A V Rajwade: How about a Marxist PM?

WORLD MONEY

Why not, if he starts following the Chinese model.

I have often wondered why the politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) refused permission to Jyoti Basu to become the prime minister in a coalition government, a role offered to him on a platter.

After all, the communists have a history, right from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to many east European countries after the second world war, of taking power through coalitions and then usurping it for themselves.

But the opportunity to use this time-honoured tactic was voluntarily foregone. Why? I am beginning to understand after seeing the sacrilegious behaviour of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the Marxist chief minister of West Bengal.

Were they worried that after becoming the prime minister, Basu may well start following the Chinese model? "" globalisation, foreign direct investment, labour laws, privatisation, and so on?

Consider some of Bhattacharjee's actions even before his well-publicised comments about foreign direct investment a couple of weeks back in Indonesia:

• Complained about illegal immigration from Bangladesh, when, for too many, admitting this is a breach of "secular" ethic.
• Cleaned up Kolkata's streets overnight "" does Mumbai dare follow suit?
• Prosecuted hundreds for power theft "" Delhi would solve its power problems if only it could.
• He declared BPOs as essential services and banned strikes.
• He dared to advise workers that, "Issues like productivity and quality of production are not the headaches of the management alone. You have to share them. Otherwise industries will collapse and jobs will be lost."

The most recent move has attracted the maximum publicity "" inviting the Salim Group of Indonesia to make investments in West Bengal, including in retail malls, that hated American symbol of consumerism.

Interestingly, the Salim Group was very close to former President Suharto of Indonesia, who came to power in a CIA-backed coup involving the massacre of uncounted thousands of communists!

If one welcomes Bhattacharjee's refreshing pragmatism ("the colour of the cat is immaterial so long as it catches mice"), his masters in AKG Bhavan continue to be the abominable "no"-men.

They say "no" to disinvestment, let alone privatisation; "no" to modernisation of Delhi and Mumbai airports in public private partnerships; "no" to FDI in retail and in many other segments; and "no" to pension reforms or any relaxation of the rigid labour laws even in special economic zones. (Given the Marxists' veto power in Delhi these days, there would be nothing "special" left in the special economic zones if and when they are created!).

Isn't it amazing how much power electorally insignificant parties (except in Kerala and West Bengal) are enjoying at the national level? Sitaram Yechury, the party spokesman, recently said that, "If the reform is pro-people we are pro-reform. If the reform is anti-people we are anti-reform". (The word "people" is, of course, a favourite of the communists "" remember all those "People's Democracies" of yesteryear?)

The question, of course, is who is to decide what is pro-people and what is anti-people "" Yechury's politburo? Again, should the reform be "pro-people" in the short term or in the long term?

In reality, very often, long-term pro-people measures could well be anti- (some) people in the short run "" for instance, if labour laws are relaxed, some existing employees may well lose jobs, but in the long term, far more will be created.

On so many other issues, the Marxists display some admirable qualities. In a blatantly corrupt political atmosphere, most of them are personally austere. MP's live in the smallest accommodation and many travel by the parliamentary bus.

On issues like the behaviour of the Bihar governor, arrests of criminal politicians roaming free, on the Nanavati commission report on the massacre of Sikhs in Delhi in 1984, on the Imrana fatwa, and so on, their stand has been admirable.

But when it comes to economic issues, one finds that they retain their faith in the dogma, refusing to learn from Deng Xiaoping of China.

Or even from Bhattacharjee himself, who recently quoted Deng in an approving fashion, "Deng Xiaoping used to say 'we learn truth from the facts, not from books' We learned from our experiences in India and abroad."

In many ways, the CPI(M) has become a party of the middle class rather than the genuinely poor "" the working class in organised industry is now the middle class.

And, they try to protect its property, namely jobs, through labour laws "" after all, it was Marx who argued that all laws are meant to protect property! Should the Party be renamed as Communist Party of India (Bourgeoisie) as T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan suggested in this paper?

But let us not lose hope. As Lokamanya Tilak said a century ago, "What Bengal says today, the rest of India follows." Hopefully, Bhattacharjee may get what Basu was denied!

avrco@vsnl.com