The Water Wars

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne290111Thewater.asp

You can lease a river in Chhattisgarh for 22 years. At just Rs. 1 per annum. While thousands go thirsty

Rivers belong to nations. But, in Chhattisgarh they belong to corporations. BABA UMAR tracks the sale of six rivers in the state

IN MAHMARA village of Durg district in Chhattisgarh, Ramoram Thakur, 70, recalls how as a boy he would sing and hear folklore about water, fishermen and farmers of his village, tucked into the western edge of Sheonath river. However, such legends have a tragic ending nowadays.

Seated near a babul tree in the community choupal, the old man shares stories with children about how the river passed onto the hands of a private company, which denied villagers water for drinking, washing and irrigation, stopped fishermen from casting their nets and prevented locals from taking sand from the riverbed.

“Their barrage drowned a cremation ground on the banks. Dozens of village located downstream were left with little water. What belonged to us for centuries is no longer available for our use,” he laments.

Thakur is talking about the Sheonath, the first river to be handed over to a private group, Radius Water Limited (RWL), in 1998 by the government of undivided Madhya Pradesh through its undertaking, MP Aydhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Ltd (MPAKVN), now Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC). Despite major losses to the government, the state didn’t scrap the deal nor could it help the thirsty villagers.

Since then, Chhattisgarh has seen hundreds of companies investing in the state and many vying for the river waters. In a recent deal, the Water Resource Department (WRD) gave its nod to 141 private and government projects for which it will be supplying nearly 2,600 million cubic metres (mcm) of water from rivers every year. Interestingly the state supplies only 2,000 mcm of water for irrigation every year.

Carved out of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November 2000, Chhattisgarh wasn’t a water-scarce state. According to unofficial estimates, the state has 32,000 ponds. With major river basins — Mahanadi, Godavari, Narmada and Brahmani Kachar — and several major rivers — Kurkut, Mahanadi, Kharun, Sheonath, Indravati, Jonk, Kelo, Sabri, Hasdev, Peri, and Maand — water shortage was never an issue.

But the priorities have changed. Earlier, dams were built to store water for irrigation. Now, they are being constructed for supplying water to industry. In fact, the Chhattisgarh government openly declares that it is committed to giving water to industries throughout the year but not to farmers for rabi crop.

THE SALE of Chhattisgarh’s rivers began in 1998 when the then MP government handed a 23.6 km stretch of Sheonath river in Durg to RWL, pleading shortage of funds for supplying water to industries. In a shocking story of “corruption and favouritism”, as an Assembly nominated committee discovered later, the Rs. 9 crore project was signed on 5 October 1998 between MPAKVN and RWL on a build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) basis. The plan was to build a barrage on the Sheonath to supply up to 30 million litres per day (mld) to the Borai Industrial Centre. Construction was completed in two years and operations began in January 2001.

“We got to know about the sale of the river only when RWL began harassing us,” alleges Khemlal Sahu, a farmer in Mahmara. “Almost 25 percent of the villagers are fishermen. They were stopped from fishing. Soon, fencing around the 23.6 km stretch began. Iron gates were erected on both sides of the barrage to prevent locals from approaching the river.”

The deal inherited by the CSIDC gave RWL exclusive access to the river water for 22 years. It also held control rights over the supply of water to the Borai Industrial Centre and the CSIDC was obliged to provide land free of cost. CSIDC also handed over its entire infrastructure in Borai, and assets worth Rs. 5 crore to Kailash Soni, owner of Kailash Engineering, for a lease of a token Rs. 1 per year for establishing a water supply project on BOOT basis. The CSIDC was to purchase water from RWL and later sell it to the industrial units in Borai.

Though there was a lack of sufficient demand for water, then MPAKVN managing director GS Mishra signed the agreement with RWL. Back then, Borai had two large and medium-scale industries, and their combined water requirement was between 1.14 and 2.5 mld, while the CSIDC had to compulsorily shell out money for 4 mld. Adding to the losses, CSIDC purchased water at Rs. 15 a cubic metre (1,000 litres) from RWL. However, it sold water to industries at only Rs. 12 a cubic metre. The agreement meant that CSIDC would incur a loss of 20 percent on every unit of water it sold. Increase in both supply or demand would mean higher losses. Adding to the toll was Hindustan Electro Graphite (HEG) that was to buy almost 90 percent of the CSIDC’s water sales but reneged on its agreement.

While CSIDC continued to incur losses, public outrage fuelled by continuous harassment of people by RWL saw several NGOs participating in the agitation. Those who joined the protest included villagers from Mohlai, Boludi, Malood, Kotni, Piperchadi, Kekro Koli, Bedwa Pathra, Vagrum Nala and Basik Hai — all affected by the drying up of the Sheonath downstream.

The Nadi Ghati Morcha (NGM) started a movement from Durg that reached Raipur and then Delhi. Roadblocks and rallies were held. The ferocity of the protests finally forced the then chief minister Ajit Jogi to announce the “abrogation of the RWL contract” on 2 April 2003. However, he didn’t keep his promise.

