The Protests in Singur and Nandigram - Human Rights and Justice in India
The Situation in Singur
Singur is a small agricultural town located in the Hooghly district of West Bengal, being based on fertile multi-crop land. In 2006, the Tata Motors made a agreement with the CPI, the ruling party in the state, to acquire (by the Land Acquisition Act) 997 acres of land in Singur for the construction of its Tata Nano small car factory which was scheduled to roll out the first car by 2008. Tata had promised that in addition to the construction of the factory Singur would become a mini-auto city, with about 70 vendors moving in and an investment of Rs 1000 cores being made.
Even thought the displaced farmers were given monetory compensation as well as promised jobs in the factory, this move was protested by the opposition parties, especially Trinamool Congress led by Mamata Banerjee, and the locals farmers and workers themselves. Various reasons were cited for the protests More than 10,000 families of mostly backward classes(landlords, share croppers, laborers, artisans, small traders etc.) would be displaced in the process. Also, farmers, laborers, artisans could not be absorbed in the Tata Motors.
The said land is fertile with multiple crop pings (14 in total), but was being acquired for industrialization.
• The procedure under the Land Acquisition Act was not followed fully and fairly.
• The compensation was only monetary and no state-level rehabilitation policy was ordered. Also the compensation appears to be below the land rate.
• The people of Singur were not consulted, nor was their consent/discontent of any value in the matter.
• The protests had been murdered in an unsatisfactory manner with lathi charging and false cases against the protesters.
To curb the protests the state government imposed prohibitions under Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code, but this was later declared illegal by the Calcutta High Court stating that it amounted to administrative high-handedness and misuse of power. The land was forcible taken and fencing o started on December 31 2006, and a bandh was declared by Mamata Bannerjee. From that point the protests turned increasingly violent, with the Trinamool legislators ransacking the Assembly, bandh supporters throwing stones and bombs at vehicles, and a few farmers even committing suicide. The construction of the factory started January 21 2007, but finally Tata Motors decided to pull out of Singur after waiting a long time for the situation to quiten down, stating the continued and violent agitation led by the Trinamool Congress to be the main cause.The Situation in Nandigram
Nandigram is a small rural village located about 150km from Kolkata. The violence in Nandigram started when it was heard that the state government was planning to acquire about 14,000 acres of land in Nandigram for a SEZ where the Salim Group of Indonesia would set up a chemical hub. On January 3, 2007 clashes broke out between nearly 3000-strong crowd and the police, and on the same night about 2000 villagers dug up roads and held vigil near approach roads armed with bows, arrows, swords etc. Around January 6 the people of Nandigram and the opposition parties together founded a forum against land acquisition and called it the Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC).
March 14 2007
Some 2,000 policemen were deployed to break the resistance of the BUPC and another 2,000 were held in reserve. Gangs were brought in by the CPM and given arms and ammunitions to aid the policemen. Around 2,000 strong crowd of people armed with spears, rods, lathis, scythes and some guns were already kept vigil at the approach roads to prevent authorities from entering into the area. Unable to control the crowd, the police opened fire at the crowd and around 75 were injured and 14 dead. The police said it was in self-defence.The killings sparked off state-wide protests with Mamata Banerjee calling a 12 hour bandh. Also in response the members and supporters of CPI (M) and their families were singled out by the BUPC and threatened, and forcefully driven out of their homes. Many people were displaced into relief camps as a result. The BUPC also engaged in looting, destruction of property and extortion of money.
There was another round of violence in November 2007 as the villagers displaced by the BUPC returned back to Nandigram. This time it was the CPI (M) cadres that “recaptured" Nandigram and “paid those controlling back in their own coin_" - in the words of Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the leader of the party and the chief minister of West Bengal. The National Human Rights Commission requested the government to take steps to restore peace and protect human life and dignity in the area.
Fresh violence broke out in 2008 between the BUPC and the CPI (M) and more 500 people had to take shelter in relief camps in Nandigram. 3 women of the BUPC were stripped by the CMI (M) mob after they refused to join the Marxist rally, leading to a CID probe into the incident.
All of the above atrocities had resulted in large scale protests within the country and national as well as international condemnation.Obligations under the UDHR
Article 17
Article 17 of the UDHR states that – “(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
Two immediate questions may be raised in relation to this Article,
• Is the LA Act in compliance with the UDHR?
