[Reader-list] Bizarre!

[hpp at vsnl.com]

Dear Friends

I was astounded yesterday to read an Editorial in The Telegraph on the subject of forcible land acquisition by the CPI(M)-led West Bengal state govt for handover to the Tatas for their small car project.

I am reproducing the Editorial below. In a nutshell: "the govt of West Bengal must do what it thinks is best for the economy. It is not obliged to obtain consent."

The hilariously pathetic "logic" the piece affects! But more noteworthy than what it says is what it signifies.

I was immediately reminded of the words used to describe the behaviour of the Indian media during Indira Gandhi's Emergency: they crawled when they had only been asked to bend.

If ever an example was needed to prove the utter ignorance, bankruptcy, and self-centred character of the Indian mainstream media and India's privileged classes - then this is it.

How incredible that by doing nothing, someone can become a hero, a knight in shining armour! Lucky Buddhadev Bhattacharjee! Given all the immense problems of the stae, and the degradation and destitution of Bengal society wrought by the CPI(M) - Buddha chooses to completely abandon public policy; stays clear of any cleansing of the criminal extortionary CPI(M) which controls the state of which he is notionally the CM; makes deals with land-sharks, promoters and contractors; hands out state assets to capitalists; and for all this he is made out to be a valiant hero bringing about a brave new order in Bengal!

The virulence and vehemence with which the local elite lauds Buddhadev! How easy it is to hoodwink and hypnotise our cultured class, and make them believe in fairy tales!

How much lower must Bengal sink?

Yours sincerely

V Ramaswamy
Calcutta
hpp at vsnl.com
cuckooscall.blogspot.com

.............................

BEST FOR WEST BENGAL

Emotions always overrun reason and logic. The controversy that now rages in West Bengal is another proof of this. A new term has been introduced into the debate. The term is consent. Critics of the Singur project are trying to point out that land there was not taken by the state through consent. On the contrary, it was forcibly taken. The state administration is now bending over backwards to prove that this is not true and that a large part of the land was actually voluntarily handed over because of the compensation package that was being offered by the government. This is a defensive posture on the part of the state administration. It is difficult to understand why the government is adopting such a posture. It would have served the government’s cause better if it explained to its opponents and to the public the logic that is inherent in the plan it has adopted.

The logic flows from certain undeniable facts. Over 60 per cent of the land in West Bengal is arable and used for agricultural purposes. If the less fertile areas — Purulia and Bankura — were to be taken out, the proportion of land under agriculture would rise to anything between 75 per cent and 80 per cent. This, by any reckoning, is a very high percentage. It is also a fact that agriculture is loss-making and contains disguised unemployment. In other words, more people work in agriculture than is actually required. Agriculture is heavily dependent on water; in West Bengal this exposes the risks of arsenic poisoning. Thus the social costs of agriculture are also very high. Further, the terms of trade between agriculture and industry are against agriculture. This means that there is a direct co-relation between the greater production of food and the overall poverty of the state. It is possible, of course, to make agriculture more efficient but this, as the examples of the US
 and Canada demonstrate, will result in the loss of jobs in agriculture. From this it should be clear that if West Bengal is to develop economically, it must industrialize. This is not a matter of choice but an imperative unless one believes that West Bengal does not need economic development and can happily languish in economic backwardness.
Under the circumstances, the use of land has to move from agriculture to industry. History does not offer the option of first obtaining consent and then proceeding with industrialization. In fact, the priorities are the other way around: industrialization must take place and therefore land has to be obtained. How the land will be obtained — through consent or otherwise — is a matter of political management. That management can be part of the concerns and the agenda of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), it cannot be part of the government’s decision-making. The latter must be driven by what is best for West Bengal.