MADURAI
In his memoir Ormappadikal, renowned economist M.A. Oommen recounts a revealing encounter with E.M.S. Namboodiripad―CPI(M) ideologue, former general secretary, and Kerala’s first chief minister. Oommen had visited Namboodiripad to invite him to his son’s wedding. “You want a communist to attend a Christian marriage? Not happening,” EMS replied curtly. Undeterred, Oommen suggested that if the church ceremony was a problem, Namboodiripad could at least attend the reception. “It will be good news for Syrian Christians,” he quipped.
EMS relented. The Marxist stalwart balked at the idea of attending a church wedding, but he could not object to savouring mutton biryani at the banquet.
If biryani can serve as a metaphor for the party’s tactical line, the anecdote neatly captures the CPI(M)’s enduring dilemma: how to be ideologically rigid while being pragmatically indulgent.
The dilemma was on full display at the recent 24th party congress in Madurai, where the CPI(M) reaffirmed its commitment to blocking the “marriage” of hindutva and corporate power. The party said the “hindutva-corporate regime represented by the Narendra Modi government” remained its principal adversary―politically and ideologically. It also held up Kerala as a model of socialist governance, even though the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front government in the state has partnered with Adani Group on the Vizhinjam port project, welcomed private universities, and invited private capital to revive failing public enterprises.
Staying the course: Baby with (from left) G. Ramakrishnan, Brinda Karat, Pinarayi Vijayan and Prakash Karat during a session | Aravind Bala
Is the CPI(M) trying to have the biryani and eat it too?
Polit Bureau member Mohammed Salim told THE WEEK that the CPI(M) had internally debated and resolved the question regarding private universities and private investment. The party’s political line, he argued, allowed for private investment for developing nascent sectors and restructuring public enterprises without losing government ownership. These were, in his words, “creative application of left alternatives”, and not a “surrender to capitalist models”.
M.V. Govindan, the party’s Kerala secretary, went to the extent of saying that the Vijayan government was not a true-blue socialist government, but a leftist alternative to the Union government’s neoliberal agenda. “The party does not see the Kerala government as a Marxist alternative, but as a democratic alternative,” he told THE WEEK.
Not all comrades are convinced. During debates on the party’s policy document, a delegate from Andhra Pradesh criticised Kerala’s development paradigm. But the Polit Bureau stood firm. Salim introduced a resolution urging party members and sympathisers to “spread word about Kerala’s democratic achievements”. The party’s political review report said the Kerala government’s task was to bring its “leftist democratic alternative” closer to the CPI(M)’s vision of socialism.
Vijoo Krishnan | Aravind Bala
The report also acknowledged that the CPI(M)’s tactical line shares the objectives of various “bourgeois parties”―defending the Constitution, secularism and federalism. It noted that the idea of socialism as the end goal had been absent from the party’s recent messaging. Without clearly projecting socialism as the alternative, the report warned, the party risked losing its distinct identity. “We have to link the left democratic alternative with socialism,” it said.
The CPI(M) has picked former Kerala minister M.A. Baby as the new general secretary. Known as a pragmatist ideologue, Baby has been tasked with expanding the party’s national base and building constructive ties with allies such as the Congress. As a leader from Kerala, he must find a delicate balance: the CPI(M) and the Congress are allies at the national level, but direct rivals in Kerala. Baby cannot afford to build bridges with the Congress that would leave the CPI(M) sinking in the state.
Baby’s maiden speech as general secretary highlighted the contradictions of the party’s political line. He termed the Modi government as having the “neo-fascist tendencies of the ruling class”, in line with the CPI(M)’s political resolution that described the Modi government as an “authoritarian regime with neo-fascist characteristics”. Observers say the party does not want to explicitly label the Modi government as fascist―because doing so would necessitate joining forces with all anti-BJP parties under a broad anti-fascist banner. It would complicate the situation in Kerala―the party’s remaining stronghold.
Whether Baby, 71, can leave a longterm mark remains to be seen. All of Baby’s predecessors were elected when they were relatively young―Karat was 57, Sitaram Yechury was 63, and Namboothirippad was 52. Karat had a tenure of 10 years, Yechury served for nine, and Namboothirippad for 16 years. Even Harkishan Singh Surjeet, who was 76 when he became general secretary, served for more than 13 years.
But for Baby, the party’s age limit is a hindrance in implementing a longterm vision. At the previous party congress in Kannur, Kerala, the CPI(M) had capped the age of central committee and Polit Bureau members at 75. The party congress in Madurai applied the rule to drop veterans such as former general secretary Prakash Karat and former Tripura chief minister Manik Sarkar from the Polit Bureau. Pinarayi Vijayan, 79, was granted an exemption for a second time, underlining his clout in the party.
In Madurai, the CPI(M) has undertaken a crucial generational shift. The Polit Bureau and the central committee has six and 30 new members, respectively. Vijoo Krishnan, general secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha who was inducted into the Polit Bureau, told THE WEEK that two key reforms had infused fresh blood: a three-term limit for secretaries at all levels, and an age cap. “The three-term rule alone has sparked a major shift, bringing in a wave of young leaders,” he said.
