Left adventurism of election boycott call 2024

On the 23rd of May, members of the Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch (bsCEM), graffitied calls for boycotting (general) elections on the Delhi University walls, accompanied by slogans for building the new democratic revolution. A few days before this (21st of May), the magazine portal Nazariya published an article on the same, mentioning similar activities of the CPI (Maoist) cadre in other parts of the country. The above-mentioned article sets for itself the aim of understanding the rationale behind this, allegedly through a Marxist analysis. PSYA strongly disagrees with this left adventurist infantile activity being carried out by bsCEM and through this article, we would like to show their deviation from Marxism-Leninism. We cannot set ourselves the task of challenging all the incorrect notions in the above-mentioned article and will restrict the scope here to the issue at hand, that of boycott, and aspects directly linked with it.

Before we start dealing with the article at length we would like to see what Lenin holds regarding the question of participating in elections for a through and through reactionary parliament. The arguments that the article has taken hinge on mainly two things – one is that India is a semi-feudal country and the Indian parliament is a reactionary institution. These two form the basis of the call for a boycott of elections. Apart from that the article talks of a people's upsurge which we have dealt with below.

Let us have it from Lenin – " The case is presented in such a manner as if the ultra-reactionary nature of the Third Duma by itself makes such a method of struggle or such a slogan as the boycott necessary and legitimate. The impropriety of such an argument is absolutely clear to any Social-Democrat, since there is no attempt here whatever to examine the historical conditions of the boycott’s applicability. The Social-Democrat who takes a Marxist stand draws his conclusions about the boycott not from the degree of reactionariness of one or another institution, but from the existence of those special conditions of struggle that, as the experience of the Russian revolution has now shown, make it possible to apply the specific method known as boycott. If anyone were to start discussing the boycott without taking into consideration the two years’ experience of our revolution, without studying that experience, we would have to say of him that he had forgotten a lot and learned nothing. In dealing with the question of boycott we shall start with an attempt to analyse that experience." (From 'Against Boycott'. Emphases added)

The article goes on and on against the reactionary nature of the Indian parliament in order to justify the slogan of Boycott. Lenin was dismissive of it and so were all our teachers. It is indeed incumbent upon us to work in such institutions as Lenin has argued in his masterly "Left wing communism – an infantile disorder". Further, let us mark that Russia was also a semi-feudal country then and its Third Duma was ultra-reactionary. It may also be noted that it was elected on the basis of a very limited franchise and not universal adult franchise as we have in India. So, the two basic premises of the proponents of our ultra-revolutionary friends fall through. Anyway, let us take up their arguments in detail.

The Nazariya article begins with truisms supplemented with a dogmatic understanding of Indian society, devolving into the most one-sided "analysis" to arrive at the harmful conclusions that it seeks to support. Citing Marx on the nature of the bourgeois democracy as a system allowing exploited and oppressed to choose their rulers, it immediately reiterates the age-old dogmatic understanding of India as a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country. As mentioned above, this article is not the place to go into a detailed discussion on such aspects beyond the boycott call. However, we will be pointing out the inconsistencies within the article itself, owing to the uncritical acceptance of this dogma. India has seen capitalist development through the "Prussian" path, as there was no democratic revolution. This means the slow growth of capitalist relations and a gradual supplantation of feudal relations with capitalist production relations. It also means the gradual remodelling of many feudal features along bourgeois lines. Many communist parties in India continue to stick to their program of a democratic revolution (be it "national" democratic as in the case of CPI, people's democratic in the case CPM, or new democratic in the case of different groups of CPI(ML) and CPI (Maoist)). This position is often supported by the argument that imperialism forces the economy of the periphery to remain an appendage of the metropolis (semi-colonialism) and that it attempts to preserve and perpetuate all those pre-capitalist forms, restricting its growth of capitalism (semi-feudalism). This position, as expounded in the Theses on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies (Sixth Comintern Congress, 1928), has been upheld like a dogma by all such parties who refuse to recognise the development of capitalism in India. This characterisation of imperialism, however, only highlights the dominant feature of imperialism in that period and is not an exhaustive description of imperialism. We know that post-independence, the Indian state was able to pursue dirigiste policies and implement protective tariff barriers to provide a favourable environment for the Indian bourgeoisie to grow and supply the domestic market, for example. This was because of the peculiar international conditions of the period, especially the waves of national liberation movements led by the ascendant socialist camp, which afforded a degree of independence to these economies. In the agriculture sector reforms of a bourgeois-landlord type were undertaken in the form of the abolition of intermediaries (Zamindari Abolition Acts), tenancy reforms and land ceiling acts. This was no doubt in favour of the bourgeois landlords and the upper sections of the peasantry and brought untold and prolonged suffering to the broad peasant masses. Notwithstanding that, in a scientific sense, they were bourgeois reforms what Lenin called the "Prussian Path". Along with the green revolution it led to the spread of commodity-money relationships in agriculture and commodity production was generalised. We know that capitalism is a system of generalised commodity production. Disregarding concrete conditions, rejecting the preponderance of capitalist relations of production and following that disregarding class relations not only in urban but also rural areas, these parties continue to call for a democratic revolution and end up harming the communist movement in their peculiar ways (opportunism and adventurism). We are limiting ourselves to this very brief mention of the condition of Indian society because the article in discussion presumes India is semi-colonial and semi-feudal, and much of the "analysis" is built on this presupposition.

