‘No Compromise on Leading Rebellions’

CPM General Secretary Prakash Karat dwells on the difficulties his party faces in the 2011 West Bengal Assembly election, the threat from Maoists and more

Q Your party did not do well in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, winning just 16 seats. Could you tell us the reasons for the CPM’s lacklustre performance in these elections?

A As per our analysis, we observed that we have lost badly in the two states that have always been our party’s stronghold, namely, West Bengal and Kerala, in which traditionally we have been winning a large number of seats. More specifically, our defeat in West Bengal has cost us dearly. We have identified that there are multiple reasons behind this defeat, on the political front, organisational front and also the fact that the performance of our party in power in West Bengal was not optimal. All these factors combined and we lost our support in major regions of the state.

Q Did the incidents in Nandigram, Lalgarh and Singur have a bearing on your party’s performance in this year’s general elections?

A Definitely, these incidents have had an effect, specifically what happened in Nandigram. We had done a lot of good work in land reforms in this region and won the support and admiration of the people of Nandigram prior to this incident you are referring to. After this incident, the villagers especially started doubting our credentials and began thinking that their land would be snatched from them.

We understand that West Bengal as a state does need industrialisation, but we have not been successful in removing the apprehensions people have with regard to land acquisition policies and procedures. We have stopped acquiring land as per the earlier procedures. We have also said that we will relook at existing land acquisition policies and frame new ones.

Q Following meetings of your Central Committee and Politburo meetings, it appears that a large-scale rectification programme is being planned within the party. Could you please tell us what necessitated this?

A In a communist party, you need constant correction. This includes constantly analysing the flaws that may have crept into our political and organisational structure and rectifying them. After the elections, it was decided that we will continue with our rectification programme. To identify the issues that we needed to work upon, we prepared a document after discussion on this subject in our central committee meeting, and now we are planning to implement the same across the party.

Q What exactly are you planning to do?

A As a political party, we are required to work in a democratic way as per the parliamentary system. But as a communist party, there are many issues outside Parliament as well that we are morally committed to, which include peasant movements and workers’ issues. We are aiming to strike a balance in our work—within and outside Parliament.

Q So do you feel that the party is losing the bond it shared with the people?

A No. In a parliamentary set-up, we work amongst people. But to focus on people when it is election time and ignore raising major issues and leading agitations and rebellions is something that we shouldn’t compromise upon.

Q Your party supported the UPA Government at the Centre for about four years. Today, there are no TV crews hanging around your party office. Hasn’t the influence of the CPM declined?

A (laughing) Not having media crews hanging around is a welcome relief.  I would say that CPM decided to support the Congress-led government at the Centre under special circumstances: that we did not want the BJP to return to power. These four years were an exception.

Q Do you think that the CPM would have been able to retain its political influence had the party decided to fight the 2009 Lok Sabha elections along with the Congress despite major differences? 

A Had we done so, there would have been more complications for us. We would have had to fight the Congress. We could have never formed an alliance with the Congress in West Bengal and Kerala. It would have been impossible for us to convey our political reasoning to the masses as to why are we supporting the Congress for one more term when on the other hand we are continuously opposing all their major policy decisions. 

Q Communist parties the world over have transformed themselves into social democratic parties, but the CPM remains a hardcore communist party and displays Stalin’s pictures.

A (with a laugh): We put Lenin’s photographs.

The CPM is one of the largest communist parties in the world. Our membership base is over 10 lakh. The fate of the parties who switched from their original communist identity is there for all to see. Italy had Europe’s largest communist party. In the 1980s, when we had a membership base of three lakh, they had over eight to nine lakh members. Today, the party in Italy has completely disintegrated and after shifting from Marxism, the people can see no difference between them and the other parties. They have lost in the elections. For the first time, there is no representative in the Italian parliament with a communist background.

Whereas, from the time CPM was founded in 1964, we have made efforts to apply the Marxist approach in special and tough situations faced by the country. We have never tried to adopt any other country’s model; our identity is independent and unique. We have a parliamentary system in the country. Our party has the maximum experience amongst communist parties of working in a democratic set up. We believe that even in socialism there should be a multi-party system.

Q But, have you ever thought that even today, your party’s membership criteria is very cumbersome for anyone wanting to become a member?

A Yes, the whole process takes around two-three years.

Q So, have you ever thought of changing your membership procedures in order to increase your party’s popularity amongst the people of the country?

A It is because of these procedures that our party’s identity is still intact. We still emphasise merit when it comes to enlisting new members, quantity is not of priority to us. One CPM worker working on the ground nurturing a relationship with a hundred people is more important to our agenda. We are the only party that discusses and presents an alternative to liberal policies adopted all over the world. We are the only ones who say that our country should adopt a federal system.

