Truth to Tell by Nirmalya Deb
As far as left ideology of state control of the economy is concerned it is different from that of the RSS to the extent that it is absolutely secular, even anti-religious to a degree that would baffle bigots and pseudo-secularists. The socialist state will be purged of all communities except the human community and the role of the state in social life and faith as well as the economy will be community-transcendent. This is the logical difference between fanatical nationalism and socialism as economic ideologies
If the media were a little more introspective and self-critical how infinitely beneficial would it have been for democracy! If only it had the sense, that is, to refrain from giving inane advice couched in apparently virulent, but fundamentally naïve, language lacking in sense as well as sensibility.
One recent editorial titled ‘Left in the lurch’ published in a leading English daily spoke about how Left politics has become “fossilized” and how the Left, especially in West Bengal, has resorted to “obstructionist obscurantism” (a not very lyrical or lucid alliteration) that wouldn’t serve any purpose in restoring its political fortunes. We will come to the editorial and ponder over the issues raised and comments made, but a word on editorial as a genre and its expected function and role wouldn’t be out of place.
Nobody expects an edit to furnish an expert opinion on issues and debates but a certain level of sophistication is expected. If the discourse degenerates beyond a level where it becomes difficult to take part in a serious discussion there’s no use carrying it on. Advice, too, is okay but unfounded advice and tea shop chatter (as a friend so aptly termed all sorts of middle-brow, although deeply conceited, political discourse) can’t contribute anything remotely meaningful. The chief advice of the editorial for the left forces in Bengal is to align with the Congress in handling an authoritarian Mamata Banerjee. Even at the national level left-Congress alliance is not a new idea; there have been experiments in the past. The Common Minimum Programme (CMP) was a shared vision – albeit in the framework of parliamentary democracy – about the uplift of different sectors of the economy and society, but the nuke deal with the US, as we all know, occasioned a rift in the relationship.
The left forces after breaking out of the United Progressive Alliance sustained major losses in Bengal and their national image and parliamentary standing took a beating. But alliance with parties, including the Congress, on terms set after prolonged deliberation, as evidenced in the draft report of CMP that included insights of noted economists, was a conscious political decision (again in the reckoning of parliamentary politics) and not blatantly opportunist such as an alliance with the Congress in Bengal at this tumultuous juncture in the political history of the state would certainly be.
The Congress in Bengal is still a beleaguered force and Trinamool hooliganism in the districts and villages is a direct and constant political threat to opposition forces. If it is argued that during left rule the situation was by no means different, it would be arguing the issue all over again without being able to locate the point of contention. The problem happens to be that the regressive organizational machinery of the CPI (M) has been taken over by another party no less greedy and corrupt. But the problem persists. Even the CPI (M) for long has been the party of a single man in Bengal; therefore the slur of authoritarianism on Mamata is not fair. Why have the Congress and BJP failed to produce mini-demagogues like Mamata and Jyoti Basu? Simple, they were never in reckoning in West Bengal.
Countering authoritarianism is not even a political challenge, at least should not be, in an enlightened society. Creating fake and fragile alliances that have purported parliamentary value would hardly satisfy the left’s objective of regaining lost ground. Organizational re-churning and establishing a social-democratic platform, a consensus, an alternative political and economic vision are the objectives of the left forces today. Yes, alliances are important but only on the basis of a consensus on rapid economic and social reforms and not opportunism.
The other point the comment piece makes relates to economic ideology in the broad sense and nationalisation of industries and state control, in which respect it notes that the left forces are little different in outlook than outfits like the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, for example, that also share a broadly nationalistic ideology. State control of means of production and its role in distribution of resources and the toils of labour are eternal questions of political economy, discussed and re-discussed over the course of the past two-and-a-half centuries, and the disagreements about the perennial problems of the discipline are so far-reaching that it is better not to delve deep.
As far as left ideology of state control of the economy is concerned, whether it is right or wrong needn’t detain us here, it is different from that of the RSS to the extent that it is absolutely secular, even anti-religious to an extent that would baffle bigots and pseudo-secularists. The socialist state will be purged of all communities except the human community and the role of the state in regard to social life and faith as well as the economy will be community-transcendent. This is the logical difference between fanatical nationalism and socialism as economic ideologies that parliamentary sympathies or pressures can’t distort.
The other point the editorial makes relates to the left forces’ vociferous denunciation of Anglo-American imperialism, sometimes descending to comic extremes, and the Indian left’s kowtowing to aggressive China – an observation done to death by the liberal, mainstream media. In fact it has been so often repeated in editorials, columns, TV talks and daily discourse generally that it might appear as if it is integral to left theory and practice in India today. There are far more pressing problems at home. Clearing the cobwebs of religion and caste from statecraft and creating a broad-based consensus on economic and social reforms, for example, should be of greater concern to all right-thinking people engaged in public service of some kind.
Wouldn’t it be foolhardy to expect parliamentary entities tied to the apron strings of religion and caste to champion these objectives? Editorial advice should help construct opinion on these issues rather than promoting idle chatter.
