I am an ardent supporter of Capitalism even in these discrediting times. In fact, the litmus test of any faith is only when the going gets tough. And so I believe in capitalistic principles not only when it serves my purpose but also when it does not serve them.
Right to property is embedded to the concept of Capitalism. It forms the very basis of Capitalism. It is its most sacred cow, inalienable, inseparable, atomic. So why is it that the capitalist loving Indian middle class has nothing but derision for the 2000 odd farmers who said no to selling their lands for a project of 'national importance'. Shouldn't the farmers be the sole decision makers of whether they want to sell their land or not? Why is it that the ones who have the least sacrifice the most in the name of nation building?
Enough rhetoric! Lets confront the realities. Why do you think some farmers resisted selling their lands? We would like to believe that all of them were taken in by the rhetoric and vitriolic of Mamta Banerjee. Convenient to argue but untrue. What do you think happens in a farmer's families whose entire land has just been taken (bought) in lieu of a justified(?) price. The farmer, who for decades knew nothing but farming, is left with what seems like a lot of money. With no idea of what to do with that money, no skills to make use of that money to generate sustainable income, the farmer naively assumes that the money is going to last forever. For a few farmers, so much money in hand, suddenly make their occasional vices (like drinking, smoking etc) turn into regular habits with disastrous consequences. For others with more sense, even putting the money in bank does not generate enough interest for their families to feed themselves. Yes, a lucky few get jobs but we are out of our minds if we think that all displaced farmers (numbering more than 10000) are going to get jobs in the newly coming factory. And we are not even thinking about all the landless labourers who were, for ages, dependent on these farmers for their livelihood!
We all know how any industry creates lateral employment opportunities for the skilled & the unskilled. Every software engineer in Bangalore creating 6 support jobs has become sort of an urban legend now. So I have no doubt in my mind that the Nano plant in Singur would have uplifted the whole region from the clutches of abject poverty. Be that as it may, such futuristic stories do not hold water in the eyes of many West Bengal (and Maharashtra, Bihar...) farmers (and labourers) because their only concern is tomorrow (or the next harvest season). On the other hand, the same class in Gujrat (and Haryana) cheerfully offers their land to industries. Why is this so?
To answer the above why, lets take 'The White' CPI(M) in the Singur issue. Miffed by the loss of the project, CPM is all set to earn brownie points with the middle class of West Bengal by blaming 'The Black' Mamta and claiming moral high ground. However, had it not been for the momentous failure of State in the fields of education & social upliftment, these cursed farmers would have been just as willing to welcome industries as their counterparts elsewhere. For centuries, land has been the only security of livelihood for majority of farmers in India. The richer and better governed states have provided good education and opportunities to enable its citizens to look for alternative means of livelihood. But in BIMARU and a few other equally backward states, farmers and labourers live the same (or similar) life they used to live 60 years back. Land, then, is a highly emotive issue for them, valued differently than how it would get valued on a corporate balance sheet. Consequently, if a seller does not want to sell his land no matter how high the offered price is, nobody has any business forcing him to do so. If the buyer is still interested in the piece of land, the only way is offer something which is of equal or more value in the eyes of the seller. Thats what market driven economy is all about. Any deviation from this principle in the name of national interest, patriotism, development etc is opportunistic and dangerous. Today it is some farmers' land for an industry, tomorrow it could be your ancestral home for a road!
Now, it can very well be argued that farmers of Singur had already sold their land to the government. So they had no right after the sale. Right & wrong. The way the land was acquired in Singur (and Nandigram) is a classic example of how such things are handled in China. It seems, in their enthusiasm to copy their Chinese masters, the over zealous CPM motivated their cadres to acquire land by any and all means possible. Unfortunately for them, India still is a democracy and that includes West Bengal (much to their surprise as they have ruled for 3 decades there). The result was Singur as we see it today.
Ultimately, what happened in Singur. CPM just got a slap and a reminder that West Bengal is not their personal fiefdom. Mamta again showed that she is great in street fighting but poor in diplomacy. She turned a lost cause into a celebrated issue but failed to negotiate properly. Ultimately, she emerged as the pathetic winner of a battle whom everyone hates. But the biggest losers have been the farmers in Singur. Both, who gave and who did not give their lands.
None of this would have happened had land acquisition been left as a matter to be settled between the company (Tatas) and the sellers (farmers). Brilliant minds in the board room would have factored in the real price of the land acquisition and I am sure, they would have come up with innovative pricing techniques to value the land giving a more compelling offer (not necessarily higher price) to the farmers. There are enough ways to do that. A fair deal is one in which both the buyers and the sellers are happy. Capitalism is not to be espoused only while making money (by selling products & services). It is also to be remembered during land acquisitions. And as I said before, the ones who have the least must not be made the sacrificial goats for nation building.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Good post! it did give a balanced view point..
"On the other hand, the same class in Gujrat (and Haryana) cheerfully offers their land to industries. Why is this so?"
oh c'mmon! Cheerfully?? r u sure? errrr reality check??!! they handit over 'cause
1. They are paid "fairvalue" in these places by govt./industry as u mentioned so u r right..
2. But more importantly "there is no Mamta" in these places sir!
Cheers!
(More: am frm Haryana, where much better land then Singur can ever imagine, exists, with 3 crops a yr..(no offence to WB ppl there)..but after seeing the benefits of a car factory in Gurgaon and a hero honda in Dharuera.. well ahem..! ppl know 3 crops a yr can't compete with... ahem! a car factory or the value that it brings!
and who ever forgot about "R&R: rehab. and resettlement" which is possible for poorest of the poor and unskilled... like for 1000's of acres of coal mine projects where settlement for tribals/ poor farmers et al have happened and in places like Jharkhand, MP, WB ! but well then again as i said.. in these places "there was no mamta"
wat do u think farmers who sell their land in Haryana/Gujarat do with the money (as they also like WB guys donno anything but farming?) well okay! They buy more land and buy farm equipments about which they just dreamed but never got hold off... and turn another lesser fertile place (where they get self/ or by govt. R&R'ed) into a 3 crop land!!!
again no mamta there... so singur is a diff. case sire!
Good post! it did give a balanced view point..
"On the other hand, the same class in Gujrat (and Haryana) cheerfully offers their land to industries. Why is this so?"
oh c'mmon! Cheerfully?? r u sure? errrr reality check??!! they handit over 'cause
1. They are paid "fairvalue" in these places by govt./industry as u mentioned so u r right..
2. But more importantly "there is no Mamta" in these places sir!
Cheers!
(More: am frm Haryana, where much better land then Singur can ever imagine, exists, with 3 crops a yr..(no offence to WB ppl there)..but after seeing the benefits of a car factory in Gurgaon and a hero honda in Dharuera.. well ahem..! ppl know 3 crops a yr can't compete with... ahem! a car factory or the value that it brings!
and who ever forgot about "R&R: rehab. and resettlement" which is possible for poorest of the poor and unskilled... like for 1000's of acres of coal mine projects where settlement for tribals/ poor farmers et al have happened and in places like Jharkhand, MP, WB ! but well then again as i said.. in these places "there was no mamta"
wat do u think farmers who sell their land in Haryana/Gujarat do with the money (as they also like WB guys donno anything but farming?) well okay! They buy more land and buy farm equipments about which they just dreamed but never got hold off... and turn another lesser fertile place (where they get self/ or by govt. R&R'ed) into a 3 crop land!!!
again no mamta there... so singur is a diff. case sire!
@Hem,
You gave a very good example of how people in Haryana embraced industrialization after observing the benefits of the already established industries. Even in WB, there have been quite a number of industries. However, it is the anti-capitalist culture promoted by the communist that has resulted in the overall ignorance of the rural poor to the benefits of industrialization. Thus, before pinning the blame squarely on either Mamta or the unwilling farmers, a more holistic understanding of the problem is called for. This would help all the corporates in proper risk estimation and making better judgements in the future.
P.S. - Farmers all over, with fertile lands have been doing multi-cropping (rabi, kharif, dalhan etc). With regard to fertility, the land in the gangetic plains is fertile enough to support even poor farmers with little access to fertilizers and tubewells.
In Nandigram, the land acquisition was tried by means of force. In Singur, it was quite different. There, CPIM actually followed the law to the letter.
I liked the post. And I do think that the farmers had a point. Much more than that actually.
But in a democracy, if 84% of the people want something and 16% do not, then the 84% have their way ?
I know you will say "not by trampling on the other 16%".
By the way, such a thing has happened in the country which champions capitalism - in the early 1900s. Would recommend the book "The Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck for that.
Whether land in Singur was acquired as per law remains and will remain debatable. If farmers sold their land willingly in return of due compensation, then they had no right to raise any hue & cry later. However, the fact that so many farmers came out in protest for so long, risking everything they had suggests otherwise.
