Singur Package---- Balancing Industry and Agriculture

by Nilotpal Basu

Singur and West Bengal has come back to hog the headlines in the mainstream media once again; and, of course, for all the wrong reasons. The irresistible leader of Trinamool Congress Ms. Mamta Banerjee in her crusade against the Nano Auto Project of the Tatas had created a situation where the very future of the project has come to be threatened. Why this controversy? Ms. Banerjee's extremely disparate array of political groupings – from various hues of naxalites, SUCI and a small group of expelled CPI(M) functionaries and anti-industry environmentalists and foreign-funded NGOs of Medha Patkar variety – of course, under the redoubtable leadership of Ms. Banerjee – have asked for return of land acquired by the government of West Bengal for the project.

That such a demand has no factual or legal backing is a different proposition altogether. The demand for returning 400 acres of land out of the 1000 acres in itself is inexplicable. Because, though the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 does not provide for the acceptance of the land owners, the West Bengal government – given its political orientation had in course of the acquisition process asked the people for their opinion. And, 80 per cent of the people had actually not only given their consent but also accepted the cheques for compensation involving about 70 per cent of the land. Actually, land for which cheques have not been taken because of unwillingness amounts to only one-fourth of the project area. In terms of numbers, about 9,000 people of the 11,000 odd who were supposed to collect cheques have done so.

Therefore, it is clear that despite there being no legal requirement, overwhelming majority of the land losers in Singur are in favour of the car plant. But the issue is not one of legality. That there can be no defence for the archaic 1894 Act is a foregone conclusion. But so long as the law is not replaced by the Parliament enshrining the rights of those whose land will be acquired with pronounced emphasis on rehabilitation and alternative livelihood security in the statutes– state governments have no other alternative but to acquire land on the basis of the current law. But despite that, there can be an alternative approach marked with compassion and sensitivity. With the Singur land acquisition that is precisely what has happened. The Singur rehabilitation package saw for the first time an attempt to provide compensation not merely in financial terms.

The original package took into account prevailing market rates for calculating the compensation with an additional premium. But the unique feature was the inclusion of both recorded and unrecorded sharecroppers who did not have any proprietary rights on the land. They were offered 25 per cent of the amount that was offered to the landowners. Not only that, the state government also undertook a major training programme to upgrade skill of people – mostly young people – from the displaced families to enable them for possible employment both direct and indirect. The other component of the package included formation of cooperatives, syndicates and self help groups, which were involved in the construction phase and providing services. But even such a package did not satisfy the opposition. In spite of repeated appeals of the state government, Ms. Banerjee-led opposition was not keen on discussing the contentious issues and concerns of those who were not supportive of the project. Instead, there was a dharna which ultimately turned out to be a period of severe disruption with the project area being blockaded despite an assurance to the contrary.

The dharna also spilled over to the adjoining national highway creating a massive traffic disruption for over a week where even essential drugs and food supply was threatened. It is this disruption which has been widely reported in the mainstream media. And, it is this which led the Tatas to declare suspension of work since their executives and workers were being threatened and physically harmed. The Nano for reasons of its abnormally low price is being seen not only as a `wonder' car in the country but also has raised curiosity in different parts of the world. Naturally, the disruption and the threat of an eventual abandoning of the project in Singur drew widespread public attention. Normally, one would have expected a bloody confrontation between the government and the opposition. But in spite of the gravest provocation, the government held back despite the fact that their position had been earlier endorsed by judicial scrutiny by a division bench. Because, the government's point was to demonstrate that it was not against the peasantry as had been sought to be made out by the opposition and the anti-Left corporate media. So while remaining firm to have the car project implemented in the interests of employment generation, the government was always prepared to go the extra mile to further address the requirements of rehabilitation and alternative livelihood creation for the project-affected. Could it have been otherwise?

The West Bengal government is the only state government which continues with land redistribution for the landless when the semblance of even tokenism of the programme has come to a standstill in all other parts of the country. In the last three years, 10,000 acres each have been redistributed every year. Consistent with that approach, even though the opposition refused to accept a negotiated settlement and was evidently trying to undermine the integrated nature of the automobile plant together with the ancillary units by demanding return of land which would undermine the project as such and the agreement of the state government with the investor – the government even after the Governor facilitated talks failed, have come out with an additional rehabilitation package. The highlight of the package is return of some land from within the project area together with an enhancement of the compensation amount as well as specific provision for agricultural workers and sharecroppers.

Added to this is the offer of assured employment for one from every family of the land losers. Going beyond the specificities of Singur, the developments in Bengal are actually bringing the focus of discourse on how to balance the interests of agriculture and industry. In situations where for building industry the necessity of converting agricultural land becomes inevitable, facts must speak for themselves. The displaced must be convinced at the end of the day that it is going to result in an improved alternative livelihood and not marginalization. The current initiative is indeed pointing towards such a course of development.

Who Prevented The Singur Project From Being Implemented?

BIMAN BASU

THE exercise of setting up Tata Motors’ small car project in West Bengal began on May 12, 2006 when the Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Tata group chairman Ratan Tata met at the Writers’ Buildings. Based on those discussions, on May 18 in the presence of the Bengal chief minister and the industries minister Nirupam Sen, Tata announced that they are ready to invest in the automobile sector at Singur for producing their rupee one lakh small car, Nano.

It was also spelt out that in the main complex, directly 2000 people would be employed. However, in the adjacent ancillary industries, the employment would go up to 10,000. These figures exclude the people who will avail themselves of the benefits through setting up of shops, bazaars, lodges, and accrue other social benefits out of the social activities in and around Singur.

Based on the discussions with the Tata Motors, the government of West Bengal initiated the preliminary preparations to go for the small car project unit at Singur in Hooghly district. Accordingly, the government started the acquisition of land at Singur and this move was supported by a big rally of peasants. The slogan given by the peasantry of Singur was ‘we want industry to be set up at Singur.’

INTRANSIGENT OPPOSITION

In the month of October the same year, the state government called an all-party meeting to identify the land for acquisition purposes and to prepare a land map for the factory. The TMC boycotted the meeting and gave a call for a 12-hour bandh. It is found that after the visit of West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (WBIDC) officials, the TMC gave another call for bandh against the setting up of the industry at Singur. The government started simultaneously training the young men and women of the peasants’ families of Singur to provide future employment to them at the proposed factory.

However, this was not liked by the TMC. They started assaulting the peasant families of the area. A few days after the incidents when the government declared Section 144 in the area, and did not allow the TMC chief to go there to create vandalism in the villages, she returned to the West Bengal assembly, which was, then in session. She, not being a member of the assembly, came inside the assembly, called upon the TMC legislators and shouted out a wrong version of the incident with concoctions and lies aplenty. And then she gave a reckless call for wild ransacking of the assembly premises, including destruction of the properties of the assembly.

In her presence, the vandal activities were perpetrated by her legislators, damaging in the process property worth several lakhs in the lobby and the library – and the incidents were telecast live on TV channels. They also carried on vandalism within the chamber. After the mischief made by her party’s members, she gave another bandh call the next day. This is just like thieves who after stealing the goods, shout out ‘Thieves! Thieves’- and then make good their escape! What a shameful exercise this was – indeed it was a black day for the state assembly.

2006 witnessed many more anti-industrial activities by the TMC and their cohorts of different varieties from right reactionary to the left sectarian forces along with the so-called civil society patronisers. In the beginning of 2007, the same TMC attacked the WBIDC office without any reason whatsoever and if there is any reason it is only known to the attackers.

2007 also rolled on with lots of irrational and undemocratic activities unleashed by the TMC. These anti-industrialisation forces drawing people, especially hoodlums, from different parts of the state wanted to break down the walls on the perimeter of the factory, hurled bombs, and also attacked and injured five security guards of the factory.

In the beginning of 2008, the Kolkata High Court passed a verdict on the case against land acquisition in Singur lodged by the TMC and their patronisers. In its verdict the High Court clearly stated that the land acquisition is in accordance with the law of the land and thus legally valid. It further declared that the land acquisition was done for the sake of public interest.

The chief minister on different occasions wrote letters to the Trinamul chief inviting her for discussions. However, the latter refused to enter into any parleys. On the contrary, she declared that she would make a ‘great fun’ out of the entire governmental effort. In the third week of August of this year, TMC along with its rainbow alliance commenced blockade near the factory at Singur with a huge amount of expenditure, started to stay there, and made extensive arrangements for food and lodging sponsored by the rainbow combination and their patrons.

BLOCKADE AND AFTER

On August 20, the engineers and other staff of Tata Motors, comprising of both foreigners and Indians, were returning from the factory to their lodging, they were menacingly obstructed by the TMC-led protestors. At this point, the Tata Motors announced that they might think in terms of shifting out the factory away from Singur. During this critical period, the governor of Bengal started to negotiate with the TMC and organised different kinds of meetings where the Bengal chief minister and the industries minister as well as the panchayat minister took part. In certain meetings of this kind, the TMC chief and the chief minister took part in discussions in the presence of the governor.

It was decided through discussions that two persons from the TMC and two from the state government would discuss to find out the ways and means of solutions of the impasse that had rapidly developed. It was unfortunate that the representatives of the TMC did not want to keep on record what they had suggested at the meeting. Nor would they allow any minutes of the discussions to be kept and maintained. This very strange development was never opposed by the governor who wanted to act as the facilitator.

After all this, the new package was announced. The package covered very well the scenario of benefits of the land losers and the sharecroppers, including the agricultural labourers. The industries minister pointed out for the benefit of the people of Bengal that the new package signified a quantitative improvement on the earlier schemes. Apart from a 50 per cent hike in compensation for land, the package also included 10 per cent additional cost of the land price for the land acquired as contained in the earlier package. The beneficiaries can either utilise the funds through business initiative and / or via purchase of land elsewhere in the area.

After all this meticulous pro-people, pro-poor, pro-peasantry exercise, the setting up of a big automobile hub could not materialise at Singur. On October 3, the final curtain was rung down by Ratan Tata who declared that the small car project could not viably start functioning from Singur and that regretfully the Tata Motors would withdraw the project to elsewhere. This sad announcement just during the festival seasons deeply traumatised the people of Bengal, and not just of Singur.

