PART II OF POLORG REPORT RELEASED

CPI(M) To Keep Guarding Economic Sovereignty, People’s Interests

IN April this year, when the 18th congress of the CPI(M) debated the Political-Organisational Report (polorg report), the discussion on Part II of the report, which dealt with the CPI(M)’s approach to certain policy issues that have of late assumed crucial importance, remained inconclusive. The party congress, the highest body of the party, adopted this part of the report with the proviso that the new Central Committee must finalise it after taking into account the points raised by delegates to the congress during the discussion. This the Central Committee did in its meeting held at Kolkata on June 3 and 4. 

On June 15, this part of the report (as well as a summary of its main points) was released to the media at a media conference held at the party headquarters, AKG Bhavan, in New Delhi. The media conference was addressed by CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury who also replied to certain queries coming from the mediapersons present on the occasion. 

The point to be noted here is that nobody can possibly deny the importance of the six major issues which Part II of the polorg report deals with. These are (1) globalisation, and one of the main objectives of this process of capitalist globalisation, i e to facilitate the international flows of capital; (2) the problems facing the public sector in this phase of capitalist globalisation; (3) the approach of the CPI(M) led state governments towards foreign loans; (4) opportunities for popular intervention in the developing situation; (5) non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and (6) self-help groups (SHGs). It is therefore obvious that the CPI(M) too could not but take a position on these issues.

But the urgency of the task was further underlined by the fact that media and various vested interests have been seeking to malign the CPI(M) on these issues by insinuating that the party’s stand on these issues smacked of a certain duplicity. For example, it has often been propagated that the CPI(M) led Left Front governments of West Bengal and Tripura do contract loans from the World Bank, DFID, etc, but the party raises a hue and cry when the centre or some other state government seeks to have a loan from the same institutions.

It was therefore natural that while addressing the said media conference, Sitaram Yechury laboured this aspect to drive home the point that the CPI(M)’s attitude to foreign finance capital is guided by the same set of considerations, no matter whether it is the question of a Left Front government or any other. While we cannot remain aloof from the newly emerging situation, Yechury stressed, the main concern of the CPI(M) is to defend the economic sovereignty on the country in this age of imperialist globalisation when international finance capital, for the time being in an ascending position, is aiming at economic recolonisation of the third world countries, India included.

The crux of Part II of the report, which was released on June 15, has been explained in these words: “The struggle for an alternative socialist order has to be based on the revolutionary transformation of the existing order. This, in turn, needs an engagement (i e, joining issues) of the revolutionary forces with the existing world realities with the sole objective of changing the correlation of forces in favour of socialism. This process of revolutionary transformation has to be based on such an engagement and not on the wishful thinking of escaping from the existing realities. The entire history of the revolutionary movement led by the working class is the history of such an engagement with the existing realities in order to shape the material force required to establish the alternative in socialism.”

As regards the CPI(M)’s stand towards the flow of foreign capital into the country, the report states: “Under such circumstances, the flow of foreign capital into our country, in the present conditions, must be regulated by stipulating the following conditions: a) such capital should augment the existing productive capacities in our economy; b) such foreign capital must upgrade the Indian economy technologically; and c) such capital must lead to employment generation. While foreign capital will seek to exploit our natural resources and labour to garner super profits, the struggle for imposition of these conditions will, apart from making the resistance to the task of eroding national sovereignty more effective, render some benefit to the Indian economy and the people.”

It is against this background that the report underlined the crucial importance of the CPI(M)-led Left Front governments of West Bengal and Tripura. It says: “Under globalisation, the neo-liberal policies reduce state governments to extreme penury, by reducing central transfers to them, by charging usurious interest rates on loans given to them (including even on small savings loans raised within the states themselves at much lower rates of interest), and by precipitating recessionary conditions and peasant distress. On the other hand, the imperialist agencies come with “aid packages” to these very governments to “help them out” of their fiscal predicament. If the communist-led governments accept these packages or other “special packages” prepared by the Central government, then they are projected by the media (largely controlled by the globalisation agenda) as compromisers or, in charitable terms, as “pragmatists.” On the other hand, remaining bogged down within fiscal constraints (which the Indian constitution does not allow state governments to overcome on their own) and reducing expenditures on the people’s welfare jeopardises the existence of these governments.”

The report then suggests the guidelines regarding these funds: “These governments, therefore, may accept aid for developmental projects but the important criterion that needs to be adhered is that there should be no conditionalities which are against our basic interests and policies. In no case should we go in for loans which involve structural adjustment programmes. Such programmes entail conditionalities like privatisation of certain sectors, downsizing staff, cutting subsidies and fiscal conditionalities.” 

The report also highlights the constraints in which its state governments have to function: “The CPI(M)-led state governments have to function under constraints, including those imposed by imperialist-dictated policies at the centre, which the party fights to overcome. The party’s fight against such policies, therefore, is simultaneously a defence of the interests of our state governments. Whenever our governments hard-pressed for funds but duty-bound to provide relief to the people are offered loans by imperialist agencies and western governments, the Party should consent to such loans only if it does not weaken its fight against the imperialist-dictated policies. In all cases, where the party agrees to such loans from international agencies like World Bank, ADB, DFID, JBIC etc, it must take the people into confidence and explain to them the justification for taking such loans.”

In this context, Yechury quoted an illuminating instance of how the West Bengal government once rejected a loan offer made by the World Bank. Once, when Jyoti Basu was the chief minister of the state, the World Bank expressed eagerness to help the state government with a loan, provided the forthcoming West Bengal budget was given to the Bank for scanning. But the Left Front government flatly rejected the offer, as the condition put forward was a direct interference in the affairs of the state and thus militated against the economic sovereignty of the country. This is in direct contrast to the record of certain other state governments that have been sending their annual budgets to the World Bank for scanning.

Thus the important question is not whether to take loans from the World Bank or other institutions. The important thing, Yechury said, is whether or what strings are attached to these loans. The CPI(M) is not for accepting any such loan as may compromise or jeopardise our economic sovereignty. Yechury also informed that whenever a Left Front government contracts a loan from the World Bank, DFID or any other institution, it would be fully transparent and all the details of that loan, like its purpose, amount, terms, period, mode of repayment etc, would be placed before the people.

During his presentation, the CPI(M) leader also noted how the public sector acted as a bulwark against the imperialist attempts to blackmail India, and played a big role in defending our economic sovereignty, apart from providing a modicum of relief to the people in various ways. This was indeed the reason why the CPI(M) stood  in favour of the public sector, even though the party has no illusion that this sector represented socialism. The CPI(M)’s defence of the public sector must be seen in the larger framework of the defence of our economic sovereignty, Yechury insisted.

The report finally noted that globalisation, by its very nature, implies rapid withdrawal of the state from meeting its social obligations to the people, which trend the CPI(M) strongly opposes. However, if private capital does enter a particular sphere, e g education or health, the CPI(M) is for regulation of such activities by the concerned state government. As a corollary to it, the CPI(M) also wants a central legislation devolving the requisite power to the state governments to regulate such activities of private capital. The party has already broached this subject to the leaders of the UPA government who took this idea as a “positive” one and have promised to implement it.

The CPI(M) report also stresses that all opportunities for popular intervention need to be utilised, and lays down guidelines to be adopted as regards foreign funding or governmental funding to the party-led organisations that are making such intervention. Two other sections of the report throw light on the party’s attitude to the NGOs and to SHGs.

In sum, it is vital concerns like defence of our country’s economic sovereignty and of our people’s interests that will keep guiding the CPI(M) in its approach towards the foreign finance capital. This, Yechury said, is going to be an important component of the party’s policy and future work.