Indian Elections – Congress Wave or Rejection of the Left?

By Soma Marik

The following is the final result of the parliamentary elections of 2009.

	2009 Won	2004 Won	Change
Indian National Congress	206	145	61
**Bharatiya Janata Party	116	138	-22
Samajwadi Party	23	36	-13
Bahujan Samaj Party	21	19	2
All India Trinamool Party	19	2	2
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam	18	16	2
Communist Party of India (Marxist)	16	43	-27
Biju Janata Dal	14	11	3
Shiv Sena	11	12	-1
All India Anna DMK	9	0	9
Independents	9	5	4
National Congress Party	9	9	0
Others	8	7	1
Telugu Desam Party	6	5	1
Rashtriya Lok Dal	5	3	2
Shiromani Akali Dal	4	8	-4
J& K National Conference	3	2	1
Janata Dal (Secular)	3	3	0
All India Forward Bloc	2	3	-1
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha	2	5	-3
Muslim league	2	1	1
Revolutionary Socialist Party	2	3	-1
Telangana Rastra Samithi	2	5	-3
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimen	1	1	0
Asom Gana Parishad	1	2	-1
Haryana Janhith Party	1	0	1
Kerala Congress	1	1	0
Marumalarchi DMK	1	4	-3
Indian National Lok Dal	0	0	0
J & K People’s Democratic Party	0	1	-1
Lok Jan Shakti Party	0	4	-4
Pattali Makkal Katchi	0	6	-6
Republican Party of India (A)	0	1	-1

• The first thing the foregoing table reveals is that there was no great wave in favour of the Congress. True, it significantly increased its tally by 61 seats. But that was from an extremely low base. Even now, it is a minority party, and the UPA (its pre-poll alliance) has less than the required 272 seats, though it now has enough assurances from others who were not its pre-poll allies to ensure the survival of its government. The second thing we can find is that a huge number of small parties are represented, indicating that much of the election was fought over regional issues.
• The Left parties have certainly suffered a big defeat. Their own seats have come down from 59 in 2004 to 24 in 2009. The CPI is in danger of losing its National Party status, while the CPI(M) tally has come down from 43 to 16. The Left has also suffered a strategic defeat. Its goal of building a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative received a huge jolt. The “Third Front” that it had put together got about 77 seats. And this front started unraveling even before the elections ended, with one partner bolting to the BJP-led NDA.
• However, it is necessary to question the general arguments being made. Biman Bose, West Bengal CPI(M) State Secretary, argued that the correct policy at the national level would have been beneficial, and that it was not Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamul Congress, but a Congress Wave that resulted in the defeat of the CPI(M). This reference to a “correct national policy” is a dig at Prakash Karat, who was instrumental in the Left Front withdrawing support from the UPA. The unstated argument goes: had the Left Front supported the UPA at the centre, the Trinamul Congress and the Congress would not have forged an alliance at the state level, but fought separately, thereby splitting the anti-Left Front votes. In that case, the left might have lost a couple more seats, but would have held on to a substantial majority. This outlook stops at mere number crunching, it sees people, human beings, as dumb cattle, and does not look at class aspirations and how they were brutally rejected over the years by the Left Front, notably the CPI(M), in West Bengal. In assessing their defeat, all these “leftists” can see are election mechanisms, not looking at policies. For them, their policies are correct by definition, and real consultation with the people is irrelevant. The promise of 1977, that the “Left Front government is an instrument of struggle”, has disappeared. In addition, this argument is utterly asinine. It does not explain why, if indeed it was a “Congress Wave”, the Congress got exactly six seats, the same number it had last time, whereas the Trinamul Congress seats went up from one to 19.
• The best way of establishing the foregoing argument is to start, not with West Bengal but with Tripura. If indeed the Left was knocked out due to a Congress Wave, why did this wave fade out in Tripura? There, the Left won both the parliamentary seats. In Tripura East, the CPI(M) candidate had a lead of about 2,96,000 votes, and in Tripura West the lead was about 2,48,000. In both cases the nearest rival was a member of the Congress.
• If we are to accept the claim that people voted for a Congress wave, what does it mean? Did the people of India vote for neo-liberalism? This is what the big capitalists, and the mainstream media, are claiming. In truth, if one looks at the Congress campaigns, the issues were livelihood issues of common people. The Congress claimed full credit for the NREGP (the scheme to give 100 days employment to one member of every rural poor family). Since the Congress was in power, the claim was accepted by sizeable chunks of voters, who had indeed benefited, to whatever extent, from this scheme. Unlike the BJP’s 2004 India Shining Campaign, the Congress campaign of 2009 focused on the “aam-admi” (common people). If the Congress turned around significantly in UP after nearly two decades, that was based on a campaign about poor women, about Dalits (challenging Mayavati on her own turf). Accordingly, the argument that the decline of seats for the Left is a mandate for selling off the ****s and insurance to private capital, for further destroying India’s already bad labour laws, and for further privatizations and the building of Special Economic Zones, cannot be accepted.
• Keeping these two points in mind, we now need to look at the performance of the Left in its two major bases, West Bengal and Kerala. In West Bengal, out of 42 seats, the Left got 15 (against 35 in 2004), with the CPI(M) getting 9, and the CPI, RSP and Forward Bloc getting 2 each. In Kerala the CPI(M) got 4 seats while the rest drew a blank (against 19 out of 20 in 2004 for the LDF). But the reasons in the two cases are very different.
• In West Bengal, the LF, and notably the CPI(M), has over the years become an object of bitter popular hatred. On one hand, it has adopted an increasingly neoliberal economic policy. It welcomed SEZs with open arms, and sought to start SEZs in West Bengal, if necessary by forcibly taking away fertile land from peasants. A virtual civil war raged in Nandigram for much of 2007, before the party and the state, acting in tandem, used massive force to smash the resistance of the peasants. But the cost had been high enough for the party to be forced into abandoning the plan to take land from the peasants. It did not, however, agree to pay compensation for those murdered, raped, molested, or those who had their homes destroyed. Nor even was it willing to apologise, or to punish party cadres who had come in disguised as police. In Singur, in 2006, land had been forcibly taken away from peasants, even though many of them resisted, and refused even to take any compensation. Two years of sustained agitations ended with the Tatas pulling out their Nano factory from West Bengal and moving to Guajrat. Even then, the government in its arrogance refused to hand back the land to that considerable section of peasants who had even refused to accept the compensation cheques. Moreover, the land-grab had not only affected peasants, but share croppers, agricultural labourers, transporters, and a range of other producers and service providers, who were not even offered any compensation. One dimension of handling resistance was the brutal murder of a young woman activist, Tapasi Malik. Two CPI(M) members have been convicted of her murder in a trial court, though they have appealed in a higher court. Apart from Singur and Nandigram, and the tall promise of plenty of jobs through industrialization, the other reality of West Bengal was the closure of industries, of tea gardens, and growing economic hardship of many sections of workers.
• On the other hand there was the politics of three decades of Left Front rule. To sum it up, we can say that this involved a set of practices: a) Party control by the CPI(M) over police and bureaucracy, to the extent that rules and regulations could be flouted at will; along with an increasing recourse to state violence as a routine method of enforcing policies and stamping out dissent; b) Establishing party domination, where party offices at appropriate levels decided everything, from who among the rural poor would be selected for grants, or the receipt of Below Poverty Line cards, to which intellectual lackey would be selected the next Vice Chancellor of prestigious Universities; c) Imposing party control on people and forcing people to pay donations to the party or its mass fronts, forcing trade union and white collar union members to pay for party projects, forcing people to buy the party paper.
• In other words, party control, state and party led violence, coupled with support to neoliberalism when in power, was what turned people hostile to the CPI(M) in West Bengal. In Kerala, the picture was different. There have been two blocs, one led by the Congress and the other by the CPI(M), contesting elections and coming to power alternately. In recent years the BJP has been able to get some votes (a little over 6 per cent in 2009). But basically, a slight swing from one bloc to the other can cause a big slide in seats. In 2004, the LDF, led by the CPI(M) got 19 seats. Since then, factional conflicts in the CPI(M) have come out in the open, discrediting the party. Party Secretary Vijayan has been accused of corruption, and that too has tarnished the party’s image. In a bid to cut into the Muslim League votes, the CPI(M) this time decided to form an alliance with a rank Muslim communal organization, the People’s Democratic Party, something that did not go down well with the voters. On top of that, the huge mandate of 2004 clearly went to the head of the party, and it started ignoring its partners and taking decisions on its own, with the result that the cohesion of the Front was far less evident in 2009. These were the factors, all very local, that led to the Kerala debacle.
• If the Left Front in West Bengal was perceived as an oppressive power, does it mean that we should look upon the Trinamul Congress as a progressive force? Many former leftists, or dissident leftists, or Maoists of diverse hues, seem to have concluded that. The reality is different. The Trinamul Congress is a rightwing populist party. It has of course supported the peasants of Singur and Nandigram. But in doing so, it has sought to co-opt their autonomous struggles, and also to dilute its content. Thus, in Singur, the Trinamul Congress focus was purely on the peasant owners, and not on the other categories of people displaced. In an earlier period, this party as an ally of the BJP had endorsed the initiation of SEZs. Finally, it is now allied to the Congress, and committed to the UPA government. So it will swallow its opposition to the SEZs all over India, even though its own manifesto opposes SEZs and puts forward radical sounding rhetoric. A second feature is that this is a party with a record of violence. And this feature has resurfaced in recent times, with Left Front supporters being attacked, and even children of such people not being spared. The Manifesto of the TC reads like a wonderfully progressive text, promising everything to everyone. Land to the landless, job security, environmental protection, reform of the police, rights of women. Yet, just two instances show how fraudulent these claims are. When Taslima Nasreen was hounded out of West Bengal by Muslim communalists and with the government accepting their blackmail, the TC was silent. This suggests that like the Left Front, the TC is not really concerned with the rights of women, and further that just like the CPI(M), it is willing to cut a deal with minority communalists in the name of minority protection. And when polluting auto-rickshaws were sought to be replaced, the TC and its unions blocked the effort. We do not call for throwing out the auto drivers without providing them alternatives. But the answer has to be state assistance for conversion to less polluting cars, rather than simply halting the process.
• The lessons of recent elections are clear. Stalinist reformism will repeatedly claim working class and peasant votes, pointing to the fascist threat and to neoliberalism. But it will neither fight fascism on the streets nor fight neoliberalism if it is in power. And its opposition as of now is in all cases bourgeois oppositions, whether the Congress in Kerala or Tripura, or the Trinamul Congress in West Bengal. Only by relying on the independent power of workers and peasants, only by building a revolutionary proletarian alternative, can the working people of India get out of this dead end.

