[Reader-list] Collateral damage in development

[hpp at vsnl.com]

Collateral damage in development

>From The Statesman, Kolkata, 13 July 2006

The Left Front government should consider the directive principles of state policy while taking action at Singur, says D BANDYOPADHYAY


In the lexicon of war, particularly in limited war, there is an internationally accepted concept ~ that of “collateral damage”. The meaning of the term as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (2004) is “inadvertent casualties and destruction in civilian areas caused by military operations”. A missile that misses its target and lands elsewhere causing death and destruction is an example of this. In such an exercise, unintended damage is caused to non-combatant parties. In a limited war, hostile parties try to avoid such damages in order to reduce the possibilities of reprisals on their own non-combatant civilian population and property. Generally, the party that causes such damage owns up and expresses regret. 

In the development game, however, there is no such concept. Development connotes upgradation of the well-being of all stake holders. The idea of some gaining and many losing in the process is not in keeping with the concept of development. No one can deny the need for land for industrialisation and urbanisation. It is also accepted that the state should intervene for spatially planned development so that these processes cause the least possible environmental, human and economic damages. The state’s role is thus crucial for the elimination of “collateral damages”. It cannot abandon its judgement while using coercive powers in favour of a few to the detriment of many. 
In West Bengal, a controversy is raging on the topic of the acquisition of 1,000 acres of land near the Dankuni-Durgapur Expressway for a private company that wants to set up an automobile manufacturing unit. The government has said that the private company chose that particular area for setting up its unit. A private company is fully justified in choosing a site that will give it the maximum locational advantage for the optimisation of internal economics. After all, it is interested in reducing its costs and maximising its gains to ensure a high rate of profit. This is what market economy is all about. So far so good! 

But it would have been better if the company could have been advised to buy up the required land in the open market by paying open market prices. The moment the company goes into the market, prices would shoot up ~ this might have upset the anticipated profit and loss calculation of the company. Hence, it wants the land to be acquired by the state through the coercive land acquisition law. 

The state can acquire land only in the “public interest”. What should constitute public interest should be derived from Article 39 (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution. This Article states that certain principles should be kept in mind by the state while making policy decisions. These would include, inter alia, “(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood, (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to serve the common good, (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.” 

These principles are not pious wishes of some old fathers who believed in the “redundant” idea of ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number in the conduct of the affairs of the state. These principles are “fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.” (Art 37) 

Does the proposed action of the Government of West Bengal in compulsorily acquiring 1,000 acres of good agricultural land, thereby extinguishing the direct livelihood of about 1,400 peasants and rural households, pass the litmus test of the Directive Principles of State Policy? If yes, then the state should go ahead. If not, it should pause and ponder. 

Having had the honour and privilege of serving under such stalwarts like Hare Krishna Konar and Benoy Chowdhury, one has an eerie and weird sensation seeing a government that proclaims adherence to Marxism but acts as the local agent of the international and comprador bourgeoisie.

(The author was Secretary, Government of India, ministries of finance [revenue] and rural development, and Executive Director, Asian Development Bank, Manila.)