BENGAL LEFT FRONT RELEASES ELECTION MANIFESTO FOR 2008 RURAL POLLS

http://pd.cpim.org/2008/0420_pd/04202008_6.htm

THE Bengal Left Front has released the election manifesto for the forthcoming Panchayat elections. The three-tier Panchayat bodies operate at the levels of the villages (Gram Panchayat), Panchayat Samity (covering the rural blocks that are made up of dozens of villages) and the Zillah Parishad (representing the districts).

The present manifesto is overwhelmingly dominated by political imperatives. Such has been the laudable progress made in the development of the rural areas in terns of economy, society, and culture, that the earlier narration of the multifarious achievements of the Bengal Left Front is described in a manner that highlights the direction of the growth of the villages.

The Panchayat system of Bengal has attracted national and international attention. Teams of experts from all over the world – socialist as well as capitalist (the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez holding aloft an outsized watermelon during his visits to a rural farmland, and Canadian agricultural experts, and German farm owners staring with wonderment at the impressive and bustling participation of women in several all- women-run Panchayats in south and central Bengal respectively specialising in production of export-quality rice and wheat. These visits provide lasting images of those who savoured at first hand, the Panchayat-led village development schemes and programmes to try to understand the dynamics of rural development in Bengal.

The three-tier Panchayat system has put in place through an organised process a democratic decentralisation of fiscal, financial, and administrative powers, and an extensive political empowerment of the rural poor, massing them under the banner of the CPI(M) and the All India Kisan Sabha. The manifesto has called for more devolution of powers from the central to the state governments so that it results in the further empowerment of the people at the grassroots’ level.

As agricultural production has flourished along with agro-based cottage industries, there has been over the years an accumulation of a vast amount of purchasing power (to the tune of Rs 30,000 crore) in the hands of the rural folks -- men and women - kisans (peasants), the bidi (cigarillo) and handicrafts workers, agricultural labourers (khet mazdoors), sharecroppers (adhiyaars and bargadars) casual and migrant workers, the workers in the unorganised sectors including truck and tractor drivers, mechanics, lathe machine operators, and even headload carriers and brick-kiln workers, domestic workers, mostly women.

Prior to 1977 (when the Bengal Left Front was swept to office riding the crest of a vast popular wave) the rural people had been literally at the bottom of social and economic scale eking out a miserable living, overwhelmingly hegemonised by the superior landed elements like the zamindars (the traditional landlords having political power and social prowess,) and jotdars (or rich peasants) and their patrons in the Congress and later by the political fronts of the Hindu and Muslim religious fundamentalist outfits.

The redistributive land reforms by which more than 95 per cent of the rural land plots now belong to the rural poor has also served to change the correlation of class forces. The three-tier Panchayati raj, according to peasant activist and AIKS leader, Benoy Konar and the Bengal Left Front government’s Panchayat minister Dr Surjya Kanta Mishra, is the instrument of both political and economic changes in the vast and populous countryside of Bengal.

Elucidating in brief the basic achievements of the Panchayati raj under Left Front governance, Dr Surjya Mishra tells us that according to the report for the financial year 2007-2008 of the central government, 11.25 lakhs of acres of land have been re-distributed in West Bengal amongst 29.5 lakhs of people. This is one-fifth of the total land redistributed in the country. In the year 2007, we have provided nearly 47,000 kisan families with patta rights of khas (vested in the government) land.

Of the families who have benefited from land reforms in the country from independence, 54 per cent belong to West Bengal. The total number of bargadars, pattadaars, and receivers of homestead plots number almost half-a-crore in total. Two-thirds of the beneficiaries belong to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and minority communities.

Agricultural production has increased through land reforms, extension of irrigation, use of higher quality and improved variety of seeds, and the utilisation of chemical and bio-fertilisers. Over the past 17 years, the rate of annual increase of food crops production (1.2 per cent) has slipped below the rate of increase of the country’s population (1.9 per cent). We hear the footfalls of famine in the country.

On the other hand, in this period, the rate of growth of agricultural production in West Bengal is at an all-time high and stands at twice the rate of the population growth. West Bengal tops the country in production of rice, jute, betel leaf, vegetables, pineapple, and fish. The state holds the second position in production of potato, and litchi. We export flowers and fruits produced in West Bengal. The opposition is not able to live with and acknowledge this sea-change in West Bengal.

The state tops the country, for the financial year 2006-2007, with regard to issuance of job cards for 100 days’ guaranteed job per year to families who have been provided with jobs. Under the centrally sponsored ‘Sahay’ scheme, people who are unable to do physical labour are being provided with cooked food. Is there any other state in the country that has Panchayats running more than 20,000 child and secondary education centres? Which state in the country can be proud of winning so many prizes in the ‘Environmentally Clean’ Nirmal Gram’ category? The population of West Bengal’s award-winning Panchayats comprise 40 per cent of the populace of the whole country.

Which other state in India, asks Biman Basu, state secretary of the Bengal unit of the CPI(M) can be proud of having 60 lakh members of 7.34 lakh self-help groups? These groups are presently being organised as Sanghas based on the Panchayats and Mahasanghas based on Panchayat samities. A Mahasangha of a block in Tamluk has created business worth seven crore rupees in one year. The three past decades have witnessed poverty removed most from the rural areas of West Bengal. However, a lot more has to be done. 4612 villages were identified as backward and special developmental programmes have been taken up for them.

LEFT FRONT PROGRAMME

The Left Front would like to place before the electorate a programme that would further strengthen and help accelerate the pro-people, especially pro-poor activities of the Panchayats and provide a sustained rural growth.

1. The LF needs more decentralisation from the central government to the state government. There is urgent need for more self-governance for the national interest to provide more self-governance to the Panchayats. The Left Front needs more powers to the Panchayats in order to empower the people further.

2. The struggle for making self-governance a surety at each level of the Panchayat in each sector will be sharpened. The Left Front is determined to have a reordering the financial and administrative powers in such manner that would make sure that decision-making and implementation, which is possible at the lower levels, do not get transferred to the remnants of the upper echelons of the rural society.

3. Importance will be attached to strengthen the base of acceleration, efficiency, honesty, transparency, compassion, and accountability in functioning and a training programme will be arranged in continuous manner on modernisation an utilisation of appropriate technology. The basic aim of all this would be to place the people in the leading role and to attach to the mainstream of class struggle the struggle for empowerment of the weakest section of the people.

4. The Left front will initiate a political programme to achieve the targets set above A drive will be taken to involve in the process all the people of the area irrespective of political affiliation.

