| We were in the village of Gobarghati, where the Kalinganagar firing happened. Protests against the takeover of village land for the Tata steel plant had led to an armed skirmish. The village is a part of an industrial estate for which the state government acquired land some years ago. In 2006, when the company started building its boundary wall, the fight broke out. After the firing, villagers blockaded the national highway for well over a year. |
| The villagers we met were angry and resolute. They said they would not give up their land. When asked if they would agree if they were paid a higher compensation, they simply said no. "We are poor, but our land gives us enough for us to survive. If we do not have this, what will we do?" |
| We then visited the rehabilitation colony set up to relocate villagers whose land had been acquired. Company officials said they were planning to give employment to a nominated family member. This would need skill development or education. They were beginning to train villagers in welding and other trades. |
| In addition, the government had also agreed to raise cash compensation from Rs 14,000 per hectare (ha) to Rs 40,000 per ha; a 400 sq-m plot and Rs 1.5 lakh as aid to build a house. Within the family, each adult son would be considered separate, which would mean benefits would multiply. A good deal is how company officials saw it. |
| We asked young men in the colony why they had moved. "Because we had no land and we were given jobs." But they also said, with obvious pain in their eyes, that since then, they had been unable to enter their village. Clearly, there was anger and however good the deal, there was resistance. |
| The question was why? Was it just the cussedness of few individuals; or the vested interests of competitors fuelling the unrest; or were the simple villagers we met Naxalites fighting an ideological war against the state and industry? |
| The why question was even more incomprehensible if you thought that the people fighting change were poor "" they lived in mud and thatched huts, which would be exchanged for brick houses; they were subject to the vagaries of rainfall, and crop failure, which they would give up for cash compensation. The agricultural fields for us, from the outside, certainly looked impoverished. In our eyes, the future looked only brighter. |
| But this is where we must understand differently. In Gobarghati, I could not see Naxalites or misguided people. All I could see were people fighting for all they have. This is in full knowledge that their poverty is only going to be exchanged for greater deprivation and marginalisation. They know they do not have the skills to succeed in the new world. |
| They also know, after bitter experience, that the industrial world does not need many people to work its enterprises. It needs their land, water, minerals, but not their labour. Even if they get the promised homes, compensation for land, they won't have work. Their land is marginal, they are poor but they survive. We must also understand that modern industry cannot compete with agriculture in terms of livelihood security. |
| If we accept this, maybe we will look for answers differently. It is clear that industry will need land, the question is at what cost and how much. Industry is greedy for land. Tata will get 1,000 ha for its steel plant. Its neighbour, Neelanchal Steel, has got an equal slice, where it has planted trees "" a 'green' steel mill built on poor people's land. |
| The question is why Indian industry cannot be far more frugal in its demand for land as indeed it must be with its need for water? Why should industry not negotiate and pay the price people want for their land? In this case, it will also look for less valuable, less cultivable land. Most importantly, how can market believers justify the use of the land acquisition act, which allows government to take over any land, without questions asked, for so-called public purpose? This is cheap and dirty industrialisation. It will not work. |
Explore Business Standard