| Published on 17-11-2007 In National | | Viewed 1822 times | | How is Buddhadeb different from Modi? |
|
| Written by
N.R.Mohanty | 
Nandigram has created a wedge between the Left Establishment and the Left intellectuals. A large section of academics, artists, filmmakers who have been rallying to the defence of the Left parties for decades have now taken to the streets to deplore the Left government's shenanigans in Nandigram.
When the CPI(M) looked around for support among intellectuals to defend its action, it found none, except people like the JNU professor couple, Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik, who are academically great economists no doubt, but ideologically, are no better than the bonded labour hitched to the services of the Party. That is why their statement released to the media contained exactly the same arguments which Prakash Karat made in the party organ, the People's Democracy, and which Nilotpal Basu makes in his column here on this site.
Mr.Basu begins his column with an attack on the media. He goes on to say, "When the mainstream media takes such an interest on a subject that involves something so intensely political as compared to, say, the Aishwarya-Abhishek marriage, one needs to raise one's eyebrows".
Admitted, there is a lot to criticize about the obsession of the mainstream media with the rich, the glamorous and the powerful. But to accuse them of not taking interest in subjects that are 'intensely political' is a travesty of truth. After all, the mainstream media had taken a huge interest in Narendra Modi's Gujarat during and after the riots in (in 2002) which were an intensely political issue.
Narendra Modi made a hue and cry about the media then, just as Nilotpal Basu is doing now. Mr. Basu and his party hailed the mainstream media when the BJP was at the receiving end. But as the media's exposes focus on the Left's acts of omission and commission, Mr. Basu and his fellow travellers find fault with them for being selective and obtrusive.
Mr. Basu makes fun of the headlines in the mainstream media; "'Murder of democracy' by 'armed thugs' of the CPI (M) 'in connivance with the state government'; 'Buddhadeb Bhattacharya has become a 'Narendra Modi'". But Mr. Basu never explains in his write-up how Buddhadeb Bhattacharya is different from Narendra Modi; it is because he is bereft of any logical explanation.
Both have been at the helm of a democratically elected legitimate government. But both grossly abused their position to sub serve partisan interests. In both the cases, when their respective party hoodlums took law into their hands and indulged in arson, loot and rape, the chief ministers asked the state machinery to look the other way.
Narendra Modi justified the bloodshed on the specious plea that it was the spontaneous reaction of the Hindus to the Godhra incident. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya justifies the 'violent re-capture' of Nandigram as the spontaneous reaction of the CPI (M) cadre to the aftermath of the March 4 incident when activists opposed to the CPI (M) had laid siege to the area.
What is the difference between a Narendra Modi and a Buddhadeb? Both took oath under the Constitution to represent and look after the welfare of the entire state. But both breached the pledge for narrow political considerations.
Narendra Modi reaped the political dividends and won a landslide victory in the subsequent election. When Buddhadeb's political fortunes are dwindling, he must have found a Modi-like strategy a potent tool for political survival.
Look at the cheek of a chief minister who justified the violent re-capture of Nandigram on the basis that "our men", (the CPI (M) thugs), had the right to pay back the Trinamul thugs in the same coin. This is reminiscent of what Rajiv Gandhi said after the anti-Sikh pogrom following Indira Gandhi's assassination: When a big tree falls, the ground beneath has to take the toll.
From Rajiv Gandhi to Narendra Modi to Buddhadeb Bhattacharya – it is the same story. It is the language of the power that speaks. That is why it is so similar, so familiar. In each case, the Media becomes the fall guy.
When Manoj Mitta, a conscientious journalist, recounted the horrendous incidents of anti-Sikh riots in a book released recently, the mindless Congress spokesman, Abhishek Singhvi, dismissed much of it as speculative writing.
When Rajdeep Sardesai asked Narendra Modi at the HT Leadership Summit if he ever regretted the Gujarat events of 2002, the chief minister, whose complicity in the murder of over 2000 innocent people is an open secret, exhorted the media to come out of the negative mindset.
In the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 and anti-Muslim riots of 2002, at least, the media, despite threats and provocations, were able to report the criminal connivance of the ruling party in the mayhem. But the CPI (M), which is now talking a lot about the democratic mandate and the popular support, did not allow the media persons for days to enter Nandigram and see the depredations that its hooligans caused to 're-capture' the territory.
The Indian Express report (New Delhi edition, November 16) that gives a first hand account of a woman who was gang raped, along with her two teen-aged daughters by the CPI(M) men on the night of November 6 is just not an anti-Left propaganda. Medical reports established rape and the police officers have admitted that the named accuseds are activists of the CPI (M).
Pose this to Nilotpal Basu and his knee-jerk reaction will be to ask back, as he has done in his column: why did the media not report about the events in the long interregnum of seven months when Nandigram was occupied? Again, that is not true. When Nandigram was 'liberated' by a motley group of desirable and undesirable political elements, the media went to town with it. But when the novelty factor was gone and the occupation became a routine affair, there was nothing much to report about.
But even if the media were at fault and the illegal occupiers were to be evicted and the legal settlers were to be restored their property, should not it have been done legally, by the legitimate institutions of the government?
By allowing the party cadre to take law into their hands and then gloating over it, as Buddhadeb Bhattacharya has done and as Nilotpal Basu seeks to do, the CPM has shown that power has corrupted the innards of even a communist party that makes it indistinguishable from its bourgeois counterparts. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
