Maoism: Lessons for traditional Left and Govt
Reports that Central agencies were looking at the possibilities of Maoist
infiltration into the labour force as the cause for the killing of an executive
at the Maruti Suzuki plant at Manesar in Haryana should be an eye-opener for the
Governments and the traditional Left alike. On the one hand, there seems to be a
wilful under-play of such incidents in recent years, particularly by State
Governments (as in Orissa and Tamil Nadu, where too, company executives were
lynched in labour riots), to downplay the law and order situation. On the other
hand, there seems to be a 'silent conspiracy' between Central and State
Governments not to put off prospective investors. The traditional Left in the
country too has failed to 'grow' with the new-generation labour force, with the
result that there is a vacuum that the Maoists possibly seem to be exploiting.
This is not the first time that the traditional Left have failed the labour
force. In pre-reforms Mumbai, the late Datta Samant took up cudgels, and
literally so, on behalf of the local factory labour, replacing the traditional
Left of all hues. The emergence of the Shiv Sena as a muscular force capable of
labour militancy, against the Government of the day, the industries and other
trade unions, should not be over-looked either. In other States, over the years,
the emergence of trade unions owing allegiance to regional parties, particularly
those that came to power, witnessed the slow but steady shrinking of the
traditional Left in this arena as in main-stream politics. By the time, these
regional parties adopted economic reforms to the hilt, in an attempt to
encourage investments and jobs-creation in their backyard, the Left trade unions
had weakened to such an extent that they were unable to fill the ideological and
physical vacuum that was emerging. This led to the inevitable but foreseeable
re-emergence of Naxalism, re-christened as 'Maoist militancy'.
The emergence of 'Naxalite militancy' across the country in the late Sixties had
its roots in the increasing irrelevance of the traditional Left, at times
contributing to the expanding vacuum, after regional parties, expanding at a
faster pace, could not address ideological and conceptual issues impacting on
the Indian population, including the labour sector. The traditional Left
(Socialists) in the country was either disintegrating in the aftermath of 'Nehruvian
Socialism' adding teeth to their imported ideology in more practical and
administrative terms in the post-Independence era, or was still looking at the
erstwhile Soviet Union and/or China for conceptual sustenance, which too was
irrelevant to ground realities.
On the practical side again, the regional parties, targeting the traditional
constituencies of the traditional Left at the grassroots-level after Gandhiji's
Congress had done enough damage in urban and semi-urban centres, had immediate
solutions to the problems of the suffering lot, especially when they came into
competitive populism, nurtured in turn by their electoral power. The traditional
Left lacked the opportunity and occasion to adapt itself to ground realities,
with the result, the generational gap since has created the vacuum that they are
now not able to fill, when called upon to do so. So much so, Left trade unions
through the era of economic reforms are happy if their affiliated units in
public sector undertakings like banks and others go on 'mass casual leave' and
sit at home to press their own demands without taking to streets as in the
Sixties and Seventies.
The advent of private sector counterparts, and large-scale migration of public
sector bank employees, for instance, is only one cause - which, however, has
been compounded by the Government's willing backing for public sector
managements to quell trouble from the labour quarters. The shifting sands of
jobs-creation, now based on upscale white-collar levels, as in the IT and BPO
sectors, with no job-guarantees, as in the West, is another factor. The Maruti
Suzuki problem at Manesar owes to this as well. Neither are the trade unions
able to ensure success for their legitimised 'collective bargaining' tactics
under the changed circumstances, nor are the new-generation employees, born into
relative affluence than their previous generations, willing to risk their
present and the future on trade union promises and actions with which they
cannot identify or relate to.
The problem of the Left is also the problem of the Governments in this country,
but the latter is wantonly pushing the problems under the carpet. It was so in
the traditional sectors of agriculture and farm lands. Across the country today,
awakened by 'international best practices' on environment, and aided, if not
abetted by a media that is more conscientious than most, selectively though, the
Maoists have been able to expand their base and activities as they themselves
might not have thought was possible when they drafted their 'Dandakaranya Plan'
in the Nineties. Today, there are set to be Maoist units across the country,
which covers North-South and East-West axis fully. Where no 'Maoist action' has
been seen, one can only apprehend that they could emerge. In these cases, as in
the case of Manesar, more than the rural farm sector, where labour practices are
tradition-driven, urban industrial units could fall easy prey.
It is not that all land-related public protests in various parts of the country
over the past few years are Maoists-induced. The Maoist ability to influence
even unseen sections of the Indian society into launching localised mass
movements on localised issues, drawing national attention and with nation-level
consequences, cannot be under-estimated. Where they are more vocal and are
actually present, violence has become their calling-card. Political parties have
not helped matters by taking sides on issues, and seeking to exploit the
discomfiture to the Government of the day, by promoting what is a justifiable
cause. In the process, they have either attested to the unjustifiable methods,
and at times have also adopted those methods - or, adapted the perpetrators as
their own comrades-in-arms.
The traditional Left is clueless. Having finally come down to earth after
finally acknowledging that the Soviet Communism is dead and gone, and China too
had changed economic tacks - today, China's strength is cheap labour, made
possible by the methodological absence of 'collective bargaining' -they are only
into petty 'burgeoisis politicking' for positions within the party structure,
possibly owing to the shrinking electoral base, and consequent absence of
positions of pelf and power of the governmental/ministerial kind. The Government
at the Centre and in the States have not helped matters, as they continue to
conclude at every turn that globalisation alone is the panacea for all the ills
of the nation - and that the 'trickle-down' effect of economic reforms would
reach out to the last man, if he was willing to wait.
Globalisation comes with the price of 'high margins' for the investor, who it is
not acknowledged, is anyway investing only to make profits - now or later. The
consequent rise in the cost and prices of commodities and services, whose
expansion has been facilitated however by the 'reforms era pay-packages', which
however is IT-driven, not reforms-reforms driven, has made poor man poorer,
leading to troubles that the Maoists readily exploit. What the Government needs
to acknowledge and work on is the fact that 'market capitalism' came to India at
a time when the nationals, if not the nation, was at the take-off stage of
socio-economic progress, made possible by the 'Socialist raj'.
In the US, they could start it on a clean-slate, after the extermination of the
American-Indian community, which might not have been designed for the purpose,
but whose poverty and blind attachment to their lands, would have been a
problem, nonetheless. Europe, propounded it, as colonial powers had to find
resources and markets for keeping their nationals in good humour. The two World
Wars put an end to colonialism, and they had time, need and occasion to refine
their methods. The case of India does not fit into either. The problems are
peculiar to the land and its people - and solutions would have to be singular,
too.
(The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation)