Singur: Blunders Committed by the CR Camp
The workers in WB had already started revolting, the slow process of getting detached from these established lefts and their trade unions started since early 1990s and with the pace somewhat increased since 2000-02. Those trade unions showed repeatedly that they are part of the Capitalist-govt-party nexus that is standing against the workers. Those trade unions signed a heinous black agreement with the Jute Mill Owners under the aegis of the Govt after a farcical Jute Strike called by all established unions in 2002 — and more than 100,000 jute workers, i.e., more than half of the jute workers, spontaneously started their own strike in about 27-28 mills spreading over 4 districts for 7-14 days. Since then the Jute workers are showing an amazing struggle ? they separated themselves from all established unions, haven't formed their own union organisations, but fighting all evil measures of the owners in individual Mills in united way! The continuance of this trend among Jute workers was again seen recently in 3 jute mills just after the wrapping up of the leaders' [or established unions'] strike in March '07. In several other industries, the workers rebelled, got out of all established unions and formed their own TU organisations. In Rural Bengal too we saw few revolts against govt-party-panchayat-vested interest nexus in 2004-05. But the question of formation of separate organisation didn't arise, as those were short-lived rebellions against pillage of rice meant for public distribution and some other local level corruptions. The question of organisation came when the problem of a bit long-drawn battle became necessary, in a way, say, in the Singur anti-eviction struggle.
Was it possible for Singur villagers to form a fighting organisation keeping independence and separation from all established parties, including Trinamul Congress (TMC)? Is it possible for peasants to replicate something that workers in some factories had done? At least one newspaper report, in Hindustan Times dated 07.01.07, hints something in this regard: "DETERMINED NOT to let Nandigram become yet another political battlefield, villagers who stand to lose their land to make way for the proposed, special economic zone (SEZ) have decided at a meeting on Saturday that they would unite and not let go of even an inch of farmland. The move is in response to the meeting that local leaders of most Opposition parties have had with the state administration on Friday afternoon. // The villagers fear that the state government is keen on breaking the unity of the people and are thus trying to get politicians of diverse political parties involved in the issue. Singur, for instance, they point out, is a case in point. What started off as a fight for land by the villagers there was hijacked by the Trinamool Congress that made it easier for the Left Front government to tackle the problem. ... ...So, it's a decision to fight their own battle themselves... ... " [Emphasis ours] If the reporter mentioned truth, and there is no reason for him to 'fabricate', it seems that at least a few of those struggling in Nandigram got a point and this wholly goes to their merit. It was impossible for published literatures of Sramik Sangram Committee ? Krishak Committee to reach Nandigram in which this point among several points of weaknesses of the Singur struggle was mentioned, whereas other Communist Revolutionary organisations working in WB never expressed such opinion.
The KJRC [krishi jomi raksha committee] of Singur had dual characteristics ? 1) Villagers' organisation of struggle that is fighting against govt land grab, and 2) A committee virtually controlled by a front of several [19-20] parties and/or organisation of whom the TMC and Mrs. Mamamta Banerjee is undisputed leader. As days passed on the second characteristic, or more specifically, leadership of Ms Mamata, came to sway. Then, since 25th September and more so from 2nd December'06 the committee can be said to be hijacked literally by the TMC [and allies]. Course of the movement was decided at the hunger-strike-camp in Calcutta and not by the struggling villagers in Singur. The danger was there from the beginning, when the KJRC invited parties, organisations sympathetic to the struggle to join the committee. Without paying any heed, the CR organisations jumped into the fray. Perhaps even some organisation related to the Maoists also did the same. Anyway, among what damages were done one was, as the villagers of Nandigram put it, "...Singur, for instance, they point out, is a case in point. What started off as a fight for land by the villagers there was hijacked by the Trinamool Congress that made it easier for the Left Front government to tackle the problem. " But this was only one of damages. A perhaps greater damage was that the fighting villagers lost control over their fight — which effectively means, their fight and they themselves came under the control of TMC and allies, they became 'pawns' instead of becoming 'players' themselves. The greatest damage was ? through recent struggles a possibility was seen that united struggles of toiling people and leadership would develop 'from below' instead of being provided 'from above'. This is of vital importance. This possibility was killed and the potential of the fighting peasants to have control over their own struggle was strangled.
