Admits that creation of the Third Front was a wrong move.
Under attack, the CPI(M)’s powerful General Secretary Prakash Karat has turned the heat on the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee-led West Bengal lobby for the downslide of the party. Karat, the theory-loving boss of the party, has argued that the Nandigram episode, where 16 people were killed in police firing in early 2007, had ruined the party that built its strength through land struggles. In his remarks at the CPI(M)’s closed-door extended Central Committee meet here, Karat said the party had “compromised” on its basic ideological stand during the Nandigram incident.
But he had to eat humble pie and admit that the ‘third alternative’ initiative before the 2009 elections was a wrong move. The political situation was not favourable for such an alternative, he observed.
The party is also going to admit that it “underestimated” the strength of the Congress and “overestimated” its own power. In a press conference, Karat later said: “Many resolutions adopted in Coimbatore during the party congress in 2008 were correct. Maybe we couldn’t properly implement some of them.”
In what is seen as a clear snub to West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and his industrialisation initiatives, Karat said in the meeting that Nandigram had weakened the CPI(M)’s basic stand and initiatives on land reforms. He had warned the comrades that “at no cost” the party could allow its land struggles wither. While in other parts of India there was a resistance against special economic zones, Nandigram happened in Bengal, he said.
“The Maharashtra government’s path is not our path,” Karat said in front of a captive audience, underlining that the party could not afford to severe ties with “people and land”.
More From This Section
Delegates from many north Indian states and Tripura also severely criticised Bhattacharjee for his anti-Bandh stand.
Bhattacharjee was not present when Karat made these remarks. Later, Karat told at a press conference: “We have always been in favour of acquiring land with the consent of the people. After Nandigram, it became more relevant to implement this policy.”
A prominent Central Committee member told Business Standard, “A party that built its base through land reforms in West Bengal and land struggles, suddenly lost its high moral and political ground, as it was seen grabbing land from farmers.”
“While we always advocated taking people along with us, building consensus and making people understand before taking any step, in Nandigram we didn’t follow these thumb rules. We tried to forcibly take land through administrative and police forces,” the committee member said.
The stand of Karat is seen as a counter-offensive to stave off the heat. While the Bengal lobby wants to blame Karat for the party’s debacle, Karat wants to show that actually the Bengal lobby created problems for the party at the national level.
He also strongly defended the decision to withdraw support from the first United Progressive Alliance government in 2008, terming it “correct”. He said the Left parties had no other option but to withdraw, as they couldn’t be seen as a party to the government’s strategic alliance with the imperialist US.
“We thought the Congress could never go without our approval. We thought we are the masters of the Congress and were over-confident of having a record number of 60 Left MPs. But finally, the Congress betrayed us,” said a politburo member.
The party will also admit that it couldn’t make people understand the reasons for its withdrawal of support as it failed to campaign properly.
“The timing of support withdrawal was also right. It is not true that the Bengal unit needed time and so we allowed the Congress to go to the International Atomic Energy Agency to buy time. Had we given something to the Samajwadi Party (SP) on their own terms, it would not have gone to support the Congress. But we were not in a position to help SP,” said a politburo member.