On The Question of Joint Activity With Left-Front In The Struggle Against Fascism
1
The brutal and one-sided attack on the Muslim minority in Gujarat by the militant Hindu communalist, fascist forces under the leadership of Sangh Parivar has added a special significance to Indian politics. By committing the cold-blooded, pre-planned pogrom in Gujarat the Sangh Parivar has shown that they have already advanced a long way towards their mission to establish a fascist rule all over India . Naturally, all the revolutionary groups have protested separately, as well as to some extent jointly, against this pogrom. During that period, after the start of the Gujarat incident, CPI(ML)?Liberation and COI(ML) [see endnote (1)] had participated in an anti-fascist rally organised by CPI(M) on 17th April 2002 . A report on this rally was published in Ajker Deshobroti , the organ of the West Bengal State Committee of CPI(ML)?Liberation, on 25th April 2002 . The report said "... this dangerous force must be resisted; a united resistance of the broad left and democratic forces is needed. The leaders said that only the leftists forces can give leadership to this resistance because only they have the alternative ideology against fascism". It is very much clear from this that according to the Liberation group the fascist aggression of the Sangh Parivar can be resisted by a united struggle (!) with the so-called left and democratic forces and only for that, they had participated in the joint rally of these parties. Though both CPI(ML)?Liberation and COI(ML) had participated in the above-mentioned rally, we shall only deal with the logic presented by CPI(ML)?Liberation in support of their line of joint struggle with the so-called left parties against the fascist aggression of the Sangh Parivar. However, by participating in the said rally, COI(ML) has made it clear that they also hold the same opinion that the so-called left parties are allies in the fight against the militant Hindu communal politics as well as fascist aggression of Sangh Parivar The question arises: is it possible to resist the fascist aggression of the Sangh Parivar in this path of united struggle with the Left Front parties as prescribed by CPI(ML)?Liberation and COI(ML), or this path is ruining the preparation for real anti-fascist struggle.
2
Since, Fascism means complete destruction of bourgeois democracy whatever is there, the fight against fascism is in reality a struggle for democracy. On what basis can one consider the Left Front parties as an ally in the struggle for democracy when they have tried to suppress each and every democratic movement using the police, the administration and party cadres in West Bengal for the last 25 years? Or, when they have used TADA and are now planning to introduce POCA in line with POTA to deprive people of minimum democratic rights, indulging in police atrocities not only on revolutionary political activists but also on the common democratic minded people on the plea of having very faint connections with the revolutionary movement? They have diverted the masses from the real struggle, are making them an appendage of the parliamentary politics, and confining their struggle in the legal arena. These aspects of CPI(M) and other so-called left parties are so naked that even the Liberation could not overlook them. Condemning the Left Front Government's plot of introducing POCA, the Liberation group wrote in an article: "In this manner the Social-democrats, who are in power in West Bengal, in the process of senseless competition to become a more reliable friend of the ruling classes are doing the unpardonable crime of playing the role of catalyst for the state policy of fascism". (Ajker Deshobroti , 27th December 2001 , page 15, stress ours, translation ours). The last sentence of the above-mentioned quotation deserves attention. Here, far from branding the CPI(M) and the so-called left parties as 'the ally of the anti-fascist struggle', they have branded them as the 'catalyst for the state policy of fascism'—which plainly means that, the left parties, far from building struggles against fascism, are actually helping the fascist aggression in an indirect way. It is really surprising that they are now dreaming to resist fascist aggression by forming a "broad left alliance" with the same parties whom they have branded as 'the catalyst of the state policy of fascism' a few months before the Gujarat massacre. What changes have taken place during these four months, which has turned their opinion by 180 degrees? What magic-stone the Liberation has found which has transformed a 'catalyst of fascist state policy' to an 'ally of anti-fascist struggle'?