The CR organisations, to name a few ? CPIML, CPIML-Liberation, CPIML-New Democracy, MKP, etc ? they all helped the TMC and in effect stood against the above-discussed potentialities of the fighting peasants. A few days after 2nd Dec, we heard, the first two organisations named above declared that they were not with the TMC led platform; they had expelled those members who were still in that platform, etc. But many mistakes, blunders that we discussed were made earlier, since June'06, and they didn't criticise those. It is not known whether they recognise those blunders at all.
Again, after the said separation from TMC platform there were no visible signs of policy change. They are still on the fray to 1) come to media lime-light and design their programmes in that manner, 2) they did so invariably for projecting themselves, but to whom? 3) If they feel that ?? this way they will reach newer places and provide leadership from above in the coming struggles, then they are doing the same as they did before! They are calling 'Bandhs' from above, which are as ritualistic and as detached from the actually ongoing struggles as the programmes of the TMC, SUCI, etc. Setting 'Media-Projection' 'projection from above' as a target has so many pitfalls! ? And when our 'revolutionaries', 'communists' will get rid of this disease! MKP and some other Naxalite leaders are so keen in showing their faces in the TV by gluing themselves around TMC leaders that even a section of bourgeois media have ridiculed!
The Krishi Jomi Raksha Committee had undergone a slight change of name when its centre of gravity shifted from Singur Peasants to Calcutta Party-Leaders: the new name Krishi Jomi Bachao Committee is in vogue in the media! But then ? you have a 'united platform' and that too 'cutting across' party lines or divisions along party lines. Leaders of almost all anti-left front parties created that and the committee also includes prominent intellectuals. They are calling upon villagers to fight under the united banner. We are also urging the peasants and agro-workers to form united platform cutting across party lines. Where is the difference? There is a lot of difference ? almost a 'diametric' difference between what those parties said and what we said. When the workers are forming a new united platform they are uniting not only cutting across party lines, but also leaving aside all old established parties ? their united platform is theirs, not of the leaders'. The peasants and agro-workers should be the determining factor in their united platform, independent of all established parties. The contrary is the motive behind the 'united platform' floated by the initiative of the TMC, where our 'revolutionary' friends are playing 3rd or 4th fiddlers: there the villagers are kept dependent on the leaders, masses are mere pawn in the political chess. A glaring example of this dependence is Singur's inability to gather support of surrounding villages around the 4-5 fighting villages ? they never endeavoured for this, they depended on the ability of leaders to pull support from outside. TMC and allies did pull support, but support of another kind, to the detriment of Singur. The masses in Singur and adjacent area were split along loyalty to CPM or anti-CPM camp. Fighting unity of peasantry and agro-labourers did not and could not materialise; and our 'revolutionary' friends were blind to the whole process, rather they helped that. This is perhaps the crux of Singur's weakness, misfortune. The potential 'new' could not germinate in full, let alone blossom! Nandigram, in its first days of rebellion, showed that 'new' ? 'unity from below'; otherwise they could not do what they spectacularly did. But then, the 'old' is socially still dominant, and Nandigram's fate depends on whether the new can emerge as determining or not.
The CR organisations are effectively blind about the process of new germinations of struggles and organisations from below, which are of extreme importance at this juncture of history: a condition when a real revolutionary proletarian party is absent, when the proletariat and the toiling masses are trying to cope with the defeat of the first offensive of the international communist movement and trying to rise up anew after a long spell of passivity, frustrations, disarrayed-ness, disillusionment and to deal with one-sided ruthless attack of the ruling classes. The task of revolutionary communist is to help that upcoming leadership 'from below' to develop so that they learn to take charge of the organisations and movements. They must come up, because it is them who will change the society, make the revolution, lead the future state, govt and party! We can never expect from TMC or suchlike bourgeois party to consider this factor; such parties have their motives, mostly electoral calculations; and why would they want development of leaders from below! But how any group calling themselves CR can overlook these factors and do harm to the process of development from below when the process has objectively set in? Doing anything in the name of 'joint movement' is not permitted for communists, particularly if their steps actually harm the development of workers and peasants.
