Industrialisation , Democracy, Nandigram

Industrialisation , Democracy, Nandigram

While looking through the window of a running train at night we can spot some rare points of light in the distance; and we can at once guess that there lie some sparks of life , either in isolation or in a cluster. Similarly, amidst the vast limitless

expanse of time too we sometimes unexpectedly encounter some extraordinary events which appear in the horizon like some big or small lighthouses. The light of distant villages disappear soon in the darkness. But there are certain memorable moments which do not lose significance even after the passage of centuries. During the time when we actually go through such events it is the immediate excitement of the hour that keeps us more occupied than their historic significance; as some extraordinary personality happens to be most accessible to his contemporary countrymen, and yet few can properly appreciate his greatness. It is only when we look back at that person or event from a certain distance acquired through time that we can automatically recognize the extraordinariness of the extraordinary. In the Bengali year 1413, certain events have taken place on the around Singur and Nandigram, close to our doors; and it is only when we can consider them objectively from a wider perspective of ti

me that it will be comparatively easier for us to grasp their historic significance. Just as the immediate and emotionally poignant description has its own special value, similarly its dispassionate analysis too can help us by providing guidelines in wider contexts of life. That major object cannot be achieved within the brief span of the present essay; however, I shall try to give some minimal hints.
In our country, throughout India as well as in Bengal and other parts of this subcontinent, agriculture is still the mainstay, main source of livinghood for the largest number of people�people who perceive the land as �ma�. No other productive or ancillary activities can be compared to agriculture in this respect. There was a time when today�s industrialized countries too were agriculture-oriented. Eventually the situation changed. What we call industrialization, -- that is the shift of an increasing number people from agriculture towards industry�has been a recognized trend in modern history. The process has started in our country too. This is a major trend of the history of the present era. One after another various countries of the world have been adapting this path. But even after admitting this some questions remain unanswered, some doubts persist.
True, one after another many a country have opted for the course of industrialization. But why? A simple answer that is usually offered to this question is more or less like this:
Poverty can be eradicated by adapting the path of industrialization. As poverty is the major cause of suffering for the maximum number of people, industrialization, therefore, can pave the way to man�s happiness.
Now if this really happened there would have been no cause for worry. But does it really happen? Is it true that by taking the path of industrialization man has actually learnt from his experience that this is the right way to happiness, and has consequently become committed to the cause of industrial revolution? But it is difficult to fit this assumption to the actual situation. For instance we can cite the case of England, which occupies the front rank in the history of industrial revolution. Or alternatively we can look at America of a subsequent era. At this point I am not going into the misery these imperialist countries have perpetrated on other countries; instead I am considering only what happened within these countries.
To cite the opinion of a rationalist and humanist commentator like Bertrand Russell: �The industrial revolution caused unspeakable misery both in England and in America. I do not think any student of economic history can doubt that (the) average of happiness in England in the early nineteenth century was lower than it had been a hundred years earlier�(Bertrand Russell, �The Impact of Science on Society�). That is, the nineteenth century English society was infinitely more unhappy that the society preceding the industrial revolution. It is this grim reality that gets reflected in the works of the best English novelists of the period. If this was the truth, then the question remains�why industrialization was so staunchly followed even after this!
There is only one unmistakable answer. It is not happiness, but power, especially military power, which is consolidated beyond any doubt by means of the support of heavy industry. Today America has emerged as the super power of the world by means of its modern industry and military power. This is the fundamental truth about the attraction of industrialism. Not that this applies exclusively to capitalism alone, but rather generally to the process of industrialism itself. The particular way and procedure of the so-called development that had been adopted by Russia under the leadership of Stalin did not place its emphasis on the production of consumerist goods. Instead the priority was given to those particular big industry and heavy industry which were specifically necessary for consolidating military power. Even after winning the Second World War , there was no immediate change in the policy. Neither did a small country like North Korea, or a vast country like China go any different way.
Following a quick development in military industry, which constitutes the most important sector of modern industrialization, there emerges a remarkable development in another area of production which caters to the demand of a new affluent class for luxury goods and other related services. Again, whereas America presents a perfect case of this development paradigm, the other countries too offer no exception to this rule. That is, the aspiration for military power goes hand in hand with the desire for consumerist lifestyle not only in the industrially developed countries, but in the developing countries as well. In all such countries a new affluent class has been rapidly on the rise. This class exerts a tremendous control over the political leadership of the state, whereas they are completely cut off from the common people. Singur and Nandigram indicate the same reality.
