When even the Left starts going right, starts adopting all the neo-liberal policies formulated by Washington, it should be a wake-up call to all the citizens of the country. The ruling Left Front in West Bengal (WB), led by it’s Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, is not only cheating it’s people, but is trying to lay a precedence by forcibly acquiring farm land for purposes other than farming, in violation of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) laid down by the Constitution of India.
The global players Tatas, one of the Indian Navaratnas, are planning to set up a $220 million small car project in West Bengal. The project is expected to generate jobs for about 10,000 people. For this purpose, the leftist government of West Bengal, at the behest of the Tata Motors, has decided to acquire 927 acres of fertile farm land from the hapless farmers in Singur area, which is located in the Hooghly district of WB, less than an hour away from the capital Calcutta. This anti-people decision of the WB government has evoked wide spread protests not only from the local farmers whose livelihood is being snatched away, and are being uprooted from their soil, but also from the WB opposition led by the Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, supported by it’s NDA ally BJP, and initially also by the Congress. The right to acquire prime farm land for a small car project (or for any project for that matter) has been contested by leading human right activists like Medha Patkar, journalists, writers like Mahashweta Devi, advocates and other citizens like us.
This extremely fertile land yields three crops a year. Earlier, the place used to get inundated by flash floods. The Howrah-Burdwan chord line has stopped the flash floods. There are now six cold storage depots for the farmers. Thus, the landowners, even the small and marginal ones have been doing well, and were happy within the given parameters. This neo-liberalist move by the WB government, has, all of a sudden violently disrupted the quite life of the people of Singur. Many of them are on indefinite strike. The WB government has announced a compensation package, which might have satisfied the big farmers, but not the small and marginal farmers. Besides, many other workers, labourers, like share croppers, who are not registered anywhere, as is the case with the unorganized sector in most parts of the country, will get no compensation at all. Thus, the protests by the people of Singur, supported by many organizations, like Socialist Unity Center of India, Krishi Jomi Raksha Committee, and others, is expected. Contrary to the government propaganda, more than 550 persons haven’t agreed to sell their lands to the state government.
The state government has already decided that it would hand-over the land to the Tata-Motors after the paddy harvest in December. On Nov 30, Trinamool congress MLAs became violent in the state assembly, and broke furnitures. It was followed by a series of “bandhsâ€. Meanwhile, prohibitory orders have been imposed in and around the Singur area, and is still in force. More than 6000 police personnel have been deployed in the area, and Rapid Action Force has been kept on high alert. There was a “March to Singur†organized on the 7th of December, when Medha Patkar and Rajnath Singh of BJP were not allowed to enter the arena. Mamata Banerjee is on indefinite hunger strike for the past fourteen days now. She has turned down the chief minister’s offer of dialogue, until the government reverses it’s decision and stops acquisition of farm land. People of Singur are ready for a fight, and they feel that an armed confrontation is inevitable. Armed police and security forces have almost completed the fencing of the area, and have been carrying out atrocities on the local population there. In short, Singur has turned into a fortress, which can explode any moment, as more and more discontented youth, both in rural Bengal and in Calcutta are sympathizing with the cause, not taking into account the inevitable naxal uprising which would follow. Recent reports indicate that 20% of India’s 593 districts are being effectively run by local administration of the naxalites
What are the citizens of this country supposed to do, when election after election, the elected representatives of the people start acting against the very people who have voted them to power with great hopes that their interests would be proteced? What does one do, when even the Leftists start behaving like hard-core Capitalists, imagining that nobody would see through their game plan?
The main issue here, is not of compensation package. The main issue is, why must farm land be acquired for the project? Why shouldn’t barren lands be allotted instead, when 21% of India, or 68 million hectares is wasteland ? Districts like Bankura & Purulia in WB have 10-15% barren soil. Farm lands should not be disturbed at any cost, even if a state claims that it has surplus agricultural produce, because, a state doesnot produce food only for itself.
It is easy to see why Tata motors, or any other corporate in it’s place wouldn’t like to set up a factory in a barren land. Ofcourse, barren lands in all probability won’t have even the basic amenities like sanitation, water and electricity. The Tatas will then literally have to build up a township on their own, if it is going to employ 10,000 workers for the project. But then why not? When we individuals have to manage all that on our own in most places where the government does not provide the requisite facilities (which is the case in most parts of India, except the metros, where all the fund is pouring in these days), why shouldn’t corporates be subjected to the same rules? Tatas would argue that it wouldn’t be cost effective, and as a result, the small cars wouldn’t be priced within the reach of the common man. This argument, doesn’t really hold, given the vast market, within and outside India, waiting to absorb the small cars. But then, ambition and greed has no bounds. Both, the government of WB and the Tatas want to price the small car so cheap, that almost every citizen, atleast of WB, can afford it. The result? A clogging, so that this small car project can act as a catalyst for other projects. The excessive cars all over would not only create a heavy demand for oil, but also for parking places (even in villages– imagine every house hold in a narrow lane in a village having a small car!), roads, flyovers, and so forth. The geography of WB would need to be changed then, and it would go exactly the Delhi way. There would be shopping malls all over, slowly killing the small traders. In short, a total corporatization of WB. The other states to follow suit.
So what if tens of thousands, and ultiately millions of families are destroyed, uprooted in the process, and the agrarian economy, the backbone of India, demolished for ever. There is no need to elaborate on this further. The question is, “Is this the type of “development†we want?â€
Hidden behind all this is another question, hardly ever discussed in public. Who is going to pay for “too much development†as is the case in Delhi? Only the Delhi-ites? Logically speaking, that is what should be the case. Why must people who do not or are not allowed to enjoy the benefits pay for Delhi’s development? It is quite clear that sooner or later, India is going to make money by exporting arms, and bombs, just like US, thus violating Artice 51 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with promotion of international peace and security, and the related matters.
.
Is this what the Indian constitution has planned for its citizens? No. This is not the type of development we want. We want equitable distribution of wealth, we want “diversity†to be maintained. Development has different connotation in different regions, villages, towns. Hence, development doesnot mean giving remuneration in cash. What will a person with huge amount of cash in his pocket do in a remote village which has no basic infrastructure? Thus, when WB government wants to pay compensation to the uprooted farmers, does it also provide them atleast all the basic amentities that they enjoyed earlier? It won’t, it can’t, because the governments have stopped working and administering at a grass-root level. They have taken upon themselves only the task of bringing investment into their state, in such a way, that the investment satisfies mainly the corporate interests. And at what cost, we have already seen.
The media, though critical of the acquisition of farm land, is generally pointing out that the move cannot be contested legally. This doesnot seem to be the correct picture. Consider the Directive Principles of State Policy. Aricle 39 lays down certain principles of policy to be followed by the State with the object of securing :
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally have the right to adequate means of
livelihood
(b) that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so
distributed as best to subserve the common good.
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women and the tender age of
children are not abused, and the citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter
avocations unsuited to their age and strength.
(f) that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and
material abandonment.
The actions of the Left Front government violate most of these principles. When Indira Gandhi’s government at the center decided to nationalize 14 top commercial banks and abolish privy purses in 1969, after suffering heavy reverses in the general elections due to non-implementation of DPSP, the Supreme Court declared that both these steps were unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. So, the central government introduced bills to amend the constitution suitably. While moving the constitution amendment bills, the then law minister H.R. Gokhale said: “If there is a conflict between the Directive Principles, the dynamic element in the constitution and the Fundamental Rights, the static element, the decision should be in favour of the Directive Principles, which should eventually prevail. During Emergency, many more constitution amendment bills were passed, dealing with DPSP. However, on 9th May 1980, the Supreme court, while delivering its judgement in the Keshavanand Bharati case, invalidated the primacy of the Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. As a result of the court’s new ruling, Parliament’s power was limited to the making of laws to enforce only two Directive Principles—39(b) & 39(c), and not all or any of the other principles. In any case, in the case of Singur, the actions of the WB government are violative of the principles 39(b) & 39(c).
Article 31 provides for “right to propertyâ€. However, the government does have the power to acquire property, under authority of law, having paid adequate compensation, and only if the property is aquired in the interest of the general public, or for the protection of the interests of the Schedule Tribes. The question of compensation is to be decided by the legislatures, and not by courts.
There might be a debate on what “common goodâ€, “interest of the general public†means. We shall return to that shortly.
Responsibilty of land reforms under the constitution was primarily a responsibility of the States. Thus, laws were passed by States and Union Territories to abolish zamindars, jagirs and inams, to fix ceilings on land holdings and the surplus land acquired by the land owners were distributed amongst the landless. Under the leadership of Acharya Vinoba Bhave, about 50 acres of land was distributed under Bhoodan and Gramdan movements, and was distributed amongst landless agriculturists. We should not forget all that.
