Professor Rajarshi Dasgupta

Genesis And Aftermath Of SEZ In West Bengal

Deep Narayan Chatterjee M.A. (2nd Semester) CPS/SSS Jawaharlal Nehru University

The genesis of the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in West Bengal should be traced back to the enactment of the West Bengal Special Economic Zone Act in the year 2003. This act was conceived with the purpose of facilitating the development, operation, maintenance, management, administration and regulation of SEZ in the state of West Bengal in order to make the socioeconomic sphere conducive for rapid and orderly economic reforms and growth and development of industries. One of the main ideas that emerged from amidst the crises that entailed the enactment of this legislation was that, West Bengal, historically known to be in possession of a predominantly agro-based economy, should be in no hurry to take the giant leap forward to industrialisation and should let the economic status quo prevail. Observed from the factual and the socio-economic perspective, such an idea seems to have some inherent flaws. Firstly, the perception about the predominance of agriculture in the economy of Bengal is misplaced and is rendered as historically indefencible. Such an idea has probably struck roots in the popular psyche due to the extent of deindustrialisation that has been achieved in Bengal, post-independence. According to Amartya Sen, Bengal has historically been one of the most thriving industrial centres of the world and the same has been historically corroborated. Classical industries in Bengal departed with the advent of the British, but were substituted by other industries like jute. However, post-independence, such industries started dilapidating, thereby contributing to substantial de-industrialisation. Secondly, the advent of a socialism is preceded by a bourgeois democratic revolution. However, in a scenario wherein the class consciousness and subsequently, the bourgeoisie appear late, the latter inevitably proves to be singularly incapable of leading the bourgeois democratic revolution to fruition, from where on it will pave the way for the onslaught of the socialist revolution and instead, make common cause with pre-bourgeois elements. Historically, this task has been taken up by the proletariat which accelerates the bourgeois revolution, certainly in association with the bourgeois order, to its pinnacle so as to keep the natural progress of social revolution on course. This task requires the proletariat to actively work towards the onslaught of capitalism, for which, it is imperative that the process of industrialisation be given priority and impetus. This kind of simulated capitalism, which is different from spontaneous capitalism, is not an end in itself but is rather a part of the path that leads to the struggle for socialism. This second argument, surely explains the ideological stand and the motive behind the CPI(M)'s decision to usher in SEZ in Bengal, something that weaved one of the darkest chapters in the history of independent India and robbed the CPI(M) of its electoral fortunes in the run up to the 2009 parliamentary elections. The SEZ of Nandigram, which is located in East Midnapore district of West Bengal, was earmarked by the state government, on behalf of the Indonesian conglomerate, the Salim group, for the development of a chemical hub, along with all the social, economic, health and educational infrastructure that the development of a SEZ requires the developer to build, as per the West Bengal SEZ Act. The SEZ was to be spanned over an area of 35,000 acres, across 29 mouzas, 27 of which were situated in Nandigram. On 28th December, 2006, the Haldia Development Authority issued a notice officially identifying the twenty seven mouzas in Nandigram which would be acquired for the SEZ. The following day, CPI(M) leader Laxman Seth also brought the issue up in a public meeting. Therefore, the idea of SEZ and the prospect of land acquisition and what else it might involve caught the popular imagination. On 3rd January, 2007, when the District Magistrate came to the Kalicharanpur Panchayat Office, people gathered outside the office, hoping to gather some information about the land acquisition. But neither the DM nor the panchayat head came out to address the queries of the people. The crowd, which by now, had grown fairly large, started agitating in front of the office. It was nothing violent though. However, the police was called in. But what happened thereafter was absolutely uncalled for. The police indiscriminately lathi charged the crowd, fired tear gas shells and even a few live rounds. All this ruckus was due to a mere reluctance

