On Modi, G.P. Koirala and Kanu Sanyal

While several publications in the Capital have highlighted the US dilemma over how much to appease the Pakistani Army as well as those in authority in Islamabad owing allegiance to the Generals, three names have come into prominence in the course of the last few days: Narendra Modi, Girija Prasad (GP) Koirala and Kanu Sanyal.

Narendra Modi, the Gujarat CM, failed to turn up on March 21 before the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigating Team inquiring into the massacre in Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society in the aftermath of the Godhra carnage more than eight years ago, that is, in February 2002 in spite of having been issued summons as early as on March 11.

When the major newspapers played up this development and also asked the SIT as to what it would do if Modi chose not appear before it indefinitely and the SIT chief declined to answer the query, the Gujarat CM went ballistic the following day, that is, on March 22. In an open letter released by BJP leader Arun Jaitley, Modi alleged that the date of March 21, 2010 was “invented” by “some vested interest” as a “part of their effort to interfere in the due process of law”. Declaring that the so-called summons to him to appear on March 21 was “completely false”, he went on to assail the “purveyors of untruth” charging them with failing “even to think” that March 21 “happens to be a Sunday and a public holiday” and “did not once bother to check whether the SIT officers, who are appointed by the Supreme Court, were present in Gujarat on March 21”.

Clearly there was a disconnect. For only the previous day it was written in the newspapers: “The office of the SIT in Gandhinagar was kept open on Sunday (March 21) and its members were present in case Modi presented himself.” And The Indian Express editorially observed:

…the summons had great symbolic import, if little else. Modi made quite a brand out of Gujarat and his development mantra subsequent to the convulsions of 2002; subsequent to the foregrounding of Gujarati asmita (pride) as a reply to those calling the State to account. On top of it all, Modi has not, till date, publicly regretted the murderous mayhem of 2002. Therefore, it was necessary for the Chief Minister to present himself before the SIT in response to the summons. This bit of grace was required from him. Unfortunately, he chooses neither to possess nor to display it; and certainly not to offer it.

Now Modi has reportedly agreed to present himself before the panel on March 27 and, according to his counsel, that “is the mutually agreed date” for his appearance before the SIT. However, the CM is learnt to have told the SIT in a letter that since the hearing is scheduled before the Supreme Court on April 5, it will be better if the SC hears the matter first, and one of his close aides has told the press: “There are many more like the Gujarat Assembly Speaker Ashok Bhatt, among others, who have to testify before the SIT. Why should Modi go so early?”

Obviously Modi is resorting to doublespeak. Or perhaps trying to wriggle himself out of a situation which could turn more sticky during his interrogation by the SIT.

Meanwhile the news from Nepal that G.P. Koirala, the Nepali Congress supremo and former PM, had breathed his last in Kathmandu has caused legitimate concern in New Delhi. For all his angularities, GP, as he was known in Nepal’s political arena, was the seniormost politician who commanded respect from all sections. Indeed as has been mentioned in several tributes following his death, he might have been criticised as power-hungry, corrupt and indulging in nepotism (as seen by the autocratic promotion of his daughter Sujata), but what cannot be denied is that he happened to be the principal leader in the mass struggle for democracy following King Gyanendra’s takeover in February 2005 and all the democratic forces, including the CPN (Maoist), joined that struggle of which he was the undisputed helmsman.

In his absence it is more than certain that the Nepali Congress, now bereft of the patriarch and thus orphaned, would lose the clout it had wielded over Nepal’s politics. Moreover it could get weakened by internal bickerings and dissensions. As for New Delhi, its relationship with GP had helped it to exercise substantial influence over Nepal’s polity. With GP gone things would definitely get tougher for India especially when China is flexing its muscles and exerting pressure on Nepal through its close associates, including the CPN (Maoist), to fight Indian ‘hegemony’. Complexities in Nepal’s political scene are thus bound to grow vis-à-vis its ties with India in particular.

On March 23, 2010 the legendary leader of the Naxalbari movement, Kanu (Krishna Kumar) Sanyal, committed suicide by hanging himself in his native Hathighisha village near Siliguri in West Bengal’s Darjeeling district. With his demise all three originators of the Naxalbari struggle have now passed on to history. First Charu Mazumdar, the theoretical leader and Naxalite supremo, died in police custody in 1972. Then Kanu’s associate and comrade-in-arms, Jangal Santhal, breathed his last in 1981. And now Kanu Sanyal has taken his own life.

Though Charu Mazumdar is credited as being the initiator of the Naxalbari movement in 1967, former Naxalite leader and author Saibal Mitra has aptly said something which was known to many but never brought into focus: “It was actually Sanyal who started the Naxalbari movement. He always underplayed his role. Kanubabu is the one and only example as to how politicians should lead their life.”

Kanu Sanyal was disillusioned with his mentor Charu Mazumdar’s senseless policy of class-enemy annihilation and openly spoke out against it. He thus proved that he was never a blind follower of Mazumdar. He was also critical of the policies of the CPI (Maoist) underlining the fact that while armed class struggle was a historic necessity, violence was not the only path to seize state power. At the same time he remained highly critical of the ruling CPI-M in West Bengal and organised mass actions against its policies that led to the closure of the tea gardens in north Bengal and handing over fertile land to the Tatas in Singur in south Bengal. On the question of armed operations against the Maoists, the Central Committee of the CPI-ML headed by him in its latest report on the current situation has this to say:

The Union Home Minister has expressed satisfaction at the unanimity among the Central and State Governments headed by the Congress, BJP, BJD, CPI-M and JMM in dealing with the situation. The much publicised military operations came to be called as Green Hunt, Godavari Operation and such other names in the media.

Without mincing words the CC further declares:

The CPI and CPM which pose as Communist Parties are no different from the ruling class parties. They are not hesitating to use brutal repression upon the people in their drive to convince their trustworthiness to the ruling classes. The Left sectarian trends and terror tactics on one side and Right opportunism on the other among the revolutionary camp is harming the cause of the revolutionary movement.

All these reveal his realistic assessment of the ground situation since he could, more than many others, feel the pulse of the people at large. It is a pity that he finally took his life. Only last month he had reportedly stated that he did not want to live as he had no strength left to serve the poor and the oppressed. His death will doubtless leave a void in the Naxalite movement that is now trying to regroup itself in varied ways.

May 25 S.C.