Devangshu Datta: How connections build up

VIEWPOINT

Wednesday's violent lockdown of Calcutta had completely unrelated triggers. There is little in common between Nandigram, the death of Rizwanur Rahman and the writing of Taslima Nasreen.

Yet these three issues meshed in bizarre fashion and that will surprise nobody acquainted with mob psychology. If a situation is tense enough, it takes little to spiral into senseless violence. That violence may be well-planned and even state-sponsored. It may be spontaneous. But given the tension in the air and people on the streets, mob rule takes over.

By Wednesday, Calcutta was tense enough. Nandigram has sparked protests from all sections of society including prominent, long-term, Left Front supporters. The death of Rizwanur also caused spontaneous protests across communal lines. In both cases, the secular and the religious were on the same side, arrayed against the state. In both cases, people saw you could put large numbers on the street, without recourse to political affiliation.

Taslima is a different kettle of fish. She's one of a dozen well-known cases that are currently causing India to square up to a dilemma democracies face: When free speech is also blasphemy, what does the state do?

That debate is polarising. Liberals believe the acid test of free speech is that it is free. No matter how offensive something may be, somebody has the right to say it. The communally-minded, on the other hand, are hyper-sensitive about free speech when it offends them and defends it only when it's directed at another religion. That's true for the khaki-knicker brigade, which defends Nasreen and Rushdie, while hounding Husain. It's true for the Muslim obscurantists, who put out fatwas. It's true for the Christian zealots of the US religious right.

The anti-Nasreen procession appears to have been an attempt to gain mileage for an obscurantist cause by taking advantage of an already tense situation. Most of the mob knew nothing of Nasreen. It consisted of people harbouring resentments against the state due to the earlier, unrelated incidents. They went berserk because they had a chance to go berserk.

Is this mob-eruption likely to repeat? It easily could, perhaps over some fourth, entirely unrelated matter, unless the Left Front manages to defuse the tension. I wonder if the Left Front is capable of cooling the atmosphere to the extent required?

In 1984, the state machinery acted with speed to protect the Sikh community after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. In 1992, the loss of life was somewhat more. But Bengal handled the post-Babri situation better than other states with similarly large Muslim populations. It did help that the Left Front parties all have a fair number of Muslim party-workers. They couldn't get on top of the situation on the first night. However, the army was called in fast enough to stop mayhem.

Both in 1984 and 1992, the Left Front could argue with justice that it didn't deserve the trouble it had to cope with. That may actually have made it easier for it to manage the situation. The resentment was not directed at the state government and the cadres had a party-line that they could easily communicate at para-level.

However, the government is squarely responsible for Nandigram and it has made matters worse by its cynicism by letting slip its dogs of war. The resentment over Nandigram is directed at the CPI(M) in particular and the Left Front in general.

That may erode the Left Front's ability to cope and some of its core-support base. The CPI(M) is in a morally indefensible position here. Unlike 1984 and 1992, when the violence consisted of one brief burst, Nandigram has already led to four bouts of trouble "" five, if one counts Singur. The momentum is clearly against the Left Front. That means Manmohan Singh gets a free hand working out 1-2-3. So thanks to Nandigram and Taslima Nasreen, we may achieve some clarity on the nuclear front. Perverse as it may be, that's India for you!