and callousness of the bureaucracy and grassroots party leadership in educating the masses on the land acquisition and its corollaries. On January 5th , the Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh committee (BUPC), literally meaning, the Committee for Resisting Land Eviction, was formed in Nandigram, with members from almost all parties in the state, excepting those in the Left Front coalition. Hence, from the very beginning, the BUPC reeked of an opportunist nexus with all contesting parties rearing to exploit the self-inflicted disadvantage of the CPI(M) and have a go at the party. The BUPC blocked all inroads to Nandigram in order to cut off the administraton, the police and the developers from the place. Trenches were dug along the highway to obstruct vehicles. This was a long period of continuous protest demonstration. On 14th March, the BUPC, along with large number of supporters, gathered along the fields of the proposed SEZ to do a 'bhoomi puja'. When the police arrived on the scene pre-empting that the situation might get out of hand, the villagers started pelting stones. The indiscreet police firing and other excesses that happened thereafter were humongous blunders on the part of the administration, absolutely uncalled for and indeed, one of the darkest chapters in the history of post-independence India. Needless to say, the act was condemned throughout the country, BUPC became several folds stronger and the opposition parties took the war mongering to a frenzy with Trinamool Congress and specifically Mamata Banerjee leading the charge. This turned out to be ostensibly the greatest opportunity for her to make a significant breakthrough in the state. Host of hitherto unseen methods were deployed as part of the protest and solidarity movements. These ranged from invoking parallels to the Nationalist Movements, in which, indeed, East Midnapur played a significant part, to the TMC organizing a mass namaz session on the highway along Nandigram, in which, Mamata Banerjee too participated, (!) to her going on a fast unto death in the middle of Calcutta. However, the acts of solidarity indeed boosted the confidence and the resilience of the protesting villagers. Various promises were made to the villagers. Promises like fighting with them shoulder to shoulder, to the end, specifically meaning, till the time the Government returns the acquired land. Now this was one promise that was never really kept. It so happened that as soon as the Salim Group departed from Nandigram and the Tatas from Singur, the political build up in these areas soon started receding. The civil society, the lingering presence of which had become a regular at Nandigram, treaded the same path as well. Hence, no organisation or party that had been in this movement actually stood grounds in Nandigram till the acquired lands were returned to the farmers. This just went on to show the lack of alternatives and policy formulation on part of the opposing parties. The siege around the SEZs cut off the administration from the affected areas and the open armed conflicts between CPI(M) and TMC members prompted most of the villagers, including party members, to quit their villages. Hence, there was absolutely no scope whatsoever to educate the villagers about the need for industrialisation or at least the implications of the SEZ and land acquisition. In an average peasant family in the 21st century, if there are more than one offspring, then not all of them would want to opt for agriculture as profession. One or more of them might want to opt for other professions, presumably those which are city based and industry based. Such workforces would remain unemployed if industry is not given significant impetus within the state. Not all industries can be planned within urban limits for most obvious reasons. Hence land has to be acquired in the rural areas. Also, within a feasible ceiling, acquisition of agricultural land for non-agricultural economic activities is justified on the ground that it absorbs surplus agricultural labour which stays stagnant with zero output. There are huge reservoirs of untapped labour force in the villages which would be duely employed if industrialisation is let to proceed. The allegation that the SEZs in Nandigram and Singur should and could have been placed further away from the city and on non-agricultural land, also does not hold much water. It should be borne in mind that places in and around the chief urban centres are the most preferred places for establishing industries, due to the factor of easy accessibility. It should be all the more true for a whole cluster of industries like SEZ. And if the order of the day is to work in sync with the market economy then it is imperative that the market economy be given the scope of rational choice of opting for one location over the others. The choice of location, in the case of heavy industries, involves a lot of research and deliberations like identifying the the quality of soil, the level of water below the soil, the degree of relative humidity

