The Communist party cannot stand aloof from the world of letters and critical analysis. Picture for representational purposeTen months after I was appointed as principal of a self-financing college that operated under a cooperative body controlled by the CPM, a messenger told me, rather sadly, that it would be nice if I could quit. The reason for the call for an unceremonious exit was that I was critical of the party.
Ten months earlier, when I was invited to join as principal of the college, I was the same critic, though not a dissident. For ten months, I worked very hard and then those who invited me to the college dropped me back home, for good.
I, who had been writing for four decades without any presumptions of being an intellectual, was reminded of what Sitaram Yechury had declared after taking over as the general secretary of the party. He had said that those who had left the party would be assimilated back into the party. More than hinting at a renewed effort, can this statement from the general secretary be considered as an effort at reforming the party's deep-rooted prejudices?
Those who left the party did not do it for their own sake, but because of ideological differences. They left because they saw that the most powerful communist party in the country was being weakened because of dilution of its ideologies for temporary gains. Even while staying aloof from the affairs of the party, they constantly reminded the party about the potential pitfalls awaiting it if it was led astray further.
The essence of democracy is that it allows and often assimilates criticism for productive growth. Various ideas often take the form of debates that enrich society and its forward progress. However, in the scheme of things involving communists in power, democracy is often trampled to the extent that those in power are often intolerant to it, often at a level that smacks of haughty disdain. An example would prove the point. When Maha Shweta Devi- who wrote that normal people are the ones who create history- left the party, there was no effort to ascertain why she left. On the contrary, she was subjected to organised attacks in Bengal.
If Yechury's words honestly reflected a change of attitude within the party, perhaps another person to be summoned back into the party would be MNV Jayan. He was one who constantly reminded the party, from within and without, about the dangerous possibilities that the party could face if it veered from its ideology. However, leaders such as EMS thought that he was waging a war against the top leadership. They either failed to understand, or consciously decided not to make an effort to discern the difference between constructive criticism and intemperate reproof.
I mentioned two names as I heard that the party is working on a draft invitation that could be offered to those who left it. The Communist party cannot stand aloof from the world of letters and critical analysis. The current socio-political situation demands such a constructive move.
(The author is a writer and a former Student's Dean of the University of Kannur)
Disclaimer
The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Manorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.