SEZs For The Rich, Poor To Bear The Brunt By Arun Kumar

Special Economic Zone (SEZ) policy has taken one more turn with the announcement from the Empowered Group of Ministers (eGOM). The freeze on them is being lifted but several parameters will be changed to accommodate the farmers, tribals and the civil society groups who have been agitating against the SEZs.

From the earlier no limit on the maximum size of the multi-product SEZs now the limit has been set at 5,000 hectares. The state governments are prohibited from acquiring land for the private players and they cannot form a joint venture with a private player unless the latter has the land to offer the project. States can acquire land for their own SEZ provided they take care of the relief and rehabilitation as per the new policy to be announced soon.

Now the SEZs will be required to at least use 50 percent of the land for processing unit as compared to the earlier 35 percent so that the real estate component would be lower. Finally, the export requirement has been made more stringent compared to earlier.

Clearly, the eGOM has steered a middle path between the proponents of the SEZs, the corporate sector and their political supporters and the opponents who wanted SEZs to be scrapped because of their adverse impact on the poor people in the rural areas. This was on the cards since the prime minister had stated that SEZs are an accomplished fact. He implied that there is no going back on the policy and the government would only do some tinkering to accommodate the opponents. Where does this leave the policy and the poor?

Political aspects

SEZs have occupied centrestage in the national consciousness for the last eight months due to the events unfolding in Singur (akin to an SEZ though not one) and subsequently due to the occurrences in Nandigram (a proposed SEZ).

News of dissent in the ruling party over the proposed SEZs in Haryana and Punjab has been making the rounds. In West Bengal, the government is determined to continue with its policy of setting up SEZs and continuing with Singur on the grounds of industrialisation of the state. At the centre also it is seen as a strategy for ensuring the continuation of a nine percent growth rate of the economy. If China can succeed through such a policy, it is argued, why not India?

SEZs are threatening to sprout all over the country from the most backward states like, Orissa and Chhattisgarh to the most advanced ones like, Maharashtra and Gujarat. They would number not in tens but in hundreds and would cover huge tracts of land across the country. Some of them would be so large as to create entirely new townships and since they promise world class infrastructure, they would be unlike the existing cities.

They promise to create islands of affluence where foreigners and NRIs can come and live in comfort segregated from the poverty and squalor ridden cities. According to an earlier draft of the SEZ Act, they would have been `deemed to be foreign territory for the purposes of trade operations, duties and tariffs’. Even though this phrase is no more used in the Act of 2005, it is feared that they would be functioning as such, given their enclave character.

Currently, seven previously created Export Promotion Zones (EPZs) stand converted to SEZs, 63 SEZs are approved and notified, 171 are approved but not notified, 162 are approved in principle only and 322 applications are pending. Most of them are by Indian businessmen.

Resistance to these zones has built up rapidly in the country even though most political parties seem to be supporting their creation since they are ruling in some state where they would like them to come up. In different parts of the country, farmers and tribals who are sought to be displaced by the creation of these zones are opposing them.

In Singur (not an SEZ), Nandigram and earlier in Kalinganagar in Orissa there has been fierce resistance. The opposition parties in the different states have taken advantage of these movements to put the ruling governments in the dock. However, only some parties like the Trinamool Congress are going the whole way while others are ambiguous at best.

Displacement is a larger issue. Movements around displacement caused by earlier large projects (Narmada Bachao Andolan is an example of that) already existed and the civil society leaders (like Medha Patkar) of these movements are providing leadership to the anti-SEZ upsurge.

New large-scale displacement is being created by the mega projects coming up all over the country. This includes the setting up of steel mills, power plants, airports or the expansion of existing airports, the expansion of the highway network, etc. Millions of families are likely to be displaced in a short period of time.

Why is the rapid creation of these enclaves so important for the government, in spite of the build up of the movements? Politically, perhaps the government believes that the movements will die down since different political parties are in power in different states and they will prevent the opposition to the idea of SEZs from building up. The CPI (M) is a case in point. It is encouraging Singur and SEZs in West Bengal so its opposition elsewhere would be held in check and be tokenistic. Further, it is expected to hold other Left parties in check.

Economic aspects

Finally, the Central government perhaps believes that the economic gains will dilute the opposition over time. It expects these SEZs to be the nucleus of new investment, jobs and greater exports. Thus, it is propagating the SEZs as the solution to the country’s problems. The critics worry about food security being jeopardised and in response, it is argued that less than 0.1 per cent of the arable land will be involved in the proposed SEZs so this will hardly effect total food production. Another argument is that SEZs will accelerate development and create a large number of jobs. The critics argue that it will also destroy lots of low skill jobs in agriculture and forestry. Further, the adverse impact on small scales sector will reduce jobs. So in the net it is not clear that it will lead to more employment.

It is suggested that there are backward and forward linkages of industry so it will promote development. But does agriculture not have such linkages? There is a fear that the large number of tax concessions being granted will lead to loss of revenue. However, the proponents suggest that increased production will result in enhanced tax collections. Will SEZs spur smuggling and tax evasion that will cause the tax loss to be larger than what is being anticipated? The number of questions that are being raised is quite large so that it is critical to understand where the truth lies? Some of these issues are dealt with in this paper.

Who gains, who loses?

Clearly, those who will benefit or lose from the SEZs will be different sets of people. Those who will be displaced by the SEZs will be the rural people and those who will come in their place will be the skilled urban people. It is true that those who lose land will get “market prices” (according to the government) for their land and theoretically will be able to invest their money in other businesses. Thus, theoretically, not only in the SEZs but the new investments by the former agriculturists would create new non-agricultural jobs and all this maybe expected to lead to a reduction in the rate of increase of unemployment which has accelerated in the last 6 years. It is said that agriculture cannot create jobs anymore and these jobs have to be created in non-agricultural sectors.

The SEZs are likely to curtail the rights of labour given that there will be no labour commissioner and the developer of the SEZ will govern the place along with a development commissioner. There will be no democratically elected body. Under Section 49 of the Act, there will be substantial powers to formulate new laws:

“49. (1) The Central Government may, by notification, direct that any of the provisions of this Act (other than sections 54 and 56) or any other Central Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder or any notification or order issued or direction given thereunder (other than the provisions relating to making of the rules or regulations) specified in the notification—

- Shall not apply to a Special Economic Zone or a class of Special Economic Zones or all Special Economic Zones; or

- Shall apply to a Special Economic Zone or a class of Special Economic Zones or all Special Economic Zones only with such exceptions, modifications and adaptation, as may be specified in the notification.

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any modifications of any Central Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder or any notification or order issued or direction given or scheme made thereunder so far as such modification, rule, regulation, notification, order or direction or scheme relates to the matters relating to trade unions, industrial and labour disputes, welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers’ liability, workmen’s compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits applicable in any Special Economic Zones.”

The jobs the SEZs are likely to create will be of the high skill variety that the displaced farmers (with different skills or with low skills) would not be able to perform... they would not encourage the entry of low-skilled displaced workers

It is likely that environmental considerations will be diluted. Many tax concessions have been announced. Given these considerations, profitability is being ensured so investment will flow into the SEZs to take advantage of these features. It is also possible that there maybe relocation of units from their present locations to the SEZs so that the net investment would be lower.

It is true that new industry and businesses set up in the SEZs will generate new jobs. However, at first people would be displaced, work on the creation of the new infrastructure would then begin and new industry would take even longer time to come up so new jobs will not immediately come. Further, the new infrastructure and industry is much more capital intensive than agriculture or non-farm rural activities it would displace so that fewer jobs would be created.

Further, the farmers receiving compensation for land would not really know of any activity other than agriculture so they are unlikely to be able to invest in new businesses and may simply waste most of the capital they get. Even the most sophisticated businessmen, especially in the new environment, usually specialise in a few businesses and do not venture into businesses they do not know about.

In this age of specialisation many businesses talk of core competencies and shed their other businesses or outsource them. How do we expect the ill-trained farmers to seamlessly transit to other businesses? This is unlikely. Further, every business requires some minimum capital to start but a large number of Indian farmers are small or middle farmers who would get marginal amounts of compensation that would be totally inadequate to start any kind of business even if they were competent to do so.

Finally, consider the impact on small businesses which are failing in large numbers due to the new economic policies. The SEZs will accelerate this process since reservations will get further diluted. This will result in loss of a large number of jobs.

Many of the displaced are not likely to receive much compensation. This would include the landless who will not receive any compensation and those performing non-farm activities like the potters, herdsmen, carpenters, etc. These people, traditionally integrated into the farm economy, would be completely at sea without much of capital. Such people would constitute about half the population of the villages and can only add to the ranks of the unemployed.

The jobs the SEZs are likely to create will be of the high skill variety that the displaced farmers (with different skills or with low skills) would not be able to perform. Further, given their enclave-like character they would not encourage the entry of low-skilled workers displaced from the rural economy flooding their territory. Such people would of necessity become encroachers and slum dwellers in some urban areas. Thus the existing urban areas would face problems while the new enclaves would flourish creating differential urbanisation and more problems.

The displaced would require training to get even the low skilled jobs in the SEZs. The poor who have not even attended schools or drop out by the fifth grade are unlikely to be able to afford the training required and would be ruled out of working in these enclaves. Even if the training is sought to be given, it will be for low skills (like guards) or will take considerable time by which time others would get the jobs and the displaced people would languish.

In brief, the rising unemployment and underemployment (doubled in the last 6 years according to the Economic Survey 2006) can only go up. Instead of farmers committing suicide, it will be the former farmers (and the landless) who would commit suicide.

Are farmers' suicides important? According to a secretary in the Government of India too much is being made of this phenomenon. According to the crime statistics of India, quoted by her, only 16 percent of the suicides are committed by farmers. There are several lacunae in this argument. One is not talking of the absolute numbers but of the increase in the suicides. Farmers are supposed to be hardy people and do not easily commit suicides.

According to available information, the number of suicides is increasing and specially in some of the better-off states and amongst the better-off farmers. It is not the landless who are the poorest in the rural areas who are committing suicides.