of various locations etc. It was after the compilation of several such exhaustive researches that the locations in Singur and Nandigram was zeroed in upon. Also, there has been immense criticism of and controversy on the role of the state playing the role of middlemen by acquiring the land and handing them over to the developers. Indeed, the state government, did act on similar lines. But in a scenario in which direct transactions are allowed between corporate powerhouses and landowning farmers and share croppers who are mostly unaware of the existing land rates in the corporate land market, the state has stood as a bulwark against the excessive profit motives of the corporate groups in order to ensure that the landowners and share croppers get the fair price for their land. This, despite the fact that under the West Bengal SEZ Act (2003), it is absolutely permissible for the developer to purchase land or acquire legal right or title independently [West Bengal SEZ Act (2003): Chapter 4, 8 (2 b). The excesses perpetuated in the affected areas by both, the ruling party and the opposition, are equally condemnable. But so far as critiquing the ruling party in concerned, a dichotomy between the party and the government should be accounted for. The most ardent critique from the intellectual quarters, including the leftist ones, have been on the lines of ideology, more specifically, criticising the party of going astray from the socialist path. This is where, the aforementioned dichotomy sets in- the party is the embodiment of a theory. The government, on the other hand, is a constitutional construct. As such, the activities of the government, especially of a state government, may not always strictly adhere to party lines as it is bound by constitutional restraints. The party, on its behalf, works through various channels, heading a state government being one of them. However, when the constitution in itself is a construct of a bourgeois state, then the government led by this constitution cannot do much more than device ways of thrashing out pro people policies within the realm of such liberal capitalist welfare structure. From a wider perspective, in a scenario in which, the resources are anyway concentrated in the hands of the capitalist order, it makes little sense to shun capital investment. However, this should not be read as accepting capitalism per se. It only refers to the intention of allowing capitalism to function so as to gradually accelerate the process towards the beginning of the socialist revolution. It should be seen that this 'acceptance' of capitalism does not become an end in itself. The opinion that agricultural land should not be used for non-agricultural purposes is also misplaced. From the time that the Singur project was conceived, till the time that the whole controversy took place, over 557 transactions took place involving over 100 acres of land. Majority of these purchases were made for non-agricultural purposes and for speculating in the land market, which in itself is a thoroughly corporate venture. In such transactions, the state did not interfere and as a result, the landowners who sold their lands did so without any value additions to the existing land rates, as it should be, if land is being bought for the purpose of speculation. In a state, which already has been typified to be running predominantly on agro-based economy, it is natural to assume that majority of the land would be agricultural in nature. Hence, under such circumstances, it is not too hard a question as to whether land, which is being sold anyway, should be left alone for being put up for speculation in the land market or should be, under the supervision of the state, acquired for the purpose of industrialisation, something that is extremely imperative, given the sorry state of affairs in West Bengal and would also prove to be a potential generator of employment on a substantial scale in a state in which employment is in a grim situation. That such a course may necessitate the acquisition of some agricultural land, was taken for granted. This was exactly the kind of propaganda, on the basis of which, the Left Front won the 2006 assembly elections. The election manifesto for the said election clearly stated that with agricultural land being required for building infrastructure and for industrialisation, appropriate compensation, rehabilitation if facing loss of home and arrangement for agricultural work for those who lose land and are kisans will be considered with adequate importance. Interestingly, during the electoral campaign, the intelligentsia and the civil society, which have been among the most vocal forces against the land acquisition in Nandigram and Singur, did not voice out a single word of protest against the

upcoming industrial policy of the Left Front government in West Bengal. The subsequent resounding victory of the Left Front in the state proved, at least for some time, that there was nothing outrageous in the proposal for industrialisation. However, in order to strike a balance between agricultural and non-agricultural activities on agricultural land, the state government embarked on a task of redrawing the map of the proposed land in Singur, earmarked for the SEZ. Initially, the whole 1056 acres of the proposed land showed an average crop intensity of 190%. Hence, by the process of redrawing the map, the extent of the proposed land was brought down to 997 acres, thereby bringing down the average crop intensity to 150%. As a result of this move, the boundary of the Tata land was set up in a zigzag pattern instead of a customary straight pattern. On the question of forceful acquisition of land, it has to be borne in mind that the 1894 Land Acquisition Act is an antiquated piece of legislation. Firstly, it does not have any clearly stated position on proper rehabilitation of the oustees from the acquired land. Secondly, it does not provide for any consent from the landowners. The CPI(M) as well as the West Bengal government, consisting of all the Left Front constituents, have been struggling for quite some time now to force an amendment to this act. On its part, the state government of West Bengal, made the provisions for a special additional consent form to ensure greater participation and widest consultations and consent possible. The consistency of such a move is corroborated by the figures of compensation that were drawn by consenting farmers. The argument that the government should not have mediated in the land acquisition for a corporate project and that this is a substantial ideological compromise is rendered substantially inconsistent given the ground situation. In an economy in which the prospects of land speculation is growing by the day, a non-interventionist attitude on the part of the government would substantially narrow down the chances of the landowners securing the fair price for their land, as per the market. Also, it would dim the prospects of the sharecroppers of the land securing any compensation at all. In both the SEZ projects in West Bengal, provisions were made to secure 25% of the compensation for the sharecroppers of the acquired land. This has hitherto been unheard of, anywhere in the country. The pattern of landownership being different in West Bengal, from the rest of the country, industrialisation is a major requirement. In Haryana, for example, around 2000 acres of land, acquired for SEZs, were owned by around 600 landowners. In contrast, 997 acres, acquired in Singur, were owned by around 12,000 landowners. This denotes the fact that, landholdings in West Bengal are substantially smaller compared to elsewhere in the country and are mostly held by small and marginal farmers. Given the small size of landholdings, these marginal farmers would no doubt find it hard to sustain minimum standards of living solely based upon agriculture. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that industrialisation be substantially boosted within the state. The pattern of landholdings also bear testimony to the extensive land reforms carried out in the state by the Left Front government, just in case any doubt regarding the pro poor credentials of the government becomes overriding. So far as compensations are concerned, the landowners were offered prices almost three times the then ongoing market rate. The resistance that shaped up in Nandigram and Singur reflected a pattern that is apparently quite capable of setting itself in motion even without substantial support from political outfits. Indeed, the resistance in these areas were initially shaped indegenously by the common people of the area. It has to be borne in mind that the social context of these resistance is entrenched in class, caste and gender divides. The establishment of a Leftist government in the state has yet not been able to perpetuate these divides that are still deeply entrenched in the popular psyche, more predominantly in the rural areas. Advent of industrialisation would surely usher in modern inputs like education, employment and most importantly, clarity in class consciousness. All these attributes would, beyond doubt, work towards mitigating various socio-economic inequalities that still exist at the basest level and contribute towards shaping a more progressive way of looking at socio-economic issues. As such, there would surely be certain sections which would feel slightly unnerved when pondering