The aforementioned article from Nazariya is ridden with glaring instances of lack of discernment, an inability to see nuance, clubbing one phenomenon with another and ascribing them labels based on their presumed notions. Wide, sweeping generalisations are made and that too is informed by selective bias. Quoting undemocratic suppression in the electoral process in certain regions (Manipur, Gujarat), it is stated that "voters are made to cast their ballots under the barrel of the gun". The incidents mentioned while undoubtedly representing the undemocratic manner in which the election process is conducted, are still not of a scale that merits such a baseless general claim. More importantly, it highlights a recurring theme in the article, that of expecting complete democracy under capitalism*. This habit of seeing capitalism through rose-tinted glasses means that all the faults of our capitalist society are attributed to feudalism and the arguments devolve into capitalist apologia at times and it directly emanates from the thoroughly false analysis of Indian society and serves to reinforce it. As such they are apt to make all sorts of fallacious arguments. As mentioned, capitalism has developed in India gradually, not through a bourgeois-democratic revolution. This path is one that not only brings immense misery to the broad masses, prolonging it but also ensures that democratic liberties are achieved on the most narrow basis. All the while, this narrow basis does not preclude capitalist development itself. Even the outcome of the bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century in Europe were not thoroughly democratic but helped foster capitalist development nonetheless. As Lenin notes in Two Tactics: "Such an outcome (the compromise between the liberal bourgeoisie and the Tsar) would be more or less similar to the outcome of almost all the democratic revolutions in Europe during the nineteenth century, and our Party development would then proceed along the difficult, hard, long, but familiar and beaten track." and "...will not the future socialist revolution in Europe still have to do a very great deal that has been left undone in the field of democracy?" So, to see the travesty of democratic liberties in India today and impute them to feudalism is nothing more than making a fetish out of capitalism. Democracy stands in contradiction with capitalism, that is why the fight for consistent democracy is carried on not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie (Jacobin revolution, democratic revolution in Russia, new democratic revolutions). Let us recall Lenin on this: "The democratic republic ‘logically’ contradicts capitalism because ‘officially’ it puts the rich and the poor on an equal footing. That is a contradiction between the economic system and the political superstructure... How, then, is capitalism reconciled with democracy? By indirect implementation of the omnipotence of capital." (A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism).

In a manner peculiar to academia, the article proceeds further by using convoluted language and half-baked "concepts" (if one can call it that) to impart some sort of originality and profundity through the form of presentation, however in reality it only serves as a poor excuse in masking the poverty of actual content. Free and fair elections are abstractly linked with "consent"**. What does one mean by consent in this context? How can a Marxist use such terms so abstractly? (See the quote from Marx above). We know how free and consensual is the act of exchange of wage labour with capital. It is presented as an act of freedom and Nazariya's idea of free consent is based on this. Marx called this free contract a fictio juris. It is what it is, nothing but wage slavery. Yet we find the article bases its democracy and freedom on this 'free' consent. It is in line with pseudo-lefts like Amartya Sen who hold it to be almost the acme of freedom. For us it is slavery. And if one is to restrict it to the sphere of politics solely, then again, one should not expect complete democracy from capitalism, as discussed above. Talking like a libertarian, we are told that "Free consent is a basic democratic value". And then to give it a Marxist flair, the author beckons us towards a historical analysis of this abstract term "consent". The lack of any concrete content means that this "historical analysis" only talks of the role of parliaments. And what "historical analysis" indeed? Forgetting Marx's quotation about the nature of bourgeois parliaments at the start of the article, it claims, "Historical analysis shows the parliament’s role as a progressive body in countries which completed their democratic revolution with the slogans of freedom, equality, and sovereignty in the era of capitalism. However, the era of imperialism under the phase of monopoly capitalism sees the Parliament differently, with the Second Congress of Comintern remarking, “It turned out to be an instrument of untruth, deception, violence and powerless gossip”." This "analysis" is doubly wrong. First of all, it not only quotes the Comintern's thesis on parliamentarism incompletely but also bungles it up by adding to it incorrect notions, distorting its essence significantly. Secondly, it uses this incomplete thesis for its justification of boycotting parliamentary politics altogether, which again goes completely against the mentioned thesis. Here is the relevant quote from the Second Congress in full: "The attitude of the Communist International towards parliamentarism is determined, not by a new doctrine, but by the change in the role of parliament itself. In the previous epoch parliament performed to a certain degree a historically progressive task as a tool for developing capitalism. Under the present conditions of unbridled imperialism, however, parliament has been transformed into a tool for lies, deception, violence and enervating chatter. In the face of imperialist devastation, plundering, rape, banditry and destruction, parliamentary reforms, robbed of any system, permanence and method, lose any practical significance for the toiling masses."