Proceedings in Madurai opened with a Tamil hip-hop revolutionary song, indicating the direction the party hopes to take. V.P. Sanu, national president of the CPI(M)-affiliate Students’ Federation of India (SFI), told THE WEEK that the party discussed the need to adopt language that resonates with people below 30.
Even as it plans to expand its base, there are worries of a large portion of the existing base shrinking. Peasants, farmhands and labourers constitute more than 75 per cent of the CPI(M)’s membership, but it apparently has not been doing enough to protect their interests. The discontent was manifested on the final day of the party congress, when D.L. Karad, a grassroots leader of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions in Maharashtra, contested for a seat in the central committee, challenging the official panel recommended by the Polit Bureau. Karad said he wanted to “emphasise” a contradiction: while the party congress championed mass movements, the central committee does not adequately represent leaders from the grassroots level.
The Kerala unit’s outsized influence remains a concern. Leaders from Kerala continue to dominate the top leadership of party-affiliated organisations such as the SFI, the Democratic Youth Federation of India, the All India Kisan Sabha, the All India Democratic Women’s Association, and the All India Agricultural Workers’ Union. With Baby’s appointment as general secretary, rivals have been mocking the CPI(M) as having finally shunned the pretence of not being a Kerala party with limited national presence.
On April 3, three days before Baby took charge as general secretary, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office got the go-ahead to prosecute Vijayan’s daughter Veena T. in a case of alleged corporate fraud. Veena has been accused of receiving Rs2.7 crore in illegal payments from a controversial mining company. As news of it broke amid the party congress, senior CPI(M) leaders found themselves having to defend Vijayan. Echoing several leaders from Kerala, Karat said the party would address the issue both politically and legally. Salim, however, told journalists that the option of pursuing legal action rests with the “concerned party”, indicating that there were differences in the Polit Bureau regarding how to tackle the issue.
The party’s organisational report makes it evident that the power equations in the CPI(M) are becoming increasingly skewed. The report pointed out West Bengal for its weak implementation of democratic centralism and Telangana for the “major issue” of organisational corruption. But there was no criticism directed at Kerala, where allegations of corruption and mismanagement, particularly in the cooperative sector, has put the party in a difficult position.
In 1995, after the 15th party congress, Namboodiripad had written an article criticising journalists for quoting indiscriminately from the CPI(M)’s organisational documents that are essentially self-critical in nature. “In fact, only through the constant practise of criticism and self-criticism can the party consolidate the gains it has made politically, and avoid mistakes in practical policies as well as in organisation,” he wrote. Today, it appears that the tradition of self-criticism is applicable only to party units outside Kerala.
“Whenever we come across certain practices within the party―like in Telangana, where some instances did occur―we have taken them seriously and implemented the necessary corrective measures,” said B.V. Raghavulu, Polit Bureau member from Andhra Pradesh. “The same applies to other states as well.”
A key discussion issue at the party congress was the urgent need to shore up the CPI(M)’s “independent strength” through mass mobilisation. “By and large, in Hindi-speaking states, [there is no] sufficient awareness of how hindutva forces are able to influence people and their consciousness,” the review report said.
Like in Kannur, the Madurai party congress, too, echoed calls for left unity. In attendance were the top leadership of the CPI, the CPI (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, and the All India Forward Bloc. Even as Karat reaffirmed the CPI(M)’s commitment to working with the broader left, its political line continues to differ on several basic points―such as whether the Modi government was “fascist”.
“We have no doubt it is fascist,” said Forward Bloc general secretary G. Devarajan. “If we can come together on the basis of ideological commitment, there is a possibility of a common platform. But there has not been enough commitment [from the CPI(M)] towards establishing such a platform.”
A practical problem the CPI(M) faces is how to define “left unity” in general and “left parties” in particular. The numerous splits in the left fold―the CPI(M) from the CPI, the CPI(ML) Liberation from the CPI(M), and so on―have left several ideological fault lines. Also, the RSP and the Forward Bloc, though claiming to be left parties, are part of the Congress-led front in Kerala that opposes the CPI(M). While all these parties were represented in Madurai, others such as the Communist Marxist Party and the Revolutionary Marxist Party, both of which oppose the CPI(M) in Kerala, were not invited.
So, how does the CPI(M) identify left parties? “Left parties are parties that are working with us,” veteran leader Brinda Karat told THE WEEK. “Parties that have been part of the left front and, in some cases, the broader left mobilisation over the past three years. Those are the parties [that we invite].”
Vijoo Krishnan had a clearer response. When he joined left politics in the mid-1990s, he said, the CPI(M) and the CPI(ML) Liberation rarely shared a platform. “Today, though, we work together,” he told THE WEEK. “This growing left unity is driven by a shared recognition of the dangers we face.”