Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

What Singur tells us

It is not yet clear if Nano will roll out of Singur. While Mamta Bannerjee has finally come to the negotiating table, she has raised the stakes so high that it would not be easy for her to climbdown from her land-for-land demand. Fortunately, TATA’s threat of pulling out of the state, even if merely a negotiating tool, has forced the parties to talk. Considering the bitter, acrimonious, and occasionally violent debate on Singur, that, in it self,  is a positive step forward.

While the negotiations continue, it is clear that it cannot be business as before. In some of India’s most impoverished states, land acquistion for industralization has become a huge issue. In Orissa, for example, the Kalinganagar project is still hanging in balance after almost three years of protracted negotiations. So what are the lessons India must learn from these unfortunate confrontations?

First, governments must not acquire land for private businesses. Not merely because of moral reasons but simply because the coercive tactics adopted by the state, backed by some of the most oppressive eminent domain laws in the world, inevitably lead to a backlash. The state’s role in Singur should have been that of a facilitator. Get the local communities and TATA’s to sit together, and help them thrash out their differences. Instead, across India, state governments are acting as virtual arms of private businesses. When the state abdicates its moral responsibility to act as a neutral arbiter, it loses the confidence of the people. This creates an opportunity for rogue elements to make it a state vs. people dispute. In Singur, Maoists and sundry anti-industry NGOs have hitched a free ride on Mamta Bannerjee’s bandwagon. They are not interested in compromises or even the welfare of the people they purportedly speak for. Rather, it is an opportunity to advance their ideological agendas riding on populist sentiments.

Second, in rural India, land is an emotive issue. The model of homo economicus finds limited purchase in communities where agriculture is not only the main economic pursuit but is linked to non-economic intangibles: community feeling, pride and self-worth.  To ask these people to give up their land is akin to asking them to renounce their community and forsake their way of life. Now, it may seem like an obvious point, but it is not. Far too often, one suspects, the bureaucrats and urban intelligentsia views land acquistion merely as an economic process discounting completely the human element. How cannot they get it, they seemingly ask, after all,  it is for their benefit. (It is another matter of course that urban India is equally quick to launch violent agitations when their patently illegal constructions are demolished.)

Now, let’s be very clear here. India needs industrilization; agriculture, as currently practiced in India, is clearly unsustainable. And industrilization needs land. However, we must learn to appreciate the human suffering of those asked to give up their land. Relief and Rehabiliation( R&R) packages should not merely constitute of economic compensation, but encompass a holistic approach which aims at ensuring the continuance of the local communities as far as possible.

In less prosaic terms, it may translate into transferring entire villages into neighboring areas thus sustaining community ties instead of letting people fend for themselves. Or at least, offering a small parcels of land rather than merely economic compensation.

Third, greater local participation in industrial projects is essential. Even in the case of Singur, reports suggest that Mamta Bannerjee was forced to the negotiating table because people of Singur who were directly benefiting from the project revolved against her. TATA Motors sponsored the education of 200 local boys from Singur and then offered them employment in their plant. Have other companies offered such packages? It is not to argue that employment of local people should be a legal requirement–that decision is best left to the companies concerned. However, if industrial projects have to move forward, local communities should be seen as stakeholders.

If the Singur dispute can illuminate the way forward, it would have served at least some purpose. Otherwise, it may be just be glimpse what may be seen increasingly across India.