Division among the left: Clash of ideology and lust for leadership, or a reality of power?

Some days ago, the leftists organised a road march from Dhaka to Chattogram under the banner of “Anti-Imperialist Patriotic People,” demanding the protection of national resources and sovereignty. The main slogan of the campaign was: “Mother, land, and estuary—we will not hand them over to foreigners.” Leftists played an important role in movements to protect national resources earlier too. The issue requires extensive discussion. It has often been said that during the Liberation War, political leadership was solely in the hands of the Awami League. You may call this an “Awami narrative” if you like, but this is not the only truth of history. The provisional was mainly formed with Awami League leaders, but alongside that government was an advisory committee headed by Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani. The committee also included Comrade Moni Singh, Mozaffar Ahmed, and Congress leader Manoranjan Dhar. All of them were leftists except Manoranjan Dhar. This clearly shows that ignoring the position of leftists would be an injustice to history.

Many political parties and individuals played various roles in this great Liberation War. Just as it is necessary to mention the leftists, it is also important to remember the Kaderia Bahini under Kader Siddique’s leadership or the Bangladesh Liberation Force, formed with the Chhatra League and Awami League leaders and activists. These forces were not under the control of the provisional government. Particularly the Mujib Bahini—specially trained by the Indian army and equipped with advanced weapons—was deployed towards the end of the war to attack leftist strongholds. Although they were not particularly successful in this task, clashes between the Mujib Bahini and general freedom fighters continued for many days even after the war.

A full history of Bangladesh’s Liberation War is yet to be written. As time passes, collecting data becomes increasingly difficult. What can be concluded is this: it was essentially a people’s war. The participation of the leftists was glorious, even though the overall political leadership was in the hands of the Awami League. It cannot be denied that although Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was imprisoned in Pakistan, his name inspired and spirited the entire nation. The Liberation War cannot be viewed linearly; only by understanding its multifaceted aspects can history be properly represented. And that is where the question arises—there is no longer a need to mock today’s leftists. Because they present themselves in such a way that ordinary people despairingly say: “These people can’t even stay united among themselves—how will they run a country?”

The reality of leftist politics in Bangladesh seems to be a painful irony. Even while holding to the ideological principles of socialism, emancipation of workers and peasants, and a society free from inequality, today’s leftists are divided into countless opinions and factions. Although many among the younger generation are sympathetic to leftist ideals, due to the confusing multiplicity of parties and student organisations, these names are not familiar to them, but rather a tangled knot. The question naturally arises—if the core ideology is the same, why so many branches and offshoots? To find the answer, we must return to the international communist movement. The global division in the communist movement began after Nikita Khrushchev’s “de-Stalinisation” speech at the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in 1956. The ideological and strategic conflict between China and the Soviet Union continued to intensify. As a result, at the beginning of the 1960s, the Communist Party of India also split into a Moscow-aligned side and a Beijing-aligned side.

Bangladesh too could not escape the effect of this division. After the Liberation War, communist parties in the country split along Soviet and Chinese lines. Some emphasised parliamentarism, others revolutionary struggle; some believed in change within the constitutional framework, others wanted to dismantle the state structure to build a new society. The split in two of Bangladesh’s oldest and most experienced organisations, the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) and the Socialist Party of Bangladesh (BSD), has once again brought to the fore the longstanding disease of leftist politics: division. The CPB had once gone through a split in the 1990s. They had somewhat restored unity and strengthened the organisational base; but now questions arise again—has this split occurred due to ideological differences? Or hidden desires for leadership? Or is it the result of surrender to socio-political realities?

The crisis that emerged in the global communist movement in the 1960s over modern revisionism also cast its shadow on Bangladesh. However, in Bangladesh’s case, the true origin of the split stemmed less from ideological disputes and more from internal political realities and leadership conflicts. The CPB has not been free of mistakes in its long journey. It has made many grave errors, but in many cases, attempts have been made to spread false propaganda and misinterpret the party’s policies and activities. It is believed that this was due to a lack of initiative within the party leadership. This aspect has been neglected by the leadership.

The Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) is essentially the successor of a historical tradition born during the Pakistan era, which later led various mass movements including the Liberation War. In the language movement, mass uprisings, peasant-worker rights movements, and anti-autocracy struggles, the role of the Communist Party cannot be denied. However, since the democratic transition of the 1990s, a new challenge began. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the aggression of globalisation, and the imperial resurgence of capitalism, leftist politics began to shrink in Bangladesh, as in many other parts of the world.

The recent split in BSD is not a sudden event—it is a natural explosion of pressures building up over a long period. There had been long-standing complaints about transparency in leadership selection. Organisational centralisation, mistrust among members, neglect of marginal workers’ opinions, and the repeated prominence of the same faces generated pressure and resentment. In 1980, some leaders of the Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) broke away and formed BSD. From the beginning, Khalekuzzaman was the convenor of BSD. Now, there are multiple groups: BSD, BSD (Mahbub), BSD (Marxist), and others. On the other hand, JSD too has splintered into several groups. But the question remains—was JSD-BSD fragmented only over leadership?

