Spectrum of left - part 5 / Left in India - The historical blunders

The Price of Ideological Rigidity: A Critique of the Indian Left

The history of the Indian Left is a record of consistent misalignment with the national pulse. For decades, the movement has allowed "High Doctrine" to trump practical reality, resulting in a series of strategic failures that have alienated them from the very masses they claim to represent.

1. The 1942 Betrayal and the Failure of M.N. Roy

The roots of this alienation lie in the Quit India Movement of 1942. While the nation rose against British rule, the Left—following international directives from Moscow—chose to support the British war effort. By ignoring the pragmatic dissent of thinkers like M.N. Roy, who understood the local reality better than distant Comintern leaders, the Left branded itself as a movement that placed external orders above national aspirations. This was the first major instance of "opposing the British blindly" only when it served an international, rather than Indian, agenda.

2. Post-Independence Hostility and the "Anti-India" Line

The dawn of independence in 1947 saw the Left in open revolt against the newly formed Indian government. By declaring "Ye Azaadi Jhooti Hai" (This freedom is a lie), they signaled a refusal to cooperate with the birth of the Republic. This hostility reached a nadir during the 1962 Sino-Indian War.

The Ideological Split: While the country faced aggression, the Left-wing faction (which later became the CPI-M) refused to condemn China. Their refusal to label China as the aggressor—and the infamous slogan "China's Chairman is our Chairman"—created a lasting perception of the Left as an "anti-India" force that placed ideological kinship above national sovereignty.

3. The 2008 Withdrawal: A Strategic Gift to Communal Forces

The most recent and perhaps most damaging "historical blunder" occurred in 2008 regarding the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement (123 Agreement).

The Withdrawal: Driven by an reflexive anti-Americanism, the Left withdrew support from the UPA-I government, nearly toppling it. They argued the deal would make India a "subordinate ally" of the US, ignoring the critical need for energy security and India’s entry into the global nuclear mainstream.

Eclipsing the Congress: This withdrawal forced the Congress into a state of political instability and legislative paralysis. By abandoning the secular coalition over a foreign policy technicality, the Left created a massive political vacuum. This instability, combined with the perception that the Congress was failing to govern effectively without its allies, provided the perfect opening for the rise of communal forces. The subsequent decade saw these forces eclipse the Congress entirely, as the Left's exit had effectively fractured the secular front they claimed to protect.

4. Cultural Alienation and Copy-Cat Policies

The Left has historically maintained an anti-cultural stance, belittling Indian systems, ancient heritage, and traditional values as regressive.

Imported Ideology: Rather than developing an indigenous socialism, the movement relied on copy-cat policies from Europe.

The Gandhi Antagonism: Their inability to support the positives of Mahatma Gandhi—often resorting to personal abuse of him—showcased a deep-seated disconnect from the Indian psyche. By converting everything into political propaganda, they further distanced themselves from the common citizen.

5. The "Historical Blunder" of 1996 and Lost Opportunities

The Left’s obsession with ideological purity reached a climax in the 1996 "Historical Blunder," where the party’s central committee rejected the opportunity for Jyoti Basu to become the Prime Minister. By refusing to lead the nation when the opportunity arose, they abandoned the chance to shape India's future from the center, choosing instead to remain on the shouting fringes of the opposition.

6. Neglect of Social Realities: Caste and Regionalism

For nearly a century, the Left feigned ignorance of the two most potent forces in Indian society: Caste and Regionalism.

The Caste Blindspot: They realized the importance of the caste question decades too late, having failed to understand that class struggles in India cannot be separated from the varna system.

Regional Disdain: Similarly, they dismissed regional identities as "parochial" until very recently, allowing other political movements to capture the linguistic and regional pride of the states.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Indian Left has spent more energy defending foreign doctrines than understanding Indian ground realities. From the 1962 betrayal to the 2008 nuclear deal withdrawal, their history is one of missed opportunities and cultural alienation. By the time they began to acknowledge the importance of caste, culture, and national sovereignty, the political landscape had already moved past them, leaving the door wide open for the communal forces that now dominate the nation.

         ********.           ********.              *******