As can be seen, the thesis is concerned with the change in the character of parliament as an arena of class struggle. The positive role of parliament was regarding the struggle for progressive reforms and the historical task of developing capitalism. The omission of this, making it a general statement about the progressiveness of parliaments in that period is what brings it in opposition with Marx's quotation. Moreover, the nonsensical addition of "countries which completed their bourgeois revolution" makes the matters worse. In the first place, even in countries that underwent bourgeois revolutions, parliament as a body of bourgeois democracy had much reactionary role to play, even before the imperialist period. How well the proletariat can use parliament for its purposes depends on a lot of factors, the emergence of SDP in Germany (a country in which democratic revolution was put down) and its use of the parliament for progressive purposes illustrate that. The most inexcusable mistake here, however, is the use of this thesis to support a boycott. The thesis goes on further to emphasize the need for revolutionary use of the parliamentary rostrum, despite the mentioned character of it. While active boycott is useful in some cases, the Nazariya article effectively (discussed in detail later) argues for a boycott in principle because of the nature of parliament. This is completely at odds with the cited thesis and Leninism. Lenin, while distinguishing between the historical obsolescence and the political obsolescence of parliament, stated in Left-wing Communism: "...it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise, you risk turning into nothing but windbags."

The reactionary character of the Indian state is emphasized in the next paragraph in the fashion typical of the semi-colonial thesis. We have a couple of issues with this section. The first issue is regarding the "fake parliaments", "fake independence" narrative tied as it is with the "semi-colonial" understanding of the Indian society. As their dogma compels them, they see the enemy classes in "comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie" and "big landlords" (in the feudal sense). In their obsession with proving links between the Indian bourgeoisie and foreign capital, they miss the wood for the trees. The Indian bourgeoisie is part of the world bourgeoisie and we cannot wish away this aspect. India’s dependence on finance capital cannot be denied. But the real importance of our political independence is that it allows for a freer, clearer field for class-struggle. Instead of adopting the standpoint of class-struggle, they argue about Indian independence abstractly. Their dismissal of Indian independence (politically) because of economic dependence brought about by imperialism is akin to Kievsky's argument that self-determination is unachievable in the era of imperialism. Here is how Lenin replied to it in the above cited text "A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism": "Whatever political form Poland adopts, whether she be part of Tsarist Russia or Germany, or an autonomous region, or a politically independent state, there is no prohibiting or repealing her dependence on the finance capital of the imperialist powers, or preventing that capital from buying up the shares of her industries.

The independence Norway “achieved” in 1905 was only political. It could not affect its economic dependence, nor was this the intention. That is exactly the point made in our thesis. We indicated that self-determination concerns only politics, and it would therefore be wrong even to raise the question of its economic unachievability. But here is Kievsky “refuting” this by citing an example of political bans being powerless against the economy?" This is the essence of political independence that India achieved in 1947 and calling it fake because of dependence on imperialism doesn't take us one step further, but only obscures our current tasks. As communists, we should accept the concrete reality and form our program based on the concrete analysis of this concrete reality. In our case, this means accepting the fact that this political independence opens the way for a freer, clearer field for class struggle where we should be mobilising the toiling masses against the bourgeoisie. To dislodge any confusion that still might persist, we quote Lenin again, this time from The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, "...it would be ridiculous to deny that, with a slight change in political and strategical relationships, for example, between Germany and England, the formation of new states, Polish, Indian, etc, would be quite “feasible” very soon... finance capital, in its striving towards expansion, will “freely” buy and bribe the freest, most democratic and republican government and the elected officials of any country, however “independent” it may be. The domination of finance capital, as capital in general, cannot be abolished by any kind of reforms in the realm of political democracy, and self-determination belongs wholly and exclusively to this realm. The domination of finance capital, however, does not in the least destroy the significance of political democracy as the freer, wider and more distinct form of class oppression and class struggle." On a side note, shouting abuses against "comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie" implies that there is a section of the bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie, which these Left communists see as vacillating allies. However, "revolutionary" they feel while thundering denunciations against their "comprador bureaucratic bourgeoisie", they only manage to squirm when asked to identify their "national bourgeoisie". This thesis of theirs also enables them to paint capitalism in rosy colours.

