[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...

REIMAGINING INDIA
solution, or do they further endanger
the chances of survival of the poor?
Can democratic governments be allowed
to forego their duties towards a
majority of their trustees who vote
them into power?
Of late, various governments in India
have been offering unprecedented
incentives to the private sector with an
eye on macro-economic growth. For
instance, policies relating to establishment
of Special Economic Zones
(SEZs) include significant supports to
private entrepreneurs in the form of
facilitation of land acquisition, tax rebates
and friendlier administrative
mechanisms, amongst others. However,
many of the provisions jeopardize
the long-term interests of the poor in
many ways and the much-touted objective
of inclusive growth hasn’t come
into effect. For instance, one of the
largest Special Economic Zones in India
proposed to be set up by Reliance
Industries Limited in Maharashtra
across three tehsils of Raigad district
threatens to displace nearly 35,000
farmers based over 25,000 hectares of
agricultural land. The threat to the
livelihoods of the farmers likely to lose
ownership of land are sought to be offset
merely by providing monetary compensation
without any thoughts about
the limited livelihood-choices available
to them, consequent pressure on
limited urban infrastructure, or the
implications for a large number of nonowner
dependents of farmland, e.g.
sharecroppers or wage labourers.
In similar developments across the
country, as many as 396 SEZs have
been accorded formal clearance by the
government (by October 2007), of
which 149 have already been notified.
When households displaced by SEZs
or big projects migrate to cities, their
survival becomes even more arduous,
thanks to modern urban policies that
increasingly shut out spaces from the
reach of the poor. The commonest
Markets, unless regulated with a pro-poor orientation, can
eliminate the poor rather than contributing to poverty
reduction, given the inherent tendencies of supply-side
domination and profi t maximization
coping avenues for the poor, e.g. participation
in retail trade, accessing
state-run basic services, or opting for
low-investment livelihoods (e.g. rag
picking or plying rickshaws) are made
increasingly inaccessible by policies
that allow entry of big business houses
in retail trade, enhance the cost
of basic services by allowing their
privatization, or block public spaces
for the poor.
Another area of concern relates to
increasing privatization of common
property resources in the country,
bearing life-threatening implications
for a large number of poor communities.
The operations of mining companies
in various forest-rich areas of
states like Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand
have destroyed the age-old forestbased
livelihoods of many tribal families.
In Orissa, the state government
has already committed several rivers
and reservoirs for use by industry for
water-intensive activities. In Chhattisgarh
too, industries have been permitted
to draw water from rivers like Kelo
and Sheonath. Kelo, a tributary of Mahanadi
river, happens to be an important
source of livelihood for over sixty
village communities settled alongside
its 98 kilometer long stretch across
Raigarh district of Chhattisgarh,
whose lives have been badly affected
due to severe decline in the stock of
river water. During a People’s Tribunal
held in Kolkata in January 2007, Santwana
Dey – an elderly woman hailing
from a farmer household based in Bejiberia
village of Singur where the
Government of West Bengal acquired
land for handing over to Tata Motors
in lieu of promises of jobs in a car factory
and offers of monetary compensation,
raised a fundamental issue: ‘no
one can dictate what should my family
do for a living; we have a right to pursue
occupations that we are capable of and
cannot be forced to work in a car factory,
which we have no inkling about!’
Santwana’s straightforward assertion
in the Tribunal underscored a legiti-
72 THE IIPM THINK TANK