Objectively, economic realities have also played a role. Today, leftist organisations are in severe financial crisis. Worker funds and NGOs that once served as sources of funding have shrunk or become individual-dependent. A faction of BSD raised questions about the financial and organisational independence of the party, but the old leadership may have seen this as “rebellion.” As a result, division became inevitable. Moreover, an ideological crisis has also emerged. A significant faction of BSD believes that as modern capitalism and imperialism have changed forms, the old Marxist language and strategies are no longer sufficient. New interpretations, language, alliances, and some strategic flexibilities are needed. A shift from foundational ideals and the imposition of other ideologies are also to blame. As a result, one faction has directly rejected this as “ideological deviation,” leading to an intense, mistrustful, and divisive conflict.

To understand the divisions in contemporary leftist politics in Bangladesh, ideological explanations alone are not enough. Often, the battle for leadership continues in the name of “ideals.” Those in leadership think that without them the organisation cannot function. And when new leaders rise, they claim that new paths and leadership are necessary. When such disagreements are not resolved democratically, new parties are born. The slogans remain the same, the flags remain the same—only faces change. This trend is visible in both BSD and CPB. Rebels say, “We want democracy.” Leaders say, “They have deviated from ideals.” Beyond that, there are campaigns: “They are abolitionists.” The result of all this is the erosion of the party. These back-and-forth statements, accusations, and tea-shop gossip have eroded people’s trust in the left. Ordinary people can no longer tell who is right. In some cases, they hide their faces in public.

As the national election approaches, the left retreats further. Some want to field a single candidate; others want to remain in small alliances to stay in the discussion. Yet at this moment, the public’s greatest desire is for a credible left alternative. But when a political force is consumed by internal conflict, it cannot formulate strategies against real opponents. Nor can it take to the streets with strength, nor build a voter base in the field. Rather, because of division, they make themselves irrelevant. Many say the left has deviated from its ideals. That is not true. Still today, many revolutionary, morally upright, and people-oriented activists and leaders are alive. But the problem is—these ideological forces lack mutual respect and a culture of leadership. Everyone wants to be on top. No one is willing to accept the leadership of another. As a result, the words of the left lack fire, the voice lacks trust, and the slogans lack confidence.

Leftist politics in Bangladesh has arrived at a crossroads. Either they will reform themselves, abandon ego in leadership, build the organisation at the grassroots, and bring the new generation into leadership, or time will drive the final nail into their coffin. If there is truly a desire to fight against imperialism, fascism, and capitalism, now is the time to end internal divisions. The people no longer want to hear divided voices, they want unity, clarity, and mature leadership. It is essential to ask the leadership—why do activists feel embarrassed by your divisions? If you cannot answer this question, you feel pride instead of becoming shameful which is the real tragedy.

Bangladesh's political history, with its military regimes, democratic transitions, and popular movements, has offered the left a chance to set clear goals. But internal feuds have squandered that opportunity. The promise to build a just society based on Marxist-Leninist principles has instead opened the path for exploitation. Efforts at unity have repeatedly been derailed by egotism, conspiracies, and reckless behaviour.

Yet unity has a scientific method: identify the roots of division, analyse them based on reality, and resolve them through introspection, tolerance, and democratic practices. Sadly, that’s not happening. Some leftist leaders have aligned themselves with bourgeois parties. This is a stark contradiction of leftist ideals.

The root causes of division can be identified as follows:

1. Ideological differences: Some are Maoist, some Leninist, some believe in the Gramscian tradition. There are stark differences in views on armed revolution, elections, parliament, etc.

2. Strategic disagreements: Which path will lead to revolution? Mass movement or armed struggle? Will they participate in elections or not? The parties remain divided on such questions.

3. Leadership-centred conflicts: In many cases, the driving force of division is not ideology, but the competition to preserve leadership, rather than to preserve the organisation.

4. Detachment from reality and theoretical repetition: Many leftist parties have become detached from the real crises of ordinary people. As a result, leftist politics has become somewhat “club politics.”

The biggest consequence of this division is that leftists have become practically marginalised in Bangladeshi politics. In national elections, the position of left alliances or parties is almost non-existent. There are no leftist representatives in parliament. Echoes of leftist ideology in national politics have faded. Their influence in labour movements is limited, and there is no continuity in farmers' movements either. There is no unity among leftist student organisations. Yet the country’s vast youth population is increasingly seeking political alternatives. But they are not finding clear language, a vision for the future, or credibility. What lies ahead?

