People are trying to give us a message

Interview with Surjya Kanta Mishra, Panchayat and Rural Development Minister.

THE latest round of panchayat elections in West Bengal yielded unexpected results. Although the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Front won majorities in all three tiers of the panchayat 69.2 per cent of the zilla parishad seats, 57.45 per cent of the panchayat samitis and about 51 per cent of the gram panchayats it is nowhere near their performance in 2003, when they won 86.8 per cent, 85.1 per cent and 71.7 per cent respectively. A united Opposition, taking advantage of a disunited Left Front has, for the first time in 30 years, made its presence felt in rural Bengal.

Although in any other State such a result would be considered a major victory, the CPI(M) looks at it as a major setback. One can win 51 per cent of the seats, 51 times; but a mere 51 per cent cannot bring about a revolutionary change in society, said Dr. Surjya Kanta Mishra in an exclusive interview to Frontline. Excerpts:

The results have come as a bit of a shock for the State government. What factors do you attribute to this result?

I dont think there is one single reason that can be uniformly applicable to the results in the entire State. The results vary from district to district. But there are a few common reasons so far as we have been able to identify we need more time to investigate minutely. One of them is the acquisition of land for industry. We dont believe there is any alternative plan to industrialisation, but at the same we cannot abandon our priority for agricultural growth.

But while acquiring land for industry, people should be mobilised in such a way that they willingly offer their land for industrial development, rather than feel that the government is taking it away from them. In all the areas where that happened, it did not adversely impact our performance in the elections, like Purulia, Bankura, Bardhaman, West Medinipur, even in a village in Howrah where land was required for an industry. But in certain areas, on the basis of the reaction of the people, we have to review the manner in which we have tried to convince the people in those areas. This misunderstanding has taken place predominantly in those regions where people have little other alternative to agriculture for their livelihood essentially socio-economically backward areas.

The situation was fully exploited by communal and casteist forces, who spread an apprehension among the local people that their landholding was under threat from the government, though there was no plan to acquire that land. This happened in Nandigram, parts of South and North 24 Parganas.

They began an organised propaganda. It was an alliance of all anti-CPI(M) forces. I would call it a politically unprincipled opposition against a disunited Left Front. In fact, there was one-to-one contest at the panchayat samiti and gram panchayat levels in many places. Unfortunately, some of our own comrades in the Left Front attacked us in a way similar to our opposition. We have had differences in the past over various issues, including seat-sharing during polls, but nothing like this. But more important is the way they went about campaigning against us; it was quite unforeseen. Another thing is that there was so much money involved on the side of the opposition in this elections on an unprecedented scale.

Where did that money come from?

Very difficult to say definitely. But see the way in which the U.S. State Department has behaved they came out with a statement saying there is human rights violation in Nandigram. It is an echo of what the unprincipled alliance of all anti-Left forces has been saying. So it was not just one factor that affected the Left Front results. In different places different ones took predominance.

About Nandigram, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee himself repeatedly assured the people of the region that there would be no land acquisition. In spite of such assurances right from February 2007, why is it that

This is where the Opposition succeeded. They went about saying that even though the State government was saying there would not be any land acquisition in the region now, if they [ruling parties] came out victorious in the panchayat elections, they would again go in for it. This kind of unethical campaigning is something quite unprecedented; just three days before the polls in the region, very surreptitiously they started distributing thousands of compact discs among the villagers. We are yet to see the CD, but from what I have been told, it is a completely untrue account of what happened in Nandigram. It was a very organised hate campaign, and our people in the region were probably a little complacent and they could do nothing to counter it.

The Opposition claims that there has been erosion in the minority support base of the Left Front. Is this assessment correct?

It varies from place to place, but in certain areas like East Medinipur, parts of North and South 24 Parganas, parts of Nadia, it has been a factor. But then, this is again related to the issue of land acquisition; as the Muslims in these areas are mostly dependent on agriculture. We have never denied that the minority community continues to remain socio-economically backward. It is something we have been trying to address for a long time. It is not something new that the Sachar Committee identified in its report.

In fact, 71 per cent of the beneficiaries of land reforms have been the minorities, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. But the aspirations of the younger generation for better jobs and other avenues of employment is something we have been working on, but is yet to yield substantial results.

So you have a Catch-22 situation. On the one hand, you need industries and other avenues of employment for the people; and on the other, you need their land to create employment. What do you think is the solution?

What is first needed is to understand and honour the sentiments of the people. We have to involve them in the process of industrialisation. It has to be a continuous and untiring effort on our part to win back their confidence. It is true, in certain areas of the State we failed to get their confidence, particularly in the face of the kind of communal offensive launched by the Opposition. All these things happened so fast.

Now we will win them back, and with time and patience, this will happen. We will explain what we have been trying to do, and how it would be of immense benefit for them.

Do you think there is an anti-incumbency factor?

Anti-incumbency factor is something we have not really witnessed in the State in the past 30 years. I mean, even after 30 years [in power], we did retain 13 out of the 17 zilla parishads in the State, we did retain our majority in the two lower tiers too the panchayat samiti and the gram panchayat. So considering all this, I dont think there is any anti-incumbency factor at work here.

But at the same time, without getting into the issue of performance, I think our local leaders, and panchayat workers need to emphasise more on participatory democracy people need to be made to feel that it is they who are doing things for their own benefit, not somebody else who is doing it for them. This is a unique experiment in democracy, and we are walking an uncharted path here; we will learn from our own experiences, from our victories and defeats.

I dont feel this is any kind of a warning that we have received. But we have to take this setback self-critically and try to understand the sentiment of the people and whatever message they want to give us, because there is no denying that the people are trying to give us a message. We will be investigating deeply into those areas where we have not fared well, and address the problems there.

In any other part of the country, such a result would actually be considered a major victory. But the CPI(M) and the Left Front are seeing it as a defeat. Your comments please.

For us it is not a question of winning seats, be it in Parliament, the Assembly or the panchayat; for us it is about working towards a change in the correlation of the class forces, which can usher in the broad alliance of the working class, the peasantry, the middle class, against imperialism. We want to change the system go for a democratic revolution. One can win 51 per cent of the seats, 51 times; but a mere 51 per cent cannot bring about a revolutionary change in society. Our success and failures are measured by a different yardstick.