The rising unemployment and underemployment can only go up. Instead of farmers committing suicide, it will be the former farmers who would commit suicide

What one is talking of is the growing distress amongst farmers who are unable to face the emerging challenge of globalisation – an uncertain and unknown entity to them. Further, do we know how many suicides are being committed? Are our crime statistics complete? According to the Crime Statistics, Bihar has the least amount of crime and Kerala the highest (A Kumar, 2002: The Black Economy in India. Penguin (India)).

Clearly, in India, a lot of crime goes unreported and unrecorded and that is also the story of suicides, in spite of all the publicity that this phenomenon is now receiving. If we go by the amount of narcotics drugs confiscated each year, then little of it is used in India. What is caught cannot be used and what is not caught does not exist as far as statistics are concerned so very little would be consumed in the country which is patently false. Clearly we cannot go by this argument since what is caught is only a small amount of the total drugs in use in the country.

According to estimates of gold brought into India and what was caught as smuggling, the ratio was 33:1. Thus official data on crime is not reliable and suicides, etc., maybe more in number than what is officially reported.

Displacement in the past

Displacement in India is not new. Since Independence, the nation has pursued the policy of development from above and set up large industries or industrial estates and projects like, mines, dams, ports, expansion of road and rail network. Each one of them has displaced people in large numbers. We have also had the experience of setting up export zones and electronic zones. In most of these cases, the displaced people have hardly found new employment in these projects while the educated elite (the five percent of the work force in the organised sectors) has benefited substantially.

The experience of HEC, Ranchi or BHEL, Haridwar or the steel plants like, Bokaro and Bhilai has been that the neighbouring areas have remained largely backward. These industries were set up in backward areas and they remain some of the most backward. These have turned out to be mere implants in backward areas with little impact on the surrounding areas. While the country may have had a strategic interest in setting up these industries to achieve relative autonomy, in the absence of basic education for the children of the poor, the jobs went elsewhere. Mostly the local people did not get jobs except menial ones in the townships.

The people of these areas specifically, and the non-elite in general, trusted the post-Independence leadership that there would be trickle down and they would soon benefit. So, either they willingly sacrificed for what they were told was the larger national interest or in the absence of organisation had no choice but to comply with what those in authority wanted. Now they know better that trickle down does not work and do not believe the elite ruling class. A white paper is needed on the impact of the earlier large projects on the people displaced from where these projects came up.

In brief, those likely to be displaced by SEZs are unlikely to find jobs in the SEZs and since they do not have the skills, they would not be able to shift to non-agricultural jobs.

Market price, justice

It is not that those displaced did not receive any compensation. However, since most of them did not know the modern institutions and practices, they did not know what to do with the compensation received. Often money was blown up in drinks and conspicuous consumption. This jeopardised the future of the family. The Government should issue a white paper on what happened to development in these cases in the areas where some of the large projects came up. In some sense, the compensation received by the displaced people was not just.This raises the larger question of whether there is justice to the displaced? In the market, if one receives a payment voluntarily for what one offers, it is a just trade. However, if one is coerced into accepting a price then this is unjust. However, this applies only to a situation where both parties understand markets. If one party does not understand the institution of market and a capitalist economy, then even payment of a market price taken voluntarily by the seller may not be just.
In a capitalist economy, the agents understand the idea that if they liquidate their primary asset, they need to invest the proceeds so as to continue to derive an income for the rest of their lifetime. Most of the poor people have little idea of what it means to invest and what is the risk of investment or how to regulate their investment so as to get a secure future return. Thus, their ownership of an asset is far more important than the financial market compensation they may get for it.

Further capitalism assumes the existence of homogeneous labour which can migrate anywhere to get work. Family ties are not that critical. That is not true for the agriculturists. For them, it is an inter-dependent life and kinship is crucial. Thus, displacement is very painful since it breaks the family and neighbourhood bonds that are not easy to re-establish in a new setting. The bonds may be between the labourer and the farmer or the farmer and the carpenter or the ironsmith, etc. Especially, if the displaced migrate to an urban or semi urban setting, life is very alienating for them. These relationships cannot be valued in the market. Thus, paying market price cannot be just compensation for the displaced because they lose much more than the land.Finally, when the land passes on to the businessman and they establish a market in land then a piece of land bought cheaply form the agriculturist shoots up in price. Thus, typically, the agriculturist receives a fraction of the price that the businessman will finally receive. One may ask where is the justice in all this.

Further, often there is a land mafia that operates in most areas where land is likely to be acquired. This mafia often gets to know where land is likely to be acquired and buys up land at prices higher than the current price knowing that the price would soon jump to much higher levels. The mafia also coerces sales by various devices. This is how the real estate developers have become billionaires. The loser in this process of capitalist development is the illiterate and poor rural population.

Location close to metros

Among the many concessions being offered to the developers of the SEZs, one is cheap land close to cities and new highways. Land is being allotted much in excess of the requirement of industries. The implication is clear that land is being seen as urban real estate where huge profits can be made. While Singur is not an SEZ, the Tata group is being given about a 1,000 acre of land when they only need perhaps 70 acre for the car factory. Since the land in Singur is at the intersection of two important highways, it is prime land. This kind of consideration is clearly important for many of the planned SEZs.

While the developers of many of the SEZs and the proponents of these schemes suggest that real estate is not the real consideration and development is the real concern, can these claims be relied on? One line of argument is that since agricultural development has already taken place now it is time to go in for industrialisation since agriculture cannot accommodate more people.
What is the guarantee that land acquired by industries for the SEZs would only be used for specified purposes and not for speculative purposes as real estate. The example of DLF and others in Gurgaon come to mind

There is another reason for the rush to set up these huge estates. In the last three years, the corporate sector profits have been growing at an average of 30% so that they have a lot of cash to invest. Real estate is a good proposition to park their funds in. Thus, we are witnessing the creation of a large number of new landlords.

Finally, developers hope that there will be a shift of industries to these new sites. There is a precedence to this in the fifties and sixties when industry shifted from East India to West because of rising labour militancy. Many industries shifted from West Bengal to Maharashtra. Very quickly, the number one industrialised state West Bengal became a relatively backward one and Maharashtra became the most industrialised state.

The government and industry are making a large number of promises regarding the SEZs. They are promising more investments in industry and massive creation of jobs. However, as has often happened in the past, industry and businesses have not kept their promises. For instance, Pepsi Cola was allowed to come into the country in the `bad old days’, prior to 1991, on the condition that it would export, it would develop Indian agriculture and create large numbers of jobs. None of these things materialised and most of the conditions were later dropped in the nineties since by then Coca Cola was allowed in without any of these conditions.

In Delhi, hospitals were allotted cheap land (almost free) on the condition that they would cater to the needs of the poor by providing a certain number of free beds, etc. However, not only have they not fulfilled that promise but they have been doing everything in their power (using political influence, etc.) to have the rules changed. Many industries have been set up in the backward areas and as argued earlier, in most cases, these industries generated few jobs and of these even fewer went to the local people while most of these jobs were cornered by the educated middle class people.

Given this past experience, what is the guarantee that land acquired by industries for the SEZs would only be used for specified purposes and not for speculative purposes as real estate. The example of DLF and others in Gurgaon and other places comes to mind. They acquired advance information as to which areas are likely to be urbanised around the new NH8 and acquired that land from farmers at literally throwaway prices (market prices for that time). They have then released the land slowly over the last 20 years keeping prices artificially high all along and benefiting enormously. Land prices in this period have risen almost 500 times. Far higher than any other index of prices.

When industry goes back on its promises as it inevitably does, would the land revert back to the farmers and what would be the mechanism for this (to whom and at what price?). In a recent judgment the SC has said that the land need not be returned to those from whom the government acquires it. Thus, it is a one-way street and a mistake is costly to the displaced. Many farmers would be displaced and as mentioned above, their social linkages would have been broken. One cannot reestablish the village again after breaking it up. This is not a reversible process. Further, who is going to pay the cost of the transition in which a community is broken up and which involves the suffering of the women and the children displaced from hearth, schools, etc.

Mockery of democracy

In setting up SEZs an essentially undemocratic process is being followed. While industry and commerce have been consulted regarding what they need, the farmers and civil society groups have been left out of any consultation process. It is assumed that they will accept meekly the decision to take away land from agriculture for the setting up of commerce and industry. It is assumed that their notion of their own welfare is not important.It is not that the entire country is being turned into SEZs. Certain areas are being selected so that the burden of this kind of industrialisation is going to fall on some people and not all. The question naturally arises whether in a democracy those to be adversely affected need to be consulted or not?

The government has adopted the policy of `growth at any cost’ with the cost falling on the deprived and marginalised sections of the population. The benefits are being taken by the big businessmen

Should it not be the case that if the collective decides against such a project then the government should look for alternative sites where the people agree to the project? If no such site is found, then it means that the majority do not want that kind of development and then in a democracy that decision should be implemented and such a project not be allowed to be set up. If people do not want a certain kind of development, then that decision should be respected. The government should not assume that it knows best and it can force its will.

Finally, for the sake of accountability, land if needed, should be acquired in phases as the project is set up. Thus, it is necessary that the party interested in setting up a SEZ should give a time bound plan and if that is not adhered to then not only should more land not be acquired but what was acquired should be returned. A fine should be imposed on the party involved and distributed to those whose land had been acquired. This would make the system more accountable which today it is not.

For example, if in Singur, the Tatas are now planning to set up a plant to produce one lakh cars then it may be allotted say 50 acres of land with the promise that more would come later as the project progresses to the next phase. After all, if Maruti producing many times more car can function in a plot of similar size then why cannot the Tatas? It is also possible that land to the Tatas be given from out of the closed industries that abound in West Bengal. This would not add to the displacement. It would be a much better solution than giving fresh land and causing displacement and hardship to a large number of people.

