Another Singur in Making in Jharkhand

Is Aamgachi village of Kantikund P.S. under Dumka district of Jharkhand going to be the Singur of Jharkhand? Is the ground being prepared for another Nandi gram in making? These are million dollars questions, which every one aspires to enquire into.

The Police Firing on tribal people who were protesting against the proposed construction of a power plant by one Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd (CESC) of RPG (Goenka) group in Aamganchi revenue village of kantikund police station under Dumka district of Jharkhand on 6th of December which left six people dead and few injured, has once again raised the issue of displacement versus development in this tribal dominated newly created state of Jharkhand.

With the creation of this state on 14th November 2000, the hopes of paradigm shift in developmental strategies ran high across the millions of people in this State. The State got first tribal CM and wheels of change were set in. 

Several MOUs were signed and it seemed, at least apparently, that the fate of this poverty stricken state would catapult into prosperity, but the swelled hopes quickly deflated owing to nasty political games resulting in frequent changing of guards one by one causing political instability and rampant corruption on highest level.

As far as this crisis is concerned, the crux of the matter is that CESC limited proposed to set up a thermal power plant of installed capacity of 1000 MW in Aamgachi village in Katikund block. This region happened to be the Sibu soren’s home constituency.

The company required 700 acres of land, but it initially requested the govt for 328 acres of land only because this much land was required for plants and machinery in this village. The process of land acquisition started and notification to this effect were issued. Initially all went right at least apparently, but subsequently one lady named Munni Hansda came into picture and floated an ‘ulgulan manch’ to what she calls, ‘protect the tribal people from eviction and alienation’.

The thermal power plant requires two basic facilities, coal and water. The company was allotted captive coal mines near the proposed site at Aamgachi by Ministry of Coal govt of India on 9th January, 2008. The company sources say that the proposed plant would require 3.33 MCM of water per month which would be made available by Brahmni river during rainy season, but for the remaining season the plant would require storage facility for which they would require additional land. The locals were knowing the future plans of the company. 

In this backdrop, the agitation against eviction and land acquisition was progressing side by side. In the first week of December, the ‘Ulgulan Manch’ started ‘jail bharo agitation’ and accelerated pace of movement. The district authority seeing the mood of agitators promulgated prohibitory orders under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in the area.

On 6th December, 2008, the mob turned violent because the police wanted to stop them from violating the prohibitory orders. The mob suddenly went amok and there was heavy exchange of stone pelting resulting into injuries from both sides. The police later opened fire, to what they call; quell the unruly and violent mob resulting into six causalities and several injuries. The entire area turned into a battle field and it seemed that the situation which was witnessed in Singur is being replayed. 

Medha Patker, as usual, appeared on the scene thereafter; and it seems now that the grounds are being prepared for making it another Singur. She led a ‘pratirodh march’ to the Governor House in Ranchi and sought to nationalise the issue. Naturally, when personalities like Medha or Arundhati come to the scene, the media attention gets focussed and the real issue gets somewhat blurred.

Undoubtedly, such incidents of violence would adversely affect the investment prospect in the region and make situation unfriendly for investment and industrial ventures. In this case, the fate of construction naturally hanged in uncertainty. Few months back, in Khunti district of the state, officers of Arcelor-Mittal Steel giant were brutally beaten up and their faces were blackened when they had gone to inspect the proposed site for construction of 12 million ton steel plant. This company requires 11,000 acres of land for this. One Adivasi Mulvasi Astitva Raksha Manch(AMARM) led a agitation thereafter and the project is all set to be scrapped. Similarly Bhusan Steel faced vehement opposition in Patmada in Jamshedpur district of this state. Such vehement opposition has been experienced by a host of other companies also here. There is one more interesting thing about these companies that most of them are interested in mining lease rather than Green field projects. This may be one hidden reason why the tribal people cast doubt on their motives.

Any way these developments have raised questions that why are such incidents of violence happening and how to fix these problems?

We will have to see the entire gamut of problem in an anthropologic- constitutional perspective. States like Jharkhand (south Bihar of erstwhile united Bihar) had been brought in Scheduled Area Regulation Act of 1956 under Article 244 of Indian constitution in order to provide extra safeguards to the tribal inhabiting these areas vis-a-vis their alienation from land. The threat to their unwilful eviction from their ancestral land was sought to be further protected by enactment of Panchayats (extension to the scheduled areas) Act (PESA) in 1996. This law makes it mandatory on part of the govt as well as the companies to obtain the consent of the Gram Sabha before starting any land acquisition process or signing MOUs. But unfortunately most of the MOUs have been signed without obtaining the consent of Gram Sabha as enshrined in the law. 

The previous experience of tribal people with respect to benefits given to them in lieu of their land that have been taken or industries those have been set up, have never been happy. For instance, in a place called Kiriburu in Chaibasa district of Jharkhand, which is believed to be the largest deposit of iron ore in India, mining operation has been underway for the last ten decades. Today these mines are owned by Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL). The company has erected huge infrastructure including plants, machineries, guest houses and quarters but the surrounding area is poorly developed. In fact this area is one of the most neglected areas with dismal literacy rate and poor per capita income.

Nowamundi, another area in Chaibasa is a typical example of utter neglect. In this area, some iron ore mines are owned by TATA group. Mining operation is going on for years but the demography has not yet been benefitted to the extent it should have been. We have a number of examples in this mineral rich state in which poor people has not tasted the fruits of dividends of mineral excavation. The govt’s new mining policy attracted private companies in the state and several mining lease have been granted to them. But these lease and MOUs could not bring about any qualitative change in the life of common tribal.

In this backdrop, the perception of the common tribal people has become hostile to the investment in general resulting sometimes in unjustified opposition. The apathy of the govt towards the legal rights bestowed on the tribal is revealed in the MOUs which are signed by the govt with a host of companies without Gram Sabha’s consent.

On the other hand, there is no denying the fact that investment in sectors like power is a prerequisite for development of any state. If industrialisation as well as agriculture have to make progress, energy is required. This area has been opened for private sector and it is in this background this company decided to setup power plant in kantikund.

The questions which remained answer are why is this distrust? Why do the govt machinery and companies fail to make tribal understand that benefits of such investments would also go to them? Why are tribal people not being convinced about rehabilitation and other govt incentives that are likely to be given to them?

In fact, this communication gap between them is the crux of all these problems. The kind of involvement and association which are required at the outset in such projects are conspicuously absent from govt and company side. The tribal people have captured a stereotype image of govt officials, which they feel is of exploitative for them. This gap of communication gets metamorphosed into mistrust by the NGOs most of the times. The namby-pamby govt machinery fails to counter the misinformation campaign unleashed by the NGOs. They provide with very attractive and imaginary data regarding their dislocation and make the land acquisition process intractable. This was exactly what has happened in Singur and is happening in Kantikund also. The govt must come up with more participatory land acquisition policy in tune with the PESA and take the local people in confidence before launching any project. The role of NGOs vis-a-vis anti-acquisition agitation cannot be countered by legislations only. The civil society as well as the govt will have to think that how and why do suddenly the same kind of people appear on the scene and vitiate the prospects of developmental projects. It does not mean however that all such NGOs are putting stumbling blocks in the way of development, but the experiences which we had in Singur is not encouraging. After the exit of TATA from Singur, even the local people feel cheated by the so-called activists who had promised to them of more bargains, but all went in vain. Everything including their dreams is shattered now. Such nefarious design of these elements must be made known to all concerned and thereafter; make sure that unreasonable and unjustified opposition do not come in the way of the progress of the nation. For this the locals must be made active stakeholders in such projects. They should not only feel but should reap also the fruits of development. They should also taste the growth being achieved by the nation in economic field.

This is not philanthropy, but an economics also, because unless we enhance the purchasing power of billions of Indians, the graph of growth cannot move upward uninterrupted. We cannot afford to go on creating oasis in deserts. Let us make every commoners stakeholder in the development process or else we will continue to invite wrath of the common people. Timely intervention of govt in this episode with precision like a heart surgeon can prevent another collapse like what happened in Singur.

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!!