What could be the rationale, i.e., political consideration of these CR groups behind their joining in the KJRC? They have not made it clear why they joined the committee at all and why they (or some of them) allegedly withdrew from it in the latter stage. Conceivably they thought that it would be possible to ultimately establish their individual or collective leadership over the peasants' struggle against land acquisition, since as communist revolutionaries, as they are, would only be in the position to remain in and lead the struggle, whereas TMC and other such parties would eventually betray the struggle by putting brake on it in the midway. This is evident from what the General Secretary of CPIML-Liberation stated in his speech in Singur in 14th Sept 06. "Others are likely to abandon in midway. But Naxalites shall carry on the struggle to the end till the victory is achieved." The same is echoed in the Bengali pamphlet "Class Struggle of Singur peasants". As for example we cite a few excerpts: "...it is due to party's (TMC's) class interest" they can "come in terms with TATA midway"; again, "...so we are to come forward to elevate the ongoing class struggle to higher level..." etc, etc. What then according to CPIML-Liberation is the demarcating line between revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries? It seems it is only that 'they (TMC) will betray the struggle and we shall be with the struggle till victory is achieved'. Nothing was mentioned about revolutionary propaganda! We'll discuss about this later, let us continue now with the leadership question. From various writings of the mentioned CPIML groups, from speeches and statements of their leaders and also from their joint resolution and declaration it is clearly understood that they share a common line of thinking. That line of thinking is: it was possible only for communist revolutionaries to effectively lead such struggles of the masses to the end and it is therefore their bounden duty is to take out these struggles from the leadership of bourgeois parties like TMC, Congress, etc. it is the general frame of political understanding of the CR groups in general with which we have long been accustomed. This frame is nothing new to us. Let us examine this frame of thinking from Marxist point of view.
What is actually meant by establishing leadership over any spontaneous struggle of the masses? Obviously this leadership would mean revolutionary leadership. Should we demarcate revolutionary leadership from that of opportunists-reformists or reactionaries only on the point that only the former can lead the struggle to the end, whereas the latter would betray the struggle in midway? Of course we cannot. The cardinal point is the class essence of the movement; the question is of leaving proletarian imprint on the movement. Communists can never loose sight of the most important aspect, that of proletarian hegemony, working class leadership. We know that Singur peasants are fighting against land grab by the govt, for protecting their own land. The fight of Singur peasants, particularly that of the womenfolk, is heroic no doubt. The Nandigram struggle has been more intense and fierce, and also relatively of greater dimension. Even the state govt had to beat retreat at least for the time being, as happened in Kalinganagar a year back. The Kalinganagar fighters, laudably, sent their representatives to Nandigram. There are reports of many such struggles. And all such struggles are spontaneous struggles of peasants for protecting their land and livelihood. We know that Kalinganagar, Singur, Nandigram etc are not isolated events. The growing struggles of peasants against land acquisition, be in for SEZ or otherwise, are although, in face of it, spontaneous and isolated and stands exclusively on affected peasants' urge for protection of land, i.e. source of livelihood, but these struggles nevertheless objectively stands opposed to the present spate of 'industrialisation-development' and thereby opposed to ruling classes' Junker Path of capitalist development. Hence the present struggles against land acquisition would go nowhere near revolution unless revolutionary propaganda are put forward before these struggles. And only by this revolutionary propaganda working class can, in efect, attach themselves with these struggles of land-loosing peasants. To be more precise, if working class confines themselves with only giving support to these struggles ignoring revolutionary propaganda, rather do not give prime importance to revolutioary propaganda, it would be simply reformism-revisionism and opportunism on their part.
