Buddhadeb promises industry at Singur

http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/11/stories/2011041156421200.htm
Special Correspondent

— PHOTO: PTI

West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee being greeted by an elderly woman during an election campaign meeting in Kolkata on Sunday.

KOLKATA: Reasserting the Left Front government's commitment to industrialisation in West Bengal for opening up job opportunities, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee vowed on Sunday to set up industry at Singur from where the Tata Motors' small car project was relocated in October, 2008 in the face of a prolonged agitation led by the Trinamool Congress.

Addressing a meeting of Left workers in the Jadavpur area, from where he is seeking re-election to the Assembly, Mr. Bhattacharjee said the relocation of the Nano project had been costly for the State, but “that would not stop the setting up of factories in West Bengal.”

“When the eighth Left Front government takes over I will set up a factory at Singur which will be among the largest in the State,” he said.

“We will then see if they [the Trinamool] have the courage to resist it,” he said, while asserting that the next Left Front government would not tolerate moves to obstruct the setting up of industry.

Food security

Mr. Bhattacharjee reiterated that the Left Front government would continue with its work towards consolidating the agricultural successes achieved in the past and ensuring food security for all, even as it took forward its plans for more industrial growth.

He pointed out that his government had made no mistake in initiating the industrialisation drive which was essential for the State. Nearly 27 lakh youth were studying in various educational institutions in the State and they expect to be employed. This was only possible with the setting up of more factories.

No child's play

The Chief Minister, who has been ridiculing the call for “change” by the Opposition, said it was not “child's play.” People were well aware who would take the State forward and know which political dispensation, if it came to power, would spell doom for West Bengal.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, travelling in an open-hooded jeep, waved out at people lining the streets and shook hands with some, even as hundreds, holding aloft flags of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and chanting slogans in support of him and the Left Front, marched down the roads and lanes criss-crossing the Jadvapur area in the southern fringes of the city.

He spent several hours in the morning and evening on the campaign trail there.

In the Thakurpukur-Behala area, a massive ‘padayatra' was taken out by Left Front workers and supporters in which Biman Bose, chairman of the Left Front committee and the State secretary of the CPI(M) participated.

Centre asks states not to touch agriculture land

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/Centre-asks-states-not-to-touch-agriculture-land/articleshow/5241614.cms

To avoid future confrontation with farmers over land acquisition for industrial purposes, the Centre has asked state governments to work on creation of an industrial land bank of available waste and fallow lands, leaving aside productive agricultural land.

At the first conference of state industry ministers in New Delhi, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma proposed that the Centre and the state should work together on preparation of guidelines for creation of the land bank.

“Farmers should not be victims of industrialisation. They should be partners in the process,” Mr Sharma said in his address to state ministers.

Interestingly, industry ministers from Bihar, West Bengal and Orissa—the states that have witnessed a lot of local agitation over land acquisition by states for industrial purposes—were not present at the meeting, though they were represented by senior officials.

Arcelor Mittal’s proposed projects for setting up steel plants in Orissa and Jharkhand and Korean steel major Posco’s plans of entering Orissa are held up due to land acquisition problems. Tata had to shift its base for manufacture of its budget car Nano from West Bengal to Gujarat due to agitation by farmers in Singur.

Some states (like Tamil Nadu) have established good practices in respect of planned industrialisation which merit consideration by other states. The minister added that attractive relief and rehabilitation package have to given to people whole land is acquired for industrial purpose.

“Use of farm land for industrial projects should be the last resort,” he said.

Speaking to ET, minister of industry from Madhya Pradesh Kailash Vijayvargiya pointed out that creating a land bank was a good idea and his state was already working on it. “We have already created a land bank and want to work on it further,” he said.

The idea behind the state industry ministers conference, which will now be held annually, is for the Centre and states to come together and jointly sort out problems to make India an attractive destination for investors, both domestic and foreign, Mr Sharma said.

According to DIPP estimates, India would attract FDI worth $50 billion by 2012 which could go up to $100 billion by 2017. If the Centre and states can work in tandem to remove hurdles, it will not be difficult to achieve the target, Mr Sharma said.

Farming and industry

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090512/jsp/frontpage/story_10952011.jsp