on the implications of such far reaching developments. There are still quarters that are yet beyond the reach of the administration and which still preserve certain patterns of exploitation and injustice at the local level. The emergence of a progressive consciousness could surely act as a potential spoiler for vested class interests in such quarters. The vested interests of bigger powers in crippling one of the biggest Leftist strongholds in India could be testified by occurrences like the visit of the former Attorney General of the United States of America to the affected areas in Nandigram. As for the solidarity/resistance movement, embarked upon by the chief opposition party in West Bengal, the TMC, it was 'wholeheartedly' supported by major exponents of the 'Left minded' intelligentsia and the Bengali civil society. Some of these exponents were, subsequently, shown befitting gratitude- the 2009 Parliamentary elections, which recorded the biggest electoral upset, till date, for the Left and the biggest ever win for the TMC, secured the TMC supremo the portfolio of Railway Minister. Shortly thereafter, Suvaprasanna, one of the most famous painters in India today and Bratyo Basu, a famous stage actor, both, exponents of the intelligentsia and two of the most famous and vocal proponents of the resistance movement against SEZ, were, respectively, put in charge of the sanitation and food departments of the Indian Railway(!) In conclusion, all the aforementioned arguments do not, in any remote way, seek to justify the killings and other excesses that were perpetuated during the SEZ crisis in West Bengal. These acts would, today, as always, stand subject to condemnation. However, in a society that has, till date been alien to rapid industrialisation, would, more likely than not, be unaware of the dynamics of such a process. Forces against development, forces fuelled with vested interests, would always be in the lurk for nullifying such policies. What is needed here at the earnest, is educating the masses. And by education, one does not point exclusively towards academics, but also political and economic education. In this, most part of the emphasis should focused towards the downtrodden masses. However, in a state which is yet to achieve substantial figures in terms of literacy rate, educating the masses in political education is an indispensible, but long term goal. But, in the meantime, the economy cannot be let to lag so far behind that it becomes almost impossible to achieve an overall parity with the national standard of development. Hence, under certain circumstances, it becomes imperative for the government to resort to measures which while, are for the best long term results and for securing a better future for the people, might be ones that might apparently appear as forfeiting certain other immediate social and economic holdings.

Bibliography:
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Nandigram and the deformations of the Indian Left Aditya Sarkar : International Socialism (Issue 115, 2nd July, 2007) Nandigram : People's Assertion : People's Democracy (Vol XXXI, No. 46, November 2007) Singur, Nandigram and Industrialisation of West Bengal Nilotpal Basu : People's Democracy (Vol XXXI, No. 3, January 21st 2008) The Intellectual-Left Standoff Supriyo Roy Chowdhury (EPW) Reflections in the Aftermath of Nandigram Anonymous CPI(M) supporter (EPW) Interview of Amartya Sen by Sambit Saha for The Telegraph (Date unavailable) The CPI(M) and the Building of Capitalism Prabhat Patnaik A Tradition of Resistance Bolan Gangopadhyay : Nandigram And Beyond Land Acquisition, Corporate Capital And Social Justice Ratan Khasnabis : Nandigram And Beyond The West Bengal Special Economic Zone Act, 2003 (www.wbgov.in)