Who knew Kolkata would see the army staging flag-march in the wake of daylong mayhem that threw life out of gear in the central parts of the city? This happened on Wednesday, Nov 21, and late in the night curfew was clamped in the affected areas.
Going by records, the need to summon the army to patrol the city streets last arose a decade and a half back. Curfew too visited the city after a long, long time.
And while the press and the intellectuals dissect the issues as to whether the city’s social fabric and harmony are in the danger of being in tatters, I’ve a query in mind that to me is equally intriguing.
I’ve argued in my last post on Nandigram that the administration, instead of allowing the gunners of the ruling party taking control of the place, should have asked for paramilitary forces (like it has now) or the army long back to do the work.
Look at the dichotomy. While the government took just one hour to have the army on the city roads day before yesterday to quell violence, it refused to do anything of the sort in the entire 11 months that lawlessness prevailed in the Nandigram.
To a lay person like me, at both places violence happened that were against the laws of the land, and put at danger the lives of common people. If so, the ways to tackle them ought to be essentially the same.
But no, that did not happen. If having the army in Kolkata was the right decision, then Nandigram should have also seen similar action long back instead of letting it simmer for nearly a year.
Wonder why the steps are different to tackle the same situations! Any guess?
Like this blog? Get daily posts by email.
Leave a Reply