CPI(M)’s APPROACH ON CERTAIN POLICY MATTERS – VII

Sharpen The Ideological Struggle

 Sitaram Yechury

WE have underlined earlier the need for the CPI(M) to intensify popular intervention and to identify new areas for strengthening popular struggles against the various anti-people manifestations in this phase of imperialist globalisation. In many of these areas, however, we find that the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are working. It is therefore necessary for us to be clear in our relations with these NGOs and define our approach to them.

As early as in the 1980s the Party had analysed the diabolical agenda of many of these NGOs/voluntary organisations funded by foreign governments and agencies. Based on our own experience and the experience of our neighbouring countries like Bangladesh and Nepal, the Party had warned that the activities of some of these organisations specifically serve the purpose of diverting the people from the organised Left and to depoliticise the movements as well as target young people by offering better remuneration and facilities than the communist parties can. By having so warned, the Party had thus defined its approach to such foreign funded NGOs.

During the last two decades however, the NGO activities have grown both in scope and dimension. Many international agencies like the World Bank etc consciously promoted NGOs. There is a clear ideological motivation behind this. The World Bank has openly spoken in terms of sharing official and non-official platforms with the political opponents of globalisation. This is a de facto recognition of the growing popular mobilisation against globalisation and also a conscious effort to ensure that these protests are kept within the framework of capitalism and imperialism. This is an effort to allow the people to register their protests; literally to let their steam off. Much of the NGO sponsored anti-globalisation movement can be compared to the safety valve in a pressure cooker. Anti-globalisation pressures must be periodically released in order to protect the cooker and keep it functioning!

In pursuance of such an agenda, imperialist agencies fund some NGOs to depoliticise the people by taking up various developmental activities while on the other hand to channelise and control the opposition movements.

However, since the adoption of the neo-liberal economic reforms in India, successive governments had officially adopted the policy of involving the NGOs in developmental and welfare activities. This also dovetails with the neo-liberal prescriptions: the State while abdicating its responsibilities towards its social obligations to the people should promote NGOs to fill this space. This also facilitates the privatisation of such important sectors like health, education and social welfare that we discussed above. During this last decade, the central government in India makes available large amounts of funds for the NGOs through the departments of rural development, women’s empowerment, education, environment, social welfare etc. Further, NGOs are also given a consultative status in many governmental programmes.

This has seen a large mushrooming of NGOs in the country both foreign funded and domestically funded. As of March 31, 2001, nearly 23,000 NGOs being funded from abroad were registered under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) receiving amounts to the tune of nearly Rs 5000 crore annually.

In this massive growth of such NGOs certain aspects have to be noted. Much of the foreign funded NGOs come in for work among the tribals, women, dalits etc which essentially serves the purpose of depoliticisation we spoke of above. There are also many NGOs which are set up with the sole purpose of receiving government funds and misusing them or diverting them for other purposes. Such racketeering siphons funds meant for developmental and welfare activities and must be stoutly opposed.

While recognising that in the recent years there are quite a few NGOs and social movements that refuse to accept foreign funds, the ideological orientation of those who seek to spread depoliticisation and divert the people’s attention from an organised Left political orientation will have to be properly understood and contested. A large number of these NGOs call themselves as “people’s movements” distinguishing their role from the political movements led by the mass organisations and the political parties. The ideological position, deconstructed as it were from the obfuscating terminology is as follows: the genuine development of the vast mass of the oppressed and deprived peoples of the world can come only through acquiring people’s control over resources. The people’s movement therefore is directed at empowering the people to control these resources. Thus these NGOs seek to arraign themselves against the corporate control over resources on the one hand and the State control over resources on the other. Through the former, they seek to present themselves as being opposed to capitalism and of the consequent burdens that it imposes on the people. Through the latter, they seek to present themselves as opposed to the experience of the former socialist countries and by implication as opposed to socialism itself. Thus this nebulous concept of people’s control effectively seeks to dilute the opposition to imperialist globalisation and the projection of the socialist alternative.

The CPI(M) has unequivocally stated that this ideological battle must be joined. The Pol-Org report states:

“It is this ideological battle that must be joined. True, in the final analysis, the communists also seek the people’s genuine and sovereign control over resources as well as social activity. But which is the socio-economic system that gives people both the legitimacy and the legal sanction to exercise this power? The only system that can provide such genuine people’s power is socialism. Socialism, therefore, is the only alternative to imperialist globalisation.”

