emerging struggle in TU plane cannot but be virtually absent from electoral battle which is political one.
One may argue that there exists a layer of class conscious worker and this cannot be denied. Can they not make themselves present in electoral battle? Firstly they are hopelessly thin in number and that too un-united. Secondly they are not integrated with the masses of their own class. These workers and divided communist intelligentsia may find it a routine axiomatic duty, in the name of Leninist tactics, to participate in bourgeois election but that can in no way be called as participation of the working class.
We know that a number of communist revolutionary groups contested in several seats in the last assembly elections and in all five states. In more than half of the constituencies, vote received by them was one thousand and a half to two thousands. It is not that such results were unexpected or unusual. We would find that this result was no different from those of all the previous elections — be it for Lok Sabha or state assemblies. As we know that bourgeois elections actually reflects what exists in society in reality, the results of the last elections would naturally be found to correspond to the existing hopeless condition of class struggle when today's communists are terribly isolated from the working class and the people. However, this abysmally poor result proved once again that as long as the working class or even its advanced section remains so scattered and divided and level of spontaneity of their struggle remains low as of today, no CR organisation would be in a position to conduct political struggle in bourgeois election and thereby influence masses outside its periphery, on revolutionary line.
But in comparison to aspect of poor results in terms of vote, we are to give greater importance to the question as to whether the CR groups did conduct the election from a revolutionary platform at all. Let us take one instance. CPIML-Liberation got about 20,000 votes in one of the constituencies in the state of Assam and this was their highest vote. Note, it was in Assam which is one of the most backward state of India in respect of class struggle. Where Liberation's average vote in West Bengal is two to three thousands, how could there be 20,000 strong support for revolutionary platform in a backward constituency in Assam ? It is simply unbelievable. In fact, careful study of the campaign materials of all the groups would be found to reveal dilution of revolutionary platform conforming to the backward mood and aspiration of the masses, virtually turning their election platform as that of "left of existing parliamentary lefts". What seemed to have been ignored by these groups in their election struggle was the Leninist tactics of participation in bourgeois election whose essence is "educate and organise" — educate means revolutionary education; organise means organising and winning support of masses outside the periphery of the party, obviously on revolutionary plank. We are made to believe, however with pain, that these groups accepted Leninist tactics in appearance but not in essence. Hence question still remains whether the microscopic vote these groups got in the election was at all on the basis of revolutionary propaganda. Marxist-Leninists are not allowed to miss the fundamental point that election fight is apparently in between parties but in essence it is in between the classes. To conclude, communist revolutionary groups are required to examine the efficacy of fighting elections not only in the light of tiny vote they got on average, but more so, on whether they fought the election on the basis of working class revolutionary platform following Marxist-Leninist tactics in truest terms. They should also understand that the way they are fighting election struggle would betray the rightwing trend and would virtually dampen and retard the preparation of working class, particularly its advanced section and therefore undermine the main task of the proletariat in this present period of defeat of the first offensive of the World Socialist Movement.
The CPI-Maoist's line of boycotting parliamentary election has once again proved to be infructuous. Average turnout of voters in constituencies in three districts of WB where CPI-Maoist has been conducting almost regular armed action and which are known to be under their influence, is over 70%. It will however take time to ascertain whether the people ignored CPI-Maoist's boycott call or whether people have been surreptitiously advised by them to vote against CPIM. That later possibility cannot be ruled out as it was practised in last Andhra election. Anyway, whichever be the case, it has been again proved that the line of boycott does not carry any meaning at all in the present stage of movement. Besides theoretical aspect, the experience also speaks out not only their wrong, so to say, subjective assessment of the situation but also their left adventurism in politics.
Closer analysis of election in two states
West Bengal
There has been a considerable gain for the CPIM led Left Front in terms of seat with respect to last assembly election in 2001. Number of seats won by the LF in the election is 235 — an increase of 42 seats. Such increase was not even anticipated by LF leadership.
However, in terms of percentage, the rise in LF vote is only 1.5%. Last election it was 49% and it is now nearly 51%. It is apparently paradoxical that 1.5% rise in vote could cause such big increase in seats, whereas on the other hand the combined vote of the Congress and TMC in the 2006 election also shows an increase of about 5% in terms of percentage of votes polled. In 2001 election the Congress and TMC were in alliance and they got 38.9% votes and in 2006 they fought separately when TMC got 28.53% and Congress got 15.38%, total being 44.28%.
