UPA Must Change the Fate of Seven Hundred Million Downtrodden Indians

Post-Election 2009

As the fragrance of the democratic festival is almost over, and Dr Manmohan Singh’s new team has taken oath on May 22, the verdict of Election 2009 must be analysed with all humility and objectivity to arrive at a meaningful conclusion. The well-wishers and proponents of Indian democracy must be happy to note the fact that a “teacher-turned-Prime Minister†, who has never contested any election, has became the champion of democracy and secularism. Certain points are worth emphasising here. First, while in 2004 Mrs Sonia Gandhi had emerged as a new centre of power, in 2009 Rahul and Priyanka’s roadshows reinforced her political power further; second, the Congress party cannot rule over the country without the help of the Nehru family; third, despite the support and favour of the Indian ruling class and the US, the BJP failed to become the natural ruling party of India; fourth, the Indian Communists once again made a historic blunder by launching the ‘Third Front’ from the top; fifth, the ‘Fourth Front’ consisting of the RJD, SP and LJP failed to mobilise the forces of social justice against the Congress and BJP in their respective States; sixth, as per the information circulated by the Election Commission of India, more than 200 crorepatis have been elected as MPs in a country where “700 million downtrodden survive with only Rs 20 per day†; seventh, as women’s consciousness is on the rise, 58 women have been elected as MPs in 2009; eighth, in 2009, the total vote polled was 57 per cent, out of which the ruling Congress party got only 30 per cent. All these are thanks to Indian democracy.

Retrospectively, the Indo-US nuclear deal was hardly an issue during the elections, even if the net result of the verdict of Election 2009 was around the nuclear deal. It was speculated much before the election that the Bush Administration, the Indian ruling class and the Congress party wanted to form the government at the Centre without the Left; because the Left was consistently troubling the ruling party primarily on two issues: first, the ruling party’s policy of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation (LPG); and second, its growing relationship with the US. Ideologically, and also paradoxically, the Congress is the most natural party of the Indian ruling class; it has never been a pro-poor party; rather it is a party of “big capital’, and yet it succeeds in garnering the votes and support of the “poor, oppressed and marginalised†sections of the Indian society. The managers of the Congress party are experts in managing the elections. In 2009, several gimmicks went in favour of the Congress party, such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, waiver of loans to farmers, Dr Manmohan Singh’s academic and sober image, the pre-poll partners’ attitude, the Nehru family’s determination, the disclosure of the Sixth Pay Commission’s report just on the eve of the election etc.

As regards the ignominious defeat of the BJP, the projection of L.K. Advani as the Prime Ministerial candidate was a fundamentally wrong move; in Indian politics, Advani has been identified as a “divider†. While Muslim and Christian minorities hate him, a liberal Hindu maintains distance from him. Advani made a blunder on December 6, 1992. By demolishing the Babri Masjid, he wanted to arouse the passion of the Hindus; yes, he became the leader of the fundamentalists, but failed to become the Prime Minister of secular India. Compared to Advani, Vajpayee proved to be a cleverer politician. While paying obeisance to Hindu religion, culture and psyche, Vajpayee did not “antagonistically†denounce the Indian minorities; as a result, the coalition partners of north as well south India accepted him as the Prime Minister. Moreover, the Ram temple movement, uniform civil code, and scrapping of Article 370 did not arouse the Hindu passion; the BJP’s agenda of nuclearisation of India and campaign for the Constitutional Review Committee also did not draw the attention of the common Indian voters, neither in 2004 nor in 2009. Added to this, internal bickering, organisational rivalry, and role of money in distribution the tickets also seriously harmed the prospects of the BJP. The BJP’s two consecutive defeats (2004 and 2009) show that it has failed to become the natural ruling party of India. However, writing the “obituary†of the BJP will be a stupid idea. Despite the defeat, the BJP will remain a political party to be reckoned with. If not at the Centre, at least in the States such as MP, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh etc. As long as Indian feudalism and Hindu religion will continue to influence the Indian society, the BJP will survive as a political party. Moreover, with the fall of the Congress, the Indian bourgeoisie and US Administration will always prefer the BJP to function at the Centre; because, both the Congress and BJP are supporters of big capital—both serve the interests of the same social class, both are supporters of free market, both are opposed to egalitarian development; additionally both are pro-US, both are advocates of a strong Centre, both sabotage the prospects of “regional nationalism†, both are die-heard opponents of communism. The only thin line between them is the issue of “secularism†. While the Congress toes the line of “soft Hindutva†the BJP arouses the passion of “hard Hindutva†.