We have arrived at a turn where it seems imperative that we should think anew about industrialization. The question is not whether we are in favour of industrialization or against it. The real issue is the way, the procedure and the form of industrialization. A healthy debate on these aspects is an imperative; sane rational difference of opinions should be welcome. Prior to that we have to define and arrange our questions in the right order. The chief political party of this state has repeatedly insisted in their claim that people raising questions about its policy were opposed to industrialization. This is a wrong accusation; started this way the debate is bound to take the wrong route. But everybody has not been making the same mistake. Some partners within the very same government of West Bengal have been trying to indicate the way towards constructive discussion. The Bengal chapter of All India Forward Bloc has brought out a brochure titled �Chai Krishi, Chai Shilpa�[wanted agriculture and industry]. They have claimed, and rightly, �We must take into account the factors of nature and environment while opting for industrialization. � We shall give priority to those industries which can meet our daily needs� The topmost priority should be given to agro-industries, which grow on the basis of agricultural products� The prospect of employment, area development, and the need of common people�these three should be the main basis for industrial policy.� It is in this way that we can evolve the foundation of a broad consensus of patriotic people regarding an alternative way of industrialization, while politely accommodating occasional voices of healthy dissent as well.
In some countries the path of industrialization has been devised within the framework of a totalitarian one-party rule. But that cannot be the path for India. Our society is constituted by such unique multiplicity and variety that democracy and a tolerant mass awareness is indispensable here. If we take the way of coercion it will only lead to endless aggravation of hostility, dehumanization, loss and suffering. This is precisely the lesson of Singur and Nandigram. Today history calls upon India to devise a way in which agriculture and industry can be appropriately connected while retaining the basic imperatives of democracy. Can we respond to this call and evolve a special procedure towards industrialization in this state? And will democracy too evolve in course of this process into a unique creative form? Seen in the historical context of the broader perspective of time questions like these are now flashing up. This is the special message of Singur and Nandigram. We are facing the trial of a new test today before the court of time.
The test is not only for the ruling party; the opposition must also take the test. In spite of some horrifying aberrations on the part of the rulers a section of the mass is still worried if our opposition, fragmented into splinters as they are, do really have the capacity to assume the position at the helm? Haven�t their energy and thought been crippled by narrow party and group interests? Indeed there�s no dearth of reasons to be worried on this account. Still, in the midst of countless disappointments Nandigram has shown a new way. There, common people have ignored petty politicking and divisionism to evolve a spontaneous united power. The next question is if this partyless power can be preserved to lead the society in future. Is it possible that a ground has been imperceptibly building up among our masses for a new experiment with democracy! Here�s a question inviting serious consideration.
It will not be possible to free our capital from party politics in near future. From the centre party politics has spread out into interior villages. It has so spread that we have become accustomed to think of the party system as a basic condition of democracy. Yet some of our best thinkers, whose illustrious example in the domain of politics was Jayaprakash Narayan, have elaborated on the idea of partyless democracy. The basic condition of democracy is the freedom of thought and conscience and the commitment to public good. This is the capital. If the people of Singur and Nandigram , by using this capital, can forge ahead towards building a new future through a healthy village reconstruction, our search for democracy will touch a new horizon in the coming days. Today many artists, writers, conscientious thinkers have thrown away the shackles of partisan thought in order to assemble in a historic protest movement. Standing on the threshold of this release of democratic spirit we must look ahead towards the future. If the work of liberating politics from the bondage of excessive party domination starts in this state immediately, if partyless village societies are installed from village to village, and partyless democratic for a come up in all cities and towns, -- if the new generation finds a prevision of the future in this historic protest movement against today�s nightmares�it is only then that Singur and Nandigram will certainly attain memorable vindication day by day. This will be preserved in the pages of history as an epoch-making event. Let this be the annunciation on the eve of 1414.
[English version of the Bengali article in Dainik Statesman. 15 April 2007;
Translation: Rama Kundu]

[1908 words]

Source: Free Online Articles from ArticlesBase.com

Ex.Vice Chancellor of Biswabharati University,Shantiniketan

Permalink: http://expert-talk.com/tips/163/industrialisation-democracy-nandigram-170163.htm

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the article, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Related Tips and Advices

The Awful Truth About Television: TV Corrodes Community and Democracy

Related Tags

Community Democracy Government Television Truth