Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the former Chief Minister of West Bengal who died on August 8, was a Marxist humanist whose attempts to instigate change ultimately led to the downfall of his political career and that of his party.
West Bengal had been a stronghold of Leninism, with a communist government that held power for 34 consecutive years through democratic means. Jyoti Basu, who served as Chief Minister for four terms, envisioned transforming Bengal into a model state for the rest of India. Ironically, this aspiration culminated in a cautionary example of what not to emulate.
Once an intellectual and economic powerhouse, Bengal's decline under communist rule was stark. The root of this issue can be traced to a rigid adherence to outdated Leninist rather than Marxist theories, which were not only demonstrably flawed but also impractical and undemocratic. Dogmatic communists treated the writings of Marx and Lenin as sacred texts, following them to the letter in their quest to guide the proletariat toward a classless, communist society, with socialism as a temporary phase.
However, the party's leadership was composed almost entirely of upper-caste males from the middle class, resulting in traits that contradicted the essence of Marxism. Furthermore, Bengal's communist parties increasingly became dominated by ambitious individuals who had fled East Bengal during its transformation into East Pakistan, where Hindus faced persecution.
Full of feelings of deprivation and humiliation, these refugees were lured by the communists' call for class struggle, believing that the party would restore their lost power while allowing them to unleash their anger against the relatively secure and prosperous owners of industries, farmers, and businesses. Oddly enough, this set of circumstances rendered them reactionaries espousing Marxist rhetoric. Their anti-capitalism was as regressive as their approach to land reform, which devastated both industry and agriculture.
The communists disregarded the challenges that industry faced in a competitive market, including trade cycles and governmental policies. To them, capitalists were mere exploiters who should be coerced into surrendering profits—even when they were operating at a loss. They resorted to a non-violent tactic of working less to force owners to pay higher wages, resulting in West Bengal recording the lowest per capita productivity in the nation by 2010.
The communists also resisted embracing new technologies and managerial skills, fearing that such advancements would lead to layoffs and increase productivity. This retrogressive mindset even extended to opposing the introduction of computers. Thus, these self-proclaimed revolutionaries resisted the third wave of the industrial revolution, standing firmly against globalization and GATT.
It is worth noting that Marx's revolutionary theory was fundamentally anchored in two forces: the Industrial Revolution and globalization, which are essential for the idea of "workers of all countries" to have any meaning. In their governance, the communists implemented a nomenklaturist system reminiscent of the Russian Revolution, appointing party members to administrative roles while bypassing or undermining existing systems based on merit.
CPM leadership was composed almost entirely of upper-caste males from the middle class, resulting in traits that contradicted the essence of Marxism
This led to a consistent decline in educational standards and administrative efficiency, compounded by the party's control over government offices. Party loyalty translated to unnecessary overstaffing across all government departments, leading to exorbitant governance costs that drained resources intended for development.
The much-lauded land reform ultimately fostered a new form of feudalism, reducing tenants to serfs who would transfer ownership rights at the whim of new landlords while making it impossible for them to pursue other professions. Marx would surely turn in his grave at this distortion.
The financial mismanagement—driven not by social welfare but by the interests of party insiders—culminated in unwise borrowing. By the time the Left was ousted from power, they had accumulated crippling debt.
When Bhattacharya took office as Chief Minister, he aimed to navigate Bengal out of this morass of underdevelopment and indebtedness. He sought to implement a new agricultural policy more aligned with small-scale agro-based industries and global markets, and he vigorously advocated for a renewed phase of industrialization, possible only in a post-liberalization context that would facilitate direct foreign investment.
However, his party's entrenched beliefs and feudal land relations posed significant obstacles to this vision. To address the complications surrounding tenancy, he pursued land acquisition, which, while offering compensation, sparked a violent backlash led by an unlikely coalition of ultra-leftists and right-wing groups.
Having been so zealously anti-capitalist and pro-peasant, the CPM found itself at odds with their party's foundational principles. Despite presenting compelling facts, Bhattacharya struggled to convince a populace steeped in long-standing myths. The communists found themselves ensnared by their own rhetoric.
Bhattacharya eventually perceived the fallacies in Marxist ideologies. As a cultured individual and an accomplished author, he was a rationalist and a non-believer. Unlike many within his party, he had the courage to confront the steady Islamization of Bengali Muslims, who had once been grounded in folk culture. He criticized the madrassa education system for perpetuating Muslim backwardness, although he later retracted those views under party pressure.
Alone in his struggle against stagnation and foolishness cloaked in revolutionary rhetoric, Bhattacharya embodied integrity and rare probity. Yet, he was also an intellectual criminal; he likely recognized the flaws in his party and the limitations of Leninism and Marxism. However, he lacked the intellectual courage to confront the truth and call out the hypocrisy.
To the end, he remained a loyal communist, trapped by ideology. He preferred to see his party perish under the weight of its outdated beliefs rather than witness its transformation into a social democratic entity with a more humane vision.
---
Source: Author's Facebook timeline
Comments