5. The Left Front will employ its full strength and goodwill for the implementation on a priority basis food security for all, shelter or all, total literacy, supply of potable water for all, and total health campaign. Special initiative will be st in motion on such important issues as providing social security to people who no longer able to toil physically, to involve girls and women of financially handicapped families into the process of learning and education to plug the source of illiteracy, spread education among the minority communities, and involve every adult worker in the literacy programme

6. The Left Front have to accomplish within the next five years, a target of setting up 10 lakhs of self help group (that are largely run by women).as well as organisation of training programmes for qualitative improvement of the products and setting up a stronger marketing mechanism.

7. Priorities will continued to be attached to animal resources development, agricultural development including fisheries, diversification, spread and increase of intensity of irrigation and agriculture through conservation of water and soil, use of bio fertilisers and other biotechnology etc. The cooperative movement must be extended to free kisans from loan sharks’ loans.

8. The gaps that yet persist in issues concerning the development and maintenance of rural road network, electrification, communication, and markets shall be filled up. An initiative will be taken to set up a few examples of rural urbanisation, while developing municipal services in villages.

9. Small and medium industries shall be set in rural areas, and there will be diversification and modernisation of cottage industries.

10. The ongoing programmes and schemes for development and social security of khet mazdoors, workers of the unorganised sector, members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, minorities, women, and children will be reviewed and the drives shall be made wider and more integrated.

11. In implementing the programmes the special priority attached to the backward districts, blocks and 4612 villages shall continue and the progress made will be regularly assessed.

The appeal of the West Bengal Left Front before the electorate on the eve of the Seventh Panchayat General Election is –

• Defeat the unprincipled and so-called ‘grand alliance’ of the forces of reaction that represent imperialist globalisation and liberalisation, communalism, separatism and divisiveness

• Build up a grand alliance of all working people, and of all democratic-minded, secular, and patriotic people, irrespective of religion and caste, and ensure a big win for Left Front nominated candidates in each constituency

• Develop a better and an improved Panchayati system, with a class outlook, based on the development of villages, and founded on the complete unity and empowerment of the working people, on agricultural growth, on industrialisation, on human resources development, on self-help, and on generation of more employment

No blunder in Nandigram, Singur: Yechuri

http://news.oneindia.in/2007/01/13/no-blunder-nandigram-singur-yechuri.html



Saturday, January 13 2007 16:00(IST)



New Delhi, Jan 13: CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechuri does not feel Nandigram and Singur incidents have dented the image of the West Bengal government and the party, and insists newspapers were wrong in reporting that Chief Minister Budhadeb Bhattacharjee has admitted to a ''big blunder'' in Nandigram.

In an interview to Mr Karan Thapar for the CNN-IBN programme, Devil's Advocate, the CPI(M) Politburo member and Rajya Sabha MP also refuted Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee's claim that land had been forcibly acquired in Singur.

''Not at all. No. We have brought this entire question of compensation to the national agenda. The compensation we are giving in Singur is the best and the most exemplary. And now everybody will have to follow suit,'' he said in reply to a question whether the two incidents had damaged the reputation of the state government.

Mr Yechuri went further when he fervently, repeatedly and, sometimes, angrily denied that Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee had admitted that ''a big blunder'' had occurred in Nandigram: ''There's no blunder. I'm sorry. Don't quote to me what appears in the press. I know what he said.'' When Devil's Advocate quoted entire sentences reported on January 10 by newspapers such as The Indian Express, The Hindustan Times and The Telegraph where the Chief Minister was quoted to have said ''it happened because of our mistake. It was a big blunder and the principal cause of the mayhem that followed'' (Hindustan Times) and ''the government has committed a blunder by issuing a notice on land acquisition in Nandigram'' (The Telegraph), Mr Yechuri said: ''It was not said to journalists. They all picked it up from God knows where.''

Instead, Mr Yechuri insisted that the authentic version of the Chief Minister was available on the West Bengal Government's website where, according to Mr Yechuri, the Chief Minister said: ''The Haldia Development Authority issued some instruction which was not its mandate. That instruction is the cause for a lot of confusion. Please go by his (Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's) written statement which is available on the web and where he says it was (done by) the Development Authority which has no authority on this issue.'' Insisting that neither Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee nor the West Bengal Government had made a blunder or admitted to a blunder, Mr Yechuri made the following points.

First, he said that the West Bengal Government had not issued any notice for land acquisition in Nandigram.

Second, he said that the Haldia Development Authority had only issued ''some instruction'' but not an actual notification for land acquisition.

Third, he added that the Haldia Development Authority did not have the mandate to issue a notice for land acquisition.

As he explained: ''The question of land acquisition is a right which the State Government has. Any other authority that may issue any other orders is absolutely out of its mandate.''

Further, Mr Yechuri insisted that as soon as the action by the Haldia Development Authority had come to light the West Bengal Government immediately acted to revoke the order. Referring to the statement issued by the Politburo of the CPM in Delhi on the January 9, where it said: ''As far as the specific violent incidents related to Nandigram is concerned, there has been no notice issued for land acquisition,'' Mr Yechuri insisted that this was not contradicted by the Chief Minister's admission a few hours later that the Haldia Development Authority had issued notices: ''What we were saying is actually representing the situation whereby the State Government has not issued any notification for land acquisition. The Haldia Development Authority cannot issue a land acquisition notice. The Haldia Development Authority has no authority to issue any land acquisition notice.''

In the Devil's Advocate interview Mr Yechuri was also questioned closely about Ms Mamata Banerjee's claim regarding the acquisition of land at Singur.

Asked how the government's position that 954 acres out of the required 997 had been voluntarily surrendered can stand up against Ms Mamata Banerjee's assertion that the owners of 464 acres - 46 per cent of the total - had filed affidavits at the Chander Nagar court asserting that they had refused to sell their land and refused to accept compensation, Mr. Yechuri replied: ''What she has given is being inquired into by the state government and till now 350 acres of what she claims as part of the acquired land is outside of this land. The affidavits that have been filed do not fall under the purview of the acquired land. 350 acres is entirely from outside.''

Asked why the promise made on the December 28 by Mr Nirupam Sen, Industries Minister in the West Bengal Government, to publish ''very soon'' the full list of names of people who have voluntarily surrendered 954 acres of land, has still not been fulfilled, Mr Yechuri first claimed that this had been done by the refutation of Ms Banerjee's claim and then, under further questioning, insisted that the list has been published on the West Bengal Government's website.

Finally, when Devil's Advocate asked Mr Yechuri why Section 144 was necessary in Singur if 954 acres - 95 per cent of the total - had been surrendered voluntarily, he replied: ''Because of the politics that has been there in Bengal for a long time. There have been incidents in Keshpur and Garbeta some years ago when outsiders go there with arms, create violence and mayhem, and on that basis politics is sought to be played out. Now Section 144 was imposed when outsiders with arms went there (to Singur) and attacked. Like in Nandigram as well. In the first instance of violence 19 people were injured and 16 are policemen.