Macro aspects

Today, the government has adopted the policy of `growth at any cost’ with the cost falling on the deprived and marginalised sections of the population. The benefits are being taken by the better-off sections of the society and the big businessmen. It is argued that the SEZ policy would lead to a rise in the investment rate in the economy to achieve a 10 percent rate of growth. It is suggested that there would be trickle down and that would lead to the poor also benefiting.

The question is, is this the only way to increase investments and the rate of growth in the economy? One could also ask whether, growth cannot take place through a pro-poor policy? Finally, one needs to be sure whether there will be trickle down to the poor or would there be two separate circles of development a high growth one with the elite benefiting and a low growth path in which the bulk of the population would be trapped. How often it has been found in the Indian context that trickle down has not really worked or has been far too slow and yet the people are expected to put their faith in these policies once again.

In the last five years, the investment rate has jumped from around 25 percent to around 32 percent without the concessions being announced under the SEZ scheme. Then what is the need for further incentives at the expense of the marginalised sections of the population? The issue is what are the prerequisites to investment increase? And, what is the role of concessions in the investment process?

The concessions in taxes and relaxation in environmental regulation and labour laws are expected to make operations in the SEZ highly profitable. All this is being done in the name of exports, to make these zones export competitive by helping industry in these zones to have lower costs of production and higher profits. There is no doubt that with the concessions announced and the privileged position that is being granted to the SEZs, they will get investment so that they will generate employment and output. However, it is equally true that they will also displace production that was already ongoing in the area where SEZs will come up. The past investments in agriculture, non-agricultural activities and in the creation of habitation in that area will be destroyed. Thus, the issue is what would be the net increase in investment, employment and output.

Further, given the concessions, much of the investment in SEZs is likely to be at the expense of the investment in the rest of the economy. Finally, some may even close their units in the rest of the economy to shift to the SEZs. Due to these three factors, the net investment will turn out to be much less than what would be the gross flow of investment to the SEZs. In fact, because the price of output from SEZ is likely to be lower than that in the rest of the country, a lot of smuggling will take place and the output in the rest of the economy will be adversely affected. This will further affect employment.

Since industry set up in SEZs is likely to be of the modern variety, it will use much more capital per worker and generate much higher output per worker. Thus, the SEZs are likely to generate little employment compared to what it will displace both inside the SEZ and outside it (and that too of the skilled variety). This will undermine any trickle down that is being talked of.

There is likely to be diversion of resources from the non-SEZ areas to the SEZs. For instance, water aquifers would be used rapidly as has happened in the past and the poor people in the surrounding areas will be deprived of water

SEZs are likely to involve concessions in income tax, corporation tax, excise, customs and sales taxes so that there will be substantial revenue loss compared to the potential tax collection. Further, to the extent, industry will shift from the non-SEZ areas where they are required to pay taxes to the SEZs where taxes would not be required to be paid, there would be a decline in tax collections.

Further, due to smuggling of cheap goods from SEZs to the rest of the country, there will be further loss of tax collection. When smuggling takes place easily from outside the guarded borders, it is not difficult to imagine that this would be easy from the unguarded SEZs. The resultant revenue losses will aggravate the deficit in the budgets and will result in cut back in expenditures to fulfill the FRBM Act requirements. Most of the time these cuts tend to be in the social sectors which will worsen the situation for the poor.

Finally, as has happened so often in the past, there will be over investment in the SEZs. As suggested earlier, this would be at the expense of the non-SEZ areas of the country. This would result in imbalanced development and a rise in uncertainty for the economy with consequential impact on the poor who by then would be out of jobs.

In brief, the macroeconomic situation will face major challenges. Employment in the SEZs would rise but would be adversely affected elsewhere. Output net of the loss of production in the activities that were carried on prior to the setting up of the SEZs, in the small scale sector and in the displaced industries would rise much less than claimed. Similarly, investment would rise but much less than being suggested because of the destruction of assets in SEZs and the small scale sectors and displacement from the rest to the SEZs. Loss of tax revenue would be substantial and would affect the budgetary calculus. All in all, the macroeconomic portents are not very promising.

Enclave development

It is also clear from the earlier section, the SEZ areas will develop substantially at the expense of the non-SEZ areas. This is likely to accentuate the already rising disparities. Loss of taxes will lead to shortage of funds for development in the non-SEZ areas.

There is likely to be diversion of resources from the non-SEZ areas to the SEZs. For instance, water aquifers would be used rapidly as has happened in the past and the poor people in the surrounding areas will be starved of water. The only way to prevent differentiation from rising further is to declare the whole country an SEZ. One may ask why limit the supposed benefits of SEZs to only limited areas and aggravate disparities?

Conclusions

This paper has analysed some of the key features relevant to the creation of SEZs. It is argued in the article that the SEZ policy is a part of the policy of `growth at any cost’ with the cost falling on the already marginalised sections in the rural areas. Huge concessions are being offered to the developers of SEZs and the entrepreneurs for locating in the SEZs. The beneficiaries are likely to be the affluent and skilled sections of the population. Thus, those who gain and those that lose will be different sections of the people.

It has been argued that those displaced will not get the market price for their land and even if they do, this price would not take into account many of the hidden costs, like, being a part of a community. As such, payment of a market price for land will not be a `just’ compensation, specially to those who do not understand the institutions of saving and investment.

Displacement will not be just of agriculturists but of a far larger number of people associated with a way of life which will be totally disrupted. Market price does not factor this in since it is at best based on the future flow of incomes (with capitalist development) from the piece of land acquired. It is not valued from the point of view of the displaced to whom the way of life being destroyed may be worth much more, specially, in the long run. Unfortunately, some Marxists seem to be going for a new form of class struggle where the workers and capitalists will together fight the marginalised, the farmers and tribals who instead of getting their support are being treated as anti- industrialisation.

The eGOM has not been able to resolve the problem of acquisition of land. If the government does so, it would pay much less than the potential market price but if this is left to the private sector, land mafia would be involved and the price paid would be much lower than the market price. There is really no solution. Further, it is argued that many in the rural areas do not possess land and will get little compensation when they are displaced. They will join the ranks of the unemployed in the urban areas. Those who do get compensation will find that they would not be able to start businesses since they lack the experience for it (this is the age of core competency). Finally, at a time when the crisis in the small scale sector would only worsen, asking the inexperienced farmers to start small industry or business would be doing them a disservice.

It is argued in this paper that employment generation in SEZs will not be able to compensate for the loss of employment in the activities the SEZs will displace and in the small scale sectors which are likely to be hit hard. Further, the output increase will be much less than claimed and investment will be at the expense of the non-SEZ areas and less than claimed since there will also be destruction of capital. Finally, it is pointed out that the more successful the SEZs the more would be the loss of revenue to the government due to the tax concessions. There is likely to be large scale smuggling and new possibilities of transfer pricing and siphoning out of profits.

There would be enclave development and disparities would rise. Migration to urban areas will rise and they will face further collapse. The excess land being allotted to the SEZs will result in the creation of new landlords. Government is creating new landlords 60 years after independence and long after it was thought prudent to end landlordism in the country. Reports suggest that some large SEZs being set up by the corporates will be known as “…desh”, like, Bangladesh, where the well off will live in style.

If the overall gains from SEZs are so unclear and the government is going ahead with the scheme, then it can only be because it wants to give concessions to certain sections (who are pushing for it). The central government is playing the same role as the World Bank and IMF do in making nation states to compete for capital and give concessions to it. The SEZ policy is making the states compete with each other to get capital. Those states that do not go for SEZs will suffer because others will go ahead and attract investment.

Given the negative features of SEZs, even allowing 5,000 hectares is too much land for one SEZ. Having hundreds of them sprouting in the country is even worse. In brief, if SEZs are the logical culmination of the current Indian strategy of `growth-at-any-cost’ with the cost falling on Bharat then one needs to not only scrap SEZ policy but the development strategy itself.

The writer is professor of economics, JNU, New Delhi

Neoliberalism And Primitive Accumulation In India By Pratyush Chandra & Dipankar Basu.

Recent events in Singur - a town which is less than 40 kms away from Kolkata (Calcutta), where the West Bengal government is struggling to acquire and sell 1000 acres of agricultural land to Tata Motors - indicate the extent to which capitalist-parliamentarianism can regiment a counter-hegemonic force once it agrees to play by the rules. At the least, it clearly shows that the Communist government, which boasts of being the longest-running democratically elected Marxist government in the world, is hopelessly caught in the neoliberal project. And Singur is not an isolated event. In the state of West Bengal alone, the process of state-led land grab and the resultant opposition is already gaining momentum in at least three different locations: (a) in Kharagpur, West Medinipur district, where vast tracts of multi-crop farmland is being taken over for yet another Tata vehicle factory; (b) in Nandigram, East Medinipur district, where a chemical industries hub is proposed to be set up by the Salim group on a 10,000-acre area; and (c) in North Bengal where a Videocon Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is proposed to come up in the near future.

Nor is this story limited to West Bengal. Throughout India, resources are being acquired for Special Economic Zones and numerous other industrial schemes meant to facilitate corporate capital expansion. Since laws permitting this acquisitions were passed an year ago, state governments have notified 267 SEZs, which will require more than a half million hectares of land. Of this, the state has already acquired 137,000 hectares for 67 SEZs while another 80 have `in principle’ been approved.(1) The Government has converted the erstwhile Export Processing Zones located at Kandla and Surat (Gujarat), Cochin (Kerala), Santa Cruz (Mumbai-Maharashtra), Falta (West Bengal), Madras (Tamil Nadu), Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) and Noida (Uttar Pradesh) into SEZs. In addition, 3 new Special Economic Zones that had been approved for establishment at Indore (Madhya Pradesh), Manikanchan (Salt Lake, Kolkata) and Jaipur have since commenced operations.

In this backdrop, the West Bengal government’s adamant attitude towards land acquisition, despite the popular unrest, shows that the Indian State and its agencies, irrespective of their ideological masks, are working relentlessly to provide the private sector with “an internationally competitive and hassle free environment”. In this note, we wish to conceptualise this political economic process, identifying its different facets and understanding their interlinkages. It is our contention that using the recently re-interpreted Marxist concept of “primitive accumulation” can provide crucial insights in this regard. We wish to demonstrate that current developments in India can be fruitfully understood by employing the notion of primitive accumulation, understood as a constitutive primitive of capitalism, the process which continuously creates and consolidates the capital-relation. Adopting this new perspective might also help in redefining the agenda of struggles and counter-hegemonic politics in the neoliberal context.

Primitive Accumulation: Two Interpretations

As is well known, Marx had brought up the concept of primitive accumulation to try to understand the historical origins of capitalism. It is generally accepted by economic historians that in pre-capitalist modes of production the primary producers (majority of whom were peasants) had ownership of the means of production, most crucial among them being land. If we agree that capitalism is distinguished from these other modes of production by the relationship of a class of propertyless labourers (who have nothing to sell but their labour power) and a class of propertied capitalists (the owners of the means of production) mediated through the market (2), then the following question naturally arises: how did we arrive at the class of propertyless labourers from a class of producers who had the ownership (or at least the right of usage) of the means of production? It is this historical question that Marx sought to answer with the concept of “primitive accumulation”.

In a sense, the answer is already contained in the question. Primitive accumulation is the process by which the producer is divorced from her/his means of production. Since, moreover, land is the primary means of production in pre-capitalist societies, the main focus of primitive accumulation was to separate peasants from the land. While the gradual penetration of market relations had a role to play in this, outright use of force was far more important, and in a sense the key. Only by evicting peasants from their lands and disrupting their livelihood could the development of markets in free labour and land be ensured; and only this could provide the firm basis for the emergence and consolidation of the capital-relation:

“The capital-relation presupposes a complete separation between the workers and the ownership of the conditions for the realization of their labor. As soon as capitalist production stands on its own feet, it not only maintains this separation, but reproduces it on a constantly extending scale. The process, therefore, which creates the capital-relation, can be nothing other than the process which divorces the worker from the ownership of the conditions of his own labor; it is a process which operates two transformations, whereby the social means of subsistence and production are turned into capital, and the immediate producers are turned into wage-laborers. So-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as ‘primitive’ because it forms the pre-history of capital, and of the mode of production corresponding to capital.”(3)

It is worth recalling that Marx studied the “enclosure movement” in Britain within this overall perspective. One crucial aspect of primitive accumulation should be noted immediately: it effects a redistribution and transfer of claims to already existing assets and resources, rather than creating any new assets. In this sense, it is an accumulation of intangible rights and not the accumulation of tangible assets or goods. This aspect of primitive accumulation is important for our purposes because the current frenzy of state-assisted acquisition of land and other resources in India is precisely a process whereby rights of access and usage of already existing resources are being redistributed and transferred.

The last decade has witnessed a resurgence of debate around attempts to re-interpret the concept of primitive accumulation.(4) This debate has indicated that there are two distinct but related interpretations of primitive accumulation, one which stresses the temporal aspect and the other which stresses the constitutive or originary aspect. For the first, more traditional, interpretation the primitiveness of primitive accumulation is understood in a purely temporal sense. Primitive accumulation is seen as the historical phase which created the preconditions for the development of capitalism by forcing the separation of workers and means of production. The second interpretation notes that there is both a temporal and a continuity argument in Marx’s account of primitive accumulation. For this interpretation, therefore, the primitiveness of “primitive accumulation” does not arise simply from its location in historical time, relevant only as the initial stage of capitalism; rather, it is the constitutive primitive of the capitalist system, a process that is essential for perpetuating its fundamental class structure - the separation between producers and means of production.

If primitive accumulation is constitutive, then it must arise as a continuous process within capitalism viewed as a global system. Expanded reproduction of the system requires reproduction of the capital-relation at every moment; separation of workers and means of production must be maintained continuously. In its day-to-day functioning, a mature capitalist economy enforces this separation through the market, i.e., by economic means; but at the boundaries (both internal and external), where capitalism encounters other modes of production, property and social relations attuned to those modes and also to the earlier stages of capitalism, other ways of subsistence, primitive accumulation comes into play. More often than not, direct use of force is necessary to effect the separation at the boundaries. And since capitalism, as a global system, continuously encounters other modes of production along with the simultaneity of diverse stages of capitalism in various localities, the constitutive role of primitive accumulation is always in demand. One can probably go so far as to assert that capital accumulation is the extension of primitive accumulation, enforced through the market. In fact, in Volume 3 of Capital, Marx himself calls the concentration and centralisation of capital, which occur during the course of market-induced capital accumulation, as “simply the divorce of the conditions of labour from the producers [which occurs through primitive accumulation] raised to a higher power”(5).

But this does not mean that the two are identical. In fact two differences are especially important to grasp for the development of our overall argument:

(a) “[W]hile accumulation relies primarily on “the silent compulsion of economic relations [which] sets the seal on the domination of the capitalist over the worker,” in the case of primitive accumulation the separation is imposed primarily through “[d]irect extra-economic force” (Marx 1867: 899-900), such as the state (Marx 1867: 900), particular sections of social classes (Marx 1867: 879), etc. We can say therefore that primitive accumulation for Marx is a social process instigated by some social actor (the state, particular social classes, etc.) aimed at the people who have some form of direct access to the means of production. This social process often takes the form of a strategy that aims to separate them from the means of production.”(6)

(b) “As opposed to accumulation proper, what may be called primitive accumulation… is the historical basis, instead of the historical result, of specifically capitalist production’ (Marx 1867: 775). While sharing the same principle - separation - the two concepts point at two different conditions of existence. The latter implies the ex novo production of the separation, while the former implies the reproduction - on a greater scale - of the same separation.”(7)

Keeping these differences are important because one comes to the rescue of the other when market processes falter. Since capital accumulation operates through the market, the services of primitive accumulation are required almost by definition when the market is in crisis. During crucial phases of capitalist crisis, primitive accumulation emerges to help transcend barriers to accumulation in two ways: (a) by facilitating the transition from the critically fated regime to a new regime of accumulation, and (b) by continuously negotiating the spatial expansion (both internal and external) of capitalism. During periods of transition and expansion, “new enclosures” are required for putting the normal course of capitalist reproduction back on track. Securing these enclosures through force and other “direct extra-economic means” is the function of primitive accumulation. This re-definition allows us to grasp the function of the State and its continuous politico-legal activism in every stage of capitalism.

The present neoliberal phase can probably be understood fruitfully from this perspective. Despite the talk of separating the political from the economic, which is a staple rhetoric of the current phase, it is the state as the instrument of politico-legal repression that facilitates neoliberal expansion. Firstly, the state intervenes with all its might to secure control over resources - both natural and human (”new enclosures”) - and secondly, to ensure the non-transgression of the political into the economic, which essentially signifies discounting the politics of labour and the dispossessed from affecting the political economy. David Harvey notes that, “The main substantive achievement of neoliberalization… has been to redistribute, rather than to generate, wealth and income”; the main mechanisms for achieving this is referred to by Harvey as “accumulation by dispossession”, by which he means,

“… the continuation and proliferation of accumulation practices which Marx had treated of as ‘primitive’ or ‘original’ during the rise of capitalism. These include the commodification and privatisation of land and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations…; conversion of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights…; suppression of rights to the commons; commodification of labour power and the suppression of alternative (indigenous) forms of production and consumption; colonial, neo-colonial, and imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); monetization of exchange and taxation, particularly of land; the slave trade (which continues particularly in the sex industry); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating of all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. The state, with its monopoly of violence and definitions of legality, plays a crucial role in both backing and promoting these processes.”(8)

Harvey identifies four main features of “accumulation by dispossession”: privatisation, commodification, financialization and the management-manipulation of assets, each feeding on the other, supported by the other and gaining strength from the other. The neoliberal resurgence since the mid-1970s can be understood as capital’s counter-revolutionary response to the crisis that enwrapped “embedded liberalism” internationally in the late-1960s, with “signs of a serious crisis of capital accumulation…everywhere apparent. Unemployment and inflation were both surging everywhere, ushering in a global phase of ’stagflation’ that lasted throughout much of the 1970s.”(9)

The Politics of Primitive Accumulation in India

What is going on in India today can be understood by employing the concept of primitive accumulation (as understood in the second interpretation) in almost all of the above senses: separating primary producers from land; privatisation of the “public”, conversion of common property resources into marketable commodities, destroying non-market ways of living, etc. To our mind, each of the instances of “displacement” or state-led “land grab” are willy-nilly feeding into the overall process of primitive accumulation in India by divorcing primary producers from the land or restricting direct access to other common property resources like forest, lakes, river, etc. A question crops up immediately. Being a labour-surplus economy, does India need to generate additional labourers, which is an obvious result of primitive accumulation, before absorbing what is already available? Certainly not, if we think from the perspective of labour. But the answer changes if we see the whole process from the perspective of capital. Fresh entrants into the already burgeoning ranks of the proletariat will increase the relative surplus population - floating, latent and stagnant - depressing real wages and thereby increasing the rates of profits on each unit of invested capital. Moreover, one of the major features of the neoliberal regime of accumulation has been the incessant `informalisation’ of the labour process, and further growth of the relative surplus population makes late-capitalist countries like India finely attuned to this. As Jan Breman notes:

“Mobilization of casual labour, hired and fired according to the needs of the moment, and transported for the duration of the job to destinations far distant from the home village, is characteristic of the capitalist regime presently dominating in South Asia.”(10)

Separation of producers from their means of production and subsistence, especially land and other natural resources, also creates markets for these resources; and thus comes into being the various agencies that thrive through hucksterage in these markets. These intermediaries play the crucial role of facilitating and normalising the process of primitive accumulation. Examples abound: Trinamool Congress goons, grassroots-level CPI(M) leadership, local middle classes like school teachers, lawyers, and other similar forces in the Singur case; state-traders, local elites-supported Salwa Judum in Chhatisgarh.