It is not impossible to explain the above paradox, but it is not necessary for class conscious proletariat to make attempt for doing so. This job can be left to bourgeois intellectuals who are keen in phsephological studies and we have already had random of their opinion, comments etc through print and electronic media. These reflect class point of view of bourgeois and they are only meant to strangle the minds of working class with bourgeois reformism and obviously parliamentary cretinism.
It can be said without doubt that LF's % of vote in 2001 did include good amount of proxy or rigged votes, a substantial part of which was ostensibly potential opposition vote. It can therefore be construed that increase of vote for LF in 2006 election with respect to that of 2001 is actually more than 1.5%, as in this election there was much less scope for the ruling party in manipulating votes, thanks Election Commission. Does it signify growth of people's support for CPIM and other left parties? It is true that urban middle class, particularly its higher stratum that had been alienated from CPIM in recent past and stood for TMC in 2001 election, in opposition to CPIM, subsequently started shifting their support in favour of CPIM due to two reasons, one frustration against the inconsistency in TMC politics, but most importantly, and this is cardinal, CPIM's firmness in adapting and carrying through aggressively the policy of globalisation and consequent slogan of State prosperity i.e. "Development". The above shifting was already manifest in 2004 parliamentary election. "Development" being the central slogan of LF in the assembly election, the above support of middle class has been found generally consolidated in 2006, thereby influencing the election result.
But there is no reason to believe that workers, poor peasants and other section of the toiling people who voted for the left front, did have same positive attachment and support for the slogan of 'Development' as that of the middle class. It was obvious because they did not find anything to gain from New Townships, Multiplexes, big Shopping Malls, 6-Lane Highways and such other infrastructural 'upliftment' which were being projected as showpiece of so called Development Programme of the left front government. Even the highly publicised slogan of 'Industrialisation' was not found to evoke faith and confidence amongst the people at large during LF's election campaign. Backward masses under reformist influence may at best be in two minds, but to the fighting workers it has always been clear that these so called "Development', "Industrialisation' etc were nothing but the policy-product of globalisation and that few new factories here and there by offering red carpet welcome to the capitalist-imperialist would in no way obviate the ongoing ruthless offensive of that same very globalisation against the working class and the people. Practically, whatever resistance struggle the fighting workers are building up, they are all being essentially targeted against the policy of globalisation, liberalisation etc. Hence bigway victory of CPIM led Left Front in the last assembly election cannot at all be taken as support of workers-peasants for the policy of serving the interest of big capital — both foreign and Indian, which is being vigorously and openly pursued since Buddha Babu became Chief Minister. Glaring instance amongst others that would go to substantiate the above contention is the continuing resistance of peasants of Singur Block in Hooghy district against 1000 acre land acquisition by the government for the sake of a small car project of Tata company. Support for this struggle from even CPIM mass in and around Singur and elsewhere in the state is nevertheless much significant to note in this regard. It is also important to note here that the land deal with the Tata was signed just a day after the present govt was installed and has along been projected by the parties and the govt as a big step towards their so called industrialisation-development of the state.
Anyway, irrespective of increase in percentage of vote for LF in 2006 election, it is undeniably true that CPIM and other left parties have been able to keep intact the electoral support from the masses that had been in 2001. This is in spite of the fact that CPIM led front has in the meantime moved further right fully submitting to the New Economic Policy of the Indian ruling class, that mass resentment is getting deeper everyday, that workers in general are mentally alienated from the old left and other leadership and revolting against them in places, thereby forming new fighting independent unions, that phase of relief and reforms through Panchayats in villages are gradually fading out and even local sporadic revolts of rural workers and poor peasants are being visible in some districts, etc, etc. Sometimes it really appears to be a riddle as what ensures such standing electoral support in favour of Left parties in West Bengal and in fact, why incumbency factor does not operate here, unlike that of other states.
