The Great Indian Museum Scam
Subrata Nagchoudhury
Posted online: Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 0003 hrs IST
Kolkata, February 9 (Times of India)
A well-networked cartel at the Indian Museum in Kolkata, one of the biggest repositories of the country’s cultural and historical heritage, has been siphoning off crores of rupees under the pretext of preserving priceless artifacts, a probe has found.
A recent investigation by a central government team has detected a scam that involved misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs18 crore between 2004 and 2006. The magnitude of the scam could be even bigger, say investigators.
The fund was meant for gallery renovations for the Indian Museum, National Library, Rabindra Bharati University Library and Guru Saday Museum in West Bengal and for improvement of the state museums of Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram and Assam Sankardev Kalakshetra Museum, Guwahati.
Highly-placed sources said West Bengal Governor Gopal Krishna Gandhi, the chairman of the Board of Trustees, played a key role in pursuing the initial leads about the malpractices. A thorough probe by officials of the Central Government later revealed that at least Rs18 crore had been siphoned off.
“This may just be the tip of the iceberg,” said an official of the team, expressing serious concern about the existence of priceless antiques supposed to be lying in the stores. Only a small fraction of the Indian Museum’s collection is displayed in the galleries, while the rest are kept in stores and have not been verfied for years.
In September 2007, prior to the investigation by the central team, the CBI had even conducted a raid on the museum. A CBI official confirmed that documents were seized but refused to elaborate about the progress in the case.
When contacted, S K Basu, the former director of the museum during whose tenure the money was allegedly siphoned off, said: “I do not remember if there was any malpractice. I retired in May 2006 and I won’t be able to tell you anything.”
Asked if anyone from the investigating agency had been in touch with him, Basu refused to comment. Investigators said Basu retired without settling huge advances taken from the museum fund.
The present acting director of the museum, Professor Chitta Panda, said: “The case had been handed over to the CBI.” Asked if there had been any follow-up action, Panda, said he would not be able to comment.
A detailed report on the scam was sent to the Union Ministry of Culture, which administers the Museum and provides funds. But no action has been taken yet. When contacted, CAG Principal Director Govind Bhattacharya said he was not authorised to disclose the findings of the investigation before it was placed in Parliament.
The Racket
• The Meghalaya Museum sent a proposal for stuffing 350 animals. The Indian Museum authorities sanctioned stuffing of 28 animals at a cost of Rs 2 lakh. Instead of sending a cheque, the money was reportedly sent in cash from Kolkata and paid to a person who claimed to be a zoology professor in Guwahati University. There is no record of either the stuffed animals or the person to whom the money was paid.
• Webel electronics, a West Bengal Government undertaking, offered walkie-talkie sets for Rs 14,000 each. But the museum authorities bought 30 sets from a private firm that charged Rs 42,000 apiece.
• Despite having three vehicles, cars were reportedly hired on the pretext of providing services to the members in the board of trustees and other museum employees. Over Rs 25 lakh was spent between 2005-06 on hiring vehicles. Another Rs 15 lakh was shown as fuel expenditure for the museum’s own vehicles.
The Cartel
• Of the 16 agencies enlisted by the museum authorities for renovation of galleries, nine did not have the required financial solvency to qualify. Several bagged the contracts on fake IT returns.
• The directors, partners of several of these agencies through which Rs18 crore was spent were related to each other. The partners of some agencies were the directors in others, the directors in some were partners in others.
• Museum authorities advertised the tender notice in Echo of India, a little-known Kolkata tabloid.
• The estimates for jobs and the payments were identical in many cases.
• The estimates for most jobs was approved by a private consultant who did not have an engineering background. The normal practice is to obtain approval of the Central Public Works Department.
• There was no measurement for work, no basic records of material and no verification of the actual work done. No official from the Indian Museum, Kolkata visited the state museums in the Northeast for verification of work for which payments were reportedly made.
http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/271256.html
Saturday, February 9, 2008
CPM fascism exposed in Nandigram -- Dibyendu Guha
February 17, 2008
Nandigram carnage
CPM fascist face exposed
By Dibyendu Guha
On November 14, 2007 top ranking intellectuals, writers, play-wrights, poets and artists of Bengal like Mrinal Sen, Suchitra Bhattacharya, Joy Goswami, Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay, Gautam Ghosh, Aparna Sen, Purnodas Baul, Anjan Datta and many other, marched in silent procession in Kolkata to protest against fascist type violent action in Nandigram by the armed cadre of the ruling CPM. About 10,000 common men and women of the State also joined the unprecedented rally to express their solidarity with intellectuals and to display their anger and disgust against the handling of problems by the government, elected democratically by the people of West Bengal.
As in democracy such fascist type aggression is unwarranted, the spontaneous protest of the intellectuals and common people was widely supported by the media. The people were more angry and concerned when the Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and head of the ruling party Biman Basu openly supported the violent action of their comrades and divided the people of Nandigram as “we” and “they”. Glorifying fascist action of the cadre to reoccupy Nandigram from the occupation of opposition forces, Chief Minister arrogantly declared, “They have been paid back in their own coin”. But as Chief Minister of the State he is responsible for the well-being of all sections of the people. While taking oath as the Chief Minister, he had declared, “Without fear and discriminating attachment or malice I will act righteously towards all sections of the people as per Constitution and law”. Such solemn pledge should have refrained him from dividing the people of Nandigram as “we’ and “they”, when as per Constitution, he is equally responsible for all contending people.
To impartial political analysts both the government and the opposition are to be held responsible for the present fiasco in Nandigram. The imbroglio could have been avoided if the Government would have considered the following measures: (1) After assessing the mind of the people, totally against the acquisition of high-yielding agricultural land, the administration should have selected only the barren and low yielding land for the proposed project. (2) As per the demand of the investor if the high yielding agricultural land of Nandigram itself was imperative and unavoidable then affected peasants should have been thoroughly assured about an adequate and attractive compensation for the loss of their land. (3) In course of personal contact, the top leaders should have explained to the people that in all the countries of the world for progress of the nation and to provide employment to the ever-increasing population, industries have been built-up only on agricultural land. By agreeing to give their land for an industry, the affected peasants not only benefited themselves but also ensured getting employment to thousands of young men and women for many generations to come. The peasants of Nandigram also should have been convincingly explained that number of persons in a family, over the years, grew heavily, but the quantity of the ancestral land remained the same. No such expected measures were considered by the government. There the ruling party failed miserably. The leaders only announced the project sitting at Kolkata and expected the bureaucrats and the party cadre to implement the same.
