PROFESSOR PATNAIK AND THE AFTERMATH OF NANDIGRAMProfessor Prabhat Patnaik's criticism (
http://www.pragoti.org)
of the opponents of the Left Front's policies and actions in Nandigram
is instructive. In my view, the following points deserve especial
notice:
1/ The title of his article is The Left and its
"Intellectual" Detractors. Although many critics of the CPI (M) may not
call themselves intellectuals, there are undoubtedly some scholars
among them. Patnaik places their intellect within inverted commas. This
grammatical sneer conveys the impression that the CPM's detractors are
mindless nullities. Patnaik's contemptuous title suggests a mental
annihilation of criticism.
2/ In Patnaik's view, genuine
politics consists in being able to distinguish between "alternative
constellations of political forces" that represent the 'camp of the
people' and the camp of those hostile to 'the people'. Since the Left
for him is by definition the CPM and its allies, it follows that the
correct delineation of these camps may only be made by his party. Many
of his comments on political correctness deal with the struggle against
communal-fascist forces. This is significant. On the one hand we have
before us the recent spectacle of the author Taslima Nasreen being
hounded out of Kolkata by a contingent of these very forces. On the
other, as late as 1989 his party was in an electoral alliance
(euphemistically named 'seat-adjustment') with the BJP that assisted
its political growth. It is clear that the 'camp of the people'
undergoes frequent changes. In 1989 it included the front organisations
of the RSS. Given his assumption of partisan infallibility, it follows
that Patnaik's party made the correct analysis 18 years ago, and has
made yet another correct analysis today, when presumably the camp of
the people includes corporate interest groups and real-estate
developers. If this is the level of discernment that determines the
CPM's political decisions, surely we may ask whether the
political emptiness to which Patnaik refers has not entered the portals
of his own party, and whether the retention of political power has not
become an end in itself.
3/ Patnaik states that the failure to
distinguish between types of violence, to condemn all violence with
equal abhorrence, to place all perpetrators of violence on an equal
footing, "amounts in fact to a condemnation of nothing. To say that all
are equally bad is not even morally meaningful." He condemns this
"messianic moralism", and scorns those who adopt such positions as
apolitical "Olympian moralists" who have removed themselves from "the
messy world of politics". Interestingly, Patnaik's observations in
(elliptical) defence of certain forms of violence, could be made by any
left or right-wing extremist. Violence has a tendency to blur political
distinctions. Such arguments are in fact raised by many political
partisans who practice the tactical deployment of force to achieve
their ends, and who believe that their own good intentions are the
touchstone for converting murder and goondaism into virtuous acts. If
there is messianism at work here, it is evident in the actions of those
who believe themselves to be beyond good and evil, because all their
actions are already certified by History. If political damage has been
incurred by the Left Front, surely it is more on account of the images
of masked men on motor-cycles carrying out armed actions in the name of
the CPM, rather than because of irritating articles written by its
detractors?
There is an established tradition of non-violent
resistance in India. Gandhi was no Olympian moralist, if by this phrase
Patnaik wants to denote a distaste for politics. Nor did Gandhi say
that all violent protagonists were equally bad. What he did say made
sense to ordinary people and spoke to everyday experience. He said,
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the
homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of
totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" His
commitment to non-violence was arguably his way of ensuring the
evolution of a democratic public sphere. So close was Gandhi to the
messiness of everyday life that in August 1947 he managed to touch the
hearts of the people and thus prevent a repetition of the terrible
events known as the Great Calcutta Killing of 1946, an achievement for
which even his severest critics gave him credit.
4/ Criticisms
of abstract moralism apart, Patnaik ignores a central concern of the
CPM's 'detractors'. This is the sheer fact of the use of a political
para-military in Nandigram. Granted that criminal acts were being
committed by political groups interested in exploiting popular
grievances in Nandigram, a sustained non-violent campaign could have
been undertaken to re-establish the rights of those driven away by
force. Such a course would have enhanced his party's prestige. Along
with that, the state government was always entitled to use legitimate
force. However in March 2007, it sent in irregulars along with the
police, and in November, it sent in hundreds of vigilantes after
neutralising the police. (Patnaik refers to this as "re-occupation").
The Home Secretary of the state used the phrase "war-like situation" to
describe the state of affairs. The deliberate disablement of the police
by the political executive in order to enable the violent activities of
paramilitary gangs, can only be described as state-terror. If this is
an example of the centrality (to use Patnaiks' phrase) that the CPM
accords to politics, we are in a dangerous situation indeed. It was
precisely this action that reminded the LF's critics of Gujarat in
2002, notwithstanding the crucial difference that the Nandigram action
was not a communally inspired massacre. West Bengal's government
violated its oath of office by depriving its political opponents of
constitutionally guaranteed protections and subjecting them to
blatantly partisan violence. This was illegal, politically inept and
ethically indefensible. No amount of polemical scorn vented on critics
can erase this fact. This is not an abstract question, nor will it go
away. The Chief Minister has apologised for his words, but not for his
deeds. Patnaik could have addressed this issue, but did not.
5/
It is good that Patnaik has raised the issue of the contemporary
vaporisation of politics. One symptom of this phenomenon is the
impossibility of rational conversation, because of the rapid
degeneration of debate into personal attacks, ad hominem remarks, scorn
and derision of the kind reflected in his own use of polemic to deal
with what is a serious crisis of legitimacy for leftism. Undoubtedly,
many sectors of the democratic polity and not just the CPM, indulge in
such destructive forms of speech. But surely it is to the advantage of
the CPM that reasoned discussion and a willingness to deal with
inconvenient truths not be completely overtaken by blind loyalty and
disregard for facts? Should political debate be reduced to a form of
religious propaganda? (Our opponents wrong-doings are crimes, but we
only commit 'mistakes'). If no one will allow argument and dialogue to
change their minds, why will anyone join the Left? If all our parties
are always right, are we not living in a subjectivist universe, where
the truth has been politically abolished and judgement replaced by
whim? Intellectual shut-mindedness and physical intimidation are two
sides of the same absolutist coin. They might bring satisfaction for
awhile, but have always been the harbingers of disintegration. Patnaik
should cast his critical gaze inwards - it might yet yield beneficial
results.
Dilip Simeon, 18 December 2007