The Govt of India has decided to cap the maximum size of a Special Economic Zone at 5000 hectares. This would mean that larger SEZ projects - such as Reliance's Navi Mumbai project would not be approved. There's more, State Governments can bring down the cap on the maximum size on their whim. This clearly defeats the purpose of SEZs being large standalone islands with state of the art infrastructure. If they are not large, then what's the point? Can't states just be content with IT parks or Industrial townships rebranded as SEZs?
What's so special now about SEZs?
But the real dispute is not about size, It's about land. And, here's the latest - State Governments have been told to stay away from "compulsory" land acquisition. That means, corporates would transact land deals with farmers directly. The Commerce Secretary argues that the process of land acquisition is a "commercial" transaction between a buyer and a seller. Therefore, States will have no role to play in the deal. Let's for a moment buy the Govt's argument that it is just a commercial transaction. If that be the case, why should the Govt bother to cap the size of an SEZ. If there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, why not leave it to them?
Lessons from Nandigram
The Nandigram genocide clearly displayed that land acquisition is anything but commercial. It is not just about finding a right price for a piece of land and ensuring that the cheque reaches the farmer. It is also about rebuilding the farmer's life when he has been uprooted from his home and his industry taken away. And, it is also about generating alternative employment for those hundreds of landless labourers who work on these farm lands on daily wages. Tell me, can the Govt afford to adopt such a hands-off approach and leave it to market forces?
Facts prove that the Bengal Govt bungled on Nandigram. So does this strengthen the case for greater and more effective State intervention or weaken it? Shouldn't it be the responsibilty of the Govt to regulate land acquisition not just in the case of SEZ but also in non-SEZ projects where large scale acquition is involved? Instead of greater regulation and intervention, this Govt has clearly washed its hands off any issue arising out of SEZs. The political backlash of another Nandigram seems too heavy a price to pay for the UPA Government. But wait a minute, wasn't it the same Government that swore about a putting a comprehensive rehabilitation policy in place before approving SEZs?
What's so special now about SEZs?
But the real dispute is not about size, It's about land. And, here's the latest - State Governments have been told to stay away from "compulsory" land acquisition. That means, corporates would transact land deals with farmers directly. The Commerce Secretary argues that the process of land acquisition is a "commercial" transaction between a buyer and a seller. Therefore, States will have no role to play in the deal. Let's for a moment buy the Govt's argument that it is just a commercial transaction. If that be the case, why should the Govt bother to cap the size of an SEZ. If there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, why not leave it to them?
Lessons from Nandigram
The Nandigram genocide clearly displayed that land acquisition is anything but commercial. It is not just about finding a right price for a piece of land and ensuring that the cheque reaches the farmer. It is also about rebuilding the farmer's life when he has been uprooted from his home and his industry taken away. And, it is also about generating alternative employment for those hundreds of landless labourers who work on these farm lands on daily wages. Tell me, can the Govt afford to adopt such a hands-off approach and leave it to market forces?
Facts prove that the Bengal Govt bungled on Nandigram. So does this strengthen the case for greater and more effective State intervention or weaken it? Shouldn't it be the responsibilty of the Govt to regulate land acquisition not just in the case of SEZ but also in non-SEZ projects where large scale acquition is involved? Instead of greater regulation and intervention, this Govt has clearly washed its hands off any issue arising out of SEZs. The political backlash of another Nandigram seems too heavy a price to pay for the UPA Government. But wait a minute, wasn't it the same Government that swore about a putting a comprehensive rehabilitation policy in place before approving SEZs?
1 comment:
Waiting eagerly to read what you have to write about the monetary policy. (as opposed to hear what you have to say...)
Post a Comment