Tata Nano Controversy
Gujarat’s Gain and Bengal’s Loss? ‘‘Development,’’ Land Acquisition in India and the Tata Nano Project: A Comparison of Singur with Sanand
By Devparna Roy
Paper presented at the International Conference on
Global Land Grabbing
6-8 April 2011
Organised by the Land Deals Politics Initiative (LDPI) in collaboration with the Journal of Peasant Studies and hosted by the Future Agricultures Consortium at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex
GUJARAT’S GAIN AND BENGAL’S LOSS?
“DEVELOPMENT,” LAND ACQUISITION IN INDIA AND THE TATA NANO PROJECT:
A COMPARISON OF SINGUR WITH SANAND (Draft of paper prepared for the international conference on land-grabbing issues, organized by the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK, from 6 to 8 April, 2011) Prepared by Devparna Roy, Ph.D.
DRAFT PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR CIRCULATE!
Abstract It is necessary to understand the political economy and recent political history of West Bengal to understand the “success” of the unwilling farmers in Singur who were protesting against the Tata Nano project. It is necessary to do the same for Gujarat in order to understand why there has been no similar resistance in Sanand. Accordingly, this paper has three main objectives. The first objective is to present a nuanced comparative analysis of two subnational political regimes and associated civil societies: that of Gujarat and of West Bengal. The argument is that though the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Gujarat and the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Front government in West Bengal are ideologically located at the opposite ends of the political spectrum in India, there are certain similarities in the political regimes, specifically in their definition of the model of “development” to be pursued and the means to strive for this kind of “development”, and in their means of achieving hegemony (however fragile it may be) in their respective regional civil societies. The second objective of
By Devparna Roy
Paper presented at the International Conference on
Global Land Grabbing
6-8 April 2011
Organised by the Land Deals Politics Initiative (LDPI) in collaboration with the Journal of Peasant Studies and hosted by the Future Agricultures Consortium at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex
GUJARAT’S GAIN AND BENGAL’S LOSS?
“DEVELOPMENT,” LAND ACQUISITION IN INDIA AND THE TATA NANO PROJECT:
A COMPARISON OF SINGUR WITH SANAND (Draft of paper prepared for the international conference on land-grabbing issues, organized by the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK, from 6 to 8 April, 2011) Prepared by Devparna Roy, Ph.D.
DRAFT PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR CIRCULATE!
Abstract It is necessary to understand the political economy and recent political history of West Bengal to understand the “success” of the unwilling farmers in Singur who were protesting against the Tata Nano project. It is necessary to do the same for Gujarat in order to understand why there has been no similar resistance in Sanand. Accordingly, this paper has three main objectives. The first objective is to present a nuanced comparative analysis of two subnational political regimes and associated civil societies: that of Gujarat and of West Bengal. The argument is that though the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Gujarat and the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Front government in West Bengal are ideologically located at the opposite ends of the political spectrum in India, there are certain similarities in the political regimes, specifically in their definition of the model of “development” to be pursued and the means to strive for this kind of “development”, and in their means of achieving hegemony (however fragile it may be) in their respective regional civil societies. The second objective of