TEMPORARY SETBACK

It is a fact that closing down of the Singur automobile unit temporarily created negative impact on our battle for industrialisation. However, we do not want, by any means, to halt our onward march for the development of Bengal’s economy, and to create jobs for the millions of young men and women of the state. We cannot and must not forget that about 84 per cent cultivable lands in Bengal are in the hands of the small peasants, marginal farmers, and the rural poor, which was made possible through redistributive land reforms in the interest of the exploited masses.

It is a great irony that the destructive forces that always remained with the landlords, big and small, and jotdars (rich peasants) in rural Bengal, suddenly started shedding profuse amount of crocodile’s tears for the marginal farmers and other victims of the member of the feudal society. They tried to befool these sections of people.

If we draw the correct lesson from the history of industrialisation, we find that all battles in Europe had to be waged seriously against the feudal elements. We are sharply aware of the fact that Bengal had an important position in the industrial map of India in the days gone by. However, these industries were traditional in nature. They could not compete effectively in the market without modernisation and gradually over time were shattered by the immutable laws of the market forces. It should be taken note of that Bengal was discriminated against in the issuing of licences, and this went on for more than two-and-a-half decades. Bengal was handicapped by the discriminatory policy of freight equalisation as well.

In 1994, the then Bengal chief minister Jyoti Basu announced a new industrial policy and gradually infrastructural development projects were undertaken for modern industries as well as the renovation of the traditional ones. A sustained campaign, and an improving industrial climate, were shaped by and were based on the increased purchasing capacity of rural Bengal.

It can hardly be denied that around Rs 30,000 crore worth of industrial products are being purchased in the rural market, leaving aside the urban centres. Through this process, at a time when the state government started receiving a positive response from different types of investors, TMC, and its cohorts started to try to make the wheel of progress grind backwards.

DEFEAT THESE FORCES OF DARKNESS

The directionless and aimless opposition had always thought that industrialisation would always be marked out as the success of the LF government; they never could think of whether opposition to industrialisation, especially pro-people industrialisation, would help the people of our state. They even shrilly shouted ‘we would not allow industry to take roots in Bengal because that will not help the peasantry.’

These ugly forces always pretended to be the friends of peasants and farmers and never considered that the highest amount of cultivable land are in the hands of poorest of the poor in the rural areas, incomparable with any other part of the country. Due to the fragmentation of land and the pressure of population through the increase in the families and family members, land is gradually becoming unviable as a source of livelihood.

Their implementing a game plan to put a halt to the development of Bengal by getting direct patronisation of reactionary forces both here and abroad and spending crores of rupees for their malicious campaign based on falsehood, the so-called important personalities who were present with them in every form of campaign are also coming out with funds from their shady sources.

These forces of darkness not only oppose industrial growth but also the infrastructural development through a violent mode and method, which would certainly vitiate the ambience of peace, unity, and amity amongst the people of Bengal. They wanted a few dead bodies to help along their nefarious game plan. The GOWB would not oblige them.

We are sharply aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people of the state especially the younger generation want the development of agriculture, industry, infrastructure, and job opportunities to facilitate a real and tangible economic growth of our Bengal.

Therefore, for the development and growth, the entire democratic masses of the people and especially the young men and women, must come forward to defeat the retrogressive elements who want to see the peace of the graveyard.

Singur: Defeat This Anti-People Politics

THE opponents of the Left Front in West Bengal led by the Trinamul Congress chief Mamata Banerjee have, unfortunately, succeeded in driving out the Tata’s car manufacturing unit from Singur. They have, thus, with the mere support of less than 10 per cent of the owners of the acquired land who have not taken the compensation cheques, adversely affected the future prosperity and improved livelihood for a large number of people in the area as well as the process of industrialisation that would have generated greater employment opportunities. As we have repeatedly argued in these columns earlier, the disruptive violence mounted both in Nandigram and Singur were basically political in nature. Through these movements, the Trinamul Congress and other opposition to the Left Front are seeking to consolidate their support base. In the final analysis, it is for the people of Bengal to decide on the type of politics that they would want.

Mamata Banerjee has not merely ensured the exit of the Nano project from Bengal but being the loyal steadfast ally of the BJP in the NDA, she facilitated the project’s re-location to Gujarat. Remember, she continued to remain with the NDA and, thus, in a way endorsed the communal carnage unleashed in the state by the BJP’s Narendra Modi government.

Be that as it may, voices in the corporate media, despite the stark realities of why the Tatas have shifted from Bengal, cannot refrain from their usual CPI(M) bashing. “Don’t just blame Mamata” screams the editorial of The Economic Times. Some others have been less aggressive, but nevertheless hold the CPI(M) and the Left Front government responsible and, in the process, eulogise Mamata Banerjee by comparing her to David in his fight with Goliath (Business Standard), or, portraying her as “India’s saviour” (Prem Shankar Jha, The Hindustan Times)! The latter justifies this by reference to an alleged electronic media footage of policemen brutally attacking “unwilling farmers” in the process of acquiring land at Singur. There is no iota of any evidence of either the source or the credibility of such footage that few others seem to have seen. This is followed by graphic description of how the villagers’ consent was “obtained” through police excesses: “Are the blood and tears of the poor a necessary price of development?”

Such descriptions remind us of the times, in early 1970s, when graphic accounts of the advance of the US army operations in its war against Vietnam in Saigon, were being filed as `eye witness accounts’ from the Press Club in Bangkok. As the evening advanced, such `eye witness accounts’ became more ‘spirited’. In the event, it was Vietnam that triumphed over the US army and liberated Saigon and the rest of the country.

Amidst such anti-Left vitriol, certain substantive issues have been raised that require attention. First, why did the Left Front government acquire arable land for industrialisation instead of barren land? The answer is simple. There is less than 2 per cent of land in West Bengal which is barren. Secondly, why did the Left Front government not persuade the Tatas to give a share or stake to the land owners in the company or the project that is to be set-up on this land? Again, the answer is simple. What we require is a new central law for land acquisition in the country.

Land currently being acquired all over the country (5 lakh acres of arable land in the last three years has been acquired) is being done under a law enacted by the British while the rail roads were being constructed way back in 1894. The CPI(M) has been demanding that this anachronism must be immediately removed by enacting a new law that will take into account the nature of compensation including providing a stake in the future of the project not only to the owners of the land, but also to those dependent upon the land for their livelihood. This has to be a legal arrangement under law. This cannot be left to the whims and fancies of individual corporate houses or the state governments. The need for a negotiation on this must simply not exist. This needs to be enacted under law.

Unfortunately, during these last four years or so, especially when the drive for the Special Economic Zones began aggressively and the issue of land acquisition came to the fore, no new law has seen the light of the day. This needs to be urgently addressed.

Thirdly, the common refrain is that the Left Front government failed to provide adequate security forcing the Tatas to leave Singur. That is not the reason as Ratan Tata himself has stated for the Nano project to leave. Indeed, adequate protection was provided and the state government was discharging its responsibilities towards the maintenance of law and order. The Tatas, however, took a stand that unless everybody cooperates, they are not going to continue to remain in Singur. One can, surely, disagree with such a position. For, after all, no one can say that they shall build their house in a locality only when all others living there will give an assurance that their house will not be burgled. However, like Mamata Banerjee, the Tatas also have an equal right to take an unreasonable position.

In any case, the net result is that Bengal and its people have been denied, temporarily and only in this particular project, the opportunities and advantages arising from such industrialisation. As argued in these columns in the past, what Bengal and its people require to advance further is rapid industrialisation on the basis of the consolidation of the land reforms and attendant increases in yield and productivity in agriculture. This has been a decision arrived at after long discussions in the Left Front and amongst the people and this was emphatically endorsed by the people in the last elections to the assembly when the Left Front won a whopping two-thirds majority on the basis of an election manifesto whose major thrust was for rapid industrialisation. The current opposition is, in fact, a negation of the people’s mandate.

It is, therefore, upto the people of Bengal to decide, when the opportunity arises, to endorse this negation of their earlier mandate or to reject such politics which are acting against the interests of the state and its people. In other words, the politics that led to the re-location of the Nano project from Bengal also needs to be re-located elsewhere in the interests of greater prosperity of Bengal and its people.

EDITORIAL,

PEOPLE'S DEMOCRACY

October 12, 2008

SINGUR: THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

NIRUPAM SEN

The people of the country, of Bengal, and of Singur may legitimately pose the question as to what made the Tata's wind up the small car project at Singur when more than 85% of work has been completed.

A run of devastation called an 'agitation,' has had a temporary triumph. It has wounded the both the prospects of industrial investment in the state and the process of industrialisation. Again, we call this a temporary phenomenon. The majority of the people of the state - indeed, an overwhelming majority - had wanted from the core of their heart that the Singur project must become a reality.

Following the meeting that Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and I had with Shri Ratan Tata, the expectation of the people has perhaps touched rock-bottom. Only history will tell in the months and years to come what would the losses entail to no less than eight crore of men and women of the state.

History was sent on the backfoot on 3 October 2008 when at the end of the meeting Shri Tata addressed the media that the small car project would now be shifted away from Singur because 'there is no there alternative,' now more than ever, what with the clear 'responsibility devolving on the so-called 'agitation' of the Trinamul Congress.' The project to which the people of the sate had looked with so much of fond expectation for a period of two-and-a-half years saw the shutters come down at last.

The people of the state would not be witness to the turning back of the wheel of history - the people of Bengal know how to face contingencies of whatever kind. The project, it is now clear has been shifted away from Singur simply and only because of destructive, irresponsible acts of violence by the main opposition party in Bengal and some its cohort outfits. The vast majority of the people Singur, indeed of Bengal do not support in any manner the pattern of behaviour of these political outfits. They wanted the project to see the light of the day. They stood to lose out the most. The extent of loss will be something that will be felt in full measure in the days ahead.

However, we have not an iota of doubt in our hearts-and-minds that the negative 'agitationsists' movement shall be met politically. People must come forward. The campaign-movement that would soon unfurl across the state and in the country must be conducted amidst the people, with the people.

The event has harmed the prospects of industrialisation. It has also left bleeding in its wake the prospects of industrial investment in the state. Hurt shall be felt amongst the younger generation amongst whom the Singur project was a beacon of hope. Nevertheless, not all this shall ever signify that the industrialists concerned with ongoing and future projects shall all go away from this state. The process of industrialisation in Bengal on a sound and expanding agrarian base is important and emergent. We shall have to traverse along this path.

Let me say that we do not support the decision that the Tata's have chosen to take. Yet, we are aware that there is a timeframe fixed for the production of the small car. Things were already running behind schedule because of various factors. Tata's have clearly pointed out that they do want production to go on under Police protection. They wanted a peaceful ambience. They looked to safety and security for the guards they had employed. These expectations were quite in the order of things. The state government had made ample arrangements to look after security.

However, the stat government, at the same time, did not want any happenings to take place that would open the portals for violent deeds to take place. The opposition wanted exactly this to happen: let blood be shed. The blood letting they would utilise shamelessly to widen their kind of politics. The state government would not afford them this heinous opportunity.

The opposition had promised that their agitation would remain peaceful. They did not keep the pledge. Some may view the behaviour of endurance on them part of the state government as weakness. Our principle was that we did not want to have any unpleasant incident on our hands. Those who created the violence that wrote finish to the Singur project for the time being should do a bit of self-search to seek how much of good their deeds have done to the people of Bengal.

On the issue of returning the acquired land, we hold that there is no such proviso in the Indian Constitution. The present owner of the land is the state government. There is no legal proviso by which one can return the land to the farmers or to the previous owners. There is really no need now more than ever to enter into any dialogue with the opposition any longer. The court of law shall hold into the cheques of those who had not accepted them for whatever reason.

If somebody asks of us that we should have entered into discussion with the opposition earlier, our counter-query would be what timeframe are we talking about? Can anyone name just single project where the principal opposition party have come forward on to the table for discussion? There politics is that they will never allow any good to happen to Bengal. The picture is the same whether the project is a roads project or a project for generation of electricity.

We are right amidst the festival season and this is the time when we are faced with a sad and tragic event. The youth must be bitterly disappointed. We could not think that the main opposition party would play at such sectarian, such destructive politics. It is their role, let no one be mistaken, that has prevented the Singur project from going becoming viable and vibrant.

Interview with Nirupam Sen

“We followed rules. We are now working on a rehabilitation package.” : Nirupam Sen

WITH Tata Motors suspending work at the Nano plant site in Singur and exploring alternative sites outside West Bengal, the prospect of an industrial revival in the State hang by a thread. In an exclusive interview with Frontline on September 3 By SUHRID SANKAR CHATTOPADHYAY , State Industries Minister and Communist Party of India (Marxist) Polit Bureau member NIRUPAM SEN spoke at length on the importance of the project and why it is impossible for the State government to return the 400 acres [one acre is 0.4 hectare] of land to reluctant land-losers, as demanded by Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee.

According to Sen, it is not a question of compensation alone but also one of including the poor people in the region in the industrial process.

Excerpts from the interview, which took place before the two sides held talks at Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi’s initiative:

Q:What impact will a departure of Tata Motors’ Nano project have on West Bengal?

Nirupam Sen:

It is bad news for West Bengal, but I still see a ray of hope. If we can resolve the issue amicably within a short space of time, we hope to be able to persuade Tata Motors to restart work at the plant site.

From the economic point of view, the automobile industry accelerates growth in the manufacturing sector by acting as a stimulant for the growth of small and medium enterprises manufacturing components. It is not just the small car mother plant that had come but also 55 component manufacturers. The number of people expected to get employment in these enterprises would have been more than double the number of people engaged in the mother plant.

Moreover, other component manufacturers were also showing interest in investing in the State; this, in turn, would have encouraged other automobile manufacturers also to come to the State.
This automobile plant is extremely important in India. Every international player has started looking at India as a destination to set up its unit. At present there are three automobile manufacturing centres in the country, in the north, the south and the west, and it was time for the east, and West Bengal had the opportunity to house this kind of a project, which would have accelerated growth, added to the revenue generation of the State government, and increased the employment potential in the State.

With the entire world looking on with interest at this project, the decision of the Tatas has tarnished the image of not only the State but the whole country. If a project of this kind cannot be implemented in the State, it will have an adverse impact on the minds of the potential investors as well.

Q:Was the State government expecting a decision like this?

Nirupam Sen: Well, Mr Tata was naturally concerned because nobody would want the factory to run under police protection. He had hoped that the people of the State would want a project like the small car factory and there would be a peaceful atmosphere in the workplace.

I can understand his point of view. Any investor would want that.

What is particularly disturbing is that those who are agitating in Singur had promised the State government that they would not indulge in violence, nor impede the activities in the factory. Unfortunately that was not the case. They stopped workers from going into the factory. They blocked the passage of some engineers who had come down from abroad to help in the work, and finally forced Tata Motors to suspend operations.

Q:Has the State government spoken to the Tatas to change their mind and give West Bengal one more chance?

Nirupam Sen: Not yet. Let us resolve the issue first. Attempts are on, and with the Honourable Governor, Gopalkrishna Gandhi, taking the initiative and talking with both the sides to settle the issue, we are hopeful of a positive result soon.

Q:Why is it not possible to return the 400 acres to the unwilling farmers, as demanded by Mamata Banerjee? Could the Tatas not have been persuaded?

Nirupam Sen: It’s not about persuading the Tatas; the question of returning land is a very complicated one. Initially, when the project was conceived, it was done in such a fashion that along with the mother plant, the vendors’ park would be an essential component and would be complementary to the mother plant. The Nano is an extremely price-sensitive car. Therefore, when the planning of the project was done, all the vendors’ and component manufacturers’ exact locations were also determined to the best advantage of the project. Accordingly, vendors were given land allotment. So, when the question arises to returning a portion of that land, it will be tantamount to abandonment of the project itself.

Secondly, even if it is agreed that the land may be returned, the question is whether it is possible to return the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act to the erstwhile owners. In this case, the verdict of the Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear that this is not possible. The verdict states categorically that once land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it cannot be returned to the erstwhile owners.

Moreover, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the legality of the land acquisition proceedings in Singur and decided that the land acquired for the Tata project is an acquisition for a public purpose. Though the judgment has been challenged in the Supreme Court, until and unless the Supreme Court turns it down, the High Court verdict stands. But, going back to the main point, even legally, whichever government may be in power, it cannot return the land to its erstwhile owners.

There is another important aspect involved in this: of the total land-losers in the acquisition of 997 acres, those who have refused compensation are being called ‘unwilling land-losers’; there is no such term in the Land Acquisition Act. There is no provision in the Act to take into consideration who is willing and who is not. At the time of notification for land acquisition, farmers were allowed to express their points of view at the hearings; we have followed all the rules, never once deviating from the legal path.

But, for the sake of argument, let us take into consideration the ‘unwilling farmers’; the point now is, is their land in a contiguous area or on one side of the location? No. It is spread over the entire site, as the map I have given you clearly shows, and to return such land, as I have said, would mean abandoning the project.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we return the land to the unwilling farmer. In order to do that we have to give him access to his own land, and for that we have to take other land also. Is that feasible?

I’d like to make another point. So, we cannot return to the unwilling land-losers the land they held; but we can add up the total amount of land, and that amount we can give to them from a portion of the land in one corner of the site. In other words, we take the land of A, who has taken the compensation, and give it to B, who has refused compensation, taking into account the fact that after the construction of the factory the price of land has shot up.

Would that be morally justifiable? What answer will the government give to the man who gave his land willingly for compensation only to see it handed over to another who has defied the law, and particularly when the value of the land has increased so very much? If they (the ‘willing’ farmers) knew this is what would happen, they would not have agreed to part with their land in the first place. Such a thing would jeopardise the entire land acquisition process and set a precedent that would impact not only the State but the country as a whole.

Q:So what were the alternatives?


Nirupam Sen: First, let us get one thing clear: what is the main issue here? It is whether the government is serious about protecting the economic interests of those who lose their land; whether they are being thrown out or being included in the process of development. In this particular case, the State government has all along been willing to consider all the proposals by which we can protect the interests of those land-losers – particularly the marginal farmers and sharecroppers. It can be through the provision of jobs and through other kinds of activities such as skill-upgradation programmes, and even providing help to set up some kind of business. If your interest is to protect the livelihood of the people in the region, then there is enough scope to do so; and I say they should have a better livelihood after this industrialisation.

Q:Did you consider hiking the compensation?

Nirupam Sen: First, the price given to farmers at the time of land acquisition was considerably higher than the market price at that time. The price of the best land there, just by the National Highway, was not more than Rs.2 lakh an acre then, but we gave much more than that. But it would be wrong to compare it with today’s price because after the Tatas started setting up their factory, the price has shot up.

Secondly, I don’t think merely compensation is enough. I believe there should also be a rehabilitation programme. Whatever be the compensation, it is important that an alternative means of livelihood also be provided; we have been working on that right from the day we started acquiring the land. Almost simultaneously, we issued an advertisement in newspapers inviting applications from employable members of the families of land-losers. More than 3,000 people responded, over 500 of them women and 500 agricultural labourers. They have been provided with different kinds of training; in fact, already more than 1,000 people of the area earn their livelihood from working in that particular plant. So, even before production, so many people have gained employment there.

Not only that, if you look at the local economy, it is evident how much it has grown since the construction work started at the plant site. Branches of banks have come up; recently in a fair organised in the region by Maruti, the company sold 20 cars in one day in Singur alone. A number of motorised rickshaw vans have replaced cycle rickshaws and handcarts; so many people are engaged in supplying different kinds of construction materials – sand, bricks, stone chips.

Self-help groups have emerged. While 40 women have been provided sewing machines, 25 women run a canteen. As many as 350 boys are being given advanced training so that they can be employed in the factory itself. So, you can see there is quite a huge growth in economic activities in the Singur area. All these activities have taken place at the initiative of the State government to rehabilitate the people of the region.

