2011 West Bengal State Elections' Impact on Land Reforms

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

Solutions
But Mukhopadhyay feels it is a step in the right direction. He feels if it’s a just and non-partisan government then it can always intervene if it sees people being exploited. “Since it has formal coercive powers, if the government is not fair then there is all the more reason for it to stop directly acquiring the land on behalf of any private entity,” he reasons.

However, experts across the board, including industry representatives and protesting activists, feel that government has to think of solutions beyond resorting to land acquisition at the first instance.
Assocham is asking for a land bank. The delays in industrial projects like those of ArcelorMittal have happened because the government signed MoUs promising land without having acquired it first. As a result, the government often forces the issue while acquiring land in order to meet the stiff deadline it has committed to the private player. The ensuing haste and insensitive handling results in protests.

Illustration: Malay Karmakar

“The government has set out to promote industrialisation by offering land for industry without first setting its house in order. Updated land records, developed land banks in different pockets within states, facilitation for land acquisition etc. should have been the primary set of tasks,” says Chatterjee.
Sreedhar concurs. “Successive governments over the years have shown great urgency in acquiring land on one count or another without even bothering to first make an inventory of the already acquired land or thinking of some alternative.”

Since the 1960s, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation had been acquiring land for exploratory drilling in Gujarat. However, by 2007, ONGC had about 500 hectares in Ankaleshwar and Bharuch which was of no use to it since the oil wells had been closed. Sreedhar, who was advising the Gujarat government in 2007, says that the law did not provide any method by which ONGC could hand back the land.
As of now, the situation will be in limbo till next year. The lure of the chair is too much for any political party to take a strong stance on the subject.

(Additional reporting by Prince Mathews Thomas)