Ever since India started it’s economic reforms in 1991, election after election, despite the era of coalition politics, the evergrowing multitude of political parties, once elected, start singing the same song in unison, obliterating the difference between the ruling party and the opposition, and behave the same way, no matter what they promised their electorates before the election. They call it “issue-based politicsâ€â€”because, this is how “neo-liberal reforms†dictated by Washington and the capitalists all over, can be easily introduced, by-passing all hurdles. If “issue-based politics†is the order of the day, the citizens too should have no political affiliations or preferences. What should matter, should only be the “issuesâ€, and they should understand the difference between what “common goodâ€
is supposed to mean as laid down by the constitution, and as per what a good society, a good economy is supposed to be, and what the hard-core capitalists would want us to believe, and in whose foot-steps India is actually moving.
Noam Chomsky, in his book “Profit over People†(Seven stories press, New York 1999) presents an accurate definition and description of “neo liberalism†and it’s consequences, even pertaining to India. According to him (Chapter 1—“Neoliberalism and Global orderâ€), the term “neoliberalismâ€, also called “Washington Consensusâ€, suggest a system of market oriented principles based mainly on classical liberal ideas of Adam Smith, the patron saint. As Adam Smith pointed out, the “principle architects†of policy in England were “merchants and manufacturersâ€, who used state power to serve their own interests, however “grievous†the effect on others, including the people of England. Similarly, the principle architects of the neoliberal “Washington Consensus†are the masters of the private economy, mainly huge corporations that control much of the international economy and have the means to dominate policy formations as well as the structure of thought and opinion.
The basic rules are: liberalize trade and finance, let markets set price, end inflation (macro-economic stability), privatize. The government should “get out of the wayâ€, and hence the population too. The current variant is called “minimizing the stateâ€â€”ie., transferring decision making power from the public arena to “private tyrannies†in the real world. These public tyrannies operate in secret and without public supervision or control. I suppose, that is what is termed as “system†in the current parlance.
He points out that, Free Market doctrine comes in two varieties: The first is the “official doctrine†imposed on the defenseless. The second is: “really-existing Free Market doctrineâ€. For the powerful and the rich—“Free Market doctrine is good for you, but not for me, except for temporary advantageâ€. For example, Britain turned to liberal internationalism only in 1846, after 150 years of protectionism, violence and state power had placed it far ahead of any competitor.
About India, he says the following:
“ India is an instructive case; it produced as much iron as all of Europe in the late eighteenth century, and British Engineers were studying more advanced steel manufacturing techniques in 1820 to try to close the “technological gapâ€. Bombay was producing locomotives at competitive levels when the railway boom began. But “really -existing free market doctrine†destroyed these sectors of Indian industry just as it had destroyed textiles, shipbuilding and other industries that were advanced by the standards of the day.†(Profit over People: 35)
In the same vein, Michael Albert, the writer, economist, and an activist, has the following to say about capitalism (ref: “Realizing Hope: Life beyond capitalism†by Michael Albert, Zed Books, London, 2006):
Capitalist economies produce gigantic centres of concentrated power in the form of corporations and their ruling elements. It also produces automized, weakened, de-centred and disconnected workers and consumers. The isolation and disconnection of workers are further enforced by media manipulation. Capitalist globalization creates cultural homogenization, not diversity. What is indigenous and non-commercial must struggle even to survive. It also establishes norms and expectations of international dominance and subordination. To establish, enforce, defend and punish violations of these norms, domestically, it means larger police state apparatuses, and more repression. Internationally, it means local, regional, and internationsl hostilities and war.
We thus find that India, by following the Corporate Gurus, is on it’s way to become a typical Capitalist State. But, that is not what the Constitution of India says. India is a Secular, Socialist, Democratic Republic, and the basic structure of the constitution is inviolable. Let’s not forget that. Hence, “common good†as stated in the constitution does not mean good for the corporates, but, good for the common people, the poor people, the farmers. We thus claim that WB Government’s action can certainly be challenged in court, while peaceful protests continue, and the movement gathers more support.
Singur is not an isolated incident. From the displacement of the tribals in Narmada valley which has been going on since 1980s, to the shooting down of a dozen people in the process of Tata’s acquisition of forest land from Kalinagar tribals in Orissa in Jan 2006, to atrocities committed on Dalits, leading to their recent uprisings, more so, because they are educated now, and still not able to obtain justice, to land acquisitions for technocities in different states, the latest being in Kerala, to the farmer’s fight for water in Tamil Nadu, all speak of the same traits. That is, violation of DPSP by the political parties.
