The Communist Party wants a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. — B.R. Ambedkar in his closing speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949.

Nearly fifty years later, is there any need to change this assessment of Ambedkar, which was made when the Communist Party of India was pursuing the policy of overthrowing the Indian State through armed insurrection? The answer is, in substance, no. The communists participate in parliamentary democracy and do not openly condemn the Constitution, but in practice pay scant respect to it.

Recent events have revealed the contempt communists have for the Constitution and its conventions. One of the most glaring instances has been the treatment meted out by the CPI(M) to the speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee. He was summarily expelled from the CPI(M) because he had refused to resign from the post of speaker as the party had ordered him to do. The word summarily is used advisedly. Chatterjee wasn’t even given a chance to explain himself, or to put forward his own case. This is a clear case of the violation of the norms of natural justice that occurs frequently in barbaric and non-democratic societies, and such occurrences in civilized and democratic ones are almost always condemned. This kind of arbitrariness is not unrelated to the CPI(M)’s attitude to the Constitution.

When the Left decided to withdraw support from the UPA government, Prakash Karat and two other Left leaders went to the president with a list of MPs who were withdrawing support. (This incident itself calls for comment and I will come back to it later.) The list contained the name of Somnath Chatterjee. What did this inclusion mean? It meant that according to Karat and Co., Chatterjee, even though he was the speaker, actually belonged to the CPI(M). They had thus eroded the position of neutrality that goes with the office of the speaker. Following this came the request/order from the party that Chatterjee should step down. Chatterjee refused on the grounds that it was his constitutional responsibility not to show his party colours and to remain non-partisan. This led directly to his expulsion. There was a clear conflict here between loyalty to the party and loyalty to the Constitution. Chatterjee’s conscience told him that his loyalty to the Constitution was more important, hence his refusal to step down. Chatterjee is thus being punished by the CPI(M) because he remained true to the spirit of the Constitution and to parliamentary procedure and convention.

It will not be wrong to suspect from this that the CPI(M) considers its own rules and regulations to be more important than the Constitution, especially when the two are in conflict. This suspicion is confirmed by what many comrades have said about the importance of party rules.

Let me turn now to the incident that I flagged in an earlier paragraph. Karat and the other two Left leaders who went to meet the president with the list of MPs have no constitutional standing. They are not elected representatives of the people; they have no right or authority to speak for MPs. The correct procedure would have been for the leader(s) of the Left parties to have gone collectively or individually to the president to express their intent. Karat took upon himself this responsibility, thus showing either his ignorance or his disregard for constitutional propriety. (To be fair, it should be pointed out that the president should not have accepted the list from Karat and the other two.)

My argument is that this disregard for the Constitution among leaders of the CPI(M) is rooted in the basic contradiction to which Ambedkar drew attention even before the Indian republic was formally born. The CPI(M) sees itself as a monolithic and authoritarian party driven by something called democratic centralism. Its fantasy is that it is akin to the Bolshevik Party in Russia: a closed and underground party trying to bring about a revolution. Its delusion is that bourgeois democracy in India is a passing phase to be overtaken, sooner rather than later, by the dictatorship of the proletariat and the total dominance of the communist party. It does not believe that there should be any distinction between the party and the government, and the party and the State. All three — party, government and State — should be subservient to the general secretary of the party. This is what happened in Soviet Russia under V.I. Lenin and Josef Stalin. This is the power and position to which Prakash Karat aspires, as did general secretaries like B.T. Randive before him.

The practice of summary expulsion comes straight from the Soviet Union under Stalin. Stalin not only expelled, but even executed his victims without giving them a chance to speak. The charges were often trumped up, and the “confessions” obtained under duress. The victims were always subsequently maligned. Karat and the comrades can only expel and malign because members of his party, however much they criticize bourgeois democracy, enjoy the full protection of the bourgeois rule of law. The CPI(M) disregards the Constitution when it suits its petty political purpose, but it is not reluctant to enjoy the protection and the benefits that the Constitution offers to all citizens of India.

Prakash Karat and other communist leaders are quick to appropriate the moral high ground of Indian politics. During the drama over the trust vote, many communist leaders spoke about the incorruptibility of CPI(M) MPs. The assumption here is twofold. One is the MPs belonging to the CPI(M) cannot be bought at any price; and two, financial corruption is the only form of political immorality.

This happens again and again because of the contradiction between the CPI(M)’s fantasy and its reality. Its fantasy is that of a revolutionary party (politburo, central committee, democratic centralism and other shibboleths familiar to its members are straight out of the Bolshevik lexicon), and thus its party organization and discipline are all along Stalinist lines. But its reality is that it is forced to function in a multi-party democracy. When the mask of democracy falls, we see the CPI(M)’s ugly Stalinist face. Prakash Karat in the present conjuncture is that face.

The truth is that, as the illusion of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes like the ever-receding horizon, communists have very little to hang on to. So a party like the CPI(M) clings on to its Stalinist organization. It provides them with the security that all is not lost. But it also makes them look ridiculous. At a more serious level, it raises the question: does the CPI(M) believe that the Constitution of India is above all other allegiances and loyalties? On the answer to this question — Karat and the comrades owe the country an explanation on this score — will depend if members of the CPI(M) can be considered citizens of India.

Unfortunately for Mr Karat, when he wakes up he will find the Indian Constitution is still here.