The end of Sarkar raj in Tripura
POLL PLANK Though Manik Sarkar’s regime brought peace, BJP presented itself as an alternative that will bring progress
NEW DELHI: At the end of an hourlong interview in early January, when asked if the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) could challenge and replace the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI (M), in Tripura, Manik Sarkar, the state’s longest serving chief minister, laughed. “Challenge? Replace? You go and ask the people. And you will know the answer.”
On Saturday, the people of Tripura answered, ending 25 years of uninterrupted CPI (M) rule in the state and the 20-year reign of Sarkar.
The defeat could not have come at a worse time for the party, already at a low after losing twice in West Bengal and struggling for survival as its foremost ideological rival, the BJP, expands its control over both power and narrative. All its hopes were invested in Sarkar. On Saturday, they were dashed.
Sarkar will be remembered as a remarkable figure in the history of the Indian left. He placed a premium on national security and understood the importance of law and order for ordinary citizens. He understood the importance of the ‘identity’ question — and not just the class question — and stitched together a wide alliance. And he knew that culture mattered as much as economics.
When he took over in 1998, Tripura was torn between Bengalis and tribals. Insurgents, often operating from Bangladesh, stormed the state to carry out violent attacks. Sarkar — through aggressive cross-border operations — weakened them, and used the resulting space to fill the political vacuum. While his Bengali identity helped in consolidating control over the majority, he ensured that the CPI(M) was active in tribal areas too, often sweeping the 20 tribal seats in the 60-strong assembly. And he focused on social development indicators.
But dissatisfaction was rampant in the state too. Even in 2013, the Congress got a little over 36% of the vote, showing the presence of a vibrant anti-CPI (M) constituency. It needed a more energetic opposition. That is what the BJP provided.
Sarkar’s success — in bringing peace to the state — had created a generation with little memory of conflict, and with aspirations for more.
Government employees, many of them CPI (M) cadre, were unhappy because they were still on fourth pay commission salaries. The BJP promised them a hike, committing to implement the Seventh Pay Commission’s recommendations. Young students were unhappy, either because they felt Tripura was missing out on modernity and jobs or because they felt the CPI (M) cadre were getting all the jobs that were available.
The BJP presented itself as an alternative that would bring vikas (development).
Sarkar’s biggest asset was his clean image and projection of austerity. The BJP attacked his government’s record and capitalised on a chit fund scam to tarnish his credentials. And Sarkar’s Bengali-tribal alliance lay in tatters, as the BJP succeeded in projecting him as a Bengali chauvinist who had deprived tribals of their share in power.
In Agartala’s colleges and bazaars, in the outskirts of the capital, in the Bengali towns and tribal villages, there was a common refrain in the election. Sarkar is a good man, but it is time for change. After 20 years, Tripura has bid farewell to a leader who mattered at a crucial time in the state’s history. For Sarkar, it has been a cruel goodbye; the state has shifted to his most bitter ideological rival.