Trinamool’s boycott call marks an unprecedented attempt to institutionally silence artistic dissent

Recently, a section of the Trinamool Congress leadership called for a boycott of artists who have criticised the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The move, which has been billed as intolerant by many, comes as the State government faces criticism and protests over the rape and murder of an on-duty doctor inside the State-run R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata on August 9. Kunal Ghosh, a Trinamool leader and State general secretary, called for a boycott of artists who, during protests over the R.G. Kar incident, had “insulted” the party and the Chief Minister, used “unparliamentary” language, and “provoked the masses with false information”.

Ghosh’s call for a boycott was supported by a section of Trinamool’s top leadership, including Lok Sabha MP, Kalyan Banerjee, and State Education Minister Bratya Basu. This sparked an outcry not just from opposition parties, but also from the artists’ community. Basu, who himself is an acclaimed actor and playwright, and had been at the forefront of the protest movement in 2007 against the then Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]-led government over police firing in Nandigram that killed 14 villagers, added fuel to the fire. He said the artists who are criticised the government have no right to accept State grants.

“As an artist, I will oppose the government, and from that same government ask (permission) for shows; expect grants. This cannot be. Show me one artist who returned the government award (in protest over the R G Kar case) and reimbursed the money that came with the award. Ask them to give proof of that…,” he said.

According to eminent painter Samir Aich, once close to Mamata Banerjee and later becoming a strong critic of the Trinamool government, the idea of a boycott must have been approved by the topmost section of the party. “This is not their (the leaders’) words. The direction has come from the very top; otherwise, they would not have had the courage to call for a boycott. It is most unfortunate that when an artist of Bratya Basu’s stature makes such comments, we can see the true colour of the party, how ruthless it can be,” Aich told Frontline.

Trinamool’s ‘double standards’

For a party that had used the support of artists and intellectuals when in the Opposition, and fields many more artists and celebrities in elections than any other party in the State, Trinamool’s open hostility towards those who critique the party reflects its double standards.

Although the Trinamool claims to be the most vocal opponent of the BJP, its attitude over certain issues is no different from right-wing political forces, believes senior political commentator Biswajit Bhattacharya. “People had voted for Trinamool believing it would bring in a progressive government. But people are getting increasingly disillusioned. For all its rhetoric against the BJP’s politics, essentially, Trinamool’s attitude towards constructive criticism is no different from that of right-wing forces.”

“It is not unusual to see writers, poets, artists being attacked whenever they protest, and being put on a pedestal as long as they are silent about the wrongs of the government,” said Bhattacharya.

Also Read | West Bengal doctors end hunger strike while keeping fight alive for systemic change

Well-known cinema and television actor Sreelekha Mitra agrees that the ruling party does not bother masking its intentions or biases. “They make statements in the open and they are always getting away with it; people’s numb acceptance of their threats is actually scarier than their threats themselves,” she said. The line distinguishing the government from the ruling party has blurred, and so the neutrality of the government has declined perceptibly, she believes.

A veteran performing artist, once known to be close to the CPI(M) regime, observes that this open call for boycott by senior politicians in a ruling party has never been witnessed before. “An artist or a theatre group, which was critical of the Left Front government, may have found it difficult to book a hall for performance from time to time; but never was there an open call to boycott them by any prominent member of the CPI(M) or any of the Left Front parties,” he told Frontline, on the condition of anonymity.

Leftist dramatist Samudra Guha points out that for theatre directors of his political leaning, it is getting increasingly difficult to book halls to stage their plays. “I may get a hall for a show, but then I may have to wait for six months to get another hall. I request people to make time and come and watch my play whenever I get a hall, because I know I may not get another one any time soon,” says Guha. His critically acclaimed new play “Padatik” may be a hit with the audience, but he claims getting a venue could be a struggle.

The fear of antagonising the ruling party also influences private companies and producers in the choice of artists they rope in for their projects says Sreelekha Mitra. “In my case, I have been identified and then sidelined by the industry for being politically vocal. Producers and directors are wary of hiring me as they believe that by doing so, they may anger the powers that be.” Mitra recalls a few projects she had bagged some months ago: films and commercials. “But my statements during the R.G. Kar protests turned out to be a deterrent for the producers, and I did not get the part.”

Rising tensions within the Trinamool?

Trinamool’s all-India general secretary and heir apparent to the party leadership, Abhishek Banerjee, however, voiced his disapproval of the boycott. “Everybody has freedom. Just as one has the right to hit the streets in protest, one also has the right to invite anyone to [perform at] a programme… we believe in the freedom of everybody,” he said. He also pointed out that neither he, nor his aunt, Mamata Banerjee, had ever spoken of “boycotting” anyone.

In spite of Abhishek making his stand clear, Kunal Ghosh and the other leaders refused to budge from their position. “There is a line of demarcation between protest, and planned misbehaviour in the name of protest. There has been a communication gap (with Abhishek) on the issue… When the protests were going on, he was abroad and was not in the thick of things, like we were… Ultimately, we will accept whatever Mamata Banerjee says.” Mamata, however, has not yet uttered a word on the call for boycott.

Also Read | ‘BJP’s Hindutva is antithetical to Bengal’s ethos’: Jawhar Sircar

Abhishek’s comments also indicated the possibility of growing differences between him and his aunt. Amid reports of a widening rift between the “new” Trinamool that is loyal to Abhishek, and the old guard whose allegiance lies with the Chief Minister, Mamata had recently made it known at a party meeting that hers is the last word. Many political observers interpreted this as a clipping of Abhishek’s wings. Well-known psephologist and political observer, Biswanath Chakraborty, believes Abhishek’s comment and its aftermath point to a “further shifting of power from Abhishek to Mamata, which has been made amply clear in the manner in which the leaders have chosen to remain loyal to the Chief Minister”. “The way senior leaders have remained steadfast in their call for boycott, in spite of Abhishek’s disapproval in public, indicates that he no longer wields the kind of autonomous power within the party like he did even a year ago,” he says.

From the time she came into power in 2011, Mamata never believed in inclusive politics, says Chakraborty. “In all her programmes the opposition leaders and Parliamentarians were specifically left out. This boycott call is nothing but a continuation of that legacy of exclusion,” he said.

Sociologist and writer, Surajit C. Mukhopadhyay explains that the power of artists and intellectuals in shaping public opinion has made it vital for Trinamool to keep them under control. “For a party that has no professed ideology, and is centred around the charisma of a single individual, Mamata Banerjee, it is important that this persona is not challenged, particularly by artists and celebrities who the masses look up to. The attempt to silence dissenting artists reflects a trend that has crept into the democracy of the country,” says Mukhopadhyay.