¨

It is very painful to analyse the defeat of Left politics in general and the idea of the Third Front in particular. In 2004, the Indian Communists won 61 seats thus constituting the third largest block. In 2009, they have been reduced to only 25. Whom to blame for this defeat? Paradoxically, with the invasion of big capital and the IMF dictated policies, the numbers of the “poor†in India are increasing phenomenally, and at the same time, the role of Communists in national politics is waning year by year. The classical understanding of communism tells us that communism grows out of hunger, poverty, misery, inflation, exploitation, oppression and alienation. A cardinal question comes to one’s mind: when 700 million downtrodden survive with only Rs 20 per day, why are the Communists defeated? The Arjun Sengupta Committee’s report may be cited to draw the attention of Indian Communists.

The 23 per cent middle class and the higher income groups captured most of the benefits of high income growth. The remaining 77 per cent were stuck below the average consumption of Rs 20 per day. These poor and vulnerable groups comprised 88 per cent of our SC/ST population, 80 per cent of the OBCs and 85 per cent of the Muslims, most of these are illiterate and without even primary education.

It seems that Communists throughout the period (2004 to 2009) paid more attention to parliamentary politics showing no interest in radical politics. From the Marxist point of view, in the era of LPG, Communists should tirelessly work to capture the “anti-thesis†of LPG.

Second, in Kerala, the CPM has become a virtually defunct party facing serious allegations of “bungling, intrigues, opportunism and corruption†, and in West Bengal, having ruled for 32 years, the CPM has failed to produce a viable economic model. Arrogance of power, brutality, pro-corporate sector, anti-farmer attitude, the question of land acquisition and finally firings in Nandigram and attacks on farmers in Singur became burning issues in 2009 causing the defeat of the CPM.

The Third Front initiated by the CPM also needs a proper diagnosis. In the coalition era, when both ruling parties cannot provide pro-people governance, the idea of a Third Front is theoretically justified and essentially necessary. However, the cardinal question is: Third Front with whom and what should have been the issues to spearhead the Third Front? The Third Front was a mere conglomeration of opportunist regional parties and as such miserably failed to fulfil the aspirations of their respective States. Critically, the constituents of the Third Front, such as the BSP, BJD, AIADMK, TDP, TRS etc., were the coalition partners of the NDA. Moreover, the two Prime Ministerial candidates of the Third Front, Sharad Pawar and Mayawati, are known “opportunist†Chief Ministers. As the foundation of the Third Front was not rooted in the ground reality, the more the results were announced, the more the Third Front collapsed; and subsequently it tarnished the image of Communist politics. A document of the CPI-ML (2005) may be cited to make the point more vivid: “A meaningful and effective Third Front could only be forged with a resurgent Left.â€

While dealing with the verdict of Election 2009, the performance of the RJD, LJP, SP and BSP also needs careful attention. Historically and briefly, Dr Lohia had ideologised the forces of social justice; veteran Charan Singh had emboldened them politically; V.P. Singh had provided them state power. As the forces of social justice were the products of “non-Congressism†, both the ruling parties were shown the door in the respective States of UP and Bihar. The RJD and SP performed well in 2004. However, in 2009 the revival of the Congress in UP and the entry of the BJP in Bihar reveal the fact that the Fourth Front leadership is losing its political credentials in the eyes of the people and the prospects of serving the interests of regional nationalism seem to be dim in the foreseeable future. As regards the BSP, its idea of social engineering successfully worked in the UP election held in 2007, However, its performance at the national level was not satisfactory, neither in 2004 (19) nor in 2009 (21). Paradoxically, even though the BSP and SP cannot go together, both gave unconditional support to the newly elected government at the Centre. One need not remind the readers that in July 2008, while Mayawati had opposed the nuclear deal, Mulayam Singh had supported it.

To cut a long story short, in 2009 the BJP lost ignominiously and Communists fared miserably. Democracy is the game of numbers; the numbers went in favour of the Congress party. It has formed the government at the Centre with the help of its pre-poll partners. At the time of writing these lines, “700 million downtrodden Indians†are on the road. I hope the Manmohan Singh-led newly-elected government will take care of these 700 million poor people. In 2014, the UPA Government will be able to accuse neither the Communists nor the BJP when the nation goes to polls once again.

Dr Ravindra Sharma is a noted China scholar. His latest book, Paradoxes of Chinese Socialism, was widely acclaimed. He also follows the political developments of South Asia.