The Background of Singur Struggle as on early October 2008
[We prepared this editorial piece before the episode of Tata shifting to Gujarat. Nevertheless, we are printing that same editorial without any change because this commentary can give an account of the dynamics of the Singur struggle adequately. The Editorial Board]
2nd December 2006 was a bloody day in Singur, West Bengal. About twenty thousand armed police attacked Singur, overpowered the villagers, beat them mercilessly ? women and children were not spared ? even dragging fleeing people from every corner of their rooms. The repressive state power did prove itself to be mightier than the strength of Singur peasants who were resisting against forcible acquisition of 1000 acres land and Buddhadeb?s government in the after hand could boast gleefully of at last crushing the stubborn spontaneous resistance of the Singur peasants. It is to recall that peasants of Singur, particularly with womenfolk in the forefront first kindled the spark of their agitation against govt notice of land acquisition on 2nd May that year encircling the TATA officials and other officers of govt agencies and driving them out of the area. Initially Singur movement was spontaneous and organised and led mainly by themselves. Trinamul Congress party, specially Ms Mamata Banerjee, subsequently managed to get hold of the movement and peasants? struggle against govt and turned it into struggle between the party, i.e. TMC and the govt, and peasant leaders virtually relegated to the background.
It?s fallout, as we saw, was, firstly the fighting peasants got the beating without giving effective and all-out resistance to the police attack on 2nd December 2006, and secondly they could not in fact survive the shock and reorganise for raising their struggle again. And it is also a fact that Ms Mamata Banerjee?s hunger strike at the capital of the state away from the fields of Singur did virtually seal the possibility of further resistance struggle. And since then Singur remained calm, barring some stray militant but futile actions of a small section of peasants. Peasants were pushed to a position where there could not be reliance on litigation in the court on one hand and helpless dependence on Ms Mamata Banerjee. And during the period of lull in the movement TATA could be able not only to take firm possession and control of the acquired 1000 acres land, but also to erect forcefully on the site, of course not without police protection all through. The heroic struggle of Singur peasants which was literally first of its kind in the country, i.e. struggle against the nationwide wave of land acquisition in the name of Industrialisation-Development, and which started o 22nd May 06, became, after 2nd December 06 literally dead, or otherwise speaking, it was virtually put to a state of Coma. The present spate of Singur movement is to be seen in such background.
Yet it was not dead. Owners of about 350 acres of land kept the dispute alive by refusing payment for their land. Singur resurrects, thanks to these peasants. The result of the Panchayat election really did inject life to the almost dead self of the Singur movement. The defeat of CPIM in a large number of Panchayat bodies, particularly in almost all the Panchayats in Nandigram and Singur, two hotbeds of anti-acquisition struggle, and CPIM in backfoot, emboldened the Singur people to raise their head and voice their demand for return of land to the unwilling peasants, ie those who had been declining to receive payment for their land physically acquired and finally taken possession by TATA. TMC?s Dharna in front of Tata?s Singur plant got the coverage in all the major dailies and also in the TV News channels. But before the Dharna started, militant section of Singur peasants had already taken initiative on their own to obstruct the work in Tata factory by various means and obviously they were not always peaceful. The leaders, taking their lesson from the past, adopted tactics befitting for a smaller army of combat immensely powerful and bigger enemy. Factory work continued and management was under pressure. In the background, Ms Mamata Banerjee announced the Dharna programme categorically emphasising that it would be peaceful. What happened thereafter we shall see, but here in this connection we cannot evade the question: was it not that programme of centralised peaceful Dharna was launched from above with a view to divert the peasant leaders and activists from what they were doing backed by the masses as to obstruct the work in the factory which had been gaining momentum, and as we said was not always peaceful? Answer to the question may not be clear at this moment, but one thing has been clearly demonstrated that Ms Mamata Banerjee and her party, TMC, through the Dharna programme and with huge party mobilisation from outside Singur would secure the centre stage of Singur movement, with full control over the latter, thus relegating the fighting peasants of the soil of Singur almost to a place of non identity or at best side actor; as it was in the period of 28 days? hunger strike of Ms Mamata Banerjee after 2nd December 2006. class conscious proletariat can not but take note of i. The possibility of the movement going out of control of Ms Mamata Banerjee was checked.
The Dharna virtually blocked the National Highway. At one time few thousand carrier trucks got stranded. Govt was under pressure. But it restrained from taking police action. In fact CPIM wanted to avoid any showdown apparently because the party and the government had already a lesson from Nandigram and secondly the party was wise enough to realise that any showdown and consequential bloodletting would rather give political advantage to Ms Mamata Banerjee and her party in view of the ensuing parliamentary election ? the later one presumably being cardinal. And in the meantime one thing happened. In the 5th day of the Dharna Tata factory was disrupted due to blockade, again thanks to the initiative of activists and peasants of Singur present in the Dharna, and as mass support was there. Tata retaliated by declaring lock-out in the factory on the plea that company?s staff and workers were insecure. It was a threat. One who was totally shaken was the govt itself. All the Merchant Chambers came out vociferously in support of Tata. Society was distinctly polarised. The simple threat stirred the upper stratum of the society. Bourgeois dailies and all TV channels, particularly the local ones, shed off their apparent neutrality, raised fingers towards the agitation, and joined the chorus of Tata worship and ?pro-industrialisation? along with the upper middle class people aspiring to enjoy the benefit of so called industrialisation. The scenario revealed, for whom the industralisation ? the high orchestrated slogan of the government. But it was only starting. Gem of experience was then yet to come.
Pressing concern for the CPIM and the government as any how to get the Dharna agitation withdrawn. Ms Mamata Banerjee was on the other hand possibly concerned how to retreat the best out of the Dharna programme at an appropriate time as delay would give leverage to the govt in the bargain. After hectic parleyance an understanding was reached and both Ms Mamata Banerjee and the govt signed the paper in presence of Governor of the state pf WB. It was agreed in spirit that as much of land would be given back to unwilling peasants and its maximum amount would be from within Tata project area and remaining from outside. Dharna was withdrawn at late night. But the very next day Tata announced that the content of the agreement was not acceptable to them and further clarified that no land could be spared from the project area. What a government was supposed to do at such a question? Was it not imperative the govt to persuade and impress, if not force, Tata so as to act as per agreement of which the govt is itself a party? But no, govt made 180? turnabout. The minister who signed the agreement paper, along with the CM, in a press conference, echoed the ?His Master?s Voice? that no land would be given from the project area. Then came the audacious final threat from Tata. They said that if stalemate continues they would shift the car factory outside West Bengal. The threat was loud enough to raise hue and cry amongst those upper strata of the society, the dailies and TV channels. The governments of different other states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Karnataka etc etc jumped into the fray, didn?t loose a moment in laying red carpet for Tata. Here in West Bengal, government was desperate to cling to Tata at any cost and even by going to the extent of flouting the agreement they signed in presence of Governor of West Bengal. Mind it, here with their moneybags that are stained by blood and sweat of millions of workers and toiling people, for reaping the maximum of benefit of their own policy of Industrialisation, i.e., for profit and super-profit. Present Tata episode in West Bengal brings forward that basic question, probably as clear and naked as never before: People elect governments but who actually runs the govt, who rules the country?
The working class of West Bengal shows no concern whether Tata stays in the state or opts out. Let alone few ardent CPIM loyalists, workers in general are found to be not at all affected by high decibel pro-Industrialisation pro-Tata campaign. They are gradually realising, mainly through their own experience that they have nothing to get from so called ?industrialisation?, other than deprivation, suffering and severe exploitation. But the moot question is yet to be addressed by the working class; whether establishment of few dozens of factories and that too in a vast country like ours, can at all be called industrialisation? True industrialisation cannot be achieved unless there is change in relation of production in agriculture, i.e., a thoroughgoing land reform through agrarian revolution. That industrialisation would be a social movement not meant for profit but for all round development of the whole of society. Society based on such industrialisation would thrive to give job to al and not few jobs without security and with abysmally low wage as contract labour, as is the case now. Class conscious workers are conscious that this new society can only be achieved by establishing the rule of workers peasants alliance under the leadership of working class. They are painfully conscious that working class is far off from their goal. Since the defeat of the first offensive of the world socialist movement working class is still disintegrated, they don?t have even their own party. As mentioned above, workers are rightfully unperturbed at Tata?s threat but at the same time it is painful that they have remained all along indifferent and passive. They could not give the befitting reply to audacious threat of Tata by raising their distinctly different roaring voice in thousands in streets of capital of the state.
The fate of the unwilling peasants in getting their land back is still in the dark. Stalemate still continues. Where it ends or whether it will at all end time will speak. Ms Mamata Banerjee is apparently having a militant posture. But at the same time she or her party must be thinking how to derive best of advantage from the present Singur movement in respect of ensuing parliamentary election. Mind it, during the whole period she keeps on declaring that she is not against ?industrialisation?, she is not against Tata. Who not knows that TMC is not different to the existing parties of the order, i.e., the established parliamentary parties in serving the ruling classes? interest in relation to globalisation-liberalisation or so to say, ?industrialisation? which is at the moment the pivotal policy of the ruling classes of our country and of the whole world capital. And yet, this is a big yet, Ms Mamata Banerjee could entrench herself as the leader of Singur movement which is objectively against the process of so called industrialisation. Yes, the real leader is absent from the scene. One peasant leader of Singur once said in anguish, everybody is for industrialisation, is there no one on the side of the people! Should the working class, particularly its advanced class conscious section delay in giving real living answer to that peasant leader?
Comments:
No Comments for View