Dipankar Bhattacharya: Three Questions

From Frontier Web, we reached out with three fundamental questions that the new readership we are trying to reach has for Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation.

FIRST QUESTION

Frontier Web: Why is your party, the CPI(ML) Liberation, an opposing force against both the BJP at the center and the TMC, the ruling party, in West Bengal? Is this just political theater, or are there specific issues with each government that are really impacting people?

Dipankar Bhattacharya: The BJP, whether it is at the center or not, is a unique kind of party. It is backed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and it completely goes against the very legacy of India's freedom movement and the basic interests of India. It stands completely against the very fundamental idea of modern India. That is why we are opposing the BJP everywhere, on every ground. I do not think modern India can afford to have the BJP, and especially the RSS, at the center. As long as the RSS was on the margins, things were somewhat different. But now that they have grabbed power and are trying to impose their ideology on every institution, I think the people have no other option but to oppose the BJP tooth and nail.

As far as the Trinamool Congress (TMC) is concerned, it is the ruling party in West Bengal. The Trinamool Congress has been in power for nearly 15 years now, while the BJP has been at the center for 11 years. As a result, I think there are many reasons—many legitimate grievances—about this government on the part of the people of West Bengal, even apart from ideological reasons, on shared grounds of governance. There is a lot of corruption, a lot of denial of democracy on the ground. So obviously, on these issues of governance, the people of West Bengal are opposing the TMC government. Then, I think it becomes mandatory for a Left party to fight both battles at the same time. One cannot give up one battle for the sake of the other, or defer one battle to a later stage.

Besides, let me also tell you: while the TMC is confined to West Bengal, the BJP is not external to West Bengal. The BJP is growing here, which is why it is a pan-Indian threat to democracy. We need to combine both the struggles in West Bengal and similar struggles in many other non-BJP-ruled states. For example, even in Kerala, where you have a Left Front government, we are opposed to many policies of that government. And then there is the DMK-led government in Tamil Nadu. We are opposed to many issues of governance in Tamil Nadu as well. A lot of hate crimes take place there, which are, however, often called "honor crimes." Crimes against interfaith and intercaste marriages are all committed in the name of "honor." I don't call them honor crimes or honor killings. I call them hate crimes. So naturally, in every state, even in the non-BJP-ruled states—I think that even though we have some larger, broader, all-India levels of agreement with these non-BJP parties—there can be absolutely no compromise on issues of governance and the interests of the people where these parties are in power.

If you allow me to explain a bit more, as far as the BJP is concerned, we are against the whole gamut of their policies. For example, people say that their economic policies are nowadays more or less common, regardless of the color of the government. They tend to follow the same kind of economic policies: liberalization, privatization, and globalization. But having said that, the kind of aggression you see, especially when the BJP is in power, has taken things to a different level altogether. There is a complete form of privatization, and this privatization is no longer confined just to the economy or trade. It now covers everything; for example, the New Education Policy (NEP) is a prescription for the complete privatization of education. And in the upcoming parliament sessions, chances are that this government is going to bring in a higher education commission bill that will completely centralize education. Education used to be a state subject, but it will be completely centralized now. And centralized education will come under corporate control on one hand, and the RSS’s ideological grip on the other. So naturally, this is going to be a major battle in the field of education.

Likewise, they have now come up with four labor codes. If I use Ambedkar's own terminology, these four labor codes amount to establishing the dictatorship of the private employer—that is, subjecting the workers to corporate jungle raj, a private kind of dictatorship. This is the BJP's plan for the four labor codes. In simple terms, the four labor codes are going to force India’s workers to work more for lower wages and less security. By security, I mean everything—physical security, work environment security, and social security. Workers will also have less freedom; they will be less free to organize themselves and fight for their rights.

This is something completely against the pro-labor policies and acts that started taking shape in India during the freedom movement itself. Many of our freedom fighters were not just anti-colonial fighters. They were also simultaneously fighting against capitalism to protect and promote workers' rights and lives. Ambedkar is a great example. Then, in Tamil Nadu, somebody like V.O. Chidambaram, who was a shipping entrepreneur who launched India's first shipping service to challenge the British maritime empire, was also fighting for spinning mill workers and spent four years in colonial jails; he suffered a lot of torture because he was trying to organize the workers and fight for their rights. Similarly, if you come to West Bengal, you will find women like Santosh Kumari, who was the first organizer of jute mill workers in West Bengal. They were all great freedom fighters. They were, in fact, not communists. They were nationalists. But during the freedom movement period, nationalism and nationalization used to go together.

And now, in this era, nationalism is being equated to corporate interests; so Adani's interest is India's interest. Anybody who exposes Adani commits an anti-national act in the eyes of the government. So naturally, now we have to fight against this hyper-nationalism, and we also have to fight against this rabid kind of privatization. Thus, we have to oppose the BJP across an entire gamut of policies—the way it is attacking the constitution and the legacy of the freedom movement.

And as I said, in West Bengal, there are many issues on which the West Bengal government will be fighting against the BJP in parliament, at the national level. We have no issues with that. But there are plenty of issues within West Bengal, especially issues of governance, where we are opposed to this government. There are many other issues too, where the economic policies are not at all clear. For example, take Deucha Pachami or the many other areas where land acquisition is going on and corporate interests are being promoted. Jute mill workers are fighting for their wages, as are tea garden workers. So there are many industries where workers have to fight against the central government's policies, as well as the state government's appeasement of industrial owners.

SECOND QUESTION

Frontier Web: You call yourselves Leftist and Communist. What does that label mean for the common Indian voter today? And also, if you believe in Left unity, why do you continue to maintain a separate political organization?