So who's attacking whom? They are going there with arms in order to create violence and mayhem.'' Questioned about claims made by the Trinamool Congress, as well as by prominent individuals such as Sumit Sarkar and Arundhati Roy that brutal physical violence had been used to force people in Singur to surrender their land, Mr Yechuri maintained: ''I contest very very strongly that all of this happened through brute force. When Mamata Banerjee and Medha Patkar were there on dharna you had people queuing up to collect compensation cheques.

Why? Why are they accepting this package?'' On the subject of sharecroppers, Mr Yechuri denied claims that they have been left out of the West Bengal Government's compensation package. However, he accepted that there are a large number of unregistered sharecroppers but insisted that as soon as their claim has been verified and established they will be compensated along with registered sharecroppers.

Singur: Myth And Reality

People's Democracy (Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Vol. XXX No. 50 December 10, 2006

http://www.cpim.org/pd/2006/1210/12102006_edit.htm

EDITORIAL

Singur: Myth And Reality

THE opposition to the setting up of a motor plant in Singur in West Bengal has, indeed, attracted very strange bedfellows. BJP president Rajnath Singh, Trinamul Congress’s Mamta Banerjee, sections of state Congress leadership and Medha Patkar have all come together spreading canards against the West Bengal Left Front government and the CPI(M) in particular. The Trinamul Congress tried to recreate the violent mayhem that it did some years ago in the Keshpur village in Midnapur district. Mercifully this was foiled, for the time being at least, by the alertness of the state administration. Police deployment and declaration of section 144 was forced to be undertaken because of this.

This opportunist combine alleges that prime fertile agricultural land is being forcibly acquired from peasants virtually depriving them any alternate livelihood. Let us examine these issues dispassionately.

First, the land that has been acquired is not for any special economic zone but is part of the natural process of development and industrialisation which requires land. There are two ways in which land required for such industrialisation can be acquired. One, is to mercilessly displace people dependent on the land and impose a process of pauperisation on them. This is the classic inhuman process of primitive accumulation under capitalism. The other, is to provide adequate compensation for those whose land is being acquired for such purposes and ensuring a future livelihood by providing alternatives for the same. The first course is the one normally adopted by the ruling classes all over. Only a government committed to protecting the people’s welfare will choose the latter option. This is the option that the Left Front government of West Bengal has chosen.

Further, for such a process of industrialisation to proceed, it would be ideal to acquire non-agricultural land. In West Bengal, however, unlike in large tracts of our country, say like in Rajasthan or Gujarat, non-agricultural land is scarce to come by. Under these circumstances, the next best option is to acquire mono crop land rather than fertile multi-crop land. Requirements of contiguity, however, may require the acquisition of some fertile land, but this must be kept at the minimum and acquired only when it becomes inevitable.

From this perspective, what is the ground reality at Singur? The total land acquired is 997.11 acres. Of this, over 950 acres has the voluntary consent of the owners who have already collected their compensation (This we shall discuss later). Of the remaining land, such consent in many cases was not available as the land owners do not, normally, reside in that area. Of this land that has been acquired, over 90 per cent is mono crop land. Less than 10 per cent of this land belongs to the more than one crop category.

The compensation package worked out by the Left Front government after elaborate consultations with the local population is the following: Rs. 8.40 lakh per acre for mono crop land and around Rs. 12 lakh per acre for double crop land. This is well over one and a half times the prevailing market prices. The total amount of money to be disbursed for acquiring this land is declared at Rs. 130 crores. This is larger than the above rates as it includes compensation package for non land owners as well. A total of around 12,000 land owners and sharecroppers are entitled to receive compensation. Of these, 9,020 have collected their compensation till December 4, 2006. The claim that their livelihood is being destroyed is belied by the fact that 12,000 people are receiving compensation for less than 1000 acres. This means that a very large section of titleholders are actually earning their bread outside the agriculture and only a small section of titleholders is actually dependent on agriculture for their livelihood.

Compensation also covers the sharecroppers who are recorded in West Bengal. The number of recorded sharecroppers in this area is 237. According to the local informal reports, the number of unrecorded sharecroppers are around 170. All sharecroppers will be paid compensation equal to 25 per cent of what the land owner receives, i.e., for a mono crop land, each will receive more than Rs 2 lakhs while for the double crop land, they will receive Rs 3 lakhs per head.

Since some people may have been dependent for their livelihood working as agricultural labour on these lands and would be deprived of this in the future, all those who have enlisted themselves as agricultural labour in this area are being employed as daily wage workers immediately. As we go to press, up to December 5th, 7500 such man days have been created where these people are employed. This employment has been created by extensive community development projects that have been undertaken by the state government.

The responsibility of the government does not end with such a comprehensive compensation package. The Left Front government has started a programme of providing skills and training in different trades to those who wish to seek employment in the upcoming motor factory. As we go to press, during the last three days, 1815 have enlisted for training of whom 1372 used to cultivate their land and 443 were landless agricultural labour. A total of 180 people are imparting training for various professions such as machining, electrician, welder, fitter etc. in a newly-established institute.

In addition, 40 women are being trained in a regular sewing school opened recently in collaboration with sewing machine maker Singer. 40 more women will begin training for a course at the Institute of Catering and Management, Kolkata from December 12. They would be transported to Kolkata and brought back to their places everyday by special buses. The cost of training per head in all these skills is estimated to be Rs 7,500 per month. While the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation will bear the entire expenditure for such training, it shall also pay Rs 500 per month to each trainee as a stipend. If, in case, some do not find employment even after training, the state government will provide loans for self-employment projects.

Because of such a comprehensive compensation package, few joined the so-called popular agitation by the anti-Communist political combine at Singur. The overwhelming number of people that came to Singur do not belong to this area. As is the typical style of politics practiced by the Trinamool Congress, people are brought from outside armed with bombs and lethal weapons to create, as we noted earlier, violence and mayhem. On this occasion, they were ably assisted by ultra-Left groups whose primary target was to attack the police. Wild stories such as police firing, killing scores of innocent people were spread. The truth of the matter is that there was no firing ever. Three rubber bullets were fired in the air to disperse the crowds who were forcibly stopping the local land owners from collecting their compensation cheques.