The second issue that we have is with how expropriation of the tribal population is made to appear as a central feature of our "semi-colonial, semi-feudal" economy. In their need to present a picture of the Indian economy that is comparable with the pre-revolutionary China, the worst excesses committed by the Indian state in its hinterland are highlighted. We need to keep in mind that the expropriation of pre-capitalist societies is a feature common to capitalism since its genesis, as Marx writes in Capital Vol. 1, "Capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." The whole chapter on primitive accumulation in 'Capital' details this character. However, to be the sort of backward, semi-feudal, appendage economy that they allege India is, they are forced to focus on this as if this is a dominant character of the Indian economy. We do not feel the need to discuss other erroneous notions mentioned in this passage (viz. the domination of the service sector in the economy as an indicator of imperialist dependence and how jobless growth is mentioned, ostensibly to again prove the backward character of the economy, which in reality has to do more with capitalist development restricting itself) as they are unrelated to the matter at hand. Similarly, the paragraphs detailing the dependency of the Indian economy on finance capital are also of no interest in this case as mentioned above. Besides this, comments on the class nature of elections or the reactionary character of parliamentary cretinism are obviously truisms that have been repeated. As Lenin used to say some general truths are reiterated in order to refrain from concrete analysis of the situation. On the comments on the revisionist parties, we would only like to reiterate Lenin (Left-wing communism), "Anarchism was not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist sins of the working-class movement. The two monstrosities complemented each other." Yes, boycottism is in fact the complement to this opportunism of the revisionist parties. The part mentioning the role of religion, caste, and buying up of votes by money, alcohol, etc. (repeated again in the passage about urban areas) is quite revelatory. (Also see the quote from Marx on British elections in the footnote above) This self admission is tantamount to the German "Left" admitting that millions of workers following the policy of the Catholic Party were counter-revolutionary. And these communists are then committing the same mistake as that of the German "Left" by boycotting elections. When the broad masses are showing no sign of restlessness and there is no mass upsurge then who will really heed the call for boycott? We will return to this point again later in more detail.

The dogmatic adherence of these communists to the "semi-colonial, semi-feudal" thesis also makes them particularly prone to deviations towards identity politics. This is because failing to actually point out remnants of feudal production relations, they take refuge in the existence of caste as a proof of "feudal remnants". And this tendency has led to all sorts of identity politics. Such deviations from Marxist-Leninist theoretical positions are in turn cherished by the academia, which is always so keen on "improving" Marxism by adding "new" theories to it, diluting its revolutionary kernel, making an eclectic mish-mash out of it for the sake of sounding more 'radical'. This process is amplified in today's academia dominated by post-modernism. The radical Left has proved itself to be very vulnerable to such insidious theories emanating from universities of the imperialist centres and the imperialist think tanks. They in turn funnel these insidious ideas into the field of class struggles thus helping in fracturing the unity of the exploited and the oppressed. We find examples of this in the paragraph that discusses caste issues, and we will criticise them in brief here.

We are told that in Indian society, feudal relations still dominate and- "The majority of our population is the peasantry who are still bound by feudal relations dictated by caste, patriarchy and other forms of extra-economic coercion." So according to them capitalism has no patriarchy perhaps? They are shy of naming the alleged "forms of extra-economic coercion". Why so? Trumping up these measures didn't come easy? The above statement of theirs is patently incorrect. While it is true that the majority of the population in India is still rural (64.13% in 2022, World Bank), it is not equivalent to the peasant population as these 'communists' might think. The 70th NSSO report points out that only 57.8% of the total rural households were agricultural households (pure agricultural labourers are not counted in this). And this still does not take into account the differentiation of peasantry. The definition of agricultural household in the survey is quite broad and when we take into account the fact that of these agricultural households, 22% have their principal source of income as wages (representing poor peasants who are primarily wage workers) and an additional 4.7% through non-agricultural enterprises (probably kulaks earning main income through processing their produce or some other enterprises), we find that the households dependent on agriculture as their main source of income is not a majority even in the rural areas, let alone in the urban areas. And we are asked to close our eyes to all this reality, ignoring differentiation of the peasantry, the dissolution of the natural economy, the emergence of commodity-money relations and wage labour, and believe in this myth, this dogmatic vision of Indian society, which is according to them still bound by feudal caste relations, patriarchy, and extra-economic coercion. In reality, the development of money-wage-commodity relations in the rural areas and the anti-feudal class struggles have already undermined the feudal content of the caste system in the production relations (Jajmani system with defined caste roles in village community). Similar has been the fate of the practices of begaar, vatan, vetti, etc. Moreover, large scale migrations can hardly sustain practices of extra-economic coercion as it dissolves forms of dependence. It is difficult for these Left communists to recognise the fact that the vast majority has to depend on wage labour and are proletarians or semi-proletarians as that would question their thesis of semi-feudalism. Thus, they cannot make a proper class analysis of Indian society.