Dipankar Bhattacharya: Yes, I see myself as a communist. The word communism started in the early 19th century; it was the dream of an equal world. Communism is for the sake of equality—equality in every sphere, among all countries; it is an exploitation-free society of complete human emancipation. Now that may appear to be a very distant dream—a kind of ulterior utopian notion. That's why, if somebody considers it a very far-fetched utopia, I will say that the approximate word for communism for me is consistent democracy. Someone who is consistently a democrat—who applies the principle of democracy, equality, and justice in every sphere against caste oppression and gender injustice, who fights for climate justice and conservation of the environment, and who fights against every kind of injustice—for me, that is the job of a communist today. This is what we are trying to do, regardless of the situation.

As long as India was a colony, communists were an important strand of India's anti-colonial movement. Bhagat Singh, for example, was not officially a member of any communist party, but I consider him to be the pioneer of communism in India. He was, in today's terms, a "Gen Z" communist revolutionary who founded a communist movement in India. Many people may or may not have formally joined the Communist Party, but they followed the communist ideology and principles, and tried to secure those rights for the people. So I consider them all to be largely part of the whole communist family or the Left tradition. And when we're talking about Left unity, there may be differences here and there, which is quite natural.

But today, I think not just of the Left. As I said, we call the BJP a fascist party. We consider the RSS a fascist organization. The ideology is fascism. And in the face of fascism, one needs a broad-based unity of democratic forces—a lot of people, from Gandhians, Ambedkarites, socialists, Lohiaites, to communists. I think that we need a broad spectrum convergence of forces. In one word, I can say, if you go back to India's freedom movement, many people were fighting in different ways for freedom. Some people are fighting only to free India from British rule, while others were also fighting for a modern society against the feudal forces, against moneylenders, against corporate interests; all those forces were part of India's freedom movement. But there was one particular ideology, one particular stream which didn't fight for freedom at all—and that is the RSS Hindu Mahasabha stream. And strangely, today they are pushing, they are talking about decolonization. In the name of decolonization, they are trying to reverse India's whole anti-colonial legacy. So I think that the unity of the forces of the freedom movement—that broad spectrum unity—that needs to be revived today in a different context, on a different level, in a different situation. This is what we are trying to do.

THIRD QUESTION

Frontier Web: How would you respond to critics who call you a ‘loser’? What is the party's specific strategic roadmap for building a viable alternative to the BJP at the national level? How do you plan to win elections?

Dipankar Bhattacharya: Well, winning elections, especially in the first-past-the-post system—I feel that for me, it is most crucial of all that you get votes. For me, in elections, votes are the most important thing, regardless of whether we win a seat or not. For example, I can tell you, in 2020, we secured 1.3 million votes in Bihar. And with 13 lakh votes, we had won 12 seats. In the recently concluded election in Bihar, we secured more than 14 lakh votes. However, with more than 14 lakh votes, we have now won only two seats and lost several seats by very narrow margins. A first-past-the-post system has its own anomalies. So I would prefer a proportional representation system where your share of votes would count more.

But today, the SIR is doing two things: one is mass disenfranchisement. In Bihar, roughly 10% of people lost their votes—close to 7 million. And I think in West Bengal and in Tamil Nadu, in this round of SIR, a bigger percentage of people are vulnerable. They are likely to lose their votes. So one is disenfranchisement, and the other thing is various kinds of electoral fraud. Electoral democracy should rely on two things: one is universal adult suffrage, and the other is the notion of free and fair elections, where there should be some kind of level playing field. But now, we absolutely don't have any kind of level playing field. So it's a very unequal electoral battle. This is why I don't really have expectations about seats; that being said, I would definitely like to win elections. We would definitely like to win elections so that we have a bigger presence in assemblies and parliament. Right now, we have two members in parliament and two members each in the Bihar and Jharkhand assemblies. It is important to win elections for the sake of raising the voice of the people and fighting for their rights. But whether you are actually able to win elections or not depends upon a whole lot of factors.

This is why I look at elections as a reflection of our strength. It is not an adequate, fair, or very consistent reflection, but it is nevertheless some sort of reflection. And this is why in elections—whether we win or not—it is important to fight a good battle in every possible way. And if we can fight well on the ground, then the chances are that from time to time, we will also be able to win an election or two.

Now, what exactly do we mean by fighting well on the ground? Let me give you a few examples. In Bihar, just before the election, there was a lot of talk that people were getting a lot of money—direct cash transfers—with 10,000 rupees being deposited directly into around 1.5 crore women's accounts. We are fighting on this issue because this 10,000 was nobody's private money; it is the people's money and a very small portion of what is actually due to them—their employment, their rights. So we will be fighting even when they are giving us 10,000; we will be fighting for our full rights, not getting bogged down and satisfied with this small iota of people's rights. But the other important thing is, now that the elections are over in Bihar, you can see a massive demolition campaign. Houses are being bulldozed in the name of clearing encroachments—small shopkeepers, street vendors, people who do not have their housing rights or land rights are being bulldozed. So people say, ‘vote se pehle das hazaar, vote ke baad bulldozer’ (Rs 10,000 before the election, bulldozers after the election). This is what is happening. We have to fight against both—we have to take on the bulldozer 'expedition' and stand with the people.

Therefore, by giving a good fight, I mean that we have to be with the people, come what may, in every kind of vulnerability they are exposed to. It could be anything: saving people in the face of a climate crisis, a man-made or natural disaster, or lack of land rights. Standing with the people and defending their interests with all our strength—that is what I mean by giving a good fight.