Having said that, there are disturbing commonalities too, and not just in the fact that the two political parties — the CPM and the BJP — claim to be parties with a difference. The first commonality is, of course, the sheer scale of the domination that both parties have exercised, and continue to exercise, over their respective states: West Bengal and Gujarat. Of course the BJP in Gujarat is still a long way from achieving 30 years of uninterrupted rule, which the CPM has managed to do in Bengal; but 12 years and three consecutive and handsome election victories is almost halfway there. The important point to note is the relatively unassailable electoral entrenchment both parties have achieved in these states: in the 2002 Gujarat assembly election, the BJP won 126 out of 182 seats; in the 2006 West Bengal assembly election, the CPM-led front swept to power in 233 out of 293 constituencies.

There is a logic to such overwhelming dominance — and this brings us to the second commonality: the impunity with which both state governments have chosen to run their show. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s chief-ministerial arrogance finds an eerie echo in the Narendra Modi model. Both men incidentally claim that they are doing this for the greater good, progress and growth of their states, and have, in fact, the figures to prove this claim. Both chief ministers have emerged as exemplars in administrative acumen, and are committed to making their regions investment friendly by cutting down on red tape and working to root out endemic corruption. But impunity also means that many deemed to be “outside” the periphery of the government’s interests remain isolated, with their welfare unaddressed. A recent report by Neera Chandhoke et al in the Economic and Political Weekly, on those displaced by riots in Ahmedabad, points out that while Modi claims to speak for all of Gujarat’s citizens, “‘representation’ happens to be a deeply problematic concept”. It goes on to observe that the Gujarat government has done “practically nothing” for those affected by the 2002 pogrom, adding, “It is clear that for the present government these families do not form an integral part of Gujarati society and politics, they have been expelled both spatially and socially to the margins of the city.”

... contd.