Party’s refusal to brand Modi regime as “neo-fascist” and frayed ties with Congress, raise doubts over its intentions to collaborate with Opposition parties to take on BJP government
As the 24th Congress of the CPI(M) approaches, recalling a slice of the Communist movement’s past offers perspective. The CPI(M) conclave, held every three years, is due to take place in Madurai in the first week of April. It is tasked with drawing up the party’s general political line for most of the remaining period of the Narendra Modi government. That gives it a special salience.
All eyes on draft political resolution
Some doubts have lately arisen about the nature of the party’s probable role in the Opposition, fuelled by its own key document – the draft political resolution for the 24th Congress. For this reason, the 24th Congress will be watched with considerable interest in political quarters.
Also read: Kerala: Upset with CPI(M)'s decisions, senior comrades vent dissent on social media
Communist presence appears to have been somewhat obscured in the more recent period for lack of a spirited effort on their part, but they used to be an active force in public debates and in political action. In the country’s first Parliament they were the largest Opposition party. Since then, there has been an overall erosion in their national impact and spread. Nevertheless, they remain viable in pockets and their voice is heard carefully when they take an overall view, rather than a narrow-focused one.
Lost stature of Communists
In general, Communists tended to punch above their weight. They were seen as political actors, whose thoughts and actions were in line with one of the earliest precepts the country highlighted after independence, namely a ‘pro-poor’ outlook. This image was sustained although the movement went through splits. Even so, several of its leading figures were intellectual and political stalwarts. They were seen as guides, if not exactly gurus.
That status stands overshadowed now. Only visible constructive positions adopted by the CPI(M) and the smaller CPI and other Left parties – in thought and in action – can help revive some of the lost stature. Displaying a political sensitivity to identify the fundamental question or questions before the country is critical in this regard. However, the key political document to be placed at the Madurai Congress by the CPI(M) leadership does not quite revive enthusiasm.
Also read: Caste and tradition leave Kerala and temple worker tangled in a garland
Opposition’s ‘Captain’ Yechury
The party’s last general secretary, Sitaram Yechury, who passed away prematurely six months ago, was described by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in an obituary reference as “the captain” who could help narrow differences. He could bring parties and dissatisfied leaders on to a common working platform that sought to oppose the government from a secular and a pro-poor standpoint.
This was with a view to rescue governance, society and the polity from the onset and entrenchment of not just an “authoritarian” era but something far more undesirable. It was the arrival of a fascist age, whatever form it may take in a country like India, even as we look for exact parallels that marked the fascist period in Europe in the first half of the 20th century which is a part of our continuing present.
Also read: Sitaram Yechury obituary: The Leftist who always stood on the right side
Fight against fascism
If the draft political resolution brought out by the CPI(M) in mid-January is to go through in Madurai without relevant changes, then its impact is likely to be in the direction of isolationism, of thinking of the party’s narrow, immediate interests.
However, the situation today calls for incorporating those as an element of the broader national challenge posed by the Modi regime to which the Congress party’s leadership and the leadership of some regional parties, notably the DMK, are alive.
The inclusion of Communists of all shades and the Left as a whole into such a scheme of things, can be a tonic to animate campaigns to thwart the entrenchment of the fascist model in India; their absence can place any democratic urge at risk and pose a severe danger to the communists themselves. That’s a lesson history has thrown at the world in the past one hundred years.
Note on ‘neo-fascism’
In the section called ‘Political Line’, the draft political resolution notes that the Modi regime of 11 years has resulted in the “consolidation of the right-wing, communal, authoritarian forces with neo-fascist characteristics” and that the government represents “the alliance of Hindutva forces and the big bourgeoisie”.
Then comes what is widely viewed in the political universe as a major dilution. This reading appears to be agitating the rank and file of the party as well as sections of its middle and senior leadership, beside the party’s wider intellectual periphery and its sympathisers who have stayed with it through thick and thin.
Also read: MV Govindan elected Kerala CPI(M) state secretary; 17 new faces in state panel
The disappointment comes in the form of a ‘Note’, issued to all state committees on February 4 and stems from a decision of the party’s central committee. Issued under the signature of politburo member Prakash Karat, who was designated politburo and central committee coordinator following Yechury’s demise last September. The Note seeks to clarify the term “neo-fascist”. It notes that it was the first time the CPI(M) had used the expression.
CPI(M) refuses to tag Modi govt as ‘neo-fascist’
In the elaboration it says, “We are not saying that the Modi government is a fascist or neo-fascist government. Nor are we characterising the Indian State as a neo-fascist State. What we are pinpointing is that after ten years of continuous rule by the BJP, which is the political wing of the RSS, there has been a consolidation of political power in the hands of the BJP-RSS and this is resulting in the manifestation of “neo-fascist characteristics”.
Also read: In key policy shift before 2026 Kerala polls, CPI(M) to allow private investment in PSUs
It further says, “The word ‘characteristics’ means features or trends, but they have not developed into a neo-fascist government and political setup.” The Note goes on to clarify that this position is different from that of the CPI and the CPI(ML). The CPI, it says, characterises the Modi government as “fascist” and, according to the CPI(ML), “an Indian fascism has been put in place”.
