The CPI(M) can’t evade gender and caste questions
A party that claims to speak for the dispossessed continues to ignore those who are on the margins
The CPI(M)’S central committee meeting was in the news for an agreement on ‘tactical understanding’ with the Congress. Many commentators called this a last-ditch resuscitation effort for a party with rapidly shrinking influence. Another facet of the meeting, which saw the constitution of a new politburo and selection committee, has been less commented upon. This pertains to the woeful diversity of the 17-member politburo, CPI(M)’S highest decision-making body, which saw no Dalits and just two women. That the body’s 53-year-old history has seen no Dalits made the statistic grimmer.
The CPI(M) has had a troubled history with diversity, especially in states it has governed for large stretches of time, such as West Bengal and Tripura. In Bengal, which has the second-highest population of scheduled castes, the CPI(M) had few notable Dalit leaders; even former primary education minister, Kanti Biswas, chronicled his frequent altercations with colleagues over caste. Today, the party struggles to gain a foothold among the influential Matua community that has been successfully wooed by the ruling Trinamool Congress by offering a visible slice of the power — something that the CPI(M) was unwilling to do.
Fransesca Jensenius, a professor at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, showed that among state cabinets across India between 1977 and 2007, the probability of a Dalit MLA becoming a minister in Bengal is almost half of even states such as Bihar, which saw a series of anti-dalit massacres.
The party faced a similar predicament with Muslims, who make up more than a quarter of the state’s population. The 2006 Sachar committee report found Muslims in Bengal among the poorest in India with representation in government jobs at less than 5%, underlining how the CPI(M) blurred the lines between patronage and empowerment.
The CPI(M) has spent decades arguing against “identity politics” and focusing on the class divide. But it is suicidal for a party that claims to speak for the poor to continue to ignore those who make up that poor, and the very real questions of gender, caste and religion. A party that controls many trade unions and was recently happily taking credit for the kisan long march in Maharashtra, today appears unwilling to allow those marginalised communities a seat at its high table.
This is detrimental for anyone looking to corner the government on increasing violence against Dalits and women because it is itself unwilling to take those categories seriously enough to give them the power of decision making. Its adversaries, the BJP and the Congress, have far more Dalits and women in decision-making positions and don’t shy away from talking about identity publicly. No amount of “tactical alliance” will resolve this.