What After the Bandh?

editorial:
So, when Sikkim served out a Resolution on a West Bengal matter, it acquired the neighbouring State’s fondness for bandhs in exchange. For a State which has for more than two decades now swallowed the indignity of suffering in someone else’s battle [via bandhs keeping it hostage], the quickness with which it announced a 48-hours bandh of its own is rather surprising. The reference to quickness here is with regard to the argument presented by the State to justify getting involved in the statehood demand of Darjeeling – that Sikkim has been held hostage to the political uncertainty of the neighbouring hills for far too long and deserved a permanent solution for Darjeeling so that its right to connectivity to the rest of the country is not so frequently compromised. That said, the party’s stand against the recalcitrant units has been growing more confrontational over the past few months and was always expected to culminate in a bandh. There are no signs to suggest that the recourse to bandhs is going to set in as a trend; the 48-hour Sikkim Bandh called by the Sikkim Democratic Front appears a one-off event, one which arrives after so many years that one cannot even recollect, off-hand, when the last bandh brought Sikkim to a halt. Since the bandh has been called by the ruling party, it is obviously going to be successful, so let us begin with what rankles in this episode.

First, there are too many points being raised – 31 to be precise, as listed in the pamphlet released to explain the bandh. Frankly, these are simply too many to keep track of. That is not to say that they are not important, but even the party supporters who will picket on the two days of the bandh will be hard pressed to recount all 31 points verbatim. Bandhs are called to highlight issues, the more specific they are, the better. Thirty-one is too many for even newspapers to recount in their coverage. The reportage will then be only about the bandh, and not the reasons which prompted it. That will defeat the purpose of the bandh because the means will have taken primacy over the issues being flagged. There was also no need for such expansive elaboration because basically two points are being raised – local employment in non-local enterprises [ranging from industrial units to hydel projects to banks and central govt offices] and Sikkim’s demands still pending with the Centre. These issues have definitely stretched out for too much longer than is healthy and if the shock of a bandh shakes these towards resolution, the 48 hours of a Sikkim lockdown will be worth it. But for that to happen, the ruling party needs to be ready with follow-up action. Its memorandums for Delhi and teams [good, intelligent and honest teams] to negotiate with “non-local” job-providers should be on the ready to ride the momentum pushed by the bandh. Delhi needs to be petitioned immediately to recognise the mass support for the demands that it has still not decided on and the ungracious investors introduced to the state-wide admonishment of their refusal to deliver on commitments towards local employment. The bandh will obviously be successful, but that does not mean that people endorse this form of protest, it will thus be for the people to sustain pressure on the ruling party to follow-up on the success of the bandh. Active SDF party workers and leaders currently lobbying support for the bandh should be asked to return after a week to brief the people on what the bandh achieved and how the party plans to leverage the support of the people to get the demands met. Since support for the bandh was drummed up through people-to-people contact, so should the updating be. Darjeeling never demanded such accountability from its leaders, and look where it has reached them.
A bandh by itself does not attract attention in our country anymore. Even though its rarity in Sikkim qualifies for attention, it is unlikely that the country beyond Siliguri will notice. It would have been advisable for SDF’s PR section to have networked with ‘national’ media houses to arrange coverage of this rarest of rare event in Sikkim, but since that has not happened, the party will have to ensure continued uniqueness to drive home the point. This can be achieved by ensuring not only a voluntarily complete shutdown, but also a bandh without a single incident of ‘enforcement’ or even a minor outbreak of violence even in the face of incitement. That will be the clinching argument to confront Delhi with - that the bandh received such complete support because the people feel so passionately about the demands. Accept it, the bandh is going to make headlines only in Sikkim and Siliguri-based newspapers, so its success and significance will have to be conveyed to Delhi through petitions and supporting evidence. For that, as already mentioned, the bandh will have to be flawlessly conducted. It is important that this direction is conveyed clearly down the line. Even politically, an incident-free observance of the bandh carries a lot of significance for the ruling party; it will underline that it can take strong stands on local issues at levels beyond press releases [which is till where Opposition engagement is limited to in Sikkim at present] and that it still has the organisational strength to ensure an incident-free two-day state-wide bandh. The party should also start considering the option of targeting the more stubborn units with lightning gheraos; unannounced and surprise action not only embarrass, but also hurt the bottom-line. Managements will listen then. What are also required are monitoring committees for the MoUs. Without constant watch, even the new agreements and commitments which could follow the bandh will not be honoured.