AS soon as I emerged from the operating theatre, having had my cataract attended to, I was informed of the shattering news that Buddha da had left us. I spoke with Boudhi, who, upon hearing that I was in the operation theatre, forbade me from traveling. In any case, I could not have joined Buddha da’s last journey. This is a regret that will remain with me always.

A large number of obituaries evaluating his work and contributions to Bengal have naturally emerged. Most, however, focus mainly on his role as chief minister of Bengal. This is natural. He stepped into the legendary shoes of Jyoti Basu, who voluntarily withdrew as he felt he was no longer able to contribute as he had in the past. When Buddha da was asked how it felt to step into the shoes of Jyoti Basu, with his characteristic wit and wisdom, he replied, "These shoes are too large for me!"

Of course, his eleven years of chief ministership are an important aspect. But I wish to touch on two other aspects, among many others before returning to his CMship. This is due to my association with Buddha da for over four decades.

Buddha da belonged to that generation of bright Bengali youth drawn toward Marxism and the Left movement in the late 1960s when a raging ideological battle was ongoing among various trends within the Communist movement. The CPI(M) was formed in 1964, and severe ideological polemics took place over the revisionist deviation that the CPI had succumbed to. Soon, another section succumbed to the left adventurist deviation – the Naxalites. Fierce ideological battles ensued, often accompanied by savage physical assaults, aided and abetted by the Congress and its youth wing, all targeting CPI(M). Buddha da, along with a host of others, faced these battles to uphold the revolutionary content of Marxism-Leninism, and thus, were steeled in these ideological battles.

In 1977, Left Front governments emerged post-Emergency in Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the international communist movement, save for some exceptions, did not recognise CPI(M) till then. Post-1977, the reality of CPI(M) being the most advanced and largest Communist contingent prompted a rethink.

As a consequence, for the first time after CPI(M)’s formation, the CPSU’s youth wing Komsomol invited eight student youth organisations from India, including the DYFI and SFI. The DYFI was in the process of being formed, with Buddha da as the West Bengal secretary and EP Jayarajan of Kerala being the joint convenors for the formation of the DYFI. As joint convenors, both of them, along with Nepal Bhattacharya, general secretary and myself, joint secretary of SFI, formed our delegation, led by Buddha da. We participated in a seminar focused on anti-imperialism and strengthening of Indo-Soviet friendship. A discussion arose on the role being played by Socialist China.

I felt this needed to be answered from our point of view and discussed it with Buddha da, who agreed. I prepared a note where the essential point we have always made was emphasized: despite all the mistakes that the CPSU committed in turning towards revisionism, the CPI(M) never characterised the Soviet Union as a non-Socialist country. We held that these mistakes, under socialism, could be corrected.

Likewise, the serious deviations and the characterisation of the Soviet Union as social imperialism by China was something the CPI(M) resolutely opposed. We were critical of many aspects of what was happening in China, but nevertheless, based on the same principle that China remained a Socialist country, we believed mistakes should be resolved by the Communist Party of China. By then, the reform process started by Deng Xiaoping had begun in China.

Apart from other issues, it was decided that our delegation would emphasize this point, and I gave my note to Buddha for him to read the next day. He said, "No, you drafted it, and you should read it." The main point is the adherence to the revolutionary tenets of Marxism-Leninism that the CPI(M) scrupulously follows, which had to be reiterated. Needless to add, this was something which was not acceptable either to the Komsomol or the Congress and CPI delegations. The fact that we could uncompromisingly adhere to our ideological principles was a feature that remained continuously with Buddha da throughout his life.

Secondly, Buddha da, with his flair for literature and cultural movements, was convinced that any serious challenge to the rule of the ruling classes in India could not come without adequate emphasis on the field of culture. Going by the Gramscian conception of forging a counter-hegemony to the ideas of the ruling classes and their control over people to consolidate their class rule, it must have culture as an important element. Gramsci had pointed out that the ruling classes exercise their hegemony not only from their fortress but also through a vast network of earthworks surrounding that fortress. These earthworks primarily deal with people's social consciousness, their dependence on religion, other prejudices, which need to be countered through a counter-cultural hegemonism.

This cultural counter hegemony is something that Buddha da focused on and was very keen to consolidate. Coming from a very high pedigree of cultural activists, he was the nephew of the legendary revolutionary poet Sukanta Bhattacharya, Buddha da pursued this when being a minister holding the culture portfolio in the Left Front government.

In those days, as the minister, we used to interact very often. One day, on the balcony of the flat I lived in at Vithalbhai Patel House, he was discussing opening a Bengal government cultural centre in Delhi and asked me if there was anybody competent to do this job. That is when I persuaded Safdar Hashmi, who was teaching at Srinagar University, in Uttarakhand to resign, come, and join to start such a centre. Safdar did a remarkable job, largely through Buddha da's appreciation and support, and among other activities, revived the work of an almost forgotten genius of Indian cinema, Ritwik Ghatak.

Finally, Buddha da assumed the chief ministership when one phase of economic development in Bengal was almost complete. Land reforms and Operation Barga were implemented with near success. This meant a tremendous boost to the production and surplus generated from agriculture. This vastly improved the nutritional and health status of rural Bengal and liberated the rural youth from agricultural bondage. This youth was now in search of employment, for which new opportunities had to be created. The only way was rapid industrialisation.

But the question was how this industrialisation should take place – with direct assistance from foreign capital, domestic monopoly capital, or developing cooperatives in agriculture and other production, and many such alternatives were discussed. This was a period of China's phenomenal growth under Deng Xiaoping's reforms, and this was a time when big sections of foreign capital and domestic monopoly capital were looking for investment opportunities for their profit maximisation. Many proposals were considered from various countries and South-east Asia. Then an offer for a car factory from Tata emerged. This was seen as a practical and effective path towards industrialisation.

However, the circumstance in which the land acquisition for this project was undertaken in Singur and the fears of forcible land acquisition for industrialisation elsewhere, like in Nandigram, generated violent opposition. These fears of forcible acquisition had no basis in reality, but created discontent and deep alienation amongst the very same peasantry and rural masses who were the backbone of CPI(M)’s class and social base.

Such alienation was fully exploited by the TMC and former landlords whose land was taken over either through land reforms or Operation Barga, seeking to reclaim these lands through violent means. At the same time, with the developments of the Indo-US nuclear deal and the Left Parties' withdrawal of support to the UPA government at the centre, the Congress and the Trinamool Congress forged an electoral front. This was joined by all anti-Left forces, ranging from RSS to Maoist outfits. This grand alliance led to the end of Buddha da’s government and its mission.

That his vision was the need of the hour – to industrialise and absorb the Bengali youth, relatively better educated, in new jobs created is vindicated today. In the absence of such opportunities, amongst the largest number of migrant workers today are from Bengal.

Much more can be and must be written about these eleven years under Buddha da’s CMship. Much more can be written on every single aspect that he articulated here. But that will have to wait. As we bid farewell to Buddha da and salute him with our Lal Salam, we must note that the agenda he advanced for Bengal, particularly its youth, continues to remain more relevant today than it was in his time.