In democracy, the opposition party is not only to oppose all the moves of the government. Since industrialisation is imperative for the progress of a nation, the Trinamul Congress, the main opposition party in Bengal, should have extended constructive support to the ruling party, insisting on more benefits to the affected peasants. On the contrary, the opposition in a militant manner, closing the door for negotiations, tried to convince the peasantry of Singur and Nandigram that acquisition of their land would benefit only the big industrialists. The plight of the peasants will worsen. Facing total debacle in the last general elections and loosing the battle in Singur, where Tatas are all set to build-up a factory to make mini-cars for common people, the Trinamul Congress entered Nandigram to prevent acquisition of land for the Chemical Hub. Since many people there were not totally convinced about their secured future after agreeing to give-up their land for the project, Trinamool Congress could easily gain some ground to build-up a strong resistance against the proposed Hub. With the hesitant and reluctant peasants, they formed Bhoomi Uchchhed Protirodh Committee to resist acquisition of land. The Naxals and the Maoists who believe power flows from the barrel of guns grabbed the fluid situation of the area and agitated the opposition to hold guns to baffle the government move of dislodging peasants from their ancestral land.
Nandigram soon became a hot-spot of militant agitation. Assessing the mind of the people the left front government promptly declared that no land requisition would be carried out in Nandigram. Another area will be selected for the proposed Chemical Hub. Accordingly, a new land Naya Char has also been selected. But, as a responsible opposition party, Trinamool Congress did not instantly dissolve the Bhoomi Uchchhed Protirodh Committee, which stood only to resist acquisition of land for the Hub in Nandigram. They preferred to continue the agitation under the banner of the same committee, only to get some political mileage before the Panchayat election in the area. The militant-agitation of the party, could divide the peasantry of Nandigram in two factions. One faction supported the government and the other group, the bigger one, rallied behind the Bhoomi Uchchhed Protirodh Committee, fearing the loosing of their land in future-move of the government.
It is assuring that the Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya ultimately admitted that the action of CPM cadre, violently recapturing Nandigram had sullied the image of the government. The incident, he said, was an administrative and political failure of the left front regime. Coming close to offering a apology the Chief Minister also regretted his remark that those opposing CPM in Nandigram have been “paid back in their own coin”. He declared that he “should not have said that”.
(The author can be contacted at 408/B, Paramount 44, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053.)
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=224&page=38
Nandigram carnage
CPM fascist face exposed
By Dibyendu Guha
On November 14, 2007 top ranking intellectuals, writers, play-wrights, poets and artists of Bengal like Mrinal Sen, Suchitra Bhattacharya, Joy Goswami, Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay, Gautam Ghosh, Aparna Sen, Purnodas Baul, Anjan Datta and many other, marched in silent procession in Kolkata to protest against fascist type violent action in Nandigram by the armed cadre of the ruling CPM. About 10,000 common men and women of the State also joined the unprecedented rally to express their solidarity with intellectuals and to display their anger and disgust against the handling of problems by the government, elected democratically by the people of West Bengal.
As in democracy such fascist type aggression is unwarranted, the spontaneous protest of the intellectuals and common people was widely supported by the media. The people were more angry and concerned when the Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and head of the ruling party Biman Basu openly supported the violent action of their comrades and divided the people of Nandigram as “we” and “they”. Glorifying fascist action of the cadre to reoccupy Nandigram from the occupation of opposition forces, Chief Minister arrogantly declared, “They have been paid back in their own coin”. But as Chief Minister of the State he is responsible for the well-being of all sections of the people. While taking oath as the Chief Minister, he had declared, “Without fear and discriminating attachment or malice I will act righteously towards all sections of the people as per Constitution and law”. Such solemn pledge should have refrained him from dividing the people of Nandigram as “we’ and “they”, when as per Constitution, he is equally responsible for all contending people.
To impartial political analysts both the government and the opposition are to be held responsible for the present fiasco in Nandigram. The imbroglio could have been avoided if the Government would have considered the following measures: (1) After assessing the mind of the people, totally against the acquisition of high-yielding agricultural land, the administration should have selected only the barren and low yielding land for the proposed project. (2) As per the demand of the investor if the high yielding agricultural land of Nandigram itself was imperative and unavoidable then affected peasants should have been thoroughly assured about an adequate and attractive compensation for the loss of their land. (3) In course of personal contact, the top leaders should have explained to the people that in all the countries of the world for progress of the nation and to provide employment to the ever-increasing population, industries have been built-up only on agricultural land. By agreeing to give their land for an industry, the affected peasants not only benefited themselves but also ensured getting employment to thousands of young men and women for many generations to come. The peasants of Nandigram also should have been convincingly explained that number of persons in a family, over the years, grew heavily, but the quantity of the ancestral land remained the same. No such expected measures were considered by the government. There the ruling party failed miserably. The leaders only announced the project sitting at Kolkata and expected the bureaucrats and the party cadre to implement the same.
In democracy, the opposition party is not only to oppose all the moves of the government. Since industrialisation is imperative for the progress of a nation, the Trinamul Congress, the main opposition party in Bengal, should have extended constructive support to the ruling party, insisting on more benefits to the affected peasants. On the contrary, the opposition in a militant manner, closing the door for negotiations, tried to convince the peasantry of Singur and Nandigram that acquisition of their land would benefit only the big industrialists. The plight of the peasants will worsen. Facing total debacle in the last general elections and loosing the battle in Singur, where Tatas are all set to build-up a factory to make mini-cars for common people, the Trinamul Congress entered Nandigram to prevent acquisition of land for the Chemical Hub. Since many people there were not totally convinced about their secured future after agreeing to give-up their land for the project, Trinamool Congress could easily gain some ground to build-up a strong resistance against the proposed Hub. With the hesitant and reluctant peasants, they formed Bhoomi Uchchhed Protirodh Committee to resist acquisition of land. The Naxals and the Maoists who believe power flows from the barrel of guns grabbed the fluid situation of the area and agitated the opposition to hold guns to baffle the government move of dislodging peasants from their ancestral land.
Nandigram soon became a hot-spot of militant agitation. Assessing the mind of the people the left front government promptly declared that no land requisition would be carried out in Nandigram. Another area will be selected for the proposed Chemical Hub. Accordingly, a new land Naya Char has also been selected. But, as a responsible opposition party, Trinamool Congress did not instantly dissolve the Bhoomi Uchchhed Protirodh Committee, which stood only to resist acquisition of land for the Hub in Nandigram. They preferred to continue the agitation under the banner of the same committee, only to get some political mileage before the Panchayat election in the area. The militant-agitation of the party, could divide the peasantry of Nandigram in two factions. One faction supported the government and the other group, the bigger one, rallied behind the Bhoomi Uchchhed Protirodh Committee, fearing the loosing of their land in future-move of the government.
