In West Bengal, politics is now about symbolism
The banality of the gestures that serve as a substitute for substantive political signals reveals a shocking contempt for the aam admi’s common sense. Whereas Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi’s train ride in Mumbai delivered a political challenge to the Shiv Sena, there is absolutely no substance in managed meetings with set agendas, be it the visit of Home Minister P Chidambaram to Writers’ Building or the visit of Congress leaders to Ms Mamata Banerjee’s house.
The pity is that the Chidambaram meeting turned into a performance instead of delivering a purposeful message to the Maoists. Part of the reason was perhaps Mr Chidambaram’s need to reassure Ms Banerjee that he, at least publicly, did not buy the West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s story that the Trinamool Congress was in cahoots with the Maoists. In the first place, why did Mr Chidambaram need to deliver a disclaimer on Ms Banerjee’s behalf? Why ought his disclaimer be taken any more seriously than that of Ms Banerjee? Why address the issue at all, when the agenda was to device a coordination strategy for four States — West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar and Orissa?
If the visit had everything to do with governance then why drag in points raised through a political campaign that is marked by extreme and destructive hostility? If there are dangerous liaisons, as alleged by the Communist Party of India(Marxist) against the Trinamool Congress, then surely addressing the danger would put paid to the allegations and the liaisons.
To wait for 180 or so people to be killed in the last one year in West Bengal alone, before starting the process of coordinating a strategy to deal with the Maoists is ridiculous. It is not enough to argue that law and order is a State subject under the constitutional dispensation and, therefore, the moment has to be ripe enough for the Home Minister to step in and perform a masterly trick. The Centre, after all, had issued the warning about Maoists posing the greatest threat to internal security even before the 2009 general elections. It took a while for the Centre to think about invoking the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and then there was the fuss over whether the Act and the ban should be confirmed by West Bengal separately.
The incremental approach has less to do with dealing with the problem and more to do with anticipating the criticism that political and civil society actors would unleash and then working towards appeasing them before taking action. With hindsight, it seems that the reluctance to tackle the Maoist situation is shared by the Centre as much as West Bengal. The plea that joint operations by the State and Central security forces have caused minimal collateral damage in Lalgarh-Jangal Mahal is to ignore the nearly 180 killings by Maoists. Can these dead be defined as unfortunate incidents in the line of duty or should they be described as victims of a weak-kneed political establishment?
It is depressing to think that critics of ‘state-sponsored violence’ are a significant concern and not the families of the dead of the ruling regimes beyond payment of compensation. Political parties, however, are a different kettle of fish altogether; they need to play it both ways. Therefore soothing the anguish of civil society is as much their concern as grieving with the families of Maoist violence. If the CPI(M) has consistently grieved with the families, the Trinamool Congress can claim to have done so too. If the CPI(M) has taken the flak for supporting police and Central security forces operations, then the Trinamool Congress can claim it has opposed these forces in name of protecting innocent tribal victims of police atrocities.
The image of the innocent tribal is pre-determined; they are paraded, armed with bows and arrows and axes and spears. Now that the situation has changed, the bows and arrows are gone, the stories about a new santhal uprising have evaporated and the menacing image of well-armed Maoists dressed in fatigues has been superimposed. The new age tribal, therefore, ought not to be confused with the archaic type, though both are deployed by political manipulators to serve a purpose that has nothing to do with tribals or their problems and everything to do with winning elections and acquiring power, as an end in itself.