The CPI and the CPI(ML), on their part, have been critical of such a presentation, wondering if it is helpful. Sections of the CPI(M) also display wariness of their leadership’s unusual formulation, questioning the need for this university seminar-like posture. Some believe that under Yechury, the party was in the open space along with the others taking on the government collectively, and wonder if that line is receding.
Also read: Days after slamming use of AI, CPI(M) creates AI-generated video of EK Nayanar
RSS hints at ‘faltering opposition’
It is the RSS, however, that appears to have best caught the gist of what’s happening. In its issue of February 25, the Organiser, regarded as the mouthpiece of the RSS, goes with the headline- ‘CPI-M’s Political U-Turn: Refusal to Label BJP-RSS as “fascist” in draft resolution shakes the opposition ecosystem’.
“In a move that has sent shockwaves across India’s political landscape, the resolution notably refrains from labelling the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as ‘fascist organisations’. The CPI-M’s refusal to use the term “fascist”….has left the Congress, and other opposition parties, reeling and scrambling for a response,” reads the story in the Organiser.
Doubts over Left unity
The draft political resolution underlines the need for the unity of Left parties and forces but does not pinpoint the locus of thrust that may facilitate their collectiveness other than in generalities, such as the need to challenge Hindutva and its policy thrust to favour the “big” bourgeoisies, fight crony capitalism and the selling off of national assets. In light of the line advanced in the Note, it is not certain to what degree the Left forces will be comfortable with the CPI(M) line as far tactical positions go.
Also read: CPI(M), IUML blame differences in INDIA bloc for BJP’s Delhi poll win
Under the section ‘Tasks’, the political draft document says that the CPI(M), “must take up the defence of the LDF government in Kerala…” This is brought along with the task to “rally forces for the defence of the rights of states and for federalism.”
Other than the ruling establishment, the idea of defending federalism is supported by the Congress, the largest opposition party in Parliament, as well as regional parties that have consistently opposed the Modi government. Considering this, the notion of the “defence” of the CPI(M)-led Left government may be construed as a broadside against the Congress, since the Kerala government is under no threat of President’s rule.
Will Congress-CPI(M) dynamics change?
The Congress and the CPI(M) have been contenders for office in Kerala for decades and that has coloured the former’s political stance in no small measure. This is understood by both parties, and yet the CPI(M) as well as the CPI have sought political and electoral accommodation with the Congress in the rest of the country, wherever possible. This was the case even in West Bengal after the CPI(M) and its Left allies were jettisoned from power in that state.
Also read: No truck with Congress, CPI(M) decides before party conference
It is said doubts are appearing on this under Karat’s leadership. Karat’s time as the general secretary of the CPI(M) roughly coincided with Dr Manmohan Singh's time as prime minister. The CPI(M) and the Left had supported the government from the outside but later brought a no-confidence motion against it.
This was defeated by a resolute Congress, leaving the sponsors of the motion red-faced. Will Karat make this a factor or will the CPI(M) under his leadership be able to get over that phase and also the idea of focusing principally on the “defence” of the Kerala government, with which no democrat can differ.
Anti-Congress stance
The Congress party is different from the communist parties, but within it, the pro-poor and secular left-wing tendency has been influential in many phases. At the present juncture too the leadership of that party stands broadly in consonance with the Left approach, although it is likely to leave no stone unturned to challenge the Pinarayi Vijayan government in Kerala.
For that reason, is the Congress to be treated as a party of the “class enemy” or a party with which a limited understanding can be developed to attain overall national objectives? The idea of the “class enemy” itself may be a subject of fruitful discussion. The Left as a whole, and especially the communists, appear to have had a preference to keep their ambition straight jacketed, and not aspire higher.
Also read: CPI(M) faces acid test as Kerala Muslim groups sail closer to Congress
The key political document to be discussed at Madurai says, “The Congress represents the same class interests as the BJP. However, being the main secular opposition party, it has a role to play in the struggle against the BJP in the broader unity to be forged of the secular forces. However, the party cannot have a political alliance with the Congress.”
Looming question
The question of a “political alliance” was never on the agenda. So, why has it been brought up is a moot question, especially when the Congress merely “has a role to play” in the larger scheme, no more than that. The real question, however, has nothing to do with Karat’s leadership or that of any other communist leader. The more interesting, and in a sense a fundamental question, is: ‘Why is it that the CPI(M) or any other communist party has not developed as the pivot of the struggle against authoritarian or fascist tendencies in the country?’
Also read: Karat bats for broader platform of secular Opposition parties
After Yechury’s demise last year, Karat was named “coordinator”, not general secretary. This is possibly because he had done the prescribed three terms as general secretary and gone past the age of 75 for party positions. Both rules can be amended in special circumstances.
Precursor to Karat takeover?
The Madurai Congress will probably determine if indeed “special circumstances” have arisen – and that only Karat fits the bill. If that’s not the case, then a younger leader can come forward. But there is no question that the draft political document bears Karat’s stamp- and that making him “coordinator” was needed to secure this since the idea of naming him general secretary would have to overcome technical hurdles.
In 1962, with the death of Ajoy Ghosh, EMS Namboodiripad was made general secretary. There was no need to wait for the next party congress of the then undivided CPI. It may have been useful to follow that precedent since the general secretary is elected by the politburo, unless recourse to the Central Committee becomes necessary. The Party Congress has little to do with the matter.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
