The Marxist Dilemma in Kerala: Administration And/Or Struggle Author(S): Robert L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Marxist Dilemma in Kerala: Administration and/or Struggle Author(s): Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. Source: Asian Survey, Vol. 10, No. 11, Elections and Party Politics in India: A Symposium (Nov., 1970), pp. 993-1003 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2642819 Accessed: 04-08-2015 17:32 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Asian Survey. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.83.205.78 on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:32:01 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE MARXIST DILEMMA IN KERALA: ADMlINISTRATION AND/OR STRUGGLE / RobertL. Hardgrave,Jr. 7lhepolitical polarization envisioned by somein thewake of theCongress splithas notmaterialized. It is clear,nevertheless, that the polar extremesof India's politicalspectrum are becomingmore powerful, that the Jana Sangh on itheright and the Marxistson the lefthave assumedincreasing impor- tancein India's politicallife. Their strength is geographicallyconcentrated in differentregions-the Jana Sangh in the Hindi heartland;the Marxist in WestBengal and Kerala. It is withinKerala thatthe Marxistshave had theirgreatest appeal. Investigationsof coalitiongovernment in the Indian statesand whereparties of theleft have enjoyedwide electoralappeal is of increasingimporta!nice- two dim,ensionls of party politics in India thathave receivedbut limitedattention. Kerala is a land of contradictionsin a nationof contrasts.It is a minia- tureof India,with all variablespushed to theirextremes. As India's smallest state,Kerala has ithehighest birthrate and thegreatest pressure on theland. It 'aboundsin agriculturalwealth, yet must import half ilts food supply.Its internationalexports bring 25 % of India's dollarearnings, yet Kerala's per capita incomeis thelowest in India. It has thehighest literacy rate and the highestrate of unemployment.With the largest community of Christians,it has thehighest Communist vote also. It is at once a bastionof orthodox Hinduism,with the most elaborate system (of caste rankingin India and, at thesame time, a regiondeeply affected by the processof social mobilization and change.With many of the "prerequisites"of politicalmodernization, Kerala is regardedby theC!ommunist Party of India (Marxist)-or CPM- as an advanced outpost of revolutionary struggle.1 In 1957, the CommunistParty of India formeda ministryunder E. M. S. Nambolodiiiipad and governed the state for twenty-eightmonths until a masss upsurge" brought central interventionand President's Rule. Ten 'For a discussion of the political sociology of Kerala, see Robert L. Hardgrave,Jr., "Caste in Kerala: A Preface to the Elections," Economic Weekly,November 21, 1964, pp. 1841-48; and "Caste and the Kerala Elections," Economic Weekly,April 17, 1965, pp. 669-72. 993 This content downloaded from 128.83.205.78 on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:32:01 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 994 MARXIST DILEMM4A IN KERALA years later,in 1967, Namboodiripad again formeda Government, is nine in a broadly-based,iton-Congress United Front. Although the Communims had deepenedtheir hold amongKerala's poorestclasses, particularly the agriculturallaborers, their support remained remarkably stable. Indeed, witha -highdegree of politicalliteracy and participation,Kerala reflectsa salienceof partyidentity rare in India. In the fourelections over the last decadein Kerala,the Communists have maintained approximately one-third ofthe vote, with fluctuations and a low ofsome 28% in 1965.2The Congress9 likethe Communists, has maintaineda fairlysteady third of the vote,and, an anti-Congressalliance could securelyisolate it frompower. The seven- partyUnited Front, with 52% of 'thevote, gained 117 of the 133 Assembly seats and 17 of the 18 Parliamentary seats in the 1967 election. Congress was reduced;to 9 seatsin theAssembly, despite the supportof 35%oof th(e electorate.For thesecond time, E. M. S. Namboodiripadtook over as Chief Ministerof India's "problemstate." In October1969, the United Front government collapsed after 31 monthiji in office-thelongest tenure of Kerala's ten ministriesand fiveperiods of PresidentialRule. Hangingon afterthe resignationof seven of the twelve ministersand thewithdrawal of four parties from the coalition government., Namboodiripadfinally resigned in theface of a majoritymotion in theAs- semblyon the issue of corruption.The issue of corruptionprovided a con' venientsmoke-screen