Morichjhapi and the Post-colonial nation: The Refugee as ‘menace’. Sunandini Mukherjee Sahana Mukherjee I স্বদেশের টানে, স্বরাজের হাওয়ায় যেন, দণ্ডক ছেড়ে বাংলার বুকে, শরণার্থীর দল এসেছিল যখন... Shankha Ghosh, ‘Swodesher Taney’ (Kolkata: Anushtup, 1987) In reference to the Syrian refugee crisis, US conservatives remarked, “a group of Syrian refugees is more likely to contain Islamic extremists bent on violence in America”. Leah Jessen, Syrian Immigration Poses ‘Grave National Security Threat,’ Conservative Leaders Say, http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/30/syrian-immigration-poses-grave-national-security-threat-conservative-leaders-say (accessed 8 May 2016). Regarding refugees as a threat to national security, this remark becomes a cultural way of reinforcing national boundaries, revolving around the paranoia of ‘border dissolution’. ‘Borderlessness’, it seems, is endorsed solely to ensure a thriving free market economy. The moment the promise of surplus resources is threatened, the need to build up a fortress becomes primary, sometimes with the help of the military and the police, sometimes, by fabricating the figure of a perfect cultural Other. Slavoj Zizek, in his article on the Syrian refugee crisis and Europe, ruminates on this psychology and rightly puts forth, “the paranoid talk about the immigrant threat is still an ideological pathology”. In other words, Europe requires the existence of the Syrian immigrants to justify and sustain their cultural prejudices against the Arabs and the Arab world in their entirety, as the Nazis had needed Jews to sustain their “ideological position”. “Refugees who flee terror are equated with the terrorists they are escaping from,” Slavoj Zizek, What our fear of Refugees says about Europe, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/02/slavoj-zizek-what-our-fear-refugees-says-about-europe (accessed 8 May 2016). writes Zizek. This paper will attempt to analyze a people’s account of the state-sponsored massacre of refugees in Morichjhapi in 1979 (two years after the Left Front government came to power in West Bengal). In the present global context, the need to go back in history and re-state the idea of a refugee has become crucial. Moreover, Morichjhapi despite being closer home (‘glocal’ in its remembrance, in this paper) is almost absent from the public memory of West Bengal. The year 1979 is not recognized in the same way as 1947 and/or 1971 are – primarily due to the doubly ‘marginal’ identity of the refugees and the complete media blackout systematically operated by the government. Since both the Central government (through it complicity) and the state government were party to this violence, we choose to write about Morichjhapi in order to critique the idea of a nation itself. The namasudra refugees, with their alternative economic system and a practicing model of participative democracy, challenged the basic characteristics of the nation – exclusion and homogenization, always considered a threat to the idea of ‘national security’. This paper will thus try to recollect Morichjhapi to comment on both the global issue of refugee crisis and, in the Indian context, the ever-changing discourses on ‘nationalism’ and the idea of a post-colonial nation. II “আমাদের অর্থনৈতিক পরিস্থিতি মরে যাওয়ার মতই... বেঁচে আছে, কিন্তু তাকে স্বদেশ করে বাঁচতে হবে।” Excerpt from an interview with a refugee who managed to escape the violence in Morichjhapi (audio recording). The history of the Morichjhapi massacre has to be understood in relation to the Partition of India in 1947 and the complexities of religion, class and caste concerning the once undivided halves of Bengal. Moreover the massacre was a product of the state government’s politics of reversing its policy in the matter of the ‘refugee problem’ after it came to power in West Bengal. All this must be accounted for in order to decipher the history of silence that envelopes Morichjhapi. The Namashudra movement of Bengal had been a strong political one before 1947 and, in alliance with the Muslims had been in opposition to the Congress Party. Partition came as a major blow ; as India got divided along communal lines, the Namasudras found themselves marginalized in terms of caste and class in both India and the erstwhile East Pakistan. Now a political minority in both countries the Dalits lost their power of bargaining. As waves of Bengali Hindus started crossing the border, the economically solvent ‘refugees’ settled in and around Kolkata (and in the Northern regions of West Bengal, from the border on that side), the poorer and people belonging to the lower castes found themselves in squatter settlements inside the city or in the fringes of it. The Liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971 followed by the assassination of Mujibar Rahman and Zia-ur- Rahman’s coming to power worsened the refugee crisis doubly. Communal