টুকরো খবর
"Trinamool derailed Bengal's industrialisation"
Raktima Bose
| Eighth Left Front government will set up industries in various sectors to provide employment to youth: Buddhadeb |
Kolkata: Vowing not to allow the Trinamool Congress to derail the industrialisation drive in West Bengal, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee asserted on Friday that the eighth Left Front government if elected to power will set up industries in various sectors to provide employment to the youth.
He scoffed at Trinamool Congress chief and Union Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee's assurance to create 10 lakh jobs in the Railways, described it as a false promise and claimed that not a single person will get any job there.
Canvassing for Left Front candidates at Arambag in Hooghly district, Mr. Bhattacharjee said that 4,000 people would have been employed at the Tata Motors small car factory at Singur by now had the Trinamool Congress not forced the withdrawal of the project through incessant protests.
"We will not tolerate such actions any more. The Trinamool Congress had thought that it was successful in derailing the industrialisation drive but we proved them wrong with the upcoming steel plant at Salboni and fertiliser plant at Bardhaman," he added.
Questioning the Trinamool Congress' policy for bringing about 'change' in the State, Mr. Bhattacharjee pointed out that the party being an ally of the UPA Government is to blame for steep increase in prices of essential commodities, tax on hosiery items and for trying to privatise nationalised banks and the insurance sector.
"It is better not to speak about the Trinamool Congress that has a policy to create unrest. It is actively supporting the separatist powers in Darjeeling and also the Maoists. If not for the Trinamool Congress' support, these powers would not have been so assertive. It is a party that indulges in violence and one devoid of any policy," he charged.
Mr. Bhattacharjee also accused the Trinamool Congress of using large amount of "illegal funding" for election campaign and added that the party was trying to use money power to win the Assembly elections.
Expressing concern over the sky-rocketing prices of essential commodities, he said the Left Front Government would attempt to strengthen the ration system in the State.
"The ration system exists here but is not adequate. The Centre refused to act on our repeated requests to fix prices of certain essential commodities…we will not depend on Below Poverty Line or Above Poverty Line cards and rice will be made available to those families whose monthly income is less than Rs 10,000 at Rs. 2 per kg through the ration system," Mr. Bhattacharjee said.
http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/30/stories/2011043060480300.htm
 People's Democracy (Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
| Vol. XXX No. 33 August 13, 2006 |
Left Front Emphasises The Importance Of Industrialisation
THE drive for industrialisation in Bengal under the aegis of the Left Front government has already had a stamp of popular approval. The policy of industrialisation has always been a prominent part of the succeeding election manifestos of the Left Front as well.
But would the Bengal opposition and their patrons in the corporate media ever give the issue a rest. Instead of concentrating on the task of coming forward in the drive to pace up the flow of industrialisation in Bengal, the opposition and the big media would constantly carp on the supposed 'ill effects' of the industrial policy and focus attention on an imagined scenario of dread and doom.
Running rapidly out of political space, the Bengal opposition often act as if they belong to a terrain that is at a great distance from and intrinsically antithetical to the interests of Bengal. This is particularly said for the Pradesh Congress, which constantly harps of the rhetoric of nationalism, day in, and day out.
It has been proved repeatedly that whatever good is done here in Bengal is looked upon by them as something sinister and filled with uncertainties. In doing so, we do believe, the opposition worthies are clearly transferring their mental frame of mind to the evolving reality in Bengal under the Left Front government.
EMPTY RHETORIC
Mamata Banerjee of late made a 'special appearance', so to speak at Singur in Hooghly where kisans had voluntarily acceded to the call of Bengal LF government to build industrial centre by handing over land, Mamata Banerjee made a grand entrance on a rainy day to plant boro paddy on a miniscule 'plot' of land that measured, maybe, 2' by 4'.
Of the handful present to witness her extremely amateur efforts, slipping and sliding in the mud, there were perhaps just a couple of kisansupporters of her outfit around. The rest were her storm-troopers who had come in three jeeps.
Mamata announced that the 'kisans of Bengal' would 'shed blood' to prevent industry from coming up on the land of Singur. There were few takers even among her supporters to cheer her fierce words uttered in her trade mark shriek. Certainly, no slogans followed.