• Were the actions by the government, in Singur and Nandigram, in compliance with the UDHR?
The first of the questions may be tentatively answered as “yes". The government can acquire land only for public purposes or for a company. There are set procedures within the LA Act that have to followed, failing which no land can be acquired. Also, minimum amount of compensation (equal to the market value of the land in question) has to be paid to the land owners following acquisition.
The UDHR is unclear about the meaning of the term “arbitrary deprivation", and every law is open to abuse, including the LA Act, but the spirit of the act condemns acquiring properties for personal motives like political gains of the party, economic benefit to oneself etc. In that sense land acquisition is not arbitrary.
As to the question of the conduct of the government, it was well within their right and to apply the LA Act in both Singur and West Bengal, but in the handling of the protests that followed it violated several other human rights mentioned in the UDHR. So, the actions of the government may not be considered to be compliant with the UDHR as a whole.Articles 3, 5, 12
These state that – “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person “, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.", and “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
This part of the UDHR was violated largely by the BUPC. They threatened the supporters of CPI (M) to leave their homes, causing large scale migration to relief camps, burned down their houses and destroyed public property. They also extorted money from the villagers thought more threats. There are also claims that there were mass rapes by both the BUPC and CPI (M). The CPI (M) could not ensure protection of the law to the people, but themselves participated in more violence.Articles 7, 9
These state that- “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." and “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
The CPI (M) was the main violator of these articles. Being the leading party in the state they had the duty to protect and promote the rights of the people, which they utterly failed to do. Instead they recruited people to fight under their wing and the police fired arbitrarily at the protestors. There are also cases where the people were arrested for false claims against them, in response to the protests.Articles 19, 20
These state that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. “and “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association." The case of the three women being stripped for not joining the CPI (M) rally comes under these articles. Also, both the CPI (M) and the BUPC threatened people to join their cause. The people themselves did not engage in peaceful assembly but instead instigated more violence and destructed public property by digging up roads.Criticism & Conclusion
There are arguments both supporting and against land acquisition by the government. One could say that since the UDHR is unclear about what exactly arbitrary deprivation of property is, and since land acquisition by the LA Act is not arbitrary but for the greater economic good of the country, it may be considered legal. But one could also argue that since India is a democratic country the people should have at least some say in the deprivation of their own properties. Even if a democratic solution could be reached it is hard to believe that the interested party would be willing to exchange their land for compensation, there are always other factors involved, like having a long family history attached with the said property, or the presence of opposing forces (political parties in general). The current LA Act is also open to abuse because it allows unrestricted acquisition of any piece of land in the country, some amendment to the effect of curbing misuse is necessary, agricultural land cannot be acquired for industrial purposes (Singur) or forest land cannot be acquired to dig mines (protection of environment). Sometimes land acquisition may be necessary for net forward progress and because forceful acquisition is a fragile topic, the government should act with some minimum amount of moral discretion (unlike Nandigram).
The people have a moral and legal obligation to not violate the rights of others, and violence is never the answer. The actions of the the CPI (M), the BUPC and the villagers themselves in Singur and Nandigram are completely unjustable. As the ruling party of the state of West Bengal, the CPI (M) should itself be the protector and promoter of the rights and dignity of the people and not launch hate campaigns like _recapturing_ of Nandigram, or not misuse its authority for its own political purposes (Section 144 in Singur). Neither does the BUPC nor the CPI (M) have a right to curb freedom of speech by threatening people to join their cause. There are always going to be situations where two parties disagree with each other, and in such cases maintaining a non-violent, meaningful dialogue is of utmost importance. There have been cases in the country, like the Meena people in Rajasthan digging up railway tracks, or the Shiv Sena in Mumbai, or the BUPC in Nandigram, where people have taken law into there own hands in protest. Such actions may essentially be classified as terrorism as they amount to violating the rights of others, through violence or otherwise, to promote one's own political motives.
In conclusion, the government of this country is “of the people, by the people, for the people" so should acknowledge the problems the people may be facing due to their policies and give agreeable solutions. Having said that, once a law has been passed it is the absolute duty of the citizens to follow it. The protests in Singur and Nandigram will always be remembered with some dismay, because they involved the exact opposites of the aforementioned principles.