It is assuring that the Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya ultimately admitted that the action of CPM cadre, violently recapturing Nandigram had sullied the image of the government. The incident, he said, was an administrative and political failure of the left front regime. Coming close to offering a apology the Chief Minister also regretted his remark that those opposing CPM in Nandigram have been “paid back in their own coin”. He declared that he “should not have said that”.
(The author can be contacted at 408/B, Paramount 44, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053.)
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=224&page=38
NHRC order on Nandigram violence by CPM
Commission's order on Nandigram issue - New Delhi Feb 08, 2008.
The Government of West Bengal proposed to set up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and a chemical hub in an area covering around 10,000 acres in Nandigram Block-1 and for that purpose it proposed to acquire land. On 28th December, 2006 Haldia Development Authority circulated an informal notice showing the likely location of the project. The local people resented the proposal for acquisition of land. Violent clashes broke out between the supporters of the party in power i.e. CPI (M) and the Bhoomi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) - an organisation to channelise the protest against the proposed land acquisition. From the middle of January, 2007, a large area covering 5 gram panchayats of Nandigram Block 1 was isolated and police and other Government agencies were prevented by the supporters of BUPC from entering the area. About 2000 people, believed to be supporters of CPI(M), were driven out and they took shelter in the adjoining area across the canal within the jurisdiction of PS Khejuri. On 14th March, 2007, the State Government tried to reestablish its writ in the area by force. The attempt of the police force to enter the area was violently resisted by supporters of BUPC at two places and the police opened fire at the mobs. 14 persons were killed in firing and 300 people including 52 policemen sustained injuries.
The police firing on 14th March, 2007 was widely condemned in the media and the Commission took suo motu cognizance of reports published in the "Asian Age" and 'Indian Express'. Case No.872/25/2006-07 was registered. The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal and DGP of the State were asked to submit factual reports. Accordingly, a report dated 29th March, 2004 was received from the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal.
The High Court of Calcutta also took notice of the incident and held that the action of police to open fire was unconstitutional. It directed CBI to take up investigation of police firing and related cases. It also directed the State Government to pay Rs. Five lakhs each as compensation to the families of the dead, Rs. One lakh each to the injured persons and Rs. Two lakhs each to the rape victims.
On 19th March, 2007, the District Magistrate of East Medinipur issued a notification to the effect that the State Government will not acquire any land for industry in Nandigram. In spite of the notification BUPC did not withdraw the agitation. The police was still not allowed to enter the area. Sporadic incidents of violence continued to occur in the following months till October, 2007.
On 27th October, 2007, the State Government sent a requisition to the Central Government for deployment of CRPF in Nandigram and adjoining areas for 3 months. On 5th November, 2007, the Central Government sent a reply that it was not possible to provide CRPF in view of the pending Assembly elections in several other states.
On 6th-7th November, 2007, the CPI (M) cadres overran the blockade with the help of outsiders and criminal elements. Several road blockades were organised by CPI(M) supporters and access of outsiders to Nandigram was stopped by them. During the period from 6th November to 12th November 7 persons were killed, 32 persons including 16 police personnel sustained injuries and several houses were fully or partially destroyed. A large number of villagers (nearly 2500), believed to be supporters of BUPC were driven out and the CPI (M) supporters who were displaced earlier returned home. On 11th November, 2007, the Government of India ordered deployment of 6 companies of CRPF. On 12th November in the evening CRPF personnel made a flag march in the area and normalcy was slowly restored.
Regarding the incidents which occurred from 6th November, 2007 onwards Shri Sanjay Parikh has submitted a petition. He also forwarded to the Commission a message received from Smt. Medha Patekar and requested for urgent intervention. The Commission took cognizance of the petition and case No.725/25/2007-08 was registered. Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal was directed to submit a factual report within10 days. A team of the Investigation Division was deputed to visit the disturbed areas in Nandigram and study the situation. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India was also requested to take such steps as may be necessary to retrieve the situation in Nandigram.
Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal submitted a report dated 3rd December, 2007. The report reveals that 560 houses were completely damaged and 399 houses were partially damaged in the incidents which occurred from 6th November, 2007 to 12th November, 2007. It further states that the State Government has decided to pay Rs. 10,000/- for each fully damaged house, Rs.5,000/- for each partially damaged house and Rs. 1,000/- per affected family for utensils and household goods. It has also been stated in the report that sanction for ex-gratia payment in accordance with the orders of the High Court, is currently under process.
The investigation team of the Commission visited Nandigram in very difficult circumstances and when the situation was very tense. Communication with the local people was also difficult being still under the trauma of riots and violence. The team after overcoming these difficulties set out on their task and has done commendable job.
According to the report of our Investigation team, the entire episode can be considered in three phases:-
First Phase
3rd January, 2007 to 14th March, 2007
During this phase, the state police started losing control over law and order situation in the area of Nandigram. The people lost trust in the police and they feared that the police would help the state agencies to take forcible possession of their land. The villagers were instigated by different political parties to fight against the Government policy. Under the umbrella of BUPC, the people laid a seige over a large area covering 5 gram panchayats in Nandigram Block-1 and did not allow the police and some other state agencies to enter the area as they seemed to have lost trust in either of them. On 14th March, 2007 the police force tried to enter the area and when it was resisted by the local people it opened fire resulting in the death of 14 persons and injuries to several others.
Second Phase
15th March to 5th November, 2007
This was a period of comparative lull. As a matter of fact it may be described as the period of calm before the storm. During this period the local administration issued a notification on 19th March, 2007 declaring that the State Government will not acquire any land in Nandigram for industries. Still the agitation by BUPC continued. Not only the blockade of the area covering 5 gram panchayats in Nandigram Block-1 continued but BUPC was able to extend its influence to other areas in Nandigram Block-2. This period was also utilised by CPI(M) supporters for stock piling of arms and ammunition and mobilization of man power including anti-social elements across the canal in the area of PS Khejuri. The State police remained a mute spectator through out.
Third Phase
On 6th November, 2007, the CPI(M) supporters overran the blockade and tried to "recapture" Nandigram. The police outpost at Tehkhali was withdrawn late at night on 6th November, 2007 and thus the attack by CPI(M) supporters was facilitated. The investigation team of the Commission has reported that the location of the Tehkhali outpost was of strategic importance as it was the dividing line between the CPI (M) dominated area and the BUPC controlled area. The Investigation team has reported that the approach of the police was totally partisan during this period. The team also found a CPI (M) flag hoisted at the police bunker at Tehkhali.
Since the State Government does not appear to have discharged its primary obligation in preventing the attack by CPI (M) cadres on 6th November, 2007, it should bear the responsibility for the loss of life and property following the attack. It is suggested that the next of kin of the dead in these incidents and also the injured persons should be compensated in the same manner as directed by the High Court of Calcutta for the victims of the incidents of 14th March, 2007. The compensation that the State Government proposes to make for damaged houses appears to be quite inadequate. The Commission considers recommending enhanced compensation for fully and partially damaged houses. The Enquiry Team of the Commission has reported that after the incidents of 6th November, 2007 several houses of BUPC supporters have been occupied by CPI(M) cadres and they are now claiming to be owners of those houses and demanding compensation. The Commission considers it necessary to appoint a Committee to suggest compensation regarding damage that occurred and to ensure that the monetary relief does not fall in wrong hands and it reaches the genuine persons. The Committee shall consist of Shri A.K. Jain, Secretary General, Shri D. Sarangi, Special Rapporteur and Shri A.K. Garg, Registrar.
For the unfortunate incidents of Nandigram neither CPI (M) nor BUPC can escape their share of responsibility. In this context it is necessary to make a few general observations:-
(i) The police and the bureaucracy should keep themselves aloof from political influence. Alignment with the party in power results in erosion of public trust which leads to avoidable misery.
(ii) The party in power should always be alive to its constitutional obligation to rule without favour and prejudice. It should never encourage or connive with the illegal activities of its supporters.
(iii) The opposition has a right to highlight the failures of the Government and to educate the people about the policies which it considers harmful. While it may take recourse to peaceful agitation, it should in no case encourage people to indulge in unlawful activities.
(iv) There should be a continuous dialogue between the party in power and the opposition and such dialogue should always be motivated by a concern for the good of the people at large.
(v) The press has a pivotal role to play in a democratic set up, therefore, it should always adopt a balanced and unbiased approach in reporting the events. In the case of Nandigram the Press did a commendable job by highlighting the atrocities on people but it failed in its duty to emphasise that the blockade of a large area of Nandigram by the agitators was unconstitutional.
(vi) Whether agricultural land should be acquired or not for industry or projects like SEZ is a moot question. Agriculture being the only source of livelihood for the farmers, compensation in terms of money for acquisition of their land may not be adequate. In the process of rehabilitation of such displaced people as a result of acquisition of land, the Government should take the local people into confidence and it should also ensure alternative means of livelihood and shelter for the displaced. Whether in addition to monetary compensation, any other land can be given to relocate or can be linked to the project for which the land is acquired by allocating adequate number of shares and providing employment to at least one member of each affected family and similar other measures may be considered. The agriculturists may not be in a position to appropriately or wisely invest the money received by way of compensation. Necessary steps may have to be taken by the Government to appoint advisors for making right investment.
http://nhrc.nic.in/dispArchive.asp?fno=1527
The Government of West Bengal proposed to set up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and a chemical hub in an area covering around 10,000 acres in Nandigram Block-1 and for that purpose it proposed to acquire land. On 28th December, 2006 Haldia Development Authority circulated an informal notice showing the likely location of the project. The local people resented the proposal for acquisition of land. Violent clashes broke out between the supporters of the party in power i.e. CPI (M) and the Bhoomi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) - an organisation to channelise the protest against the proposed land acquisition. From the middle of January, 2007, a large area covering 5 gram panchayats of Nandigram Block 1 was isolated and police and other Government agencies were prevented by the supporters of BUPC from entering the area. About 2000 people, believed to be supporters of CPI(M), were driven out and they took shelter in the adjoining area across the canal within the jurisdiction of PS Khejuri. On 14th March, 2007, the State Government tried to reestablish its writ in the area by force. The attempt of the police force to enter the area was violently resisted by supporters of BUPC at two places and the police opened fire at the mobs. 14 persons were killed in firing and 300 people including 52 policemen sustained injuries.
The police firing on 14th March, 2007 was widely condemned in the media and the Commission took suo motu cognizance of reports published in the "Asian Age" and 'Indian Express'. Case No.872/25/2006-07 was registered. The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal and DGP of the State were asked to submit factual reports. Accordingly, a report dated 29th March, 2004 was received from the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal.
The High Court of Calcutta also took notice of the incident and held that the action of police to open fire was unconstitutional. It directed CBI to take up investigation of police firing and related cases. It also directed the State Government to pay Rs. Five lakhs each as compensation to the families of the dead, Rs. One lakh each to the injured persons and Rs. Two lakhs each to the rape victims.
On 19th March, 2007, the District Magistrate of East Medinipur issued a notification to the effect that the State Government will not acquire any land for industry in Nandigram. In spite of the notification BUPC did not withdraw the agitation. The police was still not allowed to enter the area. Sporadic incidents of violence continued to occur in the following months till October, 2007.
On 27th October, 2007, the State Government sent a requisition to the Central Government for deployment of CRPF in Nandigram and adjoining areas for 3 months. On 5th November, 2007, the Central Government sent a reply that it was not possible to provide CRPF in view of the pending Assembly elections in several other states.
On 6th-7th November, 2007, the CPI (M) cadres overran the blockade with the help of outsiders and criminal elements. Several road blockades were organised by CPI(M) supporters and access of outsiders to Nandigram was stopped by them. During the period from 6th November to 12th November 7 persons were killed, 32 persons including 16 police personnel sustained injuries and several houses were fully or partially destroyed. A large number of villagers (nearly 2500), believed to be supporters of BUPC were driven out and the CPI (M) supporters who were displaced earlier returned home. On 11th November, 2007, the Government of India ordered deployment of 6 companies of CRPF. On 12th November in the evening CRPF personnel made a flag march in the area and normalcy was slowly restored.
Regarding the incidents which occurred from 6th November, 2007 onwards Shri Sanjay Parikh has submitted a petition. He also forwarded to the Commission a message received from Smt. Medha Patekar and requested for urgent intervention. The Commission took cognizance of the petition and case No.725/25/2007-08 was registered. Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal was directed to submit a factual report within10 days. A team of the Investigation Division was deputed to visit the disturbed areas in Nandigram and study the situation. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India was also requested to take such steps as may be necessary to retrieve the situation in Nandigram.
Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal submitted a report dated 3rd December, 2007. The report reveals that 560 houses were completely damaged and 399 houses were partially damaged in the incidents which occurred from 6th November, 2007 to 12th November, 2007. It further states that the State Government has decided to pay Rs. 10,000/- for each fully damaged house, Rs.5,000/- for each partially damaged house and Rs. 1,000/- per affected family for utensils and household goods. It has also been stated in the report that sanction for ex-gratia payment in accordance with the orders of the High Court, is currently under process.
The investigation team of the Commission visited Nandigram in very difficult circumstances and when the situation was very tense. Communication with the local people was also difficult being still under the trauma of riots and violence. The team after overcoming these difficulties set out on their task and has done commendable job.