The major target of land acquisition in India today is in areas where either peasant movements have achieved some partial success in dealing with capitalist exploitation and expropriation or areas largely inhabited by the indigenous population whose expropriation could not be increasingly intensified because of the welfarist tenor of the pre-liberalisation regime. West Bengal is the prime example of the former, where Left Front rule congealed due to its constituents’ involvement in the popular movements. Now, the movements’ institutionalisation and incorporation of the leadership into the state apparatus is facilitating the present-day resurgence of primitive accumulation. Examples of the second kind of area could be parts of Chhatisgrah, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh, which the corporate sector is eyeing for mining activities and for setting up steel plants.

As an instructive example, if nothing else, let us see how displacement in Singur will affect the various class forces on the ground. While the state apparatuses are trying to secure resources for corporate capital, sections of the local elite, including the well-off farmers led by the mainstream non-left political parties - like the Congress and Trinamool (TMC) - have joined the movement against land acquisition essentially to obtain various kinds of concessions, a higher price for giving up the land to the State and perhaps also for increasing the land price for their future real estate speculation around the upcoming industrial belt. For example, “a TMC leader and ex-pradhan of one of the gram panchayats was initially with the movement, but finally gave away his land. Many of the landed gentry, some of them absentee, who own bigger portions of land, depend on ‘kishans’ (i e, hired labours, bargadars, etc) for cultivation of their lands. They principally depend on business or service and have come forward to part with their land in lieu of cash.”(11) In case the government talks to the protesters and gives larger concessions, it is these sections that will benefit the most.

The people who are really the backbone of the movement in Singur are the landless working class and poor peasantry. According to a recent report, “many agricultural workers and marginal peasants will lose their land and livelihoods. Though the State Government has decided to compensate the landowners, no policy has been taken for the landless agricultural workers, unrecorded bargadars and other rural households who are indirectly dependent for their livelihood on land and agricultural activities.”(12) The region is also inhabited by the poor who “frequent the nearby town, being employed in factories, shops and small businesses. Some of the youth have migrated to cities like Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore, working there principally as goldsmiths or construction workers. There were several cases of reverse migration when people came back to their village after the closing down of the industries where they were working or finding it more profitable to work on the land than to work in petty industries or businesses, drawing a paltry sum in lieu of hard labour.”(13) For this population as also for the landless workers and marginal peasants, the Singur struggles are existential ones.

As an example of the second kind of land acquisition, we can turn our attention to Chhatisgarh. A report on recent developments in Chhatisgarh notes that, in India,

“tribal lands are the most sought after resources now. Whether it is in Orissa or Chhattisgarh or Andhra Pradesh, if there is a patch of tribal land there is an attempt to acquire it. It is no geographical coincidence that tribal lands are forested, rich with mineral resources (80 per cent of India’s minerals and 70 per cent of forests are within tribal areas) and also the site of a sizeable slice of industrial growth. The tribal districts of Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Maharashtra are the destination of us $85 billion of promised investments, mostly in steel and iron plants, and mining projects. Ironically, these lucrative resources are of no benefit to the local people: an estimate of 10 Naxal-affected states shows that they contribute 51.6 per cent of India’s GDP and have 58 per cent of the population. As with Chhatisgarh, all these states have a strong Naxal presence and are witness to movements against land acquisition. The state governments say these protests are Naxal-inspired. Local people say, however, that all they are trying to do is protect their land, forests and livelihood.”(14)

Here the State’s mode of facilitating primitive accumulation is by raising mercenaries, the Salwa Judum. This extra-legal use of force is supported by the traditional exploiters of the indigenous population - traders, usurers, civil servants and tribal neo-elites, who have functioned as intermediaries in the regime of commerce-based surplus extraction. On the one hand, absence of any recognised land rights of tribal communities, has allowed the State to use principles of terra nullius and eminent domain to expropriate them. On the other, these communities have continued to exist in defiance of all these legalities. However, with the recent intensification of efforts to secure resources for corporate profiteering, along with the continued presence of primitive extractive modes of exploitation, these communities have been left with no real choices but to arm themselves for securing their unrecognised rights. Hence,

“Most tribal people living in forests are officially ‘encroachers’. They live under the constant threat of being alienated from their land and livelihood. While the government completely failed to reach out to them, the Naxals succeeded in connecting to sections of the people. They spread to the state’s 11 districts (200 districts in the country). Unable to contain them, government supported the creation of a civilian militia - Salwa Judum”.(15)

Besides these widely discussed cases of recent land acquisition and displacement, there have been numerous conflicts around the rights over water resources over the years. In almost all such cases, the state has come forth as being hell bent upon the construction of big dams and other hydroelectric projects despite all evidence of the net negative marginal costs of these projects. During the past two decades, Narmada Bachao Andolan has been a prominent force constantly exposing the anti-people, anti-environment character of these projects. Even in the Himalayan region of Uttaranchal (site of the legendary Chipko Andolan), riverbeds and surrounding lands have been ‘enclosed’ for private capital to be used for power generation and lucrative tourism projects. In fact, recent politics in this region cannot be fully understood without understanding the conflicts around these enclosures. Closer to urban India has been the neoliberal systematisation of commercial and financial centres, the `clearing’ of slums, in cities like Delhi and Mumbai, which have naturally been the hotbed of the politics of and against “new enclosures”.

Understanding all these diverse processes in the framework of primitive accumulation has several strategic implications. Perhaps, most urgently, this can provide a unified framework to locate the numerous struggles going on in the country right from the `new’ social movements, like landless workers movements, Narmada Bachao Andolan and other local mobilisations of ‘development-victims’, to anti-privatisation movements of public sector workers, all the way to the revolutionary movements led by the Maoists. This unified framework can then possibly facilitate dialogue among these movements, something that is more than essential at this juncture if the movement of labour against capital is to be strengthened.

A Future Beyond Capital

Using this framework will also mean re-evaluating many of the theoretical positions that are currently in use. For example, it will be necessary to rethink the classical communist position that characterises the Indian state as semi-feudal and semi-colonial, and thereby sees the struggle of the peasantry as being directed primarily against feudal oppression. It is possible that the inherent limitations of this ideological framework disallow revolutionaries and other radicals to formulate effective strategies against the whole system, a system that preserves various vestigial forms to facilitate accumulation but is not defined by them. Thus, movements struggling against different forms of these vestiges are easily localised, regionalised, marginalized, dispersed, and even utilised in the intra-ruling class competition and conflicts. The state of the official Indian left is illustrative in this regard. It, too, stresses on the presence of “vestiges” and the insufficiency of development, but then turns around and justifies its accommodation in the neoliberal capitalist project as a fight against these vestiges!

Despite the apparent popularity of the new movements of Latin America among the official Left in India, their attachment to a schematic notion of national capitalist development retains all its strength. The devastating consequence, of course, is the deferral of the revolutionary moment till that development is attained; in reality, this amounts to postponing the revolutionary moment beyond the horizon of all concrete possibilities. Surely, this is not simply an ideological problem coming from a faulty understanding of the dynamics of capitalism or socialism. It is a consequence of the official left leadership’s accommodation in the capitalist-parliamentary framework, an accommodation moreover that forces them to participate in the competitive race for representation. In the pursuit of presenting itself as the legitimate representative of the “plurality of opinions”, which parliamentary politics poses against the notion of class struggle, the left reproduces this plurality within itself, along with its built-in hierarchy. With partial successes in this exercise, representatives of the opinions that count, i.e., the hegemonic class interests, solidify themselves within the party structures. And it is this congealment within the Left Front in West Bengal that leads the “communists” to vocalise neoliberal myths of neutral industrial development, dubbing every protest against its policies as anti-developmental, backward and manipulative. Parallels with the neoliberal demonisation of the transgression of the political into the economic can hardly be missed. Echoing well-heeled mandarins in Delhi, the Left Front government regularly uses the classic threat of capital flight to regiment all protesting voices.

Without comprehending the function of vestiges of earlier modes of production within capitalism or the role of earlier stages of the capitalist mode of production in sustaining capital accumulation, any fundamental challenge to the hegemonic forces in a late capitalist society like India cannot be formulated. It can hardly be denied that, “we suffer not only from the development of capitalist production, but also the incompleteness of that development. Alongside the modern evils, we are oppressed by a whole series of inherited evils, arising from the passive survival of archaic and outmoded modes of production, with their accompanying train of anachronistic social and political relations. We suffer not only from the living, but from the dead. Le mort saisit le vif [The dead man clutches onto the living]!”(16)

We will have to recognise the fact that during the stage of imperialism, and more so in the present postcolonial situation, “a high level of capitalist development no longer require[s] the elimination of the traditional class of ’small producers’” and other pre-capitalist ‘remnants’.(17) Even in a country like Japan, “in which capitalist society developed only at the so-called finance-capitalist stage of world capitalism, a high level of capitalist development has not been incompatible… with the survival of the traditional class of ’small producers’.”(18)

Indian capitalism, like Japanese, came into being in the stage of imperialism, when finance capital and inter-imperialist rivalries were already subjugating the whole world. Moreover, development under direct colonialism foisted some unique features on to the general characteristics of “late capitalism”. During the colonial period, “self”-expansion of Indian capital beyond the physical horizons of India was implausible because this would have required an Indian State committed to these interests. Colonialism ruled this out almost axiomatically. However, there were other channels available. The simultaneous existence of various socio-economic formations at diverse levels of Indian society allowed some possibility of ‘internal’ colonialism and “enclosures”, thus, providing the basis for capitalist expansion. Even after Independence, Indian capital relies heavily on the ‘diversity’ (or unevenness) of Indian economy and society for primitive accumulation and expansion. Additionally, ’semi-feudal’ conditions at various locations within the country provide a vast reserve army of labour. The important characteristic of this insecure and docile population is that they can be pulled out of their original locations and thrown into the growing labour market without disturbing the essential fabric of society. In other words, pre-capitalist forms of exploitation provide vast and near permanent pools of cheap labour, which competes with the urban proletariat, thereby bringing the latter under political and economic control. Moreover, this seems (19) to resolve the “agrarian problem” of Indian capitalism, by ‘externalising’ rural and underdeveloped India from the “core” industrial islands. Concentrating capitalist agricultural development in particular locations of India (for example in West and North-west India), Indian capitalism could afford to under-develop other locations so that they could serve as “external markets” and as reserves of “footloose labour”.

