
A week and a half after the carnage,
Nandigram slowly fades from the headlines. The
odd story of butchery is finally nudged out by the 'mystery' behind Bob
Woolmer's demise and the 'do-or-die' encounter of Team India.
Independent groups conducting relief camps in the area continue to report on the hundreds that are still missing. Will we ever know what happened to them? Will the victims of
Nandigram ever find justice?
Not much hope if you consider that 15 years after the post-
Ayodhya Bombay riots of 1992-93, 443 people are still
officially missing. Not a single soul has been convicted for the rioting that left 900 dead and 2000 injured [unofficial estimates are several times higher]. The 2002 Gujarat riots have a slightly better record of 10 of the accused being sentenced to life imprisonment for 1044 killings, 223 missing and 2548 injured [again official figures].
The
CBI has a fine equation to balance. It should embarrass the
CPM enough to keep a check on its badgering of the
UPA government, but not too hard to incite its wrath. It is unlikely henceforth that many skeletons will tumble from the report
CBI has submitted to Calcutta
HC yesterday.
Meanwhile the
CPM has launched an all-out damage control exercise, it's own
protest against
the protest. Apart from the parading the politically correct group of 'victims' in the streets of Calcutta and organising an exhibition of buses burnt during the opposition
bandh,
Biman Bose has identified the '
internet and websites' as the new 'international' frontier for the propaganda struggle. Scores of
SFI and
DYFI activists have been unleashed on their unfamiliar terrains of Orkut and online petitions, to plaster community message boards with party's version of the events. And with Buddha losing his face at least temporarily, the party is now trying hard to capitalize on
Brinda Karat's appeal.
But she has no answer on why the decision to unconditionally abandon all land acquisition plans in
Nandigram was not publicized before the police operations. Was it to teach
Nandigram a grim lesson for defying the iron fist of the big brother in red Bengal? To set a chilling reminder to the other communities simmering in discontent at the 'industry for agriculture' policy across the state? If the compulsion to bring back the villages within the administration's jurisdiction was so strong, why has a single minister or secretary level official not visited the place to bring food, medical care and security to the battered masses?
While the
CPM struggles hard to remove these questions from the fore-front, the main opposition parties have quickly dismissed any additional confidence the people might have placed on them by resuming their usual retarded behaviour both inside and outside the assembly.
So what did
Nandigram teach all of us?
To
Lakshman Seth, it might have taught the need for a different tactics to bring the rebellious farmers again under his subjugation. Maybe the need to show some carrots at first before you bring out the stick. To
Biman Bose, it was probably a lesson to keep the octogenarian leaders of the Left Front partners posted more frequently, so that their babbling on prime time TV is less irritating. Maybe also to make sure that
Jyotibabu does not watch the wrong TV channels at times of need. To Buddha,
Nandigram might have shown the need for a new strategy to 'enforce development' on the unwilling agricultural populace.
But to the general public, to all of us who are frustrated to see our homeland sink at the bottom of every human development index, who long to see prosperity return to Bengal so that we can all go and work there, what did
Nandigram have to say to us? We were hopeful of a possible resurgence, weren't we, a new Bengal under a new leadership?
Perhaps it taught us that the leadership was not so new after all. Maybe it was more like old wine a new bottle, with a new label stamped
Brand Buddha and marketed aggressively through mainstream media all over the country. The same people who had decided that students in government schools need not learn English, have now come to the conclusion that we need to build large scale industries replacing extensive tracts of prime agricultural land.
So am I 'anti-industry'? This appears to be a new phrase of
neo-liberal coinage to be dispensed on anyone opposing the policies of
Buddhababu. Just like the '
un-American' stigma during McCarthyism in the US of the '50s.

Well, let me confirm that I am all for rapid industrialization. Post-globalization, when food is increasing a market-driven commodity, when our policy makers decide to import wheat against local procurement - the model of a small farmer growing his food in a tiny plot of vested land with a small surplus is fast becoming not only
infeasible for the economy but dangerous for the farmer as well. The only way to safeguard this farmer is by creating a more secure livelihood for him. By providing employment opportunity for him in a labour intensive work unit.
But to achieve this, if we arbitrarily select one of the most fertile and well irrigated agricultural areas of the state - home to a relatively prosperous, self-sufficient, productive and socially conscious community; enforce acquisition 'with consent' [if you don't give consent you lose the land as well as the compensation]; offer no choice of reconsidering the location [since the business owner has already chosen the land before the inhabitants were informed]; bulldoze any unwilling occupants forcibly; murder some of the more
defiant ones; finally setup an industry which employs less people than were originally displaced; and those who get employment actually did not come from the same community because of the advanced
skillsets required - does this really address the original need to provide alternate and more viable employment opportunities for our economically backward sections?

What we need instead is probably a more scientific approach. Maybe a
CPM muscleman is not the right person to decide where a chemical hub displacing thousands of people should be setup.
Maybe a person with a
B.A. Hons degree in Bengali, who thinks
only 1% of our state's land is barren [when the actual figure is 18%] is not the right person to set the
sectorwise economic growth targets for the state.
Maybe we should create soil fertility maps of the state [as
Jharkhand has done ahead of us] to identify land for industry.
Maybe we should let economists and scientists take the decision on land utilization rather than leaving the decision to politicians and industrialists themselves.
Maybe we should prioritize the agriculturally backward red-soil districts when we chalk our industrialization plans.
Maybe we should allot the abandoned/surplus land from shut down factories for setting up new industries, instead of handing these over to land sharks [as done in
Batanagar, Hind Motors,
Kamarhatty].
Maybe there should be enough safeguard to prevent businesses from just grabbing land at
dirt cheap rates in the name of industrialization.
Maybe we should focus on employment generation potential rather than media appeal when we select which industries to attract.
Maybe the government should make more extensive use of e-governance [where we lag behind even Assam in eastern India] as contact points for the people with the state, rather than relying on the
CPM party offices.
Maybe instead of displacing productive agricultural communities, government should help them access bigger markets for their economic development.
Will our people who matter take these lessons out of Nandigram? Well, going by history - fat chance. The presupposition that activities of the CPM government are aimed at improving the lot of the people, is itself at serious risk of being incorrect.But again...., hope is the only thing we can have - so let's keep our fingers crossed.....