Recent debacle of the “left” in WB is politically very significant. The victory of Mamta Banerjee is reinforcement of the fact that voting in India is irrelevant as far as rational decision-making is concerned. This makes me partially believe in the allegations of Mamta Banerjee that the elections in the past were rigged in WB because I don’t see any reason for the newer generation of WB to be having lesser wisdom than the older generation. I think the older generation didn’t have a choice. Mamta Banerjee doesn’t boast of the intellectual superiority of the “left”, and some of the intellectual faces of the TMC don’t match up anywhere to the “leftist” intellectuals, but the intellectuals can’t win elections; for winning elections, we need mass leaders; Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has failed badly against Mamta Banerjee. According to me, the main reason for the “left” debacle in WB is their lack of inherent ability to adjust to the new India. If they were to change their ideology, they would no more be the “leftist”, and their current ideology can’t make them win elections in India now. So, they are now electorally over unless they become complete scoundrels by aligning fully and completely with the “right.”
Rather I have come to believe that no party having leftist inclinations can survive electorally in India now. However, I do believe a new form of anarchism, which would also be a leftist ideology, will become extremely relevant in the coming times in India. Let’s call it Indo-Anarchism. Unlike the traditional anarchism, the Indo- Anarchism ought to be pacifist of the style of Gandhi, but, to survive, it ought to be devoid of Gandhi. Females seem to be the natural contenders for the portfolios, if any. And the political involvement ought to be restricted to resistance and opposition. However, it won’t be unusual if there is maintained a reserve force of healthy males and females, who would be used against the state and the state supported forces contextually just out of extreme necessity without any ideology. Any conflict ought to be resolved and planned within the realm of accepted institutions of law not because of respect for them but out of fear. Call it new guerrilla warfare if you would, but, to so remain, it ought to be restrained and infrequent, else it will lose its surprise element.
But the question is what is the responsibility of such an ideology. Responsibility of such an ideology lies in the exposure of corruption of the ruling elite but not necessarily in its correction. However, if it fails to expose, it has no identity. Of course, the aim ought to be to move towards no concentration of power in the state but without any game plan to do the same. Thus, there can not be any scope for the growth of any popular leaders under this ideology. Rather the real achievers/leaders of this ideology would be those who would choose the life of comparative materialistic austerity as a rational choice for achieving self-actualization with minimal satisfaction of basic needs but with lots of freedom including privacy. (I think Maslow was wrong: self-actualizationz needs can be satisfied even with the bare minimum satisfaction of basic needs; the most important pre-condition is freedom). And the efforts would be directed towards making all the people achieve such a status, which would give appropriate power to an individual governed by the imagination, creativity, intelligence and integrity of his mind and mental processes. When such a status is achieved by all, there would obviously be anarchy!
Disclosure: I am not an Anarchist
© 2011 Ankur Mutreja