'What's left of the Left'

A friend who went to St Xavier's College with me in Kolkata thought, ‘good, bad or ugly’, India desperately needed a change. She wants to see Narendra Modi’s ‘numerically emphatic victory’ as the causal effect of India’s national aspiration for change. Now based in the US, I could see that she had shed her sympathy for the Left, which was so common among college-going youths of the 80s and 90s in Kolkata. 

The Left no longer stokes public imagination as it
used to for years after Indian independence

A Bangalore-based techie, who spent over five years in school with me, openly aspired and vehemently argued for a Modi government at the Centre. Surprised by the intensity of his argument and strength of his conviction, I was tempted to ask how his father - a veteran journalist, writer with strong Left leaning – felt about this change in stance within the family! My friend wasn’t apologetic, instead he underlined the fact that “these are two generations representing different times in history”.

Narratives like these are helpful in understanding popular discourses which shape socio-political landscapes. It becomes all the more interesting when viewed from a distance so as not to be overwhelmed by proximity to the very moment in time and the object of analysis.

The decline of the Left is a fact of life not only within the geographical confines of India but across the globe. However, that doesn’t in anyway imply the decimation of the voices of protest and dissent which are so closely related to the politico-philosophical ideology of the Left. A friend once told me, “The official Left makes way for the multi-headed heterodox Left.”

His words sounded paradoxical then, but being a bystander to the global upheavals at multiple levels of society one can easily infer that socio-historic perspectives do make a difference. Not that people necessarily analyse and act, but circumstances make them think in a definite way. The demise of the ‘nation state’ as a dominant discourse and the rise of ‘neo-liberalism’ as an economic doctrine played catalysts to the so called socio-historic transformation and India is no different.

The weakening of the ‘nation state’ as a fall out of the decline in Keynesianism has withered those institutions – like the public sector, bodies upholding public and social consumption etc. - which projected the dominance of ideologies that for years have been the hallmark of the Left and trademark of the essence of the Congress.

There is no denying the fact that economic liberalisation was initiated by a Congress government in 1991 and the process in fact, had started even before, probably during the later years of Indira Gandhi government in the early 80s, but we had been witness to an ongoing ideological and emotional tussle between the socialistically-inclined segment of the Congress and its liberalising counterpart. Whenever the party was in trouble it took no time to swing back to its ‘ex-reform’ agenda.

Similar was the case with the Left. Apart from the crises emanating from the electoral arithmetic since 2008, the Left was virtually hitting its head on the wall as politics as a manifestation of strong ideological and moral compulsion took a backseat following the emergence of ‘neo-liberalism’ as a dominant doctrine.

Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress
party decimated the Left in its bastion

If globalisation contributed to expansive capitalism, neo-liberalism as a doctrine single-handedly ensured that politics was no longer string-tied to ideology and became a function of ‘service provision and clientelism’. The symptoms were evident in West Bengal, once the citadel of the Left. The old war horses and foot soldiers of an ideology, many of whom spent their whole lives dreaming of and aspiring to bring about social change were replaced by clients or beneficiaries of such a long Left regime. These elements - heterogeneously composed of promoters, primary school teachers, owners of rice mills and brick kilns, small traders etc. - backed successive Left governments to ensure nothing but self-interests. That they are not tied to any ideological or moral baggage is evident from the fact that some of these elements quickly changed camps since the inauguration of a new Trinamool Congress government. 

The failure of the Left was not necessarily because it allowed itself to be swamped by opportunists and hoodlums – which come with any government, but for its failure to recognise that the lexicon of the dominant political discourse had changed. Even when it recognised what was lacking, the Left leadership failed to capitalise because of a short span of time and they were not convinced whether their corrective course of action was in right direction. Hence the party apparatus and the electorate were not readied for a paradigm shift in policy and thinking.

The euphoria of being in power for such a long time in Bengal, actually resulted in a sense of complacency, restraining an already dogmatic Left leadership to peep out of the window and see for themselves how the world had changed, even though it was palpable to those who moved out of the geographical confines of Bengal.  

The stimulants of change were in the air, as some medical practitioner would refer to here in the West in case a patient was suffering from flu (popularly known as Influenza in India), but the Left leadership failed to acknowledge them. Instead, they continued to harp on ‘old politics’ - characterised by stoking fear and insecurity, treating people as faceless numbers - as depicted in their voter identity cards, denying the minimum dignity that a person is entitled to, and sermonising the electorate rather than interacting with them with due respect to their level of knowledge and enlightenment.

In fact, during the just concluded parliamentary elections, the strategy of the Left in West Bengal was confined to ‘negativism’ - based on their hope to encash on splitting of votes between the Trinamool Congress, Congress and the BJP – and ‘hopeless campaign’ which relied more on ridiculing political opponents rather than putting forward a ‘sense of hope’ - pre-dominant in a neo-liberal set up as it empathised with individualism. 

What then happens to the organic relationship that exists  between the Left and voices of dissent ?

Social movements now play a crucial role
in airing voices of dissent
  

No one expects the dissenting voices to subside with the decline of the mainstream parties to the Left of India’s political spectrum. More than anything else, the social movements and in some cases the civil society organisations are playing the role of the Left. Not that there is complete coherence in their policies and courses of actions, but some sort of rhizomic (ginger-like, i.e. if one cuts a slice of ginger and plants it, the slice grows like an independent rhizome but with all the traits of the mother ginger plant) relationship exists between various social movements. 

The Aam Aadmi Party is a classic example as to how civil society organisations can outgrow themselves from being the intermediaries between the state and the individual to emerge as independent political formations, performing the role of the ‘social Left’.  Moreover, some political figures like Mamata Banerjee and Nitish Kumar will try to play the ‘moral Left’ leave aside the various radical, non-state Left actors like the Maoists.  

  

It's not the prerogative of an analyst or an observer to speculate the future, but all said and done, it seems that probably the institutional Left has exhausted its role in Indian polity.

A version of this article is published in the Financial Chronicle: "Left is dead, long live the Left"

Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant. 

He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com 
Twitter handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.

Why should I pay for the BBC

Every time there is a  news  on proposed job cuts in the BBC, it is seen as an onslaught on objective journalism. However, other media organsations in Britain are not so lucky, irrespective of their level of honesty, objectivity and commitment to the trade.

I really don't understand what the fuss is all about!

If every other organisation can shrink and face cuts why can't the BBC? After all, the days of ceremonial institutionalism are over and the moot question is what impact does the BBC have in determining my news agenda of the day?

Objectivity, neutrality and freedom are
contested concepts in a globalised set up

If the answer is 'NO', which is what is expected in this cut throat age of social media, then the justification of continuing to fund a monolithic organisation run by public money is obviously questionable, even if it raises a debate on objective journalism
Those who know me may find this selfish as only 18 months ago I was earning my living from the BBC. My caveat should also make it clear that I was also instrumental in protesting against job cuts at the World Service and elsewhere in the BBC as an active member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) since 2003. While being appreciative of individual agonies, insecurities and anxieties involving job cuts, I also acknowledge that life is not only a bundle of emotions and reality is often harsher than one expects it to be. Especially, when there are allegations that institutional failings and managerial flaws in the BBC are resulting in wastage of public money.

A dispassionate assessment of the role played by the BBC in figuring out the daily news agenda in the contemporary would show that when compression of time and space is the norm of the day, BBC finds it self-gratifying to be a glorious second or a third, with its 'impeccable' objectivity, when in reality there is nothing of that sort.

In fact, objectivity is determined by the perspective and the context within which it is situated. And neutrality is very much an idealistic concept and hence misfit in this age of 'post-ideology'. Here I am pretending to be a devil's advocate as to many consumers of news BBC has never been neutral or objective.

For example, a piece of news involving an attack on Israeli institutions may be objective for Tel Aviv, but alleged attackers in Gaza Strip may argue that their action is only a retaliation of perceived "occupation" of the Palestinian area. This is only an example and can be extrapolated to many other areas around the world. In fact, terms like 'objectivity', 'neutrality' and 'freedom' are contested concepts in a globalised set up.

BBC has often enjoyed patronisation from elites and middle class, especially in those countries who have shared history of colonial past, including the United Kingdom, not necessarily because of any high standard of journalism but more so as it played the role of an effective propaganda machinery for British and Western interests, which in some cases also contributed to primitive accumulation often by coercive means, and furthered colonial ideas even in a post-colonial era.

 Even then there are some justifications for the BBC to continue as a British news outlet, but it has practically no role in the global space. Like many other things, the significance of news and the credence of its delivery are determined by the influence the provider enjoys. When the United Kingdom has lost out in today's geopolitics, the influence of the BBC is nothing more than being ceremonial, basking on past glory, if there is any, than looking forward to the future.

In that sense, the Global News Division of the BBC and the World Service should face any further cut ahead of any other department in the organisation. Any licence fee payer is within his or her rights to ask as to why they should pay for the information on what's happening elsewhere in the world, when there might not be any interest about it in the first place, or even if any then it could be gathered from many other sources. The golden two-source rule followed by the BBC internally can help any consumer of news to crowd out unreliable sources of information.

The notion of hierarchicalism, which is intrinsically linked to colonialism, will however, guide the masters of the BBC to flaunt triumphalism on the global stage, even when they know for sure that the plot is long lost.

Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist, media commentator and media consultant. 
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com 
Twitter Handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.

A difficult bridge to cross

Smarties are my long-time favourite. Dripping my mouth with vanilla-flavoured smarties at McDonald's in Slough this afternoon, I was actually gulping emotions. The good thing about vanilla-flavoured ice cream is that it never interferes with your taste, keeps your throat moist so that you can intake a big serving, be it of emotions.

A whole host of stories indeed made me emotional, Mukesh Ambani taking over TV18, Shekhar Gupta leaving Indian Express after a span of 19 years. The grapevine is that Shekhar is taking over the reins at India Today and an unapologetic rightist Swapan Dasgupta to don the mantle at Indian Express.

These things are not uncommon after change in governments, especially after such widespread transformation in the country's political landscape. Yet every time they take place the air is filled with grapevine and whispers.

The Vodka served at the Delhi Press Club doesn't taste that sober. At least, it didn't in December 2003, when I was there to cover an election. No wonder, some journalists quickly lose their sobriety. Rumours fly thick and fast and one is tempted to make up the matrix of what they want to hear.

Shekhar, along with Prannoy Roy and Dorab Sopariwala were at their obedient best when talking to Amit Shah even before the Lok Sabha results were out. Barkha Dutt, whom I fancy calling the Kate Winslet of Indian journalism, was modesty personified with the BJP strongman. At least, by then the results were declared and India's fate for the next five years was eminent.

Prannoy is a smart operator. Probably the smartest in India's contemporary media circles. But what happens to the Sardesais? Will Rajdeep stop shouting at the top of his voice at 'India@9'! Will Sagarika  be forced to praise the Ambanis!

Few years back, Bhaskar Ghose was our guest in Bush House. The proud father, father-in law was filled with no less pride as a grandfather. With an effusive smile he would say, how he enjoys baby-sitting Rajdeep and Sagarika's kids.

I was annoyed when Shekhar literally bent himself to please Amit Shah, but today his parting shot from the Express made my eyes moist. After all, we all survive because of our survival instincts. He will move from the Express Building at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, near ITO for those who are not conversant with Delhi's geo-political nerve centre, to the India Today office! Is it at Noida!

There was a time when Express Building was indeed the nerve centre of India's political journalism, if not Indian politics. I once had an opportunity to visit the building and it didn't seem anything extraordinaire. It was just after I had quit my job with the Financial Express in Kolkata. The idea was to collect my dues so as to meet my expenses during months of unemployment. Probably, Vivek Goenka was still not in command then.

If I am not mistaken, Vivek and his brother Santosh are Xavierians from Sahibganj, the school I had gone till I was in Class Four. One of my uncle's few claims to fame was that he taught the Goenka brothers. He would spare no effort to flaunt it.

Kolkata has been much more stagnant when it comes to journalistic mobility, yet rumours fly with equal agility like it does in Delhi and Mumbai. Claims and counter claims on the pecuniary benefits on offers and not professional excellence draw and redraw the contours of a journalist's career.

Television channels are up shots now, and their presenters and reporters nouveau-stars, yet none can deny their democratisation effect. Journalism is no longer confined to the rich, powerful, wealthy and the well read, but like always they often attach greater self-importance than is due to them.

Twenty-one years ago, on a June afternoon like today, I indulged in my journalistic journey at the St Xavier's College in Kolkata, where veteran journalist and senior editor Niranjan Sengupta taught a motley group of aspirants a few nuances of journalism. Since then, despite the best of efforts to whole-heartedly quit, I have been tied tightly with this profession.

After completing 20 years in journalism, of which 14 years with the BBC, I thought of quitting in 2012, and starting afresh with a new career. But that was not to be.

Probably, Niranjan Babu was right!

"It's difficult to get into journalism, but it's even more difficult to leave," he once told me.

Quitting journalism is like crossing a bridge, which one can try to the best of efforts but never accomplish completely !      


Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant. 
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com 
Twitter Handle: @tirthankarb
All comments are personal.