Few Preliminary Comments On Bhangar Movement
The movement of the villagers of Bhangar that commenced two years back, opposing the Government's decisions to install 'Power Grid' in that locality, as their principal demand, came to an end on last August by virtue of an agreement signed between Government and 'Jami Jeevika Raksha Committee'(Land and Livelihood Protection Committtee-FAPP), the organization leading the movement. Setting aside for the time being, the conditions laid down in the agreement or the extent of achievement or non-achievement of the principal demand of rejection of 'Power Grid', at the outset, we must note that the government had to retreat from their primary rigid position regarding the movement. That the government could not succeed with such strategies as unleashing uninterrupted terror by the state and the ruling party on one hand, and on the other hand resorting to cunning and sly tactics to break the fighting temperament of the villagers and create a split among the ranks, to crush the movement, was proved by the signing of this agreement with the committee. Undoubtedly, the struggling villagers were the real architects of this who have been fighting the state terror for the last two years encircled by the enemies, upholding the spirit of three martyrs and striving every moment to keep the flag of their unity high. At present, this is the most important feature of the Bhangar movement. Of course, the contribution and role played by Com.Alik Chakraborty and other comrades and allied organizations in keeping the people of 7-8 villages united and leading them for a long period facing the tough adversities of the situation, is undeniable and praiseworthy.
As far as it is known, prior to the arrest of Com.Alik, there was no conciliatory proposal on behalf of the government before the 'Jami Jeevika Raksha Committeee'. Immediately after the arrest of Com. Alik the government started conciliation and that too with Com Alik alone. This is noticeable that a revised proposal on behalf of the Government regarding power-grid was placed before Com. Alik who was then under police custody. Whereas, it was natural that the written proposal of the Government was supposed to have been placed before the leading organization of the movement i.e. Jami Jeevika Raksha Committee'-especially when the government all through declined to negotiate with any 'outsider'! It cannot be thought that the sudden change in stand of the government, particularly, the move to discuss the issue with a particular leader setting aside the 'committee' was without a well-thought plan on the part of the government. It is also noticeable that the general tactics of any ruler or government of creating a reign of terror and disorder amongst the leaderless agitators, weakening the morale of them and ultimately launching the decisive blow by arresting the leader of the movement (specially, a leader like Com. Alik who spent more than one and half year deeply integrated with the villagers and became indispensable and dependable for the movement) was not seen here. On the contrary here it was observed that the government started the course of discussion on the issue through Com. Alik. But why it was necessary for the government and administration to remove Com. Alik from the arena of the movement by slapping so many charges against him and put him behind the bar to start this process and whether there was any well-thought out design of the government regarding this move or not that is not clear. Whether this step was taken to keep Com. Alik under pressure in isolation under police custody or whether it was simultaneously the same old tactics of the ruling class and government to isolate the leaders from the struggling masses - probably, many such questions can only be answered satisfactorily by Com. Alik himself.
We are not raising any question regarding the terms of the agreement, more particularly, regarding the clauses related to the power-grid. We also do not wish to comment over the question that whether the agreement was historical or not, or whether the movement has achieved a great victory or not. Only the villagers of Bhangar, who fought tooth and nail for two years against terrible odds and whose morale and unity was intact even after the arrest of Com.Alik, can deliver the final verdict about the above mentioned questions. Neither we nor anyone else is in a position to do that. Even what the leaders of the movement or the allied organizations think about it, is not important, at least in the final analysis, it should not be! From the proletarian viewpoint, that is, in the context of development of the class-struggle, the success or failure of a particular mass movement with partial or local demands does not lie on the achievement or non-achievement of the demands. It rather depends on the fulfillment or on the degree of fulfillment of some other criteria.
It is to be admitted that any particular mass movement (except a movement for achieving fundamental demand) cannot continue for indefinite period. It has to come to an end- whatsoever be the degree of fulfillment of the demands. Actually at what length the demands will be fulfilled or not, depends on the mutual balance of forces existing at that moment between the struggling mass and its opponent. Presently, this balance is greatly titled in favour of the ruling class reinforced with state power openly backing them, that is, towards the collective strength of the owners, especially when the stream of class-struggle is feeble.
Therefore to judge any particular movement of the exploited and the oppressed mass based on any particular demand by means of the yard stick of the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of that demand will be wrong from the view point of class struggle. In other words, any thought process or intention of haste to achieve the fulfilment of the demands at any cost will no doubt strengthen and reinforce the reformist trend. Actually the first thing to be considered is, based on the existing strength and capacity whether the struggle could be continued unitedly or not and whether at the end of the struggle the morale of the struggling mass has remained intact or not, especially whether the faith on the path of struggle has been enhanced further or not. Apart from these, by summing up the experiences of the practical struggle to what extent the struggling mass, at least their advanced sections, could be enlightened towards higher plane of struggle and in this regard how far the organisational - political preparation could be built up, is the second question that has to be judged. Undoubtedly, this second aspect is more important from the viewpoint of class struggle.
