The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : For a programme-based alternative

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 15, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

For a programme-based alternative

K.V. Prasad

Prakash Karat is the second youngest general secretary in the history of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). A day after he took over, he spelt out his goals in an exclusive interaction withThe Hindu. One clear task is to strengthen the party in the Hindi-speaking regions.

The 18th party congress identified a third alternative as the goal. How different would it be from the erstwhile People's Front?

Prakash Karat: While calling for a third alternative, the party congress also said they have learnt from the past. We made two points: one, strengthen the CPI (M) and the Left so that it becomes a cementing factor for the third force; and second, there must be a common policy framework, which parties and forces subscribe to. It should not be a mere electoral alliance.

Since the Samajwadi Party walked out from the People's Front leading to its collapse what would be the basis for selecting parties for the third alternative?

Parties and forces that come together must share a common policy outlook, at least on some major issues. For example, how do we deal with agrarian crisis, impact of globalisation, our attitude towards public sector? There should be commonality of approach. We want to work together... it [the alternative] is not an immediate possibility.

The party has decided to turn to the Hindi-speaking region to expand its base. What steps would you take, considering that the CPI's base fell victim to caste-politics?

There are two aspects. To grow in the region politically, we must take up social issues and caste oppression, pay attention to caste and class correlation and work out correct tactics. The organisational part is that we propose to take select States for concentrated work so that we can show results more rapidly using our limited resources. Last time we selected Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand. We shall review that in the Central Committee and see if some adjustments are needed.

Do you see any conflict of interest with the SP and the Rashtriya Janata Dal in these States?

Right now we are concerned about what we should be doing as a party and not whom we will confront. We will take up issues, launch struggles and movements. We may come up against certain forces, political parties, Government or vested interests in that area. We have an independent position regarding [the] working class, fight for their demands and sometimes oppose policies these Governments are following. That we cannot compromise on.

Would that not come in the way of the third alternative?

We are a different party and have our position. There can be commonality on certain issues but the third alternative cannot be on the basis that we cease to struggle for our basic demands.

From your personal experience in handling the affairs of the party in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, how optimistic are you of growth in the region — organisational and electoral?

There are no shortcuts to our development as a party in the Hindi-speaking States. The situation is complicated by the fact that there have been forces of communalisation and caste fragmentation in the last two decades. Keeping this in mind, the party must be more active in taking up social issues, issues of caste oppression along with our class issues. We must take organisational steps to maximise our work in certain areas. For example, in States with a substantial Adivasi population, we are thinking of opening centres for concentrated work. I think this will bring results, but I am not looking at immediate electoral results. If we build our party, electoral results will follow.

Is there is a need to spread awareness about your strategy of combating communalism and the struggle against neo-liberal policies, since the Left supports the United Progressive Alliance Government?

We are not too worried about this situation in the UPA Government. We have to engage with them, support certain things and oppose some. As for combating communalism, in States where the BJP is ruling — Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat — activities of the communal forces and attacks on the minorities continue. Nothing has changed. Depending on the situation in different parts we will take a position.

Constant attack on the UPA's economic policies is being seen by some as an attempt to stall the Government. This perception may or may not be entirely true. What is the position?

I think the situation as such is that there is a UPA Government. The Left and Communist parties are not part of the Government and not part of the alliance, but we have extended support on the basis of the Common Minimum Programme. There are certain aspects of the CMP we give importance to. We will continue in this fashion, we do not see any necessity to change. Our party congress has not said that this approach is wrong. If any quarters think the party congress will lead to [a] rupture in the UPA Government, I do not think that is how we have planned or worked it out.

Having preferred other party members to be the interface with political parties, do you visualise a change in approach? Would you adopt a hands-on approach instead of being in the background?

It is a question of division of work in our leadership, we are not many at the headquarters ... we have different types of responsibilities. It is not that everybody does separate things. We combine. I cannot only be having discussion with the Government, there are other things to be done. I have met the Prime Minister whenever required but I can't be doing only that. The new Polit Bureau will discuss and distribute work.

Some describe you as a hardliner, others a classical Marxist. How do you see yourself?

I have also been called a doctrinaire. It is a misplaced idea. For instance, I am part of the decisions taken by the Polit Bureau, the Central Committee, and the party congress. For instance, what the party should do after the last Lok Sabha elections was a collective decision that was endorsed by the party congress. There is no hard-line or soft-line, we weigh our options, discuss and decide. In our party, [the] general secretary does not have the status of a supreme leader. He is part of the team and his job is to see the team works and implements decisions.

What is your approach to the CPI's call for unity among the communists? Do you visualise it leading to the unification of the two Communist parties?

What we have stressed [is] the need to strengthen unity of the Left. In the recent period we have made progress and on major issues have coordination at [the] national level, but there is [a] Left outside the four Left parties whom we want to bring on a common platform.

As regards [the] Communist merger, I do not think we are at that stage. The CPI also recognises there are political and ideological differences between the two that led to the split. Some differences are important. Over time these may be sorted out but we can't leapfrog and take it up.

Do you think this generational change in parties, including the CPI (M), would make a qualitative difference in the Indian polity?

You should not overplay generational change in the CPI (M). I am not the youngest general secretary, P. Sundarayya became [general secretary] at 52. The question is what ideological positions we take. Age is secondary.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion