SINGUR SYNDROME; LESSONS TO LEARN

Tatas' failed efforts for acquiring land at Singur in West Bengal for its car project is a lesson for policy makers of the country

Published on 10/7/2008 7:06:40 PM

By Sarita Yadav

The dictum that there is a little bit of politics in every economics has once again been vividly projected in Tatas' efforts for acquiring land at Singur in West Bengal.

Who is the loser and who the gainer in the exercise is another chapter for discussion but it has triggered a fresh debate on land acquisition processes and rehabilitation issues across the country.

Tatas are one of those corporate houses in the country who have a reputation for returning more to the society than taking from it. Then, what went wrong in Singur with this business group? 

Many believe that it is the beginning of second deindustrialisation of Bengal; the 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 houses from the state.

The story began when this dream project of Ratan Tata of manufacturing a 'lakhtakia car' choose Singur, a small block town in Hooghly district, situated about 50 km North-West of Kolkata on the National Highways-2, as the suitable site for this venture.

It required about one thousand acres of land, which the West Bengal government readily agreed to make available. The land acquisition process began in 2006 and required area of land was acquired.

We all know that the lands in our country are acquired through a law named 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 8,890 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 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. Ultimately, the movement caught political overtones.

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 400 acres of land to the farmers as it was kept for ancillary industries and there was no construction proposed over this land for the plant. This was the demand, Tata was unable to accept and thus the road was paved for the final exit of Tata from Singur.

The questions remained unanswered are: who is 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 (WB) 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 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 West Bengal but also in other states.

The Reason Theories

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 and therefore were not likely to get compensation for the acquired lands, because compensation, according to the law, would be paid to those who posses legal and valid documents. Is it is therefore they, who started the problem?

Another group of experts 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, the amount of compensation being paid to those displaced in Singur was Rs 8.40 lakh per acre for single crop land and Rs 12 lakh per acre for double crop land.

As Singur is located on the National High way and that too, only 40 km 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.

R&R 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 per cent amount to the rate fixed by the collector. The existing rate of 30 per cent Solacium money has also been doubled. The policy also seeks to provide compensation for other losses like structures, trees and ponds 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.

Jharkhand has also framed its Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Policy, 2008. But the amount of compensation and solacium money has not been hiked like those of Bihar.

No wonder then, the state is also facing similar problems in land acquisition process. 

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 left the state government to deal exclusively with the land owners and kept itself away from the process.

It appears that the real problem lie here itself. In fact, as per the counter-affidavit filed by the Government in the Kolkata High court in one Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against this acquisition, these lands were being acquired for West Bengal 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 snowballed into the 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 NGOs

One more reason which deserves attention is the role of the so called non–governmental organisations (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. 

Trust Vs Mistrust

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?

A quick round in some of the areas surrounding of Bokaro Steel factory, BCCL at Dhanbad in Jharkhand, and one can see that the farmers and land tillers, whose lands have been acquired four decades ago, are still displaced. 

Besides, the kind of experience that these farmers go through during the process of land acquisitions is 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. These experiences and hardships have made the farmers and tillers alien, if not hostile, towards the entire process of land acquisition. 

But unfortunately, efforts that are being made are not farmer centric. Only cosmetic efforts are being made and jargons are used in government policy papers. 

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 a 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.

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. 

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 changed the socio-economic and industrial face of 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. 

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) and Town and Country Development Act, 1990 of UK have similar provisions which are based on the coalition of all the three stakeholder viz State, Entrepreneurs and Land owners.

Email PrintShare

Post Comments Total Comments: 10 

Posted By Murari Pd. Singh on 10/7/2008 9:17:15 PM 

Excellent article and the writer has given some points which hitherto are untouched by all other writers. almost all writer has written on political angle but this article has for the first time touched upon the real and core issue, the issue of compensation. The simplest thing is that if good price and alternate livelihood are offered, there is no point why this type problem would occur. 

Posted By Mantu on 10/8/2008 5:45:16 PM 

This time again happiness of common people sacrificed at the alter of the politicians bigotry and obstinacy. Why such irresponsible lady is being tolerated by innocent people of Singur. This incident will push Mamata in corner of politics. She will have to pay a price for this. 

Posted By Gajendra Kr Singh on 10/8/2008 8:14:33 PM 

Singur symbolises failure of communist ideology and its being gradually obsolete. the time has come to re-orient the approach of not only govt but also of common people, because after all it the commoners who are to suffer. 

Posted By Maneesh Ranjan on 10/9/2008 6:12:15 PM 

The writer has rightly said that the big fire starts with a small sparks. Both Tata and Budhadeb failed to understnad it. The rate of compensation was the single most important reason. Later all politicians and NGOs added fuel to fire and whole dream of Bengal burnt to ashes. 

Posted By Danish Ansari on 10/10/2008 2:45:03 PM 

I guess that a great take on the "Burning Issue" that led to cacophony & multiple deprivation of lives/Good Health. The article raises a critical issue of Land Acquisition right that do need to be reformed. Lets not 

still live with the forlorn Collonial Laws. 

Its time We need a paradigm shift for the primordial law that Exist in 20th Century. 

3 Cheers..... to such a take on the Issue. 

Posted By Nitin Bhardwaj on 10/10/2008 4:48:33 PM 

Nice article !! Actually the main point highlighted in this article has gone unnoticed in Land Acquisition Act. The landowners should be definitely taken into confidence before acquiring their land even for public purpose. They should be compensated in accordance with prevailing market rates in advance so that this land transition should go off smoothly. Also the productive agricultural land should not be wasted and unproductive land should be given for setting up the factories etc. 

Posted By Shridhar Kumar on 10/11/2008 9:41:18 AM 

An excellent article and work out to address the bottom line problem of after Independence and after 50 years of independence we are unable to solve it : LAND REFORMS and LAND LAWS. 

This problem of SINGUR has exposed many faces and raised many questions. 

One point must be clear in every mind that whether we have “TATA in SINGUR” or not it will not change the economy of the state or the country over night. 

What we need ? 

A Honest Start and Initiative. 

We must accept that as a state WB and as a Nation all fail to deliver after the 50 Years of Independence. 

What Nation Like China, Japan, Brazil, Thailand, Vietnam had done Two or Three decades back WE are NOT ready to learn. 

Exposed : 

1. Our land reforms and Land acquisition laws 

2. Political will and Interest 

3. Land laws status in a State after the two decades rules of Communist party 

4. Role of common man 

5. Role and Understanding of Intelligentsia (not only in WB all over the country) 

6. Nationalist and Political Parties on the issue of Development. 

7. Understanding the common man’s problems by Social Worker, Intelligentsia and Administration and Method of Handling these problems 

Question : 

1. Are we ready to Learn from SINGUR ?

2. Who will analyze the problem of SINGUR ? 

3. What will be the Parameters ? 

4. Will we able to Identify the responsible behind this failure ? 

5. Are National Interest of Different Political Parties are different ? 

6. Why we are unable to frame a Uniform Law for Land Reforms ? 

7. Are existing Law working ? Are these Law’s only paper lion ? 

8. Why this problem not found in GURGAON (HARYANA) ? How Farmers are happy and ready to accept the changes ? 

9. Did we ever try to make the farmers a Share Holder in the Profit of Future? 

Posted By Sanjay Kumar on 10/11/2008 10:38:42 AM 

Land acquisition process is boomeranging everywhere but govt is sitting over the bill. The problem is the the law framers do not have the first hand experience of problems. IAS sits in AC rooms and frame laws so they fail. 

Posted By Raj Sinha on 10/13/2008 3:03:59 PM 

Worth Reading!!! 

I would say its a lesson for both policy makers and corporate houses. The land owners should be taken into confidence before acquiring their land. 

Posted By Rahul Gupta on 10/13/2008 3:58:08 PM 

Its very interesting and informative, especially the R&R Policy. 

Good work!!