Because unevenness is the essential feature of capitalist development, any mode of regulation, including neoliberal globalisation, has to negotiate with diverse stages of societal development. Hence local reactions against this new wave of capitalist consolidation and accumulation are bound to be diverse. The revolutionary vision consists in coordinating these diverse forces for building a formidable challenge to capitalism. Even the struggles against vestigial forms, if they have to be decisive, need to be recognised as contesting capitalist relations that sustain them and are articulated through them. In the Indian context, they are all struggles against a stuttering capitalism, against the inherent brutalities of primitive accumulation. We will have to realize that the movements are not about “saving” tribals/indigenous populations or their way of lives; the movement is a movement of labour against capital. Tribals, poor peasants, marginal peasants, landless labourers, informal sector workers, all these sub-classes are fighting against the tyranny of capital, against being fed - with their labour and resources - into the capitalist machinery. Obviously, in this fight against capital, we cannot cling on to any nostalgia for a pristine past, rather our vision must be directed towards the future, a future built on the transcendence of capital, a socialist future rooted in a participatory economy and polity. Only then can the vast majority suffering in the margins of capitalism and toiling under vestigial relations, can make a concerted, decisive effort to end the tyranny of capital.

Notes & References :

(1) Prem Shankar Jha, “Compensation not enough”, Daily News & Analysis (October 2, 2006), http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1056324&CatID=19
(2) Marx refers to this as the capital-relation.
(3) Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Penguin Books (1976 [1867]), pp. 874-75
(4) See the contributions in The Commoner No 2. (September, 2001), http://www.commoner.org.uk/
(5) Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 3, Penguin Books (1981 [1894]), pp. 354
(6) Massimo De Angelis, “Marx and primitive accumulation: The continuous character of capital’s “enclosures”, The Commoner No 2 (September, 2001)
(7) Ibid. (Note: ex novo is used in the sense of `original’ or `from the scratch’).
(8) David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford (2005), pp. 159
(9) Ibid, pp. 12
(10) Jan Breman, Footloose Labour: Working in India’s Informal Economy, Cambridge University Press (1996), pp. 23
(11) Parthasarthi Banerjee, “Land Acquisition and Peasant Resistance at Singur”, Economic & Political Weekly (November 18, 2006)
(12) Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, “Terror Cannot Suppress Them: People’s Resistance to Forced Land Acquisition In Singur”, (December 6, 2006)
(13) Parthasarthi Banerjee, op cit
(14) “Anti-Naxal operations a cover for exploiting tribal people”, Down to Earth Vol 15 No 11 (October 18, 2006)
(15) Ibid.
(16) Karl Marx, “Preface to the First Edition”, Capital Vol 1, Penguin (1976 [1867]), pp.91
(17) Kozo Uno, Principles of Political Economy, Harvester Press (1980 [1964]), p.xxvii.
(18) Ibid, pp. 125
(19) Japanese Marxist Kozo Uno stressed that capitalism is incapable of solving the agrarian question. “We can say that it became clear on a world scale that the ability to solve the agrarian question would entail the ability to construct a new society to replace capitalism, and we may regard the League of Nations as having been one such attempt. The solution to this problem, of course, means no more than the external expression of the internal contradictions of capitalism, and cannot occur unless the issue of class relations is solved. In this sense, the failure of the League of Nations was only to be expected.” (Quoted in Andrew E Barshay, The Social Sciences in Modern Japan: The Marxian and Modernist Traditions, University of California Press (2004), pp.128)

U-Turn of Industrial Policy Erodes the Very Base of Agriculture By Abhijit Guha.

“Destination West Bengal”: this is the rather pompous sounding slogan which the Left Front government of West Bengal has used since it made a U-turn in the 1990s, and started on a reverse course from its earlier incomplete task of land reform. To investigate the possibilities of industrialisation the state government all of a sudden appointed McKinsey, a multinational consultancy group. The booklet titled “Destination West Bengal” is in fact based on McKinsey report. Curiously, this is the Left Front government, taking out processions, organising meetings protesting entry of multinational corporations all the time – which called in McKinsey. Could not the faculty members of Indian Statistical Institute or Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata, who are renowned internationally, perform the same job that was handed over to McKinsey?

If one browses through the book one finds that in the last twenty years there has been wonderful political stability in the state and that the state government in its 1994 industrial policy has welcomed the privately owned industries. Some of the achievements of state government have been described eloquently in the first part of the booklet. In the last five years the growth rate of West Bengal has been satisfactory. High agricultural growth has been the primary reason for this. It has been pointed out that during 1995-96 the growth rate of West Bengal has been higher than the national average. In agriculture, especially in foodgrain production, the success is said to be remarkable. During the period 1982-83 to 1992-93 food grain production growth rate in West Bengal has been the highest among Indian states. As a consequence, there has been substantial rise in the purchasing power of the people of the state. The rest of the booklet “Destination: West Bengal” discusses, in a rather attractive manner, how industrialisation will proceed in a number of areas of the state. These areas are, Siliguri, Dankuni, Salt Lake, Kalyani, Asansole, Durgapur, Kharagpur, Bantala, Haldia, Falta etc. In the final section of the book (“Look, Who All are There”) we find names of a host of Japanese multinational firms. They will invest in West Bengal. After that, spanning three pages there is a list of big multinational corporations from USA, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Australia, Austria, South Korea, UK which have invested in West Bengal. Is the whole world inside the briefcase of WBIDC, or is the entire Bengal within the suitcase of foreign capitalists?

The so called backward regions of Medinipur which were selected for industrialisation (due to the industrial policy) are Haldia and Kharagpur rural regions in the East Medinipur and West Medinipur districts respectively. Large tracts of agricultural lands were acquired for industrialisation purposes in these two areas. During 1991 – 1997 much more land were acquired in these regions compared to what is being grabbed at Singur. However, apart from a few local agitations and reports or writings on local newspapers, not much had happened.

Let us have a look at the land acquisition of the undivided Medinipur district. 14,319.40 acres of land were taken in the undivided Medinipur during 1991 to 1997 – for various reason, chiefly for industries. Immediately after the central government announced its policy of liberalisation, the Left Front government of West Bengal started acquiring vast tracts of land for industrialisation, in a district which is almost completely dependent on agriculture. Data tell us that the concern of the Left government for improvement of agriculture or adequate irrigation facilities or rehabilitation for the displaced was becoming less and less noticeable in the era of liberalisation.

The government started acquiring land on a massive scale for urbanisation, industries, tourism. Village based decentralised development, land reform, rural planning by the villagers were at the receiving end. Haldia Port and Haldia industrialisation, Kolaghat thermoelectric plant and much later pig iron industries in Kharagpur: these issues were raised at the state assembly. An informative and well-organised report on land acquisition of the undivided Medinipur district was prepared by the district administration in 1993. It never got published. What was revealed in this report is truly horrifying. On the contemporary land acquisition in the district it said there have been as many as 293 cases of incomplete land acquisitions. Many of the governmental organisations or the private concerns for which the government had acquired land, were not depositing the money (required to pay the compensation) with the government. Despite repeated notices sent by the land acquisition department, there has been complete silence from their side. Farmers who had lost land were left with no compensation. In case of delays in paying compensation to the government, the concerned organisation is required to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum from the next year onwards. This sum alone adds up to Rs. 260 millions. The government irrigation department is the highest defaulter, the amount is Rs, 14,54,20,607. The public works department comes second in the list. It had got lands acquired for building roads – but no road has come up. It has a pending sum of Rs. 8,19,81,577. After this we have South-eastern Railways, Agricultural Marketing, Agriculture, Public Health and Technology departments. The report also mentions that those organisations which did not pay have already constructed buildings on the land, or have built fragments of a road or have dug an irrigation canal. If these lands are to be returned to their previous owners they will be not in their formal state. Courtesy government propaganda, land acquisition for development may seem to be a quick administrative process. The inside story is pretty terrible.

The new industrial policy of the state government harms the base of agriculture of the state. The main line of the new industrial policy is: due to land reform and growth in agriculture there has been rise in the purchasing power of the rural population. Therefore West Bengal is now a fit case for industrialisation, particularly for heavy and medium scale industries. The Left Front theoreticians have framed the new industrial policy based on this single rationale. The chief minister never gets tired of repeating this. They are forgetting that the land reform has remained incomplete. Taking back land from the pattadars (peasants who have got ownership rights of the redistributed land) and bargadars (tenants who have received proper tenancy rights) will be suicidal. This may result in the economic betterment of a small section of people, but it will also mean rising economic and social inequality. CPI(M), the main political party of the Left Front, and the small allies – CPI, RSP, Forward Bloc, who are after the ministerial berths – have chosen this suicidal course.

The state government had released the West Bengal Human Development Report in 2004. It was edited by Prof. Jayati Ghosh of Jawaharlal Nehru University. The report ends with a chapter which lists 25 suggestions on the future path that West Bengal may follow. It may be noted, in none of these 25 suggestions has it been adviced that since the state of the peasants of West Bengal has improved significantly due to land reform, its future strategy should be that of heavy and medium scale industrialisation. On the contrary, it expresses deep concern that in the recent years bargadars and pattadars are losing their land. The report, which incidentally has got messages from the chief minister and the industry minister printed on it, says in its 9th suggestion, “The government should encourage agricultural and non-agricultural based productive activities in the rural areas and in this connection government may consider forming new cooperatives.” (page 214 - 215) The model of development which the political parties of the Left Front government want to present to the people completely contradicts the research-based data and suggestions of reports of the experts committee appointed by the same government. Our humble request to those who are shouting “Agriculture is our base, industry is our future” is: please read the reports of the government of West Bengal. And think. Hollow shouting does not do any good. History has not forgiven anyone.

