Singur redux — and why not?

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee once again scored a major political point over the CPM when she began distributing land documents and compensation to Singur farmers on September 14, calling the day ‘Singur Dibas’, to be observed each year. She has said that 997 acres of land will be returned to over 9,000 farmers and brought under the plough, in compliance with the August 31 Supreme Court ruling. A memorial will be built in memory of those ‘martyred’ in the 2006 resistance against handing over land for the Tatas’ car plant.

It is tempting to dismiss ‘Singur Dibas’ as a Trinamool Congress gimmick. But it has the potential to become a rallying point for those sceptical of the current model of industrialisation. It could reopen old, pertinent questions, embarrassing not just the CPI(M), but also the Modi government, which sought to dilute the Land Acquisition (Resettlement and Rehabilitation) Act — a consequence of the Singur-Nandigram agitations — soon after it assumed office. The CPI(M) has still not clarified why its government forcibly took over fertile farmland for a car project by invoking “public purpose”. The Supreme Court has now struck down the acquisition, basically for not obtaining informed consent. While the LARR law focuses on generous compensation, the crucial question of what constitutes “public purpose” remains unaddressed — both in law and the political imagination.

As EF Schumacher says in Small is Beautiful , economics has not learnt how to value natural resources. Therefore, the benefits of setting up an industrial project can be overestimated, unless it is, say, a clearcut case of setting up a railways factory on barren land. Making acquisition easier can have adverse effects. Six lakh hectares of farmland have been lost in a decade in Karnataka alone. Such industrialisation can have adverse socio-economic and ecological consequences.

Senior Deputy Editor

COMMENT NOW