The passage proceeds with the following bizarre lines, "Take land distribution patterns as an example. Land is fragmented in India which disallows its consolidation necessary for capitalist development. Therefore, the continuance of the feudal practice of extra-economic coercion through land by the hegemony of Brahmanism is maintained." Yes, land distribution shows that majority of land holdings are small or marginal. Pray why do communists stand for the land to the tiller in the course of democratic revolutions? It is to break the pre-capitalist production relations and unleash the productive forces. If today it appears to be an impediment to the further development of the productive forces it is because capitalist production can no longer harbor their further growth in the present form. In an answer to this the Modi government passed the three laws that were opposed by the farmers agitation. Fragmentation is also due to the deepening of private property relationships that has come about through the development of capitalism and is also a stage of the expropriation of the peasantry, one which is common in capitalism. This leads to differentiation of the peasantry under capitalism.

The above mentioned feature hardly can explain the next line which gratuitously begins with "therefore" and abruptly draws the conclusion of feudal practice etc. Fragmentation as we find it in India today is undoubtedly impeding the development of the productive forces in the agrarian sector, but by itself it is not an insuperable barrier in the development of capitalist production relations. This can be seen from the fact that China has much smaller average land holding size (0.65 hectare as opposed to 1.08 hectare in India, 2015-16) and that does not prevent it from having capitalist production relations in agriculture. Now, one can argue that it is because China has undergone a democratic revolution, but that is beside the point. The article expressly states that small land holdings disallow capitalist development***. If in China the small land parcels can allow capitalist production relations, then there is no reason to deny that small land parcels should also be compatible with the development of capitalist relations in agriculture in India. Of course, this situation leads to less productivity, but it is precisely for this reason that the Indian state wants to open up the land to big capital and get the less efficient farmers out of the land. Since the very premise that small land parcels prohibit capitalist relations is wrong, the concluding statement that this allows for continuation of the feudal practice of extra-economic coercion is false as well. Interestingly, from the reasoning of the article it is plain to see here that these communists do not oppose the farm bills because it is the bourgeois solution to the agrarian crisis (as opposed to the proletarian solution of socialist revolution which will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and will use state power to put a check to the process of expropriation of the peasantry under capitalism), but only because it will exacerbate the imperialist plunder (which it will as well). Here, we can see how incorrect conceptions lead to incorrect political analysis.

Further, "It is this control over land by the predominantly dominant-caste landlords through which they derive the socio-economic materiality necessary for maintaining authority. Through utilising this caste-based hegemony, it is not for votes that peasants vote, but for landlords." Here, we will like to point out two things. Firstly, it seems that our author had a slip of pen. Instead of the din of the Brahmanism and upper caste privileges, we come across the category of dominant caste. What is dominant caste, however? As M.N. Srinivas who coined this term defined it in one of his articles, "A caste may said to be ‘dominant’ when it preponderates numerically over the other castes, and when it also wields preponderant economic and political power. A large and powerful caste group can more easily be dominant if its position in the local caste hierarchy is not too low." This process of the formation of the dominant castes, that is its evolution towards being an economic and political power in its region, while undoubtedly aided by its position in the caste hierarchy as mentioned, also marks a shift towards the dissolution of pre-capitalist caste system with caste duties, strict hierarchy, etc. It happens when the process of democratic politics starts reaching mass electorates. As A.R. Desai mentions in Agrarian Struggles in India after Independence, castes turn into competing associations, "This (capitalist) development has eliminated the basic gestalt of the caste system and the forces behind them have transformed castes into associations each mobilizing caste resources, pooling economic and other caste assets, creating favourable conditions for the education of its members, supporting caste candidates in elections, enhancing the bargaining power of the castes and broadening its base by merging sub-castes with it and organizing caste bodies at regional, state and all-India levels, participating in various economic, political and cultural activities in various sectors of the emerging economy and in the political processes, can be explained only if it is understood that castes are becoming competing associations, adapting themselves to the new pattern of economy and polity emerging in the country.

We thus witness a peculiar dialectical process of emerging modern capitalist classes utilizing caste associations, caste combinations, caste practices, caste sentiments and caste resources for gaining their non-caste, class, economic, political, social and educational objectives****. In fact, castes transformed into competing associations as stated at the opening of the discussion and impregnated with the new bourgeois value system, have become powerful levers wielded by the proprietary classes to carry on competition among themselves and to divide the pauperized and proletarianised classes in rural society. The value system underlying the caste hierarchy, fundamentally one based on inequality, supplements the value system of the bourgeois order, and thus provides the bourgeoisie with a powerful ideological weapon against the advocates of the unity of all toiling, exploited, non-owning classes of all castes in the struggle against exploitation under the emerging ‘capitalist’ politico economic social order." Here we can see the essence of the transformation of the content of the caste category alluded to earlier.

Secondly, the arguments that it is the dominant (and usually upper) castes that own majority of land, have social capital, and that lower castes are usually more often than not engaged in low paying jobs, or even caste jobs again lose sight of the fact that the gradual development of capitalism through the "Prussian Path" in India has preserved and remodelled such pre-capitalist relations along bourgeois lines. However, they don't prove that the feudal relations of production exist because of this. Access to land, wealth, administative positions, etc. historically ensures that such caste inequalities continue to remain, even though proletarianisation continues apace even among the privileged castes. Similarly, the historical character of the caste system as a system with rigid division of labour and the division of labour in capitalist society means that sometimes the old caste labour gets remoulded along bourgeois lines. The important point of difference between the two is that today it is not the circumstances of force (which however appear 'natural' through its existence for generations) which chains the labourer to his caste based duties but the force of circumstances, the laws of the market, the 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith which rivets considerable sections of the population to their caste based division of labour.