According to the report of our Investigation team, the entire episode can be considered in three phases:-
First Phase
3rd January, 2007 to 14th March, 2007
During this phase, the state police started losing control over law and order situation in the area of Nandigram. The people lost trust in the police and they feared that the police would help the state agencies to take forcible possession of their land. The villagers were instigated by different political parties to fight against the Government policy. Under the umbrella of BUPC, the people laid a seige over a large area covering 5 gram panchayats in Nandigram Block-1 and did not allow the police and some other state agencies to enter the area as they seemed to have lost trust in either of them. On 14th March, 2007 the police force tried to enter the area and when it was resisted by the local people it opened fire resulting in the death of 14 persons and injuries to several others.
Second Phase
15th March to 5th November, 2007
This was a period of comparative lull. As a matter of fact it may be described as the period of calm before the storm. During this period the local administration issued a notification on 19th March, 2007 declaring that the State Government will not acquire any land in Nandigram for industries. Still the agitation by BUPC continued. Not only the blockade of the area covering 5 gram panchayats in Nandigram Block-1 continued but BUPC was able to extend its influence to other areas in Nandigram Block-2. This period was also utilised by CPI(M) supporters for stock piling of arms and ammunition and mobilization of man power including anti-social elements across the canal in the area of PS Khejuri. The State police remained a mute spectator through out.
Third Phase
On 6th November, 2007, the CPI(M) supporters overran the blockade and tried to "recapture" Nandigram. The police outpost at Tehkhali was withdrawn late at night on 6th November, 2007 and thus the attack by CPI(M) supporters was facilitated. The investigation team of the Commission has reported that the location of the Tehkhali outpost was of strategic importance as it was the dividing line between the CPI (M) dominated area and the BUPC controlled area. The Investigation team has reported that the approach of the police was totally partisan during this period. The team also found a CPI (M) flag hoisted at the police bunker at Tehkhali.
Since the State Government does not appear to have discharged its primary obligation in preventing the attack by CPI (M) cadres on 6th November, 2007, it should bear the responsibility for the loss of life and property following the attack. It is suggested that the next of kin of the dead in these incidents and also the injured persons should be compensated in the same manner as directed by the High Court of Calcutta for the victims of the incidents of 14th March, 2007. The compensation that the State Government proposes to make for damaged houses appears to be quite inadequate. The Commission considers recommending enhanced compensation for fully and partially damaged houses. The Enquiry Team of the Commission has reported that after the incidents of 6th November, 2007 several houses of BUPC supporters have been occupied by CPI(M) cadres and they are now claiming to be owners of those houses and demanding compensation. The Commission considers it necessary to appoint a Committee to suggest compensation regarding damage that occurred and to ensure that the monetary relief does not fall in wrong hands and it reaches the genuine persons. The Committee shall consist of Shri A.K. Jain, Secretary General, Shri D. Sarangi, Special Rapporteur and Shri A.K. Garg, Registrar.
For the unfortunate incidents of Nandigram neither CPI (M) nor BUPC can escape their share of responsibility. In this context it is necessary to make a few general observations:-
(i) The police and the bureaucracy should keep themselves aloof from political influence. Alignment with the party in power results in erosion of public trust which leads to avoidable misery.
(ii) The party in power should always be alive to its constitutional obligation to rule without favour and prejudice. It should never encourage or connive with the illegal activities of its supporters.
(iii) The opposition has a right to highlight the failures of the Government and to educate the people about the policies which it considers harmful. While it may take recourse to peaceful agitation, it should in no case encourage people to indulge in unlawful activities.
(iv) There should be a continuous dialogue between the party in power and the opposition and such dialogue should always be motivated by a concern for the good of the people at large.
(v) The press has a pivotal role to play in a democratic set up, therefore, it should always adopt a balanced and unbiased approach in reporting the events. In the case of Nandigram the Press did a commendable job by highlighting the atrocities on people but it failed in its duty to emphasise that the blockade of a large area of Nandigram by the agitators was unconstitutional.
(vi) Whether agricultural land should be acquired or not for industry or projects like SEZ is a moot question. Agriculture being the only source of livelihood for the farmers, compensation in terms of money for acquisition of their land may not be adequate. In the process of rehabilitation of such displaced people as a result of acquisition of land, the Government should take the local people into confidence and it should also ensure alternative means of livelihood and shelter for the displaced. Whether in addition to monetary compensation, any other land can be given to relocate or can be linked to the project for which the land is acquired by allocating adequate number of shares and providing employment to at least one member of each affected family and similar other measures may be considered. The agriculturists may not be in a position to appropriately or wisely invest the money received by way of compensation. Necessary steps may have to be taken by the Government to appoint advisors for making right investment.
http://nhrc.nic.in/dispArchive.asp?fno=1527
Attacks in Nandigram by CPM cadres -- NHRC
W. Bengal Government failed to stop Nandigram agitation
9 Feb, 2008, 1127 hrs IST, AGENCIES
NEW DELHI: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has lampooned the West Bengal Government for failing to stop Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) and Bhoomi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) activists from indulging in acts of violence against farmers and land owners in Nandigram between November 2006 and March 2007.
In a scathingly critical nine-page report released here late on Friday, the three-member NHRC headed by Justice S. Rajendra Babu, described the incidents in Nandigram as unfortunate, and said: "The State Government does not appear to have discharged its primary obligation in preventing the attack by CPI (M) cadres. It should bear responsibility for the loss of life and property. Neither the CPI (M) nor the BUPC can escape their share of responsibility."
It also condemned the action of the police in opening fire on unarmed farmers, saying the move was blatantly unconstitutional, as it cost the lives of 14 people and injury to around 300 people, including 52 police personnel. Therefore, it required investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
In making its six observations on the incident, the NHRC said that since agriculture is the only source of livelihood for farmers, compensation in terms of money for acquisition of their land "may not be adequate."
"The (West Bengal) Government should take the local people into confidence and it should also ensure an alternative means of livelihood and shelter for the displaced. Whether in addition to monetary compensation, any other land can be given to relocate or can be linked to the (Special Economic Zone) project for which the land is acquired by allocating an adequate number of shares and providing employment to at least one member of each affected family and similar other measures may be considered," the NHRC report states.
It also says that the State Government should appoint advisors to help the dispossessed farmers to invest the money received as compensation wisely.
The NHRC also said that the police and the bureaucracy needed to keep themselves aloof from political influence, adding that alignment with a party in power "results in erosion of public trust, which leads to avoidable misery".
To the West Bengal Government, it said: "The party in power should always be alive to its constitutional obligation to rule without favour and prejudice. It should never encourage or connive with the illegal activities of its supporters."