But unfortunately the CR organisations did not pay heed to this fundamental task of the proletariat in regard to peasants' struggle in Singur and subsequently in Nandigram: they did totally abandon revolutionary propaganda-agitation regarding this govt 'land-grab' and the pet 'industrialisation cum development' hoax of the CPIM. Rather they all fumbled and in effect said 'we also want development, we also want industries, but let that be in fallow or underdeveloped land or locked-up land of the closed factories..." Let us see, a bit in detail, what they said.
In the joint declaration of CPIML, CPIML (Liberation) and CPIML (New Democracy) written on 1st July 2006 and also in the resolution adapted in a joint convention it is found that they did expose the 'model of development' stating that this would in no way change the life of the people, particularly the promise of employment of the displaced persons was a hoax, etc. but the resolution at the same time stated, " ... We do have, in general, nothing to say against establishment of industry in West Bengal. But we are opposed to such building up of industry and urban townships if they are done on agricultural land." Can it be called revolutionary opposition? Rather the reformist nature of their opposition get further exposed when they say "Govt has to initiate discussion and debate amongst political parties and professionals in order to evolve a pro-people policy and as per real interest of West Bengal ." Which are these parties and who are those professionals and what are their class characters? Why write 'interest of West Bengal '? What about class interest? We don't think comments are necessary. Further how can they raise the question of compensation against land acquisition? ("It is not possible for displaced small and marginal peasants to have provision of livelihood with the compensation that is being offered by the govt." ? that same July resolution) They have also noted that agricultural workers and unrecorded sharecroppers were not in the govt list of compensation. Does it mean that they are asking for widening the scope of compensation and increase of amount? Class-conscious proletariat cannot and should not go for such bargaining with big bourgeoisie on the quanta of compensation. All these propositions stand opposed to revolutionary propaganda, nor these actually help the struggle of the peasants. These major slips of those CR groups follow from their half-hearted reformist opposition to ruling classes' policy of industrialisation-development. To sum up, only by revolutionary opposition to the policy, not just the 'model', of industrialisation, thereby opposing the reactionary Junker path of development of capitalism and opposing the present policy of liberalisation-globalisation one can really be faithful to the task of conducting revolutionary propaganda and actually help the ongoing struggles of peasants against all sorts of evictions, be that in proposed SEZ or outside.
CPI (Maoist) calls the above CR groups, and all other groups other than itself, as revisionists and betrayers of revolution. But regarding the task of revolutionary propaganda, to be precise on the question of ruling classes' present policy of industrialisation, they actually stand on the same plank. Nowhere in their published literature we find revolutionary opposition to that policy. If all of the CR camp could only read the Peoples March (Bengali) (Dec 2006 ? Jan 2007 issue) and all their published literatures on this issue! They said, " ... If factory is to be established it should be in the land of closed factories..." (Their 6th July call) CPI-Maoist called for united movement with TMC, or even NGOs like one led by M Medha Patekar. In an open letter to Mamata Banerjee they eulogised the role of Ms Mamata. "People of the state, especially Singur, are with you for your present role."!! "We will be there ... ... with whoever stands for struggle." Again for Medha they proposed joint struggle:......let us unite for the common interest against peoples enemy." So CPI (Maoist) thinks that Mamata, TMC, a big bourgeois party, and NGOs can really fight against big bourgeois, big landlords and imperialism! What else other than these three are "peoples enemy"! In act you will find in CPI (Maoist)'s literature everything minus working class and its politics.
What for the CR groups were fumbling if not for ? either taking into concern the 'feeling' of the aspiring upper middle class people who will reap profit along with capitalists from this 'industrialisation' and 'development', or themselves getting duped, hoodwinked by the CPIM slogans. By this un-revolutionary fumbling they not only abandoned their revolutionary communist duty, they preached and helped other preach totally bourgeois lesson regarding CPIM sponsored 'industrialisation', 'development' etc: as if this 'industrialisation and development' will do good for society but please spare my little land . Are they not getting signals from whatever 'mass base' they have, from the worker and poor-peasant masses they interact with, that these masses want to say: damn with your development! we are getting wrung by your system and you are enriching yourselves ? if it is development we don't need that!