The question arises—can unity still be achieved by learning from the past history of division? The answer is—yes, if four tasks are accomplished:

1. Formulating a clear, timely, and realistic political programme

2. Creating a blueprint for united struggle despite old ideological differences

3. Building new political connections by understanding the language, perspective, and needs of the younger generation

4. Ensuring internal democracy and transparency within the organisation, creating continuity in leadership

Nazim Hikmet once wrote, “In the twentieth century, the lifespan of grief is at most one year.” Then surely, in the twenty-first century, its duration is even shorter. Many veteran leftist leaders have passed away. Leadership is almost vacant. The question is—who will lead the new leftist politics? There is no effort within the party to develop young leadership. However, there is some attempt, on a small scale, to build up workers.

Leftist leaders often say “broaden the circle”—meaning, build a broader platform with democratic, secular, socialist forces. But are they truly ready to do that? Can they abandon their ego?

In 1846, Marx and Engels wrote in a book called The German Ideology that if humans are understood in abstraction, separated from all activity in society, it will have no practical outcome. On the other hand, Maulana Bhashani long ago said that it is harmful for a country not to have a leftist ideology. But he believed in the struggle of the streets. Today’s leftists, however, are spinning within the parliamentary framework—lacking both the will and the power to strike at the system. Time seems to be making leftist politics increasingly impoverished. The idea of uniting all leftist parties by overcoming all limitations, differences, and narrowness has long been discussed.

What is to be done now? There is still time. What the time demands is:

• Unity on fundamental ideology,
• Building connections with the new generation
• Developing a new language of leftist politics
• Learning from past mistakes and consolidating forces under one umbrella

Whether or not they succeed in electoral politics, if leftists can stand by the real struggles of working people, only then can they become a real force for social change. If we fail to prevent this trend by building greater unity, new waves of fascism will be established in our country. The signs are already visible. We must remain alert and conscious about this. The left-democratic force must continue the ideological struggle against it. But along with strengthening the independent power of CPB, all leftists must be made stronger. Communal ideologies have now gained grassroots support in various parts of the country. To fight this ideologically and in the streets, the left must be strong.

The history of human civilisation bears witness—every era brings new crises and inequalities. The new generation discovers better science, technology, and tactics to overcome these crises. But for that, what is needed is objective analysis of the situation, centuries of accumulated experience, superior philosophy, science, technology, and their application. Firstly, as Marxist-Leninists, our resource is superior ideology. We must further sharpen ourselves with it. The practice of ideology is not the final word—it must be applied through class struggle, movement, and organisation. By mastering the lessons learned from this, we must develop our organisation more efficiently through the creative application of Marxism. Secondly, to build and manage movements, we must become more careful and skilled. In building and managing the organisation, we must apply organisational principles with integrity, inspired by thoughts of dedication, honesty, and sacrifice.

The soil of Bangladesh is firm. It is fertile ground for resistance, made rich with the blood and sacrifice of hundreds of martyrs. We have indeed lost, but we have not disappeared. We are certain—this country will rise again. It must rise again. Defeat is not the final word. It is merely a setback in the struggle. Every defeat is actually a lesson to strengthen future struggles for the working class and the toiling people. As the martyred Marxist thinker from West Asia, Mahdi Amel, said: “You are not defeated as long as you are resisting!” Resurrection is now our keyword! For Bengal’s rebirth, the revival of leftism is essential. The future of Bangladesh depends on it. The future of Bangladesh lies in the resurgence of the left! And therefore, the united resurgence of CPB is extremely urgent. A genuine alternative political force led by the leftists, based on principles and ideals, beyond the line of the Awami League and BNP, is the call of the time. To cure the ailing state of the country’s politics, it is vital to make progress in this regard today.

In recent days, initiatives have once again begun to bring the leftists onto a single platform. The several-year-long unity between CPB and BSD has now expanded to a left alliance. This progress has created new optimism about left unity. Outside this left unity, some leaders who have broken away from Awami League and BNP are forming election-oriented alliances. But a genuine alternative political force, led by leftists and based on principles and ideals, beyond the line of Awami League and BNP, is now the demand of the hour. To cure the ailing state of the country’s politics, it is vital to make progress in this regard today. The history of leftist politics in Bangladesh is glorious. But the present reality is not. From within this duality, we must find the path to the future.

Many times in history, leftists have stood united—during the anti-autocracy movement, the Liberation War, or in workers’ wage movements. That time has come again. Without the history of the Communist Party, the political history of Bangladesh is incomplete—that is true; but to make that history a component of future transformation, politics of unity must be built by moving away from politics of division. The dream of socialism lives not only in theory, but in real struggle. And that struggle can only succeed when it is possible to build a new political force based on unity by defeating the politics of division. In the reality of the twenty-first century, a new, timely leftist unity in Bangladesh—that is the call of the time.

Habib Imon: Political analyst and Presidium Member, Bangladesh Juba Union