The opposition it said has the right to highlight the failures of the government, but not the right to encourage people to indulge in unlawful activities.
There is therefore a need for both the party in power and the opposition to engage in continuous dialogue and to be motivated to think of the good of the people at large, it added.
The media too had a responsibility to adopt a balanced and unbiased approach while reporting events, the NHRC report says, adding that in the case of the Nandigram incident, "it had failed in its duty to emphasise that the blockade of a large area of Nandigram by the agitators was unconstitutional."
It may be recalled that the State Government had planned to set up a SEZ for chemical industries in Nandigram, but had to abort the project, as villagers refused to give up their farmland for the project.
The row saw violent clashes between residents opposed to the project and the communist supporters as well as police.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/W_Bengal_Government_failed_to_stop_Nandigram_agitation/articleshow/2768998.cms
9 Feb, 2008, 1127 hrs IST, AGENCIES
NEW DELHI: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has lampooned the West Bengal Government for failing to stop Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) and Bhoomi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) activists from indulging in acts of violence against farmers and land owners in Nandigram between November 2006 and March 2007.
In a scathingly critical nine-page report released here late on Friday, the three-member NHRC headed by Justice S. Rajendra Babu, described the incidents in Nandigram as unfortunate, and said: "The State Government does not appear to have discharged its primary obligation in preventing the attack by CPI (M) cadres. It should bear responsibility for the loss of life and property. Neither the CPI (M) nor the BUPC can escape their share of responsibility."
It also condemned the action of the police in opening fire on unarmed farmers, saying the move was blatantly unconstitutional, as it cost the lives of 14 people and injury to around 300 people, including 52 police personnel. Therefore, it required investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
In making its six observations on the incident, the NHRC said that since agriculture is the only source of livelihood for farmers, compensation in terms of money for acquisition of their land "may not be adequate."
"The (West Bengal) Government should take the local people into confidence and it should also ensure an alternative means of livelihood and shelter for the displaced. Whether in addition to monetary compensation, any other land can be given to relocate or can be linked to the (Special Economic Zone) project for which the land is acquired by allocating an adequate number of shares and providing employment to at least one member of each affected family and similar other measures may be considered," the NHRC report states.
It also says that the State Government should appoint advisors to help the dispossessed farmers to invest the money received as compensation wisely.
The NHRC also said that the police and the bureaucracy needed to keep themselves aloof from political influence, adding that alignment with a party in power "results in erosion of public trust, which leads to avoidable misery".
To the West Bengal Government, it said: "The party in power should always be alive to its constitutional obligation to rule without favour and prejudice. It should never encourage or connive with the illegal activities of its supporters."
The opposition it said has the right to highlight the failures of the government, but not the right to encourage people to indulge in unlawful activities.
There is therefore a need for both the party in power and the opposition to engage in continuous dialogue and to be motivated to think of the good of the people at large, it added.
The media too had a responsibility to adopt a balanced and unbiased approach while reporting events, the NHRC report says, adding that in the case of the Nandigram incident, "it had failed in its duty to emphasise that the blockade of a large area of Nandigram by the agitators was unconstitutional."
It may be recalled that the State Government had planned to set up a SEZ for chemical industries in Nandigram, but had to abort the project, as villagers refused to give up their farmland for the project.
The row saw violent clashes between residents opposed to the project and the communist supporters as well as police.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/W_Bengal_Government_failed_to_stop_Nandigram_agitation/articleshow/2768998.cms
Friday, February 8, 2008
CPM waste land
WASTE LAND (Editorial, Kolkata, Telegraph, Feb. 9, 2008)
How is it that Marxism, despite its political appeal, almost always fails as a guide to governance? This has been the case in the former Soviet Union and its socialist satellites in eastern and central Europe. And this has repeatedly proved to be true for Marxist Bengal. The Bengali comrades’ political rhetoric has won them elections after elections, but the long reign has also been marked by their failures in governance. One more proof of this has come from the Planning Commission’s latest note on Bengal’s record in implementing several schemes that are crucial for alleviating rural poverty. The case of the most important of them — the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme — is particularly instructive as an example of economic mismanagement. Arguably, it is the most ambitious — and the most expensive — programme ever initiated by the Union government in order to reduce rural poverty and provide jobs to villagers. Ironically, the leftists have been its most vocal advocates. But the fact that Bengal has been able to spend less than eight per cent of the funds available for the scheme last year speaks of the Marxists’ incapacity to handle the business of governance even after three decades in power. The Bengal government’s performance in other rural projects only confirms this impression.
It is possible that the finance minister of Bengal, Asim Dasgupta, has his version of the story. But nothing that he may say in the state’s defence can alter the fact about its pathetic record. Usually, such schemes fail because of two reasons — bureaucratic inefficiency and “leakages”, the official jargon for the theft of funds. In Bengal, a more serious problem is the absence of a delivery mechanism. It is a problem that afflicts all aspects of governance in the state. The chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, knows it only too well. That is why he harps on his mantra of “Do it now”. But his sermon obviously has made no difference to governance in the state. Bengal’s failure in these schemes will only strengthen the case of those who argue that these are “expensive gravy trains” that drain the national economy and encourage political and bureaucratic corruption.
In a report last month, the comptroller and auditor general advised the Centre to ensure that the states improve their “administrative and technical infrastructure” in order to properly implement the NREGP and other such schemes. For Bengal, the more important question is whether the state has the political will or the administrative ability to “improve” the ways in which its government functions. Other states too have problems in properly utilizing rural development funds. The malaise in Bengal seems to be primarily systemic. But there is a larger message in these cases of failure. It is time to rethink the economic argument behind such colossal and wasteful schemes.
http://telegraphindia.com/1080209/jsp/opinion/story_8878942.jsp
How is it that Marxism, despite its political appeal, almost always fails as a guide to governance? This has been the case in the former Soviet Union and its socialist satellites in eastern and central Europe. And this has repeatedly proved to be true for Marxist Bengal. The Bengali comrades’ political rhetoric has won them elections after elections, but the long reign has also been marked by their failures in governance. One more proof of this has come from the Planning Commission’s latest note on Bengal’s record in implementing several schemes that are crucial for alleviating rural poverty. The case of the most important of them — the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme — is particularly instructive as an example of economic mismanagement. Arguably, it is the most ambitious — and the most expensive — programme ever initiated by the Union government in order to reduce rural poverty and provide jobs to villagers. Ironically, the leftists have been its most vocal advocates. But the fact that Bengal has been able to spend less than eight per cent of the funds available for the scheme last year speaks of the Marxists’ incapacity to handle the business of governance even after three decades in power. The Bengal government’s performance in other rural projects only confirms this impression.