Firstly it would be absolutely wrong to explain away the above question by simply suggesting that it is the organisational failure of TMC or Congress to mobilise masses' suffering and resentment, in the form of electoral support. Neither it can be wished away by the cries of rigging, manipulation, etc — last election bears its testimony. Deeper analysis is rather necessary to arrive at the real answer. It is to be primarily acknowledged that political, so to say electoral support has traditionally been polarised between Lefts and Congress in West Bengal , obviously its reason being relatively wider development of Left movement in the state. In nineties of the last century this polarisation got a jolt. It happened in two ways. One was, factory workers belonging to left unions in many places shifted to other opposition parties, TMC in main with the hope that it would fight for them in opposition to CPIM's capitulationist line. The trend was also seen amongst village poor in relation to Panchayats and mainly as a blind reaction to gradual entry of the old landlords and novo-rich into the influential position of their own beloved party and most importantly, the highhandedness of the party leaders. Simultaneously, on the other hand, in the sphere of parliamentary aspiration, sizeable section of erstwhile left mass tied with their fate in Panchayat and Municipal elections and specially in the assembly election of 2001 with Mainly TMC as a rising power opposed to CPIM. What had been their experience? They failed to get what they thought or aspired. This was nevertheless, a rich and necessary experience — not only for those who showed the above mobility but simultaneously also for workers and peasants in general. Most important question in that regard is as to how the left masses did assimilate the experience. We have already found that workers who showed the above mobility in trade union arena did not go back to their old unions after the experience, and rather they continued their mobility further and stepped ahead by way of taking separate independent position defying whole stock of old established leadership in order to fight the capitalist offensive. Needless to mention that in absence of conscious leadership of working class party this separation could not, by itself, be elevated to really independent class position i.e. to political separation. And regarding the failed experience of trying with TMC or other opposition parties for a parliamentary alternative, the spontaneous assimilation process, i.e. by people themselves, remaining within the boundary of bourgeois parliamentary framework, could not and naturally did not lead the workers and poor peasants to aspire or go for the step beyond which would nothing but be revolutionary one and which is impossible in the absence of working class party. This only helped them understand the fruitlessness in seeking a parliamentary alternative either and virtually compelled them to get back to get entrenched with the old traditionally polarised position. That is why at least the fighting workers and other section of toiling people were found to have stamped their vote in favour of LF in spite of strong resentment and apathy towards these parties. This support was obviously passive — neither positive for something to achieve nor negative so as to defeat others. These passive votes, no doubt finally decided the big victory of the LF in the last election. But on the other hand the above voting behaviour of the left fighting and pro struggle workers and peasants has once again raised the objective necessity for building up of independent revolutionary platform which however, presupposes working class be organised as a class and capable to lead political class struggle both inside and outside the parliament. Any attempt to undermine the revolutionary alternative and put forward non-revolutionary parliamentary alternative would only betray the objective necessity and would ultimately confine working class and the people within parliamentary cretinism. Unfortunately, the CR groups could not act as was expected from a revolutionary organisation.
The way the EC controlled and conducted WB election, CPIM looked apprehensive during the election campaign as to what would be the outcome at the end. As a matter of fact CPIM and its allies took to surprise at the final result. After all they have taken their big win in terms of seats as a mandate of the people for Buddha Babu's capitalist roadmap for 'Development' — for prosperity of the state of West Bengal . Naturally, they will not hesitate now to add full steam to what they have been doing for the last few years. That would eventually mean increasingly fierce aggression on the workers and peasants and people at large. More such attack, wider deeper will be ground of conflict between the people and the government and obviously the parties in the government. This objectivity would put forward the necessity for at least the class conscious and advanced workers to close their ranks so as to be able to correctly handle the possibility of spontaneous struggle in the grassroots. The ground has already started getting hot.
Asom
The most significant aspect of the result of Assam assembly election is that of miserable defeat of Asom Gana Parishsad (AGP). It is true they have been able to enhance their number of seats from 20 to 24, but votes received by them in this election (18.33%) was less than what was in 2001 (20.12%). It would be relevant to note that almost all the dailies of Asom gave their open support to AGP in this election, giving impression that the AGP alliance would win and form govt. It was seen in the past that these newspapers used to play a big role in influencing voting pattern. But interestingly this time that did not work. People acted differently. In fact, AGP, during election campaign did not even imagine that they would have to remain content with only 24 seats.