The cue has been given though, and the actors in the corporate media promptly took up the refrain. They went around the area and started to 'discover' the 'deep agony' of the kisan at the way land was being 'taken away' from them. The accompanying visuals would strangely enough show miles of fallow land with not a crop-head around.
The media then took a different turn in its crooked efforts to embarrass the Left Front government. It kept on 'quoting unnamed sources' to 'prove' that the Left Front partners were at loggerheads with the CPI(M) over the industrial policy.
In the haste to please the corporate bosses, the intrepid anti-Communists in the media world let it slip from their feeble minds that the industrial policy framed twelve years ago in 1994, has been very much a part of the election manifesto of the Left Front per se. Or, that there was a Left Front government in office in Bengal from 1977.
LF ENDORSES INDUSTRIAL POLICY DECISIONS
The meeting of the Bengal Left Front that took place recently at the Muzaffar Ahmad Bhavan clearly endorsed the industrial policy of the Left Front government and its implementation.
The Left Front leadership earlier went through a note on industrialisation that was circulated beforehand and there was a detailed discussion in the points raised in that document. The consensus of the Bengal Left Front was to give a green signal to the LF government to implement the industrial policy in full measure, considering its importance.
As Left Front chairman and senior CPI(M) leader Biman Basu later said, if there was any debate over the Bengal LF government's industrial policy, it was confined to the corridors of the media alone. (B P)
http://pd.cpim.org/2006/0813/08132006_bengal-3.htm
MAINSTREAM, VOL XLV, NO 29
Land Acquisition and Industrialisation in WestBengal : Report of a Workshop
BY ARUP KUMAR SEN
The land acquisition drive of the Left Front Government for promoting industries is at present the most controversial public issue in West Bengal. Recently (on April 20), the Centre for Studies in Social Science, Calcutta, organised a one-day workshop on the topic: Agriculture to Industry: The Problem of Transformation.
In his opening remarks, Sugata Marjit, the present Director of the Centre, made it clear that the "CSSSC has no institutional and official position on the policy of industrialisation as far as the present Left Front Government is concerned". He also opined that the question of industrialisation should be judged academically, not politically.
Kalyan Sanyal's deliberation—Industrialisation in West Bengal: Some Inescapable Questions—raised critical questions about the government's policy of industrialisation. He argued that the rhetoric of industrialisation used in the government campaign has been picked up from undergraduate textbooks of economics. He criticised the government for this casual approach to industrialisation which would displace thousands of people.
Sanyal further stated that agriculture did fairly well in West Bengal upto the mid-1990s in terms of production. After that, the cost of production went up because of withdrawal of subsidies but the prices of agricultural products did not go up. There are indications that for small and marginal farmers land is no longer viable in West Bengal. And a sizeable number of peasants having pattas sold their land in recent years. But, because of land ceiling regulations, small peasants are buying and selling lands among themselves, stated Sanyal.
Sanyal accepted the need for industrialisation in West Bengal, but he expressed his dissatisfac-tion about the government policy. He argued that no calculation has been made by the government about the net employment to be created through its proposed industries. He pointed out that the government talks about the linkage effect of industrialisation, but is silent about the loss of agriculture-related occupations. When asked about the alternative path of industrialisation, Sanyal stated that a sizable number of people have got employment in the non-farm sector in West Bengal in recent times without any government effort. So, one has to know the possibilities of alternative employment. He highlighted the need for a sound compensation policy in case of land acquisition keeping in mind the complexities of land tenure in West Begnal. He cited the case of Singur to show the limits of cash compensation to farmers because loss of land implies loss of source of livelihood and makes life vulnerable.
Surajit C. Mukhopadhyay discussed the interface between politics and economy in his paper—The Politics of Land Acquisition in West Bengal. He stated at the outset that after coming to power in 1977 the Left Front Government took a series of land reform measures within the constitutional framework. The process of land reforms led to politicisation of the peasantry. But, by the mid-1980s, land reforms became stagnant, argued Mukhopadhyay.
