2011 West Bengal State Elections' Impact on Land Reforms
 |
|
Image: Jayant Shaw / Reuters
|
he unambiguous mandate in favour of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in the national general elections last year was hailed by all in the hope that it would allow the UPA to tackle many controversial policy issues more comprehensively. However, that may not be the case just yet.
The strong showing of the UPA in West Bengal, a state ruled by the Communist Party of India [Marxist] (CPM) since 1977, seems to have prompted the Centre to go slow in resolving the controversial and critical economic policy relating to land acquisition.
The previous UPA regime got a bill that proposed to amend the rules governing land acquisition passed by the Lok Sabha in 2007. But it failed to keep it alive in the wake of the general elections. One of the key proposals was that the government would not be involved in acquiring land for private bodies. It is clear that the UPA does not want to tackle the thorny issue anytime before the state assembly elections in West Bengal in summer 2011.
The Problem
Why? The UPA and its ally the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), led by Mamata Bannerjee, reaped huge benefits in the 2009 elections from the public outcry against the manner in which land acquisitions were handled by the CPM in the past five years. “There is a tacit understanding between these two critical allies that there will be no decision on the Land Acquisition Bill until the results of West Bengal state elections are clear,” says a top official close to the development on condition
of anonymity.
The Rural Development ministry, the nodal ministry for matters relating to land acquisition, is headed by a Congress minister, C.P. Joshi, and a minister of state — Shishir Adhikari — belonging to AITC.
India has a poor record of resettling displaced people. With acquired land being given to private enterprise, there have been allegations of a corporate conspiracy to grab land from the (usually) poor farmers and tribals. The issue of compensation and rehabilitation of the displaced people has come under sharp focus.
India also has a dubious record in getting the projects up and running. A recent Assocham survey claims delays in land acquisition procedures for industrial projects endanger investments worth $100 billion all over the country in the near term.
Steel company ArcelorMittal has even threatened to pull out its proposed $20 billion steel plants in Jharkhand and Orissa if the government does not address the problem.
R. Sreedhar, geologist and member of Mines, Minerals & People, a nationwide alliance of individuals, institutions and communities working for the people affected by mining, feels that poor governance is the main culprit for the situation. “Today governance is about keeping conflicts within manageable limits,” he says.
Single Page View
