Backpage

FOR far too long, far too many of us have practiced the politics of double-speak, deploying one set of criteria for criticism and another for self-criticism. When it comes to us and our own, we invariably fall back on relative and contextual criteria of judgement. For all others, the standards to be used are universal. Years back, Leszek Kolakowski charged the historian E.P. Thompson for implicitly justifying undemocratic means, including torture, for retaining power in Cuba. Thompson had argued that Cuba, as a small country constantly being undermined by its larger and stronger neighbour, the US, was justified in its use of extraordinary measures for self-protection. Kolakowski disagreed, arguing instead that if torture and illegal detention were wrong, they were as morally reprehensible in Cuba as in the US.

For the Left Front government in West Bengal, and more specifically its dominant constituent, the CPI(M), it might be useful to revisit this exchange. For far too long, it has been used to a ‘soft ‘ and ‘understanding’ treatment, not only from the Bengali intelligenstia but also a substantial number of ‘progressive’ intellectuals and supporters who have treated the party, and by association its government in the state, as a bulwark against the virus of communalism and the abdication to neo-liberal economic policies.

And so, every issue, be it the sorry state of primary education and health, the working of the public distribution system or more generally the anti-poverty programmes, escaped critical scrutiny from those who would otherwise be up in arms had a similar situation existed elsewhere. If at all any of these concerns were raised, we were reminded of the inequitous and biased federal arrangements starving the state of much needed resources, if not of the impossibility of socialist reconstruction in a capitalist environment. Worse, all dissenting views were dismissed as mere carping by reactionary forces out to destabilize a democratically elected progressive government.

The mood today is decidedly different. The handling of first Singur, then the Rizwan case and now the latest episode in Nandigram, seems to have incensed a large section of both the intelligenstia and common public who have taken to the streets against the alleged ‘misrule’ of the Left Front government. The forcible re-occupation of Nandigram, not with the help of state forces but armed cadre and supporters of the CPI(M), is even being likened to Gujarat 2002. In an unkind cut, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is being compared to Narendra Modi, not surprising given his justification of what happened: ‘Those who had forcibly occupied the land are now being paid back in their own coin.’

Nandigram today is no longer just Nandigram, just as the protests are not only about setting up an SEZ or modalities of land acquisition. That is why asserting, and correctly, that the project stands withdrawn from Nandigram cuts little ice, and blaming the Trinamool or Maoist groups for the continuing violence appears an evasion of responsibility. Instead, what we are witnessing is pent up ire against years of stifling rule in which the distinction between the party and the state had all but vanished.

The CPI(M) not just enjoyed electoral dominance, it hegemonised all aspects of social life such that nothing was allowed to happen without party blessing and approval. Simultaneously, all dissenters and opponents were black-balled. Having so run the state all these years, it is not surprising that every problem afflicting the state, justifiably or otherwise, is credited to the party.

In more ways than one the CPI(M) has become a prisoner of its political legacy of justifying every measure – from patronage to coercion – to ensure its dominance. Having left few escape routes for itself, it can only attempt to brazen it out from an uncomfortable situation. Members of its politburo routinely justify the use of force against the opposition, even as the chief minister admits that he is first a loyal party member and then a constitutional head of government. Evidently, the irony escapes him. Clearly, unless the party is willing to revisit its basic premise, it will find it difficult to operate in a demanding liberal democratic polity.

The challenge, however, is not just for the party and its supporters. It equally applies to all of us who have in the past justified many actions by taking recourse to contingent extenuating circumstances. For far too long, far too many of us have kept silent, if not defended, ostensibly indefensible actions of those whom we support. Sometimes it is in defence of secularism, other times of national unity and integrity, without realizing how our favoured principles can come back to haunt us. Hopefully, the outcry over Nandigram will force a serious rethinking, and not only within the Left.

Harsh Sethi