25 yrs on, CPM veers towards Saifuddin’s line

Subrata Mukherjee
Retd professor of political science, DU

THE recently concluded Hyderabad Congress of the CPM would be remembered for three major decisions: (1) Acceptance of the limited political base of the party and the acknowledgement that an alliance of seat-sharing even with the Congress might become essential to fight the growing strength of the BJP. (2) End of democratic centralism and acceptance of a larger revisionist plank of majority decision-making in which Yechury deserves praise for organising the grass root workers to articulate their views on this crucial issue and his work and extensive travel throughout India to elicit support of a large number of state units. (3) The division within the CPM between a Kerala line and a Bengal line in which the Kerala line won most of the time. The Bengal line stood rejected even at a time when the CPM controlled Bengal politics. 

Why CPM removed Saifuddin 

Till the early 1990s, the Congress continued to be a major player. Understandably, for the CPM, the major opponent was the Congress. However, in the 1990s, the Congress’ position declined and in the post-Rajiv Gandhi period, there was a slow but definite trend of the rise of the BJP as a major challenger to the Congress.

In this altered situation after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, in a situation of an increasingly weakened Congress, the need for an alliance with the Congress was proposed by the late Saifuddin Choudhury (1952-2014), four-time Member of Parliament from West Bengal. Raising the question of the functioning of the party within a parliamentary democratic system, he found the idea of democratic centralism incompatible and suggested that the party must become people-centric. He perceived that with the rise of communal forces, the unity of secular forces was the utmost need. Power for him was secondary. He pleaded for an alliance between the party and the Congress party. He argued that the Congress had many faults, but none could question its secular credentials. 

When he put this argument at the 1995 Chandigarh Party Congress of the CPM, he was removed as a member of the Central Committee. This was an unprecedented example of the exit of a young parliamentarian for purely political reasons. Ultimately, he left the party, unable to convince his party that the most serious threat to the nation came from authoritarianism and communalism, and in this fight any sectarian or extremist stand weakens this grim situation which called for a united fight with the Congress. He was denied a ticket in 1996. The final act was in 2000 when his membership was cancelled and as a result, he floated the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). But he continued to be a Marxist till the end. 

Saifuddin’s criticism of CPM

Saifuddin's criticism of the CPM was that despite working within a larger democratic order, it continued to be a Stalinist party with lack of inner party democracy. He argued that a weakened Congress had made it possible for a stronger Left secular alternative as a major national alternative. He was critical of the idea of the Third Front as taking on both the BJP and the Congress would be counterproductive as it would consolidate the BJP, which according to him was not secular. His opinion was a negation of the party line, but he argued that as it concerned the society at large, it should be considered seriously. A centralised decision-making might have been relevant 100 years ago, but it was no longer relevant in this age of democracy. 

Referring to the collapse of communism in Europe, he pointed out that security of food and lodging was not enough as people demanded freedom, liberty and pluralism which were absent in the erstwhile socialist countries. His revolt against the Leninist line of democratic centralism was similar to Eduard Bernstein's critique of orthodox Marxism in the 1890s when he said that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a doctrine inappropriate in this age of democracy. Martov had a similar opinion after Lenin seized power.

Saiffudin was conscious of the declining support base of the Left in a situation where Lenin's doctrine of revolutionary seizure of power was not possible and the only alternative was to work towards a democratic revolution. He pointed out that in a well-established democratic environment, for any meaningful political discourse, it was necessary to accommodate the widest section of people as the basis of an orderly change. He said that the old thinking of socialism was not relevant even in the recent past as old ideas like dictatorship of proletariat, command system of economy and rigid structure of economic organisation had no relevance in today's world. He quoted Tagore who had warned in the early 1930s that the rigid socialist system would not survive for long. Any political doctrine which aimed at narrowing or restricting democracy cannot survive in an age of ever-expanding horizons of democracy. 

It is ironical that now the CPM is veering toward Saiffudin’s line of thought, without acknowledging it. But the fact remains that if the CPM had followed his line in the mid-1990s, at a time when the BJP was not yet a pan-Indian party, then probably the political map of India would have been quite different. But this belated and reluctant admission is welcome. However, in the changed context today, it is too little too late.