The events in Nandigram have brought about a complete polarisation
between those who justify and rationalize the way the state government
has dealt with the issue and those who calls Nandigram as a valiant
example of anti-SEZ movement that for the first time offered an
militant resistance to the armed might of the predatory state
providing a radical critique to the model of development that
displaces a large number of people and destroy their livelihood in its
wake. Sudhanwa Deshpande’s article on Nandigram posted last week
offers one such view point which sees the events from the CPI (M)’s
perspective and ends up defending the indefensible. Here I’ve tried to
present a critique of Sudhanwa’s article that serves to whitewash the
utter culpability of state government in allowing the CPI (M) cadres
to go on a bloody offensive against the people of Nandigram.
Sandeep

“What was purported to be land acquisition notice was not that at all
it was a notice to clarify rumours about land acquisition. In any
case, the notice was, rightly or wrongly, deliberately or otherwise,
construed to be for land acquisition. Once this became apparent, the
government, in February itself, clarified that there was no question
of land acquisition in Nandigram. Period”. (Sudhanwa Deshpande)

To his credit Sudhanwa does write about the two notices that were
issued by Haldia Development Authority (HDA) (CPI (M) intellectuals
like Jayati Ghosh in her article, On Nandigram simply dismissed the
issuance of notices as rumour). However, he gives a misleading picture
when he writes,

a) “…all it was a notice to clarify rumours about land acquisition. In
any case, the notice was, rightly or wrongly, deliberately or
otherwise, construed to be for land acquisition. ”
b) “…, the government, in February itself, clarified that there was
no question of land acquisition in Nandigram”.

What are the facts? In all, two notices were issued by HAD, the first
one (dated Dec 28, 2006) was circulated to all Gram Panchayat’s
offices. Of course, it was not a Land Acquisition served to individual
landholders under 7/12. It stated “27 mouza of land in Nandigram and
two mouzas of land in Khejuri…would be required for the Salim Group’s
proposed Chemical hub”. On January 2, 2007, another public
notification was brought about by HAD announcing its intention and
plan to acquire lands in Nandigram with Salim Group acting as the main
player. There were no rumours. The second notification, instead of
clarifying the rumours (WB Chief Minister made a fantastic claim that
it was an “informal” notice brought about by HAD in the Assembly on
March 15) further reconfirmed and elaborated upon the earlier notice.
As Ashok Mitra has written “Nandigram was not after all the first
blood. The Singur episode had happened before that”, (Party’s Over,
HT-Nov 19). For the people of Nandigram, Singur has demonstrated the
fact how the state government through consent and mainly through
coercion, lies and fabrication carried out the “successful” land
acquisition on behalf of Tata. Though the movement in Singur lost its
steam it held valuable lessons for the rural poor of Nandigram, after
all the proposed project would have affected the lives of around
70,000 people. That the state government will not stop in this land
acquisition drive unless and until it was forced to was the grim
lesson learnt from Singur.
On March 14, the police in league with the private militia of CPI (M)
went on bloody rampage that killed 14 (official figures) members of
Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC). It was only after, following
a widespread protest over the massacre that the government finally
withdrew its notification and announced that there will be no chemical
hub at the proposed site. At left front meeting on March 17, it was
decided, under the pressure of three major CPI (M) allies, that there
will be no SEZ in Nandigram.

“And why were they forced to live in camps to begin with? …They
would not allow road blocks to be lifted, would not allow people to
come back, would not allow the administration to resume its normal
functioning. ” (Sudhanwa Deshpande)

In Nandigram the battle lines were clearly drawn. Immediately after
HAD issued a public notice announcing its intention and plan of
acquiring land in Nandigram the people were up in arms. There were
incidents of violence reported after the day public notification was
issued. The targets of people’s anger were the government
institutions. Fight broke out between the supporters of
anti-SEZ/chemical hub and pro-SEZ/chemical hub. The peasant’s
supporters of anti-SEZ movement formed the BUPC to carry forward their
movement. Set against the armed might of the state out to expropriate
their land, the BUPC members used guerilla tactics. They barricaded
the area, cut off the roads in order to stop the administration and
CPI (M) members from carry out their designs. Fearing reprisals, CPI
(M) supporters were forced to flee from the area, while a large
majority joined the mass movement itself. The massacre on March 14 of
BUPC members was meant to teach the BUPC members a lesson and showcase
the brutal might of the state. Nandigram was bloodied but the
resistance could not be crushed. Since then there was no peace.
The governor issued a statement saying “the news of deaths from
police firing in Nandigram this morning has filled me with a sense of
cold horror.” High Court has now called the police firing as
unconstitutional. But inspite of a huge uproar over the firings and
widespread protest all over the country the government did not make
any attempt to institute a credible independent enquiry nor it took
any action against the killers in Khaki uniform including CPI (M)
cadres. Such was the intensity of people’s anger that no CPI (M)
leader dared to enter the area after the massacre. In such a state of
affairs when the state and the party has merged together and police
openly siding with marauding gangs who attacks the BUPC members and
retreat back to their safe havens, how could there have occurred a
rapprochement between the two warring groups. And whose responsibility
lies in dividing the poor people, in the first place, into such an
antagonistic camps between anti-SEZ/chemical hub and pro-SEZ/chemical
hub. It is the state government that is ultimately responsible for
creating such a divide forcing its rural poor supporter’s to betray
their own class interest and fight with the camp composed of the
overwhelming poor majority and bogging them down in a confrontational
politics. All this, in the service of international capital. As Ashok
Mitra, former Finance Minister of West Bengal rightly pointed out,”
the responsibility of unspoken suffering of those(CPI(M) ‘s supporters)
who spent 11 months as homeless rests squarely on the shoulders of the
government”, (Ashok Mitra, The Party’s Over, HT-Nov 19)

“…However, had the Central paramilitary forces moved in when
requested, in October, the latest round of violence in early November
would almost certainly have been avoided, and several lives saved. To
blame the left for the latest violence is therefore to be callously
blind to ground reality”. (Sudhanwa Deshpande)

First of all, it is not clear why the CRPF was requisitioned for it is
the responsibility of the state government and the police to handle
the situation. Even if the paramilitary were sent late by the Centre
it is matter of fact the CRPF was stopped at Tamluk by CPM cadres.
Anandabazar Patrika reported, “Facts are telling a different story. On
Sunday (Nov 12) two CRPF vehicles got blocked by the CPM cadres at
Reyapara and Hanschara. Women supporters of CPM had a sit in front of
the vehicles. The CRPF returned after waiting for 40 minutes.” When
Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee was asked why the CRPF was stopped at Tamluk,
he gave an interesting answer, “Trinamul was blocking them”. And today
it’s the state police which is bent on trying “to clip the wings of
CRPF” (HT-Nov 19). The delay in the entry of CRPF was meant to allow
its armed militia to gain complete control over the area and to
extinguish any form opposition to its authority. It knew after
reclaiming Nandigram, the presence of CRPF will serve two purpose.
First, it will free them of the charges of state complicity with the
police in dealing with the situation. Second, since there will remain
a possibility of the battered masses staging a fight back to drive out
the CPI(M) supporters the role of CRPF here comes handy, to eliminate
these threat perceptions. So there will be no danger of opposition
dislodging the CPI (M)’s extra-constitutiona l authority in the area.

“Have Medha Patkar or Mahashweta Devi said a word? Have they tried to
visit those camps? Why not? The CPI(M) is vile and villainous, but do
its supporters among the rural poor deserver to be abandoned for that
reason? What kind of politics is this?” (Sudhanwa Deshpande)

It is clear as daylight that Nandigram had a “war like situation”
(Home Secretary of the state description) with both sides, agents of
state (CPI (M) cadres, along with criminal gangs) and struggling
masses of Nandigram (led by BUPC, TMC, SUCI and Naxal factions) are
choosing their own weapons. It was Medha who was stopped in entering
Nandigram by CPI (M) cadres during her visit to the area. And since
her very presence was perceived “as another instigation of trouble and
breach of peace” (CPI (M) state secretariat statement) she was not
only prevented but also physically attacked. Those who swear by
democracy should also live by it. This is nothing but reflection of
the politics of intolerance? (for example those who refuse to
participate in CPI(M) rally were assaulted, Nandigram school teachers
assaulted, The Statesman, Nov 14). And who can forget the infamous
“bare buttock” show choreographed by Benoy Konar, another central
committee protesting Medha visit to Nandigram. Questioning her
neutrality as CPI (M) does serves no purpose because she had made her
position clear and chosen to be on the side of the victims of the
state. Medha said ”We demand that peaceful defenders of human rights
belonging to known peoples’ organisations be protected and their entry
to Nandigram area facilitated. “The apathy, inaction and both direct
and indirect support of the police to the CPI(M) hooligans indicates a
breakdown of state machinery resulting in non-availability of any
channel for security or redressal of grievances of common people,”
she said. Is there anything wrong in what she said that makes CPI (M)
supporters fume with anger? As per the reports of the several Bengali
dailies, this particular attack on Medha was organized by Ashok
Patnaik, a leader of CPI(M) and able henchman of Lakshman Seth, the
Haldia sitting MP of CPI(M). Lakshman Seth is also known as the “land
mafia leader” of the region who first announced the procedure for
acquisition of land from Nandigram for the proposed SEZ.
Who are these “rural poor” Sudhanwa talking about? Are they
politically neutral? These “rural poor” are the supporters of CPI (M)
and its accomplice in furthering state neo-liberal agenda in the state
and hence perceived as “enemy” (it is a war-like situation in
Nandigram) by those whose lives and livelihoods were threatened by the
Party/Police combine.