violence was especially directed towards the poorest and the low-caste residents of East Pakistan who sought refuge in West Bengal. Unlike their richer counterparts, the newly arrived failed to sustain a decent living in the city and were sent to remote and inhospitable places. Dandakaranya (comprising of parts of Orissa , former Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh) was one of these places. , a semi-arid, rocky region completely removed from what the migrants understood as home. The Congress government, despite vehement protests from the migrants, pushed them to this place and went to the extent of serving a notice to either leave for Dandakaranya or vacate the refugee camps. This was also an effective political move- to disperse the Namasudra movement by sending them away to refugee settlements geographically distanced from each other. The Left- front government, the opposition party in West Bengal took up the case at this point. Jyoti Basu, the leader of opposition, argued in favour of settling the migrants in West Bengal rather than in Dandakaranya where a clash with the tribal population deprived the non-tribal refugees of food and security. He presented a case in the Legislative Assembly to this effect and Samar Mukherjee, CPI(M) leader and erstwhile All India Council of East Pakistan Displaced Persons’ General Secretary Samar Mukherjee also sent a letter to Pandit Nehru on 27th July 1961 on the rehabilitation of camp refugees: Ref No. 24/61 27th July, 1961 From: Shri Samar Mukherji, M. L. A., General Secretary, All India Council of East Pakistan Displaced Persons, 93/1A, Bipin Behari Ganguli Street, CALCUTTA-12 To : Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, NEW DELHI Sub : Rehabilitation of East Bengal Refugees now in Camp Sir, 1. A grave situation has developed due to continued hunger strike by groups of refugees in almost all the camps in West Bengal. The hunger strike was first started by two batches of refugees of Kalabani and Sarasanka camps in the district of Midnapore on 6th June last. Since then it has spread to almost all the camps and at present there are about 100 refugees on hunger-strike in different camps. 2. We do not propose to deal with the various problems of other sections of refugees which are nonetheless acute. We like to restrict us here only to the problems of camp refugees because their solution brooks no further delay. 3. The hunger strike by the Camp refugees was started as a mark of protest against the measures of the Government to send them to Dandakaranya against their will and under compulsion by service of notice on them with the option of going to Dandakaranya or to quit the camp within a period of 30 days. It is far from truth that the purpose of the present movement is to continue payment of doles eternally and to delay the liquidation of camps. On the contrary, the main aspect of the present movement is for the demand of their quick rehabilitation in different schemes started or proposed in West Bengal by the Government and through bainanama scheme together with the facility of changing their occupational category. 4. Such demands by refugees are not only realistic but also can be implemented within a very reasonable period and at a cost lower than that for schemes outside West Bengal. This will be borne out by the following illustrations. There are about 1000 families now in Sonarpur group of camps. All these families may be rehabilitated in Herobhanga 2nd scheme which was announced by the Govt. long ago but has not yet been implemented for reasons best know to them. About 600 families of Asrafabad Camp may be rehabilitated at the present site of the Camp which is the site of an unsuccessful rehabilitation Colony as well as in the nearby Ashokenagar Colony where a large number of plots are lying vacant. Coopers Camp may be liquidated in its present site if the Goverment implements the proposed scheme of converting the camp into a township with some modification. Families now in Gopalpur and Kaksa Camps in the district of Burdwan may be absorbed in Durgapore Industrial area. Families now in the camps of Midnapur District may be rehabilitated in Carbeta Scheme where it was proposed to accommodate 1500 familes. But only 350 families have been sent there until now. It will not be out of place to mention that in reply to a memorandum submitted in 1958 the West Bengal Government said that about 13,000 families may be settled on fallow lands in Garbata. Such illustrations may be multiplied without any difficulty. We can dare say that if the refugees are given due facility for rehabilitation through bainanama Scheme together with the facility for change of category in addition to the measures stated above their rehabilitation in a manner acceptable to them will not prove so difficult as is often suggested by the Government. It should also be mentioned here that the West Bengal Government stated in 1959 that of the 39,000 bainanamas executed by the camp refugees 21 thousand would be implemented. But not more than 50% of those have been implemented. These along with other measures were suggested to the state Government long ago. If these were adopted in time the camps would have been liquidated long ago and the present undesirable situation would neither have arisen nor the question of rehabilitation of camp refugees in Dandakaranya. 