Based on two sources only, the interview of Com. Alik and the statement of the 'Agreement', we will now place our preliminary comment on two things. The first is about the timing of the agreement and the latter in relation to the primary spontaneous reaction of a large section of the villagers of Bhangar. As far as it is known and as has also been revealed from the interview of Com. Alik, the struggling villagers, especially who were very active from the initial stage of the movement, many of them were not ready at first to accept the terms laid down in the agreement, In this context a comment from Com. Alik is quiet revealing and amazing. He (probably repentantly) stated," One, who was with me till yesterday, is saying today he doesn't accept the agreement." The indication is quite clear! Rejection of agreement implies rejection of leadership. Most probably he was quite confident that the interest of the movement as judged by him along with his organisational members, that is, in concrete terms, the terms of the agreement which were acceptable to him or whatever he said will be accepted by the agitators owing to the allegiance to him. As he gave undisputed leadership, remaining integrated with the struggling masses for two long years in spite of physical disabilities, all these probably placed Com Alik in a position of authority. To some extent that authority was challenged by the struggling villagers by the way of rejection of the terms of agreement. Com. Alik and his comrades probably didn't anticipate this. Otherwise, he would not have commented in that way. It doesn't appear that 'the masses are with me' and 'I am with the masses', the difference between these two thought processes and outlooks is unknown to Com. Alik and his comrades. But there remains a scope for the question that to what extent they were conscious regarding this. Anyway, the real question that lies before us is a bit different. It is, why at all this situation arose, which was not expected from a sensational movement like Bhangar, and not at all desirable too. Especially, when the movement was led by a communist organisation. For this reason the event deserves serious analysis, more so as it is not merely related to the agreement but actually related with how the movement advanced and how it was led. At least it may be said, that even if the spontaneous reaction of the active section of the agitators was temporary, still then, blaming outsiders for provocation and incitement would be wrong and that would be a simplification of the problem.
In this context, it has been noted and known from Com. Alik's statement also that the allied organisation and many individuals, who were involved in the struggle from the start, were not satisfied with the agreement. We do not clearly know about their points of disagreement. If they are not satisfied with the process of conciliation, especially the way in which the agreement was completed hastily ignoring the opposition of an important section of the agitators, then such criticism, if any, is one thing. But, if anybody criticizes alleging that the leadership has ultimately agreed to the installation of power-grid and on that basis they brand the leaders as traitor -- we don't share this criticism or opinion. This is because this way of thinking reflects the reformist trend. On the other hand, one who prefers to emphasise on the process of conciliation and pre-agreement organisational process, they have to think that if we only count the end result of the movement and ignore the means, that is, if our commitment lies only with the interest of local / partial movement overshadowing the commitments towards the interest of class-struggle, then if there happens to be any abnormality or deviation, it is there in it. It is not isolatedly within the above mentioned conciliation procedure or likewise nor merely in the conduct or process. Otherwise, it would be hard to dismiss the question raised by Com. Alik that "what could be a better agreement than this" and also the context of individually discussing the issue in the police custody on behalf of the 'committee' or the question of democratic process arising at the time of final agreement is bound to go astray for discussing things out of context. Above all, the task of analysing the reason behind the spontaneous reaction of the villagers and taking lesson from it will be ignored. And in that process it will wrongly be imposed on the temporary misunderstanding and provocation by outsiders.