Even after all these efforts if it was brought to our notice that someone had been left out, we were committed to protecting their interests as well. Even if there was no one employable in a particular family for any number of reasons, and there was no other means for them to survive than through land, we were ready to provide relief and assistance to them. We are open to any new ideas.

Q:Is the State government coming up with any plan regarding its land acquisition policy to avoid such fiascos in the future?

Nirupam Sen:

We are now working on a rehabilitation package. Wherever we want to acquire land we discuss with the local people and try to evolve a package. Every industry has its own specific nature, as does every area.

While we cannot compare one with another, there should be certain common features in the rehabilitation package offered. We are working on that. In fact, recently we had a workshop involving economists, social scientists and the chambers of commerce, where we exchanged views and ideas.

We are also continuously discussing among ourselves, with our Left Front partners. We will come out with a publication once we arrive at a comprehensive consensus.

Agreement between Tata Motors Ltd., Government of West Bengal and WBIDC

1. Tata Motors Ltd. (TML) was intending to set up a manufacturing Plant for
Automobile Products including “Tata Small Car” to manufacture 250,000 cars
per annum on 2 shift basis which could be expanded to 350,000 on 3 shift basis.
In addition, it would have several Vendors and act as a mother plant for many
aggregates to tune of 500,000 cars. In this connection, TML was considering
locating the plant in the States of Uttarakhand/ Himachal Pradesh in view of the
fiscal incentive package for the rapid industrialization being made available by
the Govt. of India to new Industries in these States which has been attracting a
large number of industries to these States.

The incentive package in Uttarakhand/Himachal Pradesh consists of:-

(a) 100% exemption from Excise Duty for 10 years.
(b) 100% exemption from Corporate Income Tax for first 5 years and 30%
exemption from Corporate Income Tax for next 5 years.



2. The Government of West Bengal (GoWB) is keen to take appropriate steps
for rapid industrialization in West Bengal and in this connection wanted to
attract some major Automobile Projects to the State. The Government of
West Bengal approached TML to persuade them to locate an Automobile
Project including the project to manufacture “Tata Small Car” in West
Bengal. TML showed interest in locating the plant in West Bengal, provided
the State gave Fiscal incentive equivalent to the value of total incentives it
would have received by locating the plant in Uttarakhand / Himachal Pradesh.
GoWB offered to match the financial incentives in equivalent terms and
invited TML to set up the Small Car plant in West Bengal entailing
investment of over Rs. 1500 crores by TML. In addition, Vendors supporting
the project are likely to make further investment of over Rs. 500 crores.


3. Since then numerous discussions have been held and based on this
understanding, GoWB proceeded with identification of various lands for this
mega project. Land of approximately 1000 acres chosen in P. S. Singur of
District Hooghly was finalized with TML. West Bengal Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. (WBIDC) commenced the process of
acquisition of this land. The process was completed with the Declaration of
Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, and thereafter WBIDC
has obtained mutation of ownership in its name in the Record-of-Rights, and
conversion of usage of the land from agriculture to factory.


4. WBIDC is in possession of 997.11 acres of land, which has been acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act. Out of this, an area admeasuring 645.67
acres will be leased to TML for setting up the Automobile Project including
the small car plant, while an area admeasuring 290 acres will be leased to the
vendors to this Automobile Project approved by TML (ancillary and
component manufacturing units), 14.33 acres will be handed over by WBIDC
to WBSEB only for construction of 220/132/33 KV substation and the
balance admeasuring 47.11 acres will be used by WBIDC for rehabilitation
activities for the needy families amongst the Project affected persons.



5. The terms of lease to TML for the 645.67 acres of land for the mother plant
are described below. In addition, WBIDC will provide on lease 290 acres of
land to the Vendors selected and approved by TML on payment of Premium
equal to the actual cost of acquisition plus incidentals, to be calculated on the
basis of the total acquisition cost and other incidental expenses expended by
WBIDC or any of its subsidiaries (duly certified by its auditor) averaged over
the total land acquired. The lease rental payable per year per acre by the
vendors will be Rs. 8000/- per acre for the first 45 (forty five) years and
Rs. 16000/- per acre for the next 45 (forty five) years. The initial lease tenure
will be 90 years. On expiry of 90 years, the lease terms will be fixed on
mutually agreed terms at that point of time.


6. The parties also discussed mutually to finalise the package of incentives
required in order to enable GoWB to fulfill its commitment to match in
equivalent financial terms the fiscal incentive foregone by TML in
Uttarakhand. The Net Present Value (NPV) computation of benefits that the
project would have received in Uttarakhand is attached in Annexure I which
is agreed to by all the parties. Sample computation of benefits in West Bengal
with stated assumptions is given in Annexure II which is accepted by all
parties as agreed basis of computation. The NPV is calculated @ 11%.



7. Accordingly, it is finally agreed, in supersession of all previous decisions and
agreements in this regard, that for this mega project, the fiscal incentives
under Industrial Promotion Assistance in terms of the West Bengal Incentive
Scheme (WBIS 2004), assistance towards land cost and interest subsidy in the
form of a loan against a quantum of the term loan to be taken by TML for this
project will be offered by GoWB as follows:-

(a) WBIDC will provide Industrial Promotion Assistance in the form of a
Loan to TML at 0.1% interest per annum for amounts equal to gross VAT
and CST received by GoWB in each of the previous years ended 31st
March on sale of “Tata Small Car” from the date of commencement of
sales of the small car. This benefit will continue till the balance amount of
the Uttarakhand benefit (after deducting the amount as stated in para 7b
and 7c below) is reached on net present value basis, after which it shall be
discontinued. The loan with interest will be repayable in annual
installments starting from 31st year of commencement of sale from the
plant. The loan availed in the first year will be repaid in the 31st year and
the loan availed in the 2nd year will be repaid in the 32nd year and so on.
WBIDC will ensure that the loan under this head is paid within 60 days of
the close of the previous year (on 31st March) failing which WBIDC will
be liable to compensate TML for the financial inconvenience caused @
1.5 times the bank rate prevailing at the time on the amount due for the
period of such delay.

TML & GoWB will make best efforts to maximize sale of products from
the “Small Car Plant” in the State of West Bengal.


(b) WBIDC will provide 645.67 acres of Land to Tata Motors Ltd on a 90
year lease, on an annual lease rental of Rs. 1 crore per year for first 5
years with an increase @ 25% after every 5 years till 30 years. On expiry
of 30 years, the lease rental will be fixed at Rs. 5 crores per year, with an
increase @ 30% after every 10 years till the 60th year. On the expiry of 60
years, the lease rental will be fixed at Rs. 20 crores per year, which will
remain unchanged till the 90th year. On expiry of 90 years the lease terms
will be fixed on mutually agreed terms at that point of time. The benefit
on account of land would be calculated as the total land area leased out to
TML multiplied by the cost of acquisition calculated in the manner as
provided in para 5 less NPV of rent payable during 60 years.

(c) The West Bengal Govt. will provide to TML a loan of Rs. 200 crores
bearing @ 1% interest per year repayable in 5 equal annual installments
starting from the 21st year from the date of disbursement of loan. This
loan will be disbursed within 60 days of signing of this Agreement.

(d) The West Bengal Government will provide Electricity for the project at
Rs. 3/- per KWH. In case of more than Rs. 0.25 per KWH increase in
tariff in every block of five years, the Government will provide relief
through additional compensation to neutralize such additional increase.

8. It is also agreed that the computation of the comparison of benefits in
Annexure I and II will be changed if there are any changes in the rates
of excise duty and corporate income tax during the next 10 years.


www.wbidc.com

Why This Agitation In Singur?

By Nirupam Sen

THE Trinamul Congress is at it again. It has re-embarked in its familiar role of creating chaos over the small car factory project of Tata Motors in Singur. A so-called movement to save land is crossing democratic boundaries and fomenting violence. A technician working on the project was roughed up with iron rods recently. He had to be hospitalised in a serious condition. A few days ago, another worker was attacked on his way home from the project site. The workers in the Nano factory, who live in rented accommodation in the area, are being subjected to threats to vacate their lodgings; even the owners who have rented out such accommodation are not being spared. On the way to the factory site or on their way back after work, workers are being intimidated, threatened and beaten up regularly. Public announcements are being made telling the workers to stay away from the project. The Trinamul Congress is now making the workers their soft target, with the aim of scuttling the project.

This small car project has drawn attention and created enthusiasm not only in the state of West Bengal, but also in India, and worldwide. The aim of the project to manufacture a low cost small car has generated amazement. Huge work is going on in Singur around this project. Thousands of workers, engineers, and technicians are involved in this project round the clock. It has had a major impact on the local economy. Shops, markets and banks have sprung up in the area. A few days ago, the car manufacturing giant MUL (Maruti Udyog Ltd) had organized a car fair in Singur. A report confirmed that they managed to sell as many as 20 vehicles in a single day. A few months ago, a newspaper reported a huge hike in motorcycle sale in that region. These examples clearly highlight the impact of the project on the lifestyles of the people in that area, even before the start of actual production. Numerous local workers are working at the site, along with workers from different parts of the state.

UNPARALLEL EFFORT FOR EMPLOYMENT

The state government, after discussion with Tata Motors, and the other ancillary industries involved in the project, has drawn up a vast plan to employ the youths of the families who lost their land for this project. Advertisements were put up for various job-oriented training programmes for younger family members of those whose land had been acquired. A large number of youths enrolled their names, and till date, 2793 young men and women are there on the roll. Moreover, 575 others, from landless families, are on the list. Steps are being taken to provide them with suitable training according to their qualifications, and to employ them on completion of training. Out of these, 855 are women. A significant section among these people is already employed in different sectors. More than 900 youths, both men and women, are already part of different rehabilitation projects. The programme to provide employment to the rest is also on. Women have formed self-help groups to run canteens. 40 local women are learning tailoring; preparations are on to provide them with sewing machines. Tata Motors has sent the majority of ITI trained persons in the area to their Tatanagar and Pune factories for advanced training. Preparations are on to provide training to those who are less educated, poor and land-less to enable them to work as car drivers and security and maintenance staff. Efforts are on to employ them not just in the main factory, but also in the ancillary units. There are also plans of assistance in place for those who want to pursue self-help. I do not know of such a wide range of effort even before the start of production in a factory in any other state of India.

