The recent spate of violence in Nandigram may at least be the reason for some elation to the CPI(M) and its supporters amidst the excruciating grief that the killings of two CPI(M) workers in two consecutive days (August 6th and 7th) have inflicted upon the comrades of the murdered persons. It will at least pierce the veil of “anti- SEZ movement” which the heinous politics of terror inflicted by the BUPC/TMC/Maoists was being branded with by the “liberal” free press of Bengal and India.
Even the epitomes of idiocy would not call the recent murders as to have any relation with any “land-grabbing” or SEZ. But under the existing circumstances even idiocy itself cannot guarantee the nadir of reason and rationality that media reportage or “civil rights” (read Suhil Samaj/Bidwojjon/Nagorik Samaj/Swajan et al) activism in Bengal can hit.
The crucial question is why this violence yet again? SEZ plan was aborted by mid-February of 2007 itself and the much hyped and invented apprehension of “Red terror” post Panchayat polls has also faded into oblivion as the Panchayat elections have seen the rainbow coalition emerge victorious in Nandigram and in maximum areas in East Midnapore. It is this invention of a perpetual enemy that is the source of this violence. Whatever support the BUPC/TMC/Maoists had in Nandigram was the result of a careful construction of an enemy- the CPI(M). It is the construction of an endangered and vulnerable community (the local peasants and land-holders) susceptible to aggression from the state and the CPI(M) that had created and sustained the political base of the BUPC/TMC/Maoist joint venture in Nandigram. It is proved sociologically that mechanical solidarityis best achieved when a group of people is strongly projected as vulnerable or endangered against an invented common enemy  . Also, it is a need that this enemy should be easily identifiable and objectively distinct so as to construct a concrete shape of adversity against which the said mechanical solidarity may be coalesced, nurtured and mobilized. Which other political group is as easily identifiable and distinct in its objectives, programmes and structure as the communists and the communist party? This line of mobilization bears an uncanny similarity with that of the Hindu right wing activism in India, where Pakistan, Jihaad and Islam are constructed as the common enemy and the Hindu community as vulnerable and endangered due to these ‘enemies’, to bind the Hindus to the ideological praxis of the Sangh Parivaar . The acts of nonchalant and indiscriminate violence perpetrated by the Hindu right is being attempted to be legitimised by them on the lines of this common invented enemy, the endangered community and “struggle” that the later has to engage against the former . The trouble is that the tools of mobilization along these lines lose their vitality the moment this construction of an enemy starts waning and the resultant mechanical solidarity (that had been the soul of the mobilization) starts eroding. To continue with the same construction of a common enemy a strong ideological/theoretical foundation is required, which in the case of the Hindu right is based upon the Huntingtonian conceptualization of history, antiquated scriptural sources, social Darwinism, eugenics, medieval feudal conceptions of ultra-nationalisms et al. However, due to the social and historical peculiarities prevailing in Bengal (the social reform movements, the Bengal renaissance, the land reforms movement etc.) none of the abovementioned theoretical foundations perform well to sustain a mechanical solidarity in the long run. Also, the issue of land and “land-grabbing” having since long being obliterated in Nandigram, there is the need for newer events that may sustain the said construction. What is needed is a bitter partition of the people into hostile factions based on no political or social cause but simply through the politics of mistrust, by fanning and fuelling the infliction of violence on one another.
The murders are being committed with the soul intention of jeopardizing any process of reconciliation that the people of Nandigram may wish to undertake on the aftermath of the heinous acts of violence and killings that had marked the entire previous year. The anti-CPI(M) movement in Nandigram being entirely hinged upon the question of land now requires different ground to shift its base upon. The killings, if they usher in retaliation from the CPI(M) would be welcomed from the entire clique of the BUPC as the same would aid to their aim of furthering the politics of mistrust. If the CPI(M) is terrorized through such acts of individual violence then its organizational activities can be sufficiently jeopardized and the politics of reconciliation and reorganization on class line would be adequately impeded, which would also aid the feudal objectives of the BUPC leadership whose class character is overwhelmingly feudal/big bourgeois. Also, hindering the organizational activities of the CPI(M) may serve yet another objective. The blatant acts of plunder and extortion perpetrated by the BUPC in the past one year and their new found economic resource in the form of the public money under the aegis of the Zilla Parishad needs to be blocked from careful investigation, monitoring and observation by the CPI(M) and the people at large. Engaging in a politics of violence serves that purpose too.
For the Maoists, Nandigram presents a conducive zone for their politics of clandestine violence and physical liquidation. With a fast shrinking political base in the erstwhile Maoist strongholds such as West Midnapore (Bengal-Jharkhand border areas) and Purulia, Nandigram is a prospective Maoist target for having a foothold in south Bengal due to the geographical peculiarity of the region as well as for the support that it has garnered from the anti-CPI(M) reactionary groups. The violence may also serve duly at the forthcoming lok sabha polls in favour of the anti CPI(M) groups. Nandigram is an attempt at institutionalization of violence as a political instrument by the reactionary groups in Bengal. The refusal of the TMC to attend the all-party peace meeting at Tamluk on Nandigram clearly shows TMC’s abject lack of intention to establish peace at Nandigram. The intermittent acts of arson, regionalistic chauvinism and other crimes perpetrated by the KJJJRC (led by TMC) in Singur or the vandalism that has become an inseparable part of any strike called by the opposition or even the recent crisis at Darjeeling (where violence has been made synonymous with “militancy” by the GJM and forms their primary political line) clearly goes on to show that. It is precisely against this political culture that the CPI(M) had fought throughout the 70s, and in post-1977 Bengal it had worked towards the same through political activities and administrative measures. Certainly, the recent violence at Nandigram is well thought and implemented by the motley conglomeration of anti-CPI(M) forces.
1. Giddens, Anthony, (1999), Sociology, (Butterworths: New Delhi).
2. Basu, Amrita & Jeffrey, P. (eds.), Sarkar, Tanika; (1998), "Women, Community and Nation." Appropriating Gender, (New York: Routledge).
3. Bachchetta, Paola; (2004), Gender in the Hindu Nation, (New Delhi: Woman Unlimited)
4. Sarkar, Tanika; (2001), Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation, (Permanent Black: New Delhi).
5. Dasgupta Ashok (ed.), Aajkal, 6th July, 7th July 2008.
6. Sarkar, Abhik (ed.), Anandabazar Patrika, 6th July, 7th July 2008.
7. Das, Chandan & Pati, Bhashkarbroto, “Kaalo kaapore Dhaka much guli fer Nandigrame”, Ganashakti, 9th July, 2008.