FOR A FEW LITRES MORE The industrial revolution is coming at a heavy price 90 paise is the price Jindal Steel and Power Limited pays for every 1,000 litres of river water. Other companies are charged about Rs. 3 for the same 23.6 km is the stretch of Sheonath river controlled by Radius Water. The area has been fenced and villagers are prohibited from using the water 54 million cubic metres drawn annually by Jindal Steel from Kurkut river. The agreement, signed on 14 January 2008, will be renewed after 30 years Rs. 185 cr revenue loss suffered by the Chhattisgarh government during 2007-08 because of “undue benefits” provided to private companies 2,600 million cubic metres allotted annually to companies investing in the coming years. In contrast, agriculture and irrigation will get only 2,000 mcm

NGM coordinator Gautam Bandhopadhyay says, “People had plenty of fresh water for cooking and working. But they don’t have rights over the common property. RWL may have invested money but the villagers who are living in the area for centuries have invested resources and have equal rights on the water.”

‘The government is ruining its resources. By favouring the private firms, it is harming the interests of the tribal farmers’ RAMESH AGARWAL,Founder, Jan Chetana PHOTOS: TARUN SEHRAWAT

In 2003, the state Assembly constituted a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to probe the privatisation of Sheonath. The committee presented its report on 16 March 2007 lambasting both CSIDC and RWL for signing a deal that caused loss to the state exchequer and harm to villagers.

THE GOVERNMENT vowed to cancel the contract “within a legal framework” and pay compensation to RWL for the lease period after the legal department and the Advocate General give their opinions. The legal department reportedly said, “If the government ends the contract, it has to pay a compensation of Rs. 400 crore.” Since then, nothing has changed. RWL continues to manage the barrage and the reservoir while the spate of public protests too has declined and so has their impact.

Ramchandra Singhdeo, who was the irrigation minister when the deal was struck, says, “Without the knowledge of the irrigation secretary, engineer-in-chief and myself, the CSIDC managing director signed a deal that proved detrimental to both villagers and government. We sought action reports from the government over the PAC’s recommendations but the usual reply was: the legal department is looking into the matter. I don’t know why the government is reluctant to scrap this deal.”

Current CSIDC MD Devendra Singh says the contract can continue as it has started to reap benefits. “Earlier, CSIDC was making losses. But now we are selling 8-9 mld of water to half-a-dozen big and small companies at beneficial rates,” he says. Singh is quick to add that scrapping the agreement would mean CSIDC paying Rs. 36 crore to RWL as compensation.

Water Resource Minister Hemchand Yadav concedes the deal between CSIDC and RWL was “flawed and skewed” in favour of the latter. The government is willing to scrap the contract and pay Rs. 10 crore to RWL as compensation. “This deal affected several villages and the government. I guess the controversy will die in a year,” he says.

But will RWL accept Rs. 10 crore? “If the contract is stopped before its term, the termination clauses have to be fulfilled. But nothing like that is going to happen,” says a defiant Pramod Agrawal, RWL project director. Lashing out at the PAC, he says it has no jurisdiction over the issue, which is in the domain of the public undertaking committee. “But the public undertaking committee was never formed by the state Assembly. Even PAC members never talked to us. It’s a farce. We reject it,” he says.

Agrawal says three other projects — New Capital Water Supply, Siltra Industrial Estate Water Supply and Urla Industrial Estate Water Supply — were also privatised “and if our project is terminated, these projects too should be abrogated. Why isn’t anyone talking about these projects? We are convinced the government or the CSIDC don’t have the money to compensate us and abrogate the agreement”.

