Jawhar Sircar’s Resignation Epitomises the Inner Turmoil Within Civil Society

But he would do a lot of good to the larger cause he backs by weighing Mamata's request to reconsider his decision.

Jawhar Sircar’s abrupt letter to Mamata Banerjee in her capacity as All India Trinamool Congress chairperson, announcing his decision to resign from the Rajya Sabha and “also from politics altogether”, is a personal call but has public implications.

Right away, Sircar’s absence in Parliament will be intensely evident because his was not just an extremely articulate voice of reason, but was also unambiguous when it came to calling out the Union government’s “authoritarian, divisive, discriminatory and anti-federal policies.”

But the resignation has immediately come in handy to adversaries of the West Bengal Chief Minister and her party. Within hours, a Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson charged that Sircar’s letter exposed the "dirt, corruption and dictatorial attitude" within the AITC. This accusation is, hereupon, certain to be repeated ad nauseam.

It has to be underscored that Sircar’s letter raked up two issues: The state government’s handling of the issues stemming from the ghastly rape and murder at RG Kar Hospital and the corruption involving members and senior functionaries of the state’s ruling party.

Banerjee and AITC Aren't Torchbearers of Inner-party Democracy

The letter however, expends more space on matters related to corruption, suggesting Sircar has carried his sense of unease since 2022, a year after his ‘joining politics’, following his shock at seeing “on TV and print the open evidence of corruption that the former education minister (read Partha Chatterjee) had indulged in”. 

Sircar wrote in his letter that he was heckled by “senior leaders in the party” after he called for the party and the state government to tackle corruption. Persuasion of “well-wishers to remain as MP in order to carry on the battle” against the regime at the centre was the reason he forwarded for not quitting earlier.

Conspicuously, he accepted the inseparability of politics and corruption in the letter, almost throwing up his arms to write that “everyone knows that there is no party anywhere that does not have a corrupt section.”

Accusations against Banerjee and the AITC for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices by its members in positions that could be leveraged were not new and predated Sircar accepting the nomination to Rajya Sabha.

Furthermore in July 2021, when Sircar was nominated to the Upper House, the hegemonic and overtly Hindutva-promoting character of the Union government was "ominously evident". The AITC, after winning an emphatic mandate in the state for the third consecutive term, reiterated its position as a bulwark against the BJP’s polarising politics.

It was also known that Banerjee and the AITC, like almost every political party in India, were no great advocates of inner-party democracy. After prematurely resigning as Prasar Bharati chairperson in November 2016, Sircar emerged as a significant voice in civil society and was known as a persuasive critic of the BJP and its politics.

He was an apt addition to the party’s presence in Parliament which was infuriating the ruling party with interventions by its prominent parliamentary speakers, a sentiment that eventually led to the BJP questionably securing Mohua Moitra’s expulsion from Lok Sabha.

Given this backdrop, Sircar’s resignation epitomises the inner turmoil among supporters of various parties within civil society, academia and media, when compulsions of realpolitik ‘call for’ overlooking certain misdemeanours, or even felonies, of the party they back.

Such internal conflict arises especially when the party’s resolve remains unchanged on combating issues that originally secured for itself the backing of these supporters or members.

Sircar is not the first member of civil society who has felt that the AITC eventually came short of their expectations. It was understandable among Banerjee’s early backers who lined up with her, but then saw her following the same path and using tactics similar to the LF. 

His decision to quit politics and his Rajya Sabha seat has been praised by many iconic members of the state’s intelligentsia. Actor and filmmaker, Aparna Sen, responded to Sircar’s post on Facebook making public his letter to Banerjee:

“Congratulations Jawahar! I knew the tipping point would come sooner rather than later! So, so glad that you didn’t adhere to ‘my party, right or wrong!’ - the reason why I always avoided party politics myself. Love and admiration.” 

Civil Society Cannot Allow Emotions to Dictate Its Decisions

Numerous well-known individuals had become part of the 2011 movement against corruption but parted ways when one section, led by Arvind Kejriwal, opted to become political players. However, his scant regard for inner-party democracy and violation of several founding principles resulted in several departures over time.

But, probity was the Aam Aadmi Party’s founding article of faith, unlike the AITC which was aimed at negating the LF’s practices ranging from the establishment of Special Economic Zones, and land acquisition for industrialisation, without taking the people into confidence for either of those policies.

Furthermore, the hegemonic presence of the 'party over government', the use of brutal police force and the criminalisation of the state, were among the reasons for the emergence of the AITC. Corruption, reportedly present during the LF years too, was not the principal reason for voters to hand Banerjee a landslide in 2011. 

There is no denying that there is much that the state government and state police have to answer over the tragic incident that cruelly ended an inspirational life. It is equally true that the protests in West Bengal were largely spontaneous and did not assume such proportions because of support from other political parties, notably the BJP and the Left.

But it is also true that sections of civil society cannot allow emotions to dictate their decisions. While the immediate matters are extremely important, an assessment must be made regarding who or which political force would benefit the most from a posture adopted. 

The Indian electorate denied the BJP a clear majority and the government now appears to fumbling over its failure to follow the coalition dharma. But, there is no knowing when the era of unilateral governance will stage a comeback.

Sircar remarked in one of the numerous interviews he granted that politics was “not in my blood” although he proved himself ably adept at the role his political ‘boss’, Banerjee, had in mind.

Once tempers are suitably lowered, he would do considerable good to the larger cause he backs, that of fighting “communalism and authoritarianism”, alongside combating corruption, by weighing Banerjee’s request to reconsider his decision.

Self-persuasion at Banerjee’s behest may make her realise her folly of not putting down corruption as strongly as she campaigns against communal polarisation.

(The writer’s latest book is The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)