For the sake of argument, let us see what damages or disadvantages or harms will be done if an organisation fights in these anti-land-grab movements erupting here and there along with the fighting peasants and other parties without confronting head-on the governments', CPIM's and Capitalists' 'development and industrialisation' agenda . There might be some repetitions of what has been said earlier, however let us enumerate the damages breaking them up in parts. 1 In absence of that revolutionary exposure, the fighting peasants and agro-labourers will feel that they are fighting for a 'narrow cause' of saving their own lands against a plan that will or may generate 'greater common good' — whereas, if they know that they are fighting against a capitalists-govt hoax, they are fighting against the evil hands of Junker capitalism and liberalisation combined which at this moment is out to grab their land, then they will have the moral strength and superiority, they will demand, standing on solid ground, the support of all those workers and toilers fighting against the common enemy convincingly! 2 The ground of united battle of all workers and peasants is objectively created by the govt-capitalists-parties' combined attack, this cannot be developed from possibility into reality without the fighters themselves understanding the Cause behind the grab of their land, the retrenchment of workers, etc . This Junker capitalist development and Globalisation-Liberalisation process are also hurting the poor and middle peasants plus the agro-labourers in places where they are not grabbing land too, by increased rate of depeasantisation cum pauperisation, by infringing on the agricultural field by retail-trading of inputs and outputs, contract-farming, etc. Poverty has increased to such a high and jobs so scarcely available that the government is 'proudly' 'only 100 days a year job guarantee'! So all peasants and labourers need to fight the common enemy/enemies and come solidly in support of the ongoing anti-eviction fights. 3 The 'new' industries that came up in recent times have a very limited number of what was called 'permanent workers', they are virtually run by very ill-paid 'contract workers' who have to work like almost slaves for longer hours with higher work loads; the 'old' industries are retrenching more and more 'permanent' workers with what they call VRS; and existing wages + benefits are getting curtailed, work loads are continuously increasing, etc ?? all these are going on in the name of 'industrialisation', in all states including Bengal. Not to expose the anti-working class design of this 'industrialisation' deserves to be called betrayal to the working class and very wrong lessons about this 'industrialisation' for the non-workers. Then, 4 If the workers don't get the message that the present fights against land-grab are also against the ghastly exploitive Globalised-Liberalised 'industrialisation' going on in the interest of the ruling classes, they can, at best, take side with the fighting villagers only on the ground of 'solidarity towards struggles of other exploited people', or from anti-CPIM sentiment, but surely not as a co-fighter in the potentially evolving country wide united struggle of workers and peasants against this exploitative system.
Moreover, 5 This "potentially evolving country wide united struggle of workers and peasants against this exploitative system" is of paramount importance, the ground of which is created by the increasing assaults of the ruling classes and their pet governments, as we said earlier in point number 2. These potentially evolving fights are also throwing up potential new fighters, will-be leaders. To educate and organise them with revolutionary and socialist education taking and imparting lessons from concrete struggles is a duty of communist revolutionaries, the scope of which is increasing with the bursting up of newer struggles of masses. If the proper revolutionary criticism of this 'development-industrialisation' drive is not taken up, this vital work remains neglected, and thus, a great damage is done for the coming Indian revolution . And then, 6 The revolutionary criticism of this 'development-industrialisation' naturally will contain the need, urge of development of the masses, development not in bourgeois sense but in peoples' sense, and that peoples development can happen only when people will have the power in their hand, only when a workers-peasants state is created. The govt-capitalists-parties nexus by their assaults have given the revolutionaries opportunity to bring in forefront the questions of people's way of development, people's power, etc connected with the concrete fights that are going on. To abandon this means axing revolutionary duty and responsibility.
These Points are interrelated, and Point No: 1 to Point No: 4 are directly related to the strength/weakness of the anti-eviction fights ; i.e., you are, knowingly or unknowingly, neglecting these means you are weakening the fight concerned at least to some extent that cannot be 'measured' now.
We hope the revolutionary communists working outside WB have taken notice of the blunders committed by some CR groups/individual in Singur and suchlike movements in WB, and will argue with them to bring them to real C.R. position.
Comments:
No Comments for View