Maa, mati, manush: Sounds nice but not for son who won’t farm

DEVADEEP PUROHIT

Calcutta, May 11: Maa, mati, manush-er lorai (The battle for land, which people treat as their mother). If it were merely a slogan Mamata Banerjee had grabbed to massage the Bengali mind that moistens at the mention of Mother and Mother Earth, it would be quite harmless. But in the backdrop of Nandigram and Singur, it is threatening to acquire a legitimacy enabling its supporters to assume the moral high ground in this election and beyond. The argument is that farmland cannot be taken to build factories — a point Mamata keeps hammering in rally after rally to huge applause, though her ostensible opposition is to acquisition by force. “What will the farmer do if land is forcibly taken away?” she asks, playing on emotions. The jump from emotion to economics is but a baby step in politics: that the fertile land of Bengal enables farmers to grow three to four crops a year and takes care of their livelihood. If it were so, why would 45.5 per cent of Bengal farmers dislike what they do against around 40 per cent nationally (Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector, prepared by the Arjun Sengupta committee)? Why would a farmer’s son then not want to be a farmer? Mukul Molla’s family owns over 35 bighas in Shalpukur gram panchayat of South 24-Parganas. “I don’t want to soil my hands in the fields. I have a small medicine store and I want to make it bigger,” says the youth. “Most of my friends also don’t want to be farmers.” The report says that the rising cost of cultivation, low prices for farm produce, high risk of frequent crop failure, declining agricultural growth and mounting debts have plunged the farmer into a state of distress. Economists say the crisis is deeper in Bengal because over 65 per cent of its cultivators are small and marginal farmers who have less than two hectares. “Marginal and small farmers cannot make their ventures viable,” says S.D. Tendulkar, the chairman of the Prime Minister’s economic advisory council. In other words, the absence of an alternative to agriculture keeps farmers in perpetual poverty. Seen from this point of view, the cry of battle for land could sound like a fight to keep things as they are. A sharp rise in the number of people leaving agriculture in search of other vocations bears proof of the lack of profitability of farming. Between the 1991 and the 2001 censuses, the share of cultivators and agricultural labourers among main workers (who have work more than 183 days a year) fell by up to 10 per cent . Although green rice fields may inspire Mamata to take up the paintbrush, they hardly symbolise the well-being of rural Bengal. Nominal per capita consumption expenditure, a measure of purchasing power, in rural Bengal is among the lowest in the country . “If the rest of the economy is growing at 7 to 8 per cent whereas agricultural growth can at best be 4 per cent, this is bound to happen. Unless the proportion of people dependent on agriculture goes down, the situation will get even worse,” says Planning Commission member Abhijit Sen. Ratan Khasnabis of the department of management in Calcutta University says foodgrain production growth dropped from 6.9 per cent in the eighties to 2.4 per cent in the nineties in Bengal. The result is the high incidence of rural poverty with around 27 per cent of the people living below the poverty line, which can be countered through productivity increase, diversification of agriculture and creation of jobs outside farms. “But if all field-based development projects are made into a law-and-order issue, we can’t go anywhere,” says a professor of economics at the Indian Statistical Institute. He speaks of the need to expand the Calcutta-Siliguri road, which can spur the rural economy along the route. “Land has to be acquired for this purpose but given the situation in Bengal, that is a tricky issue,” he adds. In the face of threats of unrest, the government has slammed the brakes on the proposed 84km Barasat-Raichak road, running through North and South 24-Parganas. Better infrastructure usually acts as a growth stimulant, giving farmers access to markets, among other things. Mamata claims she is not against industrialisation and development. Her suggestion to use non-agricultural land in districts like Bankura and Purulia and unlock the real estate lying unused in closed industrial units sounds sensible but is hard to implement. Freeing the land of closed factories is a lengthy process, not under the control of the state government. Shifting all industries to Bankura and Purulia has the potential to kick up a fresh round of problems. “You need proper roads to shift all proposed industrial ventures to Bankura and Purulia. To lay roads leading to the two districts land needs to be acquired and that will again be a problem. Then, there will be a problem with the tribal population there, who will have to be displaced,” explains Sen. Latest estimates suggest less than 2 per cent land in Bengal is non-cultivable, which makes decisions on locating new industrial units a difficult task. “There may be problems but the government has to discuss these issues with us. But the problem with the government is they don’t consult us,” says Trinamul’s Partha Chatterjee, who is optimistic that maa-mati-manush will fetch the party more MPs. His charge that the government doesn’t talk with the Opposition is not always true. In Katwa, where the state — and not any private entrepreneur — wants to build a power plant, all parties were called for talks but Trinamul didn’t turn up. Making Purulia and Bankura the sole destination for industries is also laden with the danger of uneven development. Some of these problems could have been bypassed had the government created a land bank or tried to find an answer to the trap of small landholdings and low productivity, ironically a result of its much-acclaimed land reforms. Land reform was almost the first thing the Left did after assuming power in 1977. The bankruptcy of ideas became evident following that. So far, there is nothing to suggest Mamata has any policy measures lined up beyond maa-mati-manush. Given the lack of ideas, it may be a blessing for her that she doesn’t risk being foisted on the seat of power at least until 2011. Agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan says the only solution is a proper land-use policy. “Non-farm income has to be increased for better livelihood of the people. A proper land-use policy is the most prudent way to meet that objective.” It is possible to have all the policies in the world — and all very proper — and still not get anywhere until you find a policy against sheer cussedness.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090512/jsp/bengal/story_10951934.jsp

Farmers vote for industry

OUR CORRESPONDENT

Durgapur, May 11: The government will acquire within two months 500 acres from farmers in Burdwan who had themselves offered their single-crop land for industrialisation two years ago. When the district administration issued a notification for the acquisition recently, none of them raised any objection. In a newspaper ad yesterday, it announced the decision to take over the 500 acres. Around 3,000 acres will be gradually acquired for an industrial complex in Ausgram and Kanksa blocks of Burdwan, about 200km from Calcutta. “We’ll verify the ownership documents within the next two months and announce the compensation package,” said additional district magistrate (land acquisition) Asim Bhattacharya. While pledging their land for industry in a memorandum submitted to district magistrate Manish Jain in June 2007, the farmers had sought a job for every landloser family besides cash. Samsuddin Biswas, 62, who owns over three acres, said he did not want his two science graduate sons to become farmers. “I did not pay for their studies to make them farmers. It will be better if they get jobs in the factories that would come up.” He was among those who had petitioned the administration for the industrial complex. “We are happy that the government has finally decided to set it up here,” Biswas added. District officials said the administration had held nine all-party meetings to gauge the mood on the ground and the possible compensation package before issuing the acquisition notice, but Trinamul Congress representatives attended only one of them. The party’s Durgapur president, Prabhat Chatterjee, declined comment. Only about 50km away, in Burdwan’s Katwa where a 1,000MW power plant had been planned, Trinamul leaders also skipped all-party meetings and later fanned anti-acquisition protests. The government has managed to acquire only 350 acres of the 1,000-odd required. In Andal, not far away, the party is resisting acquisition for a Rs 10,000-crore airport and city. However, Ausgram and Kanksa are known to be CPM bastions. Kohinoor Ganguly, a member of the Ausgram II panchayat samiti who had represented the party at the meetings, said everyone there had agreed to the hub. “We had discussed compensation between Rs 8 lakh and Rs 10.8 lakh an acre. Surveys have been carried out to find out how many youths were eligible for jobs and vocational training.”

The State And Its Step Children

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=cr110409the_state.asp

India’s industrialisation has played havoc with its poor. An alternative suggests steps for inclusive growth

MEDHA PATKAR & AMIT BHADURI

POSING THE RIGHT QUESTION

One of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, Wittgenstein warned us how language can mislead and trap our thoughts. We are reminded far too often of this warning when we are dubbed as anti-development, antiindustrialisation, romantic environmentalists, because in most people’s mind, industrialisation conjures the image of sophisticated manufactured goods, highly mechanised heavy industries, large IT parks with imposing infrastructure or world class cities, airports and luxury apartments. While the toiling masses seldom figure in this image, the beneficiaries do, as the rich consumers of these goods and the relatively fortunate skilled workers who are absorbed in these enterprises.

We have aimed at this form of industrialisation since Independence and have switched to a fast track in recent decades. And yet, India has remained an overwhelmingly ‘poor’ country. Three out of four Indians have a purchasing power of not more than Rs 20 per day. At the same time, a large percentage of our population still lives on common natural resources like land, water, rivers, forest and fish. Their vast manpower receives neither value nor value additions for their ‘natural’ yet critical investment. If we have to think of industrialisation in democratic India, we cannot simply ignore this majority of our citizenry and their potential. The right question to ask, therefore, is not whether to industrialise or not, but industrialise for whom and how?

DEVELOPMENT DISCONTENT AND RESISTANCE

This question explains why tensions over policies of land acquisition and displacement in the name of industrialisation, Special Economic Zones or mining are gathering furious momentum across the country. Those who are dispossessed hardly figure as direct and major beneficiaries of industrialisation, and yet, they bear a disproportionate burden. Although dalits and adivasis, the poorest and most oppressed, constitute about one fourth of the population, they are estimated as more than half of the people dispossessed of their land, livelihood and habitats. It is said that capitalism is a process of ‘creative destruction.’ When destruction systematically targets the poor and their life-supporting natural resource base only to create wealth for the rich, the dispossessed see no possibility of benefiting from industrialisation for generations, and the process is resisted. ‘Industrialisation’ has come to conjure images of world class cities where toiling masses seldom figure

Today, the sign of destruction looms nowhere larger than in agriculture. India is dying rather than living in her villages. A farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes. The extremist political resistance has gained ground at least in one fourth of the landmass at the very heart of the country. Millions who are in these local struggles and peoples’ movements, over apparently diverse yet linked issues, are beginning to shape a new politics. All natural resources such as land, water, forest, including private property and that which used to be common property indispensable for people’s survival, are being forcibly acquired by the state to be handed over to the Tatas, the Ambanis, POSCO, Coca-Cola, mining giants and others. This is often under the veil of non-transparent deals. When recently the Gram Sabha in Kathikund, Jharkhand refused to hand over land in the name of development, two adivasis were killed in a police firing. Others were wounded and jailed. The systematic onslaught by liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation is being reinforced by the direct violence of the State to dispossess millions who live traditionally on a natural resource base. These poor populations are now condemned and continuously bulldozed for being poor in the name of some ‘illegality’ or ‘encroachment’ defined by the expropriators themselves. This results in the abandoning of existing rural forms of ‘manufacturing,’ including agriculture, horticulture, pisiculture, cottage and small scale industries. If we want to understand the motive for such dogmatic discrimination, it has to be linked to the process by which India created so many billionaires so swiftly, with political corruption in high places.

THE GLOBAL RACE

India, we are told, is a winner in the global economic race, which is being propelled by money and a market economy. A large section of our agrarian economy is unable to participate effectively in it; instead they are literally looted in a game with unfamiliar rules. Industrialisation is exceptionally generous to a small minority that is accumulating enormous wealth and buying and taking over communities, even civilisations. The victims are marginalised, left illiterate and undernourished, dispossessed of resources and any steady source of livelihood. At the most, some of the victims will live on bureaucratic charity, supported by meagre social security and an employment guarantee for 100 out of 365 days, which seldom creates productive capital. They would be incapable of participating — let alone competing — in the global market.

AN ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRIALISATION

An alternative has emerged, and peoples’ movements need to crystallise around it. It could turn our weakness into a strength by starting at the most vulnerable points of our economy. The alternative way of industrialising would involve the poor and illiterate, who constitute the skilled and semi-skilled labour force, in their traditional environment. Through a productive full-employment programme, they could become a propelling force for the creation and distribution of wealth. Existing livelihoods would not be destroyed in this process without people’s consent, and would ensure that they can have not just a habitat but also an alternative livelihood. In the present Indian context this means that industry should come up on vacant and uncultivable land, while productivity of cultivable land should be increased. Decentralised, efficient and participatory management of land, water and tree-cover with human power can achieve this. Industries can be labour intensive, producing on a small scale with more direct market linkages

We have to start by extending the employment guarantee scheme everywhere — urban and rural areas at a minimum uniform wage, for 300 days a year, available on demand.

With work opportunities conceived by the communities through innovative plans aimed at fulfilling basic needs within a short radius of the village centers, this alternative industrialisation would be characterised by labour-intensive technology, small scale of production by masses and maximum direct linkage between consumer and producer. The large projects, enterprises and heavy industries considered essential would need the consent of the community, compliance with social and environmental rules, justice with both labourers and landinvestors and economic viability without seeking maximum profit. The guidelines would be environmental sustainability, equity and justice monitored by wider institutions and agencies, who would work with unit tiers like the present Panchayati Raj, with suitable amendments to draw units on the basis of the eco-system boundaries.

IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS

Without consensus, plans would be neither accepted nor effectively implemented by the people. The precondition is decentralisation and transfer of power to the lowest level of elected local government, in the true spirit of Panchayati Raj. Mere political pronouncements, not backed by real intention, cannot deliver. Neither the Centre nor the states have been enthusiastic about giving full autonomy of decision-making or even little financial autonomy to the local governments. The legal first step is to actualise the 73rd Amendment with the help of Article 243 of the Constitution. The legal framework exists, but mainstream political parties would rather see our countryside in crisis than give up control to the people. Only irresistible peoples’ movements will make it a reality. Our focus must shift from external to internal markets that constitute local economies to reduce poverty

The cost of such an employment programme works out approximately six to seven percent of the GDP. We must afford this as the highest priority, increasing the Central Government budget deficit as and when necessary, by doing away with the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act. The funds would be held in a separate account in nationalised banks and provide credit lines to local governments or panchayats without interference from Central and state governments. The mechanism for supervision would be a checks and balance system between banks and the panchayats with a compatible incentive scheme.

THE CONTENT OF GROWTH AND INTERNAL MARKETS

This way of industrialisation would produce a large range of goods and services for the local market created through a purchasing power generated locally in the hands of the poor. This is the route through which the poor, rejected by today’s industrialisation, would enter the larger economy with dignity as both producers and consumers. The composition of our national output would change as we put the internal market, constituting many local economies and populated by the poor, at centerstage. The composition of output produced in this manner at the local level would be much less intensive in its use of natural resources. No big dams or ruthless exploitation of natural resources would be needed to provide electricity and minerals to benefit the nexus of contractors, industrialists and politicians. To reduce the pace of mad urbanisation that sucks enormous natural resources for a handful of rich, by dispossessing the poor and forcing migration to cities, is a related task which only this alternative can achieve. The domestic rather than the external market must occupy the centre of economic policy, with the purchasing power rising at a faster rate at the bottom than at the top of income distribution, and the market used by the poor for local exchanges to suit their needs and priorities. There are isolated experiments where local use of skills and resources have successfully withstood corporate competition.

TIME FOR A NEW BEGINNING

We live in a time when both centralised planning and corporate industrialisation have visibly failed. Even the workforce of the organised sector (less than 10 percent) feels increasingly insecure. The faith in existing paradigms is deeply shaken. The conventional politics of trying to capture centralised power by any means of democracy without trusting the creativity of the people has rendered both the right and the left political parties without legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The time is ripe for a new beginning.

Medha Patkar is founder-convenor of NAPM Amit Bhaduri is Professor Emeritus at JNU, Delhi

Land Acquisition and Industrialisation in West Bengal : Report of a Workshop

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article205.html

by Arup Kumar Sen

Saturday 7 July 2007

The land acquisition drive of the Left Front Government for promoting industries is at present the most controversial public issue in West Bengal. Recently (on April 20), the Centre for Studies in Social Science, Calcutta, organised a one-day workshop on the topic: Agriculture to Industry: The Problem of Transformation.

In his opening remarks, Sugata Marjit, the present Director of the Centre, made it clear that the “CSSSC has no institutional and official position on the policy of industrialisation as far as the present Left Front Government is concerned”. He also opined that the question of industrialisation should be judged academically, not politically.

Kalyan Sanyal’s deliberation—Industrialisation in West Bengal: Some Inescapable Questions—raised critical questions about the government’s policy of industrialisation. He argued that the rhetoric of industrialisation used in the government campaign has been picked up from undergraduate textbooks of economics. He criticised the government for this casual approach to industrialisation which would displace thousands of people.

