Arnab Ray, popularly known as ‘Greatbong’ in online circles, is an Indian author, a popular blogger and a contributor to several national and international media outlets such as Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, the Times of India and Outlook.

Born and brought up in Kolkata, Ray graduated with a Bachelor’s degree from Jadavpur University and then completed his PhD in computer science from Stony Brook University, New York. He is currently living in Washington, DC, and employed at the University of Maryland as a research scientist.

Ray took some time out recently to chat with Swarajya sub-editor Poulasta Chakraborty. They discussed a host of topics ranging from West Bengal politics and the uniform civil code to the state of Twitter discourse and his works of fiction.

So, let me start with your university days in Jadavpur. During those days – which were part of Bengal’s communist era – what was the socio-political rhetoric in the campus like? Were they as sinister as it is today, say, in places like JNU?

In those days, at least in the engineering half of the campus, the communists had two obsessions. Massively global issues – capitalism, globalisation, WTO, General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs), and intensely local issues – not raising library fines above 10 paise per month, and yes it was something as ridiculous as that.

Kashmir, Azadi and other Kanhaiyaisms, which is what I presume you mean by your reference to JNU, was not front-and-centre in the political discourse on campus. Other campuses on Bengal saw political violence centred around local elections because many of the student leaders there were auditioning for positions within the “party”. But in Jadavpur University engineering, politics was typically a rite of passage before inevitable assimilation into TCS and TISCO and L&T, and final settling in the Soviet Socialist Republic of California.

In that case, let me ask you this: How was communist Bengal different from communist China or USSR? Was the repression less or more?

Bengal, being a part of India the last time I looked, even when it was ruled by CPI (M), was ultimately bound by the Indian constitution. So no gulags, secret police or knocks on the door at night. The repression of the Left was more institutional. The CPI (M)’s master strategy, and that is basically why it remained in power for more than three decades, was to embed the “Party” into every institution of the state, be it civil service or police or educational institutions. Unless you were a party loyalist, you had no hope of advancing professionally. And if you were not, you would pretty much be boxed into a corner and then driven out. The flight of Bengal’s true intelligentsia happened during the CPI(M) years, and this is where the communist legacy was at its most malignant.

So, what about the fact of political murders in West Bengal during CPI-M rule – 1977-2009?

When I said that the CPI(M) was not like the Communist Party of China or USSR, I did not mean to say that the CPI(M) was not violent. Sainbari, Marichjhapi, too many theatres of extreme political violence to be forgotten. Because the state and the party were indistinguishable, the threat of violence, without any source for recourse, kept people in line. You didn’t need to be violent always; your subjects knew you could be, and there was nothing they could do about it.

Many political analysts have said that the CPI(M) created killing fields in rural Bengal. What is your take on that?

This stereotype of Bengalis as somewhat effete intellectuals with monkey-caps may hold somewhat for Kolkata, but go 20 miles out of city limits, and you are in a whole different country. Violence, often extreme forms of violence, is a fact of life there, and it is only but natural that politics would reflect that. While it would be unfair to say that the CPI(M) was responsible for establishing that culture of violence, it would also not be unfair to say that they played well within it.

In that case, how do you see the current state government that ended the 32-year communist rule?

Well, if you read my blogs, you may remember I once mentioned that Mamata Banerjee, who became famous as Jyoti Basu’s nemesis, in the course of time became Jyoti Basu herself. The similarities between them are uncanny, down to the way they are perceived by their voters and their total hold over the party. Didi’s volatility and a generally more aggressive demeanour make her a tougher sell among Calcutta’s elite than Basu, who was Mr Suave himself. But what she lacks in polish, she makes up in spirit and the fact that she is seen as the only counterbalance to the “communal” politics of BJP, despite her idiosyncrasies. She is perhaps now a more popular leader than Basu ever was, because for large sections of the state, she is much more relatable.

Many political analysts have also said that Mamata became more left-wing in order to oust Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, who many believe was going to change Bengal for the better. You agree with that?

In a way, yes. Buddhadeb did attempt to change the age-old leftist tradition of governance by bringing investment, industrial development and economic growth into the state. But sadly, when push came to shove, in the time of Nandigram and Singur, Buddhadeb defaulted to violence-by-party in order to establish his writ. He wanted things done, and fast, maybe because he felt Bengal needed to catch up with other states, and very quick, but in his hurry, the methods he adopted played right into the hands of Mamata Banerjee.

A greater leader would have realised that the ends do not justify the means, and that one just cannot lathi-charge their way to prosperity. Despite his faults, and there were many, he was still the best chief minister Bengal had after Dr Bidhan Chandra Roy. The only way Mamata Banerjee defeated him was by going more left than the Left, and re-establishing the legacy of Jyoti Basu, which was what Buddhadeb had very consciously tried to pull Bengal away from.

Do you see any notable difference between CPI(M) and TMC?

You see, the formula for Mamata Banerjee’s success is cloning the CPI(M)’s methods. But where the CPI(M) contrasts from TMC is that the CPI(M) was a party of bhadralok, or to be more specific, upper-class, educated men, in particular, with a taste for the finer things in life. They also had a solid intellectual framework, one that encompassed not only politics and economics but also history, law, art, literature and movies.

In contrast, the TMC has no binding philosophy except the slavish worship of Didi as a politician, artist and poet. Which is why Calcutta is dotted with gigantic posters of Mamata Banerjee in the way I cannot recollect during the time I was in Calcutta. In Basu’s days, it used to be Marx, Lenin and the Marxist pantheon of Gods but very rarely Basu himself.

Moving on from Bengal, you have written in your blog as well as in a piece during the launch of Swarajya’s online portal, that you have been unfairly tagged as a ‘Hindu right winger’ due to your views on issues like Kashmir, Naxals and Pakistan. Can you elaborate your stance on these issues?

Let me do it one by one.

On Naxals

Naxals are not ‘Gandhians with Guns’, no matter what romantic narrative you spin around them. They are an organised gang of criminals, with ties to foreign powers, that subsist on terror and extortion. The CPI(M), despite being leftists, realised that, and one of the things Jyoti Basu did was mercilessly dismantle the last vestiges of Naxalism when he first came to power. The TMC, despite being very, very left, do too, which is why Didi, who once used to say there were no Maoists in Bengal – this was during the Nandigram days, now is fond of saying “You are Maoist” to anyone who she does not particularly like.

On Kashmir

The separatists claim they want plebiscite and self-determination. To that, my answer is that the day the Kashmiris threw out their minorities, the neutral assumptions under which a plebiscite was promised had been changed irreversibly.

Now, as to the principle of self-determination through plebiscite: If Kashmiris be allowed to vote on which country they want to belong to, then let’s say Gujaratis should also be given the right to vote on whether they want to establish a Hindu Theocracy or Maharashtrians also be given the right to determine if they want to institute a workers’ “visa” programme for those from out of the state.

The deal is simple. If on principle you give one citizen, just one, the right to “self-determine” any question by direct voting, you must give it to all. There is a reason democracy elects representatives and then lets them decide the issues of the day, as opposed to letting people decide on individual issues directly. If you allow the latter, the majority will win. Every time.

On Pakistan

To put it simply, I do not think aman ki asha will ever work. The burden of history is too much.