Precious commodity Jindal Steel draws 35,400 cubic metres of water from Kelo every day Agrawal denied that villagers are being stopped from using the river water. “It was on the orders of the CSIDC and sub-district magistrate that revenue department officials uprooted the villagers’ water pumps. We didn’t allow fishermen to catch fish because we were following police orders. The police wanted them to stay away from our power sub-station fearing violence.” MEANWHILE, TROUBLE was brewing in Bonda Tikra village, Raigarh district. Shanti Bai and her husband Shauki Lal, both daily wagers, were living happily in Bonda Tikra, located on the banks of Kelo, a tributary of Mahanadi, until a check dam and intake well were constructed by Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (JSPL). “I didn’t know how precious water was until it was snatched from us,” says Bai. ‘Dozens of villages located downstream are now parched. What belonged to us for centuries is no longer available for us’ RAMORAM THAKUR, Villager, Mahmara In 1996, JSPL tried to draw water from Kelo for its sponge iron factory and power plant. However, the government refused permission saying it would cause water shortage. JSPL mounted pressure and it soon erected a stop dam and began drawing 35,400 cubic metres of water every day. The structures hampered irrigation in 14 villages downstream. “In summers, we usually dig the riverbed with our hands and draw water in plastic jugs. Now, the water pump sucks all the water while we struggle to get a drop,” says Bai. To protest against JSPL’s dam and intake well, locals sat on a seven-day hunger strike in 1998. When the rest of the country was celebrating Republic Day, Satyabhama, an Adivasi woman, became the struggle’s first ‘martyr’. “Her death won’t go waste. Our resistance will continue,” vows Bai. “But our struggle’s success depends on whose side the government decides to take.” Almost 13 years have passed since the fight to restore the river flow began. The intake well and the check dam still stand on the river Kelo protected by JSPL guards. The success of Sheonath and Kelo spurred a series of private projects that saw villagers pitted against government and private firms. Private barrages and dams over many rivers have come up since then. Kurkut in Raigarh, Sabri in Dantewada, Kharun in Raipur, Hasdeo in Korba and Champa, and Maand in Janjgir-Champa have been handed over to private players. Almost 60 km from Raigarh, Ghanau Ram Gariya, 62, along with dozens of tribals in Burbhona village, is waiting in line to collect subsidised rice not from a rice depot but from an official sitting inside a community dispensary. “This should tell you the state of affairs in our village,” says Gariya, a farmer-turned-casual labourer. Till 2007, Gariya and other tribals grew melon and cucumber on Kurkut’s banks. Rabi farming was also done in April, May and June. However, a huge barrage and a dam that was built 35 km upstream at Rabo village soon choked the river flow. The water was being fed to 1,000 MW JSPL power plants at Tamnar. Soon, farmers living in 12 villages, including Jampali, Kikricholi, Dehjari, lost their water source. “Since then, we have to migrate to other villages in the summer. Do you know how it feels when you don’t bathe or wash your face for weeks at a stretch?” asks Gariya. Last summer, a group of villagers headed for Rabo dam seeking immediate discharge of water from Kurkut. JSPL employees allegedly thrashed them with bamboo sticks. The distraught tribals and villagers wrote a letter to their MLA, Anand Kumar Patel, seeking immediate discharge of water. The MLA managed to get water released only once in 90 days of the harsh summer. “That was the time when we cursed ourselves for not joining the agitation led by Rabo villagers. It taught us a lesson,” says Vedran Dhandsena, one of the village heads. He is referring to the agitation in which villagers of Rabo, where a dam and a barrage was built, had protested the construction of mega structures in the village and the agreement that allowed JSPL to draw 54 mcm of water every year from Kurkut and release only 7 mcm per year. In 2004, when JSPL started acquisition of additional land in Rabo for its power project, residents of 15 villages started an agitation with tough resistance coming from Rabo village where the dam was to be built. The dam would submerge almost 350 hectares of forest land and affect thousands of hectares of irrigated land. Rabo villagers spearheaded the protest and blocked roads leading to the project site with tree trunks and rocks. They also patrolled the entrance to the village for several nights. And soon public outrage pushed the government to order a halt on the work at site on 4 November 2004. “But with government officials’ patronage, Jindal resumed work within a week,” recalls Champi Bai, who became famous for grabbing a revenue official by his collar during the protest. She says the government didn’t hold any public hearing when JSPL got clearance in 1997 for the first phase of the power project in Tamnar. “From the beginning, the government has worked to benefit the company,” she says. The government not only gave up on the ownership of the dam but also charged JSPL a paltry 90 paise for every 1,000 litres when other firms pay around Rs. 3 for the same. “This is just another example of how the government ruined its resources, favoured a private company and harmed tribals of a dozen villages,” says Ramesh Agarwal, 55, an activist and founder of Jan Chetana, which monitors mining, water and industrial projects in Raigarh. The agreement dated 14 January 2008 signed with the JSPL, a copy of which is in TEHELKA’S possession, reads, “The company shall pay to the government rates for water drawn by it from the said natural or government water source at the rates fixed by the WRD order No. 1819/7-A/WR/TS/IWS/02/D-4 Raipur dated 21.03.2006, which is 90 paise only per cubic metre.” THE JSPL management says it owns the dam without which “we couldn’t get 70 percent of the money from banks as loan”. “Banks give a loan only when the structure is yours,” says Pradeep Tandon, senior vice-president, corporate affairs, JSPL. Last May, the government revised the rates and JSPL would be paying Rs. 2.80 per cubic metre, he says. Asked about the tussle between JSPL and villagers, he says the people’s anger should be directed against the government and not at the JSPL, because “we only work under government rules”. There are other instances when companies have guzzled water without any proper agreement with the government. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report for the year ended 31 March 2009, National Thermal Power Corporation has been drawing water from a canal in the state for the past 11 years without any agreement. “The penalty charges for the unauthorised withdrawal amounts to Rs. 316.26 crore for the period between June 1998 to March 2009,” the report says. ‘Private pumps suck all the water while we don’t get any. I didn’t know how precious water was until it was snatched from us’ SHANTI BAI, Villager, Bonda Tikra In its previous report, the CAG had lambasted the CSIDC for “causing a revenue loss of Rs. 22.09 crore due to the supply of water at lower rates, non-revision of usage charges and delay in execution of lease deeds” even as the report said that the Chhattisgarh government suffered a revenue loss of more than Rs. 185 crore during 2007-08 because of “undue benefits” provided to various companies such as “allotment of land and water at reduced rates”. Despite the CAG’s adverse report and people’s protests, the government seems undeterred. In fact, it gave its nod last year to thermal power plants in Raigarh, Jangjir and Champa districts. In their project reports, most of them made it clear that they would be drawing water from the Mahanadi. It won’t be long before villagers living near the plants lose out on water. In southern Chhattisgarh, a large portion of Sabri, which flows through Dantewada district, is under the operation of Essar Steel Chhattisgarh Ltd and Tata Steel. Both draw almost 100 mcm of water every year. Essar has a pipeline network from Dantewada to the port of Visakhapatnam. Essar sends iron-ore through this pipeline with the force of the water from Sabri. According to the Akhil Bharatiya Adivasi Mahasabha (ABAM), an umbrella organisation of tribal groups in Bastar, people had raised the issue of water shortage in the villages of downstream Sabri at several public hearings, “but government officials never listened to our pleas”. However, Essar denies the accusation. “Our intake of water does not affect local availability in any manner,” says Parikshit Kaul, joint general manager, corporate affairs. According to a WRD report, almost 2,600 mcm per year has been allotted to industry while the state offers only 2,000 mcm for agriculture and irrigation, pushing many to think that Chhattisgarh will soon have a distinctive status and its industrial water use will far outstrip that of agriculture. “Industries are the priority of the state government. This is not a democratised development. If this continues, a large part of the population could start a new kind of resistance that will have far-reaching consequences,” warns activist Agarwal. baba.umar@tehelka.com