Sanyal further stated that agriculture did fairly well in West Bengal upto the mid-1990s in terms of production. After that, the cost of production went up because of withdrawal of subsidies but the prices of agricultural products did not go up. There are indications that for small and marginal farmers land is no longer viable in West Bengal. And a sizeable number of peasants having pattas sold their land in recent years. But, because of land ceiling regulations, small peasants are buying and selling lands among themselves, stated Sanyal.

Sanyal accepted the need for industrialisation in West Bengal, but he expressed his dissatisfaction about the government policy. He argued that no calculation has been made by the government about the net employment to be created through its proposed industries. He pointed out that the government talks about the linkage effect of industrialisation, but is silent about the loss of agriculture-related occupations. When asked about the alternative path of industrialisation, Sanyal stated that a sizable number of people have got employment in the non-farm sector in West Bengal in recent times without any government effort. So, one has to know the possibilities of alternative employment. He highlighted the need for a sound compensation policy in case of land acquisition keeping in mind the complexities of land tenure in West Begnal. He cited the case of Singur to show the limits of cash compensation to farmers because loss of land implies loss of source of livelihood and makes life vulnerable.

Surajit C. Mukhopadhyay discussed the interface between politics and economy in his paper—The Politics of Land Acquisition in West Bengal. He stated at the outset that after coming to power in 1977 the Left Front Government took a series of land reform measures within the constitutional framework. The process of land reforms led to politicisation of the peasantry. But, by the mid-1980s, land reforms became stagnant, argued Mukhopadhyay.

Mukhopadhyay revisited the land acquisition question in the context of South Bengal. He argued that South Bengal’s density of population is very high and that led to fragmentation of holdings. Though the fertility of land is high in this part of Bengal, because of rise in input costs peasants just do subsistence farming and do not opt for multiple cropping. Mukhopadhyay claimed that because of the poor state of affairs in agriculture in this region, out-migration to other Indian States in search of livelihood is gaining momentum.

Having interviewed landowners-cum-cultivators in Hooghly, Mukhopadhyay and his team came to the conclusion that 14 per cent of the farmers did not want their next generations, who have education, to pursue farming because cultivation no longer pays. He said that during his teaching career in Burdwan University some years back he also came to know about the dismal conditions of agriculture from students coming from cultivator families.

Though Mukhopadhyay more or less supported the industrialisation venture of the government, he confessed that there is tremendous middle-class pressure on the government and that it has to take care of middle-class aspirations as the representative of a multi-class social formation.

ABHIRUP SARKAR’S paper—Development versus Displacement: Story of Land Acquisitions in West Bengal—was concerned with the associated problems of industrialisation. He argued that the theoretical literature on development economics has largely ignored the problems of land acquisition for industrialisation. He observed in this connection that around one lakh acres of land planned to be acquired by the government for industries represent a small fraction of 14 million acres of cultivated land in West Bengal. So, this will not pose a major problem of food security in the State. He also hinted at the possibility of increasing the average size of landholdings by shifting people to industry on the assumption that the latter will sell their land to the remaining landholders.

Sarkar argued that the government violated property rights during land reforms by confiscating land and transferring land to the landless people. Now, the same government is doing so by transferring land from small farmers to rich investors. In the light of fragmentation of landholding in West Bengal, Sarkar argued that the transaction cost will be very high if the industrialists directly acquire land from the landholders. Ideally speaking, argued Sarkar, the government can ensure fair price for the small farmers who cannot effectively bargain with a powerful buyer.

Sarkar raised the fundamental question as to whether West Bengal being a practising democracy can follow a path of coercion for land acquisition. He categorically stated that the Chinese path of industrialisation is not possible here. In China, land acquisition and industrial growth took place on the basis of secured property rights for investors and loosely defined rights for landowning farmers.

Sarkar argued that in the light of poor conditions of villages in West Bengal and non-profitability of agriculture, there is no alternative to industrialisation. But, he, criticised the government for the failure to develop infrastructure in rural Bengal and emphasised the need for a sound compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement policy. He noted in this context that a cost-benefit analysis of industrialisation is entirely missing in the policy statements of the government. He expressed his reservation about the fact that registered bargadars are getting only 25 per cent of sale proceeds in the land acquisition process whereas they are supposed to get 75 per cent of the produce under the barga system. He concluded by saying that the views of the people, who are losing their land and livelihood, should be given due recognition in the land acquisition policy of the government.

The last session of the workshop was a panel discussion. Alok Mukherjea blamed the West Bengal Government for carrying the land acquisition policy hastily without going through the process of trust-building. Anirban Chattopadhyay pointed the incompetence of the government in properly handling the crisis of agriculture. He suggested that the government had the option of developing cooperatives for the resurrection of agriculture. Gautam Gupta viewed the land acquisition problem to be basically a management problem and criticised the Opposition for politicising the issue for electoral gains. Ratan Khasnobis argued that the cost of transformation initiated by the government is being passed to the weaker sections of the population. Keeping in mind the recent violence connected with land acquisition, Anup Sinha stated categorically that even a single killing is a crime and should be condemned

The poor poetry of industrialisation

http://www.himalmag.com/2007/february/opinion1.htm

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) in wonderland.

by | Aditya Nigam

bilash rai

The West Bengal Chief Minister and the ruling Left Front (LF) government’s former poet-commissar, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, translator of Mayakovsky, is busy with another kind of poetry these days. He is transposing the ‘poetry’ of industrialisation – as it happened on the soil of England – onto the land called Bengal. Dazzled by the dreamworld of capital, Buddhadeb has been quick to shake off the shackles of his earlier convictions and seek aesthetic pleasure in his new role as the ‘Commissar of Industry and Progress’. For quite some time now, Bhattacharya has been trying to convince prospective investors to take the leftists at their word when they say they really are in favour of neo-liberal reforms: “We are realists and we know it’s either reform or perish.” Progress, he understands, entails the death of all that is archaic – revolutionary convictions and agriculture, for instance.

Rapid industrialisation is the only way forward, and Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are the quickest way to industrialise. The idea of SEZs has been directly imported into India – and indeed into West Bengal – from China, and from the neo-liberal’s point of view, such units are the important first step in the direction of the brave new world of capital. Eventually, these enthusiasts intend to extend to the entire country the facilities enjoyed by SEZs – tax holidays, exemption from labour laws, unrestricted import facilities, cheap land taken over from Adivasis and peasants, and the freedom of unrestrained exploitation of natural resources.

China is Bhattacharya’s immediate inspiration and justification; but alas, unlike in China, he has a democracy to deal with. The process of industrialisation that Bhattacharya and his party, the CPI(M), have initiated would be every bit as ruthless and violent as it is in China – but for this fact of democracy, which allows the peasants to manifest their resistance.

Thus it happened that on 1 December 2006, several thousand police and paramilitary troops descended on a small and obscure place, the name of which very few outside the state of West Bengal had heard of: Singur. They came to fence off an area of 997 acres of prime agricultural land in Hooghly District so that it could be handed over to the Tata conglomerate, who would establish on it a plant for the manufacture of cheap cars.

What happened in Singur revealed in a flash to all of rural Bengal the plan for the much advertised industrialisation programme: The peasants would be dispossessed at any cost to clear the way. The police fired teargas and rubber bullets at the protesting villagers. They were beaten up and their paddy harvests set on fire. For the peasants did not give up their land voluntarily.

The anger among the local population has been building up ever since the news of the Tatas’ plans for the factory reached Singur in May 2006, even as the newly-elected Left Front government was taking oath. As mass discontent became apparent, various smaller leftwing organisations, especially Naxalite groups and intellectuals, started becoming involved. The involvement of Medha Patkar, leader of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and the National Alliance of Peoples’ Movements (NAPM), helped draw attention to the issue, while the active championing of the cause of the peasants and sharecroppers by the Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee brought in the dimension of electoral calculus.

Weak wicket
The Bhattacharya government has been claiming that the acquisition process has been transparent and democratic, and that of the 997 acres required for the project, the consent of the owners had already been acquired for 952 acres by December. These owners – so claimed the LF government and the CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat – had not only given their consent, but were enthusiastically queuing up for the attractive cash compensation package. In a show that smacked of manipulation, the CPI(M) even got these villagers to set up an organisation to “support industrialisation”. Revealingly – and a trifle farcically – it was called ‘Pragatisheel Swechchha Jomi Bikreta, Shilpa Sthapan O Shahar Unnayan Committee (Committee of Progressive, Voluntary Land-Sellers, Supporters of Industrialisation and City Development)’. These people were apparently dying to give up their land at prices far below the market rate for the noble cause of industrialisation! Be the case of the ‘land-seller’ as it may, what about the animal called the sharecropper? What about the people who work the land but do not own it? What about those for whom the CPI(M) had in the early 1980s devised the well-known ‘Operation Barga’, to protect their tenure by means of registration? By the time Singur happened, however, the landless peasant/sharecropper had all but disappeared from CPI(M)’s horizon. When cornered, the party’s leaders said they had ensured that the landless would be given jobs in the factory. Given that all labour laws are null and void within an SEZ, it was left unclear how CPI(M) would ensure that the job guarantee would be affected.

Critics have pointed out that even government statistics show 333,372 hectares of fallow and 119,146 hectares of uncultivable land available in West Bengal, in addition to over 40,000 acres of land locked in mills and factories no longer functioning, which could be used for the purpose of setting up a new factory. Amitdyuti Kumar, vice-president of the Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), also refers to a memorandum submitted by the CPI(M) MP Santasri Chatterjee, president of the Hooghly District chapter of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions, to the local district magistrate, demanding use of such premises for the establishment of new industrial units.

Interestingly, Chatterjee’s memorandum also states that the Birlas were given 744 acres in 1948 in order to set up Hind Motors in the district, but that they only used 252 acres – 500 acres had remained unused for 58 years. Critics argue that automobile factories, including the Tatas’ own, do not need such large parcels of land. They also point out that, even by Tata Motors’ estimates, there is no way the project will generate more than 2000 jobs. Yet the number of people losing livelihoods, including sharecroppers, is likely to be in the region of 15,000.

The government’s claim that the Singur land is good only for single-crop cultivation, or that it is wasteland, has also been shown to be false. Most of the land concerned is fertile multi-crop land, and the government’s claims on the matter seem to be based on land records that have not been updated for decades. Noted leftwing historian Sumit Sarkar recently affirmed, after a visit to Singur, that most of the government’s claims are indeed highly questionable: neither was the process of acquisition democratic and transparent, nor was the claim that the land was single-crop correct.

Outsiders, insiders
Singur was still creating a stir when a major eruption occurred in the Nandigram area of East Midnapore District. Here, in early January, the villagers were up in arms, as news reached them of an order by the Haldia Development Authority, under which Nandigram falls, identifying land for acquisition in the preparation of two new SEZs in the area. One of these is to be set up by the Salim Group, an Indonesian multinational corporation that was at the centre of much controversy last year, as Buddhadeb had committed it 5000 acres of land without consultation with other government functionaries. The drastic amendments he proposed to existing laws in order to facilitate these acquisitions, however, were rejected by a unanimous vote of the state assembly.

The two SEZs in the Haldia area will involve much more land than did the Tatas’ venture – somewhat over 14,500 acres to begin with. As the leaked news reached Nandigram, panic set in and preparations were made on a war footing for the possible arrival of police and paramilitary forces, to implement the land acquisition. The rage of the population fell on the local CPI(M) cadres, who had to flee for their lives. An angry crowd also set the local party office on fire and put up roadblocks in the approaches to the village. Sumit Sarkar’s report on Singur laments that the word cadre has become a term of abuse in local parlance. The party’s response to this outburst was to mobilise more ‘cadres’ from neighbouring areas and to launch a pre-meditated counterattack in which at least six people were killed.

In the course of its troubles in Singur and Nandigram, the CPI(M) leadership needed a scapegoat by means of which to discredit the struggle against its policies. They found this in the figure of the ‘outsider’, a representation that encompasses anyone who is not directly affected by the land acquisitions. The outsider could be Medha Patkar, the local Naxalite activist, students or intellectuals from Calcutta, or even local activists of parties such as the Trinamool Congress and the Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI). This is a strange argument for the communists to make, given that not one of their unions in any factory could have been set up without the active support of people from ‘outside’. But more to the point, might one be pardoned for asking, Are the Tatas and the Salim group of industries ‘insiders’? Is Buddha Babu, who committed other people’s land to these companies against the will of the owners, an insider?

Though there is an apparent calm for the time being, the West Bengal countryside is simmering, and much will depend on whether Mr Bhattacharya and the CPI(M) are prepared to rethink their strategy of rapid industrialisation. Agriculture in its present form might not be the best option, but if the rationale behind industrialisation is that it will create more jobs, it is clearly misplaced. Does Buddha Babu have any other strategy in mind, and will he act on it before irreversible damage is done?

Jagirdari governance and the death of hope

http://www.himalmag.com/2008/january/spl_report_jagirdari.html


The recent events in Nandigram and Singur have brought to the fore widespread public anger. Many do not agree that industrialisation without employment guarantees is sound policy, and they are convinced that strong accountability needs to be re-integrated into the country’s system of governance.

By : Jayanta Bandyopadhyay



The current manner of democratic governance in Southasia came with the British, but did not depart with them. The countries that were under direct British rule inherited the institutions of governance, and continued to use them on the assumption that they offered the best option for democracy and independence. Thus, democratic governance of British origin continues with great gusto in India and Sri Lanka, while Pakistan and Bangladesh keenly await its reappearance in public life. Nepal and Bhutan, meanwhile, are trying to explore how their traditional monarchies can transcend to the Westminster model of parliamentary governance.