Before we finish this section, we will point out that the change of content of caste category does not dismiss the caste based oppression as such. Due to the lack of revolutionary change in society, many vile, reactionary elements remain intact even today. After all capitalism is also an oppressive and exploitative system. Rampant racism in American society does not make it feudal. It is shameful for a communist to prettify capitalism which is what our friends are doing. The hitherto existing discriminatory features also interact with the new content and get revived in new forms (e.g. discrimination against backward and dalit students in educational institutions). Struggle against caste discrimination and oppression as a part of the struggle for democratic liberties must continue. At the same time, it is important for communists to not fall prey to identity politics as it can never transcend the bounds of bourgeois reformism and ends up only as a tool for the bourgeoisie of the various identity groups to use these identity groups for their narrow ends, fracturing the unity of the proletarian movement and thus standing opposed to the proletarian struggle.

We apologise to the reader for these long detours that we had to take before we begin with the crux of the matter. However, we could not avoid it owing to the huge differences we have with this camp of communists and since some of these differences form an important background to this discussion. But with that part over, matters can be brought to close quickly. We have already outlined the Leninist understanding on parliamentarism above in enough detail. In this section, we will only evaluate the call for boycott given by the CPI (Maoist) and supported by bsCEM. For this purpose, we will jump to the section titled "Reply to revisionism: One solution, revolution?"

Though mention is made of the pamphlets "The Boycott" and "Against Boycott" by Lenin, however, the reader can rest assured that in line with previous quotations in the article, nothing really is learnt from it, and we are only left with confusion, distortions, and ludicrous revolutionary phrase mongering. Let us see the interpretations that our comrades draw from these pamphlets. We are told that, "The nature of the 1906 Duma is qualitatively different from the nature of India’s parliamentary system." The comparison that follows is not only a rehash of all the "semi-colonial, semi-feudal" epithets of false democracy we have already encountered before, but is also counterproductive to their own argument. We are left in confusion as to why the author wants to point out these differences between the 1906 Duma elections and the elections today, when what they really should be pointing out are the similarities. To any reader unfamiliar with the Russian history of this period, the 1906 elections were the elections for the Witte Duma (also called First Duma) and these elections were boycotted by the Bolshevik party (while the revolution was on the wane, there were still scattered activities going on. "The slogan of boycott of the Witte Duma was a slogan of struggle for the concentration and generalisation of these uprisings."). If we are to believe that the author might have written 1906 instead of 1907 incorrectly (twice?), i.e., the elections of 1907 for the Second Duma in which the Bolsheviks participated, then the description of the period given in the article makes no sense for there was no revolutionary situation at the time ("We had to go into the Second Duma, we had to reckon with compromise once the circumstances forced it upon us against our will, despite our efforts, and at the cost of the defeat of our struggle.").

We have already before seen how this article distorts the Comintern's thesis on parliamentarism above, but that pales in comparison to the treatment of Lenin's approach to the boycott slogan that follows. First, it says, "it is necessary for there to be conditions of revolutionary upswing. He describes these conditions as the mass offensive of the revolution, in which the legal bounds of the old regime are broken." (emphasis ours) Please pay attention to the text in bold. Two passages worth of instances are enumerated where we are told of the fall in voting share, people's disillusionment in the electoral process, etc. after this. And the second passage is concluded thus, "The masses have spoken. Further, the conditions of semi-colonial, semi-feudal India are such that elections are futile, as they fail in both representing the masses of people as well as having the potential to bring transformation in the relations of production. Therefore, these factors together justify the Marxist-Leninist analysis of when the conditions for a revolutionary upswing are present." Needless to say, both these "factors" are inconsequential to this analysis. Mere fall in voting share (there has been a slight dip this general elections, but even this remains far from the general mood of the masses) and the lack of real democratic representation in a bourgeois democracy is trumpeted forth as "conditions for a revolutionary upswing". The Bolsheviks called for an active boycott rather than some passive thing as just not voting. This is their "Marxist-Leninist analysis". Lenin's pamphlet "Against Boycott" referred in the article, even concludes negatively for a premature boycott call (for Third Duma) based on the expected partial upswing of revolutionary activities, rather stressing on turning it into general uprising first. Regarding the "elections are futile" narrative, let us remind our comrades that the Duma was far more reactionary (Third even more than the Second) than Indian parliament and Russia then still was a semi-feudal country, but this is how Lenin sums up the Bolshevik attitude to the Duma in the period of lull in revolutionary activity, "...since the accursed counter-revolution has driven us into this accursed pigsty, we shall work there too for the benefit of the revolution, without whining, but also without boasting."