It is known to everybody that AGP was born as political outfit of the students' organisation AASU, which led the struggle of Assamese people against national oppression and discrimination in early eighties of the past century. AGP established itself as regional bourgeois party with the distinct and exclusive voice of national entity and it was on this plank AGP was able to win over almost all sections of Assamese people, specially Hindu, and formed government in Asom defeating long-entrenched ruling party Congress in the assembly election held just after the Asom movement. Practically, AGP had then a great prestige amongst Assamese people as a fighter for national aspiration. But this condition did not last long. Already in 2001, election support for AGP was found terribly reduced. Not only the party failed to get majority, their seats were largely reduced and that too to 20 only. This was probably a lesson to them because they went to that election as a ruling party and that to as a party under BJP led NDA. May be this prompted them to dissociate from BJP, and revive the spirit of their long lost image of a fighter for national aspiration of the Assamese people, ostensibly to woo the voters in the election. As we said earlier, daily papers did also help them in this regard. Yet the result of this election remained same as it was in 2001. This is obviously significant and class-conscious workers cannot but take note of it. The repetition of 2001 results in spite of change in AGP's election stance essentially reveals that the intense desire of Asom people for freedom from national oppression and discrimination that led to the militant national struggle in early 1980s, has now been substantially on the wane. At least it would not be wrong to suggest that the present political aspiration and its expression are not being principally guided or governed by oppressed national feeling. Precisely speaking, this state of affairs was inevitable. The spontaneous struggle of people of Asom nationality against oppression and discrimination with ambitious middle and upper middle class in the leadership was bound to degenerate into the morasses of parliamentary opportunistic politics. With such leadership that be, it was inevitable that the Asom movement would end in a compromise, in fact a bad compromise with the central rule of the big bourgeois-big landlord which on the other hand had all along been keen to diffuse the militant struggle of Asom people through some paltry superficial reform or concession. And eventually the result was Asom Accord of 1985. Needless to say, the real aspiration of struggling people was far from being satisfied in the said accord. They felt betrayed which led to frustration. We know that it is on this crucible of frustration and desparation ULFA was born. Anyway, let us now see what happened to AGP. In fact, the victory of Congress in 1991 assembly election, gradual entry into the camp of ruling class politics as a regional party, partnership in BJP led union govt and most importantly implementing ruling class politics of globalisation, liberalisation during their rule in their own state and on the other hand acting as a partner of central govt in inflicting state terror on ULFA — from all these experiences it was becoming clear that Asom movement lost its influence in the politics of AGP in the latter period, which however was itself born out of Asom movement. Simultaneously, rather consequentially it was also being seen that guiding impact and influence of Asom movement was fading out of the minds of people of Asom. Otherwise speaking, deep feeling of national aspiration which once violently expressed in early period of 1980s subsequently relegated to backseat and what started governing the minds of the Asom people in main was urge for peaceful reform and relief within parliamentary frame. During this time it also happened that while ULFA movement fell into stagnation on one hand those sizeable section of mass who were found to have initiated inclination towards ULFA movement, was getting increasingly alienated from the movement. However we must understand that the above facts and experiences in no way indicate that the oppressed nationality feeling has died down. It is only dormant at this moment.
Anyway, talking about AGP, rampant corruption and nepotism of AGP ministers, emergence of different interest groups within the party and their open conflict, reluctance or inability in taking any bold effective step to address the question of national discrimination, from seat of power in both two previous terms — all these factors played big role in making people further disillusioned about the party. In fact, this situation was cunningly utilised by Congress which helped them form government in the state again in 2001 defeating AGP led alliance. What cannot be denied is that Congress, during its last five year term was able to bring further the masses to the so called mainstream politics and people were left with no other way but to get engrossed in reform-process within parliamentary framework. And it is on this context, AGP could not be successful in removing its isolation in spite of both overt and covert attempt to rekindle the oppressed nationality feeling among Asom people during election campaign. It is this very mood of the masses that would go to explain their alienation from ULFA movement and also ULFA's compulsion to step up dialogue-process with centre via state Congress government. Anyway, the present election result once again brought forth how much it is expedient and important to take revolutionary propaganda more and more to Asom workers and other toiling masses explaining how they had been betrayed and that they can really liberate themselves from national oppression and discrimination and form all sorts of exploitation and suffering in daily life only through nationwide peoples democratic revolution. Unfortunately, this task was found to remain ignored during the election campaign of the Communist Revolutionary organisations who participated in the election. Lastly, considering the present mood of the masses and their spontaneous assimilation of past experiences, as once again reflected in the last election, class conscious workers should tighten grip on the most essential task of the day so as to take politics of class struggle straightway to the proletariat and semi proletarian masses of Asom and to arouse them to build up resistance to the ever increasing onslaught of the ruling classes' New Economic Policy, so to say, globalisation, liberalisation etc and obviously to organise them on class line.
It has already been mentioned that in the last Asom election, national question was not a central issue. In fact there was no policy-issue at all. And question of caste, religion etc were made to play. All the contending parties were involved in this electoral game in varying degree. It can be said that election result too, has been influenced by how skilfully and in what manner the backward division of the masses could be manoeuvred by the parties.
Amongst other aspects to note, Congress vote has been less than in 2001 election. Numbers of seats also reduced from 75 to 52. In 2001 they received 39.75% votes, in 2006 it is 28.25%. The main reason behind this fall of vote was that Muslim immigrants this time took off their traditional support from Congress. This section of the mass had all along been hostile to Asom movement and they constitute a sizeable part of Asom population. They used to consider IMDT Act as their safeguard. This act was earlier repealed and for this they blamed mainly the indifference and inaction of erstwhile Congress govt of the state. These immigrants formed a separate organisation AUDF under the leadership of Badaruddin Ajmal and contested the central slogan 'oust Gogoi'. Quite significantly, they captured 12 seats. On the other side, plain-tribes organisation BPPF (Hagrama) went into aliance with the Congress. With considerable support from Bodo people they did win 12 seats and in fact, enabled Congress to form the govt in spite of latter's 52 seats only, however with support from few independents. The other organisation among Bodo people which is still continuing their struggle for separate Bodoland did not participate in the election, but significantly they did not call for boycott of election. It would be of interest to note that this organisation has given consent to the proposal of extending ceasefire with the newly formed govt by another six months. BPPF (Hagrama fraction) going for election alliance with congress and joining the cabinet and also this conduct of the other fraction, would only go to indicate that the Bodo people are gradually veering towards a position so as to think of development of their economic, social and cultural life through reforms and measures within constitutional framework. Class-conscious proletariat are aware how much the aspiration of the Bodo people could be fulfilled under the present big bourgeois big landlord rule. No doubt, frustration and disappointment would eventually replace their today's hopes in coming days. Hence the class conscious workers of Asom are to be once again reminded of their task firstly help the struggling section of the Bodo people to politically assimilate the experience of long years of struggle for 'Bododland' and secondly explain, obviously standing on the above, why and how the aspiration of Bodo people, like others could be truly met through only peoples democratic revolution of the country.
Booth wise analysis suggests that majority of tea-garden workers voted this time for Congress. Like West Bengal in Asom also, resentment has been growing deeper against arrogant onslaught of tea-garden owners, and in recent times there have been militant struggle of workers in some of the gardens, defying leaders of all the existing old unions including the Congress led INTUC. But as we see, this mood of defiance was not reflected in the election, although it was being reported in daily papers during the election campaign that tea workers' vote in general would go against Congress. Anyway, if we think deeper we will find that apparently contradictory behaviour of the tea workers is nothing but natural. We are to understand that revolt of workers against old leaders in Trade Unions could have only been directed and developed towards class struggle had there been a truly working class party in the lead and only then it would have been possible to reflect this struggle in the election battle. That party is absent, and stream of class struggle nationwide is thin, almost non-existent. It goes without saying that workers cannot by themselves be conscious of their own class interest without the leading role of the class conscious vanguard and it is natural that in political struggles like that of parliamentary election, workers are bound to act differently i.e. in bourgeois way. Hence, the class conscious workers of Asom should have no hesitation to see that future lies on the ongoing revolt and struggle of the tea garden workers and this is the truth, and not today's voting for the Congress. Needless to say that class conscious workers should unfailingly take up the task with all earnestness to develop today's struggle of tea garden workers in the line of class struggle.
Comments:
No Comments for View