Is the Left Still Relevant in Today’s India?

CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

By Dr Waseem Ahmad Bhat

As the Indian Left completes a century of political existence, it finds itself at a moment that is both reflective and unsettled. Few political traditions have shaped the moral and institutional vocabulary of the Indian republic as deeply as the Left. From early interventions in debates on equality, labour rights, land reforms and federalism, the Left helped define the social ambitions of postcolonial democracy. Its formative leaders figures such as M. N. Roy, E. M. S. Namboodiripad, P. C. Joshi and A. K. Gopalan did not merely build parties but articulated a vision of democracy that placed social justice, secularism and redistribution at its core. Yet, as India undergoes profound economic, cultural and ideological shifts, the Left occupies a paradoxical position. Its critique of inequality, authoritarianism and neoliberal excess remains compelling, but its electoral footprint has shrunk dramatically. This tension between ideological relevance and political marginalisation defines the contemporary Left condition.

The historical relevance of the Left is inseparable from its early democratic breakthroughs. In 1957, Kerala elected the world’s first democratically chosen communist government under Namboodiripad. This was not simply a regional milestone but a globally significant experiment in translating socialist principles into parliamentary governance within a constitutional framework. The government’s agenda of land reform, education restructuring and decentralised planning sought to rebalance social power rather than merely administer the state. Its dismissal in 1959 through Article 356 exposed a deeper contradiction within Indian democracy: while electoral pluralism was formally accepted, transformative politics that threatened entrenched social hierarchies faced institutional resistance. The episode foreshadowed later debates on executive overreach, federal autonomy and the limits of dissent within constitutional democracy. In this sense, the Left’s marginalisation did not begin with electoral decline alone but with an early confrontation between democratic mandate and centralised power.

For much of its history, the Left articulated politics through the grammar of class struggle, collective welfare and secular universalism. It offered an alternative moral framework that challenged both state authoritarianism and market excess. Even today, Left thinkers continue to produce some of the most incisive analyses of democratic backsliding, majoritarian nationalism, agrarian distress and labour precarity. In an era marked by widening inequality and shrinking civic space, these critiques retain considerable explanatory power. Yet, ideological confidence has at times hardened into rigidity. As labour relations fragmented under liberalisation and identity-based mobilisation displaced class solidarities, the Left struggled to recalibrate its political language and organisational forms. Moral authority, when unaccompanied by strategic adaptability, risks becoming politically self-limiting.

Electorally, the Left’s decline over the past three decades reflects more than the loss of governments. It signals an erosion of its ability to shape popular imagination. Defeats in West Bengal and Tripura revealed structural weaknesses rooted in social transformation: informalisation of labour, the rise of aspirational classes and the cultural consolidation of majoritarian nationalism. As the political terrain shifted, Left parties often appeared more adept at critique than competition. Unlike the Indian National Congress, which reinvented itself repeatedly through coalitions and ideological flexibility, the Left found adaptation more difficult, constrained by organisational habits forged in an earlier era.

Kerala remains the most significant exception and a reminder of unrealised possibilities. The CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front has not only sustained relevance but recently broke a long-standing electoral pattern by winning two consecutive assembly elections. This achievement is analytically significant. It suggests that sustained investments in public welfare, decentralisation, education and health can still generate political legitimacy. Kerala demonstrates that Left governance, when grounded in institutional delivery rather than rhetorical radicalism, can command mass consent even in a competitive electoral environment. At the same time, this success should not be romanticised. Kerala faces mounting challenges: educated unemployment, fiscal constraints, demographic ageing and ecological vulnerability. Continuous governance also risks bureaucratisation and ideological stagnation. The task before the Left in Kerala is not merely to defend its record but to reimagine socialism in the context of climate change, digital economies and shifting labour forms.

A different but equally revealing case emerges from Jammu and Kashmir. In a region dominated by conflict, securitisation and identity politics, the CPI(M) has historically maintained pockets of influence, particularly in Kulgam. Apart from the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, the Left remains one of the very few political traditions to sustain ideological continuity and electoral credibility in the region. Its strength here has not rested on mass ideological mobilisation but on personal integrity of leadership, attention to everyday material concerns and distance from polarising mainstream politics. By focusing on land rights, welfare access and local grievances, the Left cultivated trust that transcended ideological boundaries. Yet, such micro-level successes remain spatially confined. Without being woven into a broader national strategy, they risk remaining ethical exceptions rather than political alternatives.

If the Left is to regain relevance, it must confront the transformed nature of class politics itself. Platform economies, gig labour and fragmented work identities demand new organisational forms and narratives of solidarity. Rebuilding alliances with Dalit movements, farmers’ organisations and regional forces concerned with centralisation is essential. Secularism must be reclaimed not merely as rhetoric but as a material practice through public goods, social protection and inclusive development. Equally urgent is organisational renewal: youth mobilisation, digital communication and sustained grassroots work cannot remain afterthoughts.

At a century mark, the Indian Left stands neither defeated nor triumphant but suspended between legacy and possibility. Its ideological compass remains indispensable in a time of democratic vulnerability and social fragmentation. Its electoral decline, however, reflects an inability to convert intellectual vitality into political momentum. Kerala and Kulgam show that renewal is possible but only through imagination, humility and a willingness to break from inherited certainties. A hundred years is not a closure. It is a threshold. Whether the Left can cross it will determine not only its own future but the contours of democratic opposition in India.

Dr Waseem Ahmad Bhat is an Assistant Professor (Political Science) at Akal University Punjab

The author can be reached at waseembhat94@gmail.com