Perhaps, even the blindest follower of the Liberation group may be ashamed of this blatant contradiction and so they have tried to manufacture some logic to defend their stand. In an article published in Ajker Deshobroti , on 17th April, to justify their participation in the joint rally they have written: "the left-democratic forces can stop this advancement of the arch-enemy. The revolutionary left must lead this struggle. The social democrats can only be an unreliable ally . They, who were busy in search of ISI agents even yesterday; who are very anxious for the modernisation of Madrasah education (as if the modernisation is complete in other spheres of education); who carefully balances their criticism of the Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism; who lend their voices in the chorus of 'Nationalism and Patriotism' without any regard to the existing situation; who not only suppress the revolutionaries by introducing POCA but also terrorize the minority communities by it, can not be a permanent and reliable ally in the anti-fascist struggle. In spite of this, there should not be any sectarianism in using whatever advancement they are making in the direction of anti-fascist struggle under the pressure of the situation, as repentance of the past deeds and in the face of stirring in their social base. Every possibility of reaching their activists with the propaganda against their parliamentary stupidity, over dependence on bourgeois-landlord parties, curtailment of the demands of the struggle, and the dependence on the police, the administration and government dependent politics, should be used in the interest of building broader struggle. This perspective of participation to the rally of 17th April must be understood". ( Ajker Deshobroti , 25th April 2002 , page 3, translation and stress ours).
For the time being, let us concentrate on two points of this 'invaluable' quotation. First, the 'social-democrats' who were the 'catalyst of the state policy of fascism' has now become 'an unreliable ally in the struggle against fascism'. Probably, the author of the article has enough intelligence to understand that a 'catalyst of state policy of fascism' cannot be an ally (whether reliable or unreliable) in the anti-fascist struggle and so the author has tried to put forward an explanation for this. According to him, the left parties are advancing in the struggle against fascism 'under pressure of the situation, as repentance for their past deeds and in the face of stirrings in the social base. What a great imagination! The author does not feel the necessity of giving any explanation of this complex phenomenon of transformation from 'catalyst' to 'ally', probably because it is impossible to do so. Secondly, the author of Ajker Deshobroti has also said that revolutionary left must lead this anti-fascist struggle and the social democrats i.e. so-called left parties are only allies in this struggle. Does it mean that the joint rally of 17th April was actually organised under the leadership of 'revolutionary left' i.e. the Liberation group. And CPI(M) and other left parties had joined the rally as allies 'under the pressure of situation, as repentance of past deeds' etc? That what we saw with our eyes as the rally of so-called left and democratic parties was organised under the leadership of CPI(M) and both CPI(ML)?Liberation and COI(ML) joined the rally only under the politics of the left parties is an illusion? What else will they tell us to cover the deeds we do not know!
3
Let us examine the first argument further. Which manifestations of their activities has led the author to draw the conclusion that CPI(M) and other so-called left parties are building or trying to build a real struggle against fascism? Have they abandoned their plan of promulgation of POCA? Have they left the path of repression of the democratic movements of workers, peasants and other toiling people and of other democratic sections of the society with the help of police and party cadres? There are a lot of examples where, showing scant regard for minimum democratic principles, revolutionary political activists and even persons faintly connected with the revolutionary politics have been tortured by police. Do we have to consider them, who are curtailing our democratic rights every day, as interested in the struggle for democracy? Or is it the role of the 'left' parties in the parliament in making noises against the Sangh Parivar has convinced the Liberation that these 'left' parties are really trying to build up struggle against fascism? Even in that case, there has not been much change in their role. These parties had made great noises in the parliament, they organised rallies, and meetings also against the promulgation of TADA before they themselves used the act in West Bengal . They have not hesitated to protest against POTA though they themselves were planning to implement a similar law in the name of POCA in the state. Then what has convinced the Liberation that these acts are not just a show but also a sign of true intention for their fight against fascism? How did they arrive to the conclusion that 'under the pressure of situation, as a repentance of their past deeds and in the face of the stirrings in the social base', CPI(M) and other left parties are really advancing in the struggle against fascism? The Liberation group has not given any answer to these questions; perhaps they do not have any.