References: Ahluwalia, M.S. 2000. “Economic Performance of States in the Post-Reforms Period.” Economic and Political Weekly. May 6: 1637-48. Bannerjee, P. 2006. “Land Acquisition and Peasant Resistance at Singur,” Economic and Political Weekly, 41(46): 4718-4720. Bardhan, P. 2011. ‘Challenges For a Minimum Social Democracy in India.” Economic and Political Weekly. 46(10): 39-43. March 5. Basu, P.P. 2007. “’Brand Buddha’ in India’s West Bengal.” Asian Survey, 47(2): 288-306. Besley, T., R. Burgess, and B. Esteve-Volart. 2007. “The Policy Origins of Poverty and Growth in India.” In Delivering On the Promise of Pro-Poor Growth, T. Besley and L. Cord. (ed.,). Palgrave Macmillan and World Bank. Bhaduri, A. 2007. “Alternatives in Industrialization.” Economic and Political Weekly, pages 1597-1601. May 5. Chattopadhyay, S.S. 2006. “Land Reform Not an End in Itself,” Frontline 23(25). http://www.frontlineonnet.com/f12325/stories/20061229001903600.htm Chaudhuri, A. 2011. “Mapping a Political Challeng: Bengal 2009.” In Paul Wallace and Ramashray Roy (eds.) India’s 2009 Elections: Coalition Politics, Party Competition and Congress Continuity. Sage Publications. March. Gupta, D. 2005. “Whither the Indian Village: Culture and Agriculture in ‘Rural’ India.” Economic and Political Weekly, 40(8): 751-758. Indian Express, 2010. “How They Got It Right” September 17. (In Sunday Express, article written by Syed Khalique Ahmed). Jones, J.D. 2009. Negotiating Development: A Study of the Grassroots Resistance to India’s 2005 Special Economic Zones Act. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida. Kohli, A. 2006a. “Politics of Economic Growth in India, 1980-2005, Part I: The 1980s.”Economic and Political Weekly. April 1:1251-59. Kohli, A. 2006b. “Politics of Economic Growth in India, 1980-2005, Part II: The 1990s and Beyond.” Economic and Political Weekly. April 8: 1361-70. Mohanty, M. 2008. “Singur and the Political Economy of Structural Change.” Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Working Paper Series. WPS No. 601, February. 25 Murali, K. 2010. Economic Liberalization, Sub-National Politics and Private Investment in India. Preliminary draft prepared for presentation in the comparative politics graduate research center. Accessed on December 29 2010 from http://www.princeton.edu/politicaleventsrepository/..../CPGradSeminar_Murali.pdf NAPM, 2008. “Support the Just Demands of the Farmers, Farm Laborers, and Workers of Singur. Condemn Violation of Right to Life and Livelihood by Tata and West Bengal Govt.” List email, 11 August. Nielsen, K.B. 2009. “Four Narratives of a Social Movement in West Bengal.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies.32 (3): 448-468. Nielsen, K. B. 2010. Contesting India’s Development? Industrialization, Land Acquisition and Protest in West Bengal. Forum for Development Studies. 37(2): 145-70. Patkar, M. 2006. “Singur –The Truth About Subversion of Truth.” The South Asian. 17 December, http://thesouthasian.org/archives/2006/singur_the_truth_about_subvers.html Patkar, M. 2007. “Medha Patkar Speaks at the End of the Public Hearing.” In Dola Sen and Debashis Bhattacharya, eds. Singur and Nandigram and…--and the Untold Storyof Capitalised Marxism. Kolkata: Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. Sangrami Shramik Union, pp. 72-74. Roy, D. 2007. “Politics at the Margin: A Tale of Two Villages.” Economic and Political Weekly. 42(32): 3323-3329. Sanhati Udyog. 2006. Singur ‘People’s Survey’: Facts from the Field. December. Shah, G. 2011. “Goebbel Type Propaganda and Governance: The 2009 Lok Sabha Elections in Gujarat.” In Paul Wallace and Ramashray Roy (eds.) India’s 2009 Elections: Coalition Politics, Party Competition and Congress Continuity. Sage Publications. March. Sinha, A. 2004. Ideas, Interests, and Institutions in Policy Change: A Comparison of West Bengal and Gujarat. In R. Jenkins (ed.) Regional Reflections: Comparing Politics Across India’s States. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, pp. 66-108. Statesman, 2006. “Farmers Determined to Fend off Govt.” 28 May. http://www.thestateman.net.index.php?option=com_content&view=article&show=archive&id=163083 &catid=42&year=2006&month=5&day=28&Itemid=66 Subramanian, A. 2008. India’s Turn: Understanding the Economic Transformation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Whitehead, J. 2007. ‘Sunken Voices: Adivasis, Neo-Gandhian Environmentalism and State-Civil Society Relations in the Narmada Valley 1998-2001.” Anthropologica. 44(2): 231-243. 26