The Marxist government in West Bengal is in a serious dilemma because its decision to go down the capitalist path of development has provoked mass consternation in the state. True to his election pledge, the chief minister of West Bengal, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee undertook steps to acquire a large swath of land in Nandigram, in the district of Medinipur to establish a mega Indonesian chemical hub, for which land acquisition was necessary.
In concert, the state government also defended the decision by underlining that industrialisation would provide new sources of livelihood to the people of the area where the income from land has considerably shrunk for a variety of reasons, including massive fragmentation of land. Nandigram as a special economic zone (SEZ) would have fulfilled the twin goals of contributing to the economic wealth of the state in addition to providing alternative sources of income to the local population. The argument did not make sense to those for whom it was underwritten, the rural folk, - resulting in turmoil which brought together the government’s political foes under one platform, namely, the Bhumi Ucched Partirodh Committee (Land Eviction Resistance Committee), regardless of ideology.
The controversy over acquisition of land from the farmers in West Bengal for industries clearly suggests that the bottom-up mode of governance is hardly effective in India’s highly politically mobilised state of West Bengal. The chief minister’s zeal for quick industrialisation not only provoked strong criticisms from his Left Front partners but also allowed the opposition parties to bolster their anti-government campaigns.
The decision to forcibly acquire land for a car factory in Singur in the vicinity of Kolkata in recent past and now, the imbroglio over Nandigram, has alienated a significant section of grassroots supporters who were drawn to the Left Front primarily because of the radical land reform measures that the state government undertook since it came to power. The leading partner of the Front, CPI (M) appears to have ignored its commitment be “the tiller of the soil”, given Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s enthusiasm for rapid industrialisation.
As a bewildered supporter articulated his disenchantment, ‘the only party we have known all our life is CPM. For years, we heard leaders spew anti-industry speeches. Now, there is a sudden turnaround. I don’t understand’.
Bewilderment led to anger when the state police resorted to violence, killing fourteen protestors in Nandigram on the occasion of a protest march opposing the SEZ on 14 March 2007. Justifying the SEZ as the only effective economic instrument to ‘reverse the process of de-industrialisation’, the Left Front leadership dismissed the incident as ‘a stray-one, engineered by outsiders’.
The situation however took a radical turn when the Nandigram firing hogged the limelight and also caused a fissure among the Front partners. None of the constituents, including the three major partners, Revolutionary Socialist Party, CPI, and Forward Bloc, supported the government’s uncritical endorsement of SEZ. Describing the incident as ‘unexpected, unbelievable and traumatic’, the CPI squarely blamed Bhattacharjee for running the Left Front government as ‘a government of CPM (sic) alone keeping the allies in the dark’.
The people’s tribunal that looked into the 14th March police firing in Nandigram also came out sharply against the government by insinuating that ‘the motive behind this massacre seemed to be the ruling party’s wish to teach a lesson to the poor villagers by terrorising them for opposing the proposed SEZ’.
The Bhattacharjee-led Left Front Government was in a tight spot because of its failure to secure land for the proposed chemical hub. This not only threatened to dishearten prospective investors, but also extended a moral boost to the coalition of forces that came together to scuttle the government’s blueprint for the rapid industrialisation of the state. Given its numerical hegemony in the Left Front Government, the CPI (M) did not seem to swallow ‘the defeat’, as what followed in Nandigram in November 2007 confirmed.
The well-planned ‘recapture’ of Nandigram from anti-land acquisition forces by armed cadres was a clear testimony of how ruthless a party could be, in spite of leading a government with more than a two-third majority in the legislative assembly. Justifying the intervention of the armed cadres and the refusal to call in the police, government sources contended that ‘the police was not sent for fear of a repeat of the 14th March incident. The consequences were disastrous, leading to killing of many innocent people and also forcing those who were opposed to the SEZ to leave Nandigram. Bhattacharjee, the chief minister, seemed to be happy when these armed cadres barged into the village to ‘reclaim’ the lost ground because the protesters, as he emphatically stated, ‘have been paid back in their coin’.
The Left Front Government has thus won the first round of the battle by following what can only be described as a quintessentially Stalinist formula in settling the Nandigram problem.
Even those sympathetic to the Left Front found it difficult to accept that CPI (M), long regarded as a friend of the poor, could have be so been ruthless. More appalling was the application of brute force that was applied to make some of India’s poorest people surrender the piece of land which gave them identity. Seeking to redefine its ideological priority in the changed circumstances of globalisation, the Left Front Government seems to have charted a new course of action despite significant opposition to it, both in West Bengal and elsewhere in the country.
Nonetheless, the CPI (M) cannot afford to give-up its commitment to the industrialists as the SEZ is widely accepted to represent the passport for rapid industrialisation in the state. And, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has also received accolades from Indian big business as ‘a brave and reformist chief minister fighting a lonely but modern battle to shift the paradigm of an archaic ideology’.
If the party cadres had not acted in Nandigram, then the entire process of industrialisation would have purportedly stalled. As far as the CPI(M) was concerned, there was no alternative to the violent operation that allowed the ruling authority to ‘regain’ control of Nandigram. This has happened in the state of West Bengal which returned the Left Front to power just over a year ago. Is this thus indicative that the support-base of the ruling parties is perhaps dwindling?
The battle between the CPI (M) and its opposition has gone beyond the original struggle of landholders against the state’s forcible acquisition of land for SEZs. Not only has the Nandigram controversy brought out the dark side of economic reform, it has also articulated the changed ideological preferences of the left parties in West Bengal which, instead of rejecting, seem to have opted for the capitalist path of development as perhaps the only way to achieve adequate economic growth in the country. How will the Left Front, especially its leading partner, CPI (M) resolve this contradiction while engaging with the neo-liberal charter of SEZ-led investment? This is too serious a contradiction to sweep under the carpet and the sooner the Front addresses the contradiction the better; otherwise, the euphoria that translated into votes for the Left Front in the 2006 election will evaporate in no time.