top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 10:20:16 am

Grim Reckoning

The heckling of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee during the latter’s visit to Sonarpur is a stark reminder that fear has an expiry date. For years, West Bengal’s politics has been defined by intimidation. First the Communist, and later during Mamata Banerjee’s TMC regimes, the state’s political discourse has been overwhelmingly accompanied by violence, cadre dominance, partisan policing and a culture in which dissenters were expected to keep their heads down and their opinions to...

Grim Reckoning

The heckling of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee during the latter’s visit to Sonarpur is a stark reminder that fear has an expiry date. For years, West Bengal’s politics has been defined by intimidation. First the Communist, and later during Mamata Banerjee’s TMC regimes, the state’s political discourse has been overwhelmingly accompanied by violence, cadre dominance, partisan policing and a culture in which dissenters were expected to keep their heads down and their opinions to themselves. Whether in villages, municipalities or university campuses, countless Bengalis, especially the Hindu community, have complained that political power was exercised not only through the ballot box but through fear during the TMC rule. Against this backdrop, the scenes that unfolded during Abhishek Banerjee’s Sonarpur visit was a symbolic moment. The TMC political class that once inspired fear suddenly found itself confronting fearlessness and the ire of ordinary citizens. Trinamool leaders accustomed to hectoring and threatening the public were forced to face its ire as Abhishek was heckled and pelted with eggs. The Trinamool Congress would be mistaken if it dismisses the episode as an isolated incident. Across West Bengal after the polls, there is a palpable anger against TMC leaders and their henchmen. That simmering rage appears increasingly difficult to contain. For years, Abhishek Banerjee had projected himself as the heir apparent to Bengal’s ruling establishment, speaking haughtily with the confidence of a man convinced that power was permanently on his side. Now that the TMC is out of power, Sonarpur offered a starkly different picture. It showed what happens when politicians who are accustomed to commanding the public are suddenly confronted by it. From the horrors of Sandeshkhali to the public fury unleashed after the R.G. Kar outrage, West Bengal witnessed episode after episode that laid bare the TMC’s intimidation and moral corruption. The crowd that confronted Abhishek Banerjee at Sonarpur was venting years of accumulated resentment against a political culture many Bengalis had come to associate with arrogance, patronage and strong-arm tactics. They reflected what a significant section of the public has increasingly come to see as the moral bankruptcy of a political order that believed it could rule indefinitely through fear and organisational muscle. Abhishek Banerjee, more than any other TMC leader, had became the face of that system. The hostility he encountered in Sonarpur was political payback delivered by a public no longer willing to whisper its anger. While no civilised society should endorse mob violence, no politician can expect public sympathy after years of bullying and intimidating citizens. He or she must realize that political arrogance has consequences and that public anger, when it finally erupts, grinds even the most powerful dynasties to dust. Abhishek Banerjee’s reception in Sonarpur may therefore prove to be more than an embarrassing political episode. It may become the defining image of Trinamool’s final decline and fall.

Georgia’s Crossroads

A nation torn between its European dream and its Soviet shadows grapples with an uncertain future.

Georgia’s Crossroads

In Georgia, a simmering political crisis has erupted into fiery protests, laying bare the fault lines of a nation caught between aspirations for European integration and the gravitational pull of its Soviet past. The conflict pits Salome Zourabichvili, the country’s pro-European president, against Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze and his ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party, accused of steering the South Caucasus nation toward an authoritarian, pro-Russia trajectory.


The immediate flashpoint is the government’s decision to suspend European Union accession talks, a dramatic volte-face that sparked fury among the 80% of Georgians who favour EU membership. Since independence in 1991, Georgia has pursued a path toward Europe, culminating in its EU candidate status last year. But the GD’s decision to delay negotiations until 2028 has unravelled years of diplomatic progress and unleashed a wave of nationwide protests.


These demonstrations—marked by EU flag-waving crowds chanting “Russian slaves” and violent police crackdowns—reflect deeper grievances. Critics accuse GD, in power since 2012, of consolidating control over institutions and veering away from democratic norms. Founded by Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire with ties to Moscow, GD has introduced laws eerily reminiscent of Russian autocracy, including a “foreign agent” statute targeting civil society. The party’s critics allege electoral fraud in its recent victory, leading the European Parliament to call for a rerun and impose sanctions on Georgian officials.


Georgia’s flirtation with authoritarianism has profound historical underpinnings. The country’s post-Soviet journey has been shaped by its fraught relationship with Russia. The 2008 Russo-Georgian war, which left 20% of Georgian territory under Russian occupation, cemented deep public distrust of Moscow. Yet, GD’s actions, from stalling EU accession to welcoming fleeing Russian conscripts after the invasion of Ukraine, have fuelled fears of creeping Russification. Meanwhile, many in Tbilisi and beyond worry that the government is prioritizing oligarchic interests over the democratic will of its people.


The EU’s response has been unequivocal. Brussels condemned the elections as fraudulent and the government’s suppression of protests as anti-democratic. The United States has suspended its strategic partnership with Georgia, warning of “direct consequences” if the country continues its backslide. Prime Minister Kobakhidze’s rhetoric—accusing the EU of “blackmail” and portraying Georgia as a victim of Western manipulation—rings hollow to a population weary of seeing its European aspirations thwarted.


This turmoil is playing out against a backdrop of geopolitical tension. Russia has long sought to maintain influence in its former Soviet periphery, viewing Georgia’s EU aspirations as a direct challenge to its sphere of control. For the Kremlin, a Georgia destabilized by political discord and diminished Western ties is a strategic victory. Meanwhile, the West faces the challenge of ensuring that Georgia’s democratic backsliding does not embolden other pro-Russia regimes in the region.


For the West, Georgia’s trajectory offers a stark lesson in the limits of soft power. While Brussels and Washington have sought to promote democratic reforms through incentives like EU membership, they have struggled to counter Moscow’s influence in the region. The Kremlin, adept at exploiting divisions within post-Soviet states, views Georgia’s turmoil as a strategic opportunity. Should GD succeed in consolidating power, it would mark another victory for Russian authoritarianism in the post-Soviet space.


The protests are unlikely to subside soon and whether they yield substantive change remains uncertain. With the GD digging in its heels and Zourabichvili largely sidelined, the risk of prolonged instability looms large. As Georgia teeters on the edge, its people must decide: will they march toward Europe or retreat into the past? For it is in this choice lies the fate of a nation’s identity, freedom, and future role in the international order.

Comments

bottom of page