Left Radicalism in India

Bidyut Chakrabarty

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415810326
• eBook ISBN: 9781317668046
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Indian & South Asian History
• Index: History

Left radicalism in India was rooted in the nationalist movement and was set in motion in the 1920s with the formation of the communist party. The communist movement manifested itself differently in each phase of India's political history and Communism continues to remain a meaningful alternative ideological discourse in India.

This book examines left politics in India focusing on its rise, consolidation and relative decline in the present century. Left radicalism in India is a distinct ideological phenomenon which is articulated in two complementary ways: while the parliamentary left remains social democratic in character, its bête noire, the left wing extremists, continue to uphold the classical Marxist, Leninist and Maoist notion of violent revolution. By concentrating on the nature and also activities of these two versions of left radicalism, this book is a thorough study of the phenomenon. The author analyses the states of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura and presents a variety of case studies of communist movements. He argues that the political power of the left parties depends on the degree to which they have built organizational strength, political hegemony and a broad social base through legal and extra-parliamentary struggles.

An in-depth study of socio-economic circumstances that remain critical in conceptualizing radical extremism, Left Radicalism in India will be of interest to those studying Indian Politics, South Asian History, Development Studies and Global Politics.

Part I

Setting the scene

Consolidation of left radicalism in India

An ideology ceases to be an ideology if it does not develop organic roots. Hence it is conceptually inaccurate to conceptualize ideology as a universal category precisely because of its context-driven nature. It is the historical context which adds meaning to an ideology, representing ideas, norms and values of a specific age of history reflective of a definite mindset. This means that opinions, statements, propositions and systems of ideas are not taken at their face value, but ‘are interpreted’, argues Karl Mannheim, ‘in the light of the life situation of the one who experiences them . . . [signifying] that the specific character and life-situation of the subject influence his opinions, perceptions and interpretations’.¹ Two features thus stand out: on the one hand, ideology is situation-specific, seeking to evolve a bunch of ideas which are meaningful and motivating; because it is also transcendental in terms of its reach, ideology upholds, on the other hand, a universal spirit which makes sense in an identical socio-economic and political context. Ideology is both ideating and inspirational since it sets in motion significant processes which are also reflective of an urge for transforming the prevalent system of thinking.

Left radicalism in India is highly context driven. Drawing on the passion for substantial socio-economic changes to the prevalent class imbalances, not only did the left radicals craft an alternative discourse of change, they also raised newer issues involving the marginalized by directing successful protest movements in different phases of India’s recent political history. During the struggle for freedom, they mobilized masses for socio-political aims which did not always please the nationalist leadership presumably because of their specific class prejudices. Nonetheless, their sustained endeavour at the grassroots was politically innovative since they drew on an ideology which sought to combine political freedom with substantial socio-economic changes at the grassroots to accomplish human emancipation in the real sense of the term. Despite not being successful in altering the prevalent class relations in contemporary India, left radicalism remains an important ideological force that is both meaningful and provocative in the sense of raising issues which usually escape the notice of the well-established liberal political outfits for obvious class bias. Hence this part is most fundamental in laying out the socio-economic and political context in which the Indian variety of left radicalism emerged and continues to remain pertinent in the political processes.

Note

1 Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: an introduction to the sociology of knowledge, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1979 (reprint), p. 50.

1 Socio-economic contexts of left radicalism in India

The aim of the chapter is to provide an account of the socio-economic circumstances that remain critical in conceptualizing left and radical politics drawing on Marxism-Leninism and its Maoist articulation in contemporary India. This is also a study of a specific kind of social-democratic model that India’s parliamentary left sought to articulate by adopting pro-people schemes through well-established legislative procedures within the constraints of parliamentary democracy. This is not a unique theoretical design because it had its manifestations elsewhere in the globe as well. What is unique, however, is the application of the model in three differently textured socio-economic circumstances of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura that enabled the parliamentary left to strike organic roots. This is not the entire story because there exists side-by-side an ultra-left-wing extremism as a powerful mobilizing ideology, in the form of Maoism, even in the left-ruled state of West Bengal. Presumably because of the failure of the state in fulfilling the aspirations of the people at the grassroots, Maoism seems to have gained an easy acceptance among the victims of ‘state-led-development’ who remain socio-economically peripheral in post-independent India in which the benefits of planned economy are appropriated by a specific segment of society. This also explains the alienation of the Gorkhas in Darjeeling in West Bengal or the tribals in Tripura from the prevalent left governments. One is thus better equipped to understand the complexities of the situation by reference to a rigorous contextual analysis of the probable factors responsible for the growth, consolidation and relative decline of the left in India. Just like the parliamentary left, there are indications of the decline of Maoism as an ideology-driven political movement. A contextual study of Maoism in Orissa and Chhattisgarh reveals that the Maoist ideological alternative does not seem to remain as inspiring as before, presumably because of the Maoist failure to ameliorate the conditions of the poor on the one hand and, on the other hand, the success of the state in meaningfully implementing developmental packages for people in the affected areas, besides, of course, the coercive role of the government-sponsored military and paramilitary forces in liquidating the left wing elements wherever they constitute a formidable opponent. In view of its historical role in shaping India’s polity, left radicalism continues to remain a critical ideological component in conceptualizing its nature. Despite having drawn its ideological linage from the derivative Marxist-Leninist-Maoist model of analysis, the Indian version of left radicalism also remains indigenous in its spirit and articulation. The parliamentary left and its militant counterpart have sustained their ideological appeal largely due to the fact that they are rooted in the Indian soil. In other words, despite being inspired by a derivative ideology, left radicalism continues to remain a significant political force in contemporary India since it is meaningful to the majority of the disempowered sections across the country.