Power At All Cost?

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main44.asp?filename=Ne080510Powerat_Allcost.asp

AMIDST WIDESPREAD DISBELIEF, HARIPUR, THE SITE FOR THE INDO-RUSSIAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, IS RIPE FOR ANOTHER CIVIL WAR, SAYS PARTHA DASGUPTA

RAMPRASAD BAR, a bespectacled man in his mid-50s, was stitching a blue fishnet under a palm-tree when he saw this correspondent and his camera-wielding colleague. One could immediately see a frown and a stiffening of his jaw. “Are you from the Press? Please go away. Else, we will be forced to drive you away.” Amit Manna, the local convenor of the ‘Committee of the People Against Nuclear Power Plant and Forced Eviction in Haripur’, intervened: “They are with me, uncle.” The fisherman, who had his elder son Shambhu for company, softened a little.

Bar is one of the 60-odd thousand fishermen of Haripur, a tiny fishing hamlet, 150 km from Kolkata on the road to the popular sea-front tourist destination of Mandarmoni — who will face eviction should the plant come up. He is landless like everyone else in his community, and lives in a ghetto in the forest along the coastline. This 10th generation fisherman is employed for 7 to 8 months in a year and takes home less than Rs 5,000 a month. During March to June, the time for high winds and when he cannot go out to the sea in the enginepropelled- dinghy of his employer, he collects tiger prawn roe to sell to the agents of fisheries. A painstaking and meticulous job done with the help of small shells, this fetches him half of what he earns during ‘normal’ fishing seasons.

CAN INDIA AFFORD TO TURN AWAY FROM NUCLEAR POWER

Conundrum Subrata Jana, the quack, and 80-year-old Suvankari Giri, with her relatives (above); Dibyendu Adhikari, local MLA, whose bluster is belied by his party’s strange silence on the issue (below) PHOTOS: TUMPA MANDAL

And what is wrong with the Press? “They are bad people,” Bar says, with venom. “They are hand-in-glove with the state. They come here as amateur photographers and picnickers. Next day, the media say that Haripur is uninhabited and barren. Then come the babus with measuring tapes and soiltesting equipment. So [local Trinamool MP] Subhendu Adhikari has asked us to throw you guys out, by force if needed.”

This rings a strange note, as the Trinamool Congress (TMC), whose spectacular show in last year’s general elections was a result of the ‘eviction-phobia’ of rural Bengal, is conspicuously silent on the Haripur Nuclear Power Plant, which promises to evict lakhs of people from the radioactive zone. Nineteen villages within 1.5 km of the plant which fall in the core area, are to be emptied. The proposed buffer zone lies 4.8 km beyond, encompassing 125 villages. And an area comprising 542 villages, including the Contai municipality, falls within the 16-km radioactive zone.

HOW DO WE MEET THE PROMISE OF POWER FOR ALL

As in most of Bengal, the land is fertile, churning out 2-3 rice crops a year. Betel leaves and coconuts also form a substantial part of the local economy. And people are contented. From retired school headmaster, septuagenarian Sachindranath Giri, to Subrata Jana, the local quack, to Subhadra Giri, the quintessential housewife, no one warms to the idea of a hefty compensation in lieu of the land they own, till and live in. Even the 21-year-old Biswajit Bhuniya, a Class 9 dropout, who runs the local grocery, is happy in his village. He knows that any compensation dwindles exponentially, but the skills required to survive and sustain a home away from home are not easily acquired. Certainly not as easily as he harvests his paddy, sell his coconuts and trades his tiger prawn roe.

The local MLA, Dibyendu Adhikari, younger brother of Subhendu, speaks with a studied political correctness. He is emphatic that TMC stands by its policy of opposition to nuclear plants and that “I will resign if the plant comes into being”. He is aware that the land mafia is at work in Haripur and claims to be vigilant. He is ‘overconfident’ that the locals trust the TMC, and that ‘most development stories will be rewritten’ once they come to power in West Bengal in 2011. “2017 is a far cry. Don’t worry too much. We will not let it happen,” Dibyendu assures.

ARE ‘DEVELOPMENT REFUGEES’ INEVITABLE IN THIS CENTURY

But why is there such an uproar over a nuclear power plant, when even Shamraibar, the village adjoining Haripur, is without electricity, 63 years after Independence? The strongest advocates of nuclear power, like Bikash Sinha (Padma Bhushan and ex-director, BARC), have cried hoarse the obvious: that the yawning gap between demand and supply of electricity in the country, limited availability of coal and natural gas as a fuel and the collective pledge of the powers that be for the electrification of every Indian village, will necessitate nuclear power. It seems all too natural a corollary to even question its premises.

Not all agree, though. Abhee Dutt-Mazumder, a professor at Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, says, “We do not mind nuclear research reactors per se. But our track record of nuclear power is too dismal to count on. In 1954, we were promised 8,000 MW of nuclear power by 1980, subsequently revised to 43,500 MW in 1969. Ask how much we have been able to produce? Just 4,120 MW in 2009 from 17 operating reactors — 52 percent of the original promise made 55 years ago.” He continues, “Secondly, we have never talked of light water reactors (the most widely used technology in the US) in the last 60 years of nuclear research in India. But now we are. Will all the investment over the last 60 years go to waste? Even MIT, one of the most vocal proponents of nuclear power, does not claim it to be ‘cost effective’, and lays a huge stress on ‘best practices’ as a determinant of its efficacy in it’s report. Needless to say, we cannot guarantee that in India.”

The polemics will continue. So will the problems. The need for entire country’s electrification is a fundamental necessity. Equally fundamental is the right of the poor villager to live a life of dignity, dented already by poverty and injustice. A nuclear power plant in Haripur promises a captive generating capacity of 1,000 MW with 60 percent efficiency, an industry in the anaemic map of West Bengal and cash compensation to evicted locals that will not last them long. It also promises to create lakhs of ‘development refugees’ and a potential civil war, akin to Nandigram. The peoples’ movement is peaceful and unarmed. As of now. But so it was in Nandigram initially. As 80 year old hunchback Suvankari Giri pledged, “I can take a bullet and bleed to death, but won’t part with my land.”

In 2009, Prakash Karat, the doctrinaire General Secretary of the CPMwithdrew support from the first UPA government over the nuclear deal with the US. In less than a year, India has signed the Haripur deal with Russia. The local mandarins of Karat’s party are more than happy. The deal with their political alma mater — and not with the US — means that their ideological chastity belt remains intact. More importantly, the land mafia, lying low after the Singur-Nandigram imbroglio, now has something to cheer about. It is again baying for blood. West Bengal has bled enough in the last three decades. It can ill afford another civil war. •

WRITER’S EMAIL:
partha@tehelka.com

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 18, Dated May 08, 2010

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

‘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

BENGAL SHOWS THE WAY

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main27.asp?filename=Ne030307Bengal_CS.asp

Singur and Nandigram have forced renewed debate on some of the most burning questions of our time. Shoma Chaudhury travels to the hotspots to trace the roots of unrest and its lessons. Photographs by Shibani Chaudhury

The frontline: A women’s rally in Nandigram protesting against false FIRs and arrests

The first thing you experience when you enter Singur is shock. There are reasons why many critical tensions of our time have come brimming forth in this small agrarian community. When you are there, you understand why. Singur has been in the news for eight months, but nothing in the media has prepared you for the beauty or prosperity of the place. This is not a destitute patch of barren land from which people should want to be evicted for some monetary compensation. Singur is emerald country. Even an urban cynic, unmoved by pastoral idylls, can see in an instant that this is no poor man’s burden. Land here is wealth. Singur is merely 45 kilometres from Kolkata, runs flush along the Durgapur highway, and lies between the Damodar, Hooghly and Kana rivers. Almost every villager’s house here is pucca, a secure shelter of cement and polished red stone. The fields are lush with crop — rice, jute, potato, and a myriad vegetables. And every 500 yards there is a pond swimming with ducks. Beauty never plays a role in the reckonings of macroeconomics. That could be a mistake. Human beings respond to beauty. They defend the things they love. The colour green has meaning in Singur. It lives. It has a weight and texture and smell that is easy to forget in a city. It spells generations of rootedness in land. It spells a self-sufficient way of life that people are willing to fight and die for.

Singur first slipped into the news in May last year. Soon after the Left Front government was sworn into power for the seventh time in a row in West Bengal, the CM, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya announced that Tata Motors was going to set up a car factory in Singur. Bengal has been suffering a stagnant economy for decades. This was to be the proud flagship of a new, aggressively industrialising Bengal. In popular middle-class imagination, the Tata name usually equals progress and growth. But trouble began almost immediately. Rallies, demonstrations, petitions, and then as the government persisted in acquiring the land, escalating tension and violence. September 25 and December 2, 2006, are folkloric dates in Singur. Scores of villagers are still smarting at the memory of the police action, lathi charge, tear gas, rubber bullets and arrests. For us, in our safe enclaves, these words have lost meaning with overuse. Unless one faces the might of the State oneself, one cannot approximate the pain of wood thudding on skin, the searing burn of tear gas. One cannot approximate the fear and anger ordinary people feel on the ground. On September 25, about 7,000 workers led by the Krishi Jami Rakha Committee — a conglomeration of parties, activists, and workers’ groups — had gathered at the Block Development Office to protest anomalies in the disbursal of compensation. In the police action that followed, Rajkumar Bhool, the 24-year-old son of a landless couple, was so badly beaten he collapsed by a pond and died. Several people were injured and 72 activists, including 27 women and a two- and-a-half-year-old girl, were arrested, several under Section 307 of the IPC, that is “attempt to murder.” This incident increased the groundswell of anger. In response, the government clamped Section 144 of the Cr PC on the Singur region. On December 2, flanked by police, as the government began to fence off the acquired land, thousands of people gathered to stop the fencing. They were lathi-charged by the police and the Rapid Action Force (RAF). Women complained of verbal and physical abuse. Sixty villagers were arrested, 18 among them women. All were charged with IPC, Section 307. On December 18, 18-year-old Tapasi Malik’s body was found smouldering in the fields. Since then, Singur has continued to boil, with the government asserting that the Tata Motors small car factory would come up there at any cost.

The colour green has meaning in Singur. It lives. It spells generations of rootedness in land

One might wonder why one should be concerned with local trouble over a small car factory project in a faraway place. In fact, most people in urban India reading about Singur in small news snippets say, “But the farmers are being paid adequate compensation, why don’t they move?” Or as an Indian friend from America put it, even more dismissively, “Oh Singur — that Mamata Banerjee drama!” He could’ve been speaking for almost all of India’s middle-class.

Sitting in Delhi and Bombay and Bangalore, it is difficult to imagine what’s going on in these places. But Singur, and much more powerfully, Nandigram, the other seething faultline in Bengal, are not just about “adequate compensation” and competitive party politics. They are white hot samples — symptoms — of what’s happening in every corner of India. Raigad, Kalinganagar, Dadri, Kalahandi, Kakinada, Aurangabad, Bijapur, Chandrapore, Haripur, Bachera, Chowringa, Tirupati, Mand. The underlying stories everywhere are the same. Land takeover in the name of development or big industry. Summary eviction and displacement. Inadequate compensation. Lack of informed consent. Police action and state oppression. The breakdown of democratic process. And the arrogant sense that unless you have a high, urban standard of living and speak English, you are not a legitimate Indian.

By raising the temperature then, Singur and Nandigram have brought to head several of the most crucial questions of our time. Which path to development is India taking? One custom-built to fit its complex socio-political realities, or one imposed top down? How democratic is that path? Who will bear the “pain of growth”? What will shining India do with simmering India? And most importantly, if our governments do not course correct, how will simmering India express itself? It is undoubtedly true that sections of India have seen massive growth in the last five years. We, in the urban centres, who have benefited from that economic buoyancy, we who are coasting on massive salaries and a giddy new buying power, might find it difficult to see this as lopsided growth, but the most hawkish reformer would find it hard to deny that India’s galloping gdp is being forged on an under-layer of deep resentment.

And lava always finds its volcanic mouth. Visit the first house in Singur and the stories start to flow. Srikant Koley, 31, a swarthy, muscular man, used to own five bighas of land in Gopalnagar. This has been acquired for the Tata project and now falls within the fenced-off area. From being a self-sufficient farmer, he has become a daily-wage labourer. Yet he refuses compensation. Leaning scornfully on his cycle, pointing to the rich vegetable patch around him, he says, “We hear the Tatas have spent Rs 1,50,000 crore to acquire Corus, and here it is using the government to forcibly take our land away on subsidised rates? Are they such big beggars? Our land is our wealth, it is our life’s security. I’ll gift them my land then, but I will not take money for it.” “If I sell out, what will happen to the people who work on my field,” asks 50-year-old, Pratap Ghosh, owner of three and a half acres of land, now fenced off. A giant granary towers behind him. “Who will watch out for the discontent and unrest this is going to create? We are a community, we help each other. We can’t all be absorbed by the Tata factory. If I sell, I’ll just be creating dacoits in my own house. Money is temporary, how long can it last? Land is perennial.”

