The Fancy Left and Disillusioned Masses

Introduction

The Left in India has had a significant political presence in the years succeeding independence, the age of Congress dominance. The Communist Party of India (CPI) was the second most prominent party for three consecutive elections. Although there were significant gaps in the seats of Congress and the CPI due to Congress’s overwhelming dominance in the period, it was ahead of many socialist and right-wing parties. Even after two splits in the CPI, the Left, mainly the CPI and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), ruled several states and remained a key player in the Lok Sabha elections till 2004. In the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, CPI (M) won 43 seats, and the CPI won 10 seats, taking the total tally of the Left above 50. The Left Front supported the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government from 2004 to 2008 from outside, without formally joining the coalition, and influenced many welfare policies during the period, like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and the Right to Information (RTI) Act. These statistics tell us that the Left has maintained its presence, but it has never had a solid ground in Indian politics. Sadly, the current reality of the Left appears to be more pitiful and irreversible. 

A dispassionate and pragmatic analysis of the left politics in India reveals that the Left has remained more of an intellectual bloc, without having successfully transformed itself into a successful political reality. Blaming the Indian electorate for this failure is a narrow-minded, dogmatic activity.  People vote only when they find you to be fighting for their issues in reality, not just on paper and social media. There are inherent problems in the way the Left has functioned in Indian politics. It has failed not only because of right-wing dominance, but also because it could not establish a credible connection with the masses, lost touch with the ground realities, and surrendered itself to performative intellectualism rather than social performance. 

Absence of Gramsci’s Subaltern Organic Intellectuals

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, talks elaborately about organic intellectuals in his writings. Gramsci defined intellectuals as the link between the state and civil society, and their function was to educate and communicate with non-specialists. He categorised intellectuals into two kinds: traditional and organic intellectuals. Traditional intellectuals usually come from privileged backgrounds and tend to act as neutral actors, while the organic intellectuals are a group of individuals who emerge from within a specific class, and they work to propagate their class interests and mobilise their class for revolt and structural transformation. Gramsci calls the role of organic intellectuals very pivotal in challenging the hegemony of the dominant group and building a counter-hegemonic bloc. They actively engage and provoke their class members to stand against the hegemony, both ideological and coercive.

Gramsci posited that the persistence of the ruling class hegemony is the result of the failure of the subaltern class to develop organic intellectuals, who are organically rooted in the struggles of the oppressed. The Indian Left has, forever, failed to produce leaders who have a true experience of the subaltern adversities and hardships. This is the main obstruction in the line of connection between the poor electorates and the Left, which hinders the development of trust and perception of legitimacy among the masses for the Left. History affirms that the Indian electorate accepts any political entity, be it of any ideology, as its own only when it brings a sense of belonging to them. Take, for instance, the political success of other non-mainstream parties, such as the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) over major left parties. 

The Indian Left speaks for the masses, but fails to speak with them, from within them. Most of the Left activists come from the privileged class and are insulated from the hardships of the masses. This privilege shapes their detachment from the very section they claim to advocate for, and class struggle becomes an academic debate instead of a lived reality.

Social Media Intellectuals: Detached from the Indian Realities

It is commonly believed that social media will shape the future reality, but can it overtake the real, on-ground activity and connection with the electorate? Simply not. To establish itself as a legitimate and trusted advocate of the masses, one needs to prove it on the ground, not on paper and social media. The recent trend indicates a great acceptance of the Left ideology among the youth of the country, but it has been reduced to virtue signalling. Almost every third person pretends to be a leftist intellectual on their social media posts and stories. However, they have almost negligible knowledge and experience of the masses. They catch only the issues that seem to be in the intellectual currency on social media. It is a rat race to be in the category of aware citizens on social media. Having a voice for the atrocities in Gaza is not bad, but you must have the same cognisance of the issues in India, which are not able to gain a space in the mainstream media. For example, the issue of deaths and losses due to floods in Bihar every year, the paper leak problem throughout the country, the recent waves of slum demolition in Delhi, et cetera, have very little currency among the so-called leftist intelligentsia on the internet. Their pretension to appear intellectual disconnects them from the masses. The irony being, they claim to be the voice of the masses, but select intellectual, elite issues to talk about. What does a poor farmer, who can not have a permanent house for a complete year, as the flood sweeps away his house every monsoon, have to do about the issue of the Trump administration restricting Harvard from enrolling foreign students?

Take the latest example of the Indian elites, even millionaire celebrities, protesting against the Supreme Court’s order to capture stray dogs in the Delhi–National Capital Region (NCR) region. The so-called ‘animal rights activists’ do not understand that the working-class and the poor face most of the attacks by these stray dogs. It is beyond their understanding because they live in their elite shield with their Löwchens, Samoyeds, and Akitas in their air-conditioned homes. They are the people riding Mercedes and McLaren. Think about a delivery person who stays awake all night, delivering food door-to-door, and consider the risk of a night-shift worker. The performative social media intellectuals think that giving some biscuits to dogs from their cars makes them animal lovers, but are they comfortable taking these stray dogs to their home if they have such empathy? Rarely so. This simply shows that they are in a race to be stamped as ‘woke’.

The Left’s Inability to Adapt to the Indian Reality.

The Indian Left has also failed to completely absorb caste as the main basis of class difference, which has been very successfully utilised by backward-caste parties, like the Samajwadi Party (SP), and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Caste is a major factor of both oppression and domination in India. Still, the Left has considered it a secondary tool, which has also detached it from the backward caste electorates. Another major lapse in their approach is evident in the way they treat religion. The social media performers dismiss religion as an element of hegemony and call themselves atheists. Religion is an inseparable part of life for the Indians, be it Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs. One can dismiss some wrong practices, but religion is also the driving force of morality among the people. Another problem lies inherently in the Left’s claim to be the voice of Muslims, but again, it failed to voice for the cause of the marginalised sections of the Muslim population, such as Pasmanda and Meo Muslims, and has remained an instrument of elite muslims.

Their inability to counter the cultural hegemony of the right-wing forces is another area of introspection for the Indian Left. The right-wing lobby has been successful in getting reliable political support on the plank of religion, nationalism, and cultural pride. However, the Indian Left lacks rooted cultural strategies and often appears antagonistic to Indian traditions, instead of reinterpreting them in a progressive and emancipatory way. They failed to reclaim and highlight the Bhakti and Sufi traditions, or figures like Kabir and Basavana, to weave social harmony and present a cultural alternative. This enables the entire terrain of culture to fall under the grip of the Right.

Consequence: An Unconscious Mass and the Hollow Left

Even after seventy-eight years of independence, India lags in terms of basic human development parameters, such as the hunger index and income disparity. Without real engagement, the working class and the marginalised groups remain politically unaware of their rights and exploitation. Thus, the Left becomes a symbolic claimant of mass politics—vocal on social media, but groundless in the real political arena. This enables the bourgeoisie to manipulate them and use them for their vote bank politics, and all this, can be blamed on the Left’s inability to grasp real issues and their failure to connect themselves to the masses, as they are perceived to be the protectors of the masses.

The most prominent example of mass unconsciousness was evident during the protests against the Supreme Court’s order of sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Most of the people who were on the roads against the order were from the lowest rungs of the SC population, who were the main beneficiaries of the order. They were highly ill-informed about the subclassification order of the Supreme Court. They were told that the order was to remove reservations for the STs and SCs. This has been a comprehensive tactic of the better-positioned strata to keep the bottom-tier segment unaware of their rights and opportunities to maintain their hold over the community benefits. This can be understood as the structural problem of Indian politics. The organically rooted leaders have been prevented from becoming prominent figures in mainstream politics. Consider the case of Kanhaiya Kumar. A young face, who is actually from a poor background—has been systematically reduced to a media spokesperson, just because his coming into mainstream politics would have created hurdles for so-called ‘backward leaders' and their families. The Indian masses have consistently been kept in the dark about their awareness, and the bourgeoisie group is not the sole culprit; the Indian Left, too, is complicit in this. It has been unable to hit the ground to take up genuine issues; instead, it has become an elitist intellectual bloc.

Conclusion

The Indian Left reeks of the highest degree of elitism in its nature. The whole lobby is filled with people who pretend to speak for the masses but have no resemblance to the masses at all. It has remained an intellectual entity, loud in academics and social media, but has failed gravely to connect with the poor, working-class population in reality. Recent trends on social media show that it has become a fashion to pretend as a sympathiser of the marginalised without having any genuine sympathy and connect with the masses. To establish the Left as the true advocate for subjugated and marginalised groups, this social media trend must be transformed into reality. The most efficient way to make this possible is to empower the organically rooted leaders, making them their prime voice in mass movements. This will foster a sense of belonging towards the Left among the masses. 

The sense of affinity for the Left can also be cultivated through an acceptance of local culture and traditions and by Indianising its approach. Simply, engagement in local festivities and progressively promoting some revered personalities and myths can foster this trust. For instance, it can portray figures such as Ram and Krishna—often appropriated by the Right, as champions of social justice who wished to eradicate miseries and impoverishment from society. Once the Left positions itself as a true advocate for the marginalised electorate and earns their acceptance, socio-political and economic transformation becomes inevitable.

It is not that people with Left ideology from the upper class cannot serve the subaltern cause, but the history of the Indian Left tells that they eventually slip into their comfort and luxury. They go to premium malls, not the sabji mandis (vegetable market), to buy even the daily vegetables. Their lack of genuine experience makes them psychologically apathetic towards the cause of the masses. Even the leaders from well-off backgrounds can work truly for the subaltern cause, but for this, they first need to liberate themselves from the shackles of consumerism, increase engagement with the masses and take cognisance of their concerns, instead of becoming just a social media advocate. Unless the Left returns to the masses, listens to them, and fights with them, it will remain a fancy lobby instead of becoming a transformative force in Indian politics.

The author, Sanish Kumar, is an Assistant Editor at Ramjas Political Review.

Featured image credit: PTI