The democratic governance in the region, which also includes the world’s most impoverished areas, seems to have become a model for developing countries far and wide. With India becoming an economic giant whose gross domestic product is growing annually by nearly 10 percent, industrialisation has become its single most important economic strategy. In turn, the smaller Southasian countries marvel at the status of this big brother next door, and their politicians clamour for the same type of economic development and affluence that they find in India.

Against this backdrop has arisen what has by now become known as the Singur-Nandigram episode. Over the past several months, these two towns in West Bengal have become widely known for the ongoing local opposition to and conflicts over governmental attempts to acquire land for industries. In Singur, the incoming industry belonged to the Indian giant Tata; while in Nandigram, there was an initial proposal for the establishment of a special economic zone, though this was subsequently withdrawn following intense public protest.

Events in Singur and Nandigram reflect the growing dichotomy between government commitments to promote industrial growth at any cost, and the threat to the livelihoods of large numbers of citizens that would occur as a result of the acquisition of land for industry – the ability to do so, incidentally, is given by the Land Acquisition Act of 1984, also a legacy of British rule. At the core of the events in Singur and Nandigram, much of which were violent, lies the question of land. Indeed, the conflicts over land have been so intense that no serious question has been raised as to the nature of the industries in question, their products or their ownership status.

Corporate convergence
There is no hiding from the fact that economic growth in India has been distributed very unequally. The age-old ‘percolation’ theory, whereby benefits were assumed to ‘trickle down’ the social ladder, has largely hit the rocks, leading to the poor remaining marginalised from the social, economic and political processes. This applies across the Indian political spectrum, independent of the declared ideological status of the party in government. The rapid industrialisation being experienced in certain places in India indicates that an important convergence is taking place in the Indian polity. Whether in Gujarat, ruled by the rightist Bharatiya Janata Party, or in West Bengal, where for more than three decades parties claiming Marxist ideological roots have been in power, the same industries are being invited to set up shop. The investors are naturally happy with such a convergence of economic priorities, as chief ministers of Indian state after Indian state increasingly line up to invite them to set up industries. Unlike the earliest years of Jawaharlal Nehru, when industries ran after the leaders, the shots are now being called by the corporates.

The cases of land acquisition in Singur and Nandigram are not the largest of such land transfers currently going on in India, but surely they are the most discussed. In many other states, such acquisitions and transfers are being planned on much larger scales, and implemented with significantly more state aggression towards the landholding communities. Right now in Orissa, for instance, there is talk of the emergence of a new Nandigram-type resistance by local people. Thanks to the widespread discussion of the events at Singur and Nandigram, coupled with the deep involvement of non-party activists and common people, a rich discourse is now readily available. This can be of significant value in providing leads to modifying and restructuring democratic governance in India, as much as in providing more deep-rooted structures for democracy in other parts of Southasia.

Credit for much of this change should go to the non-party political process in West Bengal. On 14 November, this process was able to draw 100,000 people into the streets of Calcutta, to take part in a silent, peaceful march to register their protest against the violence being perpetrated by the police and ruling party cadres in Nandigram. From the state government’s secretariat, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee interpreted the violence and the subsequent entry of the cadres of his party in Nandigram as a positive achievement, and emphatically stated that the detractors of his party had been “paid back in their own coin”. Later, in a less convincing manner, he allowed that such a statement had not been particularly appropriate.

On 11 December 2007, in a leading daily from Calcutta, Bhattacharjee again repeated the oft-made statement that, even against the backdrop of Singur and Nandigram, there was no question of discontinuing the process of industrialisation in the state. Thus, any industry owned by anyone with significant money, and which produces anything that sells widely, automatically receives the highest priority in governmental policy. But a government run by Marxist parties is expected to promote industries in the public sector, promote a technological base emerging from national laboratories, and provide employment and produce goods that satisfy the basic needs of the people.

In the cases of Singur and Nandigram, the industries are private. While industries per se are described as inevitable, necessary in order to address widespread un- and underemployment, it is common knowledge that the technologies of today are not geared towards the generation of employment on any significant scale. There is no openly available documentation that the new phase of industrialisation in West Bengal would have any distributive impact on income. Indeed, the automation in the proposed Tata automobile plant is expected to guarantee the availability of very few jobs, and that too for a higher demographic category by far than the Nandigram peasantry. Somewhere along the way, we seem to have missed the distinction between industrialisation as a broad socio-economic and cultural process, and the mere expansion of private industries on land taken from poor farmers by the government.

Such disregard of public interest in industrialisation could be expected from governments of rightist parties. But the reality is that the left government in West Bengal has not been able to chart a different policy for industrialisation. The contradictions are exemplified by the fact that on the same day that Bhattacharjee was reiterating his commitment to industrialisation, another Calcutta daily carried a headline announcing that a vehicle belonging to the Kolkata Police, which is under Bhattacharjee’s charge, did not stop to attend to a road-accident victim, instead merely speeding away to leave him injured and bleeding.

After more than 55 years of democratic governance in India, the government commitment to industrialisation at any cost, and the widespread neglect of the basic needs of the poor, appear to have become the hallmark of the relationship between an ordinary person and the state. Anyone with knowledge of the poor in India’s villages knows that, even as an increasing number of expensive malls are being inaugurated in the cities, there is simultaneously a growing number of young children in India whose parents feel required to sell them off to get cash for food. Who said that the market economy has not touched the poor?

Overcoming ritualisation
The time has come to look for innovative new approaches to democratic governance. After 60 years of independence in large parts of the region, the institutions of governance appear to have undergone some important but informal changes. The rituals of institutions of representative democracy remain relevant only up to the point of election. Thereafter, however, the accountability of representatives has gradually disappeared, with politicians increasingly interpreting their roles less as lawmakers and more as rulers of the areas they represent. This reduces their constituencies to virtual jagirdaris – administrators traditionally appointed by emperors for specific areas – in which the independent-minded poor become victims of fear of private goons, or even the police.

In most Indian states, this jagirdari is taken up by individuals with known muscle power. But in West Bengal, not powerful individuals but cadres have often captured and retained areas under their flags, as was seen in Nandigram. This is described by the more sober individuals in the media as the ‘criminalisation’ of politics. No one says that this is the inevitable result of the ‘ritualisation’ of democratic governance as left by the British. Instead, this emerging jagirdari model of democracy fits in nicely with the pre-colonial political-cultural traditions of the region. Can we allow such a process to take us back to pre-colonial feudalism?
Such an erosion of the democratic process is experienced in all parts of Southasia, and social activists have made crucial contributions to raise popular awareness on such degradation of democratic governance. West Bengal is also fortunate in having a competent, informed governor in Gopal K Gandhi, who neither has a party background nor a vision truncated by narrow party interests. At the same time, the people of West Bengal, in particular the intellectuals, have proven to be alert against the continuous encroachment into the citizens’ space in policymaking. It is for this reason that the 100,000 non-party protestors who marched silently in Calcutta on 14 November succeeded in unnerving political parties of all colour.