Mar 03 , 2007

Smash And Grab

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main36.asp?filename=Ne241107Smash_AndGrab.asp What the CPM has unleashed is not a war for the control of Nandigram; it is waging a desperate and dirty battle for survival in its oldest fort. SHANTANU GUHA RAY reports Sudeep Chaudhuri IT’S A patch barely 250 square kilometres. It’s not big enough to contain a single Lok Sabha seat, it struggles to send six members to the 294-strong West Bengal Assembly. Not worth evoking desperate measures from a party that has been entrenched in power for more than three decades, you would think. Yet, over the last year, Nandigram has been a bloodied and mostly unsung battleground, locked in fullblown warfare launched by governmentbacked CPM apparatchik on the people. They went into it with an elaborate battle-plan, laying siege, scorching earth and taking pocket by pocket. They went into it with the most sophisticated weapons, AK-47s and landmines included. They were unafraid to kill and to destroy and to leave thousands destitute. They were adamant about keeping out the forces of State until the party had finished its work — until the CPM had made sure Nandigram had “fallen” the CRPF and local police remained in barracks. The subservience of all things, including the State, to the will of the party is a classical Stalinist tenet; the CPM had just effected it in Nandigram, impervious to all protest, in violation of accepted principles of governance, in utter disregard of democracy. It is seldom that the Governor is outraged enough to speak out openly on public violations. Gopal Gandhi did, even pleading with grand old man Jyoti Basu against what the CPM was up to in Nandigram, but to little effect. Finally, when Nandigram was “won” on November 12, the celebrations had a ring of military victory — columns of cadre in red bandannas drove in, the party flag was rampantly planted and local party offices jubilantly re-occupied. This was a CPM stronghold that had all but fallen to the Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC), an outfit that arose in opposition to Nandigram being declared an SEZ, but which slowly came to be backed by a cross-section of political and civil society groups. It had to be regained. The CPM did it ruthlessly. At Writer’s Building in Kolkata, the seat of government, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya himself announced the end of the campaign, General-like. Asked about the violent smash and grab by his party in Nandigram, he retorted: “Well, it was a violent takeover by dangerous forces, they have now been paid back in the same coin.” Blunt. nabashed. Unapologetic. “We did not trigger violence. We faced it, resisted it for months and then, eventually countered it. As I said before, the Opposition and the BUPC have got a taste of their own medicine. There was tension, total chaos and lack of peace in Nandigram. We had to do something. Our supporters risked their lives and returned home and retaliated only in desperation,” he told TEHELKA minutes after his triumphal announcement. In the process, though, Bhattacharya and his party had raised fundamental and disturbing questions: Is the will of a political party above all other interests? Is armed assault on 24 NOVEMBER 2007 TEHELKA the adversary permissible tactic? Are we to accept might as right? Is there an agency to prevent such sanction-driven lapse into mayhem? The CPM, after all, had left no one in doubt about the tactics it was employing to reclaim Nandigram — “maaro” was the cry of Politburo member Brinda Karat and the party was resonating it, in New Delhi and in West Bengal. Party boss Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury were offering grand articulations of the eye-for-eye violence, glossing over the ground rules of multi-party democracy. Local CPM bosses Biman Bose, Benoy Konar and Lakshman Seth (MP from Tamluk, which overlaps Nandigram) were exhorting cadre to pull no punches. The chief minister, his image as a literary sophisticate notwithstanding, was willing to submit his government to the intents and purposes of his party. REPORTS THAT Bhattacharya has been “hounded by pangs of conscience” over what’s happened in Nandigram might do his image more than deserved credit. The fact is, whatever his personal opinion, his public face has been that of a man who sanctioned the brutality, at least did nothing to stop a bloody campaign by his own party when as chief minister he should have. Photo:ABP On the contrary, he and his party swung swiftly backstage to buffer their transgressions in Nandigram politically. A timely softening on the nuclear deal was widely interpreted as a means to neutralise both the Congress’ local belligerence and any intervention that New Delhi might have contemplated. And within the Left Front, dissent was effectively armtwisted. Consider the changed tone of senior RSP leader and state PWD minister Khiti Goswami. Days after he told a crowded press conference that he and two of his colleagues would resign from the Left Front government, Goswami did quite a U-turn; nobody was quitting, nobody was saying anything anymore about Nandigram or the CPM, at least not on the record. It is well-known that all Front partners including the CPI are deeply distressed at the CPM’s handling of Nandigram but they play under the compulsions of being junior, spanked partners. They can’t risk breaking rank. But why did the CPM go so far in Nandigram? Why did it resort to Red Army Stalinism? The answers are slowly coming to the fore. It was not about Nandigram, really, not about one Lok Sabha seat or half a dozen in the Assembly. It was all about the realm. You lose a bastion like Nandigram and you could start a cascade of similar revolts, it could be the beginning of the end. At the party headquarters in Alimuddin Street in the heart of Kolkata, CPM leaders offer no end of explanations for Operation Nandigram, including that it was becoming a hub of Naxalites. But the real lie within the CPM itself — it fears that one loss could trigger a series, that once the myth of its invincibility is exploded, other areas would follow the Nandigram example. Nandagopal Bhattacharya, top CPI leader and West Bengal minister, agrees: “As a ruling party, it is important for the Left Front to look into the ground realities in Nandigram. We cannot let a stronghold slip away and let the Opposition rule. We currently hold all the four parliamentary seats in the (Midnapore) region and a significant number of Assembly seats. We need to improve, not lose out.” In fact, his voice echoes with sentiments expressed by a staunch opponent. Basudev Bose, the state secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), accused of fermenting trouble in Nandigram along with Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, says the end of violence in Midnapore district now revealed the true reason of the Left Front’s panic. “Nandigram should have been silent ever since Bhattacharya announced that there will be no chemical hub there. In fact, not many know the previous efforts to industrialise also met with disaster in the region when the state government — way back in the 90s — pushed a jelling ham project over 250 acres of land. But that the region was not silent is evident from the fact that those fighting in the area are doing it for political control, for the May 2008 panchayat elections in West Bengal.” Bose calls the Nandigram experience a desperate attempt by the Left Front to maintain its stronghold over the countryside. “But there were cracks in the Red Wall of Bengal that guarded the countryside and the CPM realised there’s trouble brewing in a number of areas.” There’s already been waves of anti-CPM ferment in the urban middle class following Rizwanur Rahman’s dubious murder; intimations of losing ground in the rural heartland must make party bosses nervous. Political analysts agree. Noted writer Samaresh Mazumdar feels the kinds of discontent opposition parties are generating in rural Bengal are not simple pushovers. In many places, these forces have gained more than a toehold. “Frankly, Mamata Banerjee has got a new lease of life in her fledgling political career because of Nandigram, a region where TMC has never been a dominant factor except a few seats here and there. And that it was suddenly pushing an agenda was clear to the Left Front though those outside Bengal felt BUPC was fighting for its land from industrial sharks. In fact, there are no land sharks in that region.” Nor is it such a Maoist stronghold as the CPM claims. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya claimed Nandigram acquired a volatile overtone after state intelligence confirmed the presence of a group of Maoists under the leadership of one Ranjit Pal from Jharkhand who had set up a training camp and was smuggling firearms. It was obvious that the chief minister was oblivious to comments made to the contrary by state Home Secretary Prasad Ranjan Roy; 24 hours before the chief minister spoke, Roy had told reporters that despite the Communists’ claims of Maoist presence in Nandigram, no rebel was found in the region. The CRPF did confirm the recovery of one landmine and a 3.3 rifle from BUPC stronghold Sonachura. But opinion about Nandigram becoming a Maoist stronghold was met with scepticism. Noted Bengali litterateur Suchitra Bhattacharya said: “Who knows who planted it to give the entire operation a different colour. It’s almost like George Bush’s excuse to attack Iraq despite not finding any chemical weapons.” The Opposition is beginning on the “desperate CPM” theme too. Hours after the siege was broken through gunfire, BJP leader LK Advani — on a visit to Nandigram — old villagers outside the Tamluk hospital that there was more at stake for the Left Front government in West Bengal than just settling scores with a gang of farmers backed by the Trinamool. “The way the party moved in total cohesion to take charge of Nandigram confirms my belief. So does my belief that the silence from the Congress is because it has the nuclear deal in mind and needs the Left’s support to seal it. Obviously, the party will not react on Nandigram.” Agrees Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee, describing the Centre’s silence on Nandigram as its gift to the CPM for softening its stand on the nuclear deal. “I am aware of the Centre’s compulsions. Till 12 days ago, the Centre — despite repeated requests for CRPF and intervention — did not react and allowed the massacre to happen. But the good sign is that many Left intellectuals and members of the Bengali intelligentsia are waking up to the realities of CPM misrule,” she told her supporters in Tamluk, where she was camping on being denied entry to Nandigram. BANERJEE SHOULD know. The city’s intelligentsia, despite a brutal cane charge by the police, assembled in the heart of Kolkata on November 14 and observed a silent protest. Veteran actor Soumitra Chatterjee, who sided with the Left Front and asked those protesting why they did not raise their voice when BUPC members attacked CPM cadre, found himself increasingly isolated. “Sorry Soumitra, do not make such stupid remarks. You must know what you are saying. No one visited your film festival [Chatterjee is the chairperson of the film fest currently on in the city] and everyone is sad at your pro-Nandigram remarks. I do not know what you will do but I will side with those who lost their family members, those who lost their homes and those who lost their livelihood,” wrote veteran footballer Surajit Dasgupta in a pro-Left vernacular daily. But now that the guns have fallen silent will the Trinamool sing a different tune? Party functionaries reject any such idea, claiming the second phase of Nandigram will soon be announced and that there would be no let up. “Mamata doesn’t want to dilute her agitation on the Nandigram issue. We will continue to highlight an important issue like Nandigram,” Partha Chatterjee, leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, told TEHELKA. What’s in store for the ruling party? If there is anything Bhattacharya needs to be worried about after the Nandigram pogrom, it is this increasing isolation, especially from those who — despite not being in the party — stood with him for the last four decades on almost all issues, barring Singur and, of course, Nandigram. And if this feeling spreads among he people, both inside and outside Kolkata, the man who was once considered a thinking chief minister, will have to do some serious introspection. Presently, he is busy collecting his armour. The next battle is due in the panchayat elections in May 2008. Bhattacharya needs to win it — to retain the grip on his seat, party and power.

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 4, Issue 45, Dated Nov 24, 2007