“There is no doubt that armed gangs moved around in Nandigram. But who
were they? Who put in land mines, and who imported AK 47s?…But does
it even make common sense for the Marxist cadres to put in landmines
that targeted its own people and the administration that its own party
runs? To be sure, Faced with the Maoists, the Marxist fought back. Who
are the imported Maoists to prevent hundreds of villagers from
returning to their homes?” (Sudhanwa Deshpande)

It is indeed a supreme irony that when thousands of armed cadres of
CPI(M), in a pre-planned move sanctioned by the top leadership
savagely attacked the villagers resisting projected land acquisition
resulting in many being killed, maimed, raped, abducted and with many
dead bodies dumped in the canal to destroy the evidences, (Several
displaced as turf war rages on, DNA , Nov.13) forcing thousands of
them to flee (fearing reprisals from marauding “red” army), leaving
the trail of death and destruction in its wake, blocking all the entry
routes and disallowing media in a brazen manner (remember the party
and the state has merged) but Sudhanwa like the state police turns a
blind eye towards all this and lays the blame on the Maoist guerilla
squads that has a “marginal presence”, if at all, (State Committee of
CPI(Maoist) statement in an TV interview towards this effect in March)
in the area, as an main instigator of violence. The movement in
Nandigram saw the coming together of ordinary working people to thwart
the neo-liberal designs of the state, in the form of BUPC and
supported by TMC, SUCI, Naxal factions. It acquired the character of
mass militancy throwing up an entirely new breed of leaders. Sudhanwa
belittles the movement by pointing a finger on the “imported” Maoist
for creating “law and order problem” and attacking CPI(M) cadres, as
if the BUPC incapable of fighting the CPI (M) militantly. Earlier the
ruling party claimed that “there was no existence of Opposition
parties in Nandigram” (Ashok Mitra, The Party’s Over, HT-Nov 19) now
its leaders and Sudhanwa are blaming the “imported” Maoist for the
flare up in Nandigram. In a similar vein Brinda Karat, a Politburo
member of the CPI (M) screamed international conspiracy in the
Nandigram as a part of the slander campaign against the movement.
The stage was set after Brinda Karat in the presence of the Chief
Minister (in effect silently endorsing the call) declared in a public
meet on November 4, “Dumdum Dawai Ditey Hobey” (“mob violence will
have to be employed”). The peasants of Nandigram were attacked on Nov
14 by the “mercenaries (who) were collected from across the state” by
CPI (M) (Ashok Mitra, The Party’s Over, HT-Nov 19). When the West
Bengal government comes out openly and aggressively on the side of the
international finance capital decimating its own people how is it
wrong for the socially conscious people from any part of the country
to come to the defence of the beleagueredBUPC members fighting for
their life and livelihood. Sudhanwa’s they did it first argument soon
takes the form they asked for it and then with triumphantly suggesting
we did it (“the Marxist fought back”) which is quite an implicit
acknowledgement of CPI (M) using arms to win the turf war in
Nandigram. There are credible reports that mercenary elements and
members of the CPI (M) were given sophisticated weapons like AK 47 and
SLRs apart from providing them vehicles, trucks, bombs and bottles of
liquor (for e.g. read The Telegraph report, Power flows from gun &
bottle – Encounter with Comrade X, a hooded hunter, Nov. 16, 2007).
How is it any different from the Maoists who are alleged to have used
landmines and automatic rifles? The difference lies in the nature of
the politics. On one hand CPI (M) cadres unleashes violence under
state patronage to subserve the corporate interest while the violence
of Maoist is primarily directed to thwart the attacks on the
struggling peasants, even though it hardly exists in the area.
The raising of Maoist bogey essentially serves an important purpose of
not only justifying the rampaging act of CPI(M) cadres on the people
but also deflecting the all round criticism over the total failure of
the constitutional authority in the area. As a Bengali litterateur
Suchitra Bhattacharya noted, “Bhattacharya’ s excuse to recapture
Nandigram is like George Bush’s excuse to attack Iraq where no
chemical weapon was found later”. “Are Maoists the new WMDs” for
CPI(M).