The events in Singur and Nandigram are only the tip of the iceberg of a Southasia-wide malaise: the silent erosion of democratic governance and the marginalisation of the common citizens in the region, all of it conducted under an ostensibly ‘democratic’ process. The vast literature surrounding Singur and Nandigram cannot now be allowed to be used by political forces elsewhere to hide even larger land deals that are currently in the offing in other states. The widespread public debate around Singur and Nandigram needs to be understood as a signal from West Bengal that the people at large are not convinced that industrialisation without employment guarantee is a sound policy, and needs to be reassessed from a wider and popular perspective involving technology policy and choice of the mix of products. Indeed, the vehemence of these conversations emphasises that the citizens are currently very concerned about the marginalisation of the common people from governance, as well as the absence of accountability of the elected representatives. Democracy does not have a single unique form, and needs periodic restructuring to ensure that citizens are not deprived of their share of power in governance.

It is in this direction that the current widespread consciousness about Singur and Nandigram can be of seminal use for the people of Southasia as a whole. Democracy does not have any one specific operational format, and at various points various countries need to shape the functional structure of their particular form of democracy. In the case of Southasia, ensuring accountability of the people’s representatives, and stopping them from becoming jagirdars in their constituencies, are two of the main challenges.

With the prospects of Nepal coming out with a new Constitution, with Pakistan in the midst of a crisis over the identity of the Constitution, with people in India increasingly finding the present system of representation ineffective, a great opportunity is arising for the structuring and restructuring of democratic governance in the region.

Southasia will be able to remove its poverty and develop in fundamental ways only if jagirdari governance is kept out, and accountable, democratic governance is put in place. For this, there are several experimental steps. One can, for instance, try out proportional representation of parties, so that no individual can become the ruler of his or her constituency. Various levels of representation and distribution of power at different spatial units can also be tried, in order to ensure both honesty and efficiency. We all must remember that voting is not a sleeping pill that one takes periodically and that leads directly to good governance while the citizens rest peacefully. Rather, the future of Southasia depends on an innovative redesign of the equation between the political parties and the non-party political process. All of us need to join in this exercise, and bring an end to the hopelessness of the poor and marginalised millions in Southasia.

‘We are happy with the way things are in Singur’

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main27.asp?filename=Ne030307We_are_CS.asp

Having travelled on the ground, Shoma Chaudhury asked Ravi Kant, MD, Tata Motors, some hard questions on the company’s role in Singur. He fielded them all

AP Photo

We follow a Tata Code of Conduct. This translates into being fair and civic minded in all our projects

1) How do you read the situation in Singur? Has the government made mistakes? Have you made mistakes? Would you do some things differently if you had the chance now?

Ans: It is rather unfortunate that the entire project has been dragged into a political controversy. West Bengal was one of the states, which were keen to locate the plant. As you would be aware there has been de-industrialisation in the state for the last several decades, and the present government is keen for rapid re-industrialisation. The state government showed keenness to host the plant, rightly concluding that it will have a ripple effect of attracting greater investment for rapid industrialisation. Incidentally, we had the option of setting up the plant in some other states as well, where major encouragements are being offered by the Central Government.

We believe due process of law has been followed in acquiring the land. This has been confirmed by the High Court of Calcutta in its judgment of February 14. We also learn that the state government has announced compensation, and a huge majority of the affected people have already taken the compensation. Importantly, at Singur, dwelling units of the affected people are outside the acquired land and therefore they are not being displaced. The government had shown us several plots, including some in and around Kolkata, from which we chose the one which is most amenable to setting up the project based on several considerations. You would be aware that we have chalked out and have begun to implement a plan to integrate the community with the project. The plan includes providing training to enhance employability of people, supporting women in forming self-help groups to provide items and services relevant for the plants, and general community development. Panchayat leaders from Singur have visited our Jamshedpur plant have seen for themselves what can be achieved. Since the beginning of construction of the plant on January 21, hundreds from the local community are working on the site every day. We are confident that as the project progresses, people will begin to see even greater benefit. We are satisfied with our decision to locate the project in Singur – it will help in the revitalisation of the automotive industry in West Bengal.

Tata Motors has not used state force, or caused it to be used. We believe the local community is with us

2) Is there a Tata code of conduct in business? Are there any general practices, situations, unfair advantages other companies may be comfortable with, but you would like to remain disassociated from?

Ans: True to the tradition of the Tata Group, Tata Motors strictly adheres to the corporate governance principles practised by the Tata Group.

It translates into being fair and civic-minded, fulfilling its duties to the entire spectrum of stakeholders, and, most importantly, making integrity an article of faith across all its operations. These norms have been articulated in the 'Tata Code of Conduct', which guides the actions and decisions of the group's companies and employees. The ethics code in the Tata Group covers much more than financial dealings – it sets out the terms of transaction with customers, suppliers, vendors, shareholders, and above all the community. It has been the tradition of the Tata Group to ensure that its manufacturing centres and operations are beneficial to communities, among which they exist. A project plan, from the very beginning, is so conceived that it forges a bond with the community. This has been our principle for Singur too.

This can be amply demonstrated by visiting any of our plants, like Jamshedpur, Pune, or Lucknow.

3) There are many questions being raised about your project in Singur. Some seem very valid. Could you comment on them?

1) Given that the Tata Motors small car project is a private, profit making enterprise, why has the government been used as an intermediary?

Ans: We wish to point out that the land does not belong to the Tatas. The Government of West Bengal has acquired the land for the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC), which will lease it. The state government decided to follow this process, which we had no objection to. Every state we were talking to had committed to give us land either acquired or to be acquired by them. We do not see the acquisition by the West Bengal government as an exception or something special done for us.

2) Apparently the government is spending close to Rs 140 crore of public funds to acquire that land for your project. However, Tata will pay only Rs 20 crore back after 5 years of receiving the land, and at minimal interest. How is this justified? Is the government a shareholder in the project?

Ans: The commercial terms are not in the public domain, and therefore I will not comment on whether your facts are correct or incorrect. The land is being leased to us. It is part of the benefit, the state government is providing to match incentives being offered by other competing states. As I have said earlier, it is not an exception but in line with what other states are willing to do in view of the long-term benefits being accrued to the state.

3) Tata Motors was apparently shown 4 other sites for the factory. What were they? On what grounds were they rejected?

Ans: The Government showed us several plots. Our expert team, considering the unique requirements of the plant site, including physical characteristics, logistics, cost etc, selected the plot in Singur.

4) People have been demanding that the MOU between you and the government be made public. Why is this not being done?

Ans: The Government of West Bengal has stated its position on this issue.

5) Land is being acquired for your factory under the clause that it is for “public purpose”? What is the “public purpose” of a car factory, set up with the aim of earning private profit?

Ans: It is for the government to explain. This is not the first time a government – state or central – has acquired land for industrialisation and has given it to private or public parties.

In Singur, besides Tata Motors plant, several ancillaries are coming up on the land that is being leased. Tata Motors itself is investing about Rs.1500 crores, and the ancillaries will make additional investment.

The project, in its totality, in Singur will restore to West Bengal, once one of the three centres of auto manufacturing, a place in the industry’s expanding map, gaining for the state a share of direct and indirect benefits in employment creation and overall economic development supplementing the advances in agriculture. The project includes some of the best-known names from the auto component industry, who will set up facilities, in the adjacent vendor park. It is not inconceivable how this first initiative can induce a whole host of other organisations, cutting across industries, to recognise the attractiveness of the state. This actually has been noticed in recent times in Uttaranchal, where the entry of one company has induced several others to follow suit.

These investments lead to ancillarisation, support industries and services, thereby leading to a multiplier effect, through small scale units, a variety of services on overall economic development, much beyond the project area.

In the next 10 years, the automobile industry will generate an additional 25 million jobs across the country. The investments we are talking about will help the state get a share of this job creation.

6) Comparable car factories take up only 300 acres or less. Why are you acquiring 997 acres? What use is that land gong to be put to? Why is all of it being subsidized by the government?

Ans: Out of the about 997 acres of land that is being acquired by the West Bengal government, the Tata Motors small car factory will be set up on around 650 acres. The remaining about 300 acres would be used for setting up the vendor park, where ancillaries will set up their plants. These are the auto component manufacturers who would be supplying the critical parts for the small car. They are free to supply to other organisations as well.

7) The other clause in the Land Acquisition Act being used in your favour is the “socio-economic development” of the region. Singur is already a rich, self-sufficient, agrarian economy. Your project will evict thousands of farmers and landless labours. The compensation will turn their rich, perennial capital of land to pretty meager temporary monetary wealth. Turn a rooted agrarian economy to floating migrant urban population. How can this be deemed socio economic development?

Ans: The acquired plot excludes homesteads. So no resident of Singur is getting displaced. Secondly, farming there mostly employed seasonal labour. In contrast, the project will generate in the initial few years, over 10,000 jobs which are not seasonal.*

8) If you claim governmental subsidies on the grounds of “public purpose and socio-economic development”, are you not morally bound to set up factories in backward regions? Why take up prime land close to a metropolis and existing infrastructure? Why do you need to be subsidized to do his?

Ans: Tata Motors and Tata Group have historically invested in setting up facilities when none existed. Jamshedpur, Pune, Babrala, Mithapur and recently Uttranchal are examples of manufacturing facilities set up by Group companies which have had a very positive impact on the local economy and the well-being of people living in the area.

9) How many jobs do you envisage your factory will create? What kind of people will it employ? What is the break-up of this? How many local people will it be able to absorb?

Ans: The Tata Motors’ plant operation is expected to create employment in excess of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs within the plant, amongst vendors and service providers in the vicinity. Essential to generating employment for the Singur community is enhancing employability.*

Tata Motors is initiating various steps to train people of the Singur villages, who had earlier registered with the WBIDC, to improve their employability. It has already selected a batch of individuals, on the basis of a test and interview, for extensive 6-month training. Another group of residents of Singur, selected by the WBIDC, is at present being trained by the Ramakrishna Shilpa Mandir (Belur). The company is in the process of organising more extensive training for them based on a selection process. Arrangements will also be made to impart relevant training to other individuals, in the WBIDC list, appropriate to their educational background and skills and based on a selection process.

As part of the project, Tata Motors will also organise groups of women from Singur families and enable them to produce various items, which will be required during the construction phase and when the Tata Motors and vendor plants are operational. Last week, the first self-help group of women from Singur villages started a canteen to supply food for the Tata Motors Small Car project site. This is part of the company’s plan to increase income-generation for the families. Other such group activities could include tailoring to manufacture personal gear, cable harnessing, electronic items etc.

The Tata Group has also decided to support community development in the area. Plans are to establish a community centre, offer support in primary health, education.

10) Your factory will only be able to create 1000 jobs, if that. Not all of these jobs will be awarded to local people. The project will displace at least 11,000 families, i.e., an average of 44,000 people, conservatively speaking. The government has no rehabilitation plan for them. Are you comfortable with this?

Ans: There is no displacement of families or houses in the acquisition of the land. The project will generate over 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. Our focus is on enhancing employability as well as creating opportunities for self-employment.

11) There has been violence and police action, and section 144 in Singur. Are you comfortable associating with this? Why have you not taken the initiative to speak to villagers and build consensus rather than use State force to wall off the land.

Ans: Tata Motors has not used state force, or caused it to be used. In fact, for some time now, Tata Motors has been directly engaging with the Singur community, and we find overwhelming support for the project. The participation of people from the villages in the construction of the plant, the participation of women in starting the self-help group for food supply indicates that.

12) There are 56,000 factories in Bengal lying defunct. People want to know why new industries cannot be started in those places. What is your response to that?

Ans: I think it would be best for the West Bengal Government to answer it.

13) People in Singur say they would have welcomed agro-industries in the region, something related to the local economy rather than a car factory that displaces their economy to set up something else. Would you concede some fairness in this?

Ans: As I have stated and what we see on the ground is that people of Singur have welcomed our project – they are actively participating in it.

14) There have been reports that Tata feels the opposition in Singur has been engineered by rival companies and political parties. Even if that were really the case, the questions posed here still remain valid to a neutral party like me. Would you concede that?

Ans: We would not like to say anything beyond what our Chairman, Mr. Ratan Tata, has already stated on the aspect.

15) While continuing with economic reforms, would you agree the time has come to rethink some of the directions the new economy is moving in?

Ans: There has to be continuous thinking on how we can learn and improve. It is important to look at issues and developments on a continuous basis.

16) The resistance to SEZs and industrial plants and projects across the country is being projected as a factory vs. farm, industry vs agriculture divide. How do you see it? Would you agree people’s resistance is against the arbitrary processes involved rather than to industry itself? Amongst reformers and capitalists, there is often very easy talk about “collateral damage”, the “pain” of growth. What is your view on this?

Ans: Any kind of change will evoke concerns. It is important to engage with the community and give them the confidence that the change will impact their lives positively.

17) Tatas’ projects have run into violent resistance at Kalinganagar and Chattisgarh. What are your learnings from all this?

Ans: The violence in the protest has always been beyond our understanding. However, what is important is the change management that has helped people to appreciate the genuine efforts put by the Group in enhancing the quality of life of the local community.

See Also:

* http://development-dialogues.blogspot.com/2008/05/singur-employment-bluff-called.html

Mar 03 , 2007