India - WB;An about-turn to woo the urban voter ?

Marcus Dam

That the leadership of West Bengal’s principal opposition party is re-ordering its political priorities with an eye on wooing the urban voter in the coming Lok Sabha elections was in little doubt when Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, in an announcement that clearly indicates a change in mind, said that she is opposed to her party calling bandhs and organising blockades unless in the event “of an emergency.”

Coming from the leader of a party that has not infrequently been criticised by both its political rivals and a section of industry for its “disruptive” and “confrontationist” brand of politics, Ms Banerjee’s remark has been largely welcomed by an agitation-weary urban population, though not without some scepticism.

What cannot be missed is the reason cited for opposing bandhs and blockades being called for at the drop of a hat. They cause “inconvenience to people” and “charity begins at home,” she explained, adding that her announcement comes into effect from Wednesday.

It needs no reminding that the vast areas in the city had to suffer massive traffic dislocations on Monday — a day before Ms Banerjee’s utterances — because of a “march” to Lal Bazar, the city police headquarters. The programme was purportedly organised by the youth wing of the Trinamool Congress but announced and endorsed by her in protest against the alleged nexus “between a section of the police administration and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) out to terrorise the people”.

On the face of it any leader’s show of concern towards the “inconvenience” caused to the public, whatever the form of political activism the man-on-the-street may be subject to, is indeed commendable. But at a time of an approaching election where Ms Banerjee had vowed at a rally that the number of seats won by the Left Front would be reduced to “zero” (the Trinamool Congress’ tally in the last polls was one out of a total of 42 seats) there is more to it than meets the eye.

There was some reason for cheer in the Trinamool Congress camp after the rural polls held in all but one district of the State in May in which the party had fared better than what it, not to speak of its rivals, might have thought.

What had been, perhaps, considered most significant in the outcome of the panchayat elections were its resounding successes at both Nandigram and Singur — epicentres of its movement against acquisition of farmland for industry. The subsequent agitation at Singur was largely perceived as an attempt by the Trinamool Congress to consolidate its support among the rural voters by espousing that it was by the side of land-losers.

But what even the Trinamool Congress leadership might not have bargained for was the decision of Tata Motors to finally pull out their Nano project from Singur earlier this month. The blame was put squarely on Ms Banerjee and her supporters.

A fortnight later came the “open letter” by Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Group, with references to the “confrontative actions” of her party and its allies that had forced the move to withdraw the Nano project.

It also raised the critical question, addressed to the people of the State “particularly the younger citizens,” whether they would like to support Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s government “to build a prosperous state with the rule of law… or would like to see a State consumed by a destructive political environment of confrontation, agitation, violence and lawlessness.”

Could the letter have prompted its readers to take a relook at the ground realities? As for Ms Banerjee would the “victory of farmers” that she claimed to have helped achieving at Singur be enough to take forward her party’s political fortunes in a Lok Sabha election where the urban vote can be as decisive as the rural?

The Trinamool Congress leadership has apparently felt that it is time to change its tack. For, after all, a considerable section of the urban population is clearly distressed over the forcing out of the State a project like the Nano and anxious of its likely negative implications on industrialisation and its potentials for employment generation. Ms Banerjee is obviously aware where to direct her sight next.