Industries are our modern days temples. This was the philosophy enunciated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The first Prime Minister of the country has the credit to lay the foundation of the first-phase of industrialisation of the country, especially during the Second Five Year Plan. Nehru used the religious diction to introduce modern industries in the country as he was aware of the ground reality. Not only the people of the country are religious-minded the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, used religious connotation to counter the British ‘industrial imperialism’. Thus to remove the misgivings about the post-independence industrialisation Nehru equated industries with temples. As the people do not hesitate in donating money and land for the construction of temples he called upon them to show the similar zeal towards setting up industries. By doing so they got job as well as money as compensation for land acquired for this purpose.
It is not that there were no industries in India before independence. There were some industries on the western coast of India, viz. West Maharashtra and Gujarat. Larsen and Toubro, Unilever (later Hindustan Lever), Wimco and many more were in existence decades before independence. Mumbai, Kanpur, Ahmedabad, Kolkata, Surat, etc. emerged as textile and jute mills centres.
A British industrialist Josiah Marshall Heath tried to set up an iron and steel plant in 1830s but he failed in his attempt. And in 1875 a small steel factory came up in Barakar in Bengal.
Jamshedji Tata did try to come up with a steel plant in 1880s but failed in his attempt because of the non-cooperation of the British rulers. However, when in the earlier years of the 20th century he got the support of the then Viceroy Curzon a steel plant came up in Jamshedpur. The Viceroy even offered to get built a 45-mile long rail track from the mines to the proposed factory.
Curzon took this step because by the end of the 19th century Belgium and then subsequently Germany became the largest suppliers of iron and steel to India though till 1880s the United Kingdom used to monopolise it. As rail and road construction was at its peak in British India iron was much in demand. The British were developing this infrastructure to take away raw material from India and to sell their goods to the interior of the country.
So when Nehru introduced industrialisation his emphasis was more on the core sector. Thus several big steel and heavy engineering industries came up in the country. Most of them were in the mineral-rich region of the country as transporting raw material was no easy job.
In all these different phases of industrialisation land acquisition did not become as big an issue as now. However, in the liberalisation era nobody seems to be asking the big question as to why more and more people are coming out against the construction of modern day temples? That too when the people, as such, are becoming more religious or at least ritualistic. Why the people are facing – or have faced – bullets and batons in Kalinganagar, Nandigram, Singur, Ghaziabad, Gopalpur, etc and not parting away with their land for the construction of industries. After all unlike the real temple – where the people do not expect any compensation – the government is prepared to give money for the land.
Tracing the answer to this knotty question would not be an easy task. But one thing is apparently clear: it is a case of once bitten, twice shy. The people have learnt the bitter lesson of industrialisation and displacement. They have now become wise and know as to who are the real beneficiaries of the industrialisation. They are least interested in accepting the government version that industrialisation is essential for the development of the country. The government and the entire media machinery – which is now mostly in the hands of private sector – may argue in favour of the steel industries but in the far off nooks and corners of the country nobody seems to be prepared to lend their ears to this type of arguments.
There is another angle too. In 1950s and 1960s the people showed more eagerness in giving land to the government for building public sector industries. Today when the same government is asking them to give their land to the private industries or multi-national companies they are prepared to sacrifice everything. It is not that in the past the government move to acquire land for public sector undertakings has not been resisted. In some cases the people did oppose the government too, but not as strongly as the private industrialists today.
It is also a fact that the construction of the Bhakra-Nangal Dam in Punjab did not generate such a prolong protest and opposition as in the case of big dams over Narmada or Tehri.
Is it that the common mass has become much more aware and do not want to be cheated again. They are now calling the bluff. While farmers do get some compensation the others – such as landless labourers, petty businessmen – who get displaced from the area get nothing: neither money nor job. In the past the government had been extremely slow in rehabilitating them. Once deprived of the economic activities many of the displaced people either turned into criminals or became cannon-fodder for the parties like Jan Sangh to achieve their goal. These displaced adivasis were used by the Sangh Parivar to trigger communal riots in the industrial belts of the country in 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
So if the government had failed to fully satisfy the people affected by industrialisation how can these private industries do any good to them, that is, rehabilitate them.
Similarly, people are now aware that the big dams are becoming counter-productive too and often cause river water dispute among the states.
Besides, it needs to be noted that in the earlier phase of industrialisation most of the industries came up in the mineral rich region in the forest and plateau region of the country. From agriculture point of view the land may not be very fertile and even sparsely populated. Yet there were problems of displacement. On the other hand today the private sectors are seeking fertile land in the densely populated region and that too when the pressure on land has doubled due to the two-fold rise in population since the first phase of post-independence industrialisation. The people of plains, such as West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and even Bihar are reluctant to part with their land. For example, sensing trouble the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar finally gave up the idea of constructing Special Economy Zones and early in April announced that no land will be acquired forcefully.
People have now become aware of the real need of the country and the real need of the capitalists. Industrialisation had never taken place in isolation, be it in India of the British period or Europe or India of today. The ruling class has its own interest. The Congress opposed the pre-independence industrialisation because it served the British interest. Post-independence industrialisation was taken up with some sort of human face. And in the liberalisation era people feel that there is absence of human face. The irony is that be it in Gopalpur or in West Bengal the people are opposing the Tatas, which has a better record than other industries. The bottom line is not just payment of compensation but the denial of right to livelihood. Neither the government nor any other agency can deprive the citizens of its right to possess land.