Those who hurl baseless charges of CPI(M)’s so-called double standards in opposing forcible acquisitions for the special economic zones while implementing the same in West Bengal must realise the crucial difference, viz., while acquisitions elsewhere are being undertaken in the manner that we discussed above, i.e., by mercilessly pushing the people into pauperisation, in West Bengal, on the contrary, the other way is being followed where not only adequate compensation but also capabilities for an alternative livelihood are being undertaken by the government. For instance, in states like Maharashtra, where the State Industrial Development Corporation acquired land in Mumbai neighbourhood district, Raigad in the 80s, it paid the land owners according to their own reports, a paltry sum of Rs 30,000 per acre. There was no responsibility of the state government or any of its agencies to provide any alternative employment or give them capabilities and skills for an alternative livelihood. The Maharashtra state government is now proceeding to acquire another 28,000 acres on such terms for a Maha Mumbai special economic zone being promoted by Reliance group. Under these circumstances, the CPI(M) will surely mobilise the deprived peasantry in defence of their lands demanding reasonable and adequate compensation for those who give voluntary consent as well as the commitment and responsibility of the government for providing alternative avenues of employment.

The struggle to ensure that a comprehensive package like what is being implemented by the CPI(M) and the Left Front in West Bengal is a struggle that would be intensified by the CPI(M) in the days to come.

Konar targets Tapasi Malik’s father

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=1&theme=&usrsess=8444188832364&id=180879

Rajib Chatterjee
DANKUNI (Hooghly), Dec. 16: He is a firebrand Marxist known to target his political rivals with epithets which other politicians would prefer to avoid for fear of being criticised. Perhaps, for the first time, he has openly targeted a poor man of Singur who has practically nothing to do with politics.
The Marxist in question is the CPI-M’s central committee member, Mr Benoy Konar, and the person he has targeted is Mr Manoranjan Malik, father of Tapasi Malik, who had to pay with her life for being courageous enough to participate in the anti-land acquisition movement at Singur.
The only offence of Mr Malik is that he has been running from pillar to post demanding punishment for his daughter’s killers.
While addressing a CPI-M rally at Dankuni in Hooghly, Mr Konar said that Tapasi’s father was “cashing in on” his daughter’s death. “Tapasi was a burden for her father when she was alive. Her father had failed to arrange money for her education. Tapasi’s father has now become a renowned person in the state and he now owns a mobile phone. He has been cashing in on his daughter’s death,” he said.
“Earlier, Tapasi’s father would sell fish at a market in Chinsurah. He had no agricultural plots. Tapasi was a burden on him because she was unmarried. But now he is touring several places in the country. It seems money can buy even conscience and ethics,” added Mr Konar.
The CPI-M central committee member, however, paid token homage to Tapasi by merely describing her death as “tragic and unfortunate”. “However, I still do not know whether she was murdered or she committed suicide,” he said.
While some elderly CPI-M supporters, who had gathered at the rally, condemned Mr Konar for his remarks against Tapasi’s father, the young cadre cheered their leader for his bold stand.

AFTER ELEVEN MONTHS OF TERROR: Nandigram Breathes Free

http://pd.cpim.org/2007/1118/11182007_nilotpal.htm

By Nilotpal Basu

NANDIGRAM has shot back to the headlines of the mainstream media. This is after a stony silence maintained by them for an interregnum of few months. They have already smelt blood. The `gory details’ of CPI(M) `armed cadre’ with `criminal connivance of the state administration’ have mowed down hundreds of innocent Nandigram villagers! That is the way television channels are blaring out prime time coverage and print dailies are filling their front page column centimetres.

This is only understandable. Leader of the opposition, Lal Krishna Advani’s comments are eloquent. After the unfortunate deaths in Nandigram on March 14 this year, the `iron man’ of the saffron brigade was euphoric. He had then congratulated the people of Nandigram for having successfully fought the Jalianwala Bagh massacre! But now he thinks the state government and the CPI(M) has `nuked’ the Nandigram farmers!

Not that Advani had an interest in Nandigram in between. But, he had no occasion to publicly express his enthusiasm because his NDA partner and the leader of the alliance Trinamul Congress were not showing any keenness to be seen in company with the saffron crowd. The compulsions of the most opportunist rainbow coalition demanded a safe distance from the party which has leaders like Narendra Modi.

Political forces of all hues and complexions were happy. Nandigram will remain a unique watershed in the political process of the country. On no other issue has one seen such a grand scale of rally of anti-Left forces – Maoists on the extreme left, various shades of the naxals, the Congress led by its guerrillas, union minister Priyaranjan Das Munshi, sections of Jamaat-e-Ulema Hind led by Siddiqulla Chaudhury who has now formed his own party, the SUCI to the BJP on the extreme right – all joined the fun. And, of course, the centrepiece of this `grand alliance’ the Trinamul Congress with its redoubtable leader Mamta Banerjee. This political bandwagon was not devoid of colour with the civil society represented by the one and only Medha Patkar thrown in.

The trouble was that this grand array of forces, impressive as they sound on paper did not have the support and confidence of the people. Being unable to be in office through the democratic process of elections, how can these forces demonstrate how to run Nandigram, let alone the state as a whole. That is the story which has unfolded over the last eleven months.

NANDIGRAM – NOT A LAND QUESTION

Initially, the trouble in Nandigram started with these grand forces of opportunism being able to create confusion and a misperception among sections of the people in Nandigram Block-I over the state government’s preliminary thoughts of locating a chemical hub in 27 maujas of the block. Even before the actual process of conceptualising the details of the project had been initiated, rumours were spread quick and fast. The spectre of acquisition and that too unilaterally by the government – taking over homes and schools and temples and madarassas did create a sense of apprehension which even affected a section of people traditionally sympathetic to the Left and the CPI(M).

After having started a violent campaign to let loose an atmosphere of terror leading to digging up of roads, blowing up bridges, bringing panchayats and other developmental agencies to a standstill, Nandigram was sought to be wrenched away from the mainstream of the state. Elected members of the panchayat, state legislators were attacked and physically disallowed from functioning from these areas.

Since the principal opposition was on the question of land acquisition, all sensible and peace-loving people hoped that the announcement by the chief minister in February itself that the government is not going ahead with the chemical hub project in Nandigram, normalcy would be restored and rule of law re-established. But regrettably, that did not happen. The campaign of violence, disruption and destabilisation continued. Roads continued to remain dug up, bridges and culverts blown off completely cutting off communication channels. Police was not allowed to enter which ultimately reached a flashpoint on March 14, leading to police firing with deaths, which was regretted unambiguously both by the leadership of the government and Party.

Subsequently, patient efforts have been carried on to reach a political settlement, so that normal economic, social and administrative activities can be restored. More than 20 meetings called by the administration failed to produce any result. Even political initiative at the state level did not lead to any outcome. Meanwhile, the reign of terror continued with people not prepared to surrender to the Trinamul Congress and Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) – umbrella organisation of the opposition – being evicted from their homes and land. More than 3,500 people largely comprising of CPI(M) supporters were rendered homeless, of which 1,500 had to spend the last eleven months under untold sufferings in relief camps. Twenty seven CPI(M) activists and sympathisers have been killed during this period (see list of those killed elsewhere in the issue). Some of these are so grotesque that they should have left every sensitive individual with a sense of `cold-blooded horror’. Shankar Samanto, the first to be killed on January 7 was burnt alive. Sunita Mondal, a girl of 16, was gang-raped and then hung from a tree. Unfortunately, this gross undermining of the rule of law and denial of the basic right to life and livelihood did not provoke anybody who are now crying hoarse about violence and absence of rule of law.

Therefore, today there is no question of land. Since there is no proposal for chemical hub and SEZ in Nandigram – there is, obviously no question of land acquisition. The BUPC which has been formed to resist eviction from land has no rationale for its continued existence.

ALL DEMANDS WERE MET

Apart from land question, the other demands which had been raised by the opposition in Nandigram have been almost fully met by the state government. The state government has announced a compensation of Rs 2 lakh for all those who lost their life on March 14 regardless of whether they died of police bullets or otherwise. All cases pertaining to offences other than those relating to murder or rape will be withdrawn. The demand for denotifying Nandigram from the Haldia Development Authority is under active consideration at the highest level of the government.

Though the chief minister had clearly stated that the government wanted to institute a judicial enquiry into the March 14 police firing, the Kolkata High Court had taken note of the Governor’s statement and suo motu passed an order for a CBI probe. With this the government had given up the idea of judicial enquiry, lest it appear that it is on a confrontation course with the judiciary.

The government on its own transferred out all police officials who were associated with the police action on March 14. It has also announced its intention to fully comply with any order of the court on this matter. Report of the administrative enquiry that the state government had ordered will also be implemented in compliance with the judicial order which is still pending.

Therefore, with land and all other issues settled what was the provocation of the opposition to disallow police from entering Nandigram? What was the provocation for continuation of Nandigram as a state within a state where the writ of law will not run? The only answer is unabashed hunger for political domination with `power’ exercised through `a barrel of a gun’.

NANDIGRAM UNDER SIEGE – THE MAOIST CONNECTION

Regardless of whether the grand alliance of political forces and the so-called civil society leaders accept it or not, the fact remains that for the last eleven months, Nandigram remained under siege where the state government would be rendered persona non grata and to support the CPI(M) was deemed as a crime. The upholders of democracy cannot justify their extremely inconsistent sense of concern for human sufferings.

The situation in Nandigram took a dangerous turn with the Maoists moving into this area under siege during the later stages of `occupation’. The Economic Times of November 8, 2007 quoting a Maoist document pointed out that they have already established a “free people’s zone”. The document stated, “The current struggle at Nandigram is no longer confined to a battle against the CPM. This struggle is against administration and the people of Nandigram want revenge. The revenge will be a violent one. Resistance against the armed CPM cadres and the police must be an armed one”. The document further goes on to point out, “The ruling CPM is trying to brand our struggle against the state as a battle by the Trinamool Congress to capture land under their control. Some of the Trinamool Congress leaders are also thinking in the same manner. Some Trinamool Congress men are also trying to pose as leaders of the ongoing struggle at Nandigram.

“But it will be a gross mistake if someone considers the Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) as a mere forum controlled by the Trinamool Congress to prevent land acquisition. What is going on at Nandigram is an armed battle against the state.”

Not only in the Economic Times, similar reports have appeared in sections of mainstream media. Actually, in the last party Congress, the CPI(Maoist) had decided to develop a two stream strategy for their armed struggle. The first was the development of a strategic corridor along forest areas covering Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand as liberated bases. The second was to take advantage of spontaneous resistance to certain government policies. The Maoist intervention in Nandigram pertains to the second category.

Now, landmines and Improvised Explosive Devises (IEDs) have been discovered in Nandigram. It has also been confirmed that central agencies did have intelligence that Maoists did enter Nandigram. One of their functionaries Ranjit Pal, who is wanted in the JMM MP Sunil Mahato murder case, was spotted in Sonachura in Nandigram. The National Security Advisor has also confirmed Maoist presence in besieged Nandigram. Leaflets supporting all bandh actions by the opposition particularly the Trinamul Congress have been issued by the CPI(Maoist) and are in our possession as well. Just at the time of going to the press, news of three Maoist functionaries being apprehended from Sagar Islands – across Nandigram on the other side of the river has been received.

The issue of the complete bankruptcy of the political-ideological line of the Maoists can be dealt with at greater detail in these columns later on. But the moot point is right now, that line has nothing to do with the democratic demands of the people and only carrying out violence predominates their action.

The readiness of the Trinamul to collaborate with such forces only exposes the extent of their desperation to maintain physical control over Nandigram by completely undermining the political freedom of the CPI(M) and the basic right of people to their homes and livelihood on land for their political affiliation.

The government’s attempts particularly after March 14 demonstrates the extent of patience to ensure a political settlement. Almost a score of meetings at the local and district levels failed to break the deadlock. The opposition BUPC did not allow the police to function. As a last resort, the chief minister wrote to the central government for making available central paramilitary forces to be deployed in Nandigram. The opposition also raised their objections. Strangely, a union minister, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi publicly opposed the deployment of CRPF.

It is strange that now people in the opposition are raising questions about the absence of the police in the trouble-torn Nandigram or the delay in deploying the CRPF. Facts are eloquent. The chief minister wrote to the government of India on October 25 seeking the forces. On November 5, the central government regretted because of lack of reserves. The chief minister intervened by taking up the matter with the home minister and the external affairs minister. Finally, the CRPF was dispatched on November 10 and they have been deployed in Nandigram since November 12.

THE REASONS FOR HUE & CRY

The present hue and cry against violence is actually orchestrated because the siege in Nandigram has been broken. The people, 3,500 in number, who had been ousted from their home and hearth has returned to their homes. People driven by despair with about eleven months of a refugee status could not take it any more. Seeing that the political opposition has forced the government from exercising its constitutional powers (lest a March 14 type of situation recurs), they have ensured that they can return even braving the armed resistance to sustain the occupation.

It is the defiance of a people uprooted from their home and land bringing an end to the armed siege of Nandigram that has provoked the current noise. Self-professed liberals like Medha Patkar are posing the question as to why they cannot get into Nandigram during the few days that marked the return of the people who were ousted. Simple village women have posed this question to her as to where she was during the interregnum when Nandigram was under siege. They also pointed out that last time around, she and likes of her had instigated violence against the people who had been forced to leave their homes. She had no answer.

ROLE OF THE GOVERNOR

Meanwhile, the governor of West Bengal had come out with a press statement expressing his anguish over the violence which was the result of people who forced the siege of Nandigram to sustain it. The statement was factually incorrect, procedurally wrong and constitutionally improper (The PB and the West Bengal state committee has dealt with this question more elaborately in these columns).

It is the governor’s statement which created difficulty in the restoration of normalcy in Nandigram. It also energised the opposition so much so that there was a unseemly competition among parties to decided on the duration of bandhs to bring the state to a standstill – some called for 24 hours, some for 48 and the leader – the Trinamul – indefinitely.

The single point on which the media is harping on is violence during this final phase where people returned to their respective homes. The question to be asked to these self-proclaimed liberals and democrats is how the right to self-defence of a people who are attacked can be denied? How the right to access to their own homes and lands be denied to a people who have been forcibly ousted from them? How can conditions be created through subterfuge that the government cannot function and the law and order agencies cannot act and then blame the government for the absence of these very same police and CRPF?

THE CLOUD IS LIFTING

Nandigram is fast returning to normal. People who had to remain at large for eleven months are returning to their homes. People who had moved out on apprehension over this re-entry, are also quickly returning back because both the government and the CPI(M) had made it amply clear that since the siege has been broken, there is no further danger to people’s life and livelihood. There will be no abridgement of political freedom regardless of affiliations. The challenge now is to bring back Nandigram to the mainstream of development which it represented earlier.

The NDA delegation has come back to Delhi. It was a journey to score political points and to woo back an estranged partner. The Trinamul was represented by one of its general secretaries who is an MP. The delegation predictably has repeated the same demand of imposing Article 356 in West Bengal for alleged violence in an area which covers one-third of an assembly constituency in the 294 strong legislature! With inimitable pomp, Advani undeterred by the latest tehelka expose on the Gujarat carnage has announced that what his delegation has seen in Nandigram is `unprecedented in the history of the country’. Believers would have said `God bless him’!

In the process of perpetual oscillation between the NDA and the Congress, the Trinamul Congress has moved once again. Priyaranjan Das Munshi may take note of it. We do not know whether this will led to any other transient re-alignment of forces in West Bengal. But the people of West Bengal have heard the demand for Article 356 for infinite number of times and have even forgotten to take note of them.

Nandigram is returning to normalcy. That is the challenge. The chief minister and the chairman of the Left Front have appealed to the people of Nandigram to restore peace, harmony and development. The CPI(M) will work tirelessly towards achieving that objective. The people of West Bengal have in the past seen through the smokescreen of disinformation which has been unleashed to tarnish the CPI(M) and the Left Front government. There is no reason why it would be any different this time around. Meanwhile, the hue and cry will subside. Nandigram will, once again, be the mainstream that it was eleven months back. No more deaths, regardless of their political affiliations, should happen because ultimately it is the blood of the poor that is spilled.

Nandigram : People's Assertion

From :

People's Democracy

(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Vol. XXXI

No. 46

November 18, 2007

WHAT Nandigram has been witnessing since January 3 this year is a ‘violent and undemocratic offensive' to displace legitimate representatives of the people. People evicted from the area for being sympathetic to the Left Front government were not allowed to go back to their homes or cultivate their fields. Ultimately people have asserted and they have been able to return to their villages.

This is how CPI(M) general secretary, Prakash Karat saw developments centered on Nandigram Block- 1 and 2 areas. He was addressing the media on November 12 after the two day meeting of Party Polit Bureau. Karat expressed the hope that now with people returning to their villages and state machinery entering Nandigram area, normalcy may return. He asserted that the Left Front government will ensure return of everybody belonging to this area irrespective of their political affiliations.

Firmly rebuffing charges of indiscriminate violence by CPI(M) and the state machinery, Karat pointed out that since January Nandigram was facing an unnatural situation. The gang up of anti-CPI(M) and anti-Left forces under the leadership of Trinmul Congress has virtually set up a parallel raj in the area. Administration was not allowed to enter that area. Karat also pointed out that Maoist armed squads coming specially from Jharkhand were also being utilised. Bunkers were being built, landmines were being laid and arms training camps were being organised. In this connection the CPI(M) leader also drew attention towards the recent statement of the National Security Adviser admitting activity of Maoist groups in Nandigram area.

CPI(M) general secretary said that the people of Bengal in elections at different level have repeatedly reposed confidence in the Left. With visible anger he said forces that were rejected by people cannot be allowed to deny people’s verdict through violence, helped by Maoists. Karat also said that though loss of lives due to abnormal situation developed in Nandigram is regrettable, one should not forget that in last ten months 27 CPI(M) workers and supporters have lost their lives for ‘crime’ of their political affinities. He also disagreed with some Left parties that have recently tried to put blame for violence in Nandigram on CPI(M) only. Replying to a spate of questions in this context, Karat said that undoubtedly being biggest component of the Left Front, CPI(M) shares maximum burden of maintaining and strengthening unity of the front. The Party will make all efforts for that, but other components of the front also have to carry their share of this responsibility.

Prakash Karat also told the press that the main agenda of two day Polit Bureau meeting was discussion on outline of Draft Political Resolution. On basis of this outline a draft will be prepared and placed before central committee meeting to be held in December. Answering questions on nuclear deal, Karat informed that the Left hopes that parliament will be able to discuss and opine on the matter in the forthcoming winter session. He also expressed hope that the next meeting of UPA-Left committee will be able to ‘sort-out’ the issues connected with deal.

Note on Special Economic Zones

http://www.cpim.org/statement/2006/10192006-sez%20note%20to%20upa.htm

Press Release

The Left parties, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Revolutionary Socialist Party and All India Forward Bloc, have submitted a note to the UPA seeking a review of the SEZ Act and calling for corrective steps.

The full text of the note is being released herewith.

For CPI(M) Central Committee Office

---

Note on Special Economic Zones

The Special Economic Zones Act was passed by the Parliament in 2005. The intended purpose was to provide a stable policy framework for creating Special Economic Zones, which would serve as engines for industrial growth and exports. However, following the drafting of the SEZ Rules and the commencement of the process of granting approvals for the SEZs, a host of issues have surfaced which necessitates a relook at the entire SEZ Policy framework. Agricultural land is being acquired for the setting up of SEZs in several cases resulting in displacement of farmers and other sections of people, which have serious implications. Moreover, several provisions made in the SEZ Rules have raised concerns of misuse of the SEZ Act for creating a speculative real estate bubble instead of building industrial infrastructure. The Reserve Bank of India has warned against the possibilities of uneven development between different regions owing to the SEZ Policy. There are also apprehensions regarding substantial revenue losses on account of the tax concessions provided under the SEZ Act. In view of this, a review of the current SEZ Act and Rules is urgently required. The relevant issues along with some suggested corrective steps are elaborated below, which the Government should consider.

Address the Land Question

A major difference between the Indian SEZ Policy and that of China, which had pioneered the creation of SEZs, is on the question of land. In the Chinese case, the State acquired the land and developed the required infrastructure, where private enterprises were invited to set up units. The land continued to be owned by the State. In the Indian case, private entities are being involved in developing the SEZ infrastructure. Land is being acquired by the State and handed over to private developers. Some of the proposed SEZs involve huge tracts of land, over 10000 hectares in some cases. If private entities are allowed to own such huge tracts of land, it would amount to the reestablishment of the zamindari system sixty years after independence. This is totally unacceptable.

Moreover, a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the SEZs, especially the giant-sized ones, from the point of view of rehabilitation and livelihood security of the displaced people, diversion of agricultural land and its implications for food security, the nature of urbanisation, usage of power and water and environmental impact assessment, is necessary before approving these projects. While land is a State subject and the cost-benefit analyses have to be undertaken by the State Governments before approving the SEZ proposals, the Central Government also needs to take a view on the important issues related to land acquisition, ownership and use. The following measures are suggested:

(a) There should be no transfer of land ownership to the private developer. Private developers should only be allowed to take land on lease or build the infrastructure on a BOT basis. Moreover, the Board of Approval for SEZs at the Centre should only consider those proposals, which have been duly approved by the State Governments.

(b) The Central Government should set an appropriate ceiling on the total land area under a SEZ, which can be developed by a private entity. In Section 5(2) of the SEZ Rules only minimum land area requirements for the different classes of SEZs have been mentioned. The maximum land area also needs to be specified here. Private entities should not be allowed possession or control of land beyond the stipulated ceiling.

(c) SEZs whose land area exceeds the specified ceiling should only be developed by the State (Public Enterprises of the Central or State Governments). The State can undertake Joint Ventures in developing such SEZs; but in such cases majority stake should lie with the public sector. Selection of the private developers in the case of Joint Ventures should be made in a transparent manner.

(d) SEZs should be built on non-agricultural land and acquisition of agricultural land for the purpose of SEZs should be discouraged. A provision limiting the acquisition of agricultural land should be built into the SEZ Act itself.

(e) In case of displacement of farmers and other sections of people, it is important to ensure the livelihood security of the displaced families in addition to providing adequate compensation. The role of the Government in land acquisition should be geared towards protecting the interests of the people, especially the displaced families. The Government should frame a National Rehabilitation Policy, preferably through a Central legislation, in order to address the issues concerning rehabilitation of displaced families. Suitable amendments should also be made to the Land Acquisition Act in order to address these issues.

(f) A model compensation and rehabilitation criteria should be framed by the Central Government and included in the SEZ Rules, following consultation with the State Governments. It should be ensured that the current owners of land are awarded compensation in line with market prices taking into account the expectation of future land development. The suggestion that displaced families be given minor equity stakes in the companies floated for the purpose of building SEZs can be considered as an option. A provision must also be made to compensate those with long-term tenancy rights on the acquired land and farm labourers.

(g) The Government should urgently address the issue of unblocking and recycling of land and other assets of closed industrial units under liquidation. Data from the BIFR shows that recommendations for liquidation of 1254 private sector units, 31 Central PSUs and 41 State PSUs have already been sent to the High Courts. A fast track mechanism should be set up, by changing existing statutes if necessary, for unblocking the land of these closed units so that they can be made available for building SEZs or other industries.

Apply Appropriate Cap on Different Classes of SEZs

The initial cap of 150 on the total number of SEZs was later lifted by the Central Government. Since different classes of SEZs have been envisaged in the SEZ Rules, a cap on the total number of SEZs irrespective of its class and size makes little sense. However, if several large SEZs developed by private entities are allowed to come up in a few States, while many States do not receive any proposal from private developers, this will only aggravate regional imbalances. The RBI has also expressed concern on this issue in its latest Annual Report. It needs to be noted that the total number of SEZs in China stands at six only. Moreover, the proliferation of proposals for setting up IT SEZs is clearly an attempt to take advantage of tax breaks. There is an apprehension of existing units shifting over to SEZs, which will result in loss of revenue that presently accrues to the Government.

Therefore, there should be separate caps for the total number of multi-product and sector specific SEZs. This also provides a further case for fixing an appropriate ceiling on the land area of SEZs developed by private entities. The Central Government should consider setting up of SEZs through public investment in those States where private investment is not forthcoming. This is important from the point of view of regional balance. A cap on the number of IT SEZs should also be set keeping in mind the revenue considerations.

Revise the Criteria for Processing/Non-Processing Area

The purpose of setting up SEZs is to promote foreign and domestic investments and exports of goods and services. However, certain provisions in the SEZ Rules prepared by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry have opened up the possibility of misuse of the myriad exemptions provided by the SEZ Act, which could thereby fuel a real estate bubble. According to Section 6 of the SEZ Act: “The areas falling within the Special Economic Zones may be demarcated by the Central Government or any authority specified by it as- (a) the processing area for setting up Units for activities, being the manufacture of goods, or rendering services; or (b) the area exclusively for trading or warehousing purposes; or (c) the non-processing areas for activities other than those specified under clause (a) or clause (b).” The Central Government had therefore reserved the right to determine how much of the land area under a SEZ should be allowed as non-processing area.

According to Section 5(2) of the SEZ Rules, while at least 50% of the land area needs to be earmarked for developing processing area for sector specific SEZs, the minimum processing area requirement for multi-product SEZs is only 25%. It is noteworthy that while the minimum land area requirement for sector specific SEZs is 100 hectares, for multi-product SEZs it is 1000 hectares. Therefore, while a developer of a sector specific SEZ of 1000 hectares is required to develop at least 500 hectares of processing area, the developer of a 1000 hectares multi-product SEZ is required to build only 250 hectares of processing area. This is a clear anomaly.

The processing area of SEZs should not be less than 50%. Further, 25% of the non-processing area should be dedicated for infrastructure development. Building of residential and commercial complexes should be permitted over 25% of the total land area. The SEZ Rules should be suitably amended in this regard.

Regulate Land Use within SEZ Area

There are certain provisions contained in the SEZ Rules, which have given rise to apprehensions regarding misuse of the SEZ Policy. For instance, Section 5(4) of the SEZ Rules state that “The Developer or Co-Developer shall have at least twenty-six percent of the equity in the entity proposing to create business, residential or recreational facilities in a Special Economic Zone in case such development is proposed to be carried out through a separate entity or a special purpose vehicle being a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956.” However, no guidelines have been provided for the creation of such facilities, either in terms of land use or other essential regulatory parameters of such real estate development. The RBI has recently raised the interest cost of credit for real estate development in the SEZs. In keeping with such an approach, there is a need to regulate real estate development within the SEZs.

The SEZ rules have to clearly lay down norms for the development of infrastructural facilities by private developers within the SEZs, in terms of what is permissible and what is not. The role of the SEZ Authority and the Development Commissioner in this regard needs to be categorically defined. Most importantly, the SEZ Rules should contain a Land Use Plan for the giant SEZs. The issue of housing facilities for the workers in the giant SEZs have to be concretely addressed. Wherever residential complexes would be permitted within the SEZs, they should be built not only for the management and the white-collared employees but also for the workers. A situation where lakhs of workers of the SEZ units would be forced to stay outside the SEZ area leading to a proliferation of shantytowns in neighbouring areas should not be allowed to arise.

Review Tax Concessions

The revenue implications of the tax holidays being given under the SEZ Policy have to be seriously considered. According to media reports, internal estimates of the Finance Ministry suggest a revenue loss of Rs 1,75,487 crore against an estimated investment of Rs 3,60,000 crore. While these projected estimates are based upon certain assumptions, the issue cannot be brushed aside by saying that these revenue losses are “notional”, as the Minister for Commerce and Industry has done in the Parliament. In a context where subsidies on food, fuel and fertiliser are being whittled down and the social welfare schemes promised in the NCMP being either underfunded or abandoned by the UPA Government citing resource constraints, the justifiability of the tax largesse to big business under the SEZ Policy needs to be thoroughly debated. Through the Note on Resource Mobilization submitted to the UPA Government-Left Coordination Committee in January this year, the Left parties had suggested that the Government should revisit the tax concessions under the SEZ Policy. Unfortunately, this has not been considered so far.

Given the concerns expressed from different quarters with regard to revenue loss, tax concessions in some areas in Chapter VI of the SEZ Act, under the “Special Fiscal Provisions for Special Economic Zones” need to be reconsidered by the Government:

(a) While customs and excise duty exemptions for units within the SEZs can be understood as measures to ensure price competitiveness of exports, the case for providing 100% exemption from income tax on profits for the first 5 years and 50% for the next 5 years by modifying the Income Tax Act, as has been provided in the Second Schedule of the SEZ Act, does not seem to be persuasive. Such fiscal incentives for new units, if it is to be given at all, should not be for more than 2 years, as was done in the case of Chinese SEZs. Income tax concessions for a period longer than 2 years should only be provided for the reinvested portion of profits, and that too only for a maximum of five years.

(b) Chapter VI of the SEZ Act provides for similar exemptions, drawbacks and concessions for the entrepreneurs setting up units within the SEZ and the developers of the SEZ. Thus private developers will be able to derive tax benefits without contributing to exports. The positive net foreign exchange earning requirement, specified in Chapter VI of the SEZ rules, is only valid for units within the SEZs and not the developers. Therefore the developers and the entrepreneurs should not be treated on par as far as tax exemptions and concessions are concerned. Fiscal incentives for developers, if they have to be provided at all, should be separately specified and should be considerably lesser than the ones provided for the entrepreneurs for income tax as well as customs and excise duties.

(c) Exemption from Service Tax has been granted to the developers in a Special Economic Zone in the SEZ Act. Moreover, units in the International Financial Services Centre and Offshore Banking Units have been given income tax exemptions equivalent to those of other units in the SEZs. Securities transactions entered into by non-residents through the International Financial Services Centre under a SEZ have also been exempted from the Securities Transaction Tax. These policies will simply encourage investors, including in financial services, to move from other locations in India to SEZ areas, with no benefit to the economy and substantial revenue loss. These exemptions, which are unrelated to exports, should not be granted.

(d) Section 50 of the SEZ Act state: “The State Government may, for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of this Act, notify policies for Developers and Units and take suitable steps for enactment of any law: - (a) granting exemption from the State taxes, levies and duties to the Developer or the entrepreneur”. Thus the SEZ Act empowers the State Governments to take decisions related to exemptions of State taxes. However, Section 5(5) of the SEZ rules state that “Before recommending any proposal for setting up of a Special Economic Zone, the State Government shall endeavor that the following are made available in the State to the proposed Special Economic Zone Units and Developer, namely: - (a) exemption from the State and local taxes, levies and duties, including stamp duty, and taxes levied by local bodies on goods required for authorized operations by a Unit or Developer, and the goods sold by a Unit in the Domestic Tariff Area except the goods procured from domestic tariff area and sold as it is; (b) exemption from electricity duty or taxes on sale, of self generated or purchased electric power for use in the processing area of a Special Economic Zone”. In effect, the SEZ Rules have imposed the granting of tax and duty concessions upon the State Governments, which is not in keeping with the spirit of the Act. Either this rule has to be amended or the Central Government should fully compensate the State Governments on the loss of revenue on account of these tax and duty exemptions.

(e) The granting of duty concessions to goods sold by a Unit to the Domestic Tariff Area should not be permitted, since such concessions are intended only for exports. This will imply major diversion of productive activities away from the Domestic Tariff Area to the SEZ, with substantial revenue loss for both the Central and State Governments.

Protect Worker’s Rights

Section 5(5) (e), (f) and (g) of the SEZ Rules asks the State Governments to delegate powers under the Industrial Disputes Act to the Development Commissioner and to declare SEZs as Public Utility Services. These are incompatible with the SEZ Act, which does not contain any such provision. Such deviations of the SEZ Rules from the parent Act have to be corrected. The ILO recommendation regarding separation of powers between the Development Commissioner of an Export Processing Zone and the Grievance Redressal Officer should be seriously considered in this regard.

Prevent Enclaves of Speculative Finance

The provision for setting up Offshore Banking Units and International Financial Services Centres within the SEZS needs to be qualified. While the need for efficient financial intermediation and credit delivery for the purpose of industrial and export promotion within the SEZs is understandable, utmost care has to be taken to ensure that these financial entities do not develop as tax havens for speculative finance capital. There is no need for providing tax breaks for the financial entities within the SEZs. All financial activities should be within the regulatory ambit of the RBI and subject to the same tax provisions regardless of whether their offices are physically located within the SEZ or the Domestic Tariff Area. Moreover, the RBI needs to ensure that the financial activities permitted within the SEZs are strictly related to the economic activities within the zone.

Amend SEZ Act and Rules

The suggestions made above involve several amendments to the SEZ Act and the SEZ Rules. The Left Parties believe that unless these changes are brought about, the SEZ Policy would degenerate into a free for all, which would have serious consequences. The UPA Government should therefore initiate a Review of the SEZ Act at the earliest with a view of making appropriate amendments. Amendments to the SEZ Rules can be made consequent to the Amendment of the Act. The Board of Approval should stop granting fresh approvals until the completion of the Review process. The changes suggested in the Land Acquisition Act and the formulation of a National Rehabilitation Policy, preferably through the passage of a Central legislation, should also be considered on an urgent basis.

SEE ALSO:

http://development-dialogues.blogspot.com/2007/04/sezs-for-whom-facts-and-figures.html