Why Nandigram happened

So much of outrage has already been expressed over the killings in Nandigram that it is redundant to add to the volume of criticism that the CPI(M) has faced over this issue. I shall, therefore, try to find explanations. Political violence is not unknown in India. And yet, the Nandigram incident is one of a kind.

There is a strange myth that does the rounds in Kolkata; an idea that the mild mannered Buddhadeb Bhattacharya is a messenger of "change"; that this Clark Kent like figure is actually Superman. Quite literally, the urban middle class in Bengal says "Buddha is trying". This is a telling statement; a refrain that the urban intelligentsia has given up on democracy in the state, an acknowledgment of the fact that a whole new generation has arrived that treats the party as unalterable as the sky. The line is noticeably open ended, meaning that the promise of change is not supposed to be fulfilled, rather it is an unachievable goal one must work towards forever.

Building on this lie, the Chief Minister has dedicated himself to creating a new economy for Bengal. It goes without saying that this "new" economic edifice is to be laid out exactly as planned by the almighty state; as a kind of victory tower, celebrating their triumph over democracy. Somehow as the CPI(M) cadres spawn this new economic life in West Bengal, it reminds me of a spider whose eggs are beginning to hatch inside the body of its paralyzed prey.

When the trouble in Nandigram began, much of this same middle class (with the willing cooperation of the CPI(M)) chose to fix the blame on Mamata Banerjee. They argued that the Trinamul Congress should have played the role of a responsible party and abstained from creating tension over something that was manifestly in the larger interests of the state. Let us examine this proposition carefully: it does make sense in theory. And what could have been easier than to swallow the propaganda about Mamata being a "disruptive" figure and blame her for everything? Those who make this argument are unable to distinguish between the theory and practice of democracy. Has it ever happened, except in times of war, that the opposition party in any state or country has shown a willingness to work with the ruling government for public welfare, setting aside its own electoral ambitions? Then, why Mamata? In Gujarat, there is a well heeled "Narmada Bachao Aandolan" that has been working against the transformation of the Narmada Valley into an energy hub. A few years ago, Naveen Patnaik faced a similar situation in Orissa over the acquisition of peasants' land for industry. At that time, the opposition Congress organized a statewide agitation of farmers who sent thousands of postcards to the Chief Minister to register their protest. In Uttaranchal, there were obvious signs of discontent when villages had to be relocated for the construction of the Tehri Dam and politicians turned out to fish in troubled waters. More recently, Sheila Dikshit had to carry out a Court order on "sealing". The BJP blatantly exploited her predicament and swept to power in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in April last year! What I am trying to say is that democratic governments often find themselves at odds with shortsighted populist agendas when they try to implement a vision for development... and sometimes they fall prey to it. But it never so happens that the ruling party, enraged by the situation, orders the police to massacre the opposition.

But the CPI(M) did just that. They sent in the state police, along with party cadres in uniform to quell the "revolt". The plan worked like clockwork. The first wave of the attack sent a clear message to the opposition: they were in it to win it and they meant to kill. The second part of the operation was a simple land offensive; and all those who had hitherto stood against them, gave up out of fear. The Chief Minister appeared to have lost his face mask for a moment as he extolled his comrades in arms and recounted their brave deeds. Perhaps, in his mind, he had achieved a triumph equal to that of Mao Zedong after the Long March.

The question is why the CPI(M) chose to react in this manner. Were they not feeling secure enough, with their two-thirds majority, their cadre-teachers and their trade union operatives?

In a democratic regime, the Opposition is an integral part of the governance. Dictatorship of the majority is antithetical to democracy. The CPI(M) does not understand this concept.

This is more subtle than a mere desire to crush political opponents. We know that Mayawati and Jayalalitha and so many others are capable of that. It is an idea that, as long as one party is in power, all the others are of no significance; that they simply do not exist. In my view, the violence in Nandigram happened not because the government did not want to listen to the opposition, but because they did not want to acknowledge the presence of the opposition. Their friends in China have a term for this: Hsiao-Mieh. Literally, that means "deprived of existence".