You raise 2 more points -
Democracy: Democracy is a rule of majority but in no way, that justifies abrogation of fundamental minority rights (or even of a single individual). Right to property is fundamental in a capitalistic society.
US: Worse things have happened in US (e.g. Slavery). Worse things have been done by Europeans in the past (e.g. Imperialism, mass extermination of natives). All that helped these apparently capitalistic societies in achieving their current development levels. However, our challenge is to keep developing without bulldozing anybody.
P.S. - I will read the book once I get a hand on it.
interesting take... let me add my 2paise worth...
1. Right to property: By your logic, the farmer who refuses to sell the land is infringing on the right of the farmer who has sold the land; Why should a few farmers hold the right to prosperity of a large number to ransom? While protecting individual rights is ideal, a functioning democracy works on the principle of majority. A few individuals cannot hold the greater good to ransom.
2. Principle of efficiency demands that each person should do what he can achieve most efficiently. The government has more resources to spare than a private corporate entity to negotiate with thousands of farmers. They charge a fee for the same. It is called Corporate Tax. A factory in your state pays you taxes, and that is why progressive chief ministers line up to welcome Tatas.
3. In this specific case, it was the WB govt which welcomes Tatas and assured land. If they couldn't provide it, someone else would, and someone else did. And Tatas accepted it. That is capitalism. It does not matter whether you acquire the land yourself, or you employ an agent (called the State Govt) to do it on your behalf.
I only profess right to property, not prosperity :)
On a more serious note, 'greatest good for greatest number' is exactly what communism is all about. We saw how USSR ended with such an experiment. China continues with that experiment but that means uprooting millions in the name of development. It is not either Chinese style development or nothing. Our Indian style works slowly but surely.
About corporate taxes, you know better than me that major part of taxes go to centre. Do you profess a ministry of land acquisition at the central level?
We (individuals and corporates) pay taxes for fundamental things like security, law & order, infrastructure and other social benefits. Governments should concentrate doing those things and not get into becoming middle men. If the WB (or any other govt) starts improving infrastructure, I bet investment would flow in no time.
'Communism' in theory was about 'greatest good for greatest number'... in practice, it became a game of how close you can get the power centres and make your life better...
Majority of the taxes go the Centre... yes in case of Corporate tax... no in case of Sales Tax... why do you think States are so eager to welcome industries... jobs and taxes...
I don't see anything wrong with a Ministry of Land Acqusition... in fact, with a ministry, the politicians would be subject to much more scrutiny than the underhand methods that they are using now...
As for governments becoming middlemen... That is precisely the capitalism involved here... a Communist govt at the centre would have told Tats "Set up plant in so-and-so state"... by executive fiat... it is market system which makes Chief Ministers compete with each other in providing facilities to industrialists... what qualifies as good for the priave sector qualifies as good for state governments...
@"However, the fact that so many farmers came out in protest for so long, risking everything they had suggests otherwise."
am not sure if the majority of people who came out to support were farmers or "trinamool congress ppl" but yes my understanding can be wrong...
nevertheless beating up people and violence were never a right given to anyone.. lest mamta's army were given special "james bond like power" :)
for yr understanding Tata's pulled out because of safety of employees and other construction personnel to which the company has a commitment and i guess no one can argue that this danger to their life and property was due to one person.. i have named her enuff.. :P
@ not sure if gangetic planes that u spk can support 3 crops a yr w/o much fertilizers and water tubewell
(actually am sure.. they cannot (atleast in the state i come from and my own farmlands...!) :P
anyways...
apparently, in a recent board meeting Ratan Tata said that the major reason for pulling out of WB, was not mamata [there will always be an opposition, as per him], but the fact that when the Tatas were facing these issues, neither the State Govt., nor the people came out to support them or show their solidarity. Yes, there were people who opposed mamata, but opposing someone and supporting the other party are not necessarily the same...
@the snake,
Mr. Tata is so right.
In fact, this comment from Mr. Tata can be seen on a broader level of our Indian polity - There are innumerable rallies and dharnas 'in opposition' to one or the other cause. On the other hand, rallies in support of a cause are few and far between. It is as if we instantaneously group together to criticize something and spread negative energy. But when it comes to rally behind a positive cause, we shirk the responsibility.
Would it have made a difference had the 10000 odd farmers, supporting the Nano project displayed the support to Tatas by active engagement with the protestors, ensuring security for the staff? Who knows...
Post a Comment