The Prolonged And Unjustified Imprisonment Of Dr Binayak Sen

Special Article (from The Statesman, 19 May, 2009)

Democracy at stake 

The Prolonged And Unjustified Imprisonment Of Dr Binayak Sen 

By Bharat Dogra

There is much in Indian democracy that we can justifiably be proud of. Yet on occasion, the authorities betray an obstinate tendency towards ruthless and revengeful injustice against social activists and movements. This undermines, even stigmatises, democracy. Quite often this is the outcome of intense prejudice, poor investigation and failure of governance. The crisis gets prolonged as justice is denied because the government refuses to acknowledge that its initial decision was distorted. That initial blunder is compounded when the administration makes it an issue of false prestige. This intensifies the agony of the victims, and makes a mockery of the basic tenets of democracy. There ought to be a system of checks and balances before it is too late. 
It is this intrinsic ability of democracy that is at stake in the case of the prolonged and unjustified imprisonment of Dr Binayak Sen, a highly accomplished doctor devoted to serving the poor, and one who doubled as a fearless human rights activist. Accused of such flimsy charges as carrying letters from an alleged Naxalite prisoner, Dr. Sen has been in jail for two years despite relentless protests by civil society and organisations as well as appeals for his release by eminent personalities the world over. 
As many as 22 Nobel prize winners have signed a public statement describing Dr. Sen as a ‘professional colleague’ and asked for his release. A satyagraha was organised in Raipur , the place of his incarceration, where many citizens, including eminent social activists and professionals, have offered arrest. 
Worked for the poor
In a letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, dated April 17, 2009, a former Supreme Court judge, V.R. Krishna Iyer, has examined the nature of the injustice this accomplished paediatrician has been suffering. Justice Krishna Iyer wrote: “The trial of Dr. Sen, which began in a Raipur Sessions Court in late April 2008 has, however, not thrown up even a shred of evidence to justify any of these charges against him. By March 2009, of the 83 witnesses listed for deposition by the prosecution as part of the original charge-sheet, 16 were dropped by the prosecutors themselves and six declared ‘hostile’ while 61 others have deposed without corroborating any of the accusations against Dr. Sen. Irrespective of the merits of the case against Dr. Sen, there are very disturbing aspects to the way the trial process has been carried out so far.” The former CJI has described it as “a case of grave injustice which is a cause of much shame to Indian democracy.” 
At a more personal level, I had the good fortune of seeing Dr. Sen in action. He has worked for the weaker sections for nearly three decades. In 1980, a health programme for Chhattisgarh’s iron ore miners was launched under the leadership of the legendary trade union leader, Shankar Guha Niyogi.  Dr. Sen and other highly qualified doctors had come to this part of undivided Madhya Pradesh. They had given up their lucrative careers in medicine to provide health care to iron ore miners and villagers in general. It was a challenging period to work in. The miners had started donating from their meagre salaries to build a ‘Shaheed hospital’ which would serve villagers who were poorer still. While awaiting its construction, Dr. Sen and other doctors had started providing their services from the union office. 
I recall seeing a long queue of patients. During subsequent visits, I noticed how conscientiously the medical team and the volunteers had worked to make the “Shaheed hospital” one of the better healthcare centres in the region. It was a hospital built by workers; it functioned so well that patients came from places hundreds of kilometres away. They avoided the government and private hospitals, located much nearer their homes. The hospital was a dream come true, a wonder of sorts that drew health activists from all over the country. 
The medical team had to attend to a large number of patients each day. Yet there was time to join the relief effort in the event of a flood or earthquake. Yet there was time to help the victims of the Bhopal gas leak tragedy – the world’s worst environmental disaster (December 1984). 
Subsequently, Dr. Binayak Sen and his wife, Ilina, started a voluntary organisation, called ‘Rupantar’. It was based in Raipur . Dr Sen would regularly visit the remote tribal villages to work in the public health segment. One major challenge was to set up village-based laboratory facilities so that serious cases of malaria could promptly be diagnosed. Dr. Sen’s success in this venture as well as his other initiatives were widely applauded in health circles. Besides, he provided healthcare services free of charge in the workers’ bastis of Raipur . 
I was struck no less by Dr. Sen’s deep interest in several other areas of development, notably the promotion of traditional varieties of seeds. In the context of his future activities, he once mentioned his interest in an altogether different subject – solid waste management. 
Uncompromising stand
It wasn’t surprising that a person of such diverse interests and deep commitment became so closely involved with the human rights movement as well. He took an uncompromising and highly critical position towards certain aspects of the functioning of the government. This obviously antagonised the powerful lobbies within the state government. The climax was reached when the situation in the predominantly Maoist tribal belt deteriorated rapidly. Dr. Sen emerged as a firm critic of the government’s controversial strategy. 
The truth of the matter is that the increasing distress of the people was caused partly by the Naxalites, partly by the government’s policies and partly by the projects which were resulting in large-scale displacement and destruction of sustainable livelihood. 
Even if the government completely disagreed with Dr. Sen’s position, it could well have challenged his views and asserted its own position in a far more forceful manner. Far from it. Instead, the state took recourse to the thoroughly unjustified step – the doctor was arrested. 
This decision to arrest Dr Binayak Sen was taken in the face of widespread opposition. The government has been equally obstinate in refusing to admit its original mistake. This has deepened the agony of a distinguished doctor and his family. It is high time the government responded to the demand for his release. And over the past two years, that demand has become more and more strident both in India and abroad.

London Protest in support of Binayak Sen

Over one hundred demonstrators gathered on Thursday outside the Indian High Commission in London to call for the release of the Bengali doctor and human rights activist, Dr Binayak Sen. Sen, who was arrested in Chhattisgarh two Demonstrators demanding Binayak Sen's release years back, has been languishing in jail without proper medical attention. Carrying placards calling for the release of Sen, the demonstrators — academics from London School of Economics, The School of Oriental and African Studies, theatre and film personalities, doctors and activists — marked the second year of Sen’s incarceration in a Chhattisgarh jail with slogans and songs of protest. “The position has not changed at all. Dr Sen is being denied medical treatment. He should be released immediately on bail pending a fair and prompt trial,” said Amrit Wilson, co-ordinator of the UK branch of the Release Binayak Sen Now campaign. There were similar protests in Calcutta demanding the Binayak Sen’s immediate release.   Read more in the Indian Telegraph by clicking here Other links London Protest for Binayak Sen reported in the Hindu Binayak Sen Protest in London On NDTV