Interview

BIMAN Basu joined the Communist Party of India in 1958 at the age of 18.

Now a politburo member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and chairman of West Bengal state's ruling Left Front, Basu is intimately acquainted with the complex history of the communist movement in his country.

A confirmed bachelor, his comrades joke that he has been married to the party for most of his life.

When the CPI(M) was formed in 1964 out of a split from the CPI, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) described it as a "splinter group of the communist movement in India," Basu recalls.

Forty years later, the CPI(M) is almost one million strong and the CPI has dwindled.

"The majority during the first division of the party soon became the minority," he observes.

The CPI(M) has 43 seats in the national parliament, making it the third-largest party after the Indian National Congress and the Hindu chauvinist Bharatiya Janata Party.

And it leads the Left Front alliance, which unites the CPI(M), the CPI, the Revolutionary Socialist Party and a host of other progressive organisations.

The Left Front has been elected to run West Bengal state uninterruptedly since 1977 and it also currently governs the states of Tripura and Kerala.

While the CPSU branded the CPI(M) a "splinter group" for years, the Communist Party of China (CPC) branded it a "running dog of imperialism."

But all that is water under the bridge.

"In 1978, when I attended the 11th World Festival of Youth and Students in Havana, the CPSU dubbed us the 'parallel party,' but, shortly afterwards, it acknowledged that we were the main communist party in India," Basu says, adding that the CPC has said "forgive and forget" since emerging from its ultra-left cul-de-sac at the end of the 1970s.

The experience of being patronised by foreign communists has engendered a strong sense of the importance of independence in CPI(M) cadres.

"Our party is run for our people, our interests. No party can direct another party from outside," Basu declares categorically.

The Left Front government in West Bengal initiated thoroughgoing land reform in the 1970s.

Under Operation Barga, the state government acquired about 1.37 million acres of land which was redistributed among 2.5 million landless and marginal cultivator households, boosting the living standards of the poorest people and winning the party a solid base of support in West Bengal and beyond.

However, the course of true class struggle never did run smooth and the CPI(M) has recently had to respond to a barrage of negative publicity over events in the village of Nandigram last year.

When the West Bengal administration entered into discussions with Indonesian firm Salim over the possibility of constructing a chemical hub there early last year, "anti-Marxist, anti-government forces spread rumours that the land of all Muslims is about to be seized, the land of churches, mosques and temples, land for cultivation," Basu reports.

"All this was bogus, lies, part of a slanderous campaign against the Marxists," he insists.

"Not an inch of land was taken by the government, but opposition right-wing communalist parties joined hands with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in an ugly campaign against the Left Front and its industrialisation policy."

In March 2007, this anti-Left Front alliance, under the guise of the Bhumi Ucchhed Pratirodh (BUP), or the Committee against Land Evictions, took over Nandigram by force.

It declared the area a "liberated zone," burning bridges and destroying roads leading into the area before initiating a terror campaign against CPI(M) activists and supporters, hounding over 3,000 out of their homes.

The state government responded with calls for dialogue, which were rebuffed.

On March 14, West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya sent in armed police. Fourteen villagers were killed in the ensuing violence.

While those tragic deaths have been widely reported in the imperialist media, it has been silent over the deaths of 29 CPI(M) cadres at the hands of BUP supporters.

Basu is convinced that the Nandigram violence was not entirely home-grown.

"Some foreign-funded NGOs were deeply involved and, when they move against the Left Front government, they definitely get support from the international reactionary forces."

He maintains that the BUP "got a lot of money. We traced it from London to Dubai, from Dubai to Dhaka and then to Calcutta," arguing that rich countries feel threatened by the rise of an independent, industrialising India.

He acknowledges that the CPI(M) must learn lessons from the bloody episode.

At a mass rally on December 26, Bhattacharya himself said that CPI(M) leaders had "wept for the dead. The issue of on whose side they died is overwhelmed by the fact that the deceased were poor villagers all."

Basu says: "Different levels of activists think they know their subject, so they assume that others understand. This is an erroneous idea.

"We are now working patiently to explain to the people why we need to boost industrial development, aware that the peasantry feel susceptible when they believe that their land is under threat."

While the West Bengal government has shelved plans to build the chemical hub in Nandigram, it has vowed to press on with the scheme on state-owned land on the sparsely populated island of nearby Nayachar.

But why doesn't the government use public funds to build the chemical hub? Why is the project going to be part of a special economic zone and at least partly owned by foreign capitalists?

Basu says that the answer is simple.

"The state government has not got the funds or the power to mobilise the funds needed to build the hub itself, while the Congress Party-led central government is currently pushing to close down factories rather than build them."

The Left Front supported the ruling Congress Party in parliament until July 9, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh indicated that he would press on with a nuclear deal with the US, despite widespread opposition.

The CPI(M) withdrew its support for Mr Singh, Basu says, because "we don't throw away our principles. Our principled stand is that we cannot mortgage the sovereignty of our country to any other country. We cannot throw away our independent foreign policy."

Under the proposed deal, India would become the first country to be allowed to keep its atomic weapons and to trade in nuclear technology despite not having signed international treaties on non-proliferation.

But it would open India's civilian nuclear programme to outside inspections and oversight for the first time since atomic testing began 30 years ago.

And the CPI(M) fears that it would chain New Delhi to Washington's war chariot at precisely the time that the US and its allies are rattling their sabres at Iran.

It also questions the economic wisdom of the deal.

"The US claims that it will help us bring energy to the masses, to the villages, but, in 25 years, nuclear energy will only provide for 8 per cent of the population.

"With hydroelectric and thermal energy, we can achieve the same result in 20 years," Basu says, pointing to one report which shows that this could be achieved by 2020.

"That should be done, but that is not the priority," he points out, adding that "becoming reliant on US nuclear technology will cost us more than the development of our own coal or hydroelectric resources."

Basu is concerned that, if the US manages to get India over a barrel with the nuclear deal, it would force New Delhi to scrap proposed projects such as the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, dubbed the "peace pipeline," which aims to deliver natural gas from Iran to Pakistan and India.

"That is better for the Indian economy, but it is not liked by the US and, if we agree to the nuke deal, India will not be able to have such an agreement with other countries," he warns.

"We cannot look aside and ignore the interests of the country and the people. That is why we are opposed."