The essence of the path of the so-called struggle against fascism which CPI(M) and other left parties are following, is to dislodge the BJP government from the Centre and different state governments as if that will stop the aggression of fascism. The aim of all their activities-propaganda, meetings, rallies - are to dislodge the BJP governments in the Centre and states through electoral means. Is it not clear from the experiences of the last 10-12 years that this path is totally wrong so far the struggle against fascism is concerned? Whether the BJP is in power or not, the Sangh Parivar has been preparing for the fascist aggression uninterruptedly for the last 10-12 years. It is true that when BJP is in power either in the Centre or states, this preparation gets accelerated with the direct use of government machinery. In 1992, the fascist gangs of the Sangh Parivar did not require to have BJP in power to demolish the Babri Masjid and unleash a reign of bloodbath and destruction throughout the country, especially in Mumbai. Not only that, was it possible to stop the coming back of BJP in power even after their removal through election? Rather, when the BJP was not in power, the discontents of the general masses against the anti-people policies of the government of any party or fronts of big bourgeois - whether Congress (I) or United Front - have grown and the BJP had used it very efficiently to increase its influence among the masses and that had directly helped them to regain governmental power. After coming to power, they have continued the preparation for the fascist aggression with greater speed. During the last ten years, preparation for the construction of Ram Janmabhumi Mandir has sped up, text books have been rewritten by distorting history in communal line, unscientific, medieval subjects like Astrology, Pourahitya (Priesthood) have been included in university curriculum, severe oppressions including murder, rape have been let loose on Christian priests, nuns and other religious minority communities in different states including Gujarat and Orissa. The hold of Sangh Parivar in police administration is being made stronger by inducting members of Sangh Parivar in police, military and administration, armed training of different branches of Sangh Parivar like RSS, Bajrang Dal etc. are going on throughout the country and the last but most important thing is to be noted that they have already set an example in Gujarat which clearly shows the extent of their preparation. During the last ten years, a number of changes have occurred in the governmental power, but has that in any way hindered the growth of fascist forces? And it is not correct to put all the blame on Congress (I) only. The policy of appeasement of imperialist and their dependent big bourgeois and big landlords by the other big bourgeois parties and their partners, the so-called left in third-front, are creating unprecedented hardships among the masses due to massive unemployment, large scale retrenchment, price-rise and other day to day problems and the masses are becoming disillusioned about these third-front parties. This disillusionment of the masses is helping BJP to return in power. It is amply clear from the experiences of the last ten years that by following New Economic Policy to serve the ruling classes, the fascist aggression can not be stopped by changing the government. Rather, confining the struggle of working classes along with the other toiling masses in the parliamentary arena and keeping them actually inactive in the real anti-fascist struggle, they are actually paving the way for the success of the fascist aggression. Abandoning the ideology of socialism, opposing the class struggle and above all using the communal divide for electoral purposes cannot resist the aggression of blind Hinduism.
4
To understand the real path to challenge this fascist aggression one has to comprehend the danger of the fascist aggression thoroughly. The aim of this fascist aggression is to keep the masses tied up with this system forcefully by destroying the existing crippled, curbed and limited democracy of India completely or almost completely.