5. It should also be made clear that despite such a policy there might be families who may like to go to Dandakaranya. There can be no objection to that. It will thus be clear that the present movement has nothing to do with opposition to Dandakaranya project as a whole. The movement only opposes sending refugees to Dandakaranya against their will when there is sufficient scope for their rehabilitation in West Bengal in a manner desired by them. It should also be mentioned here that the Chief Minister of West Bengal as well as the Governor of the State gave assurances in categorical terms that no refugee will be sent outside West Bengal against his will. 6. It will be seen that the coercive methods adopted by the Government for sending refugees to Dandakaranya have failed in as much as only 5% of families served with notices have gone to Dandakaranya. A stalemate has reached in respect of rehabilitation of camp refugees. Any further experiment with such a policy is fraught with serious consequences. Left to their own fate these camp families will be hardly able to rehabilitate themselves properly and will ultimately be a burden on the meager resources of the State. A rethinking of the whole question has, therefore, been necessary both for the proper solution of the problem and on human considerations. 7. It is high time that you should intervene immediately into the matter to prevent further deterioration in the situation which will result in loss of life of a few refugees and untold sufferings to many others as well as for a satisfactory solution of the problem. Yours faithfully, Sd. Samar Mukherjee Bangalnama (blog). https://bangalnama.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-silence-of-marichjhapi (accessed 8 May 2016) Till 1974, Jyoti Basu had demanded that refugees from Dandakaranya must be relocated in the Sunderbans. Ram Chatterjee, WB Left Front minister encouraged them to settle there. In 1975, Udbastu Unnayanshil Samiti (UUS) launched a national movement for resettlement in the Sunderbans area. According to a leaflet the organization published: In May, representatives of the Mana Udbastu Unnayanshil Samiti went by launch from Hasnabad to Morichjhapi in Gosaba police station. Opposite this 125 square mile sand bank rising out of the sea, is a 100 year old village. The people of the village told them that the tide did not rise above five feet. If we could have erected dykes five feet high to hold out the salt water and lived here for 100 years, why can’t you? There is great potential for fishing. It would be possible for 16,000 families from Mana to settle just on the island, and nearby at Dutta Pukur another 30,000. During the early part of 1978, the first wave of refugees started moving from Orissa’s Malkangiri to West Bengal through Habra, Barasat, Bali Bridge, reaching Hasnabad. What the refugees didn’t realize was that the Left Front’s policy had changed immediately after they came to power. Once the number of refugees reached a few lakhs, the CPI(M) leaders decided to send them back to where they came from. III এ – দুয়োরে যায় ঃ দূর – দূর ! ও – দুয়োরে যায় ঃ ছেই ছেই ! সুয়োরানী লো সুয়োরানী তোর রাজ্যে দিল হানা পাথরচাপা কপাল যার সেই ঘুঁটেকুড়ুনির ছানা ঘেন্নায় মরি, ছিঃ ! Subhash Mukhopadhay, ‘Thakurmar Jhuli’, Morichjhapi: Chhino Desh, Chhinno Itihash. Kolkata: Gangchil, 2009. The refugees were systematically stopped at various locations on their way to Morichjhapi. Waves of people waiting at Hasnabad found a leader in Sri. Satish Mondal. The march to the Sunderbans started around March and was joined by hundreds others who had heard of the government’s promise to re-settle migrants in Morichjhapi. By April, 1978, about 10,000 migrants had reached places like Bagna and Kumirmari from where they would move to Morichjhapi. The Anandabazar Potrika (dated April 26, 1978) gives an account of the crisis: Morichjhapi: Chhino Desh, Chhinno Itihash. Kolkata: Gangchil, 2009. Place Number of refugees as on April, 1978 Hasnabad 11,106 Banks of the Ichamoti at Hasnabad 16,929 Kumirmari and Bagna 5000 Despite the brutality of open fire on the Namasudra refugees on their way to Morichjhapi, many managed to reached there and finally settled. These families had sold everything they owned when they left Dandakaranya, and by the time they reached Morichjhapi, they had nothing to their name. Their journey was obstructed at various points and some were killed by