There is no doubt that context is always critical in shaping a specific ideological response. This is true of the Indian variety of left radicalism which, despite being anchored in the Marxist-Leninist tradition, has hardly a uniform character across the country because of the diverse socio-economic characteristics. For instance, there is hardly a difference in perception between the parliamentary left and other leading bourgeois political parties on the neo-liberal path for economic reforms, as the discussion below shows: by agreeing to follow a neo-liberal path of development, both the left and its right-wing bête noire do not appear to be ideologically different at all.

Neo-liberal economic reforms in India

With the onset of macroeconomic reforms in the 1990s, the state-led developmental plans seem to have lost their significance in a situation where the non-state actors have grown in importance in redefining the state agenda.¹ India has adopted reforms in perhaps a very guarded manner. One probably cannot simply wish away the theoretical justification of state intervention in a transitional economy. Reasons are plenty. Socialist principles may not have been forgotten, but the importance of the state in the social sector cannot be minimized unless a meaningful alternative is mooted. This is reflected in the obvious distortions in India’s economy.

It is true that economic liberalization is a significant influence and yet, the importance of the prevalent politico-institutional context cannot be underestimated while conceptualizing the impact of economic reform in India. In a significant way, the institutional legacy of a well-entrenched state affected the post-reform possibilities in India.

What thus proliferate across India are ‘state-guided routes to liberalization rather than market fundamentalism’.² This has resulted in an obvious tension in the economy which is neither appreciative of market hegemony nor fully supportive of the erstwhile state-led development paradigm. In fact, here lie roots of severe social discontent fuelling ideological political movements, including a militant Maoist movement, challenging the state for its failure to protect the marginalized. The situation has thus become far more complicated because there is evidence to confirm that the state has miserably failed to address the genuine socio-economic grievances of the majority of the people, especially in rural India, leading to the consolidation of people-centric political movements redrawing the contour of Indian politics that cannot be formatted in the available theoretical discourses.

The political economy of India as a nation state

India’s post-colonial political economy is neither purely capitalist nor feudal but a peculiar admixture of the two. Hence the path of development that India adopted can never be conceptualized in a straightforward manner like India’s evolution as a nation in the aftermath of decolonization in 1947. The Preamble to the Constitution of India laid the foundation of the socialist pattern of society in which the state remained the most critical player. Accordingly, the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) emphasize that the goal of the Indian polity is not unbridled laissez-faire but a welfare state where the state has a positive duty to ensure for its citizens social and economic justice with dignity of the individual consistent with the unity and integrity of the nation. By making these principles fundamental in the governance and law-making of the country and making it the duty of the state to apply these principles, the founding fathers made it the responsibility of future governments to find a middle way between individual liberty and the public good, between preserving the property and privilege of the few and bestowing benefits on the many in order to liberate the powers of men and women equally for contributions to the common good.³ This led, as a commentator rightly points out, to ‘paradoxical socialism’ in India that approximated to what the Fabian socialists championed as socialism. Fabian socialism, it was further argued, was

an intellectual tool [that] facilitated, when required, a distancing of oneself from the revolutionary left while still maintaining a claim to socialism; and, possibly more importantly, justifying a socialism brought about by an elite who were great believers in science.⁴

Independence in 1947 provided the founding fathers with a chance to translate their ideological vision into concrete development programmes in which the role of state was hailed as a prime mover. The new institutional matrix that the state-led development programmes provided, consisted of ‘a regulatory regime’ comprising (a) public sector expansion, (b) discretionary controls over markets and private economic activities and (c) stringent foreign exchange and import controls. The first two had their roots in the ideology of socialism while the last had its roots in economic nationalism. Taken together, they articulated ‘activism of the newly established nation state’⁵ to guide the economic system ‘in a desired direction by means of intentionally planned and rationally coordinated state policies’.⁶

In this model of state-directed development, the most significant instrument was the Planning Commission that came into being in January 1950 despite serious opposition of the Gandhians within the Congress Working Committee. However, the cabinet resolution that finally led to the creation of the commission underlined three major principles as special terms of reference in the preparation of the plans which largely defused opposition. These principles were: (a) that citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the country are so distributed as best to serve the common good; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.⁷ Underlining the ideological commitment of the nation, the 1948 Industrial Policy Resolution therefore begins by stating that:

[t]he nation has now set itself to establish a social order where justice and equality of opportunity shall be secured to all the people. For this purpose, careful planning and integrated efforts over the whole field of national activity are necessary; and the Government of India propose to establish a National Planning Commission to formulate programmes of development and to secure its execution. (para 1)

Accordingly, the resolution insisted that the state should play a progressive active role in the development of critical industries, such as (a) industries manufacturing arms and ammunition, production and control of atomic energy and the ownership and management of railway transport; (b) basic industries such as iron, coal and steel, aircraft manufacture, ship building, mineral oils. This resolution was reiterated in the 1955 Avadi session of the Congres...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1 Setting the scene: consolidation of left radicalism in India
• Part 2 Parliamentary left in India: articulating social democracy as a universal theoretical design
• Part 3 Left-wing extremism in India: an indigenous endeavour at ideological innovation(?)
• Conclusion
• Select bibliography
• Index