The force indulges in untold atrocities. There is murder, rape and the looting. The police kill 11 people through bullets. The CPI (M) rationalises what happened, without a word of condemnation.

I should have written about this earlier. But I did not do so deliberately because I felt that a leftist government could not do all that the media was highlighting. I believed that the CPI (M) was the only political party, which followed certain standards that the rest forsook long ago. I am shocked over the facts which have come to light.

Nandigram is a large village where the CPI (M) government sought to acquire the agricultural land "in public interest" forcibly. This was meant to be handed over

to a construction company from Indonesia. Obviously, the "public interest" had been stretched to a point where the farmers' rights had been ignored. The real purpose was to attract foreign capital for the state's industrialisation without which it was felt it could not go very far.

There was nothing wrong in such kind of thinking. West Bengal was the hub of industry before the extremists in the left drove it out more than two decades ago. What was wrong then and continued to remain so today is the use of force.

It was brutal, deliberate and unchecked -- all to suppress the farmers who did not want to part with their land. When the state governor came out with an open indictment and said that the police firing had given him "cold horror," nothing was left to any doubt.

A top Bengal intellectual, with the leftist leanings, wrote: "It will be not an exaggeration to say that the Nandigram massacre was another re-run of the Jalianwala Bagh." Former chief minister Jyoti Basu was the first one to criticise the state government and remind it that, "This is a government of the CPI (M) and not of any front."

How does one explain the excesses committed by a leftist government against people? How could a CPI (M) chief minister use the police against farmers and villagers who constituted the core of the proletariat? Even liberals felt horrified because the CPI (M) handling of the Nandigram agitation was no different from the bourgeoisie-run states where the force was the norm to make people fall in line.

A CPI (M) Rajya Sabha member's defence that "their men" were also beaten up is true. But this does not absolve the party of the blame because it was the CPI (M) government, which initiated the process to get the land and sent the police to see that the job was done. Whatever the provocation, a leftist government cannot sanction the firing by the police on farmers. It was not expected from the communists.

This is precisely what hurt Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru during the India-China war in 1962. He told his home minister Lal Bahadur Shastri that he never expected a communist country to wage a war against a nation trying to establish a socialistic pattern of society. Nehru was a socialist by convictions. What the Chinese action proved was that the communist countries were as much guided by jingoism as the capitalist ones.

The use of police was bad enough, but the CPI (M) did worse: it sent its cadres to suppress the farmers. The cadres reportedly used the country-made guns, primarily meant to kill animals. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) confirmed this. In its report, not published yet, the CBI has pointed out that some of the unused bullets, wrapped in paper packets, proved the source from where they had been procured. The needle of suspicion was directed against the state rulers.

In the same vein, the CBI has said that the cell phone records, a copy of which the agency retains, showed who had engaged these men. According to the CBI, a paper chit found in their possession, appeared to be a hit list had 45 names. The identity of these targets also indicated that the operation wouldn't have lasted only for a day.

What amazes me is that the CPI (M) government went ahead with Nandigarm when the dust over the land allotted to the Tatas at Singur, near Kolkata, had barely settled down. The CPI (M) had assured at that time that no land would be acquired without the willingness of the farmers.

The use of force was ruled out. Still the police and the CPI (M) cadres did the opposite at Nandigram. Could this be an example where CPI (M) chief minister Buddhdev Bhattacharya went beyond the party's limits? Probably, its central politburo had no option except to support Buddhadev.

I found a tinge of remorse in the statements and writings by CPI (M) secretary-general Prakash Karat on Nandigram. Of course, other leftist parties made no secret of their unhappiness and attributed the Nandigram happenings to the "gross arrogance" of the CPI (M) leadership in West Bengal.

I cannot make out how the state CPI (M) secretary-general Biman Bose agreed to send the party cadre. He reportedly does not see eye to eye with the chief minister's views on the development.

Buddhadev should, however, explain why he strayed from the path of consultation and opted for confrontation. He could see how the farmers had barricaded the entire village and how determined they were to fight to the last man to protect their land.

The CPI (M) has realised that the major drawback is the special economic zone (SEZ) law. The party is waiting for its amendment.

The criterion for selecting the land for SEZ should be not whether it is less cultivable but whether it is barren. Wherever the barren land is available in the country, it should be utilised for the location of SEZ. The cost of building the infrastructure there can be added to the cost of SEZ.

Socialism, the communists should realise, is not only a way of life but a certain approach to social and economic problems. What the CPI (M) did in Nandigram was blatantly wrong and anti-people. True, the party has bowed before the public pressure and withdrawn the police. But the damage has been done. I wish the state home minister had submitted his resignation. It may be a Gandhian way. But it goes down well in a country like India.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.