Q In September 2005, when India voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh convey something else to you before the event?

A No, there was nothing of that sort. We were surprised when the news reached us that India had voted against Iran at the IAEA. We were hoping that India would stick to its earlier stand on this issue. We couldn’t understand what had forced India to take this stand at IAEA and went to the PM and told him there must have been some pressure.

Our differences with the Government on foreign policy began with the vote against Iran.

Q To hammer out differences on the civil nuclear deal, a joint committee of the UPA and Left was formed in September 2007 and the Government said it would consult the committee before operationalising the deal. In November that year, you told the Government that it could go to IAEA and begin talks on a safeguards agreement. Given the tight deadlines, had the Left parties not allowed the talks to begin, do you think the nuclear deal would have been possible?

A Our stance in October-November was that the Government should not go to the IAEA. But when the Government requested us that we should let them go there and if upon their return, the Left still had objections, they would not go ahead with the deal. They gave us this assurance. And we trusted them at the time—something we should not have done.

Q So if you look back in time, do you think your decision could have been any different at that time?

A At that time, our party’s stance was that if the Government goes ahead with talks on the deal, we should withdraw support. But at that point of time, the fall of the Government would not have been good for the country. The Government told us that there were Gujarat elections coming up in December and assured us that they would not go ahead with the deal without our consent. Then we thought that we should give this one more try, which did not work either.

We shouldn’t have let them go for talks to discuss the safeguards agreement in the first place. We should have remained firm on our stand.

Q The PM has recently gone on record saying that Naxalism is the biggest threat to the country’s internal security. Given the Maoist threat in Bengal and other states, what should be done to deal with them?

A The Government has to first understand that the areas in which Maoists are active are inhabited by tribals—the most backward and underdeveloped—where development has not reached. The Government should immediately conceptualise and execute plans and policies for the development of these areas. Where Maoists are bent on resorting to violence, administrative action should be taken against them. Solely relying on the police and paramilitary forces is not the solution; Naxalism can be tackled through a complete package.

Q But it now seems that the Government is planning a full-fledged operation against Maoists in four or five states. Do you think these operations would prove successful?

A If four-five states conduct joint operations, then there will be some success for sure. We have seen that when anti-Naxal operations are carried out on the West Bengal-Jharkhand border by the West Bengal government, the Maoists go and hide in Jharkhand. So, if there are joint operations against Maoists there definitely would be an impact.

Q Recently, the West Bengal government released a few Maoist supporters to win freedom for a police inspector kidnapped by Maoists. Do you think that was a right decision on part of the state government?

A The circumstances on the ground necessitated this, two police officers had been shot dead by Maoists and a station in-charge had been kidnapped. Even the people wanted the Government to secure his safe release. The people whom we released were ordinary people, mainly women mobilised by Maoists to block roads and impede police operations. They were not Maoist leaders; so I don’t think there has been much harm done.

Q So this isn’t a matter of the West Bengal government bowing in front of Maoists, as is being said in some quarters?

A No, that is not the case. There is still police in this area and there has been no let-up in police operations against Maoists either.

Q Do you think the present operations against Maoists match the efforts that were taken by states during 1966–72?

A No. The present circumstances and Naxal operations are vastly different from that era. Their activities have broadened. In 1966, the Naxal activities were restricted to two-three areas like Naxalbari and Srikakulam, but now they have spread across many other states.

Their military strength has increased. That is why I think that state governments should work in unison to combat Naxalism. At the same time, Maoists cannot be considered ‘pure’ terrorists in a manner akin to some of the other groups operating in the country. They have some ideological concerns, howsoever misplaced they might be. That is why they have to be tackled at an ideological and political level as well.

Q What lies ahead for your party in the 2011 West Bengal Assembly elections?

A The political situation has changed. In the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, we saw that non-Leftist parties had teamed up against the Left Front. The Trinamool Congress and Congress, who fought elections separately in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, contested as an alliance in 2009. When the Opposition parties start to unite, our difficulties will only increase and that is what we will be up against in the next Assembly elections as well.

Q Your party has been in power in the state of West Bengal since 1977. Do you think there can be a change in the upcoming elections?

A In a democratic process, there is never a guarantee that one will remain in power forever. Our effort is to learn from our mistakes in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. We will make every effort to bring back those voters who have moved away from us. 

Q You studied economics, so was there ever a time that you thought you could have a different career from the one you have now?

A When I was studying in college I had two options, one was to become a journalist and the second to become a communist party worker. I chose to become a party activist.

(This is an edited version of the interview provided exclusively to Open by bbchindi.com)
 

About The Author

Amit Baruah