Tata Motors recently announced that the construction is on schedule, and will be completed within one or two months. The preparations to create disruption around the project were timed just after this announcement. The aim is to tarnish West Bengal’s image in front of the country and the wider world since attention is focused on this project. The unfortunate truth is that, a section of the media in the state is party to this ill venture.

AIM TO SCUTTLE THE PROJECT

Are the demands raised by the Trinamul Congress or the so-called ‘Bhoomi Uchchhed Pratirodh Committee’ (Committee to Resist Land Acquisition) at all realistic? The demand is to restore the land that has been acquired to the so-called ‘unwilling’ farmers. It is a fact that quite a few landowners are yet to accept the sum offered as compensation. A total of 997.11 acres of land have been acquired. Eleven thousand owners of 690.79 acres of lands have accepted their payments. Owners of roughly 300 acres of lands are yet to accept the compensation. The number of these owners may be a little more than 1100. This data clarifies that the overwhelming majority of the landowners have accepted their payments. Out of those who have not accepted compensation, many could not do so due to legal complications around ownership issues. If we assume for the sake of argument that all those who did not accept the payments for their land are ‘unwilling’, is it possible to release their land after acquisition? The lands of those ‘unwilling’ landowners are not contiguous plots; rather these are small plots spread all around the project area. Even a child will understand that releasing those plots will mean dumping the whole project. It may be argued that equivalent amount of land from one side of the project site be released in lieu of the plots. This is not only illogical, but also unfair. This means A, who is ‘unwilling’ will have to be transferred the land of say B, who voluntarily sold the land. Why should B accept that? B could argue that if her/his land is not required for the purpose of industry, the land must be returned to her/him. This is impossible both legally and morally. There had been legal battles over these types of issues in the country’s highest courts. The Supreme Court had given a clear verdict in this regard, which says, a piece of land cannot be returned to its previous owner once it has been acquired. Even if the acquired land could not be used for the purpose it was intended to, it must be used for purposes related to public interest. Excess land, if any, may be auctioned by the government to the highest bidder. These directives are stated in the verdicts against civil appeals No. 6456 and 4113 of years 1999 and 2000 respectively. In a case between the state of Kerala versus N Bhaskar Pillai and others, the question emerged, “whether the government can assign the land to the erstwhile owner.” The Supreme Court in its verdict in 2004 said, “It is a settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is not other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owners the land should be put to public auction, and the amount fetched through the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the directive principles of the Constitution.” So, it is not a hard task to understand the motives of those who are raising demands for return of land that has been already acquired. They want to scuttle the project in its totality. The so-called ‘movement’ at present is being driven with this aim. There is no scope of doubt about this.

LAND ACQUIRED IS LESS THAN REQUIRED

It is being said that the amount of land acquired is much more than the actual amount required for a motor-vehicle factory. It is a well-known fact that land was acquired not only for the main factory, but also for some 55 small to medium ancillary units. Those who are involved in contemporary motor-vehicle manufacture know the requirements of this composition of main and ancillary industries. The specialist organisation set up by the central government, NATRIP [National Automotive and Research and Development Infrastructure Project (http://www.natrip.in/)] has framed some concrete proposals regarding the amount of land required for this kind of project. According to NATRIP, a main plant capable of producing one lakh (hundred thousand) cars per annum would need 450 acres of land. A 25 per cent increment of land has been proposed for each lakh units of production thereafter. This proposal excludes the amount of land required for the ancillary units which will manufacture the spare parts. Tata Motors has projected to produce 3.5 lakh cars per annum. So, they would have needed a lot more land for their main plant itself, according to the NATRIP proposal. In this case, around 645 acres of land has been allotted for the main plant. Around 250 acres of land has been allotted for the ancillaries. It should be noted that the Maruti factory at Gurgaon is on 650 acres of land, and their ancillaries are spread over another 600 acres of land, producing the same 3.5 lakh cars per annum. This is a total of 1250 acres in contrast with the 997.11 acres of land allotted for the Tata project in Singur. So, it is clear that the amount of acquired land is less than the actual requirement.

ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION NEEDED

Despite all these facts and figures, the state government wants a steady and acceptable solution in this regard based on discussions with all concerned. If the opposition party’s main goal is to financially rehabilitate the poor and marginal farmers, solutions can be worked out through dialogue. The state government will definitely stand by those who are completely dependent on their land, and might lose all they have as a result of land acquisition. In this case, discussions can surely be pursued for their alternate economic rehabilitation. Issues concerning the overall development of the area also need to be considered. The goal is to accelerate and implement the possibilities of industrialisation in this state. Help from one and all is needed in this regard. A lot of effort and help from a great mass of people is needed to do anything constructive. But to destroy, a few people are enough. No political party of the state thinks that the state does not need to industrialise. Despite this, the behaviour of the chief opposition party and some of the other smaller political outfits is against any process of development and employment generation. They are eager to project a negative and destructive movement as a democratic one. All democratic people should vocalise their opposition to such negative directionless movements.

SINGUR & NANDIGRAM:SOME FACTS

Immediately after the last assembly election, Govt of West Bengal embarked upon a path of industrialization as before as the manifesto of the Left Front for the last election clearly spelt out the need for the same. Let us look at the following indicators to comprehend the gravity of the problem at Singur and Nandigram :

1.Though West Bengal occupies around 3% of the total landmass of the country and 2.5% of the total agricultural land, it has around 8% of total population of the country indicating a tremendous pressure on the existing land.

2.The infertile/ barren land in West Bengal is only 0.5% compared to nearly 17% of the national average.

3. However, due to rapid land reforms in the State undertaken by the Left Front Govt., 78.78% of total land in West Bengal are cultivated by the marginal (less than 2.5 acres) and small farmers (between 2.5 acres to 5 acres). In West Bengal the total land measuring more than 10 hectares is only 0.05%. Whereas, for the whole country, such big farmers continue to hold around 17.3% of total agricultural land and the poor marginal farmers hold only around 15.1% of total agricultural land.

4. 20% of total land redistributed in the country is in West Bengal, though it has only 2.5% of total agricultural land.

5.The total no. of poor people benefited from the programme of land reforms in West Bengal is 2.5 crore, more than 30% of the state’s population.

6. As a logical corollary, according to even latest NSSO report, West Bengal crowns the glory of highest reduction in poverty among the 17 major states in the country in the post- independence period, especially in the decade from 1983 to 1993-94. Overall poverty ratio got reduced from 53.60% in 1983 to 33.45% in 1993-94 i.e. a reduction of 20.15%. The rural West Bengal saw drastic reduction in the same period from 61.56% to 37.35% i.e. a reduction of 24.21%, which too was highest in India. Even in the decade of reforms, from 1993-94 to 2004-05, West Bengal’s reduction of rural poverty is among the highest. It reduced it by around 9% to reach at 28.49% in 2004-05. The overall poverty ratio in the State stood at 25.67% in 2004-05 from 53.60% in 1983. (Ref. “Poverty And Inequality: All-India and States, 1983-2005”, S. Mahendra Dev, C. Ravi, EPW, February 10, 2007)


7. Because of this impeccable track record in land reforms, West Bengal now tops the production of rice, vegetables, fish, and ranks second in production of potato in the country. It occupies the position among the first three states in production of mango, litchi, coconut, flower.

8.The successful land reforms have been able to generate an additional income of Rs. 13,000 crore per annum in West Bengal in the rural area which find its way into the market to purchase industrial goods. So, the most needed demand stimuli for industrialization in West Bengal come from within.

9.However, the West Bengal agriculture is not without problems. The sectoral GDP contributed by Agriculture is only 24%( 2004-05), the industry contributed 19% and services 57%. Whereas, the population engaged in agriculture in West Bengal is 63%, industry holds 17% and services 20% of the population. This indicates the existence of massive disguised unemployment in Agriculture like the rest of the country.

10.In this backdrop, the percentage of rural income generated by the non-farm sector in the state is 1/3rd of the total rural income.

11. Agriculturists in West Bengal used 14.10 lakh metric ton of fertilizers in the last year alone. The no. of operating pump sets used mainly for micro irrigation in the state is more than 6 lakh. These two indicators are sufficient to justify the need for development of such industry within the state.

12. So, drive for industrialization is a must in the above backdrop to extricate the massive surplus labour force from Agriculture.

13. In this backdrop, the need for employment generating manufacturing industry is rightly emphasized. This is also important from the perspective of development of working class movement too as the no. of factory workers in West Bengal dwindled from 9.5 lakh in 1980 to 4.28 lakh in 2002.

14.In this backdrop, the 7th Left Front Govt. immediately after coming to power, decided to sign the MOU with the Tatas to start the work on TATA SMALL CAR project at Singur, Hooghly.

15.For this in the five mouzas of Singur, a total land area measuring 997 acre was taken over by the State paying a compensation of even more than Rs. 12 lakh per acre of land that is so far the highest such compensation paid in the country. Even unregistered sharecroppers and tenant cultivators are brought within the ambit of such compensation that is unique in the whole country.

16.Though according to “National Automotive Testing, Research and Development of Infrastructure Project (NATRIP)” of the Department of Heavy Industry, Govt. of India, minimum area required for such project to produce 3 lakh car per year is 1400 acre, Govt. of West Bengal could convince the Tatas to settle for 997 acre for the Singur project. Tatas similar car factory operating in Pune, Maharashtra occupies much greater land for operation.

17.A detailed compensation package for the socio-economic upliftment in the project area is announced by the State Govt. that encompasses training, employment, organisation of SHGs etc. Already, a total no. of 322 inhabitants of the area is trained up, with training going on for another 452 inhabitants and finalisation of training schedule for another 605. The total makes an impressive list of 1379 persons trained or to be trained for employment so far considering the number of persons whose land was taken over being 2851 including a component of 576 landless labourers.

