CPI(M)'s strategy of realpolitik is hardly real
'Decision-making' is something in which the CPI(M) lacks expertise. The recent drama unfolding within the party's ranks over supporting the Congress in the presidential and vice-presidential posts give ample evidence of that.
The CPI(M) has decided to support Pranab Mukherjee, the UPA candidate for the July 19 presidential election, but has told the Congress that it will not support the latter's vice-presidebtial candidate. Such half-measures by the CPI(M) have baffled many and are raising questions about the top leadership's way of strategy-making.
Both
for
and
against
Pranab
The
CPI(M)
although,
thanks
to
the
Bengal
lobby's
hard
bargaining,
decided
to
back
Pranab
in
the
presidential
poll,
but
there
is
surely
a
lack
in
unison.
In
fact,
an
ideological
tussle
has
begun
within
the
party
on
the
question
of
supporting
the
Congress.
One
quarter
feels
the
party
should
support
the
Congress
to
keep
the
far-right
elements
at
bay
but
another
believes
the
CPI(M)
should
not
befriend
the
Congress,
particularly
after
the
latter
began
to
pursue
neo-liberal
economic
policies.
The
second
group
has
clearly
disapproved
the
move
to
support
Pranab,
the
presidential
candidate
and
all
the
more,
the
former
finance
minister
of
the
pro-neo-liberal
Congress
government
at
the
Centre.
Enemy's
enemy
my
friend
Those
supporting
Pranab
stressed
it
was
the
political
ground
reality
which
had
to
be
kept
in
mind
for
making
such
preference.
The
CPI(M)
general
secretary,
Prakas
Karat,
recently
said
the
party
opted
for
Pranab
so
that
it
could
exploit
the
widening
gap
between
the
Congress
and
its
ally
at
the
Centre,
the
Trinamool
Congress
(TMC).
The
TMC
has
not
supported
Pranab's
candidature,
the
fact
which
the
CPI(M)
should
exploit
all
the
more,
Karat
said,
echoing
the
thoughts
of
the
Bengal
lobby.
It did not entertain the thought of abstaining from the presidential poll, saying such a stance could mean 'lining up with the TMC'. The party was so determined to back Pranab that it did not hesitate to expel a young leader Prasenjit Bose from its ranks for vehemently opposing the move. It did so even after Bose expressed his desire of quitting from the party.
The presidential poll strategy of the Karat brigade is clearly aimed at regaining some political ground in West Bengal, the state where till recently it had wielded unparalleled power. Karat has written in a recent piece that the party looks to defend the Left's strongest base in the country which is Bengal, for only then can it aspire to "advance nationally".
Individual
or
policy?
CPM
lacks
prioritisation
The
CPI(M)'s
strategy
clearly
lacks
clarity.
Karat
has
maintained
that
when
it
comes
to
economic
policies,
the
CPI(M)
will
still
oppose
the
Congress's
position.
Pranab
Mukherjee
is
just
an
occasion
for
them
to
widen
the
Congress-TMC
rift.
Now,
if
the
individual
is
considered
the
decisive
factor
and
not
the
policy,
then
why
did
the
Left
support
Lakshmi
Sehgal
in
the
2002
presidential
election
and
opposed
a
clean
APJ
Abdul
Kalam
for
he
was
supported
by
the
communal
BJP?
This
is
a
question
that
is
being
raised
by
many
party
supporters.
Even in the past, when Indira Gandhi had decided to back VV Giri in the 1969 presidential election, the CPI(M) had thrown its weight behind Giri saying Indira was then working on socialistic lines of nationalisation of banks and abolition of privy purse. It was clearly the policy of Indira Gandhi which had encouraged the CPI(M) to make its presidential preference.
Cracks
within
the
Left
instead?
Bose's
opposition
against
the
party
line,
the
Kerala
unit's
displeasure
or
the
recent
expulsion
of
dissenting
SFI
members
in
Jawaharlal
Nehru
University
prove
one
thing:
The
CPI(M)
is
yet
to
find
out
its
distinct
political
stand
and
stick
to
it
consistently.
The
justifications
that
the
party
has
given
on
the
issue
of
backing
Pranab
exposes
that
it
has
little
understanding
of
the
ground
realities,
despite
being
known
as
the
'party
of
the
masses'.
Left
no
match
for
Mamata
at
the
moment
Supporting
Congress
against
Trinamool
at
the
state
level
will
not
earn
the
party
any
dividends.
The
CPI(M)
today
clearly
lacks
a
mass
base
to
challenge
Mamata
Banerjee
and
the
state
leadership
knows
it
very
well
that
there
is
no
hope
for
the
party
to
reclaim
the
lost
ground
in
the
near
future.
The
minority
vote-bank
has
tilted
to
Mamata
decisively
and
the
middle-class
is
not
going
to
entertain
any
thoughts
of
welcoming
the
Left
any
time
in
future,
Mamata's
own
drawbacks
notwithstanding.
The
34-year
record
that
the
CPI(M)
was
so
proud
about
even
a
few
days
ago,
is
perhaps
its
biggest
drawback
today.
The
aim
of
'exploiting
Congress-TMC
tussle'
will
not
work
for
the
CPI(M)
and
leaders
like
Prakash
Karat
have
little
realistic
base
to
understand
that.
Directionless
leadership?
The
move
to
back
Pranab
can
prove
suicidal
for
the
CPI(M)
on
other
counts
also.
Karat
has
said
that
the
party
wants
to
defend
the
strongest
Left
bastion
in
the
country,
which
is
Bengal.
But
the
policy
of
supporting
Pranab
has
created
a
fissure
within
the
Left
Front
with
the
CPI
and
RSP
deciding
against.
The
blunder
that
the
party
committed
in
2008
by
withdrawing
support
from
the
UPA-I
government
despite
a
strong
electoral
base,
still
haunts
many.
The
twin
tragedies
of
going
for
a
miscalculated
'anti-people'
industrialisation
policy
in
Bengal
and
pulling
out
from
the
Centre
had
landed
the
Left
in
a
situation
which
it
is
yet
to
overcome.
The
Left
has
not
succeeded
in
engineering
a
viable
Third
Front
at
the
national
level
either.
'Jyoti
Basu
blunder'
theory
not
relevant
The
Bengal
lobby's
emphasis
that
the
party
should
not
commit
a
blunder
like
not
allowing
Jyoti
Basu
to
become
the
prime
minister
1996
does
not
buy
much
support
also.
Jyoti
Basu
commanded
the
same
authority
in
Bengal
even
after
missing
out
on
the
chance
to
become
the
PM
and
the
party
was
in
control
for
another
15
years.
High
time
CPI(M)
reinvents
itself
The
CPI(M)
has
to
strengthen
its
mass
base
in
the
first
place.
The
CPI(M)
is
turning
a
marginal
force
with
each
passing
day
in
Indian
politics
for
it
is
a
prisoner
of
history.
Supporting
a
Pranab
but
opposing
a
neo-liberal
regime
is
some
sort
of
self-defeating
political
game
that
it
has
undertaken.
The
priority
is
wrong
but
does
the
'academic-minded'
leadership
has
the
skill
to
reinvent
itself
and
push
for
realistic
gains?