In his perceptive take on laughter and its politics, the French philosopher, Henri Bergson observed that the laugh-ability of people stumbling over or of sudden gaffes conceals a vital philosophical proposition-namely, the unwillingness to be aware of the need to change one’s mechanical posture when the occasion calls for it. In analysing an aspect of contemporary Indian politics, we tend to stumble upon these instances of what Bergson called ‘mechanical inelasticities' primarily on the ideological front. Does this mean we should be rooting for a ‘post-ideological' politics as some intellectuals claim? Well, this needs to be answered in the negative. Rather we should look upon the functioning of a democracy as vast as our own as a system that constantly warrants flexibility as opposed to rigidities. In fact, elasticity should be a driving ideology in itself. It is the unique nature of Indian democracy that makes a resolute claim for adaptability and centrism and renders rigidity as a perpetual ‘joke'. In this article, I shall attempt to bear out the veracity of this claim by examining one amongst a gamut of conjectures that account for the ignominious debacle of the Left Front in the recently concluded West BENGAL elections, 2021.

If one were to trace a genealogy of the Left parties in the State, one would have to begin in 1967 when it first assumed Parliamentary and Governmental significance with the victory of the United Front. The popular appeal of the Left happened during an epoch dominated by strained feudal relationships which the ruling Congress was reluctant to tackle with decisive gestures. The launch of Operation Barga in the 1970s and a prolonged emphasis on agrarian self-sustenance constituted its own way of responding to this impending crisis. This, coupled with its concern for refugee rehabilitation during the Bangladeshi Liberation, granted it a hegemony in a predominantly agrarian state. However, once the contradictions of feudalism were resolved to varying degrees of success (notwithstanding grassroots corruption) the thrust should have been immediately placed on fulfilling social aspirations following public commitment to livelihood and security. This called for generating popular consensus for industry and a sustained effort in building collective responsibility to better people’s living conditions as well as the state of the economy. Instead, the 80s and even the decade after that were marked by turbulence in the industrial sector causing a ‘flight of capital' (alongside the triumph of petty politics over holistic national rejuvenation through the reluctance to release licenses for a non-Congress rules state by the Centre as observers like Debraj Bhattacharya point out). The ‘mechanical inelasticity' to accommodate the positive rigours of liberal economics was coupled with the ‘inelasticity' to change the modus operandi of Left politics. The latter was visible in the continuity of violent strikes, gheraos and a culture of latent social animosities under the banner of “class struggle" as opposed to the values of co-ordination and co-operation which were essential ingredients for the success of a post-colonial state. The example of the huge industry can provide us with some insight here. While there is no denying that proper working conditions were often ignored in an industry that was still steeped in an immature stage of capitalism, the enforcement of strikes and violence played a yeoman's role in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As a ruling government, the Left could have invested in the generation of alternative enterprises to create an avenue for accommodating pensive labour forces in the jute sector thereby forcing the employers to create better incentives to rein in labour flight. However, resorting to bands and violence led to the systematic blurring of the responsibilities of the incumbent and the opposition. In fact, the policy ‘inelasticities’ would ultimately turn the rhetoric of liberation of the early 70s into a ‘joke'. This also led to the deep entrenchment of a climate of social animosity and bitterness marked by divisions and psycho-social chasms that went against the organic maturity of fraternity and samajbodh. Added to this was the contribution of the academic Left in perpetuating such cultures of divide thereby mirroring the stance of the “Party line". I am tempted to recall an anecdote by the historian Ramchandra Guha which records how he was berated by a senior professor at the Centre for Social Sciences, Calcutta (the hub of Left-wing intellectuals in those days) when he tried to present a rather nuanced picture of Nehru. The academic propensity to give a definite intellectual flavour to such rigidities coupled with decades of prevalence of such a political paradigm had cemented a rather stubborn image of the Left.

The 2000s ushered in the era of the amicable yet determined Chief Minister, Mr. Buddhadev Bhattacharya. Leaving aside certain controversies of his tenure, it must be admitted that the recognition of the need for a paradigm shift was felt at this time although its outreach was rather confined within certain coterie of the Leftist party apparatus. Although massive investment in infrastructure (in 2006, for instance, NASSCOM GARTNER ranked West Bengal higher than other states in electricity infrastructure) and investments began to pour in from myriad sectors, the ‘image’ of the Left and the social ramifications of it could not keep pace with such developments. Therefore, even the slightest hint of coercion in its new path of industrialization spread like wildfire (in the incidents at Singur and Nandigram) convincing its own voters (who had been exposed to the climate of social animosity and had a rather automatic distrust for businesses) of its inability to sustain its image as a “working class vanguard". The climate of deep-seated suspicion and bias that seemed very convenient for certain sections such as Trade Union ‘netas' seemed to be suddenly slipping away. The partisan lapse in creating a consensus for industry and capital that should have begun in the late 70s itself (before undertaking the ventures of the late 2000s) ended up as a roadblock in its path of reform. This created a desperation to cling to power that now tried to ride on the back of authority and dominance instead of civic consensus and consent. Therefore, when the campaigns of the Left (including its massive Brigade) prior to the 2021 elections tried to showcase its commitment to employment and industry, notwithstanding the authenticity of such issues in a state that warrants the creation of good jobs and the revival of industry, it’s clarion call fell on deaf ears. The perpetuity of its image as discussed earlier got the better of its apparent earnestness of concern stripping it of its status as the principal Opposition party.

The analysis detailed above is less a call for Leftist rectification (or “self-criticism" as the popular jargon goes) than an invocation of the democratic relevance of adaptability and centrism in the Indian context. Instead of focusing on the outmoded binaries of the Left/Right, the nature of Indian democracy emphasizes the contextual relevance of policies deemed to be such. An environment that calls for greater productivity and growth or even the need for self-actualization in Maslow's hierarchy needs policies that are best suited to these while the excesses of market exposure will need policies that mandate governmental checks and balances and support. The existence of multiple dimensions of policy making and the ability to adapt to the conspicuous elasticities of democracy determines political success. The democratic impulse of our national system is therefore in sync with the principle of anekantavada or even the importance of the Buddhist madhyamika. The co-existence and shared legitimacy of all paths with the essential identity of each (in politics this One is a ‘better nation' leading to a ‘better world'?) determines the essence of our democratic values. It is important to locate the need for accommodation as a means to garner political and social relevance in the Indian scenario. Perhaps this brief analysis of Leftist nemesis can be a starting point for further analyses of accommodative practices and/or the lack thereof.

 

Image Credits: wikimedia.commons

Tags :

• Intellectual Freedom65
• Indian Politics65

• Share on Social Media

• Follow us on Social Media