18. A total of 2.5 lakh man-days have already been created at Singur as a result of carrying out of constuction and other work at Singur.

19. Central Govt. selected Nandigram block in East Midnapore district for the proposed “Chemical Hub” considering its proximity to Haldia Port. Indian Oil Corporation, a Public Sector Navaratna Company, was selected as the principal promoter for the project.

20.A chemical hub means production of no. of petro-chemical byproducts in a single contiguous area. These are butadiene meant for rubber industry, polyester for development of textile industry and other chemicals meant for development of Pharmaceutical industry as the state of West Bengal had no base of this very important modern industry.

21. The State Govt. never announced officially to take over land forcibly at Nandigram.

22. But the rainbow coalition of all hues organized under the banner of “Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee” led by the Trinamool Congress, the principal opposition party in West Bengal with only 30 MLAs in the State Assembly in a house of 294 and having only 1 MP out of 42 in the state, decided to carry out armed resistance since the beginning by spreading wide-spread canards about forcible land acquisition at Nandigram.

23. Violent agitation started at Nandigram from 03 January 2007 when the Kalicharanpur village was about to be declared as the “Nirmal Gram” by the Central Govt. in recognition of its impeccable track record for development of hygienic sanitation. The above rainbow coalition spread the canard that the govt. officials came to forcibly occupy govt. land that was a white lie. They torched no. of govt vehicles including beating the govt. officials.

24.In the ensuing violence that continued throughout January, February and March 2007 no. of left party cadres and leaders were killed including an elected Pradhan of a Village Panchayat and a Police Officer who went to perform his normal official duty.

25.Thereafter thousands of left workers and leaders were driven out of their respective homes from Nandigram. Even today thousands of them are living in makeshift tents at the neighbouring Khejuri Block and are subject to daily brutal attacks, harassment, collection of ransom by armed goons of the rainbow coalition. No. of women were raped and even murdered with needle of suspicion being pointed to Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Samiti, as they prevented the Police to carry out normal investigation.

26.In order to clear the misgivings and canards, the State Govt. announced again on 11 March 2007 that no land would be taken over at Nandigram and the Govt. abandoned its plan to locate the proposed Chemical Hub at Nandigram.

27.The govt. authority, after due consultations with all political parties in the area wherein all agreed for govt. and police intervention for restoration of peace, wanted to enter the area for the sake of restoring law and order situation in the area that saw absolute lawlessness since January 2007.

28.But unfortunately the members of the local rainbow coalition decided to confront the Police Force with arms putting the women and children in the forefront. In the ensuing uncalled for Police Firing and internecine clashes on 14 March 2007 14 people met with most unfortunate deaths.

29. Since then despite repeated govt efforts to restore peace including the efforts initiated by the legendary statesman, Com. Jyoti Basu, the rainbow coalition led by the principal opposition party in the state is out to destabilize peaceful atmosphere in the state. They are openly advocating armed resistance that is dangerous for the future of democracy and working class movement in the state.

30.The hands down defeat of this rainbow coalition in the recently held Panchayat by-elections and elections to the Municipalities except Panskura once again points out to People’s growing disillusionment with this brand of violent politics of those who paradoxically swear in the name of Gandhiji, the proponent of non-violent struggle.

PREPARED BY RANA MITRA ON APRIL,2007

DEFEND LEFT FRONT GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL

By Prakash Karat


From People's Democracy, 24.06.2007

June 21, 2007 marks a historic anniversary. This date marks the completion of thirty years in office of the Left Front government of West Bengal. This is a record not only in India but the world. There is no precedent for this remarkable record of a Left formation having won seven successive elections to a state legislature and that too with not less than a two-thirds majority each time. In fact, in the last elections held in May 2006, the Left Front won a three-fourths majority and polled 50.18 per cent of the vote.

It is this sustained popular base and electoral support that has surprised and perplexed many. After the first successive victories, the propaganda began that these are the result of a unique form of “scientific rigging” refusing to recognise the substance of the policies pursued by the Left Front government. The opponents and the rightwing took recourse to the charge of “scientific rigging” by the CPI(M) to account for their failure to democratically defeat the Left Front.

The May 2006 assembly elections saw the stringent supervision and at times unwarranted intervention of the Election Commission. This put paid to the propaganda of rigging. After having praised the free and fair polls organised by the Election Commission, the ruling class parties and the big bourgeois owned media were in for a shock. The Left Front increased its votes and seats compared to the previous election.

There is another way of trying to deal with this phenomenon of durable Left Front rule. That is to cite certain peculiarities of West Bengal and to argue that the CPI(M) has become a natural party of Bengal. This is also an attempt to deny the real significance of the political base of the CPI(M) and Left Front rule in the state.

PRODUCT OF CLASS STRUGGLES

What accounts for the strength of the CPI(M) and the political base of the Left in West Bengal? Firstly, the base of the Party and the Left has been built through decades of class struggle. In the rural areas, the struggle for land against jotedars, the rights of the bargadars and the struggle of the agricultural workers were the basis for the CPI(M)’s development. In the cities and towns, the organisation of the workers, employees and the other sections of the working people has been the instrument for political mobilisation. The CPI(M) conducted a long and arduous political struggle for the creation of a united Left Front which formed the basis for a stable Left Front government. For doing so, it drew upon the experience of the first communist government of 1957-59 in Kerala and set out a tactical direction in its Party programme adopted in 1964 about how the Party should utilise the opportunities to enter state governments where it is a leading force.

The Left Front government elected in 1977 was preceded by the United Front government of West Bengal in 1967 and 1969. These governments were formed in the background of the rising struggles of the working class, peasantry and the rural poor. Given the all India political situation in the 1960s and the hostility to the communists among the whole ruling class political spectrum, it was not possible to sustain these governments beyond short spells. However, these governments helped in advancing the struggles of the working class and the peasantry and strengthening the political base of the CPI(M) and the Left. The CPI(M) had to undergo six years of semi-fascist terror in which it lost 1100 of its cadres and activists.

MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS

Looking back it can be seen how the Left Front governments worked within the constraints of the existing constitutional and socio-economic system to implement land reforms, decentralise powers, institute the panchayat raj system, accomplish growth in agricultural production, protect democratic rights, ensure communal harmony and nurture secular values. It is these set of policies and measures implemented by the Left Front government backed by a powerful democratic movement and the political mobilisation of the masses that made the Left Front government distinctive. The people could see and experience the difference between a Left-led government and the state governments run by the bourgeois parties.

The CPI (M) programme advocates the abolition of landlordism and the implementation of land reforms as the basis for accomplishing the democratic revolution. Every Left-led government in India whether it be in Kerala, West Bengal or Tripura have striven to accomplish land reforms in a limited way within the constraints of the Constitution and the legal set up. The Left Front government of West Bengal has been in the forefront of implementation of such land reforms. The government acquired over 11 lakh acres of land and distributed the same among 25 lakh landless and small peasant households. Under Operation Barga, 14 lakh sharecroppers were registered bringing another 11 lakh acres of land under the control of the bargadars.

Alongside, the Left Front governments revitalised the three-tier panchayati raj system. A big majority of the elected representatives in the panchayati raj system came from the small and marginal peasants, adivasis and dalits. More than one-third of the seats are occupied by women. This democratic system was institutionalised 17 years before the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments became enforceable in all the states. It is the land reform programme and the institutionalisation of the panchayati raj system which provided the backbone for the rural base of the CPI (M) and the Left Front.

TWO PHASES

The 30 years of the Left Front government can be more or less equally divided into two phases. In the first phase – 1977 to 1991 – the Left Front government was working under a regime where State regulation of the economy under a capitalist path of development existed. The role of the central government and the nature of centre-state relations were different in this period. The centre had licensing powers for industry and allocated resources for public investment and development. During this period, West Bengal suffered from discrimination. The successive central governments would discourage industries being set-up in West Bengal and utilised the licensing power to the detriment of the state. The centre also wielded its financial powers in a manner to deprive the state of public investment. In this period, the Left Front had to wage continuous struggles to oppose discrimination.

Due to this iniquitous centre-state relations and due to an inadequate appreciation in the earlier years, that the Left Front government is in for a long stint in office, industrial development languished. In fact, West Bengal which was the front-ranking industrial state at the time of independence slipped behind and in 1985, it was only contributing 8 per cent of the total industrial output in the country.

The second phase in which the Left Front government is now working began in 1992 and continues upto now. This is the phase of liberalisation and the deregulation of the State control and intervention in the economy. It is also marked by the push for neo-liberal policies and the drastic cutbacks on State investments. The centre’s withdrawals from welfare and social sector responsibilities have also had a serious impact on the state.

THRUST FOR INDUSTRIALISATION

After the significant success achieved in increasing agricultural production in the state based on the policy of “walking on two legs”, land reforms and panchayat raj institutions, it was necessary to give priority for industrialisation in the next phase of development. The fifth Left Front government adopted an industrial policy in 1994. While maintaining and upgrading the existing public sector enterprises in the state, particularly big centrally run PSUs, the Left Front government began to take the initiative to attract private investment so that the state could have a strong industrial base and acquire high technology. While promoting private investment, the government is committed to defending the interests of the working class and their trade union rights. The state government has supported small-scale industries as a matter of policy. The number of small-scale industries working in the state increased from 19.1 lakh in 1994-95 to 27.7 lakh in 2000-01. West Bengal already ranks first amongst all states in respect to both number of working units and employment generation in the small-scale sector. The Rs 10,000 crore modernisation of the IISCO factory under the auspices of the SAIL, the Tata motors plant in Singur and the new steel plants proposed to be set up are part of this drive for industrialisation.

With agriculture as the basis, building industry is the perspective. In this process there has to be some conversion of agricultural land since fallow land accounts for only one per cent of the total land area of the state in contrast to 17 per cent at the all India level. The CPI(M) and the Left Front are clear that industrialisation will not and should not undermine the gains made by the peasantry through land reforms and achievement of food security.


ATTACKS ON LF GOVERNMENT

Based on the land acquisition in Singur for the automobile plant and the proposed chemical hub at Nandigram, a big campaign was unleashed against the CPI(M) and the Left Front government. The CPI (M) is being accused of reversing its stand and going against the interests of the peasantry. The attack which has mainly come from a “Left” position condemns the CPI(M) and the Left Front government for betraying the interests of the peasantry and taking over land to hand over to the big capitalists. The setting up of a major automobile plant in Singur will provide a fillip to industrialisation. The compensation package for the landowners and the bargadars, the creation of new jobs and linkages in industries will provide lasting benefits to the people in that area.

In Nandigram, the picture has become clear on what has been happening there in the past few months. The violent struggle launched by a motley combination of the Trinamul-Jamaat-SUCI-Maoists has nothing to do with land. The state government had categorically declared that no land acquisition is going to take place for a chemical hub in Nandigram. It is a political struggle to oust the CPI(M) and finish off the Left’s presence in the area. The reality of class struggle in rural Bengal where the forces of reaction seek time and again to push back the Left and democratic forces is being seen in a microcosm in Nandigram just as it was seen in the Garbeta-Keshpur belt eight years ago. The CPI(M) and the Left Front will meet this challenge too and come out successful.

DEFEND LF GOVERNMENT

The concerted attack on the Left Front government using Singur and Nandigram is aimed at weakening and isolating the CPI(M) and the Left not only in West Bengal but all over the country. It is the existence of the Left Front government for the past three decades which has provided the ballast for the Left movement in the country. If the country has withstood the onslaught of communalism in the last two decades, a major contribution has been due to the existence of the Left Front government of West Bengal which has a sterling record in defence of secularism. West Bengal witnessed the horrors of partition. Communal forces both Hindu and Muslim were active at the time of independence. But the dominance of the Left and the existence of a government staunchly committed to preserving communal harmony saw the state of eighty million people being free of communal violence for three decades. This has been a beacon for all the anti-communal and secular forces.

If divisive caste politics has not entered West Bengal, it is due to the class-consciousness developed by the Left Front and its government.

If the struggle for a federal system and the rights of states vis a vis an over-centralised system exists today, it is also because of the endeavours of the Left Front government. Finally, in the struggle against the neo-liberal policies and for pro-people measures, it is the strength of the Left in West Bengal that gives the weight to the all India struggle. In every movement in the interests of the working people, in every general strike and all India protests, it is the democratic movement in West Bengal that has lent its strength to the all India movement.

The Left Front government as it enters its fourth decade in office requires the support and solidarity of all democratic and progressive forces in the country. The three decades of Left Front rule is an outstanding testimony to the vital role of the Left and its indispensable relevance for building an alternative to bourgeois-landlord rule. Defending the Left Front government is imperative for all those who cherish democratic values and wish to see a Left and democratic alternative in the country.

On Agrarian Transition in West Bengal

By Surya Mishra

From THE MARXIST, VOL. XXIII,

NO. 2, APRIL TO JUNE, 2007

(ABRIDGED VERSION)

This article deals with changes in the agrarian situation in West Bengal over the last three decades, that is, since the inception of the Left Front Government in 1977. It also examines options before the Left Front at this juncture, as the Left Front Government strives to implement the policy programme to which it committed itself in the election manifesto issued before the Assembly elections of 2006. These are the specific objectives of this essay. The article deal with some issues of theory and policy before the Left Front Government and Left movement in respect of agrarian transition in West Bengal.

OPTIONS BEFORE THE LEFT FRONT

In the classical Marxist debate on the agrarian question, Lenin identified two distinct paths to the development of capitalism in agriculture, namely, the “Junker” (or “Prussian”) path (capitalism from above) and the “American” path (capitalism from below). Since then, the world has witnessed a rich variety of agrarian transitions, including those of present and erstwhile socialist economies and of countries in other parts of the Third World. The experiences of agrarian transition in India and in West Bengal have their own distinctive characteristics. While these experiences merit careful study, it can be stated with confidence that the capitalist development that has taken place in West Bengal in the last three or four decades is primarily a product of class struggle, that is, a form of capitalism “from below.” Given the situation in West Bengal today, what are the options before us? The CPI(M) has been of the considered opinion that production relations have to correspond to the degree of development of productive forces, and that a Marxist-Leninist assessment of the concrete situation, and of the correlation of class forces prevailing at the national and international levels, is required in this regard. After 1977, thanks to the land reform carried out by the Left Front Government, West Bengal achieved the highest agricultural growth rates in the country, and these were based on the productive performance of small farms. West Bengal made substantial progress in respect of rural per capita food grain consumption. It saw the sharpest decline in the country of income-poverty. The internal market expanded as a result of increased purchasing power in the hands of the rural masses. Above all, the policies of the Left Front Government changed the correlation of class forces in the countryside,a change that has been sustained for three decades. At the same time, there was some capital formation in the primary sector. Bank deposits in rural areas grew, and the State mobilised the highest levels of small savings in the country. Despite the fact that surpluses generated in the primary sector enhance the potential for the industrialisation of West Bengal, the class nature of the Indian state and specific policies of the Central Government have discouraged the industrial development of West Bengal.

Agriculture

With respect to agriculture, we certainly cannot embark on a policy of corporate farming in the way some other States have. These States have doled out vast stretches of agricultural land (on the pretext that they are wastelands) to agribusiness companies for captive farming. Some options, however, merit serious consideration.

First, we can upgrade small farms technologically. We can do so by mobilizing public and private investment, and utilizing contract farming arrangements in a way relevant and appropriate to our situation. This will enable us to replace, in collaboration with domestic capital, inefficient marketing systems as they exist today (and which have significant pre-capitalist characteristics). To ensure that the gains of this accrue the peasantry and the people, we have to depend on the bargaining power of the organised peasantry and regulatory measures by the Government.

Secondly, a functional consolidation of holdings, for instance by hiring in tractors and other equipment collectively, has emerged spontaneously in the West Bengal countryside.6 There is much room for organizing such initiatives in a planned manner. Cooperatives and self-help groups organised into clusters and federations can play a significant role in providing credit, other services, extension and marketing support. While it would be utopian to attempt large-scale cooperative farming or collectivisation in an age when even socialist economies like China or Vietnam have, on the basis of experience, gone in for decollectivisation followed by peasant farming, we must not be mistaken for those who eulogise petty commodity production from an anti-Marxist viewpoint and derive satisfaction from the collapse of collectives in the former USSR and elsewhere. The disastrous consequences of the forced dismantling of collective and State farms in former USSR have been noted even by bourgeois economists.

Thirdly, while de-peasantisation is not unexpected under capitalism, this phenomenon serves to emphasise the importance of using the possibilities of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP) to the full in order to create employment and new assets. Such employment and asset-creation may be in the form of water harvesting, land development, plantation in the lands of land-reform beneficiaries, the creation of assets and employment for households below the poverty line, Scheduled Caste and Tribe households, and other schemes.

The Industrialisation Imperative

The seventh Left Front Government came to office with a mandate to go ahead with industrialisation and consolidate the gains in agriculture. It can be said that the issues of the conversion of agricultural land to industrial land and the issue of whether elections in the State were free and fair became the two main issues on which the electorate delivered its verdict. The electoral verdict was unequivocal, and the strength of the Left Front increased both in terms of seats and vote-share. Any vacillation or backtracking with respect to industrialisation would represent a breach of faith in the trust reposed by the people in the Front.

The issue is not of industry versus agriculture, as the Opposition – who are the known enemies of the peasantry – would have us believe. The issue now is that of industrialisation for the sake of the peasantry and agriculture itself. All that the State and its people have achieved on the agrarian front will be at peril if balanced growth of secondary and tertiary sectors fails to take off.

Nothing other than such growth can release the burden of the workforce dependent on agriculture and subjected to both pre-capitalist and capitalist mode of exploitation, thereby making a more equitable distribution of work and earnings among the workforce in all three sectors possible; ensure a more sustainable growth of the primary sector by providing inputs necessary for the modernisation of and higher productivity from this sector; add value to primary-sector products, thereby enhancing income and employment; and · augment revenue resources of the State Government, thereby enabling more public investment in the primary sector in infrastructure, inputs, extension and human resource development possible. In class and political terms, nothing other than such growth can deliver yet another blow to pre-capitalist elements and their politicalmentors; utilise the contradiction between Indian big bourgeoisie and imperialism and the difference within the ruling classes and their parties in the country in such a way as to develop a Left and democratic alternative by changing the correlation of class forces; meet the onslaught of globalised finance capital to de-industrialise our economy; and meet the immediate need of forging the broadest possible unity of the peasantry, working class, petty bourgeoisie and all patriotic and democratic sections of the people to resist the terror let loose by the grand alliance of the most reactionary section of the ruling class. As contradictions and the class struggle intensify, Right and Left opportunists, along with vacillating sections of petty bourgeoisie, the lumpen proletariat and both varieties of communal forces are sought to be mobilised into this grand alliance in order to isolate and attack the CPI(M).

History teaches us that this attack against CPI(M) will not remain confined to the Party. The situation in West Bengal is reminiscent of the 1970-77 period, although it is too early to identify and list the common features at the present moment. The design to expand the current attack to a semi-fascist offensive against the all sections of people, irrespective of their political affiliation, in this advanced outpost of democracy in the country, has to be properly understood and explained to the people all over the country.

ISSUES FOR DEBATE

Many issues of theory and practice have been raised in the aftermath of the events in Singur and Nandigram. Some of these proceed from the assumption that the opposition of the Left Front Government to neo-liberal economic policy is less sharp, and has somehow been blunted in recent times. Such a perception maligns the most advanced outpost of democracy. It not only ignores the Budget speeches and other policy statements of the Left Front Government, but also the stark reality that West Bengal has made the biggest contribution – inside parliament and outside – to the struggle against neo-liberal policies. Critics who say that the Left Front Government is to be criticised for not protesting against the imposition of neoliberal economic policies on the people have lost sight of the fact that it is because of this resistance that the UPA Government is unable to push through fully the neo-liberal agenda to which it is committed.

Industrialisation

With respect to industrialisation in the State, one position is that, since the only industrialisation possible under the neo-liberal regime is corporate industrialisation, it is anti-people, since very little, if any, new employment is created. This position rejects as baseless the argument that industrialisation is necessary because it will take surplus labour out of agriculture, and states that it is awareness of this fact that “makes peasants most reluctant to part with their land for industrial purposes.” Further, the argument goes, the situation in India today is not one of industrialists competing for the attention of State Governments, but of State Governments competing to attract capitalists to their respective States.

These arguments must be met squarely. First, they do not take into account the relative advantages of West Bengal as an industrial destination. We have mentioned the nature of changes wrought by land reform, and the situation with regard to small savings and other forms of capital formation in the primary sector. West Bengal also has a stable and transparent State Government and a vibrant system of local self-government. Its geographical location permits it to serve as a gateway for some 200 million people in the region, besides being a gateway to South East Asia. It also has a reasonably large pool of skilled workers. Going by our experience, we believe that the present situation, particularly after de-licensing and the partial withdrawal of freight equalisation, is more one of capitalists opting to invest in West Bengal than of the Left Front Government running after them to invest. The fact is that it was not the Tatas who threatened to go to Uttaranchal, but the grand alliance of anti-CPI(M) forces that threatened them and told them to move out of West Bengal. Nor must we forget that capitalists compete against each other and attempt to prevent their competitors from investing in “flagship” technology that threatens their own markets.

Secondly, it is useful to remember that the Left Front Government has never forced reluctant peasants to part with their land. It was the armed goons of the grand alliance who forced peasants not to transfer land in exchange for one of the best compensation and rehabilitation packages that have been offered in the country.

Thirdly, it is often forgotten that the Left Front Government in West Bengal distributes more land every year free of cost to the peasantry than it acquires for all purposes taken together – and the current period is no exception.

Fourthly, the Left Front Government has been able to make progress with respect to Public Sector Undertakings, Central and State. Over the last year, investment of Rs 10 billion for the modernisation of IISCO has been ensured; in addition, progress has been made with respect to the revival of Bengal Chemicals, Gluconate, Infusion India, as well as the fertilizer industry and the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation.

The Left Front Government, too, is concerned about the limited potential of corporate industrialisation with respect to employment creation. In its last Party Congress, the CPI(M) emphasised the need to engage with the current situation, to look for new productive investment (including foreign direct investment that brings in new technology) and add to our productive capacity and ensure whatever employment growth is possible.

Thus, while the argument in question correctly opposes the Luddite argument against industry as indefensible, it also asserts that an employment argument for industrialisation is unacceptable. Our contention here is that the employment argument is valid, and serves to demystify the debate.

“Vulgar” Economy

Further, an exclusive reliance on the argument that industrialisation can be justified only on the grounds that it produces use values also has problems. As Marx wrote in the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital, “overwhelming and exclusive emphasis on ‘thing-ness’ (use value) is nothing but a modern variant of ‘vulgar economy’.”

Let us pursue this matter further. While opposing any method of analyzing a situation exclusively based on the materiality of objects, that is, its “thing-ness” or use value (the “vulgar economy” error), Marxist-Leninists must not make the mistake of passing judgments exclusively based on social relations as they appear, ignoring their material basis. These deviations represent opportunisms of Right and Left variety in the sense that they attempt to erect a Chinese Wall between “things” and “relations”, “use value” and “exchange value”, “concrete labour” and “abstract labour”, “productive forces” and “production relations”, and so on. A commodity represents a unity of opposites — its origin, development, decay and final disappearance being manifestations of the intensification of the contradiction between its use value and exchange value, which correspond to concrete and abstract labour respectively.

An error of some Left intellectuals and progressive scholars is that of assuming that this two-fold nature did not characterize pre-capitalist societies. Such an assumption implies that commodity production was non-existent in pre-capitalist societies, which was clearly not the case. The most concise definition of capitalism was given by Lenin when he stated that capitalism is a system of generalized commodity production where labour power itself has become a commodity. This definition differentiates capitalist commodity production from pre-capitalist commodity production.

The relevance of the issue under discussion in the Indian context must not be underestimated. Production relations continue to exhibit pre-capitalist fetters. This explains in part the vulnerability of our economy to the pressure of globalised finance capital.

Issues of Strategy and Tactics

It is our position that, with the big bourgeoisie, which is the leader of the bourgeois-landlord class alliance, increasingly collaborating with global finance capital in the pursuit of its bankrupt capitalist path of development, it is only a People’s Democratic state that can accomplish the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly and democratic tasks of the Indian revolution. The CPI(M) has much experience of the disastrous consequences of mixing up the tasks of different stages of revolution. The entire construction of those engaged in the battle against “vulgar economy” runs the risk of being misunderstood. It gives the impression that there is nothing much left to be done to abolish new forms of landlordism, the hegemony of the rural rich, and remnants of feudalism. The underlying view here seems to be that the focal contradiction between the landlords and the peasantry is being replaced by a contradiction between imperialism and the Indian people as a whole, that is, including the entire rural population. Such a view fails to understand that mobilising the rural poor against landlordism is critical to ensuring the broadest mobilisation againstimperialism.

While the development of capitalism in agriculture as well as the development of democratic and peasant movements have been uneven in the country, nowhere (including in the Left-led States) have pre-capitalist relations been eliminated. There are wide variations in the levels of socio-economic development and in historical background even among the three Left-led States, and it cannot be wise to offer a single set of solutions for all situations. For example, if one area in India today has a Permanent Settlement background, another has a history of predominance of ryotwari, and yet another a history of tribal-communal ownership of land with shifting cultivation.

Even today, a substantial part of the peasant economy in West Bengal is characterised by a combination of subsistence farming and commodity production. That West Bengal is the highest producer of rice and has a relative surplus with respect to rice production today is because of the fact that poor peasants who benefited from land reform have focussed almost exclusively on rice production to ensure their own food security. They had, after all, learned lessons from the food movement and its brutal suppression in the days when West Bengal was dependent on the supply of rice from the Central pool. Thus, a good part of the rice that these peasants produce is for their own consumption, and has only use value (and no exchange value). This is a form of security that they would like to protect.

The fact that capitalism tends to destroy petty production shows that precapitalist relations are inherent in such production. That these relations survived so long is not because the Indian state after Independence has provided support in the interests of getting “crucial petty bourgeois support” for strengthening the base of capitalist development. They persist because of the inherent limitations of the development of the capitalist path pursued by the Indian state, which
provides all its support for landlord capitalism (from above) and not peasant capitalism (from below).

Let us reiterate an issue raised earlier in the article. While the solution to the present problems of petty production does not lie in corporate agriculture promoted by neo-liberalism, it is utopian to talk of “cooperatives and collective forms” (if those are to mean cooperative or collective farming) as an immediate alternative direction for the Left movement. Following the cataclysmic changes in the international polity and economy in the early 1990s, the discussion in the CPI(M) on “Certain Ideological Issues” concluded that production relations have to correspond to the degree of development of the productive forces. The point here is whether the Indian Left today can afford an alternative that is currently only being experimented with in socialist states. We are aware of some of the experiments pursued in People’s Republic of China. It may also be relevant here to quote the experience of the Communist Party of Vietnam with regard to collectivisation and cooperativisation:

However, despite the positive factors, there was stagnation of production and food scarcities, given the lack of sufficient care of collective land. The life of peasants became more difficult and there were years when 3-4 million peasants suffered from food shortage while tens of thousands of hectares of land were left uncultivated…Thanks to the extensive and intensive reform already undertaken, Vietnam has been transformed from a food importing country into one that not only meets its own needs but can also export 4 million tons of rice every year.”

Similarly, the Cuban experience is that The economic mechanism of the agrarian state sector was based on centralised planning with restricted enterprise autonomy, a limited market and little use of prices and finance. The mechanism was intrinsically expensive, inefficient and bureaucratic, which explains the unprofitability and high subsidies needed to cover losses that became unbearable for macroeconomic balance during economic crisis of the 1990s.

The Cubans also recognise the existence of a powerful peasant sector, which is growing rapidly in the rural Cuban environment today. Of course we would prefer the cooperative peasant, once he represents a higher productive and social form in our society.

As mentioned earlier, we in West Bengal believe that while cooperatives can help a lot in providing credit, other non-land inputs and services, and other forms of support, functional collectivisation in form of farmers collectively hiring machinery and so on, can provide support to sustain peasant farming.

Some Left intellectuals not only lay lopsided emphasis on production relations or productive forces in isolation from each other, but also fail to take an all-sided view of other phenomena as well. There are problems of de-linking tactics from strategy, realisable demands from propaganda slogans, the immediate from the ultimate and, above all, practice from theory.

The CPI(M) has to work for many alternatives. These include the socialist alternative (achievable only after the People’s Democratic revolution has been accomplished); the People’s Democratic alternative, which requires “the actuality of revolution” to occur; and the Left and democratic alternative, based on programmes to advance the cause of People’s Democratic Revolution that are worked out in Party Congresses. Our Party-led State Governments, however, cannot be expected to implement any of the alternative programmes mentioned above. Within the constitutional and other limitations under which they function, they offer alternatives that fall short of full Left and democratic programmes.

It is clear that the alternatives that the Party proposes at the national level are not ipso facto applicable to Left-led State Governments. Sweeping formulations that do not take this distinction into consideration create confusion. When the Left Front Government talks about the need for “a shift of the agriculture-dependent population to manufacturing and other non-agricultural pursuits”, “competitiveness”, “Public-Private Partnership (PPP)”, “productivity increases”, “modernisation”, or even “investment”, “ development”, and “growth rate”, it is not unaware of the class content with which each of these terms is loaded. Terms such as these have meanings that vary with the class interests that underlie their use. Awareness of such class content also involves a recognition of the present change in correlation of class forces at the international level in favour, albeit temporarily, of imperialism. How the Party and movement are to engage with such a situation has partly been dealt with in the document titled “Certain Policy Issues” approved by the 18th Party Congress.

There must be no confusion in our minds with regard to the difference between “Xian” and “Yenan”. Defence of the CPI(M)-led Governments and the Left bastions in the country is an integral part of the struggle against neoliberalism.