The Hindu Business Line : Location of industry

It is rather embarrassing that Prof Amartya Sen has had to be dragged in to deliver a lecture on the locational aspect of industrialisation to `convince' those opposed to the Tata car project at Singur that what they are doing is not in the best interests of West Bengal. If the newspaper that ran the interview is to be believed, Prof Sen's views have "forced the Opposition to tweak its logic for objecting to industry on farmland."

And what is this amendment? According to the paper, the Trinamul Congress is now of the view that "fertile land can be used for industry as long as the acquisition is not forcible." Reportedly, the party is now saying that "if farmers `willingly' gave land, there is `no harm' in using it for industry." So, if the `change' is real, the inference is that till now the Trinamul Congress has been ?ghting its battle against the State Government on Singur even with regard to cases where farmers have willingly given their land for the Tata project.

`FORCIBLE TAKE OVER'

But, in fact, this has not been so. The focus of the Opposition programme has been to prevent the State Government from forcibly taking over land from farmers not willing to part with their land. In fact, ?gures of such `forcible' land acquisition have been provided by the Opposition, which have also been challenged by the Left Front Government.

However, it is true that in nearly all their policy pronouncements on the subject of industrialisation and the utilisation of farmland for the purpose, the Opposition leaders have clearly indicated that they are against such industrialisation irrespective of whether the land has been acquired forcibly or not. Thus, in September last year, Ms Mamata Banerjee said quite categorically: "We are being portrayed as anti-industry, but that is false propaganda. Our stand is clear: we welcome industry, but not at the cost of the farmers." In practice, however, the main thrust of the Trinamul Congress has been to champion the cause of those farmers who, it is claimed, have been subjected to pressure to hand over their land to the authorities. In any case, at no point in the interview did Prof Sen make any remark on `forcible' land acquisition. What he talked about was the historical necessity at times for industry to be set up on good farmland, particularly if such farmland was near to a big metropolis like Calcutta. Essentially, he threw light on the locational advantage of industrial units if the latter were sited (even on good farmland) near big cities.

IMPERFECT, BUT...

As he said: "The market economy has many imperfections. But it also creates jobs and income, and if the income goes up, Government revenues go up, so there is money available for education and healthcare and other things." He was, of course, saying nothing new. In May last year, the State Industries Minister, Mr Nurupam Sen, said quite candidly: "(What we have today) is a market economy. An industry will come up where an investor wants it to be (located). The days of a command economy, when the Government used to dictate terms, are over."

Prof Sen's coup de grace was the reference to the historical fact that there has been no basic antagonism between fertile land and its use for industrial purposes, and his view that focussing on one would "not only (go) against the policy of the West Bengal Government but also against the 2,000-year history of Bengal."

RANABIR RAY CHOUDHURY

More Stories on : Infrastructure | Politics | View Point

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
The true Indian basmati rice — More than grains of differences

How will Beijing bring home the bacon?

An oily situation

Why it is bleak on the farm front

Exchange Rate and Exports — A fund in good times for the bad

Location of industry

Leave the co-operative movement alone

No fading away for Kalam

Communication compromise