It is possible that the finance minister of Bengal, Asim Dasgupta, has his version of the story. But nothing that he may say in the state’s defence can alter the fact about its pathetic record. Usually, such schemes fail because of two reasons — bureaucratic inefficiency and “leakages”, the official jargon for the theft of funds. In Bengal, a more serious problem is the absence of a delivery mechanism. It is a problem that afflicts all aspects of governance in the state. The chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, knows it only too well. That is why he harps on his mantra of “Do it now”. But his sermon obviously has made no difference to governance in the state. Bengal’s failure in these schemes will only strengthen the case of those who argue that these are “expensive gravy trains” that drain the national economy and encourage political and bureaucratic corruption.
In a report last month, the comptroller and auditor general advised the Centre to ensure that the states improve their “administrative and technical infrastructure” in order to properly implement the NREGP and other such schemes. For Bengal, the more important question is whether the state has the political will or the administrative ability to “improve” the ways in which its government functions. Other states too have problems in properly utilizing rural development funds. The malaise in Bengal seems to be primarily systemic. But there is a larger message in these cases of failure. It is time to rethink the economic argument behind such colossal and wasteful schemes.
http://telegraphindia.com/1080209/jsp/opinion/story_8878942.jsp
CPM indulges in Dinhata 'eyewash' -- police transfers
Transfer order for Dinhata cops
OUR BUREAU (Kolkata, Telegraph)
Calcutta/Dinhata, Feb. 8: The Bengal government today transferred two police officers from Dinhata, but stood by the law enforcers’ decision to open fire on Forward Bloc supporters in the subdivisional town on Tuesday, killing five.
The decision came after Bengal home secretary Prasad Ranjan Ray received the Cooch Behar district magistrate’s report on the police firing today.
“The police in Dinhata feared an all-out attack from the Bloc demonstrators and hence had to open fire in self-defence. That is what I have been told. Moreover, things went out of control after the protesters set two police vehicles on fire,” Ray said.
According to a home department official, the report submitted to Ray also mentions that it was not possible for the 135 policemen on duty at the Dinhata subdivisional office on that day to control the 10,000-odd violent protesters.
One National Volunteers Force guard had died of head injuries inflicted by the mob.
A report sent by the subdivisional officer, Debabrata Chakraborty, to the district magistrate has revealed that on that day, two constables had fired three shots in the air and 19 into the crowd from their .303 rifles.
As for the transfers of the inspector-in-charge of the Dinhata police station, Sudhangshu Roy, and deputy superintendent of police (crime) Meghlal Sarkar, the home secretary said: “After such incidents, police officers are posted elsewhere to avoid ugly incidents with residents.”
A meeting was held at the chief minister’s chamber today to review the Dinhata situation. Ray, the director-general of police, A.B. Vohra, and chief secretary Amit Kiran Deb attended it.
Afterwards, the home secretary said there had been no discussions on whether to order a judicial or a CID probe.
“It is for the chief minister to decide on the nature of the probe. Early next week, I hope to issue orders for an inquiry by an executive magistrate,” Ray said.
In Dinhata, deputy superintendent of police Sarkar said: “I do not mind a transfer to Siliguri, which is my hometown.”
The officer said the firing orders were given by the Dinhata subdivisional officer. “The police did not give any firing orders,” he said.
The inspector-in-charge of the Dinhata police station has been transferred to the district intelligence branch in Cooch Behar.
Bloc district secretary Udayan Guha dubbed the transfers an “eyewash”.
http://telegraphindia.com/1080209/jsp/frontpage/story_8880369.jsp
OUR BUREAU (Kolkata, Telegraph)
Calcutta/Dinhata, Feb. 8: The Bengal government today transferred two police officers from Dinhata, but stood by the law enforcers’ decision to open fire on Forward Bloc supporters in the subdivisional town on Tuesday, killing five.
The decision came after Bengal home secretary Prasad Ranjan Ray received the Cooch Behar district magistrate’s report on the police firing today.
“The police in Dinhata feared an all-out attack from the Bloc demonstrators and hence had to open fire in self-defence. That is what I have been told. Moreover, things went out of control after the protesters set two police vehicles on fire,” Ray said.
According to a home department official, the report submitted to Ray also mentions that it was not possible for the 135 policemen on duty at the Dinhata subdivisional office on that day to control the 10,000-odd violent protesters.
One National Volunteers Force guard had died of head injuries inflicted by the mob.
A report sent by the subdivisional officer, Debabrata Chakraborty, to the district magistrate has revealed that on that day, two constables had fired three shots in the air and 19 into the crowd from their .303 rifles.
As for the transfers of the inspector-in-charge of the Dinhata police station, Sudhangshu Roy, and deputy superintendent of police (crime) Meghlal Sarkar, the home secretary said: “After such incidents, police officers are posted elsewhere to avoid ugly incidents with residents.”
A meeting was held at the chief minister’s chamber today to review the Dinhata situation. Ray, the director-general of police, A.B. Vohra, and chief secretary Amit Kiran Deb attended it.
Afterwards, the home secretary said there had been no discussions on whether to order a judicial or a CID probe.
“It is for the chief minister to decide on the nature of the probe. Early next week, I hope to issue orders for an inquiry by an executive magistrate,” Ray said.
In Dinhata, deputy superintendent of police Sarkar said: “I do not mind a transfer to Siliguri, which is my hometown.”
The officer said the firing orders were given by the Dinhata subdivisional officer. “The police did not give any firing orders,” he said.
The inspector-in-charge of the Dinhata police station has been transferred to the district intelligence branch in Cooch Behar.
Bloc district secretary Udayan Guha dubbed the transfers an “eyewash”.
http://telegraphindia.com/1080209/jsp/frontpage/story_8880369.jsp
CPM murders partners in Dinhata
CPM murders its partners in Dinhata
Flags in hand, Monindra Roy ran for dear life — not his own but that of a Forward Bloc comrade who had been hit by a police bullet on Tuesday.
Roy, who was part of the Bloc law-violation programme, carried the injured man to hospital, about 200 metres from the Dinhata subdivisional office — the site of the mayhem. But he did not survive.
Roy’s efforts, however, did not go unnoticed. A youth caught the action on a camcorder (grab on left).
The 33-year-old farmer said he had stooped to collect flags lying on the ground as bullets whizzed past him.
“Then I heard someone yell. An aged man, wearing dhuti-panjabi, collapsed before me as blood oozed out of his chest. I ran towards him and picked him up. With the flags still in my hand, I carried the man out of the campus. I saw many people groaning in pain while the policemen kept firing.”
Dinhata growls, Calcutta goes silent
OUR CORRESPONDENT (Kolkata, Telegraph, Feb. 8, 2008)
Siliguri, Feb. 7: The Forward Block put up two faces today.
