Politics of Comparisons (A letter sent to friends)

Hi,

We are living in a world of comparisons. Our political analyses are so embedded with comparisons that we could understand things in a better way. But what stunned me a few days back was the attempts of Indian corporate media and the extreme left (weak-minded radicals if I use a friend's term) to draw parallels between Budhadeb and the fascist Narendra Modi. We know that every political formation will have its own agenda. Even the middle class apologetics keep their plans wide open in our polity. Initially, I just wrote this bizzare comparison off thinking that it would not work. However, things took a drastic turn as the weak-minded radicals, along with the corporate media, made this Modi-Budhadeb comparison as a weapon to attack the Left.

One can argue that thousands of Muslims were butchered in Modiland in early 2002 while a couple of dozen Bengalis were killed in the March 14 Nandigram firing. Still, I am not after head-counts. Rather, I would like to see the politics behind these incidents and the agenda behind these comparisons. The corporate media, which is anti-Left by its own definition, won in driving a point home. For them, BJP, which is led by the likes of Modi, is a party which shares their economic philosophy. Modi, a Neo-Rightist by all definitions, calls himself the Messiah of corporate Gujarat.
On the other side, the Left, though it's modified its stand on many economic issues including SEZ's, still is a stumbling block for many of the neoliberal projects. Though Budhadeb was the blue-eyed communist of the India Inc., they have always been at odds with the party. There were ample criticisms from leftist corners against the economic policies of Budhadeb well before Nandigram tragedy. Actually, Nandigram should have fuelled the leftist debates about the neo-liberal regime and corporate industrialisation. But the corporate media, which has never tolerated any criticism against the free-flow of the metropolitan capital, wanted to deflect the post-Nandigram debates. The same media houses which once showered Budhadeb with praises, took a U turn to call him a Stalinist dictator. He was compared with Narenda Modi and the party was blamed for its Stalinist nature. Whatever happened was not because of the corporate industrialisation but because of the Stalinist nature of the Marxist party. Singing the same tune, the weak-minded radicals found it an opportunity to beat the mainstream left and started out a campaign calling CPM a ‘Social Fascist’ organisation. This is something Leon Trostsky called Stalin in 1930s criticising his socio-economic policies. Did the radicals become Trostsko-Libertarian anarchists an overnight only because CPM is called a Stalinist party? Or, they are too ignorant to understand the historical significance of the Trotskian term ‘Social fascists’? Malayalies, who read the Naxalite turned Neoliberal, K Venu, might be familiar with that term. Venu started calling CPM a ‘Social Fascist’ party right from early 1990s.
My point is simple. Deflecting the entire leftist debate is an agendum of the corporate houses. Attacking the mainstream left blue and black is, unfortunately, not a way but the objective of the weak-minded radicals. In their combined effort, what's missing is the real focus on the neoliberal barbarism. Whether it is the West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh or Orissa, the common people are suffering because the neoliberal regime. SEZ's are going to be the graveyards of Indian farmers. Instead of pointing out that, we are so caught up with the left-bashing of the corporate India. Drawing parallels between Budhadeb and a cultural fascist like Narenda Modi is ultimately aimed at giving a face-lift to Modi and his fascist agenda. And that's what the corporate India wants to happen.

Stanlee