We need a solution to the problem. There are two objectives: (1) To make a law, or a mechanism to ensure that the elected representatives do not go back on their promises, and sing a different tune after the elections. If they do, it should be called ‘misuse of powerâ€.
(2) To have a “vision†of the society and the economic order that we seek, and then plan to implement it. Whereas, as has already been pointed out, the Indian Constitution provides us the broad framework to work on, if we adopt Michael Albert’s vision and plans for “Partecipatory Economicsâ€, based on the principles of “Solidarity, Diversity, Equity and Self-Managementâ€, which addresses specific problems of the contemporary world, of the heartless neo-liberalist market economies, we can hope to realize a much better world.
The “Participatory Economics†or “Pareconâ€, as Albert calls it, is an economic system to replace capitalism. It is a proposal for the defining features of a post-capitalist economy.
In “Realizing Hopeâ€, Albert shows how application of these four principles of “Solidarity, Diversity, Equity and Self Management†in almost every sphere of our life, would create a better world, a world with greater freedom and justice. They should be the guiding operative principles in every institution, even inside Corporations. Where provisions do not exist, more institutions should be set up to ensure an effective implementation of these principles. In short, to create a better society, we have to change the way we think. For example, a “solidarity economy†means, you have to act on the basis of considering and respecting the conditions of others, in contrast to a capitalist economy. “Diversity†means we have to allow for all kinds of markets. “ The tremendous variety of tastes, preferences and choices that humans naturally display are truncated by capitalism into enforcement patterns by coercive market environments that prduce commercial attitudes and habits “. “Equity†has to do with distribution of outputs. In Parecon, “equity†means, remuneration should be for effort and sacrifice in producing socially desired items and not solely for its output. Fourth, a good economy should be a richly democratic economy. Each person will have a high level of influence in decision making, that won’t impinge on other people’s rights to have the same level of influence. We will all affect decisions in proportion to how we are affected by them. That is “Self-Managementâ€.
Albert talks about setting up of institutions, worker’s and consumer councils, etc., to ensure that these principles are being followed. Once again, Indian Constitution has already provided for “Self-Managemnt†in the form of “Panchayati-Raj†system (Article 40), which was established in 1958, with a three tier structure of local self governing bodies at the village, block and district levels. Our vision should be to incorporate Albert’s ideas in this very system.
Beyond Coalition Politics
To be still more specific,what Albert suggests about movement, organization and structure, would be another step beyond coalition politics of India today. According to him, contemporary movements have two forms. They either organize around a single issue and involve a focused fight for some single issue (eg., in Indian context, an equivalent would be a farmer’s union, “Krishi Jomi Raksha Committee (to protect farm land), a union for the upliftment of the backward classes, and so on) or they are composed of many organizations teaming up to promote a shared, usually quite narrowly defined agenda—which is what coalition politics of today is all about. However, these movements are not really united, in the real sense. What we need is a vision of a good society, which will not isolate people and groups into narrow concerns. It will instead, be overwhelmingly a community with diverse views and agendas, in which we respect eachother’s concerns and incorporate them into one overall effort to maintain social cohesion. Hence, we need a vision based on “principlesâ€. A movement of movements, would be a revolutionary bloc, which would subscribe to broad range of values, priorities and organizational norms, including, encompassing a wide range of differences. That is, a harbinger of a new society in its embryo.
Howard Zinn too, in his new book ‘A power governments cannot suppressâ€, just published by City Lights, talks about building an all encompassing anti-imperialist movement.
“Change in public consciousness starts with low level discontent, at first vague, with no connection being made between the discontent and the policies of the government. And then, the dots begin to connect, indignation increases, and people begin to speak out, organize and act.â€
Singur, thus, has given us an opportunity to act and organize.
REFERENCES:
Albert, Michael (2006): Realizing Hope: Life beyond Capitalism, Zed Books, London
Chomsky, Noam (1999): Profit over People, Seven stories press, New York
Gupta, D.C. (1983): Indian Government & Politics, Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd.,
New Delhi
Zinn, Howard (2006): A Power Governments cannot Suppress, City Lights.
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to Michael Albert for sending me his book Realizing Hope: Life beyond Capitalism, and also for sending excerpts from Howard Zinn’s book A Power Governments cannot Suppress. I also thank Noam Chomsky for sending me his book Profit over People, which I received long ago.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate