Backpage

MAKING a habit of winning is at best a mixed blessing for political parties. More than complacency is the danger of arrogance and hubris that creeps in. This may possibly explain why, after three decades of uninterrupted rule in West Bengal, the CPI(M)-led Left Front government got it so horribly wrong in Nandigram.

Many development theorists argue that persisting with low productivity agriculture makes it difficult to significantly reduce poverty. And while a shift to higher productivity and value farming by increasing intensity of resource use, changing cropping patterns and improving the efficiency of market linkages can go some way, returns to labour are unlikely to improve unless non-farm based options expand rapidly. This is why, barring a few who continue to valorize peasant India, there is considerable, and growing, support for a policy of vigorous industrialisation. And this, once we cut through the gloss, implies a shift in land use away from farming.

Realising policy intentions is, however, a different matter. And here, despite ostensibly debating the contours of its industrialisation policy in party fora, the CPI(M) failed to draw appropriate lessons from similar efforts at land acquisition for industry, mining or urban realty complexes elsewhere in the country. Forget Kalinganagar in Orissa, where police firing had resulted in the death of 13 protesting tribals, the West Bengal government did not even heed the signals from the protests over the proposed Tata motor car factory in Singur or the opposition to notification for land acquisition in Nandigram.

Not only do peasant communities world over, fiercely cling onto their small plots of land, often their only survival insurance, they are not unaware of their prospects post dislocation, given the abysmal record of most governments in meeting their promises of compensation and rehabilitation. Thus to now claim that it had not anticipated the reaction in Nandigram only indicates that the state government is totally out of sync with popular mood.

Even less convincing is the official claim that the land acquisition notice had been withdrawn, that the police force had been sent in only to ‘restore law and order’ and flush out miscreants (opposition party activists, NGOs and Naxalite groups) from the area. ‘After all, how can any legitimate government countenance a situation where a region is declared out of bounds to its official functionaries?’ Evidently, the party would have us believe that there was no ‘popular resistance’, that were it not for these ‘outsiders’, there would have been no trouble in Nandigram.

To a party leadership so obdurate in defending itself, it appears pointless reminding it of its earlier positions. Was it not in the forefront of the agitation in Kalinganagar or the many proposed SEZs in other states? Or does the situation become different only because it concerns West Bengal where it is in power? Similarly, for a ‘democratic party’ to cavil about opposition activists, appealing to xenophobic tendencies by branding them outsiders is indefensible unless, of course, the argument is that no one other than them is entitled to practice politics in their state.

What is even less explicable is that the CPI(M) has not learnt from the ‘positive’ experiences of other states. Much as it might hate to admit, land acquisition for SEZs in Gujarat has gone ahead relatively smoothly. Nor are there reports of rampaging farmers in Jhajhar in Haryana, where the Reliance group is buying up large areas for its SEZ. Instead of an uncritical reliance on an outmoded Land Acquisition Act using the principle of ‘eminent domain’ and with the state acting as a mediator on behalf of the eventual users of land, would it not be preferable to let land owners negotiate their desired price with the buyer directly, that is if they are persuaded that selling out is in their interest? Why not, if one is concerned about the welfare of the farmers and others dependant on the land proposed to be acquired, insist on a share for them in the eventual project, help them acquire alternative sites for farming, or facilitate training for alternative occupations?

Options exist provided the regime in power is keen. That these have not been seriously explored, that no detailed White Paper has been put out for public consultation and worse, there has been no attempt to politically convince those whose livelihoods are at stake that it would be beneficial for them to participate in the proposed venture, only indicates that the party is not serious about democratic processes. No wonder many believe that in the guise of industrialization it is only facilitating a land grab for rich corporations, Indian or foreign. Possibly, its long years in power have deadened both its political acumen and sensitivities.

Harsh Sethi