Com Alik stated in the interview, "We are to achieve hundred percent, otherwise there should not be any agreement - this should not be our position ..... considering the condition of struggling forces [bold-ours] in the state, the struggling ability of the masses, their present state of mind --we should judge these aspects while taking the decision and in that case if we consider Bhangar only, the extent up to which the villagers have fought, considering only this, the success or failure of the movement of Bhangar will not be decided". Even if not hundred percent, but the spirit or thought expressed here is more or less correct. It doesn't seem that the comrade has addressed this only to the fraternal solidarity organizations and individuals because the statement is equally applicable for the disgruntled villagers who were not so happy with the agreement. Now the question arises, what the comrade has said here, has he said that after signing the agreement, to justify the agreement? Or did they, he and his organizational comrades, from their position of leadership, place this above-mentioned thought to educate the struggling forces of Bhangar when the movement was proceeding or at least tried to prepare them in this direction? The reason behind such a question is that if really the struggling masses of Bhangar were conscious at least up to a certain level or were made conscious regarding the relation between each isolated workers or peasants mass struggle with the 'struggling forces' (Democratic struggle or class struggle ?) of whole society, then it does not seem that still there would have been such opposition on behalf of the villagers as was observed and Com. Alik would not have been required to deliver such a speech like a sermon before the villagers. Obviously it does not mean that from the first day of any struggle it has to be propagated or forcibly swallowed that "hundred percent achievement of demand is not possible". Actually in the present condition where the working class itself is scattered, the stream of class struggle is feeble and especially in the villages the adversities of struggle is even more. It is inevitable that the reflection of this condition is bound to put its imprint on the Bhangar movement. The struggling villagers through their struggle, could realize themselves that how tough it is for the masses of five villages to fight against the powerful opponent singly. This would have come to them through their practical experience and there would have been no need to teach them from outside. The question remains, what should be the role of the communists if they happen to be in the leadership of such struggle. Enlightening the struggling masses, especially their advanced section (who are supposed to be closely connected with the general mass) to higher consciousness does not necessarily mean merely letting them know about the interrelation between the "struggling forces" and today's isolated struggles, about which Com. Alik mentions, in the light of the experience of their practical struggle. Isn't it also the task of the communist organisations who are in leadership of such struggle to work for the enhancement of the desire among the masses for the united struggle of all the toiling masses in course of development of struggle, as much as possible? On the contrary, if it is seen that clinging onto the demand of 'Withdraw power grid!' in order to sustain and increase the enthusiasm of struggle if the emphasis is given to gather support of the petty-bourgeoisie on one hand and on the other on an alliance built up with CPIM-Congress on the plea of them being democratic forces, then it is not hard to understand what kind and what extent of influence it may exert on the struggling villagers who are fighting under an extremely adverse situation! Moreover, it was also seen that the central organ of the organization that has been leading the Bhangar movement has time and again emphatically justified in favour of the alliance with CPM-Congress as a tactics required for the movement. Beside this they have also glorified Bhangar movement as the pioneer of future democratic struggles. All these might have built up the morale of the struggling mass, but all of us has to also reckon what was the lesson that was conveyed to them through this. In sum and substance, if owing to this the morale of the struggling villagers were lifted further (which was already present to an extent from before ) and on that basis if they started thinking that "We will be able to stall the installation of power grid" and subsequently from that position if they disagreed to accept the settlement as per the agreement, then whatever else it may be, it would be to unfair to ascribe responsibility for that on the protestors or to dismiss it as merely misunderstanding.
Secondly whatever be the starting point of the struggle of the villagers, the demand that had united the landowners alongwith the agriculture labourers of 5 villages was the demand of removal of power-grid lock-stock and barrel. Raising this demand the villagers shed their blood in the struggle and compelled the government to shift to a large extent from its original position. Ultimately through an understanding the issue was settled and the terms and conditions of it were recorded in the form of an agreement. This is quite understandable. But how could a bunch of schemes for rural development find its place in the agreement is quite hard to understand. No demand for rural development was ever placed on behalf of the villagers before the government. Further almost all of the schemes that have been mentioned in the agreement are part of the general rural programme of the Trinamool Congress Government. We have witnessed how the government tried to pacify the resentment of the deprived masses of Jangal Mahal by arranging for a series of schemes like electrification, building of roads, providing training for different professions to the youth, etc.. and by that tried to win them towards, the government and the Trinamool Congress party and this conspiracy is still going on. Here also in Bhangar aren't we observing the same game-plan on the part of the government and particularly of the Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the form of agreeing to implement those very schemes by incorporating those in the agreement? Keeping in mind the coming Lok Sabha elections, it is understandable that Mamata Banerjee may planfully have an intention of nursing the wounds of the villagers that resulted from the continuous onslaught and terror inflicted on the villagers and created bitterness and hatred towards the Trinamool Congress. But why the Jami Jeevika Raksha Committee felt it necessary to become a part of it through the agreement that is not understandable. Actually if this is the message which is conveyed to the struggling villagers that, "Though we haven't been able to fully stall the installation of the power-grid, but we have been successful in achieving these reforms as a result of our bloody struggle of two years" - then we feel it must have only benefitted the cunning move of Mamata Banerjee. Not only that, it must have then tarnished the lesson and significance of the heroic struggle of the villagers. Above all, in the present context of prevailing influence of reformism generally, this should have helped to further extend the influence of reformism rather than wipe it out.
No doubt the movement at Bhangar is one of the great struggles of the present time. It should also be kept in mind, the leadership of this struggle was not in the hands of any bourgeoisie party as was seen in Singur or Nandigram. Here it was led by a communist revolutionary organization though the role played by one or more other revolutionary organization is also undeniable. Hence, just not for the sake of any formal greeting or criticism, but it is far more necessary and compulsory for all of us to evaluate and accept the rights and wrongs, the appropriate lessons from the Bhangar movement, from an outlook of revolutionary proletariat. Here we tried to place only a few preliminary comments considering a few issues only. We hope that communist revolutionaries would come forward and start an open discussion over the issue.
Comments:
No Comments for View