around whichdivergent parties, without regard to theirclass characterand ideologicalincompatibility, might rally against the Marxists.The vote on themotion, 69-60, formalizedwhat had been the deepeningdivision among the constituentparties of the UnitedFront. A CPI Memberof Parliament,Achutha Menon, placed responsibility for theGovernment's collapse on the big partybossism of the CPM, its cdis- ruptivebehavior, and sectarianpolicies. To the surpriseof all, in a bid to avert President'sRule, Menon succeededin weldingsufficient solidarity amongthe 'heterogeneous parties to forma Government-unitedmore in their oppositionto theMarxists than in thedetermination to fulfillthe promises of the 1967 election. But on the basis of this commitment,Menon claimed his Governmentas 'heirsuccessor to the UnitedFront. The "mini-front,"' as it was called,in supplantingthe anti-CongressUnited Front became es sentiallyan anti-Marxistfront. The new Governmentcoalition, led by the, CPI, included the Muslim League, the ISP, and the Kerala Congress, with theRSP in supportoutside the Ministry. Unwilling to testhis claim t a majorityWithout Congress support by calling the Assemblyinto session, Menonalluded to supportfrom unnamed defectors from the Marxist camp. When theyidid not materialize, the Congress split convenientlyopened the possibilityof support fromthe "progressive" Indira Gandhi faction. The Marxistshad been thrownout, ostensibly on chargesof corruption. 'For the best discussionof the split and contemporarybackground of the Commnsasiist party,see Mohan Ram, Indian Commnnismn,(Delhi: Vikas, 1969). This content downloaded from 128.83.205.78 on Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:32:01 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ROBERT L. HARD RAAVE, JR. 995 Ministerialcorruption, both for personal enrichment and partyaggrandize- ment,had been an issue of increasingconmrn. In itheMarxist view, how- e .er,some degreesof corruption,while not sanctioned,are perhapsinevi- table-even in themost revolutionary parties-as theystruggle in a corrupt society,to workin a dialecticalprocess within the system in orderto break the system.3Glearly, however, the real issues which broughtdown the Gov- ement werefar moreserious and lay in the natureof the UnitedFront itself. The UF had been forgedas an electoralalliance of sevenparties with a minimumnprogram.Although less eclecticthan Ram ManoharLahia's "non- Gongressism"(;advocating a frontof all oppositionparties across the politi- cal spectrumto dislodgethe Congress), the left-led United Front in Kerala cameto powerwith serious internal contradictions. It was an electoralfront withlimited programmatic objectives, but the Marxistssought to esablish theirown hegemony within the Front and to transformit intoan instrument of stTuggle. The Marxists conceive of the United Front governmentsin Kerala and WestBengal as "instrumentsof struggleMi the hands of the people,more than as governmentsthat actually possess adequate power, that can ma- teriallyand substantiallygive relief;to the people." "In clear class terms," the,CPM CentralCommittee stated in 1967, ",ourParty's participation in such Governmentsis one specificform of struggleto win more and more people,and moreand more allies forthe proletariatand its allies in the strugglefor the cause of People's Democracyand at a later stage for so- ciaiism."4 The UnitedFront then is forthe Marxistsessentially a revolu- tionaryconcept. For the CPI and others,such a stance was "big party chauvinism." The CPI has mademuch of a reportedspeech in Londonby B. T. Rana. dive,a memberof the CPM Politburo.The taskof theUF Government,he reportedlysaid, was "to unleashdiscontent" of the people rather an "to giverelief."5 Achutha Menon, Chief 'Minister of thenew mini-front Govern- met.,,in reviewingwhat happenedin Kerala, accused the Marxistsof a "'wrong, and sectarianapproach." "Of course,"he wrote,"the powerand resourcesof a state governmentfunctioning under our constitutionare limitedand we shouldcertainly not be a partyto fosterunwarranted illu. sions amongthe people that everything they desire will be done forthem. But withinall these limitations,it is possible to give some reliefto our much sufferingpeople and give thema betteradministration than the Congress haldgiven."6 The Marxistswere alleged to have used the police and thead- interviewwith Mathew Kurian, Trivandrum,January 1970. Also see M. Basavapun- naiai in People's Democracy,Oct. 19, 1969, p. 7. 4New Situation and Party's Tasks, Calcutta: CommunistParty of India (Marxist), 1967,p. 70. 'Indian Express,June 22, 1969. lkhst