Mukhopadhyay revisited the land acquisition question in the context of South Bengal. He argued that South Bengal's density of population is very high and that led to fragmentation of holdings. Though the fertility of land is high in this part of Bengal, because of rise in input costs peasants just do subsistence farming and do not opt for multiple cropping. Mukhopadhyay claimed that because of the poor state of affairs in agriculture in this region, out-migration to other Indian States in search of livelihood is gaining momentum.
Having interviewed landowners-cum-cultivators in Hooghly, Mukhopadhyay and his team came to the conclusion that 14 per cent of the farmers did not want their next generations, who have education, to pursue farming because cultivation no longer pays. He said that during his teaching career in Burdwan University some years back he also came to know about the dismal conditions of agriculture from students coming from cultivator families.
Though Mukhopadhyay more or less supported the industrialisation venture of the government, he confessed that there is tremendous middle-class pressure on the government and that it has to take care of middle-class aspirations as the representative of a multi-class social formation.
ABHIRUP SARKAR'S paper—Development versus Displacement: Story of Land Acquisitions in West Bengal—was concerned with the associated problems of industrialisation. He argued that the theoretical literature on development economics has largely ignored the problems of land acquisition for industrialisation. He observed in this connection that around one lakh acres of land planned to be acquired by the government for industries represent a small fraction of 14 million acres of cultivated land in West Bengal. So, this will not pose a major problem of food security in the State. He also hinted at the possibility of increasing the average size of landholdings by shifting people to industry on the assumption that the latter will sell their land to the remaining landholders.
Sarkar argued that the government violated property rights during land reforms by confiscating land and transferring land to the landless people. Now, the same government is doing so by transferring land from small farmers to rich investors. In the light of fragmentation of landholding in West Bengal, Sarkar argued that the transaction cost will be very high if the industrialists directly acquire land from the landholders. Ideally speaking, argued Sarkar, the government can ensure fair price for the small farmers who cannot effectively bargain with a powerful buyer.
Sarkar raised the fundamental question as to whether West Bengal being a practising democracy can follow a path of coercion for land acquisition. He categorically stated that the Chinese path of industrialisation is not possible here. In China, land acquisition and industrial growth took place on the basis of secured property rights for investors and loosely defined rights for landowning farmers.
Sarkar argued that in the light of poor conditions of villages in West Bengal and non-profitability of agriculture, there is no alternative to industrialisation. But, he, criticised the government for the failure to develop infrastructure in rural Bengal and emphasised the need for a sound compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement policy. He noted in this context that a cost-benefit analysis of industrialisation is entirely missing in the policy statements of the government. He expressed his reservation about the fact that registered bargadars are getting only 25 per cent of sale proceeds in the land acquisition process whereas they are supposed to get 75 per cent of the produce under the barga system. He concluded by saying that the views of the people, who are losing their land and livelihood, should be given due recognition in the land acquisition policy of the government.
The last session of the workshop was a panel discussion. Alok Mukherjea blamed the West Bengal Government for carrying the land acquisition policy hastily without going through the process of trust-building. Anirban Chattopadhyay pointed the incompetence of the government in properly handling the crisis of agriculture. He suggested that the government had the option of developing cooperatives for the resurrection of agriculture. Gautam Gupta viewed the land acquisition problem to be basically a management problem and criticised the Opposition for politicising the issue for electoral gains. Ratan Khasnobis argued that the cost of transformation initiated by the government is being passed to the weaker sections of the population. Keeping in mind the recent violence connected with land acquisition, Anup Sinha stated categorically that even a single killing is a crime and should be condemned
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article205.html
-
13 Apr 2011 – West Bengal News: West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee on Wednesday said the Left Front would continue to focus on ...
-
2 Nov 2011 – The Mamata Banerjee-government is all set to sign an agreement for the first big ticket ...
-
21 Feb 2011 – Lambasting the Left for not bringing about any development orindustrialisation in Bengal or Kolkata for the last 35 years, she alleged that many ...
-
Ratan Tata blamed the Trinamool Congress for his decision to pullout.
রঞ্জন সেনগুপ্ত, কলকাতা:
No comments:
Post a Comment