Unlike any other party congress of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), its 24th party congress stirred plenty of debate on various topics, including the party's resolution in characterising the BJP, its choice of its new general secretary and speculation of course correction with the new general secretary at the helm at a time when the party's role in the national politics has shrunk to south India.

Both the communist parties of India have considerable presence in and legislators from the south. The choices of D. Raja and M.A. Baby as general secretaries of the CPI and CPI(M) respectively speak to the extent of the representation of south India in both parties.

The CPI(M) has a strong base in Kerala and some of its parliamentarians hail from Tamil Nadu, where the party does not have much of a foothold. It allies with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to get its share of MPs and MLAs.

But historically, there were instances in which the CPI was the main opposition party in Tamil Nadu, even though it could not hold on to or build upon this.

After the split in the CPI and the formation of the CPI(M), most of the latter's general secretaries have hailed from the south, particularly from Kerala.

Though the CPI(M) of Tamil Nadu could not hold fort electorally, it historically managed to win a decent number of seats in the state. After the neoliberalism of the 1990s, the party's strength in the assembly became meagre. It was able to secure seats in the double digits on a couple of occasions in those years, but then on, it was completely down to single-digit victories electorally.

In all these years, the party has suffered big blows both structurally and politically at the national level. Its decision-making levels nationally were occupied by leaders of the Bengal line and the Kerala line as both states had a large representation in the party. The party’s units from the rest of the country did not have much representation, and in most cases they were left with no choice but to abide by either of the two lines.

While the politics of the state and ideology take a back seat, careerism takes the wheel. The individualistic desire among many to climb up the party bureaucracy has played a role in overshadowing the political line of the state.

Also read: CPI(M) Calls for Revival and Resistance Against Hindutva, Neo-Liberalism at 24th Party Congress

Democratic centralism, which has been the organisational principle of the party, favours such an arrangement.

In the democratic centralism model, all party decisions are subject to a majority-minority vote, and the majority decision is upheld as the party’s final stance.

Democratic centralism, with three or four states accounting for most of the party’s membership, will naturally leave the other states without their own representation. In fact, they might even need to bear the decisions that are taken by those from the other states.

At its core, this principle reinforces majoritarianism. Those who support the leadership’s decisions do so because they see it as a pathway to securing their own positions. Consequently, dissenters remain a permanent minority, ensuring that their critiques never gain traction.

If necessary, the party leadership will not hesitate to bypass even this so-called democratic centralism. They can directly vote in favour of 10% reservations for upper castes in parliament and impose its position on all members. If someone refuses to accept it, democratic centralism will once again be used as a tool to silence dissent.

This pairing of opportunism with Brahminism seems to define the Tamil Nadu CPI(M) today. It is no surprise that the recent organisational critique submitted at the Party Conference admitted that factionalism continues to stall the party’s progress in the state. The democratic centralism model that Lenin implemented in the Bolshevik Party was adapted by Indian Brahminism to suit its own interests – an ironic twist that even Marxism itself wouldn’t have anticipated!

This kind of superficial decision-making process naturally favours Brahmins and upper castes, who are in great numbers in the decision-making process of the party.

In fact, it was precisely the denial of caste-based reservations within the bureaucracy of the Congress party that led Periyar and others to demand caste-based representation and ultimately break away from the party nearly a century ago.

Ironically, even the Congress has since amended its constitution to introduce internal caste-based reservations in its bureaucracy. But the CPI(M)? It still hasn’t done so.

In Tamil Nadu, the CPI(M) faces three specific ideological challenges other than the usual Brahminism, economic determinism and careerism as faced in other parts of the country:

1. Dravidian politics
2. Support for the Eelam cause
3. Tamil identity consciousness

Tamil Nadu’s introduction to Marxism didn’t come from the communist parties – it came through Periyar. He translated and published the Communist Manifesto in Tamil as early as 1931 and visited Soviet Russia to learn firsthand how socialism changed the country for the better.

It was Tamil Nadu that pioneered a successful non-Brahmin political movement, thanks to Periyar. His political foundation was that Brahminism is the structural glue holding India together, and thus, his fight was simultaneously anti-Brahminical and anti-India.

In response, the communists – rather than engaging theoretically – resorted to calling him a racist.

Periyar, in turn, exposed how communism in India had been co-opted by Brahmins as a tool to prevent radical social change.

While leaders like Brinda Karat, Jyoti Basu, Aishe Ghosh and Harkishan Singh Surjeet comfortably embody their caste markers and surnames, it is only within Tamil Nadu’s political tradition that such markers face critical scrutiny.

On the Eelam issue, the CPI(M) aligned with the Indian state’s position, failing to support Tamil self-determination. It labelled the genocide of Tamils as a “war crime” and branded Velupillai Prabhakaran a fascist. It chose to uphold the idea of Tamils’ rights in a unified Sri Lanka rather than a separate Eelam. This stands in sharp contrast to the Sri Lankan Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna – often praised by the CPI(M) – which did not share the same stance.

The CPI(M) advocates justice for Palestine and Ireland, yet denies that very justice to Eelam Tamils. The contradiction is glaring.

On language politics, the CPI(M) distanced itself from the anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu of the 1960s, claiming that the movement was being manipulated to promote English and divide national linguistic unity. While Tamil Nadu was fighting to preserve its linguistic autonomy, the communists pushed for a three-language policy – including Hindi.

Also read: Marxism Could Offer an Explanation For Today’s Geopolitical Situation

Although leaders like Su. Venkatesan attempt to align with the Tamil cultural ethos, the party’s national line continues to resist fully embracing Tamil identity as a legitimate political stance. This leaves such efforts isolated, with no broader ideological shift in sight.

The inspiration for many of the BJP-opposing national movements – such as resisting delimitation, opposing Hindi imposition and confronting Brahminical hegemony – are drawn directly from Tamil Nadu’s political history. Yet, the CPI(M), despite operating from within the state and forming alliances with Dravidian parties, refuses to integrate these lessons into its central ideology.

Even now, when the BJP’s fascism is on a forward march, the CPI(M)’s political resolution claims that India hasn’t fully reached fascism. Who benefits from such ambiguity?

The real question is this: does the CPI(M) want a vibrant, critical political discourse or merely a loyal cadre that serves its internal bureaucracy irrespective of its inadequate political understanding?

The party’s refusal to embrace Periyarist critique, its persistence in supporting Brahminical frameworks and its resistance to reform in a way defeat its ideology. Marxism should lead intellectual and political transformation. Instead, the CPI(M) is undermining its own legacy by clinging to hierarchy and orthodoxy.

The CPI(M) in Tamil Nadu now consists of two kinds of cadres: those who loyally back the leadership without question and those who still hope – naively perhaps – that the party will one day course-correct.

Unfortunately, the latter group is shrinking fast. Ideological space is giving way to ambition. Debate is being sacrificed for obedience.

This is a tragic failure at a critical political moment.

Until the CPI(M) chooses to engage with Tamil Nadu on its own ideological terms, it will remain a party more invested in preserving internal power structures than in achieving genuine political growth.

The new general secretary of the party has a Himalayan task to achieve. The party has to be revolutionised internally in order to build a revolution externally. May Marx help him!

Rajasangeethan is a writer, journalist and activist based in Chennai.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.