2011 West Bengal State Elections' Impact on Land Reforms
The Turning Point
In the 2004 elections, CPM won 26 of the 42 Lok Sabha seats in West Bengal. Indian National Congress won just six, while AITC could muster only one.
Come 2009, and AITC led by a belligerent Bannerjee snapped up 19 of the 42 seats. The Congress won six and the UPA tally touched 25. More significantly, CPM was reduced to just nine seats. The rallying point for this sound trashing of CPM in its own backyard was the pent up anger among the populace against the manner in which the state government went about acquiring land for industrial projects.
|
|
|
Image: Amit Verma
|
|
PRAVEEN JHA "Most farmers and tribals are unaware of the market mechanism and are likely to lose out in their dealing with companies" | |
Singur and Nandigram became the battlefield and Bannerjee, an ex-Congresswoman, led the charge. Her cry against forced acquisitions by the government, especially agricultural land, garnered massive support and created a wave that crippled the CPM in the national elections.
Though the AITC and the UPA are allies, they differ over the proposed Land Acquisition Bill. Union Minister of State for Rural Development and Trinamool leader Shishir Adhikari says, “It would be difficult to say when the bill can be tabled. That would be for our leader to decide.”
Without giving out the specifics, Adhikari says there were several points in the bill on which his party had objections and that these need to be discussed in detail.
The CPM is not unaware of the political game afoot. “The West Bengal elections are definitely a reason for the delay in passing of the Land Acquisition Bill,” says Prosenjit Bose of CPM. “Mamata has reservations about the bill. The Congress had brought the bill before the cabinet and Mamata created a ruckus. She is yet to make her position clear on whether or not the government needs to be involved in acquisition. We are clear that the government has to stay involved as it is accountable to the people,” he adds.
A Different View
Partha Mukhopadhyay from the Centre for Policy Research doubts the claims that investments are being held up due to the delay in a central legislation. He feels that land acquisition is more a political decision, not a legislative one. “Each state has its own regulation in this regard and so delay in a central legislation will not necessarily hold up investments. Although some people speculate that, for example, the Congress ruled states may choose not to take precipitate action on this count before the West Bengal elections,” he says.
|
|
| Image: Amit Verma |
|
|
RUMJHUM CHATTERJEE "With increasing private sector involvement and transactions being done at higher rates than that offered by the government, the farmer’s expectations have gone up"
| |
However, there is considerable lack of unanimity about the likely impact of the government’s proposal to withdraw from acquiring land for corporate bodies.
Ramesh Sharma, an activist with Ekta Parishad which works with around 11,000 communities in 11 states, views the provision as a quick-fix to circumvent the problems surrounding land acquisition. “It is clear that the government wants to shirk its responsibility of safeguarding the welfare of the common people,” he says.
Praveen Jha, professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University and member of the National Land Reforms Committee, characterises this as the “reversal of land reforms in the country” since it would “facilitate corporate takeover of land.”
“Most farmers in the remote areas and especially the tribals are unaware of the market mechanism and are likely to lose out in their individual dealing with the companies. In that sense, the proposed bill may actually aggravate the problem and lead to more protests,” says Jha.
Private companies too may not necessarily welcome a direct dealing with numerous landowners. Rumjhum Chatterjee, MD at Feedback Ventures and Chairperson of CII’s Delhi State Council, explains why.
“Till a few years back it was only the government that acquired any land. As such people had little choice but to accept whatever compensation was given out by the government or set out as the norm by the government. However, with increasing private sector involvement and transactions being done at higher rates than that offered by the government, the farmer’s expectations have gone up. They believe there is now a ‘market rate’ established and the benefits are more than just compensation” says Chatterjee.
Single Page View