“All those who have the interests of the poor at heart should welcome
the peace. To be sure, the political battles will continue to be
fought. But let them be fought democratically, by mobilizing the
people. Not through the barrel of the gun”. (Sudhanwa Deshpande)

What a pious thought indeed? After unleashing a reign of terror to
recapture lost territories by armed men of CPI (M), Sudhanwa
pontification on the need of fighting the battle democratically
reflects rank political double standard synonymous with present day
political class. The highly deplorable recent pronouncement of the
chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee (and no less different from
Narendra Modi’s statement “every action has an equal and opposite
reaction), “our boys did it” and that “we paid them back in the same
coin” is a crude justification of the brutal violence unleashed
through private militia of the CPI (M) cadres. Peace to CPI (M) means
a situation in which the political and economic writ of the party
freely runs. Its “victory” was achieved and Nandigram reclaimed
through barrel of the gun. The former finance minister in Jyoti Basu’s
government, Ashok Mitra has written, “Houses were torched anew, those
who were inside Nandigram were butchered in a massive celebration of
revenge”. The Governor of the state dubbed the way CPI (M) supporters
were brought back to take their shelter back in Khejuri as “totally
unlawful and unacceptable” . Calcutta High Court has called the March
14 firing as totally unconstitutional. There “exist no channel for
redressal of grievances, Nandigram is like a concentration camp” said
Medha Patkar. NHRC Chairman has likened it with the post-Godhra
violence in Gujarat (HT- Nov 19). Outraged at the events in Nandigram
West Bengal PWD minister and RSP leader Kshiti Goswami decided not to
continue in the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee cabinet and sought his party’s
permission to resign over continuing violence in Nandigram. The events
at Nandigram amplifies the fact how CPI (M) practice democracy.
Lastly, Sudhanwa raises a pious hope about the dawn of “peaceful
development of democracy” without addressing the fundamental question
about the nature and direction of corporate industrialization taking
place in Bengal that has resulted in a blood bath in Nandigram. It was
the pro CPI (M) intellectual Prabhat Patnaik who offered an insight
that “tragedies like Nandigram are inherent in the operation of such a
neo-liberal policy regime” and that “one must look at the real
processes of primitive accumulation of capital (or more generally of
‘accumulation through encroachment’ ), which neo-liberalism has
unleashed in our country” (Prabhat Patnaik, In the Aftermath of
Nandigram). But does the CPI (M) care to listen?

sandeep

And A.N is right on the point when he says there’s no arguing with you ‘lot’.

The best that comes from ‘you’, ‘us,’ ‘ourselves’, whatduyecallit, is enlightening pretense and intellectual foppery, the worst is bared teeth,fangs and raw venom. Why choose the first when the second option is so easy? After all it has been ‘scientifically’ proven to success in West Bengal time and again, and as of recent uncontested as “The Way.”

“Chomsky, Falk, Mamdani and other intellectuals on Nandigram

To Our Friends in Bengal.

News travels to us that events in West Bengal have overtaken the optimism
that some of us have experienced during trips to the state. We are concerned
about the rancor that has divided the public space, created what appear to
be unbridgeable gaps between people who share similar values. It is this
that distresses us. We hear from people on both sides of this chasm, and we
are trying to make some sense of the events and the dynamics. Obviously, our
distance prevents us from saying anything definitive. We continue to trust
that the people of Bengal will not allow their differences on some issues to
tear apart the important experiments undertaken in the state (land reforms,
local self-government).

We send our fullest solidarity to the peasants who have been forcibly
dispossessed. We understand that the government has promised not to build a
chemical hub in the area around Nandigram. We understand that those who had
been dispossessed by the violence are now being allowed back to their homes,
without recrimination. We understand that there is now talk of
reconciliation. This is what we favor.

The balance of forces in the world is such that it would be impetuous to
split the left. We are faced with a world power that has demolished one
state (Iraq) and is now threatening another (Iran). This is not the time for
division when the basis of division no longer appears to exist.

Noam Chomsky, author, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assult on
Democracy.

Tariq Ali, author, Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope and editor, New
Left Review.

Howard Zinn, author, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.

Susan George, author, Another World is Possible if, and Fellow,
Transnational Institute.

Victoria Brittain, co-author, Enemy Combatant: A British Muslim’s Journey to
Guantanamo and Back, former editor, Guardian.

Walden Bello, author, Dilemmas of Domination. The Unmaking of the American
Empire, and Chair, Akbayan, the fastest growing party in the Philippines.

Mahmood Mamdani, author, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War and
the Roots of Terror.

Akeel Bilgrami, author, Politics and the Moral Psychology of Identity.

Richard Falk, author, The Costs of War: International Law, the UN and World
Order After Iraq.

Jean Bricmont, author, Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell
War.

Michael Albert, author, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, and editor, ZNET.

Stephen Shalom, author, Imperial Alibis: Rationalizing US Intervention After
the Cold War.

Charles Derber, author, People Before Profit. The New Globalization in an
Age of Terror, Big Money and Economic Crisis.

Vijay Prashad, author, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third
World.”

http://www.pragoti.org/pragoti/news_detail.php?news_id=370&sessionid=

please do read it…

nakul