While sharpening the ideological struggle and exposing the political character of the promotion of NGOs, both by imperialist agencies and the Indian government, the CPI(M) must continuously campaign against the State’s abdication of its responsibilities in the basic social welfare areas. At the same time keeping the above understanding in mind, the CPI(M) must work out guidelines for our approach towards these NGOs who may be working in the same areas as we are in diverting the people’s movement. Keeping this in mind the Pol-Org report categorically states:

“The Party members should not participate in NGOs which are foreign funded especially when they are in the field organising different sections of people.  Any exemption will have to be cleared by the state committee and approved by the Polit Bureau.  
 
“There may be some NGOs which are working in a particular place and taking up the genuine problems of the people. It is for the concerned Party committees to assess their role and decide if they can cooperate with such groups on certain issues. Mass organisations may have to work with such NGOs in a broad based platform and this can be done after approval by the Party.” 

With regard to the fact that considerable governmental funds are routed through the NGOs it may become necessary for us particularly in the states where we are strong and where we have governments to set up NGOs so that the developmental activities can genuinely improve the people’s livelihood. Recognising this need the Pol-Org report suggests the following four guidelines to be strictly followed by all Party committees.

1. The deployment of Party cadre for such NGOs must be strictly decided by the concerned Party committees and approved by the higher committee.  

2. If Party associates with some NGO set up for the purpose stated above, there must be mechanism to check the accounts and monitor the use of funds. 

3. Any organisation/NGO set up with Party approval or mass organisation should not receive foreign funds as defined in the FCRA. Any exemption will have to cleared by the state committee and approved by the PB. 

4. Any such organisation, if it is to take government funds, must also get the approval of the concerned Party committee. In weak states, this must be approved by the state committee.” 
   

ON SELF-HELP GROUPS

Of late, particularly in the decade of the 1990s it has become the official policy of the central government to promote self-help groups (SHG) for the provision of funds under various central schemes. The Swarna Jayanti Rojgar Yojana (SJRG) for instance provides funds to the state governments for the SHGs. The NABARD which initiated this policy has now over 12 lakh such groups all over the country.

Many of these SHGs have also helped provide women some opportunity to raise resources, credit, savings and get relief from the moneylenders. However there continue to be some limitations. In the states where we are strong, particularly in West Bengal where we have the Left Front government, the SHGs have rapidly grown and have become an important conduit for the realisation of developmental activities and improving people’s livelihood.

However, there are certain negative aspects that must be recognised and opposed. The World Bank in many countries has projected and implemented micro financing in rural areas through SHGs. This is posed as an alternative to the institutional rural credit that is provided by the nationalised banks and financial institutions in India. Such institutional credit has drastically declined in India during these decades of neo-liberal reforms. The SHGs cannot be a substitution for institutional rural credit. Further, the SHGs can also not be allowed to function as a vehicle to bypass the democratically elected local bodies like the panchayats etc on developmental schemes like sanitation, housing etc.

Given the large proliferation of the SHGs this is a phenomenon that has to be properly assessed by the Party. While clearly opposing the SHGs as the means to replace institutional credit or as a means to bypass democratically elected local bodies or as a means to further privatisation and giving access to multinational corporations to market their products, the Party will have to properly study the experience in this field. The Party congress therefore decided to finalise this approach and guidelines for work in the SHGs on the basis of a workshop that must be conducted with the representatives of states  working in these areas by the central committee at the earliest.

CONCLUSION

By addressing all these crucial areas which are the products of the developments since the adoption of the neo-liberal reforms in India as a consequence of imperialist globalisation, the Party has defined its approach and guidelines. The issues discussed above and the conclusions drawn as guidelines for the Party’s approach towards these problems are to be considered not only as guidelines for the directing the Party approach. Many of the conclusions drawn on the basis of this analysis must serve as the instruments for popular mobilisation against imperialist globalisation. For, as we have repeatedly seen above, the alternative to imperialist globalisation can only be socialism. In order to strengthen the movement towards this alternative, popular people’s struggles will have to be strengthened domestically in every country depending on their concrete conditions. In the concrete conditions that we face in India, the above analysis and the conclusions drawn serve as guidelines for intensifying the CPI(M)’s popular intervention and strengthening the Left progressive movement in the country which will form the core of the struggles to achieve the socialist alternative. It is with0 this perspective in mind that the Party congress has undertaken this exercise to provide the analysis for sharpening all the instruments of struggle in the current situation.

(Concluded)