police firing. The refugees had to begin everything from scratch and what led them on was the sheer strength of their organized activities of settlement. These families were now settlers on the government’s “scrub and marshy waste lands”, unlike most of their upper-caste counterparts, who had ‘squatted’ on already owned colonies and areas yet had the support and sympathy of the government. Unlike them, the settlers in Morichjhapi did not even ask for government money or aid. Rightly does Nilanjana Chatterjee argue, “What harm did the Morichjhapi refugees do to the Left Front government? Caste Hindus live in the other squatter colonies, and there were only Scheduled Castes (‘Untouchables’) at Morichjhapi. Is that why there is no space for the people of Morichjhapi in this state?” Nilanjana Chatterjee, Midnight’s Unwanted Children: East Bengali Refugees and the Politics of Rehabilitation. Ph.D. diss., Brown University. At the very outset, Jyoti Basu stated the government could only give the settlers fishing license, probably as an act of showing that the settlement ultimately dependent on government aid. However, the eco-friendly utilization of resources by the settlers showed a radically different picture altogether– something that the government had feared right from the beginning. Seven months worth of organized labour added about thirty lakhs to the national economy. The ‘untouchable’ settlers set up salt pans, a workable fishing industry, health centre, schools, a bidi factory, a bakery, carpentry workshops and a hosiery factory. Due to the salinity of the soil, cultivation was not possible. Once can argue, considering the nature of this settlement, that what the Namasudra refugees built was a makeshift commune, which was, ironically, destroyed by the established upper caste communist government. If we go back to Jyoti Basu’s letters and demands of relocating these refugee families in West Bengal from Dandakaranya, we will notice his disavowal of their caste identity. Basu never recognized the refugees as namasudras but it was, nonetheless, their caste identity that determined the government’s fascist attitude towards them. In order to ensure an electoral stronghold in West Bengal, the Left Front government seemed to have played on the issue of refugee crisis. Within the over-arching political identity of Refugees existed various other contexts – that of class, caste, gender – which were thoroughly undermined. This homogeneity affected the namasudras the most as their geographical movement from one place to another was intrinsically connected with their social position (that of caste, primarily, and consequently also, of class). IV “ছন্দ আছে আসাযাওয়ার ছন্দ আছে আর তা ছাড়া ধ্বংস তো নয় বরং এ যে সবার কাছে লাথি খাবার পদ্মবুকে দেশ নেই যার এইভাবে দেশ খুঁজে বেড়ায় উলটোরথের ভিখিরি দেশ খুঁজে বেড়ায় গলায় পাথর বুকের নিচে বৃহস্পতি।” Shankha Ghosh, ‘Ultoroth’ 1977. While discussing the refugee crisis on a global level, certain features must be taken into account – the guest as menace, genocide as a marker of modernity and an anticipation of economic instability. In a post-national context, the urge to defend one’s geographical location becomes more psychological than political. A nation, if we go by Benedict Anderson’s idea, is an ‘imagined community’ Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. 1982. and it only exists if its difference from another nation is reinforced repeatedly, primarily through military means. Thus, in its constant need to assert its own identity in terms of the Other the nation also becomes a ‘gated community’ protected and preserved as a homogenous entity, safe from socio - cultural ‘encroachments’ by the Other. In such a situation, the figure of the refugee overwhelms the pre-national figure of the ‘traveller’, who was welcome to the new city and its culture which, in turn, made possible a cross-cultural discourse between the traveller and the citizens. He (as female travellers are almost absent from history) was well-accepted into one’s society and received the hospitality that the refugee hopes for, but never receives. This makes us question the difference in people’s attitude towards the ‘guest’ over time and history. One may as well argue it’s probably because the refugee comes empty-handed with nothing to offer to the nation (and its people) who would receive him/her. S/hecomes only to ask for aid and assistance for survival, for his/her body has become his/her only home. This arrival also destabilizes the homogenous existence that the nation has managed to uphold, as with the refugee comes a baggage of an ‘alien’ culture as well. The smooth process of a not-so-equal sharing of resources is also disrupted. Within the already established social hierarchy, another stratum is forcibly added – that of the homeless refugee. Thus, this particular class of people must immediately be removed, either geographically (pushed away to another place) or, as is the case with the Syrian refugees, culturally (by denying entry through xenophobic means), and sometimes, as we discuss Morichjhapi, completely deprived of life and existence. As we have witnessed in all the settler colonies across the world, the conflict was primarily between the native population and the White settlers. The primary bone of contention was culture (with language, religion, and ways of governance within it). Modernity came in the form of the Euro-centric idea of ‘civilization’ generously offered to native ‘savages’ initially, but coerced into their psyche eventually. Resistance was inevitable, but as is characteristic of the politics of coercion, this opposition was dealt with systematic mass killing or mass eviction of the native population. Resistance to the Western idea of modernity that gave supremacy to nationhood over people-hood was violently suppressed through genocide. However, in India, thirty years after Independence and the establishment of a nation and nationhood, West Bengal witnessed the emergence of another kind of modernity when the Left Front government came to power in 1977. After years of rule by the coalition governments with Bengal Congress as their Head that depended fairly on mafia rule, the Left Front formed their government representing the aspirations of a people, primarily those from the lower rungs of the society. Their victory, as has already been discussed earlier, was ensured by the huge number of refugees who were promised safe and secure relocation in West Bengal from places like Orissa, Madhya Pradesh. But, the moment they came to power, the Left Front government began to go back on their word. It was in 1978 that the first group of refugees in Orissa embarked on their journey towards West Bengal. Many were killed in the middle of that journey itself. Those who arrived in Morichjhapi were massacred the following year in every way possible. Some managed to escape but could not claim the bodies of the deceased. The dead disappeared. This incident still remains the marker of the modernity brought about by the People’s government in West Bengal, which continued till the massacres in Lalgarh, Singur, Nandigram. Unlike the settlers in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc, the settler in the context of West Bengal, India was the refugee who settled in an uninhabited land (promised to him/her) creating a practicing model of community living, more attuned to the idea of peoplehood over the exclusionary idea of nation or nationalism. The arrival of refugees in a ‘nation’ also threatens to destabilize the allocated sharing of resources. This unwilling sharing creates a paranoia which in turn abolishes any scope that might have been generated to absorb the labour in return of equivalent wages. In the context of Morichjhapi, the setllers were cultivators, fishermen, and artisans- a strong source of labour which could be easily absorbed into the economy, especially when they had already set up a model of alternative living. By destroying this settlement, the government took away the very idea of ‘swadesh’ (in the sense of ‘self- reliance’ and ‘one’s own home’) that the settlers had looked forward to. A journalist of the Bengali daily Jugantar noted : “The refugees of Dandakaranya are mainly cultivators, fishermen, day- labourers, artisans, the exploited mass of the society. I am sorry to mention that they have no relation with the elite of society. If it is a matter of anybody of the family of a zamindar, doctor, lawyer or engineer, the stir is felt from Calcutta to Delhi, but in this classified and exploited society we do not feel anything for the landless poor cultivators and fishermen. So long as the state- machinery will remain in the hands of the upper-caste elite, the poor, the helpless, the beggar, the prostitutes and the refugees will continue (to be victimized). Ranjit Kumar Sikder, ‘Morichjhapi Massacre’, The Oppressed Indian, 4(4):21-23 V তুমি বললে দণ্ডকে নয় আপন ভূমিই চাই আমি বললে ভণ্ড, কেবল লোক খ্যাপাবার চাই। চোখের সামনে ধুঁকলে মানুষ উড়িয়ে দেবে টিয়া তুমি বললে বিপ্লব, আর আমি প্রতিক্রিয়া। Shankha Ghosh, ‘Tumi ar nei shey tumi’. 1978. The situation at Morichjhapi was worsening, and one of the major pretexts given by the government was depletion of natural resources by the namasudra ‘invaders’. However, the settlers had used nothing but the fishing license and subsequently, no proof was found of the over-exploitation of forest reserves. The ‘occupation’ of Morichjhapi was termed as an illegal encroachment on Reserve Forest Land and on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – sponsored Tiger Protection project. Jyoti Basu stated that strong action will be taken against the settlers if they did not stop cutting trees. The WWF or any other conservationist group was not recorded to have taken a stand in this regard, neither did any non-governmental organizations take up the cause. The settlers, practically without any government help, laid out roads, drainage channels to prevent water logging, fisheries, boat building yards, and a major dyke system to hold back the tide. Ross Mullick argues: “Tourism, in requiring pristine environments, creates an incentive for big business and the state to set aside areas that might otherwise be used by poor people for subsistence. While this may generate economic benefits, they rarely are realized by the people being displaced and certainly not the Morichjhapi inhabitants. Even this benefit may be debatable since the facilities left by the refugees were later inhabited by followers of the ruling CPI(M), which means the environmental improvement was not realized, even if a potentially more environmentally detrimental influx of refugees may have been prevented.” Ross Mullick, ‘Refugee Resettlement in Forest Reserves: West Bengal Policy Reversal and the Morichjhapi Massacre’, Morichjhapi: Chhino Desh, Chhinno Itihash. Kolkata: Gangchil, 2009. When threats failed to make the settlers abandon Morichjhapi, the West Bengal government launched an offensive to evict them. An economic blockade of the settlement was started on 26th January, 1979 with thirty police launches. The community was tear gassed, huts were burnt down, fisheries and tube-wells were destroyed in an attempt to starve out the settlers. It must be noted that had eviction been the primary concern, such inhuman torture would have probably been replaced by more conciliatory approaches. Genocide, which we have tried to analyse as a marker of modernity, was undoubtedly intended. Morichjhapi had to be vacated of dalit settlers and almost all strategies of mass killing like rape, setting fire to people and property, killing children, and sinking boats with people in it, were employed to ensure a successful eviction. All of this was done in three days. Those from neighbouring places like Kumirmari were physically prevented from reaching out and some were even killed. The government had succeeded in its plan. A part of the Bengali intelligentsia maintained an uneasy silence during the entire massacre, and the Left Front government declared Morichjhapi out of bounds for journalists. This was accompanied by attempts at censorship and accusations against the ‘bourgeois’ press for conspiring with the refugees and the Opposition. Pramod Dasgupta, then member of the Legislative Assembly, threatened journalist and activist, Pannalal Dasgupta that all his articles would be censored in the media if he did not stop writing on Morichjhapi in Jugantar. Nilanjana Chatterjee in her work on Morichjhapi mentions an editorial in the same daily that stated: “Again today, the leaders of the state made caustic remarks about journalists – the Morichjhapi problem is apparently the creation of a few reporters. But, journalists are society’s eyes and ears, we are merely witnesses. A journalist has no ability to cause something to occur; s/he can only describe it. But, sometimes, events are such that immaculately unbiased description sounds like strong censure. The mouths of journalists can be stopped, but not the flow of history.” Morichjhapi: Chhino Desh, Chhinno Itihash. Kolkata: Gangchil, 2009. VI The real moment of decolonization never arrives in a post-colonial nation since the national leaders end up using similar means of oppression. The body being the refugee’s only surviving home, he must be killed for the homelessness to reach its completion. Although the politics of silence has penetrated into history over time, there are certain revolutionary moments in time itself when personal memories of violence and suppression are voiced out in rage: “পূব বাংলা একদিন যখন উথলে এসে পড়ে এই বাংলায় , পুনর্বাসনে তার বড় একটা অংশ কে পাঠিয়ে দেওয়া হয় দন্ডকারন্যে , নতুন এক পত্তনের ভরসায়। কিন্তু সে কি পুনর্বাসন না নির্বাসন? এই প্রশ্ন সেদিন তুলেছিলেন প্রগতিভাবুক মানুষেরা, প্রগতিশীল দলগুলি। সে - প্রতিবাদ শোনেনি কেউ, সমস্ত বিক্ষোভের ব্যর্থতা মেনে নিয়ে তাদের যেতে হয়েছিল দূরের দেশে, ভাষা আর সংস্কৃতির প্রবাহ থেকে নতুন জীবনের চেষ্টা করছিল তারা অবহেলার মাঝখানে... ছেড়ে দেয় ট্রেন। হাতল ধরে দাঁড়িয়ে আছি দরজায়, নীচের দিকে তাকিয়ে, পিছন দিকে ছুটতে থাকে লাইন। মনে পড়ে কদিন আগে ওইরকমই এক বিরাট দলে ফিরে যাওয়ার সময় অবুঝ একজন কিছুতেই আর ফিরতে চায়নি বলে ঝাঁপ দিয়েছিল ট্রেন এর দরজা থেকে। লাইন এর নুড়ি পাথরের পাশে ছুটন্ত ঘাস জমির ফালি দেখতে দেখতে মনে হল একবার, পড়বার পর বুকের খূব কাছে এই মাটির একটুখানি ছোঁওয়া তো সে তবে পেয়েছিল – তার নিজের দেশের মাটির ? নাকি কোন পাথরকুচি তখন বিঁধে গিয়েছিল বুকে ? এই যে আজ ট্রেন এর হাতল ধরে দাঁড়িয়ে আছি আমি , পূব বাংলার সেই আমিও তো হতে পারতাম ‘সে’ ? পিছনে তাকিয়েও বর্ধমান দেখা যায়না আর, দরজা ছেড়ে ভিতরে এসে বসি , মনের মধ্যে ভর করে থাকে শুধু এই এক ফিরে যাওয়ার ছবি, এই উলটোরথের টান।“ Shankha Ghosh, ‘Ultoroth:Kobita tir jonmo-brittanto’, Kobitar Muhurto. Anushtup, 1977.