In bourgeois democracy, all are equal with respect to rights. For example all are equal to get justice before the court, all have a single vote in case of elections, have rights to assemble, organise meetings etc. But due to class differences and vast inequalities in economic status, this equality is apparent; actually everybody does not enjoy equal rights. Furthermore, in India , due to the incomplete democratic revolution, a number of traditions, institutions and systems of the past are still prevailing which are against this apparent equality. As a result, existing democracy in India is crippled, curbed and limited to a large extent. The freedom of expression and the right to struggle have been restricted to a great extent by a series of oppressive, black acts —starting from section 144 to TADA, ESMA, POTA and most importantly the Armed Forces Special Power Act. The caste differentiation in Hindu community and oppression of higher caste to lower castes still exists—the lower castes are still largely deprived of minimum democratic rights. There exists a great influence of religion on social and political life—the minority religious communities are still being oppressed. There is remnant of feudalism to a large extent as well as medieval oppression and extortion by the non-peasant owners of land on the peasants. Different contradictions due to the incomplete democratic revolution, are brewing up in this limited, curbed and crippled democracy. From the beginning of 90s, the fascist aggression of Sangh Parivar has slowly come to the forefront. Naturally, the aim of the fascist aggression is to firmly suppress the revolts of the oppressed people arising out of the above-mentioned contradictions to keep the interest of the imperialist and Indian rulers intact, to ensure stability of their rule and to make the exploitation more severe and secured. They are trying to achieve this job by destroying or almost destroying the already curbed and limited democracy by suppressing the masses by force. For this, on the one hand, they have launched a massive economic attack on the working class and toiling masses and, on the other, they are trying to deprive the masses of whatever insignificant democratic rights they are presently enjoying, by revising labour laws, promulgating the draconian acts like POTA etc. Along with this, a band of blind Hindu communal minded fanatics has been trained up who are the main instruments of these attacks. There are clear indications that the target of attack of this fascist band of Sangh Parivar is not only the Muslims but also other minority communities along with atheist communists, who are ardent opponents of militant Hinduism, working class, middle and lower castes of Hindu community. Therefore, the struggle against this fascist aggression is actually struggle for democracy. This fascist aggression of Sangh Parivar can only be challenged through the development of class struggle under the leadership of working class. The only way to resist this fascist aggression of Sangh Parivar is to build the struggle of entire toiling masses against all attacks of the New Economic Policy as well as against all attacks on the democratic rights by ruling classes and not by the narrow path of changing government through election. (Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the Liberation group also feels that without trying to resist the new economic policy, real fight against fascism cannot be built up. In a theoretical article entitled 'Communal Fascism', it has been told: "the difference of the present Indian situation with that of Germany or Italy of 1930s leads us to the conclusion that the tactics of 'forming anti-fascist front including all' is now obsolete. The real history and the present stage of communal fascism demands a more complex program from us, whose target will of course be Sangh Parivar but generally it must be against all the players of communal politics and neo-liberal economy". ( Ajker Deshobroti , Special issue, page 67, translation and stress ours). Even after this, if they talk about joint anti-fascist struggle with the left-front parties then it seems that they do not consider the Left-front parties, whose role as the agents of new economic policy is very naked, as the 'player' of the new economic policy and their theoretical standpoint is just an empty talk.)
There is not only the experience of the last ten years. Especially in West Bengal after coming to power in 1977, CPI(M) and other left-front parties are tilting more and more towards the ruling classes. They are now almost members of the joint family of the ruling class parties. This character of theirs is becoming more and more naked everyday. Actually, these parties, who are betraying the workers' movement everywhere by serving the capitalists, who are helping the imperialist and their dependent Indian ruling classes in their attack on the workers and peasants along with the other toiling masses, are neither willing nor capable of building up a real struggle against fascism. Rather, their task has now become to oppose any possibility of class struggle.
What is the significance of the propaganda and protest program of CPI(M) and the so-called left parties against BJP and Sangh Parivar? The activities of Sangh Parivar and BJP is generating discontent among the masses and the so-called anti-fascist struggles of these parties is only aimed to utilise this discontent for electoral purpose to gain governmental power. It is very natural for any party that tries to maintain law and order in the existing system. Actually, through these activities, not only are they avoiding real anti-fascist struggle, but they are also making the success of fascist aggression easier by confining the discontent of masses into the parliamentary arena. It is surprising that the Liberation group has discovered the urge for anti-fascist struggle in the left parties from their deceitful 'anti-fascist' programs. Like na?ve persons they are trying to explain that these 'left' parties are interested in anti-fascist program because of 'the pressure of the situation, as repentance of the past deeds' and 'in the face of stirrings in its social base'. It is pity, that the Liberation group has not criticised the path of 'resisting' the aggression of Sangh Parivar by changing government through election, their criticism is only about 'parliamentary stupidity' and 'over dependence on bourgeois-landlord parties'. If what the Liberation is trying to mean by 'parliamentary stupidity' that the 'left' parties are giving less attention on anti-fascist rallies, meeting, and propaganda or they are trying to form alliance with the Congress, then perhaps we have to think whether Liberation is showing the enough prudence or not. Because, whatever program for propaganda, the CPI(M) or left parties may take, their main aim is to strengthen the struggle for the parliamentary power only, i.e., to resist the BJP in election. So the intensity of these programs does not affect the path of the left parties. And if we take the question of dependence on Congress (I) (It seems Liberation has meant Congress (I) as the bourgeois-landlord party on which the 'left' parties are over dependent because from the Liberation's proposal of 'third front' it is clear that they do not have any objection in building up front with any other bourgeois-landlord party except congress (I) and BJP) then also CPI(M) is not showing any 'parliamentary stupidity'. This is very much compatible with their politics. If the path of removing BJP through election is adopted, then it is natural in the present political context of India to depend on Congress (I). Anything can be said but this is going to be the natural consequence of this path—CPI(M) is following this path only and anyone who will take this path will have to face this consequence. By the way, whether there is any possibility of shift of left parties in future from this path or not is at present irrelevant. There are many possibilities for many things. If this particular possibility is realized in future, then, of course, the communist revolutionaries must give due consideration for that.
