Nandigram: Some Aspects/Questions Seldom Discussed
What happened in and about Nandigram are so well known to the readers that they need no further repetition. Neither it is now necessary to reiterate condemnation and contempt. At this moment rather it is urgent to probe the important questions thrown up by the struggle, but alas, they are not that much discussed within the camp of revolutionary proletariat. We take up only a few of such questions, though not in the order of importance, in this present discussion.
The first question we are taking is regarding Govt Intervention for 'Law & Order' - as the WB Left Front (and also CPIM) Chief Mr Biman Basu and also the Chief Minister said before and after the March 14 genocide - 'Is Nandigram a separate country that those protestors are not allowing state police and administration to go and act inside Nandigram freely? They have cut off roads, damaged bridges ... they are behaving as if Nandigram is a liberated area - that cannot be tolerated! ? what's this - a democratic movement! ? we have to establish law & order there?' etc. Those who matter in the media and talked against the govt action ducked this question; all their replies, responses were actually a single point demand that the govt notify that it would not go ahead with land acquisition in Nandigram. Subsequently came allegations and counter-allegations: 'the govt had stated it would not take land but those protestors are still not coming in terms, not allowing road repair?' vs. 'by this and/or that action of the govt/CPIM how it can be believed that they would not lead further aggression on Nandigram?'. It is indeed true that 'by this and/or that action of the govt/CPIM' 'it cannot be believed that govt-forces/CPIM-hooligans would not lead further aggression on Nandigram' - but this is not the answer to what CPIM Chieftains said about imposing 'Law & Order' by armed attack of the State and Party. The answer should include at least a fact: Whose Law & Order? Law & Order of which class/classes the CPIM was eager to enforce upon the Nandigram protestors and for what end? It is the Law & Order of the ruling classes, for us which means the Big Bourgeoisie Big Landlords who are dependent on Imperialism. And that sacred Law & Order of CPIM was to be imposed on Nandigram by the barrels of guns (of the state police and the CPIM-hooligans) in order to bow down the heads of the Nandigram villagers (and all those inspired by them), to cow them down, so that nobody in future dare to protest the Will of the Rulers, to oppose the grand plan of liberalisation-globalisation (which the CPIM nicknamed or misnamed here as industrialisation-development) for which the CPIM led govt like any other govt is grabbing land evicting peasantry. So, toiling people can rather retort: we just give a damn to your sacred Law & Order which is the ruling class tool to pauperise the peasants, agro-labourers and to throw workers in slave-like conditions by your industrialisation-development plan. And they can also add: You CPIM people are barking and alleging aloud about American Imperialist Hand behind Nandigram struggle - foreign hand behind destabilising the peace of WB and hindering the industrialisation-development drive of the WB govt - but say us - who designed the policy of Globalisation if that is not imperialism, who helped designing the SEZ policy of India if that is not US imperialism, and what is your beloved FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) other than a part of the Imperialist Finance Capital???
Nandigram villagers opposed that grand plan of the Foreign & Native Capitalist Combine and dared to fight, shed their blood, faced state terror including gang-rapes, halted at least for time being execution of that plan, but they did not oppose that plan 'consciously', they were not fighting against, say, the SEZ policy of the govt. For them their fight was to save their land - it was their aim plain and simple. And by their life experience they knew that this industrialisation-development drive of the govt would not beget their development, rather would ruin them. It was a question of life and death to them. And they faced that question bravely and in united, organised way . Their fight inspired many toiling people who are also fighting and also them who are not yet fighting but are also under attack of the ruling classes and are becoming restless. Simultaneously another anti-eviction fight was there - the Singur struggle. Even common people did compare these two in their own way. One such comparison was: Singur fought more or less in a peaceful, democratic way and the govt didn't yield - but Nandigram fought militantly, they took up arms, and the govt had to listen. You cannot negate this comparison point blank, it is of course a fact, but it is very partial, hence not the truth . Firstly, this type of comparison confuses 'democracy' with 'bourgeois legal-constitutional framework' - a question that we shall take up a bit later. Then, this very partial comparison does not take into account several plus points of the Nandigram struggle and some limitations too. Revolutionary proletariat must go beyond eulogising 'militancy' and 'armed' forms of struggle what the agitated petit bourgeoisie usually do. We would like to focus here on only two such plus points and one limitation. During the January-March period of three months the Nandigram fighters showed extra-ordinary (in today's standard) organised behaviour and also during their fight they could cast aside their (old) party-identities . Months of resistance and the fight back on 16th March shows their organised way of acting evidently, and indeed by their March 16th they overshadowed March 14th. Then, Nandigram villagers were largely 'left' according to their (old) party 'affiliation' or nature voting. But they came out of the orbit of those established parliamentary lefts by their action, by their struggle. Had they gone over to TMC camp (Trinamool Congress led by Ms Mamata Banerjee)? Even the TMC could not and did not claim Nandigram movement as a TMC movement; and in terms of some 'forms' of struggle Nandigram, to some extent, went beyond the chalk-circle usually maintained by parliamentary parties including TMC. Whether Nandigram villagers will go back to the commonly found party divisions (among established parliamentary parties) with perhaps some changed proportions (from more towards parliamentary 'left' alliance to more towards anti-CPIM alliance) only future can say. But if that happens that will be a misfortune; we will again witness another episode of peoples movement being used ultimately for parliamentary ends, for getting some seats in panchayat, assembly, parliament. But why can such 'misfortune' happen almost smoothly? For this answer we are to look in the content of the struggle concerned rather than in the form. Here comes the question of leadership of, hegemony of working class. Here comes the question of 'content'. In the eyes of the proletariat Nandigram struggle was democratic - even if the arch revisionist turned neo-liberal CPIM leadership says that 'undemocratic' because Nandigram went beyond bourgeois legality, bourgeois constitutional-democratic norms. Yes, Nandigram struggle was democratic, it showed some flashes of revolutionary democracy in terms of form of struggle, in terms of some ways of action, etc. But who will and who can instil revolutionary democracy in content? Other than the leadership of the working class, yes, we repeat, working class , it is impossible. And when a peasant struggle has revolutionary democratic content in it, when it has the leadership of the working class, it will not stop at 'saving land' from govt land grab, it will, metaphorically speaking, rather demonstrate its determination to march forward to grab the whole of the country in alliance with the working class. Nandigram and all such struggles are again and again throwing up this extremely important point to all advanced elements of the class. Advanced workers must realise the severe weakness of class, its almost absence in the arena of political struggle, and hence must resolve to build up a political battalion of class conscious advanced workers alongside conducting its revolutionary agitation-propaganda regarding Nandigram and suchlike struggles.
Without working class viewpoint it is also impossible to confront revisionist reformist slanders and misinformation drive properly. We take only one example here. Both in a popular TV show and in a column of a bourgeois daily a question was thrown and that was left unanswered by the part of the intelligentsia taking side with the present peasant struggles. The question was: 'it is seen in history that everywhere violence was associated with industrialisation drive in backward societies, so what else can happen here!' In this question there is a wide hole. In history we have seen actually two kinds of violence in such social transformations from pre-capitalist backward society. As for example, we have seen in England violence of the rulers against the people, and also we have seen in France violence of the people against the ex-rulers. We have seen J?nker path of development of capitalism (and industrialisation) in Germany by the ruling class ruthlessly oppressing the toiling masses, and also we have seen Lincoln's civil war, a people's war, and subsequent development of capitalism in USA. So the question from history is not of just 'violence', but of 'violence of which class and against which class'. After the November revolution in Russia, Lenin in some writings symbolically labelled themselves, the Bolsheviks, proudly as the Jacobins. And here, the CPIM trying to project itself as an obedient servant of the Indian ruling classes, an obedient devotee of foreign and native capitalists followed the path chosen by the ruling classes, the path of oppression, violence against the people, the J?nker path of development of capitalism coupled with liberalisation-globalisation. Surely the Salim group (friend of once dictator Suharto), the Dow group (makers of Napalm bomb), the TATA (of Gopalpur-Kalinganagar-Singur state sponsored massacre fame) will bless the CPIM! But unintentionally by their violence against the people the ruling classes are teaching some lesson to the people. What lesson the proletariat will take from all these and what lesson it will try to convey to the peasantry?
Comments:
No Comments for View