Buddha’s way. Photo by Leonard Laub on Unsplash

The future of the Left in India will depend on the success of the ‘Bengal line’.

There was a sigh of relief all round when the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) announced, after its central committee meeting in Kolkata, that it would give the UPA more opportunities to find a way out of the current imbroglio over the nuclear deal and not precipitate a political crisis.

The general interpretation is that the Bengal line — the faction within the Left fronted by Jyoti Basu and Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee — convinced the ‘hardliners’ like Prakash Karat to take a relatively moderate view of the situation, since no political party wants or is prepared for a snap poll at this point of time.

Initially it appeared that the Left was closing its ranks over the Indo-US nuclear deal, which is the bone of contention between the Left parties and the UPA, and throwing its weight behind Karat. In the end, it wasn’t so drastic. Clearly, the Left is unwilling to solely take the burden of thrusting a costly mid-term poll upon the country, that too over such a complex issue as the nuclear deal.

Since the beginning of the entire contretemps over the deal, when the final stages of the negotiations between India and the US were over, the leaders of the CPM, which is driving the opposition, have not been able to come to a consensus among themselves. The state leaders, especially in Bengal, were keen to avoid a mid-term poll, while the Delhi section was more uncompromising and not prepared to offer further support to the UPA government.

As far as the CPM and the CPI are concerned, the UPA had violated the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) that had promised a ‘non-aligned, independent foreign policy’.

The Bengal faction, running a government, saw it differently. When a group of villagers in Bankura district in Bengal chased away local CPM leaders who had come there to drum up support for the party’s stand on the nuclear deal, the Bengal line seemed vindicated. The villagers had demanded regular supplies of food grains and not dry geopolitics. To the local CPM leaders, the incident must have come as a salutary lesson. The Bengal chief minister only helped the divide by publicly canvassing for India’s growing need for nuclear power in what was an obvious counterpoint to his party’s position on the deal. Bhattacharjee also made it clear that he would not follow a strategy of blind anti-US agitprop in policy making and would like to proceed on a case-by-case basis.

The divide between the two sides is becoming more apparent. The armchair version of the Delhi school of thought in the Indian Left has not always found favour with the party’s Kerala and Bengal sections, where the party is an electoral force with an understanding of ground realities. Over many issues, including Foreign Direct Investment, the Delhi leadership’s inchoate and crippling interference has harmed the Bengal (and Kerala) CPM’s functions. The Bankura incident was the last straw and was bound to have an impact on the next conclave, which it did.

There is also a second argument. The Bengal line can and does argue that if Karat and Co are so intent on the inviolate nature of the CMP that they claim was set up by popular mandate, they must also learn to acknowledge and respect the mandate of the people of the two states, which is mostly in favour of speedy industrialisation.

The question is whether the CPM would like to follow ideology-driven politics or a politics-driven ideology. On that choice will depend the party’s future relevance in Indian politics. The party must realise that to put political need above ideological posturing is not necessarily trading the moral high ground with the ‘lowly’ demands of popular politics. 

It is possible to practice pragmatic, people-oriented politics without sacrificing certain values. The Bengal faction feels it can achieve that balance and wants to continue on that path.

If the ‘Bengal line’ prevails, it can force a major shift in Left politics nationally. It will not only help bring more active political comrades up the rank, but will also mean that the Left will eventually engage on a much more practical level with its allies at the centre. This can produce a far more pragmatic CMP for any national alliance. There are as yet no signs that the two schools in the Left will force it to head for a split. The fundamental ideology is far too deeply entrenched.

In the coming days, whatever the party’s final decision, even if it means withdrawing support — which some may not want — all will fall in line. But the fact of vigorous internal debate shows that the signs of change are unmistakable.