In this way, CPI(M) and other 'left' parties are trying to confine the discontent of the masses by mockery of anti-fascist struggle within the boundary of meaningless parliamentary opposition and they are somewhat successful in this because the real struggle of the toiling masses under the leadership of proletariat is absent i.e. the actual class struggle is in fact absent. But, if we consider ourselves as communist revolutionaries, then which path should we take now? Should we recognize this mockery of anti-fascist struggle as real struggle against fascism by considering them as an ally in anti-fascist struggle and help them in their conspiracy? Or, should we try to expose the conspiracy of confining the discontent of masses within parliamentary arena and try to make the masses conscious about the necessity of building real struggle against fascism dissociating from the reformist politics of left parties? CPI(ML)?Liberation, COI(ML) and others, who are dreaming to form a 'broader left unity' to fight against the fascism, are actually concealing the real conspiracy of the so-called left parties and not exposing to masses the real character of the reformist, compromising and narrow parliamentary politics to the masses; and instead of dissociating the masses from their politics, it is helping to strengthen their influence.
5
A large section of the communist revolutionaries have seen the dangers posed by Gujarat incident as well as the danger of Sangh Parivar as the danger of militant Hindu communalism. It is needless to explain that this attitude is not only wrong, but also makes the task of preparation against the fascist aggression unimportant. Apparently, the Liberation group does consider Sangh Parivar as fascist force. But they are using the adjective 'communal' and terming it 'communal fascism'. What is the significance of adding this adjective? Is it only because of the fact that the Sangh Parivar, which is leading this fascist aggression is a militant Hindu communal organisation and their apparent immediate target of attack is the Muslim community? Then the German fascism should also have been termed as 'communal fascism' as it also targeted the Jews. Question may arise as what is the harm in terming like this? The drawback of this term is quite clear from the task, formulated by Liberation with this perspective in mind. During the Gujarat pogrom the editorial of Ajker Deshobroti called upon—"Come and Join for the Harmony and Secularism"( Ajker Deshobroti , 7th March, 2002 ). Later on, it has been said in the same organ that: "Secular forces should come forward to save Gujarat and India ". (Ibid, 14th March, 2002 ) Is it not obvious from these statements that Gujarat incident is being treated mainly as communal phenomenon? As a result, is it not a fact the Liberation group is having a serious weakness in the perception of the danger of fascism? Secondly, even if we take the activities of Sangh Parivar as communal activities, then also, can we say that through the so-called 'left' parties this communal politics can be countered?