The Dinhata brigade bellowed against the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee government for Tuesday’s police firing that left six dead, but colleagues in Calcutta kept their lips sealed.
Udayan Guha, the Dinhata Bloc secretary who has been catapulted to the forefront in the district, said Tuesday’s “barbaric” incident would be highlighted at all party meetings from now on.
He said the Bloc would not buckle under the “might of the government”, which had tried to “crush the Forward Bloc’s efforts to raise common peoples’ issues”.
But leaders in Calcutta, who had yesterday cut short their bandh and refused to criticise the chief minister, were silent on the firing, confining themselves to the refrain that the matter would be discussed at the next Left Front meeting.
They appeared keen to distance themselves from Guha’s aggressive brand of politics — in evidence since Tuesday’s law-violation programme and in its aftermath.
Guha dismissed suggestions by the CPM that “antisocials” had mingled with the procession that had stormed the subdivisional office in Dinhata, which triggered the police firing.
“There was not a single antisocial in the rally. They were all our supporters. The CPM leaders should prove their point,” he said.
In Calcutta, the Bloc leaders took pains to ensure that they did not lay the blame on the government — but only on the police — for the deaths. Guha, however, was in no mood for such benevolence.
“We have been fighting the CPM-led government on some major issues. After Tuesday’s incident, we doubt how much unity can be maintained in the Left Front. Our workers at the grassroots level view the CPM as any other opposition party.”
Some Bloc leaders in Dinhata admitted that the sympathy generated by Tuesday’s firing would “benefit” the party.
“It is not a very pleasant thing to say given the enormity of the tragedy, but the deaths will definitely help us in the panchayat polls,” a leader said. “It has pumped up our workers and made us more aggressive in our anti-CPM stance.”
Dinhata limped to normality today with shops and offices re-opening and children trooping back to school.
However, tension hung heavy over the town and nearby areas, especially villages which lost residents to the police bullets. “We are not going to sleep till justice is done,” said a Bloc supporter from Sitai.
http://telegraphindia.com/1080208/jsp/bengal/story_8876965.jsp#
Volley & blunder (Statesman, Kolkata, Editorial, Feb. 8, 2008)
Disconnect in Forward Bloc’s strategy
It has been a foundational jolt for the Left Front, an in-house disaster and the first of its kind since it assumed office in 1977. It has quite visibly stumped the Communist Party of India (Marxist) going by its feeble response. The dominant party has targeted the bullet against the Forward Bloc, its partner in governance, and has had to reconcile itself to a bandh called by a constituent of the Front. There are at least three fundamental aspects of Tuesday’s tragedy in Dinhata that call for some soul-searching by the CPI-M, the government and to a certain degree the Forward Bloc as well. The first must be the recourse to firing; the second is the ruthless severity of the action; and finally the FB’s position vis-a-vis the Front. Pulling the trigger gets more and more reckless as the government suffers a jerk in the knee even in the face of a perfectly democratic agitation. Palpable indeed is the urge to seek fatally quick-fix solutions and an increasing tendency to seek desperate options. This is illustrated by the summoning of the army first to restore order over a four-km radius in Kolkata and more recently to douse a fire, essentially the outcome of municipal negligence. And when the army is not an agreeable or viable option, the police are ordered to fire and kill, an action carried out with a degree of malevolence that is as calculated as it is political. Tuesday’s firing violated every rule in the book: the trigger was pulled without the mandatory warning and the bullets were targeted above the waist, on the head and in the neck. Which makes it plain that the firing, as in Nandigram last March, was ordered to kill. Forty-eight hours after the mayhem, it isn’t quite definite as to who ordered the action ~ Cooch Behar’s DM, the SP or the OC. Still less whether the firing could have been avoided. These are questions that the Chief Minister, who holds the police portfolio, must answer. Indeed, the ability of the force to control violent crowds is now open to question as never before.
The Forward Bloc’s reaction has been notably restrained. The firing has been condemned as “barbaric” but the party appears to have drawn a fine distinction between the police action and the government in the wider context. Electorally, there has been a parting of the ways all right; the party will go it alone in the panchayat elections. Yet it has decided to stop short of quitting the coalition and “is still with the Left Front” because of what Mr Ashok Ghosh calls “political necessity”. The party must realise that the time for fence-sitting is over. That, in sum, is the dire message from Dinhata.
http://thestatesman.org/page.news.php?clid=3&theme=&usrsess=1&id=189415
CRPF denies firing in Dinhata
Statesman News Service (Feb. 8, 2008)
KOLKATA, Feb. 7: The controversial firing at Dinhata on 5 February killing six people, including four Forward Bloc supporters, acquired a new twist today when the CRPF denied its personnel had opened fire on the demonstrators as alleged by the FB leadership. The FB stuck to its charge.
Mr SIS Ahmed, director general, CRPF, said according to preliminary reports the CRPF contingent requisitioned for assisting the police during the agitation “didn’t resort to firing at all.”
Asked whether the firing had taken place before the CRPF personnel arrived at the spot or after, Mr Ahmed said: “I don’t have details of the sequence of events.”
Mr Udayan Guha, FB Cooch Behar district secretary, told The Statesman over phone that he had video clippings to prove that CRPF personnel had fired from their rifles.
“We are getting ready still photographs of the firing which will leave no doubt about the firing. I don’t know whether the CRPF is trying to save itself or anybody else, but we have evidence to show how the CRPF resorted to firing,” Mr Guha said.
The FB state secretary, Mr Ashoke Ghosh, alleged the firing had been preplanned and that the CRPF had been deliberately positioned before the police. He also said the FB would later divulge how the “blueprint for the premeditated firing” was prepared.
Yesterday’s bandh, which was eventually scaled down from 24 hours to 12 hours, was in protest against what the FB alleged the CPI-M’s attempt to clamp police raj on the state. It described the killings at Dinhata as a “second Nandigram” where 14 villagers had fallen to police bullets on 14 March last year while protesting against the state government’s move to forcibly acquire farm land for setting up a mega chemical hub. The plan had finally to be abandoned in the wake of the turmoil that it triggered off.
A day after his remarks on the Dinhata police firing, transport and sports minister Mr Subhash Chakraborty, backed out to say in Midnapore that the Left Front ally (without mentioning the Forward Bloc) can’t do whatever it likes.
But today he refrained from commenting on the police excesses in Dinhata. The chief minister will give his observation in this matter, said the transport minister.
On the Singur issue, Mr Chakraborty said the government had not done any wrong by acquiring farmland there for industrialisation. He was addressing workers of the SBSTC in Midnapore today.
http://thestatesman.org/page.news.php?clid=1&theme=&usrsess=1&id=189394
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