The author is Reader, Anthropology Department, Vidyasagar University

Resistance to Neo-Liberalism in Singur and Nandigram By N. Bhattacharya

The issue of the acquisition of Corus, the Anglo Dutch Steel company, by the Tata Iron and Steel Company of India is projected as a major entry by an Indian company into the steel business of the world. One clearly understands why Ratan Tata and Co. want to blow out of proportion their recent acquisition issue which any big company treats as a normal day to day activity! Globally every day so many new business formations are taking place, maybe an equal number or more are filing their ’bankruptcy’ petitions or death certificates. In the world of corporate imperialism to sustain ‘fair competition’ in a market economy a big fish has to eat so many smaller fishes to attain the eventual monopoly or oligopoly status to dictate to the rest of the world the imperialist policies. The current scenario of acquisition, amalgamation and mergers (M&A) in the fast deteriorating health of the western economies has brought out in the open a clear and unambiguous signal: the days of the USA or European Union dictated corporate imperialism are simply numbered. Strategic industries like iron and steel, IT, nuclear power, capital goods etc. are gradually slipping out of their strong clutches or to be more specific: many of them have already migrated to China and to many of the countries of South and South East Asia. In the 21st Century western imperialism is in search of a new home! What does the elite of India have to say?

Acquisition of Corus vis a vis appropriation of lakhs of acres of fertile multicrop land of India

Every person dependent on land for cultivation either in Singur, Nandigram or Baruipur etc in West Bengal, Kalinganagar or Gopalpur in Orissia or in some remote villages in Jharkhand or in Chattisgarh is asking Ratan Tata and Co. why they don’t follow the same transparent policy while acquiring lakhs of acres of fertile agricultural land belonging to thousands of small and marginal farmers: scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, muslims and other weaker sections, as they had to follow in the Corus deal. After the management of Corus, as claimed by Tata spokesman, requested Tata Sons to take over their company, the purchasing company had to follow the complicated lengthy legal procedures of the European Union and finally after nine biddings in an auction Tata agreed to pay 608 pence per share (against the 603 pence offered by CSN) and they were declared successful. Now they have to get the consent of the shareholders of Corus. The price offered was unreasonably high when compared to the current market price of the net asset value acquired from Corus. Due to the fabulous price paid for Corus, the prices of Tata shares fell on subsequent two days in the stock exchanges in India. Tata Sons is busy contracting debts of billions of pound sterling from different international moneylenders to pay for the millions of shares to be acquired.

On the other hand, the same Indian business house under the pretext of ‘business secrecy’ refused to tell the people in India (1) when and where the Government of West Bengal advertised for the setting up of a small car project and at what place, (2) who were the other bidders who responded to that advertisement, if any, (3) what were the agreements entered into with the Government of West Bengal, (3) how much they paid and to whom they paid for the acquisition of 1000 acres of multi-crop land in Singur. The same enquiries were made when Tata put up a boundary wall at Kalinganagar on 2.1.2006 around 2500 acres of farmland that they occupied in the tribal heartland at Kalinganagar. The Orissa Chief Minister had to kill 13 innocent adivasis because they wanted to know why their land was being sold to the land-hungry Tatas. When this business community landed first in Gujarat more than a century back the then king refused them permission to settle but these people promised the king that they would enrich this country and make Indians happier through their business and professions. The way these profit hungry people are bent upon destroying the rich agricultural land of India and forcing millions of poor farmers to destitution and destruction, the common men and women of this country have to stand up and say ‘get out’ from their villages. The Tatas are behaving like the ‘bargis’, the ‘Moghul invaders’ or the ‘colonial exploiters’ in the peaceful villages of India. But our politicians are charmed by their moneybags!

Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is a seasoned politician and as an ex-employee of the World Bank (WB) he knows very well how land and property are acquired in western imperialist countries. The New Economic Policies in the form of the ‘liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation’ advocated by the WB and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were implemented in India by him as Finance Minister in 1991. Dr. Ashok Mitra, his friend and an ex-finance Minister of Jyoti Basu’s cabinet in West Bengal, raised the issue in his recent book of how he was selected in 1991 by the US administration to the hot post of this country’s Finance Minister! The Central Government is allowing all illegal methods and police highhandedness for the purchase of fertile agricultural land for developing Real Estate Zamindaries renamed as Special Economic Zones (SEZ). The WB and IMF and their paid representatives in the Indian Government think that India is a banana republic and that the people of this country can be befooled eternally by the ‘shining India’ slogan. The UPA government knows it very well that the NDA government could not survive by these false dangerous slogans. Their claim of 9 percent growth in the GDP during the rule of this powerful government failed to stop the ‘starvation deaths’ of farmers throughout the country and now even the Prime Minister’s favourite Punjabi wheat has evaporated from the Indian market! The heavyweight corporations with the help of their corrupt political dalals (brokers) are allowed to use the public funded government bureaucracy and state controlled para-military and police forces to acquire land and use it as they like as if India is no longer a democratic state, as though it is been taken over by a fascist clique. The ‘am admi’ or common man has to vote every five years and past history tells us that even a strong person like Mrs. Gandhi was compelled to withdraw the emergency raj and accept defeat in the 1977 general election. The UPA government in the centre has forgotten the simple rules of any civilised society that it is the prerogative of the owner of any property to sell or not to sell their property and that if he or she decides to sell only the highest bidder should be given the right to the property and not to any one else. This rule has to be strictly followed specially when the land owners are mainly small and marginal farmers, they belong to weaker sections and to the minority sections of society. They can not bargain with the rich corporations or state power. If the state as a dalal or commission agent shows its teeth and wants to take over the property of the poor and hapless at gun point, they are left with no other alternative than to get organised, united and challenge the state machinery. The people of Kalinganagar did it on the second day of 2006 and those of Nandigram in East Midnapore did the same thing in the last days of 2006. 2006 will be remembered as the year of ‘peasant uprisings’ in Indian history. Sri Lakshman Seth, CPI (M) MP and the king of the so called Haldia Development Authority in East Midnapore ( the CPI (M) has a number of such kings and they are having nice time, thank you very much ) issued a diktat without any authority whatsoever to grab thousands of acres of fertile land in Nandigram and its adjacent Mouza. In the early hours of the first week of January, 2007 around half a dozen people were killed for this wrong and willful criminal act of a member of Parliament and till to day no action has been taken by the state government, his appointing authority, against him for such a criminal act of negligence. The government rules demand his immediate suspension and removal from the chairmanship till an enquiry committee clears him of all charges. The West Bengal Governor is duty bound under the Constitution to order his government to take legal action against the Chairman of the Haldia Development Authority for such an illegal action and the subsequent suffering of the concerned people. The people of Nandigram are so angry with the local government that irrespective of political affiliation (the local MLA is from the CPI, a partner in the Left Front Government), they united and have dug up all the approach roads so that no police or government official could enter their villages. Ladies, gents, children, the young and old of all political parties united and sent the message to Delhi that an inch of land can not be acquired for the Indonesian communist killer Salim’s Special Economic Zones. The people of Nandigram, Singur, Kalinganagar etc. have said in no uncertain terms that in future only the people of India will decide what is good for them and not the imperialist tools occupying important positions in various governments at the centre and in the states. The union commerce minister Kamal Nath knows that in a capitalist economy buyers and sellers enter into a deal and if there is any confusion the regulatory authority supervises the negotiations . That happened in the Corus deal in the European Union. Through the SEZ Kamal Nath wants to create a real estate boom with the help of foreign banks and insurance companies but he intentionally avoided appointing any regulatory authority to supervise the real estate market as we have in the case of stock exchanges, telecommunication, electricity and so on. The SEZ Act of 2005 is a charter to completely destroy millions of people who are dependent on land. Tata Sons in their Corus deal had to follow strict rules in their negotiations but at home they refuse to negotiate with land owners, rather they treat with contempt all their complaints and boldly told the press that the land owners were agitating because they were paid by Tata’s competitors to agitate against the car project ! Look at his pride for while holding the fabulous wealth which has been accumulated by the hard work of Indian labour!

The British Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is irrelevant in the 21st Century as it is against the interest of the poor peasants and at the same time is against the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution. Everyone knows that our Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to life and livelihood. It is unfortunate that the highest court till to-day ignored this issue on so many occasions when displaced persons in their millions knocked on its door for justice! This law is fully misused since independence against the interest of the unorganised poor. Till the mainstream political parties annul this barbarous law, people will resist its enforcement in every part of the country with all the force at their command. It is pure and simple a blunt weapon used to unleash state terrorism. . Those displaced millions and not lakhs are now homeless and jobless on the streets of ‘shining India’. The poor cultivators and landless agricultural labour of both Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal and Kalinganagar in Orissa have taken an oath not to give an inch of their land at any cost and the same strategy should be followed wherever the government tries forcibly to acquire land for the benefit of the rich and mighty. To make an agreement on rehabilitation is dangerous because the government forgets them as soon as they are uprooted from their hearth and home. Look at the quantum of the government fund which is misused daily by displaying regular full page advertisements in national dailies by the Haryana government. It clearly shows that the politicians who gifted thousands of acres of the agricultural land of Haryana to Reliance virtually as a gift for their SEZ project are afraid of their own people after the example of the farmers in Nandigram having taken up the issue with their government. All mainstream political combinations should read the writing on the wall! It is better that before it is too late they appreciate the anger of the affected farmers of this country and try to maintain India as a civilised society.