Earlier in our article we had mentioned how the call for boycott by these communists is effectively a boycott not based on concrete analysis of concrete conditions but a boycott in principle. Now, it should be clear why. It is very easy to see through their poor attempts of cloaking this position in Leninist phrasing, we find how in their attempt to justify it as a decision arrived at in accordance with Leninist principles, they stoop to the level of calling a dip in voter turnout as a condition for revolutionary upsurge. This boycottist nature is also revealed by another theme which runs throughout this article, that of repeating ad nauseum the lack of democratic character of Indian parliament. This by itself is not a problematic issue, as it is the duty of communists to counter parliamentary prejudices among the masses. But the Leninist approach also demands that communists must make use of parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary manner, as a tool to serve extra-parliamentary struggle. This aspect is completely ignored by these communists and their focus on the undemocratic nature to the extent that they even include it among the consideration of revolutionary conditions, means that they have fallen down to the position of anarchists who reject participation in electoral democracy because it is a sham that legitimises the bourgeois state. Devoid of the Bolshevik approach towards parliament all their hue and cry of its undemocratic nature only reveals their own attempts "to “circumvent” this difficulty by “skipping” the arduous job of utilising reactionary parliaments for revolutionary purposes" (Left wing communism…). Giving a call for boycott when the masses are hardly even restive and there is no revolutionary upsurge means that such a call will not be met by a positive popular response. As Lenin says, "…to be successful the boycott requires a direct struggle against the old regime, an uprising against it and mass disobedience to it in a large number of cases (such mass disobedience is one of the conditions for preparing an uprising). Boycott is a refusal to recognise the old regime, a refusal, of course, not in words, but in deeds, i.e., it is something that finds expression not only in cries or the slogans of organisations, but in a definite movement of the mass of the people, who systematically defy the laws of the old regime, systematically set up new institutions, which, though unlawful, actually exist, and so on and so forth." (emphasis added)

While we have dealt the matter in a more general manner above already, we also feel the need to stress the gravity of the error of a boycott call in the specific context today. Today, the biggest challenge in front of all progressive forces in society is from the fascist BJP-RSS. Anyone who does not stress the importance of ensuring the defeat of these forces in these elections is only harming our struggle (extra-parliamentary struggles). These communists, by giving a call for boycott fail to see this and thus actively ensure that the threat of fascism is not combatted in the parliamentary sphere too. These communists declare that fascism cannot be defeated via elections. This is quite true and must be highlighted in criticising the revisionist parties in their approach towards fascism which display a complete subservience to electoralism. But this statement does not at all mean that one should forsake parliamentary struggle against fascism altogether. One must fight fascism everywhere, and defeating BJP in elections would deal a blow to the slide towards fascism, as well. The incorrect approach of giving a boycott call in such times is justified on the back of a fallacious understanding of fascism by these comrades. Hence, we will touch briefly upon this part too.

While reading this article, we see the author using the term "Brahmanical Hindutva Fascism", we want to point out that such a term only leads to confusion and should be avoided by a Marxist. Fascism was defined by the Comintern as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital. This definition is of particular importance because it clearly brings out the class character of fascism. This definition, thus, strips it of the illusions that it might sell to the people, and that its own adherents might have of themselves. In effect, it helps in distinguishing "still more the phrases and fancies of parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality" (18th Brumaire). And what does this term "Brahmanical Hindutva Fascism" do? It drags us down again into these ideas that befog the class character and thus obscure the class struggle. To illustrate it via an example, fascists in Germany are/were never called "Aryan fascists". This error which is not unique to the author here, but is also common among other comrades is nothing else than a manifestation of the post-modernist influence in Marxist circles. The idea, narrative, identity takes over the class character. We get a further confirmation of this admixture of identity politics in how this peculiar term is defined, "Brahmanical Hindutva Fascism, a philosophy which comes as a response to the deepening imperialist crisis in order to preserve the interests of India’s dominant caste, Hindu ruling classes." Compare this mess with the Comintern's definition once. Here, class has become equal to a caste, and it has been equated to dominant Hindus. No clear mention is made of monopoly capital or finance capital, except in the form of the customary mention of imperialism. Following lines read, "Under the influence of fascism, the legislative assemblies were often populated by landlords from dominant castes. India’s parliamentary system fosters a communal and caste-based majority rather than a political one, which shows that while economic concerns and social needs of the people are a point of consideration, it is considerations of religion and caste which ultimately decide voting patterns in India." Need I remind the reader that the Prime Minister himself, the symbol of this fascist project is an OBC? Are we going to completely ignore the manner in which caste identity politics has enabled this rise of BJP by playing one caste against another? It is not merely that dominant castes get to dominate the parliament. It is that the BJP has skillfully managed to use the caste based voting patterns encouraged by the identity politics of parties like BSP to gain political support. Token candidates, like even the President for the tribal community have been used to appeal to such crass minds duped in identity politics. All these quotations just highlight how they are unable to see the class character of fascism. And it is no surprise because their dogmatic understanding of Indian society holds them from accepting the fact that even all this domination of upper castes that they keep harping on is actually a result of gradual transformation of Indian society where the once influential castes continue to enjoy benefits but within the bourgeois framework, while old baggage of caste which was never cast aside through a revolution only helps them as an appendage adapted to these bourgeois relations.

