Can CPI(M) survive by clinging on to their ideology?

The CPM, and its general secretary, Sitaram Yechury, are clearly in a spot of bother over the tacit alliance between the West Bengal unit of the party and the Congress. After the seat-sharing deal between the two parties came a cropper in the WB assembly polls, leaders who owe allegiance to former general secretary, Prakash Karat, have been openly critical of the alliance. They claim that the CPM-Congress alliance in West Bengal was a violation of the political tactical line adopted at the last Party Congress in Visakhapatnam which disallows electoral alliances with the Congress. It is another matter that the central leadership bowed down to the West Bengal state committee decision to partner with the Congress in the run-up to the polls. The Karat line, which has the backing of the powerful Kerala unit, has greater numerical support in the two top decision-making forums: the Central Committee and the Politburo. But the threat of revolt by the West Bengal leadership and Yechury’s tacit support for the alliance appears to have forced the two groups back from the brink; for the time being.

The resignation of central committee member Jagmati Sangwan from the party may be written off by the party as an individual act of rebellion, but even so there is no denying that her sentiments are shared by most in the central leadership. With the Bengal unit weakening, the party’s claims to being a national party have further taken a beating. Though Tripura chief minister Manik Sarkar has mediated between the two sides, the reality is that the Kerala CPM has become the pre-eminent unit in the party and the central leadership has little control over the Kerala or West Bengal units. Not surprisingly, the imperative of party unity was evident in the mild language in which the central committee rapped the electoral alliance. The party which zealously abides by organisational discipline and promptly cracks the whip on dissent by lesser leaders was reduced to stating that the alliance “was not in consonance with the central committee decision not to have an alliance or understanding with the Congress”. The CC also allowed for joint initiatives to counter political violence and human rights violations, which the Bengal unit is certain to construe as a tacit signal to continue the understanding with the Congress.

Sangwan’s allegations that the criticism was toned down after two senior leaders from West Bengal threatened to resign from the central committee is consistent with the drift of the West Bengal unit in recent times. Former WB chief minister Buddhadev Bhattacharya has been boycotting most party forums ever since the party’s crushing defeat in 2011. Even the appointment of Sitaram Yechury as general secretary reportedly saw a fair amount of brinkmanship involving the Kerala and West Bengal units. The Bengal unit’s contention is that the party line becomes relevant only when the party is in a position to survive. The party has been claiming that the Trinamool Congress cadres have unleashed a reign of terror after the election results, in which party offices have been seized and workers evicted from their homes. The demoralisation in the ranks is also evident in how Bengal CPM leaders have surrendered all hope of the party recovering on its own steam. Their argument is that the electoral alliance with the Congress failed because it was forged just before the elections and should be persisted with to yield electoral results. Irrespective of the future of the Congress-CPM alliance, the more pertinent question is the future of the CPM in West Bengal and the rest of the country. With the party on the verge of losing its national party status, a central leadership with little or no influence over state units will find it difficult to arrest the decline.