The bulk migration of imperialist capital (FDI) demands large scale land acquisition

The Manmohan Singh government is pleased that more and more foreign companies are arriving on the Indian coast to start business. First, these corporations went to those countries in the Far East from where the USA army had refused to withdraw after the second world war. Here land became scarce and the cost of production went up higher and higher. Due to Chinese exports at lower prices their exports too are suffering. South Korea, the island states of South East Asia, Taiwan etc. are in search of new land area. Singapore has no space to start new institutions. Foreign capital came in large quantity to China. Here the economy is over-heated and already there is trouble due to deepening poverty in the hinterland. Regional disparity has taken an ugly turn. China is in search of new sources of raw materials from Asia, Africa and Latin America. They want new and additional market space to sell their increasing production of goods and services. Imperialists are not sure how long they will tolerate the growing Chinese economic and political global ambitions. They want to contain China strategically. Pakistan is already their friend. Now the Indian elite has spread the red carpet for the MNCs. India has a huge land area, highly educated hard working manpower and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. They can be compared with Mirjafars of Indian history. These parasites function as commission agents and are only interested to get rich as quickly as possible, sacrificing the interest of the nation. These foreign investors don’t forget the capacity of Indian market. Therefore, the New Economic Policy, SEZ, full convertibility of currency etc are gradually thrust upon this country of one billion population so that in the next decade or more India’s vast natural resources and its people are to be merrily consumed by the huge dinosaurs called imperialism.

Every one knows that in near future there will be a tremendous demand for land to set up businesses and every Tom, Dick and Harry is trying to acquire as much land as possible in anticipation that land prices will go up higher and higher and they will make huge speculative profits. Under normal circumstances when demand for land goes up prices also should go up. Our politicians and their paid bureaucrats have promised the real estate hawks that they will get land at the cheapest possible prices provided they are also paid their share of the booty. That is why the 1894 Land Acquisition Act and its object to acquire land for ‘public purpose’ totally fits in to satisfying the eternal hunger for land of the imperialists. Tata had to sit around an auction table to bid nine times and dish out a huge amount as premium to acquire a steel company, but the MNCs are allowed to purchase land in India at the cheapest possible price, thanks to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Rogue politicians are afraid to discuss with the people the content of the business agreements through which they are transferring acquired land. The West Bengal government wants to acquire more than 140000 acres of fertile agricultural land on behalf of various Indian and foreign corporations. Politicians and their bureaucracy are acquiring land under police protection and handing over that land at throwaway prices to rich business houses. This happened at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh and what happened in Singur in West Bengal is simply vulgar and people are ashamed of it. No official document is made public but 1000 acres of multi-crop land was handed over at what price to a rich corporation ? On the other hand the protesting farmers and agricultural labourers are insulted by the land grabbers that the land owners were bribed by their competitors!

Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and exports

The Manmohan Singh government argues that SEZs will increase Indian exports and that is why free fertile agricultural land and fiscal incentives (around Rs 175000 crores will be the loss of central revenue) should be extended but this fails to convince the electorate of this country. Dr. Manmohan Singh as a Professor of Foreign Trade may tell his illiterate country men what the Government of India has not done since 1950 to help our exporters to export and earn foreign exchange for the country. The argument they gave at that time was ‘export or perish’. These exporters and importers and their registered associations simply deceived the country by adopting all types of unfair trade practices including over- and under-invoicing foreign deals so that they could accumulate scarce foreign exchange outside the country. Millions of US dollars earned by our exporters are still lying in foreign countries because our honest (!) traders refused to bring them back. Now the dollar is losing its importance and it is returning back in various forms including that of fake Mauritius-based foreign institutional investments (FII). Our current account balance is always in the red, i.e. we import more and export less. India’s share of world’s foreign trade is still less than one percent.

In 1995 the imperialist powers started the World Trade Organisation (WTO) not to help India or any developing country but to expand their own exports. During the last 12 years we were compelled to open all the doors and windows of the country to import more and more but the doors of the developed world are still closed to our exports. That is why the Doha round collapsed! Recent amendments to the agricultural subsidy law in the USA are simply designed to deceive people and to avoid the WTO rules. They just changed the subsidy basket from one colour to another. Like ostriches they try to hide their heads in the sand and think no one can detect their manipulative practices. The foreign insurance and banking sector brought in huge speculative capital but till to day neither Indian crops are insured nor Indians can go in for medi-claim facilities as the premium rate is beyond their reach. In colonial days two to three percent of the population used to go to foreign countries to enjoy foreign goods, services and their hospitality business; the same group is enjoying the comforts of western life here at a much cheaper rate. Credit cards, Debit cards and so many other very costly credit systems have increased demand for the latest consumer goods which are now available in posh Malls, but most of the users are made virtually bankrupt before they reach the age of 40. Consumerism is ruining the middle class families. Without the social insurance of the west these schemes to promote sales are simply destructive for the country. Due to the high subsidy given by USA to their cotton growers our cotton has no market and naturally with the blessings of UPA government (CPI and CPI (M) supports this government) our cotton growers are starving, selling their kidneys and finally committing suicide. When the USA and Europe put restrictions on the import of agricultural crops, the Manmohan Singh government allows unrestricted imports of agricultural crops. That is the crux of his selection for the post!

The UPA government is gradually liquidating the Food Corporation of India and MNCs and big corporations are now procuring crops and hoarding them with the full knowledge of the government. Commodity exchanges are encouraging hoarding and price rises by creating artificial scarcity. There was earlier some form of public distribution system and an Essential Commodities Act to challenge artificial price rises but now the unorganised consumers are forced to pay Rs 18 to Rs 20 per kg for wheat; pulses have become a scarce commodity even for middle class families. The official consumer price index of food articles has increased by two digits as compared to last year. The official inflation rate is more than 6 percent. Dr. Manmohan Singh and his colourful Economic Advisory Council refused to tell the millions of the country’s daily wage earners: in the absence of wheat, rice, bajra and jowar how to ‘cook weeds and grasses’ to meet their children’s hunger. The government ordered wheat imports but its price is very high and quality wise it is fit only for animal consumption. The development of genetically modified crops in USA in particular resulted in huge production but developed countries refused to purchase them as they were found unfit for consumption by both human and animal beings. Even goats were found dead in India after eating the leaves of the BT cotton plant that used genetically modified seeds. The UPA government promised the common man, ‘am admi’, that it would look after his interests, but during the last two and half years it has planned to make the rich richer and the poor have turned into beggars and forced to commit suicide, it never happened on such large scale in the past. Even among the rich there is huge gap between the top thin layer and relatively bigger section of so called rich is fuming in anger due to widening disparity. They are cursing the government!

Sri Kamal Nath’s SEZ in hundreds is challenged by the illiterate cultivators of Singur, Nandigram, Kalinganagar and Dadri. He wants to copy China and knows that there are only five there as against an unlimited number in India. Has he asked his friend the Chief Minister of West Bengal why and how long the factory chimneys in his state have stopped functioning. What is the total land area locked up in closed factories in West Bengal. Why are the tea plantations in West Bengal sick when tea prices are booming in the international market? Will the conversion of tea estates to real estate solve the problems of thousands of workers engaged in this industry? There is already an export processing zone at Falta, it started in late eighties but it looks deserted even during day time. Lots of units stopped functioning long back, and there is vast area in it till today where new units may be set up. Why Falta is ignored by the CPI (M) government ? Hindustan Motors was allowed to convert around 50 percent of their allotted land for real estate business by the present Chief Minister and the trade union of Hind Motors is run by the CPI. Why did they allow this real estate business? This area was given by the government in the early fifties for the manufacture of the Ambassador car. Ratan Tata and Birlas are close friends, can’t they have two car units side by side. The West Bengal Chief Minister and his political party want industrialisation on only fertile multicrop land. Why did they fail during their rule for 30 years in preparing a blue print of this or that type of industrialisation. Is there any land use map for West Bengal? Why was Prof. Ashok Mitra, ICS, directed first to proceed on preparation of land use map for the state but then told not to proceed on this during the regime of Mr. Basu? If the present regime is so sincere about industrialising the state, why do not the government representatives sit down with the opposition who got half the votes of the electorate in 2006 election. 200 and odd seats in the Assembly mean nothing when the government stands paralysed by the agitations of people of the state. The Chief Minister forgets that his huge majority includes so many other left parties and without them the CPI (M) is in a minority. He claims that he is the only patriot and others are ruining the future of the state. He has foolishly challenged a muslim group as fundamentalist and the very next day the Home Minister of the country requested him to verify his facts. Muslims say they have 27 percent of the votes and till to day the ruling group in West Bengal survives on their support. The partners of left front Govt. and other opposition parties are threatening CPI (M) for its policy of the re-zamindarisation of fertile agricultural land by corporations. The CPI (M) wants industrialisation in West Bengal but their trade union wing CITU started a strike in the Jute industry during this disturbed period. In the recent all India meeting of CITU held at Bangalore, West Bengal’s representatives did not open their mouths when asked by other comrades why their government is displacing thousands of poor and marginal farmers and landless agricultural labour through land acquisition for the benefit of MNCs and big Indian business houses.

Observations

During the 60 years after Independence, the Indian people became wiser and more responsible. With great difficulty they maintained the institution of democracy despite lot of deficiencies. During the national emergency, every one stood up united and faced the crisis. But on the issue of priorities there is yet to be consensus. The ‘haves’ have virtually hijacked the country and the ‘have-nots’, whose number is increasing every day due to wilfull wrong planned strategies, are the majority in number and they are made to suffer in the hands of the microscopic section of the society. This handful of people in the executive, judiciary and the legislatures are running the show for their narrow selfish interest dictated by imperialists. At the macro level they have already sold the country to imperialists. After quite long period of time of the Tebhaga and Telengana struggle in late nineteen-forties, our farmers and countless agricultural workers are standing united on their cultivable land and telling their state governments that not a single inch of land will they surrender to corporations so that the latter can earn higher profits. It is advisable that ruling class should go slow and take people into confidence and adopt a rational policy so that the vast majority of the deprived population who were marginalised during last 6 decades are given their due share in framing the policies and programmes to reconstruct this country as a civilised society. Any hasty decision to suppress the demand of the vast majority by brute force may boomerang on civil society and lead this vast country to a civil war. Yes, the imperialists want exactly that and they are doing it every day in Africa and elsewhere. Nobody wants that to be repeated in India. Power must be restored to the majority that is the rule in a democracy. The current peasant uprising has given a golden opportunity to rectify the long pending imbalances and move in the right direction. The wishes of the Indian people should be honoured.