We know from the history of bourgeois democratic revolution that the real meaning of secularism is the separation of religion from state—religion is going to be a personal affair, there will not be any influence of religion on social life. But, the concept of secularism, which has been adopted in India from the beginning, is the policy of encouraging all religions equally. Due to incomplete democratic revolution, a large amount of feudal remnants still exist in India and as a result, there is a strong influence of religion in social life. The Indian ruling classes have never tried to abolish this. Rather, they have tried to use this for their own interest. Therefore, real secularism never existed in India —it was not possible for the bourgeois parties to fight for or to establish real secularism. Rather, the policy of secularism, which they are practicing, is increasing the influence of religion on social life—religious fundamentalist organisations have grown up leaps and bounds because of their indulgence. The defeat of the revolutionary movements of 60s in India, the scattered state of the working class and toiling masses due to the defeat of the international proletariat, the dull period of class struggle have created a favourable condition for the growth of such reactionary ideologies. The militant Hindu communalism, which has proliferated in this condition, is now going ahead with greater speed to establish India as a Hindu Rashtra after tearing apart the veil of secularism. The policy of secularism followed by the parties known as secular parties (even the so-called 'left') within the domain of bourgeois politics of India , is not the real secularism. Rather, it is a policy of 'equal' encouragement of all religions. The emergence of militant Hindu communal politics cannot be challenged with this false secularism. Only by the politics of class struggle, by developing the revolutionary struggle of working class along with toiling masses with the aim of completing peoples' democratic revolution, this emergence of militant Hindu communalism can be fought.
By supporting these so-called 'Secular', 'Democratic' parties, by showing false hope of combating BJP through these parties, the great damage that the Liberation group is doing is that of surrendering the revolutionary politics to petty-bourgeois reformist politics. They are not making any fundamental difference with all these parties though they may have some criticisms. This is more clear when their objective becomes 'the establishment of peace and harmony'. It is very surprising that a communist revolutionary group make 'peace and harmony' as the main objective of their struggle. Because, the slogan of harmony recognizes the communal divide and then talk about the harmony. This slogan is very much compatible with politics of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties. But, working class can never demand mere communal harmony only. The advanced section of the working class will always try to keep the class unity intact and to try to make it stronger. By giving the slogan of 'peace and harmony', the Liberation group shows that in this respect they have no contradiction with these petty-bourgeois parties. Often, the petty-bourgeois parties do not even follow the policy they have taken. Sometimes, they are compromising with the rising militant Hindu communalism, as is seen in Madrasah debate. The criticism of Liberation is directed towards such types of compromises with the Hindu communalism. Liberation group does not have any contradiction with basic tenets of these parties — they are also considering the question of communalism within the domain of bourgeois politics.
From the long excerpts of Ajker Deshobroti it seems that the liberation group has another objective in the participation in the joint rally of CPI(M) and other so-called left parties. Probably, they are thinking that they will be able to win over a section of the masses from under these parties by exposing the limitation of their struggle by participating in the joint rally of CPI(M) and other parties. If they really want to attract the masses towards revolutionary politics by dissociating them from the influence of the left parties, then, that is only possible through the development of class struggle. During this dull period of class struggle, it is impossible to attract a large section of masses from the influence of these parties towards revolutionary politics. At present, only a conscious and advanced section can be organised under the banner of revolutionary politics by dissociating them from the influence of these parties. But, to do this, the reformist, compromising, narrow parliamentarian character of these parties should be exposed ruthlessly and the correct revolutionary standpoint has to be unfurled. In its eagerness to participate in these joint activities, the Liberation is not making any attempt to expose the reformist character of these parties. They are not making any criticism of the fact that CPI(M) etc. parties are unable to perceive the danger of fascism correctly, or, they are not making the masses conscious about it. The criticism of CPI(M) by Liberation group remains very shallow; they have not criticized CPI(M) for limiting the struggle of the masses in the domain of the parliament, for giving wrong idea of resisting fascism through parliamentary politics. Rather, it is not clear from the statements on what basis they have participated in the joint program, whether Liberation has any fundamental difference in politics with these reformist-revisionist parties CPI(M) etc or not. Then how will they be able to attract a section of the masses from the influence of CPI(M) and other left parties if they themselves are not able to expound the revolutionary politics clearly and assertively? Since they are not taking correct revolutionary stand against the reformist, parliamentary politics of CPI(M), the influence of reformist, parliamentary politics of CPI(M) will increase on them and the danger of getting dragged towards the reformist politics of the so-called left parties will always be there.
[1] For the readers of the web version: The erstwhile COI(ML) was one of the major groups who later merged to form the unified CPI(ML)?Red Star
Comments:
No Comments for View