Hubris in West Bengal

Party-sponsored violence must

Violence in West Bengal has been a permanent feature of the state’s political landscape for decades, with major political parties routinely raising the stakes ahead of elections. As long as the state was dominated by a single party, violence was regarded as an inevitable side-show of the political theatre. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had frequently been at the receiving end of the Left Front’s monopoly of violence, which she leveraged to great political benefit. When the Trinamool Congress came to power in 2011 after 34 years of Left Front rule, local goons simply swapped party allegiance. This happened again when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) became the largest Opposition party in the state, which added an element of communalism — long kept at bay by the Left Front — to the political confrontations. At the same time, the catchment area for hiring muscle also extended beyond the state.

Whatever the quality of the confrontation, such tacit acceptance of party-sponsored violence as a political strategy by all political formations could cost the state, now that its single-party dominance is being aggressively challenged by the BJP. Instead of responding constructively to legitimate criticism, Ms Banerjee and her advisors chose the path of defiance and denial. With the death of 16 people during the panchayat polls, this strategy appears to have boomeranged on her and her party. First, Ms Banerjee was forced to accept central forces ahead of the panchayat polls by order of the Calcutta High Court, an order that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The high court ordered the West Bengal State Election Commission (WBSEC) to requisition at least 825 companies of central forces, the number deployed during the 2013 panchayat polls in the state. Second, although all the contesting parties suffered casualties, it was the ruling Trinamool Congress that suffered the most. Nine of its workers were killed, while three of the Congress and two each of the BJP and Left lost their lives.

Ironically, all parties appear to be united in blaming the failure of the WBSEC to mobilise central forces early or effectively enough to stem the violence. Three deaths occurred even before polling began. The required number of companies had reportedly not even reached the state when polling ended on July 8. Central force commanders blamed the WBSEC for problems in deployment. On their part, WBSEC officials blamed district administrations and the slow response of the central forces to stem the violence. As the principal institutions responsible for ensuring the smooth conduct of polling trade charges, the reality is that Ms Banerjee and her party are on the back foot. Having swiftly vitiated relations with the governor, who was appointed only in November, Ms Banerjee now has to parry the demands for the imposition of Article 356.

This would be the least desirable outcome in a state that is seeing, for the first time since the 1940s, the rise of communal violence. When such forces acquire a political hue, the outcome for the state is dire. In other words, the culture of party-sponsored poll violence is yielding increasingly diminishing political returns for the people of multicultural West Bengal.