Only when we understand this then do we actually see the fascist project for what it is. Yes, it has to take a form that hides its true class content, but that is an integral part of all fascist projects who need to sell themselves as such projects that talk of lost pride, revitalizing the Nation, etc. to get the support of the masses suffering from the miserable conditions that imperialism and capitalism puts them in. The petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat are the elements that get drawn towards it quite naturally, especially when the proletariat has been beaten back and is unable to provide a revolutionary leadership, a way out of such miserable existence for the broad masses. Today, we are living through the crest of the bourgeois counter-revolution, the trough of the proletarian class struggle. It is in this backdrop that fascist and right wing populist governments have been gaining popularity the world over. BJP, and its parent organisation RSS, are the representatives of this growing reaction in India. Steeped in the most conservative social values of Indian society, bankrolled by the finance capital, they have come strongly to the forefront. One has to understand the essential differences BJP has with other bourgeois parties. Moulded after fascist parties of Europe, ideologically and organisationally it is most suitable for the aims of the finance/ monopoly capitalists. And we have seen that in the manner in which it has shown strong political will in implementing the policies the UPA regime was unable to push through, leading to the cries of "policy paralysis" heard at that time. We don't feel there's a need to point out the instances which showcase the attack on the democratic liberties (however compromised they already were) that BJP has carried out in the last 10 years. The fact is that the Congress, or other bourgeois/petty-bourgeois parties, are also going to champion the interests of the ruling classes, and even if BJP loses the election, we cannot rest on this fact, but that BJP is more suited to bring through the policies of the most reactionary section of the big bourgeoisie and crush any resistance against it. The BJP will continue to attack whatever democratic liberties that we have even today to wage the class struggle. And thus, at this point in time, it is critical to ensure the defeat of BJP in the general elections to have the very possibility of this breathing space available to us. We will again highlight that a defeat of BJP not only does not mean an end of our struggle, but that even the democratic rights that have been lost in the last 10 years would need fighting for, and it would be naive to think that other parties would just broaden democracy by themselves. Bourgeois parties should not be seen as champions of democracy, our discussion on the contradiction between capital and democracy above should dispel such illusions. But not acknowledging differences between a fascist party and other bourgeois parties is just ignoring a critical material fact, which at this moment is a fatal mistake. Beyond the fight for democratic rights, rights which help in waging a more thorough class struggle, the fight against fascism must transcend parliamentary bounds. Even a defeat for BJP won't eliminate the inroads it has made in our society and state, the power it will still hold and that will only be defeated through popular struggle. And obviously, the ultimate defeat of fascism is tied with the defeat of capitalism itself.

Endnotes:

*"Just before the late House of Commons separated, it resolved to heap up as many difficulties as possible for its successors in their way to Parliament. It voted a Draconian law against bribery, corruption, intimidation, and electioneering sharp practices in general.

----And in juxtaposition with the general election immediately following, this law secures to the Tories the glory, that under their administration the greatest purity of election has been theoretically proclaimed, and the greatest amount of electoral corruption has been practically carried out."

"If you follow up the history of British elections for a century past or longer, you are tempted to ask, not why British Parliaments were so bad, but on the contrary, how they managed to be even as good as they were, and to represent as much as they did, though in a dim refraction, the actual movement of British society." (From Karl Marx's 'Corruption at elections')

So much for the ideal democracy that the Nazariya article sees in the pure and sweet capitalism conjured up by their theoretical fantasies.

**Nazariya says "The question of free and fair elections is deeply tied to the question of social production relations, premised on the basic thought that if consent is not given freely (without coercion and compulsion), it cannot be said to be consent. Free consent is a basic democratic value".

***"It (Capital) first creates for itself the form required by subordinating agriculture to capital. It thus transforms feudal landed property, clan property, small peasant property in mark communes – no matter how divergent their juristic forms may be – into the economic form corresponding to the requirements of this mode of production. " (K.Marx, Capital Volume 3. Part VI. Transformation of Surplus-Profit into Ground-Rent Chapter 37. Introduction. Emphasis added). Now look at the desire of the Indian state to introduce contract farming in agriculture as a "safe solution" leading to corporate farming without having to oust the peasants from their land directly.

****For instance, "Fraternal Capital", a study of the Tirupur Garment Hub in which the majority of owners come from the Gounder caste, a 'backward' caste, shows how caste ties have been used to dominate this business.