The state of the CPI(M) statism

Statement: It is imperative that the recent tragedy in Wayanad should bring back politics with a vengeance.

Question: Why?

The recent tragedy in Wayanad demands not just reflection but a reinvigoration of political discourse. Why is this necessary? Because Kerala has once again faced a natural disaster, and yet, as citizens, we seem all too willing to passively trust the state and union administration to guide us through to the next inevitable calamity. The phrase "Nammal Athijeevikkum" (We shall survive) is circulating on social media, embodying our readiness to move on even before the disaster fully unfolds. This passive acceptance paints Kerala as a society failing to address its vulnerabilities, supported by an administration that deludes itself with notions of resilient recovery. While I may sound pessimistic, there is a case to be made for this viewpoint.

    1. In the aftermath of the disaster, I was struck by how deeply the developmental ideology of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) has influenced its supporters. Some members of the CPM's IT Cell even suggested that the rescue and relief operations would have been more effective if the Wayanad tunnel project had been completed. This is a deeply troubling assertion. The proposed tunnel, like other controversial projects such as K-Rail and the Athirappally Dam, is not scientifically viable and would cause severe environmental degradation. The push for such projects underscores the need for a political response—one that recognizes how political decisions can lead to meaningful change, even in the face of disaster. Therefore, when someone says that now is not the time for politics, I completely disagree with them.

Following the tragedy in Wayanad, the relief efforts included calls for donations to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF). However, this time, there was widespread public scrutiny of the government's earlier mismanagement of these funds. In response to concerns about the misuse of funds, some individuals advocated for direct interventions rather than financial contributions through government channels. The state's reaction—filing cases against those who campaigned against the CMDRF—was heavy-handed and highlighted the paternalistic attitude of the government. Financial relief can be organized through various channels, as many civil society groups have demonstrated effectively. The state's insistence that citizens must trust it with their finances is troubling.

This situation recalls José Saramago's novel Seeing. In the novel, citizens regain their sight after a period of blindness, along with their civility—and the state returns as well. Saramago brilliantly illustrates how the state can panic when citizens lose faith in it, ultimately punishing them for asserting their autonomy. In fact, this idea establishes the arrogance behind the state’s unwillingness to relinquish its authority, even when its citizens deem it unnecessary. Here, I am sure that an inversion of a Slavoj Žižek’s quote might bring in more clarity: “You say not to fetishize autonomy and civil society. Of course, but I'm saying not to fetishize the state”.

    2. What often appears to be apolitical in Kerala is, in fact, a form of libertarianism—a resistance to the overreach of the state. This was evident in the controversy surrounding the CMDRF. One must understand that the state's overbearing approach does not stop there. Another recent incident that shook Kerala was the release of the Hema Committee Report. This committee, formed to address the challenges faced by women in the Malayalam film industry, submitted its findings years ago, but the report only became public recently. It is pivotal that the revelations should prompt us to question the state's support for women in recent years. But what I would love to focus here is the similarity between the organizational aspirations of the state and the organizations in Malayalam Cinema - AMMA and FEFKA. For that, Lenin's concept of Democratic Centralism is crucial here. First, these organizations believe in the importance of internal criticism, but only insofar as it does not disrupt their structural integrity—a principle that has guided many hierarchical structures in liberal democracies. The Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) sought to challenge this organizational concept but less progress has been made on that front. Again, this ultimately raises the question of whether libertarianism can provide solutions. Perhaps not, but it can help expose the deeply entrenched beliefs in institutional authority and work its way toward alternatives.

    In addition to that, the state also has a responsibility to make informed decisions on behalf of its citizens, not to alienate them. Unfortunately, in Kerala, where you would expect to find a balance, the culture of citizens adopting a statist mindset is as ironic as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) labelling themselves as communists. This is not new for the party, which played the role of an overarching state in West Bengal from 1977 to 2011. The atrocities committed by the CPM-led government during that period were so severe that the CPIM controlled state was aptly described by journalist Sourjya Bhowmick as "The Gangster State"— the title of his book detailing the rise and fall of the CPM in Bengal. Bhowmick's book reads like fiction, but it vividly portrays the horrors of life under CPM rule. One of the most striking revelations was related to the term "Urban Naxal," often thought to be a product of the BJP propaganda machine. Bhowmick here reveals that it was the CPM that coined the term to counter Maoist influence among educated urban youth in West Bengal. This later led to a discourse that was used to target leftists who criticized the state and "strayed from the CPM line." Many Leftist writers in the 2000s published booklets exposing CPM's neoliberal developmental ideology, which it hid behind a communist facade. One such booklet I came across was titled, CPM: An Imperialist Agent in Pro-people Garb.

    In conclusion, the state expects full compliance from its citizens, but it is up to the citizens to recognize that they are not mere subjects, but individuals who collectively decide to legitimize the state. There is a delicate balance in this coexistence, but when that balance is disrupted, it opens up a political minefield that creates space for libertarianism to flourish. Libertarianism may not challenge the state directly, but it can force the state to tread mindfully. It is also safe to say that libertarianism is, without a doubt, a democratizing force. But in its current capacity, libertarianism is inconsequential! For that, the political culture rooted in statist fantasies has to be blamed. And if you are still in doubt regarding libertarian efficacy, go see about that NOTA (None of the Above) option on your Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). It is in fact, inconsequential!