China is causing ideological confusion among comrades. A few questions have been raised on the nature of China’s economic reforms and the country’s ‘‘lack of discomfort’’ in dealings with the US at the 18th party congress of the CPI(M). At the debate on amendments, this issue came up for discussion. The larger question is whether a party which has always looked up to China for guidance and interpretation of Marxist-Leninist thought and even the Maoist line, should continue to do so in the changed scenario. Obviously, the contentious issue has been forwarded by relative hardliners who don’t believe the Chinese have done the right thing by opening its economy to this extent. Even if some of them are willing to accept the sweeping changes that are being adopted by Beijing, they are unable to digest this ‘‘unquestioning’’ pursuit of a pro-US foreign policy by the Chinese Communist Party. The CPI(M) top brass would not reveal the precise nature of discussions but sources said the debate did consider if it (the pro-US stance) was a strategy of a relatively temporary nature which the Chinese felt compelled to adopt. They were agreeable to the logic that probably the strategy had to do with Beijing’s perception and assessment of the global security scenario. But then the question asked was would not such a pro-US stand become a contradiction with the very ideology that is driving the state —Marxism-Leninism. This issue had not come up for such detailed discussion at the last two congresses though the changes in China had begun more than a decade ago. Till now, the party has watched the economic policy changes from afar and never really tried to compare and contrast the Chinese experience in depth with its own. Even senior Politburo member Prakash Karat said question has been raised on ‘‘how do we assess China’’. This debate may trigger off a new way of evaluating the Chinese economic model by the Indian Marxists. They may not accept every economic change that is taking place in China without questioning them. And if that happens that could be politically significant for a party like the CPI(M). For if one goes back to the Communist Party split in 1964, one can recall the keen debate among comrades on whether to go with the Russians or the Chinese — and the CPI(M) had reposed greater faith in the Chinese model.
