Singur's lost promise and the case for reviving industrial land value

Singur's industrial promise was undone by flawed land acquisition and a costly return to agriculture. Reviving it through farmer-led industrial parks could restore value and growth

A glorious past almost forgotten, a brilliant future awaiting realisation, and a mistake repeated twice – that is what defines Singur in the Hooghly district of West Bengal.

 

Many historians believe that modern Singur is Singhapur, mentioned in the Mahavamsa, the meticulously maintained historical chronicle of Sri Lanka. The mighty Saraswati River used to flow through Singhapur in ancient times, and it was the capital of the kingdom that King Sinhabahu had set up in the Rarh area of West Bengal. Sinhabahu banished his impetuous young son Bijay Sinha with a fleet of ships. Bijay Sinha went on to conquer Sri Lanka to the south, close to the tip of the Indian peninsula. This glorious history of civilisational extension circa 544 BC is almost forgotten.

 

 

Because of its strategic location, Singur has a brilliant future. Situated on the Howrah–Tarakeswar rail line, the Singur railway station is only 34 km from Howrah Station. It is 2 km ahead of Kamarkundu Junction, the crossing point of the Howrah–Bardhaman chord and Howrah–Tarakeswar lines. It is also on the Durgapur Expressway/NH 2 connecting with Maheswarpur. Singur has an unparalleled locational advantage.

 

Of course, Singur has fertile land which can produce multiple crops. Some argue against the use of such land for industry. The argument appears tenuous. It is unrealistic to assume that in West Bengal, now, industry will locate in arid areas or jungles away from Kolkata. Economics of location will militate against such a plan. And West Bengal, with a population density of 1,028 per sq km, more than two-and-a-half times the national average, has too many people and too little land. It has no option but to industrialise.

 

After Chief Minister Dr B C Roy’s demise, industry in West Bengal languished for a myriad of reasons. One of the reasons was a militant trade union movement and an anti-business culture promoted by the communists. The state became notorious for gheraos – the practice, with government connivance, of workers encircling the owner or manager of a company and keeping him or her confined until the workers’ demands are met. The state suffered capital flight.

 

In 1978, the state government under the Communist Party of India (Marxist) launched Operation Barga to bestow on sharecroppers (bargadars) legal protection against eviction by landlords (jotedars), and to entitle them to a due share of the produce. ‘Land to the tillers’ was expected to increase land productivity and rural income, stimulate industrial demand and lead to rapid industrialisation of the state. Land productivity did increase, but the expectation of increased rural demand resulting in industrial resurgence was not fulfilled. The additional demand leaked out to relatively industrially advanced states in the country. West Bengal was crying out for supply-side policies. 

Ashok Lahiri

 

After 23 long years of Jyoti Basu being at the helm of the CPI(M) government, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya became Chief Minister on November 6, 2000, and shifted gears in the government’s economic policies. The CPI(M)’s new slogan was “Agriculture is our foundation; industry our future”. Buddhadeb started with land acquisition in Singur in late 2006 for the Tata Nano small car project. Production was scheduled to start in 2008. In the meantime, future Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee started the ‘Save Farmland’ movement. Facing agitations, the Tatas decided to move out of Singur on October 3, 2008. It was a huge setback not only for Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya but also for the industrialisation of West Bengal.

 

Why did the brilliant plan of industrialising West Bengal, starting with Singur, fail? Foremost was a faulty process of land acquisition. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of August 31, 2016, declared the land acquisition in Singur in late 2006 illegal and void.

 

The Trinamool Congress came to power in 2011 and Mamata Banerjee became Chief Minister. After the initial mistake, the greater objective of industrialisation could have been salvaged but for the disastrous decision to return the land to the erstwhile owners or cultivators as individual parcels fit for agricultural purposes again. It entailed a destruction of value. The cost involved in reconversion for agriculture is substantial. In any case, the TMC government has had very limited success in reconversion.

 

Almost a thousand acres, or over four sq km, of consolidated land, with plans for factory buildings including utilities such as roads, water lines, sewage lines, power lines, drainage and effluent treatment plants in Singur, is a rare thing in densely populated West Bengal. It can command a good price.

 

Returning the land only for agricultural use will be a rare case of land devaluation from a change of land use from industry to agriculture. Why should poor farmers suffer twice? First, from an acquisition which was a colourable exercise of power, and then from a destruction of value that already exists? The acquisition process was bad in law. Reconversion for agriculture will be another mistake, and two wrongs do not make a right.

 

As argued in this paper (Stopping the Clock from Going Back in Singur, September 16, 2016), the value already created through consolidation and change of land use should be transferred to poor farmers. Let the erstwhile owners or cultivators have the option of getting back their land, but let us encourage them to form cooperatives or companies, build an industrial park and lease out the land to prospective industrialists. They can retain the compensation already paid in lieu of the losses suffered due to the deprivation of occupation and enjoyment of their lands for the last two decades. Let Singur again rise to its old glory. 

---

 

The author is a Bharatiya Janata Party member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and a former chief economic advisor in the Union Finance Ministry 

---

 

Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper