SINGUR FIASCO; NO TO NANO, TATA BID GOOD BYE

                                      RATAN; A RANTNA IN BUSINESS TYCOON

The TATA’s fiasco at Singur in West Bengal has again triggered a debate on land acquisition processes and rehabilitation issues, not only in W.B. but in the whole country.

Steel Authority of India (SAIL) says that there is a little bit of steel in every one’s life. It is true because one needs steel i.e. strength to stand tall and survive. Similarly, it is also said that there is a little bit of politics in every economics. That is why perhaps, Politics without economics is fool man’s politics and economics without politics is naive business man’s venture. Well, this may not be true for TATA, because it is said for them, that they return back to society more than what it takes from it. Then, what went wrong in Singur which led to this great fiasco. Many believe that it is the beginning of 2nd deindustrialisation of Bengal, first happened in the colonial period. 

Nonetheless, it is too simple a proposition to believe that it is only Mamata or Budhadeb or for that matter Ratan Tata, who is responsible to this sad and unceremonious exit of India’s one of the biggest Industrial house from this State.

The story began when this dream project of Ratan Tata of manufacturing a ‘lakhtakia car’ choose Singur , a small block town in Hoogly district, situated about 50 kilo-meters North-West of Kolkata on N.H. no-2 i.e. Kolkata- Delhi Highway, as the suitable site for this venture. It required about one thousand acres of land, which Budhadeb readily agreed to make available. The Land acquisition process began in August- September, 2006 and required area of land was acquired. We all know that the lands in our country are acquired through Land Acquisition Act, 1894, last amended in 1984. This is a colonial law and speaks about acquisition of land for ‘public purpose’ even without the consent of the tillers or land owners. In fact Section 4 of the Act categorically mentions about the manner in which the lands would be acquired.

About 997.11 acres of land for this project was acquired, which involved about 8890 farmers. Tata began the construction in January, 2007, when the problem started. Initially, it was confined to the locals who were opposing this acquisition under one ‘bhumi uchhed committee’ banner. The inept handling of the situation by the Government and subsequent intermingling of communist cadre further deteriorated the situation. Gradually, this movement started gaining in momentum and turned violent leaving many people dead and several injured. Some eye witnesses are of the opinion that this was the worst kind of violence the communist State has ever witnessed. As generally so happens, the movement gradually slipped into the hands of politicians and made the situation more precarious. The entry of Mamata Banerjee into the movement metamorphosed it into a full-fledged political agitation. The issue by now had turned to be an issue of two political person’s individual rivalry, therefore; in spite of Governor’s personal intervention, the matter could not be settled. Mamata made the demand of restoring the 400 acres of land to the farmers because, what she said, this much land was not in the plant area and was kept for ancillary industries. This was the demand, Tata was unable to accept and thus road was finally paved for the final exit of Tata from Singur.

The questions remained unanswered are that, who is /are responsible for this fiasco and could it have been averted? Why are such problems occurring so frequently? Such protests leading to change in decision of industrial houses have taken place in Jharkhand, Orissa, Karnataka, Nandigram (W.B.) and many such places. Farmers have violently protested in NOIDA and Karnataka also, which resulted in police firing leaving some farmers dead.

Is it not oversimplification and extreme generalisation of the fact that these movements are politically motivated? Is it not administratively wrong to squarely and solely blame Mamata for this fiasco? It appears that one has to peep into the entire gamut of issue and find the real and root cause of the problem, otherwise the dream of industrialisation would face rough weather not only in WB but also in other States.

REASONS- Some people are of the opinion that the Communist Cadres have had been in possession of many lands illegally. They did not have legal documents, therefore; they were not likely to get compensation for those lands, because compensation, according to the law, would be paid to those who posses legal and valid documents. It is therefore they, who started the problem. There are one other group of experts who are of the opinion that the rate of compensation and ‘solacium’ money being paid here are perhaps the lowest in the country and that is why the farmers were unwilling to give their lands to the Government. According to information available, amount of compensation which was/is being paid was 8.40 lakh /acre for single crop land and 12.00 lakh/ acre for double crop land. As Singur is located on the National High way and that too is located only 40 K.Ms away from the State Capital, the amount fixed for compensation was definitely less than the actual market price. Actually, the price of compensation is fixed as per ‘market value’ which is calculated according to price of the land registration. But the problem is that the value shown in such registration is always very less as compared to the real price. This calculation is done as per the provisions of this Land Acquisition Act and therefore; Collectors do not have discretion in enhancing this rate. Of course, there are ways for the Government to do away with this discrepancy by way of framing policies.

RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION POLICY-

In Bihar for instance, one ‘Bihar Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007’ has been framed and the amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner has been considerably hiked. The provisions have been made to add flat 50% amount to the rate fixed by the collector. The existing rate of 30% Solacium money has also been doubled. The policy also seeks to provide compensation for other losses like structures, trees, ponds, etc. which are there on the acquired land. Thus, the amount of compensation has been increased many folds. This is the reason perhaps, why Bihar is facing ‘no problem’ in land acquisition processes’. Lands are being acquired in Bihata for some ‘public purpose’. This place is a block town and is incidentally 40 K.Ms away from State Capital Patna. Here, about 20 lakh/ acre and 24-25 lakhs/acre are being paid as compensation for single crop and double crop land respectively. Such is the gap and such is the difference, which the Government failed to understand.

In the State of Jharkhand also, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Policy, 2008 has been framed. But the amount of compensation and solacium money has not been hiked like those of Bihar. This State is also facing similar problems in land acquisition process. One R.P.G. group of company is setting up a power plant in Dumka district. The company is willing to acquire more than 600 acres of land. Sanjeev Sengupta, the General Manger of this company says that the tribal whose lands are to be acquired are ready, but suddenly a woman Munni Hansda of a so called NGO namely ‘Ulgulan Manch’ came here and created trouble by spreading rumours that once the land is acquired, the company will excavate the area and take out the coal from underground. This is how the company is facing unforeseen problems and is yet to get the land.

So far as Singur is concerned, there were communication gaps also between the owners and tillers on the hand and Tata on the other. The company was perhaps of the opinion that it is the Government which has to make them available the land and it is their ‘headache’. It appears that the real problem lie amidst here itself. In fact, as per the counter-affidavit filed by the Government in the Kolkata High court in one PIL filed against this acquisition, these lands were being acquired for W.B Industrial development corporation (WBIDC) and later the WBIDC was supposed to lease out these lands to TATA. Therefore; naturally the company did not like to play a pro-active role vis-a-vis the land acquisition and its transfer to it. This communication gap later boomeranged and snow ball into this large scale anti-land acquisition agitation.

Apart from land owners, there were two other groups namely sharecroppers and agricultural labours. They thought that well, the land owners would get compensation, but what would they get? In absence of a transparent dialogue, this apprehension could not be addressed properly and timely, which added fuel to fire.

ROLE OF NGO-

One more reason which deserves attention is the ‘Role of so called NGOs’. One should think over the situation that how and why suddenly so called NGOs appear in far flung areas. Is it not a matter of interest that how and who did sustain the months long agitation in Singur? Who financed the supply lines? Who are they that catered to every needs of agitation and thrive it for so long periods? In some quarters, there is a perception that perhaps business rivalry played a vital role in it. Well, no body, right now, have any evidence in favour of it. But the possibility of such nexus cannot be flatly ruled out. The Government must probe into it, because most of them are proving to be a major hurdle in the progress of the Nation. Well, it does not mean that all the NGOs are involved in such acts, but if there is a smoke, there must be some fire.

REMEDIES-

Taking into account all above mentioned issues, the Government has to reorient its approach with regard to land acquisition process. One can take examples of other Nations also. 

EXAMPLES OF OTHER COUNTRIES

In Vietnam for instance, the process of land acquisition is not done without taking into confidence the land owners. The ‘Doi Moi Policy’ which is based on a coalition of Land owners- Entrepreneur-Government is the corner stone of Vietnam’s success. This policy has been working very successfully and smoothly for many years and has change the socio-economic and industrial face this war strife torn Nation. 

The Land Acquisition Act of Thailand is another success story. ‘The land pooling and land re-adjustment policy’ of this country has five basics viz community organisation, land sharing agreement, densification-re housing, reconstruction and capital investment. This policy has changed the civic life of this country to such an extent that almost all the slums have been metamorphosed into well planned cities. They have set up millions of industries without causing much pain to the population. We can do it here also, but what we require is a strong political will and vision. 

China is another magnificent example of transformation. Den Xiao Peng had launched one ‘Town and Village Enterprise’ (TVE) movement in 70s with the help of Land Administration Law. This movement changed not only the settlement pattern but also the industrial milieu also. The Land Acquisition Act, 1966 of Singapore has the same type of philosophy in which thrust is on the wilful coalition of all the stakeholders. Similarly, the Constitution(1988) of Brazil, Expropriation Law 1936 of Mexico, Expropriation Act 1975 of South Africa, Constitution of USA (5th Amendment), Town and Country Development Act, 1990 of U.K. etc have similar provisions which are based on the coalition of all the three stakeholder viz State, Entrepreneurs and Land owners.

SENSE OF ALIENATION AND FEELING OF SUSPICION-

In India, for instance the mistrust and suspicion on part of the farmers are not unfounded. Have we made them stakeholders in the development processes? Have not we created oasis in the deserts? If you go to the surrounding areas of Bokaro Steel factory, B.C.C.L at Dhanbad in Jharkhand, you will find that the farmers and land tillers, whose lands have been acquired four decades ago, are still displaced. Just see the skyscrapers in NOIDA, greater NOIDA, Faridabad, Surajkund, Guragaon, Ghaziabad, Tronica City etc. and inquire that how many uprooted farmers and tillers and sharecroppers live in these buildings. Just find that how many uprooted farmers drive their limousines on the express high ways which are constructed on the lands acquired from them. Once their lands are acquired, they have to eschew all their rights and attachments both physical and emotional. The kinds of experiences that these farmers pass through during the process of land acquisitions are also, most of times, horrible. They have to run from pillar to post for the money to be paid in lieu of their own lands, in Government offices. These experiences and hardships have made the farmers and tillers alien, if not hostile, towards the entire process of land acquisition itself. But unfortunately, efforts that are being made are not farmer centric. Only cosmetic surgeries are being made and jargons are used in government policy papers. 

LAND ACQUISITION BILL,2007

The Government is sitting over the Land Acquisition Bill, 2007 over more than a year. Let this Bill be circulated amongst the stakeholders and amend it suitably. The problem with such legislation is that, the language used therein, is so complicated and jargonised, that a common person fails to understand it and could not participate in it. In nut shell, we can say that unless all the stakeholders and specially the farmers, tillers and sharecroppers are made coalition partners, such problems are likely to come up with more intense magnitude.